The cost-effectiveness and public health benefit of nalmefene added to psychosocial support for the reduction of alcohol consumption in alcohol-dependent patients with high/very high drinking risk levels: a Markov model

The cost-effectiveness and public health benefit of nalmefene added to psychosocial support for the reduction of alcohol consumption in alcohol-dependent patients with high/very high drinking risk levels: a Markov model

2014 BMJ Open

Laramee, P. | Brodtkorb, T.H. | Rahhali, N. | Knight, C. | Barbosa, C. | Francois, C. | Toumi, M. | Daeppen, J.B. | Rehm, J. | Volume: 4, Issue: 9, Pages: e005376, Adult, analysis, Clinical Trials, cost-effectiveness analysis, Disease, economics, England, France, Germany, Markov Chains, mental health, model, Risk, Sweden,

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether nalmefene combined with psychosocial support is cost-effective compared with psychosocial support alone for reducing alcohol consumption in alcohol-dependent patients with high/very high drinking risk levels (DRLs) as defined by the WHO, and to evaluate the public health benefit of reducing harmful alcohol-attributable diseases, injuries and deaths. DESIGN: Decision modelling using Markov chains compared costs and effects over 5 years. SETTING: The analysis was from the perspective of the National Health Service (NHS) in England and Wales. PARTICIPANTS: The model considered the licensed population for nalmefene, specifically adults with both alcohol dependence and high/very high DRLs, who do not require immediate detoxification and who continue to have high/very high DRLs after initial assessment. DATA SOURCES: We modelled treatment effect using data from three clinical trials for nalmefene (ESENSE 1 (NCT00811720), ESENSE 2 (NCT00812461) and SENSE (NCT00811941)). Baseline characteristics of the model population, treatment resource utilisation and utilities were from these trials. We estimated the number of alcohol-attributable events occurring at different levels of alcohol consumption based on published epidemiological risk-relation studies. Health-related costs were from UK sources. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We measured incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained and number of alcohol-attributable harmful events avoided. RESULTS: Nalmefene in combination with psychosocial support had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of pound5204 per QALY gained, and was therefore cost-effective at the pound20 000 per QALY gained decision threshold. Sensitivity analyses showed that the conclusion was robust. Nalmefene plus psychosocial support led to the avoidance of 7179 alcohol-attributable diseases/injuries and 309 deaths per 100 000 patients compared to psychosocial support alone over the course of 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: Nalmefene can be seen as a cost-effective treatment for alcohol dependence, with substantial public health benefits. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: This cost-effectiveness analysis was developed based on data from three randomised clinical trials: ESENSE 1 (NCT00811720), ESENSE 2 (NCT00812461) and SENSE (NCT00811941)

https://www.doi.org/bmjopen-2014-005376 [pii];10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005376