Model to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of different antibiotics in the management of community-acquired pneumonia in Germany

Summary

This study investigated the primary cost-drivers and determinants of the cost-effectiveness of antibacterial treatment of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) in Germany. It assessed the health care costs and consequences related to treatment initiated in the community using macrolides, fluoroquinolones, and cephalosporins. Patients were categorised according to disease severity. Decision analysis was used to consider the clinical and economic consequences of various treatment options from first-line treatment initiated by a primary care physician in the community to success or failure after third-line treatment in hospital.

The key cost drivers were the clinical success/failure rates of first-line treatment and, in moderate CAP, the cost per day of hospitalisation. Thus, antibiotics with the cheapest purchase price are not necessarily the most cost-effective treatment. This is because the extra costs associated with treatment failure, especially in more severely ill patients, can be much greater than the acquisition costs of the first-line antibiotic. Of the antibiotics considered, none was consistently found to be the most cost-effective across the full range of scenarios investigated. However, in moderate CAP the fluoroquinolones and cephalosporins were generally more cost-effective than the macrolides. Given the high cost associated with hospitalisation, and the low mortality rates in low-risk patients with mild and moderate CAP, successful outcomes and health care cost savings can be achieved if such patients receive appropriate antibiotics as first-line treatment in the community.     

Modelling the lifetime economic consequences of glaucoma in France

Abstract

Objective: To estimate the lifetime economic consequences of glaucoma in France.

Methods: A Markov model estimated the average discounted outcome and cost of glaucoma treatment over a patient's lifetime. Clinical states were defined as first- to fourth-line drugs, no treatment, laser therapy, surgery, blindness and death. After each failure (always after the fourth-line drug) patients could receive either laser treatment or surgery followed by no treatment, or a new treatment. A societal perspective was adopted. Sensitivity analyses were performed.

Results: Discounted medical costs were €7,322 for ocular hypertension treatment (OHT) and €8,488 for a glaucoma patient. Social costs of OHT and glaucoma patients exceeded medical costs. First-line use of the most effective drug would reduce medical and social costs. Societal willingness to pay for the vision benefit would equal the medical costs. Treatment initiated with the most effective drug is a cost saving strategy.

Conclusions: Public health decisions in glaucoma treatment should take a broad economic view embracing the lifetime duration of the disease. There is still a place both within and outside the healthcare system for therapeutic innovations with important economic consequences that bring high added value to patients.     

Economic consequences of sequencing biologics in rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review

Abstract

Background and objectives:

Tumor necrosis factor-alpha (anti-TNF) blocking agents are effective for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), with mean response rates of 60–70%. Patients with incomplete response to initial anti-TNF treatment often are switched to other biologic treatments with some success. However, little is known about whether or not switching to anti-TNF or other non-TNF biologic treatments is cost-effective. This study sought to review the economic evidence of sequencing various biologic treatments in RA.

Methods:

A systematic review was conducted of published and unpublished literature (January 2000 to October 2012) on the cost-effectiveness of sequencing biologic treatments in RA after failure of an initial biologic treatment. It included modeling and other economic studies that assessed cost-effectiveness of one or more sequences of biologics. Studies were excluded that evaluated non-biologic sequencing.

Results:

This review of the available evidence suggests that there is limited evidentiary support favoring the cost-effectiveness of switching from one anti-TNF agent to another within the anti-TNF category of biologics. This is due, in large part, to the limited clinical evidence base supporting the incremental efficacy of second- and third-line anti-TNF treatments and to variation on how and when to assess non-response to the first-line biologic. When compared to anti-TNF agents, biologic treatments with a different mechanism of action are more cost-effective as second-line agents.

Limitations:

Not all sequences and patterns of switching, either within or outside of therapeutic class, have been evaluated for clinical benefit and cost-effectiveness, limiting the interpretation of these findings.

Conclusions:

Switching from one anti-TNF agent to another after first-line treatment failure may not be a cost-effective treatment strategy. However, when non-TNF biologics are included in the sequence they are likely to be more cost-effective than anti-TNF specific cycling sequences.     

