Cost of skeletal-related events in European patients with solid tumours and bone metastases: data from a prospective multinational observational study

Abstract

Objectives:

Patients with bone metastases often experience skeletal-related events (SREs: radiation or surgery to bone, pathologic fracture, and spinal cord compression). This study examined health resource utilization and costs associated with SREs.

Methods:

Data presented are from the European cohort (Germany, Italy, Spain, and the UK) of patients with solid tumours enrolled in a multi-national, prospective, observational study in patients with solid tumours or multiple myeloma. Patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group score 0–2 and life expectancy ≥6 months, who experienced an SRE up to 97 days before enrolment, were eligible. Health resource utilization associated with SREs (including number/length of inpatient stays, numbers of procedures and outpatient visits) were collected through chart review for up to 97 days before enrolment and prospectively during follow-up. Country-specific cost calculations were performed.

Results:

In total, 478 eligible patients contributed 893 SREs to this analysis. Radiation to bone occurred most frequently (66% of total). Spinal cord compression (7%) and surgery to bone (10%) were the least common events, but most likely to require inpatient stays. The most costly SREs were also spinal cord compression (mean per SRE across countries, €4884–€12,082) and surgery to bone (€3348–€9407). Inpatient stays were the main cost drivers.

Limitations:

Health resource utilization used to calculate the costs associated with SREs may have been under-estimated as a result of exclusion of patients with low performance status or life expectancy; unavailable information and exclusion of resource consumption associated with pain. Thus, the estimate of associated costs is likely to be conservative.

Conclusions:

SREs result in considerable health resource utilization, imposing a substantial financial burden driven by inpatient stays. Treatments that prevent/delay SREs may help ease this burden, thereby providing cost savings across European healthcare systems.     

Economic burden of skeletal-related events in patients with multiple myeloma: analysis of US commercial claims database

Aims: To estimate incremental healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs associated with skeletal-related events (SREs) secondary to multiple myeloma (MM), and HRU and cost differences in patients with one vs multiple SREs.

Methods: Adults with MM diagnosis between January 1, 2010–December 31, 2014, with benefits coverage ≥12 months pre- and ≥6 months post-diagnosis were followed to last coverage date or December 31, 2015, excluding patients with prior anti-myeloma treatment or cancers. SREs were identified by diagnosis or procedure codes (pathological fracture, spinal cord compression, radiation, or surgery to the bone). SRE patients (index?=?first post-diagnosis SRE) were propensity score matched 1:1 to patients without SRE (assigned pseudo-index) using baseline characteristics, and ≥1 month of continuous enrollment after index/pseudo-index date was required. Per-patient-per year (PPPY) HRU and costs (2016?US$) were determined for inpatient, outpatient, emergency department (ED), and outpatient pharmacy services during follow-up. Wilcoxon signed rank for means and McNemar’s tests for proportions were used to assess differences. Negative binomial regression and generalized linear regression analyses estimated differences in HRU and costs, respectively, for the comparison of single vs multiple SREs.

Results: Each cohort included 848 patients (mean age?=?61 – 62 years, 57% male) with no significant differences in pre-index demographic or clinical characteristics between matched cohorts. Versus non-SRE patients, SRE patients had significantly higher PPPY use (p?<?.0001) of inpatient hospitalizations, ED visits, outpatient pharmacy, and higher direct medical costs ($188,723 vs $108,160, p?<?.0001). Adjusted PPPY total costs were $209,820 in patients with multiple SREs; $159,797 in patients with one SRE.

Limitations: SRE misclassification and residual confounding are possible.

Conclusions: Among patients with MM, average annual costs were substantially higher in patients with SRE compared with matched non-SRE patients. The economic burden of SRE increased further with multiple events.     

Cost effectiveness of zoledronic acid in the management of skeletal metastases in hormone-refractory prostate cancer patients in France,Germany, Portugal,and the Netherlands

Abstract

Objective:

Zoledronic acid (ZOL) reduces the risk of skeletal related events (SREs) in hormone-refractory prostate cancer (HRPC) patients with bone metastases. This study assessed the cost effectiveness of ZOL for SRE management in French, German, Portuguese, and Dutch HRPC patients.

