A budget impact analysis for making treatment decisions based on anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide (anti-CCP) testing in rheumatoid arthritis

Abstract

Aim: Given that rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients with high anti-citrullinated protein antibodies (ACPA) titer values respond well to abatacept, the aim of this study was to estimate the annual budget impact of anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide (anti-CCP) testing and treatment selection based on anti-CCP test results.

Materials and methods: Budget impact analysis was conducted for patients with moderate-to-severe RA on biologic or Janus kinase inhibitor (JAKi) treatment from a hypothetical US commercial payer perspective. The following market scenarios were compared: (1) 90% of target patients receive anti-CCP testing and the results of anti-CCP testing do not impact the treatment selection; (2) 100% of target patients receive anti-CCP testing and the results of anti-CCP testing have an impact on treatment selection such that an increased proportion of patients with high titer of ACPA receive abatacept. A hypothetical assumption was made that the use of abatacept would be increased by 2% in Scenario 2 versus 1. Scenario analyses were conducted by varying the target population and rebate rates.

Results: In a hypothetical health plan with one million insured adults, 2,181 patients would be on a biologic or JAKi treatment for moderate-to-severe RA. In Scenario 1, the anti-CCP test cost was $186,155 and annual treatment cost was $101,854,295, totaling to $102,040,450. In Scenario 2, the anti-CCP test cost increased by $20,684 and treatment cost increased by $160,467, totaling an overall budget increase of $181,151. This was equivalent to a per member per month (PMPM) increase of $0.015. The budget impact results were consistently negligible across the scenario analyses.

Limitations: The analysis only considered testing and medication costs. Some parameters used in the analysis, such as the rebate rates, are not generalizable and health plan-specific.

Conclusions: Testing RA patients to learn their ACPA status and increasing use of abatacept among high-titer ACPA patients result in a small increase in the total budget (<2 cents PMPM).     

Budget impact of pasireotide LAR for the treatment of acromegaly,a rare endocrine disorder

Background:

Acromegaly is a rare disorder characterized by the over-production of growth hormone (GH). Patients often experience a range of chronic comorbidities including hypertension, cardiac dysfunction, diabetes, osteoarthropathy, and obstructive sleep apnea. Untreated or inadequately controlled patients incur substantial healthcare costs, while normalization of GH levels may reduce morbidity and mortality rates to be comparable to the general population.

Objective:

To assess the 3-year budget impact of pasireotide LAR on a US managed care health plan following pasireotide LAR availability.

Methods:

Two separate economic models were developed: one from the perspective of an entire health plan and another from the perspective of a pharmacy budget. The total budget impact model includes costs of drug therapies and other costs for treatment, monitoring, management of adverse events, and comorbidities. The pharmacy cost calculator only considers drug costs.

Results:

The total estimated budget impact associated with the introduction of pasireotide LAR is 0.31 cents ($0.0031) per member per month (PMPM) in the first year, 0.78 cents ($0.0078) in the second year, and 1.42 cents ($0.0142) in the third year following FDA approval. Costs were similar or lower from a pharmacy budget impact perspective. For each patient achieving disease control, cost savings from reduced comorbidities amounted to $10,240 per year.

Limitations:

Published data on comorbidities for acromegaly are limited. In the absence of data on acromegaly-related costs for some comorbidities, comorbidity costs for the general population were used (may be under-estimates).

Conclusions:

The budget impact of pasireotide LAR is expected to be modest, with an expected increase of 1.42 cents PMPM on the total health plan budget in the third year after FDA approval. The efficacy of pasireotide LAR in acromegaly, as demonstrated in head-to-head trials compared with currently available treatment options, is expected to be associated with a reduction of the prevalence of comorbidities.     

US budget impact of increased payer adoption of the Flexitouch advanced pneumatic compression device in lymphedema patients with advanced chronic venous insufficiency and multiple infections

Aims: To assess the budget impact to a US commercial health plan of providing access to the Flexitouch (FLX) advanced pneumatic compression device (Tactile Medical) to lymphedema (LE) patients with either comorbid chronic venous insufficiency (CVI) or frequent infections.

Methods: Budget impact was calculated over 2 years for a hypothetical US payer with 10-million commercial members. Model inputs were derived from published sources and from a case-matched analysis of Blue Health Intelligence (BHI) claims data for the years 2012–2016. To calculate the budget impact, the Status Quo budget (i.e. total cost for LE and sequelae-related medical treatment) was compared to the budget under each of three Alternate Payer Policy scenarios which assumed that a sub-set of patients was redistributed from their initial treatment groups to a group that received FLX. Model outputs included cumulative payer costs, net budget impact, and breakeven point. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the impact of model inputs on results.

Results: Increasing access to FLX yielded a favorable budget impact in every scenario. For LE patients with comorbid CVI, the three alternate scenarios resulted in cumulative 2-year budget impacts of –$52,841, –$173,317, and –$375,601, respectively. For LE patients with comorbid frequent infections, the three alternate scenarios resulted in cumulative 2-year budget impacts of –$192,729, –$259,339, and –$613,179, respectively.

Limitations: Use of claims data assumes accurate coding and does not allow one to control for disease severity or treatment adherence. Also, the distribution of patients between treatment arms was determined using claims data from a specific payer organization, and could differ for health plans with different coverage policies.

Conclusions: While previous studies have illustrated cost savings with adoption of FLX, US commercial health plans may also achieve tangible cost savings by expanding access to FLX for LE patients with comorbid CVI and multiple infections.     

Budget impact of erlotinib for maintenance therapy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer

Abstract

Objective:

Assess the budgetary impact of adding erlotinib for maintenance therapy (MTx) in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) from a US health plan perspective.

Methods:

A budget impact model was developed to analyze the costs (drug, administration, adverse events) associated with adding erlotinib MTx to a hypothetical 500,000 member US health plan. Treatment durations and dosing were derived from randomized controlled trials, FDA labeling, and National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. Treatment patterns and assumptions were based on market research data, the SEER registry, and published literature. Cost data were obtained from Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services payment rates and a drug pricing database. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess uncertainty.

Results:

Overall health plan expenditures increased by $0.010 per member per month (PMPM). The main driver of additional cost was the erlotinib drug cost (～$66,000) with the administration ($464) and side-effect ($47) costs being relatively modest. One-way sensitivity analyses showed that the results were most sensitive to the proportion of members receiving MTx; however, the PMPM did not exceed $0.013.

Conclusions:

The overall budget impact to a health plan of expanding the use of erlotinib from the 2nd/3rd-line advanced NSCLC setting to include the maintenance setting was relatively small. This was primarily due to the proportion of patients who would receive erlotinib MTx, the low cost of side-effects and minimal cost of drug administration. Additional research may be warranted to estimate the relative clinical and economic impacts of erlotinib MTx versus alternative MTx treatments.     

Budget impact analysis of bioabsorbable drug-eluting sinus implants following endoscopic sinus surgery

Objective: Propel is a bioabsorbable drug-eluting sinus implant inserted following an endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) for chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). The objective of this study was to estimate the budget impact of incorporating Propel post-ESS for CRS patients from a self-insured employer or third-party payer perspective.

Methods: An Excel-based budget impact model was developed. Estimates of the prevalence of CRS, rates of ESS, and effectiveness outcomes, along with direct and indirect costs from CRS were obtained from published literature. A total population of 1.5 million members was hypothesized for the analysis. All cost data were adjusted to October 2015 US dollars using the Medical Care Component of the Consumer Price Index. The cost and clinical/economic characteristics of Propel were compared to other treatments commonly used to minimize post-operative complications. The primary outcome was the incremental budget impact reported using per-member-per-month (PMPM) costs. Scenario-based, probabilistic, and one-way sensitivity analyses were performed to gauge the robustness of the results and identify the parameters with the most influence on the results.

Results: For a US self-insured employer or a commercial health plan of 1.5 million members, the incremental PMPM impact of incorporating Propel was estimated to range from ?Objective: Propel is a bioabsorbable drug-eluting sinus implant inserted following an endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) for chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). The objective of this study was to estimate the budget impact of incorporating Propel post-ESS for CRS patients from a self-insured employer or third-party payer perspective.

Methods: An Excel-based budget impact model was developed. Estimates of the prevalence of CRS, rates of ESS, and effectiveness outcomes, along with direct and indirect costs from CRS were obtained from published literature. A total population of 1.5 million members was hypothesized for the analysis. All cost data were adjusted to October 2015 US dollars using the Medical Care Component of the Consumer Price Index. The cost and clinical/economic characteristics of Propel were compared to other treatments commonly used to minimize post-operative complications. The primary outcome was the incremental budget impact reported using per-member-per-month (PMPM) costs. Scenario-based, probabilistic, and one-way sensitivity analyses were performed to gauge the robustness of the results and identify the parameters with the most influence on the results.

Results: For a US self-insured employer or a commercial health plan of 1.5 million members, the incremental PMPM impact of incorporating Propel was estimated to range from ?$0.003 to $0.036, respectively, for all members in the health plan. Sensitivity analyses identified the cost of Propel, probability of polyposis recurrence requiring medical intervention, probability of adhesion formation requiring surgical intervention, and the treatment costs for polyposis as the primary parameters influencing the results.

Conclusion: This study has demonstrated the use of Propel following ESS procedures has a negligible impact on the budget of a US self-insured employer or payer. The upfront cost of Propel was offset by savings associated with reduced probability for polyp recurrence, adhesion formation, and their subsequent treatment.     

Budget impact model of tobramycin inhalation solution for treatment of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in cystic fibrosis patients

Abstract

Background:

Pseudomonas aeruginosa (PA) is the most common airway pathogen in cystic fibrosis (CF) patients. The objective of this analysis was to determine the costs of managing PA infection in CF patients with a chronic regimen of tobramycin inhalation solution (TIS).

Methods:

A budget impact model of CF patients was developed to evaluate the costs of TIS from a US managed-care organization (MCO) perspective. The Microsoft Excel model compared TIS treatment plus standard care with standard care alone over a 4-year time horizon and included the cost of drugs, medical care, and annual probabilities of hospitalization and IV anti-pseudomonal (anti-PA) antibiotics administration.

Results:

For an MCO with 5,000,000 members, 389 members 6 years of age or older were estimated to have CF, and 218 (56%) had PA infection. Assuming that use of TIS increased from 20% to 25%, the 1-year budget increased $231,251 or from $0.049 to $0.053 per member per month (PMPM). The net drug budget increase was $243,919, while medical costs associated with exacerbation management decreased $12,669 over the first year. Increasing utilization of TIS, from 20% to 40% over 4 years resulted in an incremental overall budget increase of $925,002, a 3% decrease in hospitalizations, and a 4% decrease in administrations of IV anti-PA antibiotics. These reductions translated to a medical care cost saving of $50,676 over 4 years. Limitations of this study include that the clinical data for the model are from clinical trials conducted in 1996 and the estimation of TIS use for CF patients with chronic PA infections can be impacted by TIS adherence.

Conclusion:

Model results suggest that increasing the use of TIS decreases medical care costs due to decreased hospital admissions and the use of IV anti-PA antibiotics at the expense of higher drug costs.     