Economic assessment of doripenem versus imipenem in the treatment of ventilator-associated pneumonia

Abstract

Background: Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), the most common nosocomial infection in critically ill patients, is associated with significantly longer duration of mechanical ventilation, and increased mortality, hospital days, and health-care costs. A previously published prospective, randomized study established the noninferiority of intravenous (IV) doripenem versus IV imipenem/cilastatin (‘imipenem‘) for VAP. This study compares the economic outcomes of IV therapy with doripenem versus imipenem as first-line treatment for VAP.

Methods: A decision-analytic model of inpatient care and outcomes for VAP was used to estimate costs associated with VAP treatment. The model calculates total hospital costs, comprising costs of initial and concomitant therapy, and costs associated with mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit stays, and total days in hospital.

Results: Total treatment costs for doripenem were $10,630 lower than for imipenem ($71,259 vs. 81,889), driven primarily by differences in costs of mechanical ventilation ($45,224 for doripenem, $57,348 for imipenem). Probabilistic sensitivity analyses found doripenem consistently cost saving versus imipenem in 1,000 simulations. Study limitations include use of a simple model to represent a complex disease process and reliance on trial data that may not reflect real-world care and outcomes.

Conclusions: Doripenem is a cost saving first-line treatment for VAP versus imipenem while providing an equivalent rate of cure.     

Cost-effectiveness of Viridal Duo compared to MUSE and Viagra in the treatment of erectile dysfunction in the UK - a preliminary model

Summary

This study estimated the cost-effectiveness of starting erectile dysfunction (ED) treatment with Viridal Duo relative to MUSE and Viagra over one year, from the perspective of the National Health Service. Decision analysis techniques were used to estimate the expected costs and consequences of managing ED, stratified by initial treatment. The model was based on estimates of clinical outcome and resource use obtained from published literature and a Delphi panel.

Viridal Duo is a registered trademark of Schwarz Pharma;

MUSE is a registered trademark of Astra Pharmaceuticals;

Viagra is a registered trademark of Pfizer Consumer Healthcare

Starting ED treatment with Viridal Duo instead of Viagra leads to an average 0.8 additional months during which a man can achieve successful erections (from 6.5 to 7.3 months) over one year, for an additional cost of £106 per patient (from £369 to £475). Starting ED treatment with Viagra instead of MUSE leads to an average 1.1 additional months during which a man can achieve successful erections (from 5.4 to 6.5 months) over one year and reduces the cost per patient by £85 (from £454 to £369).

Fifty-two percent of patients who start treatment with Viridal Duo continue successfully over one year. This compares to 38% and 18% of patients who start treatment with Viagra and MUSE respectively. Eighty-seven percent of the total success with Viridal Duo can be directly attributed to this treatment when used first-line. In contrast, 68% and 44% of the total success attributed to Viagra and MUSE respectively can be attributed to these treatments when chosen first-line. Moreover, an additional 44% and 27% of the expected total success with MUSE and Viagra is attributable to Viridal Duo.

Starting ED treatment with Viridal Duo rather than MUSE, when Viagra is either unavailable or contraindicated, increases the period during which a man can achieve successful erections by 1.8 months (from 5.5 to 7.3 months) for an additional cost of £14 per patient (from £460 to £474). Additionally, in patients who have previously failed Viagra, starting second-line treatment with Viridal Duo rather than MUSE leads to an average 1.6 additional months during which a man can achieve successful erections (from 4.0 to 5.6 months) over one year and reduces the cost per patient by £15 (from £493 to £478).

In conclusion, Viridal Duo is clinically more effective than Viagra and MUSE. Therefore, starting ED treatment with Viridal Duo instead of Viagra or MUSE increases the period during which a man can achieve successful erections, albeit for an additional cost. In patients who have previously failed first-line treatment with Viagra, starting second-line treatment with Viridal Duo instead of MUSE increases the period during which a man can achieve successful erections (by 40% at one year) and reduces healthcare costs (by £15 per patient).     

Cost-effectiveness of second-line atezolizumab in Canada for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)

Aim: To assess the cost-effectiveness in Canada of atezolizumab compared with docetaxel or nivolumab for the treatment of advanced NSCLC after first-line platinum-doublet chemotherapy.

