Comparing olanzapine and ziprasidone in the treatment of schizophrenia: a case study in modeling

SUMMARY

When a new drug is introduced to the market, the availability of head-to-head data for comparisons of annual cost and health outcomes with other drugs already on the market is usually insufficient. When only limited head-to-head data are available, one alternative is to perform preliminary modeling using data from the best available studies. In this paper, we synthesise data from the most comparable available studies to create a model to compare the annual costs and health outcomes when initiating treatment for schizophrenia with one of two antipsychotic drugs: olanzapine, which was launched in the United States (US) market in September 1996, and ziprasidone, which was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in February 2001. Annual treatment costs were determined by response and relapse rates as well as acquisition costs. The results indicate similar annual treatment costs (US$48,676 for olanzapine; US$48,873 for ziprasidone), despite the lower drug acquisition cost for ziprasidone. Annual health outcomes differed between the olanzapine and ziprasidone groups with 23.5% and 25.2% relapsed, 36.7 and 37.4 hospital days, and 60.0 and 60.1 EPS days in the olanzapine and ziprasidone groups respectively. A head-to-head naturalistic trial is needed to validate the results of this modeling exercise.     

Pharmacoeconomic analysis of the treatment of schizophrenia with quetiapine,olanzapine, risperidone or haloperidol in Spain

Summary

The study objective was to compare the costs of the treatment of schizophrenia with quetiapine (QUE), olanzapine (OLA), risperidone (RIS) or haloperidol (HAL) and those of the secondary effects (SE) associated. A cost-effectiveness analysis, using a Markov process, was used.The time horizon was 12 months.The study population comprised Spanish adult schizophrenic patients.The NHS perspective was taken (direct costs).The costs of several SE of medication were analysed. Use of resources and costs were calculated following the recommendations of the Spanish Psychiatric Society and other sources.

The monthly rates of the onset of SE with each medicine were calculated using a meta-analysis and systematic review of the literature.

A simple univariate sensitivity analysis was performed. QUE is as efficacious as OLA and RIS, but apparently leading to fewer cases of extrapyramidal syndrome and sexual dysfunction, with lower costs. QUE is better tolerated than HAL, but with higher costs.     

Cost-effectiveness of amisulpride compared with risperidone in patients with schizophrenia

SUMMARY

Amisulpride is an atypical antipsychotic, which has demonstrated efficacy across the range of symptoms of schizophrenia. This study compares the treatment costs of amisulpride (including drug costs, hospital costs, and costs of clinician and nurse visits) with those of risperidone over a 6-month treatment period, from the perspective of the UK National Health Service. Resource utilisation data were collected alongside an international, multicentre clinical trial comparing amisulpride (400-1000 mg/day) with risperidone (4-10 mg/day) in 198 patients with schizophrenia. As this trial demonstrated that amisulpride had at least equivalent efficacy to risperidone, the present study was a cost-minimisation analysis. Unit cost data for the UK were obtained from published sources and applied to the clinical data to calculate direct treatment costs. Amisulpride was associated with lower drug acquisition costs and lower resource utilisation costs than risperidone, although the differences did not reach statistical significance. Overall, the average total cost per patient for 6 months of treatment with amisulpride (£12,673; 95% CI: 10,628,14,717) was £2,145 less than for risperidone (£14,818; 95% CI: 12,323,17,312). These findings are similar to those of a previous study that compared the treatment costs of amisulpride with those of haloperidol, and found that

amisulpride was associated with significantly lower direct treatment costs than haloperidol. Amisulpride is a valuable treatment option in patients with schizophrenia.     

Risperidone: An assessment of its economic benefits in the treatment of schizophrenia

Summary

A variety of economic studies have been carried out in Europe, North America and Australia. Risperidone is dominant over haloperidol, providing both an improvement in patient benefit and decreasing direct medical costs. These effects are most marked in patients who continue risperidone treatment. Treatment failures need more study, but the costs of therapeutic trial are low enough to recommend risperidone in preference to conventional antipsychotics for patients requiring new or alternative treatment for schizophrenia.

