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

Abstract

Objective:

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

Methods:

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

Results:

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

Conclusion:

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

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

Abstract

Objective:

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

Methods:

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

Results:

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

Limitations:

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

Conclusion:

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

The economic burden of common adverse events associated with metastatic colorectal cancer treatment in the United States

Aims: Adverse events (AEs) associated with treatments for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) may compromise the course of treatment, impact quality-of-life, and increase healthcare resource utilization. This study assessed the direct healthcare costs of common AEs among mCRC patients in the US.

Methods: Adult mCRC patients treated with chemotherapy or targeted therapies were identified from administrative claims databases (2009–2014). Up to the first three mCRC treatment episodes per patient were considered and categorized as with or without the AE system/organ category during the episode. Total healthcare costs (2014 USD) were measured by treatment episode and reported on a monthly basis. Treatment episodes with the AE category were matched by treatment type and line of treatment to those without the AE category. Adjusted total cost differences were estimated by comparing costs during treatment episodes with vs without the AE category using multivariate regression models; p-values were estimated with bootstrap.

Results: A total of 4158 patients with ≥1 mCRC treatment episode were included (mean age?=?59 years; 58% male; 60% with liver and 14% with lung metastases; 2,261 [54%] with a second and 1,115 [27%] with a third episode). On average, two treatment episodes were observed per patient with an average length of 166 days per episode. Adjusted monthly total cost difference by AE category included hematologic ($1,480), respiratory ($1,253), endocrine/metabolic ($1,213), central nervous system (CNS; $1,136), and cardiovascular ($1,036; all p?Limitations: Claims do not include information on the cause of AEs, and potentially less severe AEs may not have been reported by the physician when billing the medical service. This study aimed to assess the association between costs and AEs and not the causation of AEs by treatment.

Conclusions: The most costly AEs among mCRC patients were hematologic, followed by respiratory, endocrine/metabolic, CNS, and cardiovascular.     

A within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis of panitumumab compared with bevacizumab in the first-line treatment of patients with wild-type RAS metastatic colorectal cancer in the US

Abstract

Aims: This analysis investigated the cost-effectiveness of panitumumab plus mFOLFOX6 (oxaliplatin, 5-fluorouracil, and leucovorin) compared with bevacizumab plus mFOLFOX6 in the first-line treatment of patients with wild-type RAS metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).

Materials and methods: The cost-effectiveness analysis was developed from a third-party payer perspective in the US and was implemented using a partitioned survival model with health states for first-line treatment (progression-free), disease progression with and without subsequent active treatment, and death. Survival analyses of patients with wild-type RAS mCRC from the PEAK head-to-head clinical trial of panitumumab vs bevacizumab were performed to estimate time in the model health states. Additional data from PEAK informed the amount of each drug consumed, duration of therapy, subsequent therapy use, and toxicities related to mCRC treatment. Literature and US public data sources were used to estimate unit costs associated with treatment and duration of subsequent active therapies. Utility weights were calculated from patient-level data from panitumumab trials in the first-, second-, and third-line settings. A life-time perspective was taken with future costs and outcomes discounted at 3% per annum. Scenario, one-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

Results: Compared with bevacizumab, the use of panitumumab resulted in an incremental cost of US $60,286, and an incremental quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) of 0.445, translating into a cost per QALY gained of US $135,391 in favor of panitumumab. Results were sensitive to wastage and dose rounding assumptions modeled.

Limitations: Progression-free and overall survival were extrapolated beyond the follow-up of the primary analysis using fitted parametric curves. Costs and quality of life were estimated from multiple and different data sources.

Conclusions: The efficacy of panitumumab in extending progression-free and overall survival and improving quality of life makes it a cost-effective option for first-line treatment of patients with wild-type RAS mCRC compared with bevacizumab.     

