A post hoc analysis of Projected Retained Ability Scores (PRAS) for the longitudinal assessment of cognitive functioning in patients with neuronopathic mucopolysaccharidosis II receiving intrathecal idursulfase-IT.

BACKGROUND: Norm-based scores used to assess cognitive ability have clinical value when describing functioning of patients with neuronopathic disorders compared with unaffected, same-age peers. However, they have limitations when used to assess change in cognitive ability between two timepoints, especially in children with severe cognitive decline. Calculation of Projected Retained Ability Scores (PRAS) is a novel method developed to characterize absolute change in norm-based ability test scores. In this analysis, PRAS were calculated post hoc for children with mucopolysaccharidosis II (MPS II; Hunter syndrome) and early cognitive impairment in a 52-week phase 2/3 randomized controlled trial (RCT) and its extension study of intrathecal idursulfase (idursulfase-IT). Patients completing the first year of the extension after receiving idursulfase-IT in the RCT and extension (n = 32 of 34 enrolled) or the extension only (n = 15 of 15 enrolled) were categorized according to changes in Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition, General Conceptual Ability (DAS-II GCA) scores and PRAS at 1 and 2 years. Analyses were conducted in the overall population and a subpopulation aged < 6 years at baseline (idursulfase-IT in the RCT and extension [n = 27] and extension only [n = 12]). RESULTS: PRAS methodology differentiated patients with decreases in DAS-II GCA scores into three separate categories reflecting below-average cognitive growth rates, plateauing cognitive development, and deteriorating cognitive functioning. After 1 year in the RCT, 72.4% of patients who initiated idursulfase-IT had above-average or average cognitive growth rates in DAS-II GCA scores compared with 53.3% of those who did not receive idursulfase-IT; 6.9% versus 20.0% experienced deteriorating cognitive functioning. Similar results were seen in children aged < 6 years: 76% (idursulfase-IT group) versus 50% (no idursulfase-IT) had above-average or average cognitive growth rates in DAS-II GCA scores; 4% versus 17% had deteriorating cognitive functioning. The difference in the distributions of cognitive categories at 1 year in children aged < 6 years was significant (p = 0.048). At 2 years, the proportions of patients in different cognitive categories were more similar between treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: PRAS methodology may help to differentiate changes in cognitive development in MPS II, and therefore may represent a valuable addition to existing approaches for interpreting changes in cognitive scores over time. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02055118 (registration date: 4 February 2014) and NCT02412787 (registration date: 9 April 2015).

The Zero-Price Conundrum: Exploration of Scenarios Where a Clinically Effective New Drug Might Not Be Cost-Effective at Zero Price.

OBJECTIVES: The zero-price conundrum occurs when a clinically effective drug can justify no greater than a price of zero based on cost-effectiveness criteria from a health system perspective. This is relevant for health systems that require evidence of cost-effectiveness, in addition to safety and efficacy for drug approval and other analyses that may shape drug coverage policies, such as budget impact and comparative effectiveness. This study aimed to clarify and explore the zero-price conundrum to provide a resource in the development of practical and methodological solutions. METHODS: We specified equations representing previously identified zero-price scenarios and used them to elucidate factors contributing to the zero-price conundrum and explore relationships between them. We present real-world considerations and discuss solutions from the literature. RESULTS: The analyses demonstrated that a primary cause of the zero-price problem for a new drug that increases quality-adjusted survival pertains to healthcare costs beyond the influence of the new drug, specifically, disease background costs, costs of existing drugs used in a combination regimen, and costs of future health interventions patients may become eligible to receive. Pragmatic solutions have been to exclude such costs from cost-effectiveness analyses. Proposed modifications to cost-effectiveness analysis include assessing each drug in a combination regimen based on its relative contribution to improved health. CONCLUSIONS: The zero-price dilemma may arise more frequently as the number of drugs in high-cost disease areas continues to grow. As cost-effectiveness methods evolve, there is the opportunity to develop robust solutions that can be applied consistently.

The evolution of ICER's review process for new medical interventions and a critical review of economic evaluations (2018-2019): how stakeholders can collaborate with ICER to improve the quality of evidence in ICER's reports.

