Economic evaluation of extended and conventional prophylaxis with enoxaparin against venous thromboembolism in patients undergoing surgery for abdominal cancer

Summary

This study assesses the cost-effectiveness of extended enoxaparin prophylaxis (EEP) and conventional enoxaparin prophylaxis (CEP) compared with conventional unfractionated heparin prophylaxis (CUP) against venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients undergoing surgery for abdominal cancer.

A decision tree model compared CEP (enoxaparin 40 mg once daily for 8±2 days), EEP (CEP plus 21 days outpatient prophylaxis with enoxaparin 40 mg once daily), and CUP (unfractionated heparin (UFH) 5,000 IU three times daily for 8±2 days). The primary effectiveness measure was symptomatic VTE. Secondary effectiveness measures included life-years gained.

CEP was associated with reduced costs and similar rates of symptomatic VTE compared with UFH. The cost per life year gained with EEP was estimated to be £15,200 compared with UFH and £22,700 compared with CEP.

Extended prophylaxis reduces symptomatic VTE events but increases cost. In patients undergoing surgery for abdominal malignancy, conventional prophylaxis with enoxaparin 40 mg once daily was found to be at least as effective as UFH, and cost saving at current prices.     

An economic evaluation of ramipril in the treatment of patients at high risk for cardiovascular events due to diabetes mellitus

SUMMARY

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a major cause of death and morbidity in the United Kingdom (UK) and carries with it a significant financial cost through health care resource use. More than one in three people die from CVD events, and the cost to the UK National Health Service (NHS) was £1.6 billion in 1996¹. The recently published MICRO-HOPE study evaluated the treatment of 3,577 patients at high risk for cardiovascular events from diabetes mellitus and demonstrated significant survival and morbidity benefits associated with ramipril.

The purpose of this paper is to assess whether the significant clinical benefits offered by ramipril can be translated into economic benefits, and to what extent it can reduce the economic burden of CVD to the UK NHS.

Applying the same analytical framework used in a previous economic analysis of the HOPE study, our base case estimate of cost-effectiveness for ramipril in the MICRO HOPE study is £2,396 per life-year saved (undiscounted) and £2,971 per life-year saved (discounted). A sensitivity analysis was performed which ranged from a best case of £1,954 per life-year saved (undiscounted) to a worst case of £2,964 per life-year saved (undiscounted). Our base case estimate of cost-effectiveness suggests that treating patients at high risk for CVD events with ramipril is likely to be a good investment of NHS resources.     

Cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban compared with enoxaparin plus a vitamin K antagonist for the treatment of venous thromboembolism

Background:

Venous thromboembolism (VTE), comprised of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), is commonly treated with a low-molecular-weight heparin such as enoxaparin plus a vitamin K antagonist (VKA) to prevent recurrence. Administration of enoxaparin?+?VKA is hampered by complexities of laboratory monitoring and frequent dose adjustments. Rivaroxaban, an orally administered anticoagulant, has been compared with enoxaparin?+?VKA in the EINSTEIN trials. The objective was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban compared with enoxaparin?+?VKA as anticoagulation treatment for acute, symptomatic, objectively-confirmed DVT or PE.

Methods:

A Markov model was built to evaluate the costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios associated with rivaroxaban compared to enoxaparin?+?VKA in adult patients treated for acute DVT or PE. All patients entered the model in the ‘on-treatment’ state upon commencement of oral rivaroxaban or enoxaparin?+?VKA for 3, 6, or 12 months. Transition probabilities were obtained from the EINSTEIN trials during treatment and published literature after treatment. A 3-month cycle length, US payer perspective ($2012), 5-year time horizon and a 3% annual discount rate were used.

Results:

Treatment with rivaroxaban cost $2,448 per-patient less and was associated with 0.0058 more QALYs compared with enoxaparin?+?VKA, making it a dominant economic strategy. Upon one-way sensitivity analysis, the model’s results were sensitive to the reduction in index VTE hospitalization length-of-stay associated with rivaroxaban compared with enoxaparin?+?VKA. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000/QALY, probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed rivaroxaban to be cost-effective compared with enoxaparin?+?VKA approximately 76% of the time.

Limitations:

The model did not account for the benefits associated with an oral and minimally invasive administration of rivaroxaban. ‘Real-world’ applicability is limited because data from the EINSTEIN trials were used in the model. Also, resource utilization and costs were based on the US healthcare system.

