Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Trastuzumab Deruxtecan Versus Trastuzumab Emtansine for Patients With Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2 Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer in the United States.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the cost-effectiveness of trastuzumab deruxtecan compared with trastuzumab emtansine as second-line therapy for patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 positive metastatic breast cancer from a US healthcare sector perspective. METHODS: A 3-state partitioned survival model was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of trastuzumab deruxtecan compared with trastuzumab emtansine. For both treatments, modeled patients were administered treatment intravenously every 3 weeks indefinitely or until disease progression. Transition parameters were principally derived from the updated DESTINY-Breast03 phase III randomized clinical trial. Costs include drug costs extracted from Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services average sales price and administrative, adverse event, and third-line therapy costs derived from published literature, measured in 2022 US dollars. Health utilities for health states and disutilities for adverse events were sourced from published literature. Effects were measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). We conducted both probabilistic sensitivity analysis and comprehensive scenario analysis to test model assumptions and robustness, while utilizing a lifetime horizon. RESULTS: In our base-case analysis, total costs for trastuzumab deruxtecan were $1 266 945, compared with $820 082 for trastuzumab emtansine. Total QALYs for trastuzumab deruxtecan were 5.09, compared with 3.15 for trastuzumab emtansine. The base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $230 285/QALY. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that trastuzumab deruxtecan had an 11.1% probability of being cost-effective at a $100 000 per QALY willingness-to-pay threshold. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the higher efficacy of trastuzumab deruxtecan in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 positive metastatic breast cancer, our findings raise concern regarding its value at current prices.

Sociodemographic and spending characteristics of Medicare beneficiaries taking prescription drugs subject to price negotiations.

BACKGROUND: The 2022 Inflation Reduction Act authorizes Medicare to negotiate the prices of 10 drugs in 2026 and additional drugs thereafter. Understanding the sociodemographic and spending characteristics of beneficiaries taking these specific drugs could be important describing the impact of the legislation. OBJECTIVE: To describe sociodemographic and spending characteristics of Medicare beneficiaries who use the 10 prescription drugs ("negotiated drugs") that will face Medicare drug price negotiations in 2026. METHODS: A 20% sample of Medicare Part D beneficiaries from 2020 (n = 10,224,642) was used. Sociodemographic and spending characteristics were descriptively reported for beneficiaries taking the negotiated drugs, including subgroups by low-income subsidy (LIS) status and by drug, and for Part D beneficiaries not taking negotiated drugs. RESULTS: Part D beneficiaries taking a negotiated drug compared with Part D beneficiaries not taking a negotiated drug overall had similar sociodemographic characteristics, more comorbidities (3.9 vs 2.2) and higher mean [median] Medicare ($33,882 [$18,251] vs $12,366 [$3,429]) and out-of-pocket (OOP) spending ($813 [$307] vs $441 [$160]). There was variation in characteristics by LIS status. The mean age was highest among non-LIS beneficiaries taking a negotiated drug compared with LIS beneficiaries taking a negotiated drug and beneficiaries not taking a negotiated drug (76.2 vs 69.9 vs 71.4). Among beneficiaries using negotiated drugs, a higher percentage of LIS beneficiaries compared with non-LIS was female (59.7% vs 48.0%), was Black (20.9% vs 6.6%), and resided in lower-income areas (39.1% vs 20.3%). Mean [median] annual Part D OOP spending for negotiated drugs was $115 [$59] for beneficiaries with LIS and $1,475 [$1,204] for beneficiaries without LIS. There were also differences depending on which negotiated drug was used. Drugs for cancer and blood clots had the highest proportions of White users, whereas type 2 diabetes and heart failure drugs had the highest proportions of Black users and beneficiaries residing in lower-income areas. Annual Part D OOP costs were lowest for sitagliptin (LIS: $104 [$60], non-LIS: $1,391 [$1,153]) and highest for ibrutinib (LIS: $649 [$649], non-LIS: $6,449 [$6,867]). Among non-LIS beneficiaries, 24% (22% to 76%) had more than $2,000 in OOP costs. CONCLUSIONS: Inflation Reduction Act OOP spending caps and LIS expansion will lower prescription drug costs for beneficiaries with OOP costs exceeding $2,000 who are mostly White and live in higher-income areas, insulin users who are disproportionately Black with multiple chronic conditions, and beneficiaries with low incomes. However, these provisions will not impact the 76% of non-LIS beneficiaries using negotiated drugs who have OOP costs that are still substantial but below $2,000. Negotiations could reduce OOP costs through reduced coinsurance payments for this group, which is older and has more chronic conditions compared with beneficiaries not taking negotiated drugs. Part D plan design, spending, and utilization changes should be monitored after negotiation to determine if further solutions are needed to lower OOP costs for this group.

The Role of Place in Person- and Family-Oriented Long-Term Services and Supports.

Policy Points Little attention to date has been directed at examining how the long-term services and supports (LTSS) environmental context affects the health and well-being of older adults with disabilities. We develop a conceptual framework identifying environmental domains that contribute to LTSS use, care quality, and care experiences. We find the LTSS environment is highly associated with person-reported care experiences, but the direction of the relationship varies by domain; increased neighborhood social and economic deprivation are highly associated with experiencing adverse consequences due to unmet need, whereas availability and generosity of the health care and social services delivery environment are inversely associated with participation restrictions in valued activities. Policies targeting local and state-level LTSS-relevant environmental characteristics stand to improve the health and well-being of older adults with disabilities, particularly as it relates to adverse consequences due to unmet need and participation restrictions. CONTEXT: Long-term services and supports (LTSS) in the United States are characterized by their patchwork and unequal nature. The lack of generalizable person-reported information on LTSS care experiences connected to place of community residence has obscured our understanding of inequities and factors that may attenuate them. METHODS: We advance a conceptual framework of LTSS-relevant environmental domains, drawing on newly available data linkages from the 2015 National Health and Aging Trends Study to connect person-reported care experiences with public use spatial data. We assess relationships between LTSS-relevant environmental characteristic domains and person-reported care adverse consequences due to unmet need, participation restrictions, and subjective well-being for 2,411 older adults with disabilities and for key population subgroups by race, dementia, and Medicaid enrollment status. FINDINGS: We find the LTSS environment is highly associated with person-reported care experiences, but the direction of the relationship varies by domain. Measures of neighborhood social and economic deprivation (e.g., poverty, public assistance, social cohesion) are highly associated with experiencing adverse consequences due to unmet care needs. Measures of the health care and social services delivery environment (e.g., Medicaid Home and Community-Based Service Generosity, managed LTSS [MLTSS] presence, average direct care worker wage, availability of paid family leave) are inversely associated with experiencing participation restrictions in valued activities. Select measures of the built and natural environment (e.g., housing affordability) are associated with participation restrictions and lower subjective well-being. Observed relationships between measures of LTSS-relevant environmental characteristics and care experiences were generally held in directionality but were attenuated for key subpopulations. CONCLUSIONS: We present a framework and analyses describing the variable relationships between LTSS-relevant environmental factors and person-reported care experiences. LTSS-relevant environmental characteristics are differentially relevant to the care experiences of older adults with disabilities. Greater attention should be devoted to strengthening state- and community-based policies and practices that support aging in place.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of a digital Diabetes Prevention Program (dDPP) in prediabetic patients.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the cost-effectiveness of a digital Diabetes Prevention Program (dDPP) in preventing type 2 diabetes mellitus among prediabetic patients from a health system perspective over a 10-year time horizon. METHODS: A Markov cohort model was constructed to assess the cost-effectiveness of dDPP compared to a small group education (SGE) intervention. Transition probabilities for the first year of the model were derived from two clinical trials on dDPP. Transition probabilities for longer-term effects were derived from meta-analyses on lifestyle and Diabetes Prevention Program interventions. Cost and health utilities were derived from published literature. Partial completion of interventions was incorporated to provide a robust prediction of a real-world deployment. Parameter uncertainties were assessed using univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Cost-effectiveness was measured by an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) between dDPP and SGE from a health system perspective over a 10-year time horizon. RESULTS: The dDPP dominated the SGE at the $50,000, $100,000, and $150,000 willingness-to-pay thresholds per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The base case analysis at the $100,000 willingness-to-pay threshold (WTP) revealed a dominated ICER, with the SGE costing $1332 more and accruing an average of 0.04 fewer QALYs. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that the dDPP was preferred in 64.4% of simulations across the $100,000 WTP thresholds. CONCLUSIONS: The findings comparing a dDPP to an SGE suggest that a dDPP can be cost-effective for patients with a high risk of developing type 2 diabetes.

