Budget impact analysis of tapentadol extended release for the treatment of moderate to severe chronic noncancer pain.

BACKGROUND: Opioids are commonly used to manage chronic pain. Although traditional µ-opioids are effective in reducing pain, they are often associated with opioid-induced side effects (OISEs) that can limit treatment effectiveness. Studies have shown that tapentadol extended release (ER) has a lower incidence of gastrointestinal adverse events than oxycodone controlled release (CR) at equianalgesic doses. OBJECTIVE: A model was developed to estimate the budget impact of placing tapentadol ER on a hypothetical US health plan formulary of Schedule II long-acting opioids. METHODS: We estimated annual direct health care costs for patients who received 6-month therapy with long-acting formulations of tapentadol, oxycodone, morphine, hydromorphone, oxymorphone, or fentanyl. Costs included medications, copayments, OISE management, and switching/discontinuation. Published estimates of incidence/prevalence, OISEs, and pain management resources and costs were used. The base case analysis assumed a 10% formulary share of tapentadol ER with a 10% decrease of oxycodone CR. The resulting per-member per-month (PMPM) formulary cost differences and results of a 1-way sensitivity analysis are reported. RESULTS: In a health plan of 500,000 members, 2600 (0.52%) are estimated to experience chronic pain annually. Adding tapentadol ER to the formulary was associated with an annual budget savings of $148,945 ($0.0248 PMPM). This savings was achieved through a decrease in both pharmacy costs ($144,062; $0.0240 PMPM) and medical costs ($4883; $0.0008 PMPM). Cost decreases were driven by lower daily average consumption and fewer OISEs with tapentadol ER versus oxycodone CR, leading to reduced resource utilization over 6 months of treatment. Sensitivity analyses showed results were most sensitive to drug acquisition costs. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that replacing 10% of oxycodone CR's formulary share with tapentadol ER would decrease the overall budget of a health plan with 500,000 members. Placing tapentadol ER on a health plan formulary may result in a reduction in both pharmacy and medical costs.

Impact of solifenacin on quality of life, medical care use, work productivity, and health utility in the elderly: an exploratory subgroup analysis.

BACKGROUND: Overactive bladder (OAB) is a common problem among the elderly and a financial burden to society. The prevalence of OAB increases with age and affects > or = 25% of people aged > or = 65 years. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this exploratory subgroup analysis of the VESIcare Efficacy and Research Study US (VERSUS) was to assess changes in health-related quality of life (HRQoL), medical care resource utilization, work and activity impairment, and health utility among elderly patients with OAB who continued to have urgency symptoms with tolterodine and were willing to try solifenacin. METHODS: This was a 12-week, multicenter, prospective, open-label, noncomparative, flexible-dosing study designed to assess the efficacy and tolerability of solifenacin. Patients who received tolterodine 4 mg/d for > or = 4 weeks but continued to experience urgency symptoms (> or = 3 urgency episodes/24 hours) were enrolled. This exploratory analysis describes results from 2 elderly cohorts (patients 65 to 74 years and > or = 75 years of age). After a washout period of > or = 14 days, patients began treatment with solifenacin 5 mg/d with dosing adjustments allowed at week 4 (to 10 mg/d) and at week 8 (back to 5 mg/d for patients whose dose was increased to 10 mg/d at week 4). Outcomes were assessed using the OAB-q (a questionnaire specific to OAB and HRQoL), the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment-Specific Health Problem index, the Medical Care Use Index, and the Health Utilities Index Mark 2 and Mark 3 (HUI2/3), administered at the prewashout and week-12 visits. RESULTS: The subgroup analysis included 108 patients 65 to 74 years of age and 86 patients > or = 75 years of age. Patients in both age groups experienced significant improvement in HRQoL (P < 0.001), as well as significant reductions in nonprotocol-related office visits (P < 0.001) and activity impairment (P < 0.025). A significant reduction in the use of pads/diapers was reported for patients 65 to 74 years of age (P < 0.018), and patients in this age group who were working reported significantly less impairment related to OAB while working during solifenacin treatment than during tolterodine treatment (P < 0.042). No significant differences in HUI2/3 scores were observed in either of the elderly subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, solifenacin was found to improve symptom bother, HRQoL, work productivity, activity participation, and reduced medical care resource utilization in these elderly subjects with OAB who continued to have urgency symptoms with tolterodine and were willing to try solifenacin. This was an exploratory subgroup analysis of an open-label, noncomparative study; further research is needed to confirm these results.

