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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

The economic impact of Parkinson's disease. An estimation based on a 3-month prospective analysis

OBJECTIVE: This study prospectively assesses the medical costs of Parkinson's disease (PD). DESIGN: Over a period of 3 months (from July to September 1995), patients with PD documented all items of healthcare provision. These data were then used to calculate medical costs for an individual patient as well as the costs of PD. PATIENTS AND SETTING: We included 20 outpatients with idiopathic PD from the neurological outpatient clinic, Klinikum Grosshadern, Munich, and 20 patients from two office-based neurologists in South-West Germany. MAIN RESULTS: The mean 3-month medical cost of PD in 1995 deutschmarks (DM) was 5210 ($US3390, 2240 Pounds) consisting of DM1410 ($US920, 610 Pounds) for care and nursing, DM1580 ($US1030, 680 Pounds) for drug therapy, DM1320 ($US860, 570 Pounds) for inpatient hospital care, DM40 ($US26, 17 Pounds) for outpatient care and DM860 for other expenses ($US560, 370 Pounds). The expenditure was related to the disease evolution. Patients complaining of one-sided symptoms [Hoehn and Yahr stage I; (HY I)] were less expensive to treat (DM1930, $US1250, 830 Pounds) than patients who were severely incapacitated (HY V) [DM9740, $US6330, 4200 Pounds; HY V]. After 3 to 5 years of levodopa treatment approximately 50% of patients start to experience fluctuations in motor ability and dyskinesias [Unified Parkinson's disease rating scale, part IV (UPDRS IV)]. This onset of motor complications parallels an increase in costs. For patients who experienced motor fluctuations, annual costs were DM6550 ($US4260, 2820 Pounds) compared with DM3030 ($US1960, 1300 Pounds) for patients lacking this problem. Indirect non-medical costs were not calculated due to the limited number of patients. The impact of the disease on work, however, is clearly apparent from the patients' history: 19 out of 34 patients who had already stopped working attributed this to the disease, and only 6 patients were still working at the time of the survey. CONCLUSION: PD poses a major financial impact to society which is expected to increase in future years as the age distribution shifts to older age groups. On the basis of a prevalence of PD of 183 per 100,000, we calculated an annual expenditure of DM3.0 billion for the direct medical costs of PD in Germany.     

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.     

Thrombolysis, stroke units and other strategies for reducing acute stroke costs.

Stroke is the leading cause of long term disability and the third leading cause of death in the US. Nearly $US40.9 billion (1997 values) are spent each year on direct and indirect stroke-related costs in the US alone. Length of hospital stay, hospital overheads and nursing-related and rehabilitation costs account for the majority of stroke-related expenditures. Intravenous recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (rt-PA) therapy for patients presenting within 3 hours from onset of ischaemic stroke was shown to improve outcome at 3 months by the National Institute of Neurological Disease and Stroke (NINDS) investigators using a dosage of 0.9 mg/kg. When the NINDS rt-PA Stroke Study results were examined using a Markov model, savings of $US4 to $US5 million (1996 values) per 1000 patients treated with rt-PA were projected. These savings were predicted to result from decreases in length of hospital stay, inpatient rehabilitation and nursing home costs, increases in the number of patients discharged directly to home and improvements in quality-adjusted life-years. Furthermore, a recent meta-analysis has documented that the institution of stroke units, consisting of multidisciplinary specialised stroke teams, also decreased length of hospital stay, death and dependency. Because only a minority of patients who have a stroke are currently eligible for thrombolysis, implementation of specialised and standardised stroke care may further enhance cost benefits and improve patient outcomes.     

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 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.     

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 of treatment for onychomycosis. Data from a 9-month observational study

OBJECTIVES: To estimate component and total costs of treatment and to examine differences in cost and cost effectiveness between oral antifungal medication and local therapy for patients with toenail onychomycosis. DESIGN: Prospective, observational study of patients with onychomycosis who visited dermatologists and podiatrists in the US. Physicians provided data on clinical management, disease severity, nail improvement and resource utilisation. Patients completed questionnaires on resource utilisation and symptoms at base-line, 4 and 9 months. To estimate costs, reported utilisation was multiplied by unit costs expressed in 1997 US dollars ($US) and derived in 2 ways: first, using Medicare fees; and second, using standard physician fees. RESULTS: After adjustment for key demographic and clinical variables, participants receiving oral medication had higher total costs based on standard fees ($US794 vs $US575) and medication costs ($US564 vs $US109), lower procedure costs ($US0 vs $US122) and physician visit costs ($US200 vs $US330), and greater clinical effectiveness as measured by global improvement rating (86 vs 35%) and Toenail Symptom Index (94 vs 49%). For participants receiving oral medication, 90% of total costs were incurred during the first 4 months of follow-up, whereas for those receiving local therapy, costs were more evenly distributed throughout the study period. Incremental cost-effectiveness analysis showed $US304 to $US491 per additional case improved with oral medication over a 9-month timeframe. Extrapolation of these results using 2 time-points (months 4 and 9) suggested that cost equivalence would be reached 17 to 21 months following the initiation of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: During 9 months of follow-up in patients with toenail onychomycosis, the use of oral antifungal medication resulted in superior patient outcomes, but at higher total cost compared with local therapy.     

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.     

The cost of palliative care for hepatocellular carcinoma in Hong Kong.

