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.     

Comparison of treatment costs in inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes in Germany based on the APOLLO trial with insulin glargine

Abstract

Objective: A cost analysis of once-daily insulin glargine versus three-times daily insulin lispro in combination with oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs) for insulin-naive type 2 diabetes patients in Germany based on the APOLLO trial (A Parallel design comparing an Oral antidiabetic drug combination therapy with either Lantus once daily or Lispro at mealtime in type 2 diabetes patients failing Oral treatment).

Methods: Annual direct treatment costs were estimated from the perspective of the German statutory health insurance (SHI). Costs accounted for included insulin medication, disposable pens and consumable items (needles, blood glucose test strips and lancets). Sensitivity analyses (on resource use and unit costs) were performed to reflect current German practice.

Results: Average treatment costs per patient per year in the base case were €1,073 for glargine and €1,794 for lispro. Insulin costs represented 65% vs. 37% of total costs respectively. Acquisition costs of glargine were offset by the lower costs of consumable items (€380 vs. €1,139). Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the results in favour of glargine. All scenarios yielded cost savings in total treatment costs ranging from €84 to €727.

Conclusions: Combination therapy of once-daily insulin glargine versus three-times daily insulin lispro both with OADs, in the management of insulin-dependent type 2 diabetes offers the potential for substantial cost savings from the German SHI perspective.     

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.     

Fingolimod reduces direct medical costs compared to natalizumab in patients with relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis in The Netherlands

Abstract

Objective:

To assess the costs of oral treatment with Gilenya® (fingolimod) compared to intravenous infusion of Tysabri® (natalizumab) in patients with relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) in The Netherlands.

Methods:

A cost-minimization analysis was used to compare both treatments. The following cost categories were distinguished: drug acquisition costs, administration costs, and monitoring costs. Costs were discounted at 4%, and incremental model results were presented over a 1, 2, 5, and 10 year time horizon. The robustness of the results was determined by means of a number of deterministic univariate sensitivity analyses. Additionally, a break-even analysis was carried out to determine at which natalizumab infusion costs a cost-neutral outcome would be obtained.

Results:

Comparing fingolimod to natalizumab, the model predicted discounted incremental costs of ?€2966 (95% CI: ?€4209; ?€1801), ?€6240 (95% CI: ?€8800; ?€3879), ?€15,328 (95% CI: ?€21,539; ?€9692), and ?€28,287 (95% CI: ?€39,661; ?€17,955) over a 1, 2, 5, and 10-year time horizon, respectively. These predictions were most sensitive to changes in the costs of natalizumab infusion. Changing these costs of €255 within a range from €165–364 per infusion resulted in cost savings varying from €4031 to €8923 after 2 years. The additional break-even analysis showed that infusion costs—including aseptic preparation of the natalizumab solution—needed to be as low as the respective costs of €94 and €80 to obtain a cost neutral result after 2 and 10 years.

Limitations:

Neither treatment discontinuation and subsequent re-initiation nor patient compliance were taken into account. As a consequence of the applied cost-minimization technique, only direct medical costs were included.

Conclusion:

The present analysis showed that treatment with fingolimod resulted in considerable cost savings compared to natalizumab: starting at €2966 in the first year, increasing to a total of €28,287 after 10 years per RRMS patient in the Netherlands.     

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

Abstract

Objectives:

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

Methods:

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

Results:

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

Conclusion:

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

Cost-effective prevention of renal failure in type 2 diabetics using losartan

Summary

A previous clinical trial (RENAAL) has demonstrated that co-administration of losartan, an angiotensin-II-receptor antagonist, with existing conventional antihypertensive therapy (CT) reduces the risk of development of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) in type 2 diabetes patients with nephropathy compared with CT alone.

The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of losartan and CT compared with CT alone on the economic cost associated with ESRD in the Nordic region.

The analysis was performed separately for Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden using country-specific data on practice patterns and costs of modalities of renal replacement therapy. Average medical costs during the first year of ESRD for a diabetic patient were €53,235 in the Nordic region. Cost-savings due to reduced ESRD incidence with losartan were €5,591 (Denmark), €6,842 (Finland), €7,025 (Norway) and €6,776 (Sweden) per patient over 4 years. The additional cost of losartan during this period was between €1,130 and €1,473. Over 4 years, net cost-savings were €4,118 (Denmark), €5,395 (Finland), €5,720 (Norway) and €5,646 (Sweden).

The nephroprotective effects of losartan may be associated with important cost-savings in the Nordic region.     

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.     

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.     

