Cost-effectiveness of adding daratumumab or bortezomib to lenalidomide plus dexamethasone for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.

BACKGROUND: Multiple myeloma survival rates are steadily increasing due to availability of new drug classes used in combination with corticosteroids and chemotherapy. The latest treatments are daratumumab or bortezomib in combination therapy with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd). Daratumumab, a CD38-targeted, human IgG1k monoclonal antibody, and bortezomib, a proteasome inhibitor, are both approved as regimens for transplant-ineligible relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). There have been cost-effectiveness analyses for daratumumab and bortezomib use in RRMM, but there are limited data regarding cost-effectiveness for daratumumab or bortezomib use in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients who are ineligible for stem cell transplantation. OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost-effectiveness of 3 separate regimens-(1) daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone triple therapy (DRd); (2) bortezomib and lenalidomide plus dexamethasone triple therapy (VRd); and (3) lenalidomide plus dexamethasone (Rd)-in patients with multiple myeloma ineligible for autologous stem cell transplant. METHODS: A 2-state Markov model was developed using a US health system perspective and lifetime time horizon. Transition probabilities were calculated from the latest progression-free survival data reported in two phase 3 randomized controlled trials-MAIA and SWOG S0777-and extrapolated using a Weibull distribution based on the Hoyle Henley method. National data sources were used to obtain costs in 2019 US dollars, discounted by 3%. Health state utilities from available literature were applied to each health state. Utility decrements for adverse events were individualized in each choice branch with utility decrement weighted by the percentage of patients who experienced the adverse event in the MAIA and SWOG S0777 trials. We assumed a treatment would be cost-effective at a willingness to pay (WTP) of $150,000 per progression-free quality-adjusted life-year ($/PFQALY). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Rd standard therapy had the lowest overall cost at $329,867, followed by VRd at $385,434 and DRd with the highest overall total cost at $626,900. Rd was estimated to result in the least amount (1.24) of PFQALYs, followed by VRd at 1.35 PFQALYs and DRd at 1.52 PFQALYs. With a WTP threshold of $150,000 per PFQALY, VRd was not cost-effective compared with Rd standard therapy, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $530,256 per PFQALY. DRd was not cost-effective compared with VRd (ICER = $1,396,318 per PFQALY), nor as compared with Rd standard therapy (ICER = $1060,832). One-way sensitivity analysis showed that our model was sensitive to cost of DRd, VRd, and Rd drugs. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that only at a WTP threshold of $550,000 was VRd cost-effective for 40% of iterations. There were no reasonable WTP thresholds, up to $800,00, where DRd became more cost-effective than VRd. CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first analysis to directly compare the cost-effectiveness of 3 acceptable chemotherapy treatment regimens for patients with multiple myeloma ineligible for autologous stem cell transplant. Neither DRd nor VRd triple therapy were found to be cost-effective vs Rd. Further cost-effectiveness analyses that include overall survival data for daratumumab and bortezomib triple therapies are needed to demonstrate an ICER in QALYs. DISCLOSURES: No funding was received for this study. At the time of this study, Narsipur was a UCSF-Actelion Clinical Research and Medical Communications Fellow, unrelated to this study. The other authors have nothing to disclose.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of FOLFIRINOX vs gemcitabine with nab-paclitaxel as adjuvant treatment for resected pancreatic cancer in the United States based on PRODIGE-24 and APACT trials.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic cancer is associated with low median overall survival. Combination chemotherapy regimens FOLFIRINOX and gemcitabine with nab-paclitaxel (GemNab) are the new adjuvant treatment standards for resectable pancreatic cancer. PRODIGE-24 and APACT trials demonstrated superior clinical outcomes with FOLFIRINOX and GemNab, each vs gemcitabine monotherapy. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of FOLFIRINOX vs GemNab for resectable pancreatic cancer in adults from the U.S. payer perspective, in order to inform decision makers about which of these treatments is optimal. METHODS: A Markov model with 3 disease states (relapse free, progressive disease, and death) was developed. Cycle length was 1 month, and time horizon was 10 years. Transition probabilities were derived from PRODIGE-24 and APACT survival data. All cost and utility input parameters were obtained from published literature. Cost-effectiveness analysis was performed to obtain total costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), life-years (LYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). A 3% annual discount rate was applied to costs and outcomes. The effect of uncertainty on model parameters was assessed with 1-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA). RESULTS: Our analysis estimated that the cost for FOLFIRINOX was $40,831 higher than GemNab ($99,669 vs. $58,837). Despite increased toxicity, FOLFIRINOX was associated with additional 0.18 QALYs and 0.25 LYs compared with GemNab (QALY: 1.65 vs. 1.47; LY: 2.09 vs. 1.84). The ICER for FOLFIRINOX vs GemNab was $226,841 per QALY and $163,325 per LY. FOLFIRINOX was not cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $200,000 per QALY, and this was confirmed by the PSA. CONCLUSIONS: Total monthly cost for FOLFIRINOX was approximately 1.7 times higher than GemNab. If the WTP threshold increases to or above $250,000 per QALY, FOLFIRINOX then becomes a cost-effective treatment option. DISCLOSURES: This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Half-dose fulvestrant plus anastrozole as a first-line treatment for hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The S0226 trial demonstrated that the combination of half-dose fulvestrant (FUL) and anastrozole (ANA) (F&A) caused a significant improvement in overall survival (OS) versus ANA monotherapy for first-line treatment of postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer (PMW-MBC (HR+)). The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of F&A in the first-line treatment for PMW-MBC (HR+) in China. DESIGN: We constructed a Markov model over a life-time horizon. The clinical outcomes and utility data were obtained from published literature. Cost data were obtained from official Chinese websites. Sensitivity analyses were performed to test result uncertainty. SETTING: Chinese healthcare system perspective. POPULATION: A hypothetical cohort of adult patients presenting with PMW-MBC (HR+). INTERVENTIONS: F&A compared with full-dose FUL and ANAmonotherapy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome of this study was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALY). RESULTS: ANA was estimated to have the lowest cost and minimum life-years. The ICER of F&A versus ANA was US$15 665.891/QALY with incremental cost and QALY of US$12 401.120 and 0.792, respectively, which was less than the willingness-to-pay of US$29 383/QALY. Compared with F&A, FUL yielded a higher cost and a shorter lifetime; hence, it was identified as a dominated strategy. The univariate sensitivity analysis indicated the price of FUL was the most influential factor in our study. The probability that F&A was cost-effective at a threshold of US$29 383/QALY in China was 86.5%. CONCLUSION: F&A is a cost-effective alternative to FUL and ANA monotherapy for the first-line treatment of PMW-MBC (HR+) in China. F&A is a promising first-line treatment for PMW-MBC (HR+), and more research is needed to evaluate the economy of using F&A in other countries.

