The cost-effectiveness and public health benefit of nalmefene added to psychosocial support for the reduction of alcohol consumption in alcohol-dependent patients with high/very high drinking risk levels: a Markov model.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether nalmefene combined with psychosocial support is cost-effective compared with psychosocial support alone for reducing alcohol consumption in alcohol-dependent patients with high/very high drinking risk levels (DRLs) as defined by the WHO, and to evaluate the public health benefit of reducing harmful alcohol-attributable diseases, injuries and deaths. DESIGN: Decision modelling using Markov chains compared costs and effects over 5 years. SETTING: The analysis was from the perspective of the National Health Service (NHS) in England and Wales. PARTICIPANTS: The model considered the licensed population for nalmefene, specifically adults with both alcohol dependence and high/very high DRLs, who do not require immediate detoxification and who continue to have high/very high DRLs after initial assessment. DATA SOURCES: We modelled treatment effect using data from three clinical trials for nalmefene (ESENSE 1 (NCT00811720), ESENSE 2 (NCT00812461) and SENSE (NCT00811941)). Baseline characteristics of the model population, treatment resource utilisation and utilities were from these trials. We estimated the number of alcohol-attributable events occurring at different levels of alcohol consumption based on published epidemiological risk-relation studies. Health-related costs were from UK sources. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We measured incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained and number of alcohol-attributable harmful events avoided. RESULTS: Nalmefene in combination with psychosocial support had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £5204 per QALY gained, and was therefore cost-effective at the £20,000 per QALY gained decision threshold. Sensitivity analyses showed that the conclusion was robust. Nalmefene plus psychosocial support led to the avoidance of 7179 alcohol-attributable diseases/injuries and 309 deaths per 100,000 patients compared to psychosocial support alone over the course of 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: Nalmefene can be seen as a cost-effective treatment for alcohol dependence, with substantial public health benefits. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: This cost-effectiveness analysis was developed based on data from three randomised clinical trials: ESENSE 1 (NCT00811720), ESENSE 2 (NCT00812461) and SENSE (NCT00811941).

Cost-effectiveness of pharmacotherapies for nicotine dependence in primary care settings: a multinational comparison.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness of the first-line pharmacotherapies (nicotine gum, patch, spray, inhaler, and bupropion) for smoking cessation across six Western countries-Canada, France, Spain, Switzerland, the United States, and the United Kingdom. DESIGN AND STUDY POPULATION: A Markov-chain cohort model to simulate two cohorts of smokers: (1) a reference cohort given brief cessation counselling by a general practitioner (GP); (2) a treatment cohort given counselling plus pharmacotherapy. Effectiveness expressed as odds ratios for quitting associated with pharmacotherapies. Costs based on the additional physician time required and retail prices of the medications. INTERVENTIONS: Addition of each first-line pharmacotherapy to GP cessation counselling. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cost per life-year saved associated with pharmacotherapies. RESULTS: The cost per life-year saved for counselling only ranged from US190 dollars in Spain to 773 dollars in the UK for men, and from 288 dollars in Spain to 1168 dollars in the UK for women. The incremental cost per life-year saved for gum ranged from 2230 dollars for men in Spain to 7643 dollars for women in the US; for patch from 1758 dollars for men in Spain to 5131 dollars for women in the UK; for spray from 1935 dollars for men in Spain to 7969 dollars for women in the US; for inhaler from 3480 dollars for men in Switzerland to 8700 dollars for women in France; and for bupropion from 792 dollars for men in Canada to 2922 dollars for women in the US. In sensitivity analysis, changes in discount rate, treatment effectiveness, and natural quit rate had the strongest influences on cost-effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: The cost-effectiveness of the pharmacotherapies varied significantly across the six study countries, however, in each case, the results would be considered favourable as compared to other common preventive pharmacotherapies.

Cost-effectiveness of full-course oral levofloxacin in severe community-acquired pneumonia.

Oral levofloxacin is as efficient as sequential antibiotic treatment in community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). The current authors assessed whether oral levofloxacin treatment of patients with severe CAP, followed-up for 30 days, would save money. Over a 12-month period, 129 hospitalised patients with severe non-intensive care unit CAP were randomly assigned to receive either oral levofloxacin or sequential antibiotic treatment. Direct and indirect costs were compared over a 30-day period from several perspectives. CAP resolved in 71 out of 77 oral levofloxacin (92%) and in 34 out of 37 sequential antibiotic treatment patients (92%). Patients' characteristics, treatment duration, hospital length of stay and mortality were similar in both groups. Drug acquisition costs were 1.7-times smaller in oral levofloxacin patients, who were less often transferred to rehabilitation centres, but they used more physicians' visits during follow-up and their total costs were lower. As only a minority of patients was still active, inability to work and, hence, indirect costs were similar in both groups. In this study, oral levofloxacin for severe non-intensive care unit community-acquired pneumonia was equally effective as sequential antibiotic treatment, but did not lead to major costs savings except for drug acquisition costs. External factors linked with patients' characteristics and/or medical practice are likely to play a role and should be addressed.

