Per-gram cost of medication is by itself a poor indicator for comparing costs of different psoriasis treatments: a retrospective cohort study of the cost of psoriasis treatment with topical corticosteroids versus topical calcipotriene.

BACKGROUND: New treatments are available for psoriasis that complement or replace the use of topical corticosteroids. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article is to assess the relative overall cost difference between regimens based on topical steroids and those using the nonsteroidal anti- psoriasis medication, topical calcipotriene. METHODS: Retrospective data on the cost of therapy of psoriasis were attained through analysis of claims from a national pharmaceutical-and-medical-visit claims-database. Episodes of psoriasis treatment were defined and analyzed for patients whose therapy was initiated with either topical calcipotriene or topical corticosteroids of different potency classes. RESULTS: The average medication cost per episode was greater for topical calcipotriene ($111/episode) compared to ultra-high potency ($70/episode), high potency ($57/episode), mid potency ($47/episode), and low-potency, ($75/episode) topical corticosteroids (p <.05). The average total cost of therapy for the topical calcipotriene regimen ($218) fell within the range for the cost of therapy for topical steroid base regimens ($197 to $457); there were no significant differences in the total cost of therapy between topical calcipotriene monotherapy and other treatment groups. CONCLUSION: The per-gram cost of medication is by itself a poor indicator for comparing the cost of different psoriasis treatment regimens. Given the greater safety and efficacy of combination regimens in terms of both short-term improvement and long-term control, initiating psoriasis treatment with a combination regimen of topical calcipotriene combined with an ultrapotent corticosteroid appears to be the most cost-effective approach to psoriasis treatment.

A retrospective study of persistence with single-pill combination therapy vs. concurrent two-pill therapy in patients with hypertension.

CONTEXT: Patients with hypertension often fail to control their blood pressure because they do not comply with pharmacologic therapy. It was hypothesized that a greater percentage of patients receiving a single pill combining an ACE inhibitor and a diuretic would persist with therapy than patients receiving both drugs as separate pills. METHODS: Prescription data were obtained from a large commercial pharmacy benefit manager (PBM). The records of presumably newly diagnosed hypertensive patients for whom lisinopril combined with hydrochlorothiazide in a single pill (lisinopril/HCTZ) was prescribed (n = 1,644) were compared with those of patients for whom lisinopril and a diuretic were prescribed concurrently (n = 624). Likewise, the records of patients for whom enalapril maleate combined with hydrochlorothiazide in a single pill (enalapril/HCTZ) was prescribed (n = 969) were compared with those of patients for whom enalapril maleate and a diuretic were prescribed concurrently (n = 705). Patients were regarded as persisting if they renewed their prescription within three times the number of days supplied by the previous prescription. Patients were followed for one year from the date of the initial prescription. RESULTS: At 12 months, the percentages of patients persisting with lisinopril/HCTZ (68.7 percent) and enalapril/HCTZ (70.0 percent) therapy were 18.8 percent and 21.7 percent greater, respectively, than the percentages of patients persisting with lisinopril plus concurrent diuretic therapy (57.8 percent) or enalapril maleate plus concurrent diuretic therapy (57.5 percent). Statistical significance (p < 0.05) was demonstrated at 6 and 12 months for both comparisons. CONCLUSION: The simplification of a drug regimen by using combination therapy in a single pill for hypertension resulted in significant increases in persistence with prescribed therapy.

Long-term function and survival of elderly donor kidneys transplanted into young adults.

BACKGROUND: Traditionally, elderly donor kidneys have not been widely accepted for transplantation on the assumption of inferior performance. However, the United Network for Organ Sharing reports an increase in the number of elderly donors from less than 2% in 1982 to 24% in 1995. This trend is commensurate with the increase of older dialysis patients and an overall increase in the elderly population in the United States (1). Optimal utilization of these kidneys is essential to overcome the acute organ shortage. METHODS: In this study, we transplanted 25 kidneys from elderly donors (ages 56-72 years) into young adult recipients (ages 20-50 years) (group 1) over a 4-year period. We compared the results with matched recipients of young adult donor kidneys (group 2) with regard to long-term kidney function and graft survival. A pretransplant biopsy of elderly donor kidneys was carried out and a frozen section report was obtained. Only those kidneys showing glomerulosclerosis of less than 20% were accepted for transplantation. All cadaveric kidneys were preserved in University of Wisconsin solution. RESULTS: Pretransplant biopsies of elderly donor kidneys showed structural deficits, which included glomerulosclerosis in 85%, arteriolar and/or mesangial thickening in 75%, and interstitial lymphocyte infiltration in 30%. The mean serum creatinine was 2.4+/-0.74, 2.2+/-0.56, and 2.9+/-0.76 mg/100 ml in group 1 and 1.5+/-0.55, 2.3+/-2.24, and 1.7+/-0.62 in group 2 at 1, 3, and 5 years, respectively. The patient survival was 92%, 92%, and 88% in group 1, and 100%, 100%, and 100% in group 2 at 1, 3, and 5 years, respectively. The graft survival was 80%, 64%, and 56% in group 1 and 100%, 96%, and 88% in group 2 at similar time intervals. The differences in the serum creatinine and graft survival between the two groups were statistically significant (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Most of the elderly donor kidneys with structural deficits transplanted into young adults provided suboptimal function and inferior long-term graft survival. To maximize the utilization and optimize the survival of elderly donor kidneys, we propose transplantation of these kidneys into age-matched recipients with similar physiological requirements as those of donors, with regard to kidney function.

Analysis of the cost-effectiveness of paclitaxel as alternative combination therapy for advanced ovarian cancer.

