Cost-effectiveness study of therapeutic approaches for mucosal leishmaniasis.

This study aimed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of four therapeutic approaches available for mucosal leishmaniasis in Brazil: miltefosine, meglumine antimoniate, combined with and without pentoxifylline, and liposomal amphotericin B. The perspective adopted was that of the Brazilian Unified National Health System (SUS). The outcome of interest was "cured patient", which was analyzed using a decision tree model. Estimates of direct costs and effectiveness were obtained from the scientific literature. Meglumine antimoniate alone was the base comparator strategy; liposomal amphotericin B showed an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of USD 7,409.13 per cured patient, and the combination of meglumine antimoniate with pentoxifylline presented an ICER of USD 85.13. Miltefosine was absolutely dominated, with higher cost and similar effectiveness when compared to meglumine antimoniate. Sensitivity analyses, varying the cost by ±25%, did not change the results. However, when the cost of miltefosine was estimated at less than USD 171.23, this strategy was dominant over meglumine antimoniate alone. The results confirm that treatment with liposomal amphotericin B remains the option with the highest ICER among the approaches analyzed. Miltefosine may be cost-effective based on the variation in the acquisition price, which deserves attention because it is the only available oral option. The non-accounting of other aspects prevent the use of these results immediately to support decision-making, but they point out the need to negotiate the prices of drugs available for mucosal leishmaniasis and indicates the need of encouraging technology transfer or other actions aimed at expanding the performance of the Brazilian national industrial complex.

Lutetium oxodotreotide (177Lu-Dotatate) for the treatment of unresectable or metastatic progressive gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: a cost-effectiveness analysis for Scotland.

BACKGROUND: Gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NETs) represent a heterogenous group of tumors. Findings from the phase III NETTER-1 trial showed that treatment of unresectable/metastatic progressive gastrointestinal (GI) NETs with 177Lu-Dotatate resulted in a significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) compared with best supportive care (BSC) with high dose octreotide long-acting repeatable (LAR) 60 mg. A health economic analysis was performed using input data from clinical studies and data derived from an indirect comparison to determine the cost-effectiveness of 177Lu-Dotatate in the treatment of GI-NETs and pancreatic NETs (P-NETs) in Scotland. METHODS: Cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from the payer perspective using a three-state partitioned survival model. In the base case 177Lu-Dotatate was compared with BSC in gastrointestinal (GI)-NETs using clinical data from the NETTER-1 trial. A secondary analysis comparing 177Lu-Dotatate with BSC, everolimus or sunitinib in patients with P-NETs was also performed using hazard ratios inferred from indirect comparisons. The base case analysis was performed over a 20-year time horizon with an annual discount rate of 3.5% for both costs and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: For unresectable/metastatic progressive GI-NETs treatment with 177Lu-Dotatate led to a gain in quality-adjusted life expectancy of 1.33 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) compared with BSC due to extended PFS and OS. Mean total lifetime costs were GBP 35,701 higher with 177Lu-Dotatate, leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of GBP 26,830 per QALY gained. In analyses in patients with P-NETs 177Lu-Dotatate was associated with ICERs below GBP 30,000 per QALY gained in comparisons with BSC, sunitinib and everolimus. CONCLUSIONS: Cost-effectiveness analyses demonstrated that, in Scotland, from the payer perspective, 177Lu-Dotatate at the set acquisition cost is a cost-effective treatment option for patients with unresectable or metastatic progressive GI-NETs or P-NETs.

Conservative gadolinium administration to patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy: decreasing exposure, cost, and time, without change in medical management.

Cardiac MR (CMR) is increasingly used to assess for cardiac involvement in patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD). The frequent use of gadolinium based contrast agents (GBCAs) has been called into question with reports of intracranial gadolinium deposition in patients receiving multiple administrations. We adopted a conservative GBCA administration policy, limiting the frequency of GBCA exposure in patients with previously documented late gadolinium enhancement. The aim of our study was to evaluate the clinical effects of this policy change. Data were retrospectively reviewed on 405 consecutive patients with DMD who underwent CMR evaluation. Patients were grouped into conservative GBCA administration or historical control. CMR reports were evaluated and clinical reports were reviewed to determine actionable changes. Ohio Medicaid reimbursements were used to estimate costs. A total of 187 patients comprised the conservative GBCA group and 218 patients the historical cohort. The conservative GBCA group had lower contrast administration rates (84% vs. 99%, p < 0.0001), shorter scan times (35.2 vs. 39.0 min, p < 0.0001), and lower estimated medical costs ($339 vs. $351/study). There was no change regarding the initial presence of first-time late gadolinium enhancement, and no difference in actionable change. Contrast administration substantially decreased 7 months post-policy change (65%) compared to the initial 7 months (96%, p < 0.0001). In the current era with unclear concern for intracranial gadolinium deposition, thoughtful GBCA administration is warranted in patients anticipated to undergo multiple CMRs. Our updated approach has resulted in fewer patients receiving contrast, shorter scan times, and less medical costs, without appreciable changes to patient management.

Increased Cost With Use of Brand-Name Bowel Preparation by Patients With Medicare Part D From 2013 to 2015.

High-quality bowel preparation (prep) before colonoscopy is essential for the success of the procedure.1 Bowel preps should be safe, tolerable, efficacious, and allow for visualization of polyps 5 mm or larger.2 Full-volume (4 L) polyethylene glycol-3350 with electrolyte solution (PEG-ELS) has been considered a standard bowel prep regimen, with good safety and efficacy profiles, and is available as a generic.2.

Comparison the cost-efficacy of furazolidone-based versus clarithromycin-based quadruple therapy in initial treatment of Helicobacter pylori infection in a variable clarithromycin drug-resistant region, a single-center, prospective, randomized, open-label study.

Helicobacter pylori (Hp) drug resistant rate to clarithromycin (CLA) has increased to 20% to 50%, which cause concerns regarding its effectiveness in eradicating Hp, we aim to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of CLA-based versus furazolidone (FZD)-based quadruple therapy, and assess factors that affect anti-Hp efficacy.One hundred eighty-five patients were enrolled in this single-center, prospective, randomized, open-label study. In FZD group, 92 patients were treated with FZD plus esomeprazole, bismuth potassium citrate, and amoxicillin for 14 days. In CLA group, 93 patients were treated with the same regimen except FZD was replaced by CLA. Patients were tested 4 weeks post-treatment to confirm eradication.Of the 185 enrolled patients, 180 completed the study. On intention-to-treat analysis, Hp eradication rates in FZD and CLA groups were 90.22% and 86.02% (P = .378); in per-protocol analysis, their eradication rates were 93.26% and 87.91%, respectively (P = .220). Overall incidence of total side effects in FZD and CLA groups was 19.57% and 13.98%, and their severe side effects were 3.26% and 2.15%, respectively (P > .05). Cost-effectiveness ratios of FZD and CLA groups were 0.75 and 1.02, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of FZD group over CLA group was -3.62. Eradication failures were not associated with factors including gender, age, body mass index, smoking, alcohol consumption, educational level, and urban-rural distribution in this observation (P > .05).Despite increasing drug resistance to CLA, Hp eradication rates in FZD and CLA groups have no significant difference at present; as FZD-based quadruple therapy is more cost-effective, we recommend this regimen be a first-line choice for Hp eradication.

