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

Abstract

Objective:

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

Methods:

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

Results:

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

Conclusions:

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

Budget impact model in moderate-to-severe psoriasis vulgaris assessing effects of calcipotriene and betamethasone dipropionate foam on per-patient standard of care costs

Aims: To develop a budget impact model (BIM) for estimating the financial impact of formulary adoption and uptake of calcipotriene and betamethasone dipropionate (C/BD) foam (0.005%/0.064%) on the costs of biologics for treating moderate-to-severe psoriasis vulgaris in a hypothetical US healthcare plan with 1 million members.

Methods: This BIM incorporated epidemiologic data, market uptake assumptions, and drug utilization costs, simulating the treatment mix for patients who are candidates for biologics before (Scenario #1) and after (Scenario #2) the introduction of C/BD foam. Predicted outcomes were expressed in terms of the annual cost of treatment (COT) and the COT per member per month (PMPM).

Results: At year 1, C/BD foam had the lowest per-patient cost ($9,913) necessary to achieve a Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI)-75 response compared with etanercept ($73,773), adalimumab ($92,871), infliximab ($34,048), ustekinumab ($83,975), secukinumab ($113,858), apremilast ($47,960), and ixekizumab ($62,707). Following addition of C/BD foam to the formulary, the annual COT for moderate-to-severe psoriasis would decrease by $36,112,572 (17.91%, from $201,621,219 to $165,508,647). The COT PMPM is expected to decrease by $3.00 (17.86%, from $16.80 to $13.80).

Limitations: Drug costs were based on Medi-Span reference pricing (January 21, 2016); differences in treatment costs for drug administration, laboratory monitoring, or adverse events were not accounted for. Potentially confounding were the definition of “moderate-to-severe” and the heterogeneous efficacy data. The per-patient cost for PASI-75 response at year 1 was estimated from short-term efficacy data for C/BD foam and apremilast only.

Conclusions: The introduction of C/BD foam is expected to decrease the annual COT for moderate-to-severe psoriasis treatable with biologics by $36,112,572 for a hypothetical US healthcare plan with 1 million plan members, and to lower the COT PMPM by $3.00.     

A budget impact analysis for making treatment decisions based on anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide (anti-CCP) testing in rheumatoid arthritis

Abstract

Aim: Given that rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients with high anti-citrullinated protein antibodies (ACPA) titer values respond well to abatacept, the aim of this study was to estimate the annual budget impact of anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide (anti-CCP) testing and treatment selection based on anti-CCP test results.

Materials and methods: Budget impact analysis was conducted for patients with moderate-to-severe RA on biologic or Janus kinase inhibitor (JAKi) treatment from a hypothetical US commercial payer perspective. The following market scenarios were compared: (1) 90% of target patients receive anti-CCP testing and the results of anti-CCP testing do not impact the treatment selection; (2) 100% of target patients receive anti-CCP testing and the results of anti-CCP testing have an impact on treatment selection such that an increased proportion of patients with high titer of ACPA receive abatacept. A hypothetical assumption was made that the use of abatacept would be increased by 2% in Scenario 2 versus 1. Scenario analyses were conducted by varying the target population and rebate rates.

Results: In a hypothetical health plan with one million insured adults, 2,181 patients would be on a biologic or JAKi treatment for moderate-to-severe RA. In Scenario 1, the anti-CCP test cost was $186,155 and annual treatment cost was $101,854,295, totaling to $102,040,450. In Scenario 2, the anti-CCP test cost increased by $20,684 and treatment cost increased by $160,467, totaling an overall budget increase of $181,151. This was equivalent to a per member per month (PMPM) increase of $0.015. The budget impact results were consistently negligible across the scenario analyses.

Limitations: The analysis only considered testing and medication costs. Some parameters used in the analysis, such as the rebate rates, are not generalizable and health plan-specific.

Conclusions: Testing RA patients to learn their ACPA status and increasing use of abatacept among high-titer ACPA patients result in a small increase in the total budget (<2 cents PMPM).     

Budget impact of netupitant/palonosetron for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

Background: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are among the most common and debilitating side-effects patients experience during chemotherapy, and are associated with considerable acute care use and healthcare cost. It is estimated that 70–80% of CINV could be prevented through appropriate use of CINV prophylaxis; however, suboptimal CINV compliance and control remains an issue in clinical practice. Netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA) is a fixed combination of serotonin-3 (5-HT₃) and neurokinin-1 (NK₁) receptor antagonists (RAs), respectively, indicated for the prevention of acute and delayed nausea and vomiting associated with highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). Phase 3 clinical trials showed a significantly higher complete response rate in both acute and delayed CINV in chemotherapy-naïve patients receiving NEPA compared to patients receiving palonosetron.

Objective: The objective of this study was to estimate the budgetary impact of adding NEPA to a US payer or practice formulary for CINV prophylaxis.

Methods: A model was developed to estimate the impact of adding NEPA to the formulary of a hypothetical US payer with 1.15 million members, including 150,000 (13%) Medicare beneficiaries. The model compared the annual total costs of CINV-related events and CINV prophylaxis in two scenarios: base year (no NEPA) and comparator year (10% and 5% NEPA usage in HEC and MEC patients, respectively). A univariate sensitivity analysis was conducted to explore the effect of variability in model parameters on the budget impact.

Results: A total of 2,021 patients were eligible to receive CINV prophylaxis. With NEPA, CINV prophylaxis costs increased by 0.7% ($3,493,630 vs $3,518,760) while medical costs associated with CINV events decreased by 3.9% ($15,118,639 vs $14,532,442), resulting in a net cost saving of $561,067 (3.0%) for the health plan ($18,612,269 vs $18,051,202), or Background: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are among the most common and debilitating side-effects patients experience during chemotherapy, and are associated with considerable acute care use and healthcare cost. It is estimated that 70–80% of CINV could be prevented through appropriate use of CINV prophylaxis; however, suboptimal CINV compliance and control remains an issue in clinical practice. Netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA) is a fixed combination of serotonin-3 (5-HT₃) and neurokinin-1 (NK₁) receptor antagonists (RAs), respectively, indicated for the prevention of acute and delayed nausea and vomiting associated with highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). Phase 3 clinical trials showed a significantly higher complete response rate in both acute and delayed CINV in chemotherapy-naïve patients receiving NEPA compared to patients receiving palonosetron.

Objective: The objective of this study was to estimate the budgetary impact of adding NEPA to a US payer or practice formulary for CINV prophylaxis.

Methods: A model was developed to estimate the impact of adding NEPA to the formulary of a hypothetical US payer with 1.15 million members, including 150,000 (13%) Medicare beneficiaries. The model compared the annual total costs of CINV-related events and CINV prophylaxis in two scenarios: base year (no NEPA) and comparator year (10% and 5% NEPA usage in HEC and MEC patients, respectively). A univariate sensitivity analysis was conducted to explore the effect of variability in model parameters on the budget impact.

Results: A total of 2,021 patients were eligible to receive CINV prophylaxis. With NEPA, CINV prophylaxis costs increased by 0.7% ($3,493,630 vs $3,518,760) while medical costs associated with CINV events decreased by 3.9% ($15,118,639 vs $14,532,442), resulting in a net cost saving of $561,067 (3.0%) for the health plan ($18,612,269 vs $18,051,202), or $0.04 per member per month. This was equivalent to saving $5,011 per patient moved to NEPA. Among all 5-HT₃ RA?+?NK₁ RA regimens, NEPA was associated with the lowest CINV-related costs, leading to the lowest total cost of care.

Conclusions: Adding NEPA to a payer or practice formulary results in a net decrease in the total budget due to a substantial reduction in CINV event-related resource utilization and medical costs, and an increase in pharmacy costs <1%, saving over $5,000 per patient.     

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

Background:

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

Objective:

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

Methods:

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

Results:

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

Limitations:

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

Conclusions:

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

Budget impact model of tobramycin inhalation solution for treatment of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in cystic fibrosis patients

Abstract

Background:

Pseudomonas aeruginosa (PA) is the most common airway pathogen in cystic fibrosis (CF) patients. The objective of this analysis was to determine the costs of managing PA infection in CF patients with a chronic regimen of tobramycin inhalation solution (TIS).

Methods:

A budget impact model of CF patients was developed to evaluate the costs of TIS from a US managed-care organization (MCO) perspective. The Microsoft Excel model compared TIS treatment plus standard care with standard care alone over a 4-year time horizon and included the cost of drugs, medical care, and annual probabilities of hospitalization and IV anti-pseudomonal (anti-PA) antibiotics administration.

