Economic burden of hepatitis C-associated diseases: Europe,Asia Pacific,and the Americas

Abstract

Background:

Globally, hepatitis C virus (HCV) infects ～3% of the population. The objective of this study was to review published work and determine the direct medical costs for diseases associated with HCV infection globally, with the exception of the US.

Methods:

A systematic literature search was conducted to identify studies reporting the costs of hepatitis C sequelae between January 1990 and January 2011. Over 400 references were identified, of which 45 were pertinent. The costs were compiled, converted to US dollars, and adjusted to 2010 costs using the medical component of the consumer price index.

Results:

The median cost of liver transplants was estimated at $139,070 ($15,430–$443,700), refractory ascites at $16,740 ($8990–$35,940), hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) at $15,310 ($3370–$84,710), decompensated cirrhosis at $14,660 ($3810–$48,360), variceal hemorrhage at $12,190 ($3550–$46,120), hepatic encephalopathy at $9180 ($5370–$50,120), diuretic sensitive ascites at $3400 ($1320–$7470), compensated cirrhosis at $820 ($50–$2890), and chronic hepatitis C at $280 ($90–$1860). The variation among studies was mainly due to the methodology used to assess cost, local cost and government reimbursement, and country-specific treatment protocols.

Limitations:

All costs were adjusted to 2010 US dollars using the US medical component of the consumer price index (CPI) which may not reflect the change in medical costs in other countries. In addition, the costs, in the local currency were converted to US dollars in the year of the study. However, medical expenses may not vary with exchange rate, leading to artificial variations. Finally, there was no assessment of the quality of individual studies, which resulted in the same weighting to all studies.

Conclusions:

Hepatitis C imposes a high economic burden globally. Knowing the burden of HCV sequelae is useful for policy decisions as well as serving as a basis for determining the value of HCV screening and treatment.     

Cost-effectiveness analysis of roflumilast/tiotropium therapy versus tiotropium monotherapy for treating severe-to-very severe COPD

Abstract

Objective:

To conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing roflumilast/tiotropium therapy vs tiotropium monotherapy in patients with severe-to-very severe COPD.

Methods:

The economic evaluation applied a disease-based Markov cohort model with five health states: (1) severe COPD, (2) severe COPD with a history of severe exacerbation, (3) very severe COPD, (4) very severe COPD with a history of severe exacerbation, and (5) death. Within a given health state, a patient may have a mild/moderate or severe exacerbation or die. Data from roflumilast clinical trials and published literature were used to populate model parameters. The model calculated health outcomes and costs for roflumilast/tiotropium therapy vs tiotropium monotherapy over a 5-year horizon. Incremental cost and benefits were then calculated as cost-effectiveness ratios, including cost per exacerbation avoided and cost per quality adjusted life year ($/QALY).

Results:

Over a 5-year horizon, the estimated incremental costs per exacerbation and per severe exacerbation avoided were $589 and $5869, respectively, and the incremental cost per QALY was $15,815. One-way sensitivity analyses varying key parameters produced an incremental cost per QALY ranging from $1963–$32,773.

Limitations:

A number of key parameters used in the model were obtained from studies in the literature that were conducted under different contexts. Specifically, the relative risk estimate for severe COPD patients originates from a small trial not designed to demonstrate the impact of roflumilast on frequency of exacerbations. In addition, the model extrapolates the relative risk estimates over periods of 5–30 years, even though the estimates were only observed in trials that spanned less than a year.

Conclusions:

The addition of roflumilast to tiotropium is cost-effective for the treatment of severe to very severe COPD patients.     

Cost-effectiveness of daclatasvir plus sofosbuvir-based regimen for treatment of hepatitis C virus genotype 3 infection in Canada

Objective:

New regimens for the treatment of chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 3 have demonstrated substantial improvement in sustained virologic response (SVR) compared with existing therapies, but are considerably more expensive. The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of two novel all-oral, interferon-free regimens for the treatment of patients with HCV genotype 3: daclatasvir plus sofosbuvir (DCV?+?SOF) and sofosbuvir plus ribavirin (SOF?+?RBV), from a Canadian health-system perspective.

