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

Abstract

Background:

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

Methods:

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

Results:

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

Limitations:

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

Conclusions:

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

Evaluation of the long-term cost-effectiveness of liraglutide therapy for patients with type 2 diabetes in France

Objectives:

The present study aimed to compare the projected long-term clinical and cost implications associated with liraglutide, sitagliptin and glimepiride in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus failing to achieve glycemic control on metformin monotherapy in France.

Methods:

Clinical input data for the modeling analysis were taken from two randomized, controlled trials (LIRA-DPP4 and LEAD-2). Long-term (patient lifetime) projections of clinical outcomes and direct costs (2013 Euros; €) were made using a validated computer simulation model of type 2 diabetes. Costs were taken from published France-specific sources. Future costs and clinical benefits were discounted at 3% annually. Sensitivity analyses were performed.

Results:

Liraglutide was associated with an increase in quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.25 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and an increase in mean direct healthcare costs of €2558 per patient compared with sitagliptin. In the comparison with glimepiride, liraglutide was associated with an increase in quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.23 QALYs and an increase in direct costs of €4695. Based on these estimates, liraglutide was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €10,275 per QALY gained vs sitagliptin and €20,709 per QALY gained vs glimepiride in France.

Conclusion:

Calculated ICERs for both comparisons fell below the commonly quoted willingness-to-pay threshold of €30,000 per QALY gained. Therefore, liraglutide is likely to be cost-effective vs sitagliptin and glimepiride from a healthcare payer perspective in France.     

Cost-effectiveness of dabigatran etexilate in the prevention of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with atrial fibrillation in Belgium

Abstract

Objective:

To assess the cost-effectiveness of dabigatran etexilate (‘dabigatran’) vs vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in the Belgian healthcare setting for the prevention of stroke and systemic embolism (SE) in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF).

Research design and methods:

A Markov model was used to calculate the cost-effectiveness of dabigatran vs VKAs in Belgium, whereby warfarin was considered representative for the VKA class. Efficacy and safety data were taken from the Randomized Evaluation of Long-Term Anticoagulation Therapy (RE-LY) trial and a network meta-analysis. Local resource use and unit costs were included in the model. Effectiveness was expressed in Quality Adjusted Life-Years (QALYs). The model outcomes were total costs, total QALYs, incremental costs, incremental QALYs and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The level of International Normalized Ratio (INR) control and the use of other antithrombotic therapies observed in Belgian clinical practice were reflected in two scenario analyses.

Results:

In the base case analysis, total costs per patient were €13,333 for dabigatran and €12,454 for warfarin. Total QALYs per patient were 9.51 for dabigatran and 9.19 for warfarin. The corresponding ICER was €2807/QALY. The ICER of dabigatran was €970/QALY vs warfarin with real-world INR control and €5296/QALY vs a mix of warfarin, aspirin, and no treatment. Results were shown to be robust in one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

Limitations:

The analysis does not include long-term costs for clinical events, as these data were not available for Belgium. As in any economic model based on data from a randomized clinical trial, several assumptions had to be made when extrapolating results to routine clinical practice in Belgium.

Conclusion:

This analysis suggests that dabigatran, a novel oral anticoagulant, is a cost-effective treatment for the prevention of stroke and SE in patients with non-valvular AF in the Belgian healthcare setting.     

Cost-effectiveness 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.     

Cost-effectiveness of everolimus plus reduced tacrolimus in de novo liver-recipients in the Italian setting

Introduction: Long-term exposure to calcineurin inhibitor-based immunosuppressant (IS) therapy in liver transplant (LT) recipients is associated with renal complications. In the randomized trial H2304, everolimus?+?reduced-dose tacrolimus (EVR?+?rTAC) demonstrated equivalent efficacy and superior renal function compared to standard-dose tacrolimus.

Methods: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of EVR?+?rTAC vs TAC, in de novo LT patients, a Markov model simulating both liver and kidney function was developed and estimated the long-term outcomes of IS following LT. The analysis used the Italian healthcare payer perspective.

