Show Me the Money: Patients' Perspectives on a Decision Aid for Sacubitril/Valsartan Addressing Out-of-Pocket Cost.

BACKGROUND: Out-of-pocket medication costs for patients who have heart failure with reduced ejection fraction may be an important part of shared decision-making, but cost has generally been excluded from clinical discussions. This study reports patients' perspectives on a decision aid for sacubitril/valsartan that explicitly addresses out-of-pocket costs. METHODS: Structured, in-depth interviews were conducted with 20 patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction from 2 medical centers to elicit their views on a publicly available decision aid for sacubitril/valsartan that explicitly incorporates considerations related to out-of-pocket costs. Qualitative descriptive analysis was conducted. RESULTS: Key themes identified were general enthusiasm for decision aids for medication decisions, openness on the part of patients to incorporation of cost into decision-making and the decision aid, requests for greater specificity regarding patient-specific cost, and challenges communicating evidence of benefit in a way that allows patients to make cost-benefit analyses for themselves. Patients also raised questions regarding logistical challenges of incorporating a decision aid into the normal clinical and decision-making workflow. CONCLUSIONS: Patients were receptive to the inclusion of out-of-pocket cost as relevant in a decision aid for sacubitril/valsartan. Key challenges to effective integration of cost in these decisions include developing mechanisms for acquiring reliable patient-specific cost estimates and addressing patients' difficulties (and sometimes skepticism) applying trial evidence to their own situation. In addition, implementation strategies are important to develop to facilitate decision aid integration for routine medical decisions into clinic workflow.

Conflicting Perspectives on the Value of Neprilysin Inhibition in Heart Failure Revealed During Development of a Decision Aid Focusing on Patient Costs for Sacubitril/Valsartan.

BACKGROUND: Despite concerns about rising costs in health care, cost is rarely an issue discussed by patients and clinicians when making treatment decisions in a clinical setting. This study aimed to understand stakeholder perspectives on a patient decision aid (PtDA) meant to help patients with heart failure choose between a generic and relatively low-cost heart failure medication (ACE [angiotensin-converting enzyme] inhibitor or angiotensin II receptor blocker) and a newer, but more expensive, heart failure medication (angiotensin II receptor blocker neprilysin inhibitor). METHODS AND RESULTS: Feedback on the PtDA was solicited from 26 stakeholders including patients, clinicians, and the manufacturer. Feedback was recorded and discussed among development team members until consensus regarding both the interpretation of the data and the appropriate changes to the PtDA was reached. Stakeholders found the PtDA sufficient in clarifying the different treatment options for heart failure. However, patients, physicians, and the manufacturer had different opinions on the importance of highlighting cost in a PtDA. Patients indicated issues of cost were crucial to the decision while physicians and manufacturers expressed that the cost issue was secondary and should be de-emphasized. CONCLUSIONS: The stratified perspectives on the role of cost in medical decision-making expressed by our participants underscore the importance and challenge of having clear, frank discussions during clinic visits about treatment cost and perceived value.

Angiotensin Receptor Neprilysin Inhibitors-2019 Update.

An abundance of new data regarding the use of the novel drug compound sacubitril/valsartan in chronic heart failure (CHF) patients is published every year since the initial publication of the PARADIGM-HF study in 2014. This review summarises the most recent evidence (2019 and onwards) of sacubitril/valsartan in CHF patients as well as provides a critical appraisal of these data. New data are grouped in categories such as real-world data, randomised controlled trials, surrogate end-points, cost-effectiveness, use of sacubitril/valsartan as an anti-hypertensive treatment, effect on diuretic dosing and implementation of this novel compound in other populations. This review of recent literature identified important messages such as early initiation during index hospitalisation or immediately post-discharge, barriers against implementation of this novel treatment modality, analytical issues regarding measuring natriuretic peptides in patients under treatment and extrapolated use of sacubitril/valsartan in other than PARADIGM-HF populations. This update may serve as a very helpful evidence-based resource for practising clinicians, future research planning and health-related policy makers.

