Pharmacoeconomic analysis of stress ulcer prophylaxis for critically ill patients

The objective of this study was to evaluate the economic outcomes of drug options for stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill and/or intensive care unit patients. Decision analytic modelling was used to compare the costs of stress ulcer prophylaxis and possible clinical outcomes [acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (AUGB) and nosocomial pneumonia]. The regimens evaluated were: antacids, histamine H2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs), sucralfate and no prophylaxis. The results of published studies were pooled to determine the expected probability of AUGB and nosocomial pneumonia following stress ulcer prophylaxis with each of the agents under study. The costs of stress ulcer prophylaxis, treatment of AUGB and treatment of nosocomial pneumonia were identified from various sources. Sucralfate was the least costly agent for stress ulcer prophylaxis. The average net costs per patient for sucralfate, antacids, no prophylaxis and H2RAs were $US1457, $US1737, $US2268, and $US2638 to $US2712, respectively (1994 dollars). No prophylaxis was found to be less costly than giving H2RAs. Sucralfate and antacids, which induced net savings of $US7373 and $US4321 per case of AUGB averted, respectively, were more cost effective than H2RAs. Sensitivity and threshold analyses revealed that the results were constant over a wide range of cost and probability values. Break-even analysis suggested that sucralfate was the optimal agent for stress ulcer prophylaxis unless the acquisition cost of a prophylactic course of sucralfate was > $US304.05 per patient. At that point, antacids become the optimal agent. Based on this analysis, sucralfate may be the most cost-effective agent for stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill or intensive care patients.     

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.     

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.     

Cost-effectiveness analysis of formoterol versus salmeterol in patients with asthma.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the relative economic consequences of treating asthmatics with twice daily dry powder formoterol 12 micrograms as compared with salmeterol 50 micrograms from a societal perspective. DESIGN AND SETTING: A randomised, 6-month, open-label study including 482 patients with asthma was conducted in Italy, Spain, France, Switzerland, the UK and Sweden. Medical costs included the costs of medications, physician services, emergency room visits, hospital admissions and lung function and other tests. Travel costs and costs of production loss were also calculated. Unit prices were estimated from external sources. To pool the costs of the 6 countries, European currencies were converted to US dollars using 1995 exchange rates. Outcome measures were the number of episode-free days (EFDs) and the number of patients reaching a clinically relevant improvement in quality of life as measured using the St. Georges Respiratory Questionnaire. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES AND RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the 2 treatment arms in the frequency of emergency room visits, hospital admissions, use of rescue medication or contacts with general practitioners (GPs), specialists or nurses. Median medical costs over 6 months were $US828 per patient with formoterol and $US850 with salmeterol. This difference was not statistically significant. In both groups, about 60% of all days were episode-free. Average costs per EFD were about $US9 for both treatments. The average cost per patient reaching a clinically relevant improvement in quality of life was between $US1300 and $US1400. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were not calculated because both costs and outcomes were not significantly different. Asthma-related absenteeism ranged between 3 days and 6 months per patient in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: There was no evidence to suggest that either treatment was more cost effective than the other.     

Cost effectiveness of cephalosporin monotherapy and aminoglycoside/ureidopenicillin combination therapy. For the treatment of febrile episodes in neutropenic patients

OBJECTIVE: To assess the relative cost effectiveness of cephalosporin monotherapy options and aminoglycoside/ureidopenicillin combination therapy for the treatment of febrile episodes in adult patients with neutropenia. DESIGN AND SETTING: This was a retrospective cost-effectiveness analysis conducted from the institutional perspective. METHODS: The analysis was based on 741 febrile episodes in adult patients with neutropenia enrolled in 5 randomised trials: 3 comparing monotherapy with ceftazidime or cefepime, and 2 comparing cefepime monotherapy versus aminoglycoside/ureidopenicillin combination therapy. Resource utilisation included costs for study antibacterials, treatment of adverse effects and failures, and hospitalisation. The primary end-point was the overall cost of treatment per patient. Cost-effectiveness ratios were also analysed. RESULTS: No significant differences in clinical success rates were detected. Median per-patient costs in the monotherapy comparisons were $US7849 for cefepime and $US7788 for ceftazidime [1997 values; not significantly different (NS)]. Corresponding costs for the monotherapy versus combination therapy comparisons were $US9780 for cefepime and $US10 159 for gentamicin/ureidopenicillin (NS). Despite a higher acquisition cost for cefepime, there were no statistically significant differences in cost effectiveness compared with either ceftazidime monotherapy or gentamicin/ureidopenicillin combination therapy. Sensitivity analyses revealed that monotherapy can be cost effective compared with combination therapy in many situations. CONCLUSION: There were no economic differences between the 3 regimens tested. Therefore drug cost should not be a deciding factor when choosing antibacterial therapy for the treatment of febrile episodes in adult patients with neutropenia.     

