A review of international pharmacoeconomic models assessing the use of aspirin in primary prevention

Abstract

Purpose:

The aim of this narrative review was to summarise the cost analyses and supporting trial data for aspirin prophylaxis in primary prevention.

Methods:

A PubMed search using the term ‘aspirin and cost-effective and primary prevention’ was performed. Professional meetings (2009) were also searched for any relevant abstracts contacting the terms ‘aspirin’ and ‘cost effectiveness’. Where possible, outcomes were discussed in terms of cost implications (expressed as quality-adjusted life-year [QALY], disability-adjusted life-year or incremental cost-effectiveness ratio) in relation to the annual risk of cardiovascular disease. Aspirin was included in cost-effectiveness models that determined direct cost savings.

Results:

A total of 67 papers were identified using PubMed, and 17 cost-effectiveness studies, which assessed aspirin in primary prevention (largely based on the key primary prevention studies), and two abstracts were included in the review. These analyses showed that low-dose aspirin was cost effective in a variety of scenarios. In the UK, Germany, Spain, Italy and Japan, the mean 10-year direct cost saving (including follow-up costs and aspirin costs) per patient was €201, €281, €797, €427 and €889 with aspirin use in patients with an annual coronary heart disease risk of 1.5%. Cost-effectiveness analyses were affected by age, risk level for stroke and myocardial infarction (MI), risk of bleeds and adherence to aspirin. Underutilisation is a major limiting factor, as the appropriate use of aspirin in an eligible population (n?=?301,658) based on the NHANES database would prevent 1273 MIs, 2184 angina episodes and 565 ischaemic strokes in patients without previous events; this would result in a direct cost saving of $79.6?million (€54.7?million; 2010 values), which includes aspirin costs.

Conclusions:

Most analyses in primary prevention have shown that low-dose aspirin is a cost-effective option, and is likely to meet the willingness of a healthcare system to pay for any additional QALY gained in the majority of healthcare systems.     

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.     

Clopidogrel: a pharmacoeconomic review

Summary

Recent randomised, prospective studies have demonstrated the clinical efficacy and safety of clopidogrel in the treatment of patients with acute coronary syndromes, including those treated with primary percutaneous intervention. In these settings clopidogrel decreased the risk of atherothrombotic events by 20–30%.

The use of clopidogrel instead of aspirin, for secondary prevention in patients with stable cardiovascular disease, results in a modest 8.7% relative risk reduction. However, clinical trial failed to show benefit in patients treated with clopidogrel added to aspirin in this population.

Economic analyses conducted in the US and Europe demonstrated the cost effectiveness of clopidogrel in combination with aspirin in patients with acute coronary syndromes, and showed a favourable economic profile for clopidogrel compared with other cardiovascular interventions. On the other hand, the data for the use of clopidogrel in patients with stable cardiovascular disease either alone or in combination with aspirin is not as compelling.     

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.     

Prasugrel vs clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a model-based cost-effectiveness analysis for Germany,Sweden, the Netherlands,and Turkey

Abstract

Objective:

To evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of 12-months treatment with prasugrel vs clopidogrel from four European healthcare systems’ perspectives (Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands, and Turkey).

Methods:

In the TRITON-TIMI 38 trial, patients with an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) were treated with prasugrel or clopidogrel. Prasugrel reduced the composite end-point (cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke), but increased TIMI major bleeding. A Markov model was constructed to facilitate a lifetime horizon for the analysis. A series of risk equations constructed using individual patient data from TRITON-TIMI 38 was used to estimate risks of clinical events. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were derived by weighting survival time by estimates of health-related quality-of-life. Incremental cost-effectiveness is presented based on differences in treatments’ mean costs and QALYs for the licensed population in TRITON-TIMI 38, and the sub-groups of UA-NSTEMI, STEMI, diabetes, and the ‘core clinical cohort’ (<75 years, ≥60?kg, no history of stroke or TIA).

