Search

Objective: To determine the cost effectiveness of adjunctive therapy with entacapone versus standard treatment (levodopa) without entacapone for patients in the US with Parkinson's disease (PD) who experience 'off-time' (re-emergence of the symptoms of PD) while receiving levodopa.Study Design: A Markov model was used to estimate 5-year costs and effectiveness of standard treatment with and without entacapone.Methods: Probabilities, unit costs, resource utilisation data and utilities were obtained from published literature, clinical trial reports, a national database, and clinical experts. PD disability was measured using the daily proportion of off-time and Hoehn and Yahr scale scores. The analysis measured costs from a societal and third-party payer perspective, and effectiveness as gains in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and years without progression to >25% off-time.Results: From a societal perspective, entacapone therapy resulted in an incremental cost of US dollars 9327 per QALY gained compared with standard treatment. Treatment with entacapone also provided an additional 7.6 months with < or =25% off-time/day compared with standard treatment. Sensitivity analyses indicated that the model is sensitive to changes in rates of improvement/deterioration of off-time, and to the number of doses per day of levodopa with adjunctive entacapone.Conclusions: The addition of entacapone to standard treatment for patients receiving levodopa who experience off-time provides additional QALYs and gain in time with minimal fluctuations. Results of this modelling exercise suggest that therapy with entacapone may be cost effective when compared with standard treatment for PD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Discusses the pharmacoeconomics analysis of rivastigmine in the treatment of Alzheimer's disease. Way by which the estimates of the cost savings attributable to rivastigmine were determined; Measures of the impact of rivastigmine on Alzheimer's disease; Comparison between cost savings and total costs associated with treatment with rivastigmine.

Objective: To estimate savings in the cost of caring for patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) during 6 months, 1 year and 2 years of treatment with rivastigmine. An intermediate objective was to estimate the relationship between disease progression and institutionalisation. Design and setting: We assessed the relationship between Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score and institutionalisation using a piecewise Cox proportional hazard model. To estimate cost savings from treatments lasting 6 months, 1 year and 2 years, estimates of the probability of institutionalisation were integrated with data from two 6-month phase III clinical trials of rivastigmine and a hazard model of disease progression. Main outcome measures and results: Our data suggest that savings in the overall cost of caring for patients with mild and moderate AD can be as high as $US4839 per patient after 2 years of treatment. Furthermore, the probability of institutionalisation increases steadily as MMSE score falls. Among our study individuals, age, race, level of education and marital status were significant predictors of institutionalisation, whereas gender had little effect. Conclusions: Using rivastigmine to treat AD results in a delay in disease progression for patients who begin treatment during the mild or moderate stages of the disease. By delaying the probability that a patient will be institutionalised, the cost of caring for AD patients can be significantly reduced. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]