Antiviral therapies for herpes zoster infections. Are they economically justifiable?

Antiviral treatment of herpes zoster is controversial because of uncertain benefits and relatively high costs. Most studies show that antiviral therapy lessens acute herpes zoster symptoms and postherpetic neuralgia (PHN). Current clinical recommendations support antiviral treatment of severely symptomatic herpes zoster in all adults, and mild herpes zoster in those 50 or 60 years of age or older. However, it is unclear if these recommended strategies are cost effective. Published studies of herpes zoster costs and the effect of antiviral therapy on costs and quality of life have significant variation in study design and results, as well as many shortcomings in the data. Thus, definitive economic recommendations cannot be made based on the present data. Another approach, which we have used, is to develop a 'reference case' analysis using decision-analysis techniques and the available data to estimate the incremental cost effectiveness of antiviral treatment in patients of differing age and herpes zoster severity. In the baseline analysis, parameter values and assumptions were consistently slightly biased against antiviral use. Effectiveness was measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). We assumed that antiviral treatment did not change PHN risk, but decreased PHN duration in patients older than 50 years. PHN risk increased with age and with acute herpes zoster severity as seen in published data. Mild acute herpes zoster was assumed to have a utility value of 0.9 and severe acute herpes zoster a value of 0.7 on a scale where 0 = death and 1 = perfect health. Treating mildly symptomatic acute herpes zoster cost $US89,200/QALY gained in 40-year-olds, $US47,700/QALY in 60-year-olds and $US40,700/QALY in 70-year-olds (1995 values). Results were most sensitive to variation of antiviral costs (baseline $US134), but changes in acute symptom relief, PHN risk, duration, costs and utility, and antiviral effect on PHN duration increased costs/QALY above $US50,000 in 60- and 70-year-olds in extremes of parameter ranges. However, no variation resulted in treatment of mild illness in 40-year-olds to fall below $US50,000/QALY gained. Treatment of severe acute herpes zoster cost $US29,700, $US18,000 and $US16,500/QALY gained in 40-, 60- and 70-year-olds, respectively. Results were sensitive to variation of antiviral costs (> $US225) and acute symptom relief (< 21%) in 40-year-olds. Based on this analysis, antiviral therapy of herpes zoster seems economically justifiable for mildly symptomatic acute herpes zoster in patients aged 50 years and older, and for severely symptomatic acute herpes zoster in all adults.     

Economic impact of respiratory syncytial virus-related illness in the US: an analysis of national databases

OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infection on healthcare resource use and costs in the US from the third-party payer perspective. DESIGN: The study retrospectively analysed cross-sectional medical encounter data from three federally funded databases that comprise nationally representative samples of hospital inpatient stays, physician office visits and visits to hospital outpatient departments and emergency rooms. METHODS: Identification of RSV infection-related medical encounters was based on the occurrence of RSV-specific International Classification of Diseases (9th Edition)-Clinical Modification diagnosis codes (079.6, 466.11, 480.1) as principal discharge diagnoses or the assumption that 10-15% of all otitis media visits were due to RSV infection. Outpatient drug costs were estimated based on average wholesale price, and physician fees and test/procedure costs were estimated based on prevailing national fees. Inpatient costs were estimated from total billed charges using a cost-to-charge ratio of 0.53. RESULTS: In 2000, nearly 98% of RSV infection-related hospitalisations occurred in children <5 years old. There were approximately 86,000 hospitalisations, 1.7 million office visits, 402 000 emergency room visits and 236,000 hospital outpatient visits for children <5 years old that were attributable to RSV infection. Total annual direct medical costs for all RSV infection-related hospitalisations ($US394 million) and other medical encounters ($US258 million) for children <5 years old were estimated at $US652 million in 2000. Otitis media was a major cost driver for physician visits. RSV infection-related hospitalisations increased from 1993 to 2000, but average costs per hospitalisation were relatively stable. CONCLUSION: Treatment of RSV infection-related illness represents a significant healthcare burden in the US. The economic impact of ambulatory care for RSV infection-related illness could be as important as that for RSV infection-related hospitalisation.     

