Cost effectiveness analysis of a next generation risk assessment score for cardiovascular disease

Objectives:

The goal of this study is to determine the cost-effectiveness of MIRISK VP, a next generation coronary heart disease risk assessment score, in correctly reclassifying and appropriately treating asymptomatic, intermediate risk patients.

Study design:

A Markov model was employed with simulated subjects based on the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA). This study evaluated three treatment strategies: (i) practice at MESA enrollment, (ii) current guidelines, and (iii) MIRISK VP in MESA.

Methods:

The model assessed patient healthcare costs and outcomes, expressed in terms of life years and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), over the lifetime of the cohort from the provider and payer perspective. A total of 50,000 hypothetical individuals were used in the model. A sensitivity analysis was conducted (based on the various input parameters) for the entire cohort and also for individuals aged 65 and older.

Results:

Guiding treatment with MIRISK VP leads to the highest net monetary benefits when compared to the ‘Practice at MESA Enrollment’ or to the ‘Current Guidelines’ strategies. MIRISK VP resulted in a lower mortality rate from any CHD event and a modest increase in QALY of 0.12–0.17 years compared to the other two approaches.

Limitations:

This study has limitations of not comparing performance against strategies other than the FRS, the results are simulated as with all models, the model does not incorporate indirect healthcare costs, and the impact of patient or physician behaviors on outcomes were not taken into account.

Conclusions:

MIRISK VP has the potential to improve patient outcomes compared to the alternative strategies. It is marginally more costly than both the ‘Practice at MESA Enrollment’ and the ‘Current Guidelines’ strategies, but it provides increased effectiveness, which leads to positive net monetary benefits over either strategy.     

Budget impact analysis of a novel gene expression assay for the diagnosis of malignant melanoma

Background:

Traditional pathology techniques alone can be insufficient to reliably distinguish between malignant melanoma, dysplastic nevi, and benign nevi in biopsies of suspicious pigmented lesions. Numerous studies have shown high rates of ambiguity when assessing such samples. A novel gene expression assay has been developed to objectively differentiate malignant melanoma from benign nevi.

Objective:

The purpose of this study was to quantify the economic impact of the gene expression assay on a US commercial health plan.

Methods:

The clinical paradigm of care was modeled for a hypothetical cohort of patients with suspicious pigmented lesions that are difficult-to-diagnose. Costs were assigned to each unit of care provided based on 2013 Medicare fee-for-service rates. Patients were followed for 10 years and were modeled to progress according to the natural history of their disease. The total cost of care was calculated for two scenarios: a Reference Scenario, representing current clinical practice, and a Test Scenario, in which each lesion was tested with the gene expression assay and diagnosed. Total cost of care was compared between the two scenarios to determine overall budget impact. Sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the model.

Results:

The gene expression assay reduces costs by $1268 per patient tested over 10 years, a decrease of 8.3%, after accounting for the cost of the assay. For a health plan with 10 million members, this would translate to over $8 million in savings. The largest portion of this saving comes from reducing the number of missed melanomas, which would otherwise progress to advanced disease. In sensitivity analyses, no single model input changed within a reasonable range of values caused the model to show that the assay was not cost-saving.

Conclusion:

In addition to improving the diagnosis of melanoma, this gene expression assay would likely reduce costs for health plans that choose to cover it.     

Evolving provider payment models and patient access to innovative medical technology

Objective:

To investigate the evolving use and expected impact of pay-for-performance (P4P) and risk-based provider reimbursement on patient access to innovative medical technology.

Methods:

Structured interviews with leading private payers representing over 110 million commercially-insured lives exploring current and planned use of P4P provider payment models, evidence requirements for technology assessment and new technology coverage, and the evolving relationship between the two topics.

Results:

Respondents reported rapid increases in the use of P4P and risk-sharing programs, with roughly half of commercial lives affected 3 years ago, just under two-thirds today, and an expected three-quarters in 3 years. All reported well-established systems for evaluating new technology coverage. Five of nine reported becoming more selective in the past 3 years in approving new technologies; four anticipated that in the next 3 years there will be a higher evidence requirement for new technology access. Similarly, four expected it will become more difficult for clinically appropriate but costly technologies to gain coverage. All reported planning to rely more on these types of provider payment incentives to control costs, but didn’t see them as a substitute for payer technology reviews and coverage limitations; they each have a role to play.

