Search

Zoledronic acid (ZOL) reduces the risk of skeletal related events (SREs) in hormone-refractory prostate cancer (HRPC) patients with bone metastases. This study assessed the cost effectiveness of ZOL for SRE management in French, German, Portuguese, and Dutch HRPC patients.This analysis was based on the results of a randomized phase III clinical trial wherein HRPC patients received up to 15 months of ZOL (n = 214) or placebo (n = 208). Clinical inputs were obtained from the trial. Costs were estimated using hospital tariffs, published, and internet sources. Quality adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained were estimated from a separate analysis of EQ-5D scores reported in the trial. Uncertainty surrounding outcomes was addressed via univariate sensitivity analyses.ZOL patients experienced an estimated 0.759 fewer SREs and gained an estimated 0.03566 QALYs versus placebo patients. ZOL was associated with reduced SRE-related costs [net costs] (-€2396 [€1284] in France, -€2606 [€841] in Germany, -€3326 [€309] in Portugal and -€3617 [€87] in the Netherlands). Costs per QALY ranged from €2430 (Netherlands) to €36,007 (France).This analysis is subject to the limitations of most cost-effectiveness analyses: it combines data from multiple sources. Nevertheless, the results strongly suggest that ZOL is cost effective versus placebo in French, German, Portuguese, and Dutch HRPC patients.

The clinical literature suggests that atorvastatin therapy achieves a reduction in major cardiovascular events within the first year of therapy. Aside from obvious clinical benefits, economic advantage may also result from this observation. The present analysis modeled the clinical and economic consequences of initiating atorvastatin versus generic simvastatin in defined US managed care organization patient populations.A cost-consequence model was developed to estimate the differential rate and associated costs of cardiovascular events occurring over 2 years using real world price and adherence data. Four defined patient populations were included from representative atorvastatin trials: (1) diabetes mellitus; (2) multiple risk factors; (3) coronary heart disease; and (4) acute coronary syndrome. Costs of care included drug costs and costs of managing cardiovascular events. Univariate sensitivity analyses and multivariate sensitivity analysis via Monte Carlo simulation were conducted to test the robustness of the results.The number of cardiovascular events avoided per 100,000 patients initiated on atorvastatin as compared with simvastatin, and total treatment costs.The model predicts that, relative to simvastatin, atorvastatin will prevent 941 (95% confidence interval [CI] 481-1367) cardiovascular events after 1 year and 1426 (95% CI 833-1987) events after 2 years, per 100,000 patients. This is expected to reduce the cost of cardiovascular events by $365 (95% CI $192-$527) and $552 (95% CI $327-$763) per patient (US$ 2006), respectively, offsetting 80% and 75% of the medication cost difference between atorvastatin and simvastatin after 1 and 2 years, respectively. The incremental costs associated with atorvastatin treatment were estimated at $94 (95% CI -$68 to $267) and $175 (95% CI -$37 to $399) per patient after 1 and 2 years, respectively. Results were sensitive to assumptions regarding simvastatin efficacy and drug acquisition costs.Although the present analysis is based in part on indirect comparisons and on trials not designed or statistically powered to specifically test the early benefits hypothesis, it suggests that atorvastatin's assumed early reduction of cardiovascular events partly offsets the acquisition price difference between atorvastatin and generic simvastatin in various groups of high-risk patients newly initiated on statin treatment.

Severe hemophilia with inhibitors is a rare disease with substantial clinical, humanistic and economic consequences. This review provides an overview of the role of recombinant activated factor VII (rFVIIa) versus plasma-derived bypassing agents for hemophilia with inhibitors and summarizes the 13 formal economic analyses (6 burden of illness and 7 comparative studies) that have been published in this indication. The findings suggest that the economic impact of rFVIIa has occurred primarily during hospitalization to manage major bleeding episodes and to allow for elective orthopedic surgeries that would not have been attempted prior to rFVIIa. Comparative analyses for on-demand treatment suggest that the total cost of treating a bleeding episode with rFVIIa may be lower than with plasma-based agents due to faster bleeding resolution, higher initial efficacy rates and avoidance of second and third lines of treatment.

