Cost-effectiveness of oxaliplatin in combination with 5-FU/FA compared with 5-FU/FA alone

SUMMARY

We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis to assess the cost-effectiveness of oxaliplatin in combination with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and folinic acid (FA), compared with 5-FU/FA alone to achieve an additional progression-free month or year from the UK NHS perspective. Clinical data from a Phase III clinical trial were used to determine efficacy, in terms of progression-free survival. The average drug-acquisition cost for each cycle of treatment was then calculated. Any toxicities that resulted in hospitalisation of the patient were determined, and the costs incurred were calculated depending on the type of ward to which the patient was admitted. The costs for oxaliplatin in combination with 5-FU/FA compared with 5-FU/FA alone gave the incremental cost to achieve the improvement in progression-free survival. Sensitivity analyses were performed on costs and progression-free survival to give a range of possible values when costs and outcome were varied. The results of the analysis indicate that the costs to achieve an additional progression-free month are around £2,133. In the sensitivity analysis, the majority of scenarios gave similar cost-effectiveness ratios. This gives an average incremental cost of £25,600 to achieve an additional progression-free year. The cost-effectiveness ratio is within acceptable limits and supports the use of oxaliplatin combination therapy in the management of advanced colorectal cancer.     

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

Abstract

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

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

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

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

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

Cost-effectiveness analysis of solifenacin versus oxybutynin immediate-release in the treatment of patients with overactive bladder in the United Kingdom

Abstract

Objective:

To carry out a cost-utility analysis comparing initial treatment with solifenacin 5?mg/day vs oxybutynin immediate-release (IR) 15?mg/day for the treatment of patients with overactive bladder (OAB) from the perspective of the UK National Health Service (NHS).

Methods:

A Markov model with six health states was developed to follow a cohort of OAB patients treated with either solifenacin or oxybutynin during a 1-year period. Costs and utilities were accumulated as patients transited through the health states in the model and a drop-out state. Some of the solifenacin patients were titrated from 5?mg to 10?mg/day at 8 weeks. A proportion of drop-out patients were assumed to continue treatment with tolterodine ER. Utility values were obtained from a Swedish study and pad use was based on a multinational clinical trial. Adherence rates for individual treatments were derived from a UK database study. For pad use and utility values, the drop-out state was split between those patients who were no longer receiving treatment and those on second-line therapy. Patients on second-line therapy who drop-out were referred for a specialist visit. Results were expressed in terms of incremental cost-utility ratios.

Results:

Total annual costs for solifenacin and oxybutynin were £504.30 and £364.19, respectively. First-line drug use represents 49% and 4% of costs and pad use represent 23% and 40% of costs for solifenacin and oxybutynin, respectively. Differences between cumulative utilities were small but were greater for solifenacin (0.7020 vs 0.6907). The baseline incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £12,309/QALY.

Conclusion:

Under the baseline assumptions, solifenacin would appear to be cost-effective with an incremental cost-utility of less than £20,000/QALY. However, small differences in utility between the alternatives and the large number of drop-outs means that the results are sensitive to small adjustments in the values of utilities assigned to the drop-out state.     

Estimating the quality-of-life impact and cost-effectiveness of alpha-blocker and anti-muscarinic combination treatment in men with lower urinary tract symptoms related to benign prostatic hyperplasia and overactive bladder

Abstract

Objective:

A 12-week clinical trial (TIMES) demonstrated that therapy with tolterodine extended release (TOL)?+?tamsulosin (TAM) provides clinical benefits vs TOL or TAM monotherapy or placebo (PBO) in men with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) including overactive bladder (OAB). The present analysis estimated the costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) associated with these therapies from the perspective of the UK healthcare system.

