A within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis of panitumumab compared with bevacizumab in the first-line treatment of patients with wild-type RAS metastatic colorectal cancer in the US

Abstract

Aims: This analysis investigated the cost-effectiveness of panitumumab plus mFOLFOX6 (oxaliplatin, 5-fluorouracil, and leucovorin) compared with bevacizumab plus mFOLFOX6 in the first-line treatment of patients with wild-type RAS metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).

Materials and methods: The cost-effectiveness analysis was developed from a third-party payer perspective in the US and was implemented using a partitioned survival model with health states for first-line treatment (progression-free), disease progression with and without subsequent active treatment, and death. Survival analyses of patients with wild-type RAS mCRC from the PEAK head-to-head clinical trial of panitumumab vs bevacizumab were performed to estimate time in the model health states. Additional data from PEAK informed the amount of each drug consumed, duration of therapy, subsequent therapy use, and toxicities related to mCRC treatment. Literature and US public data sources were used to estimate unit costs associated with treatment and duration of subsequent active therapies. Utility weights were calculated from patient-level data from panitumumab trials in the first-, second-, and third-line settings. A life-time perspective was taken with future costs and outcomes discounted at 3% per annum. Scenario, one-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

Results: Compared with bevacizumab, the use of panitumumab resulted in an incremental cost of US $60,286, and an incremental quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) of 0.445, translating into a cost per QALY gained of US $135,391 in favor of panitumumab. Results were sensitive to wastage and dose rounding assumptions modeled.

Limitations: Progression-free and overall survival were extrapolated beyond the follow-up of the primary analysis using fitted parametric curves. Costs and quality of life were estimated from multiple and different data sources.

Conclusions: The efficacy of panitumumab in extending progression-free and overall survival and improving quality of life makes it a cost-effective option for first-line treatment of patients with wild-type RAS mCRC compared with bevacizumab.     

Cost-minimization analysis of panitumumab compared with cetuximab for first-line treatment of patients with wild-type RAS metastatic colorectal cancer

Abstract

Objective:

To compare the costs of first-line treatment with panitumumab?+?FOLFOX in comparison to cetuximab?+?FOLFIRI among patients with wild-type (WT) RAS metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in the US.     

Economic analysis of bevacizumab,cetuximab, and panitumumab with fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of KRAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC)

Abstract

Objective:

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most commonly diagnosed cancer in Canada (excluding non-melanoma skin cancers). Bevacizumab is a recombinant humanized monoclonal antibody that selectively binds to human vascular endothelial growth factor. A sub-study confirmed its effectiveness in KRAS wild-type patients. Recent evidence has shown clinical benefit from anti-epidermal growth factor treatments cetuximab and panitumumab in these patients. The cost-effectiveness, to the Canadian healthcare system, of fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy (FBC) in combination with bevacizumab, cetuximab, or panitumumab was assessed for first-line treatment of KRAS wild-type mCRC patients.

Methods:

A Markov model was developed and calibrated to progression-free/overall survival, using separately reported trial survival and adverse event results for each comparator. Health-state resource utilization was derived from published data and oncologist input. Utilities and unit prices were obtained from published literature and standard Canadian sources.

Results:

Results per patient are over a lifetime horizon, to a maximum of 10 years, with 5% annual discounting. Comparators are ordered by total cost and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of each is determined against the previous non-dominated therapy. Compared to FBC alone, bevacizumab?+?FBC has an ICER of $131,600 per QALY gained. Compared to bevacizumab?+?FBC, panitumumab?+?FBC is dominated and cetuximab?+?FBC has an ICER of $3.8 million per QALY. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, bevacizumab?+?FBC had ～100%, ～100%, and 98.9% probabilities of being more cost-effective than both of the other combination treatments at thresholds of $50,000/QALY, $100,000/QALY, and $200,000/QALY, respectively.

Conclusion:

For first-line treatment of KRAS-WT mCRC, bevacizumab?+?FBC is associated with substantially lower costs as compared to panitumumab?+?FBC or cetuximab?+?FBC. Key limitations were that survival curves and adverse event rates were taken from separate clinical trials and that an indirect comparison was not included. Given these findings, bevacizumab is likely to offer the best value for money for this patient population.     

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.     

Comparative net cost impact of the utilization of panitumumab versus cetuximab for the treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer in Canada

Objective:

Clinical practice guidelines support the use of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors panitumumab and cetuximab for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) after failure of other chemotherapy regimens, based on significant clinical benefits in patients with wild-type KRAS. The purpose of the analysis was to compare provincial hospital costs when using panitumumab vs cetuximab with or without irinotecan in this patient population using a Net Impact Analysis (NIA) approach.

Methods:

The NIA determined the total per patient cost of the reimbursed regimens of panitumumab vs cetuximab in British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario, and Québec. Utilization of healthcare resources related to EGFR inhibitor infusions, follow-up monitoring, and treatment of adverse events (AEs) were also included. Healthcare resource use including drugs, medical supplies, laboratory testing, oncology infusion time, and healthcare professionals’ time was obtained through expert consultation and the use was then multiplied by the province-specific cost of each resource. Numerous sensitivity analyses were conducted.

Results:

Based on the dosing regimens in place in each province, the total annual per patient cost of panitumumab ranged from $22,203–$32,600, while the total annual per patient cost of cetuximab treatment varied from $30,321–$40,908. Treatment with panitumumab resulted in lower costs in all cost categories including drug acquisition, infusion preparation/administration, patient monitoring, and AE management. Per patient savings with panitumumab ranged from a low of $3815 in British Columbia to a high of $10,603 in Ontario. In sensitivity analyses, panitumumab remained cost saving in all scenarios where the savings ranged from $150–$16,006 per patient.

Conclusions:

Treating chemorefractory mCRC patients with panitumumab rather than cetuximab reduced healthcare resource costs. Provincial healthcare savings achieved with the use of panitumumab could potentially be re-allocated to other cancer treatments, although further study would be needed to validate this assumption.     

Healthcare costs associated with bevacizumab and cetuximab in second-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer

Abstract

Objective:

To compare the health care costs of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) who received second-line treatment with Avastin (bevacizumab) versus Erbitux (cetuximab), from the third-party payer’s perspective.

Methods:

Patients with mCRC were selected from the PharMetrics claims database if they received second-line therapy containing either bevacizumab (second-line bevacizumab cohort) or cetuximab (second-line cetuximab cohort). Six-month costs following second-line therapy start date and average monthly healthcare costs while on second-line therapy (in 2009 US$) were calculated and compared between the two groups.

Results:

A total of 2188 patients with mCRC who met the eligibility criteria were included in the analysis, including 1808 patients receiving bevacizumab and 380 patients receiving cetuximab in second-line treatment. Demographic and baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups. Patients’ mean age was 61 years and 56% were males. In second-line treatment, bevacizumab was commonly used with oxaliplatin (43.5%) and irinotecan-based regimens (40.4%), whereas cetuximab was commonly used with irinotecan-based regimens (68.2%). Bevacizumab patients had significantly lower total all-cause healthcare costs than cetuximab patients (adjusted difference: –$10,231, p?=?0.020), and lower medical costs (–$10,796, p?=?0.012) during the 6 months following second-line therapy initiation. Approximately half of the difference in total all-cause healthcare costs was attributable to the lower chemotherapy and targeted therapy costs (–$5635, p?=?0.032) of bevacizumab patients than those of cetuximab patients. While on second-line therapy, bevacizumab patients also had lower average monthly all-cause healthcare costs than cetuximab patients.

Limitations:

Second-line treatment in the current study was defined based on changes in mCRC medications, not based on disease progression due to the limited clinical information available in claims.

Conclusion:

The use of bevacizumab in second-line therapy was associated with significantly lower healthcare costs in mCRC patients, compared to the use of cetuximab.     

Costs of hospital events in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer

Abstract

Background:

In the last decade, the number of new agents, including monoclonal antibodies, being developed to treat metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) increased rapidly. While improving outcomes, these new treatments also have distinct and known safety profiles with toxicities that may require hospitalizations. However, patterns and costs of hospitalizations of toxicities of these new ‘targeted’ drugs are often unknown.

