A cost-effectiveness analysis of buprenorphine-assisted heroin withdrawal

The purpose of this study was to conduct a cost - effectiveness analysis of detoxification from heroin using buprenorphine in a specialist clinic versus a shared care setting. A randomized controlled trial was conducted with a total of 115 heroin-dependent patients receiving a 5-day treatment regime of buprenorphine. The specialist clinic was a community-based treatment agency in inner-city Sydney. Shared care involved treatment by a general practitioner supplemented by weekend dispensing and some concurrent counselling at the specialist clinic. Quanti. cation of resource use was limited to inputs for treatment provision. The primary outcome measure used in the economic analysis was the proportion of each group that completed detoxification and achieved an initial 7-day period of abstinence. Buprenorphine detoxification in the shared care setting was estimated to be $24 more expensive per patient than treatment at the clinic, which had an average treatment cost of $332 per patient. Twenty-three per cent of the shared care patients and 22% of the clinic patients reported no opiate use during the withdrawal period. These results suggest that the provision of buprenorphine treatment for heroin dependence in shared care and clinic appear to be equally cost - effective.

A cost-effectiveness analysis of two rehabilitation support services for women with breast cancer

The purpose of this research was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of two rehabilitation interventions for breast cancer survivors, each compared to a population-based, non-intervention group (n = 208). The two services included an early home-based physiotherapy intervention (DAART, n = 36) and a group-based exercise and psychosocial intervention (STRETCH, n = 31). A societal perspective was taken and costs were included as those incurred by the health care system, the survivors and community. Health outcomes included: (a) 'rehabilitated cases' based on changes in health-related quality of life between 6 and 12 months post-diagnosis, using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Breast Cancer plus Arm Morbidity (FACT-B+4) questionnaire, and (b) quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) using utility scores from the Subjective Health Estimation (SHE) scale. Data were collected using self-reported questionnaires, medical records and program budgets. A Monte-Carlo modelling approach was used to test for uncertainty in cost and outcome estimates. The proportion of rehabilitated cases was similar across the three groups. From a societal perspective compared with the non-intervention group, the DAART intervention appeared to be the most efficient option with an incremental cost of $1344 per QALY gained, whereas the incremental cost per QALY gained from the STRETCH program was $14,478. Both DAART and STRETCH are low-cost, low-technological health promoting programs representing excellent public health investments.

A cost-effectiveness analysis of fluvastatin in patients with diabetes after successful percutaneous coronary intervention

Background: The Lescol Intervention Prevention Study (LIPS) was a multinational randomized controlled trial that showed a 47% reduction in the relative risk of cardiac death and a 22% reduction in major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) from the routine use of fluvastatin, compared with controls, in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI, defined as angioplasty with or without stents). In this study, MACEs included cardiac death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and subsequent PCI and coronary artery bypass graft. Diabetes was the greatest risk factor for MACEs. Objective: This study estimated the cost-effectiveness of fluvastatin when used for secondary prevention of MACEs after PCI in people with diabetes. Methods: A post hoc subgroup analysis of patients with diabetes from the LIPS was used to estimate the effectiveness of fluvastatin in reducing myocardial infarction, revascularization, and cardiac death. A probabilistic Markov model was developed using United Kingdom resource and cost data to estimate the additional costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained over 10 years from the perspective of the British National Health Service. The model contained 6 health states, and the transition probabilities were derived from the LIPS data. Crossover from fluvastatin to other lipid-lowering drugs, withdrawal from fluvastatin, and the use of lipid-lowering drugs in the control group were included. Results: In the subgroup of 202 patients with diabetes in the LIPS trial, 18 (15.0%) of 120 fluvastatin patients and 21 (25.6%) of 82 control participants were insulin dependent (P = NS). Compared with the control group, patients treated with fluvastatin can expect to gain an additional mean (SD) of 0.196 (0.139) QALY per patient over 10 years (P < 0.001) and will cost the health service an additional mean (SD) of 10 (E448) (P = NS) (mean [SD] US $16 [$689]). The additional cost per QALY gained was;(51 (US $78). The key determinants of cost-effectiveness included the probabilities of repeat interventions, cardiac death, the cost of fluvastatin, and the time horizon used for the evaluation. Conclusion: Fluvastatin was an economically efficient treatment to prevent MACEs in these patients with diabetes undergoing PCI.

