A cost analysis of orthopedic foot surgery: can outpatient continuous regional analgesia provide the same standard of care for postoperative pain control at home without shifting costs?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Same-day surgery is common for foot surgery. Continuous regional anesthesia for outpatients has been shown effective but the economic impact on the perioperative process-related healthcare costs remains unclear. METHODS: One hundred twenty consecutive patients were included in this assessor-blinded, prospective cohort study and allocated according to inclusion criteria in the day-care or in the in-patient group. Standardized continuous popliteal sciatic nerve block was performed in both groups for 48 h using an elastomeric pump delivering ropivacaine 0.2 % at a rate of 5 ml/h with an additional 5 ml bolus every 60 min. Outpatients were discharged the day of surgery and followed with standardized telephone interviews. The total direct health costs of both groups were compared. Moreover, the difference in treatment costs and the difference in terms of quality of care and effectiveness between the groups were compared. RESULTS: Total management costs were significantly reduced in the day-care group. There was no difference between the groups regarding pain at rest and with motion, persistent pain after catheter removal and the incidence of PONV. Persistent motor block and catheter inflammation/infection were comparable in both groups. There was neither a difference in the number of unscheduled ambulatory visits nor in the number of readmissions. CONCLUSIONS: Day-care continuous regional analgesia leads to an overall positive impact on costs by decreasing the incidence of unplanned ambulatory visits and unscheduled readmissions, without compromising on the quality of analgesia, patients' satisfaction, and safety.

An adherence based cost-consequence model comparing bimatoprost 0.01% to bimatoprost 0.03%.

OBJECTIVES: Estimate the long-term direct medical costs and clinical consequences of improved adherence with bimatoprost 0.01% compared to bimatoprost 0.03% in the treatment of glaucoma. METHODS: A cost-consequence model was constructed from the perspective of a US healthcare payer. The model structure included three adherence levels (high, moderate, low) and four mean deviation (MD) defined health states (mild, moderate, severe glaucoma, blindness) for each adherence level. Clinical efficacy in terms of IOP reduction was obtained from the randomized controlled trial comparing bimatoprost 0.01% with bimatoprost 0.03%. Medication adherence was based on observed 12 month rates from an analysis of a nationally representative pharmacy claims database. Patients with high, moderate and low adherence were assumed to receive 100%, 50% and 0% of the IOP reduction observed in the clinical trial, respectively. Each 1 mmHg reduction in IOP was assumed to result in a 10% reduction in the risk of glaucoma progression. Worse glaucoma severity health states were associated with higher medical resource costs. Outcome measures were total costs, proportion of patients who progress and who become blind, and years of blindness. Deterministic sensitivity analyses were performed on uncertain model parameters. RESULTS: The percentage of patients progressing, becoming blind, and the time spent blind slightly favored bimatoprost 0.01%. Improved adherence with bimatoprost 0.01% led to higher costs in the first 2 years; however, starting in year 3 bimatoprost 0.01% became less costly compared to bimatoprost 0.03% with a total reduction in costs reaching US$3433 over a lifetime time horizon. Deterministic sensitivity analyses demonstrated that results were robust, with the majority of analyses favoring bimatoprost 0.01%. Application of 1 year adherence and efficacy over the long term are limitations. CONCLUSIONS: Modeling the effect of greater medication adherence with bimatoprost 0.01% compared with bimatoprost 0.03% suggests that differences may result in improved economic and patient outcomes.

Safety and efficacy of aliskiren in the treatment of hypertension: a systematic overview.

INTRODUCTION: Aliskiren is the first orally active direct renin inhibitor approved for the treatment of hypertension. Aliskiren's inhibitory effect on angiotensin I generation, through renin blockade, is highly specific and long-lasting (24 hours). This feature differentiates aliskiren from traditional antihypertensive drugs. AREAS COVERED: This paper reviews the results of various clinical trials which investigate the safety and efficacy of aliskiren on blood pressure (BP) reduction and clinical end points. EXPERT OPINION: Aliskiren is suitable for once-daily administration. Its antihypertensive effect is comparable or superior to that of other antihypertensive agents at recommended doses. The tolerability profile of aliskiren is placebo-like at the licensed doses of 150 and 300 mg. In particular, the discontinuation of therapy due to clinical adverse events occurs similarly among patients treated with either aliskiren or placebo. Aliskiren is not recommended in association with ACE-inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers in patients with type 2 diabetes and renal impairment. Pending disclosure of full results, the early termination of the ALTITUDE seems to confirm previous concerns about the safety of the dual pharmacological blockade of the renin-angiotensin system in these patients. Aliskiren is a well-tolerated antihypertensive drug that may help to achieve the recommended targets of BP control.