Results: Patients treated with EVR?+?rTAC gained on average 1.92 years and 1.62 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were €35,851 and €42,567 for LY gained and QALY gained, respectively. For the hepatitis-c sub-population, the ICERs decreased to €22,519 and €30,658, respectively.

Conclusion: EVR?+?rTAC improves survival and quality-of-life and is a cost-effective alternative to calcineurin-inhibitor monotherapy for patients requiring LT.     

Cost-effectiveness analysis of first-line pembrolizumab treatment for PD-L1 positive,non-small cell lung cancer in China

Purpose: Pembrolizumab was recently approved in several countries as a first-line treatment for patients with PD-L1 positive, non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, it is expensive. This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab in treating advanced NSCLC patients with PD-L1 positive cancer in China.

Methods: A Markov model was developed to compare the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab with chemotherapy for patients with PD-L1 expression on at least 50% of NSCLC tumor cells. Model inputs for transition probabilities and toxicity were derived from published clinical trial data, while health utilities were estimated from a literature review. Costs for drugs were updated to standard fee data from West China Hospital in 2017. Health outcomes were measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and cost-effectiveness was measured as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the robustness of the model.

Results: Pembrolizumab gained 0.45 QALYs at an incremental cost of $46,362 compared to chemotherapy for an ICER of $103,128 per QALY gained. In most scenarios, the ICER exceeded three times the Chinese Gross Domestic Product per capita. Two-way sensitivity analysis showed that, when the utility of the progression-free status increased to the maximal value of 0.845 and the 1?mg dose price decreased to $10.50, the ICER reduced to $25,216/QALY.

Conclusions: Pembrolizumab is not likely to be cost-effective in the treatment of PD-L1 positive, NSCLC for Chinese patients. Less aggressive pricing may increase accessibility for patients in China.     

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

Abstract

Purpose:

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

Methods:

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

Results:

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

Limitations:

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

Conclusions:

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

Cost-effectiveness of blinatumomab versus salvage chemotherapy in relapsed or refractory Philadelphia-chromosome-negative B-precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia from a US payer perspective

Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of blinatumomab (Blincyto) vs standard of care (SOC) chemotherapy in adults with relapsed or refractory (R/R) Philadelphia-chromosome-negative (Ph?) B-precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) based on the results of the phase 3 TOWER study from a US healthcare payer perspective.

Methods: The Blincyto Global Economic Model (B-GEM), a partitioned survival model, was used to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of blinatumomab vs SOC. Response rates, event-free survival (EFS), overall survival (OS), numbers of cycles of blinatumomab and SOC, and transplant rates were estimated from TOWER. EFS and OS were estimated by fitting parametric survival distributions to failure-time data from TOWER. Utility values were based on EORTC-8D derived from EORTC QLQ-C30 assessments in TOWER. A 50-year lifetime horizon and US payer perspective were employed. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3% per year.

Results: The B-GEM projected blinatumomab to yield 1.92 additional life years and 1.64 additional quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) compared with SOC at an incremental cost of $180,642. The ICER for blinatumomab vs SOC was estimated to be $110,108/QALY gained in the base case. Cost-effectiveness was sensitive to the number and cost of inpatient days for administration of blinatumomab and SOC, and was more favorable in the sub-group of patients who had received no prior salvage therapy. At an ICER threshold of $150,000/QALY gained, the probability that blinatumomab is cost-effective was estimated to be 74%.

Limitations: The study does not explicitly consider the impact of adverse events of the treatment; no adjustments for long-term transplant rates were made.

Conclusions: Compared with SOC, blinatumomab is a cost-effective treatment option for adults with R/R Ph???B-precursor ALL from the US healthcare perspective at an ICER threshold of $150,000 per QALY gained. The value of blinatumomab is derived from its incremental survival and health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) benefit over SOC.     

