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.     

Canadian cost-effectiveness analysis of solifenacin compared to oxybutynin immediate-release in patients with overactive bladder

Abstract

Objective:

To estimate the cost effectiveness of solifenacin 5?mg/day compared to oxybutynin immediate-release (IR) 15?mg/day in patients with overactive bladder, from the perspective of the Canadian healthcare (payer) system.

Research design and methods:

A Markov model was adapted to estimate the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) of solifenacin and oxybutynin IR over a 1-year time horizon, based on efficacy and discontinuation data from the Canadian VECTOR (VEsicare in Comparison To Oxybutynin for oveRactive bladder patients) study. In the model, patients who discontinued treatment were offered tolterodine extended release 4?mg/day as second-line. Model robustness was tested using various sensitivity analyses. Utility values were derived from published literature; incontinence pads were included in a secondary analysis.

Results:

In the base-case analysis, total costs over 1 year were CAN$695 and CAN$550 in the solifenacin and oxybutynin IR groups, respectively. When including incontinence pad costs, there was an incremental saving of CAN$1,831 per patient with solifenacin. Solifenacin was associated with an incremental QALY gain of 0.01 over 1 year. In the base-case analysis without incontinence pads, the incremental cost-utility ratio for solifenacin was CAN$14,092. Probabilistic analyses showed no overlap in the 95% confidence intervals for total costs or QALYs with or without incontinence pads. Solifenacin was cost effective in >90% of cases, based on a willingness-to-pay threshold of CAN$50,000 per additional QALY, irrespective of whether pad costs were included in the model. The most influential variables were the discontinuation rates and the cost of incontinence pads. Limitations of the analysis relate mainly to the fact that data in the VECTOR study were collected using a direct questioning approach, which might have increased the reporting of dry mouth.

Conclusions:

Solifenacin 5?mg/day was a cost-effective treatment compared with oxybutynin IR 15?mg/day.

Conclusions:

NCT00431041 (of the VECTOR study, upon which the analysis in this paper was based).     

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.     

Cost effectiveness analysis of immunotherapy in patients with grass pollen allergic rhinoconjunctivitis in Germany

Abstract

Objectives:

An economic evaluation was conducted to assess the outcomes and costs as well as cost-effectiveness of the following grass-pollen immunotherapies: OA (Oralair; Stallergenes S.A., Antony, France) vs GRZ (Grazax; ALK-Abelló, Hørsholm, Denmark), and ALD (Alk Depot SQ; ALK-Abelló) (immunotherapy agents alongside symptomatic medication) and symptomatic treatment alone for grass pollen allergic rhinoconjunctivitis.

Methods:

The costs and outcomes of 3-year treatment were assessed for a period of 9 years using a Markov model. Treatment efficacy was estimated using an indirect comparison of available clinical trials with placebo as a common comparator. Estimates for immunotherapy discontinuation, occurrence of asthma, health state utilities, drug costs, resource use, and healthcare costs were derived from published sources. The analysis was conducted from the insurant’s perspective including public and private health insurance payments and co-payments by insurants. Outcomes were reported as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and symptom-free days. The uncertainty around incremental model results was tested by means of extensive deterministic univariate and probabilistic multivariate sensitivity analyses.

Results:

In the base case analysis the model predicted a cost-utility ratio of OA vs symptomatic treatment of €14,728 per QALY; incremental costs were €1356 (95%CI: €1230; €1484) and incremental QALYs 0.092 (95%CI: 0.052; 0.140). OA was the dominant strategy compared to GRZ and ALD, with estimated incremental costs of ?€1142 (95%CI: ?€1255; ?€1038) and ?€54 (95%CI: ?€188; €85) and incremental QALYs of 0.015 (95%CI: ?0.025; 0.056) and 0.027 (95%CI: ?0.022; 0.075), respectively. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of €20,000, the probability of OA being the most cost-effective treatment was predicted to be 79%. Univariate sensitivity analyses show that incremental outcomes were moderately sensitive to changes in efficacy estimates. The main study limitation was the requirement of an indirect comparison involving several steps to assess relative treatment effects.