BACKGROUND: Since its inception in 2006, the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) has rapidly gained influence on drug pricing and reimbursement decisions despite historical resistance to the use of cost-effectiveness thresholds in the US health care system. Although patient groups, physicians, and pharmaceutical manufacturers voiced their concerns about the potential negative effects of increased use of ICER's assessments on patient access to innovative medications, there is little guidance and consensus on how the stakeholders should collaborate with ICER to ensure that its reviews reflect the best clinical and economic evidence. OBJECTIVES: To (1) summarize the evolution of ICER's evaluation procedure, scope, and topics; (2) evaluate the effectiveness of stakeholder engagement approaches; and (3) inform stakeholders of their potential role in collaborating with ICER in estimating the cost-effectiveness of new interventions. METHODS: Publicly available ICER evaluations from 2008 to 2019 were systematically reviewed. Changes in evaluation procedures, scope, and topics were summarized. For evaluations that occurred in 2018 (n = 12) and 2019 (n = 8), key characteristics were extracted from 172 letters documenting interactions between ICER and all stakeholders who provided comments to draft reports. Stakeholder suggestions were analyzed in terms of their effectiveness indicated by ICER's reconsideration of its original cost-effectiveness analysis approach. RESULTS: The number of ICER evaluations increased consistently from 2 to 12 per year between 2008 and 2018 but declined to 8 in 2019. Stakeholder opportunity to engage with ICER increased from 1 to 3 per evaluation between 2008 and 2015. ICER initially focused on reviewing general treatment strategies but shifted its focus to specific pharmaceuticals and medical devices in 2014. In 2018 and 2019, 30% of 172 stakeholder letters resulted in a revision in the base-case analysis (49 comments in 2018, 23 in 2019); nearly half of comments in these letters included specific alternative data or a published article to rationalize recommendations. Other common types of suggestions that resulted in ICER's base-case analysis revisions included comments relating to inconsistent methods used to derive model inputs across different treatments (12/49 in 2018, 5/23 in 2019); clinical justifications (12/49 in 2018, 0/23 in 2019); and justifications based on patient perspectives (1/49 in 2018, 5/23 in 2019). These revisions rarely affected ICER's conclusions on the cost-effectiveness of evaluated interventions. Among the 20 assessments that involved 172 stakeholder engagements in 2018 and 2019, only 2% (n = 3) of the engagements (all from 2018) were associated with a change in the cost-effectiveness conclusion. CONCLUSIONS: Between 2018 and 2019, stakeholders leveraged ICER evaluations as opportunities to promote dialogue for better understanding of the value of technologies. Actionable, evidence-based recommendations were accepted more often than other recommendations. DISCLOSURES: No outside funding supported this study. The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose. Findings from this study were presented as a poster at Virtual ISPOR, May 17-20, 2021.

Cost- Effectiveness of Avatrombopag for the Treatment of Thrombocytopenia in Patients with Chronic Liver Disease.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Thrombocytopenia is common in people with chronic liver disease, who frequently undergo invasive procedures. To minimize the risk of bleeding, prophylactic platelet transfusions have traditionally been used but carry many risks. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of avatrombopag compared with platelet transfusion and lusutrombopag as a treatment for thrombocytopenia in adult patients with chronic liver disease scheduled to undergo a medical procedure. METHODS: A decision-tree model was developed from a US payer perspective to capture acute events observed in phase 3 global randomized controlled clinical trials and, to support exploratory analyses, potential longer-term complications resulting from a major bleed or thromboembolic event. Treatment costs were taken from publicly available data sources. The interventions were evaluated in the overall trial populations and in subpopulations with higher and lower baseline platelet counts. Results were presented as incremental cost per platelet transfusion avoided. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: In the overall population, avatrombopag reduced the need for platelet transfusions and produced cost-savings compared with platelet transfusion (80% fewer prophylactic platelet transfusions, $4250 lower costs) and lusutrombopag (42% fewer prophylactic platelet transfusions, $5819 lower costs). Similar results were seen in both the higher and lower platelet count subpopulations. The one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses found that the use of avatrombopag is cost-saving with the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio in quadrant IV (decreased costs, prophylactic platelet transfusions avoided). CONCLUSION: The use of avatrombopag is expected to be cost-saving while reducing the need for prophylactic platelet transfusions compared with platelet transfusion and lusutrombopag.

