Search

Background & ObjectivesIn a previous analysis, a decision-analytic model was used to analyze the clinical and economic impact of the differences in effectiveness between the two licensed mRNA COVID-19 booster vaccines, mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2, in 2022 for adults aged 18 years and older in the United States (US). In this analysis, the same model was used to estimate the impact that administering first booster doses with mRNA-1273 could have had on COVID-related hospitalizations and costs over a 6-month period in 10 developed countries (Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Spain, United Kingdom [UK], and US), considering updated effectiveness data.MethodsThe model was used to estimate number of hospitalizations and related costs using the actual vaccine distribution for the first COVID-19 booster from each country. These estimates were compared to a scenario where 100% of doses for that 6-month period was assumed to be mRNA-1273. The effectiveness of mRNA-1273 compared to BNT162b2 was estimated from real world data from the UK.ResultsThe total number of doses switched to the mRNA-1273 booster would range from 4.3 million in Spain to 39.4 million in Japan. The number of hospitalizations and associated hospitalization costs would be expected to fall in all countries, with the proportional decrease ranging from 1.1% (16,800 fewer) in Germany to 8.8% (25,100 fewer) in Australia.ConclusionsReal-world effectiveness data suggest that a booster dose of the mRNA-1273 vaccine may be more effective compared to other vaccines used for booster doses. Given this difference in effectiveness, results of this analysis demonstrate that switching to 100% mRNA-1273 boosters would have reduced the number of hospitalizations and associated costs in each country during the first 6 months of the omicron period.

BackgroundIn the United States (US), three vaccines are currently available for primary vaccination and booster doses to prevent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), including the 2-dose messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) BNT162b2 (COMIRNATY®, Pfizer Inc) and mRNA-1273 (SPIKEVAX®, Moderna Inc) vaccines, which are preferred by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Advisory Committee on Immunization Practice (ACIP), and the adenovirus vector Ad26.COV2.S (Johnson & Johnson) vaccine. A substantial body of evidence has now been published on the real-world effectiveness and waning of the primary series and booster doses against specific SARS-CoV2-variants. The study objective was to determine the clinical and economic impact of differences in effectiveness between mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2 booster vaccinations over one year (2022) in US adults ≥18 years.MethodsA decision analytic model was used to compare three mRNA booster market share scenarios: (1) Current Scenario, where the booster mix observed in December 2021 continues throughout 2022; (2) mRNA-1273 Scenario, where the only booster administered in 2022 is mRNA-1273, and (3) BNT162b2 Scenario, where the only booster administered in 2022 is BNT162b2. Analyses were performed from the US healthcare system perspective. Sensitivity analyses were performed to explore the impact of COVID-19 incidence in the unvaccinated population and vaccine effectiveness (VE) on model results.ResultsIn the Current Scenario, the model predicts 65.2 million outpatient visits, 3.4 million hospitalizations, and 636,100 deaths from COVID-19 in 2022. The mRNA-1273 Scenario reduced each of these outcomes compared to the Current Scenario. Specifically, 684,400 fewer outpatient visits, 48,700 fewer hospitalizations and 9,500 fewer deaths would be expected. Exclusive of vaccine costs, the mRNA-1273 Scenario is expected to decrease direct medical costs by $1.3 billion. Conversely, the BNT162b2 Scenario increased outcomes compared to the Current Scenario: specifically, 391,500 more outpatient visits, 34,500 more hospitalizations and 7,200 more deaths would be expected in 2022, costing an additional $946 million in direct medical costs. For both the mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2 booster scenarios, the percent change in direct treatment costs for COVID-19 is similar to the percent change in hospitalizations as the rate of hospitalizations is the driver of the overall costs.Changing the number of projected COVID-19 cases in 2022 by varying the incidence rate has a direct effect on model outcomes. Higher incidence rates leads to higher outpatient visits, hospitalizations and deaths for all scenarios. Varying VE has an inverse effect on model outcomes. All outcomes increase when VE is lower for all vaccines and decrease when VE is higher. In all cases, additional use of mRNA-1273 leads to fewer infection outcomes while additional use of BNT126b2 results to higher infection outcomes.ConclusionAs the real-world effectiveness evidence to date indicates that mRNA-1273 may be more effective at preventing COVID-19 infection and hospitalization over time than BNT-162b2, increasing the proportion of people receiving this as a booster are expected to reduce COVID-19-related outcomes and costs in 2022, regardless of COVID-19 incidence or variant.