Examining Opportunities to Increase Savings From Medicare Price Negotiations.

Importance: Allowing the US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to negotiate prescription drug prices for Medicare may improve drug affordability. Objective: To estimate savings from Medicare price negotiation under the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and examine opportunities to increase savings. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional, population-based study used data from 2020 Medicare prescription drug claims. The study was conducted and data were analyzed in 2022. Exposures: Eligibility for Medicare price negotiation under the IRA and alternative criteria. Main Outcomes and Measures: Minimum savings under the IRA's eligibility criteria were estimated and compared with savings within alternative scenarios, including (1) selecting drugs for negotiation based on net spending after rebates rather than gross spending; (2) extending eligibility to drugs with biosimilar or generic competitors; (3) reducing the minimum years since US Food and Drug Administration approval for eligibility; and (4) changing 2 or 3 of these factors. Estimated savings were calculated at different levels of scale-up of price negotiation under the IRA, from 10 Part D drugs in 2026 to 60 Part B and D drugs in 2029. Gross spending was calculated using the US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services 2020 Medicare drug spending dashboard. Rebates were estimated using SSR Health data. Information on FDA approvals, generics, and biosimilars was obtained from FDA websites. Results: Under IRA rules, estimated minimum savings from price negotiation in 2026 for 10 Part D drugs would be $3.2 billion. For 2029 for 60 Part D and B drugs, estimated savings were $16.0 billion. Selecting drugs for negotiation based on net rather than gross spending would be associated with estimated savings of $4.6 billion (a 45% increase) in 2026 and $18.9 billion (an 18% increase) in 2029. Including drugs with generic competitors or biosimilars would be associated with an estimated savings of $6.6 billion (a 109% increase) in 2026 and $24.9 billion (a 56% increase) in 2029. Making both changes would be associated with savings of $9.5 billion (a 200% increase) in 2026 and $28.3 billion (a 77% increase) in 2029. A sensitivity analysis suggested that reducing the required number of years since marketing approval by 2 years would be associated with increased estimated savings of 4% when 10 Part D drugs are negotiated and 12% when 60 Part D and B drugs are negotiated. Changing all 3 criteria would be associated with the greatest increase in estimated savings in 2029 (119% increase when 10 Part D drugs are negotiated and 93% increase for 60 Part D and B drugs). Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this cross-sectional study suggest that adjusting the eligibility criteria for Medicare prescription drug price negotiation to permit inclusion of drugs with biosimilar or generic competitors and selecting drugs based on net rather than gross spending may be a promising approach to substantially increase estimated savings.

