Cost-effectiveness of daclatasvir plus sofosbuvir-based regimen for treatment of hepatitis C virus genotype 3 infection in Canada

Objective:

New regimens for the treatment of chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 3 have demonstrated substantial improvement in sustained virologic response (SVR) compared with existing therapies, but are considerably more expensive. The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of two novel all-oral, interferon-free regimens for the treatment of patients with HCV genotype 3: daclatasvir plus sofosbuvir (DCV?+?SOF) and sofosbuvir plus ribavirin (SOF?+?RBV), from a Canadian health-system perspective.

Methods:

A decision analytic Markov model was developed to compare the effect of various treatment strategies on the natural history of the disease and their associated costs in treatment-naïve and treatment-experienced patients. Patients were initially distributed across fibrosis stages F0–F4, and may incur disease progression through fibrosis stages and on to end-stage liver disease complications and death; or may achieve SVR. Clinical efficacy, health-related quality-of-life, costs, and transition probabilities were based on published literature. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed to assess parameter uncertainty associated with the analysis.

Results:

In treatment-naive patients, the expected quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for interferon-free regimens were higher for DCV?+?SOF (12.37) and SOF?+?RBV (12.48) compared to that of pINF?+?RBV (11.71) over a lifetime horizon, applying their clinical trial treatment durations. The expected costs were higher for DCV?+?SOF ($170,371) and SOF?+?RBV ($194,776) vs pINF?+?RBV regimen ($90,905). Compared to pINF?+?RBV, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were $120,671 and $135,398 per QALYs for DCV?+?SOF and SOF?+?RBV, respectively. In treatment-experienced patients, DCV?+?SOF regimen dominated the SOF?+?RBV regimen. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated a 100% probability that a DCV?+?SOF regimen was cost saving in treatment-experienced patients.

Conclusion:

Daclatasvir plus sofosbuvir is a safe and effective option for the treatment of chronic HCV genotype 3 patients. This regimen could be considered a cost-effective option following a first-line treatment of peg-interferon/ribavirin treatment experienced patients with HCV genotype-3 infection.     

Cost-effectiveness of currently recommended direct-acting antiviral treatments in patients infected with genotypes 1 or 4 hepatitis C virus in the US

Objective: This study compared the cost-effectiveness of direct-acting antiviral therapies currently recommended for treating genotypes (GT) 1 and 4 chronic hepatitis C (CHC) patients in the US.

Methods: A cost-effectiveness analysis of treatments for CHC from a US payer’s perspective over a lifelong time horizon was performed. A Markov model based on the natural history of CHC was used for a population that included treatment-naïve and -experienced patients. Treatment alternatives considered for GT1 included ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir?+?dasabuvir?±?ribavirin (3D?±?R), sofosbuvir?+?ledipasvir (SOF/LDV), sofosbuvir?+?simeprevir (SOF?+?SMV), simeprevir?+?pegylated interferon/ribavirin (SMV?+?PR) and no treatment (NT). For GT4 treatments, ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir?+?ribavirin (2D?+?R), SOF/LDV and NT were compared. Transition probabilities, utilities and costs were obtained from published literature. Outcomes included rates of compensated cirrhosis (CC), decompensated cirrhosis (DCC), hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and liver-related death (LrD), total costs, life-years and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Costs and QALYs were used to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios.

Results: In GT1 patients, 3D?±?R and SOF-containing regimens have similar long-term outcomes; 3D?±?R had the lowest lifetime risks of all liver disease outcomes: CC =?30.2%, DCC = 5.0?%, HCC = 6.8%, LT =?1.9% and LrD =?9.2%. In GT1 patients, 3D?±?R had the lowest cost and the highest QALYs. As a result, 3D?±?R dominated these treatment options. In GT4 patients, 2D?+?R had lower rates of liver morbidity and mortality, lower cost and more QALYs than SOF/LDV and NT.

Limitations: While the results are based on input values, which were obtained from a variety of heterogeneous sources—including clinical trials, the findings were robust across a plausible range of input values, as demonstrated in probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

Conclusions: Among currently recommended treatments for GT1 and GT4 in the US, 3D?±?R (for GT1) and 2D?+?R (for GT4) have a favorable cost-effectiveness profile.     

