Cost-effectiveness of add-on treatments to metformin in a Swedish setting: liraglutide vs sulphonylurea or sitagplitin

Objective:

To evaluate long-run cost-effectiveness in a Swedish setting for liraglutide compared with sulphonylureas (glimepiride) or sitagliptin, all as add-on to metformin for patients with type 2 diabetes insufficiently controlled with metformin in monotherapy.

Methods:

The IHE Cohort Model of Type 2 Diabetes was used to evaluate clinical and economic outcomes from a societal perspective. Model input data were obtained from two clinical trials, the Swedish National Diabetes Register and the literature. Cost data reflected year 2013 price level. The robustness of results was checked with one-way-sensitivity analysis and probability sensitivity analysis.

Results:

The cost per QALY gained for liraglutide (1.2?mg) compared to SU (glimepiride 4?mg), both as add-on to metformin, ranged from SEK 226,000 to SEK 255,000 in analyzed patient cohorts. The cost per QALY for liraglutide (1.2?mg) vs sitagliptin (100?mg) as second-line treatment was lower, ranging from SEK 149,000 to SEK 161,000. Costs of preventive treatment were driving costs, but there was also a cost offset from reduced costs of complications of ～20%. Notable cost differences were found for nephropathy, stroke, and heart failure. The predicted life expectancy with liraglutide increased the cost of net consumption for liraglutide.

Limitations:

The analysis was an ex-ante analysis using model input data from clinical trials which may not reflect effectiveness in real-world clinical practice in broader patient populations. This limitation was explored in the sensitivity analysis. The lack of specific data on loss of production due to diabetes complications implied that these costs may be under-estimated.

Conclusions:

Treatment strategies with liraglutide 1.2?mg improved the expected quality-of-life and increased costs when compared to SU and to sitagliptin for second-line add-on treatments. The cost per QALY for liraglutide was in the range considered medium by Swedish authorities.     

Cost-effectiveness of insulin detemir compared with neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin in patients with type 1 diabetes using a basal-bolus regimen in five European countries

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this analysis was to evaluate the long-term clinical and economic outcomes associated with insulin detemir and neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin in combination with mealtime insulin aspart in patients with type 1 diabetes in Belgian, French, German, Italian and Spanish settings.

Methods: The published and validated IMS CORE Diabetes Model was used to make long-term projections of life expectancy, quality-adjusted life expectancy and direct medical costs. The analysis was based on patient characteristics and treatment effects from a 2-year randomised controlled trial. Events were projected for a time horizon of 50 years. Potential uncertainty using a modelling approach was addressed.

Results: Basal-bolus therapy with insulin detemir was projected to improve quality-adjusted life expectancy by 0.45 years versus NPH in the German setting, with similar improvements in the other countries. Insulin detemir was associated with cost savings in Belgium, Germany and Spain. In France and Italy, lifetime costs were slightly higher in the detemir arm, leading to incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of €519 per QALY gained and €3,256 per QALY gained, respectively.

Conclusions: Compared to NPH, insulin detemir is likely to be a dominant treatment strategy in Belgium, Germany and Spain and highly cost-effective in France and Italy in patients with type 1 diabetes.     

Cost utility of allogeneic stem cell transplantation with matched unrelated donor versus treatment with imatinib for adult patients with newly diagnosed chronic myeloid leukaemia

Objective: To estimate, from the perspective of the German statutory health insurance, the cost utility of allogeneic stem cell transplantation with matched unrelated donor (MUD-SCT) in newly diagnosed, chronic-phase chronic myeloid leukaemia (CML) patients aged 40 years or younger, relative to the treatment with imatinib.

Methods: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of the additional cost of imatinib versus MUD-SCT per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained was chosen as a target assessment. ICER was quantified using a Markov cohort modelling approach. The evaluation encompassed 5 years of treatment with either approach, and only direct medical costs (in €, year 2005) were considered.

