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 effectiveness of budesonide/formoterol for maintenance and reliever therapy versus salmeterol/fluticasone plus salbutamol in the treatment of asthma

INTRODUCTION: Budesonide/formoterol (Symbicort) Maintenance And Reliever Therapy (SMART) is an effective and well tolerated treatment option for patients with asthma. We compared the cost effectiveness from a societal perspective of this one-inhaler regimen with that of maintenance salmeterol/fluticasone propionate (Seretide) plus salbutamol (albuterol) as needed (Seretide) Fixed Combination [SFC]). STUDY DESIGN: A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed based on effectiveness and resource-utilisation data collected prospectively in a randomised, 12-month study performed in 2143 patients in 16 countries. Resource utilisation data were pooled and unit costs (euro, year 2003 values) from Italy, France, the UK and Germany were used to generate estimates of direct and total costs per patient per year and cost per severe exacerbation avoided. METHODS: Adolescents and adults with asthma (n = 2143; mean forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV(1)] 73% predicted; mean inhaled corticosteroid [ICS] dose 884 microg/day) were randomised to SMART or SFC. The effectiveness measure used was the number of severe exacerbations per patient per year. Direct costs included medication use (budesonide/formoterol 160microg/4.5microg or salmeterol/fluticasone 50microg/100microg, 50microg/250microg or 50microg/500microg plus salbutamol) and nonmedication-related resource use, including days in hospital, emergency room visits, specialist or primary care physician visits and other healthcare provider contacts. Indirect costs, including the number of days when the patient or their carer was unable to attend to their normal daily activities, were also assessed. The study assumed a European societal perspective (i.e. including direct and indirect costs). RESULTS: Treatment with SMART resulted in significantly fewer severe exacerbations per patient per year compared with SFC (0.24 vs 0.31 events per patient per year; p = 0.0025). Resource use was low in both groups. Medication costs accounted for the majority of the total costs. The increased effectiveness of SMART was achieved at a reduced or similar cost compared with SFC. SMART dominated when German unit costs were applied (i.e. there was a statistically significant reduction in both costs and number of exacerbations). In all other countries, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios showed that there was a reduction in mean total cost per exacerbation avoided; however, this difference was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: This analysis demonstrates that, compared with SFC, SMART may be cost effective from a societal perspective for the treatment of patients with asthma in Italy, Germany, France and the UK. SMART provided a reduction in the number of severe exacerbations per patient per year, at no statistically significant increase in cost - or even at a lower cost - compared with SFC plus as-needed reliever salbutamol.     

Enteroviral meningitis. Cost of illness and considerations for the economic evaluation of potential therapies

With limited financial resources available, it is now becoming more acceptable to evaluate medical innovations in terms of incremental economic value. The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of enteroviral meningitis and to summarise the economic literature to identify relevant costs and outcomes. Enteroviral meningitis is the most common cause of aseptic meningitis, and occurs in 4.5 to 30 per 100,000 population annually with a duration of illness lasting between 1 and 2 weeks after onset of initial symptoms. The major resource categories that contribute to the overall direct costs of management of enteroviral meningitis include physician visits, hospital admissions, emergency room visits, medications, procedures such as lumbar puncture and computed tomography scans, re-hospitalizations and follow-up physician visits. Indirect costs are incurred in terms of school or work days missed or restrictions in daily activities. The total direct costs of an episode of enteroviral meningitis range from $US450 for outpatients to $US5093 for inpatient management (1996 values). The total indirect costs of an episode of enteroviral meningitis are estimated to be equivalent to 5 to 7 activity-restricted days. Interventions that improve early diagnosis or decrease the duration and need for hospitalisation will significantly affect the cost of managing enteroviral meningitis. Additional prospective studies are needed to study the impact of interventions on the burden of enteroviral meningitis.     

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.     

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.     