Evaluation of Cost-Utility of Thoracic Interlaminar Epidural Injections.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Chronic thoracic pain, even though not as prevalent as low back and neck pain, appears in approximately 30% of the general population. The severity of thoracic pain and degree of disability seems to be similar to other painful conditions. Despite this severity, interventions in managing chronic thoracic pain are less frequent, and there is a paucity of literature regarding epidural injections and facet joint interventions. RECENT FINDINGS: As with lumbar and cervical spine, a multitude of interventions are offered in managing chronic thoracic pain, including interventional techniques with epidural injections and facet joint interventions. A single randomized controlled trial (RCT) has been published with a 2-year follow-up of clinical effectiveness of the results. However, there have not been any cost-utility analysis studies pertaining to either epidural injections or facet joint interventions in thoracic pain. Based on the results of the RCT, a cost-utility analysis of thoracic interlaminar epidural injections was undertaken. Evaluation of the cost-utility analysis of thoracic interlaminar epidural injections with or without steroids in managing thoracic disc herniation, thoracic spinal stenosis, and thoracic discogenic or axial pain was assessed in 110 patients with a 2-year follow-up. Direct payment data from 2018 was utilized for procedural costs and indirect costs. Costs, including drug costs, were determined by multiplication of direct procedural payment data by a factor of 1.67 or addition of 40% of cost to accommodate for indirect payments and arrive at overall costs. Cost-utility analysis showed direct procedural cost of USD $1943.19, whereas total estimated costs year per QALY were USD $3245.12.

Cost-effectiveness of a fixed combination of netupitant and palonosetron (NEPA) relative to aprepitant plus granisetron (APR + GRAN) for prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV): a trial-based analysis.

