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.     

Association between provider specialty and healthcare costs and glycemic control for patients with diabetes

Aims: To analyze the association between provider, healthcare costs, and glycemic control for patients with diabetes mellitus (DM).

Materials and methods: This cross-sectional study identified adults with type 1 or 2?DM (T1D, T2D) in the Optum database. The main independent variable was provider (endocrinologist or primary care). Regression analysis compared total medical and pharmacy costs, adjusting for health status and other patient differences, by provider.

Results: For all patients, HbA1C improvement was greater, and medical costs significantly lower with an endocrinologist rather than a primary care provider. The largest HbA1C improvement (4%) occurred for insulin-dependent patients seen by endocrinologists. Significant medical savings with endocrinologist management occurred within the Medicare Advantage population in every sub-group of patients, with 14% lower costs ($4,767) for patients with T1D, 11% lower costs ($3,160) for patients with macro- and microvascular complications, and 10% lower costs ($2,237) for insulin-dependent patients. Within the commercial insurance population, medical costs were reduced by ≥9% in every sub-group of patients, with a 20% reduction ($8,450) for patients with micro- and macrovascular complications. Overall total costs (medical and pharmacy) were 8% ($1,541) higher for patients receiving endocrinologist rather than primary care, although endocrinologist care resulted in a 9% reduction (–$3,710) in costs for Medicare Advantage patients with T1D. Total medical costs (excluding pharmacy costs) may be a more accurate indicator of costs associated with patients in various stages of DM.

Limitations: There was insufficient data to develop risk-adjustment payments for pharmacy costs based on disease severity. The cross-sectional design identifies associations and not cause–effect relationships.

Conclusion: DM management by an endocrinologist was associated with greater HbA1C improvement and significantly lower medical costs. Total costs were higher with an endocrinologist, but for patients with T1D lower costs were seen, ranging from 2–9% regardless of insurance type.     

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.     

Modeling the lifetime costs of insulin glargine and insulin detemir in type 1 and type 2 diabetes patients in Canada: a meta-analysis and a cost-minimization analysis

Abstract

Background:

Two basal insulin analogues, insulin glargine once daily and insulin detemir once or twice daily, are marketed in Canada.

Objective:

To estimate the long-term costs of insulin glargine once daily (QD) versus insulin detemir once or twice daily (QD or BID) for type 1 (T1DM) and type 2 (T2DM) diabetes mellitus from a Canadian provincial government’s perspective.

Methods:

A cost-minimization analysis comparing insulin glargine (IGlarg) to insulin detemir (IDet) was conducted using a validated computer simulation model, the CORE Diabetes Model. Lifetime direct medical costs including costs of insulin treatment and diabetes complications were projected. T1DM and T2DM patients’ daily insulin dose (T1DM: IGlarg QD 26.2?IU; IDet BID 33.6?IU; T2DM: IGlarg QD 47.2?IU; IDet QD 65.7?IU or IDet BID 80.4?IU) was derived from a meta-analysis of randomized trials. All patients were assumed to stay on the same treatment for life. Costs were discounted at 5% per annum and reported in 2010 Canadian Dollars.

Results:

The meta-analysis showed T1DM and T2DM patients had similar HbA_1c change from baseline when receiving IGlarg compared to IDet (T1DM: 0.002%-points; p?=?0.97; T2DM: ?0.05%-points; p?=?0.28). Treatment of T1DM patients with IGlarg versus IDet BID resulted in lifetime cost savings of $4231 per patient. Treatment of T2DM patients with IGlarg resulted in lifetime cost savings of $4659 per patient versus IDet QD and cost savings of $8709 per patient versus IDet BID.

Conclusions:

Similar HbA_1c change from baseline can be achieved with a lower IGlarg than IDet dose. From the perspective of a Canadian provincial government, treatment of T1DM and T2DM patients with IGlarg instead of IDet can generate long-term cost savings. Main limitations include trial data were derived from multi-country studies rather than the Canadian population and self-monitoring blood glucose costs were not included.     

