EQ-5D health utilities: exploring ways to improve upon responsiveness in psoriasis

Aims: To determine if EuroQoL 5-Dimension Health Questionnaire (EQ-5D) health utility scores were able to discriminate among different levels of improvement in psoriasis severity following therapy.

Materials and methods: Data were from three placebo-controlled phase 3 ixekizumab studies (UNCOVER-1, UNCOVER-2, and UNCOVER-3) with patients who had baseline Dermatology Life Quality Index scores >10 (DLQI >10). Psoriasis severity (Psoriasis Area and Severity Index [PASI]), general health utility (EQ-5D), and psoriasis-specific utility (EQ-PSO, UNCOVER-3 only) were assessed. EQ-5D-5L utility scores were generated using the England EQ-5D-5L value set, a crosswalk applied to the EQ-5D-3L United States (US) and United Kingdom (UK) value sets, and a regression-based exploratory scoring function for the EQ-PSO (UK). Analysis of variance was used to estimate change in EQ-5D-5L from baseline to Week 12 per PASI improvement level: PASI <50, PASI 50 to <75, PASI 75 to <90, PASI 90 to <100, and PASI 100. Missing data were imputed using the last observation carried forward method. Value sets for the UK, England, and the US were applied.

Results: In total, 2085 patients across UNCOVER-1, UNCOVER-2, and UNCOVER-3 had baseline DLQI >10 and available utility scores. At Week 12, mean EQ-5D utility scores increased with increasing PASI improvement levels (p?n?=?645; PASI 90 to <100: 0.141, PASI 100: 0.200; adjusted p?=?0.043).

Limitations: EQ-5D-5L index-based scores have limited ability to differentiate among psoriasis patients at the highest PASI improvement levels.

ConclusionsL Adding psoriasis-specific EQ-PSO dimensions to the EQ-5D may enhance responsiveness to improvement in skin clarity at the highest PASI levels, and, therefore, generate utility scores that better reflect treatment benefit in cost-utility models.     

Cost minimization analysis of capecitabine versus 5-fluorouracil-based treatment for gastric cancer patients in Hong Kong

Background: EOX (epirubicin, oxaliplatin, Xeloda; capecitabine) and FOLFOX4 (5-fluorouracil (5-FU), leucovorin, oxaliplatin) are the common chemotherapy regimens used in the treatment of advanced gastric cancer (aGC) in Hong Kong. This study aimed to compare the costs of these therapies for aGC patients from both the healthcare and societal perspectives. It should be noted that, while FOLFOX4 is routinely administered in an outpatient setting in North America and Europe, inpatient setting is adopted in Hong Kong instead, incurring hospitalization cost as a result.

Methods: Fifty-eight patients were identified from the electronic records in two public tertiary hospitals, with 45 and 13 receiving EOX and FOLFOX4 regimens, respectively. Healthcare cost was direct medical costs including drugs, clinic follow-up, hospitalization, diagnostic laboratories, and radiographs. Societal cost refers to indirect costs such as patient time and travel costs. Cost items were further classified as “expected” or “unexpected”. All cost data was expressed in US dollars.

Results: Patients in the EOX and FOLFOX4 arm received an average of 5.3 and 7.8 cycles of treatment, respectively. The capecitabine-based regimen group had a higher expected medication cost per cycle when compared to the 5-FU-based treatment group (US$290.3 vs US$66.9, p?p?p?p?=?.001), respectively, in the capecitabine-based regimen group. Sensitivity analyses based on full cycle regimen costs and net capecitabine or 5-FU/leucovorin costs still showed EOX to be less costly than FOLFOX4.

Conclusion: The capecitabine-based regimen, EOX, was found to generate significant cost saving from both the healthcare and societal perspectives in regions in which FOLFOX4 is given in an inpatient setting.     

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

Summary

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

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

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

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