Cost-effectiveness of blinatumomab versus salvage chemotherapy in relapsed or refractory Philadelphia-chromosome-negative B-precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia from a US payer perspective

Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of blinatumomab (Blincyto) vs standard of care (SOC) chemotherapy in adults with relapsed or refractory (R/R) Philadelphia-chromosome-negative (Ph?) B-precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) based on the results of the phase 3 TOWER study from a US healthcare payer perspective.

Methods: The Blincyto Global Economic Model (B-GEM), a partitioned survival model, was used to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of blinatumomab vs SOC. Response rates, event-free survival (EFS), overall survival (OS), numbers of cycles of blinatumomab and SOC, and transplant rates were estimated from TOWER. EFS and OS were estimated by fitting parametric survival distributions to failure-time data from TOWER. Utility values were based on EORTC-8D derived from EORTC QLQ-C30 assessments in TOWER. A 50-year lifetime horizon and US payer perspective were employed. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3% per year.

Results: The B-GEM projected blinatumomab to yield 1.92 additional life years and 1.64 additional quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) compared with SOC at an incremental cost of $180,642. The ICER for blinatumomab vs SOC was estimated to be $110,108/QALY gained in the base case. Cost-effectiveness was sensitive to the number and cost of inpatient days for administration of blinatumomab and SOC, and was more favorable in the sub-group of patients who had received no prior salvage therapy. At an ICER threshold of $150,000/QALY gained, the probability that blinatumomab is cost-effective was estimated to be 74%.

Limitations: The study does not explicitly consider the impact of adverse events of the treatment; no adjustments for long-term transplant rates were made.

Conclusions: Compared with SOC, blinatumomab is a cost-effective treatment option for adults with R/R Ph???B-precursor ALL from the US healthcare perspective at an ICER threshold of $150,000 per QALY gained. The value of blinatumomab is derived from its incremental survival and health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) benefit over SOC.     

Healthcare burden and reimbursement of hospitalization during chemotherapy for adults with Ph-negative relapsed or refractory B-cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia in France: a retrospective chart review

Objective: Philadelphia chromosome negative [Ph(?)] relapsed or refractory (R/R) B-precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) is an extremely rare condition requiring intensive treatment. This retrospective chart review aimed to quantify hospitalizations and reimbursement in this patient population in France.

Methods: Patients aged ≥18 years and with at least one hospitalization for Ph(?) R/R B-precursor ALL were included in the study. They were relapsed with first remission lasting <12 months, relapsed after first salvage therapy, relapsed any time after hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT), or were refractory to initial or salvage therapy. Data were collected from the index date (first diagnosis of R/R ALL) until death or loss to follow-up. The chemotherapy period was defined as the first chemotherapy date after the index date to the earliest of death, loss to follow-up, last chemotherapy dose plus 30 days, or initiation of HSCT. The primary outcome was the percentage of time hospitalized during the chemotherapy period.

Results: Thirty-three patients were included, with a mean age of 49 years. The mean proportion of time spent in the hospital during the chemotherapy period was 46% (95% CI =34–57%). Patients had a mean of 2.2 (SD =1.5) inpatient hospitalizations and the mean length of stay per hospitalization was 16.8 (SD =14.8) days. During the chemotherapy period, the mean amount reimbursed per hospitalization was €31 067 (SD = €4850) and the total hospitalization reimbursement per patient was €68 344. From the index date to death, excluding HSCT, the total reimbursement per patient was €108 873.

Limitations: The sample size was small, although this was expected given the rarity of the patient population.

Conclusions: Adults with Ph(?) R/R B-precursor ALL had repeated and prolonged hospitalizations during salvage chemotherapy. Approximately half the follow-up period was spent in the hospital, and this time was associated with high economic burden in France.     

Cost-effectiveness analysis of treatment regimens with obinutuzumab plus chemotherapy in Japan for untreated follicular lymphoma patients

Abstract

Aims

Obinutuzumab (GA101; G) is a new treatment for follicular lymphoma (FL) that is anticipated to have greater efficacy than the current treatment, rituximab (R). The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of G plus chemotherapy (G?+?Chemo) against that of R plus chemotherapy (R?+?Chemo) for patients in Japan with previously untreated FL.     