Projecting total costs and health consequences of increasing mt-sDNA utilization for colorectal cancer screening from the payer and integrated delivery network perspectives

Abstract

Aims: To evaluate total costs and health consequences of a colorectal cancer (CRC) screening program with colonoscopy, fecal immunochemical tests (FIT), and expanded use of multitarget stool DNA (mt-sDNA) from the perspectives of Integrated Delivery Networks (IDNs) and payers in the United States.

Materials and methods: We developed a budget impact and cost-consequence model that simulates CRC screening for eligible 50- to 75-year-old adults. A status quo scenario and an increased mt-sDNA scenario were modeled. The status quo includes the current screening mix of colonoscopy (83%), FIT (11%), and mt-sDNA (6%) modalities. The increased mt-sDNA scenario increases mt-sDNA utilization to 28% over 10 years. Costs for both the IDN and the payer perspectives incorporated diagnostic and surveillance colonoscopies, adverse events (AEs), and CRC treatment. The IDN perspective included screening program costs, composed of direct nonmedical (e.g. patient navigation) and indirect (e.g. administration) costs. It was assumed that IDNs do not incur the costs for stool-based screening tests or bowel preparation for colonoscopies.

Results: In a population of one million covered lives, the 10-year incremental cost savings incurred by increasing mt-sDNA utilization was $16.2 M for the IDN and $3.3 M for the payer. The incremental savings per-person-per-month were $0.14 and $0.03 for the IDN and payer, respectively. For both perspectives, increased diagnostic colonoscopy costs were offset by reductions in screening colonoscopies, surveillance colonoscopies, and AEs. Extending screening eligibility to 45- to 75-year-olds slightly decreased the overall cost savings.

Limitations: The natural history of CRC was not simulated; however, many of the utilized parameters were extracted from highly vetted natural history models or published literature. Direct nonmedical and indirect costs for CRC screening programs are applied on a per-person-per modality basis, whereas in reality some of these costs may be fixed.

Conclusions: Increased mt-sDNA utilization leads to fewer colonoscopies, less AEs, and lower overall costs for both IDNs and payers, reducing overall screening program costs and increasing the number of cancers detected while maintaining screening adherence rates over 10 years.     

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.     

Economic outcomes of exenatide vs liraglutide in type 2 diabetes patients in the United States: results from a retrospective claims database analysis

Abstract

Objective:

The safety and efficacy of the GLP-1 receptor agonists exenatide BID (exenatide) and liraglutide for treating type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) have been established in clinical trials. Effective treatments may lower overall treatment costs. This study examined cost offsets and medication adherence for exenatide vs liraglutide in a large, managed care population in the US.

Methods:

This was a retrospective cohort analysis comprising adult patients with T2DM who initiated exenatide or liraglutide between 1/1/2010 and 6/30/2010 and had 6 months pre-index and post-index continuous eligibility. Patients were propensity score-matched to controls for baseline differences. Medication adherence was measured by proportion of days covered (PDC). Paired t-test and McNemar’s test were used to compare outcomes.

Results:

Matched exenatide and liraglutide cohorts (n?=?1347 pairs) had similar average total 6-month follow-up costs ($6688 vs $7346). However, exenatide patients had significantly lower mean pharmacy costs ($2925 vs $3272, p?<?0.001). Among liraglutide patients, patients receiving the 1.8?mg dose had significantly higher average total costs compared to those receiving the 1.2?mg dose ($8031 vs $6536, p?=?0.026), with higher mean pharmacy costs in the 1.8?mg cohort ($3935 vs $3146, p?<?0.001). There were no significant differences in inpatient or outpatient costs or medication adherence between groups (mean PDC: exenatide 56% vs liraglutide 57%, p?=?0.088).

Limitations:

The study assumed that all information needed for case classification and matching of cohorts was present and not differential across cohorts. The study did not control for covariates that were unavailable, such as HbA1c and duration of diabetes.

