Cholesterol-lowering therapy with pravastatin in patients with average cholesterol levels and established ischaemic heart disease: is it cost-effective?

Objective: To measure the cost-effectiveness of cholesterol-lowering therapy with pravastatin in patients with established ischaemic heart disease and average baseline cholesterol levels. Design: Prospective economic evaluation within a double-blind randomised trial (Long-Term Intervention with Pravastatin in Ischaemic Disease [LIPID]), in which patients with a history of unstable angina or previous myocardial infarction were randomised to receive 40 mg of pravastatin daily or matching placebo. Patients and setting: 9014 patients aged 35-75 years from 85 centres in Australia and New Zealand, recruited from June 1990 to December 1992. Main outcome measures: Cost per death averted, cost per life-year gained, and cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained, calculated from measures of hospitalisations, medication use, outpatient visits, and quality of life. Results: The LIPID trial showed a 22% relative reduction in all-cause mortality (P < 0.001). Over a mean follow-up of 6 years, hospital admissions for coronary heart disease and coronary revascularisation were reduced by about 20%. Over this period, pravastatin cost $A4913 per patient, but reduced total hospitalisation costs by $A1385 per patient and other long-term medication costs by $A360 per patient. In a subsample of patients, average quality of life was 0.98 (where 0 = dead and 1 = normal good health); the treatment groups were not significantly different. The absolute reduction in all-cause mortality was 3.0% (95% CI, 1.6%-4.4%), and the incremental cost was $3246 per patient, resulting in a cost per life saved of $107730 (95% Cl, $68626-$209881) within the study period. Extrapolating long-term survival from the placebo group, the undiscounted cost per life-year saved was $7695 (and $10 938 with costs and life-years discounted at an annual rate of 5%). Conclusions: Pravastatin therapy for patients with a history of myocardial infarction or unstable angina and average cholesterol levels reduces all-cause mortality and appears cost effective compared with accepted treatments in high-income countries.

A sensitive, specific, and cost-effective multiplex reverse transcriptase-PCR assay for the detection of seven common respiratory viruses in respiratory samples

Cell culture and direct fluorescent antibody (DFA) assays have been traditionally used for the laboratory diagnosis of respiratory viral infections. Multiplex reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (m-RT-PCR) is a sensitive, specific, and rapid method for detecting several DNIA and RNA viruses in a single specimen. We developed a m-RT-PCR assay that utilizes multiple virus-specific primer pairs in a single reaction mix combined with an enzyme-linked amplicon hybridization assay (ELAHA) using virus-specific probes targeting unique gene sequences for each virus. Using this m-RT-PCR-ELAHA, we examined the presence of seven respiratory viruses in 598 nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA) samples from patients with suspected respiratory infection. The specificity of each assay was 100%. The sensitivity of the DFA was 79.7% and the combined DFA/culture amplified-DFA (CA-DFA) was 88.6% when compared to the m-RT-PCR-ELAHA. Of the 598 NPA specimens screened by m-RT-PCR-ELAHA, 3% were positive for adenovirus (ADM), 2% for influenza A (Flu A) virus, 0.3% for influenza B (Flu B) virus, 1% for parainfluenza type I virus (PIV1), 1% for parainfluenza type 2 virus (PIV2), 5.5% for parainfluenza type 3 virus (PIV3), and 21% for respiratory syncytial virus (RSV). The enhanced sensitivity, specificity, rapid result turnaround time and reduced expense of the m-RT-PCR-ELAHA compared to DFA and CA-DFA, suggests that this assay would be a significant improvement over traditional assays for the detection of respiratory viruses in a clinical laboratory.

Assessing cost-effectiveness in mental health: family interventions for schizophrenia and related conditions

Objective: Existing evidence suggests that family interventions can be effective in reducing relapse rates in schizophrenia and related conditions. Despite this, such interventions are not routinely delivered in Australian mental health services. The objective of the current study is to investigate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of introducing three types of family interventions, namely: behavioural family management (BFM); behavioural intervention for families (BIF); and multiple family groups (MFG) into current mental health services in Australia. Method: The ICER of each of the family interventions is assessed from a health sector perspective, including the government, persons with schizophrenia and their families/carers using a standardized methodology. A two-stage approach is taken to the assessment of benefit. The first stage involves a quantitative analysis based on disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) averted. 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 multivariate probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Results: The most cost-effective intervention, in order of magnitude, is BIF (A$8000 per DALY averted), followed by MFG (A$21 000 per DALY averted) and lastly BFM (A$28 000 per DALY averted). The inclusion of time costs makes BFM more cost-effective than MFG. Variation of discount rate has no effect on conclusions. Conclusions: All three interventions are considered 'value-for-money' within an Australian context. This conclusion needs to be tempered against the methodological challenge of converting clinical outcomes into a generic economic outcome measure (DALY). Issues surrounding the feasibility of routinely implementing such interventions need to be addressed.

