Adherence and out-of-pocket costs among Medicare beneficiaries who are prescribed oral targeted therapies for advanced prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Abiraterone and enzalutamide are high-cost oral therapies that increasingly are used to treat patients with advanced prostate cancer; these agents carry the potential for significant financial consequences to patients. In the current study, the authors investigated coping and material measures of the financial hardship of these therapies among patients with Medicare Part D coverage. METHODS: The authors performed a retrospective cohort study on a 20% sample of Medicare Part D enrollees who underwent treatment with abiraterone or enzalutamide between July 2013 and June 2015. The authors described the variability in adherence rates and out-of-pocket payments among hospital referral regions in the first 6 months of therapy and determined whether adherence and out-of-pocket payments were associated with patient factors and the socioeconomic characteristics of where a patient was treated. RESULTS: There were 4153 patients who filled abiraterone or enzalutamide prescriptions through Medicare Part D in 228 hospital referral regions. The mean adherence rate was 75%. The median monthly out-of-pocket payment for abiraterone and enzalutamide was $706 (range, $0-$3505). After multilevel, multivariable adjustment for patient and regional factors, adherence was found to be lower in patients who were older (69% for patients aged ≥85 years vs 76% for patients aged <70 years; P < .01) and in those with low-income subsidies (69% in those with a subsidy vs 76% in those without a subsidy; P < .01). Both Hispanic ethnicity and living in a hospital referral region with a higher percentage of Hispanic beneficiaries were found to be independently associated with higher out-of-pocket payments for abiraterone and enzalutamide. CONCLUSIONS: There were substantial variations in the adherence rate and out-of-pocket payments among Medicare Part D beneficiaries who were prescribed abiraterone and enzalutamide. Sociodemographic patient and regional factors were found to be associated with both adherence and out-of-pocket payments.

Economic Outcomes in Patients with Chemotherapy-Naïve Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer Treated with Enzalutamide or Abiraterone Acetate Plus Prednisone.

INTRODUCTION: Prostate cancer (PC) is the second leading cause of cancer death among US men and accounts for considerable healthcare expenditures. We evaluated economic outcomes in men with chemotherapy-naïve metastatic castration-resistant PC (mCRPC) treated with enzalutamide or abiraterone acetate plus prednisone (abiraterone). METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis on 3174 men (18 years or older) utilizing the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) database from 1 April 2014 to 31 March 2018. Men with mCRPC were included if they had at least one pharmacy claim for enzalutamide or abiraterone (first claim date = index date) following surgical or medical castration, had no chemotherapy treatment within 12 months prior to the index date, and had continuous VHA enrollment for at least 12 months pre- and post-index date. Men were followed until death, disenrollment, or end of study and were 1:1 propensity score matched (PSM). All-cause and PC-related resource use and costs per patient per month (PPPM) in the 12 months post index were compared between matched cohorts. RESULTS: We identified 1229 men with mCRPC prescribed enzalutamide and 1945 prescribed abiraterone with mean ages of 74 and 73 years, respectively. After PSM, each cohort had 1160 patients. The enzalutamide cohort had fewer all-cause (2.51 vs 2.86; p < 0.0001) and PC-related outpatient visits (0.86 vs 1.03; p < 0.0001), with corresponding lower all-cause ($2588 vs $3115; p < 0.0001) and PC-related ($1356 vs $1775; p < 0.0001) PPPM outpatient costs compared with the abiraterone cohort. All-cause total costs (medical and pharmacy) PPPM ($8085 vs $9092; p = 0.0002) and PC-related total costs PPPM ($6321 vs $7280; p < 0.0001) were significantly lower in the enzalutamide cohort compared with the abiraterone cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Enzalutamide-treated men with chemotherapy-naïve mCRPC had significantly lower resource utilization and healthcare costs compared with abiraterone-treated men.

Prostate cancer (PC) is the second leading cause of death among men with cancer in the USA. Healthcare costs associated with PC, including hospitalizations, outpatient visits, and medications prescribed to treat adverse effects, depend on the severity of the disease and intensity of treatment, but are generally very high. Enzalutamide and abiraterone acetate with prednisone (abiraterone) are both approved treatments for men with PC that does not respond to treatments that reduce the male hormone testosterone, known as castration-resistant PC (CRPC). These drugs are associated with varying treatment duration and different adverse effects, and therefore could result in differences in the use of healthcare resources and overall cost of treatment. Here we evaluated the healthcare resource utilization (HCRU), which was calculated as the average number of healthcare encounters, including inpatient stays, outpatient visits, and pharmacy visits, and length of inpatient stays, and treatment costs associated with use of enzalutamide or abiraterone by men with metastatic CRPC (mCRPC), who had not received prior chemotherapy in the Veterans Health Administration. We found that men with chemotherapy-naïve mCRPC treated with enzalutamide used less healthcare resources and incurred lower total healthcare costs than men treated with abiraterone. On average, all-cause total healthcare costs were $1007 per patient per month lower and PC-related total healthcare costs were $959 per patient per month lower for patients treated with enzalutamide than those treated with abiraterone. These results support the hypothesis that the long-term HCRU and costs of enzalutamide may be lower compared with abiraterone.

Metastatic Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer: A Review of the Current Treatment Landscape.

PURPOSE: In recent years, the treatment options for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) have expanded significantly. In addition to androgen deprivation therapy, the systemic treatments now include docetaxel, abiraterone, enzalutamide, and apalutamide. Radiation to the primary is also an option for select low-volume patients. METHODS: We conducted a review of the pivotal trials that have changed the practice of mHSPC. RESULTS: We describe an overview of the trials that investigated docetaxel (CHAARTED and STAMPEDE-Docetaxel), abiraterone (LATTITUDE and STAMPEDE-Abiraterone), enzalutamide (ARCHES, ENZAMET), apalutamide (TITAN), and radiation to the primary (STAMPEDE-Radiation). DISCUSSION: The treatment of mHSPC is a complex topic, and treatment choice should be individualized. Patient preferences, cost, volume of disease, and side effect profiles are important in determining which option is the best for an individual patient.

Cost-effectiveness model of abiraterone plus prednisone, cabazitaxel plus prednisone and enzalutamide for visceral metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer therapy after docetaxel therapy resistance.

Aims: Among patients diagnosed with prostate cancer, 10-20% will develop castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) within 5 years; for 70%, CRPC will metastasize, mostly to the lungs and/or liver. We performed a cost-effectiveness model comparing abiraterone plus prednisone (ABI + PRD), cabazitaxel plus prednisone (CAB + PRD) and enzalutamide (ENZ) for visceral metastatic CRPC post-docetaxel therapy resistance. Methods: A three-state (Progression-Free, Progression, Death) lifetime Markov model was constructed to compare ABI + PRD, CAB + PRD, and ENZ from a United States healthcare payer perspective (2019 US$; discount rate 3%/yr.). Effectiveness was measured in life-years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Inputs included treatment costs, grade III/IV adverse events with incidence ≥5%, physician follow-up, lab and imaging tests. Phase III trial Kaplan-Meier curves were extrapolated to estimate overall survival and Progression-Free transition probabilities. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and utility ratios (ICURs), probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSAs) and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves at willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds were estimated. Results: Models estimated 3-year overall survival rates of 1.3% for patients treated with ABI + PRD, 16.2% for CAB + PRD, and 13.2% for ENZ. Estimated Progression-Free rates at 1.5 years were 0.51% for ABI + PRD, 0.27% for CAB + PRD, and 14.47% for ENZ. LYs and QALYs were 1.20 and 0.58 respectively for ABI + PRD, 1.48 and 0.56 for CAB + PRD, and 1.58 and 0.79 for ENZ. Total treatment costs were: $115,433 for ABI + PRD, $85,337 for CAB + PRD and $109,213 for ENZ. CAB + PRD and ENZ dominated ABI + PRD due to higher LYs gained. Incremental QALYs for ENZ vs. CAB + PRD were larger than incremental LYs. The ICUR for ENZ was $103,674/QALY compared to CAB + PRD. Conclusions: This analysis found ENZ provided greater LYs and QALYs than both ABI + PRD and CAB + PRD, at a lower cost than ABI + PRD, but at a higher cost compared to CAB + PRD. For patients with visceral mCRPC after docetaxel therapy resistance, ENZ was cost-effective 92% of the time with a WTP threshold of $100,000/QALY.

