Why We Need a New Outcomes-Based Value Attribution Framework for Combination Regimens in Oncology.

BACKGROUND: Novel oncology treatment strategies increasingly use medicines with distinct but complementary mechanisms of action in combination or in close sequence. Payers, when confronted with higher total cost of providing combination regimens involving multiple therapies and usually longer treatment durations, are reluctant to reimburse them, particularly when they perceive the expected incremental benefits from adding a new medicine (the add-on) to a currently reimbursed medicine (the backbone) not to represent value for money to the health system. Nevertheless, depending on how value is attributed to the add-on versus the backbone, a clinically effective medicine used as part of a regimen that increases treatment duration might be found "not cost-effective at zero price." This phenomenon, signaling a policy problem not a pricing issue, first needs to be better understood before a generalizable and transparent solution can be presented. OBJECTIVE: This article sets out when this policy challenge arises and describes general principles that any proposed solution to the value attribution problem must satisfy. METHODS: We develop a simplified conceptual framework and use this to address 2 topics. The first is to understand the origin of problems posed by the current approach for attributing value in incremental cost-effectiveness analyses of combination regimens. The second is to discuss 2 new approaches in the literature designed to address the challenge. FINDINGS: We find that neither meets our criteria, meaning that further work is needed to resolve the issue. Finally, we briefly discuss the implications of relaxing the simplifying assumptions in our conceptual framework.

Predicted impact of lipid lowering therapy on cardiovascular and economic outcomes of Swedish atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease guideline.

BACKGROUND: The effects on cardiovascular disease (CVD) by treatment recommendations on prevention of atherosclerotic CVD remain to be evaluated. The objectives were to assess treatment gap for low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) according to guidelines, potential impact on CVD outcomes, and possible avoided economic costs, in post myocardial infarction (MI) patients, if target LDL-C levels of ≤1.8 mmol/L would be achieved. METHODS: All patients registered in the Swedish Secondary Prevention after Heart Intensive care Admission register, with one-year post-MI follow-up during 2013 were selected. The REACH risk prediction and a calibrated model for recurrent cardiovascular events and death were used to estimate unadjusted risk prediction based on the REACH equation henceforth called base case, and calibrated CVD outcomes based on gender-specific risk factors. The predicted impact of the LDL-C reduction on the risk of CVD was based on the Cholesterol Treatment Trialists´ Collaboration findings. RESULTS: A sample of n = 5904 patients (74% men) with a mean age of 64 years were included. Around 70% did not reach LDL-C target ≤1.8 mmol/L. Over a 10-year period, 820-2262 events were predicted to occur in those who did not reach target corresponding to 20% - 55% risk of CVD events. To achieve LDL-C target, the mean LDL-C had to be reduced by 0.73 mmol/L (29%). If this LDL-C reduction was achieved, 195-544 life years, 132-343 CVD events, and 7.9-20.9 million Swedish crowns (MSEK) of direct costs, and 19.3-51.0 MSEK of total costs would be avoided. CONCLUSION: Lowering of LDL cholesterol to achieve target levels according to guidelines for post-MI patients may lead to fewer cardiovascular events and avoidance of event costs.

Cost-effectiveness of denosumab versus zoledronic acid for preventing skeletal-related events in the Czech Republic.

AIMS: This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of the subcutaneous RANKL inhibitor, denosumab, vs the intravenous bisphosphonate, zoledronic acid, for the prevention of skeletal-related events (SREs) in patients with prostate cancer, breast cancer, and other solid tumors (OST) in the Czech Republic. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A lifetime Markov model was developed to compare the effects of denosumab and zoledronic acid on costs (including drug costs and administration, patient management, SREs, and adverse events), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios from a national payer perspective. Different discount rates, time horizons, SRE rates, distributions, and nature (asymptomatic vs all SREs), and the inclusion of treatment discontinuation were considered in scenario analyses. The robustness of the model was tested using deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Across tumor types, denosumab was associated with fewer SREs, improved QALYs, and higher total costs over a lifetime. The incremental cost per QALY gained for denosumab vs zoledronic acid was 382,673 CZK for prostate cancer, 408,450 CZK for breast cancer, and 608,133 CZK for OST. Incremental costs per SRE avoided for the same tumor type were 54,007 CZK, 51,765 CZK, and 94,426 CZK, respectively. In scenario analyses, the results remained similar to baseline, when different discount rates and time horizons were considered. At a non-official willingness-to-pay threshold of 1.2 million CZK, the probabilities of denosumab being cost-effective vs zoledronic acid were 0.64, 0.67, and 0.49 for prostate cancer, breast cancer, and OST, respectively. LIMITATIONS: The SRE rates used were obtained from clinical trials; studies suggest rates may be higher in clinical practice. Additional evidence on real-world SRE rates could further improve the accuracy of the modeling. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with zoledronic acid, denosumab provides a cost-effective treatment option for the prevention of SREs in patients with prostate cancer, breast cancer, and OST in the Czech Republic.

Cost-effectiveness of Evolocumab in Patients With High Cardiovascular Risk in Spain.

PURPOSE: Our objective was to assess the cost-effectiveness of evolocumab in patients at high risk of cardiovascular (CV) events from the Spanish National Health System perspective. METHODS: A Markov model was used to assess the cost-effectiveness (incremental [∆] cost per ∆ quality-adjusted life-year [QALY]; or cost utility) of evolocumab plus standard of care (SoC; statins) versus SoC, assuming lifetime treatment. Cohorts with baseline LDL-C >100 mg/dL and familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) or CV event history (secondary prevention [SP]) were considered. Lifetime CV event rates were predicted either (1) using risk equations considering local risk factors (Spanish Familial Hypercholesterolemia Cohort Study) adjusted to reflect the increased risk of FH patients or (2) using CV event rates from local registries (Information System for the Development of Research in Primary Care) for SP patients. LDL-C relative reductions from evolocumab trials (Evolocumab 140 mg Q2W (bi-weekly) and 420 mg QM (monthly)) were converted into CV event reductions using rate ratios per millimole per liter (mmol/L; 38.67 mg/dL) from a meta-analysis of statin trials (Cholesterol Treatment Trialists' Collaboration). FINDINGS: Predicted 10-year/lifetime CV risks were 50%/95% (FH) and 62%/82% (SP) for SoC and 27%/83% (FH) and 44%/69% (SP) for evolocumab plus SoC. Predicted 10-year/lifetime major CV event risks were 42%/86% (FH) and 47%/67% (SP) for SoC and 21%/68% (FH) and 31%/52% (SP) for evolocumab plus SoC. Predicted per patient-year rates of non-fatal/fatal CV events were 2.2/0.8 (FH) and 1.1/0.6 (SP) for SoC and 1.2/0.6 (FH) and 0.7/0.5 (SP) for evolocumab plus SoC. Predicted CV event reductions per mmol/L were 17% (FH) and 15% (SP). Evolocumab treatment was associated with increased QALYs and costs compared with SoC (FH: ∆cost, €65,369; ∆QALY, 2.12; incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER], €30,893; SP: ∆cost, €42,266; ∆QALY, 0.93; ICER, €45,340). IMPLICATIONS: Evolocumab plus to SoC may provide a cost-effective option for LDL-C lowering in FH and SP patients in Spain.

Cost-Effectiveness of LDL-C Lowering With Evolocumab in Patients With High Cardiovascular Risk in the United States.

Randomized trials have shown marked reductions in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), a risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD), when evolocumab is administered. We hypothesized that evolocumab added to standard of care (SOC) vs SOC alone is cost-effective in the treatment of patients with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HeFH) or atherosclerotic CVD (ASCVD) with or without statin intolerance and LDL-C >100 mg/dL. Using a Markov cohort state transition model, primary and recurrent CVD event rates were predicted considering population-specific trial-based mean risk factors and calibrated against observed rates in the real world. The LDL-C-lowering effect from population-specific phase 3 randomized studies for evolocumab was used together with estimated LDL-C-lowering effect on CVD event rates per 38.67-mg/dL LDL-C lowering from a statin-trial meta-analysis. Costs and utilities were included from published sources. Evolocumab treatment was associated with both increased cost and improved quality-adjusted life-years (QALY): HeFH (incremental cost: US$153 289, incremental QALY: 2.02, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio: US$75 863/QALY); ASCVD (US$158 307, 1.12, US$141 699/QALY); and ASCVD with statin intolerance (US$136 903, 1.36, US$100 309/QALY). Evolocumab met both the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) and World Health Organization (WHO) thresholds in each population evaluated. Sensitivity and scenario analyses confirmed that model results were robust to changes in model parameters. Among patients with HeFH and ASCVD with or without statin intolerance, evolocumab added to SOC may provide a cost-effective treatment option for lowering LDL-C using ACC/AHA intermediate/high value and WHO cost-effectiveness thresholds. More definitive information on the clinical and economic value of evolocumab will be available from the forthcoming CVD outcomes study.

Acute and chronic impact of cardiovascular events on health state utilities.

BACKGROUND: Cost-utility models are frequently used to compare treatments intended to prevent or delay the onset of cardiovascular events. Most published utilities represent post-event health states without incorporating the disutility of the event or reporting the time between the event and utility assessment. Therefore, this study estimated health state utilities representing cardiovascular conditions while distinguishing between acute impact including the cardiovascular event and the chronic post-event impact. METHODS: Health states were drafted and refined based on literature review, clinician interviews, and a pilot study. Three cardiovascular conditions were described: stroke, acute coronary syndrome (ACS), and heart failure. One-year acute health states represented the event and its immediate impact, and post-event health states represented chronic impact. UK general population respondents valued the health states in time trade-off tasks with time horizons of one year for acute states and ten years for chronic states. RESULTS: A total of 200 participants completed interviews (55% female; mean age = 46.6 y). Among acute health states, stroke had the lowest utility (0.33), followed by heart failure (0.60) and ACS (0.67). Utility scores for chronic health states followed the same pattern: stroke (0.52), heart failure (0.57), and ACS (0.82). For stroke and ACS, acute utilities were significantly lower than chronic post-event utilities (difference = 0.20 and 0.15, respectively; both p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Results add to previously published utilities for cardiovascular events by distinguishing between chronic post-event health states and acute health states that include the event and its immediate impact. Findings suggest that acute versus chronic impact should be considered when selecting scores for use in cost-utility models. Thus, the current utilities provide a unique option that may be used to represent the acute and chronic impact of cardiovascular conditions in economic models comparing treatments that may delay or prevent the onset of cardiovascular events.

Cost-utility of denosumab for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis in Spain.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of denosumab for fracture prevention compared with no treatment, generic bisphosphonates, and strontium ranelate in a cohort of osteoporotic postmenopausal women in Spain. METHODS: A Markov model represented the possible health state transitions of Spanish postmenopausal women from initiation of fracture prevention treatment until age 100 years or death. The perspective was that of the Spanish National Health System. Fracture efficacy data for denosumab were taken from a randomized controlled trial. Fracture efficacy data for alendronate, ibandronate, risedronate, and strontium ranelate were taken from an independent meta-analysis. Data on the incidence of fractures in Spain were either taken from the published literature or derived from Swedish data after applying a correction factor based on the reported incidence from each country. Resource use in each health state was obtained from the literature, or where no data had been published, conservative assumptions were made. Utility values for the various fracture health states were taken from published sources. The primary endpoints of the model were life-years gained, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for denosumab against the comparators. RESULTS: Denosumab reduced the risk of fractures compared with either no treatment or the other active interventions, and produced the greatest gains in life-years and QALYs. With an annual acquisition cost of €417.34 for denosumab, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for denosumab versus no treatment, alendronate, risedronate, and ibandronate were estimated at €6,823, €16,294, €4,895, and €2,205 per QALY gained, respectively. Denosumab dominated strontium ranelate. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of these findings. CONCLUSION: Our analyses show that denosumab is a cost-effective intervention for fracture prevention in osteoporotic postmenopausal women in Spain compared with alendronate and risedronate, and is a dominant treatment option compared with strontium ranelate.

Cost per patient and potential budget implications of denosumab compared with zoledronic acid in adults with bone metastases from solid tumours who are at risk of skeletal-related events: an analysis for Austria, Sweden and Switzerland.

