Indirect cost-effectiveness analyses of abatacept and rituximab in patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis in the United States

Abstract

Objective: To estimate the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for abatacept and rituximab, in combination with methotrexate, relative to methotrexate alone in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Methods: A patient-level simulation model was used to depict the progression of functional disability over the lifetimes of women aged 55–64 years with active RA and inadequate response to a tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α antagonist therapy. Future health-state utilities and medical care costs were based on projected values of the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI). Patients were assumed to receive abatacept or rituximab in combination with methotrexate until death or therapy discontinuation due to lack of efficacy or adverse events. HAQ-DI improvement at month 6, after adjustments for control drug (methotrexate) response, was derived from two clinical trials. Costs of medical care and biologic drugs, discounted at 3% annually, were from the perspective of a US third-party payer and expressed in 2007 US dollars.

Results: Relative to methotrexate alone, abatacept/methotrexate and rituximab/methotrexate therapies were estimated to yield an average of 1.25 and 1.10 additional QALYs per patient, at mean incremental costs of $58,989 and $60,380, respectively. The incremental cost-utility ratio relative to methotrexate was $47,191 (95% CI $44,810–49,920) per QALY gained for abatacept/methotrexate and $54,891 (95% CI $52,274–58,073) per QALY gained for rituximab/methotrexate. At an acceptability threshold of $50,000 per QALY, the probability of cost effectiveness was 90% for abatacept and 0.0% for rituximab.

Conclusion: Abatacept was estimated to be more cost effective than rituximab for use in RA from a US third-party payer perspective. However, head-to-head clinical trials and long-term observational data are needed to confirm these findings.     

Cost-effectiveness analysis of intra-articular injections of a high molecular weight bioengineered hyaluronic acid for the treatment of osteoarthritis knee pain

Objective:

To determine the cost-effectiveness of bioengineered hyaluronic acid (BioHA, 1% sodium hyaluronate) intra-articular injections in treating osteoarthritis knee pain in poor responders to conventional care (CC) including non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and analgesics.

Methods:

Two decision analytic models compared BioHA treatment with either continuation of patient’s baseline CC with no assumption of disease progression (Model 1), or CC including escalating care costs due to disease progression (NSAIDs and analgesics, corticosteroid injections, and surgery; Model 2). Analyses were based on patients who received two courses of 3-weekly intra-articular BioHA (26-week FLEXX Trial?+?26-week Extension Study). BioHA group costs included fees for physician assessment and injection regimen, plus half of CC costs. Cost-effectiveness ratios were expressed as averages and incremental costs per QALY. One-way sensitivity analyses used the 95% confidence interval (CI) of QALYs gained in BioHA-treated patients, and ±20% of BioHA treatment and CC costs. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed for Model 2.

Results:

For 214 BioHA patients, the average utility gain was 0.163 QALYs (95% CI?=??0.162 to 0.488) over 52 weeks. Model 1 treatment costs were $3469 and $4562 for the BioHA and CC groups, respectively; sensitivity analyses showed BioHA to be the dominant treatment strategy, except when at the lower end of the 95% CI. Model 2 annual treatment costs per QALY gained were $1446 and $516 for the BioHA and CC groups, respectively. Using CC as baseline strategy, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of BioHA was $38,741/QALY gained, and was sensitive to response rates in either the BioHA or CC groups.

Conclusion:

BioHA is less costly and more effective than CC with NSAIDs and analgesics, and is the dominant treatment strategy. Compared with escalating CC, the $38,741/QALY ICER of BioHA remains within the $50,000 per QALY willingness-to-pay threshold to adopt a new technology.     

Economic evaluation for the US of nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine versus FOLFIRINOX versus gemcitabine in the treatment of metastatic pancreas cancer

Background: Nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine (NAB-P?+?GEM) and FOLFIRINOX have shown superior efficacy over gemcitabine (GEM) in the treatment of metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDA). Although the incremental clinical benefits are modest, both treatments represent significant advances in the treatment of a high-mortality cancer. In this independent economic evaluation for the US, the aim was to estimate the comparative cost-utility and cost-effectiveness of these three regimens from the payer perspective.