Cost-effectiveness of direct-acting antiviral regimen ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir in treatment-naïve and treatment-experienced patients infected with chronic hepatitis C virus genotype 1b in Japan

Objective: This study compared the cost-effectiveness of chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 1b (GT1b) therapy ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir (OBV/PTV/r) vs daclatasvir?+?asunaprevir (DCV/ASV) and no treatment in patients without cirrhosis. Cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) that compared OBV/PTV/r against DCV/ASV and sofosbuvir/ledipasvir (SOF/LDV) in Y93H mutation-negative, GT1b patients with and without cirrhosis were also included.

Methods: A health state transition model was developed to capture the natural history of HCV. A CEA over a lifetime horizon was performed from the perspective of the public healthcare payer in Japan. Costs, health utilities, and rates of disease progression were derived from published studies. Sustained virologic response (SVR) rates of OBV/PTV/r and DCV/ASV were extracted from Japanese clinical trials. Analyses were performed for treatment-naïve and -experienced patients. Alternative scenarios and input parameter uncertainty on the results were tested.

Results: OBV/PTV/r exhibited superior clinical outcomes vs comparators. For OBV/PTV/r, DCV/ASV, and no treatment, the lifetime risk of decompensated cirrhosis in treatment-naïve patients without cirrhosis was 0.4%, 1.4%, and 9.2%, and hepatocellular carcinoma was 6.5%, 11.4%, and 49.9%, respectively. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were higher in treatment-naïve and -experienced patients without cirrhosis treated with OBV/PTV/r (16.41 and 16.22) vs DCV/ASV (15.83 and 15.66) or no treatment (11.34 and 11.23). In treatment-naïve and -experienced patients without cirrhosis, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of OBV/PTV/r vs DCV/ASV were JPY 1,684,751/QALY and JPY 1,836,596/QALY, respectively; OBV/PTV/r was dominant compared with no treatment. In scenario analysis, including GT1b patients with and without cirrhosis who were Y93H mutation-negative, the ICER of OBV/PTV/r vs DCV/ASV was below the Japanese willingness-to-pay threshold of JPY 5 million/QALY, while the ICER of SOF/LDV vs OBV/PTV/r was above this threshold; thus, OBV/PTV/r was cost-effective.

Conclusion: OBV/PTV/r appears to be a cost-effective treatment for chronic HCV GT1b infection against DCV/ASV. OBV/PTV/r dominates no treatment in patients without cirrhosis.     

Economic evaluation of ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir and dasabuvir for the treatment of chronic genotype 1 hepatitis c virus infection

Objectives: To estimate clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness of ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir and dasabuvir?±?ribavirin (OMB/PTV/r?+?DSV?±?RBV) compared with treatment regimens including pegylated interferon (PegIFN) for patients with chronic genotype 1 hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection.

Methods: An Excel spreadsheet Markov model tracking progression through stages of liver disease was developed. Costs and patient utilities for liver disease stages were taken from published studies. Rates of disease progression were based on studies of untreated HCV infection and long-term follow-up of those achieving sustained virologic response (SVR) after drug treatment. Impact of OMB/PTV/r?+?DSV?±?RBV and other drug regimens on progression was estimated through SVR rates from clinical trials. Analyses were performed for treatment-naive and treatment-experienced patients. Impact of alternative scenarios and input parameter uncertainty on the results were tested.

Results: For genotype 1 treatment-naive HCV patients, for OMB/PTV/r?+?DSV?±?RBV, PegIFN?+?ribavirin (PegIFN/RBV), sofosbuvir?+?PegIFN/RBV, telaprevir?+?PegIFN/RBV, boceprevir?+?PegIFN/RBV, lifetime risk of decompensated liver disease was 5.6%, 18.9%, 7.4%, 11.7%, and 14.9%; hepatocellular carcinoma was 5.4%, 9.2%, 5.7%, 7.0%, and 7.4%; and death from liver disease was 8.7%, 22.2%, 10.4%, 14.8%, and 17.6%, respectively. Estimates of the cost-effectiveness of OMB/PTV/r?+?DSV?±?RBV for treatment-naive and treatment-experienced patients indicated that it dominated all other regimens except PegIFN/RBV. Compared with PegIFN/RBV, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were £13,864 and £10,258 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) for treatment-naive and treatment-experienced patients, respectively. The results were similar for alternative scenarios and uncertainty analyses.

Limitations: A mixed-treatment comparison for SVR rates for the different treatment regimens was not feasible, because many regimens did not have comparator arms; instead SVR rates were based on those from recent trials.

