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

Abstract

Objective:

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

Methods:

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

Results:

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

Limitations:

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

Conclusions:

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

Cost-effectiveness of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor monotherapy versus sulfonylurea monotherapy for people with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease in Thailand

Objective: With a high prevalence of chronic kidney disease (CKD) in type 2 diabetes (T2DM) in Thailand, the appropriate treatment for the patients has become a major concern. This study aimed to evaluate long-term cost-effective of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor monothearpy vs sulfonylurea (SFU) monotherapy in people with T2DM and CKD.

Methods: A validated IMS CORE Diabetes Model was used to estimate the long-term costs and outcomes. The efficacy parameters were identified and synthesized using a systematic review and meta-analysis. Baseline characteristics and cost parameters were obtained from published studies and hospital databases in Thailand. Costs were expressed in 2014?US Dollars. Outcomes were presented as an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to estimate parameter uncertainty.

Results: From a societal perspective, treatment with DPP-4 inhibitors yielded more quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) (0.024) at a higher cost (>66,000 Thai baht (THB) or >1,829.27 USD) per person than SFU, resulting in the ICER of >2.7 million THB/QALY (>74,833.70 USD/QALY). The cost-effectiveness results were mainly driven by differences in HbA1c reduction, hypoglycemic events, and drug acquisition cost of DPP-4 inhibitors. At the ceiling ratio of 160,000 THB/QALY (4,434.59 USD/QALY), the probability that DPP-4 inhibitors are cost-effective compared to SFU was less than 10%.

Conclusions: Compared to SFU, DPP-4 inhibitor monotherapy is not a cost-effective treatment for people with T2DM and CKD in Thailand.     

Cost-effectiveness analysis of atypical long-acting antipsychotics for treating chronic schizophrenia in Finland

Abstract

Objective:

In Finland, regional rates of schizophrenia exceed those in most countries, impacting the healthcare burden. This study determined the cost-effectiveness of long-acting antipsychotic (LAI) drugs paliperidone palmitate (PP-LAI), olanzapine pamoate (OLZ-LAI), and risperidone (RIS-LAI) for chronic schizophrenia.

Method:

This study adapted a decision tree analysis from Norway for the Finnish National Health Service. Country-specific data were sought from the literature and public documents, guided by clinical experts. Costs of health services and products were retrieved from literature sources and current price lists. This simulation study estimated average 1-year costs for treating patients with each LAI, average remission days, rates of hospitalization and emergency room visits and quality-adjusted life-years (QALY).

Results:

PP-LAI was dominant. Its estimated annual average cost was €10,380/patient and was associated with 0.817 QALY; OLZ-LAI cost €12,145 with 0.810 QALY; RIS-LAI cost €12,074 with 0.809 QALY. PP-LAI had the lowest rates of hospitalization, emergency room visits, and relapse days. This analysis was robust against most variations in input values except adherence rates. PP-LAI was dominant over OLZ-LAI and RIS-LAI in 77.8% and 85.9% of simulations, respectively. Limitations include the 1-year time horizon (as opposed to lifetime costs), omission of the costs of adverse events, and the assumption of universal accessibility.

Conclusion:

In Finland, PP-LAI dominated the other LAIs as it was associated with a lower cost and better clinical outcomes.     

Cost-effectiveness analysis of sequential biologic therapy with ixekizumab versus secukinumab as first-line treatment of moderate-to-severe psoriasis in the UK

Aims: Patients with psoriasis often undergo treatment with a sequence of biologic agents because of poor/loss of response to initial therapy. With the availability of newer agents like ixekizumab and secukinumab, there is a need for cost-effectiveness analyses to better reflect current clinical practice. This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of a sequence of biologic therapies containing first-line ixekizumab vs first-line secukinumab in patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis in the UK.