Methods: In the absence of a direct treatment comparison in a single clinical trial, the Bucher indirect comparison method was used to estimate the comparative efficacy of each regimen. A Markov model evaluated life years (LY) and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained with NAB-P?+?GEM and FOLFIRINOX over GEM, expressed as incremental cost-effectiveness (ICER) and cost-utility ratios (ICUR). All costs and outcomes were discounted at 3%/year. The impact of parameter uncertainty on the model was assessed by probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

Results: NAB-P?+?GEM was associated with differentials of +0.180 LY and +0.127 QALY gained over GEM at an incremental total cost of $25,965; yielding an ICER of $144,096/LY and ICUR of $204,369/QALY gained. FOLFIRINOX was associated with differentials of +0.368 LY and +0.249 QALY gained over GEM at an incremental total cost of $93,045; yielding an ICER of $253,162/LY and ICUR of $372,813/QALY gained. In indirect comparison, the overall survival hazard ratio (OS HR) for NAB-P?+?GEM vs FOLFIRINOX was 0.79 (95%CI?=?0.59–1.05), indicating no superiority in OS of either regimen. FOLFIRINOX had an ICER of $358,067/LY and an ICUR of $547,480/QALY gained over NAB-P?+?GEM. Tornado diagrams identified variation in the OS HR, but no other parameters, to impact the NAB-P?+?GEM and FOLFIRINOX ICURs.

Conclusions: In the absence of a statistically significant difference in OS between NAB-P?+?GEM and FOLFIRINOX, this US analysis indicates that the greater economic benefit in terms of cost-savings and incremental cost-effectiveness and cost-utility ratios favors NAB-P?+?GEM over FOLFIRINOX.     

Cost-effectiveness of obinutuzumab plus bendamustine followed by obinutuzumab monotherapy for the treatment of follicular lymphoma patients who relapse after or are refractory to a rituximab-containing regimen in the US

Aims: Obinutuzumab (GA101, G) was approved in February 2016 by the US Food and Drug Administration to treat follicular lymphoma (FL) patients who relapsed after, or are refractory to (R/R), a rituximab-containing regimen (R/R-rituximab). In the GADOLIN trial, R/R-rituximab patients who received G plus bendamustine (B) followed by G-monotherapy (G?+?B) for up to 2 years had significantly improved progression-free survival and overall survival compared to patients receiving B-monotherapy. This study estimated the cost-effectiveness of G?+?B vs B-monotherapy for R/R-rituximab FL patients from a US payer perspective.

Materials and methods: Patient outcomes were simulated using a 3-state area under the curve model including progression-free survival, progressive disease, and death. This study used R/R-rituximab data from the National LymphoCare Study to extrapolate the GADOLIN trial’s refractory FL progression-free and overall survival data to a R/R-rituximab FL population. Drug utilization and adverse events were based on trial data, and costs were based on Medicare reimbursements and drug wholesale acquisition costs in 2016. Utility estimates were derived from published literature. Post-progression treatment costs were based on observed post-progression therapies in GADOLIN. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess model uncertainty.

Results: G?+?B resulted in an increase in quality-adjusted life years relative to B-monotherapy of 1.24 (95% CR?=?0.61–1.87); the incremental total cost was $58,100 (95% CR?=?$54,500–$61,500). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $47,000 per QALY gained, and, based on probabilistic simulations, there was a 98% probability that G?+?B was cost-effective at the $100,000 per QALY threshold.

Limitations and conclusions: This US-based analysis suggests that treatment with G?+?B compared to B-monotherapy is likely cost-effective in R/R-rituximab FL patients. Modeling a R/R-rituximab population based on a synthesis of GADOLIN and the National LymphoCare Study data introduces uncertainty in the analysis. However, the findings were robust to sensitivity analyses.     

