Prevention of progression to cirrhosis in hepatitis C with fibrosis: effectiveness and cost effectiveness of sequential therapy with new direct-acting anti-virals.

BACKGROUND: The new direct-acting anti-virals (DAAs) for hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection offer higher cure rates, but at a much higher cost than the standard interferon-based treatments. AIM: To identify the cost-effective treatment for patients with HCV infection with F3 liver fibrosis who are at high risk of progression to cirrhosis. METHODS: A decision-analytic Markov model compared the health benefits and costs of all currently licensed treatments as single treatments and in sequential therapy of up to three lines. Costs were expressed in pound sterling from the perspective of the UK National Health Service. Health benefits were expressed in quality-adjusted life years. RESULTS: Treatment before progression to cirrhosis always offers the most health benefits for the least costs. Sequential therapy with multiple treatment lines cures over 89% of patients across all HCV genotypes while ensuring a cost-effective use of resources. Cost-effective regimes for HCV genotype 1 patients include first-line oral therapy with sofosbuvir-ledipasvir while peginterferon continues to have a role in other genotypes. CONCLUSIONS: The cost-effective treatment for HCV can be established using decision analytic modelling comparing single and sequential therapies. Sequential therapy with DAAs is effective and cost-effective in HCV patients with F3 fibrosis. This information is of significant benefit to health care providers with budget limitations and provides a sound scientific basis for drug treatment choices.

Cost-effectiveness of fondaparinux versus enoxaparin in non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome in Canada (OASIS-5).

BACKGROUND: Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) refers to a spectrum of life-threatening cardiac diseases usually due to coronary artery plaque rupture, subsequent thrombin generation plaque activation and thrombus formation. To date, no economic analyses have been published about the use of fondaparinux in NSTE-ACS patients in Canada. The purpose of our study is to estimate the lifetime cost-effectiveness of fondaparinux compared to enoxaparin for non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) patients in a Canadian hospital setting. METHODS: As an extension of a previous published economic analysis for US patients, an event-based decision analytic model was constructed using clinical and resource use data from OASIS-5, a randomized trial of 20,078 patients from 41 countries. A public payer perspective in the hospital setting was adopted. Resource use data from the trial were valued using Canadian costs. A cost regression model was developed to estimate the mean cost of managing the clinical events over the 180 day period. Annual costs of long-term care for ACS patients were added after 180 days until death. Long-term survival was incorporated using Canadian life tables with further adjustment for additional risks associated with NSTE-ACS. Quality-of-life (utility) decrements from published sources were applied to clinical events. Lifetime costs (2009 CAD$) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), discounted annually at 5 %, were estimated for the typical patient in OASIS-5 (i.e., at mean covariate values). RESULTS: The trial data showed that fondaparinux is protective against all clinical events observed in the trial. The model showed that: over 180 days, fondaparinux dominates enoxaparin, producing similar estimates of QALYs gained and saving $439; over a patient's lifetime, fondaparinux yields an ICER of $4293/QALY. Based on PSA, the probabilities that fondaparinux dominates enoxaparin (less costly and more effective) and that is cost-effective at a $50,000 threshold were 42 % and 96 %, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In the Canadian hospital setting, fondaparinux is cost-effective when compared to enoxaparin for the treatment of NSTE-ACS. This result holds both in the immediate post-event period and over the lifetimes of patients.

Cost-effectiveness of integrated collaborative care for comorbid major depression in patients with cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Comorbid major depression is associated with reduced quality of life and greater use of healthcare resources. A recent randomised trial (SMaRT, Symptom Management Research Trials, Oncology-2) found that a collaborative care treatment programme (Depression Care for People with Cancer, DCPC) was highly effective in treating depression in patients with cancer. This study aims to estimate the cost-effectiveness of DCPC compared with usual care from a health service perspective. METHODS: Costs were estimated using UK national unit cost estimates and health outcomes measured using quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Incremental cost-effectiveness of DCPC compared with usual care was calculated and scenario analyses performed to test alternative assumptions on costs and missing data. Uncertainty was characterised using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. The probability of DCPC being cost-effective was determined using the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's (NICE) cost-effectiveness threshold range of £ 20,000 to £ 30,000 per QALY gained. RESULTS: DCPC cost on average £ 631 more than usual care per patient, and resulted in a mean gain of 0.066 QALYs, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £ 9549 per QALY. The probability of DCPC being cost-effective was 0.9 or greater at cost-effectiveness thresholds above £ 20,000 per QALY for the base case and scenario analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with usual care, DCPC is likely to be cost-effective at the current thresholds used by NICE. This study adds to the weight of evidence that collaborative care treatment models are cost-effective for depression, and provides new evidence regarding their use in specialist medical settings.

Individual patient data network meta-analysis of mortality effects of implantable cardiac devices.

OBJECTIVE: Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD), cardiac resynchronisation therapy pacemakers (CRT-P) and the combination therapy (CRT-D) have been shown to reduce all-cause mortality compared with medical therapy alone in patients with heart failure and reduced EF. Our aim was to synthesise data from major randomised controlled trials to estimate the comparative mortality effects of these devices and how these vary according to patients' characteristics. METHODS: Data from 13 randomised trials (12 638 patients) were provided by medical technology companies. Individual patient data were synthesised using network meta-analysis. RESULTS: Unadjusted analyses found CRT-D to be the most effective treatment (reduction in rate of death vs medical therapy: 42% (95% credible interval: 32-50%), followed by ICD (29% (20-37%)) and CRT-P (28% (15-40%)). CRT-D reduced mortality compared with CRT-P (19% (1-33%)) and ICD (18% (7-28%)). QRS duration, left bundle branch block (LBBB) morphology, age and gender were included as predictors of benefit in the final adjusted model. In this model, CRT-D reduced mortality in all subgroups (range: 53% (34-66%) to 28% (-1% to 49%)). Patients with QRS duration ≥150 ms, LBBB morphology and female gender benefited more from CRT-P and CRT-D. Men and those <60 years benefited more from ICD. CONCLUSIONS: These data provide estimates for the mortality benefits of device therapy conditional upon multiple patient characteristics. They can be used to estimate an individual patient's expected relative benefit and thus inform shared decision making. Clinical guidelines should discuss age and gender as predictors of device benefits.

Modelling the cost-effectiveness of public awareness campaigns for the early detection of non-small-cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Survival rates in lung cancer in England are significantly lower than in many similar countries. A range of Be Clear on Cancer (BCOC) campaigns have been conducted targeting lung cancer and found to improve the proportion of diagnoses at the early stage of disease. This paper considers the cost-effectiveness of such campaigns, evaluating the effect of both the regional and national BCOC campaigns on the stage distribution of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) at diagnosis. METHODS: A natural history model of NSCLC was developed using incidence data, data elicited from clinical experts and model calibration techniques. This structure is used to consider the lifetime cost and quality-adjusted survival implications of the early awareness campaigns. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in terms of additional costs per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained are presented. Two scenario analyses were conducted to investigate the role of changes in the 'worried-well' population and the route of diagnosis that might occur as a result of the campaigns. RESULTS: The base-case theoretical model found the regional and national early awareness campaigns to be associated with QALY gains of 289 and 178 QALYs and ICERs of £13 660 and £18 173 per QALY gained, respectively. The scenarios found that increases in the 'worried-well' population may impact the cost-effectiveness conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: Subject to the available evidence, the analysis suggests that early awareness campaigns in lung cancer have the potential to be cost-effective. However, significant additional research is required to address many of the limitations of this study. In addition, the estimated natural history model presents previously unavailable estimates of the prevalence and rate of disease progression in the undiagnosed population.

What is the quality of economic evaluations of non-drug therapies? A systematic review and critical appraisal of economic evaluations of radiotherapy for cancer.

BACKGROUND: Breast, cervical and colorectal cancers are the three most frequent cancers in women, while lung, prostate and colorectal cancers are the most frequent in men. Much attention has been given to the economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals for treatment of cancer by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in the UK and similar authorities internationally, while economic analysis developed for other types of anti-cancer interventions, including radiotherapy and surgery, are less common. OBJECTIVES: Our objective was to review methods used in published cost-effectiveness studies evaluating radiotherapy for breast, cervical, colorectal, head and neck and prostate cancer, and to compare the economic evaluation methods applied with those defined in the guidelines used by the NICE technology appraisal programme. METHODS: A systematic search of seven databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CDSR, NHSEED, HTA, DARE, EconLit) as well as research registers, the NICE website and conference proceedings was conducted in July 2012. Only economic evaluations of radiotherapy interventions in individuals diagnosed with cancer that included quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) or life-years (LYs) were included. Included studies were appraised on the basis of satisfying essential, preferred and UK-specific methods requirements, building on the NICE Reference Case for economic evaluations and on other methods guidelines. RESULTS: A total of 29 studies satisfied the inclusion criteria (breast 14, colorectal 2, prostate 10, cervical 0, head and neck 3). Only two studies were conducted in the UK (13 in the USA). Among essential methods criteria, the main issue was that only three (10%) of the studies used clinical-effectiveness estimates identified through systematic review of the literature. Similarly, only eight (28%) studies sourced health-related quality-of-life data directly from patients with the condition of interest. Other essential criteria (e.g. clear description of comparators, patient group indication and appropriate time horizon) were generally fulfilled, while most of the UK-specific requirements were not met. CONCLUSION: Based on this review there is a dearth of up-to-date, robust evidence on the cost effectiveness of radiotherapy in cancer suitable to support decision making in the UK. Studies selected did not fully satisfy essential method standards currently recommended by NICE.

Long-term cost-effectiveness analysis of endovascular versus open repair for abdominal aortic aneurysm based on four randomized clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: A number of published economic evaluations of elective endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) versus open repair for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) have come to differing conclusions about whether EVAR is cost-effective. This paper reviews the current evidence base and presents up-to-date cost-effectiveness analyses in the light of results of four randomized clinical trials: EVAR-1, DREAM, OVER and ACE. METHODS: Markov models were used to estimate lifetime costs from a UK perspective and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) based on the results of each of the four trials. The outcomes included in the model were: procedure costs, surveillance costs, reintervention costs, health-related quality of life, aneurysm-related mortality and other-cause mortality. Alternative scenarios about complications, reinterventions and deaths beyond the trial were explored. RESULTS: Models based on the results of the EVAR-1, DREAM or ACE trials did not find EVAR to be cost-effective at thresholds used in the UK (up to £30,000 per QALY). EVAR seemed cost-effective according to models based on the OVER trial. These results seemed robust to alternative model scenarios about events beyond the trial intervals. CONCLUSION: These analyses did not find that EVAR is cost-effective compared with open repair in the long term in trials conducted in European centres. EVAR did appear to be cost-effective based on the OVER trial, conducted in the USA. Caution must be exercised when transferring the results of economic evaluations from one country to another.

The cost effectiveness of ivabradine in the treatment of chronic heart failure from the U.K. National Health Service perspective.

OBJECTIVE: Ivabradine, a specific heart rate lowering therapy, has been shown in a randomised placebo-controlled study, Systolic HF Treatment with the If Inhibitor Ivabradine Trial (SHIfT), to significantly reduce the composite end point of cardiovascular death and hospitalisation for worsening heart failure (HF) in patients with systolic HF who are in sinus rhythm and with a heart rate ≥70 bpm, when added to optimised medical therapy (HR: 0.82, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.90, p<0.0001). We assessed the cost effectiveness of ivabradine, from a UK National Health Service perspective, based on the results of SHIfT. METHODS: A Markov model estimated the cost effectiveness of ivabradine compared with standard care for two cohorts of patients with HF (heart rate ≥75 bpm in line with the EU labelled indication; and heart rate ≥70 bpm in line with the SHIfT study population). Modelled outcomes included death, hospitalisation, quality of life and New York Heart Association class. Total costs and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) for ivabradine and standard care were estimated over a lifetime horizon. RESULTS: The incremental cost per additional QALY for ivabradine plus standard care versus standard care has been estimated as £8498 for heart rate ≥75 bpm and £13 764 for heart rate ≥70 bpm. Ivabradine is expected to have a 95% chance of being cost-effective in the EU licensed population using the current National Institute for Health and Care Excellence cost effectiveness threshold of £20 000 per QALY. These results were robust in sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: This economic evaluation suggests that the use of ivabradine is likely to be cost-effective in eligible patients with HF from a UK National Health Service perspective.

Cost-effectiveness of combining systematic identification and treatment of co-morbid major depression for people with chronic diseases: the example of cancer.

BACKGROUND: Co-morbid major depression occurs in approximately 10% of people suffering from a chronic medical condition such as cancer. Systematic integrated management that includes both identification and treatment has been advocated. However, we lack information on the cost-effectiveness of this combined approach, as published evaluations have focused solely on the systematic (collaborative care) treatment stage. We therefore aimed to use the best available evidence to estimate the cost-effectiveness of systematic integrated management (both identification and treatment) compared with usual practice, for patients attending specialist cancer clinics. METHOD: We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis using a decision analytic model structured to reflect both the identification and treatment processes. Evidence was taken from reviews of relevant clinical trials and from observational studies, together with data from a large depression screening service. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were undertaken to determine the effects of variations in depression incidence rates, time horizons and patient characteristics. RESULTS: Systematic integrated depression management generated more costs than usual practice, but also more quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was £11,765 per QALY. This finding was robust to tests of uncertainty and variation in key model parameters. CONCLUSIONS: Systematic integrated management of co-morbid major depression in cancer patients is likely to be cost-effective at widely accepted threshold values and may be a better way of generating QALYs for cancer patients than some existing medical and surgical treatments. It could usefully be applied to other chronic medical conditions.