The Economic Burden of Pediatric Postconcussive Syndrome.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the direct costs of pediatric postconcussive syndrome (PCS). DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Subspecialty sports medicine clinics of a large pediatric tertiary care network in the United States. PATIENTS: One hundred fifty-four patients aged 5 to 18 years with PCS, evaluated between 2010 and 2011. ASSESSMENT OF INDEPENDENT VARIABLES: Direct costs included visits to sports medicine clinic, visio-vestibular therapy, homebound education, subspecialist referral, and prescription-only medications (amantadine and amitriptyline), all measured beginning at 28 days after injury. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Postconcussive syndrome was defined as persistence beyond 28 days from injury. RESULTS: The cost incurred by each PCS patient for sports medicine visits was $1575, for visio-vestibular therapy was $985, for homebound tutoring was $55, for prescription medications was $22, and for subspecialist referral was $120, totaling $3557 per patient, with a 95% confidence interval range of $2886 to $4257. CONCLUSIONS: Given the high economic costs of PCS determined in this study, therapies that mitigate this syndrome may have the potential to be cost-effective and even cost saving.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of interventions for migraine in four low- and middle-income countries.

BACKGROUND: Evidence of the cost and effects of interventions for reducing the global burden of migraine remains scarce. Our objective was to estimate the population-level cost-effectiveness of evidence-based migraine interventions and their contributions towards reducing current burden in low- and middle-income countries. METHODS: Using a standard WHO approach to cost-effectiveness analysis (CHOICE), we modelled core set intervention strategies for migraine, taking account of coverage and efficacy as well as non-adherence. The setting was primary health care including pharmacies. We modelled 26 intervention strategies implemented during 10 years. These included first-line acute and prophylactic drugs, and the expected consequences of adding consumer-education and provider-training. Total population-level costs and effectiveness (healthy life years [HLY] gained) were combined to form average and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. We executed runs of the model for the general populations of China, India, Russia and Zambia. RESULTS: Of the strategies considered, acute treatment of attacks with acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) was by far the most cost-effective and generated a HLY for less than US$ 100. Adding educational actions increased annual costs by 1-2 US cents per capita of the population. Cost-effectiveness ratios then became slightly less favourable but still less than US$ 100 per HLY gained for ASA. An incremental cost of > US$ 10,000 would have to be paid per extra HLY by adding a triptan in a stepped-care treatment paradigm. For prophylaxis, amitriptyline was more cost-effective than propranolol or topiramate. CONCLUSIONS: Self-management with simple analgesics was by far the most cost-effective strategy for migraine treatment in low- and middle-income countries and represents a highly efficient use of health resources. Consumer education and provider training are expected to accelerate progress towards desired levels of coverage and adherence, cost relatively little to implement, and can therefore be considered also economically attractive. Evidence-based interventions for migraine should have as much a claim on scarce health resources as those for other chronic, non-communicable conditions that impose a significant burden on societies.

Treatment costs of bladder pain syndrome/interstitial cystitis in Austria: a pharmacoeconomic approach following current guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Bladder pain syndrome/interstitial cystitis (BPS/IC) is a chronic disease with a significant impact on quality of life. A broad range of therapies are used to treat this condition, and patients are often excluded from receiving more expensive and more effective therapies because of cost issues. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the mid- and long-term costs (over 1, 5 and 10 years) of various therapies for BPS/IC. METHODS: Costs in an open-access health system (Austria) for three BPS/IC-specific therapies (intravesical hyaluronan, pentosanpolysulfate and amitriptyline), taken from the American Urological Association guidelines, were evaluated and compared with those of non-specific symptomatic therapies. Response rates for the different therapies were taken from peer-reviewed publications and used to define the need for therapy maintenance with regard to symptom improvement. RESULTS: Despite the highest initial costs, the reduced need for further therapy in patients with long-term symptom remission after hyaluronan therapy resulted in the lowest total treatment costs at all three timepoints. Hyaluronan was cost saving against all alternatives in standard assumptions and in all sensitivity analyses. As a limitation, treatment costs in this study are specific for Austria. However, the template used for calculation of treatment costs can be transferred to all countries by inserting local prices. CONCLUSION: Disease-specific therapies with high remission rates result in significantly lower long-term costs in BPS/IC. Non-specific symptomatic therapies are most expensive. Long-term cost effectiveness is crucial in the treatment of chronic diseases to limit expenses in individual healthcare systems.