Materials and methods: A three-state partitioned-survival model was developed. Clinical inputs were obtained from the phase III OAK trial comparing atezolizumab with docetaxel in patients with advanced NSCLC who progressed after first-line platinum-doublet chemotherapy. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were extrapolated beyond the trial period using parametric models. A cure model assuming a 1% cure fraction was fitted to the OS data for atezolizumab. Outcomes for nivolumab were informed by a network meta-analysis (NMA) vs atezolizumab. Resource use and costs were informed by clinical expert opinion and published Canadian sources. Utility values were obtained from the OAK trial. The perspective of the analysis was that of the Canadian publicly-funded healthcare system. The base case time horizon was 10?years, and the discount rate was 1.5% annually for both costs and effects. Scenario analyses were performed to test the robustness of the results and all analyses were performed probabilistically.

Results: Atezolizumab demonstrated a quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gain of 0.60 compared with docetaxel at an incremental cost of $85,073, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $142,074/QALY. Atezolizumab dominated nivolumab (regardless of dosing regimen), based on modest differences in both QALYs and costs. Docetaxel was most likely to be cost effective at willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds below $125,000/QALY gained, while atezolizumab was most likely to be cost effective beyond this WTP threshold. In most scenario analyses, the results remained robust to changes in parameters. A reduced time horizon and alternative approaches to the NMA had the greatest impact on cost-effectiveness results.

Conclusion: Atezolizumab represents a cost-effective therapeutic option in Canada for the treatment of patients with advanced NSCLC who progress after first-line platinum doublet chemotherapy.     

Cost-effectiveness of ceritinib in previously untreated anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive metastatic non-small cell lung cancer in the United States

Aims: To assess the cost-effectiveness of first-line ceritinib vs crizotinib and platinum doublet chemotherapy for anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) from a US third-party payer’s perspective.

Materials and methods: A partitioned survival model with three health states (stable disease, progressive disease, death) was developed over a 20-year time horizon. Ceritinib’s efficacy inputs (progression-free and overall survival) were estimated from ASCEND-4; parametric survival models extrapolated data beyond the trial period. The relative efficacy of ceritinib vs chemotherapy was obtained from ASCEND-4, the relative efficacy of ceritinib vs crizotinib was estimated using a matching-adjusted indirect comparison based on ASCEND-4 and PROFILE 1014. Drug acquisition, treatment administration, adverse event management, and medical costs were obtained from publicly available databases and the literature, and inflated to 2016?US dollars. Treatment-specific stable-state utilities were derived from trials and progressive-state utility from the literature. Incremental costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) were estimated for ceritinib vs each comparator. Cost-effectiveness was assessed based on US willingness-to-pay thresholds. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to test model robustness.

Results: In the base case, first-line ceritinib was associated with total direct costs of $299,777 and 3.28 QALYs (from 4.61 life years gained [LYG]) over 20 years. First-line crizotinib and chemotherapy were associated with 2.73 and 2.41 QALYs, 3.92 and 3.53 LYG, and $263,172 and $228,184 total direct costs, respectively. The incremental cost per QALY gained was $66,064 for ceritinib vs crizotinib and $81,645 for ceritinib vs chemotherapy. In the first 2 years following treatment initiation, ceritinib dominated crizotinib by conferring greater health benefits at reduced total costs. Results were robust to deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

Limitations: In the absence of head-to-head trials, an indirect comparison method was used.

Conclusions: Ceritinib is cost-effective compared to crizotinib and chemotherapy in the treatment of previously untreated ALK-positive metastatic NCSLC in the US.     

Cost-effectiveness analysis on the use of fidaxomicin and vancomycin to treat Clostridium difficile infection in France

Background: Fidaxomicin is a macrocyclic antibiotic with proven efficacy against Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) in adults. It was licensed in France in 2012, but, due to higher acquisition costs compared with existing treatments, healthcare providers require information on its cost/benefit profile.

Objective: To compare healthcare costs and health outcomes of fidaxomicin and vancomycin, as reference treatment for CDI.

Methods: A Markov model was used to simulate the treatment pathway, over 1 year, of adult patients with CDI receiving fidaxomicin or vancomycin. Several patient sub-groups (severe CDI; recurrent CDI; concomitant antibiotics; cancer; renal failure; elderly) were evaluated. Cost-effectiveness was analyzed based on cure and recurrence rates derived from published randomized clinical trials comparing fidaxomicin and vancomycin, and costs calculated from the payer perspective using French hospitalization data and drug cost databases. Model outputs included costs in euros (reference year 2014) and health outcomes (recurrence; sustained cure rates). Alternative scenario and sensitivity analyses were performed using data from other clinical trials in CDI, including one conducted in real-life clinical practice in France.

