Cost-effectiveness of ranibizumab and aflibercept to treat diabetic macular edema from a US perspective: analysis of 2-year Protocol T data

Abstract

Aims: Protocol T (NCT01627249) was a head-to-head study conducted by the Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network that compared intravitreal aflibercept, bevacizumab, and ranibizumab for the treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME). A cost-effectiveness analysis accompanying the 1-year data of Protocol T revealed that aflibercept was not cost-effective vs ranibizumab for all patients, but could have been cost-effective in certain patient sub-groups if the 1-year results were extrapolated out to 10?years. The present study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of US Food and Drug Administration-approved anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents (ranibizumab, aflibercept) for treatment of DME using the 2-year data from Protocol T.

Methods: Costs of aflibercept 2.0?mg or ranibizumab 0.3?mg, visual acuity (VA)-related medical costs, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were simulated for eight VA health states. Treatment, adverse event management, and VA-related healthcare resource costs (2016 US dollars) were based on Medicare reimbursement and published literature. VA-related health utilities were determined using a published algorithm. Patients were stratified by baseline VA: 20/40 or better; 20/50 or worse.

Results: Total 2-year costs were higher, and QALYs similar, for aflibercept vs ranibizumab in the full cohort ($44,423 vs $34,529; 1.476 vs 1.466), 20/40 or better VA sub-group ($40,854 vs $31,897; 1.517 vs 1.519), and 20/50 or worse VA sub-group ($48,214 vs $37,246; 1.433 vs 1.412), respectively. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios in the full cohort and 20/50 or worse VA sub-group were $986,159/QALY and $523,377/QALY, respectively. These decreased to $711,301 and $246,978 when analyses were extrapolated to 10?years.

Limitations: Key potential limitations include the fact that VA was the only QALY parameter analyzed and the uncertainty surrounding the role of better- and worse-seeing eye VA in overall functional impairment.

Conclusions: This analysis suggests that aflibercept is not cost-effective vs ranibizumab for patients with DME, regardless of baseline vision.     

The impact of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents on visual impairment/blindness prevention in patients with diabetic macular edema and on associated patient and caregiver burden in Japan

Aims: To estimate the impact of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents on visual impairment and blindness avoided in patients with diabetic macular edema (DME) and on associated patient and caregiver productivity loss in Japan.

Methods: This study compared the impact of current care (estimated at 53.8% utilization of anti-VEGF agents using current data) with that of hypothetical care (characterized by a higher utilization of anti-VEGF agents [80.0%], as estimated by an expert panel) of DME patients. A population-based Markov model (two-eye approach) simulated visual acuity (Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study [ETDRS] letters) transitions over 5 years with DME treatments (intravitreal aflibercept, ranibizumab, and triamcinolone acetonide, and grid/focal laser) in patients with DME. Patient and caregiver productivity loss was determined using the human capital method.

Results: In total, 570,000 DME patients were included in the model over 5 years. Increased utilization of anti-VEGF agents resulted in 6,659 fewer cases of severe visual impairment (SVI; 26–35 ETDRS letters) or blindness (0–25 ETDRS letters) compared with the current care approach (26,023 vs 32,682 cases; 20.38% reduction) over this period. Increased utilization of anti-VEGF agents also contributed to productivity loss savings of ¥12.58 billion (US $115.64 million) (i.e., 17.01%) at the end of year 5. The total overall saving over 5 years was ¥45.83 billion (US $421.27 million) (13.45%).

Limitations: Few Japanese data were available, and assumptions were made for some inputs. Vision changes dependent on the function of both eyes were not studied. Only intravitreal (not sub-Tenon’s) injections of triamcinolone were considered in this model. Direct costs were not considered.

Conclusions: Increased utilization of anti-VEGF agents can reduce SVI and legal blindness in patients with DME in Japan. This would also be associated with substantial savings in patient and caregiver productivity loss.     

