Estimating the clinical effectiveness and value-based price range of erenumab for the prevention of migraine in patients with prior treatment failures: a US societal perspective

Background: Frequent migraine with four or more headache days per month is a common, disabling neurovascular disease. From a US societal perspective, this analysis models the clinical efficacy and estimates the value-based price (VBP) for erenumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody that inhibits the calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor.

Methods: A Markov health state transition model was developed to estimate the incremental costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and value-based price range for erenumab in migraine prevention. The model comprises “on preventive treatment”, “off preventive treatment”, and “death” health states across a 10-year time horizon. The evaluation compared erenumab to no preventive treatment in episodic and chronic migraine patients that have failed at least one preventive therapy. Therapeutic benefits are based on estimated changes in monthly migraine days (MMD) from erenumab pivotal clinical trials and a network meta-analysis of migraine studies. Utilities were estimated using previously published mapping algorithms. A VBP analysis was performed to identify maximum erenumab annual prices at willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds of $100,000–$200,000 per QALY. Estimates of VBP under different scenarios such as choice of different comparators, assumptions around inclusion of placebo effect, and exclusion of work productivity losses were also generated.

Results: Erenumab resulted in incremental QALYs of 0.185 vs supportive care (SC) and estimated cost offsets due to reduced MMD of $8,482 over 10 years, with an average duration of treatment of 2.01 years. The estimated VBP at WTP thresholds of $100,000–$200,000 for erenumab compared to SC ranged from $14,238–$23,998. VBP estimates including the placebo effect and excluding work productivity ranged from $7,445–$13,809; increasing to $12,151–$18,589 with onabotulinumtoxinA as a comparator in chronic migraine.

Conclusion: Erenumab is predicted to reduce migraine-related direct and indirect costs, and increase QALYs compared to SC.     

The economic value of reducing medication dosing frequency with drug delivery technologies: an evidence assessment

Objective: To critically evaluate published cost-effectiveness studies of novel drug products requiring less-frequent medication dosing compared to conventional formulations of the same drug substance.

Methods: A search was conducted in the Medline and Embase databases for cost-effectiveness studies published before May 2009 that compared two or more drug delivery technologies formulated with the same active drug substance. The Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) grading criteria for cost-effectiveness studies was applied to the selected publications.

Results: The literature search identified approximately 907 articles of which six cost-effectiveness studies met the inclusion criteria. The studies spanned four chronic conditions, were conducted from various international perspectives and used decision-analytic models to project economic outcomes. The base-case results of all six studies indicated that the drug product with sustained therapeutic efficacy was either more effective and less costly (‘dominant’) or more cost effective than the conventional formulation of the same drug substance. Quality scores ranging from 70 to 84 (scale 0 to 100) were assigned to the studies, with a mean of 78.

Limitations: This review likely did not capture all relevant drug delivery technologies and drug products. Only one reviewer critically evaluated the cost-effectiveness studies and independently assigned quality scores using the QHES grading criteria, which may be limited in its ability to identify poorly analyzed studies.

Conclusion: Evaluation of the published literature suggests that drug products with less-frequent medication dosing can be cost effective when compared to conventional formulations, but assessments are challenging because of complex relationships among therapeutic drug levels, dosing frequency, medication adherence, and health outcomes. Additional product-specific, comparative, pragmatic studies in this area are needed.     

The cost-effectiveness of onabotulinumtoxinA for the prophylaxis of headache in adults with chronic migraine in the UK

Abstract

Background:

Although chronic migraine is associated with substantial disability and costs, few treatments have been shown to be effective. OnabotulinumtoxinA (Botox, Allergan Inc., Irvine, CA) is the first treatment to be licensed in the UK for the prophylaxis of headaches in adults with chronic migraine. This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of onabotulinumtoxinA in this indication in the UK.

Methods:

A state-transition (Markov) model was developed comparing onabotulinumtoxinA to placebo. Efficacy data and utility values were taken from the pooled Phase III REsearch Evaluating Migraine Prophylaxis Therapy (PREEMPT) clinical trials program (n?=?1384). Estimates of resource utilisation were taken from the International Burden of Migraine Study (IBMS), and stopping rules were informed by published medical guidelines and clinical data. This study estimated 2-year discounted costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) from the UK National Health Service perspective.

