Costs associated with treatment of insomnia in Alzheimer's disease caregivers: a comparison of mindfulness meditation and cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia.

BACKGROUND: Among the over 5 million informal caregivers for patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) in the United States (US), over 60% experience insomnia. Research on insomnia treatment efficacy in AD caregivers is limited. An ongoing randomized non-inferiority clinical trial, the Caregiver Sleep Research study, is evaluating whether mindfulness meditation is non-inferior to cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) in the treatment of insomnia in AD caregivers. The present report examines estimated intervention costs in this ongoing trial. METHODS: Micro-costing was used to itemize and abstract costs of the two interventions: a mindfulness-based intervention known as mindful awareness practices for insomnia (MAP-I); and CBT-I. This approach involves collecting detailed data on resources utilized and the unit costs of those resources, thereby revealing actual resource use and economic costs for each treatment arm. Personnel time, patient time, and supplies were inventoried, and unit costs were applied. Caregiver time costs, including travel, were based on US Labor Bureau home-health aide national mean hourly wages; instructor/staff costs were based on hourly wages. Per-participant and program costs were calculated assuming individual- and group-delivery to reflect real-world implementation. Sensitivity analyses evaluated robustness of estimates. RESULTS: From the societal perspective, per-participant MAP-I costs were $1884 for individual and $1377 for group delivery; for CBT-I, these costs were $3978 and $1981, respectively. Compared with CBT-I, MAP-I provided cost savings of $2094 (53%) and $604 (30%) per treated caregiver for individual and group delivery, respectively. From the US healthcare system perspective, MAP-I vs. CBT-I participant savings were $1872 (65%) for individual and $382 (44%) for group interventions, respectively. For MAP-I and CBT-I, instructor in-class time was the highest cost component. Results were most sensitive to combined instructor time costs. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of insomnia with MAP-I, compared to CBT-I, yields substantial cost savings for society and the healthcare system. With this potential for cost savings, results of the ongoing non-inferiority trial have critical implications for insomnia treatment dissemination and its benefits to AD caregivers and other community populations with insomnia.

The economic burden of caregiving in epilepsy: An estimate based on a survey of US caregivers.

OBJECTIVE: The burden of caregiving for persons with epilepsy (PWEs) has not been examined previously in the United States. We assessed the clinical impact and direct and indirect economic costs for caregivers of PWEs. METHODS: An internet survey of 500 caregivers of PWEs was conducted from May to July 2015 using a combination of validated instruments and questions designed specifically for this survey. Caregivers were stratified by PWE age (adult/child) and disease severity (low: 0 vs high: 1 + seizures in the prior month). Annual self-reported direct and indirect costs were reported per caregiver and extrapolated to all US caregivers. The economic burden of caregiving for PWEs was defined as the difference between costs for caregivers and the general population. RESULTS: Caregivers reported that PWEs averaged 11.4 seizures in the prior month. Eighty percent of respondents were female and the average age was 44.3. Since becoming a caregiver, many reported anxiety (52.8%), depression (41.0%), and insomnia (30.8%). Annual mean direct medical costs for caregivers of children with low vs high seizure frequency were $4344 and $10 162, respectively. Costs for caregivers of adult PWEs were $4936 and $8518. Mean indirect costs associated with caregiving for a child with low vs high seizure frequency were $20 529 and $40 137; those for caregivers of an adult were $13 981 and $28 410. The cost estimates are higher vs the general US population; annual per-person healthcare utilization costs were $2740 and productivity loss costs were $5015. When extrapolating to the US population of PWE caregivers, annual costs exceeded $62 billion vs $14 billion for the general population, resulting in a caregiver burden of nearly $48 billion. SIGNIFICANCE: The clinical and economic burden of caregivers for PWE were substantial, and greatest for those caring for children with frequent seizures. The impact on caregivers should be considered when estimating the value of interventions that control epilepsy.

Increased Clinical and Economic Burden Associated With Peripheral Intravenous Catheter-Related Complications: Analysis of a US Hospital Discharge Database.