The effect of pharmacogenetic profiling with a clinical decision support tool on healthcare resource utilization and estimated costs in the elderly exposed to polypharmacy

Objective:

To compare healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and clinical decision-making for elderly patients based on cytochrome P450 (CYP) pharmacogenetic testing and the use of a comprehensive medication management clinical decision support tool (CDST), to a cohort of similar non-tested patients.

Methods:

An observational study compared a prospective cohort of patients ≥65 years subjected to pharmacogenetic testing to a propensity score (PS) matched historical cohort of untested patients in a claims database. Patients had a prescribed medication or dose change of at least one of 61 oral drugs or combinations of ≥3 drugs at enrollment. Four-month HRU outcomes examined included hospitalizations, emergency department (ED) and outpatient visits and provider acceptance of test recommendations. Costs were estimated using national data sources.

Results:

There were 205 tested patients PS matched to 820 untested patients. Hospitalization rate was 9.8% in the tested group vs 16.1% in the untested group (RR?=?0.61, 95% CI?=?0.39–0.95, p?=?0.027), ED visit rate was 4.4% in the tested group vs 15.4% in the untested group (RR?=?0.29, 95% CI?=?0.15–0.55, p?=?0.0002) and outpatient visit rate was 71.7% in the tested group vs 36.5% in the untested group (RR?=?1.97, 95% CI?=?1.74–2.23, p?<?0.0001). The rate of overall HRU was 72.2% in the tested group vs 49.0% in the untested group (RR?=?1.47, 95% CI?=?1.32–1.64, p?<?0.0001). Potential cost savings were estimated at $218 (mean) in the tested group. The provider majority (95%) considered the test helpful and 46% followed CDST provided recommendations.

Conclusion:

Patients CYP DNA tested and treated according to the personalized prescribing system had a significant decrease in hospitalizations and emergency department visits, resulting in potential cost savings. Providers had a high satisfaction rate with the clinical utility of the system and followed recommendations when appropriate.     

Quality of life benefits and cost impact of prolonged release oxycodone/naloxone versus prolonged release oxycodone in patients with moderate-to-severe non-malignant pain and opioid-induced constipation: a UK cost-utility analysis

Abstract

Objective:

To compare the cost effectiveness of prolonged release oxycodone/naloxone (OXN) tablets (Targinact) and prolonged release oxycodone (OXY) tablets (OxyContin) in patients with moderate-to-severe non-malignant pain and opioid-induced constipation (OIC) from the perspective of the UK healthcare system.

Methods:

A cohort model used data from a phase III randomised, controlled trial (RCT). It calculated the cost difference between treatments by combining the cost of pain therapy with costs of laxatives and other resources used to manage constipated patients. SF-36 scores were converted into EQ-5D utility values to calculate the quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gains. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

Results:

The incremental cost of OXN versus OXY was £159.68 for the average treatment duration of 301 days. OXN gave an incremental QALY gain of 0.0273. The estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was £5841.56 per QALY. Sensitivity analyses gave a maximum ICER of £10,347.03. In some scenarios, OXN dominated with a cost saving of up to £4254.70. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that OXN had approximately 96.6% probability of cost effectiveness at the £20,000 threshold.

Limitations:

The model was conservative in predicting the probability of constipation beyond the 12-week RCT period. UK cost of constipation data were limited and based on primary care physician opinion.

Conclusions:

In the base case, direct treatment costs were slightly higher for patients treated with OXN than for those treated with OXY. However, patients treated with OXN experienced a quality of life gain, and had an ICER considerably below thresholds commonly applied in the UK. The model was most sensitive to the estimated cost of constipation with a number of realistic scenarios in the sensitivity analysis demonstrating a cost saving with OXN (OXN dominant). OXN is therefore estimated to be a cost-effective option for treating patients with severe non-malignant pain and OIC.     