Methods:

TIMES cohorts receiving TOL, TAM, TOL?+?TAM, or PBO were followed from therapy initiation to 12 weeks. A decision-tree model was used to extrapolate the 12-week results to 1 year (including need for surgery owing to treatment failure at 12 weeks) and to track patients’ outcomes (symptoms, utility, and costs). Because TIMES did not include costs and QALYs, data from the EpiLUTS epidemiologic survey (12,796 males) were used to model a mathematical relationship between LUTS (daytime and nocturnal frequency, urgency episodes, urgency urinary incontinence episodes, and International Prostate Symptom Score [IPSS]), quality-of-life, and utility. This was used to convert improvements in TIMES patients’ LUTS into utility scores and QALYs. The model included drug and surgery procedure costs and hospital length of stay.

Results:

Incremental QALYs of TOL?+?TAM vs PBO, TAM, and TOL were 0.042, 0.021, and 0.013, and corresponding incremental costs were £189, £223, and ?£70, respectively, resulting in cost-utility ratios for TOL?+?TAM of £4508/QALY gained compared with PBO and £10,381/QALY gained compared with TAM. TOL?+?TAM combination therapy was both more effective and cost-saving compared with TOL. Univariate sensitivity analyses showed that patient utility was most responsive to changes in drug efficacy on IPSS and urgency episodes. Changing the percentage of patients undergoing surgery did not substantially affect model outcomes. The main limitation of the study was that the relation between LUTS and patient utility was based on an indirect association.

Conclusions:

TOL?+?TAM combination therapy appears to be cost-effective compared with TOL or TAM monotherapy or PBO in male patients with LUTS.     

Modelling the cost-effectiveness of nevirapine triple combination therapy and dual combination therapy for the treatment of HIV disease in the United Kingdom

Summary

Recent advances in HIV antiretroviral therapy together with limited budgets have forced payers to look for evidence that new combinations provide good value for money. Using a public financing perspective, two Markov models are employed to evaluate the first-year outcomes and costs and the long-term cost-effectiveness of adding nevirapine (NVP) to dual combination therapy with zidovudine (ZDV) and didanosine (ddI) in the United Kingdom.

First-year medical care savings are estimated to be £2,122 (103.8% of NVP cost). In the longer term, NVP/ZDV/ddI therapy yields £6,186 per life year saved (costs discounted at 6%). The model is moderately sensitive only to duration of therapy effects and the therapy initiation time. These model estimates suggest that policy makers may expect to observe superior initial health outcomes and substantial medical cost savings during the first year of therapy, as well as acceptable long-term cost-effectiveness, when NVP/ZDV/ddI is used in place of dual therapy.     

Cohort versus patient level simulation for the economic evaluation of single versus combination immuno-oncology therapies in metastatic melanoma

Abstract

Background: Model structure, despite being a key source of uncertainty in economic evaluations, is often not treated as a priority for model development. In oncology, partitioned survival models (PSMs) and Markov models, both types of cohort model, are commonly used, but patient responses to newer immuno-oncology (I-O) agents suggest that more innovative model frameworks should be explored.

Objective: A discussion of the theoretical pros and cons of cohort level vs patient level simulation (PLS) models provides the background for an illustrative comparison of I-O therapies, namely nivolumab/ipilimumab combination and ipilimumab alone using patient level data from the CheckMate 067 trial in metastatic melanoma. PSM, Markov, and PLS models were compared on the basis of coherence with short-term clinical trial endpoints and long-term cost per QALY outcomes reported.

Methods: The PSM was based on Kaplan-Meier curves from CheckMate 067 with 3-year data on progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). The Markov model used time independent transition probabilities based on the average trajectory of PFS and OS over the trial period. The PLS model was developed based on baseline characteristics hypothesized to be associated with disease as well as significant mortality and disease progression risk factors identified through a proportional hazards model.

Results: The short-term Markov model outputs matched the 1–3?year clinical trial results approximately as well as the PSMs for OS but not PFS. The fixed (average) cohort PLS results corresponded as well as the PSMs for OS in the combination therapy arm and PFS in the monotherapy arm. Over the lifetime horizon, the PLS produced an additional 5.95 quality adjusted life years (QALYs) associated with combination therapy relative to ipilimumab alone, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £6,474 per QALY, compared with £14,194 for the PSMs which gave an incremental benefit of between 2.2 and 2.4 QALYs. The Markov model was an outlier (～ £49,000 per QALY in the base case).

