Comparison of therapy augmentation and deviation rates from the recommended once-daily dosing regimen between LDX and commonly prescribed long-acting stimulants for the treatment of ADHD in youth and adults

Abstract

Objective:

To compare therapy augmentation and deviation rates from the recommended once-daily dosing regimen in Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) patients initiated on lisdexamfetamine (LDX) vs other once-daily Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved stimulants.

Methods:

ADHD patients initiated on a long-acting ADHD stimulant medication (index medication) in/after 2007 were selected from a large US administrative claims database. Patients were required to be persistent for ≥90 days and continuously enrolled in their healthcare plan for ≥12 months following treatment initiation date. Based on age and previous treatment status, patients were classified into treatment-naïve children and adolescents (6–17 years old), previously treated children and adolescents, treatment-naïve adults (≥18 years old), and previously treated adults. Furthermore, patients were classified into four mutually exclusive treatment groups, based on index medication: lisdexamfetamine (LDX), osmotic release methylphenidate hydrochloride long-acting (OROS MPH), other methylphenidate/dexmethylphenidate long-acting (MPH LA), and amphetamine/dextroamphetamine long-acting (AMPH LA). The average daily consumption was measured as the quantity of index medication supplied in the 12-month study period divided by the total number of days of supply. Therapy augmentation was defined as the use of another ADHD medication concomitantly with the index medication for ≥28 consecutive days. Therapy augmentation and deviation rates from the recommended once-daily dosing regimen were compared between treatment groups using multivariate logistic regression models.

Results:

Compared to the other treatment groups, LDX patients were less likely to augment with another ADHD medication (range odds ratios [OR]; 1.28–3.30) and to deviate from the recommended once-daily dosing regimen (range OR; 1.73–4.55), except for previously treated adult patients, where therapy augmentation differences were not statistically significant when compared to OROS MPH and MPH LA patients.

Limitations:

This study did not control for ADHD severity.

Conclusion:

Overall, compared to LDX-treated patients, patients initiated on other ADHD medications were equally or more likely to have a therapy augmentation and more likely to deviate from the recommended once-daily dosing regimen.     

Treatment persistence in attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a retrospective analysis of patients initiated on lisdexamfetamine vs other medications

Abstract

Objective:

To compare treatment persistence in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) of patients initiated on lisdexamfetamine (LDX) vs other ADHD medications.

Methods:

A large US administrative claims database was used to select ADHD patients who initiated an ADHD medication (index treatment) during/after 2007. Patients were classified, based on age and previous treatment status, as treatment-naïve or previously treated children and adolescents (6–17 years) and treatment-naïve or previously treated adults (18 years and older). Furthermore, patients were classified into seven mutually exclusive treatment groups, based on their index treatment: LDX, atomoxetine (ATX), osmotic-release methylphenidate hydrochloride long-acting (OROS MPH), other methylphenidate/dexmethylphenidate short-acting (MPH SA) and long-acting (MPH LA), and amphetamine/dextroamphetamine short acting (AMPH SA) and long-acting (AMPH LA). Treatment persistence, analyzed through discontinuation (interruption of the index treatment for ≥30 consecutive days), was compared between treatment groups using multivariate Cox proportional hazards. Patients were followed until first treatment discontinuation or up to 12 months after the initiation of the index treatment, whichever occurred first.

Results:

Among children and adolescents, LDX patients had a significantly lower discontinuation rate compared to other treatment groups (range hazard ratios [HRs]; 1.04–2.26; all p?<?0.05), except when compared to treatment-naïve patients on ATX and OROS MPH, where no statistically significant differences were found and where LDX had a higher risk of discontinuation, respectively. Among adults, LDX patients had a significantly lower discontinuation rate compared to patients in other treatment groups (range HR; 1.14–1.86; all p?<?0.05), except for the comparison with AMPH LA patients, where differences were not statistically significant.

Limitations:

This study did not control for ADHD severity.

Conclusion:

LDX-treated patients were associated with higher persistence compared to patients initiated on other ADHD medications, except for the comparisons with OROS MPH and ATX treated patients in treatment-naïve children and adolescents and AMPH LA-treated patients in adults.     