Cost-effectiveness of brentuximab vedotin plus chemotherapy as frontline treatment of stage III or IV classical Hodgkin lymphoma

Objective: The ECHELON-1 trial demonstrated efficacy and safety of brentuximab vedotin plus doxorubicin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (A?+?AVD) vs doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD) as frontline therapy for stage III/IV classical Hodgkin lymphoma. This analysis evaluated the cost-effectiveness of A?+?AVD from a US healthcare payer perspective.

Methods: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), defined as the incremental costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained, was estimated using a non-homogenous semi-Markov cohort model with health states defined on progression following frontline treatment, and for those with progression, receipt of autologous stem-cell transplant (ASCT), and progression after ASCT. Patients undergoing ASCT were classified as refractory or relapsed based on timing of progression. Probabilities of progression/death with frontline therapy were based on parametric survival distributions fit to data on modified progression-free survival (mPFS) from ECHELON-1. Duration of frontline treatment and incidence of adverse events were from ECHELON-1. Utility values for patients in the frontline mPFS state were based on EQ-5D data from ECHELON-1. Other inputs were from published sources. A lifetime time horizon was used. Costs and QALYs were discounted at 3%. Analyses were conducted alternately using data on mPFS for the overall and North American populations of ECHELON-1.

Results: The ICER for A?+?AVD vs ABVD was $172,074/QALY gained in the analysis using data on mPFS for the overall population and $69,442/QALY gained in the analysis using data on mPFS for the North American population of ECHELON-1. The ICER is sensitive to estimated costs of ASCT and frontline failure.

Conclusion: The ICER for A?+?AVD vs ABVD based on ECHELON-1 is within the range of threshold values for cost-effectiveness in the US. A?+?AVD is, therefore, likely to be a cost-effective frontline therapy for patients with stage III/IV classical Hodgkin lymphoma from a US healthcare payer perspective.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01712490.     

Cost-effectiveness analysis of second-line tyrosine kinase inhibitor treatment for chronic myelogenous leukemia

Aim:

A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed for sequential treatments of chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) after failure of 1st line imatinib, from a commercial payer perspective in the US.

Methods:

A Markov model was developed to simulate lifetime treatment costs and health outcomes for TKI sequences for treatment of patients resistant or intolerant to 1st-line imatinib. Five health states were included, chronic phase 2nd-line TKI, chronic phase 3rd-line TKI, chronic phase post-TKI, advanced phases, and death. Efficacy (response achievement, loss of response, transformation, death) and safety (adverse events incidence, discontinuation) data are based on clinical trials. Resource utilization, costs, and utilities were based on product labels and publically available data. Uncertainty analyses were conducted for key inputs.

Results:

In patients failing imatinib, dasatinib-initiating treatment sequences provide the most survival (ΔLYs?=?0.2–2.0), QALYs (ΔQALYs?=?0.2–1.9), and accrue highest CML-related costs (ΔCosts?=?$64,000–$222,000). The average ICER per QALY for dasatinib- vs imatinib-initiating sequences is $100,000 for an imatinib-resistant population. The average ICER per QALY for dasatinib- vs nilotinib-initiating sequences is $170,000 for an imatinib-resistant population, and $160,000 for an imatinib-intolerant population.

Conclusions:

This analysis suggests that dasatinib is associated with increased survival and quality of life compared to high dose imatinib and to a smaller extent with nilotinib, among patients resistant or intolerant to 1st-line imatinib, primarily based on higher cytogenetic response rates observed in clinical studies of dasatinib. Head-to-head studies of sequential use of dasatinib and nilotinib are needed to validate the model findings of improved survival (LYs) with better quality-of-life (QALYs) for patients initiating dasatinib in 2nd-line. However, the model findings (in light of higher cytogenetic response rates with dasatinib) are supported by other studies showing improved quality-of-life for responders, and improved survival for patients achieving cytogenetic response.     

Cost-effectiveness of combination daclatasvir-sofosbuvir for treatment of genotype 3 chronic hepatitis C infection in the United States

Background: A phase III trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of Daklinza (daclatasvir or DCV) in combination with sofosbuvir (SOF) for treatment of genotype (GT) 3 hepatitis C virus (HCV) patients.

Aim: This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of DCV?+?SOF vs SOF in combination with ribavirin (RBV) over a 20-year time horizon from the perspective of a United States (US) payer.