Nilotinib versus dasatinib as second-line therapy in patients with Philadelphia chromosome-positive chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase who are resistant or intolerant to imatinib: a cost-effectiveness analysis based on real-world data

Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of second-line nilotinib vs dasatinib among patients with Philadelphia chromosome-positive chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase (Ph+?CML-CP) who are resistant or intolerant to imatinib, from a US third-party perspective.

Methods: A lifetime partitioned survival model was developed to compare the costs and effectiveness of nilotinib vs dasatinib, which included four health states: CP on treatment, CP post-discontinuation, progressive disease (accelerated phase [AP] or blast crisis [BC]), and death. Time on treatment, progression-free survival, and overall survival of nilotinib and dasatinib were estimated using real-world comparative effectiveness data. Parametric survival models were used to extrapolate outcomes beyond the study period. Drug treatment costs, medical costs, and adverse event costs were obtained from the literature and publicly available databases. Utilities of health states were derived from the literature. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, including incremental cost per life-year (LY) gained and incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, were estimated comparing nilotinib and dasatinib. Deterministic sensitivity analyses were performed by varying patient characteristics, cost, and utility inputs.

Results: Over a lifetime horizon, nilotinib-treated patients were associated with 11.7 LYs, 9.1 QALYs, and a total cost of $1,409,466, while dasatinib-treated patients were associated with 9.5 LYs, 7.3 QALYs, and a total cost of $1,422,122. In comparison with dasatinib, nilotinib was associated with better health outcomes (by 2.2 LYs and 1.9 QALYs) and lower total costs (by $12,655). Deterministic sensitivity analysis results showed consistent findings in most scenarios.

Limitations: In the absence of long-term real-world data, the lifetime projection could not be validated.

Conclusions: Compared with dasatinib, second-line nilotinib was associated with better life expectancy, better quality-of-life, and lower costs among patients with Ph+?CML-CP who were resistant or intolerant to imatinib.     

Cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban versus warfarin for stroke prevention in non-valvular atrial fibrillation in the Japanese healthcare setting

Abstract

Aims: This article aimed to examine the cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban in comparison to warfarin for stroke prevention in Japanese patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF), from a public healthcare payer’s perspective.

Materials and methods: Baseline event risks were obtained from the J-ROCKET AF trial and the treatment effect data were taken from a network meta-analysis. The other model inputs were extracted from the literature and official Japanese sources. The outcomes included the number of ischaemic strokes, myocardial infarctions, systemic embolisms and bleedings avoided, life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The scenario analysis considered treatment effect data from the same network meta-analysis.

Results: In comparison with warfarin, rivaroxaban was estimated to avoid 0.284 ischaemic strokes per patient, to increase the number of QALYs by 0.535 per patient and to decrease the total costs by ¥118,892 (€1,011.11) per patient (1 JPY = 0.00850638 EUR; XE.com, 7 October 2019). Consequently, rivaroxaban treatment was found to be dominant compared to warfarin. In the scenario analysis, the ICER of rivaroxaban versus warfarin was ¥2,873,499 (€24,446.42) per QALY.

Limitations: The various sources of data used resulted in the heterogeneity of the cost-effectiveness analysis results. Although, rivaroxaban was cost-effective in the majority of cases.

Conclusion: Rivaroxaban is cost-effective against warfarin for stroke prevention in Japanese patients with NVAF, giving the payer WTP of 5,000,000 JPY.     

Cost-effectiveness of zoledronic acid vs clodronic acid for newly-diagnosed multiple myeloma from the United Kingdom healthcare system perspective

Abstract

Objective:

In the Medical Research Council Myeloma IX Study (MMIX), zoledronic acid (ZOL) 4?mg 3–4/week reduced the incidence of skeletal-related events (SREs), increased progression free survival (PFS), and prolonged overall survival (OS), compared with clodronic acid (CLO) 1600?mg daily, in 1970 patients with newly-diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM).

Methods:

An economic model was used to project PFS, OS, the incidence of SREs and adverse events and expected lifetime healthcare costs for patients with newly-diagnosed MM who are alternatively assumed to receive ZOL or CLO. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER] of ZOL vs CLO was calculated as the ratio of the difference in cost to the difference in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Model inputs were based on results of MMIX and published sources.

