Search

In this real-world analysis, patients with ulcerative colitis frequently required steroids up to a year after initiating immunosuppressant or biologic therapies, with high ulcerative colitis-related costs. This suggests an ongoing challenge in managing patients with moderate to severe ulcerative colitis., Background Ulcerative colitis (UC) treatment aims to induce response and maintain steroid-free remission. For patients with moderate to severe UC and/or nonresponse to conventional treatment, advanced therapies (immunosuppressants and biologics) are available. We assessed real-world effectiveness of advanced UC therapies. Methods This retrospective analysis of claims data included adult patients with UC initiating immunosuppressant or biologic therapy, with 12 months’ continuous enrollment pre- and postinitiation. Patients had no prescription for biologic therapy (and/or immunosuppressant if initiating immunosuppressant) in the previous 12 months. Proportion of patients remaining steroid-free (excluding 14-week tapering period), hospitalizations, and costs in the 12 months postinitiation were assessed. Results In total, 3562 patients were included in the analysis. Most patients (83.0%) used steroids in the 12 months before initiating advanced therapy. Overall, 47.8% remained steroid-free after 12 months (excluding tapering). After adjusting for patient characteristics, remaining steroid-free was significantly more likely with infliximab (43.9%) than with adalimumab (39.4%; P < 0.05); golimumab (38.2%) and vedolizumab (41.4%) were not significantly different vs adalimumab. Overall, 12.2% of patients had a UC-related hospitalization within 12 months of initiation, with a mean (SD) total length of stay of 8.2 (8.9) days and no significant differences between biologic therapies. Mean, unadjusted, UC-related costs in the 12 months postinitiation were $42,579 and were similar between therapies. Conclusions Patients with UC initiating advanced therapy frequently continued using steroids for at least a year. Some patients experienced extended UC-related hospitalizations, with high UC-related costs overall. This suggests an ongoing challenge in managing patients with moderate to severe UC.

Background: Biologic therapies are often used in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) who are nonresponsive to conventional treatments. However, nonresponse or loss of response to biologics often occurs, leading to dose escalation, combination therapy, and/or treatment switching. We investigated real-world treatment patterns of biologic therapies among patients with UC in the USA. Methods: This study analyzed data from the IBM® MarketScan® Commercial and Medicare Supplemental Databases (medical/pharmacy claims for >250 million patients in the USA) to identify patients with UC initiating a biologic therapy (adalimumab, infliximab, golimumab, or vedolizumab) with 12 months of follow-up post-initiation. Key measures were patient baseline characteristics, dose escalation (average maintenance dose >20% higher than label), adherence (proportion of days covered), and ulcerative colitis-related healthcare costs in the 12 months following biologic therapy initiation. Results: Of 2,331 patients included in the study (adalimumab [N = 1,291], infliximab [N = 810], golimumab [N = 127], and vedolizumab [N = 103]), 28.1% used concomitant immunosuppressant therapy within 12 months post-initiation. Overall, 23.6% (adalimumab), 34.8% (infliximab), 9.9% (golimumab), and 39.2% (vedolizumab) of patients dose escalated within 12 months. Patients who dose escalated incurred USD 20,106 higher total UC-related healthcare costs over 12 months than those who did not. Adherence (covariate-adjusted proportion of days covered) ranged from 0.63 to 0.73, and 39.3% of patients discontinued within 12 months (median treatment duration = 112 days). Conclusion: Dose escalation was common, and incurred higher costs, in patients with UC initiating biologic therapies. Suboptimal adherence and/or discontinuation within 12 months of initiation occurred frequently, highlighting the challenges in managing these patients.

Electronic health records (EHRs) can define real world patient populations with high levels of clinical specificity, potentially addressing some of the shortcomings of other types of real world data (RWD) when informing decisions about the comparative effectiveness of medical technologies. An important but under-recognized concern for EHR-derived RWD, however, is that the rich clinical data permits creation of very homogenous subpopulations from the larger group of eligible patients, thereby reducing the representativeness of the cohort relative to clinical practice. In this article, we discuss the tradeoffs between choosing clinical specificity versus representativeness in population sampling for comparative effectiveness research. Using EHR-derived RWD, we provide an example in non-small cell lung cancer to illustrate the concepts, showing wide variation in outcomes among potential comparator cohorts. We close with several recommendations for selecting comparator populations from EHRs that address the balance between matching clinical guidelines and capturing practice variability in comparative effectiveness research.

Background Patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) experience periods of recurring and episodic clinical signs and symptoms. This study sought to establish the association between disease activity and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and other patient-reported outcomes. Methods United States (US) and European Union 5 ([EU5]; i.e., France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom) data from the 2015 and 2017 Adelphi Inflammatory Bowel Disease-Specific Programme (IBD-DSP) were used. The IBD-DSP is a database of retrospective patient chart information integrated with patient survey data (EuroQoL-5 Dimensions [EQ-5D], Short Quality of Life in Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire [SIBDQ], and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment-Ulcerative Colitis [WPAI-UC] questionnaire). Using available chart information, physicians classified their moderate-to-severe patients into one of the following categories: remission with a Mayo endoscopic score = 0 (“deep remission”), remission without a Mayo endoscopic score = 0 (“remission”), or active disease. Differences among disease activity categories with respect to patient-reported outcomes were analyzed using generalized linear models, controlling for confounding variables. Results N = 289 and N = 1037 patient charts with linked surveys were included from the US and EU5, respectively. The disease activity distribution was as follows: active disease = 40.1% (US) and 33.6% (EU5); remission = 48.0 and 53.0%; deep remission = 11.9 and 13.3%. Patients with active disease reported significantly lower levels of EQ-5D health state utilities (adjusted mean [AdjM] = 0.87 [US] and 0.78 [EU5]) compared with remission (AdjM = 0.92 and 0.91) and deep remission (AdjM = 0.93 and 0.91) (all P Conclusions Among patients with moderate-to-severe UC in the US and EU5, active disease was associated with significant impairments in HRQoL, work and leisure activities. These results reinforce the importance, to both the patient and society, of achieving some level of remission to restore generic and disease-related HRQoL and one’s ability to work productively.

Aims: To investigate treatment of moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis (UC) using real-world German health insurance claims data.Materials and methods: A retrospective, longitudinal cohort study w...

Introduction: Cost-effectiveness analyses often inform healthcare reimbursement decisions. The preferred measure of effectiveness is the quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained, where the quality of life adjustment is measured in terms of utility. Areas covered: We assessed the availability and variation of utility values for health states associated with advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) to identify values appropriate for cost-effectiveness models assessing alternative treatments. Our systematic search of six electronic databases (January 2000 to August 2015) found the current literature to be sparse in terms of utility values associated with NSCLC, identifying 27 studies. Utility values were most frequently reported over time and by treatment type, and less frequently by disease response, stage of disease, adverse events or disease comorbidities. Expert commentary: In response to rising healthcare costs, payers increasingly consider the cost-effectiveness of novel treatments in reimbursement decisions, especially in oncology. As the number of therapies available to treat NSCLC increases, cost-effectiveness analyses will play a key role in reimbursement decisions in this area. Quantifying the relationship between health and quality of life for NSCLC patients via utility values is an important component of assessing the cost effectiveness of novel treatments.

Objectives This study developed, and established the content validity, of a conversation aid tool (CAT) for use in clinical practice with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) patients who receive a curative nephrectomy and are at high-risk of recurrence. The CAT was pilot tested in a sample of RCC patients to establish whether the CAT increases knowledge of RCC, treatment options (such as adjuvant therapy), and care options. Methods A cross-sectional, mixed methods design was used involving initial, exploratory interviews with RCC patients, RCC specialists and a steering group. Further content validation interviews were conducted with RCC patients and specialists. A web-based survey was conducted with RCC patients (N = 60), to compare the CAT versus a standard of care (SOC) consultation comparator tool on patient knowledge. Results Findings from exploratory interviews were used to develop the CAT. Content validation interviews demonstrated that the CAT was well understood and relevant to RCC patients. The web-based survey demonstrated that viewing the CAT significantly improved participants knowledge of RCC, and care options, when compared to the SOC. Conclusion The findings highlight that the CAT is a relevant, comprehensive and well-understood tool for use in the post-nephrectomy consultation. Practice implications Use of the CAT may increase patient knowledge of RCC and care options.