Conclusions:

Patients initiating exenatide vs liraglutide for T2DM had similar medication adherence and total healthcare costs; however, exenatide patients had significantly lower total pharmacy costs. Patients prescribed 1.8?mg liraglutide had significantly higher costs compared to those on 1.2?mg.     

Healthcare costs among men with favorable risk prostate cancer managed with observation strategies versus immediate treatment in an integrated healthcare system

Objective: This study explored short-term healthcare costs of men managed with observation strategies (OBS) vs immediate treatment (IMT) for favorable risk prostate cancer (PCa) from the Geisinger Health System, a single integrated health system in Pennsylvania, as evidence from the community setting is limited.

Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using electronic health records from men aged ≥40 years diagnosed with favorable risk PCa (T1 or 2, PSA ≤15?ng/mL, Gleason ≤7 [3?+?4]) between January 2005 and October 2013. Prostate-specific healthcare costs were compared between the OBS and IMT cohorts in men with ≥3 years of follow-up and available linked claims data. Sub-group analyses focused on those men with low-risk PCa (T1-2a, PSA ≤10?ng/mL, Gleason ≤6). Sensitivity analysis stratified the study sample in three cohorts: OBS, switched from OBS to definitive treatment (OBS switch), and IMT.

Results: A total of 352 patients were included (OBS?=?70 and IMT?=?282). Compared with IMT, OBS resulted in significantly lower cumulative PCa-related healthcare costs for the first 3 years ($15,785 vs $23,177; p-value <.001). The main cost drivers were outpatient procedures. The OBS cohort had the lowest incremental PCa-related healthcare costs in the first 3 years (OBS: $5,011 vs OBS switch: $26,040, net cost savings?=?$21,029, p?p?Conclusions: In favorable risk PCa, half of the patients who initially chose OBS eventually underwent treatment after their PCa diagnosis. As expected, OBS was associated with reduced disease management costs compared with IMT.     

Cost-impact of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging with Fast-SENC compared to SPECT in the diagnosis of coronary artery disease in the U.S

Aims: The purpose of this study is to assess the economic cost differences and the associated treatment resource changes between the developing coronary artery disease (CAD) diagnostic tool fast strain-encoded cardiac imaging (Fast-SENC) and the current commonly used stress test single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT).

Materials and methods: A “payer perspective” model was created first, consisting of long-term and short-term components that used a hypothetical cohort of patients of average age (60.8?years) presenting with chest pain and suspected CAD to assess cost-impact. A cost impact model was then built that assessed likely savings from a “hospital perspective” from substituting Fast-SENC for a portion of SPECTs assuming an average number of annual SPECT tests performed in US hospitals.

Results: In the payer model, using Fast-SENC followed by coronary angiography (CA) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) treatment when necessary is less costly than the SPECT method when considering both direct and indirect costs of testing. Expected costs of the Fast-SENC were between $2,510 and $2,632 per correct diagnosis, while expected costs for the SPECT were between $3,157 and $4,078. Fast-SENC reduced false positives by 50% and false negatives by 86%, generating additional cost savings. The hospital model showed total costs per CAD patient visit of $825 for SPECT and $376 for Fast-SENC.

Limitations: Limitations of this study are that clinical data are sourced from other published clinical trials on how CAD diagnostic strategies impact clinical outcome, and that necessary assumptions were made which impact health outcomes.

Conclusion: The lower cost, higher sensitivity and specificity rates, and faster, less burdensome process for detecting CAD patients make Fast-SENC a more capable and economically beneficial stress test than SPECT. The payer model and hospital model demonstrate an alignment between payer and provider economics as Fast-SENC provides monetary savings for patients and resource benefits for hospitals.     

