Cost-effectiveness of daclatasvir plus sofosbuvir-based regimen for treatment of hepatitis C virus genotype 3 infection in Canada

Objective:

New regimens for the treatment of chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 3 have demonstrated substantial improvement in sustained virologic response (SVR) compared with existing therapies, but are considerably more expensive. The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of two novel all-oral, interferon-free regimens for the treatment of patients with HCV genotype 3: daclatasvir plus sofosbuvir (DCV?+?SOF) and sofosbuvir plus ribavirin (SOF?+?RBV), from a Canadian health-system perspective.

Methods:

A decision analytic Markov model was developed to compare the effect of various treatment strategies on the natural history of the disease and their associated costs in treatment-naïve and treatment-experienced patients. Patients were initially distributed across fibrosis stages F0–F4, and may incur disease progression through fibrosis stages and on to end-stage liver disease complications and death; or may achieve SVR. Clinical efficacy, health-related quality-of-life, costs, and transition probabilities were based on published literature. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed to assess parameter uncertainty associated with the analysis.

Results:

In treatment-naive patients, the expected quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for interferon-free regimens were higher for DCV?+?SOF (12.37) and SOF?+?RBV (12.48) compared to that of pINF?+?RBV (11.71) over a lifetime horizon, applying their clinical trial treatment durations. The expected costs were higher for DCV?+?SOF ($170,371) and SOF?+?RBV ($194,776) vs pINF?+?RBV regimen ($90,905). Compared to pINF?+?RBV, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were $120,671 and $135,398 per QALYs for DCV?+?SOF and SOF?+?RBV, respectively. In treatment-experienced patients, DCV?+?SOF regimen dominated the SOF?+?RBV regimen. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated a 100% probability that a DCV?+?SOF regimen was cost saving in treatment-experienced patients.

Conclusion:

Daclatasvir plus sofosbuvir is a safe and effective option for the treatment of chronic HCV genotype 3 patients. This regimen could be considered a cost-effective option following a first-line treatment of peg-interferon/ribavirin treatment experienced patients with HCV genotype-3 infection.     

Cost-effectiveness of combination daclatasvir-sofosbuvir for treatment of genotype 3 chronic hepatitis C infection in the United States

Background: A phase III trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of Daklinza (daclatasvir or DCV) in combination with sofosbuvir (SOF) for treatment of genotype (GT) 3 hepatitis C virus (HCV) patients.

Aim: This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of DCV?+?SOF vs SOF in combination with ribavirin (RBV) over a 20-year time horizon from the perspective of a United States (US) payer.

Methods: A published Markov model was adapted to reflect US demographic characteristics, treatment patterns, costs of drug acquisition, monitoring, disease and adverse event management, and mortality risks. Clinical inputs came from the ALLY-3 and VALENCE trials. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-utility ratio. Life-years, incidence of complications, number of patients achieving sustained virological response (SVR), and the total cost per SVR were secondary outcomes. Costs (2014 USD) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were discounted at 3% per year. Deterministic, probabilistic, and scenario sensitivity analyses were conducted.

Results: DCV?+?SOF was associated with lower costs and better effectiveness than SOF?+?RBV in the base case and in almost all scenarios (i.e. treatment-experienced, non-cirrhotic, time horizons of 5, 10, and 80 years). DCV?+?SOF was less costly, but also slightly less effective than SOF?+?RBV in the cirrhotic and treatment-naïve population scenarios. Results were sensitive to variations in the probability of achieving SVR for both treatment arms. DCV?+?SOF costs less than $50,000 per QALY gained in 79% of all probabilistic iterations compared with SOF?+?RBV.

Conclusion: DCV?+?SOF is a dominant option compared with SOF?+?RBV in the US for the overall GT 3 HCV patient population.     

Cost-effectiveness of direct-acting antiviral regimen ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir in treatment-naïve and treatment-experienced patients infected with chronic hepatitis C virus genotype 1b in Japan

Objective: This study compared the cost-effectiveness of chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 1b (GT1b) therapy ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir (OBV/PTV/r) vs daclatasvir?+?asunaprevir (DCV/ASV) and no treatment in patients without cirrhosis. Cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) that compared OBV/PTV/r against DCV/ASV and sofosbuvir/ledipasvir (SOF/LDV) in Y93H mutation-negative, GT1b patients with and without cirrhosis were also included.

Methods: A health state transition model was developed to capture the natural history of HCV. A CEA over a lifetime horizon was performed from the perspective of the public healthcare payer in Japan. Costs, health utilities, and rates of disease progression were derived from published studies. Sustained virologic response (SVR) rates of OBV/PTV/r and DCV/ASV were extracted from Japanese clinical trials. Analyses were performed for treatment-naïve and -experienced patients. Alternative scenarios and input parameter uncertainty on the results were tested.