Results:

For an MCO with 5,000,000 members, 389 members 6 years of age or older were estimated to have CF, and 218 (56%) had PA infection. Assuming that use of TIS increased from 20% to 25%, the 1-year budget increased $231,251 or from $0.049 to $0.053 per member per month (PMPM). The net drug budget increase was $243,919, while medical costs associated with exacerbation management decreased $12,669 over the first year. Increasing utilization of TIS, from 20% to 40% over 4 years resulted in an incremental overall budget increase of $925,002, a 3% decrease in hospitalizations, and a 4% decrease in administrations of IV anti-PA antibiotics. These reductions translated to a medical care cost saving of $50,676 over 4 years. Limitations of this study include that the clinical data for the model are from clinical trials conducted in 1996 and the estimation of TIS use for CF patients with chronic PA infections can be impacted by TIS adherence.

Conclusion:

Model results suggest that increasing the use of TIS decreases medical care costs due to decreased hospital admissions and the use of IV anti-PA antibiotics at the expense of higher drug costs.     

Clinical and economic evaluation of exenatide for formulary decisions

Summary

This study was designed to provide an assessment for healthcare organisations to make formulary decisions on Byetta®* (exenatide).

The drug was shown to be efficacious in treating type 2 diabetes mellitus when used as adjunctive therapy with other oral antidiabetic drugs. The Centre for Outcomes Research Diabetes Model analyses suggested that the drug treatment fails to achieve a threshold level of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio until 50 years have passed. Sensitivity analyses suggested that maintaining an appropriate haemoglobin A_1c level is essential for the treatment to be cost effective. A budget impact analysis with a hypothetical plan produced a 2.1 cent base case compliance-adjusted, per member per month cost in Year 1. One-way sensitivity analyses indicated that the two major determinants are compliance and the percentage of individuals expected to be on exenatide.

The author's conclude that further research is needed to include exenatide for the formulary decision.     

Administration costs of intravenous chemotherapy in treating peripheral T-cell lymphoma

Objective:

This retrospective cohort analysis was conducted to examine the cost components of administering IV chemotherapy to peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL) patients in the US to inform decision makers.

Methods:

Patients diagnosed with PTCL (ICD-9 code 202.7X) between 1 October 2007 and 30 September 2012 were identified from a US administrative claims database. Costs for patients receiving at least one NCCN recommended IV chemotherapy were assessed using the allowed payment from claim line items, categorized into cost components (study drug costs, IV administration costs and other visit-related services).

Results:

The mean costs to the payer for IV cancer therapy administration in a PTCL patient population averaged about $5735 per visit and $9356 per member per month (PMPM). Across all therapies, mean IV administration costs accounted for $127–$794 per visit and $594–$1808 PMPM, contributing an additional 2–32% to the total costs of the drug alone. Mean other visit-related services costs for treating PTCL accounted for $70–$2487 per visit and $444–$3094 PMPM, contributing an additional 2–74% to the total costs. Combined, these additional costs represent an additional mean cost of $220–$3150 per visit and $1193–$4609 PMPM to the base price of the drug alone.

Limitations:

This study used a convenience sample to identify PTCL patients and only included visits where at least one NCCN recommended IV chemotherapy was administered.

Conclusions:

The costs of IV administration and other visit-related services add measurable costs to the total cost of IV therapy for treating PTCL. When considering the cost of the drug, these additional costs can represent a substantial proportion of the overall costs and must be considered when evaluating the costs of IV treatment options for PTCL.     

An economic evaluation of tofacitinib for the treatment of moderately-to-severely active ulcerative colitis: modeling the cost of treatment strategies in the United States

Abstract

Aims: To evaluate the cost differences between a treatment strategy including tofacitinib (TOFA) vs treatment strategies including adalimumab (ADA), golimumab (GOL), infliximab (IFX), and vedolizumab (VEDO) among all patients with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis (UC) (further stratified by patients naïve/exposed to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors [TNFis]).

Materials and methods: An Excel-based decision-analytic model was developed to evaluate costs from the perspective of a third-party US payer over 2 years. Efficacy and safety parameters were taken from prescribing information and published trials. All patients started induction therapy on the first treatment in the strategy and continued if efficacy criteria were met and no major adverse event occurred (in which cases they proceeded to the next treatment in the strategy).

Results: The cost per member per month (PMPM) of the TOFA–>IFX–>VEDO–>GOL strategy ($1.11) was lower than that of the ADA–>IFX–>VEDO–>GOL strategy ($1.34; Δ = $?0.23) among the TNFi-naïve population (n?=?204 patients out of a plan of one million members). Similarly, the use of TOFA before ADA (i.e. TOFA–>ADA–>IFX–> VEDO) was also associated with lower PMPM costs than the use of ADA before TOFA (i.e. ADA–>TOFA–>IFX–>VEDO): $1.15 vs $1.25 (Δ = $?0.10). Similar, and often larger, differences were observed in both the overall moderate-to-severe population and the TNFi-exposed population. Sensitivity analyses resulted in the same conclusions.

Limitations: Our model relied on efficacy data from prescribing information and published trials, which were not head-to-head and slightly differed with respect to methods. Additionally, our model used representative minor and major ADRs (and the associated costs) to represent toxicity management, which was a simplifying assumption.

Conclusions: This analysis, the first of its kind to evaluate TOFA vis-à-vis other advanced therapies in the US, suggests the early use of TOFA among both TNFi-naïve and TNFi-failure patients results in lower PMPM costs compared with other treatment alternatives.     

Indirect cost-effectiveness analyses of abatacept and rituximab in patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis in the United States

Abstract

Objective: To estimate the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for abatacept and rituximab, in combination with methotrexate, relative to methotrexate alone in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Methods: A patient-level simulation model was used to depict the progression of functional disability over the lifetimes of women aged 55–64 years with active RA and inadequate response to a tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α antagonist therapy. Future health-state utilities and medical care costs were based on projected values of the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI). Patients were assumed to receive abatacept or rituximab in combination with methotrexate until death or therapy discontinuation due to lack of efficacy or adverse events. HAQ-DI improvement at month 6, after adjustments for control drug (methotrexate) response, was derived from two clinical trials. Costs of medical care and biologic drugs, discounted at 3% annually, were from the perspective of a US third-party payer and expressed in 2007 US dollars.

Results: Relative to methotrexate alone, abatacept/methotrexate and rituximab/methotrexate therapies were estimated to yield an average of 1.25 and 1.10 additional QALYs per patient, at mean incremental costs of $58,989 and $60,380, respectively. The incremental cost-utility ratio relative to methotrexate was $47,191 (95% CI $44,810–49,920) per QALY gained for abatacept/methotrexate and $54,891 (95% CI $52,274–58,073) per QALY gained for rituximab/methotrexate. At an acceptability threshold of $50,000 per QALY, the probability of cost effectiveness was 90% for abatacept and 0.0% for rituximab.

Conclusion: Abatacept was estimated to be more cost effective than rituximab for use in RA from a US third-party payer perspective. However, head-to-head clinical trials and long-term observational data are needed to confirm these findings.     

Comparative net cost impact of the utilization of panitumumab versus cetuximab for the treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer in Canada

Objective:

Clinical practice guidelines support the use of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors panitumumab and cetuximab for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) after failure of other chemotherapy regimens, based on significant clinical benefits in patients with wild-type KRAS. The purpose of the analysis was to compare provincial hospital costs when using panitumumab vs cetuximab with or without irinotecan in this patient population using a Net Impact Analysis (NIA) approach.

Methods:

The NIA determined the total per patient cost of the reimbursed regimens of panitumumab vs cetuximab in British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario, and Québec. Utilization of healthcare resources related to EGFR inhibitor infusions, follow-up monitoring, and treatment of adverse events (AEs) were also included. Healthcare resource use including drugs, medical supplies, laboratory testing, oncology infusion time, and healthcare professionals’ time was obtained through expert consultation and the use was then multiplied by the province-specific cost of each resource. Numerous sensitivity analyses were conducted.

Results:

Based on the dosing regimens in place in each province, the total annual per patient cost of panitumumab ranged from $22,203–$32,600, while the total annual per patient cost of cetuximab treatment varied from $30,321–$40,908. Treatment with panitumumab resulted in lower costs in all cost categories including drug acquisition, infusion preparation/administration, patient monitoring, and AE management. Per patient savings with panitumumab ranged from a low of $3815 in British Columbia to a high of $10,603 in Ontario. In sensitivity analyses, panitumumab remained cost saving in all scenarios where the savings ranged from $150–$16,006 per patient.

Conclusions:

Treating chemorefractory mCRC patients with panitumumab rather than cetuximab reduced healthcare resource costs. Provincial healthcare savings achieved with the use of panitumumab could potentially be re-allocated to other cancer treatments, although further study would be needed to validate this assumption.     

Budget impact analysis of niraparib and olaparib for maintenance treatment of platinum-sensitive,recurrent ovarian cancer in the US

Aims: This study aimed to evaluate the budget impact of niraparib and olaparib in patients with platinum-sensitive, recurrent ovarian cancer from a US third party payer perspective.

Materials and methods: A budget impact model was constructed to assess the additional per member per month (PMPM) costs associated with the introduction of niraparib and olaparib, two poly ADP-ribose polymerase ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors recently approved to be used in platinum-sensitive, recurrent ovarian cancer patients with and without a gBRCA mutation. The model assessed both pharmacy costs and medical costs. Pharmacy costs included adjusted drug costs, coinsurance, and dispensing fees. Medical costs included costs associated with disease monitoring and management of adverse events from the treatment. Epidemiological data from the literature were used to estimate the target population size. The analysis used 1-year time frame, and patients were assumed on treatment until disease progression or death. All costs were computed in 2017 USD. One-way sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate the model robustness.

Results: In a hypothetical plan of 1,000,000 members, 206 patients were estimated to be potential candidates for niraparib or olaparib maintenance treatment after applying all epidemiological parameters. At listed 30-day supply WAC prices of $14,750 for niraparib and $13,482 for olaparib, budget impacts of these two drugs were $0.169 PMPM and $0.156 PMPM, respectively, most of which were contributed by pharmacy costs. Sensitivity analyses suggested that assumptions around market share, platinum-sensitive rate after first treatment, and WAC prices affected results the most.

Limitations: In this model, it was assumed that adopting niraparib and olaparib would not affect utilization of existing medications. Also, the estimated clinical parameters from clinical trials could differ from real-world data.     

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.     

Economic evaluation of olmesartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination for hypertension treatment in China

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of olmesartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination vs olmesartan and amlodipine free combination, amlodipine single drug, and valsartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination in the treatment of hypertensive patients from payer perspective in China.

Methods: A Markov model was constructed, which included five health states of hypertensive patients who are aged 35–84?years at baseline and free of cardiovascular disease. Clinical data were obtained from a network meta-analysis. Epidemiology data, adverse events (AEs), cost, and utility data were obtained from the literature. The cost associated with AEs was estimated based on the cost of same symptoms of hypertensive patients in an electric medical record database. The model projected quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained, total costs per patient in a 20-year time horizon, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Probability sensitivity analyses (PSA) and one-way sensitivity analyses were conducted for the main parameters to test the robustness of the model.

Results: Compared to olmesartan and amlodipine free combination, amlodipine, and valsartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination, treatment with olmesartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination led to fewer CVD events and deaths; resulted in an incremental cost of ¥?5,439 ($?791.36), ¥6,530 ($950.09), and ¥?1,019 ($?148.26) and gained additional QALYs of 0.052, 0.094, and 0.037 per patient, respectively. Compared with olmesartan and amlodipine free combination and valsartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination, olmesartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination was dominant. Compared with amlodipine alone, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were below the WHO recommended cost-effectiveness threshold, indicating the olmesartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination was a cost-effective option for hypertensive patients in China. The 10-years’ time horizon scenario analysis showed similar results to the 20-years’ time horizon. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis and one-way sensitivity analyses showed the robustness of the model results.

Conclusions: Olmesartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination confers better health outcomes and costs less compared with olmesartan and amlodipine free combination and valsartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination, and is cost-effective compared to amlodipine for hypertension treatment in China.     

Pharmacoeconomic analysis of paricalcitol and calcitriol in the treatment of secondary hyperparathyroidism in haemodialysis: impact of hospitalisations and survival

Summary

The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost effectiveness of paricalcitol injection compared with calcitriol injection when used to reduce parathyroid hormone levels in patients undergoing haemodialysis. A decision tree was developed to model the 1-year costs and outcomes of therapy for secondary hyperparathyroidism from a US government payer's perspective (2005 US$). Probabilities of hospitalisations and survival with paricalcitol and calcitriol were obtained from published observational studies.

When only drug costs and survival were considered, the incremental cost effectiveness of paricalcitol over calcitriol was $9,900 per life saved. When utilities were included, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for paricalcitol compared with calcitriol was $13,200 per quality-adjusted life year. When both drug and hospitalisation costs were included in a cost analysis, paricalcitol treatment was cost saving compared with calcitriol, and when hospitalisation costs were included in both the cost-effectiveness analysis and cost-utility analysis paricalcitol demonstrated first-order dominance, cost savings and cost effectiveness.

This decision analysis demonstrated that paricalcitol injection is both cost effective and cost saving compared with calcitriol injection.