An indirect comparison,via enoxaparin,of rivaroxaban with dabigatran in the prevention of venous thromboembolism after hip or knee replacement

Abstract

Objective:

To compare the efficacy, in the prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE), and safety, of rivaroxaban and dabigatran relative to the common comparator enoxaparin.

Methods:

Two randomized clinical trials of dabigatran, one after total hip replacement (THR), RE-NOVATE, and one after total knee replacement (TKR), RE-MODEL, were identified as using the same enoxaparin regimen (40?mg once daily given the evening before surgery) and being of comparable duration to two rivaroxaban trials, RECORD1 and RECORD3. Indirect comparisons were performed on both efficacy and safety endpoints. To enable comparisons, symptomatic VTE results were based on the total study duration period, i.e. including the follow-up period. Major bleeding included surgical-site bleeding events.

Results:

After THR, rivaroxaban 10?mg once daily significantly reduced total VTE and symptomatic VTE relative to dabigatran 220?mg once daily (relative risk 0.34 and 0.19, respectively). After TKR, rivaroxaban significantly reduced total VTE versus dabigatran (relative risk 0.53); symptomatic VTE was not different between dabigatran and rivaroxaban. There was no significant difference in the rates of major bleeding for patients receiving rivaroxaban or dabigatran.

Conclusions:

Based on the indirect comparisons, rivaroxaban was estimated to be more efficacious than dabigatran in the prevention of total VTE after THR and TKR. Our analysis relied upon published data for dabigatran and did not have the advantages of more detailed comparative data obtained directly from a randomized trial, as was the case with rivaroxaban. Further comparative research may be of value, but until available our conclusions represent the best available evidence.     

Economic evaluation of dabigatran etexilate for the primary prevention of venous tromboembolic events following major orthopedic surgery in the Netherlands

Abstract

Objectives:

Dabigatran etexilate is a new oral direct thrombin inhibitor for prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients who have elective surgery for total hip replacement (THR) or total knee replacement (TKR). Among the advantages of dabigatran etexilate over subcutaneous prophylaxis with Low Molecular Weight Heparin (LMWH) are reduced resource uses for (i) teaching patients to self-inject; (ii) home-care visits for subcutaneous administration; and (iii) absence of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT). Based on the demonstrated non-inferiority, the aim of this study was to conduct a cost-minimization analysis of oral dabigatran etexilate vs subcutaneous low-molecular weight heparin (LMWH) and fondaparinux from the Dutch healthcare perspective.

Methods:

A retrospective cohort study was conducted to measure resource use associated with subcutaneous prophylaxis. Results of this study were used in the model to elucidate specific advantages of dabigatran etexilate, next to reduced needs for self-inject teaching and lack of Heparin-Induced Thrombocytopenia. Drug and other resource utilization data were combined with local unit costs. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed to account for uncertainty around relevant parameters included.

Results:

Home-care visits for subcutaneous administration problems were needed in 9.9% (95% CI?=?6.4–13.4) and 9.6% (95% CI?=?5.8–13.4) of THR and TKR patients, respectively. Based on costs for 1000 patients treated with dabigatran etexilate vs LMWHs, per patient cost-savings with dabigatran etexilate were estimated at €30.68 (95% CI?=?2.01–65.52) and €23.19 (95% CI?=?0.69–48.48) for THR and TKR, respectively. The probability that dabigatran etexilate would be cost-saving was estimated at 98.3% and 97.9% for THR and TKR, respectively. These cost-savings were even higher when including fondaparinux in the analysis, with per patient cost-savings of €69.87 (43.42–106.10) and €18.33 (1.63–41.26) for THR and TKR, respectively. Separate calculations for dabigatran etexilate vs nadroparin and dalteparin in THR resulted in probabilities of achieving cost-savings with dabigatran etexilate of 36.2% and 100%, respectively. For TKR these probabilities were estimated at 54.3% and 100%, respectively.

Conclusions:

Thromboprophylaxis with dabigatran etexilate is cost-saving in patients undergoing THR and TKR from the Dutch healthcare perspective, compared to subcutaneous LMWHs.     

