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

Aim:

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

Methods:

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

Results:

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

Conclusions:

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

Cost analysis for different sequential treatment regimens for metastatic renal cell carcinoma in China

Abstract

Purpose: Targeted therapies, including sunitinib, sorafenib, axitinib, and everolimus, have recently become the mainstay for the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). The objective of this study was to estimate the costs of sequential treatment regimens for mRCC and associated adverse events (AEs) from the Chinese payers’ perspective.

Methods: Key inputs included in the calculation were patient population, dosing information, incidence rates and associated costs of Grade 3/4 AEs, treatment costs (including drug discount programs), and patients’ progression-free survival (PFS) as a proxy for length of treatment. To calculate PFS, this study identified pivotal clinical trials and generated a reconstructed individual patient data set from the published Kaplan-Meier survival curves. The median PFS from the pooled estimates were used in the calculation. In the base-case scenario, sunitinib was used as first line and the other three therapies were used as second line. Sensitivity analyses were conducted where (1) sorafenib was used as first line, or (2) a third-line therapy was added to the base-case scenario.

Results: In the base case, the cost per patient per treatment month (PPPM) cost was the lowest for sunitinib?+?axitinib among all sequential regimens (¥14,898) and was the highest for sunitinib?+?sorafenib (¥20,103). If sorafenib is used as first line, everolimus had lower per patient per months (PPPM) cost than axitinib (¥17,046 vs ¥23,337), but also had shorter PFS (13.5 months vs 15 months). Second sensitivity analysis with an additional third-line therapy showed consistent results with the base-case scenario; axitinib as second line was the least costly.

Conclusions: This study demonstrates that, for mRCC sequential treatment, sunitinib followed by axitinib generates the highest cost savings from the Chinese payers’ perspective. Future studies are warranted to examine the cost-effectiveness of various mRCC treatment regimens in Chinese populations.     

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

Abstract

Background:

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

Methods:

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

Results:

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

Limitations:

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

Conclusions:

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

Healthcare costs in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer and disease progression during targeted therapy: a real-world observational study

Aims: To assess healthcare costs during treatment with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and following disease progression in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Methods: A retrospective analysis of medical records of US community oncology practices was conducted. Eligible patients had advanced NSCLC (stage IIIB/IV) diagnosed between January 1, 2008 and January 1, 2015, initiated treatment with erlotinib or afatinib (first-line or second-line), and had disease progression. Monthly Medicare-paid costs were evaluated during the TKI therapy period and following progression.

Results: The study included 364 patients. The total mean monthly cost during TKI therapy was $20,106 (95% confidence interval [CI]?=?$16,836–$23,376), of which 47.0% and 42.4% represented hospitalization costs and anti-cancer therapy costs, respectively. Following progression on TKI therapy (data available for 316 patients), total mean monthly cost was $19,274 (95% CI?=?$15,329–$23,218), and was higher in the 76.3% of patients who received anti-cancer therapy following progression than in the 23.7% of those who did not ($20,490 vs $15,364; p?<?.001). Among patients who received it, anti-cancer therapy ($11,198; 95% CI?=?$7,102–$15,295) represented 54.7% of total mean monthly cost. Among patients who did not receive anti-cancer therapy, hospitalization ($13,829; 95% CI?=?$4,922–$22,736) represented 90.0% of total mean monthly cost. Impaired performance status and brain metastases were significant predictors of increased cost during TKI therapy.

Limitations: The study design may limit the generalizability of findings.

Conclusions: Healthcare costs during TKI treatment and following progression appeared to be similar and were largely attributed to hospitalization and anti-cancer therapy. Notably, almost one-quarter of patients did not receive anti-cancer therapy following progression, potentially indicating an unmet need; hospitalization was the largest cost contributor for these patients. Additional effective targeted therapies are needed that could prolong progression-free survival, leading to fewer hospitalizations for EGFR mutation-positive patients.     

Cost effectiveness of tiotropium for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a systematic review of the evidence

Abstract

Background:

Tiotropium has been shown to reduce exacerbations and improve quality of life for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), a lung disease characterized by a persistent and progressive airflow limitation.