Cost-effectiveness of duloxetine in chronic low back pain: a Quebec societal perspective.

STUDY DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness model from a Quebec societal perspective using meta-analyses of clinical trials. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of duloxetine in chronic low back pain (CLBP) compared with other post-first-line oral medications. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Duloxetine has recently received a CLBP indication in Canada. The cost-effectiveness of duloxetine and other oral medications has not previously been evaluated for CLBP. METHODS: A Markov model was created on the basis of the economic model documented in the 2008 osteoarthritis clinical guidelines of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Treatment-specific utilities were estimated via a meta-analysis of CLBP clinical trials and a transfer-to-utility regression estimated from duloxetine CLBP trial data. Adverse event rates of comparator treatments were taken from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence model or estimated by a meta-analysis of clinical trials in osteoarthritis using a maximum-likelihood simulation technique. Costs were developed primarily from Quebec and Ontario public sources as well as the published literature and expert opinion. The 6 comparators were celecoxib, naproxen, amitriptyline, pregabalin, hydromorphone, and oxycodone. Subgroup analyses and 1-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: In the base case, naproxen, celecoxib, and duloxetine were on the cost-effectiveness frontier, with naproxen the least expensive medication, celecoxib with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $19,881, and duloxetine with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $43,437. Other comparators were dominated. Key drivers included the rates of cardiovascular and gastrointestinal adverse events and proton pump inhibitor usage. In subgroup analysis, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for duloxetine fell to $21,567 for a population 65 years or older and to $18,726 for a population at higher risk of cardiovascular and gastrointestinal adverse events. CONCLUSION: The model estimates that duloxetine is a moderately cost-effective treatment for CLBP, becoming more cost-effective for populations older than 65 years or at greater risk of cardiovascular and gastrointestinal events. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of pharmacologic treatment of fibromyalgia in Mexico.

OBJECTIVE: To identify, from the Mexican Public Health System perspective, which would be the most cost-effective treatment for patients with Fibromyalgia (FM). MATERIAL AND METHODS: A Markov model including three health states, divided by pain intensity (absence or presence of mild, moderate or severe pain) and considering three-month cycles; costs and effectiveness were estimated for amitriptyline (50mg/day), fluoxetine (80 mg/day), duloxetine (120 mg/day), gabapentin (900 mg/day), pregabalin (450 mg/day), tramadol/acetaminophen (150 mg/1300 mg/día) and amitriptyline/fluoxetine (50mg/80 mg/día) for the treatment of FM. The clinical outcome considered was the annual rate of pain control. Probabilities assigned to the model were collected from published literature. Direct medical costs for FM treatment were retrieved from the 2006 data of the Mexican Institute of Social Security (IMSS) databases and were expressed in 2010 Mexican Pesos. Probabilistic Sensitivity Analyses were conducted. RESULTS: The best pain control rate was obtained with pregabalin (44.8%), followed by gabapentin (38.1%) and duloxetine (34.2%). The lowest treatment costs was for amitriptyline ($ 9047.01), followed by fluoxetine ($ 10,183.89) and amitriptyline/fluoxetine ($ 10,866.01). By comparing pregabalin vs amitriptyline, additional annual cost per patient for pain control would be around $ 50.000 and $ 75.000 and would result cost-effective in 70% and 80% of all cases. CONCLUSIONS: Among all treatment options for FM, pregabalin achieved the highest pain control and was cost-effective in 80% of patients of the Mexican Public Health System.

Treatment choice, duration, and cost in patients with interstitial cystitis and painful bladder syndrome.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: In order to better understand provider treatment patterns for interstitial cystitis (IC)/painful bladder syndrome, we sought to document the therapies utilized and their associated expenditures using a national dataset. METHODS: A cohort was created by applying the ICD-9 diagnosis of IC (595.1) to INGENIX claims for the year 1999. Subjects were followed for 5 years, and patterns of care and related expenditures were evaluated. RESULTS: Of 553,910 adults insured in 1999, 89 subjects had a diagnosis of IC with 5-year follow-up data. All subjects were treated with oral medication(s), 26% received intravesical treatments, and 22% underwent hydrodistension. Total expenditures per subject were $2,808. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of IC expenditures were attributable to oral medical therapy. Hydrodistension and intravesical instillations were utilized in less than 25% of patients. Hydrodistension was used more frequently among subjects with a new diagnosis; this may reflect its utilization as part of a diagnostic algorithm.

