Applied Health Economics and Health Policy

, Volume 10, Issue 3, pp 175–188 | Cite as

Cost effectiveness of prostacyclins in pulmonary arterial hypertension

  • Antonio Roman
  • Joan A. Barberà
  • Pilar Escribano
  • Maria L. Sala
  • Laia Febrer
  • Itziar Oyagüez
  • Eliazar Sabater
  • Miguel Á. Casado
Original Research Article

Abstract

Background

Pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) is considered an orphan disease. Prostacyclins are the keystone for PAH treatment. Choosing between the three available prostacyclin therapies could be complicated because there are no comparison studies, so the final decision must be driven by factors such as efficacy, administration route, safety profile and economic aspects.

Objective

This study provides a cost-effectiveness and cost-utility comparison of initiating prostacyclin therapy with three different treatment alternatives (inhaled iloprost [ILO], intravenous epoprostenol [EPO] and subcutaneous treprostinil [TRE]) for patients with PAH. The goal of this work is to help physicians with their therapeutic decision-making.

Methods

A Markov model was built to simulate a patient cohort with class III PAH according to the classification of the New York Heart Association (NYHA). Four health states corresponding with the NYHA classes plus death were allowed for patients in the model. Changing the treatment was possible when patients worsened from functional class III to IV. The time horizon was 3 years, allowing patients to transition between health states on a 12-week cycle basis. The study perspective was that of the National Health System (NHS) [only direct medical costs were included]. Unitary costs were obtained from the Drug Catalogue and e-Salud Database in 2009 and are given in euros (€). Data on health resources and treatment pathways were informed by a four-member expert panel. Efficacy was obtained from pivotal clinical trials of ILO, EPO and TRE, the latter used in Spain as a foreign medication. Utilities for each health state were obtained from the literature. The final efficacy measure was life-years gained (LYG), and utilities were used to obtain quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Costs and effects were discounted at a 3% rate. To check for the robustness of the results, sensitivity analyses were performed.

Results

At the end of the 3 years, in the base case of the deterministic analysis, initiating prostacyclin therapy with iloprost was the less costly strategy (€132840), followed by treprostinil (€359 869) and epoprostenol (€429 775). Epoprostenol has shown the best efficacy results with 2.73 LYG and 1.78 QALY, followed by iloprost (2.69 LYG and 1.74 QALY) and treprostinil (2.69 LYG and 1.73 QALY).

Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) and cost-utility ratios (ICUR) of epoprostenol versus iloprost and treprostinil were much above the €30 000 per LYG or QALY threshold commonly used in Spain. Iloprost was dominant compared with treprostinil.

In the probabilistic analysis, epoprostenol, when compared with iloprost, was a dominant strategy in 15% of the simulations, but it was not a cost-effective option in 83% of the cases. When compared with treprostinil, epoprostenol was dominant in 43% of the simulations. Iloprost was dominant compared with treprostinil in 45% of the cases and it was a cost-effective alternative in 39% of the simulations.

Conclusions

Initiating prostacyclin treatment with iloprost in patients with PAH, functional class III of the NYHA, is the less costly alternative for the NHS in Spain, with a good efficacy profile when compared with the other alternatives.

