Assessment of Medical and Public Assistance Expenditures and Employment Among US Adults With Cancer Diagnoses.

Importance: Prior research suggests significant social value associated with increased longevity due to preventing and treating cancer. Other social costs associated with cancer, such as unemployment, public medical spending, and public assistance, may also be sizable. Objective: To examine whether a cancer history is associated with receipt of disability insurance, income, employment, and medical spending. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Study (MEPS) (2010-2016) for a nationally representative sample of US adults aged 50 to 79 years. Data were analyzed from December 2021 to March 2023. Exposure: Cancer history. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were employment, public assistance receipt, disability, and medical expenditures. Variables for race, ethnicity, and age were used as controls. A series of multivariate regression models were used to assess the immediate and 2-year association of a cancer history with disability, income, employment, and medical spending. Results: Of 39 439 unique MEPS respondents included in the study, 52% were female, and the mean (SD) age was 61.44 (8.32) years; 12% of respondents had a history of cancer. Individuals with a cancer history who were aged 50 to 64 years were 9.80 (95% CI, 7.35-12.25) percentage points more likely to have a work-limiting disability and were 9.08 (95% CI, 6.22-11.94) percentage points less likely to be employed compared with individuals in the same age group without a history of cancer. Nationally, cancer accounted for 505 768 fewer employed individuals in the population aged 50 to 64 years. A cancer history was also associated with an increase of $2722 (95% CI, $2131-$3313) in medical spending, $6460 (95% CI, $5254-$7667) in public medical spending, and $515 (95% CI, $337-$692) in other public assistance spending. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, a history of cancer was associated with increased likelihood of disability, higher medical spending, and decreased likelihood of employment. These findings suggest there may be gains beyond increased longevity if cancer can be detected and treated earlier.

Patient Preferences for Multi-Cancer Early Detection (MCED) Screening Tests.

BACKGROUND: Emerging blood-based multi-cancer early detection (MCED) tests can detect a variety of cancer types across stages with a range of sensitivity, specificity, and ability to predict the origin of the cancer signal. However, little is known about the general US population's preferences for MCED tests. OBJECTIVE: To quantify preferences for MCED tests among US adults aged 50-80 years using a discrete choice experiment (DCE). METHODS: To quantify preferences for attributes of blood-based MCED tests, an online DCE was conducted with five attributes (true positives, false negatives, false positives, likelihood of the cancer type unknown, number of cancer types detected), among the US population aged 50-80 years recruited via online panels and social media. Data were analyzed using latent class multinomial logit models and relative attribute importance was obtained. RESULTS: Participants (N = 1700) were 54% female, mean age 63.3 years. Latent class modeling identified three classes with distinct preferences for MCED tests. The rank order of attribute importance based on relative attribute importance varied by latent class, but across all latent classes, participants preferred higher accuracy (fewer false negatives and false positives, more true positives) and screenings that detected more cancer types and had a lower likelihood of cancer type unknown. Overall, 72% of participants preferred to receive an MCED test in addition to currently recommended cancer screenings. CONCLUSIONS: While there is significant heterogeneity in cancer screening preferences, the majority of participants preferred MCED screening and the accuracy of these tests is important. While the majority of participants preferred adding an MCED test to complement current cancer screenings, the latent class analyses identified a small (16%) and specific subset of individuals who value attributes differently, with particular concern regarding false-negative and false-positive test results, who are significantly less likely to opt-in.

The Potential Value-Based Price of a Multi-Cancer Early Detection Genomic Blood Test to Complement Current Single Cancer Screening in the USA.