In the United Kingdom (UK), both the MF59-adjuvanted quadrivalent influenza vaccine (aQIV) and the high-dose QIV (QIV-HD) are preferred for persons aged 65 years and older but only aQIV is reimbursed by the National Health Service (NHS). The objective was to determine the potential cost-effectiveness of vaccinating adults aged 65 years and above with aQIV compared with QIV-HD in the UK. A dynamic transmission model, calibrated to match infection data from the UK, was used to estimate the impact of vaccination in 10 influenza seasons. Vaccine effectiveness was based on a meta-analysis that concluded the vaccines were not significantly different. Vaccine coverage, physician visits, hospitalizations, deaths, utility losses and NHS costs were estimated using published UK sources. The list price of aQIV was £11.88 while a range of prices were tested for QIV-HD. The price of the trivalent high-dose vaccine (TIV-HD) is £20.00 but a list price for QIV-HD is not yet available. The projected differences between the vaccines in terms of clinical cases and influenza treatment costs are minimal. Our analysis demonstrates that in order to be cost-effective, the price of QIV-HD must be similar to that of aQIV and may range from £7.57 to £12.94 depending on the relative effectiveness of the vaccines. The results of the analysis were most sensitive to variation in vaccine effectiveness and the rate of hospitalization due to influenza. Given the evidence, aQIV is cost-saving unless QIV-HD is priced lower than the existing list price of TIV-HD.

Background: In response to COVID-19, the UK National Health Service (NHS) extended influenza vaccination in 50- to 64-year-olds from at-risk only to all in this age group for the 2020/21 season. The objective of this research is to determine the cost-effectiveness of continuing to vaccinate all with a quadrivalent cell-based vaccine (QIVc) compared to returning to an at-risk only policy after the pandemic resolves. Methods: A dynamic transmission model, calibrated to match infection data from the UK, was used to estimate the clinical and economic impact of vaccination across 10 influenza seasons. The base case effectiveness of QIVc was 63.9% and the list price was GBP 9.94. Results: Vaccinating 50% of all 50- to 64-year-olds with QIVc reduced the average annual number of clinical infections (−682,000), hospitalizations (−5800) and deaths (−740) in the UK. The base case incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained (ICER) of all compared to at-risk only was GBP6000 (NHS perspective). When the cost of lost productivity was considered, vaccinating all 50- to 64-year-olds with QIVc became cost-saving. Conclusion: Vaccinating all 50- to 64-year-olds with QIVc is likely to be cost-effective. The NHS should consider continuing this policy in future seasons.

Background: Researchers are working at unprecedented speed to develop a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. We aimed to assess the value of a hypothetical vaccine and its potential public health impact when prioritization is required due to supply constraints. Methods: A Markov cohort model was used to compare COVID-19 related direct medical costs and deaths in the United States (US), with versus without implementation of a 60% efficacious vaccine. To prioritize the vaccine under constrained supply, the population was divided into tiers based on age; risk and age; and occupation and age; and outcomes were compared across one year under various supply assumptions. For each prioritization strategy, the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained versus no vaccine was calculated overall and by tier. Findings: Overall, the cost per QALY gained for all vaccination strategies was $8,200 versus no vaccination. For the tiers at highest risk of complications from COVID-19, vaccination was cost-saving compared to no vaccination. The cost per QALY gained increased as the risk of hospitalization and death within each tier decreased. Under the most optimistic supply scenario and the most efficient prioritization scenario, the vaccine may prevent 32% of expected deaths. As supply becomes more constrained, prioritization is required to optimize the prevention of deaths. Interpretation: A COVID-19 vaccine is predicted to be good value for money (cost per QALY gained

