Quality of life, resource utilisation and health economics assessment in advanced neuroendocrine tumours: a systematic review.

Neuroendocrine tumours (NET) are often diagnosed at an advanced stage when the prognosis is poor for patients, who often experience diminished quality of life (QoL). As new treatments for NET become available, it is important to characterise the associated outcomes, costs and QoL. A comprehensive search was performed to systematically review available data in advanced NET regarding cost of illness/resource utilisation, economic studies/health technology assessment and QoL. Four rounds of sequential review narrowed the search results to 22 relevant studies. Most focused on surgical procedures and diagnostic tools and contained limited information on the costs and consequences of medical therapies. Multiple tools are used to assess health-related QoL in NET, but few analyses have been conducted to assess the comparative impact of available treatment alternatives on QoL. Limitations include English language and the focus on advanced NET; ongoing terminology and classification changes prevented pooled statistical analyses. This systematic review suggests a lack of comparative economic and outcomes data associated with NET treatments. Further research on disease costs, resource utilisation and QoL for patients with advanced NET is warranted.

A quantitative assessment of patient barriers to insulin.

AIM: To assess diabetes treatment preferences with a focus on patient barriers to insulin treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A questionnaire using indirect and direct methods was administered as part of the International Diabetes Management Practices Study (IDMPS). Discrete choice modelling was used to assess how product attributes influence patients' preferences for diabetes treatment. A multinomial logit model was used to find the odds ratio for each parameter, representing the probability of selecting a chosen alternative given a choice set. This allowed for the derivation of relative attribute importance, an indication of how influential product attributes are in the respondents' choices. RESULTS: The IDMPS questionnaire was administered to 14,033 individuals with diabetes in 18 countries. The majority of respondents were women (53%) and had Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM; 85%). Across subgroups, administration (i.e. oral vs. injection) was a driver of preference. Patient preferences varied according to diabetes type; individuals with T2DM assigned much higher relative importance to administration than those with Type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM; 30.86% vs. 4.99%; p<0.0001). Individuals with T2DM treated with insulin placed less importance on administration than insulin-naïve T2DM patients (3.09% vs. 47.48%; p<0.0001). Diabetes education also had a significant effect on the priority given to administration between T2DM patients who received diabetes training and those who did not (28.21% vs. 33.68%, respectively; p<0.0001). CONCLUSION: The insulin barriers perceived by patients with diabetes evolved with their disease experience. While administration was the primary preference driver for insulin-naïve patients, patients were increasingly concerned with more clinically relevant barriers as they gained experience with insulin. This finding suggests that patients using insulin understand the importance of achieving an optimal balance between safety and efficacy.

Evaluación económica retrospectiva con costes españoles de un estudio comparativo de amlodipino y enalapril en el tratamiento de la hipertensión ligera a moderada / Cost comparison study of amlodipine and enalapril as treatment for mild to moderate hypertension

El objetivo de este estudio ha sido realizar una evaluación económica con costes españoles de un ensayo clínico de 50 semanas, aleatorio, doble ciego, realizado en paralelo en Atención Primaria, que comparó la eficacia de 5 a 10 mg/día de amlodipino (n = 231) o 10 a 40 mg/día de enalapril (n = 230) en el tratamiento de la hipertensión ligera a moderada. La evaluación económica se realizó desde la perspectiva del Sistema Nacional de Salud utilizando los precios de venta de laboratorio de referencia publicados para enalapril y los del Catálogo de Especialidades Farmacéuticas del Consejo General de Colegios Oficiales de Farmacéuticos del año 2001 para amlodipino, computándose el coste total, coste medio por paciente y coste por paciente tratado con éxito, e incluyó análisis de sensibilidad univariado con el coste de la medicación y la proporción de éxitos terapéuticos. Ambos tratamientos redujeron significativamente la presión arterial diastólica con respecto al valor basal (17 mmHg con amlodipino y 16 mmHg con enalapril, p < 0,001, pero sin diferencias entre intervenciones) con un mayor porcentaje que lograron el control de la presión diastólica con amlodipino que con enalapril (88,3 por ciento frente a 82,6 por ciento, diferencias no significativas). El coste medio por paciente fue significativamente menor con amlodipino (24.923 pesetas) que con enalapril (26.300 pesetas); diferencia de 1.377 pesetas; p < 0,05. El coste por paciente tratado con éxito fue un 11,4 por ciento inferior con amlodipino; 28.225 pesetas frente a 31.840 pesetas. Los resultados de la evaluación económica fueron "robustos" al análisis de sensibilidad. Considerando los resultados de esta evaluación económica, amlodipino mostró un perfil farmacoeconómico más favorable que enalapril en el tratamiento de la hipertensión arterial. Estos resultados deberían ser considerados a la hora de recomendar tratamientos eficientes de la hipertensión ligera a moderada en España. (AU)

A cost-effectiveness evaluation of amlodipine usage in patients with coronary artery disease in Sweden.

