Assessing the fiscal consequences of novel and existing treatments for triple negative breast cancer in Switzerland by applying a government perspective framework.

BACKGROUND: Triple Negative Breast Cancer (TNBC) is an aggressive subtype of breast cancer that can impact patients' employment and workforce participation. This study estimates how the employment effects of TNBC impact government tax revenue and public benefits expenditure in Switzerland, representing the fiscal burden of disease (FBoD), and likely consequences of introducing new treatment options. METHODS: A four-state cohort model was used to calculate fiscal effects for two treatments: Neoadjuvant pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy followed by adjuvant pembrolizumab monotherapy (P + C→P) and neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone (C). Lifetime present values of tax revenue, social benefit payments, and healthcare costs were calculated for the average population and those undergoing treatment to assess the FBoD. RESULTS: An average TNBC patient treated with C and P + C→P is expected to generate CHF128,999 and CHF97,008 less tax than the average population, respectively, and require increased social benefit payments. Compared to C, 75% of the incremental healthcare costs of P + C→P are estimated to be offset through tax revenue gains. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis demonstrates that 75% of the additional costs of a new TNBC treatment option can be offset by gains in tax revenue. Fiscal analysis can be a useful tool to complement existing methods for evaluating new treatments.

Cost-effectiveness of rimegepant oral lyophilisate compared to best supportive care for the acute treatment of migraine in the UK.

AIMS: Migraine is the most common disabling headache disorder and is characterized by recurrent throbbing head pain and symptoms of photophobia, phonophobia, nausea, and vomiting. Rimegepant 75 mg, an oral lyophilisate calcitonin gene-related peptide antagonist, is the first treatment approved for both the acute and preventative treatment of migraine, and the first acute therapy approved in over 20-years. The objective was to assess the cost-utility of rimegepant compared with best supportive care (BSC) in the UK, for the acute treatment of migraine in the adults with inadequate symptom relief after taking at least 2 triptans, or for whom triptans are contraindicated or not tolerated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A de novo model was developed to estimate incremental costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), structured as a decision tree followed by Markov model. Patients received rimegepant or BSC for a migraine attack and were assessed for response (pain relief at 2-h). Responders and non-responders followed different pain trajectories over 48-h cycles. Non-responders discontinued treatment while responders continued treatment for subsequent attacks, with a proportion discontinuing over time. Data sources included a post-hoc pooled analysis of the phase 3 acute rimegepant trials (NCT03235479, NCT03237845, NCT03461757), and a long-term safety study (NCT03266588). The analysis was conducted from the perspective of the UK National Health Service and Personal Social Services over a 20-year time horizon. RESULTS: Rimegepant resulted in an incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) of £10,309 per QALY gained vs BSC, which is cost-effectiveness at a willingness to pay threshold of £30,000/QALY. Rimegepant generated +0.44 incremental QALYs and higher incremental lifetime costs (£4,492). Improved QALYs for rimegepant were a result of less time spent with severe and moderate headache pain. CONCLUSION: This study highlights the economic value of rimegepant which was found to be cost-effective for the acute treatment of migraine in adults unsuitable for triptans.

Exploring kidney dialysis costs in the United States: a scoping review.

AIMS: The increasing prevalence of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) in the United States (US) represents a considerable economic burden due to the high cost of dialysis treatment. This review examines data from real-world studies to identify cost drivers and explore areas where dialysis costs could be reduced. METHODS: We identified and synthesized evidence published from 2016-2023 reporting direct dialysis costs in adult US patients from a comprehensive literature search of MEDLINE, Embase, and grey literature sources (e.g. US Renal Data System reports). RESULTS: Most identified data related to Medicare expenditures. Overall Medicare spending in 2020 was $29B for hemodialysis and $2.8B for peritoneal dialysis (PD). Dialysis costs accounted for almost 80% of total Medicare expenditures on ESRD beneficiaries. Private insurance payers consistently pay more for dialysis; for example, per person per month spending by private insurers on outpatient dialysis was estimated at $10,149 compared with Medicare spending of $3,364. Dialysis costs were higher in specific high-risk patient groups (e.g. type 2 diabetes, hepatitis C). Spending on hemodialysis was higher than on PD, but the gap in spending between PD and hemodialysis is closing. Vascular access costs accounted for a substantial proportion of dialysis costs. LIMITATIONS: Insufficient detail in the identified studies, especially related to outpatient costs, limits opportunities to identify key drivers. Differences between the studies in methods of measuring dialysis costs make generalization of these results difficult. CONCLUSIONS: These findings indicate that prevention of or delay in progression to ESRD could have considerable cost savings for Medicare and private payers, particularly in patients with high-risk conditions such as type 2 diabetes. More efficient use of resources is needed, including low-cost medication, to improve clinical outcomes and lower overall costs, especially in high-risk groups. Widening access to PD where it is safe and appropriate may help to reduce dialysis costs.

