Cost-Effectiveness of Rifaximin Treatment in Patients with Hepatic Encephalopathy.

BACKGROUND: Hepatic encephalopathy (HE) is a complication of cirrhosis of the liver causing neuropsychiatric abnormalities. Clinical manifestations of overt HE result in increased health care resource utilization and effects on patient quality of life. While lactulose has historically been the mainstay of treatment for acute HE and maintenance of remission, there is an unmet need for additional therapeutic options with a favorable adverse event profile. Compared with lactulose alone, rifaximin has demonstrated proven efficacy in complete reversal of HE and reduction in the incidence of HE recurrence, mortality, and hospitalizations. Evidence suggests the benefit of long-term prophylactic therapy with rifaximin; however, there is a need to assess the economic impact of rifaximin treatment in patients with HE. OBJECTIVE: To assess the incremental cost-effectiveness of rifaximin ± lactulose versus lactulose monotherapy in patients with overt HE. METHODS: A Markov model was developed in Excel with 4 health states (remission, overt HE, liver transplantation, and death) to predict costs and outcomes of patients with HE after initiation of maintenance therapy with rifaximin ± lactulose to avoid recurrent HE episodes. Cost-effectiveness of rifaximin was evaluated through estimation of incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) or life-year (LY) gained. Analyses were conducted over a lifetime horizon. One-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess uncertainty in results. RESULTS: The rifaximin ± lactulose regimen provided added health benefits despite an additional cost versus lactulose monotherapy. Model results showed an incremental benefit of $29,161 per QALY gained and $27,762 per LY gained with rifaximin ± lactulose versus lactulose monotherapy. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the rifaximin ± lactulose regimen was cost-effective ~99% of the time at a threshold of $50,000 per QALY/LY gained, which falls within the commonly accepted threshold for incremental cost-effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical benefit of rifaximin, combined with an acceptable economic profile, demonstrates the advantages of rifaximin maintenance therapy as an important option to consider for patients at risk of recurrent HE. DISCLOSURES: This analysis was funded by Salix Pharmaceuticals, a division of Bausch Health US. Salix and Xcenda collaborated on the methods, and Salix, Xcenda, Jesudian, and Ahmad collaborated on the writing of the manuscript and interpretation of results. Bozkaya and Migliaccio-Walle are employees of Xcenda. Ahmad reports speaker fees from Salix Pharmaceuticals, unrelated to this study. Jesudian reports consulting and speaker fees from Salix Pharmaceuticals, unrelated to this study. The results from this model were presented at AASLD: The Liver Meeting 2014; November 7-11; Boston, MA.

Evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of rifaximin-α for the management of patients with hepatic encephalopathy in the United Kingdom.

OBJECTIVE: Rifaximin-α 550 mg twice daily plus lactulose has demonstrated efficacy in reducing recurrence of episodes of overt hepatic encephalopathy (OHE) and the risk of hepatic encephalopathy (HE)-related hospitalizations compared with lactulose alone. This analysis estimated the cost effectiveness of rifaximin-α 550 mg twice daily plus lactulose versus lactulose alone in United Kingdom (UK) cirrhotic patients with OHE. METHOD: A Markov model was built to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The perspective was that of the UK National Health Service (NHS). Clinical data was sourced from a randomized controlled trial (RCT) and an open-label maintenance study in cirrhotic patients in remission from recurrent episodes of OHE. Health-related utility was estimated indirectly from disease-specific quality of life RCT data. Resource use data describing the impact of rifaximin-α on hospital admissions and length of stay for cirrhotic patients with OHE was from four single-center UK audits. Costs (2012) were derived from published sources; costs and benefits were discounted at 3.5%. The base-case time horizon was 5 years. RESULTS: The average cost per patient was £22,971 in the rifaximin-α plus lactulose arm and £23,545 in the lactulose arm, a saving of £573. The corresponding values for benefit were 2.35 quality adjusted life years (QALYs) and 1.83 QALYs per person, a difference of 0.52 QALYs. This translated into a dominant base-case ICER. Key parameters that impacted the ICER included number of hospital admissions and length of stay. CONCLUSION: Rifaximin-α 550 mg twice daily in patients with recurrent episodes of OHE was estimated to generate cost savings and improved clinical outcomes compared to standard care over 5 years.

Systematic Review of the Economic Burden of Overt Hepatic Encephalopathy and Pharmacoeconomic Impact of Rifaximin.