A cost-effectiveness analysis of first-line controller therapies for persistent asthma

BACKGROUND: Asthma is one of the most common chronic diseases in the US, and its prevalence continues to increase. Despite the availability of effective asthma controller medications, many patients with asthma are still not meeting therapeutic goals because of poor disease management. The high disease prevalence combined with the high costs associated with the poor management of asthma, make patients with asthma a costly group to treat for managed care organisations (MCOs) and this motivates decision makers in MCOs to consider both the clinical and economic value of asthma therapies. OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost effectiveness of first-line controller asthma therapies in patients with mild-to-moderate persistent asthma from an MCO payer perspective. METHODS: A decision-analysis model was developed to evaluate the cost effectiveness of fluticasone propionate and salmeterol administered in a single inhaler (salmeterol/fluticasone propionate 50/100microg), compared with fluticasone propionate inhaled corticosteroids (FPIC), non-fluticasone propionate inhaled corticosteroids (nFPIC) and leukotriene modifiers. The model estimated costs ($US, year 2005 values) and health outcomes over a 1-year period. Costs and outcomes data were obtained from published clinical trials and observational studies, and model assumptions on the relationship between adherence and effectiveness were evaluated by a panel of experts. Effectiveness measures included symptom-free days and rescue medication-free days. The cost effectiveness of first-line asthma therapies was compared using a step-wise approach, with FPIC as the reference case. Both one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robustness of results over a range of assumptions. RESULTS: The step-wise comparison found that the additional costs for achieving an incremental effectiveness unit (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio) using single-inhaler salmeterol/fluticasone propionate compared with FPIC was $US9.55 per symptom-free day and $US8.93 per rescue medication-free day. Sensitivity analyses indicated that the model was robust to changes in base-case assumptions. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that, corresponding to a benchmark value of $US14.8 per symptom-free day, the probabilities that single-inhaler salmeterol/fluticasone propionate, n-FPIC and leukotriene modifiers were more cost effective than FPIC were 98%, 30.7% and 2.1%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Based on our decision analysis, the additional costs for achieving incremental effectiveness with single-inhaler salmeterol/fluticasone propionate treatment compared with FPIC and nFPIC may be lower than the commonly accepted benchmark value for cost effectiveness, based on published estimates of the utility losses associated with asthma symptoms. Single-inhaler salmeterol/fluticasone propionate may also be more cost effective than leukotriene modifiers.     

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-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.     

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.     

Cost effectiveness of fluticasone propionate plus salmeterol versus fluticasone propionate plus montelukast in the treatment of persistent asthma

BACKGROUND: Asthma is a chronic disease, the two main components of which are inflammation and bronchoconstriction. Fluticasone propionate (FP) and salmeterol, a strategy that treats both main components of asthma, has been recently compared with FP plus montelukast in a randomised clinical trial. The present study reports economic evaluation of these two strategies. OBJECTIVE: To determine the relative cost effectiveness when persistent asthma is treated with FP/salmeterol 100/50 microg twice daily administered via a single Diskus inhaler device versus treatment with FP 100 microg twice daily via a Diskus inhaler plus oral montelukast 10mg once daily. STUDY DESIGN: A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed by applying cost unit data to resource utilisation data collected prospectively during a US randomised, double-blind, 12-week trial of FP/salmeterol (n = 222) versus FP + montelukast (n = 225). Patients were > or =15 years of age and were symptomatic despite inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Efficacy measurements in this analysis included improvement in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV(1)) and symptom-free days. Direct costs included those related to study drugs, emergency room department visits, unscheduled physician visits, treatment of drug-related adverse events (oral candidiasis), and rescue medication (salbutamol [albuterol]). The study assumed a US third-party payer's perspective with costs in 2001 US dollars. RESULTS: Treatment with FP/salmeterol resulted in a significantly higher proportion (p < 0.001) of patients who achieved a > or =12% increase in FEV(1) than treatment with FP + montelukast (54% [95% CI 47%, 61%] vs 32% [95% CI 26%, 38%]). Lower daily costs and greater efficacy of FP/salmeterol resulted in a cost-effectiveness ratio of US6.77 dollars (95% CI US5.99 dollars, US7.66 dollars) per successfully treated patient in the FP/salmeterol group compared with US14.59 dollars (95% CI US12.12 dollars, US17.77 dollars) for FP + montelukast. In addition, FP/salmeterol achieved similar efficacy in terms of symptom-free days compared with FP + montelukast (31% [95% CI 26%, 35%] vs 27% [95% CI 23%, 32%]), but at a significantly lower daily per-patient cost (US3.64 dollars [95% CI US3.60, US3.68 dollars] vs US4.64 dollars [95% CI US4.56 dollars, US4.73 dollars]). Sensitivity analyses demonstrated the stability of the results over a range of assumptions. CONCLUSION: From a US third-party payer's perspective, these findings suggest that treating the two main components of asthma (inflammation and bronchoconstriction) with FP/salmeterol may not only be a more cost-effective strategy but may actually lead to cost savings compared with the addition of montelukast to low-dose FP in patients with persistent asthma. The results were found to be robust over a range of assumptions.     

