Cost-effectiveness analysis of secukinumab in ankylosing spondylitis from the Canadian perspective

Aim: To assess the cost-effectiveness of interleukin (IL)-17A inhibitor secukinumab vs the currently licensed biologic therapies in ankylosing spondylitis (AS) patients from a Canadian healthcare system perspective.

Methods: A decision analytic model (semi-Markov) evaluated the cost-effectiveness of secukinumab 150?mg compared to certolizumab pegol, adalimumab, golimumab, etanercept and etanercept biosimilar, and infliximab and infliximab biosimilar in a biologic-naïve population, over 60 years of time horizon (lifetime). The Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI 50) response rate was used to assess treatment response at week 12. Non-responders or patients discontinuing initial-line of biologic therapy were allowed to switch to subsequent-line biologics. Model input parameters (short-term and long-term changes in BASDAI and Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index [BASFI], withdrawal rates, adverse events, costs, resource use, utilities, and disutilities) were obtained from clinical trials, published literature, and other Canadian sources. Benefits were expressed as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Cost and benefits were discounted with an annual discount rate of 1.5% for all treatments.

Results: In the biologic-naïve population, secukinumab 150?mg dominated all comparators, as patients treated with secukinumab 150?mg achieved the highest QALYs (16.46) at the lowest cost (CAD 533,010) over a lifetime horizon vs comparators. In the deterministic sensitivity analysis, results were most sensitive to changes in baseline BASFI non-responders, BASDAI 50 at 3 months and discount rates. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that secukinumab 150?mg demonstrated higher probability of achieving maximum net monetary benefit vs all comparators at various cost thresholds.

Conclusions: This analysis demonstrates that secukinumab 150?mg is the most cost-effective treatment option for biologic-naïve AS patients compared to certolizumab pegol, adalimumab, golimumab, etanercept and etanercept biosimilar, and infliximab and infliximab biosimilar for a lifetime horizon in Canada. Treatment with secukinumab translates into substantial benefits for patients and the healthcare system.     

Evaluating the cost-effectiveness of secukinumab in moderate-to-severe psoriasis: a Japanese perspective

Aim: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of secukinumab, a fully human anti-interleukin-17A monoclonal antibody, compared to other clinically used biologics (adalimumab, infliximab, and ustekinumab) in Japan for the treatment of moderate-to-severe psoriasis from the healthcare system (total costs) and patient co-payment (using different frequencies of drug purchase) perspectives.

Methods: A decision-tree (first year)/Markov model (subsequent years), with an annual cycle, was developed. The model adopted a 5-year time horizon. Efficacy inputs were obtained from a mixed-treatment comparison analysis, and other model inputs were collected from published literature and local Japanese sources. Model outcomes included quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in terms of cost per QALY gained. The annual discounting rate of 2% was applied to both costs and outcomes.

Results: Results for the healthcare system perspective showed that secukinumab had the highest number of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) (4.07) vs other biologics, dominated ustekinumab and infliximab, and the ICER of secukinumab compared to adalimumab was ¥8,418,222/QALY gained. In the patient co-payment perspective with the monthly purchase of drugs, ustekinumab had the lowest co-payment cost, followed by infliximab, adalimumab, and secukinumab. In the patient co-payment perspective with a once every 3 months purchase of secukinumab and adalimumab, the co-payment costs of secukinumab, adalimumab, and ustekinumab became comparable, and infliximab had the highest co-payment cost.

Limitations: Only short-term efficacy data was modeled, as there was a lack of data on long-term outcomes. Treatment sequencing was restricted to first-line biologic treatment. Drop-out rates for comparators were assumed to be equivalent to secukinumab in the absence of available data.

Conclusions: Secukinumab is a cost-efficient treatment for moderate-to-severe psoriasis, providing greater health outcomes to patients at lower total costs compared to infliximab and ustekinumab, as well as comparable patient co-payment relative to other biologic treatments.     