Results:

Mean cost of study drug was €364 (Turkey) to €818 (Germany) higher for prasugrel vs clopidogrel. Rehospitalization costs at 12 months were lower for prasugrel due to reduced rates of revascularization, although hospitalization costs beyond 12 months were higher due to longer life expectancy associated with lower rates of non-fatal MI in the prasugrel group. The incremental cost per QALY saved with prasugrel in the licensed population ranged from €6520 (for Sweden) to €14,350 for (Germany). Prasugrel’s cost per QALY was more favourable still in the STEMI and diabetes sub-groups of the licensed population.

Limitations:

Probabilistic analyses of the whole trial population is impractical due to the number of individual patient profiles over which population level results are calculated.

Conclusion:

Among patients undergoing PCI for ACS, treatment with prasugrel compared with clopidogrel resulted in favourable cost-effectiveness profiles from these healthcare systems’ perspectives.     

Cost-effectiveness of renal denervation therapy for the treatment of resistant hypertension in The Netherlands

Abstract

Objectives:

Safety and efficacy data for catheter-based renal denervation (RDN) in the treatment of resistant hypertension have been used to estimate the cost-effectiveness of this approach. However, there are no Dutch-specific analyses. This study examined the cost-effectiveness of RDN from the perspective of the healthcare payer in The Netherlands.

Methods:

A previously constructed Markov state-transition model was adapted and updated with costs and utilities relevant to the Dutch setting. The cost-effectiveness of RDN was compared with standard of care (SoC) for patients with resistant hypertension. The efficacy of RDN treatment was modeled as a reduction in the risk of cardiovascular events associated with a lower systolic blood pressure (SBP).

Results:

Treatment with RDN compared to SoC gave an incremental quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gain of 0.89 at an additional cost of €1315 over a patient’s lifetime, resulting in a base case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €1474. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) showed that treatment with RDN therapy was cost-effective at conventional willingness-to-pay thresholds (€10,000–80,000/QALY).

Conclusion:

RDN is a cost-effective intervention for patients with resistant hypertension in The Netherlands.     

Stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation in France: comparative cost-effectiveness of new oral anticoagulants (apixaban,dabigatran, and rivaroxaban), warfarin,and aspirin

Objectives:

To conduct an economic evaluation of the currently prescribed treatments for stroke prevention in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) including warfarin, aspirin, and novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) from a French payer perspective.

Methods:

A previously published Markov model was adapted in accordance to the new French guidelines of the Commission for Economic Evaluation and Public Health (CEESP), to adopt the recommended efficiency frontier approach. A cohort of patients with NVAF eligible for stroke preventive treatment was simulated over lifetime. Clinical events modeled included strokes, systemic embolism, intracranial hemorrhage, other major bleeds, clinically relevant non-major bleeds, and myocardial infarction. Efficacy and bleeding data for warfarin, apixaban, and aspirin were obtained from ARISTOTLE and AVERROES trials, whilst efficacy data for other NOACs were from published indirect comparisons. Acute medical costs were obtained from a dedicated analysis of the French national hospitalization database (PMSI). Long-term medical costs and utility data were derived from the literature. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robustness of the model projections.

Results:

Warfarin and apixaban were the two optimal treatment choices, as the other five treatment strategies including aspirin, dabigatran 110?mg, dabigatran in sequential dosages, dabigatran 150?mg, and rivaroxaban were strictly dominated on the efficiency frontier. Further, apixaban was a cost-effective alternative vs warfarin with an incremental cost of €2314 and an incremental quality-adjusted life year (QALY) of 0.189, corresponding to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €12,227/QALY.

Conclusions:

Apixaban may be the most economically efficient alternative to warfarin in NVAF patients eligible for stroke prevention in France. All other strategies were dominated, yielding apixaban as a less costly yet more effective treatment alternative. As formally requested by the CEESP, these results need to be verified in a French clinical setting using stroke reduction and bleeding safety observed in real-life patient cohorts using these anticoagulants.     

Posaconazole vs fluconazole/itraconazole in the prophylaxis of invasive fungal infections in immunocompromised patients: A cost-effectiveness analysis in Greece

Abstract

Background:

Invasive fungal infections (IFIs) present a major issue in clinical practice, due to their high morbidity and mortality rates. In a pivotal multi-centre, randomized clinical trial, posaconazole prophylaxis prevented IFIs more effectively than did either fluconazole or itraconazole, and improved overall survival.