The economic implications of switching to rivaroxaban from enoxaparin plus vitamin K antagonist in the treatment of venous thromboembolism

Abstract

Objective:

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) impacts ～900,000 individuals annually in the US, causing up to 100,000 deaths. Patients experiencing VTE have heightened risk of recurrence. Initial parenteral anti-coagulation is standard therapy for acute VTE followed by ≥3 months of warfarin, which introduces the risk of major bleeding. Balancing increased risks of bleeding and recurrent VTE remains challenging. Recent clinical trials suggest that rivaroxaban, an oral direct inhibitor of factor Xa, provides an effective, safe, simplified approach to treatment. This study considers the economic implications of these data.     

Cost-effectiveness of dabigatran etexilate in the prevention of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with atrial fibrillation in Belgium

Abstract

Objective:

To assess the cost-effectiveness of dabigatran etexilate (‘dabigatran’) vs vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in the Belgian healthcare setting for the prevention of stroke and systemic embolism (SE) in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF).

Research design and methods:

A Markov model was used to calculate the cost-effectiveness of dabigatran vs VKAs in Belgium, whereby warfarin was considered representative for the VKA class. Efficacy and safety data were taken from the Randomized Evaluation of Long-Term Anticoagulation Therapy (RE-LY) trial and a network meta-analysis. Local resource use and unit costs were included in the model. Effectiveness was expressed in Quality Adjusted Life-Years (QALYs). The model outcomes were total costs, total QALYs, incremental costs, incremental QALYs and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The level of International Normalized Ratio (INR) control and the use of other antithrombotic therapies observed in Belgian clinical practice were reflected in two scenario analyses.

Results:

In the base case analysis, total costs per patient were €13,333 for dabigatran and €12,454 for warfarin. Total QALYs per patient were 9.51 for dabigatran and 9.19 for warfarin. The corresponding ICER was €2807/QALY. The ICER of dabigatran was €970/QALY vs warfarin with real-world INR control and €5296/QALY vs a mix of warfarin, aspirin, and no treatment. Results were shown to be robust in one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

Limitations:

The analysis does not include long-term costs for clinical events, as these data were not available for Belgium. As in any economic model based on data from a randomized clinical trial, several assumptions had to be made when extrapolating results to routine clinical practice in Belgium.

Conclusion:

This analysis suggests that dabigatran, a novel oral anticoagulant, is a cost-effective treatment for the prevention of stroke and SE in patients with non-valvular AF in the Belgian healthcare setting.     

Cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban in the prevention of venous thromboembolism: A Canadian analysis using the Ontario Ministry of Health Perspective

Abstract

Objectives:

A cost-effectiveness model for rivaroxaban evaluated the cost-effectiveness of prophylaxis with rivaroxaban (a once-daily, orally administered Factor Xa inhibitor) vs enoxaparin in the prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE) after total hip replacement (THR) and total knee replacement (TKR). This Canadian analysis was conducted using the Ontario Ministry of Health perspective over a 5-year time horizon. The model combined clinical data and builds upon existing economic models.

Methods:

The model included both acute VTE (represented as a decision tree) and long-term complications (represented as a Markov process with 1-year cycles) phases. The model allowed VTE event rates, quality-adjusted life expectancy and direct medical costs to be estimated over a 5-year time horizon, based on current approved practice patterns in Canada. A number of one-way sensitivity analyses were performed on the baseline assumptions, including a comparison of rivaroxaban with dalteparin, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to address any uncertainty concerning model inputs.

Results:

When comparing equal durations of therapy, rivaroxaban dominated enoxaparin in the prevention of VTE events in patients undergoing THR and TKR, providing more benefit at a lower cost. Rivaroxaban was cost-effective when comparing 35 days’ prophylaxis with 14 days’ prophylaxis with enoxaparin following THR. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the results of the economic analysis were robust to variations in key inputs. Rivaroxaban remained dominant during one-way sensitivity analyses comparing rivaroxaban with dalteparin after THR or TKR.

Limitations:

Although clinical trial data were used in the prophylaxis module, assumptions and values used in the post-prophylaxis and long-term complication (LTC) modules were based on several different literature sources; it was not always possible to source Canadian data.

