Cost of skeletal complications from bone metastases in six European countries

Objective Patients with bone metastases or lesions secondary to solid tumors or multiple myeloma often experience bone complications (skeletal-related events [SREs]—radiation to bone, pathologic fracture, surgery to bone, and spinal cord compression); however, recent data that can be used to assess the value of treatments to prevent SREs across European countries are limited. This study aimed to provide estimates of health resource utilization (HRU) and cost associated with all SRE types in Europe. HRU data were reported previously; cost data are reported herein.

Methods Eligible patients from 49 centers across Austria (n?=?57), the Czech Republic (n?=?59), Finland (n?=?60), Greece (n?=?59), Portugal (n?=?59), and Sweden (n?=?62) had bone metastases or lesions secondary to breast, lung, or prostate cancer, or multiple myeloma, and ≥1 index SRE (a SRE preceded by a SRE-free period of ≥?6.5 months). SRE-related costs were estimated from a payer perspective using health resource utilization data from patient charts (before and after the index SRE diagnosis). Country-specific unit costs were from 2010 and local currencies were converted to 2010 euros.

Results The mean costs across countries were €7043, €5242, €11,101, and €11,509 per radiation to bone, pathologic fracture, surgery to bone, and spinal cord compression event, respectively. Purchasing power parity (PPP)-adjusted mean cost ratios were similar in most countries, with the exception of radiation to bone.

Limitations The overall burden of SREs may have been under-estimated owing to home visits and evaluations outside the hospital setting not being reported here.

Conclusions All SREs were associated with substantial costs. Variation in SRE-associated costs between countries was most likely driven by differences in treatment practices and unit costs.     

Evaluating drug cost per responder and number needed to treat associated with lixisenatide on top of glargine when compared to rapid-acting insulin intensification regimens on top of glargine,in patients with type 2 diabetes in the UK,Italy, and Spain

Objectives: This study investigated the cost per responder and number needed to treat (NNT) in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients for lixisenatide compared to insulin intensification regimens using composite endpoints in the UK, Italy, and Spain.

Methods: Efficacy and safety outcomes were obtained from GetGoal Duo-2, a 26-week phase 3 trial comparing lixisenatide vs insulin glulisine (IG) once daily (QD) and three times daily (TID). Response at week 26 was extrapolated to 52 weeks, assuming a maintained treatment effect, based on long-term evidence in other T2DM populations. Responders were defined using composite end-points, based on an HbA1c threshold and/or no weight gain and/or no hypoglycemia. The HbA1c threshold was varied in sensitivity analyses. Annual treatment costs were estimated in euros (1 GBP?=?1.26 EUR), including drug acquisition and resource use costs. Cost per responder was computed by dividing annual treatment costs per patient by the proportion of responders.

Results: Lixisenatide was associated with the lowest cost per responder for all composite end-points that included a weight-related component. For the main composite end-point of HbA1c ≤7.5% AND no weight gain AND no symptomatic hypoglycemia, cost per responder results were: UK: 6,867€, 8,746€, and 12,410€; Italy: 7,057€, 9,160€, and 12,844€; Spain: 8,370€, 11,365€, and 17,038€, for lixisenatide, IG QD, and TID, respectively. The NNT analysis showed that, for every 6.85 and 5.86 patients treated with lixisenatide, there was approximately one additional responder compared to IG QD and TID, respectively.

Limitations: A limitation of the clinical inputs is the lack of 52-week trial data from GetGoal Duo-2, which led to the assumption of a maintained treatment effect from week 26 to 52.

Conclusions: This analysis suggests lixisenatide is an efficient economic resource allocation in the UK, Italy, and Spain.     

Economic impact of onabotulinumtoxinA for overactive bladder with urinary incontinence in Europe

Background: Overactive bladder (OAB) is a common condition that has a significant impact on patients’ health-related quality-of-life and is associated with a substantial economic burden to healthcare systems. OnabotulinumtoxinA has a well-established efficacy and safety profile as a treatment for OAB; however, the economic impact of using onabotulinumtoxinA has not been well described.

Methods: An economic model was developed to assess the budget impact associated with OAB treatment in France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK, using onabotulinumtoxinA alongside best supportive care (BSC)—comprising incontinence pads and/or anticholinergic use and/or clean intermittent catheterisation (CIC)—vs BSC alone. The model time horizon spanned 5 years, and included direct costs associated with treatment, BSC, and adverse events.

Results: Per 100,000 patients in each country, the use of onabotulinumtoxinA resulted in estimated cost savings of €97,200 (Italy), €71,580 (Spain), and €19,710 (UK), and cost increases of €23,840 in France and €284,760 in Germany, largely due to day-case and inpatient administration, respectively. Projecting these results to the population of individuals aged 18 years and above gave national budget saving estimates of €9,924,790, €27,458,290, and €48,270,760, for the UK, Spain, and Italy, respectively, compared to cost increases of €12,160,020 and €196,086,530 for France and Germany, respectively. Anticholinergic treatment and incontinence pads were the largest contributors to overall spending on OAB management when onabotulinumtoxinA use was not increased, and remained so in four of five scenarios where onabotulinumtoxinA use was increased. This decreased resource use was equivalent to cost offsets ranging from €106,110 to €176,600 per 100,000 population.

Conclusions: In three of five countries investigated, the use of onabotulinumtoxinA, in addition to BSC, was shown to result in healthcare budget cost savings over 5 years. Scenario analyses showed increased costs in Germany and France were largely attributable to the treatment setting rather than onabotulinumtoxinA acquisition costs.     

Cost and economic burden of adverse events associated with metastatic melanoma treatments in five countries

Objective: To estimate per-event cost and economic burden associated with managing the most common and/or severe metastatic melanoma (MM) treatment-related adverse events (AEs) in Australia, France, Germany, Italy, and the UK.

Methods: AEs associated with chemotherapy (dacarbazine, paclitaxel, fotemustine), immunotherapy (ipilimumab), and targeted therapy (vemurafenib) were identified by literature review. Medical resource use data associated with managing AEs were collected through two blinded Delphi panel cycles in each of the five countries. Published costs were used to estimate per-event costs and combined with AEs incidence, treatment usage, and MM prevalence to estimate the economic burden for each country.

Results: The costliest AEs were grade 3/4 events due to immunotherapy (Australia/France: colitis; UK: diarrhea) and chemotherapy (Germany/Italy: neutropenia/leukopenia). Treatment of AEs specific to chemotherapy (Australia/Germany/Italy/France: neutropenia/leukopenia) and targeted therapy (UK: squamous cell carcinoma) contributed heavily to country-specific economic burden.

Limitations: Economic burden was estimated assuming that each patient experienced an AE only once. In addition, the context of settings was heterogeneous and the number of Delphi panel experts was limited.

Conclusions: Management costs for MM treatment-associated AEs can be substantial. Results could be incorporated in economic models that support reimbursement dossiers. With the availability of newer treatments, establishment of a baseline measure of the economic burden of AEs will be crucial for assessing their impact on patients and regional healthcare systems.     

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.     

A cost-effectiveness modeling evaluation comparing a biosimilar follitropin alfa preparation with its reference product for live birth outcome in Germany,Italy and Spain

Abstract

Background/objective: Although biosimilar drugs may be cheaper to purchase than reference biological products, they may not be the most cost-effective treatment to achieve a desired outcome. The analysis reported here compared the overall costs to achieve live birth using the reference follitropin alfa (GONAL-f) or a biosimilar (Ovaleap) in Spain, Italy and Germany.

Methods: Patient and treatment data was obtained from published sources; assisted-reproductive technology, gonadotropin, follow-up and adverse-event-related costs were calculated from tariffs and reimbursement frameworks for each country. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated from the difference in costs between reference and biosimilar in each country, divided by the difference in live-birth rates. Mean cost per live birth was calculated as total costs divided by the live-birth rate.

Results: The published live birth rates were 32.2% (reference) and 26.8% (biosimilar). Drug costs per patient were higher for the reference recombinant human follicle-stimulating hormone in all three countries, with larger cost differences in Germany (€157.38) and Italy (€141.50) than in Spain (€22.41). The ICER for the reference product compared with the biosimilar was €2917.47 in Germany, €415.43 in Spain and €2623.09 in Italy. However, the overall cost per live birth was higher for the biosimilar in all three countries (Germany €8135.04 vs. €9185.34; Italy €8545.22 vs. €9733.37; Spain €14,859.53 vs. €17,767.19). Uncertainty in efficacy, mean gonadotropin dose and costs did not have a strong effect on the ICERs.

Conclusions: When considering live birth outcomes, treatment with the reference follitropin alfa was more cost effective than treatment with the biosimilar follitropin alfa.     

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.     

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.     

Modelling lifetime cost consequences of toric compared with standard IOLs in cataract surgery of astigmatic patients in four European countries

Abstract

Objective: To compare the lifetime costs of freeing astigmatic patients from spectacles after bilateral cataract surgery implanting toric intraocular lenses (IOLs: i.e., Acrysof Toric) versus monofocal IOLs, in France, Italy, Germany and Spain.

Methods: A Markov model followed patient cohorts from cataract surgery until death. Prevalence rates of patients not needing spectacles and the types of spectacles prescribed for those requiring them were obtained from clinical trials and national surveys. The economic perspective was societal. Mortality rates were incorporated into the model. Discount rates were applied. A sensitivity analysis was performed on non-discounted costs.

Results: Fewer patients with toric IOLs needed spectacles for distance vision than patients with monofocal IOLs. With monofocal IOLs more than 66% of patients needed complex spectacles compared to less than 25% implanted with toric IOLs. In France and Italy, toric IOLs reduced overall costs relative to otherwise high spectacle costs after cataract surgery. Savings were €897.0 (France), €822.5 (Germany), €895.8 (Italy) and €391.6 (Spain), without discounting. On applying a 3% discount rate the costs became €691.7, €646.4, €693.9 and €308.2, respectively.

Conclusions: Bilateral toric IOL implants in astigmatic patients decreased spectacle dependence for distance vision and the need for complex spectacles. The economic consequences for patients depended on the national spectacle costs usually incurred after cataract surgery.     

Costs of haematological adverse events in chronic myeloid leukaemia patients: a retrospective cost analysis of the treatment of anaemia,neutropenia and thrombocytopenia in patients with chronic myeloid leukaemia

Abstract

Objective: The study aim was to assess costs of haematological adverse events (AE) related to pharmacologic treatment of chronic myeloid leukaemia (CML) patients.

Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study using patient records of adults (n=91) with chronic-phase CML treated at a single university medical centre in the Netherlands. Occurrence of grade III/IV haematological AEs, defined according to CTC-NCI guidelines criteria, was derived from the laboratory registration. Mean age at time of diagnosis was 48 years; 56% male. A healthcare perspective was adopted. Cost estimates are presented in 2006 euros.

Results: Average cost of an episode of anaemia was €1,572, of thrombocytopenia €2,955, and of neutropenia €1,152. The mean cost of febrile neutropenia amounted to €2,462.

Conclusions: Treatment costs of AEs varied considerably. However, apart from the cost of anaemia, the results presented seem to be in line with information from the international literature. The key limitations of the study concern the relatively small cohort of patients at a single centre, the retrospective design and the various treatment regimens of CML during the follow-up.     

Cost of adverse events during treatment with everolimus plus exemestane or single-agent chemotherapy in patients with advanced breast cancer in Western Europe

Objective:

Treatment options for recurrent or progressive hormone receptor-positive (HR+) advanced breast cancer include chemotherapy and everolimus plus exemestane (EVE?+?EXE). This study estimates the costs of managing adverse events (AEs) during EVE?+?EXE therapy and single-agent chemotherapy in Western Europe.