The cost implications of the use of telmisartan or ramipril in patients at high risk for vascular events: the ONTARGET study

Abstract

Background:

The recently published ONTARGET trial found that telmisartan was non-inferior to ramipril in reducing CV death, MI, stroke, or heart failure in patients with vascular disease or high-risk diabetes. The cost implications of ramipril and telmisartan monotherapy use based on the ONTARGET study are reported here.

Methods and Results:

Only healthcare system costs were considered. Healthcare resource utilization was collected for each patient during the trial. The authors obtained country-specific unit costs to the different healthcare care resources consumed (i.e., hospitalizations events, procedures, non-study, and study drugs) for all enrolled patients. Purchasing power parities were used to convert country-specific costs into US dollars (US$ 2008). The total undiscounted costs of the study for the telmisartan group was $12,762 per patient and is higher than the ramipril group at $12,007 per patient, an un-discounted difference of $755 (95% confidence interval [CI], $218–$1292); The discounted costs for the telmisartan group was $11,722 compared with $11,019 for the ramipril group; a difference of $703 (95% CI, $209–$1197). The difference in costs is exclusively related to the acquisition cost of telmisartan over generic ramipril.

Limitations:

This analysis only considered direct healthcare system costs. Costs accrued outside the hospital were not collected. Combination therapy was excluded since it would likely be more expensive than ramipril alone, with no additional benefit and a risk of some harm.

Conclusions:

Based on these results, it is suggested that for the ONTARGET patients, the use of telmisartan instead of ramipril increases costs by 6.3%. These findings suggest that the choice to put patients on telmisartan should be justified based on the patient’s susceptibility to specific adverse events to minimize the cost implications.     

Cost-minimization comparison of darunavir plus ritonavir and lopinavir/ritonavir in HIV-1 infected treatment-naïve women of childbearing age

Background:

Guidelines from the Department of Health and Human Services in the US recommend ritonavir-boosted lopinavir (LPV/r) as a preferred protease inhibitor (PI) for HIV-positive antiretroviral-na?ve pregnant women. These guidelines also cite ritonavir-boosted darunavir (DRV?+?RTV) as an alternative PI in this clinical scenario. The purpose of this analysis was to compare economic outcomes for regimens based on these two treatments.

Study design:

An existing discrete event simulation (DES) model was adapted to conduct a cost-minimization analysis comparing the two regimens in HIV-infected women of childbearing age (WOCBA), from the perspective of a healthcare payer in the US.

Methods:

The DES model was used to represent disease states, health events, healthcare encounters, pregnancy, and treatment choices in HIV-infected WOCBA starting treatment with regimens based on either LPV/r or DRV?+?RTV. It also incorporated parameters for individual patient characteristics, and for antiretroviral (ARV) treatment effectiveness, treatment sequencing, clinical progression, and resource use. Potential events included scheduled physician visits; viral suppression; viral rebound; AIDS-related complications; CHD events; treatment discontinuation and switching; ARV treatment side-effects (SE); and death. The primary outcomes were discounted 5-year and 10-year healthcare costs. Alternative scenarios considered different rates of switching from DRV?+?RTV to LPV/r upon conception.

Results:

Compared with DRV?+?RTV, LPV/r was associated with similar clinical outcomes while offering savings at the 5- and 10-year horizons (of $24,904 and $43,502 per patient, respectively), and in extensive sensitivity analyses. The main driver of the savings was the difference in cost between PIs.

Conclusions:

Starting HIV-infected ARV-treatment-na?ve WOCBA on an LPV/r-based regimen is cost-saving and provides similar patient outcomes compared to a DRV?+?RTV-based regimen.     

Healthcare and economic burden of adverse events among patients with chronic myelogenous leukemia treated with BCR-ABL1 tyrosine kinase inhibitors

Objectives: BCR-ABL1 tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) are established treatments for chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML); however, they are associated with infrequent, but clinically serious adverse events (AEs). The objective of this analysis was to assess healthcare resource utilization and costs associated with AEs, previously identified using the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) in another study, among TKI-treated patients.