Conclusions:

This economic analysis suggests that the use of rivaroxaban for the prophylaxis of VTE after THR or TKR in Canada was cost-effective.     

Cost comparison of continued anticoagulation with rivaroxaban versus placebo based on the 1-year EINSTEIN-Extension trial efficacy and safety results

Aims: The EINSTEIN-Extension trial (EINSTEIN-EXT) found that continued treatment with rivaroxaban for an additional 6 or 12 months (vs placebo) after 6–12 months of initial anticoagulation significantly reduced the risk of recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) with a small non-significant increased risk of major bleeding (none fatal or in critical site). This study aimed to compare total healthcare cost between rivaroxaban and placebo, based on the EINSTEIN-EXT event rates.

Methods: Total healthcare cost was calculated as the sum of treatment and clinical event costs from a US managed care perspective. Treatment duration and event rates were obtained from the EINSTEIN-EXT study. Adjustment on treatment duration was made by assuming a 10% non-adherence rate. Drug costs were based on wholesale acquisition costs. Cost estimates for clinical events (i.e. recurrent deep vein thrombosis [DVT], recurrent pulmonary embolism, major bleeding, clinically relevant non-major bleeding) were determined from the literature. Results were examined over a ±20% range of each cost component and over 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of event rate differences in deterministic (one-way) and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA).

Results: Total healthcare cost was $1,454 lower for rivaroxaban-treated (vs placebo-treated) patients in the base-case, with a lower clinical event cost fully offsetting drug cost. The cost savings of recurrent DVT alone (–$3,102) was greater than drug cost ($2,723). Total healthcare cost remained lower for rivaroxaban in the majority (73%) of PSA (cost difference [95% CI]?=?–$1,454 [–$2,396, $1,231]).

Limitations: This study was conducted over the 1-year observation period of the EINSTEIN-EXT trial, which limited “real-world” applicability and examination of long-term economic impact. Assumptions on drug and clinical event costs were US-based and, thus, not applicable to other healthcare systems.

Conclusions: Total healthcare costs were estimated to be lower for patients continuing rivaroxaban therapy compared to those receiving placebo in VTE patients who had completed 6–12 months of VTE treatment.     

Cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban versus warfarin for stroke prevention in non-valvular atrial fibrillation in the Japanese healthcare setting

Abstract

Aims: This article aimed to examine the cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban in comparison to warfarin for stroke prevention in Japanese patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF), from a public healthcare payer’s perspective.

Materials and methods: Baseline event risks were obtained from the J-ROCKET AF trial and the treatment effect data were taken from a network meta-analysis. The other model inputs were extracted from the literature and official Japanese sources. The outcomes included the number of ischaemic strokes, myocardial infarctions, systemic embolisms and bleedings avoided, life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The scenario analysis considered treatment effect data from the same network meta-analysis.

Results: In comparison with warfarin, rivaroxaban was estimated to avoid 0.284 ischaemic strokes per patient, to increase the number of QALYs by 0.535 per patient and to decrease the total costs by ¥118,892 (€1,011.11) per patient (1 JPY = 0.00850638 EUR; XE.com, 7 October 2019). Consequently, rivaroxaban treatment was found to be dominant compared to warfarin. In the scenario analysis, the ICER of rivaroxaban versus warfarin was ¥2,873,499 (€24,446.42) per QALY.

Limitations: The various sources of data used resulted in the heterogeneity of the cost-effectiveness analysis results. Although, rivaroxaban was cost-effective in the majority of cases.

Conclusion: Rivaroxaban is cost-effective against warfarin for stroke prevention in Japanese patients with NVAF, giving the payer WTP of 5,000,000 JPY.     

Stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation in France: comparative cost-effectiveness of new oral anticoagulants (apixaban,dabigatran, and rivaroxaban), warfarin,and aspirin

Objectives:

To conduct an economic evaluation of the currently prescribed treatments for stroke prevention in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) including warfarin, aspirin, and novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) from a French payer perspective.