BACKGROUND: Hepatic encephalopathy (HE), a common neurologic complication in cirrhosis, is associated with substantial disease and economic burden. Rifaximin is a non-systemic antibiotic that reduces the risk of overt HE recurrence and overt HE-related hospitalizations. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to provide an overview of the direct HE-related costs and cost benefits of rifaximin, lactulose, and rifaximin plus lactulose. METHODS: A systematic review of PubMed and relevant meeting abstracts was conducted to identify publications since 1 January 2007 reporting economic data related to HE and rifaximin and/or lactulose. Further, a public database and published literature were used to estimate current costs of hospitalization for overt HE, and potential cost savings of HE-related hospitalizations with rifaximin. The methodological quality of included studies was evaluated using the Drummond checklist. RESULTS: A total of 16 reports were identified for inclusion in the systematic review. Globally, HE-related direct costs ranged from $US5370 to $US50,120 annually per patient. Rifaximin was associated with shorter hospital stays and reduced healthcare costs. Rifaximin also has the potential to reduce overt HE-related hospitalization risk by 50% compared with lactulose. Rifaximin was shown to have a favourable pharmacoeconomic profile compared with lactulose (based on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio). CONCLUSIONS: In addition to its clinical benefits (e.g. reduction in the risk of recurrence of overt HE, overt HE-related hospitalizations, favourable adverse event profile), economic data are favourable for the use of rifaximin in patients with a history of overt HE.

Diagnosis and treatment of minimal hepatic encephalopathy to prevent motor vehicle accidents: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

UNLABELLED: Minimal hepatic encephalopathy (MHE) in cirrhosis is associated with impaired driving skills and increased risk of motor vehicle accidents (MVAs). Detection and treatment of MHE has the potential to reduce costs and morbidity associated with MVAs. We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis to assess the benefits of different strategies of MHE diagnosis and treatment for reducing MVA-related societal costs. The analyses compared five MHE management strategies: (1) presumptive treatment of all cirrhosis patients; (2) diagnosis by neuropsychological exam (NPE) with treatment; (3) diagnosis by standard psychometric tests (SPTs) with treatment; (4) diagnosis by rapid screening using inhibitory control test (ICT) with treatment; and (5) no MHE diagnosis or treatment (status quo). Treatments considered were lactulose or rifaximin, which were assumed to reduce the MVA rate to the level of similarly aged noncirrhosis patients with benefit adjusted for treatment compliance. A Markov model followed a simulated cohort of 1,000 cirrhosis patients without overt hepatic encephalopathy (OHE), from entry into treatment, through MHE development, and later OHE, when they exited the modeled cohort. Follow-up was for 5 years and included biannual MHE testing. The societal cost of a single MVA was estimated at $42,100. All four strategies with lactulose were cost-saving compared with the status quo. Diagnosis with ICT and lactulose was the most cost-effective approach (cost/MVA prevented: $24,454 ICT; $25,470 SPT; $30,469 presumptive treatment and $33,742 NPE). Net program savings over 5 years ranged from $1.7 to 3.6 million depending on the strategy. Rifaximin therapy was not cost-saving at current prices but would become so at a monthly cost of <$353. CONCLUSION: Detection of MHE, especially using the ICT, and subsequent treatment with lactulose could substantially reduce societal costs by preventing MVAs.

Factors affecting compliance and persistence with treatment for hepatic encephalopathy.

Noncompliance with treatment protocols produces an increased burden on the health care system. Reports show that 23% of annual admissions to nursing homes in the United States (380,000 patients) are due to noncompliance, resulting in overall costs of over $31 billion. More than 10% of all patients (3.5 million) are hospitalized each year due to complications related to noncompliance, with over $15 billion spent. In addition, nearly half of the 2 billion prescriptions filled each year are not taken correctly. Patients with cirrhosis and hepatic encephalopathy who are prescribed lactulose experience a greater frequency of adverse effects, require more hospitalizations, and suffer more disease recurrence than those prescribed rifaximin.

Pharmacoeconomics of hepatic encephalopathy.

Understanding and appreciating the science of pharmacoeconomics have become even more important for health care providers and insurers during the recent economic downturn. Evaluating the true costs of any disease is complex; both direct costs, such as costs of drug therapy and the provision of care, and indirect costs, such as lost earnings and reduced quality of life, must be taken into account. With chronic liver disease, the most recent data indicate that direct costs were more than $2 billion whereas indirect costs were more than $450 million. Hepatic encephalopathy, a common complication of chronic liver disease, contributes to this economic burden. Although patients' length of stay during hospitalization for hepatic encephalopathy decreased from almost 9 days to 6 days (and has remained stable over the past few years) from 1993 to 2007, hospitalization costs rose from $13,000 to $30,000/hospital stay. In addition, 22% of patients were discharged directly to nursing homes or rehabilitation centers, which increases total costs. When assessing therapy for hepatic encephalopathy, it is important to consider the total costs of the disease, not just treatment costs. Although more expensive on a daily basis than lactulose, rifaximin has been shown to reduce hospitalization rates, has a better adverse-effect profile, and increases patient compliance. One study found that rifaximin produced a cost savings/patient/year of more than $3000 over lactulose therapy.