PURPOSE: To assess, from a United States (US) perspective, the cost-effectiveness of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prophylaxis using a single dose of netupitant and palonosetron in a fixed combination (NEPA) versus aprepitant plus granisetron (APR + GRAN), each in combination with dexamethasone, in chemotherapy-naïve patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). METHODS: We analyzed patient-level outcomes over a 5-day post-HEC period from a randomized, double-blind, phase 3 clinical trial of NEPA (n = 412) versus APR + GRAN (n = 416). Costs and CINV-related utilities were assigned to each subject using published sources. Parameter uncertainty was addressed via multivariate probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA). RESULTS: Compared to APR + GRAN, NEPA resulted in a gain of 0.09 quality-adjusted life-days (QALDs) (4.04 vs 3.95; 95% CI -0.06 to 0.25) and a significant total per-patient cost reduction of $309 ($943 vs $1252; 95% CI $4-$626), due principally to $258 in lower medical costs of CINV-related events ($409 vs $668; 95% CI -$46 to $572) and $45 in lower study drug costs ($531 vs $577). In the PSA, NEPA resulted in lower costs and higher QALD in 86.5% of cases and cost ≤ $25,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained in 97.8% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: This first-ever economic analysis using patient-level data from a phase 3 trial comparing neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (NK1 RA) antiemetic regimens suggests that NEPA is highly cost-effective (and in fact cost-saving) versus an aprepitant-based regimen in post-HEC CINV prevention. Actual savings may be higher, as we focused only on the first chemotherapy cycle and omitted the impact of CINV-related chemotherapy discontinuation.

Economic evaluation of olmesartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination for hypertension treatment in China.

Objectives: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of olmesartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination vs olmesartan and amlodipine free combination, amlodipine single drug, and valsartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination in the treatment of hypertensive patients from payer perspective in China.Methods: A Markov model was constructed, which included five health states of hypertensive patients who are aged 35-84 years at baseline and free of cardiovascular disease. Clinical data were obtained from a network meta-analysis. Epidemiology data, adverse events (AEs), cost, and utility data were obtained from the literature. The cost associated with AEs was estimated based on the cost of same symptoms of hypertensive patients in an electric medical record database. The model projected quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained, total costs per patient in a 20-year time horizon, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Probability sensitivity analyses (PSA) and one-way sensitivity analyses were conducted for the main parameters to test the robustness of the model.Results: Compared to olmesartan and amlodipine free combination, amlodipine, and valsartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination, treatment with olmesartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination led to fewer CVD events and deaths; resulted in an incremental cost of ¥-5,439 ($-791.36), ¥6,530 ($950.09), and ¥-1,019 ($-148.26) and gained additional QALYs of 0.052, 0.094, and 0.037 per patient, respectively. Compared with olmesartan and amlodipine free combination and valsartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination, olmesartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination was dominant. Compared with amlodipine alone, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were below the WHO recommended cost-effectiveness threshold, indicating the olmesartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination was a cost-effective option for hypertensive patients in China. The 10-years' time horizon scenario analysis showed similar results to the 20-years' time horizon. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis and one-way sensitivity analyses showed the robustness of the model results.Conclusions: Olmesartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination confers better health outcomes and costs less compared with olmesartan and amlodipine free combination and valsartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination, and is cost-effective compared to amlodipine for hypertension treatment in China.

Intensification of medical management in type 2 diabetes: A real-world look at primary care practice.

AIMS: To determine which drugs were selected to be added to metformin for patients on dual anti-diabetic medication in the management of type 2 diabetes and to assess HbA1c and BMI outcomes at 6 and 12 months after the initiation of a second anti-diabetic medication. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of electronic medical record data. Second line anti-diabetic medication added to metformin between 7/1/2012 to 8/31/2017 in the primary care practice in Fairview Health System in Minnesota. RESULTS: 3413 patients met the selection criteria of type 2 diabetes, 18 years and older, dual anti-diabetes therapy with metformin being the first prescribed. The most frequently prescribed medications added to metformin were sulfonylurea and basal insulin accounting for 51% (1724/3413) and 37% (1268/3413) respectively. Mean HbA1c reductions at 6 and 12 months among 2134 patients with baseline and follow-up HbA1c data respectively were: GLP-1 agonist (-1.3, P < 0.001; -1.2, P < 0.001), sulfonylurea (-1.1, P < 0.001; -0.9, P < 0.001), basal insulin (-1.1, P < 0.001; -1.0, P < 0.001), DPP4 inhibitor (-0.7, P = 0.223; -0.8, P = 0.049). Patients prescribed a GLP-1 agonist had a higher mean baseline BMI (BMI =40.3 kg/m2) and this was the only group with a statistically significant BMI reduction from baseline at 6 and 12 months (-1.5, P = 0.049 and -1.8, P = 0.041). CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: Type 2 diabetes patients treated with sulfonylurea, basal insulin and GLP-1 agonist as an add on to metformin had significant reductions in HbA1c. Patients prescribed a GLP-1 agonist had a significant BMI reduction.