The Humanistic and Economic Burden of Chronic Idiopathic Constipation in the USA: A Systematic Literature Review.

BACKGROUND: Chronic idiopathic constipation (CIC) is a functional gastrointestinal disorder with an estimated prevalence of 16% in the USA; however, the humanistic and economic burden of CIC is poorly characterized. AIM: This systematic literature review aimed to assess the humanistic and economic burden of CIC in adults in the USA. METHODS: Two systematic literature searches of English-language publications on the humanistic and economic burden of CIC in adults in the USA were conducted using electronic databases and other resources. Both searches included the terms "chronic idiopathic constipation" and "functional constipation". Specific terms used in the search on humanistic burden included "quality of life", "SF-36", "SF-12", and "PAC-QOL"; search terms for economic burden included "cost", "resource use", "absenteeism", and "productivity". RESULTS: Overall, 16 relevant articles were identified. Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) appeared to be reduced in patients with CIC compared with controls and the general US population. Abdominal (r=0.33-0.49), stool (r=0.23-0.33), and rectal symptoms (r=0.53) appeared to be associated with reduced HRQoL. Younger age and female sex were associated with reduced overall HRQoL and greater symptom severity. Direct outpatient costs were higher in patients with CIC than those without CIC (US$6284 vs US$5254). Patients with CIC and abdominal symptoms reported more days of disrupted productivity per month than those without abdominal symptoms (3.2 days vs 1.2 days). The overall prevalence of complementary and alternative medicine use by patients with CIC was similar to that in the general US population. CONCLUSION: The reduced HRQoL and increased costs associated with CIC indicate unmet therapeutic need in this disorder. Further research is required to better understand the humanistic and economic burden of CIC in the USA.

US Budget Impact Model for Selinexor in Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the budgetary impact of adopting selinexor (XPOVIO; Karyopharm Therapeutics, Inc.) for the treatment of adult patients with penta-refractory multiple myeloma (MM) from the perspective of a third-party payer in the United States (US). METHODS: A budget impact analysis was conducted in one-year increments for the first 3 years after the introduction of selinexor for a private payer or Medicare Part D. Total annual treatment costs (2018 US dollars) were calculated as the sum of drug costs, costs of adverse events (AEs; grade ≥3), along with ongoing best supportive care costs. The number of eligible patients was derived from national epidemiology statistics, healthcare databases, and published literature. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, selinexor was associated with a per member per month (PMPM) cost of $0.0103 in year 3, assuming a market uptake of 64%, for a hypothetical private payer plan with one million members and four eligible patients. In a scenario analysis with 16 eligible patients with triple-class refractory MM regardless of the line of therapy (this additional scenario analysis was performed with an eligible population that does not fit squarely within the approved label for selinexor but was performed strictly for the purpose of demonstrating the results of the budget impact model when based on a larger pool of eligible patients), the estimated PMPM cost in year 3 was $0.0388. The model showed comparable sensitivity to treatment duration, wholesale acquisition cost for selinexor, and year 1 uptake. The base-case analysis conducted from the perspective of Medicare Part D was associated with a PMPM cost of $0.0078 in year 3 with 159 eligible patients. CONCLUSIONS: The model estimates a small and manageable budget impact of adopting selinexor into a third-party US payer plan, given the low prevalence of penta-refractory MM.

Value of clinical trial narrative data to estimate the costs of adverse event management: a feasibility study.

Aims: The objective of this feasibility study was to determine the extent to which data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) may serve as a useful source for collecting health care resource use (HCRU) for the purposes of estimating costs of managing adverse events (AEs), specifically, grade 3-4 nausea and thrombocytopenia, which may be experienced during chemotherapy treatment.Materials and Methods: The feasibility study was conducted in four steps: (1) HCRU data were extracted from patient narratives in four phase 3 RCTs in non-small cell lung cancer; (2) missing HCRU data were imputed; (3) unit costs were applied to the resulting HCRU data set and costs of managing AEs were estimated; and (4) the overall utility of using RCT data as a source for estimating costs of AEs was evaluated.Results: 33 nausea and 68 thrombocytopenia AEs met eligibility criteria and were evaluated in this study. Medication usage was recorded as a treatment in 76% of nausea AEs, although only 14% of the instances of medication usage included the minimum data elements required for costing. Platelet transfusions were provided in 24% of thrombocytopenia AEs; however, in only one instance were the minimum data elements recorded. Of nausea and thrombocytopenia AEs, 18% and 72%, respectively, required no missing data assumptions or imputation.Limitations: Only two AEs were considered, and they may not be representative of all AEs in terms of suitability for use in estimating HCRU and costs of managing AEs. Not all grade 3-4 AEs met the criteria for requiring a patient narrative. HCRU data in the narratives were incomplete.Conclusions: The usefulness of RCTs for estimating the costs of AEs may be improved by using a standardized form to collect HCRU data for key AEs, including an appropriate level of detail required to estimate costs of managing the AEs.

