Cost effectiveness of long-term treatment with eszopiclone for primary insomnia in adults: a decision analytical model

Content Comparison of Quality-of-Life Instruments Used in Economic Evaluations of Sleep Disorder Interventions: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Assessment of quality of life (QoL) in people living with sleep disorders using questionnaires is necessary to compare intervention benefits. Knowledge of the content and concepts covered by specific QoL instruments is essential to determine which instruments are best suited for conducting economic evaluations of sleep-related interventions.

OBJECTIVES

This review aims to identify the QoL instruments that have been applied in economic evaluations of sleep disorder interventions and compare their conceptual overlap and content coverage using the framework of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF).

METHODS

A systematic review of full economic evaluations in sleep published in peer-reviewed journals from conception to 30 May, 2023 was conducted. MEDLINE, PsychInfo, ProQuest, Cochrane, Scopus, CINAHL, Web of Science and Emcare were searched for eligible studies. Studies incorporating either generic or sleep-specific QoL instruments as the primary or secondary measures of effectiveness within a full economic evaluation were included. Quality appraisal against the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Economic Evaluations and EURONHEED checklists and mapping of QoL items to ICF categories were performed by two reviewers, with a third helping settle any potential differences.

RESULTS

Sixteen instruments were identified as having been used in sleep health economic evaluations. The EQ-5D-3L, Epworth Sleepiness Scale, and Insomnia Severity Index were the most widely used, but the latter two are predominantly diagnostic tools and not specifically designed to guide economic evaluations. Other instruments with broader ICF content coverage have been least used, and these include the Sleep Apnea Quality of Life Index, Functional Outcomes of Sleep Questionnaire, 15 Dimensions, Short-Form 6 Dimensions, 12-item Short Form Survey, 36-item Short Form Survey and the GRID Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides an overview of current QoL instruments used in economic evaluations of sleep with respect to their content coverage. A combination of generic and sleep-specific instruments with broader ICF content coverage is recommended for such evaluations.

Eszopiclone for insomnia

BACKGROUND

Insomnia is a major public health issue affecting between 6% to 10% of the adult population in Western countries. Eszopiclone is a hypnotic drug belonging to a newer group of hypnotic agents, known as new generation hypnotics, which was marketed as being just as effective as benzodiazepines for this condition, while being safer and having a lower risk for abuse and dependence. It is the aim of the review to integrate evidence from randomised controlled trials and to draw conclusions on eszopiclone's efficacy and safety profile, while taking methodological features and bias risks into consideration.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of eszopiclone for the treatment of insomnia compared to placebo or active control.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, PSYNDEX and registry databases (WHO trials portal, ClinicalTrials.gov) with results incorporated from searches to 10 February 2016. To identify trials not registered in electronic databases, we contacted key informants and searched reference lists of identified studies. We ran an update search (21 February 2018) and have placed studies of interest in awaiting classification/ongoing studies. These will be incorporated into the next version of the review, as appropriate.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Parallel group randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing eszopiclone with either placebo or active control were included in the review. Participants were adults with insomnia, as diagnosed with a standardised diagnostic system, including primary insomnia and comorbid insomnia.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted outcome data; one reviewer assessed trial quality and the second author cross-checked it.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 14 RCTs, with 4732 participants, were included in this review covering short-term (≤ 4 weeks; 6 studies), medium-term (> 4 weeks ≤ 6 months; 6 studies) and long-term treatment (> 6 months; 2 studies) with eszopiclone. Most RCTs included in the review included participants aged between 18 and 64 years, three RCTs only included elderly participants (64 to 85 years) and one RCT included participants with a broader age range (35 to 85 years). Seven studies considered primary insomnia; the remaining studies considered secondary insomnia comorbid with depression (2), generalised anxiety (1), back pain (1), Parkinson's disease (1), rheumatoid arthritis (1) and menopausal transition (1).Meta-analytic integrations of participant-reported data on sleep efficacy outcomes demonstrated better results for eszopiclone compared to placebo: a 12-minute decrease of sleep onset latency (mean difference (MD) -11.94 min, 95% confidence interval (CI) -16.03 to -7.86; 9 studies, 2890 participants, moderate quality evidence), a 17-minute decrease of wake time after sleep onset (MD -17.02 min, 95% CI -24.89 to -9.15; 8 studies, 2295 participants, moderate quality evidence) and a 28-minute increase of total sleep time (MD 27.70 min, 95% CI 20.30 to 35.09; 10 studies, 2965 participants, moderate quality evidence). There were no significant changes from baseline to the first three nights after drug discontinuation for sleep onset latency (MD 17.00 min, 95% CI -4.29 to 38.29; 1 study, 291 participants, low quality evidence) and wake time after sleep onset (MD -6.71 min, 95% CI -21.25 to 7.83; 1 study, 291 participants, low quality evidence). Adverse events during treatment that were documented more frequently under eszopiclone compared to placebo included unpleasant taste (risk difference (RD) 0.18, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.21; 9 studies, 3787 participants), dry mouth (RD 0.04, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.06; 6 studies, 2802 participants), somnolence (RD 0.04, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.06; 8 studies, 3532 participants) and dizziness (RD 0.03, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.05; 7 studies, 2933 participants). According to the GRADE criteria, evidence was rated as being of moderate quality for sleep efficacy outcomes and adverse events and of low quality for rebound effects and next-day functioning.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Eszopiclone appears to be an efficient drug with moderate effects on sleep onset and maintenance. There was no or little evidence of harm if taken as recommended. However, as certain patient subgroups were underrepresented in RCTs included in the review, findings might not have displayed the entire spectrum of possible adverse events. Further, increased caution is required in elderly individuals with cognitive and motor impairments and individuals who are at increased risk of using eszopiclone in a non-recommended way.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of suvorexant for the treatment of Japanese elderly patients with chronic insomnia in a virtual cohort

AIMS

This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of the orexin receptor antagonist suvorexant against zolpidem, the most widely used hypnotic benzodiazepine receptor agonist in Japan. To this end, a model was used that factored in insomnia and the risk for hip fractures, which have devastating effects on the elderly.

METHODS

Data were derived from published papers. The target population was a virtual cohort of elderly patients (≥65 years) with insomnia residing in Japan. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated using quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio as effectiveness measures. The investigators assumed the perspective of healthcare payers.

RESULTS

In the base-case analysis, suvorexant was cost-saving (suvorexant: $252.3, zolpidem: $328.7) and had higher QALYs gained (suvorexant: 0.0641, zolpidem: 0.0635) for elderly Japanese patients with insomnia compared with zolpidem, indicating that suvorexant was dominant. In the sensitivity analysis, the outcome changed from dominant to dominated due to the relative risk for hip fractures associated with suvorexant. However, when the other parameters were varied from the lower to the upper limits of their ranges, suvorexant remained dominant compared to zolpidem.

LIMITATIONS

The relative risk for hip fractures for suvorexant used in the model was based on data from pre-approval clinical trials. More precise data may be needed.

CONCLUSIONS

Suvorexant seemed to be more cost-effective than the alternative zolpidem. The findings suggested that suvorexant might be a viable alternative to zolpidem for elderly patients with insomnia. A sensitivity analysis showed that outcome varied depending on the relative risk for hip fractures associated with suvorexant. Further investigations may be needed for more precise results.

Trends of cost-effectiveness studies in sleep medicine

Economic analyses, and cost-effectiveness studies in particular, are increasingly used in medicine and population health to inform policy making and resource allocation. Health economic models have successfully captured sleep medicine outcomes. This study provides an overview of the growth of the use of cost-effectiveness analyses to quantify the outcomes of sleep related interventions. It also identifies highly prevalent sleep disorders, which despite having a high burden of disease, lack basic utility studies.

Nonbenzodiazepine Sedative Hypnotics and Risk of Fall-Related Injury

STUDY OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to test the hypothesis that use of zolpidem, eszopiclone, and zaleplon would be associated with increased risk of traumatic brain injury (TBI) and hip fracture.

METHODS

We conducted a case-crossover study on a 5% random sample of Medicare beneficiaries age 65 y or older hospitalized with either TBI (n = 15,031) or hip fracture (n = 37,833) during 2007-2009. Use of zolpidem, eszopiclone, or zaleplon during the 30-day period prior to injury hospitalization was compared to use during four control periods at 3, 6, 9, and 12 mo prior to injury. The primary outcome was hospitalization for TBI or hip fracture.

