Cost-analysis model of colonoscopy preparation using split-dose reduced-volume oral sulfate solution (OSS) and polyethylene glycol with electrolytes solution (PEG-ELS)

Objective:

The study aimed to (1) develop a cost model for colonoscopy preparation among patients referred for colonoscopy using split-dose reduced-volume oral sulfate solution (OSS) and generic polyethylene glycol with electrolytes solution (PEG-ELS), (2) examine cost savings associated with OSS vs PEG-ELS, and (3) assess the robustness of the cost model.

Methods:

Efficacy of each agent was based on the results of a 541-patient clinical trial comparing OSS to PEG-ELS. Cleansing agent and colonoscopy procedure costs were calculated from OptumHealth Reporting & Insights claims data for 2010–Q12013. In the model, patients’ colonoscopies were tracked over a 25 or 35 year time period until the patients reached age 75. The difference per patient per year (PPPY) in total cleansing agent and colonoscopy procedure costs over the time horizon between the OSS and PEG-ELS cohort was calculated. One-way sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the robustness of the cost model.

Results:

The model showed lower cost for OSS patients over the time horizon. Total PPPY costs were $280.34 for the OSS cohort and $296.36 for the PEG-ELS cohort, resulting in a cost saving of $16.01 PPPY for the OSS cohort. This was due primarily to OSS patients having fewer colonoscopies (OSS: 0.158 vs PEG-ELS: 0.170 PPPY). Over the time horizon, cost savings of $4 763 335 were observed among 10, 000 OSS patients. Cost savings switched from OSS to PEG-ELS cohort in four cases: (1) base-case cost of a completed colonoscopy decreased by 75%, (2) base-case cost of OSS increased to over $143 per usage, (3) all non-completers were lost to follow-up, and (4) OSS bowel preparation quality dropped below PEG-ELS to 70%.

Conclusions:

From a payer’s perspective, the model showed that the use of OSS as the cleansing agent resulted in potential cost savings compared with PEG-ELS. Cost savings under OSS remained under various sensitivity analyses.     

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 demineralized bone matrix in combination with autograft in lumbar spinal fusion procedures for the treatment of lumbar degenerative disc disease in Spain

Objective: To estimate the budget impact (BI) of introducing local autograft (LA) combined with demineralized bone matrix (LA?+?DBM) in lumbar spinal fusion (LSF) procedures to treat lumbar degenerative disc disease (LDDD) in Spain.

Methods: A decision tree model was developed to evaluate the 4-year BI associated with introducing LA?+?DBM putty to replace currently available grafting methods, including iliac crest bone graft (ICBG), LA alone, and LA combined with beta-tricalcium phosphate (LA?+?ceramics), with 30%, 40%, and 30% market shares, respectively. The analysis was conducted for a hypothetical cohort of 100 patients with LDDD receiving LSF, assuming LA?+?DBM would replace 100% of the standard of care mix. The fusion rates extracted from the literature were validated by an expert panel. Costs (€2017) were obtained from different Spanish sources. Budget impact and incremental cost per successful fusion were calculated from the perspective of the Spanish National Health System (NHS).

Results: Over 4 years, replacing currently available options with LA?+?DBM for 100 patients resulted in an additional cost of €12,330 (€123/patient), and an additional 14 successful fusions, implying a cost of €881 per additional successful fusion. When costs of productivity loss were included, the introduction of LA?+?DBM resulted in cost savings of €70,294 (€703/patient).

Limitations: The lack of high-quality, homogeneous, head-to-head research studying the efficacy of grafting procedures available to patients undergoing LSF, in addition to a lack of long-term follow-up in existing studies. Therefore, the number of fusions occurring within the model’s time horizon may be underestimated.

Conclusions: Acquisition costs of DBM were partially offset by costs of failed fusions, adverse events and reoperation when switching 100 hypothetical LDDD patients undergoing LSF procedures from standard of care grafting methods to LA?+?DBM from the perspective of the Spanish NHS. DBM cost was entirely offset when costs of lost productivity were considered.     

Cost-minimization comparison of darunavir plus ritonavir and lopinavir/ritonavir in HIV-1 infected treatment-naïve women of childbearing age

Background:

Guidelines from the Department of Health and Human Services in the US recommend ritonavir-boosted lopinavir (LPV/r) as a preferred protease inhibitor (PI) for HIV-positive antiretroviral-na?ve pregnant women. These guidelines also cite ritonavir-boosted darunavir (DRV?+?RTV) as an alternative PI in this clinical scenario. The purpose of this analysis was to compare economic outcomes for regimens based on these two treatments.

Study design:

An existing discrete event simulation (DES) model was adapted to conduct a cost-minimization analysis comparing the two regimens in HIV-infected women of childbearing age (WOCBA), from the perspective of a healthcare payer in the US.

Methods:

The DES model was used to represent disease states, health events, healthcare encounters, pregnancy, and treatment choices in HIV-infected WOCBA starting treatment with regimens based on either LPV/r or DRV?+?RTV. It also incorporated parameters for individual patient characteristics, and for antiretroviral (ARV) treatment effectiveness, treatment sequencing, clinical progression, and resource use. Potential events included scheduled physician visits; viral suppression; viral rebound; AIDS-related complications; CHD events; treatment discontinuation and switching; ARV treatment side-effects (SE); and death. The primary outcomes were discounted 5-year and 10-year healthcare costs. Alternative scenarios considered different rates of switching from DRV?+?RTV to LPV/r upon conception.

Results:

Compared with DRV?+?RTV, LPV/r was associated with similar clinical outcomes while offering savings at the 5- and 10-year horizons (of $24,904 and $43,502 per patient, respectively), and in extensive sensitivity analyses. The main driver of the savings was the difference in cost between PIs.

Conclusions:

Starting HIV-infected ARV-treatment-na?ve WOCBA on an LPV/r-based regimen is cost-saving and provides similar patient outcomes compared to a DRV?+?RTV-based regimen.     

Choice of angiotensin receptor blocker in moderate hypertension. A UK-based cost–benefit comparison of olmesartan- and candesartan-based regimens

Abstract

Introduction:

Selection of antihypertensive therapy hinges on an appropriate combination of efficacy, tolerability and compatibility with co-morbidities. Within a given class of antihypertensives, the choice of agent is often driven by cost, with the cheapest appropriate agent being chosen. Amongst the angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), this choice will often be losartan, as it is available in generic form. However, as the blood pressure lowering efficacy of losartan is modest, some patients will require an alternative ARB. In the UK this choice is often candesartan, although the agent with greatest BP lowering efficacy is olmesartan. The objective of this study was to use a cost-benefit model to compare the costs associated with target achievement using each of these two agents, in order to guide optimum use of prescribing budgets.

Method:

A probabilistic cost-benefit model was constructed for a cohort of patients with moderate hypertension, based on a standardised titration and maintenance algorithm using either olmesartan or candesartan, combined with thiazide and calcium channel blocker where required. Direct treatment costs were recorded, along with the proportion of patients achieving pre-defined treatment targets at each treatment level. Results were expressed as mean treatment cost per patient reaching target.

Results:

Based on the current QoF target of 150?mmHg systolic, 94.3% of patients on the olmesartan-based regimen reached target of 150?mmHg, compared with 89.0% of those on the candesartan-based regimen. 86% of olmesartan patients reached target on <3 drugs, compared with 74% of candesartan patients. The mean 12-month cost per patient reaching target was £171.36 for olmesartan versus £189.91 for candesartan. Ongoing annual maintenance costs for patients at target were £169.97 and £182.64, respectively. Similar results were obtained when considering alternative treatment targets

Limitations:

The study only compared two ARBs – candesartan and olmesartan and the results relate to prescribing costs only and do not include other healthcare costs. Additionally, the chosen outcome was blood pressure target achievement, rather than clinical endpoints. Given the stated objectives of the model, we do not believe these issues will have introduced bias in the direction of either comparator

Conclusion:

Although olmesartan has an apparently higher acquisition cost than candesartan, its superior BP lowering efficacy means that the overall cost per patient treated to target is actually lower. This result could have significant implications for making savings within primary care prescribing budgets in the UK.     

Cost-minimisation analysis of erlotinib in the second-line treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer: a Brazilian perspective

Abstract

Objective: A cost-minimisation and budget impact analysis of erlotinib versus docetaxel or pemetrexed as second-line treatment for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Methods: Costs and budgetary impacts were estimated from the perspective of a Brazilian private healthcare payer, based on results of the BR.21 study of erlotinib and pivotal trials of docetaxel and pemetrexed. A 126-day timeframe was evaluated, based on the progression-free survival determined for erlotinib in BR.21. A Delphi panel identified local practices and associated costs in Brazil. Other costs accounted for included medical payments, pre- and post-chemotherapy medication and drug administration costs. Multivariate sensitivity analyses were performed, but given the short time frame used, discounting was not applied.

Results: Total costs were R$26,825 for erlotinib, R$42,284 for docetaxel and R$79,841 for pemetrexed. Cost savings with erlotinib were attributable to lower acquisition costs (R$26,795 vs. R$40,217 for docetaxel and R$78,911 for pemetrexed) and lower costs for the management of side effects. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the results. The budget impact analysis showed savings with erlotinib in the first year, ranging from R$3 million to R$28 million.

Conclusion: Erlotinib is cost-saving over established chemotherapy in the second-line treatment of advanced NSCLC under the Brazilian private healthcare system.     

A budget impact analysis of budesonide/formoterol in patients with mild asthma in Egypt

Abstract

Background: The aim of this study is to estimate the budget impact of budesonide/formoterol fixed dose combination (FDC) vs salbutamol, both used as needed, in mild asthma patients, from the perspective of the Health Insurance Organization (HIO).

Methods: A static budget impact model was developed to assess the impact of budesonide/formoterol FDC entry on HIO budget over a 3-year period in Egyptian settings. Direct medical costs, including the costs of asthma medications, exacerbations, and management of side-effects, were obtained from HIO cost data. Population data were obtained from the World Bank and supplemented with local studies, and the rates of exacerbations, adverse effects, and number of sick leave days were elicited from the SYGMA 1 trial. Scenario analyses from a societal perspective and deterministic sensitivity analyses were conducted.

Results: The total costs (drug and non-drug costs) for managing mild asthma patients from the HIO perspective were estimated to be EGP8.563 billion before budesonide/formoterol entry compared to EGP5.525 billion post-entry, leading to a total budget savings of EGP3.038 billion after 3?years. This total budget saving included an increase in drug costs (EGP104 million) and a decrease in non-drug costs (EGP3.143 billion). Drug costs were higher in the budesonide/formoterol group than in the salbutamol group, but this cost was offset by reductions in non-drug costs, resulting in a reduction in the total costs of healthcare resources. At the societal level, the total budget savings after including the indirect costs was expected to be EGP5.976 billion after 3?years of budesonide/formoterol entry.

Conclusion: Budesonide/formoterol in mild asthma instead of salbutamol produces better patient outcomes and decreases total costs, with increases in drug cost offset by reductions in non-drug costs due to fewer exacerbations. Budesonide/formoterol is a budget saving option for guideline-directed treatment, from the economic perspective of the payer and the health perspective of the patient.     

Cost of adverse events during treatment with everolimus plus exemestane or single-agent chemotherapy in patients with advanced breast cancer in Western Europe

Objective:

Treatment options for recurrent or progressive hormone receptor-positive (HR+) advanced breast cancer include chemotherapy and everolimus plus exemestane (EVE?+?EXE). This study estimates the costs of managing adverse events (AEs) during EVE?+?EXE therapy and single-agent chemotherapy in Western Europe.

Methods:

An economic model was developed to estimate the per patient cost of managing grade 3/4 AEs for patients who were treated with EVE?+?EXE or chemotherapies. AE rates for patients receiving EVE?+?EXE were collected from the phase III BOLERO-2 trial. AE rates for single-agent chemotherapy, capecitabine, docetaxel, or doxorubicin were collected from published clinical trial data. AEs with at least 2% prevalence for any of the treatments were included in the model. A literature search was conducted to obtain costs of managing each AE, which were then averaged across Western European countries (when available). Per patient costs for managing AEs among patients receiving different therapies were reported in 2012 euros (€).

Results:

The EVE?+?EXE combination had the lowest average per patient cost of managing AEs (€730) compared to all chemotherapies during the first year of treatment (doxorubicin: €1230; capecitabine: €1721; docetaxel: €2390). The most costly adverse event among all patients treated with EVE?+?EXE was anemia (on average €152 per patient). The most costly adverse event among all patients treated with capecitabine, docetaxel, or doxorubicin was lymphocytopenia (€861 per patient), neutropenia (€821 per patient), and leukopenia (€382 per patient), respectively.

