Cost-effectiveness of ceritinib in previously untreated anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive metastatic non-small cell lung cancer in the United States

Aims: To assess the cost-effectiveness of first-line ceritinib vs crizotinib and platinum doublet chemotherapy for anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) from a US third-party payer’s perspective.

Materials and methods: A partitioned survival model with three health states (stable disease, progressive disease, death) was developed over a 20-year time horizon. Ceritinib’s efficacy inputs (progression-free and overall survival) were estimated from ASCEND-4; parametric survival models extrapolated data beyond the trial period. The relative efficacy of ceritinib vs chemotherapy was obtained from ASCEND-4, the relative efficacy of ceritinib vs crizotinib was estimated using a matching-adjusted indirect comparison based on ASCEND-4 and PROFILE 1014. Drug acquisition, treatment administration, adverse event management, and medical costs were obtained from publicly available databases and the literature, and inflated to 2016?US dollars. Treatment-specific stable-state utilities were derived from trials and progressive-state utility from the literature. Incremental costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) were estimated for ceritinib vs each comparator. Cost-effectiveness was assessed based on US willingness-to-pay thresholds. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to test model robustness.

Results: In the base case, first-line ceritinib was associated with total direct costs of $299,777 and 3.28 QALYs (from 4.61 life years gained [LYG]) over 20 years. First-line crizotinib and chemotherapy were associated with 2.73 and 2.41 QALYs, 3.92 and 3.53 LYG, and $263,172 and $228,184 total direct costs, respectively. The incremental cost per QALY gained was $66,064 for ceritinib vs crizotinib and $81,645 for ceritinib vs chemotherapy. In the first 2 years following treatment initiation, ceritinib dominated crizotinib by conferring greater health benefits at reduced total costs. Results were robust to deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

Limitations: In the absence of head-to-head trials, an indirect comparison method was used.

Conclusions: Ceritinib is cost-effective compared to crizotinib and chemotherapy in the treatment of previously untreated ALK-positive metastatic NCSLC in the US.     

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

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

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

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

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

Cost-effectiveness of ranibizumab and aflibercept to treat diabetic macular edema from a US perspective: analysis of 2-year Protocol T data

Abstract

Aims: Protocol T (NCT01627249) was a head-to-head study conducted by the Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network that compared intravitreal aflibercept, bevacizumab, and ranibizumab for the treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME). A cost-effectiveness analysis accompanying the 1-year data of Protocol T revealed that aflibercept was not cost-effective vs ranibizumab for all patients, but could have been cost-effective in certain patient sub-groups if the 1-year results were extrapolated out to 10?years. The present study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of US Food and Drug Administration-approved anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents (ranibizumab, aflibercept) for treatment of DME using the 2-year data from Protocol T.

Methods: Costs of aflibercept 2.0?mg or ranibizumab 0.3?mg, visual acuity (VA)-related medical costs, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were simulated for eight VA health states. Treatment, adverse event management, and VA-related healthcare resource costs (2016 US dollars) were based on Medicare reimbursement and published literature. VA-related health utilities were determined using a published algorithm. Patients were stratified by baseline VA: 20/40 or better; 20/50 or worse.

Results: Total 2-year costs were higher, and QALYs similar, for aflibercept vs ranibizumab in the full cohort ($44,423 vs $34,529; 1.476 vs 1.466), 20/40 or better VA sub-group ($40,854 vs $31,897; 1.517 vs 1.519), and 20/50 or worse VA sub-group ($48,214 vs $37,246; 1.433 vs 1.412), respectively. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios in the full cohort and 20/50 or worse VA sub-group were $986,159/QALY and $523,377/QALY, respectively. These decreased to $711,301 and $246,978 when analyses were extrapolated to 10?years.

Limitations: Key potential limitations include the fact that VA was the only QALY parameter analyzed and the uncertainty surrounding the role of better- and worse-seeing eye VA in overall functional impairment.

Conclusions: This analysis suggests that aflibercept is not cost-effective vs ranibizumab for patients with DME, regardless of baseline vision.     

