The cost-effectiveness of pregabalin in the treatment of fibromyalgia: US perspective

Abstract

Objective:

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of pregabalin in the treatment of fibromyalgia in a US patient population.

Methods:

A decision-analytic model was developed comparing pregabalin 150?mg twice a day (BID) and pregabalin 225?mg BID to placebo, duloxetine, gabapentin, tramadol, milnacipran, and amitriptyline in patients with severe fibromyalgia (Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire score >59; pain score >6.5). The model estimated response rates for all treatments at 12 weeks based on three randomized trials with pregabalin and a systematic review of published randomized controlled trials. Response was categorized as ≥30% improvement in baseline pain score plus global impression of change rating of much improved or very much improved. After 12 weeks of treatment, responders to treatment entered a treatment Markov model in which response was maintained, lost, or treatment discontinued. The cost-effectiveness end-points were cost per responder at 12 weeks and 1 year. Resource use was estimated from published studies and costs were estimated from the societal perspective.

Results:

Over 12 weeks, total cost per patient was $229 higher with pregabalin 150?mg BID than placebo, whereas pregabalin 225?mg BID was $866 less costly than placebo. At 1 year, pregabalin was cost saving and more effective than placebo, duloxetine, tramadol, milnacipran, and gabapentin. Compared with amitriptyline, pregabalin was not cost-effective at both dosages, although when excluding old and methodologically weak studies of clinical effectiveness of amitriptyline, pregabalin 225?mg BID became cost saving and pregabalin 150?mg BID was cost-effective.

Limitations:

Comparisons between pregabalin and other active agents are based on indirect comparisons, not head-to-head trials, and so should be interpreted with caution. Limitations for comparators include an inability to access sub-group data, inconsistency of response definitions, inclusion of older trials, and absence of long-term studies.

Conclusions:

This model found pregabalin to be cost-effective in treating patients with severe fibromyalgia.     

Cost-effectiveness of fingolimod versus interferon beta-1a for relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis in the United States

Abstract

Objective:

Fingolimod has been shown to be more efficacious than interferon (IFN) beta-1a, but at a higher drug acquisition cost. The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of fingolimod compared to IFN beta-1a in patients diagnosed with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) in the US.

Methods:

A Markov model comparing fingolimod to intramuscular IFN beta-1a using a US societal perspective and a 10-year time horizon was developed. A cohort of 37-year-old patients with RRMS and a Kurtzke Expanded Disability Status Scale score of 0–2.5 were assumed. Data sources included the Trial Assessing Injectable Interferon vs FTY720 Oral in Relapsing–Remitting Multiple Sclerosis (TRANSFORMS) and other published studies of MS. Outcomes included costs in 2011 US dollars, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), number of relapses avoided, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).

Results:

Compared to IFN beta-1a, fingolimod was associated with fewer relapses (0.41 vs 0.73 per patient per year) and more QALYs gained (6.7663 vs 5.9503), but at a higher cost ($565,598 vs $505,234). This resulted in an ICER of $73,975 per QALY. Results were most sensitive to changes in drug costs and the disutility of receiving IFN beta-1a. Monte Carlo simulation demonstrated fingolimod was cost-effective in 35% and 70% of 10,000 iterations, assuming willingness-to-pay thresholds of $50,000 and $100,000 per QALY, respectively.

Limitations:

Event rates were primarily derived from a single randomized clinical trial with 1-year duration of follow-up and extrapolated to a 10-year time horizon. Comparison was made to only one disease-modifying drug—intramuscular IFN beta-1a.

Conclusion:

Fingolimod use is not likely to be cost-effective compared to IFN beta-1a unless fingolimod cost falls below $3476 per month or a higher than normal willingness-to-pay threshold is accepted by decision-makers.     

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

Abstract

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

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

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

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

Cost-effectiveness analysis of ramucirumab treatment for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who progressed on sorafenib with α-fetoprotein concentrations of at least 400 ng/ml

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of ramucirumab versus placebo for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who progressed on sorafenib with α-fetoprotein concentrations (AFP) of at least 400?ng/ml in the United States.

Methods: A Markov model was constructed to assess the cost-effectiveness of ramucirumab. Health outcomes were measured as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). With TreeAge software, the disease process was modeled as three health states: progression-free survival (PFS), progressive disease (PD), and death. Costs were extracted from the REACH-2 trial, and utility was derived from published literature. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated to compare ramucirumab with placebo. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were developed to examine the robustness of the results.