Conclusion:

Rivaroxaban is a cost-effective option for anticoagulation treatment of acute VTE patients.     

Economic evaluation of ramipril in the treatment of patients at high risk for cardiovascular events

SUMMARY

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a primary cause of death and morbidity in the United Kingdom (UK). Recently, the Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation (HOPE) trial demonstrated significant survival and morbidity benefits associated with ramipril use in the treatment of patients at high risk for cardiovascular events. The purpose of this paper is to assess whether and to what extent, these clinical benefits might translate into economic benefits from the perspective of the UK NHS. Using trial data and a decision-analytic model, our base case estimate of cost-effectiveness is £4,406 per life-year saved (undiscounted) and £5,544 per life-year saved (discounted). The extreme values of our sensitivity analyses ranged from a best case of £2,814 per life-year saved (undiscounted) to a worst case of £10,291 per life-year saved (undiscounted). Our base case estimate of cost-effectiveness suggests that treating patients at high risk for CVD events with ramipril is likely to be a good investment of NHS resources.     

Cost and outcomes associated with rivaroxaban vs enoxaparin for the prevention of postsurgical venous thromboembolism from a US payer’s perspective

Abstract

Objective:

The objective of this analysis was the evaluation of the outcomes and costs associated with rivaroxaban and enoxaparin for the prevention of postsurgical venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients undergoing total hip replacement (THR) and total knee replacement (TKR) from the US payer perspective.

Methods:

VTE event rates have been reported in three Phase III clinical trials that compared rivaroxaban and enoxaparin for VTE prevention after orthopedic surgery during the prophylaxis (≤35 days for THR patients and 10–14 days for TKR patients) and post-prophylaxis periods (≤90 days following surgery). These data were used in this decision-analytic model to estimate and compare health outcomes and costs associated with rivaroxaban and enoxaparin. The base-case analysis considered the number and costs of symptomatic VTE events during the prophylaxis period only. A 90-day horizon was considered in the sensitivity analysis.

Results:

Following THR, when extended durations of prophylaxis (35 days) were compared, rivaroxaban was associated with lower costs than enoxaparin, with total saving costs of $695/patient. When an extended duration of rivaroxaban prophylaxis (35 days) was compared with a short duration (10–14 days) of enoxaparin prophylaxis, rivaroxaban was estimated to prevent 9.9 additional symptomatic VTE events per 1000 patients, while saving $244/patient (rate/1000 patients). In the TKR population, short duration of rivaroxaban prophylaxis was estimated to prevent 13.1 additional symptomatic VTE events per 1000 patients. It was also less costly than short duration enoxaparin prophylaxis, with a saving of $411/patient (rate/1000 patients).

Limitations:

Only statistically significant differences were captured in the base-case economic analysis, and, therefore, differences in pulmonary embolism (PE) and bleeding events were not captured.

Conclusions:

In this model, rivaroxaban reduced total treatment payer costs vs enoxaparin for the prevention of VTE in THR or TKR patients.     

Economic evaluation of the use of enoxaparin for thromboprophylaxis in acutely ill medical patients

SUMMARY

The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism (VTE) in acutely ill medical patients using 40 mg enoxaparin od compared with unfractionated heparin (UFH) and placebo. An established decision tree model based on epidemiological data, clinical trials, and a recent meta-analysis was used to evaluate costs and consequences of alternative means of thromboprophylaxis in medical patients. Primary outcome measures were episodes of VTE (deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism) and major bleeding. Secondary effectiveness measures included estimated mortality. In-hospital drug costs and administration time, in conjunction with long-term VTE complications up to 15 years and major bleeding, were considered. Results were estimated for a hypothetical cohort of 100 patients. The expected cost per 100 patients was £9,992 with enoxaparin 40 mg od, £9,972 with UFH 5000 IU bd and £8,781 with no prophylaxis. The expected number of episodes of VTE per 100 patients was 1.2 with enoxaparin 40 mg od, 1.4 with UFH 5000 IU bd and 3.2 with no prophylaxis. The expected number of episodes of major bleeding per 100 patients was 1.7 with enoxaparin 40 mg od, 3.5 with UFH 5000 IU bd and 1.1 with no prophylaxis. The cost-effectiveness ratios for enoxaparin compared to no prophylaxis were £796 per VTE event avoided (taking into account the small increase in bleeding). In acutely ill medical patients, enoxaparin 40 mg od was found to be cost-effective compared with no thromboprophylaxis. Compared to UFH prophylaxis, enoxaparin was found to be cost neutral.     