Methods: A published Markov model was adapted to reflect US demographic characteristics, treatment patterns, costs of drug acquisition, monitoring, disease and adverse event management, and mortality risks. Clinical inputs came from the ALLY-3 and VALENCE trials. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-utility ratio. Life-years, incidence of complications, number of patients achieving sustained virological response (SVR), and the total cost per SVR were secondary outcomes. Costs (2014 USD) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were discounted at 3% per year. Deterministic, probabilistic, and scenario sensitivity analyses were conducted.

Results: DCV?+?SOF was associated with lower costs and better effectiveness than SOF?+?RBV in the base case and in almost all scenarios (i.e. treatment-experienced, non-cirrhotic, time horizons of 5, 10, and 80 years). DCV?+?SOF was less costly, but also slightly less effective than SOF?+?RBV in the cirrhotic and treatment-naïve population scenarios. Results were sensitive to variations in the probability of achieving SVR for both treatment arms. DCV?+?SOF costs less than $50,000 per QALY gained in 79% of all probabilistic iterations compared with SOF?+?RBV.

Conclusion: DCV?+?SOF is a dominant option compared with SOF?+?RBV in the US for the overall GT 3 HCV patient population.     

Cost-effectiveness of asenapine in the treatment of schizophrenia in Canada

Objective:

Asenapine is the first tetracyclic antipsychotic approved in Canada for the treatment of schizophrenia (SCZ). Asenapine has shown a comparable efficacy profile to other atypical antipsychotics and it is associated with a favourable metabolic profile and less weight gain. This study aimed to assess the economic impact of asenapine compared to other atypical antipsychotics in the treatment of SCZ in Canada.

Methods:

A decision tree combined with a Markov model was constructed to assess the cost-utility of asenapine compared with other atypical antipsychotics. The decision tree takes into account the occurrence of extrapyramidal symptoms, the probability of switching to a different antipsychotic, and the probability of gaining weight. The Markov model takes into account long-term metabolic complications including diabetes, hypertension, coronary heart diseases, and stroke. In the base-case analysis, asenapine was compared to olanzapine. Asenapine was also compared with other atypical antipsychotics commonly used in Canada in alternative scenarios. Analyses were conducted from both Canadian Ministry of Health (MoH) and societal perspectives over a 5-year time horizon.

Results:

In the treatment of SCZ, asenapine is a dominant strategy over olanzapine from both MoH and societal perspectives. Compared to quetiapine, asenapine is also a dominant strategy. Furthermore, asenapine has a favorable economic impact compared to ziprasidone and aripiprazole, as these antipsychotics are not cost-effective compared to asenapine from both MoH and societal perspectives.

Conclusion:

Despite the short time horizon, the lack of compliance data and the assumptions made, this economic evaluation demonstrates that asenapine is a cost-effective strategy compared to olanzapine and to most of the atypical antipsychotics frequently used in Canada.     

Economic outcomes among Medicare patients receiving bioengineered cellular technologies for treatment of diabetic foot ulcers

Abstract

Objective:

To assess the real-world medical services utilization and associated costs of Medicare patients with diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) treated with Apligraf (bioengineered living cellular construct (BLCC)) or Dermagraft (human fibroblast-derived dermal substitute (HFDS)) compared with those receiving conventional care (CC).     

Cost-effectiveness achieved through changing the composition of renal replacement therapy in Japan

Abstract

Objective:

The cost-effectiveness of renal replacement therapy (RRT) is affected by the composition of treatment. This study aimed to estimate the costs and outcomes associated with changing the composition of RRT modality over time.

Methods:

By using clinical and cost data from a systematic review, a Markov model was developed to assess the costs and benefits of the four main treatments available for RRT in Japan. The model included direct health service costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALY). Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robustness of the results.

Results:

Over the 15-year period of the model, the current composition of RRT (i.e., the base composition of RRT) was $84,008/QALY. The most cost-effective treatment was when the likelihood of a living donor transplant was increased by 2.4-times ($70,581/QALY). Compared with the base composition of RRT, dominant treatments with respect to cost-effectiveness were when the likelihood of a deceased donor transplant was increased by 22-times and when the likelihood of a pre-emptive living donor transplant was increased by 2.4-times. Little difference was found between these two treatments. One-way sensitivity analysis did not change the cost effectiveness except for costs of chronic hemodialysis and a living donor transplant in subsequent years.

Limitations:

It is difficult to increase the rate of transplant overall in the shorter term nationally and internationally.

Conclusions:

Appropriate distribution of all transplant options and hemodialysis is necessary to achieve the most cost-effective solution.     

Cost-effectiveness of hydrophilic-coated intermittent catheters compared with uncoated catheters in Canada: a public payer perspective

Study design: A Markov model was used to analyze cost-effectiveness over a lifetime horizon.

Objective: To investigate the cost-effectiveness of hydrophilic-coated intermittent catheters (HCICs) compared with uncoated catheters (UCs) among individuals with neurogenic bladder dysfunction (NB) due to spinal cord injury (SCI).

Setting: A Canadian public payer perspective based on data from Ontario; including a scenario analysis from the societal perspective.

Methods: A previously published Markov decision model was modified to compare the lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for the two interventions. Three renal function and three urinary tract infection (UTI) health states as well as other catheter-related events were included. Scenario analyses, including utility gain from compact catheter and phthalate free catheter use, were performed. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate the robustness of the model.

Results: The model predicted that a 50-year-old patient with SCI would gain an additional 0.72 QALYs if HCICs were used instead of UCs at an incremental cost of $48,016, leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $66,634/QALY. Moreover, using HCICs could reduce the lifetime number of UTI events by 11%. From the societal perspective, HCICs cost less than UCs, while providing superior outcomes in terms of QALYs, life years gained (LYG), and UTIs. The cost per QALY further decreased when health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) gains associated with compact HCICs or catheters not containing phthalates were included.

Conclusion: In general, ICERs in the range of CAD$50–100,000 could be considered cost-effective. The ICERs for the base case and sensitivity analyses suggest that HCICs could be cost-effective. From the societal perspective, HCICs were associated with potential cost savings in our model. The results suggest that reimbursement of HCICs should be considered in these settings.     

Cost-effectiveness of natalizumab versus fingolimod for the treatment of relapsing multiple sclerosis

Abstract

Background:

With the addition of new agents for the treatment of multiple sclerosis (MS) (e.g., fingolimod), there is a need to evaluate the relative value of newer therapies in terms of cost and effectiveness, given healthcare resource constraints in the United States.

Objective:

To assess the cost-effectiveness of natalizumab vs fingolimod in patients with relapsing MS.

Methods:

A decision analytic model was developed to estimate the incremental cost per relapse avoided of natalizumab and fingolimod from a US managed care payer perspective. Two-year costs of treating patients with MS included drug acquisition costs, administration and monitoring costs, and costs of treating MS relapses. Effectiveness was measured in terms of MS relapses avoided (data from AFFIRM and FREEDOMS trials). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess uncertainty.

Results:

Mean 2-year estimated treatment costs were $86,461 (natalizumab) and $98,748 (fingolimod). Patients receiving natalizumab had a mean of 0.74 relapses avoided per 2 years vs 0.59 for fingolimod. Natalizumab dominated fingolimod in the incremental cost-effectiveness analysis, as it was less costly and more effective in reducing relapses. One-way sensitivity analysis showed the results of the model were robust to changes in drug acquisition costs, administration costs, and costs of treating MS relapses. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed natalizumab was cost-effective 95.1% of the time, at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $0 per relapse avoided, increasing to 96.3% of the time at a WTP threshold of $50,000 per relapse avoided.

Limitations:

Absence of data from direct head-to-head studies comparing natalizumab and fingolimod, use of relapse rate reduction rather than sustained disability progression as primary model outcome, assumption of 100% adherence to MS treatment, and not capturing adverse event costs in the model.

Conclusions:

Natalizumab dominates fingolimod in terms of incremental cost per relapse avoided, as it is less costly and more effective.     

