A comparison of the estimated costs of erlotinib,docetaxel and pemetrexed for the second-line treatment of non-small cell lung cancer from the German healthcare perspective

Summary

The estimated costs of second-line therapy with erlotinib versus docetaxel or pemetrexed were analysed in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) assuming the survival benefits delivered by these three drugs are comparable. Direct total costs to the German statutory health insurance system per patient per quarter were compared, including the impact of grade 3/4 side effects. Resource utilisation data came from clinical studies and/or were supplemented on the basis of guidelines/prescribing information. Basic costs per patient per quarter were: erlotinib €8,172; docetaxel €8,055; and pemetrexed €15,870. Including the cost of managing side effects, the total cost per patient per quarter with erlotinib was €8,376 compared with €9,976 for docetaxel and €16,596 for pemetrexed. The main influence on the cost analysis was the management of haematological side effects associated with docetaxel and to a lesser extent pemetrexed. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the results. Based on its favourable side-effect profile, erlotinib offers health economic advantages over docetaxel and pemetrexed in relapsed advanced NSCLC in Germany.     

Budget impact of erlotinib for maintenance therapy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer

Abstract

Objective:

Assess the budgetary impact of adding erlotinib for maintenance therapy (MTx) in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) from a US health plan perspective.

Methods:

A budget impact model was developed to analyze the costs (drug, administration, adverse events) associated with adding erlotinib MTx to a hypothetical 500,000 member US health plan. Treatment durations and dosing were derived from randomized controlled trials, FDA labeling, and National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. Treatment patterns and assumptions were based on market research data, the SEER registry, and published literature. Cost data were obtained from Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services payment rates and a drug pricing database. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess uncertainty.

Results:

Overall health plan expenditures increased by $0.010 per member per month (PMPM). The main driver of additional cost was the erlotinib drug cost (～$66,000) with the administration ($464) and side-effect ($47) costs being relatively modest. One-way sensitivity analyses showed that the results were most sensitive to the proportion of members receiving MTx; however, the PMPM did not exceed $0.013.

Conclusions:

The overall budget impact to a health plan of expanding the use of erlotinib from the 2nd/3rd-line advanced NSCLC setting to include the maintenance setting was relatively small. This was primarily due to the proportion of patients who would receive erlotinib MTx, the low cost of side-effects and minimal cost of drug administration. Additional research may be warranted to estimate the relative clinical and economic impacts of erlotinib MTx versus alternative MTx treatments.     

Budget impact analysis for dapagliflozin in type 2 diabetes in Egypt

Abstract

Introduction: Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a major health problem in Egypt with a high impact on morbidity, mortality, and healthcare resources. This study evaluated the budget impact and the long-term consequences of dapagliflozin versus other conventional medications, as monotherapy, from both the societal and health insurance perspectives in Egypt.

Methods: A static budget impact model was developed to estimate the financial consequences of adopting dapagliflozin on the healthcare payer budget. We measured the direct medical costs of dapagliflozin (new scenario) as monotherapy, compared to metformin, insulin, sulphonylurea, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, thiazolidinedione, and repaglinide (old scenarios) over a time horizon of 3 years. Myocardial infarction (MI), ischemic stroke, hospitalization for heart failure (HHF), and initiation of renal replacement therapy (RRT) rates were captured from DECLARE TIMI 58 trial. One-way sensitivity analyses were conducted.

Results: The budget impact model estimated 2,053,908 patients eligible for treatment with dapagliflozin from a societal perspective and 1,207,698 patients from the health insurance (HI) perspective. The new scenario allows for an initial savings of EGP121 million in the first year, which increased to EGP243 and EGP365 million in the second and third years, respectively. The total cumulative savings from a societal perspective were estimated at EGP731 million. Dapagliflozin allows for savings of EGP71, EGP143, and EGP215 million in the first, second and third years respectively, from the HI perspective, with total cumulative savings of EGP430 million over the 3 years.

Conclusion: Treating T2DM patients using dapagliflozin instead of conventional medications, maximizes patients’ benefits and decreases total costs due to drug cost offsets from fewer cardiovascular and renal events. The adoption of dapagliflozin is a budget-saving treatment option, resulting in substantial population-level health gains due to reduced event rate and cost savings from the perspective of the national healthcare system.     

Economic burden in patients with ALK + non-small cell lung cancer,with or without brain metastases,receiving second-line anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibitors

Abstract

Aims: To describe the real-world economic burden of patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive (ALK+) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with post-crizotinib, second-line ALK inhibitor therapy.

Materials and methods: Retrospective analysis using data from US Optum: Clinformatics Data Mart administrative claims database. Adult patients with ALK?+?NSCLC treated with ceritinib or alectinib as second-line ALK inhibitors between 1 January 2011 and 30 September 2017 were included. Healthcare costs and resource utilization for up to 1?year of therapy were calculated on a per-patient-per-month (PPPM) basis and stratified by presence or absence of brain metastases (BM). Multivariate regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with costs. Top ten cost drivers of non-inpatient procedure costs were recorded.

Results: One hundred and twelve patients received second-line ALK inhibitors. Total mean PPPM healthcare costs were $23,984 for all patients receiving up to 1?year of post-crizotinib, second-line ALK inhibitor therapy. Total mean PPPM costs for patients with BM on or prior to post-crizotinib, second-line ALK inhibitor therapy were 1.37-times as high as those for patients without BM (p?=?0.0406). Mean PPPM outpatient visits and inpatient hospitalization stays were higher for patients with BM versus no BM. The main cost drivers for non-inpatient procedures were radiation therapy, medications, and diagnostic radiology.

Limitations: Analyses did not include newer ALK-directed therapies. BM development after the index date (defined as the date of the first claim for a second-line ALK inhibitor) may have been misclassified as non-BM. Findings may not be generalizable to patients with no health insurance coverage.

Conclusions: Treatment of patients with ALK?+?NSCLC with ceritinib or alectinib as post-crizotinib, second-line ALK inhibitor therapy represents a high economic burden. Healthcare costs and resource utilization were significantly higher for patients with ALK?+?NSCLC with BM versus no BM.     

Budget impact analysis of everolimus for the treatment of hormone receptor positive,human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 negative (HER2−) advanced breast cancer in Kazakhstan

Abstract

Objective:

The aim of this study was to determine the budget impact of everolimus (in combination with letrozole/anastrozole) as a second-line treatment for ER+ HER2? negative advanced and metastatic breast cancer in post-menopausal women.

Research design and methods:

A cumulative cohort model was developed to estimate the 5-year costs associated with introducing everolimus to the Kazakh healthcare system. Two alternative market share scenarios were compared: with everolimus and without everolimus. PFS and OS data were taken from the trial and extrapolated. The background costs of the pre-progressed and post-progressed health states, drug costs and costs associated with adverse events were included in the model.

Results:

The 5-year results from the budget impact analysis demonstrate that the introduction of everolimus leads to a 12% increase in drug costs, a 2% reduction in pre-progression health state costs, a 1% increase in post-progression health state costs, and a 2% reduction in adverse event costs. The net result is only a modest increase in total costs; a 2.69% increase of T201 million, from T7.5 billion to T7.7 billion over a period of 5 years.

Conclusions:

The analysis estimated that, if everolimus were to be introduced to the Kazakh healthcare market for the treatment of ER+ HER2? advanced breast cancer, there would be minimal impact upon overall healthcare expenditure. An increase in drug acquisitions costs was almost exactly offset by a reduction in other healthcare costs, due to improved management of the disease.     

Healthcare costs associated with bevacizumab and cetuximab in second-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer

Abstract

Objective:

To compare the health care costs of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) who received second-line treatment with Avastin (bevacizumab) versus Erbitux (cetuximab), from the third-party payer’s perspective.

Methods:

Patients with mCRC were selected from the PharMetrics claims database if they received second-line therapy containing either bevacizumab (second-line bevacizumab cohort) or cetuximab (second-line cetuximab cohort). Six-month costs following second-line therapy start date and average monthly healthcare costs while on second-line therapy (in 2009 US$) were calculated and compared between the two groups.

Results:

A total of 2188 patients with mCRC who met the eligibility criteria were included in the analysis, including 1808 patients receiving bevacizumab and 380 patients receiving cetuximab in second-line treatment. Demographic and baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups. Patients’ mean age was 61 years and 56% were males. In second-line treatment, bevacizumab was commonly used with oxaliplatin (43.5%) and irinotecan-based regimens (40.4%), whereas cetuximab was commonly used with irinotecan-based regimens (68.2%). Bevacizumab patients had significantly lower total all-cause healthcare costs than cetuximab patients (adjusted difference: –$10,231, p?=?0.020), and lower medical costs (–$10,796, p?=?0.012) during the 6 months following second-line therapy initiation. Approximately half of the difference in total all-cause healthcare costs was attributable to the lower chemotherapy and targeted therapy costs (–$5635, p?=?0.032) of bevacizumab patients than those of cetuximab patients. While on second-line therapy, bevacizumab patients also had lower average monthly all-cause healthcare costs than cetuximab patients.

Limitations:

Second-line treatment in the current study was defined based on changes in mCRC medications, not based on disease progression due to the limited clinical information available in claims.

Conclusion:

The use of bevacizumab in second-line therapy was associated with significantly lower healthcare costs in mCRC patients, compared to the use of cetuximab.     

Targeted erlotinib for first-line treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a budget impact analysis

Objectives:

A recent phase III trial showed that patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) whose tumors harbor specific EGFR mutations significantly benefit from first-line treatment with erlotinib compared to chemotherapy. This study sought to estimate the budget impact if coverage for EGFR testing and erlotinib as first-line therapy were provided in a hypothetical 500,000-member managed care plan.

Methods:

The budget impact model was developed from a US health plan perspective to evaluate administration of the EGFR test and treatment with erlotinib for EGFR-positive patients, compared to non-targeted treatment with chemotherapy. The eligible patient population was estimated from age-stratified SEER incidence data. Clinical data were derived from key randomized controlled trials. Costs related to drug, administration, and adverse events were included. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess uncertainty.

Results:

In a plan of 500,000 members, it was estimated there would be 91 newly diagnosed advanced NSCLC patients annually; 11 are expected to be EGFR-positive. Based on the testing and treatment assumptions, it was estimated that 3 patients in Scenario 1 and 6 patients in Scenario 2 receive erlotinib. Overall health plan expenditures would increase by $0.013 per member per month (PMPM). This increase is largely attributable to erlotinib drug costs, in part due to lengthened progression-free survival and treatment periods experienced in erlotinib-treated patients. EGFR testing contributes slightly, whereas adverse event costs mitigate the budget impact. The budget impact did not exceed $0.019 PMPM in sensitivity analyses.

Conclusions:

Coverage for targeted first-line erlotinib therapy in NSCLC likely results in a small budget impact for US health plans. The estimated impact may vary by plan, or if second-line or maintenance therapy, dose changes/interruptions, or impact on patients’ quality-of-life were included.     

A budget impact analysis of budesonide/formoterol in patients with mild asthma in Egypt

Abstract

Background: The aim of this study is to estimate the budget impact of budesonide/formoterol fixed dose combination (FDC) vs salbutamol, both used as needed, in mild asthma patients, from the perspective of the Health Insurance Organization (HIO).

Methods: A static budget impact model was developed to assess the impact of budesonide/formoterol FDC entry on HIO budget over a 3-year period in Egyptian settings. Direct medical costs, including the costs of asthma medications, exacerbations, and management of side-effects, were obtained from HIO cost data. Population data were obtained from the World Bank and supplemented with local studies, and the rates of exacerbations, adverse effects, and number of sick leave days were elicited from the SYGMA 1 trial. Scenario analyses from a societal perspective and deterministic sensitivity analyses were conducted.

Results: The total costs (drug and non-drug costs) for managing mild asthma patients from the HIO perspective were estimated to be EGP8.563 billion before budesonide/formoterol entry compared to EGP5.525 billion post-entry, leading to a total budget savings of EGP3.038 billion after 3?years. This total budget saving included an increase in drug costs (EGP104 million) and a decrease in non-drug costs (EGP3.143 billion). Drug costs were higher in the budesonide/formoterol group than in the salbutamol group, but this cost was offset by reductions in non-drug costs, resulting in a reduction in the total costs of healthcare resources. At the societal level, the total budget savings after including the indirect costs was expected to be EGP5.976 billion after 3?years of budesonide/formoterol entry.

Conclusion: Budesonide/formoterol in mild asthma instead of salbutamol produces better patient outcomes and decreases total costs, with increases in drug cost offset by reductions in non-drug costs due to fewer exacerbations. Budesonide/formoterol is a budget saving option for guideline-directed treatment, from the economic perspective of the payer and the health perspective of the patient.     

Budget impact analysis of adjunctive therapy with lacosamide for partial-onset epileptic seizures in Belgium

Summary

Objective:

This study aims to compute the budget impact of lacosamide, a new adjunctive therapy for partial-onset seizures in epilepsy patients from 16 years of age who are uncontrolled and having previously used at least three anti-epileptic drugs from a Belgian healthcare payer perspective.

Methods:

The budget impact analysis compared the ‘world with lacosamide’ to the ‘world without lacosamide’ and calculated how a change in the mix of anti-epileptic drugs used to treat uncontrolled epilepsy would impact drug spending from 2008 to 2013. Data on the number of patients and on the market shares of anti-epileptic drugs were taken from Belgian sources and from the literature. Unit costs of anti-epileptic drugs originated from Belgian sources. The budget impact was calculated from two scenarios about the market uptake of lacosamide.

Results:

The Belgian target population is expected to increase from 5333 patients in 2008 to 5522 patients in 2013. Assuming that the market share of lacosamide increases linearly over time and is taken evenly from all other anti-epileptic drugs (AEDs), the budget impact of adopting adjunctive therapy with lacosamide increases from €5249 (0.1% of reference drug budget) in 2008 to €242,700 (4.7% of reference drug budget) in 2013. Assuming that 10% of patients use standard AED therapy plus lacosamide, the budget impact of adopting adjunctive therapy with lacosamide is around €800,000–900,000 per year (or 16.7% of the reference drug budget).

Conclusions:

Adjunctive therapy with lacosamide would raise drug spending for this patient population by as much as 16.7% per year. However, this budget impact analysis did not consider the fact that lacosamide reduces costs of seizure management and withdrawal. The literature suggests that, if savings in other healthcare costs are taken into account, adjunctive therapy with lacosamide may be cost saving.     

Cost-minimization analysis of alemtuzumab compared to fingolimod and natalizumab for the treatment of active relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in the Netherlands

Aim: In active relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) patients requiring second-line treatment, the Dutch National Health Care Institute (ZiN) has not stated a preference for either alemtuzumab, fingolimod, or natalizumab. The aim was to give healthcare decision-makers insight into the differences in cost accumulation over time between alemtuzumab—with a unique, non-continuous treatment schedule—and fingolimod and natalizumab for second-line treatment of active RRMS patients in the Netherlands.

Methods: In line with ZiN’s assessment, a cost-minimization analysis was performed from a Dutch healthcare perspective over a 5-year time horizon. Resource use was derived from hospital protocols and summaries of product characteristics, and validated by two MS specialists. Unit costs were based on national tariffs and guidelines. Robustness of the base case results was verified with multiple sensitivity and scenario analyses.

Results: Alemtuzumab results in cost savings compared to fingolimod and natalizumab from, respectively, 3.3 and 2.8 years since treatment initiation onwards. At 5 years, total discounted costs per patient of alemtuzumab were €79,717, followed by fingolimod with €110,044 and natalizumab with €122,238, resulting in cost savings of €30,327 and €42,522 for alemtuzumab compared to fingolimod and natalizumab, respectively. Key drivers of the model are drug acquisition costs and the proportions of patients that do not require further alemtuzumab treatment after either two, three, or four courses.

Limitations: No treatment discontinuation and associated switching between treatments were incorporated. Consequences of JC virus seropositivity while continuing natalizumab treatment (e.g. additional monitoring) were omitted from the base case.

Conclusion: The current cost-minimization analysis demonstrates that, from the Dutch healthcare perspective, treating active RRMS patients with alemtuzumab results in cost savings compared to second-line alternatives fingolimod and natalizumab from ～3 years since treatment initiation onwards. After 5 years, alemtuzumab’s cost savings are estimated at €30k compared to fingolimod and €43k compared to natalizumab.     

Evaluation of cost savings with ferric carboxymaltose in anemia treatment through its impact on erythropoiesis-stimulating agents and blood transfusion: French healthcare payer perspective

Abstract

Objective:

To evaluate the economic impact of intravenous iron (in the form of intravenous iron preparation of ferric carboxymaltose) in three different clinical settings of iron deficiency anemia: chemotherapy-induced anemia in breast cancer, chemotherapy-induced anemia in digestive cancer, and perioperative anemia in knee and hip surgery.

Methods:

The economic model compared the usual therapeutic strategies of anemia without intravenous iron and strategies including intravenous iron, in each of the three clinical settings selected. Costs related to anemia treatment by erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESA), blood transfusion, and intravenous iron were estimated and compared inside each setting. Cost savings were calculated from the French healthcare payer perspective. Data included in the economic model were obtained from scientific literature, public health agencies, and medical experts.

Results:

The most prominent annual cost savings were observed in chemotherapy-induced anemia in breast cancer (€997 and €360 per patient for metastatic and non-metastatic breast cancers, respectively; global cost saving, €33.6 million). This large impact of intravenous iron on costs was mainly explained by both a lower number of women treated and lower ESA dosing. Mean annual cost saving in digestive cancers and knee and hip surgery were estimated to €168 and €216 per patient and global cost savings of €7.5 and €12.1 million, respectively. Overall, annual cost savings in these three settings were estimated to €53 million including €39 million for ESA cost savings. Sensitivity analysis showed that strategies including intravenous iron remained cost-effective even with wide variations in the assumptions, particularly for cost savings on ESA.

Limitations:

Economic model based on literature data and expert opinions.

Conclusions:

The present economic model suggests that use of intravenous iron, according to recommendations of international guidelines, is cost saving, particularly in chemotherapy-induced anemia in breast cancers.     

Healthcare costs in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer and disease progression during targeted therapy: a real-world observational study

Aims: To assess healthcare costs during treatment with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and following disease progression in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Methods: A retrospective analysis of medical records of US community oncology practices was conducted. Eligible patients had advanced NSCLC (stage IIIB/IV) diagnosed between January 1, 2008 and January 1, 2015, initiated treatment with erlotinib or afatinib (first-line or second-line), and had disease progression. Monthly Medicare-paid costs were evaluated during the TKI therapy period and following progression.

Results: The study included 364 patients. The total mean monthly cost during TKI therapy was $20,106 (95% confidence interval [CI]?=?$16,836–$23,376), of which 47.0% and 42.4% represented hospitalization costs and anti-cancer therapy costs, respectively. Following progression on TKI therapy (data available for 316 patients), total mean monthly cost was $19,274 (95% CI?=?$15,329–$23,218), and was higher in the 76.3% of patients who received anti-cancer therapy following progression than in the 23.7% of those who did not ($20,490 vs $15,364; p?<?.001). Among patients who received it, anti-cancer therapy ($11,198; 95% CI?=?$7,102–$15,295) represented 54.7% of total mean monthly cost. Among patients who did not receive anti-cancer therapy, hospitalization ($13,829; 95% CI?=?$4,922–$22,736) represented 90.0% of total mean monthly cost. Impaired performance status and brain metastases were significant predictors of increased cost during TKI therapy.

Limitations: The study design may limit the generalizability of findings.

Conclusions: Healthcare costs during TKI treatment and following progression appeared to be similar and were largely attributed to hospitalization and anti-cancer therapy. Notably, almost one-quarter of patients did not receive anti-cancer therapy following progression, potentially indicating an unmet need; hospitalization was the largest cost contributor for these patients. Additional effective targeted therapies are needed that could prolong progression-free survival, leading to fewer hospitalizations for EGFR mutation-positive patients.     

Switching of biologic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs in patients with rheumatoid arthritis in a real world setting

Objectives:

This study examined total healthcare costs and rates of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who switch biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (bDMARD) therapy in a real world setting.

Methods:

A retrospective longitudinal analysis was conducted in patients with RA using IMS PharMetrics Plus database from 1/1/2004 to 3/31/2010. The first-line cohort included patients newly initiated on abatacept or the tumor necrosis factor-alpha inhibitors (anti-TNFs) adalimumab, etanercept, or infliximab, with 12 months of continuous follow-up. The second-line cohort included patients initiating a bDMARD with evidence of a different bDMARD within the previous 2 years and with 12 months of continuous follow-up. Switching was defined as a different bDMARD claim within a 200% gap in days supply from the previous bDMARD claim. Non-switchers stayed on their bDMARD in the follow-up period. Monthly total healthcare costs for switchers and non-switchers and rates of bDMARD switching were examined. Switch rates for each bDMARD were also compared.

Results:

First-line switchers had significantly higher monthly total healthcare costs after the switch than non-switchers ($3759 vs $2343; p?p?Limitations:

There are no clinical data available in this database and, therefore, this study did not examine the clinical drivers of healthcare costs and switch rates.

Conclusions:

Monthly total healthcare costs were higher for bDMARD switchers following the switch compared to non-switchers. Patients on abatacept switched less frequently than patients on anti-TNFs. This study highlights the need to identify patients who are likely to switch in order to ensure they receive the appropriate therapy which may improve outcomes and decrease healthcare costs.     

Healthcare costs associated with nephrology care in pre-dialysis chronic kidney disease patients

Abstract

Objective:

To compare the healthcare costs of pre-dialysis chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients cared for in a nephrology clinic setting versus other care settings.

Methods:

An analysis of health claims between 01/2002 and 09/2007 from the Ingenix Impact Database was conducted. Inclusion criteria were ≥18 years of age, ≥1 ICD-9 claim for CKD, and ≥1 estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) value of <60?mL/min/1.73?m². Patients were classified in the nephrology care cohort if they were treated in a nephrology clinic setting at least once during the study period. Univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted to compare average annualized healthcare costs of patients in nephrology care versus other care settings.

Results:

Among the 20,135 patients identified for analysis, 1,547 patients were cared for in a nephrology clinic setting. Nephrology care was associated with lower healthcare costs with an unadjusted cost savings of $3,049 ($11,303 vs. $14,352, p?=?0.0014) and a cost ratio of 0.8:1 relative to other care settings. After adjusting for covariates, nephrology care remained associated with lower costs (adjusted cost savings: $2,742, p?=?0.006).

Limitations:

Key limitations included potential inaccuracies of claims data, the lack of control for patients’ ethnicity in the calculation of eGFR values, and the presence of potential biases due to the observational design of the study.

Conclusions:

The current study demonstrated that pre-dialysis CKD patients treated in nephrology clinics were associated with significantly lower healthcare costs compared with patients treated in other healthcare settings.     

Budget impact of pasireotide LAR for the treatment of acromegaly,a rare endocrine disorder

Background:

Acromegaly is a rare disorder characterized by the over-production of growth hormone (GH). Patients often experience a range of chronic comorbidities including hypertension, cardiac dysfunction, diabetes, osteoarthropathy, and obstructive sleep apnea. Untreated or inadequately controlled patients incur substantial healthcare costs, while normalization of GH levels may reduce morbidity and mortality rates to be comparable to the general population.

Objective:

To assess the 3-year budget impact of pasireotide LAR on a US managed care health plan following pasireotide LAR availability.

Methods:

Two separate economic models were developed: one from the perspective of an entire health plan and another from the perspective of a pharmacy budget. The total budget impact model includes costs of drug therapies and other costs for treatment, monitoring, management of adverse events, and comorbidities. The pharmacy cost calculator only considers drug costs.

Results:

The total estimated budget impact associated with the introduction of pasireotide LAR is 0.31 cents ($0.0031) per member per month (PMPM) in the first year, 0.78 cents ($0.0078) in the second year, and 1.42 cents ($0.0142) in the third year following FDA approval. Costs were similar or lower from a pharmacy budget impact perspective. For each patient achieving disease control, cost savings from reduced comorbidities amounted to $10,240 per year.

Limitations:

Published data on comorbidities for acromegaly are limited. In the absence of data on acromegaly-related costs for some comorbidities, comorbidity costs for the general population were used (may be under-estimates).

Conclusions:

The budget impact of pasireotide LAR is expected to be modest, with an expected increase of 1.42 cents PMPM on the total health plan budget in the third year after FDA approval. The efficacy of pasireotide LAR in acromegaly, as demonstrated in head-to-head trials compared with currently available treatment options, is expected to be associated with a reduction of the prevalence of comorbidities.     

Addressing shortfalls in TIA care in the UK: an economic perspective

Abstract

Objective: To estimate the clinical outcomes and costs associated with reconfiguring the management of TIA in the UK to offer patients rapid access to outpatient clinics for specialist assessment and treatment.

Methods: An economic deterministic model was run comparing two pathways – one arm representing current clinical care based on national guidelines and clinical practice and patient referral to a weekly outpatient clinic, and a revised care pathway replicating phase 2 of the EXPRESS study with patient referral to a daily outpatient clinic. The outcomes of the model were measured in terms of recurrent strokes avoided and net budget impact to secondary care.

Results: Reconfiguring TIA care pathways in the UK could result in the avoidance of 8,164 recurrent stroke events. The model predicts savings of £25,573,279 for the UK healthcare system over 12 months. Annual net savings are predicted in England (£24,916,011), Scotland (£80,554) and Northern Ireland (£1,041,817). In Wales, increased costs of £450,435 are estimated.

Limitations: Using the data published from the EXPRESS study, it is not possible to model a stepwise approach to implementing the revised TIA care pathway. It is therefore assumed that it would be possible to implement the revised TIA care pathway as detailed in the EXPRESS study across the UK and achieve the reduction in recurrent stroke risk that was reported.

Conclusions: The model suggests that the reconfiguration of TIA care pathways in the UK to offer rapid access to treatment and assessment could prevent TIA-related future stroke events and potentially result in cost savings to the healthcare system.     

A cost-effectiveness and budget impact analysis of apremilast in patients with psoriasis in the Italian setting

Abstract

Aims: The aim of this study was to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis, as well as a budget impact analysis, on the use of apremilast for the treatment of adult patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis (defined as a psoriasis area severity index [PASI]?≥?10), who failed to respond to, had a contraindication to, or were intolerant to other systemic therapies, within the Italian National Health Service (NHS).

Materials and methods: A Markov state-transition cohort model adapted to the Italian context was used to compare the costs of the currently available treatments and of the patients’ quality of life with two alternative treatment sequences, with or without apremilast as pre-biologic therapy. Moreover, a budget impact model was developed based on the population of patients treated for psoriasis in Italy, who would be eligible for treatment with apremilast.

Results: Over 5?years, the cost-effectiveness analysis showed that the strategy of using apremilast before biologic therapy was dominant compared with the sequence of biologic treatments without apremilast. In addition, it is important to underline that the use of apremilast slightly increases the quality-adjusted life years gained over 5?years. Furthermore, within the budget impact analysis, the strategy including apremilast would lead to a saving of €16 million within 3?years. Savings would mainly be related to a reduction in pharmaceutical spending, hospital admissions and other drug administration-related costs.

Conclusion: These models proved to be robust to variation in parameters and it suggested that the use of apremilast would lead to savings to the Italian healthcare system with potential benefits in terms of patients’ quality of life.     

A cost-effectiveness and budget impact analysis of apremilast in patients with psoriatic arthritis in Italy

Abstract

Aims: The aim of this study was to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis, as well as a budget impact analysis, on the use of apremilast for the treatment of adult patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA), within the Italian National Health Service (NHS).

Methods: A Markov state transition cohort model, which was adapted to the Italian context, was used to compare the costs of the currently available treatments and of the patients’ quality of life with two alternative treatment sequences, with or without apremilast as pre-biologic therapy. Moreover, a budget impact model was developed based on the population of patients treated for PsA in Italy, who can be eligible for treatment with apremilast. The eligible population was represented by adult patients with PsA who had an inadequate response to or were intolerant to previous disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), for the approved indication, and for the treatment studied in the economic analytic model.

Results: This cost-effectiveness analysis estimated that the strategy of using apremilast before biologic therapy is cost-effective, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €32,263.00 per QALY gained which is slightly over the normal threshold found in other Italian economic studies, which usually considers a 40-year-period. Conversely, the budget impact analysis was conducted over 3?years, and it led to an estimated annual saving of €1.6 million, €4.6 million and €5.5 million in the first, second and third year of apremilast commercialization, respectively, for a total saving of €11.75 million in 3?years.

Limitations: Limitations of this analysis include the absence of head-to-head trials comparing therapies included in the economic model, the lack of comparative long-term data on treatment efficacy, and the assumption of complete independence between the considered response rates to therapy.

Conclusion: The use of apremilast as a first option before the use of biologic agents may represent a cost-effective treatment strategy for patients with PsA who fail to respond to, or are intolerant to, previous DMARD therapy. In addition, based on a budget impact perspective, the use of apremilast may lead to cost savings to the Italian healthcare system.     

Cost-effectiveness of ceritinib in patients previously treated with crizotinib in anaplastic lymphoma kinase positive (ALK+) non-small cell lung cancer in Canada

Background: To assess the cost-effectiveness of ceritinib vs alternatives in patients who discontinue treatment with crizotinib in anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive (ALK+) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) from a Canadian public healthcare perspective.

Methods: A partitioned survival model with three health states (stable, progressive, and death) was developed. Comparators were chosen based on reported utilization from a retrospective Canadian chart study; comparators were pemetrexed, best supportive care (BSC), and historical control (HC). HC comprised of all treatment alternatives reported. Progression-free survival and overall survival for ceritinib were estimated using data reported from single-arm clinical trials (ASCEND-1 [NCT01283516] and ASCEND-2 [NCT01685060]). Survival data for comparators were obtained from published clinical trials in a NSCLC population and from a Canadian retrospective chart study. Parametric models were used to extrapolate outcomes beyond the trial period. Drug acquisition, administration, resource use, and adverse event (AE) costs were obtained from databases. Utilities for health states and disutilities for AEs based on EQ-5D were derived from literature. Incremental costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained were estimated. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

Results: Over 4 years, ceritinib was associated with 0.86 QALYs and total direct costs of $89,740 for the post-ALK population. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was $149,117 comparing ceritinib vs BSC, $80,100 vs pemetrexed, and $104,436 vs HC. Additional scenarios included comparison to docetaxel with an ICER of $149,780 and using utility scores reported from PROFILE 1007, with a reported ICER ranging from $67,311 vs pemetrexed to $119,926 vs BSC. Due to limitations in clinical efficacy input, extensive sensitivity analyses were carried out whereby results remained consistent with the base-case findings.

Conclusion: Based on the willingness-to-pay threshold for end-of-life cancer drugs, ceritinib may be considered as a cost-effective option compared with other alternatives in patients who have progressed or are intolerant to crizotinib in Canada.