Cross-country evidence on the distributional impact of fiscal policy

This article provides new evidence on the distributional effects of fiscal policy using data on a panel of OECD economies over the last four decades. We study how four measures of income inequality and poverty respond to several stock and flow variables accounting for fiscal actions. We find that increases in government debt and expenditure promote a less unequal distribution of income. We detect a significant distributional impact of education and social spending as well as of government consumption expenditure. We also investigate potential redistributive implications of large fiscal expansion and consolidation episodes finding no evidence of additional effects beyond those associated with conventional fiscal variables.

Abbreviations: OECD: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development; GDP: Gross Domestic Product; G20: Group of 20 economies (forum of 19 dvanced and emerging countries plus the European Union); CGE: Computational General Equilibrium models; DSGE: Dynamic Stochastic General Equilibrium models; UN-WIDER: United Nations World Institute for Development Economics Research; SWIID: Standardized World Income Inequality Database; WDI: World Development Indicators; PPP: Purchasing-Power Parity; LIS: Luxembourg Income Database; GMM: Generalized Method of Moments; FE: Fixed Effects; RE: Random Effects; SE: Standard Errors; CPI: Consumer Price Index     

Value of information analysis in healthcare: a review of principles and applications

Background:

Economic evaluations are increasingly utilized to inform decisions in healthcare; however, decisions remain uncertain when they are not based on adequate evidence. Value of information (VOI) analysis has been proposed as a systematic approach to measure decision uncertainty and assess whether there is sufficient evidence to support new technologies.

Scope:

The objective of this paper is to review the principles and applications of VOI analysis in healthcare. Relevant databases were systematically searched to identify VOI articles. The findings from the selected articles were summarized and narratively presented.

Findings:

Various VOI methods have been developed and applied to inform decision-making, optimally designing research studies and setting research priorities. However, the application of this approach in healthcare remains limited due to technical and policy challenges.

Conclusion:

There is a need to create more awareness about VOI analysis, simplify its current methods, and align them with the needs of decision-making organizations.     

Evolving provider payment models and patient access to innovative medical technology

Objective:

To investigate the evolving use and expected impact of pay-for-performance (P4P) and risk-based provider reimbursement on patient access to innovative medical technology.

Methods:

Structured interviews with leading private payers representing over 110 million commercially-insured lives exploring current and planned use of P4P provider payment models, evidence requirements for technology assessment and new technology coverage, and the evolving relationship between the two topics.

Results:

Respondents reported rapid increases in the use of P4P and risk-sharing programs, with roughly half of commercial lives affected 3 years ago, just under two-thirds today, and an expected three-quarters in 3 years. All reported well-established systems for evaluating new technology coverage. Five of nine reported becoming more selective in the past 3 years in approving new technologies; four anticipated that in the next 3 years there will be a higher evidence requirement for new technology access. Similarly, four expected it will become more difficult for clinically appropriate but costly technologies to gain coverage. All reported planning to rely more on these types of provider payment incentives to control costs, but didn’t see them as a substitute for payer technology reviews and coverage limitations; they each have a role to play.

Limitations:

Interviews limited to nine leading payers with models in place; self-reported data.

Conclusion:

Likely implications include a more uncertain payment environment for providers, and indirectly for innovative medical technology and future investment, greater reliance on quality and financial metrics, and increased evidence requirements for favorable coverage and utilization decisions. Increasing provider financial risk may challenge the traditional technology adoption paradigm, where payers assumed a ‘gatekeeping’ role and providers a countervailing patient advocacy role with regard to access to new technology. Increased provider financial risk may result in an additional hurdle to the adoption of new technology, rather than substitution of provider- for payer-based gatekeeping.     

Cost-effectiveness of asenapine in the treatment of bipolar I disorder patients with mixed episodes

Objective:

Around one-third of patients with bipolar I disorder (BD-I) experience mixed episodes, characterized by both mania and depression, which tend to be more difficult and costly to treat. Atypical antipsychotics are recommended for the treatment of mixed episodes, although evidence of their efficacy, tolerability, and cost in these patients is limited. This study evaluates, from a UK National Health Service perspective, the cost-effectiveness of asenapine vs olanzapine in BD-I patients with mixed episodes.