Methods: Adult patients with ≥1 inpatient or ≥2 outpatient ICD-9-CM diagnosis codes for CML and ≥1 claim for a TKI treatment between January 1, 2006 and September 30, 2012 were identified from the Commercial and Medicare MarketScan databases. The first claim for a TKI was designated as the index event. Patients were required to have no TKI treatment during a 12-month baseline period. Healthcare resource utilization and costs associated with select AEs having the strongest association with TKI treatment (femoral arterial stenosis [FAS], peripheral arterial occlusive disease [PAOD], intermittent claudication, coronary artery stenosis [CAS], pericardial effusion, pleural effusion, malignant pleural effusion, conjunctival hemorrhage) were evaluated during a 12-month follow-up period.

Results: The study sample included 2,005 CML patients receiving TKI therapy (mean age?=?56 years; 56% male). Among all evaluated AEs, the highest mean inpatient healthcare costs were observed for FAS ($16,800 per patient) and PAOD ($14,263 per patient), which had total mean medical costs (inpatient?+?outpatient) of $17,015 and $15,154 per patient, respectively. Mean outpatient healthcare costs were highest for CAS ($1,861 per patient), followed by intermittent claudication ($947 per patient), PAOD ($891 per patient), and pleural effusion ($890 per patient). Total mean medical costs for fluid retention-related AEs, including pericardial effusion and pleural effusion, were $2,797 and $1,908 per patient, respectively.

Conclusions: The healthcare costs of AEs identified in the FAERS as having the strongest association with TKI treatment are substantial. Vascular stenosis-related AEs, including FAS and PAOD, have the highest cost burden.     

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

Abstract

Objective:

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

Methods:

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

Results:

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

Conclusions:

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

Cost-impact of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging with Fast-SENC compared to SPECT in the diagnosis of coronary artery disease in the U.S

Aims: The purpose of this study is to assess the economic cost differences and the associated treatment resource changes between the developing coronary artery disease (CAD) diagnostic tool fast strain-encoded cardiac imaging (Fast-SENC) and the current commonly used stress test single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT).

Materials and methods: A “payer perspective” model was created first, consisting of long-term and short-term components that used a hypothetical cohort of patients of average age (60.8?years) presenting with chest pain and suspected CAD to assess cost-impact. A cost impact model was then built that assessed likely savings from a “hospital perspective” from substituting Fast-SENC for a portion of SPECTs assuming an average number of annual SPECT tests performed in US hospitals.

Results: In the payer model, using Fast-SENC followed by coronary angiography (CA) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) treatment when necessary is less costly than the SPECT method when considering both direct and indirect costs of testing. Expected costs of the Fast-SENC were between $2,510 and $2,632 per correct diagnosis, while expected costs for the SPECT were between $3,157 and $4,078. Fast-SENC reduced false positives by 50% and false negatives by 86%, generating additional cost savings. The hospital model showed total costs per CAD patient visit of $825 for SPECT and $376 for Fast-SENC.

Limitations: Limitations of this study are that clinical data are sourced from other published clinical trials on how CAD diagnostic strategies impact clinical outcome, and that necessary assumptions were made which impact health outcomes.

Conclusion: The lower cost, higher sensitivity and specificity rates, and faster, less burdensome process for detecting CAD patients make Fast-SENC a more capable and economically beneficial stress test than SPECT. The payer model and hospital model demonstrate an alignment between payer and provider economics as Fast-SENC provides monetary savings for patients and resource benefits for hospitals.     

Factors associated with increased healthcare costs in Medicare Advantage patients with type 2 diabetes enrolled in a large representative health insurance plan in the US

Abstract

Aim:

The objective of this study was to apply quantile regression (QR) methodology to a population from a large representative health insurance plan with known skewed healthcare utilization attributes, co-morbidities, and costs in order to identify predictors of increased healthcare costs. Further, this study provides comparison of the results to those obtained using ordinary least squares (OLS) regression methodology.

