Use of opioid substitution therapies in the treatment of opioid use disorder: results of a UK cost-effectiveness modelling study

Aims: This study investigated the cost-effectiveness of buprenorphine maintenance treatment (BMT) and methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) vs no opioid substitution therapy (OST) for the treatment of opioid use disorder, from the UK National Health Service (NHS)/personal social services (PSS) and societal perspectives over 1 year.

Methods: Cost-effectiveness of OST vs no OST was evaluated by first replicating and then expanding an existing UK health technology assessment model. The expanded model included the impact of OST on infection rates of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection.

Results: Versus no OST, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for BMT and MMT were £13,923 and £14,206 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY), respectively, from a NHS/PSS perspective. When total costs (NHS/PSS and societal) are considered, there are substantial savings associated with adopting OST; these savings are in excess of £14,032 for BMT vs no OST and £17,174 for MMT vs no OST over 1 year. This is primarily driven by a reduction in victim costs. OST treatment also impacted other aspects of criminality and healthcare resource use.

Limitations: The model’s 1-year timeframe means long-term costs and benefits, and the influence of changes over time are not captured.

Conclusions: OST can be considered cost-effective vs no OST from the UK NHS/PSS perspective, with a cost per QALY well below the UK’s willingness-to-pay threshold. There were only small differences between BMT and MMT. The availability of two or more cost-effective options is beneficial to retaining patients in OST programs. From a societal perspective, OST is estimated to save over £14,032 and £17,174 per year for BMT and MMT vs no OST, respectively, due to savings in victim costs. Further work is required to fully quantify the clinical and health economic impacts of different OST formulations and their societal impact over the long-term.     

Cost-effectiveness of quetiapine with lithium or divalproex for maintenance treatment of bipolar I disorder

Abstract

Background: Bipolar I disorder is a recurrent illness that affects 1% of the US population and constitutes a large economic burden. Few studies have investigated the cost-effectiveness of maintenance treatment options. The objective of this analysis was to assess the cost-effectiveness of quetiapine (QTP) in combination with lithium (Li) or divalproex (DVP) compared with that of Li or DVP alone for maintenance treatment of bipolar disorder.

Methods: The cost-effectiveness of maintenance treatment with QTP in combination with Li or DVP was compared with placebo (PBO) in combination with Li or DVP from a US direct costs perspective using a Markov model. The model simulated a cohort of 1,000 stabilized patients with bipolar I disorder and estimated the quarterly risk in three health states: euthymia, mania, and depression. Efficacy data were derived from two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials comparing QTP + Li/DVP with PBO + Li/DVP for up to 2 years. Resource data were obtained from published literature. Direct costs included drug costs, hospitalizations, and physician visits. Outcomes and costs were discounted at 3% and the price reference year was 2007. Endpoints included the number of acute mood episodes, hospitalizations due to an acute mood event, and costs per quality-adjusted life-years. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was conducted to evaluate uncertainty.

Results: In the base-case analysis, QTP + Li/DVP dominated PBO + Li/DVP. The PSA showed these results to be robust. In addition, treatment with QTP + Li/DVP was associated with reductions in acute manic episodes (46%), acute depressive episodes (41%), and related hospitalizations (44%) compared with PBO + Li/DVP.

Conclusions: These analyses, based on two randomized clinical trials, suggest that QTP + Li/DVP is a cost-effective maintenance treatment option for patients with bipolar I disorder compared with Li or DVP alone.     

Cost-effectiveness analysis on the use of fidaxomicin and vancomycin to treat Clostridium difficile infection in France

Background: Fidaxomicin is a macrocyclic antibiotic with proven efficacy against Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) in adults. It was licensed in France in 2012, but, due to higher acquisition costs compared with existing treatments, healthcare providers require information on its cost/benefit profile.

Objective: To compare healthcare costs and health outcomes of fidaxomicin and vancomycin, as reference treatment for CDI.

Methods: A Markov model was used to simulate the treatment pathway, over 1 year, of adult patients with CDI receiving fidaxomicin or vancomycin. Several patient sub-groups (severe CDI; recurrent CDI; concomitant antibiotics; cancer; renal failure; elderly) were evaluated. Cost-effectiveness was analyzed based on cure and recurrence rates derived from published randomized clinical trials comparing fidaxomicin and vancomycin, and costs calculated from the payer perspective using French hospitalization data and drug cost databases. Model outputs included costs in euros (reference year 2014) and health outcomes (recurrence; sustained cure rates). Alternative scenario and sensitivity analyses were performed using data from other clinical trials in CDI, including one conducted in real-life clinical practice in France.

Results: Drug acquisition costs were €1,692 higher in fidaxomicin-treated patients, but this was offset by the lower hospitalization costs with fidaxomicin, which were reduced by €1,722. The reduction in the cost of hospitalization was driven by the significantly lower number of recurrences in fidaxomicin-treated patients, offsetting the acquisition cost of fidaxomicin in all sub-groups except recurrent CDI and concomitant antibiotics.

Conclusion: This study demonstrated that, despite higher acquisition costs, the lower recurrence rate with fidaxomicin resulted in cost savings or low incremental costs compared with vancomycin.     

Cost-effectiveness of ranibizumab and aflibercept to treat diabetic macular edema from a US perspective: analysis of 2-year Protocol T data

Abstract

Aims: Protocol T (NCT01627249) was a head-to-head study conducted by the Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network that compared intravitreal aflibercept, bevacizumab, and ranibizumab for the treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME). A cost-effectiveness analysis accompanying the 1-year data of Protocol T revealed that aflibercept was not cost-effective vs ranibizumab for all patients, but could have been cost-effective in certain patient sub-groups if the 1-year results were extrapolated out to 10?years. The present study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of US Food and Drug Administration-approved anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents (ranibizumab, aflibercept) for treatment of DME using the 2-year data from Protocol T.

Methods: Costs of aflibercept 2.0?mg or ranibizumab 0.3?mg, visual acuity (VA)-related medical costs, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were simulated for eight VA health states. Treatment, adverse event management, and VA-related healthcare resource costs (2016 US dollars) were based on Medicare reimbursement and published literature. VA-related health utilities were determined using a published algorithm. Patients were stratified by baseline VA: 20/40 or better; 20/50 or worse.

Results: Total 2-year costs were higher, and QALYs similar, for aflibercept vs ranibizumab in the full cohort ($44,423 vs $34,529; 1.476 vs 1.466), 20/40 or better VA sub-group ($40,854 vs $31,897; 1.517 vs 1.519), and 20/50 or worse VA sub-group ($48,214 vs $37,246; 1.433 vs 1.412), respectively. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios in the full cohort and 20/50 or worse VA sub-group were $986,159/QALY and $523,377/QALY, respectively. These decreased to $711,301 and $246,978 when analyses were extrapolated to 10?years.

Limitations: Key potential limitations include the fact that VA was the only QALY parameter analyzed and the uncertainty surrounding the role of better- and worse-seeing eye VA in overall functional impairment.

Conclusions: This analysis suggests that aflibercept is not cost-effective vs ranibizumab for patients with DME, regardless of baseline vision.