Economic evaluation of the use of Innohep® in the treatment of acute pulmonary embolism

Summary

This article reports the cost implications of using Innohep® (tinzaparin), a low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), instead of intravenous (iv) unfractionated heparin (UFH) in the treatment of acute pulmonary embolism (PE). The expected cost per patient, including initial treatment costs and the cost of managing adverse outcomes (but excluding costs common to both regimes) was found to be £191.81 for patients treated with UFH and £186.64 for patients treated with Innohep® (costs estimated as of end 1997). Therefore, the use of Innohep® reduces the expected cost per patient by £5.17 or 3%. When the costs of managing adverse outcomes occurring after cessation of UFH/Innohep® therapy are excluded, expected costs per patient for UFH and Innohep® treatment are £136.70 and £120.22, respectively. Therefore, when outcomes not directly attributable to the choice between UFH and Innohep® treatment are reduced, the use of Innohep® reduces the expected cost per patient by £16.48 or 12%.

Innohep® reduces costs through greater ease of administration, by removing the need for extensive laboratory monitoring and by saving staff time. These results are generally robust to variations in key assumptions. Sensitivity analysis demonstrates that if patients treated with Innohep® can be discharged from hospital earlier, with their treatment continuing at home, substantial cost savings may result.     

Retrospective database study to assess the economic impact of hip fracture in the United Kingdom

Objective:

Publications containing recent, real-world data on the economic impact of hip fractures in the UK are lacking. This retrospective electronic medical records database analysis assessed medication and healthcare resource use, direct healthcare costs, and factors predicting increased resource use and costs in adult UK hip fracture patients.

Methods:

Data were obtained from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink linked to the Hospital Episode Statistics for adult patients hospitalized for their first hip fracture between January 1, 2006 and March 31, 2011 (index event); healthcare costs were calculated from the National Health Service perspective using 2011–2012 cost data.

Results:

Data from 8028 patients were analyzed. Resource use and costs were statistically significantly higher in the year following fracture (mean total [standard deviation (SD)] cost £7359 [£14,937]) compared with the year before fracture (mean total [SD] cost £3122 [£9435]; p?Conclusions:

Although we did not capture all pre- and post-index costs and healthcare utilization, this study provides important insights regarding the characteristics of patients with hip fracture, and information that will be useful in burden-of-illness and economic analyses.     

Costs of hospital visits among patients with deep vein thrombosis treated with rivaroxaban and LMWH/warfarin

Background:

For many years, the standard of care for patients diagnosed with deep vein thrombosis (DVT) has been low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) bridging to an oral Vitamin-K antagonist (VKA). The availability of new non-VKA oral anticoagulants (NOAC) agents as monotherapy may reduce the likelihood of hospitalization for DVT patients.

Objective:

To compare hospital visit costs of DVT patients treated with rivaroxaban and LMWH/warfarin.

Methods:

A retrospective claim analysis was conducted using the MarketScan Hospital Drug Database for care provided between January 2011 and December 2013. Adult patients using rivaroxaban or LMWH/warfarin with a primary diagnosis of DVT during the first day of a hospital visit were identified (i.e., index hospital visit). Based on propensity-score methods, historical LMWH/warfarin patients (i.e., patients who received LMWH/warfarin before the approval of rivaroxaban) were matched 4:1 to rivaroxaban patients. The hospital-visit cost difference between these groups was evaluated for the index hospital visit, as well as for total hospital-visit costs (i.e., including index and subsequent hospital visit costs).

Results:

All rivaroxaban users (n?=?134) in the database were well-matched with four LMWH/warfarin users (n?=?536). The mean hospital-visit costs were $5257 for the rivaroxaban cohort and $6764 in the matched-cohort of patients using LMWH/warfarin. The $1508 cost difference was statistically significant between cohorts (95% CI?=?[?$2296; ?$580]; p-value?=?0.002). Total hospital-visit costs were lower for rivaroxaban compared to LMWH/warfarin users within 1, 2, 3, and 6 months after index visit (significantly lower within 1 and 3 months, p-values <0.05)

Limitations:

Limitations were inherent to administrative-claims data, completeness of baseline characteristics, adjustments restricted to observational factors, and lastly the sample size of the rivaroxaban cohort.

