Prescribing pattern and resource utilization of monoamine oxidase-B inhibitors in Parkinson treatment: comparison between rasagiline and selegiline.

Difference between selegiline and rasagiline for effectiveness in Parkinson's disease (PD) is uncertain, nevertheless their costs highly differ: rasagiline is more expensive than selegiline. This study was aimed to compare prescribing pattern and resource utilization in PD patients treated with rasagiline or selegiline. Historic cohort study, based on databases of three Italian Local Health Authorities was performed. Patients with PD and receiving rasagiline or selegiline between 01-07-2009 and 31-12-2011 were selected and followed-up for 12 months. As outcomes, and relevant costs, were evaluated: (a) anti-parkinson prescriptions; (b) hospitalization for PD and for fracture; (c) antiinflammatory and antirheumatic prescriptions; (d) antipsychotic prescriptions; (e) hospitalization for cardiovascular diseases; (f) cardiovascular prescriptions; (g) ambulatory visits or diagnostic tests. Average annual cost per patient was considered for both PD-related expenditure (a + b + c) and overall cost (a + b + c + d + e + f + g). Differences between rasagiline and selegiline were analysed by generalized linear model. Overall 1607 patients were selected: 63.7 % under selegiline and 36.2 % under rasagiline. Hospitalizations for PD occurred more in rasagiline group than in selegiline one (13.6 vs. 8.0 %, p < 0.001), whereas hospitalizations for fractures less in rasagiline group than in selegiline one (1.4 vs. 3.8 %, p = 0.005). Dopamine agonists (66.0 vs. 31.0 %, p < 0.001) and levodopa (73.9 vs. 49.0 %, p < 0.001) were prescribed more frequently in rasagiline group than in selegiline one. The choice to prescribe rasagiline produced a statistically significant increase in both overall cost (+2404 €, p < 0.001) and PD-related cost (+2363 €, p < 0.001). In conclusion, prescribing patterns and health resource utilization highly differ between rasagiline and selegiline. There is no homogeneous prescription behaviour among clinicians in preferring one or the other MOAB-I, on the basis of demographic, clinical and therapeutic characteristics of patients with PD.

Rasagiline: a review of its use in the treatment of idiopathic Parkinson's disease.

Rasagiline (Azilect(®)) is an oral, second-generation, selective, irreversible monoamine oxidase-B (MAO-B) inhibitor approved in the US for the treatment of Parkinson's disease. In randomized, controlled trials, oral rasagiline 1 mg once daily was superior to placebo in the symptomatic treatment of early Parkinson's disease, both as monotherapy or as an adjunct to dopamine agonists. Comparisons of early-start and delayed-start treatment suggested a disease-modifying effect for rasagiline, but the results were equivocal. Rasagiline 0.5 or 1 mg/day was also superior to placebo as adjunctive therapy to levodopa in Parkinson's disease patients with motor fluctuations. Rasagiline was generally well tolerated in clinical trials, displaying a placebo-like tolerability profile in several studies. Cost-utility studies predicted that rasagiline, either as monotherapy or adjunctive therapy, would be a cost-effective treatment option. Therefore, oral rasagiline is a valuable therapeutic option for use in all stages of Parkinson's disease.

Cost effectiveness of rasagiline and pramipexole as treatment strategies in early Parkinson's disease in the UK setting: an economic Markov model evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Levodopa is the most effective treatment for the symptoms of Parkinson's disease (PD). However, after an initial period of benefit, several limitations become apparent, including motor complications such as dyskinesia. Dyskinesia can severely affect patients' quality of life and increases healthcare resource use. Thus, delaying the need for levodopa, and therefore the onset of levodopa-induced dyskinesia, is important. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the cost effectiveness, from a UK healthcare payer perspective, of two antiparkinsonian treatment strategies in early PD: first-line monotherapy with rasagiline, a novel monoamine oxidase B inhibitor; and the non-ergoline dopamine receptor agonist pramipexole. METHODS: An economic Markov model was developed as a pragmatic tool to derive comparative information on the effectiveness, utility and costs of these two strategies over a 5-year period. Model input data were obtained from the TEMPO study for rasagiline and from a study by the Parkinson Study Group for pramipexole. Effectiveness outcomes were time to levodopa and time to levodopa-induced dyskinesia. Cost and quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) data were derived from published sources. RESULTS: Rasagiline was the dominant strategy. Compared with pramipexole, use of the rasagiline strategy was estimated to reduce costs by 18% per patient over 5 years and was associated with an additional 10% delay in dyskinesia onset (0.41 years; 95% CI 0.27, 0.55). This strategy was also found to prolong the time to levodopa initiation by 25% through a gain of 0.83 levodopa-free years (95% CI 0.56, 1.1). In addition, use of the rasagiline strategy was found to generate a 5% gain in QALYs over 5 years compared with the pramipexole strategy (3.7 +/- 0.02 vs 3.51 +/- 0.03). Sensitivity analyses confirmed that the model was robust. CONCLUSIONS: Rasagiline represents a cost-effective alternative to pramipexole in the treatment of early PD in the UK.