Results: In the base case analysis, ramucirumab therapy had a cost of $55,508.41 and generated 0.54 QALYs, while placebo therapy had a cost of $761.09 and generated 0.47 QALYs, leading to an additional $54,747.32 in costs and 0.07 QALYs. The ICER was $782,104.57 per QALY, which was much higher than the willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per QALY. According to sensitivity analyses, the utility of PD in the two groups was the dominant parameter influencing the ICER.

Conclusion: Although ramucirumab was associated with prolonged survival for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma who progressed on sorafenib treatment with an AFP of at least 400?ng/ml, it is not a cost-effective treatment from a United States payer perspective.     

Cost utility of palivizumab prophylaxis among pre-term infants in the United States: a national policy perspective

Abstract

Objective:

The cost-effectiveness of palivizumab has previously been reported among certain guideline-eligible, high-risk premature infants in Medicaid. Because guideline authorities base decisions on a national perspective, the economic model of palivizumab was adapted to include all infants, that is, public and privately insured patients (60% of palivizumab use is public, 40% is private).

Methods:

This study examined four groups of premature infants without chronic lung disease of prematurity or congenital heart disease: (1) <32 weeks gestational age (wGA) and ≤6 months chronologic age (CA); (2) 32–34 wGA, ≤3 months CA, with 2009 American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) risk factors (RFs); (3) 32–35 wGA, ≤6 months CA, with 2006 AAP RFs; and (4) 32–35 wGA, ≤6 months CA, with ≤1 RF. An average estimate was used between public and private payors for (1) background rates of respiratory syncytial virus hospitalization (RSV-H), (2) direct medical costs associated with RSV-H, and (3) cost of palivizumab. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) are reported in cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Sensitivity analyses were performed.

Results:

Palivizumab saved costs and improved QALYs among infants <32 wGA. Palivizumab was cost-effective in infants 32–34 wGA with 2009 AAP RFs ($44,774 per QALY) and in infants 32–35 wGA with 2006 AAP RFs ($79,477 per QALY). The ICER for infants 32–35 wGA with ≤1 RF was $464,476 per QALY. Influential variables in the sensitivity analysis included background rate of RSV-H and cost and efficacy of palivizumab.

Limitations:

The results are not generalizable to populations outside of the US. The model did not examine all RFs. The wholesale acquisition cost was used as a payment benchmark; actual price paid by end providers varies.

Conclusions:

From a national policy perspective, palivizumab remained cost-effective for publically and commercially insured, guideline-eligible, high-risk premature infants. Palivizumab was not cost-effective in infants of 32–35 wGA with ≤1 RF.     

Cost-effectiveness analysis of intra-articular injections of a high molecular weight bioengineered hyaluronic acid for the treatment of osteoarthritis knee pain

Objective:

To determine the cost-effectiveness of bioengineered hyaluronic acid (BioHA, 1% sodium hyaluronate) intra-articular injections in treating osteoarthritis knee pain in poor responders to conventional care (CC) including non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and analgesics.

Methods:

Two decision analytic models compared BioHA treatment with either continuation of patient’s baseline CC with no assumption of disease progression (Model 1), or CC including escalating care costs due to disease progression (NSAIDs and analgesics, corticosteroid injections, and surgery; Model 2). Analyses were based on patients who received two courses of 3-weekly intra-articular BioHA (26-week FLEXX Trial?+?26-week Extension Study). BioHA group costs included fees for physician assessment and injection regimen, plus half of CC costs. Cost-effectiveness ratios were expressed as averages and incremental costs per QALY. One-way sensitivity analyses used the 95% confidence interval (CI) of QALYs gained in BioHA-treated patients, and ±20% of BioHA treatment and CC costs. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed for Model 2.

Results:

For 214 BioHA patients, the average utility gain was 0.163 QALYs (95% CI?=??0.162 to 0.488) over 52 weeks. Model 1 treatment costs were $3469 and $4562 for the BioHA and CC groups, respectively; sensitivity analyses showed BioHA to be the dominant treatment strategy, except when at the lower end of the 95% CI. Model 2 annual treatment costs per QALY gained were $1446 and $516 for the BioHA and CC groups, respectively. Using CC as baseline strategy, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of BioHA was $38,741/QALY gained, and was sensitive to response rates in either the BioHA or CC groups.

Conclusion:

BioHA is less costly and more effective than CC with NSAIDs and analgesics, and is the dominant treatment strategy. Compared with escalating CC, the $38,741/QALY ICER of BioHA remains within the $50,000 per QALY willingness-to-pay threshold to adopt a new technology.     

Cost-effectiveness of hydrophilic-coated intermittent catheters compared with uncoated catheters in Canada: a public payer perspective

Study design: A Markov model was used to analyze cost-effectiveness over a lifetime horizon.

Objective: To investigate the cost-effectiveness of hydrophilic-coated intermittent catheters (HCICs) compared with uncoated catheters (UCs) among individuals with neurogenic bladder dysfunction (NB) due to spinal cord injury (SCI).

Setting: A Canadian public payer perspective based on data from Ontario; including a scenario analysis from the societal perspective.

Methods: A previously published Markov decision model was modified to compare the lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for the two interventions. Three renal function and three urinary tract infection (UTI) health states as well as other catheter-related events were included. Scenario analyses, including utility gain from compact catheter and phthalate free catheter use, were performed. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate the robustness of the model.

Results: The model predicted that a 50-year-old patient with SCI would gain an additional 0.72 QALYs if HCICs were used instead of UCs at an incremental cost of $48,016, leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $66,634/QALY. Moreover, using HCICs could reduce the lifetime number of UTI events by 11%. From the societal perspective, HCICs cost less than UCs, while providing superior outcomes in terms of QALYs, life years gained (LYG), and UTIs. The cost per QALY further decreased when health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) gains associated with compact HCICs or catheters not containing phthalates were included.

Conclusion: In general, ICERs in the range of CAD$50–100,000 could be considered cost-effective. The ICERs for the base case and sensitivity analyses suggest that HCICs could be cost-effective. From the societal perspective, HCICs were associated with potential cost savings in our model. The results suggest that reimbursement of HCICs should be considered in these settings.     

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.     

The cost effectiveness of palivizumab in term Inuit infants in the Eastern Canadian Arctic

Abstract

Introduction: Canadian, Inuit, full term infants have the highest rate of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infection globally, which results in substantial costs associated hospitalisation.

Methods: Decision-analytical techniques were used to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for palivizumab compared to no prophylaxis for Inuit infants of all gestational age. The time horizon was that of life-time follow-up, and costs and effectiveness were discounted at 5% per year. Costs (2007 CAD$) for palivizumab, hospitalisation (including medical evacuation, intensive care unit [ICU]), physician visits, and transportation were calculated based on the Canadian payer's perspective. Benefits on decreasing RSV hospitalisation were expressed as quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) were conducted, varying: mortality rates, utilities, length of stay in hospital and ICU.

Results: For all of Baffin Island infants (<1 year), the ICER was $39,435/QALY. However, when infants were grouped by age and area of residence, those residing in Iqaluit (<1 year) had an ICER of $152,145/QALY, while those residing in rural areas (outside of Iqaluit) had an ICER of $24,750/QALY. Prophylaxis was a dominant strategy (cost saving) for rural infants under 6 months of age, with the PSA demonstrating that it was dominant 98% of the time.

Conclusions: The ICERs suggested that palivizumab is a cost-effective option for the prevention of RSV for Inuit infants on Baffin Island compared to no prophylaxis. Palivizumab is highly cost effective in Arctic infants <1 year of age specifically residing outside of Iqaluit and is a dominant strategy for those under 6 months of age in rural areas. However, palivizumab is not cost effective compared to no treatment for infants of all ages residing in Iqaluit.     

Cost-effectiveness analysis of palivizumab among pre-term infant populations covered by Medicaid in the United States

Abstract

Objective:

Medicaid infants are at high risk of severe respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) disease. The study objective was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of palivizumab in a Medicaid population.

Methods:

A societal cost-utility analysis was conducted of prophylaxis with palivizumab vs no prophylaxis among four groups of premature infants: (1) <32 weeks gestational age (wGA) and ≤6 months chronologic age (CA); (2) 32–34 wGA, ≤3 months CA with 2009 American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) risk factors (RF); (3) 32–35 wGA, ≤6 months CA with 2006 AAP RF; and (4) 32–35 wGA, ≤6 months CA with ≤1 RF. Full dosing of palivizumab was assumed throughout the RSV season (consistent with the FDA-approved label). All costs were in 2010 US dollars. The societal public payer spend for palivizumab was estimated using Medicaid reimbursement methodologies for the top 10 palivizumab-using states in 2010 minus mandatory manufacturer rebates. This study reports the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Sensitivity and probabilistic analyses were also conducted.

Results:

Palivizumab saved costs and improved QALYs among infants <32 wGA. Palivizumab was cost-effective in infants 32–34 wGA with 2009 AAP RF ($16,037 per QALY) and in infants 32–35 wGA with 2006 AAP RF ($38,244 per QALY). The ICER for infants 32–35 wGA with ≤1 RF was $281,892 per QALY. Influential variables in the sensitivity analysis included the background rate of RSV hospitalization, the cost of palivizumab, and the efficacy of palivizumab.

Key limitations:

These results are not generalizable to commercially insured infants or infants outside of the US.

Conclusions:

This is the first cost-utility analysis of palivizumab in a Medicaid population. Palivizumab, when dosed consistent with the FDA-approved labeling, was either cost-saving or cost-effective among current guideline-eligible infants in the Medicaid population. Palivizumab did not demonstrate cost-effectiveness in 32–35 wGA infants with ≤1 RF.     

Cost-effectiveness of droxidopa in patients with neurogenic orthostatic hypotension: post-hoc economic analysis of Phase 3 clinical trial data

Objective:

Falls are associated with neurogenic orthostatic hypotension (nOH) and are an economic burden on the US healthcare system. Droxidopa is approved by the US FDA to treat symptomatic nOH. This study estimates the cost-effectiveness of droxidopa vs standard of care from a US payer perspective.

Methods:

A Markov model was used to predict numbers of falls and treatment responses using data from a randomized, double-blind trial of patients with Parkinson’s disease and nOH who received optimized droxidopa therapy or placebo for 8 weeks. The severity of falls, utility values, and injury-related costs were derived from published studies. Model outcomes included number of falls, number of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and direct costs. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated. Outcomes were extrapolated over 12 months.

Results:

Patients receiving droxidopa had fewer falls compared with those receiving standard of care and gained 0.33 QALYs/patient. Estimated droxidopa costs were $30,112, with estimated cost savings resulting from fall avoidance of $14,574 over 12 months. Droxidopa was cost-effective vs standard of care, with ICERs of $47,001/QALY gained, $24,866 per avoided fall with moderate/major injury, and $1559 per avoided fall with no/minor injury. The main drivers were fall probabilities and fear of fall-related inputs.

Limitations:

A limitation of the current study is the reliance on falls data from a randomized controlled trial where the placebo group served as the proxy for standard of care. Data from a larger patient population, reflecting ‘real-life’ patient use and/or comparison with other agents used to treat nOH, would have been a useful complement, but these data were not available.

Conclusion:

Using Markov modeling, droxidopa appears to be a cost-effective option compared with standard of care in US clinical practice for the treatment of nOH.     

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

Objectives:

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

Methods:

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

Results:

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

Conclusion:

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

Changing costs and the impact on RSV prophylaxis

Abstract

Objective:

Acquisition costs of palivizumab have increased in Canada since 2007. This analysis aims to re-evaluate the cost effectiveness of palivizumab in Canada for premature infants born between 32 and 35 weeks’ gestational age using updated 2010 healthcare costs compared to those used in a 2007 decision analytic model.

Methods:

New costs (CAN$) were acquired from the same Health Canada and Ontario Ministry of Health sources that were utilized in the previously published 2007 model. Palivizumab prices were acquired from Abbott Laboratories Ltd., current as of August 2010.

Results:

Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) rose by $742, going from $30,618/QALY to $31,360/QALY. ICER changes increased from a range of $801,297 to $820,701 for infants with zero risk factors to a decrease from $808 to $192 for infants with four or more risk factors.

Conclusions:

Palivizumab ICERs remained fairly stable from 2007 to 2010. The original recommendation stating that palivizumab is cost effective in infants born between 32 and 35 weeks’ GA with two or more risk factors, or who are at moderate-to-high risk based on a risk assessment model, does not change. Analyses founded on evolving country-specific variables are needed in order to accurately reassess the cost effectiveness of interventions as costs change worldwide.

Limitations:

There are a limited number of publications reporting mortality in premature Canadian infants with RSV as a primary outcome. In addition, conclusions drawn from this analysis are country-specific and limited to premature infants dwelling in Canada.     

Cost-effectiveness of a pentavalent rotavirus vaccine in Japan

Abstract

Objective:

To evaluate the impact of universal vaccination with a pentavalent rotavirus vaccine (RV5) on the healthcare burden and costs associated with rotavirus gastroenteritis (RGE) in Japan.