Materials and methods: A Markov model with a lifetime horizon was developed to compare the cost-effectiveness of ixekizumab and secukinumab treatment sequences: ixekizumab → ustekinumab → infliximab → best supportive care (BSC) vs secukinumab → ustekinumab → infliximab → BSC. The model used monthly cycles, and included four health states: trial period, treatment maintenance, BSC, and death. At the end of the trial period, responders transitioned to maintenance therapy; non-responders transitioned to the next biologic in the sequence. An annual discontinuation rate of 20% was assumed for maintenance therapy.

Results: The ixekizumab sequence provided cost savings of £898 (£176,203 vs 177,101) [year 2015 values] and gained 0.03 more quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs: 1.45 vs 1.42) vs the secukinumab sequence over the lifetime horizon. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed an 89.8% likelihood that the ixekizumab sequence would be cost-effective at a threshold of £20,000 per QALY gained.

Limitations: The analysis used list prices for drugs rather than confidential, preferentially priced Patient Access Scheme costs. In addition, efficacy input data were based on a network meta-analysis, as there were no head-to-head trials comparing ixekizumab and secukinumab.

Conclusion: First-line treatment with ixekizumab as part of a specific sequential biologic therapy for moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis in the UK provided slight advantages in cost savings and QALYs gained over a similar treatment sequence initiated with secukinumab. In view of the small magnitude of these differences, factors such as patient preferences (e.g. for number of injections) and long-term safety (e.g. related to time on the market) may also be important for clinical decision-making.     

Cost-effectiveness analysis of ocrelizumab versus subcutaneous interferon beta-1a for the treatment of relapsing multiple sclerosis

Aim: To conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis to compare ocrelizumab vs subcutaneous (SC) interferon beta-1a for the treatment of relapsing multiple sclerosis (RMS).

Methods: A Markov cohort model with a 20-year horizon was developed to compare ocrelizumab with SC interferon beta-1a from a US payer perspective. A cohort of patients with relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS) and Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) scores of 0–6, who initiated treatment with ocrelizumab or SC interferon beta-1a, were entered into the model. The model considered 21 health states: EDSS 0–9 in RRMS, EDSS 0–9 in secondary-progressive multiple sclerosis (SPMS), and death. Patients with RRMS could transition across EDSS scores, progress to SPMS, experience relapses, or die. Transition probabilities within RRMS while patients received ocrelizumab or SC interferon beta-1a were based on data from the two SC interferon beta-1a-controlled Phase III OPERA I and OPERA II trials of ocrelizumab in RMS. Transitions within RRMS when off-treatment, RRMS-to-SPMS transitions, transitions within SPMS, and transitions to death were based on the literature. Utilities of health states, disutilities of relapses, costs of therapies, and medical costs associated with health states, relapse, and adverse events were from the literature and publicly available data sources. The model estimated per-patient total costs, incremental cost per life year (LY) gained, and incremental cost per quality-adjusted LY (QALY) gained. Deterministic sensitivity analyses (DSA) and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) were conducted to evaluate the robustness of the model results.

Results: Ocrelizumab was associated with a cost savings of $63,822 and longer LYs (Δ?=?0.046) and QALYs (Δ?=?0.556) over a 20-year time horizon. The results of the model were robust in the DSA and PSA.

Limitations: The model did not consider subsequent treatments and their impact on disease progression.

Conclusions: The results suggest that ocrelizumab is more cost-effective than SC interferon beta-1a for the treatment of RMS.     

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

Abstract

Background:

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

Objective:

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

Methods:

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

Results:

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

Limitations:

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

Conclusions:

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

Cost-effectiveness analysis of dapagliflozin treatment versus metformin treatment in Chinese population with type 2 diabetes

Background and objective: Dapagliflozin is the first SGLT2 inhibitor available in China, where the disease burden of diabetes and its complications is very heavy. Because a new diabetes treatment strategy for diabetes should consider its cost-effectiveness, compared with an existing treatment, this study aimed to examine the cost-effectiveness between dapagliflozin and metformin treatment in China.

