Budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy has shown its effectiveness as a treatment for moderate-to-severe asthma.
To explore the cost-effectiveness of budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy as compared to fixed combination therapies (budesonide/formoterol and salmeterol/fluticasone) with terbutaline as needed in the treatment of asthma in Finland.
Patients without asthma exacerbations during a 6-month period were used as the effectiveness variable in the within-trial economic analysis. Finnish unit costs were applied to pooled resource use data, and multinomial cost-effectiveness plane and acceptability curves were formed based on bootstrapping.
Use of budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy significantly reduced the rate of severe asthma exacerbations as compared with a fixed dose of budesonide/formoterol or salmeterol/fluticasone and terbutaline as needed. Total costs over 6 months were 496 euros per patient for those who used the budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy treatment model, which was 78-101 euros lower than the cost of fixed combinations of salmeterol/fluticasone or budesonide/formoterol with terbutaline as needed. The results indicate that the budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy achieves a high probability (> 93%) of cost effectiveness irrespective of willingness to pay level.
Budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy may be considered in the treatment of moderate-to-severe asthma instead of conventional treatment with combination products in view of its good clinical efficacy and a high probability of cost-effectiveness in the Finnish setting. However, a cost-effectiveness analysis with a longer time horizon, more Finnish-specific data, and ICS + short/long-acting inhaled beta(2)-agonist as an additional comparator is still warranted.
To assess which alternative treatment strategies are optimum in terms of cost-effectiveness (EUR/patient treated to target, EUR/PTT) in lowering cholesterol in high-risk patients with elevated LDL-cholesterol (LDL-C) in Sweden.
A probabilistic cost-effectiveness model was developed to estimate the mean expected costs and proportion of patients reaching goal attainment (defined as LDL-C Simva20 --> Simva40, Rosu10, Simva20 --> Rosu10 --> Rosu20 --> Rosu40, or Simva20 --> Simva40 --> Rosu20 --> Rosu40). An important finding was that when LDL-C level exceed 4.0 mmol/L (154mg/dL) and when willingness to pay is less than 500 EUR per additional PTT, the optimal treatment strategy would be to initiate cholesterol-lowering treatment directly with rosuvastatin 10 mg.
The results of this study indicate that the optimal approach to initiate lipid-lowering therapy would be to treat patients with the lower baseline LDL-C levels with the least costly treatment strategies, while initiating lipid-lowering treatment with a high-potency statin (rosuvastatin) in patients with moderately high or high baseline LDL-C levels. This recommendation can be assumed to be relevant particularly when the fact that after treatment initiation the majority of Swedish patients will not have any changes in their lipid-lowering medication or dose is taken into account. Finally, since only the short-term results are presented here, it would be valuable to conduct further studies of the long-term cost-effectiveness of different statin treatment strategies that focus on treatment persistence and LDL-C goal attainment in real practice.
This study evaluated the long-term cost-effectiveness of atorvastatin 20 mg, rosuvastatin 10 mg and simvastatin 40 mg in primary and secondary prevention of CHD in Finland.
The effect of statin therapy on the incidence of CHD and the expected total costs of the disease were described using a Markov state transition model. Due to the limited amount of evidence concerning mortality and morbidity for rosuvastatin, the model was used to transmute the efficiency data of all statins (decrease in total cholesterol) into long-term endpoints (myocardial infarction, death) using risk functions of the FINRISK and 4S studies. The study followed a characterized cohort of 55-year-old Finnish men with an average 3.3-6.6% baseline risk of dying from cardiovascular disease within a 10-year period.
Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for atorvastatin and rosuvastatin, compared with simvastatin, measured as cost of life years gained (euro/LYG) and cost of quality adjusted life years gained (euro/QALY).
The use of rosuvastatin increased the life expectancy by 0.27 years on average (LYG) compared with simvastatin, producing additional 0.08 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Compared with simvastatin, the cost of one LYG with rosuvastatin was euro10 834 and the cost of one QALY gained was euro36 548 (discount rate 5% per annum). Corresponding figures for atorvastatin were euro31 286/LYG and euro105 599/QALY.
If the decision makers' willingness to pay for a QALY gained is around euro40 000 there is a high probability (>50%) that rosuvastatin represents a cost-effective form of therapy in the prevention of CHD in middle-aged men with an average 3.3-6.6% risk of dying within 10 years from cardiovascular disease. However, the true clinical impact of these results needs confirmation from on-going clinical trials, as the role of rosuvastatin in reducing clinical events is pending, but for simvastatin and atorvastatin established.