Carcinoid syndrome, a rare condition in patients with neuroendocrine tumours, characterised by flushing and diarrhoea, severely affects patients’ quality of life. The current carcinoid syndrome standard of care includes somatostatin analogues, but some patients experience uncontrolled symptoms despite somatostatin analogue therapy. Telotristat ethyl is a novel treatment approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and US FDA that significantly reduces bowel movement frequency in patients with uncontrolled carcinoid syndrome. We developed a model to evaluate the 5-year budget impact of introducing telotristat ethyl to standard care in Swedish patients with uncontrolled carcinoid syndrome. Treatment response in the 12-week phase III TELESTAR trial (NCT01677910) informed telotristat ethyl efficacy; subsequently, health states were captured by a Markov model using 4-week cycles. TELESTAR open-label extension data informed telotristat ethyl discontinuation. The number of treatment-eligible patients was estimated from literature reviews reporting the prevalence, incidence and mortality of carcinoid syndrome. A Swedish database study informed real-world costs related to carcinoid syndrome and carcinoid heart disease costs. Telotristat ethyl market share was assumed to increase annually from 24% (year 1) to 70% (year 5). Over the 5-year model horizon, 44 patients were expected to initiate telotristat ethyl treatment. The cumulative net budget impact of adding telotristat ethyl to current standard of care was €172,346; per-year costs decreased from €66,495 (year 1) to €29,818 (year 5). Increased drug costs from adding telotristat ethyl were offset by reduced costs elsewhere. The expected budget impact of adding telotristat ethyl to the standard of care in Sweden was relatively low, largely because of the rarity of carcinoid syndrome.

Introduction: We reviewed the evolution of the methods used in cost-effectiveness analyses of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) in the primary and secondary prevention of febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients receiving myelosuppressive cancer chemotherapy.Areas covered: FN is a side effect of myelosuppressive chemotherapy associated with significant morbidity, mortality, and costs. The risk of FN may depend on the drugs used within a chemotherapy regimen, and an FN event may cause chemotherapy dose reductions or delays in subsequent cycles.Expert commentary: More recent pharmacoeconomic models have reflected these clinical observations by modeling sequential chemotherapy regimens to account for FN risk on a per-cycle basis, and by accounting for chemotherapy dose reductions and consequent survival losses.

Objective The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost effectiveness of no prophylaxis, primary prophylaxis (PP), or secondary prophylaxis (SP) with granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs), i.e., pegfilgrastim, lipegfilgrastim, filgrastim (6- and 11-day), or lenograstim (6- and 11-day), to reduce the incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients with stage II breast cancer receiving TC (docetaxel, cyclophosphamide) and in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) receiving R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone) over a lifetime horizon from a Belgian payer perspective. Methods A Markov cycle tree tracked FN events during chemotherapy (3-week cycles) and long-term survival (1-year cycles). Model inputs, including the efficacy of each strategy, risk of reduced relative dose intensity (RDI), and the impact of RDI on mortality, utilities, and costs (in €; 2014 values) were estimated from public sources and the published literature. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were assessed for each strategy for costs per FN event avoided, life-year (LY) saved, and quality-adjusted LY (QALY) saved. LYs and QALYs saved were discounted at 1.5% annually. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (DSAs and PSAs) were conducted. Results Base-case ICERs for PP with pegfilgrastim relative to SP with pegfilgrastim were €15,500 per QALY and €14,800 per LY saved for stage II breast cancer and €7800 per QALY and €6900 per LY saved for NHL; other comparators were either more expensive and less effective than PP or SP with pegfilgrastim or had lower costs but higher ICERs (relative to SP with pegfilgrastim) than PP with pegfilgrastim. Results of the DSA for breast cancer and NHL comparing PP and SP with pegfilgrastim indicate that the model results were most sensitive to the cycle 1 risk of FN, the proportion of FN events requiring hospitalization, the relative risk of FN in cycles ≥2 versus cycle 1, no history of FN, and the mortality hazard ratio for RDI (

In 2010 the US Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommended that the seven-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV7) be replaced by the thirteen-valent version (PCV13), which provides protection against six additional serotypes of the bacterium Streptococcus pneumoniae. The higher price of PCV13, compared to PCV7, may be a concern for funding agencies and payers, as has been the case with other new vaccines. This study estimated the budgetary impact on both public and private US insurance payers of the routine use of PCV13 instead of PCV7 from 2010 to 2019. Implementing the PCV13 vaccine is projected to cost public and private payers $3.5 billion and $2.6 billion, respectively, more than PCV7. However, PCV13 is expected to provide net cost savings of $6.1 billion and $4.2 billion, respectively, to those payers during the ten-year period by preventing pneumococcal disease and its associated costs. An additional $1.7 billion in cost savings would be realized for uninsured patients, whose costs ultimately fall on those payers. Despite its higher price, compared to PCV7, this new vaccine is expected to provide payers with substantial net budgetary savings.