Results: There were incremental costs of €77,410 for imatinib therapy per QALY gained versus MUD-SCT. No strategy was clearly dominant; on average, during 5 years, cost savings of €63,433 were obtained and 0.82 QALY lost by SCT compared to treatment with imatinib. QALYs gained in CML patients with either treatment resulted in considerable cost to the third-party payer in Germany. The results were particularly sensitive to the price of imatinib.

Conclusions: The analysis finds that imatinib is more costly but more effective (as measured in QALYs) over a 5-year time horizon. The resulting ICER of €77,410 per QALY is higher than commonly cited thresholds. The cost utility of MUD-SCT to treat CML in patients with a European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation score ≤ to 2 compares with that of the imatinib strategy.     

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.     

Therapy conversion to biphasic insulin aspart 30 improves long-term outcomes and reduces the costs of type 2 diabetes in Saudi Arabia

Objective: An observational study in Saudi Arabia indicated that conversion to biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) from human insulin (HI) was associated with improvement of glycaemic control.

Methods: A validated computer simulation model of diabetes was used to project long-term outcomes (such as quality-adjusted life expectancy and direct medical costs) based on patient characteristics and treatment effects observed in the Saudi Arabian PRESENT subgroup (n=598). Baseline prevalence of comorbidities was obtained from published sources. Primary research was performed in Riyadh and Jeddah to derive diabetes-related complication costs and patient management practices.

Results: Conversion to BIAsp 30 from HI was projected to increase life expectancy by 0.62 years (11.77 ± 0.20 vs. 11.15 ± 0.19 years) and quality-adjusted life expectancy by 0.96 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) (7.03 ± 0.12 vs. 6.07 ± 0.11 QALYs). Direct medical cost savings of Saudi Arabian Riyals (SAR) 53,879 per patient were projected for conversion to BIAsp 30 therapy (SAR 84,761 ± 3102 vs. SAR 138,640 ± 4102 per patient). Cost savings were driven by lower costs of hypoglycaemia (SAR 286 vs. SAR 57,437 per patient), and lower costs of renal complications (SAR 18,848 vs. SAR 31,228) over patient lifetimes.

Conclusion: Conversion to BIAsp 30 from HI was projected to improve life expectancy and quality-adjusted life expectancy while reducing lifetime direct medical costs.     

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.     

Evaluation of the long-term cost-effectiveness of IDegLira versus liraglutide added to basal insulin for patients with type 2 diabetes failing to achieve glycemic control on basal insulin in the USA

Background and aims: IDegLira, a fixed ratio combination of insulin degludec and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist liraglutide, utilizes the complementary mechanisms of action of these two agents to improve glycemic control with low risk of hypoglycemia and avoidance of weight gain. The aim of the present analysis was to assess the long-term cost-effectiveness of IDegLira vs liraglutide added to basal insulin, for patients with type 2 diabetes not achieving glycemic control on basal insulin in the US setting.

Methods: Projections of lifetime costs and clinical outcomes were made using the IMS CORE Diabetes Model. Treatment effect data for patients receiving IDegLira and liraglutide added to basal insulin were modeled based on the outcomes of a published indirect comparison, as no head-to-head clinical trial data is currently available. Costs were accounted in 2015?US dollars ($) from a healthcare payer perspective.

Results: IDegLira was associated with small improvements in quality-adjusted life expectancy compared with liraglutide added to basal insulin (8.94 vs 8.91 discounted quality-adjusted life years [QALYs]). The key driver of improved clinical outcomes was the greater reduction in glycated hemoglobin associated with IDegLira. IDegLira was associated with mean costs savings of $17,687 over patient lifetimes vs liraglutide added to basal insulin, resulting from lower treatment costs and cost savings as a result of complications avoided.

Conclusions: The present long-term modeling analysis found that IDegLira was dominant vs liraglutide added to basal insulin for patients with type 2 diabetes failing to achieve glycemic control on basal insulin in the US, improving clinical outcomes and reducing direct costs.     