Modeling the potential economic benefits of an oral SARS-CoV-2 vaccine during an outbreak of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Given patient preferences, the choice of delivery modality for vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 has the potential to significantly impact both health and economic consequences of an outbreak of COVID-19. This study models the projected health and economic impact of an oral COVID-19 vaccine in the United States during an outbreak occurring between December 1, 2021 and February 16, 2022.  METHODS: A cost-of-illness economic decision analysis model is utilized to assess both the health and economic impact of an oral vaccine delivery platform compared with the status quo deployment of existing intramuscular vaccines against COVID-19. Health impact is assessed in terms of predicted cases, deaths, hospitalization days, intensive care unit admission days, and mechanical ventilation days averted. Health system economic impact is assessed based on the cost-of-illness averted derived from the average daily costs of medical care, stratified by severity. Productivity loss due to premature death is estimated based on regulatory analysis guidelines proposed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.  RESULTS: Based upon preference data, we estimate that the availability of an oral COVID-19 vaccine would increase vaccine uptake from 214 million people to 232 million people. This higher vaccination rate was estimated to result in 2,497,087 fewer infections, 25,709 fewer deaths, 1,365,497 fewer hospitalization days, 186,714 fewer Intensive Care Unit (ICU) days, and 80,814 fewer patient days requiring mechanical ventilation (MV) compared with the status quo. From a health systems perspective, this translates into $3.3 billion in health sector costs averted. An additional $139-$450 billion could have been averted in productivity loss due to a reduction in premature deaths. CONCLUSIONS: Vaccine delivery modalities that are aligned with patient preferences have the ability to increase vaccination uptake and reduce both the health and economic impact of an outbreak of COVID-19. We estimate that the total economic impact of productivity loss and health systems cost-of-illness averted from an oral vaccine could range from 0.6%-2.9% of 2021 U.S, Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

Trends of Prescription Drug Manufacturer Rebates in Commercial Health Insurance Plans, 2015-2019.

This economic evaluation examines the magnitude and trend of prescription drug rebates in commercial markets from 2015 to 2019 and identifies insurance plan factors associated with rebates.

Trajectories of prices in generic drug markets: what can we infer from looking at trajectories rather than average prices?

BACKGROUND: Well-functioning competitive markets are key to controlling generic drug prices. This is important since over 90% of all drugs sold in the US are generics. Recently, there have been examples of large price increases in the generic market. METHODS: This paper examines price trajectories for generic drugs using a group-based trajectory modelling approach (GBTM). We fit the model using quarterly price information in the IBM MarketScan claims database for the past decade. RESULTS: We identify three dominant price trajectories for this period: rapid increase trajectories, slow decline and rapid decline. Most generic drugs show a slow or a rapid decline in price trajectories. However, around 17% of all generic drugs show rapid price increase trajectories. CONCLUSIONS: As Congress is exploring an excise tax on drugs whose list price increases faster than the rate of inflation, we discuss what drugs would be most likely to be affected by this law.

Financing and Delivering Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) to End the HIV Epidemic.

The U.S. has the tools to end the HIV epidemic, but progress has stagnated. A major gap in U.S. efforts to address HIV is the under-utilization of medications that can virtually eliminate acquisition of the virus, known as pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP). This document proposes a financing and delivery system to unlock broad access to PrEP for those most vulnerable to HIV acquisition and bring an end to the HIV epidemic.