Budget impact of netupitant/palonosetron for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

Background: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are among the most common and debilitating side-effects patients experience during chemotherapy, and are associated with considerable acute care use and healthcare cost. It is estimated that 70–80% of CINV could be prevented through appropriate use of CINV prophylaxis; however, suboptimal CINV compliance and control remains an issue in clinical practice. Netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA) is a fixed combination of serotonin-3 (5-HT₃) and neurokinin-1 (NK₁) receptor antagonists (RAs), respectively, indicated for the prevention of acute and delayed nausea and vomiting associated with highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). Phase 3 clinical trials showed a significantly higher complete response rate in both acute and delayed CINV in chemotherapy-naïve patients receiving NEPA compared to patients receiving palonosetron.

Objective: The objective of this study was to estimate the budgetary impact of adding NEPA to a US payer or practice formulary for CINV prophylaxis.

Methods: A model was developed to estimate the impact of adding NEPA to the formulary of a hypothetical US payer with 1.15 million members, including 150,000 (13%) Medicare beneficiaries. The model compared the annual total costs of CINV-related events and CINV prophylaxis in two scenarios: base year (no NEPA) and comparator year (10% and 5% NEPA usage in HEC and MEC patients, respectively). A univariate sensitivity analysis was conducted to explore the effect of variability in model parameters on the budget impact.

Results: A total of 2,021 patients were eligible to receive CINV prophylaxis. With NEPA, CINV prophylaxis costs increased by 0.7% ($3,493,630 vs $3,518,760) while medical costs associated with CINV events decreased by 3.9% ($15,118,639 vs $14,532,442), resulting in a net cost saving of $561,067 (3.0%) for the health plan ($18,612,269 vs $18,051,202), or Background: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are among the most common and debilitating side-effects patients experience during chemotherapy, and are associated with considerable acute care use and healthcare cost. It is estimated that 70–80% of CINV could be prevented through appropriate use of CINV prophylaxis; however, suboptimal CINV compliance and control remains an issue in clinical practice. Netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA) is a fixed combination of serotonin-3 (5-HT₃) and neurokinin-1 (NK₁) receptor antagonists (RAs), respectively, indicated for the prevention of acute and delayed nausea and vomiting associated with highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). Phase 3 clinical trials showed a significantly higher complete response rate in both acute and delayed CINV in chemotherapy-naïve patients receiving NEPA compared to patients receiving palonosetron.

Objective: The objective of this study was to estimate the budgetary impact of adding NEPA to a US payer or practice formulary for CINV prophylaxis.

Methods: A model was developed to estimate the impact of adding NEPA to the formulary of a hypothetical US payer with 1.15 million members, including 150,000 (13%) Medicare beneficiaries. The model compared the annual total costs of CINV-related events and CINV prophylaxis in two scenarios: base year (no NEPA) and comparator year (10% and 5% NEPA usage in HEC and MEC patients, respectively). A univariate sensitivity analysis was conducted to explore the effect of variability in model parameters on the budget impact.

Results: A total of 2,021 patients were eligible to receive CINV prophylaxis. With NEPA, CINV prophylaxis costs increased by 0.7% ($3,493,630 vs $3,518,760) while medical costs associated with CINV events decreased by 3.9% ($15,118,639 vs $14,532,442), resulting in a net cost saving of $561,067 (3.0%) for the health plan ($18,612,269 vs $18,051,202), or $0.04 per member per month. This was equivalent to saving $5,011 per patient moved to NEPA. Among all 5-HT₃ RA?+?NK₁ RA regimens, NEPA was associated with the lowest CINV-related costs, leading to the lowest total cost of care.

Conclusions: Adding NEPA to a payer or practice formulary results in a net decrease in the total budget due to a substantial reduction in CINV event-related resource utilization and medical costs, and an increase in pharmacy costs <1%, saving over $5,000 per patient.     

Economic evaluation of ezetimibe treatment in combination with statin therapy in the United States

Aims: This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of ezetimibe with statin therapy vs statin monotherapy from a US payer perspective, assuming the impending patent expiration of ezetimibe.

