CNS Drugs

, Volume 21, Issue 4, pp 319–334 | Cite as

Cost Effectiveness of Long-Term Treatment with Eszopiclone for Primary Insomnia in Adults

A Decision Analytical Model
  • Marc F. Botteman
  • Ron J. Ozminkowski
  • Shaohung Wang
  • Chris L. Pashos
  • Kendyl Schaefer
  • Daniel J. Foley
Original Research Article

Abstract

Objective: 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.

Methods: 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.

Results: 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.

Conclusions: 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.

References

  1. 1.
    National Institutes of Health. NIH State of the Science Conference Statement: manifestations and management of chronic insomnia in adults, June 13–15, 2005. Sleep 2005; 28(9): 1049–55Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ancoli-Israel S, Roth T. Characteristics of insomnia in the United States: results of the 1991 National Sleep Foundation Survey I. Sleep 1999; 22Suppl. 2: S347–53PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Roth T, Roehrs T. Insomnia: epidemiology, characteristics, and consequences. Clin Cornerstone 2003; 5(3): 5–15PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Drake CL, Roehrs T, Roth T. Insomnia causes, consequences, and therapeutics: an overview. Depress Anxiety 2003; 18(4): 163–76PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zammit GK, Weiner J, Damato N, et al. Quality of life in people with insomnia. Sleep 1999; 22(2): S379–85PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Leger D, Scheuermaier K, Philip P, et al. SF-36: evaluation of quality of life in severe and mild insomniacs compared with good sleepers. Psychosom Med 2001; 63: 49–55PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Leger D, Guilleminault C, Bader G, et al. Medical and socioprofessional impact of insomnia. Sleep 2002; 25(6): 625–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hajak G, SINE Study Group. Epidemiology of severe insomnia and its consequences in Germany. Eur Arch Psych Clin Neurosci2001; 251: 49–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Simon GE, VonKorff M. Prevalence, burden, and treatment of insomnia in primary care. Am J Psychiatry 1997; 154: 1417–23PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lichtein KL, Durrence HH, Bayen UJ, et al. Primary versus secondary insomnia in older adults: subjective sleep daytime functioning. Psychol Aging 2001; 16(2): 264–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Katz DA, McHorney CA. The relationship between insomnia and health-related quality of life in patients with chronic illness. J Fam Pract 2002; 51(3): 229–35PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kuppermann M, Lubeck DP, Mazonson PD, et al. Sleep problems and their correlates in a working population. J Gen Intern Med 1995; 10: 25–32PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kapur VK, Redline S, Nieto FJ, et al. The relationship between chronically disrupted sleep and healthcare use. Sleep 2002 May 1; 25(3): 289–96PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Martin SA, Aikens JE, Chervin RD. Toward cost-effectiveness analysis in the diagnosis and treatment of insomnia. Sleep Med Rev 2004; 8: 63–72PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Roth T, Hajak G, Ustun TB. Consensus for the pharmacological management of insomnia in the new millennium. Int J Clin Pract 2001; 55(1): 42–52PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dündar Y, Boland A, Strobl J, et al. Newer hypnotic drugs for the short-term management of insomnia: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 2004; 8(24): iii–x, 1-125Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Morgan K, Dixon S, Mathers N, et al. Psychological treatment for insomnia in the regulation of long-term hypnotic drug use. Health Technol Assess 2004 Feb; 8(8): 1–68Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Walsh JK, Roth T, Randazzo A, et al. Eight weeks of nonnightly use of zolpidem for primary insomnia. Sleep 2000; 23(8): 1087–96PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Goldenberg F, Hindmarch I, Joyce CRB, et al. Zopiclone, sleep and health-related quality of life. Hum Psychopharmacol 1994; 9: 245–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hajak G, Cluydts R, Declerk A, et al. Continuous versus non-nightly use of zolpidem in chronic insomnia: results of a large-scale, double-blind, randomized, outpatient study. Int Clin Psychopharmacol 2002; 17: 9–17PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Krystal AD, Walsh JK, Laska E, et al. Sustained efficacy of eszopiclone over 6 months of nightly treatment: results of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in adults with chronic insomnia. Sleep 2003 Nov 1; 26(7): 793–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. 4th ed. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association, 1994Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Endicott J, Nee J, Harrison W, et al. Quality of life enjoyment and satisfaction questionnaire: a new measure. Psychopharmacol Bull 1993; 29(2): 321–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bell L, Tousignant P. The treatment of insomnia in the elderly: a cost-utility analysis [abstract]. Med Decis Making 1998; 18: 487Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Fryback DG, Lawrence WF, Martin PA, et al. Predicting quality of well-being scores from the SF-36: results from the Beaver Dam Health Outcomes Study. Med Decis Making 1997 Jan–Mar; 17(1): 1–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Franks P, Lubetkin EI, Gold MR, et al. Mapping the SF-12 to the EuroQol EQ-5D index in a national US sample. Med Decis Making 2004 May–Jun; 24(3): 247–54PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lawrence WF, Fleishman JA. Predicting EuroQoL EQ-5D preference scores from the SF-12 health survey in a nationally representative sample. Med Decis Making 2004 Mar–Apr; 24(2): 160–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Nichol MB, Sengupta N, Globe DR. Evaluating quality-adjusted life years: estimation of the health utility index (HUI2) from the SF-36. Med Decis Making 2001 Mar–Apr; 21(2): 105–12PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hatoum HT, Kong SX, Kania CM, et al. Insomnia, health-related quality of life and healthcare resource consumptions: a study of managed care organization enrolees. Pharmacoeconomics 1998; 14(6): 629–37PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Schubert CR, Cruisckhanks KJ, Dalton DS, et al. Prevalence of sleep problems and quality of life in an older population. Sleep 2002; 25(8): 889–93PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Goetzel RZ, Hawkins