Methods:

Members diagnosed with Type 2 Diabetes and with 24 months of continuous enrollment were included. Baseline patient demographic, clinical, consumer/behavioural, and cost characteristics were quantified. Quantile regression was used to model the relationship between the baseline characteristics and total healthcare costs during the follow-up 12 month period.

Results:

The sample included 83,705 patients (mean age?=?70.6 years, 48% male) residing primarily in the southern US (78.1%); 81.2% of subjects were on oral-only anti-diabetic therapy. Co-morbid conditions included nephropathy (43.5%), peripheral artery disease (26.4%), and retinopathy (18.0%). Variables with the strongest relationship with costs during the follow-up period included outpatient visits, ER visits, inpatient visits, and Diabetes Complications Severity Index score during the baseline period. In the top cost quantiles, each additional glycohemoglobin (HbA1c) test was associated with cost savings ($1400 in the 98th percentile). Stage 4 and Stage 5 chronic kidney disease were associated with an incremental cost increase of $33,131 and $106,975 relative to Stage 1 or no CKD in the 98th percentile ($US).

Conclusions:

These results demonstrate that QR provides additional insight compared to traditional OLS regression modeling, and may be more useful for informing resource allocation to patients most likely to benefit from interventions. This study highlights that the impact of clinical and demographic characteristics on the economic burden of the disease vary across the continuum of healthcare costs. Understanding factors that drive costs on an individual patient level provide important insights that will help in ameliorating the clinical, humanistic, and economic burden of diabetes.     

Global hospital and operative costs associated with various ventral cavity procedures: a comprehensive literature review and analysis across regions

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this literature review was to provide a comprehensive report on hospital costs, and cost components, for a range of ventral cavity surgical procedures across three regions of focus: (1) Americas, (2) Europe, Middle East and Africa (EMEA), and (3) Asia-Pacific.

Methods: A structured search was performed and utilized a combination of controlled vocabulary (e.g., “Hepatectomy”, “Colectomy”, “Costs and Cost Analysis”) and keywords (e.g. “liver resection”, “bowel removal”, “economics”). Studies were considered eligible for inclusion if they reported hospital-related costs associated with the procedures of interest. Cost outcomes included operating room (OR) time costs, total OR costs, ward stay costs, total admission costs, OR cost per minute and ward cost per day. All costs were converted to 2018 USD.

Results: Total admission costs were observed to be highest in the Americas, with an average cost of $15,791. The average OR time cost per minute was found to vary by region: $24.83 (Americas), $14.29 (Asia-Pacific), and $13.90 (EMEA). A cost-breakdown demonstrated that OR costs typically comprised close to 50%, or more, of hospital admission costs. This review also demonstrates that decreasing OR time by 30?min provides cost savings approximately equivalent to a 1-day reduction in ward time.

Conclusion: This literature review provided a comprehensive assessment of hospital costs across various surgical procedures, approaches, and geographical regions. Our findings indicate that novel processes and healthcare technologies that aim to reduce resources such as operating time and hospital stay, can potentially provide resource savings for hospital payers.     

Cost-minimization analysis of panitumumab compared with cetuximab for first-line treatment of patients with wild-type RAS metastatic colorectal cancer

Abstract

Objective:

To compare the costs of first-line treatment with panitumumab?+?FOLFOX in comparison to cetuximab?+?FOLFIRI among patients with wild-type (WT) RAS metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in the US.     

Cost analysis of plasma-derived factor VIII/von Willebrand factor versus recombinant factor VIII for treatment of previously untreated patients with severe hemophilia A in the United States

Background: Inhibitor development to factor VIII (FVIII) hemophilia therapy results in increased complications and substantial economic costs. The SIPPET study, the first randomized controlled trial to compare the immunogenicity of plasma-derived FVIII (pdFVIII)/von Willebrand factor (VWF) and recombinant-DNA-derived FVIII (rFVIII), demonstrated higher inhibitor rates in previously untreated patients (PUPs) treated with rFVIII than in PUPs treated with pdFVIII/VWF.