A framework for assessing the lifetime economic burden of congenital cytomegalovirus in the United States.

BACKGROUND: In the United States (US), congenital cytomegalovirus infection (cCMVi) is a major cause of permanent disabilities and the most common etiology of non-genetic sensorineural hearing loss. Evaluations of prevention strategies will require estimates of the economic implications of cCMVi. We aimed to develop a conceptual framework to characterize the lifetime economic burden of cCMVi in the US and to use that framework to identify data gaps. METHODS: Direct health care, direct non-health care, indirect, and intangible costs associated with cCMVi were considered. An initial framework was constructed based on a targeted literature review, then validated and refined after consultation with experts. Published costs were identified and used to populate the framework. Data gaps were identified. RESULTS: The framework was constructed as a chance tree, categorizing clinical event occurrence to form patient profiles associated with distinct economic trajectories. The distribution and magnitude of costs varied by patient life stage, cCMVi diagnosis, severity of impairment, and developmental delays/disabilities. Published studies could not fully populate the framework. The literature best characterized direct health care costs associated with the birth period. Gaps existed for direct non-health care, indirect, and intangible costs, as well as health care costs associated with adult patients and those severely impaired. CONCLUSIONS: Data gaps exist concerning the lifetime economic burden of cCMVi in the US. The conceptual framework provides the basis for a research agenda to address these gaps. Understanding the full lifetime economic burden of cCMVi would inform clinicians, researchers, and policymakers, when assessing the value of cCMVi interventions.

Correction to: Expected Budget Impact and Health Outcomes of Expanded Use of Vagus Nerve Stimulation Therapy for Drug-Resistant Epilepsy.

The article "Expected Budget Impact and Health Outcomes of Expanded Use of Vagus Nerve Stimulation Therapy for Drug-Resistant Epilepsy", written by Molly F. Purser, Deirdre M. Mladsi, Alan Beckman, Francesca Barion, John Forsey was originally published electronically on the publisher's internet portal (currently SpringerLink) on August 24, 2018 without open access.

Expected Budget Impact and Health Outcomes of Expanded Use of Vagus Nerve Stimulation Therapy for Drug-Resistant Epilepsy.

INTRODUCTION: The objective was to estimate, from the perspective of a managed care organization in the United States, the budget impact and effect on health outcomes of expanded use of vagus nerve stimulation [VNS (VNS Therapy®)] among patients aged ≥ 12 years with drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE) with partial-onset seizures. METHODS: An Excel model was developed to compare the costs of continued anti-epileptic drug (AED) treatment with the costs of VNS plus AED treatment. The number of people eligible for VNS was estimated using published prevalence data and an estimate of the percentage of eligible patients currently without VNS. Costs included VNS device, placement, programming, and battery changes; adverse events associated with VNS (cough, voice alteration, device removal resulting from surgical site infection); AEDs; and seizure-related costs affected by seizure frequency, which affects resource utilization (i.e., hospitalizations, emergency department visits, neurologist visits). To estimate the potential savings with VNS due to a reduction in seizure frequency, the budget impact model uses the results of an underlying Markov model to estimate seizure-related costs by seizure frequency. Transitions occurred among four health states, defined by number of seizures per month (i.e., seizure-free, ≤ 1, > 1 to < 10, ≥ 10) on a 3-month cycle based on published clinical trials and registry data. RESULTS: VNS resulted in an estimated net cost savings, on average, over 5 years, due to the expected reduction in seizure frequency. The initial cost of the VNS device, placement, and programming was estimated to be offset 1.7 years after VNS device placement. Reductions in hospitalizations were the main contributor to the cost savings with VNS. CONCLUSIONS: VNS is a proven intervention that offers a long-term solution for patients with DRE by reducing seizure frequency, which leads to lower resource utilization and lower costs. FUNDING: LivaNova PLC.

