Cost effectiveness analysis of immunotherapy in patients with grass pollen allergic rhinoconjunctivitis in Germany

Abstract

Objectives:

An economic evaluation was conducted to assess the outcomes and costs as well as cost-effectiveness of the following grass-pollen immunotherapies: OA (Oralair; Stallergenes S.A., Antony, France) vs GRZ (Grazax; ALK-Abelló, Hørsholm, Denmark), and ALD (Alk Depot SQ; ALK-Abelló) (immunotherapy agents alongside symptomatic medication) and symptomatic treatment alone for grass pollen allergic rhinoconjunctivitis.

Methods:

The costs and outcomes of 3-year treatment were assessed for a period of 9 years using a Markov model. Treatment efficacy was estimated using an indirect comparison of available clinical trials with placebo as a common comparator. Estimates for immunotherapy discontinuation, occurrence of asthma, health state utilities, drug costs, resource use, and healthcare costs were derived from published sources. The analysis was conducted from the insurant’s perspective including public and private health insurance payments and co-payments by insurants. Outcomes were reported as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and symptom-free days. The uncertainty around incremental model results was tested by means of extensive deterministic univariate and probabilistic multivariate sensitivity analyses.

Results:

In the base case analysis the model predicted a cost-utility ratio of OA vs symptomatic treatment of €14,728 per QALY; incremental costs were €1356 (95%CI: €1230; €1484) and incremental QALYs 0.092 (95%CI: 0.052; 0.140). OA was the dominant strategy compared to GRZ and ALD, with estimated incremental costs of ?€1142 (95%CI: ?€1255; ?€1038) and ?€54 (95%CI: ?€188; €85) and incremental QALYs of 0.015 (95%CI: ?0.025; 0.056) and 0.027 (95%CI: ?0.022; 0.075), respectively. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of €20,000, the probability of OA being the most cost-effective treatment was predicted to be 79%. Univariate sensitivity analyses show that incremental outcomes were moderately sensitive to changes in efficacy estimates. The main study limitation was the requirement of an indirect comparison involving several steps to assess relative treatment effects.

Conclusion:

The analysis suggests OA to be cost-effective compared to GRZ and ALD, and a symptomatic treatment. Sensitivity analyses showed that uncertainty surrounding treatment efficacy estimates affected the model outcomes.     

Cost-minimization analysis of sublingual immunotherapy versus subcutaneous immunotherapy for house dust mite respiratory allergic disease in Denmark

Objectives Currently, patients with persistent moderate-to-severe house dust mite (HDM) allergic rhinitis despite use of symptom-relieving medication can be offered subcutaneously administered allergy immunotherapy (SQ SCIT; Alutard SQ) as standard care of treatment in Denmark. Recently, a HDM sublingually administered allergy immunotherapy tablet (SQ SLIT-tablet; ACARIZAX) has been developed for at-home treatment. The purpose of this analysis is to compare the costs related to treatment and administration of SQ SLIT-tablet and SQ SCIT.

Methods Assuming equal efficacy between ther SQ SLIT-tablet and SQ SCIT, the cost-minimization analysis was the most appropriate for the comparison. According to guidelines and Summary of Product Characteristics, the treatment duration of SQ SLIT-tablet is 3 years and 3–5 years for SQ SCIT. The courses of treatment vary among patients and, therefore, the costs of treatment have been calculated for an average patient with HDM respiratory allergic disease (RAD) receiving either SQ SLIT-tablet or SQ SCIT. All costs associated with allergy immunotherapy were collected, i.e., cost of medication, administration and treatment setting, and discounted according to Danish guidelines. Comprehensive univariate sensitivity analyses were carried out.

Results The treatment costs for an average patient with HDM RAD are €3094 for SQ SLIT-tablet and €3799 for SQ SCIT; however, when adding indirect costs to the calculations the total costs of the treatments are €3697 and €6717 for SQ SLIT-tablet and SQ SCIT, respectively. Therefore, if 2500 patients with HDM RAD were treated with SQ SLIT-tablet instead of SQ SCIT, it would elicit a saving to the healthcare system of ～€1.8 million. The conclusion was robust to any changes in the sensitivity analysis.

Conclusion With regards to the cost of treating Danish patients with HDM RAD, it is clearly cost-saving to treat patients with SQ SLIT-tablet compared to SQ SCIT.     

Cost effectiveness of benralizumab for severe,uncontrolled oral corticosteroid–dependent asthma in Sweden

Abstract

Aim: We investigated cost effectiveness of benralizumab vs. standard of care (SOC) plus oral corticosteroids (OCS) for patients with severe, eosinophilic OCS-dependent asthma in Sweden.

Materials and methods: A three-state, cohort-based Markov model of data from three Phase III benralizumab clinical trials (ZONDA [NCT02075255], SIROCCO [NCT01928771], and CALIMA [NCT01914757]) was used to assess the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of benralizumab vs. SOC plus OCS. Health outcomes were estimated in terms of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The model included costs and disutilities associated with extrapolated OCS-related adverse events. Patients with severe asthma were defined as those receiving OCS ≥5?mg/day.

Results: Benralizumab demonstrated a cost-effectiveness ratio vs. SOC plus OCS of 2018 Swedish Kronor (SEK) 366,855 (€34,127) per QALY gained, based on increases of 1.33 QALYs and SEK 488,742 (€45,344) per patient. Benralizumab treatment costs contributed most to incremental costs. The probability of benralizumab’s being cost-effective with willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds between SEK 429,972 (€40,000) and SEK 752,452 (€70,000) ranged from 75% to 99%.

Limitations: Potential limitations of these analyses include the use of combined data from three different clinical trials, a one-way sensitivity analysis that did not include mortality and transition estimates, and Observational & Pragmatic Research Institute (OPRI) data from the UK as a proxy of the Swedish health care system.

Conclusions: The results of these analyses demonstrate that benralizumab has a high probability of being cost-effective compared with SOC plus OCS for a subgroup of patients with severe, eosinophilic asthma receiving regular OCS treatment and may support clinicians, payers and patients in making treatment decisions.     

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

Abstract

Background:

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

Methods:

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

Results:

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

Conclusions:

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

Cost-effectiveness of dabigatran etexilate in the prevention of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with atrial fibrillation in Belgium

Abstract

Objective:

To assess the cost-effectiveness of dabigatran etexilate (‘dabigatran’) vs vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in the Belgian healthcare setting for the prevention of stroke and systemic embolism (SE) in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF).

Research design and methods:

A Markov model was used to calculate the cost-effectiveness of dabigatran vs VKAs in Belgium, whereby warfarin was considered representative for the VKA class. Efficacy and safety data were taken from the Randomized Evaluation of Long-Term Anticoagulation Therapy (RE-LY) trial and a network meta-analysis. Local resource use and unit costs were included in the model. Effectiveness was expressed in Quality Adjusted Life-Years (QALYs). The model outcomes were total costs, total QALYs, incremental costs, incremental QALYs and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The level of International Normalized Ratio (INR) control and the use of other antithrombotic therapies observed in Belgian clinical practice were reflected in two scenario analyses.

Results:

In the base case analysis, total costs per patient were €13,333 for dabigatran and €12,454 for warfarin. Total QALYs per patient were 9.51 for dabigatran and 9.19 for warfarin. The corresponding ICER was €2807/QALY. The ICER of dabigatran was €970/QALY vs warfarin with real-world INR control and €5296/QALY vs a mix of warfarin, aspirin, and no treatment. Results were shown to be robust in one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

Limitations:

The analysis does not include long-term costs for clinical events, as these data were not available for Belgium. As in any economic model based on data from a randomized clinical trial, several assumptions had to be made when extrapolating results to routine clinical practice in Belgium.

Conclusion:

This analysis suggests that dabigatran, a novel oral anticoagulant, is a cost-effective treatment for the prevention of stroke and SE in patients with non-valvular AF in the Belgian healthcare setting.     

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

Objectives:

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

Methods:

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

Results:

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

Conclusion:

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

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

Abstract

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

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

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

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

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 teriparatide and PTH(1-84) in the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis

Abstract

Objectives:

The purpose was to assess the cost effectiveness from a societal perspective of the recombinant human parathyroid hormones: PTH(1-34) (teriparatide) and PTH(1-84) for patients with osteoporosis with similar characteristics to patients treated in normal clinical practice in Sweden.

Methods:

A Markov model of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women was developed using 6-month cycles and a lifetime horizon. The model was populated with patients similar to the Swedish cohort of the European Forsteo Observational Study (postmenopausal women; mean age: 70 years, total hip T-score: ?2.7 and 3.3 previous fractures). The cost effectiveness of both teriparatide and PTH(1-84) was estimated compared to no treatment and each other. Relative effectiveness assumptions were based on efficacy estimates from two phase III clinical trials.

Results:

The cost per QALY gained of teriparatide vs. no treatment was estimated at €43,473 and PTH(1-84) was estimated at €104,396. Teriparatide was indicated to be less costly and associated with more life-years and QALYs than PTH(1-84). When assuming no treatment effect on hip fractures the cost per QALY gained was €88,379. In the sensitivity analysis the cost effectiveness did not alter substantially with changes in the majority of the model parameters except for the residual effect of the treatment after stopping therapy.

Conclusions:

Based on the efficacy estimates from pivotal clinical trials and characteristics of patients treated in clinical practice in Sweden, teriparatide seems to be a more cost-effective option than PTH(1-84) when compared to no treatment. The relative efficacy between the two PTH compounds was based on an indirect comparison from two separate clinical trials which has to be considered when interpreting the results.     

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

Abstract

Objective:

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

Research design and methods:

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

Main outcome measures:

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

Results:

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

Conclusions:

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

Limitations:

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

Cost-effectiveness analysis of febuxostat in patients with gout in Spain

Objectives Cost-effectiveness of febuxostat compared with allopurinol in the treatment of hyperuricemia in patients with gout.

Methods Costs, clinical outcomes, and QALYs were estimated using a Markov model. Febuxostat 80?mg and 120?mg sequentially, used as first line and second line therapy, was compared with allopurinol 300?mg. Patients switched to the next treatment in the sequence according to a dichotomous response vs no response (target serum urate level < 6?mg/dl outcome) after 3 months of active treatment. A 3% discount rate and 5-year time horizon were applied. Perspective: National Health System.

Results The addition of febuxostat to any therapeutic strategy was an efficient option, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) compared with allopurinol 300?mg ranging from €5268–€9737.

Conclusions Febuxostat is a cost-effective treatment in Spain for the management of hyperuricemia in gout patients, with ICERs far below accepted Spanish efficiency thresholds (30 000€/QALY).     

Cost-effectiveness of lenalidomide plus dexamethasone vs bortezomib plus melphalan and prednisone in transplant-ineligible US patients with newly-diagnosed multiple myeloma

Objective:

To conduct a cost-effectiveness assessment of lenalidomide plus dexamethasone (Rd) vs bortezomib plus melphalan and prednisone (VMP) as initial treatment for transplant-ineligible patients with newly-diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM), from a US payer perspective.

Methods:

A partitioned survival model was developed to estimate expected life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), direct costs and incremental costs per QALY and LY gained associated with use of Rd vs VMP over a patient’s lifetime. Information on the efficacy and safety of Rd and VMP was based on data from multinational phase III clinical trials and a network meta-analysis. Pre-progression direct costs included the costs of Rd and VMP, treatment of adverse events (including prophylaxis) and routine care and monitoring associated with MM. Post-progression direct costs included costs of subsequent treatment(s) and routine care and monitoring for progressive disease, all obtained from published literature and estimated from a US payer perspective. Utilities were obtained from the aforementioned trials. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3% annually.

Results:

Relative to VMP, use of Rd was expected to result in an additional 2.22 LYs and 1.47 QALYs (discounted). Patients initiated with Rd were expected to incur an additional $78,977 in mean lifetime direct costs (discounted) vs those initiated with VMP. The incremental costs per QALY and per LY gained with Rd vs VMP were $53,826 and $35,552, respectively. In sensitivity analyses, results were found to be most sensitive to differences in survival associated with Rd vs VMP, the cost of lenalidomide and the discount rate applied to effectiveness outcomes.

Conclusions:

Rd was expected to result in greater LYs and QALYs compared with VMP, with similar overall costs per LY for each regimen. Results of this analysis indicated that Rd may be a cost-effective alternative to VMP as initial treatment for transplant-ineligible patients with MM, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio well within the levels for recent advancements in oncology.     

Economic analysis of paliperidone long-acting injectable for chronic schizophrenia in Portugal

Objective: Patients with chronic schizophrenia suffer a huge burden, as do their families/caregivers. Treating schizophrenia is costly for health systems. The European Medicines Agency has approved paliperidone palmitate (PP-LAI; Xeplion), an atypical antipsychotic depot; however, its pharmacoeconomic profile in Portugal is unknown. A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted from the viewpoint of the Portuguese National Health Service.

Methods: PP-LAI was compared with long acting injectables risperidone (RIS-LAI) and haloperidol (HAL-LAI) and oral drugs (olanzapine; oral-OLZ) adapting a 1-year decision tree to Portugal, guided by local experts. Clinical information and costs were obtained from literature sources and published lists. Outcomes included relapses (both requiring and not requiring hospitalization) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Costs were expressed in 2014 euros. Economic outcomes were incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs); including cost-utility (outcome?=?QALYs) and cost-effectiveness analyses (outcomes?=?relapse/hospitalization/emergency room (ER) visit avoided).

Results: The base-case cost of oral-OLZ was 4447€ (20% drugs/20% medical/60% hospital); HAL-LAI cost 4474€ (13% drugs/13% medical/74% hospital); PP-LAI cost 5326€ (49% drugs/12% medical/39% hospital); RIS-LAI cost 6223€ (44% drugs/12% medical/44% hospital). Respective QALYs/hospitalizations/ER visits were oral-OLZ: 0.761/0.615/0.242; HAL-LAI: 0.758/0.623/0.250; PP-LAI: 0.823/0.288/0.122; RIS-LAI: 0.799/0.394/0.168. HAL-LAI was dominated by oral-OLZ and RIS-LAI by PP-LAI for all outcomes. The ICER of PP-LAI over oral-OLZ was 14,247€/QALY, well below NICE/Portuguese thresholds (≈24,800€/30,000€/QALY). ICERs were 1973€/relapse avoided and 2697€/hospitalization avoided. Analyses were robust against most variations in input values, as PP-LAI was cost-effective over oral-OLZ in >99% of 10,000 simulations.

Conclusion: In Portugal, PP-LAI dominated HAL-LAI and RIS-LAI and was cost-effective over oral-OLZ with respect to QALYs gained, relapses avoided, and hospitalizations avoided.     

Cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban versus warfarin for stroke prevention in non-valvular atrial fibrillation in the Japanese healthcare setting

Abstract

Aims: This article aimed to examine the cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban in comparison to warfarin for stroke prevention in Japanese patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF), from a public healthcare payer’s perspective.

Materials and methods: Baseline event risks were obtained from the J-ROCKET AF trial and the treatment effect data were taken from a network meta-analysis. The other model inputs were extracted from the literature and official Japanese sources. The outcomes included the number of ischaemic strokes, myocardial infarctions, systemic embolisms and bleedings avoided, life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The scenario analysis considered treatment effect data from the same network meta-analysis.

Results: In comparison with warfarin, rivaroxaban was estimated to avoid 0.284 ischaemic strokes per patient, to increase the number of QALYs by 0.535 per patient and to decrease the total costs by ¥118,892 (€1,011.11) per patient (1 JPY = 0.00850638 EUR; XE.com, 7 October 2019). Consequently, rivaroxaban treatment was found to be dominant compared to warfarin. In the scenario analysis, the ICER of rivaroxaban versus warfarin was ¥2,873,499 (€24,446.42) per QALY.

Limitations: The various sources of data used resulted in the heterogeneity of the cost-effectiveness analysis results. Although, rivaroxaban was cost-effective in the majority of cases.

Conclusion: Rivaroxaban is cost-effective against warfarin for stroke prevention in Japanese patients with NVAF, giving the payer WTP of 5,000,000 JPY.     

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

Abstract

Objective:

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

Methods:

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

Results:

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

Limitations:

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

Conclusion:

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

Cost effectiveness of 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.     

Lacosamide as a first-line treatment option in focal epilepsy: a cost-utility analysis for the Greek healthcare system

Background and aims: Epilepsy is the most common serious neurological disorder worldwide. Approximately 40% of patients with focal epileptic seizures remain uncontrolled with antiepileptic drug (AED) monotherapy or polytherapy. Lacosamide has been recently approved by the European Medicines Agency as monotherapy for the treatment of focal seizures. The aim of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of lacosamide compared with zonisamide as first-line treatment of focal epilepsy in patients with epilepsy aged ≥ 16?years to inform clinical decision-making in Greece.

Methods: A discrete event simulation model was adapted to reflect treatment pathways and resource use within the Greek national healthcare system, as specified by clinical experts. The model captures time-varying events and patient characteristics. Clinical inputs were sourced from pivotal trials and a network meta-analysis comparing lacosamide with other AEDs. The model predicts disease progression and seizures, relevant and most common adverse events, withdrawal due to lack of efficacy or adverse events, and epilepsy-specific and all-cause mortality over a 2-year time horizon. Unit costs were retrieved from published Greek sources. Health outcomes were measured as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs); secondary outcome was the cost per seizure avoided. Robustness of the results was tested with univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

Results: The lacosamide treatment pathway was associated with higher costs (i.e. €1,064) and an additional 0.119 QALYs when compared with zonisamide, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €8,938 per QALY gained. The sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the results are most sensitive to the efficacy and utility estimates.

Limitations: There are a number of limitations which stem from the process of model adaptation and lack of local real-world evidence.

Conclusions: Lacosamide is a cost-effective option at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €30,000 per QALY, representing a valuable monotherapy treatment option for patients with focal epileptic seizures in the Greek setting.     

Cost-utility analysis of alemtuzumab in comparison with interferon beta,fingolimod, and natalizumab treatment for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in Austria

Background: Multiple sclerosis (MS), a chronic progressive, demyelinating, inflammatory disease, affects 2.5 million people worldwide. Approximately 63% of cases are classified as relapsing–remitting MS (RRMS) at the time of diagnosis. The aim of this cost-utility analysis is to evaluate alemtuzumab vs interferon beta (intramuscular [IM] interferon beta-1a, subcutaneous [SC] interferon beta-1a, SC interferon beta-1b, and SC pegylated interferon beta-1a) in previously treated, and vs SC interferon beta-1a, fingolimod, and natalizumab in untreated RRMS patients to determine the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio among the treatment alternatives as prices, the route, and the frequency of administration of considered products vary significantly.

Methods: The primary outcome was the modeled incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER; €/quality-adjusted life-year [QALY] gained). Markov modeling with a 10-year time horizon was carried out. During each 3-month cycle, patients maintained the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score or experienced progression, developed secondary progressive MS (SPMS), or showed EDSS progression in SPMS; experienced relapses; suffered from an adverse event (AE); changed treatment; or died. A published network meta-analysis (NMA) was used for indirect comparison. The possibility of a therapy switch was considered. Clinical input data and resource utilization data were derived from the literature. Costs were extracted from price lists published in Austria and were calculated from the payer’s perspective.

Results: In treatment naïve patients, alemtuzumab is associated with costs of €132,663 and 5.25 QALYs in a 10-year time horizon. Costs for SC interferon beta amount to €164,159 and generate 4.85 QALYs. Also, in the pre-treated patients, alemtuzumab dominated comparators by accumulating higher total QALYs (4.88) and lower total costs (€137.409) compared to interferon beta-1a (€200.133), fingolimod (€240.903), and natalizumab (€247.758).

Conclusion: The analysis shows that alemtuzumab is a cost-saving alternative to treat RRMS in pre-treated and therapy naïve patients. From the patient perspective, alemtuzumab improves quality-of-life.     

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cost-effectiveness analysis of disease modifiying drugs (interferons and glatiramer acetate) as first line treatments in remitting-relapsing multiple sclerosis patients

Abstract

Objective:

The aim of this study was to assess cost-effectiveness of the different Disease Modifying Drugs (DMD) used as first-line treatments (interferons IM IFNβ-1a, SC IFNβ-1a, SC IFNβ-1b, and glatiramer acetate, GA) in Remitting-Relapsing Multiple Sclerosis (RRMS) in Spain.

Methods:

A Markov model was developed to simulate the progression of a cohort of patients with RRMS, during a period of 10 years. Seven health states, defined by the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS), were considered in the model. Patients with an EDSS score less than 6.0 were assumed to be treated with one of the DMD. In addition, all patients were assumed to receive symptomatic treatment. The monthly transition probabilities of the model were obtained from the literature. The analysis was performed from the societal perspective, in which both direct and indirect (losses in productivity) healthcare costs (€, 2010) were included. A discount rate of 3% was applied to both costs and efficacy results.

Results:

GA was the less costly strategy (€322,510), followed by IM IFNβ-1a (€329,595), SC IFNβ-1b (€ 333,925), and SC IFNβ-1a (€348,208). IM IFNβ-1a has shown the best efficacy results, with 4.176 quality-adjusted life years (QALY), followed by SC IFNβ-1a (4.158 QALY), SC IFNβ-1b (4.157 QALY), and GA (4.117 QALY). Incremental costs per QALY gained with IM IFNβ-1a were €?1,005,194/QALY, €?223,397/QALY, and €117,914/QALY in comparison to SC IFNβ-1a, SC IFNβ-1b, and GA, respectively.

Conclusions:

First-line treatment with GA is the less costly strategy for the treatment of patients with RRMS. Treatment with IM IFNβ-1a is a dominant strategy (lower cost and higher QALY) compared with SC IFNβ-1a and SC IFNβ-1b. However, IM IFNβ-1a is not a cost-effective strategy vs GA, because incremental cost per QALY gained with IM IFNβ-1a exceeds the €30,000 per QALY threshold commonly used in Spain.

Limitations:

The highly-restrictive inclusion criteria of clinical trials limits generalization of the results on efficacy to all patients with multiple sclerosis. Availability of data for head-to-head comparisons is associated with the use of information from clinical trials.