Cost-effectiveness analysis of sequential biologic therapy with ixekizumab versus secukinumab as first-line treatment of moderate-to-severe psoriasis in the UK

Aims: Patients with psoriasis often undergo treatment with a sequence of biologic agents because of poor/loss of response to initial therapy. With the availability of newer agents like ixekizumab and secukinumab, there is a need for cost-effectiveness analyses to better reflect current clinical practice. This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of a sequence of biologic therapies containing first-line ixekizumab vs first-line secukinumab in patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis in the UK.

Materials and methods: A Markov model with a lifetime horizon was developed to compare the cost-effectiveness of ixekizumab and secukinumab treatment sequences: ixekizumab → ustekinumab → infliximab → best supportive care (BSC) vs secukinumab → ustekinumab → infliximab → BSC. The model used monthly cycles, and included four health states: trial period, treatment maintenance, BSC, and death. At the end of the trial period, responders transitioned to maintenance therapy; non-responders transitioned to the next biologic in the sequence. An annual discontinuation rate of 20% was assumed for maintenance therapy.

Results: The ixekizumab sequence provided cost savings of £898 (£176,203 vs 177,101) [year 2015 values] and gained 0.03 more quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs: 1.45 vs 1.42) vs the secukinumab sequence over the lifetime horizon. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed an 89.8% likelihood that the ixekizumab sequence would be cost-effective at a threshold of £20,000 per QALY gained.

Limitations: The analysis used list prices for drugs rather than confidential, preferentially priced Patient Access Scheme costs. In addition, efficacy input data were based on a network meta-analysis, as there were no head-to-head trials comparing ixekizumab and secukinumab.

Conclusion: First-line treatment with ixekizumab as part of a specific sequential biologic therapy for moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis in the UK provided slight advantages in cost savings and QALYs gained over a similar treatment sequence initiated with secukinumab. In view of the small magnitude of these differences, factors such as patient preferences (e.g. for number of injections) and long-term safety (e.g. related to time on the market) may also be important for clinical decision-making.     

Cost-effectiveness of sofosbuvir plus ribavirin with or without pegylated interferon for the treatment of chronic hepatitis C in Italy

Abstract

Objective:

Across Italy up to 7.3% of the population is infected with hepatitis C virus (HCV), with long-term complications resulting in high medical costs and significant morbidity and mortality. Current treatment options have limitations due to side effects, interferon intolerability and ineligibility, long treatment durations and low sustained virological response (SVR) rates, especially for the most severe patients). Sofosbuvir is the first nucleotide polymerase inhibitor with pan-genotypic activity. Sofosbuvir, administered with ribavirin (RBV) and with or without pegylated interferon (PEG-INF), resulted in >90% SVR across treatment-naïve (TN) genotype (GT) 1–6 patients. It is also the first treatment option for patients that are unsuitable for interferon (UI). This analysis evaluates the cost – effectiveness of sofosbuvir for GTs 1–6 in Italy.     

评价疫苗产品对成本-效果的长期影响的必要性探讨——基于儿童七价肺炎结合疫苗的经济性评价

目的从长期研究视角出发,对将七价肺炎链球菌结合疫苗纳入免疫规划方案开展经济学分析,探讨对疫苗产品开展成本-效果分析时进行长期评价的重要性。方法从支付方的研究角度,构建Markov模型,结合北京市的成本数据和我国台湾地区健保局的流行病学数据,模拟在北京市将PCV7纳入免疫规划方案,实施10年后的成本效果进行研究。结果经过成本-效果分析得出,免疫规划方案实施10年期间,在北京市共避免6390人死亡、获得6393个QALYs,其中以2岁以下儿童和65岁以上老人受到的保护效果最显著。而且从长远来看,对全人群而言,方案实施10年使得总成本可节约7.14元/人。结论在进行疫苗类产品成本-效果分析时,关注其对成本、效果长期影响至关重要。     

Cost-effectiveness analysis of dapagliflozin treatment versus metformin treatment in Chinese population with type 2 diabetes

Background and objective: Dapagliflozin is the first SGLT2 inhibitor available in China, where the disease burden of diabetes and its complications is very heavy. Because a new diabetes treatment strategy for diabetes should consider its cost-effectiveness, compared with an existing treatment, this study aimed to examine the cost-effectiveness between dapagliflozin and metformin treatment in China.