Economic evaluation of nivolumab for the treatment of second-line advanced squamous NSCLC in Canada: a comparison of modeling approaches to estimate and extrapolate survival outcomes

Background Lung cancer is the most common type of cancer in the world and is associated with significant mortality. Nivolumab demonstrated statistically significant improvements in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for patients with advanced squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who were previously treated. The cost-effectiveness of nivolumab has not been assessed in Canada. A contentious component of projecting long-term cost and outcomes in cancer relates to the modeling approach adopted, with the two most common approaches being partitioned survival (PS) and Markov models. The objectives of this analysis were to estimate the cost-utility of nivolumab and to compare the results using these alternative modeling approaches.

Methods Both PS and Markov models were developed using docetaxel and erlotinib as comparators. A three-health state model was used consisting of progression-free, progressed disease, and death. Disease progression and time to progression were estimated by identifying best-fitting survival curves from the clinical trial data for PFS and OS. Expected costs and health outcomes were calculated by combining health-state occupancy with medical resource use and quality-of-life assigned to each of the three health states. The health outcomes included in the model were survival and quality-adjusted-life-years (QALYs).

Results Nivolumab was found to have the highest expected per-patient cost, but also improved per-patient life years (LYs) and QALYs. Nivolumab cost an additional $151,560 and $140,601 per QALY gained compared to docetaxel and erlotinib, respectively, using a PS model approach. The cost-utility estimates using a Markov model were very similar ($152,229 and $141,838, respectively, per QALY gained).

Conclusions Nivolumab was found to involve a trade-off between improved patient survival and QALYs, and increased cost. It was found that the use of a PS or Markov model produced very similar estimates of expected cost, outcomes, and incremental cost-utility.     

Cost-effective analysis of clopidogrel versus aspirin for high risk patients with established peripheral arterial disease in China

Abstract

Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness of clopidogrel versus aspirin for high risk patients (pre-existing symptomatic atherosclerosis or multi-vascular territory involvement) with established peripheral arterial disease (PAD) for secondary prevention of atherothrombotic events in a Chinese setting.

Methods: A Markov model with a lifetime horizon was developed from the perspective of the national healthcare system in China. The primary outputs are quality adjusted life years (QALYs), direct medical costs, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Clinical efficacy data were obtained from the CAPRIE trial. Drug acquisition cost, other direct medical costs, and utilities were from pricing records and the literature. One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) were conducted to test the robustness of the model on all parameters.

Results: In patients with pre-existing atherosclerosis, 2 years of treatment with clopidogrel and aspirin would yield total QALYs of 8.776 and 8.576 at associated costs of ¥18,777 ($2,838) and ¥12,302 ($1,859), respectively, resulting in an ICER of ¥32,382 ($4,893) per QALY gained. In patients with PVD, secondary prevention with the same drugs would expect to lead to total QALYs of 8.836 and 8.632 at associated costs of ¥18,518 ($2,798) and ¥12,041 ($1,820), respectively, resulting in a corresponding ICER of ¥31,743 ($4,797) per QALY gained. The results were most sensitive to the discount rate for future outcomes and costs. The PSA indicated that the probability of clopidogrel being cost-effective was 100% at the willingness-to-pay threshold of 3-times GDP.

Conclusions: Secondary prevention with clopidogrel is an attractive cost-effective option compared with aspirin for high risk patients with established PAD from the perspective of the national healthcare system in Chinese settings.     

Cost-effectiveness analysis of ramucirumab treatment for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who progressed on sorafenib with α-fetoprotein concentrations of at least 400 ng/ml

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of ramucirumab versus placebo for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who progressed on sorafenib with α-fetoprotein concentrations (AFP) of at least 400?ng/ml in the United States.

Methods: A Markov model was constructed to assess the cost-effectiveness of ramucirumab. Health outcomes were measured as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). With TreeAge software, the disease process was modeled as three health states: progression-free survival (PFS), progressive disease (PD), and death. Costs were extracted from the REACH-2 trial, and utility was derived from published literature. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated to compare ramucirumab with placebo. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were developed to examine the robustness of the results.

Results: In the base case analysis, ramucirumab therapy had a cost of $55,508.41 and generated 0.54 QALYs, while placebo therapy had a cost of $761.09 and generated 0.47 QALYs, leading to an additional $54,747.32 in costs and 0.07 QALYs. The ICER was $782,104.57 per QALY, which was much higher than the willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per QALY. According to sensitivity analyses, the utility of PD in the two groups was the dominant parameter influencing the ICER.

Conclusion: Although ramucirumab was associated with prolonged survival for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma who progressed on sorafenib treatment with an AFP of at least 400?ng/ml, it is not a cost-effective treatment from a United States payer perspective.     

Within trial cost-utility analysis of disease management program for patients hospitalized with atrial fibrillation: results from the SAFETY trial

Abstract

Background: The potential impact of disease management to optimize quality of care, health outcomes, and total healthcare costs across a range of cardiac disease states is unknown.

Methods: A trial-based cost-utility analysis was conducted alongside a randomized controlled trial of 335 patients with chronic, non-valvular AF (without heart failure; the SAFETY Trial) discharged to home from three tertiary referral hospitals in Australia. A home-based disease management intervention (the SAFETY intervention) that involved community-based AF care including home visits was compared to routine primary healthcare and hospital outpatient follow-up (standard management). Bootstrapped incremental cost-utility ratios were computed based on quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and total healthcare costs. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were constructed to explore the probability of the SAFETY intervention being cost-effective. Sub-group analyses were performed based on age and sex to determine differential cost-effectiveness.

Results: During median follow-up of 1.75?years, the SAFETY intervention was associated with a non-statistically significant increase in QALYs (0.02 per person) and lower total healthcare costs (–$4,375 per person). Although each of these findings were not statistically significant, the SAFETY intervention was found to be dominant (more effective and cost saving) in 58.8% of the bootstrapped iterations and cost-effective (more effective and gains in QALYs achieved at or below $50,000 per QALY gained) in 61.5% of the iterations. Males and those aged less than 78?years achieved greater gains in QALYs and savings in healthcare costs. The estimated value of perfect information in Australia (the monetized value of removing uncertainty in the cost-effectiveness results) was A$51 million, thus demonstrating the high potential gain from further research.

Conclusions: Compared with standard management, the SAFETY intervention is potentially a dominant strategy for those with chronic, non-valvular AF. However, there would be substantial value in reducing the uncertainty in these estimates from further research.

Trial registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry identifier: ACTRN12610000221055.     

Cost-effectiveness analysis of neoadjuvant pertuzumab and trastuzumab therapy for locally advanced,inflammatory, or early HER2-positive breast cancer in Canada

Abstract

Objective:

The NeoSphere trial demonstrated that the addition of pertuzumab to trastuzumab and docetaxel for the neoadjuvant treatment of HER2-positive locally advanced, inflammatory, or early breast cancer (eBC) resulted in a significant improvement in pathological complete response (pCR). Furthermore, the TRYPHAENA trial supported the benefit of neoadjuvant dual anti-HER2 therapy. Survival data from these trials is not yet available; however, other studies have demonstrated a correlation between pCR and improved event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) in this patient population. This study represents the first Canadian cost-effectiveness analysis of pertuzumab in the neoadjuvant treatment of HER2-positive eBC.

Methods:

A cost-utility analysis (CUA) was conducted using a three health state Markov model (‘event-free’, ‘relapsed’, and ‘dead’). Two separate analyses were conducted; the first considering total pCR (ypT0/is ypN0) data from NeoSphere, and the second from TRYPHAENA. Published EFS and OS data partitioned for patients achieving/not achieving pCR were used in combination with the percentage achieving pCR in the pertuzumab trials to estimate survival. This CUA included published utility values and direct medical costs including drugs, treatment administration, management of adverse events, supportive care, and subsequent therapy. To address uncertainty, a probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) and alternative scenarios were explored.

Results:

Both analyses suggested that the addition of pertuzumab resulted in increased life-years and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The incremental cost per QALY ranged from $25,388 (CAD; NeoSphere analysis) to $46,196 (TRYPHAENA analysis). Sensitivity analyses further support the use of pertuzumab, with cost-effectiveness ratios ranging from $9230–$64,421. At a threshold of $100,000, the addition of pertuzumab was cost-effective in nearly all scenarios (93% NeoSphere; 79% TRYPHAENA).