Cost-utility analysis of interferon-free treatments for patients with early-stage genotype 1 hepatitis C virus in Brazil

Abstract INTRODUCTION We conducted a cost-utility analysis of available interferon-free treatments for patients with early-stage genotype 1 chronic hepatitis C based on a Brazilian public health system perspective. METHODS A Markov model was derived using a cohort of stage F0-F2 patients treated as recommended by the Brazilian national guidelines. RESULTS: Glecaprevir plus pibrentasvir was superior to all other treatments, followed by sofosbuvir plus velpatasvir. Sofosbuvir plus daclatasvir was identified as the least cost-effective option. CONCLUSIONS: The above findings were confirmed via probabilistic sensitivity analysis and the tested scenarios.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of metformin with enzalutamide in the metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer setting.

INTRODUCTION: Enzalutamide (Enza) is an effective treatment for metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (mCPRC). However, Enza is not cost-effective (CE) at willingness to pay (WTP) thresholds from $0-$125 000/quality adjusted life years (QALYs) and is therefore a strain on valuable health care dollars. Metformin (Met) is inexpensive (~$8.00/month) and is thought to improve prostate cancer specific and overall survival compared to those not taking Met. We hypothesized that there must be an added effect Met could provide that would make Enza CE thereby alleviating this financial strain on government health care budgets. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We constructed a Markov model and performed a threshold analysis to narrow in on the added effect needed to make such a combination therapy cost-effective at various WTP thresholds. RESULTS: At a WTP threshold of $50 000/QALY Enza + Met is unlikely to be CE unless it increases Enza's efficacy by more than 30%. At a WTP threshold of $100 000, Enza + Met could be CE barring Met adds 18.73% to the efficacy of Enza. CONCLUSIONS: Enza + Met is unlikely to be CE at WTP thresholds less than $100 000/QALY; these results make sense because a therapy that is not CE at these WTP thresholds by itself is unlikely to be CE with an adjuvant therapy that keep a patient on such a treatment for even longer. Finally, our model suggests that the mCRPC setting is not the optimal place to trial adding Met as the relative costs are high and utility values low.

A 2 × 2 factorial, randomised, open-label trial to determine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of hypertonic saline (HTS 6%) and carbocisteine for airway clearance versus usual care over 52 weeks in adults with bronchiectasis: a protocol for the CLEAR clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines for the management of bronchiectasis (BE) highlight the lack of evidence to recommend mucoactive agents, such as hypertonic saline (HTS) and carbocisteine, to aid sputum removal as part of standard care. We hypothesise that mucoactive agents (HTS or carbocisteine, or a combination) are effective in reducing exacerbations over a 52-week period, compared to usual care. METHODS: This is a 52-week, 2 × 2 factorial, randomized, open-label trial to determine the clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of HTS 6% and carbocisteine for airway clearance versus usual care - the Clinical and cost-effectiveness of hypertonic saline (HTS 6%) and carbocisteine for airway clearance versus usual care (CLEAR) trial. Patients will be randomised to (1) standard care and twice-daily nebulised HTS (6%), (2) standard care and carbocisteine (750 mg three times per day until visit 3, reducing to 750 mg twice per day), (3) standard care and combination of twice-daily nebulised HTS and carbocisteine, or (4) standard care. The primary outcome is the mean number of exacerbations over 52 weeks. Key inclusion criteria are as follows: adults with a diagnosis of BE on computed tomography, BE as the primary respiratory diagnosis, and two or more pulmonary exacerbations in the last year requiring antibiotics and production of daily sputum. DISCUSSION: This trial's pragmatic research design avoids the significant costs associated with double-blind trials whilst optimising rigour in other areas of trial delivery. The CLEAR trial will provide evidence as to whether HTS, carbocisteine or both are effective and cost effective for patients with BE. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT number: 2017-000664-14 (first entered in the database on 20 October 2017). ISRCTN.com, ISRCTN89040295. Registered on 6 July/2018. Funder: National Institute for Health Research, Health Technology Assessment Programme (15/100/01). SPONSOR: Belfast Health and Social Care Trust. Ethics Reference Number: 17/NE/0339. Protocol version: v3.0 Final_14052018.

A novel etanercept biosimilar Anbainuo plus methotrexate exhibits increased cost-effectiveness compared to conventional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs in treating rheumatoid arthritis patients.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of Anbainuo (ABN) plus methotrexate (MTX) (ABN + MTX) versus conventional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (cDMARDs) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients.Forty-eight moderate to severe RA patients underwent ABN + MTX or cDMARDs treatment were consecutively enrolled and assigned to ABN + MTX group (n = 26) and control group (n = 22). Patients were followed up and their disease activity and quality of life (QoL) were evaluated at 3rd month, 6th month and 12th month after initiation of treatment. Treatment costs of 2 groups were calculated, then pharmacoeconomic analysis was performed.ABN + MTX increased drug cost and total cost while decreased indirect cost compared with cDMARDs after 12-month treatment. ABN + MTX group gained additional 0.22 quality-adjusted life years (QALY) and yielded an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of ¥104,293.6 per QALY after treatment. Sensitivity analysis reveals that rising ABN price by 20% produced an ICER of ¥130,403.6 per QALY, which was still lower than 3 times of the mean gross domestic product (GDP) per capita during the same period in China (¥165,960). Besides, ABN + MTX was more cost-effective in severe RA patients compared to moderate RA patients.ABN + MTX is cost-effective in treating moderate to severe RA patients compared with cDMARDs, although the total cost of ABN + MTX is relatively higher.

Cost-Effectiveness of Sarilumab Added to Methotrexate in the Treatment of Adult Patients with Moderately to Severely Active Rheumatoid Arthritis Who Have Inadequate Response or Intolerance to Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors.

BACKGROUND: Despite a substantial number of treatment options in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) following tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) inadequate response or intolerance (TNF-IR), a lack of clarity on the optimal approach remains. Sarilumab, a human monoclonal anti-interleukin-6 receptor alpha antibody, can be used as monotherapy or in combination with methotrexate or other conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in TNF-IR patients. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a cost-utility analysis from a U.S. health care system perspective for sarilumab subcutaneous 200 mg + methotrexate versus abatacept + methotrexate or a bundle of TNFi + methotrexate for treatment of adult patients with moderately to severely active RA and TNF-IR. METHODS: Analysis was conducted via individual patient simulation based on patient profiles from the TARGET trial (NCT01709578); a 6-month decision tree was followed by lifetime semi-Markov model with 6-month cycles. Treatment response at 6 months, informed by network meta-analysis, was based on American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20/50/70 criteria; patients achieving ≥ ACR20 continued with current therapy, and other patients moved to the next line of biologic DMARD therapy or conventional synthetic DMARD palliative treatment. Direct costs included wholesale acquisition drug costs and administration and routine care costs. Routine care costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated by predicting the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index score based on treatment response and were imputed from published equations. RESULTS: Sarilumab + methotrexate dominated the TNFi bundle + methotrexate, achieving lower costs ($319,324 vs. $356,096) and greater effectiveness (4.27 vs. 4.15 QALYs), and was on the cost-efficiency frontier with abatacept + methotrexate ($360,211 and 4.29 QALYs). Abatacept + methotrexate was not cost-effective versus sarilumab + methotrexate. Scenario analyses indicated the results were robust; sarilumab + methotrexate became dominant against abatacept + methotrexate after reduced model horizon, minimum response based on ACR50 or ACR70, or time to discontinuation per treatment class. Sarilumab + methotrexate was also dominant versus the TNFi bundle; when class-specific time to treatment discontinuation was specified, sarilumab remained cost-effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $36,894. CONCLUSIONS: Sarilumab + methotrexate can be considered an economically dominant (more effective, less costly) option versus a second TNFi + methotrexate; compared with abatacept + methotrexate, it is a less costly but less effective option for patients with moderately to severely active RA who have previously failed TNFi. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Kiss and Gal are employees of Evidera, which received consulting fees from Sanofi/Regeneron for conducting this study. Muszbek was employed by Evidera at the time of this study. Kuznik and Chen are current employees of and stockholders in Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Fournier is an employee of and stockholder in Sanofi. Proudfoot is a former employee of and current stockholder in Sanofi and current employee and stockholder in ViiV Healthcare/GlaxoSmithKline. Michaud has received grant funding from Pfizer and the Rheumatology Research Foundation. The sponsors were involved in the study design, collection, analysis, and interpretation of data as well as data checking of information provided in the manuscript. The authors had unrestricted access to study data, were responsible for all content and editorial decisions, and received no honoraria related to the development of this publication.