Results:

At 2 years, treatment with onabotulinumtoxinA was associated with an increase in costs of £1367 and an increase in QALYs of 0.1 compared to placebo, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £15,028. Treatment with onabotulinumtoxinA reduced headache days by an estimated 38 days per year at a cost of £18 per headache day avoided. Sensitivity analysis showed that utility values had the greatest influence on model results. The ICER remained cost-effective at a willingness to pay threshold of £20,000–£30,000/QALY in the majority of scenario analyses as well as in probabilistic sensitivity analysis, where onabotulinumtoxinA was cost-effective on 96% of occasions at a threshold of £20,000/QALY and 98% of occasions at £30,000/QALY.

Conclusion:

OnabotulinumtoxinA has been shown to reduce the frequency of headaches in patients with chronic migraine and can be considered a cost-effective use of resources in the UK National Health Service. The uncertainties in the model relate to the extrapolation of clinical data beyond the 56-week trial.     

A systematic review of cost-effectiveness modeling of pharmaceutical therapies in neuropathic pain: variation in practice,key challenges,and recommendations for the future

Objectives: Complexities in the neuropathic-pain care pathway make the condition difficult to manage and difficult to capture in cost-effectiveness models. The aim of this study is to understand, through a systematic review of previous cost-effectiveness studies, some of the key strengths and limitations in data and modeling practices in neuropathic pain. Thus, the aim is to guide future research and practice to improve resource allocation decisions and encourage continued investment to find novel and effective treatments for patients with neuropathic pain.

Methods: The search strategy was designed to identify peer-reviewed cost-effectiveness evaluations of non-surgical, pharmaceutical therapies for neuropathic pain published since January 2000, accessing five key databases. All identified publications were reviewed and screened according to pre-defined eligibility criteria. Data extraction was designed to reflect key data challenges and approaches to modeling in neuropathic pain and based on published guidelines.

Results: The search strategy identified 20 cost-effectiveness analyses meeting the inclusion criteria, of which 14 had original model structures. Cost-effectiveness modeling in neuropathic pain is established and increasing across multiple jurisdictions; however, amongst these studies, there is substantial variation in modeling approach, and there are common limitations. Capturing the effect of treatments upon health outcomes, particularly health-related quality-of-life, is challenging, and the health effects of multiple lines of ineffective treatment, common for patients with neuropathic pain, have not been consistently or robustly modeled.

Conclusions: To improve future economic modeling in neuropathic pain, further research is suggested into the effect of multiple lines of treatment and treatment failure upon patient outcomes and subsequent treatment effectiveness; the impact of treatment-emergent adverse events upon patient outcomes; and consistent and appropriate pain measures to inform models. The authors further encourage transparent reporting of inputs used to inform cost-effectiveness models, with robust, comprehensive and clear uncertainty analysis and, where feasible, open-source modeling is encouraged.     

A global economic model to assess the cost-effectiveness of new treatments for advanced breast cancer in Canada

Objective Considering the increasing number of treatment options for metastatic breast cancer (MBC), it is important to develop high-quality methods to assess the cost-effectiveness of new anti-cancer drugs. This study aims to develop a global economic model that could be used as a benchmark for the economic evaluation of new therapies for MBC.

Methods The Global Pharmacoeconomics of Metastatic Breast Cancer (GPMBC) model is a Markov model that was constructed to estimate the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life years (QALY) of new treatments for MBC from a Canadian healthcare system perspective over a lifetime horizon. Specific parameters included in the model are cost of drug treatment, survival outcomes, and incidence of treatment-related adverse events (AEs). Global parameters are patient characteristics, health states utilities, disutilities, and costs associated with treatment-related AEs, as well as costs associated with drug administration, medical follow-up, and end-of-life care. The GPMBC model was tested and validated in a specific context, by assessing the cost-effectiveness of lapatinib plus letrozole compared with other widely used first-line therapies for post-menopausal women with hormone receptor-positive (HR+) and epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (HER2+) MBC.

