Health Care Cost in Patients With Schizophrenia Treated With Brexpiprazole Versus Other Oral Atypical Antipsychotic Therapy

PURPOSE

Brexpiprazole is an oral atypical antipsychotic (OAA) for the treatment of schizophrenia (SCZ). This study compared all-cause and psychiatric inpatient hospitalization and medical costs in adult patients with SCZ newly treated with brexpiprazole versus other US Food and Drug Administration-approved OAAs in a real-world setting.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study analyzed data from: (1) the IBM MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental databases, and the MarketScan Multi-State Medicaid database; and (2) the de-identified Optum Clinformatics Datamart. Adult patients were identified if they had SCZ and initiated either brexpiprazole or another OAA during the study identification period (July 1, 2015, to September 30, 2016, for MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental and for Optum; July 1, 2015, to June 30, 2016, for MarketScan Multi-State Medicaid) and had ≥12 months of continuous enrollment before (baseline) and after (follow-up) the first treatment date. Linear regression analyses were performed to test associations between treatment groups (brexpiprazole vs another OAA) and costs (total and medical); negative binomial regression models were used to estimate number of hospitalizations per year, adjusting for baseline characteristics and medication adherence to index treatment during the 12-month follow-up.

FINDINGS

The final study sample consisted of 6254 patients with SCZ: 176 initiated brexpiprazole; 391, ziprasidone; 453, paliperidone; 523, lurasidone; 786, aripiprazole; 1234, quetiapine; 1264, olanzapine; and 1427, risperidone. Controlling for baseline characteristics and medication adherence, the adjusted number of hospitalizations (both all-cause and psychiatric), all-cause total costs, and all-cause medical costs did not differ across groups. Brexpiprazole users had the lowest mean psychiatric costs among all OAA users ($12,013; 95% bootstrap CI, 7488-16,538). Compared with brexpiprazole users, paliperidone (incidence rate ratio [95% CI], 1.52 [1.05-2.19]; P = 0.027) and quetiapine (incidence rate ratio [95% CI], 1.47 [1.04-2.07]; P = 0.029) users had more psychiatric hospitalizations per year. Paliperidone had higher psychiatric costs than brexpiprazole (total, $32,066 [95% bootstrap CI, 28,779-35,353] vs $23,851 [18,907-28,795]; medical, $19,343 [16,294-22,392] vs $12,013 [7488-16,538]). Psychiatric medical costs were also $6744 higher in olanzapine users (95% bootstrap CI, 1694-11,795; P = 0.009) than in brexpiprazole users.

IMPLICATIONS

Patients with SCZ treated with brexpiprazole had fewer psychiatric hospitalizations and lower psychiatric costs than those treated with paliperidone. Differences in the number of all-cause hospitalizations and medical costs among treatments were not statistically significant. Although treatment decisions are driven by a number of factors (eg, clinical circumstances and drug costs), choice of OAA may affect health care costs.

Maximizing cost-effectiveness by adjusting treatment strategy according to glaucoma severity

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study is to determine the most cost-effective strategy for the treatment of primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) in Brazil, from the payer's perspective (Brazilian Public Health System) in the setting of the Glaucoma Referral Centers.

METHODS

Study design was a cost-effectiveness analysis of different treatment strategies for POAG. We developed 3 Markov models (one for each glaucoma stage: early, moderate and advanced), using a hypothetical cohort of POAG patients, from the perspective of the Brazilian Public Health System (SUS) and a horizon of the average life expectancy of the Brazilian population. Different strategies were tested according to disease severity. For early glaucoma, we compared observation, laser and medications. For moderate glaucoma, medications, laser and surgery. For advanced glaucoma, medications and surgery. Main outcome measures were ICER (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio), medical direct costs and QALY (quality-adjusted life year).

RESULTS

In early glaucoma, both laser and medical treatment were cost-effective (ICERs of initial laser and initial medical treatment over observation only, were R$ 2,811.39/QALY and R$ 3,450.47/QALY). Compared to observation strategy, the two alternatives have provided significant gains in quality of life. In moderate glaucoma population, medical treatment presented the highest costs among treatment strategies. Both laser and surgery were highly cost-effective in this group. For advanced glaucoma, both tested strategies were cost-effective. Starting age had a great impact on results in all studied groups. Initiating glaucoma therapy using laser or surgery were more cost-effective, the younger the patient.

CONCLUSION

All tested treatment strategies for glaucoma provided real gains in quality of life and were cost-effective. However, according to the disease severity, not all strategies provided the same cost-effectiveness profile. Based on our findings, there should be a preferred strategy for each glaucoma stage, according to a cost-effectiveness ratio ranking.

Bridging the osteoporosis treatment gap: performance and cost-effectiveness of a fracture liaison service

Individuals who sustain fragility fractures are at high risk of refracture. However, osteoporosis treatment rates remain low for these patients. Therefore, we aimed to assess the performance and cost-effectiveness of introducing a fracture liaison service (FLS) into a tertiary hospital. In "nonhospitalized" ambulatory patients who had sustained fragility fractures, we assessed baseline osteoporosis investigation and treatment rates, and subsequently, the impact of introducing an orthopedic osteoporosis policy and an FLS. Outcomes measured were uptake of osteoporosis intervention, patient satisfaction, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained. QALYs were calculated over 5 years using predicted fracture risks without intervention and estimated fracture risk reduction with intervention. At baseline (n = 49), 2% of ambulatory patients who had sustained fragility fractures underwent dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) and 6% received osteoporosis-specific medication. After introduction of an osteoporosis policy (n = 58), 28% were investigated with DXA (p < 0.0001). However, treatment rates were unchanged. An FLS was introduced, reviewing 203 new patients over the inaugural 2 years (mean age [standard deviation], 67 (11) years; 77% female). All underwent DXA, and criteria for osteoporosis and osteopenia were identified in 44% and 40%, respectively. Osteoporosis medications were prescribed to 61% patients (risedronate: 22%, alendronate: 16%, strontium ranelate: 13%, zoledronic acid: 8%, other: 2%). Eighty-five of 90 questionnaire respondents were very satisfied or satisfied with the FLS. With the treatment prescribed over 5 years, we conservatively estimated that this FLS would reduce nonvertebral refractures from 59 to 50, improving QALYs by 0.054 and costing $1716 per patient (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio: $31749). This FLS model improves uptake of osteoporosis intervention guidelines, is popular among patients, and improves cost-effectiveness. Thus, it has the capacity to substantially improve health in a cost-effective way.

Comparison of cost-effectiveness of anticoagulation with dabigatran, rivaroxaban and apixaban in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation across countries

We did a cost-utility analysis for the new oral anticoagulants (NOACs) in the German population based on the quality-adjusted life years (QALY), total costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER). The aim of our investigation was to examine cost-utility for current German drug market costs and compared to other countries. Outcome data were taken from dabigatran's RE-LY, rivaroxaban's ROCKET AF, and apixaban's ARISTOTLE trials. A Markov decision model, the Monte Carlo simulation (MCS), and further sensitivity analyses were used to simulate comparisons between NOACs over a follow up period of 20 years. The main perspective used for the analyses is from a German public health care insurance perspective. The base-case analyses of a 65 years old person with a CHADS2 score >1 resulted in 7.56-7.64 QALYs gained for warfarin. NOACs added 0.04-0.19 QALYs. Total costs for warfarin ranged from 7622 to 9069<euro> and for NOACs from 19537 to 20048<euro>. The sensitivity analysis indicated that current German market costs for the NOACs exceed a willingness-to-pay threshold of (hypothetical) 50000<euro>/QALY in all treatment regimen. The MCS showed willingness-to-pay thresholds from 60500<euro>/QALY for apixaban to 278000<euro>/QALY for dabigatran 110 mg bid, with values for dabigatran 150 mg bid and rivaroxaban in between. In conclusion, from a German public health care insurance perspective current market costs are high in relation to the quality of life gained. These results from clinical studies (efficacy) remain to be confirmed under real life conditions (effectiveness).

Cost effectiveness of new oral anticoagulants for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation in two different European healthcare settings

OBJECTIVES

Our objectives were to investigate the cost effectiveness of apixaban, rivaroxaban, and dabigatran compared with coumarin derivatives for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation in a country with specialized anticoagulation clinics (the Netherlands) and in a country without these clinics (the UK).

METHODS

A decision-analytic Markov model was used to analyse the cost effectiveness of apixaban, rivaroxaban, and dabigatran compared with coumarin derivatives in the Netherlands and the UK over a lifetime horizon.

RESULTS

In the Netherlands, the use of rivaroxaban, apixaban, or dabigatran increased health by 0.166, 0.365, and 0.374 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) compared with coumarin derivatives, but also increased costs by 5,681, 4,754, and 5,465, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were 34,248, 13,024, and 14,626 per QALY gained. In the UK, health was increased by 0.302, 0.455, and 0.461 QALYs, and the incremental costs were similar for all three new oral anticoagulants (5,118-5,217). The ICERs varied from 11,172 to 16,949 per QALY gained. In the Netherlands, apixaban had the highest chance (37 %) of being cost effective at a threshold of 20,000; in the UK, this chance was 41 % for dabigatran. The quality of care, reflected in time in therapeutic range, had an important influence on the ICER.

CONCLUSIONS

Apixaban, rivaroxaban, and dabigatran are cost-effective alternatives to coumarin derivatives in the UK, while in the Netherlands, only apixaban and dabigatran could be considered cost effective. The cost effectiveness of the new oral anticoagulants is largely dependent on the setting and quality of local anticoagulant care facilities.

Estimated medical cost reductions associated with use of novel oral anticoagulants vs warfarin in a real-world non-valvular atrial fibrillation patient population

OBJECTIVE

RESULTS of randomized clinical trials (RCT) demonstrate that novel oral anticoagulants (NOAC) are effective therapies for reducing the risk of stroke in non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). Prior medical cost avoidance studies have used warfarin event rates from RCTs, which may differ from patients receiving treatment in a real-world (RW) setting, where the quality of care may not be the same as in a RCT. The purpose of this study was to estimate the change in medical costs related to stroke and major bleeding for each NOAC (apixaban, dabigatran, and rivoraxaban) relative to warfarin in a RW NVAF population.

METHODS

Patients (n = 23,525) with a diagnosis of NVAF during 2007-2010 were selected from a Medco population of US health plans. Stroke and major bleeding excluding intracranial hemorrhage (MBEIH) events were identified using diagnosis codes on medical claims. RW reference event rates were calculated during periods of warfarin exposure. RW event rates for NOACs were estimated by multiplying the corresponding relative risk (RR) from the RCTs by each reference rate. Absolute risk reductions (ARR) or number of events avoided per patient year were then estimated. Changes in medical costs associated with each NOAC were calculated by applying the ARR to the 1-year cost for each event. Costs for stroke and MBEIH were obtained from the literature. Drug and international normalized ratio monitoring costs were not considered in this analysis.

RESULTS

Compared to RW warfarin, use of apixaban and dabigatran resulted in total (stroke plus MBEIH) medical cost reductions of $1245 and $555, respectively, during a patient year. Rivaroxaban resulted in a medical cost increase of $144.

CONCLUSIONS

If relative risk reductions demonstrated in RCTs persist in a RW setting, apixaban would confer the greatest medical cost savings vs warfarin, resulting from significantly lower rates of both stroke and MBEIH.

Evaluation of medical costs associated with use of new oral anticoagulants compared with standard therapy among venous thromboembolism patients

OBJECTIVE

This study evaluated differences in medical costs associated with clinical end-points from randomized clinical trials that compared the new oral anticoagulants (NOACs), dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban, to standard therapy for treatment of patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE).

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Event rates of efficacy and safety end-points from the clinical trials (RE-COVER, RE-COVER II, EINSTEIN-Pooled, AMPLIFY, Hokusai-VTE trial) were obtained from published literature. Incremental annual medical costs among patients with clinical events from a US payer perspective were obtained from the literature or healthcare claims databases and inflation adjusted to 2013 costs. Differences in total medical costs associated with clinical end-points for the NOACs vs standard therapy were then estimated. One-way and Monte Carlo sensitivity analyses were carried out.

RESULTS

A lower rate of major bleedings was associated with use of any of the NOACs vs standard therapy. Except for dabigatran, use of NOACs was also associated with a lower rate of recurrent VTE/death. As a result of the reduction in clinical event rates, the overall medical cost differences were -$146, -$482, -$918, and -$344 for VTE patients treated with dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban, respectively, vs patients treated with standard therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

When any of the four NOACs are used instead of standard therapy for acute VTE, treatment medical costs are reduced. Apixaban is associated with the greatest reduction in medical costs, which is driven by medical cost reductions associated with both efficacy and safety end-points. Further evaluation may be needed to validate these results in the real-world setting.

Stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation in France: comparative cost-effectiveness of new oral anticoagulants (apixaban, dabigatran, and rivaroxaban), warfarin, and aspirin

OBJECTIVES

To conduct an economic evaluation of the currently prescribed treatments for stroke prevention in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) including warfarin, aspirin, and novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) from a French payer perspective.

METHODS

A previously published Markov model was adapted in accordance to the new French guidelines of the Commission for Economic Evaluation and Public Health (CEESP), to adopt the recommended efficiency frontier approach. A cohort of patients with NVAF eligible for stroke preventive treatment was simulated over lifetime. Clinical events modeled included strokes, systemic embolism, intracranial hemorrhage, other major bleeds, clinically relevant non-major bleeds, and myocardial infarction. Efficacy and bleeding data for warfarin, apixaban, and aspirin were obtained from ARISTOTLE and AVERROES trials, whilst efficacy data for other NOACs were from published indirect comparisons. Acute medical costs were obtained from a dedicated analysis of the French national hospitalization database (PMSI). Long-term medical costs and utility data were derived from the literature. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robustness of the model projections.

RESULTS

Warfarin and apixaban were the two optimal treatment choices, as the other five treatment strategies including aspirin, dabigatran 110 mg, dabigatran in sequential dosages, dabigatran 150 mg, and rivaroxaban were strictly dominated on the efficiency frontier. Further, apixaban was a cost-effective alternative vs warfarin with an incremental cost of €2314 and an incremental quality-adjusted life year (QALY) of 0.189, corresponding to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €12,227/QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

Apixaban may be the most economically efficient alternative to warfarin in NVAF patients eligible for stroke prevention in France. All other strategies were dominated, yielding apixaban as a less costly yet more effective treatment alternative. As formally requested by the CEESP, these results need to be verified in a French clinical setting using stroke reduction and bleeding safety observed in real-life patient cohorts using these anticoagulants.

Is rivaroxaban associated with lower inpatient costs compared to warfarin among patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation?

BACKGROUND

Warfarin has been the mainstay treatment used by patients with a moderate-to-high risk of stroke due to non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). Unlike rivaroxaban, laboratory monitoring to allow the attainment of the prothrombin time international normalized ratio goal is required with warfarin, thereby potentially increasing a patient's hospitalization costs.

OBJECTIVE

To compare hospitalization costs between hospitalized NVAF patients using rivaroxaban versus warfarin in a real-world setting.

METHODS

A retrospective claims analysis was conducted using the Premier Perspective Comparative Hospital Database from November 2010 to September 2012. The study included adult patients hospitalized for NVAF after November 2011. Patients using rivaroxaban during hospitalization were matched with up to four warfarin users by propensity score analyses. Hospitalization costs were compared between the matched cohorts using generalized estimating equations. A sub-analysis was performed for patients who were first administered their treatment on day three or later of their hospital stay. Sensitivity analyses were conducted on matched cohorts with a primary diagnosis of AF.

RESULTS

The matched cohorts' (2809 rivaroxaban and 11,085 warfarin users) characteristics were well balanced. The mean age of cohorts was 71 years and 49% of patients were female. The average hospitalization cost of rivaroxaban users was $11,993 compared to $13,255 for warfarin users. The cost difference was significantly lower by $1284 (P < 0.001). Patients who were administered rivaroxaban treatment on day three or after incurred significantly lower hospitalization costs (cost difference: $4350; P < 0.001) compared to warfarin users. Rivaroxaban users with a primary diagnosis of AF also had significantly lower costs compared to warfarin users.

LIMITATIONS

These included possible inaccuracies or omissions in diagnoses, completeness of baseline characteristics, and a study population that included patients newly initiated on and patients who continued anticoagulant therapy.

CONCLUSION

Hospitalization costs for rivaroxaban were significantly lower than those for warfarin in NVAF patients treated with rivaroxaban.

A cost-analysis model for anticoagulant treatment in the hospital setting

BACKGROUND

Rivaroxaban is the first oral factor Xa inhibitor approved in the US to reduce the risk of stroke and blood clots among people with non-valvular atrial fibrillation, treat deep vein thrombosis (DVT), treat pulmonary embolism (PE), reduce the risk of recurrence of DVT and PE, and prevent DVT and PE after knee or hip replacement surgery. The objective of this study was to evaluate the costs from a hospital perspective of treating patients with rivaroxaban vs other anticoagulant agents across these five populations.

METHODS

An economic model was developed using treatment regimens from the ROCKET-AF, EINSTEIN-DVT and PE, and RECORD1-3 randomized clinical trials. The distribution of hospital admissions used in the model across the different populations was derived from the 2010 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project database. The model compared total costs of anticoagulant treatment, monitoring, inpatient stay, and administration for patients receiving rivaroxaban vs other anticoagulant agents. The length of inpatient stay (LOS) was determined from the literature.

RESULTS

Across all populations, rivaroxaban was associated with an overall mean cost savings of $1520 per patient. The largest cost savings associated with rivaroxaban was observed in patients with DVT or PE ($6205 and $2742 per patient, respectively). The main driver of the cost savings resulted from the reduction in LOS associated with rivaroxaban, contributing to ∼90% of the total savings. Furthermore, the overall mean anticoagulant treatment cost was lower for rivaroxaban vs the reference groups.

LIMITATIONS

The distribution of patients across indications used in the model may not be generalizable to all hospitals, where practice patterns may vary, and average LOS cost may not reflect the actual reimbursements that hospitals received.

CONCLUSION

From a hospital perspective, the use of rivaroxaban may be associated with cost savings when compared to other anticoagulant treatments due to lower drug cost and shorter LOS associated with rivaroxaban.

Cost effectiveness of duloxetine for osteoarthritis: a Quebec societal perspective

OBJECTIVE

To assess the cost effectiveness of duloxetine compared to other oral postacetaminophen treatments for osteoarthritis (OA) from a Quebec societal perspective.

METHODS

A cost-utility analysis was performed enhancing the Markov model from the 2008 OA guidelines of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). The NICE model was extended to include opioid and antidepressant comparators, adding titration, discontinuation, and relevant adverse events (AEs). Comparators included duloxetine, celecoxib, diclofenac, naproxen, hydromorphone, and oxycodone extended release (oxycodone). AEs included gastrointestinal and cardiovascular events associated with nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), as well as fracture, opioid abuse, and constipation, among others. Costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated in 2011 Canadian dollars. The base case modeled a cohort of 55-year-old patients with OA for a 12-month period of treatment, followed by treatment from a basket of post-discontinuation oral therapies until death. Sensitivity analyses (one-way and probabilistic) were conducted.

RESULTS

Overall, naproxen was the least expensive treatment, whereas oxycodone was the most expensive. Duloxetine accumulated the highest number of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), with an ICER of $36,291 per QALY versus celecoxib. Duloxetine was dominant over opioids. In subgroup analyses, ICERs for duloxetine versus celecoxib were $15,619 and $20,463 for patients at high risk of NSAID-related AEs and patients ages >65 years, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Duloxetine was cost effective for a cohort of 55-year-old patients with OA, and more so in older patients and those with greater AE risks.

Economic evaluation of warfarin, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation

BACKGROUND

Atrial fibrillation is a major risk factor for stroke, which causes thousands of deaths and sequelae. It is recommended that atrial fibrillation patients at medium or high risk of stroke use an oral anticoagulant to reduce the risk of stroke. In the past few years, three new oral anticoagulants (NOACs), dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban, have been introduced in competition to the older oral anticoagulant warfarin.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to evaluate the relative cost effectiveness of warfarin, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban in a Norwegian setting.

METHODS

We created a probabilistic decision-analytic Markov model to simulate the life of patients with atrial fibrillation. We performed several scenario analyses, including changing the switching age for dabigatran from 80 to 75 years old.

RESULTS

Assuming the European Society of Cardiology guidance, sequential dabigatran (2 × 150 mg daily until 80 years old, 2 × 110 mg thereafter) seems to be the most cost-effective alternative for high-risk AF patients. For medium-risk patients, apixaban (2 × 5 mg daily) seems to be somewhat more effective than dabigatran, but dabigatran is still marginally the most cost-effective alternative. In scenario analyses reducing dabigatran from 2 × 150 mg to 2 × 110 mg at the age of 75 years (instead of at age 80), apixaban (2 × 5 mg daily) becomes the most cost-effective alternative for both risk groups.

CONCLUSION

We have found apixaban or sequential dabigatran to be the alternatives most likely to be considered cost effective, depending on the switching age for dabigatran. These conclusions are highly sensitive to assumptions made in the analysis.

Treatment, monitoring, and economic outcomes of venous thromboembolism among hospitalized patients in China

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) has been increasing in China. However, the treatment pattern and economic burden of these patients have not been well-understood.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to examine the patient characteristics, treatment pattern, anticoagulant monitoring, and economic burden of VTE among hospitalized patients in China.

METHODS

Hospitalizations with a diagnosis of VTE [including deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE)] between 1 January 2010 and 30 June 2013 were included. Descriptive analysis was conducted for patients' characteristics, anticoagulant treatment, international normalized ratio (INR) monitoring, and hospitalization cost [in 2013 Chinese yuan (Y) and US dollars (US$)]. Multivariate regressions were performed to assess factors associated with oral anticoagulant use and total costs of inpatient care.

RESULTS

A total of 1,047 VTE-related hospitalizations were selected. The sample had a mean age of 62.4 years, with 45.9 % female. About 46.3 % of hospitalizations used heparin only, 35.0 % used warfarin, 0.8 % used rivaroxaban, and 18.0 % did not use anticoagulants. Among hospitalizations where warfarin was used, 90.8 % received at least one INR test and only 30 % had the last INR within the target therapeutic range (2-3) before discharge. The mean (standard deviation) total cost per hospitalization was Y29,114 (43,772) [US$4,757 (7,152)]. PE, VTE as primary diagnosis, female, insurance coverage, anticoagulant treatment, co-morbidities, admission condition, and surgical procedure were significantly associated with inpatient costs.

CONCLUSIONS

Conventional anticoagulants were most commonly used in the study sample. Under-monitoring and suboptimal care may be an issue for patients treated with warfarin. The average total inpatient cost of VTE-related hospitalizations is high.

[Cost-effectiveness of apixaban compared to other new oral anticoagulants in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation]

BACKGROUND

Atrial fibrillation is associated with development of thromboembolic events. New oral anticoagulants (apixaban, rivaroxaban and dabigatran) are recommended for antithrombotic therapy in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) with moderate and high risk of stroke.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness ratio of apixaban compared to dabigatran and rivaroxaban in patients with NVAF from the Russian Federation national health care system perspective.

METHODS

This analysis used a Markov model that allowed estimation of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for apixaban compared to rivaroxaban and dabigatran 110 mg and 150 mg over lifetime horizon for patients with NVAF. The model enclosed cardiovascular event rates based on the results of the indirect treatment comparison that combined data from the randomized clinical trials comparing clinical effectiveness and safety of apixaban, rivaroxaban and dabigatran with warfarin (ARISTOTLE, ROCKET-AF, RE-LY). The following cardiovascular events were considered: ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke, systemic embolism, intracranial hemorrhage, other major bleeds, clinically relevant non-major bleeds and myocardial infarction. Direct medical costs were determined based on the rates of the compulsory national medical insurance system. The price of the new oral anticoagulants was taken as a weighted average tender price for the year 2013. In the model both costs and benefits (quality-adjusted life years and life-years) were discounted at 3.5%. Cost-effectiveness threshold was set at 1.4 million rubles per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained and corresponded to the three times GDP per capita in 2013 in the Russian Federation.

RESULTS

In the base case analysis it was demonstrated that apixaban compared to dabigatran 110 mg and 150 mg and rivaroxaban provided additional 0.101, 0.060 and 0.072 life years as well as additional 0.063; 0.038 and 0.041 QALYs respectively. Over lifetime horizon apixaban compared to dabigatran 110 mg and 150 mg and rivaroxaban required additional treatment costs equal to 22.78; 31.18 and 6.70 thousands rubles, respectively. With that estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for apixaban compared to dabigatran 110 mg and 150 mg and rivaroxaban was 362.60, 805.54 and 162.45 thousands rubles per QALY correspondingly.

CONCLUSION

Apixaban provided increased life expectancy compared to other new anticoagulants and may be considered as a cost-effective alternative to dabigatran 110 mg and 150 mg and rivaroxaban from the Russian Federation national health care system perspective.

Cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban compared with enoxaparin plus a vitamin K antagonist for the treatment of venous thromboembolism

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolism (VTE), comprised of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), is commonly treated with a low-molecular-weight heparin such as enoxaparin plus a vitamin K antagonist (VKA) to prevent recurrence. Administration of enoxaparin + VKA is hampered by complexities of laboratory monitoring and frequent dose adjustments. Rivaroxaban, an orally administered anticoagulant, has been compared with enoxaparin + VKA in the EINSTEIN trials. The objective was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban compared with enoxaparin + VKA as anticoagulation treatment for acute, symptomatic, objectively-confirmed DVT or PE.

METHODS

A Markov model was built to evaluate the costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios associated with rivaroxaban compared to enoxaparin + VKA in adult patients treated for acute DVT or PE. All patients entered the model in the 'on-treatment' state upon commencement of oral rivaroxaban or enoxaparin + VKA for 3, 6, or 12 months. Transition probabilities were obtained from the EINSTEIN trials during treatment and published literature after treatment. A 3-month cycle length, US payer perspective ($2012), 5-year time horizon and a 3% annual discount rate were used.

RESULTS

Treatment with rivaroxaban cost $2,448 per-patient less and was associated with 0.0058 more QALYs compared with enoxaparin + VKA, making it a dominant economic strategy. Upon one-way sensitivity analysis, the model's results were sensitive to the reduction in index VTE hospitalization length-of-stay associated with rivaroxaban compared with enoxaparin + VKA. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000/QALY, probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed rivaroxaban to be cost-effective compared with enoxaparin + VKA approximately 76% of the time.

LIMITATIONS

The model did not account for the benefits associated with an oral and minimally invasive administration of rivaroxaban. 'Real-world' applicability is limited because data from the EINSTEIN trials were used in the model. Also, resource utilization and costs were based on the US healthcare system.

CONCLUSION

Rivaroxaban is a cost-effective option for anticoagulation treatment of acute VTE patients.

Cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban versus warfarin for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation in the Belgian healthcare setting

BACKGROUND

Warfarin, an inexpensive drug that has been available for over half a century, has been the mainstay of anticoagulant therapy for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Recently, rivaroxaban, a novel oral anticoagulant (NOAC) which offers some distinct advantages over warfarin, the standard of care in a world without NOACs, has been introduced and is now recommended by international guidelines.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate, from a Belgian healthcare payer perspective, the cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban versus use of warfarin for the treatment of patients with non-valvular AF at moderate to high risk.

METHODS

A Markov model was designed and populated with local cost estimates, safety-on-treatment clinical results from the pivotal phase III ROCKET AF trial and utility values obtained from the literature.

RESULTS

Rivaroxaban treatment was associated with fewer ischemic strokes and systemic embolisms (0.308 vs. 0.321 events), intracranial bleeds (0.048 vs. 0.063), and myocardial infarctions (0.082 vs. 0.095) per patient compared with warfarin. Over a lifetime time horizon, rivaroxaban led to a reduction of 0.042 life-threatening events per patient, and increases of 0.111 life-years and 0.094 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) versus warfarin treatment. This resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €8,809 per QALY or €7,493 per life-year gained. These results are based on valuated data from 2010. Sensitivity analysis indicated that these results were robust and that rivaroxaban is cost-effective compared with warfarin in 87 % of cases should a willingness-to-pay threshold of €35,000/QALY gained be considered.

CONCLUSIONS

The present analysis suggests that rivaroxaban is a cost-effective alternative to warfarin therapy for the prevention of stroke in patients with AF in the Belgian healthcare setting.

Cost effectiveness of denosumab versus oral bisphosphonates for postmenopausal osteoporosis in the US

BACKGROUND

In the US, 26 % of women aged ≥65 years, and over 50 % of women aged ≥85 years are affected with postmenopausal osteoporosis (PMO). Each year, the total direct health care costs are estimated to be $US12-18 billion.

OBJECTIVE

The cost effectiveness of denosumab versus oral bisphosphonates in postmenopausal osteoporotic women from a US third-party payer perspective was evaluated.

METHODS

A lifetime cohort Markov model was developed with seven health states: 'well', hip fracture, vertebral fracture, 'other' osteoporotic fracture, post-hip fracture, post-vertebral fracture, and dead. During each cycle, patients could have a fracture, remain healthy, remain in a post-fracture state or die. Relative fracture risk reductions, background fracture risks, mortality rates, treatment-specific persistence rate, utilities, and medical and drug costs were derived using published sources. Expected costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated for generic alendronate, denosumab, branded risedronate, and branded ibandronate in the overall PMO population and high-risk subgroups: (a) ≥2 of the following risks: >70 years of age, bone mineral density (BMD) T score less than or equal to -3.0, and prevalent vertebral fracture; and (b) ≥75 years of age. Costs and QALYs were discounted at 3 % annually, and all costs were inflated to 2012 US dollars. Sensitivity analyses were conducted by varying parameters e.g., efficacies of interventions, costs, utilities, and the medication persistence ratio.

RESULTS

In the overall PMO population, total lifetime costs for alendronate, denosumab, risedronate, and ibandronate were $US64,400, $US67,400, $US67,600 and $US69,200, respectively. Total QALYs were 8.2804, 8.3155, 8.2735 and 8.2691, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for denosumab versus generic alendronate was $US85,100/QALY. Risedronate and ibandronate were dominated by denosumab. In the high-risk subgroup (a), total costs for alendronate, denosumab, risedronate and ibandronate were $US70,400, $US70,800, $US74,000 and $US76,900, respectively. Total QALYs were 7.2006, 7.2497, 7.1969 and 7.1841, respectively. Denosumab had an ICER of $US7,900/QALY versus generic alendronate and dominated all other strategies. Denosumab dominated all strategies in women aged ≥75 years. Base-case results between denosumab and generic alendronate were most sensitive to the relative risk of hip fracture for both drugs and the cost of denosumab.

CONCLUSION

In each PMO population examined, denosumab represented good value for money compared with branded bisphosphonates. Furthermore, denosumab was either cost effective or dominant compared with generic alendronate in the high-risk subgroups.

Medical costs in the US of clinical events associated with oral anticoagulant (OAC) use compared to warfarin among non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients ≥75 and <75 years of age, based on the ARISTOTLE, RE-LY, and ROCKET-AF trials

OBJECTIVES

Based on clinical trials the oral anticoagulants (OACs) apixaban, dabigatran, and rivaroxaban are efficacious for reducing stroke risk for non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients. Based on the clinical trials, this study evaluated the medical costs for clinical events among NVAF patients ≥75 and <75 years of age treated with individual OACs vs warfarin.

METHODS

Rates for primary and secondary efficacy and safety outcomes (i.e., clinical events) among NVAF patients receiving warfarin or each of the OACs were determined for NVAF populations aged ≥75 years and <75 years of age from the OAC vs warfarin trials. One-year incremental costs among patients with clinical events were obtained from published literature and inflation adjusted to 2010 costs. Medical costs, excluding medication costs, for clinical events associated with each OAC and warfarin were then estimated and compared.

RESULTS

Among NVAF patients aged ≥75, compared to warfarin, use of either apixaban or rivaroxaban was associated with a reduction in medical costs per patient year (apixaban = -$825, rivaroxaban =-$23), while dabigatran use was associated with increased medical costs of $180 per patient year. Among NVAF patients <75 years of age medical costs per patient year were estimated to be reduced -$254, -$367, and -$88, for apixaban, dabigatran, and rivaroxaban, respectively, in comparison to warfarin.

LIMITATIONS

This economic analysis was based on clinical trial data and, therefore, the direct application of the results to routine clinical practice will require further assessment.

CONCLUSIONS

Difference in medical costs between OAC and warfarin treated NVAF patients vary by age group and individual OACs. Although reductions in medical costs for NVAF patients aged ≥75 and <75 were observed for those using either apixaban or rivaroxaban vs warfarin, the reductions were greater per patient year for both the older and younger NVAF populations using apixaban.

Cost-effectiveness of strontium ranelate in the treatment of male osteoporosis

The results of this study suggest that, under the assumption of same relative risk reduction of fractures in men as for women, strontium ranelate could be considered a cost-effective strategy compared with no treatment for the treatment of osteoporotic men from a Belgian healthcare payer perspective.

INTRODUCTION

This study was conducted to estimate the cost-effectiveness of strontium ranelate in the treatment of osteoporotic men.

METHODS

A previously validated Markov microsimulation model was adapted to estimate the cost (<euro>2,010) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained of strontium ranelate compared with no treatment. Similar efficacy data on lumbar spine and femoral neck bone mineral density (BMD) between men with osteoporosis at high risk of fracture (MALEO Trial) and postmenopausal osteoporotic women (pivotal SOTI, TROPOS trials) supports the assumption, in the base-case analysis, of the same relative risk reduction of fractures in men as for women. Analyses were conducted, from a Belgian healthcare payer perspective, in the population from the MALEO Trial who is a men population with a mean age of 73 years, and BMD T-score ≤-2.5 or prevalent vertebral fracture (PVF).

RESULTS

In the MALEO population, strontium ranelate compared with no treatment was estimated at <euro>49,798 and <euro>25,584 per QALY gained using efficacy data from the intent-to-treat analysis and the per-protocol analysis including only adherent patients, respectively. In men with a BMD T-score ≤-2.5 or with PVF, the cost per QALY gained of strontium ranelate fall below thresholds of <euro>45,000 and <euro>25,000 per QALY gained based on efficacy data from the entire population of the clinical trial and from the per-protocol analyses, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study suggest that, under the assumption of same relative risk reduction of fractures in men as for women, strontium ranelate could be considered cost-effective compared with no treatment for male osteoporosis.

Cost-effectiveness of universal and platelet reactivity assay-driven antiplatelet therapy in acute coronary syndrome

Assays monitoring P2Y12 platelet reactivity can accurately predict which patients will have a poor response to clopidogrel. We sought to determine the cost-effectiveness of using platelet reactivity assays (PRAs) to select a dual-antiplatelet regimen for patients with acute coronary syndrome. A hybrid decision tree Markov model was developed to determine the cost-effectiveness of universal clopidogrel, ticagrelor, or prasugrel (given to all patients) or PRA-driven ticagrelor or prasugrel (given to patients with high platelet reactivity, defined as >230 on the VerifyNow P2Y12 assay; the others received generic clopidogrel). We assumed a cohort of 65-year-old patients with acute coronary syndrome and an incidence of high platelet reactivity of 32% and 13% at ~24 to 48 hours after revascularization and 1 month, respectively. The 5-year costs, quality-adjusted life-years, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated for PRA-driven ticagrelor and prasugrel compared with universal clopidogrel, ticagrelor, or prasugrel. PRA-driven ticagrelor and prasugrel were cost-effective compared with universal clopidogrel (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio $40,100 and $49,143/quality-adjusted life-year, respectively); however, universal ticagrelor and prasugrel were not (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio $61,651 and $96,261/quality-adjusted life-year, respectively). Monte Carlo simulation suggested PRA-driven ticagrelor, PRA-driven prasugrel, universal ticagrelor, and universal prasugrel would have an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio <$50,000/quality-adjusted life-year in 52%, 40%, 23%, and 2% of the iterations compared with universal clopidogrel, respectively. Universal ticagrelor and prasugrel were not cost-effective compared with their respective PRA-driven regimens (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio $68,182; $116,875/quality-adjusted life-year, respectively). Monte Carlo simulation suggested universal ticagrelor and prasugrel would have an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio <$50,000/quality-adjusted life-year in 26% and 4% of iterations compared with their respective PRA-driven regimens. The results were most sensitive to differences in agent costs and drug-specific relative risks of death. In conclusion, even with generic clopidogrel, PRA-driven selection of antiplatelet therapy appeared to be a cost-effective strategy with the potential to decrease the overall acute coronary syndrome-associated healthcare costs.

Prasugrel compared to clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutenaous coronary intervention: a Spanish model-based cost effectiveness analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess the long-term cost-effectiveness of 12 months treatment of prasugrel compared to clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the Spanish health care system.

METHODS

A Markov state transition model was developed to estimate health outcomes, quality adjusted life years (QALYs), life years (LY), and costs over patients' lifetimes. Clinical inputs were based on an analysis of the TRITON-TIMI 38 clinical trial. Hospital readmissions captured during the trial in a sub-study of patients from eight countries (and subsequent re-hospitalisations modelled to accrue beyond the time horizon of the trial), were assigned to Spanish diagnosis-related group payment schedules to estimate hospitalisation costs.

RESULTS

Mean total treatment costs were ?11,427 and ?10,910 for prasugrel and clopidogrel respectively. The mean cost of the study drug was ?538 higher for prasugrel vs. clopidogrel, but rehospitalisation costs at 12 months were ?79 lower for prasugrel due to reduced rates of revascularisation. Hospitalisation costs beyond 12 months were higher with prasugrel by ?55, due to longer life expectancy (+0.071 LY and +0.054 QALYs) associated with the decreased nonfatal myocardial infarction rate in the prasugrel group. The incremental cost per life year and QALY gained with prasugrel was ?7,198, and ?9,489, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Considering a willingness-to-pay threshold of ?30,000/QALY gained in the Spanish setting, prasugrel represents a cost-effective option in comparison with clopidogrel among patients with ACS undergoing PCI.

Potential impact of new oral anticoagulants on the management of atrial fibrillation-related stroke in primary care

AIM

Anticoagulant prophylaxis with vitamin K antagonists (such as warfarin) is effective in reducing the risk of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). New oral anticoagulants have emerged as potential alternatives to traditional oral agents. The purpose of this review was to summarise the effectiveness and safety of rivaroxaban, dabigatran and apixaban in stroke prevention in patients with AF in phase III trials, evaluate their cost-effectiveness and consider the implications for primary care.

METHODOLOGY

A literature search was performed between 2007 and 2012, selecting all phase III trials (ROCKET AF, RE-LY and ARISTOTLE) of new oral anticoagulants and relevant cost-benefit studies.

RESULTS

Evidence shows that all three agents are at least as effective as warfarin in the prevention of stroke and systemic emboli, with similar safety profiles. Cost-benefit studies of rivaroxaban and dabigatran further confirm their potential use as alternatives to warfarin in clinical practice. These observations may allow stratification of the general practice AF population, to help prioritise which patients may benefit from receiving a new oral anticoagulant.

CONCLUSION

The clinical and economic benefits of the new oral anticoagulants, along with appropriate risk stratification, may enable a higher number of patients with AF to receive effective and convenient prophylaxis for stroke prevention.

Cost-utility analysis of duloxetine in osteoarthritis: a US private payer perspective

BACKGROUND

Duloxetine has recently been approved in the USA for chronic musculoskeletal pain, including osteoarthritis and chronic low back pain. The cost effectiveness of duloxetine in osteoarthritis has not previously been assessed. Duloxetine is targeted as post first-line (after acetaminophen) treatment of moderate to severe pain.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to estimate the cost effectiveness of duloxetine in the treatment of osteoarthritis from a US private payer perspective compared with other post first-line oral treatments, including nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and both strong and weak opioids.

METHODS

A cost-utility analysis was performed using a discrete-state, time-dependent semi-Markov model based on the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) model documented in its 2008 osteoarthritis guidelines. The model was extended for opioids by adding titration, discontinuation and additional adverse events (AEs). A life-long time horizon was adopted to capture the full consequences of NSAID-induced AEs. Fourteen health states comprised the structure of the model: treatment without persistent AE, six during-AE states, six post-AE states and death. Treatment-specific utilities were calculated using the transfer-to-utility method and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) total scores from a meta-analysis of osteoarthritis clinical trials of 12 weeks and longer. Costs for 2011 were estimated using Red Book, The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project database, the literature and, sparingly, expert opinion. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were undertaken, as well as subgroup analyses of patients over 65 years old and a population at greater risk of NSAID-related AEs.

RESULTS

In the base case the model estimated naproxen to be the lowest total-cost treatment, tapentadol the highest cost, and duloxetine the most effective after considering AEs. Duloxetine accumulated 0.027 discounted quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) more than naproxen and 0.013 more than oxycodone. Celecoxib was dominated by naproxen, tramadol was subject to extended dominance, and strong opioids were dominated by duloxetine. The model estimated an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of US$47,678 per QALY for duloxetine versus naproxen. One-way sensitivity analysis identified the probabilities of NSAID-related cardiovascular AEs as the inputs to which the ICER was most sensitive when duloxetine was compared with an NSAID. When compared with a strong opioid, duloxetine dominated the opioid under nearly all sensitivity analysis scenarios. When compared with tramadol, the ICER was most sensitive to the costs of duloxetine and tramadol. In subgroup analysis, the cost per QALY for duloxetine versus naproxen fell to US$24,125 for patients over 65 years and to US$18,472 for a population at high risk of cardiovascular and gastrointestinal AEs.

CONCLUSION

The model estimated that duloxetine was potentially cost effective in the base-case population and more cost effective for subgroups over 65 years or at high risk of NSAID-related AEs. In sensitivity analysis, duloxetine dominated all strong opioids in nearly all scenarios.

Cost-effectiveness of new oral anticoagulants compared with warfarin in preventing stroke and other cardiovascular events in patients with atrial fibrillation

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective was to assess the cost-effectiveness of new oral anticoagulants compared with warfarin in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. Secondary objectives related to assessing the cost-effectiveness of new oral anticoagulants stratified by center-specific time in therapeutic range, age, and CHADS2 score.

METHODS

Cost-effectiveness was assessed by the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Analysis used a Markov cohort model that followed patients from initiation of pharmacotherapy to death. Transition probabilities were obtained from a concurrent network meta-analysis. Utility values and costs were obtained from published data. Numerous deterministic sensitivity analyses and probabilistic analysis were conducted.

RESULTS

The incremental cost per QALY gained for dabigatran 150 mg versus warfarin was $20,797. Apixaban produced equal QALYs at a higher cost. Dabigatran 110 mg and rivaroxaban were dominated by dabigatran 150 mg and apixaban. Results were sensitive to the drug costs of apixaban, the time horizon adopted, and the consequences from major and minor bleeds with dabigatran. Results varied by a center's average time in therapeutic range, a patient's CHADS2 score, and patient age, with either dabigatran 150 mg or apixaban being optimal.

CONCLUSIONS

Results were highly sensitive to patient characteristics. Rivaroxaban and dabigatran 110 mg were unlikely to be cost-effective. For different characteristics, apixaban or dabigatran 150 mg were optimal. Thus, the choice between these two options may come down to the price of apixaban and further evidence on the impact of major and minor bleeds with dabigatran.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of transmural collaborative care with consultation letter (TCCCL) and duloxetine for major depressive disorder (MDD) and (sub)chronic pain in collaboration with primary care: design of a randomized placebo-controlled multi-Centre trial: TCC:PAINDIP

BACKGROUND

The comorbidity of pain and depression is associated with high disease burden for patients in terms of disability, wellbeing, and use of medical care. Patients with major and minor depression often present themselves with pain to a general practitioner and recognition of depression in such cases is low, but evolving. Also, physical symptoms, including pain, in major depressive disorder, predict a poorer response to treatment. A multi-faceted, patient-tailored treatment programme, like collaborative care, is promising. However, treatment of chronic pain conditions in depressive patients has, so far, received limited attention in research. Cost effectiveness of an integrated approach of pain in depressed patients has not been studied.

METHODS/DESIGN

This study is a placebo controlled double blind, three armed randomized multi centre trial. Patients with (sub)chronic pain and a depressive disorder are randomized to either a) collaborative care with duloxetine, b) collaborative care with placebo or c) duloxetine alone. 189 completers are needed to attain sufficient power to show a clinically significant effect of 0.6 SD on the primary outcome measures (PHQ-9 score). Data on depression, anxiety, mental and physical health, medication adherence, medication tolerability, quality of life, patient-doctor relationship, coping, health resource use and productivity will be collected at baseline and after three, six, nine and twelve months.

DISCUSSION

This study enables us to show the value of a closely monitored integrated treatment model above usual pharmacological treatment. Furthermore, a comparison with a placebo arm enables us to evaluate effectiveness of duloxetine in this population in a real life setting. Also, this study will provide evidence-based treatments and tools for their implementation in practice. This will facilitate generalization and implementation of results of this study. Moreover, patients included in this study are screened for pain symptoms, differentiating between nociceptive and neuropathic pain. Therefore, pain relief can be thoroughly evaluated.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NTR1089.

Intervention thresholds for denosumab in the UK using a FRAX®-based cost-effectiveness analysis

The objective was to undertake a health economic analysis of denosumab for the treatment of osteoporosis in women from the UK, using the FRAX® tool. Denosumab was cost-effective in women with a risk of major osteoporotic fracture meeting or exceeding approximately 20% who are unable to take, comply with or tolerate generic alendronate.

INTRODUCTION

Denosumab is a novel biologic agent developed for the treatment of osteoporosis, which has been shown to reduce the risk of fractures in a phase-III trial. The objective of the present study was to undertake a health economic analysis of denosumab in women from the UK. Ten-year probabilities of a major osteoporotic fracture at which denosumab is a cost-effective alternative to no treatment, generic alendronate, risedronate and strontium ranelate were estimated.

METHODS

A previously published Markov model was adapted to incorporate fracture and mortality risk assessments based on absolute fracture probability, as estimated by FRAX®. The model included treatment persistence and residual effect after discontinuation.

RESULTS

At a willingness-to-pay (WTP) of £30,000 per quality-adjusted life year and a 10-year fracture probability equivalent to a woman with a prior fragility fracture, denosumab was cost-effective compared to no treatment from the age of 70 years. At the same WTP, denosumab was-irrespective of age-cost-effective compared to no treatment at a major osteoporotic fracture probability of approximately 20%. Denosumab was estimated to cost-effectively replace strontium, risedronate and generic alendronate at 10-year probabilities exceeding 11, 19 and 32%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

FRAX® facilitates the estimation of cost-effectiveness-based intervention thresholds applicable to patients with different combinations of clinical risk factors, which more closely matches the situation in clinical practice. Denosumab is cost-effective in patients with major osteoporotic fracture probabilities meeting or exceeding approximately 20% who are unable to take, comply with or tolerate generic alendronate.

The cost-effectiveness of duloxetine in chronic low back pain: a US private payer perspective

OBJECTIVE

To assess the cost-effectiveness of duloxetine in the treatment of chronic low back pain (CLBP) from a US private payer perspective.

METHODS

A cost-utility analysis was undertaken for duloxetine and seven oral post-first-line comparators, including nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), weak and strong opioids, and an anticonvulsant. We created a Markov model on the basis of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence model documented in its 2008 osteoarthritis clinical guidelines. Health states included treatment, death, and 12 states associated with serious adverse events (AEs). We estimated treatment-specific utilities by carrying out a meta-analysis of pain scores from CLBP clinical trials and developing a transfer-to-utility equation using duloxetine CLBP patient-level data. Probabilities of AEs were taken from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence model or estimated from osteoarthritis clinical trials by using a novel maximum-likelihood simulation technique. Costs were gathered from Red Book, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project database, the literature, and, for a limited number of inputs, expert opinion. The model performed one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses and generated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and cost acceptability curves.

RESULTS

The model estimated an ICER of $59,473 for duloxetine over naproxen. ICERs under $30,000 were estimated for duloxetine over non-NSAIDs, with duloxetine dominating all strong opioids. In subpopulations at a higher risk of NSAID-related AEs, the ICER over naproxen was $33,105 or lower.

CONCLUSIONS

Duloxetine appears to be a cost-effective post-first-line treatment for CLBP compared with all but generic NSAIDs. In subpopulations at risk of NSAID-related AEs, it is particularly cost-effective.

Random CNT network and regioregular poly(3-hexylthiophen) FETs for pH sensing applications: a comparison

BACKGROUND

Nowadays, there is a tremendous need for cheap disposable sensing devices for medical applications. Materials such as Carbon Nanotubes (CNTs) and regioregular P3HT are proven to offer a huge potential as cost-effective and solution processable semiconductors for (bio)sensing applications.

METHODS

CNT-based field-effect transistors (CNT-FETs) as well as regioregular P3HT-based ones (P3HT-FETs) are fabricated and operated in the so-called electrolyte-gated configuration. The active layer of the P3HT-FETs consists of a spin-coated regioregular P3HT layer, which serves on one hand as the active sensing element and on the other hand as passivation layer for the transistor's metal contacts. The active layer of the nanotube transistors consists of a randomly distributed single walled CNT-network (>90% semiconducting tubes) deposited from a CNT-ink solution by spin-coating.

RESULTS

We compare both devices concerning their stability in aqueous environment and their response when exposed to buffers with different pH. We found that even if P3HT shows lower stability its pH sensitivity is reproducible even after long-term measurements.

CONCLUSION

CNT-FETs and P3HT-FETs offer different advantages and drawbacks concerning their stability in solution and the ease of fabrication. A discussion of their different sensing mechanisms as well as sensitivity is given here.

GENERAL SIGNIFICANCE

This work reports on fast and cost-effective production of solution processable thin-film transistors based on carbon nanotubes and regioregular P3HT and demonstrates their suitability as reliable pH sensors. This article is part of a Special Issue entitled Organic Bioelectronics - Novel Applications in Biomedicine.

Prasugrel vs clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a model-based cost-effectiveness analysis for Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands, and Turkey

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of 12-months treatment with prasugrel vs clopidogrel from four European healthcare systems' perspectives (Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands, and Turkey).

METHODS

In the TRITON-TIMI 38 trial, patients with an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) were treated with prasugrel or clopidogrel. Prasugrel reduced the composite end-point (cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke), but increased TIMI major bleeding. A Markov model was constructed to facilitate a lifetime horizon for the analysis. A series of risk equations constructed using individual patient data from TRITON-TIMI 38 was used to estimate risks of clinical events. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were derived by weighting survival time by estimates of health-related quality-of-life. Incremental cost-effectiveness is presented based on differences in treatments' mean costs and QALYs for the licensed population in TRITON-TIMI 38, and the sub-groups of UA-NSTEMI, STEMI, diabetes, and the 'core clinical cohort' (<75 years, ≥60 kg, no history of stroke or TIA).

RESULTS

Mean cost of study drug was €364 (Turkey) to €818 (Germany) higher for prasugrel vs clopidogrel. Rehospitalization costs at 12 months were lower for prasugrel due to reduced rates of revascularization, although hospitalization costs beyond 12 months were higher due to longer life expectancy associated with lower rates of non-fatal MI in the prasugrel group. The incremental cost per QALY saved with prasugrel in the licensed population ranged from €6520 (for Sweden) to €14,350 for (Germany). Prasugrel's cost per QALY was more favourable still in the STEMI and diabetes sub-groups of the licensed population.

LIMITATIONS

Probabilistic analyses of the whole trial population is impractical due to the number of individual patient profiles over which population level results are calculated.

CONCLUSION

Among patients undergoing PCI for ACS, treatment with prasugrel compared with clopidogrel resulted in favourable cost-effectiveness profiles from these healthcare systems' perspectives.

[How to properly use warfarin and new anticoagulants]

Warfarin has unmet medical needs such as blood coagulation monitoring, limitation of vitamin K intake, and interaction with other drugs, while novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) do not have such kind of unmet medical needs. Therefore, NOACs are recommended to busy patients or patients far from hospitals, or who do not want to limit vitamin K or use many other drugs concomitantly. NOACs are also recommended to patients with low time in therapeutic range (TTR). NOACs are also recommended to warfarin-naïve patients. Warfarin is recommended to patients with economical difficulty because it is much cheaper than NOACs. If needed, warfarin should be selected in patients with renal insufficiency or under hemodialysis because NOACs are contraindicated. New guidelines by the European Society of Cardiology recommend NOACs to low risk patients with CHA2DS2-VASc score 1, and also as the first line to those with CHA2DS2-VASc 2 or more. Finally, drug should be determined by patients' preference. Doctors should give adequate information helpful for patients' selection.

Longitudinal analysis of healthcare costs: a case study of patients with major depressive disorder treated with duloxetine

OBJECTIVE

To develop and apply a longitudinal model that adjusts for pre-treatment covariates to examine the trajectory of healthcare costs in duloxetine patients with major depressive disorder (MDD).

METHODS

Retrospective healthcare cost data from Thomson Reuters Marketscan® Database included 10,987 patients with MDD, aged 18-64, receiving duloxetine at low (<60 mg/day), standard (60 mg/day), or high (>60 mg/day) initial doses. A linear mixed-effects model for repeated measures used dose, month, and dose*month as fixed effects and patient (dose) as a random effect, and adjusted for demographics, comorbidities, body system disorders, and prior medication history. Model goodness-of-fit was evaluated with R(2). Rates of change (slopes) were estimated from the fitted model and differences in the cost trajectory among dosing cohorts were tested using the F-test. Bootstrapping and propensity score (PS) stratification were conducted to provide sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

Main effects and covariates were all significant (p < 0.05). Adjustment by pre-treatment covariates greatly improved the model fit (R(2 )= 0.43). The model revealed a significant increase in healthcare costs in the 6 months preceding and a significant decrease in the 6 months following duloxetine initiation for each initial dose cohort and the overall cohort (p < 0.05). In both the pre- and post-treatment periods, the high initial-dose cohort had higher healthcare costs than standard or low initial-dose cohorts (p < 0.05). Bootstrapping and PS stratification confirmed these test results.

LIMITATIONS

The analyses performed here were based on non-randomized, observational data, and thus subject to potential biases due to unmeasured confounding.

CONCLUSIONS

Longitudinal models, compared with conventional mean-based methods, provide better opportunities to assess changes in cost trajectory patterns around the time of changes in medical treatment. In insured patients with MDD started on duloxetine, healthcare costs increased before duloxetine initiation, perhaps signaling a clinical deterioration that led to a change in treatment strategy. Healthcare costs then decreased following duloxetine initiation.

Genetic testing in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

The CYP2C19 genotype is a predictor of adverse cardiovascular events in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) treated with clopidogrel.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a CYP2C19*2 genotype-guided strategy of antiplatelet therapy in ACS patients undergoing PCI, compared with two 'no testing' strategies (empiric clopidogrel or prasugrel).

METHODS

We developed a Markov model to compare three strategies. The model captured adverse cardiovascular events and antiplatelet-related complications. Costs were expressed in 2010 US dollars and estimated using diagnosis-related group codes and Medicare reimbursement rates. The net wholesale price for prasugrel was estimated as $5.45 per day. A generic estimate for clopidogrel of $1.00 per day was used and genetic testing was assumed to cost $500.

RESULTS

Base case analyses demonstrated little difference between treatment strategies. The genetic testing-guided strategy yielded the most QALYs and was the least costly. Over 15 months, total costs were $18 lower with a gain of 0.004 QALY in the genotype-guided strategy compared with empiric clopidogrel, and $899 lower with a gain of 0.0005 QALY compared with empiric prasugrel. The strongest predictor of the preferred strategy was the relative risk of thrombotic events in carriers compared with wild-type individuals treated with clopidogrel. Above a 47% increased risk, a genotype-guided strategy was the dominant strategy. Above a clopidogrel cost of $3.96 per day, genetic testing was no longer dominant but remained cost-effective.

CONCLUSIONS

Among ACS patients undergoing PCI, a genotype-guided strategy yields similar outcomes to empiric approaches to treatment, but is marginally less costly and more effective.

The cost effectiveness of genetic testing for CYP2C19 variants to guide thienopyridine treatment in patients with acute coronary syndromes: a New Zealand evaluation

BACKGROUND

A recent clinical trial has demonstrated that patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) and the reduced function allele CYP2C19*2 (*2 allele), who are treated with thienopyridines, have an increased risk of adverse cardiac events with clopidogrel, but not with prasugrel. The frequency of the *2 allele varies by ethnicity and the Maoris, Asians and Pacific Islanders of New Zealand have a relatively high incidence.

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to evaluate, from a New Zealand health system perspective, the cost effectiveness of treating all ACS patients with generic clopidogrel compared with prasugrel, and also compared with the genetically guided strategy that *2 allele carriers receive prasugrel and non-carriers receive clopidogrel.

METHODS

A decision-tree model consisting of five health states (myocardial infarction, stroke, bleeding, stent thrombosis and cardiovascular death) was developed. Clinical outcome data (two TRITON-TIMI 38 genetic sub-studies) comparing clopidogrel and prasugrel for both *2 allele carriers and non-carriers were combined with the prevalence of the heterozygosity for the *2 allele in New Zealand Europeans (15%), Maoris (24%), Asians (29%) and Pacific Islanders (45%) to determine the predicted adverse event rate for the New Zealand population. National hospital diagnosis-related group (DRG) discharge codes were used to determine alternative adverse event rates, along with the costs of hospitalizations during the 15 months after patients presented with an ACS. The primary outcome measure was the incremental cost per QALY (calculated using literature-reported weights). Monte Carlo simulations and alternative scenario analysis based on both clinical trial and national hospital incidence were used. Additional analysis considered the overall TRITON-TIMI 38 rates. Costs (in New Zealand dollars [$NZ], year 2009 values) and benefits were discounted at 3% per annum.

RESULTS

Actual hospital-based adverse event rates were higher than those reported in the TRITON-TIMI 38 randomized controlled trial and the genetic sub-studies, especially for myocardial infarction and cardiovascular death, and for Maoris and Pacific Islanders. For both sources of adverse event rates, treating the population with prasugrel was associated with worse outcomes (QALYs) than clopidogrel. However, prasugrel became cost effective ($NZ31 751/QALY) when the overall TRITON-TIMI 38 rates were used. A genetic test to guide the selected use of prasugrel was cost effective ($NZ8702/QALY versus $NZ24 617/QALY) for hospital and clinical trial incidence, respectively. Based on the hospital rates, the genetically guided strategy was especially cost effective for Maoris ($NZ7312/QALY) and Pacific Islanders ($NZ7041/QALY). These results were robust to the sensitivity analysis, except the genetically guided strategy under the 15-month clinical trial event rate scenario ($NZ168 748/QALY) did not remain cost effective under a $NZ50 000 threshold.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of a genetic test to guide thienopyridine treatment in patients with ACS is a potentially cost-effective treatment strategy, especially for Maoris and Pacific Islanders. This treatment strategy also has the potential to reduce ethnic health disparities that exist in New Zealand. However, the results comparing clopidogrel and prasugrel are sensitive to whether the genetic sub-studies or the overall TRITON-TIMI 38 rates are used. While the national hospital event rates may be more appropriate for the New Zealand population, many assumptions are required when they are used to adjust the genetic sub-studies rates.

Value-of-information analysis to reduce decision uncertainty associated with the choice of thromboprophylaxis after total hip replacement in the Irish healthcare setting

BACKGROUND

The National Centre for Pharmacoeconomics, in collaboration with the Health Services Executive, considers the cost effectiveness of all new medicines introduced into Ireland. Health Technology Assessments (HTAs) are conducted in accordance with the existing agreed Irish HTA guidelines. These guidelines do not specify a formal analysis of value of information (VOI).

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to demonstrate the benefits of using VOI analysis in decreasing decision uncertainty and to examine the viability of applying these techniques as part of the formal HTA process for reimbursement purposes within the Irish healthcare system.

METHOD

The evaluation was conducted from the Irish health payer perspective. A lifetime model evaluated the cost effectiveness of rivaroxaban, dabigatran etexilate and enoxaparin sodium for the prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism after total hip replacement. The expected value of perfect information (EVPI) was determined directly from the probabilistic analysis (PSA). Population-level EVPI (PEVPI) was determined by scaling up the EVPI according to the decision incidence. The expected value of perfect parameter information (EVPPI) was calculated for the three model parameter subsets: probabilities, preference weights and direct medical costs.

RESULTS

In the base-case analysis, rivaroxaban dominated both dabigatran etexilate and enoxaparin sodium. PSA indicated that rivaroxaban had the highest probability of being the most cost-effective strategy over a threshold range of &U20AC;0-&U20AC;100 000 per QALY. At a threshold of &U20AC;45 000 per QALY, the probability that rivaroxaban was the most cost-effective strategy was 67%. At a threshold of &U20AC;45 000 per QALY, assuming a 10-year decision time horizon, the PEVPI was &U20AC;11.96 million and the direct medical costs subset had the highest EVPPI value (&U20AC;9.00 million at a population level). In order to decrease uncertainty, a more detailed costing study was undertaken. In the subsequent analysis, rivaroxaban continued to dominate both comparators. In the PSA, rivaroxaban continued to have the highest probability of being optimal over the threshold range &U20AC;0-&U20AC;100 000 per QALY. At &U20AC;45 000 per QALY, the probability that rivaroxaban was the most cost-effective strategy increased to 80%. At &U20AC;45 000 per QALY, the 10-year PEVPI decreased to &U20AC;3.58 million and the population value associated with the direct medical costs fell to &U20AC;1.72 million.

CONCLUSION

This increase in probability of cost effectiveness, coupled with a substantially reduced potential opportunity loss could influence a decision maker's confidence in making a reimbursement decision. On discussions with the decision maker we now intend to incorporate the use of VOI into our HTA process.

Prasugrel

Prasugrel is a third-generation thienopyridine which selectively inhibits the platelet P2Y(12) receptor more rapidly, more potently, and with less interindividual response variability compared with the second-generation thienopyridine clopidogrel. Large-scale phase III clinical testing showed that in high-to moderate-risk acute coronary syndrome patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, prasugrel translates into a greater reduction in ischemic events, including stent thrombosis, in the short and long term compared to clopidogrel. Prasugrel, however, is associated with an increased risk of major bleeding, which is more pronounced in certain patient subgroups. The ideal patient population for prasugrel use are those patients without prior transient ischemic attack/stroke, <75 years of age and >60 kg in whom the greatest ischemic benefit is achieved without a significant increase in major bleeding risk. Dose modifications in specific populations or at given time-points may represent an avenue to minimize bleeding risk and therefore maximize the clinical benefit of prasugrel. Ongoing clinical studies with prasugrel will better define the safety and efficacy profiles of this agent and potentially set the basis for new indications for use.

A multi-perspective cost-effectiveness analysis comparing rivaroxaban with enoxaparin sodium for thromboprophylaxis after total hip and knee replacement in the German healthcare setting

BACKGROUND

Patients undergoing major orthopaedic surgery (MOS), such as total hip (THR) or total knee replacement (TKR), are at high risk of developing venous thromboembolism (VTE). For thromboembolism prophylaxis, the oral anticoagulant rivaroxaban has recently been included in the German diagnosis related group (DRG) system. However, the cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban is still unclear from both the German statutory health insurance (SHI) and the German hospital perspective.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban from the German statutory health insurance (SHI) perspective and to analyse financial incentives from the German hospital perspective.

METHODS

Based on data from the RECORD trials and German cost data, a decision tree was built. The model was run for two settings (THR and TKR) and two perspectives (SHI and hospital) per setting.