BACKGROUND: Multi-cancer early detection (MCED) testing could increase detection of cancer at early stages, when survival outcomes are better and treatment costs are lower, but is expected to increase screening costs. This study modeled an MCED test for 19 solid cancers in a US population and estimated the potential value-based price (the maximum price to meet a given willingness to pay) of the MCED test plus current single cancer screening (usual care) compared to usual care alone from a third-party payer perspective over a lifetime horizon. METHODS: A hybrid cohort-level state-transition and decision-tree model was developed to estimate the clinical and economic outcomes of annual MCED testing between age 50 and 79 years. The impact on time and stage of diagnosis was computed using an interception modeling approach, with the consequences of cancer modeled based on stage at diagnosis. The model parameters were mainly sourced from the literature, including a published case-control study to inform MCED test performance. All costs were inflated to 2021 US dollars. RESULTS: Multi-cancer early detection testing shifted cancer diagnoses to earlier stages, with a 53% reduction in stage IV cancer diagnoses, resulting in longer overall survival compared with usual care. Addition of MCED decreased per cancer treatment costs by $5421 and resulted in a gain of 0.13 and 0.38 quality-adjusted life-years across all individuals in the screening program and those diagnosed with cancer, respectively. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, the potential value-based price of an MCED test was estimated at $1196. The projected survival of individuals diagnosed with cancer and the number of cancers detected at an earlier stage by MCED had the greatest impact on outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: An MCED test with high specificity would potentially improve long-term health outcomes and reduce cancer treatment costs, resulting in a value-based price of $1196 at a $100,000/quality-adjusted life-year willingness-to-pay threshold.

Cost of cancer management by stage at diagnosis among Medicare beneficiaries.

OBJECTIVE: Estimate the annual cost of care in the 5 years following a cancer diagnosis for 17 invasive cancer types, by stage at diagnosis. METHODS: We used 2012-2016 data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registry-Medicare claims database to examine cost of care among Medicare beneficiaries with a confirmed cancer diagnosis based on International Classification of Diseases for Oncology, Third Edition histology codes reported in SEER. Beneficiaries contributed to the annual cost calculations (Years 1-5) using their observed time after diagnosis. Beneficiaries were continuously enrolled in fee-for-service Medicare Parts A/B and Part D during follow-up. Total, inpatient, outpatient, and pharmacy cancer-related service costs were calculated. RESULTS: From 2012 to 2016, we identified 597,778 Medicare beneficiaries with incident cancer diagnosis within 5 years (Stage I, II, III, and IV: 32.6%, 33.4%, 15.9%, and 18.0%, respectively). In Year 1, mean (standard deviation) total costs for Stage I diagnoses varied from $7640 ($17,378) (prostate) to $94,636 ($117,636) (pancreas). Total costs increased by stage and reached $58,783 ($92,344) (prostate) to $156,982 ($175,009) (stomach) for Stage IV diagnoses in Year 1. Costs in Year 1 were significantly higher for Stage IV diagnoses than for earlier stages across all cancer types. In Years 2-5, total costs were lower than in Year 1 but continued to increase by stage. CONCLUSIONS: Beneficiaries diagnosed at later stages of cancer have higher costs of care (up to 7 times as much) than those diagnosed at earlier stages. Earlier cancer diagnosis may lead to more efficient treatment and decreased management cost.

Cost-Effectiveness of Empagliflozin in Patients With Diabetic Kidney Disease in the United States: Findings Based on the EMPA-REG OUTCOME Trial.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Benefits of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors on kidney outcomes have been demonstrated in clinical trials. Among patients with type 2 diabetes and established cardiovascular (CV) disease enrolled in the EMPA-REG OUTCOME study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01131676), empagliflozin added to standard of care (SOC) reduced the risk of incident or worsening nephropathy compared with SOC alone. This analysis evaluated the cost-effectiveness of empagliflozin versus SOC alone in the subpopulation with diabetic kidney disease (DKD) from the perspective of US commercial insurers and Medicare. STUDY DESIGN: Discrete event simulation model. SETTING & POPULATION: Patients with DKD in a US health care system. INTERVENTIONS: Empagliflozin 10 or 25mg with SOC versus SOC alone. SOC included glucose-lowering therapies and medications to treat CV risk factors. OUTCOMES: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (2020 US dollars per quality-adjusted life-year [QALY] gained). Costs and QALYs were discounted 3.0% per year. MODEL, PERSPECTIVE, & TIME FRAME: Cost-effectiveness analysis, commercial insurers and Medicare perspective, lifetime horizon. RESULTS: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of empagliflozin with SOC versus SOC alone was $25,974 per QALY. Empagliflozin added 0.67 QALYs and $17,322 per patient over a lifetime horizon. Results were driven by fewer clinical events (including CV death, heart failure hospitalization, albuminuria progression, and a composite kidney outcome) experienced by patients receiving empagliflozin with SOC versus SOC alone. Results were sensitive to rates of CV death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and heart failure hospitalization, as well as to drug costs and time horizon. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses indicated 91% of simulations at <$50,000 per QALY. LIMITATIONS: The EMPA-REG OUTCOME study was not powered to assess treatment benefits in a subgroup and excluded patients with estimated glomerular filtration rate<30mL/min/1.73m2. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the EMPA-REG OUTCOME study, this cost-effectiveness analysis suggests that, for commercial insurers and Medicare, adding empagliflozin to SOC may be a cost-effective treatment option for patients with DKD.

Estimating the population health impact of a multi-cancer early detection genomic blood test to complement existing screening in the US and UK.

BACKGROUND: Multi-cancer early detection (MCED) next-generation-sequencing blood tests represent a potential paradigm shift in screening. METHODS: We estimated the impact of screening in the US and UK. We used country-specific parameters for uptake, and test-specific sensitivity and false-positive rates for current screening: breast, colorectal, cervical and lung (US only) cancers. For the MCED test, we used cancer-specific sensitivities by stage. Outcomes included the true-positive:false-positive (TP:FP) ratio; and the cost of diagnostic investigations among screen positives, per cancer detected (Diagcost). Outcomes were estimated for recommended screening only, and then when giving the MCED test to anyone without cancer detected by current screening plus similarly aged adults ineligible for recommended screening. RESULTS: In the US, current screening detects an estimated 189,498 breast, cervical, colorectal and lung cancers. An MCED test with 25-100% uptake detects an additional 105,526-422,105 cancers (multiple types). The estimated TP:FP (Diagcost) was 1.43 ($89,042) with current screening but only 1:1.8 ($7060) using an MCED test. For the UK the corresponding estimates were 1:18 (£10,452) for current screening, and 1:1.6 (£2175) using an MCED test. CONCLUSIONS: Adding an MCED blood test to recommended screening can potentially be an efficient strategy. Ongoing randomised studies are required for full efficacy and cost-effectiveness evaluations.

Health state utility values by cancer stage: a systematic literature review.

OBJECTIVES: Cancer diagnoses at later stages are associated with a decrease in health-related quality of life (HRQOL). Health state utility values (HSUVs) reflect preference-based HRQOL and can vary based on cancer type, stage, treatment, and disease progression. Detecting and treating cancer at earlier stages may lead to improved HRQOL, which is important for value assessments. We describe published HSUVs by cancer type and stage. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted using Embase, MEDLINE®, EconLit, and gray literature to identify studies published from January 1999 to September 2019 that reported HSUVs by cancer type and stage. Disutility values were calculated from differences in reported HSUVs across cancer stages. RESULTS: From 13,872 publications, 27 were eligible for evidence synthesis. The most frequent cancer types were breast (n = 9), lung (n = 5), colorectal (n = 4), and cervical cancer (n = 3). Mean HSUVs decreased with increased cancer stage, with consistently lower values seen in stage IV or later-stage cancer across studies (e.g., - 0.74, - 0.44, and - 0.51 for breast, colorectal, and cervical cancer, respectively). Disutility values were highest between later-stage (metastatic or stage IV) cancers compared to earlier-stage (localized or stage I-III) cancers. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides a summary of HSUVs across different cancer types and stages that can inform economic evaluations. Despite the large variation in HSUVs overall, a consistent decline in HSUVs can be seen in the later stages, including stage IV. These findings indicate substantial impairment on individuals' quality of life and suggest value in early detection and intervention.

Economic evaluation of betibeglogene autotemcel (Beti-cel) gene addition therapy in transfusion-dependent ß-thalassemia.

Background: Standard of care (SoC) for transfusion-dependent ß-thalassemia (TDT) requires lifelong, regular blood transfusions as well as chelation to reduce iron accumulation. Objective: This study investigates the cost-effectiveness of betibeglogene autotemcel ('beti-cel'; LentiGlobin for ß-thalassemia) one-time, gene addition therapy compared to lifelong SoC for TDT. Study design: Microsimulation model simulated the lifetime course of TDT based on a causal sequence in which transfusion requirements determine tissue iron levels, which in turn determine risk of iron overload complications that increase mortality. Clinical trial data informed beti-cel clinical parameters; effects of SoC on iron levels came from real-world studies; iron overload complication rates and mortality were based on published literature. Setting: USA; commercial payer perspective Participants: TDT patients age 2-50 Interventions: Beti-cel is compared to SoC. Main outcome measure: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) utilizing quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) Results: The model predicts beti-cel adds 3.8 discounted life years (LYs) or 6.9 QALYs versus SoC. Discounted lifetime costs were $2.28 M for beti-cel ($572,107 if excluding beti-cel cost) and $2.04 M for SoC, with a resulting ICER of $34,833 per QALY gained. Conclusion: Beti-cel is cost-effective for TDT patients compared to SoC. This is due to longer survival and cost offset of lifelong SoC.

Cost-effectiveness of empagliflozin versus canagliflozin, dapagliflozin, or standard of care in patients with type 2 diabetes and established cardiovascular disease.

INTRODUCTION: Empagliflozin, a sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitor, is approved in the USA to reduce risk of cardiovascular (CV) death in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and established CV disease, based on EMPA-REG OUTCOME (Empagliflozin Cardiovascular Outcome Event Trial in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Patients) trial results. Empagliflozin reduced major adverse CV event (MACE) by 14%, CV death by 38%, and hospitalization for heart failure (HHF) by 35% vs placebo, each on top of standard of care (SoC). SGLT-2 inhibitors canagliflozin and dapagliflozin have also been compared with placebo, all on top of SoC, in CV outcome trials. In the CANVAS (Canagliflozin Cardiovascular Assessment Study) Program, canagliflozin reduced MACE by 14% and HHF by 33%. Dapagliflozin reduced HHF by 27% in the DECLARE-TIMI 58 trial (Multicenter Trial to Evaluate the Effect of Dapagliflozin on the Incidence of Cardiovascular Events). This analysis estimated the cost-effectiveness of empagliflozin versus canagliflozin, dapagliflozin, or SoC, in US adults with T2DM and established CV disease. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Individual patient-level discrete-event simulation was conducted to predict time-to-event for CV and renal outcomes, and specific adverse events over patients' lifetimes. Occurrence of events in EMPA-REG OUTCOME was estimated based on event-free survival curves with time-dependent covariates. An HR for canagliflozin or dapagliflozin versus empagliflozin on each clinical event was estimated from published CANVAS, DECLARE-TIMI 58, and EMPA-REG OUTCOME data using indirect treatment comparison. Public sources provided US costs and utilities. RESULTS: The model predicted longer survival for empagliflozin versus canagliflozin, dapagliflozin, and SoC mainly due to direct reduction in CV death. Empagliflozin dominated canagliflozin, yielding more quality-adjusted life years (QALYs; 0.38) at a lower cost (-US$306). Compared with dapagliflozin and SoC, empagliflozin yielded 0.50 and 0.84 incremental QALYs at US$1517 and US$27 539 incremental costs, yielding incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of US$3054/QALY and US$32 848/QALY, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Empagliflozin was projected to dominate canagliflozin and be highly cost-effective compared with dapagliflozin and SoC using US healthcare costs.

Cost-effectiveness of empagliflozin in the UK in an EMPA-REG OUTCOME subgroup with type 2 diabetes and heart failure.

AIMS: Heart failure (HF) and type 2 diabetes (T2D), common co-morbidities, translate into worse patient prognoses and higher direct costs than for either condition alone. Empagliflozin has been shown to markedly reduce cardiovascular (CV) deaths and HF hospitalizations (HHF) in HF patients with T2D. This study evaluated the lifetime cost-effectiveness of supplementing standard of care (SoC) with empagliflozin, relative to SoC alone, in HF patients with T2D from the UK payer perspective. METHODS AND RESULTS: An existing discrete-event simulation model was adapted for the economic evaluation. Risk equations developed from time-dependent parametric survival analyses using patient-level HF subpopulation data from the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial were employed to predict CV and renal events. Non-CV death, utility weights, and costs were drawn from UK sources. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs were discounted at 3.5% per annum. Relative to SoC, empagliflozin with SoC yielded fewer first HHF, recurrent HHF, CV death, and non-fatal myocardial infarction but more non-fatal stroke events. Empagliflozin with SoC vs. SoC alone was associated with increased average life expectancy (10.80 vs. 9.59 LYs) and quality of life (6.27 vs. 5.62 QALYs), though at higher lifetime cost (£18 197 vs. £16 829) per person, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £2093 per QALY. The probability of empagliflozin being cost-effective in the HF subpopulation at a £20 000 per QALY willingness-to-pay threshold was 91%. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis suggests that adding empagliflozin to SoC in HF patients with T2D constitutes a cost-effective use of UK healthcare resources and may provide long-term health benefits to patients.

