Targeted erlotinib for first-line treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a budget impact analysis

Objectives:

A recent phase III trial showed that patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) whose tumors harbor specific EGFR mutations significantly benefit from first-line treatment with erlotinib compared to chemotherapy. This study sought to estimate the budget impact if coverage for EGFR testing and erlotinib as first-line therapy were provided in a hypothetical 500,000-member managed care plan.

Methods:

The budget impact model was developed from a US health plan perspective to evaluate administration of the EGFR test and treatment with erlotinib for EGFR-positive patients, compared to non-targeted treatment with chemotherapy. The eligible patient population was estimated from age-stratified SEER incidence data. Clinical data were derived from key randomized controlled trials. Costs related to drug, administration, and adverse events were included. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess uncertainty.

Results:

In a plan of 500,000 members, it was estimated there would be 91 newly diagnosed advanced NSCLC patients annually; 11 are expected to be EGFR-positive. Based on the testing and treatment assumptions, it was estimated that 3 patients in Scenario 1 and 6 patients in Scenario 2 receive erlotinib. Overall health plan expenditures would increase by $0.013 per member per month (PMPM). This increase is largely attributable to erlotinib drug costs, in part due to lengthened progression-free survival and treatment periods experienced in erlotinib-treated patients. EGFR testing contributes slightly, whereas adverse event costs mitigate the budget impact. The budget impact did not exceed $0.019 PMPM in sensitivity analyses.

Conclusions:

Coverage for targeted first-line erlotinib therapy in NSCLC likely results in a small budget impact for US health plans. The estimated impact may vary by plan, or if second-line or maintenance therapy, dose changes/interruptions, or impact on patients’ quality-of-life were included.     

Budget impact of pasireotide LAR for the treatment of acromegaly,a rare endocrine disorder

Background:

Acromegaly is a rare disorder characterized by the over-production of growth hormone (GH). Patients often experience a range of chronic comorbidities including hypertension, cardiac dysfunction, diabetes, osteoarthropathy, and obstructive sleep apnea. Untreated or inadequately controlled patients incur substantial healthcare costs, while normalization of GH levels may reduce morbidity and mortality rates to be comparable to the general population.

Objective:

To assess the 3-year budget impact of pasireotide LAR on a US managed care health plan following pasireotide LAR availability.

Methods:

Two separate economic models were developed: one from the perspective of an entire health plan and another from the perspective of a pharmacy budget. The total budget impact model includes costs of drug therapies and other costs for treatment, monitoring, management of adverse events, and comorbidities. The pharmacy cost calculator only considers drug costs.

Results:

The total estimated budget impact associated with the introduction of pasireotide LAR is 0.31 cents ($0.0031) per member per month (PMPM) in the first year, 0.78 cents ($0.0078) in the second year, and 1.42 cents ($0.0142) in the third year following FDA approval. Costs were similar or lower from a pharmacy budget impact perspective. For each patient achieving disease control, cost savings from reduced comorbidities amounted to $10,240 per year.

Limitations:

Published data on comorbidities for acromegaly are limited. In the absence of data on acromegaly-related costs for some comorbidities, comorbidity costs for the general population were used (may be under-estimates).

Conclusions:

The budget impact of pasireotide LAR is expected to be modest, with an expected increase of 1.42 cents PMPM on the total health plan budget in the third year after FDA approval. The efficacy of pasireotide LAR in acromegaly, as demonstrated in head-to-head trials compared with currently available treatment options, is expected to be associated with a reduction of the prevalence of comorbidities.     

Budget impact analysis of darbepoetin alfa every 3 weeks versus epoetin alfa every week for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced anaemia from a US payer's perspective

Abstract

Objective: This analysis was conducted to compare the direct medical costs of treatment with darbepoetin alfa every 3 weeks (Q3W) and epoetin alfa every week (QW) in patients with chemotherapy-induced anaemia (CIA) from the payer's perspective.

