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4-week cycles and a 1-year time horizon, consisted in four possible health states: mild, moderate or severe pain and withdrawn from therapy.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).     

Cost effectiveness of paliperidone palmitate versus risperidone long-acting injectable and olanzapine pamoate for the treatment of patients with schizophrenia in Sweden

Abstract

Objective:

To model the cost effectiveness of paliperidone palmitate (paliperidone long-acting injectable; PLAI), a new once-monthly long-acting antipsychotic therapy, compared with risperidone long-acting injectable (RLAI) and olanzapine pamoate (OLAI), in multi-episode patients (two or more relapses) with schizophrenia in Sweden.

Methods:

A Markov decision analytic model was developed to simulate the history of a cohort of multi-episode patients transitioning through different health states on a monthly basis over a 5-year time horizon from the perspective of the Swedish healthcare system. Therapeutic strategies consisted of starting treatment with RLAI (mean dose 37.5?mg every 2 weeks), PLAI (mean dose 75?mg equivalent (eq.) every month) or OLAI (150?mg every 2 weeks or 300?mg every 4 weeks). Probability of relapse, level of adherence, side-effects (extrapyramidal symptoms, tardive dyskinesia, weight gain and diabetes) and treatment discontinuation (switch) were derived from long-term observational data when feasible. Incremental cost-effectiveness outcomes, discounted at 3% annually, included cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and cost per relapse avoided (expressed in 2009 Swedish Krona SEK).

Results:

Relative to RLAI and OLAI, PLAI is economically dominant: more effective (additional QALYs, less relapses) and less costly treatment option over a 5-year time horizon. The results were robust when tested in sensitivity analysis.

Limitations:

The impact of once-monthly treatment on adherence levels is not yet known, and not all variables that could impact on real-world outcomes and costs were included in this model.

Conclusion:

PLAI was cost saving from a Swedish payer perspective compared with RLAI and OLAI in the long-term treatment of multi-episode (two or more relapses) schizophrenia patients.     

Cost effectiveness of teriparatide and PTH(1-84) in the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis

Abstract

Objectives:

The purpose was to assess the cost effectiveness from a societal perspective of the recombinant human parathyroid hormones: PTH(1-34) (teriparatide) and PTH(1-84) for patients with osteoporosis with similar characteristics to patients treated in normal clinical practice in Sweden.

Methods:

A Markov model of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women was developed using 6-month cycles and a lifetime horizon. The model was populated with patients similar to the Swedish cohort of the European Forsteo Observational Study (postmenopausal women; mean age: 70 years, total hip T-score: ?2.7 and 3.3 previous fractures). The cost effectiveness of both teriparatide and PTH(1-84) was estimated compared to no treatment and each other. Relative effectiveness assumptions were based on efficacy estimates from two phase III clinical trials.

Results:

The cost per QALY gained of teriparatide vs. no treatment was estimated at €43,473 and PTH(1-84) was estimated at €104,396. Teriparatide was indicated to be less costly and associated with more life-years and QALYs than PTH(1-84). When assuming no treatment effect on hip fractures the cost per QALY gained was €88,379. In the sensitivity analysis the cost effectiveness did not alter substantially with changes in the majority of the model parameters except for the residual effect of the treatment after stopping therapy.

Conclusions:

Based on the efficacy estimates from pivotal clinical trials and characteristics of patients treated in clinical practice in Sweden, teriparatide seems to be a more cost-effective option than PTH(1-84) when compared to no treatment. The relative efficacy between the two PTH compounds was based on an indirect comparison from two separate clinical trials which has to be considered when interpreting the results.     

Cost effectiveness of duloxetine in the treatment of fibromyalgia in the United States

Abstract

Objective:

To evaluate the cost effectiveness of duloxetine when considered as an alternative treatment for patients in the United States (US) being treated for fibromyalgia pain.

