Search

Background: In a previous single center study we found that a standardized drug treatment algorithm (ALGO) was more cost effective than treatment as usual (TAU) for inpatients with major depression. This report aimed to determine whether this promising initial finding could be replicated in a multicenter study.Methods: Treatment costs were calculated for two time periods: the study period (from enrolment to exit from study) and time in hospital (from enrolment to hospital discharge) based on daily hospital charges. Cost per remitted patient during the study period was considered as primary outcome.Results: 266 patients received ALGO and 84 received TAU. For the study period, ALGO costs were significantly lower than TAU (ALGO: 7 848 ± 6 065 €; TAU: 10 033 ± 7 696 €; p = 0.04). For time in hospital, costs were not different (ALGO: 14 734 ± 8 329 €; TAU: 14 244 ± 8 419 €; p = 0.617). Remission rates did not differ for the study period (ALGO: 57.9%, TAU: 50.0%; p=0.201). Remission rates were greater in ALGO (83.3%) than TAU (66.2%) for time in hospital (p = 0.002). Cost per remission was lower in ALGO (13 554 ± 10 476 €) than TAU (20 066 ± 15 391 €) for the study period (p < 0.001) and for time in hospital (ALGO: 17 582 ± 9 939 €; TAU: 21 516 ± 12 718 €; p = 0.036).Limitations: Indirect costs were not assessed. Different dropout rates in TAU and ALGO complicated interpretation.Conclusions: Treatment algorithms enhance the cost effectiveness of the care of depressed inpatients, which replicates our prior results in an independent sample. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim Capecitabine and bevacizumab (CAP-B) maintenance therapy has shown to be more effective compared with observation in metastatic colorectal cancer patients achieving stable disease or better after six cycles of first-line capecitabine, oxaliplatin, bevacizumab treatment in terms of progression-free survival. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of CAP-B maintenance treatment. Methods Decision analysis with Markov modelling to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of CAP-B maintenance compared with observation was performed based on CAIRO3 study results (n = 558). An additional analysis was performed in patients with complete or partial response. The primary outcomes were the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) defined as the additional cost per life year (LY) and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained, calculated from EQ-5D questionnaires and literature and LYs gained. Univariable sensitivity analysis was performed to assess the influence of input parameters on the ICER, and a probabilistic sensitivity analysis represents uncertainty in model parameters. Results CAP-B maintenance compared with observation resulted in 0.21 QALYs (0.18LYs) gained at a mean cost increase of €36,845, yielding an ICER of €175,452 per QALY (€204,694 per LY). Varying the difference in health-related quality of life between CAP-B maintenance and observation influenced the ICER most. For patients achieving complete or partial response on capecitabine, oxaliplatin, bevacizumab induction treatment, an ICER of €149,300 per QALY was calculated. Conclusion CAP-B maintenance results in improved health outcomes measured in QALYs and LYs compared with observation, but also in a relevant increase in costs. Despite the fact that there is no consensus on cost-effectiveness thresholds in cancer treatment, CAP-B maintenance may not be considered cost-effective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose Evidence suggests that clinical outcomes for people with type 2 diabetes mellitus can be improved through multifactorial treatment. The key challenges in the successful treatment of type 2 diabetes include maintaining tight glycemic control, minimizing the risk of hypoglycemia, controlling cardiovascular risk factors, and reducing or controlling weight. The aim of the present analysis was to evaluate the cost per patient achieving a composite clinical end point (glycosylated hemoglobin <7%, with no weight gain and no hypoglycemic events) in patients with type 2 diabetes in Quebec, Quebec, Canada, receiving liraglutide 1.2 mg, liraglutide 1.8 mg, thiazolidinedione, sulfonylurea, insulin glargine, sitagliptin, or exenatide. Methods The proportion of patients achieving control was taken from a meta-analysis that was based on the Phase III trial program of liraglutide. Treatment costs, estimated from a health care payer perspective, were calculated on the basis of the trials included in the meta-analysis and captured the study drug, needles, self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) test strips, SMBG lancets, and other antidiabetes medications received. Cost-effectiveness in terms of cost per patient achieving the composite end point (cost of control) was evaluated with an economic model developed in Microsoft Excel. No discounting was applied to cost or clinical outcomes because these were not projected beyond a 1-year time horizon. Sensitivity analyses were performed. Findings Liraglutide 1.8 mg was associated with the lowest number needed to treat, with 3 patients needing to be treated to bring 1 patient to the composite end point. Pioglitazone was associated with the highest number needed to treat, with 17 patients requiring treatment to bring 1 patient to the composite end point. Evaluation of only annual pharmacy costs indicated that liraglutide 1.8 mg was the most costly treatment at Can$2780 per patient per year. Pioglitazone and glimepiride were associated with the lowest direct annual costs. Combining the clinical efficacy data with the annual cost of medications produced cost of control values of Can$6070 (liraglutide 1.2 mg), Can$6949 (liraglutide 1.8 mg), Can$7237 (glimepiride), Can$7704 (exenatide), Can$8297 (insulin glargine), Can$8741 (pioglitazone), and Can$9270 (sitagliptin) per patient achieving the composite end point. Implications Liraglutide 1.2 mg and 1.8 mg were associated with the lowest cost of control values, driven by the high proportion of patients achieving the composite end point, which offset the higher medication costs. A relatively low cost of control value was achieved for glimepiride, driven by low acquisition costs, despite relatively few patients achieving the composite end point. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Two previous retrospective database analyses compared early combination therapy with an ɑ-blocker (AB) and 5-ɑ reductase inhibitor (5-ARI) to delayed combination therapy and found that patients receiving the delayed combination therapy were more likely to have clinical progression, acute urinary retention (AUR), and surgery. Although these studies indicate the clinical benefits of early treatment, both studies failed to take into account important baseline clinical measures, such as prostate-specific antigen (PSA) values. Objective: This study was designed to compare clinical and cost differences in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) who initiated early versus delayed combination therapy with a 5-ARI + an AB, factoring in baseline PSA values. Methods: This retrospective claims data analysis assessed data from >14 million US men with linked medical data, pharmacy data, laboratory results, and enrollment information from January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2009. Men aged 50 or older and treated for BPH with a 5-ARI + an AB were identified. Patients were required to be eligible for services at least 6 months before and 12 months after the index medication date. Patients were assigned to 1 of 2 treatment groups based on therapy (early or delayed) and 3 cohorts based on availability of PSA laboratory values (patients with a PSA value, patients with a PSA value >1.5 and <10, and all patients). Using a logistic model, the likelihood of clinical progression (defined as the occurrence of AUR or prostate surgery) during the 12 months after the date of first prescription fill was compared between BPH patients receiving early versus delayed combination therapy. BPH-related medical costs (excluding pharmacy costs) were assessed using generalized linear models. Results: Among the 13,551 patients identified for study inclusion, the highest risks for clinical progression, AUR, and prostate-related surgery were consistently demonstrated in patients with a PSA >1.5 and <10. Across all 3 cohorts, the delayed combination-treatment group was more likely to have clinical progression, AUR, and prostate-related surgeries versus the early combination- treatment group. The incremental difference in BPH-related costs between the delayed and early combination- treatment groups was $190 per patient overall; the greatest incremental difference ($397) was observed in patients with PSA >1.5 and <10. Conclusions: The results suggest that early initiation of combination therapy with 5-ARI + an AB, compared with delayed initiation, can reduce the risks for clinical progression, AUR, and prostate-related surgeries, as well as BPH-related medical costs, in patients with BPH. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The goal of this study was to examine the cost-effectiveness of fulvestrant 500 mg for the treatment of first progression or recurrence of advanced breast cancer in postmenopausal patients compared with generic nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitors (anastrozole and letrozole) in the United Kingdom. Methods: A cost-utility model based on a time-instate approach was used. Clinical effectiveness estimates used in the model were derived from a network meta-analysis for overall survival and serious adverse events. Overall survival was extrapolated by using a Weibull distribution, and progression-free survival (PFS) estimates were derived from a simultaneous network meta-analysis and extrapolation of PFS curves by using the log-normal distribution. Data on resource use, costs, and utilities were based on various sources, including expert opinion and published data. To explore uncertainty, 1-way and probability sensitivity analyses were conducted. The study was conducted from the perspective of the UK National Health Service, and costs are reported in 2010/2011 British pounds. Results: The base case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for fulvestrant 500 mg versus letrozole was £34,528, with incremental costs of £14,383 and an incremental quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) of 0.417. Extended dominance occurred for anastrozole because the ICER for anastrozole versus letrozole was higher than the ICER for fulvestrant 500 mg versus anastrozole. Based on the probability sensitivity analyses, the probability that fulvestrant 500 mg was the most cost-effective treatment option was 3%, 20%, and 53% at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000, £30,000, and £40,000 per QALY, respectively. According to the 1-way sensitivity analyses, the PFS estimates were the key drivers of the model results. Conclusions: Although fulvestrant 500 mg was found not to be a cost-effective option at a standard UK threshold of £20,000 to £30,000 per QALY, it may be relevant to apply a higher threshold due to the poor prognosis of patients with advanced breast cancer and the limited number of hormonal treatment options available for this stage of treatment. Certain subgroups may also benefit from fulvestrant as a treatment option; however, limited data are currently available to identify these subgroups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Background: The clinical benefits of dual antiplatelet treatment (aspirin + clopidogrel) in the management of acute coronary syndromes (ACS) are well established. However, clopidogrel is a prodrug that requires hepatic activation. Concerns regarding its delayed onset of action, variability in antiplatelet effects, and prolonged recovery of platelet function after discontinuation have prompted the development of P2Y12 receptor antagonists. Ticagrelor is the most recently developed P2Y12 receptor