Economic evaluation among Chinese patients with nosocomial pneumonia caused by methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus and treated with linezolid or vancomycin: a secondary,post-hoc analysis based on a Phase 4 clinical trial study

Objective:

To assess cost-effectiveness of linezolid vs vancomycin in treating nosocomial pneumonia caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA-NP) in China and the impact of renal failure on healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and costs.

Methods:

Cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted based on data from the ZEPHyR trial, with efficacy measured by treatment success and costs calculated from HCRU. Confidence intervals (CI) for cost, efficacy and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were calculated by non-parametric bootstrap. Chi-square test was used for renal failure rate and t-test for HCRU/cost comparisons. Impact of renal failure was assessed using regression model.

Results:

Data from 448 patients (1:1 linezolid:vancomycin) were analyzed. More patients treated with linezolid achieved success (55% [95% CI?=?48–62%]) than with vancomycin (45% [38–52%]). Treatment cost were ¥79,551 (95% CI?=?¥72,421–¥86,680) for linezolid vs ¥77,587 (¥70,656–¥84,519) for vancomycin in Beijing, ¥90,995 (¥82,598–¥99,393) vs ¥89,448 (¥81,295–¥97,601) in Guangzhou, ¥82,383 (¥74,956–¥89,810) vs ¥80,799 (¥73,545–¥88,054) in Nanjing and ¥59,413 (¥54,366–¥64,460) vs ¥57,804 (¥52,613–¥62,996) in Xi’an. Per successful treatment, the ICER of linezolid over vancomycin were ¥19,719

(?¥143,553 to ¥320,980) (Beijing), ¥15,532 (?¥185,411 to ¥349,693) (Guangzhou), ¥15,904 (?¥161,935 to ¥314,987) (Nanjing) and ¥16,145 (?¥100,738 to ¥234,412) (Xi’an). From simulations, the majority of linezolid cases had greater efficacy and higher costs and more than one third had greater efficacy and lower costs. More vancomycin patients developed renal failure (15% vs 4%, p?<?0.001). Patients with renal failure had higher cost (Nanjng: ¥100,449 (SD?=?¥65,080) vs ¥74,944 (SD?=?¥49,632), p?=?0.002).

Conclusion:

Linezolid was more cost-effective than vancomycin in treating MRSA-NP from a Chinese payer’s perspective, and associated with less renal failure, HCRU and cost.     

Cost-effectiveness of lurasidone vs aripiprazole among patients with schizophrenia who have previously failed on an atypical antipsychotic: an indirect comparison of outcomes from clinical trial data

Abstract

Objective:

Compare long-term costs and outcomes of lurasidone to aripiprazole among adults with schizophrenia in the US who previously failed ≥1 atypical antipsychotic (olanzapine, risperidone, quetiapine, or ziprasidone) based on an indirect comparison of outcomes data from clinical trials.

Methods:

A 5-year Markov cohort model was developed to compare long-term effectiveness of lurasidone to aripiprazole, including total discontinuations, relapse rates, and hospitalization rates. Cost inputs included pharmacy, mental health, and medical costs associated with cardiometabolic risks (diabetes and cardiovascular [CV] events). Effectiveness inputs were derived from an indirect comparison of aripiprazole and lurasidone using common comparators from CATIE. Cardiometabolic risks were derived from claims data analysis for diabetes, weight change and CV events, and Framingham body mass index (BMI) risk equation. Cost inputs were derived from published sources and Red Book. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3% and tested with sensitivity analyses.

Results:

Over 5 years, total discounted costs for lurasidone and aripiprazole patients were $86,480 and $90,500, respectively. During this period, the number of relapses per patient, hospitalizations per patient, diabetes rates, and CV events per 1000 patients, respectively, were estimated to be lower for lurasidone (0.442, 0.245, 7.29%, and 37.3) than aripiprazole (0.478, 0.369, 7.36%, and 37.8). Results were sensitive to lurasidone and aripiprazole hospitalization rates. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000 per hospitalization avoided, lurasidone had a 100% probability of being more cost-effective than aripiprazole.

Limitations:

The model was based on results from various comparative clinical trials. Differences in patient population and study methods may change estimates from the model. The model does not account for patient heterogeneity.

Conclusions:

Based on this model, when switching from another atypical antipsychotic, lurasidone had fewer relapses and hospitalizations with a lower incidence of diabetes and CV events than aripiprazole. Additionally, lurasidone may be less costly than aripiprazole among adults with schizophrenia.     

Historical clinical and economic consequences of anemia management in patients with end-stage renal disease on dialysis using erythropoietin stimulating agents versus routine blood transfusions: a retrospective cost-effectiveness analysis

Abstract

Objective:

To determine whether Medicare’s decision to cover routine administration of erythropoietin stimulating agents (ESAs) to treat anemia of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) has been a cost-effective policy relative to standard of care at the time.

Methods:

The authors used summary statistics from the actual cohort of ESRD patients receiving ESAs between 1995 and 2004 to create a simulated patient cohort, which was compared with a comparable simulated cohort assumed to rely solely on blood transfusions. Outcomes modeled from the Medicare perspective included estimated treatment costs, life-years gained, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated relative to the hypothetical reference case of no ESA use in the transfusion cohort. Sensitivity of the results to model assumptions was tested using one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

Results:

Estimated total costs incurred by the ESRD population were $155.47B for the cohort receiving ESAs and $155.22B for the cohort receiving routine blood transfusions. Estimated QALYs were 2.56M and 2.29M, respectively, for the two groups. The ICER of ESAs compared to routine blood transfusions was estimated as $873 per QALY gained. The model was sensitive to a number of parameters according to one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

Limitations:

This model was counter-factual as the actual comparison group, whose anemia was managed via transfusion and iron supplements, rapidly disappeared following introduction of ESAs. In addition, a large number of model parameters were obtained from observational studies due to the lack of randomized trial evidence in the literature.

Conclusions:

This study indicates that Medicare’s coverage of ESAs appears to have been cost effective based on commonly accepted levels of willingness-to-pay. The ESRD population achieved substantial clinical benefit at a reasonable cost to society.