Retrospective database study to assess the economic impact of hip fracture in the United Kingdom

Objective:

Publications containing recent, real-world data on the economic impact of hip fractures in the UK are lacking. This retrospective electronic medical records database analysis assessed medication and healthcare resource use, direct healthcare costs, and factors predicting increased resource use and costs in adult UK hip fracture patients.

Methods:

Data were obtained from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink linked to the Hospital Episode Statistics for adult patients hospitalized for their first hip fracture between January 1, 2006 and March 31, 2011 (index event); healthcare costs were calculated from the National Health Service perspective using 2011–2012 cost data.

Results:

Data from 8028 patients were analyzed. Resource use and costs were statistically significantly higher in the year following fracture (mean total [standard deviation (SD)] cost £7359 [£14,937]) compared with the year before fracture (mean total [SD] cost £3122 [£9435]; p?Conclusions:

Although we did not capture all pre- and post-index costs and healthcare utilization, this study provides important insights regarding the characteristics of patients with hip fracture, and information that will be useful in burden-of-illness and economic analyses.     

Economic evaluation of the use of Innohep® in the treatment of acute pulmonary embolism

Summary

This article reports the cost implications of using Innohep® (tinzaparin), a low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), instead of intravenous (iv) unfractionated heparin (UFH) in the treatment of acute pulmonary embolism (PE). The expected cost per patient, including initial treatment costs and the cost of managing adverse outcomes (but excluding costs common to both regimes) was found to be £191.81 for patients treated with UFH and £186.64 for patients treated with Innohep® (costs estimated as of end 1997). Therefore, the use of Innohep® reduces the expected cost per patient by £5.17 or 3%. When the costs of managing adverse outcomes occurring after cessation of UFH/Innohep® therapy are excluded, expected costs per patient for UFH and Innohep® treatment are £136.70 and £120.22, respectively. Therefore, when outcomes not directly attributable to the choice between UFH and Innohep® treatment are reduced, the use of Innohep® reduces the expected cost per patient by £16.48 or 12%.

Innohep® reduces costs through greater ease of administration, by removing the need for extensive laboratory monitoring and by saving staff time. These results are generally robust to variations in key assumptions. Sensitivity analysis demonstrates that if patients treated with Innohep® can be discharged from hospital earlier, with their treatment continuing at home, substantial cost savings may result.     

Economic evaluation of sevelamer for the treatment of hyperphosphatemia in chronic kidney disease patients not on dialysis in the United Kingdom

Abstract

Objectives:

To determine the cost effectiveness of sevelamer vs calcium carbonate in patients with chronic kidney disease and not on dialysis (CKD-ND) from the perspective of the National Health Service (NHS) in the UK.

Methods:

A Markov decision analytic model was developed to estimate (1) total life years (LYs), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and costs for patients treated with sevelamer or calcium carbonate; and (2) incremental costs per LY gained (LYG) and per QALY gained for sevelamer vs calcium carbonate. Data informing probability transitions to all-cause death and dialysis inception in CKD-ND patients were taken directly from the INDEPENDENT-CKD study and were extrapolated beyond the 3-year clinical trial using Weibull regression analysis. Estimates of health utility and costs (in £2011) were derived from the published literature.

Results:

Over a lifetime horizon, sevelamer treatment resulted in a gain of 2.05 LYs and 1.56 QALYs per patient, an increase of £37,282 in total costs per patient vs calcium carbonate (3.5% discount), and a per-patient cost of £18,193/LYG and £23,878/QALY gained. Results were robust to alternative assumptions in key parameters; results were most sensitive to alternative assumptions regarding the mean daily dose of sevelamer, impact of sevelamer on dialysis initiation, cost of dialysis, and health utility estimates. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that sevelamer was cost-effective vs calcium carbonate in 93% of simulations at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £30,000/QALY gained.

Limitations:

While the model simulated a real-world clinical setting, this analysis was subject to limitations common to all decision analytic models, in that it used a mix of data sources and relied on several assumptions. Not all variables that impact real-world outcomes and costs were included in this model.

Conclusions:

Sevelamer is a cost-effective option compared to calcium carbonate for the first-line treatment of hyperphosphatemia in CKD-ND patients in the UK.     

Cost of illness associated with Niemann-Pick disease type C in the UK

Abstract

Objective: Niemann-Pick disease type C (NP-C) is a rare and devastating genetic disorder characterised by a range of progressive neurological symptoms, which imposes a burden on patients, family members, the healthcare system and society overall. The objective of this study was to assess direct and indirect costs associated with NP-C in the UK.

Methods: This was a non-interventional, retrospective, cross-sectional cohort study based on responses from patients and/or their carers/guardians recruited from a UK NP-C database. Resource use and direct medical, direct non-medical and indirect costs were evaluated using data collected via postal survey in October 2007, which included a Medical Resource Use questionnaire. Total annual costs per patient were estimated.

Results: In total, 18 Medical Resource Use questionnaires (29% response rate) were received and analysed. The mean total annual cost (SD) of NP-C per patient was £39,168 (£50,315); 46% were direct medical costs, to which home visits and residential care contributed 68% and 15%, respectively. Direct non-medical costs accounted for 24% of the average annual cost per patient, mainly due to specialist education, and indirect costs 30%. If only direct medical costs were considered, the mean annual cost (SD) per patient was reduced to £18,012 (£46,536).

Conclusions: The direct annual per-patient cost of NP-C illness in 2007 appears moderate when compared with other rare and severely disabling diseases. However, cost estimates may be conservative, since findings are limited by a small sample size, low survey response rate and potential recall bias. As demonstrated by this study, a substantial proportion of the cost is shifted from the healthcare system to the patient, family and non-medical providers. These findings highlight the need for treatments that can slow or stop disease progression in NP-C.     

Comparing treatment adherence of lisdexamfetamine and other medications for the treatment of attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a retrospective analysis

Abstract

Objective:

To assess treatment adherence in attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) patients initiated on Lisdexamfetamine (LDX) vs other FDA-approved stimulants and non-stimulant medications.

Methods:

ADHD patients initiated on an ADHD medication (index medication) were selected from a large US administrative claims database. Based on age and previous treatment status, patients were classified into treatment-naïve children and adolescents (6–17 years old), previously treated children and adolescents, treatment-naïve adults (over 18 years old), and previously treated adults. Furthermore, based on their index medication, patients were classified into seven mutually exclusive treatment groups: LDX, atomoxetine (ATX), osmotic release methylphenidate hydrochloride long acting (OROS MPH), other methylphenidate/dexmethylphenidate long acting (MPH LA) and short acting (MPH SA), and amphetamine/dextroamphetamine short acting (AMPH SA) and long acting (AMPH LA). Treatment adherence (proportion of days covered by the index medication ≥0.8) over a 12-month period was compared across treatment groups using multivariate logistic regression models.

Results:

In children and adolescents, LDX patients were more likely to be adherent compared to patients in each of the other treatment groups, except in treatment-naïve patients where LDX patients had a similar likelihood (p?=?0.6925) and were less likely (p?=?0.0004) to be adherent compared to ATX and OROS MPH patients, respectively. In adults, the LDX treatment group was also more likely to be adherent compared to each of the other treatment groups, except compared to AMPH LA, where statistically insignificant differences were observed (previously treated: p?=?0.6471, treatment-naïve: p?=?0.0733).

Limitations:

ADHD severity information was not available in the database. Accordingly, this study did not control for ADHD severity.

Conclusion:

Overall, LDX-treated patients demonstrated a better treatment adherence compared to patients initiated on other ADHD medications, except for AMPH LA in adult and OROS MPH and ATX in treatment-naïve children and adolescents.     

Cost-effectiveness of desirudin in the prevention of the thromboembolic complications of surgery

Summary

New therapies reduce the risk of deep-vein thrombosis (DVT) following orthopaedic surgery, but may be more costly than low-molecular-weight heparin, the current standard treatment. Decision analysis and life-table methods were used to model the incremental cost-effectiveness of Revasc® (desirudin) compared with low-molecular-weight heparin (enoxaparin) in DVT prophylaxis following total hip replacement. A health-service perspective (payer, prescriber) was adopted and the principal endpoint was cost/life-year saved over 15 years. Costs were updated from published Swedish data to reflect 1998/9 UK prices and practices.