Methods: An analysis was conducted from a US health plan perspective to compare the annual budget impact for CIA with darbepoetin alfa Q3W and epoetin alfa QW over a 16-week treatment period. Dosing regimens were obtained from registration clinical trials.

Results: Mean doses, including dose adjustments, were 375.6 μg Q3W for darbepoetin alfa and 43,187 U QW for epoetin alfa. Costs of medical resources included drug acquisition and administration costs. The base case analysis resulted in a per-patient budget impact of $8,544 and $8,667 for darbepoetin alfa and epoetin alfa, respectively. Per member per month cost was $0.90 for darbepoetin alfa and $0.91 for epoetin alfa, based on an estimate of 2,735 CIA patients in a health plan population of 2.17 million. The analysis was most sensitive to drug dose, treatment period and drug price.

Conclusions: Results suggest that per-patient direct medical costs of CIA treatment, when initiated at labelled starting doses, are comparable for darbepoetin alfa Q3W and epoetin alfa QW.     

A budget impact analysis for making treatment decisions based on anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide (anti-CCP) testing in rheumatoid arthritis

Abstract

Aim: Given that rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients with high anti-citrullinated protein antibodies (ACPA) titer values respond well to abatacept, the aim of this study was to estimate the annual budget impact of anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide (anti-CCP) testing and treatment selection based on anti-CCP test results.

Materials and methods: Budget impact analysis was conducted for patients with moderate-to-severe RA on biologic or Janus kinase inhibitor (JAKi) treatment from a hypothetical US commercial payer perspective. The following market scenarios were compared: (1) 90% of target patients receive anti-CCP testing and the results of anti-CCP testing do not impact the treatment selection; (2) 100% of target patients receive anti-CCP testing and the results of anti-CCP testing have an impact on treatment selection such that an increased proportion of patients with high titer of ACPA receive abatacept. A hypothetical assumption was made that the use of abatacept would be increased by 2% in Scenario 2 versus 1. Scenario analyses were conducted by varying the target population and rebate rates.

Results: In a hypothetical health plan with one million insured adults, 2,181 patients would be on a biologic or JAKi treatment for moderate-to-severe RA. In Scenario 1, the anti-CCP test cost was $186,155 and annual treatment cost was $101,854,295, totaling to $102,040,450. In Scenario 2, the anti-CCP test cost increased by $20,684 and treatment cost increased by $160,467, totaling an overall budget increase of $181,151. This was equivalent to a per member per month (PMPM) increase of $0.015. The budget impact results were consistently negligible across the scenario analyses.

Limitations: The analysis only considered testing and medication costs. Some parameters used in the analysis, such as the rebate rates, are not generalizable and health plan-specific.

Conclusions: Testing RA patients to learn their ACPA status and increasing use of abatacept among high-titer ACPA patients result in a small increase in the total budget (<2 cents PMPM).     

Cost-minimisation analysis of erlotinib in the second-line treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer: a Brazilian perspective

Abstract

Objective: A cost-minimisation and budget impact analysis of erlotinib versus docetaxel or pemetrexed as second-line treatment for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Methods: Costs and budgetary impacts were estimated from the perspective of a Brazilian private healthcare payer, based on results of the BR.21 study of erlotinib and pivotal trials of docetaxel and pemetrexed. A 126-day timeframe was evaluated, based on the progression-free survival determined for erlotinib in BR.21. A Delphi panel identified local practices and associated costs in Brazil. Other costs accounted for included medical payments, pre- and post-chemotherapy medication and drug administration costs. Multivariate sensitivity analyses were performed, but given the short time frame used, discounting was not applied.

Results: Total costs were R$26,825 for erlotinib, R$42,284 for docetaxel and R$79,841 for pemetrexed. Cost savings with erlotinib were attributable to lower acquisition costs (R$26,795 vs. R$40,217 for docetaxel and R$78,911 for pemetrexed) and lower costs for the management of side effects. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the results. The budget impact analysis showed savings with erlotinib in the first year, ranging from R$3 million to R$28 million.

Conclusion: Erlotinib is cost-saving over established chemotherapy in the second-line treatment of advanced NSCLC under the Brazilian private healthcare system.     