Results: Drug acquisition costs were €1,692 higher in fidaxomicin-treated patients, but this was offset by the lower hospitalization costs with fidaxomicin, which were reduced by €1,722. The reduction in the cost of hospitalization was driven by the significantly lower number of recurrences in fidaxomicin-treated patients, offsetting the acquisition cost of fidaxomicin in all sub-groups except recurrent CDI and concomitant antibiotics.

Conclusion: This study demonstrated that, despite higher acquisition costs, the lower recurrence rate with fidaxomicin resulted in cost savings or low incremental costs compared with vancomycin.     

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 and effectiveness of ciprofloxacin + hydrocortisone versus neomycin + polymyxin B + hydrocortisone in France for the treatment of acute otitis externa

Summary

The cost-effectiveness of two topical otic combinations, ciprofloxacin + hydrocortisone and polymyxin B — neomycin — hydrocortisone (PNH), was assessed in the treatment of acute otitis externa (AOE). Two randomised controlled double-masked trials compared their clinical and bacteriological efficacy and safety after 7 to 10 days of qid treatment. The treatment failure cost was established from a panel of ENT specialists and GPs. A decision-tree analysis was constructed to reproduce the results of empirical treatment. The most often encountered species were Pseudomonas aeruginosa (82.4%) and Staphylococcus aureus (9.7%). Patients documented with P aeruginosa had a better ciprofloxacin + hydrocortisone bacterial and clinical efficacy. The cost of AOE first-line failure was EUR 94.44 (Societal) and EUR 57.24 (Sécurité Sociale). The savings associated with ciprofloxacin + hydrocortisone (Cipro HC ®) were respectively EUR 3.87 and EUR 2.85. This model shows that topical ciprofloxacin + hydrocortisone could be a cost saving alternative in the treatment of AOE, provided its public price does not exceed EUR 10.60.

Cipro HC® is a registered trademark of Alcon, France.     

A within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis of panitumumab compared with bevacizumab in the first-line treatment of patients with wild-type RAS metastatic colorectal cancer in the US

Abstract

Aims: This analysis investigated the cost-effectiveness of panitumumab plus mFOLFOX6 (oxaliplatin, 5-fluorouracil, and leucovorin) compared with bevacizumab plus mFOLFOX6 in the first-line treatment of patients with wild-type RAS metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).

Materials and methods: The cost-effectiveness analysis was developed from a third-party payer perspective in the US and was implemented using a partitioned survival model with health states for first-line treatment (progression-free), disease progression with and without subsequent active treatment, and death. Survival analyses of patients with wild-type RAS mCRC from the PEAK head-to-head clinical trial of panitumumab vs bevacizumab were performed to estimate time in the model health states. Additional data from PEAK informed the amount of each drug consumed, duration of therapy, subsequent therapy use, and toxicities related to mCRC treatment. Literature and US public data sources were used to estimate unit costs associated with treatment and duration of subsequent active therapies. Utility weights were calculated from patient-level data from panitumumab trials in the first-, second-, and third-line settings. A life-time perspective was taken with future costs and outcomes discounted at 3% per annum. Scenario, one-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

Results: Compared with bevacizumab, the use of panitumumab resulted in an incremental cost of US $60,286, and an incremental quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) of 0.445, translating into a cost per QALY gained of US $135,391 in favor of panitumumab. Results were sensitive to wastage and dose rounding assumptions modeled.

Limitations: Progression-free and overall survival were extrapolated beyond the follow-up of the primary analysis using fitted parametric curves. Costs and quality of life were estimated from multiple and different data sources.

Conclusions: The efficacy of panitumumab in extending progression-free and overall survival and improving quality of life makes it a cost-effective option for first-line treatment of patients with wild-type RAS mCRC compared with bevacizumab.     

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.     

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-effectiveness analysis of sequential biologic therapy with ixekizumab versus secukinumab as first-line treatment of moderate-to-severe psoriasis in the UK

Aims: Patients with psoriasis often undergo treatment with a sequence of biologic agents because of poor/loss of response to initial therapy. With the availability of newer agents like ixekizumab and secukinumab, there is a need for cost-effectiveness analyses to better reflect current clinical practice. This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of a sequence of biologic therapies containing first-line ixekizumab vs first-line secukinumab in patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis in the UK.

Materials and methods: A Markov model with a lifetime horizon was developed to compare the cost-effectiveness of ixekizumab and secukinumab treatment sequences: ixekizumab → ustekinumab → infliximab → best supportive care (BSC) vs secukinumab → ustekinumab → infliximab → BSC. The model used monthly cycles, and included four health states: trial period, treatment maintenance, BSC, and death. At the end of the trial period, responders transitioned to maintenance therapy; non-responders transitioned to the next biologic in the sequence. An annual discontinuation rate of 20% was assumed for maintenance therapy.

Results: The ixekizumab sequence provided cost savings of £898 (£176,203 vs 177,101) [year 2015 values] and gained 0.03 more quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs: 1.45 vs 1.42) vs the secukinumab sequence over the lifetime horizon. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed an 89.8% likelihood that the ixekizumab sequence would be cost-effective at a threshold of £20,000 per QALY gained.

Limitations: The analysis used list prices for drugs rather than confidential, preferentially priced Patient Access Scheme costs. In addition, efficacy input data were based on a network meta-analysis, as there were no head-to-head trials comparing ixekizumab and secukinumab.

Conclusion: First-line treatment with ixekizumab as part of a specific sequential biologic therapy for moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis in the UK provided slight advantages in cost savings and QALYs gained over a similar treatment sequence initiated with secukinumab. In view of the small magnitude of these differences, factors such as patient preferences (e.g. for number of injections) and long-term safety (e.g. related to time on the market) may also be important for clinical decision-making.     

Retrospective analysis of patients with advanced or metastatic gastric cancer in Colombia

Abstract

Aims: To assess patient and disease characteristics, treatment patterns, and associated costs in patients with advanced or metastatic gastric cancer (A/MGC) in Colombia, in both the public and private hospitals.

Materials and methods: A total of 145 patients who had received first-line chemotherapy treatment (platinum analog and/or a fluoropyrimidine) and were followed for at least 3 months after the last administration of a first-line cytotoxic agent were eligible for inclusion. Case-report forms were elaborated based on the patients’ medical records from three Colombian hospitals. Estimates of treatment costs were calculated using unit costs from the participating hospitals.

Results: Of the 145 patients, more than half (64.83%) were male, 79.56% were diagnosed with metastatic stage IV disease (mean age = 58.14?years). Prior to MGC diagnosis, 31.71% of the patients being operated on received a total gastrectomy; 66.9% of the patients received a doublet therapy, of which 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) in combination with cisplatin was the standard treatment (14%), followed by combination with leucovorin (12%). Only around 10% of the patients responded to first-line treatment. Out of 41.38% of the patients who received a second-line treatment, 71.67% were still administered a platinum analog and/or fluoropyrimidine. During the follow-up period, 52% of the patients progressed and 20% achieved stable disease. Best supportive care mostly consisted of outpatient visits after last line-therapy (72.41%), palliative radiotherapy (18.6%), and surgery (37.2%).

Limitations and conclusions: Gastric cancer is one of the main causes of cancer-related death in Colombia, as most of the patients are diagnosed at an advanced stage, when prognosis is poor. Treatment patterns are highly heterogeneous. Second-line treatments were mostly initiated with paclitaxel, capecitabine, irinotecan, or cisplatin.     

Peginterferon beta-1a versus other self-injectable disease-modifying therapies in the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in Scotland: a cost-effectiveness analysis

Aims: Peginterferon beta-1a 125?mcg administered subcutaneously every 2 weeks, a new disease-modifying therapy (DMT) for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS), was approved in January 2015 by the Scottish Medicines Consortium. This study assesses long-term clinical and economic outcomes of peginterferon beta-1a compared with other self-injectable DMTs (interferon beta-1a [22?mcg, 30?mcg, and 44?mcg], interferon beta-1b, and glatiramer acetate 20?mg) in the treatment of RRMS, from the National Health Service and Personal Social Services perspective in Scotland.