Cost-effectiveness of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion in people with type 2 diabetes in the Netherlands

Aims: Up to 30% of insulin-treated type 2 diabetes patients are unable to achieve HbA1c targets despite optimization of insulin multiple daily injections (MDI). For these patients the use of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) represents a useful but under-utilized alternative. The aim of the present analysis was to examine the cost-effectiveness of initiating CSII in type 2 diabetes patients failing to achieve good glycemic control on MDI in the Netherlands. Methods: Long-term projections were made using the IMS CORE Diabetes Model. Clinical input data were sourced from the OpT2mise trial. The analysis was performed over a lifetime time horizon. The discount rates applied to future costs and clinical outcomes were 4% and 1.5% per annum, respectively. Results: CSII was associated with improved quality-adjusted life expectancy compared with MDI (9.38 quality-adjusted life years [QALYs] vs 8.95 QALYs, respectively). The breakdown of costs indicated that ～50% of costs were attributable to diabetes-related complications. Higher acquisition costs of CSII vs MDI were partially offset by the reduction in complications. The ICER was estimated at EUR 62,895 per QALY gained and EUR 60,474 per QALY gained when indirect costs were included. Conclusions: In the Netherlands, CSII represents a cost-effective option in patients with type 2 diabetes who continue to have poorly-controlled HbA1c despite optimization of MDI. Since the ICER falls below the willingness-to-pay threshold of EUR 80,000 per QALY gained, CSII is likely to represent good-value for money in the treatment of poorly-controlled T2D patients compared with MDI.     

Cost effectiveness of benralizumab for severe,uncontrolled oral corticosteroid–dependent asthma in Sweden

Abstract

Aim: We investigated cost effectiveness of benralizumab vs. standard of care (SOC) plus oral corticosteroids (OCS) for patients with severe, eosinophilic OCS-dependent asthma in Sweden.

Materials and methods: A three-state, cohort-based Markov model of data from three Phase III benralizumab clinical trials (ZONDA [NCT02075255], SIROCCO [NCT01928771], and CALIMA [NCT01914757]) was used to assess the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of benralizumab vs. SOC plus OCS. Health outcomes were estimated in terms of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The model included costs and disutilities associated with extrapolated OCS-related adverse events. Patients with severe asthma were defined as those receiving OCS ≥5?mg/day.

Results: Benralizumab demonstrated a cost-effectiveness ratio vs. SOC plus OCS of 2018 Swedish Kronor (SEK) 366,855 (€34,127) per QALY gained, based on increases of 1.33 QALYs and SEK 488,742 (€45,344) per patient. Benralizumab treatment costs contributed most to incremental costs. The probability of benralizumab’s being cost-effective with willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds between SEK 429,972 (€40,000) and SEK 752,452 (€70,000) ranged from 75% to 99%.

Limitations: Potential limitations of these analyses include the use of combined data from three different clinical trials, a one-way sensitivity analysis that did not include mortality and transition estimates, and Observational & Pragmatic Research Institute (OPRI) data from the UK as a proxy of the Swedish health care system.

Conclusions: The results of these analyses demonstrate that benralizumab has a high probability of being cost-effective compared with SOC plus OCS for a subgroup of patients with severe, eosinophilic asthma receiving regular OCS treatment and may support clinicians, payers and patients in making treatment decisions.     

Cost effectiveness of zoledronic acid in the management of skeletal metastases in hormone-refractory prostate cancer patients in France,Germany, Portugal,and the Netherlands

Abstract

Objective:

Zoledronic acid (ZOL) reduces the risk of skeletal related events (SREs) in hormone-refractory prostate cancer (HRPC) patients with bone metastases. This study assessed the cost effectiveness of ZOL for SRE management in French, German, Portuguese, and Dutch HRPC patients.

Methods:

This analysis was based on the results of a randomized phase III clinical trial wherein HRPC patients received up to 15 months of ZOL (n?=?214) or placebo (n?=?208). Clinical inputs were obtained from the trial. Costs were estimated using hospital tariffs, published, and internet sources. Quality adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained were estimated from a separate analysis of EQ-5D scores reported in the trial. Uncertainty surrounding outcomes was addressed via univariate sensitivity analyses.

