Cost-effectiveness of de-escalation from micafungin versus escalation from fluconazole for invasive candidiasis in China

Aims: Guidelines on treating invasive candidiasis recommend initial treatment with a broad-spectrum echinocandin (e.g. micafungin), then switching to fluconazole if isolates prove sensitive (de-escalation strategy). This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of de-escalation from micafungin vs escalation from fluconazole from a Chinese public payers perspective.

Materials and methods: Cost-effectiveness was estimated using a decision analytic model, in which patients begin treatment with fluconazole 400?mg/day (escalation) or micafungin 100?mg/day (de-escalation). From Day 3, when susceptibility results are available, patients are treated with either fluconazole (if isolates are fluconazole-sensitive/dose-dependent) or micafungin (if isolates are resistant). The total duration of (appropriate) treatment is 14 days. Model inputs are early (Day 3) and end-of-treatment mortality rates, treatment success rates, and health resource utilization. Model outputs are costs of health resource utilization over 42 days, incremental cost per life-year, and incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) over a lifetime horizon.

Results: In the base-case analysis, the de-escalation strategy was associated with longer survival and higher treatment success rates compared with escalation, at a lower overall cost (–¥1,154; –175 United States Dollars). Life-years and QALYs were also better with de-escalation. Thus, this strategy dominated the escalation strategy for all outcomes. In a probabilistic sensitivity analysis, 99% of 10,000 simulations were below the very cost-effective threshold (1?×?gross domestic product).

Limitations: The main limitation of the study was the lack of real-world input data for clinical outcomes on treatment with micafungin in China; data from other countries were included in the model.

Conclusion: A de-escalation strategy is cost-saving from the Chinese public health payer perspective compared with escalation. It improves outcomes and reduces costs to the health system by reducing hospitalization, due to an increase in the proportion of patients receiving appropriate treatment.     

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.     

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 analysis of exenatide once-weekly versus dulaglutide,liraglutide, and lixisenatide for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus: an analysis from the UK NHS perspective

Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness of exenatide 2?mg once-weekly (EQW) compared to dulaglutide 1.5?mg QW, liraglutide 1.2?mg and 1.8?mg once-daily (QD), and lixisenatide 20?μg QD for the treatment of adult patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) not adequately controlled on metformin.

Methods: The Cardiff Diabetes Model was applied to evaluate cost-effectiveness, with treatment effects sourced from a network meta-analysis. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were calculated with health-state utilities applied to T2DM-related complications, weight changes, hypoglycemia, and nausea. Costs (GBP £) included drug treatment, T2DM-related complications, severe hypoglycemia, nausea, and treatment discontinuation due to adverse events. A 40-year time horizon was used.

Results: In all base-case comparisons, EQW was associated with a QALY gain per patient; 0.046 vs dulaglutide 1.5?mg; 0.102 vs liraglutide 1.2?mg; 0.043 vs liraglutide 1.8?mg; and 0.074 vs lixisenatide 20?μg. Cost per patient was lower for EQW than for liraglutide 1.8?mg (?£2,085); therefore, EQW dominated liraglutide 1.8?mg. The cost difference per patient between EQW and dulaglutide 1.5?mg, EQW and liraglutide 1.2?mg, and EQW and lixisenatide 20?μg was £27, £103, and £738, respectively. Cost per QALY gained with EQW vs dulaglutide 1.5?mg, EQW vs liraglutide 1.2?mg, and EQW vs lixisenatide 20?μg was £596, £1,004, and £10,002, respectively. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the probability that EQW is cost-effective ranged from 76–99%.

Conclusion: Results suggest that exenatide 2?mg once-weekly is cost-effective over a lifetime horizon compared to dulaglutide 1.5?mg QW, liraglutide 1.2?mg QD, liraglutide 1.8?mg QD, and lixisenatide 20?μg QD for the treatment of T2DM in adults not adequately controlled on metformin alone.     

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.     

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 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.     

EVEREST II high risk study based UK cost-effectiveness analysis of MitraClip® in patients with severe mitral regurgitation ineligible for conventional repair/replacement surgery

Abstract

Objectives:

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of MitraClip, an interventional procedure for patients with chronic severe mitral regurgitation.

Methods:

A decision analytic model with a lifetime horizon was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of MitraClip vs conventional medical management in patients with severe mitral regurgitation, ineligible for surgery. The analysis was performed from a UK NHS perspective and the estimates for mortality, adverse events, and cross-sectional NYHA class were obtained from the EVEREST II High Risk Study (HRS). Utility decrements were obtained from a heath technology assessment on Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy, while unit costs were obtained from national databases. The concept model was clinically validated. Costs (2011 £UK) and benefits were discounted at an annual rate of 3.5%.