Methods: The Cardiff Diabetes Model (CDM) was used to estimate cost effectiveness and macro- and micro-vascular outcomes of dapagliflozin vs metformin. The CDM effectiveness inputs were derived from indirect comparative efficacy data from meta-analysis of 71 studies comparing monotherapy and add-on therapy of dapagliflozin vs metformin: dapagliflozin or metformin monotherapy, add-on therapy with other oral hypoglycemic agents, and add-on therapy with insulin. Direct medication costs and medical costs on treating diabetes were calculated based on published and local sources. A discount rate of 3% was applied to both costs and health effects. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were performed to assess uncertainties.

Results: The total healthcare costs accumulated over the lifetime on dapagliflozin treatment arm was 8,626 Chinese yuan higher than the metformin treatment arm for an individual patient, and the quality adjusted life years (QALYs) gained with dapagliflozin treatment was 0.8 more than metformin treatment. Therefore, an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was 10,729 yuan per QALY gained for dapagliflozin treatment arm vs metformin treatment arm. The cost-effectiveness results were robust to various sensitivity analyses.

Conclusion: Dapagliflozin treatment was more cost-effective compared with metformin treatment for Chinese type 2 diabetes patients. However, the findings of favorable cost-effectiveness results for dapagliflozin are largely driven by the effects of favorable weight profile on clinical, utility, and costs in the Cardiff model.     

Cost-effectiveness analysis of clopidogrel versus aspirin in patients with atherothrombosis based on the CAPRIE trial

SUMMARY

Clopidogrel has been shown to reduce the secondary risk of ischaemic events in vascular disease compared to aspirin. This article compares the economics of the two drugs for this condition, by providing an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (iCER) of clopidogrel versus aspirin, using Belgium as a case setting.

A 2 year Markov model, in which patients with vascular disease were assumed to receive either clopidogrel or aspirin, was developed from a healthcare payer's perspective. Survival data were based on the Saskatchewan Health database. Costs included treatment and adverse events. Cost-effectiveness was expressed as the cost per life year gained (LYG).

The iCER of clopidogrel versus aspirin was €13,390/LYG (95% CI: €6,990; €26,470). The robustness of these results was shown by univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

This analysis shows that clopidogrel is cost-effective for the secondary prevention of ischaemic events in the Belgian setting.     

Cost-effectiveness of omalizumab add-on to standard-of-care therapy in patients with uncontrolled severe allergic asthma in a Brazilian healthcare setting

Objective: Omalizumab add-on to standard-of-care therapy has proven to be efficacious in severe asthma patients for whom exacerbations cannot be controlled otherwise. Moreover, evidence from different healthcare settings suggests reduced healthcare resource utilization with omalizumab. Based on these findings, this study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of the addition of omalizumab to standard-of-care therapy in patients with uncontrolled severe allergic asthma in a Brazilian healthcare setting.

Methods: A previously published Markov model was adapted using Brazil-specific unit costs to compare the costs and outcomes of the addition of omalizumab to standard-of-care therapy vs standard-of-care therapy alone. Model inputs were largely based on the eXpeRience study. Costs and health outcomes were calculated for lifetime-years and were annually discounted at 5%. Both one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

Results: An additional cost of R$280,400 for 5.20 additional quality-adjusted life-years was estimated with the addition of omalizumab to standard-of-care therapy, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of R$53,890. One-way sensitivity analysis indicated that discount rates, standard-of-care therapy exacerbation rates, and exacerbation-related mortality rates had the largest impact on incremental cost-effectiveness ratios.

Limitations: Assumptions of lifetime treatment adherence and rate of future exacerbations, independent of previous events, might affect the findings. The lack of Brazilian patients in the eXpeRience study may affect the findings, although sample size and baseline characteristics suggest that the modeled population closely resembles Brazilian severe allergic asthma patients.