Cost effectiveness of oseltamivir treatment of influenza: a critique of published methods and outcomes

Objective: The objective of this review was to determine, from a systematic assessment of published data, the cost effectiveness of the neuraminidase inhibitor antiviral medication oseltamivir in comparison with usual care (i.e. over-the-counter medication such as analgesics and antipyretics for symptomatic relief) for the treatment of influenza. How the findings of each of the studies considered related to the methods used for each analysis and the assumptions made were specifically reviewed.

Results: The online search found 80 individual articles, 66 of which did not meet the pre-defined screening criteria. The 14 studies remaining reported cost, cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses for oseltamivir treatment in various groups: healthy adults and adolescents, children, elderly, and individuals at increased risk.

Conclusion: Despite the range of values assumed for key probabilities such as the diagnostic certainty of influenza among people presenting with influenza-like illness, and how much work time is lost due to illness in healthy adults, base-case analyses consistently showed oseltamivir treatment to be cost effective or even cost saving for the four population groups studied, a conclusion that is in-line with previous reviews on this topic. However, clarity was frequently lacking in the published data in terms of various model assumptions and results, particularly with regards to the exact distributions of the constituting elements of savings and of quality-adjusted life years gained.     

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.     

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.     

Economic evaluation of valsartan in patients with chronic heart failure: results from Val-HeFT adapted to The Netherlands

Summary

The Valsartan Heart Failure Trial (Val-HeFT) was a multinational randomised trial of valsartan versus placebo in a total of 5,010 patients with heart failure. During the study period, valsartan resulted in significant reductions in hospitalisations due to heart failure.

The objective of this study was to evaluate the economic impact of valsartan in Dutch heart failure patients.

Resource use during Val-HeFT was multiplied by Dutch cost estimates. Mean patient follow-up was 23 months and costs for hospitalisations were €617 lower among valsartan patients. Mean total costs for valsartan and placebo patients were €8,810 and €8,441, respectively, resulting in incremental costs of €368. In patients receiving an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor but no beta-blocker, these incremental costs were even lower (€171). There were overall net savings of €1,311 in patients not receiving an ACE inhibitor at baseline.

Valsartan provides clinical benefits at modest costs in The Netherlands. In patients not receiving an ACE inhibitor at baseline, valsartan was dominant.     

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.     

Cost-effectiveness of 3-year vs 1-year adjuvant therapy with imatinib in patients with high risk of gastrointestinal stromal tumour recurrence in the Netherlands; a modelling study alongside the SSGXVIII/AIO trial

Abstract

Background:

Surgical resection of gastrointestinal stromal tumour (GIST) is rarely curative in patients at high risk of tumour recurrence and therefore 1 year of post-surgery adjuvant imatinib therapy has been recommended in this sub-group. Recently, adjuvant imatinib therapy administered for 3 years has been demonstrated to further increase recurrence-free survival and overall survival. The goal of this study was to assess the economic value of extending the duration of adjuvant imatinib therapy in high-risk patients in the Netherlands.

Methods:

A multistate Markov model was developed to simulate how patients’ clinical status after GIST excision evolves over time until death. The model structure encompassed four primary health states: free of recurrence, first GIST recurrence, second GIST recurrence, and death. Transition probabilities between the health states, data on medical care costs, and quality-of-life were obtained from published sources and from expert opinion.

Results:

The expected number of life years (or quality-adjusted life years, QALYs) was higher in the 3-year group than in the 1-year group, 8.91 (6.55) and 7.04 (5.18) years, respectively. In the 3-year and 1-year group, the expected total costs amounted to €120,195 and €79,361, of which, €74,631 (62%) and €27,619 (35%) were adjuvant therapy drug costs, respectively. The difference in health benefits, that is 1.87 life years or 1.37 QALYs, and costs, €40,835, resulted in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) of €21,865 per life year gained, and €29,872 per QALY gained.

Limitations:

A limitation of the study was inherently related to the uncertainty around the predictions of RFS. Scenario analyses were conducted to test the sensitivity of different RFS predictions on the results.

Conclusions:

Delayed recurrence due to treatment with longer-term adjuvant imatinib therapy represents a cost-effective treatment option with an ICER below the generally accepted threshold in the Netherlands.     

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A cost-utility study of the use of pregabalin added to usual care in refractory neuropathic pain patients in a Swedish setting

Abstract

Objectives:

Patients refractory to older therapies for neuropathic pain (NeP) have few remaining therapeutic options. This study evaluates the cost-utility of pregabalin in the treatment of patients with refractory neuropathic pain in Sweden, from a healthcare and a societal perspective.

Study limitations:

The use of non-randomized (observational) data to determine the effectiveness of treatments for NeP. The use of non-Swedish data for some input parameters in the model.