Methods:

A decision analytic Markov model was developed to compare the effect of various treatment strategies on the natural history of the disease and their associated costs in treatment-naïve and treatment-experienced patients. Patients were initially distributed across fibrosis stages F0–F4, and may incur disease progression through fibrosis stages and on to end-stage liver disease complications and death; or may achieve SVR. Clinical efficacy, health-related quality-of-life, costs, and transition probabilities were based on published literature. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed to assess parameter uncertainty associated with the analysis.

Results:

In treatment-naive patients, the expected quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for interferon-free regimens were higher for DCV?+?SOF (12.37) and SOF?+?RBV (12.48) compared to that of pINF?+?RBV (11.71) over a lifetime horizon, applying their clinical trial treatment durations. The expected costs were higher for DCV?+?SOF ($170,371) and SOF?+?RBV ($194,776) vs pINF?+?RBV regimen ($90,905). Compared to pINF?+?RBV, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were $120,671 and $135,398 per QALYs for DCV?+?SOF and SOF?+?RBV, respectively. In treatment-experienced patients, DCV?+?SOF regimen dominated the SOF?+?RBV regimen. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated a 100% probability that a DCV?+?SOF regimen was cost saving in treatment-experienced patients.

Conclusion:

Daclatasvir plus sofosbuvir is a safe and effective option for the treatment of chronic HCV genotype 3 patients. This regimen could be considered a cost-effective option following a first-line treatment of peg-interferon/ribavirin treatment experienced patients with HCV genotype-3 infection.     

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 fingolimod versus interferon beta-1a for relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis in the United States

Abstract

Objective:

Fingolimod has been shown to be more efficacious than interferon (IFN) beta-1a, but at a higher drug acquisition cost. The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of fingolimod compared to IFN beta-1a in patients diagnosed with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) in the US.

Methods:

A Markov model comparing fingolimod to intramuscular IFN beta-1a using a US societal perspective and a 10-year time horizon was developed. A cohort of 37-year-old patients with RRMS and a Kurtzke Expanded Disability Status Scale score of 0–2.5 were assumed. Data sources included the Trial Assessing Injectable Interferon vs FTY720 Oral in Relapsing–Remitting Multiple Sclerosis (TRANSFORMS) and other published studies of MS. Outcomes included costs in 2011 US dollars, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), number of relapses avoided, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).

Results:

Compared to IFN beta-1a, fingolimod was associated with fewer relapses (0.41 vs 0.73 per patient per year) and more QALYs gained (6.7663 vs 5.9503), but at a higher cost ($565,598 vs $505,234). This resulted in an ICER of $73,975 per QALY. Results were most sensitive to changes in drug costs and the disutility of receiving IFN beta-1a. Monte Carlo simulation demonstrated fingolimod was cost-effective in 35% and 70% of 10,000 iterations, assuming willingness-to-pay thresholds of $50,000 and $100,000 per QALY, respectively.

Limitations:

Event rates were primarily derived from a single randomized clinical trial with 1-year duration of follow-up and extrapolated to a 10-year time horizon. Comparison was made to only one disease-modifying drug—intramuscular IFN beta-1a.

Conclusion:

Fingolimod use is not likely to be cost-effective compared to IFN beta-1a unless fingolimod cost falls below $3476 per month or a higher than normal willingness-to-pay threshold is accepted by decision-makers.     

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.     

Public health impact of comprehensive hepatitis C screening and treatment in the French baby-boomer population

Objective: To estimate the public health impact of comprehensive hepatitis C virus (HCV) screening and access to all-oral, interferon (IFN)-free direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) in the French baby-boomer population (1945–1965 birth cohorts).

Methods: A sequential, multi-cohort, health-state transition model was developed to assess the impact of different hepatitis C screening and treatment strategies on clinical and economic outcomes in the 1945–1965 birth cohorts. Patients newly-diagnosed with chronic HCV were projected each year from 2016 to 2036 under three screening scenarios (70% [low], 75% [intermediate], and 80% [high] HCV awareness in 2036). Healthcare costs and clinical outcomes (number of liver-related deaths, quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs], life-years [LYs] spent in sustained virologic response [SVR] or with decompensated cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma, or liver transplant) were compared among five treatment strategies (no antiviral therapy; IFN?+?ribavirin?+?protease inhibitor for fibrosis stages F2–F4, IFN-based DAAs for stages F2–F4, IFN-free DAAs for stages F2–F4, and IFN-free DAAs for stages F0–F4).

