Search

Conventional cost-effectiveness analysis-i.e., assessing pharmaceuticals through a cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) framework-originated from a societal commitment to maximize population health given limited resources. This "extra-welfarist" approach has produced pricing and reimbursement systems that are not well- aligned with the unique considerations of orphan drugs. This framework has been slow to evolve along with our increased understanding of the impact of rare diseases, which in turn has complicated the assessment of orphan drugs meant to treat rare diseases. Herein, we (i) discuss the limitations of conventional cost-effectiveness analysis as applied to assessing access to, as well as the pricing and reimbursement of, orphan drugs, (ii) critically appraise alternative and supplemental approaches, and (iii) offer insights on plausible steps forward. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: To assess from a US payer perspective the cost-effectiveness of the chimeric antigen receptor T (CAR T)-cell therapies axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) and tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cel) to treat relapsed or refractory (r/r) large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) following ≥2 systemic therapy lines. Methods: A three-state (i.e. pre-progression, post-progression, and death) partitioned survival model was used to estimate the quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and costs for patients on each treatment over a lifetime horizon. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were based on a matching-adjusted indirect treatment comparison (MAIC) that accounted for differences in trial population baseline characteristics. Mixture cure models (MCMs) were used to account for long-term survivors. Costs included drug acquisition and administration for the CAR T-cell therapies and conditioning chemotherapy, apheresis, CAR T-specific monitoring, transplant, hospitalization, adverse events, routine care, and terminal care. Health state utilities were derived from trial and published data. Sensitivity analyses included probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSAs) and an analysis of extremes that assessed the results across a vast array of combinations of parametric OS and PFS curves across the two therapies. Results: Compared to tisa-cel, axi-cel resulted in 2.31 QALYs gained and a cost reduction of $1,407 in the base case. In the PSA, the cost per QALY gained was -$31,500 in 95% of the 1,000 simulations. In the analysis of extremes, the cost per QALY gained was -$7,500 in 99% of the 1,296 combinations of MCMs and -$40,000 in 95% of the 1,296 combinations of standard models. Limitations: In absence of head-to-head comparative data, we relied on a MAIC, which cannot account for all possible confounders. Moreover, some outcomes (i.e. transplantations, hospitalizations, adverse events (AEs)) were not adjusted in the MAIC. Conclusions: In this simulation, axi-cel was a superior treatment option as it is predicted to achieve better outcomes at lower or minimal incremental costs versus tisa-cel. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To assess from a US payer perspective the cost-effectiveness of the chimeric antigen receptor T (CAR T)-cell therapies axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) and tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cel) to treat relapsed or refractory (r/r) large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) following ≥2 systemic therapy lines. A three-state (i.e. pre-progression, post-progression, and death) partitioned survival model was used to estimate the quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and costs for patients on each treatment over a lifetime horizon. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were based on a matching-adjusted indirect treatment comparison (MAIC) that accounted for differences in trial population baseline characteristics. Mixture cure models (MCMs) were used to account for long-term survivors. Costs included drug acquisition and administration for the CAR T-cell therapies and conditioning chemotherapy, apheresis, CAR T-specific monitoring, transplant, hospitalization, adverse events, routine care, and terminal care. Health state utilities were derived from trial and published data. Sensitivity analyses included probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSAs) and an analysis of extremes that assessed the results across a vast array of combinations of parametric OS and PFS curves across the two therapies. Compared to tisa-cel, axi-cel resulted in 2.31 QALYs gained and a cost reduction of $1,407 in the base case. In the PSA, the cost per QALY gained was ≤$31,500 in 95% of the 1,000 simulations. In the analysis of extremes, the cost per QALY gained was ≤$7,500 in 99% of the 1,296 combinations of MCMs and ≤$40,000 in 95% of the 1,296 combinations of standard models. In absence of head-to-head comparative data, we relied on a MAIC, which cannot account for all possible confounders. Moreover, some outcomes (i.e. transplantations, hospitalizations, adverse events (AEs)) were not adjusted in the MAIC. In this simulation, axi-cel was a superior treatment option as it is predicted to achieve better outcomes at lower or minimal incremental costs versus tisa-cel. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Previous trials have demonstrated reductions in atopic dermatitis (AD) incidence when healthy, high-risk, non-exclusively breastfed infants were fed until four months of age with 100% whey-based partially hydrolysed formula (PHF-W) versus standard cow's milk formula (CMF). We assessed the cost-effectiveness of this intervention in Singapore.Methods: Modelling techniques were used to simulate, from birth to Month 30, the incidence and clinical/economic burden of AD in high-risk, non-exclusively breastfed infants fed with PHF-W or CMF for up to four months. Epidemiologic and clinical data were from a local comparative trial. Expert opinion informed AD treatment patterns and outcomes. Outcomes included reduction in AD risk, time spent with AD, days without AD flare, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and direct/indirect costs. Multivariate probabilistic sensitivity analysis was used to assess model parameter uncertainty.Results: Over 30 months, with the use of PHF-W instead of CMF, the proportion of children who developed AD and the time spent with AD decreased by 16.0% (28.3% vs. 44.3%) and 6.4 months, respectively, while time without AD flare and QALYs increased by 14.9 days and 0.021 QALYs per patient, respectively. Estimated AD-related discounted costs per child for PHF-W and CMF were SGD 771 and SGD 1,309, respectively (net savings: SGD 538). PHF-W was less expensive and more effective than CMF for 73%, and cost less than SGD 50,000 per QALY for 87% of all multivariate simulations.Conclusion: Early short-term nutritional intervention with PHF-W instead of CMF may reduce AD incidence and costs for healthy, high-risk, non-exclusively breastfed infants in Singapore. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Objective: To estimate, from a Filipino societal perspective, the cost-effectiveness of preventing atopic dermatitis (AD) via early nutritional intervention with 100% whey-based partially hydrolyzed formula (PHF-W) versus standard cow’s milk formula (SF) in healthy, urban infants with atopic heredity who are not exclusively breast-fed. Methods: A Markov model was used to simulate over 6 years the incidence of AD, days with AD symptoms, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and AD-related direct and indirect (i.e., parents’/caregivers’ productivity loss) costs incurred by hypothetical cohorts of healthy, at-risk infants fed with either PHF-W or SF as AD prevention for ≤ 17 weeks. Efficacy estimates of PHF-W versus SF in preventing AD were literature-based. The resources used to manage AD (by severity, age, and treatment modality) were estimated using clinical pathways derived from clinical expert opinion. Local costs were applied to resource use. Results were presented as point estimates and as 95 percent credible intervals (CIs, i.e., range of values around the point estimate that include 95% of model simulations) generated via multivariate probabilistic sensitivity analysis using Monte-Carlo simulation techniques. All costs are reported in Philippines pesos (₱, where ₱1000 = US $22.24). All reported outcomes were discounted at a rate of 3.5% per year. Results: Based on the 6-year simulation, compared with SF, PHF-W was predicted to result in a 14-percentage point reduction (i.e., 39% vs. 25%) (95% CI 0.09–0.19) in the incidence of AD and a gain of 0.03 (i.e., 5.46 vs. 5.43) (95% CI 0.01–0.07) QALYs/patient. PHF-W’s higher feeding formula cost (+₱1,304/patient) (95% CI −₱3,090 to ₱5,779) were offset by reductions in AD-related costs (−₱11,959/patient; i.e., ₱27,228 vs. ₱15,269) (95% CI −₱14,685 to −₱7,284), including, in particular, the costs of pharmacotherapy, formula used as treatment, and visits to physicians. As a result, PHF-W became a net cost-saving strategy within 38 weeks. Overall, PHF-W resulted in net savings of −₱10,654 (−US $237) (CI −₱4,240 [−US $94] to −₱14,544 [−US $323]) (i.e., ₱27,228 [US $606] vs. ₱16,574 [US $369]). Sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of results; the most influential variable was the first-year risk reduction in AD. Conclusions: Based on the present modeling exercise, compared with SF, PHF-W appears to substantially reduce the risk of AD and its associated direct and indirect medical costs in healthy, at-risk urban Filipino infants over a 6-year period. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

