Cost effectiveness of long-term treatment with eszopiclone for primary insomnia in adults: A decision analytical model. (vol 21, pg 319, 2007)

Pharmerit North America LLC, Bethesda, Maryland 20814, USA.
CNS Drugs (Impact Factor: 4.38). 02/2007; 21(4):319-34. DOI: 10.2165/00023210-200721040-00005
Source: PubMed

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.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Discrepancy between subjective and objective measures of sleep is associated with insomnia and increasing age. Cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia improves sleep quality and decreases subjective–objective sleep discrepancy. This study describes differences between older adults with insomnia and controls in sleep discrepancy, and tests the hypothesis that reduced sleep discrepancy following cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia correlates with the magnitude of symptom improvement reported by older adults with insomnia. Participants were 63 adults >60 years of age with insomnia, and 51 controls. At baseline, participants completed sleep diaries for 7 days while wearing wrist actigraphs. After receiving cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia, insomnia patients repeated this sleep assessment. Sleep discrepancy variables were calculated by subtracting actigraphic sleep onset latency and wake after sleep onset from respective self-reported estimates, pre- and post-treatment. Mean level and night-to-night variability in sleep discrepancy were investigated. Baseline sleep discrepancies were compared between groups. Pre–post-treatment changes in Insomnia Severity Index score and sleep discrepancy variables were investigated within older adults with insomnia. Sleep discrepancy was significantly greater and more variable across nights in older adults with insomnia than controls, P ≤ 0.001 for all. Treatment with cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia was associated with significant reduction in the Insomnia Severity Index score that correlated with changes in mean level and night-to-night variability in wake after sleep onset discrepancy, P < 0.001 for all. Study of sleep discrepancy patterns may guide more targeted treatments for late-life insomnia.
    Journal of Sleep Research 09/2014; 24(1). DOI:10.1111/jsr.12220 · 2.95 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
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To systematically review approaches and instruments used to derive utility weights in cost-utility analyses (CUAs) within the field of mental disorders and to identify factors that may have influenced the choice of the approach. We searched the databases DARE (Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects), NHS EED (National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database), HTA (Health Technology Assessment), and PubMed for CUAs. Studies were included if they were full economic evaluations and reported quality-adjusted life-years as the health outcome. Study characteristics and instruments used to estimate utility weights were described and a logistic regression analysis was conducted to identify factors associated with the choice of either the direct (e.g. standard gamble) or the preference-based measure (PBM) approach (e.g. EQ-5D). We identified 227 CUAs with a maximum in 2009, 2010, and 2012. Most CUAs were conducted in depression, dementia, or psychosis, and came from the US or the UK, with the EQ-5D being the most frequently used instrument. The application of the direct approach was significantly associated with depression, psychosis, and model-based studies. The PBM approach was more likely to be used in recent studies, dementia, Europe, and empirical studies. Utility weights used in model-based studies were derived from only a small number of studies. We only searched four databases and did not evaluate the quality of the included studies. Direct instruments and PBMs are used to elicit utility weights in CUAs with different frequencies regarding study type, mental disorder, and country.
    PharmacoEconomics 11/2013; DOI:10.1007/s40273-013-0107-9 · 3.34 Impact Factor