The cost effectiveness of licensed oromucosal midazolam (Buccolam(®)) for the treatment of children experiencing acute epileptic seizures: an approach when trial evidence is limited.

BACKGROUND: In the UK, two treatment options are used for acute epileptic seizures in the community-rectal diazepam and unlicensed buccal midazolam. In practice, the former is rarely used, with unlicensed buccal midazolam being widely recommended and prescribed by physicians. In September 2011, Buccolam(®) (licensed midazolam oromucosal solution) became the first medicine to receive a Paediatric-Use Marketing Authorization (PUMA) and it is indicated for the treatment of prolonged, acute, convulsive seizures by caregivers in the community for children (aged 6 months to <18 years) diagnosed with epilepsy. The approval process for a PUMA product differs from other marketing authorization processes and may be based upon small population subsets and may not, in some cases, require new safety or efficacy data to be generated; a similar situation to that seen for orphan drugs. This can lead to challenges when conducting economic evaluations. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the cost effectiveness of Buccolam(®) for children with a diagnosis of epilepsy suffering prolonged, acute, convulsive seizures occurring in the UK community setting. DESIGN AND PERSPECTIVE: A hybrid model was developed according to a UK payer perspective. The model included a time-to-event simulation for the frequency and location of occurrence of seizures, along with a decision-tree model that assessed the treatment pathway when a seizure occured. The model compared treatment with Buccolam(®) with standard care in the community (95 % unlicensed buccal midazolam and 5 % rectal diazepam) or either treatment alone. The model was informed by data from a variety of sources, including clinical effectiveness estimates, and costs based on published UK data, using 2012-13 prices, where possible. To determine current practice and real-world effectiveness, a Delphi panel and a survey of parents of children with epilepsy were conducted. RESULTS: Buccolam(®) showed a reduction in costs of £2,939 compared with standard care, £14,269 compared with rectal diazepam alone and £886 compared with unlicensed buccal midazolam alone. Increases of 0.025, 0.082 and 0.013 quality-adjusted life-years, respectively, were also seen. Buccolam(®) remained dominant across a range of scenario analyses. CONCLUSION: This model demonstrates the possibility of constructing a thorough economic case when trial or real-world data are not available. The results of the model show Buccolam(®) to be cost saving compared with rectal diazepam due to a reduction in the need for ambulance callouts and hospital stays, and compared with unlicensed buccal midazolam, through reduced drug costs and wastage.

The cost-effectiveness of onabotulinumtoxinA for the prophylaxis of headache in adults with chronic migraine in the UK.

BACKGROUND: Although chronic migraine is associated with substantial disability and costs, few treatments have been shown to be effective. OnabotulinumtoxinA (Botox, Allergan Inc., Irvine, CA) is the first treatment to be licensed in the UK for the prophylaxis of headaches in adults with chronic migraine. This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of onabotulinumtoxinA in this indication in the UK. METHODS: A state-transition (Markov) model was developed comparing onabotulinumtoxinA to placebo. Efficacy data and utility values were taken from the pooled Phase III REsearch Evaluating Migraine Prophylaxis Therapy (PREEMPT) clinical trials program (n = 1384). Estimates of resource utilisation were taken from the International Burden of Migraine Study (IBMS), and stopping rules were informed by published medical guidelines and clinical data. This study estimated 2-year discounted costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) from the UK National Health Service perspective. RESULTS: At 2 years, treatment with onabotulinumtoxinA was associated with an increase in costs of £1367 and an increase in QALYs of 0.1 compared to placebo, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £15,028. Treatment with onabotulinumtoxinA reduced headache days by an estimated 38 days per year at a cost of £18 per headache day avoided. Sensitivity analysis showed that utility values had the greatest influence on model results. The ICER remained cost-effective at a willingness to pay threshold of £20,000-£30,000/QALY in the majority of scenario analyses as well as in probabilistic sensitivity analysis, where onabotulinumtoxinA was cost-effective on 96% of occasions at a threshold of £20,000/QALY and 98% of occasions at £30,000/QALY. CONCLUSION: OnabotulinumtoxinA has been shown to reduce the frequency of headaches in patients with chronic migraine and can be considered a cost-effective use of resources in the UK National Health Service. The uncertainties in the model relate to the extrapolation of clinical data beyond the 56-week trial.

Effectiveness of malaria chemoprophylaxis against Plasmodium falciparum infection in UK travellers: retrospective observational data.

What is already known on this topic. Malaria is a potentially life-threatening disease, and cases of imported Plasmodium falciparum malaria have increased among UK travellers over the past 20 years, although declining steadily in recent years. The HPA Advisory Committee on Malaria Prevention (ACMP) UK Traveller guidelines recommend doxycycline, mefloquine, or combination atovaquone plus proguanil for prophylaxis in travellers to P. falciparum endemic regions, and with the exception of Lambeth Primary Care Trust, malaria chemoprophylaxis is not reimbursed by the NHS. There are limited data on the comparative effectiveness of the recommended malaria chemoprophylaxis drugs for P. falciparum. What this study adds. The effectiveness of combination atovaquone plus proguanil may provide greater protection against imported P. falciparum malaria in UK travellers as compared with doxycycline and mefloquine. More research is needed on the effectiveness of different chemoprophylactic regimens. Further work is required to ascertain whether ease of use and compliance may be important factors in the outcomes associated with malaria chemoprophylaxis.