Cost effectiveness of pregabalin in the treatment of fibromyalgia from a UK perspective.

BACKGROUND: Fibromyalgia is a chronic condition associated with widespread pain, sleep disturbance and disability. Disease related costs are high and effective treatment options few. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the cost effectiveness of pregabalin in the treatment of fibromyalgia. METHODS: A decision-analytic model was developed comparing pregabalin 300 mg or 450 mg against placebo, duloxetine 60 mg or 120 mg, gabapentin, tramadol and amitriptyline. After a 12 week treatment phase patients who responded to treatment entered an ongoing treatment phase using a Markov model in which patients maintained response, lost response or dropped out. The base case considered patients with severe fibromyalgia defined as a Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire score of >or=59 and a pain score of >or=6.5 at baseline. Response rates for pregabalin and placebo were taken from three randomised trials, and a 1 year open-label extension study was used for long-term parameters. Response was defined as a >or=30% improvement over baseline in pain score and a patient global impression of change rating of much improved or very much improved. Relative rates of response for other comparators over placebo were extracted from a systematic review of published randomised controlled studies. The primary effectiveness endpoint was Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs). Utilities gained over baseline were estimated by applying the SF-6D utility algorithm to SF-36 data collected in the pregabalin trials. Resource use associated with fibromyalgia management was estimated from published studies and costs were estimated from the UK NHS perspective at 2008 prices. Costs and QALYs were discounted at 3.5%. Non-parametric bootstrapping analysis was used to generate confidence intervals. RESULTS: In the base case, pregabalin 300 mg and 450 mg increased cost per patient by pound601 (95% CI: 532, 669) and pound653 (587, 727) and improved QALYs per patient by 0.03 (-0.03, 0.06) and 0.03 (-0.04, 0.08) respectively compared to placebo. The cost per QALY gained (CQG) was pound23,166 and pound22,533. In the base case population CQG for pregabalin 450 mg against duloxetine 60 mg and 120 mg was pound19,224 and pound14,096, against gabapentin pound35,737, against tramadol pound98,072, and was dominated by amitriptyline. Sensitivity analysis found the cost effectiveness of pregabalin to be most sensitive to drug price and response rates. Limitations of the analysis include different definitions of response used and lack of subgroup data reported in the published studies synthesised, and limited data on long-term effect of therapies in fibromyalgia. Although the analysis was based on the best available evidence, the comparisons against amitriptyline and tramadol rely on old studies that were not designed to meet current quality criteria. CONCLUSION: This model found pregabalin 300 mg and 450 mg to be cost effective compared with placebo and, within the limits of available evidence, against duloxetine using standard UK criteria in patients with fibromyalgia experiencing severe pain.

Cost effectiveness of venlafaxine compared with generic fluoxetine or generic amitriptyline in major depressive disorder in the UK.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost effectiveness of venlafaxine compared with generic fluoxetine and generic amitriptyline used in major depressive disorder in primary care in the UK. METHODS: A decision-tree model for the treatment of major depressive disorder was constructed using a Delphi panel. The tree was populated with clinical success rates from a pooled analysis of fluoxetine compared with venlafaxine and a clinical trial of amitriptyline compared with venlafaxine using remission as the key endpoint. Where there was insufficient data from clinical trials, the Delphi panel was used. Costs within the tree were taken from contemporary UK sources. Six-monthly costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were then estimated. RESULTS: Treatment costs for 6 months were pound1530 for venlafaxine, pound1539 for fluoxetine and pound1558 for amitriptyline (year of costing 2006). Cost effectiveness as assessed by incremental cost per QALY ratio at 8 weeks was pound20 600 for venlafaxine compared with fluoxetine, with fluoxetine dominating (being less costly and more effective than) amitriptyline. To test the robustness of the model a Rank Order Stability Assessment was performed that showed that even if fluoxetine and/or amitriptyline were given away free, a scenario starting with venlafaxine would still be the least costly treatment over a 6-month period. CONCLUSION: In this model, venlafaxine was shown to be a cost-effective alternative to generic fluoxetine and amitriptyline when used as a first-line therapy. Thus, cost of therapy should not be a barrier to use of venlafaxine as a first-line option in treating major depressive disorder in primary care in the UK.