Background In the absence of head-to-head trials comparing axitinib with cabozantinib or everolimus, the aim of this study was to conduct an indirect comparison of their relative efficacy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), using data from the AXIS and METEOR trials. Methods Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in prior sunitinib-treated patients with mRCC were compared by conducting matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) analyses, including base-case and sensitivity analyses. Individual patient-level data from prior sunitinib-treated patients who received axitinib in AXIS were weighted to match published baseline characteristics of prior sunitinib-treated patients who received either cabozantinib or everolimus in METEOR. Results There was no statistically significant difference in PFS (aHR [adjusted hazard ratio] = 1.15 [CI: 0.82–1.63]) and OS (aHR = 1.00 [CI: 0.69–1.46]) between axitinib versus cabozantinib in the base-case analysis. In the sensitivity analysis, PFS (aHR = 1.39 [CI: 1.00–1.92]) and OS (aHR = 1.35 [CI: 0.95–1.92]) were shorter for axitinib compared with cabozantinib; however, the OS difference was not statistically significant. Axitinib was associated with significantly longer PFS compared with everolimus in the base-case (aHR = 0.53 [CI: 0.36–0.80]) and sensitivity analyses (aHR = 0.63 [CI: 0.45–0.88]), respectively. Results suggested an OS benefit for axitinib versus everolimus in base-case analyses (aHR = 0.63 [CI: 0.42–0.96]); however, the difference in OS in the sensitivity analysis was not statistically significant (aHR = 0.84 [CI: 0.59–1.18]). Conclusions MAIC analyses suggest PFS and OS for axitinib and cabozantinib are dependent on the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center definition used; in the base-case analysis, there was no significant difference in PFS and OS between axitinib and cabozantinib. In the sensitivity analysis, PFS in favour of cabozantinib was significant; however, the trend for prolonged OS with cabozantinib was not significant. For axitinib and everolimus, MAIC analyses indicate patients treated with axitinib may have an improved PFS and OS benefit when compared to everolimus. Disparities between the base-case and sensitivity analyses in this study underscore the importance of adjusting for the differences in baseline characteristics and that naïve indirect comparisons are not appropriate.

ObjectiveUlcerative colitis (UC) is a lifelong, relapsing-remitting disease. Patients non-responsive to pharmacological treatment may require a colectomy. We estimated pre-colectomy and post-colectomy healthcare resource utilisation (HCRU) and costs in England.Design/MethodA retrospective, longitudinal cohort study indexing adult patients with UC undergoing colectomy (2009–2015), using linked Clinical Practice Research Datalink/Hospital Episode Statistics data, was conducted. HCRU, healthcare costs and pharmacological treatments were evaluated during 12 months prior to and including colectomy (baseline) and 24 months post-colectomy (follow-up; F-U), comparing baseline/F-U, emergency/elective colectomy and subtotal/full colectomy using descriptive statistics and paired/unpaired tests.Results249 patients from 26 165 identified were analysed including 145 (58%) elective and 184 (74%) full colectomies. Number/cost of general practitioner consultations increased post-colectomy (pConclusionHCRU/costs increased for primary care in the first year post-colectomy but decreased for secondary care, and varied according to the colectomy type. Ongoing and potentially unnecessary pharmacological therapy was seen in up to 30% of patients. These findings can inform patients and decision-makers of potential benefits and burdens of colectomy in UC.