Objectives:

To present a systematic literature review of the cost effectiveness of treatment with tiotropium compared with other currently used treatments for COPD.

Methods:

A systematic search was performed via PubMed, the Cochrane database, and EMBASE from 2002 to 2009. Methods and results by study design and by country were compared.

Results:

Seventeen studies were included in the review. Study designs were characterized as follows: modeling based on clinical trial data, and empirical analysis based on either clinical trial or observational data. Comparing monotherapy regimens (12 studies), all study designs found that treatment with tiotropium was associated with lower costs for hospitalisation and other non-drug services. Total costs, including the costs of maintenance drugs, were lower with tiotropium in some, but not all, of the studies. Tiotropium was shown to be cost effective based on commonly accepted benchmark values. Limitations of the review included the wide variety of outcome measures used in different studies, the limited number of observational database studies for monotherapy, and limited data for combination therapy regimens.

Conclusions:

The main conclusions of the economic evaluations derived from clinical trial data at the time of product approval and from later observational data reflecting clinical use are similar: use of tiotropium monotherapy is associated with lower hospital and other non-drug costs and better health outcomes and is either cost saving or cost effective compared with other maintenance monotherapies.     

Seretide: a pharmacoeconomic analysis

Abstract

Background: The costs of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), the two most common chronic respiratory illnesses, are substantial and rising. The fixed-dose combination of fluticasone and salmeterol has been a safe and effective therapy for these diseases.

Objectives: To review the pharmacoeconomic impact of the fixed-dose combination of inhaled fluticasone and salmeterol in asthma and COPD.

Methods: A systematic review of the literature was carried out to identify pharmacoeconomic studies with fixed-dose salmeterol and fluticasone (Seretide, Advair, Viani). In addition, abstracts from recent respiratory meetings were sought, and any unpublished data were requested from the manufacturer.

Results: For asthma, when compared to treatment with inhaled corticosteroid monotherapy and antileukotrienes, alone or combined, salmeterol/fluticasone inhalation produced a higher proportion of successfully treated weeks, improvement in lung function and quality of life, and fewer treatment failures. The costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) for fluticasone/salmeterol have been favourable not only in patients with moderate to severe disease but also in patients with mild disease or patients not previously treated with a maintenance therapy. The excess cost per QALY varied from US$2,670 to US$26,445. For COPD, a clear reduction in exacerbation rates and improvement in quality of life has been demonstrated with salmeterol/fluticasone along with a likely improvement in survival rates. The incremental cost per QALY ratio for fluticasone/salmeterol against placebo ranged from US$9,512 to US$64,038.

Conclusions: The data currently available suggest that the cost effectiveness of combination therapy with fluticasone and salmeterol is favourable for asthma and COPD in a variety of clinical settings.     

Cost utility of allogeneic stem cell transplantation with matched unrelated donor versus treatment with imatinib for adult patients with newly diagnosed chronic myeloid leukaemia

Objective: To estimate, from the perspective of the German statutory health insurance, the cost utility of allogeneic stem cell transplantation with matched unrelated donor (MUD-SCT) in newly diagnosed, chronic-phase chronic myeloid leukaemia (CML) patients aged 40 years or younger, relative to the treatment with imatinib.

Methods: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of the additional cost of imatinib versus MUD-SCT per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained was chosen as a target assessment. ICER was quantified using a Markov cohort modelling approach. The evaluation encompassed 5 years of treatment with either approach, and only direct medical costs (in €, year 2005) were considered.

Results: There were incremental costs of €77,410 for imatinib therapy per QALY gained versus MUD-SCT. No strategy was clearly dominant; on average, during 5 years, cost savings of €63,433 were obtained and 0.82 QALY lost by SCT compared to treatment with imatinib. QALYs gained in CML patients with either treatment resulted in considerable cost to the third-party payer in Germany. The results were particularly sensitive to the price of imatinib.