Methods:

Cost-effectiveness was assessed using a Markov model. Efficacy was informed by a post-hoc analysis of two short-term clinical trials, with response measured as a composite Young Mania Rating Score and Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale end-point. Probabilities of discontinuation and relapse to manic, mixed, and depressive episodes were sourced from published meta-analyses. Direct costs (2012–2013 values) included drug acquisition, monitoring, and resource use related to bipolar disorder as well as selected adverse events. Benefits were measured as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs).

Results:

For treating mixed episodes, asenapine generated 0.0187 more QALYs for an additional cost of £24 compared to olanzapine over a 5-year period, corresponding to a £1302 incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. The higher acquisition cost of asenapine was roughly offset by the healthcare savings conferred through its greater efficacy in treating these patients. The model shows that benefits were driven by earlier response to asenapine during acute treatment and were maintained during longer-term follow-up. Results were sensitive to changes in key parameters including short and longer-term efficacy, unit cost, and utilities, but conclusions remained relatively robust.

Conclusions:

Results suggest that asenapine is a cost-effective alternative to olanzapine in mixed episode BD-I patients, and may have specific advantages in this population, potentially leading to healthcare sector savings and improved outcomes. Limitations of the analysis stem from gaps in clinical and economic evidence for these patients and should be addressed by future clinical trials.     

Primary vs secondary prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim for the reduction of febrile neutropenia risk in patients receiving chemotherapy for non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: cost-effectiveness analyses

Objective:

Evaluate the cost-effectiveness of primary vs secondary prophylaxis (PP vs SP) with pegfilgrastim to reduce the risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) in Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma (NHL) patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy from a US payer perspective.

Methods:

A Markov model was used to compare PP vs SP with pegfilgrastim in a cohort of patients receiving six cycles of cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, and prednisone (CHOP) or CHOP plus rituximab (CHOP-R) chemotherapy. Model inputs, including efficacy of pegfilgrastim in reducing risk of FN and costs, were estimated from publicly available sources and peer-reviewed publications. Incremental cost-effectiveness was evaluated in terms of net cost per life-year saved (LYS), per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, and per FN event avoided over a lifetime horizon. Deterministic and probabilistic analyses were performed to assess sensitivity and robustness of results.

Results:

Lifetime costs for PP were $5000 greater than for SP; however, PP was associated with fewer FN events and more LYs and QALYs gained vs SP. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for PP vs SP for CHOP were $13,400 per FN event avoided, $29,500 per QALY gained, and $25,800 per LYS. CHOP-R results were similar ($15,000 per FN event avoided, $33,000 per QALY gained, and $28,900 per LYS). Results were most sensitive to baseline FN risk, cost per FN episode, and odds ratio for reduced relative dose intensity due to prior FN event. PP was cost-effective vs SP in 85% of simulations at a $50,000 per QALY threshold.

Limitations:

In the absence of NHL-specific data, estimates for pegfilgrastim efficacy and relative risk reduction of FN were based on available data for neoadjuvant TAC in patients with breast cancer. Baseline risks of FN for CHOP and CHOP-R were assumed to be equivalent.

Conclusions:

PP with pegfilgrastim is cost-effective compared to SP with pegfilgrastim in NHL patients receiving CHOP or CHOP-R.     

Bendamustine-rituximab: a cost-utility analysis in first-line treatment of indolent non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in England and Wales

Objective:

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of bendamustine-rituximab (B-R) compared with CHOP-R (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone, rituximab) and CVP-R (cyclophosphamide, vincristine, prednisone, rituximab) as first-line treatment for patients with advanced indolent non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL).