Research design and methods:

A Markov model was used to evaluate the economic and clinical advantages of duloxetine in controlling fibromyalgia pain symptoms over a 2-year time horizon. A base-case treatment sequence was adopted from clinical guidelines, based on tricyclic antidepressants, serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, anticonvulsants, and opioids. Treatment response was modeled using changes from baseline in pain severity, and response thresholds: full response (at least a 50% change), response (30–49% change), and no response (less than a 30% change). Clinical efficacy and discontinuation data were taken from placebo- and active-controlled trials identified in a systematic literature review and mixed-treatment comparison. Utility data were based on EQ-5D data.

Main outcome measures:

Additional symptom-control months (SCMs), defined as the amount of time at a response level of 30% or less, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) over a 2-year time horizon.

Results:

For every 1000 patients, first-line duloxetine resulted in an additional 665 SCMs and 12.3 QALYs, at a cost of $582,911 (equivalent to incremental cost-effectiveness ratios [ICERs] of $877 per SCM and $47,560 per QALY). Second-line duloxetine resulted in an additional 460 SCMs and 8.7 QALYs, at a cost of $143,752 (equivalent to ICERs of $312 per SMC and $16,565 per QALY).

Limitations:

Response data for TCAs are limited to 30% improvement levels, reported trials are small, and have low placebo response rates. The model necessarily assumes that response rates are independent of placement in the treatment sequence.

Conclusions:

The results suggest that the introduction of duloxetine into the standard treatment sequence for fibromyalgia not only provides additional patient benefits, reflected by time spent in pain control, but also is cost effective when compared with commonly adopted thresholds.     

Cost-effectiveness of rosuvastatin 20 mg for the prevention of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality: a Swedish economic evaluation of the JUPITER trial

Abstract

Objective:

This study estimated the long-term health outcomes, healthcare costs, and cost-effectiveness of rosuvastatin 20?mg therapy in primary prevention of major cardiovascular disease (CVD) in a Swedish population.

Methods:

Based on data from the JUPITER trial, long-term CVD outcomes with rosuvastatin vs no active treatment were estimated for patients with an elevated baseline CVD risk (Framingham CVD score >20%, sub-population of JUPITER population) and for a population similar to the total JUPITER population. Using a decision-analytic model, trial CVD event rates were combined with epidemiological and cost data specific for Sweden. First and subsequent CVD events and death were estimated over a lifetime perspective. The observed relative risk reduction was extrapolated beyond the trial duration. Incremental effectiveness was measured as life-years gained (LYG) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained.

Results:

Treating 100,000 patients with rosuvastatin 20?mg was estimated to avoid 14,692 CVD events over the lifetime (8021 non-fatal MIs, 3228 non-fatal strokes, and 4924 CVD deaths) compared to placebo. This translated into an estimated gain of 42,122 QALYs and 36,865 total life years (LYG). Rosuvastatin was both more effective and less costly over a lifetime perspective, and rosuvastatin is subsequently a dominant alternative compared to no treatment in the assessed population. Using the overall JUPITER population, rosuvastatin was dominant for the lifetime horizon. In the sensitivity analysis, rosuvastatin was the dominant treatment strategy over a 20-year time horizon, and cost-effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (cost per QALY) of SEK 1783 over a 10-year time horizon.

Limitations:

Some model inputs were derived from literature or other data sources, but uncertainty was controlled by sensitivity analyses.

Conclusions:

Results indicate that rosuvastatin 20?mg treatment is a cost-effective option vs no-treatment in patients with Framingham CVD risk >20% in Sweden and might even be cost saving if taking a long-term perspective.     

Comparative analyses of published cost effectiveness models highlight critical considerations which are useful to inform development of new models

Abstract

Background: Comparative analyses of published cost effectiveness models provide useful insights into critical issues to inform the development of new cost effectiveness models in the same disease area.

Objective: The purpose of this study was to describe a comparative analysis of cost-effectiveness models and highlight the importance of such work in informing development of new models. This research uses genotypic antiretroviral resistance testing after first line treatment failure for Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) as an example.