Conclusions:

The current model estimates that AE management during the treatment of HR+ advanced breast cancer will cost one-half to one-third less for EVE?+?EXE patients than for chemotherapy patients. The consideration of AE costs could have important implications in the context of healthcare spending for advanced breast cancer treatment.     

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.     

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.     

Evaluating the length of stay and value of time in a pediatric emergency department with two models by comparing two different albuterol delivery systems

Abstract

Objective:

Asthma is one of the most common childhood illnesses and accounts for a substantial amount of pediatric emergency department visits. Historically, acute exacerbations are treated with a beta agonist via nebulizer therapy (NEB). However, with the advent of the spacer, the medication can be delivered via a metered dose inhaler (MDI?+?S) with the same efficacy for mild-to-moderate asthma exacerbations. To date, no study has been done to evaluate emergency department (ED) length of stay (LOS) and opportunity cost between nebulized vs MDI?+?S. The objective of this study was to compare ED LOS and associated opportunity cost among children who present with a mild asthma exacerbation according to the delivery mode of albuterol: MDI?+?S vs NEB.

Methods:

A structured, retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted. Medical records were reviewed from children aged 1–18 years treated at an urban pediatric ED from July 2007 to June 2008 with a discharge diagnosis International Classification of Disease-9 of asthma. Length of stay was defined: time from initial triage until the time of the guardian signature on the discharge instructions. An operational definition was used to define a mild asthma exacerbation; those patients requiring only one standard weight based albuterol treatment. Emergency department throughput time points, demographic data, treatment course, and delivery method of albuterol were recorded.

Results:

Three hundred and four patients were analyzed: 94 in the MDI?+?S group and 209 in the NEB group. Mean age in years for the MDI?+?S group was 9.57 vs 5.07 for the NEB group (p?<?0.001). The percentage of patients that received oral corticosteroids was 39.4% in the MDI?+?S group vs 61.7% in the NEB group (p?<?0.001). There was no difference between groups in: race, insurance status, gender, or chest radiographs. The mean ED LOS for patients in the MDI?+?S group was 170 minutes compared to 205 minutes in the NEB group. On average, there was a 25.1 minute time savings per patient in ED treatment time (p?<?0.001; 95% CI?=?3.8–31.7). Significant predictors of outcome for treatment time were chest radiograph, steroids, and treatment mode. Opportunity cost analysis estimated a potential cost savings of $213,532 annually using MDI?+?S vs NEB.

Conclusion:

In mild asthma exacerbations, administering albuterol via MDI?+?S decreases ED treatment time when compared to administering nebulized albuterol. A metered dose inhaler with spacer utilization may enhance opportunity cost savings and decrease the left without being seen population with improved throughput.

Limitations:

The key limitations of this study include its retrospective design, the proxy non-standard definition of mild asthma exacerbation, and the opportunity cost calculation, which may over-estimate the value of ED time saved based on ED volume.     

A cost-effectiveness and budget impact analysis of apremilast in patients with psoriasis in the Italian setting

Abstract

Aims: The aim of this study was to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis, as well as a budget impact analysis, on the use of apremilast for the treatment of adult patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis (defined as a psoriasis area severity index [PASI]?≥?10), who failed to respond to, had a contraindication to, or were intolerant to other systemic therapies, within the Italian National Health Service (NHS).

Materials and methods: A Markov state-transition cohort model adapted to the Italian context was used to compare the costs of the currently available treatments and of the patients’ quality of life with two alternative treatment sequences, with or without apremilast as pre-biologic therapy. Moreover, a budget impact model was developed based on the population of patients treated for psoriasis in Italy, who would be eligible for treatment with apremilast.

Results: Over 5?years, the cost-effectiveness analysis showed that the strategy of using apremilast before biologic therapy was dominant compared with the sequence of biologic treatments without apremilast. In addition, it is important to underline that the use of apremilast slightly increases the quality-adjusted life years gained over 5?years. Furthermore, within the budget impact analysis, the strategy including apremilast would lead to a saving of €16 million within 3?years. Savings would mainly be related to a reduction in pharmaceutical spending, hospital admissions and other drug administration-related costs.

