scholarly journals Costs and efficacy ofolanzapine and risperidone in schizophrenia

2007 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 53-60
Author(s):  
Vittorio Mapelli
Keyword(s):  
Cost Minimization ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Psychiatric Disease ◽  
Global Functioning ◽  
Differential Effectiveness ◽  
Health Authorities ◽  
First Choice ◽  
Italian National Health Service ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Effectiveness Studies

Introduction: schizophrenia is a serious and long lasting psychiatric disease. The new “atypical” antipsychotic drugs, introduced in the 90s, have substantially improved the effectiveness of medical treatments, compared to previous neuroleptic drugs. Nowadays they tend to be used as first choice drugs. The ddd cost of atypicals may differ by 20% and health authorities may have an incentive to deliver the less costly drug, especially if they are generic. However the various drugs show differential effectiveness rates and a rational choice should consider both cost and effectiveness.
Objective: the purpose of this analysis is to review the existing evidence on cost-effectiveness studies of olanzapine and risperidone, the two most prescribed drugs in Italy. Six published studies were identified, but attention was focused on two articles that reported consistent and methodologically sound results.
Results: most reviewed studies are cost-minimization analyses, since effectiveness indicators show no significant statistical difference between the two drugs, and are inconclusive since the results depend on the evaluation setting. However one observational retrospective study showed a significant severity reduction over 12 months for patients treated with olanzapine (-2.46 on HoNOS scale; p<0.05), compared to a smaller non significant reduction of the risperidone group (-0.57). Despite the higher drug cost, the average total cost per reduced severity score was lower for olanzapine than for risperidone patients (€ 4,554 vs. € 10,897). The only medical and related health care costs for risperidone patients were higher than total costs for olanzapine patients. Another study comparing cohorts of patients with similar starting severity showed a significant severity reduction and global functioning increase over 12 months for olanzapine but no significant increase for risperidone patients (-0.35, p<0.01 on CGI scale; +3.66, p <0.05 on GAF scale, compared respectively to -0.27, p<0.05 and +2.00 n.s.). Again average cost per reduced severity/increased functioning score was higher for risperidone than olanzapine patients (€ 4,568 vs. € 4,170 for CGI and € 2,284 vs. € 1,139 for GAF scales respectively).
Conclusion: the use of olanzapine in the treatment of schizophrenia is the most cost-effective alternative for the SSN (Italian National health service), as it minimizes the cost per score of severity reduction or functioning increase. Even if the price of risperidone were to be reduced by 50% (becoming a generic), total 12 months treatment costs would exceed those of olanzapine in its highest ddd (30 mg).


scholarly journals A cost-minimization analysis of a preventive testing strategy for relatives of patients with BRCA mutated ovarian cancer

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Eugenio Di Brino ◽  
Matteo Ruggeri ◽  
Stefania Boccia ◽  
Nicoletta Cerana ◽  
Domenica Lorusso ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Cost Minimization ◽  
Brca2 Mutation ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Testing Strategy ◽  
Brca Testing ◽  
Italian National Health Service ◽  
Brca1 Brca2 ◽  
The Cost

Purpose: This study aims to estimate the cost-minimization strategy of a preventive testing strategy destined to relatives of patients with BRCA mutated cancer versus a no test strategy in Italia. Methods: A BRCA testing pathway was designed by a panel of experts based on the MSTM Excel (2010) tool; the analysis was carried out considering the perspective of the Italian National Health Service. Two alternatives were considered: 1) preventive BRCA testing for relatives of patients affected by ovarian cancer carrying a BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation; 2) no test. Cost and effectiveness data, derived from literature and published sources validated by a Board of experts, were discounted using a discount factor equal to 3%. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed. Results: Considering an average cost of therapy for breast and ovarian cancer major of €90,000.00 per case, the economic impact related to the preventive testing strategy are equal to –€17,814,767.25. The sensitivity analysis confirms these results in the totality of the simulations performed. Conclusions: Preventive genetic testing in relatives of patients affected by ovarian cancer is cost-effective and represents a sustainable cost for the National Healthcare System in Italia, also in the light of its reference values.