Outcomes and costs of remote patient monitoring among patients with implanted cardiac defibrillators: An economic model based on the PREDICT RM database.

BACKGROUND: Remote monitoring of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators has been associated with reduced rates of all-cause rehospitalizations and mortality among device recipients, but long-term economic benefits have not been studied. METHODS AND RESULTS: An economic model was developed using the PREDICT RM database comparing outcomes with and without remote monitoring. The database included patients ages 65 to 89 who received a Boston Scientific device from 2006 to 2010. Parametric survival equations were derived for rehospitalization and mortality to predict outcomes over a maximum time horizon of 25 years. The analysis assessed rehospitalization, mortality, and the cost-effectiveness (expressed as the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year) of remote monitoring versus no remote monitoring. Remote monitoring was associated with reduced mortality; average life expectancy and average quality-adjusted life years increased by 0.77 years and 0.64, respectively (6.85 life years and 5.65 quality-adjusted life years). When expressed per patient-year, remote monitoring patients had fewer subsequent rehospitalizations (by 0.08 per patient-year) and lower hospitalization costs (by $554 per patient year). With longer life expectancies, remote monitoring patients experienced an average of 0.64 additional subsequent rehospitalizations with increased average lifetime hospitalization costs of $2784. Total costs of outpatient and physician claims were higher with remote monitoring ($47 515 vs $42 792), but average per patient-year costs were lower ($6232 vs $6244). The base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $10 752 per quality-adjusted life year, making remote monitoring high-value care. CONCLUSION: Remote monitoring is a cost-effective approach for the lifetime management of patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators.

Alzheimer's disease Archimedes condition-event simulator: Development and validation.

INTRODUCTION: Several advances have been made in Alzheimer's Disease (AD) modeling, however, there remains a need for a simulator that represents the full scope of disease progression and can be used to study new disease-modifying treatments for early-stage and even prodromal AD. METHODS: We developed AD Archimedes condition-event simulator, a patient-level simulator with a focus on simulating the effects of early interventions through changes in biomarkers of AD. The simulator incorporates interconnected predictive equations derived from longitudinal data sets. RESULTS: The results of external validations on AD Archimedes condition-event simulator showed that it provides reasonable estimates once compared to literature results on transition to dementia AD, institutionalization, and mortality. A case study comparing a disease-modifying treatment and a symptomatic treatment also showcases the benefits of early treatment. DISCUSSION: The AD Archimedes condition-event simulator is designed to perform economic evaluation on various interventions through close tracking of disease progression and the related clinical outcomes.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of dabigatran versus rivaroxaban for stroke prevention in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation using real-world evidence in elderly US Medicare beneficiaries.

OBJECTIVE: Dabigatran and rivaroxaban have been approved by the US FDA to reduce the risk of stroke and systemic embolism in non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients. Newly published real-world evidence based on the US population found that elderly Medicare patients with NVAF treated with rivaroxaban experienced statistically significant increases in intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) and major extracranial bleeding, and statistically nonsignificant decreases in thromboembolic stroke and acute myocardial infarction (AMI) compared with dabigatran. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of dabigatran vs. rivaroxaban for the treatment of US Medicare NVAF patients. METHODS: A previously published Markov model was adapted to compare dabigatran and rivaroxaban. The model considered thromboembolic stroke, bleeding events, and AMI based on the published real-world event risks. Model outputs included clinical event rates, costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). RESULTS: Dabigatran patients experienced fewer ICH and major extracranial bleeding events than rivaroxaban patients, but more stroke and AMI events. Dabigatran was found to yield lower costs and higher QALYs than rivaroxaban, with incremental costs of -$3534 and incremental QALYs of 0.004. Results remained consistent in sensitivity analyses, with a positive net monetary benefit (willingness-to-pay thresholds of $50,000 and $100,000 per QALY) for dabigatran over rivaroxaban for all model inputs tested. CONCLUSIONS: In this study using US Medicare real-world data, dabigatran was found to dominate rivaroxaban. The analyses were limited by the short follow-up period of the real-world data and results may not be generalizable to other patient populations.