RESULTS

Zolpidem use during the month prior to injury was associated with increased risk of TBI (odds ratio [OR] 1.87; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.56, 2.25); however, eszopiclone use during the same period was not associated with increased risk (OR 0.67; 95% CI 0.40, 1.13). Zolpidem use during the month prior to injury was associated with increased risk of hip fracture (OR 1.59; 95% CI 1.41, 1.79); however, eszopiclone use during the same period was not associated with increased risk (OR 1.12; 95% CI 0.83, 1.50). Analysis of zaleplon use in the month prior to injury was limited by low drug utilization but was not associated with increased risk of TBI (OR 0.85; 95% CI 0.21, 3.34) or hip fracture (OR 0.92; 95% CI 0.40, 2.13) in this study.

CONCLUSIONS

For the treatment of insomnia in older adults, eszopiclone may present a safer alternative to zolpidem, in terms of fall-related injuries.

Health economics of insomnia treatments: The return on investment for a good night's sleep

Chronic insomnia is the most common sleep disorder among adults and is associated with a wide range of negative outcomes. This article reviews the economic consequences of the disorder and the cost effectiveness of insomnia treatments. First, the total costs of insomnia are reviewed; in aggregate these costs exceed $100 billion USD per year, with the majority being spent on indirect costs such as poorer workplace performance, increased health care utilization, and increased accident risk. Next, the deleterious impact of insomnia on quality of life and the impact of treatment on quality of life are briefly considered. Finally, ten published studies evaluating the cost effectiveness of both pharmacological and behavioral treatments for insomnia are reviewed in detail. A significant majority of studies reviewed found that the cost of treating primary and comorbid insomnia is less than the cost of not treating it. Treatments were generally found to be cost-effective using commonly employed standards, with treatment costs being recouped within 6-12 mo.

The effects of acute treatment with ramelteon, triazolam, and placebo on driving performance, cognitive function, and equilibrium function in healthy volunteers

RATIONALE

Hypnotics are widely used to treat insomnia but adverse effects of different hypnotics, especially benzodiazepine receptor agonists, are getting more attention lately. The effects of novel hypnotics have not been fully examined.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to assess the effects of two hypnotics, ramelteon and triazolam, on driving performance, cognitive function, and equilibrium function.

METHODS

In this double-blinded, three-way crossover trial, 17 healthy males received acute doses of 8 mg ramelteon, 0.125 mg triazolam, and placebo. The subjects were administered three driving tasks-road-tracking, car-following, and harsh-braking-using a driving simulator and three cognitive tasks-Continuous Performance Test, N-back Test, and Trail-Making Test-at baseline and at 1 and 4 h post-dosing. The Stanford Sleepiness Scale scores and computerized posturography were also assessed.

RESULTS

In the driving simulations, ramelteon and triazolam increased the number of subjects who slid off the road. Triazolam increased the standard deviation of lateral position compared to ramelteon and placebo at 1 h post-dosing. Ramelteon and triazolam significantly increased the time to complete of Trail-Making Test part A and the environmental area in posturography compared to placebo at 1 and 4 h post-dosing. Ramelteon and triazolam significantly increased subjective sleepiness compared to placebo at 1 h post-dosing.

CONCLUSIONS

Ramelteon may affect road-tracking performance, visual attention and/or psychomotor speed measured by Trail-Making Test part A, and body balance in acute dosing. Lower dose of triazolam also impaired performance worse than ramelteon. Physicians should consider risks and benefits when prescribing both drugs, especially in the initial period of administration.

Subjective-objective sleep discrepancy among older adults: associations with insomnia diagnosis and insomnia treatment