Objective:

This study aimed to estimate the costs of hospital events associated with adverse events specified in the ‘Special Warnings and Precautions for Use’ section of the European Medicinal Agency Summary of Product Characteristics for bevacizumab, cetuximab, and panitumumab, in patients with mCRC.

Methods:

From the PHARMO Record Linkage System (RLS), patients with a primary or secondary hospital discharge code for CRC and distant metastasis between 2000–2008 were selected and defined as patients with mCRC. The first discharge diagnosis defining metastases served as the index date. Patients were followed from index date until end of data collection, death, or end of study period, whichever occurred first. Hospital events during follow-up were identified through primary hospital discharge codes. Main outcomes for each event were length of stay and costs per hospital admission.

Results:

Among 2964 mCRC patients, 271 hospital events occurred in 210 patients (mean [SD] duration of follow-up: 34 [31] months). The longest mean (SD) length of stay per hospital admission were for stroke (16 [33] days), arterial thromboembolism (ATE) (14 [21] days), wound-healing complications (WHC), acute myocardial infarction (AMI), congestive heart failure (CHF), and neutropenia (all 9 days; SD 5–15). Highest mean (SD) costs per admission were for stroke (€13,500 [€28,800]), ATE (€13,300 [€18,800]), WHC (€10,800 [€20,500]).

Limitations:

Although no causal link could be identified between any specific event and any specific treatment, data from this study are valuable for pharmacoeconomic evaluations of newer treatments in mCRC patients.

Conclusions:

Inpatient costs for events in mCRC patients are considerable and vary greatly.     

Cost-effectiveness analysis of treatment regimens with obinutuzumab plus chemotherapy in Japan for untreated follicular lymphoma patients

Abstract

Aims

Obinutuzumab (GA101; G) is a new treatment for follicular lymphoma (FL) that is anticipated to have greater efficacy than the current treatment, rituximab (R). The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of G plus chemotherapy (G?+?Chemo) against that of R plus chemotherapy (R?+?Chemo) for patients in Japan with previously untreated FL.     

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 implications of increased survival with anastrozole in the treatment of advanced breast cancer

Summary

Anastrozole (Arimidex*) has a survival benefit compared with megestrol acetate in postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer who have failed on tamoxifen. It was felt appropriate that such a clinical finding should be subjected to economic evaluation.

A cost-effectiveness analysis was undertaken from the viewpoint of a third-party payer, of the data from a combined analysis of two clinical studies. The outcome measures were duration of drug treatment and life years gained. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) of anastrozole was £1,608 per life year gained based on UK NHS drug prices in April 1998. Sensitivity analysis showed that the ICER could vary between £5 and £1,643, depending on relative drug costs in a number of countries, between £1,056 and £1,761, depending on the method used to calculate duration of treatment and survival, and could increase to £3,730, based on treatment provided during the extra period of survival.

Anastrozole is a highly cost-effective alternative to megestrol acetate for postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer.     

Cost-effectiveness analysis of clopidogrel versus aspirin in patients with atherothrombosis based on the CAPRIE trial

SUMMARY

Clopidogrel has been shown to reduce the secondary risk of ischaemic events in vascular disease compared to aspirin. This article compares the economics of the two drugs for this condition, by providing an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (iCER) of clopidogrel versus aspirin, using Belgium as a case setting.

A 2 year Markov model, in which patients with vascular disease were assumed to receive either clopidogrel or aspirin, was developed from a healthcare payer's perspective. Survival data were based on the Saskatchewan Health database. Costs included treatment and adverse events. Cost-effectiveness was expressed as the cost per life year gained (LYG).

The iCER of clopidogrel versus aspirin was €13,390/LYG (95% CI: €6,990; €26,470). The robustness of these results was shown by univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

This analysis shows that clopidogrel is cost-effective for the secondary prevention of ischaemic events in the Belgian setting.     

