Dexmedetomidine versus standard care sedation with propofol or midazolam in intensive care: an economic evaluation.

INTRODUCTION: Dexmedetomidine was shown in two European randomized double-blind double-dummy trials (PRODEX and MIDEX) to be non-inferior to propofol and midazolam in maintaining target sedation levels in mechanically ventilated intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Additionally, dexmedetomidine shortened the time to extubation versus both standard sedatives, suggesting that it may reduce ICU resource needs and thus lower ICU costs. Considering resource utilization data from these two trials, we performed a secondary, cost-minimization analysis assessing the economics of dexmedetomidine versus standard care sedation. METHODS: The total ICU costs associated with each study sedative were calculated on the basis of total study sedative consumption and the number of days patients remained intubated, required non-invasive ventilation, or required ICU care without mechanical ventilation. The daily unit costs for these three consecutive ICU periods were set to decline toward discharge, reflecting the observed reduction in mean daily Therapeutic Intervention Scoring System (TISS) points between the periods. A number of additional sensitivity analyses were performed, including one in which the total ICU costs were based on the cumulative sum of daily TISS points over the ICU period, and two further scenarios, with declining direct variable daily costs only. RESULTS: Based on pooled data from both trials, sedation with dexmedetomidine resulted in lower total ICU costs than using the standard sedatives, with a difference of €2,656 in the median (interquartile range) total ICU costs-€11,864 (€7,070 to €23,457) versus €14,520 (€7,871 to €26,254)-and €1,649 in the mean total ICU costs. The median (mean) total ICU costs with dexmedetomidine compared with those of propofol or midazolam were €1,292 (€747) and €3,573 (€2,536) lower, respectively. The result was robust, indicating lower costs with dexmedetomidine in all sensitivity analyses, including those in which only direct variable ICU costs were considered. The likelihood of dexmedetomidine resulting in lower total ICU costs compared with pooled standard care was 91.0% (72.4% versus propofol and 98.0% versus midazolam). CONCLUSIONS: From an economic point of view, dexmedetomidine appears to be a preferable option compared with standard sedatives for providing light to moderate ICU sedation exceeding 24 hours. The savings potential results primarily from shorter time to extubation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00479661 (PRODEX), NCT00481312 (MIDEX).

Effect of the Apolipoprotein E Genotype on Cognitive Change During a Multidomain Lifestyle Intervention: A Subgroup Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The role of the apolipoprotein E (APOE) ε4 allele as an effect modifier in lifestyle interventions to prevent cognitive impairment is still unclear. Objective: To examine whether the APOE ε4 allele modifies the previously reported significant cognitive benefits of a multidomain lifestyle intervention (prespecified subgroup analysis). Design, Setting, and Participants: The Finnish Geriatric Intervention Study to Prevent Cognitive Impairment and Disability (FINGER) was a randomized clinical trial in 6 centers across Finland (screening and randomization performed from September 7, 2009, through November 24, 2011; intervention duration, 2 years). Data analysis was performed from August 1, 2015, to March 31, 2016. The study population was at-risk older individuals from the general population. Inclusion criteria were age of 60 to 77 years; Cardiovascular Risk Factors, Aging, and Dementia risk score of at least 6 points; and cognition at a mean level or slightly lower than expected for age. Individuals with dementia or substantial cognitive impairment and conditions that prevented cooperation or safe engagement in the intervention were excluded. APOE genotype data were available for 1175 of the 1260 participants. Interventions: Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to a multidomain intervention group (diet, exercise, cognitive training, and vascular risk management) or a control group (general health advice). Group allocation was not actively disclosed to participants, and outcome assessors were masked to group allocation. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcome was change in cognition measured through a comprehensive neuropsychological test battery. Analysis was based on modified intention to treat (participants with at least 1 postbaseline assessment). Results: A total of 1109 participants (mean [SD] age, 69.3 [4.7] years; 514 [46.3%] female) were included in the analysis: 362 APOE ε4 allele carriers (173 intervention and 189 control) and 747 noncarriers (380 intervention and 367 control). The APOE ε4 carriers and noncarriers were not significantly different at baseline (except for serum cholesterol level). The difference between the intervention and control groups in annual neuropsychological test battery total score change was 0.037 (95% CI, 0.001 to 0.073) among carriers and 0.014 (95% CI, -0.011 to 0.039) among noncarriers. Intervention effect was not significantly different between carriers and noncarriers (0.023; 95% CI, -0.021 to 0.067). Conclusions and Relevance: Healthy lifestyle changes may be beneficial for cognition in older at-risk individuals even in the presence of APOE-related genetic susceptibility to dementia. Whether such benefits are more pronounced in APOE ε4 carriers compared with noncarriers should be further investigated. The findings also emphasize the importance of early prevention strategies that target multiple modifiable risk factors simultaneously. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01041989.

Cost-effectiveness of levodopa/carbidopa/entacapone (Stalevo) compared to standard care in UK Parkinson's disease patients with wearing-off.

BACKGROUND AND METHODS: A Markov model was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of levodopa/carbidopa/entacapone (LCE;Stalevo), in the treatment of patients with Parkinson's disease (PD) and end-of-dose motor fluctuations (wearing-off). LCE, with or without other antiparkinsonian medications, was compared to UK standard care, comprising traditional levodopa/ dopa-decarboxylase inhibitor (DDCI) with other antiparkinsonian medications (e.g. selegiline or dopamine agonists) added as needed. The costs and outcomes of both treatments were projected over a period of 10 years from the perspective (a) of society as a whole and (b) of the UK National Health Service (NHS). Sensitivity analyses, including second-order Monte Carlo simulations, were performed to assess the confidence level of the primary results. RESULTS: Treatment with LCE produced an average gain of +1.04 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) per patient (2.57 vs. 1.53) in the base-case analysis (discount rate 3.5%). This gain was accompanied by a reduction in the total 10-year direct cost of care to society of 10198 pounds per patient ( approximately E14800). From the societal perspective, therefore, LCE was dominant, producing better clinical outcomes with lower costs. This dominance was reiterated in all sensitivity analyses of society-focused analysis, including a shortening of the time-frame to 5 years. Although treatment with LCE resulted in an increase in direct costs per patient of 3239 pounds (25756 pounds versus 22517 pounds) to the NHS over the 10-year period analysed, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of LCE was only 3105 pounds per QALY gained (approximately E4500). All ICERs to the NHS remained below 3800 pounds per QALY gained in univariate sensitivity analyses applying different discount rates. When a shorter, 5-year, time-horizon was analysed, the NHS-related ICER for LCE was 6526 pounds per QALY gained. All these ICERs are within the range usually considered to indicate acceptable or highly acceptable cost effectiveness (defined as < 30000 pounds per QALY gained). The results of the Monte Carlo simulations indicated that the likelihood of LCE being either 'dominant' or more effective at an 'acceptable cost' from either the societal or the NHS perspective was high, exceeding 96% in the base-case sensitivity analysis, and was 93% even when all the uncertainties associated with the model were taken into consideration simultaneously. In particular, compared to standard care, the probability that LCE would provide better outcomes at a lower cost to society as a whole was 77% in the base-case sensitivity analysis and 72% in the scenario involving the highest degree of uncertainty. CONCLUSIONS: In the UK the use of LCE to treat PD patients with wearing-off is beneficial to individual patients and likely to offer money savings to society as a whole, compared with UK standard therapy. The added cost of the medication itself is exceeded by the savings made in other direct costs of PD, mainly those relating to social care or PD-related private expenditures.