Results: Diagnosis of HCV genotype 1 was projected for 4,953, 6,600, and 8,368 individuals in the low, intermediate, and high screening scenarios, respectively. In the intermediate scenario, IFN-free DAAs for stages F0–F4 had a favorable cost-effectiveness profile vs IFN-based or IFN-free treatment strategies for F2–F4 and offered the greatest return on investment (0.899 LYs gained in SVR and 0.933 QALYs per €10,000 invested).

Conclusion: Comprehensive HCV screening and access to all-oral, IFN-free DAAs is a cost-effective strategy that could help diminish the upcoming burden of HCV in the French baby-boomer population.     

Cost utility of palivizumab prophylaxis among pre-term infants in the United States: a national policy perspective

Abstract

Objective:

The cost-effectiveness of palivizumab has previously been reported among certain guideline-eligible, high-risk premature infants in Medicaid. Because guideline authorities base decisions on a national perspective, the economic model of palivizumab was adapted to include all infants, that is, public and privately insured patients (60% of palivizumab use is public, 40% is private).

Methods:

This study examined four groups of premature infants without chronic lung disease of prematurity or congenital heart disease: (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 (RFs); (3) 32–35 wGA, ≤6 months CA, with 2006 AAP RFs; and (4) 32–35 wGA, ≤6 months CA, with ≤1 RF. An average estimate was used between public and private payors for (1) background rates of respiratory syncytial virus hospitalization (RSV-H), (2) direct medical costs associated with RSV-H, and (3) cost of palivizumab. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) are reported in cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Sensitivity analyses were performed.

Results:

Palivizumab saved costs and improved QALYs among infants <32 wGA. Palivizumab was cost-effective in infants 32–34 wGA with 2009 AAP RFs ($44,774 per QALY) and in infants 32–35 wGA with 2006 AAP RFs ($79,477 per QALY). The ICER for infants 32–35 wGA with ≤1 RF was $464,476 per QALY. Influential variables in the sensitivity analysis included background rate of RSV-H and cost and efficacy of palivizumab.

Limitations:

The results are not generalizable to populations outside of the US. The model did not examine all RFs. The wholesale acquisition cost was used as a payment benchmark; actual price paid by end providers varies.

Conclusions:

From a national policy perspective, palivizumab remained cost-effective for publically and commercially insured, guideline-eligible, high-risk premature infants. Palivizumab was not cost-effective in infants of 32–35 wGA with ≤1 RF.     

Cost-effectiveness of natalizumab versus fingolimod for the treatment of relapsing multiple sclerosis

Abstract

Background:

With the addition of new agents for the treatment of multiple sclerosis (MS) (e.g., fingolimod), there is a need to evaluate the relative value of newer therapies in terms of cost and effectiveness, given healthcare resource constraints in the United States.

Objective:

To assess the cost-effectiveness of natalizumab vs fingolimod in patients with relapsing MS.

Methods:

A decision analytic model was developed to estimate the incremental cost per relapse avoided of natalizumab and fingolimod from a US managed care payer perspective. Two-year costs of treating patients with MS included drug acquisition costs, administration and monitoring costs, and costs of treating MS relapses. Effectiveness was measured in terms of MS relapses avoided (data from AFFIRM and FREEDOMS trials). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess uncertainty.

Results:

Mean 2-year estimated treatment costs were $86,461 (natalizumab) and $98,748 (fingolimod). Patients receiving natalizumab had a mean of 0.74 relapses avoided per 2 years vs 0.59 for fingolimod. Natalizumab dominated fingolimod in the incremental cost-effectiveness analysis, as it was less costly and more effective in reducing relapses. One-way sensitivity analysis showed the results of the model were robust to changes in drug acquisition costs, administration costs, and costs of treating MS relapses. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed natalizumab was cost-effective 95.1% of the time, at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $0 per relapse avoided, increasing to 96.3% of the time at a WTP threshold of $50,000 per relapse avoided.

Limitations:

Absence of data from direct head-to-head studies comparing natalizumab and fingolimod, use of relapse rate reduction rather than sustained disability progression as primary model outcome, assumption of 100% adherence to MS treatment, and not capturing adverse event costs in the model.

Conclusions:

Natalizumab dominates fingolimod in terms of incremental cost per relapse avoided, as it is less costly and more effective.     

Cost-effectiveness analysis of intra-articular injections of a high molecular weight bioengineered hyaluronic acid for the treatment of osteoarthritis knee pain

Objective:

To determine the cost-effectiveness of bioengineered hyaluronic acid (BioHA, 1% sodium hyaluronate) intra-articular injections in treating osteoarthritis knee pain in poor responders to conventional care (CC) including non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and analgesics.

Methods:

Two decision analytic models compared BioHA treatment with either continuation of patient’s baseline CC with no assumption of disease progression (Model 1), or CC including escalating care costs due to disease progression (NSAIDs and analgesics, corticosteroid injections, and surgery; Model 2). Analyses were based on patients who received two courses of 3-weekly intra-articular BioHA (26-week FLEXX Trial?+?26-week Extension Study). BioHA group costs included fees for physician assessment and injection regimen, plus half of CC costs. Cost-effectiveness ratios were expressed as averages and incremental costs per QALY. One-way sensitivity analyses used the 95% confidence interval (CI) of QALYs gained in BioHA-treated patients, and ±20% of BioHA treatment and CC costs. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed for Model 2.

Results:

For 214 BioHA patients, the average utility gain was 0.163 QALYs (95% CI?=??0.162 to 0.488) over 52 weeks. Model 1 treatment costs were $3469 and $4562 for the BioHA and CC groups, respectively; sensitivity analyses showed BioHA to be the dominant treatment strategy, except when at the lower end of the 95% CI. Model 2 annual treatment costs per QALY gained were $1446 and $516 for the BioHA and CC groups, respectively. Using CC as baseline strategy, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of BioHA was $38,741/QALY gained, and was sensitive to response rates in either the BioHA or CC groups.

Conclusion:

BioHA is less costly and more effective than CC with NSAIDs and analgesics, and is the dominant treatment strategy. Compared with escalating CC, the $38,741/QALY ICER of BioHA remains within the $50,000 per QALY willingness-to-pay threshold to adopt a new technology.     

A cost-effectiveness analysis of using azacitidine vs. decitabine in treating patients with myelodysplastic syndromes

Abstract

Objective:

Azacitidine and decitabine are used to treat patients with myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) in the United States (US). This study sought to assess their relative cost-effectiveness.

Design and methods:

The authors developed a cost-effectiveness Markov model (1-month cycles) tracking hypothetical cohorts of MDS patients treated with azacitidine or decitabine over 2 years. The model used a US payer perspective and 2009 costs. Health states modeled included MDS with Transfusion Dependence, MDS with Transfusion Independence, Progression to Acute Myelogenous Leukemia (AML), and Death. Incremental cost-effectiveness outcomes included cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY), cost per life year (LY), cost per patient-month of transfusion independence, and cost per case of AML progression avoided. One-way sensitivity analyses were performed on key model parameters.

Results:

Compared to decitabine, azacitidine was associated with better survival (1.512 LYs vs 1.292), more QALYs gained (1.041 vs 0.870), more patient-months with transfusion independence (8.328 vs 6.224), and a greater proportion of patients avoiding progression to AML (50.9% vs 28.5%). Total per-patient costs over 2 years for azacitidine were lower than for decitabine ($150,322 vs $166, 212).

Limitations:

To inform and update the model over time, it will be important that randomized or observational clinical studies be conducted to directly compare azacitidine and decitabine, provide new information on how these medicines are used, and on their relative clinical effectiveness.

Conclusion:

Results demonstrate that azacitidine provides greater clinical benefit and costs less than decitabine across all key outcomes. These results accentuate the positive role of azacitidine in providing cost-effective care for MDS.     

Cost-effectiveness of dedicated dietitians for hyperphosphatemia management among hemodialysis patients in Lebanon: results from the Nutrition Education for Management of Osteodystrophy trial

Aim: To assess the cost-effectiveness of nutrition education by dedicated dietitians (DD) for hyperphosphatemia management among hemodialysis patients.