Results When tested, the GPMBC model led to incremental cost-utility ratios of CA$131 811 per QALY, CA$56 211 per QALY, and CA$102 477 per QALY for the comparison of lapatinib plus letrozole vs letrozole alone, trastuzumab plus anastrozole, and anastrozole alone, respectively. Results of the model testing were quite similar to those obtained by Delea et al., who also assessed the cost-effectiveness of lapatinib in combination with letrozole in HR+/HER2?+?MBC in Canada, thus suggesting that the GPMBC model can replicate results of well-conducted economic evaluations.

Conclusions The GPMBC model can be very valuable as it allows a quick and valid assessment of the cost-effectiveness of any new treatments for MBC in a Canadian context.     

Systematic review of models used in economic analyses in moderate-to-severe asthma and COPD

Background:

Respiratory diseases exert a substantial burden on society, with newer drugs increasingly adding to the burden. Economic models are often used, but seldom reviewed.

Purpose:

To summarize economic models used in economic analyses of drugs treating moderate-to-severe/very severe asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

Methods:

This study searched Medline and Embase from inception to the end of February 2015 for cost-effectiveness/utility analyses that examined at least one drug against placebo, another drug, or other standard therapy in asthma or COPD. Two reviewers independently searched and extracted data with differences adjudicated via consensus discussion. Data extracted included model used and its qualities, validation methods, treatments compared, disease severity, analytic perspective, time horizon, data collection (pro- or retrospective), input rates and sources, costs and sources, planned sensitivity analyses, criteria for cost-effectiveness, reported outcomes, and sponsor.

Results:

This study analyzed 53 articles; 14 (25%) on asthma and 39 (75%) COPD. Markov models were commonly used for both asthma and COPD-related economic evaluations. Relatively few studies validated their model. For asthma-related studies, 10 examined inhaled corticosteroids and nine studied omalizumab. Placebo or standard therapy was the comparison in 11 studies and active drugs in the remainder.

Conclusions:

Few studies include validation of their models. Furthermore, controversy concerning some results was uncovered in this study, which needs to be avoided in the future.     

Cost-effectiveness of golimumab for the treatment of patients with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis in Quebec using a patient level state transition microsimulation

Objective: To conduct cost-effectiveness analyses comparing the addition of golimumab to the standard of care (SoC) for treatment of patients with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis (UC) who are refractory to conventional therapies in Quebec (Canada).

Methods: An individual patient state transition microsimulation model was developed to project health outcomes and costs over 10 years, using a payer perspective. The incremental benefit estimates for golimumab were driven by induction response and risk of a flare. Flare risks post-induction were derived for golimumab from the PURSUIT maintenance trial and extension study, while those for SoC were derived from the placebo arms of the Active Ulcerative Colitis Trials (ACT) 1 and 2. Other inputs were derived from multiple sources, including retrospective claims analyses and literature. Costs are reported in 2014 Canadian dollars. A 5% annual discount rate was applied to costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs).

Results: Compared with SoC, golimumab was projected to increase the time spent in mild disease or remission states, decrease flare rates, and increase QALYs. These gains were achieved with higher direct medical costs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for golimumab vs SoC was $63,487 per QALY.

Limitations: The long-term flare projections for SoC were based on the data available from the ACT 1 and 2 placebo arms, as data were not available from the PURSUIT maintenance or extension trial. Additionally, the study was limited to only SoC and golimumab, due to the availability of individual patient data to analyze.

Conclusion: This economic analysis concluded that treatment with golimumab is likely more cost-effective vs SoC when considering cost-effectiveness acceptability thresholds from $50,000–$100,000 per QALY.     

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

Abstract

Objective:

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

Research design and methods:

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

Results:

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

Limitations:

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

Conclusion:

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

Differences in utility elicitation methods in cardiovascular disease: a systematic review

Aims: Utility values inform estimates of the cost-effectiveness of treatment for cardiovascular disease (CVD), but values can vary depending on the method used. The aim of this systematic literature review (SLR) was to explore how methods of elicitation impact utility values for CVD.