Economic evaluation of human urinary kallindinogenase for patients with acute ischemic stroke in China

Objectives: In China, both human urinary kallindinogenase (HUK) and 3-n-butylphthalide (NBP) are recommended for clinical use to improve cerebral blood circulation during an acute ischemic stroke (AIS). The objective was to evaluate the economic value of HUK vs NBP for patients with AIS from a Chinese payer’s perspective.

Methods: An economic evaluation based on data of patients who have been treated with either HUK (n?=?488) or NBP (n?=?885) from a prospective, phase IV, multi-center, clinical registry study (Chinese Acute Ischemic Stroke Treatment Outcome Registry, CASTOR) was conducted to analyze the cost and effectiveness of HUK vs NBP for AIS in China. Before the analysis, the patients were matched using propensity score. Both a cost-minimization analysis and a cost-effectiveness analysis were conducted to compare the matched pairs. A bootstrapping exercise was conducted for the matched arms to demonstrate the probability of one intervention being cost-effective over another for a given willingness-to-pay for an extra quality-adjusted life-year (QALY).

Results: After propensity score matching, 463 pairs were matched. The overall medical cost in the HUK arm is USD 2,701.20, while the NBP arm is USD 3,436.83, indicating HUK is preferred with cost-minimization analysis. Although the QALY gained in the HUK arm (0.77176) compared with the NBP arm (0.76831) is statistically insignificant (p?=?.4862), the cost-effectiveness analysis as exploratory analysis found that, compared with NBP, HUK is a cost-saving strategy with the lower costs of USD 735.63 and greater QALYs gained of 0.00345. Among the 5,000 bootstrapping replications, 100% indicates that HUK is cost-effective compared with NBP under a 1-time-GDP threshold; and 97.12% indicates the same under a 3-time-GDP threshold.

Conclusion: This economic evaluation study indicates that administrating HUK is a cost-saving therapy compared with NBP for managing blood flow during AIS in the Chinese setting.     

Economic evaluation of the use of enoxaparin for thromboprophylaxis in acutely ill medical patients

SUMMARY

The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism (VTE) in acutely ill medical patients using 40 mg enoxaparin od compared with unfractionated heparin (UFH) and placebo. An established decision tree model based on epidemiological data, clinical trials, and a recent meta-analysis was used to evaluate costs and consequences of alternative means of thromboprophylaxis in medical patients. Primary outcome measures were episodes of VTE (deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism) and major bleeding. Secondary effectiveness measures included estimated mortality. In-hospital drug costs and administration time, in conjunction with long-term VTE complications up to 15 years and major bleeding, were considered. Results were estimated for a hypothetical cohort of 100 patients. The expected cost per 100 patients was £9,992 with enoxaparin 40 mg od, £9,972 with UFH 5000 IU bd and £8,781 with no prophylaxis. The expected number of episodes of VTE per 100 patients was 1.2 with enoxaparin 40 mg od, 1.4 with UFH 5000 IU bd and 3.2 with no prophylaxis. The expected number of episodes of major bleeding per 100 patients was 1.7 with enoxaparin 40 mg od, 3.5 with UFH 5000 IU bd and 1.1 with no prophylaxis. The cost-effectiveness ratios for enoxaparin compared to no prophylaxis were £796 per VTE event avoided (taking into account the small increase in bleeding). In acutely ill medical patients, enoxaparin 40 mg od was found to be cost-effective compared with no thromboprophylaxis. Compared to UFH prophylaxis, enoxaparin was found to be cost neutral.     

Economic evaluation of extended and conventional prophylaxis with enoxaparin against venous thromboembolism in patients undergoing surgery for abdominal cancer

Summary

This study assesses the cost-effectiveness of extended enoxaparin prophylaxis (EEP) and conventional enoxaparin prophylaxis (CEP) compared with conventional unfractionated heparin prophylaxis (CUP) against venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients undergoing surgery for abdominal cancer.

A decision tree model compared CEP (enoxaparin 40 mg once daily for 8±2 days), EEP (CEP plus 21 days outpatient prophylaxis with enoxaparin 40 mg once daily), and CUP (unfractionated heparin (UFH) 5,000 IU three times daily for 8±2 days). The primary effectiveness measure was symptomatic VTE. Secondary effectiveness measures included life-years gained.