Economic burden of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Impact of new treatment options

The incidence, morbidity and mortality of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is rising throughout the world. The total economic cost of COPD in the US in 1993 was estimated to be over $US15.5 billion, with $US6.1 billion for hospitalisation, $US4.4 billion for physician and other fees, $US2.5 billion for drugs, $US1.5 billion for nursing home care and $US1.0 billion for home care. Office visits, hospital outpatient visits and emergency department visits accounted for 17.3% of the direct costs for COPD in the US. When stratified by severity, COPD treatment costs strongly correlate with disease severity. The American Thoracic Society, the European Respiratory Society and the British Thoracic Society have developed guidelines for the pharmacological treatment of COPD. However, the guidelines establish inhaled bronchodilators (anticholinergic agents and beta 2-adrenergic agonists) as the mainstay of therapy for patients with COPD. The guidelines were not based on cost analyses and thus are not a priori cost-effective guidelines. Since the publication of these guidelines, several new pharmacological products have been approved for use in patients with COPD including a combination of an anticholinergic and selective beta 2-adrenergic agonist [ipratropium/salbutamol (albuterol)] and a long-acting beta 2-adrenergic agonist (salmeterol). Both products are effective bronchodilators in COPD. The purpose of this report is to place these new agents in an updated pharmacological guideline scheme, utilising recently published data on clinical efficacy as well as pharmacoeconomics. The annualised healthcare costs were computed to be $US788/patient/year for the combination ipratropium/salbutamol inhaler and $US1059/patient/year for salmeterol (1999 values). Based upon an improved understanding of the complexity of COPD, the response of patients to newer bronchodilators (given individually or in combination), and recent pharmacoeconomic data for COPD treatment, a new treatment algorithm with associated costs is proposed. The use of an algorithm, based on medical and pharmacoeconomic data, will improve lung function in patients with COPD, improve patient satisfaction (e.g. quality of life, dyspnoea) and outcomes (e.g. exacerbations). It will also result in a positive effect on healthcare costs.     

Community and patient values for preventing herpes zoster

OBJECTIVES: The US Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices has recently recommended a new vaccine against herpes zoster (shingles) for routine use in adults aged > or =60 years. However, estimates of the cost effectiveness of this vaccine vary widely, in part because of gaps in the data on the value of preventing herpes zoster. Our aims were to (i) generate comprehensive information on the value of preventing a range of outcomes of herpes zoster; (ii) compare these values among community members and patients with shingles and post-herpetic neuralgia (PHN); and (iii) identify clinical and demographic characteristics that explain the variation in these values. METHODS: Community members drawn from a nationally representative survey research panel (n = 527) completed an Internet-based survey using time trade-off and willingness-to-pay questions to value a series of scenarios that described cases of herpes zoster with varying pain intensities (on a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 represents no pain and 10 represents the worst imaginable pain) and duration (30 days to 1 year). Patients with shingles (n = 382) or PHN (n = 137) [defined as having symptoms for > or =90 days] from two large healthcare systems completed telephone interviews with similar questions to the Internet-based survey and also answered questions about their current experience with herpes zoster. We constructed generalized linear mixed models to evaluate the associations between demographic and clinical characteristics, the length and intensity of the health states and time trade-off and willingness-to-pay values. RESULTS: In time trade-off questions, community members offered a mean of 89 (95% CI 24, 182) discounted days to avoid the least severe scenario (pain level of 3 for 1 month) and a mean of 162 (95% CI 88, 259) discounted days to avoid the most severe scenario (pain level of 8 for 12 months). Compared with patients with shingles, community members traded more days to avoid low-severity scenarios but similar numbers of days to avoid high-severity scenarios. Compared with patients with PHN, community members traded fewer days to avoid high-severity scenarios. In multivariate analyses, older age was the only characteristic significantly associated with higher time trade-off values.In willingness-to-pay questions, community members offered a mean of $US450 (95% CI 203, 893) to avoid pain of level 3 for 1 month and a mean of $US1384 (95% CI 873, 2050) [year 2005 values] to avoid pain of level 8 for 12 months. Community members traded less money than patients with either shingles or PHN to avoid both low- and high-severity scenarios (p-values <0.05 to <0.001). In multivariate models, male gender, higher income and having experienced shingles or PHN were associated with higher willingness to pay to avoid herpes zoster.When patients were asked to assign a value to avoiding their own case of herpes zoster, those with shingles assigned a mean of 67 days or $US2319, while those with PHN assigned a mean of 206 days or $US18 184. Both the time and monetary value traded were associated with the maximum intensity of the pain the individual had experienced, but neither was associated with the duration of the pain. CONCLUSIONS: We believe that this study provides the most comprehensive information to date on the value individuals place on preventing herpes zoster, and it includes the only such valuation from nationally representative community members as well as patients with herpes zoster. Community members would trade substantial amounts of time or money to avoid herpes zoster, even in the least severe scenarios. The time trade-off results in this study may differ from those in other studies because of important differences in methods of assessing health utilities. Consideration of both community and patient perspectives is crucial to help decision makers fully determine the implications of their policies now that a vaccine against herpes zoster is available.     

