Final efficacy and cost analysis of a fish skin graft vs standard of care in the management of chronic diabetic foot ulcers: a prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: DFUs remain a cause of significant morbidity. OBJECTIVE: This is the third of 3 planned articles reporting on a prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial evaluating the use of omega-3-rich acellular FSG compared with CAT in the management of DFUs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 102 patients with a DFU (n = 51 FSG, n = 51 CAT) participated in the trial as ITT candidates, with 77 of those patients included in the PP analysis (n = 43 FSG, n = 34 CAT). Six months after treatment, patients with healed ulcers were followed up for ulcer recurrence. A cost analysis model was applied in both treatment groups. RESULTS: The proportion of closed wounds at 12 weeks was compared, as were the secondary outcomes of healing rate and mean PAR. Diabetic foot wounds treated with FSG were significantly more likely to achieve closure than those managed with CAT (ITT: 56.9% vs 31.4%; P =.0163). The mean PAR at 12 weeks was 86.3% for FSG vs 64.0% for CAT (P =.0282). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of DFUs with FSG resulted in significantly more wounds healed and an annualized cost savings of $2818 compared with CAT.

Budget impact of adding lesinurad for second-line treatment of gout: a US health plan perspective.

Aim: To estimate budget impact of adopting lesinurad as add-on to allopurinol for urate-lowering therapy in gout. Methods: A budget impact model was developed for a US payer perspective, using a Markov model to estimate costs, survival and discontinuation in a one-million-member health plan. The population included patients failing first-line gout therapy, followed for 5 years. Results: Incremental costs of adding lesinurad versus no lesinurad were US$241,907 and US$1,098,220 in first and fifth years, respectively. Cumulative 5-year incremental cost was US$3,633,440. Estimated incremental mean cost per treated patient with gout per year was US$112. The mean per-member per-month cost increased by US$0.06. Conclusion: Initiating lesinurad would result in an incremental per-member per-month cost of US$0.06 over 5 years.

The Budget Impact of Including Necitumumab on the Formulary for First-Line Treatment of Metastatic Squamous Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: U.S. Commercial Payer and Medicare Perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Necitumumab (Neci) was the first biologic approved by the FDA for use in combination with gemcitabine and cisplatin (Neci + GCis) in first-line treatment of metastatic squamous non-small cell lung cancer (msqNSCLC). The potential financial impact on a health plan of adding Neci + GCis to drug formularies may be important to value-based decision makers in the United States, given ever-tightening budget constraints. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the budget impact of introducing Neci + GCis for first-line treatment of msqNSCLC from U.S. commercial and Medicare payer perspectives. METHODS: The budget impact model estimates the costs of msqNSCLC before and after adoption of Neci + GCis in hypothetical U.S. commercial and Medicare health plans over a 3-year time horizon. The eligible patient population was estimated from U.S. epidemiology statistics. Clinical data were obtained from randomized clinical trials, U.S. prescribing information, and clinical guidelines. Market share projections were based on market research data. Cost data were obtained from online sources and published literature. The incremental aggregate annual health plan, per-patient-per-year (PPPY), and per-member-per-month (PMPM) costs were estimated in 2015 U.S. dollars. One-way sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the effect of model parameters on results. RESULTS: In a hypothetical 1,000,000-member commercial health plan with an estimated population of 30 msqNSCLC patients receiving first-line chemotherapy, the introduction of Neci + GCis at an initial market share of approximately 5% had an overall year 1 incremental budget impact of $88,394 ($3,177 PPPY, $0.007 PMPM), representing a 2.9% cost increase and reaching $304,079 ($10,397 PPPY, $0.025 PMPM) or a 7.4% cost increase at a market share of 14.7% in year 3. This increase in total costs was largely attributable to Neci drug costs and, in part, due to longer survival and treatment duration for patients treated with Neci+GCis. Overall, treatment costs increased by $81,812 (13.5%), and disease costs increased by $7,951 (0.4%), whereas adverse event costs decreased by $1,368 (0.5%) in year 1. From the Medicare perspective, the overall year 1 incremental budget impact was $438,056 ($0.037 PMPM, $3,112 PPPY), representing a 3.0% cost increase. The higher incremental budget in Medicare, compared with commercial plans, was due to higher msqNSCLC incidence in the older Medicare patients (154 vs. 30 patients, respectively). Results were most sensitive to Neci drug costs. CONCLUSIONS: Based on projected market shares, coverage for first-line therapy with Neci + GCis appeared to modestly affect overall U.S. health care budgets for msqNSCLC-related care. Given the small eligible patient population, the PMPM budgetary impact on a commercial health plan of reimbursing Neci + GCis in the first year was less than $0.01, rising with increased use of Neci + GCis to $0.025 in the third year. The real-world effect of Neci + GCis needs to be evaluated to validate this analysis; however, these findings may help policymakers in making coverage decisions for Neci + GCis. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Eli Lilly and Company. Molife, Brown, Tawney, and Cuyun Carter are equity holders and employees of Eli Lilly and Company. Bly, Cinfio, and Klein are employees of Medical Decision Modeling, which received funding from Eli Lilly and Company to conduct this research and prepare this manuscript.

Sleep Hygiene and Sleep Outcomes in a Sample of Urban Children With and Without Asthma.

Objective: To assess sleep hygiene and the sleep environment of urban children with and without asthma, and examine the associations among urban stressors, sleep hygiene, and sleep outcomes. Methods: Urban children, 7-9 years old, with (N = 216) and without (N = 130) asthma from African American, Latino, or non-Latino White backgrounds were included. Level of neighborhood risk was used to describe urban stress. Parent-reported sleep hygiene and daytime sleepiness data were collected using questionnaires. Sleep duration and efficiency were assessed via actigraphy. Results: Higher neighborhood risk, not asthma status, was associated with poorer sleep hygiene. Controlling for neighborhood risk, sleep hygiene was related to daytime sleepiness. Asthma status, not sleep hygiene, was related to sleep efficiency. In children with asthma, poorer sleep hygiene was associated with shorter sleep duration. Conclusion: Considering urban stressors when treating pediatric populations is important, as factors related to urban stress may influence sleep hygiene practices and sleep outcomes.

Estimated Budget Impact of Increased Use of Mirabegron, A Novel Treatment for Overactive Bladder.

BACKGROUND: Oral pharmacological treatment for overactive bladder (OAB) consists of antimuscarinics and the beta-3 adrenergic agonist mirabegron. Antimuscarinic adverse events (AEs) such as dry mouth, constipation, and blurry vision can result in frequent treatment discontinuation rates, leaving part of the OAB population untreated. Antimuscarinics also contribute to a patient's anticholinergic cognitive burden (ACB), so the Beers Criteria recommends cautious use of antimuscarinics in elderly patients who take multiple anticholinergic medications or have cognitive impairment. Since mirabegron does not affect the cholinergic pathways, it is unlikely to contribute to a patient's ACB. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the health care costs associated with the pharmacological treatment of OAB with mirabegron and antimuscarinics from U.S. commercial payer and Medicare Advantage perspectives, using a budget impact model. METHODS: For this budget impact model, 2 analyses were performed. The primary analysis estimated the budgetary impact of increasing the use of mirabegron in a closed patient cohort treated with oral pharmacological treatments. The secondary analysis modeled the economic impact in an open cohort by allowing untreated patients to begin treatment with mirabegron after potential contraindication, intolerance, or lack of effectiveness of antimuscarinics. The analyses were performed over a 3-year time horizon. The economic impact of increased mirabegron use was quantified using direct medical costs, including prescription costs and health resource utilization (HRU) costs. Costs of comorbidities included pharmacy and medical costs of treating OAB-related urinary tract infections (UTI), skin rashes, and depression. An analysis of a large single-site integrated health network database was commissioned to quantify ACB-related HRU in terms of the increases in yearly outpatient and emergency department visits. Based on this analysis, the model associated each unit increase in ACB score with increased HRU and probability of mild cognitive impairment. Clinical outcomes of increased use of mirabegron were presented as the number of AEs and comorbidity episodes that could be avoided. One-way sensitivity analyses were performed to quantify the expected budget impact over the range of uncertainty for the key input variables. RESULTS: Primary analysis calculated the impact of increasing the use of mirabegron from 4.5% to 5.3%, 7.1%, and 9.4% in years 1, 2, and 3, respectively, among oral pharmacological OAB treatments that included generic and branded antimuscarinics: oxybutynin, tolterodine, trospium, darifenacin, fesoterodine, and solifenacin. For a 1 million-member U.S. commercial payer plan, the total prescription costs increased, and the total medical costs decreased during the 3-year time horizon, yielding increases of $0.005, $0.016, and $0.031 from current per member per month (PMPM) costs and $0.90, $2.92, and $5.53 from current per treated member per month (PTMPM) costs, an average of less than 2% of current