Search

Background: Overactive bladder (OAB) is associated with considerable clinical and economic burden. Treatment of patients with OAB using anticholinergics is limited by tolerability issues and increased anticholinergic burden, which is associated with increased risk of dementia and falls/fractures. This analysis assessed the budget impact of introducing the β3-adrenergic agonist vibegron for the treatment of patients with OAB from US commercial payor and Medicare perspectives.Methods: A budget impact model (BIM) with a 5-year time horizon was developed using a top-down, prevalence-based approach and projected market shares for 1-million-member US commercial and Medicare plans. The BIM included vibegron, mirabegron, and anticholinergics, incorporating changes in clinical outcomes (efficacy, drug-drug interactions, anticholinergic burden (ACB), OAB-related comorbidities, and adverse events (AEs)). Costs per member per month (PMPM) and per treated member per month (PTMPM) were determined. One-way sensitivity analyses quantified the impact of changes in key variables.Results: The introduction of vibegron was associated with a modest increase in PMPM cost over 5 years of $0.12 (range for years 1‒5, $0.01‒$0.26) for commercial payors and $0.24 ($0.01‒$0.52) for Medicare (PTMPM cost: $2.70 ($0.17‒$4.85) and $3.15 ($0.19‒$5.82), respectively). Costs were partially offset by savings related to decreased third-line treatment use, yearly decreases in AE and comorbidity incidence, reduced drug-drug interactions, and reduced ACB associated with vibegron introduction. PMPM costs were most sensitive to vibegron market share assumptions, OAB prevalence, and vibegron persistence at 1 month for private payors and Medicare and additionally vibegron persistence at 12 months for Medicare.Conclusions: Vibegron may address unmet needs in treating OAB and is a useful addition to health plans while minimizing risks of anticholinergic AEs, ACB, and drug-drug interactions, which may partially offset increased pharmacy costs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose Gout is a chronic disease characterized by the deposition of urate crystals in the joints and throughout the body, caused by an excess burden of serum uric acid (sUA). The study estimates pharmacy and medical cost budgetary impacts of wider adoption by US payers of febuxostat, a urate-lowering therapy (ULT) for the treatment of gout. Methods A US payer-perspective budget impact model followed ULT patients from a 1,000,000-member plan over 3 years. The current market share scenario, febuxostat (6%) and ULT allopurinol (94%), was compared with an 18% febuxostat market share. Data were implemented from randomized controlled trials, census and epidemiologic studies, and real-world database analyses. An innovation was the inclusion of gout-related chronic kidney disease costs. Cost results were estimated as annual and cumulative incremental costs, expressed as total costs, cost per member per month, and cost per treated member per month. Clinical results were also estimated. Findings Increasing the febuxostat market share resulted in a 6.3% increase in patients achieving the sUA target level of <6.0 mg/dL and a 1.4% reduction in gout flares during the 3-year period. Total cost increased 1.4%, with a 49.9% increase in ULT costs, a 1.4% reduction in flare costs, a 1.2% reduction in chronic kidney disease costs, and a 2.8% reduction in gout care costs. The cumulative incremental costs were $1,307,425 in the first year, $1,939,016 through the second year, and $2,092,744 through the third year. By the third year, savings in medical costs offset most of the increase in treatment costs. Impacts on cumulative cost per member per month and cumulative cost per treated member per month followed the same pattern, with the highest impact in the first year and cumulative impacts declining during the 3-year period. The cumulative cost per member per month impact was estimated as $0.109, $0.081, and $0.058 and the cumulative cost per treated member per month impact was estimated as $12.416, $9.207, and $6.625 in the first year, through the second year, and through the third year, respectively. Implications Expanding the febuxostat market share would result in improved clinical outcomes, but with an overall increase in costs over 3 years due to higher costs of treatment. By the third year, savings in medical costs, primarily in chronic kidney disease costs, would offset most of the increase in treatment costs. Expanded use of febuxostat in the treatment of all gout patients, independent of renal impairment status, should be considered based on improved clinical outcomes and longer-term medical cost savings associated with these improved outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The objective of this study was to quantify the direct medical resources used and the corresponding burden of disease in the treatment of patients with schizophrenia. Because low-frequency administration (LFA) of risperidone guarantees adherence during treatment intervals and offers fewer opportunities to discontinue, adherence and persistence were assumed to improve, thereby reducing relapses of major symptoms. A decision tree model including Markov processes with monthly cycles and a five-year maximum timeframe was constructed. Costs were adapted from the literature and discounted at a 3% annual rate. The population is a demographically homogeneous cohort of patients with schizophrenia, differentiated by initial disease severity (mildly ill, moderately ill, and severely ill). Treatment parameters are estimated using published information for once-daily risperidone standard oral therapy (RIS-SOT) and once-monthly risperidone long-acting injection (RIS-LAI) with LFA therapy characteristics derived from observed study trends. One-year and five-year results are expressed as discounted direct medical costs and mean number of relapses per patient (inpatient, outpatient, total) and are estimated for LFA therapies given at three, six, and nine month intervals. The one-year results show that LFA therapy every 3 months (LFA-3) ($6,088) is less costly than either RIS-SOT ($10,721) or RIS-LAI ($9,450) with similar trends in the 5-year results. Moreover, the model predicts that LFA-3 vs. RIS-SOT vs. RIS LAI therapy will reduce costly inpatient relapses (0.16 vs. 0.51 vs. 0.41). Extending the interval to six (LFA-6) and nine (LFA-9) months resulted in further reductions in relapse and costs. Limitations include the fact that LFA therapeutic options are hypothetical and do not yet exist and limited applicability to compare one antipsychotic agent versus another as only risperidone therapy is evaluated. However, study results have quantified the potential health state improvements and potential direct medical cost savings achievable with the development and use of LFA medication delivery