Failure to intensify hypertension therapy after rejected aliskiren claims.

BACKGROUND: Failure to intensify therapy when indicated is a serious problem in the management of hypertension. Patients having an antihypertensive prescription rejected because of utilization management tools may be at a high risk of failing to intensify their therapy when it is warranted. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to investigate the patterns of therapy change after rejected aliskiren claims because of utilization management tools such as prior authorization, step therapy, and restrictive formulary. METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted using data from a large national pharmacy benefits manager. Patients with a rejected aliskiren claim because of utilization management and who were naive to aliskiren treatment before having a rejected aliskiren claim were included. Patients were followed up for 6 months after the initial rejected aliskiren claim to see whether there was a therapy change. Therapy change was defined as titration of old regimens, fulfillment of aliskiren, or fulfillment of a new antihypertensive medication not used previously. RESULTS: A total of 1955 patients were identified (mean age, 64.5 years; 54.4% female). Six months after having rejected aliskiren claims, 36.8% overcame the utilization management and filled aliskiren; 45.1% filled a new antihypertensive medication not used previously; and 10.8% patients titrated old antihypertensive medications. More than one quarter of patients (28.4%) had no change in their antihypertensive treatment. Logistic regression analysis revealed that patients rejected because of prior authorization (odds ratio = 4.00 [95% CI, 1.89-8.44]) or step therapy (odds ratio = 2.59 [95% CI, 1.26-5.32]) were more likely to have a therapy change compared with patients rejected because of a restrictive formulary. CONCLUSIONS: A significant number of patients had no therapy change 6 months after having rejected aliskiren claims because of utilization management tools, indicating potential clinical inertia or lack of therapy intensification in hypertension management. Patients with restrictive formularies were least likely to have a therapy change. More aggressive follow-up with patients with a rejected claim may be warranted to reduce treatment gaps.

Long-term medical management of primary open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension in the UK: optimizing cost-effectiveness and clinic resources by minimizing therapy switches.

PURPOSE: The objective was to assess the long-term economic consequences of the medical management of glaucoma in the UK. METHODS: The economic evaluation was conducted using the results from a 10-year Markov model based around 3 key triggers for a switch in medical therapy for glaucoma, namely: lack of tolerance (using hyperemia as a proxy); intraocular pressure (IOP) not meeting treatment benchmark; and glaucoma progression. Clinical data from a comprehensive systematic literature review and meta-analysis were used. Direct costs associated with glaucoma treatment are considered (at 2008/9 prices) from the perspective of the UK NHS as payer (outpatient/secondary care setting). Using this model, the economic consequences of 3 prostaglandin-based treatment sequences were compared. RESULTS: Drug acquisition costs account for around 8% to 13% of the total cost of glaucoma and, if ophthalmologist visits are included, amount to approximately £0.80 to £0.90 per day of medical therapy. The total long-term costs of all prostaglandin strategies are similar because of a shift in resources: increased drug costs are offset by fewer clinic visits to instigate treatment switches, and by avoiding surgery or costs associated with managing low vision. Under the latanoprost-based strategy, patients would have longer intervals between the need to switch therapies, which is largely due to a reduction in hyperemia, seen as a proxy for tolerance. This leads to a delay in glaucoma progression of 12 to 13 months. For every 1000 clinic appointments, 719 patients can be managed for 1 year with a latanoprost-based strategy compared with 586 or 568 with a bimatoprost or travoprost-based strategy. CONCLUSIONS: Drug acquisition costs are not a key driver of the total cost of glaucoma management and the cost of medical therapy is offset by avoiding the cost of managing low vision. Economic models of glaucoma should include the long-term consequences of treatment as these will affect cost-effectiveness. This analysis supports the hypothesis that the economic and clinical benefits can be optimized by minimizing therapy switches.

Cost-offset analysis: bimatoprost versus other prostaglandin analogues in open-angle glaucoma.