antagonist available in the United States. Ticagrelor is a nonthienopyridine antiplatelet agent and is the first reversible oral antagonist of the P2Y12 receptors. Objective: This article reviews the pharmacology, clinical efficacy, and tolerability of ticagrelor use in management of ACS. Methods: Peer-reviewed clinical trials, review articles, and relevant treatment guidelines published from 1966 to March 15, 2012, were identified from the MEDLINE and Current Content databases using the search terms ticagrelor, ACS, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, pharmacoeconomics, and cost-effectiveness. Citations from available articles were also reviewed for additional references. Results: Nine pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics studies in humans and 1 clinical study were identified. In addition, the findings from 6 subanalyses based on the clinical study were included. Compared with clopidogrel, ticagrelor was associated with a significantly reduced composite rate of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or stroke (ticagrelor, 9.8%; clopidogrel, 11.7%; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.84; 95% CI, 0.77–0.92; P < 0.001). The difference in the rates of major bleeding was not significant (ticagrelor, 11.6%; clopidogrel, 11.2%). Ticagrelor was associated with a higher rate of non–coronary artery bypass graft surgery related major bleeding (4.5% vs 3.8%; P = 0.03), including fatal intracranial bleeding (0.1% vs 0.01%; P = 0.02), and fewer cases of other types of fatal bleeding (0.1% vs 0.3%; P = 0.03). Other adverse events reported with ticagrelor use included dyspnea (13.8%), headache (6.5%), and bradyarrhythmia (5.8%). The effects of ticagrelor have not been compared to those of other antiplatelet agents, including prasugrel. Conclusions: Based on the findings from the present review, ticagrelor provides reversible inhibition of adenosine diphosphate–induced platelet aggregation, with a faster onset of action than clopidogrel, and is effective in the treatment of patients with ACS. More data are required to definitively position ticagrelor with respect to other antiplatelet agents, including prasugrel. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Objective: To compare the cost of two treatment regimens for moderate to severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS): conservative inpatient versus outpatient management with paracentesis.Design: A decision-tree mathematical model comparing conservative inpatient versus outpatient management of moderate to severe OHSS was created. The common final pathway of either management was resolution of OHSS. Sensitivity analyses were performed over the range of variables.Main Outcome Measure(s): Total management cost of OHSS.Result(s): The cost of conservative therapy including first-tier complications was $10,099 (range $9,655-$15,044). The cost of outpatient management with paracentesis was $1954 (range $788-$12,041). This resulted in an estimated cost savings of $8145 with outpatient management with paracentesis. One-way sensitivity analyses were performed. Varying the probability of admission after outpatient treatment still indicated that outpatient treatment was the most cost-effective (probability = 1.0, cost = $6110). Varying the duration of hospitalization with primary inpatient treatment was equal to outpatient treatment costs only at a stay of 0.71 days or shorter.Conclusion(s): Our model suggests early outpatient paracentesis for moderate to severe OHSS is the most cost-effective management plan when compared with traditional conservative inpatient therapy. The cost savings for outpatient management persisted throughout a variety of outcome probabilities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) remains the mainstay of treatment for metastatic prostate cancer (mPCa) but is associated with significant morbidities. Comparisons of medical castration (MC) and surgical orchidectomy (SO) have yielded varied results. We aimed to evaluate the oncological outcomes, adverse effect (AE) profiles and costs of MC and SO in patients with mPCa.Methods and Materials: We reviewed 523 patients who presented with de novo mPCa from a prospectively maintained prostate cancer database over 15 years (2001-2015). All patients received ADT (either MC or SO) within 3 months of diagnosis. The data were analyzed with chi-square, binary and logistics regression models.Results: One hundred and fifty one (28.9%) patients received SO while 372 (71.1%) patients had MC. The median age of presentation was 73 [67 -79] years old. The median prostate-specific antigen (PSA) was 280ng/ml [82.4-958]. Three hundred and thirty one patients (66.3%) had high volume bone metastasis and 57 patients (10.9%) had visceral metastasis. Clinical demographics and clinicopathological were similar across both groups. Similar oncological outcomes were observed in both groups. The proportion of PSA response (PSA <1ng/ml) was 65.6% for SO and 67.2% for MC (P = 0.212). Both therapies achieve >95% of effective androgen suppression (testosterone <50ng/dL). Time to castrate-resistance was similar (18 vs 16 months, P = 0.097), with comparative overall survival (42 vs. 38.5 months, P = 0.058) and prostate cancer mortality (80.1 vs. 75.9%, P = 0.328). Similarly, no difference was observed for the 4 AE profiles between SO and MC respectively; change in Haemoglobin (-0.75 vs. -1.0g/dL, P = 0.302), newly diagnosed Diabetes mellitus (4.6 vs. 2.9%, P = 0.281), control measured by HbA1c (0.2 vs. 0.25%, P = 0.769), coronary artery disease events (9.9 vs. 12.9%, P = 0.376) and skeletal-related fractures (9.3 vs. 7.3%, P = 0.476). After adjusting for varying governmental subsidies and inflation rates, the median cost of SO was $5275, compared to MC of $9185.80.Conclusion: Both SO and MC have similar oncological outcomes and AE profiles. However, SO remains a much more cost-effective form of ADT for the long-term treatment of mPCa patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]