Cost-effectiveness of terlipressin for hepatorenal syndrome: the United States hospital perspective.

BACKGROUND: Hepatorenal syndrome (HRS) is characterized by severely reduced renal perfusion that precipitates rapid morbidity and mortality. Terlipressin is the only US Food and Drug Administration-approved treatment to improve kidney function for adults with HRS with a rapid reduction in kidney function. Prior to the approval of terlipressin, unapproved vasoconstrictive agents used in HRS treatment were octreotide/midodrine and norepinephrine with albumin. METHODS: A cohort decision-tree model representing a US hospital perspective assessed the clinical outcomes and direct medical costs (based primarily on hospital charges) of treating HRS with terlipressin + albumin (ALB) versus midodrine/octreotide (MID/OCT)+ALB, or norepinephrine (NorEp)+ALB. Treatment efficacy was defined by clinical response (complete/HRS reversal, partial, or no response) based on change of serum creatinine derived from published clinical trial reports. The proportions of patients with complete response were: terlipressin + ALB (36.2%), NorEp + ALB (19.1%), and MID/OCT + ALB (3.1%). Model outcomes included utilization of HRS-related healthcare resources (hospital and intensive care, outpatient and emergency department, dialysis, and transplantations), adverse events, and HRS-related mortality. Outcomes were assessed for the initial hospitalization in the base case and at 30, 60, and 90 days post-discharge. RESULTS: Total costs incurred over the initial hospitalization with terlipressin + ALB were lower vs NorEp + ALB, primarily due to higher ICU costs with NorEp + ALB ($7,433 vs $61,897). TER + ALB was associated with higher total costs vs MID/OCT + ALB due to higher pharmacy costs with terlipressin + ALB. The cost per complete response achieved of terlipressin + ALB ($451,605) was half that of NorEp + ALB ($930,571) and one-tenth that of MID/OCT + ALB ($4,942,123). CONCLUSIONS: HRS patients treated with terlipressin experienced better clinical outcomes and a lower cost per treatment response vs other unapproved treatments. ICU days and pharmacy costs were key cost drivers distinguishing the treatment groups. These outcomes suggest that terlipressin is cost-effective on the basis of total cost per response achieved.

Hepatorenal syndrome (HRS) is a rare and sudden life-threatening complication of the liver. Patients with HRS should receive immediate treatment with a drug that narrows blood vessels known as a vasoconstrictor. Terlipressin is the most common vasoconstrictor used for patients with HRS. Other common vasoconstrictors are midodrine with octreotide and norepinephrine. This study aimed to compare the cost of terlipressin with those of midodrine with octreotide and norepinephrine while also considering how well each of them worked to reverse HRS. This was done using an economic model. This economic model assessed the costs of the vasoconstrictor drugs and the costs of treating HRS, including costs attributable to drug acquisition, adverse events, organ transplantation, dialysis, and institutional encounters (i.e. hospitalization, ICU, emergency department, and outpatient visits). The magnitude of these costs depends on how well each drug reversed HRS. Based on inputs derived from their respective clinical trials, 36% of patients who were given terlipressin had a complete response (HRS was reversed), 19% of patients who were given norepinephrine had a complete response, and 3% of patients who were given midodrine with octreotide had a complete response. The total cost per patient was approximately $163,481 for terlipressin, $177,298 for norepinephrine, and $155,030 for midodrine with octreotide. When the costs were evaluated against how well the drugs worked to reverse HRS, the lowest cost per HRS reversal was $451,605 when treated with terlipressin. The cost per reversal for norepinephrine was $930,571 and for midodrine with octreotide was $4,942,123. These results show that terlipressin works well and is more cost-effective for US hospitals compared with the other unapproved treatment options for HRS with rapid reduction in kidney function.

The clinical impact of multiple prevention strategies for respiratory syncytial virus infections in infants and high-risk toddlers in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) remains a leading cause of medically-attended acute respiratory infection in infants and children. With multiple preventative interventions under development, accurate estimates of health care resource utilization are essential for policy decision making. METHODS: We developed a literature-based decision-tree model that estimated annual medically-attended RSV (MA-RSV) lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI) and non-LRTI episodes in the US for all infants and for high-risk toddlers. The model accounted for the gestational age and birth-month of infants, and the seasonal variation in RSV incidence. The impact of no prophylaxis, palivizumab, maternal vaccine, and long-acting monoclonal antibody (mAb) interventions was estimated. RESULTS: We estimated 1.23 million (range: 0.96 million-1.40 million) annual MA-RSV LRTI/non-LRTI episodes comprised of 1.19 million (range: 0.93 million-1.36 million) emergency department (ED) and outpatient visits, and 39,040 (range: 32,726-45,851) hospitalizations. Outpatient and ED visits were comprised of 586,034 (range: 430,595-718,868) LRTIs and 608,733 (range: 495,705-644,658) non-LRTIs. The long-acting mAb intervention resulted in the greatest number of averted outpatient and ED episodes (310,997 [53%] LRTIs; 284,305 [47%] non-LRTIs) and hospitalizations (21,845 [56%]). Full-term infants constitute the highest proportion of episodes across all interventions. CONCLUSIONS: MA-RSV disease is substantial in infants and high-risk toddlers. Long-acting mAbs are most effective at reducing the number of MA-RSV LRTI/non-LRTI episodes, and the only intervention that prevents disease in older infants (≥6 months old).