Previous papers have studied the cost of treating patients who need dialysis for kidney failure. We reviewed these costs and looked for patterns. Dialysis was the most expensive part of treatment for people with kidney disease who have Medicare. Dialysis with private insurance was much more expensive than with Medicare. People with diabetes experienced higher costs of dialysis than those without diabetes. Dialysis in a hospital costs more than dialysis at home. There are opportunities to reduce the cost of dialysis that should be explored further, such as more use of low-cost medication that can prevent the worsening of kidney disease and reduce the need for dialysis.

MONITORING FOR WASTE: EVIDENCE FROM MEDICARE AUDITS.

This paper examines the tradeoffs of monitoring for wasteful public spending. By penalizing unnecessary spending, monitoring improves the quality of public expenditure and incentivizes firms to invest in compliance technology. I study a large Medicare program that monitored for unnecessary healthcare spending and consider its effect on government savings, provider behavior, and patient health. Every dollar Medicare spent on monitoring generated $24-29 in government savings. The majority of savings stem from the deterrence of future care, rather than reclaimed payments from prior care. I do not find evidence that the health of the marginal patient is harmed, indicating that monitoring primarily deters low-value care. Monitoring does increase provider administrative costs, but these costs are mostly incurred upfront and include investments in technology to assess the medical necessity of care.

The economic burden of systemic lupus erythematosus in Taiwan.

BACKGROUND: Our cost-of-illness (COI) model adopted both payer and societal perspectives over a time horizon of 5 years to measure the economic burden of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) in Taiwan. METHODOLOGY: A prevalence-based model was established to estimate the economic consequences of SLE after diagnosis in Taiwan. The model included four health states: (i) the three phenotypes representing mild, moderate, and severe SLE, and (ii) death. The inputs were obtained from a literature review of all the clinical trials and validated using a Delphi panel. The Delphi panel's insights included commonly used treatment strategies for patients with SLE within the Taiwanese healthcare system. The costs mentioned in this model are disease management, monitoring, transient event, and indirect costs. One-way sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the model uncertainty. RESULTS: The number of patients with SLE in our COI model was 20,189. At diagnosis, the number of SLE patients with mild, moderate, and severe phenotypes was 5,916, 12,255, and 2019, respectively. The total SLE cost in Taiwan over 5 years from both payer and societal perspectives was estimated at TWD 3.9 and 47 billion, respectively. The costs per patient per year from the payer and societal perspective were TWD 38,775 ($2,758) and TWD 466,119 ($33,152), respectively. CONCLUSION: The findings demonstrated that the burden of SLE in Taiwan over a time horizon of 5 years is substantially high, mainly due to the consequences of economic loss as it affects women and men during their working age, in addition to the costs of SLE management and its consequences, such as flares, infection, and organ damage. Therefore, more attention should be paid to limiting the progression of SLE and the occurrence of flares, and further economic evaluations are necessary to assess novel treatment strategies that could control the disease.

The economic burden of systemic lupus erythematosus in Mexico.

AIMS: Our cost of illness study aimed to provide an estimate of the burden related to systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) in the Mexican context. METHODS: Our model was used to simulate the resource utilization and economic consequences over a period of 5 years for patients with SLE in Mexico. The model simulated four health states-three phenotypes of SLE, including mild, moderate, and severe states, and death. Clinical parameters were retrieved from the literature. Resource utilization in our model represents the most common practice in the Mexican healthcare system. These include disease management, transient events (e.g. infections, flares, and complications due to SLE-related organ damage), and indirect costs. Direct non-medical costs were not considered. One-way sensitivity analysis was performed. RESULTS: The number of targeted Mexican SLE patients was 57,754. The numbers of SLE patients diagnosed with mild, moderate, and severe phenotypes were 8,230, 44,291, and 5,233, respectively. Disease management costs, including the treatment of each phenotype and disease follow-up, were MXN 4 billion ($ 415 million); the costs of transient events (infections, flares, and consequences of SLE-related organ damage) were MXN 5 billion ($ 478 million). Productivity loss costs among adult employed Mexican patients with SLE were estimated at MXN 17 billion ($ 1.6 billion). The total SLE cost in Mexico over 5 years from the payer and societal perspectives is estimated at MXN 9 billion ($ 893 million) and 26 billion ($ 2.5 billion), respectively. Over 5 years, the costs per patient per year from the payer and societal perspectives were MXN 32,131($ 3,095) and MXN 91,661($ 8,830), respectively. CONCLUSION: The findings pointed out the substantial economic burden associated with SLE, including the costs of disease progression and SLE transient events, such as flare-ups, infections, and organ damage, in addition to productivity loss due to work capacity impairment.