OAB treatment costs. For the Medicare Advantage plan, the resulting incremental PMPM costs were $0.010, $0.034, and $0.065, and the incremental PTMPM costs were $0.93, $3.04, and $5.76; all were less than 4% of the current cost. The secondary analysis estimated the budgetary effects of reducing the untreated population by 1% annually by initiating treatment with mirabegron. For a commercial payer, this resulted in PMPM cost increases of $0.156, $0.311, and $0.467 from the current value, while the incremental PTMPM cost increased by $6.17, $11.67, and $16.61. For the Medicare Advantage plan, the incremental increases in PMPM costs were $0.277, $0.553, and $0.830, and in PTMPM costs were $6.42, $12.15, and $17.29. Clinically, treating more OAB patients resulted in fewer OAB-related comorbidities from both health plan perspectives, since most events associated with nontreatment could be avoided. In the Medicare Advantage population of the secondary analysis, the total numbers of avoided events were predicted as 452 UTIs, 2,598 depression diagnoses, and 3,020 skin rashes during the time horizon of the model. CONCLUSIONS: Mirabegron addresses an unmet need for therapy for certain OAB patients, for whom antimuscarinics are not recommended because of a risk of cognitive impairment and who are intolerant to the anticholinergic AEs. Using mirabegron involves moderate additional economic cost to a commercial or Medicare Advantage health plan for which medical cost savings can offset a substantial part of increased pharmacy costs. DISCLOSURES: Funding for this study was provided by Astellas. Perk, Wielage, T. Klein, and R. Klein are employed by Medical Decision Modeling, a contract research company that was paid to perform the described outcomes research and build the model contained in this study. Campbell and Perkins are employed by the Regenstrief Institute, which conducted a database analysis for this research. Campbell reports consultancy fees from Astellas, as well as pending grants from Merck, Sharpe, and Dohme Corp. Posta, Yuran, and Ng are employed by Astellas Pharma Global Development, the developer of mirabegron. Study concept and design were contributed by Perk, Wielage, R. Klein, and Ng. Campbell, T. Klein, and Perkins took the lead in data collection, assisted by Perk, Wielage, and Ng. Data interpretation was performed by Posta and Yuran, along with Perk, Wielage, R. Klein, Ng, Campbell, and Perkins. The manuscript was written by Perk and R. Klein, along with Wielage, T. Klein, Posta, Yuran, and Ng, and revised by all the authors.

Enhancing the Budget Impact Model for Institutional Use: A Tool with Practical Applications for the Hospital Oncology Pharmacy.

BACKGROUND: The cost of cancer care is increasing, and tools are needed to understand the economic impact of new drugs on the hospital pharmacy budget. OBJECTIVE: To develop an interactive budget impact model (BIM) through a collaborative effort of industry, academia, and modeling experts to evaluate the use of a new agent in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC); this BIM included an institutional module specific to the needs of practices that purchase medications for use in institutional settings. METHODS: Treatment regimens, doses, duration of therapy, toxicity, and cost data are from published sources. All input data may be modified to match the local population. Outputs include cost of care, reimbursement, and margin overall and by treatment regimen. RESULTS: The base case assumes 20 NSCLC patients progressing after initial therapy (3 receiving ramucirumab+docetaxel, 2 bevacizumab+erlotinib, 3 docetaxel, 6 erlotinib, and 6 pemetrexed), wholesale acquisition cost (WAC) purchase price, and reimbursement at WAC+4.3%. The model estimated the total cost and reimbursement for the institutional oncology pharmacy to be $699,413 and $729,487, respectively, resulting in a margin of $30,075 (difference due to rounding) for the year for regimens utilized in the treatment of NSCLC in the post-progression setting. Results will vary depending on the input data. CONCLUSIONS: There is an increasing need for institutional pharmacies to plan ahead and anticipate the impact of new drugs on their oncology budgets. This interactive Excel-based institutional BIM may provide evidence-based support for pharmacy decision making.