Limitations:

Interviews limited to nine leading payers with models in place; self-reported data.

Conclusion:

Likely implications include a more uncertain payment environment for providers, and indirectly for innovative medical technology and future investment, greater reliance on quality and financial metrics, and increased evidence requirements for favorable coverage and utilization decisions. Increasing provider financial risk may challenge the traditional technology adoption paradigm, where payers assumed a ‘gatekeeping’ role and providers a countervailing patient advocacy role with regard to access to new technology. Increased provider financial risk may result in an additional hurdle to the adoption of new technology, rather than substitution of provider- for payer-based gatekeeping.     

Cost-effectiveness of metformin plus vildagliptin compared with metformin plus sulphonylurea for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a Portuguese healthcare system perspective

Objective:

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of vildagliptin plus metformin vs generic sulphonylurea plus metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, not controlled with metformin, from a Portuguese healthcare system perspective.

Methods:

A cost-effectiveness model was constructed using risk equations from the UK Prospective Diabetes Study Outcomes Model with a 10,000-patient cohort and a lifetime horizon. The model predicted microvascular and macrovascular complications and mortality in yearly cycles. Patients entered the model as metformin monotherapy failures and switched to alternative treatments (metformin plus basal-bolus insulin and subsequently metformin plus intensive insulin) when glycated hemoglobin A1c >7.5% was reached. Baseline patient characteristics and clinical variables were derived from a Portuguese epidemiological study. Cost estimates were based on direct medical costs only. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the robustness of the model.

Results:

There were fewer non-fatal diabetes-related adverse events (AEs) in patients treated with metformin plus vildagliptin compared with patients treated with metformin plus sulphonylurea (6752 vs 6815). Addition of vildagliptin compared with sulphonylurea led to increased drug acquisition costs but reduced costs of AEs, managing morbidities, and monitoring patients. Treatment with metformin plus vildagliptin yielded a mean per-patient gain of 0.1279 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and a mean per-patient increase in total cost of €1161, giving an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €9072 per QALY. Univariate analyses showed that ICER values were robust and ranged from €4195 to €16,052 per QALY when different parameters were varied.

Limitations:

The model excluded several diabetes-related morbidities, such as peripheral neuropathy and ulceration, and did not model second events. Patients were presumed to enter the model with no diabetes-related complications.

Conclusion:

Treatment with metformin plus vildagliptin compared with metformin plus sulphonylurea is expected to result in a lower incidence of diabetes-related AEs and to be a cost-effective treatment strategy.     

Warfarin monitoring economic evaluation of point of care self-monitoring compared to clinic settings

Objective:

To determine the cost-effectiveness of home-based point-of-care self-monitoring compared to clinic-based care for patients managed on long-term warfarin medication. Current evidence is inconsistent; results should reduce uncertainty and inform service delivery.

Methods:

A Markov model compared self-testing and self-management, using point-of-care devices to usual care in patients with atrial fibrillation and mechanical heart valves. The primary clinical end-points were stroke and mortality avoided; costs and utilities were associated with these events. The costs of warfarin monitoring were included in the model.

Results:

Over 10 years, self-monitoring saved £1187 per person compared to usual care. Patients who self-monitored had notably fewer strokes and deaths. The results were sensitive to life-years gained and cost of the device. If the NHS purchased the device, financial break-even was achieved at the end of the second year; if the patient bought the device the NHS saved money every year. If 10% of the current 950,000 patients switched to point-of-care devices for 10 years, the NHS could save over £112million.

Limitations:

Clinical studies had a relatively short duration and only data on composite end-points were reported.

Conclusions:

With training, self-testing and self-management are safe, reliable, and cost-effective for a sizable proportion of patients receiving long-term warfarin. Compared to clinic-based services, self-monitoring offers the NHS the potential to make cost savings and release bed-days by reducing the number of strokes experienced by these high-risk patients.     

A Canadian cost-effectiveness analysis of transcatheter mitral valve repair with the MitraClip system in high surgical risk patients with significant mitral regurgitation

Objective:

In patients with significant mitral regurgitation (MR) at high risk of mortality and morbidity from mitral valve surgery, transcatheter mitral valve repair with the MitraClip System is associated with a reduction in MR and improved quality-of-life and functional status compared with baseline. The objective was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of MitraClip therapy compared with standard of care in patients with significant MR at high risk for mitral valve surgery from a Canadian payer perspective.

Methods:

A decision analytic model was developed to estimate the lifetime costs, life years, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost per life year and QALY gained for patients receiving MitraClip therapy compared with standard of care. Treatment-specific overall survival, risk of clinical events, quality-of-life, and resource utilization were obtained from the Endovascular Valve Edge-to-Edge REpair High Risk Study (EVEREST II HRS). Health utility and unit costs (CAD $2013) were taken from the published literature. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore the impact of alternative assumptions and parameter uncertainty on results.

Results:

The base case incremental cost per QALY gained was $23,433. Results were most sensitive to alternative assumptions regarding overall survival, time horizon, and risk of hospitalization for congestive heart failure (CHF). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed MitraClip therapy to have a 92% chance of being cost-effective compared with standard of care at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000 per QALY gained.

Study limitations:

Key limitations include the small number of patients included in the EVEREST II HRS which informed the analysis, the limited data available to inform clinical events and disease progression in the concurrent comparator group, and the lack of a comparator group from a randomized control trial.

Conclusion:

MitraClip therapy is likely a cost-effective option for the treatment of patients at high risk for mitral valve surgery with significant MR.     

Indirect and non-medical economic burden,quality-of-life,and disabilities of the myelofibrosis disease in Spain

Introduction:

Myelofibrosis is a non-frequent chronic myeloproliferative Philadelphia-negative chromosome neoplasm. It is a heavy incapacitating orphan disease and associated with high morbidity and mortality. In this context, indirect and non-medical costs are expected to be high. The main objective of this project is to estimate the economic burden of this disease in Spain.

Methods:

Thirty-three patients with a diagnosis of myelofibrosis for at least 1 year participated in a questionnaire in three Spanish centers. The study consisted of analyzing in various aspects the cost and impact of the disease; indeed, daily life time limitations with a need of informal care, symtomatology. Additionally, information concerning the clinical management of the disease was collected through a focus group of eight experts.

Results:

The mean age was 65 years. 15 of 33 patients were at their productive stage. Six had difficulties at work and eight have received informal care. Bone and muscular pain were the main symptoms of patients (72%). The estimated global indirect and non-medical costs of the disease were 86,315€ per patient (20% working and 80% informal care), which reached 104,153€ at productive stage patients (45%) and 168,459€ for more symptomatic patients.

Conclusions:

The economic burden of indirect and non-medical costs of myelofibrosis are important (15,142€/annual) as a result, and should be considered in economic evaluation, as well as in preventive plans for patients and caregivers, despite the fact that studies with larger numbers of patients should be done.     

Economic outcomes of sequences which include monoclonal antibodies against vascular endothelial growth factor and/or epidermal growth factor receptor for the treatment of unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer

Background:

Patients with unresectable, metastatic colorectal cancer with wild type Kirsten ras mutational status are eligible for sequential treatments which include monoclonal antibodies as first line (1L), second line (2L), or third line (3L) regimens.

Objective:

To compare the economic outcomes of different sequences which include monoclonal antibodies for the treatment of unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer.

Methods:

Individual drug regimens for 1L, 2L, and 3L treatments were compiled according to the clinical studies in the Summary of Product Characteristics for monoclonal antibodies. They were combined into plausible treatment sequences. Health outcomes were approximated using additive median PFS benefit, and economic outcomes were calculated with a treatment sequencing costing tool. Limitations of the analysis include the clinical trial data sources, cost assumptions, and the additive PFS approach.

Results:

Seventeen sequences were evaluated. Results of the analysis show that sequences including 1L anti-EGFRs generally have relatively low-to-medium health outcomes at the highest comparative sequence costs compared to sequences including 2L anti-EGFRs, which have lower health outcomes at the lowest cost. Sequences including 3L anti-EGFRs (sequential bevazicumab-based 1L and 2L) have the highest health outcomes, with potential cost savings of €5972–€11,676 if replacing 2L anti-EGFRs or an additional cost of €5909–€12,708 if replacing 1L anti-EGFR regimens.

Conclusion:

Clinical sequences consisting of 1L and 2L line bevacizumab followed by 3L anti-EGFR potentially yield the greatest health outcomes associated with a reasonable trade-off in additional cost when replacing 1L anti-EGFRs and are potentially cost-saving if replacing 2L anti-EGFRs, per patient per lifetime. To maximize health outcomes, optimal sequences include anti-EGFRs as 3L regimen, with an approximately equivalent trade-off in costs between the most costly (anti-EGFR 2L) and least costly (anti-EGFR 1L) sequences.     

Cost effectiveness of a 92-gene assay for the diagnosis of metastatic cancer

Objectives:

To estimate the clinical and economic trade-offs involved in using a molecular assay (92-gene assay, CancerTYPE ID) to aid in identifying the primary site of difficult-to-diagnose metastatic cancers and to explore whether the 92-gene assay can be used to standardize the diagnostic process and costs for clinicians, patients, and payers.

Methods:

Four decision-analytic models were developed to project the lifetime clinical and economic impact of incorporating the 92-gene assay compared with standard care alone. For each model, total and incremental costs, life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost–effectiveness ratios (ICERs), and the proportion of patients treated correctly versus incorrectly were projected from the payer perspective. Model inputs were based on published literature, analyses of SEER (Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results) data, publicly available data, and interviews with clinical experts.

Results:

In all four models, the 92-gene assay increased the proportion of patients treated correctly, decreased the proportion of patients treated with empiric therapy, and increased quality-adjusted survival. In the primary model, the ICER was $50,273/QALY; thus, the 92-gene assay is therefore cost effective when considering a societal willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY. These findings were robust across sensitivity analyses.

Conclusions:

Use of the 92-gene assay for diagnosing metastatic tumors of uncertain origin is associated with reduced misdiagnoses, increased survival, and improved quality of life. Incorporating the assay into current practice is a cost-effective approach to standardizing diagnostic methods while improving patient care. Limitations of this analysis are the lack of data availability and resulting modeling simplifications, although sensitivity analyses showed these to not be key drivers of results.     

Recent trends in brand-name and generic drug competition

Objective:

To provide evidence on recent trends in: (1) market exclusivity periods (MEPs, the time between launch of a brand-name drug and its first generic competitor) for new molecular entities (NMEs); (2) the likelihood and timing of patent challenges under Paragraph IV of the Hatch-Waxman Act; and (3) generic drug penetration.

Methods:

IMS Health National Sales Perspectives data were used to calculate MEPs for the 257 NMEs experiencing initial generic entry between January 1995 and September 2012 and the number of generic competitors for 12 months afterwards, by level of annual sales prior to generic entry and time period. The likelihood and timing of Paragraph IV challenge were calculated using data from Abbreviated New Drug Approval (ANDA) approval letters, the FDA website, and public information searches to identify drugs experiencing Paragraph IV filings, and the first filing date.

Results:

For drugs experiencing initial generic entry in 2011–2012, the MEP was 12.6 years for drugs with sales greater than $100 million (in 2008 dollars) in the year prior to generic entry, 12.9 years overall. After generic entry, the brand rapidly lost sales, with average brand unit share of 16% at 1 year; 11% for NMEs with pre-generic entry sales of at least $250 million (in 2008 dollars). Over 80% of NMEs experiencing 2011–2012 initial generic entry had faced at least one Paragraph IV challenge from a generic manufacturer. These challenges were filed relatively early in the brand-name drug life cycle: within 7 years after brand launch, on average.

Limitations:

Analyses, including Paragraph IV calculations, were restricted to NMEs where generic entry had occurred.

Conclusion:

Pharmaceutical competition continues to evolve; while the average MEP below 13 years for 2011–2012 remains consistent with prior research, Paragraph IV challenges are increasingly frequent and occur earlier, and generic share erosion has intensified.     

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.     

Medication adherence and persistence in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with adalimumab and etanercept. Six years of analysis

Objective:

The aim of this study was to evaluate medication adherence and persistence of patients treated with Etanercept and Adalimumab for Rheumatoid Arthritis, also giving economic evaluations on therapy costs for Received Daily Dose (RDD).

Materials and methods:

This retrospective study took into account 6 years from January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2012. Medication adherence was quantified utilizing the ratio between RDD and Prescribed Daily Dose (PDD). Persistence has been reckoned taking into account the actual days of therapy comparing posology with supplied dose. The persistence has been graphed according to Kaplan-Meier method. The cost per RDD was reckoned starting from the expense incurred by Pescara General Hospital.

Results:

Medication adherence gave results in values between 0.88–0.97 for Etanercept and 0.83–0.90 for Adalimumab. The value of persistence was 100% for Etanercept and 90% for Adalimumab for the first year, and 70% for Etanercept and 80% for Adalimumab for the second year. In the 3rd year the persistence for Etanercept was 50% while for Adalimumab it was 60%. In the fourth year the persistence for Etanercept was 21% while for Adalimumab it was 27%. The statistical analysis was conducted using the Log rank test. The average cost per RDD was €32.97 for Etanercept and for Adalimumab it was €32.00 as an average of 6 years.

Conclusion:

The medication adherence was good for both Etanercept and Adalimumab. The rate of persistence decreased strictly in the fourth year of treatment. This data suggests the need for continuous monitoring of patients in treatment with TNF blockers.     

A retrospective study to assess the epidemiological and economic burden of pneumococcal diseases in adults aged 50 years and older in Taiwan

Objective:

Invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD) and pneumococcal pneumonia cause substantial morbidity and mortality worldwide. This retrospective study was conducted to estimate the disease burden from pneumococcal disease in older adults in Taiwan from a health insurer’s perspective.

Methods:

Data for the years 2002–2009 from patients aged ≥50 years with insurance records indicating pneumococcal meningitis, pneumococcal bacteremia, or hospitalized or outpatient pneumonia were obtained from the National Health Insurance Research Database in Taiwan. Admission data for inpatients, visit data for outpatients, and associated costs were extracted from the database to estimate the incidence, case fatality rates, and direct and indirect costs of pneumococcal disease episodes. These data were applied to the estimated population of Taiwan in 2010 to provide an estimated disease burden for a single year from the payer perspective.

Results:

The average incidence per 100,000 person years was 2.4 for IPD, 278.8 for hospitalized pneumococcal pneumonia, and 1376.4 for outpatient pneumococcal pneumonia. The average case fatality rate was 12.3% for IPD and 10.0% for hospitalized pneumonia. Hospitalized pneumonia accounted for over 90% of direct medical costs. The incidence of hospitalized pneumococcal pneumonia per 100,000 person years was 84.4 for adults of 50–64 years, 313.1 for adults of 65–74 years, 820.3 for adults of 75–84 years, and 1650.9 for adults of 85+ year of age. In 2010, it was estimated there were over 113,000 episodes of pneumococcal disease, causing almost 2000 deaths, with direct medical costs of more than NT$3.4 billion annually.

Conclusions:

Pneumococcal disease is a significant cause of mortality and excess healthcare expense among the elderly in Taiwan. Disease burden in older adults increases with advancing age.     

Administration costs of intravenous chemotherapy in treating peripheral T-cell lymphoma

Objective:

This retrospective cohort analysis was conducted to examine the cost components of administering IV chemotherapy to peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL) patients in the US to inform decision makers.

