Cost-Effectiveness of Tofacitinib for Patients with Moderate-to-Severe Rheumatoid Arthritis in China.

BACKGROUND: Patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis have a heavy financial burden. The cost-effectiveness of introducing tofacitinib to the current treatment sequence for patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis who have inadequate response or intolerance to conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs-IR) in China remains unknown. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of introducing tofacitinib into the current treatment sequence in China for patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis who have csDMARDs-IR. METHODS: A Markov model was constructed from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system to compare treatment sequences with and without first-line tofacitinib for patients with rheumatoid arthritis with csDMARDs-IR. The treatment sequence without tofacitinib included adalimumab, etanercept, recombinant human tumor necrosis factor receptor-Fc fusion protein, infliximab, and tocilizumab. Costs were derived from publicly available sources. Clinical trials, network meta-analysis, and real-world data were used to generate quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), transition probabilities, and the incidence of adverse events. Mortality probabilities were estimated from rheumatoid arthritis-based, Chinese all-cause mortality data. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to verify the robustness of the model. In addition, the cost-effectiveness of adding tofacitinib as second- and third-line treatment options was evaluated in our analyses. Costs and effects were discounted at 5% per anum. RESULTS: Compared to the current treatment sequence, adding tofacitinib as first-line treatment led to a cost-saving of $US880.11 (2018 values) and incremental QALYs of 1.34. Sensitivity analyses showed the results to be robust. Adding tofacitinib at second-line therapy was also a cost-saving option with a cost saving of $US653.65 and incremental QALYs of 1.34, while the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of adding tofacitinib at third-line therapy was $US5588.14 per QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: Using the WHO-recommended ICER acceptability threshold of ≤ 1-time per capita Gross Domestic Product (GDP), our analysis suggests that the introduction of tofacitinib into the current treatment sequence for moderate-to-severe RA patients with csDMARDs-IR in China was a cost saving option as first- and second-line treatment, and cost-effective as a third-line treatment option. Of note, use of tofacitinib as first- and second-line treatment post-csDMARDs-IR appeared to be cost saving.

Machine Learning for Precision Health Economics and Outcomes Research (P-HEOR): Conceptual Review of Applications and Next Steps.

Precision health economics and outcomes research (P-HEOR) integrates economic and clinical value assessment by explicitly discovering distinct clinical and health care utilization phenotypes among patients. Through a conceptualized example, the objective of this review is to highlight the capabilities and limitations of machine learning (ML) applications to P-HEOR and to contextualize the potential opportunities and challenges for the wide adoption of ML for health economics. We outline a P-HEOR conceptual framework extending the ML methodology to comparatively assess the economic value of treatment regimens. Latest methodology developments on bias and confounding control in ML applications to precision medicine are also summarized.

Effect of multiple drug resistance on total medical costs among patients with intra-abdominal infections in China.

BACKGROUND: Multiple drug resistant (MDR) intra-abdominal infections (IAIs) are associated with notable direct and societal costs. As previous studies have not considered the impact of MDR on the total medical costs (TMCs) of IAIs, the present one examines this, as well as further estimates the additional costs at a national level. METHODS: This is a retrospective study. Firstly, we randomly selected a sample of 40% of all inpatients discharged between 2014 and 2015 from a teaching hospital, due to limits in budget and the large number of patients. Then, we manually selected 254 patients with IAIs according to the International Classification of Disease, 10th revision, using electronic medical records. Eventually, 101 patients with IAIs (64 MDR patients and 37 non-MDR patients) were included after excluding cases without laboratory test results, any pathogens detected, or antimicrobial resistant pathogens. Univariate analysis and a generalized linear model were applied to assess the parameters associated with TMCs. RESULTS: Compared to non-MDR patients, those with MDR pathogens were significantly associated with higher TMCs, higher antimicrobial costs, higher antimicrobial usage, larger number of pathogens, and longer length of stay and were more likely to have insurance and combination antimicrobial therapy. In addition, the average TMC among patients with MDR pathogens was ¥ 131801, which is ¥ 90201 higher than those without MDR pathogens. If our results are applied to the whole country, the sum of all attributable TMCs was ¥ 37 billion. The societal costs, furthermore, were ¥111 billion in 2015. CONCLUSION: Our results provide information that should lead to increased efforts to reduce inappropriate antimicrobial therapy, in order to decrease the emergence of MDR pathogens and to reduce their economic burden.