Clinical and economic burden of systemic lupus erythematosus in Colombia.

AIMS: Our cost-of-illness (COI) model adopted payer and societal perspectives over five years to measure the economic burden of Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) in Colombia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prevalence-based model was constructed to estimate costs and economic consequences for SLE patients in Colombia. The model included four health states: three phenotypes of SLE representing mild, moderate, and severe states and death. The clinical inputs were captured from the published literature and validated by the Delphi panel. Our model measured direct medical and indirect costs, including disease management, transient events, and indirect costs. One-way sensitivity analysis was also performed. RESULTS: The number of Colombian SLE patients was 37,498. The number of SLE patients with mild, moderate, and severe phenotypes was 5343, 28757 and 3,397, respectively. SLE-patients with moderate (Colombian pesos; COP 146 billion) and severe phenotypes (COP276 billion) incurred higher costs than those with mild phenotypes (COP2 billion), over 5 years. The total SLE cost in Colombia over five years from the payer and societal perspectives was estimated to be COP 915 billion and 8 trillion, respectively. The costs per patient per year from the payer and societal perspectives were COP 4,881,902 ($3,510) and COP 46,637,054 ($33,528), respectively. CONCLUSION: The burden of SLE in Colombia over five years is substantially high, mainly due to the consequences of economic loss because it affects women and men of working age, in addition to the costs of SLE management and its consequences, such as flares, infection, and organ damage. Our COI indicated that disease management costs among patients with moderate and severe SLE were substantially higher than those among patients with a mild phenotype. Therefore, more attention should be paid to limiting the progression of SLE and the occurrence of flares, with the need for further economic evaluation of novel treatment strategies that help in disease control.

The economic burden of systemic lupus erythematosus in United Arab Emirates.

AIMS: Our study aims to provide an enhanced comprehension of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) burden in United Arab Emirates (UAE), over a five-year period from payer and societal perspective. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A Markov model was established to simulate the economic consequences of SLE among UAE population. It included four health states: i) the three phenotypes of SLE, representing mild, moderate, and severe states, and ii) death. Clinical parameters were retrieved from previous literature and validated using the Delphi panel-the most common clinical practice within the Emirati healthcare system. We calculated the disease management, transient events, and indirect costs by macro costing. One-way sensitivity analysis was conducted. RESULTS: The estimated number of SLE patients in our study was 13,359. The number of SLE patients with mild, moderate, and severe phenotypes was 3,914, 8,109, and 1,336, respectively. Disease management costs, including treatment of each phenotype and disease follow-up, were AED 2 billion ($0.89 billion), whereas the costs of transient events (infections, flares, and consequences of SLE-related organ damage) were AED 1 billion ($0.44 billion). The productivity loss costs among adult-employed patients with SLE in the UAE were estimated at AED 7 billion ($3.1 billion). The total SLE cost over five years from payer and societal perspectives is estimated at AED 3 ($1.3 billion) and 10 billion ($4.4 billion), respectively. Additionally, the costs per patient per year from the payer and societal perspectives were AED 45,960 ($20,610) and AED 148,468 ($66,578), respectively. CONCLUSION: Our findings demonstrate that the burden of SLE in the UAE is enormous, mainly because of the costly complications and productivity loss. More awareness should be created to limit the progression of SLE and reduce the occurrence of flares, necessitating further economic evaluations of novel treatments that could help reduce the economic consequences of SLE in the UAE.

Economic burden of systemic lupus erythematosus in Malaysia.

INTRODUCTION: Our cost-of-illness (COI) model adopted the perspective of both payer and society over a time horizon of 5 years to measure the economic burden of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) in Malaysia. METHODOLOGY: Our COI model utilized a prevalence-based model to estimate the costs and economic consequences of SLE in Malaysia. The clinical parameters were obtained from published literature and validated using the Delphi panel. Direct and indirect medical costs were measured, including disease management, transient events, and indirect costs. One-way sensitivity analysis was also performed. RESULTS: The number of target Malaysian patients with SLE in the COI model was 18,121. At diagnosis, the numbers of SLE patients with mild, moderate, and severe phenotypes were 2,582, 13,897, and 1,642, respectively. The total SLE cost in Malaysia over 5 years from both payer and society perspectives was estimated at MYR 678 million and 2 billion, respectively. The results showed a considerable cost burden due to productivity losses resulting from SLE-related morbidity and mortality. Over a 5-year time horizon, the costs per patient per year from the payer and society perspectives were MYR 7,484 ($4766) and 24,281($15,465), respectively. CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrated the substantial economic burden of SLE in Malaysia over a time horizon of 5 years. It affects adults of working age, in addition to the costs of SLE management and its consequences, such as flares, infection, and organ damage. Our COI model indicated that disease management costs among patients with higher disease severity were higher than those among patients with a mild phenotype. Hence, more attetion should be paid to limiting the progression of SLE and the occurrence of flares, with the need for further economic evaluation of novel treatments that could lead to better outcomes.

Microsimulation model of the cost-effectiveness of anifrolumab compared to belimumab in the United Arab Emirates.

INTRODUCTION: SLE imposes a significant morbidity and mortality as well as a substantial burden on the healthcare system. The model aimed to measure the cost-effectiveness of anifrolumab implementation against belimumab as an add-on-therapy to the standard of care (SoC) over a lifetime horizon for Emirati patients. METHODOLOGY: A microsimulation model was used to assess the cost-effectiveness of anifrolumab against belimumab (IV/SC) as an add-on therapy to SoC in a hypothetical cohort of adult Emirati patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) over a lifetime horizon. The clinical data was captured from published clinical trials as; TULIP-1, TULIP-2, BLISS-52, BLISS-76 and BLISS-SC. Health utility scores were constructed according to a linear regression model from the pooled data of the two TULIP Phase III trials of anifrolumab. Our model captures direct SLE-related medical costs from the Dubai Health Authority. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess model uncertainty. RESULTS: Using BICLA as a response criterion in the Johns Hopkins cohort, anifrolumab was found to be more effective than belimumab (IV/SC; the incremental discounted QALY of anifrolumab against belimumab was 0.42). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of anifrolumab against belimumab IV and belimumab SC were AED 466,371 ($209,135) and AED 252,612 ($113,279), respectively, these ICERs are below the cost-effectiveness threshold in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) (three times gross domestic product capita; AED 592,278). In the Toronto lupus cohort, the ICER of anifrolumab against belimumab IV and belimumab SC were AED 491,403 ($220,360) and AED 276,642 ($124,055), respectively (anifrolumab was a cost-effective option vs. belimumab IV and belimumab SC). CONCLUSION: The addition of anifrolumab to SoC is a cost-effective option versus belimumab for the treatment of adult patients with active, autoantibody-positive SLE, despite being allocated to SoC. Cost-effectiveness was demonstrated by a reduction in complications and organ damage, which reflected costs and outcomes.

Cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab for previously treated MSI-H/dMMR solid tumours in the UK.

OBJECTIVES: Patients with previously treated microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H)/mismatch repair deficient (dMMR) tumours have limited chemotherapeutic treatment options. Pembrolizumab received approval from the EMA in 2022 for the treatment of colorectal, endometrial, gastric, small intestine, and biliary MSI-H/dMMR tumour types. This approval was supported by data from the KEYNOTE-164 and KEYNOTE-158 clinical trials. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab compared with standard of care (SoC) for previously treated MSI-H/dMMR solid tumours in line with the approved EMA label from a UK healthcare payer perspective. METHODS: A multi-tumour partitioned survival model was built consisting of pre-progression, progressed disease, and dead health states. Pembrolizumab survival outcomes were extrapolated using Bayesian hierarchical models (BHMs) fitted to pooled data from KEYNOTE-164 and KEYNOTE-158. Comparator outcomes were informed by published sources. Tumour sites were modelled independently and then combined, weighted by tumour site distribution. A SoC comparator was used to formulate the overall cost-effectiveness result with pembrolizumab as the intervention. SoC comprised a weighted average of the comparators by tumour site based on market share. Drug acquisition, administration, adverse events, monitoring, subsequent treatment, end-of-life costs, and testing costs were included. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were performed, including modelling pembrolizumab efficacy using standard parametric survival models. RESULTS: Pembrolizumab, at list price, was associated with £129,469 in total costs, 8.30 LYs, and 3.88 QALYs across the pooled tumour sites. SoC was associated with £28,222 in total costs, 1.14 LYs, and 0.72 QALYs across the pooled tumour sites. This yields an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £32,085 per QALY. Results were robust to sensitivity and scenario analyses. CONCLUSIONS: This model demonstrates pembrolizumab provides a valuable new alternative therapy for UK patients with MSH-H/dMMR cancer at the cost of £32,085 per QALY, with confidential discounts anticipated to improve cost-effectiveness further.

A cost-effectiveness analysis of intrauterine spacers used to prevent the formation of intrauterine adhesions following endometrial cavity surgery.

AIM: To assess, from a United States (US) payer's perspective, the cost-effectiveness of gels designed to separate the endometrial surfaces (intrauterine spacers) placed following intrauterine surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A decision tree model was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of intrauterine spacers used to facilitate endometrial repair and prevent the formation (primary prevention) and reformation (secondary prevention) of intrauterine adhesions (IUAs) and associated pregnancy- and birth-related adverse outcomes. Event rates and costs were extrapolated from data available in the existing literature. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to corroborate the base case results. RESULTS: In this model, using intrauterine spacers for adhesion prevention led to net cost savings for US payers of $2,905 per patient over a 3.5-year time horizon. These savings were driven by the direct benefit of preventing procedures associated with IUA formation ($2,162 net savings) and the indirect benefit of preventing pregnancy-related complications often associated with IUA formation ($3,002). These factors offset the incremental cost of intrauterine spacer use of $1,539 based on an assumed price of $1,800 and the related increase in normal deliveries of $931. Model outcomes were sensitive to the probability of preterm and normal deliveries. Budget impact analyses show overall cost savings of $19.96 per initial member within a US healthcare plan, translating to $20 million over a 5-year time horizon for a one-million-member plan. LIMITATIONS: There are no available data on the effects of intrauterine spacers or IUAs on patients' quality of life. Resultingly, the model could not evaluate patients' utility related to treatment with or without intrauterine spacers and instead focused on costs and events avoided. CONCLUSION: This analysis robustly demonstrated that intrauterine spacers would be cost-saving to healthcare payers, including both per-patient and per-plan member, through a reduction in IUAs and improvements to patients' pregnancy-related outcomes.

Every year, women in the United States (US) undergo surgery to treat intrauterine abnormalities to maintain or improve the uterus' ability to support fetal development and result in a term delivery. Despite the benefits of these procedures, damage caused to the endometrium (uterine lining) is associated with a risk of adherence of the endometrial cavity surfaces with scar tissue known as intrauterine adhesions (IUAs).Damage to the endometrium and the resulting IUAs may be associated with infertility, light or absent menstruation, pregnancy loss, and other pregnancy-related complications. Treating these conditions within the US healthcare system consumes resources and adds costs for healthcare payers (public and private insurance providers).To facilitate endometrial repair and to reduce or prevent IUAs, researchers have developed materials to place within the endometrial cavity following surgery to separate the endometrial surfaces during the early healing period. These intrauterine "spacers" are intended to improve patients' subsequent clinical outcomes and save money for healthcare payers. It is unknown whether these improved clinical outcomes offset the cost of the routine use of spacers following "at-risk" procedures that involve the endometrial cavity.We developed a model designed to determine the cost-effectiveness of an intrauterine spacer by quantifying improvements in clinical outcomes and the resultant cost savings for patients undergoing uterine surgeries with or without spacers. Our model predicted that routinely using such spacers following at-risk procedures would improve patient outcomes and reduce costs to US payers.

Income dissatisfaction and migraine headache. Evidence from a nationwide population-based survey.

Objective: We investigate whether and to what extent income dissatisfaction (ID) is an important determinant of migraine. Indeed, ID may play a more relevant role in migraines than realized income, and it may affect both low and high-income people. Design: We exploit the Italian Statistical Institute (ISTAT) survey covering about 80,000 individuals for this study. On the methodological ground, an instrumental variable probit model has been implemented. Main Outcome Measures: To measure income dissatisfaction we exploit a self-reported status ranging from 1 to 4, while the migraine variable captures whether the individual suffers from migraine. Results: The results show that the higher the ID the greater the probability of having a migraine. This relationship is robust to the level of realized income, socioeconomic characteristics of the individual, and the existence of other illnesses. Conclusions: The high relevance of ID among low-income as well as high-income people opens up a new perspective on the determinants of migraines and provides an explanation of the contrasting evidence in the literature about the income-migraine nexus.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of baricitinib versus dupilumab for moderate to severe atopic dermatitis: an Italian healthcare system perspective.

AIMS: To assess, within the Italian healthcare system, the cost-effectiveness of baricitinib versus dupilumab, both in combination with topical corticosteroids (TCS), in adults with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD) who are eligible for but have failed, have contraindications to, or cannot tolerate ciclosporin. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using the perspective of the Italian healthcare payer, direct medical costs associated with each intervention were estimated over a lifetime horizon. A Markov cohort model utilized the proportions of patients with ≥75% improvement Eczema Area and Severity Index obtained from clinical trials. Health outcomes were evaluated in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) to assess the cost effectiveness of baricitinib against a willingness-to-pay threshold of €35,000 per QALY gained. RESULTS: In the base case, with secondary censoring applied, patients treated with dupilumab or baricitinib, in combination with TCS, accumulated total costs of €135,780 or €129,586, and total QALYs of 18.172 or 18.133, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of dupilumab versus baricitinib was estimated at €160,905/QALY. LIMITATIONS: Core assumptions were needed to extrapolate available short-term clinical trial data to lifelong data, adding uncertainty. Benefits of baricitinib seen in clinical trials and not assessed in dupilumab clinical trials were not included. Discontinuation rates for each treatment were derived from different sources potentially introducing bias. Results may not be generalizable to other populations. CONCLUSIONS: This cost-effectiveness analysis shows that, from the Italian healthcare payer perspective, in the treatment of patients with moderate to severe AD who have experienced failure on, are intolerant to, or have contraindication to ciclosporin, dupilumab cannot be considered cost-effective when compared with baricitinib. Given its oral administration, favorable risk/benefit profile and lower acquisition cost compared with dupilumab, baricitinib may offer a valuable, cost-effective treatment option-after failure on conventional systemic agents-for patients with moderate to severe AD in Italy.