Objective:

The aim of this study was to perform an economic evaluation of the aforementioned therapeutic strategies for IFI prophylaxis in neutropenic patients, in the Greek healthcare setting.

Method:

A decision analytic model was developed, which described the course of neutropenic patients under posaconazole or standard azole (fluconazole or itraconazole) treatment. Effectiveness data for each treatment regimen were derived from published results of a pivotal, multi-centre, randomized clinical trial. Cost and healthcare resources utilization data depict Greek clinical practice and are derived from official Greek sources, from a third party payer perspective.

Results:

Prophylaxis with posaconazole resulted in fewer IFIs (0.05 vs 0.11 per patient) compared to treatment with fluconazole or itraconazole, during the first 100 days from initiation of prophylaxis treatment. The cost per avoided IFI with posaconazole was €6455, while the incremental cost per life year gained (LYG) was estimated at €24,196. Extensive sensitivity analyses corroborated the base-case results. Possible limitations of the study are the exclusion of indirect and outpatient costs from the analysis and the inherent uncertainty with regards to the transferability of the clinical efficacy results of the clinical trial to the Greek healthcare setting.

Conclusions:

The utilization of posaconazole for prophylaxis of IFIs neutropenic patients is a therapeutic strategy that provides superior clinical efficacy, while being cost-effective compared to alternative therapies.     

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 in the management of skeletal metastases in hormone-refractory prostate cancer patients in France,Germany, Portugal,and the Netherlands

Abstract

Objective:

Zoledronic acid (ZOL) reduces the risk of skeletal related events (SREs) in hormone-refractory prostate cancer (HRPC) patients with bone metastases. This study assessed the cost effectiveness of ZOL for SRE management in French, German, Portuguese, and Dutch HRPC patients.

Methods:

This analysis was based on the results of a randomized phase III clinical trial wherein HRPC patients received up to 15 months of ZOL (n?=?214) or placebo (n?=?208). Clinical inputs were obtained from the trial. Costs were estimated using hospital tariffs, published, and internet sources. Quality adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained were estimated from a separate analysis of EQ-5D scores reported in the trial. Uncertainty surrounding outcomes was addressed via univariate sensitivity analyses.

Results:

ZOL patients experienced an estimated 0.759 fewer SREs and gained an estimated 0.03566 QALYs versus placebo patients. ZOL was associated with reduced SRE-related costs [net costs] (?€2396 [€1284] in France, ?€2606 [€841] in Germany, ?€3326 [€309] in Portugal and ?€3617 [€87] in the Netherlands). Costs per QALY ranged from €2430 (Netherlands) to €36,007 (France).

Conclusions:

This analysis is subject to the limitations of most cost-effectiveness analyses: it combines data from multiple sources. Nevertheless, the results strongly suggest that ZOL is cost effective versus placebo in French, German, Portuguese, and Dutch HRPC patients.     

Lacosamide as a first-line treatment option in focal epilepsy: a cost-utility analysis for the Greek healthcare system

Background and aims: Epilepsy is the most common serious neurological disorder worldwide. Approximately 40% of patients with focal epileptic seizures remain uncontrolled with antiepileptic drug (AED) monotherapy or polytherapy. Lacosamide has been recently approved by the European Medicines Agency as monotherapy for the treatment of focal seizures. The aim of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of lacosamide compared with zonisamide as first-line treatment of focal epilepsy in patients with epilepsy aged ≥ 16?years to inform clinical decision-making in Greece.

Methods: A discrete event simulation model was adapted to reflect treatment pathways and resource use within the Greek national healthcare system, as specified by clinical experts. The model captures time-varying events and patient characteristics. Clinical inputs were sourced from pivotal trials and a network meta-analysis comparing lacosamide with other AEDs. The model predicts disease progression and seizures, relevant and most common adverse events, withdrawal due to lack of efficacy or adverse events, and epilepsy-specific and all-cause mortality over a 2-year time horizon. Unit costs were retrieved from published Greek sources. Health outcomes were measured as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs); secondary outcome was the cost per seizure avoided. Robustness of the results was tested with univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

Results: The lacosamide treatment pathway was associated with higher costs (i.e. €1,064) and an additional 0.119 QALYs when compared with zonisamide, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €8,938 per QALY gained. The sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the results are most sensitive to the efficacy and utility estimates.

