Comparative cost analysis of management of secondary hyperparathyroidism with paricalcitol or cinacalcet with low-dose vitamin D in hemodialysis patients

Abstract

Objective:

The objective of this analysis was to compare costs of paricalcitol or cinacalcet plus low dose vitamin D, and of phosphate binders, in patients in the IMPACT SHPT study; and to extrapolate those to estimate expected annual maintenance costs.

Methods:

IMPACT SHPT was a 28-week, randomized, open-label trial. Subjects from 12 countries received intravenous (IV) or oral paricalcitol, or oral cinacalcet plus fixed IV doxercalciferol or oral alfacalcidol. The primary end-point was the proportion of subjects who achieved a mean intact parathyroid hormone (iPTH) value of 150–300?pg/mL during weeks 21–28 (evaluation period). This study compares the costs of study drugs and phosphate binders among participants during the study and annualized. This analysis includes only those subjects that reached the evaluation period (134 in each group).

Results:

The mean total drug costs over the study period were €2606 (SD?=?€2000) in the paricalcitol group and €3034 (SD?=?€3006) in the cinacalcet group (difference €428, p?=?0.1712). The estimated annualized costs were €5387 (SD?=?€4139) in the paricalcitol group and €6870 (SD?=?€6256) in the cinacalcet group (difference €1492, p?=?0.0395). In addition, a significantly greater proportion (p?=?0.010) of subjects in the paricalcitol arm (56.0%) achieved an iPTH of 150–300?pg/mL during the evaluation period compared to the cinacalcet arm (38.2%).

Limitations:

This was a secondary analysis of the IMPACT SHPT study which was not designed or powered for costs as an outcome. The dosing of study drugs and phosphate binders in the IMPACT study may not reflect actual practice, and patients were followed for 28 weeks, while the treatment of SHPT is long-term.

Conclusion:

Patients with SHPT requiring hemodialysis who were treated with a paricalcitol-based regimen for iPTH control had lower estimated annual drug costs compared to those treated with cinacalcet plus low-dose vitamin D.     

Cost per responder analysis in patients with secondary hyperparathyroidism on dialysis treated with cinacalcet

Abstract

Background:

Growing financial pressure on US dialysis providers requires economic efficiency considerations. The objective of this study was to examine short-term economic efficiencies of a cinacalcet-based treatment approach for secondary hyperparathyroidism.

Methods:

This study retrospectively assessed cost per biochemical response of the OPTIMA trial. OPTIMA was conducted in end-stage renal disease patients to compare biochemical control in patients receiving cinacalcet in addition to vitamin D sterols and phosphate binders vs patients receiving vitamin D sterol and phosphate binders alone. It explored three laboratory measurement response definitions from baseline to week 23: (1) decreases in parathyroid hormone (PTH) ≥30%; (2) PTH?≤?300?pg/ml; and (3) PTH?≤?300?pg/mL, calcium <9.5?mg/dL and phosphorus <5.5?mg/dL. Medication use and costs were measured to calculate average costs and incremental cost per responder. Stratification by lower and higher baseline PTH assessed cost per response by disease severity.

Results:

There were 38–77% more responders with cinacalcet vs control, depending on response definition. Mean (SD) per patient total medication costs were $5423 ($3698) for cinacalcet and $2633 ($2334) for control, leading to a mean difference of $2790 over 23 weeks. When response was defined as a decrease in PTH?≥?30% from baseline, the average cost per responder was $11,266 for control vs $7027 for cinacalcet. The incremental cost per incremental responder ranged from $5186–$9168. Across all response measures, cost per responder was lower in patients with lower baseline PTH.

Conclusions:

Representing a more efficient allocation of economic resources over the short-term, cinacalcet-based treatment algorithm led to a lower cost per biochemical response, particularly in patients with lower disease severity, vs vitamin D sterols and phosphate binders alone. These findings should be interpreted alongside the study limitation of converting international trial-based medication utilization into US costs.     

The cost-effectiveness of extended-release calcifediol versus paricalcitol for the treatment of secondary hyperparathyroidism in stage 3–4 CKD

Abstract

Aims: Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) not on dialysis frequently have vitamin D insufficiency (VDI) and secondary hyperparathyroidism (SHPT), which are associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular (CV) disease, fracture, CKD progression, and death. This study estimated the cost-effectiveness of extended-release calcifediol (ERC) vs paricalcitol for the treatment of patients with CKD stages 3–4 that have SHPT and VDI.