Objective: To quantify the economic impact of treating PUPs with pdFVIII/VWF vs rFVIII.

Methods: An Excel-based clinical and economic model was developed from a US healthcare payer perspective and run over a 5-year period. The analysis utilized a cohort approach to model patient treatment and outcomes over a monthly cycle to quantify differences in costs of FVIII, bypassing agents, and hospitalizations for serious bleeds. Rates of high-titer inhibitor development were obtained from the SIPPET study. Patients developing high-titer inhibitors were treated with immune tolerance induction (ITI). Patients who developed low-titer inhibitors and those who did not develop inhibitors continued their usual FVIII treatment. Patients who were successfully treated with ITI returned to FVIII treatment, while unsuccessfully treated patients received bypassing agents. Total costs per treated patient were estimated and a one-way sensitivity analysis was conducted to quantify the impact of parameter uncertainty on the model outcomes.

Results: Total cumulative costs per patient over 5 years were $834,621 for pdFVIII/VWF patients and $1,237,163 for rFVIII patients, representing a total saving of $402,542 per patient over the 5-year period, for an average annual saving of $80,508 per patient.

Conclusions: Based on data from the SIPPET study, this analysis found that initiating FVIII treatment in severe hemophilia A PUPs with pdFVIII/VWF has the potential to offer substantial cost savings to healthcare payers, amounting to a one-third reduction in costs.     

Cost-effectiveness analysis in the Spanish setting of the PEAK trial of panitumumab plus mFOLFOX6 compared with bevacizumab plus mFOLFOX6 for first-line treatment of patients with wild-type RAS metastatic colorectal cancer

Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness of panitumumab in combination with mFOLFOX6 (oxaliplatin, 5-fluorouracil, and leucovorin) vs bevacizumab in combination with mFOLFOX6 as first-line treatment of patients with wild-type RAS metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in Spain.

Methods: A semi-Markov model was developed including the following health states: Progression free; Progressive disease: Treat with best supportive care; Progressive disease: Treat with subsequent active therapy; Attempted resection of metastases; Disease free after metastases resection; Progressive disease: after resection and relapse; and Death. Parametric survival analyses of patient-level progression free survival and overall survival data from the PEAK Phase II clinical trial were used to estimate health state transitions. Additional data from the PEAK trial were considered for the dose and duration of therapy, the use of subsequent therapy, the occurrence of adverse events, and the incidence and probability of time to metastasis resection. Utility weightings were calculated from patient-level data from panitumumab trials evaluating first-, second-, and third-line treatments. The study was performed from the Spanish National Health System (NHS) perspective including only direct costs. A life-time horizon was applied. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses and scenario sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robustness of the model.

Results: Based on the PEAK trial, which demonstrated greater efficacy of panitumumab vs bevacizumab, both in combination with mFOLFOX6 first-line in wild-type RAS mCRC patients, the estimated incremental cost per life-year gained was €16,567 and the estimated incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained was €22,794. The sensitivity analyses showed the model was robust to alternative parameters and assumptions.

Limitations: The analysis was based on a simulation model and, therefore, the results should be interpreted cautiously.

Conclusions: Based on the PEAK Phase II clinical trial and taking into account Spanish costs, the results of the analysis showed that first-line treatment of mCRC with panitumumab?+?mFOLFOX6 could be considered a cost-effective option compared with bevacizumab?+?mFOLFOX6 for the Spanish NHS.     

Societal burden of cluster headache in the United States: a descriptive economic analysis

Aim: To estimate direct and indirect costs in patients with a diagnosis of cluster headache in the US.