Everolimus, lutetium-177 DOTATATE and sunitinib for advanced, unresectable or metastatic neuroendocrine tumours with disease progression: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Neuroendocrine tumours (NETs) are a group of heterogeneous cancers that develop in cells in the diffuse neuroendocrine system. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the clinical effectiveness of three interventions [everolimus (Afinitor®; Novartis International AG, Basel, Switzerland), lutetium-177 DOTATATE (177Lu-DOTATATE) (Lutathera®; Imaging Equipment Ltd, Radstock, UK) and sunitinib (Sutent®; Pfizer Inc., New York, NY, USA)] for treating unresectable or metastatic NETs with disease progression and establish the cost-effectiveness of these interventions. DATA SOURCES: The following databases were searched from inception to May 2016: MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, MEDLINE Daily, Epub Ahead of Print, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Web of Science. REVIEW METHODS: We systematically reviewed the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness literature on everolimus, 177Lu-DOTATATE and sunitinib for treating advanced, unresectable or metastatic progressive NETs. The following NET locations were considered separately: pancreas, gastrointestinal (GI) tract and lung, and GI tract (midgut only). We wrote a survival partition cohort-based economic evaluation in Microsoft Excel® 2013 (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, USA) from the UK NHS and Personal Social Services perspective. This comprised three health states: (1) progression-free survival (PFS), (2) progressed disease and (3) death. RESULTS: Three randomised controlled trials (RCTs), RADIANT-3 [RAD001 in Advanced Neuroendocrine Tumors, Third Trial; pancreatic NETs (pNETs): everolimus vs. best supportive care (BSC)], A6181111 (pNETs: sunitinib vs. BSC) and RADIANT-4 (RAD001 in Advanced Neuroendocrine Tumors, Fourth Trial; GI and lung NETs: everolimus vs. BSC), met the inclusion criteria for the clinical effectiveness systematic review. The risk of bias was low. Although the NETTER-1 (Neuroendocrine Tumors Therapy) RCT, of 177Lu-DOTATATE plus 30 mg of octreotide (Sandostatin®, Novartis) compared with 60 mg of octreotide, was excluded from the review, we nonetheless present the results of this trial, as it informs our estimate of the cost-effectiveness of 177Lu-DOTATATE. The pNETs trials consistently found that the interventions improved PFS and overall survival (OS) compared with BSC. Our indirect comparison found no significant difference in PFS between everolimus and sunitinib. Estimates of OS gain were confounded because of high rates of treatment switching. After adjustment, our indirect comparison suggested a lower, but non-significant, hazard of death for sunitinib compared with everolimus. In GI and lung NETs, everolimus significantly improved PFS compared with BSC and showed a non-significant trend towards improved OS compared with BSC. Adverse events were more commonly reported following treatment with targeted interventions than after treatment with BSC. In the base case for pNETs, assuming list prices, we estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for everolimus compared with BSC of £45,493 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and for sunitinib compared with BSC of £20,717 per QALY. These ICERs increased substantially without the adjustment for treatment switching. For GI and lung NETs, we estimated an ICER for everolimus compared with BSC of £44,557 per QALY. For GI (midgut) NETs, the ICERs were £199,233 per QALY for everolimus compared with BSC and £62,158 per QALY for a scenario analysis comparing 177Lu-DOTATATE with BSC. We judge that no treatment meets the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's (NICE) end-of-life criteria, although we cannot rule out that sunitinib in the A6181111 trial does. LIMITATIONS: A RCT with included comparators was not identified for 177Lu-DOTATATE. The indirect treatment comparison that our economic analysis was based on was of a simple Bucher type, unadjusted for any differences in the baseline characteristics across the two trials. CONCLUSIONS: Given NICE's current stated range of £20,000-30,000 per QALY for the cost-effectiveness threshold, based on list prices, only sunitinib might be considered good value for money in England and Wales. FUTURE WORK: Further analysis of individual patient data from RADIANT-3 would allow assessment of the robustness of our findings. The data were not made available to us by the company sponsoring the trial. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016041303. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Comparisons of Efficacy, Safety, and Cost of Chemotherapy Regimens FOLFOX4 and FOLFIRINOX in Rectal Cancer: A Randomized, Multicenter Study.