Methods:

The model included a hypothetical cohort of 1,091,156 children followed for their first 5 years of life. In the absence of universal vaccination, there were 19 deaths, 78,000 hospitalizations, and 678,000 outpatient visits due to RGE. The efficacy of RV5 is based on international clinical trial data, which was similar to the efficacy observed in clinical trials conducted in Japan. The primary outcome measure is the cost per quality-adjusted-life-year (QALY) gained. In the base case, the QALY loss per 1000 RGE episodes included 2.2 for children and 1.8 per parent.

Results:

Universal vaccination is projected to reduce hospitalizations by 92%, outpatient visits by 74%, and work-loss days by 73%. For the base case analysis, the total vaccination cost was ¥26 billion. The estimated reduction in medical costs was ¥16 billion. Of 2500 QALYs gained with the vaccination program, approximately half are directly attributed to the child. In the base case analysis, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for vaccination vs no vaccination is ¥4 million and ¥2 million per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained from the healthcare payer and societal perspectives, respectively. The ICERs are ¥8 million and ¥4 million if parental disutilities are excluded.

Key limitation:

The QALY decrements for children and parents were evaluated using different instruments, and the QALY decrements do not vary based on episode severity. Given the interdependence between children and their parents, excluding parental disutilities may under-estimate the impact of RGE.

Conclusion:

Universal vaccination with RV5 in Japan is projected to have a substantial public health impact and may be cost-effective from both the payer and societal perspectives if parental disutilities are included in the cost-effectiveness ratios.     

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

Abstract

Objective:

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

Methods:

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

Results:

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

Limitations:

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

Conclusions:

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

Economic evaluation of duloxetine as a first-line treatment for painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy in Mexico

Abstract

Objective:

To perform an economic evaluation of duloxetine, pregabalin, and both branded and generic gabapentin for managing pain in patients with painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (PDPN) in Mexico.

Research design and methods:

The analysis was conducted using a 3-month decision model, which compares duloxetine 60?mg once daily (DUL), pregabalin 150?mg twice daily (PGB), and gabapentin 600?mg three-times daily (GBP) for PDPN patients with moderate-to-severe pain. A systematic review was performed and placebo-adjusted risk ratios for achieving good pain relief (GPR), adverse events (AE), and withdrawal owing to intolerable AE were calculated. Direct medical costs included drug acquisition and additional visits due to lack of efficacy (poor pain relief) or intolerable AE. Unit costs were taken from local sources. Adherence rates were used to estimate the expected drug costs. All costs are expressed in 2010 Mexican Pesos (MXN). Utility values drawn from published literature were applied to health states. The proportion of patients with GPR and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) were assessed.

Results:

Branded-GBP was dominated by all the other options. PGB was more costly and less effective than DUL. Compared with branded-GBP and PGB, DUL led to savings of 1.01 and 1.74 million MXN (per 1000 patients). The incremental cost per QALY gained with DUL used instead of generic-GBP was $102 433 MXN. This amount is slightly lower than the estimated gross domestic product per capita in Mexico for 2010. During a second-order Monte Carlo simulation, DUL had the highest probability of being cost-effective (61%), followed by generic-GBP (25%) and PGB (14%).

Limitations:

Study limitations include a short timeframe and using data from different dosage schemes for GBP and PGB.

Conclusions:

This study suggests that DUL provides overall savings and better health outcomes compared with branded-GBP and PGB. Administering DUL rather than generic-GBP is a cost-effective intervention to manage PDPN in Mexico.     

Cost-effectiveness analysis of utidelone plus capecitabine for metastatic breast cancer in China

Abstract

Objective: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of utidelone plus capecitabine therapy compared to capecitabine alone in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) resistant to anthracyclines and taxanes treatment in the Chinese context and provide a reference for the marketing of utidelone in China.

Methods: A Markov model was developed based on the NCT02253459 clinical trial to simulate the clinical course of patients with metastatic breast cancer who had received taxanes and anthracycline therapy. The quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) were then analyzed to evaluate the benefits. Two-parametric Weibull distribution was conducted to fit PFS and OS curves by using R. Sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the stability of the model designed.

Results: The addition of utidelone increased the cost and QALYs by $13,370.25 and 0.1961, respectively, resulting in an increased ICER of $68,180.78 per QALY. The most sensitive influential parameter on ICER was the price of utidelone. At the threshold of willingness-to-pay (WTP) of $24,380 (3 per capita GDP of China), the cost of utidelone per 30?mg of less than $18.5, $33.7, and greater than $48.8 resulted in a 100%, 50%, and 0% possibility of cost-effectiveness, respectively. The addition of utidelone was not cost-effective when it was $115.4 per 30?mg—the price of its analog paclitaxel. In consideration of varied economics levels across China, cost-effectiveness could be achieved with the price of utidelone ranging from $5.2 to $35.9.

