Estimation of the incidence of genital warts and the cost of illness in Germany: A cross-sectional study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Human papillomavirus (HPV) is a necessary cause of cervical cancer. HPV is also responsible for benign <it>condylomata acuminata</it>, also known as genital warts. We assessed the incidence of genital warts in Germany and collected information on their management to estimate the annual cost of disease.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This was a multi-centre observational (cross-sectional) study of genital warts in Germany. Data were collected from gynecologists, dermatologists, and urologists seeing patients with genital warts between February and April 2005. The number of patients with new and recurrent genital warts was used to estimate the incidence in Germany. We assessed resource use for patients with genital warts seen during a two-month period as well as retrospective resource use twelve months prior to the inclusion visit through a chart review. The mean costs of treatment of patients with genital warts from third-party payer and societal perspectives were estimated, and the total annual cost of genital warts was then calculated.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>For the incidence calculation 217 specialists provided information on 848 patients and 214 specialists provided resource use data for 617 patients to assess resource consumption. The incidence of new and recurrent cases of genital warts was 113.7 and 34.7 per 100 000, respectively, for women aged 14–65 years consulting gynecologists. The highest incidence was observed in women aged 14–25 years (171.0 per 100 000) for new cases and in women aged 26–45 years (53.1 per 100 000) for recurrent cases. The sample size for males was too small to allow a meaningful estimate of the incidence. The mean direct cost per patient with new genital warts was estimated at 378 euros (95% CI: 310.8–444.9); for recurrent genital warts at 603 euros (95% CI: 436.5–814.5), and for resistant genital warts at 1,142 euros (95% CI: 639.6–1752.3). The overall cost to third-party payers was estimated at 49.0 million euros, and the total societal cost at 54.1 million euros, corresponding to an average cost per patient of 550 euros and 607 euros, respectively.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The societal burden and costs of managing and treating genital warts in Germany are considerable. A vaccination programme using the quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccine could provide a substantial health benefit and reduce the costs associated with genital warts in Germany.</p

Cost-effectiveness of catch-up programs in human papillomavirus vaccination

We reviewed cost-effectiveness models that combine routine vaccination with the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine with temporary catch-up programs. Cost-effectiveness results of catch-up programs are variable, and we reviewed methods and underlying assumptions to get more insight into any factor with a potential impact on cost-effectiveness. Results were dependent on differences between models used, their design and input data. Modeling aspects and assumptions were not always sufficiently described, making comparison difficult. Despite this, several differences between models likely to impact results were identified. All models used dynamic transmission modeling techniques except for one, which did not incorporate the effect of herd immunity. Catch-up strategies varied between models and comparator strategies were not necessarily the same. Cervical diseases outcomes were considered in all base cases, but the impact of genital warts was not always considered. Our article suggests that a conclusion on cost-effectiveness should be based on a fully transparent model including all possible benefits of vaccination

Adjunctive treatment with moxonidine versus nitrendipine for hypertensive patients with advanced renal failure: a cost-effectiveness analysis

Littlewood KJ, Greiner W, Baum D, Zoellner Y. Adjunctive treatment with moxonidine versus nitrendipine for hypertensive patients with advanced renal failure: a cost-effectiveness analysis. BMC Nephrology. 2007;8(1): 9.Background: Systemic hypertension often accompanies chronic renal failure and can accelerate its progression to endstage renal disease (ESRD). Adjunctive moxonidine appeared to have benefits versus adjunctive nitrendipine, in a randomised double-blind six-month trial in hypertensive patients with advanced renal failure. To understand the longer term effects and costs of moxonidine, a decision analytic model was developed and a cost-effectiveness analysis performed. Methods: A Markov model was used to extrapolate results from the trial over three years. All patients started in a non- ESRD state. After each cycle, patients with a glomerular filtration rate below 15 ml/min had progressed to an ESRD state. The cost-effectiveness analysis was based on the Dutch healthcare perspective. The main outcome measure was incremental cost per life-year gained. The percentage of patients progressing to ESRD and cumulative costs were also compared after three years. In the base case analysis, all patients with ESRD received dialysis. Results: The model predicted that after three years, 38.9% (95%CI 31.8–45.8) of patients treated with nitrendipine progressed to ESRD compared to 7.5% (95%CI 3.5–12.7) of patients treated with moxonidine. Treatment with standard antihypertensive therapy and adjunctive moxonidine was predicted to reduce the number of ESRD cases by 81% over three years compared to adjunctive nitrendipine. The cumulative costs per patient were significantly lower in the moxonidine group €9,858 (95% CI 5,501–16,174) than in the nitrendipine group €37,472 (95% CI 27,957–49,478). The model showed moxonidine to be dominant compared to nitrendipine, increasing life-years lived by 0.044 (95%CI 0.020–0.070) years and at a cost-saving of €27,615 (95%CI 16,894–39,583) per patient. Probabilistic analyses confirmed that the moxonidine strategy was dominant over nitrendipine in over 98.9% of cases. The cumulative 3-year costs and LYL continued to favour the moxonidine strategy in all sensitivity analyses performed. Conclusion: Treatment with standard antihypertensive therapy and adjunctive moxonidine in hypertensive patients with advanced renal failure was predicted to reduce the number of new ESRD cases over three years compared to adjunctive nitrendipine. The model showed that adjunctive moxonidine could increase life-years lived and provide long term cost savings