Methods:

A previously published Markov model was adapted in accordance to the new French guidelines of the Commission for Economic Evaluation and Public Health (CEESP), to adopt the recommended efficiency frontier approach. A cohort of patients with NVAF eligible for stroke preventive treatment was simulated over lifetime. Clinical events modeled included strokes, systemic embolism, intracranial hemorrhage, other major bleeds, clinically relevant non-major bleeds, and myocardial infarction. Efficacy and bleeding data for warfarin, apixaban, and aspirin were obtained from ARISTOTLE and AVERROES trials, whilst efficacy data for other NOACs were from published indirect comparisons. Acute medical costs were obtained from a dedicated analysis of the French national hospitalization database (PMSI). Long-term medical costs and utility data were derived from the literature. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robustness of the model projections.

Results:

Warfarin and apixaban were the two optimal treatment choices, as the other five treatment strategies including aspirin, dabigatran 110?mg, dabigatran in sequential dosages, dabigatran 150?mg, and rivaroxaban were strictly dominated on the efficiency frontier. Further, apixaban was a cost-effective alternative vs warfarin with an incremental cost of €2314 and an incremental quality-adjusted life year (QALY) of 0.189, corresponding to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €12,227/QALY.

Conclusions:

Apixaban may be the most economically efficient alternative to warfarin in NVAF patients eligible for stroke prevention in France. All other strategies were dominated, yielding apixaban as a less costly yet more effective treatment alternative. As formally requested by the CEESP, these results need to be verified in a French clinical setting using stroke reduction and bleeding safety observed in real-life patient cohorts using these anticoagulants.     

A cost-utility analysis of adjunctive treatment with newer antiepileptic drugs in the UK

Summary

A recent review found that economic assessment of epilepsy treatment relies largely on hypothetical modelling of outcomes and combining these with resource and cost data from different sources. Prospective evaluations combining cost studies with outcome assessments are lacking. However, such a prospective observational study has been carried out previously, but only partially reported. We present a comprehensive cost-utility analysis of adjunctive newer antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) based on observational data from that study, and assess the uncertainty of the results using bootstrapping.

A total of 125 patients with intractable epilepsy were recruited. Each patient was about to start treatment with a new adjunctive AED [clobazam, (non-proprietary) gabapentin (Neurontin®, Parke-Davis, UK), lamotrigine (Lamictal®, GlaxoSmithKline, UK), topiramate (Topamax®, Janssen-Cilag, UK), or vigabatrin (Sabril®, Aventis Pharma, UK)]. Patients completed semi-structured interviews on resource use, side effects, and the EuroQol EQ-5D. Patients were followed up for 6 months. Patient-specific cost and utility data were analysed separately for each AED on an intent-to-treat basis. Uncertainty in the estimated incremental cost-utility ratios was quantified using the non-parametric bootstrap method, and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were calculated.

At 6 months, 78 patients were still on their prescribed drug. Only topiramate and vigabatrin patients showed an increase in EQ-5D scores, and therefore dominated

other AEDs. Topiramate had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £7,869/QALY compared with vigabatrin, and had more than a 50% chance of being optimal if the ceiling ratio was above £10,000/QALY.

Observational studies provide a valuable source of information for the economic evaluation of AEDs. In this study non-parametric bootstrapping was used to confirm the cost-effectiveness of adjunctive topiramate for patients with refractory epilepsy.     

Matching-adjusted indirect comparison of adalimumab vs etanercept and infliximab for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis

Abstract

Objectives:

No head-to-head trial has compared the efficacy of adalimumab vs etanercept and infliximab for psoriatic arthritis (PsA). This study implements a matching-adjusted indirect comparison technique to address that gap.

Methods:

Patient-level data from a placebo-controlled trial of adalimumab (ADEPT) were re-weighted to match average baseline characteristics from pivotal published trials of etanercept and infliximab. ADEPT patients were re-weighted by odds of enrollment in comparator trials, estimated using logistic regression. Matched-on characteristics included PsA duration, age, gender, severity, active psoriasis, and concomitant treatment. After matching, placebo-adjusted treatment arms were compared at weeks 12 (or 14) and 24. Outcomes included ACR20/50/70, PsARC, HAQ, and modified TSS. PASI50/75/90 were compared for patients with active psoriasis. Cost per responder (CPR) was assessed in the US and Germany using matching-adjusted end-points and drug list prices. Statistical significance was assessed using weighted t-tests.