The cost-effectiveness of macrogol 3350 compared to lactulose in the treatment of adults suffering from chronic constipation in the UK.

BACKGROUND: It is unknown whether macrogol 3350 (Movicol) affords the UK's National Health Service (NHS) a cost-effective addition to the current range of laxatives. AIM: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of macrogol 3350 compared with lactulose in the treatment of chronic constipation, from the perspective of the UK's NHS. METHODS: A decision model depicting the management of chronic constipation was constructed using clinical outcomes and resource use values derived from patients suffering from chronic constipation in The Health Independent Network (THIN) database. The model was used to estimate the cost-effectiveness of a GP prescribing macrogol 3350 instead of lactulose to treat adults > or =18 years of age suffering from chronic constipation. RESULTS: Sixty-eight percent of patients given macrogol 3350 were successfully treated within 6 months after starting treatment compared to 60% of patients given lactulose.Patients' health status at 6 months was estimated to be 0.458 and 0.454 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) in the macrogol 3350 and lactulose groups respectively. The total 6-monthly NHS cost of initially treating patients with macrogol 3350 or lactulose was estimated to be pound420 (US $688) and pound419 (US $686) respectively. Hence, the cost per QALY gained with macrogol 3350 was estimated to be pound250 (US $410). CONCLUSION: Macrogol 3350 affords the NHS a cost-effective addition to the range of laxatives available for this potentially resource-intensive condition.

Cost-effectiveness of macrogol 4000 compared to lactulose in the treatment of chronic functional constipation in the UK.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of macrogol 4000 compared to lactulose in the treatment of chronic functional constipation, from the perspective of the National Health Service (NHS) in the UK. METHODS: A decision model depicting the management of chronic functional constipation was constructed using clinical outcomes and resource use values derived from patients suffering from chronic functional constipation in The Health Improvement Network (THIN) Database. The model was used to estimate the cost-effectiveness of a general practitioner (GP) prescribing macrogol 4000 relative to lactulose to treat adults >/=18 years of age suffering from chronic functional constipation. RESULTS: Forty-two per cent (95% confidence interval [CI]: 38%; 46%) of macrogol 4000-treated patients are expected to be successfully treated within 3 months after starting treatment, compared to 31% (95% CI: 27%; 37%) of lactulose-treated patients. Patients' health status at 3 months was estimated to be 0.213 (95% CI: 0.200; 0.223) and 0.210 (95% CI: 0.197; 0.220) quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) in the macrogol 4000 and lactulose groups, respectively. The total 3-monthly NHS cost of treating patients with macrogol 4000 or lactulose was estimated to be pound115 (95% CI: pound98; pound132) and pound102 (95% CI: pound86; pound119), respectively. Hence, the cost per QALY gained with macrogol 4000 was estimated to be pound4333. CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of the model, treatment with macrogol 4000 relative to lactulose is expected to increase the probability of being successfully treated by 35% at 3 months (p<0.0001), although this yields only a 1% improvement in health gain. Nevertheless, macrogol 4000 affords a cost-effective addition to the range of laxatives available for this potentially resource-intensive condition, since it is clinically more effective than lactulose and the cost-effective strategy from the perspective of the NHS.

The cost-effectiveness and budget impact of competing therapies in hepatic encephalopathy - a decision analysis.

BACKGROUND: Treatment options for hepatic encephalopathy have disparate risks and benefits. Non-absorbable disaccharides and neomycin are limited by uncertain efficacy and common dose-limiting side effects. In contrast, rifaximin is safe and effective in hepatic encephalopathy, but is more expensive. METHODS: We conducted a decision analysis to calculate the cost-effectiveness of six strategies in hepatic encephalopathy: (i) no hepatic encephalopathy treatment, (ii) lactulose monotherapy, (iii) lactitol monotherapy, (iv) neomycin monotherapy, (v) rifaximin monotherapy and (vi) up-front lactulose with crossover to rifaximin if poor response or intolerance of lactulose ('rifaximin salvage'). The primary outcome was cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained. RESULTS: Under base-case conditions, 'do nothing' was least effective and rifaximin salvage was most effective. Lactulose monotherapy was least expensive, and rifaximin monotherapy was most expensive. When balancing cost and effectiveness, lactulose monotherapy and rifaximin salvage dominated alternative strategies. Compared to lactulose monotherapy, rifaximin salvage cost an incremental US$2315 per quality-adjusted life-year-gained. The cost of rifaximin had to fall below US$1.03/tab in order for rifaximin monotherapy to dominate lactulose monotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Rifaximin monotherapy is not cost-effective in the treatment of chronic hepatic encephalopathy at current average wholesale prices. However, a hybrid salvage strategy, reserving rifaximin for lactulose-refractory patients, may be highly cost-effective.

