C Walsh1, J Murphy2, E M M Quigley3,4. 1. University College Cork, Cork, Ireland. hecireland@gmail.com. 2. University College Cork, Cork, Ireland. 3. Alimentary Pharmabiotic Centre, University College Cork and Cork University Hospital, Cork, Ireland. 4. Houston Methodist Hospital, 6550 Fannin St, SM 1001, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to measure any incremental costs or savings within the health system associated with the introduction of the new technology, prucalopride, for the management of chronic constipation. METHODOLOGY: The study design was based on a budget impact analysis conducted by the National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE). To validate the findings of the NICE costing template, a case series audit capturing real world data was used to determine the financial impact of adopting prucalopride in 40 women suffering with chronic constipation. This facilitated the application of local unit costs to the resources used and determined whether the use of prucalopride, as an alternative treatment to laxatives, resulted in a reduction in the use of secondary care resources. RESULTS: Patients were treated with an average of 2.6 laxatives in the baseline (laxatives only) scenario. The total medication costs in the baseline (laxatives only) and the new treatment (prucalopride) scenario amounted to €17,440.84 and €18,417.62, respectively. There was a significant reduction in the number of investigations and procedures in the 12 months after commencing prucalopride, with cost savings of €41,923.28 (€1,048.08 per patient per year) demonstrated. Input cost variables were adjusted as part of sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSION: This study validated the findings of the NICE costing template and suggests that the use of prucalopride for the treatment of chronic constipation in women refractory to laxatives has the potential to reduce secondary care resource use and hence led to cost savings.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to measure any incremental costs or savings within the health system associated with the introduction of the new technology, prucalopride, for the management of chronic constipation. METHODOLOGY: The study design was based on a budget impact analysis conducted by the National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE). To validate the findings of the NICE costing template, a case series audit capturing real world data was used to determine the financial impact of adopting prucalopride in 40 women suffering with chronic constipation. This facilitated the application of local unit costs to the resources used and determined whether the use of prucalopride, as an alternative treatment to laxatives, resulted in a reduction in the use of secondary care resources. RESULTS:Patients were treated with an average of 2.6 laxatives in the baseline (laxatives only) scenario. The total medication costs in the baseline (laxatives only) and the new treatment (prucalopride) scenario amounted to €17,440.84 and €18,417.62, respectively. There was a significant reduction in the number of investigations and procedures in the 12 months after commencing prucalopride, with cost savings of €41,923.28 (€1,048.08 per patient per year) demonstrated. Input cost variables were adjusted as part of sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSION: This study validated the findings of the NICE costing template and suggests that the use of prucalopride for the treatment of chronic constipation in women refractory to laxatives has the potential to reduce secondary care resource use and hence led to cost savings.
Authors: W F Stewart; J N Liberman; R S Sandler; M S Woods; A Stemhagen; E Chee; R B Lipton; C E Farup Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 1999-12 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: K A Nyrop; O S Palsson; R L Levy; M Von Korff; A D Feld; M J Turner; W E Whitehead Journal: Aliment Pharmacol Ther Date: 2007-07-15 Impact factor: 8.171
Authors: Jan Tack; Eamonn Quigley; Michael Camilleri; Lieve Vandeplassche; René Kerstens Journal: United European Gastroenterol J Date: 2013-02 Impact factor: 4.623