BACKGROUND The currently available chemotherapeutic regimens do not use a specifically designed drug delivery system. The objective of this study was to compare outcome measures, adverse effects, and cost of FOLFOX4 and FOLFIRINOX treatments in rectal cancer patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS We enrolled patients who, after surgery, did not undergo chemotherapy or radiotherapy (Control group); were administered 200 mg/m² folinic acid, 400 mg/m² fluorouracil, and 85 mg/m² oxaliplatin (FFO group); or were administered 400 mg/m² folinic acid, 400 mg/m² fluorouracil, 180 mg/m² irinotecan, and 85 mg/m2 oxaliplatin (FFIO group). We recorded tumor and nodal staging, carbohydrate antigen 19-9, serum carcinoembryonic antigen, total cost of treatment, disease recurrence, overall survival, and adverse effects. We used the 2-tailed paired t test following Turkey post hoc test for adverse effects, recurrence analysis, and cost of treatment at 95% of confidence level. RESULTS Surgery (p=0.00089), FOLFOX4 (p=0.000167), and FOLFIRINOX (p=0.00013) improved disease-free conditions. Only surgery failed to maintain carbohydrate antigen and carcinoembryonic antigen 19-9 levels. The cost of chemotherapeutic treatments was in the order of FFIO group > FFO group > Control group. Non-fatal treatment-emergent adverse effects were due to chemotherapeutic drugs. However, fatal chemotherapeutic treatment-emergent adverse effects were observed only in the FFIO group. Overall survival, irrespective of cancerous condition, was higher in the FFO group. CONCLUSIONS FOLFIRINOX had less total cancer recurrence than FOLFOX4. However, FOLFIRINOX had more fatal treatment-emergent adverse effects and excessive cost of treatment than FOLFOX4 regimen.

Comprehensive economic evaluation of thermotherapy for the treatment of cutaneous leishmaniasis in Colombia.

BACKGROUND: Cutaneous leishmaniasis causes a high disease burden in Colombia, and available treatments present systemic toxicity, low patient compliance, contraindications, and high costs. The purpose of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of thermotherapy versus Glucantime in patients with cutaneous leishmaniasis in Colombia. METHODS: Cost-effectiveness study from an institutional perspective in 8133 incident cases. Data on therapeutic efficacy and safety were included, calculating standard costs; the outcomes were disability adjusted life years (DALYs) and the number of patients cured. The information sources were the Colombian Public Health Surveillance System, disease burden studies, and one meta-analysis of controlled clinical trials. Incremental cost-effectiveness was determined, and uncertainty was evaluated with tornado diagrams and Monte Carlo simulations. RESULTS: Thermotherapy would generate costs of US$ 501,621; the handling of adverse effects, US$ 29,224; and therapeutic failures, US$ 300,053. For Glucantime, these costs would be US$ 2,731,276, US$ 58,254, and US$ 406,298, respectively. With thermotherapy, the cost would be US$ 2062 per DALY averted and US$ 69 per patient cured; with Glucantime, the cost would be US$ 4241 per DALY averted and US$ 85 per patient cured. In Monte Carlo simulations, thermotherapy was the dominant strategy for DALYs averted in 67.9% of cases and highly cost-effective for patients cured in 72%. CONCLUSION: In Colombia, thermotherapy can be included as a cost-effective strategy for the management of cutaneous leishmaniasis. Its incorporation into clinical practice guidelines could represent savings of approximately US$ 10,488 per DALY averted and costs of US$ 116 per additional patient cured, compared to the use of Glucantime. These findings show the relevance of the incorporation of this treatment in our country and others with similar parasitological, clinical, and epidemiological patterns.

The direct costs of treating human visceral leishmaniasis in Brazil.

INTRODUCTION:: The drugs available for visceral leishmaniasis (VL) treatment in Brazil have specific characteristics in terms of operability, effectiveness, toxicity, and cost. The aim of this study was to estimate the direct costs of therapies recommended by the Ministry of Health (MH) for VL treatment in Brazil. METHODS:: The analytical perspective used was that adopted by the Brazilian Public Health System. Three drugs and four regimens were included: 1) N-methyl glucamine antimoniate intramuscularly at 20mg per kg per day for 30 days; 2) N-methyl glucamine antimoniate intravenously at 20mg per kg per day for 30 days; 3) amphotericin B deoxycholate at 1mg per kg per day for 21 days; and 4) liposomal amphotericin B at 3mg per kg per day for a 7 days treatment. RESULTS:: The estimated direct costs of treatment for an adult patient using N-methylglucamine antimoniate administered via the intramuscular and intravenous routes were USD 418.52 and USD 669.40, respectively. The estimated cost of treatment with amphotericin B deoxycholate was USD 1,522.70. Finally, the estimated costs of treatment with liposomal amphotericin B were USD 659.79, and USD 11,559.15 using the price adopted by the WHO and the Drug Regulation Board, respectively. CONCLUSIONS:: This analysis indicates the economic feasibility of replacing N-methyl glucamine antimoniate with liposomal amphotericin B, which allows a shorter treatment period with less toxicity compared with other treatments, provided that the purchase value used by the WHO and transferred to the MH is maintained.