Mobile health school screening and telemedicine referral to improve access to specialty care in rural Alaska: a cluster- randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: School-based programmes, including hearing screening, provide essential preventive services for rural children. However, minimal evidence on screening methodologies, loss to follow-up, and scarcity of specialists for subsequent care compound rural health disparities. We hypothesised telemedicine specialty referral would improve time to follow-up for school hearing screening compared with standard primary care referral. METHODS: In this cluster-randomised controlled trial conducted in 15 rural Alaskan communities, USA, we randomised communities to telemedicine specialty referral (intervention) or standard primary care referral (control) for school hearing screening. All children (K-12; aged 4-21 years) enrolled in Bering Straight School District were eligible. Community randomisation occurred within four strata using location and school size. Participants were masked to group allocation until screening day, and assessors were masked throughout data collection. Screening occurred annually, and children who screened positive for possible hearing loss or ear disease were monitored for 9 months from the screening date for follow-up. Primary outcome was the time to follow-up after a positive hearing screen; analysis was by intention to treat. The trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03309553. FINDINGS: We recruited participants between Oct 10, 2017, and March 28, 2019. 15 communities were randomised: eight (750 children) to telemedicine referral and seven (731 children) to primary care referral. 790 (53·3%) of 1481 children screened positive in at least one study year: 391 (52∤1%) in the telemedicine referral communities and 399 (50∤4%) in the primary care referral communities. Of children referred, 268 (68·5%) in the telemedicine referral communities and 128 (32·1%) in primary care referral communities received follow-up within 9 months. Among children who received follow-up, mean time to follow-up was 41·5 days (SD 55·7) in the telemedicine referral communities and 92·0 days (75·8) in the primary care referral communities (adjusted event-time ratio 17·6 [95% CI 6·8-45·3] for all referred children). There were no adverse events. INTERPRETATION: Telemedicine specialty referral significantly improved the time to follow-up after hearing screening in Alaska. Telemedicine might apply to other preventive school-based services to improve access to specialty care for rural children. FUNDING: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.

Cost-Effectiveness of Systemic Treatments for Metastatic Castration-Sensitive Prostate Cancer: An Economic Evaluation Based on Network Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the cost-effectiveness of systemic treatments for metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer from the US healthcare sector perspective with a lifetime horizon. METHODS: We built a partitioned survival model based on a network meta-analysis of 7 clinical trials with 7287 patients aged 36 to 94 years between 2004 and 2018 to predict patient health trajectories by treatment. We tested parameter uncertainties with probabilistic sensitivity analyses. We estimated drug acquisition costs using the Federal Supply Schedule and adopted generic drug prices when available. We measured cost-effectiveness by an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). RESULTS: The mean costs were approximately $392 000 with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) alone and approximately $415 000, $464 000, $597 000, and $959 000 with docetaxel, abiraterone acetate, enzalutamide, and apalutamide, added to ADT, respectively. The mean quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were 3.38 with ADT alone and 3.92, 4.76, 3.92, and 5.01 with docetaxel, abiraterone acetate, enzalutamide, and apalutamide, added to ADT, respectively. As add-on therapy to ADT, docetaxel had an ICER of $42 069 per QALY over ADT alone; abiraterone acetate had an ICER of $58 814 per QALY over docetaxel; apalutamide had an ICER of $1 979 676 per QALY over abiraterone acetate; enzalutamide was dominated. At a willingness to pay below $50 000 per QALY, docetaxel plus ADT is likely the most cost-effective treatment; at any willingness to pay between $50 000 and $200 000 per QALY, abiraterone acetate plus ADT is likely the most cost-effective treatment. CONCLUSIONS: These findings underscore the value of abiraterone acetate plus ADT given its relative cost-effectiveness to other systemic treatments for metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer.

Medicare Spending on Drugs With Accelerated Approval.

BACKGROUND: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration provides accelerated approval to drugs on the basis of surrogate end points deemed to be "reasonably likely" to predict clinical benefit. To receive full approval, drugs must complete a confirmatory trial. Although most accelerated approved drugs ultimately receive full approval, others remain on the market without full approval for many years, and some are withdrawn before full approval is granted. Until confirmatory trials are completed and full approval is granted, there is uncertainty surrounding each drug's clinical benefits. OBJECTIVE: To estimate fee-for-service Medicare payments on accelerated approved drugs without full approvals. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis. SETTING: Fee-for-service Medicare Part B and Part D drug claims in 2019. PARTICIPANTS: Beneficiaries enrolled in Medicare Part B and Part D plans. MEASUREMENTS: Medicare spending for drugs treating accelerated approved indications without full approval, beneficiary spending, and drug characteristics. RESULTS: In 2019, 45 drugs associated with 69 accelerated approved indications lacked full approval. Of those, the fee-for-service Medicare program spent $1.2 billion on 36 drugs across 55 indications. Medicare beneficiaries had $209 million in out-of-pocket spending on these drugs. Oncology drugs represented 82% of these indications and 72% of the Medicare spending. Extrapolating to Medicare Advantage, total Medicare spending on these drugs in 2019 was $1.8 billion. LIMITATIONS: The study drugs may have clinical benefit and may come to receive full approval after this analysis. The algorithm used to identify accelerated approved indications is novel. Generalizability to other years is unclear. CONCLUSION: In 2019, fee-for-service Medicare spent $1.2 billion on accelerated approved drugs without full approval. Medicare should adjust incentives to encourage sponsors to complete confirmatory trials as soon as possible. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Laura and John Arnold Foundation.