Seasonal influenza infects approximately 10–20% of Canadians each year, causing an estimated 12,200 hospitalizations and 3,500 deaths annually, mostly occurring in adults ≥65 years old (seniors). A 32,000-participant, randomized controlled clinical trial (FIM12; Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01427309) showed that high-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV-HD) is superior to standard-dose vaccine (SD) in preventing laboratory-confirmed influenza illness in seniors. In this study, we performed a cost-utility analysis (CUA) of IIV-HD versus SD in FIM12 participants from a Canadian perspective. Healthcare resource utilization data collected in FIM12 included: medications, non-routine/urgent care and emergency room visits, and hospitalizations. Unit costs were applied using standard Canadian cost sources to estimate the mean direct medical and societal costs associated with each vaccine (2014 CAD). Clinical illness data from the trial were mapped to quality-of-life data from the literature to estimate differences in effectiveness between vaccines. Time horizon was one influenza season, however, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) lost due to death during the study were captured over a lifetime. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was also performed. Average per-participant medical costs were $47 lower and societal costs $60 lower in the IIV-HD arm. Hospitalizations contributed 91% of the total cost and were less frequent in the IIV-HD arm. IIV-HD provided a gain in QALYs and, due to cost savings, dominated SD in the CUA. The PSA indicated that IIV-HD is 89% likely to be cost saving. In Canada, IIV-HD is expected to be a less costly and more effective alternative to SD, driven by a reduction in hospitalizations.

Background: Candidaemia and other forms of invasive candidiasis (C/IC) are serious and costly events for hospitalized patients, particularly those in the ICU. Both fluconazole and the echinocandins are recommended as first-line therapy for C/IC. Resource use and cost considerations are important in selecting appropriate treatment but little information is available on the economic implications of using echinocandins in this setting. Objective: To compare resource utilization and treatment costs (in &dollar;US) associated with the echinocandin anidulafungin (200 mg intravenously on day 1, then 100 mg intravenously daily) versus those of fluconazole (800 mg intravenously on day 1, then 400 mg intravenously daily) as first-line treatment for C/IC. Methods: Available charts from patients enrolled in a recent clinical trial comparing anidulafungin and fluconazole for C/IC were reviewed. Patients who were in the ICU at study entry were identified, and the following data, collected during the 13-week study period, were compared between treatment groups: global response at end of study treatment, number of days patients survived after hospital discharge ('hospital-free' days), hospital resource use, and C/IC-related costs (year 2008 values) to a US hospital payer. These comparisons were also conducted for all non-ICU hospitalized patients, and for survivors in both study populations. Sensitivity analyses explored the cost impact of variability in the hospitalization costs between ICUs and non-ICU wards and of reduced duration intravenous therapy. Statistical comparisons between the two treatment groups were conducted for clinical outcomes, resource use and cost measures, using regression models. All statistical comparisons were adjusted for baseline co-variates (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation &lsqb;APACHE&rsqb; II score, absolute neutrophil count and catheter removal status). Results: For ICU patients with C/IC (n - 63), global response was significantly higher for anidulafungin than fluconazole (68.6% vs 42.9%; p - 0.03). ICU patients treated with anidulafungin had an average of 13.9 more hospital-free days (18.2 vs 4.3 days; p - 0.04) than those treated with fluconazole. After adjustment for co-variates, although lower costs were observed for anidulafungin vs fluconazole in ICU patients and in ICU patients who survived, no statistical differences were found. For all hospitalized patients (n - 159), global response was also higher for anidulafungin (78.3% vs 60.5%; p < 0.01). There was no difference in average length of hospitalization (29.6 days) or hospital-free days. After adjustment for co-variates, anidulafungin treatment resulted in an incremental C/IC-related cost of &dollar;US2680 (p - 0.73). For hospitalized patients who survived (anidulafungin 81.9%, fluconazole 69.7%), anidulafungin treatment was associated with an incremental cost of &dollar;US231 (p - 0.98). Conclusion: Anidulafungin as first-line treatment of C/IC appears to be of particular benefit to ICU patients, improving clinical outcomes and possibly decreasing costs, driven by reduced ICU and hospital stay, when compared with fluconazole. Anidulafungin also yielded significantly improved treatment outcomes in the general inpatient population, with total costs similar to fluconazole.