Mirabegron for the treatment of overactive bladder: cost-effectiveness from US commercial health-plan and Medicare Advantage perspectives.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The first class of oral pharmacologic treatments for overactive bladder (OAB) are antimuscarinics that are associated with poor persistence, anticholinergic adverse events, and increased anticholinergic burden (ACB) with risk of cognitive impairment. Mirabegron, a ß3-adrenoceptor agonist, is an oral treatment that does not contribute to ACB and has early evidence of improved persistence. The objective of the analysis was to assess the cost-effectiveness of mirabegron for OAB vs six antimuscarinics in the US. METHODS: A Markov state-transition model assessed US commercial health-plan and Medicare Advantage perspectives over a 3-year time horizon in an OAB patient population. Transition probabilities between five micturition and five incontinence severity states were derived from a network meta-analysis of 44 trials of oral OAB treatments. Therapy beginning with an oral OAB agent could discontinue or switch to another oral agent and could be followed by tibial nerve stimulation, sacral neuromodulation, or onabotulinumtoxinA. The primary outcome was cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Utilities were mapped from incontinence and micturition frequencies as well as demographics. Based on analysis of data from a large healthcare system, elevated ACB was associated with increased healthcare utilization and probability of cognitive impairment. RESULTS: From both commercial and Medicare Advantage perspectives, mirabegron was the most clinically effective treatment, while oxybutynin was the least expensive. Tolterodine immediate release (IR) was also on the cost-effectiveness frontier. The analysis estimated costs per QALY of $59,690 and $66,347 for mirabegron from commercial health plan and Medicare Advantage perspectives, respectively, compared to tolterodine IR. Other antimuscarinics were dominated. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis estimated that mirabegron is a cost-effective treatment for OAB from US commercial health plan and Medicare Advantage perspectives, due to fewer projected adverse events and comorbidities, and data suggesting better persistence.

Tissue-Specific Enrichment of Lymphoma Risk Loci in Regulatory Elements.

Though numerous polymorphisms have been associated with risk of developing lymphoma, how these variants function to promote tumorigenesis is poorly understood. Here, we report that lymphoma risk SNPs, especially in the non-Hodgkin's lymphoma subtype chronic lymphocytic leukemia, are significantly enriched for co-localization with epigenetic marks of active gene regulation. These enrichments were seen in a lymphoid-specific manner for numerous ENCODE datasets, including DNase-hypersensitivity as well as multiple segmentation-defined enhancer regions. Furthermore, we identify putatively functional SNPs that are both in regulatory elements in lymphocytes and are associated with gene expression changes in blood. We developed an algorithm, UES, that uses a Monte Carlo simulation approach to calculate the enrichment of previously identified risk SNPs in various functional elements. This multiscale approach integrating multiple datasets helps disentangle the underlying biology of lymphoma, and more broadly, is generally applicable to GWAS results from other diseases as well.

Cost effectiveness of duloxetine for osteoarthritis: a Quebec societal perspective.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost effectiveness of duloxetine compared to other oral postacetaminophen treatments for osteoarthritis (OA) from a Quebec societal perspective. METHODS: A cost-utility analysis was performed enhancing the Markov model from the 2008 OA guidelines of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). The NICE model was extended to include opioid and antidepressant comparators, adding titration, discontinuation, and relevant adverse events (AEs). Comparators included duloxetine, celecoxib, diclofenac, naproxen, hydromorphone, and oxycodone extended release (oxycodone). AEs included gastrointestinal and cardiovascular events associated with nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), as well as fracture, opioid abuse, and constipation, among others. Costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated in 2011 Canadian dollars. The base case modeled a cohort of 55-year-old patients with OA for a 12-month period of treatment, followed by treatment from a basket of post-discontinuation oral therapies until death. Sensitivity analyses (one-way and probabilistic) were conducted. RESULTS: Overall, naproxen was the least expensive treatment, whereas oxycodone was the most expensive. Duloxetine accumulated the highest number of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), with an ICER of $36,291 per QALY versus celecoxib. Duloxetine was dominant over opioids. In subgroup analyses, ICERs for duloxetine versus celecoxib were $15,619 and $20,463 for patients at high risk of NSAID-related AEs and patients ages >65 years, respectively. CONCLUSION: Duloxetine was cost effective for a cohort of 55-year-old patients with OA, and more so in older patients and those with greater AE risks.

