A cost-effectiveness clinical decision analysis model for treatment of Schizophrenia.

BACKGROUND: Schizophrenia afflicts approximately 0.7% of Mexican citizens during their lifetime. This study explored whether the difference in clinical efficacy and safety between atypical antipsychotics and conventional neuroleptics results in decreases in use and cost of medical services in Mexico, offsetting the higher price of atypical antipsychotics. METHODS: A U.S. decision analytic Markov model was adapted for use in Mexico to determine cost-effectiveness of treatments and outcomes that Mexican patients with schizophrenia may experience over a 5-year period when treated with olanzapine, haloperidol, or risperidone. Model parameter estimates were based on clinical trial data, published medical literature, and where needed, clinician judgment. Direct medical costs were incorporated into the model and outcomes were estimated using lack of relapse and clinical outcomes based on the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) as effectiveness indicators. All costs are reported in Mexican pesos. RESULTS: Over a 5-year period, the cost of treating schizophrenia ranged from 196,620 pesos per patient initiating therapy with haloperidol to 226,670 pesos per patient beginning therapy with risperidone. Olanzapine was estimated to have slightly better non-relapse and BPRS-based effectiveness outcomes, but comparative total medical costs compared to risperidone. Patients receiving olanzapine experienced 13 and 2% fewer relapses compared with patients on haloperidol and risperidone, respectively. The 5-year incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of olanzapine compared with haloperidol was 52,740 pesos per improved patient, BPRS-based outcome and 212,540 pesos per avoided relapse. Sensitivity analyses indicated the model was sensitive only to changes in drug costs. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with haloperidol, olanzapine therapy results in improved symptoms, fewer relapses, and is cost-effective, even with conservative values for key model parameters. Olanzapine results in slightly improved patient outcomes and comparable costs compared with risperidone.

Cost effectiveness of treatment of Parkinson's disease with entacapone in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost effectiveness of adjunctive therapy with entacapone versus standard treatment (levodopa) without entacapone for patients in the US with Parkinson's disease (PD) who experience 'off-time' (re-emergence of the symptoms of PD) while receiving levodopa. STUDY DESIGN: A Markov model was used to estimate 5-year costs and effectiveness of standard treatment with and without entacapone. METHODS: Probabilities, unit costs, resource utilisation data and utilities were obtained from published literature, clinical trial reports, a national database, and clinical experts. PD disability was measured using the daily proportion of off-time and Hoehn and Yahr scale scores. The analysis measured costs from a societal and third-party payer perspective, and effectiveness as gains in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and years without progression to >25% off-time. RESULTS: From a societal perspective, entacapone therapy resulted in an incremental cost of US dollars 9327 per QALY gained compared with standard treatment. Treatment with entacapone also provided an additional 7.6 months with < or =25% off-time/day compared with standard treatment. Sensitivity analyses indicated that the model is sensitive to changes in rates of improvement/deterioration of off-time, and to the number of doses per day of levodopa with adjunctive entacapone. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of entacapone to standard treatment for patients receiving levodopa who experience off-time provides additional QALYs and gain in time with minimal fluctuations. Results of this modelling exercise suggest that therapy with entacapone may be cost effective when compared with standard treatment for PD.

Cost-effectiveness of gemifloxacin: results from the GLOBE study.

The cost-effectiveness of treatment with oral gemifloxacin versus oral clarithromycin for acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis (AECB) was evaluated. Economic outcomes were assessed for the Gemifloxacin Long-term Outcomes in Bronchitis Exacerbations study. This prospective double-blind, controlled, health outcomes study compared health, economic, and clinical outcomes after randomized treatment with either oral gemifloxacin or oral clarithromycin for AECB. Base case analysis was performed from the third-party payer's perspective and considered the costs of respiratory tract infection-related medical care. Analysis from the societal perspective also included costs of lost productivity. Treatment effectiveness was measured as the proportion of patients without recurrence requiring antimicrobial treatment following resolution of the initial AECB. Data sources included the outcomes study itself and standard U.S. cost sources. Compared with clarithromycin, gemifloxacin treatment resulted in significantly more patients without AECB recurrence requiring antimicrobial treatment after 26 weeks (73.8% versus 63.8%, p = 0.024). Fewer patients receiving gemifloxacin were hospitalized (5 of 214 patients versus 14 of 224 patients, p = 0.059), and they had less time off from usual activities (8.3 days versus 10.1 days). The mean direct cost per patient receiving gemifloxacin was $127 less than with clarithromycin ($247 versus $374, respectively); mean total costs (direct plus indirect) per patient were $329 less for patients receiving gemifloxacin ($1413 versus $1742). Gemifloxacin dominated clarithromycin in cost-effectiveness analysis. Bootstrap analysis indicated that the probability of gemifloxacin being both cost saving and more effective than clarithromycin is 88% from a payer's perspective and 84% from the societal perspective. Gemifloxacin was more cost-effective, improving AECB outcomes and producing substantial cost offsets compared with clarithromycin.

Utility assessments of opioid treatment for chronic pain.

OBJECTIVE: The primary study objective was to assess preferences for pain treatment outcomes among patients with cancer and noncancer chronic pain. A secondary objective was to assess their quality of life. METHODS: Patients with cancer or noncancer chronic pain completed an interview using a computer to estimate utilities, or preference ratings, for health states related to pain treatment. The interview was devised using conjoint analysis methodology. Health states were characterized by four attributes (effectiveness of pain control, side effects, side effect severity, and opioid route of administration) and their levels, and each was assumed to last for a 14-day period. Participants also completed health-related quality of life and demographic questionnaires. RESULTS: Mean preference ratings for participants with noncancer chronic pain (N = 96) ranged from a high of 0.87 (well-controlled pain with no side effects) to a low of 0.18 (poorly controlled pain with severe mood changes/alterations, severe respiratory depression, or severe vomiting). Mean preference ratings for participants with cancer pain (N = 25) were similar and ranged from a high of 0.89 (well-controlled pain with no side effects) to a low of 0.19 (poorly controlled pain with severe respiratory depression or severe vomiting). Results confirmed previous findings that chronic pain has a severe, multidimensional impact on patients, and that the quality of life of persons with chronic pain is among the lowest observed for any medical condition. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides a valuable assessment, from the patient's perspective, of the balance between treatment tolerability and manifestation of disease symptoms. Heightened awareness of patients' preferences for treatment outcomes may lead to improved selection of treatments, better adherence, and ultimate treatment success.