Objectives The ability of the Bellamy et al. Low-Intensity Symptom State-attainment (BLISS) Index to differentiate between treatment groups (hylan G-F 20 vs. appropriate care) at low and very low levels of state attainment in patients with knee osteoarthritis was explored using the stiffness, function, and total index (TI) components of the WOMAC. Study Design and Setting Six different BLISS measures were analyzed using five WOMAC score thresholds: ≤5 normalized units (NUs): ≤10, ≤15, ≤20, and ≤25 (lower = better health). Results More patients in the hylan G-F 20 group achieved BLISS states in all three WOMAC subscales for all six BLISS analyses. These differences were statistically significant for the BLISS response at any time at all threshold levels except ≤5 NU. Conclusions The six BLISS measures and threshold levels of stiffness, function, and TI score were able to statistically discriminate between treatment groups. BLISS-10 is a therapeutically attainable very low symptom state at which clinically important statistically significant between-group differences are detectable in pain, stiffness, function, and TI score and therefore may provide a benchmark against which therapeutic interventions can be assessed. However, the value to patients of these symptom states requires further elaboration.

Summary Background Adults aged 65 years and older account for most seasonal influenza-related hospital admissions and deaths. Findings from the randomised controlled FIM12 study showed that high-dose inactivated influenza vaccine is more effective than standard-dose vaccine for prevention of laboratory-confirmed influenza in this age group. We aimed to assess the economic impact of high-dose versus standard-dose influenza vaccine in participants in the FIM12 study population. Methods The FIM12 study was a head-to-head randomised controlled trial in which 31 989 participants aged 65 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either high-dose or standard-dose trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine over two influenza seasons (2011–12 and 2012–13). Data for health-care resource consumption obtained in the FIM12 study were summarised across vaccine groups. Unit costs obtained from standard US cost sources were applied to each resource item, including to the vaccines (high dose US$31·82, standard dose $12·04). Clinical illness data were mapped to existing quality-of-life data. The time horizon was one influenza season; however, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) lost due to death during the study were calculated over a lifetime. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for high-dose versus standard-dose vaccine and used QALYs as an outcome in the cost-utility analysis. We undertook a probabilistic sensitivity analysis using bootstrapping to explore the effect of statistical uncertainty on the study results. Findings Mean per-participant medical costs were lower in the high-dose vaccine group ($1376·72 [SD 6857·59]) than in the standard-dose group ($1492·64 [7447·14]; difference –$115·92 [95% CI −264·18 to 35·48]). Mean societal costs were likewise lower in the high-dose versus the standard-dose group ($1506·48 [SD 7305·19] vs $1634·50 [7952·99]; difference −$128·02 [95% CI −286·89 to 33·30]). Hospital admissions contributed 95% of the total health-care-payer cost and 87% of the total societal costs. The mean per-participant number of hospital admissions was 0·0937 (SD 0·3644) in the high-dose group and 0·1017 (0·3708) in the standard-dose group (difference −0·0080, 95% CI −0·0160 to −0·0003). The high-dose vaccine provided a gain in QALYs (mean 8·1502 QALYs gained per participant [SD 0·5693]) compared with the standard-dose vaccine (8·1499 QALYs [0·5697]) and, due to cost savings, dominated standard-dose vaccine in the cost-utility analysis. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that the high-dose vaccine is 93% likely to be cost saving. Interpretation High-dose trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine is a less costly and more effective alternative to the standard-dose vaccine, driven by a reduction in the number of hospital admissions. These findings are relevant to US health-care beneficiaries, providers, payers, and recommending bodies, especially those seeking to improve outcomes while containing costs. Funding Sanofi Pasteur.

