Practice efficiency and total cost of care with bispecifics and CAR-T in relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: an institutional perspective1.

Aim: Novel treatment options for relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma include T-cell targeting therapies. Practice efficiency and cost are important for informed treatment decisions. Materials/methods: An institutional decision-maker cost model was developed for 6-month, 1-year and median cycles of treatment time horizons comparing practice efficiency and costs of epcoritamab vs glofitamab and axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel). Results: Overall, epcoritamab required the shortest personnel and chair time, except over 1 year (second shortest chair time). Across all time horizons, epcoritamab was cost-saving vs axi-cel and had similar costs to glofitamab on a per-month basis. Conclusion: Epcoritamab reduced personnel and chair time. Additionally, epcoritamab was cost-saving vs axi-cel and had similar costs to glofitamab on a per-month basis.

There are new ways to treat diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, which is a type of cancer called lymphoma. When new treatments are available it is important to see if they take more or less time to give to patients and how much they cost versus other treatments. This study looked at three drugs used to treat diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, including epcoritamab, axi-cel and glofitamab. It estimated the time and cost with those treatments in patients who get them for 6 months, 1 year or for the most common length of time in the clinical trials. In most of the scenarios, epcoritamab had the least time needed for nurses or doctors and the least time needed for a patient to be in a chair in a clinic. When thinking about the cost per month, epcoritamab saved money versus axi-cel and was similar to glofitamab.

Cost per Patient Achieving Treatment Targets and Number Needed to Treat with Tirzepatide Versus Semaglutide 1 mg in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: Achieving glycemic control can help reduce complications of type 2 diabetes (T2D). This study compared the pharmacy cost per responder and number needed to treat (NNT) of tirzepatide 5 mg, 10 mg, and 15 mg versus semaglutide 1 mg to achieve glycemic, weight loss, and composite treatment endpoints in patients with T2D in the United States. METHODS: The proportions of patients achieving glycemic, weight loss, and composite treatment endpoints were obtained from the phase 3 SURPASS-2 randomized clinical trial which compared tirzepatide 5 mg, 10 mg, and 15 mg to semaglutide 1 mg. Annual pharmacy costs were calculated using 2022 wholesale acquisition costs. Cost per responder and NNT were calculated along with 95% confidence intervals and tests for statistical significance (P ≤ 0.05). RESULTS: Tirzepatide had a lower cost per responder to achieve glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) endpoints of ≤ 6.5% (10 mg and 15 mg doses) and < 5.7% (all doses) and weight loss endpoints of ≥ 5% (10 mg and 15 mg doses), ≥ 10% (all doses), and ≥ 15% (all doses). The cost per responder to achieve HbA1c < 7% (all doses of tirzepatide) and ≤ 6.5% (5 mg tirzepatide) were not statistically significantly different between tirzepatide and semaglutide 1 mg. The cost per patient to achieve the composite endpoints (HbA1c < 7.0%, ≤ 6.5%, or < 5.7%/weight loss ≥ 10%/no hypoglycemia) was statistically significantly lower for all doses of tirzepatide than for semaglutide 1 mg. The NNTs for all doses of tirzepatide were statistically significantly lower than that for semaglutide 1 mg to achieve all individual and composite endpoints, with the exception of the 5 mg dose for HbA1c < 7.0% and HbA1c ≤ 6.5%, where tirzepatide had numerically lower NNTs that were not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Tirzepatide is a novel glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist (RA) that may offer the potential to achieve stringent glycemic goals, weight loss targets, and composite treatment goals at a lower cost per responder compared to semaglutide 1 mg among people with T2D.

Number Needed to Treat and Number Needed to Harm analysis of the zuranolone phase 2 clinical trial results in major depressive disorder.

