Cost-effectiveness of dabigatran etexilate for the prevention of stroke and systemic embolism in atrial fibrillation: a Canadian payer perspective.

Oral dabigatran etexilate is indicated for the prevention of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) in whom anticoagulation is appropriate. Based on the RE-LY study we investigated the cost-effectiveness of Health Canada approved dabigatran etexilate dosing (150 mg bid for patients <80 years, 110 mg bid for patients ≥80 years) versus warfarin and "real-world" prescribing (i.e. warfarin, aspirin, or no treatment in a cohort of warfarin-eligible patients) from a Canadian payer perspective. A Markov model simulated AF patients at moderate to high risk of stroke while tracking clinical events [primary and recurrent ischaemic strokes, systemic embolism, transient ischaemic attack, haemorrhage (intracranial, extracranial, and minor), acute myocardial infarction and death] and resulting functional disability. Acute event costs and resulting long-term follow-up costs incurred by disabled stroke survivors were based on a Canadian prospective study, published literature, and national statistics. Clinical events, summarized as events per 100 patient-years, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), total costs, and incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICER) were calculated. Over a lifetime, dabigatran etexilate treated patients experienced fewer intracranial haemorrhages (0.49 dabigatran etexilate vs. 1.13 warfarin vs. 1.05 "real-world" prescribing) and fewer ischaemic strokes (4.40 dabigatran etexilate vs. 4.66 warfarin vs. 5.16 "real-world" prescribing) per 100 patient-years. The ICER of dabigatran etexilate was $10,440/QALY versus warfarin and $3,962/QALY versus "real-world" prescribing. This study demonstrates that dabigatran etexilate is a highly cost-effective alternative to current care for the prevention of stroke and systemic embolism among Canadian AF patients.

Cost and clinical consequence of antibiotic non-adherence in acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify the impact of non-adherence on the clinical effectiveness of antibiotics for acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis (AECB) and to estimate the economic consequences for Spain, Italy and the United States. METHODS: Standard systematic reviewing procedures were followed to identify randomised controlled clinical trials of antibiotic treatment for acute respiratory tract infection for which adherence was reported. A decision-analytic model was then constructed to evaluate the impact of non-adherence to antibiotic treatment on clinical effectiveness and costs per AECB episode. The model compared the total treatment costs, cure rates and incremental costs per cure for a poor compliance group (PCG) against a good compliance group (GCG). Clinical and resource use estimates were from the published literature and physician surveys. RESULTS: Twenty-five articles met the criteria of the systematic review, although only one reported treatment success by adherence status. The relative risk of clinical effectiveness if non-adherent was 0.75 (95%CI 0.73-0.78). Based on this single study, the model predicted that 16-29% more patients would be cured in the GCG vs. the PCG, and payers would save up to euro122, euro179 and US$141 per AECB episode in Spain, Italy and the United States, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Non-adherence to antibiotics for AECB may have an impact on clinical effectiveness, which is associated with increased costs.

The economics of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in depression: a critical review.

The prevalence of depression and the high costs associated with its treatment have increased interest in pharmacoeconomic evaluations of drug treatment, particularly in the 1990s as the use of selective serotonin (5-hydroxytryptamine; 5-HT) reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) expanded substantially. This review presents results from specific studies representing the key study designs used to address the pharmacoeconomics of SSRI use: retrospective administrative database analyses, clinical decision analysis models, and randomised clinical trials. Methodological considerations in interpreting results are highlighted. In retrospective administrative database analyses, most comparisons have been made between SSRIs and tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs). A few studies have addressed differences between SSRIs. The studies focused on healthcare cost (to payer) and cost-related outcomes (e.g. treatment duration, drug switching). Although SSRIs are generally associated with higher drug acquisition costs than are TCAs, total healthcare costs are at least offset, if not decreased, by reductions in costs associated with use of SSRIs. Although studies from the early 1990s show some advantage for fluoxetine, the results are limited by use of data from shortly after the introduction of paroxetine and sertraline; studies from the mid- 1990s on that compare drugs within the SSRI class show general equivalence in terms of cost. Important methodological advances are occurring in retrospective studies, with selection bias and other design limitations being addressed statistically. Clinical decision analysis models permit flexibility in terms of ability to specify different alternative treatment scenarios and varying durations. Sensitivity analysis aids interpretability, although model inputs are limited by data availability. Results from short term (1 year duration or less) studies comparing SSRIs and TCAs suggest that SSRIs are more cost effective or that there is no difference. Longer term studies (lifetime Markov models) focus more on the impact of maintenance antidepressant therapy and show more mixed results, generally favouring SSRIs over TCAs. The results indicate that the effect of SSRIs is mainly through prevention of relapse. Important assumptions of these models include fewer serious adverse effects and lower treatment discontinuation rates with SSRIs. Naturalistic clinical trials provide greater generalisability than traditional randomised clinical trials. One naturalistic trial found that nearly half of TCA-treated patients switched to another antidepressant within 6 months; only 20% of SSRI-treated patients switched. Cost differences between groups were minimal. These studies indicate few differences in medical costs, depression outcomes and health-related quality of life between TCAs and fluoxetine, although fewer fluoxetine-treated patients switched treatment.