Nightly high dose lactulose infusion could be a cost-effective treatment for hepatic encephalopathy, renal insufficiency and heart failure.

Lactulose is an established remedy for hepatic encephalopathy and shows efficacy for chronic renal insufficiency, reducing volume overload, uremia and hyperkalemia. Potentially lactulose could also be used for non-diuretic treatment of congestive heart failure. However, use of lactulose is limited by diarrhea and flatulence. Chronic lactulose administration might be tolerable if it was accomplished by nocturnal infusion through a percutaneous duodenostomy tube, also placing a rectal foley each night following a clearing enema so that large volumes of liquid stool could be passed while patients sleep. Each morning the duodenostomy would be clamped and the foley removed. For acute patients without duodenostomies, a temporary dobhoff feeding tube with accompanying rectal foley could be employed. Patients who did not want a rectal foley could elect to have a permanent colostomy. Clinical trials could establish the relationship between lactulose infusion and clearance of water, salt, potassium, hydrogen, urea and other wastes, and compare efficacy, cost and tolerability with that of peritoneal dialysis and ultrafiltration. Lactulose could potentially allow inexpensive home-based therapy for hepatic encephalopathy, chronic renal failure and congestive heart failure, and might be life-saving in countries where renal replacement in any form is currently unavailable.

Hospitalizations during the use of rifaximin versus lactulose for the treatment of hepatic encephalopathy.

We sought to compare frequency and duration of hepatic encephalopathy-related hospitalizations during rifaximin versus lactulose treatment. Hospitalizations, clinical efficacy data, and adverse events obtained from charts of 145 patients with hepatic encephalopathy who received lactulose (30 cc twice daily) for > or = 6 months and then rifaximin (400 mg 3 times a day) for > or = 6 months compared last 6 months on lactulose (lactulose period) to first 6 months on rifaximin (rifaximin period). Fewer hospitalizations (0.5 versus 1.6; P < .001), fewer days hospitalized (2.5 versus 7.3; P < .001), fewer total weeks hospitalized (0.4 versus 1.8; P < .001), and lower hospitalization charges per patient ($14,222 versus $56,635) were reported during the rifaximin period. More patients had asterixis, diarrhea, flatulence, and abdominal pain during the lactulose period (P < .001). Treatment of hepatic encephalopathy with rifaximin was associated with lower hospitalization frequency and duration, lower hospital charges, better clinical status, and fewer adverse events.

Management of constipation in residents with dementia: sorbitol effectiveness and cost.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this report is to describe a cost-effective strategy for management of constipation in nursing home residents with dementia. DESIGN: We conducted a prospective observational quality improvement study of 41 residents with chronic constipation and receiving an osmotic laxative. Sorbitol was substituted for lactulose. SETTING: The study was conducted at a dementia special care unit at a Veterans Administration hospital. MEASUREMENT: We measured the number and amount of laxative use over a period of 4 weeks that were required to maintain regular bowel function. RESULTS: There was no difference in efficacy of lactulose and sorbitol. Use of additional laxatives was infrequent: Milk of Magnesia on approximately 10% of days/patient, bisacodyl suppository on 2% to 4% of days/patient, and Fleet enema only on 3 occasions. The cost of constipation management using routine administration of sorbitol and as-needed use of other laxatives was 27% to 55% lower than the cost of other constipation management strategies reported in the literature. CONCLUSION: Substitution of sorbitol for lactulose does not change efficacy of the treatment and decreases cost. Regular use of an osmotic laxative avoids the costs and discomforts of rectal laxatives.

Management of constipation in residents with dementia: sorbitol effectiveness and cost.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this report is to describe a cost-effective strategy for management of constipation in nursing home residents with dementia. DESIGN: We conducted a prospective observational quality improvement study of 41 residents with chronic constipation and receiving an osmotic laxative. Sorbitol was substituted for lactulose. SETTING: The study was conducted at a dementia special care unit at a Veterans Administration hospital. MEASUREMENT: We measured the number and amount of laxative use over a period of 4 weeks that were required to maintain regular bowel function. RESULTS: There was no difference in efficacy of lactulose and sorbitol. Use of additional laxatives was infrequent: Milk of Magnesia on approximately 10% of days/patient, bisacodyl suppository on 2% to 4% of days/patient, and Fleet enema only on 3 occasions. The cost of constipation management using routine administration of sorbitol and as-needed use of other laxatives was 27% to 55% lower than the cost of other constipation management strategies reported in the literature. CONCLUSION: Substitution of sorbitol for lactulose does not change efficacy of the treatment and decreases cost. Regular use of an osmotic laxative avoids the costs and discomforts of rectal laxatives.