Conclusions: The analysis finds that imatinib is more costly but more effective (as measured in QALYs) over a 5-year time horizon. The resulting ICER of €77,410 per QALY is higher than commonly cited thresholds. The cost utility of MUD-SCT to treat CML in patients with a European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation score ≤ to 2 compares with that of the imatinib strategy.     

Treatment patterns and healthcare costs among newly-diagnosed patients with chronic myeloid leukemia receiving dasatinib or nilotinib as first-line therapy in the United States

Objective: To compare treatment patterns and economic outcomes of dasatinib and nilotinib as 1st-line therapies for chronic myeloid leukemia (CML).

Methods: Adult CML patients initiated on first-line dasatinib or nilotinib in 2010–2014 were identified from two large US administrative claims databases. Treatment patterns, tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) adherence and healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs were measured from the 1st-line TKI initiation (index date) to the end of follow-up.

Results: A total of 604 and 418 patients were included in the dasatinib and nilotinib cohorts (mean ages = 50.9 and 52.5 years, 46.4% and 45.7% female), respectively. Among the dasatinib patients, 91% started with 100?mg/day, 3% with <100?mg/day, and 6% with >100?mg/day. Among the nilotinib patients, 76% started with 600?mg/day, 16% with >600?mg/day, and 8% <600?mg/day. The dasatinib cohort had a higher hazard of dose decrease (hazard ratio [HR]?=?1.66; p?=?.002) and of switching to another TKI (HR =1.62; p?=?.019) compared to the nilotinib cohort. The hazard of dose increase (HR =0.76; p?=?.423) and treatment discontinuation (HR =1.10; p?=?.372) were not significantly different between cohorts. There was also no significant difference in TKI adherence levels (mean proportion of days covered [PDC] difference over first 6 months = ?0.0003, p?=?.981; mean PDC difference over first 12 months = ?0.0022, p?=?.880) and HRU (inpatient day incidence rate ratio [IRR]?=?1.03, p?=?.930; emergency room IRR =1.26, p?=?.197; and days with outpatient services IRR = 1.01, p?=?.842). The dasatinib cohort incurred higher healthcare costs by $749 per patient per month (p?=?.044) compared to the nilotinib cohort.

Limitation: Information on CML phase and Sokal score was not available.

Conclusions: Dasatinib was associated with an increased hazard of dose decrease and switching to another TKI and higher healthcare costs, vs nilotinib.     

The cost effectiveness of palivizumab: a systematic review of the evidence

Abstract

Objective:

Palivizumab is a prophylactic therapy shown to reduce the number of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV)-related hospitalizations but has a high acquisition cost. The objective was to systematically examine the cost effectiveness of palivizumab in defined infant groups and identify important cost and outcome determinants.

Methods:

Literature searches of MedLine, the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis registry and the UK NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED) were conducted to identify economic evaluations of palivizumab compared to no prophylactic treatment for RSV prevention in any infant population. Study quality was evaluated using Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) criteria and results converted to 2009 CAN$ for comparison.

Results:

A total of 23 articles meeting inclusion criteria were identified, including 11 cost-utility analyses (CUAs) and 12 cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs). Quality of individual analyses was fairly high (range 60–100, median 86). Results ranged from cost dominance for prophylaxis to $3,365,769/QALY depending on population, outcome measures, and input parameters. Base-case and sensitivity-analysis mortality rates varied between studies and influenced results.

Conclusions:

RSV prophylaxis with palivizumab is cost effective in specific groups of high-risk infants, especially those with multiple environmental risk factors. Cost-effectiveness estimates vary between populations and settings and are more positive in those at highest risk for RSV hospitalization.

Limitations:

Direct comparison of the published reports was limited by restriction to English language articles and the varied methodologies, input measures, and populations across the studies reviewed. Although reported currencies were converted to a common unit for comparison, this does not completely account for monetary and inflation differences.     

