Cost-Effectiveness and Budget Impact Analysis of Apixaban and Rivaroxaban Versus Warfarin in the Prevention of Stroke in Patients With Non-Valvular Atrial Fibrillation (NVAF) in Iran.

INTRODUCTION: This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of Apixaban and Rivaroxaban, compared to Warfarin, for stroke prevention in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation in Iran. METHOD: A Markov model with a 30-year time horizon was employed to simulate and assess different treatment strategies' cost-effectiveness. The study population comprised Iranian adults with NVAF, identified through specialist consultations, hospital visits, and archival record reviews. Direct medical costs, direct nonmedical, and indirect costs were included. Quality-adjusted life years (QALY) were assessed using an EQ-5D questionnaire. This study utilized a cost-effectiveness threshold of $11 134 per QALY. RESULTS: Apixaban demonstrated superior cost-effectiveness compared to Rivaroxaban and Warfarin. Over 30 years, total costs were lower in the Apixaban and Rivaroxaban groups compared to the Warfarin group ($126.18 and $109.99 vs. $150.49). However, Apixaban showed higher total QALYs gained compared to others (0.134 vs. 0.133 and 0.116). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for comparing Apixaban to Warfarin was calculated at -1332.83 cost per QALY, below the threshold of $11 134, indicating Apixaban's cost-effectiveness. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the findings, with ICER consistently remaining below the threshold. Over 5 years (2024-2028) of Apixaban usage, the incremental cost starts at USD 70 250 296 in the first year and gradually rises to USD 71 770 662 in the fifth year. DSA and PSA were assessed to prove the robustness of the results. CONCLUSION: This study shows that Apixaban is a cost-effective option for stroke prevention in non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients in Iran compared to Warfarin.

Cost-Effectiveness of Ibrutinib for Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Treatment in India: Is Evidence Really at Crossroads?

In recent years, newer drugs, such as ibrutinib, have shown promising improvements in the survival of patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). Despite their effectiveness, concerns about their cost have arisen, prompting the need for an evaluation of their cost-effectiveness. However, recent assessments of ibrutinib's cost-effectiveness for treating CLL in India reveal divergent conclusions. The discord centers on divergent cost-effectiveness thresholds, comparator regimens, cost calculations, and outcome valuation approaches. Such discrepancies affect public health decisions and patient care. The recommendation calls for adherence to methodological guidelines by future studies, fostering consistent findings to empower policy makers and clinicians in leveraging economic evidence for informed decision making in CLL treatment strategies.

The budget impact of adding pralsetinib to a US health plan formulary for treatment of non-small cell lung cancer and thyroid cancer with RET alterations.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in the United States. Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) accounts for 80% to 85% of all lung cancers. Thyroid cancer, while generally not as lethal as lung cancer, has a large prevalent population and a rapidly increasing incidence in the United States. Pralsetinib is a highly potent, selective rearranged during transfection (RET) inhibitor indicated for the treatment of RET-positive NSCLC and thyroid cancer tumors. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the budget impact of adding pralsetinib to a 1 million-member US health plan formulary for the treatment of patients with metastatic RET fusion-positive NSCLC, advanced or metastatic RET-mutant medullary thyroid cancer (MTC), or advanced or metastatic RET fusion-positive thyroid cancer (non-MTC). METHODS: A budget impact model with a 3-year time horizon was developed in Microsoft Excel to estimate the number of eligible RET-positive NSCLC and thyroid cancer patients in a plan and quantify associated treatment costs (2020 USD). Comparators in the analyses included pralsetinib, selpercatinib, and cabozantinib, as well as indication-specific use of pembrolizumab, pemetrexed/carboplatin combination, vandetanib, lenvatinib, and sorafenib. Drug acquisition, molecular testing, treatment monitoring, and adverse event management costs were included to estimate total annual costs and per-member per-month (PMPM) costs in current (without pralsetinib) and potential future market scenarios, where pralsetinib is assumed to split the projected RET inhibitor market share with selpercatinib. The number of treated patients was based on age- and sex-adjusted incidence of disease, the proportion of patients diagnosed with advanced or metastatic disease, and projected RET testing rates. Treatment duration was based on progression-free survival or duration of response data from clinical trials. Medical resources were monetized using standardized sources such as Medicare reimbursement and wholesale acquisition cost (WAC). RESULTS: The model estimated that there would be approximately 6 new treatment-eligible patients in a 1 million-member plan annually. Monthly WAC is $19,243 for pralsetinib and $20,600 for selpercatinib at the recommended starting dose. Adoption of pralsetinib, with corresponding increases in pralsetinib market share, would be slightly cost saving to a payer, decreasing the overall budget impact to the health plan by $49,985 in year 3 (-$0.0042 PMPM; -$0.0030, -$0.0006, and -$0.0005 for NSCLC, MTC, and thyroid cancer [non-MTC], respectively). In year 3, drug costs were the key driver of total costs (~80%-98%) and cost savings. All other medical resource categories were cost-neutral or nominally cost saving or additive in the budget impact analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Quantifying the budget impact associated with the adoption of new targeted precision therapies is an important consideration for payers. For eligible NSCLC and thyroid cancer patients, our analysis suggests that adoption of pralsetinib is expected to result in modest cost savings for US payers. DISCLOSURES: Support for this study was provided by Blueprint Medicines Corporation. This study was conducted by Veritas Health Economics Consulting, Inc., in collaboration with Blueprint Medicines, which was involved in the design of the study; collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data; writing of the report; and the decision to submit the report for publication. Duff is an employee of Veritas Health Economics Consulting, which received research funding from Blueprint Medicines to develop the budget impact model. Norregaard and Sullivan are employees of Blueprint Medicines. Bargiacchi and Brener were employees of Blueprint Medicines at the time of the research study. This study was presented as a poster at the AMCP Virtual Learning Event, April 2021.