The burden of complications associated with peripheral intravenous use is underevaluated, in part, due to the broad use, inconsistent coding, and lack of mandatory reporting of these devices. This study aimed to analyze the clinical and economic impact of peripheral intravenous-related complications on hospitalized patients. This analysis of Premier Perspective® Database US hospital discharge records included admissions occurring between July 1, 2013 and June 30, 2015 for pneumonia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, chronic kidney disease, diabetes with complications, and major trauma (hip, spinal, cranial fractures). Admissions were assumed to include a peripheral intravenous. Admissions involving surgery, dialysis, or central venous lines were excluded. Multivariable analyses compared inpatient length of stay, cost, admission to intensive care unit, and discharge status of patients with versus without peripheral intravenous-related complications (bloodstream infection, cellulitis, thrombophlebitis, other infection, or extravasation). Models were conducted separately for congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes with complications, and overall (all 7 diagnoses) and adjusted for demographics, comorbidities, and hospital characteristics. We identified 588 375 qualifying admissions: mean (SD), age 66.1 (20.6) years; 52.4% female; and 95.2% urgent/emergent admissions. Overall, 1.76% of patients (n = 10 354) had peripheral intravenous-related complications. In adjusted analyses between patients with versus without peripheral intravenous complications, the mean (95% confidence interval) inpatient length of stay was 5.9 (5.8-6.0) days versus 3.9 (3.9-3.9) days; mean hospitalization cost was $10 895 ($10 738-$11 052) versus $7009 ($6988-$7031). Patients with complications were less likely to be discharged home versus those without (62.4% [58.6%-66.1%] vs 77.6% [74.6%-80.5%]) and were more likely to have died (3.6% [2.9%-4.2%] vs 0.7% [0.6%-0.9%]). Models restricted to single admitting diagnosis were consistent with overall results. Patients with peripheral intravenous-related complications have longer length of stay, higher costs, and greater risk of death than patients without such complications; this is true across diagnosis groups of interest. Future research should focus on reducing these complications to improve clinical and economic outcomes.

Cost-Effectiveness of Cetuximab as First-line Treatment for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer in the United States.

PURPOSE: We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis incorporating recent phase III clinical trial (FIRE-3) data to evaluate clinical and economic tradeoffs associated with first-line treatments of KRAS wild-type (WT) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cost-effectiveness model was developed using FIRE-3 data to project survival and lifetime costs of FOLFIRI plus either cetuximab or bevacizumab. Hypothetical KRAS-WT mCRC patients initiated first-line treatment and could experience adverse events, disease progression warranting second-line treatment, or clinical response and hepatic metastasectomy. Model inputs were derived from FIRE-3 and published literature. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were reported as US$ per life year (LY) and quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Scenario analyses considered patients with extended RAS mutations and CALGB/SWOG 80405 data; 1-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Compared with bevacizumab, KRAS-WT patients receiving first-line cetuximab gained 5.7 months of life at a cost of $46,266, for an ICER of $97,223/LY ($122,610/QALY). For extended RAS-WT patients, the ICER was $77,339/LY ($99,584/QALY). Cetuximab treatment was cost-effective 80.3% of the time, given a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000/LY. Results were sensitive to changes in survival, treatment duration, and product costs. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis of FIRE-3 data suggests that first-line treatment with cetuximab and FOLFIRI in KRAS (and extended RAS) WT mCRC patients may improve health outcomes and use financial resources more efficiently than bevacizumab and FOLFIRI. This information, in combination with other studies investigating comparative effectiveness of first-line options, can be useful to clinicians, payers, and policymakers in making treatment and resource allocation decisions for mCRC patients.

Budget impact of somatostatin analogs as treatment for metastatic gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors in US hospitals.

OBJECTIVE: With the introduction of new therapies, hospitals have to plan spending limited resources in a cost-effective manner. To assist in identifying the optimal treatment for patients with locally advanced or metastatic gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors, budget impact modeling was used to estimate the financial implications of adoption and diffusion of somatostatin analogs (SSAs). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A hypothetical cohort of 500 gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumor patients was assessed in an economic model, with the proportion with metastatic disease treated with an SSA estimated using published data. Drug acquisition, preparation, and administration costs were based on national pricing databases and published literature. Octreotide dosing was based on published estimates of real-world data, whereas for lanreotide, real-world dosing was unavailable and we therefore used the highest indicated dosing. Alternative scenarios reflecting the proportion of patients receiving lanreotide or octreotide were considered to estimate the incremental budget impact to the hospital. RESULTS: In the base case, 313 of the initial 500 gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumor patients were treated with an SSA. The model-predicted per-patient cost was US$83,473 for lanreotide and US$89,673 for octreotide. With a hypothetical increase in lanreotide utilization from 5% to 30% of this population, the annual model-projected hospital costs decreased by US$488,615. When varying the inputs in one-way sensitivity analyses, the results were most sensitive to changes in dosing assumptions. CONCLUSION: Results suggest that factors beyond drug acquisition cost can influence the budget impact to a hospital. When considering preparation and administration time, and real-world dosing, use of lanreotide has the potential to reduce health care expenditures associated with metastatic gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumor treatments.