Conclusion: Results indicate that omalizumab as an add-on therapy is more cost-effective than standard-of-care therapy alone for Brazilian patients with uncontrolled severe allergic asthma, based on the World Health Organization’s cost-effectiveness threshold of up to 3-times the gross domestic product.     

Cost-effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction

Background: Sacubitril/valsartan reduces cardiovascular death and hospitalizations for heart failure (HF). However, decision-makers need to determine whether its benefits are worth the additional costs, given the low-cost generic status of traditional standard of care.

Aims: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan compared to enalapril in patients with HF and reduced ejection fraction, from the Singapore healthcare payer perspective.

Methods: A Markov model was developed to project clinical and economic outcomes of sacubitril/valsartan vs enalapril for 66-year-old patients with HF over 10 years. Key health states included New York Heart Association classes I–IV and deaths; patients in each state incurred a monthly risk of hospitalization for HF and cardiovascular death. Sacubitril/valsartan benefits were modeled by applying the hazard ratios (HRs) in PARADIGM-HF trial to baseline probabilities. Primary model outcomes were total and incremental costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for sacubitril/valsartan relative to enalapril

Results: Compared to enalapril, sacubitril/valsartan was associated with an ICER of SGD 74,592 (USD 55,198) per QALY gained. A major driver of cost-effectiveness was the cardiovascular mortality benefit of sacubitril/valsartan. The uncertainty of this treatment benefit in the Asian sub-group was tested in sensitivity analyses using a HR of 1 as an upper limit, where the ICERs ranged from SGD 41,019 (USD 30,354) to SGD 1,447,103 (USD 1,070,856) per QALY gained. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed the probability of sacubitril/valsartan being cost-effective was below 1%, 12%, and 71% at SGD 20,000, SGD 50,000, and SGD 100,000 per QALY gained, respectively.

Conclusions: At the current daily price sacubitril/valsartan may not represent good value for limited healthcare dollars compared to enalapril in reducing cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in HF in the Singapore healthcare setting. This study highlights the cost-benefit trade-off that healthcare professionals and patients face when considering therapy.     

Cost-effectiveness of 3-month paliperidone therapy for chronic schizophrenia in the Netherlands

Background: A new depot formulation of paliperidone has been developed that provides effective treatment for schizophrenia for 3 months (PP3M). It has been tested in phase-3 trials, but no data on its cost-effectiveness have been published.

Purpose: To determine the cost-effectiveness of PP3M compared with once-monthly paliperidone (PP1M), haloperidol long-acting therapy (HAL-LAT), risperidone microspheres (RIS-LAT), and oral olanzapine (oral-OLZ) for treating chronic schizophrenia in The Netherlands.

Methods: A previous 1-year decision tree was adapted, based on local inputs supplemented with data from published literature. The primary analysis used DRG costs in 2016 euros from the insurer perspective, as derived from official lists. A micro-costing analysis was also conducted. For the costing scenario, official list prices were used. Clinical outcomes included relapses (treated as outpatients, requiring hospitalization, total), and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Rates and utility scores were derived from the literature. Economic outcomes were the incremental cost/QALY-gained or relapse-avoided. Model robustness was examined in scenario, 1-way, and probability sensitivity analyses.

Results: The expected cost was lowest with PP3M (8,781€), followed by PP1M (10,325€), HAL-LAT (11,278€), RIS-LAT (11,307€), and oral-OLZ (13,556€). PP3M had the fewest total relapses/patient (0.36, 0.94, 1.39, 1.21, and 1.70, respectively), hospitalizations (0.11, 0.46, 0.40, 0.56, and 0.57, respectively), emergency room visits (0.25, 0.48. 0.99, 0.65, and 1.14, respectively) and the most QALYs (0.847, 0.735, 0.709, 0.719, and 0.656, respectively). In both cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses, PP3M dominated all other drugs. Sensitivity analyses confirmed base case findings. In the costing analysis, total costs were, on average, 31.9% higher than DRGs.