Method: A literature search was performed, and published cost effectiveness models were selected according to predetermined eligibility criteria. A comprehensive comparative analysis was undertaken for all aspects of the models.

Results: Five published models were compared, and several critical issues were identified for consideration when developing a new model. These include the comparator, time horizon and scope of the model. In addition, the composite effect of drug resistance prevalence, antiretroviral therapy efficacy, test performance and the proportion of patients switching to second-line ART potentially have a measurable effect on model results. When considering CD4 count and viral load, dichotomizing patients according to higher cost and lower quality of life (AIDS) versus lower cost and higher quality of life (non-AIDS) status will potentially capture differences between resistance testing and other strategies, which could be confirmed by cross-validation/convergent validation. A quality adjusted life year is an essential outcome which should be explicitly explored in probabilistic sensitivity analysis, where possible.

Conclusions: Using an example of GART for HIV, this study demonstrates comparative analysis of previously published cost effectiveness models yields critical information which can be used to inform the structure and specifications of new models.     

Cost-effectiveness of grass pollen subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) compared to sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) and symptomatic treatment in Austria,Spain, and Switzerland

Background: While specific immunotherapy (SIT) has been proven to be cost-effective for the treatment of allergic rhinitis compared to symptomatic treatment, there is a lack of European studies in which sublingual (SLIT) and subcutaneous (SCIT) immunotherapy were compared. The present analysis is focused on the cost-effectiveness of SCIT compared to SLIT and symptomatic treatment of grass pollen allergy in Austria, Spain, and Switzerland. It will address specific properties of the underlying healthcare systems.

Methods: The investigation is based on a previously published health economic model calculation. This was designed as a Markov model with pre-defined health stages and a duration of 9 years covering specific preparations for SCIT (Allergovit) and SLIT (Oralair). The effectiveness was assessed as symptom-score based quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Additionally, total cost has been determined as well as the cost-effectiveness of SCIT. The robustness of model results was proved in further sensitivity analyses.

Results: With regard to the effectiveness of both SCIT and SLIT, preparations were dominant compared to pharmacological symptomatic therapy. Both strategies were associated with additional cost, but, combined with the results on effectiveness, both have to be regarded as cost-effective. A direct comparison of the SCIT (Allergovit) and SLIT (Oralair) showed lower total costs of SCIT vs SLIT for Austria, Spain, and Switzerland (€1,368 vs €2,012, €2,229 vs €2,547, and €1,901 vs €2,220) and superior effectiveness (SCIT =8.02 QALYs; SLIT =7.98 QALYs; and symptomatic therapy =7.90 QALYs).

Conclusion: In patients with allergic rhinitis, SIT offers cost-effective treatment options compared to symptomatic treatment. When comparing SCIT (Allergovit) and SLIT (Oralair), SCIT was dominant in terms of QALYs as well as costs, in particular due to a slightly higher patient compliance and lower drug costs.     

Cost effectiveness of rosuvastatin in patients at risk of cardiovascular disease based on findings from the JUPITER trial

Abstract

Objective:

This study assessed the long-term cost effectiveness of rosuvastatin therapy compared with placebo in reducing the incidence of major cardiovascular (CVD) events and mortality.

Methods:

A probabilistic Monte Carlo simulation model estimated long-term cost effectiveness of rosuvastatin therapy (20?mg daily) for the prevention of CVD mortality and morbidity. The model included three stages: (1) CVD prevention simulating the 4 years of the JUPITER trial, (2) initial CVD prevention beyond the trial, and (3) subsequent CVD event prevention. A US payer perspective was assessed reflecting direct medical costs, and up to a lifetime horizon. Sensitivity analyses tested the robustness of the model estimates.

Results:

For a hypothetical cohort of 100,000 patients at moderate and high risk of CVD events based on Framingham risk of ≥10%, estimated quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained with rosuvastatin therapy compared with placebo was 33,480 over a lifetime horizon, and 25,380 and 9916 over 20-year and 10-year horizons, respectively. Approximately 12,073 events were avoided over the lifetime; 6,146 non-fatal MIs, 2905 non-fatal strokes, and 4030 CVD deaths avoided. Estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for cost per QALY was $7062 (lifetime), $10,743 (20-year horizon), and $44,466 (10-year horizon). For a hypothetical cohort similar to the overall JUPITER population, the cost per QALY ICER was $11,025 for the lifetime and $60,112 for a 10-year horizon.

Limitations:

The cost-effectiveness comparison of rosuvastatin 20?mg was against no active treatment (as opposed to an alternative statin) due to lack of comparative cardiovascular morbidity and mortality risk reduction data for other statins in a population similar to the JUPITER trial population. The analysis was conducted from the payer perspective and lack of inclusion of indirect costs limit interpretability of results from a societal perspective.

Conclusions:

Treatment with rosuvastatin 20?mg daily, is a cost-effective treatment alternative to no treatment in patients at a higher risk (Framingham risk ≥10%) of CVD.     

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.     

The cost-effectiveness of dulaglutide versus liraglutide for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus in Spain in patients with BMI ≥30 kg/m2

Objective: Dulaglutide 1.5?mg once weekly is a novel glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, for the treatment of type two diabetes mellitus (T2DM). The objective was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of dulaglutide once weekly vs liraglutide 1.8?mg once daily for the treatment of T2DM in Spain in patients with a BMI ≥30?kg/m².

Methods: The IMS CORE Diabetes Model (CDM) was used to estimate costs and outcomes from the perspective of Spanish National Health System, capturing relevant direct medical costs over a lifetime time horizon. Comparative safety and efficacy data were derived from direct comparison of dulaglutide 1.5?mg vs liraglutide 1.8?mg from the AWARD-6 trial in patients with a body mass index (BMI) ≥30?kg/m². All patients were assumed to remain on treatment for 2 years before switching treatment to basal insulin at a daily dose of 40?IU. One-way sensitivity analyses (OWSA) and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were conducted to explore the sensitivity of the model to plausible variations in key parameters and uncertainty of model inputs.

Results: Under base case assumptions, dulaglutide 1.5?mg was less costly and more effective vs liraglutide 1.8?mg (total lifetime costs €108,489 vs €109,653; total QALYS 10.281 vs 10.259). OWSA demonstrated that dulaglutide 1.5?mg remained dominant given plausible variations in key input parameters. Results of the PSA were consistent with base case results.

Limitations: Primary limitations of the analysis are common to other cost-effectiveness analyses of chronic diseases like T2DM and include the extrapolation of short-term clinical data to the lifetime time horizon and uncertainty around optimum treatment durations.

Conclusion: The model found that dulaglutide 1.5?mg was more effective and less costly than liraglutide 1.8?mg for the treatment of T2DM in Spain. Findings were robust to plausible variations in inputs. Based on these results, dulaglutide may result in cost savings to the Spanish National Health System.     

The cost-effectiveness of 5-FU-SA in the treatment of actinic keratoses of the face and scalp in the UK secondary care setting

Objective: The objective of this analysis was to estimate the relative cost-effectiveness of Actikerall¹ (5-FU-SA) vs cryotherapy in a secondary care setting in the UK, for lesion-directed treatment in patients with actinic keratoses (AK) of the face and scalp.

Methods: The model was a simple decision tree, with a 6-month time horizon. The perspective was that of the UK National Health Service (NHS). Modeled treatment effects included reported per-patient histological clearance and recurrence rates. Cost inputs comprised professional consultation time and cost of medication. Health-related utility estimation followed previously published methodology. Adverse events were not modeled. The key data and model structural assumptions followed expected UK practice. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess structural and parameter uncertainty.