Financial impact of ivabradine on reducing heart failure penalties under the Hospital Readmission Reduction Program.

OBJECTIVE: The introduction of the Hospital Readmission Reduction Program (HRRP) has led to renewed interest in developing strategies to reduce 30 day readmissions among patients with heart failure (HF). In this study, a model was developed to investigate whether the addition of ivabradine to a standard-of-care (SoC) treatment regimen for patients with HF would reduce HRRP penalties incurred by a hypothetical hospital with excess 30 day readmissions. RESEARCH DESIGN: A model using a Monte Carlo simulation framework was developed. Model inputs included national hospital characteristics, hospital-specific characteristics, and the ivabradine treatment effect as quantified by a post hoc analysis of the Systolic Heart failure treatment with the If inhibitor ivabradine Trial (SHIFT). RESULTS: The model computed an 83% reduction in HF readmission penalty payments in a hypothetical hospital with a readmission rate of 22.95% (excess readmission ratio = 1.056 over the national average readmission rate of 21.73%), translating into net savings of $44,016. A sensitivity analysis indicated that the readmission penalty is affected by the specific characteristics of the hospital, including the readmission rate, size of the ivabradine-eligible population, and ivabradine utilization. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study indicate that the addition of ivabradine to an SoC treatment regimen for patients with HF may lead to a reduction in the penalties incurred by hospitals under the HRRP. This highlights the role ivabradine can play as part of a wider effort to optimize the care of patients with HF.

Budget Impact of Adding Ivabradine to Standard of Care in Patients with Chronic Systolic Heart Failure in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Heart failure (HF) costs $21 billion annually in direct health care costs, 80% of which is directly attributable to hospitalizations. The SHIFT clinical study demonstrated that ivabradine plus standard of care (SoC) reduced HF-related and all-cause hospitalizations compared with SoC alone. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the budget impact of ivabradine from a U.S. commercial payer perspective. METHODS: A budget impact model estimated the per-member-per month (PMPM) impact of introducing ivabradine to existing formularies by comparing a reference scenario (SoC) and a new drug scenario (ivabradine + SoC) in hypothetical 1 million-member commercial and Medicare Advantage plans. In both scenarios, U.S. claims data were used for the reference cumulative annual rates of hospitalizations (HF, non-HF cardiovascular [CV], and non-CV), and hospitalization rates were adjusted using SHIFT data. The model controlled for mortality risk using SHIFT and U.S. life table data, and hospitalization costs were obtained from U.S. claims data: HF-related = $37,507; non-HF CV = $28,951; and non-CV = $17,904. The annualized wholesale acquisition cost of ivabradine was $4,500, with baseline use for this new drug at 2%, increasing 2% per year. RESULTS: Based on the approved U.S. indication, approximately 2,000 commercially insured patients from a 1 million-member commercial plan were eligible to receive ivabradine. Ivabradine resulted in a PMPM cost savings of $0.01 and $0.04 in years 1 and 3 of the core model, respectively. After including the acquisition price for ivabradine, the model showed a decrease in total costs in the commercial ($991,256 and $474,499, respectively) and Medicare populations ($13,849,262 and $4,280,291, respectively) in year 1. This decrease was driven by ivabradine's reduction in hospitalization rates. For the core model, the estimated pharmacy-only PMPM in year 1 was $0.01 for the commercial population and $0.24 for the Medicare Advantage population. CONCLUSIONS: Adding ivabradine to SoC led to lower average annual treatment costs. The negative PMPM budget impact indicates that ivabradine is an affordable option for U.S. payers. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Amgen. Patel is employed by Amgen; Kielhorn was employed by Amgen at the time of the study but is no longer affiliated with Amgen. Borer, Böhm, Ford, and Komajda have received scientific support, consultative fees, and/or speakers honoraria from Servier and Amgen in connection with SHIFT, the trial underlying this analysis. Borer also has received consultative fees from Celladon, Pfizer, ARMGO, Cardiorentis, Novartis, and Takeda USA. Kansal, Dorman, Krotneva, and Zheng are employees of Evidera, which was hired to assist with this study. Tavazzi has received research grants and consultation fees from Servier in connection with this study and has had advisory board memberships with Boston Scientific, Servier, Cardiorentis, Medtronic, St. Jude Medical, and CVie Therapeutics. Study concept and design were contributed by Dorman and Keilhorn, along with the other authors. Tavazzi, Komajda, Ford, BÖhm, and Borer oversaw collection of the data. Tavazzi, Komajda, Ford, BÖhm, and Borer (along with Karl Swedberg) formed the Executive Committee of SHIFT, the trial underlying this analysis. The manuscript was written by Kansal, along with the other authors, and revised by Borer and Patel, with assistance from the other authors.