Results:

Compared with CLO, treatment with ZOL increases QALYs by 0.30 at an additional cost of £1653, yielding an ICER of £5443 per QALY gained. If the threshold ICER is £20,000 per QALY, the estimated probability that ZOL is cost-effective is 90%.

Limitations:

The main limitation of this study is the lack of data on the effects of zoledronic acid on survival beyond the end of follow-up in the MMIX trial. However, cost-effectiveness was favourable even under the highly conservative scenario in which the timeframe of the model was limited to 5 years.

Conclusions:

Compared with clodronic acid, zoledronic acid represents a cost-effective treatment alternative in patients with multiple myeloma.     

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

Abstract

Objective:

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

Methods:

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

Results:

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

Conclusions:

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

Cost-effectiveness analysis of second-line tyrosine kinase inhibitor treatment for chronic myelogenous leukemia

Aim:

A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed for sequential treatments of chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) after failure of 1st line imatinib, from a commercial payer perspective in the US.

Methods:

A Markov model was developed to simulate lifetime treatment costs and health outcomes for TKI sequences for treatment of patients resistant or intolerant to 1st-line imatinib. Five health states were included, chronic phase 2nd-line TKI, chronic phase 3rd-line TKI, chronic phase post-TKI, advanced phases, and death. Efficacy (response achievement, loss of response, transformation, death) and safety (adverse events incidence, discontinuation) data are based on clinical trials. Resource utilization, costs, and utilities were based on product labels and publically available data. Uncertainty analyses were conducted for key inputs.

Results:

In patients failing imatinib, dasatinib-initiating treatment sequences provide the most survival (ΔLYs?=?0.2–2.0), QALYs (ΔQALYs?=?0.2–1.9), and accrue highest CML-related costs (ΔCosts?=?$64,000–$222,000). The average ICER per QALY for dasatinib- vs imatinib-initiating sequences is $100,000 for an imatinib-resistant population. The average ICER per QALY for dasatinib- vs nilotinib-initiating sequences is $170,000 for an imatinib-resistant population, and $160,000 for an imatinib-intolerant population.

Conclusions:

This analysis suggests that dasatinib is associated with increased survival and quality of life compared to high dose imatinib and to a smaller extent with nilotinib, among patients resistant or intolerant to 1st-line imatinib, primarily based on higher cytogenetic response rates observed in clinical studies of dasatinib. Head-to-head studies of sequential use of dasatinib and nilotinib are needed to validate the model findings of improved survival (LYs) with better quality-of-life (QALYs) for patients initiating dasatinib in 2nd-line. However, the model findings (in light of higher cytogenetic response rates with dasatinib) are supported by other studies showing improved quality-of-life for responders, and improved survival for patients achieving cytogenetic response.     

Economic analysis of paliperidone long-acting injectable for chronic schizophrenia in Portugal

Objective: Patients with chronic schizophrenia suffer a huge burden, as do their families/caregivers. Treating schizophrenia is costly for health systems. The European Medicines Agency has approved paliperidone palmitate (PP-LAI; Xeplion), an atypical antipsychotic depot; however, its pharmacoeconomic profile in Portugal is unknown. A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted from the viewpoint of the Portuguese National Health Service.

Methods: PP-LAI was compared with long acting injectables risperidone (RIS-LAI) and haloperidol (HAL-LAI) and oral drugs (olanzapine; oral-OLZ) adapting a 1-year decision tree to Portugal, guided by local experts. Clinical information and costs were obtained from literature sources and published lists. Outcomes included relapses (both requiring and not requiring hospitalization) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Costs were expressed in 2014 euros. Economic outcomes were incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs); including cost-utility (outcome?=?QALYs) and cost-effectiveness analyses (outcomes?=?relapse/hospitalization/emergency room (ER) visit avoided).