A cost-effectiveness analysis of denosumab for the prevention of skeletal-related events in patients with multiple myeloma in the United States of America

Objective: A large, pivotal, phase 3 trial in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) demonstrated that denosumab, compared with zoledronic acid, was non-inferior for the prevention of skeletal-related events (SREs), extended the observed median progression-free survival (PFS) by 10.7 months, and showed significantly less renal toxicity. The cost-effectiveness of denosumab vs zoledronic acid in MM in the US was assessed from societal and payer perspectives.

Methods: The XGEVA Global Economic Model was developed by integrating data from the phase 3 trial comparing the efficacy of denosumab with zoledronic acid for the prevention of SREs in MM. SRE rates were adjusted to reflect the real-world incidence. The model included utility decrements for SREs, administration, serious adverse events (SAEs), and disease progression. Drug, administration, SRE management, SAEs, and anti-MM treatment costs were based on data from published studies. For the societal perspective, the model additionally included SRE-related direct non-medical costs and indirect costs. The net monetary benefit (NMB) was calculated using a willingness-to-pay threshold of US$150,000. One-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted.

Results: From a societal perspective, compared with zoledronic acid, the use of denosumab resulted in an incremental cost of US$26,329 and an incremental quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) of 0.2439, translating into a cost per QALY gained of US$107,939 and a NMB of US$10,259 in favor of denosumab. Results were sensitive to SRE rates and PFS parameters.

Limitations: Costs were estimated from multiple sources, which varied by tumor type, patient population, country, and other parameters. PFS and overall survival were extrapolated beyond the follow-up of the primary analysis using fitted parametric curves.

Conclusion: Denosumab’s efficacy in delaying or preventing SREs, potential to improve PFS, and lack of renal toxicity make it a cost-effective option for the prevention of SREs in MM compared with zoledronic acid.     

Tumor treating fields and maintenance temozolomide for newly-diagnosed glioblastoma: a cost-effectiveness study

Abstract

Purpose: The EF-14 trial demonstrated that adding tumor treating fields (TTFields) to maintenance temozolomide (TMZ) significantly extends progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for newly-diagnosed glioblastoma (GBM) patients. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of TTFields and TMZ for newly-diagnosed GBM from the US healthcare system perspective.

Methods and materials: Outcomes for newly-diagnosed GBM patients were estimated over a lifetime horizon using an area under the curve model with three states: stable disease, progressive disease, or death. The survival model integrated the 5-year EF-14 trial results with long-term GBM epidemiology data and US background mortality rates. Adverse event rates were derived from the EF-14 trial data. Utility values to determine quality-adjusted life-years, adverse event costs, and supportive care costs were obtained from published literature. A 3% discount rate was applied to future costs and outcomes. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess result uncertainty due to parameter variability.

Results: Treatment with TTFields and TMZ was estimated to result in a mean increase in survival of 1.25 life years (95% credible range [CR]?=?0.89–1.67) and 0.96 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) (95% CR = 0.67–1.30) compared to treatment with TMZ alone. The incremental total cost was $188,637 (95% CR = $145,324–$225,330). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was $150,452 per life year gained and $197,336 per QALY gained. The model was most sensitive to changes in the cost of TTFields treatment.

Conclusions: Adding TTFields to maintenance TMZ resulted in a substantial increase in the estimated mean lifetime survival and quality-adjusted survival for newly-diagnosed GBM patients. Treatment with TTFields can be considered cost-effective within the reported range of willingness-to-pay thresholds in the US.     

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.     

Seretide: a pharmacoeconomic analysis

Abstract

Background: The costs of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), the two most common chronic respiratory illnesses, are substantial and rising. The fixed-dose combination of fluticasone and salmeterol has been a safe and effective therapy for these diseases.

Objectives: To review the pharmacoeconomic impact of the fixed-dose combination of inhaled fluticasone and salmeterol in asthma and COPD.

Methods: A systematic review of the literature was carried out to identify pharmacoeconomic studies with fixed-dose salmeterol and fluticasone (Seretide, Advair, Viani). In addition, abstracts from recent respiratory meetings were sought, and any unpublished data were requested from the manufacturer.