Methods:

An economic model was developed to estimate the per patient cost of managing grade 3/4 AEs for patients who were treated with EVE?+?EXE or chemotherapies. AE rates for patients receiving EVE?+?EXE were collected from the phase III BOLERO-2 trial. AE rates for single-agent chemotherapy, capecitabine, docetaxel, or doxorubicin were collected from published clinical trial data. AEs with at least 2% prevalence for any of the treatments were included in the model. A literature search was conducted to obtain costs of managing each AE, which were then averaged across Western European countries (when available). Per patient costs for managing AEs among patients receiving different therapies were reported in 2012 euros (€).

Results:

The EVE?+?EXE combination had the lowest average per patient cost of managing AEs (€730) compared to all chemotherapies during the first year of treatment (doxorubicin: €1230; capecitabine: €1721; docetaxel: €2390). The most costly adverse event among all patients treated with EVE?+?EXE was anemia (on average €152 per patient). The most costly adverse event among all patients treated with capecitabine, docetaxel, or doxorubicin was lymphocytopenia (€861 per patient), neutropenia (€821 per patient), and leukopenia (€382 per patient), respectively.

Conclusions:

The current model estimates that AE management during the treatment of HR+ advanced breast cancer will cost one-half to one-third less for EVE?+?EXE patients than for chemotherapy patients. The consideration of AE costs could have important implications in the context of healthcare spending for advanced breast cancer treatment.     

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.     

Economic burden of chemotherapy-treated recurrent and/or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck in France: real-world data from the permanent sample of national health insurance beneficiaries

Aims: Overall survival (OS) of patients with recurrent or metastatic (R/M) squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN) is extremely poor. New therapeutic options emerge but need to establish their economic value. The objective was to describe the direct and related costs of R/M SCCHN in France.

Materials and methods: We selected all adult patients treated with chemotherapy for R/M SCCHN between 1 January 2009 and 31 December 2014 from the permanent sample of the French national health insurance database (EGB). Data were analyzed from the index date (first chemotherapy) until patients’ death or 31 December 2015. “Treatment period” and “end-of-life” (EoL) (from last chemotherapy until death) were distinguished. Costs included all hospitalizations for SCCHN and ambulatory care. Costs of hospitalized and non-hospitalized adverse events (AEs) were estimated.

Results: Among 267 patients identified, 85% were men, 44% had metastases at the index date and the mean age was 62.0 years (±9.9). The most common tumor location was oropharynx (29%) but 39% of patients had multiple locations. Median OS was 9.3 (95% CI: 7.9–11.8) months for the overall population. The average total direct cost per patient was €49,954, broken down into €32,908 (95% CI: 29,525–36,290) for hospitalizations and €17,047 (14,941–19,152) for ambulatory care. Main cost drivers were drug acquisition and administration (€14,538) during the treatment period (209?days on average) and palliative care (€3,750) during the EoL period (125?days). Regarding related costs, around 12% of patients received disability pensions (€1,397 per patient [624–2,171]) and sick leave payments (€1,592 [888–2,297]). “Metabolism and nutrition disorders” and “Infections and infestations” were the most expensive hospitalized AEs (€1,513 and €1,180 per patient, respectively). Febrile neutropenia was the most expensive non-hospitalized AE (€766 per patient).

Conclusions: This analysis of real-world data confirms the poor prognosis of patients with R/M SCCHN and provides cost data for future economic evaluations.     

Cost-effectiveness of insulin detemir compared with neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin in patients with type 1 diabetes using a basal-bolus regimen in five European countries

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this analysis was to evaluate the long-term clinical and economic outcomes associated with insulin detemir and neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin in combination with mealtime insulin aspart in patients with type 1 diabetes in Belgian, French, German, Italian and Spanish settings.