OBJECTIVES: To develop a cost-offset model from a US payer perspective comparing glaucomatous progression and costs among primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) patients using bimatoprost, latanoprost, or travoprost. STUDY DESIGN: Cost-offset model. METHODS: A Markov cohort model was used to estimate glaucomatous progression for POAG patients over 7 years. The model assumed bimatoprost-treated patients had lower resulting intraocular pressure (IOP) (by 1 mm Hg) for all presenting IOP categories than latanoprost- or travoprost-treated patients. Patients with lower IOP were assumed to have lower probability of progression. Those that progressed were assumed to do so at a rate of -0.6 dB per year. Direct costs associated with mean deviation score categories were applied to each treatment cohort to calculate the expected 7-year costs of treating patients with each prostaglandin analogue (PGA). Literature was used to support assumptions. A budget impact analysis was conducted where all travoprost patients switched to generic latanoprost and where all bimatoprost patients switched to generic latanoprost. The base case market share was 22% bimatoprost, 23% travoprost, and 55% latanoprost. RESULTS: Model results demonstrate that for a managed care plan with 9500 PGA-treated glaucoma patients, exclusive bimatoprost use would prevent progression in 136 additional individuals compared with exclusive travoprost or latanoprost treatment. Model results demonstrate that greater IOP reduction from bimatoprost is associated with increased cost savings compared with latanoprost or travoprost treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Model results demonstrate that greater IOP reduction from bimatoprost could reduce managed care spending.

Long-term outcomes of prostaglandin analog versus timolol maleate in ocular hypertensive or primary open-angle glaucoma patients in Europe.

PURPOSE: To determine the direct costs of therapy over 5 years of a European monotherapy cohort begun on a prostaglandin (PTG) versus timolol in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. METHODS: A retrospective, multicenter, active-controlled, observational study. Data were abstracted for European patients treated as initial monotherapy in 1996 or afterward, with 5 years of available records. RESULTS: This study included 271 patients (166 on a PTG and 105 on timolol at baseline). The average cost/month/patient over 5 years was $45.47±12.61 for PTG and $31.50±15.47 for timolol (P<0.001, based on German prices). After 5 years, although there was no difference in number of glaucoma medicines prescribed between groups (1.0 PTGs and 1.1 timolol, P=0.41), the timolol group demonstrated a higher intraocular pressure (17.7±2.9 vs. 16.5±3.0 mm Hg, P<0.001), more medication changes (P=0.01), greater incidence of glaucomatous progression (P=0.04), and less patients persistent on original monotherapy (P<0.001) than the PTG cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Patients originally on timolol monotherapy have a lower cost of care over 5 years than those started on a PTG. However, timolol patients during follow-up may demonstrate a higher intraocular pressure, more progression, more medication changes, and lower persistency of the original monotherapy.

Continuous infusion of local anesthesia after living donor nephrectomy: a comparative analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Today local anesthetic wound infiltration is widely recognized as a useful adjunct in a multimodality approach to postoperative pain management. The effectiveness of continuous wound infusion of ropivacaine for postoperative pain relief after laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy was analyzed in this retrospective, comparative analysis. METHODS: Twenty patients undergoing living donor nephrectomy were divided into two groups: standard analgesic therapy (n=10) and ropivacaine continuous infusion group (n = 10). RESULTS: We observed a significant difference in term of visual analogue scale scores, use of morphine, hospital stay, and bowel recovery in favor of the ropivacaine group. The cost analysis demonstrated an overall savings of 985 Euros/patient. DISCUSSION: Surgical wound infusion with ropivacaine was safe and seemed to improve pain relief and accelerate recovery and discharge, reducing the overall costs of care. Postoperative pain control in the donor is of primary importance for better patient compliance and greater perceived quality of health care service.

Focused review: ropivacaine versus bupivacaine for epidural labor analgesia.

Neuraxial analgesia is frequently administered to women in labor. For many years, bupivacaine has been used because of its long duration of action, lack of excessive motor block, and minimal fetal and neonatal effects. However, bupivacaine is one of the most cardiotoxic local anesthetics in current use and motor block is still a problem. Many local anesthetics such as bupivacaine exist in 2 forms, levorotatory and dextrorotatory. Ropivacaine, an amide local anesthetic produced in the pure levorotatory form addresses some of the concerns related to bupivacaine. In this article, we present the literature comparing ropivacaine and bupivacaine to determine whether there is an advantage to using one of these local anesthetics for labor analgesia. We found that there is no advantage to the routine use of ropivacaine for labor analgesia.

Treatment of glaucoma in clinical practice: four-year results from a patient registry in France.