Discrepancy between subjective and objective measures of sleep is associated with insomnia and increasing age. Cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia improves sleep quality and decreases subjective-objective sleep discrepancy. This study describes differences between older adults with insomnia and controls in sleep discrepancy, and tests the hypothesis that reduced sleep discrepancy following cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia correlates with the magnitude of symptom improvement reported by older adults with insomnia. Participants were 63 adults >60 years of age with insomnia, and 51 controls. At baseline, participants completed sleep diaries for 7 days while wearing wrist actigraphs. After receiving cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia, insomnia patients repeated this sleep assessment. Sleep discrepancy variables were calculated by subtracting actigraphic sleep onset latency and wake after sleep onset from respective self-reported estimates, pre- and post-treatment. Mean level and night-to-night variability in sleep discrepancy were investigated. Baseline sleep discrepancies were compared between groups. Pre-post-treatment changes in Insomnia Severity Index score and sleep discrepancy variables were investigated within older adults with insomnia. Sleep discrepancy was significantly greater and more variable across nights in older adults with insomnia than controls, P ≤ 0.001 for all. Treatment with cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia was associated with significant reduction in the Insomnia Severity Index score that correlated with changes in mean level and night-to-night variability in wake after sleep onset discrepancy, P < 0.001 for all. Study of sleep discrepancy patterns may guide more targeted treatments for late-life insomnia.

Quality-adjusted life-years gain and health status in patients with OSAS after one year of continuous positive airway pressure use

STUDY OBJECTIVES

To estimate the health utility score and quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) index of obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS) in patients over 1 y of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) treatment.

DESIGN

Longitudinal interventional study.

SETTING

The study was carried out in Sao Paulo Sleep Institute, Brazil.

PATIENTS AND PARTICIPANTS

Ninety-five patients with OSAS and with apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) > 20 of either sex, body mass index < 40 kg/m(2), and no previous contact with CPAP were included.

INTERVENTIONS

The participants underwent baseline and titration polysomnographies, clinical evaluation, and ambulatory blood pressure (BP) measurement, completed Short-Form 6 Dimension Health Survey (SF-6D) and Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) questionnaires, and implementation of CPAP. The patients were followed for 1 y.

MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS

The mean AHI and age were 57.6 ± 29.2 events/h and 53.3 ± 9.3 y, respectively. One year of CPAP treatment increased the health utility score from 0.611 ± 0.112 to 0.710 ± 0.121 (P < 0.01). Therefore, CPAP resulted in a mean gain of 0.092 QALY/patient. The improvements in utility scores were associated with decreases in the ESS after 1 mo, in systolic BP after 1 y, and in diastolic BP at 6 mo. BP normalization group (≤ 130/85 mmHg) showed higher QALY than that of the non-normalization group (0.10 ± 0.09 versus 0.05 ± 0.10; P = 0.03). One-year ESS score (P = 0.03), diastolic BP reduction P = 0.01) and baseline utility scores (P < 0.01) were significantly associated with QALY gain.

CONCLUSION

This study showed a significant QALY/patient gain after 1 y of regular CPAP use. In addition, BP normalization was associated with higher QALY gain. Thus, utility studies can provide more complete analyses of the total benefits of CPAP treatment in patients with OSAS and should be encouraged.

The estimation of utility weights in cost-utility analysis for mental disorders: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review approaches and instruments used to derive utility weights in cost-utility analyses (CUAs) within the field of mental disorders and to identify factors that may have influenced the choice of the approach.

METHODS

We searched the databases DARE (Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects), NHS EED (National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database), HTA (Health Technology Assessment), and PubMed for CUAs. Studies were included if they were full economic evaluations and reported quality-adjusted life-years as the health outcome. Study characteristics and instruments used to estimate utility weights were described and a logistic regression analysis was conducted to identify factors associated with the choice of either the direct (e.g. standard gamble) or the preference-based measure (PBM) approach (e.g. EQ-5D).

RESULTS

We identified 227 CUAs with a maximum in 2009, 2010, and 2012. Most CUAs were conducted in depression, dementia, or psychosis, and came from the US or the UK, with the EQ-5D being the most frequently used instrument. The application of the direct approach was significantly associated with depression, psychosis, and model-based studies. The PBM approach was more likely to be used in recent studies, dementia, Europe, and empirical studies. Utility weights used in model-based studies were derived from only a small number of studies.

LIMITATIONS

We only searched four databases and did not evaluate the quality of the included studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Direct instruments and PBMs are used to elicit utility weights in CUAs with different frequencies regarding study type, mental disorder, and country.

Economic evaluation of agomelatine relative to other antidepressants for treatment of major depressive disorders in Greece

Background

Major depressive disorder (MDD) constitutes an important public health problem, as it is highly prevalent in the industrialized world and it is associated with substantial economic consequences for patients, health care providers, insurance and social security organizations and employers. To conduct an economic evaluation comparing agomelatine with other commonly used alternatives for treating patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) in Greece.

