Search

BackgroundDirect oral anticoagulants (DOACs) offer an alternative to low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) and warfarin for treating cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT).ObjectiveTo determine the cost and effectiveness of DOACs versus LMWH.DesignCohort-state transition decision analytic model.Data sourcesNetwork meta-analysis comparing DOACs versus LMWH.Target populationAdult patients with cancer at the time they develop thrombosis.Time horizonLifetime.PerspectiveHealth care sector.InterventionStrategies of 1) enoxaparin, 2) apixaban, 3) edoxaban, and 4) rivaroxaban for treatment of CAT.Outcome measuresIncremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in 2022 U.S. dollars per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained.Results of base-case analysisIn the base-case scenario, using drug prices from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Federal Supply Schedule, apixaban dominated enoxaparin and edoxaban by being less costly and more effective. Rivaroxaban was slightly more effective than apixaban, with an ICER of $493 246. In a scenario analysis using "real-world" drug prices from GoodRx, rivaroxaban was cost-effective with an ICER of $50 053 per QALY.Results of sensitivity analysisResults were highly sensitive to monthly drug costs. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed that at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50 000 per QALY, apixaban was preferred in 80% of simulations. However, sensitivity analyses also demonstrated that apixaban only remained cost-effective if monthly medication costs were below $530. Above this, rivaroxaban became cost-effective.LimitationsAn assumption was made that patients would continue anticoagulation indefinitely unless they suffered a major bleed. Nonmedical costs such as patient and caregiver loss of productivity were not accounted for, and long-term thrombotic complications were not explicitly modeled.ConclusionThe 3 DOACs are more effective and more cost-effective than LMWH. The most cost-effective DOAC depends on the relative cost of each of these agents. These are important considerations for treating physicians and health policymakers.Primary funding sourceNone.

BackgroundThe HIV Prevention Trials Network (HPTN) 083 trial demonstrated the superiority of long-acting injectable cabotegravir (CAB-LA) compared with oral emtricitabine-tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (F/TDF) for HIV preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP).ObjectiveTo identify the maximum price premium (that is, greatest possible price differential) that society should be willing to accept for the additional benefits of CAB-LA over tenofovir-based PrEP among men who have sex with men and transgender women (MSM/TGW) in the United States.DesignSimulation, cost-effectiveness analysis.Data sourcesTrial and published data, including estimated HIV incidence (5.32, 1.33, and 0.26 per 100 person-years for off PrEP, generic F/TDF and branded emtricitabine-tenofovir alafenamide (F/TAF), and CAB-LA, respectively); 28% 6-year PrEP retention. Annual base-case drug costs: $360 and $16 800 for generic F/TDF and branded F/TAF. Fewer side effects with branded F/TAF versus generic F/TDF were assumed.Target population476 700 MSM/TGW at very high risk for HIV (VHR).Time horizon10 years.PerspectiveHealth care system.InterventionCAB-LA versus generic F/TDF or branded F/TAF for HIV PrEP.Outcome measuresPrimary transmissions, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs (2020 U.S. dollars), incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs; U.S. dollars per QALY), maximum price premium for CAB-LA versus tenofovir-based PrEP.Results of base-case analysisCompared with generic F/TDF (or branded F/TAF), CAB-LA increased life expectancy by 28 000 QALYs (26 000 QALYs) among those at VHR. Branded F/TAF cost more per QALY gained than generic F/TDF compared with no PrEP. At 10 years, CAB-LA could achieve an ICER of at most $100 000 per QALY compared with generic F/TDF at a maximum price premium of $3700 per year over generic F/TDF (CAB-LA price

BackgroundThe cost-effectiveness of screening mammography beyond age 75 years remains unclear.ObjectiveTo estimate benefits, harms, and cost-effectiveness of extending mammography to age 80, 85, or 90 years according to comorbidity burden.DesignMarkov microsimulation model.Data sourcesSEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results) program and Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.Target populationU.S. women aged 65 to 90 years in groups defined by Charlson comorbidity score (CCS).Time horizonLifetime.PerspectiveNational health payer.InterventionScreening mammography to age 75, 80, 85, or 90 years.Outcome measuresBreast cancer death, survival, and costs.Results of base-case analysisExtending biennial mammography from age 75 to 80 years averted 1.7, 1.4, and 1.0 breast cancer deaths and increased days of life gained by 5.8, 4.2, and 2.7 days per 1000 women for comorbidity scores of 0, 1, and 2, respectively. Annual mammography beyond age 75 years was not cost-effective, but extending biennial mammography to age 80 years was ($54 000, $65 000, and $85 000 per quality-adjusted life-year [QALY] gained for women with CCSs of 0, 1, and ≥2, respectively). Overdiagnosis cases were double the number of deaths averted from breast cancer.Results of sensitivity analysisCosts per QALY gained were sensitive to changes in invasive cancer incidence and shift of breast cancer stage with screening mammography.LimitationNo randomized controlled trials of screening mammography beyond age 75 years are available to provide model parameter inputs.ConclusionAlthough annual mammography is not cost-effective, biennial screening mammography to age 80 years is; however, the absolute number of deaths averted is small, especially for women with comorbidities. Women considering screening beyond age 75 years should weigh the potential harms of overdiagnosis versus the potential benefit of averting death from breast cancer.Primary funding sourceNational Cancer Institute and National Institutes of Health.

BackgroundSurveillance with annual mammography and breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is recommended for female survivors of childhood cancer treated with chest radiation, yet benefits, harms, and costs are uncertain.ObjectiveTo compare the benefits, harms, and cost-effectiveness of breast cancer screening strategies in childhood cancer survivors.DesignCollaborative simulation modeling using 2 Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network breast cancer models.Data sourcesChildhood Cancer Survivor Study and published data.Target populationWomen aged 20 years with a history of chest radiotherapy.Time horizonLifetime.PerspectivePayer.InterventionAnnual MRI with or without mammography, starting at age 25, 30, or 35 years.Outcome measuresBreast cancer deaths averted, false-positive screening results, benign biopsy results, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).Results of base-case analysisLifetime breast cancer mortality risk without screening was 10% to 11% across models. Compared with no screening, starting at age 25 years, annual mammography with MRI averted the most deaths (56% to 71%) and annual MRI (without mammography) averted 56% to 62%. Both strategies had the most screening tests, false-positive screening results, and benign biopsy results. For an ICER threshold of less than $100 000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, screening beginning at age 30 years was preferred.Results of sensitivity analysisAssuming lower screening performance, the benefit of adding mammography to MRI increased in both models, although the conclusions about preferred starting age remained unchanged.LimitationElevated breast cancer risk was based on survivors diagnosed with childhood cancer between 1970 and 1986.ConclusionEarly initiation (at ages 25 to 30 years) of annual breast cancer screening with MRI, with or without mammography, might reduce breast cancer mortality by half or more in survivors of childhood cancer.Primary funding sourceAmerican Cancer Society and National Institutes of Health.

BackgroundEvidence to guide primary prevention in adults aged 75 years or older is limited.ObjectiveTo project the population impact and cost-effectiveness of statin therapy in adults aged 75 years or older.DesignForecasting study using the Cardiovascular Disease Policy Model, a Markov model.Data sourcesTrial, cohort, and nationally representative data sources.Target populationU.S. adults aged 75 to 94 years.Time horizon10 years.PerspectiveHealth care system.InterventionStatins for primary prevention based on low-density lipoprotein cholesterol threshold of 4.91 mmol/L (190 mg/dL), 4.14 mmol/L (160 mg/dL), or 3.36 mmol/L (130 mg/dL); presence of diabetes; or 10-year risk score of at least 7.5%.Outcome measuresMyocardial infarction (MI), coronary heart disease (CHD) death, disability-adjusted life-years, and costs.Results of base-case analysisAll adults aged 75 years or older in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey have a 10-year risk score greater than 7.5%. If statins had no effect on functional limitation or cognitive impairment, all primary prevention strategies would prevent MIs and CHD deaths and be cost-effective. Treatment of all adults aged 75 to 94 years would result in 8 million additional users and prevent 105 000 (4.3%) incident MIs and 68 000 (2.3%) CHD deaths at an incremental cost per disability-adjusted life-year of $25 200.Results of sensitivity analysisAn increased relative risk for functional limitation or mild cognitive impairment of 1.10 to 1.29 could offset the cardiovascular benefits.LimitationLimited trial evidence targeting primary prevention in adults aged 75 years or older.ConclusionAt effectiveness similar to that in trials, statins are projected to be cost-effective for primary prevention; however, even a small increase in geriatric-specific adverse effects could offset the cardiovascular benefit. Improved data on the potential benefits and harms of statins are needed to inform decision making.Primary funding sourceAmerican Heart Association Western States Affiliate, National Institute on Aging, and the National Institute for Diabetes on Digestive and Kidney Diseases.

