Estimating Public Economic Gains from Early Breast Cancer and Curative Treatment: A Case Study in Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (HER-2) Positive Targeted Therapies.

INTRODUCTION: Cancer diagnosis influences the choices that patients make regarding current and future labor market activity. These choices have implications for governments based on resulting changes in taxes paid and benefits received. In this analysis we explore how human growth receptor 2 (HER2)-positive residual invasive breast cancer and different treatments influence government accounts excluding health costs. METHODS: HER2-positive early breast cancer (eBC) health states from a published disease model were used to establish likelihood of working and wage impact at different stages of disease. The indirect productivity losses for an average woman aged 49 years were translated into fiscal consequences to government by applying an established government perspective-modeling framework. The fiscal projections (discounted) include gross tax revenue by disease stage, government transfer costs related to time off work and early retirement ,and net fiscal balance (e.g., gross taxes-transfers) in three countries Canada, Portugal, and Brazil. RESULTS: The net fiscal balance in Canada for a healthy woman was C$109,551 compared with a HER2-positive eBC woman treated with trastuzumab emtansine (C$69,767) or trastuzumab (C$62,971). A similar pattern was observed in the three countries but reflecting the overall tax burden in each country, labor force activity, and available public benefits. Age at diagnosis was an important determinant of the likely net fiscal balance, as this influences the remaining working years. DISCUSSION: Women diagnosed with HER2-positive eBC were estimated to pay less lifetime gross taxes and receive more in sickness benefits compared with healthy women. Treatments that improve outcomes are likely to offer fiscal gains for government from improved work force participation.

A cost-effectiveness analysis of reduced viral transmission with baloxavir marboxil versus oseltamivir or no treatment for seasonal and pandemic influenza management in the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND: Baloxavir marboxil is an oral, single-dose, cap-dependent endonuclease inhibitor that reduces the duration of influenza symptoms and rapidly stops viral shedding. We developed a susceptible, exposed, infected, recovered (SEIR) model to inform a cost-effectiveness model (CEM) of baloxavir versus oseltamivir or no antiviral treatment in the UK. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The SEIR model estimated the attack rates among otherwise healthy and high-risk individuals in seasonal and pandemic settings. The CEM assumed that a proportion of infected patients would receive antiviral treatment. Results were reported at the population level (per 10,000 at risk of infection). RESULTS: The SEIR model estimated greater reductions in infections with baloxavir. In a seasonal setting, baloxavir provided incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of £1884 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained versus oseltamivir and a dominant cost-effectiveness position versus no antiviral treatment in the total population; ICERs of £2574/QALY versus oseltamivir and £128/QALY versus no antiviral treatment were seen in the high-risk population. Baloxavir was also cost-effective versus oseltamivir or no antiviral treatment and reduced population-level health system occupancy concerns during a pandemic. CONCLUSION: Baloxavir treatment resulted in the fewest influenza cases and was cost-effective versus oseltamivir or no antiviral treatment from a UK National Health Service perspective.

Baloxavir marboxil ('baloxavir') is a prescription medicine for people who become ill with influenza (or 'the flu') that can reduce how long flu symptoms last and the likelihood of complications from the flu that may require going to the hospital. Baloxavir can also reduce the amount and duration of virus shed by infected individuals thus potentially slow or stop the flu from spreading to healthy people. We studied differences in reducing predicted flu infections between baloxavir and another flu treatment, known as oseltamivir, or no flu treatment at all. Treatment with baloxavir resulted in fewer flu infections in the UK population than oseltamivir or no treatment. We then studied how these differences might affect costs between baloxavir and oseltamivir or no treatment at a population level in the UK. Overall, in the majority of scenarios explored in the model, baloxavir was cost-effective as an antiviral treatment for people with the flu in the UK.

Cost-Effectiveness of Baloxavir Marboxil Versus Oseltamivir or no Treatment for the Management of Influenza in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: This study sought to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of baloxavir marboxil compared with oseltamivir or no antiviral treatment from a US payer perspective using data from a real-world US administrative claims study. Given baloxavir's ability to rapidly stop viral shedding, the potential health economic implications of a baloxavir-induced population-level reduction in viral transmission was also explored. METHODS: A decision tree cost-effectiveness model was developed for seasonal influenza (2018-2020) using a lifetime time horizon with 3.0% discounting for costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Patients aged ≥ 12 years could receive baloxavir, oseltamivir or no antiviral treatment. Patient characteristics, complications, and costs were derived from the Merative™ MarketScan® Research Databases including US commercial claims and Medicare and Medicaid Supplemental databases. A scenario analysis explored the impact of reduced viral transmission with baloxavir. RESULTS: In the base case analysis, baloxavir was cost-effective within a willingness-to-pay threshold of US$100,000/QALY compared with oseltamivir [incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), $6813/QALY gained] or no antiviral treatment (ICER, $669/QALY gained). The net monetary benefit (NMB) of baloxavir was $1180 and $6208 compared with oseltamivir and no treatment, respectively. The NMB of baloxavir increased linearly with reductions in viral transmission, where a 5% transmission reduction yielded an NMB of $2592 versus oseltamivir and $7621 versus no treatment. Baloxavir became dominant (more effective and less costly, with ICERs < 0) starting with a 12.0% reduction in viral transmission versus oseltamivir and 6.0% versus no antiviral treatment. CONCLUSION: Baloxavir was cost-effective compared with oseltamivir or no antiviral treatment. The potential of baloxavir to reduce viral transmission offers a substantial economic benefit from a US payer perspective.

Baloxavir is a prescription medicine that reduces the duration of flu symptoms and reduces the likelihood of complications from the flu, including serious complications that may require hospitalization. Baloxavir may reduce the spread of the flu to healthy people by reducing the amount and duration of virus shedding from infected people. We designed a model to estimate the cost benefits of using baloxavir versus another flu treatment, known as oseltamivir, or no flu treatment at all. Using baloxavir led to more cost savings than oseltamivir or no treatment for people in the US who have commercial health insurance. Baloxavir was even more cost-effective in the scenario where it reduced the number of flu cases (transmission benefit). This could ultimately have a meaningful benefit across a large health insurance population.