Results:

After matching, adalimumab-treated patients had greater placebo-adjusted rates of ACR70 and PASI50/75/90 at week 24 compared with etanercept (all p?<?0.05). Adalimumab patients had a higher placebo-adjusted rate of ACR70 than infliximab at week 14 (p?=?0.034). Adalimumab treatment had lower CPR for ACR70 and PASI50/75/90 compared with etanercept at week 24, in both the US and Germany (all p?<?0.02). Adalimumab had lower CPR than infliximab for all outcomes at week 24 (all p?<?0.05).

Conclusion:

Adalimumab is associated with higher ACR70 and PASI50/75/90 response rates than etanercept at week 24 and a higher ACR70 response rate than infliximab at week 14. Adalimumab has significant advantages over etanercept and infliximab in CPR across multiple end-points.

Key limitations:

The matching-adjusted indirect comparison method cannot account for unobserved differences in patient characteristics across trials, and only a head-to-head randomized clinical trial can fully avoid the limitations of indirect comparisons. CPR findings are limited to the US and German markets, and may not be generalizable to other markets with different relative pricing.     

Risks and cost burden of venous thromboembolism and bleeding for patients undergoing total hip or knee replacement in a managed-care population

Abstract

Background:

Total hip and total knee replacement (THR/TKR) patients are at increased risk of developing venous thromboembolism (VTE). VTE prevention using anticoagulation therapy increases the risk of bleeding. Therefore, any assessment of the cost of VTE and its prevention should also take into consideration risks and costs of bleeding.

Objective:

To assess the risks of developing VTE and bleeding in patients after THR or TKR given real-world use of thromboprophylaxis, and to quantify the incremental cost associated with each.

Methods:

Analyses of insurance healthcare claims from the Ingenix IMPACT National Managed Care Database^TM from January 2004 to December 2008 were conducted. Subjects were ≥18 years and had ≥1 procedure code for THR or TKR. Patients had to have ≥180 days of observation prior to surgery and were observed for ≤3 months after THR or TKR. VTE was defined as ≥1 diagnosis code for deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism. Bleeding events were classified as major or non-major. Risks of VTE or bleeding events were calculated as number of patients with an event divided by number of patients with the procedure. Incremental all-cause healthcare costs associated with VTE or bleeding were calculated as the difference between cohorts of patients without VTE or bleeding matched 1:1 to patients with VTE or bleeding.

Results:

Of 119,729 patients (43,670 THR and 76,059 TKR), 7974 had a VTE event and 4849 had a bleeding event (2216 major bleeding [a subset of ‘any bleeding’]). The risks of VTE, any bleeding, and major bleeding were 6.7, 4.0, and 1.9 events, respectively, per 100 patients. Up to 3 months after THR/TKR, mean incremental all-cause healthcare costs per patient per month associated with VTE, bleeding, and major bleeding were $2729, $2696, and $4304, respectively. Total monthly costs versus matched controls over 3 months were: VTE: $12,333 vs. $9604; any bleeding: $12,481 vs. $9785; major bleeding: $14,015 vs. $9710; p?<?0.001 for all.

Limitations:

Key limitations included potential inaccuracies or omissions in procedures, diagnoses, or costs of claims data; lack of information on the amount of blood transfused or decreases in the hemoglobin level to evaluate the severity of a bleeding event; and potential biases due to the observational design of the study.

Conclusion:

From the managed-care population perspective, in THR/TKR patients the greater incidence of VTE compared to any bleeding and major bleeding translated into a higher cumulative cost burden.     

Comparison of differences in medical costs when new oral anticoagulants are used for the treatment of patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation and venous thromboembolism vs warfarin or placebo in the US

Abstract

Objective:

Medical costs that may be avoided when any of the four new oral anticoagulants (NOACs), dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban, are used instead of warfarin for the treatment of non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) were estimated and compared. Additionally, the overall differences in medical costs were estimated for NVAF and venous thromboembolism (VTE) patient populations combined.     