Methods:

A patient-level simulation was adapted from the model used by the University of Sheffield School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR) in a health technology appraisal of rituximab for first-line treatment of follicular lymphoma. This approach allowed modelling of the complex treatment pathways in indolent NHL. Data from a Phase 3 randomized, open-label trial were used to compare B-R with CHOP-R. The relative efficacy of CHOP-R and CVP-R was estimated using an indirect treatment comparison similar to the original ScHARR approach. The analysis was conducted from the perspective of the National Health Service in England and Wales, using a lifetime time horizon. A number of one-way sensitivity and scenario analyses were conducted, including one using recently published data comparing CVP-R with CHOP-R.

Results:

The deterministic incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was £5249 per quality adjusted life year (QALY) for B-R vs CHOP-R, and £8092 per QALY for B-R vs CVP-R. The alternative scenario using direct data comparing CVP-R with CHOP-R approximately halved the ICER for B-R vs CVP-R to £4733. Owing to its better toxicity profile, B-R reduced the cost of treating adverse events by over £1000 per patient vs CHOP-R.

Limitations:

The main limitations were: immaturity of overall survival data from the Phase 3 trial; reliance on quality-of-life data from previous health technology appraisals (as this was not collected in the trial); and a lack of direct evidence or a network of connected evidence comparing B-R with CVP-R.

Conclusions:

The ICERs for B-R vs CHOP-R and CVP-R were considerably below the thresholds normally regarded as cost-effective in England and Wales (£20,000–30,000 per QALY).     

Warfarin monitoring economic evaluation of point of care self-monitoring compared to clinic settings

Objective:

To determine the cost-effectiveness of home-based point-of-care self-monitoring compared to clinic-based care for patients managed on long-term warfarin medication. Current evidence is inconsistent; results should reduce uncertainty and inform service delivery.

Methods:

A Markov model compared self-testing and self-management, using point-of-care devices to usual care in patients with atrial fibrillation and mechanical heart valves. The primary clinical end-points were stroke and mortality avoided; costs and utilities were associated with these events. The costs of warfarin monitoring were included in the model.

Results:

Over 10 years, self-monitoring saved £1187 per person compared to usual care. Patients who self-monitored had notably fewer strokes and deaths. The results were sensitive to life-years gained and cost of the device. If the NHS purchased the device, financial break-even was achieved at the end of the second year; if the patient bought the device the NHS saved money every year. If 10% of the current 950,000 patients switched to point-of-care devices for 10 years, the NHS could save over £112million.

Limitations:

Clinical studies had a relatively short duration and only data on composite end-points were reported.

Conclusions:

With training, self-testing and self-management are safe, reliable, and cost-effective for a sizable proportion of patients receiving long-term warfarin. Compared to clinic-based services, self-monitoring offers the NHS the potential to make cost savings and release bed-days by reducing the number of strokes experienced by these high-risk patients.     

Incremental costs associated with myocardial infarction and stroke in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: an overview for economic modeling

Objective:

To identify cost estimates related to myocardial infarction (MI) or stroke in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) for use in economic models.

Methods:

A systematic literature review was conducted. Electronic databases and conference abstracts were screened against inclusion criteria, which included studies performed in patients who had T2DM before experiencing an MI or stroke. Primary cost studies and economic models were included. Costs were converted to 2012 pounds sterling.

Results:

Fifty-four studies were identified: 13 primary cost studies and 41 economic evaluations using secondary sources for complication costs. Primary studies provided costs from 10 countries. Estimates for a fatal event ranged from £2482–£5222 for MI and from £4900–£6694 for stroke. Costs for the year a non-fatal event occurred ranged from £5071–£29,249 for MI and from £5171–£38,732 for stroke. Annual follow-up costs ranged from £945–£1616 for an MI and from £4704–£12,926 for a stroke. Economic evaluations from 12 countries were identified, and costs of complications showed similar variability to the primary studies.

Discussion:

The costs identified within primary studies varied between and within countries. Many studies used costs estimated in studies not specific to patients with T2DM. Data gaps included a detailed breakdown of resource use, which affected the ability to compare data across countries.

Conclusions:

In the development of economic models for patients with T2DM, the use of accurate estimates of costs associated with MI and stroke is important. When country-specific costs are not available, clear justification for the choice of estimates should be provided.     

Economic evaluation of BST-CarGel as an adjunct to microfracture vs microfracture alone in knee cartilage surgery

Objectives:

Knee cartilage damage is a common cause of referral for orthopedic surgery. Treatment aims to reduce pain and symptoms by repairing cartilage. Microfracture, the current standard of care, yields good short-term clinical outcomes; however, treatment might fail after 2–3 years. A Chitosan-Beta glycerolphosphate-based medical device (BST-CarGel) is used as an adjunct to microfracture and demonstrates improvements in quantity and quality of repaired tissue, potentially reducing the risk of treatment failure. This study aimed to establish the economic value of BST-CarGel vs microfracture alone in knee cartilage repair from the societal perspective, using Germany as the reference market.

Methods:

A decision tree with a 20-year time-horizon was constructed, in which undesirable clinical events were inferred following initial surgery. These events consisted of pain management, surgery, and total knee replacement. Clinical outcomes were taken from the pivotal clinical trial, supplemented by other literature. Data and assumptions were validated by a Delphi panel. All relevant resource use and costs for procedures and events were considered.

Results:

In a group of patients with all lesion sizes, the model inferred that BST-CarGel yields a positive return on investment at year 4 (with 20-year cumulative cost savings of €6448). Reducing the incremental risk of treatment failure gap between the device and microfracture by 25–50% does not alter this conclusion. Cost savings are greatest for patients with large lesions; results for patients with small lesions are more modest.

Limitations:

Clinical evidence for microfracture and other interventions varies in quality. Comparative long-term data are lacking. The comparison is limited to microfracture and looks only at costs without considering quality-of-life.

Conclusion:

BST-CarGel potentially represents a cost-saving alternative for patients with knee cartilage injury by reducing the risk of clinical events through regeneration of chondral tissue with hyaline characteristics. Since the burden of this condition is high, both to the patient and society, an effective and economically viable alternative is of importance.     

Cost effectiveness analysis of a next generation risk assessment score for cardiovascular disease

Objectives:

The goal of this study is to determine the cost-effectiveness of MIRISK VP, a next generation coronary heart disease risk assessment score, in correctly reclassifying and appropriately treating asymptomatic, intermediate risk patients.

Study design:

A Markov model was employed with simulated subjects based on the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA). This study evaluated three treatment strategies: (i) practice at MESA enrollment, (ii) current guidelines, and (iii) MIRISK VP in MESA.

Methods:

The model assessed patient healthcare costs and outcomes, expressed in terms of life years and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), over the lifetime of the cohort from the provider and payer perspective. A total of 50,000 hypothetical individuals were used in the model. A sensitivity analysis was conducted (based on the various input parameters) for the entire cohort and also for individuals aged 65 and older.

Results:

Guiding treatment with MIRISK VP leads to the highest net monetary benefits when compared to the ‘Practice at MESA Enrollment’ or to the ‘Current Guidelines’ strategies. MIRISK VP resulted in a lower mortality rate from any CHD event and a modest increase in QALY of 0.12–0.17 years compared to the other two approaches.

Limitations:

This study has limitations of not comparing performance against strategies other than the FRS, the results are simulated as with all models, the model does not incorporate indirect healthcare costs, and the impact of patient or physician behaviors on outcomes were not taken into account.

Conclusions:

MIRISK VP has the potential to improve patient outcomes compared to the alternative strategies. It is marginally more costly than both the ‘Practice at MESA Enrollment’ and the ‘Current Guidelines’ strategies, but it provides increased effectiveness, which leads to positive net monetary benefits over either strategy.     

