Economic evaluations in pain management: principles and methods.

Journal ArticleThis paper describes how investigators may design, conduct, and report economic evaluations of pharmacotherapy for pain and symptom management. Because economic evaluation of therapeutic interventions is becoming increasingly important, there is a need for guidance on how economic evaluations can be optimally conducted. The steps required to conduct an economic evaluation are described to provide this guidance. Economic evaluations require two or more therapeutic interventions to be compared in relation to costs and effects. There are five types of economic evaluations, based on analysis of: (1) cost-effectiveness, (2) cost-utility, (3) cost-minimization, (4) cost-consequence, and (5) cost-benefit analyses. The six required steps are: identify the perspective of the study; identify the alternatives that will be compared; identify the relevant costs and effects; determine how to collect the cost and effect data; determine how to perform calculation for cost and effects data; and determine the manner in which to depict the results and draw comparisons

Comparison of hospitalization rates in patients with community-acquired pneumonia treated with telithromycin for 5 or 7 days or clarithromycin for 10 days.

Journal ArticleAIMS: To compare the impact on hospitalization rates and the clinical efficacy of oral telithromycin and clarithromycin treatment in patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). METHODS: A total of 581 patients with CAP were enrolled in this randomized, double-blind, parallel group, multinational study, of whom 575 were evaluated for healthcare resource utilization from a payer perspective (intent to treat [ITT] population). Patients received telithromycin 800 mg once daily for 5 (n = 193) or 7 (n = 195)days, or clarithromycin 500 mg once daily for 10 days (n = 187). The primary efficacy endpoint was clinical outcome at test of cure (Days 17-24) in the per-protocol population. Frequency of CAP-related hospitalizations, physician visits/tests/procedures, and additional respiratory tract infection-related antibacterial use were compared by treatment group (ITT) up to late post- for clarithromycin vs dollars 37930 (difference: -26446; therapy (Days 31-36). Study investigators blinded to treatment assessed whether hospital admissions were CAP-related or not. CAP-related hospitalization costs (USdollars) for telithromycin and clarithromycin were compared. RESULTS: Clinical cure rates were similar in patients who received clarithromycin for 10 days and telithromycin for 5 or 7 days: 91.8% (134/146), 89.3% (142/159), and 88.8% (143/161), respectively, and both 5- and 7-day telithromycin were statistically equivalent to clarithromycin (difference: -2.5 and -3.0%, respectively; 95% CI: -9.7, 4.7 and -10.2, 4.3, respectively). There were 7 CAP-related hospital admissions among clarithromycin patients vs 3 (p = 0.283) and 1 (p = 0.021) admissions among 5- and 7-day telithromycin patients, respectively. The number of hospital days/100 patients was 40.1 for clarithromycin vs 17.1 and 7.2 for 5- and 7-day telithromycin, respectively. Projected hospitalization costs/100 patients were dollars 86205 95% CI: -66 654; 13 762) and dollars 16 091 (difference: -37 847; 95% CI: -77953; 2259) for 5- and 7-day telithromycin, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Data from this study demonstrate that telithromycin 800 mg once daily for 5 or 7 days with fewer hospital days and potentially lower is an effective treatment for CAP,and that telithromycin treatment of CAP may be associated hospitalization costs than clarithromycin treatment

Management of community-acquired respiratory tract infections in an era of increasing antibiotic resistance.

Journal ArticleCommunity-acquired respiratory tract infections (RTIs) are prevalent conditions in U.S. and represent a major burden in health care. This article provides an overview of empirical antibiotic treatment options for patients with community-acquired RYIs, including newer classes of agents, such as the respiratory fluoroquinolones and the ketoides. We also discuss the clinical and economic utility of these agents in the current ear of high levels of antibiotic resistance

Future of Data Analytics in the Era of the General Data Protection Regulation in Europe

The development of evidence to demonstrate ‘value for money’ is regarded as an important step in facilitating the search for the optimal allocation of limited resources and has become an essential component in healthcare decision making. Real-world evidence collected from de-identified individuals throughout the continuum of healthcare represents the most valuable source in technology evaluation. However, in the European Union, the value assessment based on real-world data has become challenging as individuals have recently been given the right to have their personal data erased in the case of consent withdrawal or when the data are regarded as being no longer necessary. This act may limit the usefulness of data in the future as it may introduce information bias. Among healthcare stakeholders, this has become an important topic of discussion because it relates to the importance of data on one side and to the need for personal data protection on the ot