References

  1. 1.
    Humbert M, Sitbon O, Chaouat A, et al. Pulmonary arterial hypertension in France: results from a national registry. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2006; 173(9): 1023–30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tueller C, Stricker H, Soccal P, et al. Epidemiology of pulmonary hypertension: new data from the Swiss registry. Swiss Med Wkly 2008; 138(25-26): 379–84PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Peacock AJ, Murphy NF, McMurray JJ, et al. An epideiological study of pulmonary arterial hypertension. Eur Respir J 2007; 30(1): 104–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Humbert M, Khaltaev N, Bousquet J, et al. Pulmonary hypertension: from an orphan disease to a public health problem. Chest 2007; 132(2): 365–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Aronson JK. Rare diseases and orphan drugs. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2006; 61(3): 243–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Badesch DB, Abman SH, Simonneau G, et al. Medical therapy for pulmonary arterial hypertension: updated ACCP evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Chest 2007; 131(6): 1917–28PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sanchez-Román J, García Hernández FJ, Castillo Palma MJ, et al. Diagnóstico y tratamiento de la hipertensión pulmonar. Rev Clin Esp 2008; 208(3): 142–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gomberg-Maitland M, Olschewski H. Prostacyclin therapies for the treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension. Eur Respir J 2008; 31(4): 891–901PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    D’Alonzo GE, Barst RJ, Ayres SM, et al. Survival in patients with primary pulmonary hypertension. Ann Intern Med 1991; 115: 343–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Humbert M, Sitbon O, Chaouat A, et al. Survival in patients with idiopathic, familial, and anorexigen-associated pulmonary arterial hypertension in the modern management era. Circulation 2010; 122(2): 156–63PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wilkens H, Grimminger F, Hoeper M, et al. Burden of pulmonary arterial hypertension in Germany. Respir Med 2010; 104(6): 902–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Galiè N, Manes A, Negro L, et al. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials in pulmonary arterial hypertension. Eur Heart J 2009; 30: 394–403PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Barberà JA, Escribano P, Morales P, et al. Standards of care in pulmonary hypertension [in Spanish]. Consensus Statement of the Spanish Society of Pulmonology and Thoracic Surgery (SEPAR) and the Spanish Society of Cardiology (SEC). Arch Bronconeumol 2008; 44(2): 87–99PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Badesch DB, McLaughlin VV, Delcroix M, et al. Prostanoid therapy for pulmonary arterial hypertension. J Am Coll Cardiol 2004; 43(12 Suppl. S): 56S–61SPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Highland KB, Strange C, Mazur J, et al. Treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension: a preliminary decision analysis. Chest 2003; 124(6): 2087–92PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wlodarczyk JH, Cleland LG, Keogh AM, et al. Public funding of bosentan for the treatment of pulmonary artery hypertension in Australia: cost effectiveness and risk sharing. Pharmacoeconomics 2006; 24(9): 903–15PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Vida VL, Gaitan G, Quezada E, et al. Low-dose oral sildenafil for patients with pulmonary hypertension: a cost-effective solution in countries with limited resources. Cardiol Young 2007; 17(1): 72–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Garin MC, Clark L, Chummey ECG, et al. Cost-utility treatment for pulmonary arterial hypertension: a Markov state-transition decision analysis model. Clin Drug Investig 2009; 29: 635–46PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Stevenson MD, Macdonald FC, Langley J, et al. The cost-effectiveness of bosentan in the United Kingdom for patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension of WHO functional class III. Value Health 2009; 12(8): 1100–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chen YF, Jowett S, Barton P, et al. Clinical and cost-effectiveness of epoprostenol, iloprost, bosentan, sitaxentan and sildenafil for pulmonary arterial hypertension within their licensed indications: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 2009; 13(49): 1–320PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Einarson TR, Granton JT, Vicente C, et al. Cost-effectiveness of treprostinil versus epoprostenol in patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension: a Canadian analysis. Can Respir J 2005; 12(8): 419–25PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Narine L, Hague LK, Walker JH, et al. Cost-minimization analysis of treprostinil vs. epoprostenol as an alternate to oral therapy non-responders for the treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension. Curr Med Res Opin 2005; 21(12): 2007–16PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Dranitsaris G, Mehta S. Oral therapies for the treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension: a population-based cost-minimization analysis. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2009; 7: 43–59PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Barst RJ, McGoon M, Torbicki A, et al. Diagnosis and differential assessment of pulmonary arterial hypertension. J Am Coll Cardiol 2004; 43(12 Suppl. S): 40S–47SPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Olschewski H, Simonneau G, Galie N, et al. Inhaled iloprost for severe pulmonary hypertension. N Engl J Med 2002; 347(5): 322–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Barst RJ, Rubin LJ, Long WA, et al. A comparison of continuous intravenous epoprostenol (prostacyclin) with conventional therapy for primary pulmonary hypertension. N Engl J Med 1996; 334: 296–302PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Simonneau G, Barst RJ, Galie N, et al. Continuous subcutaneous infusion of treprostinil, a prostacyclin analogue, in patients with pulmonary artery hypertension. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2002; 165: 800–4PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    López Bastida J, Oliva J, Antoñanzas F, et al. Propuesta de guía para la evaluación económica aplicada a las tecnologías sanitarias. Gac Sanit 2010; 24: 154–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hoeper MM, Oudiz RJ, Peacock A, et al. End points and clinical trial designs in pulmonary arterial hypertension: clinical and regulatory perspectives. J Am Coll Cardiol 2004; 43(12 Suppl. S): 48S–55SPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Macchia A, Marchioli R, Marfisi R, et al. A meta-analysis of trials of pulmonary hypertension: a clinical condition looking for drugs and research methodology. Am Heart J 2007; 153(6): 1037–47PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Gómez Sánchez MA, Escribano Subías P. Protocolos de actuación en hipertensión arterial pulmonar. Unidad de Insuficiencia Cardíaca e Hipertensión Pulmonar. Hospital Universitario Doce de Octubre. Madrid: Editores Médicos, s.A. EDIMSA, 2008Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Keogh AM, McNeil KD, Wlodarczyk J, et al. Quality of Life in pulmonary arterial hypertension: improvement and maintenance with bosentan. J Heart Lung Transplant 2007; 26: 181–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Oblikue Consulting. Base de datos sanitarios e-salud [online]. Available from URL: http://www.oblikue.com/bddcostes/ [Accessed 2010 Jul 27]
  34. 34.
    Consejo General de Colegios de Farmacéuticos. Catálogo de Especialidades Farmacéuticas. Consejo Plus 2009. Madrid: Consejo General de Colegios de Farmacéuticos 2007. Available from URL: http://www.portalfarma.com [Accessed 2010 Jul 27]Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Briggs A, Claxton K, Sculpher M. Choosing distributions for parameters. In: Decision modelling for health economic evaluation. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007: 84–93Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Briggs AH. Handling uncertainty in cost-effectiveness models. Pharmacoeconomics 2000; 17(5): 479–500PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Sacristán JA, Oliva J, Del Llano J, et al. Qué es una tecnología sanitaria eficiente en España? Gac San 2002; 16: 334–43Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Goeree R, Burke N, O’Reilly D, et al. Transferability of economic evaluations: approaches and factors to consider when using results form one geographic area for another. Curr Med Res Opin 2007; 23: 671–82PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Humbert M, Sitbon O, Chaouat A, et al. Survival in patients with idiopathic, familial, and anorexigen-associated pulmonary arterial hypertension in the modern management era. Circulation 2010; 122: 156–63PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Chung L, Liu J, Parsons L, et al. Characterization of connective tissue disease-associated pulmonary arterial hypertension from REVEAL: identifying systemic sclerosis as a unique phenotype. Chest 2010; 138: 1383–94PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Antonio Roman
    • 1
    • 7
  • Joan A. Barberà
    • 2
  • Pilar Escribano
    • 3
  • Maria L. Sala
    • 4
  • Laia Febrer
    • 5
  • Itziar Oyagüez
    • 6
  • Eliazar Sabater
    • 6
  • Miguel Á. Casado
    • 6
  1. 1.Department of Pneumology, Hospital Universitari Vall d’HebronCIBERESBarcelonaSpain
  2. 2.Department of PneumologyHospital Clínic i Provincial de BarcelonaBarcelonaSpain
  3. 3.Department of CardiologyHospital UniversitarioMadridSpain
  4. 4.Department of PharmacyHospital de la Santa Creu i Sant PauBarcelonaSpain
  5. 5.Market Access DepartmentBayer HealthCareBarcelonaSpain
  6. 6.Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research IberiaMadridSpain
  7. 7.Hospital Universitari Vall d’HebronBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations