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.     

A budget impact analysis of lenalidomide in multiple myeloma Egyptian patients

Abstract

Introduction

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

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.     

Ulipristal acetate for pre-operative treatment of moderate-to-severe uterine fibroids in women of reproductive age in The Netherlands: cost minimization analysis and budget impact analysis

Objective: Ulipristal acetate has been found to be non-inferior to other pre-operative treatments of uterine fibroids, particularly leuprolide. The objective of this study was to assess the pharmacoeconomic profile of ulipristal acetate compared to leuprolide for the pre-operative treatment of moderate-to-severe uterine fibroids in women of reproductive age in The Netherlands. The analysis was performed and applied within the framework of the ulipristal acetate submission for reimbursement in 2012.

Methods: A decision model was developed to compare the total costs of ulipristal acetate compared to leuprolide, the standard care in The Netherlands. The target population of this study corresponded to the type of patients included in the PEARL II clinical trial; i.e. women of reproductive age requiring pre-operative treatment for uterine fibroids. Sensitivity analysis was implemented to assess uncertainties. Data regarding costs, effects, and other input parameters were obtained from relevant published literatures, the Dutch Healthcare Insurance Board, and expert opinion obtained by means of a panel of experts from several medical centers in The Netherlands.

Results: In The Netherlands, the total costs of ulipristal acetate and leuprolide were estimated at €4,216,027 and €4,218,095, respectively. The annual savings of ulipristal acetate were, therefore, estimated at €2,068. The major driver of this cost difference was the cost of administration for leuprolide. Sensitivity analyses showed that ulipristal acetate mostly remained cost-saving over a range of assumptions. The budget impact analysis indicated that the introduction of ulipristal acetate was estimated to result in cost savings in the first 3 years following the introduction. The results of this study were used in the decision on reimbursement of ulipristal acetate according to the Dutch Reference Pricing system in 2012.

Conclusion: Ulipristal acetate was cost saving compared to leuprolide and has the potential to provide substantial savings on the healthcare budget in The Netherlands.     

A budget impact analysis of budesonide/formoterol in patients with mild asthma in Egypt

Abstract

Background: The aim of this study is to estimate the budget impact of budesonide/formoterol fixed dose combination (FDC) vs salbutamol, both used as needed, in mild asthma patients, from the perspective of the Health Insurance Organization (HIO).

Methods: A static budget impact model was developed to assess the impact of budesonide/formoterol FDC entry on HIO budget over a 3-year period in Egyptian settings. Direct medical costs, including the costs of asthma medications, exacerbations, and management of side-effects, were obtained from HIO cost data. Population data were obtained from the World Bank and supplemented with local studies, and the rates of exacerbations, adverse effects, and number of sick leave days were elicited from the SYGMA 1 trial. Scenario analyses from a societal perspective and deterministic sensitivity analyses were conducted.

Results: The total costs (drug and non-drug costs) for managing mild asthma patients from the HIO perspective were estimated to be EGP8.563 billion before budesonide/formoterol entry compared to EGP5.525 billion post-entry, leading to a total budget savings of EGP3.038 billion after 3?years. This total budget saving included an increase in drug costs (EGP104 million) and a decrease in non-drug costs (EGP3.143 billion). Drug costs were higher in the budesonide/formoterol group than in the salbutamol group, but this cost was offset by reductions in non-drug costs, resulting in a reduction in the total costs of healthcare resources. At the societal level, the total budget savings after including the indirect costs was expected to be EGP5.976 billion after 3?years of budesonide/formoterol entry.

Conclusion: Budesonide/formoterol in mild asthma instead of salbutamol produces better patient outcomes and decreases total costs, with increases in drug cost offset by reductions in non-drug costs due to fewer exacerbations. Budesonide/formoterol is a budget saving option for guideline-directed treatment, from the economic perspective of the payer and the health perspective of the patient.     

Budget impact analysis for dapagliflozin in type 2 diabetes in Egypt

Abstract

Introduction: Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a major health problem in Egypt with a high impact on morbidity, mortality, and healthcare resources. This study evaluated the budget impact and the long-term consequences of dapagliflozin versus other conventional medications, as monotherapy, from both the societal and health insurance perspectives in Egypt.

Methods: A static budget impact model was developed to estimate the financial consequences of adopting dapagliflozin on the healthcare payer budget. We measured the direct medical costs of dapagliflozin (new scenario) as monotherapy, compared to metformin, insulin, sulphonylurea, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, thiazolidinedione, and repaglinide (old scenarios) over a time horizon of 3 years. Myocardial infarction (MI), ischemic stroke, hospitalization for heart failure (HHF), and initiation of renal replacement therapy (RRT) rates were captured from DECLARE TIMI 58 trial. One-way sensitivity analyses were conducted.

Results: The budget impact model estimated 2,053,908 patients eligible for treatment with dapagliflozin from a societal perspective and 1,207,698 patients from the health insurance (HI) perspective. The new scenario allows for an initial savings of EGP121 million in the first year, which increased to EGP243 and EGP365 million in the second and third years, respectively. The total cumulative savings from a societal perspective were estimated at EGP731 million. Dapagliflozin allows for savings of EGP71, EGP143, and EGP215 million in the first, second and third years respectively, from the HI perspective, with total cumulative savings of EGP430 million over the 3 years.

Conclusion: Treating T2DM patients using dapagliflozin instead of conventional medications, maximizes patients’ benefits and decreases total costs due to drug cost offsets from fewer cardiovascular and renal events. The adoption of dapagliflozin is a budget-saving treatment option, resulting in substantial population-level health gains due to reduced event rate and cost savings from the perspective of the national healthcare system.     

Budget impact analysis of long acting injection for schizophrenia in Japan

Abstract

Aims: To estimate the budgetary impact of providing additional reimbursement for long acting injections for schizophrenia patients in psychiatric hospital settings in Japan to improve patient outcomes in schizophrenia.

Methods: Budget impact analysis of change in reimbursement policy using a prevalence-based model over a five-year time horizon. The results are reported as net change in expenditure and consequent cost/savings in Japanese yen at the time of analysis.

Results: The budget impact analysis shows that an increase in reimbursement for LAIs could lead to cumulative savings of an estimated 36.6 billion JPY over five years. These savings result from a decrease in hospitalization costs and an increased usage of LAI (assumed to be 10%). Based on the sensitivity analysis, the saving estimates are most sensitive to change in market share of generic and branded oral antipsychotics.

Limitations: Historical data were used to estimate the future costs of drug and hospitalization; however, it is not the best predictor of future, hence a source of potential bias. A good level of treatment adherence with oral antipsychotics was assumed, which is generally not the case; therefore, we might have overestimated the effectiveness of oral atypical antipsychotics. Additionally, the drug cost due to reimbursement might have also been overestimated because in clinical setting, the increase of LAI use may not have reached 10% of the market share. Lastly, patients’ behavior was derived from models, which may have loosely approximated the reality.

Conclusions: An additional reimbursement for the use of LAI in schizophrenia patients is likely to be cost neutral/cost saving and should be considered as a policy option to improve patient outcomes and budget sustainability.     

The budget impact and cost-effectiveness of defibrotide for treatment of veno-occlusive disease with multi-organ dysfunction in patients post-hematopoietic stem cell transplant

Background: A Phase-3 study of defibrotide compared with historical controls demonstrated a 23% improvement in 100-day survival post-hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) among patients with veno-occlusive disease with multi-organ dysfunction (VOD with MOD).

Aim: To estimate the budget impact and cost-effectiveness of introducing defibrotide to a transplant center.

Methods: The authors developed a budget impact model from the perspective of a bone-marrow transplant center. It was estimated that 2.3% of adults and 4.2% of children would develop VOD with MOD following HSCT based on a retrospective hospital database analysis and the effect that treating patients with defibrotide would have on costs for adult and pediatric centers was estimated. A cost-utility analysis (CUA) was also developed to capture the long-term cost-effectiveness of defibrotide. Projected life expectancies in the two groups were estimated based on trial data, transplant registry data, studies of long-term survival among HSCT patients, and US population life-tables.

Results: There was an estimated 3% increase ($330,706) per year in total adult transplantation center costs associated with adopting defibrotide, and a <1% increase ($106,385) for pediatric transplant centers, assuming 100 transplants per year. In the CUA, the lifetime increase in cost per patient was $106,928, life expectancy increased by 3.74 years, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) increased by 2.24. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was $47,736 per QALY gained; 88% probability defibrotide was cost-effective at a $100,000/QALY threshold.

Conclusion: The budget impact of defibrotide for a transplant center is relatively modest compared to the overall cost of transplantation. Defibrotide provides an important survival advantage for VOD with MOD patients, and the life years gained lead to defibrotide being highly cost-effective.     

Budget impact analysis of secukinumab versus adalimumab in the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis

Background: Biologic treatments have enhanced the treatment outcomes of patients with active ankylosing spondylitis (AS). Until recently, TNF-alpha-inhibitors have been the only biologics approved for the treatment of active AS. The objective of this study was to assess the potential financial impact of the first non-TNF-alpha biologic secukinumab (fully human IL-17A-inhibitor) vs adalimumab (TNF-alpha-inhibitor) in the treatment of AS in Finland.

Materials and methods: In this model-based budget impact analysis, patients were treated either with secukinumab (150?mg) or adalimumab (40?mg). The number of patients and market share of different biologics were based on national reimbursement registry data. Adalimumab was the most commonly used biologic treatment for AS, and in the base case analysis all adalimumab patients are assumed to switch to secukinumab. Response rates were based on a matching-adjusted indirect comparison between secukinumab and adalimumab. Patients not achieving response were switched to another biologic treatment.

Results: Treating AS patients with secukinumab instead of adalimumab leads to potential savings of 18.2 million euros within a 5-year time period. The total costs within the follow-up time were 59.5 million euros and 77.7 million euros with and without secukinumab, respectively. According to sensitivity analyses, a higher adoption rate of secukinumab corresponds to higher potential savings.

Conclusions: Secukinumab is a cost-saving treatment option compared with adalimumab in the treatment of AS in Finland. More patients could be treated with a biologic by allocating resources more efficiently.     

Budget impact analysis of everolimus for the treatment of hormone receptor positive,human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 negative (HER2-) advanced breast cancer in the United States

Abstract

Objective:

To estimate the budget impact of everolimus as the first and second treatment option after letrozole or anastrozole (L/A) failure for post-menopausal women with hormone receptor positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 negative (HER2-) advanced breast cancer (ABC).     

Cost-effectiveness of alemtuzumab and natalizumab for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis treatment in Iran: decision analysis based on an indirect comparison

Background: Alemtuzumab and natalizumab are approved as second-line therapies for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) patients in Iran who have shown an inadequate response to other disease-modifying therapy (DMT). In the absence of head-to-head trials, evaluations based on decision analytic modeling may be a suitable alternative to compare alemtuzumab and natalizumab in RRMS.

Purpose: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of alemtuzumab compared with natalizumab in RRMS in Iran, based on an indirect comparison of clinical trial data.

Methods: A cost-utility analysis was conducted using a cohort-based Markov model to analyze cost-utility in a cohort of 1,000 RRMS patients treated with alemtuzumab or natalizumab who had failed at least one previous DMT. Costs were measured in 2018?US Dollars, and were estimated from both the societal and National Healthcare Service (NHS) perspective over a 20-year time horizon in Iran. One-way deterministic sensitivity analyses were carried out to investigate the impact of individual variables on model results.

Results: Alemtuzumab dominated natalizumab in both NHS and societal perspective analyses. From the NHS perspective, the total discounted costs per patient were estimated at $147,417 and $150,579 for alemtuzumab and natalizumab, respectively, over 20 years. The discounted quality-adjusted life years were estimated to be 7.07 and 6.05, respectively. Results were similar for the societal perspective analysis. Results were most sensitive to acquisition costs and the time horizon, while no sensitivity was observed for Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) health-states utility, relapse relative risk, adverse event or EDSS-related costs, and laboratory/monitoring costs.

Conclusion: Alemtuzumab was dominant in the treatment of RRMS compared with natalizumab due to lower total cost, greater efficacy and slowing of disease progression, and lower rate of relapses over a 20-year time horizon in Iran. Comparative head-to-head trials and long-term follow-up are needed to confirm these results.     

The inherent dangers of using computable general equilibrium models as a single integrated modelling framework for sustainability impact assessment. A critical note on Böhringer and Löschel (2006)

The search for methods of assessment that best evaluate and integrate the trade-offs and interactions between the economic, environmental and social components of development has been receiving a new impetus due to the requirement that sustainability concerns be incorporated into the policy formulation process. A paper forthcoming in Ecological Economics [Böhringer, C., Löschel, A., in press. Computable general equilibrium models for sustainability impact assessment: status quo and prospects, Ecological Economics.] claims that Computable General Equilibrium (CGE) models may potentially represent the much needed “back-bone” tool to carry out reliable integrated quantitative Sustainability Impact Assessments (SIAs). While acknowledging the usefulness of CGE models for some dimensions of SIA, this commentary questions the legitimacy of employing this particular economic modelling tool as a single integrating modelling framework for a comprehensive evaluation of the multi-dimensional, dynamic and complex interactions between policy and sustainability. It discusses several inherent dangers associated with the advocated prospects for the CGE modelling approach to contribute to comprehensive and reliable sustainability impact assessments. The paper warns that this reductionist viewpoint may seriously infringe upon the basic values underpinning the SIA process, namely a transparent, heterogeneous, balanced, inter-disciplinary, consultative and participatory take to policy evaluation and building of the evidence-base.