A cost-effectiveness evaluation of amlodipine usage in patients with coronary artery disease in Sweden.

The objective of this analysis was to calculate the cost-effectiveness of amlodipine therapy in patients with coronary artery disease in Sweden. It is hypothesised that treatment with amlodipine will have an impact on overall cardiovascular disease treatment costs, resulting in a positive cost-effectiveness profile. A Markov cohort simulation model was constructed to simulate event-related and procedure-related health economic outcomes of coronary artery disease populations on amlodipine versus those on placebo. Patient level data from the Prospective Evaluation of the Vascular Effects of Norvasc Trial was used to populate the model. The total number of adverse cardiovascular clinical outcomes experienced over a three-year period was lower for patient on amlodipine than for those on placebo. The rate of hospitalisation per patient due to angina, coronary artery bypass graft, percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty, congestive heart failure, and myocardial infarction in the placebo cohort was 64.7%, while the rate in the amlodipine cohort was 46.9%. The cost per patient was Swedish kroner (SEK)26,600 for amlodipine patients and SEK27,400 for placebo patients. The use of amlodipine resulted in improved clinical outcomes as well as a slight savings in cost over a three-year period.

A multinational pharmacoeconomic evaluation of acute major depressive disorder (MDD): a comparison of cost-effectiveness between venlafaxine, SSRIs and TCAs.

METHODS: We conducted a multinational pharmacoeconomic evaluation comparing the immediate release form of a new class of serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI), venlafaxine IR to the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and the tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) in the treatment of acute major depressive disorder (MDD) in 10 countries (Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, United States, and Venezuela). We designed a decision analytic model assessing the acute phase of MDD treatment within a 6-month time horizon. Six decision tree models were customized with country-specific estimates from a clinical management analysis, meta-analytic rates from two published meta-analyses, and a resource valuation of treatment costs representing the inpatient and outpatient settings within each country. The meta-analyses provided the clinical rates of success defined as a 50% reduction in depression scores on the Hamilton Depression Scale (HAM-D) or the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS). Treatment regimen costs were determined from standard lists, fee schedules, and communication with local health economists in each country. The meta-analytic rates were applied to the decision analytic model to calculate the expected cost and expected outcomes for each antidepressant comparator. Cost-effectiveness was determined using the expected values for both a successful outcome, and a composite measure of outcome termed symptom-free days. A policy analysis was conducted to examine the health system budget impact in each country of increasing the utilization of the most effective antidepressant found in our study. RESULTS: Initiating treatment of MDD with venlafaxine IR yielded a lower expected cost compared to the SSRIs and TCAs in all countries except Poland in the inpatient setting, and Italy and Poland within the outpatient settings. The weighted average expected cost per patient varied from US$632 (Poland) to US$5647 (US) in the six-month acute phase treatment of MDD. The estimated total budgetary impact for each 1% of venlafaxine utilization, assuming a population of one million MDD patients, ranged from US$1600 (Italy) to US$29,049 (US). CONCLUSIONS: Within the inpatient and outpatient treatment settings, venlafaxine IR was a more cost-effective treatment of MDD compared to the SSRIs and TCAs. Additionally, the results of this investigation indicate that increased utilization of venlafaxine in most settings across Europe and the Americas will have favorable impact on health care payer budgets. ADR, adverse drug reaction; CMA, clinical management analysis; ECT, electroconvulsive therapy; HAM-D, Hamilton Depression Scale; MADRS, Montgomery-Asberg depression rating scale; MDD, major depressive disorder; SFD, symptom-free day; SNRI, serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor; SSRI, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor; TCA, tricyclic antidepressant; WHO, world health organization.

The health economic impact of antidepressant usage from a payer's perspective: a multinational study.

A multinational decision analytic model was developed to examine the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) in 10 European and American countries. Input to the model was obtained from a meta-analysis of current clinical trial data obtained from the published literature, and local clinical and health economic experts in each market. The patient- and policy-level impact of MDD treatment was measured in each of the 10 markets. The total expected cost per patient for treating MDD with venlafaxine XR during the six-month acute phase of MDD was the lowest expected cost in nine of the 10 countries studied, resulting in savings to the primary payer in almost all markets. As well as the cost savings, the higher efficacy and lower rate of dropout found for venlafaxine XR translate to a greater number of symptom-free-days (SFDs) per patient. The results of this investigation show that use of venlafaxine XR in most settings across Europe and the Americas will have a favourable impact on healthcare payer budgets and the overall mental health of MDD patients.