Does Biosimilar Bevacizumab Offer Affordable Treatment Options for Cancer Patients in the USA? A Budget Impact Analysis from US Commercial and Medicare Payer Perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Bevacizumab remains the most widely used and most thoroughly characterized angiogenesis inhibitor for a range of advanced cancers. Bevacizumab-bvzr (Zirabev®), a biosimilar of bevacizumab, was recently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which provides a less costly option. This study aimed to evaluate the financial impact of introducing bevacizumab-bvzr from US commercial and Medicare payer perspectives. METHODS: A Microsoft Excel-based budget impact model was developed over a 5-year time horizon. Target population was patients to be treated with bevacizumab for FDA-approved indications. Drug costs (2020 US$) were based on average sales price and wholesale acquisition cost, accounting for payer-specific reimbursement models and provider settings. Drug dosing and duration were based on prescribing information and pivotal trial publications. RESULTS: In a hypothetical 10-million-member health plan, 503 and 723 patients were estimated to be treated with bevacizumab in year 1 and year 5, respectively. Assuming an annual market shift of 1.7%, 3.6%, 6.7%, 9.4%, and 11.9% to bevacizumab-bvzr, an annual cost saving of $313,363 ($0.003 per member per month [PMPM]) was estimated for a commercial payer and $92,880 ($0.001 PMPM) for Medicare in year 1. Cumulative 5-year cost savings were $7,030,924 ($0.012 PMPM) for a commercial payer and $4,059,257 ($0.007 PMPM) for Medicare. More than half of the cost savings was attributed to patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of biosimilar bevacizumab-bvzr was estimated to provide substantial cost savings for US payers, which would allow additional patients access to bevacizumab treatment.

Clinical and economic analysis of outcomes of dose tapering or withdrawal of tumor necrosis factor-α inhibitors upon achieving stable disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis patients.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the real-world, 5-year clinical and cost impact of maintaining treatment with the tumor necrosis factor-α inhibitors (anti-TNFs) adalimumab, etanercept, or infliximab vs dose tapering or withdrawal in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients who have achieved remission (defined as a 28-joint count Disease Activity Score [DAS28] < 2.6) or low disease activity (LDA; DAS28 < 3.2). METHODS: Using a 5-year Markov model with 1-month cycle length, we examined the clinical and cost impact of three treatment strategies: withdrawal, tapering, or maintenance of anti-TNFs among RA patients in remission or who have achieved LDA. This model assessed the time to loss of disease control, time to regaining control after treatment reinitiation, and associated medical and anti-TNF costs. To determine the risk of losing disease control, 14 studies (2309 patients) were meta-analyzed, adjusted for treatment strategy, anti-TNF, RA patient type (early or established RA), and model entry criterion (remission or LDA). RESULTS: Anti-TNF withdrawal and tapering incurred comparable 5-year total costs (€37,900-€59,700 vs €47,500-€59,200), which were lower than those incurred by anti-TNF maintenance (€67,100-€72,100). Established RA patients had higher total costs than early RA patients (€45,900-€72,100 vs €37,900-€71,700). Maintenance was associated with the longest time to loss of disease control (range, 27.3-47.1 months), while withdrawal had the shortest (range, 6.9-30.5 months). CONCLUSION: Dose tapering or withdrawal of anti-TNFs results in similar reduction of health care costs but less time in sustained disease control compared to maintaining therapy. Future research is needed to understand the long-term clinical consequences of these strategies and patient preferences for treatment withdrawal.

Post-gemcitabine therapy for patients with advanced pancreatic cancer - A comparative review of randomized trials evaluating oxaliplatin- and/or irinotecan-containing regimens.

