Budgetary impact of treating acute bipolar mania in hospitalized patients with quetiapine: an economic analysis of clinical trials

Jaime, J.; Huybrechts, Krista F.; Xenakis, James G.; O’Brien, Judith A.; Rajagopalan, Krithika; Lee, Karen

doi:10.1185/030079906x148265

Cited by 17 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Table 1 presents the seven key elements of the design of a budget-impact model included in the eight budget-impact analyses for acute conditions. Of the eight analyses, four used a simple cost-calculator model structure [22][23][24][25] and four used more complex decision-modeling techniques [26][27][28][29]. The cost-calculator approach is appropriate for acute conditions.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One study included acquisition, administration, and monitoring [27]; three studies included acquisition and adverse events [22,25,29]; one study included acquisition and administration [23]; one study included acquisition and monitoring [26]; and one study included acquisition only [24]. The studies that did not include administration costs were either for oral drugs [24,26,29] or reported no difference in these costs [22,25].…”

Section: Acute Conditionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Six of the eight studies compared the current treatment mix with a new treatment mix including the new drug. In these studies, the new drug took treatment share from all drugs [24,28], one drug [25,29], or a subset of the drugs [26,27] in the current treatment mix. One study [23] just compared two of the three drugs used for the indication with each other, and a second study [22] compared a combination regimen made up of a current drug plus a mix of backbone treatments with the new drug plus a different mix of backbone treatments.…”

Section: Acute Conditionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Three of the four hospital-based studies included changes in costs attributable to changes in hospital length of stay [22,27,28], with one study also including hospital procedures [22]. Two of the decision-analytic models included changes in disease-related costs [26,29].…”

Section: Acute Conditionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Three of the models [23,24,29] estimated the incident population starting from the population for a hypothetical health plan and applying incidence and diagnosis rates. Four models for inpatients used estimated or hypothetical numbers of inpatients with the specific condition [22,25,27,28], and one model just assumed a hypothetical number of patients with the condition of interest who might be treated on an inpatient or outpatient basis [26].…”

Section: Acute Conditionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

A Methodological Review of US Budget-Impact Models for New Drugs

Mauskopf

Earnshaw

2016

PharmacoEconomics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A budget-impact analysis is required by many jurisdictions when adding a new drug to the formulary. However, previous reviews have indicated that adherence to methodological guidelines is variable. In this methodological review, we assess the extent to which US budgetimpact analyses for new drugs use recommended practices. We describe recommended practice for seven key elements in the design of a budget-impact analysis. Targeted literature searches for US studies reporting estimates of the budget impact of a new drug were performed and we prepared a summary of how each study addressed the seven key elements. The primary finding from this review is that recommended practice is not followed in many budgetimpact analyses. For example, we found that growth in the treated population size and/or changes in disease-related costs expected during the model time horizon for more effective treatments was not included in several analyses for chronic conditions. In addition, all drug-related costs were not captured in the majority of the models. Finally, for most studies, one-way sensitivity and scenario analyses were very limited, and the ranges used in one-way sensitivity analyses were frequently arbitrary percentages rather than being data driven. The conclusions from our review are that changes in population size, disease severity mix, and/or disease-related costs should be properly accounted for to avoid over-or underestimating the budget impact. Since each budget holder might have different perspectives and different values for many of the input parameters, it is also critical for published budget-impact analyses to include extensive sensitivity and scenario analyses based on realistic input values. Key Points for Decision MakersPublished budget-impact analyses do not always estimate changes in the treated population size and related changes in the disease-related costs of drugs for chronic conditions that reduce mortality rates or slow disease progression, which may result in overor underestimates of the budget impact of a new drug.Treatment switching or discontinuation may not be appropriately included in many published budgetimpact analyses.Sensitivity and scenario analyses presented in published budget-impact analyses are typically too limited to allow a budget holder to assess the likely budget impact for their health plan.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Acute Conditionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Acute Conditionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Acute Conditionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Acute Conditionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

A Methodological Review of US Budget-Impact Models for New Drugs

Mauskopf

Earnshaw

2016

PharmacoEconomics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Reporting Budget-Impact Analyses

Mauskopf

Earnshaw

2017

Budget-Impact Analysis of Health Care Interventions

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A Systematic and Critical Review of Model-Based Economic Evaluations of Pharmacotherapeutics in Patients with Bipolar Disorder

Mohiuddin

2014

Appl Health Econ Health Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives The main objective of this study was to derive cost estimates of five major foodborne illnesses (campylobacteriosis, salmonellosis, enterohemorrhagic Escherichia coli (EHEC), yersiniosis and shigellosis) in Sweden. These estimates provide a necessary contribution to perform future cost-benefit analyses aimed at reducing the burden of foodborne disease. A secondary aim was to obtain estimates of the true number of cases that occur in the community, thus providing necessary ground for calculating costs. Methods The true number of cases for each foodborne illness was simulated by multiplying the reported number of cases by sequential multipliers, one for each potential source of information loss about a case. This assessment of the true number of cases was then used to estimate the number of cases of sequelae for each illness. An incidence-based analysis was then used to calculate direct medical and non-medical costs, as well as indirect costs. Data for estimating the true number of cases for each illness were primarily based on an expert panel, while the derivation of costs mainly utilized national registries, databases and published literature. Results The estimated number of cases was between 7-and 11-fold higher than the reported number of cases, indicating the importance of taking information loss into account when calculating costs. By far the most common pathogen of the five was campylobacter, with an estimated 101,719 (90% credibility interval [CI] 59,640-158,025) human cases occurring annually. For salmonella, 19,678 (90% CI 8394-40,456) cases were estimated to occur each year, while the other three pathogens were less common, with a yearly incidence of approximately 2500-5500 cases each. The total cost for the five pathogens (including sequelae) amounted to €142 million annually. Campylobacter was the most costly pathogen, representing 69% of the total costs. Salmonellosis and EHEC constituted 18 and 9% of these costs, respectively, while yersiniosis and shigellosis represented approximately 2% each. Costs for sequelae were significant and accounted for approximately 50% of the total costs. Conclusions Our simulations indicated that campylobacter infection was more common and more costly than salmonella, EHEC, yersinia and shigella combined. Estimated costs for all illnesses were highly influenced by (1) considering potential information losses about cases in the population (which increased costs 7-to 11-fold), and (2) taking account of postinfection sequelae (which doubled the costs). Key Points for Decision MakersThis study estimates the difference between registered and actual number of cases in the community for five major foodborne diseases. Potential post-infection sequelae are included in the analysis. These considerations are crucial in order to assess the actual societal burden of the five pathogens.The study also estimates total societal costs and costs per case for the five pathogens, results that can be utilized in future cost-benefit or cost-effectiveness studies.

show abstract

Budgetary impact of treating acute bipolar mania in hospitalized patients with quetiapine: an economic analysis of clinical trials

Abstract: Results suggest that increased use of quetiapine for bipolar mania in the US is economically justified and improves health outcomes. In addition, this model illustrates that discrete event simulation is a useful and versatile tool for budget impact analyses.

Cited by 17 publications

References 23 publications

A Methodological Review of US Budget-Impact Models for New Drugs

A Methodological Review of US Budget-Impact Models for New Drugs

Reporting Budget-Impact Analyses

A Systematic and Critical Review of Model-Based Economic Evaluations of Pharmacotherapeutics in Patients with Bipolar Disorder

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About