Precision Health Economics and Outcomes Research to Support Precision Medicine: Big Data Meets Patient Heterogeneity on the Road to Value.

The "big data" era represents an exciting opportunity to utilize powerful new sources of information to reduce clinical and health economic uncertainty on an individual patient level. In turn, health economic outcomes research (HEOR) practices will need to evolve to accommodate individual patient-level HEOR analyses. We propose the concept of "precision HEOR", which utilizes a combination of costs and outcomes derived from big data to inform healthcare decision-making that is tailored to highly specific patient clusters or individuals. To explore this concept, we discuss the current and future roles of HEOR in health sector decision-making, big data and predictive analytics, and several key HEOR contexts in which big data and predictive analytics might transform traditional HEOR into precision HEOR. The guidance document addresses issues related to the transition from traditional to precision HEOR practices, the evaluation of patient similarity analysis and its appropriateness for precision HEOR analysis, and future challenges to precision HEOR adoption. Precision HEOR should make precision medicine more realizable by aiding and adapting healthcare resource allocation. The combined hopes for precision medicine and precision HEOR are that individual patients receive the best possible medical care while overall healthcare costs remain manageable or become more cost-efficient.

Economic analysis of empiric versus diagnostic-driven strategies for immunocompromised patients with suspected fungal infections in the People's Republic of China.

Invasive fungal infections (IFIs) require rapid diagnosis and treatment. A decision-analytic model was used to estimate total costs and survival associated with a diagnostic-driven (DD) or an empiric treatment approach in neutropenic patients with hematological malignancies receiving chemotherapy or autologous/allogeneic stem cell transplants in Shanghai, Beijing, Chengdu, and Guangzhou, the People's Republic of China. Treatment initiation for the empiric approach occurred after clinical suspicion of an IFI; treatment initiation for the DD approach occurred after clinical suspicion and a positive IFI diagnostic test result. Model inputs were obtained from the literature; treatment patterns and resource use were based on clinical opinion. Total costs were lower for the DD versus the empiric approach in Shanghai (¥3,232 vs ¥4,331), Beijing (¥3,894 vs ¥4,864), Chengdu, (¥4,632 vs ¥5,795), and Guangzhou (¥8,489 vs ¥9,795). Antifungal administration was lower using the DD (5.7%) than empiric (9.8%) approach, with similar survival rates. Results from one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were most sensitive to changes in diagnostic test sensitivity and IFI incidence; the DD approach dominated the empiric approach in 88% of scenarios. These results suggest that a DD compared to an empiric treatment approach in the People's Republic of China may be cost saving, with similar overall survival in immunocompromised patients with suspected IFIs.

Drug pricing reform in China: analysis of piloted approaches and potential impact of the reform.

OBJECTIVES: In 2009, the Chinese government launched a national healthcare reform programme aiming to control healthcare expenditure and increase the quality of care. As part of this programme, a new drug pricing reform was initiated on 1 June 2015. The objective of this study was to describe the changing landscape of drug pricing policy in China and analyse the potential impact of the reform. METHODS: The authors conducted thorough research on the drug pricing reform using three Chinese databases (CNKI, Wanfang, and Weipu), Chinese health authority websites, relevant press releases, and pharmaceutical blogs and discussion forums. This research was complemented with qualitative research based on targeted interviews with key Chinese opinion leaders representing the authorities' and prescribers' perspectives. RESULTS: With the current reform, the government has attempted to replace its direct control over the prices of reimbursable drugs with indirect, incentive-driven influence. Although the exact implementation of the reform remains unclear at the moment, the changes introduced so far and the pilot project designs indicate that China is considering adaptation of some form of internal and external reference pricing policies, commonly used in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. Several challenges related to the potential new mechanism were identified: 1) the risk of hospital underfunding, if hospital funding reform is not prioritised; 2) the risk of promoting the use of cheap, low-quality drugs, if a reliable quality control system is not in place and discrepancy between the available drugs is present; 3) the risk of increasing disparity in access to care between poor and rich regions, in case of country-wide price convergence; and 4) the risk of industry underinvestment, resulting in reduced competition, issues with quality and sustainability of supply, and potentially negative social impact. CONCLUSIONS: Foreign pricing policies cannot be transferred to China without prioritising historical, cultural, and economic contextualisation. Otherwise, the new policy may be counterproductive and affect the whole healthcare chain, as well as the health outcomes of Chinese patients.