Cost estimate of platelet transfusion in the United States for patients with chronic liver disease and associated thrombocytopenia undergoing elective procedures.

AIMS: This study aimed to estimate the cost of platelet transfusion in patients with chronic liver disease (CLD)-associated thrombocytopenia undergoing an elective procedure in the United States. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was conducted in two parts: development of a conceptual framework identifying direct, indirect and intangible costs of platelet transfusion, followed by the estimation of the total cost of platelet transfusion in patients with CLD-associated thrombocytopenia before an elective procedure in the United States using the conceptual framework and cost data obtained from a literature search. The cost of the entire care required to raise a patient's platelet count before the procedure was considered. RESULTS: The final conceptual framework included the costs of generating the supply of platelets, the platelet transfusion itself, adverse events associated with platelet transfusion and refractoriness to platelet transfusion. When costs were accounted for in all the framework cost categories, the total direct cost of a platelet transfusion in a patient with CLD and associated thrombocytopenia was estimated to be in the range of $5258 to $13,117 (2017 US dollars) in the United States. The largest portion of costs was incurred by the transfusion event itself ($3723 to $4436) and the cost of refractoriness ($874 to $7578), which included the opportunity cost of a delayed procedure and subsequent platelet transfusions with human leukocyte antigen-matched platelets. LIMITATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS: Although we were unable to include all cost components identified in the conceptual framework in our total cost estimate, thus likely underestimating the true total cost, and despite the data gaps and challenges limiting our estimate of the full cost of a platelet transfusion in patients with CLD-associated thrombocytopenia undergoing an elective procedure in the United States, this study outlines a comprehensive conceptual framework for estimating the cost elements of a platelet transfusion in these patients.

An economic analysis of tolvaptan compared with fluid restriction among hospitalized patients with hyponatremia.

OBJECTIVE: The vasopressin-receptor antagonist tolvaptan is used for the treatment of hyponatremia (HN) in hospitalized patients with congestive heart failure (CHF) or syndrome of inappropriate antidiuretic hormone secretion (SIADH). The objective of this economic modeling study was to assess the potential cost and health outcomes associated with tolvaptan in comparison with fluid restriction (FR). METHODS: A decision-analytic model was developed to estimate potential cost and health outcomes associated with tolvaptan compared with FR among hospitalized CHF and SIADH patients with severe HN (serum sodium [SS] levels < 125 mEq/L). The model, which was populated with data from the published literature, assumes that response to treatment influences hospital length of stay, probability of an intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and probability of a 30-day all-cause hospital readmission. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSAs) assessed the influence of parameter uncertainty on model results. RESULTS: Model results suggest that, among hospitalized CHF patients with severe HN, the use of tolvaptan compared with FR may lead to reductions of 7.2% and 4.6% in ICU admissions and 30-day readmissions, respectively. Compared with FR, tolvaptan may result in total cost-savings of $156 per hospitalized CHF patient. Among hospitalized SIADH patients with severe HN, the model suggested reductions of 14.6% and 5.1% in ICU admissions and 30-day readmissions, respectively. Compared with FR, tolvaptan may result in total cost-savings of $135 per hospitalized SIADH patient. PSAs found that the probabilities of net cost-savings from the use of tolvaptan compared with FR were 64% and 59% among patients with severe HN with CHF and SIADH, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Decision-analytic modeling based on published data for hospitalized CHF and SIADH patients with severe HN, indicates that tolvaptan compared with FR has the potential to improve health outcomes and produce cost-savings that more than offset the cost of tolvaptan.

Cost-effectiveness of Low-dose Submicron Diclofenac Compared With Generic Diclofenac.

