Central nervous system drug consumption depending on the time between symptom onset and the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease: an analysis by the Registry of Dementias of Girona.

AIMS: To describe central nervous system (CNS) drug consumption patterns depending on the time to diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD), and to check whether the cases diagnosed later are associated with greater severity and consuming more CNS drugs. METHODS: Cross-sectional study using 952 cases of the Registry of Dementias of Girona. A binary logistic regression was used to detect variables associated with the use of CNS drugs depending on the time to diagnosis. RESULTS: CNS drugs were consumed by 95.8% of the AD patients. Only antipsychotics presented a statistically significant increase in the frequency of prescription to patients with longer time elapsed from symptom onset to AD diagnosis. CONCLUSION: Longer time elapsed from the onset of symptoms to the diagnosis resulted in increased probability of antipsychotic consumption.

Cost effectiveness of prostacyclins in pulmonary arterial hypertension.

BACKGROUND: Pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) is considered an orphan disease. Prostacyclins are the keystone for PAH treatment. Choosing between the three available prostacyclin therapies could be complicated because there are no comparison studies, so the final decision must be driven by factors such as efficacy, administration route, safety profile and economic aspects. OBJECTIVE: This study provides a cost-effectiveness and cost-utility comparison of initiating prostacyclin therapy with three different treatment alternatives (inhaled iloprost [ILO], intravenous epoprostenol [EPO] and subcutaneous treprostinil [TRE]) for patients with PAH. The goal of this work is to help physicians with their therapeutic decision-making. METHODS: A Markov model was built to simulate a patient cohort with class III PAH according to the classification of the New York Heart Association (NYHA). Four health states corresponding with the NYHA classes plus death were allowed for patients in the model. Changing the treatment was possible when patients worsened from functional class III to IV. The time horizon was 3 years, allowing patients to transition between health states on a 12-week cycle basis. The study perspective was that of the National Health System (NHS) [only direct medical costs were included]. Unitary costs were obtained from the Drug Catalogue and e-Salud Database in 2009 and are given in euros (€). Data on health resources and treatment pathways were informed by a four-member expert panel. Efficacy was obtained from pivotal clinical trials of ILO, EPO and TRE, the latter used in Spain as a foreign medication. Utilities for each health state were obtained from the literature. The final efficacy measure was life-years gained (LYG), and utilities were used to obtain quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Costs and effects were discounted at a 3% rate. To check for the robustness of the results, sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: At the end of the 3 years, in the base case of the deterministic analysis, initiating prostacyclin therapy with iloprost was the less costly strategy (€132,840), followed by treprostinil (€359,869) and epoprostenol (€429,775). Epoprostenol has shown the best efficacy results with 2.73 LYG and 1.78 QALY, followed by iloprost (2.69 LYG and 1.74 QALY) and treprostinil (2.69 LYG and 1.73 QALY). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) and cost-utility ratios (ICUR) of epoprostenol versus iloprost and treprostinil were much above the €30,000 per LYG or QALY threshold commonly used in Spain. Iloprost was dominant compared with treprostinil. In the probabilistic analysis, epoprostenol, when compared with iloprost, was a dominant strategy in 15% of the simulations, but it was not a cost-effective option in 83% of the cases. When compared with treprostinil, epoprostenol was dominant in 43% of the simulations. Iloprost was dominant compared with treprostinil in 45% of the cases and it was a cost-effective alternative in 39% of the simulations. CONCLUSIONS: Initiating prostacyclin treatment with iloprost in patients with PAH, functional class III of the NYHA, is the less costly alternative for the NHS in Spain, with a good efficacy profile when compared with the other alternatives.

Análisis de minimización de costes de fludarabina (Beneflur®) oral vs. vía intravenosa en España / Cost-reduction analysis for oral versus intravenous fludarabine (Beneflur®) in Spain