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.     

Cost-benefit analysis of risperidone and clozapine in the treatment of schizophrenia in Israel

In this study, the benefits and costs of treating schizophrenia with either risperidone or clozapine were examined. The lifetime drug-treatment cost incurred by a patient with schizophrenia in Israel was $US7561 (1996 values) with an initial 6-month trial with risperidone, compared with $US6326 with clozapine and $US3360 with typical antipsychotics. Total lifetime costs of psychiatric health services (excluding medications) by individuals who were continuously receiving typical antipsychotics were $US181,555 per patient. Assuming a 6.3% decrease in hospital use with typical antipsychotics and an absolute 30% decrease with risperidone or clozapine, the use of clozapine or risperidone reduced hospitalisation costs by $US7159 per patient, but increased community-care costs by $US1627 per patient, giving health-service benefit:cost ratios of 1.87:1 and 1.32:1, respectively. After adding indirect benefits resulting from increased work productivity (minus indirect costs related to increases in transport costs because of visits for blood monitoring during clozapine therapy), the benefit:cost ratios increased to 2.04:1 and 1.48:1, respectively. Assuming that clozapine caused a 30% decrease in hospital use by patients with new-onset schizophrenia, risperidone would have to decrease hospital use by 43.2% (i.e. a 13.2% relative advantage) for its societal benefits to justify its increased costs.     

Olanzapine. A pharmacoeconomic review of its use in schizophrenia.

Olanzapine is an atypical antipsychotic agent which is at least as effective as the conventional agent haloperidol and the atypical agent risperidone. Olanzapine may be superior to haloperidol in some respects, including treatment of negative symptoms. A major advantage of olanzapine over haloperidol is its lower risk of extrapyramidal symptoms. Olanzapine improves quality of life and other aspects of functioning to a greater extent than haloperidol, and improves quality of life to at least the same extent as risperidone. However, olanzapine has a high acquisition cost compared with conventional antipsychotics. Despite this, most pharmacoeconomic analyses indicate that treatment with olanzapine does not significantly increase, and may even decrease, the overall direct treatment costs of schizophrenia, compared with haloperidol. Total direct medical costs calculated from prospective resource utilisation data were lower with olanzapine than with haloperidol by $US388 (1995 values) per patient over 6 weeks and by $US55 per patient per month during 46 weeks extended treatment. In a mixed effects linear model of the same data, total costs over 1 year were $US10,301 (1996 values) per patient lower with olanzapine than haloperidol, and olanzapine was associated with 18.3 more symptom-free days per patient. Compared with risperidone, mean total direct medical costs over 28 weeks were $US493 (1995 values) per patient lower with olanzapine. In a Markov model of 5 years' treatment, olanzapine was associated with more time in a disability-free state than haloperidol at a total cost per patient that was lower by $US1539 (1995 values), 816 Pounds (1995/1996 values), 977 Dutch guilders (NLG; 1995 values) and 2296 Deutschmarks in US, UK, Dutch and German analyses, respectively. In a similar Spanish analysis, the overall total cost was higher with olanzapine, giving an incremental cost effectiveness for olanzapine of 32,516 pesetas (1995 values) per month of disability-free time gained. When risperidone was a comparator, the total cost per patient was $US1875 and NLG202 lower with olanzapine in US and Dutch analyses, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The high acquisition cost of olanzapine is offset by reductions in other treatment costs in patients with schizophrenia. Compared with haloperidol, the drug improved patient outcome and quality of life, while overall direct treatment costs were generally not increased, or even decreased. Olanzapine has also been reported to decrease overall treatment costs compared with risperidone, but confirmation is required. Olanzapine is a cost-effective alternative to conventional agents for the treatment of moderately to severely ill patients with longstanding schizophrenia.     

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.     

New drugs for osteoporosis. Comparison of the costs and required returns with those of other drugs intended for long-term use.