Methods

An existing international Markov model designed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of agomelatine was adapted to the Greek setting. It reflects six different health states, in which patients may move on a monthly basis. The analysis was undertaken from a societal perspective. Transition probabilities, utilities and costs assigned to each health state were extracted from the published literature, government sources and expert opinion. Data reflects the year 2012 and was discounted using a rate of 3.5%. Probabilistic analysis was undertaken to deal with uncertainty.

Results

Base case analyses revealed that agomelatine is a dominant therapy for MDD relative to escitalopram, fluoxetine and sertraline, and it appeared to be cost-effective compared to venlafaxine (ICER: €547/QALY). Agomelatine remained a dominant treatment against generic sertraline and fluoxetine, and it appeared to be a cost-effective alternative compared to generic venlafaxine and escitalopram (ICER: €1,446/QALY and €3,303/QALY, respectively). Excluding the indirect cost from the analysis, agomelatine remained a cost-effective alternative over all comparators. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis agomelatine was dominant in 44.5%, 89.6%, 70.6% and 84.6% of simulated samples against branded venlafaxine, escitalopram, fluoxetine and sertraline, respectively.

Conclusion

The present evaluation indicates that agomelatine is either a dominant or a cost-effective alternative relative to branded or generic alternatives, in Greece.

Cost effectiveness of guanfacine extended release as an adjunctive therapy to a stimulant compared with stimulant monotherapy for the treatment of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder in children and adolescents

BACKGROUND

Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a common psychiatric disorder in childhood, affecting 3-7% of school-age children in the US and imposing substantial economic burden. Stimulants are considered first-line pharmacological treatment and are the most prescribed treatment for ADHD. However, approximately 30% of children with ADHD do not have an optimal response to a single stimulant and may require adjunctive therapy.

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of adding a non-stimulant, guanfacine extended release (GXR), to stimulants versus maintaining existing stimulant monotherapy in the treatment of ADHD in children and adolescents with suboptimal response to stimulant monotherapy.

METHODS

A 1-year Markov model was developed to estimate costs and effectiveness from a US third-party payer perspective. Effectiveness was measured by the QALY. The model assumed that patients transitioned among four health states (normal, mild, moderate and severe), defined by the Clinical Global Impression-Severity (CGI-S) scale. Transition probabilities were estimated in an ordered logit model using patient-level data from a multicentre, 9-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-optimization study, where subjects (n = 461) continued their stable morning stimulant and were randomized to GXR administered in the morning, GXR administered in the evening, or placebo. The model assumed that patients in moderate/severe health states after week 8 would discontinue ADHD treatment and remain in that state for the rest of the study period. Direct costs included drug wholesale acquisition costs and health state costs, all in $US, year 2010 values. Utility associated with each health state was obtained from the literature and disutilities associated with adverse events were applied for the first 4 weeks. One-way sensitivity analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) were conducted by varying costs, utilities, adverse-event duration, and transition probabilities.

RESULTS

Compared with maintaining existing stimulant monotherapy, adding GXR to existing stimulant monotherapy was associated with an incremental drug cost of $US1016 but a lower medical cost of $US124, resulting in a total incremental cost of $US892 at 1 year. The addition of GXR to stimulants led to an incremental QALY of 0.03 and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $US31,660/QALY. In one-way sensitivity analysis, ICER values ranged from $US19,723, when 100% of patients were assumed to be severe in their initial health state, to $US46,631, when the last observed states from the clinical trial were carried forward to the end of the 1-year analysis period. PSA demonstrated a 94.6% likelihood that the ICER falls below $US50,000/QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

The impairment associated with residual ADHD symptoms after stimulant therapy is becoming increasingly recognized. This is the first analysis of the cost effectiveness of stimulants combined with an adjunctive medication. This study suggests that the adjunctive therapy of GXR with stimulants is a cost-effective treatment based on a willingness-to-pay threshold of $US50,000/QALY. This may address an unmet need among patients with suboptimal response to stimulant monotherapy.