Materials and methods: This review identified English-language articles in Embase, MEDLINE, and the gray literature published between September 1992 and August 2015 using keywords for “utilities” and “stroke”, “heart failure”, “myocardial infarction”, or “angina”. Variability in utility values based on the method of elicitation, tariff, or type of respondent was then reported.

Results: This review screened 4,341 citations; 290 of these articles qualified for inclusion in the SLR because they reported utility values for one or more of the cardiovascular conditions of interest listed above. Of these 290, the 41 articles that provided head-to-head comparisons of utility methods for CVD were reviewed. In this sub-set, it was found that methodological differences contributed to variation in utility values. Direct methods often yielded higher scores than did indirect methods. Within direct methods, there were no clear trends in head-to-head studies (standard gamble [SG] vs time trade-off); but general population respondents often provided lower scores than did patients with the disease when evaluating the same health states with SG methods. When comparing indirect methods, the EQ-5D typically yielded higher values than the SF-6D, but also showed more sensitivity to differences in health states.

Conclusions: When selecting CVD utility values for an economic model, consideration of the utility elicitation method is important, as this review demonstrates that methodology of choice impacts utility values in CVD.     

Pharmacoeconomic aspects of poor adherence: can better adherence reduce healthcare costs?

Abstract

Background:

Poor adherence to medical treatment is one of the main reasons why patients do not achieve the full benefits of their therapy. It also has a substantial financial weight in terms of money wasted for unused medication and increased healthcare costs including hospitalization due to clinical complications.

Objective:

To provide an overview and examples of the financial and economic consequences of poor adherence to treatment, techniques and devices for monitoring adherence and interventions for improvement of treatment adherence.

Results:

New electronic devices with monitoring features may help to objectively monitor patients’ adherence to a treatment regimen that can help a healthcare professional determine how to intervene to improve adherence and subsequent clinical outcome. Interventions that aim to enhance adherence may confer cost-effectiveness benefits in some indications and settings. The nature of the intervention(s) used depends on a range of factors, including patient preference, therapy area and cost of the intervention. However, there is a pressing need for rigorous trials, as current studies often have major flaws in the economic methodology, especially in terms of incremental analysis and sensitivity analysis.

Limitations:

This review has focused on a limited number of therapeutic areas as coverage of a more extensive range of diseases may be beyond the scope of such a summary. Nevertheless, the examples are representative of the challenges encountered in many other diseases.

Conclusions:

The clinical and economic consequences of non-adherence and interventions to improve compliance reflect the nature and severity of non-adherence, as well as the pathophysiology and severity of the disease. Interventions that aim to enhance adherence may confer cost-effectiveness benefits in some indications and settings, and good adherence can help payers and providers contain costs by extracting maximum value from their investment in therapies.     

A critical review of the full economic evaluations of pharmacological treatments for glaucoma

Objective: This literature review aimed to critically assess the ‘state of the art’ of the full economic evaluations (FEEs) on glaucoma pharmacological treatments. This is the first review that tries to thoroughly assess both costs and consequences of pharmacoeconomic evaluations on glaucoma.

Methods: A literature search was done on the international databases PubMed and EMBASE, to find all the studies published in English on pharmacological treatments for glaucoma in the period 1997–2006. An economic and a clinical checklist were adopted to analyse FEEs and their clinical sources (CS). Finally, the reliability of the 33 FEEs included in the 15 articles selected was assessed from the health authorities' perspective by applying a critical appraisal checklist of 16 items derived from the economic and clinical variables previously analysed.

Results: The major weakness of the articles reviewed seemed to be the extensive recourse to expert panel opinions and assumptions at each phase of the economic analysis. About one-third of the FEEs even based their clinical efficacy on non-evidence-based sources. The critical appraisal of the CS methodological characteristics showed that their quality was not high either.