Economic and clinical comparison of atypical depot antipsychotic drugs for treatment of chronic schizophrenia in the Czech Republic

Abstract

Purpose:

The Czech Republic is faced with making choices between pharmaceutical products, including depot injectable antipsychotics. A pharmacoeconomic analysis was conducted to determine the cost-effectiveness of atypical depots.

Methods:

An existing 1-year decision-analytic framework was adapted to model drug use in this healthcare system. The average direct costs to the General Insurance Company of the Czech Republic of using paliperidone palmitate (Xeplion®), risperidone (Risperdal Consta®), and olanzapine pamoate (Zypadhera®) were determined. Literature-derived clinical rates populated the model, with costs adjusted to 2012 Euros using the consumer price index. Outcomes included quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), days in remission, and proportions hospitalized or visiting emergency rooms. One-way sensitivity analyses were calculated for all important inputs. A multivariate probability analysis was used to examine the stability of results using 10,000 iterations of simulated input over reasonable ranges of all included variables.

Results:

Expected average costs/per patient treated were €5377 for PP-LAI, €6118 for RIS-LAI, and €6537 for OLZ-LAI. Respective QALYs were 0.817, 0.809, and 0.811; ER visits were 0.127, 0.134, and 0.141; hospitalizations were 0.252, 0.298, and 0.289. Results were generally robust in sensitivity analyses. PP-LAI dominated RIS-LAI and OLZ-LAI in 90.2% and 92.1% of simulations, respectively. Results were insensitive to drug prices but sensitive to adherence and hospitalization rates.

Conclusions:

PP-LAI dominated the other two drugs, as it had a lower overall cost and superior clinical outcomes, making it the preferred choice. Using PP-LAI in place of RIS-LAI for chronic relapsing schizophrenia would reduce the overall costs of care for the healthcare system.     

Economic evaluation of extended and conventional prophylaxis with enoxaparin against venous thromboembolism in patients undergoing surgery for abdominal cancer

Summary

This study assesses the cost-effectiveness of extended enoxaparin prophylaxis (EEP) and conventional enoxaparin prophylaxis (CEP) compared with conventional unfractionated heparin prophylaxis (CUP) against venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients undergoing surgery for abdominal cancer.

A decision tree model compared CEP (enoxaparin 40 mg once daily for 8±2 days), EEP (CEP plus 21 days outpatient prophylaxis with enoxaparin 40 mg once daily), and CUP (unfractionated heparin (UFH) 5,000 IU three times daily for 8±2 days). The primary effectiveness measure was symptomatic VTE. Secondary effectiveness measures included life-years gained.

CEP was associated with reduced costs and similar rates of symptomatic VTE compared with UFH. The cost per life year gained with EEP was estimated to be £15,200 compared with UFH and £22,700 compared with CEP.

Extended prophylaxis reduces symptomatic VTE events but increases cost. In patients undergoing surgery for abdominal malignancy, conventional prophylaxis with enoxaparin 40 mg once daily was found to be at least as effective as UFH, and cost saving at current prices.     

Cost-effectiveness analysis of quadrivalent influenza vaccination in at-risk adults and the elderly: an updated analysis in the UK

Abstract

Objective:

To update an earlier evaluation estimating the cost-effectiveness of quadrivalent influenza vaccination (QIV) compared with trivalent influenza vaccination (TIV) in the adult population currently recommended for influenza vaccination in the UK (all people aged ≥65 years and people aged 18–64 years with clinical risk conditions).     

A cost-utility study of the use of pregabalin added to usual care in refractory neuropathic pain patients in a Swedish setting

Abstract

Objectives:

Patients refractory to older therapies for neuropathic pain (NeP) have few remaining therapeutic options. This study evaluates the cost-utility of pregabalin in the treatment of patients with refractory neuropathic pain in Sweden, from a healthcare and a societal perspective.

Study limitations:

The use of non-randomized (observational) data to determine the effectiveness of treatments for NeP. The use of non-Swedish data for some input parameters in the model.

Methods:

A previously constructed discrete event simulation model was adapted to compare pregabalin combined with usual care to usual care alone in a Swedish setting. Pain profiles were generated using clinical data from five non-randomized pregabalin studies in refractory NeP patients. Utility data were generated from a UK survey of patients with NeP. Cost data were generated from the Swedish Dental and Pharmaceutical Benefits Board (TLV’s) product price database, a national NeP register, and a regional registry study. Indirect costs were estimated from published sources. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses evaluated uncertainty in the model’s output.

Results:

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for pregabalin plus usual care treatment compared to usual care was 51,616 SEK/€5364 and 123,993 SEK/€12,886 with and without indirect costs, respectively. One-way sensitivity analyses confirmed the clinical input data as the main driver of the model; even considerable changes to all other input parameters had only a modest effect on the ICER. The ICER remained well below a conservative threshold of 347,495 SEK /€36,113/£30,000 in all scenarios modelled.

Conclusions:

This study found pregabalin combined with usual care to be cost-effective compared to usual care in patients with refractory NeP from a Swedish Health Care perspective. Moreover, sensitivity analysis showed pregabalin’s cost-effectiveness to be robust in all scenarios modelled.     

The cost-effectiveness of celecoxib vs diclofenac in the treatment of osteoarthritis in the UK; an update to the NICE model using data from the CONDOR trial

Abstract

Objectives:

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) health economic model for assessing the cost-effectiveness of celecoxib plus a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) compared to diclofenac plus PPI in the treatment of osteoarthritis has been updated using new adverse event (AE) risks from the CONDOR trial. In light of this new information, this study aimed to evaluate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of celecoxib plus PPI compared to diclofenac plus PPI.

Methods:

NICE developed a health economic model as part of their 2008 multiple technology assessment of treatments for osteoarthritis. The model was adapted for this study to update the relative risks of adverse events, using data from the CONDOR trial.

Results:

Using the AE data from the CLASS trial alone, celecoxib plus PPI has an ICER of £9538 per QALY when compared to diclofenac plus PPI. When the AE data from CONDOR alone is used, this ICER decreases to £4773 per QALY. Using the pooled data from both trials, celecoxib plus PPI has an ICER of £9377 per QALY compared to diclofenac plus PPI.

Discussion:

The results suggest that when new AE risks are used, celecoxib plus PPI remains a cost-effective treatment for OA when compared to diclofenac plus PPI. However, this analysis is limited by the short time horizon, and additional AEs that have not been considered.     

Cost-effectiveness of tapentadol prolonged release compared with oxycodone controlled release in the UK in patients with severe non-malignant chronic pain who failed 1st line treatment with morphine

Abstract

Objectives:

The aim of this analysis was to assess the cost-effectiveness of tapentadol PR (prolonged release) compared with oxycodone CR (controlled release) in severe non-malignant chronic pain patients in whom controlled release morphine was ineffective or not tolerated.

Methods:

A Markov model was developed to assess costs and benefits over a 1-year time horizon from the National Health Service perspective in the UK. Patients could either continue on 2nd line therapy or switch to 3rd line opioid due to lack of efficacy or poor tolerability. Patients failing also 3rd line therapy entered the final absorbing health state (4th line). Data on tolerability, efficacy, and utilities for tapentadol and oxycodone were obtained from the three comparative phase III clinical trials. Costs of resource consumption associated with opioid treatment were derived from a retrospective database analysis of anonymized patient records.

Results:

The model results predicted that initiating 2nd line therapy with tapentadol leads to higher effectiveness and lower costs vs oxycodone. For the overall population included in the clinical trials, mean annual costs per patient when treated with tapentadol and oxycodone were £3543 and £3656, respectively. Treatment with tapentadol, while cheaper than oxycodone, was more effective (0.6371 vs 0.6237 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for tapentadol and oxycodone, respectively), meaning that tapentadol dominated oxycodone. For the sub-group of opioid-experienced patients with severe pain at baseline the ranking in terms of costs and QALYs remained unchanged. Extensive sensitivity analyses showed that conclusions about the cost-effectiveness are consistent.

Conclusions:

The cost-effectiveness study suggested that initiating 2nd line treatment in patients with severe non-malignant chronic pain in the UK with tapentadol instead of oxycodone improves patients’ quality-of-life and is less costly. Key limitations when interpreting the results are the use of different sources to populate the model and restricted generalizability due to data extrapolation.