Materials and methods: This was a trial-based economic evaluation in 12 Lebanese hospital-based units. In total, 545 prevalent patients were cluster randomized to DD, trained hospital dietitian (THD), and existing practice (EP) groups. During Phase I (6 months), DD (n?=?116) received intensive education by DD trained on renal nutrition, THD (n?=?299) received care from trained hospital dietitians, and EP (n?=?130) received usual care from untrained hospital dietitians. Patients were followed-up during Phase II (6 months).

Results: At baseline, EP had the lowest weekly hemodialysis time, and DD had the highest serum phosphorus and malnutrition-inflammation score. The additional costs of the intervention were low compared with the societal costs (DD: $76.7, $21,007.7; EP: $4.6, $18,675.4; THD: $17.4, $20,078.6, respectively). Between Phases I and II, DD showed the greatest decline in services use and societal costs (DD: –$2,364.0; EP: –$1,727.7; THD: –$1,105.7). At endline, DD experienced the highest decrease in adjusted serum phosphorus (DD: –0.32; EP: +0.16; THD: +0.04?mg/dL), no difference in quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), and the highest societal costs. DD had a cost-effectiveness ratio of $7,853.6 per 1?mg decrease in phosphorus, compared with EP; and was dominated by THD. Regarding QALY, DD was dominated by EP and THD. The results were sensitive to changes in key parameters.

Limitations: The analysis depended on numerous assumptions. Interpreting the results is limited by the significant baseline differences in key parameters, suggestive of higher baseline societal costs in DD.

Conclusions: DD yielded the greatest effectiveness and decrease in societal costs, but did not affect QALY. Regarding serum phosphorus, DD was likely to be cost-effective compared with EP, but had a low cost-effectiveness probability compared with THD. Regarding QALY, DD was not likely to be cost-effective. Assessing the long-term cost-effectiveness of DD, on similar groups, is recommended.     

Cost-effectiveness of denosumab vs zoledronic acid for prevention of skeletal-related events in patients with solid tumors and bone metastases in the United States

Abstract

Objective:

With increasing healthcare resource constraints, it has become important to understand the incremental cost-effectiveness of new medicines. Subcutaneous denosumab is superior to intravenous zoledronic acid (ZA) for the prevention of skeletal-related events (SREs) in patients with advanced solid tumors and bone metastases. This study sought to determine the lifetime cost-effectiveness of denosumab vs ZA in this setting, from a US managed-care perspective.

Methods:

A lifetime Markov model was developed, with relative rate reductions in SREs for denosumab vs ZA derived from three pivotal Phase 3 trials involving patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC), breast cancer, and non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and bone metastases. The real-world SRE rates in ZA-treated patients were derived from a large commercial database. SRE and treatment administration quality-adjusted life year (QALY) decrements were estimated with time-trade-off studies. SRE costs were estimated from a nationally representative commercial claims database. Drug, drug administration, and renal monitoring costs were included. Costs and QALYs were discounted at 3% annually. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted.

Results:

Across tumor types, denosumab was associated with a reduced number of SREs, increased QALYs, and increased lifetime total costs vs ZA. The costs per QALY gained for denosumab vs ZA in CRPC, breast cancer, and NSCLC were $49,405, $78,915, and $67,931, respectively, commonly considered good value in the US. Costs per SRE avoided were $8567, $13,557, and $10,513, respectively. Results were sensitive to drug costs and SRE rates.

Limitations:

Differences in pain severity and analgesic use favoring denosumab over ZA were not captured. Mortality was extrapolated from fitted generalized gamma function beyond the trial duration.

Conclusion:

Denosumab is a cost-effective treatment option for the prevention of SREs in patients with advanced solid tumors and bone metastases compared to ZA. The overall value of denosumab is based on superior efficacy, favorable safety, and more efficient administration.     

Cost effectiveness of rosuvastatin in patients at risk of cardiovascular disease based on findings from the JUPITER trial

Abstract

Objective:

This study assessed the long-term cost effectiveness of rosuvastatin therapy compared with placebo in reducing the incidence of major cardiovascular (CVD) events and mortality.

Methods:

A probabilistic Monte Carlo simulation model estimated long-term cost effectiveness of rosuvastatin therapy (20?mg daily) for the prevention of CVD mortality and morbidity. The model included three stages: (1) CVD prevention simulating the 4 years of the JUPITER trial, (2) initial CVD prevention beyond the trial, and (3) subsequent CVD event prevention. A US payer perspective was assessed reflecting direct medical costs, and up to a lifetime horizon. Sensitivity analyses tested the robustness of the model estimates.