The direct costs of treating human visceral leishmaniasis in Brazil

Abstract INTRODUCTION: The drugs available for visceral leishmaniasis (VL) treatment in Brazil have specific characteristics in terms of operability, effectiveness, toxicity, and cost. The aim of this study was to estimate the direct costs of therapies recommended by the Ministry of Health (MH) for VL treatment in Brazil. METHODS: The analytical perspective used was that adopted by the Brazilian Public Health System. Three drugs and four regimens were included: 1) N-methyl glucamine antimoniate intramuscularly at 20mg per kg per day for 30 days; 2) N-methyl glucamine antimoniate intravenously at 20mg per kg per day for 30 days; 3) amphotericin B deoxycholate at 1mg per kg per day for 21 days; and 4) liposomal amphotericin B at 3mg per kg per day for a 7 days treatment. RESULTS: The estimated direct costs of treatment for an adult patient using N-methylglucamine antimoniate administered via the intramuscular and intravenous routes were USD 418.52 and USD 669.40, respectively. The estimated cost of treatment with amphotericin B deoxycholate was USD 1,522.70. Finally, the estimated costs of treatment with liposomal amphotericin B were USD 659.79, and USD 11,559.15 using the price adopted by the WHO and the Drug Regulation Board, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis indicates the economic feasibility of replacing N-methyl glucamine antimoniate with liposomal amphotericin B, which allows a shorter treatment period with less toxicity compared with other treatments, provided that the purchase value used by the WHO and transferred to the MH is maintained.

Cost-effectiveness of meglumine antimoniate versus miltefosine caregiver DOT for the treatment of pediatric cutaneous leishmaniasis.

BACKGROUND: Oral miltefosine has been shown to be non-inferior to first-line, injectable meglumine antimoniate (MA) for the treatment of cutaneous leishmaniasis (CL) in children. Miltefosine may be administered via in-home caregiver Directly Observed Therapy (cDOT), while patients must travel to clinics to receive MA. We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing miltefosine by cDOT versus MA for pediatric CL in southwest Colombia. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPLE FINDINGS: We developed a Monte Carlo model comparing the cost-per-cure of miltefosine by cDOT compared to MA from patient, government payer, and societal perspectives (societal = sum of patient and government payer perspective costs). Drug effectiveness and adverse events were estimated from clinical trials. Healthcare utilization and costs of travel were obtained from surveys of providers and published sources. The primary outcome was cost-per-cure reported in 2015 USD. Treatment efficacy, costs, and adherence were varied in sensitivity analysis to assess robustness of results. Treatment with miltefosine resulted in substantially lower cost-per-cure from a societal and patient perspective, and slightly higher cost-per-cure from a government payer perspective compared to MA. Mean societal cost-per-cure were $531 (SD±$239) for MA and $188 (SD±$100) for miltefosine, a mean cost-per-cure difference of +$343. Mean cost-per-cure from a patient perspective were $442 (SD ±$233) for MA and $30 (SD±$16) for miltefosine, a mean difference of +$412. Mean cost-per-cure from a government perspective were $89 (SD±$55) for MA and $158 (SD±$98) for miltefosine, with a mean difference of -$69. Results were robust across a variety of assumptions in univariate and multi-way analysis. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Treatment of pediatric cutaneous leishmaniasis with miltefosine via cDOT is cost saving from patient and societal perspectives, and moderately more costly from the government payer perspective compared to treatment with MA. Results were robust over a range of sensitivity analyses. Lower drug price for miltefosine could result in cost saving from a government perspective.

Cost of Pediatric Visceral Leishmaniasis Care in Morocco.