A systematic literature review of methods of incorporating mortality in cost-effectiveness analyses of lipid-lowering therapies.

AIMS: Cost effectiveness analysis (CEA) is a useful tool for estimating the value of an intervention in relation to alternatives. In cardiovascular disease (CVD), CEA is especially important, given the high economic and clinical burden. One key driver of value is CVD mortality prevention. However, data used to inform CEA parameters can be limited, given the difficulty in demonstrating statistically significant mortality benefit in randomized clinical trials (RCTs), due in part to the frequency of fatal events and limited trial durations. This systematic review identifies and summarizes whether published CVD-related CEAs have incorporated mortality benefits, and the methodology among those that did. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted of CEAs of lipid-lowering therapies published between 2000-2017. Health technology assessments (HTA) and full-length manuscripts were included, and sources of mortality data and methods of applying mortality benefits were extracted. Results were summarized as proportions of articles to articulate common practices in CEAs of CVD. RESULTS: This review identified 100 studies for inclusion, comprising 93 full-length manuscripts and seven HTA reviews. Among these, 99% assumed a mortality benefit in the model. However, 87 of these studies that incorporated mortality differences did so despite the trials used to inform model parameters not demonstrating statistically significant differences in mortality. None of the 12 studies that used statistically significant findings from an individual RCT were based on active control studies. In a sub-group analysis considering the 60 CEAs that incorporated a direct mortality benefit, 48 (80%) did not have RCT evidence for statistically significant benefit in CVD mortality. LIMITATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS: The finding that few CEA models included mortality inputs from individual RCTs of lipid-lowering therapy may be surprising, as one might expect that treatment efficacy should be based on robust clinical evidence. However, regulatory requirements in CVD-related RCTs often lead to insufficient sample sizes and observation periods for detecting a difference in CVD mortality, which results in the use of intermediate outcomes, composite end-points, or meta-analysis to extrapolate long-term mortality benefit in a lifetime CEA.

Measuring the Value of New Drugs: Validity and Reliability of 4 Value Assessment Frameworks in the Oncology Setting.

BACKGROUND: Several organizations have developed frameworks to systematically assess the value of new drugs. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the convergent validity and interrater reliability of 4 value frameworks to understand the extent to which these tools can facilitate value-based treatment decisions in oncology. METHODS: Eight panelists used the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) frameworks to conduct value assessments of 15 drugs for advanced lung and breast cancers and castration-refractory prostate cancer. Panelists received instructions and published clinical data required to complete the assessments, assigning each drug a numeric or letter score. Kendall's Coefficient of Concordance for Ranks (Kendall's W) was used to measure convergent validity by cancer type among the 4 frameworks. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were used to measure interrater reliability for each framework across cancers. Panelists were surveyed on their experiences. RESULTS: Kendall's W across all 4 frameworks for breast, lung, and prostate cancer drugs was 0.560 (P= 0.010), 0.562 (P = 0.010), and 0.920 (P < 0.001), respectively. Pairwise, Kendall's W for breast cancer drugs was highest for ESMO-ICER and ICER-NCCN (W = 0.950, P = 0.019 for both pairs) and lowest for ASCO-NCCN (W = 0.300, P = 0.748). For lung cancer drugs, W was highest pairwise for ESMO-ICER (W = 0.974, P = 0.007) and lowest for ASCO-NCCN (W = 0.218, P = 0.839); for prostate cancer drugs, pairwise W was highest for ICER-NCCN (W = 1.000, P < 0.001) and lowest for ESMO-ICER and ESMO-NCCN (W = 0.900, P = 0.052 for both pairs). When ranking drugs on distinct framework subdomains, Kendall's W among breast cancer drugs was highest for certainty (ICER, NCCN: W = 0.908, P = 0.046) and lowest for clinical benefit (ASCO, ESMO, NCCN: W = 0.345, P = 0.436). Among lung cancer drugs, W was highest for toxicity (ASCO, ESMO, NCCN: W = 0. 944, P < 0.001) and lowest for certainty (ICER, NCCN: W = 0.230, P = 0.827); and among prostate cancer drugs, it was highest for quality of life (ASCO, ESMO: W = 0.986, P = 0.003) and lowest for toxicity (ASCO, ESMO, NCCN: W = 0.200, P = 0.711). ICC (95% CI) for ASCO, ESMO, ICER, and NCCN were 0.800 (0.660-0.913), 0.818 (0.686-0.921), 0.652 (0.466-0.834), and 0.153 (0.045-0.371), respectively. When scores were rescaled to 0-100, NCCN provided the narrowest band of scores. When asked about their experiences using the ASCO, ESMO, ICER, and NCCN frameworks, panelists generally agreed that the frameworks were logically organized and reasonably easy to use, with NCCN rated somewhat easier. CONCLUSIONS: Convergent validity among the ASCO, ESMO, ICER, and NCCN frameworks was fair to excellent, increasing with clinical benefit subdomain concordance and simplicity of drug trial data. Interrater reliability, highest for ASCO and ESMO, improved with clarity of instructions and specificity of score definitions. Continued use, analyses, and refinements of these frameworks will bring us closer to the ultimate goal of using value-based treatment decisions to improve patient care and outcomes. DISCLOSURES: This work was funded by Eisai Inc. Copher and Knoth are employees of Eisai Inc. Bentley, Lee, Zambrano, and Broder are employees of Partnership for Health Analytic Research, a health services research company paid by Eisai Inc. to conduct this research. For this study, Cohen, Huynh, and Neville report fees from Partnership for Health Analytic Research. Outside of this study, Cohen receives grants and direct consulting fees from various companies that manufacture and market pharmaceuticals. Mei reports a grant from Eisai Inc. during this study. The other authors have no disclosures to report. Study concept and design were contributed by Bentley and Broder, with assistance from Elkin and Cohen. Bentley took the lead in data collection, along with Elkin, Huynh, Mukherjea, Neville, Mei, Popescu, Lee, and Zambrano. Data interpretation was performed by Bentley and Broder, along with Elkin, Cohen, Copher, and Knoth. The manuscript was written primarily by Bentley, along with Elkin and Broder, and revised by Bentley, Broder, Elkin, Cohen, Copher, and Knoth. Select components of this work's methods were presented at ISPOR 19th Annual European Congress held in Vienna, Austria, October 29-November 2, 2016, and Society for Medical Decision Making 38th Annual North American Meeting held in Vancouver, Canada, October 23-26, 2016.