Materials and methods: An economic analysis of SHPT treatments among a hypothetical cohort of 1,000 patients with CKD Stage 3 and 4 with SHPT and VDI was developed to estimate differences in the rates and costs of CV events, fractures, CKD stage progression, and mortality in patients treated with ERC and paricalcitol. A Markov model was developed with 1-year cycles and a 5-year time horizon from a US Medicare payer perspective with costs valued in 2017?US dollars.

Results: The outcomes of the model were rates of clinical events, total costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Across a 1,000-person cohort, ERC was the dominant (less costly, more effective) treatment strategy when compared with paricalcitol. Treatment with ERC resulted in cost savings of $14.8?M (95% CI = –$10.0?M–$45.2?M) and an incremental gain of 340 QALYs (95% CI = 200–496) compared to treatment with paricalcitol.

Limitations: Bridging biochemical levels to clinical outcomes may not represent real-world risk of the clinical events modeled. Future real-world outcomes of patients treated with ERC and paricalcitol may be used to evaluate the model results.

Conclusions: This model demonstrated favorable short- and long-term clinical benefits associated with the use of ERC in patients with CKD Stage 3 and 4 with SHPT and VDI, suggesting ERC may be cost-effective from the Medicare perspective compared to paricalcitol.     

Exploring the potential value of improved care for secondary hyperparathyroidism with a novel calcimimetic therapy

Aims: This study explored the use of a value-based pricing approach for the new calcimimetic etelcalcetide indicated for the treatment of secondary hyperparathyroidism (SHPT) in patients receiving hemodialysis. It used the US payer perspective and applied the cost-effectiveness framework. Because etelcalcetide is an intravenous therapy that can be titrated for individual patients, and because its utilization is yet to be assessed in real world settings, a range of plausible doses were estimated for etelcalcetide to define a range of prices. These were either in relation to the existing oral calcimimetic cinacalcet or compared to no calcimimetic treatment.

Materials and methods: The value-based price of etelcalcetide was determined via a Markov model. This model combined data from the etelcalcetide trials and previously published cost-effectiveness models in SHPT, and allowed extrapolation of treatment effects on mortality, cardiovascular events, fracture, and parathyroidectomy. Several dosing scenarios were explored covering the dose ranges of 30.0–64.18?mg per day for cinacalcet and 1.07–3.11?mg per day for etelcalcetide. These included the mean dose from the etelcalcetide trials, the preliminary defined daily dose, and the expected most common dose in real world. An acceptable price range for etelcalcetide was assessed by comparing the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios obtained with the willingness-to-pay threshold range of $100,000–$300,000/quality-adjusted life-years.

Results: Cost-effectiveness analysis supported value-based prices for etelcalcetide ranging from $21.15–$49.97/mg vs cinacalcet, and $13.79–$119.45/mg vs no calcimimetics.

Limitations: There is uncertainty around what the real-world dosing will be for etelcalcetide. Another important nuance is that no studies have examined etelcalcetide effects on hard outcomes and, therefore, this modeling exercise relied on an extrapolation approach.

Conclusions: This cost-effectiveness analysis, including scenarios to address uncertainties, allowed estimation of a value-based price range to aid reimbursement decisions in the US.     

Cost-effectiveness analysis of roflumilast/tiotropium therapy versus tiotropium monotherapy for treating severe-to-very severe COPD

Abstract

Objective:

To conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing roflumilast/tiotropium therapy vs tiotropium monotherapy in patients with severe-to-very severe COPD.

Methods:

The economic evaluation applied a disease-based Markov cohort model with five health states: (1) severe COPD, (2) severe COPD with a history of severe exacerbation, (3) very severe COPD, (4) very severe COPD with a history of severe exacerbation, and (5) death. Within a given health state, a patient may have a mild/moderate or severe exacerbation or die. Data from roflumilast clinical trials and published literature were used to populate model parameters. The model calculated health outcomes and costs for roflumilast/tiotropium therapy vs tiotropium monotherapy over a 5-year horizon. Incremental cost and benefits were then calculated as cost-effectiveness ratios, including cost per exacerbation avoided and cost per quality adjusted life year ($/QALY).

