Cost-effectiveness of combination therapy for treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia: a model based on the findings of the Combination of Avodart and Tamsulosin trial.

OBJECTIVE: • To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of combination therapy for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) compared with alpha-blocker (AB), 5-alpha reductase inhibitor (5ARI) monotherapy or watchful waiting (WW) in male patients enrolled in the Combination of Avodart and Tamsulosin (CombAT) trial using a Norwegian economic model. PATIENTS AND METHODS: • A decision analytic model was constructed to evaluate the BPH treatment regimens using point estimate base-case analyses, one-way sensitivity testing and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. • Symptom severity and acute urinary retention/transurethral resection of the prostate (AUR/TURP) event data came from the 4-year evaluation of the CombAT trial with additional data from the Medical Therapy of Prostatic Symptoms (MTOPS) trial. The model makes use of Norwegian practice pattern data and unit cost and utility estimates were taken from the published literature. • The model calculates treatment costs and utility outcomes at two time horizons: 4 years and lifetime. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated using WW as the basis of comparison. Costs and health state utilities were discounted after the first year. RESULTS: • At 4 years, ICER results for combination therapy are higher than AB monotherapy as a result of the higher drug cost, but the overall cost and quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) differences are small. • At the lifetime evaluation, the ICER results decrease from those at the 4-year horizon, although AB monotherapy remains less expensive than combination therapy. However, the incremental QALYs gained for combination therapy are twice those of AB monotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: • The model is sensitive to variability in estimates of health state utility assigned on the basis of symptom severity, indicating that both monotherapy and combination therapy have an advantage in maintaining patients in less severe symptom states. • Overall, combination therapy for BPH is expected to provide the greatest net monetary benefit at willingness-to-pay thresholds at or above ≈€6000 (£5400).

Lifetime Cost-effectiveness of Oral Semaglutide Versus Dulaglutide and Liraglutide in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Inadequately Controlled With Oral Antidiabetics.

PURPOSE: To estimate the incremental cost-utility ratio of oral semaglutide (14 mg once daily) vs other glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist treatments among adults with type 2 diabetes that was inadequately controlled with 1 to 2 oral antidiabetic drugs from a US payer perspective. METHODS: A state-transition model with a competing risk approach was developed for diabetic complications and risk of cardiovascular events based on the UK Prospective Diabetes Study Outcomes Model 1 equations. Baseline population characteristics reflect the PIONEER 4 trial (Efficacy and Safety of Oral Semaglutide Versus Liraglutide and Versus Placebo in Subjects With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus) of oral semaglutide. Model comparators included subcutaneous semaglutide, dulaglutide, and liraglutide. Treatment effects (change in glycosylated hemoglobin, weight, and systolic blood pressure) were estimated by network meta-analysis. Drug, management, and event costs (in 2019 US dollars), survival after nonfatal events, and utilities were obtained from the literature. Costs and quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) outcomes were discounted at 3% annually over a lifetime horizon. Probabilistic and 1-way sensitivity analyses were performed. FINDINGS: Total estimated costs and QALYs were $144,065 and 12.98 for oral semaglutide, $145,721 and 12.96 for dulaglutide, $145,833 and 12.99 for SC semaglutide, and $149,428 and 12.97 for liraglutide, respectively. Oral semaglutide was less costly and more effective than dulaglutide and liraglutide but less costly than subcutaneous semaglutide with similar effectiveness. Oral semaglutide was favored versus subcutaneous semaglutide in 52.10% of model replications at a willingness-to-pay of $150,000 per QALY. IMPLICATIONS: Oral semaglutide is predicted to offer health benefits similar to subcutaneous semaglutide and ahead of dulaglutide and liraglutide. Oral semaglutide is a cost-effective glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist treatment option.

Efficacy of olanzapine and ziprasidone for the treatment of schizophrenia: a systematic review.

It is difficult to determine the relative efficacy of atypical antipsychotics for the treatment of schizophrenia, based on the available literature. The purpose of this article is to review and compare the efficacy of two atypical antipsychotics: olanzapine and ziprasidone.This review focused on randomised trials in which these two antipsychotics were compared with placebo, conventional antipsychotics and each other. Common efficacy measures were the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale, Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale and Schedule for Assessment of Negative Symptoms. When sufficient data were available, the mean treatment effect (with 95% confidence intervals) was computed and presented. Olanzapine was consistently found to be significantly superior to placebo and comparable with, or superior to, haloperidol for the treatment of overall, positive and negative schizophrenic symptoms. Ziprasidone appears to have significantly greater efficacy than placebo for overall and negative symptoms, but it remains uncertain whether ziprasidone is comparable in efficacy with conventional antipsychotics such as haloperidol. Two unpublished clinical trials have directly compared olanzapine and ziprasidone. One of these trials found no significant efficacy differences between the two drugs, whereas the results of the other study favoured olanzapine. Compared with ziprasidone, olanzapine has a larger body of evidence supporting its efficacy, and a greater proportion of findings for olanzapine have been published, allowing for greater scrutiny of results. Both drugs appear to be superior to placebo for the treatment of overall and negative symptoms of schizophrenia, but olanzapine generally compares more favourably with conventional antipsychotics. Firm conclusions regarding the comparison between olanzapine and ziprasidone require additional published trials on ziprasidone, particularly in direct comparison with olanzapine.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of valsartan versus losartan and the effect of switching.

