A cost-effectiveness analysis of MMX mesalazine compared with mesalazine in the treatment of mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis from a UK perspective

Abstract

Objectives: To perform a cost-utility analysis of a new formulation of mesalazine (Mezavant XL, MMX mesalazine) versus an existing oral mesalazine (Asacol; mesalazine) from the UK National Health Service perspective.

Methods: A 5-year Markov cohort model was developed. Costs were obtained from the literature and utilities from an independent study. Uncertainty was evaluated using one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA). The potential effect of dosing frequency on adherence and possible long-term effects of remission maintenance on colorectal cancer (CRC) rates were also investigated.

Results: The model suggested that 5-year therapy with MMX mesalazine was likely to generate gains when compared with mesalazine, including a gain of 0.011 QALYs per patient, 19 more remission days, and 12% fewer hospitalizations and surgical episodes. These gains came at an increase in total NHS direct cost of £8, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £749. The PSA suggested that MMX mesalazine had a 62% chance of resulting in cost savings, and a 74% chance of being cost effective (£20,000 threshold). Extended analysis including adherence and CRC effects suggested further incremental benefit of MMX mesalazine over mesalazine could be expected. Limitations include uncertainty in extrapolation to a 5-year time horizon and impact of adherence and drug acquisition costs on outcomes.

Conclusion: The pharmacoeconomic analysis suggested that MMX mesalazine is likely to produce small, but worthwhile, increases in total NHS direct cost while increasing time in remission and associated quality of life, when compared with mesalazine. Advantages in adherence to treatment with MMX mesalazine relative to mesalazine suggested that further health gains and cost savings can be obtained. Overall, these results suggest that MMX mesalazine is a cost-effective treatment for UC.     

A budget impact analysis of budesonide/formoterol in patients with mild asthma in Egypt

Abstract

Background: The aim of this study is to estimate the budget impact of budesonide/formoterol fixed dose combination (FDC) vs salbutamol, both used as needed, in mild asthma patients, from the perspective of the Health Insurance Organization (HIO).

Methods: A static budget impact model was developed to assess the impact of budesonide/formoterol FDC entry on HIO budget over a 3-year period in Egyptian settings. Direct medical costs, including the costs of asthma medications, exacerbations, and management of side-effects, were obtained from HIO cost data. Population data were obtained from the World Bank and supplemented with local studies, and the rates of exacerbations, adverse effects, and number of sick leave days were elicited from the SYGMA 1 trial. Scenario analyses from a societal perspective and deterministic sensitivity analyses were conducted.

Results: The total costs (drug and non-drug costs) for managing mild asthma patients from the HIO perspective were estimated to be EGP8.563 billion before budesonide/formoterol entry compared to EGP5.525 billion post-entry, leading to a total budget savings of EGP3.038 billion after 3?years. This total budget saving included an increase in drug costs (EGP104 million) and a decrease in non-drug costs (EGP3.143 billion). Drug costs were higher in the budesonide/formoterol group than in the salbutamol group, but this cost was offset by reductions in non-drug costs, resulting in a reduction in the total costs of healthcare resources. At the societal level, the total budget savings after including the indirect costs was expected to be EGP5.976 billion after 3?years of budesonide/formoterol entry.

Conclusion: Budesonide/formoterol in mild asthma instead of salbutamol produces better patient outcomes and decreases total costs, with increases in drug cost offset by reductions in non-drug costs due to fewer exacerbations. Budesonide/formoterol is a budget saving option for guideline-directed treatment, from the economic perspective of the payer and the health perspective of the patient.     

Cost-effectiveness of add-on treatments to metformin in a Swedish setting: liraglutide vs sulphonylurea or sitagplitin

Objective:

To evaluate long-run cost-effectiveness in a Swedish setting for liraglutide compared with sulphonylureas (glimepiride) or sitagliptin, all as add-on to metformin for patients with type 2 diabetes insufficiently controlled with metformin in monotherapy.

Methods:

The IHE Cohort Model of Type 2 Diabetes was used to evaluate clinical and economic outcomes from a societal perspective. Model input data were obtained from two clinical trials, the Swedish National Diabetes Register and the literature. Cost data reflected year 2013 price level. The robustness of results was checked with one-way-sensitivity analysis and probability sensitivity analysis.

Results:

The cost per QALY gained for liraglutide (1.2?mg) compared to SU (glimepiride 4?mg), both as add-on to metformin, ranged from SEK 226,000 to SEK 255,000 in analyzed patient cohorts. The cost per QALY for liraglutide (1.2?mg) vs sitagliptin (100?mg) as second-line treatment was lower, ranging from SEK 149,000 to SEK 161,000. Costs of preventive treatment were driving costs, but there was also a cost offset from reduced costs of complications of ～20%. Notable cost differences were found for nephropathy, stroke, and heart failure. The predicted life expectancy with liraglutide increased the cost of net consumption for liraglutide.

Limitations:

The analysis was an ex-ante analysis using model input data from clinical trials which may not reflect effectiveness in real-world clinical practice in broader patient populations. This limitation was explored in the sensitivity analysis. The lack of specific data on loss of production due to diabetes complications implied that these costs may be under-estimated.

Conclusions:

Treatment strategies with liraglutide 1.2?mg improved the expected quality-of-life and increased costs when compared to SU and to sitagliptin for second-line add-on treatments. The cost per QALY for liraglutide was in the range considered medium by Swedish authorities.     

Cost effectiveness of zoledronic acid in the management of skeletal metastases in hormone-refractory prostate cancer patients in France,Germany, Portugal,and the Netherlands

Abstract

Objective:

Zoledronic acid (ZOL) reduces the risk of skeletal related events (SREs) in hormone-refractory prostate cancer (HRPC) patients with bone metastases. This study assessed the cost effectiveness of ZOL for SRE management in French, German, Portuguese, and Dutch HRPC patients.

Methods:

This analysis was based on the results of a randomized phase III clinical trial wherein HRPC patients received up to 15 months of ZOL (n?=?214) or placebo (n?=?208). Clinical inputs were obtained from the trial. Costs were estimated using hospital tariffs, published, and internet sources. Quality adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained were estimated from a separate analysis of EQ-5D scores reported in the trial. Uncertainty surrounding outcomes was addressed via univariate sensitivity analyses.

Results:

ZOL patients experienced an estimated 0.759 fewer SREs and gained an estimated 0.03566 QALYs versus placebo patients. ZOL was associated with reduced SRE-related costs [net costs] (?€2396 [€1284] in France, ?€2606 [€841] in Germany, ?€3326 [€309] in Portugal and ?€3617 [€87] in the Netherlands). Costs per QALY ranged from €2430 (Netherlands) to €36,007 (France).

Conclusions:

This analysis is subject to the limitations of most cost-effectiveness analyses: it combines data from multiple sources. Nevertheless, the results strongly suggest that ZOL is cost effective versus placebo in French, German, Portuguese, and Dutch HRPC patients.     

Cost-minimisation analysis of erlotinib in the second-line treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer: a Brazilian perspective

Abstract

Objective: A cost-minimisation and budget impact analysis of erlotinib versus docetaxel or pemetrexed as second-line treatment for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Methods: Costs and budgetary impacts were estimated from the perspective of a Brazilian private healthcare payer, based on results of the BR.21 study of erlotinib and pivotal trials of docetaxel and pemetrexed. A 126-day timeframe was evaluated, based on the progression-free survival determined for erlotinib in BR.21. A Delphi panel identified local practices and associated costs in Brazil. Other costs accounted for included medical payments, pre- and post-chemotherapy medication and drug administration costs. Multivariate sensitivity analyses were performed, but given the short time frame used, discounting was not applied.

Results: Total costs were R$26,825 for erlotinib, R$42,284 for docetaxel and R$79,841 for pemetrexed. Cost savings with erlotinib were attributable to lower acquisition costs (R$26,795 vs. R$40,217 for docetaxel and R$78,911 for pemetrexed) and lower costs for the management of side effects. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the results. The budget impact analysis showed savings with erlotinib in the first year, ranging from R$3 million to R$28 million.

Conclusion: Erlotinib is cost-saving over established chemotherapy in the second-line treatment of advanced NSCLC under the Brazilian private healthcare system.     

