Martinez-Raga J.,CEU Cardenal Herrera University |
Gonzalez Saiz F.,Fundacion Andaluza Para la Atencion e Incorporacion Social |
Pascual C.,Hospital Infanta Leonor |
Casado M.A.,Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research Iberia |
Sabater Torres F.J.,Schering
European Addiction Research | Year: 2010
Objective: To evaluate the economic impact of buprenorphine/naloxone (B/N) as an agonist opioid treatment for opiate dependence. Methods: A budgetary impact analysis model was designed to calculate the annual costs (drugs and associated costs) to the Spanish National Healthcare System of methadone versus B/N. Data for the model were obtained from official databases and expert panel opinion. Results: It was estimated that 86,017 patients would be in an agonist opioid treatment program each of the 3 years of the study. No increase in the number of patients is expected with the introduction of B/N combination. The budgetary impact (drugs and associated costs) for agonist opiate treatment in the first year of the study would be 89.53 million EUR. In the first year of B/N use, the budgetary impact would rise by 4.39 million EUR (4.6% of the total impact), with an incremental cost of 0.79 million EUR (0.9% of the total impact). The budgetary increase would be 0.6% (0.48 million EUR increase) and 0.6% (0.49 million EUR increase) in the second and third years of use, respectively. The mean cost per patient in the first year with and without B/N would be EUR 1,050 and 1,041, respectively. The most influential variables in the sensitivity analysis were logistics and production costs of methadone and the percentage use of B/N. Conclusion: With an additional cost of only EUR 9 per patient, B/N is an efficient addition to the therapeutic arsenal in the drug treatment of opiate dependence, particularly when considering clinical aspects of novel pharmacotherapy. © 2009 S. Karger AG, Basel.
Grau S.,Hospital Del Mar |
de la Camara R.,Hospital de la Princesa |
Sabater F.J.,IMS Health |
Jarque I.,Hospital Universitario La Paz |
And 3 more authors.
BMC Infectious Diseases | Year: 2012
Background: We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of posaconazole compared with standard azole therapy (SAT; fluconazole or itraconazole) for the prevention of invasive fungal infections (IFI) and the reduction of overall mortality in high-risk neutropenic patients with acute myelogenous leukaemia (AML) or myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS). The perspective was that of the Spanish National Health Service (NHS).Methods: A decision-analytic model, based on a randomised phase III trial, was used to predict IFI avoided, life-years saved (LYS), total costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER; incremental cost per LYS) over patients' lifetime horizon. Data for the analyses included life expectancy, procedures, and costs associated with IFI and the drugs (in euros at November 2009 values) which were obtained from the published literature and opinions of an expert committee. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PAS) was performed.Results: Posaconazole was associated with fewer IFI (0.05 versus 0.11), increased LYS (2.52 versus 2.43), and significantly lower costs excluding costs of the underlying condition (€6,121 versus €7,928) per patient relative to SAT. There is an 85% probability that posaconazole is a cost-saving strategy compared to SAT and a 97% probability that the ICER for posaconazole relative to SAT is below the cost per LYS threshold of €30,000 currently accepted in Spain.Conclusions: Posaconazole is a cost-saving prophylactic strategy (lower costs and greater efficacy) compared with fluconazole or itraconazole in high-risk neutropenic patients. © 2012 Grau et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.
De La Camara R.,Hospital de la Princesa |
Jarque I.,Hospital Universitario La Paz |
Sanz M.A.,Hospital Universitario La Paz |
Grau S.,Hospital Del Mar |
And 3 more authors.
Bone Marrow Transplantation | Year: 2010
Posaconazole has been proven to be as effective as fluconazole in the prevention of invasive fungal infections (IFI) in allogeneic haematopoietic SCT patients with GVHD. We assessed, from the perspective of the Spanish National Health Service, the cost-effectiveness of posaconazole vs fluconazole in preventing IFI. A decision-analytic model was developed to assess the average per patient treatment costs, IFIs avoided, life-years gained (LYG) and incremental cost per LYG for each prophylactic treatment used (in euros at 2007 prices). Patients are assumed to have received either posaconazole or fluconazole. The probabilities of IFI, IFI-related death and death from other causes were obtained from a single clinical trial. Long-term mortality and costs were estimated from secondary sources. Posaconazole was associated with fewer IFIs (5.3 vs 9%), increased LYG (8.01 vs 7.78) and higher IFI-related costs (\[euro]11 585 vs \[euro]6 959) per patient compared with fluconazole. The incremental cost-effectiveness of posaconazole vs fluconazole was estimated at \[euro]20 246 per LYG. There was a 70% probability that posaconazole is cost-effective at a \[euro]30 000 per LYG threshold. In conclusion, compared with fluconazole, posaconazole prophylaxis is a cost-effective strategy for the prevention of IFI in patients with GVHD. © 2010 Macmillan Publishers Limited.
