scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness analysis and budget impact of rivaroxaban compared with dalteparin in patients with cancer at risk of recurrent venous thromboembolism

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (11) ◽  
pp. e039057
Author(s):  
Lisa A de Jong ◽  
Annette W G van der Velden ◽  
Marinus van Hulst ◽  
Maarten J Postma
Keyword(s):  
At Risk ◽  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Saving ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Time Horizon ◽  
Budget Impact ◽  
Patients With Cancer ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
The Cost

ObjectivesIn the ‘Comparison of an Oral Factor Xa Inhibitor With Low Molecular Weight Heparin in Patients With Cancer With Venous Thromboembolism’ (SELECT-D) trial, rivaroxaban showed relatively low venous thromboembolism (VTE) recurrence but higher bleeding compared with dalteparin in patients with cancer. We aim to calculate the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of rivaroxaban compared with dalteparin in patients with cancer at risk of recurrent VTE.SettingWe built a Markov model to calculate the cost-effectiveness from a societal perspective over a 5-year time horizon for the Dutch healthcare setting.ParticipantsA hypothetical cohort of 1000 cancer patients with VTE entered the model with baseline characteristics based on the SELECT-D trial.InterventionSix months of treatment with rivaroxaban (15 mg two times per day for first 3 weeks followed by 20 mg once daily) was compared with 6 months of treatment with dalteparin (200 IU/kg daily during month 1 followed by 150 IU/kg daily).Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe primary outcome of the cost-effectiveness analysis was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The robustness of the model was evaluated in probabilistic and univariate sensitivity analyses. A budget impact analysis was performed to calculate the total annual financial consequences for a societal perspective in the Netherlands.ResultsIn the base case and all scenarios, rivaroxaban were cost-saving while also slightly improving the patient’s health, resulting in economically dominant ICERs. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, 77.8% and 98.7% of the simulations showed rivaroxaban to be cost-saving and more effective for a 5-year and 6-month time horizon, respectively. Rivaroxaban can save up to €11 326 763 (CI €5 164 254 to €17 363 231) in approximately 8000 cancer patients with VTE per year compared with dalteparin based on a 1-year time horizon.ConclusionsTreatment with rivaroxaban is economically dominant over dalteparin in patients with cancer at risk for recurrent VTE in the Netherlands. The use of rivaroxaban instead of dalteparin can save over €10 million per year, primarily driven by the difference in drug costs.

Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in ambulatory cancer patients initiating chemotherapy: A cost-effectiveness analysis.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 7074-7074
Author(s):  
Emma Ryan ◽  
Julia Salinaro ◽  
Laura J Havrilesky ◽  
Brittany Anne Davidson
Keyword(s):  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Major Bleeding ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Bleeding Events ◽  
Vte Prophylaxis ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Prophylaxis Strategy

7074 Background: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality among cancer patients. The Apixaban for the Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism in High-Risk Ambulatory Cancer Patients (AVERT) randomized controlled trial concluded that apixaban is a safe and effective option for VTE prophylaxis in high-risk ambulatory cancer patients initiating a new chemotherapy regimen. We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis from a health system perspective to determine if apixaban is a feasible prophylactic strategy for this population. Methods: A decision model was created from a third party payer perspective with a time horizon of 6 months, based on the treatment arms of the AVERT trial: (1) apixaban 2.5 mg twice daily for 6 months during active chemotherapy versus (2) placebo. Rates of VTE (4.2% apixaban vs 10.2% placebo), major bleeding (3.5% vs 1.8%) and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding (CRNMB) (7.3% vs 5.5%) were modeled from the results of the AVERT trial. Cost estimates for treatments and events were obtained from wholesale drug costs, previously published studies and Medicare reimbursement data, and adjusted for inflation to 2018 dollars. Quality adjusted life years were calculated based on previously published utility values for the health states of advanced cancer, DVT, PE, and major bleeding events. An exploratory analysis was performed comparing prophylactic aspirin to no prophylaxis assuming a VTE rate of 7.2%, major bleeding rate of 3.5%, and CRNMB rate of 7.3%, based on the conservative assumptions that while aspirin may not be as effective at preventing VTE, the rate of clinically significant bleeding events would be similar or greater than that of apixaban. Results: In the base case model, apixaban is more costly and more effective than placebo (ICER = $5,013,190/QALY), and the cost per VTE prevented in the apixaban arm is $33,000. In one-way sensitivity analysis, if the cost of apixaban were reduced by 40% from $3,197 to $1,250 for a 6 month course, this could potentially be a cost-effective prophylaxis strategy with an ICER less than $100,000/QALY. In the alternative analysis, aspirin dominates placebo as it is both more effective and less expensive, and remains cost-effective even when the rate of clinically recognized bleeding with aspirin exceeds 15%. Conclusions: Further investigation into less costly prophylactic options such as generic direct oral anticoagulants (once available) and aspirin is warranted prior to broader implementation of a VTE prophylaxis strategy in this population.

scholarly journals Pharmacoeconomic aspects of the therapy for moderate and severe psoriatic arthritis

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 116-123
Author(s):  
A. V. Rudakova ◽  
D. G. Tolkacheva ◽  
V. D. Sokolova
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Healthcare System ◽  
Time Horizon ◽  
Impact Analysis ◽  
Budget Impact ◽  
Disease Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs ◽  
Antirheumatic Drugs ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Cost

Objective: to perform cost-effectiveness analysis of the treatment for adult patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) with a Russian interleukin- 17А inhibitor netakimab in comparison with other biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (tsDMARDs) and to evaluate the influence of the inclusion of netakimab in the therapy for PsA on the budget of the Russian healthcare system.Material and methods. The evaluation of cost-effectiveness was performed from the position of the Russian healthcare system for patients with moderate and severe PsA. The evaluation was performed based on the results of the network meta-analysis of the randomized clinical studies. The criterion of clinical effectiveness included the changes in the condition of the joints by the criteria of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR20, ACR50, and ACR70) and changes in skin symptoms by the index of the prevalence and severity of psoriasis (PASI 75 and PASI 90) with a recalculation into quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). The time horizon of the cost-effectiveness analysis was 2 years. The calculation was based on the registered prices and VAT. If there was an original drug and a biosimilar registered on the pharmaceutical market, the calculation was based on the median of the registered prices. The budget impact analysis of the influence of netakimab inclusion in the therapy for patients with PsA was performed considering the structure of the prescription of bDMARDs and tsDMARDs that was determined in the pharmaco-epidemiological study conducted in the Russian Federation in 2020. The analysis was performed for patients that received medication by the scheme of reimbursement. The time horizon of the study was 3 years old.Results. In the base-case analysis, the cost-effectiveness ratio for netakimab was 1.210 mln rub/QALY (by 66.2–88.5% lower than in cases when comparison drugs were used). The budget impact analysis showed that the inclusion of netakimab in the therapy for PsA could reduce the costs by 376.60 mln rub (21.1%). Considering budget saving, the number of additional patients that can be treated will increase by 26.7% within 3 years.Conclusion. Netakimab is characterized by higher cost-effectiveness in comparison with other bDMARDs (adalimumab, golimumab, guselkumab, ixekizumab, infliximab, secukinumab, ustekinumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept) and tsDMARDs (apremilast, tofacitinib) prescribed in the Russian Federation for patients with PsA. The inclusion of netakimab in the therapy for PsA will reduce the financial burden on the healthcare system.

scholarly journals Prevention of venous thromboembolism in cancer patients: current approaches and opportunities for improvement

2011 ◽  
pp. 191-204
Author(s):  
Alpesh N. Amin ◽  
Steven B. Deitelzweig
Keyword(s):  
At Risk ◽  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Assessment Model ◽  
Major Surgery ◽  
Medical Illness ◽  
Patients With Cancer ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
National Quality ◽  
American Society

Venous thromboembolism (VTE), a common complication in patients with cancer, is associated with increased risk of morbidity, mortality, and recurrent VTE. Risk factors for VTE in cancer patients include the type and stage of cancer, comorbidities, age, major surgery, and active chemotherapy. Evidence-based guidelines for thromboprophylaxis in cancer patients have been published: the National Comprehensive Cancer Network and American Society for Clinical Oncology guidelines recommend thromboprophylaxis for hospitalized cancer patients, while the American College of Chest Physician guidelines recommend thromboprophylaxis for surgical patients with cancer and bedridden cancer patients with an acute medical illness. Guidelines do not generally recommend routine thromboprophylaxis in ambulatory patients during chemotherapy, but there is evidence that some of these patients are at risk of VTE; some may be at higher risk while on active chemotherapy. Approaches are needed to identify those patients most likely to benefit from thromboprophylaxis, and, to this end, a risk assessment model has been developed and validated. Despite the benefits, many at-risk patients do not receive any thromboprophylaxis, or receive prophylaxis that is not compliant with guideline recommendations. Quality improvement initiatives have been developed by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, National Quality Forum, and Joint Commission to encourage closure of the gap between guideline recommendations and clinical practice for prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of VTE in hospitalized patients. Health-care institutions and providers need to take seriously the burden of VTE, improve prophylaxis rates in patients with cancer, and address the need for prophylaxis across the patient continuum.

scholarly journals Prevention of venous thromboembolism in cancer patients: current approaches and opportunities for improvement

2011 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 191
Author(s):  
Alpesh N. Amin ◽  
Steven B. Deitelzweig
Keyword(s):  
At Risk ◽  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Assessment Model ◽  
Major Surgery ◽  
Medical Illness ◽  
Patients With Cancer ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
National Quality ◽  
American Society

Venous thromboembolism (VTE), a common complication in patients with cancer, is associated with increased risk of morbidity, mortality, and recurrent VTE. Risk factors for VTE in cancer patients include the type and stage of cancer, comorbidities, age, major surgery, and active chemotherapy. Evidence-based guidelines for thromboprophylaxis in cancer patients have been published: the National Comprehensive Cancer Network and American Society for Clinical Oncology guidelines recommend thromboprophylaxis for hospitalized cancer patients, while the American College of Chest Physician guidelines recommend thromboprophylaxis for surgical patients with cancer and bedridden cancer patients with an acute medical illness. Guidelines do not generally recommend routine thromboprophylaxis in ambulatory patients during chemotherapy, but there is evidence that some of these patients are at risk of VTE; some may be at higher risk while on active chemotherapy. Approaches are needed to identify those patients most likely to benefit from thromboprophylaxis, and, to this end, a risk assessment model has been developed and validated. Despite the benefits, many at-risk patients do not receive any thromboprophylaxis, or receive prophylaxis that is not compliant with guideline recommendations. Quality improvement initiatives have been developed by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, National Quality Forum, and Joint Commission to encourage closure of the gap between guideline recommendations and clinical practice for prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of VTE in hospitalized patients. Health-care institutions and providers need to take seriously the burden of VTE, improve prophylaxis rates in patients with cancer, and address the need for prophylaxis across the patient continuum.

scholarly journals Handling Uncertainty in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Budget Impact and Risk Aversion

Healthcare ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (11) ◽  
pp. 1419
Author(s):  
Pedram Sendi ◽  
Klazien Matter-Walstra ◽  
Matthias Schwenkglenks
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Risk Aversion ◽  
Joint Distribution ◽  
Budget Impact ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
North East ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
The Cost

Methods to handle uncertainty in economic evaluation have gained much attention in the literature, and the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC) is the most widely used method to summarise and present uncertainty associated with program costs and effects in cost-effectiveness analysis. Some researchers have emphasised the limitations of the CEAC for informing decision and policy makers, as the CEAC is insensitive to radial shifts of the joint distribution of incremental costs and effects in the North-East and South-West quadrants of the cost-effective plane (CEP). Furthermore, it has been pointed out that the CEAC does not incorporate risk-aversion in valuing uncertain costs and effects. In the present article, we show that the cost-effectiveness affordability curve (CEAFC) captures both dimensions of the joint distribution of incremental costs and effects on the CEP and is, therefore, sensitive to radial shifts of the joint distribution on the CEP. Furthermore, the CEAFC also informs about the budget impact of a new intervention, as it can be used to estimate the joint probability that an intervention is both affordable and cost-effective. Moreover, we show that the cost-effectiveness risk-aversion curve (CERAC) allows the analyst to incorporate different levels of risk-aversion into the analysis and can, therefore, be used to inform decision-makers who are risk-averse. We use data from a published cost-effectiveness model of palbociclib in addition to letrozole versus letrozole alone for the treatment of oestrogen-receptor positive, HER-2 negative, advanced breast cancer to demonstrate the differences between CEAC, CEAFC and CERAC, and show how these can jointly be used to inform decision and policy makers.

Cost-Effectiveness and Budget Impact of Emicizumab Prophylaxis in Haemophilia A Patients with Inhibitors

2019 ◽  
Vol 120 (02) ◽  
pp. 216-228 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paolo Angelo Cortesi ◽  
Giancarlo Castaman ◽  
Gianluca Trifirò ◽  
Simona Serao Creazzola ◽  
Giovanni Improta ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Saving ◽  
Budget Impact ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Extensive Literature ◽  
Haemophilia A ◽  
Old Patients ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Cost

AbstractRecent evidence demonstrated that weekly prophylaxis with subcutaneous bispecific antibody (emicizumab) has shown higher efficacy in adolescent and adults patients affected by haemophilia A (HA) with inhibitor, compared with patients treated on demand or on prophylaxis with bypassing agents (BPAs). However, no economic evaluations assessing the value and sustainability of emicizumab prophylaxis have been performed in Europe. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of emicizumab prophylaxis compared with BPA prophylaxis and its possible budget impact from the Italian National Health Service (NHS) perspective. A Markov model and a budget impact model were developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of emicizumab prophylaxis in HA patients with inhibitors. The model was populated using treatment efficacy from clinical trials and key clinical, cost and epidemiological data retrieved through an extensive literature review. Compared with BPAs prophylaxis, emicizumab prophylaxis was found to be more effective (0.94 quality adjusted life-years) and cost saving (–€19.4/–€24.4 million per patient lifetime) in a cohort of 4-year-old patients with HA and inhibitors who failed immune tolerance induction. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, emicizumab prophylaxis had always 100% probability of being cost-effective at any threshold. Further, the use of emicizumab prophylaxis was associated to an overall budget reduction of €45.4 million in the next 3 years. In conclusion, the clinically effective emicizumab prophylaxis can be considered a cost-saving treatment for HA with inhibitor patients. Furthermore, emicizumab treatment is also associated to a significant reduction of the health care budget, making this new treatment a sustainable and convenient health care option for Italian NHS.

scholarly journals Health Care Costs and Cost-effectiveness in Laryngotracheal Stenosis

2018 ◽  
Vol 160 (4) ◽  
pp. 679-686 ◽  
Author(s):  
Linda X. Yin ◽  
William V. Padula ◽  
Shekhar Gadkaree ◽  
Kevin Motz ◽  
Sabrina Rahman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Time Horizon ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Tracheal Resection ◽  
Laryngotracheal Stenosis ◽  
Endoscopic Dilation ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
The Cost

Objective Laryngotracheal stenosis (LTS) is resource-intensive disease. The cost-effectiveness of LTS treatments has not been adequately explored. We aimed to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing open reconstruction (cricotracheal/tracheal resection [CTR/TR]) with endoscopic dilation in the treatment of LTS. Study Design Retrospective cohort. Setting Tertiary referral center (2013-2017). Subjects and Methods Thirty-four LTS patients were recruited. Annual costs were derived from the Department of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, Johns Hopkins University. Cost-effectiveness analysis compared CTR/TR versus endoscopic dilation at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) over 5- and 10-year time horizons. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated with deterministic analysis and tested for sensitivity with univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Results Mean LTS costs were $4080.09 (SE, $569.29) annually for related health care visits. The major risk factor for increased cost was etiology of stenosis. As compared with idiopathic patients, patients with intubation-related stenosis had significantly higher annual costs ($5286.56 vs $2873.62, P = .03). The cost of CTR/TR was $8583.91 (SE, $2263.22). Over a 5-year time horizon, CTR/TR gained $896 per QALY over serial dilations and was cost-effective. Over a 10-year time horizon, CTR/TR dominated dilations with a lower cost and higher QALY. Conclusion The cost of treatment for LTS is significant. Patients with intubation-related stenosis have significantly higher annual costs than do idiopathic patients. CTR/TR contributes significantly to cost in LTS but is cost-effective versus endoscopic dilations for appropriately selected patients over a 5- and 10-year horizon.

scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Stereotactic Ablative Body Radiotherapy for the Treatment of Oligometastatic Tumors versus Standard of Care

2021 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 1857-1866
Author(s):  
Adam J. N. Raymakers ◽  
David Cameron ◽  
Scott Tyldesley ◽  
Dean A. Regier
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Time Horizon ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Comprehensive Treatment ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Stereotactic Ablative Body Radiotherapy ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Oligometastatic Cancer

Background: Recent clinical trial results reported that stereotactic radiotherapy (SABR) may improve survival for patients with oligometastatic (OM) cancer. Given that these results come from a phase II trial, there remains considerable uncertainty about this finding, and about the cost-effectiveness of SABR for patients with OM cancer. In this analysis, we estimate the cost-effectiveness of SABR for oligometastatic cancer patients. Methods: A probabilistic time-dependent Markov model was constructed to simulate treatment of oligometastatic cancer patients over five- and ten-year time horizons. The primary data source was the phase II, Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy for the Comprehensive Treatment of Oligometastases (SABR-COMET )trial and supplemented with data from the literature. We estimated the effect of SABR and the standard of care (SoC) using quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Costs were measured from a provincial payer perspective (2018 Canadian dollars). Results: In the reference case analysis (five-year time horizon), SABR was associated with additional incremental costs of CAD 38,487 and an incremental QALY gain of 0.84. This resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of CAD 45,726 per QALY gained. Over a ten-year time horizon, the increased uncertainty in the long-term effectiveness of SABR resulted in an ICER of CAD 291,544 per QALY gained. Estimates from the probabilistic analysis indicated that at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of CAD 50,000 and CAD 100,000 per QALY gained, there is 54% and 78% probability (respectively) that SABR would be cost-effective using the five-year time horizon. Conclusions: The adoption of SABR therapy requires a considerable upfront capital investment. Our results suggest that the cost-effectiveness of SABR is contingent on the uncertainty in the evidence base. Further clinical trials to confirm the effectiveness of SABR and research into the real-world costs associated with this treatment could reduce the uncertainty around implementation of the technology.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document