CEP was associated with reduced costs and similar rates of symptomatic VTE compared with UFH. The cost per life year gained with EEP was estimated to be £15,200 compared with UFH and £22,700 compared with CEP.

Extended prophylaxis reduces symptomatic VTE events but increases cost. In patients undergoing surgery for abdominal malignancy, conventional prophylaxis with enoxaparin 40 mg once daily was found to be at least as effective as UFH, and cost saving at current prices.     

Economic benefits of adequate molecular monitoring in patients with chronic myelogenous leukemia

Objective:

Molecular monitoring of chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) has been associated with improved clinical outcomes during tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy (TKI), yet recent studies have demonstrated its use is far below published guidelines. This study sought to determine frequencies of molecular monitoring and its impact on resource utilization and medical costs.

Methods:

A retrospective US claims administrative database (IMS LifeLink Health Plan Claims and Truven Health Analytics MarketScan databases, 11/2007–06/2012) was used to analyze the economic impact of qPCR testing in CML patients on first-line TKIs during the initial 12-months of treatment.

Results:

One thousand two hundred and five adult CML patients met the sample selection criteria. Among these, 41.0% had no qPCR tests, 31.9% had 1–2 tests, and 27.1% had 3–4 tests; 88.9% were initiated on imatinib; 47.7% were female. Patients in the 3–4 tests cohort incurred 44% (p?p?=?0.005) lower for the 3–4 tests cohort than the 0-tests cohort. Adjusted progression-related IP cost was $4132 (p?=?0.013) lower for the 3–4 tests cohort than the 0-tests cohort. Adjusted medical service cost was $5997 (p?=?0.049) lower for the 3–4 tests cohort than the 0-tests cohort.

Limitations:

Claims databases did not include information on the primary cause of hospitalizations.

Conclusions:

Among CML patients in two large claims databases, nearly three-quarters did not receive adequate molecular monitoring per published guidelines. Those who were more frequently monitored incurred lower medical service costs, with the majority of the difference in costs being related to disease progression. These findings underscore the clinical and economic values of molecular monitoring in CML.     

Economic evaluation of olmesartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination for hypertension treatment in China

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of olmesartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination vs olmesartan and amlodipine free combination, amlodipine single drug, and valsartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination in the treatment of hypertensive patients from payer perspective in China.

Methods: A Markov model was constructed, which included five health states of hypertensive patients who are aged 35–84?years at baseline and free of cardiovascular disease. Clinical data were obtained from a network meta-analysis. Epidemiology data, adverse events (AEs), cost, and utility data were obtained from the literature. The cost associated with AEs was estimated based on the cost of same symptoms of hypertensive patients in an electric medical record database. The model projected quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained, total costs per patient in a 20-year time horizon, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Probability sensitivity analyses (PSA) and one-way sensitivity analyses were conducted for the main parameters to test the robustness of the model.

Results: Compared to olmesartan and amlodipine free combination, amlodipine, and valsartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination, treatment with olmesartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination led to fewer CVD events and deaths; resulted in an incremental cost of ¥?5,439 ($?791.36), ¥6,530 ($950.09), and ¥?1,019 ($?148.26) and gained additional QALYs of 0.052, 0.094, and 0.037 per patient, respectively. Compared with olmesartan and amlodipine free combination and valsartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination, olmesartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination was dominant. Compared with amlodipine alone, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were below the WHO recommended cost-effectiveness threshold, indicating the olmesartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination was a cost-effective option for hypertensive patients in China. The 10-years’ time horizon scenario analysis showed similar results to the 20-years’ time horizon. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis and one-way sensitivity analyses showed the robustness of the model results.

Conclusions: Olmesartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination confers better health outcomes and costs less compared with olmesartan and amlodipine free combination and valsartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination, and is cost-effective compared to amlodipine for hypertension treatment in China.     

Cost of care for new versus recurrent acute coronary syndrome patients

Abstract

Introduction: The economic burden of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) continues long after the acute event has resolved. This study compared ACS-related costs between new and recurrent ACS patients using retrospective claims data from a large US health plan.

Methods: Patients with ACS were identified using ICD-9 codes between the 1st January 2001 and the 30th June 2003. The first diagnosis was defined as the index event. Patient claims were examined 1 year before, and up to 1 year after, the index event. Hospitalisations, revascularisations and costs for new and recurrent cohorts were compared. Multivariate regression was used to examine cost predictors.