Results:

For a hypothetical cohort of 100,000 patients at moderate and high risk of CVD events based on Framingham risk of ≥10%, estimated quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained with rosuvastatin therapy compared with placebo was 33,480 over a lifetime horizon, and 25,380 and 9916 over 20-year and 10-year horizons, respectively. Approximately 12,073 events were avoided over the lifetime; 6,146 non-fatal MIs, 2905 non-fatal strokes, and 4030 CVD deaths avoided. Estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for cost per QALY was $7062 (lifetime), $10,743 (20-year horizon), and $44,466 (10-year horizon). For a hypothetical cohort similar to the overall JUPITER population, the cost per QALY ICER was $11,025 for the lifetime and $60,112 for a 10-year horizon.

Limitations:

The cost-effectiveness comparison of rosuvastatin 20?mg was against no active treatment (as opposed to an alternative statin) due to lack of comparative cardiovascular morbidity and mortality risk reduction data for other statins in a population similar to the JUPITER trial population. The analysis was conducted from the payer perspective and lack of inclusion of indirect costs limit interpretability of results from a societal perspective.

Conclusions:

Treatment with rosuvastatin 20?mg daily, is a cost-effective treatment alternative to no treatment in patients at a higher risk (Framingham risk ≥10%) of CVD.     

Tumor treating fields and maintenance temozolomide for newly-diagnosed glioblastoma: a cost-effectiveness study

Abstract

Purpose: The EF-14 trial demonstrated that adding tumor treating fields (TTFields) to maintenance temozolomide (TMZ) significantly extends progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for newly-diagnosed glioblastoma (GBM) patients. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of TTFields and TMZ for newly-diagnosed GBM from the US healthcare system perspective.

Methods and materials: Outcomes for newly-diagnosed GBM patients were estimated over a lifetime horizon using an area under the curve model with three states: stable disease, progressive disease, or death. The survival model integrated the 5-year EF-14 trial results with long-term GBM epidemiology data and US background mortality rates. Adverse event rates were derived from the EF-14 trial data. Utility values to determine quality-adjusted life-years, adverse event costs, and supportive care costs were obtained from published literature. A 3% discount rate was applied to future costs and outcomes. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess result uncertainty due to parameter variability.

Results: Treatment with TTFields and TMZ was estimated to result in a mean increase in survival of 1.25 life years (95% credible range [CR]?=?0.89–1.67) and 0.96 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) (95% CR = 0.67–1.30) compared to treatment with TMZ alone. The incremental total cost was $188,637 (95% CR = $145,324–$225,330). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was $150,452 per life year gained and $197,336 per QALY gained. The model was most sensitive to changes in the cost of TTFields treatment.

Conclusions: Adding TTFields to maintenance TMZ resulted in a substantial increase in the estimated mean lifetime survival and quality-adjusted survival for newly-diagnosed GBM patients. Treatment with TTFields can be considered cost-effective within the reported range of willingness-to-pay thresholds in the US.     

Cost-effectiveness of primary antifungal prophylaxis with posaconazole versus itraconazole in allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation

Abstract

Purpose:

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of posaconazole vs itraconazole in the prevention of invasive fungal infections (IFIs) in recipients of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT).

Methods:

Total hospital-based costs from initial admission for allo-HSCT until day 100 after transplantation were evaluated for 49 patients in whom the clinical efficacy of antifungal prophylaxis with posaconazole vs itraconazole had been previously analyzed and reported. Clinical and economic data were used to determine the incremental costs per IFI avoided and per life-year gained for posaconazole compared with itraconazole. Confidence intervals for the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and a cost-effectiveness acceptability curve were estimated through bootstrapping with the bias-corrected percentile method.

Results:

According to our analysis, the total cost of allo-HSCT per patient during the 100-day fixed-treatment period was €46,562 in the posaconazole group (n?=?33) and €45,080 in the itraconazole group (n?=?16). However, the reduction in the incidence of IFI and the improved outcome with posaconazole resulted in a favorable ICER of €11,856 per IFI avoided and €5218 per life-year gained. With the outcomes of the bootstrap procedure, the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve was constructed. Assuming a threshold of €30,000 per life-year gained, the ICER based on life-years gained is acceptable with 75% certainty.

