Cost Effectiveness of Long-Term Treatment with Eszopiclone for Primary Insomnia in Adults
Pharmerit North America LLC, Bethesda, Maryland 20814, USA. CNS Drugs
(Impact Factor: 5.11).
02/2007; 21(4):319-34. DOI: 10.2165/00023210-200721040-00005
Although the clinical benefits of pharmacological treatments for insomnia have been studied, no systematic assessment of their economic value has been reported. This analysis assessed, from a broad payer and societal perspective, the cost effectiveness of long-term treatment with eszopiclone (LUNESTA, Sepracor Inc., [Marlborough, MA, USA]) for chronic primary insomnia in adults in the US.
A decision analytical model was developed based on the reanalysis of a 6-month placebo-controlled trial, which demonstrated that eszopiclone 3mg significantly improved sleep and daytime function measures versus placebo in adults with primary insomnia. Patients were classified as either having remitted or not remitted from insomnia based upon a composite index of eight sleep and daytime function measures collected during the trial. These data were supplemented with quality-of-life and healthcare and lost productivity cost data from the published literature and medical and absenteeism claims databases.
Compared with non-remitted patients, patients classified as remitted had lower monthly healthcare and productivity costs (in 2006 dollars) [a reduction of $US242 and $US182, respectively] and higher quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) weight (a net gain of 0.0810 on a scale ranging from 0 to 1). During the study, eszopiclone-treated patients were about 2.5 times more likely to have remitted than placebo-treated patients. Six months of eszopiclone treatment reduced direct (healthcare) and indirect (productivity) costs by an estimated $US245.13 and $US184.19 per patient, respectively. Eszopiclone use was associated with a cost of $US497.15 per patient over 6 months (including drug cost, dispensing fee, physician visit and time loss to receive care). Thus, after considering the above savings and the costs associated with eszopiclone treatment over 6 months, cost increased by $US252.02 (excluding productivity gains) and $US67.83 (including productivity gains) per person. However, eszopiclone treatment was also associated with a net QALY gain of 0.006831 per patient over the same period. Consequently, the incremental cost per QALY gained associated with eszopiclone was approximately $US9930 (including productivity gains [i.e. $US67.83 / 0.006831]) and $US36 894 (excluding productivity gains [i.e. $US252.02 / 0.006831]). Sensitivity analyses using a variety of scenarios suggested that eszopiclone is generally cost effective.
This analysis suggested that long-term eszopiclone treatment was cost effective over the 6-month study period, particularly when the impact on productivity costs is considered. Given the increasing interest in new pharmacological interventions to manage insomnia, payers and clinicians alike should carefully consider the balance of health and economic benefits that these interventions offer. Accordingly, additional research in this area is warranted.
Available from: Theodoros Mougiakos
- "Moreover, the utility decrements proposed by Sullivan et al. were used in the case of different adverse event reactions . Regarding insomnia, Botteman et al. estimated that the utility reduction is 0.08095 , while Sullivan et al. estimated that this is 0.129 . In the model, the lower estimate was used, thus ensuring a conservative approach. "
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
Major depressive disorder (MDD) constitutes an important public health problem, as it is highly prevalent in the industrialized world and it is associated with substantial economic consequences for patients, health care providers, insurance and social security organizations and employers. To conduct an economic evaluation comparing agomelatine with other commonly used alternatives for treating patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) in Greece.
An existing international Markov model designed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of agomelatine was adapted to the Greek setting. It reflects six different health states, in which patients may move on a monthly basis. The analysis was undertaken from a societal perspective. Transition probabilities, utilities and costs assigned to each health state were extracted from the published literature, government sources and expert opinion. Data reflects the year 2012 and was discounted using a rate of 3.5%. Probabilistic analysis was undertaken to deal with uncertainty.
Base case analyses revealed that agomelatine is a dominant therapy for MDD relative to escitalopram, fluoxetine and sertraline, and it appeared to be cost-effective compared to venlafaxine (ICER: €547/QALY). Agomelatine remained a dominant treatment against generic sertraline and fluoxetine, and it appeared to be a cost-effective alternative compared to generic venlafaxine and escitalopram (ICER: €1,446/QALY and €3,303/QALY, respectively). Excluding the indirect cost from the analysis, agomelatine remained a cost-effective alternative over all comparators. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis agomelatine was dominant in 44.5%, 89.6%, 70.6% and 84.6% of simulated samples against branded venlafaxine, escitalopram, fluoxetine and sertraline, respectively.
The present evaluation indicates that agomelatine is either a dominant or a cost-effective alternative relative to branded or generic alternatives, in Greece.
BMC Health Services Research 05/2013; 13(1):173. DOI:10.1186/1472-6963-13-173 · 1.71 Impact Factor
Available from: Alan G Wade
- "The economic consequences associated with reduced work performance due to insomnia (presenteeism) are significant and may be more than those associated with sick leave/absenteeism. A decision analytical model in adults with chronic primary insomnia reported that the total cost of insomnia due to reduced performance at work was US$860, and the cost due to total lost productivity (absenteeism and presenteeism) was US$1091 per person over a 6-month period.22 "
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Insomnia can be broadly defined as difficulty initiating or maintaining sleep, or sleep that is not refreshing or of poor quality with negative effect on daytime function. Insomnia can be a primary condition or comorbid to an underlying disorder. Subjective measures of insomnia used in population studies, usually based on complaints of unsatisfactory sleep, put the prevalence at about 10%. Insomnia is more common in the elderly and in women, and is often associated with medical and psychiatric disorders. This review examines the measures used to assess quality of sleep (QOS) and daytime functioning and the impact of insomnia on society using these measures.
Literature searches were performed to identify all studies of insomnia (primary and comorbid) in adults (aged 18-64 years) and the elderly (aged ≥ 65 years) with baseline and/or outcomes relating to QOS or daytime functioning. The impact of poor QOS on quality of life (QOL), psychomotor and cognitive skills, health care resource utilization, and other societal effects was examined.
Although definitions and measurement scales used to assess sleep quality vary widely, it is clear that the societal consequences of insomnia are substantial and include impaired QOL and increased health care utilization. The impact of poor QOS and impaired daytime functioning common in insomnia can lead to indirect effects such as lower work productivity, increased sick leave, and a higher rate of motor vehicle crashes.
Insomnia is associated with substantial direct and indirect costs to society. It is almost impossible to separate the costs associated with primary and comorbid insomnia. More studies are required which control for the severity of any primary disorder to accurately evaluate the costs of comorbid insomnia. Development of standardized diagnostic and assessment scales will enable more accurate quantification of the true societal burden of insomnia and will contribute to greater understanding of this disorder.
Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment 12/2010; 7(1):1-18. DOI:10.2147/NDT.S15123 · 1.74 Impact Factor
Drugs 01/2008; 68(10). DOI:10.2165/00003495-200868100-00005 · 4.34 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.