Comparison of levalbuterol and racemic albuterol in hospitalized patients with acute asthma or COPD: a 2-week, multicenter, randomized, open-label study.

BACKGROUND: The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute guideline recommends that dosing racemic albuterol be administered every 1 to 4 hours for treating patients with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in the hospital. Previously published preliminary and retrospective studies suggested that levalbuterol can be administered every 8 hours for the treatment of bronchoconstriction in hospitalized patients. However, it is unclear how the different dosing regimens affect the total number of nebulizations (scheduled plus as-needed treatments) and the costs of treatment of bronchoconstriction in a hospital setting. Moreover, it is not clear how the different dosing regimens affect symptom outcomes and health status in hospitalized patients with asthma or COPD. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate these issues in hospitalized patients with acute asthma or COPD. METHODS: In this prospective, multicenter, randomized, open-label study, hospitalized patients aged > or = 18 years were randomly assigned to receive 14-day treatment with levalbuterol 1.25 mg q6-8h or racemic albuterol 2.5 mg q1-4h, administered per routine hospital practice at each institution. The primary efficacy end point was total number of nebulizations during hospitalization. Pulmonary function, symptom evaluation (subject general well-being score [SGWB], disease symptom assessment [DSA], and beta-mediated adverse effect scores), hospital costs (excluding medication costs) and hospital length of stay (LOS) were also evaluated. RESULTS: In the intent-to-treat population (n = 479; levalbuterol, 241;racemic albuterol, 238), the mean (SE) age was 55.3 (16.9) years, the majority of patients were white (57.8%), and the mean (SE) weight was 80.9 (24.5) kg. Demographic characteristics were similar between the 2 treatment groups, except that there were more females with COPD in the levalbuterol treatment group (63.88%) compared with the racemic albuterol treatment group (45.5%) (P = 0.005). Patients treated with levalbuterol required significantly fewer median total nebulizations (10 vs 12; P = 0.031) and scheduled nebulizations (9 vs 11; P = 0.009) compared with those in the racemic albuterol group. The 2 treatment groups required 0 rescue nebulizations. Mean (SD) forced expiratory volume in 1 second improved from baseline with both levalbuterol and racemic albuterol (0.06 [0.43] and 0.10 [0.37] L, respectively); these improvements were maintained throughout the hospital stay (0.11 [0.48] and 0.16 [0.52] L). DSA and SGWB scores improved significantly from baseline in both treatment groups, and beta-mediated adverse effects mean scores were significantly greater with levalbuterol versus racemic albuterol (P < 0.001). In the levalbuterol and racemic albuterol treatment groups, hospital LOS (70.6 and 65.7 hours, respectively), time to discharge (66.0 and 62.8 hours), and total hospital costs (least squares mean [SE], US $4869.30 [$343.58] and $4899.41 [$343.20]) were similar. CONCLUSIONS: In these hospitalized patients with acute asthma or COPD treated with levalbuterol every 6 to 8 hours or racemic albuterol every 1 to 4 hours, significantly fewer total nebulizations were required with levalbuterol, without an increased need for rescue nebulizations during 14 days of hospitalization. Both treatments were associated with improvements from baseline in symptoms and health status. The costs of treating bronchoconstriction in hospitalized patients were similar between the levalbuterol and racemic albuterol groups.

Impact of solifenacin on resource utilization, work productivity and health utility in overactive bladder patients switching from tolterodine ER.

