Treatment-resistant depression increases health costs and resource utilization

Objective: Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) is a debilitating condition with a marked social impact. The impact of MDD and Treatment-Resistant Depression (TRD+) within the Brazilian health system is largely unknown. The goal of this study was to compare resource utilization and costs of care for treatment-resistant MDD relative to non-treatment-resistant depression (TRD-). Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the records of 212 patients who had been diagnosed with MDD according to the ICD-10 criteria. Specific criteria were used to identify patients with TRD+. Resource utilization was estimated, and the consumption of medication was annualized. We obtained information on medical visits, procedures, hospitalizations, emergency department visits and medication use related or not to MDD. Results: The sample consisted of 90 TRD+ and 122 TRD-patients. TRD+ patients used significantly more resources from the psychiatric service, but not from non-psychiatric clinics, compared to TRD-patients. Furthermore, TRD+ patients were significantly more likely to require hospitalizations. Overall, TRD+ patients imposed significantly higher (81.5%) annual costs compared to TRD-patients (R$ 5,520.85; US$ 3,075.34 vs. R$ 3,042.14; US$ 1,694.60). These findings demonstrate the burden of MDD, and especially of TRD+ patients, to the tertiary public health system. Our study should raise awareness of the impact of TRD+ and should be considered by policy makers when implementing public mental health initiatives.

An economic evaluation of antihypertensive therapies based on clinical trials

OBJECTIVE: Hypertension is a major issue in public health, and the financial costs associated with hypertension continue to increase. Cost-effectiveness studies focusing on antihypertensive drug combinations, however, have been scarce. The cost-effectiveness ratios of the traditional treatment (hydrochlorothiazide and atenolol) and the current treatment (losartan and amlodipine) were evaluated in patients with grade 1 or 2 hypertension (HT1-2). For patients with grade 3 hypertension (HT3), a third drug was added to the treatment combinations: enalapril was added to the traditional treatment, and hydrochlorothiazide was added to the current treatment. METHODS: Hypertension treatment costs were estimated on the basis of the purchase prices of the antihypertensive medications, and effectiveness was measured as the reduction in systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure (in mm Hg) at the end of a 12-month study period. RESULTS: When the purchase price of the brand-name medication was used to calculate the cost, the traditional treatment presented a lower cost-effectiveness ratio [US$/mm Hg] than the current treatment in the HT1-2 group. In the HT3 group, however, there was no difference in cost-effectiveness ratio between the traditional treatment and the current treatment. The cost-effectiveness ratio differences between the treatment regimens maintained the same pattern when the purchase price of the lower-cost medication was used. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that the traditional treatment is more cost-effective (US$/mm Hg) than the current treatment in the HT1-2 group. There was no difference in cost-effectiveness between the traditional treatment and the current treatment for the HT3 group.

A comparative analysis of outpatient costs in HIV treatment programs

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the costs of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) outpatient treatment for individuals with different CD4 cell counts in the Brazilian public health system, and to compare to costs in other national health systems. METHODS: A retrospective survey was conducted in five public outpatient clinics of the Brazilian national HIV program in the city of São Paulo. Data on healthcare services provided for a period of one year of HIV outpatient treatment were gathered from randomly selected medical records. Prices of inputs used were obtained through market research and public sector databases. Information on costs of HIV outpatient treatment in other national health systems were gathered from the literature. Annual costs of HIV outpatient treatment from each country were converted into 2010 U.S. dollars. RESULTS: Annual cost of HIV outpatient treatment for the Brazilian national public program was US$ 2,572.92 in 2006 in São Paulo, ranging from US$ 1,726.19 for patients with CD4 cell count > 500 to US$ 3,693.28 for patients with 51 < CD4 cell count < 200. Antiretrovirals (ARVs) represented approximately 62.0% of annual HIV outpatient costs. Comparing among different health systems during the same period, HIV outpatient treatment presented higher costs in countries where HIV treatment is provided by the private sector. CONCLUSION: The main cost drivers of HIV outpatient treatment in different health systems were: ARVs, other medications, health professional services, and diagnostic exams. Nevertheless, the magnitude of cost drivers varied among HIV outpatient treatment programs due to health system efficiency. The data presented may be a valuable tool for public policy evaluation of HIV treatment programs worldwide.