Economic evaluation of dabigatran etexilate for the primary prevention of venous tromboembolic events following major orthopedic surgery in the Netherlands

Abstract

Objectives:

Dabigatran etexilate is a new oral direct thrombin inhibitor for prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients who have elective surgery for total hip replacement (THR) or total knee replacement (TKR). Among the advantages of dabigatran etexilate over subcutaneous prophylaxis with Low Molecular Weight Heparin (LMWH) are reduced resource uses for (i) teaching patients to self-inject; (ii) home-care visits for subcutaneous administration; and (iii) absence of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT). Based on the demonstrated non-inferiority, the aim of this study was to conduct a cost-minimization analysis of oral dabigatran etexilate vs subcutaneous low-molecular weight heparin (LMWH) and fondaparinux from the Dutch healthcare perspective.

Methods:

A retrospective cohort study was conducted to measure resource use associated with subcutaneous prophylaxis. Results of this study were used in the model to elucidate specific advantages of dabigatran etexilate, next to reduced needs for self-inject teaching and lack of Heparin-Induced Thrombocytopenia. Drug and other resource utilization data were combined with local unit costs. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed to account for uncertainty around relevant parameters included.

Results:

Home-care visits for subcutaneous administration problems were needed in 9.9% (95% CI?=?6.4–13.4) and 9.6% (95% CI?=?5.8–13.4) of THR and TKR patients, respectively. Based on costs for 1000 patients treated with dabigatran etexilate vs LMWHs, per patient cost-savings with dabigatran etexilate were estimated at €30.68 (95% CI?=?2.01–65.52) and €23.19 (95% CI?=?0.69–48.48) for THR and TKR, respectively. The probability that dabigatran etexilate would be cost-saving was estimated at 98.3% and 97.9% for THR and TKR, respectively. These cost-savings were even higher when including fondaparinux in the analysis, with per patient cost-savings of €69.87 (43.42–106.10) and €18.33 (1.63–41.26) for THR and TKR, respectively. Separate calculations for dabigatran etexilate vs nadroparin and dalteparin in THR resulted in probabilities of achieving cost-savings with dabigatran etexilate of 36.2% and 100%, respectively. For TKR these probabilities were estimated at 54.3% and 100%, respectively.

Conclusions:

Thromboprophylaxis with dabigatran etexilate is cost-saving in patients undergoing THR and TKR from the Dutch healthcare perspective, compared to subcutaneous LMWHs.     

A cost-effectiveness analysis of revaccination and catch-up strategies with the 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPV23) in older adults in Japan

Objective: In Japan, the National Immunization Program (NIP) includes PPV23 as the primary vaccination for adults and catch-up cohorts. The Japanese Association for Infectious Diseases recommends revaccination for older adults who received primary vaccination ≥5 years earlier. The cost-effectiveness of adding revaccination and/or continuing catch-up vaccination in the NIP was evaluated from the public payer perspective in Japan.

Methods: The Markov model included five health states: no pneumococcal disease, invasive pneumococcal diseases (IPD), non-bacteremic pneumococcal pneumonia (NBPP), post-meningitis sequelae, and death. Cohorts of adults aged 65–95 were followed until age 100 or death: 2014 cohort (aged 65–95, vaccinated: 2014); 2019 cohort (aged 65: 2019); and 2019 catch-up cohort (aged 70–100: 2019, unvaccinated: 2014). Strategies included: (1) vaccinate 2014 and 2019 cohorts; (2) vaccinate 2014 and 2019 cohorts and revaccinate both; (3) strategy 1 and vaccinate 2019 catch-up cohort; (4) strategy 2 and vaccinate 2019 catch-up cohort; and (5) strategy 4 and revaccinate 2019 catch-up cohort. Parameters were retrieved from global and Japanese sources, costs and QALYs discounted at 2%, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) estimated.

Results: Strategy 1 had the highest number of IPD and NBPP cases, and strategy 5 the lowest. Strategies 3–5 dominated strategy 1 and strategy 2 was cost-effective compared to strategy 1 (ICER: ¥1,622,153 per QALY gained). At a willingness-to-pay threshold of ¥5 million per QALY gained, strategy 2 was cost-effective and strategies 3–5 were cost-saving compared to strategy 1.