Curing Chronic Hepatitis C: A Cost Comparison of the Combination Simeprevir Plus Sofosbuvir vs. Protease-Inhibitor-Based Triple Therapy

ABSTRACT Introduction. Interferon-free, multi-direct acting antiviral (DAA) therapy for chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is highly effective and well tolerated, but costly. To gain perspective on the evolving economics of HCV therapy, we compared the cost per cure of a multi-DAA regimen with the prior standard of triple therapy. Material and methods. Patients infected with HCV genotype 1 who were treated through the University of Colorado Hepatology Clinic between May 2011 and December 2014 comprised the study population. The multi-DAA regimen of simeprevir plus sofosbuvir (SMV/SOF) was compared to the triple therapy regimen consisting of peginterferon and ribavirin, with either boceprevir or telaprevir (TT). Sustained-virologic response (SVR) rates, total costs per treatment and adverse events were recorded. Total cost per SVR were compared for the two treatments, controlling for patient demographics and clinical characteristics. Results. One hundred eighty-three patients received SMV/SOF (n = 70) or TT (n = 113). Patients receiving SMV/SOF were older, more treatment experienced, and had a higher stage of fibrosis. SVRs were 86% and 59%, average total costs per patient were $152,775 and $95,943, and average total costs per SVR were $178,237 vs. $161,813.49 for SMV/SOF and TT groups, respectively. Medication costs accounted for 98% of SMV/SOF and 85% of TT treatment costs. Conclusion. The high cure rate of multi-DAA treatment of HCV is offset by the high costs of the DAAs, such that the cost per cure from TT to multi-DAA therapy has been relatively constant. In order to cure more patients, either additional financial resources will need to be allocated to the treatment of HCV or drug costs will need to be reduced.

New protease inhibitors for the treatment of chronic hepatitis C: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Chronic hepatitis C virus is difficult to treat and affects approximately 3 million Americans. Protease inhibitors increase the effectiveness of standard therapy, but they are costly. A genetic assay may identify patients most likely to benefit from this treatment advance. OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of new protease inhibitors and an interleukin (IL)-28B genotyping assay for treating chronic hepatitis C virus. DESIGN: Decision-analytic Markov model. DATA SOURCES: Published literature and expert opinion. TARGET POPULATION: Treatment-naive patients with chronic, genotype 1 hepatitis C virus monoinfection. TIME HORIZON: Lifetime. PERSPECTIVE: Societal. INTERVENTION: Strategies are defined by the use of IL-28B genotyping and type of treatment (standard therapy [pegylated interferon with ribavirin]; triple therapy [standard therapy and a protease inhibitor]). Interleukin-28B-guided triple therapy stratifies patients with CC genotypes to standard therapy and those with non-CC types to triple therapy. OUTCOME MEASURES: Discounted costs (in 2010 U.S. dollars) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs); incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS: For patients with mild and advanced fibrosis, universal triple therapy reduced the lifetime risk for hepatocellular carcinoma by 38% and 28%, respectively, and increased quality-adjusted life expectancy by 3% and 8%, respectively, compared with standard therapy. Gains from IL-28B-guided triple therapy were smaller. If the protease inhibitor costs $1100 per week, universal triple therapy costs $102,600 per QALY (mild fibrosis) or $51,500 per QALY (advanced fibrosis) compared with IL-28B-guided triple therapy and $70,100 per QALY (mild fibrosis) and $36,300 per QALY (advanced fibrosis) compared with standard therapy. RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: Results were sensitive to the cost of protease inhibitors and treatment adherence rates. LIMITATION: Data on the long-term comparative effectiveness of the new protease inhibitors are lacking. CONCLUSION: Both universal triple therapy and IL-28B-guided triple therapy are cost-effective when the least-expensive protease inhibitor are used for patients with advanced fibrosis. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Stanford University.

Imipenem/cilastatin versus piperacillin/tazobactam plus amikacin for empirical therapy in febrile neutropenic patients: results of the COSTINE study.