The objective of this analysis was to calculate the cost-effectiveness of amlodipine therapy in patients with coronary artery disease in Sweden. It is hypothesised that treatment with amlodipine will have an impact on overall cardiovascular disease treatment costs, resulting in a positive cost-effectiveness profile. A Markov cohort simulation model was constructed to simulate event-related and procedure-related health economic outcomes of coronary artery disease populations on amlodipine versus those on placebo. Patient level data from the Prospective Evaluation of the Vascular Effects of Norvasc Trial was used to populate the model. The total number of adverse cardiovascular clinical outcomes experienced over a three-year period was lower for patient on amlodipine than for those on placebo. The rate of hospitalisation per patient due to angina, coronary artery bypass graft, percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty, congestive heart failure, and myocardial infarction in the placebo cohort was 64.7%, while the rate in the amlodipine cohort was 46.9%. The cost per patient was Swedish kroner (SEK)26,600 for amlodipine patients and SEK27,400 for placebo patients. The use of amlodipine resulted in improved clinical outcomes as well as a slight savings in cost over a three-year period.

A multinational pharmacoeconomic evaluation of acute major depressive disorder (MDD): a comparison of cost-effectiveness between venlafaxine, SSRIs and TCAs.

METHODS: We conducted a multinational pharmacoeconomic evaluation comparing the immediate release form of a new class of serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI), venlafaxine IR to the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and the tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) in the treatment of acute major depressive disorder (MDD) in 10 countries (Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, United States, and Venezuela). We designed a decision analytic model assessing the acute phase of MDD treatment within a 6-month time horizon. Six decision tree models were customized with country-specific estimates from a clinical management analysis, meta-analytic rates from two published meta-analyses, and a resource valuation of treatment costs representing the inpatient and outpatient settings within each country. The meta-analyses provided the clinical rates of success defined as a 50% reduction in depression scores on the Hamilton Depression Scale (HAM-D) or the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS). Treatment regimen costs were determined from standard lists, fee schedules, and communication with local health economists in each country. The meta-analytic rates were applied to the decision analytic model to calculate the expected cost and expected outcomes for each antidepressant comparator. Cost-effectiveness was determined using the expected values for both a successful outcome, and a composite measure of outcome termed symptom-free days. A policy analysis was conducted to examine the health system budget impact in each country of increasing the utilization of the most effective antidepressant found in our study. RESULTS: Initiating treatment of MDD with venlafaxine IR yielded a lower expected cost compared to the SSRIs and TCAs in all countries except Poland in the inpatient setting, and Italy and Poland within the outpatient settings. The weighted average expected cost per patient varied from US$632 (Poland) to US$5647 (US) in the six-month acute phase treatment of MDD. The estimated total budgetary impact for each 1% of venlafaxine utilization, assuming a population of one million MDD patients, ranged from US$1600 (Italy) to US$29,049 (US). CONCLUSIONS: Within the inpatient and outpatient treatment settings, venlafaxine IR was a more cost-effective treatment of MDD compared to the SSRIs and TCAs. Additionally, the results of this investigation indicate that increased utilization of venlafaxine in most settings across Europe and the Americas will have favorable impact on health care payer budgets. ADR, adverse drug reaction; CMA, clinical management analysis; ECT, electroconvulsive therapy; HAM-D, Hamilton Depression Scale; MADRS, Montgomery-Asberg depression rating scale; MDD, major depressive disorder; SFD, symptom-free day; SNRI, serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor; SSRI, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor; TCA, tricyclic antidepressant; WHO, world health organization.

The health economic impact of antidepressant usage from a payer's perspective: a multinational study.

A multinational decision analytic model was developed to examine the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) in 10 European and American countries. Input to the model was obtained from a meta-analysis of current clinical trial data obtained from the published literature, and local clinical and health economic experts in each market. The patient- and policy-level impact of MDD treatment was measured in each of the 10 markets. The total expected cost per patient for treating MDD with venlafaxine XR during the six-month acute phase of MDD was the lowest expected cost in nine of the 10 countries studied, resulting in savings to the primary payer in almost all markets. As well as the cost savings, the higher efficacy and lower rate of dropout found for venlafaxine XR translate to a greater number of symptom-free-days (SFDs) per patient. The results of this investigation show that use of venlafaxine XR in most settings across Europe and the Americas will have a favourable impact on healthcare payer budgets and the overall mental health of MDD patients.

The cost-effectiveness of doxazosin for the treatment of hypertension in type II diabetic patients in the UK and Italy.