Effect of reductions in opioid prescribing on opioid use disorder and fatal overdose in the United States: a dynamic Markov model.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Despite prescribing declines between 2011 and 2019, opioid morbidity and mortality in the United States continued to rise during this period. We estimated the relationship between opioid prescribing, opioid use disorder (OUD) and fatal opioid overdose in the United States. DESIGN: Dynamic Markov model. SETTING: United States, using data from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey and National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions III. PARTICIPANTS: Simulated US individuals 12+ years of age from the general population or with prescription opioid medical use, prescription opioid non-medical use, illicit opioid (e.g. heroin, illicit fentanyl) use, prescription OUD, illicit OUD with a history of prior prescription opioid non-medical use or non-fatal or fatal opioid overdose. MEASUREMENTS: Active OUD cases and fatal prescription opioid overdoses. FINDINGS: Between 2010 and 2019, opioid prescribing declined 42.5%. Although fatal opioid overdoses increased by 103.2%, these reductions in opioid prescribing averted an estimated 9600 [95% uncertainty interval (UI) = 7205, 15 478] deaths starting in 2011 relative to continued prescribing at 2010 levels-and are projected to avert another 50 918 (95% UI = 38 829, 79 795) overdose deaths between 2020 and 2029. The median time from initial opioid prescription to fatal opioid overdose was 5.2 years. Of the 2.4 million (95% UI = 2.2 million, 2.7 million) individuals in the United States with estimated active OUD in 2019, 65% (95% UI = 59%, 71%) were attributable to initial opioid use occurring prior to 2011, whereas 14% (95% UI = 12%, 17%) were attributable to initial opioid use occurring between 2017 and 2019. The impact, by 2029, of additional reductions in prescribing initiated in 2020 would be more than three times greater than that of similar reductions initiated in 2025. CONCLUSIONS: Observed reductions in opioid prescribing volume in the United States from 2010 to 2019 appear to have saved approximately 9600 lives by 2019 and are anticipated to avert more than 50 000 fatal overdoses by 2029.

Coverage of genetic therapies for spinal muscular atrophy across fee-for-service Medicaid programs.

BACKGROUND: Genetic therapies are a promising treatment for children born with spinal muscular atrophy (SMA); however, their high price tags can evoke coverage restrictions. OBJECTIVE: To assess variation in coverage guidelines across fee-for-service state Medicaid programs for 2 novel genetic therapies, nusinersen and onasemnogene abeparvovec, that treat SMA. We also assessed the association of these coverage guidelines with use of the 2 genetic therapies. METHODS: We evaluated fee-for-service Medicaid coverage policies for nusinersen and onasemnogene abeparvovec from publicly available websites for the period February 2020-March 2020. We then documented areas of agreement and disagreement across 4 key coverage domains. We used 2018 and 2019 state Medicaid drug utilization data to calculate the use of nusinersen across Medicaid programs and assessed that use against the restrictiveness of the coverage guidelines. RESULTS: We identified 19 state Medicaid coverage guidelines for nusinersen. Most states agreed on diagnostics requirements; however, there were disagreements based on ventilator status. We identified 17 state Medicaid coverage guidelines for onasemnogene abeparvovec. There was more discordance in these coverage guidelines compared with nusinersen, notably in domains of SMN2 gene count and ventilator status. When comparing utilization of nusinersen with coverage restrictions, we found that the more restrictive states had considerably lower utilization of nusinersen. CONCLUSIONS: There was significant variation across fee-for-service Medicaid coverage policies for nusinersen and onasemnogene abeparvovec. Although states can impose individual coverage guidelines for each drug, we presented policy options that could reduce variation and potentially decrease the cost burden of these drugs. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Arnold Ventures. The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Economic value of vaccines to address the COVID-19 pandemic: a U.S. cost-effectiveness and budget impact analysis.