Objective The aim of the present study is to examine how moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis (UC) is currently managed in real-world clinical practice across the United States (US) and European Union Five (EU5; France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom). Methods Data from the 2017 Adelphi Inflammatory Bowel-Disease Specific Programme (IBD-DSP) were used. The IBD-DSP is a database of patient chart information abstracted by selected gastroenterologists across the US and EU5. Eligible gastroenterologists who agreed to participate were asked to complete patient record forms for the next seven consecutive eligible adult patients with UC. Only charts from patients with moderate-to-severe UC were included in the analysis (defined as those with documented administration of either an immunosuppressant [IM] or a biologic). Treatment patterns were reported descriptively. Results 411 and 1191 patient charts were included in the US and EU5 (mean ages 44.2 and 39.6 years; 53.0% and 43.5% female), respectively. For those with complete treatment history, 40.7% and 52.9% used either an IM or biologic as their first treatment (with or without steroids). Usage of these therapies increased in subsequent lines. The percentage of patients treated with combination therapy (i.e., biologic therapy with a concomitant IM) in first line generally varied between 10–20% (e.g., US: adalimumab (ADA), 10.8%; infliximab (IFX), 18.2%; EU5: ADA, 12.5%; IFX, 19.9%), though increased in later lines in the EU5. Among patients currently using a biologic therapy, between 10–40% of patients used a higher than indicated dose or greater than indicated dosing frequency during maintenance (e.g., US: IFX, 37.1%; ADA, 13.4%; EU5: IFX, 39.1%; ADA, 36.1%). In both the US and EU5, the primary reason for switching therapy was efficacy-related. Conclusions In this analysis, many patients with moderate-to-severe UC use an IM or biologic as their first therapy after diagnosis. Combination therapy and dose escalation are also common, and underscore the challenges with managing this patient population.

BACKGROUND/AIM Sunitinib is the current standard of care for first-line (1L) treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Previous studies suggest that a modified treatment schedule may benefit patients. Our aim was to evaluate efficacy and safety regarding sunitinib treatment modification in 1L treatment of mRCC. MATERIALS AND METHODS Data were drawn from STAR-TOR, a German real-world registry to evaluate outcomes of patients with mRCC who received 1L sunitinib. Patients were divided into two groups: subsequent treatment modification (SM) or remaining on standard dose/schedule (SS). Time on treatment (TT), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were estimated. RESULTS Overall, 297 patients were analyzed; 33% underwent treatment modification. Significant baseline differences between groups were observed; SM patients were older and had a more favourable Karnofsky performance status. SM patients achieved better outcomes than SS patients for median TT (15.1 versus 3.9 months; p

Background No current guidance is available in the UK on the choice of preference-based measure (PBM) that should be used in obtaining health-related quality of life from children. The aim of this study is to review the current usage of PBMs for obtaining health state utility values in child and adolescent populations, and to obtain information on patient and parent–proxy respondent preferences in completing PBMs in the UK. Methods A literature review was conducted to determine which instrument is most frequently used for child-based economic evaluations and whether child or proxy responses are used. Instruments were compared on dimensions, severity levels, elicitation and valuation methods, availability of value sets and validation studies, and the range of utility values generated. Additionally, a series of focus groups of parents and young people (11–20 years) were convened to determine patient and proxy preferences. Results Five PBMs suitable for child populations were identified, although only the Health Utilities Index 2 (HUI2) and Child Heath Utility 9D (CHU-9D) have UK value sets. 45 papers used PBMs in this population, but many used non-child-specific PBMs. Most respondents were parent proxies, even in adolescent populations. Reported missing data ranged from 0.5 to 49.3%. The focus groups reported their experiences with the EQ-5D-Y and CHU-9D. Both the young persons’ group and parent/proxy groups felt that the CHU-9D was more comprehensive but may be harder for a proxy to complete. Some younger children had difficulty understanding the CHU-9D questions, but the young persons’ group nonetheless preferred responding directly. Conclusion The use of PBMs in child populations is increasing, but many studies use PBMs that do not have appropriate value sets. Parent proxies are the most common respondents, but the focus group responses suggest it would be preferred, and may be more informative, for older children to self-report or for child–parent dyads to respond. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s11136-018-1831-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the incremental cost and cost-effectiveness of a restrictive versus a liberal red blood cell transfusion threshold after cardiac surgery.DESIGN: A within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis with a 3-month time horizon, based on a multicentre superiority randomised controlled trial from the perspective of the National Health Service (NHS) and personal social services in the UK.SETTING: 17 specialist cardiac surgery centres in UK NHS hospitals.PARTICIPANTS: 2003 patients aged >16 years undergoing non-emergency cardiac surgery with a postoperative haemoglobin of INTERVENTIONS: Restrictive (transfuse if haemoglobin MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Health-related quality of life measured using the EQ-5D-3L to calculate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs).RESULTS: The total costs from surgery up to 3 months were £17 945 and £18 127 in the restrictive and liberal groups (mean difference is -£182, 95% CI -£1108 to £744). The cost difference was largely attributable to the difference in the cost of red blood cells. Mean QALYs to 3 months were 0.18 in both groups (restrictive minus liberal difference is 0.0004, 95% CI -0.0037 to 0.0045). The point estimate for the base-case cost-effectiveness analysis suggested that the restrictive group was slightly more effective and slightly less costly than the liberal group and, therefore, cost-effective. However, there is great uncertainty around these results partly due to the negligible differences in QALYs gained.CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that there is no clear difference in the cost-effectiveness of restrictive and liberal thresholds for red blood cell transfusion after cardiac surgery.TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN70923932; Results.