PURPOSE: To investigate long-term resource consumption and clinical outcome of patients with early primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension treated with prostaglandins in clinical practice in France. METHODS: Thirty-four geographically spread specialized hospitals and private practices enrolled consecutive patients receiving, for the first time, a prostaglandin, alone or in combination. The study was based on routine practice and no consultations, examinations, or treatments were mandated by the protocol. Treating physicians recorded each consultation, including all examinations performed, referrals, admissions, and prescriptions. Descriptive analysis of resource consumption and development of intraocular pressure (IOP) and visual fields was performed, for all patients who completed the 4-year follow-up. RESULTS: The study enrolled 602 patients and 78% completed 4-year follow-up. Mean age was 65 years and mean time since diagnosis was 4 years. Mean IOP was reduced from a baseline of 21.2 mm Hg to 16.5 mm Hg during the first year and remained stable throughout the study. Mean visual fields at baseline were -4.2 mean deviation and stable during the follow-up. Total mean health care costs per patient were €1947, of which medication represented 50%. Over half of the patients (52%) remained on their initial medication during the 4 years. Drug changes were mostly because of inadequate IOP control and the number of treatment switches was significantly related to costs. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first prospective study of treatment with prostaglandins in clinical practice. The results indicate that many patients with early glaucoma managed primarily with prostaglandins will show very little progression over 4 years. Compared with the mid-90s, costs have not increased despite the higher acquisition cost of prostaglandins, as surgical interventions and medical consultations have decreased.

Hyperemia-associated costs of medication changes in glaucoma patients treated initially with prostaglandin analogs.

AIMS: To develop a model to estimate and compare the cost of changing therapy due to hyperemia in glaucoma patients treated initially either with latanoprost, bimatoprost, or travoprost monotherapy. METHODS: Data collected from the HealthCore Integrated Research Database, as part of the Glaucoma Adherence and Persistency Study (GAPS), were used to populate the model. Patients with a documented diagnosis of glaucoma who were newly treated (no ocular hypotensive medication and no glaucoma-related procedure during 6 months before first prescription) with latanoprost, bimatoprost, or travoprost monotherapy were identified. The time horizon for the base-case model was the duration of chart abstraction (mean = 4.1 years); a 3-month model also was developed. Physician-reported rates of hyperemia were obtained from chart reviews of 300 patients. Transition rates reflected events related to reports of hyperemia where a physician-driven change (switch or discontinuation) in therapy was documented. The per-patient direct cost (2008) due to hyperemia-driven change in therapy was calculated as the sum of the cost of the initial prescription plus the cost of the office visit where the patient was evaluated and the decision to change therapy was made. Costs were stratified by whether patients were hyperemia free or discontinued the initial therapy due to hyperemia. RESULTS: From the sample of 13,977 newly treated patients, 8,743 patients were started on a prostaglandin monotherapy only. Of these, 5,726 received latanoprost, 1,633 were treated with bimatoprost, and 1,384 received travoprost index monotherapy. Across all treatment groups, costs among hyperemia-free patients were US$73.67 versus US$140.02 for those who discontinued the initial prostaglandin due to hyperemia. Per-patient costs were lowest in the group treated initially with latanoprost. For the base-case model, with latanoprost as the reference, total per-patient incremental costs due to hyperemia-driven change in therapy were US$5.92 for bimatoprost and US$5.43 for travoprost. Results were not highly sensitive to increases either in the incidence of hyperemia among latanoprost-treated patients or in the cost of latanoprost. CONCLUSIONS: Hyperemia results in increased overall costs in patients treated with latanoprost, bimatoprost, and travoprost. Treatment with latanoprost is associated with lower hyperemia-related costs than treatment with bimatoprost or travoprost.

Cost-effectiveness of treating resistant hypertension with an implantable carotid body stimulator.