Cost-minimization analysis comparing eltrombopag vs romiplostim for adults with chronic immune thrombocytopenia.

BACKGROUND: Promacta (eltrombopag; EPAG) and Nplate (romiplostim; ROMI) have not been compared in head-to-head trials for treatment of chronic immune thrombocytopenia (cITP); however, indirect treatment comparisons have indicated similar efficacy and safety outcomes, and the drugs are generally accepted as therapeutic alternatives. OBJECTIVE: To determine which of the 2 therapies would result in the lowest overall cost from a US health plan perspective, under the assumption of equivalent clinical efficacy and safety. METHODS: A cost-minimization model was developed in Microsoft Excel. The model incorporated only costs that differ between the treatments, including drug acquisition, administration, and monitoring costs, over a 52-week horizon. Average dosing for EPAG and ROMI was taken from the long-term EXTEND trial and from a published metaanalysis of 14 clinical trials, respectively. ROMI is injectable and EPAG is oral, so only ROMI had administration costs. The model assumed patients used 25 mg EPAG tablets and the 250 µg vial size of ROMI. ROMI wastage was included in drug acquisition costs by rounding up average dose to the nearest whole vial. Monitoring requirements were determined from US prescribing information, with platelet monitoring assumed equal, and hepatic panel testing every 4 weeks for EPAG. The model was adjustable to commercial, Medicare, and Medicaid plan perspectives, with optional inclusion of drug wastage, monitoring, or administration costs. RESULTS: The base case used a commercial plan perspective, with average dosing of 51.5 mg/day for EPAG and 4.20 µg/kg/week for ROMI. The analysis found a cost difference per treated patient of $64,770 in favor of EPAG on an annual basis. Breakdown by unique costs for EPAG included drug-acquisition cost of $123,135 and monitoring cost of $705. Breakdown by unique costs for ROMI included drug-acquisition cost of $183,234, with wastage of $63,179 and administration cost of $5,377. Based on a hypothetical commercial plan with 1 million members and an estimated 11 patients with cITP receiving ROMI, potential annual savings for switching all patients from ROMI to EPAG is $712,473 or $0.06 per member per month. EPAG remained the less costly option for all plan types and assumptions. A sensitivity analysis found that the result was most sensitive to drug pricing and wastage inputs. CONCLUSIONS: Because of lower drug-acquisition costs (including drug wastage) and administration costs, treatment of cITP with EPAG is associated with a lower net cost per patient than ROMI. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation. Proudman, Lucas, and Nellesen are employees of Analysis Group, Inc., which received funding from Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation to conduct this study. Patwardhan was employed by Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation at the time of this study; Allen is an employee of Novartis. This research was presented as an e-poster at the AMCP 2020 Virtual, April 2020.

CFTR modulators: transformative therapies for cystic fibrosis.

DISCLOSURES: No funding contributed to the writing of this commentary. Both authors are employed by the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation. The Cystic Fibrosis Foundation has entered into therapeutic development award agreements and licensing agreements to assist with the development of CFTR modulators that may result in intellectual property rights, royalties, and other forms of consideration provided to CFF. Some of these agreements are subject to confidentiality restrictions and, thus, CFF cannot comment on them.

The effectiveness and value of novel treatments for cystic fibrosis.

DISCLOSURES: Funding for this summary was contributed by Arnold Ventures, California Health Care Foundation, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, and Kaiser Foundation Health Plan to the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), an independent organization that evaluates the evidence on the value of health care interventions. ICER's annual policy summit is supported by dues from Aetna, America's Health Insurance Plans, Anthem, Allergan, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Blue Shield of CA, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Cambia Health Services, CVS, Editas, Express Scripts, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Harvard Pilgrim, Health Care Service Corporation, HealthFirst, Health Partners, Johnson & Johnson (Janssen), Kaiser Permanente, LEO Pharma, Mallinckrodt, Merck, Novartis, National Pharmaceutical Council, Pfizer, Premera, Prime Therapeutics, Regeneron, Sanofi, Spark Therapeutics, and United Healthcare. Seidner, Rind, and Pearson are employed by ICER. Tice reports contracts to his institution, University of California, San Francisco, from ICER during the conduct of this study. Wherry has nothing to disclose.

Cost-utility analysis of apixaban compared with usual care for primary thromboprophylaxis in ambulatory patients with cancer.

BACKGROUND: Apixaban (2.5 mg) taken twice daily has been shown to substantially reduce the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) compared with placebo for the primary thromboprophylaxis of ambulatory patients with cancer who are starting chemotherapy and are at intermediate-to-high risk of VTE. We aimed to compare the health system costs and health benefits associated with primary thromboprophylaxis using apixaban with those associated with the current standard of care (where no primary thromboprophylaxis is given), from the perspective of Canada's publicly funded health care system in this subpopulation of patients with cancer over a lifetime horizon. METHODS: We performed a cost-utility analysis to estimate the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained with primary thromboprophylaxis using apixaban. We obtained baseline event rates and the efficacy of apixaban from the Apixaban for the Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism in High-Risk Ambulatory Cancer Patients (AVERT) trial on apixaban prophylaxis. We estimated relative risk for bleeding, risk of complications associated with VTE treatment, mortality rates, costs and utilities from other published sources. RESULTS: Over a lifetime horizon, apixaban resulted in lower costs to the health system (Can$7902.98 v. Can$14 875.82) and an improvement in QALYs (9.089 v. 9.006). The key driver of cost-effectiveness results was the relative risk of VTE as a result of apixaban. Results from the probabilistic analysis showed that at a willingness to pay of Can$50 000 per QALY, the strategy with the highest probability of being most cost-effective was apixaban, with a probability of 99.87%. INTERPRETATION: We found that apixaban is a cost-saving option for the primary thromboprophylaxis of ambulatory patients with cancer who are starting chemotherapy and are at intermediate-to-high risk of VTE.

Budget impact analysis of darolutamide for treatment of nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Darolutamide, a structurally distinct androgen receptor inhibitor approved for the treatment of men with nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC), has been shown to increase metastasis-free survival among men with nmCRPC compared with placebo. This treatment has a novel chemical structure that may also have safety, tolerability, and efficacy advantages for men with nmCRPC. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the projected budget impact of including darolutamide on a U.S. payer formulary as a treatment option for men with nmCRPC. METHODS: A budget impact model was developed to evaluate darolutamide for nmCRPC for a hypothetical 1-million-member plan over a 5-year period. Costs (drug acquisition, drug administration, and treatment-related adverse events [AEs]) were estimated for 2 scenarios: with and without darolutamide treatment for nmCRPC. The budget impact of darolutamide was calculated as the difference in costs for these 2 scenarios. An analysis for high-risk nmCRPC also was conducted. The model included treatments recommended by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (e.g., apalutamide and enzalutamide) and potential comparators that are used but are not specifically indicated for nmCRPC. All treatments were assumed to be administered in combination with a weighted average androgen deprivation therapy comparator (consisting of luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone [LHRH] agonists, LHRH antagonists, and first-generation antiandrogens). Market share estimates were derived from interviews with physicians treating men with nmCRPC. The model includes grade 3-4 AEs, and the rates were obtained from clinical trial data. Costs were taken from publicly available sources and varied in a one-way sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: For a plan with 1 million lives, there were approximately 90 incident cases of nmCRPC (46 high risk) each year, with 332 (109 high risk) treatment-eligible cases by year 5. Darolutamide's market share increased from 3.6% in year 1 to 18% in year 5. Given the utilization of other agents, introducing darolutamide along with other targeted therapies was predicted to increase the total budget by $158,640 ($0.0132 per member per month [PMPM]) in year 1, which decreased over time to a cost savings of $149,240 ($0.0124 PMPM) by year 5. The scenario with darolutamide showed reduced AE costs each year. Similar results were observed for the high-risk nmCRPC population. CONCLUSIONS: Adding darolutamide to a U.S. payer formulary for the treatment of nmCRPC can result in a manageable increase in the budget that is partly offset by AE costs in the first 4 years, followed by a cost savings by year 5. DISCLOSURES: This study was conducted by RTI Health Solutions under the direction of Bayer U.S. and was funded by Bayer U.S., which was involved in the design of the study; collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data; writing of the report; and the decision to submit the report for publication. Miles and Purser (and/or their institutions) are employees of RTI Health Solutions and received research funding from Bayer U.S. to develop the budget impact model. Appukkuttan and Farej are employees of Bayer U.S. Wen was an employee of Bayer U.S. at the time of the study. This study was presented as a poster at the AMCP Virtual Learning Event, April 20-24, 2020.

Financial Implications of Avapritinib for Treatment of Unresectable Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors in Patients With a PDGFRA Exon 18 Variant or After 3 Previous Therapies in a Hypothetical US Health Plan.

Importance: With the approval of avapritinib for adults with unresectable or metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) harboring a platelet-derived growth factor receptor alpha (PDGFRA) exon 18 variant, including PDGFRA D842V variants, and National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline recommendations as an option for patients with GIST after third-line treatment, it is important to estimate the potential financial implications of avapritinib on a payer's budget. Objective: To estimate the budget impact associated with the introduction of avapritinib to a formulary for metastatic or unresectable GISTs in patients with a PDGFRA exon 18 variant or after 3 or more previous treatments from the perspective of a US health plan. Design, Setting, and Participants: For this economic evaluation, a 3-year budget impact model was developed in March 2020, incorporating costs for drug acquisition, testing, monitoring, adverse events, and postprogression treatment. The model assumed that avapritinib introduction would be associated with increased PDGFRA testing rates from the current 49% to 69%. The health plan population was assumed to be mixed 69% commercial, 22% Medicare, and 9% Medicaid. Base case assumptions included a GIST incidence rate of 9.6 diagnoses per million people, a metastatic PDGFRA exon 18 mutation rate of 1.9%, and progression rate from first-line to fourth-line treatment of 17%. Exposures: The model compared scenarios with and without avapritinib in a formulary. Main Outcomes and Measures: Annual, total, and per member per month (PMPM) budget impact. Results: In a hypothetical 1-million member plan, fewer than 0.1 new patients with a PDGFRA exon 18 variant per year and 1.2 patients receiving fourth-line therapy per year were eligible for treatment. With avapritinib available, the total increase in costs in year 3 for all eligible adult patients with a PDGFRA exon 18 variant was $46 875, or $0.004 PMPM. For patients undergoing fourth-line treatment, the total increase in costs in year 3 was $69 182, or $0.006 PMPM. The combined total budget impact in year 3 was $115 604, or $0.010 PMPM, including an offset of $3607 in postprogression costs avoided or delayed. The higher rates of molecular testing resulted in a minimal incremental testing cost of $453 in year 3. Conclusions and Relevance: These results suggest that adoption of avapritinib as a treatment option would have a minimal budget impact to a hypothetical US health plan. This would be primarily attributable to the small eligible patient population and cost offsets from reduced or delayed postprogression costs.

Cost-effectiveness of apixaban for prevention of venous thromboembolic events in patients after gynecologic cancer surgery.