Results:

ZOL patients experienced an estimated 0.759 fewer SREs and gained an estimated 0.03566 QALYs versus placebo patients. ZOL was associated with reduced SRE-related costs [net costs] (?€2396 [€1284] in France, ?€2606 [€841] in Germany, ?€3326 [€309] in Portugal and ?€3617 [€87] in the Netherlands). Costs per QALY ranged from €2430 (Netherlands) to €36,007 (France).

Conclusions:

This analysis is subject to the limitations of most cost-effectiveness analyses: it combines data from multiple sources. Nevertheless, the results strongly suggest that ZOL is cost effective versus placebo in French, German, Portuguese, and Dutch HRPC patients.     

Long-term health economic benefits of sensor-augmented pump therapy vs continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion alone in type 1 diabetes: a UK perspective

Aims/hypothesis:

Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) is an important treatment option for type 1 diabetes patients unable to achieve adequate glycemic control with multiple daily injections (MDI). Combining CSII with continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in sensor-augmented pump therapy (SAP) with a low glucose-suspend (LGS) feature may further improve glycemic control and reduce the frequency of hypoglycemia. A cost-effectiveness analysis of SAP?+?LGS vs CSII plus self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) was performed to determine the health economic benefits of SAP?+?LGS in type 1 diabetes patients using CSII in the UK.

Methods:

Cost-effectiveness analysis was performed using the CORE diabetes model. Treatment effects were sourced from the literature, where SAP?+?LGS was associated with a projected HbA_1c reduction of ?1.49% vs ?0.62% for CSII, and a reduced frequency of severe hypoglycemia. The time horizon was that of patient lifetimes; future costs and clinical outcomes were discounted at 3.5% and 1.5% per annum, respectively.

Results:

Projected outcomes showed that SAP?+?LGS was associated with higher mean quality-adjusted life expectancy (17.9 vs 14.9 quality-adjusted life years [QALYs], SAP?+?LGS vs CSII), and higher life expectancy (23.8 vs 21.9 years), but higher mean lifetime direct costs (GBP 125,559 vs GBP 88,991), leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of GBP 12,233 per QALY gained for SAP?+?LGS vs CSII. Findings of the base-case analysis remained robust in sensitivity analyses.

Conclusions/interpretation:

For UK-based type 1 diabetes patients with poor glycemic control, the use of SAP?+?LGS is likely to be cost-effective compared with CSII plus SMBG.     

Cost-effectiveness of adalimumab,etanercept, and tocilizumab as first-line treatments for moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis

Abstract

Objective:

The aim of this study was to assess the cost-utility and value of reducing the uncertainty associated with the decision to use first-line biologic treatment (bDMARD) after the failure of one or more traditional drugs (tDMARD) in moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (msRA) in Finland.

Research design and methods:

The treatment sequences were compared among 3000 hypothetical Finnish msRA patients using a probabilistic microsimulation model in a lifetime scenario. Adalimumab?+?methotrexate, etanercept?+?methotrexate, or tocilizumab?+?methotrexate were used as first biologics followed by rituximab?+?methotrexate and infliximab?+?methotrexate. Best supportive care (BSC), including tDMARDs, was assumed to be used after the exhaustion of the biologics. Methotrexate alone was added as a further comparator. Efficacy was based on ACR responses that were obtained from a mixed treatment comparison. The resources were valued with Finnish unit costs (year 2010) from the healthcare payer perspective. Additional analyses were carried out, including productivity losses. The Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) values were mapped to the EQ-5D values using the tocilizumab trials; 3% annual discounting for costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) and extensive sensitivity analyses were completed.

Main outcome measures:

Incremental cost per QALY gained and multinomial expected value of perfect information (mEVPI).