Conclusion: These models proved to be robust to variation in parameters and it suggested that the use of apremilast would lead to savings to the Italian healthcare system with potential benefits in terms of patients’ quality of life.     

Budget impact analysis for dapagliflozin in type 2 diabetes in Egypt

Abstract

Introduction: Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a major health problem in Egypt with a high impact on morbidity, mortality, and healthcare resources. This study evaluated the budget impact and the long-term consequences of dapagliflozin versus other conventional medications, as monotherapy, from both the societal and health insurance perspectives in Egypt.

Methods: A static budget impact model was developed to estimate the financial consequences of adopting dapagliflozin on the healthcare payer budget. We measured the direct medical costs of dapagliflozin (new scenario) as monotherapy, compared to metformin, insulin, sulphonylurea, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, thiazolidinedione, and repaglinide (old scenarios) over a time horizon of 3 years. Myocardial infarction (MI), ischemic stroke, hospitalization for heart failure (HHF), and initiation of renal replacement therapy (RRT) rates were captured from DECLARE TIMI 58 trial. One-way sensitivity analyses were conducted.

Results: The budget impact model estimated 2,053,908 patients eligible for treatment with dapagliflozin from a societal perspective and 1,207,698 patients from the health insurance (HI) perspective. The new scenario allows for an initial savings of EGP121 million in the first year, which increased to EGP243 and EGP365 million in the second and third years, respectively. The total cumulative savings from a societal perspective were estimated at EGP731 million. Dapagliflozin allows for savings of EGP71, EGP143, and EGP215 million in the first, second and third years respectively, from the HI perspective, with total cumulative savings of EGP430 million over the 3 years.

Conclusion: Treating T2DM patients using dapagliflozin instead of conventional medications, maximizes patients’ benefits and decreases total costs due to drug cost offsets from fewer cardiovascular and renal events. The adoption of dapagliflozin is a budget-saving treatment option, resulting in substantial population-level health gains due to reduced event rate and cost savings from the perspective of the national healthcare system.     

Budget impact analysis of adjunctive therapy with lacosamide for partial-onset epileptic seizures in Belgium

Summary

Objective:

This study aims to compute the budget impact of lacosamide, a new adjunctive therapy for partial-onset seizures in epilepsy patients from 16 years of age who are uncontrolled and having previously used at least three anti-epileptic drugs from a Belgian healthcare payer perspective.

Methods:

The budget impact analysis compared the ‘world with lacosamide’ to the ‘world without lacosamide’ and calculated how a change in the mix of anti-epileptic drugs used to treat uncontrolled epilepsy would impact drug spending from 2008 to 2013. Data on the number of patients and on the market shares of anti-epileptic drugs were taken from Belgian sources and from the literature. Unit costs of anti-epileptic drugs originated from Belgian sources. The budget impact was calculated from two scenarios about the market uptake of lacosamide.

Results:

The Belgian target population is expected to increase from 5333 patients in 2008 to 5522 patients in 2013. Assuming that the market share of lacosamide increases linearly over time and is taken evenly from all other anti-epileptic drugs (AEDs), the budget impact of adopting adjunctive therapy with lacosamide increases from €5249 (0.1% of reference drug budget) in 2008 to €242,700 (4.7% of reference drug budget) in 2013. Assuming that 10% of patients use standard AED therapy plus lacosamide, the budget impact of adopting adjunctive therapy with lacosamide is around €800,000–900,000 per year (or 16.7% of the reference drug budget).

Conclusions:

Adjunctive therapy with lacosamide would raise drug spending for this patient population by as much as 16.7% per year. However, this budget impact analysis did not consider the fact that lacosamide reduces costs of seizure management and withdrawal. The literature suggests that, if savings in other healthcare costs are taken into account, adjunctive therapy with lacosamide may be cost saving.     

Budget impact analysis of long acting injection for schizophrenia in Japan

Abstract

Aims: To estimate the budgetary impact of providing additional reimbursement for long acting injections for schizophrenia patients in psychiatric hospital settings in Japan to improve patient outcomes in schizophrenia.

Methods: Budget impact analysis of change in reimbursement policy using a prevalence-based model over a five-year time horizon. The results are reported as net change in expenditure and consequent cost/savings in Japanese yen at the time of analysis.