OBJECTIVES: To assess cost implications per patient, per year, and to predict the potential annual budget impact when patients with bone metastases secondary to solid tumours at risk of skeletal-related events (SREs) transition from zoledronic acid (ZA; 4 mg every 3-4 weeks) to denosumab (120 mg every 4 weeks) in Austria, Sweden and Switzerland. METHODS: Country specific costs for medication and administration, patient management and SREs (defined as pathologic fracture, radiation to bone, surgery to bone and spinal cord compression) were assessed over a 1-year time horizon. Drug administration and patient management costs were taken from available public sources. SRE costs were based on local unit costs applied to country specific healthcare resources obtained from a multinational retrospective chart review study. Due to lack of real world data for the included countries, SRE rates were derived from phase III clinical trials in patients with advanced cancer and bone metastases. These trials demonstrated that denosumab was superior to ZA in the reduction of SREs. RESULTS: Estimated total annual cost savings for each patient transitioned from ZA to denosumab varied by country and cancer type, ranging from €1583 to €2375 in Austria, from €1980 to €2319 in Sweden (9.1 SEK/€) and from €3408 to €3857 in Switzerland (1.2 CHF/€). Cost savings were mainly driven by the lower SRE related costs and lower administration costs of denosumab compared with ZA. CONCLUSIONS: Denosumab offers superior efficacy compared with ZA in patients with solid tumours and bone metastases. Cost savings are predicted in the Austrian, Swedish and Swiss healthcare systems following treatment transition from ZA to denosumab.

Hospitalisation Utilisation and Costs in Schizophrenia Patients in Finland before and after Initiation of Risperidone Long-Acting Injection.

Objectives. Quantify changes in hospital resource use in Finland following initiation of risperidone long-acting injection (RLAI). Materials and Methods. A retrospective multi-center chart review (naturalistic setting) was used to compare annual hospital bed-days and hospital episodes for 177 schizophrenia patients (mean age 47.1 years, 52% female, 72% hospitalized) before and after initiation of RLAI (between January 2004 and June 2005) using the within-patient "mirror-image" study design. The base case analytical approach allocated hospital episodes overlapping the start date entirely to the preinitiation period. In order to investigate the impact of inpatient care ongoing at baseline, the change in bed-days was also estimated using an alternative analytical approached related to economic modelling. Results. In the conventional analysis, the mean annual hospitalisation costs declined by €11,900 and the number of bed-days was reduced by 40%, corresponding to 0.19 fewer hospital episodes per year. The reductions in bed-days per patient-year were similar for patients switched to RLAI as inpatients and as outpatients. In the modelling-based analysis, an 8% reduction in bed-days per year was observed. Conclusion. Despite uncertainty in the choice of analytic approach for allocating inpatient episodes that overlapping this initiation, consistent reductions in resource use are associated with the initiation of RLAI in Finland.

Economic evaluation of OROS hydromorphone for chronic pain: a Pan-European perspective.

OBJECTIVES: OROS hydromorphone (osmotic extended-release oral delivery system [OROS] hydromorphone) is a long-acting opioid analgesic, which is approved in Europe for the management of severe pain. The authors aimed to estimate the economic value of this product relative to other widely used oral opioids, including sustained-release morphine, extended-release (ER) oxycodone, and twice-daily (bid) hydromorphone. DESIGN: An adaptable, decision-analytic cost-utility model was developed. Separate versions of the model were developed for five European countries: Germany, Denmark, Slovakia, Portugal, and Italy. RESULTS: OROS hydromorphone represents a cost-effective alternative to other strong oral opioids in the treatment of both nonmalignant and malignant pain in all five countries. In the treatment of chronic severe nonmalignant pain, OROS hydromorphone was dominant (ie, lower cost and incremental quality-adjusted life years gains) when compared with ER oxycodone in Denmark and bid hydromorphone in Germany. Likewise, OROS hydromorphone was dominant in the treatment of chronic severe malignant pain when compared with ER oxycodone in both Germany and Denmark and when compared with bid hydromorphone in all markets where hydromorphone was marketed. CONCLUSIONS: This model demonstrates the cost effectiveness of OROS hydromorphone relative to other strong oral opioids in the treatment of chronic severe malignant and nonmalignant pain.

Medical resource utilization and cost of HIV-related care in the highly active antiretroviral therapy era at a University Clinic in Sweden.