Conclusions: The 4- and 5-state versions of the PSM cohort model estimated in this study deviate from the standard 3-state approach to better capture I-O response patterns. Markov and PLS approaches, by modeling state transitions explicitly, could be more informative in understanding I-O immune response, the PLS particularly so by reflecting heterogeneity in treatment response. However, both require a number of assumptions to capture the immune response effectively. Better I-O representation with surrogate endpoints in future clinical trials could yield greater model validity across all models.     

Cost-effectiveness of osimertinib in the UK for advanced EGFR-T790M non-small cell lung cancer

Aim: This study presents the cost-utility analysis that was developed to inform the NICE health technology assessment of osimertinib vs platinum-based doublet chemotherapy (PDC) in patients with EGFR-T790M mutation-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who have progressed on epidermal growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitor (EGFR-TKI) therapy.

Methods and materials: A partitioned survival model with three health states (progression-free, progressed disease, and death) from a UK payer perspective and over lifetime (15 years) was developed. Direct costs included disease management, treatment-related (acquisition, administration, monitoring, adverse events), and T790M testing costs. Efficacy and safety data were taken from clinical trials AURA extension and AURA2 for osimertinib and IMPRESS for PDC. An adjusted indirect treatment comparison was applied to reduce the potential bias in the non-randomized comparison. Parametric functions were utilized to extrapolate survival beyond the observed period. Health state utility values were calculated from EQ-5D data collected in the trials and valued using UK tariffs. Resource use and costs were based on published sources.

Results: Osimertinib was associated with a gain of 1.541 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) at an incremental cost of £64,283 vs PDC (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER]: £41,705/QALY gained). Scenario analyses showed that none of the plausible scenarios produced an ICER above £44,000 per QALY gained, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses demonstrated a 63.4% probability that osimertinib will be cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £50,000.

Limitations: The analysis is subject to some level of uncertainty inherent to phase 2 single-arm data and the immaturity of the currently available survival data for osimertinib.

Conclusions: Osimertinib may be considered a cost-effective treatment option compared with PDC in the second-line setting in patients with EGFR-T790M mutation-positive NSCLC from a UK payer perspective. Further data from the ongoing AURA clinical trial program will reduce the inherent uncertainty in the analysis.     

Economic evaluation of olmesartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination for hypertension treatment in China

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of olmesartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination vs olmesartan and amlodipine free combination, amlodipine single drug, and valsartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination in the treatment of hypertensive patients from payer perspective in China.

Methods: A Markov model was constructed, which included five health states of hypertensive patients who are aged 35–84?years at baseline and free of cardiovascular disease. Clinical data were obtained from a network meta-analysis. Epidemiology data, adverse events (AEs), cost, and utility data were obtained from the literature. The cost associated with AEs was estimated based on the cost of same symptoms of hypertensive patients in an electric medical record database. The model projected quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained, total costs per patient in a 20-year time horizon, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Probability sensitivity analyses (PSA) and one-way sensitivity analyses were conducted for the main parameters to test the robustness of the model.

Results: Compared to olmesartan and amlodipine free combination, amlodipine, and valsartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination, treatment with olmesartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination led to fewer CVD events and deaths; resulted in an incremental cost of ¥?5,439 ($?791.36), ¥6,530 ($950.09), and ¥?1,019 ($?148.26) and gained additional QALYs of 0.052, 0.094, and 0.037 per patient, respectively. Compared with olmesartan and amlodipine free combination and valsartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination, olmesartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination was dominant. Compared with amlodipine alone, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were below the WHO recommended cost-effectiveness threshold, indicating the olmesartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination was a cost-effective option for hypertensive patients in China. The 10-years’ time horizon scenario analysis showed similar results to the 20-years’ time horizon. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis and one-way sensitivity analyses showed the robustness of the model results.

Conclusions: Olmesartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination confers better health outcomes and costs less compared with olmesartan and amlodipine free combination and valsartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination, and is cost-effective compared to amlodipine for hypertension treatment in China.     