Results: The base-case cost of oral-OLZ was 4447€ (20% drugs/20% medical/60% hospital); HAL-LAI cost 4474€ (13% drugs/13% medical/74% hospital); PP-LAI cost 5326€ (49% drugs/12% medical/39% hospital); RIS-LAI cost 6223€ (44% drugs/12% medical/44% hospital). Respective QALYs/hospitalizations/ER visits were oral-OLZ: 0.761/0.615/0.242; HAL-LAI: 0.758/0.623/0.250; PP-LAI: 0.823/0.288/0.122; RIS-LAI: 0.799/0.394/0.168. HAL-LAI was dominated by oral-OLZ and RIS-LAI by PP-LAI for all outcomes. The ICER of PP-LAI over oral-OLZ was 14,247€/QALY, well below NICE/Portuguese thresholds (≈24,800€/30,000€/QALY). ICERs were 1973€/relapse avoided and 2697€/hospitalization avoided. Analyses were robust against most variations in input values, as PP-LAI was cost-effective over oral-OLZ in >99% of 10,000 simulations.

Conclusion: In Portugal, PP-LAI dominated HAL-LAI and RIS-LAI and was cost-effective over oral-OLZ with respect to QALYs gained, relapses avoided, and hospitalizations avoided.     

Cost-effectiveness of several atypical antipsychotics in orally disintegrating tablets compared with standard oral tablets in the treatment of schizophrenia in the United States

Abstract

Objective:

Although the use of innovative drug delivery systems, like orally disintegrating antipsychotic tablets (ODT), may facilitate medication adherence and help reduce the risk of relapse and hospitalization, no information is available about the comparative cost-effectiveness of standard oral tablets (SOT) vs ODT formulations in the treatment of schizophrenia. This study compared the cost-effectiveness of olanzapine ODT and olanzapine SOT in the usual treatment of outpatients with schizophrenia from a US healthcare perspective. The study also compared olanzapine ODT with risperidone and aripiprazole, two other atypical antipsychotics available in both ODT and SOT formulations.

Methods:

Published medical literature and a clinical expert panel were used to populate a 1-year Monte Carlo Micro-simulation model. The model captures clinical and cost parameters including adherence levels, treatment discontinuation by reason, relapse with and without inpatient hospitalization, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), treatment-emergent adverse events, healthcare resource utilization, and associated costs. Key outcomes were total annual direct cost per treatment, QALY, and incremental cost-effectiveness (ICER) per 1 QALY gained.

Results:

Based on model projections, olanzapine ODT therapy was more costly ($9808 vs $9533), but more effective in terms of a lower hospitalization rate (15% vs 16%) and better QALYs (0.747 vs 0.733) than olanzapine SOT therapy. Olanzapine ODT was more cost-effective than olanzapine SOT (ICER: $19,643), more cost-effective than risperidone SOT therapy (ICER: $39,966), and dominant (meaning less costly and more effective) than risperidone ODT and aripiprazole in ODT or SOT formulations.

Limitations:

Lack of head-to-head randomized studies comparing the three studied atypical antipsychotics required making input assumptions that need further study.

Conclusions:

This micro-simulation found that the utilization of olanzapine ODT for the treatment of schizophrenia is predicted to be more cost-effective than any other ODT or SOT formulations of the studied atypical antipsychotic medications.     

The cost-effectiveness of solifenacin vs. trospium in the treatment of patients with overactive bladder in the German National Health Service

Objective:

To carry out a cost–utility analysis comparing initial treatment of patients with overactive bladder (OAB) with solifenacin 5?mg/day versus either trospium 20?mg twice a day or trospium 60?mg/day from the perspective of the German National Health Service.

