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.     

Cost-effectiveness analysis of oxycodone with naloxone versus oxycodone alone for the management of moderate-to-severe pain in patients with opioid-induced constipation in Canada

Background:

Approximately 20–30% of Canadians suffer from chronic pain. Guidelines for the management of chronic pain support the use of controlled-release (CR) opioids to treat chronic pain. Although effective in managing chronic pain, oxycodone is associated with high rates of opioid-induced constipation (OIC). The cost-effectiveness of a combination of oxycodone for the management of pain and naloxone for the relief of OIC has not previously been evaluated for Canada.

Methods:

A decision analytic model was developed to estimate the cost-utility of combination oxycodone/naloxone compared to oxycodone alone in four populations. Drug costs for managing pain and healthcare costs related to managing OIC were included in the analysis and the primary measure of effectiveness was quality adjusted life years (QALYs) derived from OIC rates observed in clinical trials. The analysis was conducted from a healthcare system perspective, used a 1-year time horizon, and results were expressed in 2015 Canadian dollars.

Results:

In all four patient populations, there was a trade-off between slightly higher total expected costs for Targin treated patients compared to oxycodone treated patients, but also improved clinical benefits in terms of reduced OIC, which resulted in higher QALYs for patients. Although analgesic costs were found to be slightly higher for Targin treated patients, Targin also resulted in cost offsets to the healthcare system in terms of less rescue laxative drug use and other resources required for the management of OIC. The resulting 1-year cost-utility of Targin compared to oxycodone ranged from $2178–$7732 per QALY gained in the base case analysis, and it was found that these cost-utility results remained robust and at low values throughout a series of one-way deterministic analyses of uncertainty.

Conclusion:

The clinical effectiveness of oxycodone/naloxone in managing pain and OIC compared to CR oxycodone alone resulted in low cost-utility estimates.     

The cost-effectiveness of onabotulinumtoxinA for the prophylaxis of headache in adults with chronic migraine in the UK

Abstract

Background:

Although chronic migraine is associated with substantial disability and costs, few treatments have been shown to be effective. OnabotulinumtoxinA (Botox, Allergan Inc., Irvine, CA) is the first treatment to be licensed in the UK for the prophylaxis of headaches in adults with chronic migraine. This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of onabotulinumtoxinA in this indication in the UK.

Methods:

A state-transition (Markov) model was developed comparing onabotulinumtoxinA to placebo. Efficacy data and utility values were taken from the pooled Phase III REsearch Evaluating Migraine Prophylaxis Therapy (PREEMPT) clinical trials program (n?=?1384). Estimates of resource utilisation were taken from the International Burden of Migraine Study (IBMS), and stopping rules were informed by published medical guidelines and clinical data. This study estimated 2-year discounted costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) from the UK National Health Service perspective.

Results:

At 2 years, treatment with onabotulinumtoxinA was associated with an increase in costs of £1367 and an increase in QALYs of 0.1 compared to placebo, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £15,028. Treatment with onabotulinumtoxinA reduced headache days by an estimated 38 days per year at a cost of £18 per headache day avoided. Sensitivity analysis showed that utility values had the greatest influence on model results. The ICER remained cost-effective at a willingness to pay threshold of £20,000–£30,000/QALY in the majority of scenario analyses as well as in probabilistic sensitivity analysis, where onabotulinumtoxinA was cost-effective on 96% of occasions at a threshold of £20,000/QALY and 98% of occasions at £30,000/QALY.

Conclusion:

OnabotulinumtoxinA has been shown to reduce the frequency of headaches in patients with chronic migraine and can be considered a cost-effective use of resources in the UK National Health Service. The uncertainties in the model relate to the extrapolation of clinical data beyond the 56-week trial.     

Cost-effectiveness of insulin degludec compared with insulin glargine in a basal-bolus regimen in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus in the UK

Abstract

Objective:

The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of insulin degludec (IDeg) vs insulin glargine (IGlar) as part of a basal-bolus treatment regimen in adults with T1DM, using a short-term economic model.

Methods:

Data from two phase III clinical studies were used to populate a simple and transparent short-term model. The costs and effects of treatment with IDeg vs IGlar were calculated over a 12-month period. The analysis was conducted from the perspective of the UK National Health Service. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the degree of uncertainty surrounding the results. The main outcome measure, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), was the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY).