The Incidence and Health Care Resource Burden of the Myelodysplastic Syndromes in Patients in Whom First-Line Hypomethylating Agents Fail.

BACKGROUND: Although hypomethylating agents (HMAs) are effective and approved therapies for patients with myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), many patients do not benefit from treatment, and nearly all ultimately stop responding to HMAs. The incidence and cost burden of HMA failure are unknown yet needed to appreciate the magnitude and significance of such failure. METHODS: We analyzed a de-identified dataset of over 5 million individuals with private health insurance in the U.S. to estimate MDS incidence, prevalence, and treatments. Based on MDS provider interviews, a conceptual model of MDS patient management was constructed to create a new, claims-relevant and drug development-relevant definition of HMA treatment failure. This algorithm was used to define resource encumbrance of MDS patients in whom HMA treatment failed. RESULTS: We estimated an MDS incidence rate of ∼70 cases per 100,000 enrollees per year and a prevalence of 155 cases per 100,000 enrollees. The proportion of MDS patients receiving HMA treatment was low (∼3%), and treatment was typically initiated within 1 year of the first MDS claim. Notably, HMA-treated individuals were older and had more comorbidities than the overall MDS cohort. Total health care costs of managing MDS patients after HMA failure were high (∼$77,000 during the first 6 months) and were driven primarily by non-pharmacy costs. CONCLUSION: This study quantifies for the first time the burden of significant unmet need in caring for MDS patients following HMA treatment failure. The Oncologist 2017;22:379-385Implications for Practice: U.S.-based treatment patterns among MDS patients demonstrate the significant clinical, financial, and health care burden associated with HMA failure and call for active therapies for this patient population.

Validity and Reliability of Value Assessment Frameworks for New Cancer Drugs.