Mapping of the Insomnia Severity Index and other sleep measures to EuroQol EQ-5D health state utilities

BACKGROUND

This study sought to map the Insomnia Severity Index (ISI) and symptom variables onto the EQ-5D.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey was conducted among adult US residents with self-reported sleep problems. Respondents provided demographic, comorbidity, and sleep-related information and had completed the ISI and the EQ-5D profile. Respondents were classified into ISI categories indicating no, threshold, moderate, or severe insomnia. Generalized linear models (GLM) were used to map the ISI's 7 items (Model I), summary scores (Model II), clinical categories (Model III), and insomnia symptoms (Model IV), onto the EQ-5D. We used 50% of the sample for estimation and 50% for prediction. Prediction accuracy was assessed by mean squared errors (MSEs) and mean absolute errors (MAEs).

RESULTS

Mean (standard deviation) sleep duration for respondents (N = 2,842) was 7.8 (1.9) hours, and mean ISI score was 14.1 (4.8). Mean predicted EQ-5D utility was 0.765 (0.08) from Models I-III, which overlapped with observed utilities 0.765 (0.18). Predicted utility using insomnia symptoms was higher (0.771(0.07)). Based on Model I, predicted utilities increased linearly with improving ISI (0.493 if ISI = 28 vs. 1.00 if ISI = 0, p < 0.01). From Model II, each unit decrease in ISI summary score was associated with a 0.022 (p < 0.001) increase in utility. Predicted utilities were 0.868, 0.809, 0.722, and 0.579, respectively, for the 4 clinical categories, suggesting that lower utility was related to greater insomnia severity. The symptom model (Model IV) indicated a concave sleep-duration function of the EQ-5D; thus, utilities diminished after an optimal amount of sleep. The MSEs/MAEs were substantially lower when predicting EQ-5D > 0.40, and results were comparable in all models.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings suggest that mapping relationships between the EQ-5D and insomnia measures could be established. These relationships may be used to estimate insomnia-related treatment effects on health state utilities.

The societal costs of insomnia

OBJECTIVE

Insomnia can be broadly defined as difficulty initiating or maintaining sleep, or sleep that is not refreshing or of poor quality with negative effect on daytime function. Insomnia can be a primary condition or comorbid to an underlying disorder. Subjective measures of insomnia used in population studies, usually based on complaints of unsatisfactory sleep, put the prevalence at about 10%. Insomnia is more common in the elderly and in women, and is often associated with medical and psychiatric disorders. This review examines the measures used to assess quality of sleep (QOS) and daytime functioning and the impact of insomnia on society using these measures.

METHODS

Literature searches were performed to identify all studies of insomnia (primary and comorbid) in adults (aged 18-64 years) and the elderly (aged ≥ 65 years) with baseline and/or outcomes relating to QOS or daytime functioning. The impact of poor QOS on quality of life (QOL), psychomotor and cognitive skills, health care resource utilization, and other societal effects was examined.

RESULTS

Although definitions and measurement scales used to assess sleep quality vary widely, it is clear that the societal consequences of insomnia are substantial and include impaired QOL and increased health care utilization. The impact of poor QOS and impaired daytime functioning common in insomnia can lead to indirect effects such as lower work productivity, increased sick leave, and a higher rate of motor vehicle crashes.

CONCLUSIONS

Insomnia is associated with substantial direct and indirect costs to society. It is almost impossible to separate the costs associated with primary and comorbid insomnia. More studies are required which control for the severity of any primary disorder to accurately evaluate the costs of comorbid insomnia. Development of standardized diagnostic and assessment scales will enable more accurate quantification of the true societal burden of insomnia and will contribute to greater understanding of this disorder.

Patients with treatment-resistant insomnia taking nightly prescription medications for sleep: a retrospective assessment of diagnostic and treatment variables

BACKGROUND

Some chronic insomnia patients who take nightly prescription medication achieve less than optimal results. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM) recommend reevaluation of this type of patient to assess for potential psychiatric or medical causes to explain this "failure for insomnia to remit."

METHOD

A retrospective chart review examined a consecutive series of chronic insomnia patients with persistent insomnia complaints despite current nightly use of prescription medication from May 2005 to February 2008. To assess the role of psychiatric influences on insomnia symptoms, our sample (N = 218) was divided into 2 subgroups: a group with a history of psychiatric complaints (psychiatric insomnia, n = 189) and a control group of no psychiatric complaints (insomnia, n = 29).