Methods: A Markov-like economic model consisting of 28 distinct health states was used. Model population data were obtained from US linked claims and electronic medical records, with inclusion criteria based on diagnostic guidelines. Inputs came from recent clinical trials, meta-analyses, and cost-effectiveness analyses. The base-case scenario was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of adding ezetimibe 10?mg to statin in patients aged 35–74 years with a history of coronary heart disease (CHD) and/or stroke, and with low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels ≥70?mg/dL over a lifetime horizon, assuming a 90% price reduction of ezetimibe after 1 year to take into account the impending patent expiration in the second quarter of 2017. Sub-group analyses included patients with LDL-C levels ≥100?mg/dL and patients with diabetes with LDL-C levels ≥70?mg/dL.

Results: The lifetime discounted incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for ezetimibe added to statin was $9,149 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) for the base-case scenario. For patients with LDL-C levels ≥100?mg/dL, the ICER was $839/QALY; for those with diabetes and LDL-C levels ≥70?mg/dL, it was $560/QALY. One-way sensitivity analyses showed that the model was sensitive to changes in cost of ezetimibe, rate reduction of non-fatal CHD, and utility weight for non-fatal CHD in the base-case and sub-group analyses.

Limitations: Indirect costs or treatment discontinuation estimation were not included.

Conclusions: Compared with statin monotherapy, ezetimibe with statin therapy was cost-effective for secondary prevention of CHD and stroke and for primary prevention of these conditions in patients whose LDL-C levels are ≥100?mg/dL and in patients with diabetes, taking into account a 90% cost reduction for ezetimibe.     

Budget impact analysis of niraparib and olaparib for maintenance treatment of platinum-sensitive,recurrent ovarian cancer in the US

Aims: This study aimed to evaluate the budget impact of niraparib and olaparib in patients with platinum-sensitive, recurrent ovarian cancer from a US third party payer perspective.

Materials and methods: A budget impact model was constructed to assess the additional per member per month (PMPM) costs associated with the introduction of niraparib and olaparib, two poly ADP-ribose polymerase ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors recently approved to be used in platinum-sensitive, recurrent ovarian cancer patients with and without a gBRCA mutation. The model assessed both pharmacy costs and medical costs. Pharmacy costs included adjusted drug costs, coinsurance, and dispensing fees. Medical costs included costs associated with disease monitoring and management of adverse events from the treatment. Epidemiological data from the literature were used to estimate the target population size. The analysis used 1-year time frame, and patients were assumed on treatment until disease progression or death. All costs were computed in 2017 USD. One-way sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate the model robustness.

Results: In a hypothetical plan of 1,000,000 members, 206 patients were estimated to be potential candidates for niraparib or olaparib maintenance treatment after applying all epidemiological parameters. At listed 30-day supply WAC prices of $14,750 for niraparib and $13,482 for olaparib, budget impacts of these two drugs were $0.169 PMPM and $0.156 PMPM, respectively, most of which were contributed by pharmacy costs. Sensitivity analyses suggested that assumptions around market share, platinum-sensitive rate after first treatment, and WAC prices affected results the most.

Limitations: In this model, it was assumed that adopting niraparib and olaparib would not affect utilization of existing medications. Also, the estimated clinical parameters from clinical trials could differ from real-world data.     

Budget impact of everolimus for the treatment of progressive,well-differentiated,non-functional neuroendocrine tumors of gastrointestinal or lung origin that are advanced or metastatic

Background: Advanced neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) are a rare malignancy with considerable need for effective therapies. Everolimus is a mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) in 2016 for treatment of adults with progressive, well-differentiated, non-functional NETs of gastrointestinal (GI) or lung origin that are unresectable, locally advanced, or metastatic.

Objective: To assess the 3-year budget impact for a typical US health plan following availability of everolimus for treatment of GI and lung NETs.

Methods An economic model was developed that considered two perspectives: an entire health plan and a pharmacy budget. The total budget impact included costs of drug therapies, administration, hospitalizations, physician visits, monitoring, and adverse events (AEs). The pharmacy model only considered drug costs.

