A cost-effectiveness analysis of denosumab for the prevention of skeletal-related events in patients with multiple myeloma in the United States of America

Objective: A large, pivotal, phase 3 trial in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) demonstrated that denosumab, compared with zoledronic acid, was non-inferior for the prevention of skeletal-related events (SREs), extended the observed median progression-free survival (PFS) by 10.7 months, and showed significantly less renal toxicity. The cost-effectiveness of denosumab vs zoledronic acid in MM in the US was assessed from societal and payer perspectives.

Methods: The XGEVA Global Economic Model was developed by integrating data from the phase 3 trial comparing the efficacy of denosumab with zoledronic acid for the prevention of SREs in MM. SRE rates were adjusted to reflect the real-world incidence. The model included utility decrements for SREs, administration, serious adverse events (SAEs), and disease progression. Drug, administration, SRE management, SAEs, and anti-MM treatment costs were based on data from published studies. For the societal perspective, the model additionally included SRE-related direct non-medical costs and indirect costs. The net monetary benefit (NMB) was calculated using a willingness-to-pay threshold of US$150,000. One-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted.

Results: From a societal perspective, compared with zoledronic acid, the use of denosumab resulted in an incremental cost of US$26,329 and an incremental quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) of 0.2439, translating into a cost per QALY gained of US$107,939 and a NMB of US$10,259 in favor of denosumab. Results were sensitive to SRE rates and PFS parameters.

Limitations: Costs were estimated from multiple sources, which varied by tumor type, patient population, country, and other parameters. PFS and overall survival were extrapolated beyond the follow-up of the primary analysis using fitted parametric curves.

Conclusion: Denosumab’s efficacy in delaying or preventing SREs, potential to improve PFS, and lack of renal toxicity make it a cost-effective option for the prevention of SREs in MM compared with zoledronic acid.     

Economic burden of skeletal-related events in patients with multiple myeloma: analysis of US commercial claims database

Aims: To estimate incremental healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs associated with skeletal-related events (SREs) secondary to multiple myeloma (MM), and HRU and cost differences in patients with one vs multiple SREs.

Methods: Adults with MM diagnosis between January 1, 2010–December 31, 2014, with benefits coverage ≥12 months pre- and ≥6 months post-diagnosis were followed to last coverage date or December 31, 2015, excluding patients with prior anti-myeloma treatment or cancers. SREs were identified by diagnosis or procedure codes (pathological fracture, spinal cord compression, radiation, or surgery to the bone). SRE patients (index?=?first post-diagnosis SRE) were propensity score matched 1:1 to patients without SRE (assigned pseudo-index) using baseline characteristics, and ≥1 month of continuous enrollment after index/pseudo-index date was required. Per-patient-per year (PPPY) HRU and costs (2016?US$) were determined for inpatient, outpatient, emergency department (ED), and outpatient pharmacy services during follow-up. Wilcoxon signed rank for means and McNemar’s tests for proportions were used to assess differences. Negative binomial regression and generalized linear regression analyses estimated differences in HRU and costs, respectively, for the comparison of single vs multiple SREs.

Results: Each cohort included 848 patients (mean age?=?61 – 62 years, 57% male) with no significant differences in pre-index demographic or clinical characteristics between matched cohorts. Versus non-SRE patients, SRE patients had significantly higher PPPY use (p?<?.0001) of inpatient hospitalizations, ED visits, outpatient pharmacy, and higher direct medical costs ($188,723 vs $108,160, p?<?.0001). Adjusted PPPY total costs were $209,820 in patients with multiple SREs; $159,797 in patients with one SRE.

Limitations: SRE misclassification and residual confounding are possible.

Conclusions: Among patients with MM, average annual costs were substantially higher in patients with SRE compared with matched non-SRE patients. The economic burden of SRE increased further with multiple events.     

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

Abstract

Objective:

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

Methods:

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

Results:

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

Limitations:

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

Conclusion:

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

Healthcare resource utilization among patients with relapsed multiple myeloma in the UK,France, and Italy

Aims: To assess the real-world healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs associated with different treatment regimens used in the management of patients with relapsed multiple myeloma in the UK, France, and Italy.

Methods: Retrospective medical chart review of characteristics, time to progression, level of response, HRU during treatment, and adverse events (AEs). Data collection started on June 1, 2015 and was completed on July 15, 2015. In the 3 months before record abstraction, eligible patients had either disease progression after receiving one of their country’s most commonly prescribed regimens or had received the best supportive care and died. Costs were calculated based on HRU and country-specific diagnosis-related group and/or unit reference costs, amongst other standard resources.

Results: Physicians provided data for 1,282 patients (387 in the UK, 502 in France, 393 in Italy) who met the inclusion criteria. Mean [median] total healthcare costs associated with a single line of treatment were €51,717 [35,951] in the UK, €37,009 [32,538] for France, and €34,496 [42,342] for Italy, driven largely by anti-myeloma medications costs (contributing 95.0%, 90.0%, and 94.2% of total cost, respectively). During active treatment, the highest costs were associated with lenalidomide- and pomalidomide-based regimens. Mean cost per month was lowest for patients achieving a very good partial response or better. Unscheduled events (i.e. not considered part of routine management, whether or not related to multiple myeloma, such as unscheduled hospitalization, AEs, fractures) accounted for 1–9% of total costs and were highest for bendamustine.

Limitations: The use of retrospective data means that clinical practice (e.g. use of medical procedures, evaluation of treatment response) is not standardized across participating countries/centers, and some data (e.g. low-grade AEs) may be incomplete or differently adjudicated/reported. The centers involved may not be fully representative of national practice.

Conclusions: Drug costs are the main contributor to total HRU costs associated with multiple myeloma. The duration of active treatment may influence the average total costs, as well as response, associated with a single line of therapy. Improved treatment outcomes, and reductions in unscheduled events and concomitant medication use may, therefore, reduce the overall HRU and related costs of care in multiple myeloma.     

A budget impact analysis of lenalidomide in multiple myeloma Egyptian patients

Abstract

Introduction

The aim of this study was to estimate the budget impact of lenalidomide and dexamethasone (RD) versus bortezomib, cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone (VCD) in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) and relapsed refractory (RR) MM patients, from the perspective of the Egyptian Ministry of health (MoH).     

Cost-utility analysis of alemtuzumab in comparison with interferon beta,fingolimod, and natalizumab treatment for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in Austria

Background: Multiple sclerosis (MS), a chronic progressive, demyelinating, inflammatory disease, affects 2.5 million people worldwide. Approximately 63% of cases are classified as relapsing–remitting MS (RRMS) at the time of diagnosis. The aim of this cost-utility analysis is to evaluate alemtuzumab vs interferon beta (intramuscular [IM] interferon beta-1a, subcutaneous [SC] interferon beta-1a, SC interferon beta-1b, and SC pegylated interferon beta-1a) in previously treated, and vs SC interferon beta-1a, fingolimod, and natalizumab in untreated RRMS patients to determine the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio among the treatment alternatives as prices, the route, and the frequency of administration of considered products vary significantly.

Methods: The primary outcome was the modeled incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER; €/quality-adjusted life-year [QALY] gained). Markov modeling with a 10-year time horizon was carried out. During each 3-month cycle, patients maintained the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score or experienced progression, developed secondary progressive MS (SPMS), or showed EDSS progression in SPMS; experienced relapses; suffered from an adverse event (AE); changed treatment; or died. A published network meta-analysis (NMA) was used for indirect comparison. The possibility of a therapy switch was considered. Clinical input data and resource utilization data were derived from the literature. Costs were extracted from price lists published in Austria and were calculated from the payer’s perspective.

Results: In treatment naïve patients, alemtuzumab is associated with costs of €132,663 and 5.25 QALYs in a 10-year time horizon. Costs for SC interferon beta amount to €164,159 and generate 4.85 QALYs. Also, in the pre-treated patients, alemtuzumab dominated comparators by accumulating higher total QALYs (4.88) and lower total costs (€137.409) compared to interferon beta-1a (€200.133), fingolimod (€240.903), and natalizumab (€247.758).

Conclusion: The analysis shows that alemtuzumab is a cost-saving alternative to treat RRMS in pre-treated and therapy naïve patients. From the patient perspective, alemtuzumab improves quality-of-life.     

Fingolimod versus natalizumab in patients with relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis: a cost-effectiveness and cost-utility study in Iran

Aims: Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic, autoimmune, and inflammatory disease. If the first-line medicines are not effective enough, specialists will prescribe second-line medicines, such as natalizumab and fingolimod. This study aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of fingolimod with those of natalizumab in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) in Iran, Fars province in 2016.

Materials and methods: This study was a cost-effectiveness and cost-utility study in which a Markov model was used. The study used the census method to evaluate 81 patients with MS in Iran, Fars province who were being treated with fingolimod and natalizumab. In this study, costs were collected from the societal perspective, and the outcomes were the mean of relapse avoided rate and QALY. The cost data collection form, Kurtzke Expanded Disability Status Scale, and EQ-5D-3L questionnaire were used to collect the required data.

Results: The results showed that, compared to natalizumab, patients who used fingolimod had decreased costs (58,087 vs 201,707), increased QALYs (8.09 vs 7.37), and a better relapse avoided rate (6.27 vs 5.83) per patient over the lifetime. The results of the sensitivity analysis showed that the results of the study were robust. Also, the results of the scatter plots showed that fingolimod was more cost-effective based on the QALY and relapse avoided rate in 62% and 56%, respectively, of the simulations for the thresholds below $15,657 for the studied patients.

Conclusions: According to the results of this study, the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of fingolimod were higher than those of natalizumab. Therefore, it is recommended that treatment with fingolimod be the first priority of second-line treatment for MS patients, and policy-makers and health managers are encouraged to make efforts in order to increase insurance coverage and reduce the out-of-pocket payments of these patients.     

Posaconazole vs fluconazole/itraconazole in the prophylaxis of invasive fungal infections in immunocompromised patients: A cost-effectiveness analysis in Greece

Abstract

Background:

Invasive fungal infections (IFIs) present a major issue in clinical practice, due to their high morbidity and mortality rates. In a pivotal multi-centre, randomized clinical trial, posaconazole prophylaxis prevented IFIs more effectively than did either fluconazole or itraconazole, and improved overall survival.

Objective:

The aim of this study was to perform an economic evaluation of the aforementioned therapeutic strategies for IFI prophylaxis in neutropenic patients, in the Greek healthcare setting.

Method:

A decision analytic model was developed, which described the course of neutropenic patients under posaconazole or standard azole (fluconazole or itraconazole) treatment. Effectiveness data for each treatment regimen were derived from published results of a pivotal, multi-centre, randomized clinical trial. Cost and healthcare resources utilization data depict Greek clinical practice and are derived from official Greek sources, from a third party payer perspective.

Results:

Prophylaxis with posaconazole resulted in fewer IFIs (0.05 vs 0.11 per patient) compared to treatment with fluconazole or itraconazole, during the first 100 days from initiation of prophylaxis treatment. The cost per avoided IFI with posaconazole was €6455, while the incremental cost per life year gained (LYG) was estimated at €24,196. Extensive sensitivity analyses corroborated the base-case results. Possible limitations of the study are the exclusion of indirect and outpatient costs from the analysis and the inherent uncertainty with regards to the transferability of the clinical efficacy results of the clinical trial to the Greek healthcare setting.

Conclusions:

The utilization of posaconazole for prophylaxis of IFIs neutropenic patients is a therapeutic strategy that provides superior clinical efficacy, while being cost-effective compared to alternative therapies.     

Cost-effectiveness of lenalidomide plus dexamethasone vs bortezomib plus melphalan and prednisone in transplant-ineligible US patients with newly-diagnosed multiple myeloma

Objective:

To conduct a cost-effectiveness assessment of lenalidomide plus dexamethasone (Rd) vs bortezomib plus melphalan and prednisone (VMP) as initial treatment for transplant-ineligible patients with newly-diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM), from a US payer perspective.

Methods:

A partitioned survival model was developed to estimate expected life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), direct costs and incremental costs per QALY and LY gained associated with use of Rd vs VMP over a patient’s lifetime. Information on the efficacy and safety of Rd and VMP was based on data from multinational phase III clinical trials and a network meta-analysis. Pre-progression direct costs included the costs of Rd and VMP, treatment of adverse events (including prophylaxis) and routine care and monitoring associated with MM. Post-progression direct costs included costs of subsequent treatment(s) and routine care and monitoring for progressive disease, all obtained from published literature and estimated from a US payer perspective. Utilities were obtained from the aforementioned trials. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3% annually.

Results:

Relative to VMP, use of Rd was expected to result in an additional 2.22 LYs and 1.47 QALYs (discounted). Patients initiated with Rd were expected to incur an additional $78,977 in mean lifetime direct costs (discounted) vs those initiated with VMP. The incremental costs per QALY and per LY gained with Rd vs VMP were $53,826 and $35,552, respectively. In sensitivity analyses, results were found to be most sensitive to differences in survival associated with Rd vs VMP, the cost of lenalidomide and the discount rate applied to effectiveness outcomes.

Conclusions:

Rd was expected to result in greater LYs and QALYs compared with VMP, with similar overall costs per LY for each regimen. Results of this analysis indicated that Rd may be a cost-effective alternative to VMP as initial treatment for transplant-ineligible patients with MM, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio well within the levels for recent advancements in oncology.     

A cost-effectiveness analysis of subcutaneous interferon beta-1a 44mcg 3-times a week vs no treatment for patients with clinically isolated syndrome in Sweden

Abstract

Objective:

To assess the cost-effectiveness of subcutaneous interferon (sc IFN) beta-1a 44?mcg 3-times weekly (tiw) vs no treatment at reducing the risk of conversion to multiple sclerosis (MS) in patients with clinically isolated syndrome (CIS) in Sweden.

Methods:

A Markov model was constructed to simulate the clinical course of patients with CIS treated with sc IFN beta-1a 44?mcg tiw or no treatment over a 40-year time horizon. Costs were estimated from a societal perspective in 2012 Swedish kronor (SEK). Treatment efficacy data were derived from the REFLEX trial; resource use and quality-of-life (QoL) data were obtained from the literature. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3%. Sensitivity analyses explored whether results were robust to changes in input values and use of Poser criteria.

Results:

Using McDonald criteria sc IFN beta-1a was cost-saving and more effective (i.e., dominant) vs no treatment. Gains in progression free life years (PFLYs) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were 1.63 and 0.53, respectively. Projected cost savings were 270,263 SEK. For Poser criteria cost savings of 823,459 SEK were estimated, with PFLY and QALY gains of 4.12 and 1.38, respectively. Subcutaneous IFN beta-1a remained dominant from a payer perspective. Results were insensitive to key input variation. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis estimated a 99.9% likelihood of cost-effectiveness at a willingness-to-pay threshold of 500,000 SEK/QALY.

Conclusion:

Subcutaneous IFN beta-1a is a cost-effective option for the treatment of patients at high risk of MS conversion. It is associated with lower costs, greater QALY gains, and more time free of MS.

Limitations:

The risk of conversion from CIS to MS was extrapolated from 2-year trial data. Treatment benefit was assumed to persist over the model duration, although long-term data to support this are unavailable. Cost and QoL data from MS patients were assumed applicable to CIS patients.     

Prasugrel vs clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a model-based cost-effectiveness analysis for Germany,Sweden, the Netherlands,and Turkey

Abstract

Objective:

To evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of 12-months treatment with prasugrel vs clopidogrel from four European healthcare systems’ perspectives (Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands, and Turkey).

Methods:

In the TRITON-TIMI 38 trial, patients with an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) were treated with prasugrel or clopidogrel. Prasugrel reduced the composite end-point (cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke), but increased TIMI major bleeding. A Markov model was constructed to facilitate a lifetime horizon for the analysis. A series of risk equations constructed using individual patient data from TRITON-TIMI 38 was used to estimate risks of clinical events. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were derived by weighting survival time by estimates of health-related quality-of-life. Incremental cost-effectiveness is presented based on differences in treatments’ mean costs and QALYs for the licensed population in TRITON-TIMI 38, and the sub-groups of UA-NSTEMI, STEMI, diabetes, and the ‘core clinical cohort’ (<75 years, ≥60?kg, no history of stroke or TIA).

Results:

Mean cost of study drug was €364 (Turkey) to €818 (Germany) higher for prasugrel vs clopidogrel. Rehospitalization costs at 12 months were lower for prasugrel due to reduced rates of revascularization, although hospitalization costs beyond 12 months were higher due to longer life expectancy associated with lower rates of non-fatal MI in the prasugrel group. The incremental cost per QALY saved with prasugrel in the licensed population ranged from €6520 (for Sweden) to €14,350 for (Germany). Prasugrel’s cost per QALY was more favourable still in the STEMI and diabetes sub-groups of the licensed population.

Limitations:

Probabilistic analyses of the whole trial population is impractical due to the number of individual patient profiles over which population level results are calculated.

Conclusion:

Among patients undergoing PCI for ACS, treatment with prasugrel compared with clopidogrel resulted in favourable cost-effectiveness profiles from these healthcare systems’ perspectives.     

Costs of administration,travelling, and productivity losses associated with hospital administration of multiple myeloma drugs in Finland

Aim: To estimate the drug administration, travelling, and productivity costs associated with infusion or subcutaneous proteasome inhibitor (PI) treatments (specifically carfilzomib and bortezomib) for multiple myeloma (MM) patients in Finland.

Materials and methods: Price tariffs of Finnish hospital districts are used as the basis of invoicing sent to healthcare service payers. A review of these price tariff lists was conducted and obtained data analysed to estimate the mean unit cost of PI administration visit. Travelling costs stratified by areas with different population densities were assessed, based on the national travelling reimbursement register data maintained by the Social Insurance Institution of Finland. Productivity costs due to time spent on administration visits and travelling were estimated based on an expert interview and a spatial healthcare accessibility analysis.

Results: Nineteen (95%) of the Finnish hospital districts were included in the review. Relevant unit cost information was found for 15 (75%) of the districts. The mean PI administration cost alone was 270€ (95% CI?=?189€–351€) per administration and increased to 371€ when travelling costs were included. Productivity costs added, the mean PI administration costs totalled 405€ for bortezomib and 437€ for carfilzomib.

Limitations: The costing rationale of price tariffs may vary between hospital districts. Productivity costs were estimated conservatively, due to lack of data.

Conclusions: The administration of intravenous or subcutaneous PIs to treat MM in healthcare facilities causes significant and potentially avoidable healthcare, travelling, and indirect costs, and they should be included in all health economic evaluations (HEEs). As the cost estimates utilized in this study represent most of central hospitals in the country, they provide useful information for future HEEs. A broader conclusion is that novel oral medications, such as the first oral PI, have a significant potential for reducing administration-related costs of subcutaneous or intravenous PIs.     

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

Abstract

Objective:

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

Research design and methods:

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

Results:

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

Limitations:

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

Conclusion:

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

The cost-effectiveness and monetary benefits of dabigatran in the prevention of arterial thromboembolism for patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation in the Netherlands

Background: Atrial fibrillation (AF) causes a significant health and economic burden to the Dutch society. Dabigatran was proven to have at least similar efficacy and a similar or better safety profile when compared to vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in preventing arterial thromboembolism in patients with AF.

Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness and monetary benefit of dabigatran vs VKAs in Dutch patients with non-valvular AF. Value-based pricing considerations and corresponding negotiations on dabigatran will be explicitly considered.

Methods: The base case economic analysis was conducted from the societal perspective. Health effects and costs were analysed using a Markov model. The main model inputs were derived from the RE-LY trial and Dutch observational data. Univariate, probabilistic sensitivity, and various scenario analyses were performed.

Results: Dabigatran was cost saving compared to VKAs. A total of 4,552 QALYs were gained, and €13,892,288 was saved in a cohort of 10,000?AF patients. The economic value of dabigatran was strongly related to the costs of VKA control that are averted. Notably, dabigatran was cost saving compared to VKAs if annual costs of VKA control exceeded €159 per person, or dabigatran costs were below €2.81 per day.

Conclusion: Dabigatran was cost saving compared to VKAs for the prevention of atrial thromboembolism in patients with non-valvular AF in the Netherlands. This result appeared robust in the sensitivity analysis. Furthermore, volume based reduction of the price in the Netherlands will further increase the monetary benefits of dabigatran.     

Stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation in France: comparative cost-effectiveness of new oral anticoagulants (apixaban,dabigatran, and rivaroxaban), warfarin,and aspirin

Objectives:

To conduct an economic evaluation of the currently prescribed treatments for stroke prevention in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) including warfarin, aspirin, and novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) from a French payer perspective.

Methods:

A previously published Markov model was adapted in accordance to the new French guidelines of the Commission for Economic Evaluation and Public Health (CEESP), to adopt the recommended efficiency frontier approach. A cohort of patients with NVAF eligible for stroke preventive treatment was simulated over lifetime. Clinical events modeled included strokes, systemic embolism, intracranial hemorrhage, other major bleeds, clinically relevant non-major bleeds, and myocardial infarction. Efficacy and bleeding data for warfarin, apixaban, and aspirin were obtained from ARISTOTLE and AVERROES trials, whilst efficacy data for other NOACs were from published indirect comparisons. Acute medical costs were obtained from a dedicated analysis of the French national hospitalization database (PMSI). Long-term medical costs and utility data were derived from the literature. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robustness of the model projections.

Results:

Warfarin and apixaban were the two optimal treatment choices, as the other five treatment strategies including aspirin, dabigatran 110?mg, dabigatran in sequential dosages, dabigatran 150?mg, and rivaroxaban were strictly dominated on the efficiency frontier. Further, apixaban was a cost-effective alternative vs warfarin with an incremental cost of €2314 and an incremental quality-adjusted life year (QALY) of 0.189, corresponding to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €12,227/QALY.

Conclusions:

Apixaban may be the most economically efficient alternative to warfarin in NVAF patients eligible for stroke prevention in France. All other strategies were dominated, yielding apixaban as a less costly yet more effective treatment alternative. As formally requested by the CEESP, these results need to be verified in a French clinical setting using stroke reduction and bleeding safety observed in real-life patient cohorts using these anticoagulants.     

A cost-effectiveness and budget impact analysis of apremilast in patients with psoriatic arthritis in Italy

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 psoriatic arthritis (PsA), within the Italian National Health Service (NHS).

Methods: A Markov state transition cohort model, which was 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 PsA in Italy, who can be eligible for treatment with apremilast. The eligible population was represented by adult patients with PsA who had an inadequate response to or were intolerant to previous disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), for the approved indication, and for the treatment studied in the economic analytic model.