Systemic absorption of topical lidocaine in normal volunteers, patients with post-herpetic neuralgia, and patients with acute herpes zoster

Topical lidocaine has been recently marketed as a new treatment for post-herpetic neuralgia. The aim of our study was to characterize the absorption profile of and systemic exposure to lidocaine from patch and gel formulations in normal volunteers, patients with post-herpetic neuralgia, and patients with acute herpes zoster. The bioavailability of lidocaine from the patch formulation averaged 3%, and was similar after single and repeated doses. Systemic exposure to lidocaine and monoethylglycinexylidide (MEGX), the primary active metabolite of lidocaine, after application of lidocaine gel or patches was minimal in normal volunteers, patients with post-herpetic neuralgia, and patients with acute herpes zoster. Considering the benefit versus risk of topical lidocaine, systemic absorption and toxicity of lidocaine seems not to be a significant risk.     

Healthcare costs of patients with heart failure treated with torasemide or furosemide

OBJECTIVE: To compare the direct healthcare costs of patients with congestive heart failure (CHF) prescribed torasemide (torsemide) or furosemide (frusemide). DESIGN AND SETTING: As part of a prospective, randomised, nonblind study, we assessed the effects of torasemide and furosemide on readmission to hospital in 193 patients treated for CHF at a US urban public healthcare system. We also calculated total direct healthcare costs for the 2 drugs. The perspective of the analysis was that of the healthcare system. Healthcare charge and utilisation data, demographic information, and health status data were obtained from an electronic database containing data for all patients treated within the healthcare system. PATIENTS AND PARTICIPANTS: Upon admission to the hospital, patients were eligible if they had evidence of left ventricular systolic dysfunction, were at least 18 years old, and were receiving furosemide. INTERVENTION: Inpatients were randomised to either torasemide or furosemide treatment for 1 year. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES AND RESULTS: Patients treated with torasemide had fewer hospital admissions than those treated with furosemide [18 vs 34% for CHF (p = 0.013) and 38 vs 58% for any cardiovascular cause (p = 0.005)]. In the torasemide group, expected annual hospital costs per patient were lower for CHF admissions (by $US1054; 1998 values) and for all cardiovascular admissions (by $US1545) than in the furosemide group. Because the annual acquisition cost of torasemide was $US518 per patient higher than that of furosemide, the resulting net cost saving per patient was $US536 for CHF and $US1027 for all cardiovascular causes. Outpatient costs did not differ between treatment groups regardless of whether drug costs were considered. Total direct costs were $US2124 lower with torasemide than with furosemide (not statistically significant). CONCLUSIONS: Owing largely to reduced readmission to the hospital, the cost of inpatient care for patients with CHF is significantly lower with torasemide than with furosemide, despite the higher acquisition cost of torasemide. Treatment with torasemide resulted in a nonsignificant reduction in total direct costs (outpatient plus inpatient) compared with furosemide.     

Clinical and economic outcomes of olanzapine compared with haloperidol for schizophrenia. Results from a randomised clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare, from the payor perspective, the clinical and economic outcomes of olanzapine to those of haloperidol for the treatment of schizophrenia. DESIGN AND SETTING: Clinical, quality-of-life and resource utilisation data were prospectively collected for US-residing patients with schizophrenia who were participating in a multicentre, randomised, double-blind clinical trial comparing olanzapine and haloperidol. Direct medical costs were estimated by assigning standardised prices (1995 values) to the resource utilisation data. PATIENTS AND PARTICIPANTS: 817 patients with schizophrenia who had a baseline Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale score (BPRS) > or = 18 (items scored 0 to 6) and/or were no longer tolerating current antipsychotic therapy. INTERVENTIONS: Olanzapine 5 to 20 mg/day (n = 551) or haloperidol 5 to 20 mg/day (n = 266) for 6 weeks. Patients showing a predefined level of clinical response entered a 46-week maintenance phase. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES AND RESULTS: After acute treatment, BPRS-based clinical improvements were seen in 38 and 27% of olanzapine and haloperidol patients, respectively (p = 0.002). Clinically important improvements on the Quality of Life Scale were achieved during acute treatment in 33% of olanzapine recipients and 25% of haloperidol recipients (p = 0.094). Olanzapine treatment in the acute phase led to significantly lower inpatient ($US5125 vs $US5795, p = 0.038) and outpatient ($US663 vs $US692, p = 0.001) costs, resulting in a significant overall reduction in mean total medical costs of $US388 (p = 0.033). This significant reduction in total costs was found despite olanzapine mean medication costs being significantly greater than haloperidol medication costs ($US326 vs $US15, p < 0.001). No significant differences in clinical improvement were observed in the maintenance phase. Maintenance phase olanzapine mean total medical costs were $US636 lower than haloperidol total costs (p = 0.128). Although olanzapine medication costs were significantly higher than haloperidol medication costs ($US3461 vs $US95, p < 0.001), this difference was offset by significantly lower inpatient ($US8322 vs $US10,662, p = 0.044) and outpatient ($US3810 vs $US5473, p = 0.038) costs. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, olanzapine treatment was more effective than haloperidol in producing clinical response in the acute phase. In addition, olanzapine treatment led to reductions in inpatient and outpatient costs that more than offset olanzapine's higher medication costs relative to haloperidol.     