Results: The budget impact analysis shows that an increase in reimbursement for LAIs could lead to cumulative savings of an estimated 36.6 billion JPY over five years. These savings result from a decrease in hospitalization costs and an increased usage of LAI (assumed to be 10%). Based on the sensitivity analysis, the saving estimates are most sensitive to change in market share of generic and branded oral antipsychotics.

Limitations: Historical data were used to estimate the future costs of drug and hospitalization; however, it is not the best predictor of future, hence a source of potential bias. A good level of treatment adherence with oral antipsychotics was assumed, which is generally not the case; therefore, we might have overestimated the effectiveness of oral atypical antipsychotics. Additionally, the drug cost due to reimbursement might have also been overestimated because in clinical setting, the increase of LAI use may not have reached 10% of the market share. Lastly, patients’ behavior was derived from models, which may have loosely approximated the reality.

Conclusions: An additional reimbursement for the use of LAI in schizophrenia patients is likely to be cost neutral/cost saving and should be considered as a policy option to improve patient outcomes and budget sustainability.     

Annual cost of relapses and relapse-related hospitalizations in adults with schizophrenia: results from a 12-month,double-blind,comparative study of lurasidone vs quetiapine extended-release

Abstract

Purpose:

To model the economic impact of annual relapses/relapse-related hospitalizations among adults with schizophrenia treated with lurasidone or quetiapine extended-release (XR).

Methods:

A probabilistic model estimating per-patient-per-year (PPPY) direct mental healthcare (MH) cost differences due to relapses/relapse-related hospitalizations was developed using relapse and relapse-related hospitalization rates from a 12-month, double-blind, parallel-group, global comparison study of lurasidone vs quetiapine XR (all patients previously treated with lurasidone or quetiapine XR for 6 weeks). Analyses were conducted for both all subjects and clinical responders. Direct costs associated with inpatient and outpatient mental healthcare-related services were obtained from a large, prospective, observational study of schizophrenia treatment in usual-care settings for relapsing and non-relapsing patients, including psychiatric hospitalizations, emergency services, medication management, and outpatient individual therapy. Model robustness was tested using univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

Results:

Model-estimated PPPY MH cost savings associated with relapse-related hospitalization rates in all subjects were $3276 for lurasidone vs quetiapine XR. Lurasidone resulted in PPPY MH cost savings of $2702 vs quetiapine XR in all subjects, using relapse rates. Sensitivity analyses indicated lurasidone had lower 1-year MH costs than quetiapine XR in 100% and 99.7% of simulations, using relapse-related hospitalization rates and relapse rates, respectively, in all subjects. Similar results were seen in clinical responders.

Limitations:

The model represents a simplification of treatment patterns and response to treatment. Cost of treatment with lurasidone and quetiapine XR was not included in the model. Estimates of cost savings are likely conservative, as the model did not assess the impact of long-term cardiometabolic consequences. Indirect costs associated with relapses and non-mental health-related costs were also excluded from the model.

Conclusion:

Adults treated for schizophrenia with lurasidone are predicted to have lower 12-month MH costs compared to those treated with quetiapine XR due to fewer relapses and relapse-related hospitalizations.     

Fingolimod reduces direct medical costs compared to natalizumab in patients with relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis in The Netherlands

Abstract

Objective:

To assess the costs of oral treatment with Gilenya® (fingolimod) compared to intravenous infusion of Tysabri® (natalizumab) in patients with relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) in The Netherlands.

Methods:

A cost-minimization analysis was used to compare both treatments. The following cost categories were distinguished: drug acquisition costs, administration costs, and monitoring costs. Costs were discounted at 4%, and incremental model results were presented over a 1, 2, 5, and 10 year time horizon. The robustness of the results was determined by means of a number of deterministic univariate sensitivity analyses. Additionally, a break-even analysis was carried out to determine at which natalizumab infusion costs a cost-neutral outcome would be obtained.

Results:

Comparing fingolimod to natalizumab, the model predicted discounted incremental costs of ?€2966 (95% CI: ?€4209; ?€1801), ?€6240 (95% CI: ?€8800; ?€3879), ?€15,328 (95% CI: ?€21,539; ?€9692), and ?€28,287 (95% CI: ?€39,661; ?€17,955) over a 1, 2, 5, and 10-year time horizon, respectively. These predictions were most sensitive to changes in the costs of natalizumab infusion. Changing these costs of €255 within a range from €165–364 per infusion resulted in cost savings varying from €4031 to €8923 after 2 years. The additional break-even analysis showed that infusion costs—including aseptic preparation of the natalizumab solution—needed to be as low as the respective costs of €94 and €80 to obtain a cost neutral result after 2 and 10 years.