Cost-effectiveness of Physical Therapy vs Intra-articular Glucocorticoid Injection for Knee Osteoarthritis: A Secondary Analysis From a Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance: Physical therapy and glucocorticoid injections are initial treatment options for knee osteoarthritis, but available data indicate that most patients receive one or the other, suggesting they may be competing interventions. The initial cost difference for treatment can be substantial, with physical therapy often being more expensive at the outset, and cost-effectiveness analysis can aid patients and clinicians in making decisions. Objective: To investigate the incremental cost-effectiveness between physical therapy and intra-articular glucocorticoid injection as initial treatment strategies for knee osteoarthritis. Design, setting, and participants: This economic evaluation is a secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial performed from October 1, 2012, to May 4, 2017. Health economists were blinded to study outcomes and treatment allocation. A randomized sample of patients seen in primary care and physical therapy clinics with a radiographically confirmed diagnosis of knee osteoarthritis were evaluated from the clinical trial with 96.2% follow-up at 1 year. Interventions: Physical therapy or glucocorticoid injection. Main outcomes and measures: The main outcome was incremental cost-effectiveness between 2 alternative treatments. Acceptability curves of bootstrapped incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were used to identify the proportion of ICERs under the specific willingness-to-pay level ($50 000-$100 000). Health care system costs (total and knee related) and health-related quality-of-life based on quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were obtained. Results: A total of 156 participants (mean [SD] age, 56.1 [8.7] years; 81 [51.9%] male) were randomized 1:1 and followed up for 1 year. Mean (SD) 1-year knee-related medical costs were $2113 ($4224) in the glucocorticoid injection group and $2131 ($1015) in the physical therapy group. The mean difference in QALY significantly favored physical therapy at 1 year (0.076; 95% CI, 0.02-0.126; P = .003). Physical therapy was the more cost-effective intervention, with an ICER of $8103 for knee-related medical costs, with a 99.2$100 000. Conclusions and relevance: A course of physical therapy was cost-effective compared with a course of glucocorticoid injections for patients with knee osteoarthritis. These results suggest that, although the initial cost of delivering physical therapy may be higher than an initial course of glucocorticoid injections, 1-year total knee-related costs are equivalent, and greater improvement in QALYs may justify the initial higher costs. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0142715

Good Research Practices for Measuring Drug Costs in Cost-Effectiveness Analyses: Medicare, Medicaid and Other US Government Payers Perspectives: The ISPOR Drug Cost Task Force Report—Part IV

Objectives Public programs finance a large share of the US pharmaceutical expenditures. To date, there are not guidelines for estimating the cost of drugs financed by US public programs. The objective of this study was to provide standards for estimating the cost of drugs financed by US public programs for utilization in pharmacoeconomic evaluations. Methods This report was prepared by the ISPOR Task Force on Good Research Practices—Use of Drug Costs for Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Medicare, Medicaid, and other US Government Payers Subgroup. The Subgroup was convened to assess the methodological and practical issues confronted by researchers when estimating the cost of drugs financed by US public programs, and to propose standards for more transparent, accurate and consistent costing methods. Results The Subgroup proposed these recommendations: 1) researchers must consider regulation requirements that affect the drug cost paid by public programs; 2) drug cost must represent the actual acquisition cost, incorporating any rebates or discounts; 3) transparency with respect to cost inputs must be ensured; 4) inclusion of the public program\u27s perspective is recommended; 5) high cost drugs require special attention, particularly when drugs represent a significant proportion of health-care expenditures for a specific disease; and 6) because of variations across public programs, sensitivity analyses for actual acquisition cost, real-world adherence, and generics availability are warranted. Specific recommendations also were proposed for the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Conclusions As pharmacoeconomic evaluations for coverage decisions made by US public programs grows, the need for precise and consistent estimation of drug costs is warranted. Application of the proposed recommendations will allow researchers to include accurate and unbiased cost estimates in pharmacoeconomic evaluations