Conclusions: PP3M dominated all commonly used drugs. It is cost-effective for treating chronic schizophrenia in the Netherlands. Results were robust over a wide range of sensitivity analyses. For patients requiring a depot medication, such as those with adherence problems, PP3M appears to be a good alternative anti-psychotic treatment.     

Cost-effectiveness of denosumab versus zoledronic acid for preventing skeletal-related events in the Czech Republic

Aims: This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of the subcutaneous RANKL inhibitor, denosumab, vs the intravenous bisphosphonate, zoledronic acid, for the prevention of skeletal-related events (SREs) in patients with prostate cancer, breast cancer, and other solid tumors (OST) in the Czech Republic.

Materials and methods: A lifetime Markov model was developed to compare the effects of denosumab and zoledronic acid on costs (including drug costs and administration, patient management, SREs, and adverse events), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios from a national payer perspective. Different discount rates, time horizons, SRE rates, distributions, and nature (asymptomatic vs all SREs), and the inclusion of treatment discontinuation were considered in scenario analyses. The robustness of the model was tested using deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

Results: Across tumor types, denosumab was associated with fewer SREs, improved QALYs, and higher total costs over a lifetime. The incremental cost per QALY gained for denosumab vs zoledronic acid was 382,673 CZK for prostate cancer, 408,450 CZK for breast cancer, and 608,133 CZK for OST. Incremental costs per SRE avoided for the same tumor type were 54,007 CZK, 51,765 CZK, and 94,426 CZK, respectively. In scenario analyses, the results remained similar to baseline, when different discount rates and time horizons were considered. At a non-official willingness-to-pay threshold of 1.2 million CZK, the probabilities of denosumab being cost-effective vs zoledronic acid were 0.64, 0.67, and 0.49 for prostate cancer, breast cancer, and OST, respectively.

Limitations: The SRE rates used were obtained from clinical trials; studies suggest rates may be higher in clinical practice. Additional evidence on real-world SRE rates could further improve the accuracy of the modeling.

Conclusions: Compared with zoledronic acid, denosumab provides a cost-effective treatment option for the prevention of SREs in patients with prostate cancer, breast cancer, and OST in the Czech Republic.     

Cost-effectiveness analysis of bariatric surgery for morbid obesity in Belgium

Aims: This study presents the cost-effectiveness analysis of bariatric surgery in Belgium from a third-party payer perspective for a lifetime and 10-year horizon.

Materials and methods: A decision analytic model incorporating Markov process was developed to compare the cost-effectiveness of gastric bypass, sleeve gastrectomy, and adjustable gastric banding against conventional medical management (CMM). In the model, patients could undergo surgery, or experience post-surgery complications, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, or die. Transition probabilities, costs, and utilities were derived from the literature. The impact of different surgical methods on body mass index (BMI) level in the base-case analysis was informed by the Scandinavian Obesity Surgery Registry and the Swedish Obese Subject (SOS) study. Healthcare resource use and costs were obtained from Belgian sources. A base-case analysis was performed for the population, the characteristics of which were obtained from surgery candidates in Belgium.

Results: In the base-case analysis over a 10-year time horizon, the increment in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained from bariatric surgery vs CMM was 1.4 per patient, whereas the incremental cost was €3,788, leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €2,809 per QALY. Over a lifetime, bariatric surgery produced savings of €9,332, an additional 1.1 life years and 5.0 QALYs. Bariatric surgery was cost-effective at 10 years post-surgery and dominant over conventional management over a lifetime horizon.

Limitations: The model did not include the whole scope of obesity-related complications, and also did not account for variation in surgery outcomes for different populations of diabetic patients. Also, the data about management of patients after surgery was based on assumptions and the opinion of a clinical expert.

Conclusions: It was demonstrated that a current mix of bariatric surgery methods was cost-effective at 10 years post-surgery and cost-saving over the lifetime of the Belgian patient cohort considered in this analysis.     