Cost-effectiveness of abiraterone versus docetaxel in the treatment of metastatic hormone naïve prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: Prostate cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death in men in the US. Since 2015, landmark studies have demonstrated improved survival outcomes with the use of docetaxel (DCT) or abiraterone (AA) in addition to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in the metastatic hormone-naïve setting. These treatment strategies have not been prospectively compared but have similar overall survival benefits despite differing mechanisms of action, toxicity, and cost. We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis to provide insight into the value of AA vs. DCT in the first-line treatment of metastatic prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We developed Markov models by using a US-payer perspective and a 3-year time horizon to estimate costs (2018 US$) and progression-free quality-adjusted life years (PF-QALYs) for ADT alone, DCT, and AA. Health states were defined as initial state, treatment states according to experience of an adverse event, and progressed disease/death. State transition probabilities were derived from rates for drug discontinuation, frequency of adverse events, disease progression, and death from the randomized phase III trials ChemoHormonal Therapy Versus Androgen Ablation Randomized Trial for Extensive Disease in Prostate Cancer (CHAARTED) and LATITUDE. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate model uncertainty. RESULTS: DCT resulted in an increase of 0.32 PF-QALYs and $16,100 in cost and AA resulted in an increase of 0.52 PF-QALYs and $215,800 in cost compared to ADT alone. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for DCT vs. ADT was $50,500/PF-QALY and for AA vs. DCT was $1,010,000/PF-QALY. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000/PF-QALY AA was highly unlikely to be cost-effective. CONCLUSION: DCT is substantially more cost-effective than AA in the treatment of metastatic hormone naïve prostate cancer.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of abiraterone, docetaxel or placebo plus androgen deprivation therapy for hormone-sensitive advanced prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the addition of chemotherapy or abiraterone to androgen deprivation. METHODS: We developed an analytical model to determine the cost-effectiveness of the addition of docetaxel or abiraterone versus androgen deprivation therapy alone. Direct and indirect costs were included in the model. The effects were expressed in Quality-Adjusted Life Years adjusted for side effects. RESULTS: Compared to androgen deprivation therapy alone, the addition of chemotherapy and of abiraterone generated 0.492 and 0.999, respectively, in Quality-Adjusted Life Years. Abiraterone led to a Quality-Adjusted Life Years gain of 0.506 compared to docetaxel. The incremental costs per Quality-Adjusted Life Years were R$ 133.649,22 for docetaxel, R$ 330.828,70 for abiraterone and R$ 571.379,42 for abiraterone compared to docetaxel, respectively. CONCLUSION: The addition of chemotherapy to androgen deprivation therapy is more cost-effective than the addition of abiraterone to androgen deprivation therapy. However, discounts on abiraterone cost might improve cost-effectiveness.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of abiraterone, docetaxel or placebo plus androgen deprivation therapy for hormone-sensitive advanced prostate cancer / Análise de custo-efetividade da adição de abiraterona ou quimioterapia ao tratamento do câncer de próstata metastático hormônio-sensível

ABSTRACT Objective To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the addition of chemotherapy or abiraterone to androgen deprivation. Methods We developed an analytical model to determine the cost-effectiveness of the addition of docetaxel or abiraterone versus androgen deprivation therapy alone. Direct and indirect costs were included in the model. The effects were expressed in Quality-Adjusted Life Years adjusted for side effects. Results Compared to androgen deprivation therapy alone, the addition of chemotherapy and of abiraterone generated 0.492 and 0.999, respectively, in Quality-Adjusted Life Years. Abiraterone led to a Quality-Adjusted Life Years gain of 0.506 compared to docetaxel. The incremental costs per Quality-Adjusted Life Years were R$ 133.649,22 for docetaxel, R$ 330.828,70 for abiraterone and R$ 571.379,42 for abiraterone compared to docetaxel, respectively. Conclusion The addition of chemotherapy to androgen deprivation therapy is more cost-effective than the addition of abiraterone to androgen deprivation therapy. However, discounts on abiraterone cost might improve cost-effectiveness.

RESUMO Objetivo Avaliar a relação custo-efetividade da adição de quimioterapia ou abiraterona à terapia de privação hormonal. Métodos Um modelo analítico foi desenvolvido para determinar a relação custo-efetividade da adição de docetaxel ou abiraterona comparada à terapia de privação hormonal isolada. Custos diretos e indiretos foram incluídos no modelo. Os efeitos foram expressos em Anos de Vida Ajustados para Qualidade corrigidos pelos efeitos colaterais de cada terapia. Resultados A adição de quimioterapia e de abiraterona à terapia de privação hormonal aumentou os Anos de Vida Ajustados para Qualidade em 0,492 e 0,999, respectivamente, em comparação à terapia de privação hormonal isolada. A abiraterona promoveu ganho de Anos de Vida Ajustados para Qualidade de 0,506 em relação ao docetaxel. O custo incremental por Anos de Vida Ajustados para Qualidade foi R$ 133.649,22 para o docetaxel, R$ 330.828,70 para a abiraterona e R$ 571.379,42 para a abiraterona comparada ao docetaxel. Conclusão A adição de quimioterapia à terapia de privação hormonal é mais custo-efetiva que a adição de abiraterona à terapia de privação hormonal. Contudo, descontos no custo da abiraterona poderiam tornar esse tratamento mais custo-efetivo.

Dutch Economic Value of Radium-223 in Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer has changed with the introduction of radium-223, cabazitaxel, abiraterone and enzalutamide. To assess value for money, their cost effectiveness in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer previously treated with docetaxel from the Dutch societal perspective was investigated. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted using efficacy, symptomatic skeletal-related event and safety data obtained from indirect treatment comparisons. Missing skeletal-related event data for cabazitaxel were conservatively assumed to be identical to radium-223. A Markov model combined these clinical inputs with Dutch-specific resource use and costs for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer treatment from a societal perspective. Total quality-adjusted life-years and costs in 2017 euros were calculated over a 5-year (lifetime) time horizon. RESULTS: Radium-223 resulted in €6092 and €4465 lower costs and 0.02 and 0.01 higher quality-adjusted life-years compared with abiraterone and cabazitaxel, respectively, demonstrating dominance of radium-223. Sensitivity analyses reveal a 64% (54%) chance of radium-223 being cost effective compared with abiraterone (cabazitaxel) at the informal €80,000 willingness-to-pay threshold. Compared with enzalutamide, radium-223 resulted in slightly lower quality-adjusted life-years (-0.06) and €7390 lower costs, revealing a 61% chance of radium-223 being cost effective compared with enzalutamide. The lower costs of radium-223 compared with abiraterone and enzalutamide are driven by lower drug costs and prevention of expensive skeletal-related events. Compared with cabazitaxel, the lower costs of radium-223 are driven by lower costs of the drug, administration and adverse events. CONCLUSION: Radium-223 may be a less costly treatment strategy offering similar gains in health benefits compared with abiraterone, cabazitaxel and enzalutamide in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer previously treated with docetaxel from the Dutch societal perspective.

