Evaluating the short-term cost-effectiveness of liraglutide versus lixisenatide in patients with type 2 diabetes in the United States

Aims: Bringing patients with type 2 diabetes to recommended glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) treatment targets can reduce the risk of developing diabetes-related complications. The aim of the present analysis was to evaluate the short-term cost-effectiveness of once-daily liraglutide 1.8?mg vs once-daily lixisenatide 20?μg as an add-on to metformin for treatment of type 2 diabetes in the US by assessing the cost per patient achieving HbA1c-focused and composite treatment targets.

Materials and methods: Percentages of patients achieving recommended targets were obtained from the LIRA-LIXI trial, which compared the efficacy and safety of once-daily liraglutide 1.8?mg and once-daily lixisenatide 20?μg as an add-on to metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes failing to achieve glycemic control with metformin. Annual costs were estimated from a healthcare payer perspective. An economic model was developed to evaluate the annual cost per patient achieving target (cost of control) with liraglutide 1.8?mg vs lixisenatide 20?μg for five end-points.

Results: Annual treatment costs were higher with liraglutide 1.8?mg than lixisenatide 20?μg, but this was offset by greater clinical efficacy, and the cost of control was lower with liraglutide 1.8?mg than lixisenatide 20?μg for all five end-points. The annual cost of control was USD 3,850, USD 11,404, USD 3,807, USD 4,299, and USD 6,901 lower for liraglutide 1.8?mg than lixisenatide 20?μg for targets of HbA1c?Conclusions: Once-daily liraglutide 1.8?mg was associated with greater clinical efficacy than once-daily lixisenatide 20?μg, which resulted in a lower annual cost of control for HbA1c-focused and composite treatment targets.     

A cost-effectiveness modeling evaluation comparing a biosimilar follitropin alfa preparation with its reference product for live birth outcome in Germany,Italy and Spain

Abstract

Background/objective: Although biosimilar drugs may be cheaper to purchase than reference biological products, they may not be the most cost-effective treatment to achieve a desired outcome. The analysis reported here compared the overall costs to achieve live birth using the reference follitropin alfa (GONAL-f) or a biosimilar (Ovaleap) in Spain, Italy and Germany.

Methods: Patient and treatment data was obtained from published sources; assisted-reproductive technology, gonadotropin, follow-up and adverse-event-related costs were calculated from tariffs and reimbursement frameworks for each country. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated from the difference in costs between reference and biosimilar in each country, divided by the difference in live-birth rates. Mean cost per live birth was calculated as total costs divided by the live-birth rate.

Results: The published live birth rates were 32.2% (reference) and 26.8% (biosimilar). Drug costs per patient were higher for the reference recombinant human follicle-stimulating hormone in all three countries, with larger cost differences in Germany (€157.38) and Italy (€141.50) than in Spain (€22.41). The ICER for the reference product compared with the biosimilar was €2917.47 in Germany, €415.43 in Spain and €2623.09 in Italy. However, the overall cost per live birth was higher for the biosimilar in all three countries (Germany €8135.04 vs. €9185.34; Italy €8545.22 vs. €9733.37; Spain €14,859.53 vs. €17,767.19). Uncertainty in efficacy, mean gonadotropin dose and costs did not have a strong effect on the ICERs.

Conclusions: When considering live birth outcomes, treatment with the reference follitropin alfa was more cost effective than treatment with the biosimilar follitropin alfa.     

Economic impact of onabotulinumtoxinA for overactive bladder with urinary incontinence in Europe

Background: Overactive bladder (OAB) is a common condition that has a significant impact on patients’ health-related quality-of-life and is associated with a substantial economic burden to healthcare systems. OnabotulinumtoxinA has a well-established efficacy and safety profile as a treatment for OAB; however, the economic impact of using onabotulinumtoxinA has not been well described.

Methods: An economic model was developed to assess the budget impact associated with OAB treatment in France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK, using onabotulinumtoxinA alongside best supportive care (BSC)—comprising incontinence pads and/or anticholinergic use and/or clean intermittent catheterisation (CIC)—vs BSC alone. The model time horizon spanned 5 years, and included direct costs associated with treatment, BSC, and adverse events.

Results: Per 100,000 patients in each country, the use of onabotulinumtoxinA resulted in estimated cost savings of €97,200 (Italy), €71,580 (Spain), and €19,710 (UK), and cost increases of €23,840 in France and €284,760 in Germany, largely due to day-case and inpatient administration, respectively. Projecting these results to the population of individuals aged 18 years and above gave national budget saving estimates of €9,924,790, €27,458,290, and €48,270,760, for the UK, Spain, and Italy, respectively, compared to cost increases of €12,160,020 and €196,086,530 for France and Germany, respectively. Anticholinergic treatment and incontinence pads were the largest contributors to overall spending on OAB management when onabotulinumtoxinA use was not increased, and remained so in four of five scenarios where onabotulinumtoxinA use was increased. This decreased resource use was equivalent to cost offsets ranging from €106,110 to €176,600 per 100,000 population.

Conclusions: In three of five countries investigated, the use of onabotulinumtoxinA, in addition to BSC, was shown to result in healthcare budget cost savings over 5 years. Scenario analyses showed increased costs in Germany and France were largely attributable to the treatment setting rather than onabotulinumtoxinA acquisition costs.     

Cost-effectiveness analysis of exenatide once-weekly versus dulaglutide,liraglutide, and lixisenatide for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus: an analysis from the UK NHS perspective

Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness of exenatide 2?mg once-weekly (EQW) compared to dulaglutide 1.5?mg QW, liraglutide 1.2?mg and 1.8?mg once-daily (QD), and lixisenatide 20?μg QD for the treatment of adult patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) not adequately controlled on metformin.

Methods: The Cardiff Diabetes Model was applied to evaluate cost-effectiveness, with treatment effects sourced from a network meta-analysis. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were calculated with health-state utilities applied to T2DM-related complications, weight changes, hypoglycemia, and nausea. Costs (GBP £) included drug treatment, T2DM-related complications, severe hypoglycemia, nausea, and treatment discontinuation due to adverse events. A 40-year time horizon was used.

Results: In all base-case comparisons, EQW was associated with a QALY gain per patient; 0.046 vs dulaglutide 1.5?mg; 0.102 vs liraglutide 1.2?mg; 0.043 vs liraglutide 1.8?mg; and 0.074 vs lixisenatide 20?μg. Cost per patient was lower for EQW than for liraglutide 1.8?mg (?£2,085); therefore, EQW dominated liraglutide 1.8?mg. The cost difference per patient between EQW and dulaglutide 1.5?mg, EQW and liraglutide 1.2?mg, and EQW and lixisenatide 20?μg was £27, £103, and £738, respectively. Cost per QALY gained with EQW vs dulaglutide 1.5?mg, EQW vs liraglutide 1.2?mg, and EQW vs lixisenatide 20?μg was £596, £1,004, and £10,002, respectively. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the probability that EQW is cost-effective ranged from 76–99%.

Conclusion: Results suggest that exenatide 2?mg once-weekly is cost-effective over a lifetime horizon compared to dulaglutide 1.5?mg QW, liraglutide 1.2?mg QD, liraglutide 1.8?mg QD, and lixisenatide 20?μg QD for the treatment of T2DM in adults not adequately controlled on metformin alone.     

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.     

The cost-effectiveness of exenatide twice daily (BID) vs insulin lispro three times daily (TID) as add-on therapy to titrated insulin glargine in patients with type 2 diabetes

Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of exenatide twice daily (BID) vs bolus insulin lispro three times daily (TID) as add-on therapy when glycemic control is sub-optimal with titrated basal insulin glargine and metformin.

Methods: The analysis was based on the recent 4B Study, which compared exenatide BID and lispro TID as add-on therapies in subjects with type 2 diabetes insufficiently controlled, despite titrated insulin glargine. The Cardiff Diabetes Model was used to simulate patient costs and health benefits beyond the 4B Study. The Swedish healthcare perspective was adopted for this analysis; costs are reported in €EUR to aid interpretation. The main outcome measure was the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained with exenatide BID compared to lispro TID.