OBJECTIVE: The cost-effectiveness of apixaban was compared with enoxaparin for prevention of postoperative venothromboembolic events (VTE) in gynecologic oncology patients. Current guidelines recommend thromboprophylaxis with low molecular weight heparin for 28 days following gynecologic cancer surgery, but recent trials suggest that oral apixaban may be a safe, patient-preferred alternative. Apixaban was superior to enoxaparin in a Canadian cost-effectiveness analysis using orthopedics trial data. METHODS: Medication costs, adherence rates, event rates, event costs, and utility decrements were estimated using prior clinical trial data and literature review for input into a short-term decision model to simulate outcomes in a hypothetical cohort of 1000 patients. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated as net cost difference per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Input values at which net costs and QALYs were equivalent and ICERs at upper and lower bounds were evaluated. RESULTS: Using aggregated costs, apixaban was less expensive and more effective than enoxaparin, and remained so or had high value in all scenarios on sensitivity analysis. Examining disaggregated ICERs, apixaban was cost-effective for deep venous thrombosis (DVT); of high value for clinically-relevant non-major bleeding (CRNMB) ($411); low value for major bleeding ($183,465), VTE-related death ($2,711,229), and all-cause mortality ($297,522); and not cost-effective for pulmonary embolism prevention. CONCLUSIONS: Apixaban is more cost-effective than enoxaparin for the prevention of postoperative VTE in patients with gynecologic cancer. This appears to be driven largely by DVT and CRNMB prevention.

Comparison of Anticoagulants for Postoperative Atrial Fibrillation After Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: A Pilot Study.

BACKGROUND: Direct-acting oral anticoagulants are indicated for the treatment of nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, but their use in patients after undergoing cardiac surgery is poorly defined despite a high prevalence of postoperative atrial fibrillation in this population. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with postoperative atrial fibrillation were prospectively randomized to warfarin or apixaban. Safety, efficacy, and economic outcomes were evaluated until their 4- to 6-week postoperative appointment. RESULTS: While this pilot study was not powered to determine a difference in safety or efficacy, adverse event rates were similar to the published literature. It was noted that a patient's course of therapy when utilizing apixaban was significantly less costly than warfarin when including medication, bridging, and laboratory expenses. CONCLUSION: Apixaban and warfarin both appeared to be safe and effective for anticoagulation throughout the duration of this pilot study in treating postoperative atrial fibrillation after coronary artery bypass grafting. Apixaban was associated with significantly less expense when bridging and monitoring costs were included in addition to medication expense.

Comparative Clinical and Economic Outcomes Associated with Warfarin Versus Apixaban in the Treatment of Patients with Venous Thromboembolism in a Large U.S. Commercial Claims Database.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE), constituting deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), is a common cause of vascular-related morbidity and mortality, resulting in a significant clinical and economic burden in the United States each year. Clinical guidelines recommend that patients with DVT and PE without cancer should be initiated on anticoagulation therapy with a direct oral anticoagulant over a vitamin K antagonist. Yet there is limited real-world evidence comparing the economic burden of warfarin and apixaban in treating VTE patients in a large commercially insured population. OBJECTIVE: To compare safety and effectiveness of warfarin and apixaban and evaluate associated economic burden in treating VTE patients in a large U.S. commercial health care claims database. METHODS: The PharMetrics Plus database was used to identify oral anticoagulant (OAC)-naive patients aged ≥ 18 years who initiated apixaban or warfarin within 30 days of a qualifying VTE encounter and had continuous health plan enrollment with medical and pharmacy benefits for 6 months before treatment initiation. Apixaban initiators and warfarin initiators were matched using the propensity score matching (PSM) technique. Cox proportional hazard models were used to assess and compare the risk of major bleeding (MB), clinically relevant nonmajor (CRNM) bleeding, and recurrent VTE. Generalized linear models were used to assess and compare the all-cause health care costs. A 2-part model with bootstrapping was used to evaluate MB- and recurrent VTE-related medical costs. RESULTS: Among 25,193 prematched patients, 13,421 (53.3%) were prescribed warfarin and 11,772 (46.7%) were prescribed apixaban. After 1:1 PSM, 8,858 matched warfarin-apixaban pairs were selected with a mean follow-up of 109 days and 103 days, respectively. Warfarin was associated with a significantly higher risk of MB (HR = 1.52, 95% CI = 1.14-2.04), CRNM bleeding (HR = 1.27, 95% CI = 1017.15-1.40), and recurrent VTE (HR = 1.50, 95% CI = 1.24-1.82) compared with apixaban. Warfarin patients had significantly higher all-cause medical costs per patient per month (PPPM; $2,333 vs. $1,992; P = 0.001), MB-related costs PPPM ($112 vs. $65; P = 0.020), and recurrent VTE-related costs PPPM ($287 vs. $206; P = 0.014) compared with apixaban patients. Warfarin patients had similar all-cause total health care costs PPPM ($2,630 vs. $2,420; P = 0.051) compared with apixaban patients. CONCLUSIONS: Warfarin use was associated with a higher risk of MB, CRNM bleeding, and recurrent VTE compared with apixaban. Warfarin use was also associated with higher all-cause medical costs, MB-related medical costs, and recurrent VTE-related costs PPPM compared with apixaban. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Bristol Myers Squibb and Pfizer, which were also involved in the study design, as well as writing and revising of the manuscript. Guo, Rajpura, Okano, and Rosenblatt are employees of Bristol Myers Squibb. Hlavacek, Mardekian, and Russ are employees of Pfizer. Keshishian, Sah, Delinger, and Mu are employees of SIMR, LLC, which received funding from the study sponsors to conduct this study.

