Cost-effectiveness analysis of a sealing hemostat patch (HEMOPATCH) vs standard of care in cardiac surgery

Background: A recent randomized controlled trial showed that patients undergoing ascending aorta surgery treated with HEMOPATCH to control bleeding had a significantly better hemostasis success rate than with dry or wet gauze compression or similar standard of care (SOC).

Objective: To compare the cost-effectiveness using two different agents for hemostasis (HEMOPATCH vs dry or wet gauze compression or similar SOC) in cardiac surgery from the European hospital perspective.

Methods: A literature-based cost-effectiveness model estimating average cost per successful hemostasis event was developed based on the hemostasis efficacy difference (HEMOPATCH?=?97.6%, SOC?=?65.8%, p?<?.001). Additional clinically significant end-points studied in the trial (blood transfusions and surgical revisions) were also analyzed. It was assumed that each surgery utilized two units of HEMOPATCH (dimensions of 4.5?×?9?cm) and two units of SOC. Product acquisition costs for HEMOPATCH and SOC were included along with outcome-related costs derived from the literature and inflation-adjusted to 2017 EUR and GBP. Results are presented for an average hospital with an annual case load of 574 cardiac surgeries. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

Results: Considering only product acquisition cost, HEMOPATCH had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €1,659, €1,519, €1,623, and £1,725 per hemostasis success when compared to SOC for Italy, Spain, France, and the UK, respectively. However, when considering the cost and potential difference in the frequency of transfusions and revisions compared to SOC, the use of HEMOPATCH was associated with an annual reduction of six revisions and 60 transfusions, improving the ICER to €1,440, €1,222, €1,461, and £1,592, respectively. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated model robustness.

Conclusions: This analysis supports the use of HEMOPATCH over SOC in cardiac surgery in European hospitals to improve hemostasis success rates and potential cost offsets from reduced transfusions, complications, and surgical revisions.     

Cost-effectiveness analysis of quadrivalent influenza vaccination in at-risk adults and the elderly: an updated analysis in the UK

Abstract

Objective:

To update an earlier evaluation estimating the cost-effectiveness of quadrivalent influenza vaccination (QIV) compared with trivalent influenza vaccination (TIV) in the adult population currently recommended for influenza vaccination in the UK (all people aged ≥65 years and people aged 18–64 years with clinical risk conditions).     

Cost-effectiveness analysis of rasburicase over standard of care for the prevention and treatment of tumor lysis syndrome in children with hematologic malignancies in China

Aims: To conduct a lifetime cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of rasburicase compared with standard of care (SOC) for tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) in children with hematologic malignancies from the Chinese healthcare system perspective.

Materials and methods: The CEA was performed using a decision tree model with a lifetime horizon. The model explores the cost-effectiveness of rasburicase vs SOC for both preventing TLS and treating established TLS among pediatric patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML), acute lymphoid leukemia (ALL), and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL). Both the prophylaxis-use model and treatment-use model incorporate long-term health states of the diseases: survival without TLS and death. The efficacy data of rasburicase and SOC were obtained from published literature. Drug costs, healthcare resource utilization (HRU), and adverse event (AE) management costs were obtained via a published study with clinical experts. Costs in US dollar and quality-adjusted life year (QALY) are reported, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were also calculated. Uncertainties due to parameter fluctuations in the model were assessed through one-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA).

Results: During TLS prevention, compared with SOC, the ICER of rasburicase treatment in China are $17,580.04/QALY, $5,783.45/QALY, and $5,391.00/QALY for pediatric patients with AML, ALL, and NHL, respectively. For the established TLS treatment, compared with SOC, the ICERs of rasburicase treatment are $2,031.18/QALY, $1,142.93/QALY, and $990.37/QALY for pediatric patients with AML, ALL, and NHL, respectively.

Limitations: The clinical data for SOC are based on the published study in China, and the rasburicase prevention or treatment failure rate was either calculated based on the risk ratio or directly from the clinical study among non-Chinese pediatric patients. Another study limitation was the lack of utility data for pediatric patients with TLS and without TLS. Thus, the utility scores of pediatric cancer survivors were used as an alternative.

Conclusion: Rasburicase is estimated to be a cost-effective alternative to SOC in the prevention and treatment of TLS among Chinese pediatric patients with AML, ALL, and NHL.     

Cost-efficacy analysis of biological treatments in psoriasis: an 18-month assessment

Summary

This study compared the cost-efficacy of the following approved biological treatment strategies for plaque psoriasis over 18 months: (1) alefacept 15 mg intramuscularly weekly for two 12-week courses; (2) efalizumab 1 mg/kg subcutaneously (SC) weekly; and (3) etanercept 50 mg SC twice weekly for 12 weeks followed by a maintenance dose of 50 mg weekly. Direct utilisation-related costs included drug costs, office fees, injection fees and costs incurred due to adverse events and laboratory monitoring. Efficacy was based on response rates from large-scale clinical trials. At 18 months, total utilisation-related costs for alefacept, efalizumab and etanercept were $26,667, $33,365 and $32,962, respectively. Cost-efficacy, calculated using the corresponding response rates for the three therapies, was comparable ($66,669, $75,828 and $61,041, respectively). Thus, for patients with moderate to severe psoriasis who have responded to therapy, two 12-week courses of alefacept 7 months apart, or weekly maintenance treatment with efalizumab or etanercept, resulted in comparable total cost-efficacy.     

Cost-effectiveness of alemtuzumab and natalizumab for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis treatment in Iran: decision analysis based on an indirect comparison

Background: Alemtuzumab and natalizumab are approved as second-line therapies for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) patients in Iran who have shown an inadequate response to other disease-modifying therapy (DMT). In the absence of head-to-head trials, evaluations based on decision analytic modeling may be a suitable alternative to compare alemtuzumab and natalizumab in RRMS.

Purpose: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of alemtuzumab compared with natalizumab in RRMS in Iran, based on an indirect comparison of clinical trial data.

Methods: A cost-utility analysis was conducted using a cohort-based Markov model to analyze cost-utility in a cohort of 1,000 RRMS patients treated with alemtuzumab or natalizumab who had failed at least one previous DMT. Costs were measured in 2018?US Dollars, and were estimated from both the societal and National Healthcare Service (NHS) perspective over a 20-year time horizon in Iran. One-way deterministic sensitivity analyses were carried out to investigate the impact of individual variables on model results.

Results: Alemtuzumab dominated natalizumab in both NHS and societal perspective analyses. From the NHS perspective, the total discounted costs per patient were estimated at $147,417 and $150,579 for alemtuzumab and natalizumab, respectively, over 20 years. The discounted quality-adjusted life years were estimated to be 7.07 and 6.05, respectively. Results were similar for the societal perspective analysis. Results were most sensitive to acquisition costs and the time horizon, while no sensitivity was observed for Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) health-states utility, relapse relative risk, adverse event or EDSS-related costs, and laboratory/monitoring costs.

Conclusion: Alemtuzumab was dominant in the treatment of RRMS compared with natalizumab due to lower total cost, greater efficacy and slowing of disease progression, and lower rate of relapses over a 20-year time horizon in Iran. Comparative head-to-head trials and long-term follow-up are needed to confirm these results.