Erratum: Cost-effectiveness of everolimus for the treatment of advanced neuroendocrine tumours of gastrointestinal or lung origin in Canada.

[This corrects the article on p. 32 in vol. 25, PMID: 29507481.].

Cost-effectiveness of everolimus for the treatment of advanced neuroendocrine tumours of gastrointestinal or lung origin in Canada.

BACKGROUND: In 2016, everolimus was approved by Health Canada for the treatment of unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic, well-differentiated, non-functional, neuroendocrine tumours (NET) of gastrointestinal (GI) or lung origin in adult patients with progressive disease. This analysis evaluated the cost-effectiveness of everolimus in this setting from a Canadian societal perspective. METHODS: A partitioned survival model was developed to compare the cost per life-year (LY) gained and cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained of everolimus plus best supportive care (BSC) versus BSC alone in patients with advanced or metastatic NET of GI or lung origin. Model health states included stable disease, disease progression, and death. Efficacy inputs were based on the RADIANT-4 trial and utilities were mapped from quality-of-life data retrieved from RADIANT-4. Resource utilization inputs were derived from a Canadian physician survey, while cost inputs were obtained from official reimbursement lists from Ontario and other published sources. Costs and efficacy outcomes were discounted 5% annually over a 10-year time horizon, and sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the robustness of the base case results. RESULTS: Everolimus had an incremental gain of 0.616 QALYs (0.823 LYs) and CA$89,795 resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of CA$145,670 per QALY gained (CA$109,166 per LY gained). The probability of cost-effectiveness was 52.1% at a willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of CA$150,000 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Results of the probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicate that everolimus has a 52.1% probability of being cost-effective at a WTP threshold of CA$150,000 per QALY gained in Canada.

Economic evaluation of everolimus and mycophenolate mofetil versus azathioprine in de novo heart transplantation.

UNLABELLED: Both the proliferation signal inhibitor everolimus (1.5 mg/day) and mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) (3 g/day) have shown superior efficacy versus azathioprine in de novo heart transplantation. The cost-effectiveness of everolimus and MMF versus azathioprine was assessed to 6 months posttransplantation. METHODS: The evaluation was performed from the German health insurance payer perspective. The composite efficacy endpoint in the everolimus trial was death, graft loss/retransplantation, biopsy-proven acute rejection (BPAR) grade>or=3A, rejection with hemodynamic compromise, and loss to follow-up. The composite endpoint in the MMF trial included only death, retransplantation, and BPAR with hemodynamic compromise. To mimic the everolimus endpoint, an estimated number of patients with BPAR>or=3A was added to the MMF trial results, using two mapping scenarios. RESULTS: The incremental 6-month cost versus azathioprine was euro2535 for everolimus and euro3007 for MMF. The absolute reduction in efficacy failure versus azathioprine was 10.4% for everolimus and 9.8% and 10.1% for MMF, respectively, using scenarios 1 and 2. The incremental cost per efficacy failure avoided (ie, the incremental cost versus azathioprine divided by the reduction in efficacy failure) was euro24,457 for everolimus, and euro30,628 and euro29,912 for MMF in scenarios 1 and 2. CONCLUSION: This analysis, based on findings from two clinical trials, suggested that everolimus was more cost-effective than MMF versus azathioprine in the first 6 months after heart transplantation. Data from a head-to-head trial are required to confirm these results.

Retrospective analysis of the health-care costs of bupropion sustained release in comparison with other antidepressants.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the health care costs associated with the treatment of a new episode of depression with bupropion sustained release (SR) rather than with other antidepressants (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors [SSRIs], tricyclic antidepressants [TCAs], and serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors [SNRIs]). METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study based on the private-pay, fee-for-service 1997 and 1998 MEDSTAT MarketScan databases. Individuals were included if they were 18 years of age or older, had an initial prescription for an antidepressant under study with an index prescription date between July 1997 and June 1998, and had a claim for a diagnosis of depression diagnosis within 30 days of the index date. All patients' claims from six months before and after receiving their index antidepressant prescription were examined. Total, outpatient, and pharmacy costs were compared among antidepressant groups using an intent-to-treat analysis with exponential regression models and bootstrapped 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: A total of 1771 patients were included in the study cohort. The mean age was 41.6 years, and 69.5% of subjects were female. Most patients (75%) continued with the index antidepressant during the 6-month follow-up period. Although the drug acquisition cost was lowest for TCAs, total costs were significantly higher for patients treated with TCAs than for those treated with bupropion SR (p < .05). In comparison with bupropion SR, patients initiating therapy with sertraline had significantly higher mental health payments (p < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Initiating treatment of depression with bupropion SR was associated with lower total mental health care costs compared with TCAs and with sertraline. This study reaffirms that formulary and medical decision-makers should consider the overall impact of antidepressant treatment, including but not limited to drug acquisition costs, other health care costs, and drug efficacy and safety.