Methods: The published and validated IMS CORE Diabetes Model was used to make long-term projections of life expectancy, quality-adjusted life expectancy and direct medical costs. The analysis was based on patient characteristics and treatment effects from a 2-year randomised controlled trial. Events were projected for a time horizon of 50 years. Potential uncertainty using a modelling approach was addressed.

Results: Basal-bolus therapy with insulin detemir was projected to improve quality-adjusted life expectancy by 0.45 years versus NPH in the German setting, with similar improvements in the other countries. Insulin detemir was associated with cost savings in Belgium, Germany and Spain. In France and Italy, lifetime costs were slightly higher in the detemir arm, leading to incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of €519 per QALY gained and €3,256 per QALY gained, respectively.

Conclusions: Compared to NPH, insulin detemir is likely to be a dominant treatment strategy in Belgium, Germany and Spain and highly cost-effective in France and Italy in patients with type 1 diabetes.     

Evaluation of the long-term cost-effectiveness of liraglutide therapy for patients with type 2 diabetes in France

Objectives:

The present study aimed to compare the projected long-term clinical and cost implications associated with liraglutide, sitagliptin and glimepiride in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus failing to achieve glycemic control on metformin monotherapy in France.

Methods:

Clinical input data for the modeling analysis were taken from two randomized, controlled trials (LIRA-DPP4 and LEAD-2). Long-term (patient lifetime) projections of clinical outcomes and direct costs (2013 Euros; €) were made using a validated computer simulation model of type 2 diabetes. Costs were taken from published France-specific sources. Future costs and clinical benefits were discounted at 3% annually. Sensitivity analyses were performed.

Results:

Liraglutide was associated with an increase in quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.25 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and an increase in mean direct healthcare costs of €2558 per patient compared with sitagliptin. In the comparison with glimepiride, liraglutide was associated with an increase in quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.23 QALYs and an increase in direct costs of €4695. Based on these estimates, liraglutide was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €10,275 per QALY gained vs sitagliptin and €20,709 per QALY gained vs glimepiride in France.

Conclusion:

Calculated ICERs for both comparisons fell below the commonly quoted willingness-to-pay threshold of €30,000 per QALY gained. Therefore, liraglutide is likely to be cost-effective vs sitagliptin and glimepiride from a healthcare payer perspective in France.     

Cost-effectiveness of continuous subcutaneous apomorphine in the treatment of Parkinson’s disease in the UK and Germany

Abstract

Background:

Parkinson’s disease (PD) is the second most common neurodegenerative disease, affecting ～5.2 million people worldwide. Continuous subcutaneous apomorphine (CSAI) represents an alternative treatment option for advanced PD with motor fluctuation. The purpose of this analysis was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of CSAI compared with Levodopa/carbidopa intestinal gel (LCIG), Deep-Brain-Stimulation (DBS) and Standard-of-care (SOC).

Methods:

A multi-country Markov-Model to simulate the long-term consequences, disease progression (Hoehn & Yahr stages 3–5, percentage of waking-time in the OFF-state), complications, and adverse events was developed. Monte-Carlo simulation accounted for uncertainty. Probabilities were derived from RCT and open-label studies. Costs were estimated from the UK and German healthcare provider’s perspective. QALYs, life-years (LYs), and costs were projected over a life-time horizon.

Results:

UK lifetime costs associated with CSAI amounts to £78,251.49 and generates 2.85 QALYs and 6.28 LYs (€104,500.08, 2.92 QALYs and 6.49 LYs for Germany). Costs associated with LCIG are £130,011.34, achieves 3.06 QALYs and 6.93 LYs (€175,004.43, 3.18 QALYs and 7.18 LYs for Germany). The incremental-cost per QALY gained (ICER) was £244,684.69 (€272,914.58). Costs for DBS are £87,730.22, associated with 2.75 QALYs and 6.38 LYs (€105,737.08, 2.85 QALYs and 6.61 LYs for Germany). CSAI dominates DBS. SOC associated UK costs are £76,793.49; 2.62 QALYs and 5.76 LYs were reached (€90,011.91, 2.73 QALYs and 6 LYs for Germany).

