Estimation of the economic burden of atrial fibrillation-related stroke in Greece.

BACKGROUND: Stroke is aleading cause of death and disability, with atrial fibrillation (AF) being among key risk factors and AF-related stroke inflicting significant burden on healthcare systems and society. The present study was undertaken for estimating the total annual socioeconomic burden of AF-related stroke in Greece and identifying the key cost contributors. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A cost-of-illness model was developed for estimating the total annual economic burden of AF-related stroke in Greece, from asocietal perspective (year 2018). Atargeted literature review and an advisory board consisting of key experts in the management of AF and AF-related stroke were performed for collecting local resource use and epidemiological data. RESULTS: The total annual socioeconomic burden of AF-related stroke was estimated at €175million, in 2018. Direct and indirect costs accounted for 59% and 41%, respectively. Main contributors were informal care (21.1%), patients' productivity losses (19.7%) and hospitalizations (15.0%), accounting for more than half of the total costs of AF-related stroke events.Conclusion: A F-related stroke imposes asignificant socioeconomic burden in Greece. Despite results relying on estimations, it seems that ensuring efficient reallocation of resources in appropriate prevention and early intervention strategies could decrease AF-related stroke's burden but also enhance healthcare systems' efficiency. ABBREVIATIONS: AF=atrial fibrillation.

Two Sides of the Same Coin? A Dual Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis of Novel Treatments Against Rheumatoid Arthritis in Physicians and Patients.

PURPOSE: Available treatment options for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) differ in important aspects. In this sense, each RA treatment option is accompanied by a spectrum of characteristics that collectively constitute its comprehensive "value," as viewed from the physician's or the patient's perspective. The objective of this study was to perform a multiple criteria decision analysis of different RA treatments from the perspective of physicians and patients and to outline the respective aspects of value for each treatment METHODS: A literature review was performed for constructing a set of criteria (N = 8) for the multiple criteria decision analysis. Workshops for the elicitation of preferences occurred separately for physicians and patients. A performance matrix was populated via 2 network meta-analyses plus converged clinical opinion. Criteria were hierarchically classified by application of pairwise comparisons, and criteria weights were attributed by point allocation through convergence of opinions. Performances in both panels were scored by using a 100-point scale. A linear additive value function was used for the calculation of total value estimates. FINDINGS: Both panels provided their consensus. The hierarchical classification of attributes from the physician perspective placed the highest values on the criteria of severe adverse events, clinical efficacy, route of administration, and cost per year for the third-party payer. From the patient perspective, the highest ranking criteria were clinical efficacy, severe adverse events, percentage of patients remaining with the same targeted immune modulator for 1 year ("drug survival"), and cost per year for the third-party payer. IMPLICATIONS: In an era of multiple options and varying preferences, RA treatments must be evaluated by taking into consideration patients' preferences as well, as to cover the full spectrum of value elements rather than simply clinical outcomes. The results of this analysis show that physicians and patients share similarities but also marked differences in terms of the aspects of treatment that they perceive as more valuable.

Economic evaluation of anti-TNF agents for patients with rheumatoid arthritis in Greece.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to estimate the total mean annual treatment cost of different therapy options for patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in Greece. METHODS: A cost-minimization approach was adopted. An economic model was developed to estimate the direct costs of the three widely used treatments within a 1-year time horizon, from a health care payer perspective, either for new or for existing patients. Data on resource use, dose escalation, and frequency of therapy were based on a nationwide field survey of rheumatologists. Other analyses were also undertaken based on evidence from the literature. Total cost comprised the cost of drugs, administration, and hospital day care visits. Unit cost data were obtained from the price bulletin and the government gazettes issued by the Ministry of Health. Due to the short time horizon of the study, the cost was not discounted. RESULTS: The mean annual total cost per new (or per existing) responder patient on etanercept was estimated at €9,845 (€9,840), and the total cost on etanercept/methotrexate (MTX) was estimated at €9,857 (€9,852). Therapy with etanercept had lower annual cost relative to adalimumab and infliximab. On an annual basis, it was estimated that the difference between etanercept monotherapy and adalimumab monotherapy was €544 (€1,323). Similarly, the difference between etanercept/MTX and infliximab/MTX was €1,871 (€1,490) and €543 (€1,323), respectively, relative to adalimumab/MTX. Results remained constant under other scenario analyses undertaken. CONCLUSION: In the real-life practice setting in Greece, where dose intensity and frequency differences occur, etanercept alone or in combination with MTX, if prescribed as per label, represents the option with lower annual cost per patient when compared with adalimumab or infliximab in patients with RA. These results hold true as long as the assumptions and data used in the analysis remain stable and may alter if any of the underlying parameters, such as drug price, change.