Methods: Adult patients (18–64 years of age) enrolled in the Marketscan Commercial and Medicare Databases with ≥2 non-diagnostic outpatient (≥30 days apart between the two outpatient claims) or ≥1 inpatient diagnoses of cluster headache (ICD-9-CM code 339.00, 339.01, or 339.02) between January 1, 2009 and June 30, 2014, were included in the analyses. Patients had ≥6 months of continuous enrollment with medical and pharmacy coverage before and after the index date (first cluster headache diagnosis). Three outcomes were evaluated: (1) healthcare resource utilization, (2) direct healthcare costs, and (3) indirect costs associated with work days lost due to absenteeism and short-term disability. Direct costs included costs of all-cause and cluster headache-related outpatient, inpatient hospitalization, surgery, and pharmacy claims. Indirect costs were based on an average daily wage, which was estimated from the 2014?US Bureau of Labor Statistics and inflated to 2015 dollars.

Results: There were 9,328 patients with cluster headache claims included in the analysis. Cluster headache-related total direct costs (mean [standard deviation]) were $3,132 [$13,396] per patient per year (PPPY), accounting for 17.8% of the all-cause total direct cost. Cluster headache-related inpatient hospitalizations ($1,604) and pharmacy ($809) together ($2,413) contributed over 75% of the cluster headache-related direct healthcare cost. There were three sub-groups of patients with claims associated with indirect costs that included absenteeism, short-term disability, and absenteeism?+?short-term disability. Indirect costs PPPY were $4,928 [$4,860] for absenteeism, $803 [$2,621] for short-term disability, and $3,374 [$3,198] for absenteeism?+?disability.

Conclusion: Patients with cluster headache have high healthcare costs that are associated with inpatient admissions and pharmacy fulfillments, and high indirect costs associated with absenteeism and short-term disability.     

Losartan: a pharmacoeconomic review

Summary

The angiotensin II antagonist losartan has been clinically studied in several patient populations including type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) with nephropathy, hypertension with left ventricular hypertrophy, and the elderly with heart failure. The aim of this paper is to provide a review of the health economic evaluations based on the clinical trial results of losartan.

In patients with T2DM and nephropathy, losartan was shown to be cost saving in 14 countries and the EU. Net cost savings per patient, after factoring in the drug cost of losartan, ranged from $56 and $5,149 over a 3.5 year time horizon. For the two countries with published lifetime projections, the US and Mexico, net cost savings per patient were $24,632 and $2,223, respectively.

In patients with hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy, losartan as compared with atenolol was found to be cost effective in five countries and cost saving in one country. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranged from $1,274 to $5,764 per quality-adjusted life year gained for four of the countries and was $1,083 per life-year gained in one country. The other country evaluation reported a $20 net cost saving per patient.

Pharmacoeconomic evaluations in other patient populations comparing losartan with the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor captopril generally did not demonstrate differences in health economic outcomes.     

The cost of warfarin treatment for stroke prevention in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation in Russia from a collective perspective

Aims: Vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) are used for stroke prevention in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF), but necessitate regular monitoring of prothrombin time via international normalized ratio (INR) testing. This study explores the economic burden of VKA therapy for Russian patients with NVAF.

Method: Cardiologists provided clinical characteristics and healthcare resource use data relating to the patient’s first year of treatment. Data were used to quantify direct medical costs (INR testing, consultations, drug costs). The same patients completed a questionnaire providing data on direct non-medical costs (travel/expenses for attendance at VKA appointments) and indirect costs (opportunity cost and reduced work productivity). Mean costs per patient per year are described (US dollars).

Results: Cardiologists (n?=?50) provided data on 400 patients (mean age?=?63, 47% female), and 351 patients (88%) completed the patient questionnaire. Patients had a mean of nine INR tests. Estimated direct medical costs totaled $151.06, and 18.5% of direct medical costs were attributable to drug costs. Estimated annual direct non-medical costs were $22.89 per patient, and indirect costs were $275.59 per patient.

Limitations: Included patients had been treated for 12–24 months, so are not fully representative of the broader treatment population.

Conclusion: Although VKA drugs costs are relatively low, regular INR testing and consultations drive the economic burden for Russian NVAF patients treated with VKA.