Methods:

A decision analytic model with a 3 month cycle was developed to follow a cohort of OAB patients treated with either solifenacin or trospium during a 1 year period. Costs and utilities were accumulated as patients transitioned through the four cycles in the model. Some of the solifenacin patients were titrated from 5?mg to 10?mg/day at 3 months. Utility values were obtained from the published literature and pad use was based on a US resource utilization study. Adherence rates for individual treatments were derived from a United Kingdom general practitioner database review. The change in the mean number of urgency urinary incontinence episodes/day from after 12 weeks was the main outcome measure. Baseline effectiveness values for solifenacin and trospium were calculated using the Poisson distribution. Patients who failed second-line therapy were referred to a specialist visit. Results were expressed in terms of incremental cost–utility ratios.

Results:

Total annual costs for solifenacin, trospium 20?mg and trospium 60?mg were €970.01, €860.05 and €875.05 respectively. Drug use represented 43%, 28% and 29% of total costs and pad use varied between 45% and 57%. Differences between cumulative utilities were small but favored solifenacin (0.6857 vs. 0.6802 to 0.6800). The baseline incremental cost–effectiveness ratio ranged from €16,657 to €19,893 per QALY.

Limitations:

The difference in cumulative utility favoring solifenacin was small (0.0055–0.0057 QALYs). A small absolute change in the cumulative utilities can have a marked impact on the overall incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and care should be taken when interpreting the results.

Conclusion:

Solifenacin would appear to be cost-effective with an ICER of no more than €20,000/QALY. However, small differences in utility between the alternatives means that the results are sensitive to adjustments in the values of the assigned utilities, effectiveness and discontinuation rates.     

Societal implications of medical insurance coverage for imatinib as first-line treatment of chronic myeloid leukemia in China: a cost-effectiveness analysis

Objectives: Imatinib (Glivec) and nilotinib (Tasigna) have been covered by critical disease insurance in Jiangsu province of China since 2013, which changed local treatment patterns and outcomes of patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML). This study evaluated the long-term cost-effectiveness of insurance coverage with imatinib as the first-line treatment for patients with CML in China from a societal perspective.

Methods: A decision-analytic model based on previously published and real-world evidence was applied to simulate and evaluate the lifetime clinical and economic outcomes associated with CML treatments before and after imatinib was covered by medical insurance. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated with both costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) discounted at 3% annually. Different assumptions of treatment benefits and costs were taken to address uncertainties and were tested with sensitivity analyses.

Results: In base case analysis, both cost and effectiveness of CML treatments increased after imatinib was covered by the medical insurance; on average, the incremental QALY and cost were 5.5 and ¥277,030 per patient in lifetime, respectively. The ICER of insurance coverage with imatinib was ¥50,641, which is less than the GDP per capita of China. Monte Carlo simulation resulted in the estimate of 100% probability that the insurance coverage of imatinib is cost-effective. Total cost was substantially saved at 5 years after patients initiated imatinib treatment with insurance coverage compared to no insurance coverage, the saved cost at 5 years was ¥99,565, which included the cost savings from both direct (e.g. cost of bone marrow or stem cell transplant) and indirect costs (e.g. productivity loss of patients and care-givers).

Conclusions: The insurance coverage of imatinib is very cost-effective in China, according to the local cost and clinical data in Jiangsu province. More importantly, the insurance coverage of imatinib and nilotinib have changed the treatment patterns of CML patients, thus dramatically increasing life expectancy and quality-of-life (QoL) saving on productivity losses for both CML patients and their caregivers.     

Cost effectiveness of palivizumab in children with congenital heart disease in Germany

Abstract

Objectives: To assess the cost effectiveness of palivizumab, a humanised monoclonal antibody, used as prevention against severe respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infection requiring hospitalisation, in infants with haemodynamically significant congenital heart disease (CHD) in the German healthcare setting.

Study design: A decision-tree model was used to estimate the cost effectiveness of palivizumab for a hypothetical cohort of patients. The analysis was based on a lifetime follow-up period in order to capture the impact of palivizumab on long-term morbidity and mortality resulting from an RSV infection. Data sources included published literature, the palivizumab pivotal trials, official price/tariff lists and national population statistics. The study was conducted from the perspective of society (primary analysis) and the healthcare purchaser (secondary analysis).