The cost-effectiveness of doxazosin for the treatment of hypertension in type II diabetic patients in the UK and Italy.

The objective of this analysis was to assess the cost-effectiveness of achieving 'tight control' versus 'less tight control' of blood pressure, as defined in the UK Prospective Diabetics Study 38, in type II diabetic patients in the UK and Italy. The effect of including doxazosin in a 'tight control' combination therapy was analysed. Given doxazosin's positive impact on lipid levels in addition to its antihypertensive effect, it is hypothesised that treatment including doxazosin will reduce the incidence of macrovascular complications. For each country, a Markov model was constructed to simulate macrovascular outcomes of patients on various drug combinations. Transitional probabilities were based on the risk rates presented in UKPDS 38. Risk rates were adjusted for the ageing of the cohort and the lipid-lowering properties of doxazosin using Framingham risk equations. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranged from 2224 Pounds to 4867 Pounds (US$3225-7057) per life-year saved for the UK and from L1.8-9.3 million (US$818-4159) per life-year saved for Italy. Doxazosin is a cost-effective agent when included in a combination therapy in the treatment of hypertension in the diabetic populations of the UK and Italy.

A retrospective analysis comparing the costs and cost effectiveness of amlodipine and enalapril in the treatment of hypertension.

A comparison of treatment costs and cost effectiveness was performed retrospectively by using patient-level data from a randomized, controlled, one-year clinical trial of amlodipine and enalapril in the treatment of mild-to-moderate hypertension. Unit costs of amlodipine and enalapril were applied to the daily dosages of individual patients to calculate the total costs and average costs per patient in each treatment group in the clinical trial on an intent-to-treat basis. Efficacy rates were used to calculate the average treatment costs per success in blood pressure control. Although not statistically significant, amlodipine treatment resulted in a higher efficacy (89.5%) vs. enalapril (85.2%). The average costs per amlodipine-treated patient were consistently lower (-$112.30) than for the enalapril-treated patient by week 50. Treatment with amlodipine resulted in an average cost per success of $609 per patient compared with $772 per enalapril-treated patient. A sensitivity analysis revealed that, in the treatment of mild-to-moderate hypertension over the 50-week treatment period, amlodipine would remain less costly than enalapril, with a decrease in the cost of enalapril of up to 17%, and would remain more cost effective, with a 21% decrease in the cost of enalapril.

A pharmacoeconomic evaluation of two new products for the treatment of overactive bladder.

The objective of this study is to evaluate the cost effectiveness of two new treatments for overactive bladder: once-daily controlled-release oxybutynin, and twice-daily tolterodine, with a comparison with oxybutynin immediate release. Also estimated are the potential cost savings to a health plan budget resulting from increased utilization of the most cost-effective treatment. The design is a decision-tree model based on clinical trial data and expert panel estimates with a six-month time horizon conducted from a payer perspective. The primary outcome measure used in the analysis was treatment success, with success defined as zero incontinence episodes per week. A secondary outcome measure was the expected number of continent days. As first-line therapy, controlled-release oxybutynin is the most cost-effective treatment as measured by expected cost per success and expected cost per continent days. Controlled-release, once-daily oxybutynin yielded the highest expected success rate and the highest number of expected continent days. The expected cost of treatment with controlled-release oxybutynin was lower than tolterodine and equivalent to immediate-release oxybutynin. Increased utilization of controlled-release oxybutynin results in an estimated saving of $0.007 to $0.026 per member per month for a hypothetical HMO. The model was robust, incorporating all assumptions based on univariate and multivariate sensitivity analysis. Initiating treatment with controlled-release oxybutynin is the most cost-effective approach to treatment for overactive bladder.

The management of depression: the implications for managed care--roundtable discussion: Part 2.

One of the most commonly utilized drug classes today is antidepressant therapy, which accounts for billions of dollars in spending. Pharmacoeconomic tools may play an influential role in formulary decision making, particularly in this drug class. In part 2 of the roundtable discussion, a pharmacoeconomic model is presented that may clarify the health economic effects of placing serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors on the drug formulary, particularly in the context of other antidepressant medications.