The lack of a relationship between physician payments from drug manufacturers and Medicare claims for abiraterone and enzalutamide.

BACKGROUND: Interactions between industry and prescribers have raised concerns regarding conflicts of interest. To the best of the authors' knowledge, quantitative data measuring these interactions have been limited until recently. In the current study, the authors sought to determine whether an association exists between industry payments and prescriber behavior with regard to abiraterone and enzalutamide. METHODS: Two Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services databases were combined to analyze oncologists and urologists who received industry payments and/or prescribed abiraterone and enzalutamide. Correlation analysis was constructed on prescription count and industry payments. Multivariable median regression examined predictors of change in prescription count per dollar of industry payment. Stratifying prescribers by quantile evaluated threshold effects on prescribers. RESULTS: The number of prescriptions was similar between prescribers who did and those who did not receive industry payment for both drugs. The median industry payment amount to prescribers differed between prescribers and nonprescribers for abiraterone ($72 vs $56) and enzalutamide ($59 vs $31). Although no statistical association was found to exist between industry payment amount and prescription count for abiraterone prescribers, an association was found to exist for enzalutamide prescribers (rho = 0.31). A small change was found with regard to prescription count per dollar of industry payment for abiraterone (0.0007 prescriptions) and enzalutamide (0.0006 prescriptions). The amount of industry payment needed to predict one additional prescription was found to be lower in the fourth and fifth quantiles compared with the first through third quantiles. CONCLUSIONS: No difference in prescription count was found to exist between prescribers who received industry payments and those who did not. A positive correlation was noted between industry payments and prescription count for enzalutamide. Ease of adoption may affect differences between the 2 drugs. Cancer 2017;123:4356-62. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Cost of Medications Recommended by Canadian Acne Clinical Practice Guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Acne affects a large proportion of the Canadian population and has psychosocial and financial consequences. OBJECTIVE: We provide cost information for treatments recommended by the Canadian acne guidelines. METHODS: Highest level recommendations were selected for 3-month usage cost. RESULTS: Three-month estimated treatment costs were as follows: topical retinoids ($14.40-$73.80), benzoyl peroxide (BPO; $6.75), fixed-dose BPO-clindamycin ($40.95-$44.10) and BPO-adapalene ($73.80), oral antibiotics ($25.20 for tetracycline 250 mg qid; $52.20 and $52.74 for doxycycline 50 mg bid and 100 mg od, respectively), and hormonal therapy ($26.46-$37.80 for ethinyl estradiol [EE] 0.030 mg/drospirenone 3mg and $75.60-108.99 for EE 0.035 mg/cyproterone acetate 2 mg). Oral isotretinoin 3-month costs ranged from $393.96 to $478.80. CONCLUSIONS: Awareness of costs of recommended treatments may facilitate improved outcomes by increasing procurement and adherence.

Continuous Norethisterone Acetate versus Cyclical Drospirenone 3 mg/Ethinyl Estradiol 20 µg for the Management of Primary Dysmenorrhea in Young Adult Women.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of continuous norethisterone acetate (NET-A), 5 mg (group N) vs cyclical combined oral contraceptive pill (COC) consisting of drospirenone 3 mg/ethinyl estradiol 20 µg pills (group P) in treating dysmenorrhea in young adult women. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This prospective, open-label, nonrandomized study included 38 Jordanian patients: 20 patients in group N and 18 patients in group P. INTERVENTIONS: Continuous NET-A 5 mg daily or cyclical COC. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Pain scores, adverse effects, analgesic use, school absence, and cost. RESULTS: Thirty-eight patients used NET-A or COC for 6 months. All participants had almost the same starting levels of visual analogue scale (VAS) scores. Both drugs were similar in suppressing dysmenorrhea at the 3-month follow-up visit; VAS score mean (±SD) in group N and P were 1.30 ± 1.22 and 1.28 ± 0.83 (P = .22), respectively, and after 6 months, with mean VAS scores (±SD) of 1.30 ± 1.22 and 1.28 ± 0.83, respectively (P = .95). The cost of the treatment in the N group was much less than in the P group. Participants in the N group were less likely to use pain killers: 20% and 44% in the N and P groups, respectively (P = .006) in the first month and only 5% and 17% (P = .019) in the N and P groups, respectively, at the 3-month follow-up, and none of them used any analgesics at the 6-month follow-up. CONCLUSION: A continuous NET-A regimen is a well tolerated, effective, and inexpensive option for dysmenorrhea treatment and was as good as COC.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of abiraterone and sipuleucel-T in asymptomatic metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