Methods:

This analysis was based on the results of a randomized phase III clinical trial wherein HRPC patients received up to 15 months of ZOL (n?=?214) or placebo (n?=?208). Clinical inputs were obtained from the trial. Costs were estimated using hospital tariffs, published, and internet sources. Quality adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained were estimated from a separate analysis of EQ-5D scores reported in the trial. Uncertainty surrounding outcomes was addressed via univariate sensitivity analyses.

Results:

ZOL patients experienced an estimated 0.759 fewer SREs and gained an estimated 0.03566 QALYs versus placebo patients. ZOL was associated with reduced SRE-related costs [net costs] (?€2396 [€1284] in France, ?€2606 [€841] in Germany, ?€3326 [€309] in Portugal and ?€3617 [€87] in the Netherlands). Costs per QALY ranged from €2430 (Netherlands) to €36,007 (France).

Conclusions:

This analysis is subject to the limitations of most cost-effectiveness analyses: it combines data from multiple sources. Nevertheless, the results strongly suggest that ZOL is cost effective versus placebo in French, German, Portuguese, and Dutch HRPC patients.     

Healthcare costs associated with skeletal-related events in breast cancer patients with bone metastases

Background:

Patients with bone metastases secondary to breast cancer are pre-disposed to skeletal-related events (SREs), including spinal cord compression (SCC), pathologic fracture (PF), surgery to bone (SB), and radiotherapy to bone (RT).

Objective:

To document current patterns of healthcare utilization and costs of SREs in patients with breast cancer and bone metastases.

Methods:

This was a retrospective, observational study using the Thomson MedStat MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters database from 9/2002 to 6/2011. Study subjects included all persons with claims for breast cancer and for bone metastases, and ≥1 claims for an SRE. Unique SRE episodes were identified based on a gap of at least 90 days without an SRE claim, and classified by treatment setting (inpatient or outpatient) and SRE type (SCC, PF, SB, or RT).

Results:

Of 17,266 patients with breast cancer and bone metastases, 9142 (53%) had one or more SRE episodes. Among 5809 patients who met all other criteria, there were 7617 SRE episodes over mean (SD) follow-up of 17.2 (15.2) months. The percentage of episodes that required inpatient treatment ranged from 11% (RT) to 76% (SB). On average, inpatient SCC episodes (n?=?83 episodes) were most costly; while outpatient PF episodes (n?=?552 episodes) were least costly. Of the total SRE costs (mean [SE] $21,072 [$36,462]/episode), 36% were attributable to outpatient RT (n?=?5265 episodes) and 31% to inpatient PF (n?=?838 episodes).

Limitations:

The administrative claims data used in this study may lack sensitivity and specificity for identification of clinical events and may not be generalizable to other populations. Also, for some SRE episode categories, the number of events was small and cost estimates may lack precision.

Conclusion:

In patients with breast cancer and bone metastases, SREs are associated with high costs and hospitalizations.     

Cost-effectiveness of denosumab vs zoledronic acid for prevention of skeletal-related events in patients with solid tumors and bone metastases in the United States

Abstract

Objective:

With increasing healthcare resource constraints, it has become important to understand the incremental cost-effectiveness of new medicines. Subcutaneous denosumab is superior to intravenous zoledronic acid (ZA) for the prevention of skeletal-related events (SREs) in patients with advanced solid tumors and bone metastases. This study sought to determine the lifetime cost-effectiveness of denosumab vs ZA in this setting, from a US managed-care perspective.

Methods:

A lifetime Markov model was developed, with relative rate reductions in SREs for denosumab vs ZA derived from three pivotal Phase 3 trials involving patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC), breast cancer, and non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and bone metastases. The real-world SRE rates in ZA-treated patients were derived from a large commercial database. SRE and treatment administration quality-adjusted life year (QALY) decrements were estimated with time-trade-off studies. SRE costs were estimated from a nationally representative commercial claims database. Drug, drug administration, and renal monitoring costs were included. Costs and QALYs were discounted at 3% annually. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted.

