[Cost-effectiveness of the combination therapy of dutasteride and tamsulosin in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperlasia in Spain]

Exploring pharmacological interventions in benign prostate hyperplasia: the role of cost-effectiveness analysis in daily practice and future directions

INTRODUCTION

Benign Prostate Hyperplasia (BPH) significantly impacts men's health and quality of life, with its prevalence rising with age. This review critically examines the cost-effectiveness of pharmacological interventions for BPH to optimize patient outcomes and healthcare resource utilization.

AREAS COVERED

This review explores the integration of cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) into clinical practice, balancing clinical efficacy with economic efficiency in BPH management. We performed a critical literature search, including recent studies on the economic evaluation of BPH treatments, focusing on pharmacotherapies such as alpha-blockers and 5-alpha reductase inhibitors. Additionally, we discussed the concept of CEA and evaluated the role of medicinal reconciliation and the avoidance of polypharmacy in favor of optimal BPH treatment.

EXPERT OPINION

Cost-effectiveness analysis is crucial for evaluating BPH treatments, with evidence suggesting a shift towards surgical interventions may offer greater long-term economic benefits. However, these models must be applied cautiously, considering clinical evidence and patient preferences to ensure equitable and patient-centric healthcare.

Liraglutide Versus Lixisenatide: Long-Term Cost-Effectiveness of GLP-1 Receptor Agonist Therapy for the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes in Spain

INTRODUCTION

Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists are used successfully in the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes as they are associated with low hypoglycemia rates, weight loss and improved glycemic control. This study compared, in the Spanish setting, the cost-effectiveness of liraglutide 1.8 mg versus lixisenatide 20 μg, both GLP-1 receptor agonists, for patients with type 2 diabetes who had not achieved glycemic control targets on metformin monotherapy.

METHODS

The IMS CORE Diabetes Model was used to project clinical outcomes and costs, expressed in 2015 Euros, over patient lifetimes. Baseline cohort data and treatment effects were taken from the 26-week, open-label LIRA-LIXI™ trial (NCT01973231). Treatment and management costs of diabetes-related complications were retrieved from published sources and databases. Future benefits and costs were discounted by 3% annually. Sensitivity analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

Compared with lixisenatide 20 μg, liraglutide 1.8 mg was associated with higher life expectancy (14.42 vs. 14.29 years), higher quality-adjusted life expectancy [9.40 versus 9.26 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs)] and a reduced incidence of diabetes-related complications. Higher acquisition costs resulted in higher total costs for liraglutide 1.8 mg (EUR 42,689) than for lixisenatide 20 μg (EUR 42,143), but these were partly offset by reduced costs of treating diabetes-related complications (EUR 29,613 vs. EUR 30,636). Projected clinical outcomes and costs resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of EUR 4113 per QALY gained for liraglutide 1.8 mg versus lixisenatide 20 μg.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term projections in the Spanish setting suggest that liraglutide 1.8 mg is likely to be cost-effective compared with lixisenatide 20 μg in type 2 diabetes patients who have not achieved glycemic control targets on metformin monotherapy. Liraglutide 1.8 mg presents a clinically and economically attractive treatment option in the Spanish setting.

Increased cost of illness among European patients with type 2 diabetes treated with insulin

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the association between outcomes and different escalating combinations of non-insulin medications vs. insulin.

METHODS

Data were taken from the 2013 5EU NHWS, a cross-sectional survey including 62,000 respondents across France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the UK. Costs were estimated from self-reported work impairment and healthcare visits using average wages and unit costs. Respondents taking antihyperglycemic medications (n = 2894) were compared according to treatment type using unadjusted comparisons followed by regression to adjust for confounders.

RESULTS

Insulin users had the highest costs and worse outcomes, a pattern that remained after adjustment for a range of sociodemographic and disease characteristics. Incremental direct costs were approximately €800. Incremental indirect costs, applicable only to the employed, were larger than incremental direct costs, but were statistically significant only relative to non-insulin monotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Escalation using oral agents rather than insulin is associated with better quality of life and lower costs, though these relationships may not be causal. Further research is warranted on escalation using oral agents among patients for whom insulin is not required.

Cost of severe hypoglycaemia in nine European countries

OBJECTIVE

Complications contribute largely to the economic gravity of diabetes mellitus (DM). How they arise and are treated differs substantially between countries. This paper assesses the total annual, direct, and indirect cost of severe hypoglycemia events (SHEs) in nine European countries: Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Greece, Hungary, Macedonia/the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (MK), Poland, Slovenia, and Spain.

METHODS

Data was collected on epidemiology, treatment structure, SHE-driven resource consumption, and unit costs. Two systematic reviews-on the SHE rates and the resources used for treatment-and data on the days-of-work lost due to SHE along with salaries and employment rates were used. The total SHE cost in each country was calculated and how the differences are driven by individual parameters was analysed.

RESULTS

The annual costs of SHEs varied in absolute terms from €379,951.25 in MK up to €58,429,684.40 in Spain, or-when expressed per one drug-treated DM patient-from €5.47 in Bulgaria up to €17.74 in Spain. Indirect cost constituted between 6.01% (MK) and 26.49% (Hungary) of the total cost. The differences between countries are driven mostly by the cost of treating a single event, and this is related to general differences in prices.

LIMITATIONS

The main limitation is the lack of good quality data in some parts, and the necessity to use mean-value imputations, experts' opinions, etc. Additionally, we only considered DM treatment as the SHE driver, while other elements, e.g. style of living, may contribute substantially.