Results: OBV/PTV/r exhibited superior clinical outcomes vs comparators. For OBV/PTV/r, DCV/ASV, and no treatment, the lifetime risk of decompensated cirrhosis in treatment-naïve patients without cirrhosis was 0.4%, 1.4%, and 9.2%, and hepatocellular carcinoma was 6.5%, 11.4%, and 49.9%, respectively. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were higher in treatment-naïve and -experienced patients without cirrhosis treated with OBV/PTV/r (16.41 and 16.22) vs DCV/ASV (15.83 and 15.66) or no treatment (11.34 and 11.23). In treatment-naïve and -experienced patients without cirrhosis, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of OBV/PTV/r vs DCV/ASV were JPY 1,684,751/QALY and JPY 1,836,596/QALY, respectively; OBV/PTV/r was dominant compared with no treatment. In scenario analysis, including GT1b patients with and without cirrhosis who were Y93H mutation-negative, the ICER of OBV/PTV/r vs DCV/ASV was below the Japanese willingness-to-pay threshold of JPY 5 million/QALY, while the ICER of SOF/LDV vs OBV/PTV/r was above this threshold; thus, OBV/PTV/r was cost-effective.

Conclusion: OBV/PTV/r appears to be a cost-effective treatment for chronic HCV GT1b infection against DCV/ASV. OBV/PTV/r dominates no treatment in patients without cirrhosis.     

Cost-effectiveness of currently recommended direct-acting antiviral treatments in patients infected with genotypes 1 or 4 hepatitis C virus in the US

Objective: This study compared the cost-effectiveness of direct-acting antiviral therapies currently recommended for treating genotypes (GT) 1 and 4 chronic hepatitis C (CHC) patients in the US.

Methods: A cost-effectiveness analysis of treatments for CHC from a US payer’s perspective over a lifelong time horizon was performed. A Markov model based on the natural history of CHC was used for a population that included treatment-naïve and -experienced patients. Treatment alternatives considered for GT1 included ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir?+?dasabuvir?±?ribavirin (3D?±?R), sofosbuvir?+?ledipasvir (SOF/LDV), sofosbuvir?+?simeprevir (SOF?+?SMV), simeprevir?+?pegylated interferon/ribavirin (SMV?+?PR) and no treatment (NT). For GT4 treatments, ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir?+?ribavirin (2D?+?R), SOF/LDV and NT were compared. Transition probabilities, utilities and costs were obtained from published literature. Outcomes included rates of compensated cirrhosis (CC), decompensated cirrhosis (DCC), hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and liver-related death (LrD), total costs, life-years and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Costs and QALYs were used to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios.

Results: In GT1 patients, 3D?±?R and SOF-containing regimens have similar long-term outcomes; 3D?±?R had the lowest lifetime risks of all liver disease outcomes: CC =?30.2%, DCC = 5.0?%, HCC = 6.8%, LT =?1.9% and LrD =?9.2%. In GT1 patients, 3D?±?R had the lowest cost and the highest QALYs. As a result, 3D?±?R dominated these treatment options. In GT4 patients, 2D?+?R had lower rates of liver morbidity and mortality, lower cost and more QALYs than SOF/LDV and NT.

Limitations: While the results are based on input values, which were obtained from a variety of heterogeneous sources—including clinical trials, the findings were robust across a plausible range of input values, as demonstrated in probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

Conclusions: Among currently recommended treatments for GT1 and GT4 in the US, 3D?±?R (for GT1) and 2D?+?R (for GT4) have a favorable cost-effectiveness profile.     

Cost-minimization comparison of darunavir plus ritonavir and lopinavir/ritonavir in HIV-1 infected treatment-naïve women of childbearing age

Background:

Guidelines from the Department of Health and Human Services in the US recommend ritonavir-boosted lopinavir (LPV/r) as a preferred protease inhibitor (PI) for HIV-positive antiretroviral-na?ve pregnant women. These guidelines also cite ritonavir-boosted darunavir (DRV?+?RTV) as an alternative PI in this clinical scenario. The purpose of this analysis was to compare economic outcomes for regimens based on these two treatments.

Study design:

An existing discrete event simulation (DES) model was adapted to conduct a cost-minimization analysis comparing the two regimens in HIV-infected women of childbearing age (WOCBA), from the perspective of a healthcare payer in the US.