Conclusion: This review showed that most FEEs on glaucoma suffer substantial methodological limits, mainly due to the scarce quality of available CSs, so public authorities should consider their results very cautiously for healthcare decision making.     

Cohort versus patient level simulation for the economic evaluation of single versus combination immuno-oncology therapies in metastatic melanoma

Abstract

Background: Model structure, despite being a key source of uncertainty in economic evaluations, is often not treated as a priority for model development. In oncology, partitioned survival models (PSMs) and Markov models, both types of cohort model, are commonly used, but patient responses to newer immuno-oncology (I-O) agents suggest that more innovative model frameworks should be explored.

Objective: A discussion of the theoretical pros and cons of cohort level vs patient level simulation (PLS) models provides the background for an illustrative comparison of I-O therapies, namely nivolumab/ipilimumab combination and ipilimumab alone using patient level data from the CheckMate 067 trial in metastatic melanoma. PSM, Markov, and PLS models were compared on the basis of coherence with short-term clinical trial endpoints and long-term cost per QALY outcomes reported.

Methods: The PSM was based on Kaplan-Meier curves from CheckMate 067 with 3-year data on progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). The Markov model used time independent transition probabilities based on the average trajectory of PFS and OS over the trial period. The PLS model was developed based on baseline characteristics hypothesized to be associated with disease as well as significant mortality and disease progression risk factors identified through a proportional hazards model.

Results: The short-term Markov model outputs matched the 1–3?year clinical trial results approximately as well as the PSMs for OS but not PFS. The fixed (average) cohort PLS results corresponded as well as the PSMs for OS in the combination therapy arm and PFS in the monotherapy arm. Over the lifetime horizon, the PLS produced an additional 5.95 quality adjusted life years (QALYs) associated with combination therapy relative to ipilimumab alone, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £6,474 per QALY, compared with £14,194 for the PSMs which gave an incremental benefit of between 2.2 and 2.4 QALYs. The Markov model was an outlier (～ £49,000 per QALY in the base case).

Conclusions: The 4- and 5-state versions of the PSM cohort model estimated in this study deviate from the standard 3-state approach to better capture I-O response patterns. Markov and PLS approaches, by modeling state transitions explicitly, could be more informative in understanding I-O immune response, the PLS particularly so by reflecting heterogeneity in treatment response. However, both require a number of assumptions to capture the immune response effectively. Better I-O representation with surrogate endpoints in future clinical trials could yield greater model validity across all models.     

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.     

The cost-effectiveness of celecoxib vs diclofenac in the treatment of osteoarthritis in the UK; an update to the NICE model using data from the CONDOR trial

Abstract

Objectives:

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) health economic model for assessing the cost-effectiveness of celecoxib plus a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) compared to diclofenac plus PPI in the treatment of osteoarthritis has been updated using new adverse event (AE) risks from the CONDOR trial. In light of this new information, this study aimed to evaluate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of celecoxib plus PPI compared to diclofenac plus PPI.

Methods:

NICE developed a health economic model as part of their 2008 multiple technology assessment of treatments for osteoarthritis. The model was adapted for this study to update the relative risks of adverse events, using data from the CONDOR trial.

Results:

Using the AE data from the CLASS trial alone, celecoxib plus PPI has an ICER of £9538 per QALY when compared to diclofenac plus PPI. When the AE data from CONDOR alone is used, this ICER decreases to £4773 per QALY. Using the pooled data from both trials, celecoxib plus PPI has an ICER of £9377 per QALY compared to diclofenac plus PPI.

Discussion:

The results suggest that when new AE risks are used, celecoxib plus PPI remains a cost-effective treatment for OA when compared to diclofenac plus PPI. However, this analysis is limited by the short time horizon, and additional AEs that have not been considered.     

Cost effectiveness and impact on quality of life of abobotulinumtoxinA and onabotulinumtoxinA in the treatment of children with lower limb spasticity in Canada

Abstract

Background: Injectable botulinum neurotoxins are a mainstay of treatment for pediatric spasticity. AbobotulinumtoxinA and onabotulinumtoxinA are both injectable toxin therapies used to treat pediatric lower limb (PLL) spasticity in Canada. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of abobotulinumtoxinA vs. onabotulinumtoxinA in the treatment of PLL spasticity in Canada.