Much of the evidence for the economic benefits of risperidone comes from studies with historical controls in treatment resistant or treatment intolerant patients. The biggest contributor to the economic impact of risperidone is the reduction in hospital stay resulting from treatment with the drug. More long-term work is required with parallel control groups and also with less severely ill patients.     

Cost-effectiveness of several atypical antipsychotics in orally disintegrating tablets compared with standard oral tablets in the treatment of schizophrenia in the United States

Abstract

Objective:

Although the use of innovative drug delivery systems, like orally disintegrating antipsychotic tablets (ODT), may facilitate medication adherence and help reduce the risk of relapse and hospitalization, no information is available about the comparative cost-effectiveness of standard oral tablets (SOT) vs ODT formulations in the treatment of schizophrenia. This study compared the cost-effectiveness of olanzapine ODT and olanzapine SOT in the usual treatment of outpatients with schizophrenia from a US healthcare perspective. The study also compared olanzapine ODT with risperidone and aripiprazole, two other atypical antipsychotics available in both ODT and SOT formulations.

Methods:

Published medical literature and a clinical expert panel were used to populate a 1-year Monte Carlo Micro-simulation model. The model captures clinical and cost parameters including adherence levels, treatment discontinuation by reason, relapse with and without inpatient hospitalization, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), treatment-emergent adverse events, healthcare resource utilization, and associated costs. Key outcomes were total annual direct cost per treatment, QALY, and incremental cost-effectiveness (ICER) per 1 QALY gained.

Results:

Based on model projections, olanzapine ODT therapy was more costly ($9808 vs $9533), but more effective in terms of a lower hospitalization rate (15% vs 16%) and better QALYs (0.747 vs 0.733) than olanzapine SOT therapy. Olanzapine ODT was more cost-effective than olanzapine SOT (ICER: $19,643), more cost-effective than risperidone SOT therapy (ICER: $39,966), and dominant (meaning less costly and more effective) than risperidone ODT and aripiprazole in ODT or SOT formulations.

Limitations:

Lack of head-to-head randomized studies comparing the three studied atypical antipsychotics required making input assumptions that need further study.

Conclusions:

This micro-simulation found that the utilization of olanzapine ODT for the treatment of schizophrenia is predicted to be more cost-effective than any other ODT or SOT formulations of the studied atypical antipsychotic medications.     

Cost-effectiveness analysis of glatiramer acetate in the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis

SUMMARY

We have developed an economic model around the patient level data from the pivotal clinical trial for Copaxone® (glatiramer acetate), combined with published cost and natural history data, to demonstrate cost-effectiveness in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS). Based upon analysis over 8 years, the cost per relapse avoided and cost per disability unit avoided was £11,000 and £8,862 respectively. To facilitate comparison with other therapies and across other disease areas we also calculated the cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY). Dependent upon the assumed utility loss associated with duration of relapse, the cost per QALY ranged between £22,586 and £64,636 over 8 years analysis. Given the nature of the disease and compared to accepted standards of cost-effectiveness in the UK, this analysis shows that glatiramer acetate is demonstrably cost-effective versus best supportive care alone.

Copaxone is a registered trademark of Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Israel     

Medication adherence and discontinuation of long-acting injectable versus oral antipsychotics in patients with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder

Aims: To examine medication adherence and discontinuation in two separate groups of patients with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder (BD), who began receiving a long-acting injectable antipsychotic (LAI) versus those who changed to a different oral antipsychotic monotherapy.

Materials and methods: The Truven Health Analytics MarketScan Multi-State Medicaid claims database was used to identify patients with schizophrenia; Truven Health Analytics MarketScan Commercial and Medicaid claims databases were used to identify patients with BD. The analyses included adult patients (≥18 years) who either began receiving an LAI (no prior LAI therapy) or changed to a different oral antipsychotic (monotherapy). The first day of initiating an LAI or changing to a new oral antipsychotic was the index date. Linear and Cox regression models were conducted to estimate medication adherence (proportion of days covered [PDC]) and time to medication discontinuation (continuous medication gap ≥60 days), respectively. Models adjusted for patient demographic and clinical characteristics, baseline medication use, and baseline ED or hospitalizations.