Methods:

Patients diagnosed with PTCL (ICD-9 code 202.7X) between 1 October 2007 and 30 September 2012 were identified from a US administrative claims database. Costs for patients receiving at least one NCCN recommended IV chemotherapy were assessed using the allowed payment from claim line items, categorized into cost components (study drug costs, IV administration costs and other visit-related services).

Results:

The mean costs to the payer for IV cancer therapy administration in a PTCL patient population averaged about $5735 per visit and $9356 per member per month (PMPM). Across all therapies, mean IV administration costs accounted for $127–$794 per visit and $594–$1808 PMPM, contributing an additional 2–32% to the total costs of the drug alone. Mean other visit-related services costs for treating PTCL accounted for $70–$2487 per visit and $444–$3094 PMPM, contributing an additional 2–74% to the total costs. Combined, these additional costs represent an additional mean cost of $220–$3150 per visit and $1193–$4609 PMPM to the base price of the drug alone.

Limitations:

This study used a convenience sample to identify PTCL patients and only included visits where at least one NCCN recommended IV chemotherapy was administered.

Conclusions:

The costs of IV administration and other visit-related services add measurable costs to the total cost of IV therapy for treating PTCL. When considering the cost of the drug, these additional costs can represent a substantial proportion of the overall costs and must be considered when evaluating the costs of IV treatment options for PTCL.     

Cost-effectiveness of asenapine in the treatment of schizophrenia in Canada

Objective:

Asenapine is the first tetracyclic antipsychotic approved in Canada for the treatment of schizophrenia (SCZ). Asenapine has shown a comparable efficacy profile to other atypical antipsychotics and it is associated with a favourable metabolic profile and less weight gain. This study aimed to assess the economic impact of asenapine compared to other atypical antipsychotics in the treatment of SCZ in Canada.

Methods:

A decision tree combined with a Markov model was constructed to assess the cost-utility of asenapine compared with other atypical antipsychotics. The decision tree takes into account the occurrence of extrapyramidal symptoms, the probability of switching to a different antipsychotic, and the probability of gaining weight. The Markov model takes into account long-term metabolic complications including diabetes, hypertension, coronary heart diseases, and stroke. In the base-case analysis, asenapine was compared to olanzapine. Asenapine was also compared with other atypical antipsychotics commonly used in Canada in alternative scenarios. Analyses were conducted from both Canadian Ministry of Health (MoH) and societal perspectives over a 5-year time horizon.

Results:

In the treatment of SCZ, asenapine is a dominant strategy over olanzapine from both MoH and societal perspectives. Compared to quetiapine, asenapine is also a dominant strategy. Furthermore, asenapine has a favorable economic impact compared to ziprasidone and aripiprazole, as these antipsychotics are not cost-effective compared to asenapine from both MoH and societal perspectives.

Conclusion:

Despite the short time horizon, the lack of compliance data and the assumptions made, this economic evaluation demonstrates that asenapine is a cost-effective strategy compared to olanzapine and to most of the atypical antipsychotics frequently used in Canada.     

Bendamustine-rituximab: a cost-utility analysis in first-line treatment of indolent non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in England and Wales

Objective:

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of bendamustine-rituximab (B-R) compared with CHOP-R (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone, rituximab) and CVP-R (cyclophosphamide, vincristine, prednisone, rituximab) as first-line treatment for patients with advanced indolent non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL).

Methods:

A patient-level simulation was adapted from the model used by the University of Sheffield School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR) in a health technology appraisal of rituximab for first-line treatment of follicular lymphoma. This approach allowed modelling of the complex treatment pathways in indolent NHL. Data from a Phase 3 randomized, open-label trial were used to compare B-R with CHOP-R. The relative efficacy of CHOP-R and CVP-R was estimated using an indirect treatment comparison similar to the original ScHARR approach. The analysis was conducted from the perspective of the National Health Service in England and Wales, using a lifetime time horizon. A number of one-way sensitivity and scenario analyses were conducted, including one using recently published data comparing CVP-R with CHOP-R.