Results: Exenatide BID was associated with an incremental cost of €1,270 and a QALY increase of +0.64 compared with lispro TID over 40 years. The cost per QALY gained with exenatide BID compared with lispro TID was €1,971, which is within conventional limits of cost-effectiveness. Cost-effectiveness results were generally robust to alternative assumptions and values for key model parameters.

Limitations: Extrapolation of trial data over the longer term can be influenced by modeling and parameter uncertainty. Cost-effectiveness results were generally insensitive to alternative values of key model input parameters and across scenarios.

Conclusions: The addition of exenatide BID rather than insulin lispro to basal insulin is associated with similar or better clinical outcomes. Illustrated from the Swedish healthcare perspective, analysis with the Cardiff Diabetes Model demonstrated that exenatide BID represents a cost-effective treatment alternative to lispro TID as add-on therapy in type 2 diabetes patients insufficiently controlled on basal insulin.     

Costs of managing severe hypoglycaemia in three European countries

Abstract

Objectives: To assess the costs of severe hypoglycaemic events (SHEs) in diabetes patients in Germany, Spain and the UK.

Methods: Healthcare resource use was measured by surveying 639 patients aged ≥16 years, receiving insulin for type 1 (n=319) or type 2 diabetes (n=320), who experienced ≥1 SHE in the preceding year. Patients were grouped by location of SHE treatment: group 1, community (family/domestic); group 2, community (healthcare professional); group 3, hospital. Costs were calculated from published unit costs applied to estimated resource use. Costs per SHE were derived from patient numbers per subgroup. Weighted average costs were derived using a prevalence database.

Results: Hospital treatment was a major cost in all countries. In Germany and Spain, costs per SHE for type 1 patients differed from those for type 2 patients in each group. Average SHE treatment costs were higher for patients with type 2 diabetes (Germany, €533; Spain, €691; UK, €537) than type 1 diabetes patients (€441, €577 and €236, respectively). Telephone calls, visits to doctors, blood glucose monitoring and patient education contributed substantially to costs for non-hospitalised patients.

Conclusions: Treatment of SHEs adds significantly to healthcare costs. Average costs were lower for type 1 than for insulin-treated type 2 diabetes, in all three countries.     

Comparison of treatment costs in inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes in Germany based on the APOLLO trial with insulin glargine

Abstract

Objective: A cost analysis of once-daily insulin glargine versus three-times daily insulin lispro in combination with oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs) for insulin-naive type 2 diabetes patients in Germany based on the APOLLO trial (A Parallel design comparing an Oral antidiabetic drug combination therapy with either Lantus once daily or Lispro at mealtime in type 2 diabetes patients failing Oral treatment).

Methods: Annual direct treatment costs were estimated from the perspective of the German statutory health insurance (SHI). Costs accounted for included insulin medication, disposable pens and consumable items (needles, blood glucose test strips and lancets). Sensitivity analyses (on resource use and unit costs) were performed to reflect current German practice.

Results: Average treatment costs per patient per year in the base case were €1,073 for glargine and €1,794 for lispro. Insulin costs represented 65% vs. 37% of total costs respectively. Acquisition costs of glargine were offset by the lower costs of consumable items (€380 vs. €1,139). Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the results in favour of glargine. All scenarios yielded cost savings in total treatment costs ranging from €84 to €727.

Conclusions: Combination therapy of once-daily insulin glargine versus three-times daily insulin lispro both with OADs, in the management of insulin-dependent type 2 diabetes offers the potential for substantial cost savings from the German SHI perspective.     

Modelling lifetime cost consequences of toric compared with standard IOLs in cataract surgery of astigmatic patients in four European countries

Abstract

Objective: To compare the lifetime costs of freeing astigmatic patients from spectacles after bilateral cataract surgery implanting toric intraocular lenses (IOLs: i.e., Acrysof Toric) versus monofocal IOLs, in France, Italy, Germany and Spain.

Methods: A Markov model followed patient cohorts from cataract surgery until death. Prevalence rates of patients not needing spectacles and the types of spectacles prescribed for those requiring them were obtained from clinical trials and national surveys. The economic perspective was societal. Mortality rates were incorporated into the model. Discount rates were applied. A sensitivity analysis was performed on non-discounted costs.

Results: Fewer patients with toric IOLs needed spectacles for distance vision than patients with monofocal IOLs. With monofocal IOLs more than 66% of patients needed complex spectacles compared to less than 25% implanted with toric IOLs. In France and Italy, toric IOLs reduced overall costs relative to otherwise high spectacle costs after cataract surgery. Savings were €897.0 (France), €822.5 (Germany), €895.8 (Italy) and €391.6 (Spain), without discounting. On applying a 3% discount rate the costs became €691.7, €646.4, €693.9 and €308.2, respectively.

Conclusions: Bilateral toric IOL implants in astigmatic patients decreased spectacle dependence for distance vision and the need for complex spectacles. The economic consequences for patients depended on the national spectacle costs usually incurred after cataract surgery.     

Cost-effectiveness of insulin detemir compared with neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin in patients with type 1 diabetes using a basal-bolus regimen in five European countries

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this analysis was to evaluate the long-term clinical and economic outcomes associated with insulin detemir and neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin in combination with mealtime insulin aspart in patients with type 1 diabetes in Belgian, French, German, Italian and Spanish settings.

Methods: The published and validated IMS CORE Diabetes Model was used to make long-term projections of life expectancy, quality-adjusted life expectancy and direct medical costs. The analysis was based on patient characteristics and treatment effects from a 2-year randomised controlled trial. Events were projected for a time horizon of 50 years. Potential uncertainty using a modelling approach was addressed.

Results: Basal-bolus therapy with insulin detemir was projected to improve quality-adjusted life expectancy by 0.45 years versus NPH in the German setting, with similar improvements in the other countries. Insulin detemir was associated with cost savings in Belgium, Germany and Spain. In France and Italy, lifetime costs were slightly higher in the detemir arm, leading to incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of €519 per QALY gained and €3,256 per QALY gained, respectively.

Conclusions: Compared to NPH, insulin detemir is likely to be a dominant treatment strategy in Belgium, Germany and Spain and highly cost-effective in France and Italy in patients with type 1 diabetes.     

Healthcare resource utilization among patients with relapsed multiple myeloma in the UK,France, and Italy

Aims: To assess the real-world healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs associated with different treatment regimens used in the management of patients with relapsed multiple myeloma in the UK, France, and Italy.

Methods: Retrospective medical chart review of characteristics, time to progression, level of response, HRU during treatment, and adverse events (AEs). Data collection started on June 1, 2015 and was completed on July 15, 2015. In the 3 months before record abstraction, eligible patients had either disease progression after receiving one of their country’s most commonly prescribed regimens or had received the best supportive care and died. Costs were calculated based on HRU and country-specific diagnosis-related group and/or unit reference costs, amongst other standard resources.

Results: Physicians provided data for 1,282 patients (387 in the UK, 502 in France, 393 in Italy) who met the inclusion criteria. Mean [median] total healthcare costs associated with a single line of treatment were €51,717 [35,951] in the UK, €37,009 [32,538] for France, and €34,496 [42,342] for Italy, driven largely by anti-myeloma medications costs (contributing 95.0%, 90.0%, and 94.2% of total cost, respectively). During active treatment, the highest costs were associated with lenalidomide- and pomalidomide-based regimens. Mean cost per month was lowest for patients achieving a very good partial response or better. Unscheduled events (i.e. not considered part of routine management, whether or not related to multiple myeloma, such as unscheduled hospitalization, AEs, fractures) accounted for 1–9% of total costs and were highest for bendamustine.