To compare the cost-effectiveness of three treatment regimens using recombinant activated Factor VII (rFVIIa), NovoSeven, and activated prothrombin-complex concentrate (APCC), FEIBA VH, for home treatment of minor-to-moderate bleeds in hemophilia patients with inhibitors.A literature-based, decision-analytic model was developed to compare three treatment regimens. The regimens consisting of first-, second-, and third-line treatments were: rFVIIa-rFVIIa-rFVIIa; APCC-rFVIIa-rFVIIa; and APCC-APCC-rFVIIa. Patients not responding to first-line treatment were administered second-line treatment, and those failing second-line received third-line treatment. Using literature and expert opinion, the model structure and base-case inputs were adapted to the US from a previously published analysis. The percentage of evaluable bleeds controlled with rFVIIa and APCC were obtained from published literature. Drug costs (2005 US$) based on average wholesale price were included in the base-case model. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (second-order Monte Carlo simulation) were conducted by varying the efficacy, re-bleeding rates, patient weight, and dosing to ascertain robustness of the model.In the base-case analysis, the average cost per resolved bleed using rFVIIa as first-, second-, and third-line treatment was $28 076. Using APCC as first-line and rFVIIa as second- and third-line treatment resulted in an average cost per resolved bleed of $30 883, whereas the regimen using APCC as first- and second-line, and rFVIIa as third-line treatment was the most expensive, with an average cost per resolved bleed of $32 150. Cost offsets occurred for the rFVIIa-only regimen through avoidance of second and third lines of treatment. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, the rFVIIa-only strategy was the least expensive strategy more than 68% of the time.The management of minor-to-moderate bleeds extends beyond the initial line of treatment, and should include the economic impact of re-bleeding and failures over multiple lines of treatment. In the majority of cases, the rFVIIa-only regimen appears to be a less expensive treatment option in inhibitor patients with minor-to-moderate bleeds over three lines of treatment.

This study was designed to assess the cost-effectiveness of cyclooxygenase-2 specific (COX-2) inhibitors (rofecoxib and celecoxib) over nonselective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in high-risk arthritis patients from the perspective of the Veterans Health Administration (VA).This literature-based economic analysis (with data summarized from MEDLINE-indexed and other published sources, FDA reports, and data on file at VA San Diego Healthcare System) compared rofecoxib and celecoxib to NSAIDS in two arthritis patient populations considered at higher risk of developing clinically significant upper gastrointestinal events (CSUGIEs): (1) patients of any age with previous medical history of perforation/ulcer/bleed (PUB); and (2) patients 65 years and older (regardless of history of PUB). Two outcome measures were reported: (1) incremental cost per CSUGIE averted over 1 year; and (2) incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, considering both the mortality and morbidity associated with gastrointestinal (including CSUGIEs) and cardiovascular-related adverse events. When possible, costs were modeled to reflect the VA perspective. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the robustness of the analysis.Compared to NSAIDS, rofecoxib and celecoxib increased costs but reduced the incidence of CSUGIE. Cost per CSUGIE avoided were $7476 and $16,379 (in patients with a PUB history) and $14,294 and $18,376 (in patients agedor = 65 years) for celecoxib and rofecoxib, respectively. In both populations, celecoxib was associated with a cost per QALY less than $50,000. In contrast, rofecoxib was found to cost more and result in a net QALY loss, due in particular to the increase in the risk of cardiovascular complications, and was therefore considered cost-ineffective. Results were most dependent on assumptions about the incidence of cardiovascular events and CSUGIE and the COX-2 inhibitors' acquisition price.This analysis suggests that COX-2 inhibitors may be cost-effective from the perspective of the VA. However, cost-effectiveness appears to depend less on the specific characteristics of the high-risk target population considered but more on the agent evaluated. Celecoxib appears to be an alternative to traditional NSAIDs in the patient populations studied.