Results:

Across tumor types, denosumab was associated with a reduced number of SREs, increased QALYs, and increased lifetime total costs vs ZA. The costs per QALY gained for denosumab vs ZA in CRPC, breast cancer, and NSCLC were $49,405, $78,915, and $67,931, respectively, commonly considered good value in the US. Costs per SRE avoided were $8567, $13,557, and $10,513, respectively. Results were sensitive to drug costs and SRE rates.

Limitations:

Differences in pain severity and analgesic use favoring denosumab over ZA were not captured. Mortality was extrapolated from fitted generalized gamma function beyond the trial duration.

Conclusion:

Denosumab is a cost-effective treatment option for the prevention of SREs in patients with advanced solid tumors and bone metastases compared to ZA. The overall value of denosumab is based on superior efficacy, favorable safety, and more efficient administration.     

Retrospective database analysis of the effect of zoledronic acid on skeletal-related events and mortality in women with breast cancer and bone metastasis in a managed care plan

Abstract

Background:

Bone metastases are common in patients with advanced breast cancer, and place patients at risk for skeletal-related events (SREs) including pathologic fracture, spinal cord compression, hypercalcemia of malignancy, and the need for radiotherapy and/or surgery to bone. These SREs are associated with reduced survival and quality-of-life. The nitrogen-containing bisphosphonates Zometa (zoledronic acid, ZOL) and Aredia (pamidronate disodium, PAM) reduce SRE risk in patients with bone metastases from breast cancer. This database analysis compared SRE and mortality rates in a real-life setting in women with breast cancer receiving ZOL and PAM, and assessed long-term ZOL benefit.

Methods:

A retrospective, claims-based analysis was conducted using commercial and Medicare Advantage data from >45 US managed-care plans. Eligible adult patients had diagnoses for breast cancer and bone metastasis between 01/01/01 and 12/31/06, continuous enrollment in the health plan, and no evidence of bone metastasis or intravenous bisphosphonate (IV-BP) use for 6 months before their first ZOL or PAM infusion. Patients were followed until disenrollment (including mortality) or end of the analysis period (12/31/07). Persistency was defined as absence of a >45-day gap between IV-BP treatments.

Results:

Of 8757 patients (mean age, 58.1 [SD 12.4] years), ～ 30% were treated with ZOL, 15% with PAM, and 55% with no IV-BP. Patients treated with ZOL had a moderately lower incidence of SREs (mean, 36.2 vs 40.0 SREs/100 person-years; p?=?0.0707) and significantly lower mortality (mean, 6.5 vs 11.2 deaths/100 person-years; p?<?0.001) compared with PAM-treated patients. Longer persistency with ZOL was associated with lower risk of fracture and all SREs (trend-test p?=?0.0076 and p?=?0.0200, respectively).

Limitations:

Interpretation of this claims-based analysis must be tempered by the inherent limitations of observational data, such as imbalances in patient populations and the potential for bias in treatment selection.

Conclusions:

This analysis suggests that fewer than half of breast cancer patients with bone metastases receive IV-BPs. Longer persistence with ZOL was associated with lower SRE risk, and ZOL-treated patients had longer survival and a non-significant trend toward fewer SREs compared with PAM.     

Estimating healthcare resource use associated with the treatment of metastatic melanoma in eight countries

Objectives Studies reporting healthcare resourse use (HRU) for melanoma, one of the most costly cancers to treat, are limited. Using consistent, robust methodology, this study estimated HRU associated with the treatment of metastatic melanoma in eight countries.

Methods Using published literature and clinician input, treatment phases were identified: active systemic treatment (pre-progression); disease progression; best supportive care (BSC)/palliative care; and terminal care. HRU elements were identified for each phase and estimates of the magnitude and frequency of use in clinical practice were obtained through country-specific Delphi panels, comprising healthcare professionals with experience in oncology (n?=?8).