Conclusions: OMB/PTV/r?+?DSV?±?RBV is a cost-effective oral treatment regimen for chronic genotype 1 HCV infection compared with standard treatment regimens and is estimated to reduce the lifetime risks of advanced liver disease.     

Public health impact of comprehensive hepatitis C screening and treatment in the French baby-boomer population

Objective: To estimate the public health impact of comprehensive hepatitis C virus (HCV) screening and access to all-oral, interferon (IFN)-free direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) in the French baby-boomer population (1945–1965 birth cohorts).

Methods: A sequential, multi-cohort, health-state transition model was developed to assess the impact of different hepatitis C screening and treatment strategies on clinical and economic outcomes in the 1945–1965 birth cohorts. Patients newly-diagnosed with chronic HCV were projected each year from 2016 to 2036 under three screening scenarios (70% [low], 75% [intermediate], and 80% [high] HCV awareness in 2036). Healthcare costs and clinical outcomes (number of liver-related deaths, quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs], life-years [LYs] spent in sustained virologic response [SVR] or with decompensated cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma, or liver transplant) were compared among five treatment strategies (no antiviral therapy; IFN?+?ribavirin?+?protease inhibitor for fibrosis stages F2–F4, IFN-based DAAs for stages F2–F4, IFN-free DAAs for stages F2–F4, and IFN-free DAAs for stages F0–F4).

Results: Diagnosis of HCV genotype 1 was projected for 4,953, 6,600, and 8,368 individuals in the low, intermediate, and high screening scenarios, respectively. In the intermediate scenario, IFN-free DAAs for stages F0–F4 had a favorable cost-effectiveness profile vs IFN-based or IFN-free treatment strategies for F2–F4 and offered the greatest return on investment (0.899 LYs gained in SVR and 0.933 QALYs per €10,000 invested).

Conclusion: Comprehensive HCV screening and access to all-oral, IFN-free DAAs is a cost-effective strategy that could help diminish the upcoming burden of HCV in the French baby-boomer population.     

Cost-effectiveness of sofosbuvir plus ribavirin with or without pegylated interferon for the treatment of chronic hepatitis C in Italy

Abstract

Objective:

Across Italy up to 7.3% of the population is infected with hepatitis C virus (HCV), with long-term complications resulting in high medical costs and significant morbidity and mortality. Current treatment options have limitations due to side effects, interferon intolerability and ineligibility, long treatment durations and low sustained virological response (SVR) rates, especially for the most severe patients). Sofosbuvir is the first nucleotide polymerase inhibitor with pan-genotypic activity. Sofosbuvir, administered with ribavirin (RBV) and with or without pegylated interferon (PEG-INF), resulted in >90% SVR across treatment-naïve (TN) genotype (GT) 1–6 patients. It is also the first treatment option for patients that are unsuitable for interferon (UI). This analysis evaluates the cost – effectiveness of sofosbuvir for GTs 1–6 in Italy.     

Modeling the fiscal costs and benefits of alternative treatment strategies in the United Kingdom for chronic hepatitis C

Background: Hepatitis C (HCV) infection causes substantial direct health costs, but also impacts broader societal and governmental costs, such as tax revenue and social protection benefits. This study investigated the broader fiscal costs and benefits of curative interventions for chronic Hepatitis C (CHC) that allow individuals to avoid long-term HCV attributed health conditions.

Methods: A prospective cohort model, assessing the long-term fiscal consequences of policy decisions, was developed for HCV infected individuals, following the generational accounting analytic framework that combines age-specific lifetime gross taxes paid and governmental transfers received (i.e. healthcare and social support costs). The analysis assessed the burden of a theoretical cohort of untreated HCV infected patients with the alternative of treating these patients with a highly efficacious curative intervention (ledipasvir/sofosbuvir [LDV/SOF]). It also compared treating patients at all fibrosis stages (Stages F0–F4) compared to late treatment (Stage F4).

Results: Based on projected lifetime work activity and taxes paid, the treated cohort paid an additional £5,900 per patient compared to the untreated cohort. Lifetime government disability costs of £97,555 and £125,359 per patient for treated cohort vs no treatment cohort were estimated, respectively. Lifetime direct healthcare costs in the treated cohort were £32,235, compared to non-treated cohort of £26,424, with an incremental healthcare costs increase of £5,901 per patient. The benefit cost ratio (BCR) of total government benefits and savings relative to government treatment costs (including LDV/SOF) ranged from 1.8–5.6. Treating patients early resulted in 77% less disability costs, 43% lower healthcare costs, and 33% higher tax revenue.

Conclusion: The ability to cure Hepatitis C offers considerable fiscal benefits beyond direct medical costs and savings attributed to reduced disability costs, public allowances, and improved tax revenue. Changes in parameters, such as productivity, wage growth, and tax rates, can influence the conclusions described here.     

Cost-effectiveness of obinutuzumab plus bendamustine followed by obinutuzumab monotherapy for the treatment of follicular lymphoma patients who relapse after or are refractory to a rituximab-containing regimen in the US

Aims: Obinutuzumab (GA101, G) was approved in February 2016 by the US Food and Drug Administration to treat follicular lymphoma (FL) patients who relapsed after, or are refractory to (R/R), a rituximab-containing regimen (R/R-rituximab). In the GADOLIN trial, R/R-rituximab patients who received G plus bendamustine (B) followed by G-monotherapy (G?+?B) for up to 2 years had significantly improved progression-free survival and overall survival compared to patients receiving B-monotherapy. This study estimated the cost-effectiveness of G?+?B vs B-monotherapy for R/R-rituximab FL patients from a US payer perspective.

Materials and methods: Patient outcomes were simulated using a 3-state area under the curve model including progression-free survival, progressive disease, and death. This study used R/R-rituximab data from the National LymphoCare Study to extrapolate the GADOLIN trial’s refractory FL progression-free and overall survival data to a R/R-rituximab FL population. Drug utilization and adverse events were based on trial data, and costs were based on Medicare reimbursements and drug wholesale acquisition costs in 2016. Utility estimates were derived from published literature. Post-progression treatment costs were based on observed post-progression therapies in GADOLIN. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess model uncertainty.

Results: G?+?B resulted in an increase in quality-adjusted life years relative to B-monotherapy of 1.24 (95% CR?=?0.61–1.87); the incremental total cost was $58,100 (95% CR?=?$54,500–$61,500). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $47,000 per QALY gained, and, based on probabilistic simulations, there was a 98% probability that G?+?B was cost-effective at the $100,000 per QALY threshold.

Limitations and conclusions: This US-based analysis suggests that treatment with G?+?B compared to B-monotherapy is likely cost-effective in R/R-rituximab FL patients. Modeling a R/R-rituximab population based on a synthesis of GADOLIN and the National LymphoCare Study data introduces uncertainty in the analysis. However, the findings were robust to sensitivity analyses.     

Cost-effectiveness of adalimumab,etanercept, and tocilizumab as first-line treatments for moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis

Abstract

Objective:

The aim of this study was to assess the cost-utility and value of reducing the uncertainty associated with the decision to use first-line biologic treatment (bDMARD) after the failure of one or more traditional drugs (tDMARD) in moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (msRA) in Finland.

Research design and methods:

The treatment sequences were compared among 3000 hypothetical Finnish msRA patients using a probabilistic microsimulation model in a lifetime scenario. Adalimumab?+?methotrexate, etanercept?+?methotrexate, or tocilizumab?+?methotrexate were used as first biologics followed by rituximab?+?methotrexate and infliximab?+?methotrexate. Best supportive care (BSC), including tDMARDs, was assumed to be used after the exhaustion of the biologics. Methotrexate alone was added as a further comparator. Efficacy was based on ACR responses that were obtained from a mixed treatment comparison. The resources were valued with Finnish unit costs (year 2010) from the healthcare payer perspective. Additional analyses were carried out, including productivity losses. The Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) values were mapped to the EQ-5D values using the tocilizumab trials; 3% annual discounting for costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) and extensive sensitivity analyses were completed.

Main outcome measures:

Incremental cost per QALY gained and multinomial expected value of perfect information (mEVPI).

Results:

bDMARDs significantly increase the QALYs gained when compared to methotrexate alone. Tocilizumab?+?methotrexate was more cost-effective than adalimumab?+?methotrexate or etanercept?+?methotrexate in comparison with methotrexate alone, and adalimumab?+?methotrexate was dominated by etanercept?+?methotraxate. A QALY gained with retail-priced (wholesale-priced) tocilizumab?+?methotrexate costs €18,957 (€17,057) compared to methotrexate alone. According to the cost-effectiveness efficiency frontier and cost-effectiveness acceptability frontier (CEAF), tocilizumab?+?methotrexate should be considered before rituximab?+?methotrexate, infliximab?+?methotrexate, and BSC. Based on the CEAF, tocilizumab?+?methotrexate had a 60–93% probability of being cost-effective with €20,000 per QALY gained (mEVPI €230–2182).

Conclusions:

Tocilizumab?+?methotrexate is a potentially cost-effective bDMARD treatment for msRA, indicating a low value of additional research information with the international threshold values.

Limitations:

Efficacy based on an indirect comparison (certolizumab pegol, golimumab excluded), fixed treatment sequence after the exhaustion of first bDMARD, Swedish resource use data according to HAQ scores, and inpatient costs assumed to include surgery.     

Cost-effectiveness of telaprevir in combination with pegylated interferon alpha and ribavirin in previously untreated chronic hepatitis C genotype 1 patients

Background:

Telaprevir (T, TVR) is a direct-acting antiviral (DAA) used for the treatment of genotype 1 chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. The sustained virological response (SVR) rates, i.e., undetectable HCV RNA levels 24 weeks after the end of treatment, is what differentiate treatments. This analysis evaluated the cost-effectiveness of TVR combined with pegylated interferon (Peg-IFN) alfa-2a plus ribavirin (RBV), with Peg-IFN and RBV (PR) alone or with boceprevir (B, BOC) plus Peg-IFN alfa-2b and RBV, in naïve patients.

Methods:

A Markov cohort model of chronic HCV disease progression reflected the pathway of naïve patients initiating anti-HCV therapy. SVR rates were derived from a mixed-treatment comparison including results from Phase II and III trials of TVR and BOC, and trials comparing both PR regimens. SVR has significant impact on survival, quality-of-life, and costs. Incremental cost per life year (LY) gained and quality-adjusted-life-year (QALY) gained were computed at lifetime, adopting the (National Health Service) NHS perspective. Cost and health outcomes were discounted at 3.5%. Uncertainty was assessed using deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Sub-group analyses were also performed by interleukin (IL)-28B genotype and fibrosis stage.

Results:

Higher costs and improved outcomes were associated with T/PR relative to PR alone, resulting in an ICER of £12,733 per QALY gained. T/PR retained a significant SVR advantage over PR alone and was cost-effective regardless of IL-28B genotype and fibrosis stages. T/PR regimen ‘dominated’ B/PR, generating 0.2 additional QALYs and reducing lifetime cost by £2758. Sensitivity analyses consistently resulted in ICERs less than £30,000/QALY for the T/PR regimen over PR alone.

Limitations:

No head-to-head trial provides direct evidence of better efficacy of T/PR vs B/PR.

Conclusion:

The introduction of TVR-based therapy for genotype 1 HCV patients is cost-effective for naïve patients at the £30,000 willingness-to-pay threshold, regardless of IL-28B genotype or fibrosis stage.     

Cost–consequence analysis of a hemostatic matrix alone or in combination for spine surgery patients

Background: A five-year retrospective database analysis comparing the use of Floseal¹ flowable topical hemostat alone (F) and in combination with gelatin/thrombin (F?+?G/T) to achieve hemostasis and control surgical bleeding showed higher resource utilization for F?+?G/T cases relative to F matched pairs during spinal surgery. Lower resource use in the F group was characterized by shorter hospital length of stay and surgical time as well as fewer blood transfusions and less hemostat agent used per surgery.

Objective: To evaluate the cost–consequence of using F compared to F?+?G/T in minor, major and severe spinal surgery from the US hospital perspective.

Methods: A cost–consequence model was developed using the US hospital perspective. Model inputs include clinical inputs from the literature, cost inputs (hemostatic matrices, blood product transfusion, hospital stay and operating room time) from the literature, and an analysis of annual spine surgery volume (minor, major and severe) using the 2012 National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database. Costs are reported in 2017?US dollars. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses address sources of variability in the results.

Results: A medium-volume hospital (130 spine surgeries per year) using F versus F?+?G/T for spine surgeries is expected to require 85 less hours of surgical time, 58 fewer hospital days and 7 fewer blood transfusions in addition to hemostat volume savings (F: 1?mL, thrombin: 1994?mL). The cost savings associated with the hospital resources for a medium-volume hospital are expected to be $317,959 (surgical hours?=?$154,746, hospital days?=?$125,237, blood transfusions?=?$19,023, hemostatic agents?=?$18,953) or $2445 per spine surgery.

Conclusions: The use of F versus F?+?G/T could lead to annual cost savings for US hospitals performing a low to high volume of spinal surgeries per year.     

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.     

