Cost-effectiveness of population-based screening for microalbuminuria in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus in India.

OBJECTIVES: Patients with diabetes have a higher risk of developing chronic kidney disease (CKD). Early detection of CKD through microalbuminuria screening, followed by treatment, delays the progression of CKD. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of population-based screening of microalbuminuria among normotensive type 2 diabetes mellitus patients aged >40 years compared with no screening scenario using a decision tree combined with the Markov model. METHODS: We considered two scenarios: Scenario I - dipstick microalbuminuria followed by spot-urine albumin-creatinine ratio (ACR) and serum creatinine in sequence; Scenario II - spot urine ACR plus serum creatinine. A mathematical cohort of the target population was simulated over a lifetime horizon with an annual cycle. Data for the model were obtained from secondary resources. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated for screening scenarios compared to nonscreening scenario, along with sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: The discounted ICER per quality-adjusted life years gained for annual microalbuminuria screening in the normotensive diabetic population in India were ₹ 24,114 (US$ 308) and ₹ 13,790 (US$ 176) for scenarios I and II, respectively. Annual screening by scenarios I and II resulted in a reduction of 180 and 193 end-stage renal disease (ESRD) cases per 100,000 population, respectively, resulting in a cost saving of ₹ 12.3 and 13.3 Crore spent on ESRD management over 10 years. Both scenarios were also cost-effective even at the screening frequencies of 5 and 10 yearly. CONCLUSION: Microalbuminuria screening was cost-effective at the threshold of one-time GDP per capita in India.

Cost Effectiveness of Ribociclib and Palbociclib in the Second-Line Treatment of Hormone Receptor-Positive, HER2-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer in Post-Menopausal Indian Women.

BACKGROUND: In this study, we evaluate the cost and outcomes of cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i) plus fulvestrant, fulvestrant alone, and conventional chemotherapy as the second-line therapy for hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) metastatic breast cancer (MBC) in India. METHODS: Using a Markov model, the clinical effectiveness of managing HR+, HER2- MBC in postmenopausal women with either a CDK4/6i (either ribociclib or palbociclib) and fulvestrant, fulvestrant alone, and chemotherapy (single-agent paclitaxel or capecitabine) was measured in terms of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The costs were estimated from two different points of view: scenario I, as per the prevailing market prices of the drugs; and scenario II, as per the reimbursement rates set up by the publicly financed national health insurance scheme. Incremental cost per QALY gained with a given treatment option was compared against the next best alternative and was assessed for cost effectiveness using a threshold of 1-time the per capita gross domestic product (GDP) in India from a societal perspective. RESULTS: In scenario I, an MBC patient was found to incur a lifetime cost of Indian Rupees (₹) 2.54 million ($34,644), ₹2.53 million ($34,496), ₹512,598 ($6,984), ₹326,026 ($4,442) and ₹237,115 ($3,230) for the ribociclib and palbociclib combination arms, fulvestrant monotherapy, single-agent paclitaxel and the single-agent capecitabine treatment arms, respectively. The lifetime cost for CDK4/6i (ribociclib and palbociclib) combination therapy, fulvestrant monotherapy, paclitaxel, and capecitabine arms was estimated to be ₹1.94 million ($26,459), ₹1.92 million ($26,220), ₹315,387 ($4,296), ₹187,392 ($2,553) and ₹153,263 ($2,088), respectively, in scenario II. The mean QALYs lived per MBC patient with CDK4/6i (either ribociclib or palbociclib) combination therapy, fulvestrant, paclitaxel and capecitabine were estimated to be 1.4, 1.0, 0.9 and 0.7, respectively. None of the treatment arms are cost effective at current prices and reimbursement rates at a threshold of 1-time the per capita GDP of India. However, a 78% reduction in the current market price or a 72% reduction in the reimbursement rate of fulvestrant in the government-funded insurance program will make it a cost-effective treatment option for HR+, HER2- MBC patients in India. CONCLUSION: CDK4/6i (ribociclib and palbociclib) therapy is not a cost-effective treatment option for MBC patients. A 72% reduction in the reimbursement rate for fulvestrant monotherapy will make it a cost-effective treatment option in the Indian context.

Cost Effectiveness of Bevacizumab Plus Chemotherapy for the Treatment of Advanced and Metastatic Cervical Cancer in India-A Model-Based Economic Analysis.

PURPOSE: Patients with advanced and metastatic cervical cancer have a poor prognosis with a 1-year survival rate of 10%-15%. Recently, an antiangiogenic humanized monoclonal antibody bevacizumab has shown to improve the survival of these patients. This study was designed to assess the cost effectiveness of incorporating bevacizumab with standard chemotherapy for the treatment of patients with advanced and metastatic cervical cancer in India. METHODS: Using a disaggregated societal perspective and lifetime horizon, a Markov model was developed for estimating the costs and health outcomes in a hypothetical cohort of 1,000 patients with advanced and metastatic cervical cancer treated with either standard chemotherapy alone or in combination with bevacizumab. Effectiveness data for each of the treatment regimen were assessed using estimates from Gynecologic Oncology Group 240 trial. Data on disease-specific mortality in metastatic cervical cancer, health system cost, and out-of-pocket expenditure were derived from Indian literature. Multivariable probabilistic sensitivity analysis was undertaken to account for parameter uncertainty. RESULTS: Over the lifetime of one patient with advanced and metastatic cervical cancer, bevacizumab along with standard chemotherapy results in a gain of 0.275 (0.052-0.469) life-years (LY) and 0.129 (0.032-0.218) quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), at an additional cost of $3,816 US dollars (USD; 2,513-5,571) compared with standard chemotherapy alone. This resulted in an incremental cost of $19,080 USD (7,230-52,434) per LY gained and $34,744 USD (15,782-94,914) per QALY gained with the use of bevacizumab plus standard chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: Addition of bevacizumab to the standard chemotherapy is not cost effective for the treatment of advanced and metastatic cervical cancer in India at a threshold of 1-time per-capita gross domestic product.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis and Decision Modelling: A Tutorial for Clinicians.

Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) provides information on how much extra do we need to spend per unit gain in health outcomes with introduction of any new healthcare intervention or treatment as compared to the alternative. This information is crucial to make decision regarding funding any new drug, diagnostic test or determining standard treatment protocol. It becomes even more important to consider this evidence in resource constrained low-income and middle-income country settings. Generating evidence on costs and consequences of a treatment or intervention could be performed in the setting of a randomized controlled trial, which is the perfect platform to evaluate efficacy or effectiveness. However, we argue that randomized controlled trial (RCT) offers an incomplete setting to generate comprehensive data on all costs and consequences for the purpose of a CEA. Hence, it is needed to use a decision model, either in combination with the evidence from RCT or alone. In this article, we demonstrate the application of decision model-based economic evaluation using 2 separate techniques - a decision tree and a Markov model. We argue that application of a decision model allows computation of health benefits in terms of utility-based measure such as a quality-adjusted life year or disability-adjusted life year which is preferred for a CEA, measure distal costs and consequences which are much more downstream to the application of intervention, allows comparison with multiple intervention and comparators, and provides opportunity of making use of evidence from multiple sources rather than a single RCT which may have limited generalizability. This makes the use of such evidence much more acceptable for clinical use and policy relevant.