OBJECTIVES: Losartan will shortly become generic, and this may encourage switching to the generic drug. However, valsartan was shown in a meta-analysis to be statistically superior in lowering blood pressure (BP) to losartan. This paper examines the costs of treatment with these two drugs and the potential consequences of switching established valsartan patients to generic losartan. METHODS: A US payer cost-effectiveness model was developed incorporating the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) events related to systolic blood pressure (SBP) control comparing valsartan to continual losartan and switching from valsartan to generic losartan. The model, based upon a meta-analysis by Nixon et al. and Framingham equations, included first CVD event costs calculated from US administrative data sets and utility values from published sources. The modeled outcomes were number of CVD events, costs and incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and life-year (LY). RESULTS: Fewer patients had fatal and non-fatal CVD events with valsartan therapy compared with continual losartan and with patients switched from valsartan to generic losartan. The base-case model results indicated that continued treatment with valsartan had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $27,268 and $25,460 per life year gained, and $32,313 and $30,170 per QALY gained, relative to continual losartan and switching treatments, respectively. Sensitivity analyses found that patient discontinuation post-switching was a sensitive parameter. Including efficacy offsets with lowered adherence or discontinuation resulted in more favorable ratios for valsartan compared to switching therapy. LIMITATIONS: The model does not evaluate post-primary CVD events and considers change in SBP from baseline level as the sole predictor of CVD risk. CONCLUSIONS: Valsartan appears to be cost-effective compared to switching to generic losartan and switching to the generic drug does not support a cost offset argument over the longer term. Physicians should continue to consider the needs of individual patient and not cost offsets.

Cost effectiveness of cardiac resynchronization therapy in the Comparison of Medical Therapy, Pacing, and Defibrillation in Heart Failure (COMPANION) trial.

OBJECTIVES: The analysis goal was to estimate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for the Comparison of Medical Therapy, Pacing, and Defibrillation in Heart Failure (COMPANION) trial patients who received cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) via pacemaker (CRT-P) or pacemaker-defibrillator (CRT-D) in combination with optimal pharmacological therapy (OPT) relative to patients with OPT alone. BACKGROUND: In the COMPANION trial, CRT-P and CRT-D reduced the combined risk of all-cause mortality or first hospitalization among patients with advanced heart failure and intraventricular conduction delays, but the cost effectiveness of the therapy remains unknown. METHODS: In this analysis, intent-to-treat trial data were modeled to estimate the cost effectiveness of CRT-D and CRT-P relative to OPT over a base-case seven-year treatment episode. Exponential survival curves were derived from trial data and adjusted by quality-of-life trial results to yield quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). For the first two years, follow-up hospitalizations were based on trial data. The model assumed equalized hospitalization rates beyond two years. Initial implantation and follow-up hospitalization costs were estimated using Medicare data. RESULTS: Over two years, follow-up hospitalization costs were reduced by 29% for CRT-D and 37% for CRT-P. Extending the cost-effectiveness analysis to a seven-year base-case time period, the ICER for CRT-P was 19,600 dollars per QALY and the ICER for CRT-D was 43,000 dollars per QALY relative to OPT. CONCLUSIONS: For the COMPANION trial patients, the use of CRT-P and CRT-D was associated with a cost-effectiveness ratio below generally accepted benchmarks for therapeutic interventions of 50,000 dollars per QALY to 100,000 dollars per QALY. This suggests that the clinical benefits of CRT-P and CRT-D can be achieved at a reasonable cost.

The impact of diabetic retinopathy: perspectives from patient focus groups.

BACKGROUND: Diabetic retinopathy (DR) affects 50-85% of people with diabetes and may result in visual impairment or blindness. OBJECTIVE: This exploratory qualitative research was conducted to evaluate the symptom experience of DR, its impact on daily activities and health-related quality of life (HRQL), and the applicability of two vision-specific questionnaires. METHODS: Four focus groups (n = 15) were conducted with people with DR to explore their symptom experience and the impact on functioning and HRQL. Adults with type I or II diabetes and mild, moderate or severe non-proliferative DR (NPDR) or proliferative DR (PDR) were recruited. Content analysis and descriptive statistics were used to analyse the data. RESULTS: Participants described a range of symptoms and impact. Difficulty driving, especially at night, and trouble reading were noted with all levels of severity. Participants with PDR and decreased visual acuity have foregone many other important life aspects such as work, reading and sports. For the severely affected, diabetic care activities (e.g. exercising, reading nutritional labels, preparing insulin injections and glucose testing) were difficult to accomplish. Loss of independence, especially mobility and increased fear of accidents, had a profound impact on social activities. For those patients who had not experienced other complications of diabetes, the threat of vision loss was the most devastating. CONCLUSION: The loss of independence and mobility associated with decreased visual functioning and visual loss were major concerns. Moderate, severe NPDR and PDR associated with visual impairment have a significant impact on HRQL, particularly in the areas of independence, mobility, leisure and self-care activities.