An economic evaluation of levofloxacin versus cefuroxime axetil in the outpatient treatment of adults with community-acquired pneumonia.

OBJECTIVE: To examine treatment costs of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) in adult outpatients given oral (p.o.) levofloxacin or cefuroxime axetil as initial therapy. STUDY DESIGN: Patients with a primary diagnosis of CAP were enrolled in a multicenter, prospective, randomized, open-label, active-controlled Phase III clinical trial. Both inpatients and outpatients were assigned to 1 of 2 treatment groups: (1) intravenous (i.v.) or p.o. levofloxacin; or (2) i.v. ceftriaxone and/or p.o. cefuroxime axetil. METHODS: To make legitimate and meaningful cost comparisons between similar types of patients receiving drugs via the same route of administration (i.e., orally), this outpatient economic study examined the resource utilization of the 211 patients enrolled as outpatients who received oral formulations as initial treatment (levofloxacin, 103 patients; cefuroxime axetil, 108 patients). Resource utilization data and clinical trial data were collected concurrently. To generate cost estimates, Medicare cost estimates for resources were multiplied by the resource units used by patients in each treatment arm. RESULTS: Cost estimates indicated a total cost difference that favored the levofloxacin group (base case: $169; sensitivity analysis: $223 [P = .008]). The results for the base case were not significant (P = .094). In addition, within the cost categories, there was a statistically significant study drug cost differential favoring levofloxacin ($86; P = .0001 for both the base case and sensitivity analysis). CONCLUSION: Oral levofloxacin is less costly than oral cefuroxime axetil in the outpatient treatment of adults with CAP.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of lipid-modifying therapy in Canada: comparison of HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors in the primary prevention of coronary heart disease.

This study estimated the cost-effectiveness of the 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase inhibitors available in Canada for the primary prevention of coronary heart disease (CHD). A model of the cost-effectiveness of therapy used to modify low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels was developed in the primary prevention of CHD based on risk functions from the Framingham Heart Study and Canadian data on coronary risk factors and the cost of treating the leading manifestations of CHD. Relative to no treatment, discounted gains in life expectancy range from 0.174 year for fluvastatin 40 mg to 0.215 year for simvastatin 10 mg. Costs per year-of-life-saved range from $38,800 for fluvastatin 40 mg to $56,200 for pravastatin 20 mg. In the incremental analysis relative to fluvastatin 40 mg, additional gains in life expectancy range from 0.011 year for pravastatin 20 mg to 0.041 year for simvastatin 10 mg, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios range from $88,200 for simvastatin, 10 mg to $330,300 for pravastatin 20 mg. Our analysis showed that the cost-effectiveness of cholesterol-lowering therapy is sensitive to pretreatment risk of CHD, as expressed by pretreatment cholesterol levels and the presence of additional risk factors such as hypertension, diabetes, and smoking. The results of the analysis suggest that it is more cost-effective to initiate treatment with fluvastatin than with pravastatin, simvastatin, or lovastatin. Sensitivity analysis showed the results to be stable even if the lipid-lowering effect of fluvastatin is varied by 23% from the original assumption of 25% LDL reduction (ie, from 19.3% to 30.8%). Limitations of the study are recognized and discussed. A head-to-head comparison of these HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors could provide further evidence that therapy initiated with fluvastatin may be the most cost-effective way to treat patients with hypercholesterolemia who are eligible for treatment with HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors.

Effect of biological and analytical variation in cholesterol measurement on the cost-effectiveness of cholesterol-lowering therapy.

A number of recently published studies on the cost-effectiveness of cholesterol-lowering therapy use data from the Framingham Study to model the effect of cholesterol lowering on coronary heart disease risk. However, the risk estimates from the Framingham Study underestimate the association between coronary heart disease risk and serum cholesterol level because they do not account for intraindividual biological variation and analytical variation in cholesterol measurement. Cost-effectiveness studies that use these risk estimates are therefore likely to overestimate the cost per year of life saved of cholesterol-lowering interventions. We have developed an algorithm that can be used to improve current estimates of the cost-effectiveness of cholesterol-lowering therapy. Our results show that adjusting for intraindividual biological variation and analytical variation lowers the cost per year of life saved by 17 to 29%, depending on sex, pretreatment cholesterol level, and age at initiation of therapy.

Cost-utility analysis of thrombolytic therapy.