Results:

The deterministic incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was £5249 per quality adjusted life year (QALY) for B-R vs CHOP-R, and £8092 per QALY for B-R vs CVP-R. The alternative scenario using direct data comparing CVP-R with CHOP-R approximately halved the ICER for B-R vs CVP-R to £4733. Owing to its better toxicity profile, B-R reduced the cost of treating adverse events by over £1000 per patient vs CHOP-R.

Limitations:

The main limitations were: immaturity of overall survival data from the Phase 3 trial; reliance on quality-of-life data from previous health technology appraisals (as this was not collected in the trial); and a lack of direct evidence or a network of connected evidence comparing B-R with CVP-R.

Conclusions:

The ICERs for B-R vs CHOP-R and CVP-R were considerably below the thresholds normally regarded as cost-effective in England and Wales (£20,000–30,000 per QALY).     

The economic impact of acute coronary syndrome on length of stay: an analysis using the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) databases

Objective:

To assess the economic impact of initial and repeat hospitalizations associated with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) over 1 year (2009).

Design and methods:

National- and state-level data on length of stay (LOS) and related charges for ACS-associated hospital admissions were assessed using two Healthcare Utilization Project databases. The first, the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS), provided clinical and resource use information from ～8 million hospital stays, representing a 20% stratified sample of ～40 million annual hospital stays in the US in 2009. The second, the State Inpatient Databases, provided 100% of inpatient data from nine states that included both patient age and linked information on multiple patient admissions within the same calendar year. For patients with repeat admissions, the LOS, primary diagnosis, and total charges between the first and subsequent admissions were evaluated. All patients ≥18 years of age with at least one diagnosis of ACS, defined using the International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, were included (code 410.xx [except 410.x2], 411.1x and 411.8x). Variables evaluated for each discharge included demographics, cardiovascular events and procedures, LOS, discharge status, and total charges.

Results:

The NIS reported 1,437,735 discharges for ACS in 2009. In this dataset, mean LOS for an initial ACS event was 5.56 days. Patients >65 years of age had the highest numbers of admissions; this group also had the most comorbidities. Approximately 40% of ACS patients with data on repeat visits had more than one admission, >70% of these within 2 months of the primary discharge. Mean charges were $71,336 for the first admission and $53,290 for the second admission.

Conclusion:

Despite a variety of new therapies to prevent ACS, it remains a common condition. Better therapies are called for if the clinical and cost burden of ACS is to be alleviated.     

Cost-effectiveness of aripiprazole once-monthly compared with paliperidone palmitate once-monthly injectable for the treatment of schizophrenia in the United States

Objective:

To develop a decision-analytic model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of initiating maintenance treatment with aripiprazole once-monthly (AOM) vs paliperidone long-acting injectable (PLAI) once-monthly among patients with schizophrenia in the US.

Methods:

A decision-analytic model was developed to evaluate a hypothetical cohort of patients initiating maintenance treatment with AOM or PLAI. Rates of relapse, adverse events (AEs), and direct medical costs were estimated for 1 year. Patients either remained on initial treatment or discontinued treatment due to lack of efficacy, AEs, or other reasons, including non-adherence. Data from placebo-controlled pivotal trials and product prescribing information (PI) were used to estimate treatment efficacy and AEs. Analyses were performed assuming dosing of clinical trials, real-world practice, PIs, and highest therapeutic dose available, because of variation in practice settings. The main outcome of interest was incremental cost per schizophrenia hospitalization averted with AOM vs PLAI.

Results:

Based on placebo-controlled pivotal trials’ dosing, AOM improved clinical outcomes by reducing schizophrenia relapses vs PLAI (0.181 vs 0.277 per person per year [pppy]) at an additional cost of US$1276 pppy, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of US$13,280/relapse averted. When PI dosing was assumed, this ICER increased to US$19,968/relapse averted. When real-world dosing and highest available dosing were assumed, AOM was associated with fewer relapses and lower overall treatment costs vs PLAI.

