Cost-effectiveness of terlipressin for hepatorenal syndrome: the United States hospital perspective.

BACKGROUND: Hepatorenal syndrome (HRS) is characterized by severely reduced renal perfusion that precipitates rapid morbidity and mortality. Terlipressin is the only US Food and Drug Administration-approved treatment to improve kidney function for adults with HRS with a rapid reduction in kidney function. Prior to the approval of terlipressin, unapproved vasoconstrictive agents used in HRS treatment were octreotide/midodrine and norepinephrine with albumin. METHODS: A cohort decision-tree model representing a US hospital perspective assessed the clinical outcomes and direct medical costs (based primarily on hospital charges) of treating HRS with terlipressin + albumin (ALB) versus midodrine/octreotide (MID/OCT)+ALB, or norepinephrine (NorEp)+ALB. Treatment efficacy was defined by clinical response (complete/HRS reversal, partial, or no response) based on change of serum creatinine derived from published clinical trial reports. The proportions of patients with complete response were: terlipressin + ALB (36.2%), NorEp + ALB (19.1%), and MID/OCT + ALB (3.1%). Model outcomes included utilization of HRS-related healthcare resources (hospital and intensive care, outpatient and emergency department, dialysis, and transplantations), adverse events, and HRS-related mortality. Outcomes were assessed for the initial hospitalization in the base case and at 30, 60, and 90 days post-discharge. RESULTS: Total costs incurred over the initial hospitalization with terlipressin + ALB were lower vs NorEp + ALB, primarily due to higher ICU costs with NorEp + ALB ($7,433 vs $61,897). TER + ALB was associated with higher total costs vs MID/OCT + ALB due to higher pharmacy costs with terlipressin + ALB. The cost per complete response achieved of terlipressin + ALB ($451,605) was half that of NorEp + ALB ($930,571) and one-tenth that of MID/OCT + ALB ($4,942,123). CONCLUSIONS: HRS patients treated with terlipressin experienced better clinical outcomes and a lower cost per treatment response vs other unapproved treatments. ICU days and pharmacy costs were key cost drivers distinguishing the treatment groups. These outcomes suggest that terlipressin is cost-effective on the basis of total cost per response achieved.

Hepatorenal syndrome (HRS) is a rare and sudden life-threatening complication of the liver. Patients with HRS should receive immediate treatment with a drug that narrows blood vessels known as a vasoconstrictor. Terlipressin is the most common vasoconstrictor used for patients with HRS. Other common vasoconstrictors are midodrine with octreotide and norepinephrine. This study aimed to compare the cost of terlipressin with those of midodrine with octreotide and norepinephrine while also considering how well each of them worked to reverse HRS. This was done using an economic model. This economic model assessed the costs of the vasoconstrictor drugs and the costs of treating HRS, including costs attributable to drug acquisition, adverse events, organ transplantation, dialysis, and institutional encounters (i.e. hospitalization, ICU, emergency department, and outpatient visits). The magnitude of these costs depends on how well each drug reversed HRS. Based on inputs derived from their respective clinical trials, 36% of patients who were given terlipressin had a complete response (HRS was reversed), 19% of patients who were given norepinephrine had a complete response, and 3% of patients who were given midodrine with octreotide had a complete response. The total cost per patient was approximately $163,481 for terlipressin, $177,298 for norepinephrine, and $155,030 for midodrine with octreotide. When the costs were evaluated against how well the drugs worked to reverse HRS, the lowest cost per HRS reversal was $451,605 when treated with terlipressin. The cost per reversal for norepinephrine was $930,571 and for midodrine with octreotide was $4,942,123. These results show that terlipressin works well and is more cost-effective for US hospitals compared with the other unapproved treatment options for HRS with rapid reduction in kidney function.

The burden of ovarian cancer in the USA from 2007 to 2018: evidence from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey.

Aim: To evaluate the economic and humanistic burden of ovarian cancer in the USA. Methods: Medical Expenditure Panel Survey data (2007-2018) were used to estimate all-cause healthcare resource use and costs for economic burden and examine the activities of daily living and quality-of-life (QoL) measures for humanistic burden between ovarian cancer patients and a non-cancer population. Results: Compared with controls, patients with ovarian cancer had more comorbidities and worse QoL. Their predicted number of annual hospitalizations and office-based visits was significantly higher, as were their estimated annual all-cause total healthcare costs. Total costs were driven by hospitalization costs. Conclusion: The study identified the burden of ovarian cancer and demonstrated that patients with ovarian cancer have greater healthcare resource use, higher costs and worse QoL than the non-cancer population. Future research is needed to develop strategies for managing ovarian cancers and inform decision-making to reduce disease burden.