Results: Patients with schizophrenia (N?=?5638) who began receiving LAIs had better medication adherence (5% higher adjusted mean adherence) during the 1 year post-index period and were 20% less likely to discontinue their medication during the entire follow-up period than patients who changed to a different oral antipsychotic monotherapy, adjusting for differences between LAI users and oral users. Similarly, patients with BD (N?=?11,344) who began receiving LAIs also had 5% better medication adherence and were 19% less likely to discontinue their medication than those using oral antipsychotics.

Limitations: Clinical differences unmeasurable in this database may have been responsible for the choice of LAI versus oral antipsychotics, and these differences may be responsible for some of the adherence advantages observed.

Conclusions: This real-world study suggests that patients with schizophrenia or BD who began receiving LAIs had better medication adherence and lower discontinuation risk than those who changed to a different oral antipsychotic monotherapy.     

Cost-effectiveness of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors versus angiotensin II receptor blockers as first-line treatment in autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease

Background: Autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD) is a rare kidney disorder impacting ～1:2,500 individuals among the general US population. Hypertension is a significant predictor of ADPKD progression, and a risk factor for development of cardiovascular disease (CVD), the most common cause for mortality among ADPKD patients. Angiotensin-converting enzymes inhibitors (ACE-I) are widely used as first-line treatment in ADPKD for the management of hypertension. However, their cost-effectiveness relative to other hypertensive medications, such as angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARB), has never been assessed.

Objective: To determine if ARB are more cost-effective than ACE-Is as first-line treatment in ADPKD.

Methods: A Markov-state decision model was constructed for estimation of cost and outcome benefits in hypertensive ADPKD patients. Transition probabilities were extrapolated from a retrospective cohort study comparing chronic kidney disease (CKD) stage transitions in ADPKD patients. Annual pharmaceutical costs per average daily dose per CKD stage were extracted from a US healthcare claims database. Median total healthcare costs per CKD stage or transplant were extracted from the published literature. The time horizon was set to 30 years, with 1-year duration to cycle shift. A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of ACE-I vs ARB per additional year of prevented transplant and/or death. A one-way probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted, with 10% variation in probabilities and cost.

Results: Total annual healthcare costs accrued after 30 years among ADPKD patients taking ACE-Is was estimated to be $3,505,028.41, compared to ARB at $3,644,327.65. Life expectancy was increased by 1.39 years among patients taking ACE-I. Approximate 10-year survival in patients taking ACE-Is was 47% compared to ARB at 34%.

Conclusions: ACE-I dominated ARB and displayed greater cost-effectiveness due to lower cost and increased capacity to prolong years of life without transplant or death among hypertensive ADPKD patients. This model strengthens the value of ACE-I over ARB as first-line treatment for hypertension management in ADPKD patients.     

Cost-effectiveness analysis in the Spanish setting of the PEAK trial of panitumumab plus mFOLFOX6 compared with bevacizumab plus mFOLFOX6 for first-line treatment of patients with wild-type RAS metastatic colorectal cancer

Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness of panitumumab in combination with mFOLFOX6 (oxaliplatin, 5-fluorouracil, and leucovorin) vs bevacizumab in combination with mFOLFOX6 as first-line treatment of patients with wild-type RAS metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in Spain.

Methods: A semi-Markov model was developed including the following health states: Progression free; Progressive disease: Treat with best supportive care; Progressive disease: Treat with subsequent active therapy; Attempted resection of metastases; Disease free after metastases resection; Progressive disease: after resection and relapse; and Death. Parametric survival analyses of patient-level progression free survival and overall survival data from the PEAK Phase II clinical trial were used to estimate health state transitions. Additional data from the PEAK trial were considered for the dose and duration of therapy, the use of subsequent therapy, the occurrence of adverse events, and the incidence and probability of time to metastasis resection. Utility weightings were calculated from patient-level data from panitumumab trials evaluating first-, second-, and third-line treatments. The study was performed from the Spanish National Health System (NHS) perspective including only direct costs. A life-time horizon was applied. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses and scenario sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robustness of the model.