Limitations: The use of retrospective data means that clinical practice (e.g. use of medical procedures, evaluation of treatment response) is not standardized across participating countries/centers, and some data (e.g. low-grade AEs) may be incomplete or differently adjudicated/reported. The centers involved may not be fully representative of national practice.

Conclusions: Drug costs are the main contributor to total HRU costs associated with multiple myeloma. The duration of active treatment may influence the average total costs, as well as response, associated with a single line of therapy. Improved treatment outcomes, and reductions in unscheduled events and concomitant medication use may, therefore, reduce the overall HRU and related costs of care in multiple myeloma.     

Cost of skeletal-related events in European patients with solid tumours and bone metastases: data from a prospective multinational observational study

Abstract

Objectives:

Patients with bone metastases often experience skeletal-related events (SREs: radiation or surgery to bone, pathologic fracture, and spinal cord compression). This study examined health resource utilization and costs associated with SREs.

Methods:

Data presented are from the European cohort (Germany, Italy, Spain, and the UK) of patients with solid tumours enrolled in a multi-national, prospective, observational study in patients with solid tumours or multiple myeloma. Patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group score 0–2 and life expectancy ≥6 months, who experienced an SRE up to 97 days before enrolment, were eligible. Health resource utilization associated with SREs (including number/length of inpatient stays, numbers of procedures and outpatient visits) were collected through chart review for up to 97 days before enrolment and prospectively during follow-up. Country-specific cost calculations were performed.

Results:

In total, 478 eligible patients contributed 893 SREs to this analysis. Radiation to bone occurred most frequently (66% of total). Spinal cord compression (7%) and surgery to bone (10%) were the least common events, but most likely to require inpatient stays. The most costly SREs were also spinal cord compression (mean per SRE across countries, €4884–€12,082) and surgery to bone (€3348–€9407). Inpatient stays were the main cost drivers.

Limitations:

Health resource utilization used to calculate the costs associated with SREs may have been under-estimated as a result of exclusion of patients with low performance status or life expectancy; unavailable information and exclusion of resource consumption associated with pain. Thus, the estimate of associated costs is likely to be conservative.

Conclusions:

SREs result in considerable health resource utilization, imposing a substantial financial burden driven by inpatient stays. Treatments that prevent/delay SREs may help ease this burden, thereby providing cost savings across European healthcare systems.     

Oral semaglutide versus injectable glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists: a cost of control analysis

Abstract

Aims: The efficacy and safety of oral semaglutide, the first glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist developed for oral administration for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, was evaluated in the PIONEER clinical trial program, and a recently published network meta-analysis allowed comparison with further injectable GLP-1 receptor agonists. The present study aimed to assess the short-term cost- effectiveness of oral semaglutide 14?mg versus subcutaneous once-weekly dulaglutide 1.5?mg, once-weekly exenatide 2?mg, twice-daily exenatide 10?µg, once-daily liraglutide 1.8?mg, once-daily lixisenatide 20?µg, and once-weekly semaglutide 1?mg, in terms of the cost per patient achieving glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) targets (cost of control).

Materials and methods: Cost of control was calculated by dividing the annual treatment costs associated with an intervention by the proportion of patients achieving the treatment target with an intervention, with outcomes calculated for targets of HbA1c ≤6.5% and HbA1c <7.0% for all included GLP-1 receptor agonists. Annual treatment costs were accounted in 2019 United States dollars (USD), based on 2019 wholesale acquisition cost.

Results: For the treatment target of HbA1c ≤6.5%, once-weekly semaglutide 1?mg and oral semaglutide 14?mg were associated with the lowest costs of control, at USD 15,430 and USD 17,383 per patient achieving target, respectively. Similarly, the cost of control was lowest with once-weekly semaglutide 1?mg at USD 12,627 per patient achieving target, followed by oral semaglutide 14?mg at USD 13,493 per patient achieving target for the target of HbA1c <7.0%. All other interventions were associated with higher cost of control values for both targets.