Governor's Task Force on Efficiencies and Cost-Effectiveness in Iowa State Government,Final Report, December 1983

A special task force was formed and worked through its various committees to uncover and investigate possible areas for cutting costs and saving money in State Government operations. A total of 81 recommendations are made in this report, with potential savings of over $32 million during the next several years.

Etudes Coût-efficacité: ce que devraient retenir les médecins [Cost-effectiveness analyses: what doctors should know]

The resources of our heath care system are limited. Choices in the attribution of resources are necessary to ensure its stability. A cost-effectiveness analysis compares the effects of one health intervention to another, taking into account the costs (including the saved costs) and the saved life years, adjusted for the quality of life (cost-utility). Cost-effectiveness analyses should take the societal perspective and the studied intervention should be compared to a relevant intervention actually in use. Physicians, at the interface between patients and payers, are in an ideal position to interpret, or even perform cost-effectiveness analysis, and to promote the interventions that are most effective and that have a reasonable cost.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of immune-modulating nutritional support for gastrointestinal cancer patients.

BACKGROUND & AIM: Immune-modulating nutritional formula containing arginine, omega-3 fatty acids and nucleotides has been demonstrated to decrease complications and length of stay in surgical patients. This study aims at assessing the impact of immune-modulating formula on hospital costs in gastrointestinal cancer surgical patients in Switzerland. METHOD: Based on a previously published meta-analysis, the relative risks of overall and infectious complications with immune-modulating versus standard nutrition formula were computed. Swiss hospital costs of patients undergoing gastrointestinal cancer surgery were retrieved. A method was developed to compute the patients' severity level, not taking into account the complications from the surgery. Incremental costs of complications were computed for both treatment groups, and sensitivity analyses were carried out. RESULTS: Relative risk of complications with pre-, peri- and post-operative use of immune-modulating formula was 0.69 (95%CI 0.58-0.83), 0.62 (95%CI 0.53-0.73) and 0.73 (95%CI 0.35-0.96) respectively. The estimated average contribution of complications to the cost of stay was CHF 14,949 (euro10,901) per patient (95%CI 10,712-19,186), independently of case's severity. Based on this cost, immune-modulating nutritional support decreased costs of hospital stay by CHF 1638 to CHF 2488 per patient (euro1195-euro1814). Net hospital savings were present for baseline complications rates as low as 5%. CONCLUSION: Immune-modulating nutritional solution is a cost-saving intervention in gastrointestinal cancer patients. The additional cost of immune-modulating formula are more than offset by savings associated with decreased treatment of complications.

The cost effectiveness of pharmacological smoking cessation therapies in developing countries: a case study in the Seychelles

OBJECTIVE: To examine the incremental cost effectiveness of the five first line pharmacological smoking cessation therapies in the Seychelles and other developing countries. DESIGN: A Markov chain cohort simulation. SUBJECTS: Two simulated cohorts of smokers: (1) a reference cohort given physician counselling only; (2) a treatment cohort given counselling plus cessation therapy. INTERVENTION: Addition of each of the five pharmacological cessation therapies to physician provided smoking cessation counselling. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cost per life-year saved (LYS) associated with the five pharmacotherapies. Effectiveness expressed as odds ratios for quitting associated with pharmacotherapies. Costs based on the additional physician time required and retail prices of the medications. RESULTS: Based on prices for currently available generic medications on the global market, the incremental cost per LYS for a 45 year old in the Seychelles was 599 US dollars for gum and 227 dollars for bupropion. Assuming US treatment prices as a conservative estimate, the incremental cost per LYS was significantly higher, though still favourable in comparison to other common medical interventions: 3712 dollars for nicotine gum, 1982 dollars for nicotine patch, 4597 dollars for nicotine spray, 4291 dollars for nicotine inhaler, and 1324 dollars for bupropion. Cost per LYS increased significantly upon application of higher discount rates, which may be used to reflect relatively high opportunity costs for health expenditures in developing countries with highly constrained resources and high overall mortality. CONCLUSION: Pharmacological cessation therapy can be highly cost effective as compared to other common medical interventions in low mortality, middle income countries, particularly if medications can be procured at low prices.