INTRODUCTION: Little is known regarding healthcare costs for HIV/AIDS patients in the era of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) and subgroups of patients according to the severity and progression of HIV infection in Sweden. The objective of this study is therefore to describe the direct medical resource use and cost of healthcare for HIV patients at a university clinic in Sweden. METHODS: A patient registry database for HIV treatment at the Department of Infectious Diseases, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, between 2000 and 2005 provided information on patient characteristics, antiretroviral drugs and dosages, tests and diagnostic procedures, outpatient visits and inpatient stays. The review used publicly available unit costs with a county council perspective, expressed in 2006 Euros. RESULTS: Two hundred and eighty-five patients with a mean age of 38 years in 2000 (64% men) were followed for 1368 patient-years. They had a mean (median) of 6.3 (0) inpatient days, 4.1 (3.7) physician visits, 4.2 (3.8) nurse visits, 2.6 (0.7) counsellor visits and 11.5 (7.7) tests and diagnostic procedures per patient-year. Only 12 deaths were recorded during the study period, and the proportion of treated patients with successful treatment (HIV-RNA < 50 copies/mL) increased from 74% to 92% during the period. The mean cost per patient-month amounted to €1069. The main cost driver was HIV drugs (51%), followed by inpatient stays (including hospitalizations for opportunistic infections; 22%), outpatient physician, nurse or therapist visits (19%) and diagnostics and tests (7%). All non-drug costs increased with a decreasing CD4 cell count. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, approximately half of the direct costs of HIV treatment were not related to antiretroviral treatment. The non-antiretroviral costs were inversely correlated with HIV-induced immune deficiency.

Cost effectiveness of darunavir/ritonavir 600/100 mg bid in protease inhibitor-experienced, HIV-1-infected adults in Belgium, Italy, Sweden and the UK.

BACKGROUND: Two phase II trials (POWER 1 and 2) have demonstrated that darunavir co-administered with low-dose ritonavir (DRV/r) provides significant clinical benefit compared with control protease inhibitors (PIs) in highly treatment-experienced, HIV-1-infected adults, when co-administered with optimized background therapy (OBR). OBJECTIVE: To determine whether DRV/r is cost effective compared with control PIs, from the perspective of Belgian, Italian, Swedish and UK reimbursement authorities, when used in treatment-experienced patients similar to those included in the POWER 1 and 2 trials. METHODS: An existing Markov model containing health states defined by CD4 cell count ranges (> 500, 351-500, 201-350, 101-200, 51-100 and 0-50 cells/mm³) and death was adapted for use in four European healthcare settings. Baseline demographics, CD4 cell count distribution and antiretroviral drug usage reflected those reported in the POWER 1 and 2 trials. Virological/immunological response rates and matching transition probabilities over the patient's lifetime were based on results from the POWER trials and published data. After treatment failure, patients were assumed to switch to a tipranavir-containing regimen plus OBR. For each CD4 cell count range, utility values and HIV-related mortality rates were obtained from the published literature. National all-cause mortality data and published data on the increased risk of non HIV-related mortality in HIV-infected individuals were taken into account in the model. Data from observational studies conducted in each healthcare setting were used to determine resource-use patterns and costs associated with each CD4 cell count range. Unit costs were derived from official local sources; a lifetime horizon was taken and discount rates were selected based on local guidelines. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gains of up to 1.397 in Belgium, over 1.171 in Italy, 1.142 in Sweden and 1.091 in the UK were predicted when DRV/r-based therapy was used instead of control PI-based treatment. The base-case analyses predicted an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €11,438/QALY in Belgium, €12,122/QALY in Italy,€10,942/QALY in Sweden and €16,438/QALY in the UK. Assuming an acceptability threshold of €30,000/QALY, DRV/r-based therapy remained cost effective over all parameter ranges tested in extensive one-way sensitivity analyses. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed a 95% (Belgium), 97% (Italy), 92% (Sweden) or 78% (UK) probability of attaining an ICER below this threshold. CONCLUSION: From four European payer perspectives, DRV/r-based antiretroviral therapy is predicted to be cost effective compared with currently available control PIs, when both are used with an OBR in treatment-experienced, HIV-1-infected adults who failed to respond to more than one PI-containing regimen.

Predicting direct costs of HIV care during the first year of darunavir-based highly active antiretroviral therapy using CD4 cell counts: evidence from POWER.