Estimates of the direct and indirect cost savings associated with heart disease that could be avoided through dietary change in the United States

Aims: Diets high in saturated fat are associated with elevated risk of heart disease. This study estimates the savings in direct (medical care) costs and indirect (job absenteeism) costs in the US from reductions in heart disease associated with substituting monounsaturated fats (MUFA) for saturated fats.

Materials and methods: A four-part model of the medical care cost savings from avoided heart disease was estimated using data on 247,700 adults from the 2000–2010 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS). The savings from reduced job absenteeism due to avoided heart disease was estimated using a zero-inflated negative binomial model of the number of annual work loss days applied to data on 164,577 adults from the MEPS.

Results: Estimated annual savings in medical care expenditures resulting from a switch from a diet high in saturated fat to a high-MUFA diet totaled ～ $25.7 billion (95% CI = $6.0–$45.4 billion) in 2010, with private insurance plans saving $7.9 billion (95% CI?=?$1.8–$14.0 billion), Medicare saving $9.4 billion (95% CI?=?$2.1–$16.7 billion), Medicaid saving $1.4 billion (95% CI?=?Aims: Diets high in saturated fat are associated with elevated risk of heart disease. This study estimates the savings in direct (medical care) costs and indirect (job absenteeism) costs in the US from reductions in heart disease associated with substituting monounsaturated fats (MUFA) for saturated fats.

Materials and methods: A four-part model of the medical care cost savings from avoided heart disease was estimated using data on 247,700 adults from the 2000–2010 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS). The savings from reduced job absenteeism due to avoided heart disease was estimated using a zero-inflated negative binomial model of the number of annual work loss days applied to data on 164,577 adults from the MEPS.

Results: Estimated annual savings in medical care expenditures resulting from a switch from a diet high in saturated fat to a high-MUFA diet totaled ～ $25.7 billion (95% CI = $6.0–$45.4 billion) in 2010, with private insurance plans saving $7.9 billion (95% CI?=?$1.8–$14.0 billion), Medicare saving $9.4 billion (95% CI?=?$2.1–$16.7 billion), Medicaid saving $1.4 billion (95% CI?=?$0.2–$2.5 billion), and patients saving $2.2 billion (95% CI?=?$0.5–$3.8 billion). The annual savings in terms of reduced job absenteeism ranges from a lower bound of $600 million (95% CI?=?$100 million to $1.0 billion) to an upper bound of $1.2 billion (95% CI?=?$0.2–$2.1 billion) for 2010.

Limitations: The data cover only the non-institutionalized population. Decreased costs due to any decreases in the severity of heart disease are not included. Cost savings do not include any reduction in informal care at home.

Conclusions: Diets high in saturated fat impose substantial medical care costs and job absenteeism costs, and substantial savings could be achieved by substituting MUFA for saturated fat.     

Febuxostat in the management of gout: a cost-effectiveness analysis

Objective:

To determine the cost-effectiveness of febuxostat vs allopurinol for the management of gout.

Methods:

A stochastic microsimulation cost-effectiveness model with a US private-payer perspective and 5-year time horizon was developed. Model flow based on guideline and real-world treatment paradigms incorporated gout flare, serum uric acid (sUA) testing, treatment titration, discontinuation, and adverse events, chronic kidney disease (CKD) incidence and progression, and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) incidence. Outcomes were estimated for the general gout population and for gout patients with CKD stages 3/4. Modeled treatment interventions were daily oral febuxostat 40–80?mg and allopurinol 100–300?mg. Baseline patient characteristics were taken from epidemiologic studies, efficacy data from randomized controlled trials, adverse event rates from package inserts, and costs from the literature, government sources, and expert opinion. Eight clinically-relevant incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were estimated: per patient reaching target sUA, per flare avoided, per CKD incidence, progression, stages 3/4 progression, and stage 5 progression avoided, per incident T2DM avoided, and per death avoided.

