Cost-utility of different treatment strategies after the failure of tumour necrosis factor inhibitor in rheumatoid arthritis in the Finnish setting.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-utility of different treatment strategies in severe RA after TNF-inhibitor failure. METHODS: The cost-effectiveness of treatment strategies was compared in a group of hypothetical Finnish RA patients. Initially, the patients received either best supportive care (BSC) or one of the following treatments before BSC: adalimumab (ADAL), abatacept (ABAT), etanercept (ETAN), infliximab (INFL) or rituximab (RTX). Further treatments were added to the most cost-effective strategy in a stepwise manner. The analysis was performed on an Excel-based Markov state transition model using the probabilistic approach. The clinical outcomes related to treatments were estimated from published clinical trials. The gained quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated based on Health Utilities Index (HUI-3) and disease severity scores (HAQ). The resource use and costs were obtained from the Finnish treatment practice, one published study, the Finnish Unit Cost list and Finnish Medicine Tariffs. RESULTS: Treatment with RTX was more effective and less costly than treatment with ADAL, ABAT or ETAN after TNF-inhibitor failure. An additional QALY gained with RTX costs 30,248 euros compared with BSC. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) are 50,941, 50,372, 36,121 and 67,003 euros per QALY gained for adding ADAL, ETAN, INFL and ABAT to the RTX strategy, respectively. According to the cost-effectiveness acceptability frontier (CEAF), only BSC or treatments with RTX or RTX followed by INFL should be considered after TNF-inhibitor failure, if willingness to pay is between 0 and 50,000 euros per QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with RTX is a cost-effective treatment strategy in RA patients in Finland.

Lifestyle intervention with weight reduction: first-line treatment in mild obstructive sleep apnea.

RATIONALE: Obesity is the most important risk factor for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). However, although included in clinical guidelines, no randomized controlled studies have been performed on the effects of weight reduction on mild OSA. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this prospective, randomized controlled parallel-group 1-year follow-up study was to determine whether a very low calorie diet (VLCD) with supervised lifestyle counseling could be an effective treatment for adults with mild OSA. METHODS: Seventy-two consecutive overweight patients (body mass index, 28-40) with mild OSA were recruited. The intervention group (n = 35) completed the VLCD program with supervised lifestyle modification, and the control group (n = 37) received routine lifestyle counseling. The apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) was the main objectively measured outcome variable. Change in symptoms and the 15D-Quality of Life tool were used as subjective measurements. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The lifestyle intervention was found to effectively reduce body weight (-10.7 +/- 6.5 kg; body mass index, -3.5 +/- 2.1 [mean +/- SD]). There was a statistically significant difference in the mean change in AHI between the study groups (P = 0.017). The adjusted odds ratio for having mild OSA was markedly lowered (odds ratio, 0.24 [95% confidence interval, 0.08-0.72]; P = 0.011) in the intervention group. All common symptoms related to OSA, and some features of 15D-Quality of Life improved after the lifestyle intervention. Changes in AHI were strongly associated with changes in weight and waist circumference. CONCLUSIONS: VLCD combined with active lifestyle counseling resulting in marked weight reduction is a feasible and effective treatment for the majority of patients with mild OSA, and the achieved beneficial outcomes are maintained at 1-year follow-up.

Costs and quality of life effects of the first year of renal replacement therapy in one Finnish treatment centre.

OBJECTIVE: The main objective of the study was to assess the cost and quality of life (QoL) effects of elective dialysis patients during the first year of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) treatment in one Finnish treatment centre. METHODS: A prospective case-series study was performed involving all elective dialysis patients (n=29) in a Finnish dialysis unit during 2003-2004. Direct costs of ESRD treatment were obtained from the hospital database and the Social Insurance Institution. The QoL effects were measured at the initiation of treatment, at 6 and at 12 months using 15D, a generic QoL instrument. RESULTS: The average cost of ESRD treatment was 69,085 euro. The improvement in the patients' QoL score was statistically and clinically significant during the first treatment year. The most significant changes were seen in the dimensions of breathing and vitality. The condition of patients commencing haemodialysis (HD) was more severe than that of patients commencing peritoneal dialysis (PD) as indicated by worse residual kidney function and poorer quality of life at the initiation. CONCLUSIONS: In this small patient population, treatment of ESRD during the first year seemed to improve or maintain the QoL of the patients.

Population-based health-economic evaluation of the secondary prevention of coronary heart disease in Finland.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of generic atorvastatin 20 mg (A20), branded rosuvastatin 10 mg (R10), generic simvastatin 40 mg (S40) and the combination of generic S40 + branded ezetimibe 10 mg (S40 + EZ10) for the secondary prevention of coronary heart disease (CHD) in Finnish patients not meeting the target goal of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) with S40. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A probabilistic Markov model was employed to evaluate the costs and health outcomes of the different therapies based on the cardiovascular events avoided. The model included Framingham risk equations, Finnish population characteristics, event rates, quality of life estimates, resource use and unit costs. The LDL-C lowering efficacies were gathered from a systematic literature review, based on a search of Medline carried out in June 2008 (no time limit). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained and incremental cost per life year gained (LYG). RESULTS: The efficacy (LDL-C decrease) gained from switching S40 to S40 + EZ10 was consistent in the literature review, whereas the LDL-C decrease gained from switching S40 to A20/R10 was uncertain. The incremental cost per QALY gained from switching generic S40 was lowest for S40 + EZ10 (22,841 euros [24,017 euros] and 26,595 euros [46,686 euros] for diabetic and non-diabetic men [women], respectively). The respective incremental cost per QALY gained for S40 + EZ10 vs. A20 were 19,738 euros (21,405 euros) and 23,596 euros (40,087 euros). A20 dominated R10. Based on the cost-effectiveness acceptability frontier with a willingness-to-pay value of 30,000 euros per QALY gained, the probability of cost-effectiveness for switching generic S40 to S40 + EZ10 was 100% for men and diabetic women. Sensitivity analyses showed that results were robust. CONCLUSIONS: In the Finnish secondary prevention population that is not at goal on S40, switching generic S40 to S40 + EZ10 is more cost-effective than switching S40 to generic A20 or R10.

Economic evaluation of sunitinib malate in second-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma in Finland.

BACKGROUND: Cytokine therapy is currently used as first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Until recently, treatments with proven efficacy after the failure of first-line cytokine therapy were not available. In recent clinical trials, sunitinib has been associated with good response rates in patients with mRCC. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to analyze the cost-effectiveness of sunitinib as second-line therapy for cytokine-refractory mRCC compared with current routine clinical practice in Finland (ie, best supportive care [BSC], including palliative biochemotherapy). METHODS: A probabilistic decision-analytic model was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of sunitinib. Data were gathered from clinical trials, literature sources, and expert opinions, as well as from a local sample (n = 39) from 2 university hospitals in Finland. Clinical experts treating patients with mRCC in Finland provided the information on care practices of prescribing sunitinib. The analysis was conducted from the perspective of the health care payer in Finland. RESULTS: According to estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), 1 progression-free month gained cost euro4802 (2005 Euros); 1 life-year gained cost euro30,831; and 1 quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained cost euro43,698, compared with BSC, in the treatment of mRCC. The expected mean cost in BSC was euro5543. When parameter uncertainty was considered, the probability of sunitinib being the more cost-effective choice of treatment was ~70% at the willingness-to-pay level of euro45,000/QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the results of this cost-effectiveness analysis, sunitinib is potentially cost-effective as a second-line treatment of mRCC compared with the treatment currently practiced in Finnish hospitals. The ICER (euro/QALY gained) obtained in the present study was less than the value considered suitable for novel oncology treatments.