The Cost-effectiveness of Eltrombopag for the Treatment of Immune Thrombocytopenia in the United States.

PURPOSE: Eltrombopag was evaluated as a second-line treatment for adult chronic immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) in the 2006 Phase III RAISE (Eltrombopag for Management of Chronic Immune Thrombocytopenia) randomized, placebo-controlled trial. More than 80% of patients reached satisfactory platelet counts within 2 weeks. However, the economic value of eltrombopag as a second-line treatment for ITP remains to be formally assessed. This study aimed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of treating ITP with a comparable thrombopoietin receptor agonist (eltrombopag vs romiplostim). METHODS: A Markov model was implemented over a lifetime time horizon to estimate the benefits and costs of each treatment. The model featured 3 health states based on current guidelines: (1) on treatment; (2) treatment failure/discontinuation; and (3) mortality. In line with therapeutic goals in ITP, model patients could experience 3 events: no bleeding, mild/moderate bleeding, or severe bleeding. Data on eltrombopag use were obtained from an open-label extension of previous Phase II/III trials, including RAISE. Romiplostim data were obtained from Phase III trials and an extension study. Lifetime overall survival was extrapolated by using treatment-specific mortality rates derived from severe bleeding and natural mortality rates. The costs of drugs, routine care, bleeding episodes, adverse events, and mortality were represented in the model. FINDINGS: Eltrombopag-treated patients gained 17.58 life years and 14.68 quality-adjusted life years, whereas romiplostim-treated patients gained 17.52 life years and 14.67 quality-adjusted life years. The total lifetime cost of eltrombopag treatment was estimated at $1.58 million versus $2.13 million for romiplostim. Sensitivity analyses supported base case findings. Deterministic sensitivity analysis predicted the greatest sensitivity to the rates of severe bleeding, discontinuation, and natural mortality. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that eltrombopag would be an efficient use of resources at a $50,000 threshold in 52.8% of cases. In all probabilistic iterations, the total cost of eltrombopag treatment was lower than with romiplostim, primarily because of lower drug costs. IMPLICATIONS: Clinical data were applied in an economic analysis, and eltrombopag exhibited economic dominance compared with romiplostim, driven largely by the reduced costs of primary therapy. This model was limited by a lack of specific patient-level data and robust data on the duration of secondary therapy, as well as by the fact that utilization values are likely conservative estimates for routine care use.

Healthcare resource use and direct costs in severe aplastic anemia (SAA) patients before and after treatment with eltrombopag.