Results: Based on the PEAK trial, which demonstrated greater efficacy of panitumumab vs bevacizumab, both in combination with mFOLFOX6 first-line in wild-type RAS mCRC patients, the estimated incremental cost per life-year gained was €16,567 and the estimated incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained was €22,794. The sensitivity analyses showed the model was robust to alternative parameters and assumptions.

Limitations: The analysis was based on a simulation model and, therefore, the results should be interpreted cautiously.

Conclusions: Based on the PEAK Phase II clinical trial and taking into account Spanish costs, the results of the analysis showed that first-line treatment of mCRC with panitumumab?+?mFOLFOX6 could be considered a cost-effective option compared with bevacizumab?+?mFOLFOX6 for the Spanish NHS.     

Cost-effectiveness of asenapine in the treatment of schizophrenia in Canada

Objective:

Asenapine is the first tetracyclic antipsychotic approved in Canada for the treatment of schizophrenia (SCZ). Asenapine has shown a comparable efficacy profile to other atypical antipsychotics and it is associated with a favourable metabolic profile and less weight gain. This study aimed to assess the economic impact of asenapine compared to other atypical antipsychotics in the treatment of SCZ in Canada.

Methods:

A decision tree combined with a Markov model was constructed to assess the cost-utility of asenapine compared with other atypical antipsychotics. The decision tree takes into account the occurrence of extrapyramidal symptoms, the probability of switching to a different antipsychotic, and the probability of gaining weight. The Markov model takes into account long-term metabolic complications including diabetes, hypertension, coronary heart diseases, and stroke. In the base-case analysis, asenapine was compared to olanzapine. Asenapine was also compared with other atypical antipsychotics commonly used in Canada in alternative scenarios. Analyses were conducted from both Canadian Ministry of Health (MoH) and societal perspectives over a 5-year time horizon.

Results:

In the treatment of SCZ, asenapine is a dominant strategy over olanzapine from both MoH and societal perspectives. Compared to quetiapine, asenapine is also a dominant strategy. Furthermore, asenapine has a favorable economic impact compared to ziprasidone and aripiprazole, as these antipsychotics are not cost-effective compared to asenapine from both MoH and societal perspectives.

Conclusion:

Despite the short time horizon, the lack of compliance data and the assumptions made, this economic evaluation demonstrates that asenapine is a cost-effective strategy compared to olanzapine and to most of the atypical antipsychotics frequently used in Canada.     

Cost-effectiveness analysis of rasburicase over standard of care for the prevention and treatment of tumor lysis syndrome in children with hematologic malignancies in China

Aims: To conduct a lifetime cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of rasburicase compared with standard of care (SOC) for tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) in children with hematologic malignancies from the Chinese healthcare system perspective.

Materials and methods: The CEA was performed using a decision tree model with a lifetime horizon. The model explores the cost-effectiveness of rasburicase vs SOC for both preventing TLS and treating established TLS among pediatric patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML), acute lymphoid leukemia (ALL), and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL). Both the prophylaxis-use model and treatment-use model incorporate long-term health states of the diseases: survival without TLS and death. The efficacy data of rasburicase and SOC were obtained from published literature. Drug costs, healthcare resource utilization (HRU), and adverse event (AE) management costs were obtained via a published study with clinical experts. Costs in US dollar and quality-adjusted life year (QALY) are reported, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were also calculated. Uncertainties due to parameter fluctuations in the model were assessed through one-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA).

Results: During TLS prevention, compared with SOC, the ICER of rasburicase treatment in China are $17,580.04/QALY, $5,783.45/QALY, and $5,391.00/QALY for pediatric patients with AML, ALL, and NHL, respectively. For the established TLS treatment, compared with SOC, the ICERs of rasburicase treatment are $2,031.18/QALY, $1,142.93/QALY, and $990.37/QALY for pediatric patients with AML, ALL, and NHL, respectively.