Budget impact of everolimus for the treatment of progressive,well-differentiated,non-functional neuroendocrine tumors of gastrointestinal or lung origin that are advanced or metastatic

Background: Advanced neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) are a rare malignancy with considerable need for effective therapies. Everolimus is a mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) in 2016 for treatment of adults with progressive, well-differentiated, non-functional NETs of gastrointestinal (GI) or lung origin that are unresectable, locally advanced, or metastatic.

Objective: To assess the 3-year budget impact for a typical US health plan following availability of everolimus for treatment of GI and lung NETs.

Methods An economic model was developed that considered two perspectives: an entire health plan and a pharmacy budget. The total budget impact included costs of drug therapies, administration, hospitalizations, physician visits, monitoring, and adverse events (AEs). The pharmacy model only considered drug costs.

Results: In a US health plan with 1 million members, the model estimated 66 patients with well-differentiated, non-functional, and advanced or metastatic GI NETs and 20 with lung NETs undergoing treatment each year. Total budget impact in the first through third year after FDA approval ranged from $0.0568–$0.1443 per member per month (PMPM) for GI NETs and from $0.0181–$0.0355 PMPM for lung NETs. The total budget impact was lower than the pharmacy budget impact because it included cost offsets from administration and AE management for everolimus compared with alternative therapies (e.g. chemotherapies).

Limitations: Because GI and lung NETs are rare diseases with limited published data, several assumptions were made that may influence interpretation of results.

Conclusions: The budget impact for everolimus was minimal in this rare disease area with a high unmet need, largely due to low disease prevalence. These results should be considered in the context of significant clinical benefits potentially provided by everolimus, including significantly longer progression-free survival (PFS) for advanced GI and lung NET patients.     

Budget impact model of tobramycin inhalation solution for treatment of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in cystic fibrosis patients

Abstract

Background:

Pseudomonas aeruginosa (PA) is the most common airway pathogen in cystic fibrosis (CF) patients. The objective of this analysis was to determine the costs of managing PA infection in CF patients with a chronic regimen of tobramycin inhalation solution (TIS).

Methods:

A budget impact model of CF patients was developed to evaluate the costs of TIS from a US managed-care organization (MCO) perspective. The Microsoft Excel model compared TIS treatment plus standard care with standard care alone over a 4-year time horizon and included the cost of drugs, medical care, and annual probabilities of hospitalization and IV anti-pseudomonal (anti-PA) antibiotics administration.

Results:

For an MCO with 5,000,000 members, 389 members 6 years of age or older were estimated to have CF, and 218 (56%) had PA infection. Assuming that use of TIS increased from 20% to 25%, the 1-year budget increased $231,251 or from $0.049 to $0.053 per member per month (PMPM). The net drug budget increase was $243,919, while medical costs associated with exacerbation management decreased $12,669 over the first year. Increasing utilization of TIS, from 20% to 40% over 4 years resulted in an incremental overall budget increase of $925,002, a 3% decrease in hospitalizations, and a 4% decrease in administrations of IV anti-PA antibiotics. These reductions translated to a medical care cost saving of $50,676 over 4 years. Limitations of this study include that the clinical data for the model are from clinical trials conducted in 1996 and the estimation of TIS use for CF patients with chronic PA infections can be impacted by TIS adherence.

Conclusion:

Model results suggest that increasing the use of TIS decreases medical care costs due to decreased hospital admissions and the use of IV anti-PA antibiotics at the expense of higher drug costs.     

Clinical and economic evaluation of olanzapine-fluoxetine HCl combination in the treatment of bipolar depression: a managed care approach

Summary

This study was aimed to provide a clinical and economic assessmentfor health care organisations to make formulary decisions on Symbyax? (olanzapine-fluoxetine HCl combination). The combination drug was shown to be efficacious in treating bipolar depression. However, more compelling evidence is needed for the long-term effect, the effect in a more general population, its comparative advantage over other treatments, its adverse effects, and its efficacy and safety in sub-populations. Results of the budget impact analysis indicated that adding the drug to the formulary would increase medication cost per member per month (PMPM) from $1.150 to $1.172 in the base case scenario. One-way sensitivity analysis showed a rough band of a $0.21 decrease to a $0.26 increase in PMPM cost, by varying one factor at a time while holding all others at base-case levels. Further research is needed for the formulary decision of adding olanzapine-fluoxetine HCI combination drug.     

