Incremental third-party costs associated with COPD exacerbations: a retrospective claims analysis

Abstract

Background:

Exacerbations are a major contributor to the large burden of treating chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Estimates of exacerbation costs in the United States are limited.

Objective:

To estimate incremental costs associated with COPD exacerbation, particularly severe exacerbation, in the United States.

Methods:

COPD patients with at least one exacerbation were identified in the Thomson Reuters MarketScan administrative claims database. A COPD exacerbation was defined as patient use of oral or parenteral corticosteroids on the same day or within 7 days following a claim with a COPD diagnosis. Severe exacerbation was further defined if the exacerbation was associated with hospitalization or death. Healthcare costs and exacerbations were evaluated at quarterly intervals starting from patients’ first observed claim with COPD diagnostic code in the database. Incremental costs associated with exacerbation were estimated as cost differences between quarters with exacerbation and quarters without exacerbation.

Results:

A total of 2644,174 patient-quarters, derived from 228,978 COPD patients, were included in the analysis. The average patient was followed an average of 2.9 years. The mean total cost was $17,016 per patient-quarter with severe exacerbation, $6628 per patient-quarter with non-severe exacerbation, an average of $8726 per patient-quarters with any exacerbation compared to $4762 per patient-quarter with no exacerbation. After adjusting for patient demographics, the mean incremental total cost was $11,261 per patient-quarter with severe exacerbation, $1509 per patient-quarter for non-severe exacerbation, and $3439 per patient-quarter with any exacerbation compared with patient-quarters with no exacerbation.

Limitations:

The method used for defining exacerbations does not capture mild exacerbations. Additional limitations exist due to the nature of claims data.

Conclusions:

Exacerbations, especially severe ones, result in a significant economic burden for third-party payers. Effective management of COPD and prevention of exacerbations may lead to improved patient outcomes and reduction in total healthcare costs for long-term management of COPD.     

Seretide: a pharmacoeconomic analysis

Abstract

Background: The costs of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), the two most common chronic respiratory illnesses, are substantial and rising. The fixed-dose combination of fluticasone and salmeterol has been a safe and effective therapy for these diseases.

Objectives: To review the pharmacoeconomic impact of the fixed-dose combination of inhaled fluticasone and salmeterol in asthma and COPD.

Methods: A systematic review of the literature was carried out to identify pharmacoeconomic studies with fixed-dose salmeterol and fluticasone (Seretide, Advair, Viani). In addition, abstracts from recent respiratory meetings were sought, and any unpublished data were requested from the manufacturer.

Results: For asthma, when compared to treatment with inhaled corticosteroid monotherapy and antileukotrienes, alone or combined, salmeterol/fluticasone inhalation produced a higher proportion of successfully treated weeks, improvement in lung function and quality of life, and fewer treatment failures. The costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) for fluticasone/salmeterol have been favourable not only in patients with moderate to severe disease but also in patients with mild disease or patients not previously treated with a maintenance therapy. The excess cost per QALY varied from US$2,670 to US$26,445. For COPD, a clear reduction in exacerbation rates and improvement in quality of life has been demonstrated with salmeterol/fluticasone along with a likely improvement in survival rates. The incremental cost per QALY ratio for fluticasone/salmeterol against placebo ranged from US$9,512 to US$64,038.

Conclusions: The data currently available suggest that the cost effectiveness of combination therapy with fluticasone and salmeterol is favourable for asthma and COPD in a variety of clinical settings.     

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.     

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.     

Cost effectiveness of transcatheter aortic valve replacement compared to medical management in inoperable patients with severe aortic stenosis: Canadian analysis based on the PARTNER Trial Cohort B findings

Abstract

Objective:

The only effective treatment for severe aortic stenosis (AS) is valve replacement. However, many patients with co-existing conditions are ineligible for surgical valve replacement, historically leaving medical management (MM) as the only option which has a poor prognosis. Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR) is a less invasive replacement method. The objective was to estimate cost-effectiveness of TAVR via transfemoral access vs MM in surgically inoperable patients with severe AS from the Canadian public healthcare system perspective.

Methods:

A cost-effectiveness analysis of TAVR vs MM was conducted using a deterministic decision analytic model over a 3-year time horizon. The PARTNER randomized controlled trial results were used to estimate survival, utilities, and some resource utilization. Costs included the valve replacement procedure, complications, hospitalization, outpatient visits/tests, and home/nursing care. Resources were valued (2009 Canadian dollars) using costs from the Ontario Case Costing Initiative (OCCI), Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care and Ontario Drug Benefits Formulary, or were estimated using relative costs from a French economic evaluation or clinical experts. Costs and outcomes were discounted 5% annually. The effect of uncertainty in model parameters was explored in deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis.

Results:

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was $32,170 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained for TAVR vs MM. When the time horizon was shortened to 24 and 12 months, the ICER increased to $52,848 and $157,429, respectively. All other sensitivity analysis returned an ICER of less than $50,000/QALY gained.

Limitations:

A limitation was lack of availability of Canadian-specific resource and cost data for all resources, leaving one to rely on clinical experts and data from France to inform certain parameters.

Conclusions:

Based on the results of this analysis, it can be concluded that TAVR is cost-effective compared to MM for the treatment of severe AS in surgically inoperable patients.     

Cost-effectiveness of fingolimod versus interferon beta-1a for relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis in the United States

Abstract

Objective:

Fingolimod has been shown to be more efficacious than interferon (IFN) beta-1a, but at a higher drug acquisition cost. The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of fingolimod compared to IFN beta-1a in patients diagnosed with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) in the US.

Methods:

A Markov model comparing fingolimod to intramuscular IFN beta-1a using a US societal perspective and a 10-year time horizon was developed. A cohort of 37-year-old patients with RRMS and a Kurtzke Expanded Disability Status Scale score of 0–2.5 were assumed. Data sources included the Trial Assessing Injectable Interferon vs FTY720 Oral in Relapsing–Remitting Multiple Sclerosis (TRANSFORMS) and other published studies of MS. Outcomes included costs in 2011 US dollars, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), number of relapses avoided, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).

Results:

Compared to IFN beta-1a, fingolimod was associated with fewer relapses (0.41 vs 0.73 per patient per year) and more QALYs gained (6.7663 vs 5.9503), but at a higher cost ($565,598 vs $505,234). This resulted in an ICER of $73,975 per QALY. Results were most sensitive to changes in drug costs and the disutility of receiving IFN beta-1a. Monte Carlo simulation demonstrated fingolimod was cost-effective in 35% and 70% of 10,000 iterations, assuming willingness-to-pay thresholds of $50,000 and $100,000 per QALY, respectively.

Limitations:

Event rates were primarily derived from a single randomized clinical trial with 1-year duration of follow-up and extrapolated to a 10-year time horizon. Comparison was made to only one disease-modifying drug—intramuscular IFN beta-1a.

Conclusion:

Fingolimod use is not likely to be cost-effective compared to IFN beta-1a unless fingolimod cost falls below $3476 per month or a higher than normal willingness-to-pay threshold is accepted by decision-makers.     

Cost effectiveness of tiotropium for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a systematic review of the evidence

Abstract

Background:

Tiotropium has been shown to reduce exacerbations and improve quality of life for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), a lung disease characterized by a persistent and progressive airflow limitation.

Objectives:

To present a systematic literature review of the cost effectiveness of treatment with tiotropium compared with other currently used treatments for COPD.

Methods:

A systematic search was performed via PubMed, the Cochrane database, and EMBASE from 2002 to 2009. Methods and results by study design and by country were compared.

Results:

Seventeen studies were included in the review. Study designs were characterized as follows: modeling based on clinical trial data, and empirical analysis based on either clinical trial or observational data. Comparing monotherapy regimens (12 studies), all study designs found that treatment with tiotropium was associated with lower costs for hospitalisation and other non-drug services. Total costs, including the costs of maintenance drugs, were lower with tiotropium in some, but not all, of the studies. Tiotropium was shown to be cost effective based on commonly accepted benchmark values. Limitations of the review included the wide variety of outcome measures used in different studies, the limited number of observational database studies for monotherapy, and limited data for combination therapy regimens.

Conclusions:

The main conclusions of the economic evaluations derived from clinical trial data at the time of product approval and from later observational data reflecting clinical use are similar: use of tiotropium monotherapy is associated with lower hospital and other non-drug costs and better health outcomes and is either cost saving or cost effective compared with other maintenance monotherapies.     

Cost effectiveness of duloxetine in the treatment of fibromyalgia in the United States

Abstract

Objective:

To evaluate the cost effectiveness of duloxetine when considered as an alternative treatment for patients in the United States (US) being treated for fibromyalgia pain.

Research design and methods:

A Markov model was used to evaluate the economic and clinical advantages of duloxetine in controlling fibromyalgia pain symptoms over a 2-year time horizon. A base-case treatment sequence was adopted from clinical guidelines, based on tricyclic antidepressants, serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, anticonvulsants, and opioids. Treatment response was modeled using changes from baseline in pain severity, and response thresholds: full response (at least a 50% change), response (30–49% change), and no response (less than a 30% change). Clinical efficacy and discontinuation data were taken from placebo- and active-controlled trials identified in a systematic literature review and mixed-treatment comparison. Utility data were based on EQ-5D data.

Main outcome measures:

Additional symptom-control months (SCMs), defined as the amount of time at a response level of 30% or less, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) over a 2-year time horizon.

Results:

For every 1000 patients, first-line duloxetine resulted in an additional 665 SCMs and 12.3 QALYs, at a cost of $582,911 (equivalent to incremental cost-effectiveness ratios [ICERs] of $877 per SCM and $47,560 per QALY). Second-line duloxetine resulted in an additional 460 SCMs and 8.7 QALYs, at a cost of $143,752 (equivalent to ICERs of $312 per SMC and $16,565 per QALY).

Limitations:

Response data for TCAs are limited to 30% improvement levels, reported trials are small, and have low placebo response rates. The model necessarily assumes that response rates are independent of placement in the treatment sequence.

Conclusions:

The results suggest that the introduction of duloxetine into the standard treatment sequence for fibromyalgia not only provides additional patient benefits, reflected by time spent in pain control, but also is cost effective when compared with commonly adopted thresholds.     

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 of blinatumomab versus salvage chemotherapy in relapsed or refractory Philadelphia-chromosome-negative B-precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia from a US payer perspective

Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of blinatumomab (Blincyto) vs standard of care (SOC) chemotherapy in adults with relapsed or refractory (R/R) Philadelphia-chromosome-negative (Ph?) B-precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) based on the results of the phase 3 TOWER study from a US healthcare payer perspective.

Methods: The Blincyto Global Economic Model (B-GEM), a partitioned survival model, was used to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of blinatumomab vs SOC. Response rates, event-free survival (EFS), overall survival (OS), numbers of cycles of blinatumomab and SOC, and transplant rates were estimated from TOWER. EFS and OS were estimated by fitting parametric survival distributions to failure-time data from TOWER. Utility values were based on EORTC-8D derived from EORTC QLQ-C30 assessments in TOWER. A 50-year lifetime horizon and US payer perspective were employed. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3% per year.

Results: The B-GEM projected blinatumomab to yield 1.92 additional life years and 1.64 additional quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) compared with SOC at an incremental cost of $180,642. The ICER for blinatumomab vs SOC was estimated to be $110,108/QALY gained in the base case. Cost-effectiveness was sensitive to the number and cost of inpatient days for administration of blinatumomab and SOC, and was more favorable in the sub-group of patients who had received no prior salvage therapy. At an ICER threshold of $150,000/QALY gained, the probability that blinatumomab is cost-effective was estimated to be 74%.

Limitations: The study does not explicitly consider the impact of adverse events of the treatment; no adjustments for long-term transplant rates were made.

Conclusions: Compared with SOC, blinatumomab is a cost-effective treatment option for adults with R/R Ph???B-precursor ALL from the US healthcare perspective at an ICER threshold of $150,000 per QALY gained. The value of blinatumomab is derived from its incremental survival and health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) benefit over SOC.     

Cost-effectiveness of second-line atezolizumab in Canada for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)

Aim: To assess the cost-effectiveness in Canada of atezolizumab compared with docetaxel or nivolumab for the treatment of advanced NSCLC after first-line platinum-doublet chemotherapy.

Materials and methods: A three-state partitioned-survival model was developed. Clinical inputs were obtained from the phase III OAK trial comparing atezolizumab with docetaxel in patients with advanced NSCLC who progressed after first-line platinum-doublet chemotherapy. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were extrapolated beyond the trial period using parametric models. A cure model assuming a 1% cure fraction was fitted to the OS data for atezolizumab. Outcomes for nivolumab were informed by a network meta-analysis (NMA) vs atezolizumab. Resource use and costs were informed by clinical expert opinion and published Canadian sources. Utility values were obtained from the OAK trial. The perspective of the analysis was that of the Canadian publicly-funded healthcare system. The base case time horizon was 10?years, and the discount rate was 1.5% annually for both costs and effects. Scenario analyses were performed to test the robustness of the results and all analyses were performed probabilistically.