Methods: A probabilistic Markov cohort model with a 2-year time horizon was developed, with health states defined by response to therapy, as characterized by the goal attainment scale (GAS). Based on randomized controlled trial evidence, response to therapy was similar or higher for abobotulinumtoxinA relative to onabotulinumtoxinA; uncertainty was incorporated into model parameters, however, as the two therapies have not been compared head-to-head. Canadian resource use and cost data were incorporated.

Results: In the base case, abobotulinumtoxinA generated 1.48 quality-adjusted life years over the model time horizon, compared to 1.47 for onabotulinumtoxinA. AbobotulinumtoxinA was associated with cost savings of $123 CAD, reflecting lower costs in both medication acquisition and health services. The estimated improvement to quality of life and reduced costs result in an estimate of economic dominance for abobotulinumtoxinA over onabotulinumtoxinA. This dominant result persisted across probabilistic and scenario analyses.

• Key points for decision makers

• Based on a review of available clinical evidence, abobotulinumtoxinA was found to have significant and/or numerical efficacy benefits to onabotulinumtoxinA on functional outcomes (Goal Attainment Scale) and tone (Modified Ashworth Scale) and in the treatment of pediatric lower limb spasticity

• In this cost-effectiveness analysis, abobotulinumtoxinA was found to be associated with greater quality-adjusted life years and lower costs than onabotulinumtoxinA (economically dominant)

• A limitation of this analysis was the uncertainty around key parameters. Specifically, the lack of head-to-head comparison data for the two therapies, and variable data regarding likely onabotulinumtoxinA dosing in PLL in clinical practice. However, across a range of plausible scenarios, the economic dominant result remained.

     

Economic and quality of life burden of anemia on patients with CKD on dialysis: a systematic review

Abstract

Aims: The overall cost and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) associated with current treatments for chronic kidney disease (CKD)-related anemia are not well characterized. A systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted on the costs and HRQoL associated with current treatments for CKD-related anemia among dialysis-dependent (DD) patients.

Materials and methods: The authors searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, NHS EED, and NHS HTA for English-language publications. Original studies published between January 1, 2000 and March 17, 2017 meeting the following criteria were included: adult population; study focus was CKD-related anemia; included results on patients receiving iron supplementation, red blood cell transfusion, or erythropoiesis stimulating agents (ESAs); reported results on HRQoL and/or costs. Studies which included patients with DD-CKD, did not directly compare different treatments, and had designs relevant to the objective were retained. HRQoL and cost outcomes, including healthcare resource utilization (HRU), were extracted and summarized in a narrative synthesis.

Results: A total of 1,625 publications were retrieved, 15 of which met all inclusion criteria. All identified studies included ESAs as a treatment of interest. Two randomized controlled trials reported that ESA treatment improves HRQoL relative to placebo. Across eight studies comparing HRQoL of patients achieving high vs low hemoglobin (Hb) targets, aiming for higher Hb targets with ESAs generally led to modest HRQoL improvements. Two studies reported that ESA-treated patients had lower costs and HRU compared to untreated patients. One study found that aiming for higher vs lower Hb targets led to reduced HRU, while two other reported that this led to a reduction in cost-effectiveness.

Limitations: Heterogeneity of study designs and outcomes; a meta-analysis could not be performed.

Conclusions: ESA-treated patients undergoing dialysis incurred lower costs, lower HRU, and had better HRQoL relative to ESA-untreated patients. However, treatment to higher Hb targets led to modest HRQoL improvements compared to lower Hb targets.     

A critical review of the full economic evaluations of pharmacological treatments for colorectal cancer

Abstract

Objective: This literature review makes a critical assessment of the methodology of the full economic evaluations (FEEs) conducted on colorectal cancer (CRC) pharmacological treatments.

