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.     

Burden of illness among patients at high risk versus low risk for major cardiovascular events

Abstract

Objective:

This study was designed to compare the burden of illness (BOI) in patients at high risk versus low risk of developing a major cardiovascular (CV) event.

Methods:

This retrospective claims data analysis included commercial health plan members identified with a primary diagnosis on a medical claim for cardiovascular disease (CVD) from January 1, 2001 through December 31, 2002. Patients were categorized as: low risk (LR), high risk (HR), or high risk aged ≥55 (HR55), based on the ONTARGET clinical trial.

Results:

Most patients (85%) were in the LR category (8% in HR55, 7% in HR). A significantly greater proportion of patients in the HR55 group were hospitalized and experienced a greater number of ambulatory visits compared with LR and HR patients. Controlling for covariates, HR55 patients averaged $22,502 in paid healthcare services over 2 years versus $15,645 for HR patients and $11,423 for LR patients (p?<?0.001). CV-related costs represented about 46% of costs for the HR55 group, versus 41% for the HR group and 31% for the LR group.

Limitations:

Claims data are collected for the purpose of payment and not research and the presence of a diagnosis code is not proof of disease, due to possible coding errors or the use of a rule-out criterion. Also, patients who died in the follow-up were not included in the analyses, resulting in lower BOI estimates. Finally, the results of this study reflect treatment of CVD in managed-care settings, and may not be applicable to a different type of population.

Conclusion:

This study demonstrates the high BOI associated with CVD, especially for patients within the high-risk group aged ≥55 years. Opportunities exist for reducing costs in this population.     

Economic outcomes with prasugrel versus clopidogrel in acute coronary syndrome patients: observations from prasugrel users and matched clopidogrel users

Abstract

Objective:

To compare healthcare costs between clopidogrel and prasugrel over 30-day and 365-day periods after discharge from the hospital or emergency room (ER) in patients treated with prasugrel who were hospitalized or had an ER visit for an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) event.     

Economic evaluation of olmesartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination for hypertension treatment in China

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of olmesartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination vs olmesartan and amlodipine free combination, amlodipine single drug, and valsartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination in the treatment of hypertensive patients from payer perspective in China.

Methods: A Markov model was constructed, which included five health states of hypertensive patients who are aged 35–84?years at baseline and free of cardiovascular disease. Clinical data were obtained from a network meta-analysis. Epidemiology data, adverse events (AEs), cost, and utility data were obtained from the literature. The cost associated with AEs was estimated based on the cost of same symptoms of hypertensive patients in an electric medical record database. The model projected quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained, total costs per patient in a 20-year time horizon, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Probability sensitivity analyses (PSA) and one-way sensitivity analyses were conducted for the main parameters to test the robustness of the model.

Results: Compared to olmesartan and amlodipine free combination, amlodipine, and valsartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination, treatment with olmesartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination led to fewer CVD events and deaths; resulted in an incremental cost of ¥?5,439 ($?791.36), ¥6,530 ($950.09), and ¥?1,019 ($?148.26) and gained additional QALYs of 0.052, 0.094, and 0.037 per patient, respectively. Compared with olmesartan and amlodipine free combination and valsartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination, olmesartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination was dominant. Compared with amlodipine alone, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were below the WHO recommended cost-effectiveness threshold, indicating the olmesartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination was a cost-effective option for hypertensive patients in China. The 10-years’ time horizon scenario analysis showed similar results to the 20-years’ time horizon. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis and one-way sensitivity analyses showed the robustness of the model results.

Conclusions: Olmesartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination confers better health outcomes and costs less compared with olmesartan and amlodipine free combination and valsartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination, and is cost-effective compared to amlodipine for hypertension treatment in China.     

Modelling the cost-effectiveness of nevirapine triple combination therapy and dual combination therapy for the treatment of HIV disease in the United Kingdom

Summary

Recent advances in HIV antiretroviral therapy together with limited budgets have forced payers to look for evidence that new combinations provide good value for money. Using a public financing perspective, two Markov models are employed to evaluate the first-year outcomes and costs and the long-term cost-effectiveness of adding nevirapine (NVP) to dual combination therapy with zidovudine (ZDV) and didanosine (ddI) in the United Kingdom.

First-year medical care savings are estimated to be £2,122 (103.8% of NVP cost). In the longer term, NVP/ZDV/ddI therapy yields £6,186 per life year saved (costs discounted at 6%). The model is moderately sensitive only to duration of therapy effects and the therapy initiation time. These model estimates suggest that policy makers may expect to observe superior initial health outcomes and substantial medical cost savings during the first year of therapy, as well as acceptable long-term cost-effectiveness, when NVP/ZDV/ddI is used in place of dual therapy.     

Modeling the cost-effectiveness of ilaprazole versus omeprazole for the treatment of newly diagnosed duodenal ulcer patients in China

Objectives: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of 10?mg ilaprazole once-daily vs 20?mg omeprazole once-daily to treat newly-diagnosed duodenal ulcer patients in China.

Methods: A decision tree model was constructed and the treatment impact was projected up to 1 year. The CYP2C19 polymorphism distribution in the Chinese population, the respective cure rates in the CYP2C19 genotype sub-groups, the impact of Duodenal Ulcer (DU) on utility value and drug-related side-effect data were obtained from the literature. The total costs of medications were calculated to estimate the treatment costs based on current drug retail prices in China. Expert surveys were conducted when published data were not available. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed to gauge the robustness of the results.

Results: Ilaprazole, when compared with omeprazole, achieved a better overall clinical efficacy. For the overall population, ilaprazole achieved an incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) of ¥132 056 per QALY gained. This is less than the WHO recommended threshold of 3-times the average GDP per capita in China (2014). Furthermore, sub-group analysis showed that ilaprazole is cost-effective in every province in CYP2C19 hetEM patients and in the most developed provinces in CYP2C19 homEM patients. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggests that the results are robust with 97% probability that ilaprozole is considered cost-effective when a threshold of 3-times China’s average GDP per capita is considered.

Limitation: This study didn’t have the data of ilaprazole combined with Hp eradication therapy. Caution should be taken when extrapolating these findings to DU patients with an Hp eradication therapy.

Conclusions: The cost-effectiveness analysis results demonstrated that ilaprazole would be considered a cost-effective therapy, compared with omeprazole, in Chinese DU patients based on the efficacy projections in various CYP2C19 polymorphism types.     

Real-world comparison of hospitalization costs for heart failure in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients with established cardiovascular disease treated with canagliflozin versus other antihyperglycemic agents

Abstract

Aims: This real-world study compared hospitalization for heart failure (HHF) costs and all-cause healthcare costs in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and established cardiovascular disease treated with the sodium glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitor (SGLT2i) canagliflozin and non-SGLT2i antihyperglycemic agents (AHAs).

Materials and methods: Propensity score-matched cohorts from a retrospective observational study (OBSERVE-4D) using the Truven MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters and Optum Clinformatics databases were analyzed. HHF and all-cause healthcare costs per-patient-per-month (PPPM) were compared for patients initiated on canagliflozin and non-SGLT2i AHAs in the on-treatment analysis.

Results: Baseline characteristics were well balanced between matched cohorts that included new users of canagliflozin or non-SGLT2i AHAs in the Truven (13,954 and 45,101, respectively) and Optum (11,490 and 53,360, respectively) databases. The mean (95% CI) PPPM cost of HHF was lower for canagliflozin than for non-SGLT2i AHAs in analyses of both the Truven ($21.31 [$21.25, $21.37]) and Optum ($30.43 [$30.41, $30.45]) databases. The mean (95% CI) PPPM all-cause healthcare cost was also lower for canagliflozin than for non-SGLT2i AHAs in analyses of both the Truven ($321 [$280, $361]) and Optum ($449 [$402, $495]) databases.

Limitations: This study is subject to the limitations inherent to observational research including potential for coding errors and biases and unobserved confounding. Because all patients were in commercially administered health plans, these findings cannot be easily generalized to uninsured or Medicaid populations. Patient costs were evaluated up to and including their first HHF event. Post-discharge costs such as the costs of subsequent rehospitalizations were not included in this analysis.

Conclusions: For patients with T2DM and established cardiovascular disease in this real-world study, treatment with canagliflozin was associated with lower HHF costs and all-cause healthcare costs compared with treatment with non-SGLT2i AHAs.     

Cost-effectiveness of targeted screening for the identification of patients with atrial fibrillation: evaluation of a machine learning risk prediction algorithm

Abstract

Aims: As many cases of atrial fibrillation (AF) are asymptomatic, patients often remain undiagnosed until complications (e.g. stroke) manifest. Risk-prediction algorithms may help to efficiently identify people with undiagnosed AF. However, the cost-effectiveness of targeted screening remains uncertain. This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of targeted screening, informed by a machine learning (ML) risk prediction algorithm, to identify patients with AF.

Methods: Cost-effectiveness analyses were undertaken utilizing a hybrid screening decision tree and Markov disease progression model. Costs and outcomes associated with the detection of AF compared traditional systematic and opportunistic AF screening strategies to targeted screening informed by a ML risk prediction algorithm. Model analyses were based on adults ≥50?years and adopted the UK NHS perspective.

Results: Targeted screening using the ML risk prediction algorithm required fewer patients to be screened (61 per 1,000 patients, compared to 534 and 687 patients in the systematic and opportunistic strategies) and detected more AF cases (11 per 1,000 patients, compared to 6 and 8?AF cases in the systematic and opportunistic screening strategies). The targeted approach demonstrated cost-effectiveness under base case settings (cost per QALY gained of £4,847 and £5,544 against systematic and opportunistic screening respectively). The targeted screening strategy was predicted to provide an additional 3.40 and 2.05 QALYs per 1,000 patients screened versus systematic and opportunistic strategies. The targeted screening strategy remained cost-effective in all scenarios evaluated.

Limitations: The analysis relied on assumptions that include the extended period of patient life span and the lack of consideration for treatment discontinuations/switching, as well as the assumption that the ML risk-prediction algorithm will identify asymptomatic AF.

Conclusions: Targeted screening using a ML risk prediction algorithm has the potential to enhance the clinical and cost-effectiveness of AF screening, improving health outcomes through efficient use of limited healthcare resources.     

Pharmacoeconomic analysis for pemetrexed as a maintenance therapy for NSCLC patients with patient assistance program in China

Objective: This study is to evaluate the costs, clinical efficacy, and social benefits of a patient assistance program (PAP) implemented by the China Primary Healthcare Foundation for the use of pemetrexed as a first-line non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) maintenance therapy in China.

Methods: A survival analysis was conducted on the clinical data of 1,366 patients who participated in the PAP. The progression-free survival (PFS) and median maintenance treatment cycle of pemetrexed were analyzed. A 36-month Markov model from a payer’s perspective was constructed to analyze the cost and effectiveness associated with the PAP for pemetrexed. The inputs of the model were sourced from the PAP clinical database and published literature. The study estimated the incremental quality adjusted life-years (QALYs) (pemetrexed plus best supportive care [BSC] vs BSC only), the cost saving of the PAP, the impact on the percentage of catastrophic health expenditures (CHE), and poverty headcount ratio (HCR).

Results: The median of PFS and maintenance treatment cycles were 187 days and five cycles (total nine cycles, which included four cycles of induction therapy), respectively. The pemetrexed plus BSC treatment with PAP resulted in an additional 0.12 QALYs over BSC only. The total cost was $48,034.46 and $96,191.57 for the patients who had or had not joined the PAP in 3 years, respectively. Compared to the patients without PAP, the percentage of CHE and HCR with PAP was reduced from 98.39% to 19.91% and 66.98% to 4.89%, respectively, indicating that the PAP substantially decreased the number of patients who had CHE and fallen into poverty.

Conclusion: The study concluded that the pemetrexed PAP generated noticeable clinical and economic benefits to society and to patients. The program also increased patients’ compliance with chemotherapy by allowing patients, for whom the pemetrexed treatment was unaffordable, to continue to receive it.     

Cost-effectiveness analysis of utidelone plus capecitabine for metastatic breast cancer in China

Abstract

Objective: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of utidelone plus capecitabine therapy compared to capecitabine alone in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) resistant to anthracyclines and taxanes treatment in the Chinese context and provide a reference for the marketing of utidelone in China.

Methods: A Markov model was developed based on the NCT02253459 clinical trial to simulate the clinical course of patients with metastatic breast cancer who had received taxanes and anthracycline therapy. The quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) were then analyzed to evaluate the benefits. Two-parametric Weibull distribution was conducted to fit PFS and OS curves by using R. Sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the stability of the model designed.

Results: The addition of utidelone increased the cost and QALYs by $13,370.25 and 0.1961, respectively, resulting in an increased ICER of $68,180.78 per QALY. The most sensitive influential parameter on ICER was the price of utidelone. At the threshold of willingness-to-pay (WTP) of $24,380 (3 per capita GDP of China), the cost of utidelone per 30?mg of less than $18.5, $33.7, and greater than $48.8 resulted in a 100%, 50%, and 0% possibility of cost-effectiveness, respectively. The addition of utidelone was not cost-effective when it was $115.4 per 30?mg—the price of its analog paclitaxel. In consideration of varied economics levels across China, cost-effectiveness could be achieved with the price of utidelone ranging from $5.2 to $35.9.

Limitations: The survival curves extended beyond the follow-up time horizon, of which data were generated not from the real analyses but from our established two-parameter Weibull survival model.

Conclusion: It is recommended that the price of utidelone would be less than $18.5 per 30?mg in order to obtain cost-effectiveness for metastatic breast cancer patients resistant to anthracyclines and taxanes treatment in China.     

Economic evaluation of human urinary kallindinogenase for patients with acute ischemic stroke in China

Objectives: In China, both human urinary kallindinogenase (HUK) and 3-n-butylphthalide (NBP) are recommended for clinical use to improve cerebral blood circulation during an acute ischemic stroke (AIS). The objective was to evaluate the economic value of HUK vs NBP for patients with AIS from a Chinese payer’s perspective.

Methods: An economic evaluation based on data of patients who have been treated with either HUK (n?=?488) or NBP (n?=?885) from a prospective, phase IV, multi-center, clinical registry study (Chinese Acute Ischemic Stroke Treatment Outcome Registry, CASTOR) was conducted to analyze the cost and effectiveness of HUK vs NBP for AIS in China. Before the analysis, the patients were matched using propensity score. Both a cost-minimization analysis and a cost-effectiveness analysis were conducted to compare the matched pairs. A bootstrapping exercise was conducted for the matched arms to demonstrate the probability of one intervention being cost-effective over another for a given willingness-to-pay for an extra quality-adjusted life-year (QALY).

Results: After propensity score matching, 463 pairs were matched. The overall medical cost in the HUK arm is USD 2,701.20, while the NBP arm is USD 3,436.83, indicating HUK is preferred with cost-minimization analysis. Although the QALY gained in the HUK arm (0.77176) compared with the NBP arm (0.76831) is statistically insignificant (p?=?.4862), the cost-effectiveness analysis as exploratory analysis found that, compared with NBP, HUK is a cost-saving strategy with the lower costs of USD 735.63 and greater QALYs gained of 0.00345. Among the 5,000 bootstrapping replications, 100% indicates that HUK is cost-effective compared with NBP under a 1-time-GDP threshold; and 97.12% indicates the same under a 3-time-GDP threshold.

Conclusion: This economic evaluation study indicates that administrating HUK is a cost-saving therapy compared with NBP for managing blood flow during AIS in the Chinese setting.     

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 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.     

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.     

Economic evaluation for the US of nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine versus FOLFIRINOX versus gemcitabine in the treatment of metastatic pancreas cancer

Background: Nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine (NAB-P?+?GEM) and FOLFIRINOX have shown superior efficacy over gemcitabine (GEM) in the treatment of metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDA). Although the incremental clinical benefits are modest, both treatments represent significant advances in the treatment of a high-mortality cancer. In this independent economic evaluation for the US, the aim was to estimate the comparative cost-utility and cost-effectiveness of these three regimens from the payer perspective.

Methods: In the absence of a direct treatment comparison in a single clinical trial, the Bucher indirect comparison method was used to estimate the comparative efficacy of each regimen. A Markov model evaluated life years (LY) and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained with NAB-P?+?GEM and FOLFIRINOX over GEM, expressed as incremental cost-effectiveness (ICER) and cost-utility ratios (ICUR). All costs and outcomes were discounted at 3%/year. The impact of parameter uncertainty on the model was assessed by probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

Results: NAB-P?+?GEM was associated with differentials of +0.180 LY and +0.127 QALY gained over GEM at an incremental total cost of $25,965; yielding an ICER of $144,096/LY and ICUR of $204,369/QALY gained. FOLFIRINOX was associated with differentials of +0.368 LY and +0.249 QALY gained over GEM at an incremental total cost of $93,045; yielding an ICER of $253,162/LY and ICUR of $372,813/QALY gained. In indirect comparison, the overall survival hazard ratio (OS HR) for NAB-P?+?GEM vs FOLFIRINOX was 0.79 (95%CI?=?0.59–1.05), indicating no superiority in OS of either regimen. FOLFIRINOX had an ICER of $358,067/LY and an ICUR of $547,480/QALY gained over NAB-P?+?GEM. Tornado diagrams identified variation in the OS HR, but no other parameters, to impact the NAB-P?+?GEM and FOLFIRINOX ICURs.

Conclusions: In the absence of a statistically significant difference in OS between NAB-P?+?GEM and FOLFIRINOX, this US analysis indicates that the greater economic benefit in terms of cost-savings and incremental cost-effectiveness and cost-utility ratios favors NAB-P?+?GEM over FOLFIRINOX.     

Cost analysis of the treatments for patients with advanced Parkinson's disease: SCOPE study

Abstract

Objective:

To perform a comparative long-term analysis of the associated healthcare costs for the therapeutic options in advanced Parkinson’s Disease (PD): deep brain stimulation (DBS), continuous duodenal levodopa-carbidopa infusion (CDLCI), and continuous subcutaneous apomorphine infusion (CSAI).     

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

Abstract

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

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

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

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

Cost-effectiveness analysis in the Spanish setting of the PEAK trial of panitumumab plus mFOLFOX6 compared with bevacizumab plus mFOLFOX6 for first-line treatment of patients with wild-type RAS metastatic colorectal cancer

Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness of panitumumab in combination with mFOLFOX6 (oxaliplatin, 5-fluorouracil, and leucovorin) vs bevacizumab in combination with mFOLFOX6 as first-line treatment of patients with wild-type RAS metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in Spain.

Methods: A semi-Markov model was developed including the following health states: Progression free; Progressive disease: Treat with best supportive care; Progressive disease: Treat with subsequent active therapy; Attempted resection of metastases; Disease free after metastases resection; Progressive disease: after resection and relapse; and Death. Parametric survival analyses of patient-level progression free survival and overall survival data from the PEAK Phase II clinical trial were used to estimate health state transitions. Additional data from the PEAK trial were considered for the dose and duration of therapy, the use of subsequent therapy, the occurrence of adverse events, and the incidence and probability of time to metastasis resection. Utility weightings were calculated from patient-level data from panitumumab trials evaluating first-, second-, and third-line treatments. The study was performed from the Spanish National Health System (NHS) perspective including only direct costs. A life-time horizon was applied. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses and scenario sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robustness of the model.

Results: Based on the PEAK trial, which demonstrated greater efficacy of panitumumab vs bevacizumab, both in combination with mFOLFOX6 first-line in wild-type RAS mCRC patients, the estimated incremental cost per life-year gained was €16,567 and the estimated incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained was €22,794. The sensitivity analyses showed the model was robust to alternative parameters and assumptions.

Limitations: The analysis was based on a simulation model and, therefore, the results should be interpreted cautiously.

Conclusions: Based on the PEAK Phase II clinical trial and taking into account Spanish costs, the results of the analysis showed that first-line treatment of mCRC with panitumumab?+?mFOLFOX6 could be considered a cost-effective option compared with bevacizumab?+?mFOLFOX6 for the Spanish NHS.     

Cost-effectiveness analysis of suvorexant for the treatment of Japanese elderly patients with chronic insomnia in a virtual cohort

Aims: This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of the orexin receptor antagonist suvorexant against zolpidem, the most widely used hypnotic benzodiazepine receptor agonist in Japan. To this end, a model was used that factored in insomnia and the risk for hip fractures, which have devastating effects on the elderly.

Methods: Data were derived from published papers. The target population was a virtual cohort of elderly patients (≥65 years) with insomnia residing in Japan. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated using quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio as effectiveness measures. The investigators assumed the perspective of healthcare payers.

Results: In the base-case analysis, suvorexant was cost-saving (suvorexant: $252.3, zolpidem: $328.7) and had higher QALYs gained (suvorexant: 0.0641, zolpidem: 0.0635) for elderly Japanese patients with insomnia compared with zolpidem, indicating that suvorexant was dominant. In the sensitivity analysis, the outcome changed from dominant to dominated due to the relative risk for hip fractures associated with suvorexant. However, when the other parameters were varied from the lower to the upper limits of their ranges, suvorexant remained dominant compared to zolpidem.

Limitations: The relative risk for hip fractures for suvorexant used in the model was based on data from pre-approval clinical trials. More precise data may be needed.

Conclusions: Suvorexant seemed to be more cost-effective than the alternative zolpidem. The findings suggested that suvorexant might be a viable alternative to zolpidem for elderly patients with insomnia. A sensitivity analysis showed that outcome varied depending on the relative risk for hip fractures associated with suvorexant. Further investigations may be needed for more precise results.