Article Text

This article has a correction. Please see:

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
  1. Philippe Laramée1,2,
  2. Thor-Henrik Brodtkorb3,
  3. Nora Rahhali2,
  4. Chris Knight4,
  5. Carolina Barbosa5,
  6. Clément François2,
  7. Mondher Toumi1,
  8. Jean-Bernard Daeppen6,
  9. Jürgen Rehm7,8,9
  1. 1Université Claude Bernard Lyon I, Villeurbanne, France
  2. 2Lundbeck S.A.S., Issy-les-Moulineaux Cedex, France
  3. 3RTI Health Solutions, Ljungskile, Sweden
  4. 4BresMed Health Solutions, Sheffield, South Yorkshire, UK
  5. 5Behavioral Health Economics Program, RTI International, Chicago,Illinois, USA
  6. 6Alcohol Treatment Centre, Lausanne University Hospital/CHUV, Lausanne, Switzerland
  7. 7Social and Epidemiological Research Department, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, Canada
  8. 8Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Canada
  9. 9Klinische Psychologie und Psychotherapie, TU Dresden, Germany
  1. Correspondence to Dr Philippe Laramée; LAPH{at}lundbeck.com

Abstract

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 £5204 per QALY gained, and was therefore cost-effective at the £20 000 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).

  • Nalmefene
  • Alcohol dependence
  • Cost-effectiveness
  • Cost-utility
  • QALY
  • Economic analysis

This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Supplementary materials

  • Supplementary Data

    This web only file has been produced by the BMJ Publishing Group from an electronic file supplied by the author(s) and has not been edited for content.

    Files in this Data Supplement:

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Linked Articles

  • Correction
    British Medical Journal Publishing Group