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.     

Inhaled salmeterol/fluticasone propionate combination. A pharmacoeconomic review of its use in the management of asthma

Cost estimates from developed countries indicate that asthma accounts for up to 2% of the economic cost of all diseases. A large proportion of asthma-related costs are attributable to poor asthma control. Treatment strategies which improve clinical outcomes in patients with asthma, therefore, have the potential for significant economic benefits, and it is important to evaluate new asthma therapies for cost effectiveness. Several studies have established that salmeterol and fluticasone propionate combined in a single dry powder inhalation device are at least as effective as a combination of the 2 drugs administered via separate dry powder inhalers and more effective than monotherapy with fluticasone propionate or budesonide. Importantly, pharmacoeconomic analysis of several of these studies show that the salmeterol/fluticasone propionate combination is cost effective relative to monotherapy with fluticasone propionate or budesonide. Although the total cost of asthma management tended to be slightly higher with salmeterol/fluticasone propionate than with inhaled corticosteroid monotherapy, in most cases mean cost-effectiveness ratios were lower (i.e. more favourable) for salmeterol/fluticasone propionate than either fluticasone propionate or budesonide. Cost effectiveness was assessed according to 3 end-points: successfully treated weeks, symptom-free days and episode-free days. Mean cost-effectiveness ratios consistently favoured salmeterol/fluticasone propionate over the comparator drug for the end-point successfully treated weeks, and in most cases the other 2 end-points also favoured the combination product over the comparator. In a further study, salmeterol/fluticasone was also less costly than therapy with formoterol and budesonide administered via 2 separate inhalers. Studies of health-related quality of life (HR-QOL) using the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire indicate that salmeterol/fluticasone propionate produces clinically meaningful improvements in overall HR-QOL relative to salmeterol monotherapy or placebo. Improvements in overall HR-QOL were statistically significantly greater for salmeterol/fluticasone propionate than with fluticasone propionate or budesonide alone, although the differences between treatments did not exceed the threshold for clinical significance. In conclusion, short term cost-effectiveness data show that salmeterol/fluticasone propionate is more cost effective than the inhaled corticosteroids budesonide and fluticasone propionate alone. The combination product also appears to improve HR-QOL relative to placebo or salmeterol alone.     

Cost-effectiveness analysis of budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy versus fixed combination treatments for asthma in Finland

ABSTRACT

Background: Budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy has shown its effectiveness as a treatment for moderate-to-severe asthma.

Objective: To explore the cost-effectiveness of budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy as compared to fixed combination therapies (budesonide/formoterol and salmeterol/fluticasone) with terbutaline as needed in the treatment of asthma in Finland.

Methods: Patients without asthma exacerbations during a 6-month period were used as the effectiveness variable in the within-trial economic analysis. Finnish unit costs were applied to pooled resource use data, and multinomial cost-effectiveness plane and acceptability curves were formed based on bootstrapping.

Results: Use of budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy significantly reduced the rate of severe asthma exacerbations as compared with a fixed dose of budesonide/formoterol or salmeterol/fluticasone and terbutaline as needed. Total costs over 6 months were €496 per patient for those who used the budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy treatment model, which was €78–101 lower than the cost of fixed combinations of salmeterol/fluticasone or budesonide/formoterol with terbutaline as needed. The results indicate that the budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy achieves a high probability (> 93%) of cost effectiveness irrespective of willingness to pay level.