Conclusion:

The analysis suggests OA to be cost-effective compared to GRZ and ALD, and a symptomatic treatment. Sensitivity analyses showed that uncertainty surrounding treatment efficacy estimates affected the model outcomes.     

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

Abstract

Objective:

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

Research design and methods:

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

Main outcome measures:

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

Results:

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

Conclusions:

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

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.

     

Economic evaluation of sevelamer for the treatment of hyperphosphatemia in chronic kidney disease patients not on dialysis in the United Kingdom

Abstract

Objectives:

To determine the cost effectiveness of sevelamer vs calcium carbonate in patients with chronic kidney disease and not on dialysis (CKD-ND) from the perspective of the National Health Service (NHS) in the UK.

Methods:

A Markov decision analytic model was developed to estimate (1) total life years (LYs), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and costs for patients treated with sevelamer or calcium carbonate; and (2) incremental costs per LY gained (LYG) and per QALY gained for sevelamer vs calcium carbonate. Data informing probability transitions to all-cause death and dialysis inception in CKD-ND patients were taken directly from the INDEPENDENT-CKD study and were extrapolated beyond the 3-year clinical trial using Weibull regression analysis. Estimates of health utility and costs (in £2011) were derived from the published literature.

Results:

Over a lifetime horizon, sevelamer treatment resulted in a gain of 2.05 LYs and 1.56 QALYs per patient, an increase of £37,282 in total costs per patient vs calcium carbonate (3.5% discount), and a per-patient cost of £18,193/LYG and £23,878/QALY gained. Results were robust to alternative assumptions in key parameters; results were most sensitive to alternative assumptions regarding the mean daily dose of sevelamer, impact of sevelamer on dialysis initiation, cost of dialysis, and health utility estimates. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that sevelamer was cost-effective vs calcium carbonate in 93% of simulations at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £30,000/QALY gained.

Limitations:

While the model simulated a real-world clinical setting, this analysis was subject to limitations common to all decision analytic models, in that it used a mix of data sources and relied on several assumptions. Not all variables that impact real-world outcomes and costs were included in this model.

Conclusions:

Sevelamer is a cost-effective option compared to calcium carbonate for the first-line treatment of hyperphosphatemia in CKD-ND patients in the UK.     

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

Abstract

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

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

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

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

Cost-effectiveness 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.     

Evaluation of the cost-utility of insulin degludec vs insulin glargine in Sweden

Abstract

Objective:

To evaluate the annual cost-utility of insulin degludec compared with glargine in patients with: type 1 diabetes (T1D), type 2 diabetes receiving basal-only therapy (T2D-BOT), and type 2 diabetes receiving basal-bolus therapy (T2B-BB) in Sweden.

Methods:

A cost-utility model was programmed in Microsoft Excel to evaluate clinical and economic outcomes. The clinical trials were designed as treat-to-target, with insulin doses adjusted in order to achieve similar glycemic control between treatments, thus long-term modeling is not meaningful. Basal and bolus insulin doses, incidence of hypoglycemic events, frequency of self-monitoring of blood glucose, and possibility for flexibility in timing of dose administration were specified for each insulin in three diabetes populations, based on data collected in Swedish patients with diabetes and a meta-analysis of clinical trials with degludec. Using these characteristics, the model estimated costs from a societal perspective and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) in the two scenarios.

Results:

Use of degludec was associated with a QALY gain compared with glargine in T1D (0.31 vs 0.26?QALYs), T2D-BOT (0.76 vs 0.69?QALYs), and T2D-BB (0.56 vs 0.47?QALYs), driven by reduced incidence of hypoglycemia and possibility for flexibility around timing of dose administration. Therapy regimens containing degludec were associated with increased costs compared to glargine-based regimens, driven by the increased pharmacy cost of basal insulin, but partially offset by other cost savings. Based on estimates of cost and clinical outcomes, degludec was associated with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of SEK 19,766 per QALY gained, SEK 10,082 per QALY gained, and SEK 36,074 per QALY gained in T1D, T2-BOT, and T2-BB, respectively.