Introducción: Fludarabina ha demostrado su eficacia, seguridad y eficiencia en el tratamiento de la leucemia linfocítica crónica de células B (LLC-B) en diversos estudios internacionales. El objetivo del presente estudio fue realizar un análisis de minimización de costes de 2 formas alternativas de fludarabina (oral e intravenosa) para el tratamiento de la LLC-B en España. Métodos: La existencia de evidencias clínicas sobre la equivalencia terapéutica de las 2 opciones comparadas (fludarabina oral frente a fludarabina intravenosa) llevó a la realización de un análisis de minimización de costes. Se construyó un modelo farmacoeconómico que combinó datos de la bibliografía y la opinión de expertos para determinar el uso de recursos sanitarios asociados al tratamiento, y los costes unitarios se obtuvieron de bases de datos españolas. El análisis consideró 2 perspectivas: a) la del Sistema Nacional de Salud, que incluía sólo los costes directos sanitarios, y b) la perspectiva social, que además de éstos, incluía los costes indirectos derivados de la pérdida de productividad. Resultados: Aunque la forma oral de fludarabina tiene un coste de adquisición mayor que la especialidad farmacéutica genérica de fludarabina intravenosa, los mayores costes de administración de esta última, de uso hospitalario, se tradujeron en unos ahorros totales asociados a fludarabina oral de 1.908 y 1.292 € en monoterapia y tratamiento combinado con ciclofosfamida, respectivamente. La inclusión de los costes indirectos aumentó los ahorros asociados a la forma oral. Conclusiones: El tratamiento de los pacientes con LLC-B con fludarabina oral presenta unos costes menores respecto a fludarabina intravenosa, tanto en monoterapia, como en tratamiento combinado. Diversos análisis de sensibilidad confirmaron estos resultados, en los que se constata que la forma oral de fludarabina debería ser la opción de elección en el tratamiento de la LLC-B en España, salvo que se contraindique (AU)

Introduction: Various international studies have shown that fludarabine is effective, safe, and efficient for treating B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukemia (B-CLL). The purpose of the present study was to carry out a cost-minimization analysis for two alternative forms of fludarabine (oral and intravenous) used to treat B-CLL in Spain. Methods: The presence of clinical evidence about the treatment equivalence of the two options being compared (oral fludarabine vs. intravenous fludarabine) led us to carry out a cost-minimization analysis. A pharmacoeconomic model was constructed to compile data from the literature and experts’ opinions in order to determine the use of health resources associated with the treatment; unit costs were obtained from Spanish databases. The analysis contemplated two perspectives: that of the national health service, which includes only direct health costs, and the social perspective, which also includes the indirect costs that result from loss of productivity. Results: Although fludarabine in its oral form has a higher purchase price than generic intravenous fludarabine does, increased administration costs for the latter, which is used in hospitals, mean that oral fludarabine use produces total savings of €1,908 and €1,292 for single-drug therapy and combined therapy with cyclophosphamide, respectively. Including indirect costs increased the savings associated with the oral form of the drug. Conclusions: In B-CLL patients, treatment with oral fludarabine has a lower cost than treatment with intravenous fludarabine, in both single-drug therapy and combined therapy. Various sensitivity analyses confirmed these results and showed that oral fludarabine should be the treatment of choice for B-CLL in Spain, unless contrain (AU)

[Cost-reduction analysis for oral versus intravenous fludarabine (Beneflur) in Spain]. / Análisis de minimización de costes de fludarabina (Beneflur) oral vs. vía intravenosa en España.

INTRODUCTION: Various international studies have shown that fludarabine is effective, safe, and efficient for treating B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukemia (B-CLL). The purpose of the present study was to carry out a cost-minimization analysis for two alternative forms of fludarabine (oral and intravenous) used to treat B-CLL in Spain. METHODS: The presence of clinical evidence about the treatment equivalence of the two options being compared (oral fludarabine vs. intravenous fludarabine) led us to carry out a cost-minimization analysis. A pharmacoeconomic model was constructed to compile data from the literature and experts' opinions in order to determine the use of health resources associated with the treatment; unit costs were obtained from Spanish databases. The analysis contemplated two perspectives: that of the national health service, which includes only direct health costs, and the social perspective, which also includes the indirect costs that result from loss of productivity. RESULTS: Although fludarabine in its oral form has a higher purchase price than generic intravenous fludarabine does, increased administration costs for the latter, which is used in hospitals, mean that oral fludarabine use produces total savings of euro1,908 and euro1,292 for single-drug therapy and combined therapy with cyclophosphamide, respectively. Including indirect costs increased the savings associated with the oral form of the drug. CONCLUSIONS: In B-CLL patients, treatment with oral fludarabine has a lower cost than treatment with intravenous fludarabine, in both single-drug therapy and combined therapy. Various sensitivity analyses confirmed these results and showed that oral fludarabine should be the treatment of choice for B-CLL in Spain, unless contrain.