Pharmacoeconomics of antidepressants in moderate-to-severe depressive disorder in Colombia / Farmacoeconomía de antidepresivos en trastornos de depresión moderada e intensa en Colombia

OBJECTIVE: To compare three antidepressant drugs from different classes used in treating moderate-to-severe major depressive disorder (MDD) in Colombian adults. METHODS: Based on expert input, a decision-tree model was adapted for Colombia to analyze data over 6 months from the government-payer perspective. The cost-effectiveness of amitriptyline, fluoxetine, and venlafaxine was determined. The clinical outcome was remission of depression (a score <7 on the Hamilton Depression [HAM-D] scale or <12 on the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale [MADRS]) after 8 weeks of treatment. Clinical data were obtained from the literature and costs from standard Colombian price lists. One-way and multivariate sensitivity analyses tested model robustness. RESULTS: Costs per patient (in 2007 US$) for treatment were: venlafaxine, $1 618; fluoxetine, $1 207; and amitriptyline, $1 068. Overall remission rates were 73.1 percent, 64.1 percent, and 71.3 percent, respectively. Amitriptyline dominated fluoxetine (i.e., it had lower costs and higher outcomes). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of venlafaxine over amitriptyline was US$ 31 595. The acquisition price of venlafaxine was the model's cost driver, comprising 53.4 percent of the total cost/patient treated, compared with 18.5 percent and 24.8 percent for fluoxetine and amitriptyline, respectively. For the others, hospitalization comprised the major cost (72.1 percent and 65.2 percent, respectively). Probabilistic (Monte Carlo) sensitivity analysis confirmed the original findings of the pharmacoeconomic model. CONCLUSIONS: Amitriptyline is cost-effective in comparison to fluoxetine and venlafaxine in Colombia. However, the cost of venlafaxine was estimated for the brand-name product, as generics were not currently available. These cost-effectiveness results can be substantially affected by the presence of generics or drug cost regulations.

OBJETIVO: Comparar tres medicamentos antidepresivos de diferentes clases empleados para tratar trastornos depresivos mayores moderados e intensos en adultos colombianos. MÉTODOS: A partir de los aportes de expertos se adaptó un modelo de árbol de decisión para Colombia a fin de analizar los datos de seis meses desde la perspectiva del gobierno como pagador de los servicios. Se determinó la relación costo-efectividad de la amitriptilina, la fluoxetina y la venlafaxina. El desenlace clínico fue la remisión de la depresión (una puntuación <7 en la escala de depresión de Hamilton o <12 en la escala de valoración de la depresión de Montgomery-Åsberg) después de 8 semanas de tratamiento. Los datos clínicos se obtuvieron de la literatura especializada y los costos, de las listas habituales de precios de Colombia. Se realizaron análisis de sensibilidad simples y multifactoriales para probar la robustez de los modelos. RESULTADOS: Los costos del tratamiento por paciente (en dólares estadounidenses de 2007) fueron: US$ 1 618 para la venlafaxina, US$ 1 207 para la fluoxetina y US$ 1 068 para la amitriptilina. Las tasas de remisión general fueron 73,1 por ciento, 64,1 por ciento y 71,3 por ciento, respectivamente. La amitriptilina tuvo un menor costo y una mayor remisión que la fluoxetina. La razón de rentabilidad incremental de la venlafaxina sobre la amitriptilina fue de US$ 31 595. El inductor de costos (cost driver) del modelo fue el valor de adquisición de la venlafaxina, que representó 53,4 por ciento del total del costo por paciente tratado, en comparación con la fluoxetina (18,5 por ciento) y la amitriptilina (24,8 por ciento). En los otros casos, la hospitalización representó el mayor costo (72,1 por ciento y 65,2 por ciento, respectivamente). El análisis de sensibilidad probabilístico (Monte Carlo) confirmó los resultados preliminares del modelo farmacoeconómico. CONCLUSIONES: En Colombia, la amitriptilina es más efectiva en función del...

Pharmacoeconomics of antidepressants in moderate-to-severe depressive disorder in Colombia.

OBJECTIVE: To compare three antidepressant drugs from different classes used in treating moderate-to-severe major depressive disorder (MDD) in Colombian adults. METHODS: Based on expert input, a decision-tree model was adapted for Colombia to analyze data over 6 months from the government-payer perspective. The cost-effectiveness of amitriptyline, fluoxetine, and venlafaxine was determined. The clinical outcome was remission of depression (a score

Cost-effectiveness of duloxetine versus routine treatment for U.S. patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain.