Methods:

The DES model was used to represent disease states, health events, healthcare encounters, pregnancy, and treatment choices in HIV-infected WOCBA starting treatment with regimens based on either LPV/r or DRV?+?RTV. It also incorporated parameters for individual patient characteristics, and for antiretroviral (ARV) treatment effectiveness, treatment sequencing, clinical progression, and resource use. Potential events included scheduled physician visits; viral suppression; viral rebound; AIDS-related complications; CHD events; treatment discontinuation and switching; ARV treatment side-effects (SE); and death. The primary outcomes were discounted 5-year and 10-year healthcare costs. Alternative scenarios considered different rates of switching from DRV?+?RTV to LPV/r upon conception.

Results:

Compared with DRV?+?RTV, LPV/r was associated with similar clinical outcomes while offering savings at the 5- and 10-year horizons (of $24,904 and $43,502 per patient, respectively), and in extensive sensitivity analyses. The main driver of the savings was the difference in cost between PIs.

Conclusions:

Starting HIV-infected ARV-treatment-na?ve WOCBA on an LPV/r-based regimen is cost-saving and provides similar patient outcomes compared to a DRV?+?RTV-based regimen.     

Public health impact of comprehensive hepatitis C screening and treatment in the French baby-boomer population

Objective: To estimate the public health impact of comprehensive hepatitis C virus (HCV) screening and access to all-oral, interferon (IFN)-free direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) in the French baby-boomer population (1945–1965 birth cohorts).

Methods: A sequential, multi-cohort, health-state transition model was developed to assess the impact of different hepatitis C screening and treatment strategies on clinical and economic outcomes in the 1945–1965 birth cohorts. Patients newly-diagnosed with chronic HCV were projected each year from 2016 to 2036 under three screening scenarios (70% [low], 75% [intermediate], and 80% [high] HCV awareness in 2036). Healthcare costs and clinical outcomes (number of liver-related deaths, quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs], life-years [LYs] spent in sustained virologic response [SVR] or with decompensated cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma, or liver transplant) were compared among five treatment strategies (no antiviral therapy; IFN?+?ribavirin?+?protease inhibitor for fibrosis stages F2–F4, IFN-based DAAs for stages F2–F4, IFN-free DAAs for stages F2–F4, and IFN-free DAAs for stages F0–F4).

Results: Diagnosis of HCV genotype 1 was projected for 4,953, 6,600, and 8,368 individuals in the low, intermediate, and high screening scenarios, respectively. In the intermediate scenario, IFN-free DAAs for stages F0–F4 had a favorable cost-effectiveness profile vs IFN-based or IFN-free treatment strategies for F2–F4 and offered the greatest return on investment (0.899 LYs gained in SVR and 0.933 QALYs per €10,000 invested).

Conclusion: Comprehensive HCV screening and access to all-oral, IFN-free DAAs is a cost-effective strategy that could help diminish the upcoming burden of HCV in the French baby-boomer population.     

Cost-effectiveness of telaprevir in combination with pegylated interferon alpha and ribavirin in previously untreated chronic hepatitis C genotype 1 patients

Background:

Telaprevir (T, TVR) is a direct-acting antiviral (DAA) used for the treatment of genotype 1 chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. The sustained virological response (SVR) rates, i.e., undetectable HCV RNA levels 24 weeks after the end of treatment, is what differentiate treatments. This analysis evaluated the cost-effectiveness of TVR combined with pegylated interferon (Peg-IFN) alfa-2a plus ribavirin (RBV), with Peg-IFN and RBV (PR) alone or with boceprevir (B, BOC) plus Peg-IFN alfa-2b and RBV, in naïve patients.

Methods:

A Markov cohort model of chronic HCV disease progression reflected the pathway of naïve patients initiating anti-HCV therapy. SVR rates were derived from a mixed-treatment comparison including results from Phase II and III trials of TVR and BOC, and trials comparing both PR regimens. SVR has significant impact on survival, quality-of-life, and costs. Incremental cost per life year (LY) gained and quality-adjusted-life-year (QALY) gained were computed at lifetime, adopting the (National Health Service) NHS perspective. Cost and health outcomes were discounted at 3.5%. Uncertainty was assessed using deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Sub-group analyses were also performed by interleukin (IL)-28B genotype and fibrosis stage.

Results:

Higher costs and improved outcomes were associated with T/PR relative to PR alone, resulting in an ICER of £12,733 per QALY gained. T/PR retained a significant SVR advantage over PR alone and was cost-effective regardless of IL-28B genotype and fibrosis stages. T/PR regimen ‘dominated’ B/PR, generating 0.2 additional QALYs and reducing lifetime cost by £2758. Sensitivity analyses consistently resulted in ICERs less than £30,000/QALY for the T/PR regimen over PR alone.

Limitations:

No head-to-head trial provides direct evidence of better efficacy of T/PR vs B/PR.

Conclusion:

The introduction of TVR-based therapy for genotype 1 HCV patients is cost-effective for naïve patients at the £30,000 willingness-to-pay threshold, regardless of IL-28B genotype or fibrosis stage.     

Cost-effectiveness model of abiraterone plus prednisone,cabazitaxel plus prednisone and enzalutamide for visceral metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer therapy after docetaxel therapy resistance

Abstract

Aims: Among patients diagnosed with prostate cancer, 10–20% will develop castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) within 5?years; for 70%, CRPC will metastasize, mostly to the lungs and/or liver. We performed a cost-effectiveness model comparing abiraterone plus prednisone (ABI?+?PRD), cabazitaxel plus prednisone (CAB?+?PRD) and enzalutamide (ENZ) for visceral metastatic CRPC post-docetaxel therapy resistance.

Methods: A three-state (Progression-Free, Progression, Death) lifetime Markov model was constructed to compare ABI?+?PRD, CAB?+?PRD, and ENZ from a United States healthcare payer perspective (2019?US$; discount rate 3%/yr.). Effectiveness was measured in life-years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Inputs included treatment costs, grade III/IV adverse events with incidence ≥5%, physician follow-up, lab and imaging tests. Phase III trial Kaplan-Meier curves were extrapolated to estimate overall survival and Progression-Free transition probabilities. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and utility ratios (ICURs), probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSAs) and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves at willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds were estimated.

Results: Models estimated 3-year overall survival rates of 1.3% for patients treated with ABI?+?PRD, 16.2% for CAB?+?PRD, and 13.2% for ENZ. Estimated Progression-Free rates at 1.5?years were 0.51% for ABI?+?PRD, 0.27% for CAB?+?PRD, and 14.47% for ENZ. LYs and QALYs were 1.20 and 0.58 respectively for ABI?+?PRD, 1.48 and 0.56 for CAB?+?PRD, and 1.58 and 0.79 for ENZ. Total treatment costs were: $115,433 for ABI?+?PRD, $85,337 for CAB?+?PRD and $109,213 for ENZ. CAB?+?PRD and ENZ dominated ABI?+?PRD due to higher LYs gained. Incremental QALYs for ENZ vs. CAB?+?PRD were larger than incremental LYs. The ICUR for ENZ was $103,674/QALY compared to CAB?+?PRD.

Conclusions: This analysis found ENZ provided greater LYs and QALYs than both ABI?+?PRD and CAB?+?PRD, at a lower cost than ABI?+?PRD, but at a higher cost compared to CAB?+?PRD. For patients with visceral mCRPC after docetaxel therapy resistance, ENZ was cost-effective 92% of the time with a WTP threshold of $100,000/QALY.     

Cost-effectiveness of telaprevir in combination with pegylated interferon alpha and ribavirin in treatment-experienced chronic hepatitis C genotype 1 patients

Background:

Telaprevir (TVR,T) and boceprevir (BOC,B) are direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) used for the treatment of chronic genotype 1 hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. This analysis evaluated the cost-effectiveness of TVR combined with pegylated interferon (Peg-IFN) alfa-2a plus ribavirin (RBV) compared with Peg-IFN alfa-2a and RBV (PR) alone or BOC plus Peg-IFN alfa-2b and RBV in treatment-experienced patients.

Methods:

A Markov cohort model of chronic genotype 1 HCV disease progression reflected the pathway of experienced patients retreated with DAA therapy. The population was stratified by previous response to treatment (i.e., previous relapsers, partial responders, and null responders). Sustained virologic response (SVR) rates were derived from a mixed-treatment comparison that included results from separate Phase III trials of TVR and BOC. Incremental cost per life year (LY) gained and quality-adjusted-life-year (QALY) gained were computed at lifetime, adopting the NHS perspective. Costs and health outcomes were discounted at 3.5%. Uncertainty was assessed using deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Sub-group analyses were carried out by interleukin (IL)-28B genotype.

Results:

Higher costs and improved outcomes were associated with T/PR relative to PR alone for all experienced patients (ICER of £6079). T/PR was cost-effective for each sub-group population with high SVR advantage in relapsers (ICER of £2658 vs £7593 and £20,875 for partial and null responders). T/PR remained cost-effective regardless of IL-28B sub-type. Compared to B/PR, T/PR prolonged QALYs by 0.57 and reduced lifetime costs by £13,960 for relapsers. For partial responders T/PR was less costly but less efficacious than B/PR, equating to an ICER of £128,117 per QALY gained.

Limitations:

No head-to-head trial provides direct evidence of better efficacy of T/PR vs B/PR.

Conclusion:

T/PR is cost-effective compared with PR alone in experienced patients regardless of treatment history and IL-28B genotype. Compared to B/PR, T/PR is always cost-saving but only more effective in relapsers.     

Cost-effectiveness of sofosbuvir plus ribavirin with or without pegylated interferon for the treatment of chronic hepatitis C in Italy

Abstract

Objective:

Across Italy up to 7.3% of the population is infected with hepatitis C virus (HCV), with long-term complications resulting in high medical costs and significant morbidity and mortality. Current treatment options have limitations due to side effects, interferon intolerability and ineligibility, long treatment durations and low sustained virological response (SVR) rates, especially for the most severe patients). Sofosbuvir is the first nucleotide polymerase inhibitor with pan-genotypic activity. Sofosbuvir, administered with ribavirin (RBV) and with or without pegylated interferon (PEG-INF), resulted in >90% SVR across treatment-naïve (TN) genotype (GT) 1–6 patients. It is also the first treatment option for patients that are unsuitable for interferon (UI). This analysis evaluates the cost – effectiveness of sofosbuvir for GTs 1–6 in Italy.     

Patterns of care and burden of chronic idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura in Brazil

Aims: Although several therapeutic options are available for chronic immune thrombocytopenic purpura (cITP), little is known about the treatment of cITP in Brazil.

Materials and methods: A multi-center, retrospective chart review, observational study was designed to describe the treatment patterns, clinical burden, resources use, and associated costs for adult patients diagnosed with cITP and treated in public and private institutions in Brazil. Patient charts were screened in reverse chronological order based on their last visit post January 1, 2012. (All costs were calculated using 1.00 USD?=?3.9571 BRL, from February 2016.)

Results: Of 340 patient charts screened, 50 patients were eligible for inclusion in the study. Single-drug therapy (prednisone, dexamethasone, or dapsone) was the most commonly used treatment, followed by combination therapies (azathioprine?+?prednisone, azathioprine?+?prednisone?+?danazol, and prednisone?+?dapsone). Splenectomy was performed in 22% of patients after at least first-line treatment. Platelet count and number of bleeding episodes at diagnosis were 31,561.1/mm³ (SD?=?±26,396.1) and 40 episodes, respectively; in first-line, 92,631.1/mm³ (SD?=?±79,955.3) and 19 episodes, respectively; in second-line, 96,950.0/mm³ (SD?=?±76,476.4) and 17 episodes, respectively. Private system patients had a higher median cost compared to public system patients (USD 17.49/month, range?=?0–2,020.77 vs USD 9.51/month, range?=?0–192.64, respectively).

Limitations: This study does not allow conclusions for causal explanations due to the cohort study design, and treatment patterns represent only the practices of physicians who have agreed to participate in the study.

Conclusions: The data indicate that available therapeutic strategies for second- and third-line therapies appear to be limited.     

Quality-adjusted survival with combination nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine vs gemcitabine alone in metastatic pancreatic cancer: a Q-TWiST analysis

Objectives:

To use the Quality-Adjusted Time Without Symptoms or Toxicities (Q-TWiST) methodology to compare the quality-of-life and survival benefits associated with the combination of albumin-bound (nab)-paclitaxel and gemcitabine vs gemcitabine alone in the first-line treatment of metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

Methods:

Total survival time through 45 months was partitioned into time before disease progression without toxicity grade ≥3 (TWiST), time with adverse event grade ≥3 (TOX), and time of disease progression (REL). Mean Q-TWiST was calculated by multiplying time spent in each health state by its respective utility (i.e., TWiST?=?1.00; TOX/REL?=?0.50, 0–1 in sensitivity analyses). Non-parametric bootstrap 95% confidence intervals (CI) were derived to assess the significance of between-treatment differences in TOX, TWiST, REL, and Q-TWiST. A relative gain in Q-TWiST (vs mean overall survival of gemcitabine) of ≥10% and ≥15% was defined as clinically important and clearly clinically important, respectively.

Results:

Patients on nab-paclitaxel?+?gemcitabine spent a significantly longer time in every state and experienced significantly greater overall Q-TWiST (+1.7 months [95% CI?=?0.8, 2.7]) than those receiving gemcitabine alone (8.2 months [95% CI?=?7.5, 8.9] vs 6.5 months [95% CI?=?5.8, 7.0]), assuming base-case utilities of TOX/REL?=?0.50. This Q-TWiST gain ranged from 1.0 month (95% CI?=?0.1, 1.9), when REL/TOX utilities were both 0, to 2.5 months (95% CI?=?1.3, 3.7), when REL/TOX utilities were both 1. Relative gains in Q-TWiST were 21% in favor of nab-paclitaxel?+?gemcitabine in the base case, and ranged from 12–30% in sensitivity analyses.

Conclusions:

There are limitations to Q-TWiST analyses, e.g., imprecision when defining duration/severity of TOX and lack of prospective collection of utilities. This analysis addressed these issues via sensitivity analyses and conservative assumptions to show that nab-paclitaxel?+?gemcitabine results in statistically significant and clinically important gains in quality-adjusted survival, when compared to gemcitabine alone, in treatment-naive metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma patients.     

Cost effectiveness of atazanavir-ritonavir versus lopinavir-ritonavir in treatment-naïve human immunodeficiency virus-infected patients in the United States

Abstract

Objective:

To evaluate lifetime cost effectiveness of atazanavir-ritonavir (ATV?+?r) versus lopinavir-ritonavir (LPV/r), both with tenofovir-emtricitabine, in US HIV-infected patients initiating first-line antiretroviral therapy.

Methods:

A Markov microsimulation model was developed to calculate quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) based on CD4 and HIV RNA levels, coronary heart disease (CHD), AIDS, opportunistic infections (OIs), diarrhea, and hyperbilirubinemia. A million-member cohort of HIV-1-infected, treatment-naïve adults progressed at 3-month intervals through eight health states. Baseline characteristics, virologic suppression, cholesterol changes, and diarrhea and hyperbilirubinemia rates were based on 96-week CASTLE trial results. HIV mortality, OI rates, adherence, costs, utilities, and CHD risk were from literature and experts.

Limitations:

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) may be overestimated because the ATV?+?r treatment effect was based on an intention-to-treat analysis. The QALY weights used for diarrhea, hyperbilirubinemia, and CHD events are uncertain; however, the ICER remained <$50,000/QALY when these values were varied in sensitivity analyses.

Results:

ATV?+?r patients received first-line therapy longer than LPV/r patients (97.3 vs. 70.7 months), had longer quality-adjusted survival (11.02 vs. 10.76 years), similar overall survival (18.52 vs. 18.51 years), and higher costs ($275,986 vs. 269,160). ATR?+?r patients had lower rates of AIDS (19.08 vs. 20.05 cases/1,000 patient-years), OIs (0.44 vs. 0.52), diarrhea (1.27 vs. 6.26), and CHD events (5.44 vs. 5.51), but higher hyperbilirubinemia rates (6.99 vs. 0.25). ATV?+?r added 0.26 QALYs at a cost of $6826, for $26,421/QALY.

Conclusions:

By more effectively reducing viral load with less gastrointestinal toxicity and a better lipid profile, ATV?+?r lowered rates of AIDS and CHD, increased quality-adjusted survival, and was cost effective (<$50,000/QALY) compared with LPV/r.     

Cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab in combination with chemotherapy in the 1st line treatment of non-squamous NSCLC in the US

Abstract

Aims: To describe cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab plus platinum and pemetrexed chemotherapy in metastatic, non-squamous, NSCLC patients in the US.

Materials and methods: A model is developed utilizing partitioned survival analysis to estimate the cost-effectiveness of KEYNOTE-189 trial comparators pembrolizumab?+?chemotherapy (carboplatin/cisplatin?+?pemetrexed) vs chemotherapy alone. Clinical efficacy, treatment utilization, health utility, and safety data are derived from the trial and projected over 20 years. For extrapolating survival beyond the trial, a novel SEER population-data approach is applied (primary analysis), with separate estimation via traditional parametric extrapolation methods. Costs for drugs and non-drug disease management are also incorporated. Based on an indirect treatment comparison, cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab?+?chemotherapy vs pembrolizumab monotherapy is evaluated for patients with programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1)?≥?50%.

Results: In the full non-squamous population, pembrolizumab?+?chemotherapy is projected to increase life expectancy by 2.04 years vs chemotherapy (3.96 vs 1.92), for an approximate doubling of life years. Resultant incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) are $104,823/QALY and $87,242/life year. In patients with PD-L1?≥?50% and 1–49%, life expectancy is more than doubled (4.53 vs 1.88 years) and (4.87 vs 2.01 years), with a 32% (2.60 vs 1.97 years) increase in PD-L1?<?1% patients. Corresponding incremental costs/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) are $103,402, $66,837, and $183,529 for PD-L1?≥?50%, 1–49%, and <1% groups, respectively. Versus pembrolizumab monotherapy in PD-L1?≥?50% patients, representing current standard of care, pembrolizumab?+?chemotherapy increases life expectancy by 65% (4.53 vs 2.74 years) at an ICER of $147,365/QALY.

Limitations and conclusions: The addition of pembrolizumab to chemotherapy is projected to extend life expectancy to a point not previously seen in previously untreated metastatic non-squamous NSCLC. Although ICERs vary by sub-group and comparator, results suggest pembrolizumab?+?chemotherapy yields ICERs near, or in most cases, well below a 3-times US per capita GDP threshold of $180,000/QALY, and may be a cost-effective first-line treatment for metastatic non-squamous NSCLC patients.     

Indirect costs associated with metastatic breast cancer

Abstract

Objective:

To compare the indirect costs of productivity loss between metastatic breast cancer (MBC) and early stage breast cancer (EBC) patients, as well as their respective family members.

Methods:

The MarketScan® Health and Productivity Management database (2005–2009) was used. Adult BC patients eligible for employee benefits of sick leave and/or short-term disability were identified with ICD-9 codes. Difference in sick leave and short-term disability days was calculated between MBC patients and their propensity score matched EBC cohort and general population (controls) during a 12-month follow-up period. Generalized linear models were used to examine the impact of MBC on indirect costs to patients and their families.

Results:

A total of 139 MBC, 432 EBC, and 820 controls were eligible for sick leave and 432 MBC, 1552 EBC, and 4682 controls were eligible for short-term disability (not mutually exclusive). After matching, no statistical difference was found in sick leave days and the associated costs between MBC and EBC cohorts. However, MBC patients had significantly higher short-term disability costs than EBC patients and controls (MBC: $6166?±?$9194 vs EBC: $3690?±?$6673 vs Controls: $558?±?$2487, both p?<?0.001). MBC patients had more sick leave cost than controls ($2383?±?$5539 vs $1282?±?$2083, p?<?0.05). Controlling for covariates, MBC patients incurred 47% more short-term disability costs vs EBC patients (p?=?0.009). Older patients (p?=?0.002), non-HMO payers (p?<?0.05), or patients not receiving chemotherapy during follow-up (p?<?0.001) were associated with lower short-term disability costs. MBC patients’ families incurred 39.7% (p?=?0.06) higher indirect costs compared to EBC patients’ families after controlling for key covariates.

Conclusion:

Productivity loss and associated costs in MBC patients are substantially higher than EBC patients or the general population. These findings underscore the economic burden of MBC from a US societal perspective. Various treatment regimens should be evaluated to identify opportunities to reduce the disease burden from the societal perspective.     

Long-term cost-consequence analysis of exenatide once weekly vs sitagliptin or pioglitazone for the treatment of type 2 diabetes patients in the United States

Abstract

Objective:

Exenatide once-weekly (ExQW) is a GLP-1 receptor agonist shown to lower glucose and cardiovascular risk factors in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). The objective of this study was to estimate the clinical benefits and associated economic benefits of treatment with ExQW compared with sitagliptin or pioglitazone in the US.

Methods:

The IMS CORE Diabetes Model, a validated computer simulation model, was used to project lifetime clinical outcomes and complication costs. The costs of glucose-lowering drugs were excluded as not all prices were available. Baseline patient characteristics (mean values: age, 52.5 years; diabetes duration, 6 years; HbA1_c, 8.51%; body mass index, 32.12?kg/m²) and clinical data were derived from a phase 3 clinical trial that compared ExQW with sitagliptin or pioglitazone in T2DM patients. At 6 months, patients treated with ExQW had greater improvements in HbA1_c and body weight than those treated with sitagliptin or pioglitazone. Complication costs were extracted from published sources. Health outcomes and costs were discounted at 3% per year. Sensitivity analyses were performed.

Results:

Over 35 years, and compared with sitagliptin or pioglitazone, ExQW increased life expectancy by, respectively, 0.28 (13.76?±?0.17 vs 13.48?±?0.18) and 0.17 years (13.76?±?0.17 vs 13.59?±?0.17), and quality-adjusted life years by, respectively, 0.28 (9.56?±?0.12 vs 9.28?±?0.12) and 0.24 years (9.56?±?0.12 vs 9.32?±?0.12). ExQW was associated with lower lifetime complication costs: compared with sitagliptin or pioglitazone, ExQW saved, respectively US$2215 (US$55,647?±?2039 vs US$57,862?±?2159) and US$933 (US$55,647?±?2039 vs US$56,580?±?2007) direct cost per patient. Cost-savings resulted mainly from a lower projected cumulative incidence of cardiovascular diseases and neuropathic complications.

Limitations:

Short-term changes in surrogate end-points were used to project lifetime effects on clinical outcomes. Pharmacy costs were excluded from the analyses.

Conclusions:

Over a patient’s lifetime, ExQW was projected to improve health and decrease diabetes-related complication costs compared with sitagliptin or pioglitazone.     

Cost-effectiveness of ceftolozane/tazobactam plus metronidazole compared with piperacillin/tazobactam as empiric therapy for the treatment of complicated intra-abdominal infections based on the in-vitro surveillance of bacterial isolates in the UK

Aims: An increase in the prevalence of antimicrobial resistance among gram-negative pathogens has been noted recently. A challenge in empiric treatment of complicated intra-abdominal infection (cIAI) is identifying initial appropriate antibiotic therapy, which is associated with reduced length of stay and mortality compared with inappropriate therapy. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of ceftolozane/tazobactam?+?metronidazole compared with piperacillin/tazobactam (commonly used in this indication) in the treatment of patients with cIAI in UK hospitals.

Methods: A decision-analytic Monte Carlo simulation model was used to compare costs (antibiotic and hospitalization costs) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of patients infected with gram-negative cIAI and treated empirically with either ceftolozane/tazobactam?+?metronidazole or piperacillin/tazobactam. Bacterial isolates were randomly drawn from the Program to Assess Ceftolozane/Tazobactam Susceptibility (PACTS) database, a surveillance database of non-duplicate bacterial isolates collected from patients in the UK infected with gram-negative pathogens. Susceptibility to initial empiric therapy was based on the measured susceptibilities reported in the PACTS database.

Results: Ceftolozane/tazobactam?+?metronidazole was cost-effective when compared with piperacillin/tazobactam, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £4,350/QALY and 0.36 hospitalization days/patient saved. Costs in the ceftolozane/tazobactam?+?metronidazole arm were £2,576/patient, compared with £2,168/patient in the piperacillin/tazobactam arm. The ceftolozane/tazobactam?+?metronidazole arm experienced a greater number of QALYs than the piperacillin/tazobactam arm (14.31/patient vs 14.21/patient, respectively). Ceftolozane/tazobactam?+?metronidazole remained cost-effective in one-way sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

Conclusions: Economic models can help to identify the appropriate choice of empiric therapy for the treatment of cIAI. Results indicated that empiric use of ceftolozane/tazobactam?+?metronidazole is cost-effective vs piperacillin/tazobactam in UK patients with cIAI at risk of resistant infection. This will be valuable to commissioners and clinicians to aid decision-making on the targeting of resources for appropriate antibiotic therapy under the premise of antimicrobial stewardship.     

Long-term disease history,clinical symptoms,health status,and healthcare utilization in patients suffering from Lambert Eaton myasthenic syndrome: Results of a patient interview survey in Germany

Abstract

Introduction:

The burden of disease in Lambert-Eaton myasthenic syndrome (LEMS) patients is unclear. This study focused on the patient’s perspective to obtain patient-reported information on clinical symptoms, burden of illness, impact of LEMS on activities of daily living (ADL), and management of LEMS.

Methods:

Semi-structured, face-to-face interviews with LEMS patients from two specialized centres in Germany between September and December 2010.

Results:

Twelve patients participated; mean age 66.7?±?9.8 years. First symptoms occurred at age 52.5?±?14.0 years. Mean time between first symptoms and diagnosis was 4.4?±?6.2 years. Patients reported neuromuscular, cranial, and autonomic symptoms plus general fatigue. Two-thirds of patients reported 10 or more symptoms. The most frequent symptoms were leg weakness (91.7%) and general fatigue (83.3%). Restrictions in ADL were reported always or often in 75% of patients. Over half of the patients (n?=?7) reported poor or very poor health status. Mean EQ-5D utility scores were 0.34?±?0.35, with little day-to-day variation. Patients visited a number of different clinicians; most had been hospitalized at some point in the course of their disease. The most frequent drug treatments were 3,4-diaminopyridine (3,4-DAP) (83.3%) and pyridostigmine (41.5%). The study has several limitations, including small sample size and the potential influence of recall bias.

Conclusion:

LEMS patients report long individual disease histories. Most patients suffer multiple symptoms which are frequently severe and troublesome, and almost all are restricted in ADL with poor health status. There is high utilization of healthcare resources from diagnosis to ongoing treatment. Physicians should be aware of this rare disease to ensure that patients receive an early diagnosis and prompt and appropriate treatment.