Cost-effectiveness of romosozumab for the treatment of postmenopausal women with severe osteoporosis at high risk of fracture in Sweden.

Romosozumab is a novel bone-building drug that reduces fracture risk. This health economic analysis indicates that sequential romosozumab-to-alendronate can be a cost-effective treatment option for postmenopausal women with severe osteoporosis at high risk of fracture. PURPOSE: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of sequential treatment with romosozumab followed by alendronate ("romosozumab-to-alendronate") compared with alendronate alone in patients with severe osteoporosis at high risk of fracture in Sweden. METHODS: A microsimulation model with a Markov structure was used to simulate fractures, costs, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), for women treated with romosozumab-to-alendronate or alendronate alone. Patients aged 74 years with a recent major osteoporotic fracture (MOF) were followed from the start of treatment until the age of 100 years or death. Treatment with romosozumab for 12 months was followed by alendronate for up to 48 months or alendronate alone with a maximum treatment duration of 60 months. The analysis had a societal perspective. Efficacy of romosozumab and alendronate were derived from phase III randomized controlled trials. Resource use and unit costs were collected from the literature. Cost-effectiveness was estimated using incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) with QALYs as effectiveness measures. RESULTS: The base case analysis showed that sequential romosozumab-to-alendronate treatment was associated with 0.089 additional QALYs at an additional cost of €3002 compared to alendronate alone, resulting in an ICER of €33,732. At a Swedish reference willingness-to-pay per QALY of €60,000, romosozumab-to-alendronate had a 97.9% probability of being cost-effective against alendronate alone. The results were most sensitive to time horizon, persistence assumptions, patient age, and treatment efficacy. CONCLUSION: The results of this study indicate that sequential romosozumab-to-alendronate can be a cost-effective treatment option for postmenopausal women with severe osteoporosis at high risk of fracture.

The cost-utility of sodium oxybate as narcolepsy treatment.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Based on class-I studies, sodium oxybate is regarded as a first-line treatment for both EDS and cataplexy. The cost-effectiveness of sodium oxybate is largely unknown, though. In this study, we estimate the cost-effectiveness of sodium oxybate as treatment for patients with narcolepsy as compared to standard treatment, by calculating incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (cost per quality-adjusted life year, QALY) for patients in a Swedish setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Calculations were performed using a Markov model with a 10-year time horizon. The study population consisted of adult patients treated for narcolepsy with cataplexy. Healthcare utilization and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for each treatment alternative were calculated assuming no treatment effect on survival. Sensitivity analyses were performed for treatment effectiveness and healthcare cost parameters. RESULTS: The cost per additional quality-adjusted life year was estimated at SEK 563,481. The cost-effectiveness measure was demonstrated to be particularly sensitive to the duration of the relative quality-of-life improvements accruing to patients treated with sodium oxybate. CONCLUSIONS: The estimated cost per additional QALY for the sodium oxybate treatment alternative compared with standard treatment was estimated above the informal Swedish willingness-to-pay threshold (SEK 500,000). The estimated cost per additional QALY obtained here is likely to overestimate the true cost-effectiveness ratio as potentially beneficial effects on productivity of treatment with sodium oxybate were not included (due to lack of data).

Patterns of antiepileptic drug prescription in Sweden: A register-based approach.

OBJECTIVES: To determine drug utilization pathways from the incident healthcare visit due to epilepsy and three years onward. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Anti-epileptic drug utilization was calculated using individual information on inpatient- and outpatient care utilization and drug sales. Throughout, we used national register information pertaining to pharmaceutical sales linked to diagnosis-related healthcare utilization. Information on pharmaceutical sales was collected for the 2007-2013 period. RESULTS: For the entire studied period, a majority of new patients with epilepsy were initiated on anti-epileptic drug treatment with a monotherapy (98%); most of these patients remained on that first treatment (64%). The three most frequently prescribed drugs accounted for 72% of the initiated AED treatments. Patients with epilepsy (ICD-10: G40/41) were most commonly prescribed carbamazepine, lamotrigine and valproate. The most common second-line monotherapy was levetiracetam. About 12% of new patients with epilepsy who were initiated on AED treatment during the period eventually switched to an add-on therapy. The proportion of patients who were initiated on treatment with carbamazepine or valproate decreased, and the proportion of patients who remained on their initial monotherapy increased between 2007 and 2013. CONCLUSIONS: A limited number of anti-epileptic drugs accounted for the treatment of a majority of new patients with epilepsy (carbamazepine, lamotrigine and valproate accounted for more than 70%). Add-on therapies showed the same pattern, as the most frequently prescribed add-on regimens were the same ones that accounted for most of the monotherapies. There was a tendency towards fewer patients being initiated on AED treatment with either carbamazepine or valproate.