Budget impact analysis of secukinumab versus adalimumab in the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis

Background: Biologic treatments have enhanced the treatment outcomes of patients with active ankylosing spondylitis (AS). Until recently, TNF-alpha-inhibitors have been the only biologics approved for the treatment of active AS. The objective of this study was to assess the potential financial impact of the first non-TNF-alpha biologic secukinumab (fully human IL-17A-inhibitor) vs adalimumab (TNF-alpha-inhibitor) in the treatment of AS in Finland.

Materials and methods: In this model-based budget impact analysis, patients were treated either with secukinumab (150?mg) or adalimumab (40?mg). The number of patients and market share of different biologics were based on national reimbursement registry data. Adalimumab was the most commonly used biologic treatment for AS, and in the base case analysis all adalimumab patients are assumed to switch to secukinumab. Response rates were based on a matching-adjusted indirect comparison between secukinumab and adalimumab. Patients not achieving response were switched to another biologic treatment.

Results: Treating AS patients with secukinumab instead of adalimumab leads to potential savings of 18.2 million euros within a 5-year time period. The total costs within the follow-up time were 59.5 million euros and 77.7 million euros with and without secukinumab, respectively. According to sensitivity analyses, a higher adoption rate of secukinumab corresponds to higher potential savings.

Conclusions: Secukinumab is a cost-saving treatment option compared with adalimumab in the treatment of AS in Finland. More patients could be treated with a biologic by allocating resources more efficiently.     

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.     

Real-world treatment patterns and healthcare costs among biologic-naive patients initiating apremilast or biologics for the treatment of psoriasis

Objective: This study compared real-world treatment patterns and healthcare costs among biologic-naive psoriasis patients initiating apremilast or biologics.

Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using the Optum Clinformatics? claims database. Patients with psoriasis were selected if they had initiated apremilast or biologics between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2015; had 12?months of pre-index and post-index continuous enrollment in the database; and were biologic-naive. The index date was defined as the date of the first claim for apremilast or biologic, and occurred between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2015. Treatment persistence was defined as continuous treatment without a?>?60-day gap in therapy (discontinuation) or a switch to a different psoriasis treatment during the 12-month post-index period. Adherence was defined as a medication possession ratio (MPR) of ≥ 80% while persistent on the index treatment. Persistence-based MPR was defined as the number of days with the medication on hand measured during the patients’ period of treatment persistence divided by the duration of the period of treatment persistence. Because patients were not randomized, apremilast patients were propensity score matched up to 1:2 to biologic patients to adjust for possible selection bias. Treatment persistence/adherence and all-cause healthcare costs were evaluated. Cost differences were determined using Wilcoxon rank-sum tests.

Results: In all, 343 biologic-naive patients initiating apremilast were matched to 680 biologic-naive patients initiating biologics. After matching, patient characteristics were similar between cohorts. Twelve-month treatment persistence was similar for biologic-naive patients initiating apremilast vs biologics (32.1% vs 33.2%; p?=?0.7079). While persistent on therapy up to 12?months, per-patient per-month (PPPM) total healthcare costs were significantly lower among biologic-naive cohorts initiating apremilast vs biologics ($2,214 vs $5,184; p?p?p?p?Limitations: Data were limited to individuals with United Healthcare commercial and Medicare Advantage insurance plans, and may not be generalizable to psoriasis patients with other insurance or without health insurance coverage.

Conclusion: Biologic-naive patients with similar patient characteristics receiving apremilast vs biologics had significantly lower PPPM costs, even when they switched to biologics during the 12-month post-index period. These results may be useful to payers and providers seeking to optimize psoriasis care while reducing healthcare costs.     

Cost-effectiveness of adalimumab,etanercept, and tocilizumab as first-line treatments for moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis

Abstract

Objective:

The aim of this study was to assess the cost-utility and value of reducing the uncertainty associated with the decision to use first-line biologic treatment (bDMARD) after the failure of one or more traditional drugs (tDMARD) in moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (msRA) in Finland.

