Search

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]

Berlin- Frankfurt- Munster ( BFM) and Dana- Farber Cancer Institute ( DFCI) consortia's treatment strategies for acute lymphoblastic leukaemia ( ALL) in children are widely used. We compared the health effects and monetary costs of hospital treatments for these two strategies. Parents of children treated at seven centres in Canada, Italy and the USA completed health-related quality of life ( HRQL) assessments during four active treatment phases and at 2 years after treatment. Mean HRQL scores were used to calculate quality-adjusted life years ( QALYs) for a period of 5 years following diagnosis. Total costs of treatment were determined from variables in administrative databases in a universally accessible and publicly funded healthcare system. Valid HRQL assessments ( n = 1200) were collected for 307 BFM and 317 DFCI patients, with costs measured for 66 BFM and 28 DFCI patients. QALYs per patient were <1.0% greater for BFM than DFCI. Median HRQL scores revealed no difference in QALYs. The difference in mean total costs for BFM ( US$88 480) and DFCI ( US$93 026) was not significant ( P = 0.600). This study provides no evidence of superiority for one treatment strategy over the other. Current BFM or DFCI strategies should represent conventional management for the next economic evaluation of treatments for ALL in childhood. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To determine whether (1) desirable health outcomes (e.g., symptom resolution) would be achieved with a new national drug-management program implemented by the Canadian Forces (CF); (2) CF members would be satisfied with the services offered by the civilian pharmacists; and (3) cost implications of the new program would be favorable.Design: Open, nonrandomized, longitudinal program evaluation and cost analysis study.Setting: Canada.Participants: 583 CF members who did not have access to a military pharmacy in selected geographic areas of Canada and 65 community pharmacy providers.Intervention: A new drug-management program, which allowed members to obtain nonprescription medications from civilian pharmacies without first obtaining a prescription from a physician at no additional cost, was evaluated in a pilot study.Main Outcome Measures: A cost-analysis model conducted from the CF Health Services and Department of National Defense perspectives and telephone survey assessing health outcomes and members' satisfaction with the program.Results: Based on 563 transactions that occurred during the pilot study period, 96% of the CF members reported being very to somewhat satisfied with the service received under the new drug-management program, and a majority stated that desirable health outcomes were achieved. The one area of concern cited about the new program was the low percentage of members who recalled being instructed by civilian pharmacists to see a physician if their symptoms did not abate. The cost analysis showed the new program was more economical than previous physician-based system.Conclusion: The provision of nonprescription medications by civilian pharmacists to members who had no access to a base pharmacy was both cost-efficient and associated with a high level of satisfaction. Future evaluations should include prospective monitoring of drug use patterns as well as assessments of the quality of care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Clinical practice guidelines are systematically developed statements to assist practitioner and patient decisions about appropriate healthcare for specific clinical circumstances. When adhered to, they have been shown to have the potential to improve both the process of care and patient health outcomes. Economic issues can be incorporated into guidelines with respect to both recommendations (based on the criteria of cost effectiveness) and defining outcomes for assessing adherence with guidelines. Methods: We reviewed 217 Canadian clinical practice guidelines relating to prescription medications. The role of economics within existing practice guidelines was assessed using standardized abstracting techniques. Results: Costs or economics were considered in only 26% of the guidelines identified. The role of economic considerations within these guidelines varied considerably from a relatively minor to major role. Furthermore, only 4% of guidelines defined measurable outcomes, including economic outcomes, that could be monitored to assess adherence with recommendations. Conclusions: The inclusion of economic considerations in clinical guidelines in Canada is limited. The possible reasons for this lack of economic considerations need to be explored further. Without consideration of economic issues when developed, clinical practice guidelines may lead to a more inefficient healthcare system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Efavirenz is a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) used in the treatment of patients with HIV infection. Both US and British treatment guidelines for HIV infection recommend NNRTI- or protease inhibitor-based combinations [i.e. with nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs)] as first-line treatment options in the management of HIV disease. Results of a pivotal randomised study (DMP 266-006) comparing efavirenz- versus indinavir-based triple combination therapy in patients with HIV infection (the majority of whom were antiretroviral therapy-naive) showed the efavirenz-based regimen was better tolerated and had greater success in achieving reductions in viral load below the limit of detection. These and other clinical data were incorporated into economic models in 2 analyses, one conducted in the US and the other in Canada. The US analysis examined long term clinical and economic outcomes predicted on the basis of response (viral load and CD4+ cell counts), tolerability and willingness to adhere to therapy. The efavirenz-based regimen was the dominant treatment strategy as it was predicted to improve survival and reduce direct medical costs in the US healthcare system. Compared with the indinavir-containing regimen, survival was increased by 11% (absolute difference) and cumulative costs were reduced by $US10 326 per patient (1998 discounted costs) at 5 years after starting treatment with efavirenz-based therapy. The Canadian analysis was conducted from the perspective of the Ontario healthcare system. This study did not consider differences in clinical efficacy between treatment groups, costs of study medication or outcomes beyond 1 year - all factors that would have favoured the efavirenz-based regimen. Of the 2 treatment options, the efavirenz-based regimen was associated with 7.4% lower average annual medical care costs, primarily because of greater costs associated with adverse clinical events with the indinavir-based regimen. In conclusion, current treatment guidelines for HIV infection recognise efavirenz-based combination regimens as a first-line treatment option. A pivotal comparative clinical trial (DMP 266-006) showed a significantly greater virological response to efavirenz- than indinavir-based triple combination therapy, and the efavirenz-based regimen was better tolerated. These clinical data are supported by pharmacoeconomic analyses conducted in the US and Canada, both of which showed lower medical care costs with the efavirenz-based regimen. The US analysis also predicted long term health benefits, such as improved survival, with efavirenz- versus indinavir-based triple combination therapy. These results must be weighed against the inherent difficulties of predicting long term treatment failure rates from short term data, and the limited number of pharmacoeconomic analyses conducted with efavirenz to date. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The objective of this study was to evaluate economic and health effects of sumatriptan relative to customary therapy in Canada. The relationship between treatment and functionality was established based on analysis of existing data from a multinational study. A Monte Carlo model was developed to simulate 1 year for each of customary therapy and six sumatriptan formulations. Costs are expressed in 1998 Canadian dollars. Sumatriptan is expected to reduce the time spent with migraine symptoms and resulting time lost. Under customary therapy, the annual cost of lost time is estimated at pound908 ($1973). With sumatriptan, these costs ranged from pound406 ($882) with subcutaneous sumatriptan to pound577 ($1254) with nasal sumatriptan 10 mg, saving pound331-502 ($719-1091) in the annual cost of time lost. All these benefits are expected to be obtained at an additional drug cost ranging from pound869 ($1889) for subcutaneous sumatriptan to pound278 ($605) for sumatriptan suppository. The cost of sumatriptan treatment is significantly offset by a substantial reduction of costs associated with time lost due to migraine symptoms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]