BACKGROUND: Given the association between CD4 cell counts and HIV-related morbidity/mortality, new antiretroviral therapies could potentially lower the direct costs of HIV care by raising CD4 cell counts. OBJECTIVES: To predict the effects of the ritonavir-boosted, HIV protease inhibitor (PI) darunavir on the direct costs of care, while accounting for CD4 cell counts, during the first year of therapy in highly treatment-experienced, HIV-infected adults in different healthcare settings. METHODS: The mean annual per-patient cost of darunavir/ritonavir (DRV/r) and control PI-based highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) was calculated from the proportional use of antiretroviral agents in the DRV/r and control PI arms of the pooled POWER 1 and 2 trials, applying drug-acquisition costs for five healthcare settings. Non-antiretroviral-related costs by CD4 cell count, derived from non-interventional studies in the same settings, were applied to the POWER data (proportion of patients with CD4 cell counts in different strata at week 48) to estimate mean annual non-antiretroviral-related costs per patient in patients receiving DRV/r or control PI-based HAART during year 1. RESULTS: Across all settings, the mean annual per-patient cost of DRV/r-based treatment was 2-19% higher than that of control PI-based therapy during the first year of therapy. By raising CD4 cell counts, however, DRV/r-based regimens were predicted to lower mean annual non-antiretroviral-related costs by 16-38% compared with control PI-based therapy. When combined, the total annual per-patient cost of HIV care during the first year of therapy was estimated to be 7% lower in the DRV/r compared with the control PI arm using US data, 8% lower using Swedish data, budget neutral using UK and Belgian data and 5% higher using Italian data. CONCLUSIONS: Darunavir-based HAART may lower non-antiretroviral-related costs compared with control PI-based therapy in highly treatment-experienced, HIV-infected patients during the first year of therapy by improving patients' CD4 cell counts. These costs could partly/fully offset the increased acquisition cost of DRV/r in this patient population over the same period.

Cost effectiveness of long-acting risperidone in Sweden.

BACKGROUND: In Sweden, risperidone long-acting injectable (RLAI) is generally used in a population of schizophrenia patients who are at a high risk of being non-compliant. However, RLAI might also be suitable for use in the general schizophrenia population. OBJECTIVES: To analyse the clinical and economic effects of RLAI in the Swedish treatment practice using a discrete-event simulation (DES) model. Treatment outcomes and direct costs were analysed for both the high-risk non-compliant patient population and the general schizophrenia population. METHODS: An existing DES model was adapted to simulate the treatment of schizophrenia in Sweden. Model inputs were based on literature research and supplemented with expert opinion. In the high-risk non-compliant schizophrenia population, RLAI was compared with haloperidol LAI. The analysis was built upon differences in symptom reduction, time between relapses, compliance and adverse effect profile between the two drugs. Main outcomes were the predicted incremental (discounted) costs (€) and effects (QALYs). In the general schizophrenia population, RLAI was compared with oral olanzapine. This analysis was built upon differences in compliance and adverse effects between the drugs. Multivariate probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were carried out to assess the sensitivity of the results of the two analyses. RESULTS: In the high-risk non-compliant patient population, RLAI was predicted to generate 0.103 QALYs per patient over 3 years while realizing cost savings of €5013 (year 2007 values) compared with haloperidol LAI. The main driver of the cost effectiveness of RLAI was the difference in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) reduction between the two drugs, followed by the difference in adverse effects. The PSA showed that, in this setting, RLAI had a probability of 100% of being cost effective at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of €43,300 per QALY gained, compared with haloperidol LAI. The probability that RLAI combines additional effectiveness with cost savings compared with haloperidol LAI was estimated at 94%. When analysing RLAI in the general schizophrenia population, it was predicted to generate 0.043 QALYs and save €239 per patient over 5 years compared with olanzapine. Compliance was the main driver of the cost effectiveness of RLAI in this scenario. In the PSA it was shown that RLAI had a probability of 78% of being cost effective at a WTP threshold of €43,300 per QALY gained, compared with olanzapine. The estimated probability that RLAI combines additional effectiveness with cost savings was 50% and the probability that RLAI is less effective and more costly than olanzapine was negligible (0.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with RLAI is suggested to result in improved QALYs combined with cost savings compared with haloperidol LAI among the Swedish, high-risk non-compliant schizophrenia patient population. In the general schizophrenia population, RLAI also resulted in positive incremental QALYs and cost savings, when compared with olanzapine. However, the estimates used in the model for compliance and symptom reduction need further validation through naturalistic-based studies with reasonable follow-up to more definitely establish the real-life differences between RLAI and the comparators in the considered patient populations and to further reduce the uncertainty of these parameters.

