Search

Ravulizumab, engineered from eculizumab, provides sustained C5 inhibition in atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome (aHUS) while reducing dosing frequency (every 8 vs 2 weeks, respectively). Treatment choice often carries significant financial implications. This study compared the economic consequences of ravulizumab and eculizumab for treating aHUS.A cost-minimization model compared direct medical costs for ravulizumab and eculizumab in treating aHUS, assuming equivalent efficacy and safety, and took a US payer perspective, a lifetime horizon, and a 3.0% cost discount rate. The base case modeled adult and pediatric treatment-naïve populations, with characteristics based on clinical trials, and treatment patterns (duration, discontinuation, re-initiation) derived from eculizumab studies with long-term follow-up. Treatment costs (2019 US$) were based on wholesale drug acquisition costs, Centers for MedicareMedicaid fee schedules, and published disease management studies. Sensitivity analyses were conducted by adjusting relevant variables.Ravulizumab provided lifetime per-patient cost reductions (discounted) of 32.4% and 35.5% vs eculizumab in adult and pediatric base cases, respectively. Total costs for ravulizumab vs eculizumab were $12,148,748 and $17,979,007, respectively, for adults, and $11,587,832 and $17,959,814, respectively, for children. Pre-discontinuation treatment contributed the largest proportion of total costs for ravulizumab (94.8% and 88.0%) and eculizumab (94.8% and 87.8%) in adults and children, respectively. Across sensitivity analyses, ravulizumab provided cost reductions vs eculizumab.The model included several typical assumptions. Base case patients with more severe stages of chronic kidney disease were assumed not to discontinue treatment, nor to experience an excess mortality risk in either treatment arm, which may not reflect real-world clinical observations. Additionally, rebates and discounts on medication acquisition or administration were not considered.In US patients with aHUS, ravulizumab provided cost reductions of 32.4-35.5% vs eculizumab, with a reduced dosing frequency for ravulizumab. The magnitude of reductions was consistent across sensitivity analyses.

Objectives Currently, patients with persistent moderate-to-severe house dust mite (HDM) allergic rhinitis despite use of symptom-relieving medication can be offered subcutaneously administered allergy immunotherapy (SQ SCIT; Alutard SQ) as standard care of treatment in Denmark. Recently, a HDM sublingually administered allergy immunotherapy tablet (SQ SLIT-tablet; ACARIZAX) has been developed for at-home treatment. The purpose of this analysis is to compare the costs related to treatment and administration of SQ SLIT-tablet and SQ SCIT. Methods Assuming equal efficacy between ther SQ SLIT-tablet and SQ SCIT, the cost-minimization analysis was the most appropriate for the comparison. According to guidelines and Summary of Product Characteristics, the treatment duration of SQ SLIT-tablet is 3 years and 3-5 years for SQ SCIT. The courses of treatment vary among patients and, therefore, the costs of treatment have been calculated for an average patient with HDM respiratory allergic disease (RAD) receiving either SQ SLIT-tablet or SQ SCIT. All costs associated with allergy immunotherapy were collected, i.e., cost of medication, administration and treatment setting, and discounted according to Danish guidelines. Comprehensive univariate sensitivity analyses were carried out. Results The treatment costs for an average patient with HDM RAD are €3094 for SQ SLIT-tablet and €3799 for SQ SCIT; however, when adding indirect costs to the calculations the total costs of the treatments are €3697 and €6717 for SQ SLIT-tablet and SQ SCIT, respectively. Therefore, if 2500 patients with HDM RAD were treated with SQ SLIT-tablet instead of SQ SCIT, it would elicit a saving to the healthcare system of ∼€1.8 million. The conclusion was robust to any changes in the sensitivity analysis. Conclusion With regards to the cost of treating Danish patients with HDM RAD, it is clearly cost-saving to treat patients with SQ SLIT-tablet compared to SQ SCIT.