Challenges in the value assessment, pricing and funding of targeted combination therapies in oncology.

BACKGROUND: The use of targeted combination therapy (TCT) is becoming the standard of care in oncology as cancers are attacked through multiple inhibition mechanisms. TCTs pose a budget challenge to health systems and an economic return challenge for companies developing them. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature review to identify challenges specific to TCTs and reviewed publicly available reports by health technology assessment and pricing and reimbursement bodies. We synthesized our findings into a problem map. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Challenges and policy solutions linked to TCTs remain almost fully unexplored; we identified few resources that explicitly addressed TCTs. Contributors to the budget challenge are found at different layers; they and include static willingness-to-pay (WTP) for TCTs and inefficiencies in managing prices of backbone therapies. Economic return challenges are related to payer-imposed restrictions, peculiarities of TCT development, and conflicting incentives of pharmaceutical companies that own constituent therapies. Consequences are delayed or restricted patient access to TCTs, disincentives for research and development, and fewer life years gained. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple issues will lead to the unsustainability of funding systems and possible conflict between stakeholders around access to TCTs. To manage these, new value assessment and attribution methodologies, modified trial designs and differentiated WTP thresholds can be considered in ways that are customized to the characteristics of different health systems.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of sofosbuvir plus ribavirin in patients with genotype 2 chronic hepatitis C: an analysis with real world outcomes from a multicentre cohort in Japan.

OBJECTIVES: A number of publications have demonstrated the cost-effectiveness of sofosbuvir plus ribavirin (SOF+RBV) compared with the former standard therapy with interferon (IFN)-containing regimens. Unlike these cost-effective analyses, where efficacy parameters were obtained from registration trials for drug approval, this analysis is a cost-effectiveness analysis of SOF+RBV for genotype (GT) 2 non-cirrhosis (NC) and compensated cirrhosis (CC) patients using efficacy parameters obtained from a multicentre cohort study (Kyushu University Liver Disease Study; KULDS) in Kyushu area in Japan in order to reflect real-world clinical practice in Japan. METHOD: A Markov model followed 10 000 patients (62 years old) over their lifetime. Four populations were followed: treatment-naïve (TN)-NC, treatment-experienced (TE)-NC, TN-CC and TE-CC. Comparators were Peg-IFNα2b+RBV for TN-NC and CC patients and telaprevir (TVR)+Peg-IFNα2b+RBV for TE-NC patients. The sustained virological response (SVR) rates of SOF+RBV were taken from KULDS and those of comparators were obtained from systematic literature reviews. There were nine states (NC, CC, decompensated cirrhosis [DC], hepatocellular carcinoma [HCC], SVR [NC], SVR [CC], liver transplantation [LT], post-LT and death) in this model, and an increase in the progression rate to HCC due to ageing was also considered. The analysis was conducted from the perspective of a public healthcare payer, and a discount rate of 2% was set for both cost and effectiveness. RESULTS: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of SOF+RBV versus Peg-IFNα2b+RBV were ¥323 928 /quality-adjusted life year (QALY) for TN-NC patients, ¥92 256/QALY for TN-CC patients and ¥1 519 202/QALY for TE-CC patients. The ICER of SOF+RBV versus TVR+Peg-IFNα2b+RBV was ¥849 138/QALY for TE-NC patients. The robustness of the results was determined by sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this analysis strongly demonstrate the robustness of our previous findings that SOF+RBV regimens are cost-effective in the real world and clinical trial settings for Japanese GT2 NC and CC patients.