Cost-effectiveness analysis of telotristat ethyl for treatment of carcinoid syndrome diarrhea inadequately controlled with somatostatin analogs

Aims: This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of telotristat ethyl (TE) added to somatostatin analog octreotide (SSA?+?TE) compared to octreotide alone (SSA) in patients with carcinoid syndrome diarrhea (CSD) whose symptoms remain uncontrolled with SSA alone.

Materials and methods: A deterministic Markov model evaluated the costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) gained with SSA?+?TE vs SSA per a third-party US payer perspective. The model reflected clinical practice and resource use estimates based on current standards of care, with utility estimates based on similar symptoms from ulcerative colitis. Treatment efficacy was based on the phase III clinical trial of SSA?+?TE vs SSA alone [TELESTAR, NCT01677910]. According to TELESTAR, 44% of SSA?+?TE and 20% of SSA patients responded to therapy after 12 weeks. At each 4-week assessment period, SSA patients not adequately controlled received increasing doses of SSA and SSA?+?TE patients discontinued TE and moved to SSA only. Drug costs for adequately and not adequately controlled patients were $4,291.75 and $5,890.57 for SSA, respectively, and $9,456.07 and $5,890.57 for SSA?+?TE, respectively.

Results: The base-case analysis demonstrated lifetime QALYs of 1.67 at a cost of $495,125 for the SSA cohort and 2.33 ($590,087) for SSA?+?TE with an incremental QALY for SSA?+?TE of 0.66 for an additional $94,962. The incremental cost per QALY gained was $142,545. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated high probability (>99%) of SSA?+?TE being cost-effective at thresholds for rare diseases and orphan drugs of $300,000–$450,000.

Limitations: The recent availability of TE precluded the incorporation of clinical and economic inputs based on real-world practice patterns. The scarcity of epidemiology and utility information for this rare condition required the use of some proxy estimates.

Conclusions: This analysis demonstrated TE is a cost-effective treatment option when used on top of standard of care in CSD patients.     

Societal burden of cluster headache in the United States: a descriptive economic analysis

Aim: To estimate direct and indirect costs in patients with a diagnosis of cluster headache in the US.

Methods: Adult patients (18–64 years of age) enrolled in the Marketscan Commercial and Medicare Databases with ≥2 non-diagnostic outpatient (≥30 days apart between the two outpatient claims) or ≥1 inpatient diagnoses of cluster headache (ICD-9-CM code 339.00, 339.01, or 339.02) between January 1, 2009 and June 30, 2014, were included in the analyses. Patients had ≥6 months of continuous enrollment with medical and pharmacy coverage before and after the index date (first cluster headache diagnosis). Three outcomes were evaluated: (1) healthcare resource utilization, (2) direct healthcare costs, and (3) indirect costs associated with work days lost due to absenteeism and short-term disability. Direct costs included costs of all-cause and cluster headache-related outpatient, inpatient hospitalization, surgery, and pharmacy claims. Indirect costs were based on an average daily wage, which was estimated from the 2014?US Bureau of Labor Statistics and inflated to 2015 dollars.

Results: There were 9,328 patients with cluster headache claims included in the analysis. Cluster headache-related total direct costs (mean [standard deviation]) were $3,132 [$13,396] per patient per year (PPPY), accounting for 17.8% of the all-cause total direct cost. Cluster headache-related inpatient hospitalizations ($1,604) and pharmacy ($809) together ($2,413) contributed over 75% of the cluster headache-related direct healthcare cost. There were three sub-groups of patients with claims associated with indirect costs that included absenteeism, short-term disability, and absenteeism?+?short-term disability. Indirect costs PPPY were $4,928 [$4,860] for absenteeism, $803 [$2,621] for short-term disability, and $3,374 [$3,198] for absenteeism?+?disability.

Conclusion: Patients with cluster headache have high healthcare costs that are associated with inpatient admissions and pharmacy fulfillments, and high indirect costs associated with absenteeism and short-term disability.     

Cost of adverse events during treatment with everolimus plus exemestane or single-agent chemotherapy in patients with advanced breast cancer in Western Europe

Objective:

Treatment options for recurrent or progressive hormone receptor-positive (HR+) advanced breast cancer include chemotherapy and everolimus plus exemestane (EVE?+?EXE). This study estimates the costs of managing adverse events (AEs) during EVE?+?EXE therapy and single-agent chemotherapy in Western Europe.