Results:

Compared to medical management, over 2- and 10-year periods MitraClip had incremental Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY) gains of 0.48 and 2.04, respectively. The Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratios for MitraClip at 2 and 10 years are £52,947 and £14,800 per QALY gained. Overall, the model was most sensitive to the choice of time horizon, the discount rate applied to benefits, the starting age of cohort, the utility decrement associated with NYHA II, and cost of the MitraClip procedure. The model was insensitive to changes in all other parameters. MitraClip was also found to be cost-effective, regardless of the modelling approach, and insensitive to the key assumptions of the procedure cost.

Study limitations:

The primary limitation of the analysis is the reliance on aggregate data from a modestly sized non-randomized study with a short-term follow-up period. Aligned to this was the need to extrapolate survival well beyond the study period in order to generate meaningful results. The impact of both of these limitations was explored via extensive sensitivity analyses.

Conclusion:

Compared to medical management, MitraClip is a cost-effective interventional procedure at conventional threshold values.     

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.     

Quality of life benefits and cost impact of prolonged release oxycodone/naloxone versus prolonged release oxycodone in patients with moderate-to-severe non-malignant pain and opioid-induced constipation: a UK cost-utility analysis

Abstract

Objective:

To compare the cost effectiveness of prolonged release oxycodone/naloxone (OXN) tablets (Targinact) and prolonged release oxycodone (OXY) tablets (OxyContin) in patients with moderate-to-severe non-malignant pain and opioid-induced constipation (OIC) from the perspective of the UK healthcare system.

Methods:

A cohort model used data from a phase III randomised, controlled trial (RCT). It calculated the cost difference between treatments by combining the cost of pain therapy with costs of laxatives and other resources used to manage constipated patients. SF-36 scores were converted into EQ-5D utility values to calculate the quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gains. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

Results:

The incremental cost of OXN versus OXY was £159.68 for the average treatment duration of 301 days. OXN gave an incremental QALY gain of 0.0273. The estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was £5841.56 per QALY. Sensitivity analyses gave a maximum ICER of £10,347.03. In some scenarios, OXN dominated with a cost saving of up to £4254.70. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that OXN had approximately 96.6% probability of cost effectiveness at the £20,000 threshold.

Limitations:

The model was conservative in predicting the probability of constipation beyond the 12-week RCT period. UK cost of constipation data were limited and based on primary care physician opinion.

Conclusions:

In the base case, direct treatment costs were slightly higher for patients treated with OXN than for those treated with OXY. However, patients treated with OXN experienced a quality of life gain, and had an ICER considerably below thresholds commonly applied in the UK. The model was most sensitive to the estimated cost of constipation with a number of realistic scenarios in the sensitivity analysis demonstrating a cost saving with OXN (OXN dominant). OXN is therefore estimated to be a cost-effective option for treating patients with severe non-malignant pain and OIC.     

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.     

Cost-effectiveness of continuous subcutaneous apomorphine in the treatment of Parkinson’s disease in the UK and Germany

Abstract

Background:

Parkinson’s disease (PD) is the second most common neurodegenerative disease, affecting ～5.2 million people worldwide. Continuous subcutaneous apomorphine (CSAI) represents an alternative treatment option for advanced PD with motor fluctuation. The purpose of this analysis was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of CSAI compared with Levodopa/carbidopa intestinal gel (LCIG), Deep-Brain-Stimulation (DBS) and Standard-of-care (SOC).

Methods:

A multi-country Markov-Model to simulate the long-term consequences, disease progression (Hoehn & Yahr stages 3–5, percentage of waking-time in the OFF-state), complications, and adverse events was developed. Monte-Carlo simulation accounted for uncertainty. Probabilities were derived from RCT and open-label studies. Costs were estimated from the UK and German healthcare provider’s perspective. QALYs, life-years (LYs), and costs were projected over a life-time horizon.

Results:

UK lifetime costs associated with CSAI amounts to £78,251.49 and generates 2.85 QALYs and 6.28 LYs (€104,500.08, 2.92 QALYs and 6.49 LYs for Germany). Costs associated with LCIG are £130,011.34, achieves 3.06 QALYs and 6.93 LYs (€175,004.43, 3.18 QALYs and 7.18 LYs for Germany). The incremental-cost per QALY gained (ICER) was £244,684.69 (€272,914.58). Costs for DBS are £87,730.22, associated with 2.75 QALYs and 6.38 LYs (€105,737.08, 2.85 QALYs and 6.61 LYs for Germany). CSAI dominates DBS. SOC associated UK costs are £76,793.49; 2.62 QALYs and 5.76 LYs were reached (€90,011.91, 2.73 QALYs and 6 LYs for Germany).

