An economic evaluation of aripiprazole vs olanzapine adapted to the Italian setting using outcomes of metabolic syndrome and risk for diabetes in patients with schizophrenia

Giorgio L Colombo1, Mauro Caruggi2, Sergio Di Matteo1, Alessandro Rossi31S.A.V.E. Studi Analisi Valutazioni Economiche, Milano, Italy; 2Università degli Studi dell’Insubria, Varese, Italy; 3Università de L’Aquila, ItalyObjective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of aripiprazole and olanzapine in patients with schizophrenia.Methods: Data from a double-blind, randomized study demonstrating the efficacy of aripiprazole and olanzapine were used to observe new incidence of metabolic syndrome (26-week therapy) and to model the risk of developing diabetes over 5 years of therapy. Cumulative incidence of metabolic syndrome was compared using Kaplan–Meier estimates; diabetes risk was estimated using a validated, general population risk-prediction model. Economic assessment was conducted from the third-party payer perspective by evaluating pharmacotherapy costs of treating schizophrenia and medical costs associated with treating adverse metabolic effects in a hypothetical cohort of 1000 patients. Resource utilization and costs were derived from the underlying study and published data, using a 3% rate to discount costs and benefits.Results: For the patients switched from olanzapine to aripiprazole, treatment with aripiprazole was a dominant cost-saving strategy. Use of aripiprazole avoided 184 events of metabolic syndrome over 26 weeks of treatment, contributing to a real-world (RW) cost savings of €2.53 per patient and a total savings of approximately €465.52 over a 5-year period. For the same cohort, the risk-prediction model indicated that 34 occurrences of diabetes could be avoided over 5 years, corresponding to a RW cost savings of €56.86 per patient and a total saving of approximately €1,933.24. These savings reflect avoided costs in treating adverse metabolic events and comparable costs in the acquisition of aripiprazole.Conclusions: Maintenance aripiprazole therapy offers medical and economic benefits over olanzapine, reflected by reduced incidence of metabolic syndrome and diabetes and associated lower costs.Keywords: schizophrenia, cost-consequences, apripiprazole, olanzapine, metabolic syndrome, diabete

Cost-effectiveness analysis of initial HIV treatment under Italian guidelines

INTRODUCTION: Since the mid-1990s, highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) has modified the clinical course of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection, reducing the rate of disease progression, the incidence of opportunistic infections, and mortality. The authors of this paper performed an economic analysis to estimate the cost-effectiveness of the HAART regimens in Italy for managing HIV-infected patients according to national guidelines. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The incremental cost-effectiveness analysis was carried out by means of a Markov model, which through a decision-analytic approach, made it possible to compare the studied antiretroviral regimens. The population considered in the model consisted of adult subjects with HIV who received antiretroviral HAART treatment for the first time. The population considered in the analysis reflects the patients' characteristics according to one of the regional surveillance systems HIV/AIDS infection report currently operating in Italy. The analysis was carried out from the point of view of the Italian health care system. The considered outcome measures were quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and direct health costs calculated for the year 2010. Both the outcomes (QALYs) and the costs were discounted by 3.5%. The time horizon adopted in the model was 10 years. RESULTS: The model shows, in terms of cost per gained QALY, single tablet regimen (STR) appeared to be the most cost-effective therapeutic choice (22,017), followed by tenofovir (TDF) + lamivudine + efavirenz (EFV) (24,526), and TDF/emtricitabine (FTC) + nevirapine (26,416), and TDF + FTC + EFV (26,558); the remaining strategies have an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) value varying from 28,000 to 41,000 per QALY. The sensitivity analysis on the main variables confirmed the validity of the base case scenario. CONCLUSION: STR is the most cost-effective treatment strategy, compared with the other therapeutic regimens recommended by the Italian guidelines. All the ICER values of the various regimens considered by the Italian guidelines were lower than the threshold value of 50,000 commonly accepted at the international level. The model developed represents a tool for policy makers and health care professionals to make short- and long-term cost projections and thus evaluate their impact on the available budgets for HIV patients

Cost-effectiveness of tenofovir in the treatment of patients with chronic hepatitis B: data from literature

