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.     

The cost effectiveness of zoledronic acid 5 mg for the management of postmenopausal osteoporosis in women with prior fractures: evidence from Finland,Norway and the Netherlands

Abstract

Objective:

This study was conducted to assess the cost effectiveness of zoledronic acid 5?mg as a first-line treatment for the secondary prevention of fragility fractures in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis in Finland, Norway and the Netherlands.

Methods:

A discrete-event, individual-patient computer-simulation model was used to compare the cost effectiveness of zoledronic acid with that of basic treatment (calcium and vitamin D) and commonly prescribed bisphosphonates in postmenopausal women aged 50–80 years who have experienced one previous fracture and have a bone mineral density T-score of ?2.5.

Results:

The cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained with zoledronic acid compared with basic treatment ranged from being cost saving in all age groups in Norway, to costing approximately €19,000 in Finland and €22,300 in the Netherlands. Compared with the other branded bisphosphonates, zoledronic acid was cost saving in many scenarios, including all age groups in Finland. In Norway, zoledronic acid dominated branded risedronate and ibandronate in all age groups and dominated or had incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of up to NOK83,954 per QALY gained compared with branded alendronate. In the Netherlands, zoledronic acid dominated branded intravenous ibandronate in all age groups; compared with branded risedronate and oral ibandronate, zoledronic acid dominated or had ICERs of up to €4832 per QALY gained; compared with branded alendronate, it had ICERs of up to €48,383 per QALY gained. In all three countries, zoledronic acid may be cost effective compared with generic alendronate when patient compliance with drug therapy is taken into account. Sensitivity analyses showed that the model was robust to changes in key values. The main model limitations were the lack of real-life compliance and persistence data, and lack of country-specific data for some parameters.

Conclusions:

Using local or commonly used thresholds, this analysis suggests that zoledronic acid would be a cost-effective first-line option compared with other branded bisphosphonates and, in some scenarios, compared with generic alendronate, for the secondary prevention of fractures in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis in Finland, Norway and the Netherlands.     

Cost effectiveness of atazanavir-ritonavir versus lopinavir-ritonavir in treatment-naïve human immunodeficiency virus-infected patients in the United States

Abstract

Objective:

To evaluate lifetime cost effectiveness of atazanavir-ritonavir (ATV?+?r) versus lopinavir-ritonavir (LPV/r), both with tenofovir-emtricitabine, in US HIV-infected patients initiating first-line antiretroviral therapy.

Methods:

A Markov microsimulation model was developed to calculate quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) based on CD4 and HIV RNA levels, coronary heart disease (CHD), AIDS, opportunistic infections (OIs), diarrhea, and hyperbilirubinemia. A million-member cohort of HIV-1-infected, treatment-naïve adults progressed at 3-month intervals through eight health states. Baseline characteristics, virologic suppression, cholesterol changes, and diarrhea and hyperbilirubinemia rates were based on 96-week CASTLE trial results. HIV mortality, OI rates, adherence, costs, utilities, and CHD risk were from literature and experts.

Limitations:

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) may be overestimated because the ATV?+?r treatment effect was based on an intention-to-treat analysis. The QALY weights used for diarrhea, hyperbilirubinemia, and CHD events are uncertain; however, the ICER remained <$50,000/QALY when these values were varied in sensitivity analyses.

Results:

ATV?+?r patients received first-line therapy longer than LPV/r patients (97.3 vs. 70.7 months), had longer quality-adjusted survival (11.02 vs. 10.76 years), similar overall survival (18.52 vs. 18.51 years), and higher costs ($275,986 vs. 269,160). ATR?+?r patients had lower rates of AIDS (19.08 vs. 20.05 cases/1,000 patient-years), OIs (0.44 vs. 0.52), diarrhea (1.27 vs. 6.26), and CHD events (5.44 vs. 5.51), but higher hyperbilirubinemia rates (6.99 vs. 0.25). ATV?+?r added 0.26 QALYs at a cost of $6826, for $26,421/QALY.

Conclusions:

By more effectively reducing viral load with less gastrointestinal toxicity and a better lipid profile, ATV?+?r lowered rates of AIDS and CHD, increased quality-adjusted survival, and was cost effective (<$50,000/QALY) compared with LPV/r.     

Cost-effectiveness of primary antifungal prophylaxis with posaconazole versus itraconazole in allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation

Abstract

Purpose:

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of posaconazole vs itraconazole in the prevention of invasive fungal infections (IFIs) in recipients of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT).

Methods:

Total hospital-based costs from initial admission for allo-HSCT until day 100 after transplantation were evaluated for 49 patients in whom the clinical efficacy of antifungal prophylaxis with posaconazole vs itraconazole had been previously analyzed and reported. Clinical and economic data were used to determine the incremental costs per IFI avoided and per life-year gained for posaconazole compared with itraconazole. Confidence intervals for the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and a cost-effectiveness acceptability curve were estimated through bootstrapping with the bias-corrected percentile method.

Results:

According to our analysis, the total cost of allo-HSCT per patient during the 100-day fixed-treatment period was €46,562 in the posaconazole group (n?=?33) and €45,080 in the itraconazole group (n?=?16). However, the reduction in the incidence of IFI and the improved outcome with posaconazole resulted in a favorable ICER of €11,856 per IFI avoided and €5218 per life-year gained. With the outcomes of the bootstrap procedure, the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve was constructed. Assuming a threshold of €30,000 per life-year gained, the ICER based on life-years gained is acceptable with 75% certainty.

Limitations:

This evaluation is based on data from a single-center, non-randomized study. Preference weights or utilities were not available to calculate quality-adjusted life-years. Extra-mural costs were only partially evaluated from a hospital perspective. Indirect costs and economic consequences are not included.

Conclusions:

This economic evaluation compared direct medical costs associated with posaconazole or itraconazole treatment; the data suggest that posaconazole may be cost-effective as antifungal prophylaxis during the early high-risk neutropenic period and up to 100 days after allo-HSCT.     

Economic evaluation of human urinary kallindinogenase for patients with acute ischemic stroke in China

Objectives: In China, both human urinary kallindinogenase (HUK) and 3-n-butylphthalide (NBP) are recommended for clinical use to improve cerebral blood circulation during an acute ischemic stroke (AIS). The objective was to evaluate the economic value of HUK vs NBP for patients with AIS from a Chinese payer’s perspective.

Methods: An economic evaluation based on data of patients who have been treated with either HUK (n?=?488) or NBP (n?=?885) from a prospective, phase IV, multi-center, clinical registry study (Chinese Acute Ischemic Stroke Treatment Outcome Registry, CASTOR) was conducted to analyze the cost and effectiveness of HUK vs NBP for AIS in China. Before the analysis, the patients were matched using propensity score. Both a cost-minimization analysis and a cost-effectiveness analysis were conducted to compare the matched pairs. A bootstrapping exercise was conducted for the matched arms to demonstrate the probability of one intervention being cost-effective over another for a given willingness-to-pay for an extra quality-adjusted life-year (QALY).

Results: After propensity score matching, 463 pairs were matched. The overall medical cost in the HUK arm is USD 2,701.20, while the NBP arm is USD 3,436.83, indicating HUK is preferred with cost-minimization analysis. Although the QALY gained in the HUK arm (0.77176) compared with the NBP arm (0.76831) is statistically insignificant (p?=?.4862), the cost-effectiveness analysis as exploratory analysis found that, compared with NBP, HUK is a cost-saving strategy with the lower costs of USD 735.63 and greater QALYs gained of 0.00345. Among the 5,000 bootstrapping replications, 100% indicates that HUK is cost-effective compared with NBP under a 1-time-GDP threshold; and 97.12% indicates the same under a 3-time-GDP threshold.

Conclusion: This economic evaluation study indicates that administrating HUK is a cost-saving therapy compared with NBP for managing blood flow during AIS in the Chinese setting.     

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 of novel relapsed-refractory multiple myeloma therapies in Norway: lenalidomide plus dexamethasone vs bortezomib

Abstract

Objective:

To estimate the cost-effectiveness (cost per additional life-year [LY] and quality-adjusted life-year [QALY] gained) of lenalidomide plus dexamethasone (LEN/DEX) compared with bortezomib for the treatment of relapsed-refractory multiple myeloma (rrMM) in Norway.

Methods:

A discrete-event simulation model was developed to predict patients’ disease course using patient data, best response, and efficacy levels obtained from LEN/DEX MM-009/-010 trials and the bortezomib (APEX) published clinical trial. Predictive equations for time-to-progression (TTP) and post-progression survival (PPS) were developed by identifying the best fitting parametric survival distributions and selecting the most significant predictors. Disease and adverse event management was obtained via survey from Norwegian experts. Costs, derived from official Norwegian pricing data bases, included drug, administration, monitoring, and adverse event management costs.

Results:

Complete or partial responders were 65% for LEN/DEX compared to 43% for bortezomib. Derived median TTP was 11.45 months for LEN/DEX compared to 5.15 months for bortezomib. LYs and QALYs were higher for LEN/DEX (4.06 and 2.95, respectively) than for bortezomib (3.11 and 2.19, respectively). The incremental costs per QALY and LY gained from LEN/DEX were NOK 247,978 and NOK 198,714, respectively, compared to bortezomib. Multiple sensitivity analyses indicated the findings were stable. The parameters with the greatest impact were 4-year time horizon (NOK 441,457/QALY) and higher bound confidence intervals for PPS (NOK 118,392).

Limitations:

The model analyzed two therapies not compared in head-to-head trials, and predicted results using an equation incorporating patient-level characteristics. It is a limited estimation of the costs and outcomes in a Norwegian setting.

Conclusions:

The simulation model showed that treatment with LEN/DEX leads to greater LYs and QALYs when compared to bortezomib in the treatment of rrMM patients. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio indicated treatment with LEN/DEX to be cost-effective and was the basis of the reimbursement approval of LEN/DEX in Norway.     

Cost-effectiveness analysis of palivizumab among pre-term infant populations covered by Medicaid in the United States

Abstract

Objective:

Medicaid infants are at high risk of severe respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) disease. The study objective was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of palivizumab in a Medicaid population.

Methods:

A societal cost-utility analysis was conducted of prophylaxis with palivizumab vs no prophylaxis among four groups of premature infants: (1) <32 weeks gestational age (wGA) and ≤6 months chronologic age (CA); (2) 32–34 wGA, ≤3 months CA with 2009 American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) risk factors (RF); (3) 32–35 wGA, ≤6 months CA with 2006 AAP RF; and (4) 32–35 wGA, ≤6 months CA with ≤1 RF. Full dosing of palivizumab was assumed throughout the RSV season (consistent with the FDA-approved label). All costs were in 2010 US dollars. The societal public payer spend for palivizumab was estimated using Medicaid reimbursement methodologies for the top 10 palivizumab-using states in 2010 minus mandatory manufacturer rebates. This study reports the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Sensitivity and probabilistic analyses were also conducted.

Results:

Palivizumab saved costs and improved QALYs among infants <32 wGA. Palivizumab was cost-effective in infants 32–34 wGA with 2009 AAP RF ($16,037 per QALY) and in infants 32–35 wGA with 2006 AAP RF ($38,244 per QALY). The ICER for infants 32–35 wGA with ≤1 RF was $281,892 per QALY. Influential variables in the sensitivity analysis included the background rate of RSV hospitalization, the cost of palivizumab, and the efficacy of palivizumab.

Key limitations:

These results are not generalizable to commercially insured infants or infants outside of the US.

Conclusions:

This is the first cost-utility analysis of palivizumab in a Medicaid population. Palivizumab, when dosed consistent with the FDA-approved labeling, was either cost-saving or cost-effective among current guideline-eligible infants in the Medicaid population. Palivizumab did not demonstrate cost-effectiveness in 32–35 wGA infants with ≤1 RF.     

Adherence,persistence, healthcare utilization,and cost benefits of guideline-recommended hepatitis B pharmacotherapy

Abstract

Objective:

To compare pharmacotherapy adherence, persistence, and healthcare utilization/costs among US patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB) initiated on an oral antiviral monotherapy recommended as first-line treatment by current national (US) guidelines vs an oral antiviral not recommended as first-line monotherapy.

Research design and methods:

In this retrospective cohort study, patients aged 18–64 with medical claims for CHB who initiated an oral antiviral monotherapy for CHB between 07/01/05 and 01/31/10 were identified from a large US commercial health insurance claims database. Patients were continuously enrolled for a 6-month baseline period and ≥ 90 days follow-up. They were assigned to ‘currently recommended first-line therapy’ (RT: entecavir or tenofovir) or ‘not currently recommended first-line therapy’ (NRT: lamivudine, telbivudine, or adefovir) cohorts.

Main outcome measures:

Multivariate analyses were conducted to compare treatment adherence, persistence, healthcare utilization, and costs for RT vs NRT cohorts.