Limitations: The survival curves extended beyond the follow-up time horizon, of which data were generated not from the real analyses but from our established two-parameter Weibull survival model.

Conclusion: It is recommended that the price of utidelone would be less than $18.5 per 30?mg in order to obtain cost-effectiveness for metastatic breast cancer patients resistant to anthracyclines and taxanes treatment in China.     

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

Abstract

Objective:

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

Methods:

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

Results:

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

Conclusions:

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

Cost-effectiveness model of abiraterone plus prednisone,cabazitaxel plus prednisone and enzalutamide for visceral metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer therapy after docetaxel therapy resistance

Abstract

Aims: Among patients diagnosed with prostate cancer, 10–20% will develop castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) within 5?years; for 70%, CRPC will metastasize, mostly to the lungs and/or liver. We performed a cost-effectiveness model comparing abiraterone plus prednisone (ABI?+?PRD), cabazitaxel plus prednisone (CAB?+?PRD) and enzalutamide (ENZ) for visceral metastatic CRPC post-docetaxel therapy resistance.

Methods: A three-state (Progression-Free, Progression, Death) lifetime Markov model was constructed to compare ABI?+?PRD, CAB?+?PRD, and ENZ from a United States healthcare payer perspective (2019?US$; discount rate 3%/yr.). Effectiveness was measured in life-years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Inputs included treatment costs, grade III/IV adverse events with incidence ≥5%, physician follow-up, lab and imaging tests. Phase III trial Kaplan-Meier curves were extrapolated to estimate overall survival and Progression-Free transition probabilities. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and utility ratios (ICURs), probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSAs) and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves at willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds were estimated.

Results: Models estimated 3-year overall survival rates of 1.3% for patients treated with ABI?+?PRD, 16.2% for CAB?+?PRD, and 13.2% for ENZ. Estimated Progression-Free rates at 1.5?years were 0.51% for ABI?+?PRD, 0.27% for CAB?+?PRD, and 14.47% for ENZ. LYs and QALYs were 1.20 and 0.58 respectively for ABI?+?PRD, 1.48 and 0.56 for CAB?+?PRD, and 1.58 and 0.79 for ENZ. Total treatment costs were: $115,433 for ABI?+?PRD, $85,337 for CAB?+?PRD and $109,213 for ENZ. CAB?+?PRD and ENZ dominated ABI?+?PRD due to higher LYs gained. Incremental QALYs for ENZ vs. CAB?+?PRD were larger than incremental LYs. The ICUR for ENZ was $103,674/QALY compared to CAB?+?PRD.

Conclusions: This analysis found ENZ provided greater LYs and QALYs than both ABI?+?PRD and CAB?+?PRD, at a lower cost than ABI?+?PRD, but at a higher cost compared to CAB?+?PRD. For patients with visceral mCRPC after docetaxel therapy resistance, ENZ was cost-effective 92% of the time with a WTP threshold of $100,000/QALY.     

Cost-effectiveness of a chronic pain intervention for people living with HIV (PLWH)

Background: Chronic pain is a common, disabling, and costly comorbidity, particularly in people living with HIV (PLWH). This study developed and pilot tested a pain self-management intervention for chronic pain tailored to PLWH called Skills TO Manage Pain (STOMP).

Objectives: Given the additional resources needed to deliver STOMP in HIV clinical settings, an important objective of the pilot study was to assess not only STOMP’s preliminary efficacy, but also its cost-effectiveness.

Research design and subjects: The present study draws from a 44-participant, 2-arm randomized pilot trial of the STOMP intervention vs usual care among PLWH and at least moderate chronic pain (Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02824562). Cost-effectiveness is presented as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Costs were considered from the clinic perspective over a 1-year time horizon using real costs from the pilot trial. It was conservatively assumed there would be no costs savings. The Standard Gamble (SG) method was used to directly measure utilities.

Results: Thirty-six participants met inclusion criteria for the present analyses. Mean age was 52 years; 61% were female and 86% were black. The total cost of STOMP was $483.83 per person. Using the SG method, the change in QALYs was 0.15, corresponding to an ICER of $3,225.

Conclusions: STOMP’s cost/QALY is substantially lower than the $50,000 to $100,000/QALY benchmark often used to indicate cost-effectiveness. Although based on a pilot trial and, therefore, preliminary, these findings are promising, and suggest the importance of cost analyses in future STOMP trials.