Results Medical oncologists are the key care providers for patients with metastatic melanoma, although in Germany dermato-oncologists also lead care. During the active systemic treatment phase, each patient was estimated to require 0.83–2 consultations with a medical oncologist/month across countries; the median number of such assessments in 3 months was highest in Canada (range?=?3.5–5) and lowest in France, the Netherlands and Spain (1). Resource use during the disease progression phase was intensive and similar across countries: all patients were estimated to consult with medical oncologists and 10–40% with a radiation oncologist; up to 40% were estimated to require a brain MRI scan. During the BSC/palliative care phase, all patients were estimated to consult with medical oncologists, and most to consult with a primary care physician (40–100%).

Limitations Panelists were from centers of excellence, thus results may not reflect care within smaller hospitals; data obtained from experts may be less variable than data from broader clinical practice. Treatments for metastatic melanoma are continually emerging, thus some elements of our work could be superseded.

Conclusions HRU estimates were substantial and varied across countries for some resources. These data could be used with country-specific costs to elucidate costs for the management of metastatic melanoma.     

Assessment of zoledronic acid treatment patterns and clinical outcomes in patients with bone metastases from genitourinary cancers

Abstract

Background:

Patients with bone metastases secondary to genitourinary (GU) cancer are at risk for skeletal-related events (SREs), including bone pain requiring palliative radiotherapy, fractures or surgery to bone, spinal cord compression, and hypercalcemia of malignancy. These SREs can be debilitating and potentially life-limiting. This study examined treatment practices and the association of treatment patterns with Zometa (zoledronic acid, ZOL), an intravenous bisphosphonate (IV-BP), with SREs and fractures. (Zometa is a registered trademark of Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, USA.)

Methods:

Retrospective analysis of commercial and Medicare Advantage enrollment and medical claims data was performed to evaluate IV-BP use and SRE patterns in adult patients with GU cancers. Criteria included diagnosis of ≥1 bone metastasis and prostate cancer (PC), renal cell carcinoma (RCC), or bladder cancer (BlC) between January 2001 and December 2006; continuous healthcare plan enrollment for ≥6 months before the index date; and no evidence of prior IV-BP use. Patients were followed until disenrollment from the healthcare plan or December 2007.

Results:

Of 6347 patients (PC, n?=?4976; RCC, n?=?941; BlC, n?=?430; mean [standard deviation] age: 68.9 [11.1] years), only ～23% received ZOL. The mean time between diagnosis of bone metastasis and ZOL initiation was ～108 days. Among patients with PC, fracture risk was significantly smaller for ZOL vs no IV-BP (incidence rate ratio?=?0.70; p?<?0.001), and 2-year survival was significantly longer for ZOL-treated vs no IV-BP patients (p?=?0.007). Patients with longer persistency on ZOL had a smaller fracture risk than patients with shorter persistency. Sub-set analyses were not performed for RCC and BIC because the proportion of patients treated was too low.

Limitations:

Interpretation of this claims-based analysis must be tempered by the inherent limitations of observational data, such as limited and accurate available information, and unavailable information including clinical or disease-specific parameters.

Conclusions:

Intravenous BP therapy is not always received in patients with bone metastases secondary to GU cancers, and, when used, there are typically long time periods before treatment initiation. Without IV-BPs, PC patients have significantly larger risks of fracture and death compared with ZOL-treated patients, and benefits appear to be larger with increasing persistency on ZOL.     

Short-term disability in solid tumor patients with bone metastases and skeletal-related events

Abstract

Objective:

The skeleton is a common site of metastasis in patients with solid tumors. These patients often experience pain and reduced quality-of-life. This analysis evaluated the time and costs associated with short-term disability use among solid tumor patients with bone metastases (BM) and skeletal-related events (SREs).

Methods:

Data from patients 18–64 years old with solid tumors and BM, eligible for short-term disability benefits between January 1, 2002 and December 31, 2010, were extracted from MarketScan Research Databases. Short-term disability hours and costs associated with BM and SREs were evaluated.