Limitations:

The hypoglycemic event rates in the base case analysis were derived from a questionnaire-based study that relied on patient interpretation and recall of hypoglycemic symptoms. The relative rates of hypoglycemia with degludec compared to glargine were derived from a meta-analysis of phase III trials, which may not reflect the relative rates observed in real-world clinical practice. Both of these key limitations were explored in one-way sensitivity analyses.

Conclusions:

Based on reduced incidence of hypoglycemia and possibility for flexibility around timing of dose administration, use of degludec is likely to be cost-effective compared to glargine from a societal perspective in T1D, T2-BOT, and T2-BB in Sweden over a 1-year time horizon.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

A cost-effectiveness analysis of levodopa/carbidopa intestinal gel compared to standard care in late stage Parkinson’s disease in the UK

Abstract

Objective:

Evaluation of cost-effectiveness of levodopa/carbidopa intestinal gel (LCIG), compared to standard care (SC) in patients with advanced Parkinson’s disease (aPD) in the UK.

Design:

Markov model to quantify costs and outcomes associated with LCIG versus SC in aPD patients at Hoehn and Yahr (H&Y) stages 3, 4 or 5 experiencing >50% OFF time per day. Time horizon was lifetime, LCIG treatment was assumed to last maximal 5 years after which patients revert to SC. Model comprised 12 aPD health states according to H&Y status and daily time spent in OFF state. Cost analyses are reported from a UK NHS and Personal Social Services perspective. Uncertainties were assessed through one-way sensitivity analyses.

Comparators:

LCIG, providing patients with continuous dopaminergic stimulation to maximise functional ON time during the day and SC, defined as medically determined best available oral medication.

Main outcome measures:

Cost-effectiveness, based on quality adjusted life years gained, presented as an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.

Results:

Lifetime analysis yields an incremental cost per QALY of £36,024 for LCIG compared to SC (incremental cost £39,644, QALY gain 1.1). Results were sensitive to time on treatment, health state on treatment initiation, and estimates of long term benefit (OWSA results from £32,127 to £66,421 per QALY). Findings must be considered in the context of the study limitations which were mainly due to data availability constraints.

Conclusions:

LCIG is an effective treatment, reducing OFF time and improving quality of life in advanced PD. It provides value for money in levodopa-responsive aPD patients with severe motor fluctuations when no other treatment options are effective or suitable. Given LCIG is an orphan drug, it is reasonable to suggest that it may be considered cost-effective in the UK setting. However, further research is needed to complete current data gaps and increase robustness of the model.     

Cost-effectiveness analysis of exenatide once-weekly versus dulaglutide,liraglutide, and lixisenatide for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus: an analysis from the UK NHS perspective

Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness of exenatide 2?mg once-weekly (EQW) compared to dulaglutide 1.5?mg QW, liraglutide 1.2?mg and 1.8?mg once-daily (QD), and lixisenatide 20?μg QD for the treatment of adult patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) not adequately controlled on metformin.

Methods: The Cardiff Diabetes Model was applied to evaluate cost-effectiveness, with treatment effects sourced from a network meta-analysis. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were calculated with health-state utilities applied to T2DM-related complications, weight changes, hypoglycemia, and nausea. Costs (GBP £) included drug treatment, T2DM-related complications, severe hypoglycemia, nausea, and treatment discontinuation due to adverse events. A 40-year time horizon was used.

