An economic comparison of the net clinical benefit and treatment costs of raltitrexed and 5-fluorouracil + leucovorin (Mayo regimen) in advanced colorectal cancer

Summary

Background

This paper describes an economic evaluation in which raltitrexed (Tomudex®) was compared with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) + leucovorin (LV), and where net clinical benefits were related to differential health service costs. Raltitrexed, a specific inhibitor of thymidylate synthetase, has shown anticancer activity against a range of solid tumours.

Tomudex® is a registered trademark ofZeneca Pharmaceuticals

Materials and Methods

In a large, open, randomised, multicentre study in patients with advanced colorectal cancer, raltitrexed (n = 223) and 5-FU plus LV (n = 216) showed similar efficacy in terms of patient survival and objective response (i.e. tumour shrinkage rates). Palliative benefits were seen in both groups of patients and suggest that patients with stable disease are as likely to show improvement as those with a tumour response. Reductions compared with 5-FU plus LV in the number of toxicity days (median 1.5 vs 8 treatment days) and administration days (6 vs 22 days) with raltitrexed were consistent with a net clinical benefit.

Results

A cost minimisation analysis that drew on data from a number of sources showed direct medical costs per month to be similar for the two treatments (£781 for raltitrexed vs £834 for 5-FU + LV).

Conclusions

Raltitrexed therefore represents a clinically effective alternative to 5-FU plus LV (Mayo regimen) and offers net clinical benefit to patients with advanced colorectal cancer at no apparent additional cost.     

Corroboration of claims algorithm for second-line costs of metastatic colorectal cancer treatment with targeted agents

Abstract

Objective:

To refine a claims algorithm for identifying second-line systemic regimens for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) based on clinical evidence and to compare costs during second-line treatment by targeted therapy administered.

Methods:

This retrospective analysis of a large US managed care database identified patients diagnosed with mCRC during 1 July 2007–30 June 2011. A claims-based algorithm was developed to identify patients with at least two lines of therapy (LOT) and the second LOT contained one targeted agent: bevacizumab or any anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR). Medical chart data from 92 patients were used to corroborate and refine the LOT algorithm. The positive predictive value (PPV) of the initial algorithm and refined algorithm for identification of second LOT are presented. The final algorithm was applied to claims data and two mutually exclusive second-line cohorts were examined: patients with bevacizumab- or cetuximab-containing regimens. Second-line healthcare costs were analyzed with generalized linear models adjusted for demographic and clinical characteristics.

Results:

The PPV increased from 50.0% (95% CI?=?39.4–60.6) for the initial algorithm to 72.1% (95% CI?=?59.2–82.9) for the final algorithm. Mean age in the cohorts (n?=?569) was 61 years; 58% were men. Days of therapy were similar for the bevacizumab (n?=?450) vs cetuximab (n?=?119) cohorts, respectively: 131 vs 148 in first LOT and 123 (both cohorts) in second LOT (p?≥?0.27). Total costs during second-line treatment in the bevacizumab cohort were lower by $12,318 (p?=?0.02) and medical costs were lower by $13,809 (p?=?0.01). Monthly total and medical costs were lower by $2728 (p?=?0.03) and $3133 (p?=?0.01), respectively. Results are based on commercially or Medicare-insured patients and may not be generalizable to Medicaid or uninsured patients.

Conclusions:

Corroboration of claim-based algorithms with medical chart data improved algorithm performance. Second-line total and medical costs were lower for mCRC patients treated with bevacizumab compared with cetuximab.     

Healthcare costs associated with bevacizumab and cetuximab in second-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer

Abstract

Objective:

To compare the health care costs of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) who received second-line treatment with Avastin (bevacizumab) versus Erbitux (cetuximab), from the third-party payer’s perspective.

Methods:

Patients with mCRC were selected from the PharMetrics claims database if they received second-line therapy containing either bevacizumab (second-line bevacizumab cohort) or cetuximab (second-line cetuximab cohort). Six-month costs following second-line therapy start date and average monthly healthcare costs while on second-line therapy (in 2009 US$) were calculated and compared between the two groups.

Results:

A total of 2188 patients with mCRC who met the eligibility criteria were included in the analysis, including 1808 patients receiving bevacizumab and 380 patients receiving cetuximab in second-line treatment. Demographic and baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups. Patients’ mean age was 61 years and 56% were males. In second-line treatment, bevacizumab was commonly used with oxaliplatin (43.5%) and irinotecan-based regimens (40.4%), whereas cetuximab was commonly used with irinotecan-based regimens (68.2%). Bevacizumab patients had significantly lower total all-cause healthcare costs than cetuximab patients (adjusted difference: –$10,231, p?=?0.020), and lower medical costs (–$10,796, p?=?0.012) during the 6 months following second-line therapy initiation. Approximately half of the difference in total all-cause healthcare costs was attributable to the lower chemotherapy and targeted therapy costs (–$5635, p?=?0.032) of bevacizumab patients than those of cetuximab patients. While on second-line therapy, bevacizumab patients also had lower average monthly all-cause healthcare costs than cetuximab patients.

Limitations:

Second-line treatment in the current study was defined based on changes in mCRC medications, not based on disease progression due to the limited clinical information available in claims.

Conclusion:

The use of bevacizumab in second-line therapy was associated with significantly lower healthcare costs in mCRC patients, compared to the use of cetuximab.     

The value and consequences of using public health technology assessments for private payer decision-making in Canada: one size does not fit all

Background: Both public and private insurers provide drug coverage in Canada. All payers are under pressure to contain costs. It has recently been proposed that private plans leverage the public health technology assessment (HTA) evaluation process in their decision-making.

Objectives: The objectives of the current study were to examine use of public health technology assessments (HTAs) for private payer decision-making in the literature, to gather the perspectives of experts from both public and private insurers on this practice, and to summarize which value parameters of public evaluations can be used for private payer decision-making.

Methods: A targeted literature review was conducted to identify publications on the use of public HTA or cost-effectiveness data for private payer decision-making on pharmaceutical reimbursement. Concurrently, a roundtable meeting was organized with invited panelists, including private payer representatives and health economic consultants (total n?=?9). The findings from both were synthesized and expressed in qualitative terms using the PICO framework.

Results: The targeted review identified 20 studies meeting the inclusion criteria, primarily originating from the US and Canada. The panelists felt that, despite some similarities, there were substantial differences between both systems. The PICO framework highlighted the issues with transferability between the two systems. Most of the value parameters were either not applicable, needed to be added, needed to be adjusted, or their applicability to private payer systems needed to be confirmed.

Conclusion: Some components of public HTA may be relevant for private payers, however there are reservations that still exist on whether the HTA process in Canada, designed for a public system, can address the informational needs of private payers. Private insurers need to use caution in assessing which value parameters from public HTAs can be used and which need to be confirmed, ignored, enhanced, or adjusted. One size HTA does not fit all applications.     

Medical resource utilization and costs for total hip arthroplasty: benchmarking an anterior approach technique in the Medicare population

Aims: The anterior approach (AA) for total hip arthroplasty (THA) is associated with more rapid recovery when compared to traditional approaches. The purpose of this study was to benchmark healthcare resource utilization and costs for patients with THA via AA relative to matched patients.

Materials and methods: This study queried Medicare claims data (2012–2014) to identify patients who received THA via an AA from experienced surgeons, and matched these patients to a control cohort (all THA approaches). Direct and propensity-score matching were employed to maximize similarity between patients and hospitals in the two cohorts. Hospital length of stay (LOS), the proportion of patients discharged to home or home health, and post-acute claim payments during the 90-day episode were assessed. Generalized estimating equations were applied to control for imbalances between the cohorts and clustering of outcomes within hospitals.

Results: A total of 1,794 patients were included after patient matching. Patients who received AA had significantly lower mean hospital LOS vs patients in the control group (2.06?±?1.36 vs 2.98?±?1.58 days, p?<?.0001). The adjusted proportion of patients discharged to home was nearly 20 percentage points higher in the AA cohort vs the control cohort (87.3% vs 68.7%, p?<?.0001). Post-acute claim payments for AA patients were nearly 50% lower than those for control patients ($4,139 vs $7,465, p?<?.0001).

Conclusion: AA patients had significantly lower post-acute care resource use when compared to control patients. Further research is warranted to evaluate the cost effectiveness of AA among surgeons of varying experience levels.     

Evaluation of the costs and resource use associated with adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer in France

Abstract

Objectives:

There is a paucity of recent data on breast cancer costs, particularly on the burden of chemotherapy. The present study was designed to estimate resource use and costs associated with the current standard of care for adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer.

Methods:

Costs and resource use were assessed by retrospective analysis of medical records at a single comprehensive cancer care center, Hôpital Tenon, Paris, France. Data were extracted from files of female patients having undergone surgical resection of breast cancer between January–July 2010. Patients were included if they received chemotherapy at the hospital and had medical records available. Patients were followed from the start of adjuvant chemotherapy (including pre-chemotherapy) to the end of treatment. Costs were collected for each resource use item from a societal perspective using standard, published sources and expressed in 2011 Euros (€). Limitations of the analysis included the single-center study design and the use of pre-defined questionnaires on resource use (which may conservatively estimate costs).

Results:

A total of 62 patients were included in the study with a mean age of ～54 years. Most patients had stage II (50.8%) or stage III (40.7%) disease. Anthracycline plus taxane-based chemotherapy regimens were most commonly prescribed (77% of patients). Mean cost of adjuvant chemotherapy was estimated to be ～€15,740 per patient from a societal perspective. The acquisition costs of chemotherapy agents were responsible for 26% of the total, with lost productivity (27%), chemotherapy administration (19%), and adverse events (16%) also contributing substantially.

Conclusions:

Evaluation of costs in patients with non-metastatic breast cancer in France has shown that the costs of adjuvant chemotherapy are substantial. The main components of total cost were the cost of chemotherapy agents, lost productivity, chemotherapy administration, and management and prevention of adverse events.     

Impact of increasing adherence to disease-modifying therapies on healthcare resource utilization and direct medical and indirect work loss costs for patients with multiple sclerosis

Abstract

Objectives:

To estimate the effect of adherence to disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) among patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) on healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs, and model the impact of a 10 percentage point increase in adherence on these outcomes.     

Current and projected patient and insurer costs for the care of patients with non-small cell lung cancer in the United States through 2040

Aims: The objective of this study was to quantify the current and to project future patient and insurer costs for the care of patients with non-small cell lung cancer in the US.

Materials and methods: An analysis of administrative claims data among patients diagnosed with non-small cell lung cancer from 2007–2015 was conducted. Future costs were projected through 2040 based on these data using autoregressive models.

Results: Analysis of claims data found the average total cost of care during first- and second-line therapy was $1,161.70 and $561.80 for patients, and $45,175.70 and $26,201.40 for insurers, respectively. By 2040, the average total patient out-of-pocket costs are projected to reach $3,047.67 for first-line and $2,211.33 for second-line therapy, and insurance will pay an average of $131,262.39 for first-line and $75,062.23 for second-line therapy.

Limitations: Claims data are not collected for research purposes; therefore, there may be errors in entry and coding. Additionally, claims data do not contain important clinical factors, such as stage of disease at diagnosis, tumor histology, or data on disease progression, which may have important implications on the cost of care.

Conclusions: The trajectory of the cost of lung cancer care is growing. This study estimates that the cost of care may double by 2040, with the greatest proportion of increase in patient out-of-pocket costs. Despite the average cost projections, these results suggest that a small sub-set of patients with very high costs could be at even greater risk in the future.     

Comparative net cost impact of the utilization of panitumumab versus cetuximab for the treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer in Canada

Objective:

Clinical practice guidelines support the use of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors panitumumab and cetuximab for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) after failure of other chemotherapy regimens, based on significant clinical benefits in patients with wild-type KRAS. The purpose of the analysis was to compare provincial hospital costs when using panitumumab vs cetuximab with or without irinotecan in this patient population using a Net Impact Analysis (NIA) approach.

Methods:

The NIA determined the total per patient cost of the reimbursed regimens of panitumumab vs cetuximab in British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario, and Québec. Utilization of healthcare resources related to EGFR inhibitor infusions, follow-up monitoring, and treatment of adverse events (AEs) were also included. Healthcare resource use including drugs, medical supplies, laboratory testing, oncology infusion time, and healthcare professionals’ time was obtained through expert consultation and the use was then multiplied by the province-specific cost of each resource. Numerous sensitivity analyses were conducted.

Results:

Based on the dosing regimens in place in each province, the total annual per patient cost of panitumumab ranged from $22,203–$32,600, while the total annual per patient cost of cetuximab treatment varied from $30,321–$40,908. Treatment with panitumumab resulted in lower costs in all cost categories including drug acquisition, infusion preparation/administration, patient monitoring, and AE management. Per patient savings with panitumumab ranged from a low of $3815 in British Columbia to a high of $10,603 in Ontario. In sensitivity analyses, panitumumab remained cost saving in all scenarios where the savings ranged from $150–$16,006 per patient.

Conclusions:

Treating chemorefractory mCRC patients with panitumumab rather than cetuximab reduced healthcare resource costs. Provincial healthcare savings achieved with the use of panitumumab could potentially be re-allocated to other cancer treatments, although further study would be needed to validate this assumption.     

Impact of adoption of a decision algorithm including PCA3 for repeat biopsy on the costs for prostate cancer diagnosis in France

Abstract

Objective:

A recent expert study (RAND Appropriateness Method (RAM)) including a panel of 12 European urologists reported that the PCA3 score may be instrumental in taking appropriate prostate biopsy (PBx) decisions, mainly for repeat PBx. This study determined the cost/benefit balance of introducing PCA3 in the decision-making for PBx in France.

Methods:

Two RAM models, without and with PCA3, were retrospectively applied to a sample of 808 French men who had PBx in 2010 (78% first, 22% repeat). Outcome measures included the proportion of PBx that could have been avoided (i.e., judged inappropriate) in the French sample according to both RAM models, and the estimated impact of application of these models on the annual number of PBx and associated costs for France (based on most recent published data).

Results:

Complete profiles were available for 698 men. In the model without PCA3, 2% of PBx were deemed inappropriate. Knowledge of PCA3 would have avoided another 7% of PBx. Repeat PBx would have been avoided in 5% of cases without PCA3 and in 37% with PCA3. For France, application of the RAM model including PCA3 would result in 18,345 fewer repeat PBx. It would be budget-neutral in the unlikely hypothesis of no complications or no costs incurred by complications and would save €1.7 million for a mean cost for complications of €100/procedure or €5 million for a mean cost for complications of €280/procedure, calculated based on US and Canadian data.

Limitations:

Limitations of the study are the theoretical nature of the analysis and the fact that PCA3 distributions had to be derived from other sources.

Conclusions:

Adoption of RAM expert recommendations including PCA3 for repeat PBx decisions in clinical practice in France would reduce the number of repeat PBx and control costs.     

Economic value of narrow band imaging versus white light endoscopy for the characterization of diminutive polyps in the colon: systematic literature review and cost-consequence model

Aims: To demonstrate the economic implication of adopting narrow-band imaging (NBI) for the characterization of diminutive polyps in the colon from an English payer perspective.

Materials and methods: A decision-tree model was undertaken to perform a cost-consequence and budget impact analysis from the NHS England perspective in the UK, over a 7-year time horizon. Clinical inputs came from the published literature (both randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses) identified through a systematic literature review, and cost inputs came from national list prices and unpublished internal market data. Deterministic sensitivity analysis (DSA) was conducted on the budget impact results to assess their robustness.

Results: Optical diagnosis with NBI offered cost savings vs white light endoscopy (WLE) over 7 years due to reductions in histological exams, resections, and associated adverse events, while having minimal impact on health outcomes. Budget impact analysis demonstrated annual cost savings of £141 192 057 over 7 years, with histological exams being the biggest cost driver. DSA showed these results to be robust, but most sensitive to the cost of tariff with and without biopsy, and the cost of histological exam. Break-even analysis to explore how changing the unit cost and number of biopsies per patient would change the budget impact found NBI consistently offered net savings, even if the cost of biopsy was £0.

Limitations: Although every effort was made to ensure robustness of results, as with any model, there were some limitations including a lack of published data for certain clinical inputs and potential variation between model inputs and real-life cost and market share values.

Conclusions: Optical diagnosis with NBI was found to be equally effective compared with the standard of care (WLE), while potentially enabling cost savings from the NHS England perspective.     

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

Background:

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

Objective:

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

Methods:

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

Results:

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

Conclusion:

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

Counting the uncounted: The consequences of children's domestic chores for health and education in Ethiopia

Much of the existing literature on the economics of child labor assumes that child labor is synonymous with employment in income‐generating activities. However, children also perform domestic chores, and excessive involvement in chores may be detrimental to their wellbeing. This paper investigates the effect on child health and education outcomes of participation in domestic chores as well as participation in income‐generating activities. Our data come from the 2014 Young Lives survey of Ethiopia. We use the guidelines of the 18th International Conference of Labor Statisticians and the United Nations Children's Fund to make a distinction between light work and harmful work, and apply this distinction to both domestic chores and income‐generating work. Using an instrumental variables approach, we find that involvement in harmful domestic chores is strongly associated with poor health and education outcomes. Our findings suggest that excessive involvement in domestic chores constitutes a form of child labor. Ignoring domestic chores will lead to an underestimate of the prevalence of child labor, especially among girls, whose exposure to chores is much higher, on average, than that of boys.     

A comparison of the estimated costs of erlotinib,docetaxel and pemetrexed for the second-line treatment of non-small cell lung cancer from the German healthcare perspective

Summary

The estimated costs of second-line therapy with erlotinib versus docetaxel or pemetrexed were analysed in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) assuming the survival benefits delivered by these three drugs are comparable. Direct total costs to the German statutory health insurance system per patient per quarter were compared, including the impact of grade 3/4 side effects. Resource utilisation data came from clinical studies and/or were supplemented on the basis of guidelines/prescribing information. Basic costs per patient per quarter were: erlotinib €8,172; docetaxel €8,055; and pemetrexed €15,870. Including the cost of managing side effects, the total cost per patient per quarter with erlotinib was €8,376 compared with €9,976 for docetaxel and €16,596 for pemetrexed. The main influence on the cost analysis was the management of haematological side effects associated with docetaxel and to a lesser extent pemetrexed. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the results. Based on its favourable side-effect profile, erlotinib offers health economic advantages over docetaxel and pemetrexed in relapsed advanced NSCLC in Germany.     

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 drivers for breast,lung, and colorectal cancer care in a commercially insured population over a 6-month episode: an economic analysis from a health plan perspective

Aims: In the absence of clinical data, accurate identification of cost drivers is needed for economic comparison in an alternate payment model. From a health plan perspective using claims data in a commercial population, the objective was to identify and quantify the effects of cost drivers in economic models of breast, lung, and colorectal cancer costs over a 6-month episode following initial chemotherapy.

Research design and methods: This study analyzed claims data from 9,748 Cigna beneficiaries with diagnosis of breast, lung, and colorectal cancer following initial chemotherapy from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2015. We used multivariable regression models to quantify the impact of key factors on cost during the initial 6-month cancer care episode.

Results: Metastasis, facility provider affiliation, episode risk group (ERG) risk score, and radiation were cost drivers for all three types of cancer (breast, lung, and colorectal). In addition, younger age (p?p?p?p?p?Conclusions: Value-based reimbursement models in oncology should appropriately account for key cost drivers. Although claims-based methodologies may be further augmented with clinical data, this study recommends adjusting for the factors identified in these models to predict costs in breast, lung, and colorectal cancers.     

Economic analysis of bevacizumab,cetuximab, and panitumumab with fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of KRAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC)

Abstract

Objective:

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most commonly diagnosed cancer in Canada (excluding non-melanoma skin cancers). Bevacizumab is a recombinant humanized monoclonal antibody that selectively binds to human vascular endothelial growth factor. A sub-study confirmed its effectiveness in KRAS wild-type patients. Recent evidence has shown clinical benefit from anti-epidermal growth factor treatments cetuximab and panitumumab in these patients. The cost-effectiveness, to the Canadian healthcare system, of fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy (FBC) in combination with bevacizumab, cetuximab, or panitumumab was assessed for first-line treatment of KRAS wild-type mCRC patients.

Methods:

A Markov model was developed and calibrated to progression-free/overall survival, using separately reported trial survival and adverse event results for each comparator. Health-state resource utilization was derived from published data and oncologist input. Utilities and unit prices were obtained from published literature and standard Canadian sources.

Results:

Results per patient are over a lifetime horizon, to a maximum of 10 years, with 5% annual discounting. Comparators are ordered by total cost and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of each is determined against the previous non-dominated therapy. Compared to FBC alone, bevacizumab?+?FBC has an ICER of $131,600 per QALY gained. Compared to bevacizumab?+?FBC, panitumumab?+?FBC is dominated and cetuximab?+?FBC has an ICER of $3.8 million per QALY. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, bevacizumab?+?FBC had ～100%, ～100%, and 98.9% probabilities of being more cost-effective than both of the other combination treatments at thresholds of $50,000/QALY, $100,000/QALY, and $200,000/QALY, respectively.

Conclusion:

For first-line treatment of KRAS-WT mCRC, bevacizumab?+?FBC is associated with substantially lower costs as compared to panitumumab?+?FBC or cetuximab?+?FBC. Key limitations were that survival curves and adverse event rates were taken from separate clinical trials and that an indirect comparison was not included. Given these findings, bevacizumab is likely to offer the best value for money for this patient population.     

Mirabegron for the treatment of overactive bladder: cost-effectiveness from US commercial health-plan and Medicare Advantage perspectives

Background and objective: The first class of oral pharmacologic treatments for overactive bladder (OAB) are antimuscarinics that are associated with poor persistence, anticholinergic adverse events, and increased anticholinergic burden (ACB) with risk of cognitive impairment. Mirabegron, a β3-adrenoceptor agonist, is an oral treatment that does not contribute to ACB and has early evidence of improved persistence. The objective of the analysis was to assess the cost-effectiveness of mirabegron for OAB vs six antimuscarinics in the US.

Methods: A Markov state-transition model assessed US commercial health-plan and Medicare Advantage perspectives over a 3-year time horizon in an OAB patient population. Transition probabilities between five micturition and five incontinence severity states were derived from a network meta-analysis of 44 trials of oral OAB treatments. Therapy beginning with an oral OAB agent could discontinue or switch to another oral agent and could be followed by tibial nerve stimulation, sacral neuromodulation, or onabotulinumtoxinA. The primary outcome was cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Utilities were mapped from incontinence and micturition frequencies as well as demographics. Based on analysis of data from a large healthcare system, elevated ACB was associated with increased healthcare utilization and probability of cognitive impairment.

Results: From both commercial and Medicare Advantage perspectives, mirabegron was the most clinically effective treatment, while oxybutynin was the least expensive. Tolterodine immediate release (IR) was also on the cost-effectiveness frontier. The analysis estimated costs per QALY of $59,690 and $66,347 for mirabegron from commercial health plan and Medicare Advantage perspectives, respectively, compared to tolterodine IR. Other antimuscarinics were dominated.

Conclusions: This analysis estimated that mirabegron is a cost-effective treatment for OAB from US commercial health plan and Medicare Advantage perspectives, due to fewer projected adverse events and comorbidities, and data suggesting better persistence.