Open Access

Erratum to: ‘Quality of life and costs of spasticity treatment in German stroke patients’

  • Reinhard Rychlik1,
  • Fabian Kreimendahl1Email author,
  • Nicole Schnur3,
  • Judith Lambert-Baumann3 and
  • Dirk Dressler2
Health Economics Review20166:41

DOI: 10.1186/s13561-016-0114-6

Received: 11 August 2016

Accepted: 11 August 2016

Published: 31 August 2016

The original article was published in Health Economics Review 2016 6:27
Unfortunately, the original version of this article [1] contained errors. There were formatting errors in the main text and in Tables 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. These tables have been included correctly below. There will also be an update to correct the errors in the main text.
Table 1

Cost data sources

Item

Cost sources

Drugs

German Rote Liste 2013, web-based research

Ambulatory medical treatment

German value measurement (EBM 2000+) and fee regulations for doctors (GOÄ)

Non-pharmacological therapies

According to agreements between German health insurance funds and professional organizations

Medical devices / aids

Web-based research

Hospitalisation and Rehabilitation

German Diagnosis-Related Groups (G-DRG), web- and phone-based research

Nursing home care

According to German long term care insurance

Reduction in earning capacity

Average payments according to German retirement insurance

Table 2

Patient demography and other baseline characteristics

 

INCO pretreated

N = 67

INCO naïve

N = 41

INCO total

N = 108

CON N = 110

Total N = 218

Gender (m)

36 (53.7 %)

22 (53.7 %)

58 (53.7 %)

70 (63.6 %)

128 (58.7 %)

Age (years)

62.3 (10.7)

60.7 (16.0)

61.7 (12.9)

67.8 (12.7)

64.8 (13.1)

Body mass index (kg/m2)

26.7 (4.0)

26.8 (4.4)

26.7 (4.1)

27.7 (4.8)

27.2 (4.5)

Time since apoplex (years)

8.0 (5.6)

6.8 (6.1)

7.5 (5.8)

5.3 (5.1)

6.5 (5.6)

Time since spasticity (years)

6.9 (6.3)

6.0 (6.5)

6.6 (6.3)

4.9 (5.4)

5.7 (5.9)

Concomitant diseases (yes)

55 (82.1 %)

29 (70.7 %)

84 (77.8 %)

96 (87.3 %)

180 (8.6 %)

Employed (yes)

1 (1.5 %)

3 (7.3 %)

4 (3.7 %)

9 (8.2 %)

13 (6.0 %)

Retired (yes)

58 (96.7 %)

39 (97.5 %)

87 (94.6 %)

86 (86.9 %)

173 (90.6 %)

Early retirement due to spasticity (yes)

40 (63.5 %)

20 (55.6 %)

60 (60.6 %)

19 (20.4 %)

79 (41.1 %)

Reduction in earning capacity due to spasticity (yes)

22 (32.9 %)

11 (26.8 %)

33 (30.6 %)

23 (20.9 %)

56 (25.7 %)

Level of care (none)

12 (17.9 %)

10 (24.4 %)

22 (20.4 %)

37 (35.6 %)

59 (27.8 %)

Level 1

28 (41.8 %)

15 (36.6 %)

43 (39.8 %)

33 (31.7 %)

76 (35.8 %)

Level 2

23 (34.3 %)

15 (36.6 %)

38 (35.2 %)

29 (27.9 %)

67 (31.6 %)

Level 3

4 (6.0 %)

1 (2.4 %)

5 (4.6 %)

5 (4.8 %)

10 (4.7 %)

All values are means (± standard deviation) or number of patients (%)

Table 3

Overview of antispastic therapies and measures during the study

IncobotulinumtoxinA group:

Antispastic medications except BoNT/A, non-pharmacological therapies and aids

 

First quarter (n = 108)

Second quarter (n = 102)

Third quarter (n = 99)

Fourth quarter (n = 94)

Oral medication

31 (28.7 %)

23 (32.4 %)

20 (20.2 %)

18 (19.1 %)

Physical therapy

60 (55.6 %)

54 (52.9 %)

54 (54.5 %)

51 (54.3 %)

Occupational therapy

43 (39.8 %)

42 (41.2 %)

41 (41.4 %)

44 (46.8 %)

Speech therapy

10 (9.3 %)

8 (7.8 %)

8 (8.1 %)

9 (8.6 %)

Other therapies

3 (2.8 %)

6 (6.0 %)

4 (4.0 %)

4 (4.3 %)

Therapeutic aids

12 (11.0 %)

5 (5.7 %)

-

1 (1.0 %)

Conventional therapy group:

Antispastic medications, non-pharmacological therapies and aids

 

First quarter (n = 110)

Second quarter (n = 98)

Third quarter (n = 91)

Fourth quarter (n = 84)

Oral medication

67 (60.9 %)

66 (67.3 %)

63 (69.2 %)

58 (69.0 %)

Physical therapy

68 (61.8 %)

59 (60.2 %)

54 (54.5 %)

52 (61.9 %)

Occupational therapy

15 (13.6 %)

11 (11.2 %)

11 (12.1 %)

8 (9.5 %)

Speech therapy

5 (4.6 %)

5 (5.1 %)

5 (5.5 %)

4 (4.8 %)

Other therapies

3 (2.7 %)

5 (5.1 %)

-

1 (1.2 %)

Therapeutic aids

10 (11.0 %)

8 (8.2 %)

12 (13.2 %)

8 (9.5 %)

Table 4

Responder analyses at study end after 1-year of treatment

 

INCO pretreated

INCO naïve

INCO total

CON

INCO pretr. vs. CON

INCO naïve vs. CON

INCO total vs. CON

Shoulder adduction/internal rotation

56.4

73.9

62.9

15.5

<0.01

<0.01

<0.01

Shoulder abduction

65.5

100

73.0

19.7

<0.01

<0.01

<0.01

Shoulder elevation

66.7

88.9

72.7

20.6

<0.01

<0.01

<0.01

Flexed elbow

78.3

92.9

83.8

26.9

<0.01

<0.01

<0.01

Forearm pronation

81.4

73.7

79.0

22.0

<0.01

<0.01

<0.01

Flexed wrist

82.1

94.7

86.2

26.6

<0.01

<0.01

<0.01

Thumb-in-palm

77.8

81.3

78.8

20.0

<0.01

<0.01

<0.01

Clenched fist

79.1

95.2

84.4

22.2

<0.01

<0.01

<0.01

Intrinsic-plus-position of the hand

73.3

100

78.9

19.5

<0.01

<0.01

<0.01

Responder rates (%); response was definded as ≥ 1-point improvement on the Ashworth Scale for all treated muscle groups at study end; Fisher´s exact test was used for group comparisons

Table 5

Overview of total costs by cost centers (in €)

 

INCO n = 93

CON n = 83

Ambulatory medical treatment

175

217

Drugs

3,386

193

Hospitalizations (including rehabilitation measures)

40

138

Non-pharmacological therapies

1,408

998

Medical devices / aids

79

12

Nursing home care

3,089

2,203

Total direct costs

8,188

3,806

Reduction in earning capacity

2,081

988

Total costs

10,268

4,794

Table 6

Overview of Cost-utility ratios and ICER

Utility parameter

INCO

CON

Responder rate in Ashworth Score per clinical pattern

Responder rate

Cost-utility ratio

Responder rate

Cost-utility ratio

ICER

Shoulder adduction / internal rotation

62.9 %

16,325 €

15.5 %

30,929 €

11,549 €

Shoulder abduction

73.0 %

14,066 €

19.7 %

24,335 €

10,271 €

Shoulder elevation

72.7 %

14,124 €

20.6 %

23,272 €

10,507 €

Flexed elbow

83.8 %

12,253 €

26.9 %

17,821 €

9,621 €

Pronated forearm

79.0 %

12,998 €

22.0 %

21,791 €

9,604 €

Flexed wrist

86.2 %

11,912 €

26.6 %

18,022 €

9,185 €

Thumb-in-palm

78.8 %

13,031 €

20.0 %

23,970 €

9,310 €

Clenched fist

84.4 %

12,166 €

22.2 %

21,595 €

8,801 €

Intrinsic-Plus-position (hand)

78.9 %

13,014 €

19.5 %

24,585 €

9,216 €

Improvement in SF-12 dimension

Improvement

Cost-utility ratio

Improvement

Cost-utility ratio

ICER

Physical Health

7.96

1,290 €

0.83

5,776 €

768 €

Mental Health

10.75

955 €

5.71

840 €

1,086 €

Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) = (Total costs INCO – Total costs CON)/(Utility value INCO – Utility value CON)

Notes

Declarations

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Institute of Empirical Health Economics
(2)
Movement Disorders Section, Department of Neurology, Hannover Medical School
(3)
Merz Pharmaceuticals

Reference

  1. Rychlik R, Kreimendahl F, Schnur N, Lambert-Baumann J, Dressler D. Quality of life and costs of spasticity treatment in German stroke patients. Health Economics Review. 2015;6(1):1–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2016