Cost-effectiveness comparison of current proton-pump inhibitors to treat gastro-oesophageal reflux disease in the UK.

OBJECTIVE: Gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD) is a recurring condition with many patients requiring long-term maintenance therapy. Therefore initial choice of treatment has long-term cost implications. The aim was to compare the costs and effectiveness of treatment of GORD the (unconfirmed by endoscopy) with seven proton pump inhibitors (PPIs: esomeprazole, lansoprazole (capsules and oro-dispersible tablets), omeprazole (generic and branded), pantoprazole and rabeprazole), over one year. DESIGN AND METHODS: A treatment model was developed of 13 interconnected Markov models incorporating acute treatment of symptoms, long-term therapy and subsequent decisions to undertake endoscopy to confirm diagnosis. Patients were allowed to stop treatment or to receive maintenance treatment either continuously or on-demand depending on response to therapy. Long-term dosing schedule (high dose or step-down dose) was based on current market data. Efficacy of treatments was based on clinical trials and follow-up studies, while resource use patterns were determined by a panel of physicians. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The model predicts total expected annual costs, number of symptom-free days and quality-adjusted life-years (QALY). RESULTS: Generic omeprazole and rabeprazole dominated (i.e. cost less and resulted in more symptom-free days and higher QALY gains) the other PPIs. Rabeprazole had a favourable cost-effectiveness ratio of 3.42 pounds per symptom-free day and 8308 pounds/quality-adjusted life-year gained when compared with generic omeprazole. Rabeprazole remained cost-effective independent of choice of maintenance treatment (i.e. proportion of patients remaining on continuous treatment versus on-demand treatment). CONCLUSIONS: Economic models provide a useful framework to evaluate PPIs in realistic clinical scenarios. Our findings show that rabeprazole is cost-effective for the treatment of GORD.

Cost of managing women presenting with stage IV breast cancer in the United Kingdom.

This study estimated lifetime cost of treatment for patients in the United Kingdom (UK) presenting with stage IV breast cancer. To determine patterns of treatment and resource use in the absence of direct observational data, a cancer physician panel was surveyed. The survey questionnaire described four predefined treatment phases: active treatment; follow-up after active treatment until disease progression; active supportive care after progression; and end-of-life care. Physicians were asked their major treatment strategies for each phase. Monthly cost and average lifetime cost per patient were calculated. Only five cancer registries in the UK document the proportion of breast cancer patients diagnosed with stage IV disease. Their data was used to estimate the incidence of metastatic breast cancer at presentation throughout the UK. This value, together with lifetime cost per patient and projected survival time, allowed approximation of the overall cost for this population of cancer patients in the UK. Annual incidence of stage IV breast cancer at presentation in the UK is approximately 2100; according to treatment practice in 2002, lifetime cost per patient is pound 12 500 and total population cost is approximately pound 26 million. The substantial economic burden associated with patients diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer should be considered when developing strategies for reducing its incidence such as increased awareness, screening and preventative measures.

Changes in cost-effectiveness over time. The case of Epoetin Alfa for renal replacement therapy patients in the UK.

We analysed the factors influencing cost-effectiveness of a health care intervention over time using economic evaluations of erythropoietin as a case study. The analytical framework of a study conducted in 1990 was used to revisit the cost-effectiveness of erythropoietin. Study variables were updated to 2000 using meta-analysis, published sources, and expert opinion. After 10 years of further experience with the use of erythropoietin the cost-effectiveness ratio now falls within the range considered acceptable in the UK. The analysis shows that the vast proportion of the reduction in the cost-effectiveness ratio achieved since 1990 results from reductions in the dose and price of erythropoietin. True cost-effectiveness of a treatment can change over time, and early analysis can reach incorrect conclusions because of data deficiencies. The existence of a body such as NICE might have delayed the widespread adoption of erythropoietin in the UK, but the higher standards of clinical and economic evidence demanded by such a body might have expedited the appropriate pricing,dosage, and hence utilisation of the treatment.

A Markov model of treatment of newly diagnosed epilepsy in the UK. An initial assessment of cost-effectiveness of topiramate.

Long-term comparative trials among newer antiepileptic drugs are lacking; therefore decision models are needed to guide treatment decisions. The goal of this study was to develop an economic model of newly diagnosed epilepsy in the UK and to provide the first assessment of topiramate. A Markov model was developed combining data from clinical trials, cost-of illness, mortality, and utility studies. Expected costs and utilities associated with treatment strategies (first- and second-line treatments) were compared to find the cost-effectiveness frontier. First- and second-line monotherapy with topiramate or carbamazepine in partial seizures was less costly and more effective than other scenarios. In generalised seizures first-line topiramate was cost-effective with valproate or lamotrigine as second-line treatments depending on the set of utilities used. Models provide a relevant framework within which costs and health gains of antiepileptic drugs treatment options can be studied. Our findings are further evidence of the promising role of topiramate for patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy.