Economic evaluation of crizotinib, alectinib, ceritinib, and brigatinib in treatment naïve anaplastic lymphoma kinase positive (ALK+) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e21102-e21102
Author(s):  
Briana Choi ◽  
Nimer S. Alkhatib ◽  
Hala Halawah ◽  
Matthias Calamia ◽  
Dexter Gulick ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Base Case ◽  
First Line ◽  
Lifetime Horizon ◽  
Reference Drug ◽  
Anaplastic Lymphoma ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Cost Effective Treatment

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]

Economic evaluation of crizotinib, alectinib, ceritinib, and brigatininb in anaplastic lymphoma kinase positive (ALK+) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) as second-line treatment.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e21104-e21104
Author(s):  
Nimer S. Alkhatib ◽  
Briana Choi ◽  
Hala Halawah ◽  
Matthias Calamia ◽  
Dexter Gulick ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Reference Drug ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Life Years

e21104 Background: Crizotinib, alectinib, ceritinib, and brigatinib are approved as second line treatment for ALK+ NSCLC. Crizotinib was the first ALK inhibitor for first line therapy approved by Food and Drug Administration (2011) then ceritinib (2014), alectinib (2015), and brigatinib (2017) were approved as second line drugs. Following more data, these agents were approved as the first line therapy (2017 for ceritinib and alectinib; 2020 for brigatinib). These remain as a treatment option in patients who fail the first line therapy. Cost-effectiveness/utility analyses were conducted to assess clinical efficacy with varying costs of the agents. Methods: A three state Markov model were assumed (progression free, progression and death). Progression free survival (PFS) curves were digitized and fitted with exponential function. US payer perspective, a lifetime horizon, and discount rate of 3% were applied. Drug costs were Redbook wholesale acquisition cost. Other costs included were monitoring, adverse events and disease progression from published data (US$ 2020). Adverse events reported >5% in patients were included. Measured outcomes were PFS life years (PFSLY) and quality adjusted life years (PFSQALY). Crizotinib was the reference drug. Incremental cost-effectiveness and utility ratios (ICER/ICUR) of PFSLY and PFSQALY gained (PFSLYG, PFSQALYG) and lost were estimated. Base case (BCA) and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were conducted. Results: Crizotinib was the reference drug for the following outcomes. For alectinib, with the decremental cost of -$14,653 (-$14,712), the incremental PFSLY of 0.16 (0.16) and PFSQALY of 0.05 (0.05) resulted in an ICER / PFSLYG of -$89,337 (-$88,604) and an ICUR / PFSQALYG of -$269,835 (-$266,510). For brigatinib, with the decremental cost of -$14,975 (-$14,954), the incremental PFSLY of 0.01 (0.01) and PFSQALY of ̃0.01 (0.02) yielded an ICER / PFSLYG of -$1,982,962 (-$1,431,631) and an ICUR / PFSQALYG of -$2,140,534 (-$570,538). For ceritinib, with the incremental cost of $7,590 ($7,514), there were decremental PFSLY of -0.01 (-0.01) and PFSQALY of -0.03 (-0.03). Conclusions: As second line treatment, crizotinib, ceritinib, and brigatinib had comparable PFSLYs and PFSQALYs while alectinib had the most PFSLY and PFSQALY and the lowest cost. Therefore, alectinib is the most cost-effective treatment for treating ALK+ NSCLC as the second line therapy.[Table: see text]

Cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab monotherapy versus pembrolizumab monotherapy for first-line (1L) treatment of metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC).

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e18847-e18847
Author(s):  
Chia-Wei Lin ◽  
Katherine Rosettie ◽  
Pinar Bilir ◽  
Hazal Celik ◽  
Seye Abogunrin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Base Case ◽  
First Line ◽  
Deterministic Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Anaplastic Lymphoma ◽  
Life Years

e18847 Background: Atezolizumab monotherapy is indicated as 1L treatment for mNSCLC patients with high programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) expression (≥ 50%) and without epidermal growth factor receptor or anaplastic lymphoma kinase mutations. This analysis assessed the cost-effectiveness of 1L atezolizumab monotherapy vs. pembrolizumab monotherapy for mNSCLC patients with high PD-L1 expression from a US third-party payer perspective. Methods: A Markov model with progression-free, progressive disease (PD), and death states was developed in Microsoft Excel to compare clinical and cost outcomes of atezolizumab monotherapy vs. pembrolizumab monotherapy. Efficacy, safety, and utility data were derived from systematic reviews and indirect comparisons of the IMpower110, Keynote-024, and Keynote-042 trials. Product prescribing information and clinical trials informed dosing and administration. Wholesale acquisition cost (WAC, accessed in January 2021) for drugs were used while other cost inputs were derived from publicly available fee schedules and peer-reviewed literature. The key outcome of interest was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) expressed as cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Deterministic sensitivity analysis with 20% variation and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were performed to address uncertainties around input parameters. Results: In the base case, 1L atezolizumab monotherapy was projected to increase life expectancy for patients by 0.60 life-years (4.35 vs. 3.75) and 0.47 QALYs (3.46 vs. 2.98) over pembrolizumab monotherapy at an incremental cost of $27,947 (mean total cost: $396,811 vs. $368,864), resulting in an ICER of $58,841/QALY gained. Results of the deterministic sensitivity analysis were most sensitive to changes in discount rates for costs and care costs in the PD state. The PSA showed that the probability of atezolizumab being cost-effective at willingness-to-pay thresholds of $100,000 and $150,000 was 41% and 49%, respectively. Conclusions: First-line atezolizumab monotherapy had 0.6 life-years and 0.47 QALYs gained compared with pembrolizumab monotherapy and was estimated to be cost-effective (ICER $58,841/QALY). As the ICER falls below the US cost-effectiveness thresholds ( < $100,000-$150,000/QALY), clinicians and payers should consider atezolizumab monotherapy as a cost-effective 1L option for mNSCLC patients with high PD-L1 expression.

Cost-effectiveness of immune checkpoint inhibition in metastatic gastric and esophageal tumors.

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 56-56 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sassan Ostvar ◽  
Jin G. Choi ◽  
Jacqueline N. Chu ◽  
Michael Lawrence Dougan ◽  
Justin F. Gainor ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Combination Therapy ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Immune Checkpoint ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibition ◽  
Immune Checkpoint Inhibition ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Cost

56 Background: Immune checkpoint inhibition has shown early promising results in patients with chemotherapy-refractory metastatic or advanced tumors of the esophagus, gastroesophageal junction, and stomach. We explore the cost-effectiveness of checkpoint inhibitors as second-line treatment agents for this group of patients using a decision analytic approach. Methods: A Markov model was developed to simulate the course of a virtual cohort of patients treated by (i) nivolumab 3 mg/kg, (ii) combination of ipilimumab 3 mg/kg and nivolumab 1 mg/kg, and (iii) best supportive care (BSC). Patients in the hypothetical cohort were 55-year-olds in an advanced/metastatic stage who had received at least one prior line of chemotherapy. Patients who remained stable in treatment were monitored for adverse events until death. Rates of cancer-specific mortality, disease progression, and drug-related adverse events were estimated using results from the CheckMate 032 clinical trial. The primary endpoints were survival, measured in life-years (LY), quality adjusted life years (QALY), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER). Cost-effectiveness of each strategy was evaluated from a US-payer perspective considering costs of drugs, treatment, and management of immune-related adverse events. Cost-effectiveness was defined with a willingness to pay threshold of $100,000/QALY. Results: Combination therapy with nivolumab and ipilimumab yielded the highest effectiveness (QALYs = 0.47, LYs = 1.09) in our base case modeling results, compared with nivolumab (QALYs = 0.43, LYs = 1.03), and BSC (QALYs = 0.19, LYs = 0.42). Nivolumab had an incremental cost of $84,555/QALY compared with BSC, while nivolumab with ipilimumab resulted in an incremental cost of $1.1M/QALY compared with nivolumab alone. The cost gap between the two was associated with the higher price of ipilimumab, and costs of managing increased toxicity. Conclusions: Our modeling analysis finds that combination therapy of ipilimumab and nivolumab is the most effective, but from a cost-effectiveness perspective, it is expensive, making nivolumab monotherapy the cost-effective option. Additional clinical data are needed to confirm our modeling results.

Cost-effectiveness of first-line pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy for metastatic squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e20703-e20703
Author(s):  
Ashley Kim ◽  
Beth Devine ◽  
Joshua A. Roth
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Combination Therapy ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Base Case ◽  
First Line ◽  
Lifetime Horizon ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Tumor Expression ◽  
The Cost

e20703 Background: Trial results from KEYNOTE-407 have recently led to the FDA approval for pembrolizumab + carboplatin + paclitaxel/nab-paclitaxel (pembrolizumab+chemo) in previously untreated metastatic squamous NSCLC. This is the only first-line indication for squamous NSCLC regardless of tumor expression status. Our objective was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab combination therapy in this setting from the US payer perspective. Methods: Using data from KEYNOTE-407, we developed a partitioned survival decision model to estimate the lifetime costs and effectiveness of pembrolizumab+chemo vs. chemo alone in the first-line treatment of metastatic squamous NSCLC. The base case used a Weibull curve selected based on minimum AIC/BIC and best graphical fit to extrapolate in-trial survival to a lifetime horizon. First- and second-line therapy resource use and adverse event (AE) rates were derived from KEYNOTE-407. Utility data and AE management were obtained from published literature and national sources. Direct medical costs were adjusted to 2018 US dollars, and future costs and outcomes were discounted at 3% per year. We estimated life years (LY), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and costs over a lifetime horizon. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were also conducted. Results: In the base case, pembrolizumab+chemo resulted in 0.51 more LYs, 0.36 more QALYs, and $233,246 in healthcare costs vs. chemo alone. Costs per LY and QALY gained were $216,180 and $309,004, respectively. One-way sensitivity analyses indicated that the results were most sensitive to survival and pre-progression utility inputs. In a threshold analysis, we found that the cost of pembrolizumab+chemo would need to be reduced by 24% per course of therapy ($176,175) in order to be cost-effective at $150,000/QALY. Conclusions: Based on current available data, our analysis suggests first-line pembrolizumab-based combination therapy in metastatic squamous NSCLC is unlikely to be cost-effective relative to implied willingness to pay in cancer in the U.S. (ie < $150,000 per QALY). Future studies should reassess cost-effectiveness as trial data mature.

Cost-Effectiveness: Cholinesterase Inhibitors and Memantine in Vascular Dementia

2009 ◽  
Vol 36 (6) ◽  
pp. 735-739 ◽  
Author(s):  
Camilla L. Wong ◽  
Nick Bansback ◽  
Philip E. Lee ◽  
Aslam H. Anis
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Vascular Dementia ◽  
Standard Care ◽  
Cholinesterase Inhibitors ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Decision Analysis Model ◽  
Physician Visits ◽  
Cost Effective Treatment

Background:Several randomized controlled trials of cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine in mild to moderate vascular dementia have demonstrated the efficacy of these treatments. However, given these drugs incur considerable cost, the economic argument for their use is less clear.Objective:To determine the incremental cost-effectiveness of cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine for mild to moderate vascular dementia.Design:A decision analysis model using a 24-28 week time horizon was developed. Outcomes of cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine and probabilities of adverse events were extracted from a systematic review. Costs of adverse events, medications, and physician visits were obtained from local estimates. Robustness was tested with probabilistic sensitivity analysis using a Monte Carlo simulation.Interventions:Donepezil 5 mg daily, donepezil 10 mg daily, galantamine 16-24 mg daily, rivastigmine flexible dosing up to 6 mg twice daily, or memantine 10 mg twice daily versus standard care.Main Outcome Measures:Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) expressed as cost per unit decrease in the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-cognitive (ADAS-cog) subscale.Results:Donepezil 10 mg daily was found to be the most cost-effective treatment with an ICER of $400.64 (95%CI, $281.10-$596.35) per unit decline in the ADAS-cog subscale. All other treatments were dominated by donepezil 10 mg, that is, more costly and less effective.Conclusion:From a societal perspective, treatment with cholinesterase inhibitors or memantine was more effective but also more costly than standard care for mild to moderate vascular dementia. The donepezil 10 mg strategy was the most cost-effective and also dominated the other alternatives.

scholarly journals The Cost-effectiveness of Celecoxib versus Non-steroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs plus Proton-pump Inhibitors for Treating Osteoarthritis in Algeria

10.36469/9865 ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 184-199 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nadir Hammoumraoui ◽  
Sid Ahmed Kherraf ◽  
Joaquin Mould-Quevedo ◽  
Tarek A. Ismail
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Proton Pump ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Private Clinic ◽  
Effective Treatment Option ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Cost Effective Treatment ◽  
Inflammatory Drugs ◽  
Anti Inflammatory

Background: Cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors such as celecoxib are as effective as non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (ns-NSAIDs) in the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA), have fewer gastrointestinal side effects, but are more expensive. Objective: To evaluate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of celecoxib versus ns-NSAIDs, with/without proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) co-therapy, for treating OA in Algeria. Methods: The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) health economic model from UK, updated with relative risks of adverse events using CONDOR trial data, was adapted for costeffectiveness analysis in OA patients aged ≥65 years. Patients could initiate treatment with celecoxib or ns-NSAIDs with/without omeprazole. Conditional probabilities were obtained from published clinical trials; effectiveness measure was quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained/patient. The analysis was conducted from a healthcare payer’s perspective. The average daily treatment costs and frequencies of resource use for adverse events were based on data collected in August 2011 from a private clinic located in Cheraga, Algiers, Algeria. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was performed to construct cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEACs). Results: QALYs gained/patient over a 6-month horizon were higher with celecoxib (0.368) and celecoxib+PPI (0.40) versus comparators. The lowest expected cost/patient was associated with ibuprofen (US$134.76 versus US$175.67 with celecoxib+PPI, and US$177.57 with celecoxib). Celecoxib+PPI was the most cost-effective drug treatment, with an ICER of US$584.43, versus ibuprofen. Treatment with celecoxib alone showed an ICER of US$1,530.56 versus diclofenac+PPI. These ICERs are &lt;1 gross domestic product per capita in Algeria (US$7,500). Over 1-year, 3-year and 5-year horizons, celecoxib with/without PPI co-therapy showed higher QALYs/patient versus comparators, and decreasing ICERs. The ICER of celecoxib+PPI was lower than that of comparators over all time horizons. These findings were confirmed with CEACs generated via PSA. Conclusion: Using data from a single private clinic in Cheraga, Algiers, Algeria, and after considering new adverse event risks, we showed that celecoxib with/without PPI co therapy is more cost-effective than ns-NSAID+PPI for treating OA patients aged ≥65 years. Celecoxib+PPI remains dominant over a 5-year horizon, making it the most cost-effective treatment option for medium- and long-term use.

scholarly journals Economic Evaluation of Posaconazole Versus Standard Azole Therapy as Prophylaxis against Invasive Fungal Infections in Patients with Prolonged Neutropenia in Canada

2012 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 59-64 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amir A Tahami Monfared ◽  
Amy K O’Sullivan ◽  
Coleman Rotstein ◽  
George Papadopoulos
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Cost Saving ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Lifetime Horizon ◽  
System Perspective ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Neutropenic Patients

INTRODUCTION: Posaconazole prophylaxis in high-risk neutropenic patients prevents invasive fungal infection (IFI). An economic model was used to assess the cost effectiveness of posaconazole from a Canadian health care system perspective.METHODS: A decision-analytic model was developed based on data from a randomized trial comparing posaconazole with standard azole (fluconazole or itraconazole) therapy. The model was extrapolated to a lifetime horizon using one-month Markov cycles; lifetime survival was specific to the underlying disease. Drug and treatment costs associated with IFI were estimated using published literature. The model was used to estimate total costs, IFIs avoided, life-years gained and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of posaconazole versus standard azole therapy, in 2007 Canadian dollars.RESULTS: Based on the clinical trial data, posaconazole was associated with fewer cases of IFI (0.05 versus 0.11; P=0.003), increased life-years (2.52 years versus 2.43 years) and slightly lower costs ($6,601 versus $7,045) per patient relative to standard azole therapy over a lifetime horizon. Higher acquisition costs for posaconazole were offset by IFI-associated inpatient costs for those prophylaxed with standard azoles. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated a 59% probability that posaconazole was cost-saving versus standard azole therapy and a 96% probability that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for posaconazole was at or below the $50,000 per life-year saved threshold.DISCUSSION: In Canada, posaconazole appears to be cost-saving relative to standard azole therapy in IFI prevention among high-risk neutropenic patients.

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 ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Screening Program ◽  
Patient Characteristics ◽  
Lipid Lowering ◽  
List Price ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease ◽  
Lifetime Horizon ◽  
Life Years

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.

scholarly journals Sustained acoustic medicine as a non-surgical and non-opioid knee osteoarthritis treatment option: a health economic cost-effectiveness analysis for symptom management

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas M. Best ◽  
Stephanie Petterson ◽  
Kevin Plancher
Keyword(s):  
Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Symptom Management ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Treatment Pathways ◽  
Knee Oa ◽  
Cost Effective Treatment ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Background Patients diagnosed with osteoarthritis (OA) and presenting with symptoms are seeking conservative treatment options to reduce pain, improve function, and avoid surgery. Sustained acoustic medicine (SAM), a multi-hour treatment has demonstrated improved clinical outcomes for patients with knee OA. The purpose of this analysis was to compare the costs and effectiveness of multi-hour SAM treatment versus the standard of care (SOC) over a 6-month timeframe for OA symptom management. Methods A decision tree analysis was used to compare the costs and effectiveness of SAM treatment versus SOC in patients with OA. Probabilities of success for OA treatment and effectiveness were derived from the literature using systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Costs were derived from Medicare payment rates and manufacturer prices. Functional effectiveness was measured as the effect size of a therapy and treatment pathways compared to a SOC treatment pathway. A sensitivity analysis was performed to determine which cost variables had the greatest effect on deciding which option was the least costly. An incremental cost-effectiveness plot comparing SAM treatment vs. SOC was also generated using 1000 iterations of the model. Lastly, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated as the (cost of SAM minus cost of SOC) divided by (functional effectiveness of SAM minus functional effectiveness of SOC). Results Base case demonstrated that over 6 months, the cost and functional effectiveness of SAM was $8641 and 0.52 versus SOC at: $6281 and 0.39, respectively. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that in order for SAM to be the less expensive option, the cost per 15-min session of PT would need to be greater than $88, or SAM would need to be priced at less than or equal to $2276. Incremental cost-effectiveness demonstrated that most of the time (84%) SAM treatment resulted in improved functional effectiveness but at a higher cost than SOC. Conclusion In patients with osteoarthritis, SAM treatment demonstrated improved pain and functional gains compared to SOC but at an increased cost. Based on the SAM treatment ICER score being ≤ $50,000, it appears that SAM is a cost-effective treatment for knee OA.

scholarly journals Abiraterone vs. docetaxel for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer: A microsimulation model

2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (9) ◽  
Author(s):  
Amanda E. Hird ◽  
Diana E. Magee ◽  
Douglas C. Cheung ◽  
Rano Matta ◽  
Girish S. Kulkarni ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
De Novo ◽  
Microsimulation Model ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Cost Effective Treatment ◽  
Third Line Therapy ◽  
Third Line

Introduction: Our aim was to determine whether androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) with abiraterone acetate (AA) or ADT with docetaxel chemotherapy (DC) resulted in improved quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) among men with de novo metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) and the cost-effectiveness of the preferred strategy using decision analytic techniques. Methods: A microsimulation model with a lifetime time horizon was constructed. Our primary outcome was QALYs. Secondary outcomes included cost, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), unadjusted overall survival (OS), rates of second- and third-line therapy, and adverse events. A systematic literature review was used to generate probabilities and utilities to populate the model. The base case was a 65-year-old patient with de novo mCSPC. Results: A total of 100 000 microsimulations were generated. Initial AA resulted in a gain of 0.45 QALYs compared to DC (3.36 vs. 2.91 QALYs) with an ICER of $276 251.84 per QALY gained with initial AA therapy. Median crude OS was 51 months with AA and 48 months with DC. Overall, 46.6% and 42.6% of patients received second-line therapy and 8.7% and 7.9% patients received third-line therapy in the AA and DC groups, respectively. Grade 3/4 adverse events were experienced in 17.6% of patients receiving initial AA and 22.3% of patients receiving initial DC. Conclusions: Although ADT with AA results in a gain in QALYs and crude OS compared to DC, AA therapy is not a cost-effective treatment strategy to apply uniformly to all patients. The availability of AA as a generic medication may help to close this gap. The ultimate choice should be based on patient and tumor factors.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document