Annual biologic treatment cost for new and existing patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in Greece.

AIM: The aim of the present study was to estimate the annual per-patient cost of treatment with adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, and ustekinumab by response status for new and existing patients with moderate to severe psoriasis in Greece. METHODS: An economic analysis was developed from a national health care perspective to estimate the direct cost of treatment alternatives for new and existing patients within a 1-year time horizon. The model included drug acquisition and administration costs for responders and nonresponders. Real-world treatment pattern and resource use data were extracted through nationwide field research using telephone-based interviews with a representative sample of dermatologists. Unit costs were collected from official sources in the public domain. RESULTS: The mean annual cost of treatment for new patients who responded (or did not respond) to treatment was as follows: adalimumab €10,686 (€3,821), etanercept €10,415 (€3,224), infliximab €14,738 (€7,582), and ustekinumab €17,155 (€9,806). For existing patients the mean annual cost was €9,916, €9,462, €12,949, and €17,149, respectively. Results did not change significantly under several one-way sensitivity and scenario analyses. CONCLUSION: Under the base-case scenario, the cost of treatment with etanercept is lower than that of the other biological agents licensed for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in Greece, for both new and existing patients, irrespective of response status.

A cost-effectiveness analysis of parecoxib in the management of postoperative pain in the Greek health care setting.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative pain management represents a significant factor of morbidity and reduced quality of life for patients, as well as a situation that substantially increases perioperative costs. Available analgesia treatments improve patient outcomes and reduce resource use associated with pain management, although with varying costs and adverse effects. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this analysis was to assess the costs and patient outcomes of parecoxib used in combination with opioids versus use of opioids alone (monotherapy) in the postoperative treatment of surgical patients in Greece. METHODS: A model comparing parecoxib plus opioid treatment versus opioids alone was developed that simulated the first 3 days postsurgery. Clinical efficacy was based on a Phase III, randomized, double-blind, clinical trial that also provided the frequencies of the occurrence of clinically meaningful events (CMEs) related to opioid use for both treatment arms. Resource use associated with each CME was elicited via strictly structured questionnaire-based interviews conducted by a panel of experts (surgeons and anesthesiologists), and costs were determined from the perspective of Social Insurance in Greece (2012 euros). Treatment effectiveness was calculated in summed pain intensity scores. A series of 1-way sensitivity analyses were conducted to check the robustness of the outcomes. RESULTS: Patients treated with parecoxib plus opioids had lower summed pain intensity scores (59.20 vs 80.80) and fewer CMEs (0.62 vs 1.04 per patient) compared with opioids alone for a 3-day period. This outcome led to a full offset of the excess cost of the addition of parecoxib and led to potential savings of €858 per patient compared with opioid use alone. Savings were mainly attributable to decreased CMEs due to reduced intensive care unit and general ward bed-days as well as to reduced physician and nurse time. Results were sensitive with regard to probabilities of occurrence or co-occurrence of CMEs (≥2 CMEs occurring simultaneously), although only to a small extent. Medication costs had a minimal impact on the results of the sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Parecoxib may be a useful addition to opioid treatment by improving postoperative analgesic management, reducing opioid-related adverse events, and lowering per-patient treatment costs.

Pregabalin versus gabapentin in the management of peripheral neuropathic pain associated with post-herpetic neuralgia and diabetic neuropathy: a cost effectiveness analysis for the Greek healthcare setting.