Does pharmacogenomics provide an ethical challenge to the utilisation of cost-effectiveness analysis by public health systems?

Pharmacogenomics promotes an understanding of the genetic basis for differences in efficacy or toxicity of drugs in different individuals. Implementation of the outcomes of pharmacogenomic research into clinical practice presents a number of difficulties for healthcare. This paper aims to highlight one of the Unique ethical challenges which pharmacogenomics presents for the utilisation of cost-effectiveness analysis by public health systems. This paper contends that pharmacogenomics provides a challenge to fundamental principles which underlie most systems for deciding which drugs should be publicly subsidised. Pharmacogenomics brings into focus the conflict between equality and utility in the context of using cost-effectiveness analysis to aid distribution of a limited national drug budget.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of a kidney and cardiovascular disease treatment program in an Australian aboriginal population

The objective of the study was to assess, from a health service perspective, whether a systematic program to modify kidney and cardiovascular disease reduced the costs of treating end-stage kidney failure. The participants in the study were 1,800 aboriginal adults with hypertension, diabetes with microalbuminuria or overt albuminuria, and overt albuminuria, living on two islands in the Northern Territory of Australia during 1995 to 2000. Perindopril was the primary treatment agent, and other medications were also used to control blood pressure. Control of glucose and lipid levels were attempted, and health education was offered. Evaluation of program resource use and costs for follow-up periods was done at 3 and 4.7 years. On an intention-to-treat basis, the number of dialysis starts and dialysis-years avoided were estimated by comparing the fate of the treatment group with that of historical control subjects, matched for disease severity, who were followed in the before the treatment program began. For the first three years, an estimated 11.6 person-years of dialysis were avoided, and over 4.7 years, 27.7 person-years of dialysis were avoided. The net cost of the program was $1,210 more per person per year than status quo care, and dialyses avoided gave net savings of $1.0 million at 3 years and $3.4 million at 4.6 years. The treatment program provided significant health benefit and impressive cost savings in dialysis avoided. (C) 2005 by the National Kidney Foundation, Inc.

A cost-effectiveness analysis of heroin detoxification methods in the Australian National Evaluation of Pharmacotherapies for Opioid Dependence (NEPOD)

This economic evaluation was part of the Australian National Evaluation of Pharmacotherapies for Opioid Dependence (NEPOD) project. Data from four trials of heroin detoxification methods, involving 365 participants, were pooled to enable a comprehensive comparison of the cost-effectiveness of five inpatient and outpatient detoxification methods. This study took the perspective of the treatment provider in assessing resource use and costs. Two short-term outcome measures were used-achievement of an initial 7-day period of abstinence, and entry into ongoing post-detoxification treatment. The mean costs of the various detoxification methods ranged widely, from AUD $491 (buprenorphine-based outpatient); to AUD $605 for conventional outpatient; AUD $1404 for conventional inpatient; AUD $1990 for rapid detoxification under sedation; and to AUD $2689 for anaesthesia per episode. An incremental cost-effectiveness analysis was carried out using conventional outpatient detoxification as the base comparator. The buprenorphine-based outpatient detoxification method was found to be the most cost-effective method overall, and rapid opioid detoxification under sedation was the most costeffective inpatient method.

Cost-effectiveness of screening with contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging vs X-ray mammography of women at a high familial risk of breast cancer

Contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (CE MRI) is the most sensitive tool for screening women who are at high familial risk of breast cancer. Our aim in this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of X-ray mammography (XRM), CE MRI or both strategies combined. In total, 649 women were enrolled in the MARIBS study and screened with both CE MRI and mammography resulting in 1881 screens and 1-7 individual annual screening events. Women aged 35-49 years at high risk of breast cancer, either because they have a strong family history of breast cancer or are tested carriers of a BRCA1, BRCA2 or TP53 mutation or are at a 50% risk of having inherited such a mutation, were recruited from 22 centres and offered annual MRI and XRM for between 2 and 7 years. Information on the number and type of further investigations was collected and specifically calculated unit costs were used to calculate the incremental cost per cancer detected. The numbers of cancer detected was 13 for mammography, 27 for CE MRI and 33 for mammography and CE MRI combined. In the subgroup of BRCA1 (BRCA2) mutation carriers or of women having a first degree relative with a mutation in BRCA1 (BRCA2) corresponding numbers were 3 (6), 12 (7) and 12 (11), respectively. For all women, the incremental cost per cancer detected with CE MRI and mammography combined was 28 pound 284 compared to mammography. When only BRCA1 or the BRCA2 groups were considered, this cost would be reduced to 11 pound 731 (CE MRI vs mammography) and 15 pound 302 (CE MRI and mammography vs mammography). Results were most sensitive to the unit cost estimate for a CE MRI screening test. Contrast-enhanced MRI might be a cost-effective screening modality for women at high risk, particularly for the BRCA1 and BRCA2 subgroups. Further work is needed to assess the impact of screening on mortality and health-related quality of life.

Comparative cost-effectiveness of policy instruments for reducing the global burden of alcohol, tobacco and illicit drug use

Alcohol, tobacco and illicit drug use together pose a formidable challenge to international public health. Building on earlier estimates of the demonstrated burden of alcohol, tobacco and illicit drug use at the global level, this review aims to consider the comparative cost-effectiveness of evidence-based interventions for reducing the global burden of disease from these three risk factors. Although the number of published cost-effectiveness studies in the addictions field is now extensive ( reviewed briefly here) there are a series of practical problems in using them for sector-wide decision making, including methodological heterogeneity, differences in analytical reference point and the specificity of findings to a particular context. In response to these limitations, a more generalised form of cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is proposed, which enables like-with-like comparisons of the relative efficiency of preventive or individual-based strategies to be made, not only within but also across diseases or their risk factors. The application of generalised CEA to a range of personal and non-personal interventions for reducing the burden of addictive substances is described. While such a development avoids many of the obstacles that have plagued earlier attempts and in so doing opens up new opportunities to address important policy questions, there remain a number of caveats to population-level analysis of this kind, particularly when conducted at the global level. These issues are the subject of the final section of this review.

Assessing cost-effectiveness in mental health: vocational rehabilitation for schizophrenia and related conditions

Objective: Existing evidence suggests that vocational rehabilitation services, in particular individual placement and support (IPS), are effective in assisting people with schizophrenia and related conditions gain open employment. Despite this, such services are not available to all unemployed people with schizophrenia who wish to work. Existing evidence suggests that while IPS confers no clinical advantages over routine care, it does improve the proportion of people returning to employment. The objective of the current study is to investigate the net benefit of introducing IPS services into current mental health services in Australia. Method: The net benefit of IPS is assessed from a health sector perspective using cost-benefit analysis. A two-stage approach is taken to the assessment of benefit. The first stage involves a quantitative analysis of the net benefit, defined as the benefits of IPS (comprising transfer payments averted, income tax accrued and individual income earned) minus the costs. The second stage involves application of 'second-filter' criteria (including equity, strength of evidence, feasibility and acceptability to stakeholders) to results. The robustness of results is tested using the multivariate probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Results: The costs of IPS are $A10.3M (95% uncertainty interval $A7.4M-$A13.6M), the benefits are $A4.7M ($A3.1M-$A6.5M), resulting in a negative net benefit of $A5.6M ($A8.4M-$A3.4M). Conclusions: The current analysis suggests that IPS costs are greater than the monetary benefits. However, the evidence-base of the current analysis is weak. Structural conditions surrounding welfare payments in Australia create disincentives to full-time employment for people with disabilities.