Results: In a US health plan with 1 million members, the model estimated 66 patients with well-differentiated, non-functional, and advanced or metastatic GI NETs and 20 with lung NETs undergoing treatment each year. Total budget impact in the first through third year after FDA approval ranged from $0.0568–$0.1443 per member per month (PMPM) for GI NETs and from $0.0181–$0.0355 PMPM for lung NETs. The total budget impact was lower than the pharmacy budget impact because it included cost offsets from administration and AE management for everolimus compared with alternative therapies (e.g. chemotherapies).

Limitations: Because GI and lung NETs are rare diseases with limited published data, several assumptions were made that may influence interpretation of results.

Conclusions: The budget impact for everolimus was minimal in this rare disease area with a high unmet need, largely due to low disease prevalence. These results should be considered in the context of significant clinical benefits potentially provided by everolimus, including significantly longer progression-free survival (PFS) for advanced GI and lung NET patients.     

Budget impact model in moderate-to-severe psoriasis vulgaris assessing effects of calcipotriene and betamethasone dipropionate foam on per-patient standard of care costs

Aims: To develop a budget impact model (BIM) for estimating the financial impact of formulary adoption and uptake of calcipotriene and betamethasone dipropionate (C/BD) foam (0.005%/0.064%) on the costs of biologics for treating moderate-to-severe psoriasis vulgaris in a hypothetical US healthcare plan with 1 million members.

Methods: This BIM incorporated epidemiologic data, market uptake assumptions, and drug utilization costs, simulating the treatment mix for patients who are candidates for biologics before (Scenario #1) and after (Scenario #2) the introduction of C/BD foam. Predicted outcomes were expressed in terms of the annual cost of treatment (COT) and the COT per member per month (PMPM).

Results: At year 1, C/BD foam had the lowest per-patient cost ($9,913) necessary to achieve a Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI)-75 response compared with etanercept ($73,773), adalimumab ($92,871), infliximab ($34,048), ustekinumab ($83,975), secukinumab ($113,858), apremilast ($47,960), and ixekizumab ($62,707). Following addition of C/BD foam to the formulary, the annual COT for moderate-to-severe psoriasis would decrease by $36,112,572 (17.91%, from $201,621,219 to $165,508,647). The COT PMPM is expected to decrease by $3.00 (17.86%, from $16.80 to $13.80).

Limitations: Drug costs were based on Medi-Span reference pricing (January 21, 2016); differences in treatment costs for drug administration, laboratory monitoring, or adverse events were not accounted for. Potentially confounding were the definition of “moderate-to-severe” and the heterogeneous efficacy data. The per-patient cost for PASI-75 response at year 1 was estimated from short-term efficacy data for C/BD foam and apremilast only.

Conclusions: The introduction of C/BD foam is expected to decrease the annual COT for moderate-to-severe psoriasis treatable with biologics by $36,112,572 for a hypothetical US healthcare plan with 1 million plan members, and to lower the COT PMPM by $3.00.     

Clinical and economic evaluation of olanzapine-fluoxetine HCl combination in the treatment of bipolar depression: a managed care approach

Summary

This study was aimed to provide a clinical and economic assessmentfor health care organisations to make formulary decisions on Symbyax? (olanzapine-fluoxetine HCl combination). The combination drug was shown to be efficacious in treating bipolar depression. However, more compelling evidence is needed for the long-term effect, the effect in a more general population, its comparative advantage over other treatments, its adverse effects, and its efficacy and safety in sub-populations. Results of the budget impact analysis indicated that adding the drug to the formulary would increase medication cost per member per month (PMPM) from $1.150 to $1.172 in the base case scenario. One-way sensitivity analysis showed a rough band of a $0.21 decrease to a $0.26 increase in PMPM cost, by varying one factor at a time while holding all others at base-case levels. Further research is needed for the formulary decision of adding olanzapine-fluoxetine HCI combination drug.     