Cost-benefit analysis of riluzole for the treatment of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis

We conducted a cost-benefit analysis of riluzole therapy in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS; motor neuron disease; Lou Gehrig's disease). The survival of patients with ALS increased by around 3 months as a result of riluzole therapy, from 3 to 3.25 years. A 3-month delay in hospitalisation was also expected as a result of riluzole therapy, resulting in a saving of $US40 per patient (1996 values). This gain was opposed by the additional costs per patient of bi-monthly serum ALT monitoring ($US234), 2 days of extra day-hospital observation ($US369) and other medical costs ($US79), as well as extra outpatient visits ($US26) and costs of medication other than riluzole ($US90), resulting from increased longevity. Using riluzole (at a cost of $US2247 per patient) resulted in an extra burden of $US757 on health services for the gain of an extra 3 months of life expectancy. Thus, health-service costs per life-year gained were $US12,013. Despite the increase in health-service costs as a result of increased longevity, the overall resource benefits to society from using riluzole amounted to $US2884 due to increased productivity benefits, giving a benefit: cost ratio of 1.28:1. Total benefits to society, including a valuation of 3 extra months of life ($US3599), amounted to $US6483, giving a benefit: cost ratio of 2.89:1. Therefore, from a societal perspective, the potential benefits of riluzole in patients with ALS clearly exceed costs.     

Direct costs of hip fractures in patients over 60 years of age in Belgium.

OBJECTIVE: Osteoporosis-related costs are now considered a major burden for health authorities in most developed countries. An accurate and exhaustive evaluation of these costs would be a major contribution to health economic studies evaluating the efficiency of screening and prevention strategies. Osteoporosis is the most frequent underlying cause of femoral neck fractures in the elderly; these fractures weigh heavily on healthcare budgets. However, in Belgium, very few data on the financial burden of hip fractures are available and no updated estimates have been made. The goal of this paper is to estimate the direct medical expenditures associated with hip fractures in Belgium in 1996. DESIGN AND SETTING: This 1-year population-based cross-sectional study is conducted from the social security perspective. The target population in this study are men and women aged 60 years and over. PATIENTS AND PARTICIPANTS: We selected patients who had been hospitalised for a hip fracture during the year 1996 who were also affiliated with a registered social security organisation (covering 25% of the Belgian population). The sample constituted 2374 patients. INTERVENTIONS: For each of these patients, we collected an exhaustive and detailed list of healthcare resource use as well as nursing home admissions following the hip fracture event. Cost items investigated in the analysis were inpatient hospital costs and outpatient costs. Mean annual costs per case recorded in the sample were then extrapolated to the whole country on the basis of an exhaustive list of diagnoses having lead to all countrywide hospitalisations (1,700,000 hospital stays/year). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES AND RESULTS: The mean hospital inpatient costs for hip fracture were evaluated at 332,148 Belgian francs (BeF) [$US8977] per case and BeF4,367,746,200 ($US118,047,194) for the whole country (10 million inhabitants). Patients with a hip fracture experienced an annual BeF27,825 ($US752) extra outpatient cost during the year following this fracture event, after correcting for costs related to additional comorbidity already present before the hip fracture. Finally, after a proximal femoral neck fracture, the rate of nursing home admission was higher, both for men and women at any age compared with age- and gender-matched population. CONCLUSIONS: With a total cost (acute hospital and outpatient costs) of BeF4,667,894,950 ($US126,159,323) per year in Belgium, proximal femoral neck fracture should be considered a major health economic problem and appropriate measures to prevent this disease should be rapidly undertaken.     