Research design and methods:

The treatment sequences were compared among 3000 hypothetical Finnish msRA patients using a probabilistic microsimulation model in a lifetime scenario. Adalimumab?+?methotrexate, etanercept?+?methotrexate, or tocilizumab?+?methotrexate were used as first biologics followed by rituximab?+?methotrexate and infliximab?+?methotrexate. Best supportive care (BSC), including tDMARDs, was assumed to be used after the exhaustion of the biologics. Methotrexate alone was added as a further comparator. Efficacy was based on ACR responses that were obtained from a mixed treatment comparison. The resources were valued with Finnish unit costs (year 2010) from the healthcare payer perspective. Additional analyses were carried out, including productivity losses. The Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) values were mapped to the EQ-5D values using the tocilizumab trials; 3% annual discounting for costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) and extensive sensitivity analyses were completed.

Main outcome measures:

Incremental cost per QALY gained and multinomial expected value of perfect information (mEVPI).

Results:

bDMARDs significantly increase the QALYs gained when compared to methotrexate alone. Tocilizumab?+?methotrexate was more cost-effective than adalimumab?+?methotrexate or etanercept?+?methotrexate in comparison with methotrexate alone, and adalimumab?+?methotrexate was dominated by etanercept?+?methotraxate. A QALY gained with retail-priced (wholesale-priced) tocilizumab?+?methotrexate costs €18,957 (€17,057) compared to methotrexate alone. According to the cost-effectiveness efficiency frontier and cost-effectiveness acceptability frontier (CEAF), tocilizumab?+?methotrexate should be considered before rituximab?+?methotrexate, infliximab?+?methotrexate, and BSC. Based on the CEAF, tocilizumab?+?methotrexate had a 60–93% probability of being cost-effective with €20,000 per QALY gained (mEVPI €230–2182).

Conclusions:

Tocilizumab?+?methotrexate is a potentially cost-effective bDMARD treatment for msRA, indicating a low value of additional research information with the international threshold values.

Limitations:

Efficacy based on an indirect comparison (certolizumab pegol, golimumab excluded), fixed treatment sequence after the exhaustion of first bDMARD, Swedish resource use data according to HAQ scores, and inpatient costs assumed to include surgery.     

Economic evaluation of tocilizumab combination in the treatment of moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis in Italy

Abstract

Objective:

This study was designed to evaluate the cost utility of tocilizumab in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients, with inadequate responses to traditional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (tDMARDs) from a payer’s perspective in Italy.

Methods:

An individual patient simulation model was used to project lifetime medical costs (payer’s perspective) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Treatment sequences starting with tocilizumab or the most commonly prescribed biologics (etanercept, adalimumab, or infliximab) were compared. The addition of tocilizumab to standard of care, without the replacement of anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α treatments, was also evaluated. Patient characteristics, treatment efficacy, and quality-of-life data were based on three phase 3 tocilizumab clinical trials (TOcilizumab Pivotal Trial in Methotrexate Inadequate respONders [OPTION], Tocilizumab in cOmbination With traditional DMARD therapy [TOWARD], and TociLIzumab Safety and THE Prevention of Structural Joint Damage [LITHE]). Mixed-treatment comparison was used to estimate response probabilities. Resource utilization, treatment acquisition, administration, and monitoring costs were estimated using Italian secondary sources. Uncertainty in model parameters was evaluated by probabilistic sensitivity analysis.

Results:

Replacement of anti-TNF-α treatments with tocilizumab reduced total costs over a patient’s lifetime (base-case analysis: tocilizumab sequence, €141,100 vs standard of care sequence, €143,500). Patients receiving tocilizumab realized more QALYs than patients receiving standard of care (9.8881 vs 9.3502 QALYs). Therefore, according to the base-case analysis, the tocilizumab sequence dominated the standard of care. In a sensitivity analysis, the model base-case result was robust to input changes. When tocilizumab was added to standard of care, without replacing anti-TNF-α treatments, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was €17,100 per QALY.

Conclusion:

The analysis demonstrates that, in Italy, replacing another biologic DMARD with tocilizumab or adding tocilizumab to the current standard of care is a cost-effective strategy in the treatment of RA patients with inadequate responses to tDMARDs.     

Matching-adjusted indirect comparison of adalimumab vs etanercept and infliximab for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis

Abstract

Objectives:

No head-to-head trial has compared the efficacy of adalimumab vs etanercept and infliximab for psoriatic arthritis (PsA). This study implements a matching-adjusted indirect comparison technique to address that gap.

Methods:

Patient-level data from a placebo-controlled trial of adalimumab (ADEPT) were re-weighted to match average baseline characteristics from pivotal published trials of etanercept and infliximab. ADEPT patients were re-weighted by odds of enrollment in comparator trials, estimated using logistic regression. Matched-on characteristics included PsA duration, age, gender, severity, active psoriasis, and concomitant treatment. After matching, placebo-adjusted treatment arms were compared at weeks 12 (or 14) and 24. Outcomes included ACR20/50/70, PsARC, HAQ, and modified TSS. PASI50/75/90 were compared for patients with active psoriasis. Cost per responder (CPR) was assessed in the US and Germany using matching-adjusted end-points and drug list prices. Statistical significance was assessed using weighted t-tests.

Results:

After matching, adalimumab-treated patients had greater placebo-adjusted rates of ACR70 and PASI50/75/90 at week 24 compared with etanercept (all p?<?0.05). Adalimumab patients had a higher placebo-adjusted rate of ACR70 than infliximab at week 14 (p?=?0.034). Adalimumab treatment had lower CPR for ACR70 and PASI50/75/90 compared with etanercept at week 24, in both the US and Germany (all p?<?0.02). Adalimumab had lower CPR than infliximab for all outcomes at week 24 (all p?<?0.05).

Conclusion:

Adalimumab is associated with higher ACR70 and PASI50/75/90 response rates than etanercept at week 24 and a higher ACR70 response rate than infliximab at week 14. Adalimumab has significant advantages over etanercept and infliximab in CPR across multiple end-points.

Key limitations:

The matching-adjusted indirect comparison method cannot account for unobserved differences in patient characteristics across trials, and only a head-to-head randomized clinical trial can fully avoid the limitations of indirect comparisons. CPR findings are limited to the US and German markets, and may not be generalizable to other markets with different relative pricing.     

Prasugrel vs clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a model-based cost-effectiveness analysis for Germany,Sweden, the Netherlands,and Turkey

Abstract

Objective:

To evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of 12-months treatment with prasugrel vs clopidogrel from four European healthcare systems’ perspectives (Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands, and Turkey).

Methods:

In the TRITON-TIMI 38 trial, patients with an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) were treated with prasugrel or clopidogrel. Prasugrel reduced the composite end-point (cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke), but increased TIMI major bleeding. A Markov model was constructed to facilitate a lifetime horizon for the analysis. A series of risk equations constructed using individual patient data from TRITON-TIMI 38 was used to estimate risks of clinical events. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were derived by weighting survival time by estimates of health-related quality-of-life. Incremental cost-effectiveness is presented based on differences in treatments’ mean costs and QALYs for the licensed population in TRITON-TIMI 38, and the sub-groups of UA-NSTEMI, STEMI, diabetes, and the ‘core clinical cohort’ (<75 years, ≥60?kg, no history of stroke or TIA).

Results:

Mean cost of study drug was €364 (Turkey) to €818 (Germany) higher for prasugrel vs clopidogrel. Rehospitalization costs at 12 months were lower for prasugrel due to reduced rates of revascularization, although hospitalization costs beyond 12 months were higher due to longer life expectancy associated with lower rates of non-fatal MI in the prasugrel group. The incremental cost per QALY saved with prasugrel in the licensed population ranged from €6520 (for Sweden) to €14,350 for (Germany). Prasugrel’s cost per QALY was more favourable still in the STEMI and diabetes sub-groups of the licensed population.