OBJECTIVE: Assess changes in resource utilization, work and activity impairment, and health utility among OAB patients continuing to have urgency symptoms with tolterodine ER 4 mg and willing to try solifenacin 5/10 mg. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This was an open-label, non-comparative, flexible-dosing, multicenter, 12-week study assessing the efficacy and safety of solifenacin 5/10 mg/day. Patients receiving tolterodine ER 4 mg/day for >/=4 weeks but continuing to experience residual urgency symptoms (>/=3 urgency episodes/24 h) were enrolled into the study. After a 14-day washout, patients began treatment with solifenacin 5 mg/day with dosing adjustments allowed at Weeks 4 and 8. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcomes were assessed using the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire - Specific Health Problem (WPAI-SHP), Health Utilities Index (HUI), and a resource utilization questionnaire administered at Pre-Washout and Week 12. RESULTS: Patients (n=440) reported significantly fewer physician office visits (p<0.0001), UTIs (p<0.0001), and pads/diapers (p=0.0009) during the study period while receiving solifenacin 5/10 mg/day, compared with the Pre-Washout period when receiving tolterodine ER 4 mg/day. After 12 weeks of treatment with solifenacin 5/10 mg/day, patients reported a reduction in work time missed (p=0.0017), less impairment while working (p<0.0001), less overall work impairment (p<0.0001) and a reduction in activity impairment (p<0.0001) compared to Pre-Washout. There was no significant difference in health utility scores. Treatment-emergent adverse events were mostly anticholinergic in nature, and were mild to moderate in severity. CONCLUSION: Overall, solifenacin 5/10 mg/day improved work productivity, activity participation, and reduced medical care use in OAB patients who continued to have urgency symptoms with tolterodine ER 4 mg/day and wished to switch to solifenacin 5/10 mg. This was an open-label, non-comparative study; therefore, further research is needed to confirm these results.

Reimbursement and economic factors influencing dialysis modality choice around the world.

The worldwide incidence of kidney failure is on the rise and treatment is costly; thus, the global burden of illness is growing. Kidney failure patients require either a kidney transplant or dialysis to maintain life. This review focuses on the economics of dialysis. Alternative dialysis modalities are haemodialysis (HD) and peritoneal dialysis (PD). Important economic factors influencing dialysis modality selection include financing, reimbursement and resource availability. In general, where there is little or no facility or physician reimbursement or payment for PD, the share of PD is very low. Regarding resource availability, when centre HD capacity is high, there is an incentive to use that capacity rather than place patients on home dialysis. In certain countries, there is interest in revising the reimbursement structure to favour home-based therapies, including PD and home HD. Modality selection is influenced by employment status, with an association between being employed and PD as the modality choice. Cost drivers differ for PD and HD. PD is driven mainly by variable costs such as solutions and tubing, while HD is driven mainly by fixed costs of facility space and staff. Many cost comparisons of dialysis modalities have been conducted. A key factor to consider in reviewing cost comparisons is the perspective of the analysis because different costs are relevant for different perspectives. In developed countries, HD is generally more expensive than PD to the payer. Additional research is needed in the developing world before conclusive statements may be made regarding the relative costs of HD and PD.

The implications of poor medication persistence with treatment for overactive bladder.

Overactive bladder (OAB) affects more than 17 million Americans and accounts for more than dollar 12 billion annually in health care costs. To stem the costs of this disease and increase treatment effectiveness, pharmacological therapies must be taken as prescribed over time. Greater persistence with medication can improve clinical, economic, and humanistic outcomes in OAB. Therapeutic regimens must be effective and well tolerated by patients to create greater persistence and to help reduce health care costs among patients with OAB.

A pharmacoeconomic model comparing two long-acting treatments for overactive bladder.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the estimated first-line treatment costs of extended-release tolterodine versus controlled-release oxybutynin in patients with overactive bladder (OAB). METHODS: We developed a decision-analysis model to estimate the patterns of treatment, resource consumption, and cost impact of treating OAB with either controlled-release oxybutynin or extended-release tolterodine as first-line drug therapy. We used data from the published literature to develop the framework for the model and supplemented this information with expert opinion, where necessary. Based on recent clinical studies, we assumed equal efficacy between the comparators and reduced the model to a cost-minimization analysis. The model was constructed from the payer perspective, and all costs are given in 2000 U.S. dollars. RESULTS: A base-case analysis was generated showing that patients initiating therapy with extended-release tolterodine have probable average 3-month treatment costs of 1,207 dollars compared to 1,283 dollars for patients initiating with controlled-release oxybutynin, for a 6.3% difference. First-line OAB direct drug costs account for 19% and 15% of total costs for extended-release tolterodine and controlled-release oxybutynin, respectively. Sensitivity analysis showed these results to be relatively stable. CONCLUSION: The results from this analysis suggest that for patients with OAB and initiating long-acting pharmacologic therapy in the primary care setting, the treatment with extended-release tolterodine is slightly less costly than treatment with controlled-release oxybutynin. Studies directly comparing these treatment alternatives are needed, however, to determine which approach or combination of approaches is the most cost-effective.