Productivity losses & indirect costs after cardiovascular events V1.0

  • Research type

    Research Study

  • Full title

    Productivity losses and indirect costs after cardiovascular events in Europe

  • IRAS ID

    204206

  • Contact name

    Kornelia Kotseva

  • Contact email

    k.kotseva@imperial.ac.uk

  • Sponsor organisation

    Amgen (Europe) GmbH

  • Duration of Study in the UK

    0 years, 4 months, 31 days

  • Research summary

    The purpose of this cross-sectional survey is to evaluate productivity loss and associated costs in Acute Coronary Syndrome (ACS) (including myocardial infarction and unstable angina), congestive heart failure (CHF), and stroke patients. The study will involve 1,200 cardiovascular patients from 12 European countries). The patients will be recruited through their physicians during a regular consultation visit 3-12 months after the index event. Data will be collected via a patient and a physician questionnaire (retrospective data collection), as well as through a physician logbook: the physicians will provide patients’ diagnoses, characteristics, and pertinent data from medical records and the patients will supply information about their absence from work and loss of productivity due to the cardiovascular event (using the iMTA Productivity Cost Questionnaire (iPCQ)). Patients’ responses are meant to provide information about absence from work and productivity loss that is normally not reflected in medical records. The participating physicians will be cardiologists and neurologists who routinely manage patients with the described cardiovascular events. One hundred patients are planned per country, distributed over 3 (big) hospitals (geographical spread), whereby in each participating hospital 1 cardiologist (ACS/CHF) and 1 neurologist are participating. The target is to have 11 recruited patients per neurologist and 22-23 recruited patients per cardiologist.

  • REC name

    London - Central Research Ethics Committee

  • REC reference

    16/LO/1529

  • Date of REC Opinion

    13 Sep 2016

  • REC opinion

    Further Information Favourable Opinion