Method: A literature search of the international databases PubMed and EMBASE was carried out to find all the studies published in the English language on pharmacological treatments for CRC in the period 2001–2005. A checklist was adopted to analyse the 13 FEEs selected. Fourteen clinical trials were extracted from the references as sources of efficacy data and were reviewed separately according to a clinical checklist. Finally, the reliability of the 13 FEEs was assessed from the health authorities' perspective by applying a critical appraisal checklist of 16 items derived from the economic and clinical variables previously analysed.

Results: This review found that pharmacoeconomic studies on CRC showed important methodological weaknesses mainly regarding economic evaluation, whilst the sources of clinical evidence were of higher technical quality, although the clinical effectiveness of therapies was not fully sustained by their results.     

When does economic model type become a decisive factor in health technology appraisals? Learning from the expanding treatment options for relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis

Objectives: Specific economic model types often become de facto standard for health technology appraisal over time. Markov and discrete event simulation (DES) models were compared to investigate the impact of innovative modeling on the cost-effectiveness of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) in relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS). Fingolimod was compared to dimethyl fumarate (DMF; in highly active [HA] RRMS), alemtuzumab (in HA RRMS) and natalizumab (in rapidly evolving severe RRMS). Comparator DMTs were chosen to reflect different dosing regimens.

Materials and methods: Markov and DES models used have been published previously. Inputs were aligned in all relevant respects, with differences in the modeling of event-triggered attributes, such as relapse-related retreatment, which is inherently difficult with a memoryless Markov approach. Outcomes were compared, with and without different attributes.

Results: All results used list prices. For fingolimod and DMF, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were comparable (Markov: £4206/quality-adjusted life year [QALY] gained versus DES: £3910/QALY gained). Deviations were observed when long-term adverse events (AEs) were incorporated in the DES (Markov: £25,412 saved/QALY lost, versus DES: £34,209 saved/QALY lost, fingolimod versus natalizumab; higher ICERs indicate greater cost-effectiveness). For fingolimod versus alemtuzumab, when relapse-triggered retreatment was included in the DES, large cost differences were observed (difference between incremental cost is £35,410 and QALY is 0.10).

Limitations: UK payer perspective, therefore societal approach was not considered. Resource utilization and utilities for both models were not derived from the subpopulations; as the focus is on model type, input limitations that apply to both models are less relevant.

Conclusions: Whilst no model can fully represent a disease, a DES allows an opportunity to include features excluded in a Markov structure. A DES may be more suitable for modeling in RRMS for health technology assessment purposes given the complexity of some DMTs. This analysis highlights the capabilities of different model structures to model event-triggered attributes.     

Value of innovation for hematologic malignancies

Background:

Several novel drugs are dramatically improving both lifespan and quality-of-life of patients with blood cancers.

Aim:

Prolonged disease duration and increased treatment costs for hematologic malignancies impose a relevant economic burden onto healthcare services, despite the low incidence of blood cancers. Therefore, an appropriate paradigm for valuing ‘innovation’ is urgently required in order to refine pricing and reimbursement decisions. Cost-per-QALY-gained is still the standard metric for assessing the ‘incremental’ value of new drugs; however, the high number of ‘comparator’ therapies and the huge variety of treatment sequences make plain two-treatment comparisons sub-optimal, while multiple-treatment and multiple-sequence comparisons require complex and less-transparent decision models. A repository of standard backbones for decision models might allow benchmarking and comparability among cost-effectiveness analyses; however, an international effort is required to build it up.

Results:

Deontology recommends that hematologists act in optimizing healthcare resources while preserving patient–physician alliance, but clinical practice guidelines do not support doctors in balancing cost against clinical outcomes. Decision models of chronic blood cancers unexpectedly proved that cost might be an appropriate value for innovation if treatments avoided severe toxicity and further lines of treatments, despite the eventually long duration of treatment and the competing risk of death due to comorbidity and old age.

Conclusion:

The improved transparency of decision models allows sharing of relevant structural and analytic parameters (i.e., time horizon, comparator treatments, hierarchy of end-point, assumptions, source of data, sub-group analyses) by stakeholders, physicians and patients, making health economics a noble ‘translator’ of values for innovation.