Results:

Overall, 1098 patients met the criteria. For all patients with BM, the monthly mean short-term disability hours were 17.7?h pre-BM diagnosis and increased to 60.2?h post-BM diagnosis (p?<?0.001). The corresponding mean monthly short-term disability costs were $277 and $963 in the pre- and post-BM diagnosis periods, respectively (p?<?0.001). Monthly mean short-term disability hours were higher for the cohort of patients with SREs (21.2?h pre-SRE diagnosis and 67.4?h post-SRE diagnosis) than for those without an SRE (8.6?h pre-SRE diagnosis and 14.4?h post-SRE diagnosis) (p?<?0.001). Similarly, the corresponding monthly mean short-term disability costs were higher for patients with SREs ($625 and $1259 pre- and post-SRE diagnosis, respectively) than for patients without an SRE ($452 and $612 pre- and post-SRE diagnosis, respectively) (p?<?0.001). Results of a multivariate analysis indicated that SREs were associated with an additional 39.4 short-term disability hours and $613 in short-term disability costs per month (p?<?0.001).

>Conclusion:

Short-term disability hours and costs increased significantly when patients with solid tumors developed BM and SRE.     

A cost-effectiveness analysis of denosumab for the prevention of skeletal-related events in patients with multiple myeloma in four European countries: Austria,Belgium, Greece,and Italy

Aim: The approved indication for denosumab (120?mg) was expanded in 2018 to include skeletal-related event (SRE) prevention in patients with multiple myeloma (MM). Therefore, a cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted comparing denosumab with zoledronic acid (ZA) for SRE prevention in patients with MM from the national healthcare system perspective in a representative sample of European countries: Austria, Belgium, Greece, and Italy.

Methods: The XGEVA global economic model for patients with MM was used to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for denosumab vs ZA over a lifetime horizon. Clinical inputs were derived from the denosumab vs ZA randomized, phase 3 study (“20090482”) in patients newly-diagnosed with MM, and comprised real-world adjusted SRE rates, serious adverse event (SAE) rates, treatment duration, dose intensity, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Economic inputs comprised country-specific denosumab and ZA acquisition and administration costs, SRE and SAE management costs, and discount rates. Health utility decrements associated with MM disease progression, SRE and SAE occurrence, and route of administration were included.

Results: Estimated ICERs (cost per quality-adjusted life-year [QALY] gained) for denosumab vs ZA in Austria, Belgium, Greece, and Italy were €26,294, €17,737, €6,982, and €27,228, respectively. Using 1–3 times gross domestic product (GDP) per capita per QALY as willingness to pay thresholds, denosumab was 69–94%, 84–96%, 79–96%, and 50–92% likely to be cost-effective vs ZA, respectively.

Limitations: Economic inputs were derived from various sources, and time to event inputs were extrapolated from 20090482 study data.

Conclusions: Denosumab is cost-effective vs ZA for SRE prevention in patients with MM in Austria, Belgium, Greece, and Italy, based on often-adopted World Health Organization thresholds. This conclusion is robust to changes in model parameters and assumptions. Cost-effectiveness estimates varied across the four countries, reflecting differences in healthcare costs and national economic evaluation guidelines.     

Healthcare resource utilization among patients with relapsed multiple myeloma in the UK,France, and Italy

Aims: To assess the real-world healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs associated with different treatment regimens used in the management of patients with relapsed multiple myeloma in the UK, France, and Italy.

Methods: Retrospective medical chart review of characteristics, time to progression, level of response, HRU during treatment, and adverse events (AEs). Data collection started on June 1, 2015 and was completed on July 15, 2015. In the 3 months before record abstraction, eligible patients had either disease progression after receiving one of their country’s most commonly prescribed regimens or had received the best supportive care and died. Costs were calculated based on HRU and country-specific diagnosis-related group and/or unit reference costs, amongst other standard resources.