Purpose: This study evaluated healthcare resource utilization (HCRU), and direct costs among severe aplastic anemia (SAA) patients treated with eltrombopag (EPAG) using US claims data.Methods: This retrospective, real-world claims database study identified SAA patients aged ≥2 years treated with EPAG who initiated any SAA treatment between 1 July 2014 and 31 December 2017 (identification period) using the Truven MarketScan databases. A subset of 82 patients treated with EPAG during the identification period were evaluated for all-cause and SAA-related HCRU and direct costs as well as blood transfusion 1 month before EPAG initiation (baseline) and at Month 6 after EPAG initiation (follow-up period).Results: The average patient age was 50.8 (SD = 20.6) years old, predominantly female (n = 43, 52.4%), and had a mean CCI at baseline of 1.1 (SD = 1.7). Hospitalizations, and ER, office, and outpatient visits were significantly lower at Month 6 after EPAG initiation compared with 1 month before EPAG initiation (p < .05 for all four all-cause HCRU and SAA-related hospitalizations). An almost two-fold decrease in reliance on biweekly blood transfusions was observed: 1.0 at weeks 1-2 to 0.5 at Month 6 after EPAG initiation. Although prescription costs (mean [SD]) were significantly higher at Month 6 after EPAG initiation compared with 1 month before EPAG initiation (difference of $11,045 USD [SD = $18,801]), these increases were offset by savings in direct costs. Overall, a mean reduction in total all-cause costs of $29,391 USD [SD = $137,770] was reported at Month 6 after EPAG initiation due to substantial reductions in hospitalization ($40,060 USD [SD = $123,198]) and outpatient visits ($2,043 USD [SD = $25,264]).Conclusion: All-cause and SAA-related HCRU were reduced following EPAG treatment. Prescription costs were higher following treatment; however, these costs were generally offset by reductions in direct costs. These results provide real-world evidence around the role of EPAG in SAA treatment.

Treatment patterns, adverse events, healthcare resource use and costs among commercially insured patients with mantle cell lymphoma in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: There are limited data on treatment patterns, adverse events (AEs), and economic burden in younger, commercially insured patients treated for mantle cell lymphoma (MCL). METHODS: Adults with ≥1 treatment for MCL between 1 November 2013-31 December 2017 were identified from IQVIA Real-World Data Adjudicated Claims-US; index date was first treatment. Patients carried ≥1 MCL diagnosis, were newly treated, and were enrolled continuously for ≥12 months prior to and ≥30 days following index. Patients receiving the four most common MCL regimens were included. Measures included frequency of incident AEs, resource use, and costs overall and by number of AEs. Adjusted logistic regression and generalized linear modeling evaluated risk of hospitalization and all-cause costs per patient per month (PPPM). RESULTS: Two thousand five hundred and nine treated patients had a drug-specific code and were classified to a specific treatment regimen. Of those patients, 1785 patients received at least one of the four most commonly used MCL regimens (R-CHOP, rituximab monotherapy, B-R, and ibrutinib) at some point over follow-up (median 23 months). R-CHOP was the most common regimen observed in the first line (26%), followed by rituximab monotherapy (19%), B-R (15%), and ibrutinib (5%). The median age was 57 years; median Charlson Comorbidity Index was 0. Among patients receiving the four most common regimens, 63% of patients experienced ≥1 incident AE (R-CHOP 77%, B-R 58%, and ibrutinib 52%). An increasing number of incident AEs was associated with increased hospitalization risk (odds ratio = 2.4; 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 2.1-2.7) and increased mean costs PPPM (cost ratio = 1.1; 95% CI 1.1-1.2). DISCUSSION: This is the largest study describing treatment patterns and clinical and economic impact of MCL treatment. The most common regimens were R-CHOP, rituximab monotherapy, B-R, and ibrutinib. The majority of treated patients experienced at least one incident AE, with hospitalization risk and all-cause costs increasing as the number of AEs increased.

Ibrutinib for Treating Relapsed or Refractory Mantle Cell Lymphoma: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

As part of its Single Technology Appraisal process, the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of ibrutinib (Janssen) to submit evidence on the clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of ibrutinib for the treatment of relapsed or refractory (R/R) mantle cell lymphoma (MCL). The School of Health and Related Research Technology Assessment Group at the University of Sheffield was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). The ERG produced a critical review of the evidence contained within the company's submission to NICE. The clinical effectiveness evidence for ibrutinib included one randomised controlled trial comparing ibrutinib and temsirolimus and two single-arm studies. The company's indirect comparison of ibrutinib versus rituximab plus chemotherapy (R-chemo) produced a hazard ratio (HR) for progression-free survival (PFS) of 0.28. The ERG's random effects network meta-analysis (NMA) indicated that the treatment effect on PFS was highly uncertain (HR 0.27; 95% credible interval (CrI) 0.06-1.26). The company's Markov model assessed the cost effectiveness of ibrutinib versus R-chemo for the treatment of R/R MCL from the perspective of the National Health Service (NHS) and Personal Social Services over a lifetime horizon. Based on a re-run of the company's model by the ERG, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for ibrutinib versus R-chemo [including the company's original patient access scheme (PAS)] was expected to be £76,014 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. The ERG had several concerns regarding the company's model structure and the evidence used to inform its parameters. The ERG's preferred analysis, which used the ERG's NMA and the observed Kaplan-Meier curve for time to ibrutinib discontinuation and excluded long-term disutilities for R-chemo, produced ICERs of £63,340 per QALY gained for the overall R/R MCL population and of £44,711 per QALY gained for patients with one prior treatment. Following an updated PAS and consideration of evidence from a later data-cut of the RAY trial, the appraisal committee concluded that the most plausible ICER for the one prior treatment subgroup was likely to be lower than the company's estimate of £49,848 per QALY gained. The company's ICER for the overall R/R MCL population was higher, at £62,650 per QALY gained. The committee recommended ibrutinib as an option for treating R/R MCL in adults only if they have received only one previous line of therapy and the company provides ibrutinib with the discount agreed in the commercial access agreement with NHS England.