Results: In all base-case comparisons, EQW was associated with a QALY gain per patient; 0.046 vs dulaglutide 1.5?mg; 0.102 vs liraglutide 1.2?mg; 0.043 vs liraglutide 1.8?mg; and 0.074 vs lixisenatide 20?μg. Cost per patient was lower for EQW than for liraglutide 1.8?mg (?£2,085); therefore, EQW dominated liraglutide 1.8?mg. The cost difference per patient between EQW and dulaglutide 1.5?mg, EQW and liraglutide 1.2?mg, and EQW and lixisenatide 20?μg was £27, £103, and £738, respectively. Cost per QALY gained with EQW vs dulaglutide 1.5?mg, EQW vs liraglutide 1.2?mg, and EQW vs lixisenatide 20?μg was £596, £1,004, and £10,002, respectively. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the probability that EQW is cost-effective ranged from 76–99%.

Conclusion: Results suggest that exenatide 2?mg once-weekly is cost-effective over a lifetime horizon compared to dulaglutide 1.5?mg QW, liraglutide 1.2?mg QD, liraglutide 1.8?mg QD, and lixisenatide 20?μg QD for the treatment of T2DM in adults not adequately controlled on metformin alone.     

A global economic model to assess the cost-effectiveness of new treatments for advanced breast cancer in Canada

Objective Considering the increasing number of treatment options for metastatic breast cancer (MBC), it is important to develop high-quality methods to assess the cost-effectiveness of new anti-cancer drugs. This study aims to develop a global economic model that could be used as a benchmark for the economic evaluation of new therapies for MBC.

Methods The Global Pharmacoeconomics of Metastatic Breast Cancer (GPMBC) model is a Markov model that was constructed to estimate the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life years (QALY) of new treatments for MBC from a Canadian healthcare system perspective over a lifetime horizon. Specific parameters included in the model are cost of drug treatment, survival outcomes, and incidence of treatment-related adverse events (AEs). Global parameters are patient characteristics, health states utilities, disutilities, and costs associated with treatment-related AEs, as well as costs associated with drug administration, medical follow-up, and end-of-life care. The GPMBC model was tested and validated in a specific context, by assessing the cost-effectiveness of lapatinib plus letrozole compared with other widely used first-line therapies for post-menopausal women with hormone receptor-positive (HR+) and epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (HER2+) MBC.

Results When tested, the GPMBC model led to incremental cost-utility ratios of CA$131 811 per QALY, CA$56 211 per QALY, and CA$102 477 per QALY for the comparison of lapatinib plus letrozole vs letrozole alone, trastuzumab plus anastrozole, and anastrozole alone, respectively. Results of the model testing were quite similar to those obtained by Delea et al., who also assessed the cost-effectiveness of lapatinib in combination with letrozole in HR+/HER2?+?MBC in Canada, thus suggesting that the GPMBC model can replicate results of well-conducted economic evaluations.

Conclusions The GPMBC model can be very valuable as it allows a quick and valid assessment of the cost-effectiveness of any new treatments for MBC in a Canadian context.     

The cost-effectiveness of dulaglutide versus insulin glargine for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus in Japan

Aims: Dulaglutide is a new once weekly glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist administered via a disposable auto-injection pen for the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). The objective of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of dulaglutide vs insulin glargine for the management of T2DM from a Japanese healthcare perspective, in accordance with recently approved Japanese Cost-Effectiveness Guidelines.

Methods: The IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model (version 9) was used to estimate the long-term costs and effects of treatment with dulaglutide and insulin glargine. Direct comparative data from the Araki 2015 trial (NCT01584232) was used to inform the analysis. Costs associated with treatment and complications were derived from Japanese sources wherever possible and inflated to 2015 Japanese Yen (JPY). Utilities were based upon a European systematic review of diabetes utilities and adjusted for use in a Japanese population. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (OWSA and PSA) were conducted on all inputs and key modeling assumptions.

