Modelling the cost-effectiveness of pregabalin versus usual care in daily practice in the treatment of refractory generalised anxiety disorder in Spain.

PURPOSE: To model the cost-effectiveness (CEA) of the use of pregabalin versus usual care (UC) in outpatients with refractory generalised anxiety disorder (GAD) treated in daily practice in mental health settings in Spain. METHODS: This CEA model used data extracted from a 6-month prospective non-interventional trial: the Amplification of Definition of ANxiety (ADAN) study, which was conducted to determine the cost-of-illness in GAD subjects. Refractory subjects were those who reported persistent symptoms of anxiety and showed suboptimal response in the Hamilton-anxiety scale (HAM-A ≥ 16) after a standard dose regimen of anxiolytics other than pregabalin, alone or in combination, over 6 months. The pregabalin arm was documented with data extracted from patients who received pregabalin in the study for the first time, added or replacing the existing therapy. In the UC arm, treatment might include one or more of the following: a serotonin selective reuptake inhibitor, a serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor, other anti-depressants, a benzodiazepine or an anti-epileptic drug other than pregabalin. The time horizon of the modelling was 6 months in the base-case scenario, and the National Health System perspective was chosen to calculate costs. Effectiveness was expressed as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained, which were derived using the EQ-5D questionnaire, at baseline and end-of-trial visits. Results of the CEA model was expressed as an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per QALY gained. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis using bootstrapping techniques was also carried out to obtain the cost-effectiveness plane and the corresponding acceptability curve. RESULTS: Data from a total of 429 subjects per arm (mean HAM-A score 25.7) meeting eligible criteria for inclusion in CEA modelling were extracted from the original trial. Compared with UC, pregabalin (average dose 218 mg/day) was associated with significantly higher QALY gain; 0.1209 ± 0.1030 versus 0.0994 ± 0.0979 (P = 0.003), but increased healthcare costs as well; 1,272 ± 1,240 versus 1,070 ± 1,177 (P < 0.069) and drug costs 525 ± 252 versus 219 ± 211 (P < 0.001), resulting in an ICER of 15,804/QALY (95 % CI 6,661; 37,186) for healthcare costs and 15,165/QALY (7,947; 31,754) when drug costs were considered alone. A total of 94 % of re-samples fell below the threshold of 30,000 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: This evaluation modelling suggests that pregabalin may be cost-effective in comparison with UC in outpatients with refractory GAD treated in mental healthcare settings in daily practice in Spain.

Effect of visual art on patient anxiety and agitation in a mental health facility and implications for the business case.

There is a growing body of evidence on the impact of the environment on health and well-being. This study focuses on the impact of visual artworks on the well-being of psychiatric patients in a multi-purpose lounge of an acute care psychiatric unit. Well-being was measured by the rate of pro re nata (PRN) medication issued by nurses in response to visible signs of patient anxiety and agitation. Nurses were interviewed to get qualitative feedback on the patient response. Findings revealed that the ratio of PRN/patient census was significantly lower on the days when a realistic nature photograph was displayed, compared to the control condition (no art) and abstract art. Nurses reported that some patients displayed agitated behaviour in response to the abstract image. This study makes a case for the impact of visual art on mental well-being. The research findings were also translated into the time and money invested on PRN incidents, and annual cost savings of almost $US30,000 a year was projected. This research makes a case that simple environmental interventions like visual art can save the hospital costs of medication, and staff and pharmacy time, by providing a visual distraction that can alleviate anxiety and agitation in patients.

Survey of parental willingness to pay and willingness to stay for "painless" intravenous catheter placement.

OBJECTIVES: This study examined how much parents are willing to pay and/or willing to stay to make their child's intravenous (IV) catheter placement painless. METHODS: A prospective survey was conducted using a questionnaire administered to a consecutive sample of parents presenting to an emergency department (ED). Eligible subjects were parents accompanying a child 8 years of age or younger. A hypothetical visit to the ED, requiring an IV for their child, was described. Parents were asked if they would prefer to make the IV catheter placement painless and if so, how much of an increase in out-of-pocket cost (none, 15 dollars, and 100 dollars) and/or length of stay they would be willing to incur (no time, 15 minutes, 1 hour). Statistics were chiefly descriptive. Associations of demographic elements with willingness to pay and willingness to stay were analyzed using chi and t tests, where appropriate. RESULTS: One hundred eight subjects were available for analysis. Most parents were mothers (71%), white (53%), and with previous IVs (70%). Most children were boys (55%) with no previous IV placements (55%). The choice of a painless IV placement was independent of demographics and IV experience. Most parents (89%) chose a painless IV placement. Of these parents, 65% chose a willingness to stay of 1 extra hour, and 77% a willingness to pay at least 15 dollars; 37% of parents would pay 100 dollars. Willingness to pay was dependent on both income (P = 0.014) and ethnicity (P = 0.0013). Willingness to stay was independent of both income (P = 0.24) and ethnicity (P = 0.07). CONCLUSIONS: Parents are willing to spend both time and money to make their child's IV placement painless. This information should be considered when choosing therapies to reduce the pain of IV placement.

Mirtazapine is associated with less anxiolytic use among elderly depressed patients in long-term care facilities.

BACKGROUND: Depression is a common, treatable disorder among nursing facility residents. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to examine medication use and cost between two groups of patients: (1) persons treated with mirtazapine, as compared with (2) persons taking other antidepressants. DESIGN: This study was a retrospective chart review of long-term care patients. Consultant pharmacists collected data on patients who were receiving selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), venlafaxine, nefazodone, or mirtazapine. SETTING: Nursing facilities that were geographically dispersed throughout the United States. PARTICIPANTS: We studied patients greater than 65 years of age with major depressive disorder or a depression-related diagnosis and receiving antidepressant treatment for at least 3 months. Patients with bipolar-induced depression were excluded as well as those receiving tricyclic antidepressants. RESULTS: The two groups were similar in terms of age, but those receiving mirtazapine had lower body weight and body mass index. Patients on mirtazapine were less likely to be taking a sedative/hypnotic (P = 0.006). This was primarily the result of fewer patients in the mirtazapine group taking lorazepam (P = 0.03). There was no difference between the two groups regarding their use of other psychotropic medications, including multiple antidepressants, antipsychotics, anticonvulsants, acetylcholinesterase inhibitors, or appetite stimulants. Monthly medication costs were less for those patients receiving mirtazapine ($82.83) as compared with other antidepressants ($97.03) (P <0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest that patients receiving mirtazapine are less likely to be on anxiolytic/hypnotic agents. The findings also suggest that medication costs are less when mirtazapine is used compared with other antidepressants.