Introduction Severely bleeding trauma patients are a small proportion of the major trauma population but account for 40 % of all trauma deaths. Healthcare resource use and costs are likely to be substantial but have not been fully quantified. Knowledge of costs is essential for developing targeted cost reduction strategies, informing health policy, and ensuring the cost-effectiveness of interventions. Methods In collaboration with the Trauma Audit Research Network (TARN) detailed patient-level data on in-hospital resource use, extended care at hospital discharge, and readmissions up to 12 months post-injury were collected on 441 consecutive adult major trauma patients with severe bleeding presenting at 22 hospitals (21 in England and one in Wales). Resource use data were costed using national unit costs and mean costs estimated for the cohort and for clinically relevant subgroups. Using nationally available data on trauma presentations in England, patient-level cost estimates were up-scaled to a national level. Results The mean (95 % confidence interval) total cost of initial hospital inpatient care was £19,770 (£18,177 to £21,364) per patient, of which 62 % was attributable to ventilation, intensive care, and ward stays, 16 % to surgery, and 12 % to blood component transfusion. Nursing home and rehabilitation unit care and re-admissions to hospital increased the cost to £20,591 (£18,924 to £22,257). Costs were significantly higher for more severely injured trauma patients (Injury Severity Score ≥15) and those with blunt injuries. Cost estimates for England were £148,300,000, with over a third of this cost attributable to patients aged 65 years and over. Conclusions Severely bleeding major trauma patients are a high cost subgroup of all major trauma patients, and the cost burden is projected to rise further as a consequence of an aging population and as evidence continues to emerge on the benefits of early and simultaneous administration of blood products in pre-specified ratios. The findings from this study provide a previously unreported baseline from which the potential impact of changes to service provision and/or treatment practice can begin to be evaluated. Further studies are still required to determine the full costs of post-discharge care requirements, which are also likely to be substantial.

608 Background: Approximately 15% of nephrectomised patients who are diagnosed with loco-regional renal cell carcinoma (RCC) are considered to be at high risk of recurrence according to the postoperative UCLA Integrated Staging System (UISS) and 60% of these patients are expected to recur within five years of diagnosis. This study aimed to develop a conversation aid tool to improve knowledge about RCC for post-nephrectomy RCC patients who are at high-risk of recurrence. Specifically, to enable patients to make an informed decision about whether to proceed/not proceed with adjuvant therapy, should adjuvant therapy become standard-of-care in the future. Methods: A review of existing evidence relating to the development of conversation aid tools and previously developed tools was undertaken. Following the review, a focus group with a steering committee (RCC patients, caregivers and a clinician), and semi-structured interviews were conducted with clinicians to identify information currently provided as standard of care. Additional interviews were conducted with post-nephrectomy patients, to identify information patients would prefer to have been given post-nephrectomy. Results: The evidence review of 10 articles provided a framework for the development of a tool to enable better patient/clinician communication. Clinicians described a typical post-nephrectomy consultation and highlighted key topics of discussion, which included recovery, risk of relapse and ongoing care. The research highlighted that patients are expected to absorb a significant amount of information during consultations in order to take an active role in their care. Findings from the focus group and clinician/patient interviews led to the development of a conversation aid tool providing patients with key questions to ask their clinicians to increase knowledge of RCC post-nephrectomy and also the information they may require when considering adjuvant therapy, including: prognosis, risk of relapse, and the risk/benefit profile of available treatment options. Conclusions: The conversation aid tool may be useful for patients to improve knowledge of RCC and help make informed decisions about their future treatment and care.