Baricitinib is the first oral systemic treatment for patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD). The drug was effective for treating patients with AD in clinical trials, producing improvements in skin inflammation, itch, sleep disturbances due to itch and skin pain, as well as the quality of life of patients. However, it is important to ensure that healthcare funds are well spent. We therefore compared the cost-effectiveness of baricitinib, with another new systemic treatment for AD, dupilumab, (both in combination with topical corticosteroids) in patients with moderate to severe AD who are eligible for but have failed or are unable to take ciclosporin, in Italy. We found that using dupilumab to treat these patients with AD cost more than using baricitinib, although dupilumab was more effective. Combining these considerations showed that the cost of obtaining the additional benefit from dupilumab over baricitinib was not cost-effective for the Italian healthcare system. Baricitinib may be a better treatment option because it is given orally, has a favorable balance between the risks and benefits of treatment, and costs less than dupilumab.

Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis of somatrogon once-weekly injections vs. daily growth hormone injection for treating paediatric growth hormone deficiency in Ireland.

OBJECTIVES: Paediatric growth hormone deficiency (pGHD) manifests as growth failure associated with inadequate growth hormone (GH) production. Daily injections of recombinant human GH (dGH) [somatropin] is the current standard of care, which has been shown to be well tolerated and effective, but associated with suboptimal adherence, leading to reduced effectiveness. Somatrogon, a once-weekly injectable long-acting human GH, has demonstrated clinical non-inferiority and significantly lower life interference (i.e. treatment burden) vs. somatropin in two Phase 3 studies. This work evaluated cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of somatrogon vs dGHs from an Irish payer perspective. METHODS: A Markov model was developed for patients starting somatrogon or dGHs treatment at 3-12 years and continuing up to achievement of near adult height (NAH), with growth driven by trial-based height velocity (HV) and treatment-specific adherence. Patients could discontinue treatment at the end of Year 1 (4%). DGH adherence (95.3%-65% over treatment duration) and adherence-growth relationship were based on published evidence. Higher Year 1 adherence of 4%, tapering over time, for somatrogon vs. dGHs was based on clinical consultation. Treatment costs, monitoring costs and costs due to different wastage types (device setting and adherence) were sourced from local data. Health utilities based on height and injection frequency were derived from published literature. Scenario analysis, deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed. RESULTS: Somatrogon treatment led to 1.87-3.66 cm greater NAH gain and 0.21-0.50 higher quality adjusted life years (QALYs) vs. dGHs, across the base case and scenarios evaluated. Somatrogon treatment was associated with cost savings of €5,699-€21,974 and lower cost per cm gained vs. dGHs (€197-€527), per patient. Somatrogon was cost-effective vs. dGHs, with the result consistent across the sensitivity analyses conducted. CONCLUSION: Somatrogon weekly injections were estimated to result in higher NAH, higher QALYs, lower overall costs and lower costs per cm gained than dGHs, in pGHD.

Early access for innovative oncology medicines: a different story in each nation.

BACKGROUND: As innovative oncology medicines are rapidly developed, there is increasing pressure on payers to offer patients timely access to life-saving therapies. The uncertainty surrounding these therapies when phase III clinical trials are pending has necessitated new, adapted pathways to market access, with timelines that greatly vary by country. Understanding differences between pathways may identify opportunities to expedite patient access universally. OBJECTIVES: To describe early access pathways for new oncology medicines among selected countries with established health technology assessment (HTA) frameworks and publicly funded health systems, with a special focus on real-world evidence (RWE). METHODS: We reviewed the HTA agency websites of the selected OECD countries: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) for England and Wales; Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS) for France; IQWiG and G-BA for Germany; Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA) for Italy; Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) for Australia; and CADTH and Institut National d'Excellence en Santé et Services Sociaux (INESSS) for Canada as the primary source of evidence. RESULTS: Processes for early patient access to innovative oncology therapies varied across selected countries; however, most countries have an established pathway for publicly funded early access (England and Wales, France, Germany, Italy, and Australia). The utilization of RWE to support earlier access (coverage with evidence) also varied by country, with some HTA organizations being actively engaged in these agreements (NICE, AIFA, and HAS) and others having no established processes in place (G-BA and CADTH/INESSS). CONCLUSIONS: This review of early access pathways for novel oncology medicines found substantial variability between countries of interest. Coverage with evidence frameworks may provide a unique opportunity for industry and payers to collaborate on earlier access to innovative cancer therapies with life-saving potential.