Conclusions:

AOM consistently provided favorable clinical benefits. Under various dosing scenarios, AOM results indicated fewer relapses at lower overall costs or a reasonable cost-effectiveness threshold (i.e., less than the cost of a hospitalization relapse) vs PLAI. Given the heterogeneous nature of schizophrenia and variability in treatment response, health plans may consider open access for treatments like AOM. Since model inputs were based on data from separate placebo-controlled trials, generalization of results to the real-world setting is limited.     

Cost-effectiveness of asenapine in the treatment of bipolar I disorder patients with mixed episodes

Objective:

Around one-third of patients with bipolar I disorder (BD-I) experience mixed episodes, characterized by both mania and depression, which tend to be more difficult and costly to treat. Atypical antipsychotics are recommended for the treatment of mixed episodes, although evidence of their efficacy, tolerability, and cost in these patients is limited. This study evaluates, from a UK National Health Service perspective, the cost-effectiveness of asenapine vs olanzapine in BD-I patients with mixed episodes.

Methods:

Cost-effectiveness was assessed using a Markov model. Efficacy was informed by a post-hoc analysis of two short-term clinical trials, with response measured as a composite Young Mania Rating Score and Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale end-point. Probabilities of discontinuation and relapse to manic, mixed, and depressive episodes were sourced from published meta-analyses. Direct costs (2012–2013 values) included drug acquisition, monitoring, and resource use related to bipolar disorder as well as selected adverse events. Benefits were measured as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs).

Results:

For treating mixed episodes, asenapine generated 0.0187 more QALYs for an additional cost of £24 compared to olanzapine over a 5-year period, corresponding to a £1302 incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. The higher acquisition cost of asenapine was roughly offset by the healthcare savings conferred through its greater efficacy in treating these patients. The model shows that benefits were driven by earlier response to asenapine during acute treatment and were maintained during longer-term follow-up. Results were sensitive to changes in key parameters including short and longer-term efficacy, unit cost, and utilities, but conclusions remained relatively robust.

Conclusions:

Results suggest that asenapine is a cost-effective alternative to olanzapine in mixed episode BD-I patients, and may have specific advantages in this population, potentially leading to healthcare sector savings and improved outcomes. Limitations of the analysis stem from gaps in clinical and economic evidence for these patients and should be addressed by future clinical trials.     

Use of a validated algorithm to estimate the annual cost of effective biologic treatment for rheumatoid arthritis

Objectives:

To estimate biologic cost per effectively treated patient with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) using a claims-based algorithm for effectiveness.

Methods:

Patients with RA aged 18–63 years in the IMS PharMetrics Plus database were categorized as effectively treated if they met all six criteria: (1) a medication possession ratio ≥80% (subcutaneous) or at least as many infusions as specified in US labeling (intravenous); (2) no biologic dose increase; (3) no biologic switch; (4) no new non-biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug; (5) no new or increased oral glucocorticoid; and (6) ≤1 glucocorticoid injection. Biologic cost per effectively treated patient was defined as total cost of the index biologic (drug plus intravenous administration) divided by the number of patients categorized by the algorithm as effectively treated. Similar methods were used for the index biologic in the second year and for a second biologic after a switch.

Results:

Rates that the index biologic was categorized as effective in the first year were 31.0% etanercept (2243/7247), 28.6% adalimumab (1426/4991), 28.6% abatacept (332/1160), 27.2% golimumab (71/261), and 20.2% infliximab (474/2352). Mean biologic cost per effectively treated patient, per the algorithm, was $50,141 etanercept, $53,386 golimumab, $56,942 adalimumab, $73,516 abatacept, and $114,089 infliximab. Biologic cost per effectively treated patient, using this algorithm, was lower for patients who continued the index biologic in the second year and higher after switching.

Conclusions:

When a claims-based algorithm was applied to a large commercial claims database, etanercept was categorized as the most effective and had the lowest estimated 1-year biologic cost per effectively treated patient. This proxy for effectiveness from claims databases was validated against a clinical effectiveness scale, but analyses of the second year or the year after a biologic switch were not included in the validation. Costs of other medications were not included in cost calculations.