Conclusions: Budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy may be considered in the treatment of moderate-to-severe asthma instead of conventional treatment with combination products in view of its good clinical efficacy and a high probability of cost-effectiveness in the Finnish setting. However, a cost-effectiveness analysis with a longer time horizon, more Finnish-specific data, and ICS + short/long-acting inhaled β₂-agonist as an additional comparator is still warranted.     

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.     

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 tumour necrosis factor-alpha inhibitors as first-line agents in rheumatoid arthritis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is an autoimmune disease with an unknown aetiology that results in >9 million physician visits and >250 000 hospitalisations per year in the US. Tumour necrosis factor-alpha (TNFalpha) inhibitors are effective agents in treating RA; however, their cost effectiveness as first-line agents has not been investigated. This study aimed to examine the cost effectiveness of using TNFalpha inhibitors (both as monotherapy and in combination with methotrexate) as first-line agents versus methotrexate (monotherapy) from a payer perspective. METHODS: A Markov model was developed utilising a discount rate of 3% per annum, a cycle length of 1 year and a lifetime time-horizon for a hypothetical cohort of US females aged 55-60 years who had been diagnosed with RA. The source of data for predicted probabilities, expected mortality rates and treatment costs in year 2005 US dollars (drug, toxicity, monitoring and hospitalisation) was from the literature. These costs are assigned in 5-year cycles (calculated from initial 1-year estimates) along with the effect on quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), which were calculated using the Health Assessment Questionnaire score. Univariate sensitivity analyses were conducted on all relevant parameters. RESULTS: Adalimumab, etanercept, adalimumab plus methotrexate and infliximab plus methotrexate had incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) versus methotrexate monotherapy of $US63 769, $US89 772, $US194 589 and $US409 523 per QALY, respectively. When taking into consideration age at diagnosis, the ICER for etanercept ranged from $US84 129 to $US96 225 per QALY. In considering males for the base-case age at diagnosis, the ICER for etanercept versus methotrexate was $US85 100 per QALY. The average lifetime cost across all treatment arms in a woman diagnosed between 55 and 60 years of age was $US211 702. CONCLUSION: While these ICERs cannot be used to directly compare one biological agent with another since there are no comparative trials, they do provide a valid comparison versus methotrexate as first-line agents. Depending where the cost-effectiveness threshold is drawn (i.e. whether it is considered to be $US50 000 or $US100 000 per QALY), etanercept and adalimumab may be considered relatively cost-effective first-line treatments for RA compared with methotrexate monotherapy.     

Healthcare resource and lost labour costs of migraine headache in the US

Migraine headache is responsible for significantly more healthcare resource and lost labour costs than previously reported. Costs associated with migraine were assessed via a survey conducted in 940 patients, 70% of whom responded. All met the International Headache Society's diagnostic criteria for migraine and had participated in one of two multicentre, single-dose, parallel-group, randomised, placebo-controlled clinical trials designed to assess the efficacy of an anti-migraine compound. Migraine frequency and costs, in terms of healthcare resource utilisation and lost labour (decreased productivity and missed workdays), were assessed. Over 90% of respondents visited a clinic and nearly 50% presented to an emergency room for treatment of migraine-related symptoms at least once in the year prior to the survey. These 648 respondents used an estimated $US529 199 per year in healthcare services. 89% of employed respondents reported that job performance was adversely affected by migraine and over 50% of them missed at least two days of work per month. Depending on the estimates used for migraine prevalence and using 1986 estimates of median earnings for the US work force, the extrapolated costs to employers ranged from $US5.6 billion to $US17.2 billion dollars annually due to decreased productivity and missed work days. The cost of migraine is not fully appreciated by the medical community or by society.     

Adjustable maintenance dosing with budesonide/formoterol compared with fixed-dose salmeterol/fluticasone in moderate to severe asthma

BACKGROUND: Current asthma guidelines recommend that patients are educated to adjust their medication according to their asthma severity using physician-guided self-management plans. However, many patients take a fixed dose of their controller medication and adjust their reliever medication according to asthma symptoms. OBJECTIVES: This study examined whether asthma control improved if patients adjusted the maintenance dose of budesonide/formoterol (Symbicort Turbuhaler* 160/4.5 microg) according to asthma severity compared with traditional fixed dosing (FD) regimens. METHODS: Symptomatic patients with asthma (n = 658, mean symptom score 1.5, mean inhaled corticosteroids 735 microg/day, mean forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV(1)] 84% predicted) were randomised after 2 weeks' run-in to either: budesonide/formoterol adjustable maintenance dosing (AMD), budesonide/formoterol FD or salmeterol/fluticasone (Seretide Diskus dagger 50/250 microg) FD. In a 4-week double-blind period, both budesonide/formoterol AMD and FD groups received two inhalations twice daily (bid) and salmeterol/fluticasone FD patients received one inhalation bid. In the following 6-month open extension, both FD groups continued with the same treatment. Patients in the AMD group with well-controlled asthma stepped down to one inhalation bid; others continued with two inhalations bid. All AMD patients could increase to four inhalations bid for 7-14 days if symptoms worsened. All patients used terbutaline or salbutamol for symptom relief throughout. The primary variable was the odds of achieving a well-controlled asthma week (WCAW). RESULTS: The odds ratio for achieving a WCAW did not differ between the FD regimens; however, during the open period, budesonide/formoterol AMD increased the odds of achieving a WCAW vs. budesonide/formoterol FD (odds ratio 1.335; 95% CI: 1.001, 1.783; p = 0.049) despite a 15% reduction in average study drug use. Budesonide/formoterol AMD patients had a lower exacerbation rate over the study: 40% lower vs. salmeterol/fluticasone FD (p = 0.018); 32% lower vs. budesonide/formoterol FD (NS). During the double-blind period, there were no clinically relevant differences between the budesonide/formoterol FD and salmeterol/fluticasone FD groups. Budesonide/formoterol AMD patients used less reliever medication in the open extension: 0.58 vs. 0.92 occasions/day for budesonide/formoterol FD (p = 0.001) and 0.80 occasions/day for salmeterol/fluticasone FD (p = 0.011). CONCLUSIONS: Adjustable maintenance dosing with budesonide/formoterol provides more effective asthma control by reducing exacerbations and reliever medication usage compared with fixed-dose salmeterol/fluticasone.     

噻托溴铵联合沙美特罗/福莫特罗对老年稳定期COPD患者肺功能的影响

目的:观察噻托溴铵联合沙美特罗/福莫特罗对老年稳定期慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)患者肺功能的影响。方法:将64例老年稳定期COPD患者按随机数字表法均分为沙美特罗组和福莫特罗组。沙美特罗组患者给予噻托溴铵粉吸入剂,1粒/次(每次应用药粉吸入器吸入1粒),1次/d;沙美特罗-丙酸氟替卡松干粉吸入剂,1吸/次,2次/d。福莫特罗组患者给予噻托溴铵粉吸入剂,用法、用量同沙美特罗组;布地奈德福莫特罗粉吸入剂,1吸/次,2次/d。两组患者疗程均为12周。观察所有患者生活质量、呼吸困难程度和COPD评估测试(CAT),第一秒用力呼气容积(FEV1)、占预计值百分比(FEV1%)、占用力肺活量比值(FEV1/FVC),动脉血氧气分压[pbt(O2)]、动脉血二氧化碳分压[pbt(CO2)],白介素(IL-)6、IL-8、IL-10、肿瘤坏死因子(TNF-)α的变化及不良反应发生情况。结果:治疗后两组患者生活质量三个维度评分、呼吸困难分级和CAT评分、pbt(CO2)、IL-6、IL-8、IL-10、TNF-α水平均显著低于同组治疗前,FEV1、FEV1%、FEV1/FVC、pbt(O2)均显著高于同组治疗前,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05),各指标组间比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。沙美特罗组不良反应发生率(3.13%)显著低于福莫特罗组(12.5%),两组比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论:噻托溴铵联合沙美特罗/福莫特罗均可显著降低患者血浆炎症细胞因子水平,改善患者呼吸功能,提高患者生存质量,但噻托溴铵联合沙美特罗组的安全性更好。