The objective of this analysis was to assess the cost-effectiveness of achieving 'tight control' versus 'less tight control' of blood pressure, as defined in the UK Prospective Diabetics Study 38, in type II diabetic patients in the UK and Italy. The effect of including doxazosin in a 'tight control' combination therapy was analysed. Given doxazosin's positive impact on lipid levels in addition to its antihypertensive effect, it is hypothesised that treatment including doxazosin will reduce the incidence of macrovascular complications. For each country, a Markov model was constructed to simulate macrovascular outcomes of patients on various drug combinations. Transitional probabilities were based on the risk rates presented in UKPDS 38. Risk rates were adjusted for the ageing of the cohort and the lipid-lowering properties of doxazosin using Framingham risk equations. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranged from 2224 Pounds to 4867 Pounds (US$3225-7057) per life-year saved for the UK and from L1.8-9.3 million (US$818-4159) per life-year saved for Italy. Doxazosin is a cost-effective agent when included in a combination therapy in the treatment of hypertension in the diabetic populations of the UK and Italy.

A retrospective analysis comparing the costs and cost effectiveness of amlodipine and enalapril in the treatment of hypertension.

A comparison of treatment costs and cost effectiveness was performed retrospectively by using patient-level data from a randomized, controlled, one-year clinical trial of amlodipine and enalapril in the treatment of mild-to-moderate hypertension. Unit costs of amlodipine and enalapril were applied to the daily dosages of individual patients to calculate the total costs and average costs per patient in each treatment group in the clinical trial on an intent-to-treat basis. Efficacy rates were used to calculate the average treatment costs per success in blood pressure control. Although not statistically significant, amlodipine treatment resulted in a higher efficacy (89.5%) vs. enalapril (85.2%). The average costs per amlodipine-treated patient were consistently lower (-$112.30) than for the enalapril-treated patient by week 50. Treatment with amlodipine resulted in an average cost per success of $609 per patient compared with $772 per enalapril-treated patient. A sensitivity analysis revealed that, in the treatment of mild-to-moderate hypertension over the 50-week treatment period, amlodipine would remain less costly than enalapril, with a decrease in the cost of enalapril of up to 17%, and would remain more cost effective, with a 21% decrease in the cost of enalapril.

A pharmacoeconomic evaluation of two new products for the treatment of overactive bladder.

The objective of this study is to evaluate the cost effectiveness of two new treatments for overactive bladder: once-daily controlled-release oxybutynin, and twice-daily tolterodine, with a comparison with oxybutynin immediate release. Also estimated are the potential cost savings to a health plan budget resulting from increased utilization of the most cost-effective treatment. The design is a decision-tree model based on clinical trial data and expert panel estimates with a six-month time horizon conducted from a payer perspective. The primary outcome measure used in the analysis was treatment success, with success defined as zero incontinence episodes per week. A secondary outcome measure was the expected number of continent days. As first-line therapy, controlled-release oxybutynin is the most cost-effective treatment as measured by expected cost per success and expected cost per continent days. Controlled-release, once-daily oxybutynin yielded the highest expected success rate and the highest number of expected continent days. The expected cost of treatment with controlled-release oxybutynin was lower than tolterodine and equivalent to immediate-release oxybutynin. Increased utilization of controlled-release oxybutynin results in an estimated saving of $0.007 to $0.026 per member per month for a hypothetical HMO. The model was robust, incorporating all assumptions based on univariate and multivariate sensitivity analysis. Initiating treatment with controlled-release oxybutynin is the most cost-effective approach to treatment for overactive bladder.

A pharmacoeconomic evaluation of major depressive disorder (Italy).

OBJECTIVE: To determine the most cost-effective oral therapy for the treatment of Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) in Italy. METHOD: We conducted a pharmacoeconomic evaluation based on a decision analytic model that examined the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) in Italy. The analysis compared the serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI), venlafaxine extended-release (venlafaxine XR), to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs). A meta-analysis was performed to determine the clinical rates of success. The meta-analytic rates were applied to the decision analytic model to calculate the expected cost and expected outcomes for each anti-depressant comparator. Cost-effectiveness was determined using the expected values for both a successful outcome, and a composite measure of outcome termed 'symptom-free days'. A policy analysis was conducted to estimate the financial impact to the Servizio Sanitario Nazionale (SSN). RESULTS: Treatment of MDD with venlafaxine XR yielded the highest overall efficacy rates for outpatients (73.7%) versus SSRIs (61.4%) and TCAs (59.3%), and inpatients (62.3%) versus SSRIs (58.6%) and TCAs (58.2%). Venlafaxine XR had the lowest dropout rates due to lack of efficacy (4.8%) versus SSRIs (8.4%) and TCAs (6.8%), and adverse drug reactions (10.9%) versus SSRIs (17.4%) and TCAs (23.1%). Initiating treatment of MDD with venlafaxine XR yielded the lowest expected cost for outpatients and for inpatients. The total resulting savings for the SSN at a 5% venlafaxine XR utilization was estimated between L 963 million and L 3,210 million. CONCLUSION: This study confirms that venlafaxine XR is generally a cost-effective treatment of MDD. Additionally, the results of this investigation suggest that increased utilization of venlafaxine XR will favorably impact the SSN.