Periocular basal cell carcinoma: cost of topical immunotherapy versus estimated cost of surgical treatment

Purpose: The objective of this study was to compare the estimated cost of clinical and surgical treatment for basl cell carcinoma of the eyelid. Methods: This was a pilot study of 12 patients with basal cell carcinoma receiving treatment with 5% imiquimod cream at the ocular plastic surgery center, medical school University of Sao Paulo (HC-FMUSP, Brazil). The cost of clinical treatment was estimated based on the time of treatment and amount of medication consumed by patients in the home setting. The cost of surgical treatment was estimated by ophthalmologists with experience in reconstructive plastic surgery based on analysis of images of the same patients. Surgeons responded to a questionnaire with four questions about surgical technique, surgical materials required, estimated duration of surgery and type of anesthesia. Results: Immunotherapy lasted from 8 to 12 weeks. All patients reported each cold-stored sachet with 5% imiquimod cream lasted 3 days. According to the institution, a box with 12 sachets costs BRL 480.00. Patients required 1.58-3.11 boxes for complete treatment, corresponding to a total cost of BRL 758.40-1,492.80. Based on image analysis, surgeons evaluated surgery would require 1-3 hours. The estimated cost of surgery room and staff was BRL 263.00, to which the cost of supplies was added. Thus, the total cost of surgical treatment was BRL 272.61-864.82. On the average, immunotherapy was 57,64% more costly than surgical treatment. Conclusions: Malignant eyelid tumors are a common finding in clinical ophthalmology. Surgery is still the treatment of choice at our institution, but immunotherapy with 5% imiquimod cream may be indicated for patients with multiple lesions or high surgical risk and for patients declining surgery for reasons of fear or esthetic concerns. The ability to estimate costs related to the treatment of malignant eyelid tumors is an important aid in the financial planning of health care institutions. Further studies should evaluate the possibility of institutions equating the cost of immunotherapy and surgical treatment by acquiring similar but less expensive medications.

Cost-effectiveness and budget impact of saxagliptine as additional therapy to metformin for the treatment of diabetes mellitus type 2 in the Brazilian private health system

Cost-effectiveness and budget impact of saxagliptine as additional therapy to metformin for the treatment of diabetes mellitus type 2 in the Brazilian private health system Objectives: To compare costs and clinical benefits of three additional therapies to metformin (MF) for patients with diabetes mellitus type 2 (DM2). Methods: A discrete event simulation model seas built to estimate the cost-utility ratio (cost per quality-adjusted life years [QALY)) of saxagliptine as an additional therapy to MF when compared to rosiglitazone or pioglitazone. A budget impact model (BIM) was built to simulate the economic impact of saxagliptine use in the context of the Brazilian private health system. Results: The acquiring medication costs for the hypothetical patient group analyzed in a time frame of three years, were R$ 10,850,185, R$ 14,836,265 and R$ 14,679,099 for saxagliptine, pioglitazone and rosiglitazone, respectively. Saxagliptine showed lower costs and greater effectiveness in both comparisons, with projected savings for the first three years of R$ 3,874 and R$ 3,996, respectively. The BIM estimated cumulative savings of R$ 417,958 with the repayment of saxagliptine in three years from the perspective of a health plan with 1,000,000 covered individuals. Conclusion: From the perspective of private paying source, the projection is that adding saxagliptine with MF save costs when compared with the addition of rosiglitazone or pioglitazone in patients with DM2 that have not reached the HbA1c goal with metformin monotherapy. The BIM of including saxagliptine in the reimbursement lists of health plans indicated significant savings on the three-year horizon.

Pharmacological interventions in the treatment of the acute effects of cannabis: a systematic review of literature

Abstract Background Cannabis intoxication is related to a number of physical and mental health risks with ensuing social costs. However, little attention has been given to the investigation of possible pharmacological interactions in this condition. Objective To review the available scientific literature concerning pharmacological interventions for the treatment of the acute effects of cannabis. Methods A search was performed on the Pubmed, Lilacs, and Scielo online databases by combining the terms cannabis, intoxication, psychosis, anxiety, and treatment. The articles selected from this search had their reference lists checked for additional publications related to the topic of the review. Results The reviewed articles consisted of case reports and controlled clinical trials and are presented according to interventions targeting the physiological, psychiatric, and cognitive symptoms provoked by cannabis. The pharmacological interventions reported in these studies include: beta-blockers, antiarrhythmic agents, antagonists of CB-1 and GABA-benzodiazepine receptors, antipsychotics, and cannabidiol. Conclusion Although scarce, the evidence on pharmacological interventions for the management of cannabis intoxication suggests that propanolol and rimonabant are the most effective compounds currently available to treat the physiological and subjective effects of the drug. Further studies are necessary to establish the real effectiveness of these two medications, as well as the effectiveness of other candidate compounds to counteract the effects of cannabis intoxication, such as cannabidiol and flumazenil.