A Canadian cost-effectiveness analysis of transcatheter mitral valve repair with the MitraClip system in high surgical risk patients with significant mitral regurgitation

Objective:

In patients with significant mitral regurgitation (MR) at high risk of mortality and morbidity from mitral valve surgery, transcatheter mitral valve repair with the MitraClip System is associated with a reduction in MR and improved quality-of-life and functional status compared with baseline. The objective was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of MitraClip therapy compared with standard of care in patients with significant MR at high risk for mitral valve surgery from a Canadian payer perspective.

Methods:

A decision analytic model was developed to estimate the lifetime costs, life years, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost per life year and QALY gained for patients receiving MitraClip therapy compared with standard of care. Treatment-specific overall survival, risk of clinical events, quality-of-life, and resource utilization were obtained from the Endovascular Valve Edge-to-Edge REpair High Risk Study (EVEREST II HRS). Health utility and unit costs (CAD $2013) were taken from the published literature. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore the impact of alternative assumptions and parameter uncertainty on results.

Results:

The base case incremental cost per QALY gained was $23,433. Results were most sensitive to alternative assumptions regarding overall survival, time horizon, and risk of hospitalization for congestive heart failure (CHF). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed MitraClip therapy to have a 92% chance of being cost-effective compared with standard of care at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000 per QALY gained.

Study limitations:

Key limitations include the small number of patients included in the EVEREST II HRS which informed the analysis, the limited data available to inform clinical events and disease progression in the concurrent comparator group, and the lack of a comparator group from a randomized control trial.

Conclusion:

MitraClip therapy is likely a cost-effective option for the treatment of patients at high risk for mitral valve surgery with significant MR.     

Cost-effectiveness of aripiprazole once-monthly compared with paliperidone palmitate once-monthly injectable for the treatment of schizophrenia in the United States

Objective:

To develop a decision-analytic model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of initiating maintenance treatment with aripiprazole once-monthly (AOM) vs paliperidone long-acting injectable (PLAI) once-monthly among patients with schizophrenia in the US.

Methods:

A decision-analytic model was developed to evaluate a hypothetical cohort of patients initiating maintenance treatment with AOM or PLAI. Rates of relapse, adverse events (AEs), and direct medical costs were estimated for 1 year. Patients either remained on initial treatment or discontinued treatment due to lack of efficacy, AEs, or other reasons, including non-adherence. Data from placebo-controlled pivotal trials and product prescribing information (PI) were used to estimate treatment efficacy and AEs. Analyses were performed assuming dosing of clinical trials, real-world practice, PIs, and highest therapeutic dose available, because of variation in practice settings. The main outcome of interest was incremental cost per schizophrenia hospitalization averted with AOM vs PLAI.

Results:

Based on placebo-controlled pivotal trials’ dosing, AOM improved clinical outcomes by reducing schizophrenia relapses vs PLAI (0.181 vs 0.277 per person per year [pppy]) at an additional cost of US$1276 pppy, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of US$13,280/relapse averted. When PI dosing was assumed, this ICER increased to US$19,968/relapse averted. When real-world dosing and highest available dosing were assumed, AOM was associated with fewer relapses and lower overall treatment costs vs PLAI.

Conclusions:

AOM consistently provided favorable clinical benefits. Under various dosing scenarios, AOM results indicated fewer relapses at lower overall costs or a reasonable cost-effectiveness threshold (i.e., less than the cost of a hospitalization relapse) vs PLAI. Given the heterogeneous nature of schizophrenia and variability in treatment response, health plans may consider open access for treatments like AOM. Since model inputs were based on data from separate placebo-controlled trials, generalization of results to the real-world setting is limited.     

Recent trends in brand-name and generic drug competition

Objective:

To provide evidence on recent trends in: (1) market exclusivity periods (MEPs, the time between launch of a brand-name drug and its first generic competitor) for new molecular entities (NMEs); (2) the likelihood and timing of patent challenges under Paragraph IV of the Hatch-Waxman Act; and (3) generic drug penetration.

Methods:

IMS Health National Sales Perspectives data were used to calculate MEPs for the 257 NMEs experiencing initial generic entry between January 1995 and September 2012 and the number of generic competitors for 12 months afterwards, by level of annual sales prior to generic entry and time period. The likelihood and timing of Paragraph IV challenge were calculated using data from Abbreviated New Drug Approval (ANDA) approval letters, the FDA website, and public information searches to identify drugs experiencing Paragraph IV filings, and the first filing date.

Results:

For drugs experiencing initial generic entry in 2011–2012, the MEP was 12.6 years for drugs with sales greater than $100 million (in 2008 dollars) in the year prior to generic entry, 12.9 years overall. After generic entry, the brand rapidly lost sales, with average brand unit share of 16% at 1 year; 11% for NMEs with pre-generic entry sales of at least $250 million (in 2008 dollars). Over 80% of NMEs experiencing 2011–2012 initial generic entry had faced at least one Paragraph IV challenge from a generic manufacturer. These challenges were filed relatively early in the brand-name drug life cycle: within 7 years after brand launch, on average.

Limitations:

Analyses, including Paragraph IV calculations, were restricted to NMEs where generic entry had occurred.

Conclusion:

Pharmaceutical competition continues to evolve; while the average MEP below 13 years for 2011–2012 remains consistent with prior research, Paragraph IV challenges are increasingly frequent and occur earlier, and generic share erosion has intensified.     

Cost effectiveness of a 92-gene assay for the diagnosis of metastatic cancer

Objectives:

To estimate the clinical and economic trade-offs involved in using a molecular assay (92-gene assay, CancerTYPE ID) to aid in identifying the primary site of difficult-to-diagnose metastatic cancers and to explore whether the 92-gene assay can be used to standardize the diagnostic process and costs for clinicians, patients, and payers.

Methods:

Four decision-analytic models were developed to project the lifetime clinical and economic impact of incorporating the 92-gene assay compared with standard care alone. For each model, total and incremental costs, life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost–effectiveness ratios (ICERs), and the proportion of patients treated correctly versus incorrectly were projected from the payer perspective. Model inputs were based on published literature, analyses of SEER (Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results) data, publicly available data, and interviews with clinical experts.

Results:

In all four models, the 92-gene assay increased the proportion of patients treated correctly, decreased the proportion of patients treated with empiric therapy, and increased quality-adjusted survival. In the primary model, the ICER was $50,273/QALY; thus, the 92-gene assay is therefore cost effective when considering a societal willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY. These findings were robust across sensitivity analyses.

Conclusions:

Use of the 92-gene assay for diagnosing metastatic tumors of uncertain origin is associated with reduced misdiagnoses, increased survival, and improved quality of life. Incorporating the assay into current practice is a cost-effective approach to standardizing diagnostic methods while improving patient care. Limitations of this analysis are the lack of data availability and resulting modeling simplifications, although sensitivity analyses showed these to not be key drivers of results.     

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.     

Budget impact of pasireotide for the treatment of Cushing’s disease,a rare endocrine disorder associated with considerable comorbidities

Objectives:

Cushing’s disease (CD) is a rare condition with a prevalence of roughly 39 cases per million in the general population. Healthcare costs are substantial for CD patients with either untreated or inadequately controlled disease. This study assesses the 3-year budget impact of pasireotide on a US managed care health plan following pasireotide (Signifor) availability.

Methods:

Two scenarios were evaluated to understand the differences in costs associated with the introduction of pasireotide. The first scenario evaluates the budget impact of pasireotide from the perspective of an entire health plan (total budget impact) and the second from the perspective of the pharmacy budget (pharmacy budget impact). Both scenarios evaluate the annual incremental budget impact with and without pasireotide. Scenario 1 includes costs for medical procedures, drug therapies, monitoring, surgical complications, comorbidities for patients with controlled or uncontrolled CD, and adverse events. Procedures include transsphenoidal surgery, bilateral adrenalectomy, radiotherapy and radiosurgery. Drugs include pasireotide (indicated for CD), mifepristone (indicated to control hyperglycemia secondary to hypercortisolism in patients with Cushing’s syndrome) as well as several off-label treatments (ketoconazole, cabergoline, mitotane). Scenario 2 considers costs solely from the perspective of a health plan pharmacy. Costs are in $2013.

Results:

The estimated total budget impact is $0.0115 per-member per-month (PMPM) in the first year following FDA approval, $0.0184 in the second year, and $0.0194 in the third year. Introduction of pasireotide is expected to increase the pharmacy budget by $0.0257 PMPM in the first year, $0.0363 in the second year, and $0.0360 in the third year.

Limitations:

Model inputs rely on the small body of literature available for Cushing’s disease.

Conclusions:

Cushing’s disease is severe disease with debilitating comorbidities and substantial healthcare costs when untreated or inadequately controlled. The inclusion of pasireotide in a health plan formulary appears to have only a small impact on the total health plan or pharmacy budget.     

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.     

An incidence model of the cost of advanced prostate cancer in Spain

Background:

Prostate cancer (PCa) is the second leading cancer diagnosed among men. In Spain the incidence of PCa was 70.75 cases per 100,000 males. Advanced PCa has spread outside of the prostate capsule and may involve other parts of the body. The aim of this study was to estimate the lifetime costs of a cohort of advanced PCa patients diagnosed in Spain in 2012.

Methods:

A partitioned economic model was developed in EXCEL incorporating Spanish incidence, mortality, and cost data supplemented with data from the international literature. Progression from Stage III to Stage IV was permitted. Costs were discounted at the standard rate of 3%. Lifetime costs were presented on an individual basis and for the entire cohort of newly diagnosed Stage III and Stage IV PCa patients.

Results:

Lifetime costs for advanced PCa were ～€19,961 per patient (mean survival of 8.4 years). Using the projected incident cases for 2012 (3047), the total cost for the incident cohort of patients in 2012 would amount to €61 million. These results were more sensitive to changes in the ongoing costs (post-initial 12 months) of Stage III PCa, the rate of progression from Stage III to Stage IV, and the discount rate applied to costs.

Conclusions:

This study provides an estimate of the lifetime costs of advanced PCa in Spain and a framework for further research. The study is limited by the availability of long-term Spanish data and the need to make inferences from international studies. However, until long-term prospective or observational data do become available in Spain, based on the assumptions, the current results indicate that the burden of advanced PCa in Spain is substantial. Any treatments that could potentially reduce the economic burden of the disease should be of interest to healthcare decision makers.     

Is transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) a cost-effective treatment in patients who are ineligible for surgical aortic valve replacement? A systematic review of economic evaluations

Objectives:

Health Technology Assessment (HTA) agencies often undertake a review of economic evaluations of an intervention during an appraisal in order to identify published estimates of cost-effectiveness, to elicit comparisons with the results of their own model, and to support local reimbursement decision-making. The aim of this research is to determine whether Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI) compared to medical management (MM) is cost-effective in patients ineligible for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), across different jurisdictions and country-specific evaluations.

Methods:

A systematic review of the literature from 2007–2012 was performed in the MEDLINE, MEDLINE in-process, EMBASE, and UK NHS EED databases according to standard methods, supplemented by a search of published HTA models. All identified publications were reviewed independently by two health economists. The British Medical Journal (BMJ) 35-point checklist for economic evaluations was used to assess study reporting. To compare results, incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were converted to 2012 dollars using purchasing power parity (PPP) techniques.

Results:

Six studies were identified representing five reimbursement jurisdictions (England/Wales, Scotland, the US, Canada, and Belgium) and different modeling techniques. The identified economic evaluations represent different willingness-to-pay thresholds, discount rates, medical costs, and healthcare systems. In addition, the model structures, time horizons, and cycle lengths varied. When adjusting for differences in currencies, the ICERs ranged from $27K–$65K per QALY gained.

Conclusions:

Despite notable differences in modeling approach, under the thresholds defined by using either the local threshold value or that recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) threshold value, each study showed that TAVI was likely to be a cost-effective intervention for patients ineligible for SAVR.