Results:

bDMARDs significantly increase the QALYs gained when compared to methotrexate alone. Tocilizumab?+?methotrexate was more cost-effective than adalimumab?+?methotrexate or etanercept?+?methotrexate in comparison with methotrexate alone, and adalimumab?+?methotrexate was dominated by etanercept?+?methotraxate. A QALY gained with retail-priced (wholesale-priced) tocilizumab?+?methotrexate costs €18,957 (€17,057) compared to methotrexate alone. According to the cost-effectiveness efficiency frontier and cost-effectiveness acceptability frontier (CEAF), tocilizumab?+?methotrexate should be considered before rituximab?+?methotrexate, infliximab?+?methotrexate, and BSC. Based on the CEAF, tocilizumab?+?methotrexate had a 60–93% probability of being cost-effective with €20,000 per QALY gained (mEVPI €230–2182).

Conclusions:

Tocilizumab?+?methotrexate is a potentially cost-effective bDMARD treatment for msRA, indicating a low value of additional research information with the international threshold values.

Limitations:

Efficacy based on an indirect comparison (certolizumab pegol, golimumab excluded), fixed treatment sequence after the exhaustion of first bDMARD, Swedish resource use data according to HAQ scores, and inpatient costs assumed to include surgery.     

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 everolimus plus reduced tacrolimus in de novo liver-recipients in the Italian setting

Introduction: Long-term exposure to calcineurin inhibitor-based immunosuppressant (IS) therapy in liver transplant (LT) recipients is associated with renal complications. In the randomized trial H2304, everolimus?+?reduced-dose tacrolimus (EVR?+?rTAC) demonstrated equivalent efficacy and superior renal function compared to standard-dose tacrolimus.

Methods: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of EVR?+?rTAC vs TAC, in de novo LT patients, a Markov model simulating both liver and kidney function was developed and estimated the long-term outcomes of IS following LT. The analysis used the Italian healthcare payer perspective.

Results: Patients treated with EVR?+?rTAC gained on average 1.92 years and 1.62 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were €35,851 and €42,567 for LY gained and QALY gained, respectively. For the hepatitis-c sub-population, the ICERs decreased to €22,519 and €30,658, respectively.

Conclusion: EVR?+?rTAC improves survival and quality-of-life and is a cost-effective alternative to calcineurin-inhibitor monotherapy for patients requiring LT.     

Cost effectiveness analysis of immunotherapy in patients with grass pollen allergic rhinoconjunctivitis in Germany

Abstract

Objectives:

An economic evaluation was conducted to assess the outcomes and costs as well as cost-effectiveness of the following grass-pollen immunotherapies: OA (Oralair; Stallergenes S.A., Antony, France) vs GRZ (Grazax; ALK-Abelló, Hørsholm, Denmark), and ALD (Alk Depot SQ; ALK-Abelló) (immunotherapy agents alongside symptomatic medication) and symptomatic treatment alone for grass pollen allergic rhinoconjunctivitis.

Methods:

The costs and outcomes of 3-year treatment were assessed for a period of 9 years using a Markov model. Treatment efficacy was estimated using an indirect comparison of available clinical trials with placebo as a common comparator. Estimates for immunotherapy discontinuation, occurrence of asthma, health state utilities, drug costs, resource use, and healthcare costs were derived from published sources. The analysis was conducted from the insurant’s perspective including public and private health insurance payments and co-payments by insurants. Outcomes were reported as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and symptom-free days. The uncertainty around incremental model results was tested by means of extensive deterministic univariate and probabilistic multivariate sensitivity analyses.

Results:

In the base case analysis the model predicted a cost-utility ratio of OA vs symptomatic treatment of €14,728 per QALY; incremental costs were €1356 (95%CI: €1230; €1484) and incremental QALYs 0.092 (95%CI: 0.052; 0.140). OA was the dominant strategy compared to GRZ and ALD, with estimated incremental costs of ?€1142 (95%CI: ?€1255; ?€1038) and ?€54 (95%CI: ?€188; €85) and incremental QALYs of 0.015 (95%CI: ?0.025; 0.056) and 0.027 (95%CI: ?0.022; 0.075), respectively. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of €20,000, the probability of OA being the most cost-effective treatment was predicted to be 79%. Univariate sensitivity analyses show that incremental outcomes were moderately sensitive to changes in efficacy estimates. The main study limitation was the requirement of an indirect comparison involving several steps to assess relative treatment effects.