Abstract TP286: A Literature Review of Cost-effectiveness of Intravenous Recombinant Tissue Plasminogen Activator for Treating Acute Ischemic Stroke

Stroke ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 47 (suppl_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Guijing Wang ◽  
Heesoo Joo ◽  
Mary G George
Keyword(s):  
Ischemic Stroke ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Acute Ischemic Stroke ◽  
Plasminogen Activator ◽  
Tissue Plasminogen Activator ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Recombinant Tissue Plasminogen Activator ◽  
Tissue Plasminogen ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Effectiveness Studies

Introduction: Intravenous recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (IV rtPA) is recommended treatment for acute ischemic stroke patients, but the cost-effectiveness of IV rtPA within different time windows after the onset of acute ischemic stroke is not well reviewed. Objectives: We conducted a literature review of the cost-effectiveness studies about IV rtPA. Methods: A literature search was conducted using PubMed, MEDLINE, and EconLit, with the key words stroke, cost, economic benefit, saving, cost-effectiveness, tissue plasminogen activator, and rtPA. The review is limited to original research articles published during 1995–2014 in English-language peer-reviewed journals. Results: We found 15 studies meeting our criteria for this review. Nine of them were cost-effectiveness studies of IV rtPA treatment within 0-3 hours after stroke onset, 2 studies within 3-4.5 hours, 3 studies within 0-4.5 hours, and 1 study within 0-6 hours. IV rtPA is a cost-saving or a cost-effectiveness strategy from most of the study results. Only one study showed incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of IV rtPA within one year was marginally above $50,000 per QALY threshold. IV rtPA within 0-3 hours after stroke led to cost savings for lifetime or 30 years, and IV rtPA within 3-4.5 hours after stroke increased costs but still was cost-effective. Conclusions: The literature generally showed that intravenous IV rtPA was a dominant or a cost-effective strategy compared to traditional treatment for acute ischemic stroke patients without IV rtPA. The findings from the literature lacked generalizability because of limited data and various assumptions.

Are SSRIs a Cost-Effective Alternative to Tricyclics?

1996 ◽  
Vol 168 (4) ◽  
pp. 404-409 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew Hotopf ◽  
Glyn Lewis ◽  
Charles Normand
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Drop Out ◽  
Attrition Rates ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Effectiveness Studies

BackgroundSelective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are more expensive than tricyclics. Reports have suggested that SSRIs are cost-effective because they are better tolerated and safer in overdose.MethodA systematic review of all randomised controlled trials (RCTs), meta-analyses, and cost-effectiveness studies comparing SSRIs and tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs).ResultsNone of the RCTs provided an economic analysis and there were methodological problems in the majority which would preclude this approach. Meta-analyses suggest that clinical efficacy is equivalent but slightly fewer patients prescribed SSRIs drop out of RCTs. Cost-effectiveness studies have been based on crude ‘modelling’ approaches and over-estimate the difference in attrition rates and the cost of treatment failure. It appears impossible to evaluate the economic aspects of suicide because of its rarity.ConclusionsThere is no evidence to suggest that SSRIs are more cost-effective than TCAs. The debate will only be concluded when a prospective cost-effectiveness study is done in the setting of a large primary care based RCT.

scholarly journals TECHNIQUES FOR DIAGNOSING OSTEOPOROSIS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF COST-EFFECTIVENESS STUDIES

2014 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
pp. 273-281 ◽  
Author(s):  
Davide Minniti ◽  
Ottavio Davini ◽  
Maria Rosaria Gualano ◽  
Maria Michela Gianino
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Postmenopausal Women ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Clear Cut ◽  
Step Procedure ◽  
Database Research ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Effectiveness Studies

Objectives:The study question was whether dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) alone is more cost-effective for identifying postmenopausal women with osteoporosis than a two-step procedure with quantitative ultrasound sonography (QUS) plus DXA. To answer this question, a systematic review was performed.Methods:Electronic databases (PubMed, INAHTA, Health Evidence Network, NIHR, the Health Technology Assessment program, the NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Research Papers in Economics, Web of Science, Scopus, and EconLit) were searched for cost-effectiveness publications. Two independent reviewers selected eligible publications based on the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Quality assessment of economic evaluations was undertaken using the Drummond checklist.Results:Seven journal articles and four reports were reviewed. The cost per true positive case diagnosed by DXA was found to be higher than that for diagnosis by QUS+DXA in two articles. In one article it was found to be lower. In three studies, the results were not conclusive. These articles were characterized by the differences in the types of devices, parameters and thresholds on the QUS and DXA tests and the unit costs of the DXA and QUS tests as well as by variability in the sensitivity and specificity of the techniques and the prevalence of osteoporosis.Conclusions:The publications reviewed did not provide clear-cut evidence for drawing conclusions about which screening test may be more cost-effective for identifying postmenopausal women with osteoporosis.