BACKGROUND: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is endemic in parts of Asia and Africa and most patients are not suitable for treatment with a curative approach. Little is known about the cost of palliative care for HCC. OBJECTIVE: To determine: (i) patient-specific costs of palliative care of HCC; and (ii) individual factors that drive patient-specific costs and to develop a model of cost per case under alternative circumstances. METHODS: 204 patients with inoperable HCC were prospectively tracked from first hospitalisation until death for health service utilisation. A societal perspective of cost was taken, including costs of formal and informal services incurred by payers, caregivers and patients. Observational data from a large Hong Kong cancer care programme were used. A regression analysis was performed using formal costs only, with the cost per observed day as the dependent variable. RESULTS: The median survival was 95 days and the mean observation period was 153 days. The mean value per person for formal healthcare cost was 30 983 Hong Kong dollars [$HK] ($US3872, 1998 values). The distribution of cost values were positively skewed. The regression analysis showed that age, days of observation and survival were negatively related to cost per observed day, and the Child-Pugh grading of severity of liver cirrhosis was positively related to cost per observed day. A sensitivity analysis based on the regression equation indicated that nonsurvivorship doubles the cost per case, increased severity as measured by the Child-Pugh Index adds about 50% to the cost, and chemotherapy increases cost 2-fold. CONCLUSIONS: The relatively modest average cost per patient with HCC in Hong Kong reflects the short median survival and subsequently the limited use of inpatient care and chemotherapy.     

Economics of home parenteral nutrition

The past 30 years have seen long term parenteral nutrition evolve from a novel technique to an accepted intervention for gastrointestinal failure. The development of home parenteral nutrition (HPN) has parallelled a shift in resources from hospital to community care and has been driven by technological advances, the growth of commercial home care companies and patient choice. Costs for HPN per patient year have been estimated to range from $US 150,000 to $US 250,000 in the US, and are around 55,000 pounds in the UK, perhaps only 25 to 50% of in-hospital costs. In the absence of any alternative treatment for many patients with gastrointestinal disease, parenteral nutrition is life saving and offers the prospect of maintaining a good quality of life. The cost of 1 quality-adjusted life-year for HPN has been estimated as 69,000 pounds in the UK (1995 values), and $Can 14,600 in Canada (1984 values), making HPN relatively cost effective compared with other ways of spending money to improve health. HPN is also given to patients in whom life expectancy is unlikely to be influenced, such as those with cancer or AIDS. Although there is considerable heterogeneity between countries in the proportion of HPN patients with a particular disease, malignancy is now the single most common indication. HPN can be expected to improve quality of life over a short period of terminal care, and whilst a strong case can be made for use of HPN in some of these patients, its use has not been subjected to detailed medical or economic appraisal.     

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.     

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.     

Quality of life of patients receiving home parenteral or enteral nutrition support

Limited data are available on the impact of enterally or parenterally supplied home nutritional support on quality of life. Data from national registries have been useful in identifying the outcome of different patient groups in terms of their functional capacity and rehabilitation status. Results in patients with inflammatory bowel disease are used as the 'gold standard' for this type of therapy. The annual cost of home parenteral nutrition can range from $US100 000 to $US150 000 per patient, depending on the frequency of feeding. Only one cost-utility analysis has been reported in the literature, based on a Canadian home parenteral nutrition programme which suggested that the estimated quality-adjusted survival of patients receiving this treatment is 4 times greater than if they had not been treated. There are many controversial areas associated with the use of home parenteral and enteral nutrition, including the treatment of patients with terminal malignant disease or severe dementia, and those infected with human immunodeficiency virus. To date, the clinical benefit of providing this type of nutritional support for these patient groups has not been clearly demonstrated. Prospective randomised controlled trials are necessary to evaluate the costs and benefits of this expensive high technology treatment.     

An economic evaluation of atorvastatin for primary prevention of cardiovascular events in type 2 diabetes

OBJECTIVE: The CARDS trial, a multicentre, randomized, controlled trial, found that atorvastatin 10 mg/day for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and normal low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol significantly reduced cardiovascular (CV) events, including stroke. We estimated the cost effectiveness of atorvastatin as primary prevention against CV disease from the short-term and lifetime US payer perspectives. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We constructed a decision analytic (Markov) model to evaluate long-term costs and outcomes for atorvastatin 10 mg/day versus no HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor (statin) therapy for patients with type 2 diabetes and no history of a CV event. CV event rates and survival were based on risk equations calibrated to CARDS and applied to a US type 2 diabetes population; the atorvastatin effect on CV events was based on hazard ratios from CARDS; direct medical care costs were based on US treatment patterns and published costs analyses of patients with diabetes. Costs were valued in $US, year 2005 values; costs and benefits were discounted at 3% per annum. RESULTS: Within the time horizon of the trial (5 years), the cost effectiveness of atorvastatin was $US137 276 per QALY. At 10 years, the incremental cost per QALY improved to $US3640 per QALY. At 25 years, overall costs were lower and QALYs higher in the atorvastatin arm. Costs of managing CV events were lower after 5 years for patients treated with atorvastatin. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with type 2 diabetes and one additional risk factor for CV disease, normal LDL-cholesterol and no history of a CV event, primary prevention with atorvastatin appears to be cost saving and improve outcomes over 25 years, although it is costly from a short-term US payer perspective. From both a medical and an economic viewpoint, primary prevention is desirable in this patient population.