CONCLUSIONS

A common framework can be applied to estimate the economic burden of SHE in various countries, allowing one to identify the drivers of differences in cost. Treating DM is complex, and so no resolute conclusions ought to be drawn as to whether SHE management is better in one country than another.

Fixed-dose combination therapy with dutasteride and tamsulosin in the management of benign prostatic hyperplasia

Despite their multifactorial etiology, male lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) have been traditionally associated with benign prostatic enlargement (BPE) because of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Several pharmaceutical therapies have been used to manage LUTS, with α1-adrenergic receptor antagonists (α1-blockers) and inhibitors of 5α-reductase (5α-RIs) representing the most commonly prescribed agents currently in use for LUTS treatment. Due to their different modes of action, combined use of α1-blockers and 5α-RIs has been proven to offer more optimal control of symptoms and better associated quality of life, even though higher rates of adverse events have been shown. Following previous studies on the separate administration of dutasteride and tamsulosin, a fixed-dose combination capsule of tamsulosin 0.4 mg and dutasteride 0.5 mg has been approved and released for clinical use in men with BPH. The present review aims to discuss the rationale behind the combined use of tamsulosin and dutasteride for treating male LUTS, and to present the available data on the role of combination therapy in the management of BPH-related symptoms in terms of efficacy and safety. Special attention is given to the impact of combination treatment on the prevention of clinical progression of BPH. Cost-effectiveness of fixed-dose combination and patients' adherence to treatment are also discussed.

Cost-effectiveness of a fixed-dose combination of solifenacin and oral controlled adsorption system formulation of tamsulosin in men with lower urinary tract symptoms associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia

BACKGROUND

Storage symptoms, associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), often co-exist with voiding symptoms in men with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS). Storage symptoms are likely to be most bothersome, and may not be adequately resolved by treatment with α-blocker or antimuscarinic monotherapy. A recent randomised controlled phase 3 trial (NEPTUNE) demonstrated that a fixed-dose combination (FDC) of solifenacin 6 mg plus an oral controlled absorption system (OCAS™) formulation of tamsulosin (TOCAS, 0.4 mg) improved storage symptoms, as well as quality of life, compared with TOCAS alone in men with moderate-to-severe storage symptoms and voiding symptoms. This analysis aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of a FDC tablet of solifenacin 6 mg plus TOCAS relative to tolterodine plus tamsulosin given concomitantly, from the perspective of the UK National Health Service (NHS).

METHODS

A Markov model was developed for men aged ≥45 years with LUTS/BPH who have moderate-to-severe storage symptoms and voiding symptoms. The model calculated cost-effectiveness over an analytical time horizon of 1 year and estimated total treatment costs, quality adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.

RESULTS

The FDC tablet of solifenacin 6 mg plus TOCAS was associated with lower total annual costs (£860 versus £959) and increased QALYs (0.839 versus 0.836), and was therefore dominant compared with tolterodine plus tamsulosin. Time horizon, discontinuation or withdrawal rates, drug cost and utility values were the main drivers of cost-effectiveness. The probability that the FDC tablet of solifenacin 6 mg plus TOCAS is cost-effective was 100% versus tolterodine plus tamsulosin, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000/QALY gained.

CONCLUSIONS

The FDC tablet of solifenacin 6 mg plus TOCAS provides important clinical benefits and is a cost-effective treatment strategy in the UK NHS compared with tolterodine plus tamsulosin for men with both storage and voiding LUTS/BPH.

Dutasteride plus tamsulosin fixed-dose combination first-line therapy versus tamsulosin monotherapy in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia: a budget impact analysis in the Greek healthcare setting

Background

The purpose of this study was to explore the budget impact of dutasteride plus tamsulosin fixed-dose combination (DUT + TAM FDC) versus tamsulosin monotherapy, in the treatment of patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) from the perspective of the Greek healthcare insurance system.

Methods

A Microsoft Excel-based model was developed to estimate the financial consequences of adopting DUT + TAM FDC within the Greek healthcare setting. The model, compared six mutually exclusive health states in two alternative treatment options: current standard of care and the introduction of DUT + TAM FDC in the market. The model used clinical inputs from the CombAT study; data on resource use associated with the management of BPH in Greece were derived from expert panel, and unit cost data were derived from official reimbursement tariffs. A payer perspective was taken into account. As patient distribution data between public and private sectors are not available in Greece two scenarios were investigated, considering the whole eligible population in each scenario. A 4 year time horizon was taken into account and included treatment costs, number of transurethral resections of the prostate (TURPs) and acute urinary retention (AUR) episodes avoided.

Results

The clinical benefit from the market adoption of DUT + TAM FDC in Greece was 1,758 TURPs and 972 episodes of AUR avoided cumulatively in a four year period. The increase in total costs from the gradual introduction of DUT + TAM FDC to the Greek healthcare system ranges from €1.3 million in the first year to €5.8 million in the fourth year, for the public sector, and €1.2 million to €4.0 million, for the private sector. This represents an increase of 1.91% to 7.94% for the public sector and 1.10% 3.29% in the private sector, during the 4-year time horizon.

Conclusions

Budget impact analysis (BIA) results indicated that the gradual introduction of DUT + TAM FDC, would increase the overall budget of the disease, however providing better clinical outcomes. DUT + TAM FDC drug acquisition cost is partly offset by the reduction in the costs associated with the treatment of the disease.