Limitations: There are a number of limitations which stem from the process of model adaptation and lack of local real-world evidence.

Conclusions: Lacosamide is a cost-effective option at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €30,000 per QALY, representing a valuable monotherapy treatment option for patients with focal epileptic seizures in the Greek setting.     

The costs of treating acute heart failure: an economic analysis of the SURVIVE trial

Abstract

Objective: To estimate the incremental cost per life year gained with levosimendan relative to dobutamine in treatment of acute heart failure based on the Survival of Patients with Acute Heart Failure in Need of Intravenous Inotropic Support (SURVIVE) trial.

Methods: SURVIVE enrolled 1,327 patients (levosimendan 664, dobutamine 663) from nine nations with 180-day survival from date of randomisation as the primary endpoint. Hospital resource utilisation was determined via clinical case reports. Unit costs were derived from hospital payment schedules for France, Germany and the UK, and represent a third-party payer perspective. Cost-effectiveness analysis was performed for a subset of the SURVIVE patient population selected in accordance with current levosimendan labeling.

Results: Mortality in the levosimendan group was 26 versus 28% for dobutamine (hazard ratio 0.91, 95% confidence interval 0.74–1.13, p=0.40). Initial hospitalisation length of stay was identical (levosimendan 14.4, dobutamine 14.5, p=0.98). Slightly lower rates of readmission were observed for levosimendan relative to dobutamine at 31 (p=0.13) and 180 days (p=0.23). Mean costs excluding study drug were equivalent for the index admission (levosimendan €5,060, dobutamine €4,952; p=0.91) and complete episode (levosimendan €5,396, dobutamine €5,275; p=0.93).

Conclusion: At an acquisition cost of €600 per vial, there is at least 50% likelihood that levosimendan is cost effective relative to dobutamine if willingness to pay is equal to or greater than €15,000 per life year gained.     

Cost-effectiveness analysis of implementing an antimicrobial stewardship program in critical care units

Aims: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of antimicrobial stewardship (AS) program implementation focused on critical care units based on assumptions for the Spanish setting.

Materials and methods: A decision model comparing costs and outcomes of sepsis, community-acquired pneumonia, and nosocomial infections (including catheter-related bacteremia, urinary tract infection, and ventilator-associated pneumonia) in critical care units with or without an AS was designed. Model variables and costs, along with their distributions, were obtained from the literature. The study was performed from the Spanish National Health System (NHS) perspective, including only direct costs. The Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) was analysed regarding the ability of the program to reduce multi-drug resistant bacteria. Uncertainty in ICERs was evaluated with probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

Results: In the short-term, implementing an AS reduces the consumption of antimicrobials with a net benefit of €71,738. In the long-term, the maintenance of the program involves an additional cost to the system of €107,569. Cost per avoided resistance was €7,342, and cost-per-life-years gained (LYG) was €9,788. Results from the probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that there was a more than 90% likelihood that an AS would be cost-effective at a level of €8,000 per LYG.

Limitations: Wide variability of economic results obtained from the implementation of this type of AS program and short information on their impact on patient evolution and any resistance avoided.

Conclusions: Implementing an AS focusing on critical care patients is a long-term cost-effective tool. Implementation costs are amortized by reducing antimicrobial consumption to prevent infection by multidrug-resistant pathogens.     

Cost effectiveness of posaconazole in the prophylaxis of invasive fungal infections in acute leukaemia patients for the French healthcare system

Abstract

Background:

Acute myeloblastic leukaemia (AML) patients are at high risk of suffering from invasive fungal infections (IFI). Posaconazole demonstrated higher efficacy than standard azole agents (SAA) in the prophylaxis of IFI in this population.

The authors estimated the cost effectiveness of posaconazole versus SAA in France.

Methods:

A decision-tree model was developed to compare posaconazole with SAA with the results of a published clinical trial. Clinical events were modelled with chance nodes reflecting probabilities of IFI, IFI-related death, and death from other causes. Medical resource consumption and costs were obtained from results of the clinical trial and from a dedicated survey on the costs of treating IFI using a retrospective chart review design.