Methods:

A previously constructed discrete event simulation model was adapted to compare pregabalin combined with usual care to usual care alone in a Swedish setting. Pain profiles were generated using clinical data from five non-randomized pregabalin studies in refractory NeP patients. Utility data were generated from a UK survey of patients with NeP. Cost data were generated from the Swedish Dental and Pharmaceutical Benefits Board (TLV’s) product price database, a national NeP register, and a regional registry study. Indirect costs were estimated from published sources. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses evaluated uncertainty in the model’s output.

Results:

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for pregabalin plus usual care treatment compared to usual care was 51,616 SEK/€5364 and 123,993 SEK/€12,886 with and without indirect costs, respectively. One-way sensitivity analyses confirmed the clinical input data as the main driver of the model; even considerable changes to all other input parameters had only a modest effect on the ICER. The ICER remained well below a conservative threshold of 347,495 SEK /€36,113/£30,000 in all scenarios modelled.

Conclusions:

This study found pregabalin combined with usual care to be cost-effective compared to usual care in patients with refractory NeP from a Swedish Health Care perspective. Moreover, sensitivity analysis showed pregabalin’s cost-effectiveness to be robust in all scenarios modelled.     

Budget impact analysis of demineralized bone matrix in combination with autograft in lumbar spinal fusion procedures for the treatment of lumbar degenerative disc disease in Spain

Objective: To estimate the budget impact (BI) of introducing local autograft (LA) combined with demineralized bone matrix (LA?+?DBM) in lumbar spinal fusion (LSF) procedures to treat lumbar degenerative disc disease (LDDD) in Spain.

Methods: A decision tree model was developed to evaluate the 4-year BI associated with introducing LA?+?DBM putty to replace currently available grafting methods, including iliac crest bone graft (ICBG), LA alone, and LA combined with beta-tricalcium phosphate (LA?+?ceramics), with 30%, 40%, and 30% market shares, respectively. The analysis was conducted for a hypothetical cohort of 100 patients with LDDD receiving LSF, assuming LA?+?DBM would replace 100% of the standard of care mix. The fusion rates extracted from the literature were validated by an expert panel. Costs (€2017) were obtained from different Spanish sources. Budget impact and incremental cost per successful fusion were calculated from the perspective of the Spanish National Health System (NHS).

Results: Over 4 years, replacing currently available options with LA?+?DBM for 100 patients resulted in an additional cost of €12,330 (€123/patient), and an additional 14 successful fusions, implying a cost of €881 per additional successful fusion. When costs of productivity loss were included, the introduction of LA?+?DBM resulted in cost savings of €70,294 (€703/patient).

Limitations: The lack of high-quality, homogeneous, head-to-head research studying the efficacy of grafting procedures available to patients undergoing LSF, in addition to a lack of long-term follow-up in existing studies. Therefore, the number of fusions occurring within the model’s time horizon may be underestimated.

Conclusions: Acquisition costs of DBM were partially offset by costs of failed fusions, adverse events and reoperation when switching 100 hypothetical LDDD patients undergoing LSF procedures from standard of care grafting methods to LA?+?DBM from the perspective of the Spanish NHS. DBM cost was entirely offset when costs of lost productivity were considered.     

Cost-effectiveness analysis of bariatric surgery for morbid obesity in Belgium

Aims: This study presents the cost-effectiveness analysis of bariatric surgery in Belgium from a third-party payer perspective for a lifetime and 10-year horizon.

Materials and methods: A decision analytic model incorporating Markov process was developed to compare the cost-effectiveness of gastric bypass, sleeve gastrectomy, and adjustable gastric banding against conventional medical management (CMM). In the model, patients could undergo surgery, or experience post-surgery complications, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, or die. Transition probabilities, costs, and utilities were derived from the literature. The impact of different surgical methods on body mass index (BMI) level in the base-case analysis was informed by the Scandinavian Obesity Surgery Registry and the Swedish Obese Subject (SOS) study. Healthcare resource use and costs were obtained from Belgian sources. A base-case analysis was performed for the population, the characteristics of which were obtained from surgery candidates in Belgium.

Results: In the base-case analysis over a 10-year time horizon, the increment in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained from bariatric surgery vs CMM was 1.4 per patient, whereas the incremental cost was €3,788, leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €2,809 per QALY. Over a lifetime, bariatric surgery produced savings of €9,332, an additional 1.1 life years and 5.0 QALYs. Bariatric surgery was cost-effective at 10 years post-surgery and dominant over conventional management over a lifetime horizon.

Limitations: The model did not include the whole scope of obesity-related complications, and also did not account for variation in surgery outcomes for different populations of diabetic patients. Also, the data about management of patients after surgery was based on assumptions and the opinion of a clinical expert.

Conclusions: It was demonstrated that a current mix of bariatric surgery methods was cost-effective at 10 years post-surgery and cost-saving over the lifetime of the Belgian patient cohort considered in this analysis.     

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.