Of patients diagnosed with prostate cancer, 0% to 20% experience disease progression to metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Recently, 4 novel therapies have been introduced for the treatment of mCRPC; of these, abiraterone and sipuleucel-T have been studied in the asymptomatic, pre-docetaxel population. Both have shown clinical benefits compared with placebo. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of abiraterone acetate and sipuleucel-T compared with prednisone in asymptomatic, pre-docetaxel mCRPC from a US societal perspective. A Markov model was constructed to simulate stable disease, progressed disease, and death. Survival and event rates were derived from published clinical trial data. Costs were derived from the literature and government reimbursement schedules. Outcomes were measured as average cost-effectiveness ratios (ACERs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), and net monetary benefits (NMBs). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the robustness of the model. The base-case ACER was $114K/quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) for abiraterone, $85K/QALY for sipuleucel-T, and $31K/QALY for prednisone. The base-case ICER was $389K/QALY for abiraterone and $547K/QALY for sipuleucel-T. Prednisone dominates both abiraterone and sipuleucel-T in terms of NMB at willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds of $400K or less. One-way sensitivity analyses revealed that the model was most sensitive to overall survival and utility inputs. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed abiraterone to be cost-effective 50% or more of the time at a WTP of greater than $400K, whereas sipuleucel-T was cost-effective 50% or more of the time at a WTP of greater than $270K. Neither abiraterone nor sipuleucel-T was found to be cost-effective compared with prednisone in the treatment of asymptomatic, pre-docetaxel mCRPC.

New therapeutic options in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: Can cost-effectiveness analysis help in treatment decisions?

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of abiraterone, cabazitaxel, and enzalutamide compared to placebo for treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A decision-tree model compared three treatment options for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients over 18 months from a societal perspective in 2012 USD. Chance nodes included baseline pain as a severity indicator, significant adverse effects (neutropenia, cardiac events, or seizures), and survival. Probabilities, survival rates, and health utilities were from clinical trials (COU-AA, TROPIC, and AFFIRM) and other published studies. Survival of enzalutamide was adjusted to match placebo groups across trials. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses, acceptability curves and net benefit calculations were performed. RESULTS: Abiraterone was the most cost-effective of the treatments ($123.4 K/quality-adjusted life year) compared to placebo, enzalutamide was $437.6 K/quality-adjusted life year compared to abiraterone, and cabazitaxel was $351.9 K/quality-adjusted life year compared to enzalutamide. Enzalutamide and cabazitaxel were not cost-effective compared to placebo at $154.3 K/quality-adjusted life year and $163.2 K/quality-adjusted life year, respectively. Acceptability curves showed abiraterone was cost-effective 29.3% of the time with a willingness to pay threshold of $100 K. The model was sensitive to changes in cost of the drugs, life expectancy, and survival rate. Sensitivity analysis shows that enzalutamide can become the most cost-effective option if the price of the medication decreased by 26% and other drug costs remained the same. CONCLUSION: Based on the cost-effective analysis, and survival adjustments necessary to match placebo groups, we would recommend abiraterone for treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer despite not quite falling under the usually accepted willingness to pay threshold. Further analysis should examine comparative survival across the three drugs.