RESULTS

Prophylaxis with rivaroxaban reduces VTE events (0.02 events per person treated after TKR; 0.007 after THR) compared with enoxaparin. From the SHI perspective, prophylaxis with rivaroxaban after TKR is cost saving (€27.3 saving per patient treated). However, the cost-effectiveness after THR (€17.8 cost per person) remains unclear because of stochastic uncertainty. From the hospital perspective, for given DRGs, the hospital profit will decrease through the use of rivaroxaban by €20.6 (TKR) and €31.8 (THR) per case respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on our findings, including rivaroxaban for reimbursement in the German DRG system seems reasonable. Yet, adequate incentives for German hospitals to use rivaroxaban are still lacking.

Duloxetine use in chronic low back pain: treatment patterns and costs

BACKGROUND

Little is known about the real-world treatment patterns and costs of patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP) who are treated with duloxetine compared with those receiving other non-surgical treatments.

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to compare the real-world treatment patterns and costs between patients with CLBP who initiated duloxetine and matched controls who initiated another non-surgical treatment.

METHODS

The study sample was selected from a US privately insured claims database (2004-8). Selected patients were aged 18-64 years, and had a low back pain (LBP) diagnosis (per Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set [HEDIS] specifications) with a subsequent CLBP-qualifying diagnosis recorded ≥90 days after the initial LBP diagnosis. Duloxetine-treated patients had ≥1 duloxetine prescription within 6 months after CLBP diagnosis, no prior duloxetine claim, and continuous eligibility ≥12 months before first LBP diagnosis and ≥6 months after index duloxetine prescription (study period). Because duloxetine patients had higher rates of co-morbidities, 553 duloxetine-treated patients were matched to 553 control patients who initiated another non-surgical LBP treatment based on propensity score and time from first LBP diagnosis to treatment initiation. A subset (n = 103 each) of matched employees with disability data was also analysed to assess work loss. Main outcomes measures included study period treatment rates and direct (medical and drug) costs from a third-party payer perspective and employee indirect (work-loss) costs. McNemar tests were used to compare LBP treatment rates. Bias-corrected bootstrapping t-tests were used to compare costs.

RESULTS

After matching, the two groups had balanced baseline characteristics including demographics, LBP diagnostic categories, co-morbidity profiles, resource use, treatment patterns and mean direct costs. During the 6-month study period, matched duloxetine-treated patients had significantly lower rates of other pharmacological therapy (e.g. 56.2% vs 64.9% narcotic opioids, p = 0.0024; 34.9% vs 49.5% NSAIDs, p < 0.0001) and non-invasive therapy (28.8% vs 38.5% chiropractic therapy, p = 0.0007; 25.5% vs 35.4% physical therapy, p = 0.0004; 17.5% vs 28.4% exercise therapy, p < 0.0001) than controls. Duloxetine-treated patients versus controls had similar back surgery rates (2.2% vs 3.8%; p = 0.1127) and similar direct costs ($US7658 vs $US7439; p = 0.8119). Among CLBP employees, duloxetine-treated employees versus controls had lower rates of other non-surgical therapy, similar back surgery rates (0.0% vs 3.9%; p = 0.1250), lower total direct and indirect costs ($US5227 vs $US7299; p = 0.0418), and similar indirect costs ($US1806 vs $US2664; p = 0.0528).

CONCLUSIONS

Duloxetine treatment in CLBP patients/employees versus other non-surgical treatment was associated with reduced rates of non-surgical therapies and similar back surgery rates, without increased costs.

Cost-effectiveness of cytochrome P450 2C19 genotype screening for selection of antiplatelet therapy with clopidogrel or prasugrel

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To estimate the cost-effectiveness of genotype-guided selection of antiplatelet therapy compared with selecting clopidogrel or prasugrel irrespective of genotype.

DESIGN

Decision model based on event occurrence in the Trial to Assess Improvement in Therapeutic Outcomes by Optimizing Platelet Inhibition with Prasugrel-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TRITON-TIMI) 38.

PATIENTS

Simulated cohort of patients with acute coronary syndrome scheduled to undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), consisting of three arms: those receiving genotype-guided antiplatelet therapy with clopidogrel or prasugrel, those receiving clopidogrel regardless of genotype, and those receiving prasugrel regardless of genotype.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

All three arms of the model incorporated the probability that patients would experience a cardiovascular event (death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke), a bleeding event (major or minor bleeding), or no event while receiving antiplatelet therapy during the 15 months after the scheduled PCI. The cytochrome P450 (CYP) 2C19 genotype determined antiplatelet drug selection in the genotyping group. Cost-effectiveness was expressed as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for each event avoided in the genotype-guided therapy arm versus the other two arms. Genotype-guided antiplatelet therapy was dominant, or more effective and less costly, when compared with the selection of clopidogrel (ICER -$6760 [95% confidence interval (CI) -$6720 to -$6790]) or prasugrel (ICER -$11,710 [95% CI -$11,480 to -$11,950]) for all patients without regard to genotype. Genotype-guided therapy that included generic clopidogrel was dominant to prasugrel for all patients (ICER -$27,160 [95% CI -$27,890 to -$26,420]). Cost savings were not evident when genotype-guided therapy that included generic clopidogrel was compared with generic clopidogrel for all patients (ICER $2300 [95% CI $2290 to $2320]). [Correction added after online publication 12-Mar-2012: In the previous sentence -$2300 has been corrected as $2300.].

CONCLUSION

Genotype-guided antiplatelet therapy selection may be more cost-effective and may provide more clinical value due to fewer adverse outcomes.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of pharmacologic treatment of fibromyalgia in Mexico

OBJECTIVE

To identify, from the Mexican Public Health System perspective, which would be the most cost-effective treatment for patients with Fibromyalgia (FM).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A Markov model including three health states, divided by pain intensity (absence or presence of mild, moderate or severe pain) and considering three-month cycles; costs and effectiveness were estimated for amitriptyline (50mg/day), fluoxetine (80 mg/day), duloxetine (120 mg/day), gabapentin (900 mg/day), pregabalin (450 mg/day), tramadol/acetaminophen (150 mg/1300 mg/día) and amitriptyline/fluoxetine (50mg/80 mg/día) for the treatment of FM. The clinical outcome considered was the annual rate of pain control. Probabilities assigned to the model were collected from published literature. Direct medical costs for FM treatment were retrieved from the 2006 data of the Mexican Institute of Social Security (IMSS) databases and were expressed in 2010 Mexican Pesos. Probabilistic Sensitivity Analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

The best pain control rate was obtained with pregabalin (44.8%), followed by gabapentin (38.1%) and duloxetine (34.2%). The lowest treatment costs was for amitriptyline ($ 9047.01), followed by fluoxetine ($ 10,183.89) and amitriptyline/fluoxetine ($ 10,866.01). By comparing pregabalin vs amitriptyline, additional annual cost per patient for pain control would be around $ 50.000 and $ 75.000 and would result cost-effective in 70% and 80% of all cases.

CONCLUSIONS

Among all treatment options for FM, pregabalin achieved the highest pain control and was cost-effective in 80% of patients of the Mexican Public Health System.

Cost effectiveness of rivaroxaban versus enoxaparin for prevention of post-surgical venous thromboembolism from a U.S. payer's perspective

BACKGROUND

Major orthopaedic surgery, such as total hip replacement (THR) and total knee replacement (TKR), is associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE).

OBJECTIVE

Clinical trials have demonstrated the efficacy of rivaroxaban, a once-daily, orally administered Factor Xa inhibitor, for the prevention of VTE in patients undergoing THR or TKR. This analysis evaluated the cost effectiveness of rivaroxaban compared with enoxaparin, from a U.S. payer's perspective.

METHODS

A decision-analytic model was developed to compare the costs and outcomes associated with rivaroxaban and enoxaparin for the prevention of VTE. The model replicated short-term clinical outcomes from the phase III RECORD trials. RECORD1 and RECORD2 compared rivaroxaban 10 mg daily (qd), given for 35 days, with enoxaparin 40 mg qd, given for 35 days or 10 to 14 days, respectively, in patients undergoing THR. RECORD3 compared 10 mg of rivaroxaban qd for 10 to 14 days versus 40 mg of enoxaparin qd for 10 to 14 days in patients undergoing TKR. The decision-analytic model also included data on long-term complications and sequelae as captured in observational studies and databases. It also included direct year 2010 medical costs over 1-year and 5-year time horizons. A series of sensitivity analyses were performed to determine the impact of different factors on the results of the model. Results of the cost-effectiveness analysis were reported in terms of symptomatic VTE events avoided.

RESULTS

Rivaroxaban was associated with cost savings of $US 511.93 per patient and prevented an average of 0.0145 symptomatic VTE events per patient in the THR population, compared with enoxaparin. For a TKR population, 10 to 14 days of rivaroxaban prophylaxis was associated with cost savings of $US 465.74 and prevented an average 0.0193 symptomatic VTE events per patient. Sensitivity analysis suggested that the results of the model were robust, with cost savings ranging from $US 133.96-629.57 in the THR population and $US 293.01-848.68 in the TKR population, depending on the variables used. Sensitivity analysis also suggested that the economic profile of rivaroxaban is improved when the time horizon of the model is extended from 1 year to 5 years. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis confirmed the findings of baseline results, showing that rivaroxaban was less costly and more effective in all model simulations for both populations.

CONCLUSIONS

This decision-analytic model analysis, from the U.S. payer's perspective, concluded that rivaroxaban may be cost saving in both the THR and the TKR populations, when compared with enoxaparin in the U.S.