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.     

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.     

An economic comparison of the net clinical benefit and treatment costs of raltitrexed and 5-fluorouracil + leucovorin (Mayo regimen) in advanced colorectal cancer

Summary

Background

This paper describes an economic evaluation in which raltitrexed (Tomudex®) was compared with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) + leucovorin (LV), and where net clinical benefits were related to differential health service costs. Raltitrexed, a specific inhibitor of thymidylate synthetase, has shown anticancer activity against a range of solid tumours.

Tomudex® is a registered trademark ofZeneca Pharmaceuticals

Materials and Methods

In a large, open, randomised, multicentre study in patients with advanced colorectal cancer, raltitrexed (n = 223) and 5-FU plus LV (n = 216) showed similar efficacy in terms of patient survival and objective response (i.e. tumour shrinkage rates). Palliative benefits were seen in both groups of patients and suggest that patients with stable disease are as likely to show improvement as those with a tumour response. Reductions compared with 5-FU plus LV in the number of toxicity days (median 1.5 vs 8 treatment days) and administration days (6 vs 22 days) with raltitrexed were consistent with a net clinical benefit.

Results

A cost minimisation analysis that drew on data from a number of sources showed direct medical costs per month to be similar for the two treatments (£781 for raltitrexed vs £834 for 5-FU + LV).

Conclusions

Raltitrexed therefore represents a clinically effective alternative to 5-FU plus LV (Mayo regimen) and offers net clinical benefit to patients with advanced colorectal cancer at no apparent additional cost.     

Cost-effectiveness implications of increased survival with anastrozole in the treatment of advanced breast cancer

Summary

Anastrozole (Arimidex*) has a survival benefit compared with megestrol acetate in postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer who have failed on tamoxifen. It was felt appropriate that such a clinical finding should be subjected to economic evaluation.

A cost-effectiveness analysis was undertaken from the viewpoint of a third-party payer, of the data from a combined analysis of two clinical studies. The outcome measures were duration of drug treatment and life years gained. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) of anastrozole was £1,608 per life year gained based on UK NHS drug prices in April 1998. Sensitivity analysis showed that the ICER could vary between £5 and £1,643, depending on relative drug costs in a number of countries, between £1,056 and £1,761, depending on the method used to calculate duration of treatment and survival, and could increase to £3,730, based on treatment provided during the extra period of survival.

Anastrozole is a highly cost-effective alternative to megestrol acetate for postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer.     

The cost-effectiveness of onabotulinumtoxinA for the prophylaxis of headache in adults with chronic migraine in the UK

Abstract

Background:

Although chronic migraine is associated with substantial disability and costs, few treatments have been shown to be effective. OnabotulinumtoxinA (Botox, Allergan Inc., Irvine, CA) is the first treatment to be licensed in the UK for the prophylaxis of headaches in adults with chronic migraine. This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of onabotulinumtoxinA in this indication in the UK.

Methods:

A state-transition (Markov) model was developed comparing onabotulinumtoxinA to placebo. Efficacy data and utility values were taken from the pooled Phase III REsearch Evaluating Migraine Prophylaxis Therapy (PREEMPT) clinical trials program (n?=?1384). Estimates of resource utilisation were taken from the International Burden of Migraine Study (IBMS), and stopping rules were informed by published medical guidelines and clinical data. This study estimated 2-year discounted costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) from the UK National Health Service perspective.

Results:

At 2 years, treatment with onabotulinumtoxinA was associated with an increase in costs of £1367 and an increase in QALYs of 0.1 compared to placebo, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £15,028. Treatment with onabotulinumtoxinA reduced headache days by an estimated 38 days per year at a cost of £18 per headache day avoided. Sensitivity analysis showed that utility values had the greatest influence on model results. The ICER remained cost-effective at a willingness to pay threshold of £20,000–£30,000/QALY in the majority of scenario analyses as well as in probabilistic sensitivity analysis, where onabotulinumtoxinA was cost-effective on 96% of occasions at a threshold of £20,000/QALY and 98% of occasions at £30,000/QALY.