scholarly journals Safety, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of Argus II in patients with retinitis pigmentosa: a systematic review

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 310-316
Author(s):  
Zakieh Ostad-Ahmadi ◽  
◽  
Mohammad-Reza Modabberi ◽  
Ali Mostafaie ◽  
◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Retinitis Pigmentosa ◽  
Visual Function ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life Year ◽  
Bionic Eye ◽  
Argus Ii ◽  
Safety Effectiveness ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Effectiveness Studies

AIM: To assess the effectiveness, safety, and cost-effectiveness of the Argus II in treatment of the retinitis pigmentosa (RP) patients. METHODS: The ProQuest, Web of Science, EMBASE, MEDLINE (via PubMed) were searched using combinations of the keywords of Argus, safety, effectiveness, bionic eye, retinal prosthesis, and RP through March 2018. The retrieved records were screened and then assessed for eligibility. RESULTS: Totally 926 records were retrieved from the searched databases and finally 12 studies included. The RP patients showed improvements in visual function after receiving the prosthesis, compared to the time before the prosthesis or the time it was off. This was measured by square localization, direction of motion, and grating visual acuity tests. No major adverse effect was reported for the Argus II prosthesis itself and/or the surgery to implement it, but the most frequently reported items were hypotony, and conjunctival dehiscence. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated to be €14603 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) in UK and $207 616 per QALY in Canada. CONCLUSION: The available evidence shows that the Argus II prosthesis in RP patients is effective in improvement of their visual function. Some minor adverse effects are reported for the prosthesis. The cost-effectiveness studies show that the technology is cost-effective only at high levels of willingness-to-pay.

Cost-effectiveness of primary prophylaxis (PP) with colony-simulating factor (CSF) when compared with secondary prophylaxis (SP) in elderly patients with diffuse aggressive lymphoma undergoing curative chemotherapy

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6558-6558
Author(s):  
K. K. Chan ◽  
K. R. Imrie ◽  
S. M. Alibhai
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Elderly Patients ◽  
Cost Minimization ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Primary Prophylaxis ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Aggressive Lymphoma ◽  
Base Case ◽  
The Cost

6558 Background: The 2006 ASCO guideline recommends PP with CSF for elderly patients with diffuse aggressive lymphoma, partially based on previous cost-minimization analyses showing that CSF saved costs when compared with no CSF by reducing hospitalization from febrile neutropenia (FN) when the risk of FN was > 20%. However, these studies examined only one cycle of chemotherapy and did not account for costs of CSF in subsequent cycles, did not consider SP, and did not consider patients’ preferences. Methods: We conducted a cost-utility analysis to compare PP with SP in this setting using a Markov model for a time horizon of 8 cycles of chemotherapy with a government payer perspective. Costs were adjusted to 2006 $CAD. Ontario health economic data were used. The cost of hospitalization for FN was obtained from Ontario Case Costing Initiative. Data for efficacies of CSF, probabilities and utilities were obtained from published literature. Sensitivity analyses were conducted using a threshold of $100,000/QALY. Results: The base case costs for PP and SP were $22,077 and $17,641. The QALYs of PP and SP were 0.254 and 0.248. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio of PP to SP was $739,999/QALY. One-way sensitivity analyses showed that in order for PP to be cost-effective, the cost of hospitalization per episode of FN had to be > $31,138 (i.e. 2.5 times > base case), the cost of CSF per cycle had to be < $896 (base case = $1,960), the risk of FN in the 1st cycle had to be > 48% (base case = 24%), or the relative risk reduction of FN with CSF had to be > 97% (base case = 41%). Our result was robust to all other cost, probability and utility variables. First order microsimulation showed that < 17% of simulations were cost-effective. Conclusions: PP is not cost-effective when compared with SP for this population under most assumptions. PP only becomes attractive in places where the cost of hospitalization for FN is much more than that of Ontario, or the cost of CSF is under $896 per cycle. The costs of CSF and hospitalization in all cycles (instead of just one cycle) should be accounted for in any economic evaluation of CSF. Current guidelines recommending PP in this population should be revisited. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

scholarly journals The cost-effectiveness of domiciliary non-invasive ventilation in patients with end-stage chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a systematic review and economic evaluation

2015 ◽  
Vol 19 (81) ◽  
pp. 1-246 ◽  
Author(s):  
Janine Dretzke ◽  
Deirdre Blissett ◽  
Chirag Dave ◽  
Rahul Mukherjee ◽  
Malcolm Price ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Hospital Admissions ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Invasive Ventilation ◽  
Non Invasive ◽  
Non Invasive Ventilation ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Effectiveness Studies

BackgroundChronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a chronic progressive lung disease characterised by non-reversible airflow obstruction. Exacerbations are a key cause of morbidity and mortality and place a considerable burden on health-care systems. While there is evidence that patients benefit from non-invasive ventilation (NIV) in hospital during an acute exacerbation, evidence supporting home use for more stable COPD patients is limited. In the UK, domiciliary NIV is considered on health economic grounds in patients after three hospital admissions for acute hypercapnic respiratory failure.ObjectiveTo assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of domiciliary NIV by systematic review and economic evaluation.Data sourcesBibliographic databases, conference proceedings and ongoing trial registries up to September 2014.MethodsStandard systematic review methods were used for identifying relevant clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness studies assessing NIV compared with usual care or comparing different types of NIV. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane guidelines and relevant economic checklists. Results for primary effectiveness outcomes (mortality, hospitalisations, exacerbations and quality of life) were presented, where possible, in forest plots. A speculative Markov decision model was developed to compare the cost-effectiveness of domiciliary NIV with usual care from a UK perspective for post-hospital and more stable populations separately.ResultsThirty-one controlled effectiveness studies were identified, which report a variety of outcomes. For stable patients, a modest volume of evidence found no benefit from domiciliary NIV for survival and some non-significant beneficial trends for hospitalisations and quality of life. For post-hospital patients, no benefit from NIV could be shown in terms of survival (from randomised controlled trials) and findings for hospital admissions were inconsistent and based on limited evidence. No conclusions could be drawn regarding potential benefit from different types of NIV. No cost-effectiveness studies of domiciliary NIV were identified. Economic modelling suggested that NIV may be cost-effective in a stable population at a threshold of £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio £28,162), but this is associated with uncertainty. In the case of the post-hospital population, results for three separate base cases ranged from usual care dominating to NIV being cost-effective, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of less than £10,000 per QALY gained. All estimates were sensitive to effectiveness estimates, length of benefit from NIV (currently unknown) and some costs. Modelling suggested that reductions in the rate of hospital admissions per patient per year of 24% and 15% in the stable and post-hospital populations, respectively, are required for NIV to be cost-effective.LimitationsEvidence on key clinical outcomes remains limited, particularly quality-of-life and long-term (> 2 years) effects. Economic modelling should be viewed as speculative because of uncertainty around effect estimates, baseline risks, length of benefit of NIV and limited quality-of-life/utility data.ConclusionsThe cost-effectiveness of domiciliary NIV remains uncertain and the findings in this report are sensitive to emergent data. Further evidence is required to identify patients most likely to benefit from domiciliary NIV and to establish optimum time points for starting NIV and equipment settings.Future work recommendationsThe results from this report will need to be re-examined in the light of any new trial results, particularly in terms of reducing the uncertainty in the economic model. Any new randomised controlled trials should consider including a sham non-invasive ventilation arm and/or a higher- and lower-pressure arm. Individual participant data analyses may help to determine whether or not there are any patient characteristics or equipment settings that are predictive of a benefit of NIV and to establish optimum time points for starting (and potentially discounting) NIV.Study registrationThis study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42012003286.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Handoff Cost Minimization and Planning of Heterogeneous Integrated Overlay Networks

2012 ◽  
pp. 49-64
Author(s):  
Ayan Paul ◽  
Madhubanti Maitra ◽  
Swarup Mandal ◽  
Samir Kumar Sadhukhan
Keyword(s):  
Overlay Networks ◽  
Cost Minimization ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Overlay Network ◽  
Vertical Handoff ◽  
Planning Problem ◽  
Network Resources ◽  
Planning Approach ◽  
Technology Market ◽  
The Cost