Corroboration of claims algorithm for second-line costs of metastatic colorectal cancer treatment with targeted agents

Abstract

Objective:

To refine a claims algorithm for identifying second-line systemic regimens for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) based on clinical evidence and to compare costs during second-line treatment by targeted therapy administered.

Methods:

This retrospective analysis of a large US managed care database identified patients diagnosed with mCRC during 1 July 2007–30 June 2011. A claims-based algorithm was developed to identify patients with at least two lines of therapy (LOT) and the second LOT contained one targeted agent: bevacizumab or any anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR). Medical chart data from 92 patients were used to corroborate and refine the LOT algorithm. The positive predictive value (PPV) of the initial algorithm and refined algorithm for identification of second LOT are presented. The final algorithm was applied to claims data and two mutually exclusive second-line cohorts were examined: patients with bevacizumab- or cetuximab-containing regimens. Second-line healthcare costs were analyzed with generalized linear models adjusted for demographic and clinical characteristics.

Results:

The PPV increased from 50.0% (95% CI?=?39.4–60.6) for the initial algorithm to 72.1% (95% CI?=?59.2–82.9) for the final algorithm. Mean age in the cohorts (n?=?569) was 61 years; 58% were men. Days of therapy were similar for the bevacizumab (n?=?450) vs cetuximab (n?=?119) cohorts, respectively: 131 vs 148 in first LOT and 123 (both cohorts) in second LOT (p?≥?0.27). Total costs during second-line treatment in the bevacizumab cohort were lower by $12,318 (p?=?0.02) and medical costs were lower by $13,809 (p?=?0.01). Monthly total and medical costs were lower by $2728 (p?=?0.03) and $3133 (p?=?0.01), respectively. Results are based on commercially or Medicare-insured patients and may not be generalizable to Medicaid or uninsured patients.

Conclusions:

Corroboration of claim-based algorithms with medical chart data improved algorithm performance. Second-line total and medical costs were lower for mCRC patients treated with bevacizumab compared with cetuximab.     

Economic evaluation for the US of nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine versus FOLFIRINOX versus gemcitabine in the treatment of metastatic pancreas cancer

Background: Nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine (NAB-P?+?GEM) and FOLFIRINOX have shown superior efficacy over gemcitabine (GEM) in the treatment of metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDA). Although the incremental clinical benefits are modest, both treatments represent significant advances in the treatment of a high-mortality cancer. In this independent economic evaluation for the US, the aim was to estimate the comparative cost-utility and cost-effectiveness of these three regimens from the payer perspective.

Methods: In the absence of a direct treatment comparison in a single clinical trial, the Bucher indirect comparison method was used to estimate the comparative efficacy of each regimen. A Markov model evaluated life years (LY) and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained with NAB-P?+?GEM and FOLFIRINOX over GEM, expressed as incremental cost-effectiveness (ICER) and cost-utility ratios (ICUR). All costs and outcomes were discounted at 3%/year. The impact of parameter uncertainty on the model was assessed by probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

Results: NAB-P?+?GEM was associated with differentials of +0.180 LY and +0.127 QALY gained over GEM at an incremental total cost of $25,965; yielding an ICER of $144,096/LY and ICUR of $204,369/QALY gained. FOLFIRINOX was associated with differentials of +0.368 LY and +0.249 QALY gained over GEM at an incremental total cost of $93,045; yielding an ICER of $253,162/LY and ICUR of $372,813/QALY gained. In indirect comparison, the overall survival hazard ratio (OS HR) for NAB-P?+?GEM vs FOLFIRINOX was 0.79 (95%CI?=?0.59–1.05), indicating no superiority in OS of either regimen. FOLFIRINOX had an ICER of $358,067/LY and an ICUR of $547,480/QALY gained over NAB-P?+?GEM. Tornado diagrams identified variation in the OS HR, but no other parameters, to impact the NAB-P?+?GEM and FOLFIRINOX ICURs.

Conclusions: In the absence of a statistically significant difference in OS between NAB-P?+?GEM and FOLFIRINOX, this US analysis indicates that the greater economic benefit in terms of cost-savings and incremental cost-effectiveness and cost-utility ratios favors NAB-P?+?GEM over FOLFIRINOX.     

Cost-effectiveness analysis of first-line pembrolizumab treatment for PD-L1 positive,non-small cell lung cancer in China

Purpose: Pembrolizumab was recently approved in several countries as a first-line treatment for patients with PD-L1 positive, non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, it is expensive. This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab in treating advanced NSCLC patients with PD-L1 positive cancer in China.

Methods: A Markov model was developed to compare the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab with chemotherapy for patients with PD-L1 expression on at least 50% of NSCLC tumor cells. Model inputs for transition probabilities and toxicity were derived from published clinical trial data, while health utilities were estimated from a literature review. Costs for drugs were updated to standard fee data from West China Hospital in 2017. Health outcomes were measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and cost-effectiveness was measured as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the robustness of the model.

Results: Pembrolizumab gained 0.45 QALYs at an incremental cost of $46,362 compared to chemotherapy for an ICER of $103,128 per QALY gained. In most scenarios, the ICER exceeded three times the Chinese Gross Domestic Product per capita. Two-way sensitivity analysis showed that, when the utility of the progression-free status increased to the maximal value of 0.845 and the 1?mg dose price decreased to $10.50, the ICER reduced to $25,216/QALY.

Conclusions: Pembrolizumab is not likely to be cost-effective in the treatment of PD-L1 positive, NSCLC for Chinese patients. Less aggressive pricing may increase accessibility for patients in China.     

Cost-effectiveness analysis of suvorexant for the treatment of Japanese elderly patients with chronic insomnia in a virtual cohort

Aims: This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of the orexin receptor antagonist suvorexant against zolpidem, the most widely used hypnotic benzodiazepine receptor agonist in Japan. To this end, a model was used that factored in insomnia and the risk for hip fractures, which have devastating effects on the elderly.

Methods: Data were derived from published papers. The target population was a virtual cohort of elderly patients (≥65 years) with insomnia residing in Japan. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated using quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio as effectiveness measures. The investigators assumed the perspective of healthcare payers.

Results: In the base-case analysis, suvorexant was cost-saving (suvorexant: $252.3, zolpidem: $328.7) and had higher QALYs gained (suvorexant: 0.0641, zolpidem: 0.0635) for elderly Japanese patients with insomnia compared with zolpidem, indicating that suvorexant was dominant. In the sensitivity analysis, the outcome changed from dominant to dominated due to the relative risk for hip fractures associated with suvorexant. However, when the other parameters were varied from the lower to the upper limits of their ranges, suvorexant remained dominant compared to zolpidem.

Limitations: The relative risk for hip fractures for suvorexant used in the model was based on data from pre-approval clinical trials. More precise data may be needed.

Conclusions: Suvorexant seemed to be more cost-effective than the alternative zolpidem. The findings suggested that suvorexant might be a viable alternative to zolpidem for elderly patients with insomnia. A sensitivity analysis showed that outcome varied depending on the relative risk for hip fractures associated with suvorexant. Further investigations may be needed for more precise results.     

The economic burden of common adverse events associated with metastatic colorectal cancer treatment in the United States

Aims: Adverse events (AEs) associated with treatments for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) may compromise the course of treatment, impact quality-of-life, and increase healthcare resource utilization. This study assessed the direct healthcare costs of common AEs among mCRC patients in the US.

Methods: Adult mCRC patients treated with chemotherapy or targeted therapies were identified from administrative claims databases (2009–2014). Up to the first three mCRC treatment episodes per patient were considered and categorized as with or without the AE system/organ category during the episode. Total healthcare costs (2014 USD) were measured by treatment episode and reported on a monthly basis. Treatment episodes with the AE category were matched by treatment type and line of treatment to those without the AE category. Adjusted total cost differences were estimated by comparing costs during treatment episodes with vs without the AE category using multivariate regression models; p-values were estimated with bootstrap.

Results: A total of 4158 patients with ≥1 mCRC treatment episode were included (mean age?=?59 years; 58% male; 60% with liver and 14% with lung metastases; 2,261 [54%] with a second and 1,115 [27%] with a third episode). On average, two treatment episodes were observed per patient with an average length of 166 days per episode. Adjusted monthly total cost difference by AE category included hematologic ($1,480), respiratory ($1,253), endocrine/metabolic ($1,213), central nervous system (CNS; $1,136), and cardiovascular ($1,036; all p?Limitations: Claims do not include information on the cause of AEs, and potentially less severe AEs may not have been reported by the physician when billing the medical service. This study aimed to assess the association between costs and AEs and not the causation of AEs by treatment.

Conclusions: The most costly AEs among mCRC patients were hematologic, followed by respiratory, endocrine/metabolic, CNS, and cardiovascular.     

Cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban compared with enoxaparin plus a vitamin K antagonist for the treatment of venous thromboembolism

Background:

Venous thromboembolism (VTE), comprised of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), is commonly treated with a low-molecular-weight heparin such as enoxaparin plus a vitamin K antagonist (VKA) to prevent recurrence. Administration of enoxaparin?+?VKA is hampered by complexities of laboratory monitoring and frequent dose adjustments. Rivaroxaban, an orally administered anticoagulant, has been compared with enoxaparin?+?VKA in the EINSTEIN trials. The objective was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban compared with enoxaparin?+?VKA as anticoagulation treatment for acute, symptomatic, objectively-confirmed DVT or PE.

Methods:

A Markov model was built to evaluate the costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios associated with rivaroxaban compared to enoxaparin?+?VKA in adult patients treated for acute DVT or PE. All patients entered the model in the ‘on-treatment’ state upon commencement of oral rivaroxaban or enoxaparin?+?VKA for 3, 6, or 12 months. Transition probabilities were obtained from the EINSTEIN trials during treatment and published literature after treatment. A 3-month cycle length, US payer perspective ($2012), 5-year time horizon and a 3% annual discount rate were used.

Results:

Treatment with rivaroxaban cost $2,448 per-patient less and was associated with 0.0058 more QALYs compared with enoxaparin?+?VKA, making it a dominant economic strategy. Upon one-way sensitivity analysis, the model’s results were sensitive to the reduction in index VTE hospitalization length-of-stay associated with rivaroxaban compared with enoxaparin?+?VKA. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000/QALY, probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed rivaroxaban to be cost-effective compared with enoxaparin?+?VKA approximately 76% of the time.

Limitations:

The model did not account for the benefits associated with an oral and minimally invasive administration of rivaroxaban. ‘Real-world’ applicability is limited because data from the EINSTEIN trials were used in the model. Also, resource utilization and costs were based on the US healthcare system.

Conclusion:

Rivaroxaban is a cost-effective option for anticoagulation treatment of acute VTE patients.     

A cost-effectiveness and budget impact analysis of apremilast in patients with psoriasis in the Italian setting

Abstract

Aims: The aim of this study was to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis, as well as a budget impact analysis, on the use of apremilast for the treatment of adult patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis (defined as a psoriasis area severity index [PASI]?≥?10), who failed to respond to, had a contraindication to, or were intolerant to other systemic therapies, within the Italian National Health Service (NHS).

Materials and methods: A Markov state-transition cohort model adapted to the Italian context was used to compare the costs of the currently available treatments and of the patients’ quality of life with two alternative treatment sequences, with or without apremilast as pre-biologic therapy. Moreover, a budget impact model was developed based on the population of patients treated for psoriasis in Italy, who would be eligible for treatment with apremilast.

Results: Over 5?years, the cost-effectiveness analysis showed that the strategy of using apremilast before biologic therapy was dominant compared with the sequence of biologic treatments without apremilast. In addition, it is important to underline that the use of apremilast slightly increases the quality-adjusted life years gained over 5?years. Furthermore, within the budget impact analysis, the strategy including apremilast would lead to a saving of €16 million within 3?years. Savings would mainly be related to a reduction in pharmaceutical spending, hospital admissions and other drug administration-related costs.