Conclusion:

Given the improvement in clinical efficacy and a favorable cost per QALY, the addition of pertuzumab in the neoadjuvant setting represents an attractive treatment option for HER2-positive eBC patients.     

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

Abstract

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab versus brentuximab vedotin for patients with relapsed or refractory classical Hodgkin’s lymphoma: a United States payer perspective

Aims: Patients with classical Hodgkin’s lymphoma (cHL) who have relapsed after or are ineligible for autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) have limited treatment options and generally a poor prognosis. Pembrolizumab was recently approved in the US for the treatment of such patients having demonstrated clinical benefit and tolerability in relapsed/refractory cHL; however, the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab in this population is currently unknown.

Materials and methods: A three-state Markov model (progression-free [PF], progressed disease, and death) was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab (200?mg) vs brentuximab vedotin (BV; 1.8?mg/kg) in patients with relapsed/refractory cHL after ASCT who have not received BV post-ASCT over a 20-year time horizon from a US payer perspective. PF survival was modeled using a naïve indirect treatment comparison of data from KEYNOTE-087 and the SG035-003 trial. Post-progression survival was modeled using data from published literature. Costs (drug acquisition and administration, disease management, subsequent treatment, and adverse events) and outcomes were discounted at an annual rate of 3.0%. Uncertainty surrounding cost-effectiveness was assessed via probabilistic, deterministic, and scenario analyses.

Results: In the base case, pembrolizumab was predicted to yield an additional 0.574 life-years (LYs) and 0.500 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) vs BV and cost savings of $63,278. Drug acquisition costs were the biggest driver of incremental costs between strategies. Pembrolizumab had a 99.6% probability of being cost-effective compared with BV at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $20,000/QALY and dominated BV in all scenarios tested.

Limitations: The analysis was subject to potential bias due to the use of a naïve indirect treatment comparison and, given the current immaturity of OS in KEYNOTE-087, PPS was assumed equivalent across both treatments.

Conclusion: Pembrolizumab is a cost-effective alternative to BV for patients with relapsed/refractory cHL after ASCT.     

Cost-effectiveness analysis of first-line pembrolizumab treatment for PD-L1 positive,non-small cell lung cancer in China

Purpose: Pembrolizumab was recently approved in several countries as a first-line treatment for patients with PD-L1 positive, non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, it is expensive. This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab in treating advanced NSCLC patients with PD-L1 positive cancer in China.

Methods: A Markov model was developed to compare the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab with chemotherapy for patients with PD-L1 expression on at least 50% of NSCLC tumor cells. Model inputs for transition probabilities and toxicity were derived from published clinical trial data, while health utilities were estimated from a literature review. Costs for drugs were updated to standard fee data from West China Hospital in 2017. Health outcomes were measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and cost-effectiveness was measured as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the robustness of the model.

Results: Pembrolizumab gained 0.45 QALYs at an incremental cost of $46,362 compared to chemotherapy for an ICER of $103,128 per QALY gained. In most scenarios, the ICER exceeded three times the Chinese Gross Domestic Product per capita. Two-way sensitivity analysis showed that, when the utility of the progression-free status increased to the maximal value of 0.845 and the 1?mg dose price decreased to $10.50, the ICER reduced to $25,216/QALY.

Conclusions: Pembrolizumab is not likely to be cost-effective in the treatment of PD-L1 positive, NSCLC for Chinese patients. Less aggressive pricing may increase accessibility for patients in China.     

Cost-effectiveness of axicabtagene ciloleucel for adult patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma in the United States

Abstract

Purpose: Axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) was recently approved for treatment of relapsed or refractory (R/R) large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) following two or more prior therapies. As the first CAR T-cell therapy available for adults in the US, there are important questions about clinical and economic value. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of axi-cel compared to salvage chemotherapy using a decision model and a US payer perspective.