Results: In total, 15,508 patients were identified, 82% had new ACS. The new ACS cohort was more likely to have myocardial infarction and be hospitalised for the index event, leading to higher index event costs. However, the recurrent ACS cohort had more re-hospitalisations, longer lengths of inpatient stay and a higher probability of revascularisation during follow-up. The index event cost per patient and per patient-month was higher for new ACS patients. After adjusting for confounding factors, multivariate cost models revealed annualised follow-up medical costs were 9.9% higher (p=0.017) and annualised follow-up pharmacy costs were 8.3% higher (p≤0.0001) for the new ACS cohort.

Conclusion: Newly diagnosed ACS patients had significantly higher adjusted costs in the year following the index event, but recurrent ACS patients still experienced high medical costs. More emphasis by providers and patients on adherence to treatment guidelines may be one step to improving patient outcomes.

*This paper was presented in part at the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy Annual Meeting, 7th April 2006.     

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.     

Cost-effectiveness analysis of rasburicase over standard of care for the prevention and treatment of tumor lysis syndrome in children with hematologic malignancies in China

Aims: To conduct a lifetime cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of rasburicase compared with standard of care (SOC) for tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) in children with hematologic malignancies from the Chinese healthcare system perspective.

Materials and methods: The CEA was performed using a decision tree model with a lifetime horizon. The model explores the cost-effectiveness of rasburicase vs SOC for both preventing TLS and treating established TLS among pediatric patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML), acute lymphoid leukemia (ALL), and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL). Both the prophylaxis-use model and treatment-use model incorporate long-term health states of the diseases: survival without TLS and death. The efficacy data of rasburicase and SOC were obtained from published literature. Drug costs, healthcare resource utilization (HRU), and adverse event (AE) management costs were obtained via a published study with clinical experts. Costs in US dollar and quality-adjusted life year (QALY) are reported, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were also calculated. Uncertainties due to parameter fluctuations in the model were assessed through one-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA).

Results: During TLS prevention, compared with SOC, the ICER of rasburicase treatment in China are $17,580.04/QALY, $5,783.45/QALY, and $5,391.00/QALY for pediatric patients with AML, ALL, and NHL, respectively. For the established TLS treatment, compared with SOC, the ICERs of rasburicase treatment are $2,031.18/QALY, $1,142.93/QALY, and $990.37/QALY for pediatric patients with AML, ALL, and NHL, respectively.

Limitations: The clinical data for SOC are based on the published study in China, and the rasburicase prevention or treatment failure rate was either calculated based on the risk ratio or directly from the clinical study among non-Chinese pediatric patients. Another study limitation was the lack of utility data for pediatric patients with TLS and without TLS. Thus, the utility scores of pediatric cancer survivors were used as an alternative.

Conclusion: Rasburicase is estimated to be a cost-effective alternative to SOC in the prevention and treatment of TLS among Chinese pediatric patients with AML, ALL, and NHL.     

Economic modeling to evaluate the impact of chronic myeloid leukemia therapy management on the oncology care model in the US

Abstract

Objective: To develop an economic model to evaluate changes in healthcare costs driven by restricting usage of branded tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) through substitution with generic imatinib among chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) patients in a typical Oncology Care Model (OCM) practice, and examine the impact on Performance-Based Payment (PBP) eligibility.

Methods: An Excel-based economic model of an OCM practice with 1,000 cancer patients during a 6-month episode of care was developed. Cancer types and proportions of patients treated in the practice were estimated from an OCM report. All-cause healthcare costs were obtained from published literature. It was assumed that if a practice restricts usage of branded TKIs for newly-diagnosed CML patients, 80% of the market share of branded imatinib and 50% of the market shares of 2^nd-gen TKIs would shift to generic imatinib. Among established TKI-treated patients, it was assumed that 80% of the market share of branded imatinib and no patients treated with 2^nd-gen TKIs would shift to the generic.

Results: Four CML patients were estimated for a 1,000-cancer patient OCM practice with a total baseline healthcare cost of $51,345,812 during a 6-month episode. If the practice restricts usage of branded TKIs, the shift from 2^nd-gen TKIs to generic imatinib would reduce costs by $12,970, while shifting from branded to generic imatinib lowers costs by $25,250 during a 6-month episode. Minimum reductions of $3,013,832 in a one-sided risk model and $2,372,010 in a two-sided risk model are required for PBP eligibility; the shift from 2^nd-gen TKIs to generic imatinib would account for 0.4% and 0.5% of the savings required for a PBP, respectively.