Conclusion:

The analysis suggests OA to be cost-effective compared to GRZ and ALD, and a symptomatic treatment. Sensitivity analyses showed that uncertainty surrounding treatment efficacy estimates affected the model outcomes.     

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

Abstract

Background:

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

Methods:

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

Results:

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

Conclusions:

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

Cost-effectiveness of dabigatran etexilate in the prevention of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with atrial fibrillation in Belgium

Abstract

Objective:

To assess the cost-effectiveness of dabigatran etexilate (‘dabigatran’) vs vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in the Belgian healthcare setting for the prevention of stroke and systemic embolism (SE) in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF).

Research design and methods:

A Markov model was used to calculate the cost-effectiveness of dabigatran vs VKAs in Belgium, whereby warfarin was considered representative for the VKA class. Efficacy and safety data were taken from the Randomized Evaluation of Long-Term Anticoagulation Therapy (RE-LY) trial and a network meta-analysis. Local resource use and unit costs were included in the model. Effectiveness was expressed in Quality Adjusted Life-Years (QALYs). The model outcomes were total costs, total QALYs, incremental costs, incremental QALYs and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The level of International Normalized Ratio (INR) control and the use of other antithrombotic therapies observed in Belgian clinical practice were reflected in two scenario analyses.

Results:

In the base case analysis, total costs per patient were €13,333 for dabigatran and €12,454 for warfarin. Total QALYs per patient were 9.51 for dabigatran and 9.19 for warfarin. The corresponding ICER was €2807/QALY. The ICER of dabigatran was €970/QALY vs warfarin with real-world INR control and €5296/QALY vs a mix of warfarin, aspirin, and no treatment. Results were shown to be robust in one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

Limitations:

The analysis does not include long-term costs for clinical events, as these data were not available for Belgium. As in any economic model based on data from a randomized clinical trial, several assumptions had to be made when extrapolating results to routine clinical practice in Belgium.

Conclusion:

This analysis suggests that dabigatran, a novel oral anticoagulant, is a cost-effective treatment for the prevention of stroke and SE in patients with non-valvular AF in the Belgian healthcare setting.     

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

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

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

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

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

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

Economic evaluation of sevelamer for the treatment of hyperphosphatemia in chronic kidney disease patients not on dialysis in the United Kingdom

Abstract

Objectives:

To determine the cost effectiveness of sevelamer vs calcium carbonate in patients with chronic kidney disease and not on dialysis (CKD-ND) from the perspective of the National Health Service (NHS) in the UK.

Methods:

A Markov decision analytic model was developed to estimate (1) total life years (LYs), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and costs for patients treated with sevelamer or calcium carbonate; and (2) incremental costs per LY gained (LYG) and per QALY gained for sevelamer vs calcium carbonate. Data informing probability transitions to all-cause death and dialysis inception in CKD-ND patients were taken directly from the INDEPENDENT-CKD study and were extrapolated beyond the 3-year clinical trial using Weibull regression analysis. Estimates of health utility and costs (in £2011) were derived from the published literature.

Results:

Over a lifetime horizon, sevelamer treatment resulted in a gain of 2.05 LYs and 1.56 QALYs per patient, an increase of £37,282 in total costs per patient vs calcium carbonate (3.5% discount), and a per-patient cost of £18,193/LYG and £23,878/QALY gained. Results were robust to alternative assumptions in key parameters; results were most sensitive to alternative assumptions regarding the mean daily dose of sevelamer, impact of sevelamer on dialysis initiation, cost of dialysis, and health utility estimates. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that sevelamer was cost-effective vs calcium carbonate in 93% of simulations at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £30,000/QALY gained.

Limitations:

While the model simulated a real-world clinical setting, this analysis was subject to limitations common to all decision analytic models, in that it used a mix of data sources and relied on several assumptions. Not all variables that impact real-world outcomes and costs were included in this model.

Conclusions:

Sevelamer is a cost-effective option compared to calcium carbonate for the first-line treatment of hyperphosphatemia in CKD-ND patients in the UK.     

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

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

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

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

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

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