AIMS: The Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) has infected over two hundred million worldwide and caused 4.4 million of deaths as of August 2021. Vaccines were quickly developed to address the pandemic. We sought to analyze the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of a non-specified vaccine for COVID-19. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We constructed a Markov model of COVID-19 infections using a susceptible-exposed-infected-recovered structure over a 1-year time horizon from a U.S. healthcare sector perspective. The model consisted of two arms: do nothing and COVID-19 vaccine. Hospitalization and mortality rates were calibrated to U.S. COVID-19 reports as of November 2020. We performed economic calculations of costs in 2020 U.S. dollars and effectiveness in units of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) to measure the budget impact and incremental cost-effectiveness at a $100,000/QALY threshold. RESULTS: Vaccines have a high probability of reducing healthcare costs and increasing QALYs compared to doing nothing. Simulations showed reductions in hospital days and mortality by more than 50%. Even though this represents a major U.S. investment, the budget impacts of these technologies could save program costs by up to 60% or more if uptake is high. LIMITATIONS: The economic evaluation draws on the reported values of the clinical benefits of COVID-19 vaccines, although we do not currently have long-term conclusive data about COVID-19 vaccine efficacies. CONCLUSIONS: Spending on vaccines to mitigate COVID-19 infections offer high-value potential that society should consider. Unusually high uptake in vaccines in a short amount of time could result in unprecedented budget impacts to government and commercial payers. Governments should focus on expanding health system infrastructure and subsidizing payer coverage to deliver these vaccines efficiently.

Cost-effectiveness analysis comparing dupilumab and aspirin desensitization therapy for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis in aspirin-exacerbated respiratory disease.

BACKGROUND: Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis (CRSwNP) in the setting of aspirin-exacerbated respiratory disease (AERD) is a disease that is difficult to treat and prone to recurrence. Dupilumab is a promising treatment for these patients, but its cost-effectiveness has not yet been compared with aspirin (acetylsalicyclic acid, or ASA) desensitization, a known and effective treatment. We aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of ASA desensitization with dupilumab therapy for the treatment of CRSwNP in AERD. METHODS: Analyses of cost-effectiveness, as measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and cost-utility, as measured in number of required revision endoscopic sinus surgeries (ESSs), were conducted. RESULTS: ASA desensitization after ESS was cost-effective and dominated appropriate medical management. Adding salvage dupilumab was also cost-effective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER] $135,517.33), and upfront dupilumab therapy was not cost-effective in any scenario (ICER $273,181.32). The cost-utility analysis demonstrated that, over a 10-year period per patient, appropriate medical management after ESS cost $54,125.31 and resulted in 2.25 revision ESSs, ASA desensitization after ESS cost $53,775.15 and resulted in 2.02 revision ESSs, ASA desensitization with salvage dupilumab cost $121,176.25 and resulted in 1.68 revision ESSs, and upfront dupilumab cost $185,950.34 and resulted in 1.51 revision ESSs. CONCLUSION: Dupilumab for the treatment of severe CRSwNP was found to be cost-effective as salvage therapy under the willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000. Further analysis highlighted that the cost-effectiveness of dupilumab was most sensitive to drug price and expected gains in quality of life. This suggests that additional investigation into improving patient population selection and tailoring treatment algorithms may improve the cost-effectiveness of dupilumab in specific scenarios.