Results: For asthma, when compared to treatment with inhaled corticosteroid monotherapy and antileukotrienes, alone or combined, salmeterol/fluticasone inhalation produced a higher proportion of successfully treated weeks, improvement in lung function and quality of life, and fewer treatment failures. The costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) for fluticasone/salmeterol have been favourable not only in patients with moderate to severe disease but also in patients with mild disease or patients not previously treated with a maintenance therapy. The excess cost per QALY varied from US$2,670 to US$26,445. For COPD, a clear reduction in exacerbation rates and improvement in quality of life has been demonstrated with salmeterol/fluticasone along with a likely improvement in survival rates. The incremental cost per QALY ratio for fluticasone/salmeterol against placebo ranged from US$9,512 to US$64,038.

Conclusions: The data currently available suggest that the cost effectiveness of combination therapy with fluticasone and salmeterol is favourable for asthma and COPD in a variety of clinical settings.     

Distribution and drivers of costs in type 2 diabetes mellitus treated with oral hypoglycemic agents: a retrospective claims data analysis

Objective:

To describe the distribution of costs and to identify the drivers of high costs among adult patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) receiving oral hypoglycemic agents.

Methods:

T2DM patients using oral hypoglycemic agents and having HbA1c test data were identified from the Truven MarketScan databases of Commercial and Medicare Supplemental insurance claims (2004–2010). All-cause and diabetes-related annual direct healthcare costs were measured and reported by cost components. The 25% most costly patients in the study sample were defined as high-cost patients. Drivers of high costs were identified in multivariate logistic regressions.

Results:

Total 1-year all-cause costs for the 4104 study patients were $55,599,311 (mean cost per patient?=?$13,548). Diabetes-related costs accounted for 33.8% of all-cause costs (mean cost per patient?=?$4583). Medical service costs accounted for the majority of all-cause and diabetes-related total costs (63.7% and 59.5%, respectively), with a minority of patients incurring >80% of these costs (23.5% and 14.7%, respectively). Within the medical claims, inpatient admission for diabetes-complications was the strongest cost driver for both all-cause (OR?=?13.5, 95% CI?=?8.1–23.6) and diabetes-related costs (OR?=?9.7, 95% CI?=?6.3–15.1), with macrovascular complications accounting for most inpatient admissions. Other cost drivers included heavier hypoglycemic agent use, diabetes complications, and chronic diseases.

Limitations:

The study reports a conservative estimate for the relative share of diabetes-related costs relative to total cost. The findings of this study apply mainly to T2DM patients under 65 years of age.

Conclusions:

Among the T2DM patients receiving oral hypoglycemic agents, 23.5% of patients incurred 80% of the all-cause healthcare costs, with these costs being driven by inpatient admissions, complications of diabetes, and chronic diseases. Interventions targeting inpatient admissions and/or complications of diabetes may contribute to the decrease of the diabetes economic burden.     

Relationship of hospital-associated bleeding with length of stay and total hospitalization costs in patients hospitalized for atrial fibrillation

Background:

While literature has focused on the impact of bleeding beginning outside the hospital setting among patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), there is little information regarding bleeding that first occurs within a hospital setting. This study was performed to determine the association between hospital-associated bleeding in patients admitted for AF on outcomes of length of stay (LOS) and total hospitalization cost.

Methods and results:

The Premier research database was queried to identify adult inpatients discharged between 2008–2011 having a primary diagnosis code for AF where a bleeding diagnosis code was not present on admission. Regression was used to adjust for baseline differences in patients to estimate outcomes comparing patients with and without a hospital-associated bleed. There were 143,287 patients that met the study criteria. There were 2991 (2.1%) patients identified with a hospital associated bleed. After adjustment for covariates, the mean estimated LOS was significantly greater in the bleed group, at 6.0 days (95% CI?=?5.8–6.1) vs the no bleed group at 3.3 days (95% CI?=?3.3–3.3) (p?<?0.0001). Similarly, the adjusted mean estimated total hospitalization cost was also significantly greater in the bleed group, $12,069 (95% CI?=?$11,779–$12,366) vs $6561 (95% CI?=?$6538–$6583) in the no bleed group (p?<?0.0001).