Villarrubia R.,Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research Iberia |
Oyaguez I.,Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research Iberia |
Alvarez-Roman M.T.,Hospital Universitario La Paz |
Mingot-Castellano M.E.,University of Malaga |
And 2 more authors.
Haemophilia | Year: 2015
Objective A cost analysis model was developed to compare annual cost of prophylaxis with activated prothrombin complex concentrate (aPCC) vs. on-demand therapy with activated recombinant factor VII (rFVIIa) in severe haemophilia A patients with inhibitors for the Spanish National Health System (NHS). Methods:: Model inputs were drug cost for prophylaxis (aPCC) and for on-demand treatment (rFVIIa or aPCC); bleeding episodes management (excluding bypassing agent cost); surgical costs and disease management (excluding bleeding episodes). Annual bleeding episodes treated on-demand was assumed to be 25, whereas breakthrough bleeds on prophylaxis was 8. Dose for prophylaxis was 75.72 U kg-1, three times per week. The total on-demand dose/bleeding episode was 679.66 μg kg-1 (rFVIIa) and 235.28 U kg-1 (aPCC). The average bleeding cost (€2998) considered different bleeding sites (62.5% joints, 28.6% muscles and soft tissues, 3.6% mucocutaneous tissues and 5.4% other areas). A 7.5% deduction was applied to ex-factory drug prices. Unitary costs (€2013) derived from local databases. Sensitivity analyses (SA) were performed. Results:: Annual cost of aPCC prophylaxis (€524 358) was 16% lower than on-demand treatment with rFVIIa (€627 876). Yearly drug costs were €497 017 for aPCC (€73 166 for on-demand treatment and €423 850 for prophylaxis), and €548 870 for rFVIIa. Disease management cost (€2645 per year) and surgical procedures (€708 per year) were common for both strategies. In the SA prophylactic treatment led to savings between €26 225 and €-1 008 960. Conclusion:: Prophylaxis with aPCC reduces number of bleeding episodes in severe haemophilia A patients with inhibitors. aPCC prophylaxis resulted in savings in excess of €100 000 per-patient per year, being 16% less costly than on-demand treatment with rFVIIa, for the Spanish NHS. © 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd213 May 2015 10.1111/hae.12681 Original Article Original Articles Clinical haemophilia © 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Budget impact analysis of the first-line treatment of relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis in Spain [Análisis del impacto presupuestario del tratamiento en primera línea de la esclerosis múltiple remitente recurrente en España]
la Rosa R.S.-D.,Teva Pharma S.L.U |
Sabater E.,Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research Iberia |
Casado M.A.,Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research Iberia
Revista de Neurologia | Year: 2011
Aim. To assess the budget impact of the treatment for relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS), interferons, and glatiramer acetate, from the National Health System perspective in Spain. Patients and methods. A budget impact model was designed to compare the cost of RRMS treatment in different settings, using a five year time-horizon, considering different percentages of administration of each medication. A reference setting o base case using all the available first line treatments (interferons and glatiramer acetate) was compared with five alternatives scenarios excluding each one of these treatments. The cost analysis (euros, year 2010) includes direct medical resources (drugs, administration, visits, disease management, diagnostic tests). Unitary cost data was obtained from the health costs database e-Salud and drugs catalogue. Results. Considering a cohort of 22 255 patients with RRMS, the mean global budget impact per year would be 260 775 470 euros in the base case. The setting that excluded glatiramer acetate increases the budget impact in a 3.23% (372 euros per patient per year). Pharmacological costs were the key drivers of total cost (90%). Conclusion. The use of glatiramer acetate in the first-line-treatment of RRMS patients is a cost-saving strategy, which may decrease the budget impact from the National Health System perspective in Spain. © 2011 Revista de Neurología.