Limitations: The clinical data for SOC are based on the published study in China, and the rasburicase prevention or treatment failure rate was either calculated based on the risk ratio or directly from the clinical study among non-Chinese pediatric patients. Another study limitation was the lack of utility data for pediatric patients with TLS and without TLS. Thus, the utility scores of pediatric cancer survivors were used as an alternative.

Conclusion: Rasburicase is estimated to be a cost-effective alternative to SOC in the prevention and treatment of TLS among Chinese pediatric patients with AML, ALL, and NHL.     

A comparison of treatment patterns,healthcare resource utilization,and costs among young adult Medicaid beneficiaries with schizophrenia treated with paliperidone palmitate or oral atypical antipsychotics in the US

Abstract

Background: Much of the burden associated with schizophrenia is attributed to its early onset and chronic nature. Treatment with once monthly paliperidone palmitate (PP1M) is associated with lower healthcare utilization and better adherence as compared to oral atypical antipsychotics (OAAs). This study aimed to evaluate real-world effectiveness of PP1M and OAA therapies among US-based adult Medicaid patients with schizophrenia, overall and among young adults aged 18–35 years.

Methods: Adult patients with a diagnosis of schizophrenia and at least two claims for PP1M or OAA between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2014 were selected from the IBM Watson Health MarketScan Medicaid Database. Treatment patterns and healthcare resource utilization and costs were compared between PP1M and OAA treatment groups following inverse probability of treatment (IPT) weighting to adjust for potential differences. Utilization and cost outcomes were estimated using OLS and weighted Poisson regression models.

Results: After IPT weighting, the young adult PP1M and OAA cohorts were comprised of 3,095 and 3,155 patients, respectively. PP1M patients had a higher duration of continuous treatment exposure (168.2 vs 132.5 days, p?=?.004) and better adherence on the index medication (proportion of days covered ≥80%: 19.0% vs 17.1%, p?<?.049). Young adults treated with PP1M were 37% less likely to have an all-cause inpatient admission (odds ratio [OR]?=?0.63, 95% confidence interval [CI]?=?0.53–0.74) and 33% less likely to have an ER visit (OR?=?0.67, 95% CI?=?0.55–0.81) compared to OAA young adult patients, but 27% more likely to have an all-cause outpatient office visit (OR?=?1.27, 95% CI?=?1.02–1.56). PP1M patients incurred significantly lower medical costs as compared to OAA patients.

Conclusions: Medicaid patients with schizophrenia treated with PP1M have higher medication adherence and have fewer hospitalizations as compared to patients treated with OAAs. PP1M may lead to reduced healthcare utilization and improved clinical outcomes.     

Cost-effectiveness analysis of first-line pembrolizumab treatment for PD-L1 positive,non-small cell lung cancer in China

Purpose: Pembrolizumab was recently approved in several countries as a first-line treatment for patients with PD-L1 positive, non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, it is expensive. This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab in treating advanced NSCLC patients with PD-L1 positive cancer in China.

Methods: A Markov model was developed to compare the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab with chemotherapy for patients with PD-L1 expression on at least 50% of NSCLC tumor cells. Model inputs for transition probabilities and toxicity were derived from published clinical trial data, while health utilities were estimated from a literature review. Costs for drugs were updated to standard fee data from West China Hospital in 2017. Health outcomes were measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and cost-effectiveness was measured as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the robustness of the model.

Results: Pembrolizumab gained 0.45 QALYs at an incremental cost of $46,362 compared to chemotherapy for an ICER of $103,128 per QALY gained. In most scenarios, the ICER exceeded three times the Chinese Gross Domestic Product per capita. Two-way sensitivity analysis showed that, when the utility of the progression-free status increased to the maximal value of 0.845 and the 1?mg dose price decreased to $10.50, the ICER reduced to $25,216/QALY.

Conclusions: Pembrolizumab is not likely to be cost-effective in the treatment of PD-L1 positive, NSCLC for Chinese patients. Less aggressive pricing may increase accessibility for patients in China.     

Cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab for the adjuvant treatment of resected high-risk stage III melanoma in the United States

Abstract

Aims: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of adjuvant pembrolizumab relative to observation alone following complete resection of high-risk stage III melanoma with lymph node involvement, from a US health system perspective.

Materials and methods: A Markov cohort model with four health states (recurrence-free, locoregional recurrence, distant metastases, and death) was developed to estimate costs, life-years, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) associated with pembrolizumab vs observation over a lifetime (46-year) horizon. Using a parametric multi-state modeling approach, transition probabilities starting from recurrence-free were estimated based on patient-level data from KEYNOTE-054 (NCT02362594), a direct head-to-head phase 3 trial. Post-recurrence transition probabilities were informed by real-world retrospective data and clinical trials in advanced melanoma. Health state utilities and adverse event-related disutility were derived from KEYNOTE-054 trial data and published literature. Costs of drug acquisition and administration, adverse events, disease management, and terminal care were estimated in 2018?US dollars. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess robustness.

Results: Over a lifetime horizon, adjuvant pembrolizumab and observation were associated with total QALYs of 9.24 and 5.95, total life-years of 10.54 and 7.15, and total costs of $489,820 and $440,431, respectively. The resulting incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for pembrolizumab vs observation were $15,009/QALY and $14,550/life-year. Across the range of input values and assumptions tested in deterministic sensitivity analyses, pembrolizumab ranged from being a dominant strategy to having an ICER of $57,449/QALY vs observation. The ICER was below a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY in 90.2% of probabilistic simulations.

Limitations: Long-term extrapolation of outcomes was based on interim results from KEYNOTE-054, with a median follow-up of 15?months.

Conclusions: Based on common willingness-to-pay benchmarks, pembrolizumab is highly cost-effective compared with observation alone for the adjuvant treatment of completely resected stage III melanoma in the US.     

Cost-effectiveness implications of increased survival with anastrozole in the treatment of advanced breast cancer

Summary

Anastrozole (Arimidex*) has a survival benefit compared with megestrol acetate in postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer who have failed on tamoxifen. It was felt appropriate that such a clinical finding should be subjected to economic evaluation.

A cost-effectiveness analysis was undertaken from the viewpoint of a third-party payer, of the data from a combined analysis of two clinical studies. The outcome measures were duration of drug treatment and life years gained. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) of anastrozole was £1,608 per life year gained based on UK NHS drug prices in April 1998. Sensitivity analysis showed that the ICER could vary between £5 and £1,643, depending on relative drug costs in a number of countries, between £1,056 and £1,761, depending on the method used to calculate duration of treatment and survival, and could increase to £3,730, based on treatment provided during the extra period of survival.

Anastrozole is a highly cost-effective alternative to megestrol acetate for postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer.     

Cost-effectiveness analysis of utidelone plus capecitabine for metastatic breast cancer in China

Abstract

Objective: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of utidelone plus capecitabine therapy compared to capecitabine alone in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) resistant to anthracyclines and taxanes treatment in the Chinese context and provide a reference for the marketing of utidelone in China.

Methods: A Markov model was developed based on the NCT02253459 clinical trial to simulate the clinical course of patients with metastatic breast cancer who had received taxanes and anthracycline therapy. The quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) were then analyzed to evaluate the benefits. Two-parametric Weibull distribution was conducted to fit PFS and OS curves by using R. Sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the stability of the model designed.

Results: The addition of utidelone increased the cost and QALYs by $13,370.25 and 0.1961, respectively, resulting in an increased ICER of $68,180.78 per QALY. The most sensitive influential parameter on ICER was the price of utidelone. At the threshold of willingness-to-pay (WTP) of $24,380 (3 per capita GDP of China), the cost of utidelone per 30?mg of less than $18.5, $33.7, and greater than $48.8 resulted in a 100%, 50%, and 0% possibility of cost-effectiveness, respectively. The addition of utidelone was not cost-effective when it was $115.4 per 30?mg—the price of its analog paclitaxel. In consideration of varied economics levels across China, cost-effectiveness could be achieved with the price of utidelone ranging from $5.2 to $35.9.

Limitations: The survival curves extended beyond the follow-up time horizon, of which data were generated not from the real analyses but from our established two-parameter Weibull survival model.

Conclusion: It is recommended that the price of utidelone would be less than $18.5 per 30?mg in order to obtain cost-effectiveness for metastatic breast cancer patients resistant to anthracyclines and taxanes treatment in China.     

Cost-effectiveness of de-escalation from micafungin versus escalation from fluconazole for invasive candidiasis in China

Aims: Guidelines on treating invasive candidiasis recommend initial treatment with a broad-spectrum echinocandin (e.g. micafungin), then switching to fluconazole if isolates prove sensitive (de-escalation strategy). This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of de-escalation from micafungin vs escalation from fluconazole from a Chinese public payers perspective.

Materials and methods: Cost-effectiveness was estimated using a decision analytic model, in which patients begin treatment with fluconazole 400?mg/day (escalation) or micafungin 100?mg/day (de-escalation). From Day 3, when susceptibility results are available, patients are treated with either fluconazole (if isolates are fluconazole-sensitive/dose-dependent) or micafungin (if isolates are resistant). The total duration of (appropriate) treatment is 14 days. Model inputs are early (Day 3) and end-of-treatment mortality rates, treatment success rates, and health resource utilization. Model outputs are costs of health resource utilization over 42 days, incremental cost per life-year, and incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) over a lifetime horizon.

Results: In the base-case analysis, the de-escalation strategy was associated with longer survival and higher treatment success rates compared with escalation, at a lower overall cost (–¥1,154; –175 United States Dollars). Life-years and QALYs were also better with de-escalation. Thus, this strategy dominated the escalation strategy for all outcomes. In a probabilistic sensitivity analysis, 99% of 10,000 simulations were below the very cost-effective threshold (1?×?gross domestic product).

Limitations: The main limitation of the study was the lack of real-world input data for clinical outcomes on treatment with micafungin in China; data from other countries were included in the model.

Conclusion: A de-escalation strategy is cost-saving from the Chinese public health payer perspective compared with escalation. It improves outcomes and reduces costs to the health system by reducing hospitalization, due to an increase in the proportion of patients receiving appropriate treatment.     

Cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab in combination with chemotherapy in the 1st line treatment of non-squamous NSCLC in the US

Abstract

Aims: To describe cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab plus platinum and pemetrexed chemotherapy in metastatic, non-squamous, NSCLC patients in the US.

Materials and methods: A model is developed utilizing partitioned survival analysis to estimate the cost-effectiveness of KEYNOTE-189 trial comparators pembrolizumab?+?chemotherapy (carboplatin/cisplatin?+?pemetrexed) vs chemotherapy alone. Clinical efficacy, treatment utilization, health utility, and safety data are derived from the trial and projected over 20 years. For extrapolating survival beyond the trial, a novel SEER population-data approach is applied (primary analysis), with separate estimation via traditional parametric extrapolation methods. Costs for drugs and non-drug disease management are also incorporated. Based on an indirect treatment comparison, cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab?+?chemotherapy vs pembrolizumab monotherapy is evaluated for patients with programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1)?≥?50%.

Results: In the full non-squamous population, pembrolizumab?+?chemotherapy is projected to increase life expectancy by 2.04 years vs chemotherapy (3.96 vs 1.92), for an approximate doubling of life years. Resultant incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) are $104,823/QALY and $87,242/life year. In patients with PD-L1?≥?50% and 1–49%, life expectancy is more than doubled (4.53 vs 1.88 years) and (4.87 vs 2.01 years), with a 32% (2.60 vs 1.97 years) increase in PD-L1?<?1% patients. Corresponding incremental costs/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) are $103,402, $66,837, and $183,529 for PD-L1?≥?50%, 1–49%, and <1% groups, respectively. Versus pembrolizumab monotherapy in PD-L1?≥?50% patients, representing current standard of care, pembrolizumab?+?chemotherapy increases life expectancy by 65% (4.53 vs 2.74 years) at an ICER of $147,365/QALY.