PURPOSE: A phase III trial by the Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG) provides strong evidence that a new alternative therapy--paclitaxel (Taxol; Bristol-Myers Squibb Co, Princeton, NJ) in combination with cisplatin (Platinol; Bristol-Myers Squibb Co)--is clinically more effective than the standard therapy using cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan; Bristol-Myers Squibb Co) in combination with cisplatin in the treatment of advanced ovarian cancer. We conducted a pharmacoeconomic analysis to determine whether the alternative paclitaxel-cisplatin (TP) therapy is cost-effective (CE) in comparison to standard cyclophosphamide-cisplatin (CP) therapy. METHODS: Using an economic model, we applied cost data figures to resource utilization data derived from the two arms of the GOG trial. We examined paclitaxel benefits in terms of increased mean survival time, as well as median survival time. Estimates of the cumulative proportion surviving in the trial were based on Kaplan-Meier procedures. RESULTS: Per year of life gained (YLG), TP therapy costs more ($19,820 more for inpatient treatment; $21,222 outpatient) than CP treatment. CONCLUSION: The TP regimen's increased mean survival cost per YLG (inpatient and outpatient settings) adds a substantial benefit at an acceptable cost compared with CP therapy.

[Not Available].

The treatment of colorectal cancer continues to pose major challenges for oncologists throughout the world. Uracil and tegafur (UFT), as an oral agent, represents a new patient-focused approach to managing a malignancy with few treatment alternatives other than an intravenous fluorouracil (5-FU)-based regimen. The ability of UFT to achieve equivalent clinical outcomes compared with continuous 5-FU infusion, along with its oral formulation and mild toxicity profile, provide a compelling backdrop for fiscal analysis. An economic assessment of therapy attributes and effects would, therefore, be prudent and necessary when deliberating the adoption of this chemotherapy regimen. We developed a pharmacoeconomic model in Brazil and Argentina identifying clinical practices associated with chemotherapy administration and adverse event management practices from a panel of physicians assembled in each country. Practice patterns and clinical events were then evaluated for resource utilisation trends. The perspective of this pharmacoeconomic analysis was that of the healthcare payor. Country-specific charge data were applied to the identified resources to arrive at an average cost per patient receiving a 6-cycle course of 5-FU with either levamisole and/or leucovorin as a modulator vs a modelled oral UFT/leucovorin regimen. As a comparator, the oral UFT/leucovorin regimen was modelled based on the expert panel's input. Adverse events and incidence data were derived from clinical trial data for both agents. Both agents were analysed in the treatment of metastatic disease and as adjuvant therapy. The principal findings of a cost-minimisation analysis in Brazil revealed approximately equivalent treatment costs for both regimens in the adjuvant setting. When analysing the metastatic treatment arm, costs diverged by $R335/per patient ($R = Reals - the currency of Brazil) in favour of a UFT regimen. The profile in Argentina yielded more dramatic differences, with a UFT regimen costing $P782/per patient ($P = Pesos - the currency of Argentina) less than a 5-FU regimen in the adjuvant setting. In the treatment of metastatic disease, a UFT regimen provided $P1188/per patient in savings over a 5-FU regimen. These differences are predominantly driven by the mild toxicity profile of UFT and its corresponding less severe adverse event management practice patterns. In addition, the oral formulation of UFT versus intravenous 5-FU provides for ease of administration, lowering the total cost of care as well as likely impacting on the patient's quality of life. The pharmacoeconomic results suggest that a UFT regimen is a useful and economical alternative to the standard 5-FU regimen in the treatment of colorectal cancer in Brazil and Argentina.

A pharmacoeconomic evaluation of cisplatin in combination with either etoposide or etoposide phosphate in small cell lung cancer.

To compare etoposide and etoposide phosphate (Etopophos; Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Princeton, NJ) in maximizing the cost efficiency of care for patients with small cell lung cancer (SCLC), we obtained pharmacoeconomic data from a phase II randomized study of these agents. This clinical investigation assessed the efficacy and toxicity of etoposide phosphate combined with cisplatin in treating SCLC. In the economic analysis, we identified resources expended during chemotherapy and related concomitant procedures and matched them with the current procedure terminology level of costs for the provider and the payor. The valuation process was conducted in the specific point-of-care (outpatient v inpatient) setting. The appropriate pharmacoeconomic analytic tool used when comparators are considered to achieve equivalent clinical outcomes is cost-minimization analysis. We provide the cost-minimization analysis from two oncology care perspectives: the provider and the payor. In addition, a payor/ provider cost reduction model was constructed to illustrate the potential economic effects achieved through more efficient use of the outpatient chemotherapy facility due to the ease of administration of etoposide phosphate. The provider's average cost per patient for treating an SCLC patient for six cycles in US dollars is $26,764.48 for etoposide versus $26,026.70 for etoposide phosphate. The payor's average treatment cost per patient for treating an SCLC patient for six cycles for the respective regimens was $34,270.65 and $34,320.70. When the time savings associated with the etoposide phosphate regimen are applied to the outpatient chemotherapy facility, the adjusted average treatment costs per patient for the payor are $2,797.29 less than the costs for using the standard etoposide intravenous formulation. Delivering an etoposide phosphate regimen accrued adjusted savings of $2,897.03 per patient. Based on these results, etoposide phosphate is a superior pharmacoeconomic alternative compared with standard etoposide chemotherapy in managing SCLC. The potential increase in patient volume conferred by the relative simplicity of etoposide phosphate administration would have a significant impact on operations in terms of scheduling patients and staff and increasing operational efficiencies, thereby facilitating cost reductions in excess of $2,700 per patient when an etoposide phosphate regimen is chosen over an etoposide regimen.