Results: 5-FU-SA was found to be less costly (?£204) and more effective (+0.001 QALY) in base case and sensitivity analyses. In the probabilistic analysis there was 100% probability of being cost-effective over cryotherapy at £20,000 willingness to pay. Cost of professional time was a key driver of the model outcome. 5-FU-SA remained dominant across a range of scenario analyses, including exploration of assumptions around setting of care.

Limitations: The time horizon of the analysis was short and data were not extrapolated beyond the duration of the clinical trial; however, this approach is consistent with likely follow-up of an AK patient. The clinical outcomes observed in the trial were based on a large proportion of cryotherapy patients undergoing an additional cycle of treatment; this may not occur or be required in an experienced secondary care setting.

Conclusion: 5-FU-SA could be considered as a cost-effective choice for treatment of AK lesions of the face and scalp in secondary and mixed care settings in the UK. Use of 5-FU-SA in patients who would otherwise be managed with cryotherapy has the potential to result in cost savings.     

Economic evaluation of linaclotide for the treatment of adult patients with irritable bowel syndrome with constipation in the United States

Abstract

Objectives:

To use techniques of decision-analytic modeling to evaluate the effectiveness and costs of linaclotide vs lubiprostone in the treatment of adult patients with irritable bowel syndrome with constipation (IBS-C).

Methods:

Using model inputs derived from published literature, linaclotide Phase III trial data and a physician survey, a decision-tree model was constructed. Response to therapy was defined as (1) a ≥14-point increase from baseline in IBS-Quality-of-Life (IBS-QoL) questionnaire overall score at week 12 or (2) one of the top two responses (moderately/significantly relieved) on a 7-point IBS symptom relief question in ≥2 of 3 months. Patients who do not respond to therapy are assumed to fail therapy and accrue costs associated with a treatment failure. Model time horizon is aligned with clinical trial duration of 12 weeks. Model outputs include number of responders, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and total costs (including direct and indirect). Both one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted.

Results:

Treatment for IBS-C with linaclotide produced more responders than lubiprostone for both response definitions (19.3% vs 13.0% and 61.8% vs 57.2% for IBS-QoL and symptom relief, respectively), lower per-patient costs ($803 vs $911 and $977 vs $1056), and higher QALYs (0.1921 vs 0.1917 and 0.1909 vs 0.1894) over the 12-week time horizon. Results were similar for most one-way sensitivity analyses. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, the majority of simulations resulted in linaclotide having higher treatment response rates and lower per-patient costs.

Limitations:

There are no available head-to-head trials that compare linaclotide with lubiprostone; therefore, placebo-adjusted estimates of relative efficacy were derived for model inputs. The time horizon for this model is relatively short, as it was limited to the duration of available clinical trial data.

Conclusions:

Linaclotide was found to be a less costly option vs lubiprostone for the treatment of adult patients with IBS-C.     

Cost effectiveness of adding clostridial collagenase ointment to selective debridement in individuals with stage IV pressure ulcers

Objective: The purpose of this study was to determine the cost effectiveness (from a payer’s perspective) of adding clostridial collagenase ointment (CCO) to selective debridement compared with selective debridement alone (non-CCO) in the treatment of stage IV pressure ulcers among patients identified from the US Wound Registry.

Methods: A 3-state Markov model was developed to determine costs and outcomes between the CCO and non-CCO groups over a 2-year time horizon. Outcome data were derived from a retrospective clinical study and included the proportion of pressure ulcers that were closed (epithelialized) over 2 years and the time to wound closure. Transition probabilities for the Markov states were estimated from the clinical study. In the Markov model, the clinical outcome is presented as ulcer-free weeks, which represents the time the wound is in the epithelialized state. Costs for each 4-week cycle were based on frequencies of clinic visits, debridement, and CCO application rates from the clinical study. The final model outputs were cumulative costs (in US dollars), clinical outcome (ulcer-free weeks), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) at 2 years.