A systematic review and critical evaluation of randomized trial evidence for oxaliplatin- or irinotecan-containing regimens in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer previously treated with gemcitabine has not yet been published. We conducted a comparative systematic review of randomized trials evaluating oxaliplatin- or irinotecan-based therapies in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer previously treated with gemcitabine to assess trial similarity and the feasibility of performing an indirect treatment comparison (ITC). Studies were identified through PubMed and key oncology conference abstracts. The following trials met our criteria: NAPOLI-1 (nanoliposomal irinotecan [nal-IRI] or nal-IRI+5-fluorouracil [5-FU]/leucovorin [LV] vs 5-FU/LV), CONKO-003 (oxaliplatin+5-FU/LV [OFF] vs 5-FU/LV), PANCREOX (oxaliplatin+5-FU/LV [mFOLFOX6] vs 5-FU/LV), and Yoo et al. (2009) (irinotecan+5-FU/LV [mFOLFIRI3] vs mFOLFOX). Fundamental differences were identified in study design (i.e., number of study sites, number of countries), patient (i.e., locally advanced vs metastatic disease, stratification variables, prior and subsequent treatments) and treatment (i.e., regimens, dose intensity) characteristics, and primary and secondary outcomes (i.e., primary vs secondary outcomes, overall survival [OS], progression-free survival [PFS]) among the 4 included trials. Our comparative review demonstrated significant dissimilarity across trials, which precluded conducting an ITC. In the absence of head-to-head nal-IRI- and/or oxaliplatin-based therapy trials, clinicians are advised to interpret these studies separately within the context of their individual patient population.

Evaluating Drug Cost per Response with SGLT2 Inhibitors in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.

BACKGROUND: The sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, which include canagliflozin, dapagliflozin, and empagliflozin, represent a new class of antihyperglycemic agents. Few studies have assessed their cost per response, with "cost per response" being the total cost of a select drug, divided by the resulting change in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels. OBJECTIVE: To examine the drug cost of SGLT2 inhibitors per a reduction in placebo-adjusted 1% HbA1c in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus who received treatment during 26 weeks with canagliflozin, dapagliflozin, or empagliflozin. METHODS: The drug cost per response for each of the 3 agents individually was assessed based on data from a subset of clinical trials discussed in the prescribing information for each drug that were all placebo-controlled studies evaluating each drug as monotherapy, dual therapy (combined with metformin), and triple therapy (combined with metformin and a sulfonylurea) in patients with uncontrolled, type 2 diabetes mellitus. The US 2015 wholesale acquisition cost for each drug was used to calculate each drug's treatment costs over 26 weeks. The average cost per response for each drug was defined as the prescription drug cost of each SGLT2 inhibitor, divided by the average, placebo-adjusted HbA1c reduction at 26 weeks. RESULTS: The drug cost per unit dose was the same for canagliflozin (100 mg or 300 mg), dapagliflozin (5 mg or 10 mg), and empagliflozin (10 mg or 25 mg), at $11.43. The drug cost per placebo-adjusted 1% HbA1c reduction varied by agent and by dose, as a result of the differences in the treatment responses for each of the 3 drugs. The costs per response for canagliflozin 100 mg as monotherapy, dual therapy, and triple therapy regimens ranged from $2286 to $3355, and for canagliflozin 300 mg, from $1793 to $2702. The costs per response for dapagliflozin 5 mg as monotherapy and dual therapy (triple therapy was not available at the time of the study) ranged from $4161 to $5201; the cost for dapagliflozin 10 mg ranged from $2972 to $4161. The costs per response for empagliflozin 10 mg ranged from $2972 to $3467 across the monotherapy, dual therapy, and triple therapy regimens; the cost for empagliflozin 25 mg ranged from $2311 to $3467. CONCLUSION: Simple analyses, such as the drug cost per placebo-adjusted 1% reduction in HbA1c, may be useful when considering the addition of antihyperglycemic agents to the health plan's formulary.

Cost efficiency of canagliflozin versus sitagliptin for type 2 diabetes mellitus.

OBJECTIVES: To compare 1-year clinical outcomes and cost efficiency of treating adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) with canagliflozin (300 mg/day) or sitagliptin (100 mg/day), both added on a background of metformin and sulfonylurea. STUDY DESIGN: An economic model integrated data from an active-controlled, randomized trial, claims database analyses, and published literature. METHODS: The model adopted a US managed care payer perspective and included the clinical and economic impact of achieving specific clinical quality goals. The model was run separately for 2 single clinical quality metrics, glycated hemoglobin (A1C) < 7% (used as base case) or < 8%, and 4 composite metrics (A1C < 7% or < 8% combined with body mass index < 30 kg/m2 and blood pressure < 140/90 mm Hg or low-density lipoprotein cholesterol < 100 mg/dL). Cost savings of achieving versus not achieving metrics were derived from a claims database analysis. Drug and adverse event costs were included. RESULTS: In the base case, compared with sitagliptin 100 mg, treatment with canagliflozin 300 mg resulted in $215 in annual cost savings and 12.3 absolute percentage points more patients achieving goal. Similar findings were found across all other quality metrics (difference in proportion achieving goal ranging from 6.7% to 19.0% and annual savings ranging from $1 to $669). Canagliflozin remained cost saving versus sitagliptin in sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Canagliflozin 300 mg may represent a cost-efficient T2DM treatment option versus sitagliptin 100 mg for patients on metformin plus sulfonylurea due to lower overall costs and better achievement of A1C and quality composite goals.