Economic and clinical burden of managing transfusion-dependent ß-thalassemia in the United States.

AIMS: To describe clinical complications, treatment use, healthcare resource utilization (HCRU), and costs among patients with transfusion-dependent ß-thalassemia (TDT) in the United States. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Merative MarketScan Databases were used to identify patients with ß-thalassemia between 1 March 2010, and 1 March 2019. Patients were eligible for inclusion with ≥1 inpatient claim or ≥2 outpatient claims for ß-thalassemia and ≥8 red blood cell transfusions (RBCTs) during any 12-month period after and including the date of the first qualifying ß-thalassemia diagnosis code. Matched controls consisted of individuals without ß-thalassemia. Clinical and economic outcomes of patients were assessed during ≥12 months of follow-up, defined as the period from the index date (i.e. the first RBCT) to either the end of continuous enrollment in benefits, inpatient death, or 1 March 2020. RESULTS: Overall, 207 patients with TDT and 1035 matched controls were identified. Most patients received iron chelation therapy (ICT) (91.3%), with a mean of 12.1 (standard deviation [SD] = 10.3) ICT claims per-patient-per-year (PPPY). Many also received RBCTs, with a mean of 14.2 (SD = 4.7) RBCTs PPPY. TDT was associated with higher annual ($137,125) and lifetime ($7.1 million) healthcare costs vs. matched controls ($4183 and $235,000, respectively). Annual costs were driven by ICT (52.1%) and RBCT use (23.6%). Patients with TDT had 7-times more total outpatient visits/encounters, 3-times more prescriptions, and 33-times higher total annual costs than matched controls. LIMITATIONS: This analysis may underestimate the burden of TDT, as indirect healthcare costs (e.g. absenteeism, presenteeism, etc.) were not included. Results may not be generalizable to patients excluded from this analysis, including those with other types of insurance or without insurance. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with TDT have high HCRU and direct healthcare costs. Treatments that eliminate the need for RBCTs could reduce the clinical and economic burden of managing TDT.

Chronic wound prevalence and the associated cost of treatment in Medicare beneficiaries: changes between 2014 and 2019.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost of wound care and prevalence of chronic wounds for Medicare beneficiaries in the aggregate, by wound type, and by setting between the years 2014 and 2019. METHODS: This retrospective analysis of Medicare claims data included beneficiaries who experienced episodes of care for diabetic foot ulcers and infections; arterial ulcers; skin disorders and infections; surgical wounds and infections; traumatic wounds; venous ulcers and infections; unspecified chronic ulcers; and others. The 2014 data were based on a Medicare 5% Limited Data Set whereas for 2019 the data used were for all fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries. Three methods were used to generate expenditure estimates: (a) a low (Medicare provider payments when the wound was a primary diagnosis, excluding any kind of deductible); (b) mid (primary plus secondary diagnosis with weighted attribution); and (c) high (primary or secondary diagnosis). The main outcomes were the prevalence of each wound type, Medicare expenditure for each wound type and aggregate, and expenditure by type of service. RESULTS: Over the 5-year period the number of Medicare beneficiaries with a wound increased from 8.2 million to 10.5 million. Wound prevalence increased by 13% from 14.5% to 16.4%. Over the 5-year period, the Medicare beneficiaries with the largest increase in chronic wound prevalence were those aged <65 years (males: 12.5% to 16.3%; females: 13.4% to 17.5%). The largest changes in terms of wound prevalence were increases in arterial ulcers (0.4% to 0.8%), skin disorders (2.6% to 5.3%), and decreases in traumatic wounds (2.7% to 1.6%). Expenditures decreased regardless of the three methods used with a reduction of $29.7 billion to $22.5 billion for the most conservative method. Except for venous ulcers in which costs per Medicare beneficiary increased from $1206 to $1803, cost per wound decreased with surgical wounds remaining the most expensive to treat (2014: $3566; 2019: $2504), and the largest decrease for arterial ulcers ($9651 to $1322). Hospital outpatient fees saw the largest reduction ($10.5 billion to $2.5 billion) although home health agency expenditures decreased from $1.6 billion to $1.1 billion. Physician offices saw an increase from $3.0 billion to $4.1 billion and durable medical equipment increased from $0.3 billion to $0.7 billion. CONCLUSIONS: It appears that chronic wound care expenditures have shifted to the physician's office from the hospital-based outpatient department. Given that the prevalence of chronic wounds is increasing, especially among the disabled under 65, it will be important to know whether these shifts have positively or negatively affected outcomes.