Conclusions: Strategies including revaccination, catch-up, or both were cost-effective or cost-saving in comparison to no revaccination and no catch-up. Results can inform future vaccine policies and programs in Japan.     

When does economic model type become a decisive factor in health technology appraisals? Learning from the expanding treatment options for relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis

Objectives: Specific economic model types often become de facto standard for health technology appraisal over time. Markov and discrete event simulation (DES) models were compared to investigate the impact of innovative modeling on the cost-effectiveness of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) in relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS). Fingolimod was compared to dimethyl fumarate (DMF; in highly active [HA] RRMS), alemtuzumab (in HA RRMS) and natalizumab (in rapidly evolving severe RRMS). Comparator DMTs were chosen to reflect different dosing regimens.

Materials and methods: Markov and DES models used have been published previously. Inputs were aligned in all relevant respects, with differences in the modeling of event-triggered attributes, such as relapse-related retreatment, which is inherently difficult with a memoryless Markov approach. Outcomes were compared, with and without different attributes.

Results: All results used list prices. For fingolimod and DMF, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were comparable (Markov: £4206/quality-adjusted life year [QALY] gained versus DES: £3910/QALY gained). Deviations were observed when long-term adverse events (AEs) were incorporated in the DES (Markov: £25,412 saved/QALY lost, versus DES: £34,209 saved/QALY lost, fingolimod versus natalizumab; higher ICERs indicate greater cost-effectiveness). For fingolimod versus alemtuzumab, when relapse-triggered retreatment was included in the DES, large cost differences were observed (difference between incremental cost is £35,410 and QALY is 0.10).

Limitations: UK payer perspective, therefore societal approach was not considered. Resource utilization and utilities for both models were not derived from the subpopulations; as the focus is on model type, input limitations that apply to both models are less relevant.

Conclusions: Whilst no model can fully represent a disease, a DES allows an opportunity to include features excluded in a Markov structure. A DES may be more suitable for modeling in RRMS for health technology assessment purposes given the complexity of some DMTs. This analysis highlights the capabilities of different model structures to model event-triggered attributes.     

Cost-utility of celecoxib use in different treatment strategies for osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis from the Quebec healthcare system perspective

Abstract

Objective: To assess the cost-utility of celecoxib in three treatment strategies for arthritis in Quebec, considering both upper gastrointestinal (GI) and cardiovascular (CV) events.

Methods: A Markov analytic framework was used to model patients with osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis at low/average and high risk of GI and CV toxicity over 5 years with monthly cycles. Treatment strategies were modelled in line with Canadian clinical practice. In first-line treatment, patients started on celecoxib; second-line, patients started on a non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) and switched to celecoxib after a first GI event; third-line, patients started on a non-selective NSAID, added a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) after a first GI event, and switched to celecoxib after a second GI event (while maintaining the PPI). Model inputs were determined through comprehensive literature searches (MEDLINE and EMBASE) from 1995 to 2006. Included studies evaluated GI (dyspepsia, uncomplicated and complicated ulcers, death) and CV (myocardial infarction, stroke, death) events. Drug and procedure costs were derived from Canadian published sources (Can$2005).

Results: Total costs per patient for celecoxib first-, second-, and third-line treatment were Can$4,790, $3,390, and $3,466, and total quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) were 3.251, 3.231, and 3.230, respectively. In all risk categories, celecoxib second-line was less costly and as effective as celecoxib third-line, producing savings to the healthcare system. Although celecoxib first-line generated incremental expenditures versus celecoxib second-line, it was also more effective. The resulting cost-utility ratio for the high-risk population was Can$54,696/QALY. Based on this analytical approach, a treatment strategy where celecoxib is used before the combination of a non-selective NSAID plus a PPI possesses cost advantages for the Quebec provincial drug programme. One-way sensitivity analysis (varying GI and CV event rates, utilities, and cost) generally showed second-line treatment with celecoxib as the dominant strategy compared with third-line treatment with celecoxib.

Conclusion: Although effectiveness of second- and third-line celecoxib use is similar, total cost is lower for second-line. These results suggest that the use of celecoxib before the combination of a non-selective NSAID plus a PPI is relatively cost-effective in the treatment of arthritis pain and support the full benefit listing of celecoxib in Quebec's drug programme.     

Tofacitinib in the treatment of moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis: a cost-effectiveness analysis compared with adalimumab in Taiwan

Aims: Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). This analysis investigated the cost-effectiveness of the second-line treatment with tofacitinib, compared with adalimumab, both plus methotrexate (MTX), in patients with moderate-to-severe RA and an inadequate response to the first-line MTX, from a Taiwan National Health Insurance Administration perspective.

Materials and methods: A patient-level simulation model was used to project lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Base-case analysis compared second-line treatment with tofacitinib 5?mg twice daily plus MTX vs adalimumab 40?mg every 2?weeks plus MTX. Patients switched or discontinued treatment due to a lack or loss of effectiveness or a serious adverse event. Efficacy was measured by change in Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI) score. HAQ-DI scores were used to predict mortality and resource utilization, and were mapped onto utility values to estimate QALYs. Efficacy and safety data were derived from clinical trials and other secondary sources. Uncertainty in model parameters was explored using one-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

Results: Patients gained 0.09 more QALYs with second-line tofacitinib plus MTX compared with adalimumab plus MTX (5.13 vs 5.04, respectively) at an additional cost of New Taiwan Dollars (NT$) 12,881. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was NT$143,122/QALY. One-way sensitivity analysis confirmed the base-case result was robust.

Limitations: The lack of available clinical data, particularly for HAQ-DI scores, may introduce some bias in the analysis. No patients were in an early stage of RA, which may limit the generalizability of these results. Base-case results from our study are not necessarily generalizable to countries with healthcare systems that differ considerably from Taiwan.

Conclusions: From a payer perspective, second-line treatment with tofacitinib plus MTX is a cost-effective treatment strategy, compared with adalimumab plus MTX, in patients with moderate-to-severe RA in Taiwan.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00853385.     

Cost-effectiveness of distributing naloxone to heroin users for lay overdose reversal in Russian cities

Abstract

Objective:

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of distributing naloxone to illicit opioid users for lay overdose reversal in Russian cities.

Method:

This study adapted an integrated Markov and decision analytic model to Russian cities. The model took a lifetime, societal perspective, relied on published literature, and was calibrated to epidemiologic findings.

Results:

For each 20% of heroin users reached with naloxone distribution, the model predicted a 13.4% reduction in overdose deaths in the first 5 years and 7.6% over a lifetime; on probabilistic analysis, one death would be prevented for every 89 naloxone kits distributed (95% CI?=?32–260). Naloxone distribution was cost-effective in all deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses and cost-saving if resulting in a reduction in overdose events. Naloxone distribution increased costs by US$13 (95% CI?=?US$3–US$32) and QALYs by 0.137 (95% CI?=?0.022–0.389) for an incremental cost of US$94 per QALY gained (95% CI?=?US$40–US$325). In a worst-case scenario where overdose was rarely witnessed and naloxone was rarely used, minimally effective, and expensive, the incremental cost was US$1987 per QALY gained. If national expenditures on drug-related HIV, tuberculosis, and criminal justice were applied to heroin users, the incremental cost was US$928 per QALY gained.

Conclusions:

Naloxone distribution to heroin users for lay overdose reversal is highly likely to reduce overdose deaths in target communities and is robustly cost-effective, even within the constraints of this conservative model.     

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

Abstract

Objectives:

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

Methods:

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

Results:

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

Conclusion:

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

Cost-effectiveness analysis of palivizumab among pre-term infant populations covered by Medicaid in the United States

Abstract

Objective:

Medicaid infants are at high risk of severe respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) disease. The study objective was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of palivizumab in a Medicaid population.

Methods:

A societal cost-utility analysis was conducted of prophylaxis with palivizumab vs no prophylaxis among four groups of premature infants: (1) <32 weeks gestational age (wGA) and ≤6 months chronologic age (CA); (2) 32–34 wGA, ≤3 months CA with 2009 American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) risk factors (RF); (3) 32–35 wGA, ≤6 months CA with 2006 AAP RF; and (4) 32–35 wGA, ≤6 months CA with ≤1 RF. Full dosing of palivizumab was assumed throughout the RSV season (consistent with the FDA-approved label). All costs were in 2010 US dollars. The societal public payer spend for palivizumab was estimated using Medicaid reimbursement methodologies for the top 10 palivizumab-using states in 2010 minus mandatory manufacturer rebates. This study reports the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Sensitivity and probabilistic analyses were also conducted.

Results:

Palivizumab saved costs and improved QALYs among infants <32 wGA. Palivizumab was cost-effective in infants 32–34 wGA with 2009 AAP RF ($16,037 per QALY) and in infants 32–35 wGA with 2006 AAP RF ($38,244 per QALY). The ICER for infants 32–35 wGA with ≤1 RF was $281,892 per QALY. Influential variables in the sensitivity analysis included the background rate of RSV hospitalization, the cost of palivizumab, and the efficacy of palivizumab.

Key limitations:

These results are not generalizable to commercially insured infants or infants outside of the US.

Conclusions:

This is the first cost-utility analysis of palivizumab in a Medicaid population. Palivizumab, when dosed consistent with the FDA-approved labeling, was either cost-saving or cost-effective among current guideline-eligible infants in the Medicaid population. Palivizumab did not demonstrate cost-effectiveness in 32–35 wGA infants with ≤1 RF.     

Healthcare costs associated with bevacizumab and cetuximab in second-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer

Abstract

Objective:

To compare the health care costs of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) who received second-line treatment with Avastin (bevacizumab) versus Erbitux (cetuximab), from the third-party payer’s perspective.

Methods:

Patients with mCRC were selected from the PharMetrics claims database if they received second-line therapy containing either bevacizumab (second-line bevacizumab cohort) or cetuximab (second-line cetuximab cohort). Six-month costs following second-line therapy start date and average monthly healthcare costs while on second-line therapy (in 2009 US$) were calculated and compared between the two groups.

Results:

A total of 2188 patients with mCRC who met the eligibility criteria were included in the analysis, including 1808 patients receiving bevacizumab and 380 patients receiving cetuximab in second-line treatment. Demographic and baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups. Patients’ mean age was 61 years and 56% were males. In second-line treatment, bevacizumab was commonly used with oxaliplatin (43.5%) and irinotecan-based regimens (40.4%), whereas cetuximab was commonly used with irinotecan-based regimens (68.2%). Bevacizumab patients had significantly lower total all-cause healthcare costs than cetuximab patients (adjusted difference: –$10,231, p?=?0.020), and lower medical costs (–$10,796, p?=?0.012) during the 6 months following second-line therapy initiation. Approximately half of the difference in total all-cause healthcare costs was attributable to the lower chemotherapy and targeted therapy costs (–$5635, p?=?0.032) of bevacizumab patients than those of cetuximab patients. While on second-line therapy, bevacizumab patients also had lower average monthly all-cause healthcare costs than cetuximab patients.

Limitations:

Second-line treatment in the current study was defined based on changes in mCRC medications, not based on disease progression due to the limited clinical information available in claims.

Conclusion:

The use of bevacizumab in second-line therapy was associated with significantly lower healthcare costs in mCRC patients, compared to the use of cetuximab.     

Economic burden in patients with ALK + non-small cell lung cancer,with or without brain metastases,receiving second-line anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibitors

Abstract

Aims: To describe the real-world economic burden of patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive (ALK+) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with post-crizotinib, second-line ALK inhibitor therapy.

Materials and methods: Retrospective analysis using data from US Optum: Clinformatics Data Mart administrative claims database. Adult patients with ALK?+?NSCLC treated with ceritinib or alectinib as second-line ALK inhibitors between 1 January 2011 and 30 September 2017 were included. Healthcare costs and resource utilization for up to 1?year of therapy were calculated on a per-patient-per-month (PPPM) basis and stratified by presence or absence of brain metastases (BM). Multivariate regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with costs. Top ten cost drivers of non-inpatient procedure costs were recorded.

Results: One hundred and twelve patients received second-line ALK inhibitors. Total mean PPPM healthcare costs were $23,984 for all patients receiving up to 1?year of post-crizotinib, second-line ALK inhibitor therapy. Total mean PPPM costs for patients with BM on or prior to post-crizotinib, second-line ALK inhibitor therapy were 1.37-times as high as those for patients without BM (p?=?0.0406). Mean PPPM outpatient visits and inpatient hospitalization stays were higher for patients with BM versus no BM. The main cost drivers for non-inpatient procedures were radiation therapy, medications, and diagnostic radiology.

Limitations: Analyses did not include newer ALK-directed therapies. BM development after the index date (defined as the date of the first claim for a second-line ALK inhibitor) may have been misclassified as non-BM. Findings may not be generalizable to patients with no health insurance coverage.

Conclusions: Treatment of patients with ALK?+?NSCLC with ceritinib or alectinib as post-crizotinib, second-line ALK inhibitor therapy represents a high economic burden. Healthcare costs and resource utilization were significantly higher for patients with ALK?+?NSCLC with BM versus no BM.     

Cost-minimization analysis of alemtuzumab compared to fingolimod and natalizumab for the treatment of active relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in the Netherlands

Aim: In active relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) patients requiring second-line treatment, the Dutch National Health Care Institute (ZiN) has not stated a preference for either alemtuzumab, fingolimod, or natalizumab. The aim was to give healthcare decision-makers insight into the differences in cost accumulation over time between alemtuzumab—with a unique, non-continuous treatment schedule—and fingolimod and natalizumab for second-line treatment of active RRMS patients in the Netherlands.

Methods: In line with ZiN’s assessment, a cost-minimization analysis was performed from a Dutch healthcare perspective over a 5-year time horizon. Resource use was derived from hospital protocols and summaries of product characteristics, and validated by two MS specialists. Unit costs were based on national tariffs and guidelines. Robustness of the base case results was verified with multiple sensitivity and scenario analyses.

Results: Alemtuzumab results in cost savings compared to fingolimod and natalizumab from, respectively, 3.3 and 2.8 years since treatment initiation onwards. At 5 years, total discounted costs per patient of alemtuzumab were €79,717, followed by fingolimod with €110,044 and natalizumab with €122,238, resulting in cost savings of €30,327 and €42,522 for alemtuzumab compared to fingolimod and natalizumab, respectively. Key drivers of the model are drug acquisition costs and the proportions of patients that do not require further alemtuzumab treatment after either two, three, or four courses.

Limitations: No treatment discontinuation and associated switching between treatments were incorporated. Consequences of JC virus seropositivity while continuing natalizumab treatment (e.g. additional monitoring) were omitted from the base case.

Conclusion: The current cost-minimization analysis demonstrates that, from the Dutch healthcare perspective, treating active RRMS patients with alemtuzumab results in cost savings compared to second-line alternatives fingolimod and natalizumab from ～3 years since treatment initiation onwards. After 5 years, alemtuzumab’s cost savings are estimated at €30k compared to fingolimod and €43k compared to natalizumab.     

A cost-effectiveness analysis of subcutaneous interferon beta-1a 44mcg 3-times a week vs no treatment for patients with clinically isolated syndrome in Sweden

Abstract

Objective:

To assess the cost-effectiveness of subcutaneous interferon (sc IFN) beta-1a 44?mcg 3-times weekly (tiw) vs no treatment at reducing the risk of conversion to multiple sclerosis (MS) in patients with clinically isolated syndrome (CIS) in Sweden.

Methods:

A Markov model was constructed to simulate the clinical course of patients with CIS treated with sc IFN beta-1a 44?mcg tiw or no treatment over a 40-year time horizon. Costs were estimated from a societal perspective in 2012 Swedish kronor (SEK). Treatment efficacy data were derived from the REFLEX trial; resource use and quality-of-life (QoL) data were obtained from the literature. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3%. Sensitivity analyses explored whether results were robust to changes in input values and use of Poser criteria.

Results:

Using McDonald criteria sc IFN beta-1a was cost-saving and more effective (i.e., dominant) vs no treatment. Gains in progression free life years (PFLYs) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were 1.63 and 0.53, respectively. Projected cost savings were 270,263 SEK. For Poser criteria cost savings of 823,459 SEK were estimated, with PFLY and QALY gains of 4.12 and 1.38, respectively. Subcutaneous IFN beta-1a remained dominant from a payer perspective. Results were insensitive to key input variation. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis estimated a 99.9% likelihood of cost-effectiveness at a willingness-to-pay threshold of 500,000 SEK/QALY.

Conclusion:

Subcutaneous IFN beta-1a is a cost-effective option for the treatment of patients at high risk of MS conversion. It is associated with lower costs, greater QALY gains, and more time free of MS.

Limitations:

The risk of conversion from CIS to MS was extrapolated from 2-year trial data. Treatment benefit was assumed to persist over the model duration, although long-term data to support this are unavailable. Cost and QoL data from MS patients were assumed applicable to CIS patients.     

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.     

Cost utility of allogeneic stem cell transplantation with matched unrelated donor versus treatment with imatinib for adult patients with newly diagnosed chronic myeloid leukaemia

Objective: To estimate, from the perspective of the German statutory health insurance, the cost utility of allogeneic stem cell transplantation with matched unrelated donor (MUD-SCT) in newly diagnosed, chronic-phase chronic myeloid leukaemia (CML) patients aged 40 years or younger, relative to the treatment with imatinib.

Methods: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of the additional cost of imatinib versus MUD-SCT per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained was chosen as a target assessment. ICER was quantified using a Markov cohort modelling approach. The evaluation encompassed 5 years of treatment with either approach, and only direct medical costs (in €, year 2005) were considered.

Results: There were incremental costs of €77,410 for imatinib therapy per QALY gained versus MUD-SCT. No strategy was clearly dominant; on average, during 5 years, cost savings of €63,433 were obtained and 0.82 QALY lost by SCT compared to treatment with imatinib. QALYs gained in CML patients with either treatment resulted in considerable cost to the third-party payer in Germany. The results were particularly sensitive to the price of imatinib.

Conclusions: The analysis finds that imatinib is more costly but more effective (as measured in QALYs) over a 5-year time horizon. The resulting ICER of €77,410 per QALY is higher than commonly cited thresholds. The cost utility of MUD-SCT to treat CML in patients with a European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation score ≤ to 2 compares with that of the imatinib strategy.     

Cost-effectiveness of omalizumab for uncontrolled allergic asthma in the Netherlands

Abstract

Background:

Omalizumab, licensed for patients with uncontrolled persistent allergic (IgE mediated) asthma, was found to be cost-effective based upon its clinical trial data. Observational studies have been undertaken to determine the real life outcomes of using omalizumab in the community.

Objective:

To determine the cost-effectiveness of omalizumab based upon observational data from the Netherlands and compare to its cost-effectiveness using clinical trial data.

Methods:

An observational study (eXpeRience) recruited allergic asthma patients eligible for Omalizumab therapy and followed them while on treatment. At 1 year, data from the Dutch patients enrolled in eXpeRience were examined to estimate the number of exacerbations and resource use while on omalizumab therapy compared to the year prior to omalizumab use. Observational data were used in a Markov model to calculate the lifetime cost-effectiveness ratios.

Results:

In the 1 year prior to omalizumab therapy the per-person rate of exacerbations was 3.39 compared to 1.07 in the year taking omalizumab. The discounted incremental lifetime additional costs for omalizumab were €55,865 for 1.46 additional quality-adjusted life years (QALY), resulting in €38,371/QALY. Using the INNOVATE clinical trial outcomes and current resource use, the prior ratio was €34,911/QALY, similar to the observational ratio. As in all observational studies, the main limitation is obtaining complete and accurate data. Patients with missing exacerbation or response data were excluded from this analysis.

Conclusion:

Non-clinical trial experience with omalizumab supported the finding of fewer exacerbations in the allergic asthma population while treated with omalizumab, and therapy was found to continue to have an attractive cost-effectiveness ratio.