P1225Cost-effectiveness of evolocumab in patients with high atherosclerotic cardiovascular risk in Sweden

2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
P Lindgren ◽  
E Hagstrom ◽  
B Van Hout ◽  
G Villa ◽  
M Urbich ◽  
...  

Abstract Background/Introduction Elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is one of the most important modifiable risk factors for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). Evolocumab, a proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitor, is indicated for the reduction of CV risk by lowering LDL-C. Purpose Assess the cost-effectiveness of evolocumab added to standard of care (SoC), maximally tolerated lipid-lowering treatment, in two patient populations for which evolocumab is reimbursed in Sweden: (1) patients with ASCVD with LDL-C ≥2.5 mmol/L on SoC, and (2) heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HeFH) patients without ASCVD with LDL-C ≥3.0 mmol/L on SoC. Methods A previously published Markov model was adapted to the Swedish context. The model incorporated real-world CV event (CVE) rates (myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke and CV death). In patients with ASCVD, a CVE rate of 6.3/100 patient-years was obtained from Swedish national registries. In HeFH patients without ASCVD, a CVE rate of 4.5/100 patient-years was obtained from a national screening program in the Netherlands. ASCVD patient characteristics were obtained from Swedish national registries. HeFH patient characteristics were obtained from the RUTHERFORD-2 clinical trial. The model used an evolocumab LDL-C reduction of 59%, as observed in the FOURIER CV outcomes clinical trial, and the relationship between LDL-C lowering and CVE reduction from the Cholesterol Treatment Trialists' Collaboration (CTTC) 2010 meta-analysis (base case) or FOURIER (scenario). An annual evolocumab list price (before discount) of SEK 48,759 [€ 4,632] (1 SEK = € 0.095) was considered. Costs and health outcomes were evaluated over a lifetime horizon from a societal perspective. Results In the base case, for patients with ASCVD with LDL-C ≥2.5 mmol/L on SoC, the addition of evolocumab was associated with: a 0.30 reduction in the lifetime per-patient CVE rate, increased costs of SEK 413,835 and increased quality-adjusted life years (QALY) of 0.67, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of SEK 615,393 [€ 58,462] per QALY gained. In the base case, for HeFH patients without ASCVD with LDL-C ≥3.0 mmol/L on SoC, the addition of evolocumab was associated with: a 0.57 reduction in the lifetime per-patient CVE rate, increased costs of SEK 701,200 and increased QALY of 1.39, yielding an ICER of SEK 503,710 [€ 47,852] per QALY gained. In the scenario analysis, ICER were SEK 539,846 [€ 51,285] and SEK 462,961 [€ 43,981] per QALY, respectively. Conclusions These results indicate the addition of evolocumab to SoC may be considered cost-effective in Sweden. Indeed, based on these data, the Swedish Dental and Pharmaceutical Benefits Agency (TLV) recently granted expanded reimbursement for evolocumab (submission 2138/2018), which led to a positive national recommendation in the patient populations described above. Acknowledgement/Funding This study was sponsored by Amgen.

2019 ◽  
pp. 105984051989002 ◽  
Author(s):  
Li Yan Wang ◽  
Kwame Owusu-Edusei ◽  
J. Terry Parker ◽  
Kristina Wilson

During the 2015–2016 school year, the Florida Department of Health in Duval County hosted Teen Health Centers (TeenHC) at five high schools of Jacksonville providing HIV/STD screening and pregnancy testing. The purpose of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of the TeenHC chlamydia screening program and determine at what student participation level, the program can be cost-effective. We assessed the costs and effectiveness of the chlamydia screening program compared with “no TeenHC”. Cost-effectiveness was measured as cost per quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained. At a program cost of US$61,001 and 3% participation rate, the cost/QALY gained was $124,328 in the base-case analysis and $81,014–$264,271 in 95% of the simulation trials, all greater than the frequently citied $50,000/QALY benchmark. The cost/QALY gained could be <$50,000/QALY if student participation rate was >7%. The TeenHC chlamydia screening has the potential to be cost-effective. Future program efforts should focus on improving student participation.


2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e21102-e21102
Author(s):  
Briana Choi ◽  
Nimer S. Alkhatib ◽  
Hala Halawah ◽  
Matthias Calamia ◽  
Dexter Gulick ◽  
...  

e21102 Background: Crizotinib was approved by the FDA (2011) as the first ALK inhibitor for ALK+ NSCLC as the first line drug. This was followed by the approval as second line treatment of ceritinib (2014), alectinib (2015) and brigatinib (2017); and, following more data, now also as first line therapies in ALK+ NSCLC. With varying costs and clinical benefits for progression free survival (PFS), cost effectiveness/utility analyses were conducted. Methods: A 3 state Markov model was built including progression free, progression and death. PFS and overall survival curves were digitized and exponential functions were fit the curves for extrapolation beyond trial follow up. A lifetime horizon, US payer perspective, and a discount rate of 3% were applied. Drug costs were based on Redbook Wholesale Acquisition Cost while costs of adverse events, monitoring, disease progression were from literatures (US$ 2020). Adverse events reported at > 5% were included. Crizotinib was used as reference treatment. PFS life years (PFSLY), quality adjusted life years (PFSQALY), incremental cost-effectiveness and utility ratios (ICER/ICUR) of PFSLY and PFSQALY gained (PFSLYG, PFSQALYG) were estimated in base case (BCA) and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA). Results: Crizotinib was the reference drug in the following estimations. For alectinib, at incremental cost of $7,789 (PSA $7,719), the incremental PFSLY of 1.10 (1.10) and PFSQALY 1.07 (1.07) yielded an ICER of $7,109 ($7,030) / PFSLYG and an ICUR of $7,278 ($7.197) / PFSQALYG. For ceritinib, at incremental cost of $88,688 ($88,450), the incremental PFSLY of 1.02 (1.02) and PFSQALY of 1.01 (1.01) resulted in an ICER of $86,970 ($86,729) / PFSLYG and an ICUR of $87,472 / PFSQALYG. For brigatinib, at incremental cost of $84,680 ($83,986), the incremental PFSLY of 1.01 (1.01) and PFSQALY of 1.02 yielded an ICER of $83,774 ($83,073) / PFSLYG and an ICUR of $82,666 ($81,976) / PFSQALYG. Conclusions: Ceritinib had the highest lifetime cost and comparable PFSLY and PFSQALY to brigatinib. However, alectinib reported the highest PFSLY and PFSQALY gained while having lower costs than ceritinib and brigatinib, therefore being the most cost-effective treatment for naïve ALK+ NSCLC.[Table: see text]


2015 ◽  
Vol 2015 ◽  
pp. 1-13 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Nee ◽  
Ian Rivera ◽  
Dustin J. Little ◽  
Christina M. Yuan ◽  
Kevin C. Abbott

Background/Aims. We aimed to examine the cost-effectiveness of mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) and azathioprine (AZA) as maintenance therapy for patients with Class III and Class IV lupus nephritis (LN), from a United States (US) perspective.Methods. Using a Markov model, we conducted a cost-utility analysis from a societal perspective over a lifetime horizon. The modeled population comprised patients with proliferative LN who received maintenance therapy with MMF (2 gm/day) versus AZA (150 mg/day) for 3 years. Risk estimates of clinical events were based on a Cochrane meta-analysis while costs and utilities were retrieved from other published sources. Outcome measures included costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER), and net monetary benefit.Results. The base-case model showed that, compared with AZA strategy, the ICER for MMF was $2,630,592/QALY at 3 years. Over the patients’ lifetime, however, the ICER of MMF compared to AZA was $6,454/QALY. Overall, the ICER results from various sensitivity and subgroup analyses did not alter the conclusions of the model simulation.Conclusions. In the short term, an AZA-based regimen confers greater value than MMF for the maintenance therapy of proliferative LN. From a lifelong perspective, however, MMF is cost-effective compared to AZA.


Author(s):  
Andrea Marcellusi ◽  
Chiara Bini ◽  
Maria Assunta Rotundo ◽  
Emanuela Arcangeli ◽  
Laura Martinez ◽  
...  

Objective: The aim of this work was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of evolocumab in addition to standard statin therapy with or without ezetimibe in the treatment of patients with clinically evident atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) with levels of LDL-C above 100 mg/dL. Method: A theoretical cohort of patients was forecast by a Markov model that includes 11 health states for a lifetime horizon. In the base-case, the standard therapy was characterized by statins with or without ezetimibe. Two sub-populations have been considered, Recent MI (Myocardial Infarction in the last year) and Multiple events (population with multiple MI). The results were also presented for a subset of the Multiple events populations consisting of patients who have experienced a myocardial infarction (MI) in the last year. Results: For the Recent MI and Multiple events populations, ICER values of € 39,547 and € 35,744 respectively were estimated. The value of ICER was lower for the Multiple events with MI < 1 year population (€ 29,949). Considering statins with ezetimibe as standard therapy, ICER values were found to be equal to € 39,781, € 35,986 and € 30,190 respectively for the populations Recent MI, Multiple events and Multiple events with MI < 1 year. Conclusions: The estimated ICER values for the Recent MI, Multiple events and Multiple events populations with MI < 1 year were below the cost-effectiveness threshold of € 40,000, suggesting therefore how the treatment with evolocumab in addition to the standard therapy can be a cost-effective treatment both compared to standard therapy with statins and standard therapy with statins + ezetimibe.


2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (S1) ◽  
pp. 69-69
Author(s):  
Hema Mistry ◽  
Martin Connock ◽  
Pamela Royle ◽  
Norman Waugh

Introduction:Microfracture (MF) has been the main intervention in symptomatic articular cartilage knee defects. Autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI) has looked promising, but was not recommended by the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in 2015 due to the short-term follow-up data from trials.Methods:Most long-term data comes from observational studies. We provided new unpublished analyses to NICE based on survival data of these studies, with appropriate caveats. They included: a large ACI study by Nawaz with useful subgroup data by osteoarthritis Kellgren-Lawrence stage and previous repair attempts; a very large MF study by Layton, and a small RCT by Knutsen indicating MF was as ‘good’ as ACI. A Markov model explored the cost-effectiveness of ACI vs. MF. Different scenarios were explored: ACI or MF as a first procedure, followed by ACI or MF in those needing a second repair. A NHS England perspective was adopted. Health outcomes were expressed as quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs).Results:The revised base-case analysis, used a list price of £16,000 (EUR 17,380 in 2013 prices) for cells, used ACI failure data from Nawaz with no previous procedures for ACI, and pooled MF failure data from two studies-Saris and Knutsen. ACI was more expensive but provided more QALYs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio comparing ACI then MF with MF then ACI was £8,000 (EUR 8,690) per QALY. Various sensitivity analyses were conducted assuming a threshold of £20,000 (EUR 21,730) per QALY: previous repair attempts reduced success of ACI (£22,000 (EUR 23,900) per QALY); reducing cell costs, ACI improved its cost-effectiveness; and limiting intervention to patients with higher Kellgren-Lawrence score did not appear cost-effectiveness.Conclusions:The final NICE guidance published in October 2017 approved the use of ACI for patients who had no previous knee repairs, for people with minimal osteoarthritic damage to the knee, and for people with articular defects of over 2cm2.


2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (S1) ◽  
pp. 139-140
Author(s):  
Borja Garcia-Lorenzo ◽  
Tasmania del Pino-Sedeño ◽  
Maria M. Trujillo-Martin ◽  
Rodrigo Alberto Rocamora Zuniga ◽  
Juan Erviti López ◽  
...  

Introduction:Stereo-electroencephalography (SEEG) has been shown to be a valuable tool for the anatomo-electroclinic definition of the epileptogenic zone (EZ) in some patients with medically refractory epilepsy considered for surgery. In Spain, many of those patients are not offered this diagnostic procedure. The objective of our health technology assessment (HTA) report was to evaluate the effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of SEEG to define the EZ in patients with refractory epilepsy considered for surgery compared to no SEEG intervention (i.e. remaining with further antiepileptic drugs).Methods:We undertook a systematic review with meta-analyses on the effectiveness and safety of SEEG. A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted using a Markov model which simulates the costs and health outcomes of individuals for a lifetime horizon from the perspective of the Spanish National Health Service (NHS). The effectiveness measure was quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). We ran extensive sensitivity analyses, including a probabilistic sensitivity analysis.Results:The EZ was found in 92 percent of patients who underwent SEEG, 72 percent were eligible for epilepsy surgery and 33 percent were free of seizures after surgery (47 percent of those who received surgery). Any complications related to insertion and monitoring of SEEG and the subsequent intervention occurred in 1.3 percent of patients. In the base case analysis, SEEG led to higher QALYs and healthcare costs with an estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of EUR 10,368 (USD 12,217) per QALY. The sensitivity analyses showed that the results of the study were robust.Conclusions:SEEG is a cost-effective technology in patients with refractory epilepsy considered for surgery when compared to no SEEG intervention.


2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e15189-e15189
Author(s):  
Marc Botteman ◽  
John A. Carter ◽  
Peter Fishman ◽  
David Chandiwana ◽  
Manjinder Bains ◽  
...  

e15189 Background: D reduced SREs vs Z in a phase III trial, but no significant differences in overall survival, disease progression, or serious adverse events were reported. The cost-effectiveness of D vs Z in mPC was assessed from a UK payer perspective. Methods: A literature-based Markov model estimated quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), number and costs of SREs, and drug/administration costs for mPC pts receiving D or Z for 27 mo (trial timeframe) and 60 mo (extended lifetime analysis). Current list prices/injection (£309.86 for D; £174.14 for Z) were used in the base case. As the model’s analytical horizon starts June 2012 and extends beyond generic Z availability in May 2013, a generic Z price (53% < list price, per data for other now-generic bisphosphonates) was used beyond May 2013 in scenario analysis. In other analyses, discounted prices (–30%) were used for both D and Z to assess the effect of price reductions on cost/QALY. Clinical inputs were selected to reproduce trial outcomes. QALYs were estimated by assigning utility weights to time spent in health states (no SRE; SRE; post-SRE; death). SRE costs were £250 to ≥ £6,000/event. Results: Although D may result in fewer SREs, higher QALYs, and lower SRE-related costs (Table), higher acquisition cost of D results in substantially higher costs and may be cost-ineffective in every pricing scenario. Similar results were found for the 27-mo analysis. Conclusions: The incremental cost/QALY gained with D vs Z ranged from £50,000 to £215,000 (> traditional £30,000 threshold), thus raising important questions about D’s value in mPC. [Table: see text]


2020 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 107327482090227
Author(s):  
Jiaqi Han ◽  
Desheng Xiao ◽  
Chongqing Tan ◽  
Xiaohui Zeng ◽  
Huabin Hu ◽  
...  

Background: The FIRE-3 phase III clinical trial demonstrated the marked advantage of prolonging the median overall survival of patients with final RAS wild-type (WT) left-sided metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) by 38.3 months after treatment with irinotecan, fluorouracil, and leucovorin (FOLFIRI) plus cetuximab and by 28.0 months after treatment with FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab. However, the substantial cost increase and economic impact of using cetuximab imposes a considerable burden on patients and society. Methods: A Markov model based on the data collected in the FIRE-3 trial was developed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of treating patients with FOLFIRI plus either cetuximab or bevacizumab from the perspective of the Chinese health-care system. Costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated over a lifetime horizon. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed by varying potentially modifiable parameters. Results: In our analysis, the total treatment costs in the bevacizumab and cetuximab groups were $92 549.31 and $94 987.31, respectively, and the QALYs gained were 1.58 and 2.05. In the base-case analysis, compared with bevacizumab, left-sided RAS WT patients receiving cetuximab gained 0.47 more QALYs at an ICER of $5187.23/QALY ($3166.23/LY). The 1-way sensitivity analysis showed that the most influential parameter was the cost of cetuximab. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that the cost-effective probability of cetuximab group was 92.8% under the willingness-to-pay threshold of $24 081. Conclusions: Treatment with FOLFIRI plus cetuximab in Chinese patients with left-sided RAS WT mCRC may improve health outcomes and use financial resources more efficiently than FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab.


PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. e0245652
Author(s):  
Franck Maunoury ◽  
Anaïs Oury ◽  
Sophie Fortin ◽  
Laetitia Thomassin ◽  
Serge Bohbot ◽  
...  

This study assesses the cost-effectiveness of Technology Lipido-Colloid with Nano Oligo Saccharide Factor (TLC-NOSF) wound dressings versus neutral dressings in the management of diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) from a French collective perspective. We used a Markov microsimulation cohort model to simulate the DFU monthly progression over the lifetime horizon. Our study employed a mixed method design with model inputs including data from interventional and observational studies, French databases and expert opinion. The demographic characteristics of the simulated population and clinical efficacy were based on the EXPLORER double-blind randomized controlled trial. Health-related quality of life, costs, and resource use inputs were taken from the literature relevant to the French context. The main outcomes included life-years without DFU (LYsw/DFU), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), amputations, and lifetime costs. To assess the robustness of the results, sensitivity and subgroup analyses based on the wound duration at treatment initiation were performed. Treatment with the TLC-NOSF dressing led to total cost savings per patient of EUR 35,489, associated with gains of 0.50 LYw/DFU and 0.16 QALY. TLC-NOSF dressings were established as the dominant strategy in the base case and all sensitivity analyses. Furthermore, the model revealed that, for every 100 patients treated with TLC-NOSF dressings, two amputations could be avoided. According to the subgroup analysis results, the sooner the TLC-NOSF treatment was initiated, the better were the outcomes, with the highest benefits for ulcers with a duration of two months or less (+0.65 LYw/DFU, +0.23 QALY, and cost savings of EUR 55,710). The results from the French perspective are consistent with the ones from the German and British perspectives. TLC-NOSF dressings are cost-saving compared to neutral dressings, leading to an increase in patients’ health benefits and a decrease in the associated treatment costs. These results can thus be used to guide healthcare decisionmakers. The potential savings could represent EUR 3,345 per treated patient per year and even reach EUR 4,771 when TLC-NOSF dressings are used as first line treatment. The EXPLORER trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01717183.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jefferson Antonio Buendia ◽  
Diana Guerrero Patino

Abstract BackgroundAn important proportion of asthma patients remain uncontrolled despite the use of inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting beta-agonists. Some add-on therapies, as tiotropium bromide have been recommended for this subgroup of patients. The purpose of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of tiotropium as add-on therapies to ICS + LABA for patients with severe asthma. Methods A probabilistic Markov model was created to estimate the cost and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of patients with severe asthma in Colombia. Total costs and QALYS of two interventions including standard therapy (ICS + LABA), add-on therapy with tiotropium, were calculated over a lifetime horizon. Multiple sensitivity analyses were conducted. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated at a willingness-to-pay value of $19,000. ResultsThe model suggests a potential gain of 1.06 QALYs per patient per year on tiotropium, with a difference of US$ 478 in favor of tiotropium; showing dominance respect to standard therapy. A position of dominance negates the need to calculate an incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio. In the deterministic sensitivity analyses, our base‐case results were robust to variations of all assumptions and parameters Conclusion Add-on therapy with tiotropium was found to be cost-effective when added to usual care in patients who remain uncontrolled despite treatment with medium or high-dose ICS/LABA. Our study provides evidence that should be used by decision-makers to improve clinical practice guidelines and should be replicated to validate their results in other middle-income countries.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document