602 Background: The standard dosing schedule for administration of Sunitinib is 50mg once daily for a 4-week period followed by 2 weeks off. However, in clinical practice, many patients require schedule or dose reductions to mitigate toxicity. We aimed to assess if these treatment modifications result in improved outcomes in mRCC patients. Methods: Data were drawn from STAR-TOR, a German, multi-centre, real-world, prospective registry to report outcomes of mRCC patients who received Sunitinib in 1L. Patients were categorised into 2 treatment groups: 1) Sunitinib initiated at standard schedule/dose with subsequent schedule/dose modification (SM), 2) Sunitinib as per standard schedule/dosage (SS). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used to determine time on treatment (TT) of Sunitinib and progression-free survival (PFS). Differences between groups were assessed using log-rank tests. Results: In total 297 patients were identified initiating 1L Sunitinib. Schedule or dose reductions occurred in 33% of patients. Significant differences between groups at baseline are noted in Table 1. Median TT was greater in SM vs. SS (15.1 vs. 3.9 months (m), p < 0.0001). Median PFS was improved in SM vs. SS (15.1 vs. 6.0 m, p < 0.0001). Fatigue (31/14%), hand-foot syndrome (HFS) (28/10%), diarrhea (35/19%) and stomatitis (20/6%) were more frequently reported in SM vs. SS since initiation of Sunitinib. Incidence of adverse events, (excluding diarrhea) was reduced following schedule/ dose modification of sunitinib; fatigue (before SM/ after SM) (18/7%), HFS (21/8%) and stomatitis (8/4%). Conclusions: Modifying Sunitinib schedule or individualizing the dose represent therapy management strategies that are associated with improved tolerability, prolonged treatment duration and significant improvement in PFS in a real life setting. These data suggest that effective management of toxicity of Sunitinib can optimize patient outcomes. [Table: see text]

Introduction Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (AUGIB) accounts for over 70,000 hospital admissions in the UK annually. Its incidence is likely to rise due to an ageing population and increasing burden of liver disease. Data on the healthcare costs and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) associated with this condition are sparse. Methods The TRIGGER trial is a cluster randomised feasibility trial evaluating restrictive versus liberal red cell transfusion for patients with AUGIB. The study collected data on resource use, costs and outcomes during hospitalisation and up to day 28 to explore the feasibility of gathering inputs required for a cost-effectiveness analysis. Resource use data were collected during the inpatient episode on the use of laboratory tests, medications, blood components, endoscopy and endoscopic therapy, clinical events including ischaemic/thromboembolic events and length of hospital stay (LOS) by ward type. Data were also collected on primary and secondary care resource use, as well as informal care/days off work, post-discharge to day 28. Resource use for each patient was multiplied by national unit costs to generate an estimate of the costs of AUGIB to 28 days. HRQoL was measured on a scale anchored at 0 (death) and 1 (full health), using the EuroQol EQ-5D-3L questionnaire at day 28. Results 936 patients were enrolled into TRIGGER between August 2012 and March 2013 in 6 UK hospitals. Preliminary analyses show that the mean (standard error (SE)) cost of the inpatient episode was £1,914 (£78) per patient. LOS was a key cost driver; mean LOS was 5.4 days with an associated cost of £1431. Additional cost drivers included: (1) red cell transfusion, with a mean of 1.6 units transfused per patient at a cost of £197; (2) endoscopy, with mean of 0.8 endoscopies per patient at a cost of £169. Mean (SE) costs from hospital discharge to 28 days were £293 (£22) per patient. The main cost driver post discharge was readmission to hospital; 12% of patients were readmitted within 28 days for a mean of 4.8 days. The mean cost associated with readmission across all patients was £127. HRQoL was on average (SE) 0.68 (0.01) at 28 days. Conclusion The mean cost up to 28 days for patients presenting with AUGIB is £2,207. At 28 days, the mean HRQoL in patients who have experienced an AUGIB is well below the average population level of 0.86. This is the first study to provide detailed estimates of the costs and HRQoL associated with AUGIB in the UK. These data can be used by healthcare providers and researchers to inform the design of subsequent cost-effectiveness analyses of interventions for AUGIB. Disclosure of Interest None Declared.