Methods:

An economic model was developed to estimate the per patient cost of managing grade 3/4 AEs for patients who were treated with EVE?+?EXE or chemotherapies. AE rates for patients receiving EVE?+?EXE were collected from the phase III BOLERO-2 trial. AE rates for single-agent chemotherapy, capecitabine, docetaxel, or doxorubicin were collected from published clinical trial data. AEs with at least 2% prevalence for any of the treatments were included in the model. A literature search was conducted to obtain costs of managing each AE, which were then averaged across Western European countries (when available). Per patient costs for managing AEs among patients receiving different therapies were reported in 2012 euros (€).

Results:

The EVE?+?EXE combination had the lowest average per patient cost of managing AEs (€730) compared to all chemotherapies during the first year of treatment (doxorubicin: €1230; capecitabine: €1721; docetaxel: €2390). The most costly adverse event among all patients treated with EVE?+?EXE was anemia (on average €152 per patient). The most costly adverse event among all patients treated with capecitabine, docetaxel, or doxorubicin was lymphocytopenia (€861 per patient), neutropenia (€821 per patient), and leukopenia (€382 per patient), respectively.

Conclusions:

The current model estimates that AE management during the treatment of HR+ advanced breast cancer will cost one-half to one-third less for EVE?+?EXE patients than for chemotherapy patients. The consideration of AE costs could have important implications in the context of healthcare spending for advanced breast cancer treatment.     

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-minimization comparison of darunavir plus ritonavir and lopinavir/ritonavir in HIV-1 infected treatment-naïve women of childbearing age

Background:

Guidelines from the Department of Health and Human Services in the US recommend ritonavir-boosted lopinavir (LPV/r) as a preferred protease inhibitor (PI) for HIV-positive antiretroviral-na?ve pregnant women. These guidelines also cite ritonavir-boosted darunavir (DRV?+?RTV) as an alternative PI in this clinical scenario. The purpose of this analysis was to compare economic outcomes for regimens based on these two treatments.

Study design:

An existing discrete event simulation (DES) model was adapted to conduct a cost-minimization analysis comparing the two regimens in HIV-infected women of childbearing age (WOCBA), from the perspective of a healthcare payer in the US.

Methods:

The DES model was used to represent disease states, health events, healthcare encounters, pregnancy, and treatment choices in HIV-infected WOCBA starting treatment with regimens based on either LPV/r or DRV?+?RTV. It also incorporated parameters for individual patient characteristics, and for antiretroviral (ARV) treatment effectiveness, treatment sequencing, clinical progression, and resource use. Potential events included scheduled physician visits; viral suppression; viral rebound; AIDS-related complications; CHD events; treatment discontinuation and switching; ARV treatment side-effects (SE); and death. The primary outcomes were discounted 5-year and 10-year healthcare costs. Alternative scenarios considered different rates of switching from DRV?+?RTV to LPV/r upon conception.

Results:

Compared with DRV?+?RTV, LPV/r was associated with similar clinical outcomes while offering savings at the 5- and 10-year horizons (of $24,904 and $43,502 per patient, respectively), and in extensive sensitivity analyses. The main driver of the savings was the difference in cost between PIs.

Conclusions:

Starting HIV-infected ARV-treatment-na?ve WOCBA on an LPV/r-based regimen is cost-saving and provides similar patient outcomes compared to a DRV?+?RTV-based regimen.     

Cost-effectiveness of ceritinib in previously untreated anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive metastatic non-small cell lung cancer in the United States

Aims: To assess the cost-effectiveness of first-line ceritinib vs crizotinib and platinum doublet chemotherapy for anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) from a US third-party payer’s perspective.

Materials and methods: A partitioned survival model with three health states (stable disease, progressive disease, death) was developed over a 20-year time horizon. Ceritinib’s efficacy inputs (progression-free and overall survival) were estimated from ASCEND-4; parametric survival models extrapolated data beyond the trial period. The relative efficacy of ceritinib vs chemotherapy was obtained from ASCEND-4, the relative efficacy of ceritinib vs crizotinib was estimated using a matching-adjusted indirect comparison based on ASCEND-4 and PROFILE 1014. Drug acquisition, treatment administration, adverse event management, and medical costs were obtained from publicly available databases and the literature, and inflated to 2016?US dollars. Treatment-specific stable-state utilities were derived from trials and progressive-state utility from the literature. Incremental costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) were estimated for ceritinib vs each comparator. Cost-effectiveness was assessed based on US willingness-to-pay thresholds. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to test model robustness.