UNLABELLED: The purpose of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of duloxetine versus routine treatment in management of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP). Two hundred thirty-three patients with DPNP who completed a 12-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized, multicenter duloxetine trial were re-randomized into a 52-week, open-label trial of duloxetine 60 mg twice daily versus routine treatment. Routine treatment included pain management therapies. Effectiveness was measured by using the bodily pain domain (BP) of the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36 (SF-36). Costs were analyzed from 3 perspectives: third party payer (direct medical costs), employer (direct and indirect medical costs), and societal (patient's out-of-pocket costs and total medical costs). Costs of study medications were not included because of limited data. Bootstrap method was applied to calculate statistical inference of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Routine treatment most frequently used included gabapentin (56%), venlafaxine (36%), and amitripytline (15%). From employer and societal perspectives, duloxetine was cost-effective (ICER= -342 dollars and -429 dollars, respectively, per unit of SF-36 BP; both P

Economic evaluation of oral treatments for neuropathic pain.

UNLABELLED: The effectiveness of amitriptyline, carbamazepine, gabapentin, and tramadol for the treatment of neuropathic pain has been demonstrated, but it is unknown which one is the most cost-effective. We designed a cost-utility analysis of a hypothetical cohort with neuropathic pain of postherpetic or diabetic origin. The perspective of the economic evaluation was that of a third-party payor. For effectiveness and safety estimates, we performed a systematic review of the literature. For direct cost estimates, we used average wholesale prices, and the American Medicare and Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedules. For utilities of health states, we used the Health Utilities Index. We modeled 1 month of therapy. For comparisons among treatments, we estimated incremental cost per utility gained. To allow for uncertainty from variations in drug effectiveness, safety, and amount of medication needed, we conducted a probabilistic Monte Carlo simulation. Amitriptyline was the cheapest strategy, followed by carbamazepine, and both were equally beneficial. Gabapentin was the most expensive as well as the least beneficial. A multivariable probabilistic simulation produced similar results to the base-case scenario. In summary, amitriptyline and carbamazepine are more cost-effective than tramadol and gabapentin and should be considered as first-line treatment for neuropathic pain in patients free of renal or cardiovascular disease. PERSPECTIVE: Prescription practices should be based on the best available evidence, which includes the evaluation of the medication's cost-effectiveness. This does not mean that the cheapest or the most expensive, but rather the most cost-effective medication should be chosen-the one whose benefits are worth the harms and costs. We report a cost-effectiveness evaluation of treatments for neuropathic pain.

[Pharmacological therapy of sialorrhea in patients with motor neuron disease].

A comparative trial of amithryptiline and dysport (botulinic toxin type A) in the treatment of sialorrhea in patients with motor neuron disease (MND) was conducted in 10 MND patients with sialorrhea, of whom 5 were treated with subcutaneous injections of Dysport and 5 with Amithriptiline, and 6 controls without salivary dysfunction. Gravimetry and scintigraphy of salivary glands were used before and after treatment. Compared to controls, saliva production was significantly decreased in MND patients. Both amithryptilin and dysport used in mean therapeutic doses decreased sialorrhea with similar effect. However, 3 patients, receiving amythryptiline in dosage 50 mg/day, experienced side effects (constipation, accommodation disturbances, dry mouth, sleepiness and poor concentration). Reducing of amithryptiline dose, along with prescribing dysport, removed the side-effects in these patients, while sialorrhea did not increase. The authors concluded that due to high efficacy and low cost of amithryptiline therapy of sialorrhea proved to be a golden standard of palliative care in MDN. However, in these terms dysport can not be an alternative to amithryptiline in sialorrhea therapy. Nevertheless, in cases when amithryptiline treatment is accomplished with side-effects, the drug dosage can be reduced and combined with dysport.

[At what time is a reduction of medical under- or overtreatment sensible? Treatment of acute depression as an example]. / Wann lohnt sich der Abbau medizinischer Unter- und Uberversorgung? Das Beispiel der Behandlung akuter Depressionen.

OBJECTIVE: 1) To portray the mathematical relationship between the size of an underuse or overuse problem caused by non-compliance of health professionals and the cost-effectiveness of a quality improvement program; 2) to demonstrate the applicability of the models to a real-world problem (underuse and overuse in the treatment of major depression) and to stress the importance of the costs of a quality improvement program using this example. METHODS: Mathematical formulation of the relationship between the costs of a quality improvement program and the degree of underuse and overuse. RESULTS: The example of reducing underuse in the treatment of major depression shows that an intervention with a favorable cost-effectiveness ratio may be economically unattractive if a quality improvement program incurs high costs secondary to a small quality deficit. The application example also shows that reducing treatment overuse is inefficient if overuse is small and hence the costs of a quality improvement program are higher than the costs of overuse. CONCLUSIONS: The explicit consideration of the size of an underuse or overuse problem in the cost-effectiveness ratio of a quality improvement program may contribute to a more efficient use of health care resources.