Materials and methods: A decision model was developed to estimate life years (LYs), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and lifetime cost for adult patients with R/R LBCL treated with axi-cel vs salvage chemotherapy (R-DHAP). Patient-level analyses of the ZUMA-1 and SCHOLAR-1 studies were used to inform the model and to estimate the proportion achieving long-term survival. Drug and procedure costs were derived from US average sales prices and Medicare reimbursement schedules. Future healthcare costs in long-term remission was derived from per capita Medicare spending. Utility values were derived from patient-level data from ZUMA-1 and external literature. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses evaluated uncertainty. Outcomes were calculated over a lifetime horizon and were discounted at 3% per year.

Results: In the base case, LYs, QALYs, and lifetime costs were 9.5, 7.7, and $552,921 for axi-cel vs 2.6, 1.1, and $172,737 for salvage chemotherapy, respectively. The axi-cel cost per QALY gained was $58,146. Cost-effectiveness was most sensitive to the fraction achieving long-term remission, discount rate, and axi-cel price. The likelihood that axi-cel is cost-effective was 95% at a willingness to pay of $100,000 per QALY.

Conclusion: Axi-cel is a potentially cost-effective alternative to salvage chemotherapy for adults with R/R LBCL. Long-term follow-up is necessary to reduce uncertainties about health outcomes.     

Cost-utility of albiglutide versus insulin lispro,insulin glargine,and sitagliptin for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in the US

Objective To compare the cost-utility of the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist albiglutide with those of insulin lispro (both in combination with insulin glargine), insulin glargine, and the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor sitagliptin, representing treatments along the type 2 diabetes treatment continuum.

Methods The Centre for Outcomes Research and Effectiveness (CORE) Diabetes Model was used for the cost-utility analysis. Data from three Phase 3 clinical trials (HARMONY 6, HARMONY 4, and HARMONY 3) evaluating albiglutide for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes were used for the baseline characteristics and treatment effects. Utilities and costs were derived from published sources.

Results Albiglutide treatment was associated with an improvement in mean quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.099, 0.033, and 0.101 years when compared with insulin lispro, insulin glargine, and sitagliptin, respectively. Over the 50-year time horizon, mean total costs in the albiglutide arm were $4332, $2597, and $2223 more than in the other respective treatments. These costs resulted in an incremental cost-utility ratio of $43,541, $79,166, and $22,094 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for albiglutide vs insulin lispro, insulin glargine, and sitagliptin, respectively. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000 per QALY gained, there was a 53.0%, 41.5%, and 67.5% probability of albiglutide being cost-effective compared with the other respective treatments.

Limitations This analysis was an extrapolation over a 50-year time horizon based on relatively short-term data obtained during clinical trials. It does not take into account potential differences between the respective treatments in adherence and persistence that can influence both effects and costs.

Conclusions Albiglutide represents a reasonable treatment option for patients with type 2 diabetes based on its cost-utility, relative to insulin lispro, insulin glargine, and sitagliptin.     

Cost-effectiveness of subdermal implantable buprenorphine versus sublingual buprenorphine to treat opioid use disorder

Aims: Subdermal implantable buprenorphine (BSI) was recently approved to treat opioid use disorder (OUD) in clinically-stable adults. In the pivotal clinical trial, BSI was associated with a higher proportion of completely-abstinent patients (85.7% vs 71.9%; p?=?.03) vs sublingual buprenorphine (SL-BPN). Elsewhere, relapse to illicit drug use is associated with diminished treatment outcomes and increased costs. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of BSI vs SL-BPN from a US societal perspective.

Methods: A Markov model simulated BSI and SL-BPN cohorts (clinically-stable adults) transiting through four mutually-exclusive health states for 12 months. Cohorts accumulated direct medical costs from drug acquisition/administration; treatment-diversion/abuse; newly-acquired hepatitis-C; emergency room, hospital, and rehabilitation services; and pediatric poisonings. Non-medical costs of criminality, lost wages/work-productivity, and out-of-pocket expenses were also included. Transition probabilities to a relapsed state were derived from the aforementioned trial. Other transition probabilities, costs, and health-state utilities were derived from observational studies and adjusted for trial characteristics. Outcomes included incremental cost per quality-adjusted-life-year (QALY) gained and incremental net-monetary-benefit (INMB). Uncertainty was assessed by univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA).