Results:

IDeg is a cost-effective treatment option vs IGlar in patients with T1DM on a basal-bolus regimen. The base case ICER was estimated at £16,895/QALY, which is below commonly accepted thresholds for cost-effectiveness in the UK. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the ICER was stable to variations in the majority of input parameters. The parameters that exerted the most influence on the ICER were hypoglycemia event rates, daily insulin dose, and disutility associated with non-severe nocturnal hypoglycemic events. However, even under extreme assumptions in the majority of analyses the ICERs remained below the commonly accepted threshold of £20,000–£30,000 per QALY gained.

Conclusions:

This short-term modeling approach accommodates the treat-to-target trial design required by regulatory bodies, and focuses on the impact of important aspects of insulin therapy such as hypoglycemia and dosing. For patients with T1DM who are treated with a basal-bolus insulin regimen, IDeg is a cost-effective treatment option compared with IGlar. IDeg may be particularly cost-effective for sub-groups of patients, such as those suffering from recurrent nocturnal hypoglycemia and those with impaired awareness of hypoglycemia.     

Cost effectiveness of deferasirox compared to desferrioxamine in the treatment of iron overload in lower-risk,transfusion-dependent myelodysplastic syndrome patients

Abstract

Objective:

The study evaluated the cost effectiveness of deferasirox (Exjade) compared to non-proprietary desferrioxamine (DFO) for the control of transfusional iron overload in lower risk myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) patients. A UK National Health Service perspective was adopted.

Methods:

Recent clinical evidence has demonstrated the efficacy and safety of deferasirox in transfusion-dependent MDS patients with elevated serum ferritin levels. An economic model was used to extrapolate the clinical benefits of iron chelation therapy (ICT) in a cohort of lower risk MDS patients. Costs for drug acquisition, drug administration and monitoring, and quality of life (utility) outcomes associated with mode of drug administration were derived from a variety of sources. The incremental cost per QALY gained for deferasirox was estimated. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3.5% in line with UK standards.

Results:

The base-case cost effectiveness of deferasirox versus DFO was estimated to be £20,822 per QALY gained, the key driver being the additional quality of life benefits associated with a simpler mode of administration for deferasirox. A mean survival benefit for both forms of ICT of 4.5 years was estimated. The results were sensitive to drug dose, days of DFO administration, and patient weight.

Conclusions:

In the UK, a cost per QALY below £20,000–30,000 is considered cost effective. Hence, the results from this economic analysis suggest deferasirox is cost effective in lower risk, transfusion-dependent, MDS patients. Limitations with the analysis include a lack of comparative randomised controlled trial evidence, in particular to differentiate survival and clinical outcomes for deferasirox and DFO.     

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 osimertinib in the UK for advanced EGFR-T790M non-small cell lung cancer

Aim: This study presents the cost-utility analysis that was developed to inform the NICE health technology assessment of osimertinib vs platinum-based doublet chemotherapy (PDC) in patients with EGFR-T790M mutation-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who have progressed on epidermal growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitor (EGFR-TKI) therapy.

Methods and materials: A partitioned survival model with three health states (progression-free, progressed disease, and death) from a UK payer perspective and over lifetime (15 years) was developed. Direct costs included disease management, treatment-related (acquisition, administration, monitoring, adverse events), and T790M testing costs. Efficacy and safety data were taken from clinical trials AURA extension and AURA2 for osimertinib and IMPRESS for PDC. An adjusted indirect treatment comparison was applied to reduce the potential bias in the non-randomized comparison. Parametric functions were utilized to extrapolate survival beyond the observed period. Health state utility values were calculated from EQ-5D data collected in the trials and valued using UK tariffs. Resource use and costs were based on published sources.

Results: Osimertinib was associated with a gain of 1.541 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) at an incremental cost of £64,283 vs PDC (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER]: £41,705/QALY gained). Scenario analyses showed that none of the plausible scenarios produced an ICER above £44,000 per QALY gained, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses demonstrated a 63.4% probability that osimertinib will be cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £50,000.

Limitations: The analysis is subject to some level of uncertainty inherent to phase 2 single-arm data and the immaturity of the currently available survival data for osimertinib.

