The anticonvulsants pregabalin and gabapentin are both indicated for the treatment of peripheral neuropathic pain. The decision on which treatment provides the best alternative, should take into account all aspects of costs and outcomes associated with the two therapeutic options. The objective of this study was to examine the cost – effectiveness of the two agents in the management of patients with painful diabetic neuropathy or post – herpetic neuralgia, under the third party payer perspective in Greece. The analysis was based on a dynamic simulation model which estimated and compared the costs and outcomes of pregabalin and gabapentin in a hypothetical cohort of 1,000 patients suffering from painful Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy (DPN) or Post-Herpetic Neuralgia (PHN). In the model, each patient was randomly allocated an average pretreatment pain score, measured using an eleven-point visual analogue scale (0 – 10) and was “run through” the model, simulating their daily pain intensity and allowing for stochastic calculation of outcomes, taking into account medical interventions and the effectiveness of each treatment. Pregabalin demonstrated a reduction in days with moderate to severe pain when compared to gabapentin. During the 12 weeks the pregabalin arm demonstrated a 0.1178 (SE 0.0002) QALY gain, which proved to be 0.0063 (SE 0.0003) higher than that in the gabapentin arm. The mean medication cost per patient was higher for the pregabalin arm when compared to the gabapentin arm (i.e. €134.40) over the 12 week treatment period. However, this higher cost was partially offset by the reduced direct medical costs (i.e. the cost of specialist visits, the cost of diagnostic tests and the other applied interventions). Comparing costs with respective outcomes, the ICERs for pregabalin versus gabapentin were €13 (95%CI: 8 – 18) per additional day with no or mild pain and €19,320 (95%CI: 11,743 – 26,755) per QALY gained. Neuropathic pain carries a great disease burden for patients and society and, is also, associated with a significant economic burden. The treatment of pain associated with DPN and PHN with pregabalin is a cost-effective intervention for the social security in Greece compared to gabapentin. Thus, these findings need to be taken into consideration in the decision – making process when considering which therapy to use for the treatment of neuropathic pain.

Myasthenia Gravis (MG) patients often report an affected quality of life (QoL). The aim of the current study was to evaluate the QoL of patients with MG in Greece using a specific tool. A cross-sectional online survey was performed. Adult patients were invited to participate. A questionnaire incorporating the MG-QOL15r scale was distributed, following its translation and cultural adaptation into Greek. Overall, 99 valid responses were submitted. The median age (interquartile range) of the participants was 48.50 (13.50) years and 76.80% were females. One third of the patients mentioned that they could not work/changed jobs after their diagnosis (28.30%) and that they face severe restriction of their everyday activities (26.30%). The mean MG-QOL15r score was 13.50 ± 7.70. Patients with important restriction of everyday activities (p < 0.01), patients with more pronounced need of emotional support (p < 0.01), patients with generalized MG (p < 0.01) and patients with myasthenic crises (p < 0.01) reported lower QoL. This study is the first to report on the affected QoL of the Greek population with MG using the MG-QoL15r scale. Further work should be done to incorporate the routine evaluation of QoL in the care of patients with MG.

Hypertension (HT), albeit a modifiable risk factor of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, remains one of the main contributors to the total disease burden internationally and, thus, inevitably one of the basic cost drivers in healthcare systems. Taking the above into account, this brief narrative review aims at presenting the main findings of the international health economics literature on HT with regards to four key areas: a) the costs attributable to HT, b) the effects of HT on patient well-being, c) the costeffectiveness of pharmaceutical interventions against high blood pressure, and, d) the costs and benefits of preventive measures against HT. Bearing in mind the available evidence on disease costs and the efficiency of interventions, HT must constitute a primary objective of modern health policy, internationally.