BACKGROUND: Zuranolone (SAGE-217) is a novel, investigational positive allosteric modulator of GABAA receptors being investigated in major depressive disorder (MDD). This analysis of phase 2 data quantified the benefit and risk of zuranolone (30mg) versus placebo and antidepressants in terms of number needed to treat (NNT) and number needed to harm (NNH). METHODS: Rates of response, remission, and all-cause discontinuation for zuranolone and 11 antidepressant comparators were obtained from the zuranolone phase 2 clinical study (N=89) and a published network meta-analysis, respectively. An indirect treatment comparison was conducted using the Bucher method to compare zuranolone to standard-of-care. RESULTS: Zuranolone demonstrated greater benefit compared to placebo on Day 3 (NNT range for response=4-5, NNT for remission=10) and at Day 15 (NNT=3 for response and remission). Compared to SSRIs and SNRIs, zuranolone at Day 15 showed improved treatment response (NNT=4 [95% CI = 3; 16] and 5 [95% CI = 3; 25], respectively) and remission (NNT=4 [95% CI = 2; 13] and 4 [95% CI = 2; 18], respectively). This was accompanied by a reduction in all-cause discontinuation, with negative NNH values (-57 and -28), respectively. LIMITATIONS: Variations in study design across the included trials may limit the generalizability of results. CONCLUSIONS: With a small positive NNT as early as Day 3 indicating robust benefit and a negative NNH indicating reduced harm, this analysis based on a phase 2 study suggests that patients with MDD may benefit from the benefit-to-risk profile of zuranolone.

Comedication prescription patterns and potential for drug-drug interactions with antiretroviral therapy in people living with human immunodeficiency virus type 1 infection in Germany.

PURPOSE: Various first-line recommended antiretroviral therapy (ART) regimens have different drug-drug interaction (DDI)/contraindication profiles. The aim of this study was to estimate the rate of potential DDIs/contraindications of real-world prescribed non-ART comedication with first-line recommended ART in people living with HIV (PLHIV) in Germany. METHODS: A retrospective, cross-sectional cohort design was used to collect non-ART comedication prescription data from a representative sample of a German health insurance claims database. PLHIV who were prescribed ART during 2016 were included in the analysis. Patients were stratified by sex, age, comorbidities, and time on ART. Prescribed comedications were used to estimate potential DDIs/contraindications for each recommended first-line ART per patient based on criteria from www.hiv-druginteractions.org. RESULTS: Records from 2680 PLHIV were analyzed. Prescriptions for non-ART comedications were common (mean of seven per patient in the overall population, 10.2 in PLHIV aged 50 years and older). Antiretroviral regimens with the lowest proportion of patients with at least 1 potential DDI/contraindication were unboosted integrase inhibitor, non-tenofovir disoproxil fumarate-based regimens that included raltegravir + emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide fumarate (13%), dolutegravir + lamivudine (14%), dolutegravir/abacavir/lamivudine (14%), dolutegravir/emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide fumarate (15%), and bictegravir/emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide fumarate (19%). Boosted regimens and efavirenz-based regimens presented the highest potential for DDIs/contraindications. CONCLUSIONS: Comedication with potential DDIs/contraindications with ART is frequently prescribed among PLHIV in Germany. Potential risks for DDIs/contraindications vary by ART, with the lowest potential seen in unboosted integrase strand transfer inhibitor-based regimens, including raltegravir + emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide fumarate, followed by three dolutegravir-based regimens.

Cost analysis of plasma-derived factor VIII/von Willebrand factor versus recombinant factor VIII for treatment of previously untreated patients with severe hemophilia A in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Inhibitor development to factor VIII (FVIII) hemophilia therapy results in increased complications and substantial economic costs. The SIPPET study, the first randomized controlled trial to compare the immunogenicity of plasma-derived FVIII (pdFVIII)/von Willebrand factor (VWF) and recombinant-DNA-derived FVIII (rFVIII), demonstrated higher inhibitor rates in previously untreated patients (PUPs) treated with rFVIII than in PUPs treated with pdFVIII/VWF. OBJECTIVE: To quantify the economic impact of treating PUPs with pdFVIII/VWF vs rFVIII. METHODS: An Excel-based clinical and economic model was developed from a US healthcare payer perspective and run over a 5-year period. The analysis utilized a cohort approach to model patient treatment and outcomes over a monthly cycle to quantify differences in costs of FVIII, bypassing agents, and hospitalizations for serious bleeds. Rates of high-titer inhibitor development were obtained from the SIPPET study. Patients developing high-titer inhibitors were treated with immune tolerance induction (ITI). Patients who developed low-titer inhibitors and those who did not develop inhibitors continued their usual FVIII treatment. Patients who were successfully treated with ITI returned to FVIII treatment, while unsuccessfully treated patients received bypassing agents. Total costs per treated patient were estimated and a one-way sensitivity analysis was conducted to quantify the impact of parameter uncertainty on the model outcomes. RESULTS: Total cumulative costs per patient over 5 years were $834,621 for pdFVIII/VWF patients and $1,237,163 for rFVIII patients, representing a total saving of $402,542 per patient over the 5-year period, for an average annual saving of $80,508 per patient. CONCLUSIONS: Based on data from the SIPPET study, this analysis found that initiating FVIII treatment in severe hemophilia A PUPs with pdFVIII/VWF has the potential to offer substantial cost savings to healthcare payers, amounting to a one-third reduction in costs.

Review of outcomes associated with restricted access to atypical antipsychotics.

OBJECTIVES: Cost containment policies, such as prior authorization (PA), have increasingly been used by formulary decision makers to manage drug spending of the atypical antipsychotic (AAP) drug class. However, these drug cost containment policies may result in cost shifting rather than cost savings. Given the interest in coordination of care, the objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of restricted access to AAPs on healthcare costs and health outcomes in individuals with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. STUDY DESIGN: Narrative literature review. METHODS: A literature search was conducted using MEDLINE (via PubMed) for studies published between January 1993 and December 2013. RESULTS: A total of 15 published studies were identified that evaluated restricted access to AAPs in regard to healthcare costs or health outcomes: 11 studies assessed PAs, 2 studies assessed carve-outs, 1 study assessed a payment limit (cap), and 1 study assessed Medicare Part D cost sharing. Among 8 studies evaluating changes in pharmacy costs and clinical outcomes, 5 studies reported that formulary restrictions were associated with pharmacy cost savings and increases in healthcare utilization or treatment discontinuation. Of the 4 studies that measured overall cost changes, 3 studies reported increases in overall cost burden and 1 study showed modest cost savings associated with formulary restrictions. CONCLUSIONS: Study findings revealed there exists a gap in the literature as to whether restricted access to AAPs results in overall cost savings or, rather, shifts the cost burden from pharmacy spending to other parts of the healthcare system, such as service utilization.

Cost-effectiveness of lurasidone vs quetiapine extended-release (XR) in patients with bipolar depression.

OBJECTIVE: Bipolar disorder imposes a high economic burden on patients and society. Lurasidone and quetiapine extended-release (XR) are atypical antipsychotic agents indicated for monotherapy treatment of bipolar depression. Lurasidone is also indicated as adjunctive therapy with lithium or valproate for depressive episodes associated with bipolar disorder. The objective of this analysis was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of lurasidone and quetiapine XR in patients with bipolar depression. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness model was developed to compare lurasidone to quetiapine XR. The model was based on a US third-party payer perspective over a 3-month time horizon. The effectiveness measure in the model was the percentage of patients achieving remission (Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale [MADRS] total score ≤12 by weeks 6-8). The comparison of remission rates was made through an adjusted indirect treatment comparison of lurasidone and quetiapine XR pivotal trials using placebo as the common comparator. Resource utilization for remission vs no remission was estimated from published expert panel data, and resource costs were obtained from a retrospective database study of bipolar I depression patients. Drug costs were estimated using the mean dose from clinical trials and wholesale acquisition costs. RESULTS: Over the 3-month model time period, lurasidone and quetiapine XR patients, respectively, had similar mean numbers of emergency department visits (0.48 vs 0.50), inpatient days (2.1 vs 2.2), and office visits (9.3 vs 9.6). More lurasidone than quetiapine XR patients achieved remission (52.0% vs 43.2%) with slightly higher total costs ($4982 vs $4676), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $3474 per remission. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed lurasidone had an 86% probability of being cost-effective compared to quetiapine XR at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $10,000 per remission. CONCLUSIONS: Lurasidone may be a cost-effective option when compared to quetiapine XR for the treatment of adults with bipolar depression.

The Impact of Endoscopic Linear Stapling Device Stability in Thoracic Surgery: A Delphi Panel Approach.

Objectives: To develop consensus statements outlining the impact of endoscopic linear stapling device stability on potential complications of thoracic surgery and the stress/concern of thoracic surgeons. Methods: Eight thoracic surgeons representing 8 countries participated in a Delphi panel process using 2 anonymous surveys. The first included binary, multiple-response, and Likert scale-type questions, which were converted into affirmative statements for survey 2 if an adequate number of respondents answered similarly. Consensus was defined a priori when ≥70% agreed with the affirmative statement in survey 2. Results: All panelists completed both surveys. Panelists unanimously agreed that: 1) an endoscopic linear stapling device with improved stability would result in less stress/concern for critical firings, surgeries where a fellow is trained, and robot-assisted surgeries requiring an assistant; 2) reduced unintentional tissue/structure damage and reduced tension on tissue being fired upon may result from use of an endoscopic linear stapling device that provides improvement in stability; and 3) endoscopic linear stapling device stability had more clinical importance in video-assisted thoracic surgery compared to open thoracic surgery. Conclusions: Improved endoscopic linear stapling device stability is a critical component of thoracic surgery likely to result in more frequent positive surgical outcomes when compared to a device with greater instability.

Cost-effectiveness of natalizumab vs fingolimod for the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: analyses in Sweden.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of natalizumab vs fingolimod over 2 years in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) patients and patients with rapidly evolving severe disease in Sweden. METHODS: A decision analytic model was developed to estimate the incremental cost per relapse avoided of natalizumab and fingolimod from the perspective of the Swedish healthcare system. Modeled 2-year costs in Swedish kronor of treating RRMS patients included drug acquisition costs, administration and monitoring costs, and costs of treating MS relapses. Effectiveness was measured in terms of MS relapses avoided using data from the AFFIRM and FREEDOMS trials for all patients with RRMS and from post-hoc sub-group analyses for patients with rapidly evolving severe disease. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess uncertainty. RESULTS: The analysis showed that, in all patients with MS, treatment with fingolimod costs less (440,463 Kr vs 444,324 Kr), but treatment with natalizumab results in more relapses avoided (0.74 vs 0.59), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 25,448 Kr per relapse avoided. In patients with rapidly evolving severe disease, natalizumab dominated fingolimod. Results of the sensitivity analysis demonstrate the robustness of the model results. At a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of 500,000 Kr per relapse avoided, natalizumab is cost-effective in >80% of simulations in both patient populations. LIMITATIONS: Limitations include absence of data from direct head-to-head studies comparing natalizumab and fingolimod, use of relapse rate reduction rather than sustained disability progression as the primary model outcome, assumption of 100% adherence to MS treatment, and exclusion of adverse event costs in the model. CONCLUSIONS: Natalizumab remains a cost-effective treatment option for patients with MS in Sweden. In the RRMS patient population, the incremental cost per relapse avoided is well below a 500,000 Kr WTP threshold per relapse avoided. In the rapidly evolving severe disease patient population, natalizumab dominates fingolimod.

