COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF TREATMENTS FOR MILD-TO-MODERATE OBSTRUCTIVE SLEEP APNEA IN FRANCE.

OBJECTIVES: Untreated obstructive sleep apnea-hypopnea syndrome (OSAHS) is associated with excessive daytime sleepiness, increased risk of cardiovascular (CV) disease, and road traffic accidents (RTAs), which impact survival and health-related quality of life. This study, funded by the French National Authority for Health (HAS), aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of different treatments (i.e., continuous positive airway pressure [CPAP], dental devices, lifestyle advice, and no treatment) in patients with mild-to-moderate OSAHS in France. METHODS: A Markov model was developed to simulate the progression of two cohorts, stratified by CV risk, over a lifetime horizon. Daytime sleepiness and RTAs were taken into account for all patients while CV events were only considered for patients with high CV risk. RESULTS: For patients with low CV risk, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of dental devices versus no treatment varied between 32,976 EUR (moderate OSAHS) and 45,579 EUR (mild OSAHS) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), and CPAP versus dental devices, above 256,000 EUR/QALY. For patients with high CV risk, CPAP was associated with a gain of 0.62 QALY compared with no treatment, resulting in an ICER of 10,128 EUR/QALY. CONCLUSION: The analysis suggests that it is efficient to treat all OSAHS patients with high CV risk with CPAP and that dental devices are more efficient than CPAP for mild-to-moderate OSAHS with low CV risk. However, out-of-pocket costs are currently much higher for dental devices than for CPAP (i.e., 3,326 EUR versus 2,430 EUR) as orthodontic treatment is mainly non-refundable in France.

Cost Effectiveness of Paliperidone Long-Acting Injectable Versus Other Antipsychotics for the Maintenance Treatment of Schizophrenia in France.

BACKGROUND: French clinical recommendations suggest prescribing long-acting injectable (LAI) antipsychotics to patients with a maintenance treatment indication in schizophrenia. Despite this, and due to their relatively high acquisition and administration costs, LAIs are still underused in clinical practice in France, thus highlighting the need for pharmacoeconomic evaluations. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to estimate the cost effectiveness of paliperidone LAI (or paliperidone palmitate), a once-monthly second-generation LAI antipsychotic, compared with the most common antipsychotic medications for the maintenance treatment of schizophrenia in France. METHODS: A Markov model was developed to simulate the progression of a cohort of schizophrenic patients through four health states (stable treated, stable non-treated, relapse and death) and to consider up to three lines of treatment to account for changes in treatment management. Paliperidone LAI was compared with risperidone LAI, aripiprazole LAI, olanzapine LAI, haloperidol LAI (or haloperidol decanoate) and oral olanzapine. Costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and number of relapses were assessed over 5 years based on 3-month cycles with a discount rate of 4% and from a French health insurance perspective. Patients were considered to be stabilised after a schizophrenic episode and would enter the model at an initiation phase, followed by a prevention of relapse phase if successful. Data (e.g. relapse or discontinuation rates) for the initiation phase came from randomised clinical trials, whereas relapse rates in the prevention phase were derived from hospitalisation risks based on real-life French data to capture adherence effects. Safety and utility data were derived from international publications. Additionally, costs were retrieved from French health insurance databases and publications. Finally, expert opinion was used for validation purposes or in case of gaps in data. The robustness of results was assessed through deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: All LAI antipsychotics were found to have similar costs over 5 years: approximatively €55,000, except for paliperidone LAI which had a discounted cost of €50,880. Oral olanzapine was less costly than LAIs (i.e. €50,379 after 5 years) but was associated with fewer QALYs gained and relapses avoided. Paliperidone LAI dominated aripiprazole LAI, olanzapine LAI and haloperidol LAI in terms of costs per QALY, and it was associated with slightly fewer QALYs when compared with risperidone LAI (i.e. 3.763 vs 3.764). This resulted in a high incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) (i.e. €4,770,018 per QALY gained) for risperidone LAI compared with paliperidone LAI. Paliperidone LAI was more costly than olanzapine oral but associated with more QALYs (i.e. ICER of €2411 per QALY gained for paliperidone LAI compared with oral olanzapine). Paliperidone LAI had a probability of being the optimal strategy in more than 50% of cases for a willingness-to-pay threshold of €8000 per QALY gained. CONCLUSION: This analysis, to the best of our knowledge, is the first of its kind to assess the cost effectiveness of antipsychotics based on French observational data. Paliperidone LAI appeared to be a cost-effective option in the treatment of schizophrenia from the French health insurance perspective.

Patient and physician preferences for the treatment of chronic hepatitis C virus infections: does the perspective matter?

OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to identify and quantify the factors driving patient and physician preferences for treatments of genotype 1 hepatitis C virus infection in the UK. METHODS: A web survey was conducted, including 100 patients (50 treatment-naive and 50 treatment-experienced patients) and 50 physicians (gastroenterologists/ hepatologists and infectious disease specialists). A discrete-choice experiment was conducted to elicit the participants' preferences on the basis of seven attributes with four levels each: efficacy, that is probability of reaching sustained virologic response, treatment duration, treatment convenience (i.e. number of pills and/or injections), gastrointestinal problems, anaemia, dermatological problems and neuropsychological problems. The statistical analysis applied a mixed logit model to estimate preference weights and relative importance scores. RESULTS: Results indicated that the sustained virologic response rate was the most important attribute to participants. Physicians placed an even greater weight on the efficacy of treatments with a relative importance score of 9.33 [95% confidence interval: (6.93-11.91)], as compared with 6.16 [95% confidence interval: (4.34-8.15)] for patients. Neuropsychological problems ranked second for patients and physicians, and were more important to treatment-naive patients than to treatment-experienced patients or physicians. Gastrointestinal problems, anaemia and dermatological problems were of minor importance to all participants. These findings may be explained by the improvement in the management of physical adverse reactions over the last few years, thus making treatment easier to tolerate. CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first conjoint analysis assessing and comparing the preferences of patients and physicians in hepatitis C virus.