Prophylactic treatment with desirudin rather than enoxaparin for the prevention of thromboembolic complications of hip surgery should lead to an increase of 4.69 life-years/100 patients over 15 years, at an increased cost of £12,026/100 patients: the cost per life-year saved is therefore £2,566. This compares favourably with a range of commonly used alternative interventions. Desirudin is therefore a cost-effective method of preventing postoperative DVT in patients undergoing total hip replacement surgery.     

Cost-effectiveness of oxaliplatin in combination with 5-FU/FA compared with 5-FU/FA alone

SUMMARY

We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis to assess the cost-effectiveness of oxaliplatin in combination with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and folinic acid (FA), compared with 5-FU/FA alone to achieve an additional progression-free month or year from the UK NHS perspective. Clinical data from a Phase III clinical trial were used to determine efficacy, in terms of progression-free survival. The average drug-acquisition cost for each cycle of treatment was then calculated. Any toxicities that resulted in hospitalisation of the patient were determined, and the costs incurred were calculated depending on the type of ward to which the patient was admitted. The costs for oxaliplatin in combination with 5-FU/FA compared with 5-FU/FA alone gave the incremental cost to achieve the improvement in progression-free survival. Sensitivity analyses were performed on costs and progression-free survival to give a range of possible values when costs and outcome were varied. The results of the analysis indicate that the costs to achieve an additional progression-free month are around £2,133. In the sensitivity analysis, the majority of scenarios gave similar cost-effectiveness ratios. This gives an average incremental cost of £25,600 to achieve an additional progression-free year. The cost-effectiveness ratio is within acceptable limits and supports the use of oxaliplatin combination therapy in the management of advanced colorectal cancer.     

Cost-effectiveness analysis of solifenacin versus oxybutynin immediate-release in the treatment of patients with overactive bladder in the United Kingdom

Abstract

Objective:

To carry out a cost-utility analysis comparing initial treatment with solifenacin 5?mg/day vs oxybutynin immediate-release (IR) 15?mg/day for the treatment of patients with overactive bladder (OAB) from the perspective of the UK National Health Service (NHS).

Methods:

A Markov model with six health states was developed to follow a cohort of OAB patients treated with either solifenacin or oxybutynin during a 1-year period. Costs and utilities were accumulated as patients transited through the health states in the model and a drop-out state. Some of the solifenacin patients were titrated from 5?mg to 10?mg/day at 8 weeks. A proportion of drop-out patients were assumed to continue treatment with tolterodine ER. Utility values were obtained from a Swedish study and pad use was based on a multinational clinical trial. Adherence rates for individual treatments were derived from a UK database study. For pad use and utility values, the drop-out state was split between those patients who were no longer receiving treatment and those on second-line therapy. Patients on second-line therapy who drop-out were referred for a specialist visit. Results were expressed in terms of incremental cost-utility ratios.

Results:

Total annual costs for solifenacin and oxybutynin were £504.30 and £364.19, respectively. First-line drug use represents 49% and 4% of costs and pad use represent 23% and 40% of costs for solifenacin and oxybutynin, respectively. Differences between cumulative utilities were small but were greater for solifenacin (0.7020 vs 0.6907). The baseline incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £12,309/QALY.

Conclusion:

Under the baseline assumptions, solifenacin would appear to be cost-effective with an incremental cost-utility of less than £20,000/QALY. However, small differences in utility between the alternatives and the large number of drop-outs means that the results are sensitive to small adjustments in the values of utilities assigned to the drop-out state.     

The cost-effectiveness of 5-FU-SA in the treatment of actinic keratoses of the face and scalp in the UK secondary care setting

Objective: The objective of this analysis was to estimate the relative cost-effectiveness of Actikerall¹ (5-FU-SA) vs cryotherapy in a secondary care setting in the UK, for lesion-directed treatment in patients with actinic keratoses (AK) of the face and scalp.

Methods: The model was a simple decision tree, with a 6-month time horizon. The perspective was that of the UK National Health Service (NHS). Modeled treatment effects included reported per-patient histological clearance and recurrence rates. Cost inputs comprised professional consultation time and cost of medication. Health-related utility estimation followed previously published methodology. Adverse events were not modeled. The key data and model structural assumptions followed expected UK practice. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess structural and parameter uncertainty.