technologies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The Eighth Mount Hood Challenge (held in St. Gallen, Switzerland, in September 2016) evaluated the transparency of model input documentation from two published health economics studies and developed guidelines for improving transparency in the reporting of input data underlying model-based economic analyses in diabetes.Methods: Participating modeling groups were asked to reproduce the results of two published studies using the input data described in those articles. Gaps in input data were filled with assumptions reported by the modeling groups. Goodness of fit between the results reported in the target studies and the groups' replicated outputs was evaluated using the slope of linear regression line and the coefficient of determination (R2). After a general discussion of the results, a diabetes-specific checklist for the transparency of model input was developed.Results: Seven groups participated in the transparency challenge. The reporting of key model input parameters in the two studies, including the baseline characteristics of simulated patients, treatment effect and treatment intensification threshold assumptions, treatment effect evolution, prediction of complications and costs data, was inadequately transparent (and often missing altogether). Not surprisingly, goodness of fit was better for the study that reported its input data with more transparency. To improve the transparency in diabetes modeling, the Diabetes Modeling Input Checklist listing the minimal input data required for reproducibility in most diabetes modeling applications was developed.Conclusions: Transparency of diabetes model inputs is important to the reproducibility and credibility of simulation results. In the Eighth Mount Hood Challenge, the Diabetes Modeling Input Checklist was developed with the goal of improving the transparency of input data reporting and reproducibility of diabetes simulation model results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This meta-analysis assessed the efficacy of duloxetine versus other oral treatments used after failure of acetaminophen for management of patients with osteoarthritis. Methods: A systematic literature review of English language articles was performed in PUBMED, EMBASE, MedLine In-Process, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov between January 1985 and March 2013. Randomized controlled trials of duloxetine and all oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and opioids were included if treatment was ⩾12 weeks and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Index (WOMAC) total score was available. Studies were assessed for quality using the assessment tool from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guidelines for single technology appraisal submissions. WOMAC baseline and change from baseline total scores were extracted and standardized. A frequentist meta-analysis, meta-regression, and indirect comparison were performed using the DerSimonian-Laird and Bucher methods. Bayesian analyses with and without adjustment for study-level covariates were performed using noninformative priors. Results: Thirty-two publications reported 34 trials (2 publications each reported 2 trials) that met inclusion criteria. The analyses found all treatments except oxycodone (frequentist) and hydromorphone (frequentist and Bayesian) to be more effective than placebo. Indirect comparisons to duloxetine found no significant differences for most of the compounds. Some analyses showed evidence of a difference with duloxetine for etoricoxib (better), tramadol and oxycodone (worse), but without consistent results between analyses. Forest plots revealed positive trends in overall efficacy improvement with baseline scores. Adjusting for baseline, the probability duloxetine is superior to other treatments ranges between 15% to 100%. Limitations of this study include the low number of studies included in the analyses, the inclusion of only English language publications, and possible ecological fallacy associated with patient level characteristics. Conclusions: This analysis suggests no difference between duloxetine and other post-first line oral treatments for osteoarthritis (OA) in total WOMAC score after approximately 12 weeks of treatment. Significant results for 3 compounds (1 better and 2 worse) were not consistent across performed analyses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This meta-analysis assessed the efficacy of duloxetine versus other oral treatments used after failure of acetaminophen for management of patients with osteoarthritis.Methods: A systematic literature review of English language articles was performed in PUBMED, EMBASE, MedLine In-Process, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov between January 1985 and March 2013. Randomized controlled trials of duloxetine and all oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and opioids were included if treatment was ≥12 weeks and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Index (WOMAC) total score was available. Studies were assessed for quality using the assessment tool from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guidelines for single technology appraisal submissions.WOMAC baseline and change from baseline total scores were extracted and standardized. A frequentist meta-analysis, meta-regression, and indirect comparison were performed using the DerSimonian-Laird and Bucher methods. Bayesian analyses with and without adjustment for study-level covariates were performed using noninformative priors.Results: Thirty-two publications reported 34 trials (2 publications each reported 2 trials) that met inclusion criteria. The analyses found all treatments except oxycodone (frequentist) and hydromorphone (frequentist and Bayesian) to be more effective than placebo. Indirect comparisons to duloxetine found no significant differences for most of the compounds. Some analyses showed evidence of a difference with duloxetine for etoricoxib (better), tramadol and oxycodone (worse), but without consistent results between analyses. Forest plots revealed positive trends in overall efficacy improvement with baseline scores. Adjusting for baseline, the probability duloxetine is superior to other treatments ranges between 15% to 100%.Limitations of this study include the low number of studies included in the analyses, the inclusion of only English language publications, and possible ecological fallacy associated with patient level characteristics.Conclusions: This analysis suggests no difference between duloxetine and other post-first line oral treatments for osteoarthritis (OA) in total WOMAC score after approximately 12 weeks of treatment. Significant results for 3 compounds (1 better and 2 worse) were not consistent across performed analyses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]