The Cost-effectiveness of Biological Therapy Cycles in the Management of Crohn's Disease.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the cost-effectiveness of continued treatment for patients with moderate-severe Crohn's disease in clinical remission, with a combination of anti-tumour necrosis factor alpha [anti-TNFα] [infliximab] and immunomodulator therapy compared with two different withdrawal strategies: [1] withdrawal of the anti-TNFα therapy; and [2] withdrawal of the immunomodulator therapy, respectively. METHODS: A decision-tree model was constructed mimicking three treatment arms: [1] continued combination therapy with infliximab and immunomodulator; [2] withdrawal of infliximab; or [3] withdrawal of the immunomodulator. Relapses in each arm are managed with treatment intensification and re-institution of the de-escalated drug according to a prespecified algorithm. State-dependent relapse risks, remission probabilities, and quality of life weights were collected from previous published studies. RESULTS: Combination therapy was less costly and more efficient than the withdrawal of the immunomodulator, and more costly and more efficient than withdrawal of infliximab. Whether or not combination therapy is cost-effective, compared with the alternatives, depends primarily on current pharmaceutical prices and the willingness-to-pay per additional quality-adjusted life-year [QALY]. CONCLUSIONS: Combination therapy using a combination of anti-TNFα [infliximab] and an immunomodulator is cost-effective in the treatment of Crohn's disease compared with treatment cycles in which the immunomodulator is withdrawn. Combination treatment is cost-effective compared with treatment cycles in which infliximab is withdrawn, at prices of infliximab below€192/100 mg, given a willingness-to-pay threshold at€49 020 [Sweden] per additional QALY.

Comparison the cost-efficacy of furazolidone-based versus clarithromycin-based quadruple therapy in initial treatment of Helicobacter pylori infection in a variable clarithromycin drug-resistant region, a single-center, prospective, randomized, open-label study.

Helicobacter pylori (Hp) drug resistant rate to clarithromycin (CLA) has increased to 20% to 50%, which cause concerns regarding its effectiveness in eradicating Hp, we aim to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of CLA-based versus furazolidone (FZD)-based quadruple therapy, and assess factors that affect anti-Hp efficacy.One hundred eighty-five patients were enrolled in this single-center, prospective, randomized, open-label study. In FZD group, 92 patients were treated with FZD plus esomeprazole, bismuth potassium citrate, and amoxicillin for 14 days. In CLA group, 93 patients were treated with the same regimen except FZD was replaced by CLA. Patients were tested 4 weeks post-treatment to confirm eradication.Of the 185 enrolled patients, 180 completed the study. On intention-to-treat analysis, Hp eradication rates in FZD and CLA groups were 90.22% and 86.02% (P = .378); in per-protocol analysis, their eradication rates were 93.26% and 87.91%, respectively (P = .220). Overall incidence of total side effects in FZD and CLA groups was 19.57% and 13.98%, and their severe side effects were 3.26% and 2.15%, respectively (P > .05). Cost-effectiveness ratios of FZD and CLA groups were 0.75 and 1.02, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of FZD group over CLA group was -3.62. Eradication failures were not associated with factors including gender, age, body mass index, smoking, alcohol consumption, educational level, and urban-rural distribution in this observation (P > .05).Despite increasing drug resistance to CLA, Hp eradication rates in FZD and CLA groups have no significant difference at present; as FZD-based quadruple therapy is more cost-effective, we recommend this regimen be a first-line choice for Hp eradication.

Leave no one behind: response to new evidence and guidelines for the management of cryptococcal meningitis in low-income and middle-income countries.

In 2018, WHO issued guidelines for the diagnosis, prevention, and management of HIV-related cryptococcal disease. Two strategies are recommended to reduce the high mortality associated with HIV-related cryptococcal meningitis in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs): optimised combination therapies for confirmed meningitis cases and cryptococcal antigen screening programmes for ambulatory people living with HIV who access care. WHO's preferred therapy for the treatment of HIV-related cryptococcal meningitis in LMICs is 1 week of amphotericin B plus flucytosine, and the alternative therapy is 2 weeks of fluconazole plus flucytosine. In the ACTA trial, 1-week (short course) amphotericin B plus flucytosine resulted in a 10-week mortality of 24% (95% CI -16 to 32) and 2 weeks of fluconazole and flucytosine resulted in a 10-week mortality of 35% (95% CI -29 to 41). However, with widely used fluconazole monotherapy, mortality because of HIV-related cryptococcal meningitis is approximately 70% in many African LMIC settings. Therefore, the potential to transform the management of HIV-related cryptococcal meningitis in resource-limited settings is substantial. Sustainable access to essential medicines, including flucytosine and amphotericin B, in LMICs is paramount and the focus of this Personal View.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Bezlotoxumab Added to Standard of Care Versus Standard of Care Alone for the Prevention of Recurrent Clostridium difficile Infection in High-Risk Patients in Spain.

