Costs and Effects of Various Analgesic Treatments for Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis and Osteoarthritis in The Netherlands

AbstractObjectiveTo assess the balance between costs and upper gastrointestinal (GI) side effects of treatment with celecoxib, nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) alone, NSAID plus misoprostol, NSAID plus histamine-2 receptor antagonist (H2RA), NSAID plus proton pump inhibitor (PPI), and Arthrotec in The Netherlands.MethodsA model was used to convene data from various sources on the probability of GI side effects and resource use. The probabilities of GI side effects for celecoxib and NSAIDs alone were derived from trial data. Calculations were based on 6 months of treatment, and were from a societal perspective. Distinction was made between low-, medium-, and high-risk patients. An extensive probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed to address uncertainty.ResultsAssuming an average patient, the total costs per 6 months of therapy were: celecoxib €255, NSAIDs alone €166, NSAID plus misoprostol €285, NSAID plus H2RA €284, NSAID plus PPI €243, and Arthrotec €187. Treatment with celecoxib was associated with the lowest number of GI side effects and related deaths. Incremental costs per life-year saved for Arthrotec compared to NSAIDs alone were €5676 for all patients and €526 for medium-to-high-risk patients, whereas for high-risk patients, Arthrotec dominated NSAID alone. For celecoxib compared to Arthrotec, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were €56,667, €33,684, and €15,429, respectively.ConclusionAssuming a limit of €20,000 per life-year gained, from an economic point of view, Arthrotec is the preferred treatment when all patients or medium-to-high-risk patients are considered. In high-risk patients, celecoxib is the preferred treatment strategy

Staging of non-small-cell lung cancer and application of FDG-PET: A cost modeling approach

Background: The presence of (distant) metastases affects the therapy (operation) and prognosis of patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Fifty percent of the operations are futile due to the presence of a locally advanced tumor or distant metastases. Therefore, more accurate preoperative staging is required with respect to the outcomes (reduction of futile operations) and costs. This study examines current staging procedures and assesses possible situations for incorporating positron emission tomography (PET). Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed to assess actual clinical practice in the staging procedure of 337 patients with NSCLC in two Dutch hospitals. Consequently, by combining these data of actual clinical practice with a literature review, a model was developed to determine the influence of PET on the staging outcomes and the costs. In this model the accuracy and costs of PET can be varied as well as the extent of substitution of conventional diagnostic tests by PET. Results: Practice variation was found between the two hospitals with regard to the setting in which the diagnostic staging took place (hospitalization, outpatient setting) and the extent of the use of mediastinoscopy. This was reflected in the costs and in the number of (futile) operations. Conclusion: Hospitalization is the major cost driver in these patients. From a cost viewpoint, the evaluation of PET in a strategy after diagnostic imaging but prior to invasive staging seems most optimal

Cost-effectiveness of FDG-PET in staging non-small cell lung cancer: The PLUS study

Currently, up to 50% of the operations in early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are futile owing to the presence of locally advanced tumour or distant metastases. More accurate pre-operative staging is required in order to reduce the number of futile operations. The cost-effectiveness of fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (18FDG-PET) added to the conventional diagnostic work-up was studied in the PLUS study. Prior to invasive staging and/or thoracotomy, 188 patients with (suspected) NSCLC were randomly assigned to conventional work-up (CWU) and whole-body PET or to CWU alone. CWU was based on prevailing guidelines. Pre-operative staging was followed by 1 year of follow-up. Outcomes are expressed in the percentage of correctly staged patients and the associated costs. The cost price of PET varied between €736 and €1,588 depending on the (hospital) setting and the procurement of 18FDG commercially or from on-site production. In the CWU group, 41% of the patients underwent a futile thoracotomy, whereas in the PET group 21% of the thoracotomies were considered futile (P=0.003). The average costs per patient in the CWU group were €9,573 and in the PET group, €8,284. The major cost driver was the number of hospital days related to recovery from surgery. Sensitivity analysis on the cost and accuracy of PET showed that the results were robust, i.e. in favour of the PET group. The addition of PET to CWU prevented futile surgery in one out of five patients with suspected NSCLC. Despite the additional PET costs, the total costs were lower in the PET group, mainly due to a reduction in the number of futile operations. The additional use of PET in the staging of patients with NSCLC is feasible, safe and cost saving from a clinical and from an economic perspective