An economic evaluation of tofacitinib for the treatment of moderately-to-severely active ulcerative colitis: modeling the cost of treatment strategies in the United States

Abstract

Aims: To evaluate the cost differences between a treatment strategy including tofacitinib (TOFA) vs treatment strategies including adalimumab (ADA), golimumab (GOL), infliximab (IFX), and vedolizumab (VEDO) among all patients with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis (UC) (further stratified by patients naïve/exposed to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors [TNFis]).

Materials and methods: An Excel-based decision-analytic model was developed to evaluate costs from the perspective of a third-party US payer over 2 years. Efficacy and safety parameters were taken from prescribing information and published trials. All patients started induction therapy on the first treatment in the strategy and continued if efficacy criteria were met and no major adverse event occurred (in which cases they proceeded to the next treatment in the strategy).

Results: The cost per member per month (PMPM) of the TOFA–>IFX–>VEDO–>GOL strategy ($1.11) was lower than that of the ADA–>IFX–>VEDO–>GOL strategy ($1.34; Δ = $?0.23) among the TNFi-naïve population (n?=?204 patients out of a plan of one million members). Similarly, the use of TOFA before ADA (i.e. TOFA–>ADA–>IFX–> VEDO) was also associated with lower PMPM costs than the use of ADA before TOFA (i.e. ADA–>TOFA–>IFX–>VEDO): $1.15 vs $1.25 (Δ = $?0.10). Similar, and often larger, differences were observed in both the overall moderate-to-severe population and the TNFi-exposed population. Sensitivity analyses resulted in the same conclusions.

Limitations: Our model relied on efficacy data from prescribing information and published trials, which were not head-to-head and slightly differed with respect to methods. Additionally, our model used representative minor and major ADRs (and the associated costs) to represent toxicity management, which was a simplifying assumption.

Conclusions: This analysis, the first of its kind to evaluate TOFA vis-à-vis other advanced therapies in the US, suggests the early use of TOFA among both TNFi-naïve and TNFi-failure patients results in lower PMPM costs compared with other treatment alternatives.     

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

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

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

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

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

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

The effect of major adverse renal cardiovascular event (MARCE) incidence,procedure volume,and unit cost on the hospital savings resulting from contrast media use in inpatient angioplasty

Objective: To determine the net economic impact of switching from low-osmolar contrast media (LOCM) to iso-osmolar contrast media (IOCM; iodixanol) in patients undergoing inpatient coronary or peripheral angioplasty in the United States (US).

Methods: A budget impact model (BIM) was developed from a hospital perspective. Nationally representative procedural and contrast media prevalence rates, along with MARCE (major adverse renal cardiovascular event) incidence and episode-related cost data were derived from Premier Hospital Data (October 2014 to September 2015). A previously estimated relative risk reduction in MARCE associated with IOCM usage (9.3%) was applied. The higher cost of IOCM was included when calculating the net impact estimates at the aggregate, hospital type, and per hospital levels. One-way (±25%) and probabilistic sensitivity analyses identified the model’s most important inputs.

Results: Based on weighted analysis, 513,882?US inpatient angioplasties and 35,610 MARCE cases were estimated annually. Switching to an “IOCM only” strategy from a “LOCM only” strategy increases contrast media cost, but prevents 2,900 MARCE events. The annual budget impact was an estimated saving of $30.71 million, aggregated across all US hospitals, $6,316 per hospital, or $60 per procedure. Net savings were maintained across all univariate sensitivity analyses. While MARCE/event-free cost differential was the most important factor driving total net savings for hospitals in the Northeast and West, procedural volume was important in the Midwest and rural locations.

Conclusions: Switching to an “IOCM only” strategy from a “LOCM only” approach yields substantial net global savings to hospitals, both at the national level and within hospital sub-groups. Hospital administrators should maintain awareness of the factors that are likely to be more influential for their hospital and recognize that purchasing on the basis of lower contrast media cost may result in higher overall costs for patients undergoing inpatient angioplasty.     