BACKGROUND: Visceral leishmaniasis (VL) is a neglected parasitic disease that is fatal if left untreated. VL is endemic in Morocco and other countries in North Africa were it mainly affects children from rural areas. In Morocco, the direct observation of Leishmania parasites in bone marrow aspirates and serological tests are used to diagnose VL. Glucantime is the first line of treatment. The objective of this study was to report the costs associated to standard clinical management of pediatric VL from the provider perspective in Morocco. As a secondary objective we described the current clinical practices and the epidemiological characteristics of pediatric VL patients. METHODS: From March to June 2014 we conducted a survey in eight hospitals treating pediatric VL patients in Morocco. A pro-forma was used to collect demographic, clinical and management data from medical records. We specifically collected data on VL diagnosis and treatment. We also estimated the days of hospitalization and the time to start VL treatment. Costs were estimated by multiplying the use of resources in terms of number of days in hospital, tests performed and drugs provided by the official prices. For patients receiving part of their treatment at Primary Health Centers (PHC) we estimated the cost of administering the Glucantime as outpatient. We calculated the median cost per VL patient. We also estimated the cost of managing a VL case when different treatment strategies were applied: inpatient and outpatient. RESULTS: We obtained data from 127 VL patients. The median total cost per pediatric VL case in Morocco is 520 US$. The cost in hospitals applying an outpatient strategy is significantly lower (307 US$) than hospitals keeping the patients for the whole treatment (636 US$). However the outpatient strategy is not yet recommended as VL treatment for children in the Moroccan guidelines. VL diagnosis and treatment regimens should be standardized following the current guidelines in Morocco.

[The non-hormonal treatment of metastatic prostate cancer]. / Le traitement non hormonal de la maladie métastatique du cancer de la prostate.

AIM: To describe drugs used in the non-hormonal treatment of metastatic prostate cancer. MATERIAL: Bibliographical search was performed from the database Medline (National Library of Medicine, PubMed) and websites of the HAS and the ANSM. The search was focused on the characteristics, the mode of action, the efficiency and the side effects of the various drugs concerned. RESULTS: The metabolic radiotherapy although under-used for this indication, kept a place at the beginning of the disease. Radium-223 chloride seems to have to occupy an important place in the coming years. The chemotherapy, the only recourse until very recently in the castration-resistant prostate cancer, must redefine its place partially. The denosumab provide an interesting alternative to bisphosphonates. CONCLUSION: The non-hormonal treatment of the metastatic disease of the prostate cancer is changing rapidly with the emergence of new molecules. Urologist must know perfectly these new drugs.

Bismuth salicylate for diarrhea in children.

QUESTION: Recently, I had a visit from a 5-year-old patient who had been given bismuth subsalicylate for a diarrheal illness by a local family physician during a trip to South America. Is this a practice we should encourage? ANSWER: Research from developing countries has found the use of bismuth subsalicylate to be effective in shortening the duration of diarrheal illness. Despite these findings, its limited effectiveness and concerns about it potentially causing Reye syndrome, compliance, and cost are the key reasons it is not routinely recommended for children.

Budget-impact model for colonoscopy cost calculation and comparison between 2 litre PEG+ASC and sodium picosulphate with magnesium citrate or sodium phosphate oral bowel cleansing agents.

OBJECTIVE: With the availability of several bowel cleansing agents, physicians and hospitals performing colonoscopies will often base their choice of cleansing agent purely on acquisition cost. Therefore, an easy to use budget impact model has been developed and established as a tool to compare total colon preparation costs between different established bowel cleansing agents. METHODS: The model was programmed in Excel and designed as a questionnaire evaluating information on treatment costs for a range of established bowel cleansing products. The sum of costs is based on National Health Service reference costs for bowel cleansing products. Estimations are made for savings achievable when using a 2-litre polyethylene glycol with ascorbate components solution (PEG+ASC) in place of other bowel cleansing solutions. Test data were entered into the model to confirm validity and sensitivity. The model was then applied to a set of audit cost data from a major hospital colonoscopy unit in the UK. RESULTS: Descriptive analysis of the test data showed that the main cost drivers in the colonoscopy process are the procedure costs and costs for bed days rather than drug acquisition costs, irrespective of the cleansing agent. Audit data from a colonoscopy unit in the UK confirmed the finding with a saving of £107,000 per year in favour of PEG+ASC when compared to sodium picosulphate with magnesium citrate solution (NaPic+MgCit). For every patient group the model calculated overall cost savings. This was irrespective of the higher drug expenditure associated with the use of PEG+ASC for bowel preparation. Savings were mainly realized through reduced costs for repeat colonoscopy procedures and associated costs, such as inpatient length of stay. CONCLUSIONS: The budget impact model demonstrated that the primary cost driver was the procedure cost for colonoscopy. Savings can be realized through the use of PEG+ASC despite higher drug acquisition costs relative to the comparator products. From a global hospital funding perspective, the acquisition costs of bowel preparations should not be used as the primary reason to select the preferred treatment agent, but should be part of the consideration, with an emphasis on the clinical outcome.