Conclusions:

After adjustments for baseline differences the data show that the 2.1% (n?=?2991) of patients with hospital associated bleeding accounted for an estimated additional 8106 hospitalization days and $16.4 million dollars in cost over the study period compared to non-bleeders.     

Subcutaneous vs intravenous rituximab in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma: a time and motion study in the United Kingdom

Objective:

Rituximab is part of standard therapy for many non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) patients, and is usually administered as an intravenous (IV) infusion. A formulation for subcutaneous (SC) injection will be available from June 2014. A time and motion study was conducted to investigate the staff time and costs associated with administration of SC and IV rituximab.

Research design and methods:

The time and motion study was conducted in three UK centers alongside a phase III trial of SC rituximab in patients with NHL (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01461928). Active healthcare professional (HCP) time spent on the preparation and administration of IV and SC rituximab was recorded and used to calculate the associated costs.

Results:

Total active HCP time associated with administration of IV rituximab was 223.3?min (95% CI?=?218.0–228.7), vs 48.5?min (95% CI?=?45.5–51.6) for SC rituximab, a saving of 174.8?min (95% CI?=?172.5–177.1) per session. Patient time in the treatment room was 263.8?min (95% CI?=?236.6–294.3) for IV rituximab and 70.0?min (95% CI?=?57.1–87.2) for SC rituximab, per session. The SC formulation reduced total mean staff costs by £115.17 (95% CI?=?98.95–136.93) per session. Differing monitoring scenarios during infusion consistently showed time and cost savings for SC rituximab.

Limitations:

Study limitations include the non-interventional design and lack of statistical power, and the investigational nature of SC rituximab. The data collected did not account for patient and center characteristics and variability on active HCP time.

Conclusions:

SC rituximab was associated with reduced active HCP time and costs vs IV rituximab, as well as reduced patient time in the treatment room. Switching from IV to SC rituximab could increase treatment room capacity and patient throughput, as well as improving the patient experience.     

Cost-effectiveness of insulin detemir compared with NPH insulin in people with type 2 diabetes in Denmark,Finland, Norway,and Sweden

Abstract

Objective:

To assess the cost-effectiveness of insulin detemir compared with Neutral Protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin when initiating insulin treatment in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden.

Methods:

Efficacy and safety data were derived from a 20-week multi-centre randomized controlled head-to-head clinical trial comparing insulin detemir and NPH insulin in insulin naïve people with T2DM, and short-term (1-year) cost effectiveness analyses were performed. As no significant differences in HbA_1c were observed between the two treatment arms, the model was based on significant differences in favour of insulin detemir in frequency of hypoglycaemia (Rate-Ratio?=?0.52; CI?=?0.44–0.61) and weight gain (Δ?=?0.9?kg). Model outcomes were measured in Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) using published utility estimates. Acquisition costs for insulin and direct healthcare costs associated with non-severe hypoglycaemic events were obtained from National Health Service public sources. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

Results:

Based on lower incidence of non-severe hypoglycaemic events and less weight gain, the QALY gain from initiating treatment with insulin detemir compared with NPH insulin was 0.01 per patient per year. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for the individual countries were: Denmark, Danish Kroner 170,852 (€22,933); Finland, €28,349; Norway, Norwegian Kroner 169,789 (€21,768); and Sweden, Swedish Krona 226,622 (€25,097) per QALY gained. Possible limitations of the study are that data on hypoglycaemia and relative weight benefits from a clinical trial were combined with hypoglycaemia incidence data from observational studies. These populations may have slightly different patient characteristics.

Conclusions:

The lower risk of non-severe hypoglycaemia and less weight gain associated with using insulin detemir compared with NPH insulin when initiating insulin treatment in insulin naïve patients with type 2 diabetes provide economic benefits in the short-term. Based on cost/QALY threshold values, this represents good value for money in the Nordic countries. Using a short-term modelling approach may be conservative, as reduced frequency of hypoglycaemia and less weight gain may also have positive long-term health-related implications.     