Results: 5-FU-SA was found to be less costly (?£204) and more effective (+0.001 QALY) in base case and sensitivity analyses. In the probabilistic analysis there was 100% probability of being cost-effective over cryotherapy at £20,000 willingness to pay. Cost of professional time was a key driver of the model outcome. 5-FU-SA remained dominant across a range of scenario analyses, including exploration of assumptions around setting of care.

Limitations: The time horizon of the analysis was short and data were not extrapolated beyond the duration of the clinical trial; however, this approach is consistent with likely follow-up of an AK patient. The clinical outcomes observed in the trial were based on a large proportion of cryotherapy patients undergoing an additional cycle of treatment; this may not occur or be required in an experienced secondary care setting.

Conclusion: 5-FU-SA could be considered as a cost-effective choice for treatment of AK lesions of the face and scalp in secondary and mixed care settings in the UK. Use of 5-FU-SA in patients who would otherwise be managed with cryotherapy has the potential to result in cost savings.     

Estimating the quality-of-life impact and cost-effectiveness of alpha-blocker and anti-muscarinic combination treatment in men with lower urinary tract symptoms related to benign prostatic hyperplasia and overactive bladder

Abstract

Objective:

A 12-week clinical trial (TIMES) demonstrated that therapy with tolterodine extended release (TOL)?+?tamsulosin (TAM) provides clinical benefits vs TOL or TAM monotherapy or placebo (PBO) in men with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) including overactive bladder (OAB). The present analysis estimated the costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) associated with these therapies from the perspective of the UK healthcare system.

Methods:

TIMES cohorts receiving TOL, TAM, TOL?+?TAM, or PBO were followed from therapy initiation to 12 weeks. A decision-tree model was used to extrapolate the 12-week results to 1 year (including need for surgery owing to treatment failure at 12 weeks) and to track patients’ outcomes (symptoms, utility, and costs). Because TIMES did not include costs and QALYs, data from the EpiLUTS epidemiologic survey (12,796 males) were used to model a mathematical relationship between LUTS (daytime and nocturnal frequency, urgency episodes, urgency urinary incontinence episodes, and International Prostate Symptom Score [IPSS]), quality-of-life, and utility. This was used to convert improvements in TIMES patients’ LUTS into utility scores and QALYs. The model included drug and surgery procedure costs and hospital length of stay.

Results:

Incremental QALYs of TOL?+?TAM vs PBO, TAM, and TOL were 0.042, 0.021, and 0.013, and corresponding incremental costs were £189, £223, and ?£70, respectively, resulting in cost-utility ratios for TOL?+?TAM of £4508/QALY gained compared with PBO and £10,381/QALY gained compared with TAM. TOL?+?TAM combination therapy was both more effective and cost-saving compared with TOL. Univariate sensitivity analyses showed that patient utility was most responsive to changes in drug efficacy on IPSS and urgency episodes. Changing the percentage of patients undergoing surgery did not substantially affect model outcomes. The main limitation of the study was that the relation between LUTS and patient utility was based on an indirect association.

Conclusions:

TOL?+?TAM combination therapy appears to be cost-effective compared with TOL or TAM monotherapy or PBO in male patients with LUTS.     

A cost-utility analysis of adjunctive treatment with newer antiepileptic drugs in the UK

Summary

A recent review found that economic assessment of epilepsy treatment relies largely on hypothetical modelling of outcomes and combining these with resource and cost data from different sources. Prospective evaluations combining cost studies with outcome assessments are lacking. However, such a prospective observational study has been carried out previously, but only partially reported. We present a comprehensive cost-utility analysis of adjunctive newer antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) based on observational data from that study, and assess the uncertainty of the results using bootstrapping.

A total of 125 patients with intractable epilepsy were recruited. Each patient was about to start treatment with a new adjunctive AED [clobazam, (non-proprietary) gabapentin (Neurontin®, Parke-Davis, UK), lamotrigine (Lamictal®, GlaxoSmithKline, UK), topiramate (Topamax®, Janssen-Cilag, UK), or vigabatrin (Sabril®, Aventis Pharma, UK)]. Patients completed semi-structured interviews on resource use, side effects, and the EuroQol EQ-5D. Patients were followed up for 6 months. Patient-specific cost and utility data were analysed separately for each AED on an intent-to-treat basis. Uncertainty in the estimated incremental cost-utility ratios was quantified using the non-parametric bootstrap method, and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were calculated.