Use of drospirenone/ethinyl estradiol (DRSP/EE) among women with acne reduces acne treatment-related resources.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Acne is a common dermatologic condition that extends into middle age, particularly among women, and is associated with substantial healthcare resource utilization. Drospirenone (DRSP), a synthetic progestin, has anti-androgenic activity, and women using DRSP 3.0 mg/ethinyl estradiol (EE) 0.02 mg as a 24/4 regimen (DRSP/EE-24/4) for contraception also may use it for treatment of moderate acne. The study used a US national healthcare database to assess acne-related healthcare resource utilization among women aged 18-45 years before (pre-index) and after (post-index) initiation of DRSP/EE-24/4. METHODS: Resource utilization and costs were evaluated by age group (18-25, 26-35, or 36-45 years) and by type of acne medication (systemic antibiotic, topical, or anti-androgen). RESULTS: Data for 1340 women were evaluated. Overall, drug costs, medical costs, and total costs were decreased by 38%, 37%, and 37%, respectively (p<0.0001 for all) between the pre-index and post-index periods; significant differences were evident across age groups and acne medication categories. Total costs were significantly decreased for patients (41%) and healthcare plans (36%; p<0.0001 for both) overall and across age groups and drug classes. Acne-related claims and number of days using acne medication were reduced (by 37% each; p<0.0001 for both). STUDY LIMITATIONS: The study was retrospective in design and had a limited follow-up period. Database limitations restricted assessment of medication compliance and adherence. CONCLUSION: DRSP/EE-24/4 use was associated with substantial reductions in acne-related healthcare resource utilization, and reductions occurred regardless of age or type of acne medication. DRSP/EE-24/4 therefore represents a cost-effective option for the treatment of acne among women using DRSP/EE-24/4 for oral contraception.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of treatments for premenstrual dysphoric disorder.

BACKGROUND: Premenstrual syndrome (PMS) is reported to affect between 13% and 31% of women. Between 3% and 8% of women are reported to meet criteria for the more severe form of PMS, premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD). Although PMDD has received increased attention in recent years, the cost effectiveness of treatments for PMDD remains unknown. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost effectiveness of the four medications with a US FDA-approved indication for PMDD: fluoxetine, sertraline, paroxetine and drospirenone plus ethinyl estradiol (DRSP/EE). METHODS: A decision-analytic model was used to evaluate both direct costs (medication and physician visits) and clinical outcomes (treatment success, failure and discontinuation). Medication costs were based on average wholesale prices of branded products; physician visit costs were obtained from a claims database study of PMDD patients and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Clinical outcome probabilities were derived from published clinical trials in PMDD. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated using the difference in costs and percentage of successfully treated patients at 6 months. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to assess the impact of uncertainty in parameter estimates. Threshold values where a change in the cost-effective strategy occurred were identified using a net benefit framework. RESULTS: Starting therapy with DRSP/EE dominated both sertraline and paroxetine, but not fluoxetine. The estimated ICER of initiating treatment with fluoxetine relative to DRSP/EE was $US4385 per treatment success (year 2007 values). Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves revealed that for ceiling ratios>or=$US3450 per treatment success, fluoxetine had the highest probability (>or=0.37) of being the most cost-effective treatment, relative to the other options. The cost-effectiveness acceptability frontier further indicated that DRSP/EE remained the option with the highest expected net monetary benefit for ceiling values

Drospirenone in HRT?

Drospirenone is a synthetic progestogen contained, with estradiol, in the hormone replacement therapy (HRT) product black triangle downAngeliq (Bayer Schering Pharma). This combination is licensed for the relief of oestrogen-deficiency symptoms in women who are at least 1 year postmenopausal.1 It is also licensed for prevention of osteoporosis in women at high risk of future fractures who are intolerant of, or have contraindications to, other medicinal products approved for the prevention of osteoporosis.1 It has also been suggested that drospirenone may have an antihypertensive effect.2 Here we discuss the place of this drug for women following a natural menopause.