BACKGROUND: The anticonvulsants pregabalin and gabapentin are both indicated for the treatment of peripheral neuropathic pain. The decision on which treatment provides the best alternative, should take into account all aspects of costs and outcomes associated with the two therapeutic options. The objective of this study was to examine the cost - effectiveness of the two agents in the management of patients with painful diabetic neuropathy or post - herpetic neuralgia, under the third party payer perspective in Greece. METHODS: The analysis was based on a dynamic simulation model which estimated and compared the costs and outcomes of pregabalin and gabapentin in a hypothetical cohort of 1,000 patients suffering from painful Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy (DPN) or Post-Herpetic Neuralgia (PHN). In the model, each patient was randomly allocated an average pretreatment pain score, measured using an eleven-point visual analogue scale (0 - 10) and was "run through" the model, simulating their daily pain intensity and allowing for stochastic calculation of outcomes, taking into account medical interventions and the effectiveness of each treatment. RESULTS: Pregabalin demonstrated a reduction in days with moderate to severe pain when compared to gabapentin. During the 12 weeks the pregabalin arm demonstrated a 0.1178 (SE 0.0002) QALY gain, which proved to be 0.0063 (SE 0.0003) higher than that in the gabapentin arm. The mean medication cost per patient was higher for the pregabalin arm when compared to the gabapentin arm (i.e. €134.40) over the 12 week treatment period. However, this higher cost was partially offset by the reduced direct medical costs (i.e. the cost of specialist visits, the cost of diagnostic tests and the other applied interventions). Comparing costs with respective outcomes, the ICERs for pregabalin versus gabapentin were €13 (95%CI: 8 - 18) per additional day with no or mild pain and €19,320 (95%CI: 11,743 - 26,755) per QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: Neuropathic pain carries a great disease burden for patients and society and, is also, associated with a significant economic burden. The treatment of pain associated with DPN and PHN with pregabalin is a cost-effective intervention for the social security in Greece compared to gabapentin. Thus, these findings need to be taken into consideration in the decision - making process when considering which therapy to use for the treatment of neuropathic pain.

Cost-effectiveness of varenicline versus bupropion, nicotine-replacement therapy, and unaided cessation in Greece.

BACKGROUND: Varenicline was designed to relieve symptoms of nicotine withdrawal, including cigarette craving, and to block the reinforcing effects of continued nicotine use. The cost-effectiveness of varenicline in some countries has not been studied. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of varenicline to that of bupropion, nicotine-replacement therapy (NRT), and unaided cessation in the Greek health care setting. The analysis takes into account a societal security (third-party payer) perspective. METHODS: To perform the analyses of the benefits of smoking cessation in terms of smoking-related morbidity, mortality, and associated medical costs, a Markov model was used that simulated the progress of a hypothetical cohort of current smokers making a single attempt to quit smoking at the beginning of the timeframe of the analysis. The robustness of the results was assessed using a series of 1-way sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Varenicline was associated with the potential prevention of 14.1, 14.2, and 35.1 additional cases of the 4 smoking-related diseases incorporated into the model, per 1000 smokers willing to quit, versus bupropion, NRT, and unaided cessation, respectively. Potentially avoided smoking-related deaths with varenicline were estimated at 3.24, 3.26, and 7.5 per 1000 quitters versus the 3 comparators. Varenicline led to a potential gain of 33.78, 33.91, and 83.97 QALYs per 1000 persons willing to make a quit attempt versus the 3 comparators. Varenicline was associated with cost-savings against both active comparators for the lifetime horizon. Overall, the cost per additional quitter with varenicline, considering only the costs of the smoking-cessation strategy, was €2659 (€1015) for a lifetime horizon compared with bupropion (NRT); however, when all direct costs were incorporated into the analysis, varenicline was cost-saving. CONCLUSION: The findings from the present study suggest that, compared with the widely used treatment options bupropion and NRT, as well as unaided cessation, varenicline may enhance smoking-cessation treatment outcomes while substantially reducing the overall costs of smoking to the health care system.