Conclusions:

From a health economic perspective, CSAI is a cost-effective therapy and could be seen as an alternative treatment to LCIG or DBS for patients with advanced PD.     

Healthcare utilization and costs among relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma patients on carfilzomib or pomalidomide as monotherapy or in combination with dexamethasone

Aim: To compare monthly healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs among adult patients with multiple myeloma (MM) receiving second or subsequent line of treatment (LOT) with carfilzomib or pomalidomide as monotherapy or in combination with dexamethasone.

Methods and materials: Adult MM patients who received carfilzomib or pomalidomide as second/subsequent LOT between 2006 and 2014 were selected from the MarketScan databases. LOT was determined using Medical/pharmacy claims using a published algorithm. For each patient, first LOT with carfilzomib or pomalidomide was defined as index LOT. Patients with first LOT as index LOT, who received other chemotherapy in combination with carfilzomib or pomalidomide, or who underwent stem cell transplant (STC) during index LOT were excluded. Monthly HRU and costs during index LOT were compared using inverse probability of treatment weights (IPTW) based on propensity scores for receipt of carfilzomib estimated by logistic regression with LOT, patient demographics, Charlson index, comorbidities, pre-index healthcare cost, and receipt of prior SCT as covariates.

Results: After weighting, baseline characteristics were well balanced among 114 carfilzomib and 144 pomalidomide patients. Mean (95% CI) numbers of outpatient visits per month were 7.1 (5.2–8.0) with carfilzomib and 4.7 (3.9–6.1) with pomalidomide (p?=?0.006). Otherwise, there were no statistically significant differences between the groups in mean monthly HRU and costs or median time to therapy discontinuation. Mean (95% CI) monthly total healthcare costs were $19,776 (15,322–27,748) with pomalidomide and $17,321 (12,412–21,874) with carfilzomib (p?=?0.522).

Limitations: Comparison of carfilzomib vs pomalidomide may be biased if there are unobserved factors not balanced by IPTW. The relatively small sample size limits the power of analyses to detect potential differences between treatment groups.

Conclusions: Monthly HRU and costs are similar among patients with relapse or refractory MM patients receiving carfilzomib or pomalidomide as monotherapy or in combination with dexamethasone.     

Evaluation of the costs and resource use associated with adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer in France

Abstract

Objectives:

There is a paucity of recent data on breast cancer costs, particularly on the burden of chemotherapy. The present study was designed to estimate resource use and costs associated with the current standard of care for adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer.

Methods:

Costs and resource use were assessed by retrospective analysis of medical records at a single comprehensive cancer care center, Hôpital Tenon, Paris, France. Data were extracted from files of female patients having undergone surgical resection of breast cancer between January–July 2010. Patients were included if they received chemotherapy at the hospital and had medical records available. Patients were followed from the start of adjuvant chemotherapy (including pre-chemotherapy) to the end of treatment. Costs were collected for each resource use item from a societal perspective using standard, published sources and expressed in 2011 Euros (€). Limitations of the analysis included the single-center study design and the use of pre-defined questionnaires on resource use (which may conservatively estimate costs).

Results:

A total of 62 patients were included in the study with a mean age of ～54 years. Most patients had stage II (50.8%) or stage III (40.7%) disease. Anthracycline plus taxane-based chemotherapy regimens were most commonly prescribed (77% of patients). Mean cost of adjuvant chemotherapy was estimated to be ～€15,740 per patient from a societal perspective. The acquisition costs of chemotherapy agents were responsible for 26% of the total, with lost productivity (27%), chemotherapy administration (19%), and adverse events (16%) also contributing substantially.

Conclusions:

Evaluation of costs in patients with non-metastatic breast cancer in France has shown that the costs of adjuvant chemotherapy are substantial. The main components of total cost were the cost of chemotherapy agents, lost productivity, chemotherapy administration, and management and prevention of adverse events.