Long-term cost-effectiveness of atypical antipsychotics in the treatment of adults with schizophrenia in the US.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness (including hospitalizations and cardiometabolic consequences) of atypical antipsychotics among adults with schizophrenia. METHODS: A 5-year Markov cohort cost-effectiveness model, from a US payer perspective, was developed to compare lurasidone, generic risperidone, generic olanzapine, generic ziprasidone, aripiprazole, and quetiapine extended-release. Health states included in the model were patients: on an initial atypical antipsychotic; switched to a second atypical antipsychotic; and on clozapine after failing a second atypical antipsychotic. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) assessed incremental cost/hospitalization avoided. Effectiveness inputs included discontinuations, hospitalizations, weight change, and cholesterol change from comparative clinical trials for lurasidone and for aripiprazole, and the Clinical Antipsychotic Trials of Intervention Effectiveness for other comparators. Atypical antipsychotic-specific relative risk of diabetes obtained from a retrospective analysis was used to predict cardiometabolic events per Framingham body mass index risk equation. Mental health costs (relapsing versus nonrelapsing patients) and medical costs associated with cardiometabolic consequences (cardiovascular events and diabetes management) were obtained from published sources. Atypical antipsychotic costs were estimated from Red Book® prices at dose(s) reported in clinical data sources used in the model (weighted average dose of lurasidone and average dose for all other comparators). Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3%, and model robustness was tested using one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Ziprasidone, olanzapine, quetiapine extended-release, and aripiprazole were dominated by other comparators and removed from the comparative analysis. ICER for lurasidone versus risperidone was $25,884/relapse-related hospitalization avoided. At a $50,000 willingness-to-pay threshold, lurasidone has an 86.5% probability of being cost-effective, followed by a 7.2% probability for olanzapine, and 6.3% for risperidone. One-way sensitivity analysis showed the model is sensitive to lurasidone and generic risperidone hospitalization rates. CONCLUSION: Generic risperidone is the least costly atypical antipsychotic. Lurasidone is more costly and more effective than risperidone and is cost-effective at willingness-to-pay thresholds of greater than $25,844 per hospitalization avoided. The favorable cost-effectiveness of lurasidone is driven by its clinical benefits (eg, efficacy in preventing hospitalizations in patients with schizophrenia) and its minimal cardiometabolic adverse effect profile.

Annual cost of relapses and relapse-related hospitalizations in adults with schizophrenia: results from a 12-month, double-blind, comparative study of lurasidone vs quetiapine extended-release.

PURPOSE: To model the economic impact of annual relapses/relapse-related hospitalizations among adults with schizophrenia treated with lurasidone or quetiapine extended-release (XR). METHODS: A probabilistic model estimating per-patient-per-year (PPPY) direct mental healthcare (MH) cost differences due to relapses/relapse-related hospitalizations was developed using relapse and relapse-related hospitalization rates from a 12-month, double-blind, parallel-group, global comparison study of lurasidone vs quetiapine XR (all patients previously treated with lurasidone or quetiapine XR for 6 weeks). Analyses were conducted for both all subjects and clinical responders. Direct costs associated with inpatient and outpatient mental healthcare-related services were obtained from a large, prospective, observational study of schizophrenia treatment in usual-care settings for relapsing and non-relapsing patients, including psychiatric hospitalizations, emergency services, medication management, and outpatient individual therapy. Model robustness was tested using univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Model-estimated PPPY MH cost savings associated with relapse-related hospitalization rates in all subjects were $3276 for lurasidone vs quetiapine XR. Lurasidone resulted in PPPY MH cost savings of $2702 vs quetiapine XR in all subjects, using relapse rates. Sensitivity analyses indicated lurasidone had lower 1-year MH costs than quetiapine XR in 100% and 99.7% of simulations, using relapse-related hospitalization rates and relapse rates, respectively, in all subjects. Similar results were seen in clinical responders. LIMITATIONS: The model represents a simplification of treatment patterns and response to treatment. Cost of treatment with lurasidone and quetiapine XR was not included in the model. Estimates of cost savings are likely conservative, as the model did not assess the impact of long-term cardiometabolic consequences. Indirect costs associated with relapses and non-mental health-related costs were also excluded from the model. CONCLUSION: Adults treated for schizophrenia with lurasidone are predicted to have lower 12-month MH costs compared to those treated with quetiapine XR due to fewer relapses and relapse-related hospitalizations.

Cost-effectiveness of lurasidone vs aripiprazole among patients with schizophrenia who have previously failed on an atypical antipsychotic: an indirect comparison of outcomes from clinical trial data.

