Tofacitinib in the treatment of moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis: a cost-effectiveness analysis compared with adalimumab in Taiwan

Aims: Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). This analysis investigated the cost-effectiveness of the second-line treatment with tofacitinib, compared with adalimumab, both plus methotrexate (MTX), in patients with moderate-to-severe RA and an inadequate response to the first-line MTX, from a Taiwan National Health Insurance Administration perspective.

Materials and methods: A patient-level simulation model was used to project lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Base-case analysis compared second-line treatment with tofacitinib 5?mg twice daily plus MTX vs adalimumab 40?mg every 2?weeks plus MTX. Patients switched or discontinued treatment due to a lack or loss of effectiveness or a serious adverse event. Efficacy was measured by change in Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI) score. HAQ-DI scores were used to predict mortality and resource utilization, and were mapped onto utility values to estimate QALYs. Efficacy and safety data were derived from clinical trials and other secondary sources. Uncertainty in model parameters was explored using one-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

Results: Patients gained 0.09 more QALYs with second-line tofacitinib plus MTX compared with adalimumab plus MTX (5.13 vs 5.04, respectively) at an additional cost of New Taiwan Dollars (NT$) 12,881. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was NT$143,122/QALY. One-way sensitivity analysis confirmed the base-case result was robust.

Limitations: The lack of available clinical data, particularly for HAQ-DI scores, may introduce some bias in the analysis. No patients were in an early stage of RA, which may limit the generalizability of these results. Base-case results from our study are not necessarily generalizable to countries with healthcare systems that differ considerably from Taiwan.

Conclusions: From a payer perspective, second-line treatment with tofacitinib plus MTX is a cost-effective treatment strategy, compared with adalimumab plus MTX, in patients with moderate-to-severe RA in Taiwan.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00853385.     

Costs and effectiveness of fingolimod versus alemtuzumab in the treatment of highly active relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in the UK: re-treatment,discount, and disutility

Objective: Patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) treated with disease modifying therapies (DMTs) who continue to experience disease activity may be considered for escalation therapies such as fingolimod, or may be considered for alemtuzumab. Previous economic modeling used Markov models; applying one alternative technique, discrete event simulation (DES) modeling, allows re-treatment and long-term adverse events (AEs) to be included in the analysis.

Methods: A DES was adapted to model relapse-triggered re-treatment with alemtuzumab and the effect of including ongoing quality-adjusted life year (QALY) decrements for AEs that extend beyond previous 1-year Markov cycles. As the price to the NHS of fingolimod in the UK is unknown, due to a confidential patient access scheme (PAS), a variety of possible discounts were tested. The interaction of re-treatment assumptions for alemtuzumab with the possible discounts for fingolimod was tested to determine which DMT resulted in lower lifetime costs. The lifetime QALY results were derived from modeled treatment effect and short- and long-term AEs.

Results: Most permutations of fingolimod PAS discount and alemtuzumab re-treatment rate resulted in fingolimod being less costly than alemtuzumab. As the percentage of patients who are re-treated with alemtuzumab due to experiencing a relapse approaches 100% of those who relapse whilst on treatment, the discount required for fingolimod to be less costly drops below 5%. Consideration of treatment effect alone found alemtuzumab generated 0.2 more QALYs/patient; the inclusion of AEs up to a duration of 1 year reduced this advantage to only 0.14 QALYs/patient. Modeling AEs with a lifetime QALY decrement found that both DMTs generated very similar QALYs with the difference only 0.04 QALYs/patient.

Conclusions: When the model captured alemtuzumab re-treatment and long-term AE decrements, it was found that fingolimod is cost-effective compared to alemtuzumab, assuming application of only a modest level of confidential PAS discount.     

Mapping EORTC-QLQ-C30 to EQ-5D-3L in patients with colorectal cancer

Aims: The primary aim of this study was to perform a mapping of the EORTC-QLQ-C30 scores to EQ-5D-3L for the SIRFLOX study; a large dataset of patients with previously untreated liver-only or liver-dominant metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). A secondary aim was to compare the predictive validity of existing mappings from EORTC-QLQ-C30 to EQ-5D-3L conducted in other cancers.