Limitations:

Probabilistic analyses of the whole trial population is impractical due to the number of individual patient profiles over which population level results are calculated.

Conclusion:

Among patients undergoing PCI for ACS, treatment with prasugrel compared with clopidogrel resulted in favourable cost-effectiveness profiles from these healthcare systems’ perspectives.     

Cost-effectiveness of currently recommended direct-acting antiviral treatments in patients infected with genotypes 1 or 4 hepatitis C virus in the US

Objective: This study compared the cost-effectiveness of direct-acting antiviral therapies currently recommended for treating genotypes (GT) 1 and 4 chronic hepatitis C (CHC) patients in the US.

Methods: A cost-effectiveness analysis of treatments for CHC from a US payer’s perspective over a lifelong time horizon was performed. A Markov model based on the natural history of CHC was used for a population that included treatment-naïve and -experienced patients. Treatment alternatives considered for GT1 included ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir?+?dasabuvir?±?ribavirin (3D?±?R), sofosbuvir?+?ledipasvir (SOF/LDV), sofosbuvir?+?simeprevir (SOF?+?SMV), simeprevir?+?pegylated interferon/ribavirin (SMV?+?PR) and no treatment (NT). For GT4 treatments, ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir?+?ribavirin (2D?+?R), SOF/LDV and NT were compared. Transition probabilities, utilities and costs were obtained from published literature. Outcomes included rates of compensated cirrhosis (CC), decompensated cirrhosis (DCC), hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and liver-related death (LrD), total costs, life-years and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Costs and QALYs were used to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios.

Results: In GT1 patients, 3D?±?R and SOF-containing regimens have similar long-term outcomes; 3D?±?R had the lowest lifetime risks of all liver disease outcomes: CC =?30.2%, DCC = 5.0?%, HCC = 6.8%, LT =?1.9% and LrD =?9.2%. In GT1 patients, 3D?±?R had the lowest cost and the highest QALYs. As a result, 3D?±?R dominated these treatment options. In GT4 patients, 2D?+?R had lower rates of liver morbidity and mortality, lower cost and more QALYs than SOF/LDV and NT.

Limitations: While the results are based on input values, which were obtained from a variety of heterogeneous sources—including clinical trials, the findings were robust across a plausible range of input values, as demonstrated in probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

Conclusions: Among currently recommended treatments for GT1 and GT4 in the US, 3D?±?R (for GT1) and 2D?+?R (for GT4) have a favorable cost-effectiveness profile.     

Cost effectiveness of escitalopram versus SNRIs in second-step treatment of major depressive disorder in Sweden

Abstract

Objectives:

Escitalopram is the S-enantiomer of citalopram and is the most discriminating of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI). The aim of the current analysis was to assess the cost effectiveness of escitalopram versus the serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRI) duloxetine and generic venlafaxine as second-step treatment of major depressive disorder.

Methods:

The analysis was based on a decision analytic model. Effectiveness outcomes were quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and remission rates; cost outcomes were direct medical costs, including impact of treating adverse events, and indirect costs associated with lost productivity. The analysis was performed from the societal perspective in Sweden over a 6-month timeframe.

Results:

Estimated remission rates showed an incremental effectiveness in favour of escitalopram of 16.4 percentage points compared with both SNRI comparators. The escitalopram strategy was associated with a 0.025 increase in QALYs. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the model is robust and that escitalopram remains a cost-effective option when considering future predicted price reductions of generic venlafaxine.

Limitations:

The main limitation in this study was the lack of data available for second-step treatment. The remission rates, which are a key input to the model, were obtained from a relatively small sample of patients on second-step treatment and there are no published relapse rates for second-step treatment. The model also assumed that there was no difference in the adverse event (AE) rates between treatments after the first 8 weeks.

Conclusions:

This cost-effectiveness analysis indicates that, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £30,000, escitalopram is the most cost-effective second-step treatment option for MDD in Sweden in over 85% cases compared with both venlafaxine and with duloxetine. Benefits for escitalopram included both increased effectiveness and reduced overall costs. The major contributing costs were those associated with productivity loss.