Results:

Baseline characteristics were similar between RT (n?=?825) and NRT (n?=?916) cohorts. In multivariate analyses, RT patients were twice as likely as NRT patients to be adherent (OR?=?2.09; p?<?0.01) and persistent (mean: RT?=?361 days, NRT?=?298 days; p?<?0.01) and half as likely to have an inpatient stay (OR?=?0.527; p?<?0.01). Between the two oral antivirals recommended as first-line treatment, even though pharmacy cost was higher for entecavir, mean total healthcare costs for entecavir and tenofovir were similar ($1214 and $1332 per patient per month, respectively). Similar results were also observed with regard to adherence, persistence, and healthcare use for entecavir and tenofovir.

Conclusions:

A limitation associated with analysis of administrative claims data is that coding errors can be mitigated but are typically not fully eradicated by careful study design. Nevertheless, the current findings clearly indicate the benefits of initiating CHB treatment with an oral antiviral monotherapy recommended as first-line treatment by current guidelines.     

Cost-effectiveness of distributing naloxone to heroin users for lay overdose reversal in Russian cities

Abstract

Objective:

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of distributing naloxone to illicit opioid users for lay overdose reversal in Russian cities.

Method:

This study adapted an integrated Markov and decision analytic model to Russian cities. The model took a lifetime, societal perspective, relied on published literature, and was calibrated to epidemiologic findings.

Results:

For each 20% of heroin users reached with naloxone distribution, the model predicted a 13.4% reduction in overdose deaths in the first 5 years and 7.6% over a lifetime; on probabilistic analysis, one death would be prevented for every 89 naloxone kits distributed (95% CI?=?32–260). Naloxone distribution was cost-effective in all deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses and cost-saving if resulting in a reduction in overdose events. Naloxone distribution increased costs by US$13 (95% CI?=?US$3–US$32) and QALYs by 0.137 (95% CI?=?0.022–0.389) for an incremental cost of US$94 per QALY gained (95% CI?=?US$40–US$325). In a worst-case scenario where overdose was rarely witnessed and naloxone was rarely used, minimally effective, and expensive, the incremental cost was US$1987 per QALY gained. If national expenditures on drug-related HIV, tuberculosis, and criminal justice were applied to heroin users, the incremental cost was US$928 per QALY gained.

Conclusions:

Naloxone distribution to heroin users for lay overdose reversal is highly likely to reduce overdose deaths in target communities and is robustly cost-effective, even within the constraints of this conservative model.     

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 risk stratification for preventing type 2 diabetes using a multi-marker diabetes risk score

Abstract

Background:

Personalized medicine requires diagnostic tests that stratify patients into distinct groups that may differentially benefit from targeted treatment approaches. This study compared the costs and benefits of two approaches for identifying those at high risk of developing type 2 diabetes for entry into a diabetes prevention program. The first approach identified high risk patients using impaired fasting glucose (IFG). The second approach used the PreDx Diabetes Risk Score (DRS) to further stratify IFG patients into high-risk and moderate-risk groups.

Methods:

A Markov model was developed to simulate the incidence and disease progression of diabetes and consequent costs and quality-adjusted life expectancy (QALY), comparing alternative approaches for identifying high-risk patients. We modeled direct medical costs, including the costs of the stratification testing, over a 10-year time horizon from a US payer perspective.

Results:

Stratification of IFG patients by the DRS method leads to improved identification and prevention among those at highest risk. At 5 years, the number needed to treat (NNT) in the IFG-only approach was 39 patients to prevent one case of diabetes compared to an NNT of 15 in the IFG?+?DRS approach. When compared to IFG alone, the IFG?+?DRS approach results in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $17,100/QALY gained at 5 years and would become cost saving in 10 years. In contrast and as compared to no stratification, the IFG-only approach would produce an ICER of $235,500/QALY gained at 5 years and $94,600/QALY gained at 10 years. The study findings are limited by the generalizability of the DRS validation study and uncertainty regarding the long-term effectiveness of diabetes prevention.

Conclusions:

The analysis indicates that the cost-effectiveness of diabetes prevention can be improved by better identification of patients at highest risk for diabetes using the DRS.     

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

Abstract

Objective:

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

Research design and methods:

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

Main outcome measures:

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

Results:

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

Conclusions:

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

Limitations:

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

Adapting a global cost-effectiveness model to local country requirements: posaconazole case study

Abstract

Background:

Many countries have various requirements for local economic analyses to assess the value of a new health technology and/or to secure reimbursement. This study presents a case study of an economic model developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of posaconazole vs standard azole therapy (fluconazole/itraconazole) to prevent invasive fungal infections (IFIs), which was adapted by at least 11 countries.

