OBJECTIVE: To evaluate, from a social security system perspective, the economic consequences of treating rheumatic diseases with nimesulide or diclofenac. DESIGN: Cost-minimisation analysis was used to estimate the incremental direct medical cost and the cost of gastrointestinal adverse events for 15 days' treatment with nimesulide compared with diclofenac. Cumulative incidence of adverse events was calculated through meta-analysis of the results of double-blind randomised clinical trials. The therapeutic pathway for ambulatory care resource use was determined by a panel of experts, and direct hospital costs were estimated from a sample of 43 patients. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES AND RESULTS: The 15-day treatment cost with nimesulide was 35.9% lower compared with diclofenac due to the lower incidence of adverse events. Our analysis showed that nimesulide generated a cost saving of $US20.98 per patient depending on the dosage of diclofenac used.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate, from a social security system perspective, the economic consequences of treating rheumatic diseases with nimesulide or diclofenac. DESIGN: Cost-minimisation analysis was used to estimate the incremental direct medical cost and the cost of gastrointestinal adverse events for 15 days' treatment with nimesulide compared with diclofenac. Cumulative incidence of adverse events was calculated through meta-analysis of the results of double-blind randomised clinical trials. The therapeutic pathway for ambulatory care resource use was determined by a panel of experts, and direct hospital costs were estimated from a sample of 43 patients. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES AND RESULTS: The 15-day treatment cost with nimesulide was 35.9% lower compared with diclofenac due to the lower incidence of adverse events. Our analysis showed that nimesulide generated a cost saving of $US20.98 per patient depending on the dosage of diclofenac used.