Specific regulatory guidelines dictate that developing a new drug for osteoporosis will be significantly more expensive and take at least 2 years longer in comparison with other long-term therapies developed using the International Committee on Harmonisation (ICH) general guidelines. Assuming similar attrition rates, the minimal additional uncapitalised cost is $US86 million for nonestrogen osteoporosis compounds following a minimum programme designed to gain indications for both treatment and prevention. The excess expenditure is created by the size requirements for phase III fracture trials in both the European Union (EU)/US and Japan. The after-tax cash flows to the point of launch discounted at 11% are $US102 million greater, reflecting the additional effect of delayed time to market. Assuming similar lifecycles, the peak sales required to return the investment on an osteoporosis drug will be a minimum of $US95 million greater per launched compound. Many ongoing osteoporosis programmes are substantially larger than the theoretical minimum. The costs of substantially increasing the sample size in phase III trials mean that blockbuster revenues will be required to break even. However, the potential cost of a delayed launch because of fracture efficacy being incompletely proved is so substantial that fracture trials need to be powered conservatively to decrease the chances of this eventuality.     

A multicentre, prospective study to evaluate costs of septic patients in Brazilian intensive care units

BACKGROUND: Sepsis has a high prevalence within intensive care units, with elevated rates of morbidity and mortality, and high costs. Data on sepsis costs are scarce in the literature, and in developing countries such as Brazil these data are largely unavailable. OBJECTIVES: To assess the standard direct costs of sepsis management in Brazilian intensive care units (ICUs) and to disclose factors that could affect those costs. METHODS: This multicentre observational cohort study was conducted in adult septic patients admitted to 21 mixed ICUs of private and public hospitals in Brazil from 1 October 2003 to 30 March 2004. Complete data for all patients admitted to the ICUs were obtained until their discharge or death. We collected only direct healthcare-related costs, defined as all costs related to the ICU stay.Enrolled patients were assessed daily in terms of cost-related expenditures such as hospital fees, operating room fees, gas therapy, physiotherapy, blood components transfusion, medications, renal replacement therapy, laboratory analysis and imaging. Standard unit costs (year 2006 values) were based on the Brazilian Medical Association (AMB) price index for medical procedures and the BRASINDICE price index for medications, solutions and hospital consumables. Medical resource utilization was also assessed daily using the Therapeutic Intervention Scoring System (TISS-28). Indirect costs were not included. RESULTS: With a mean (standard deviation [SD]) age of 61.1 +/- 19.2 years, 524 septic patients from 21 centres were included in this study. The overall hospital mortality rate was 43.8%, the mean Acute Physiology And Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) score was 22.3 +/- 5.4, and the mean Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score at ICU admission was 7.5 +/- 3.9.The median total cost of sepsis was $US 9632 (interquartile range [IQR] 4583-18 387; 95% CI 8657, 10 672) per patient, while the median daily ICU cost per patient was $US 934 (IQR 735-1170; 95% CI 897, 963). The median daily ICU cost per patient was significantly higher in non-survivors than in survivors, i.e. $US 1094 (IQR 888-1341; 95% CI 1058, 1157) and $US 826 (IQR 668-982; 95% CI 786, 854), respectively (p < 0.001). For patients admitted to public and private hospitals, we found a median SOFA score at ICU admission of 7.5 and 7.1, respectively (p = 0.02), and the mortality rate was 49.1% and 36.7%, respectively (p = 0.006). Patients admitted to public and private hospitals had a similar length of stay of 10 (IQR 5-19) days versus 9 (IQR 4-16) days (p = 0.091), and the median total direct costs for public ($US 9773; IQR 4643-19 221; 95% CI 8503, 10 818) versus private ($US 9490; IQR 4305-17 034; 95% CI 7610, 11 292) hospitals did not differ significantly (p = 0.37). CONCLUSIONS: The present study provides the first economic analysis of direct costs of sepsis in Brazilian ICUs and reveals that the cost of sepsis treatment is high. Despite similar ICU management, there was a significant difference regarding patient outcome between private and public hospitals. Finally, the median daily costs of non-survivor patients were higher than survivors during ICU stay.     

Simvastatin after orthotopic heart transplantation. Costs and consequences.

OBJECTIVE: Recent data indicate that the combination of a low cholesterol diet and simvastatin following heart transplantation is associated with significant reduction of serum cholesterol levels, lower incidence of graft vessel disease (GVD) and significantly superior 4-year survival rates than dietary treatment alone. On the basis of this first randomised long term study evaluating survival as the clinical end-point, we investigated the cost effectiveness of the above regimens as well as the long term consequences for the patient and for heart transplantation as a high-tech procedure. DESIGN AND SETTING: The perspective of the economic analysis was that of the German health insurance fund. Life-years gained were calculated on the basis of the Kaplan-Meier survival curves from the 4-year clinical trial and from the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation (ISHLT) overall survival statistics. Incremental costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were determined using various sources of data, and both costs and consequences were discounted by 3% per year. Sensitivity analyses using alternative assumptions were conducted in addition to the base-case analysis. PATIENTS AND PARTICIPANTS: As in the original clinical trial, the target population of the economic evaluation comprised all heart transplant recipients on standard triple immunosuppression consisting of cyclosporin, azathioprine and prednisolone, regardless of the postoperative serum lipid profile. INTERVENTIONS: The therapeutic regimens investigated in the analysis were the American Heart Association (AHA) step II diet plus simvastatin (titrated to a maximum dosage of 20 mg/day) and AHA step II diet alone. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES AND RESULTS: Four years of treatment with simvastatin (mean dosage 8.11 mg/day) translated into an undiscounted survival benefit per patient of 2.27 life-years; 0.64 life-years within the trial period and 1.63 life-years thereafter. Discounted costs per year of life gained were $US1050 (sensitivity analyses $US800 to $US15,400) for simvastatin plus diet versus diet alone and $US18,010 (sensitivity analyses $US17,130 to $US21,090) for heart transplantation plus simvastatin versus no transplantation (all costs reflect 1997 values; $US1 = 1.747 Deutschmarks). CONCLUSIONS: Prevention of GVD with simvastatin after heart transplantation was cost effective in all the scenarios examined with impressive prolongation of life expectancy for the heart recipient. Simvastatin also achieved an internationally robust 21% improvement in the cost effectiveness of heart transplantation compared with historical cost-effectiveness data.     

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.     

Omeprazole or ranitidine plus metoclopramide for patients with severe erosive oesophagitis. A cost-effectiveness analysis

The objective of this study was to evaluate the clinical and economic effects of 2 clinical strategies for treating severe (grade II and above) erosive oesophagitis or poorly responsive gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. A single-blind, randomised controlled trial of up to 8 weeks' duration was undertaken comparing omeprazole with ranitidine plus metoclopramide in patients with severe and symptomatic erosive oesophagitis (endoscopic grade II and above). Two cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated: cost per healed patient and cost per symptom-free day. The study perspective was that of the payer or insurer of medical care. Healing rates were significantly higher among omeprazole-treated patients than among those who received ranitidine/metoclopramide at 4 weeks (68.5% vs 30.4%; p < 0.01) and overall (81.5% vs 45.7%; p < 0.01). Overall, mean gastrointestinal-related direct medical costs per healed patient were lower for the omeprazole group ($US189.60) than for the ranitidine/metoclopramide group ($US319.28). The incremental cost of an additional cure with omeprazole compared with ranitidine/metoclopramide was $US24.05. The overall average cost per symptom-free day was lower in the omeprazole group ($US7.88) than in the ranitidine/metoclopramide group ($US10.81). The incremental cost to obtain an additional symptom-free day with omeprazole, compared with ranitidine/metoclopramide, was $US1.41. In conclusion, superior efficacy at comparable cost is achieved by omeprazole compared with ranitidine/metoclopramide in the treatment of patients with severe erosive oesophagitis.     

Research and development costs for new drugs by therapeutic category. A study of the US pharmaceutical industry

The clinical period (i.e. clinical trial and long term animal testing) development costs of a random sample of new chemical entities (NCEs) were examined for differences in average cost. All of the NCEs studied were first tested in humans between 1970 and 1982, and were classified for the purposes of the study by therapeutic class. The costs of unsuccessful projects were included with those of projects that resulted in US marketing approval. Including income forgone from expending funds before returns are earned ('time costs'), the capitalised (i.e. out-of-pocket plus time) clinical period costs per approved NCE were $US70, $US98, $US103 and $US163 million (1993 dollars) for anti-infective, cardiovascular, neuropharmacological and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, respectively. Combining the data for all therapeutic categories, the mean clinical period cost per approved NCE was $US93 million. Omitting costs associated with unsuccessful projects, the mean capitalised clinical period costs for approved NCEs ranged from $US7.1 million (for topical steroids) to $US66.7 million (for cardiovascular agents) [1993 dollars]. The estimates of total clinical period costs per approved NCE depend on average out-of-pocket clinical phase costs, attrition rates across phases (i.e. the rates at which compounds drop out of active testing), the probability of marketing approval, and development and regulatory review times. Phase attrition and approval rates are the most important sources of variability in total clinical period costs between therapeutic categories. Development cost estimates by therapeutic category did not correlate strongly with US sales in the fifth year of marketing. Cardiovascular NCEs had much higher than average sales revenues, but clinical development costs for these drugs were only slightly above average. Conversely, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs attained average sales revenues, but had much higher than average development costs.     