Conclusion:

The availability of rivaroxaban significantly reduced the costs of hospital visits in patients with DVT treated with rivaroxaban compared to LMWH/warfarin.     

Quality of life benefits and cost impact of prolonged release oxycodone/naloxone versus prolonged release oxycodone in patients with moderate-to-severe non-malignant pain and opioid-induced constipation: a UK cost-utility analysis

Abstract

Objective:

To compare the cost effectiveness of prolonged release oxycodone/naloxone (OXN) tablets (Targinact) and prolonged release oxycodone (OXY) tablets (OxyContin) in patients with moderate-to-severe non-malignant pain and opioid-induced constipation (OIC) from the perspective of the UK healthcare system.

Methods:

A cohort model used data from a phase III randomised, controlled trial (RCT). It calculated the cost difference between treatments by combining the cost of pain therapy with costs of laxatives and other resources used to manage constipated patients. SF-36 scores were converted into EQ-5D utility values to calculate the quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gains. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

Results:

The incremental cost of OXN versus OXY was £159.68 for the average treatment duration of 301 days. OXN gave an incremental QALY gain of 0.0273. The estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was £5841.56 per QALY. Sensitivity analyses gave a maximum ICER of £10,347.03. In some scenarios, OXN dominated with a cost saving of up to £4254.70. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that OXN had approximately 96.6% probability of cost effectiveness at the £20,000 threshold.

Limitations:

The model was conservative in predicting the probability of constipation beyond the 12-week RCT period. UK cost of constipation data were limited and based on primary care physician opinion.

Conclusions:

In the base case, direct treatment costs were slightly higher for patients treated with OXN than for those treated with OXY. However, patients treated with OXN experienced a quality of life gain, and had an ICER considerably below thresholds commonly applied in the UK. The model was most sensitive to the estimated cost of constipation with a number of realistic scenarios in the sensitivity analysis demonstrating a cost saving with OXN (OXN dominant). OXN is therefore estimated to be a cost-effective option for treating patients with severe non-malignant pain and OIC.     

Cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban in the prevention of venous thromboembolism: A Canadian analysis using the Ontario Ministry of Health Perspective

Abstract

Objectives:

A cost-effectiveness model for rivaroxaban evaluated the cost-effectiveness of prophylaxis with rivaroxaban (a once-daily, orally administered Factor Xa inhibitor) vs enoxaparin in the prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE) after total hip replacement (THR) and total knee replacement (TKR). This Canadian analysis was conducted using the Ontario Ministry of Health perspective over a 5-year time horizon. The model combined clinical data and builds upon existing economic models.

Methods:

The model included both acute VTE (represented as a decision tree) and long-term complications (represented as a Markov process with 1-year cycles) phases. The model allowed VTE event rates, quality-adjusted life expectancy and direct medical costs to be estimated over a 5-year time horizon, based on current approved practice patterns in Canada. A number of one-way sensitivity analyses were performed on the baseline assumptions, including a comparison of rivaroxaban with dalteparin, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to address any uncertainty concerning model inputs.

Results:

When comparing equal durations of therapy, rivaroxaban dominated enoxaparin in the prevention of VTE events in patients undergoing THR and TKR, providing more benefit at a lower cost. Rivaroxaban was cost-effective when comparing 35 days’ prophylaxis with 14 days’ prophylaxis with enoxaparin following THR. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the results of the economic analysis were robust to variations in key inputs. Rivaroxaban remained dominant during one-way sensitivity analyses comparing rivaroxaban with dalteparin after THR or TKR.

Limitations:

Although clinical trial data were used in the prophylaxis module, assumptions and values used in the post-prophylaxis and long-term complication (LTC) modules were based on several different literature sources; it was not always possible to source Canadian data.

Conclusions:

This economic analysis suggests that the use of rivaroxaban for the prophylaxis of VTE after THR or TKR in Canada was cost-effective.     

Length of stay and economic consequences with rivaroxaban vs enoxaparin/vitamin K antagonist in patients with DVT and PE: findings from the North American EINSTEIN clinical trial program

Objective:

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) (deep vein thrombosis [DVT] and pulmonary embolism [(PE]) represents a substantial economic burden to the healthcare system. Using data from the randomized EINSTEIN DVT and PE trials, this North American sub-group analysis investigated the potential of rivaroxaban to reduce the length of initial hospitalization in patients with acute symptomatic DVT or PE.