INTRODUCTION: Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) is the major cause of infectious nosocomial diarrhoea and is associated with considerable morbidity, mortality and economic impact. Bezlotoxumab administered in combination with standard of care (SoC) antibiotic therapy prevents recurrent CDI. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of bezlotoxumab added to SoC, compared to SoC alone, to prevent the recurrence of CDI in high-risk patients from the Spanish National Health System perspective. METHODS: A Markov model was used to simulate the natural history of CDI over a lifetime horizon in five populations of patients at high risk of CDI recurrence according to MODIFY trials: (1) ≥ 65 years old; (2) severe CDI; (3) immunocompromised; (4) ≥ 1 CDI episode in the previous 6 months; and (5) ≥ 65 years old and with ≥ 1 CDI episode in the previous 6 months. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) expressed as cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained was calculated. Deterministic (DSA) and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were performed. RESULTS: In all patient populations (from 1 to 5), bezlotoxumab added to SoC reduced CDI recurrence compared to SoC alone by 26.4, 19.5, 21.2, 26.6 and 39.7%, respectively. The resulting ICERs for the respective subgroups were €12,724, €17,495, €9545, €7386, and €4378. The model parameters with highest impact on the ICER were recurrence rate (first), mortality, and utility values. The probability that bezlotoxumab was cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €21,000/QALY was 85.5%, 54.1%, 86.0%, 94.5%, 99.6%, respectively. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that bezlotoxumab added to SoC compared to SoC alone is a cost-effective treatment to prevent the recurrence of CDI in high-risk patients. The influence of changes in model parameters on DSA results was higher in patients ≥ 65 years old, with severe CDI and immunocompromised. Additionally, PSA estimated that the probability of cost-effectiveness exceeded 85% in most subgroups. FUNDING: Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.

Cost-Effectiveness of PCSK9 Inhibitor Plus Statin in Patients With Triple-Vessel Coronary Artery Disease in Japan.

BACKGROUND: The addition of a proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitor to statin therapy reduces the rate of cardiovascular events. This study examined the cost-effectiveness of PCSK9 inhibitor+statin compared with standard therapy (statin monotherapy) in the treatment of triple-vessel coronary artery disease (CAD) in Japan. Methods and Results: A Markov model was applied to assess the costs and benefits associated with PCSK9 inhibitor+statin over a projected 30-year period from the perspective of a public healthcare payer in Japan. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), expressed as the quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), was estimated. The effects on survival and numbers of events were based on the FOURIER trial and the CREDO Kyoto registry. The ICER of PCSK9 inhibitor+statin over standard therapy was 13.5 million (95% confidence interval 7.6-23.5 million) Japanese Yen (JPY) per QALY gained for triple-vessel CAD. The probability of the cost-effectiveness of PCSK9 inhibitor+statin vs. standard therapy was 0.0008% at a cost-effectiveness threshold of 5 million JPY. In patients with poorly controlled familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) with triple-vessel CAD, the ICER was 3.4 million JPY per QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: PCSK9 inhibitor plus statin did not show good cost-effectiveness for triple-vessel CAD; however, it showed good cost-effectiveness for patients with triple-vessel CAD and poorly controlled FH in Japan.

Costs of Managing Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia in the Office and Operating Room.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To review the costs associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) management. Specifically, to compare the costs of medical therapy, office-based procedures, and surgical management from a payer perspective. RECENT FINDINGS: The American Urological Association released updated guidelines in 2018 for the surgical management of BPH. Over recent years, analyses investigating the cost-effectiveness of the modalities included in these guidelines have been completed. These show relatively newer, minimally-invasive office-based therapies can provide cost-effective alternatives to medical therapy. Likewise, surgical therapies provide a cost-effective means of BPH management, if performed well with low complication rates. However, comparisons of these studies are limited by the biases they contain. Minimally-invasive office-based therapies and well performed surgical therapies for BPH can achieve cost equivalence to combination medical therapy within a few years. Factors such as age, gland size, patient compliance, and surgeon skill should be considered when personalizing treatment recommendations for each patient.