Results:

Over a 5-year horizon, the estimated incremental costs per exacerbation and per severe exacerbation avoided were $589 and $5869, respectively, and the incremental cost per QALY was $15,815. One-way sensitivity analyses varying key parameters produced an incremental cost per QALY ranging from $1963–$32,773.

Limitations:

A number of key parameters used in the model were obtained from studies in the literature that were conducted under different contexts. Specifically, the relative risk estimate for severe COPD patients originates from a small trial not designed to demonstrate the impact of roflumilast on frequency of exacerbations. In addition, the model extrapolates the relative risk estimates over periods of 5–30 years, even though the estimates were only observed in trials that spanned less than a year.

Conclusions:

The addition of roflumilast to tiotropium is cost-effective for the treatment of severe to very severe COPD patients.     

Cost-effectiveness of dedicated dietitians for hyperphosphatemia management among hemodialysis patients in Lebanon: results from the Nutrition Education for Management of Osteodystrophy trial

Aim: To assess the cost-effectiveness of nutrition education by dedicated dietitians (DD) for hyperphosphatemia management among hemodialysis patients.

Materials and methods: This was a trial-based economic evaluation in 12 Lebanese hospital-based units. In total, 545 prevalent patients were cluster randomized to DD, trained hospital dietitian (THD), and existing practice (EP) groups. During Phase I (6 months), DD (n?=?116) received intensive education by DD trained on renal nutrition, THD (n?=?299) received care from trained hospital dietitians, and EP (n?=?130) received usual care from untrained hospital dietitians. Patients were followed-up during Phase II (6 months).

Results: At baseline, EP had the lowest weekly hemodialysis time, and DD had the highest serum phosphorus and malnutrition-inflammation score. The additional costs of the intervention were low compared with the societal costs (DD: $76.7, $21,007.7; EP: $4.6, $18,675.4; THD: $17.4, $20,078.6, respectively). Between Phases I and II, DD showed the greatest decline in services use and societal costs (DD: –$2,364.0; EP: –$1,727.7; THD: –$1,105.7). At endline, DD experienced the highest decrease in adjusted serum phosphorus (DD: –0.32; EP: +0.16; THD: +0.04?mg/dL), no difference in quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), and the highest societal costs. DD had a cost-effectiveness ratio of $7,853.6 per 1?mg decrease in phosphorus, compared with EP; and was dominated by THD. Regarding QALY, DD was dominated by EP and THD. The results were sensitive to changes in key parameters.

Limitations: The analysis depended on numerous assumptions. Interpreting the results is limited by the significant baseline differences in key parameters, suggestive of higher baseline societal costs in DD.

Conclusions: DD yielded the greatest effectiveness and decrease in societal costs, but did not affect QALY. Regarding serum phosphorus, DD was likely to be cost-effective compared with EP, but had a low cost-effectiveness probability compared with THD. Regarding QALY, DD was not likely to be cost-effective. Assessing the long-term cost-effectiveness of DD, on similar groups, is recommended.     

Economic evaluation of ezetimibe treatment in combination with statin therapy in the United States

Aims: This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of ezetimibe with statin therapy vs statin monotherapy from a US payer perspective, assuming the impending patent expiration of ezetimibe.

Methods: A Markov-like economic model consisting of 28 distinct health states was used. Model population data were obtained from US linked claims and electronic medical records, with inclusion criteria based on diagnostic guidelines. Inputs came from recent clinical trials, meta-analyses, and cost-effectiveness analyses. The base-case scenario was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of adding ezetimibe 10?mg to statin in patients aged 35–74 years with a history of coronary heart disease (CHD) and/or stroke, and with low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels ≥70?mg/dL over a lifetime horizon, assuming a 90% price reduction of ezetimibe after 1 year to take into account the impending patent expiration in the second quarter of 2017. Sub-group analyses included patients with LDL-C levels ≥100?mg/dL and patients with diabetes with LDL-C levels ≥70?mg/dL.

Results: The lifetime discounted incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for ezetimibe added to statin was $9,149 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) for the base-case scenario. For patients with LDL-C levels ≥100?mg/dL, the ICER was $839/QALY; for those with diabetes and LDL-C levels ≥70?mg/dL, it was $560/QALY. One-way sensitivity analyses showed that the model was sensitive to changes in cost of ezetimibe, rate reduction of non-fatal CHD, and utility weight for non-fatal CHD in the base-case and sub-group analyses.