To estimate the drug administration, travelling, and productivity costs associated with infusion or subcutaneous proteasome inhibitor (PI) treatments (specifically carfilzomib and bortezomib) for multiple myeloma (MM) patients in Finland.
Price tariffs of Finnish hospital districts are used as the basis of invoicing sent to healthcare service payers. A review of these price tariff lists was conducted and obtained data analysed to estimate the mean unit cost of PI administration visit. Travelling costs stratified by areas with different population densities were assessed, based on the national travelling reimbursement register data maintained by the Social Insurance Institution of Finland. Productivity costs due to time spent on administration visits and travelling were estimated based on an expert interview and a spatial healthcare accessibility analysis.
Nineteen (95%) of the Finnish hospital districts were included in the review. Relevant unit cost information was found for 15 (75%) of the districts. The mean PI administration cost alone was 270€ (95% CI?=?189€-351€) per administration and increased to 371€ when travelling costs were included. Productivity costs added, the mean PI administration costs totalled 405€ for bortezomib and 437€ for carfilzomib.
The costing rationale of price tariffs may vary between hospital districts. Productivity costs were estimated conservatively, due to lack of data.
The administration of intravenous or subcutaneous PIs to treat MM in healthcare facilities causes significant and potentially avoidable healthcare, travelling, and indirect costs, and they should be included in all health economic evaluations (HEEs). As the cost estimates utilized in this study represent most of central hospitals in the country, they provide useful information for future HEEs. A broader conclusion is that novel oral medications, such as the first oral PI, have a significant potential for reducing administration-related costs of subcutaneous or intravenous PIs.
To assess the cost-utility of vortioxetine versus relevant comparators (agomelatine, bupropion SR, sertraline, and venlafaxine XR) in the finnish setting in major depressive disorder (MDD) patients with inadequate response to selective serotonin- /serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors.
A one-year analysis was conducted using a decision tree with a Markov state transition component. The health states were remission, relapse and recovery. A Finnish healthcare payer perspective was adopted.
Vortioxetine was less costly and more effective versus all comparators in both direct and societal perspectives. Vortioxetine reduced the average annual direct costs by 4% versus venlafaxine XR and 8% versus sertraline. The greater efficacy associated with vortioxetine was translated into a higher percentage of patients in remission and recovery. The model was most sensitive to changes in remission rates at 8 weeks.
This cost-utility analysis showed vortioxetine to be a good alternative for MDD patients switching therapy in Finland.
To model the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) outcomes, cost-effectiveness, and budget impact of certolizumab pegol (CZP) (with and without a hypothetical risk-sharing scheme at treatment initiation for biologic-naïve patients) versus the current mix of reimbursed biologics for treatment of moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in Finland.
A probabilistic model with 12-week cycles and a societal approach was developed for the years 2015-2019, accounting for differences in ACR responses (meta-analysis), mortality, and persistence. The risk-sharing scheme included a treatment switch and refund of the costs associated with CZP acquisition if patients failed to achieve ACR20 response at week 12. For the current treatment mix, ACR20 at week 24 determined treatment continuation. Quality-adjusted life years were derived on the basis of the Health Utilities Index.
In the Finnish target population, CZP treatment with a risk-sharing scheme led to a estimated annual net expenditure decrease ranging from 1.7% in 2015 to 5.6% in 2019 compared with the current treatment mix. Per patient over the 5 years, CZP risk sharing was estimated to decrease the time without ACR response by 5%-units, decrease work absenteeism by 24 days, and increase the time with ACR20, ACR50, and ACR70 responses by 5%-, 6%-, and 1%-units, respectively, with a gain of 0.03 quality-adjusted life years. The modeled risk-sharing scheme showed reduced costs of €7866 per patient, with a more than 95% probability of cost-effectiveness when compared with the current treatment mix.
The present analysis estimated that CZP, with or without the risk-sharing scheme, is a cost-effective alternative treatment for RA patients in Finland. The surplus provided by the CZP risk-sharing scheme could fund treatment for 6% more Finnish RA patients.
Cites: Adv Health Econ Health Serv Res. 2010;22:3-27 PMID 20575226