OBJECTIVE: Compare long-term costs and outcomes of lurasidone to aripiprazole among adults with schizophrenia in the US who previously failed ≥1 atypical antipsychotic (olanzapine, risperidone, quetiapine, or ziprasidone) based on an indirect comparison of outcomes data from clinical trials. METHODS: A 5-year Markov cohort model was developed to compare long-term effectiveness of lurasidone to aripiprazole, including total discontinuations, relapse rates, and hospitalization rates. Cost inputs included pharmacy, mental health, and medical costs associated with cardiometabolic risks (diabetes and cardiovascular [CV] events). Effectiveness inputs were derived from an indirect comparison of aripiprazole and lurasidone using common comparators from CATIE. Cardiometabolic risks were derived from claims data analysis for diabetes, weight change and CV events, and Framingham body mass index (BMI) risk equation. Cost inputs were derived from published sources and Red Book. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3% and tested with sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Over 5 years, total discounted costs for lurasidone and aripiprazole patients were $86,480 and $90,500, respectively. During this period, the number of relapses per patient, hospitalizations per patient, diabetes rates, and CV events per 1000 patients, respectively, were estimated to be lower for lurasidone (0.442, 0.245, 7.29%, and 37.3) than aripiprazole (0.478, 0.369, 7.36%, and 37.8). Results were sensitive to lurasidone and aripiprazole hospitalization rates. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000 per hospitalization avoided, lurasidone had a 100% probability of being more cost-effective than aripiprazole. LIMITATIONS: The model was based on results from various comparative clinical trials. Differences in patient population and study methods may change estimates from the model. The model does not account for patient heterogeneity. CONCLUSIONS: Based on this model, when switching from another atypical antipsychotic, lurasidone had fewer relapses and hospitalizations with a lower incidence of diabetes and CV events than aripiprazole. Additionally, lurasidone may be less costly than aripiprazole among adults with schizophrenia.

Approaches to the management of agents used for the treatment of multiple sclerosis: consensus statements from a panel of U.S. managed care pharmacists and physicians.

BACKGROUND: Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic, disabling, and costly disease with several treatment options available; however, there is variability in evidence-based clinical guidelines. Therefore, payers are at a disadvantage when making management decisions without the benefit of definitive guidance from treatment guidelines. OBJECTIVE: To outline approaches for the management of agents used to treat MS, as determined from a group of U.S. managed care pharmacists and physicians. METHODS: A modified Delphi process was used to develop consensus statements regarding MS management approaches. The panel was composed of experts in managed care and included 8 pharmacy directors and 6 medical directors presently or previously involved in formulary decision making from 12 health plans, 1 specialty pharmacy, and 1 consulting company. These decision makers, who have experience designing health care benefits that include MS treatments, provided anonymous feedback through 2 rounds of web-based surveys and participated in 1 live panel meeting held in December 2010. Consensus was defined as a mean response of at least 3.3 or 100% of responses either "agree" or "strongly agree" (i.e., no panelist answered "disagree" or "strongly disagree") on a 4-item Likert scale (1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=agree, 4=strongly agree). RESULTS: After 3 phases, these managed care representatives reached consensus on 25 statements for management of patients with MS. Consistent with managed care principles, this group of managed care experts found that health plans should consider efficacy, effectiveness, and safety, as well as patient preference, when evaluating MS therapies for formulary placement. Cost and contracting should be considered if efficacy and safety are judged to be comparable between agents. CONCLUSION: The consensus statements developed by a panel of managed care representatives provide some insight into decision making in formulary and utilization management of MS therapies.

Cost-effectiveness of natalizumab versus fingolimod for the treatment of relapsing multiple sclerosis.