Results: In the base case, first-line ceritinib was associated with total direct costs of $299,777 and 3.28 QALYs (from 4.61 life years gained [LYG]) over 20 years. First-line crizotinib and chemotherapy were associated with 2.73 and 2.41 QALYs, 3.92 and 3.53 LYG, and $263,172 and $228,184 total direct costs, respectively. The incremental cost per QALY gained was $66,064 for ceritinib vs crizotinib and $81,645 for ceritinib vs chemotherapy. In the first 2 years following treatment initiation, ceritinib dominated crizotinib by conferring greater health benefits at reduced total costs. Results were robust to deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

Limitations: In the absence of head-to-head trials, an indirect comparison method was used.

Conclusions: Ceritinib is cost-effective compared to crizotinib and chemotherapy in the treatment of previously untreated ALK-positive metastatic NCSLC in the US.     

Economic burden of hepatitis C-associated diseases: Europe,Asia Pacific,and the Americas

Abstract

Background:

Globally, hepatitis C virus (HCV) infects ～3% of the population. The objective of this study was to review published work and determine the direct medical costs for diseases associated with HCV infection globally, with the exception of the US.

Methods:

A systematic literature search was conducted to identify studies reporting the costs of hepatitis C sequelae between January 1990 and January 2011. Over 400 references were identified, of which 45 were pertinent. The costs were compiled, converted to US dollars, and adjusted to 2010 costs using the medical component of the consumer price index.

Results:

The median cost of liver transplants was estimated at $139,070 ($15,430–$443,700), refractory ascites at $16,740 ($8990–$35,940), hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) at $15,310 ($3370–$84,710), decompensated cirrhosis at $14,660 ($3810–$48,360), variceal hemorrhage at $12,190 ($3550–$46,120), hepatic encephalopathy at $9180 ($5370–$50,120), diuretic sensitive ascites at $3400 ($1320–$7470), compensated cirrhosis at $820 ($50–$2890), and chronic hepatitis C at $280 ($90–$1860). The variation among studies was mainly due to the methodology used to assess cost, local cost and government reimbursement, and country-specific treatment protocols.

Limitations:

All costs were adjusted to 2010 US dollars using the US medical component of the consumer price index (CPI) which may not reflect the change in medical costs in other countries. In addition, the costs, in the local currency were converted to US dollars in the year of the study. However, medical expenses may not vary with exchange rate, leading to artificial variations. Finally, there was no assessment of the quality of individual studies, which resulted in the same weighting to all studies.

Conclusions:

Hepatitis C imposes a high economic burden globally. Knowing the burden of HCV sequelae is useful for policy decisions as well as serving as a basis for determining the value of HCV screening and treatment.     

Cost-effectiveness of brentuximab vedotin plus chemotherapy as frontline treatment of stage III or IV classical Hodgkin lymphoma

Objective: The ECHELON-1 trial demonstrated efficacy and safety of brentuximab vedotin plus doxorubicin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (A?+?AVD) vs doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD) as frontline therapy for stage III/IV classical Hodgkin lymphoma. This analysis evaluated the cost-effectiveness of A?+?AVD from a US healthcare payer perspective.

Methods: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), defined as the incremental costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained, was estimated using a non-homogenous semi-Markov cohort model with health states defined on progression following frontline treatment, and for those with progression, receipt of autologous stem-cell transplant (ASCT), and progression after ASCT. Patients undergoing ASCT were classified as refractory or relapsed based on timing of progression. Probabilities of progression/death with frontline therapy were based on parametric survival distributions fit to data on modified progression-free survival (mPFS) from ECHELON-1. Duration of frontline treatment and incidence of adverse events were from ECHELON-1. Utility values for patients in the frontline mPFS state were based on EQ-5D data from ECHELON-1. Other inputs were from published sources. A lifetime time horizon was used. Costs and QALYs were discounted at 3%. Analyses were conducted alternately using data on mPFS for the overall and North American populations of ECHELON-1.

Results: The ICER for A?+?AVD vs ABVD was $172,074/QALY gained in the analysis using data on mPFS for the overall population and $69,442/QALY gained in the analysis using data on mPFS for the North American population of ECHELON-1. The ICER is sensitive to estimated costs of ASCT and frontline failure.

Conclusion: The ICER for A?+?AVD vs ABVD based on ECHELON-1 is within the range of threshold values for cost-effectiveness in the US. A?+?AVD is, therefore, likely to be a cost-effective frontline therapy for patients with stage III/IV classical Hodgkin lymphoma from a US healthcare payer perspective.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01712490.