The impact on schizophrenia-related hospital utilization and costs of switching to long-acting risperidone injections in Sweden.

AIM: To estimate changes in resource usage, hospitalization rates, and costs in actual practice in Sweden for schizophrenia patients after switching to long-acting injectable risperidone (Risperdal Consta). METHODS: A retrospective chart review within-subject mirror-image study using actual practice chart review data was used to compare annual hospital bed-days and annual hospital episodes for adults with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder before and after switching to Risperdal Consta in the period 1 January 2003 to 30 June 2005. Secondary endpoints included mean length of hospital stay per episode, the cost of hospitalization, and the cost of antipsychotic treatment. The base case analytical approach allocated all hospital episodes overlapping the switch date entirely to pre-switch treatment. In order to investigate the impact of inpatient care ongoing at the time of the switch, the change in bed-days per year was also estimated using an alternative analytical approach inspired by economic modelling. RESULTS: One-hundred sixty-four patients were enrolled at nine geographically diverse sites. The switch to Risperdal Consta was associated with a significant reduction in mean annual days in hospital from 39 to 21 days per year (45%), which was linked to a significant reduction in the number of hospitalizations from 0.86 to 0.63 per year (27%). The alternative "modelling-inspired" estimate of the reduction in mean annual days in hospital was also 27%. CONCLUSION: A naturalistic mirror-image study found that switching to long-acting injectable risperidone led to sizeable reductions in inpatient resource use. These results coincide with the findings of other international studies.

Meta-analysis of duloxetine vs. pregabalin and gabapentin in the treatment of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain.

BACKGROUND: Few direct head-to-head comparisons have been conducted between drugs for the treatment of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP). Approved or recommended drugs in this indication include duloxetine (DLX), pregabalin (PGB), gabapentin (GBP) and amitriptyline (AMT). We conducted an indirect meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and tolerability of DLX with PGB and GBP in DPNP, using placebo as a common comparator. METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL databases and regulatory websites for randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel group or crossover clinical trials (RCTs) assessing DLX, PGB, GBP and AMT in DPNP. Study arms using approved dosages with assessments after 5-13 weeks were eligible. Efficacy criteria were: reduction in 24-hour pain severity (24 h PS) for all three drugs, and response rate (>or= 50% pain reduction) and Patient Global Impression of Improvement/Change (PGI-I/C) for DLX and PGB only. Tolerability criteria included: discontinuation, diarrhoea, dizziness, headache, nausea and somnolence. Direct comparisons versus placebo were conducted with pooled fixed - and random-effects analyses on endpoints reported in at least two studies of each drug. Indirect comparisons were performed between DLX and each of PGB and GBP using Bayesian simulation. RESULTS: Three studies of DLX, six of PGB, two of GBP and none of AMT met the inclusion criteria. In random-effects and fixed-effects analyses of DLX, PGB and GBP, all were superior to placebo for all efficacy parameters, with some tolerability trade-offs. Indirect comparison of DLX with PGB found no differences in 24 h PS, but significant differences in PGI-I/C, favouring PGB, and in dizziness, favouring DLX were apparent. Comparing DLX and GBP, there were no statistically significant differences. CONCLUSION: From the few available studies suitable for indirect comparison, DLX shows comparable efficacy and tolerability to GBP and PGB in DPNP. Duloxetine provides an important treatment option for this disabling condition.