Limitations and conclusions: The addition of pembrolizumab to chemotherapy is projected to extend life expectancy to a point not previously seen in previously untreated metastatic non-squamous NSCLC. Although ICERs vary by sub-group and comparator, results suggest pembrolizumab?+?chemotherapy yields ICERs near, or in most cases, well below a 3-times US per capita GDP threshold of $180,000/QALY, and may be a cost-effective first-line treatment for metastatic non-squamous NSCLC patients.     

Cost-effectiveness of quetiapine with lithium or divalproex for maintenance treatment of bipolar I disorder

Abstract

Background: Bipolar I disorder is a recurrent illness that affects 1% of the US population and constitutes a large economic burden. Few studies have investigated the cost-effectiveness of maintenance treatment options. The objective of this analysis was to assess the cost-effectiveness of quetiapine (QTP) in combination with lithium (Li) or divalproex (DVP) compared with that of Li or DVP alone for maintenance treatment of bipolar disorder.

Methods: The cost-effectiveness of maintenance treatment with QTP in combination with Li or DVP was compared with placebo (PBO) in combination with Li or DVP from a US direct costs perspective using a Markov model. The model simulated a cohort of 1,000 stabilized patients with bipolar I disorder and estimated the quarterly risk in three health states: euthymia, mania, and depression. Efficacy data were derived from two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials comparing QTP + Li/DVP with PBO + Li/DVP for up to 2 years. Resource data were obtained from published literature. Direct costs included drug costs, hospitalizations, and physician visits. Outcomes and costs were discounted at 3% and the price reference year was 2007. Endpoints included the number of acute mood episodes, hospitalizations due to an acute mood event, and costs per quality-adjusted life-years. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was conducted to evaluate uncertainty.

Results: In the base-case analysis, QTP + Li/DVP dominated PBO + Li/DVP. The PSA showed these results to be robust. In addition, treatment with QTP + Li/DVP was associated with reductions in acute manic episodes (46%), acute depressive episodes (41%), and related hospitalizations (44%) compared with PBO + Li/DVP.

Conclusions: These analyses, based on two randomized clinical trials, suggest that QTP + Li/DVP is a cost-effective maintenance treatment option for patients with bipolar I disorder compared with Li or DVP alone.     

Cost-effectiveness analysis of rivaroxaban for treatment and secondary prevention of venous thromboembolism in the Netherlands

Background: Until recently, standard treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) concerned a combination of short-term low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) and long-term vitamin-K antagonist (VKA). Risk of bleeding and the requirement for regular anticoagulation monitoring are, however, limiting their use. Rivaroxaban is a novel oral anticoagulant associated with a significantly lower risk of major bleeds (hazard ratio?=?0.54, 95% confidence interval?=?0.37–0.79) compared to LMWH/VKA therapy, and does not require regular anticoagulation monitoring.

Aims: To evaluate the health economic consequences of treating acute VTE patients with rivaroxaban compared to treatment with LMWH/VKA, viewed from the Dutch societal perspective.

Methods: A life-time Markov model was populated with the findings of the EINSTEIN phase III clinical trial to analyze cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban therapy in treatment and prevention of VTE from a Dutch societal perspective. Primary model outcomes were total and incremental quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), as well as life expectancy and costs.

Results: Over a patient’s lifetime, rivaroxaban was shown to be dominant, with health gains of 0.047 QALYs and cost savings of €304 compared to LMWH/VKA therapy. Dominance was robustly present in all sensitivity analyses. Major drivers of the differences between the two treatment arms were related to anticoagulation monitoring (medical costs, travel costs, and loss of productivity) and the occurrence of major bleeds.

Conclusion: Rivaroxaban treatment of patients with venous thromboembolism results in health gains and cost savings compared to LMWH/VKA therapy. This conclusion holds for the Dutch setting, both for the societal perspective, as well as the healthcare perspective.