A systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of rFVIIa and APCC in the treatment of minor/moderate bleeding episodes for haemophilia patients with inhibitors.

The clinical, humanistic and economic consequences associated with haemophilia and inhibitors are considerable. Primary treatment for mild-to-moderate bleeding disorders in such patients is recombinant factor VIIa (rFVIIa) or activated prothrombin complex concentrate (APCC). The aims of this study were to identify, review and evaluate the quality of the published literature on the relative cost-effectiveness of rFVIIa and APCC in treating haemophilia patients with inhibitors. The review concentrates on model type, design and assumptions, and results. The results of this study suggest that rFVIIa may be the cost-effective alternative to treatment with APCC. In seven out of the nine studies, rFVIIa had the lower average treatment cost. The difference in average treatment cost to resolve a bleed, between rFVIIa and APCC in these seven studies, ranged from $3000 to $17 000. The adapted modelling framework is similar in all the economic models reviewed, suggesting clinical acceptability of the approach used. The estimates of efficacy varied between the models, especially for APCC. The efficacy for APCC derived from retrospective studies was lower than reported in the literature. Sensitivity analysis was undertaken in the majority of the economic analyses and the results were found to be robust to realistic parameter variations. Only one of the studies was a cost-utility study, showing the lack of measuring health status within this area. This systematic review showed that models based on different sources of data produced fairly similar robust results despite differences in the estimates of efficacy, average dosage required, and unit costs. However, ideally there should be a systematic approach to identifying the relevant data.

Evaluation of the association between the EQ-5D (health-related utility) and body mass index (obesity) in hospital-treated people with Type 1 diabetes, Type 2 diabetes and with no diagnosed diabetes.

AIMS: The purpose of this study was to characterize the impact of body mass index (BMI) on health-related utility for patients with Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes and those without diabetes. METHODS: The study was conducted in Cardiff and the Vale of Glamorgan, Wales, UK. Health-related utility was measured using the EQ-5D(index). Patients from the Health Outcomes Data Repository (HODaR) were surveyed by postal questionnaire either 6 weeks post discharge for in-patients or at out-patient clinics between January 2002 and July 2003. BMI was calculated from self-reported data within the survey. Patients with diabetes were identified by a previous history of an in-patient admission with diabetes or as an out-patient with diabetes recorded as a coexisting diagnosis. RESULTS: Questionnaires were returned from 27 924 patients of whom 2575 had diabetes. Increasing BMI was found to reduce utility in all three groups. BMI was significantly greater for those with Type 2 diabetes compared with those with Type 1, and those without diabetes (P < 0.001). Multiple regression analysis demonstrated that both BMI and diabetes status had a significant effect on utility. However, the rate of change of utility attributable to BMI was not found to be significantly different between the various groups. CONCLUSIONS: Obesity negatively impacts upon health-related utility and thus quality of life for all patient groups. There was no significant difference in the effect of obesity on utility between those with and without diabetes.

Epidemiology of diabetic retinopathy and macular oedema: a systematic review.

AIMS: To systematically review the literature on the prevalence and incidence of diabetic retinopathy (DR) and macular oedema (MO). METHODS: A search of the bibliographic databases (Medline, Embase, CINAHL) was conducted up to October 2001. Selected relevant studies were scrutinized and included in the review. RESULTS: A total of 359 studies were included. The studies were reported in nearly 100 different journals and in over 50 countries. The majority of the studies were US-based, with large studies such as the Wisconsin Epidemiologic Study of Diabetic Retinopathy dominating the literature. The studies were quite dated and highly heterogeneous in nature in terms of patient selection with variable inclusion criteria (age range, gender, diabetes duration and type, ethnicity, comorbidity, and DR status, assessment, and classification). CONCLUSIONS: There are inconsistencies between epidemiological studies, and differences in study methods may contribute to conflicting reports of prevalence and incidence of DR and MO in diabetic populations. As new therapies for DR and its associated complications emerge, the need to capture and monitor new epidemiological data becomes increasingly important to be able to assess the impact and effectiveness of these therapies. Robust, longitudinal capture of patient data is, therefore, essential to evaluate the impact of current practice on the epidemiology of diabetic eye complications.

Economic evaluation in a randomized phase III clinical trial comparing gemcitabine/cisplatin and etoposide/cisplatin in non-small cell lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Information on the relative cost-effectiveness of treatments for cancer is being increasingly sought as pressure on health care resources increases. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of gemcitabine/cisplatin (GC) versus cisplatin/etoposide (CE) in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), using resource utilization data collected in conjunction with the first randomized clinical trial comparing both combinations. METHODS: Efficacy and medical care resource utilization data were collected prospectively in an open-label, multicenter, randomized, comparative, phase III trial conducted in Spain which compared gemcitabine/cisplatin and cisplatin/etoposide in 135 chemonaive patients with Stage IIIB or IV NSCLC. There were no differences between both regimens when survival was used as primary end-point, so a cost-minimization analysis was used to compare them. In addition, cost-effectiveness analyses were conducted when percentage of responses and time to progression were used as secondary end-points. RESULTS: There were no differences between both regimens when survival was selected as the efficacy end-point. Despite the higher chemotherapy cost of GC when compared to CE, there were no differences in total direct costs (584523 pts for GC and 589630 pts for CE; P=NS) between both regimens. Potential savings with GC were mainly associated with a decrease in hospitalization rate. There were differences in favor of GC when response rate (40.6% for GC and 21.9% for CE; P<0.05) and time to disease progression (8.7 months for GC and 7.2 months for CE; P<0. 05) were used as clinical end-points. GC presented a favorable cost-effectiveness profile when compared to CE. CONCLUSIONS: This prospective economic evaluation conducted alongside a clinical trial offers valuable preliminary information on the potential efficiency of the combination gemcitabine-cisplatin in NSCLC. Future assessments based on larger clinical trials focused on survival and naturalistic economic studies conducted in real clinical practice settings are necessary to confirm these findings.