Cost effectiveness of acute imipramine therapy versus two imipramine maintenance treatment regimens for panic disorder

OBJECTIVE: To examine the medical costs and effectiveness of acute treatment with imipramine versus acute treatment plus 2 different maintenance therapies for panic disorder. METHODS: A clinical decision model was constructed to estimate 18-month costs and outcomes associated with these treatment scenarios based on the medical literature and clinician judgment. The clinical parameters and outcomes for the model were derived from a series of systematic clinical trials with imipramine utilising uniform dosage procedures and validated response criteria. Costs were calculated based on standardised treatment regimens. The outcome measures were 18-month medical costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs per QALY gained. A sensitivity analysis was performed to explore the impact of treatment withdrawals on outcomes. STUDY PERSPECTIVE: US mental healthcare system. RESULTS: Over 18 months, the total costs (1997 values) and QALYs associated with half-dose maintenance therapy (imipramine 1.1 mg/kg/day) [$US3377; QALYs = 0.991] and full-dose maintenance therapy (imipramine 2.25 mg/kg/ day) [$US3361; QALYs = 0.991] were almost identical; both were cost saving compared with acute imipramine therapy (2.25 mg/kg/day) with no maintenance treatment ($US3691; QALYs = 0.979). Whether patients withdrawing from treatment were considered to have continued to respond to treatment or to have relapsed, the half-dose and full-dose maintenance treatments were still cost saving compared with acute treatment alone. CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate that imipramine maintenance treatment is cost effective compared with acute imipramine treatment for patients with panic disorder. The basic findings and conclusions are not affected after modifying model assumptions for clinical response in patients withdrawing from treatment.     

Assessing the economic impact of adverse drug effects

Although most commonly used drugs cause adverse effects, some of them with potentially serious consequences, relatively little is known about their economic impact. The purpose of this review is to summarise information describing the cost of treatment of drug-induced adverse effects as an additional cost of pharmaceutical treatment. The focus of this study was limited to the overall economic impact of drug-related morbidity and to the economic analysis of a single class of drugs with different safety profiles. Several studies carried out in the US have investigated adverse drug effects experienced by hospitalised patients and their impact on hospital costs. Patients who developed adverse effects were hospitalised an average of 1.2-3.8 days longer than patients who did not, with additional hospital costs of $US2284-5640 per patient (2000 values). Other research studies in different countries have quantified the incidence and economic consequences of adverse drug effects that occur in the ambulatory setting and that generate hospital admission and emergency department visits. They have shown that preventable adverse effects constitute between 43.3% and 80% of all adverse outcomes leading to emergency visits and hospital admissions, and disproportionately increase healthcare costs. Finally, a recent estimation revealed that in the US the cost of problems linked to drug use in the ambulatory setting exceeded $US177 billion in the year 2000.NSAIDs constitute a widely used class of drugs and they are one of the leading drug classes in causing adverse effects. The acquisition costs of the drugs, as well as the costs for prevention and treatment of adverse effects, determine their cost-effectiveness ratio. Depending on the incidence and severity of adverse effects, the cost per adverse effect avoided ranges from $US215 to $US35 459 (2000 values). According to the contingent valuation methodology, willingness to pay to avoid or reduce the incidence of adverse effects is an indicator of the value individuals associate with the impact of such effects on their well-being. Individuals are willing to pay annually an average of $US240 and $US350, respectively, to avoid vomiting and gastrointestinal distress induced by NSAIDs. Although the results of the different studies reviewed are not strictly comparable because of differences in the severity of adverse effects, the perspective of the analysis, the cost data included and the cost component considered, the data show that, apart from the implications for health, a substantial quantity of resources are used to treat adverse effects.     

Paclitaxel: a pharmacoeconomic review of its use in the treatment of ovarian cancer.