Conclusions: Osimertinib may be considered a cost-effective treatment option compared with PDC in the second-line setting in patients with EGFR-T790M mutation-positive NSCLC from a UK payer perspective. Further data from the ongoing AURA clinical trial program will reduce the inherent uncertainty in the analysis.     

Cost-effectiveness of zoledronic acid vs clodronic acid for newly-diagnosed multiple myeloma from the United Kingdom healthcare system perspective

Abstract

Objective:

In the Medical Research Council Myeloma IX Study (MMIX), zoledronic acid (ZOL) 4?mg 3–4/week reduced the incidence of skeletal-related events (SREs), increased progression free survival (PFS), and prolonged overall survival (OS), compared with clodronic acid (CLO) 1600?mg daily, in 1970 patients with newly-diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM).

Methods:

An economic model was used to project PFS, OS, the incidence of SREs and adverse events and expected lifetime healthcare costs for patients with newly-diagnosed MM who are alternatively assumed to receive ZOL or CLO. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER] of ZOL vs CLO was calculated as the ratio of the difference in cost to the difference in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Model inputs were based on results of MMIX and published sources.

Results:

Compared with CLO, treatment with ZOL increases QALYs by 0.30 at an additional cost of £1653, yielding an ICER of £5443 per QALY gained. If the threshold ICER is £20,000 per QALY, the estimated probability that ZOL is cost-effective is 90%.

Limitations:

The main limitation of this study is the lack of data on the effects of zoledronic acid on survival beyond the end of follow-up in the MMIX trial. However, cost-effectiveness was favourable even under the highly conservative scenario in which the timeframe of the model was limited to 5 years.

Conclusions:

Compared with clodronic acid, zoledronic acid represents a cost-effective treatment alternative in patients with multiple myeloma.     

Cost-utility of exenatide once weekly compared with insulin glargine in patients with type 2 diabetes in the UK

Abstract

Objective:

To compare the cost-utility of exenatide once weekly (EQW) and insulin glargine in patients with type 2 diabetes in the United Kingdom (UK).

Research design and methods:

The IMS CORE Diabetes Model was used to project clinical and economic outcomes for patients with type 2 diabetes treated with EQW or insulin glargine. Treatment effects and patient baseline characteristics (mean age: 58 years, mean glycohaemoglobin: 8.3%) were taken from the DURATION-3 study. Unit costs and health state utility values were derived from published sources. As the price of EQW is not yet known, the prices of two currently available glucagon-like peptide-1 products were used as benchmarks. To reflect diabetes progression, patients started on EQW switched to insulin glargine after 5 years. The analysis was conducted from the perspective of the UK National Health Service over a time horizon of 50 years with costs and outcomes discounted at 3.5%. Sensitivity analyses explored the impact of changes in input data and assumptions and investigated the cost utility of EQW in specific body mass index (BMI) subgroups.

Main outcome measures:

Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for EQW compared with insulin glargine.

Results:

At a price equivalent to liraglutide 1.2?mg, EQW was more effective and more costly than insulin glargine, with a base case ICER of £10,597 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. EQW was associated with an increased time to development of any diabetes-related complication of 0.21 years, compared with insulin glargine. Three BMI subgroups investigated (<30, 30–35 and >35?kg/m²) reported ICERs for EQW compared with insulin glargine ranging from £9425 to £12,956 per QALY gained.

Conclusions:

At the prices investigated, the cost per QALY gained for EQW when compared with insulin glargine in type 2 diabetes in the UK setting, was within the range normally considered cost effective by NICE. Cost effectiveness in practice will depend on the final price of EQW and the extent to which benefits observed in short-term randomised trials are replicated in long-term use.     

Validation of the Bowel Function Index to detect clinically meaningful changes in opioid-induced constipation

Abstract

Objective: The Bowel Function Index (BFI) is a clinician-administered, patient-reported, 3-item questionnaire to evaluate opioid-induced constipation in cancer and non-cancer chronic pain patients. The objective of the present analysis was to evaluate the psychometric characteristics of the BFI using data from clinical studies of oral prolonged release (PR) oxycodone/naloxone.

Methods: OXN2401 was a multicenter, controlled, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study including oral PR oxycodone combined with oral PR naloxone as well as oral PR oxycodone combined with corresponding naloxone placebo. OXN3401 and OXN3001 were 12-week multicenter, controlled, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group studies of a fixed combination of oral PR oxycodone/naloxone versus PR oxycodone. In addition, a placebo group was included in study OXN3401. BFI psychometric characteristics (reliability, reproducibility, convergent/known groups validity, and responsiveness) were evaluated.

Results: Demographic data (n=985) were comparable and analyses indicated a high degree of internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha >0.7). Change of less than 5 points in BFI was indicative of high reproducibility. Correlations between BFI item and total scores to stool frequency were statistically significant and in the low-to-moderate range (OXN2401 –0.23 to –0.29, p < 0.001; OXN3401 range –0.26 to –0.40, p < 0.001; OXN3001 –0.14 to –0.15, p < 0.05). Data indicate that a BFI score change of ≥12 points represents a clinically meaningful change in constipation.

Limitations: This publication for validation of BFI only includes data from three clinical trials. However, another publication of an additional specifically designed cross-sectional validation study is in preparation.

Conclusion: The BFI is a valid and reliable instrument for the assessment of opioid-induced constipation in chronic pain patients. Psychometric analyses from clinical trials support the BFI's psychometric properties.     

A cost-effectiveness analysis of levodopa/carbidopa intestinal gel compared to standard care in late stage Parkinson’s disease in the UK

Abstract

Objective:

Evaluation of cost-effectiveness of levodopa/carbidopa intestinal gel (LCIG), compared to standard care (SC) in patients with advanced Parkinson’s disease (aPD) in the UK.

Design:

Markov model to quantify costs and outcomes associated with LCIG versus SC in aPD patients at Hoehn and Yahr (H&Y) stages 3, 4 or 5 experiencing >50% OFF time per day. Time horizon was lifetime, LCIG treatment was assumed to last maximal 5 years after which patients revert to SC. Model comprised 12 aPD health states according to H&Y status and daily time spent in OFF state. Cost analyses are reported from a UK NHS and Personal Social Services perspective. Uncertainties were assessed through one-way sensitivity analyses.

Comparators:

LCIG, providing patients with continuous dopaminergic stimulation to maximise functional ON time during the day and SC, defined as medically determined best available oral medication.

Main outcome measures:

Cost-effectiveness, based on quality adjusted life years gained, presented as an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.

Results:

Lifetime analysis yields an incremental cost per QALY of £36,024 for LCIG compared to SC (incremental cost £39,644, QALY gain 1.1). Results were sensitive to time on treatment, health state on treatment initiation, and estimates of long term benefit (OWSA results from £32,127 to £66,421 per QALY). Findings must be considered in the context of the study limitations which were mainly due to data availability constraints.

Conclusions:

LCIG is an effective treatment, reducing OFF time and improving quality of life in advanced PD. It provides value for money in levodopa-responsive aPD patients with severe motor fluctuations when no other treatment options are effective or suitable. Given LCIG is an orphan drug, it is reasonable to suggest that it may be considered cost-effective in the UK setting. However, further research is needed to complete current data gaps and increase robustness of the model.     

Economic evaluation of sevelamer for the treatment of hyperphosphatemia in chronic kidney disease patients not on dialysis in the United Kingdom

Abstract

Objectives:

To determine the cost effectiveness of sevelamer vs calcium carbonate in patients with chronic kidney disease and not on dialysis (CKD-ND) from the perspective of the National Health Service (NHS) in the UK.

Methods:

A Markov decision analytic model was developed to estimate (1) total life years (LYs), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and costs for patients treated with sevelamer or calcium carbonate; and (2) incremental costs per LY gained (LYG) and per QALY gained for sevelamer vs calcium carbonate. Data informing probability transitions to all-cause death and dialysis inception in CKD-ND patients were taken directly from the INDEPENDENT-CKD study and were extrapolated beyond the 3-year clinical trial using Weibull regression analysis. Estimates of health utility and costs (in £2011) were derived from the published literature.

Results:

Over a lifetime horizon, sevelamer treatment resulted in a gain of 2.05 LYs and 1.56 QALYs per patient, an increase of £37,282 in total costs per patient vs calcium carbonate (3.5% discount), and a per-patient cost of £18,193/LYG and £23,878/QALY gained. Results were robust to alternative assumptions in key parameters; results were most sensitive to alternative assumptions regarding the mean daily dose of sevelamer, impact of sevelamer on dialysis initiation, cost of dialysis, and health utility estimates. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that sevelamer was cost-effective vs calcium carbonate in 93% of simulations at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £30,000/QALY gained.

Limitations:

While the model simulated a real-world clinical setting, this analysis was subject to limitations common to all decision analytic models, in that it used a mix of data sources and relied on several assumptions. Not all variables that impact real-world outcomes and costs were included in this model.

Conclusions:

Sevelamer is a cost-effective option compared to calcium carbonate for the first-line treatment of hyperphosphatemia in CKD-ND patients in the UK.     

Cost effectiveness of rimonabant use in patients at increased cardiometabolic risk: estimates from a Markov model

Summary

Rimonabant, the first selective CB-1 receptor blocker, is expected to reduce cardiometabolic risk substantially. This study assesses the economics of such treatment in patients at elevated cardiometabolic risk.

A Markov model was developed using data from the Rimonabant in Obesity (RIO) trial, published risk equations, and UK cost and utility data. Patients begin either in a diabetic or a non-diabetic state and can transition to cardiovascular disease or to death (based on UK life tables). Transitions to diabetes and subsequent cardiovascular events are also counted. Resource use due to events and long-term management were translated to UK costs (2005 GBP). Tariffs for events and states were applied to age-dependent utilities. Extensive univariate and multivariate probabilistic sensitivity analyses were carried out.

Over 10 years, 8% will suffer a cardiovascular event with a loss of more than 1,000 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and a cost of more than £500,000 per 1,000 patients. Projecting risk for a lifetime, 1 year of rimonabant use is estimated to gain >65 QALYs at £8,574/QALY. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios varied from £2,657 to £22,141/QALY.

Based on the metabolic effects seen in clinical trials, rimonabant should reduce cardiovascular risk in obese or overweight people at reasonable cost.     

Cost utility of allogeneic stem cell transplantation with matched unrelated donor versus treatment with imatinib for adult patients with newly diagnosed chronic myeloid leukaemia

Objective: To estimate, from the perspective of the German statutory health insurance, the cost utility of allogeneic stem cell transplantation with matched unrelated donor (MUD-SCT) in newly diagnosed, chronic-phase chronic myeloid leukaemia (CML) patients aged 40 years or younger, relative to the treatment with imatinib.

Methods: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of the additional cost of imatinib versus MUD-SCT per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained was chosen as a target assessment. ICER was quantified using a Markov cohort modelling approach. The evaluation encompassed 5 years of treatment with either approach, and only direct medical costs (in €, year 2005) were considered.

Results: There were incremental costs of €77,410 for imatinib therapy per QALY gained versus MUD-SCT. No strategy was clearly dominant; on average, during 5 years, cost savings of €63,433 were obtained and 0.82 QALY lost by SCT compared to treatment with imatinib. QALYs gained in CML patients with either treatment resulted in considerable cost to the third-party payer in Germany. The results were particularly sensitive to the price of imatinib.

Conclusions: The analysis finds that imatinib is more costly but more effective (as measured in QALYs) over a 5-year time horizon. The resulting ICER of €77,410 per QALY is higher than commonly cited thresholds. The cost utility of MUD-SCT to treat CML in patients with a European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation score ≤ to 2 compares with that of the imatinib strategy.     

De-escalation from micafungin is a cost-effective alternative to traditional escalation from fluconazole in the treatment of patients with systemic Candida infections

Abstract

Background:

Systemic Candida infections (SCI) occur predominantly in intensive care unit patients and are a common cause of morbidity and mortality. Recently, changes in Candida epidemiology with an increasing prevalence of SCI caused by Candida non-albicans species have been reported. Resistance to fluconazole and azoles in general is not uncommon for non-albicans species. Despite guidelines recommending initial treatment with broad-spectrum antifungals such as echinocandins with subsequent switch to fluconazole if isolates are sensitive (de-escalation strategy), fluconazole is still the preferred first-line antifungal (escalation) in many clinical practice settings. After diagnosis of the pathogen, the initial therapy with fluconazole is switched to a broad-spectrum antifungal if a non-albicans is identified.

Methods:

The cost-effectiveness of initial treatment with micafungin (de-escalation) vs fluconazole (escalation) in patients with SCI was estimated using decision analysis based on clinical and microbiological data from pertinent studies. The model horizon was 42 days, and was extrapolated to cover a lifetime horizon. All costs were analyzed from the UK NHS perspective. Several assumptions were taken to address uncertainties; the limitations of these assumptions are discussed in the article.

Results:

In patients with fluconazole-resistant isolates, initial treatment with micafungin avoids 30% more deaths and successfully treats 23% more patients than initial treatment with fluconazole, with cost savings of £1621 per treated patient. In the overall SCI population, de-escalation results in 1.2% fewer deaths at a marginal cost of £740 per patient. Over a lifetime horizon, the incremental cost-effectiveness of de-escalation vs escalation was £15,522 per life-year and £25,673 per QALY.

Conclusions:

De-escalation from micafungin may improve clinical outcomes and overall survival, particularly among patients with fluconazole-resistant Candida strains. De-escalation from initial treatment with micafungin is a cost-effective alternative to escalation from a UK NHS perspective, with a differential cost per QALY below the ‘willingness-to-pay’ threshold of £30,000.     

When does economic model type become a decisive factor in health technology appraisals? Learning from the expanding treatment options for relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis

Objectives: Specific economic model types often become de facto standard for health technology appraisal over time. Markov and discrete event simulation (DES) models were compared to investigate the impact of innovative modeling on the cost-effectiveness of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) in relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS). Fingolimod was compared to dimethyl fumarate (DMF; in highly active [HA] RRMS), alemtuzumab (in HA RRMS) and natalizumab (in rapidly evolving severe RRMS). Comparator DMTs were chosen to reflect different dosing regimens.

Materials and methods: Markov and DES models used have been published previously. Inputs were aligned in all relevant respects, with differences in the modeling of event-triggered attributes, such as relapse-related retreatment, which is inherently difficult with a memoryless Markov approach. Outcomes were compared, with and without different attributes.

Results: All results used list prices. For fingolimod and DMF, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were comparable (Markov: £4206/quality-adjusted life year [QALY] gained versus DES: £3910/QALY gained). Deviations were observed when long-term adverse events (AEs) were incorporated in the DES (Markov: £25,412 saved/QALY lost, versus DES: £34,209 saved/QALY lost, fingolimod versus natalizumab; higher ICERs indicate greater cost-effectiveness). For fingolimod versus alemtuzumab, when relapse-triggered retreatment was included in the DES, large cost differences were observed (difference between incremental cost is £35,410 and QALY is 0.10).

Limitations: UK payer perspective, therefore societal approach was not considered. Resource utilization and utilities for both models were not derived from the subpopulations; as the focus is on model type, input limitations that apply to both models are less relevant.

Conclusions: Whilst no model can fully represent a disease, a DES allows an opportunity to include features excluded in a Markov structure. A DES may be more suitable for modeling in RRMS for health technology assessment purposes given the complexity of some DMTs. This analysis highlights the capabilities of different model structures to model event-triggered attributes.     

Cost-effectiveness implications of increased survival with anastrozole in the treatment of advanced breast cancer

Summary

Anastrozole (Arimidex*) has a survival benefit compared with megestrol acetate in postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer who have failed on tamoxifen. It was felt appropriate that such a clinical finding should be subjected to economic evaluation.

A cost-effectiveness analysis was undertaken from the viewpoint of a third-party payer, of the data from a combined analysis of two clinical studies. The outcome measures were duration of drug treatment and life years gained. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) of anastrozole was £1,608 per life year gained based on UK NHS drug prices in April 1998. Sensitivity analysis showed that the ICER could vary between £5 and £1,643, depending on relative drug costs in a number of countries, between £1,056 and £1,761, depending on the method used to calculate duration of treatment and survival, and could increase to £3,730, based on treatment provided during the extra period of survival.

Anastrozole is a highly cost-effective alternative to megestrol acetate for postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer.     

Economic and health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) comparison of lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) and atazanavir plus ritonavir (ATV+RTV) based regimens for antiretroviral therapy (ART)-naïve and -experienced United Kingdom patients in 2011

Abstract

Background:

Using a United Kingdom (UK)-based National Health Services perspective for 2011 this study first estimated the cost-effectiveness and budget impact implications for lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) vs atazanavir plus ritonavir (ATV+RTV) treatment of antiretroviral therapy (ART)-naïve patients and secondly examined the long-term health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) and economic implications for LPV/r vs ATV+RTV treatment of ART-experienced patients.

Methods:

A previously published Markov model that integrates epidemiological data of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) with predictors of coronary heart disease (CHD) was modified under a clearly specified set of assumptions to reflect viral load (VL) suppression profiles and other differences for these two regimens, applying results from the CASTLE study in ART-naïve patients and using data from BMS-045 in ART-experienced patients. ART costs were referenced to current (2011) pricing guidelines in the UK. Medical care costs reflected UK treatment patterns and relevant drug pricing. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3.5% per year. Costs are expressed in British pounds (£) and life expectancy in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs).

Results:

In the ART-naïve subjects, the model predicted a marginal improved life expectancy of 0.031 QALYs (11 days) for the ATV+RTV regimen as a result of predicted CHD outcomes based on lower increases in cholesterol levels compared with the LPV/r regimen. The model demonstrated cost savings with the LPV/r regimen. The total lifetime cost savings was £4070 per patient for the LPV/r regimen. LPV/r saved £2133 and £3409 per patient at 5 and 10 years, respectively. Referenced to LPV/r, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for ATV+RTV was £149,270/QALY. For ART-experienced patients VL suppression differences favored LPV/r, while CHD risk associated with elevated total cholesterol marginally favored ATV+RTV, resulting in a net improvement in life expectancy of 0.31 QALYs (106 days) for LPV/r. Five-year costs were £5538 per patient greater for ATV+RTV, with a discounted lifetime saving of £1445 per LPV/r patient. LPV/r was modestly dominant economically, producing better outcomes and cost savings.

Limitations:

The limitations of this study include uncertainty related to how well the model’s assumptions capture current practice, as well as the validity of the model parameters used. This study was limited to using aggregated data in the public domain from the two clinical trials. Thus, some of the model parameters may reflect limitations due to trial design and data aggregation bias. This study has attempted to illuminate the effect of these limitations by presenting the results of the comprehensive sensitivity analysis.

Conclusions:

Based on 2011 costs of HIV in the UK and the published efficacy data from the CASTLE and BMS-045 studies, ATV+RTV-based regimens are not expected to be a cost-effective use of resources for ART-naïve patients similar to patients in the CASTLE study, nor for ART-experienced patients based on the only published comparison of ATV+RTV and LPV/r.     

Cost-effectiveness analysis of solifenacin versus oxybutynin immediate-release in the treatment of patients with overactive bladder in the United Kingdom

Abstract

Objective:

To carry out a cost-utility analysis comparing initial treatment with solifenacin 5?mg/day vs oxybutynin immediate-release (IR) 15?mg/day for the treatment of patients with overactive bladder (OAB) from the perspective of the UK National Health Service (NHS).

Methods:

A Markov model with six health states was developed to follow a cohort of OAB patients treated with either solifenacin or oxybutynin during a 1-year period. Costs and utilities were accumulated as patients transited through the health states in the model and a drop-out state. Some of the solifenacin patients were titrated from 5?mg to 10?mg/day at 8 weeks. A proportion of drop-out patients were assumed to continue treatment with tolterodine ER. Utility values were obtained from a Swedish study and pad use was based on a multinational clinical trial. Adherence rates for individual treatments were derived from a UK database study. For pad use and utility values, the drop-out state was split between those patients who were no longer receiving treatment and those on second-line therapy. Patients on second-line therapy who drop-out were referred for a specialist visit. Results were expressed in terms of incremental cost-utility ratios.

Results:

Total annual costs for solifenacin and oxybutynin were £504.30 and £364.19, respectively. First-line drug use represents 49% and 4% of costs and pad use represent 23% and 40% of costs for solifenacin and oxybutynin, respectively. Differences between cumulative utilities were small but were greater for solifenacin (0.7020 vs 0.6907). The baseline incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £12,309/QALY.

Conclusion:

Under the baseline assumptions, solifenacin would appear to be cost-effective with an incremental cost-utility of less than £20,000/QALY. However, small differences in utility between the alternatives and the large number of drop-outs means that the results are sensitive to small adjustments in the values of utilities assigned to the drop-out state.