Cost-effectiveness of Tenofovir / Emtricitabine / Efavirenz versus Zidovudine / Lamivudine / Efavirenz as fist-line regimens for the treatment of HIV-infected patients in low-income settings

The Highly Active Antiretroviral Therapy (HAART) is the combination of at least three antiretroviral compounds. The combination purpose is to reduce the likelihood of drug resistance. However in the long-term the resistance to the first-line combination occurs and leads to treatment failure. Thus, a second-line and even a third-line regimen are recommended in the long run. [...] [P. 5] The two treatment alternatives under comparison: Tenofovir (300 mg) CO-formulated with Emtricitabine (200 mg) and Efavirenz (600 mg) currently known under the brand name Atripla (R) was introduced in July 2006 in the United States market. The excellent safety profile and ease of use make this combination a perfect first-line regimen in low-income settings. Therefore, this treatment option was recommended in WHO 2006 reviewed guidelines. Unfortunately, Tenofovir and Emtricitabine compounds are still costly and not yet widely available. For a matter of simplification this regimen is referred in this report as "the recent" therapy. Initially, we had in mind to consider the most frequently used first-line regimen in low-income countries (Stavudine / Larnivudme / Nevirapine) as a comparator for this economic evaluation. Unfortunately, according to the literature review results (see Annex 3); there was no data available comparing head to head the effectiveness of this regimen with the recent one. Instead, we selected a less frequently but commonly used first-line regimen in low-income countries as a comparator: Zidovudine, Lamivudine, Efavirenz. This combination has extensive experience in durability, safety and toxicity and seems to be an optimal choice for a first-line regimen according to the clinical trial group 384 team. Furthermore, Zidovudine, one of the compounds of this combination is now recommended as one of the preferred NNRTI [Non Nucleoside Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitors] options to be considered by countries instead of Stavudine (the most used NNRTI in limited-income countries). As this combination has been included in the WHO guidelines as a first-line therapy since 2003 when WHO launched the "3 by 5" scaling-up initiative, this combination of drugs is referred in this report as the "old" therapy. Objectives: The primary objective of this economic evaluation is to compare the two first-line HAARTs introduced above, in a low-income setting context. Both of these combinations are recommended by the 2006 WHO guidelines as potential first-line regimens. The secondary objective is to provide a simplified and comprehensible cost-effectiveness modeling tool in order to help policy makers, in resource-limited settings, make decisions about which first-line HAART to fund using the scarce resources available. [P. 6-7]

Overview on the Cost-effectiveness of Maritime Safety Policy Instruments

Maritime safety is an issue that has gained a lot of attention in the Baltic Sea area due to the dense maritime traffic and transportation of oil in the area. Lots of effort has been paid to enhance maritime safety in the area. The risk exists that excessive legislation and other requirements mean more costs for limited benefit. In order to utilize both public and private resources efficiently, awareness is required of what kind of costs maritime safety policy instruments cause and whether the costs are in relation to benefits. The aim of this report is to present an overview of the cost-effectiveness of maritime safety policy instruments focusing on the cost aspect: what kind of costs maritime safety policy causes, to whom, what affects the cost-effectiveness and how cost-effectiveness is studied. The study is based on a literature review and on the interviews of Finnish maritime experts. The results of this study imply that cost-effectiveness is a complicated issue to evaluate. There are no uniform practices for which costs and benefits should be included in the evaluation and how they should be valued. One of the challenges is how to measure costs and benefits during the course of a longer time period. Often a lack of data erodes the reliability of evaluation. In the prevention of maritime accidents, costs typically include investments in ship structures or equipment, as well as maintenance and labor costs. Also large investments may be justifiable if they respectively provide significant improvements to maritime safety. Measures are cost-effective only if they are implemented properly. Costeffectiveness is decreased if a measure causes overlapping or repetitious work. Costeffectiveness is also decreased if the technology isn’t user-friendly or if it is soon replaced with a new technology or another new appliance. In future studies on the cost-effectiveness of maritime safety policy, it is important to acknowledge the dependency between different policy instruments and the uncertainty of the factors affecting cost-effectiveness. The costs of a single measure are rarely relatively significant and the effect of each measure on safety tends to be positive. The challenge is to rank the measures and to find the most effective combination of different policy instruments. The greatest potential offered for the analysis of cost-effectiveness of individual measures is their implementation in clearly defined risk situations, in which different measures are truly alternative to each other. Overall, maritime safety measures do not seem to be considered burdening for the shipping industry in Finland at the moment. Generally actors in the Finnish shipping industry seem to find maintaining a high safety level important and act accordingly.