Results: BSI was associated with lower total costs (?$4,386), more QALYs (+0.031), and favorable INMB at all willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds considered. Higher drug acquisition costs for BSI (+$6,492) were outpaced, primarily by reductions in emergency room/hospital utilization (?$8,040) and criminality (?$1,212). BSI was cost-effective in 89% of PSA model replicates, and had a significantly higher NMB at $50,000/QALY ($20,783 vs $15,007; p?Conclusions: BSI was preferred over SL-BPN from a health-economic perspective for treatment of OUD in clinically-stable adults. These findings should be interpreted carefully, due to some relationships having been modeled from inputs derived from multiple sources, and would benefit from comparison with outcomes from studies that employ administrative claims data or a naturalistic comparative design.     

Cost-effectiveness of several atypical antipsychotics in orally disintegrating tablets compared with standard oral tablets in the treatment of schizophrenia in the United States

Abstract

Objective:

Although the use of innovative drug delivery systems, like orally disintegrating antipsychotic tablets (ODT), may facilitate medication adherence and help reduce the risk of relapse and hospitalization, no information is available about the comparative cost-effectiveness of standard oral tablets (SOT) vs ODT formulations in the treatment of schizophrenia. This study compared the cost-effectiveness of olanzapine ODT and olanzapine SOT in the usual treatment of outpatients with schizophrenia from a US healthcare perspective. The study also compared olanzapine ODT with risperidone and aripiprazole, two other atypical antipsychotics available in both ODT and SOT formulations.

Methods:

Published medical literature and a clinical expert panel were used to populate a 1-year Monte Carlo Micro-simulation model. The model captures clinical and cost parameters including adherence levels, treatment discontinuation by reason, relapse with and without inpatient hospitalization, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), treatment-emergent adverse events, healthcare resource utilization, and associated costs. Key outcomes were total annual direct cost per treatment, QALY, and incremental cost-effectiveness (ICER) per 1 QALY gained.

Results:

Based on model projections, olanzapine ODT therapy was more costly ($9808 vs $9533), but more effective in terms of a lower hospitalization rate (15% vs 16%) and better QALYs (0.747 vs 0.733) than olanzapine SOT therapy. Olanzapine ODT was more cost-effective than olanzapine SOT (ICER: $19,643), more cost-effective than risperidone SOT therapy (ICER: $39,966), and dominant (meaning less costly and more effective) than risperidone ODT and aripiprazole in ODT or SOT formulations.

Limitations:

Lack of head-to-head randomized studies comparing the three studied atypical antipsychotics required making input assumptions that need further study.

Conclusions:

This micro-simulation found that the utilization of olanzapine ODT for the treatment of schizophrenia is predicted to be more cost-effective than any other ODT or SOT formulations of the studied atypical antipsychotic medications.     

Long-term cost-effectiveness of home versus clinic-based management of chronic heart failure: the WHICH? study

Background: The cost-effectiveness of a heart failure management intervention can be further informed by incorporating the expected benefits and costs of future survival.

Methods: This study compared the long-term costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained from home-based (HBI) vs specialist clinic-based intervention (CBI) among elderly patients (mean age = 71 years) with heart failure discharged home (mean intervention duration = 12 months). Cost-utility analysis was conducted from a government-funded health system perspective. A Markov cohort model was used to simulate disease progression over 15 years based on initial data from a randomized clinical trial (the WHICH? study). Time-dependent hazard functions were modeled using the Weibull function, and this was compared against an alternative model where the hazard was assumed to be constant over time. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to identify the key drivers of cost-effectiveness and quantify uncertainty in the results.

Results: During the trial, mortality was the highest within 30 days of discharge and decreased thereafter in both groups, although the declining rate of mortality was slower in CBI than HBI. At 15 years (extrapolated), HBI was associated with slightly better health outcomes (mean of 0.59 QALYs gained) and mean additional costs of AU$13,876 per patient. The incremental cost-utility ratio and the incremental net monetary benefit (vs CBI) were AU$23,352 per QALY gained and AU$15,835, respectively. The uncertainty was driven by variability in the costs and probabilities of readmissions. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed HBI had a 68% probability of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of AU$50,000 per QALY.