Methods:

A post-hoc analysis of hospitalization and length-of-stay (LOS) data was conducted in the North American sub-set of patients from the randomized, open-label EINSTEIN trial program. Patients received either rivaroxaban (15?mg twice daily for 3 weeks followed by 20?mg once daily; n?=?405) or dose-adjusted subcutaneous enoxaparin overlapping with (guideline-recommended ‘bridging’ therapy) and followed by a vitamin K antagonist (VKA) (international normalized ratio?=?2.0–3.0; n?=?401). The open-label study design allowed for the comparison of LOS between treatment arms under conditions reflecting normal clinical practice. LOS was evaluated using investigator records of dates of admission and discharge. Analyses were carried out in the intention-to-treat population using parametric tests. Costs were applied to the LOS based on weighted mean cost per day for DVT and PE diagnoses obtained from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project dataset.

Results:

Of 382 patients hospitalized, 321 (84%), had acute symptomatic PE; few DVT patients required hospitalization. Similar rates of VTE patients were hospitalized in the rivaroxaban and enoxaparin/VKA treatment groups, 189/405 (47%) and 193/401 (48%), respectively. In hospitalized VTE patients, rivaroxaban treatment produced a 1.6-day mean reduction in LOS (median?=?1 day) compared with enoxaparin/VKA (mean?=?4.5 vs 6.1; median?=?3 vs 4), translating to total costs that were $3419 lower in rivaroxaban-treated patients.

Conclusion:

In hospitalized North American patients with VTE, treatment with rivaroxaban produced a statistically significant reduction in LOS. When treating DVT and PE patients, clinicians should consider newer anti-coagulants with less complex treatment regimens.     

An assessment of the cost of percutaneous pulmonary valve implantation (PPVI) versus surgical pulmonary valve replacement (PVR) in patients with right ventricular outflow tract dysfunction

Abstract

Background:

Percutaneous pulmonary valve implantation (PPVI) using the Melody transcatheter pulmonary valve is a new procedure introduced in 2000 as a less invasive treatment for right ventricular outflow tract (RVOT) dysfunction. The aim of this new procedure is to restore pulmonary valve competence without the need of open-chest operation. By prolonging the conduit lifespan, it delays surgical pulmonary valve replacement (PVR) and it can therefore potentially reduce the number of open-chest interventions over a patient’s lifetime. PPVI has been shown to be feasible and safe and can be performed with a low complication rate.

Objectives and Methods:

The aim of this study is to assess the cost of PPVI and the cost of surgical pulmonary valve replacement (PVR) in patients with right ventricular outflow tract dysfunction using a cohort simulation model applied to the UK population.

Results:

The model resulted in an estimate of mean cost per patient of £5,791 when PPVI is unavailable as a treatment option and in an estimate of mean cost per patient of £8,734 when PPVI is available over the 25-year period of analysis. After sensitivity analysis was undertaken the results showed that the mean per patient cost difference in implementing PPVI over 25 years as compared to surgical PVR lies somewhere between £2,041 and £3,913.

Limitations:

Given the lack of long-term data on treatment progression, the cost estimates derived here are subject to considerable uncertainty, and extensive sensitivity analysis has been used to counter this. Consequently this study is merely indicative of the levels of cost which can be expected in a cohort of 1,000 patients faced with a choice of treatment with PPVI or surgery. It is not a cost-effectiveness study but it helps place current knowledge on short-term benefits into context.

Conclusions:

As this analysis shows PPVI is associated with a relatively small increase in treatment management costs over a long time period. It is left entirely to the reader to value whether this inferred increase in long-term cost is worthwhile given the known short-term benefits and any personal judgement formed over long-term benefit.     

Assessment of Resource Use and Costs Associated with Parathyroidectomy for Secondary Hyperparathyroidism in End Stage Renal Disease in the UK

Introduction:

Secondary hyperparathyroidism (SHPT) is a major complication of end stage renal disease (ESRD). For the National Health Service (NHS) to make appropriate choices between medical and surgical management, it needs to understand the cost implications of each. A recent pilot study suggested that the current NHS healthcare resource group tariff for parathyroidectomy (PTX) (£2071 and £1859 in patients with and without complications, respectively) is not representative of the true costs of surgery in patients with SHPT.