Results: Dulaglutide 0.75?mg was associated with higher quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), life years (LYs), and total costs, compared to insulin glargine, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 416,280 JPY/QALY gained. Treatment with dulaglutide increased the time alive and free from diabetes-related complications by 4 months. OWSA and PSA indicated that results were robust to plausible variations in input parameters and modeling assumptions.

Limitations: Key limitations of this study are similar to other cost-utility analyses of diabetes, including the extrapolation of short-term clinical trial data into lifelong durations. In addition, due to the lack of robust published Japanese data, some values were derived from non-Japanese sources.

Conclusions: This analysis suggests that dulaglutide 0.75?mg may be a cost-effective treatment alternative to insulin glargine for patients with T2DM in Japan.     

A cost-utility analysis of prolonged-release tacrolimus relative to immediate-release tacrolimus and ciclosporin in liver transplant recipients in the UK

Background: Calcineurin inhibitors (CNIs) represent the cornerstone of immunosuppressive therapy after liver transplantation. A recent network meta-analysis (NMA) evaluated the relative efficacy of CNIs ciclosporin, prolonged-release (PR) tacrolimus, and immediate-release (IR) tacrolimus in adult liver transplant recipients based on randomized and large observational trials published since 2000. Based on the NMA findings, the present study evaluated the cost-utility of PR tacrolimus relative to ciclosporin or IR tacrolimus in liver transplant recipients in the UK.

Methods: A Markov model was developed to evaluate the cost-utility of immunosuppressive regimens in liver transplant recipients, capturing costs associated with immunosuppression, retransplantation, acute rejection (AR), and cytomegalovirus infection. Mortality, graft loss, and AR odds ratios were derived from the NMA. Costs were taken from the British National Formulary and the NHS National Tariff and expressed in 2016 pounds sterling. Future costs and effects were discounted at 3.5% annually.

Results: Over 25 years, PR tacrolimus resulted in increased life expectancy and quality-adjusted life expectancy (QALE) relative to IR tacrolimus and ciclosporin. Relative to ciclosporin, QALE increased by 1.17 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) with PR tacrolimus while costs increased by GBP £4645, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £3962 per QALY gained. Relative to IR tacrolimus, QALE increased by 0.78 QALYs and costs by £1474, resulting in an ICER of £1889 per QALY gained. Sensitivity analysis showed the analysis to be most sensitive to dosing assumptions.

Conclusions: Based on a UK-specific analysis of the projected cost-utility of PR tacrolimus relative to IR tacrolimus and ciclosporin, PR tacrolimus was cost-effective, improving life expectancy and QALE relative to both IR tacrolimus and ciclosporin, yielding ICERs below £20 000 per QALY gained. The main limitations of the study were data source heterogeneity and omitting the economic and clinical effects of treating aspects of recurrent liver disease.     

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 of rimonabant use in patients at increased cardiometabolic risk: estimates from a Markov model

Summary

Rimonabant, the first selective CB-1 receptor blocker, is expected to reduce cardiometabolic risk substantially. This study assesses the economics of such treatment in patients at elevated cardiometabolic risk.

A Markov model was developed using data from the Rimonabant in Obesity (RIO) trial, published risk equations, and UK cost and utility data. Patients begin either in a diabetic or a non-diabetic state and can transition to cardiovascular disease or to death (based on UK life tables). Transitions to diabetes and subsequent cardiovascular events are also counted. Resource use due to events and long-term management were translated to UK costs (2005 GBP). Tariffs for events and states were applied to age-dependent utilities. Extensive univariate and multivariate probabilistic sensitivity analyses were carried out.

Over 10 years, 8% will suffer a cardiovascular event with a loss of more than 1,000 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and a cost of more than £500,000 per 1,000 patients. Projecting risk for a lifetime, 1 year of rimonabant use is estimated to gain >65 QALYs at £8,574/QALY. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios varied from £2,657 to £22,141/QALY.

Based on the metabolic effects seen in clinical trials, rimonabant should reduce cardiovascular risk in obese or overweight people at reasonable cost.