What is this article about? The article discusses the impact that ovarian cancer has, both in terms of economics and quality of life. We used data from 2007 to 2018 to identify women with ovarian cancer as well as women without cancer for the sake of comparison. What were the results? We found that individuals with ovarian cancer face considerable burdens, and their treatment costs have a notable impact on healthcare systems. Compared with women without cancer, women with ovarian cancer are older and have a greater number of additional illnesses, and their quality of life is lower. Their use of healthcare resources is greater and hence the costs associated with their treatment are higher. What do the results of the study mean? This study adds to the existing data about the burden imposed by ovarian cancer, on individuals as well as on healthcare systems. Interventions are needed to reduce the impacts of the disease.

Impact of Hypomethylating Agent Use on Hospital and Emergency Room Visits, and Predictors of Early Discontinuation in Patients With Higher-Risk Myelodysplastic Syndromes.

BACKGROUND: Previous analyses using the SEER-Medicare database have reported substantial underutilization of hypomethylating agents (HMAs) among patients with higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), and an association between poor HMA persistence and high economic burden. We aimed to compare rates of hospitalizations and emergency room (ER) visits among patients with higher-risk MDS according to use or non-use of HMA therapy, and to explore factors associated with early discontinuation of HMA therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We used the 2010-2016 SEER-Medicare database to identify patients aged ≥66 years with a new diagnosis of refractory anemia with excess blasts (RAEB; a surrogate for higher-risk MDS) between 2011 and 2015. New hospitalizations and ER visits during the 12 months following MDS diagnosis were determined. Treatment discontinuation was defined as stopping HMA therapy before 4 cycles. RESULTS: Overall, 664 (55.8%) patients were HMA users and 526 (44.2%) non-users. Non-users had more hospitalizations (mean 0.47 vs. 0.30, P < .001) and ER visits (mean 0.69 vs. 0.41, P = .005) per month than HMA users. Among HMA users, 193 (29.1%) discontinued HMA therapy before 4 cycles, and 91 (47.2%) of these after 1 cycle. Older age and poor performance status were associated with higher risk of HMA discontinuation. CONCLUSION: An increased rate of hospitalizations and ER visits occurred in HMA non-users vs. HMA users. Approximately one-third of patients discontinued HMA therapy early. Predictors of discontinuation included older age and poor performance status. Novel approaches are needed to improve utilization and persistence with HMA therapy and associated outcomes, particularly among these higher-risk groups.

Treatment patterns and economic burden among newly diagnosed cervical and endometrial cancer patients.

Aim: This study evaluated treatment patterns, healthcare resource use and healthcare costs among newly diagnosed US patients with cervical or endometrial cancer. Materials & methods: The authors identified patients diagnosed between 2015 and 2018, described them by line of therapy (LOT), then summarized all-cause per patient per month healthcare resource use and healthcare costs per LOT. Results: Among 1004 patients with cervical cancer and 2006 patients with endometrial cancer, 65.2 and 71.4%, respectively, received at least LOT1. Common treatment modalities in LOT1 were surgery (cervical, 58.0%; endometrial, 92.6%), radiation therapy (cervical, 49.8%; 24.7%) and systemic therapy (cervical, 53.3%; endometrial, 26.1%). Mean per patient per month costs per LOT were pre-treatment (cervical, US$17,210; endometrial, US$14,601), LOT1 (cervical, US$10,929; endometrial, US$6859), LOT2 (cervical, US$15,183; endometrial, US$10,649) and LOT3+ (cervical, US$19,681; endometrial, US$9206). Conclusion: Overall, newly diagnosed patients with cervical or endometrial cancer received guideline-recommended treatment. Outpatient visits mainly drove healthcare costs across LOTs.

Treatment patterns and economic burden among cervical and endometrial cancer patients newly initiating systemic therapy.

Aim: To evaluate treatment patterns, healthcare resource use (HCRU) and all-cause healthcare costs among patients with cervical or endometrial cancer newly initiating systemic therapy. Methods: We identified patients with cervical or endometrial cancer newly initiating systemic therapy - a claims-based proxy for advanced disease - between 2014 and 2019, described them by line of therapy (LOT), and summarized the per patient per month (PPPM) HCRU and healthcare costs per LOT. Results: Among 1229 patients with cervical cancer and 2659 patients with endometrial cancer, LOT1 therapies included systemic only (cervical, 50.1%; endometrial, 83.2%) and systemic with radiation therapy (cervical, 49.9%; endometrial, 16.8%). Mean PPPM total costs were: LOT1 (cervical, US$15,892; endometrial, US$11,363), LOT2 (US$20,193; US$14,019) and LOT3+ (US$16,576; US$14,645). Conclusions: Overall, patients received guideline-concordant care and experienced significant economic burden, which increased with LOT.

Clinical and Economic Burden of Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest in US Commercial Insurance Population (2014 to 2019).

