Hospitalization-related costs associated with oral agents targeting the prostacyclin pathway for pulmonary arterial hypertension.

ABSTRACT

AIMS: Pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) is a rare, progressive, and ultimately fatal form of the broader condition pulmonary hypertension. ESC/ERS guidelines recommend therapy targeting the prostacyclin pathway for patients not achieving low-risk mortality status. Currently, only oral selexipag (OS) and oral treprostinil (OT) have this mechanism of action and are available in the United States (US). A recent database analysis has shown significantly lower hospitalization risk for patients treated with OS versus OT. Nevertheless, differences in hospitalization and treatment costs among PAH patients taking oral prostacyclin pathway agents (PPAs) in the US healthcare system remain unclear. This study aims to estimate the difference in costs for patients who achieve a stable maintenance dose from a US payer perspective. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We developed a cost calculator including direct medical costs from the US third-party payer perspective to estimate PAH-related hospitalizations and costs associated with oral PPA use over 2 years, in a hypothetical US payer plan with 1 million members. The treatment-eligible population was estimated from real-world epidemiological data. Treatment-specific hospitalizations were estimated from a study using the Optum Clinformatics administrative claims database. Influence of each model parameter was tested in one-way sensitivity analyses (OWSA), while scenario analysis tested the impact of key assumptions. RESULTS: For 78 PAH patients included in the model, the base case scenario estimated total costs of $46,736,768 with 98 PAH-related admissions for OS, and total costs of $60,113,620 and 161 PAH-related admissions over 2 years for OT. Using OS was associated with 22.3% cost reduction and 39.1% hospitalizations averted; the number of patients needed treated with selexipag to avoid one hospital admission was 1.23. OWSA indicated medication cost was the most sensitive parameter, followed by population parameters. LIMITATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS: OS use over 2 years would result in lower total, drug, and hospitalization-related costs compared with OT, thus providing financial savings for payers.