Results:

IFI treatment costs were estimated using medical files from 50 AML patients from six French centres, with a proven and probable IFI, who had been followed-up for 298 days on average. Direct costs directly related to IFI were estimated at €51,033, including extra costs of index hospitalisation, costs of antifungal therapy and additional hospitalisations related to IFI treatment. The model indicated that the healthcare costs for the posaconazole strategy were €5,223 (€2,697 for prophylaxis and €2,526 for IFI management), which was €859 less than the €6,083 in costs with SAA (€469 for prophylaxis and €5614 for IFI management). A sensitivity analysis indicated that there was an 80% probability that prophylaxis using the posaconazole strategy would be superior.

Conclusion:

The findings from this analysis suggest that posaconazole use is a clinically and economically dominant strategy in the prophylaxis of IFI in AML patients, given the usual limits of economic models and the uncertainty of costs estimates.     

Cost of skeletal complications from bone metastases in six European countries

Objective Patients with bone metastases or lesions secondary to solid tumors or multiple myeloma often experience bone complications (skeletal-related events [SREs]—radiation to bone, pathologic fracture, surgery to bone, and spinal cord compression); however, recent data that can be used to assess the value of treatments to prevent SREs across European countries are limited. This study aimed to provide estimates of health resource utilization (HRU) and cost associated with all SRE types in Europe. HRU data were reported previously; cost data are reported herein.

Methods Eligible patients from 49 centers across Austria (n?=?57), the Czech Republic (n?=?59), Finland (n?=?60), Greece (n?=?59), Portugal (n?=?59), and Sweden (n?=?62) had bone metastases or lesions secondary to breast, lung, or prostate cancer, or multiple myeloma, and ≥1 index SRE (a SRE preceded by a SRE-free period of ≥?6.5 months). SRE-related costs were estimated from a payer perspective using health resource utilization data from patient charts (before and after the index SRE diagnosis). Country-specific unit costs were from 2010 and local currencies were converted to 2010 euros.

Results The mean costs across countries were €7043, €5242, €11,101, and €11,509 per radiation to bone, pathologic fracture, surgery to bone, and spinal cord compression event, respectively. Purchasing power parity (PPP)-adjusted mean cost ratios were similar in most countries, with the exception of radiation to bone.

Limitations The overall burden of SREs may have been under-estimated owing to home visits and evaluations outside the hospital setting not being reported here.

Conclusions All SREs were associated with substantial costs. Variation in SRE-associated costs between countries was most likely driven by differences in treatment practices and unit costs.     

Comparison of treatment costs in inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes in Germany based on the APOLLO trial with insulin glargine

Abstract

Objective: A cost analysis of once-daily insulin glargine versus three-times daily insulin lispro in combination with oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs) for insulin-naive type 2 diabetes patients in Germany based on the APOLLO trial (A Parallel design comparing an Oral antidiabetic drug combination therapy with either Lantus once daily or Lispro at mealtime in type 2 diabetes patients failing Oral treatment).

Methods: Annual direct treatment costs were estimated from the perspective of the German statutory health insurance (SHI). Costs accounted for included insulin medication, disposable pens and consumable items (needles, blood glucose test strips and lancets). Sensitivity analyses (on resource use and unit costs) were performed to reflect current German practice.

Results: Average treatment costs per patient per year in the base case were €1,073 for glargine and €1,794 for lispro. Insulin costs represented 65% vs. 37% of total costs respectively. Acquisition costs of glargine were offset by the lower costs of consumable items (€380 vs. €1,139). Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the results in favour of glargine. All scenarios yielded cost savings in total treatment costs ranging from €84 to €727.

Conclusions: Combination therapy of once-daily insulin glargine versus three-times daily insulin lispro both with OADs, in the management of insulin-dependent type 2 diabetes offers the potential for substantial cost savings from the German SHI perspective.     

Cost-effectiveness of prasugrel in a US managed care population

Abstract

Objective:

Decision-makers in the US may be interested in the applicability to their populations of cost-effectiveness results generated from clinical trial populations.