When is it worth introducing a quality improvement program? A mathematical model.

Quality improvement programs must compete with other health care interventions for limited health care resources. The goal of the research presented here was to develop a model that portrays the mathematical relationship between the size of a quality deficit caused by the noncompliance of health professionals and the cost-effectiveness of a quality improvement program. The model allows the determination of the minimum size of a quality deficit for which it is worth introducing a quality improvement program. If a quality improvement program has already been implemented, the model can be used to define the quality threshold beyond which a reduction in quality becomes economically unattractive. An example considering the reduction of underuse in depression treatment demonstrates that an intervention with a favorable cost-effectiveness ratio may become economically unattractive once the costs for the implementation effort are considered.

Prescribing patterns of tricyclic and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor antidepressants among a sample of adolescents and young adults.

PURPOSE: There are few studies that document antidepressant prescribing in young patients. Although tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) are considered equal in efficacy to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), the latter have an improved side effect profile. The aim of this study was to investigate the prescribing patterns of TCAs and SSRIs among adolescents and young adults, with reference to prescribing frequency, cost and dose. METHOD: A retrospective drug utilization study was conducted over a 14-month period, from January 2000 to February 2001. RESULTS: There were 166 antidepressants prescribed to 98 adolescents and young adults. TCAs were prescribed more frequently than SSRIs, with amitryptiline and fluoxetine being the two most frequently prescribed antidepressants. Fluoxetine accounted for a higher ratio of cost to prescribing frequency than amitryptiline. Amitryptiline was issued in small quantities of tablets, resulting in a low average calculated prescribed daily dose (PDD). Duration of treatment was not considered optimal for SSRIs or TCAs. CONCLUSION: This study elicits prescribing patterns that contribute to the relative scarcity of data on antidepressant drugs for young patients.

Migraine preventive medication reduces resource utilization.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if long-term resource utilization is reduced by adding a preventive medication to a migraine management regimen that already includes acute medication. BACKGROUND: In 2000, new evidence-based guidelines for the treatment of migraine were released by the US Headache Consortium and the American Academy of Neurology. Although these guidelines emphasize the role of preventive medication in achieving significant clinical improvement, little yet is known concerning the impact of such management on medical and pharmaceutical resources. Methods.-Resource utilization information in a large claims database was analyzed retrospectively. RESULTS: Adding a preventive medication to migraine management reduced the use of other migraine medications, as well as visits to physician offices and emergency departments. In addition, both acute and preventive medications were associated with lower utilization of computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging scans. CONCLUSION: Migraine preventive drug therapy is effective in reducing resource consumption when added to therapy consisting only of an acute medication.

Economic impact of using mirtazapine compared to amitriptyline and fluoxetine in the treatment of moderate and severe depression in the UK.

This study modelled the economic impact of mirtazapine, compared to amitriptyline and fluoxetine, in the management of moderate and severe depression in the UK, as well as the costs related to discontinuation of antidepressant treatment. Decision models of the management of moderate and severe depression were developed from clinical trial data, resource use obtained from interviews with general practitioners and psychiatrists, and published literature, and were used to estimate the expected direct National Health Service (NHS) costs of managing a patient with moderate or severe depression. The expected cost of healthcare resource use attributable to managing a patient suffering from moderate or severe depression who discontinues antidepressant treatment, irrespective of the initial treatment, was estimated to be pounds sterling 206 (range pounds sterling 50 to pounds sterling 504) over five months. Using mirtazapine instead of amitriptyline for seven months increases the proportion of successfully treated patients by 21% (from 19.2 to 23.2%) and reduces the expected direct NHS cost by pounds sterling 35 per patient (from pounds sterling 448 to pounds sterling 413). Using mirtazapine instead of fluoxetine for six months increases the proportion of successfully treated patients by 22% (from 15.6 to 19.1%), albeit for an additional cost to the NHS of pounds sterling 27 per patient (from pounds sterling 394 to pounds sterling 420). In conclusion, this study suggests that mirtazapine is a cost-effective antidepressant compared to amitriptyline and fluoxetine in the management of moderate and severe depression in the UK.