Conclusions:

From a health economic perspective, CSAI is a cost-effective therapy and could be seen as an alternative treatment to LCIG or DBS for patients with advanced PD.     

Cost-effectiveness analysis of sequential biologic therapy with ixekizumab versus secukinumab as first-line treatment of moderate-to-severe psoriasis in the UK

Aims: Patients with psoriasis often undergo treatment with a sequence of biologic agents because of poor/loss of response to initial therapy. With the availability of newer agents like ixekizumab and secukinumab, there is a need for cost-effectiveness analyses to better reflect current clinical practice. This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of a sequence of biologic therapies containing first-line ixekizumab vs first-line secukinumab in patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis in the UK.

Materials and methods: A Markov model with a lifetime horizon was developed to compare the cost-effectiveness of ixekizumab and secukinumab treatment sequences: ixekizumab → ustekinumab → infliximab → best supportive care (BSC) vs secukinumab → ustekinumab → infliximab → BSC. The model used monthly cycles, and included four health states: trial period, treatment maintenance, BSC, and death. At the end of the trial period, responders transitioned to maintenance therapy; non-responders transitioned to the next biologic in the sequence. An annual discontinuation rate of 20% was assumed for maintenance therapy.

Results: The ixekizumab sequence provided cost savings of £898 (£176,203 vs 177,101) [year 2015 values] and gained 0.03 more quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs: 1.45 vs 1.42) vs the secukinumab sequence over the lifetime horizon. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed an 89.8% likelihood that the ixekizumab sequence would be cost-effective at a threshold of £20,000 per QALY gained.

Limitations: The analysis used list prices for drugs rather than confidential, preferentially priced Patient Access Scheme costs. In addition, efficacy input data were based on a network meta-analysis, as there were no head-to-head trials comparing ixekizumab and secukinumab.

Conclusion: First-line treatment with ixekizumab as part of a specific sequential biologic therapy for moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis in the UK provided slight advantages in cost savings and QALYs gained over a similar treatment sequence initiated with secukinumab. In view of the small magnitude of these differences, factors such as patient preferences (e.g. for number of injections) and long-term safety (e.g. related to time on the market) may also be important for clinical decision-making.     

Use of opioid substitution therapies in the treatment of opioid use disorder: results of a UK cost-effectiveness modelling study

Aims: This study investigated the cost-effectiveness of buprenorphine maintenance treatment (BMT) and methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) vs no opioid substitution therapy (OST) for the treatment of opioid use disorder, from the UK National Health Service (NHS)/personal social services (PSS) and societal perspectives over 1 year.

Methods: Cost-effectiveness of OST vs no OST was evaluated by first replicating and then expanding an existing UK health technology assessment model. The expanded model included the impact of OST on infection rates of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection.

Results: Versus no OST, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for BMT and MMT were £13,923 and £14,206 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY), respectively, from a NHS/PSS perspective. When total costs (NHS/PSS and societal) are considered, there are substantial savings associated with adopting OST; these savings are in excess of £14,032 for BMT vs no OST and £17,174 for MMT vs no OST over 1 year. This is primarily driven by a reduction in victim costs. OST treatment also impacted other aspects of criminality and healthcare resource use.

Limitations: The model’s 1-year timeframe means long-term costs and benefits, and the influence of changes over time are not captured.

Conclusions: OST can be considered cost-effective vs no OST from the UK NHS/PSS perspective, with a cost per QALY well below the UK’s willingness-to-pay threshold. There were only small differences between BMT and MMT. The availability of two or more cost-effective options is beneficial to retaining patients in OST programs. From a societal perspective, OST is estimated to save over £14,032 and £17,174 per year for BMT and MMT vs no OST, respectively, due to savings in victim costs. Further work is required to fully quantify the clinical and health economic impacts of different OST formulations and their societal impact over the long-term.     

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.     

Cost-effectiveness analysis of glatiramer acetate in the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis

SUMMARY

We have developed an economic model around the patient level data from the pivotal clinical trial for Copaxone® (glatiramer acetate), combined with published cost and natural history data, to demonstrate cost-effectiveness in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS). Based upon analysis over 8 years, the cost per relapse avoided and cost per disability unit avoided was £11,000 and £8,862 respectively. To facilitate comparison with other therapies and across other disease areas we also calculated the cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY). Dependent upon the assumed utility loss associated with duration of relapse, the cost per QALY ranged between £22,586 and £64,636 over 8 years analysis. Given the nature of the disease and compared to accepted standards of cost-effectiveness in the UK, this analysis shows that glatiramer acetate is demonstrably cost-effective versus best supportive care alone.

Copaxone is a registered trademark of Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Israel     

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-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.     

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.