Objective Evaluate the cost-effectiveness of primary prophylaxis (PP) or secondary prophylaxis (SP) with pegfilgrastim, filgrastim (6-day and 11-day), or no prophylaxis to reduce the risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer receiving docetaxel or topotecan. Methods A Markov model was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of PP vs SP from a US payer perspective. Model inputs, including the efficacy of each strategy (relative risk of FN with prophylaxis compared to no prophylaxis) and mortality, costs, and utility values were estimated from public sources and peer-reviewed publications. Incremental cost-effectiveness was evaluated in terms of net cost per FN event avoided, incremental cost per life-year saved (LYS), and incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained over a lifetime horizon. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (DSA and PSA) were conducted. Results For patients receiving docetaxel, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for PP vs SP with pegfilgrastim was $7900 per QALY gained, and PP with pegfilgrastim dominated all other comparators. For patients receiving topotecan, PP with pegfilgrastim dominated all comparators. Model results were most sensitive to baseline FN risk. PP vs SP with pegfilgrastim was cost effective in 68% and 83% of simulations for docetaxel and in >99% of simulations for topotecan at willingness-to-pay thresholds of $50,000 and $100,000 per QALY. Conclusions PP with pegfilgrastim should be considered cost effective compared to other prophylaxis strategies in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer receiving docetaxel or topotecan with a high risk of FN.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most commonly diagnosed cancer in Canada (excluding non-melanoma skin cancers). Bevacizumab is a recombinant humanized monoclonal antibody that selectively binds to human vascular endothelial growth factor. A sub-study confirmed its effectiveness in KRAS wild-type patients. Recent evidence has shown clinical benefit from anti-epidermal growth factor treatments cetuximab and panitumumab in these patients. The cost-effectiveness, to the Canadian healthcare system, of fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy (FBC) in combination with bevacizumab, cetuximab, or panitumumab was assessed for first-line treatment of KRAS wild-type mCRC patients.A Markov model was developed and calibrated to progression-free/overall survival, using separately reported trial survival and adverse event results for each comparator. Health-state resource utilization was derived from published data and oncologist input. Utilities and unit prices were obtained from published literature and standard Canadian sources.Results per patient are over a lifetime horizon, to a maximum of 10 years, with 5% annual discounting. Comparators are ordered by total cost and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of each is determined against the previous non-dominated therapy. Compared to FBC alone, bevacizumab + FBC has an ICER of $131,600 per QALY gained. Compared to bevacizumab + FBC, panitumumab + FBC is dominated and cetuximab + FBC has an ICER of $3.8 million per QALY. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, bevacizumab + FBC had ∼100%, ∼100%, and 98.9% probabilities of being more cost-effective than both of the other combination treatments at thresholds of $50,000/QALY, $100,000/QALY, and $200,000/QALY, respectively.For first-line treatment of KRAS-WT mCRC, bevacizumab + FBC is associated with substantially lower costs as compared to panitumumab + FBC or cetuximab + FBC. Key limitations were that survival curves and adverse event rates were taken from separate clinical trials and that an indirect comparison was not included. Given these findings, bevacizumab is likely to offer the best value for money for this patient population.

Current European guidelines recommend prophylactic implantation of cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) in patients with a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) who are not in NYHA class IV and have reasonable life expectancy. Cost and benefit implications of this recommendation have not been reported from a European perspective.Markov modelling estimated lifetime costs and effects [life years (LY) and quality-adjusted LY (QALY) gained] of prophylactic ICD implantation vs. conventional treatment, among patients with a reduced LVEF. Efficacy was estimated from a meta-analysis of mortality rates in the six primary prevention trials with inclusion criteria matching ACC/AHA/ESC Class I or IIa recommendations. Direct medical costs were estimated using Belgian national references. Costs and effects were discounted at 3 and 1.5% per annum, respectively. Probabilistic sensitivity and scenario analyses estimated the uncertainty around the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. An ICD implantation increased the lifetime direct costs by euro 46,413. Estimated mean LY/QALY gained were 1.88/1.57, respectively. Probabilistic analysis estimated mean lifetime cost per QALY gained as euro 31,717 (95% CI: euro 19,760-euro 61,316). Cost-effectiveness was influenced most by ICD efficacy, time to replacement, utility, and patient age at implantation.In a European healthcare setting, prophylactic ICD implantation may be cost-effective if current guidelines for patients with a reduced LVEF are followed.