Cost effectiveness of long-term treatment with eszopiclone for primary insomnia in adults: A decision analytical model. (vol 21, pg 319, 2007)
ABSTRACT 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.
- SourceAvailable from: Vanja Sikirica[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a common psychiatric disorder in childhood, affecting 3-7% of school-age children in the US and imposing substantial economic burden. Stimulants are considered first-line pharmacological treatment and are the most prescribed treatment for ADHD. However, approximately 30% of children with ADHD do not have an optimal response to a single stimulant and may require adjunctive therapy. Our objective was to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of adding a non-stimulant, guanfacine extended release (GXR), to stimulants versus maintaining existing stimulant monotherapy in the treatment of ADHD in children and adolescents with suboptimal response to stimulant monotherapy. A 1-year Markov model was developed to estimate costs and effectiveness from a US third-party payer perspective. Effectiveness was measured by the QALY. The model assumed that patients transitioned among four health states (normal, mild, moderate and severe), defined by the Clinical Global Impression-Severity (CGI-S) scale. Transition probabilities were estimated in an ordered logit model using patient-level data from a multicentre, 9-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-optimization study, where subjects (n = 461) continued their stable morning stimulant and were randomized to GXR administered in the morning, GXR administered in the evening, or placebo. The model assumed that patients in moderate/severe health states after week 8 would discontinue ADHD treatment and remain in that state for the rest of the study period. Direct costs included drug wholesale acquisition costs and health state costs, all in $US, year 2010 values. Utility associated with each health state was obtained from the literature and disutilities associated with adverse events were applied for the first 4 weeks. One-way sensitivity analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) were conducted by varying costs, utilities, adverse-event duration, and transition probabilities. Compared with maintaining existing stimulant monotherapy, adding GXR to existing stimulant monotherapy was associated with an incremental drug cost of $US1016 but a lower medical cost of $US124, resulting in a total incremental cost of $US892 at 1 year. The addition of GXR to stimulants led to an incremental QALY of 0.03 and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $US31,660/QALY. In one-way sensitivity analysis, ICER values ranged from $US19,723, when 100% of patients were assumed to be severe in their initial health state, to $US46,631, when the last observed states from the clinical trial were carried forward to the end of the 1-year analysis period. PSA demonstrated a 94.6% likelihood that the ICER falls below $US50,000/QALY. The impairment associated with residual ADHD symptoms after stimulant therapy is becoming increasingly recognized. This is the first analysis of the cost effectiveness of stimulants combined with an adjunctive medication. This study suggests that the adjunctive therapy of GXR with stimulants is a cost-effective treatment based on a willingness-to-pay threshold of $US50,000/QALY. This may address an unmet need among patients with suboptimal response to stimulant monotherapy.PharmacoEconomics 08/2012; 30(8):e1-15. DOI:10.2165/11632920-000000000-00000 · 3.34 Impact Factor
Article: The societal costs of insomnia[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; 7:1-18. DOI:10.2147/NDT.S15123 · 2.15 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Study Objectives: To estimate the health utility score and quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) index of obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS) in patients over 1 y of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) treatment. Design: Longitudinal interventional study. Setting: The study was carried out in Sao Paulo Sleep Institute, Brazil. Patients and participants: Ninety-five patients with OSAS and with apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) > 20 of either sex, body mass index < 40 kg/m(2) and no previous contact with CPAP were included. Interventions: The participants underwent baseline and titration polysomnographies, clinical evaluation, and ambulatory blood pressure (BP) measurement, completed Short-Form 6 Dimension Health Survey (SF-6D) and Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) questionnaires, and implementation of CPAP. The patients were followed for 1 y. Measurements and Results: The mean AHI and age were 57.6 +/- 29.2 events/h and 53.3 +/- 9.3 y, respectively. One year of CPAP treatment increased the health utility score from 0.611 +/- 0.112 to 0.710 +/- 0.121 (P < 0.01). Therefore, CPAP resulted in a mean gain of 0.092 QALY/patient. The improvements in utility scores were associated with decreases in the ESS after 1 mo, in systolic BP after 1 y, and in diastolic BP at 6 mo. BP normalization group (<= 130/85 mmHg) showed higher QALY than that of the non-normalization group (0.10 +/- 0.09 versus 0.05 +/- 0.10; P = 0.03). One-year ESS score (P = 0.03), diastolic BP reduction (P = 0.01) and baseline utility scores (P < 0.01) were significantly associated with QALY gain. Conclusion: This study showed a significant quality-adjusted life-years (QALY)/patient gain after 1 y of regular CPAP use. In addition, blood pressure normalization was associated with higher QALY gain. Thus, utility studies can provide more complete analyses of the total benefits of CPAP treatment in patients with obstructive sleep apnea syndrome and should be encouraged.Sleep 10/2014; 37(12). DOI:10.5665/sleep.4250 · 5.06 Impact Factor