Conclusion: Compared with CBI (outpatient specialized HF clinic-based intervention), HBI (home-based predominantly, but not exclusively) could potentially be cost-effective over the long-term in elderly patients with heart failure at a willingness-to-pay threshold of AU$50,000/QALY, albeit with large uncertainty.     

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.     

Cost-effectiveness of obinutuzumab plus bendamustine followed by obinutuzumab monotherapy for the treatment of follicular lymphoma patients who relapse after or are refractory to a rituximab-containing regimen in the US

Aims: Obinutuzumab (GA101, G) was approved in February 2016 by the US Food and Drug Administration to treat follicular lymphoma (FL) patients who relapsed after, or are refractory to (R/R), a rituximab-containing regimen (R/R-rituximab). In the GADOLIN trial, R/R-rituximab patients who received G plus bendamustine (B) followed by G-monotherapy (G?+?B) for up to 2 years had significantly improved progression-free survival and overall survival compared to patients receiving B-monotherapy. This study estimated the cost-effectiveness of G?+?B vs B-monotherapy for R/R-rituximab FL patients from a US payer perspective.

Materials and methods: Patient outcomes were simulated using a 3-state area under the curve model including progression-free survival, progressive disease, and death. This study used R/R-rituximab data from the National LymphoCare Study to extrapolate the GADOLIN trial’s refractory FL progression-free and overall survival data to a R/R-rituximab FL population. Drug utilization and adverse events were based on trial data, and costs were based on Medicare reimbursements and drug wholesale acquisition costs in 2016. Utility estimates were derived from published literature. Post-progression treatment costs were based on observed post-progression therapies in GADOLIN. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess model uncertainty.

Results: G?+?B resulted in an increase in quality-adjusted life years relative to B-monotherapy of 1.24 (95% CR?=?0.61–1.87); the incremental total cost was $58,100 (95% CR?=?$54,500–$61,500). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $47,000 per QALY gained, and, based on probabilistic simulations, there was a 98% probability that G?+?B was cost-effective at the $100,000 per QALY threshold.

Limitations and conclusions: This US-based analysis suggests that treatment with G?+?B compared to B-monotherapy is likely cost-effective in R/R-rituximab FL patients. Modeling a R/R-rituximab population based on a synthesis of GADOLIN and the National LymphoCare Study data introduces uncertainty in the analysis. However, the findings were robust to sensitivity analyses.     

Cost-effectiveness of lenalidomide plus dexamethasone vs bortezomib plus melphalan and prednisone in transplant-ineligible US patients with newly-diagnosed multiple myeloma

Objective:

To conduct a cost-effectiveness assessment of lenalidomide plus dexamethasone (Rd) vs bortezomib plus melphalan and prednisone (VMP) as initial treatment for transplant-ineligible patients with newly-diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM), from a US payer perspective.

Methods:

A partitioned survival model was developed to estimate expected life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), direct costs and incremental costs per QALY and LY gained associated with use of Rd vs VMP over a patient’s lifetime. Information on the efficacy and safety of Rd and VMP was based on data from multinational phase III clinical trials and a network meta-analysis. Pre-progression direct costs included the costs of Rd and VMP, treatment of adverse events (including prophylaxis) and routine care and monitoring associated with MM. Post-progression direct costs included costs of subsequent treatment(s) and routine care and monitoring for progressive disease, all obtained from published literature and estimated from a US payer perspective. Utilities were obtained from the aforementioned trials. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3% annually.

Results:

Relative to VMP, use of Rd was expected to result in an additional 2.22 LYs and 1.47 QALYs (discounted). Patients initiated with Rd were expected to incur an additional $78,977 in mean lifetime direct costs (discounted) vs those initiated with VMP. The incremental costs per QALY and per LY gained with Rd vs VMP were $53,826 and $35,552, respectively. In sensitivity analyses, results were found to be most sensitive to differences in survival associated with Rd vs VMP, the cost of lenalidomide and the discount rate applied to effectiveness outcomes.

Conclusions:

Rd was expected to result in greater LYs and QALYs compared with VMP, with similar overall costs per LY for each regimen. Results of this analysis indicated that Rd may be a cost-effective alternative to VMP as initial treatment for transplant-ineligible patients with MM, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio well within the levels for recent advancements in oncology.