Limitations: Indirect costs or treatment discontinuation estimation were not included.

Conclusions: Compared with statin monotherapy, ezetimibe with statin therapy was cost-effective for secondary prevention of CHD and stroke and for primary prevention of these conditions in patients whose LDL-C levels are ≥100?mg/dL and in patients with diabetes, taking into account a 90% cost reduction for ezetimibe.     

Economic evaluation for the US of nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine versus FOLFIRINOX versus gemcitabine in the treatment of metastatic pancreas cancer

Background: Nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine (NAB-P?+?GEM) and FOLFIRINOX have shown superior efficacy over gemcitabine (GEM) in the treatment of metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDA). Although the incremental clinical benefits are modest, both treatments represent significant advances in the treatment of a high-mortality cancer. In this independent economic evaluation for the US, the aim was to estimate the comparative cost-utility and cost-effectiveness of these three regimens from the payer perspective.

Methods: In the absence of a direct treatment comparison in a single clinical trial, the Bucher indirect comparison method was used to estimate the comparative efficacy of each regimen. A Markov model evaluated life years (LY) and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained with NAB-P?+?GEM and FOLFIRINOX over GEM, expressed as incremental cost-effectiveness (ICER) and cost-utility ratios (ICUR). All costs and outcomes were discounted at 3%/year. The impact of parameter uncertainty on the model was assessed by probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

Results: NAB-P?+?GEM was associated with differentials of +0.180 LY and +0.127 QALY gained over GEM at an incremental total cost of $25,965; yielding an ICER of $144,096/LY and ICUR of $204,369/QALY gained. FOLFIRINOX was associated with differentials of +0.368 LY and +0.249 QALY gained over GEM at an incremental total cost of $93,045; yielding an ICER of $253,162/LY and ICUR of $372,813/QALY gained. In indirect comparison, the overall survival hazard ratio (OS HR) for NAB-P?+?GEM vs FOLFIRINOX was 0.79 (95%CI?=?0.59–1.05), indicating no superiority in OS of either regimen. FOLFIRINOX had an ICER of $358,067/LY and an ICUR of $547,480/QALY gained over NAB-P?+?GEM. Tornado diagrams identified variation in the OS HR, but no other parameters, to impact the NAB-P?+?GEM and FOLFIRINOX ICURs.

Conclusions: In the absence of a statistically significant difference in OS between NAB-P?+?GEM and FOLFIRINOX, this US analysis indicates that the greater economic benefit in terms of cost-savings and incremental cost-effectiveness and cost-utility ratios favors NAB-P?+?GEM over FOLFIRINOX.     

Cost effectiveness of rosuvastatin in patients at risk of cardiovascular disease based on findings from the JUPITER trial

Abstract

Objective:

This study assessed the long-term cost effectiveness of rosuvastatin therapy compared with placebo in reducing the incidence of major cardiovascular (CVD) events and mortality.

Methods:

A probabilistic Monte Carlo simulation model estimated long-term cost effectiveness of rosuvastatin therapy (20?mg daily) for the prevention of CVD mortality and morbidity. The model included three stages: (1) CVD prevention simulating the 4 years of the JUPITER trial, (2) initial CVD prevention beyond the trial, and (3) subsequent CVD event prevention. A US payer perspective was assessed reflecting direct medical costs, and up to a lifetime horizon. Sensitivity analyses tested the robustness of the model estimates.

Results:

For a hypothetical cohort of 100,000 patients at moderate and high risk of CVD events based on Framingham risk of ≥10%, estimated quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained with rosuvastatin therapy compared with placebo was 33,480 over a lifetime horizon, and 25,380 and 9916 over 20-year and 10-year horizons, respectively. Approximately 12,073 events were avoided over the lifetime; 6,146 non-fatal MIs, 2905 non-fatal strokes, and 4030 CVD deaths avoided. Estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for cost per QALY was $7062 (lifetime), $10,743 (20-year horizon), and $44,466 (10-year horizon). For a hypothetical cohort similar to the overall JUPITER population, the cost per QALY ICER was $11,025 for the lifetime and $60,112 for a 10-year horizon.

Limitations:

The cost-effectiveness comparison of rosuvastatin 20?mg was against no active treatment (as opposed to an alternative statin) due to lack of comparative cardiovascular morbidity and mortality risk reduction data for other statins in a population similar to the JUPITER trial population. The analysis was conducted from the payer perspective and lack of inclusion of indirect costs limit interpretability of results from a societal perspective.

Conclusions:

Treatment with rosuvastatin 20?mg daily, is a cost-effective treatment alternative to no treatment in patients at a higher risk (Framingham risk ≥10%) of CVD.     

Cost-effectiveness analysis of intra-articular injections of a high molecular weight bioengineered hyaluronic acid for the treatment of osteoarthritis knee pain

Objective:

To determine the cost-effectiveness of bioengineered hyaluronic acid (BioHA, 1% sodium hyaluronate) intra-articular injections in treating osteoarthritis knee pain in poor responders to conventional care (CC) including non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and analgesics.

Methods:

Two decision analytic models compared BioHA treatment with either continuation of patient’s baseline CC with no assumption of disease progression (Model 1), or CC including escalating care costs due to disease progression (NSAIDs and analgesics, corticosteroid injections, and surgery; Model 2). Analyses were based on patients who received two courses of 3-weekly intra-articular BioHA (26-week FLEXX Trial?+?26-week Extension Study). BioHA group costs included fees for physician assessment and injection regimen, plus half of CC costs. Cost-effectiveness ratios were expressed as averages and incremental costs per QALY. One-way sensitivity analyses used the 95% confidence interval (CI) of QALYs gained in BioHA-treated patients, and ±20% of BioHA treatment and CC costs. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed for Model 2.

Results:

For 214 BioHA patients, the average utility gain was 0.163 QALYs (95% CI?=??0.162 to 0.488) over 52 weeks. Model 1 treatment costs were $3469 and $4562 for the BioHA and CC groups, respectively; sensitivity analyses showed BioHA to be the dominant treatment strategy, except when at the lower end of the 95% CI. Model 2 annual treatment costs per QALY gained were $1446 and $516 for the BioHA and CC groups, respectively. Using CC as baseline strategy, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of BioHA was $38,741/QALY gained, and was sensitive to response rates in either the BioHA or CC groups.

Conclusion:

BioHA is less costly and more effective than CC with NSAIDs and analgesics, and is the dominant treatment strategy. Compared with escalating CC, the $38,741/QALY ICER of BioHA remains within the $50,000 per QALY willingness-to-pay threshold to adopt a new technology.     

Economic analysis of bevacizumab,cetuximab, and panitumumab with fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of KRAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC)

Abstract

Objective:

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most commonly diagnosed cancer in Canada (excluding non-melanoma skin cancers). Bevacizumab is a recombinant humanized monoclonal antibody that selectively binds to human vascular endothelial growth factor. A sub-study confirmed its effectiveness in KRAS wild-type patients. Recent evidence has shown clinical benefit from anti-epidermal growth factor treatments cetuximab and panitumumab in these patients. The cost-effectiveness, to the Canadian healthcare system, of fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy (FBC) in combination with bevacizumab, cetuximab, or panitumumab was assessed for first-line treatment of KRAS wild-type mCRC patients.

Methods:

A Markov model was developed and calibrated to progression-free/overall survival, using separately reported trial survival and adverse event results for each comparator. Health-state resource utilization was derived from published data and oncologist input. Utilities and unit prices were obtained from published literature and standard Canadian sources.

Results:

Results per patient are over a lifetime horizon, to a maximum of 10 years, with 5% annual discounting. Comparators are ordered by total cost and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of each is determined against the previous non-dominated therapy. Compared to FBC alone, bevacizumab?+?FBC has an ICER of $131,600 per QALY gained. Compared to bevacizumab?+?FBC, panitumumab?+?FBC is dominated and cetuximab?+?FBC has an ICER of $3.8 million per QALY. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, bevacizumab?+?FBC had ～100%, ～100%, and 98.9% probabilities of being more cost-effective than both of the other combination treatments at thresholds of $50,000/QALY, $100,000/QALY, and $200,000/QALY, respectively.

Conclusion:

For first-line treatment of KRAS-WT mCRC, bevacizumab?+?FBC is associated with substantially lower costs as compared to panitumumab?+?FBC or cetuximab?+?FBC. Key limitations were that survival curves and adverse event rates were taken from separate clinical trials and that an indirect comparison was not included. Given these findings, bevacizumab is likely to offer the best value for money for this patient population.     

Cost-effectiveness analysis of palivizumab among pre-term infant populations covered by Medicaid in the United States

Abstract

Objective:

Medicaid infants are at high risk of severe respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) disease. The study objective was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of palivizumab in a Medicaid population.

Methods:

A societal cost-utility analysis was conducted of prophylaxis with palivizumab vs no prophylaxis among four groups of premature infants: (1) <32 weeks gestational age (wGA) and ≤6 months chronologic age (CA); (2) 32–34 wGA, ≤3 months CA with 2009 American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) risk factors (RF); (3) 32–35 wGA, ≤6 months CA with 2006 AAP RF; and (4) 32–35 wGA, ≤6 months CA with ≤1 RF. Full dosing of palivizumab was assumed throughout the RSV season (consistent with the FDA-approved label). All costs were in 2010 US dollars. The societal public payer spend for palivizumab was estimated using Medicaid reimbursement methodologies for the top 10 palivizumab-using states in 2010 minus mandatory manufacturer rebates. This study reports the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Sensitivity and probabilistic analyses were also conducted.

Results:

Palivizumab saved costs and improved QALYs among infants <32 wGA. Palivizumab was cost-effective in infants 32–34 wGA with 2009 AAP RF ($16,037 per QALY) and in infants 32–35 wGA with 2006 AAP RF ($38,244 per QALY). The ICER for infants 32–35 wGA with ≤1 RF was $281,892 per QALY. Influential variables in the sensitivity analysis included the background rate of RSV hospitalization, the cost of palivizumab, and the efficacy of palivizumab.

Key limitations:

These results are not generalizable to commercially insured infants or infants outside of the US.

Conclusions:

This is the first cost-utility analysis of palivizumab in a Medicaid population. Palivizumab, when dosed consistent with the FDA-approved labeling, was either cost-saving or cost-effective among current guideline-eligible infants in the Medicaid population. Palivizumab did not demonstrate cost-effectiveness in 32–35 wGA infants with ≤1 RF.     

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.     

Cost-effectiveness achieved through changing the composition of renal replacement therapy in Japan

Abstract

Objective:

The cost-effectiveness of renal replacement therapy (RRT) is affected by the composition of treatment. This study aimed to estimate the costs and outcomes associated with changing the composition of RRT modality over time.

Methods:

By using clinical and cost data from a systematic review, a Markov model was developed to assess the costs and benefits of the four main treatments available for RRT in Japan. The model included direct health service costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALY). Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robustness of the results.

Results:

Over the 15-year period of the model, the current composition of RRT (i.e., the base composition of RRT) was $84,008/QALY. The most cost-effective treatment was when the likelihood of a living donor transplant was increased by 2.4-times ($70,581/QALY). Compared with the base composition of RRT, dominant treatments with respect to cost-effectiveness were when the likelihood of a deceased donor transplant was increased by 22-times and when the likelihood of a pre-emptive living donor transplant was increased by 2.4-times. Little difference was found between these two treatments. One-way sensitivity analysis did not change the cost effectiveness except for costs of chronic hemodialysis and a living donor transplant in subsequent years.

Limitations:

It is difficult to increase the rate of transplant overall in the shorter term nationally and internationally.

Conclusions:

Appropriate distribution of all transplant options and hemodialysis is necessary to achieve the most cost-effective solution.     

Pharmacological control of secondary hyperparathyroidism in hemodialysis subjects: a cost consequences analysis of data from the FARO study

Abstract

Background and objectives:

Secondary hyperparathyroidism (SHPT) is a frequent complication of CKD with incidence, prevalence, and costs increasing worldwide. The objective of this analysis was to estimate therapy cost of SHPT in a sub-population of the FARO study.

Materials and Methods:

In the FARO study, an observational survey aimed to evaluate patterns of treatment in patients with SHPT who had undergone hemodialysis, pharmacological treatments and biochemical parameters evolution data were collected in four surveys. Patients maintaining the same treatment in all sessions were grouped by type of treatment and evaluated for costs from the Italian National Health Service perspective.

Results:

Four cohorts were identified: patients treated with oral (PO) calcitriol (n?=?182), intravenous (IV) calcitriol (n?=?34), IV paricalcitol (n?=?62), and IV paricalcitol?+?cinacalcet therapy (n?=?20); the cinacalcet monotherapy group was not analysed due to low number of patients (n?=?9). Parathyroid hormone (PTH) level at baseline and effectiveness of treatments in suppressing PTH level were assessed to test comparability among cohorts: calcitriol PO patients were significantly less severe than others (PTH level at baseline lower than 300?pg/ml; p?<?0.0001); calcitriol IV patients did not reach significant reduction in PTH level. Paricalcitol and paricalcitol?+?cinacalcet treatment groups results were comparable, while only the IV paricalcitol cohort’s PTH level, weekly dosage, and cost decreased significantly from the first to the fourth survey (p?=?0.020, p?=?0.012, and p?=?0.0124, respectively). Total costs per week of treatment (including calcium-based phosphate binder and sevelamer) were significantly lower in the paricalcitol vs paricalcitol?+?cinacalcet cohort (p?<?0.001). Major limitations of this study are related to the survey design: not controlled and lack of comparability between cohorts; however, reflective of true practice patterns.

Conclusions:

The IV Paricalcitol cohort had significantly lower treatment costs compared with patients treated with paricalcitol?+?calcimemtics (p?<?0.001), without a significant difference in terms of baseline severity and PTH control.     

Cost-effectiveness of risk stratification for preventing type 2 diabetes using a multi-marker diabetes risk score

Abstract

Background:

Personalized medicine requires diagnostic tests that stratify patients into distinct groups that may differentially benefit from targeted treatment approaches. This study compared the costs and benefits of two approaches for identifying those at high risk of developing type 2 diabetes for entry into a diabetes prevention program. The first approach identified high risk patients using impaired fasting glucose (IFG). The second approach used the PreDx Diabetes Risk Score (DRS) to further stratify IFG patients into high-risk and moderate-risk groups.

Methods:

A Markov model was developed to simulate the incidence and disease progression of diabetes and consequent costs and quality-adjusted life expectancy (QALY), comparing alternative approaches for identifying high-risk patients. We modeled direct medical costs, including the costs of the stratification testing, over a 10-year time horizon from a US payer perspective.

Results:

Stratification of IFG patients by the DRS method leads to improved identification and prevention among those at highest risk. At 5 years, the number needed to treat (NNT) in the IFG-only approach was 39 patients to prevent one case of diabetes compared to an NNT of 15 in the IFG?+?DRS approach. When compared to IFG alone, the IFG?+?DRS approach results in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $17,100/QALY gained at 5 years and would become cost saving in 10 years. In contrast and as compared to no stratification, the IFG-only approach would produce an ICER of $235,500/QALY gained at 5 years and $94,600/QALY gained at 10 years. The study findings are limited by the generalizability of the DRS validation study and uncertainty regarding the long-term effectiveness of diabetes prevention.

Conclusions:

The analysis indicates that the cost-effectiveness of diabetes prevention can be improved by better identification of patients at highest risk for diabetes using the DRS.     

Cost utility of palivizumab prophylaxis among pre-term infants in the United States: a national policy perspective

Abstract

Objective:

The cost-effectiveness of palivizumab has previously been reported among certain guideline-eligible, high-risk premature infants in Medicaid. Because guideline authorities base decisions on a national perspective, the economic model of palivizumab was adapted to include all infants, that is, public and privately insured patients (60% of palivizumab use is public, 40% is private).

Methods:

This study examined four groups of premature infants without chronic lung disease of prematurity or congenital heart disease: (1) <32 weeks gestational age (wGA) and ≤6 months chronologic age (CA); (2) 32–34 wGA, ≤3 months CA, with 2009 American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) risk factors (RFs); (3) 32–35 wGA, ≤6 months CA, with 2006 AAP RFs; and (4) 32–35 wGA, ≤6 months CA, with ≤1 RF. An average estimate was used between public and private payors for (1) background rates of respiratory syncytial virus hospitalization (RSV-H), (2) direct medical costs associated with RSV-H, and (3) cost of palivizumab. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) are reported in cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Sensitivity analyses were performed.