OBJECTIVE: Although the clinical benefits of pharmacological treatments for insomnia have been studied, no systematic assessment of their economic value has been reported. This analysis assessed, from a broad payer and societal perspective, the cost effectiveness of long-term treatment with eszopiclone (LUNESTA™, Sepracor Inc., [Marlborough, MA, USA]) for chronic primary insomnia in adults in the US. METHODS: A decision analytical model was developed based on the reanalysis of a 6-month placebo-controlled trial, which demonstrated that eszopiclone 3mg significantly improved sleep and daytime function measures versus placebo in adults with primary insomnia. Patients were classified as either having remitted or not remitted from insomnia based upon a composite index of eight sleep and daytime function measures collected during the trial. These data were supplemented with quality-of-life and healthcare and lost productivity cost data from the published literature and medical and absenteeism claims databases. RESULTS: Compared with non-remitted patients, patients classified as remitted had lower monthly healthcare and productivity costs (in 2006 dollars) [a reduction of $US242 and $US182, respectively] and higher quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) weight (a net gain of 0.0810 on a scale ranging from 0 to 1). During the study, eszopiclone-treated patients were about 2.5 times more likely to have remitted than placebo-treated patients. Six months of eszopiclone treatment reduced direct (healthcare) and indirect (productivity) costs by an estimated $US245.13 and $US184.19 per patient, respectively. Eszopiclone use was associated with a cost of $US497.15 per patient over 6 months (including drug cost, dispensing fee, physician visit and time loss to receive care). Thus, after considering the above savings and the costs associated with eszopiclone treatment over 6 months, cost increased by $US252.02 (excluding productivity gains) and $US67.83 (including productivity gains) per person. However, eszopiclone treatment was also associated with a net QALY gain of 0.006831 per patient over the same period. Consequently, the incremental cost per QALY gained associated with eszopiclone was approximately $US9930 (including productivity gains [i.e. $US67.83 ÷ 0.006831]) and $US36 894 (excluding productivity gains [i.e. $US252.02 ÷ 0.006831]). Sensitivity analyses using a variety of scenarios suggested that eszopiclone is generally cost effective. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis suggested that long-term eszopiclone treatment was cost effective over the 6-month study period, particularly when the impact on productivity costs is considered. Given the increasing interest in new pharmacological interventions to manage insomnia, payers and clinicians alike should carefully consider the balance of health and economic benefits that these interventions offer. Accordingly, additional research in this area is warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Schizophrenia is a devastating and costly illness that affects 1% of the population in the US. Effective pharmacological therapies are available but suboptimal patient adherence to either acute or long-term therapeutic regimens reduces their effectiveness. The availability of a long-acting injection (LAI) formulation of risperidone may increase adherence and improve clinical and economic outcomes for people with schizophrenia.Objective: To assess the cost effectiveness of risperidone LAI compared with oral risperidone, oral olanzapine and haloperidol decanoate LAI over a 1-year time period in outpatients with schizophrenia who had previously suffered a relapse requiring hospitalisation.Perspective: US healthcare system.Methods: Published medical literature, unpublished data from clinical trials and a consumer health database, and a clinical expert panel were used to populate a decision-analysis model comparing the four treatment alternatives. The model captured: rates of patient compliance; rates, frequency and duration of relapse; incidence of adverse events (bodyweight gain and extrapyramidal effects); and healthcare resource utilisation and associated costs. Primary outcomes were: the proportion of patients with relapse; the frequency of relapse per patient; the number of relapse days per patient; and total direct medical cost per patient per year. Costs are in year 2002 US dollars.Results: Based on model projections, the proportions of patients experiencing a relapse requiring hospitalisation after 1 year of treatment were 66% for haloperidol decanoate LAI, 41% for oral risperidone and oral olanzapine and 26% for risperidone LAI, while the proportion of patients with a relapse not requiring hospitalisation were 60%, 37%, 37% and 24%, respectively. The mean number of days of relapse requiring hospitalisation per patient per year was 28 for haloperidol decanoate LAI, 18 for oral risperidone and oral olanzapine and 11 for risperidone LAI, while the mean number of days of relapse not requiring hospitalisation was 8, 5, 5 and 3, respectively. This would translate into direct medical cost savings with risperidone LAI compared with oral risperidone, oral olanzapine and haloperidol decanoate LAI of USD 397, USD 1742, and USD 8328, respectively. These findings were supported by sensitivity analyses.Conclusion: The use of risperidone LAI for treatment of outpatients with schizophrenia is predicted in this model to result in better clinical outcomes and lower total healthcare costs over 1 year than its comparators, oral risperidone, oral olanzapine and haloperidol decanoate LAI. Risperidone LAI may therefore be a cost saving therapeutic option for outpatients with schizophrenia in the US healthcare setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this paper was to conduct a critical systematic review of the available literature on the clinical and economic burden of bladder cancer in developed countries, with a focus on the cost effectiveness of interventions aimed at reducing that burden. Forty-four economic studies were included in the review. Because of long- term survival and the need for lifelong routine monitoring and treatment, the cost per patient of bladder cancer from diagnosis to death is the highest of all cancers, ranging from $US96 000–187 000 (2001 values) in the US. Overall, bladder cancer is the fifth most expensive cancer in terms of total medical care expenditures, accounting for almost $US3.7 billion (2001 values) in direct costs in the US. Screening for bladder cancer in the general population is currently not recommended. The economic value of relatively new and less expensive urine assays and molecular urinary tumour markers has not been assessed. However, the literature suggests that screening patients suspected of having bladder cancer and using less invasive diagnostic procedures is cost effective. Very few cost-effectiveness studies have evaluated intravesical therapies such as bacillus Calmette-Guérin and mitomycin in the management of superficial disease and no robust recommendations can be drawn. Economic analyses suggest that non-surgical treatment strategies for the management of invasive disease aiming at bladder preservation may not be cost effective, because they have not consistently demonstrated survival benefits and do not eliminate the need for subsequent radical cystectomy. The literature suggests that the current conventional frequent follow-up and monitoring of patients can be cost effectively replaced by less frequent and less invasive monitoring, and should rely more heavily on intravesical chemotherapy to reduce the need for cystoscopies. Bladder cancer is a fairly common and costly malignancy. Nevertheless, the existing literature only contributes marginally to our knowledge concerning the burden of bladder cancer and the economic value of various interventions. The limited value of the literature in this area may be attributed to (i) being published as abstracts rather than full peer-reviewed evaluations; (ii) employing questionable methodologies; and (iii) being in many cases nearly obsolete, rendering them less relevant to, if not in conflict with, current clinical practice. Consequently, opportunities exist to conduct meaningful economic research in all areas of the management of bladder cancer, including screening, diagnosis, follow-up and treatment, especially with respect to new and innovative pharmaceutical and other technologies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Background: Zoledronic acid (ZOL) significantly reduces the risk of new skeletal-related events (SREs) in patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who have bone metastases. Objective: The purpose of this study was to assess the cost and cost-effectiveness of ZOL in the management of skeletal metastases in this population across 5 European countries (France, Germany, United Kingdom, Portugal, and the Netherlands) from the perspective of national health care. Methods: This cost-effectiveness analysis was based on a subset of patients with NSCLC who were enrolled in a Phase III trial of patients with bone metastases secondary to a variety of solid tumors. In this trial, patients were randomized to receive ZOL or placebo every 3 weeks for up to 21 months. Survival, SRE incidence, and number of infusions administered were derived from the clinical trial. Costs of SREs were estimated using hospital Diagnosis Related Group tariffs and published data. Drug, drug administration, and supply costs were obtained from published and internet sources. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated based on the published utilities and modeled survival and frequency of SREs. Uncertainty surrounding outcomes was addressed via univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Results: Compared with patients receiving placebo (n = 120), patients receiving ZOL (n = 124) experienced an estimated 0.79 fewer SREs and gained an estimated 0.02 QALYs. ZOL use in patients with NSCLC and bone metastases was associated with a reduction in SRE costs (ranging from €1547 to €1893 [2007–2008 €], depending on the country). After adding drug and drug administration costs, ZOL use resulted in a net savings of €288 per patient in Germany, €209 in the United Kingdom, and €113 in Portugal. In France and the Netherlands, costs increased (€17 and €178, respectively), but the costs per QALY gained were low (€786 and €8278, respectively). In univariate sensitivity analyses, the cost per QALY for ZOL versus placebo was ≤€50,000 for all scenarios tested. The results were most sensitive to assumptions regarding survival, number of ZOL infusions, and the costs of SREs. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that ZOL cost ≤€50,000 per QALY in 65% to 83% of model simulations (depending on country). However, some degree of uncertainty remained as the 95th percentile of cost per QALY was high. Conclusions: This analysis is subject to the usual limitations of cost-effectiveness models, which combine assumptions and data from multiple sources. Nevertheless, based on the assumptions used herein, the present model suggests that ZOL increases QALYs and is cost saving and/or cost effective compared with placebo in patients with NSCLC in France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Portugal, and the Netherlands. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Background: Denosumab has been approved in the United States for the prevention of skeletal-related events (SREs) in metastatic breast cancer. In a Phase III trial in patients with bone-metastatic breast cancer (N = 2033), denosumab was associated with a significantly delayed time to first SRE (by 18%; P < 0.001 noninferiority; P = 0.01 superiority) and time to first and subsequent SREs (by 23%; P = 0.001). Overall survival (HR = 0.95; 95% CI, 0.81–1.11; P = 0.49) and disease progression (HR = 1.00; 95% CI, 0.89–1.11; P = 0.93) did not differ significantly between groups. Denosumab was associated with a nonsignificant reduction in serious adverse events (44.4% vs 46.5%). Objectives: Given the current ambiguity regarding the cost-effectiveness of these agents in light of these trial outcomes, the present analysis assessed, from a US payer perspective, the cost-effectiveness of denosumab versus zoledronic acid in patients with bone metastases secondary to breast cancer. Methods: A literature-based Markov model was developed to estimate the survival, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained, number and costs of SREs, and drug and administration costs in patients receiving denosumab or zoledronic acid over 27 and 60 months. Clinical inputs reproduced the trial outcomes. SRE-related costs and utilities were literature based. Costs and QALYs were discounted 3% annually. Results: In the 27-month base-case analysis, denosumab was associated with fewer SREs (−0.298), more QALYs (+0.0102), and lower SRE-related costs (−$2016), but higher drug-related (+$9123) and total costs (+$7107) versus zoledronic acid. The cost per QALY gained (ie, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER]) was $697,499. In sensitivity analyses, the ICER ranged from $192,472 to $1,340,901/QALY, depending on assumptions regarding treatment benefits, drug costs, and analytical horizon. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, denosumab was cost-effective in 2 of 5000 modeled replicates (0.04%). Conclusions: Despite the limitations of restricted availability of clinical data and uncertainty regarding the price of generic zoledronic acid, the findings from the present analysis suggest that the use of denosumab is associated with a high ICER compared with zoledronic acid. This finding may raise important questions regarding the economic value of denosumab in bone-metastatic breast cancer. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]