Outcomes of tumor necrosis factor inhibitor cycling versus switching to a disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug with a new mechanism of action among patients with rheumatoid arthritis

Objectives: To examine treatment patterns, treatment effectiveness, and treatment costs for 1 year after patients with rheumatoid arthritis switched from a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, or infliximab), either cycling to another TNFi (“TNFi cyclers”) or switching to a new mechanism of action (abatacept, tocilizumab, or tofacitinib) (“new MOA switchers”).

Methods: This retrospective cohort study used administrative claims data for a national insurer. Treatment persistence (without switching again, restarting, or discontinuing), treatment effectiveness (defined below), and costs were assessed for the 12-month post-switch period. Patients were “effectively treated” if they satisfied all six criteria for a treatment effectiveness algorithm (high adherence, no dose increase, no new conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug, no subsequent switch in therapy, no new/increased oral glucocorticoids, and <2 glucocorticoid injections). Multivariable logistic models were used to adjust for baseline factors.

Results: The database included 581 new MOA switchers and 935 TNFi cyclers. New MOA switchers were 39% more likely than TNFi cyclers to persist after the switch (odds ratio [OR]?=?1.39; 95% confidence interval [CI]?=?1.12–1.74; p?=?.003) and 36% less likely to switch therapy again (OR?=?0.64; 95% CI?=?0.51–0.81; p?p?=?.006). New MOA switchers had 16% lower drug costs than TNFi cyclers (cost ratio?=?0.84; 95% CI?=?0.79–0.88; p?p?Limitations: Claims payments may not reflect rebates or other cost offsets. Medical and pharmacy claims do not include clinical end-points or reasons that lead to new MOA switching vs TNFi cycling.

Conclusions: These results support switching to a new MOA after a patient fails treatment with a TNFi, which is consistent with recent guidelines for the pharmacologic management of established rheumatoid arthritis.     

Cost-effectiveness analysis of ocrelizumab versus subcutaneous interferon beta-1a for the treatment of relapsing multiple sclerosis

Aim: To conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis to compare ocrelizumab vs subcutaneous (SC) interferon beta-1a for the treatment of relapsing multiple sclerosis (RMS).

Methods: A Markov cohort model with a 20-year horizon was developed to compare ocrelizumab with SC interferon beta-1a from a US payer perspective. A cohort of patients with relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS) and Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) scores of 0–6, who initiated treatment with ocrelizumab or SC interferon beta-1a, were entered into the model. The model considered 21 health states: EDSS 0–9 in RRMS, EDSS 0–9 in secondary-progressive multiple sclerosis (SPMS), and death. Patients with RRMS could transition across EDSS scores, progress to SPMS, experience relapses, or die. Transition probabilities within RRMS while patients received ocrelizumab or SC interferon beta-1a were based on data from the two SC interferon beta-1a-controlled Phase III OPERA I and OPERA II trials of ocrelizumab in RMS. Transitions within RRMS when off-treatment, RRMS-to-SPMS transitions, transitions within SPMS, and transitions to death were based on the literature. Utilities of health states, disutilities of relapses, costs of therapies, and medical costs associated with health states, relapse, and adverse events were from the literature and publicly available data sources. The model estimated per-patient total costs, incremental cost per life year (LY) gained, and incremental cost per quality-adjusted LY (QALY) gained. Deterministic sensitivity analyses (DSA) and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) were conducted to evaluate the robustness of the model results.

Results: Ocrelizumab was associated with a cost savings of $63,822 and longer LYs (Δ?=?0.046) and QALYs (Δ?=?0.556) over a 20-year time horizon. The results of the model were robust in the DSA and PSA.

Limitations: The model did not consider subsequent treatments and their impact on disease progression.

Conclusions: The results suggest that ocrelizumab is more cost-effective than SC interferon beta-1a for the treatment of RMS.     