Results: Physicians provided data for 1,282 patients (387 in the UK, 502 in France, 393 in Italy) who met the inclusion criteria. Mean [median] total healthcare costs associated with a single line of treatment were €51,717 [35,951] in the UK, €37,009 [32,538] for France, and €34,496 [42,342] for Italy, driven largely by anti-myeloma medications costs (contributing 95.0%, 90.0%, and 94.2% of total cost, respectively). During active treatment, the highest costs were associated with lenalidomide- and pomalidomide-based regimens. Mean cost per month was lowest for patients achieving a very good partial response or better. Unscheduled events (i.e. not considered part of routine management, whether or not related to multiple myeloma, such as unscheduled hospitalization, AEs, fractures) accounted for 1–9% of total costs and were highest for bendamustine.

Limitations: The use of retrospective data means that clinical practice (e.g. use of medical procedures, evaluation of treatment response) is not standardized across participating countries/centers, and some data (e.g. low-grade AEs) may be incomplete or differently adjudicated/reported. The centers involved may not be fully representative of national practice.

Conclusions: Drug costs are the main contributor to total HRU costs associated with multiple myeloma. The duration of active treatment may influence the average total costs, as well as response, associated with a single line of therapy. Improved treatment outcomes, and reductions in unscheduled events and concomitant medication use may, therefore, reduce the overall HRU and related costs of care in multiple myeloma.     

Costs of managing severe hypoglycaemia in three European countries

Abstract

Objectives: To assess the costs of severe hypoglycaemic events (SHEs) in diabetes patients in Germany, Spain and the UK.

Methods: Healthcare resource use was measured by surveying 639 patients aged ≥16 years, receiving insulin for type 1 (n=319) or type 2 diabetes (n=320), who experienced ≥1 SHE in the preceding year. Patients were grouped by location of SHE treatment: group 1, community (family/domestic); group 2, community (healthcare professional); group 3, hospital. Costs were calculated from published unit costs applied to estimated resource use. Costs per SHE were derived from patient numbers per subgroup. Weighted average costs were derived using a prevalence database.

Results: Hospital treatment was a major cost in all countries. In Germany and Spain, costs per SHE for type 1 patients differed from those for type 2 patients in each group. Average SHE treatment costs were higher for patients with type 2 diabetes (Germany, €533; Spain, €691; UK, €537) than type 1 diabetes patients (€441, €577 and €236, respectively). Telephone calls, visits to doctors, blood glucose monitoring and patient education contributed substantially to costs for non-hospitalised patients.

Conclusions: Treatment of SHEs adds significantly to healthcare costs. Average costs were lower for type 1 than for insulin-treated type 2 diabetes, in all three countries.     

Fingolimod reduces direct medical costs compared to natalizumab in patients with relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis in The Netherlands

Abstract

Objective:

To assess the costs of oral treatment with Gilenya® (fingolimod) compared to intravenous infusion of Tysabri® (natalizumab) in patients with relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) in The Netherlands.

Methods:

A cost-minimization analysis was used to compare both treatments. The following cost categories were distinguished: drug acquisition costs, administration costs, and monitoring costs. Costs were discounted at 4%, and incremental model results were presented over a 1, 2, 5, and 10 year time horizon. The robustness of the results was determined by means of a number of deterministic univariate sensitivity analyses. Additionally, a break-even analysis was carried out to determine at which natalizumab infusion costs a cost-neutral outcome would be obtained.

Results:

Comparing fingolimod to natalizumab, the model predicted discounted incremental costs of ?€2966 (95% CI: ?€4209; ?€1801), ?€6240 (95% CI: ?€8800; ?€3879), ?€15,328 (95% CI: ?€21,539; ?€9692), and ?€28,287 (95% CI: ?€39,661; ?€17,955) over a 1, 2, 5, and 10-year time horizon, respectively. These predictions were most sensitive to changes in the costs of natalizumab infusion. Changing these costs of €255 within a range from €165–364 per infusion resulted in cost savings varying from €4031 to €8923 after 2 years. The additional break-even analysis showed that infusion costs—including aseptic preparation of the natalizumab solution—needed to be as low as the respective costs of €94 and €80 to obtain a cost neutral result after 2 and 10 years.