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cost-utility of pregabalin as add-on to usual care versus usual care alone in the management of peripheral neuropathic pain in Belgium

Abstract

Background and objectivess:

The cost effectiveness of pregabalin as an add-on to the standard treatment of Belgian patients with post-herpetic neuralgia (PHN) had been demonstrated in a previously published Markov model. The purpose of this study was to update that model with more recent cost data and clinical evidence, and reevaluate the cost effectiveness from the payer’s perspective of add-on pregabalin in a wider set of NeP conditions.

Methods:

The model, featuring 4-week cycles and a 1-year time horizon, consisted in four possible health states: mild, moderate or severe pain and withdrawn from therapy. Three versions of the model were developed, using transition probabilities derived from pain scores reported in three placebo-controlled studies. The two treatment arms were ‘usual care’ or ‘usual care?+?pregabalin’. Resource use and utility data were obtained from a chart review and unit costs from recent published data. The final outcome of the model was the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained when adding pregabalin to standard care.

Results:

Based on 1000 simulations, two versions of the model showed that pregabalin was dominant respectively in 94.8% and 67.2% of the simulations, while the incremental cost per QALY was below €32,000/QALY in respectively 99.1% and 94.6% of the simulations. The third version did not show cost effectiveness, despite an incremental cost of only €300 after 1 year. However, in the corresponding study, patients seemed less responsive to GABA analogs, since 55% of them had failed to respond to gabapentin before study inclusion.

Limitations:

The studies upon which the model is based have a short follow-up time as compared to the model horizon. The endpoints of two studies were only provided at the aggregated level and do not necessarily reflect the real practice.

Conclusion:

Based on this analysis, it can be concluded that from a Belgium payer perspective pregabalin offers a slight increase in quality of life in the studied populations as compared to standard care. Pregabalin is cost effective in the majority of cases except in one published clinical study, despite a low incremental cost per year (€300).     

Lifetime cost of everolimus vs axitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma who failed prior sunitinib therapy in the US

Abstract

Objective:

Everolimus and axitinib are approved in the US to treat patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) after failure on sunitinib or sorafenib, and one prior systemic therapy (e.g., sunitinib), respectively. Two indirect comparisons performed to evaluate progression-free survival in patients treated with everolimus vs axitinib suggested similar efficacy between the two treatments. Therefore, this analysis compares the lifetime costs of these two therapies among sunitinib-refractory advanced RCC patients from a US payer perspective.

Research design and methods:

A Markov model was developed to simulate a cohort of sunitinib-refractory advanced RCC patients and estimate the cost of treating patients with everolimus vs axitinib. The following health states were included: stable disease without adverse events (AEs), stable disease with AEs, disease progression (PD), and death. The model included the following resources: active treatments, post-progression treatments, adverse events, physician and nurse visits, scans and tests, and palliative care. Resource utilization inputs were derived from a US claims database analysis. Additionally, a 3% annual discount rate was applied to costs, and the robustness of the model results was tested by conducting sensitivity analyses, including those on dosing scheme and post-progression treatment costs.

Results:

Base case results demonstrated that patients treated with everolimus cost an average of $12,985 (11%) less over their lifetimes than patients treated with axitinib. The primary difference in costs was related to active treatment, which was largely driven by axitinib’s higher dose intensity. Results remained consistent across sensitivity analyses for AE and PD treatment costs, as well as dose intensity and discount rates.

Conclusion:

The results suggest that everolimus likely leads to lower lifetime costs than axitinib for sunitinib-refractory advanced RCC patients in the US.     

Amlodipine: a pharmacoeconomic review

Abstract

Objectives. To review the pharmacoeconomic impact of the use of amlodipine in coronary artery disease (CAD) patients.

Methods. A review of the available outcome trials evaluating the clinical effectiveness of amlodipine in hypertensive patients or in patients with CAD or diabetic nephropathy was carried out to identify pharmacoeconomic studies that quantified the economic impact of using amlodipine instead of another treatment.

Results. A combined analysis of two trials comparing angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) with a calcium channel blocker amlodipine suggested that amlodipine provided more protection against stroke and myocardial infarction than ARBs. In addition, in keeping with previous meta-analyses, calcium channel blockade with amlodipine also prevented more stroke than angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and old drug classes.