Conclusions: This analysis indicates that the potential cost reduction associated with restricting branded TKI usage among CML patients in an OCM setting will represent only a small proportion of the cost reduction needed for PBP eligibility.     

L-carnitine in the management of patients after acute myocardial infarction: a cost effectiveness analysis in Italy

Summary

The prevalence of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is estimated at 500,000 individuals in the Italian population; the annual incidence can be crudely estimated at 100,000 events. This represents a major healthcare problem and generates questions about the rational allocation of public resources devoted to healthcare, since in Italy there is a National Health Service. We focused on modelling the possible economic consequences of adding L-carnitine administration to the standard care of AMI patients in Italy, by extrapolating the results obtained in the SAVE trial and matching entry criteria from the CEDIM and SAVE studies. The cost-effectiveness ratios were explored using different assumptions of the effectiveness and cost of the intervention under analysis. In our base case, administering L-carnitine had an Incremental Cost/Effectiveness Ratio of 28.2 and 22.2 million Lira per life year saved (LYS), respectively, depending on whether discounted or non-discounted benefits were used in this model. The results were sensitive to both the cost and effectiveness of L-carnitine.     

Cost-effectiveness of axicabtagene ciloleucel for adult patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma in the United States

Abstract

Purpose: Axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) was recently approved for treatment of relapsed or refractory (R/R) large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) following two or more prior therapies. As the first CAR T-cell therapy available for adults in the US, there are important questions about clinical and economic value. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of axi-cel compared to salvage chemotherapy using a decision model and a US payer perspective.

Materials and methods: A decision model was developed to estimate life years (LYs), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and lifetime cost for adult patients with R/R LBCL treated with axi-cel vs salvage chemotherapy (R-DHAP). Patient-level analyses of the ZUMA-1 and SCHOLAR-1 studies were used to inform the model and to estimate the proportion achieving long-term survival. Drug and procedure costs were derived from US average sales prices and Medicare reimbursement schedules. Future healthcare costs in long-term remission was derived from per capita Medicare spending. Utility values were derived from patient-level data from ZUMA-1 and external literature. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses evaluated uncertainty. Outcomes were calculated over a lifetime horizon and were discounted at 3% per year.

Results: In the base case, LYs, QALYs, and lifetime costs were 9.5, 7.7, and $552,921 for axi-cel vs 2.6, 1.1, and $172,737 for salvage chemotherapy, respectively. The axi-cel cost per QALY gained was $58,146. Cost-effectiveness was most sensitive to the fraction achieving long-term remission, discount rate, and axi-cel price. The likelihood that axi-cel is cost-effective was 95% at a willingness to pay of $100,000 per QALY.

Conclusion: Axi-cel is a potentially cost-effective alternative to salvage chemotherapy for adults with R/R LBCL. Long-term follow-up is necessary to reduce uncertainties about health outcomes.     

Economic evaluation of linaclotide for the treatment of adult patients with irritable bowel syndrome with constipation in the United States

Abstract

Objectives:

To use techniques of decision-analytic modeling to evaluate the effectiveness and costs of linaclotide vs lubiprostone in the treatment of adult patients with irritable bowel syndrome with constipation (IBS-C).

Methods:

Using model inputs derived from published literature, linaclotide Phase III trial data and a physician survey, a decision-tree model was constructed. Response to therapy was defined as (1) a ≥14-point increase from baseline in IBS-Quality-of-Life (IBS-QoL) questionnaire overall score at week 12 or (2) one of the top two responses (moderately/significantly relieved) on a 7-point IBS symptom relief question in ≥2 of 3 months. Patients who do not respond to therapy are assumed to fail therapy and accrue costs associated with a treatment failure. Model time horizon is aligned with clinical trial duration of 12 weeks. Model outputs include number of responders, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and total costs (including direct and indirect). Both one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted.