Assessing cost-effectiveness of drug interventions for schizophrenia

Objective: To assess from a health sector perspective the incremental cost-effectiveness of eight drug treatment scenarios for established schizophrenia. Method: Using a standardized methodology, costs and outcomes are modelled over the lifetime of prevalent cases of schizophrenia in Australia in 2000. A two-stage approach to assessment of health benefit is used. The first stage involves a quantitative analysis based on disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) averted, using best available evidence. The robustness of results is tested using probabilistic uncertainty analysis. The second stage involves application of 'second filter' criteria (equity, strength of evidence, feasibility and acceptability) to allow broader concepts of benefit to be considered. Results: Replacing oral typicals with risperidone or olanzapine has an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of A$48 000 and A$92 000/DALY respectively. Switching from low-dose typicals to risperidone has an ICER of A$80 000. Giving risperidone to people experiencing side-effects on typicals is more cost-effective at A$20 000. Giving clozapine to people taking typicals, with the worst course of the disorder and either little or clear deterioration, is cost-effective at A$42 000 or A$23 000/DALY respectively. The least cost-effective intervention is to replace risperidone with olanzapine at A$160 000/DALY. Conclusions: Based on an A$50 000/DALY threshold, low-dose typical neuroleptics are indicated as the treatment of choice for established schizophrenia, with risperidone being reserved for those experiencing moderate to severe side-effects on typicals. The more expensive olanzapine should only be prescribed when risperidone is not clinically indicated. The high cost of risperidone and olanzapine relative to modest health gains underlie this conclusion. Earlier introduction of clozapine however, would be cost-effective. This work is limited by weaknesses in trials (lack of long-term efficacy data, quality of life and consumer satisfaction evidence) and the translation of effect size into a DALY change. Some stakeholders, including SANE Australia, argue the modest health gains reported in the literature do not adequately reflect perceptions by patients, clinicians and carers, of improved quality of life with these atypicals.

Utilising survey data to inform public policy: Comparison of the cost-effectiveness of treatment of ten mental disorders

Background Mental health survey data are now being used proactively to decide how the burden of disease might best be reduced. Aims To study the cost-effectiveness of current and optimal treatments for mental disorders and the proportion of burden avertable by each. Method Data for three affective, four anxiety and two alcohol use disorders and for schizophrenia were compared in terms of cost, burden averted and efficiency of current and optimal treatment. We then calculated the burden unavertable given current knowledge. The unit of health gain was a reduction in the years lived with disability (YLDs). Results Summing across all disorders, current treatment averted 13% of the burden, at an average cost of AUS$30 000 per YLD gained. Optimal treatment at current coverage could avert 20% of the burden, at an average cost of AUS$18 000 per YLD gained. Optimal treatment at optimal coverage could avert 28% of the burden, at AUS$16 000 per YLD gained. Sixty per cent of the burden of mental disorders was deemed to be unavertable. Conclusions The efficiency of treatment varied more than tenfold across disorders. Although coverage of some of the more efficient treatments should be extended, other factors justify continued use of less-efficient treatments for some disorders. Declaration of interest None. Funding detailed in Acknowledgements.

Modelling the population cost-effectiveness of current and evidence-based optimal treatment for anxiety disorders

Background. The present paper describes a component of a large Population cost-effectiveness study that aimed to identify the averted burden and economic efficiency of current and optimal treatment for the major mental disorders. This paper reports on the findings for the anxiety disorders (panic disorder/agoraphobia, social phobia, generalized anxiety disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder and obsessive-compulsive disorder). Method. Outcome was calculated as averted 'years lived with disability' (YLD), a population summary measure of disability burden. Costs were the direct health care costs in 1997-8 Australian dollars. The cost per YLD averted (efficiency) was calculated for those already in contact with the health system for a mental health problem (current care) and for a hypothetical optimal care package of evidence-based treatment for this same group. Data sources included the Australian National Survey of Mental Health and Well-being and published treatment effects and unit costs. Results. Current coverage was around 40% for most disorders with the exception of social phobia at 21%. Receipt of interventions consistent with evidence-based care ranged from 32% of those in contact with services for social phobia to 64% for post-traumatic stress disorder. The cost of this care was estimated at $400 million, resulting in a cost per YLD averted ranging from $7761 for generalized anxiety disorder to $34 389 for panic/agoraphobia. Under optimal care, costs remained similar but health gains were increased substantially, reducing the cost per YLD to < $20 000 for all disorders. Conclusions. Evidence-based care for anxiety disorders would produce greater population health gain at a similar cost to that of current care, resulting in a substantial increase in the cost-effectiveness of treatment.