Cost-Effectiveness of Ivabradine for Heart Failure in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Ivabradine is a heart rate-lowering agent approved to reduce the risk of hospitalization for worsening heart failure. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of adding ivabradine to background therapy in the United States from the perspective of a commercial or Medicare Advantage payer. METHODS AND RESULTS: A cost-effectiveness, cohort-based Markov model using a state transition approach tracked a cohort of heart failure patients with heart rate ≥70 beats per minute in sinus rhythm who were treated with ivabradine+background therapy or background therapy alone. Model inputs, including adjusted hazard ratios, rates of hospitalization and mortality, adverse events, and utility-regression equations, were derived from a large US claims database and SHIFT (Systolic Heart failure treatment with the If inhibitor ivabradine Trial). In the commercial population, ivabradine+background therapy was associated with a cost savings of $8594 versus the cost of background therapy alone over a 10-year time horizon, primarily because of reduced hospitalization. Ivabradine was associated with an incremental benefit of 0.24 quality-adjusted life years over a 10-year time horizon. In the Medicare Advantage population, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for ivabradine was estimated to be $24 920/quality-adjusted life years. CONCLUSIONS: The cost-effectiveness model suggests that for a commercial population, the addition of ivabradine to background therapy was associated with cost savings and improved clinical outcomes. For a Medicare Advantage population, the analysis indicates that the clinical benefit of ivabradine can be achieved at a reasonable cost.

The budget impact of introducing delayed-release dimethyl fumarate for treatment of relapse-remitting multiple sclerosis in Canada.

OBJECTIVE: Multiple sclerosis (MS) causes significant disability globally and is especially prevalent in Canada. Delayed-release dimethyl fumarate (DMF; also known as gastro-resistant DMF) is an orally administered disease-modifying treatment (DMT) for patients with relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS) that is currently on the market in the US, Australia, Canada, and Europe. A budget impact model (BIM) was developed to assess the financial consequences of introducing DMF for treatment of RRMS in Canada. METHODS: A BIM calculated the financial consequences of introducing DMF in Canada over 3 years based on RRMS prevalence, treatment market share, and clinical effects. RRMS prevalence in Canada was derived from published literature and natural relapse rates, and disease state distribution from clinical trial data. It was conservatively assumed that 100% of RRMS patients were treated with a DMT. DMF was assumed to absorb market share proportionally from the following current treatments: interferon beta-1a-IM, interferon beta-1a-SC, interferon beta-1b, and glatiramer acetate. Treatment efficacy, in terms of relapse rate reductions and treatment discontinuation rates, was determined from mixed treatment comparison. Treatment costs (including costs of acquisition, monitoring, and administration) and cost of relapse were considered. Deterministic one-way sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the most sensitive input parameters. RESULTS: Over 3 years, the introduction of DMF resulted in an average annual increase of CAD417 per treated patient per year, with reductions in costs associated with relapses (CAD192/patient/year) partially offsetting increased drug acquisition costs (CAD602/patient/year). On a population level, the average annual cost increase was CAD24,654,237, a CAD 0.68 increase per population covered by the Canadian healthcare system. The main drivers of budget impact were drop-out rates, proportion of RRMS patients treated, and market share assumptions. CONCLUSIONS: The acquisition costs of DMF for treatment of RRMS are predicted to be partially offset by reduced costs of relapses in the Canadian healthcare system.

Comparison of the cost-effectiveness of new oral anticoagulants for the prevention of stroke and systemic embolism in atrial fibrillation in a UK setting.