Objective:

This study aims to provide an estimate of healthcare resources used to manage patients and estimate the cost of PTX in a UK tertiary care centre.

Methods:

Resource use was identified by combining data from the Proton renal database and routine hospital data for adults undergoing PTX for SHPT at the University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff, from 2000–2008. Data were supplemented by a questionnaire, completed by clinicians in six centres across the UK. Costs were obtained from NHS reference costs, British National Formulary and published literature. Costs were applied for the pre-surgical, surgical, peri-surgical, and post-surgical periods so as to calculate the total cost associated with PTX.

Results:

One hundred and twenty-four patients (mean age?=?51.0 years) were identified in the database and 79 from the questionnaires. The main costs identified in the database were the surgical stay (mean?=?£4066, SD?=?£,130), the first month post-discharge (£465, SD?=?£176), and 3 months prior to surgery (£399, SD?=?£188); the average total cost was £4932 (SD?=?£4129). From the questionnaires the total cost was £5459 (SD?=?£943). It is possible that the study was limited due to missing data within the database, as well as the possibility of recall bias associated with the clinicians completing the questionnaires.

Conclusion:

This analysis suggests that the costs associated with PTX in SHPT exceed the current NHS tariffs for PTX. The cost implications associated with PTX need to be considered in the context of clinical assessment and decision-making, but healthcare policy and planning may warrant review in the light of these results.     

De-escalation from micafungin is a cost-effective alternative to traditional escalation from fluconazole in the treatment of patients with systemic Candida infections

Abstract

Background:

Systemic Candida infections (SCI) occur predominantly in intensive care unit patients and are a common cause of morbidity and mortality. Recently, changes in Candida epidemiology with an increasing prevalence of SCI caused by Candida non-albicans species have been reported. Resistance to fluconazole and azoles in general is not uncommon for non-albicans species. Despite guidelines recommending initial treatment with broad-spectrum antifungals such as echinocandins with subsequent switch to fluconazole if isolates are sensitive (de-escalation strategy), fluconazole is still the preferred first-line antifungal (escalation) in many clinical practice settings. After diagnosis of the pathogen, the initial therapy with fluconazole is switched to a broad-spectrum antifungal if a non-albicans is identified.

Methods:

The cost-effectiveness of initial treatment with micafungin (de-escalation) vs fluconazole (escalation) in patients with SCI was estimated using decision analysis based on clinical and microbiological data from pertinent studies. The model horizon was 42 days, and was extrapolated to cover a lifetime horizon. All costs were analyzed from the UK NHS perspective. Several assumptions were taken to address uncertainties; the limitations of these assumptions are discussed in the article.

Results:

In patients with fluconazole-resistant isolates, initial treatment with micafungin avoids 30% more deaths and successfully treats 23% more patients than initial treatment with fluconazole, with cost savings of £1621 per treated patient. In the overall SCI population, de-escalation results in 1.2% fewer deaths at a marginal cost of £740 per patient. Over a lifetime horizon, the incremental cost-effectiveness of de-escalation vs escalation was £15,522 per life-year and £25,673 per QALY.

Conclusions:

De-escalation from micafungin may improve clinical outcomes and overall survival, particularly among patients with fluconazole-resistant Candida strains. De-escalation from initial treatment with micafungin is a cost-effective alternative to escalation from a UK NHS perspective, with a differential cost per QALY below the ‘willingness-to-pay’ threshold of £30,000.     

Cost-effectiveness of insulin degludec compared with insulin glargine in a basal-bolus regimen in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus in the UK

Abstract

Objective:

The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of insulin degludec (IDeg) vs insulin glargine (IGlar) as part of a basal-bolus treatment regimen in adults with T1DM, using a short-term economic model.

Methods:

Data from two phase III clinical studies were used to populate a simple and transparent short-term model. The costs and effects of treatment with IDeg vs IGlar were calculated over a 12-month period. The analysis was conducted from the perspective of the UK National Health Service. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the degree of uncertainty surrounding the results. The main outcome measure, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), was the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY).