Limitations:

Neither treatment discontinuation and subsequent re-initiation nor patient compliance were taken into account. As a consequence of the applied cost-minimization technique, only direct medical costs were included.

Conclusion:

The present analysis showed that treatment with fingolimod resulted in considerable cost savings compared to natalizumab: starting at €2966 in the first year, increasing to a total of €28,287 after 10 years per RRMS patient in the Netherlands.     

Comparative cost analysis of management of secondary hyperparathyroidism with paricalcitol or cinacalcet with low-dose vitamin D in hemodialysis patients

Abstract

Objective:

The objective of this analysis was to compare costs of paricalcitol or cinacalcet plus low dose vitamin D, and of phosphate binders, in patients in the IMPACT SHPT study; and to extrapolate those to estimate expected annual maintenance costs.

Methods:

IMPACT SHPT was a 28-week, randomized, open-label trial. Subjects from 12 countries received intravenous (IV) or oral paricalcitol, or oral cinacalcet plus fixed IV doxercalciferol or oral alfacalcidol. The primary end-point was the proportion of subjects who achieved a mean intact parathyroid hormone (iPTH) value of 150–300?pg/mL during weeks 21–28 (evaluation period). This study compares the costs of study drugs and phosphate binders among participants during the study and annualized. This analysis includes only those subjects that reached the evaluation period (134 in each group).

Results:

The mean total drug costs over the study period were €2606 (SD?=?€2000) in the paricalcitol group and €3034 (SD?=?€3006) in the cinacalcet group (difference €428, p?=?0.1712). The estimated annualized costs were €5387 (SD?=?€4139) in the paricalcitol group and €6870 (SD?=?€6256) in the cinacalcet group (difference €1492, p?=?0.0395). In addition, a significantly greater proportion (p?=?0.010) of subjects in the paricalcitol arm (56.0%) achieved an iPTH of 150–300?pg/mL during the evaluation period compared to the cinacalcet arm (38.2%).

Limitations:

This was a secondary analysis of the IMPACT SHPT study which was not designed or powered for costs as an outcome. The dosing of study drugs and phosphate binders in the IMPACT study may not reflect actual practice, and patients were followed for 28 weeks, while the treatment of SHPT is long-term.

Conclusion:

Patients with SHPT requiring hemodialysis who were treated with a paricalcitol-based regimen for iPTH control had lower estimated annual drug costs compared to those treated with cinacalcet plus low-dose vitamin D.     

Annual acquisition and administration cost of biologic response modifiers per patient with rheumatoid arthritis,psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis,or ankylosing spondylitis

Abstract

Objective:

To estimate annual biologic response modifier (BRM) cost per treated patient with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, and/or ankylosing spondylitis receiving etanercept, abatacept, adalimumab, certolizumab, golimumab, infliximab, rituximab, or ustekinumab.

Methods:

This was a cohort study of 69,349 commercially insured individuals in a nationwide claims database with one of these conditions that had a claim for one of these BRMs between January 2008 and December 2010 (the index BRM/index date). Cost per treated patient was calculated as the total BRM acquisition and administration cost to the payer in the first year after the index date (including costs of other BRMs after switching) divided by the number of patients who received the index BRM. Etanercept was selected as the reference for comparisons.

Results:

Etanercept was the most commonly used index BRM (n?=?32,298; 47%), followed by adalimumab (n?=?20,582; 30%), infliximab (n?=?11,157; 16%), abatacept (n?=?2633; 4%), rituximab (n?=?1359; 2%), golimumab (n?=?687; <1%), ustekinumab (n?=?388; <1%), and certolizumab (n?=?245; <1%). Using etanercept as the reference, the cost per treated patient in the first year across all four conditions was 102% for adalimumab and 108% for infliximab. Newer BRMs had costs relative to etanercept that were 90% to 102% for rheumatoid arthritis, 132% for psoriasis, 100% for psoriatic arthritis, and 94% for ankylosing spondylitis.