Results: Atezolizumab demonstrated a quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gain of 0.60 compared with docetaxel at an incremental cost of $85,073, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $142,074/QALY. Atezolizumab dominated nivolumab (regardless of dosing regimen), based on modest differences in both QALYs and costs. Docetaxel was most likely to be cost effective at willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds below $125,000/QALY gained, while atezolizumab was most likely to be cost effective beyond this WTP threshold. In most scenario analyses, the results remained robust to changes in parameters. A reduced time horizon and alternative approaches to the NMA had the greatest impact on cost-effectiveness results.

Conclusion: Atezolizumab represents a cost-effective therapeutic option in Canada for the treatment of patients with advanced NSCLC who progress after first-line platinum doublet chemotherapy.     

Cost-effectiveness of cinacalcet in secondary hyperparathyroidism in the United States

Abstract

Objective:

Cinacalcet has been used in controlling secondary hyperparathyroidism (SHPT) in dialysis patients since 2004, but its full economic evaluation has not been conducted from the US perspective. This study assesses the cost-effectiveness of cinacalcet and low-dose vitamin D for the treatment of SHPT in dialysis patients compared with flexible vitamin D.

Methods:

A lifetime patient-level simulation model was developed using ADVANCE trial data, including biomarker levels: parathyroid hormone, calcium, and phosphorus. The impact of the biomarkers on mortality, cardiovascular events, fractures, and parathyroidectomy were estimated from literature: Block, an observational study; Cunningham, a combined analysis of four randomized trials of cinacalcet; and Danese, a study investigating the effect of duration in recommended targets. Baseline event rates were derived from the large dialysis organizations registries. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were conducted.

Results:

The cost-effectiveness ratio for cinacalcet compared with standard of care (vitamin D and phosphate binders) was $54,560 and $72,456/quality-adjusted-life-year (QALY) gained or an incremental cost of $3155 and $2638 per year alive for the Block and Danese variants, respectively. In the Cunningham variant, cost-effectiveness ratio for cinacalcet was $5064/QALY gained or a cost saving of $1068 per year. The difference in the results of the Cunningham variant vs other variants can be explained by the favorable impact of cinacalcet on outcomes, specifically cardiovascular events observed in the Cunningham study. The PSA showed 98% likelihood for cinacalcet to be cost-effective at $100,000/QALY threshold.

Limitations:

Observational data assessing effects on clinical outcomes, trial restriction to use calcium-containing phosphate binders, no utility data in SHPT dialysis population, and insufficient evidence on long-term impact of cinacalcet and vitamin D on biochemical markers.

Conclusions:

Cinacalcet treatment is cost-effective for treatment of SHPT in the US. Due to cost offsets, cinacalcet can reduce annual costs in some scenarios.     

Cost-utility of pregabalin as add-on to usual care versus usual care alone in the management of peripheral neuropathic pain in Belgium

Abstract

Background and objectivess:

The cost effectiveness of pregabalin as an add-on to the standard treatment of Belgian patients with post-herpetic neuralgia (PHN) had been demonstrated in a previously published Markov model. The purpose of this study was to update that model with more recent cost data and clinical evidence, and reevaluate the cost effectiveness from the payer’s perspective of add-on pregabalin in a wider set of NeP conditions.

Methods:

The model, featuring 4-week cycles and a 1-year time horizon, consisted in four possible health states: mild, moderate or severe pain and withdrawn from therapy. Three versions of the model were developed, using transition probabilities derived from pain scores reported in three placebo-controlled studies. The two treatment arms were ‘usual care’ or ‘usual care?+?pregabalin’. Resource use and utility data were obtained from a chart review and unit costs from recent published data. The final outcome of the model was the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained when adding pregabalin to standard care.

Results:

Based on 1000 simulations, two versions of the model showed that pregabalin was dominant respectively in 94.8% and 67.2% of the simulations, while the incremental cost per QALY was below €32,000/QALY in respectively 99.1% and 94.6% of the simulations. The third version did not show cost effectiveness, despite an incremental cost of only €300 after 1 year. However, in the corresponding study, patients seemed less responsive to GABA analogs, since 55% of them had failed to respond to gabapentin before study inclusion.

Limitations:

The studies upon which the model is based have a short follow-up time as compared to the model horizon. The endpoints of two studies were only provided at the aggregated level and do not necessarily reflect the real practice.