Results:

IDeg is a cost-effective treatment option vs IGlar in patients with T1DM on a basal-bolus regimen. The base case ICER was estimated at £16,895/QALY, which is below commonly accepted thresholds for cost-effectiveness in the UK. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the ICER was stable to variations in the majority of input parameters. The parameters that exerted the most influence on the ICER were hypoglycemia event rates, daily insulin dose, and disutility associated with non-severe nocturnal hypoglycemic events. However, even under extreme assumptions in the majority of analyses the ICERs remained below the commonly accepted threshold of £20,000–£30,000 per QALY gained.

Conclusions:

This short-term modeling approach accommodates the treat-to-target trial design required by regulatory bodies, and focuses on the impact of important aspects of insulin therapy such as hypoglycemia and dosing. For patients with T1DM who are treated with a basal-bolus insulin regimen, IDeg is a cost-effective treatment option compared with IGlar. IDeg may be particularly cost-effective for sub-groups of patients, such as those suffering from recurrent nocturnal hypoglycemia and those with impaired awareness of hypoglycemia.     

Economic and health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) comparison of lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) and atazanavir plus ritonavir (ATV+RTV) based regimens for antiretroviral therapy (ART)-naïve and -experienced United Kingdom patients in 2011

Abstract

Background:

Using a United Kingdom (UK)-based National Health Services perspective for 2011 this study first estimated the cost-effectiveness and budget impact implications for lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) vs atazanavir plus ritonavir (ATV+RTV) treatment of antiretroviral therapy (ART)-naïve patients and secondly examined the long-term health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) and economic implications for LPV/r vs ATV+RTV treatment of ART-experienced patients.

Methods:

A previously published Markov model that integrates epidemiological data of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) with predictors of coronary heart disease (CHD) was modified under a clearly specified set of assumptions to reflect viral load (VL) suppression profiles and other differences for these two regimens, applying results from the CASTLE study in ART-naïve patients and using data from BMS-045 in ART-experienced patients. ART costs were referenced to current (2011) pricing guidelines in the UK. Medical care costs reflected UK treatment patterns and relevant drug pricing. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3.5% per year. Costs are expressed in British pounds (£) and life expectancy in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs).

Results:

In the ART-naïve subjects, the model predicted a marginal improved life expectancy of 0.031 QALYs (11 days) for the ATV+RTV regimen as a result of predicted CHD outcomes based on lower increases in cholesterol levels compared with the LPV/r regimen. The model demonstrated cost savings with the LPV/r regimen. The total lifetime cost savings was £4070 per patient for the LPV/r regimen. LPV/r saved £2133 and £3409 per patient at 5 and 10 years, respectively. Referenced to LPV/r, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for ATV+RTV was £149,270/QALY. For ART-experienced patients VL suppression differences favored LPV/r, while CHD risk associated with elevated total cholesterol marginally favored ATV+RTV, resulting in a net improvement in life expectancy of 0.31 QALYs (106 days) for LPV/r. Five-year costs were £5538 per patient greater for ATV+RTV, with a discounted lifetime saving of £1445 per LPV/r patient. LPV/r was modestly dominant economically, producing better outcomes and cost savings.

Limitations:

The limitations of this study include uncertainty related to how well the model’s assumptions capture current practice, as well as the validity of the model parameters used. This study was limited to using aggregated data in the public domain from the two clinical trials. Thus, some of the model parameters may reflect limitations due to trial design and data aggregation bias. This study has attempted to illuminate the effect of these limitations by presenting the results of the comprehensive sensitivity analysis.

Conclusions:

Based on 2011 costs of HIV in the UK and the published efficacy data from the CASTLE and BMS-045 studies, ATV+RTV-based regimens are not expected to be a cost-effective use of resources for ART-naïve patients similar to patients in the CASTLE study, nor for ART-experienced patients based on the only published comparison of ATV+RTV and LPV/r.     

Cost-effectiveness of TYRX absorbable antibacterial envelope for prevention of cardiovascular implantable electronic device infection

Aims: Infection is a major complication of cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) therapy that usually requires device extraction and is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. The TYRX Antibacterial Envelope is a polypropylene mesh that stabilizes the CIED and elutes minocycline and rifampin to reduce the risk of post-operative infection.

Methods: A decision tree was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of TYRX vs standard of care (SOC) following implantation of four CIED device types. The model was parameterized for a UK National Health Service perspective. Probabilities were derived from the literature. Resource use included drug acquisition and administration, hospitalization, adverse events, device extraction, and replacement. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated from costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs).

