ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to explore the budget impact of dutasteride plus tamsulosin fixed-dose combination (DUT + TAM FDC) versus tamsulosin monotherapy, in the treatment of patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) from the perspective of the Greek healthcare insurance system. METHODS: A Microsoft Excel-based model was developed to estimate the financial consequences of adopting DUT + TAM FDC within the Greek healthcare setting. The model, compared six mutually exclusive health states in two alternative treatment options: current standard of care and the introduction of DUT + TAM FDC in the market. The model used clinical inputs from the CombAT study; data on resource use associated with the management of BPH in Greece were derived from expert panel, and unit cost data were derived from official reimbursement tariffs. A payer perspective was taken into account. As patient distribution data between public and private sectors are not available in Greece two scenarios were investigated, considering the whole eligible population in each scenario. A 4 year time horizon was taken into account and included treatment costs, number of transurethral resections of the prostate (TURPs) and acute urinary retention (AUR) episodes avoided. RESULTS: The clinical benefit from the market adoption of DUT + TAM FDC in Greece was 1,758 TURPs and 972 episodes of AUR avoided cumulatively in a four year period. The increase in total costs from the gradual introduction of DUT + TAM FDC to the Greek healthcare system ranges from 1.3 million in the first year to 5.8 million in the fourth year, for the public sector, and 1.2 million to 4.0 million, for the private sector. This represents an increase of 1.91% to 7.94% for the public sector and 1.10% 3.29% in the private sector, during the 4-year time horizon. CONCLUSIONS: Budget impact analysis (BIA) results indicated that the gradual introduction of DUT + TAM FDC, would increase the overall budget of the disease, however providing better clinical outcomes. DUT + TAM FDC drug acquisition cost is partly offset by the reduction in the costs associated with the treatment of the disease.
Subject(s)
Azasteroids/economics , Azasteroids/therapeutic use , Budgets , Prostatic Hyperplasia/drug therapy , Sulfonamides/economics , Sulfonamides/therapeutic use , Urological Agents/economics , Urological Agents/therapeutic use , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Drug Therapy, Combination , Dutasteride , Greece , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Office Visits/statistics & numerical data , Prostatic Hyperplasia/surgery , Tamsulosin , Transurethral Resection of Prostate/statistics & numerical data , Urinary Retention/prevention & controlABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to estimate the annual and per-patient budget impact of the treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis in Greece before and after the introduction of ustekinumab. METHODS: A budget impact model was constructed from a national health system perspective to depict the clinical and economic aspects of psoriasis treatment over 5 years. The model included drug acquisition, monitoring, and administration costs for both the induction and maintenance years for patients in a treatment mix with etanercept, adalimumab, infliximab, with or without ustekinumab. It also considered the resource utilization for non-responders. Greek treatment patterns and resource utilization data were derived from 110 interviews with dermatologists conducted in February 2009 and evaluated by an expert panel of 18 key opinion leaders. Officially published sources were used to derive the unit costs. Costs of adverse events and indirect costs were excluded from the analysis. Treatment response was defined as the probability of achieving a PASI 50, PASI 75, or PASI 90 response, based on published clinical trial data. RESULTS: The inclusion of ustekinumab in the biological treatment mix for moderate to severe psoriasis is predicted to lead to total per-patient savings of 443 and 900 in years 1 and 5 of its introduction, respectively. The cost savings were attributed to reduced administration costs, reduced hospitalizations for non-responders, and improved efficacy. These results were mainly driven by the low number of administrations required with ustekinumab over a 5 year treatment period (22 for ustekinumab, compared with 272 for etanercept, 131 for adalimumab, and 36 for infliximab). CONCLUSIONS: The inclusion of ustekinumab in the treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis in Greece is anticipated to have short- and long-term health and economic benefits, both on an annual and per-patient basis.