Paclitaxel belongs to the group of antitumour agents called the taxanes. Its efficacy in advanced ovarian cancer has been established in large, randomised phase III clinical trials. When used in combination with cisplatin for first-line treatment of advanced ovarian cancer, it is superior to cyclophosphamide/cisplatin, with gains in median survival of around 1 year. Paclitaxel plus carboplatin has similar efficacy to paclitaxel plus cisplatin. There is now consensus that paclitaxel plus either carboplatin or cisplatin is the recommended first-line therapy for patients with advanced ovarian cancer. The particular combination employed may vary between institutions and geographical regions, although paclitaxel plus carboplatin is generally better tolerated (i.e. lower incidence of non-haematological adverse events) than paclitaxel plus cisplatin and is widely used in many countries. Paclitaxel is also used as monotherapy in second-line (salvage) treatment of ovarian cancer. Pharmacoeconomic analyses performed to date have primarily focused on first-line therapy comparing the combination of paclitaxel/cisplatin with cyclophosphamide/cisplatin. All studies incorporated clinical outcomes data, most commonly from the Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG) 111 trial, showing a survival advantage for paclitaxel/cisplatin. These studies report incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) ranging from $US 6395 per additional life-year gained (LYG) in Spain (1995/96 values) to $US 44,690 per additional progression-free LYG in France (year of costs not reported). Five studies were based in the US and Canada and these reported very similar ICERs of $US 13,135 (year of costs not reported) to $US 25,131 (1993 costs) per additional LYG. In all of these studies the incremental costs of paclitaxel/cisplatin therapy fall well within the commonly cited threshold limit of $US 50,000 for new therapies and compare well with incremental costs reported for other oncological and life-saving therapies. Patient preferences and quality of life are important issues due to the short survival of patients with advanced ovarian cancer. Two cost-utility studies reported similar incremental cost-utility ratios (ICURs). In the study based on US costs, the ICUR of paclitaxel/cisplatin treatment was US $18,200 per additional quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) [1995 drug costs]. In a Canadian study the ICUR ranged from 11,600 Canadian dollars ($Can) to $Can 24,200 (1996 costs) per additional progression-free QALY depending on the choice of second-line treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Paclitaxel used in combination with cisplatin offers survival and utility gains versus cyclophosphamide plus cisplatin, when used as first-line treatment in patients with stage III or IV ovarian cancer. The incremental cost for these gains is within the accepted range for healthcare interventions. However, pharmacoeconomic analyses of paclitaxel plus carboplatin--a combination widely accepted for use in women with advanced ovarian cancer and with clinical advantages over paclitaxel plus cisplatin in terms of ease of administration and tolerability profile--are currently lacking. Nevertheless, results of available pharmacoeconomic data support the clinical use of paclitaxel/platinum combinations, particularly paclitaxel plus cisplatin, as a first-line chemotherapy treatment option in patients with advanced ovarian cancer.     

Olanzapine versus risperidone. A prospective comparison of clinical and economic outcomes in schizophrenia

OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical and economic outcomes associated with olanzapine and risperidone treatment for schizophrenia. DESIGN AND SETTING: An international, multicentre, double-blind, prospective study. To facilitate economic comparisons, our sample was restricted to patients enrolled in US sites. 150 patients with a Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of mental disorders, 4th edition (DSM-IV) diagnosis of schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder or schizophreniform disorder were randomised to therapy with either olanzapine 10 to 20 mg/day (n = 75) or risperidone 4 to 12 mg/day (n = 75) for a maximum of 28 weeks. In addition to tolerability and efficacy assessments, use of health services was assessed at baseline and prospectively, at 8-week intervals and at study completion. Clinically important response, defined as a 40% improvement in the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale total score, maintenance of response and rates of treatment-emergent extrapyramidal symptoms were compared between groups. Direct medical costs were estimated by assigning standardised prices to resource units. Median total, inpatient/outpatient service and medication acquisition costs were compared between treatment groups. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES AND RESULTS: The mean modal dosages for the olanzapine and risperidone treatment groups were 17.7 +/- 3.4 mg/day and 7.9 +/- 3.2 mg/day, respectively. Olanzapine-treated patients were more likely to maintain response compared with risperidone-treated patients (p = 0.048). In addition, a smaller proportion of olanzapine-treated patients required anticholinergic therapy compared with risperidone-treated patients (25.3 vs 45.3%; p = 0.016). Total per patient medical costs over the study interval were $US2843 (1997 values) [36%] lower in the olanzapine treatment group than in the risperidone treatment group (p = 0.342). Medication costs were significantly higher for olanzapine-treated patients ($US2513 vs $US1581; p < 0.001), but this difference was offset by a reduction of $US3774 (52%) in inpatient/outpatient service costs for olanzapine-treated patients in comparison with risperidone-treated patients ($US3516 vs $US7291, p = 0.083). Median cost findings were consistent with results observed using other robust measures of central tendency and provide conservative estimates of potential savings that may be obtained from olanzapine therapy. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, olanzapine-treated patients experienced clinical improvements that translated into savings in costs of care for both inpatient and outpatient services. These savings offset the difference in medication acquisition cost between olanzapine and risperidone.     

Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor therapy in percutaneous coronary intervention and non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes. Estimating the economic implications

In addition to efficacy and safety, cost is an important determinant of the use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa (GPIIb/IIIa) therapy in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) or undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). In PCI, the average procurement cost of GPIIb/IIIa therapy ranges from $US400 to $US1500 (1999 values) per patient treated, depending on agent, dose and duration of infusion. Prospective economic substudies with abciximab and tirofiban have demonstrated subsequent cost savings that partially offset the procurement costs of the agents. The drug procurement costs per death or myocardial infarction (MI) prevented in PCI appear to vary from $US10,500 to $US37,000, depending on the agent. Abciximab has been proven to provide a survival benefit in the setting of PCI, including coronary stenting. Analyses of abciximab use yield cost-effectiveness ratios of $US2875 to $US14,765 per life-year or quality-adjusted life-year saved, which compares favourably with most widely accepted therapies. In non-ST-segment elevation ACS, drug procurement costs range from $US700 to $US1700 per patient treated, also depending on agent, dose and duration of infusion. Evidence of cost offsets from changes in subsequent resource utilisation are limited and seem contingent upon a conservative risk-stratification approach. Drug procurement costs have been calculated as $US32,000 to $US82,000 per death or MI prevented in the ACS trials. Cost-effectiveness ratios of $US16,000 per life-year saved for the US and Western European cohorts in the Platelet Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa in Unstable Angina: Receptor Suppression Using Integrilin Therapy (PURSUIT) trial are favourable. If these analyses prove correct, the cost effectiveness of GPIIb/IIIa receptor therapy for patients with non-ST-segment elevation ACS will also compare favourably with other widely accepted therapies in industrialised countries. More clinical and economic data are necessary to allow better selection of specific patients who will receive the most benefit from GPIIb/IIIa therapy in healthcare systems with limited resources.     

Cost effectiveness of human immunodeficiency virus postexposure prophylaxis for healthcare workers

OBJECTIVE: The United States Public Health Service (USPHS) published recommendations for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) of healthcare workers in May 1998. The aim of this study was to analyse the cost effectiveness of the USPHS PEP guidelines. DESIGN AND SETTING: This was a modelling study in the setting of the US healthcare system in 1989. The analysis was performed from the societal perspective; however, only HIV healthcare costs were considered and health-related losses of productivity were not included. METHODS: A decision tree incorporating a Markov model was created for 4 PEP strategies: the current USPHS recommendations, triple drug therapy, zidovudine monotherapy or no prophylaxis. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis using a Monte Carlo simulation was performed. Confidence intervals (CIs) around cost-effectiveness estimates were estimated by a bootstrapping method. RESULTS: The costs (in 1997 US dollars) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) save by each strategy were as follows: monotherapy $US688 (95% CI: $US624 to $US750); USPHS recommendations $US5211 (95% CI: $US5126 to $US5293); and triple drug therapy $US8827 (95% CI: $US8715 to $US8940). The marginal cost per year of life saved was: USPHS recommendations $US81 987 (95% CI: $US80 437 to $US83 689); triple drug therapy $US970 451 (95% CI: $US924 786 to $US 1 014 429). Sensitivity testing showed that estimates of the probability of seroconversion for each category of exposure were most influential, but did not change the order of strategies in the baseline analysis. With the prolonged HIV stage durations and increased costs associated with recent innovations in HIV therapy, the marginal cost effectiveness of the USPHS PEP strategy was decreased to $US62 497/QALY saved. All 3 intervention strategies were cost effective compared with no postexposure prophylaxis. CONCLUSIONS: Current USPHS PEP recommendations are marginally cost effective compared with monotherapy, but the additional efficacy of triple drug therapy for all risk categories is rewarded by only a small reduction in HIV infections at great expense. For the foreseeable future, assuming innovations in therapy that employ expensive drug combinations earlier in the HIV disease course to extend life expectancy and the increasing prevalence of HIV drug resistance, our model supports the use of the USPHS PEP guidelines.     

Cost-of-illness of epilepsy in Italy. Data from a multicentre observational study (Episcreen)

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the impact of epilepsy in Italy on healthcare resources, producing an average cost per patient per year of follow-up. DESIGN AND SETTING: The Episcreen Project is a multicentre longitudinal Italian observational study; its methodology, organisational network and case report form have been reported in detail elsewhere. Using a subset of patients with epilepsy from this project, we conducted a retrospective cost-of-illness analysis based on clinical records. The analysis was performed from the societal (community) perspective, including both direct and indirect costs. Hospital admissions, day-hospital visits, specialist visits, instrumental examinations, drugs and productivity losses because of visits and hospitalisation were analysed. Each cost variable was valued in 1996 Italian liras (L) using published national tariffs (except for drugs for which published prices were used). A sensitivity analysis was conducted on indirect costs to test the robustness of the assumption that 1 working day lost for each day hospital visit would produce a change of 0.3% in the weight of indirect costs. PATIENTS AND PARTICIPANTS: Patients analysed in this study were registered in the Episcreen database as at 21 November 1996. They were diagnosed with epilepsy at the last visit, had at least 1 follow-up visit (i.e. at least 1 visit after the enrolment visit), and had at least 12 months of follow-up. RESULTS: The average cost per patient per year was L2,726,116 ($US1767). The average cost per patient was higher for children than for adults [L3,629,997 ($US2353) and L2,362,134 ($US1531), respectively), and for newly diagnosed patients for whom the first diagnosis of epilepsy was addressed at the first Episcreen visit [adults: old referrals L1,304,353 ($US845), new referrals L6,901,374 ($US4473); children: old referrals L2,810,504 ($US1822), new referrals L7,814,400 ($US5065)]. Direct costs represented 87.6% of total costs. The major cost driver was hospitalisation (63.7%), followed by drugs (10.5%), day-hospital visits (4.1%), out-patient visits (3.85%), other tests (3.1%) and electroencephalographs (2.3%). Indirect costs (lost productivity) represented 12.4% of total costs. Sensitivity analysis showed that the results are sensitive to the value attributed to lost productivity. CONCLUSIONS: The cost of managing a patient with epilepsy in Italy is influenced by age, syndrome and modality of referral to the centre for epilepsy.     

Cost analysis of paroxetine versus imipramine in major depression

A simulation decision analytical model was used to compare the annual direct medical costs of treating patients with major depression using the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) paroxetine or the tricyclic antidepressant (TCA) imipramine. Medical treatment patterns were determined from focus groups of general and family practitioners and psychiatrists in Boston, Dallas and Chicago, US. Direct medical costs included the wholesale drug acquisition costs (based on a 6-month course of drug therapy), psychiatrist and/or general practitioner visits, hospital outpatient visits, hospitalisation and electroconvulsive therapy. Acute phase treatment failure rates were derived from an intention-to-treat analysis of a previously published trial of paroxetine, imipramine and placebo in patients with major depression. Maintenance phase relapse rates were obtained from a 12-month trial of paroxetine, supplemented from the medical literature. The relapse rates for the final 6 months of the year were obtained from medical literature and expert opinion. Direct medical costs were estimated from a health insurance claims database. The estimated total direct medical cost per patient was slightly lower using paroxetine ($US2348) than generic imipramine ($US2448) as first-line therapy. This result was sensitive to short term dropout rates but robust to changes in other major parameters, including hospitalisation costs and relapse rates. The financial benefit of paroxetine, despite its 15-fold higher acquisition cost compared with imipramine, is attributable to a higher rate of completion of the initial course of therapy and consequent reduced hospitalisation rates.     

Cost effectiveness of long-term treatment with eszopiclone for primary insomnia in adults: a decision analytical model

OBJECTIVE: Although the clinical benefits of pharmacological treatments for insomnia have been studied, no systematic assessment of their economic value has been reported. This analysis assessed, from a broad payer and societal perspective, the cost effectiveness of long-term treatment with eszopiclone (LUNESTA, Sepracor Inc., [Marlborough, MA, USA]) for chronic primary insomnia in adults in the US. METHODS: A decision analytical model was developed based on the reanalysis of a 6-month placebo-controlled trial, which demonstrated that eszopiclone 3mg significantly improved sleep and daytime function measures versus placebo in adults with primary insomnia. Patients were classified as either having remitted or not remitted from insomnia based upon a composite index of eight sleep and daytime function measures collected during the trial. These data were supplemented with quality-of-life and healthcare and lost productivity cost data from the published literature and medical and absenteeism claims databases. RESULTS: Compared with non-remitted patients, patients classified as remitted had lower monthly healthcare and productivity costs (in 2006 dollars) [a reduction of $US242 and $US182, respectively] and higher quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) weight (a net gain of 0.0810 on a scale ranging from 0 to 1). During the study, eszopiclone-treated patients were about 2.5 times more likely to have remitted than placebo-treated patients. Six months of eszopiclone treatment reduced direct (healthcare) and indirect (productivity) costs by an estimated $US245.13 and $US184.19 per patient, respectively. Eszopiclone use was associated with a cost of $US497.15 per patient over 6 months (including drug cost, dispensing fee, physician visit and time loss to receive care). Thus, after considering the above savings and the costs associated with eszopiclone treatment over 6 months, cost increased by $US252.02 (excluding productivity gains) and $US67.83 (including productivity gains) per person. However, eszopiclone treatment was also associated with a net QALY gain of 0.006831 per patient over the same period. Consequently, the incremental cost per QALY gained associated with eszopiclone was approximately $US9930 (including productivity gains [i.e. $US67.83 / 0.006831]) and $US36 894 (excluding productivity gains [i.e. $US252.02 / 0.006831]). Sensitivity analyses using a variety of scenarios suggested that eszopiclone is generally cost effective. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis suggested that long-term eszopiclone treatment was cost effective over the 6-month study period, particularly when the impact on productivity costs is considered. Given the increasing interest in new pharmacological interventions to manage insomnia, payers and clinicians alike should carefully consider the balance of health and economic benefits that these interventions offer. Accordingly, additional research in this area is warranted.