[Standardization of Hypnotic Agents for Prevention of Falls: A Pharmacoeconomic Study].

To reduce the number of falls caused by hypnotic agents, the standardization of insomnia treatment was carried out at Yamaguchi University Hospital from April 2019. There were concerns that medical costs would increase due to the selected medicines-suvorexant and eszopiclone-being more expensive than conventional benzodiazepines. In this study, the standardization of insomnia treatment was evaluated by pharmacoeconomics. The costs of the hypnotic agents was considered, as was the cost of examination/treatment following falls. Effectiveness was evaluated as the incidence of falls within 24 hours of taking hypnotic agents. This analysis took the public healthcare payer's perspective. Propensity score matching based on patient background, showed that, per hospitalization the medicine costs of the recommended group increased by 1,020 yen, however, the examination/treatment costs following falls decreased by 487 yen when compared with the non-recommended group. Overall, the recommended group incurred costs of 533 yen more per hospitalization for patients prescribed hypnotic agents compared to the non-recommended group, but the incidence of falls for the recommended group was significantly lower than that in the non-recommended group (1.9% vs. 6.3%; p<0.01). These results suggest that in order to prevent the incidence of falls by 1 case, it is necessary to increase costs by 12,086 yen which is the subthreshold cost for switching to the recommended medicine as standardization. The selection of recommended medicines may be a cost-effectiveness option compared with non-recommended medicines.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of suvorexant for the treatment of Japanese elderly patients with chronic insomnia in a virtual cohort.

AIMS: This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of the orexin receptor antagonist suvorexant against zolpidem, the most widely used hypnotic benzodiazepine receptor agonist in Japan. To this end, a model was used that factored in insomnia and the risk for hip fractures, which have devastating effects on the elderly. METHODS: Data were derived from published papers. The target population was a virtual cohort of elderly patients (≥65 years) with insomnia residing in Japan. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated using quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio as effectiveness measures. The investigators assumed the perspective of healthcare payers. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, suvorexant was cost-saving (suvorexant: $252.3, zolpidem: $328.7) and had higher QALYs gained (suvorexant: 0.0641, zolpidem: 0.0635) for elderly Japanese patients with insomnia compared with zolpidem, indicating that suvorexant was dominant. In the sensitivity analysis, the outcome changed from dominant to dominated due to the relative risk for hip fractures associated with suvorexant. However, when the other parameters were varied from the lower to the upper limits of their ranges, suvorexant remained dominant compared to zolpidem. LIMITATIONS: The relative risk for hip fractures for suvorexant used in the model was based on data from pre-approval clinical trials. More precise data may be needed. CONCLUSIONS: Suvorexant seemed to be more cost-effective than the alternative zolpidem. The findings suggested that suvorexant might be a viable alternative to zolpidem for elderly patients with insomnia. A sensitivity analysis showed that outcome varied depending on the relative risk for hip fractures associated with suvorexant. Further investigations may be needed for more precise results.