Conclusion:

OnabotulinumtoxinA has been shown to reduce the frequency of headaches in patients with chronic migraine and can be considered a cost-effective use of resources in the UK National Health Service. The uncertainties in the model relate to the extrapolation of clinical data beyond the 56-week trial.     

Medical resource use and cost of different first-line treatments for metastatic colorectal cancer in Brazil

Abstract

Background: Metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is one of the most common malignancies worldwide. The availability of new chemotherapeutic agents have modified the treatment of mCRC over the years creating the need to evaluate the financial impact of treatment. The aim of this study was to establish and quantify the financial resources needed during the first-line treatment of mCRC in Brazil.

Methods: The authors began by reaching expert consensus using a modified Delphi panel with oncologists working at public and private services in Brazil. Costs were calculated using official databases and the microcosting technique.

Results: The panel reached consensus on six regimens used in the first-line treatment of mCRC, as well as the resources involved in the administration of these regimens. All the regimens contain either fluorouracil (5-FU)/leucovorin or capecitabine, combined with either oxaliplatin or irinotecan. The analysis showed that, when compared with intravenous 5-FU/leucovorin, the cost of capecitabine was offset by administration costs.

Conclusion: The panel concluded that regimens containing capecitabine, especially capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) are less expensive than those containing 5-FU/leucovorin. Given the comparable efficacy and good tolerability of the XELOX regimen, it may be an attractive choice for the first-line treatment of Brazilian patients with mCRC.     

Cost-effectiveness of insulin degludec compared with insulin glargine in a basal-bolus regimen in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus in the UK

Abstract

Objective:

The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of insulin degludec (IDeg) vs insulin glargine (IGlar) as part of a basal-bolus treatment regimen in adults with T1DM, using a short-term economic model.

Methods:

Data from two phase III clinical studies were used to populate a simple and transparent short-term model. The costs and effects of treatment with IDeg vs IGlar were calculated over a 12-month period. The analysis was conducted from the perspective of the UK National Health Service. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the degree of uncertainty surrounding the results. The main outcome measure, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), was the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY).

Results:

IDeg is a cost-effective treatment option vs IGlar in patients with T1DM on a basal-bolus regimen. The base case ICER was estimated at £16,895/QALY, which is below commonly accepted thresholds for cost-effectiveness in the UK. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the ICER was stable to variations in the majority of input parameters. The parameters that exerted the most influence on the ICER were hypoglycemia event rates, daily insulin dose, and disutility associated with non-severe nocturnal hypoglycemic events. However, even under extreme assumptions in the majority of analyses the ICERs remained below the commonly accepted threshold of £20,000–£30,000 per QALY gained.

Conclusions:

This short-term modeling approach accommodates the treat-to-target trial design required by regulatory bodies, and focuses on the impact of important aspects of insulin therapy such as hypoglycemia and dosing. For patients with T1DM who are treated with a basal-bolus insulin regimen, IDeg is a cost-effective treatment option compared with IGlar. IDeg may be particularly cost-effective for sub-groups of patients, such as those suffering from recurrent nocturnal hypoglycemia and those with impaired awareness of hypoglycemia.     

The cost effectiveness of zonisamide as adjunctive therapy in adult partial seizure epilepsy

Summary

Many patients with epilepsy continue to have partial seizures requiring add-on antiepileptic drugs (AEDs). Zonisamide, a broad-spectrum AED, has recently entered the European market and must be compared with the current standard of care. The objective of this study was to determine the cost effectiveness of zonisamide as treatment for adults with uncontrolled partial epilepsy in Scotland. A Markov decision model was developed from the perspective of the Scottish National Health Service. Outcome measures included quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and costs in GBP.

Patients treated with zonisamide had a 15-year incremental cost of £20 and 0.026 additional QALYs compared with patients treated with levetiracetam. These modest differences result in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for zonisamide of £761/QALY.

We conclude that zonisamide is a cost-effective treatment for adult patients with refractory partial epilepsy being treated according to Scottish treatment patterns and costs, assuming a willingness to pay of £20,000/QALY.     