Results:

Five-year incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for the general gout population were $5377 per patient reaching target sUA, $1773 per flare avoided, $221,795 per incident CKD avoided, $29,063 per CKD progression avoided, $36,018 per progression to CKD 3/4 avoided, $71,426 per progression to CKD 5 avoided, $214,277 per incident T2DM avoided, and $217,971 per death avoided. In patients with CKD 3/4, febuxostat dominated allopurinol for all cost-effectiveness outcome measures.

Conclusions:

Febuxostat may be a cost-effective alternative to allopurinol, especially for patients with CKD stages 3 or 4.     

Real-world comparison of hospitalization costs for heart failure in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients with established cardiovascular disease treated with canagliflozin versus other antihyperglycemic agents

Abstract

Aims: This real-world study compared hospitalization for heart failure (HHF) costs and all-cause healthcare costs in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and established cardiovascular disease treated with the sodium glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitor (SGLT2i) canagliflozin and non-SGLT2i antihyperglycemic agents (AHAs).

Materials and methods: Propensity score-matched cohorts from a retrospective observational study (OBSERVE-4D) using the Truven MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters and Optum Clinformatics databases were analyzed. HHF and all-cause healthcare costs per-patient-per-month (PPPM) were compared for patients initiated on canagliflozin and non-SGLT2i AHAs in the on-treatment analysis.

Results: Baseline characteristics were well balanced between matched cohorts that included new users of canagliflozin or non-SGLT2i AHAs in the Truven (13,954 and 45,101, respectively) and Optum (11,490 and 53,360, respectively) databases. The mean (95% CI) PPPM cost of HHF was lower for canagliflozin than for non-SGLT2i AHAs in analyses of both the Truven ($21.31 [$21.25, $21.37]) and Optum ($30.43 [$30.41, $30.45]) databases. The mean (95% CI) PPPM all-cause healthcare cost was also lower for canagliflozin than for non-SGLT2i AHAs in analyses of both the Truven ($321 [$280, $361]) and Optum ($449 [$402, $495]) databases.

Limitations: This study is subject to the limitations inherent to observational research including potential for coding errors and biases and unobserved confounding. Because all patients were in commercially administered health plans, these findings cannot be easily generalized to uninsured or Medicaid populations. Patient costs were evaluated up to and including their first HHF event. Post-discharge costs such as the costs of subsequent rehospitalizations were not included in this analysis.

Conclusions: For patients with T2DM and established cardiovascular disease in this real-world study, treatment with canagliflozin was associated with lower HHF costs and all-cause healthcare costs compared with treatment with non-SGLT2i AHAs.     

Disease-specific cost savings of treating nighttime versus daytime gastroesophageal reflux disease in an employed population

Summary

Objective: The extent to which proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) can offset direct medical costs by reducing symptoms related to gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) in order to improve work productivity is not well understood. This study aimed to evaluate the economic impact of treating GERD with PPIs versus no treatment, from an employer's perspective.

Study design: An economic model was developed to simulate symptom reduction and breakthrough symptoms as well as associated costs over 1 year among a population of 100,000 with a 20% GERD prevalence rate. Medical costs, including GERD-related office visits, hospitalisations and procedures, were delineated by symptom severity. Indirect costs represented the monetised work productivity loss. PPI treatment costs $2/day (standard dose).

Results: The GERD burden was substantial ($62,500,000). Treatment yielded $32,600,000 in savings ($1,630 saved/patient/year), mostly from reducing indirect costs. Treatment produced greater savings among nighttime GERD patients throughout the PPI cost range ($1–$5/day). Savings dropped if the price of standard doses of PPI exceeded $3.92/day for the treatment of daytime GERD patients.     

Infusion administration billing for vedolizumab and infliximab in inflammatory bowel disease

Abstract

Aims: Increasing use of biologics has led to interest in treatment components with potential for cost savings. This study was aimed at comparing administration times and associated costs of infliximab and vedolizumab infusions for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).