Economic evaluation among Chinese patients with nosocomial pneumonia caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and treated with linezolid or vancomycin: a secondary, post-hoc analysis based on a Phase 4 clinical trial study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess cost-effectiveness of linezolid vs vancomycin in treating nosocomial pneumonia caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA-NP) in China and the impact of renal failure on healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and costs. METHODS: Cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted based on data from the ZEPHyR trial, with efficacy measured by treatment success and costs calculated from HCRU. Confidence intervals (CI) for cost, efficacy and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were calculated by non-parametric bootstrap. Chi-square test was used for renal failure rate and t-test for HCRU/cost comparisons. Impact of renal failure was assessed using regression model. RESULTS: Data from 448 patients (1:1 linezolid:vancomycin) were analyzed. More patients treated with linezolid achieved success (55% [95% CI = 48-62%]) than with vancomycin (45% [38-52%]). Treatment cost were ¥79,551 (95% CI = ¥72,421-¥86,680) for linezolid vs ¥77,587 (¥70,656-¥84,519) for vancomycin in Beijing, ¥90,995 (¥82,598-¥99,393) vs ¥89,448 (¥81,295-¥97,601) in Guangzhou, ¥82,383 (¥74,956-¥89,810) vs ¥80,799 (¥73,545-¥88,054) in Nanjing and ¥59,413 (¥54,366-¥64,460) vs ¥57,804 (¥52,613-¥62,996) in Xi'an. Per successful treatment, the ICER of linezolid over vancomycin were ¥19,719 (-¥143,553 to ¥320,980) (Beijing), ¥15,532 (-¥185,411 to ¥349,693) (Guangzhou), ¥15,904 (-¥161,935 to ¥314,987) (Nanjing) and ¥16,145 (-¥100,738 to ¥234,412) (Xi'an). From simulations, the majority of linezolid cases had greater efficacy and higher costs and more than one third had greater efficacy and lower costs. More vancomycin patients developed renal failure (15% vs 4%, p < 0.001). Patients with renal failure had higher cost (Nanjng: ¥100,449 (SD = ¥65,080) vs ¥74,944 (SD = ¥49,632), p = 0.002). CONCLUSION: Linezolid was more cost-effective than vancomycin in treating MRSA-NP from a Chinese payer's perspective, and associated with less renal failure, HCRU and cost.

Cost-Effectiveness of Linezolid versus Vancomycin among Patients with Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Confirmed Nosocomial Pneumonia in China.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of intravenous linezolid as a first-line agent against intravenous vancomycin in treating methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus-confirmed nosocomial pneumonia in four Chinese cities. METHODS: A decision-analytic model of 4-week time horizon was used to conduct cost-effectiveness analyses from the payer's perspective. Clinical outcomes and resource use data were derived from a head-to-head trial, supplemented with local cost estimates based on hospital data via an expert panel. A series of scenario analyses were conducted to evaluate the impact of uncertainty around model inputs. All results were reported in 2012 Chinese Renminbi. RESULTS: The predicted probability of overall treatment success was 0.629 and 0.602 for linezolid and vancomycin, respectively. Total inpatient costs varied across the four cities, ranging from ¥58,835 to ¥86,894 for linezolid and ¥58,390 to ¥87,033 for vancomycin, respectively. Linezolid was demonstrated to be a dominant treatment strategy in Guangzhou. In Beijing, Nanjing, and Xi'an, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios in terms of additional successfully treated patient were ¥1,861, ¥163, and ¥16,509, respectively. Dominance by linezolid was observed in some scenario analyses with parameters such as treatment duration, inclusion of cost of managing adverse events, and drug acquisition costs being the main drivers of cost-effectiveness results. CONCLUSIONS: Despite linezolid's higher drug acquisition cost, its superior clinical efficacy renders it a likely cost-effective alternative for the treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus-confirmed nosocomial pneumonia as compared with branded vancomycin from the payer perspectives of Beijing, Guangzhou, Nanjing, and Xi'an.