Budget impact analysis of bioabsorbable drug-eluting sinus implants following endoscopic sinus surgery

Objective: Propel is a bioabsorbable drug-eluting sinus implant inserted following an endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) for chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). The objective of this study was to estimate the budget impact of incorporating Propel post-ESS for CRS patients from a self-insured employer or third-party payer perspective.

Methods: An Excel-based budget impact model was developed. Estimates of the prevalence of CRS, rates of ESS, and effectiveness outcomes, along with direct and indirect costs from CRS were obtained from published literature. A total population of 1.5 million members was hypothesized for the analysis. All cost data were adjusted to October 2015 US dollars using the Medical Care Component of the Consumer Price Index. The cost and clinical/economic characteristics of Propel were compared to other treatments commonly used to minimize post-operative complications. The primary outcome was the incremental budget impact reported using per-member-per-month (PMPM) costs. Scenario-based, probabilistic, and one-way sensitivity analyses were performed to gauge the robustness of the results and identify the parameters with the most influence on the results.

Results: For a US self-insured employer or a commercial health plan of 1.5 million members, the incremental PMPM impact of incorporating Propel was estimated to range from ?Objective: Propel is a bioabsorbable drug-eluting sinus implant inserted following an endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) for chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). The objective of this study was to estimate the budget impact of incorporating Propel post-ESS for CRS patients from a self-insured employer or third-party payer perspective.

Methods: An Excel-based budget impact model was developed. Estimates of the prevalence of CRS, rates of ESS, and effectiveness outcomes, along with direct and indirect costs from CRS were obtained from published literature. A total population of 1.5 million members was hypothesized for the analysis. All cost data were adjusted to October 2015 US dollars using the Medical Care Component of the Consumer Price Index. The cost and clinical/economic characteristics of Propel were compared to other treatments commonly used to minimize post-operative complications. The primary outcome was the incremental budget impact reported using per-member-per-month (PMPM) costs. Scenario-based, probabilistic, and one-way sensitivity analyses were performed to gauge the robustness of the results and identify the parameters with the most influence on the results.

Results: For a US self-insured employer or a commercial health plan of 1.5 million members, the incremental PMPM impact of incorporating Propel was estimated to range from ?$0.003 to $0.036, respectively, for all members in the health plan. Sensitivity analyses identified the cost of Propel, probability of polyposis recurrence requiring medical intervention, probability of adhesion formation requiring surgical intervention, and the treatment costs for polyposis as the primary parameters influencing the results.

Conclusion: This study has demonstrated the use of Propel following ESS procedures has a negligible impact on the budget of a US self-insured employer or payer. The upfront cost of Propel was offset by savings associated with reduced probability for polyp recurrence, adhesion formation, and their subsequent treatment.     

Budget impact model in moderate-to-severe psoriasis vulgaris assessing effects of calcipotriene and betamethasone dipropionate foam on per-patient standard of care costs

Aims: To develop a budget impact model (BIM) for estimating the financial impact of formulary adoption and uptake of calcipotriene and betamethasone dipropionate (C/BD) foam (0.005%/0.064%) on the costs of biologics for treating moderate-to-severe psoriasis vulgaris in a hypothetical US healthcare plan with 1 million members.

Methods: This BIM incorporated epidemiologic data, market uptake assumptions, and drug utilization costs, simulating the treatment mix for patients who are candidates for biologics before (Scenario #1) and after (Scenario #2) the introduction of C/BD foam. Predicted outcomes were expressed in terms of the annual cost of treatment (COT) and the COT per member per month (PMPM).