Conclusions: Oral semaglutide 14?mg is likely to be cost-effective versus dulaglutide, exenatide (once weekly and twice daily), liraglutide, and lixisenatide in terms of bringing people with type 2 diabetes to glycemic control targets of HbA1c ≤6.5% and HbA1c <7.0% in the US.     

A cost-effectiveness analysis of denosumab for the prevention of skeletal-related events in patients with multiple myeloma in four European countries: Austria,Belgium, Greece,and Italy

Aim: The approved indication for denosumab (120?mg) was expanded in 2018 to include skeletal-related event (SRE) prevention in patients with multiple myeloma (MM). Therefore, a cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted comparing denosumab with zoledronic acid (ZA) for SRE prevention in patients with MM from the national healthcare system perspective in a representative sample of European countries: Austria, Belgium, Greece, and Italy.

Methods: The XGEVA global economic model for patients with MM was used to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for denosumab vs ZA over a lifetime horizon. Clinical inputs were derived from the denosumab vs ZA randomized, phase 3 study (“20090482”) in patients newly-diagnosed with MM, and comprised real-world adjusted SRE rates, serious adverse event (SAE) rates, treatment duration, dose intensity, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Economic inputs comprised country-specific denosumab and ZA acquisition and administration costs, SRE and SAE management costs, and discount rates. Health utility decrements associated with MM disease progression, SRE and SAE occurrence, and route of administration were included.

Results: Estimated ICERs (cost per quality-adjusted life-year [QALY] gained) for denosumab vs ZA in Austria, Belgium, Greece, and Italy were €26,294, €17,737, €6,982, and €27,228, respectively. Using 1–3 times gross domestic product (GDP) per capita per QALY as willingness to pay thresholds, denosumab was 69–94%, 84–96%, 79–96%, and 50–92% likely to be cost-effective vs ZA, respectively.

Limitations: Economic inputs were derived from various sources, and time to event inputs were extrapolated from 20090482 study data.

Conclusions: Denosumab is cost-effective vs ZA for SRE prevention in patients with MM in Austria, Belgium, Greece, and Italy, based on often-adopted World Health Organization thresholds. This conclusion is robust to changes in model parameters and assumptions. Cost-effectiveness estimates varied across the four countries, reflecting differences in healthcare costs and national economic evaluation guidelines.     

A review of international pharmacoeconomic models assessing the use of aspirin in primary prevention

Abstract

Purpose:

The aim of this narrative review was to summarise the cost analyses and supporting trial data for aspirin prophylaxis in primary prevention.

Methods:

A PubMed search using the term ‘aspirin and cost-effective and primary prevention’ was performed. Professional meetings (2009) were also searched for any relevant abstracts contacting the terms ‘aspirin’ and ‘cost effectiveness’. Where possible, outcomes were discussed in terms of cost implications (expressed as quality-adjusted life-year [QALY], disability-adjusted life-year or incremental cost-effectiveness ratio) in relation to the annual risk of cardiovascular disease. Aspirin was included in cost-effectiveness models that determined direct cost savings.

Results:

A total of 67 papers were identified using PubMed, and 17 cost-effectiveness studies, which assessed aspirin in primary prevention (largely based on the key primary prevention studies), and two abstracts were included in the review. These analyses showed that low-dose aspirin was cost effective in a variety of scenarios. In the UK, Germany, Spain, Italy and Japan, the mean 10-year direct cost saving (including follow-up costs and aspirin costs) per patient was €201, €281, €797, €427 and €889 with aspirin use in patients with an annual coronary heart disease risk of 1.5%. Cost-effectiveness analyses were affected by age, risk level for stroke and myocardial infarction (MI), risk of bleeds and adherence to aspirin. Underutilisation is a major limiting factor, as the appropriate use of aspirin in an eligible population (n?=?301,658) based on the NHANES database would prevent 1273 MIs, 2184 angina episodes and 565 ischaemic strokes in patients without previous events; this would result in a direct cost saving of $79.6?million (€54.7?million; 2010 values), which includes aspirin costs.