Methods:

Modeling techniques were used to assess the cost-effectiveness of posaconazole vs fluconazole/itraconazole as IFI prophylaxis in patients with acute myelogenous leukemia or myelodysplastic syndromes and chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. For the core model, the probabilities of experiencing an IFI, IFI-related death, and death from other causes were estimated from clinical trial data. Long-term mortality, drug costs, and IFI treatment costs were obtained from secondary sources. Locally changed parameters were probabilities of long-term death and survival, currency, drug costs, health utility, IFI treatment costs, and discount rate.

Results:

Locally adapted cost-effective modeling studies indicate that prophylaxis with posaconazole, compared with fluconazole/itraconazole, prolongs survival, and, in most countries, is cost-saving. In all countries, the model predicted that prophylaxis with posaconazole would be associated with an increase in life-years, with increases ranging from 0.016–0.1 life-year saved. In all countries, use of the model led to posaconazole being approved by the appropriate reimbursement authority.

Limitations:

The study did not have power to detect differences between posaconazole and fluconazole or itraconazole separately. The risk of death after 100 days was assumed to be equal for those who did and did not develop an IFI, and equal probabilities of IFI-related and other death during the trial period were used for both groups.

Conclusions:

A core economic model was successfully adapted locally by several countries. The model showed that posaconazole was cost-saving or cost-effective vs fluconazole/itraconazole and led to positive reimbursement listings.     

Cost-utility of exenatide once weekly compared with insulin glargine in patients with type 2 diabetes in the UK

Abstract

Objective:

To compare the cost-utility of exenatide once weekly (EQW) and insulin glargine in patients with type 2 diabetes in the United Kingdom (UK).

Research design and methods:

The IMS CORE Diabetes Model was used to project clinical and economic outcomes for patients with type 2 diabetes treated with EQW or insulin glargine. Treatment effects and patient baseline characteristics (mean age: 58 years, mean glycohaemoglobin: 8.3%) were taken from the DURATION-3 study. Unit costs and health state utility values were derived from published sources. As the price of EQW is not yet known, the prices of two currently available glucagon-like peptide-1 products were used as benchmarks. To reflect diabetes progression, patients started on EQW switched to insulin glargine after 5 years. The analysis was conducted from the perspective of the UK National Health Service over a time horizon of 50 years with costs and outcomes discounted at 3.5%. Sensitivity analyses explored the impact of changes in input data and assumptions and investigated the cost utility of EQW in specific body mass index (BMI) subgroups.

Main outcome measures:

Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for EQW compared with insulin glargine.

Results:

At a price equivalent to liraglutide 1.2?mg, EQW was more effective and more costly than insulin glargine, with a base case ICER of £10,597 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. EQW was associated with an increased time to development of any diabetes-related complication of 0.21 years, compared with insulin glargine. Three BMI subgroups investigated (<30, 30–35 and >35?kg/m²) reported ICERs for EQW compared with insulin glargine ranging from £9425 to £12,956 per QALY gained.

Conclusions:

At the prices investigated, the cost per QALY gained for EQW when compared with insulin glargine in type 2 diabetes in the UK setting, was within the range normally considered cost effective by NICE. Cost effectiveness in practice will depend on the final price of EQW and the extent to which benefits observed in short-term randomised trials are replicated in long-term use.     

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-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 prasugrel in a US managed care population

Abstract

Objective:

Decision-makers in the US may be interested in the applicability to their populations of cost-effectiveness results generated from clinical trial populations.

Methods:

An economic model estimating the cost-effectiveness of prasugrel plus aspirin relative to clopidogrel plus aspirin for patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was developed from a managed care organization (MCO) perspective. The model estimated 15-month cardiovascular events or bleeding-related outcomes, life expectancy, and costs for patients who received thienopyridine treatment during and after a PCI following a diagnosis of ACS. Post-ACS event rates for patients treated with clopidogrel were from an MCO. The relative risks of these events with prasugrel compared with clopidogrel were from a head-to-head clinical trial.

Results:

The results of the base-case analysis indicated that, in an MCO population, use of prasugrel-based therapy rather than clopidogrel-based therapy at current prices resulted in cost-savings and fewer clinical events over the 15 months after an ACS diagnosis followed by PCI. At possible lower prices for generic clopidogrel-based therapy, the cost-effectiveness ratio for prasugrel-based therapy compared with clopidogrel-based therapy was between $6643 and $13,906 per life-year gained. The results were most sensitive to the relative costs of the two treatments and the cost for hospital stays.