Results: At year 1, C/BD foam had the lowest per-patient cost ($9,913) necessary to achieve a Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI)-75 response compared with etanercept ($73,773), adalimumab ($92,871), infliximab ($34,048), ustekinumab ($83,975), secukinumab ($113,858), apremilast ($47,960), and ixekizumab ($62,707). Following addition of C/BD foam to the formulary, the annual COT for moderate-to-severe psoriasis would decrease by $36,112,572 (17.91%, from $201,621,219 to $165,508,647). The COT PMPM is expected to decrease by $3.00 (17.86%, from $16.80 to $13.80).

Limitations: Drug costs were based on Medi-Span reference pricing (January 21, 2016); differences in treatment costs for drug administration, laboratory monitoring, or adverse events were not accounted for. Potentially confounding were the definition of “moderate-to-severe” and the heterogeneous efficacy data. The per-patient cost for PASI-75 response at year 1 was estimated from short-term efficacy data for C/BD foam and apremilast only.

Conclusions: The introduction of C/BD foam is expected to decrease the annual COT for moderate-to-severe psoriasis treatable with biologics by $36,112,572 for a hypothetical US healthcare plan with 1 million plan members, and to lower the COT PMPM by $3.00.     

Budget impact of pasireotide for the treatment of Cushing’s disease,a rare endocrine disorder associated with considerable comorbidities

Objectives:

Cushing’s disease (CD) is a rare condition with a prevalence of roughly 39 cases per million in the general population. Healthcare costs are substantial for CD patients with either untreated or inadequately controlled disease. This study assesses the 3-year budget impact of pasireotide on a US managed care health plan following pasireotide (Signifor) availability.

Methods:

Two scenarios were evaluated to understand the differences in costs associated with the introduction of pasireotide. The first scenario evaluates the budget impact of pasireotide from the perspective of an entire health plan (total budget impact) and the second from the perspective of the pharmacy budget (pharmacy budget impact). Both scenarios evaluate the annual incremental budget impact with and without pasireotide. Scenario 1 includes costs for medical procedures, drug therapies, monitoring, surgical complications, comorbidities for patients with controlled or uncontrolled CD, and adverse events. Procedures include transsphenoidal surgery, bilateral adrenalectomy, radiotherapy and radiosurgery. Drugs include pasireotide (indicated for CD), mifepristone (indicated to control hyperglycemia secondary to hypercortisolism in patients with Cushing’s syndrome) as well as several off-label treatments (ketoconazole, cabergoline, mitotane). Scenario 2 considers costs solely from the perspective of a health plan pharmacy. Costs are in $2013.

Results:

The estimated total budget impact is $0.0115 per-member per-month (PMPM) in the first year following FDA approval, $0.0184 in the second year, and $0.0194 in the third year. Introduction of pasireotide is expected to increase the pharmacy budget by $0.0257 PMPM in the first year, $0.0363 in the second year, and $0.0360 in the third year.

Limitations:

Model inputs rely on the small body of literature available for Cushing’s disease.

Conclusions:

Cushing’s disease is severe disease with debilitating comorbidities and substantial healthcare costs when untreated or inadequately controlled. The inclusion of pasireotide in a health plan formulary appears to have only a small impact on the total health plan or pharmacy budget.     

Budget impact analysis of niraparib and olaparib for maintenance treatment of platinum-sensitive,recurrent ovarian cancer in the US

Aims: This study aimed to evaluate the budget impact of niraparib and olaparib in patients with platinum-sensitive, recurrent ovarian cancer from a US third party payer perspective.

Materials and methods: A budget impact model was constructed to assess the additional per member per month (PMPM) costs associated with the introduction of niraparib and olaparib, two poly ADP-ribose polymerase ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors recently approved to be used in platinum-sensitive, recurrent ovarian cancer patients with and without a gBRCA mutation. The model assessed both pharmacy costs and medical costs. Pharmacy costs included adjusted drug costs, coinsurance, and dispensing fees. Medical costs included costs associated with disease monitoring and management of adverse events from the treatment. Epidemiological data from the literature were used to estimate the target population size. The analysis used 1-year time frame, and patients were assumed on treatment until disease progression or death. All costs were computed in 2017 USD. One-way sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate the model robustness.