Limitations:

Potential study limitations were the lack of clinical information (e.g., disease severity, treatment outcomes) or indirect costs, the inability to compare costs of newer BRMs across all four conditions, and much smaller sample sizes for newer BRMs.

Conclusions:

Of the BRMs that are approved for indications within all four conditions studied, etanercept had the lowest cost per treated patient when assessed across all four conditions.     

A cost-effectiveness analysis of denosumab for the prevention of skeletal-related events in patients with multiple myeloma in the United States of America

Objective: A large, pivotal, phase 3 trial in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) demonstrated that denosumab, compared with zoledronic acid, was non-inferior for the prevention of skeletal-related events (SREs), extended the observed median progression-free survival (PFS) by 10.7 months, and showed significantly less renal toxicity. The cost-effectiveness of denosumab vs zoledronic acid in MM in the US was assessed from societal and payer perspectives.

Methods: The XGEVA Global Economic Model was developed by integrating data from the phase 3 trial comparing the efficacy of denosumab with zoledronic acid for the prevention of SREs in MM. SRE rates were adjusted to reflect the real-world incidence. The model included utility decrements for SREs, administration, serious adverse events (SAEs), and disease progression. Drug, administration, SRE management, SAEs, and anti-MM treatment costs were based on data from published studies. For the societal perspective, the model additionally included SRE-related direct non-medical costs and indirect costs. The net monetary benefit (NMB) was calculated using a willingness-to-pay threshold of US$150,000. One-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted.

Results: From a societal perspective, compared with zoledronic acid, the use of denosumab resulted in an incremental cost of US$26,329 and an incremental quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) of 0.2439, translating into a cost per QALY gained of US$107,939 and a NMB of US$10,259 in favor of denosumab. Results were sensitive to SRE rates and PFS parameters.

Limitations: Costs were estimated from multiple sources, which varied by tumor type, patient population, country, and other parameters. PFS and overall survival were extrapolated beyond the follow-up of the primary analysis using fitted parametric curves.

Conclusion: Denosumab’s efficacy in delaying or preventing SREs, potential to improve PFS, and lack of renal toxicity make it a cost-effective option for the prevention of SREs in MM compared with zoledronic acid.     

Cost-effectiveness of primary antifungal prophylaxis with posaconazole versus itraconazole in allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation

Abstract

Purpose:

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of posaconazole vs itraconazole in the prevention of invasive fungal infections (IFIs) in recipients of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT).

Methods:

Total hospital-based costs from initial admission for allo-HSCT until day 100 after transplantation were evaluated for 49 patients in whom the clinical efficacy of antifungal prophylaxis with posaconazole vs itraconazole had been previously analyzed and reported. Clinical and economic data were used to determine the incremental costs per IFI avoided and per life-year gained for posaconazole compared with itraconazole. Confidence intervals for the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and a cost-effectiveness acceptability curve were estimated through bootstrapping with the bias-corrected percentile method.

Results:

According to our analysis, the total cost of allo-HSCT per patient during the 100-day fixed-treatment period was €46,562 in the posaconazole group (n?=?33) and €45,080 in the itraconazole group (n?=?16). However, the reduction in the incidence of IFI and the improved outcome with posaconazole resulted in a favorable ICER of €11,856 per IFI avoided and €5218 per life-year gained. With the outcomes of the bootstrap procedure, the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve was constructed. Assuming a threshold of €30,000 per life-year gained, the ICER based on life-years gained is acceptable with 75% certainty.

Limitations:

This evaluation is based on data from a single-center, non-randomized study. Preference weights or utilities were not available to calculate quality-adjusted life-years. Extra-mural costs were only partially evaluated from a hospital perspective. Indirect costs and economic consequences are not included.

Conclusions:

This economic evaluation compared direct medical costs associated with posaconazole or itraconazole treatment; the data suggest that posaconazole may be cost-effective as antifungal prophylaxis during the early high-risk neutropenic period and up to 100 days after allo-HSCT.