Results: Over a 12-month time horizon, TYRX was less costly and more effective than SOC when utilized in patients with an ICD or CRT-D. TYRX was associated with ICERs of £46,548 and £21,768 per QALY gained in patients with an IPG or CRT-P, respectively. TYRX was cost-effective at a £30,000 threshold at baseline probabilities of infection exceeding 1.65% (CRT-D), 1.95% (CRT-P), 1.87% (IPG), and 1.38% (ICD).

Limitations and conclusions: Device-specific infection rates for high-risk patients were not available in the literature and not used in this analysis, potentially under-estimating the impact of TYRX in certain devices. Nevertheless, TYRX is associated with a reduction in post-operative infection risk relative to SOC, resulting in reduced healthcare resource utilization at an initial cost. The ICERs are below the accepted willingness-to-pay thresholds used by UK decision-makers. TYRX, therefore, represents a cost-effective prevention option for CIED patients at high-risk of post-operative infection.     

An indirect comparison,via enoxaparin,of rivaroxaban with dabigatran in the prevention of venous thromboembolism after hip or knee replacement

Abstract

Objective:

To compare the efficacy, in the prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE), and safety, of rivaroxaban and dabigatran relative to the common comparator enoxaparin.

Methods:

Two randomized clinical trials of dabigatran, one after total hip replacement (THR), RE-NOVATE, and one after total knee replacement (TKR), RE-MODEL, were identified as using the same enoxaparin regimen (40?mg once daily given the evening before surgery) and being of comparable duration to two rivaroxaban trials, RECORD1 and RECORD3. Indirect comparisons were performed on both efficacy and safety endpoints. To enable comparisons, symptomatic VTE results were based on the total study duration period, i.e. including the follow-up period. Major bleeding included surgical-site bleeding events.

Results:

After THR, rivaroxaban 10?mg once daily significantly reduced total VTE and symptomatic VTE relative to dabigatran 220?mg once daily (relative risk 0.34 and 0.19, respectively). After TKR, rivaroxaban significantly reduced total VTE versus dabigatran (relative risk 0.53); symptomatic VTE was not different between dabigatran and rivaroxaban. There was no significant difference in the rates of major bleeding for patients receiving rivaroxaban or dabigatran.

Conclusions:

Based on the indirect comparisons, rivaroxaban was estimated to be more efficacious than dabigatran in the prevention of total VTE after THR and TKR. Our analysis relied upon published data for dabigatran and did not have the advantages of more detailed comparative data obtained directly from a randomized trial, as was the case with rivaroxaban. Further comparative research may be of value, but until available our conclusions represent the best available evidence.     

A cost-analysis model for anticoagulant treatment in the hospital setting

Background:

Rivaroxaban is the first oral factor Xa inhibitor approved in the US to reduce the risk of stroke and blood clots among people with non-valvular atrial fibrillation, treat deep vein thrombosis (DVT), treat pulmonary embolism (PE), reduce the risk of recurrence of DVT and PE, and prevent DVT and PE after knee or hip replacement surgery. The objective of this study was to evaluate the costs from a hospital perspective of treating patients with rivaroxaban vs other anticoagulant agents across these five populations.

Methods:

An economic model was developed using treatment regimens from the ROCKET-AF, EINSTEIN-DVT and PE, and RECORD1-3 randomized clinical trials. The distribution of hospital admissions used in the model across the different populations was derived from the 2010 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project database. The model compared total costs of anticoagulant treatment, monitoring, inpatient stay, and administration for patients receiving rivaroxaban vs other anticoagulant agents. The length of inpatient stay (LOS) was determined from the literature.

Results:

Across all populations, rivaroxaban was associated with an overall mean cost savings of $1520 per patient. The largest cost savings associated with rivaroxaban was observed in patients with DVT or PE ($6205 and $2742 per patient, respectively). The main driver of the cost savings resulted from the reduction in LOS associated with rivaroxaban, contributing to ～90% of the total savings. Furthermore, the overall mean anticoagulant treatment cost was lower for rivaroxaban vs the reference groups.

Limitations:

The distribution of patients across indications used in the model may not be generalizable to all hospitals, where practice patterns may vary, and average LOS cost may not reflect the actual reimbursements that hospitals received.

Conclusion:

From a hospital perspective, the use of rivaroxaban may be associated with cost savings when compared to other anticoagulant treatments due to lower drug cost and shorter LOS associated with rivaroxaban.