Cost for inpatient care of venous thrombosis: a trial of enoxaparin vs standard heparin.

BACKGROUND: Enoxaparin, a low-molecular-weight heparin administered to hospitalized patients once or twice daily, has shown efficacy and safety equivalent to unfractionated heparin in the treatment of acute venous thromboembolic disease. Although the cost of either enoxaparin regimen is greater than that of unfractionated heparin, the overall cost of care for each of these 3 treatment strategies is unknown. METHODS: A cost minimization analysis of a 3-month, partially blinded, randomized, controlled efficacy and safety trial of anticoagulant therapy for deep vein thrombosis. Three hundred thirty-nine hospitalized patients with symptomatic lower extremity deep vein thrombosis were randomly assigned to initial therapy with subcutaneous enoxaparin either once (n = 112) or twice (n = 123) daily, or with dose-adjusted intravenous unfractionated heparin (n = 104), followed by long-term oral anticoagulant therapy. Estimated 1997 total cost from a third-party payer perspective for the 3-month episode of care was calculated by assigning standard unit costs to counts of medical resources used by each patient in the clinical trial. RESULTS: Average total cost for the 3-month episode of care was similar across all 3 treatment regimens: once-daily dose of enoxaparin, $12,166 (95% confidence interval [CI], $10,744-$13,588); twice-daily dose of enoxaparin, $11,558 (95% CI, $10,201-$12,915); and unfractionated heparin, $12,146 (95% CI, $10,670-$12,622). Bootstrapped estimates and sensitivity analyses did not significantly change findings. CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference in the overall cost for the 3-month episode of care for patients treated with either enoxaparin or unfractionated heparin. Additional acquisition costs for anticoagulant medication among patients treated with enoxaparin were offset by savings associated with lower incidence of hospital readmission and shorter duration of venous thromboembolism-related readmissions.

Cost-effectiveness of the conventional papanicolaou test with a new adjunct to cytological screening for squamous cell carcinoma of the uterine cervix and its precursors.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate costs and outcomes of conventional annual Papanicolaou (Pap) test screening compared with biennial Pap test plus speculoscopy (PPS) screening for cervical neoplasms. DESIGN: A Markov model compared cost-effectiveness and outcomes of annual Pap tests with biennial PPS. The model includes direct costs of screening, diagnostic testing, and treatment for squamous intraepitheial lesions and invasive cancers; indirect costs (eg, lost productivity because of cervical cancer); and newer management practices, including human papillomavirus DNA testing. PATIENTS: Women aged 18 to 64 years. INTERVENTION: Screening for cervical neoplasms with either annual Pap smear test or biennial PPS. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Marginal cost per life-year gained. RESULTS: The probability of women having squamous intraepithelial lesions, cervical cancer, or death from cervical cancer was lower among women undergoing PPS biennially. A total of 12 additional days of life per woman was gained with biennial PPS during the 47-year model period. Total average cumulative direct medical costs per patient were $1419 for biennial PPS compared with $1489 for annual Pap tests. Total costs, including direct medical costs and indirect costs, were $2185 for PPS compared with $3179 for Pap tests alone. Increased savings and patient outcomes were observed in high-risk populations. CONCLUSION: Our simulations indicate that biennial screening with PPS is expected to provide cost savings for women older than 18 years compared with annual Pap test screening, especially for those in high-risk populations.

Decision analysis modelling of costs and outcomes following cefepime monotherapy in Canada.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the comparative cost of treatment and intermediate outcomes (percentage resistant organisms, days in hospital, etc) among cefepime and alternative parenteral antibiotics used for empiric monotherapy. DESIGN: Decision analysis model, based on published literature, clinical trial results and information from infectious disease clinicians. SETTING: A Canadian tertiary care hospital. INTERVENTION: Comparison of cefepime, ceftazidime, ceftriaxone, cefotaxime and ciprofloxacin in the treatment of lower respiratory tract infections, urinary tract infections, skin/soft tissue infections, septicemia and febrile neutropenia. MAIN RESULTS: Cefepime treatment results in the lowest average cost per patient when used as initial empiric therapy for lower respiratory tract infections and for skin/soft tissue infections. Cefepime therapy is among the lowest cost treatments for the other infectious disease conditions and has the lowest cost for a weighted 'average' condition. Sensitivity analysis indicates that model results are most sensitive to duration of hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS: Initial empiric monotherapy with cefepime for serious infectious disease conditions may result in cost savings compared with alternative parenteral agents.