Results: In a hypothetical plan of 1,000,000 members, 206 patients were estimated to be potential candidates for niraparib or olaparib maintenance treatment after applying all epidemiological parameters. At listed 30-day supply WAC prices of $14,750 for niraparib and $13,482 for olaparib, budget impacts of these two drugs were $0.169 PMPM and $0.156 PMPM, respectively, most of which were contributed by pharmacy costs. Sensitivity analyses suggested that assumptions around market share, platinum-sensitive rate after first treatment, and WAC prices affected results the most.

Limitations: In this model, it was assumed that adopting niraparib and olaparib would not affect utilization of existing medications. Also, the estimated clinical parameters from clinical trials could differ from real-world data.     

Administration costs of intravenous chemotherapy in treating peripheral T-cell lymphoma

Objective:

This retrospective cohort analysis was conducted to examine the cost components of administering IV chemotherapy to peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL) patients in the US to inform decision makers.

Methods:

Patients diagnosed with PTCL (ICD-9 code 202.7X) between 1 October 2007 and 30 September 2012 were identified from a US administrative claims database. Costs for patients receiving at least one NCCN recommended IV chemotherapy were assessed using the allowed payment from claim line items, categorized into cost components (study drug costs, IV administration costs and other visit-related services).

Results:

The mean costs to the payer for IV cancer therapy administration in a PTCL patient population averaged about $5735 per visit and $9356 per member per month (PMPM). Across all therapies, mean IV administration costs accounted for $127–$794 per visit and $594–$1808 PMPM, contributing an additional 2–32% to the total costs of the drug alone. Mean other visit-related services costs for treating PTCL accounted for $70–$2487 per visit and $444–$3094 PMPM, contributing an additional 2–74% to the total costs. Combined, these additional costs represent an additional mean cost of $220–$3150 per visit and $1193–$4609 PMPM to the base price of the drug alone.

Limitations:

This study used a convenience sample to identify PTCL patients and only included visits where at least one NCCN recommended IV chemotherapy was administered.

Conclusions:

The costs of IV administration and other visit-related services add measurable costs to the total cost of IV therapy for treating PTCL. When considering the cost of the drug, these additional costs can represent a substantial proportion of the overall costs and must be considered when evaluating the costs of IV treatment options for PTCL.     

The budget impact of brodalumab for the treatment of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis on US commercial health plans

Introduction: Brodalumab is a new biologic approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2017 for the treatment of moderate-severe psoriasis. This study evaluated the impact of the introduction of brodalumab on the pharmacy budget on US commercial health plans.

Methods: An Excel-based health economic decision analytic model with a US health plan perspective was developed. The model incorporated published moderate-to-severe psoriasis prevalence data; market shares of common biologic drugs, including adalimumab, ustekinumab, secukinumab, ixekizumab, and etanercept, used for the treatment of moderate–severe psoriasis; 2017-year Wholesale Acquisition Costs for the biologic drugs; drug dispensing fee; patient co-pay; and drug contracting discount. Total annual health plan costs for the biologic drugs were estimated. Scenarios with different proportions of patients treated with brodalumab were compared to a control scenario when no brodalumab was used.

Results: In a hypothetical commercial health plan covering two million members, 7,038 moderate-to-severe psoriasis patients were estimated to be eligible for treatment with brodalumab. Prior to brodalumab approval, the proportions of patients treated by other biologics were estimated at 50.8% for adalimumab, 13.5% for ustekinumab, 14.1% for secukinumab, 4.4% for ixekizumab, and 17.2% for etanercept. With a 20% drug price discount applied to all biologics, the annual health plan costs for brodalumab, adalimumab, ustekinumab, secukinumab, ixekizumab, and etanercept were estimated at $37,224, $49,166, $55,084, $56,061, $64,396, and $57,170, respectively. When no brodalumab is used, the total annual pharmacy budget for the biologics used among these patients was estimated at $414,362,647. Among scenarios where the proportions of brodalumab usage were 3%, 8%, 16%, and 30%, the total annual pharmacy cost was estimated to be reduced by $3,698,129, $9,861,677, $19,723,355, and $36,981,290, respectively.