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.     

Cost-effectiveness of ceftolozane/tazobactam plus metronidazole compared with piperacillin/tazobactam as empiric therapy for the treatment of complicated intra-abdominal infections based on the in-vitro surveillance of bacterial isolates in the UK

Aims: An increase in the prevalence of antimicrobial resistance among gram-negative pathogens has been noted recently. A challenge in empiric treatment of complicated intra-abdominal infection (cIAI) is identifying initial appropriate antibiotic therapy, which is associated with reduced length of stay and mortality compared with inappropriate therapy. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of ceftolozane/tazobactam?+?metronidazole compared with piperacillin/tazobactam (commonly used in this indication) in the treatment of patients with cIAI in UK hospitals.

Methods: A decision-analytic Monte Carlo simulation model was used to compare costs (antibiotic and hospitalization costs) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of patients infected with gram-negative cIAI and treated empirically with either ceftolozane/tazobactam?+?metronidazole or piperacillin/tazobactam. Bacterial isolates were randomly drawn from the Program to Assess Ceftolozane/Tazobactam Susceptibility (PACTS) database, a surveillance database of non-duplicate bacterial isolates collected from patients in the UK infected with gram-negative pathogens. Susceptibility to initial empiric therapy was based on the measured susceptibilities reported in the PACTS database.

Results: Ceftolozane/tazobactam?+?metronidazole was cost-effective when compared with piperacillin/tazobactam, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £4,350/QALY and 0.36 hospitalization days/patient saved. Costs in the ceftolozane/tazobactam?+?metronidazole arm were £2,576/patient, compared with £2,168/patient in the piperacillin/tazobactam arm. The ceftolozane/tazobactam?+?metronidazole arm experienced a greater number of QALYs than the piperacillin/tazobactam arm (14.31/patient vs 14.21/patient, respectively). Ceftolozane/tazobactam?+?metronidazole remained cost-effective in one-way sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

Conclusions: Economic models can help to identify the appropriate choice of empiric therapy for the treatment of cIAI. Results indicated that empiric use of ceftolozane/tazobactam?+?metronidazole is cost-effective vs piperacillin/tazobactam in UK patients with cIAI at risk of resistant infection. This will be valuable to commissioners and clinicians to aid decision-making on the targeting of resources for appropriate antibiotic therapy under the premise of antimicrobial stewardship.     

A United Kingdom-based economic evaluation of ranibizumab for patients with retinal vein occlusion (RVO)

Objective:

This study compares the cost-effectiveness of intravitreal ranibizumab vs observation and/or laser photocoagulation for treatment of macular edema secondary to retinal vein occlusion in a UK-based model.

Methods:

A Markov model was constructed using transition probabilities and frequency of adverse events derived using data from the BRAVO, CRUISE, and HORIZON trials. Outcomes associated with treatments and health states were combined to predict overall health costs and outcomes for cohorts treated with each option.

Results:

In branch retinal vein occlusion, ranibizumab produced a gain of 0.518 quality-adjusted life years at an incremental cost of £8141, compared with laser photocoagulation. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £15,710 per quality-adjusted life year, and the incremental cost per month free from blindness was £658. In central retinal vein occlusion, ranibizumab produced a gain of 0.539 quality-adjusted life years at an incremental cost of £9216, compared with observation only. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £17,103, and the incremental cost per month free from blindness was £423.

Conclusions:

These incremental cost-effectiveness ratios are below the £20,000–30,000 range typically accepted as a threshold for cost-effectiveness. This suggests that ranibizumab may be regarded as a cost-effective therapy for patients with macular edema secondary to retinal vein occlusion, relative to grid laser photocoagulation (for BRVO) and observation (for CRVO). Limitations include sparse data for utilities associated with the severity of visual impairment in the WSE in patients with RVO. A lack of direct comparative evidence between ranibizumab and the dexamethasone intravitreal implant for the treatment of BRVO and CRVO and the infeasibility of an indirect comparison due to significant heterogeneity in trial designs prevented the inclusion of this treatment as a comparator in the Markov model.