BackgroundMany states have laws requiring mammography facilities to tell women with dense breasts and negative results on screening mammography to discuss supplemental screening tests with their providers. The most readily available supplemental screening method is ultrasonography, but little is known about its effectiveness.ObjectiveTo evaluate the benefits, harms, and cost-effectiveness of supplemental ultrasonography screening for women with dense breasts.DesignComparative modeling with 3 validated simulation models.Data sourcesSurveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program; Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium; and medical literature.Target populationContemporary cohort of women eligible for routine screening.Time horizonLifetime.PerspectivePayer.InterventionSupplemental ultrasonography screening for women with dense breasts after a negative screening mammography result.Outcome measuresBreast cancer deaths averted, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained, biopsies recommended after a false-positive ultrasonography result, and costs.Results of base-case analysisSupplemental ultrasonography screening after a negative mammography result for women aged 50 to 74 years with heterogeneously or extremely dense breasts averted 0.36 additional breast cancer deaths (range across models, 0.14 to 0.75), gained 1.7 QALYs (range, 0.9 to 4.7), and resulted in 354 biopsy recommendations after a false-positive ultrasonography result (range, 345 to 421) per 1000 women with dense breasts compared with biennial screening by mammography alone. The cost-effectiveness ratio was $325,000 per QALY gained (range, $112,000 to $766,000). Supplemental ultrasonography screening for only women with extremely dense breasts cost $246,000 per QALY gained (range, $74,000 to $535,000).Results of sensitivity analysisThe conclusions were not sensitive to ultrasonography performance characteristics, screening frequency, or starting age.LimitationProvider costs for coordinating supplemental ultrasonography were not considered.ConclusionSupplemental ultrasonography screening for women with dense breasts would substantially increase costs while producing relatively small benefits.Primary funding sourceNational Cancer Institute.

BackgroundThe choice of antiplatelet therapy after acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is complicated: Ticagrelor and prasugrel are novel alternatives to clopidogrel, patients with some genotypes may not respond to clopidogrel, and low-cost generic formulations of clopidogrel are available.ObjectiveTo determine the most cost-effective strategy for dual antiplatelet therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention for ACS.DesignDecision-analytic model.Data sourcesPublished literature, Medicare claims, and life tables.Target populationPatients having percutaneous coronary intervention for ACS.Time horizonLifetime.PerspectiveSocietal.InterventionFive strategies were examined: generic clopidogrel, prasugrel, ticagrelor, and genotyping for polymorphisms of CYP2C19 with carriers of loss-of-function alleles receiving either ticagrelor (genotyping with ticagrelor) or prasugrel (genotyping with prasugrel) and noncarriers receiving clopidogrel.Outcome measuresDirect medical costs, quality-adjusted life years(QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).Results of base-case analysisThe clopidogrel strategy produced$179 301 in costs and 9.428 QALYs. Genotyping with prasugrel was superior to prasugrel alone, with an ICER of $35 800 per QALY relative to clopidogrel. Genotyping with ticagrelor was more effective than genotyping with prasugrel ($30 200 per QALY relative to clopidogrel). Ticagrelor was the most effective strategy($52 600 per QALY relative to genotyping with ticagrelor).Results of sensitivity analysisStronger associations between genotype and thrombotic outcomes rendered ticagrelor substantially less cost-effective ($104 800 per QALY). Genotyping with prasugrel was the preferred therapy among patients who could not tolerate ticagrelor.LimitationNo randomized trials have directly compared genotyping strategies or prasugrel with ticagrelor.ConclusionGenotype-guided personalization may improve the cost-effectiveness of prasugrel and ticagrelor after percutaneous coronary intervention for ACS, but ticagrelor for all patients may bean economically reasonable alternative in some settings.