Cost-effectiveness of intravitreal aflibercept versus other treatments for wet age-related macular degeneration in Japan

Objective: This analysis estimated the cost-effectiveness of intravitreal aflibercept injection(s) (IAI) for wet age-related macular degeneration (wAMD) compared with other treatments in Japan.

Methods: This was a cost-utility analysis based on published data. A state-transition cohort model was constructed with six health states based on best-corrected visual acuity in the better-seeing eye. The cycle time was 4 weeks, and the time horizon was 12 years. The model compared IAI 2?mg every 8 weeks (2q8) for 2 years after three initial monthly injections, ranibizumab as needed, ranibizumab 0.5?mg every 4 weeks (0.5q4), pegaptanib sodium 0.3?mg every 6 weeks, verteporfin photodynamic therapy (PDT), and best supportive care, assumed to include medical management and monitoring, but no active therapy. Costs (expressed as Japanese yen [JPY]) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained were estimated for each treatment and discounted at 2.0%. Input data were obtained from clinical studies, the Japanese drug tariff and social insurance reimbursement schedule, and expert opinion. The analysis was conducted from the societal perspective, including medical costs as well as costs of blindness.

Results: IAI 2q8 was dominant (i.e. more effective in terms of QALYs and less costly) to all other comparators (ranibizumab as needed, ranibizumab 0.5q4, pegaptanib sodium, PDT, and best supportive care), as shown by the incremental cost-utility ratio (i.e. cost per QALY gained).

Limitations: The strengths of the analysis include the wide range of comparators evaluated and the use of Japanese-specific utility data. The limitations include the use of one eye, inclusion of published data up to 2 years only, and assumptions on disease course over 5 years.

Conclusions: IAI 2q8 was more effective in terms of QALYs and less costly compared with other treatments for wAMD in Japan.     

Cost-effectiveness of de-escalation from micafungin versus escalation from fluconazole for invasive candidiasis in China

Aims: Guidelines on treating invasive candidiasis recommend initial treatment with a broad-spectrum echinocandin (e.g. micafungin), then switching to fluconazole if isolates prove sensitive (de-escalation strategy). This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of de-escalation from micafungin vs escalation from fluconazole from a Chinese public payers perspective.

Materials and methods: Cost-effectiveness was estimated using a decision analytic model, in which patients begin treatment with fluconazole 400?mg/day (escalation) or micafungin 100?mg/day (de-escalation). From Day 3, when susceptibility results are available, patients are treated with either fluconazole (if isolates are fluconazole-sensitive/dose-dependent) or micafungin (if isolates are resistant). The total duration of (appropriate) treatment is 14 days. Model inputs are early (Day 3) and end-of-treatment mortality rates, treatment success rates, and health resource utilization. Model outputs are costs of health resource utilization over 42 days, incremental cost per life-year, and incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) over a lifetime horizon.

Results: In the base-case analysis, the de-escalation strategy was associated with longer survival and higher treatment success rates compared with escalation, at a lower overall cost (–¥1,154; –175 United States Dollars). Life-years and QALYs were also better with de-escalation. Thus, this strategy dominated the escalation strategy for all outcomes. In a probabilistic sensitivity analysis, 99% of 10,000 simulations were below the very cost-effective threshold (1?×?gross domestic product).

Limitations: The main limitation of the study was the lack of real-world input data for clinical outcomes on treatment with micafungin in China; data from other countries were included in the model.

Conclusion: A de-escalation strategy is cost-saving from the Chinese public health payer perspective compared with escalation. It improves outcomes and reduces costs to the health system by reducing hospitalization, due to an increase in the proportion of patients receiving appropriate treatment.     