RESULTS

The average patient reported insomnia for a decade and took prescription medication for sleep for a mean of 4.5 years. Although 100% of the sample used nightly sleep drugs, only 20% believed medication was the best solution for their condition. As evaluated by self-report and polysomnography, these patients exhibited moderately severe insomnia across most measures. Only a few differences were noted between groups. Subjective perception of insomnia severity was worse in the psychiatric insomnia group, which also reported significantly more insomnia-related interference in daily functioning, symptoms of sleep maintenance insomnia, and a trend toward greater daytime fatigue. The mean Apnea-Hypopnea Index score was 19.5 events/hour, yielding an obstructive sleep apnea diagnosis in 75% of patients per conservative AASM nosology (79% in the insomnia group and 74% in the psychiatric insomnia group, P = .22).

CONCLUSIONS

In this treatment-seeking sample of patients regularly taking sleep medications, residual insomnia was widespread, and patients with psychiatric insomnia may have perceived their condition as more problematic than a control group of insomnia patients without mental health complaints. Both groups exhibited high rates of objectively diagnosed obstructive sleep apnea, a medical condition associated with pervasive sleep fragmentation. These findings support FDA and AASM guidelines to reassess chronic insomnia patients who manifest residual symptoms despite nightly use of prescription medication for sleep.

Health economics of insomnia therapy: implications for policy

Chronic primary insomnia is a major public health problem causing significant burden for those affected. Rising health care costs may cause increased financial pressures on governments and private payers, forcing stricter cost-control measures and, as a result, insomnia, often considered a lifestyle condition, may not receive the proper attention it deserves. In order to highlight the benefits that can be achieved through successful treatment of insomnia, there is a need for further comparative studies of existing and emerging treatments, cost burden of illness and cost-effectiveness analyses. Health economic assessment of insomnia and its treatments is an emerging area. The development of comprehensive assessment of insomnia treatments, however, has been hindered by complexities and gaps in the available data. Health economic models of insomnia, such as the one detailed here, should enable researchers to better address the effects of different treatments on clinical and economic measures for insomnia and related comorbidities. It is apparent that research into the cost-effectiveness of therapies for insomnia is in its infancy and further work is needed.

Cost-effectiveness of eszopiclone for the treatment of adults with primary chronic insomnia

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To assess the cost-effectiveness of treatment with eszopiclone for chronic primary insomnia in adults.

METHODS

A model using patient-level data from a 6-month, double-blind, placebo-controlled, clinical trial (n = 824), combined with data from a claims database and published literature, was used to assess the quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained and costs associated with eszopiclone versus placebo in adults with primary insomnia. Quality of life data were collected during the trial via the SF-36, from which preference-based utility scores were derived using published algorithms. Medical and absenteeism costs, estimated via a retrospective analysis of a claims and absenteeism database, were assigned to patients based on the degree of severity of their insomnia, assessed via the Insomnia Severity Index collected in the clinical trial. Presenteeism costs (lost productivity while at work) were estimated from responses to the Work Limitation Questionnaire collected during the trial. Six-month gains in QALYs and costs for each treatment group were calculated to derive cost-effectiveness ratios. Uncertainty was addressed via univariate and multivariate sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

Over the 6-month period, eszopiclone use resulted in a net gain of 0.0137 QALYs over placebo at an additional cost of $67, resulting in an incremental cost per QALY gained of slightly less than $5,000. When absenteeism and presenteeism costs were excluded, the cost-effectiveness ratio increased to approximately $33,000 per QALY gained, which is below the commonly used threshold of $50,000 used to define cost-effectiveness. Extensive sensitivity analyses indicate the results are generally robust.

CONCLUSION

Our model, based on efficacy data from a clinical trial, demonstrated eszopiclone was cost-effective for the treatment of primary insomnia in adults, especially when lost productivity costs were included.

The role of eszopiclone in the treatment of insomnia

INTRODUCTION

Insomnia is a common and underdiagnosed condition that can result in significant economic and clinical consequences. Despite numerous behavioral and pharmacotherapeutic treatment options available for insomnia, few receive adequate treatment, and sleep maintenance (staying asleep) remains a significant problem. To date, available sedative-hypnotic agents have limitations that have lead to inadequate treatment of insomnia. This review provides an overview of eszopiclone and its role in the treatment of insomnia.

METHODS

Electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts) were searched for applicable primary literature and review articles.

RESULTS

Mechanisms of action at the gamma-amino butyric acid (GABA) receptor sites and pharmacologic and pharmacokinetic characteristics are presented. Eszopiclone, a nonbenzodiazepine S-enantiomer of racemic zopiclone, is highlighted as the first sedative-hypnotic agent to be approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of sleep onset latency and sleep maintenance insomnia with no short-term restrictions. Recently, the European Medicines Agency recommended marketing authorization of eszopiclone.

CONCLUSION

Eszopiclone has been shown to be an efficacious and cost-effective option for the treatment of transient and chronic insomnia in adults.

Spotlight on eszopiclone in insomnia

Eszopiclone (Lunesta), the S-enantiomer of racemic zopiclone, is a nonbenzodiazepine hypnotic agent that is approved in the US as an oral, once-nightly therapy for insomnia in adults; eszopiclone is also currently under review by the European Medicines Agency.Eszopiclone is rapidly absorbed after oral administration without any next-day clinical residual effects being detected. Large, well designed trials of up to 6 months' duration have shown that eszopiclone significantly improves both sleep onset and sleep maintenance compared with placebo in adult and elderly patients with primary insomnia. Eszopiclone for 4-8 weeks also significantly improved sleep parameters compared with placebo in patients with insomnia coexisting with other conditions that also disturb sleep (co-morbid insomnia), and improved certain measures of the co-morbid conditions to a greater extent than the standard therapies alone. Short-term eszopiclone produced improvements in daytime functioning in patients with co-morbid insomnia. Six months' therapy in adults with primary insomnia improved daytime functioning and health-related quality of life. Eszopiclone was generally well tolerated. There was no evidence of tolerance during 12 months of treatment with this agent. On discontinuation of eszopiclone, there was no rebound insomnia or serious withdrawal effects. Well designed, comparative trials with other nonbenzodiazepine hypnotics are needed to determine its relative efficacy and tolerability. A cost-utility analysis suggested that eszopiclone is cost effective for the treatment of primary insomnia in the US. Therefore, eszopiclone is a useful therapeutic option in the management of adult and elderly patients with primary or co-morbid insomnia. Unlike most other hypnotics, eszopiclone is not limited to short-term use.

Will insomnia treatments produce overall cost savings to commercial managed-care plans? A predictive analysis in the United States

OBJECTIVE

Research indicates that insomnia may contribute significantly to healthcare costs; however, information on the effects of treatments on costs has not been thoroughly published. This study presents predictive models that forecast, from the perspective of commercial managed care, the effects of insomnia medications in reducing overall medical costs. The main objectives of this study were to predict the level of cost savings associated with insomnia treatments, illustrate the variation in outcomes given underlying model assumptions, and assist managed-care policy-makers with the evaluation of medications routinely administered for insomnia.

METHODS

Data on four primary-efficacy measures: wake after sleep onset (WASO), sleep efficiency (SE), sleep onset latency (SOL) and total sleep time (TST) were abstracted from published clinical trial data for eszopiclone, indiplon, low-dose trazodone, ramelteon, zaleplon, zolpidem and zolpidem extended-release. Change in per-patient per-year (PPPY) healthcare costs in a single claims database was calculated for subjects taking zolpidem, zaleplon and low-dose trazodone using generalized linear model (GLM) techniques, controlling for baseline demographics and baseline costs. Change in costs for emerging insomnia medications was forecasted by imputing efficacy values for these drugs into the regressions.

RESULTS

Using the accepted efficacy measure, WASO, zolpidem extended-release had the overall forecasted savings of -$1253 (CI: -$1404 to -$1404) PPPY compared to remaining treatments, whereas ramelteon cost an additional $348 (-$1280 to $584) PPPY. In three out of four cost-efficacy models, zolpidem extended-release had higher mean forecasted PPPY savings.

CONCLUSION

This study examined cost effects of existing and emerging insomnia medications using models integrating clinical literature and medical claims within a statistical framework. The use of a single database may limit generalizability and models only address a 1-year period. Results suggest treatments can offer health plans direct cost savings, with amounts sensitive to variable and efficacy measures, potentially limited by those variables available in the claims database. Compared to other evaluated treatments, zolpidem extended-release produced consistently higher predicted cost savings.