BACKGROUND: Several organizations have developed frameworks to systematically assess the value of new drugs. These organizations include the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). OBJECTIVES: To understand the extent to which these four tools can facilitate value-based treatment decisions in oncology. METHODS: In this pilot study, eight panelists conducted value assessments of five advanced lung cancer drugs using the ASCO, ESMO, and ICER frameworks. The panelists received instructions and published clinical data required to complete the assessments. Published NCCN framework scores were abstracted. The Kendall's W coefficient was used to measure convergent validity among the four frameworks. Intraclass correlation coefficients were used to measure inter-rater reliability among the ASCO, ESMO, and ICER frameworks. Sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Drugs were ranked similarly by the four frameworks, with Kendall's W of 0.703 (P = 0.006) across all the four frameworks. Pairwise, Kendall's W was the highest for ESMO-ICER (W = 0.974; P = 0.007) and ASCO-NCCN (W = 0.944; P = 0.022) and the lowest for ICER-NCCN (W = 0.647; P = 0.315) and ESMO-NCCN (W = 0.611; P = 0.360). Intraclass correlation coefficients (confidence interval [CI]) for the ASCO, ESMO, and ICER frameworks were 0.786 (95% CI 0.517-0.970), 0.804 (95% CI 0.545-0.973), and 0.281 (95% CI 0.055-0.799), respectively. When scores were rescaled to 0 to 100, the ICER framework provided the narrowest band of scores. CONCLUSIONS: The ASCO, ESMO, ICER, and NCCN frameworks demonstrated convergent validity, despite differences in conceptual approaches used. The ASCO inter-rater reliability was high, although potentially at the cost of user burden. The ICER inter-rater reliability was poor, possibly because of its failure to distinguish differential value among the sample of drugs tested. Refinements of all frameworks should continue on the basis of further testing and stakeholder feedback.

Cost-effectiveness of treatments for high-risk myelodysplastic syndromes after failure of first-line hypomethylating agent therapy.

PURPOSE: To evaluate optimal salvage therapy in high-risk myelodysplastic syndromes patients who have failed a first-line hypomethylating agent (HMA) therapy, given that treatment choice is challenging. METHODS: Using published literature and expert opinion, we developed a Markov model to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of current treatments for patients who failed first-line HMA therapy. The model predicted costs, life years, quality-adjusted life years and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the impact of uncertainty in model inputs. RESULTS: Supportive care was the least expensive option ($65,704/patient) with the shortest survival (0.48 years). Low- and high-intensity chemotherapies and hematopoietic cell transplantation increased survival and costs with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $108,808, 306,103 and 318,163/life year, respectively. Switching HMA was more costly and less efficacious than another treatment option, namely low-intensity chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Subsequent treatments in myelodysplastic syndrome patients who failed first-line HMA significantly increase costs, while only providing marginal clinical benefit and substantially increasing treatment-related morbidities. Additional treatment options would benefit resource allocation, clinical decision-making and patient outcomes.

Cost-effectiveness of bronchial thermoplasty in commercially-insured patients with poorly controlled, severe, persistent asthma.

OBJECTIVES: We examined the cost-effectiveness of treating poorly controlled, severe, persistent asthma patients with bronchial thermoplasty (BT), a novel technology that uses thermal energy to reduce airway smooth muscle mass, with 5-year outcome data demonstrating a durable reduction in asthma exacerbations. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a model-based cost-effectiveness analysis assessing 5-year healthcare utilization, patient quality of life and adverse events. METHODS: We utilized Markov modeling to estimate the costs and quality-of-life impact of BT compared with high-dose combination therapy among poorly controlled, severe, persistent asthma patients: those requiring high-dose combination therapy and having experienced an asthma exacerbation-related ER visit in the past year. RESULTS: The cost-effectiveness of BT was US$5495 per quality-adjusted life year; and approximately 22% of sensitivity analysis iterations estimated BT to reduce costs and increase quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: BT is a cost-effective treatment option for patients with poorly controlled, severe, persistent asthma.

Cost effectiveness of a 92-gene assay for the diagnosis of metastatic cancer.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the clinical and economic trade-offs involved in using a molecular assay (92-gene assay, CancerTYPE ID) to aid in identifying the primary site of difficult-to-diagnose metastatic cancers and to explore whether the 92-gene assay can be used to standardize the diagnostic process and costs for clinicians, patients, and payers. METHODS: Four decision-analytic models were developed to project the lifetime clinical and economic impact of incorporating the 92-gene assay compared with standard care alone. For each model, total and incremental costs, life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), and the proportion of patients treated correctly versus incorrectly were projected from the payer perspective. Model inputs were based on published literature, analyses of SEER (Surveillance Epidemiology and End RESULTS) data, publicly available data, and interviews with clinical experts. RESULTS: In all four models, the 92-gene assay increased the proportion of patients treated correctly, decreased the proportion of patients treated with empiric therapy, and increased quality-adjusted survival. In the primary model, the ICER was $50,273/QALY; thus, the 92-gene assay is therefore cost effective when considering a societal willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY. These findings were robust across sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Use of the 92-gene assay for diagnosing metastatic tumors of uncertain origin is associated with reduced misdiagnoses, increased survival, and improved quality of life. Incorporating the assay into current practice is a cost-effective approach to standardizing diagnostic methods while improving patient care. Limitations of this analysis are the lack of data availability and resulting modeling simplifications, although sensitivity analyses showed these to not be key drivers of results.