Methods and materials: Questionnaires (completed within 529 patients) were used in a linear mixed regression to model EQ-5D-3L utility values (scored using the UK tariff) as a function of the five function scores, nine symptom scores, and the global score from the EORTC-QLQ-C30 questionnaire. A Tobit regression was also performed. The mean EQ-5D-3L values for the SIRFLOX trial were calculated and compared with predicted EQ-5D-3L values derived using published mapping algorithms.

Results: The linear mixed regression model provided a satisfactory mapping between the EORTC-QLQ-C30 and the EQ-5D-3L, whilst the Tobit model did not perform as well. When utilities from the SIRFLOX data were calculated with previously published mapping studies, three out of five studies performed well (< 10% mean difference).

Limitations: The main limitation of the study was the lack of meaningful observations post-progression (67 paired observations). For this reason, this study was unable to test whether the mapping holds by disease stage. Additionally, although the study adds to the literature of mappings to the EQ-5D-3L, it is not known how results would differ using the EQ-5D-5L.

Conclusion: This study is the first of its kind in liver-only or liver-dominant mCRC, and mCRC in general. The mapping constructed showed a good fit to the data and provides practitioners with an additional mapping between EORTC-QLQ-C30 to EQ-5D-3L using a large dataset (529 patients, 707 paired observations). The study also confirmed the generalizability of mappings published by Proskorovsky, Kontodimopoulos, and Longworth to liver-only or liver-dominant mCRC.     

Cost effectiveness and cost utility of risedronate for osteoporosis treatment and fracture prevention in women: a Swiss perspective

Abstract

Objectives: To assess the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) of risedronate compared to no intervention in postmenopausal osteoporotic women in a Swiss perspective.

Methods: A previously validated Markov model was populated with epidemiological and cost data specific to Switzerland and published utility values, and run on a population of 1,000 women of 70 years with established osteoporosis and previous vertebral fracture, treated over 5 years with risedronate 35 mg weekly or no intervention (base case), and five cohorts (according to age at therapy start) with eight risk factor distributions and three lengths of residual effects.

Results: In the base case population, the ICER of averting a hip fracture and the ICUR per quality-adjusted life year gained were both dominant. In the presence of a previous vertebral fracture, the ICUR was below €45,000 (£30,000) in all the scenarios. For all osteoporotic women ≥ 70 years of age with at least one risk factor, the ICUR was below €45,000 or the intervention may even be cost saving. Age at the start of therapy and the fracture risk profile had a significant impact on results.

Conclusion: Assuming a 2-year residual effect, that ICUR of risedronate in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis is below accepted thresholds from the age of 65 and even cost saving above the age of 70 with at least one risk factor.     

Cost effectiveness of oseltamivir for the treatment of influenza in adults,adolescents and children in Finland

Summary

The objective of this study was to perform an economic assessment of the use of oseltamivir, compared with usual care, for the treatment of patients presenting with influenza-like illness in Finland. Three patient subpopulations were distinguished: (i) otherwise healthy adults; (ii) patients at risk; and (iii) children. The analyses were based on a decision analytic model populated with data specific for Finland and using first- and second-order Monte Carlo simulations. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the impact of uncertainty regarding the most appropriate value for the variables and to derive cost-effectiveness acceptability curves in order to summarise the results. From a societal perspective, oseltamivir treatment was found to reduce costs in all groups. From a healthcare payer's perspective, improvements in outcomes were obtained at relatively modest incremental costs. The estimated incremental cost per day of normal activity gained was €27 in healthy adults, €8 in elderly and at-risk patients, and €14 in children.     

‘Economic imperialism’ in health care resource allocation – how can equity considerations be incorporated into economic evaluation?

That the maximization of quality-adjusted life years violates concerns for fairness is well known. One approach to face this issue is to elicit fairness preferences of the public empirically and to incorporate the corresponding equity weights into cost-utility analysis (CUA). It is thereby sought to encounter the objections by means of an axiological modification while leaving the value-maximizing framework of CUA intact. Based on the work of Lübbe (2005, 2009a, 2009b, 2010, forthcoming), this paper questions this strategy and scrutinizes the concomitant assumptions concerning the nature of prioritization decisions. Empirical studies indicate that these premises are in fact unwarranted. People chose a certain resource allocation because they perceive it as a fair way to treat the persons concerned, not because it maximizes something valuable, and it is questionable if prioritization decision can be represented as value-maximizing choices at all. This reflection on the fundamental distinction between deontological and consequentialist reasoning bears general implications for the scope of ‘economic imperialism.’     

Cost-utility of celecoxib use in different treatment strategies for osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis from the Quebec healthcare system perspective

Abstract

Objective: To assess the cost-utility of celecoxib in three treatment strategies for arthritis in Quebec, considering both upper gastrointestinal (GI) and cardiovascular (CV) events.

Methods: A Markov analytic framework was used to model patients with osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis at low/average and high risk of GI and CV toxicity over 5 years with monthly cycles. Treatment strategies were modelled in line with Canadian clinical practice. In first-line treatment, patients started on celecoxib; second-line, patients started on a non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) and switched to celecoxib after a first GI event; third-line, patients started on a non-selective NSAID, added a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) after a first GI event, and switched to celecoxib after a second GI event (while maintaining the PPI). Model inputs were determined through comprehensive literature searches (MEDLINE and EMBASE) from 1995 to 2006. Included studies evaluated GI (dyspepsia, uncomplicated and complicated ulcers, death) and CV (myocardial infarction, stroke, death) events. Drug and procedure costs were derived from Canadian published sources (Can$2005).

Results: Total costs per patient for celecoxib first-, second-, and third-line treatment were Can$4,790, $3,390, and $3,466, and total quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) were 3.251, 3.231, and 3.230, respectively. In all risk categories, celecoxib second-line was less costly and as effective as celecoxib third-line, producing savings to the healthcare system. Although celecoxib first-line generated incremental expenditures versus celecoxib second-line, it was also more effective. The resulting cost-utility ratio for the high-risk population was Can$54,696/QALY. Based on this analytical approach, a treatment strategy where celecoxib is used before the combination of a non-selective NSAID plus a PPI possesses cost advantages for the Quebec provincial drug programme. One-way sensitivity analysis (varying GI and CV event rates, utilities, and cost) generally showed second-line treatment with celecoxib as the dominant strategy compared with third-line treatment with celecoxib.

Conclusion: Although effectiveness of second- and third-line celecoxib use is similar, total cost is lower for second-line. These results suggest that the use of celecoxib before the combination of a non-selective NSAID plus a PPI is relatively cost-effective in the treatment of arthritis pain and support the full benefit listing of celecoxib in Quebec's drug programme.     

Cost-effectiveness of osimertinib in the UK for advanced EGFR-T790M non-small cell lung cancer

Aim: This study presents the cost-utility analysis that was developed to inform the NICE health technology assessment of osimertinib vs platinum-based doublet chemotherapy (PDC) in patients with EGFR-T790M mutation-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who have progressed on epidermal growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitor (EGFR-TKI) therapy.

Methods and materials: A partitioned survival model with three health states (progression-free, progressed disease, and death) from a UK payer perspective and over lifetime (15 years) was developed. Direct costs included disease management, treatment-related (acquisition, administration, monitoring, adverse events), and T790M testing costs. Efficacy and safety data were taken from clinical trials AURA extension and AURA2 for osimertinib and IMPRESS for PDC. An adjusted indirect treatment comparison was applied to reduce the potential bias in the non-randomized comparison. Parametric functions were utilized to extrapolate survival beyond the observed period. Health state utility values were calculated from EQ-5D data collected in the trials and valued using UK tariffs. Resource use and costs were based on published sources.

Results: Osimertinib was associated with a gain of 1.541 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) at an incremental cost of £64,283 vs PDC (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER]: £41,705/QALY gained). Scenario analyses showed that none of the plausible scenarios produced an ICER above £44,000 per QALY gained, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses demonstrated a 63.4% probability that osimertinib will be cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £50,000.

Limitations: The analysis is subject to some level of uncertainty inherent to phase 2 single-arm data and the immaturity of the currently available survival data for osimertinib.

Conclusions: Osimertinib may be considered a cost-effective treatment option compared with PDC in the second-line setting in patients with EGFR-T790M mutation-positive NSCLC from a UK payer perspective. Further data from the ongoing AURA clinical trial program will reduce the inherent uncertainty in the analysis.     