To compare the costs of first-line treatment with panitumumab + FOLFOX in comparison to cetuximab + FOLFIRI among patients with wild-type (WT) RAS metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in the US.A cost-minimization model was developed assuming similar treatment efficacy between both regimens. The model estimated the costs associated with drug acquisition, treatment administration frequency (every 2 weeks for panitumumab, weekly for cetuximab), and incidence of infusion reactions. Average anti-EGFR doses were calculated from the ASPECCT clinical trial, and average doses of chemotherapy regimens were based on product labels. Using the medical component of the consumer price index, adverse event costs were inflated to 2014 US dollars, and all other costs were reported in 2014 US dollars. The time horizon for the model was based on average first-line progression-free survival of a WT RAS patient, estimated from parametric survival analyses of PRIME clinical trial data.Relative to cetuximab + FOLFIRI in the first-line treatment of WT RAS mCRC, the cost-minimization model demonstrated lower projected drug acquisition, administration, and adverse event costs for patients who received panitumumab + FOLFOX. The overall cost per patient for first-line treatment was $179,219 for panitumumab + FOLFOX vs $202,344 for cetuximab + FOLFIRI, resulting in a per-patient saving of $23,125 (11.4%) in favor of panitumumab + FOLFOX.From a value perspective, the cost-minimization model supports panitumumab + FOLFOX instead of cetuximab + FOLFIRI as the preferred first-line treatment of WT RAS mCRC patients requiring systemic therapy.

EOX (epirubicin, oxaliplatin, Xeloda; capecitabine) and FOLFOX4 (5-fluorouracil (5-FU), leucovorin, oxaliplatin) are the common chemotherapy regimens used in the treatment of advanced gastric cancer (aGC) in Hong Kong. This study aimed to compare the costs of these therapies for aGC patients from both the healthcare and societal perspectives. It should be noted that, while FOLFOX4 is routinely administered in an outpatient setting in North America and Europe, inpatient setting is adopted in Hong Kong instead, incurring hospitalization cost as a result.Fifty-eight patients were identified from the electronic records in two public tertiary hospitals, with 45 and 13 receiving EOX and FOLFOX4 regimens, respectively. Healthcare cost was direct medical costs including drugs, clinic follow-up, hospitalization, diagnostic laboratories, and radiographs. Societal cost refers to indirect costs such as patient time and travel costs. Cost items were further classified as "expected" or "unexpected". All cost data was expressed in US dollars.Patients in the EOX and FOLFOX4 arm received an average of 5.3 and 7.8 cycles of treatment, respectively. The capecitabine-based regimen group had a higher expected medication cost per cycle when compared to the 5-FU-based treatment group (US$290.3 vs US$66.9, p .001), but lower expected hospitalization costs (US$76.9 vs US$1,269.2, p .001). The total healthcare cost and total societal cost per patient was reduced by 67.2% (US$5,691.9 vs US$17,357.4, p .001) and 25.3% (US$3,090.5 vs US$4,135.1, p = .001), respectively, in the capecitabine-based regimen group. Sensitivity analyses based on full cycle regimen costs and net capecitabine or 5-FU/leucovorin costs still showed EOX to be less costly than FOLFOX4.The capecitabine-based regimen, EOX, was found to generate significant cost saving from both the healthcare and societal perspectives in regions in which FOLFOX4 is given in an inpatient setting.

Epidemic Kaposi's sarcoma (KS) is one of the most common acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) defining malignancies, a disease with stigmatized clinical features that characterizes the diagnosis of AIDS. This study aims to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis between liposomal doxorubicin and paclitaxel in treating AIDS-KS.A 21 week decision tree analysis was created using a hospital perspective to compare treatment patterns with liposomal doxorubicin and paclitaxel. All costs were calculated in 2011 US dollars and obtained from an academic treatment center. Acquisition costs were obtained from public estimates using wholesale acquisition cost (WAC). Effectiveness was estimated based on a Phase 3 study of liposomal doxorubicin and paclitaxel (Von-Roenn et al.). Adverse events (AEs) associated with treatment and not the disease were included in the analysis. One-way sensitivity analysis was performed to test the robustness of the results.Cost minimization analysis showed that treatment with liposomal doxorubicin was $18,125 whereas paclitaxel costs $12,347. After accounting for response rate, the results showed that liposomal doxorubicin costs $39,403 versus $21,661 for paclitaxel. This study has some limitations. Clinical data were derived from different clinical trials. In addition, many assumptions were made.Paclitaxel is dominant due to its lower acquisition cost and high response rate. Acquisition cost of liposomal doxorubicin and paclitaxel are significantly different. After accounting for all the factors that contribute to cost and response rate, paclitaxel is more cost effective than liposomal doxorubicin.

Antibiotic-associated diarrhea (AAD) and particularly Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea (CDAD) are the most common causes of healthcare associated infectious diarrhea. A double-blind, dose response, placebo-controlled trial of the probiotic formula (Bio-K+ Lactobacillus acidophilus CL1285 and Lactobacillus casei LBC80R formula) for prophylaxis of AAD and CDAD was published in 2010. The Bio-K+ Lactobacillus acidophilus CL1285 and Lactobacillus casei LBC80R formula is a registered trademark of Bio-K Plus International Inc. (Laval, Québec, Canada). Results indicated that the incidence of AAD and CDAD were lower for patients assigned to the probiotic formula compared with the placebo option. The present study aims to estimate the savings in direct medical costs that might result from the use of two different doses of the probiotic formula vs placebo.A cost-consequence analysis was conducted to compare the two doses of the probiotic formula compared to placebo. The analysis was based upon published data and adjusted to the North American context.Economic analyses showed that the use of the probiotic formula would result in estimated mean per patients savings of US$1968 for the single dose and US$2661 for the double dose compared with the placebo option if used an average of 13 days by all patients at risk of developing AAD and CDAD.Several key parameters considered within the economic model were not captured within the Gao et al. study. Numerous sensitivity analyses were conducted to address this issue.The use of the probiotic formula in prophylaxis of AAD and CDAD would lead to estimated savings in direct medical costs that would substantially offset its acquisition cost. Treating 1000 hospitalized patients on antibiotics with the double dose of the product compared to current practice would save a single payer system the sum of $2,661,218.

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

To conduct a cost-minimization analysis of landiolol for CT diagnosis of coronary heart diseases in patients with tachycardia in Japan.A decision-tree model was constructed to analyze costs from the healthcare payer's perspective. Drug costs and diagnosis costs, computer tomography coronary angiography (CTCA), and coronary angiography (CAG), are adopted to the model. Landiolol is administered only to slow the heart rate to take CT images appropriately. Since some trials proved that there was no difference between landiolol and placebo in terms of efficacy and safety, this study conducted cost-minimization analysis. Of those suspected of coronary heart diseases, 22.5% are thought to be taking beta-blockers. The success rates for CT scanning for landiolol and placebo, derived from domestic trial data, were 81.4% (96/118, 77.8-84.9%) and 54.2% (64/118, 49.7-58.8%). Patients who failed to take a CT image were thought to take CAG. The healthcare cost was derived from a Japanese fee schedule. Costs of landiolol, CT imaging, and CAG are JPY2634 (USD1 = JPY100, as of November 20, 2013), JPY38,116, and JPY101,322, respectively. The positive rate for CAG, derived from domestic trial data, was 37.1% (33/89, 32.0-42.2%). Various sensitivity analyses, both univariate and probabilistic ones, were conducted.In the base case analysis, expected costs per patient for landiolol and placebo were JPY78,956 and JPY82,232, respectively. In budget impact analysis, 81,062 patients are eligible for landiolol and it can save JPY266million for whole patients. Sensitivity analyses suggested the robustness of the results.This study did not consider any adverse effects in the decision-tree model. This model was developed especially for measuring the cost-saving effect of landiolol, through decreasing the number of patients who require CAG, due to imaging failure.Landiolol for CTCA diagnosis in patients suspected of coronary heart disease with tachycardia is thought to be cost saving.

Fingolimod and natalizumab have the same European Union licence for the treatment of relapsing multiple sclerosis, and are considered by the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) to have broadly similar efficacy.A cost-minimization analysis was performed to compare differences in treatment costs between fingolimod and natalizumab from a societal perspective in Sweden.This analysis included costs associated with initiating and following treatment (physician visits and monitoring), continuing therapy (drugs and administration), and lost patient productivity and leisure time. Unit costs (in Swedish krona [SEK]) were based on regional data (median prices for physician visits and monitoring sessions). Natalizumab infusion costs were obtained from the national cost-per-patient database. Drug costs for both therapies were 15,651 SEK/28 days.After 3 years, fingolimod use was associated with savings of 124,823 SEK/patient compared with natalizumab (total cost/patient: 566,718 SEK vs 691,542 SEK). Cost savings with fingolimod were 40,402 SEK/patient after 1 year and 301,730 SEK/patient after 10 years. Treatment with natalizumab was 18% more expensive than fingolimod therapy after 1 year and 23% more expensive after 10 years.Based on the CHMP assessment, it was assumed that fingolimod and natalizumab have similar efficacy. The analysis was conducted for Sweden, and caution is needed in extrapolating the results to other countries.Fingolimod is cost-saving compared with natalizumab for the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in Sweden.

A pharmacoeconomic analysis was undertaken to determine costs, consequences, and cost-effectiveness of a partially hydrolyzed 100% whey-based infant formula, NAN-HA®, manufactured by Nestlé S.A, Switzerland (PHF-W), branded under BEBA HA® in Switzerland, in the prevention of atopic dermatitis (AD) in 'at risk' Swiss children when compared to standard cow's milk formula (SF).Based on a 12-month time horizon including 6 months of formula consumption, an economic model was developed synthesizing treatment pathways, resource utilization, and costs associated with the treatment of AD in healthy 'at risk' Swiss newborns who could not be exclusively breastfed. Model inputs were retrieved from the literature, official formularies, and expert opinion. The treatment pathways considered a medical treatment approach, supplemented in some instances by a change of formula. The final outcome was the expected cost per avoided case of AD, yielding an incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) for PHF-W vs SF. Outcomes were presented from three perspectives: the Swiss public healthcare system (MOH), the subject's family, and society (SOC). A secondary analysis compared PHF-W to whey-based extensively hydrolyzed formula (EHF) in prevention.The model yielded 1653 avoided AD cases by selecting PHF-W over SF in a birth cohort of 22,933 'at risk' infants. The base case analyses generated an expected ICER of CHF 982 from the MOH perspective as well as savings of CHF 2202 and CHF 1220 from the family and SOC perspectives, respectively. PHF-W yielded CHF 11.4M savings against EHF when the latter was assumed to be used in prevention. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the model.Under a range of assumptions, this analysis has established the dominance from the family and societal perspectives and cost-effectiveness from the MOH perspective of PHF-W vs SF in the prevention of AD among 'at risk' Swiss infants.

Two bypassing agents, activated prothrombin complex concentrates (aPCC) and recombinant factor VIIa (rFVIIa), have shown similar efficacy and safety in the treatment of bleeding episodes in patients with hemophilia and inhibitors as demonstrated through the only two head-to-head clinical trials. Given the economic burden of bypassing treatment, it is crucial to have a valid estimate of cost effectiveness of alternative treatments. The aims of this study were to conduct a systematic review of published pharmacoeconomic literature on the cost-effectiveness of aPCC versus rFVIIa to treat mild-to-moderate bleeds in patients with hemophilia and inhibitors, with a focus on the model assumptions and their impact on results.An English language search was conducted for original economic studies comparing aPCC and rFVIIa published between 1995 and July 2010. Detailed information on sponsorship, study design, assumptions and their impact on results was collected for each study.A total of 11 economic studies were included in the review. Nine studies assessed cost per bleeding episode (eight cost-minimization analysis (CMA) and one cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA)). Two studies were from longitudinal perspective. Studies on cost per bleeding episode were evaluated and systematically compared. All studies were from a third-party payer perspective. Most analyses, except one study, used a similar decision-tree model. The assumptions for all CMA studies were obtained from non-comparable single-armed trials or observational data. All studies were sponsored by the two competing manufacturers of rFVIIa (seven studies) and aPCC (two studies). The crucial parameter assumptions on treatment efficacy and dosing drove their reported findings. Eight of these nine studies favored their sponsor's product.With one exception, published economic studies tend to favor their sponsor's product primarily by assuming a higher efficacy and lower dosing for the sponsored agent, even though the two existing head-to-head clinical studies do not support superior efficacy for either product.