Results: This cost-effectiveness analysis estimated that the strategy of using apremilast before biologic therapy is cost-effective, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €32,263.00 per QALY gained which is slightly over the normal threshold found in other Italian economic studies, which usually considers a 40-year-period. Conversely, the budget impact analysis was conducted over 3?years, and it led to an estimated annual saving of €1.6 million, €4.6 million and €5.5 million in the first, second and third year of apremilast commercialization, respectively, for a total saving of €11.75 million in 3?years.

Limitations: Limitations of this analysis include the absence of head-to-head trials comparing therapies included in the economic model, the lack of comparative long-term data on treatment efficacy, and the assumption of complete independence between the considered response rates to therapy.

Conclusion: The use of apremilast as a first option before the use of biologic agents may represent a cost-effective treatment strategy for patients with PsA who fail to respond to, or are intolerant to, previous DMARD therapy. In addition, based on a budget impact perspective, the use of apremilast may lead to cost savings to the Italian healthcare system.     

Cost of skeletal-related events in European patients with solid tumours and bone metastases: data from a prospective multinational observational study

Abstract

Objectives:

Patients with bone metastases often experience skeletal-related events (SREs: radiation or surgery to bone, pathologic fracture, and spinal cord compression). This study examined health resource utilization and costs associated with SREs.

Methods:

Data presented are from the European cohort (Germany, Italy, Spain, and the UK) of patients with solid tumours enrolled in a multi-national, prospective, observational study in patients with solid tumours or multiple myeloma. Patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group score 0–2 and life expectancy ≥6 months, who experienced an SRE up to 97 days before enrolment, were eligible. Health resource utilization associated with SREs (including number/length of inpatient stays, numbers of procedures and outpatient visits) were collected through chart review for up to 97 days before enrolment and prospectively during follow-up. Country-specific cost calculations were performed.

Results:

In total, 478 eligible patients contributed 893 SREs to this analysis. Radiation to bone occurred most frequently (66% of total). Spinal cord compression (7%) and surgery to bone (10%) were the least common events, but most likely to require inpatient stays. The most costly SREs were also spinal cord compression (mean per SRE across countries, €4884–€12,082) and surgery to bone (€3348–€9407). Inpatient stays were the main cost drivers.

Limitations:

Health resource utilization used to calculate the costs associated with SREs may have been under-estimated as a result of exclusion of patients with low performance status or life expectancy; unavailable information and exclusion of resource consumption associated with pain. Thus, the estimate of associated costs is likely to be conservative.

Conclusions:

SREs result in considerable health resource utilization, imposing a substantial financial burden driven by inpatient stays. Treatments that prevent/delay SREs may help ease this burden, thereby providing cost savings across European healthcare systems.     

A review on cost-effectiveness analysis of agri-environmental measures related to the EU WFD: Key issues, methods, and applications

The European Water Framework Directive (WFD) explicitly integrates economics into water management and water policy in Europe. Specifically, Article 11 and Annex III of the Directive call for a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of alternative mitigation measures as a requirement in formulating Programme of Measures (PoMs) to achieve ‘good ecological status’ for all waters in Europe. As agriculture is supposed to be the major contributor to diffuse water pollution, CEA of agri-environmental measures has been given paramount importance in establishing the PoMs. This paper summarises the status, significance, and methodological limitations of WFD-related CEA studies in Europe. Cases from the United Kingdom, countries surrounding the Baltic Sea and central and southern Europe were included in the review. Review results indicate that most WFD-related CEA studies: (1) were based on models of ‘representative’ farms without capturing the variability among real-world farms; (2) concentrate on a single ecological effect of measures or are based on cost estimates of the sectors directly involved in the pollutant-reduction programme (i.e., co-benefits, trade-offs, and external costs were not examined); and (3) did not incorporate uncertainties in both cost and effectiveness estimates. Based on the review results, the paper suggests policy implications and recommendations for future research in the field.