BACKGROUND: With the addition of new agents for the treatment of multiple sclerosis (MS) (e.g., fingolimod), there is a need to evaluate the relative value of newer therapies in terms of cost and effectiveness, given healthcare resource constraints in the United States. OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of natalizumab vs fingolimod in patients with relapsing MS. METHODS: A decision analytic model was developed to estimate the incremental cost per relapse avoided of natalizumab and fingolimod from a US managed care payer perspective. Two-year costs of treating patients with MS included drug acquisition costs, administration and monitoring costs, and costs of treating MS relapses. Effectiveness was measured in terms of MS relapses avoided (data from AFFIRM and FREEDOMS trials). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess uncertainty. RESULTS: Mean 2-year estimated treatment costs were $86,461 (natalizumab) and $98,748 (fingolimod). Patients receiving natalizumab had a mean of 0.74 relapses avoided per 2 years vs 0.59 for fingolimod. Natalizumab dominated fingolimod in the incremental cost-effectiveness analysis, as it was less costly and more effective in reducing relapses. One-way sensitivity analysis showed the results of the model were robust to changes in drug acquisition costs, administration costs, and costs of treating MS relapses. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed natalizumab was cost-effective 95.1% of the time, at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $0 per relapse avoided, increasing to 96.3% of the time at a WTP threshold of $50,000 per relapse avoided. LIMITATIONS: Absence of data from direct head-to-head studies comparing natalizumab and fingolimod, use of relapse rate reduction rather than sustained disability progression as primary model outcome, assumption of 100% adherence to MS treatment, and not capturing adverse event costs in the model. CONCLUSIONS: Natalizumab dominates fingolimod in terms of incremental cost per relapse avoided, as it is less costly and more effective.

Cost effectiveness and budget impact of natalizumab in patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis.

BACKGROUND: Disease-modifying therapy (DMT) is the largest single-cost item that contributes to the total per-patient cost of multiple sclerosis (MS), a disabling disorder of the central nervous system. Natalizumab is the most recent DMT to be approved for the treatment of relapsing MS and may be an attractive alternative to interferon beta and glatiramer acetate (GA). OBJECTIVES: To determine from the perspective of a United States payer (1) the incremental cost effectiveness of natalizumab compared with other DMTs and (2) the budgetary impact of utilization of natalizumab for the treatment of relapsing MS. METHODS: A combined cost effectiveness and budget impact model was developed. Model inputs were drug acquisition costs (wholesale acquisition cost), costs of drug administration and monitoring, costs of treating relapses, anticipated reduction in relapse rates after 2 years of therapy, and estimated market utilization of natalizumab. Outcomes included total 2-year costs of therapy per patient, costs per relapse avoided for each treatment, and overall 2-year costs to the health plan and per member per month (PMPM) costs. Drug acquisition costs are in 2008 US dollars, and all other costs were inflated to 2008 US dollars when necessary. Univariate sensitivity analyses were performed to determine the model inputs with the greatest influence on the cost per relapse avoided for natalizumab. RESULTS: The overall 2-year cost of therapy per patient was $72,120 for natalizumab, $56,790 for intramuscular (IM) interferon beta-1a (IFNbeta-1a), $56,773 for IFNbeta-1b, $57,180 for GA, and $58,538 for subcutaneous (SC) IFNbeta-1a. The cost per relapse avoided was lowest for natalizumab at $56,594, followed by $87,791 for IFNbeta-1b, $93,306 for IM IFNbeta-1a, $96,178 for SC IFNbeta-1a, and $103,665 for GA. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of natalizumab relative to IM IFNbeta-1a, IFNbeta-1b, GA, and SC IFNbeta-1a were $23,029, $24,452, $20,671, and $20,403 per additional relapse avoided, respectively. An increase in natalizumab utilization to 9% resulted in an increase of approximately $61 760 in total 2-year costs to a hypothetical health plan of 1 million members, or a $0.003 PMPM incremental cost. Univariate sensitivity analyses indicated that the model inputs with the most influence on cost per relapse avoided for natalizumab were the weighted average number of relapses before treatment and the anticipated relative relapse rate reduction. CONCLUSIONS: Natalizumab was the most cost-effective therapy as measured by total cost per relapse avoided, not withstanding a higher drug acquisition cost versus other DMTs. Entry of natalizumab to the market is likely to result in a minimal increase in health-plan costs on a PMPM basis. Limitations of the study include the use of a surrogate measure, relapse avoided, as an outcome measure; also, adverse events were not included in the model.

Economic Evaluation of Quality-of-Life Improvement with Second-Generation Antihistamines and Montelukast in Patients with Allergic Rhinitis.