Methods: The Cardiff Diabetes Model (CDM) was used to estimate cost effectiveness and macro- and micro-vascular outcomes of dapagliflozin vs metformin. The CDM effectiveness inputs were derived from indirect comparative efficacy data from meta-analysis of 71 studies comparing monotherapy and add-on therapy of dapagliflozin vs metformin: dapagliflozin or metformin monotherapy, add-on therapy with other oral hypoglycemic agents, and add-on therapy with insulin. Direct medication costs and medical costs on treating diabetes were calculated based on published and local sources. A discount rate of 3% was applied to both costs and health effects. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were performed to assess uncertainties.

Results: The total healthcare costs accumulated over the lifetime on dapagliflozin treatment arm was 8,626 Chinese yuan higher than the metformin treatment arm for an individual patient, and the quality adjusted life years (QALYs) gained with dapagliflozin treatment was 0.8 more than metformin treatment. Therefore, an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was 10,729 yuan per QALY gained for dapagliflozin treatment arm vs metformin treatment arm. The cost-effectiveness results were robust to various sensitivity analyses.

Conclusion: Dapagliflozin treatment was more cost-effective compared with metformin treatment for Chinese type 2 diabetes patients. However, the findings of favorable cost-effectiveness results for dapagliflozin are largely driven by the effects of favorable weight profile on clinical, utility, and costs in the Cardiff model.     

Cost-effectiveness of 3-month paliperidone treatment for chronic schizophrenia in Spain

Background: A 3-month long treatment of paliperidone palmitate (PP3M) has been introduced as an option for treating schizophrenia. Its cost-effectiveness in Spain has not been established.

Aims: To compare the costs and effects of PP3M compared with once-monthly paliperidone (PP1M) from the payer perspective in Spain.

Methods: This study used the recently published trial by Savitz et al. as a core model over 1 year. Additional data were derived from the literature. Costs in 2016 Euros were obtained from official lists and utilities from Osborne et al. The authors conducted both cost-utility and cost-effectiveness analyses. For the former, the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained was calculated. For the latter, the outcomes were relapses and hospitalizations avoided. To assure the robustness of the analyses, a series of 1-way and probability sensitivity analyses were conducted.

Results: The expected cost was lower with PP3M (4,780€) compared with PP1M (5,244€). PP3M had the fewest relapses (0.080 vs 0.161), hospitalizations (0.034 v.s 0.065), and emergency room visits (0.045 v.s 0.096) and the most QALYs (0.677 v.s 0.625). In both cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses, PP3M dominated PP1M. Sensitivity analyses confirmed base case findings. For the primary analysis (cost-utility), PP3M dominated PP1M in 46.9% of 10,000 simulations and was cost-effective at a threshold of 30,000€/QALY gained.

Conclusions: PP3M dominated PP1M in all analyses and was, therefore, cost-effective for treating chronic relapsing schizophrenia in Spain. For patients who require long-acting therapy, PP3M appears to be a good alternative anti-psychotic treatment.     

Cost-effectiveness of renal denervation therapy for the treatment of resistant hypertension in The Netherlands

Abstract

Objectives:

Safety and efficacy data for catheter-based renal denervation (RDN) in the treatment of resistant hypertension have been used to estimate the cost-effectiveness of this approach. However, there are no Dutch-specific analyses. This study examined the cost-effectiveness of RDN from the perspective of the healthcare payer in The Netherlands.

Methods:

A previously constructed Markov state-transition model was adapted and updated with costs and utilities relevant to the Dutch setting. The cost-effectiveness of RDN was compared with standard of care (SoC) for patients with resistant hypertension. The efficacy of RDN treatment was modeled as a reduction in the risk of cardiovascular events associated with a lower systolic blood pressure (SBP).