Results:

Treatment for IBS-C with linaclotide produced more responders than lubiprostone for both response definitions (19.3% vs 13.0% and 61.8% vs 57.2% for IBS-QoL and symptom relief, respectively), lower per-patient costs ($803 vs $911 and $977 vs $1056), and higher QALYs (0.1921 vs 0.1917 and 0.1909 vs 0.1894) over the 12-week time horizon. Results were similar for most one-way sensitivity analyses. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, the majority of simulations resulted in linaclotide having higher treatment response rates and lower per-patient costs.

Limitations:

There are no available head-to-head trials that compare linaclotide with lubiprostone; therefore, placebo-adjusted estimates of relative efficacy were derived for model inputs. The time horizon for this model is relatively short, as it was limited to the duration of available clinical trial data.

Conclusions:

Linaclotide was found to be a less costly option vs lubiprostone for the treatment of adult patients with IBS-C.     

The cost-effectiveness of levodopa/carbidopa intestinal gel compared to standard care in advanced Parkinson’s disease

Background: Parkinson’s disease (PD) is an incurable, progressive neurological condition, with symptoms impacting movement, walking, and posture that eventually become severely disabling. Advanced PD (aPD) has a significant impact on quality-of-life (QoL) for patients and their caregivers/families. Levodopa/carbidopa intestinal gel (LCIG) is indicated for the treatment of advanced levodopa-responsive PD with severe motor fluctuations and hyper-/dyskinesia when available combinations of therapy have not given satisfactory results.

Aims: To determine the cost-effectiveness of LCIG vs standard of care (SoC) for the treatment of aPD patients.

Methods: A Markov model was used to evaluate LCIG vs SoC in a hypothetical cohort of 100 aPD patients with severe motor fluctuations from an Irish healthcare perspective. Model health states were defined by Hoehn &; Yahr (H&;Y) scale—combined with amount of time in OFF-time—and death. SoC comprised of standard oral therapy?±?subcutaneous apomorphine infusion and standard follow-up visits. Clinical efficacy, utilities, and transition probabilities were derived from published studies. Resource use was estimated from individual patient-level data from Adelphi 2012 UK dataset, using Irish costs, where possible. Time horizon was 20 years. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 4%. Both one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted.

Results: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for LCIG vs SOC was €26,944/quality adjusted life year (QALY) (total costs and QALYs for LCIG vs SoC: €537,687 vs €514,037 and 4.37 vs 3.49, respectively). LCIG is cost-effective at a payer threshold of €45,000. The model was most sensitive to health state costs.

Conclusion: LCIG is a cost-effective treatment option compared with SoC in patients with aPD.     

Cost-effectiveness of targeted screening for the identification of patients with atrial fibrillation: evaluation of a machine learning risk prediction algorithm

Abstract

Aims: As many cases of atrial fibrillation (AF) are asymptomatic, patients often remain undiagnosed until complications (e.g. stroke) manifest. Risk-prediction algorithms may help to efficiently identify people with undiagnosed AF. However, the cost-effectiveness of targeted screening remains uncertain. This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of targeted screening, informed by a machine learning (ML) risk prediction algorithm, to identify patients with AF.

Methods: Cost-effectiveness analyses were undertaken utilizing a hybrid screening decision tree and Markov disease progression model. Costs and outcomes associated with the detection of AF compared traditional systematic and opportunistic AF screening strategies to targeted screening informed by a ML risk prediction algorithm. Model analyses were based on adults ≥50?years and adopted the UK NHS perspective.

Results: Targeted screening using the ML risk prediction algorithm required fewer patients to be screened (61 per 1,000 patients, compared to 534 and 687 patients in the systematic and opportunistic strategies) and detected more AF cases (11 per 1,000 patients, compared to 6 and 8?AF cases in the systematic and opportunistic screening strategies). The targeted approach demonstrated cost-effectiveness under base case settings (cost per QALY gained of £4,847 and £5,544 against systematic and opportunistic screening respectively). The targeted screening strategy was predicted to provide an additional 3.40 and 2.05 QALYs per 1,000 patients screened versus systematic and opportunistic strategies. The targeted screening strategy remained cost-effective in all scenarios evaluated.

Limitations: The analysis relied on assumptions that include the extended period of patient life span and the lack of consideration for treatment discontinuations/switching, as well as the assumption that the ML risk-prediction algorithm will identify asymptomatic AF.

Conclusions: Targeted screening using a ML risk prediction algorithm has the potential to enhance the clinical and cost-effectiveness of AF screening, improving health outcomes through efficient use of limited healthcare resources.     