Methods:

An economic model estimating the cost-effectiveness of prasugrel plus aspirin relative to clopidogrel plus aspirin for patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was developed from a managed care organization (MCO) perspective. The model estimated 15-month cardiovascular events or bleeding-related outcomes, life expectancy, and costs for patients who received thienopyridine treatment during and after a PCI following a diagnosis of ACS. Post-ACS event rates for patients treated with clopidogrel were from an MCO. The relative risks of these events with prasugrel compared with clopidogrel were from a head-to-head clinical trial.

Results:

The results of the base-case analysis indicated that, in an MCO population, use of prasugrel-based therapy rather than clopidogrel-based therapy at current prices resulted in cost-savings and fewer clinical events over the 15 months after an ACS diagnosis followed by PCI. At possible lower prices for generic clopidogrel-based therapy, the cost-effectiveness ratio for prasugrel-based therapy compared with clopidogrel-based therapy was between $6643 and $13,906 per life-year gained. The results were most sensitive to the relative costs of the two treatments and the cost for hospital stays.

Limitations:

Limitations of the study included lack of follow-up of patients disenrolling from the MCO before the end of the 15-month observation period, the assumption of equal relative risks of events in an MCO as in the clinical trial, and the lack of information on the ratio of cost to charges in the MCO database.

Conclusions:

Use of prasugrel-based therapy compared with clopidogrel-based therapy in ACS patients having a PCI resulted in cost-savings at current prices and favorable cost-effective ratios at likely generic prices for clopidogrel-based therapy because of offsetting savings in the costs of rehospitalization.     

Treatment experience,burden, and unmet needs (TRIBUNE) in Multiple Sclerosis study: the costs and utilities of MS patients in The Netherlands

Abstract

Background:

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is an important, highly disabling neurological disease, common among young adults in The Netherlands. Nevertheless, only a few studies to date have measured the burden imposed by MS on society in The Netherlands.

Objectives:

To estimate the cost and quality-of-life associated with MS in The Netherlands, while focusing on the burden of relapses and increasing disease severity.

Methods:

MS patients in The Netherlands (n?=?263) completed a web-based questionnaire which captured information on demographics, disease characteristics and severity (Expanded Disability Status Scale [EDSS]), co-morbidities, relapses, resource consumption, utilities, fatigue and activities of daily living (ADL).

Results:

Most patients included in the study were receiving treatment for MS (76% of the sample). The mean cost per patient per year increased with worsening disability and was estimated at €30,938, €51,056, and €100,469 for patients with mild (EDSS 0–3), moderate (EDSS 4–6.5), and severe (EDSS 7–9) disability, respectively. The excess cost of relapses was estimated at €8195 among relapsing-remitting patients with EDSS score ≤5. The quality-of-life of patients decreased with disease progression and existence of relapses.

Conclusions:

The cost of MS in The Netherlands was higher compared to the results of previous studies. The TRIBUNE study provides an important update on the economic burden of MS in The Netherlands in an era of more widespread use of disease-modifying therapies. It explores the cost of MS linked to relapses and disease severity and examines the impact of MS on additional health outcomes beyond utilities such as ADL and fatigue.

Conclusions:

Study limitations:     

Cost-effective prevention of renal failure in type 2 diabetics using losartan

Summary

A previous clinical trial (RENAAL) has demonstrated that co-administration of losartan, an angiotensin-II-receptor antagonist, with existing conventional antihypertensive therapy (CT) reduces the risk of development of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) in type 2 diabetes patients with nephropathy compared with CT alone.

The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of losartan and CT compared with CT alone on the economic cost associated with ESRD in the Nordic region.

The analysis was performed separately for Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden using country-specific data on practice patterns and costs of modalities of renal replacement therapy. Average medical costs during the first year of ESRD for a diabetic patient were €53,235 in the Nordic region. Cost-savings due to reduced ESRD incidence with losartan were €5,591 (Denmark), €6,842 (Finland), €7,025 (Norway) and €6,776 (Sweden) per patient over 4 years. The additional cost of losartan during this period was between €1,130 and €1,473. Over 4 years, net cost-savings were €4,118 (Denmark), €5,395 (Finland), €5,720 (Norway) and €5,646 (Sweden).

The nephroprotective effects of losartan may be associated with important cost-savings in the Nordic region.     

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.