Budget impact of pasireotide for the treatment of Cushing’s disease,a rare endocrine disorder associated with considerable comorbidities

Objectives:

Cushing’s disease (CD) is a rare condition with a prevalence of roughly 39 cases per million in the general population. Healthcare costs are substantial for CD patients with either untreated or inadequately controlled disease. This study assesses the 3-year budget impact of pasireotide on a US managed care health plan following pasireotide (Signifor) availability.

Methods:

Two scenarios were evaluated to understand the differences in costs associated with the introduction of pasireotide. The first scenario evaluates the budget impact of pasireotide from the perspective of an entire health plan (total budget impact) and the second from the perspective of the pharmacy budget (pharmacy budget impact). Both scenarios evaluate the annual incremental budget impact with and without pasireotide. Scenario 1 includes costs for medical procedures, drug therapies, monitoring, surgical complications, comorbidities for patients with controlled or uncontrolled CD, and adverse events. Procedures include transsphenoidal surgery, bilateral adrenalectomy, radiotherapy and radiosurgery. Drugs include pasireotide (indicated for CD), mifepristone (indicated to control hyperglycemia secondary to hypercortisolism in patients with Cushing’s syndrome) as well as several off-label treatments (ketoconazole, cabergoline, mitotane). Scenario 2 considers costs solely from the perspective of a health plan pharmacy. Costs are in $2013.

Results:

The estimated total budget impact is $0.0115 per-member per-month (PMPM) in the first year following FDA approval, $0.0184 in the second year, and $0.0194 in the third year. Introduction of pasireotide is expected to increase the pharmacy budget by $0.0257 PMPM in the first year, $0.0363 in the second year, and $0.0360 in the third year.

Limitations:

Model inputs rely on the small body of literature available for Cushing’s disease.

Conclusions:

Cushing’s disease is severe disease with debilitating comorbidities and substantial healthcare costs when untreated or inadequately controlled. The inclusion of pasireotide in a health plan formulary appears to have only a small impact on the total health plan or pharmacy budget.     

Budget impact analysis of adjunctive therapy with lacosamide for partial-onset epileptic seizures in Belgium

Summary

Objective:

This study aims to compute the budget impact of lacosamide, a new adjunctive therapy for partial-onset seizures in epilepsy patients from 16 years of age who are uncontrolled and having previously used at least three anti-epileptic drugs from a Belgian healthcare payer perspective.

Methods:

The budget impact analysis compared the ‘world with lacosamide’ to the ‘world without lacosamide’ and calculated how a change in the mix of anti-epileptic drugs used to treat uncontrolled epilepsy would impact drug spending from 2008 to 2013. Data on the number of patients and on the market shares of anti-epileptic drugs were taken from Belgian sources and from the literature. Unit costs of anti-epileptic drugs originated from Belgian sources. The budget impact was calculated from two scenarios about the market uptake of lacosamide.

Results:

The Belgian target population is expected to increase from 5333 patients in 2008 to 5522 patients in 2013. Assuming that the market share of lacosamide increases linearly over time and is taken evenly from all other anti-epileptic drugs (AEDs), the budget impact of adopting adjunctive therapy with lacosamide increases from €5249 (0.1% of reference drug budget) in 2008 to €242,700 (4.7% of reference drug budget) in 2013. Assuming that 10% of patients use standard AED therapy plus lacosamide, the budget impact of adopting adjunctive therapy with lacosamide is around €800,000–900,000 per year (or 16.7% of the reference drug budget).

Conclusions:

Adjunctive therapy with lacosamide would raise drug spending for this patient population by as much as 16.7% per year. However, this budget impact analysis did not consider the fact that lacosamide reduces costs of seizure management and withdrawal. The literature suggests that, if savings in other healthcare costs are taken into account, adjunctive therapy with lacosamide may be cost saving.