Cost-effectiveness of aripiprazole once-monthly compared with paliperidone palmitate once-monthly injectable for the treatment of schizophrenia in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a decision-analytic model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of initiating maintenance treatment with aripiprazole once-monthly (AOM) vs paliperidone long-acting injectable (PLAI) once-monthly among patients with schizophrenia in the US. METHODS: A decision-analytic model was developed to evaluate a hypothetical cohort of patients initiating maintenance treatment with AOM or PLAI. Rates of relapse, adverse events (AEs), and direct medical costs were estimated for 1 year. Patients either remained on initial treatment or discontinued treatment due to lack of efficacy, AEs, or other reasons, including non-adherence. Data from placebo-controlled pivotal trials and product prescribing information (PI) were used to estimate treatment efficacy and AEs. Analyses were performed assuming dosing of clinical trials, real-world practice, PIs, and highest therapeutic dose available, because of variation in practice settings. The main outcome of interest was incremental cost per schizophrenia hospitalization averted with AOM vs PLAI. RESULTS: Based on placebo-controlled pivotal trials' dosing, AOM improved clinical outcomes by reducing schizophrenia relapses vs PLAI (0.181 vs 0.277 per person per year [pppy]) at an additional cost of US$1276 pppy, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of US$13,280/relapse averted. When PI dosing was assumed, this ICER increased to US$19,968/relapse averted. When real-world dosing and highest available dosing were assumed, AOM was associated with fewer relapses and lower overall treatment costs vs PLAI. CONCLUSIONS: AOM consistently provided favorable clinical benefits. Under various dosing scenarios, AOM results indicated fewer relapses at lower overall costs or a reasonable cost-effectiveness threshold (i.e., less than the cost of a hospitalization relapse) vs PLAI. Given the heterogeneous nature of schizophrenia and variability in treatment response, health plans may consider open access for treatments like AOM. Since model inputs were based on data from separate placebo-controlled trials, generalization of results to the real-world setting is limited.

Cost-effectiveness of the once-daily efavirenz/emtricitabine/tenofovir tablet compared with the once-daily elvitegravir/cobicistat/emtricitabine/tenofovir tablet as first-line antiretroviral therapy in HIV-infected adults in the US.

BACKGROUND: February 2013 US treatment guidelines recommend the once-daily tablet of efavirenz/emtricitabine/tenofovir (Atripla®) as a preferred regimen and the once-daily tablet of elvitegravir/cobicistat/emtricitabine/tenofovir (Stribild™) as an alternative regimen for first-line treatment of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). This study assessed the clinical and economic trade-offs involved in using Atripla compared with Stribild as first-line antiretroviral therapy in HIV-infected US adults. METHODS: A Markov cohort model was developed to project lifetime health-related outcomes, costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and cost-effectiveness of Stribild compared with Atripla as first-line antiretroviral therapy in HIV-1-infected US patients. Patients progressed in 12-week cycles through second-line, third-line, and nonsuppressive therapies, acquired immune deficiency syndrome, and death. Baseline characteristics and first-line virologic suppression, change in CD4 count, and adverse effects (lipid, central nervous system, rash, renal) were based on 48-week clinical trial results. These results demonstrated equivalent virologic suppression between the two regimens. Point estimates for virologic suppression (favoring Stribild) were used in the base case, and equivalency was used in the scenario analysis. Published sources and expert opinion were used to estimate costs, utilities, risk of acquired immune deficiency syndrome, mortality, subsequent-line CD4 count, clinical efficacy, and adverse events. Costs were reported in 2012 US dollars. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess robustness of results. RESULTS: Compared with patients initiating Atripla, patients initiating Stribild were estimated to have higher lifetime costs. Stribild added 0.041 QALYs over a lifetime at an additional cost of $6,886, producing an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $166,287/QALY gained. Results were most sensitive to first-line response rates, product costs, and likelihood of renal adverse events. When equivalent efficacy was assumed, Atripla dominated Stribild with lower costs and greater QALYs. CONCLUSION: At a societal willingness to pay of $100,000/QALY, Stribild was not cost-effective in the base case compared with Atripla for first-line HIV treatment.

Using administrative claims data to estimate virologic failure rates among human immunodeficiency virus-infected patients with antiretroviral regimen switches.

OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate a claims signature model that estimates proportions of HIV-infected patients in administrative claims databases who switched combination antiretroviral therapy (cART) regimens because of virologic failure. METHODS: The authors used an HIV-specific registry (development data set) to develop logistic regression models to estimate odds of virologic failure among patients who switched cART regimens. Models were validated in a sample of administrative claims with laboratory values (validation data set). The final model was applied to an application data set as a worked example. RESULTS: There were 1691, 1073, and 3954 eligible patients with cART switches in the development, validation, and application data sets, respectively. In the development data set, virologic failure before a switch was observed 21.8% of the time. Failure more likely caused the regimen switch among patients who were treatment experienced, had been receiving their baseline regimen for > 180 days, had ≥ 2 or more physician visits within 90 days, had > 1 HIV RNA or CD4 cell count test within 30 days, had any resistance test within 180 days, or had a change in regimen type. The final model had good discriminatory ability (C = 0.885) and fit (Hosmer-Lemeshow P = 0.8692). Failure was estimated to occur in 18.9% (v. 18.6% observed) of switches in the validation data set and 13.8% in the application data set. CONCLUSIONS: This claims signature model allows payers to use claims data to estimate virologic failure rates in their patient populations, thereby better understanding plan costs of failure.

Cost-effectiveness of 21-gene assay in node-positive, early-stage breast cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To assess impact on health outcomes and healthcare expenditures of adopting a 21-gene assay for women with early-stage, minimally node-positive, estrogen receptor-positive (N (1-3)/ER) HER2-negative breast cancer. STUDY DESIGN: We adapted a deterministic decision-analytic model to estimate costs and quality-of-life outcomes associated with chemotherapy, adverse events, supportive care, recurrence, and second primary cancers for usual care compared with care determined by the 21-gene assay recurrence score, where 71% and 54% of women, respectively, were treated with adjuvant chemotherapy. Model input data were based on national statistics, published literature, physician surveys, and Medicare Part B prices. METHODS: Annual numbers of events were multiplied by quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) lost and costs to estimate net health and economic impacts of each strategy. Analyses were from a managed care payer perspective for the US population. RESULTS: Patients receiving the assay were predicted to gain 0.127 QALY and save $4359 annually from avoiding chemotherapy, adverse events, supportive care, and secondary primary tumors. For a 2-million member plan, net gains were 4.44 QALYs/year and savings were $13,476/year. Cost savings were greater for the Medicare population. Although overall results were sensitive only to reduced impact of testing and chemotherapy costs, they were still highly cost-effective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio <$20,000/QALY). CONCLUSIONS: Use of a 21-gene assay in patients with early-stage N (1-3)/ER HER2-negative breast cancer may improve health outcomes and add no incremental cost, thereby providing valuable insight for health plans, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and clinicians regarding coverage policies and treatment decisions.

Cost effectiveness of atazanavir-ritonavir versus lopinavir-ritonavir in treatment-naïve human immunodeficiency virus-infected patients in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate lifetime cost effectiveness of atazanavir-ritonavir (ATV + r) versus lopinavir-ritonavir (LPV/r), both with tenofovir-emtricitabine, in US HIV-infected patients initiating first-line antiretroviral therapy. METHODS: A Markov microsimulation model was developed to calculate quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) based on CD4 and HIV RNA levels, coronary heart disease (CHD), AIDS, opportunistic infections (OIs), diarrhea, and hyperbilirubinemia. A million-member cohort of HIV-1-infected, treatment-naïve adults progressed at 3-month intervals through eight health states. Baseline characteristics, virologic suppression, cholesterol changes, and diarrhea and hyperbilirubinemia rates were based on 96-week CASTLE trial results. HIV mortality, OI rates, adherence, costs, utilities, and CHD risk were from literature and experts. LIMITATIONS: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) may be overestimated because the ATV + r treatment effect was based on an intention-to-treat analysis. The QALY weights used for diarrhea, hyperbilirubinemia, and CHD events are uncertain; however, the ICER remained < $50,000/QALY when these values were varied in sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: ATV + r patients received first-line therapy longer than LPV/r patients (97.3 vs. 70.7 months), had longer quality-adjusted survival (11.02 vs. 10.76 years), similar overall survival (18.52 vs. 18.51 years), and higher costs ($275,986 vs. 269,160). ATV+r [corrected] patients had lower rates of AIDS (19.08 vs. 20.05 cases/1000 patient-years), OIs (0.44 vs.0.52), diarrhea (1.27 vs. 6.26), and CHD events(5.44 vs. 5.51), but higher hyperbilirubinemia rates (6.99 vs. 0.25. ATV + r added 0.26 QALYs at a cost of $6826, for $26,421/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: By more effectively reducing viral load with less gastrointestinal toxicity and a better lipid profile, ATV + r lowered rates of AIDS and CHD, increased quality-adjusted survival, and was cost effective (< $50,000/QALY) compared with LPV/r.

