Use of rhDNase therapy and costs of respiratory-related care in patients with cystic fibrosis

Socio-economic burden of rare diseases: A systematic review of cost of illness evidence

Cost-of-illness studies, the systematic quantification of the economic burden of diseases on the individual and on society, help illustrate direct budgetary consequences of diseases in the health system and indirect costs associated with patient or carer productivity losses. In the context of the BURQOL-RD project ("Social Economic Burden and Health-Related Quality of Life in patients with Rare Diseases in Europe") we studied the evidence on direct and indirect costs for 10 rare diseases (Cystic Fibrosis [CF], Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy [DMD], Fragile X Syndrome [FXS], Haemophilia, Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis [JIA], Mucopolysaccharidosis [MPS], Scleroderma [SCL], Prader-Willi Syndrome [PWS], Histiocytosis [HIS] and Epidermolysis Bullosa [EB]). A systematic literature review of cost of illness studies was conducted using a keyword strategy in combination with the names of the 10 selected rare diseases. Available disease prevalence in Europe was found to range between 1 and 2 per 100,000 population (PWS, a sub-type of Histiocytosis, and EB) up to 42 per 100,000 population (Scleroderma). Overall, cost evidence on rare diseases appears to be very scarce (a total of 77 studies were identified across all diseases), with CF (n=29) and Haemophilia (n=22) being relatively well studied, compared to the other conditions, where very limited cost of illness information was available. In terms of data availability, total lifetime cost figures were found only across four diseases, and total annual costs (including indirect costs) across five diseases. Overall, data availability was found to correlate with the existence of a pharmaceutical treatment and indirect costs tended to account for a significant proportion of total costs. Although methodological variations prevent any detailed comparison between conditions and based on the evidence available, most of the rare diseases examined are associated with significant economic burden, both direct and indirect.

Pharmacoeconomic analysis in Saudi Arabia: an overdue agenda item for action

Pharmacoeconomics is a branch of health economics related to the most economical and efficient use of pharmaceuticals. Pharmacoeconomic research identifies, measures and compares the costs and outcomes (clinical, economic and humanistic) of pharmaceutical products and services. Pharmacoeconomic evaluation can play a significant role in the efficient allocation of resources in healthcare systems with constrained budgets. Countries are trying to control the rising costs of health care in their aging population. They are all asking the same question: Is the new drug good value for money; and if so, what is the society willing to pay for it? This article reviews the importance of, and the need for, adaptation of pharmacoeconomic analysis to the conditions in Saudi Arabia. It will shed some light on the important steps for converting the concept into practice, including the need for identifying the willing-to-pay (WTP) or the threshold cutoff, the existence of a real cost for each utility, the nonexistence of an pharmacoeconomic advisory forum, pharmaceutical budget allocation, and the impact of pharmaceutical marketing. It will also provide recommendations for easing any challenges that might jeopardize the conduct of such analysis in Saudi Arabia.

The use of human deoxyribonuclease (rhDNase) in the management of cystic fibrosis

In patients with cystic fibrosis (CF), the poor clearance of airway secretions promotes recurrent cycles of pulmonary infection and inflammation. In recent years, novel drugs have been developed to alter the properties of the secretions in an attempt to aid chest physiotherapy in improving airway clearance. Once-daily nebulised recombinant human deoxyribonuclease (rhDNase; dornase alfa; Pulmozyme) is the most widely used mucoactive therapy in patients with CF. It has been shown to reduce the viscoelasticity of sputum from patients with CF and enhance the clearance of secretions. Clinical trials have shown rhDNase to be a well tolerated treatment that improves pulmonary function and reduces respiratory exacerbations. However, the response to treatment is heterogeneous and only a proportion of patients with CF actually benefit from the treatment. At present, we are unable to predict which patients will benefit from rhDNase. Many CF centers have developed formal n-of-1 trials of treatment to find out who benefits and to justify prescribing the agent. rhDNase is an expensive therapy and is mainly used in patients over the age of 5 years with moderate to severe lung disease. However, studies have shown that rhDNase may be useful in patients with milder lung disease. Comparisons with another mucoactive drug, hypertonic saline, have shown rhDNase to be more effective. Recently, it has been shown that giving rhDNase on an alternate-day basis, rather than daily, is equally effective, potentially reducing costs and treatment time.

Effects of hypertonic saline, alternate day and daily rhDNase on healthcare use, costs and outcomes in children with cystic fibrosis

BACKGROUND

Daily recombinant human deoxyribonuclease (rhDNase) is an established but expensive treatment in cystic fibrosis (CF). An alternative lower cost therapy is hypertonic saline (HS), which has been shown to improve lung function in short term studies. This study compares the costs and consequences of daily rhDNase with alternate day rhDNase and HS in children with CF.

METHODS

In an open, randomised, crossover trial, 48 children with CF were allocated consecutively to 12 weeks of once daily 2.5 mg rhDNase, alternate day 2.5 mg rhDNase, and twice daily 5 ml 7% HS. Outcomes assessed included forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV(1)) and quality of life. All healthcare resource use was prospectively recorded for each patient. Unit costs were collected and combined with resource use data to give the total health service costs per patient for each treatment strategy.

RESULTS

Daily rhDNase resulted in a significantly greater increase in mean FEV(1) than HS (8%, 95% CI 2 to 14) but there was no significant difference in FEV(1) between daily and alternate day rhDNase (2%, 95% CI -4 to 9). Over a 12 week period the mean incremental costs of daily rhDNase compared with HS was pound 1409 (95% CI pound 440 to pound 2318), and the incremental cost of using daily rather than alternate day rhDNase was pound 513 (95% CI - pound 546 to pound 1510).

CONCLUSIONS

Daily rhDNase is more effective than 5 ml 7% HS twice daily delivered by jet nebuliser, but significantly increases healthcare costs. Administering rhDNase on an alternate day rather than a daily basis is as effective, with a potential for cost savings.