The model was shown to have internal validity and robustness through the use of stochastic simulations and sensitivity analyses, which were conducted around the key efficacy parameters.     

Cost-effectiveness of delayed-release dimethyl fumarate for the treatment of relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis in the United States

Objective:

To assess the cost-effectiveness of delayed-release dimethyl fumarate (DMF, also known as gastro-resistant DMF), an effective therapy for relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis (MS), compared with glatiramer acetate and fingolimod, commonly used treatments in the US.

Methods:

A Markov model was developed comparing delayed-release DMF to glatiramer acetate and fingolimod using a US payer perspective and 20-year time horizon. A cohort of patients, mean age 38 years, with relapsing-remitting MS and Kurtzke Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) scores between 0–6 entered the model. Efficacy and safety were estimated by mixed-treatment comparison of data from the DEFINE and CONFIRM trials and clinical trials of other disease-modifying therapies. Data from published studies were used to derive resource use, cost, and utility inputs. Key outcomes included costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Alternative scenarios tested in a sensitivity analysis included drug efficacy, EDSS-related or relapse-related costs, alternative perspectives, drug acquisition costs, and utility.

Results:

Base-case results with a 20-year time horizon indicated that delayed-release DMF increased QALYs +0.450 or +0.359 compared with glatiramer acetate or fingolimod, respectively. Reductions in 20-year costs with delayed-release DMF were ?$70,644 compared with once-daily glatiramer acetate and ?$32,958 compared with fingolimod. In an analysis comparing delayed-release DMF to three-times-weekly glatiramer acetate and assuming similar efficacy and safety to the once-daily formulation, 20-year costs with delayed-release DMF were increased by $15,806 and cost per QALY gained was $35,142. The differences in costs were most sensitive to acquisition cost and inclusion of informal care costs and productivity losses. The differences in QALYs were most sensitive to the impact of delayed-release DMF on disease progression and the EDSS utility weights.

Conclusion:

Delayed-release DMF is likely to increase QALYs for patients with relapsing forms of MS and be cost-effective compared with fingolimod and glatiramer acetate.     

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.     

Cost-effectiveness of sequenced treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with targeted immune modulators

Aims: To determine the cost-effectiveness of treatment sequences of biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs or Janus kinase/STAT pathway inhibitors (collectively referred to as bDMARDs) vs conventional DMARDs (cDMARDs) from the US societal perspective for treatment of patients with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with inadequate responses to cDMARDs.

Materials and methods: An individual patient simulation model was developed that assesses the impact of treatments on disease based on clinical trial data and real-world evidence. Treatment strategies included sequences starting with etanercept, adalimumab, certolizumab, or abatacept. Each of these treatment strategies was compared with cDMARDs. Incremental cost, incremental quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated for each treatment sequence relative to cDMARDs. The cost-effectiveness of each strategy was determined using a US willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000/QALY.

Results: For the base-case scenario, bDMARD treatment sequences were associated with greater treatment benefit (i.e. more QALYs), lower lost productivity costs, and greater treatment-related costs than cDMARDs. The expected ICERs for bDMARD sequences ranged from ～$126,000 to $140,000 per QALY gained, which is below the US-specific WTP. Alternative scenarios examining the effects of homogeneous patients, dose increases, increased costs of hospitalization for severely physically impaired patients, and a lower baseline Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) Disability Index score resulted in similar ICERs.

Conclusions: bDMARD treatment sequences are cost-effective from a US societal perspective.     