Economic impact of low dose polyethylene glycol 3350 plus electrolytes compared with lactulose in the management of idiopathic constipation in the UK.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the economic impact of using low dose polyethyene glycol 3350 (PEG 3350) plus electrolytes (PEG+E) compared with lactulose in the treatment of idiopathic constipation in ambulant patients. DESIGN AND PERSPECTIVE: This was a decision analytic modelling study performed from the perspective of the UK's National Health Service (NHS). METHODS: The clinical outcomes from a previously reported single-blind, randomised, multicentre trial were used as the clinical basis for the analysis. These data were combined with resource utilisation estimates derived from a panel of six general practitioners (GPs) and four nurses enabling a decision model to be constructed depicting the management of idiopathic constipation with either PEG+E or lactulose over 3 months. The model was used to estimate the expected 3-monthly NHS cost of using either laxative to manage idiopathic constipation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES AND RESULTS: The expected 3-monthly NHS cost of using PEG+E or lactulose to manage idiopathic constipation was estimated to be 85 pound sterling and 96 pound sterling per patient, respectively (1999/2000 values). However, significantly more patients were successfully treated with PEG+E than lactulose (53% versus 24%; p < 0.001) at 3 months. GP visits were the primary cost driver for both PEG+E- and lactulose-treated patients, accounting for 56% (2.9 visits) and 73% (4.4 visits), respectively, of the expected NHS cost per patient at 3 months. Among PEG+E-treated patients, the acquisition cost of PEG+E was the secondary cost driver, accounting for 30% of the expected NHS cost per patient at 3 months, whereas the acquisition cost of lactulose accounted for only 11% of the expected NHS cost per lactulose-treated patient. District nurse domiciliary visits accounted for 4% and thyroid function tests for 2%. The costs of switched laxatives, concomitant laxatives, and gastroenterologist and colorectal surgeon visits collectively accounted for up to 9% of the total. CONCLUSIONS: The true cost of managing idiopathic constipation is impacted on by a broad range of resources and not only laxative acquisition costs. This study indicated that managing idiopathic constipation with PEG+E instead of lactulose reduces the expected 3-monthly NHS cost by 11 pound sterling per patient. Moreover, using PEG+E instead of lactulose is expected to double the percentage of patients successfully treated at 3 months. Hence, PEG+E is a dominant treatment compared with lactulose. This suggests that the decision to use either PEG+E or lactulose to treat idiopathic constipation should be based on efficacy, safety, patient preferences and total management costs, and not drug acquisition costs.

Chronic constipation in long stay elderly patients: a comparison of lactulose and a senna-fibre combination.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and cost effectiveness of a senna-fibre combination and lactulose in treating constipation in long stay elderly patients. DESIGN: Randomised, double blind, cross over study. SETTING: Four hospitals in Northern Ireland, one hospital in England, and two nursing homes in England. SUBJECTS: 77 elderly patients with a history of chronic constipation in long term hospital or nursing home care. INTERVENTION: A senna-fibre combination (10 ml daily) or lactulose (15 ml twice daily) with matching placebo for two 14 day periods, with 3-5 days before and between treatments. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Stool frequency, stool consistency, and ease of evacuation; deviation from recommended dose; daily dose and cost per stool; adverse effects. RESULTS: Mean daily bowel frequency was greater with the senna-fibre combination (0.8, 95% confidence interval 0.7 to 0.9) than lactulose (0.6, 0.5 to 0.7; t = 3.51 p < or = 0.001). Scores for stool consistency and ease of evacuation were significantly higher for the senna-fibre combination than for lactulose. The recommended dose was exceeded more frequently with lactulose than the senna-fibre combination (chi 2 = 8.38, p or = 0.01). As an index of the standard daily dose, the dose per stool was 1.52 for lactulose and 0.97 for the senna-fibre combination, at a cost per stool of 39.7p for lactulose and 10.3p for senna-fibre. Adverse effects were no different for the two treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Both treatments were effective and well tolerated for chronic constipation in long stay elderly patients. The senna-fibre combination was significantly more effective than lactulose at a lower cost.