Objectives: to assess and compare the incremental costs of the 15-day treatment of osteoarthritis (OA) with nimuselide vs. diclofenac in France, Italy and Spain. Design: a cost-minimisation analysis was performed through a decision tree, assuming the perspective of the NHS. A meta-analysis was performed to assess the incidence of gastrointestinal adverse events (GIAEs) in patients with OA treated with nimesulide or diclofenac. Results: three studies were included in the meta-analysis. The incidence of GIAEs is higher in patients treated with diclofenac than in those treated with nimusulide. Nimesulide is cost-saving in all three countries: treatment costs are reduced by Euro 1.5 per case in France, Euro 2 in Italy and Euro 3.6 in Spain. Final results are not sensitive to variation of incidence rates of gastric and intestinal events and to changes in the resources consumption: nimesulide always remain cost-saving. Conclusions: this is the first economic analysis carried out in three different countries on original epidemiological data comparing nimesulide vs diclofenac directly. Projecting our results to the estimated OA prevalence in the entire population of the three countries, the expected savings to the NHS would vary from Euro 17,500,000 in France to a maximum of Euro 30,000,000 in Spain. It can b stated that these findings can provide support to clinicians and policy-makers for the adoption of this cost-saving treatment strategy in patients with OA.
Economic evaluation of nimesulide versus diclofenac in the treatment of osteoarthritis in France, Italy and Spain
TARRICONE, ROSANNA;
2001
Abstract
Objectives: to assess and compare the incremental costs of the 15-day treatment of osteoarthritis (OA) with nimuselide vs. diclofenac in France, Italy and Spain. Design: a cost-minimisation analysis was performed through a decision tree, assuming the perspective of the NHS. A meta-analysis was performed to assess the incidence of gastrointestinal adverse events (GIAEs) in patients with OA treated with nimesulide or diclofenac. Results: three studies were included in the meta-analysis. The incidence of GIAEs is higher in patients treated with diclofenac than in those treated with nimusulide. Nimesulide is cost-saving in all three countries: treatment costs are reduced by Euro 1.5 per case in France, Euro 2 in Italy and Euro 3.6 in Spain. Final results are not sensitive to variation of incidence rates of gastric and intestinal events and to changes in the resources consumption: nimesulide always remain cost-saving. Conclusions: this is the first economic analysis carried out in three different countries on original epidemiological data comparing nimesulide vs diclofenac directly. Projecting our results to the estimated OA prevalence in the entire population of the three countries, the expected savings to the NHS would vary from Euro 17,500,000 in France to a maximum of Euro 30,000,000 in Spain. It can b stated that these findings can provide support to clinicians and policy-makers for the adoption of this cost-saving treatment strategy in patients with OA.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.