Conclusion:

Based on this analysis, it can be concluded that from a Belgium payer perspective pregabalin offers a slight increase in quality of life in the studied populations as compared to standard care. Pregabalin is cost effective in the majority of cases except in one published clinical study, despite a low incremental cost per year (€300).     

Nilotinib versus dasatinib as second-line therapy in patients with Philadelphia chromosome-positive chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase who are resistant or intolerant to imatinib: a cost-effectiveness analysis based on real-world data

Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of second-line nilotinib vs dasatinib among patients with Philadelphia chromosome-positive chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase (Ph+?CML-CP) who are resistant or intolerant to imatinib, from a US third-party perspective.

Methods: A lifetime partitioned survival model was developed to compare the costs and effectiveness of nilotinib vs dasatinib, which included four health states: CP on treatment, CP post-discontinuation, progressive disease (accelerated phase [AP] or blast crisis [BC]), and death. Time on treatment, progression-free survival, and overall survival of nilotinib and dasatinib were estimated using real-world comparative effectiveness data. Parametric survival models were used to extrapolate outcomes beyond the study period. Drug treatment costs, medical costs, and adverse event costs were obtained from the literature and publicly available databases. Utilities of health states were derived from the literature. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, including incremental cost per life-year (LY) gained and incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, were estimated comparing nilotinib and dasatinib. Deterministic sensitivity analyses were performed by varying patient characteristics, cost, and utility inputs.

Results: Over a lifetime horizon, nilotinib-treated patients were associated with 11.7 LYs, 9.1 QALYs, and a total cost of $1,409,466, while dasatinib-treated patients were associated with 9.5 LYs, 7.3 QALYs, and a total cost of $1,422,122. In comparison with dasatinib, nilotinib was associated with better health outcomes (by 2.2 LYs and 1.9 QALYs) and lower total costs (by $12,655). Deterministic sensitivity analysis results showed consistent findings in most scenarios.

Limitations: In the absence of long-term real-world data, the lifetime projection could not be validated.

Conclusions: Compared with dasatinib, second-line nilotinib was associated with better life expectancy, better quality-of-life, and lower costs among patients with Ph+?CML-CP who were resistant or intolerant to imatinib.     

Cost-effectiveness of hydrophilic-coated intermittent catheters compared with uncoated catheters in Canada: a public payer perspective

Study design: A Markov model was used to analyze cost-effectiveness over a lifetime horizon.

Objective: To investigate the cost-effectiveness of hydrophilic-coated intermittent catheters (HCICs) compared with uncoated catheters (UCs) among individuals with neurogenic bladder dysfunction (NB) due to spinal cord injury (SCI).

Setting: A Canadian public payer perspective based on data from Ontario; including a scenario analysis from the societal perspective.

Methods: A previously published Markov decision model was modified to compare the lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for the two interventions. Three renal function and three urinary tract infection (UTI) health states as well as other catheter-related events were included. Scenario analyses, including utility gain from compact catheter and phthalate free catheter use, were performed. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate the robustness of the model.

Results: The model predicted that a 50-year-old patient with SCI would gain an additional 0.72 QALYs if HCICs were used instead of UCs at an incremental cost of $48,016, leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $66,634/QALY. Moreover, using HCICs could reduce the lifetime number of UTI events by 11%. From the societal perspective, HCICs cost less than UCs, while providing superior outcomes in terms of QALYs, life years gained (LYG), and UTIs. The cost per QALY further decreased when health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) gains associated with compact HCICs or catheters not containing phthalates were included.

Conclusion: In general, ICERs in the range of CAD$50–100,000 could be considered cost-effective. The ICERs for the base case and sensitivity analyses suggest that HCICs could be cost-effective. From the societal perspective, HCICs were associated with potential cost savings in our model. The results suggest that reimbursement of HCICs should be considered in these settings.     

A global economic model to assess the cost-effectiveness of new treatments for advanced breast cancer in Canada

Objective Considering the increasing number of treatment options for metastatic breast cancer (MBC), it is important to develop high-quality methods to assess the cost-effectiveness of new anti-cancer drugs. This study aims to develop a global economic model that could be used as a benchmark for the economic evaluation of new therapies for MBC.