Comparison of extended-release venlafaxine, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, and tricyclic antidepressants in the treatment of depression: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

The purpose of this study was to summarize and compare the clinical success rates of extended-release venlafaxine, some selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), and certain tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs). A meta-analytic approach was used to synthesize outcomes from published randomized controlled trials involving patients scoring > or =15 on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) or > or =18 on the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS). Searches of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts databases were performed, as were searches of references from retrieved articles and reviews. Drugs included in the comparison were extended-release venlafaxine (venlafaxine-XR); the SSRIs citalopram, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, paroxetine, and sertraline; and the TCAs amitriptyline, imipramine, desipramine, and nortriptyline. Therapeutic success was defined as a 50% decrease in the HAM-D or MADRS score. Data were extracted by 2 independent evaluators, with differences resolved through consensus discussions. Weighted mean success rates were calculated for each drug class, using a random-effects model. The resulting data represent 44 trials with 63 study arms and 4033 patients with depression. Venlafaxine-XR demonstrated a 73.7% success rate, which was statistically significantly greater than that of the studied SSRIs (61.1%) and TCAs (57.9%) (P<0.001). Thus this meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies of patients with depression suggests that venlafaxine-XR is clinically superior in efficacy to SSRIs and TCAs. Venlafaxine-XR also had universally lower, though nonsignificant, dropout rates.

The economic burden of irritable bowel syndrome in Canada.

In the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), medical practitioners and policymakers face the task of providing both high quality and cost effective medical care for a condition with no certain cure. To date, studies have examined only total medical costs to patients with symptoms consistent with an IBS diagnosis. However, these studies have not examined the direct and indirect costs incurred in the course of treatment for IBS, excluding the costs of unrelated medical conditions. Because patients with IBS have been shown to differ significantly from non-IBS patients in their desire to seek medical care, one cannot consider solely the cost differential in medical costs for IBS and non-IBS patients. The present study examines a set of patients who have been diagnosed with IBS and seek medical care for IBS.

A pharmacoeconomic evaluation of major depressive disorder (Italy).

OBJECTIVE: To determine the most cost-effective oral therapy for the treatment of Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) in Italy. METHOD: We conducted a pharmacoeconomic evaluation based on a decision analytic model that examined the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) in Italy. The analysis compared the serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI), venlafaxine extended-release (venlafaxine XR), to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs). A meta-analysis was performed to determine the clinical rates of success. The meta-analytic rates were applied to the decision analytic model to calculate the expected cost and expected outcomes for each anti-depressant comparator. Cost-effectiveness was determined using the expected values for both a successful outcome, and a composite measure of outcome termed 'symptom-free days'. A policy analysis was conducted to estimate the financial impact to the Servizio Sanitario Nazionale (SSN). RESULTS: Treatment of MDD with venlafaxine XR yielded the highest overall efficacy rates for outpatients (73.7%) versus SSRIs (61.4%) and TCAs (59.3%), and inpatients (62.3%) versus SSRIs (58.6%) and TCAs (58.2%). Venlafaxine XR had the lowest dropout rates due to lack of efficacy (4.8%) versus SSRIs (8.4%) and TCAs (6.8%), and adverse drug reactions (10.9%) versus SSRIs (17.4%) and TCAs (23.1%). Initiating treatment of MDD with venlafaxine XR yielded the lowest expected cost for outpatients and for inpatients. The total resulting savings for the SSN at a 5% venlafaxine XR utilization was estimated between L 963 million and L 3,210 million. CONCLUSION: This study confirms that venlafaxine XR is generally a cost-effective treatment of MDD. Additionally, the results of this investigation suggest that increased utilization of venlafaxine XR will favorably impact the SSN.

Full-cost determination of different levels of care in the intensive care unit. An activity-based costing approach.

We applied an activity-based costing methodology to determine the full cost of intensive care service at a community hospital, a university hospital and a health maintenance organisation (HMO)-affiliated hospital. A total of 5 patient care units were analysed: the intensive care unit (ICU) and surgical ICU (SICU) at the university setting, the ICU at the community setting, and the SICU and cardiac care unit at the HMO setting. The selection of the different ICU types was based on the types of critical care units that were found in each setting (e.g. the HMO did not have an ICU). Institution-specific cost data and clinical management parameters were collected through surveys and site visits from the 3 respective organisation types. The analysis revealed a marked increase in patient-minute cost associated with mechanical ventilation. Higher costs associated with prolonged neuromuscular blockade have important economic implications with respect to selection of an appropriate neuromuscular blocking agent.