Limitations:

This evaluation is based on data from a single-center, non-randomized study. Preference weights or utilities were not available to calculate quality-adjusted life-years. Extra-mural costs were only partially evaluated from a hospital perspective. Indirect costs and economic consequences are not included.

Conclusions:

This economic evaluation compared direct medical costs associated with posaconazole or itraconazole treatment; the data suggest that posaconazole may be cost-effective as antifungal prophylaxis during the early high-risk neutropenic period and up to 100 days after allo-HSCT.     

Cost per responder analysis in patients with secondary hyperparathyroidism on dialysis treated with cinacalcet

Abstract

Background:

Growing financial pressure on US dialysis providers requires economic efficiency considerations. The objective of this study was to examine short-term economic efficiencies of a cinacalcet-based treatment approach for secondary hyperparathyroidism.

Methods:

This study retrospectively assessed cost per biochemical response of the OPTIMA trial. OPTIMA was conducted in end-stage renal disease patients to compare biochemical control in patients receiving cinacalcet in addition to vitamin D sterols and phosphate binders vs patients receiving vitamin D sterol and phosphate binders alone. It explored three laboratory measurement response definitions from baseline to week 23: (1) decreases in parathyroid hormone (PTH) ≥30%; (2) PTH?≤?300?pg/ml; and (3) PTH?≤?300?pg/mL, calcium <9.5?mg/dL and phosphorus <5.5?mg/dL. Medication use and costs were measured to calculate average costs and incremental cost per responder. Stratification by lower and higher baseline PTH assessed cost per response by disease severity.

Results:

There were 38–77% more responders with cinacalcet vs control, depending on response definition. Mean (SD) per patient total medication costs were $5423 ($3698) for cinacalcet and $2633 ($2334) for control, leading to a mean difference of $2790 over 23 weeks. When response was defined as a decrease in PTH?≥?30% from baseline, the average cost per responder was $11,266 for control vs $7027 for cinacalcet. The incremental cost per incremental responder ranged from $5186–$9168. Across all response measures, cost per responder was lower in patients with lower baseline PTH.

Conclusions:

Representing a more efficient allocation of economic resources over the short-term, cinacalcet-based treatment algorithm led to a lower cost per biochemical response, particularly in patients with lower disease severity, vs vitamin D sterols and phosphate binders alone. These findings should be interpreted alongside the study limitation of converting international trial-based medication utilization into US costs.     

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.     

The cost implications of the use of telmisartan or ramipril in patients at high risk for vascular events: the ONTARGET study

Abstract

Background:

The recently published ONTARGET trial found that telmisartan was non-inferior to ramipril in reducing CV death, MI, stroke, or heart failure in patients with vascular disease or high-risk diabetes. The cost implications of ramipril and telmisartan monotherapy use based on the ONTARGET study are reported here.

Methods and Results:

Only healthcare system costs were considered. Healthcare resource utilization was collected for each patient during the trial. The authors obtained country-specific unit costs to the different healthcare care resources consumed (i.e., hospitalizations events, procedures, non-study, and study drugs) for all enrolled patients. Purchasing power parities were used to convert country-specific costs into US dollars (US$ 2008). The total undiscounted costs of the study for the telmisartan group was $12,762 per patient and is higher than the ramipril group at $12,007 per patient, an un-discounted difference of $755 (95% confidence interval [CI], $218–$1292); The discounted costs for the telmisartan group was $11,722 compared with $11,019 for the ramipril group; a difference of $703 (95% CI, $209–$1197). The difference in costs is exclusively related to the acquisition cost of telmisartan over generic ramipril.

Limitations:

This analysis only considered direct healthcare system costs. Costs accrued outside the hospital were not collected. Combination therapy was excluded since it would likely be more expensive than ramipril alone, with no additional benefit and a risk of some harm.

Conclusions:

Based on these results, it is suggested that for the ONTARGET patients, the use of telmisartan instead of ramipril increases costs by 6.3%. These findings suggest that the choice to put patients on telmisartan should be justified based on the patient’s susceptibility to specific adverse events to minimize the cost implications.     

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.