HighlightsIn 2014 chronic wounds impacted 14.5% of Medicare beneficiaries but this increased to 16.3% by 2019. The group of Medicare beneficiaries most affected in terms of chronic wound prevalence over the 5-year period were those aged <65 years (males: 12.5% to 16.3%; females: 13.4% to 17.5%). The largest changes in terms of prevalence were increases in arterial ulcers (0.4% to 0.8%), skin disorders (2.6% to 5.3%), and traumatic wounds (2.7% to 1.6%)Over the 5-year period, regardless of the method used, there was a decrease in chronic wound-related costs ($29.7 billion in 2014 to $22.5 billion in 2019 for the most conservative method: Medicare provider payments when the wound was a primary diagnosis, excluding any kind of deductible). Surgical complications still represent the largest wound category of costs with a small decrease from 2014 to 2019 of $6.1 billion to $5.9 billion. Based on the most conservative method, there was a very large cost reduction observed for outpatients from $10.5 billion to $2.5 billion with a correspondingly smaller decrease for inpatients of $5.3 billion to $4.2 billion, but an increase from $3.0 billion to $4.1 billion for physician offices. In addition, while durable medical equipment increased from $0.3 billion to $0.7 billion, home health agency expenditures decreased from $1.6 billion to $1.1 billion.Our data suggest that while most of the cost remains in the subacute setting it has shifted to the physician's office from the hospital-based outpatient department. Given the increasing prevalence of chronic wounds, especially among the disabled under 65, it will be important to know whether these shifts have positively or negatively affected outcomes.

Prescription Drug Advertising and Drug Utilization: The Role of Medicare Part D.

This paper examines how direct-to-consumer advertising (DTCA) for prescription drugs influences utilization by exploiting a large and plausibly exogenous shock to DTCA driven by the introduction of Medicare Part D. Part D led to larger increases in advertising in geographic areas with higher concentrations of Medicare beneficiaries. We examine the impact of this differential increase in advertising on non-elderly individuals to isolate advertising effects from the direct effects of Part D. We find that exposure to advertising led to large increases in treatment initiation and improved medication adherence. Advertising also had sizeable positive spillover effects on non-advertised generic drugs. Our results imply significant spillovers from Medicare Part D on the under-65 population and an important role for non-price factors in influencing prescription drug utilization.

Patients treated with pimavanserin or quetiapine for Parkinson's disease psychosis: analysis of health resource utilization patterns among Medicare beneficiaries.

BACKGROUND: Pimavanserin (PIM) is the only FDA approved atypical antipsychotic (AAP) for the treatment of Parkinson's Disease Psychosis (PDP) while other off-label AAPs like quetiapine (QUE) are also used. Real-world comparative effects of PIM and QUE on health resource utilization (HCRU) may provide insights about their relative benefits. OBJECTIVES: To examine annual HCRU among newly initiated PIM or QUE monotherapy among patients with PDP. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of 100% Medicare (Parts A, B, and D) claims of patients with PDP during 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2019 was conducted. Treatment-naive patients with first prescription for PIM or QUE from 1 January 2014 to 31 December 2018 were selected if they had ≥12-months continuous monotherapy and had no prior AAP use for ≥12-month pre-index. Post-index 12-month HCRU was compared between 1:1 propensity score matched (PSM) PIM or QUE cohorts. HCRU outcomes included: rates of all-cause and psychiatric-related inpatient hospitalizations by stay-type [i.e., long-term stays (LT-stays), short-term stays (ST-stays), skilled nursing facility stays (SNF-stays)], outpatient hospitalizations, emergency room (ER) visits, and office visits. Relative risk and 95% confidence intervals are reported [RR (95% CI)]. RESULTS: A total of 842 and 7,116 were treated with PIM and QUE, respectively. Mean age and gender distribution were similar among both groups. After PSM, those on PIM (n=842) had significantly lower RR for all-cause: inpatient hospitalizations [RR=0.78 (0.70-0.87)], ST-stays [RR=0.75 (0.66-0.84)], SNF-stays [RR=0.64 (0.54-0.76)], and ER visits [RR=0.91 (0.84-0.97)] vs. QUE (n=842). PIM patients had slightly higher RR for all-cause office visits [RR=1.03 (1.01-1.05)] vs. QUE. Psychiatric-related inpatient hospitalizations were also lower for PIM vs. QUE: [RR=0.63 (0.48-0.82)] ST-stays [RR=0.61 (0.43-0.86)], SNF-stay [RR=0.69 (0.47-1.02)], and ER visits [RR=0.53 (0.37-0.76)]. CONCLUSIONS: In this analysis of PDP patients, PIM monotherapy resulted in nearly 22% and 37% lower all-cause hospitalizations and psychiatric-related inpatient hospitalizations compared to QUE.