The cost-effectiveness of delayed-release dimethyl fumarate for the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in Canada

Background: Multiple sclerosis (MS) causes significant disability and diminished quality-of-life. Delayed-release dimethyl fumarate (DMF; also known as gastro-resistant DMF) is a new oral treatment for relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS) approved in the US, Australia, Canada, and Europe. Objectives: A cost-effectiveness model was developed to compare the health economic impact of DMF against other disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) as first-line RRMS treatment from a Canadian Ministry of Health perspective. Methods: A Markov cohort model was developed to simulate patients’ progression through health states based on the Kurtzke Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) over a life-time horizon. Patients entered the model based on a distribution of baseline EDSS scores, from which they could progress to higher or regress to lower EDSS state, or remain in the same state. Relapses could occur at any EDSS score. Results from a mixed-treatment comparison were used to inform model inputs for disease progression and relapse rates per treatment. Costs included direct medical costs stratified by EDSS score. Utilities were accrued based on time spent in each EDSS state. Results: Compared with glatiramer acetate, DMF yielded 0.528 incremental quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) at an incremental cost of $23 338 Canadian dollars (CAD), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of CAD $44 118/QALY. The ICER for DMF compared with Rebif 44?mcg was CAD $10 672. Results were consistent across a wide range of one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Conclusions: Based on traditional cost-effectiveness thresholds in Canada (CAD $50 000–60 000), DMF can be considered a cost-effective option compared to other first-line DMTs.     

The budget impact of brodalumab for the treatment of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis on US commercial health plans

Introduction: Brodalumab is a new biologic approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2017 for the treatment of moderate-severe psoriasis. This study evaluated the impact of the introduction of brodalumab on the pharmacy budget on US commercial health plans.

Methods: An Excel-based health economic decision analytic model with a US health plan perspective was developed. The model incorporated published moderate-to-severe psoriasis prevalence data; market shares of common biologic drugs, including adalimumab, ustekinumab, secukinumab, ixekizumab, and etanercept, used for the treatment of moderate–severe psoriasis; 2017-year Wholesale Acquisition Costs for the biologic drugs; drug dispensing fee; patient co-pay; and drug contracting discount. Total annual health plan costs for the biologic drugs were estimated. Scenarios with different proportions of patients treated with brodalumab were compared to a control scenario when no brodalumab was used.

Results: In a hypothetical commercial health plan covering two million members, 7,038 moderate-to-severe psoriasis patients were estimated to be eligible for treatment with brodalumab. Prior to brodalumab approval, the proportions of patients treated by other biologics were estimated at 50.8% for adalimumab, 13.5% for ustekinumab, 14.1% for secukinumab, 4.4% for ixekizumab, and 17.2% for etanercept. With a 20% drug price discount applied to all biologics, the annual health plan costs for brodalumab, adalimumab, ustekinumab, secukinumab, ixekizumab, and etanercept were estimated at $37,224, $49,166, $55,084, $56,061, $64,396, and $57,170, respectively. When no brodalumab is used, the total annual pharmacy budget for the biologics used among these patients was estimated at $414,362,647. Among scenarios where the proportions of brodalumab usage were 3%, 8%, 16%, and 30%, the total annual pharmacy cost was estimated to be reduced by $3,698,129, $9,861,677, $19,723,355, and $36,981,290, respectively.

Conclusion: Based on the economic model, brodalumab has the potential to substantially reduce pharmacy expenditures for the treatment of patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis in the US.     

The cost-effectiveness of onabotulinumtoxinA for the prophylaxis of headache in adults with chronic migraine in the UK

Abstract

Background:

Although chronic migraine is associated with substantial disability and costs, few treatments have been shown to be effective. OnabotulinumtoxinA (Botox, Allergan Inc., Irvine, CA) is the first treatment to be licensed in the UK for the prophylaxis of headaches in adults with chronic migraine. This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of onabotulinumtoxinA in this indication in the UK.

Methods:

A state-transition (Markov) model was developed comparing onabotulinumtoxinA to placebo. Efficacy data and utility values were taken from the pooled Phase III REsearch Evaluating Migraine Prophylaxis Therapy (PREEMPT) clinical trials program (n?=?1384). Estimates of resource utilisation were taken from the International Burden of Migraine Study (IBMS), and stopping rules were informed by published medical guidelines and clinical data. This study estimated 2-year discounted costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) from the UK National Health Service perspective.

Results:

At 2 years, treatment with onabotulinumtoxinA was associated with an increase in costs of £1367 and an increase in QALYs of 0.1 compared to placebo, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £15,028. Treatment with onabotulinumtoxinA reduced headache days by an estimated 38 days per year at a cost of £18 per headache day avoided. Sensitivity analysis showed that utility values had the greatest influence on model results. The ICER remained cost-effective at a willingness to pay threshold of £20,000–£30,000/QALY in the majority of scenario analyses as well as in probabilistic sensitivity analysis, where onabotulinumtoxinA was cost-effective on 96% of occasions at a threshold of £20,000/QALY and 98% of occasions at £30,000/QALY.

Conclusion:

OnabotulinumtoxinA has been shown to reduce the frequency of headaches in patients with chronic migraine and can be considered a cost-effective use of resources in the UK National Health Service. The uncertainties in the model relate to the extrapolation of clinical data beyond the 56-week trial.     

Cost-effectiveness of droxidopa in patients with neurogenic orthostatic hypotension: post-hoc economic analysis of Phase 3 clinical trial data

Objective:

Falls are associated with neurogenic orthostatic hypotension (nOH) and are an economic burden on the US healthcare system. Droxidopa is approved by the US FDA to treat symptomatic nOH. This study estimates the cost-effectiveness of droxidopa vs standard of care from a US payer perspective.

Methods:

A Markov model was used to predict numbers of falls and treatment responses using data from a randomized, double-blind trial of patients with Parkinson’s disease and nOH who received optimized droxidopa therapy or placebo for 8 weeks. The severity of falls, utility values, and injury-related costs were derived from published studies. Model outcomes included number of falls, number of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and direct costs. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated. Outcomes were extrapolated over 12 months.

Results:

Patients receiving droxidopa had fewer falls compared with those receiving standard of care and gained 0.33 QALYs/patient. Estimated droxidopa costs were $30,112, with estimated cost savings resulting from fall avoidance of $14,574 over 12 months. Droxidopa was cost-effective vs standard of care, with ICERs of $47,001/QALY gained, $24,866 per avoided fall with moderate/major injury, and $1559 per avoided fall with no/minor injury. The main drivers were fall probabilities and fear of fall-related inputs.

Limitations:

A limitation of the current study is the reliance on falls data from a randomized controlled trial where the placebo group served as the proxy for standard of care. Data from a larger patient population, reflecting ‘real-life’ patient use and/or comparison with other agents used to treat nOH, would have been a useful complement, but these data were not available.

Conclusion:

Using Markov modeling, droxidopa appears to be a cost-effective option compared with standard of care in US clinical practice for the treatment of nOH.     

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.     

Cost per additional responder for ixekizumab and other FDA-approved biologics in moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis

Background: Evidence of the cost-efficacy of ixekizumab for the treatment of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis (PsO) in the US is limited.

Objective: To estimate the number needed to treat (NNT) and monthly cost of achieving one additional Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 75, 90, and 100 responder for ixekizumab and other Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved biologics in PsO.

Methods: A network meta-analysis estimated the probability of achieving PASI 75, 90, or 100 response during induction for each biologic. NNTs were calculated using response difference of each respective biologic vs placebo at the end of induction. Monthly costs per additional PASI responder were based on FDA-approved doses, wholesale acquisition costs, and induction NNTs.

Results: Induction NNTs for ixekizumab 80?mg once every 2 weeks (Q2W) relative to placebo were consistently lower across all levels of clearance compared with the other biologics. Monthly cost per additional responder was lowest for ustekinumab 45?mg at PASI 75 and for secukinumab 300?mg and ixekizumab 80?mg Q2W at PASI 90. Ixekizumab 80?mg Q2W had the lowest cost for PASI 100.

Conclusion: In this analysis, ixekizumab is the most cost-efficient biologic in the US when targeting complete resolution, as measured by PASI 100 in PsO.