Results: Compared with the non-CCO group, the CCO group incurred lower costs ($11,151 vs $17,596) and greater benefits (33.9 vs 16.8 ulcer-free weeks), resulting in an economically dominant ICER of ?$375 per ulcer. Thus, for each additional ulcer-free week that can be gained, there is a concurrent cost savings of $375 if CCO treatment is selected. Over a 2-year period, an additional 17.2 ulcer-free weeks can be gained with concurrent cost savings of $6,445 for each patient.

Conclusions: In this Markov model based on real-world data from the US Wound Registry, the addition of CCO to selective debridement in the treatment of pressure ulcers was economically dominant over selective debridement alone, resulting in greater benefit to the patient at lower cost.     

Cost-effectiveness of combination daclatasvir-sofosbuvir for treatment of genotype 3 chronic hepatitis C infection in the United States

Background: A phase III trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of Daklinza (daclatasvir or DCV) in combination with sofosbuvir (SOF) for treatment of genotype (GT) 3 hepatitis C virus (HCV) patients.

Aim: This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of DCV?+?SOF vs SOF in combination with ribavirin (RBV) over a 20-year time horizon from the perspective of a United States (US) payer.

Methods: A published Markov model was adapted to reflect US demographic characteristics, treatment patterns, costs of drug acquisition, monitoring, disease and adverse event management, and mortality risks. Clinical inputs came from the ALLY-3 and VALENCE trials. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-utility ratio. Life-years, incidence of complications, number of patients achieving sustained virological response (SVR), and the total cost per SVR were secondary outcomes. Costs (2014 USD) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were discounted at 3% per year. Deterministic, probabilistic, and scenario sensitivity analyses were conducted.

Results: DCV?+?SOF was associated with lower costs and better effectiveness than SOF?+?RBV in the base case and in almost all scenarios (i.e. treatment-experienced, non-cirrhotic, time horizons of 5, 10, and 80 years). DCV?+?SOF was less costly, but also slightly less effective than SOF?+?RBV in the cirrhotic and treatment-naïve population scenarios. Results were sensitive to variations in the probability of achieving SVR for both treatment arms. DCV?+?SOF costs less than $50,000 per QALY gained in 79% of all probabilistic iterations compared with SOF?+?RBV.

Conclusion: DCV?+?SOF is a dominant option compared with SOF?+?RBV in the US for the overall GT 3 HCV patient population.     

A cost-effectiveness analysis of MMX mesalazine compared with mesalazine in the treatment of mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis from a UK perspective

Abstract

Objectives: To perform a cost-utility analysis of a new formulation of mesalazine (Mezavant XL, MMX mesalazine) versus an existing oral mesalazine (Asacol; mesalazine) from the UK National Health Service perspective.

Methods: A 5-year Markov cohort model was developed. Costs were obtained from the literature and utilities from an independent study. Uncertainty was evaluated using one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA). The potential effect of dosing frequency on adherence and possible long-term effects of remission maintenance on colorectal cancer (CRC) rates were also investigated.

Results: The model suggested that 5-year therapy with MMX mesalazine was likely to generate gains when compared with mesalazine, including a gain of 0.011 QALYs per patient, 19 more remission days, and 12% fewer hospitalizations and surgical episodes. These gains came at an increase in total NHS direct cost of £8, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £749. The PSA suggested that MMX mesalazine had a 62% chance of resulting in cost savings, and a 74% chance of being cost effective (£20,000 threshold). Extended analysis including adherence and CRC effects suggested further incremental benefit of MMX mesalazine over mesalazine could be expected. Limitations include uncertainty in extrapolation to a 5-year time horizon and impact of adherence and drug acquisition costs on outcomes.

Conclusion: The pharmacoeconomic analysis suggested that MMX mesalazine is likely to produce small, but worthwhile, increases in total NHS direct cost while increasing time in remission and associated quality of life, when compared with mesalazine. Advantages in adherence to treatment with MMX mesalazine relative to mesalazine suggested that further health gains and cost savings can be obtained. Overall, these results suggest that MMX mesalazine is a cost-effective treatment for UC.     