BACKGROUND: Allergic rhinitis causes significant economic losses and substantial reductions in quality of life. Improving a patient's symptoms can therefore enhance the patient's quality of life. OBJECTIVE: To measure the relative cost-effectiveness of prescription second-generation antihistamines (levocetirizine, desloratadine, and fexofenadine) and montelukast based on their impact on quality of life in patients with uncomplicated allergic rhinitis. METHODS: A retrospective, cost-effectiveness model was constructed using 1-year costs to managed care payers and using the Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire to measure the quality of life in patients taking prescription second-generation antihistamines or montelukast for the treatment of allergic rhinitis. Clinical trial results for levocetirizine, desloratadine, fexofenadine (brand and generic), or montelukast were combined as standardized mean differences to create a pooled effectiveness measure. The costs of prescription drugs and physician office visits for allergic rhinitis were used as direct costs measures. Sensitivity was assessed by a Monte Carlo simulation run 1000 times. RESULTS: All the drugs in the study showed significant improvement in quality of life, with levocetirizine showing the greatest improvement. The incremental cost-effectiveness of levocetirizine dominated montelukast (incremental cost-effective ratio, -1317; 95% confidence interval, -7471, -212). The incremental cost-effectiveness favored levocetirizine compared with desloratadine and branded fexofenadine. CONCLUSION: There are significant differences in the cost-effectiveness of various oral prescription agents with regard to improving quality of life of patients with allergic rhinitis.

Cost-effectiveness of second-generation antihistamines and montelukast in relieving allergic rhinitis nasal symptoms.

OBJECTIVE: Allergic rhinitis imposes a significant health and economic burden both on individuals and the healthcare system. Second-generation prescription antihistamines, levocetirizine, fexofenadine, and desloratadine, and the leukotriene receptor antagonist, montelukast, differ in their ability to relieve common rhinitis symptoms. The purpose of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of prescription agents based on their effectiveness in relieving nasal symptoms. METHODS: Effectiveness was measured as the composite of nasal symptoms, including congestion, rhinorrhea, and sneezing, from clinical studies that compared each of the 4 comparators to placebo. Direct costs included prescription therapy and rhinitis-related physician office visits. Physician office visit costs were collected from an analysis of the PharMetrics insurance claims database. Sensitivity analyses were conducted using a Monte Carlo simulation to assess the robustness of the average and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. RESULTS: The cost per clinically significant improvement of nasal symptoms for levocetirizine was less than for the other model comparator agents. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for levocetirizine dominated montelukast and desloratadine and was lower than either branded or generic fexofenadine. CONCLUSION: Levocetirizine is a cost-effective therapy for the relief of nasal symptoms of allergic rhinitis.

Practice efficiency and economics: the case for rapid recovery sedation agents for colonoscopy in a screening population.

GOAL: To determine rapidly acting agents' impact on practice efficiency and cost for outpatient colonoscopy in a screening population. BACKGROUND: Propofol-mediated endoscopic sedation is popular due to rapid sedation onset and superior recovery profile compared with sedation with an opioid and benzodiazepine. There are few data on the impact of this type of sedation on the economics and efficiency of an endoscopy unit. STUDY: A provider-perspective economic model assessed the ability of propofol and fospropofol disodium (Aquavan, GPI 15715, MGI Pharma) to increase practice efficiency and determined break-even costs based on current colonoscopy reimbursement levels. Reimbursement inputs by practice setting, costs, and recovery profiles-taken from published literature examining time to discharge-were used to populate the model. To measure robustness of model results to changes in base case inputs, sensitivity analyses were performed. Using a Monte Carlo simulation, inputs were varied simultaneously and randomly for 1000 iterations to determine 95% confidence intervals (CI) for break-even costs. RESULTS: In the time to complete 1 colonoscopy with midazolam/meperidine, 1.76 colonoscopies can be completed with propofol and 1.91 colonoscopies can be completed with fospropofol disodium. This efficiency benefit produced a break-even cost for rapid recovery agents of $71.53 (95% CI: $38.39, $105.67) in a hospital outpatient clinic and $61.48 (95% CI: $41.33, $108.99) in an ambulatory surgical center. One-way sensitivity analyses indicated the break-even cost of these agents was most sensitive to operating costs and time to discharge ratio. CONCLUSIONS: Rapid recovery agents for colonoscopy can improve practice efficiency and offer economic advantages over traditional sedation.