Results:

Palivizumab saved costs and improved QALYs among infants <32 wGA. Palivizumab was cost-effective in infants 32–34 wGA with 2009 AAP RFs ($44,774 per QALY) and in infants 32–35 wGA with 2006 AAP RFs ($79,477 per QALY). The ICER for infants 32–35 wGA with ≤1 RF was $464,476 per QALY. Influential variables in the sensitivity analysis included background rate of RSV-H and cost and efficacy of palivizumab.

Limitations:

The results are not generalizable to populations outside of the US. The model did not examine all RFs. The wholesale acquisition cost was used as a payment benchmark; actual price paid by end providers varies.

Conclusions:

From a national policy perspective, palivizumab remained cost-effective for publically and commercially insured, guideline-eligible, high-risk premature infants. Palivizumab was not cost-effective in infants of 32–35 wGA with ≤1 RF.     

Cost-effective analysis of clopidogrel versus aspirin for high risk patients with established peripheral arterial disease in China

Abstract

Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness of clopidogrel versus aspirin for high risk patients (pre-existing symptomatic atherosclerosis or multi-vascular territory involvement) with established peripheral arterial disease (PAD) for secondary prevention of atherothrombotic events in a Chinese setting.

Methods: A Markov model with a lifetime horizon was developed from the perspective of the national healthcare system in China. The primary outputs are quality adjusted life years (QALYs), direct medical costs, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Clinical efficacy data were obtained from the CAPRIE trial. Drug acquisition cost, other direct medical costs, and utilities were from pricing records and the literature. One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) were conducted to test the robustness of the model on all parameters.

Results: In patients with pre-existing atherosclerosis, 2 years of treatment with clopidogrel and aspirin would yield total QALYs of 8.776 and 8.576 at associated costs of ¥18,777 ($2,838) and ¥12,302 ($1,859), respectively, resulting in an ICER of ¥32,382 ($4,893) per QALY gained. In patients with PVD, secondary prevention with the same drugs would expect to lead to total QALYs of 8.836 and 8.632 at associated costs of ¥18,518 ($2,798) and ¥12,041 ($1,820), respectively, resulting in a corresponding ICER of ¥31,743 ($4,797) per QALY gained. The results were most sensitive to the discount rate for future outcomes and costs. The PSA indicated that the probability of clopidogrel being cost-effective was 100% at the willingness-to-pay threshold of 3-times GDP.

Conclusions: Secondary prevention with clopidogrel is an attractive cost-effective option compared with aspirin for high risk patients with established PAD from the perspective of the national healthcare system in Chinese settings.     

Cost-effectiveness of denosumab vs zoledronic acid for prevention of skeletal-related events in patients with solid tumors and bone metastases in the United States

Abstract

Objective:

With increasing healthcare resource constraints, it has become important to understand the incremental cost-effectiveness of new medicines. Subcutaneous denosumab is superior to intravenous zoledronic acid (ZA) for the prevention of skeletal-related events (SREs) in patients with advanced solid tumors and bone metastases. This study sought to determine the lifetime cost-effectiveness of denosumab vs ZA in this setting, from a US managed-care perspective.

Methods:

A lifetime Markov model was developed, with relative rate reductions in SREs for denosumab vs ZA derived from three pivotal Phase 3 trials involving patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC), breast cancer, and non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and bone metastases. The real-world SRE rates in ZA-treated patients were derived from a large commercial database. SRE and treatment administration quality-adjusted life year (QALY) decrements were estimated with time-trade-off studies. SRE costs were estimated from a nationally representative commercial claims database. Drug, drug administration, and renal monitoring costs were included. Costs and QALYs were discounted at 3% annually. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted.

Results:

Across tumor types, denosumab was associated with a reduced number of SREs, increased QALYs, and increased lifetime total costs vs ZA. The costs per QALY gained for denosumab vs ZA in CRPC, breast cancer, and NSCLC were $49,405, $78,915, and $67,931, respectively, commonly considered good value in the US. Costs per SRE avoided were $8567, $13,557, and $10,513, respectively. Results were sensitive to drug costs and SRE rates.

Limitations:

Differences in pain severity and analgesic use favoring denosumab over ZA were not captured. Mortality was extrapolated from fitted generalized gamma function beyond the trial duration.

Conclusion:

Denosumab is a cost-effective treatment option for the prevention of SREs in patients with advanced solid tumors and bone metastases compared to ZA. The overall value of denosumab is based on superior efficacy, favorable safety, and more efficient administration.