Economic evaluation for the US of nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine versus FOLFIRINOX versus gemcitabine in the treatment of metastatic pancreas cancer

Background: Nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine (NAB-P?+?GEM) and FOLFIRINOX have shown superior efficacy over gemcitabine (GEM) in the treatment of metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDA). Although the incremental clinical benefits are modest, both treatments represent significant advances in the treatment of a high-mortality cancer. In this independent economic evaluation for the US, the aim was to estimate the comparative cost-utility and cost-effectiveness of these three regimens from the payer perspective.

Methods: In the absence of a direct treatment comparison in a single clinical trial, the Bucher indirect comparison method was used to estimate the comparative efficacy of each regimen. A Markov model evaluated life years (LY) and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained with NAB-P?+?GEM and FOLFIRINOX over GEM, expressed as incremental cost-effectiveness (ICER) and cost-utility ratios (ICUR). All costs and outcomes were discounted at 3%/year. The impact of parameter uncertainty on the model was assessed by probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

Results: NAB-P?+?GEM was associated with differentials of +0.180 LY and +0.127 QALY gained over GEM at an incremental total cost of $25,965; yielding an ICER of $144,096/LY and ICUR of $204,369/QALY gained. FOLFIRINOX was associated with differentials of +0.368 LY and +0.249 QALY gained over GEM at an incremental total cost of $93,045; yielding an ICER of $253,162/LY and ICUR of $372,813/QALY gained. In indirect comparison, the overall survival hazard ratio (OS HR) for NAB-P?+?GEM vs FOLFIRINOX was 0.79 (95%CI?=?0.59–1.05), indicating no superiority in OS of either regimen. FOLFIRINOX had an ICER of $358,067/LY and an ICUR of $547,480/QALY gained over NAB-P?+?GEM. Tornado diagrams identified variation in the OS HR, but no other parameters, to impact the NAB-P?+?GEM and FOLFIRINOX ICURs.

Conclusions: In the absence of a statistically significant difference in OS between NAB-P?+?GEM and FOLFIRINOX, this US analysis indicates that the greater economic benefit in terms of cost-savings and incremental cost-effectiveness and cost-utility ratios favors NAB-P?+?GEM over FOLFIRINOX.     

Treatment patterns,healthcare resource utilization,and costs in patients with acute myeloid leukemia in commercially insured and Medicare populations

Objective: To describe the setting, duration, and costs of induction and consolidation chemotherapy for adults with newly-diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia (AML), who are candidates for standard induction chemotherapy, in the US.

Methods: Adults newly-diagnosed with AML who received standard induction chemotherapy in an inpatient setting were identified from the Truven Health Analytics MarketScan (2006–2015) and SEER-Medicare (2007–2011) databases. Patients were observed from induction therapy start to the first of hematopoietic stem cell transplant, 180 days after induction discharge, health plan enrollment/data availability end, or death. Induction and consolidation chemotherapy were identified using Diagnosis-Related Group codes (chemotherapy with acute leukemia) or procedure codes for AML chemotherapy administration. AML treatment episode setting (inpatient or outpatient), duration, and costs (2015 USD, payers’ perspective) were described for commercially insured patients and Medicare beneficiaries.

Results: In total, 459 commercially insured patients and 563 Medicare beneficiaries (mean age?=?54 and 66 years; 53% and 54% male; respectively) were identified. For induction therapy, mean costs were $145,189 for commercially insured patients and $85,734 for Medicare beneficiaries, and median inpatient duration was 31 days (both). Following induction, 64% of commercially insured patients and 53% of Medicare beneficiaries had ≥1 consolidation cycle; 75% and 65% of consolidation cycles were in an inpatient setting, respectively. For consolidation cycles, in the inpatient setting, mean costs were $28,137 for commercially insured patients and $28,843 for Medicare beneficiaries, median cycle duration was 6 days (both); in the outpatient setting, mean costs were $11,271 for commercially insured patients and $5,803 Medicare beneficiaries, median duration was 5 days (both).

Limitations: Granular information on chemotherapy type administered was unavailable.

Conclusions: This is the first exploratory study providing a complete picture of recent AML treatment patterns and management costs among commercially insured patients and Medicare beneficiaries. There is substantial heterogeneity in the management and costs of AML.