Cost of ciprofloxacin/dexamethasone vs. amoxicillin/clavulanic acid for the treatment of acute otitis media in tympanostomy tube patients in the US

Summary

A deterministic decision-analytic model estimated the cost effectiveness of two therapeutic alternatives for the treatment of acute otitis media in tympanostomy tube patients (AOMT).

Three tiers of AOMT antibiotic therapy were modelled, with successive tiers representing re-treatment of failures from the preceding tier. First-tier therapy compared ciprofloxacin/dexamethasone (CD) ear drops with oral amoxicillin/clavulanic acid (ACA) using clinical trial data. ACA was used as second-tier therapy for re-treatment of initial CD failures, whilst CD was used to re-treat initial ACA failures. Cefdinir was used as third-tier therapy. Costs were presented from a US payer's perspective. Sensitivity analysis established the robustness of the model.

The expected cost per cure was $219 in the CD pathway vs. $293 in the ACA pathway. Given its effectiveness and side-effect profile, CD was more cost effective than ACA for AOMT therapy. CD dominated ACA despite the higher acquisition cost of CD.     

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.     

Solifenacin in the treatment of overactive bladder syndrome in Italian patients: pharmacoeconomic evaluation

Abstract

Objective: To investigate the pharmacoeconomic performance of treatment with solifenacin, a new antimuscarinic with selectivity for the bladder, when compared to tolterodine and placebo, in Italian patients with overactive bladder (OAB).

Methods: The evaluation was performed using a Markov model. The time horizon of the simulation was 52 weeks, with 1-week cycles. The model simulated outcomes and costs of the treatment with solifenacin (5 mg/day), tolterodine ER (4 mg/day) and no treatment in a cohort representative of the Italian population with OAB. The analysis was conducted mainly from the perspective of the patient, since drugs for the treatment of OAB are not included in the Italian reimbursement list. A supplementary scenario explored the consequences of a hypothetical reimbursement decision by the Italian Health Service to reimburse half of the current retail price in incontinent and responding OAB patients only.

Results: Both treatments produced a reduction in symptoms and improvement in patients' quality of life, with an cost increase of about €540–640/patient/year with solifenacin and €680–780/patient/year with tolterodine. In a cost/utility analysis, solifenacin dominated tolterodine as it resulted in both more effective and less costly treatment; the cost/utility ratio with respect to no treatment was in the range €7,600–18,600/Quality-adjusted life year. The overall expenditure of the hypothesised reimbursement decision was estimated to be about 23 million euros, with a cost/utility ratio of about €600–2,400/Quality-adjusted life year, indicating an efficient allocation of health resources.

Conclusions: While both tolterodine and solifenacin appear to be cost/effective in Italy, the latter has proven to be superior.

     

Pharmacoeconomic analysis of paricalcitol and calcitriol in the treatment of secondary hyperparathyroidism in haemodialysis: impact of hospitalisations and survival

Summary

The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost effectiveness of paricalcitol injection compared with calcitriol injection when used to reduce parathyroid hormone levels in patients undergoing haemodialysis. A decision tree was developed to model the 1-year costs and outcomes of therapy for secondary hyperparathyroidism from a US government payer's perspective (2005 US$). Probabilities of hospitalisations and survival with paricalcitol and calcitriol were obtained from published observational studies.

When only drug costs and survival were considered, the incremental cost effectiveness of paricalcitol over calcitriol was $9,900 per life saved. When utilities were included, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for paricalcitol compared with calcitriol was $13,200 per quality-adjusted life year. When both drug and hospitalisation costs were included in a cost analysis, paricalcitol treatment was cost saving compared with calcitriol, and when hospitalisation costs were included in both the cost-effectiveness analysis and cost-utility analysis paricalcitol demonstrated first-order dominance, cost savings and cost effectiveness.

This decision analysis demonstrated that paricalcitol injection is both cost effective and cost saving compared with calcitriol injection.     

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.