Bias associated with failing to incorporate dependence on event history in Markov models.

PURPOSE: When using state-transition Markov models to simulate risk of recurrent events over time, incorporating dependence on higher numbers of prior episodes can increase model complexity, yet failing to capture this event history may bias model outcomes. This analysis assessed the tradeoffs between model bias and complexity when evaluating risks of recurrent events in Markov models. METHODS: The authors developed a generic episode/relapse Markov cohort model, defining bias as the percentage change in events prevented with 2 hypothetical interventions (prevention and treatment) when incorporating 0 to 9 prior episodes in relapse risk versus a model with 10 such episodes. Magnitude and sign of bias were evaluated as a function of event and recovery risks, disease-specific mortality, and risk function. RESULTS: Bias was positive in the base case for a prevention strategy, indicating that failing to fully incorporate dependence on event history overestimated the prevention's predicted impact. For treatment, the bias was negative, indicating an underestimated benefit. Bias approached zero as the number of tracked prior episodes increased, and the average bias over 10 tracked episodes was greater with the exponential compared with linear functions of relapse risk and with treatment compared with prevention strategies. With linear and exponential risk functions, absolute bias reached 33% and 78%, respectively, in prevention and 52% and 85% in treatment. CONCLUSION: Failing to incorporate dependence on prior event history in subsequent relapse risk in Markov models can greatly affect model outcomes, overestimating the impact of prevention and treatment strategies by up to 85% and underestimating the impact in some treatment models by up to 20%. When at least 4 prior episodes are incorporated, bias does not exceed 26% in prevention or 11% in treatment.

Effects of categorizing continuous variables in decision-analytic models.

PURPOSE: When using continuous predictor variables in discrete-state Markov modeling, it is necessary to create categories of risk and assume homogeneous disease risk within categories, which may bias model outcomes. This analysis assessed the tradeoffs between model bias and complexity and/or data limitations when categorizing continuous risk factors in Markov models. METHODS: The authors developed a generic Markov cohort model of disease, defining bias as the percentage change in life expectancy gain from a hypothetical intervention when using 2 to 15 risk factor categories as compared with modeling the risk factor as a continuous variable. They evaluated the magnitude and sign of bias as a function of disease incidence, disease-specific mortality, and relative difference in risk among categories. RESULTS: Bias was positive in the base case, indicating that categorization overestimated life expectancy gains. The bias approached zero as the number of risk factor categories increased and did not exceed 4% for any parameter combinations or numbers of categories considered. For any given disease-specific mortality and disease incidence, bias increased with relative risk of disease. For any given relative risk, the relationship between bias and parameters such as disease-specific mortality or disease incidence was not always monotonic. CONCLUSIONS: Under the assumption of a normally distributed risk factor and reasonable assumption regarding disease risk and moderate values for the relative risk of disease given risk factor category, categorizing continuously valued risk factors in Markov models is associated with less than 4% absolute bias when at least 2 categories are used.

A cost-effectiveness analysis of folic acid fortification policy in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify the health and economic outcomes associated with changes in folic acid consumption following the fortification of enriched grain products in the USA. DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis. SETTING: Annual burden of disease, quality-adjusted life years (QALY) and costs were projected for four steady-state strategies: no fortification, or fortifying with 140, 350 or 700 microg folic acid per 100 g enriched grain. The analysis considered four health outcomes: neural tube defects (NTD), myocardial infarctions (MI), colon cancers and B12 deficiency maskings. SUBJECTS: The US adult population subgroups defined by age, gender and race/ethnicity, with folate intake distributions from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (1988-1992 and 1999-2000), and reference sources for disease incidence, utility and economic estimates. RESULTS: The greatest benefits from fortification were predicted in MI prevention, with 16 862 and 88 172 cases averted per year in steady state for the 140 and 700 microg fortification levels, respectively. These projections were between 6261 and 38 805 for colon cancer and 182 and 1423 for NTD, while 15-820 additional B12 cases were predicted. Compared with no fortification, all post-fortification strategies provided QALY gains and cost savings for all subgroups, with predicted population benefits of 266 649 QALY gained and $3.6 billion saved in the long run by changing the fortification level from 140 microg/100 g enriched grain to 700 microg/100 g. CONCLUSIONS: The present study indicates that the health and economic gains of folic acid fortification far outweigh the losses for the US population, and that increasing the level of fortification deserves further consideration to maximise net gains.