The wireless technology market has witnessed a complete paradigm shift as multiple standards and protocols are emerging almost every day. Each and every standard has its limitations and merits, which can be either masked or complemented by some other standards. The demands from the service providers are now sky-high and for the complete commercialization, it is expected that even with scarce network resources all kind of services would be provided, especially in a cost effective manner. This burning issue compels a service provider to roll out some integrated wireless networks to exploit the virtues of each. This chapter formulates the planning problem of an overlay network integrating particularly, 3G, WiMAX, and WLAN. The issue of planning is to establish proper connectivity amongst the three network standards which is unique in its nature. In the proposed planning approach, the authors have endeavored to minimize total cost for vertical handoff generated in the overlay network as well as the cost for wire line connection amongst the various network gateways of the overlay hierarchy. In this work, the authors have focused on the initial planning phase. For validating the novel planning problem, the chapter has taken recourse to simulated annealing (SA) and a well cited meta-heuristic H-II. The authors have also presented comparison of the performances of SA and H-II with a variant of distance based planning (DBP) scheme in this domain.

scholarly journals Outlook of Pharmacoeconomics and its status in Nepal

2018 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 56-58
Author(s):  
Sabita Paudel
Keyword(s):  
Health Services ◽  
Cost Minimization ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Nonmedical Cost ◽  
Effective Cost ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Benefit Cost ◽  
Effective Analysis

Pharmacoeconomics is a branch of health economics which is derived from latin word “Pharmacon”- and “Economia”- It deals with the economic aspect of health that is the costs of health services. There are different types of costs which is affecting the health services. There is not only the direct medical cost, but also direct nonmedical cost, indirect nonmedical costs and intangible cost. The consequences of therapy are evaluated from economic, clinical and humanistic perspective, also known as the ECHO model. There are partial and full pharmacoeconomic analyses. The partial analyses are cost of illness and cost of consequence. The full analyses are cost effective, cost benefit, cost utility and cost minimization analyses. The cost effective analysis is the most commonly used analysis.

scholarly journals Cost/effectiveness analysis of atorvastatin in patients with acute coronary syndromes

2010 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 83-89 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simona Cammarota ◽  
Enrica Menditto ◽  
Daria Putignano ◽  
Anna Citarella
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Saving ◽  
Standard Dose ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Italian National Health Service ◽  
Coronary Syndromes ◽  
Italian National Health ◽  
The Cost

Introduction: recent clinical trials found that high-dose statin therapy, compared with conventional-dose statin therapy, reduces the risk of cardiovascular events in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) and stable coronary artery disease (CAD). With the introduction of simvastatin and pravastatin generics and the next patent expiration of atorvastatin, projected for 2011 in Italy, it is natural to ask: what is the most cost-effective treatment for a rational use of resources?Aim: the aim of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of high-dose atorvastatin versus conventional standard-dose statins based on the scenario of atovastatin price evolution.Methods: a cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted in the perspective of the Italian National Health Service over the 4.9 years time horizon. Clinical data were obtained from a pooled analyses of the 3 clinical trials that directly compared high-dose atorvastatin with conventional standard-dose statins in patients with either ACS or CAD. Hospitalizations were quantified based on the Italian National Health Service tariffs and drug costs according to the Italian National Therapeutic Formulary (2009). Assuming the cost of atorvastatin reduces in line with that observed for simvastatin when the patent expires, 3 scenarios were constructed: atorvastatin current price (scenario 1); 55% price discount (scenario 2); 65% price discount (scenario 3). Effects were measured in terms of primary composite endpoint (coronary death or any adverse cardiovascular event). All costs were discounted at 3% per annum. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robustness of findings. Results: intensive therapy with atorvastatin provided a hospitalization cost saving of 245,519.36 € per 1,000 patients. Under the assumptions established for scenario 1 and scenario 2, the incremental cost-effectiveness of treatment with atorvastatin 80 mg was estimated to be 20,289.72 € and 917.05 € for patient free from event, respectively; it was cost-saving for the scenario 3. Conclusions: high-dose atorvastatin represented a cost-effective use of healthcare resources in Italy. If the cost of atorvastatin reduces by 65% when the patent expires, for every million patient with SCA or CAD stable, treated for 5 years, the high-dose atorvastatin strategy potentially yields a cost-saving of ~2,4 billion € for the NHS.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document