Cost comparison of 111In-DTPA-octreotide scintigraphy and 68Ga-DOTATOC PET/CT for staging enteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours.

PURPOSE: Although somatostatin receptor positron emission tomography (PET)/CT is gaining increasing popularity and has shown its diagnostic superiority in several studies, (111)In-diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid (DTPA)-octreotide is still the current standard for diagnosis of neuroendocrine tumours (NET). The aim of this study was to compare the costs for the two diagnostic tests and the respective consequential costs. METHODS: From January 2009 to July 2009, 51 consecutive patients with enteropancreatic NET who underwent contrast-enhanced (68)Ga-DOTATOC PET/CT (n = 29) or (111)In-DTPA-octreotide (mean 3 whole-body scans plus 1.6 low-dose single photon emission computed tomography/CT; n = 22) were included. For cost analysis, direct costs (equipment) and variable costs (material, labour) per examination were calculated. Additionally required CT and/or MRI examinations within the staging process were assessed as consequential costs. An additional deterministic sensitivity analysis was performed. RESULTS: A (68)Ga-DOTATOC PET/CT examination yielded total costs (equipment, personnel and material costs) of 548 euro. On the other hand, an (111)In-DTPA-octreotide examination resulted in 827 euro total costs. Costs for equipment and material had a share of 460 euro/720 euro for (68)Ga-DOTATOC/(111)In-DTPA-octreotide and labour costs of 89 euro/106 euro. With (68)Ga-DOTATOC additional MRI had to be performed in 7% of the patients resulting in a mean of 20 euro for supplementary imaging per patient; 82% of patients with (111)In-DTPA-octreotide needed additional MRI and/or CT resulting in mean additional costs of 161 euro per patient. CONCLUSION: (68)Ga-DOTATOC PET/CT was considerably cheaper than (111)In-DTPA-octreotide with respect to both material and personnel costs. Furthermore, by using (68)Ga-DOTATOC PET/CT considerably fewer additional examinations were needed reducing the consequential costs significantly.

Cost-effectiveness of Denosumab for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis.

UNLABELLED: Denosumab is an injectable drug that reduces the risk of fractures. The objective was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of denosumab in a Swedish setting, also accounting for poor adherence to treatment. Denosumab is cost-effective, particularly for patients at high risk of fracture and low adherence to oral treatments. INTRODUCTION: Denosumab is a novel biologic agent developed for the treatment of osteoporosis and osteoporotic fractures that has been shown to reduce the risk of fractures in a phase III trial. The objective of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of denosumab from a societal perspective compared with generic alendronate, branded risedronate, strontium ranelate, and no treatment in a Swedish setting. METHODS: A Markov cohort model was used to estimate the cost-effectiveness of denosumab given for up to 5 years to a typical Swedish patient population (women aged 71 years, T-score ≤ -2.5 SD and a prevalence of morphometric vertebral fractures of 34%). The model included treatment persistence and residual effect after discontinuation assumed to be equal to the time on treatment. Persistence with the comparator treatments and with denosumab was derived from prescription data and a persistence study, respectively. RESULTS: The base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were estimated at €27,000, €12,000, €5,000, and €14,000, for denosumab compared with generic alendronate, risedronate, strontium ranelate, and no treatment, respectively. Sub-optimal persistence had the greatest impact in the comparison with generic alendronate, where the difference in drug cost was large. CONCLUSION: Improving persistence with osteoporosis treatment impacts positively on cost-effectiveness with a larger number of fractures avoided in the population targeted for treatment. Denosumab is a cost-effective alternative to oral osteoporosis treatments, particularly for patients at high risk of fracture and low expected adherence to oral treatments.