BACKGROUND: Combinations of beta-lactams plus aminoglycosides have become standard therapy for suspected infections in patients with profound neutropenia. However, it is not clear whether such combinations are advantageous over therapy with a broad-spectrum antibiotic. OBJECTIVE: To assess the clinical effectiveness and the cost-effectiveness ratio of empirical therapy of febrile neutropenia with imipenem/cilastatin (I/C) versus piperacillin/tazobactam plus amikacin (P/T+A). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Prospective, multicenter observational study with 2 matched parallel cohorts treated with I/C (500 mg/6 h iv) or P/T+A (P/T: 4 g/6 h iv; A: 20 mg/kg/day iv). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Therapeutic success was defined as the resolution of fever following > or = 7 days of unchanged antibiotic treatment. An economic comparison was conducted focusing on the daily treatment costs, and the management of its toxicity. RESULTS: There were 343 eligible patients (180 I/C, 163 P/T+A), of whom 290 were evaluable for the primary clinical effectiveness analysis. Follow-up information beyond 7 days of study inclusion was only available for 52% of all evaluable patients. Treatment success was observed in 42% of I/C patients compared with 31% of P/T+A patients (95% CI: -0.01, 21.4). The incidence of drug-related adverse experiences was 13% for I/C and 6% for P/T+A, with no differences in moderate or severe adverse experiences nor in those causing discontinuation of antibiotic therapy. Treatment costs were 189.55 euros (95% CI: 127.46-251.46) lower per episode of febrile neutropenia for patients treated with I/C. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical effectiveness of I/C was similar to that of P/T+A. In both treatment groups toxicity was low and did not limit antibiotic therapy. Resource consumption was lower with I/C.

Empiric carbapenem monotherapy in pediatric bone marrow transplant recipients.

OBJECTIVE: To determine which carbapenem (imipenem/cilastatin or meropenem) was the preferable empiric antibiotic monotherapy in pre-engrafted pediatric bone marrow transplant (BMT) patients in terms of patient tolerance, therapeutic efficacy, and cost. METHODS: We prospectively analyzed 16 pediatric BMT patients who received meropenem, and retrospectively analyzed 16 matched patients who had received imipenem/cilastatin for BMT procedures during the prior 2-year period. We evaluated the patients for evidence of bacterial infection, necessity for concurrent antibiotics, vomiting episodes, duration of concurrent total parenteral nutrition (TPN), and cost of therapy. RESULTS: We found no differences in the number of culture proven or clinically suspected breakthrough bacterial infections or the need for concurrent additional antibiotics between the groups. Our analysis found that patients who received meropenem experienced significantly less vomiting than those in the imipenem/cilastatin cohort. Our data showed both direct and indirect cost savings for the meropenem group. The statistical and clinical differences in the number of vomiting episodes between these groups impacted other aspects of patient care, antiemetic use, and TPN duration. CONCLUSIONS: By switching to meropenem, we reduced the cost of antiemetic therapy per patient treatment course, and also showed a trend toward reduced duration of TPN. We found that meropenem provided both clinical and fiscal advantages over imipenem/cilastatin as empiric antibiotic monotherapy in neutropenic pediatric BMT patients.

Cost-effectiveness study of imipenem/cilastatin versus meropenem in intra-abdominal infections.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of two carbapenems, imipenem/cilastatin (I/C, 1.5 g daily) versus meropenem (3 g daily) in intra-abdominal infections was assessed in a recent multicenter randomized clinical trial. The aim of this article is to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis as in real-world practice according to the findings of this clinical trial. METHODS: A decision tree was used to estimate the clinical outcomes and direct costs of treating intra-abdominal infections using the two carbapenems from the perspective of the Italian National Health Service (INHS) or a private insurance company (PIC). RESULTS: In a population of 30,000 patients with intra-abdominal infections in Italy, it was estimated that 97 potential deaths/year could be avoided if these patients were treated with I/C versus meropenem. In addition, from the perspective of INHS, the total costs of treatment were estimated as ITL 106,874 million and 134,042 million for I/C and meropenem, respectively. In favor of the PIC point of view, the total costs were estimated as ITL 110,500 million and 135,899 million for I/C and meropenem, respectively. CONCLUSION: The treatment of intra-abdominal infections with I/C is shown to be more effective (97 deaths avoided/year) and less costly than with meropenem (with a saving of ITL 27,168 and 25,399 million/year for INHS and PIC, respectively).