Conclusion: These models proved to be robust to variation in parameters and it suggested that the use of apremilast would lead to savings to the Italian healthcare system with potential benefits in terms of patients’ quality of life.     

Cost-effectiveness of metformin plus vildagliptin compared with metformin plus sulphonylurea for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a Portuguese healthcare system perspective

Objective:

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of vildagliptin plus metformin vs generic sulphonylurea plus metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, not controlled with metformin, from a Portuguese healthcare system perspective.

Methods:

A cost-effectiveness model was constructed using risk equations from the UK Prospective Diabetes Study Outcomes Model with a 10,000-patient cohort and a lifetime horizon. The model predicted microvascular and macrovascular complications and mortality in yearly cycles. Patients entered the model as metformin monotherapy failures and switched to alternative treatments (metformin plus basal-bolus insulin and subsequently metformin plus intensive insulin) when glycated hemoglobin A1c >7.5% was reached. Baseline patient characteristics and clinical variables were derived from a Portuguese epidemiological study. Cost estimates were based on direct medical costs only. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the robustness of the model.

Results:

There were fewer non-fatal diabetes-related adverse events (AEs) in patients treated with metformin plus vildagliptin compared with patients treated with metformin plus sulphonylurea (6752 vs 6815). Addition of vildagliptin compared with sulphonylurea led to increased drug acquisition costs but reduced costs of AEs, managing morbidities, and monitoring patients. Treatment with metformin plus vildagliptin yielded a mean per-patient gain of 0.1279 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and a mean per-patient increase in total cost of €1161, giving an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €9072 per QALY. Univariate analyses showed that ICER values were robust and ranged from €4195 to €16,052 per QALY when different parameters were varied.

Limitations:

The model excluded several diabetes-related morbidities, such as peripheral neuropathy and ulceration, and did not model second events. Patients were presumed to enter the model with no diabetes-related complications.

Conclusion:

Treatment with metformin plus vildagliptin compared with metformin plus sulphonylurea is expected to result in a lower incidence of diabetes-related AEs and to be a cost-effective treatment strategy.     

Cost-effectiveness analysis of sequential biologic therapy with ixekizumab versus secukinumab as first-line treatment of moderate-to-severe psoriasis in the UK

Aims: Patients with psoriasis often undergo treatment with a sequence of biologic agents because of poor/loss of response to initial therapy. With the availability of newer agents like ixekizumab and secukinumab, there is a need for cost-effectiveness analyses to better reflect current clinical practice. This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of a sequence of biologic therapies containing first-line ixekizumab vs first-line secukinumab in patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis in the UK.

Materials and methods: A Markov model with a lifetime horizon was developed to compare the cost-effectiveness of ixekizumab and secukinumab treatment sequences: ixekizumab → ustekinumab → infliximab → best supportive care (BSC) vs secukinumab → ustekinumab → infliximab → BSC. The model used monthly cycles, and included four health states: trial period, treatment maintenance, BSC, and death. At the end of the trial period, responders transitioned to maintenance therapy; non-responders transitioned to the next biologic in the sequence. An annual discontinuation rate of 20% was assumed for maintenance therapy.

Results: The ixekizumab sequence provided cost savings of £898 (£176,203 vs 177,101) [year 2015 values] and gained 0.03 more quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs: 1.45 vs 1.42) vs the secukinumab sequence over the lifetime horizon. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed an 89.8% likelihood that the ixekizumab sequence would be cost-effective at a threshold of £20,000 per QALY gained.

Limitations: The analysis used list prices for drugs rather than confidential, preferentially priced Patient Access Scheme costs. In addition, efficacy input data were based on a network meta-analysis, as there were no head-to-head trials comparing ixekizumab and secukinumab.

Conclusion: First-line treatment with ixekizumab as part of a specific sequential biologic therapy for moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis in the UK provided slight advantages in cost savings and QALYs gained over a similar treatment sequence initiated with secukinumab. In view of the small magnitude of these differences, factors such as patient preferences (e.g. for number of injections) and long-term safety (e.g. related to time on the market) may also be important for clinical decision-making.