The purposes of this study are to investigate the cost-effectiveness of an implantable carotid body stimulator (Rheos; CVRx, Inc, Minneapolis, MN) for treating resistant hypertension and determine the range of starting systolic blood pressure (SBP) values where the device remains cost-effective. A Markov model compared a 20-mm Hg drop in SBP from an initial level of 180 mm Hg with Rheos to failed medical management in a hypothetical 50-year-old cohort. Direct costs (2007$), utilities, and event rates for future myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, and end-stage renal disease were modeled. Sensitivity analyses tested the assumptions in the model. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for Rheos was $64,400 per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) using Framingham-derived event probabilities. The ICER was <$100,000 per QALYs for SBPs > or =142 mm Hg. A probability of device removal of <1% per year or SBP reductions of > or =24 mm Hg were variables that decreased the ICER below $50,000 per QALY. For cohort characteristics similar to Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial-Blood Pressure-Lowering Arm (ASCOT-BPLA) participants, the ICER became $26,700 per QALY. Two-way sensitivity analyses demonstrated that lowering SBP 12 mm Hg from 220 mm Hg or 21 mm Hg from 140 mm Hg were required. Rheos may be cost-effective, with an ICER between $50,000 and $100,000 per QALYs. Cohort characteristics and efficacy are key to the cost-effectiveness of new therapies for resistant hypertension .

First-year treatment patterns among new initiators of topical prostaglandin analogs.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate treatment patterns and costs among new initiators of topical prostaglandin analogs in a managed-care population. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Annual costs were modeled using multiple inputs. A retrospective cohort design was used to identify treatment patterns for pharmacotherapy. The study population was identified from pharmacy claims for patients who met study inclusion criteria (patients initiating prostaglandin analog monotherapy). Published studies were used to estimate visit-related resource use and costs were obtained from published and standard sources. RESULTS: In the cohort analysis, a total of 12 202 patients met study criteria: 2275 received bimatoprost, 7347 received latanoprost and 2580 received travoprost (1808 used the original formulation and 772 used the newer preservative formulation). Of patients meeting study criteria, 50% stopped all glaucoma therapy, 6% switched from their initial prostaglandin therapy, and the remaining 44% stayed on their initial prostaglandin for 1 year. Of patients remaining on prostaglandin analog monotherapy for 1 year, 22.7% of bimatoprost patients, 19.8% of latanoprost patients and 17.9% of travoprost patients (19.7% for the original formulation and 13.7% for the new formulation) required adjunctive therapy. Of those requiring adjunctive therapy, the median number of days until starting adjunctive therapy was 53 days for bimatoprost patients, 63 days for latanoprost patients and 83 days for travoprost patients (70.5 days for the original formulation and 109 days for the new formulation). The resources used at each visit were estimated at $424 for an initial visit and $70 for follow-up visits. Estimated first-year costs were $1294, $1199, and $1186 for patients initiating therapy with bimatoprost, latanoprost, and travoprost, respectively. Estimated travoprost costs were higher for the original formulation ($1203) than for the new formulation ($1160). Sensitivity analyses suggested that the cost estimates are robust to changes in costs and use of adjunctive therapies. LIMITATIONS: The use of a claims database without compliance data or clinical outcomes and the selection of new initiators of topical prostaglandin analogs limits the findings and does not allow projecting outcomes to all glaucoma patients. CONCLUSIONS: Use of adjunctive therapy in glaucoma is an important driver of glaucoma management costs. Based on the results of this study, it is possible that longer duration of monotherapy with prostaglandin analogs may be associated with lower annual costs. Further study should be conducted to validate these findings.

[Cost-efficacy analysis of fixed combinations of prostaglandin/prostamide for treating glaucoma]. / Análisis coste-eficacia de las combinaciones fijas de prostaglandinas/prostamida para el tratamiento del glaucoma.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-efficacy of three fixed-combination glaucoma treatments currently available in Spain [bimatoprost with timolol (BT)- Ganfort, latanoprost with timolol (LT)- Xalacom, and travoprost with timolol (TT)- DuoTrav]. METHODS: Because no studies are available that give a direct comparison of these drugs, a systematic review was carried out to assess their efficacy. Resource consumption and costs were estimated using a model of usual local practice. For each of the three drugs, average and incremental cost-efficacy ratios were determined in terms of euros per percentage point of reduction of intraocular pressure (IOP) over a three-month period. RESULTS: BT reduced IOP by 35.1%, LT by 35.0% and TT by 34.7%. Average cost-efficacy was estimated to be euro 5.34 per percentage point of IOP reduction with BT, euro 5.40 with LT, and euro 5.45 with TT. Incremental cost-efficacy (incremental cost per incremental percentage point of IOP reduction) was estimated to be euro 94.65 for LT vs. TT, and was negative for BT vs. TT and BT vs. LT, since in both cases BT was more efficacious and less expensive. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to travoprost/timolol and latanoprost/timolol, bimatoprost/timolol appears to be the most economic alternative, with equal or better efficacy and safety results.