Conclusion: Based on the economic model, brodalumab has the potential to substantially reduce pharmacy expenditures for the treatment of patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis in the US.     

US budget impact of increased payer adoption of the Flexitouch advanced pneumatic compression device in lymphedema patients with advanced chronic venous insufficiency and multiple infections

Aims: To assess the budget impact to a US commercial health plan of providing access to the Flexitouch (FLX) advanced pneumatic compression device (Tactile Medical) to lymphedema (LE) patients with either comorbid chronic venous insufficiency (CVI) or frequent infections.

Methods: Budget impact was calculated over 2 years for a hypothetical US payer with 10-million commercial members. Model inputs were derived from published sources and from a case-matched analysis of Blue Health Intelligence (BHI) claims data for the years 2012–2016. To calculate the budget impact, the Status Quo budget (i.e. total cost for LE and sequelae-related medical treatment) was compared to the budget under each of three Alternate Payer Policy scenarios which assumed that a sub-set of patients was redistributed from their initial treatment groups to a group that received FLX. Model outputs included cumulative payer costs, net budget impact, and breakeven point. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the impact of model inputs on results.

Results: Increasing access to FLX yielded a favorable budget impact in every scenario. For LE patients with comorbid CVI, the three alternate scenarios resulted in cumulative 2-year budget impacts of –$52,841, –$173,317, and –$375,601, respectively. For LE patients with comorbid frequent infections, the three alternate scenarios resulted in cumulative 2-year budget impacts of –$192,729, –$259,339, and –$613,179, respectively.

Limitations: Use of claims data assumes accurate coding and does not allow one to control for disease severity or treatment adherence. Also, the distribution of patients between treatment arms was determined using claims data from a specific payer organization, and could differ for health plans with different coverage policies.

Conclusions: While previous studies have illustrated cost savings with adoption of FLX, US commercial health plans may also achieve tangible cost savings by expanding access to FLX for LE patients with comorbid CVI and multiple infections.     

Economic evaluation of nivolumab for the treatment of second-line advanced squamous NSCLC in Canada: a comparison of modeling approaches to estimate and extrapolate survival outcomes

Background Lung cancer is the most common type of cancer in the world and is associated with significant mortality. Nivolumab demonstrated statistically significant improvements in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for patients with advanced squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who were previously treated. The cost-effectiveness of nivolumab has not been assessed in Canada. A contentious component of projecting long-term cost and outcomes in cancer relates to the modeling approach adopted, with the two most common approaches being partitioned survival (PS) and Markov models. The objectives of this analysis were to estimate the cost-utility of nivolumab and to compare the results using these alternative modeling approaches.

Methods Both PS and Markov models were developed using docetaxel and erlotinib as comparators. A three-health state model was used consisting of progression-free, progressed disease, and death. Disease progression and time to progression were estimated by identifying best-fitting survival curves from the clinical trial data for PFS and OS. Expected costs and health outcomes were calculated by combining health-state occupancy with medical resource use and quality-of-life assigned to each of the three health states. The health outcomes included in the model were survival and quality-adjusted-life-years (QALYs).

Results Nivolumab was found to have the highest expected per-patient cost, but also improved per-patient life years (LYs) and QALYs. Nivolumab cost an additional $151,560 and $140,601 per QALY gained compared to docetaxel and erlotinib, respectively, using a PS model approach. The cost-utility estimates using a Markov model were very similar ($152,229 and $141,838, respectively, per QALY gained).

Conclusions Nivolumab was found to involve a trade-off between improved patient survival and QALYs, and increased cost. It was found that the use of a PS or Markov model produced very similar estimates of expected cost, outcomes, and incremental cost-utility.