PURPOSE: Three new oral anticoagulants (NOACs) have recently become available in the United Kingdom as an alternative to warfarin in the prevention of stroke and systemic embolism in atrial fibrillation. This study examines the relative cost-effectiveness of dabigatran (BID dosing of 150 mg or 110 mg based on patient age), rivaroxaban, and apixaban from a UK payer perspective. METHODS: A previously published model that follows up patients through treatment of atrial fibrillation during a lifetime was adapted to allow comparison of the 3 NOACs and warfarin. Acute thromboembolic and bleeding events, as well as long-term consequences of stroke, intracranial hemorrhage, and acute myocardial infarction, were tracked. Relative efficacy was calculated from a formal indirect treatment comparison using data from the 3 key trials (Randomized Evaluation of Long-Term Anticoagulation Therapy, Rivaroxaban Once-daily oral direct factor Xa inhibition Compared with vitamin K antagonism for prevention of stroke and Embolism Trial in Atrial Fibrillation, and Apixaban for the Prevention of Stroke in Subjects With Atrial Fibrillation) of the NOACs. Data from the rivaroxaban trial were adjusted for the difference in international normalized ratio control among warfarin patients versus the other 2 trials. Model outputs included total costs, event rates, and quality-adjusted life-years. FINDINGS: Among the patients taking NOACs, those taking dabigatran had the highest total QALYs (7.68 QALYs), followed by apixaban (7.63 QALYs) and rivaroxaban (7.47 QALYs). Patients taking dabigatran had the lowest total lifetime costs (£23,342), followed by apixaban (£24,014) and rivaroxaban (£25,220). The differences between dabigatran and apixaban were modest but consistent in sensitivity analyses, with the directionality only changing at the limits of the CIs for the relative risks of ischemic stroke or intracranial hemorrhage or when assuming that both treatment discontinuation and post-event disability rates differ by drug. IMPLICATIONS: Dabigatran was found to be economically dominant over rivaroxaban and apixaban in the UK setting. These economic findings are based on relative clinical efficacy from an indirect treatment comparison and would benefit from any data of direct comparisons of the NOACs in the future.

Modeling hard clinical end-point data in economic analyses.

OBJECTIVE: The availability of hard clinical end-point data, such as that on cardiovascular (CV) events among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, is increasing, and as a result there is growing interest in using hard end-point data of this type in economic analyses. This study investigated published approaches for modeling hard end-points from clinical trials and evaluated their applicability in health economic models with different disease features. METHODS: A review of cost-effectiveness models of interventions in clinically significant therapeutic areas (CV diseases, cancer, and chronic lower respiratory diseases) was conducted in PubMed and Embase using a defined search strategy. Only studies integrating hard end-point data from randomized clinical trials were considered. For each study included, clinical input characteristics and modeling approach were summarized and evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 33 articles (23 CV, eight cancer, two respiratory) were accepted for detailed analysis. Decision trees, Markov models, discrete event simulations, and hybrids were used. Event rates were incorporated either as constant rates, time-dependent risks, or risk equations based on patient characteristics. Risks dependent on time and/or patient characteristics were used where major event rates were >1%/year in models with fewer health states (<7). Models of infrequent events or with numerous health states generally preferred constant event rates. LIMITATIONS: The detailed modeling information and terminology varied, sometimes requiring interpretation. CONCLUSIONS: Key considerations for cost-effectiveness models incorporating hard end-point data include the frequency and characteristics of the relevant clinical events and how the trial data is reported. When event risk is low, simplification of both the model structure and event rate modeling is recommended. When event risk is common, such as in high risk populations, more detailed modeling approaches, including individual simulations or explicitly time-dependent event rates, are more appropriate to accurately reflect the trial data.

Cost-effectiveness of new oral anticoagulants in the prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation.

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common arrhythmia and the leading cause of stroke, an event with high human and economic burden. Novel oral anticoagulants have been approved in many markets as alternatives to warfarin for stroke prevention in patients with AF - dabigatran etexilate, apixaban and rivaroxaban. Given the high burden of AF, and given that new treatments can more effectively prevent stroke than warfarin, but at higher drug cost, there has been a need for systematic evaluation of the costs and benefits of these new treatments. In this study, we summarize the findings of a systematic literature review on the cost-effectiveness of the new oral anticoagulants. We find that there is substantial heterogeneity between the studies and their numerical findings, despite using a common set of four trials for their clinical inputs. However, there is broad consensus among them that each of the novel oral anticoagulants is cost-effective versus warfarin or aspirin.