Advertisement

Clinical Drug Investigation

, Volume 39, Issue 4, pp 379–384 | Cite as

Admissions and Cost of Hospitalisation of Phenylketonuria: Spanish Claims Database Analysis

  • Josep DarbàEmail author
  • Meritxell Ascanio
Original Research Article

Abstract

Background

Phenylketonuria is a well-known rare disease included in the neonatal screening of many countries. Therefore, there are few published data on the admissions and costs of phenylketonuria in Spain.

Objective

The objective of this study was to assess the number of admissions and the economic burden of phenylketonuria in Spain.

Methods

Patients with phenylketonuria were identified from a Spanish database containing data from public and private healthcare centres from 1997 to 2015. The parameters obtained were characteristics of the patients, type of admissions, readmissions, discharges, length of stay, medical service, annual number of visits, annual number of patients, visit-associated costs and patient-associated costs.

Results

Five hundred and ninety-four patients with phenylketonuria were identified: 48.32% were male with a mean (standard deviation) age of 4.50 (10.23) years. The hospital admissions were divided into emergency visits (55.94%) and scheduled visits (43.92%). The majority of patients were discharged home (98.86%). The mean (standard deviation) duration of stay was 4.04 (4.98) days. The number of admissions per year ranged between 13 and 88, with an average of 1.18 admissions per patient per year. Finally, the mean cost per visit increased from €1064.91 to €3709.40, and the mean cost per patient increased from €1818.90 to €4239.32 from 1999 to 2015.

Conclusions

The access to economic and social data on phenylketonuria in Spain has been updated. The number of admissions in Spain between 1997 and 2015 and healthcare costs between 1999 and 2015 were calculated. There were 24 admissions as a result of a phenylketonuria diagnosis in 2015 and the mean healthcare cost per patient was €4239.32. This information can help to adapt and improve each healthcare system to take into consideration rare diseases.

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Funding

No sources of funding were received for the conduct of this study or the preparation of this article.

Conflict of interest

Josep Darbà and Meritxell Ascanio have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this article.

Ethics approval

All procedures in this study were in accordance with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its amendments. As this was a study of an anonymised database and had no influence on patient care, ethics committee approval was not required.

Consent to participate

As this was a study of an anonymised database and had no influence on patient care, no informed consent was required.

References

  1. 1.
    van Wegberg AMJ, MacDonald A, Ahring K, Bélanger-Quintana A, Blau N, Bosch AM, Burlina A, Campistol J, Feillet F, Giżewska M, Huijbregts SC, Kearney S, Leuzzi V, Maillot F, Muntau AC, van Rijn M, Trefz F, Walter JH, van Spronsen FJ. The complete European guidelines on phenylketonuria: diagnosis and treatment. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2017;12(1):162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    El-Metwally A, Yousef Al-Ahaidib L, Ayman Sunqurah A, Al-Surimi K, Househ M, Alshehri A, Da’ar OB, Abdul Razzak H, AlOdaib AN. The prevalence of phenylketonuria in Arab countries, Turkey, and Iran: a systematic review. Biomed Res Int. 2018;2018:7697210.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/7697210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wasim M, Awan FR, Khan HN, Tawab A, Iqbal M, Ayesha H. Aminoacidopathies: prevalence, etiology, screening, and treatment options. Biochem Genet. 2018;56(1–2):7–21.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10528-017-9825-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zschocke J, Haverkamp T, Møller LB. Clinical utility gene card for: phenylketonuria. Eur J Hum Genet. 2012.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ejhg.2011.172.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Shawky RA, Elsayed SM, Zaki ME, Nour El-Din SM, Kamal FM. Consanguinity and its relevance to clinical genetics. Egypt J Med Hum Genet. 2013;14:157–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Berry SA, Brown C, Grant M, Greene CL, Jurecki E, Koch J, Moseley K, Suter R, van Calcar SC, Wiles J, Cederbaum S. Newborn screening 50 years later: access issues faced by adults with PKU. Genet Med. 2013;15(8):591–9.  https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2013.10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Vicente E, Casas L, Ardanaz E. Origin of newborn screening programs and their beginnings in Spain [in Spanish]. An Sist Sanit Navar. 2017;40(1):131–40.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sanford M, Keating GM. Sapropterin: a review of its use in the treatment of primary hyperphenylalaninaemia. Drugs. 2009;69(4):461–76.  https://doi.org/10.2165/00003495-200969040-00006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brosco JP, Sanders LM, Seider MI, Dunn AC. Adverse medical outcomes of early newborn screening programs for phenylketonuria. Pediatrics. 2008;122(1):192–7.  https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2007-3027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pitt JJ. Newborn screening. Clin Biochem Rev. 2010;31(2):57–68.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Registro de Altas de los Hospitales Generales del Sistema Nacional de Salud. Conjunto Mínimo de Bases de Datos (CMBD). Norma Estatal de Años Anteriores. https://www.mscbs.gob.es/estadEstudios/estadisticas/cmbdAnteriores.htm. Accessed 19 Oct 2018.
  12. 12.
    Hsia DY, Dobson J, Koch R, Woolf L. Sex ratio in phenylketonuria. Lancet. 1970;296(7663):96.  https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(70)92661-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Thiele AG, Gausche R, Lindenberg C, Beger C, Arelin M, Rohde C, Mütze U, Weigel JF, Mohnike K, Baerwald C, Scholz M, Kiess W, Pfäffle R, Beblo S. Growth and final height among children with phenylketonuria. Pediatrics. 2017;140(5):e20170015.  https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2017-0015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Santos LL, Magalhães Mde C, Januário JN, Aguiar MJ, Carvalho MR. The time has come: a new scene for PKU treatment. Genet Mol Res. 2006;5(1):33–44.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Guest JF, Bai JJ, Taylor RR, Sladkevicius E, Lee PJ, Lachmann RH. Costs and outcomes over 36 years of patients with phenylketonuria who do and do not remain on a phenylalanine-restricted diet. J Intellect Disabil Res. 2013;57(6):567–79.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2788.2012.01568.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wang L, Zou H, Ye F, Wang K, Li X, Chen Z, Chen J, Han B, Yu W, He C, Shen M. Household financial burden of phenylketonuria and its impact on treatment in China: a cross-sectional study. J Inherit Metab Dis. 2017;40(3):369–76.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10545-016-9995-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    MacDonald A, Smith TA, de Silva S, Alam V, van Loon JM. The personal burden for caregivers of children with phenylketonuria: a cross-sectional study investigating time burden and costs in the UK. Mol Genet Metab Rep. 2016;9:1–5.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymgmr.2016.08.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Eijgelshoven I, Demirdas S, Smith TA, van Loon JM, Latour S, Bosch AM. The time consuming nature of phenylketonuria: a cross-sectional study investigating time burden and costs of phenylketonuria in the Netherlands. Mol Genet Metab. 2013;109(3):237–42.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymgme.2013.05.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bosch AM, Burlina A, Cunningham A, Bettiol E, Moreau-Stucker F, Koledova E, Benmedjahed K, Regnault A. Assessment of the impact of phenylketonuria and its treatment on quality of life of patients and parents from seven European countries. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2015;10:80.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13023-015-0294-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsUniversitat de BarcelonaBarcelonaSpain
  2. 2.BCN Health Economics and Outcomes Research S.L.BarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations