Becton, Dickinson and Company · NYSE:BDX
Becton, Dickinson and — BD MDS20 EU (April 2020)
20 slides from Becton, Dickinson and's conference presentation, April 2020
Slide 1: Presenter views disclaimer
These presentations were developed by the respective presenter(s), and the findings, interpretations, and conclusions contained or expressed with them do not necessarily reflect the views of BD. To the extent these presentations relate to specific products, such products should always be used in acc
Slide 2: FLAT Project Savona real world evidence for peripheral intravenous infusion
Value and cost-effective solution for peripheral intravenous infusion: FLAT Project Savona real world evidence Emanuela Foglia Centre for Health Economics, Social and Health Care Management, Liuc Business School
Slide 3: Thematic background
Thematic background • Peripheral Venous Catheter (PVC) is a largely used device in hospital setting, representing an essential element of modern medicine and the most frequent invasive procedure performed in hospitals • However, PVCs often fail before the therapy is completed: this can occur because
Slide 4: Aim of the Study
Aim of the Study The primary aim of the study is to analyze the process of management of PVCs in the clinical practice, in relation to outcome measures achieved, and to define the related economic resources absorption, with regard to presence or absence of PVCs implant standard procedure, thus compa
Slide 5: The scenarios under assessment
The scenarios under assessment The three scenarios differed on the basis of the use of BD ChloraPrep™ , BD Nexiva™ and BD Posiflush™ Medical Devices used • BD ChloraPrep™: Disposable Activities carried out device used for disinfection • BD Nexiva™: innovative Being in procedure • N. of insertion att
Slide 6: Study design
Study design Conduction of an observational Process mapping Conduction of both a prospective study Definition of the technique cost-effectiveness within five Medical Efficacy data predictors of costs implementation (Kim (Levaggi & Capri, and Surgical definition and optimisation and et al., 2006, Vag
Slide 7: The sample under assessment - 1
The sample under assessment - 1 Savona Hospital ✓ Internal Medicine 1 and Hematology Operating Unit ✓ Internal Medicine 2 and Intermediate Care Operating Unit ✓ Orthopaedic Operating Unit Pietra Ligure Hospital ✓ Orthopaedic Operating Unit ✓ Neurosciences Operating Unit
Slide 8: The sample under assessment - 2
The sample under assessment - 2 Consecutive cases of patients were enrolled on an observational prospective study within 5 Hospital Operative Units of Medical or Surgical Departments, involving two Hospitals in Liguria Region (Italy), from September 2018 to January 2019 Operating Units Nr. Patients
Slide 9: Population are comparable for all the three scenarios
Population are comparable for all the three scenarios The populations under assessment are well-matched and superimposable with regard to the above demographic characteristics, since no statistically significant differences emerged (p-value > 0.05) Female Gender BMI (Body Presence of N. of patients
Slide 10: Process Cost - 1
Process Cost - 1 No statistically significant differences emerged, among scenarios, considering the total costs (p-value =0.323). The validity of the innovative procedure is demonstrated, especially with regard to the management of adverse events (p-value = 0.001), whose absorption of economic resou
Slide 11: Process Cost aggregated in two scenarios
Process Cost aggregated in two scenarios: being in procedure vs not being in procedure - 2 The economic evaluation shows the feasibility and sustainability of Scenario 1 (being in procedure): despite higher cost in the technology used, Scenario 1 is related to a lower overall process cost, given the
Slide 12: PVCs management execution time
PVCs management execution time • The process mapping analysis revealed that, on average, the process is carried out by one healthcare professional • Scenario 1 presented the lower time of execution (on average 4.39 minutes), and the lower cost, with a statistically significant result Healthcare prof
Slide 13: A focus on PVCs effectiveness
A focus on PVCs effectiveness • The achieved outcome measures revealed that, in the Scenario 1, the 86.8% of the PVC removal was due to the end of the therapy, and not associated to adverse events, as in the other Scenarios • Scenario 1 consequently reported a lower average number of attempts in PVC
Slide 14: PVCs effectiveness: in procedure vs not in procedure
A focus on PVCs effectiveness, comparing “being in procedure” vs “not being in procedure” Average number of PVC removal due to PVC removal due to attempts at PVC PVC stay in situ the end of therapy the adverse events cannulation [days] [%] [%] [N.] Procedure implementation 86.8% 13.2% 1.92 7.91 Not
Slide 15: A focus on adverse events
A focus on adverse events • Scenario 1 presents the best performance, guaranteeing the lower level of adverse events occurrence • The accidental displacement is an adverse event related only to the implant procedure (with an incidence rate increased in case of no procedure implementation) • PVC remo
Slide 16: Adverse events: in procedure vs not in procedure
A focus on adverse events, comparing “being in procedure” vs “not being in procedure” Accidental PVC removal % of Patients Bloodpot Fever Occlusion Phlebitis Displacement from patient Procedure implement 13.2% 0.00% 0.00% 8.82% 0.00% 2.94% 1.47% ation Not being in 60.60% 2.95% 10.86% 8.33% 11.55% 12
Slide 17: Adverse events: BD Nexiva versus other PVCs
A focus on adverse events, considering the only use of BD NEXIVA™ versus other PVCs Accidental PVC removal Bloodpot Fever Occlusion Phlebitis Displacement from patient BD Nexiva™ 0.78% 3.36% 7.03% 1.16% 3.68% 1.32% Traditional PVCs 5.90% 20.73% 15.66% 21.09% 25.56% 30.86% p-value 0.000 0.000 0.000 0
Slide 18: Cost-effectiveness analysis
Cost-effectiveness analysis Total cost Effectiveness CEV Dominant SCENARIO 1 € 19.60 86.80% 22.58 Scenario SCENARIO 2 € 20.99 62.80% 33.42 SCENARIO 3 € 22.42 11.40% 196.75
Slide 19: Budget impact analysis
Budget impact analysis Budget impact analysis, considering 156,624 PVCs implanted on annual basis Baseline Scenario A – Use rate of the procedure equal to 18% € 1,770,719 Innovative Scenario B - Use rate of the procedure equal to 100% € 1,598,871 Innovative Scenario C - Use rate of the procedure equ
Slide 20: Conclusions: Key-Messages
Conclusions: Key-Messages Efficacy (PVC removal due to the end of Time saving per year the therapy and not for adverse events) 86% 46,028 min Cost saving per patient Cost saving per year: The standard PVC hospital perspective implant procedure € 2.82 € 171,848 Cost saving per year: Liguria € 980,881
Becton, Dickinson and Company — BD MDS20 EU (April 2020) on 6ix