Pharmacoeconomic analysis conducted in the US and Europe demonstrated that the use of amlodipine resulted in fewer hospitalisations and the need for fewer invasive surgical procedures in the short and long term and at a modest incremental cost. The use of amlodipine resulted in improved clinical outcomes as well as slight savings in cost.

Conclusions. Amlodipine is not only cost effective, but predicted to be cost saving when compared with usual care, warranting its consideration as an agent of choice in patients with CAD.     

Economic benefits of adequate molecular monitoring in patients with chronic myelogenous leukemia

Objective:

Molecular monitoring of chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) has been associated with improved clinical outcomes during tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy (TKI), yet recent studies have demonstrated its use is far below published guidelines. This study sought to determine frequencies of molecular monitoring and its impact on resource utilization and medical costs.

Methods:

A retrospective US claims administrative database (IMS LifeLink Health Plan Claims and Truven Health Analytics MarketScan databases, 11/2007–06/2012) was used to analyze the economic impact of qPCR testing in CML patients on first-line TKIs during the initial 12-months of treatment.

Results:

One thousand two hundred and five adult CML patients met the sample selection criteria. Among these, 41.0% had no qPCR tests, 31.9% had 1–2 tests, and 27.1% had 3–4 tests; 88.9% were initiated on imatinib; 47.7% were female. Patients in the 3–4 tests cohort incurred 44% (p?p?=?0.005) lower for the 3–4 tests cohort than the 0-tests cohort. Adjusted progression-related IP cost was $4132 (p?=?0.013) lower for the 3–4 tests cohort than the 0-tests cohort. Adjusted medical service cost was $5997 (p?=?0.049) lower for the 3–4 tests cohort than the 0-tests cohort.

Limitations:

Claims databases did not include information on the primary cause of hospitalizations.

Conclusions:

Among CML patients in two large claims databases, nearly three-quarters did not receive adequate molecular monitoring per published guidelines. Those who were more frequently monitored incurred lower medical service costs, with the majority of the difference in costs being related to disease progression. These findings underscore the clinical and economic values of molecular monitoring in CML.     

Cost effectiveness of deferasirox compared to desferrioxamine in the treatment of iron overload in lower-risk,transfusion-dependent myelodysplastic syndrome patients

Abstract

Objective:

The study evaluated the cost effectiveness of deferasirox (Exjade) compared to non-proprietary desferrioxamine (DFO) for the control of transfusional iron overload in lower risk myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) patients. A UK National Health Service perspective was adopted.

Methods:

Recent clinical evidence has demonstrated the efficacy and safety of deferasirox in transfusion-dependent MDS patients with elevated serum ferritin levels. An economic model was used to extrapolate the clinical benefits of iron chelation therapy (ICT) in a cohort of lower risk MDS patients. Costs for drug acquisition, drug administration and monitoring, and quality of life (utility) outcomes associated with mode of drug administration were derived from a variety of sources. The incremental cost per QALY gained for deferasirox was estimated. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3.5% in line with UK standards.

Results:

The base-case cost effectiveness of deferasirox versus DFO was estimated to be £20,822 per QALY gained, the key driver being the additional quality of life benefits associated with a simpler mode of administration for deferasirox. A mean survival benefit for both forms of ICT of 4.5 years was estimated. The results were sensitive to drug dose, days of DFO administration, and patient weight.

Conclusions:

In the UK, a cost per QALY below £20,000–30,000 is considered cost effective. Hence, the results from this economic analysis suggest deferasirox is cost effective in lower risk, transfusion-dependent, MDS patients. Limitations with the analysis include a lack of comparative randomised controlled trial evidence, in particular to differentiate survival and clinical outcomes for deferasirox and DFO.     

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.     

Healthcare and economic burden of adverse events among patients with chronic myelogenous leukemia treated with BCR-ABL1 tyrosine kinase inhibitors

Objectives: BCR-ABL1 tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) are established treatments for chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML); however, they are associated with infrequent, but clinically serious adverse events (AEs). The objective of this analysis was to assess healthcare resource utilization and costs associated with AEs, previously identified using the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) in another study, among TKI-treated patients.

Methods: Adult patients with ≥1 inpatient or ≥2 outpatient ICD-9-CM diagnosis codes for CML and ≥1 claim for a TKI treatment between January 1, 2006 and September 30, 2012 were identified from the Commercial and Medicare MarketScan databases. The first claim for a TKI was designated as the index event. Patients were required to have no TKI treatment during a 12-month baseline period. Healthcare resource utilization and costs associated with select AEs having the strongest association with TKI treatment (femoral arterial stenosis [FAS], peripheral arterial occlusive disease [PAOD], intermittent claudication, coronary artery stenosis [CAS], pericardial effusion, pleural effusion, malignant pleural effusion, conjunctival hemorrhage) were evaluated during a 12-month follow-up period.

Results: The study sample included 2,005 CML patients receiving TKI therapy (mean age?=?56 years; 56% male). Among all evaluated AEs, the highest mean inpatient healthcare costs were observed for FAS ($16,800 per patient) and PAOD ($14,263 per patient), which had total mean medical costs (inpatient?+?outpatient) of $17,015 and $15,154 per patient, respectively. Mean outpatient healthcare costs were highest for CAS ($1,861 per patient), followed by intermittent claudication ($947 per patient), PAOD ($891 per patient), and pleural effusion ($890 per patient). Total mean medical costs for fluid retention-related AEs, including pericardial effusion and pleural effusion, were $2,797 and $1,908 per patient, respectively.

Conclusions: The healthcare costs of AEs identified in the FAERS as having the strongest association with TKI treatment are substantial. Vascular stenosis-related AEs, including FAS and PAOD, have the highest cost burden.     

Economic modeling to evaluate the impact of chronic myeloid leukemia therapy management on the oncology care model in the US

Abstract

Objective: To develop an economic model to evaluate changes in healthcare costs driven by restricting usage of branded tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) through substitution with generic imatinib among chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) patients in a typical Oncology Care Model (OCM) practice, and examine the impact on Performance-Based Payment (PBP) eligibility.

Methods: An Excel-based economic model of an OCM practice with 1,000 cancer patients during a 6-month episode of care was developed. Cancer types and proportions of patients treated in the practice were estimated from an OCM report. All-cause healthcare costs were obtained from published literature. It was assumed that if a practice restricts usage of branded TKIs for newly-diagnosed CML patients, 80% of the market share of branded imatinib and 50% of the market shares of 2^nd-gen TKIs would shift to generic imatinib. Among established TKI-treated patients, it was assumed that 80% of the market share of branded imatinib and no patients treated with 2^nd-gen TKIs would shift to the generic.

Results: Four CML patients were estimated for a 1,000-cancer patient OCM practice with a total baseline healthcare cost of $51,345,812 during a 6-month episode. If the practice restricts usage of branded TKIs, the shift from 2^nd-gen TKIs to generic imatinib would reduce costs by $12,970, while shifting from branded to generic imatinib lowers costs by $25,250 during a 6-month episode. Minimum reductions of $3,013,832 in a one-sided risk model and $2,372,010 in a two-sided risk model are required for PBP eligibility; the shift from 2^nd-gen TKIs to generic imatinib would account for 0.4% and 0.5% of the savings required for a PBP, respectively.

Conclusions: This analysis indicates that the potential cost reduction associated with restricting branded TKI usage among CML patients in an OCM setting will represent only a small proportion of the cost reduction needed for PBP eligibility.     

Cost-effectiveness of 3-years of adjuvant imatinib in gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) in the United States

Abstract

Background:

Recent clinical trial data have demonstrated that 3 years vs 1 year of adjuvant imatinib therapy for patients with surgically resected Kit+ Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors (GIST) leads to a significant improvement in recurrence-free survival and overall survival. This study assesses the cost-effectiveness of treating patients with 3 years vs 1 year of imatinib from a US payer’s perspective.