Results:

Treatment with RDN compared to SoC gave an incremental quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gain of 0.89 at an additional cost of €1315 over a patient’s lifetime, resulting in a base case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €1474. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) showed that treatment with RDN therapy was cost-effective at conventional willingness-to-pay thresholds (€10,000–80,000/QALY).

Conclusion:

RDN is a cost-effective intervention for patients with resistant hypertension in The Netherlands.     

Cost-effectiveness of natalizumab vs fingolimod for the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: analyses in Sweden

Abstract

Objective:

To assess the cost-effectiveness of natalizumab vs fingolimod over 2 years in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) patients and patients with rapidly evolving severe disease in Sweden.

Methods:

A decision analytic model was developed to estimate the incremental cost per relapse avoided of natalizumab and fingolimod from the perspective of the Swedish healthcare system. Modeled 2-year costs in Swedish kronor of treating RRMS patients included drug acquisition costs, administration and monitoring costs, and costs of treating MS relapses. Effectiveness was measured in terms of MS relapses avoided using data from the AFFIRM and FREEDOMS trials for all patients with RRMS and from post-hoc sub-group analyses for patients with rapidly evolving severe disease. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess uncertainty.

Results:

The analysis showed that, in all patients with MS, treatment with fingolimod costs less (440,463 Kr vs 444,324 Kr), but treatment with natalizumab results in more relapses avoided (0.74 vs 0.59), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 25,448 Kr per relapse avoided. In patients with rapidly evolving severe disease, natalizumab dominated fingolimod. Results of the sensitivity analysis demonstrate the robustness of the model results. At a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of 500,000 Kr per relapse avoided, natalizumab is cost-effective in >80% of simulations in both patient populations.

Limitations:

Limitations include absence of data from direct head-to-head studies comparing natalizumab and fingolimod, use of relapse rate reduction rather than sustained disability progression as the primary model outcome, assumption of 100% adherence to MS treatment, and exclusion of adverse event costs in the model.

Conclusions:

Natalizumab remains a cost-effective treatment option for patients with MS in Sweden. In the RRMS patient population, the incremental cost per relapse avoided is well below a 500,000 Kr WTP threshold per relapse avoided. In the rapidly evolving severe disease patient population, natalizumab dominates fingolimod.     

Cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban compared with enoxaparin plus a vitamin K antagonist for the treatment of venous thromboembolism

Background:

Venous thromboembolism (VTE), comprised of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), is commonly treated with a low-molecular-weight heparin such as enoxaparin plus a vitamin K antagonist (VKA) to prevent recurrence. Administration of enoxaparin?+?VKA is hampered by complexities of laboratory monitoring and frequent dose adjustments. Rivaroxaban, an orally administered anticoagulant, has been compared with enoxaparin?+?VKA in the EINSTEIN trials. The objective was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban compared with enoxaparin?+?VKA as anticoagulation treatment for acute, symptomatic, objectively-confirmed DVT or PE.

Methods:

A Markov model was built to evaluate the costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios associated with rivaroxaban compared to enoxaparin?+?VKA in adult patients treated for acute DVT or PE. All patients entered the model in the ‘on-treatment’ state upon commencement of oral rivaroxaban or enoxaparin?+?VKA for 3, 6, or 12 months. Transition probabilities were obtained from the EINSTEIN trials during treatment and published literature after treatment. A 3-month cycle length, US payer perspective ($2012), 5-year time horizon and a 3% annual discount rate were used.

Results:

Treatment with rivaroxaban cost $2,448 per-patient less and was associated with 0.0058 more QALYs compared with enoxaparin?+?VKA, making it a dominant economic strategy. Upon one-way sensitivity analysis, the model’s results were sensitive to the reduction in index VTE hospitalization length-of-stay associated with rivaroxaban compared with enoxaparin?+?VKA. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000/QALY, probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed rivaroxaban to be cost-effective compared with enoxaparin?+?VKA approximately 76% of the time.

Limitations:

The model did not account for the benefits associated with an oral and minimally invasive administration of rivaroxaban. ‘Real-world’ applicability is limited because data from the EINSTEIN trials were used in the model. Also, resource utilization and costs were based on the US healthcare system.