An analysis of the cost-effectiveness of thrombolytic therapy was performed, based on 3- to 5-year follow-up data, from 533 patients randomized to receive conventional therapy or intracoronary streptokinase. At the 3-year follow-up, mortality was 22% in the former group and 14% after thrombolysis. The estimated average gain in life years by thrombolytic therapy was 3.4, whereas this figure was only 1.6 years in patients with inferior wall infarction, and 5.1 years in patients with anterior wall infarction. The lifetime costs for conventional therapy, estimated as ECU 15,110, were increased by ECU 5530 when thrombolytic therapy was applied, including direct treatment costs and the additional costs of extra coronary bypass surgery and PTCA. After correction for quality of life, and discounting future costs and future events at 5% year-1, the additional costs for each life year were ECU 2940 for all patients treated. This was broken down into ECU 7030 and ECU 2000 for patients with inferior and anterior wall infarction respectively. These figures compare favourably with other modes of cardiovascular therapy. Thrombolytic therapy does not substantially increase the need for bypass surgery or PTCA. It is very cost-effective, and its application should not be limited by economic resources.

[Cost-effectiveness of lowering of blood cholesterol using simvastatin and cholestyramine]. / De kosten-effectiviteit van verlaging van het cholesterolgehalte met simvastatine en colestyramine.

With use of a model of the costs and effects of cholesterol lowering therapy in the primary prevention of coronary heart disease, the cost-effectiveness of simvastatin and cholestyramine in the Netherlands have been estimated. Costs per year of life saved by cholestyramine therapy are several times greater than those of simvastatin therapy and compared unfavorably with those of generally accepted health care programs in the Netherlands. Cholesterol-lowering with simvastatin in men can be cost-effective when therapy is initiated at an early age. At cholesterol levels between 6.5 and 8 mmol/l, however, therapy should be restricted to men with at least one, preferably two additional risk factors such as hypertension or diabetes mellitus. Among women, cholesterol lowering can only be cost-effective when therapy is limited to women with diabetes mellitus or severely elevated serum cholesterol levels.

[Costs and benefits of vaccination against Haemophilus influenzae type b]. / De kosten en baten van vaccinatie tegen Haemophilus influenzae type b.

In the Netherlands, Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) causes invasive disease in hundreds of children every year; meningitis is the most frequent and most severe infection. Children from the age of 6 months can be protected against Hib-diseases by conjugated vaccines. The financial consequences of the introduction of such vaccine into the state vaccination programme are considered in a cost-effectiveness analysis. Some elements in the analysis are still uncertain, such as the price and the schedule and method of administration of the vaccine. Presumably, the costs and benefits will be in balance, if one vaccine dose will cost about 7 US $+ and if the administration can be combined with the present programme of vaccinations against diphtheria, whooping cough, poliomyelitis and tetanus.

Clinical benefits and cost-effectiveness of lowering serum cholesterol levels: the case of simvastatin and cholestyramine in The Netherlands.

To assess the cost-effectiveness of cholesterol-reducing therapy with cholestyramine and simvastatin in the primary prevention of coronary artery disease in The Netherlands, a model of coronary artery disease incidence was used based on multivariate logistic risk functions from the Framingham study. For men with initial cholesterol levels of 8 mmol/liter, the cost per year of life saved of cholestyramine, expressed in Dutch guilders (NLG; 1 NLG = $0.50), ranges from approximately NLG 208,000 to NLG 483,000, depending on the patient's age at initiation of therapy. For simvastatin, cost-effectiveness ranges from NLG 46,000 to NLG 98,000 per year of life saved among this group of men. Similar differences between simvastatin and cholestyramine therapy prevail among women, although the costs per year of life saved for both agents are considerably higher. These results suggest that (1) simvastatin is substantially more cost effective than is cholestyramine; (2) simvastatin therapy compares favorably with other generally accepted medical practices, especially if treatment is initiated at an early age; and (3) as its long-term safety record becomes more established, simvastatin may become accepted as a drug of first choice in the treatment of persons with elevated serum cholesterol levels.

Cost effectiveness of cholesterol-lowering therapy in The Netherlands. Simvastatin versus cholestyramine.

Using a model of coronary heart disease incidence based on multivariate logistic regression functions from the Framingham Heart Study, the cost effectiveness of simvastatin was compared with that of cholestyramine in preventing such disease. For men with initial cholesterol levels of 310 mg/dl, the cost effectiveness of cholestyramine, expressed in Dutch guilders, ranges from approximately 220,000 to 510,000 guilders per year of life saved, depending on age at initiation of therapy. For simvastatin, cost-effectiveness ratios range from 50,000 to 110,000 guilders per year of life saved among this group of men. Results are similar for women, although the cost effectiveness of both agents is considerably less. These results suggest that simvastatin is substantially more cost effective than cholestyramine; that it compares well with other generally accepted medical practices, especially if therapy is initiated at an early age; and that simvastatin should become accepted as a drug of first choice in the treatment of persons with elevated serum cholesterol levels as its long-term safety record becomes more established.