Cost-effectiveness model of abiraterone plus prednisone,cabazitaxel plus prednisone and enzalutamide for visceral metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer therapy after docetaxel therapy resistance

Abstract

Aims: Among patients diagnosed with prostate cancer, 10–20% will develop castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) within 5?years; for 70%, CRPC will metastasize, mostly to the lungs and/or liver. We performed a cost-effectiveness model comparing abiraterone plus prednisone (ABI?+?PRD), cabazitaxel plus prednisone (CAB?+?PRD) and enzalutamide (ENZ) for visceral metastatic CRPC post-docetaxel therapy resistance.

Methods: A three-state (Progression-Free, Progression, Death) lifetime Markov model was constructed to compare ABI?+?PRD, CAB?+?PRD, and ENZ from a United States healthcare payer perspective (2019?US$; discount rate 3%/yr.). Effectiveness was measured in life-years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Inputs included treatment costs, grade III/IV adverse events with incidence ≥5%, physician follow-up, lab and imaging tests. Phase III trial Kaplan-Meier curves were extrapolated to estimate overall survival and Progression-Free transition probabilities. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and utility ratios (ICURs), probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSAs) and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves at willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds were estimated.

Results: Models estimated 3-year overall survival rates of 1.3% for patients treated with ABI?+?PRD, 16.2% for CAB?+?PRD, and 13.2% for ENZ. Estimated Progression-Free rates at 1.5?years were 0.51% for ABI?+?PRD, 0.27% for CAB?+?PRD, and 14.47% for ENZ. LYs and QALYs were 1.20 and 0.58 respectively for ABI?+?PRD, 1.48 and 0.56 for CAB?+?PRD, and 1.58 and 0.79 for ENZ. Total treatment costs were: $115,433 for ABI?+?PRD, $85,337 for CAB?+?PRD and $109,213 for ENZ. CAB?+?PRD and ENZ dominated ABI?+?PRD due to higher LYs gained. Incremental QALYs for ENZ vs. CAB?+?PRD were larger than incremental LYs. The ICUR for ENZ was $103,674/QALY compared to CAB?+?PRD.

Conclusions: This analysis found ENZ provided greater LYs and QALYs than both ABI?+?PRD and CAB?+?PRD, at a lower cost than ABI?+?PRD, but at a higher cost compared to CAB?+?PRD. For patients with visceral mCRPC after docetaxel therapy resistance, ENZ was cost-effective 92% of the time with a WTP threshold of $100,000/QALY.     

Cost-utility analyses of targeted immunomodulators in rheumatoid arthritis: systematic review

Abstract

Aims: Cost-utility (CU) modeling is a common technique used to determine whether new treatments represent good value for money. As with any modeling exercise, findings are a direct result of methodology choices, which may vary widely. Several targeted immuno-modulators have been launched in recent years to treat moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) which have been evaluated using CU methods. Our objectives were to identify common and innovative modeling choices in moderate-to-severe RA and to highlight their implications for future models in RA.

Materials and methods: A systematic literature search was conducted to identify CU models in moderate-to-severe RA published from January 2013 to June 2019. Studies must have included an active comparator and used quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) as the common measure of effectiveness. Modeling methods were characterized by stakeholder perspective, simulation type, mapping between parameters, and data sources.

Results: Thirty-one published modeling studies were reviewed spanning 13 countries and 9 drugs, with common methodological choices and innovations observed among them. Over the evaluated time period, we observed common methods and assumptions that are becoming more prominent in the RA CU modeling landscape, including patient-level simulations, two-stage models combining trial results and real-world evidence, real-world treatment durations, long-term health consequences, and Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ)-related hospitalization costs. Models that consider the societal perspective are increasingly being developed as well.

Limitations: This review did not consider studies that did not report QALYs as a utility measure, models published only as conference abstracts, or cost-consequence models that did not report an incremental CU ratio.

Conclusions: CU modeling for RA increasingly reflects real-world conditions and patient experiences which are anticipated to provide better information in the assessment of health technologies. Future CU models in RA should consider applying the observed advances in modeling choices to optimize their CU predictions and simulation of real-world outcomes.