PURPOSE: NSAIDs are commonly prescribed for the treatment of pain and inflammation. Despite the effectiveness of NSAIDs, concerns exist regarding their tolerability. Worldwide health authorities, including the European Medicines Agency, Health Canada, and the US Food and Drug Administration, have advised that NSAIDs be prescribed at the lowest effective dosage and for the shortest duration. Effective lowering of NSAID dosage without compromising pain relief has been demonstrated in randomized, controlled trials of the recently approved NSAID lower-dose submicron diclofenac. Building on previously published work from an independently published systematic review and meta-analysis, a linear dose-toxicity relationship between diclofenac dose and serious gastrointestinal (GI) events was recently demonstrated, indicating that reductions in adverse events (AEs) may be seen even with modest dose reductions in many patients. The objective of the present study was to estimate the potential reduction in risk for NSAID dose-related AEs, corresponding savings in health care costs, and the incremental cost-effectiveness of submicron diclofenac compared with generic diclofenac in the United States. METHODS: Our decision-analytic cost-effectiveness model considered a subset of potential AEs that may be avoided by lowering NSAID dosage. To estimate the expected reductions in upper GI bleeding/perforation and major cardiovascular events with submicron diclofenac, our model used prediction equations estimated by meta-regressions using data from systematic literature reviews. Utilities, lifetime costs, and health outcomes associated with AEs were estimated using data from the literature. The face validity of the model structure and inputs was confirmed by clinical experts in the United States. Results were evaluated in 1-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. FINDINGS: The model predicted that submicron diclofenac versus generic diclofenac could reduce the occurrence of modeled GI events (by 18.0%), cardiovascular events (by 6.9%), and acute renal failure (by 18.8%), leading to a 9.8% reduction in costs of treating AEs. Submicron diclofenac was predicted to be cost-saving, with results relatively insensitive to parameter uncertainty. IMPLICATIONS: Submicron diclofenac has the potential to provide clinical and economic value to patients using NSAIDs in the United States. Further investigation regarding the potential effects of submicron diclofenac on the risks for additional NSAID dose-related toxicities should be explored.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of universal noninvasive testing for post-treatment confirmation of Helicobacter pylori eradication and the impact of patient adherence.

BACKGROUND: The treatment failure rate for Helicobacter pylori eradication therapy is ~20% due to poor patient compliance and increased antibiotic resistance. This analysis assessed the cost-effectiveness of universal post-treatment testing to confirm eradication of H. pylori infection in adults. METHODS: Decision-analytic models evaluated the cost-effectiveness of universal post-treatment testing (urea breath test [UBT] or monoclonal fecal antigen test [mFAT]) vs no testing (Model 1), and UBT vs mFAT after adjusting for patient adherence to testing (Model 2) in adults who previously received first-line antimicrobial therapy. Patients testing positive received second-line quadruple therapy; no further action was taken for those testing negative or with no testing (Model 1) or for those nonadherent to testing (Model 2). In addition to testing costs, excess lifetime costs and reduced quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) due to continuing H. pylori infection were considered in the model. RESULTS: Expected total costs per patient were higher for post-treatment testing (UBT: US$325.76; mFAT: US$242.12) vs no testing (US$182.41) in Model 1 and for UBT (US$336.75) vs mFAT (US$326.24) in Model 2. Expected QALYs gained per patient were 0.71 and 0.72 for UBT and mFAT, respectively, vs no testing (Model 1), and the same was 0.37 for UBT vs mFAT (Model 2). The estimated incremental costs per QALY gained for post-treatment testing vs no testing were US$82.90-US$202.45 and, after adjusting for adherence, US$28.13 for UBT vs mFAT. CONCLUSION: Universal post-treatment testing was found to be cost-effective for confirming eradication of H. pylori infection following first-line therapy. Better adherence to UBT relative to mFAT was the key to its cost-effectiveness.