Chronic hepatitis B (CHB) is a complex disease with significant social impact both on the patients' quality of life of and the economic resources involved. Its chronicity affects considerably not only the clinical management of the disease (for the need for drugs with proven long-term safety and low rate of resistance), but also the economic impact (for the high costs of treatment, the management of complications, and the constant monitoring of therapy).Since, as is well known, the main problem of modern health care systems is the general scarcity of available resources in the face of growing demand for health, the issue of economic evaluation of therapies for the treatment of chronic hepatitis B has been addressed in numerous national and international studies. In fact, clinicians find a strong support for the choice of the most suitable therapeutic pathway in the major scientific societies' guidelines (European Association for the Study of The Liver – EASL, American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases – AASLD, Associazione Italiana per lo Studio del Fegato – AISF), while the analysis of the economic implications is rather more difficult, even for the methodological differences and peculiarities of the different countries.The aim of this paper is to present a brief summary of some of the recently conducted cost-effectiveness analyses and extrapolate some data to support the economic evidence related to the treatment of CHB with nucleos(t)ide analogs. In particular, the article focuses on the comparison between entecavir (ETV) and tenofovir (TDF), the two oral antiviral therapies recommended for first-line treatment. In the selected studies, the comparison between the different treatment options was conducted in order to assess the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and the results were expressed in terms of QALYs (Quality Adjusted Life Years) gained.Despite the methodological differences among the selected studies, tenofovir is found to be, in the context of first-line oral antiviral therapies, the most cost-effective treatment for patients with chronic hepatitis B

Cost-effectiveness of tenofovir in the treatment of patients with chronic hepatitis B: data from literature

Chronic hepatitis B (CHB) is a complex disease with significant social impact both on the patients’ quality of life of and the economic resources involved. Its chronicity affects considerably not only the clinical management of the disease (for the need for drugs with proven long-term safety and low rate of resistance), but also the economic impact (for the high costs of treatment, the management of complications, and the constant monitoring of therapy).Since, as is well known, the main problem of modern health care systems is the general scarcity of available resources in the face of growing demand for health, the issue of economic evaluation of therapies for the treatment of chronic hepatitis B has been addressed in numerous national and international studies. In fact, clinicians find a strong support for the choice of the most suitable therapeutic pathway in the major scientific societies’ guidelines (European Association for the Study of The Liver – EASL, American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases – AASLD, Associazione Italiana per lo Studio del Fegato – AISF), while the analysis of the economic implications is rather more difficult, even for the methodological differences and peculiarities of the different countries.The aim of this paper is to present a brief summary of some of the recently conducted cost-effectiveness analyses and extrapolate some data to support the economic evidence related to the treatment of CHB with nucleos(t)ide analogs. In particular, the article focuses on the comparison between entecavir (ETV) and tenofovir (TDF), the two oral antiviral therapies recommended for first-line treatment. In the selected studies, the comparison between the different treatment options was conducted in order to assess the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and the results were expressed in terms of QALYs (Quality Adjusted Life Years) gained.Despite the methodological differences among the selected studies, tenofovir is found to be, in the context of first-line oral antiviral therapies, the most cost-effective treatment for patients with chronic hepatitis B

Efficacy of the Combination of Pinaverium Bromide 100mg Plus Simethicone 300mg in Abdominal Pain and Bloating in Irritable Bowel Syndrome: A Randomized, Placebo-controlled Trial

Goals: We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of PB+S (pinaverium bromide 100 mg plus simethicone 300 mg) in patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). Background: IBS is a multifactorial disorder; thus, combination therapy with different mechanisms of action is expected to be useful. PB+S has shown effectiveness in an open-label clinical study in IBS. However, there are no placebo-controlled trials. Materials and Methods: IBS-Rome III patients with abdominal pain/discomfort for at least 2 days within the week prior to baseline assessment were included in this 12-week, randomized, doubleblind, placebo-controlled study of PB+S versus placebo, bid. The primary endpoint was overall symptom improvement, evaluated weekly by the patient (Likert Scale). Secondary endpoints included the weekly improvement in the severity of abdominal pain and bloating assessed both by patients (10-cm Visual Analogue Scale) and investigators (Likert Scale); frequency of Bristol Scale stool types (consistency) evaluated by patients and the IBS Quality of Life scores. Results: A total of 285 patients (female: 83%; 36.5±8.9 y old) received at least 1 dose of PB+S (n=140) or placebo (n=145). No difference was observed in overall symptom improvement between the groups (P=0.13). However, PB+S was superior in abdominal pain (effect size: 31%, P=0.038) and bloating (33%, P=0.019). Patients with IBS-C and IBS-M showed the best improvement in the frequency of stool types with PB+S. No differences were observed in IBS Quality of Life scores and adverse events