Cost-effectiveness analysis of oxycodone with naloxone versus oxycodone alone for the management of moderate-to-severe pain in patients with opioid-induced constipation in Canada

Background:

Approximately 20–30% of Canadians suffer from chronic pain. Guidelines for the management of chronic pain support the use of controlled-release (CR) opioids to treat chronic pain. Although effective in managing chronic pain, oxycodone is associated with high rates of opioid-induced constipation (OIC). The cost-effectiveness of a combination of oxycodone for the management of pain and naloxone for the relief of OIC has not previously been evaluated for Canada.

Methods:

A decision analytic model was developed to estimate the cost-utility of combination oxycodone/naloxone compared to oxycodone alone in four populations. Drug costs for managing pain and healthcare costs related to managing OIC were included in the analysis and the primary measure of effectiveness was quality adjusted life years (QALYs) derived from OIC rates observed in clinical trials. The analysis was conducted from a healthcare system perspective, used a 1-year time horizon, and results were expressed in 2015 Canadian dollars.

Results:

In all four patient populations, there was a trade-off between slightly higher total expected costs for Targin treated patients compared to oxycodone treated patients, but also improved clinical benefits in terms of reduced OIC, which resulted in higher QALYs for patients. Although analgesic costs were found to be slightly higher for Targin treated patients, Targin also resulted in cost offsets to the healthcare system in terms of less rescue laxative drug use and other resources required for the management of OIC. The resulting 1-year cost-utility of Targin compared to oxycodone ranged from $2178–$7732 per QALY gained in the base case analysis, and it was found that these cost-utility results remained robust and at low values throughout a series of one-way deterministic analyses of uncertainty.

Conclusion:

The clinical effectiveness of oxycodone/naloxone in managing pain and OIC compared to CR oxycodone alone resulted in low cost-utility estimates.     

Cost-effectiveness of selective internal radiation therapy using yttrium-90 resin microspheres in treating patients with inoperable colorectal liver metastases in the UK

Abstract

Objective:

Selective internal radiation therapy (SIRT) using SIR-Spheres® ⁹⁰Y-labeled resin microspheres has been shown to be a well-tolerated, effective treatment in patients with inoperable liver-dominant chemotherapy–refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). This study estimated the cost-effectiveness of ⁹⁰Y-resin microspheres compared to best supportive care (BSC) from a UK perspective.     

Cost-effectiveness analysis of solifenacin versus oxybutynin immediate-release in the treatment of patients with overactive bladder in the United Kingdom

Abstract

Objective:

To carry out a cost-utility analysis comparing initial treatment with solifenacin 5?mg/day vs oxybutynin immediate-release (IR) 15?mg/day for the treatment of patients with overactive bladder (OAB) from the perspective of the UK National Health Service (NHS).

Methods:

A Markov model with six health states was developed to follow a cohort of OAB patients treated with either solifenacin or oxybutynin during a 1-year period. Costs and utilities were accumulated as patients transited through the health states in the model and a drop-out state. Some of the solifenacin patients were titrated from 5?mg to 10?mg/day at 8 weeks. A proportion of drop-out patients were assumed to continue treatment with tolterodine ER. Utility values were obtained from a Swedish study and pad use was based on a multinational clinical trial. Adherence rates for individual treatments were derived from a UK database study. For pad use and utility values, the drop-out state was split between those patients who were no longer receiving treatment and those on second-line therapy. Patients on second-line therapy who drop-out were referred for a specialist visit. Results were expressed in terms of incremental cost-utility ratios.

Results:

Total annual costs for solifenacin and oxybutynin were £504.30 and £364.19, respectively. First-line drug use represents 49% and 4% of costs and pad use represent 23% and 40% of costs for solifenacin and oxybutynin, respectively. Differences between cumulative utilities were small but were greater for solifenacin (0.7020 vs 0.6907). The baseline incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £12,309/QALY.

Conclusion:

Under the baseline assumptions, solifenacin would appear to be cost-effective with an incremental cost-utility of less than £20,000/QALY. However, small differences in utility between the alternatives and the large number of drop-outs means that the results are sensitive to small adjustments in the values of utilities assigned to the drop-out state.