Cost-effectiveness analyses of osteoarthritis oral therapies: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) have been performed for oral non-disease-altering osteoarthritis (OA) treatments for well over a decade. During that period the methods for performing these analyses have evolved as pharmacoeconomic methods have advanced, new treatments have been introduced, and the knowledge of associated adverse events (AEs) has improved. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this systematic review was to trace the development of CEAs for oral non-disease-altering treatments in OA. METHODS: A systematic search for CEAs of OA oral treatments was performed of the English-language medical literature using the following databases: PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE In-Process, EconLit, and Cochrane. Key requirements for inclusion were that the population described patients with OA or arthritis and that the analysis reported at least one incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Each identified publication was assessed for inclusion. Thirteen characteristics and all AEs appearing in each included CEA were extracted and organized. Reference lists from these CEAs were also searched. A chronology of key CEAs in the field was compiled, noting the characteristics that advanced the state of the art in modeling oral OA treatments. RESULTS: Thirty publications of 28 CEAs were identified and evaluated. Developments in CEAs included an expanded set of comparators that broadened from non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) only to NSAIDs plus gastroprotective agents, cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors, and opioids. In turn, AEs expanded from gastrointestinal (GI) events to also include cardiovascular (CV) and neurological events. Efficacy, which initially was presumed to be equivalent for all treatments, evolved to treatment-specific efficacies. Decision-tree analyses were generally replaced by Markov models or, occasionally, stochastic or discrete event simulation. Finally, outcomes have progressed from GI-centric measures to also include quality-adjusted life-years. CONCLUSION: Methods used by CEAs of oral non-disease-altering OA treatments have evolved in response to changing treatments with different safety profiles and efficacies as well as technical advances in the application of decision science to health care.

Cost-utility analysis of duloxetine in osteoarthritis: a US private payer perspective.

BACKGROUND: Duloxetine has recently been approved in the USA for chronic musculoskeletal pain, including osteoarthritis and chronic low back pain. The cost effectiveness of duloxetine in osteoarthritis has not previously been assessed. Duloxetine is targeted as post first-line (after acetaminophen) treatment of moderate to severe pain. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to estimate the cost effectiveness of duloxetine in the treatment of osteoarthritis from a US private payer perspective compared with other post first-line oral treatments, including nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and both strong and weak opioids. METHODS: A cost-utility analysis was performed using a discrete-state, time-dependent semi-Markov model based on the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) model documented in its 2008 osteoarthritis guidelines. The model was extended for opioids by adding titration, discontinuation and additional adverse events (AEs). A life-long time horizon was adopted to capture the full consequences of NSAID-induced AEs. Fourteen health states comprised the structure of the model: treatment without persistent AE, six during-AE states, six post-AE states and death. Treatment-specific utilities were calculated using the transfer-to-utility method and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) total scores from a meta-analysis of osteoarthritis clinical trials of 12 weeks and longer. Costs for 2011 were estimated using Red Book, The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project database, the literature and, sparingly, expert opinion. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were undertaken, as well as subgroup analyses of patients over 65 years old and a population at greater risk of NSAID-related AEs. RESULTS: In the base case the model estimated naproxen to be the lowest total-cost treatment, tapentadol the highest cost, and duloxetine the most effective after considering AEs. Duloxetine accumulated 0.027 discounted quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) more than naproxen and 0.013 more than oxycodone. Celecoxib was dominated by naproxen, tramadol was subject to extended dominance, and strong opioids were dominated by duloxetine. The model estimated an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of US$47,678 per QALY for duloxetine versus naproxen. One-way sensitivity analysis identified the probabilities of NSAID-related cardiovascular AEs as the inputs to which the ICER was most sensitive when duloxetine was compared with an NSAID. When compared with a strong opioid, duloxetine dominated the opioid under nearly all sensitivity analysis scenarios. When compared with tramadol, the ICER was most sensitive to the costs of duloxetine and tramadol. In subgroup analysis, the cost per QALY for duloxetine versus naproxen fell to US$24,125 for patients over 65 years and to US$18,472 for a population at high risk of cardiovascular and gastrointestinal AEs. CONCLUSION: The model estimated that duloxetine was potentially cost effective in the base-case population and more cost effective for subgroups over 65 years or at high risk of NSAID-related AEs. In sensitivity analysis, duloxetine dominated all strong opioids in nearly all scenarios.