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.     

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.     

Cost-utility of pregabalin as add-on to usual care versus usual care alone in the management of peripheral neuropathic pain in Belgium

Abstract

Background and objectivess:

The cost effectiveness of pregabalin as an add-on to the standard treatment of Belgian patients with post-herpetic neuralgia (PHN) had been demonstrated in a previously published Markov model. The purpose of this study was to update that model with more recent cost data and clinical evidence, and reevaluate the cost effectiveness from the payer’s perspective of add-on pregabalin in a wider set of NeP conditions.

Methods:

The model, featuring 4-week cycles and a 1-year time horizon, consisted in four possible health states: mild, moderate or severe pain and withdrawn from therapy. Three versions of the model were developed, using transition probabilities derived from pain scores reported in three placebo-controlled studies. The two treatment arms were ‘usual care’ or ‘usual care?+?pregabalin’. Resource use and utility data were obtained from a chart review and unit costs from recent published data. The final outcome of the model was the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained when adding pregabalin to standard care.

Results:

Based on 1000 simulations, two versions of the model showed that pregabalin was dominant respectively in 94.8% and 67.2% of the simulations, while the incremental cost per QALY was below €32,000/QALY in respectively 99.1% and 94.6% of the simulations. The third version did not show cost effectiveness, despite an incremental cost of only €300 after 1 year. However, in the corresponding study, patients seemed less responsive to GABA analogs, since 55% of them had failed to respond to gabapentin before study inclusion.

Limitations:

The studies upon which the model is based have a short follow-up time as compared to the model horizon. The endpoints of two studies were only provided at the aggregated level and do not necessarily reflect the real practice.

Conclusion:

Based on this analysis, it can be concluded that from a Belgium payer perspective pregabalin offers a slight increase in quality of life in the studied populations as compared to standard care. Pregabalin is cost effective in the majority of cases except in one published clinical study, despite a low incremental cost per year (€300).     

Economic burden of comorbid chronic kidney disease and diabetes

Objective: To estimate real-world healthcare utilization and expenditures across the spectrum of chronic kidney disease (CKD), as determined by estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) categories in patients with diabetes.

Methods: This study employed a retrospective cohort study design using the Truven Healthcare and Claims Dataset from 2009–2012. Index date was defined as the first eGFR value during a continuous enrollment period of 24 months. Cohorts of patients were stratified by Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes CKD stage based on eGFR (stages 1: ≥90?mL/min/1.73?m²; 2: 60–89; 3A: 45–59; 3B: 30–44; 4: 15–29; 5: <15). Healthcare expenditures (total patient and payer paid claims) and utilization (number of claims or visits) were estimated 12-months post-index date using generalized linear modeling and negative binomial modeling, respectively, after adjusting for baseline characteristics.

Results: Of 130,098 patients with an index eGFR value and 24-months continuous enrolment, 64,521 (49.59%) were in stage 1 CKD, 47,816 (36.75%) were in stage 2, 13,377 (10.28%) were in stage 3A, 3,217 (2.47%) were in stage 3B, 898 (0.69%) were in stage 4, and 269 (0.21%) were in stage 5. Patients in stages 3A, 3B, and 4 CKD had 1.32 (95% CI?=?1.22–1.43), 1.59 (95% CI?=?1.41–1.80), and 2.65 (95% CI?=?2.23–3.14) times higher rates of diabetes-associated inpatient visits, respectively, compared with stage 1 CKD patients. Patients in stages 3A, 3B, and 4 CKD had increased incremental total annual healthcare expenditures of $1,732 (95% CI?=?$1,109–$2,356), $2,632 (95% CI?=?$1,647–$3,619), and $6,949 (95% CI?=?$5,466–$8,432), respectively, compared with stage 1 CKD patients.

Limitations: The claims data were generated for billing and reimbursement, not for research purposes.

Conclusions: These real-world data suggest an incremental and significant increase in economic burden in diabetes as kidney function declines, starting with moderate (stage 3A) CKD.