Ibrutinib for Treating Waldenström's Macroglobulinaemia: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

As part of its Single Technology Appraisal (STA) process, the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of ibrutinib (Janssen) to submit evidence on the clinical and cost effectiveness of ibrutinib for treating Waldenström's macroglobulinaemia (WM). The School of Health and Related Research Technology Assessment Group at the University of Sheffield was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). The ERG produced a critical review of the evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of ibrutinib based on the company's submission to NICE. The clinical evidence was derived from one phase II, single-arm, open-label study of ibrutinib in adult patients with WM who had received at least one prior therapy (Study 1118E) and an indirect comparison using a matched cohort from a retrospective European chart review of patients receiving various treatments for WM. The indirect comparison suggested a hazard ratio for progression-free survival (PFS) of 0.25 (95% confidence interval 0.11-0.57). The ERG had concerns regarding the high risk of bias in Study 1118E, the limited generalisability of the study, and the absence of randomised controlled trial evidence. The company's Markov model assessed the cost effectiveness of ibrutinib versus rituximab/chemotherapy for patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) WM from the perspective of the National Health Service (NHS) and Personal Social Services (PSS) over a lifetime horizon. Based on the company's original Patient Access Scheme (PAS), the company's probabilistic model generated an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for ibrutinib versus rituximab/chemotherapy of £58,905 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Following a critique of the model, the ERG's preferred analysis, which corrected cost errors and used the observed mortality rate from Study 1118E, generated a probabilistic ICER of £61,219 per QALY gained. Based on this amended model, additional exploratory analyses produced ICERs for ibrutinib that were > £60,000 per QALY gained. Subsequently, the company offered to provide ibrutinib at a price that resulted in ibrutinib being cost effective within the Cancer Drugs Fund (CDF). The Committee recommended ibrutinib for use in the CDF as an option for treating WM in adults who have had at least one prior therapy, only if the conditions in the managed access agreement for ibrutinib are followed.

Cost-effectiveness of ibrutinib as first-line therapy for chronic lymphocytic leukemia in older adults without deletion 17p.

Ibrutinib is a novel oral therapy that has shown significant efficacy as initial treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). It is a high-cost continuous therapy differing from other regimens that are given for much shorter courses. Our objective was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ibrutinib for first-line treatment of CLL in patients older than age 65 years without a 17p deletion. We developed a semi-Markov model to analyze the cost-effectiveness of ibrutinib vs a comparator therapy from a US Medicare perspective. No direct comparison between ibrutinib and the best available treatment alternative, obinutuzumab plus chlorambucil (chemoimmunotherapy), exists. Therefore, we compared ibrutinib to a theoretical treatment alternative, which was modeled to confer the effectiveness of an inferior treatment (chlorambucil alone) and the costs and adverse events of chemoimmunotherapy, which would provide ibrutinib with the best chance of being cost-effective. Even so, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of ibrutinib vs the modeled comparator was $189 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. To reach a willingness-to-pay threshold (WTP) of $150 000 per QALY, the monthly cost of ibrutinib would have to be at most $6800, $1700 less than the modeled cost of $8500 per month (a reduction of $20 400 per year). When the comparator efficacy is increased to more closely match that seen in trials evaluating chemoimmunotherapy, ibrutinib costs more than $262 000 per QALY gained, and the monthly cost of ibrutinib would need to be lowered to less than $5000 per month to be cost-effective. Ibrutinib is not cost-effective as initial therapy at a WTP threshold of $150 000 per QALY gained.