At 6 months, 78 patients were still on their prescribed drug. Only topiramate and vigabatrin patients showed an increase in EQ-5D scores, and therefore dominated

other AEDs. Topiramate had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £7,869/QALY compared with vigabatrin, and had more than a 50% chance of being optimal if the ceiling ratio was above £10,000/QALY.

Observational studies provide a valuable source of information for the economic evaluation of AEDs. In this study non-parametric bootstrapping was used to confirm the cost-effectiveness of adjunctive topiramate for patients with refractory epilepsy.     

Cost-effectiveness of stent-retriever thrombectomy in combination with IV t-PA compared with IV t-PA alone for acute ischemic stroke in the UK

Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of neurothrombectomy with a stent retriever (Solitaire**Solitaire Revascularization Device is a registered trademark of Medtronic (Irvine, CA).View all notes Revascularization Device) in treating acute ischemic stroke patients from the UK healthcare provider perspective.

Methods: A Markov model was developed to simulate health outcomes and costs of two therapies over a lifetime time horizon: stent-retriever thrombectomy in combination with intravenous tissue-type plasminogen activator (IV t-PA), and IV t-PA alone. The model incorporated an acute phase (0–90 days) and a rest of life phase (90+ days). Health states were defined by the modified Rankin Scale score. During the rest of life phase, patients remained in the same health state until a recurrent stroke or death. Clinical effectiveness and safety data were taken from the SWIFT PRIME study. Resource use and health state utilities were informed by published data.

Results: Combined stent-retriever thrombectomy and IV t-PA led to improved quality-of-life and increased life expectancy compared to IV t-PA alone. The higher treatment costs associated with the use of stent-retriever thrombectomy were offset by long-term cost savings due to improved patient health status, leading to overall cost savings of £33 190 per patient and a net benefit of £79 402. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the results were robust to a wide range of parameter inputs.

Limitations: The acute and long-term costs resource use data were taken from a study based on a patient population that was older and may have had additional comorbidities than the SWIFT PRIME population, resulting in costs that may not be representative of the cohort within this model. In addition, the estimates may not reflect stroke care today as no current evidence is available; however, the cost estimates were deemed reasonable by clinical opinion.

Conclusions: Combined stent-retriever neurothrombectomy and IV t-PA is a cost-effective treatment for acute ischemic stroke compared with IV t-PA alone.     

Healthcare resource utilization among patients with relapsed multiple myeloma in the UK,France, and Italy

Aims: To assess the real-world healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs associated with different treatment regimens used in the management of patients with relapsed multiple myeloma in the UK, France, and Italy.

Methods: Retrospective medical chart review of characteristics, time to progression, level of response, HRU during treatment, and adverse events (AEs). Data collection started on June 1, 2015 and was completed on July 15, 2015. In the 3 months before record abstraction, eligible patients had either disease progression after receiving one of their country’s most commonly prescribed regimens or had received the best supportive care and died. Costs were calculated based on HRU and country-specific diagnosis-related group and/or unit reference costs, amongst other standard resources.

Results: Physicians provided data for 1,282 patients (387 in the UK, 502 in France, 393 in Italy) who met the inclusion criteria. Mean [median] total healthcare costs associated with a single line of treatment were €51,717 [35,951] in the UK, €37,009 [32,538] for France, and €34,496 [42,342] for Italy, driven largely by anti-myeloma medications costs (contributing 95.0%, 90.0%, and 94.2% of total cost, respectively). During active treatment, the highest costs were associated with lenalidomide- and pomalidomide-based regimens. Mean cost per month was lowest for patients achieving a very good partial response or better. Unscheduled events (i.e. not considered part of routine management, whether or not related to multiple myeloma, such as unscheduled hospitalization, AEs, fractures) accounted for 1–9% of total costs and were highest for bendamustine.

Limitations: The use of retrospective data means that clinical practice (e.g. use of medical procedures, evaluation of treatment response) is not standardized across participating countries/centers, and some data (e.g. low-grade AEs) may be incomplete or differently adjudicated/reported. The centers involved may not be fully representative of national practice.

Conclusions: Drug costs are the main contributor to total HRU costs associated with multiple myeloma. The duration of active treatment may influence the average total costs, as well as response, associated with a single line of therapy. Improved treatment outcomes, and reductions in unscheduled events and concomitant medication use may, therefore, reduce the overall HRU and related costs of care in multiple myeloma.     

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.     

Use of opioid substitution therapies in the treatment of opioid use disorder: results of a UK cost-effectiveness modelling study

Aims: This study investigated the cost-effectiveness of buprenorphine maintenance treatment (BMT) and methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) vs no opioid substitution therapy (OST) for the treatment of opioid use disorder, from the UK National Health Service (NHS)/personal social services (PSS) and societal perspectives over 1 year.

Methods: Cost-effectiveness of OST vs no OST was evaluated by first replicating and then expanding an existing UK health technology assessment model. The expanded model included the impact of OST on infection rates of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection.

Results: Versus no OST, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for BMT and MMT were £13,923 and £14,206 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY), respectively, from a NHS/PSS perspective. When total costs (NHS/PSS and societal) are considered, there are substantial savings associated with adopting OST; these savings are in excess of £14,032 for BMT vs no OST and £17,174 for MMT vs no OST over 1 year. This is primarily driven by a reduction in victim costs. OST treatment also impacted other aspects of criminality and healthcare resource use.

Limitations: The model’s 1-year timeframe means long-term costs and benefits, and the influence of changes over time are not captured.

Conclusions: OST can be considered cost-effective vs no OST from the UK NHS/PSS perspective, with a cost per QALY well below the UK’s willingness-to-pay threshold. There were only small differences between BMT and MMT. The availability of two or more cost-effective options is beneficial to retaining patients in OST programs. From a societal perspective, OST is estimated to save over £14,032 and £17,174 per year for BMT and MMT vs no OST, respectively, due to savings in victim costs. Further work is required to fully quantify the clinical and health economic impacts of different OST formulations and their societal impact over the long-term.     

De-escalation from micafungin is a cost-effective alternative to traditional escalation from fluconazole in the treatment of patients with systemic Candida infections

Abstract

Background:

Systemic Candida infections (SCI) occur predominantly in intensive care unit patients and are a common cause of morbidity and mortality. Recently, changes in Candida epidemiology with an increasing prevalence of SCI caused by Candida non-albicans species have been reported. Resistance to fluconazole and azoles in general is not uncommon for non-albicans species. Despite guidelines recommending initial treatment with broad-spectrum antifungals such as echinocandins with subsequent switch to fluconazole if isolates are sensitive (de-escalation strategy), fluconazole is still the preferred first-line antifungal (escalation) in many clinical practice settings. After diagnosis of the pathogen, the initial therapy with fluconazole is switched to a broad-spectrum antifungal if a non-albicans is identified.

Methods:

The cost-effectiveness of initial treatment with micafungin (de-escalation) vs fluconazole (escalation) in patients with SCI was estimated using decision analysis based on clinical and microbiological data from pertinent studies. The model horizon was 42 days, and was extrapolated to cover a lifetime horizon. All costs were analyzed from the UK NHS perspective. Several assumptions were taken to address uncertainties; the limitations of these assumptions are discussed in the article.

Results:

In patients with fluconazole-resistant isolates, initial treatment with micafungin avoids 30% more deaths and successfully treats 23% more patients than initial treatment with fluconazole, with cost savings of £1621 per treated patient. In the overall SCI population, de-escalation results in 1.2% fewer deaths at a marginal cost of £740 per patient. Over a lifetime horizon, the incremental cost-effectiveness of de-escalation vs escalation was £15,522 per life-year and £25,673 per QALY.

Conclusions:

De-escalation from micafungin may improve clinical outcomes and overall survival, particularly among patients with fluconazole-resistant Candida strains. De-escalation from initial treatment with micafungin is a cost-effective alternative to escalation from a UK NHS perspective, with a differential cost per QALY below the ‘willingness-to-pay’ threshold of £30,000.