Methods The Global Pharmacoeconomics of Metastatic Breast Cancer (GPMBC) model is a Markov model that was constructed to estimate the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life years (QALY) of new treatments for MBC from a Canadian healthcare system perspective over a lifetime horizon. Specific parameters included in the model are cost of drug treatment, survival outcomes, and incidence of treatment-related adverse events (AEs). Global parameters are patient characteristics, health states utilities, disutilities, and costs associated with treatment-related AEs, as well as costs associated with drug administration, medical follow-up, and end-of-life care. The GPMBC model was tested and validated in a specific context, by assessing the cost-effectiveness of lapatinib plus letrozole compared with other widely used first-line therapies for post-menopausal women with hormone receptor-positive (HR+) and epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (HER2+) MBC.

Results When tested, the GPMBC model led to incremental cost-utility ratios of CA$131 811 per QALY, CA$56 211 per QALY, and CA$102 477 per QALY for the comparison of lapatinib plus letrozole vs letrozole alone, trastuzumab plus anastrozole, and anastrozole alone, respectively. Results of the model testing were quite similar to those obtained by Delea et al., who also assessed the cost-effectiveness of lapatinib in combination with letrozole in HR+/HER2?+?MBC in Canada, thus suggesting that the GPMBC model can replicate results of well-conducted economic evaluations.

Conclusions The GPMBC model can be very valuable as it allows a quick and valid assessment of the cost-effectiveness of any new treatments for MBC in a Canadian context.     

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.     

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.     

Lacosamide as a first-line treatment option in focal epilepsy: a cost-utility analysis for the Greek healthcare system

Background and aims: Epilepsy is the most common serious neurological disorder worldwide. Approximately 40% of patients with focal epileptic seizures remain uncontrolled with antiepileptic drug (AED) monotherapy or polytherapy. Lacosamide has been recently approved by the European Medicines Agency as monotherapy for the treatment of focal seizures. The aim of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of lacosamide compared with zonisamide as first-line treatment of focal epilepsy in patients with epilepsy aged ≥ 16?years to inform clinical decision-making in Greece.

Methods: A discrete event simulation model was adapted to reflect treatment pathways and resource use within the Greek national healthcare system, as specified by clinical experts. The model captures time-varying events and patient characteristics. Clinical inputs were sourced from pivotal trials and a network meta-analysis comparing lacosamide with other AEDs. The model predicts disease progression and seizures, relevant and most common adverse events, withdrawal due to lack of efficacy or adverse events, and epilepsy-specific and all-cause mortality over a 2-year time horizon. Unit costs were retrieved from published Greek sources. Health outcomes were measured as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs); secondary outcome was the cost per seizure avoided. Robustness of the results was tested with univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

Results: The lacosamide treatment pathway was associated with higher costs (i.e. €1,064) and an additional 0.119 QALYs when compared with zonisamide, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €8,938 per QALY gained. The sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the results are most sensitive to the efficacy and utility estimates.

Limitations: There are a number of limitations which stem from the process of model adaptation and lack of local real-world evidence.

Conclusions: Lacosamide is a cost-effective option at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €30,000 per QALY, representing a valuable monotherapy treatment option for patients with focal epileptic seizures in the Greek setting.     

Cost-effectiveness of a chronic pain intervention for people living with HIV (PLWH)

Background: Chronic pain is a common, disabling, and costly comorbidity, particularly in people living with HIV (PLWH). This study developed and pilot tested a pain self-management intervention for chronic pain tailored to PLWH called Skills TO Manage Pain (STOMP).

Objectives: Given the additional resources needed to deliver STOMP in HIV clinical settings, an important objective of the pilot study was to assess not only STOMP’s preliminary efficacy, but also its cost-effectiveness.

Research design and subjects: The present study draws from a 44-participant, 2-arm randomized pilot trial of the STOMP intervention vs usual care among PLWH and at least moderate chronic pain (Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02824562). Cost-effectiveness is presented as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Costs were considered from the clinic perspective over a 1-year time horizon using real costs from the pilot trial. It was conservatively assumed there would be no costs savings. The Standard Gamble (SG) method was used to directly measure utilities.

Results: Thirty-six participants met inclusion criteria for the present analyses. Mean age was 52 years; 61% were female and 86% were black. The total cost of STOMP was $483.83 per person. Using the SG method, the change in QALYs was 0.15, corresponding to an ICER of $3,225.

Conclusions: STOMP’s cost/QALY is substantially lower than the $50,000 to $100,000/QALY benchmark often used to indicate cost-effectiveness. Although based on a pilot trial and, therefore, preliminary, these findings are promising, and suggest the importance of cost analyses in future STOMP trials.