Conclusions:

Most analyses in primary prevention have shown that low-dose aspirin is a cost-effective option, and is likely to meet the willingness of a healthcare system to pay for any additional QALY gained in the majority of healthcare systems.     

Cost effectiveness of benralizumab for severe,uncontrolled oral corticosteroid–dependent asthma in Sweden

Abstract

Aim: We investigated cost effectiveness of benralizumab vs. standard of care (SOC) plus oral corticosteroids (OCS) for patients with severe, eosinophilic OCS-dependent asthma in Sweden.

Materials and methods: A three-state, cohort-based Markov model of data from three Phase III benralizumab clinical trials (ZONDA [NCT02075255], SIROCCO [NCT01928771], and CALIMA [NCT01914757]) was used to assess the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of benralizumab vs. SOC plus OCS. Health outcomes were estimated in terms of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The model included costs and disutilities associated with extrapolated OCS-related adverse events. Patients with severe asthma were defined as those receiving OCS ≥5?mg/day.

Results: Benralizumab demonstrated a cost-effectiveness ratio vs. SOC plus OCS of 2018 Swedish Kronor (SEK) 366,855 (€34,127) per QALY gained, based on increases of 1.33 QALYs and SEK 488,742 (€45,344) per patient. Benralizumab treatment costs contributed most to incremental costs. The probability of benralizumab’s being cost-effective with willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds between SEK 429,972 (€40,000) and SEK 752,452 (€70,000) ranged from 75% to 99%.

Limitations: Potential limitations of these analyses include the use of combined data from three different clinical trials, a one-way sensitivity analysis that did not include mortality and transition estimates, and Observational & Pragmatic Research Institute (OPRI) data from the UK as a proxy of the Swedish health care system.

Conclusions: The results of these analyses demonstrate that benralizumab has a high probability of being cost-effective compared with SOC plus OCS for a subgroup of patients with severe, eosinophilic asthma receiving regular OCS treatment and may support clinicians, payers and patients in making treatment decisions.     

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.     

Modeling the lifetime costs of insulin glargine and insulin detemir in type 1 and type 2 diabetes patients in Canada: a meta-analysis and a cost-minimization analysis

Abstract

Background:

Two basal insulin analogues, insulin glargine once daily and insulin detemir once or twice daily, are marketed in Canada.

Objective:

To estimate the long-term costs of insulin glargine once daily (QD) versus insulin detemir once or twice daily (QD or BID) for type 1 (T1DM) and type 2 (T2DM) diabetes mellitus from a Canadian provincial government’s perspective.

Methods:

A cost-minimization analysis comparing insulin glargine (IGlarg) to insulin detemir (IDet) was conducted using a validated computer simulation model, the CORE Diabetes Model. Lifetime direct medical costs including costs of insulin treatment and diabetes complications were projected. T1DM and T2DM patients’ daily insulin dose (T1DM: IGlarg QD 26.2?IU; IDet BID 33.6?IU; T2DM: IGlarg QD 47.2?IU; IDet QD 65.7?IU or IDet BID 80.4?IU) was derived from a meta-analysis of randomized trials. All patients were assumed to stay on the same treatment for life. Costs were discounted at 5% per annum and reported in 2010 Canadian Dollars.

Results:

The meta-analysis showed T1DM and T2DM patients had similar HbA_1c change from baseline when receiving IGlarg compared to IDet (T1DM: 0.002%-points; p?=?0.97; T2DM: ?0.05%-points; p?=?0.28). Treatment of T1DM patients with IGlarg versus IDet BID resulted in lifetime cost savings of $4231 per patient. Treatment of T2DM patients with IGlarg resulted in lifetime cost savings of $4659 per patient versus IDet QD and cost savings of $8709 per patient versus IDet BID.

Conclusions:

Similar HbA_1c change from baseline can be achieved with a lower IGlarg than IDet dose. From the perspective of a Canadian provincial government, treatment of T1DM and T2DM patients with IGlarg instead of IDet can generate long-term cost savings. Main limitations include trial data were derived from multi-country studies rather than the Canadian population and self-monitoring blood glucose costs were not included.