BackgroundFrench clinical recommendations suggest prescribing long-acting injectable (LAI) antipsychotics to patients with a maintenance treatment indication in schizophrenia. Despite this, and due to their relatively high acquisition and administration costs, LAIs are still underused in clinical practice in France, thus highlighting the need for pharmacoeconomic evaluations.ObjectiveOur objective was to estimate the cost effectiveness of paliperidone LAI (or paliperidone palmitate), a once-monthly second-generation LAI antipsychotic, compared with the most common antipsychotic medications for the maintenance treatment of schizophrenia in France.MethodsA Markov model was developed to simulate the progression of a cohort of schizophrenic patients through four health states (stable treated, stable non-treated, relapse and death) and to consider up to three lines of treatment to account for changes in treatment management. Paliperidone LAI was compared with risperidone LAI, aripiprazole LAI, olanzapine LAI, haloperidol LAI (or haloperidol decanoate) and oral olanzapine. Costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and number of relapses were assessed over 5 years based on 3-month cycles with a discount rate of 4 % and from a French health insurance perspective. Patients were considered to be stabilised after a schizophrenic episode and would enter the model at an initiation phase, followed by a prevention of relapse phase if successful. Data (e.g. relapse or discontinuation rates) for the initiation phase came from randomised clinical trials, whereas relapse rates in the prevention phase were derived from hospitalisation risks based on real-life French data to capture adherence effects. Safety and utility data were derived from international publications. Additionally, costs were retrieved from French health insurance databases and publications. Finally, expert opinion was used for validation purposes or in case of gaps in data. The robustness of results was assessed through deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.ResultsAll LAI antipsychotics were found to have similar costs over 5 years: approximatively €55,000, except for paliperidone LAI which had a discounted cost of €50,880. Oral olanzapine was less costly than LAIs (i.e. €50,379 after 5 years) but was associated with fewer QALYs gained and relapses avoided. Paliperidone LAI dominated aripiprazole LAI, olanzapine LAI and haloperidol LAI in terms of costs per QALY, and it was associated with slightly fewer QALYs when compared with risperidone LAI (i.e. 3.763 vs 3.764). This resulted in a high incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) (i.e. €4,770,018 per QALY gained) for risperidone LAI compared with paliperidone LAI. Paliperidone LAI was more costly than olanzapine oral but associated with more QALYs (i.e. ICER of €2411 per QALY gained for paliperidone LAI compared with oral olanzapine). Paliperidone LAI had a probability of being the optimal strategy in more than 50 % of cases for a willingness-to-pay threshold of €8000 per QALY gained.Conclusion...

ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to assess the cost effectiveness of commonly used antidepressants as first-line treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) in Belgium.MethodsThe model structure was based on a decision tree developed by the Swedish TLV (Tandvårds- och läkemedelsförmånsverket) and adapted to the Belgium healthcare setting, using primary local data on the patterns of treatment and following KCE [Federal Knowledge Center (Federaal Kenniscentrum voor de Gezondheidszorg)] recommendations. Comparators were escitalopram, citalopram, fluoxetine, paroxetine, sertraline, duloxetine, venlafaxine, and mirtazapine. In the model, patients not achieving remission or relapsing after remission on the assessed treatment moved to a second therapeutic step (titration, switch, add-on, or transfer to a specialist). In case of failure in the second step or following a suicide attempt, patients were assumed to be referred to secondary care. The time horizon was 1 year and the analysis was conducted from the National Institute for Health and Disability Insurance (NIHDI; national health insurance) and societal perspectives. Remission rates were obtained from the TLV network meta-analysis and risk of relapse, efficacy following therapeutic change, risk of suicide attempts and related death, utilities, costs (2012), and resources were derived from the published literature and expert opinion. The effect of uncertainty in model parameters was estimated through scenario analyses and a probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA).ResultsIn the base-case analysis, escitalopram was identified as the optimal strategy: it dominated all other treatments except venlafaxine from the NIHDI perspective, against which it was cost effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €6,352 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Escitalopram also dominated all other treatments from the societal perspective. At a threshold of €30,000 per QALY and from the NIHDI perspective, the PSA showed that the probability of escitalopram being identified as the optimal strategy ranged from 61 % (vs. venlafaxine) to 100 % (vs. fluoxetine).ConclusionEscitalopram was associated with the highest probability of being the optimal treatment from the NIHDI and societal perspectives. This analysis, based on new Belgian clinical practice data and following KCE requirements, provides additional information that may be used to guide the choice of treatments in the management of MDD in Belgium.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s40273-014-0138-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Objectives: Untreated obstructive sleep apnea-hypopnea syndrome (OSAHS) is associated with excessive daytime sleepiness, increased risk of cardiovascular (CV) disease, and road traffic accidents (RTAs), which impact survival and health-related quality of life. This study, funded by the French National Authority for Health (HAS), aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of different treatments (i.e., continuous positive airway pressure [CPAP], dental devices, lifestyle advice, and no treatment) in patients with mild-to-moderate OSAHS in France. Methods: A Markov model was developed to simulate the progression of two cohorts, stratified by CV risk, over a lifetime horizon. Daytime sleepiness and RTAs were taken into account for all patients while CV events were only considered for patients with high CV risk. Results: For patients with low CV risk, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of dental devices versus no treatment varied between 32,976 EUR (moderate OSAHS) and 45,579 EUR (mild OSAHS) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), and CPAP versus dental devices, above 256,000 EUR/QALY. For patients with high CV risk, CPAP was associated with a gain of 0.62 QALY compared with no treatment, resulting in an ICER of 10,128 EUR/QALY. Conclusion: The analysis suggests that it is efficient to treat all OSAHS patients with high CV risk with CPAP and that dental devices are more efficient than CPAP for mild-to-moderate OSAHS with low CV risk. However, out-of-pocket costs are currently much higher for dental devices than for CPAP (i.e., 3,326 EUR versus 2,430 EUR) as orthodontic treatment is mainly non-refundable in France.

No abstract

A549 thereby providing additional information on secondary care in England. This study aimed to generate more accurate resource use for the management of CLL and iNHL by using the THIN-HES database. Methods: First, a MEDLINE and UK Health Technology Appraisals (HTAs) reviews were undertaken to identify studies documenting the cost of previously-treated iNHL and CLL in the UK. Then, to collect patients health care resource use, THIN database linked to the HES dataset was analysed. Results: Three HTAs were identified as relevant, and cost estimates relied on assumptions from clinical experts. Assumptions varied as TA193 related to relapsed CLL assumed that health care visits were three times more frequent post-progression (3 consultations/month: £86) than pre-progression (1 consultation/month: £28.67) while another, TA202, assumed a rather constant number of visits across the two health states (1 clinic visit per month: £121.11). Therefore, analyses of the THIN database linked to HES were undertaken, including more than 1 000 patients. OPCS4 codes and READ codes in the HES and THIN databases respectively, were used to identify treatments prescribed and procedures undertaken. Costs were estimated by applying unit costs from national references. ConClusions: To our knowledge, this analysis is the first retrospective observational study to assess the cost of managing previously-treated CLL and iNHL in the UK. This study will serve as an important resource in the health economic evaluation of emerging therapies. This method suggests a greater standardization of disease management costs across HTAs.