Limitations:

Limitations of the study included lack of follow-up of patients disenrolling from the MCO before the end of the 15-month observation period, the assumption of equal relative risks of events in an MCO as in the clinical trial, and the lack of information on the ratio of cost to charges in the MCO database.

Conclusions:

Use of prasugrel-based therapy compared with clopidogrel-based therapy in ACS patients having a PCI resulted in cost-savings at current prices and favorable cost-effective ratios at likely generic prices for clopidogrel-based therapy because of offsetting savings in the costs of rehospitalization.     

A cost–utility analysis of degarelix in the treatment of advanced hormone-dependent prostate cancer in the United Kingdom

Objective:

To determine the cost-effectiveness of the treatment of advanced hormone-dependent prostate cancer with degarelix compared to luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonists in the UK using the latest available evidence and the model submitted to AWMSG.

Methods:

A cost-effectiveness model was developed from the perspective of the UK National Health Service evaluating monthly injection of degarelix against 3-monthly leuprorelin therapy plus anti-androgen flare cover for the first-line treatment of patients with advanced (locally advanced or metastatic) hormone-dependent prostate cancer. A Markov process model was constructed using the patient population characteristics and efficacy information from the CS21 Phase III clinical trial and associated extension study (CS21A). The intention-to-treat (ITT) population and a high-risk sub-group with a PSA level >20?ng/mL were modeled.

Results:

In the base-case analysis using the patient access scheme (PAS) price, degarelix was dominant compared to leuprorelin with cost savings of £3633 in the ITT population and £4310 in the PSA?>?20?ng/mL sub-group. The chance of being cost-effective was 95% in the ITT population and 96% in the PSA?>?20?ng/mL sub-group at a threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). In addition, degarelix remained dominant when PSA progression was assumed equal and only the benefits of preventing testosterone flare were taken into account. Treatment with degarelix also remained dominant in both populations when the list price was used. The additional investment required to treat patients with degarelix could be offset in 19 months for the ITT population and 13 months for the PSA?>?20?ng/mL population. The model was most sensitive to the hazard ratio assumed for PSA progression between degarelix and leuprorelin and the quality-of-life (utility) of patients receiving palliative care.

Conclusion:

Degarelix is likely to be cost-effective compared to leuprorelin plus anti-androgen flare cover in the first-line treatment of advanced hormone-dependent prostate cancer.     

Cost-minimization comparison of darunavir plus ritonavir and lopinavir/ritonavir in HIV-1 infected treatment-naïve women of childbearing age

Background:

Guidelines from the Department of Health and Human Services in the US recommend ritonavir-boosted lopinavir (LPV/r) as a preferred protease inhibitor (PI) for HIV-positive antiretroviral-na?ve pregnant women. These guidelines also cite ritonavir-boosted darunavir (DRV?+?RTV) as an alternative PI in this clinical scenario. The purpose of this analysis was to compare economic outcomes for regimens based on these two treatments.

Study design:

An existing discrete event simulation (DES) model was adapted to conduct a cost-minimization analysis comparing the two regimens in HIV-infected women of childbearing age (WOCBA), from the perspective of a healthcare payer in the US.

Methods:

The DES model was used to represent disease states, health events, healthcare encounters, pregnancy, and treatment choices in HIV-infected WOCBA starting treatment with regimens based on either LPV/r or DRV?+?RTV. It also incorporated parameters for individual patient characteristics, and for antiretroviral (ARV) treatment effectiveness, treatment sequencing, clinical progression, and resource use. Potential events included scheduled physician visits; viral suppression; viral rebound; AIDS-related complications; CHD events; treatment discontinuation and switching; ARV treatment side-effects (SE); and death. The primary outcomes were discounted 5-year and 10-year healthcare costs. Alternative scenarios considered different rates of switching from DRV?+?RTV to LPV/r upon conception.

Results:

Compared with DRV?+?RTV, LPV/r was associated with similar clinical outcomes while offering savings at the 5- and 10-year horizons (of $24,904 and $43,502 per patient, respectively), and in extensive sensitivity analyses. The main driver of the savings was the difference in cost between PIs.

Conclusions:

Starting HIV-infected ARV-treatment-na?ve WOCBA on an LPV/r-based regimen is cost-saving and provides similar patient outcomes compared to a DRV?+?RTV-based regimen.