Assessing cost-effectiveness - Mental health: introduction to the study and methods

Objective: The Assessing Cost-Effectiveness - Mental Health (ACE-MH) study aims to assess from a health sector perspective, whether there are options for change that could improve the effectiveness and efficiency of Australia's current mental health services by directing available resources toward 'best practice' cost-effective services. Method: The use of standardized evaluation methods addresses the reservations expressed by many economists about the simplistic use of League Tables based on economic studies confounded by differences in methods, context and setting. The cost-effectiveness ratio for each intervention is calculated using economic and epidemiological data. This includes systematic reviews and randomised controlled trials for efficacy, the Australian Surveys of Mental Health and Wellbeing for current practice and a combination of trials and longitudinal studies for adherence. The cost-effectiveness ratios are presented as cost (A$) per disability-adjusted life year (DALY) saved with a 95% uncertainty interval based on Monte Carlo simulation modelling. An assessment of interventions on 'second filter' criteria ('equity', 'strength of evidence', 'feasibility' and 'acceptability to stakeholders') allows broader concepts of 'benefit' to be taken into account, as well as factors that might influence policy judgements in addition to cost-effectiveness ratios. Conclusions: The main limitation of the study is in the translation of the effect size from trials into a change in the DALY disability weight, which required the use of newly developed methods. While comparisons within disorders are valid, comparisons across disorders should be made with caution. A series of articles is planned to present the results.

Cost-effectiveness of cognitive behavioural therapy and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors for major depression in children and adolescents

Objective: To assess from a health sector perspective the incremental cost-effectiveness of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) in children and adolescents, compared to 'current practice'. Method: The health benefit is measured as a reduction in disability-adjusted life years (DALYs), based on effect size calculations from meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. An assessment on second stage filter criteria ('equity'; 'strength of evidence', 'feasibility' and 'acceptability to stakeholders') is also undertaken to incorporate additional factors that impact on resource allocation decisions. Costs and benefits are tracked for the duration of a new episode of MDD arising in eligible children (age 6-17 years) in the Australian population in the year 2000. Simulation-modelling techniques are used to present a 95% uncertainty interval (UI) around the cost-effectiveness ratios. Results: Compared to current practice, CBT by public psychologists is the most cost-effective intervention for MDD in children and adolescents at A$9000 per DALY saved (95% UI A$3900 to A$24 000). SSRIs and CBT by other providers are less cost-effective but likely to be less than A$50 000 per DALY saved (> 80% chance). CBT is more effective than SSRIs in children and adolescents, resulting in a greater total health benefit (DALYs saved) than could be achieved with SSRIs. Issues that require attention for the CBT intervention include equity concerns, ensuring an adequate workforce, funding arrangements and acceptability to various stakeholders. Conclusions: Cognitive behavioural therapy provided by a public psychologist is the most effective and cost-effective option for the first-line treatment of MDD in children and adolescents. However, this option is not currently accessible by all patients and will require change in policy to allow more widespread uptake. It will also require 'start-up' costs and attention to ensuring an adequate workforce.

Cost-effectiveness of dexamphetamine and methylphenidate for the treatment of childhood attention deficit hyperactivity disorder

Objective: To analyze from a health sector perspective the cost-effectiveness of dexamphetamine (DEX) and methylphenidate (MPH) interventions to treat childhood attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), compared to current practice. Method: Children eligible for the interventions are those aged between 4 and 17 years in 2000, who had ADHD and were seeking care for emotional or behavioural problems, but were not receiving stimulant medication. To determine health benefit, a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was performed for DEX and MPH, and the effect sizes were translated into utility values. An assessment on second stage filter criteria ('equity', 'strength of evidence', 'feasibility' and 'acceptability to stakeholders') is also undertaken to incorporate additional factors that impact on resource allocation decisions. Simulation modelling techniques are used to present a 95% uncertainty interval (UI) around the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), which is calculated in cost (in A$) per DALY averted. Results: The ICER for DEX is A$4100/DALY saved (95% UI: negative to A$14 000) and for MPH is A$15 000/DALY saved (95% UI: A$9100-22 000). DEX is more costly than MPH for the government, but much less costly for the patient. Conclusions: MPH and DEX are cost-effective interventions for childhood ADHD. DEX is more cost-effective than MPH, although if MPH were listed at a lower price on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme it would become more cost-effective. Increased uptake of stimulants for ADHD would require policy change. However, the medication of children and wider availability of stimulants may concern parents and the community.

Cost-effectiveness of psychological and pharmacological interventions for generalized anxiety disorder and panic disorder

Objective: To assess from a health sector perspective the incremental cost-effectiveness of interventions for generalized anxiety disorder (cognitive behavioural therapy [CBT] and serotonin and noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors [SNRIs]) and panic disorder (CBT, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors [SSRIs] and tricyclic antidepressants [TCAs]). Method: The health benefit is measured as a reduction in disability-adjusted life years (DALYs), based on effect size calculations from meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. An assessment on second stage filters ('equity', 'strength of evidence', 'feasibility' and 'acceptability to stakeholders') is also undertaken to incorporate additional factors that impact on resource allocation decisions. Costs and benefits are calculated for a period of one year for the eligible population (prevalent cases of generalized anxiety disorder/panic disorder identified in the National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing, extrapolated to the Australian population in the year 2000 for those aged 18 years and older). Simulation modelling techniques are used to present 95% uncertainty intervals (UI) around the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Results: Compared to current practice, CBT by a psychologist on a public salary is the most cost-effective intervention for both generalized anxiety disorder (A$6900/DALY saved; 95% UI A$4000 to A$12 000) and panic disorder (A$6800/DALY saved; 95% UI A$2900 to A$15 000). Cognitive behavioural therapy results in a greater total health benefit than the drug interventions for both anxiety disorders, although equity and feasibility concerns for CBT interventions are also greater. Conclusions: Cognitive behavioural therapy is the most effective and cost-effective intervention for generalized anxiety disorder and panic disorder. However, its implementation would require policy change to enable more widespread access to a sufficient number of trained therapists for the treatment of anxiety disorders.