Direct hospital resource utilization and costs of treating patients with multiple myeloma in Southwest Sweden: a 5-year retrospective analysis.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 570 patients are diagnosed with multiple myeloma (MM) in Sweden each year. Few studies have estimated the cost of treatment for these patients. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to retrospectively investigate the direct hospital resource utilization and costs associated with the treatment of patients with MM in southwest Sweden. METHODS: Patients aged > or =18 years who initiated first-line chemotherapy in the year 2001 at hospitals in southwestern Sweden were included in this retrospective chart review. Direct hospital-based resources and their corresponding costs (year-2006 euros) for each patient were calculated until the patient's death, or until December 31, 2005. Costs for outpatient and terminal stage care related to MM were not included. RESULTS: Ninety-four patients were included; 20 were still alive at study completion. Mean age at diagnosis was 76 years and patients were followed for a mean of 32.7 months; 55% were males and 74% had at least 1 comorbidity. First-, second-, and third-line treatment lasted a mean of 24.3, 5.8, and 2.6 months, and included 2.8, 2.6, and 3.1 chemotherapy drugs per patient, respectively. Of the 80 patients who received first-line chemotherapy, 72 were prescribed melphalan and 55 patients received a combination of melphalan and prednisone, as recommended by Swedish treatment guidelines. The mean total cost per patient was euro88,199, or euro2770 per patient-month. Therapy-induced and comorbidity-related events constituted 42% of total costs, as much as autologous stem-cell transplantation and inpatient care together. Chemotherapy, bisphosphonate, and blood cell-enhancement drugs each amounted to only 2% of total costs, but chemotherapy drugs increased from euro29/month in first-line therapy to euro453/month in third-line therapy. CONCLUSIONS: The cost of treating Swedish patients with MM varied greatly between individuals but, overall, chemotherapy drugs constituted only a minor part of the total monthly cost (2%), whereas costs for inpatient stays and therapy-induced adverse events or comorbidity-related events accounted for 35% and42%, respectively. There was no significant differencein monthly cost between treatment lines.

A pharmacoeconomic analysis of compliance gains on antipsychotic medications.

BACKGROUND: Compliance among patients with schizophrenia is typically poor. Consequently, treatments that are equally efficacious under trial-based conditions but face different compliance rates in clinical practice (e.g. due to adverse-effect profile, ease of use, reputation) may have differences in effectiveness not observed during trials. This study analyses the impact of differences in compliance with atypical antipsychotics using a pharmacoeconomic discrete-event simulation (DES) model, adapted to the Swedish treatment setting. METHODS: An existing 5-year DES model was adapted to reflect a Swedish setting; the analysis was conducted from a third-party payer perspective, with only direct costs included. The two treatment arms were identical except for percentage of compliant patients. Non-compliant patients experienced shorter time between relapses and had inferior symptom control than their compliant counterparts. The difference in compliance rates was varied from 0% to 15%, and incremental costs and effects were recorded and analysed. RESULTS: With a 5%, 10% and 15% difference in compliance rate, incremental effects increased to 0.021, 0.037 and 0.062, respectively, while generating cost savings of Swedish kronor (SEK)31 500, SEK62 000 and SEK104 500, respectively (SEK9.25 = 1, Euro year 2007 values). Hence, each percentage point of compliance gain is predicted to roughly result in a cost saving of SEK6000 and a QALY gain of 0.004. On average, the model predicts that, with a 15% increase in compliance, 0.5 relapses are prevented, the average Positive And Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) score decreases by 3.3 points and patients spend 22 fewer days in hospital over 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: The DES model predicts that increases in compliance may lead to considerable cost savings and health improvements. Therefore, when determining the cost effectiveness of a new antipsychotic, efficacy rates from clinical trials should not be taken at face value, but should be interpreted in tandem with expectations concerning compliance, in light of product characteristics such as adverse effects. These results further suggest that efforts to improve compliance among patients with schizophrenia are expected to prove cost effective if compliance gains and the resulting health improvements and cost savings are in balance with the additional costs.

Do we fully understand the economic value of vaccines?

Although many vaccination strategies are cost-effective, some of the newer vaccines are more expensive and may raise concerns about value for money. However, standard methods of economic evaluation may not adequately assess the true cost-effectiveness of vaccines, with the consequent under-application of vaccine strategies. Therefore, this paper reviews the evidence on cost-effectiveness of vaccines and vaccination strategies for pneumococcal disease, meningococcal disease, Hepatitis A and influenza. In each case the evidence is considered alongside existing vaccination policies in the major developed countries. The paper also highlights areas where traditional economic evaluations may not adequately reflect the value of vaccines.

Pharmaceutical industry's perspective on health technology assessment.

This article presents the pharmaceutical industry's perspective on health technology assessment (HTA) with specific comments on the HTA systems in England and Wales, France, The Netherlands, and Sweden. The comments are focused on the following main themes: (i) The contributions of the HTA system to overall efficiency in the health-care system, (ii) HTA as a cost-driver for industry, patients, government, and society, and (iii) The various implementation barriers that currently exist for a successful implementation of HTA results.