Conclusion:

Rivaroxaban is a cost-effective option for anticoagulation treatment of acute VTE patients.     

Cost-effectiveness of aripiprazole once-monthly compared with paliperidone palmitate once-monthly injectable for the treatment of schizophrenia in the United States

Objective:

To develop a decision-analytic model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of initiating maintenance treatment with aripiprazole once-monthly (AOM) vs paliperidone long-acting injectable (PLAI) once-monthly among patients with schizophrenia in the US.

Methods:

A decision-analytic model was developed to evaluate a hypothetical cohort of patients initiating maintenance treatment with AOM or PLAI. Rates of relapse, adverse events (AEs), and direct medical costs were estimated for 1 year. Patients either remained on initial treatment or discontinued treatment due to lack of efficacy, AEs, or other reasons, including non-adherence. Data from placebo-controlled pivotal trials and product prescribing information (PI) were used to estimate treatment efficacy and AEs. Analyses were performed assuming dosing of clinical trials, real-world practice, PIs, and highest therapeutic dose available, because of variation in practice settings. The main outcome of interest was incremental cost per schizophrenia hospitalization averted with AOM vs PLAI.

Results:

Based on placebo-controlled pivotal trials’ dosing, AOM improved clinical outcomes by reducing schizophrenia relapses vs PLAI (0.181 vs 0.277 per person per year [pppy]) at an additional cost of US$1276 pppy, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of US$13,280/relapse averted. When PI dosing was assumed, this ICER increased to US$19,968/relapse averted. When real-world dosing and highest available dosing were assumed, AOM was associated with fewer relapses and lower overall treatment costs vs PLAI.

Conclusions:

AOM consistently provided favorable clinical benefits. Under various dosing scenarios, AOM results indicated fewer relapses at lower overall costs or a reasonable cost-effectiveness threshold (i.e., less than the cost of a hospitalization relapse) vs PLAI. Given the heterogeneous nature of schizophrenia and variability in treatment response, health plans may consider open access for treatments like AOM. Since model inputs were based on data from separate placebo-controlled trials, generalization of results to the real-world setting is limited.     

Cost-effectiveness of several atypical antipsychotics in orally disintegrating tablets compared with standard oral tablets in the treatment of schizophrenia in the United States

Abstract

Objective:

Although the use of innovative drug delivery systems, like orally disintegrating antipsychotic tablets (ODT), may facilitate medication adherence and help reduce the risk of relapse and hospitalization, no information is available about the comparative cost-effectiveness of standard oral tablets (SOT) vs ODT formulations in the treatment of schizophrenia. This study compared the cost-effectiveness of olanzapine ODT and olanzapine SOT in the usual treatment of outpatients with schizophrenia from a US healthcare perspective. The study also compared olanzapine ODT with risperidone and aripiprazole, two other atypical antipsychotics available in both ODT and SOT formulations.

Methods:

Published medical literature and a clinical expert panel were used to populate a 1-year Monte Carlo Micro-simulation model. The model captures clinical and cost parameters including adherence levels, treatment discontinuation by reason, relapse with and without inpatient hospitalization, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), treatment-emergent adverse events, healthcare resource utilization, and associated costs. Key outcomes were total annual direct cost per treatment, QALY, and incremental cost-effectiveness (ICER) per 1 QALY gained.

Results:

Based on model projections, olanzapine ODT therapy was more costly ($9808 vs $9533), but more effective in terms of a lower hospitalization rate (15% vs 16%) and better QALYs (0.747 vs 0.733) than olanzapine SOT therapy. Olanzapine ODT was more cost-effective than olanzapine SOT (ICER: $19,643), more cost-effective than risperidone SOT therapy (ICER: $39,966), and dominant (meaning less costly and more effective) than risperidone ODT and aripiprazole in ODT or SOT formulations.

Limitations:

Lack of head-to-head randomized studies comparing the three studied atypical antipsychotics required making input assumptions that need further study.

Conclusions:

This micro-simulation found that the utilization of olanzapine ODT for the treatment of schizophrenia is predicted to be more cost-effective than any other ODT or SOT formulations of the studied atypical antipsychotic medications.