Materials and methods: This study used claims data from the Symphony Health Integrated Dataverse to identify IBD patients using infliximab or vedolizumab between 20 May 2014 and 29 February 2016. Use of Current Procedural Terminology administration codes was evaluated and costs calculated using the 2016 Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services Physician Fee Schedule. Assessments included infusion times, associated costs, productivity loss using average wage estimates from the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, and home infusion adoption.

Results: A total of 10,051 infliximab and 3114 vedolizumab patients with first-hour claims were identified; 52.0% were female and 64.5% had Crohn’s disease. There were 48,377 infliximab first-hour claims (mean 4.8 infusions per patient); 46,462 (96.0%) had a second-hour claim. In comparison, there were 14,717 vedolizumab claims (mean 4.7 infusions per patient), with only 411 (2.8%) second-hour claims, resulting in vedolizumab cost savings of approximately $1.27 million. The difference in second-hour infusions resulted in 46,051 additional hours of productivity loss with infliximab, and lost wages averaging $1.18 million (range $0.68–$1.77 million).

Limitations: Administration costs were inferred as charge costs and not directly assessed. Productivity loss assessed time spent on infusion only, and included a small proportion of patients beyond working age.

Conclusions: Second-hour infusion billing was significantly lower with vedolizumab than with infliximab, corresponding to cost savings and reduced productivity loss.     

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 analysis of bioabsorbable drug-eluting sinus implants following endoscopic sinus surgery

Objective: Propel is a bioabsorbable drug-eluting sinus implant inserted following an endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) for chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). The objective of this study was to estimate the budget impact of incorporating Propel post-ESS for CRS patients from a self-insured employer or third-party payer perspective.

Methods: An Excel-based budget impact model was developed. Estimates of the prevalence of CRS, rates of ESS, and effectiveness outcomes, along with direct and indirect costs from CRS were obtained from published literature. A total population of 1.5 million members was hypothesized for the analysis. All cost data were adjusted to October 2015 US dollars using the Medical Care Component of the Consumer Price Index. The cost and clinical/economic characteristics of Propel were compared to other treatments commonly used to minimize post-operative complications. The primary outcome was the incremental budget impact reported using per-member-per-month (PMPM) costs. Scenario-based, probabilistic, and one-way sensitivity analyses were performed to gauge the robustness of the results and identify the parameters with the most influence on the results.

Results: For a US self-insured employer or a commercial health plan of 1.5 million members, the incremental PMPM impact of incorporating Propel was estimated to range from ?Objective: Propel is a bioabsorbable drug-eluting sinus implant inserted following an endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) for chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). The objective of this study was to estimate the budget impact of incorporating Propel post-ESS for CRS patients from a self-insured employer or third-party payer perspective.

Methods: An Excel-based budget impact model was developed. Estimates of the prevalence of CRS, rates of ESS, and effectiveness outcomes, along with direct and indirect costs from CRS were obtained from published literature. A total population of 1.5 million members was hypothesized for the analysis. All cost data were adjusted to October 2015 US dollars using the Medical Care Component of the Consumer Price Index. The cost and clinical/economic characteristics of Propel were compared to other treatments commonly used to minimize post-operative complications. The primary outcome was the incremental budget impact reported using per-member-per-month (PMPM) costs. Scenario-based, probabilistic, and one-way sensitivity analyses were performed to gauge the robustness of the results and identify the parameters with the most influence on the results.

Results: For a US self-insured employer or a commercial health plan of 1.5 million members, the incremental PMPM impact of incorporating Propel was estimated to range from ?$0.003 to $0.036, respectively, for all members in the health plan. Sensitivity analyses identified the cost of Propel, probability of polyposis recurrence requiring medical intervention, probability of adhesion formation requiring surgical intervention, and the treatment costs for polyposis as the primary parameters influencing the results.

Conclusion: This study has demonstrated the use of Propel following ESS procedures has a negligible impact on the budget of a US self-insured employer or payer. The upfront cost of Propel was offset by savings associated with reduced probability for polyp recurrence, adhesion formation, and their subsequent treatment.