Results: From the societal perspective, use of palivizumab results in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €2,615 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) without discounting, which increases to €9,529/QALY after discounting. From the perspective of the German healthcare purchaser, use of palivizumab results in an ICER of €4,576/QALY without discounting, which increases to €16,673/QALY after discounting. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the model. The study is limited by a number of conservative assumptions. It was assumed that palivizumab only affects the occurrence of RSV hospitalisation and does not influence the severity of the RSV infection. Another assumption was that international clinical trial data and data on utilities could be applied to the German healthcare setting.

Conclusion: This analysis showed that palivizumab represents a cost-effective means of prophylaxis against severe RSV infection requiring hospitalisation in infants with haemodynamically significant CHD.     

Cost-effective analysis of clopidogrel versus aspirin for high risk patients with established peripheral arterial disease in China

Abstract

Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness of clopidogrel versus aspirin for high risk patients (pre-existing symptomatic atherosclerosis or multi-vascular territory involvement) with established peripheral arterial disease (PAD) for secondary prevention of atherothrombotic events in a Chinese setting.

Methods: A Markov model with a lifetime horizon was developed from the perspective of the national healthcare system in China. The primary outputs are quality adjusted life years (QALYs), direct medical costs, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Clinical efficacy data were obtained from the CAPRIE trial. Drug acquisition cost, other direct medical costs, and utilities were from pricing records and the literature. One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) were conducted to test the robustness of the model on all parameters.

Results: In patients with pre-existing atherosclerosis, 2 years of treatment with clopidogrel and aspirin would yield total QALYs of 8.776 and 8.576 at associated costs of ¥18,777 ($2,838) and ¥12,302 ($1,859), respectively, resulting in an ICER of ¥32,382 ($4,893) per QALY gained. In patients with PVD, secondary prevention with the same drugs would expect to lead to total QALYs of 8.836 and 8.632 at associated costs of ¥18,518 ($2,798) and ¥12,041 ($1,820), respectively, resulting in a corresponding ICER of ¥31,743 ($4,797) per QALY gained. The results were most sensitive to the discount rate for future outcomes and costs. The PSA indicated that the probability of clopidogrel being cost-effective was 100% at the willingness-to-pay threshold of 3-times GDP.

Conclusions: Secondary prevention with clopidogrel is an attractive cost-effective option compared with aspirin for high risk patients with established PAD from the perspective of the national healthcare system in Chinese settings.     

A short-term cost-effectiveness study comparing robot-assisted laparoscopic and open retropubic radical prostatectomy

Abstract

Objective:

To evaluate cost effectiveness and cost utility comparing robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) versus retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP).

Methods:

In a retrospective cohort study a total of 231 men between the age of 50 and 69 years and with clinically localised prostate cancer underwent radical prostatectomy (RP) at the Department of Urology, Aarhus University Hospital, Skejby from 1 January 2004 to 31 December 2007, were included.

The RALP and RRP patients were matched 1:2 on the basis of age and the D’Amico Risk Classification of Prostate Cancer; 77 RALP and 154 RRP.

An economic evaluation was made to estimate direct costs of the first postoperative year and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per successful surgical treatment and per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). A successful RP was defined as: no residual cancer (PSA <0.2?ng/ml, preserved urinary continence and erectile function. A one-way sensitivity analysis was made to investigate the impact of changing one variable at a time.

Results:

The ICER per extra successful treatment was €64,343 using RALP. For indirect costs, the ICER per extra successful treatment was €13,514 using RALP. The difference in effectiveness between RALP and RRP procedures was 7% in favour of RALP. In the present study no QALY was gained 1 year after RALP, however this result is uncertain due to a high degree of missing data. The sensitivity analysis did not change the results noticeably.

Limitations:

The study was limited by the design resulting in a low percentage of information on the effect of medication for erectile dysfunction and only short-term quality of life was measured at 1 year postoperatively.

Conclusion:

RALP was more effective and more costly. A way to improve the cost effectiveness may be to perform RALP at fewer high volume urology centres and utilise the full potential of each robot.