K, Ozminkowski RJ, et al. The health and productivity cost burden of the ‘top 10’ physical and mental health conditions affecting six large US employers in 1999. J Occup Environ Med 2003; 45(1): 5–14PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Stewart WF, Ricci JA, Chee E, et al. Lost productive work time costs from health conditions in the United States: results from the American productivity audit. J Occup Environ Med. 2003 Dec; 45(12): 1234–46PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Cockburn IM, Bailit HL, Berndt ER, et al. Loss of work productivity due to illness and medical treatment. J Occup Environ Med 1999 Nov; 41(11): 948–53PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kobelt G, Borgstrom F, Mattiasson A. Productivity, vitality, and utility in a group of healthy professional active individuals with nocturia. BJU Int 2003; 91: 190–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ozminkowski RJ, Goetzel RZ, Chang S, et al. The application of two health and productivity instruments at a large employer. J Occup Environ Med 2004; 46(7): 635–48PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Goetzel RZ, Long SR, Ozminkowski RJ, et al. Health, absence, disability, and presenteeism cost estimates of certain physical and mental health conditions affecting US employers. J Occup Environ Med 2004; 46(4): 398–412PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Employer costs per hour worked for employee compensation and costs as a percent of total compensation: civilian workers, by major occupational and industry group, March 2006 (table 1) [online]. Available from URL: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.t01.htm [Accessed 2006 Aug 14]
  38. 38.
    Bureau of Labor Statistics. Employment situation summary, July 2006 (table A). Major indicators of labor market activity, seasonally adjusted. Total private hours of work [online]. Available from URL: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm [Accessed 2006 Aug 14]
  39. 39.
    Bureau of Labor Statistics. Employment status of the civilian noninstitutional population by age, sex, and race (table A-13), July 2006 [online]. Available from URL: ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/ suppl/empsit.cpseeal3.txt [Accessed 2006 Aug 16]Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Inspector General. Medicaid pharmacy: actual acquisition cost of prescription drug products for brand name drugs, April 1997, A-06-06-00030 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.oig.hhs.gov/Voas/reports/region6/69600030.pdf [Accessed 2004 Sep 1]
  41. 41.
    Novartis pharmacy benefit report: facts and figures. East Hanover (NJ): Novartis Pharmaceutical Company, 1999Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Szucs TD, Berger K, Fisman DN, et al. The estimated economic burden of genital herpes in the United States: an analysis using two costing approaches. BMC Infect Dis 2001; 1: 5. Epub 2001 Jun 28PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, et al., editors. A practical guide to cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Meltzer D, Johannesson M. Inconsistencies in the ‘societal perspective’ on costs of the Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. Med Decis Making 1999 Oct–Dec; 19(4): 371–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Hirth RA, Chernew ME, Miller E, et al. Willingness to pay for a quality-adjusted life year: in search of a standard. Med Decis Making 2000; 20(3): 332–42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Eichler HG, Sheldon XK, Gerth WC, et al. Use of cost-effectiveness analysis in health care resource allocation decision making: how are cost-effectiveness thresholds expected to emerge? Value Health 2004; 7(5): 518–28PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Doubilet P, Begg CB, Weinstein MC, et al. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis using Monte Carlo simulation: a practical approach. Med Decis Making 1985; 5(2): 157–77PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Parkinson J, editor. National fee analyzer: charge data for evaluating fees nationally. Salt Lake City (UT): Ingenix Inc., 2006Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Confidential data on file, Sepracor, 2005Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Thompson M, Gawel M, Desjardins B, et al. An economic evaluation of rizatriptan in the treatment of migraine. Pharmacoeconomics 2005; 23(8): 837–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Kobelt G, Jonsson L, Mattiasson A. Cost-effectiveness of new treatments for overactive bladder: the example of tolterodine, a new muscarinic agent: a Markov model. Neurourol Urodyn 1998; 17(6): 599–611PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    McDonald H, Hux M, Brisson M, et al. An economic evaluation of doxazosin, finasteride and combination therapy in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia. Can J Urol 2004 Aug; 11(4): 2327–40PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Baladi JF, Menon D, Otten N. An economic evaluation of finasteride for treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia. Pharmacoeconomics 1996 May; 9(5): 443–54PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Brown JS, Papadopoulos G, Neumann PJ, et al. Cost-effectiveness of topiramate in migraine prevention: results from a pharmacoeconomic model of topiramate treatment. Headache 2005 Sep; 45(8): 1012–22PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Smith KJ, Roberts MS. Antiviral therapies for herpes zoster infections: are they economically justifiable? Pharmacoeconomics 2000; 18: 95–104PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    American Academy of Sleep Medicine. International classification of sleep disorders: diagnostic and coding manual. 2nd ed. Westchester (IL); American Academy of Sleep Medicine, 2005Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Silber MH. Chronic insomnia. N Engl J Med 2005; 353: 803–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Ohayon M. Epidemiology of insomnia: what we know and what we still need to learn. Sleep Med Rev 2002; 6(2): 97–111PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ 2002; 21: 271–92PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marc F. Botteman
    • 1
  • Ron J. Ozminkowski
    • 2
  • Shaohung Wang
    • 2
  • Chris L. Pashos
    • 3
  • Kendyl Schaefer
    • 4
  • Daniel J. Foley
    • 5
  1. 1.Pharmerit North America LLCBethesdaUSA
  2. 2.Thompson MedstatAnn ArborUSA
  3. 3.Abt Associates Inc. - HERQuLESLexingtonUSA
  4. 4.Sepracor Inc.MarlboroughUSA
  5. 5.US Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services AdministrationRockvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations