Cost-analysis model of colonoscopy preparation using split-dose reduced-volume oral sulfate solution (OSS) and polyethylene glycol with electrolytes solution (PEG-ELS)

Objective:

The study aimed to (1) develop a cost model for colonoscopy preparation among patients referred for colonoscopy using split-dose reduced-volume oral sulfate solution (OSS) and generic polyethylene glycol with electrolytes solution (PEG-ELS), (2) examine cost savings associated with OSS vs PEG-ELS, and (3) assess the robustness of the cost model.

Methods:

Efficacy of each agent was based on the results of a 541-patient clinical trial comparing OSS to PEG-ELS. Cleansing agent and colonoscopy procedure costs were calculated from OptumHealth Reporting & Insights claims data for 2010–Q12013. In the model, patients’ colonoscopies were tracked over a 25 or 35 year time period until the patients reached age 75. The difference per patient per year (PPPY) in total cleansing agent and colonoscopy procedure costs over the time horizon between the OSS and PEG-ELS cohort was calculated. One-way sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the robustness of the cost model.

Results:

The model showed lower cost for OSS patients over the time horizon. Total PPPY costs were $280.34 for the OSS cohort and $296.36 for the PEG-ELS cohort, resulting in a cost saving of $16.01 PPPY for the OSS cohort. This was due primarily to OSS patients having fewer colonoscopies (OSS: 0.158 vs PEG-ELS: 0.170 PPPY). Over the time horizon, cost savings of $4 763 335 were observed among 10, 000 OSS patients. Cost savings switched from OSS to PEG-ELS cohort in four cases: (1) base-case cost of a completed colonoscopy decreased by 75%, (2) base-case cost of OSS increased to over $143 per usage, (3) all non-completers were lost to follow-up, and (4) OSS bowel preparation quality dropped below PEG-ELS to 70%.

Conclusions:

From a payer’s perspective, the model showed that the use of OSS as the cleansing agent resulted in potential cost savings compared with PEG-ELS. Cost savings under OSS remained under various sensitivity analyses.     

Cost-impact of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging with Fast-SENC compared to SPECT in the diagnosis of coronary artery disease in the U.S

Aims: The purpose of this study is to assess the economic cost differences and the associated treatment resource changes between the developing coronary artery disease (CAD) diagnostic tool fast strain-encoded cardiac imaging (Fast-SENC) and the current commonly used stress test single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT).

Materials and methods: A “payer perspective” model was created first, consisting of long-term and short-term components that used a hypothetical cohort of patients of average age (60.8?years) presenting with chest pain and suspected CAD to assess cost-impact. A cost impact model was then built that assessed likely savings from a “hospital perspective” from substituting Fast-SENC for a portion of SPECTs assuming an average number of annual SPECT tests performed in US hospitals.

Results: In the payer model, using Fast-SENC followed by coronary angiography (CA) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) treatment when necessary is less costly than the SPECT method when considering both direct and indirect costs of testing. Expected costs of the Fast-SENC were between $2,510 and $2,632 per correct diagnosis, while expected costs for the SPECT were between $3,157 and $4,078. Fast-SENC reduced false positives by 50% and false negatives by 86%, generating additional cost savings. The hospital model showed total costs per CAD patient visit of $825 for SPECT and $376 for Fast-SENC.

Limitations: Limitations of this study are that clinical data are sourced from other published clinical trials on how CAD diagnostic strategies impact clinical outcome, and that necessary assumptions were made which impact health outcomes.

Conclusion: The lower cost, higher sensitivity and specificity rates, and faster, less burdensome process for detecting CAD patients make Fast-SENC a more capable and economically beneficial stress test than SPECT. The payer model and hospital model demonstrate an alignment between payer and provider economics as Fast-SENC provides monetary savings for patients and resource benefits for hospitals.     

US budget impact of increased payer adoption of the Flexitouch advanced pneumatic compression device in lymphedema patients with advanced chronic venous insufficiency and multiple infections

Aims: To assess the budget impact to a US commercial health plan of providing access to the Flexitouch (FLX) advanced pneumatic compression device (Tactile Medical) to lymphedema (LE) patients with either comorbid chronic venous insufficiency (CVI) or frequent infections.

Methods: Budget impact was calculated over 2 years for a hypothetical US payer with 10-million commercial members. Model inputs were derived from published sources and from a case-matched analysis of Blue Health Intelligence (BHI) claims data for the years 2012–2016. To calculate the budget impact, the Status Quo budget (i.e. total cost for LE and sequelae-related medical treatment) was compared to the budget under each of three Alternate Payer Policy scenarios which assumed that a sub-set of patients was redistributed from their initial treatment groups to a group that received FLX. Model outputs included cumulative payer costs, net budget impact, and breakeven point. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the impact of model inputs on results.

Results: Increasing access to FLX yielded a favorable budget impact in every scenario. For LE patients with comorbid CVI, the three alternate scenarios resulted in cumulative 2-year budget impacts of –$52,841, –$173,317, and –$375,601, respectively. For LE patients with comorbid frequent infections, the three alternate scenarios resulted in cumulative 2-year budget impacts of –$192,729, –$259,339, and –$613,179, respectively.

Limitations: Use of claims data assumes accurate coding and does not allow one to control for disease severity or treatment adherence. Also, the distribution of patients between treatment arms was determined using claims data from a specific payer organization, and could differ for health plans with different coverage policies.

Conclusions: While previous studies have illustrated cost savings with adoption of FLX, US commercial health plans may also achieve tangible cost savings by expanding access to FLX for LE patients with comorbid CVI and multiple infections.     

Economic evaluation of a pharmacogenomic multi-gene panel test to optimize anti-hypertension therapy: simulation study

Abstract

Aims: Hypertension is the strongest modifiable risk factor for cardiovascular disease, affecting 80 million individuals in the US and responsible for ～360,000 deaths, at total annual costs of $93.5 billion. Antihypertension therapies guided by single genotypes are clinically more effective and may avert more adverse events than the standard of care of layering anti-hypertensive drug therapies, thus potentially decreasing costs. This study aimed to determine the economic benefits of the implementation of multi-gene panel guided therapies for hypertension from the payer perspective within a 3-year time horizon.

Materials and methods: A simulation analysis was conducted for a panel of 10 million insured patients categorized clinically as untreated, treated but uncontrolled, and treated and controlled over a 3-year treatment period. Inputs included research data; empirical data from a 11-gene panel with known functional, heart, blood vessel, and kidney genotypes; and therapy efficacy and safety estimates from literature. Cost estimates were categorized as related to genetic testing, evaluation and management, medication, or adverse events.

Results: Multi-gene panel guided therapy yielding savings of $6,256,607,500 for evaluation and management, $908,160,000 for medications, and $37,467,508,716 for adverse events, after accounting for incremental genetic testing costs of $2,355,540,000. This represents total 3-year savings of $42,276,736,216, or a 47% reduction, and 3-year savings of $4,228 and annual savings of $1,409 per covered patient.

Conclusions: A precision medicine approach to genetically guided therapy for hypertension patients using a multi-gene panel reduced total 3-year costs by 47%, yielding savings exceeding $42.3 billion in an insured panel of 10 million patients. Importantly, 89% of these savings are generated by averting specific adverse events and, thus, optimizing choice of therapy in function of both safety and efficacy.     

Adverse event-related costs for systemic metastatic breast cancer treatment among female Medicaid beneficiaries

Objective: This retrospective study compared the real-world incidence and costs of systemic treatment-related adverse events (AEs) in patients with metastatic breast cancer in a Medicaid population.

Methods: Insurance claims data for adult women who received biologic or chemotherapy (± hormonal therapy) for metastatic breast cancer between 2006–2013 were extracted from the Truven Health MarketScan^® Multi-State Medicaid database. Incidence of AEs (per 100 person years) and average monthly AE-related healthcare costs (per-patient-per-month) during each line of therapy (first or later lines) were estimated. The association between AEs and total all-cause healthcare costs was estimated using multivariable regression.

Results: A total of 729 metastatic breast cancer patients were analyzed. Hematological (202.3 per 100 person years) and constitutional AEs (289.6 per 100 person years) were the most common class of AEs reported. Unadjusted per-patient-per-month AE-related expenditure by class were highest for hematological AEs ($1524), followed by gastrointestinal ($839) and constitutional AEs ($795), with anemia ($942), nausea/vomiting ($699), and leukopenia/neutropenia ($550) having incurred the highest total AE-related costs. Adjusted total all-cause monthly costs increased with the number of AEs ($19,701 for >7 AEs, $16,264 for 4???6 AEs, and $13,731 for 1???3 AEs) compared to no AEs ($5908) (all p?Conclusions: Among metastatic breast cancer patients treated with systemic therapy in a Medicaid population, AEs were associated with significant increases in costs, which increased with the number of AEs experienced. Therapies associated with a lower incidence of AEs may reduce cost burden and improve patient outcomes.     

Healthcare and economic burden of adverse events among patients with chronic myelogenous leukemia treated with BCR-ABL1 tyrosine kinase inhibitors

Objectives: BCR-ABL1 tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) are established treatments for chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML); however, they are associated with infrequent, but clinically serious adverse events (AEs). The objective of this analysis was to assess healthcare resource utilization and costs associated with AEs, previously identified using the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) in another study, among TKI-treated patients.

Methods: Adult patients with ≥1 inpatient or ≥2 outpatient ICD-9-CM diagnosis codes for CML and ≥1 claim for a TKI treatment between January 1, 2006 and September 30, 2012 were identified from the Commercial and Medicare MarketScan databases. The first claim for a TKI was designated as the index event. Patients were required to have no TKI treatment during a 12-month baseline period. Healthcare resource utilization and costs associated with select AEs having the strongest association with TKI treatment (femoral arterial stenosis [FAS], peripheral arterial occlusive disease [PAOD], intermittent claudication, coronary artery stenosis [CAS], pericardial effusion, pleural effusion, malignant pleural effusion, conjunctival hemorrhage) were evaluated during a 12-month follow-up period.

Results: The study sample included 2,005 CML patients receiving TKI therapy (mean age?=?56 years; 56% male). Among all evaluated AEs, the highest mean inpatient healthcare costs were observed for FAS ($16,800 per patient) and PAOD ($14,263 per patient), which had total mean medical costs (inpatient?+?outpatient) of $17,015 and $15,154 per patient, respectively. Mean outpatient healthcare costs were highest for CAS ($1,861 per patient), followed by intermittent claudication ($947 per patient), PAOD ($891 per patient), and pleural effusion ($890 per patient). Total mean medical costs for fluid retention-related AEs, including pericardial effusion and pleural effusion, were $2,797 and $1,908 per patient, respectively.

Conclusions: The healthcare costs of AEs identified in the FAERS as having the strongest association with TKI treatment are substantial. Vascular stenosis-related AEs, including FAS and PAOD, have the highest cost burden.     

Comparative net cost impact of the utilization of panitumumab versus cetuximab for the treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer in Canada

Objective:

Clinical practice guidelines support the use of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors panitumumab and cetuximab for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) after failure of other chemotherapy regimens, based on significant clinical benefits in patients with wild-type KRAS. The purpose of the analysis was to compare provincial hospital costs when using panitumumab vs cetuximab with or without irinotecan in this patient population using a Net Impact Analysis (NIA) approach.

Methods:

The NIA determined the total per patient cost of the reimbursed regimens of panitumumab vs cetuximab in British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario, and Québec. Utilization of healthcare resources related to EGFR inhibitor infusions, follow-up monitoring, and treatment of adverse events (AEs) were also included. Healthcare resource use including drugs, medical supplies, laboratory testing, oncology infusion time, and healthcare professionals’ time was obtained through expert consultation and the use was then multiplied by the province-specific cost of each resource. Numerous sensitivity analyses were conducted.

Results:

Based on the dosing regimens in place in each province, the total annual per patient cost of panitumumab ranged from $22,203–$32,600, while the total annual per patient cost of cetuximab treatment varied from $30,321–$40,908. Treatment with panitumumab resulted in lower costs in all cost categories including drug acquisition, infusion preparation/administration, patient monitoring, and AE management. Per patient savings with panitumumab ranged from a low of $3815 in British Columbia to a high of $10,603 in Ontario. In sensitivity analyses, panitumumab remained cost saving in all scenarios where the savings ranged from $150–$16,006 per patient.

Conclusions:

Treating chemorefractory mCRC patients with panitumumab rather than cetuximab reduced healthcare resource costs. Provincial healthcare savings achieved with the use of panitumumab could potentially be re-allocated to other cancer treatments, although further study would be needed to validate this assumption.     

Cost-effectiveness analysis of tissue plasminogen activator in acute ischemic stroke in Iran

Aims: Tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) is used to treat acute ischemic stroke up to 4.5?h after symptom onset. Its cost-effectiveness in developing countries is not specified yet. This study aimed to study cost-effectiveness of tPA in Iran.

Methods: This is a cost-effectiveness analysis from the perspective of the third party payer to compare IV tPA with no tPA of ischemic stroke. A Markov model with a lifetime horizon was used to analyze the costs and outcomes. Cost data were extracted from the 94 patients admitted in two hospitals in Iran. All costs were calculated based on US dollars in 2016. Quality-adjusted life years (QALY) were extracted from previously published literature. Cost-effectiveness was determined by calculating ICER by TreeAge Pro 2011 software.

Results: Lifetime costs of no tPA strategy were higher than tPA ($10,718 in the no tPA group compared with $8,796 in the tPA group). The tPA arm gained 0.20 QALY compared with no tPA. ICER was $8,471 per QALY. ICER value suggests that tPA is cost-effective compared with no tPA.

Limitations: The limitations of the present study are the reliance on calculated QALY value of other countries and difficulty in accessing patients treated with tPA.

Conclusions: The balance of hospitalization and rehabilitation costs and QALYs support the conclusion that treatment with intravenous tPA in the 4.5-h time window is cost-effective from the perspectives of the third party payer and inclusion of tPA in the insurance benefit package being reasonable.     

Health economic evaluation of Gd-EOB-DTPA MRI vs ECCM-MRI and multi-detector computed tomography in patients with suspected hepatocellular carcinoma in Thailand and South Korea

Objective: The effectiveness of treatment decisions and economic outcomes of using gadolinium ethoxybenzyl diethylenetriamine pentaacetic acid-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (Gd-EOB-DTPA-MRI) were compared with extracellular contrast media-enhanced MRI (ECCM-MRI) and multi-detector computed tomography (MDCT) as initial procedures in patients with suspected hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in South Korea and Thailand. Methods: A decision-tree model simulated the clinical pathway for patients with suspected HCC from the first imaging procedure to a confirmed treatment decision. Input data (probabilities and resource consumptions) were estimated and validated by clinical experts. Costs for diagnostic alternatives and related treatment options were derived from published sources, taking into account both payer’s and hospital’s perspectives. Results: All experts from Korea and Thailand agreed that Gd-EOB-DTPA-MRI yields the highest diagnostic certainty and minimizes the need for additional confirmatory diagnostic procedures in HCC. In Korea, from the payer’s perspective, total cost was USD $3087/patient to reach a confirmed treatment decision using Gd-EOB-DTPA-MRI (vs $3205/patient for MDCT and $3403/patient for ECCM-MRI). From the hospital’s perspective, Gd-EOB-DTPA-MRI incurred the lowest cost ($2289/patient vs $2320/patient and $2528/patient, respectively). In Thailand, Gd-EOB-DTPA-MRI was the least costly alternative for the payer ($702/patient vs $931/patient for MDCT and $873/patient for ECCM-MRI). From the hospital’s perspective, costs were $1106/patient, $1178/patient, and $1087/patient for Gd-EOB-DTPA-MRI, MDCT, and ECCM-MRI, respectively. Conclusions: Gd-EOB-DTPA-MRI as an initial imaging procedure in patients with suspected HCC provides better diagnostic certainty and relevant statutory health insurance cost savings in Thailand and Korea, compared with ECCM-MRI and MDCT.     

Economic evaluation of olmesartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination for hypertension treatment in China

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of olmesartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination vs olmesartan and amlodipine free combination, amlodipine single drug, and valsartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination in the treatment of hypertensive patients from payer perspective in China.

Methods: A Markov model was constructed, which included five health states of hypertensive patients who are aged 35–84?years at baseline and free of cardiovascular disease. Clinical data were obtained from a network meta-analysis. Epidemiology data, adverse events (AEs), cost, and utility data were obtained from the literature. The cost associated with AEs was estimated based on the cost of same symptoms of hypertensive patients in an electric medical record database. The model projected quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained, total costs per patient in a 20-year time horizon, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Probability sensitivity analyses (PSA) and one-way sensitivity analyses were conducted for the main parameters to test the robustness of the model.

Results: Compared to olmesartan and amlodipine free combination, amlodipine, and valsartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination, treatment with olmesartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination led to fewer CVD events and deaths; resulted in an incremental cost of ¥?5,439 ($?791.36), ¥6,530 ($950.09), and ¥?1,019 ($?148.26) and gained additional QALYs of 0.052, 0.094, and 0.037 per patient, respectively. Compared with olmesartan and amlodipine free combination and valsartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination, olmesartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination was dominant. Compared with amlodipine alone, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were below the WHO recommended cost-effectiveness threshold, indicating the olmesartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination was a cost-effective option for hypertensive patients in China. The 10-years’ time horizon scenario analysis showed similar results to the 20-years’ time horizon. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis and one-way sensitivity analyses showed the robustness of the model results.

Conclusions: Olmesartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination confers better health outcomes and costs less compared with olmesartan and amlodipine free combination and valsartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination, and is cost-effective compared to amlodipine for hypertension treatment in China.     

Cost-efficiency analyses for the US of biosimilar filgrastim-sndz,reference filgrastim,pegfilgrastim, and pegfilgrastim with on-body injector in the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced (febrile) neutropenia

Aims: Guidelines recommend prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor for chemotherapy-induced (febrile) neutropenia (CIN/FN) based on regimen myelotoxicity and patient-related risk factors. The aim was to conduct a cost-efficiency analysis for the US of the direct acquisition and administration costs of the recently approved biosimilar filgrastim-sndz (Zarxio EP2006) with reference to filgrastim (Neupogen), pegfilgrastim (Neulasta), and a pegfilgrastim injection device (Neulasta Onpro; hereafter pegfilgrastim-injector) for CIN/FN prophylaxis.

Methods: A cost-efficiency analysis of the prophylaxis of one patient during one chemotherapy cycle under 1–14 days’ time horizon was conducted using the unit dose average selling price (ASP) and Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes for subcutaneous prophylactic injection under four scenarios: cost of medication only (COSTMED), patient self-administration (SELFADMIN), healthcare provider (HCP) initiating administration followed by self-administration (HCPSTART), and HCP providing full administration (HCPALL). Two case studies were created to illustrate real-world clinical implications. The analyses were replicated using wholesale acquisition cost (WAC).

Results: Using ASP?+?CPT, cost savings achieved with filgrastim-sndz relative to reference filgrastim ranged from $65 (1?day) to $916 (14 days) across all scenarios. Relative to pegfilgrastim, savings with filgrastim-sndz ranged from $834 (14 days) up to $3,666 (1?day) under the COSTMED, SELFADMIN, and HPOSTART scenarios; and from $284 (14 days) up to $3,666 (1?day) under the HPOALL scenario. Similar to the cost-savings compared to pegfilgrastim, filgrastim-sndz achieved savings relative to pegfilgrastim-injector: from $834 (14 days) to $3,666 (1?day) under the COSTMED scenario, from $859 (14 days) to $3,692 (1?day) under SELFADMIN, from $817 (14 days) to $3,649 (1?day) under HPOSTART, and from $267 (14 days) to $3,649 (1?day) under HPOALL. Cost savings of filgrastim-sndz using WAC?+?CPT were even greater under all scenarios.

Conclusions: Prophylaxis with filgrastim-sndz, a biosimilar filgrastim, was associated consistently with significant cost-savings over prophylaxis with reference filgrastim, pegfilgrastim, and pegfilgrastim-injector, and this across various administration scenarios.     

Lifetime cost of everolimus vs axitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma who failed prior sunitinib therapy in the US

Abstract

Objective:

Everolimus and axitinib are approved in the US to treat patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) after failure on sunitinib or sorafenib, and one prior systemic therapy (e.g., sunitinib), respectively. Two indirect comparisons performed to evaluate progression-free survival in patients treated with everolimus vs axitinib suggested similar efficacy between the two treatments. Therefore, this analysis compares the lifetime costs of these two therapies among sunitinib-refractory advanced RCC patients from a US payer perspective.

Research design and methods:

A Markov model was developed to simulate a cohort of sunitinib-refractory advanced RCC patients and estimate the cost of treating patients with everolimus vs axitinib. The following health states were included: stable disease without adverse events (AEs), stable disease with AEs, disease progression (PD), and death. The model included the following resources: active treatments, post-progression treatments, adverse events, physician and nurse visits, scans and tests, and palliative care. Resource utilization inputs were derived from a US claims database analysis. Additionally, a 3% annual discount rate was applied to costs, and the robustness of the model results was tested by conducting sensitivity analyses, including those on dosing scheme and post-progression treatment costs.

Results:

Base case results demonstrated that patients treated with everolimus cost an average of $12,985 (11%) less over their lifetimes than patients treated with axitinib. The primary difference in costs was related to active treatment, which was largely driven by axitinib’s higher dose intensity. Results remained consistent across sensitivity analyses for AE and PD treatment costs, as well as dose intensity and discount rates.

Conclusion:

The results suggest that everolimus likely leads to lower lifetime costs than axitinib for sunitinib-refractory advanced RCC patients in the US.     

Total cost comparison in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma

Abstract

Objectives:

Advances in survival in multiple myeloma have focused payer attention on the cost of care. An assessment was conducted to compare the costs of two recent treatments for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (rrMM), from the perspective of a US payer.

Methods:

An economic model estimated the total costs of care for two guideline-recommended therapies in rrMM patients: bortezomib (BORT) and lenalidomide plus dexamethasone (LEN/DEX). To evaluate total treatment costs, the costs associated with drug treatment, medical resource utilization, and adverse event (AE) management were determined for each regimen over a common 1-year period. Medical costs and grade 3/4 AE costs were based on rates from published literature, package inserts, and fee schedules (US dollars). To evaluate cost per outcome, assessments determined the monthly costs without disease progression based on pivotal clinical trials (APEX [BORT] and MM-009/MM-010 [LEN/DEX]). Univariate sensitivity analyses and alternative scenarios were also conducted.

Results:

Drug costs for the treatments were very similar, differing by under $10 per day. Medical and AE management costs for BORT were higher by more than $40 per day. Treatment with BORT had annual excess total costs of >$17,000 compared with LEN/DEX. A cost advantage for LEN/DEX was maintained across a variety of sensitivity analyses. Total cost per month without progression was 11% lower with LEN/DEX.

Limitations:

This analysis relied on separate studies having similar comparators, populations, and end-points. Actual treatment patterns and costs pre- and post-relapse may vary from the base scenario and sensitivities modeled. The 12-month time frame captures the preponderance of costs for a relapse line of therapy, yet may not reflect the entirety of costs. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether, or how, a difference in the lifetime costs of the two regimens would vary from the 1-year cost difference.

Conclusion:

While rrMM treatment with BORT and LEN/DEX had comparable drug costs, total treatment costs for BORT were higher due to ongoing direct medical and AE management costs. Total costs per outcome (a month without disease progression) were lower for LEN/DEX.     

Cost-effectiveness of mechanical thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke: an Australian payer perspective

Aims: The goal of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of mechanical thrombectomy (MT) for acute ischemic stroke (AIS) from an Australian payer perspective.

Methods: This study used a Markov model that employed a life-time time horizon, modeling patients from symptom onset of stroke until end of life. Clinical efficacy and safety data were taken from an individual patient level data (IPD) meta-analysis of clinical studies. The treatment effect of MT compared to usual care was measured by changes in modified Rankin Score (mRS). Post-treatment mRS scores were used to determine short- and long-term stroke care costs. Treatment costs were modeled, with health state utility values determined by literature review. All analyses were conducted using Microsoft Excel.

Results: In comparison to usual care, MT is associated with higher costs ($10,666 per patient) and additional quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) (0.8281 per patient), resulting in an incremental cost per QALY of $12,880. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated the reliability of the base case results across a range of assumptions. The higher cost associated with MT is, to an extent, offset by the cost savings resulting from lower stroke care costs due to improved patient outcomes. The life-time cost savings in terms of stroke care costs are estimated to be more than $8,000 per patient for patients who had received MT in combination with usual care.

Limitations: Stroke care costs based on patient disability/functional level were not available and were derived. As a consequence, long-term care costs for patients with poorer outcomes may be under-estimated. Patient outcomes at 90 days were extrapolated to a lifetime horizon, but this approach was supported by long-term evidence on stroke survival.

Conclusions: Mechanical thrombectomy is a cost-effective treatment option for AIS, with clinical benefits translating to short- and long-term cost benefits. This analysis supports rapid update of stroke care pathways to incorporate this therapy as a treatment option.     

Evaluation of the long-term cost-effectiveness of IDegLira versus liraglutide added to basal insulin for patients with type 2 diabetes failing to achieve glycemic control on basal insulin in the USA

Background and aims: IDegLira, a fixed ratio combination of insulin degludec and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist liraglutide, utilizes the complementary mechanisms of action of these two agents to improve glycemic control with low risk of hypoglycemia and avoidance of weight gain. The aim of the present analysis was to assess the long-term cost-effectiveness of IDegLira vs liraglutide added to basal insulin, for patients with type 2 diabetes not achieving glycemic control on basal insulin in the US setting.

Methods: Projections of lifetime costs and clinical outcomes were made using the IMS CORE Diabetes Model. Treatment effect data for patients receiving IDegLira and liraglutide added to basal insulin were modeled based on the outcomes of a published indirect comparison, as no head-to-head clinical trial data is currently available. Costs were accounted in 2015?US dollars ($) from a healthcare payer perspective.

Results: IDegLira was associated with small improvements in quality-adjusted life expectancy compared with liraglutide added to basal insulin (8.94 vs 8.91 discounted quality-adjusted life years [QALYs]). The key driver of improved clinical outcomes was the greater reduction in glycated hemoglobin associated with IDegLira. IDegLira was associated with mean costs savings of $17,687 over patient lifetimes vs liraglutide added to basal insulin, resulting from lower treatment costs and cost savings as a result of complications avoided.

Conclusions: The present long-term modeling analysis found that IDegLira was dominant vs liraglutide added to basal insulin for patients with type 2 diabetes failing to achieve glycemic control on basal insulin in the US, improving clinical outcomes and reducing direct costs.     

The economic burden of common adverse events associated with metastatic colorectal cancer treatment in the United States

Aims: Adverse events (AEs) associated with treatments for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) may compromise the course of treatment, impact quality-of-life, and increase healthcare resource utilization. This study assessed the direct healthcare costs of common AEs among mCRC patients in the US.

Methods: Adult mCRC patients treated with chemotherapy or targeted therapies were identified from administrative claims databases (2009–2014). Up to the first three mCRC treatment episodes per patient were considered and categorized as with or without the AE system/organ category during the episode. Total healthcare costs (2014 USD) were measured by treatment episode and reported on a monthly basis. Treatment episodes with the AE category were matched by treatment type and line of treatment to those without the AE category. Adjusted total cost differences were estimated by comparing costs during treatment episodes with vs without the AE category using multivariate regression models; p-values were estimated with bootstrap.

Results: A total of 4158 patients with ≥1 mCRC treatment episode were included (mean age?=?59 years; 58% male; 60% with liver and 14% with lung metastases; 2,261 [54%] with a second and 1,115 [27%] with a third episode). On average, two treatment episodes were observed per patient with an average length of 166 days per episode. Adjusted monthly total cost difference by AE category included hematologic ($1,480), respiratory ($1,253), endocrine/metabolic ($1,213), central nervous system (CNS; $1,136), and cardiovascular ($1,036; all p?Limitations: Claims do not include information on the cause of AEs, and potentially less severe AEs may not have been reported by the physician when billing the medical service. This study aimed to assess the association between costs and AEs and not the causation of AEs by treatment.

Conclusions: The most costly AEs among mCRC patients were hematologic, followed by respiratory, endocrine/metabolic, CNS, and cardiovascular.     

Medical cost reductions associated with the usage of novel oral anticoagulants vs warfarin among atrial fibrillation patients,based on the RE-LY,ROCKET-AF,and ARISTOTLE trials

Abstract

Objective:

The randomized clinical trials, RE-LY, ROCKET-AF, and ARISTOTLE, demonstrate that the novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) are effective options for stroke prevention among non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF) patients. This study aimed to evaluate the medical cost reductions associated with the use of individual NOACs instead of warfarin from the US payer perspective.

Methods:

Rates for efficacy and safety clinical events for warfarin were estimated as the weighted averages from the RE-LY, ROCKET-AF and ARISTOTLE trials, and event rates for NOACs were determined by applying trial hazard ratios or relative risk ratios to such weighted averages. Incremental medical costs to a US health payer of an AF patient experiencing a clinical event during 1 year following the event were obtained from published literature and inflation adjusted to 2010 cost levels. Medical costs, excluding drug costs, were evaluated and compared for each NOAC vs warfarin. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to determine the influence of variations in clinical event rates and incremental costs on the medical cost reduction.

Results:

In a patient year, the medical cost reduction associated with NOAC usage instead of warfarin was estimated to be ?$179, ?$89, and ?$485 for dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban, respectively. When clinical event rates and costs were allowed to vary simultaneously, through a Monte Carlo simulation, the 95% confidence interval of annual medical costs differences ranged between ?$424 and +$71 for dabigatran, ?$301 and +$135 for rivaroxaban, and ?$741 and ?$252 for apixaban, with a negative number indicating a cost reduction. Of the 10,000 Monte-Carlo iterations 92.6%, 79.8%, and 100.0% were associated with a medical cost reduction >$0 for dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban, respectively.

Conclusions:

Usage of the NOACs, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban may be associated with lower medical (excluding drug costs) costs relative to warfarin, with apixaban having the most substantial medical cost reduction.     

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.