The cost-effectiveness of duloxetine in chronic low back pain: a US private payer perspective.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of duloxetine in the treatment of chronic low back pain (CLBP) from a US private payer perspective. METHODS: A cost-utility analysis was undertaken for duloxetine and seven oral post-first-line comparators, including nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), weak and strong opioids, and an anticonvulsant. We created a Markov model on the basis of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence model documented in its 2008 osteoarthritis clinical guidelines. Health states included treatment, death, and 12 states associated with serious adverse events (AEs). We estimated treatment-specific utilities by carrying out a meta-analysis of pain scores from CLBP clinical trials and developing a transfer-to-utility equation using duloxetine CLBP patient-level data. Probabilities of AEs were taken from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence model or estimated from osteoarthritis clinical trials by using a novel maximum-likelihood simulation technique. Costs were gathered from Red Book, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project database, the literature, and, for a limited number of inputs, expert opinion. The model performed one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses and generated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and cost acceptability curves. RESULTS: The model estimated an ICER of $59,473 for duloxetine over naproxen. ICERs under $30,000 were estimated for duloxetine over non-NSAIDs, with duloxetine dominating all strong opioids. In subpopulations at a higher risk of NSAID-related AEs, the ICER over naproxen was $33,105 or lower. CONCLUSIONS: Duloxetine appears to be a cost-effective post-first-line treatment for CLBP compared with all but generic NSAIDs. In subpopulations at risk of NSAID-related AEs, it is particularly cost-effective.

Using common random numbers in health care cost-effectiveness simulation modeling.

OBJECTIVES: To identify the problem of separating statistical noise from treatment effects in health outcomes modeling and analysis. To demonstrate the implementation of one technique, common random numbers (CRNs), and to illustrate the value of CRNs to assess costs and outcomes under uncertainty. METHODS: A microsimulation model was designed to evaluate osteoporosis treatment, estimating cost and utility measures for patient cohorts at high risk of osteoporosis-related fractures. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated using a full implementation of CRNs, a partial implementation of CRNs, and no CRNs. A modification to traditional probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was used to determine how variance reduction can impact a decision maker's view of treatment efficacy and costs. RESULTS: The full use of CRNs provided a 93.6 percent reduction in variance compared to simulations not using the technique. The use of partial CRNs provided a 5.6 percent reduction. The PSA results using full CRNs demonstrated a substantially tighter range of cost-benefit outcomes for teriparatide usage than the cost-benefits generated without the technique. CONCLUSIONS: CRNs provide substantial variance reduction for cost-effectiveness studies. By reducing variability not associated with the treatment being evaluated, CRNs provide a better understanding of treatment effects and risks.

Cost-effectiveness of duloxetine in chronic low back pain: a Quebec societal perspective.

STUDY DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness model from a Quebec societal perspective using meta-analyses of clinical trials. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of duloxetine in chronic low back pain (CLBP) compared with other post-first-line oral medications. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Duloxetine has recently received a CLBP indication in Canada. The cost-effectiveness of duloxetine and other oral medications has not previously been evaluated for CLBP. METHODS: A Markov model was created on the basis of the economic model documented in the 2008 osteoarthritis clinical guidelines of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Treatment-specific utilities were estimated via a meta-analysis of CLBP clinical trials and a transfer-to-utility regression estimated from duloxetine CLBP trial data. Adverse event rates of comparator treatments were taken from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence model or estimated by a meta-analysis of clinical trials in osteoarthritis using a maximum-likelihood simulation technique. Costs were developed primarily from Quebec and Ontario public sources as well as the published literature and expert opinion. The 6 comparators were celecoxib, naproxen, amitriptyline, pregabalin, hydromorphone, and oxycodone. Subgroup analyses and 1-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: In the base case, naproxen, celecoxib, and duloxetine were on the cost-effectiveness frontier, with naproxen the least expensive medication, celecoxib with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $19,881, and duloxetine with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $43,437. Other comparators were dominated. Key drivers included the rates of cardiovascular and gastrointestinal adverse events and proton pump inhibitor usage. In subgroup analysis, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for duloxetine fell to $21,567 for a population 65 years or older and to $18,726 for a population at higher risk of cardiovascular and gastrointestinal adverse events. CONCLUSION: The model estimates that duloxetine is a moderately cost-effective treatment for CLBP, becoming more cost-effective for populations older than 65 years or at greater risk of cardiovascular and gastrointestinal events. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1.