Impact of patient adherence on the cost-effectiveness of noninvasive tests for the initial diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori infection in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: Previous US-based economic models of noninvasive tests for diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori infection did not consider patient adherence or downstream costs of continuing infection. This analysis evaluated the long-term cost-effectiveness of the urea breath test (UBT), fecal antigen test (FAT), and serology for diagnosis of H. pylori infection after incorporating information regarding test adherence. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A decision-analytic model incorporating adherence information evaluated the cost-effectiveness of the UBT, FAT, and serology for diagnosis of H. pylori infection. Positive test results led to first-line triple therapy; no further action was taken for nonadherence or negative results. Excess lifetime costs and reduced quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated for patients with continuing H. pylori infection. RESULTS: In the base-case scenario with estimated adherence rates of 86%, 48%, and 86% for the UBT, monoclonal FAT, and serology, respectively, corresponding expected total costs were US$424.99, $466.41, and $404.98/patient. Test costs were higher for the UBT, but were fully or partially offset by higher excess lifetime costs for the monoclonal FAT and serology. The QALYs gained/patient with the UBT vs monoclonal FAT and serology were 0.86 and 0.27, respectively. The UBT was dominant vs the monoclonal FAT, leading to lower costs and higher QALYs; the UBT was cost-effective vs serology (incremental cost/QALY gained $74). CONCLUSION: Based on a comprehensive modeled analysis that included consideration of patient test adherence and long-term consequences resulting from continuing H. pylori infection, the UBT provided the greatest economic value among noninvasive tests for diagnosis of H. pylori infection, because of high patient adherence and excellent test performance.

The epidemiology, economic burden, and pharmacological treatment of chronic low back pain in France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK: a literature-based review.

OBJECTIVE: This study's objective was to review the literature on the epidemiological and economic burden and treatment of chronic low back pain (CLBP) in France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK. METHODS: A literature search was conducted for 1997 - 2007, focusing on CLBP burden and treatment in the countries of interest. RESULTS: The literature search yielded 1552 articles; 23 sources were included in this review. General population prevalence estimates for CLBP were available for two countries: 5.91% (Italy) and 6.3 - 11.1% (UK). Resource utilization estimates were available for Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK. Patients visited general practitioners and osteopaths. Annual direct costs of low back pain were available only for Germany: > euro 7000 per person. Work absenteeism accounted for 75% of the total per-patient cost of low back pain in Germany. The five identified treatment guidelines recommended a multimodal approach. Recommended pharmacotherapies included NSAIDs, muscle relaxants, analgesics and anesthetics, and opioids. CONCLUSIONS: Prevalence estimates varied, possibly owing to differences in diagnostic criteria and populations studied. Little is known about CLBP's economic burden. Treatment guidelines recommended multimodal treatment.

Pharmacy cost evaluation of risperidone, olanzapine, and quetiapine for the treatment of schizophrenia in acute care inpatient settings.

OBJECTIVE: This study examines total pharmacy cost and usage patterns of schizophrenic patients in acute mental health inpatient settings for three atypical antipsychotics -- risperidone, olanzapine, and quetiapine. Despite the readily available unit cost information for drugs, actual pharmacy costs may deviate significantly from 'labeled costs'. Recent research findings indicate the need for more robust evaluation of such pharmacy costs. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This study used data from non-randomized inpatient retrospective charts from three acute care inpatient mental health facilities. The final pooled sample included 327 patients, of which 120 received risperidone, 153 received olanzapine, and 54 received quetiapine. Medication cost was defined as the average wholesale price (AWP) as listed in the 2001 'Red Book'. Propensity scoring methodology and multinomial regression were employed to reduce treatment selection bias. RESULTS: The observed mean daily antipsychotic drug doses were 4.45 mg (SD 2.44) for risperidone, 14.04 mg (SD 5.55) for olanzapine, and 350.33 mg (SD 228.24) for quetiapine. The corresponding mean daily drug costs were $7.66(SD $4.20) for risperidone, $8.11 (SD $5.29) for quetiapine and, $12.10 (SD $4.79) for olanzepine. Numbers adjusted for treatment selection bias show that the average daily total pharmacy cost of risperidone was $4.35 lower than olanzapine (p < 0.001) and $1.41 lower than quetiapine (p = 0.38). The adjusted average daily pharmacy cost of olanzapine was $4.02 higher than quetiapine (p < 0.001). After statistical adjustment there were no significant differences between study drugs in terms of length of stay or patient functioning. CONCLUSION: This study provides the first US comparison of medication utilization patterns and pharmacy costs for olanzapine, risperidone, and quetiapine administered in acute mental health care inpatient settings. While this study did not estimate the full economic value of the three antipsychotics in these inpatient settings, it demonstrated that the mean daily costs for risperidone were lower than the mean daily costs for olanzapine (p < 0.001) and quetiapine although the later difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.38).