Medical cost savings from pentoxifylline therapy in chronic occlusive arterial disease

This article assesses the direct medical cost savings associated with therapeutic dosages of pentoxifylline therapy compared with lower dosages in treating chronic occlusive arterial disease (COAD). The savings accrue from elimination of invasive diagnostic measures or a number of surgical procedures received by patients with COAD during hospital admissions. Findings are based on a secondary analysis of results presented in a previously published report of a population based historical cohort study. Patients in this study were severely enough afflicted by the disease that most were under the care of vascular specialists and many underwent surgery to restore normal blood flow. Costs are based on charges from Medicare expenditures in 4 US states in 1989. A case-mix adjustment procedure was applied and a sensitivity analysis was conducted on key assumptions and variables in the cost savings model. Pentoxifylline therapy reduced average hospital costs per patient by $US1173 per year (1989 dollars). After further adjustment for the costs of outpatient visits, other related drugs and the drug acquisition cost, an overall saving of $US965 would still be realised with a patient who received the full therapeutic dose of pentoxifylline. Sensitivity analysis suggests total annual direct medical cost savings between $US69 and $US3090 per patient. Hence, under the most plausible assumptions regarding choice of procedures, study design and patient population, and considering the possibility that diagnostic and surgical costs are delayed but not prevented, pentoxifylline therapy substantially reduces direct medical costs.     

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.     

Costs of treating dystonias and hemifacial spasm with botulinum toxin A

Botulinum toxin (BTX) has become a safe and effective therapeutic tool in the treatment of a variety of neurological disorders, especially dystonias. One major disadvantage, however, is the high cost of a single injection of BTX. In this study of 835 patients, we calculated the cost of treatment with BTX serotype A (BTX-A) for different dystonias and hemifacial spasm. The annual expenditure per patient for BTX-A injections in this cohort totalled (mean +/- standard deviation) 1030 Deutschmarks (DM) [1996 values] +/- DM610 [$US570 +/- $US340; 230 +/- 130 pounds sterling (Pound)] for blepharospasm (n = 158), DM1450 +/- DM1520 ($US800 +/- $US830; 310 Pounds +/- 280 Pounds) for craniocervical dystonia (n = 148), and DM1480 +/- DM780 ($US810 +/- $US430; 330 Pounds +/- 180 Pounds) for oromandibular dystonia (n = 16), while the treatment of cervical dystonia consumed DM4590 +/- DM2060 ($US2520 +/- $US1130; 960 Pounds +/- 420 Pounds) [n = 362] per patient. In order to alleviate symptoms in patients with hemifacial spasm (n = 151), DM510 +/- DM270 ($US280 +/- $US150; 110 Pounds +/- 60 Pounds) had to be spent annually. The expenses for surgical therapy for cervical dystonia were DM10,120 +/- DM1900 (n = 54). No major differences concerning expenditure could be found in this study between the 2 available preparations of BTX. However, there appeared to be a lower rate of adverse effects with the Botox formulation, compared with the Dysport formulation, of BTX-A (this difference was statistically significant, i.e. p < 0.001). Although the cost of an individual injection is high, other cost factors also substantially contribute to the societal costs of adult-onset dystonias. Some of these costs may be attenuated with the use of BTX. The subjective and objective relief of these socially devastating and sometimes painful conditions rewards the expenditure associated with the use of BTX-A.     

Costing wound infection in a Scottish hospital

Data from a trial of preoperative whole body disinfection in postoperative wound infection prophylaxis involving 3733 patients were used to analyse the cost of a postoperative wound infection. The overall wound infection rate was 14.73% (513/3482), 61% of which were diagnosed after hospital discharge (312 outpatient infections versus 201 inpatient infections). This highlights the prevalence of the transfer of the cost of wound infection to the community. The inpatient and outpatient costs were calculated separately for those with and without a wound infection. Operative procedures were placed into 38 different categories. 12 of these 38 categories accounted for over 90% of the total number of operations performed. Overall, infected patients cost society more than noninfected patients. The hospitalisation costs for inpatients for all categories of patients, whether infected or not, comprised over 99% of the total cost. The excess cost for the infected patients in the study was calculated as 312 915 British pounds sterling (1990 British pounds sterling) or 610 British pounds sterling per infected patient, equivalent to 1926 hospital days overall. For some operations (e.g. stripping varicose veins) an excess of 52 hospital days were associated with wound infection diagnosed after discharge from hospital. Wound infections in some operative categories were consistently more expensive to manage (e.g. excess cost/infected vascular patient = 1085 British pounds sterling) while other operative categories had less costly wound infections (e.g. excess cost/infected thyroid patient = 110 British pounds sterling).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)