Estimated economic benefits from low-frequency administration of atypical antipsychotics in treatment of schizophrenia: a decision model.

The objective of this study was to quantify the direct medical resources used and the corresponding burden of disease in the treatment of patients with schizophrenia. Because low-frequency administration (LFA) of risperidone guarantees adherence during treatment intervals and offers fewer opportunities to discontinue, adherence and persistence were assumed to improve, thereby reducing relapses of major symptoms.A decision tree model including Markov processes with monthly cycles and a five-year maximum timeframe was constructed. Costs were adapted from the literature and discounted at a 3% annual rate. The population is a demographically homogeneous cohort of patients with schizophrenia, differentiated by initial disease severity (mildly ill, moderately ill, and severely ill). Treatment parameters are estimated using published information for once-daily risperidone standard oral therapy (RIS-SOT) and once-monthly risperidone long-acting injection (RIS-LAI) with LFA therapy characteristics derived from observed study trends. One-year and five-year results are expressed as discounted direct medical costs and mean number of relapses per patient (inpatient, outpatient, total) and are estimated for LFA therapies given at three, six, and nine month intervals.The one-year results show that LFA therapy every 3 months (LFA-3) ($6,088) is less costly than either RIS-SOT ($10,721) or RIS-LAI ($9,450) with similar trends in the 5-year results. Moreover, the model predicts that LFA-3 vs. RIS-SOT vs. RIS LAI therapy will reduce costly inpatient relapses (0.16 vs. 0.51 vs. 0.41). Extending the interval to six (LFA-6) and nine (LFA-9) months resulted in further reductions in relapse and costs.Limitations include the fact that LFA therapeutic options are hypothetical and do not yet exist and limited applicability to compare one antipsychotic agent versus another as only risperidone therapy is evaluated. However, study results have quantified the potential health state improvements and potential direct medical cost savings achievable with the development and use of LFA medication delivery technologies.

The cost effectiveness of teriparatide as a first-line treatment for glucocorticoid-induced and postmenopausal osteoporosis patients in Sweden.

BACKGROUND: This paper presents the model and results to evaluate the use of teriparatide as a first-line treatment of severe postmenopausal osteoporosis (PMO) and glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (GIOP). The study's objective was to determine if teriparatide is cost effective against oral bisphosphonates for two large and high risk cohorts. METHODS: A computer simulation model was created to model treatment, osteoporosis related fractures, and the remaining life of PMO and GIOP patients. Natural mortality and additional mortality from osteoporosis related fractures were included in the model. Costs for treatment with both teriparatide and oral bisphosphonates were included. Drug efficacy was modeled as a reduction to the relative fracture risk for subsequent osteoporosis related fractures. Patient health utilities associated with age, gender, and osteoporosis related fractures were included in the model. Patient costs and utilities were summarized and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for teriparatide versus oral bisphosphonates and teriparatide versus no treatment were estimated.For each of the PMO and GIOP populations, two cohorts differentiated by fracture history were simulated. The first contained patients with both a historical vertebral fracture and an incident vertebral fracture. The second contained patients with only an incident vertebral fracture. The PMO cohorts simulated had an initial Bone Mineral Density (BMD) T-Score of -3.0. The GIOP cohorts simulated had an initial BMD T-Score of -2.5. RESULTS: The ICERs for teriparatide versus bisphosphonate use for the one and two fracture PMO cohorts were €36,995 per QALY and €19,371 per QALY. The ICERs for teriparatide versus bisphosphonate use for the one and two fracture GIOP cohorts were €20,826 per QALY and €15,155 per QALY, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The selection of teriparatide versus oral bisphosphonates as a first-line treatment for the high risk PMO and GIOP cohorts evaluated is justified at a cost per QALY threshold of €50,000.