The cost-effectiveness of an extended course (12+12 weeks) of varenicline plus brief counselling compared with other reimbursed smoking cessation interventions in Belgium, from a public payer perspective.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of an extended (12+12 weeks) course of varenicline plus brief counselling compared with the currently reimbursed smoking cessation interventions (in combination with brief counselling) in Belgium, from a public payer perspective. METHODS: The previously published version of the BENESCO model which included the extended course of varenicline was updated with recent publically available demographic and cost data from Belgium. RESULTS: The extended course of varenicline plus brief counselling has an incremental cost per quality adjusted life year gained of 1101€ compared with a nonextended 12-week course of varenicline (plus brief counselling). The extended course of varenicline dominates all other comparators in this analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The extended course of varenicline (12 weeks followed by 12 weeks maintenance therapy in successful quitters) plus brief counselling is a highly cost-effective alternative to a non-extended (12 weeks only) course of varenicline plus brief counselling. This strategy dominates the other alternative smoking cessation interventions currently reimbursed in Belgium.

Cost effectiveness of atorvastatin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a pharmacoeconomic analysis of the collaborative atorvastatin diabetes study in the belgian population.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus have a high risk of developing cardiovascular (CV) disease. The clinical benefit of use of statins in patients with type 2 diabetes has been demonstrated in several randomized, controlled trials, including the CARDS clinical trial. Based on the clinical CARDS data, the favourable cost effectiveness of atorvastatin 10 mg in patients with type 2 diabetes has been demonstrated in countries such as the UK and France. This study aimed to estimate the cost effectiveness in the Belgian setting of atorvastatin 10 mg compared with no treatment for the primary prevention of CV events in type 2 diabetes patients without a history of CV disease. METHODS: A Markov model with 1-year cycles was developed to simulate the CV event and death risk according to the therapeutic approach initiated. The transition probabilities for CV events in the 'no statin treatment' group were derived from the risk equations reported from the large UKPDS. Risk reductions from the CARDS clinical trial were used to adjust these CV event probabilities in the atorvastatin 10 mg treatment group. The characteristics of type 2 diabetes patients without a CV history were derived from the Belgian OCAPI survey. The public healthcare payers' perspective was taken into account for costing. The direct medical costs of CV events were based on the Public Health Authorities' hospital database for acute care costs and on the literature for the follow-up costs. The impact on the reimbursement system of generic entry to the market was considered in the drug cost. Costs were valued as at year 2009; costs and outcomes were discounted at 3% and 1.5%, respectively. RESULTS: Based on a 5-year time horizon, atorvastatin was demonstrated to be cost effective with an incremental cost/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) of euro 16,681. Over a lifetime horizon (25 years), atorvastatin was demonstrated to be a cost-saving therapeutic intervention. At a threshold of euro 30,000/QALY, atorvastatin had a 98.8% probability of being cost effective. CONCLUSION: Compared with 'no treatment', use of atorvastatin 10 mg as a primary prevention intervention in Belgian type 2 diabetes patients not only improves CV outcomes, but also appears to be cost saving over a lifetime horizon.

Economic evaluation of voriconazole versus caspofungin for the treatment of invasive aspergillosis in Belgium.

OBJECTIVE: To perform an economic evaluation of voriconazole versus caspofungin in first line treatment of invasive aspergillosis (IA). These 2 antifungal drugs have a more favorable toxicity profile than the conventional amphotericin B and have a lower cost than the expensive liposomal/lipid formulation of amphotericin B. No head-to-head comparative study was conducted with voriconazole and caspofungin in IA. Based on the clinical trials of both antifungals, a conservative approach of similar efficacy has been considered. METHODS: The analysis is based on a simplified cost-minimization model with results from the National Health system RIZIV/INAMI perspective (year 2008). Only limited direct costs were considered, namely the drug cost over the episode of treatment.Treatment duration and patients' weight were key parameters. Their values were obtained from the Belgian observational VORIBEL study (Pfizer data on file) for voriconazole treatment. Treatment duration for caspofungin was derived from the EORTC study where almost 50% of the patients were recruited in Belgian centres. Mean cost and incremental cost were calculated. Univariate sensitivity analyses were carried out on weight, treatment duration as well as on route of administration. RESULTS: In invasive aspergillosis, the weighted cost per episode of fungal infection was 11.996 pound with voriconazole treatment (voriconazole IV followed by oral voriconazole) and 13.657 pound with caspofungin treatment (intravenous caspofungin only). The incremental saving with voriconazole treatment was 1.661 pound per patient.The cost-saving results of voriconazole were confirmed with varying treatment duration within realistic range. 41% of the patients in the VORIBEL study were fully treated with oral formulation. For these patients a saving of 6.375 pound was achieved with the use of oral voriconazole. CONCLUSION: Voriconazole is a cost-saving option compared with caspofungin in the treatment of invasive aspergillosis.

A cost-utility analysis of pregabalin in the management of peripheral neuropathic pain.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the cost per QALY (quality-adjusted life years) of pregabalin in the management of peripheral neuropathic pain. METHODS: We compared pregabalin on top of "usual care" with "usual care" alone. In this study, usual care was defined as a mix of drug therapies, excluding anti-epileptic drugs (AEDs), because the latter represented only 9% of current use, and clinical evidence of pregabalin was demonstrated versus usual care without anti-epileptic drugs. A Markov model was developed to simulate the evolution of a patient cohort over 1 year, and applied cycles of 4 weeks. During each cycle, patients remained in 1 out of 4 possible states: severe, moderate or mild pain, and therapy withdrawal. The health care payers perspective was taken into account. Clinical data were obtained from a trial comparing usual care plus placebo to usual care plus pregabalin, at either 150, 300, or 300/600 mg/day (the latter depending on clearance of creatinin). Resulting effects on pain were transformed into transition-probabilities between different pain levels. Cost and SF36 utility data of pain levels were obtained from a 1-month observational study in 88 patients. RESULTS: Usual care resulted in a yearly cost of Euros 6,200 compared to Euros 5,984 for an all dose pregabalin-mix, meaning a cost saving of Euros 216 per patient. Utility increase was 0.01 for the pregabalin-mix (QALY 0.510 usual care; 0.520 pregabalin-mix). Monte Carlo analysis showed cost savings were not significant. However, the utility gain, albeit small, was statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Based on this analysis, it may be concluded, that in the considered patient population, at the specialist level, pregabalin is at least cost neutral to current usual care (without AEDs) and offers a slight but significant increase in quality of life.