Identification of a claims data "signature" and economic consequences for treatment-resistant depression.

BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a debilitating condition with significant economic consequences. Conservative estimates indicate that between 10% and 20% of all individuals with MDD are treatment resistant. The objectives for this study were (1) to use current treatment strategies identified in the literature to evaluate the validity of studying treatment-resistant depression (TRD) using claims data and (2) to estimate cost differences between TRD-likely and TRD-unlikely patients identified by use of treatment patterns. METHOD: The data source consisted of medical, pharmaceutical, and disability claims from a Fortune 100 manufacturer for 1996 through 1998 (N = 125,242 continuously enrolled beneficiaries between the ages of 18 and 64 years). The sample included individuals with medical or disability claims for MDD (NMDD = 4186). A treatment pattern algorithm was applied to classify adult MDD patients into TRD-likely (NTRD = 487) and TRD-unlikely groups. Resource utilization and costs were compared among TRD-likely and TRD-unlikely patients and a random sample of average beneficiaries (i.e., 10% of all beneficiaries) for 1998. RESULTS: Consistent with the epidemiologic literature, the algorithm classified 12% of the MDD sample as TRD-likely. Mean annual costs were $10,954 for TRD-likely patients, $5025 for TRD-unlikely patients, and $3006 for average beneficiaries. TRD-likely patients used almost twice as many medical services as did TRD-unlikely patients and incurred significantly greater indirect costs (p < .0001). CONCLUSION: It is feasible to use an administrative dataset to develop a claim-based treatment algorithm to identify TRD-likely patients. Resource utilization by TRD-likely patients was substantial, not only for direct treatment of depression but also for treatment of comorbid medical conditions. Additionally, TRD imposed on employers substantial indirect costs resulting from high rates of depression-associated disability.

Use of antidepressants among elderly subjects: trends and contributing factors.

OBJECTIVE: The authors assessed changes over time in antidepressant utilization among elderly subjects regarding the prevalence of antidepressant users, shifts in prescription patterns, and related financial implications. METHOD: The authors conducted a population-based study of more than 1.4 million Ontario residents aged 65 years or older. Cross-sectional data regarding annual antidepressant utilization were obtained from administrative databases for 1993 to 1997. Time series analysis was used to assess trends over time and to make future projections. RESULTS: The proportion of antidepressant users increased from 9.3% of the elderly population in 1993 to 11.5% in 1997. Prescriptions for selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) accounted for 9.6% of antidepressant prescriptions dispensed in the first 30 days of 1993 and 45.1% of those dispensed by the last 30 days of 1997 and were projected to increase to approximately 56% by the end of 2000. Prescriptions for tricyclic antidepressants fell from 79.0% in the first 30 days of 1993 to 43.1% by the last 30 days of 1997 and were projected to decline to approximately 28% by the end of 2000. Annual antidepressant costs (in Canadian dollars) increased by 150%, from $10.8 million in 1993 to $27.0 million in 1997. Population shifts and an increase in the prevalence of antidepressant users accounted for at least 20% of this increase, whereas the prescribing transition from tricyclic antidepressants to SSRIs accounted for at least 61% of the increase. CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of SSRIs has had a substantial financial impact at the drug utilization level. Future research should address the appropriate balancing of the cost of newer agents versus their ostensible advantages.

Who bears the cost of antidepressants in Australia?

We analyse the costs of antidepressant use in Australia, including government costs. The newer drugs are all expensive and the increases in costs are largely borne by the government--over the last four years the total number of prescriptions for antidepressants has not increased but government costs have doubled.