Methods: A previously published, validated Markov cohort model was adapted for this analysis. The model estimates changes in patient disability, occurrence of relapses, and other adverse events, and translates them into quality-adjusted life years and costs. Natural history data came from the ADVANCE trial of peginterferon beta-1a, the London Ontario (Canada) database, and a large population-based MS survey in the UK. The comparative efficacy of each DMT vs placebo was obtained from a network meta-analysis. Costs (2015 British Pounds) were obtained from public databases and literature. Clinical and economic outcomes were projected over 30 years and discounted at 3.5% per year.

Results: Over 30 years, peginterferon beta-1a was dominant compared with interferon beta-1a (22, 30, and 44?mcg), and interferon beta-1b, and cost-effective compared with glatiramer acetate 20?mg. Results were most sensitive to variations in each DMT’s efficacy and acquisition costs. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the results.

Limitations: The impact of improved adherence with peginterferon beta-1a on clinical and economic outcomes and the impact of subsequent DMTs after treatment discontinuation were not considered. Oral and infused DMTs were not included as comparators.

Conclusion Long-term treatment with peginterferon beta-1a improves clinical outcomes, while its cost profile makes it either dominant or cost-effective compared with other self-injectable DMTs for the treatment of RRMS in Scotland.     

Cost-effectiveness analysis in the Spanish setting of the PEAK trial of panitumumab plus mFOLFOX6 compared with bevacizumab plus mFOLFOX6 for first-line treatment of patients with wild-type RAS metastatic colorectal cancer

Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness of panitumumab in combination with mFOLFOX6 (oxaliplatin, 5-fluorouracil, and leucovorin) vs bevacizumab in combination with mFOLFOX6 as first-line treatment of patients with wild-type RAS metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in Spain.

Methods: A semi-Markov model was developed including the following health states: Progression free; Progressive disease: Treat with best supportive care; Progressive disease: Treat with subsequent active therapy; Attempted resection of metastases; Disease free after metastases resection; Progressive disease: after resection and relapse; and Death. Parametric survival analyses of patient-level progression free survival and overall survival data from the PEAK Phase II clinical trial were used to estimate health state transitions. Additional data from the PEAK trial were considered for the dose and duration of therapy, the use of subsequent therapy, the occurrence of adverse events, and the incidence and probability of time to metastasis resection. Utility weightings were calculated from patient-level data from panitumumab trials evaluating first-, second-, and third-line treatments. The study was performed from the Spanish National Health System (NHS) perspective including only direct costs. A life-time horizon was applied. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses and scenario sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robustness of the model.

Results: Based on the PEAK trial, which demonstrated greater efficacy of panitumumab vs bevacizumab, both in combination with mFOLFOX6 first-line in wild-type RAS mCRC patients, the estimated incremental cost per life-year gained was €16,567 and the estimated incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained was €22,794. The sensitivity analyses showed the model was robust to alternative parameters and assumptions.

Limitations: The analysis was based on a simulation model and, therefore, the results should be interpreted cautiously.

Conclusions: Based on the PEAK Phase II clinical trial and taking into account Spanish costs, the results of the analysis showed that first-line treatment of mCRC with panitumumab?+?mFOLFOX6 could be considered a cost-effective option compared with bevacizumab?+?mFOLFOX6 for the Spanish NHS.     

Long-term cost-effectiveness analysis shows that IDegLira is associated with improved outcomes and lower costs compared with insulin glargine U100 plus insulin aspart in the US

Abstract

Aims: The clinical and economic impact of diabetes is growing in the US. Choosing therapies that are both effective and cost-effective is becoming increasingly important. The aim of the present analysis was to assess the long-term cost-effectiveness of IDegLira for treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus not meeting glycemic targets on basal insulin, vs insulin glargine U100 plus insulin aspart, in the US setting.

Materials and methods: Long-term projections of cost-effectiveness outcomes were made using the IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model. Clinical inputs were based on the DUAL VII trial, with costs (accounted from a healthcare payer perspective) and utilities based on published sources. Future costs and clinical benefits were discounted at 3% annually.

Results: IDegLira was associated with increased discounted life expectancy by 0.02 years and increased discounted quality-adjusted life expectancy by 0.22 quality-adjusted life years compared with insulin glargine U100 plus insulin aspart. Evaluation of direct medical costs suggested that the mean cost per patient with IDegLira was $3,571 lower than with insulin glargine U100 plus insulin aspart. The cost saving was driven predominantly by the lower acquisition cost of IDegLira compared with insulin glargine U100 plus insulin aspart, with further cost savings identified as a result of avoided treatment of diabetes-related complications. IDegLira was associated with improved clinical outcomes at a reduced cost compared with insulin glargine U100 plus insulin aspart.

Conclusions: Based on clinical trial data, the present analysis suggests that IDegLira is associated with improved clinical outcomes and cost savings compared with treatment with insulin glargine U100 plus insulin aspart for patients with type 2 diabetes not achieving glycemic control on basal insulin in the US. Therefore, IDegLira is likely to be considered dominant (cost saving and more effective) and, consequently, highly cost-effective in the US setting.     

The cost-effectiveness of OM-85 in managing respiratory tract infections in China

Abstract

Objectives:

To demonstrate the health economic impact of OM-85, a bacterial lysates based immunostimulant, for its approved indications in China.

Methods:

A cost-effectiveness decision tree model was constructed comparing OM-85 with the best supportive care/placebo therapy for managing the acute exacerbation of chronic bronchitis and rhinosinusitis in the Chinese population. Clinical efficacy and adverse events (AE) data were included in the model based on a thorough literature review. All localized direct treatment costs, including drug cost, AE costs, and medical treatment costs for underlining diseases were included from a Chinese third party payer perspective. A Key Opinion Leaders (KOL) survey was conducted with 20 senior physicians specialized in respiratory, ENT, allergy, and immunology fields from tertiary hospitals in Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, Hangzhou, Shenyang, and Wuhan to validate the local treatment costs. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated based on the above efficacy and cost information.

Results:

OM-85 is a cost-effective therapy when compared with placebo (standard care). OM-85 can treat/prevent one additional full episode exacerbation of chronic bronchitis and one additional full episode exacerbation of rhinosinusitis with only additional costs of RMB 653 and RMB 1182.84, respectively. In comparison, each acute exacerbation of chronic bronchitis will cost RMB 4510.10, and each acute exacerbation of rhinosinuisitis will cost RMB 1807.21 in a Chinese clinical management setting. One-way sensitivity analyses were performed and the ICER result was demonstrated to be consistent.

>Conclusions:

OM 85 reduces acute exacerbations among patients with chronic bronchitis and chronic rhinosinusitis when compared with Placebo (standard care). From a Chinese payer perspective, OM 85 is a cost-effective therapy in the clinical management of both chronic bronchitis and rhinosinusitis in the adult population.     

Cost-effectiveness of delayed-release dimethyl fumarate for the treatment of relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis in the United States

Objective:

To assess the cost-effectiveness of delayed-release dimethyl fumarate (DMF, also known as gastro-resistant DMF), an effective therapy for relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis (MS), compared with glatiramer acetate and fingolimod, commonly used treatments in the US.

Methods:

A Markov model was developed comparing delayed-release DMF to glatiramer acetate and fingolimod using a US payer perspective and 20-year time horizon. A cohort of patients, mean age 38 years, with relapsing-remitting MS and Kurtzke Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) scores between 0–6 entered the model. Efficacy and safety were estimated by mixed-treatment comparison of data from the DEFINE and CONFIRM trials and clinical trials of other disease-modifying therapies. Data from published studies were used to derive resource use, cost, and utility inputs. Key outcomes included costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Alternative scenarios tested in a sensitivity analysis included drug efficacy, EDSS-related or relapse-related costs, alternative perspectives, drug acquisition costs, and utility.

Results:

Base-case results with a 20-year time horizon indicated that delayed-release DMF increased QALYs +0.450 or +0.359 compared with glatiramer acetate or fingolimod, respectively. Reductions in 20-year costs with delayed-release DMF were ?$70,644 compared with once-daily glatiramer acetate and ?$32,958 compared with fingolimod. In an analysis comparing delayed-release DMF to three-times-weekly glatiramer acetate and assuming similar efficacy and safety to the once-daily formulation, 20-year costs with delayed-release DMF were increased by $15,806 and cost per QALY gained was $35,142. The differences in costs were most sensitive to acquisition cost and inclusion of informal care costs and productivity losses. The differences in QALYs were most sensitive to the impact of delayed-release DMF on disease progression and the EDSS utility weights.

Conclusion:

Delayed-release DMF is likely to increase QALYs for patients with relapsing forms of MS and be cost-effective compared with fingolimod and glatiramer acetate.