Limitations:

Neither treatment discontinuation and subsequent re-initiation nor patient compliance were taken into account. As a consequence of the applied cost-minimization technique, only direct medical costs were included.

Conclusion:

The present analysis showed that treatment with fingolimod resulted in considerable cost savings compared to natalizumab: starting at €2966 in the first year, increasing to a total of €28,287 after 10 years per RRMS patient in the Netherlands.     

Evaluation of cost savings with ferric carboxymaltose in anemia treatment through its impact on erythropoiesis-stimulating agents and blood transfusion: French healthcare payer perspective

Abstract

Objective:

To evaluate the economic impact of intravenous iron (in the form of intravenous iron preparation of ferric carboxymaltose) in three different clinical settings of iron deficiency anemia: chemotherapy-induced anemia in breast cancer, chemotherapy-induced anemia in digestive cancer, and perioperative anemia in knee and hip surgery.

Methods:

The economic model compared the usual therapeutic strategies of anemia without intravenous iron and strategies including intravenous iron, in each of the three clinical settings selected. Costs related to anemia treatment by erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESA), blood transfusion, and intravenous iron were estimated and compared inside each setting. Cost savings were calculated from the French healthcare payer perspective. Data included in the economic model were obtained from scientific literature, public health agencies, and medical experts.

Results:

The most prominent annual cost savings were observed in chemotherapy-induced anemia in breast cancer (€997 and €360 per patient for metastatic and non-metastatic breast cancers, respectively; global cost saving, €33.6 million). This large impact of intravenous iron on costs was mainly explained by both a lower number of women treated and lower ESA dosing. Mean annual cost saving in digestive cancers and knee and hip surgery were estimated to €168 and €216 per patient and global cost savings of €7.5 and €12.1 million, respectively. Overall, annual cost savings in these three settings were estimated to €53 million including €39 million for ESA cost savings. Sensitivity analysis showed that strategies including intravenous iron remained cost-effective even with wide variations in the assumptions, particularly for cost savings on ESA.

Limitations:

Economic model based on literature data and expert opinions.

Conclusions:

The present economic model suggests that use of intravenous iron, according to recommendations of international guidelines, is cost saving, particularly in chemotherapy-induced anemia in breast cancers.     

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.     

Cost–consequence analysis of a hemostatic matrix alone or in combination for spine surgery patients

Background: A five-year retrospective database analysis comparing the use of Floseal¹ flowable topical hemostat alone (F) and in combination with gelatin/thrombin (F?+?G/T) to achieve hemostasis and control surgical bleeding showed higher resource utilization for F?+?G/T cases relative to F matched pairs during spinal surgery. Lower resource use in the F group was characterized by shorter hospital length of stay and surgical time as well as fewer blood transfusions and less hemostat agent used per surgery.

Objective: To evaluate the cost–consequence of using F compared to F?+?G/T in minor, major and severe spinal surgery from the US hospital perspective.

Methods: A cost–consequence model was developed using the US hospital perspective. Model inputs include clinical inputs from the literature, cost inputs (hemostatic matrices, blood product transfusion, hospital stay and operating room time) from the literature, and an analysis of annual spine surgery volume (minor, major and severe) using the 2012 National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database. Costs are reported in 2017?US dollars. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses address sources of variability in the results.

Results: A medium-volume hospital (130 spine surgeries per year) using F versus F?+?G/T for spine surgeries is expected to require 85 less hours of surgical time, 58 fewer hospital days and 7 fewer blood transfusions in addition to hemostat volume savings (F: 1?mL, thrombin: 1994?mL). The cost savings associated with the hospital resources for a medium-volume hospital are expected to be $317,959 (surgical hours?=?$154,746, hospital days?=?$125,237, blood transfusions?=?$19,023, hemostatic agents?=?$18,953) or $2445 per spine surgery.

Conclusions: The use of F versus F?+?G/T could lead to annual cost savings for US hospitals performing a low to high volume of spinal surgeries per year.