Little is known about the economic burden incurred by out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) in the US commercial insurance setting. We used IBM MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters Database (January 2014 to March 2019) to identify patients hospitalized with OHCA based on the International Classification of Diseases codes. Patients who survived the initial OHCA episode were stratified by prognosis based on discharge setting and classified into mild (discharged home), moderate (skilled nursing facility), severe (inpatient rehabilitation or long-term hospital), and very severe (hospice) prognosis groups, respectively. Patients were followed up for 12 months after discharge for health care resource utilization and medical costs, which were inflated to year 2020. Overall, 23,512 patients with OHCA hospitalization were identified, of whom 14,667 were <65 years and 60.5% were men. The incidence of OHCA per 100,000 was steady in patients <65 years over the years (17.9 in 2014; 17.5 in 2018) but among those ≥65 years, decreased from 139.7 in 2014 to 111.1 in 2018. Total medical costs 12 months after discharge generally increased with severity of prognosis, with an average for the mild, moderate, and severe prognosis group, respectively, estimated to be $52,746, $100,394, and $130,530 among patients <65 years, and $63,194, $65,794, and $70,973 among those ≥65 years. Costs were lower for those with very severe prognosis ($7,102 for <65 years; $2,553 for ≥65 years), possibly due to high mortality. In conclusion, OHCA continues to pose a substantial clinical and economic burden on patients and the US health care system, which increases with the severity of disease prognosis.

Phase-specific and lifetime economic burden of cervical cancer and endometrial cancer in a commercially insured United States population.

AIM: To estimate the incremental phase-specific and lifetime economic burden among newly diagnosed cervical and endometrial cancer patients vs. non-cancer controls. METHODS: Cervical and endometrial cancer patients newly diagnosed between January 2015 and June 2018 were identified in the Optum Clinformatics DataMart database. The index date was the date of the first diagnosis for cancer cases and the first claim date after 12 months of continuous enrollment for non-cancer controls. Patients were followed until death/loss of enrollment/end of data availability. Per patient per month (PPPM) costs attributable to cancer were calculated for four phases: pre-diagnosis (3 months before diagnosis), initial (6 months post-diagnosis), terminal (6 months pre-death), and continuation (remaining time between initial and terminal phases). Survival data were obtained to determine the monthly proportion of patients in each phase. Total survival adjusted monthly costs were obtained by multiplying the proportion of patients in each phase by the total cost incurred during that month. Phase-specific and lifetime incremental costs of cervical and endometrial cancer were obtained using generalized linear models. RESULTS: The analytic cohort included 1,002 cervical cancer patients and 4,005 matched non-cancer controls and 5,003 endometrial cancer patients matched with 19,999 non-cancer controls. Mean adjusted incremental PPPM lifetime costs (95% CI) for cervical cancer and endometrial cancer cases were $5,910 ($5,373-$6,446) and $3,475 ($3,259-$3,691), respectively. Incremental total PPPM phase-specific costs attributable to cervical and endometrial cancer were pre-diagnosis (cervical: $1,057; endometrial: $3,315), initial ($12,084; $8,618), continuation ($2,732; $1,147), and terminal ($2,702; $5,442). Incremental costs were significantly higher for cancer patients vs. non-cancer controls across patient lifetime and all phases of care (except terminal phase costs for cervical cancer). Outpatient costs were the major driver of costs across all post-diagnosis phases. CONCLUSION: This study highlights the cost burden associated with cervical/endometrial cancer and cost variation by phases of care.

Corrigendum: Economic Value of Lost Productivity Attributable to Human Papillomavirus Cancer Mortality in the United States.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2020.624092.].

Direct Medical Costs Associated With Treatment Nonpersistence in Patients With Higher-Risk Myelodysplastic Syndromes Receiving Hypomethylating Agents: A Large Retrospective Cohort Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Suboptimal use of hypomethylating agents (HMAs) among higher-risk myelodysplastic syndrome (HR-MDS) patients can translate into worse health outcomes and economic burden. We estimated the direct medical costs associated with HMA treatment nonpersistence among HR-MDS patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare linked database, a retrospective cohort of patients diagnosed with refractory anemia with excess blasts (RAEB), a diagnosis that substantially overlaps with HR-MDS, between January 2011 and December 2015 was analyzed. Patients who had ≥ 1 year of continuous Medicare enrollment before diagnosis and who did not receive stem cell transplant or lenalidomide in the follow-up period were included. Patients receiving HMAs were stratified into HMA persistent (≥4 HMA cycles) and HMA nonpersistent (<4 cycles or a gap of ≥ 90 days between cycles) groups. Healthcare resource use and costs during the follow-up period were reported descriptively as total and per patient per month (PPPM). Weighted generalized linear models (GLM) were used to compare estimated healthcare resource use and costs between HMA groups. RESULTS: Among the 664 patients with RAEB, 295 (44.4%) were HMA nonpersistent and 369 (55.6%) HMA persistent. On the basis of weighted GLM analysis, the HMA nonpersistent group incurred significantly (P < .05) higher total PPPM costs compared to the HMA persistent group ($18,039 vs. $13,893), particularly for hospitalization ($3,375 vs. $2,131), and emergency room ($5,517 vs. $2,867) costs. CONCLUSION: There is a substantial economic burden associated with early discontinuation of guideline-recommended HMA therapy in RAEB patients. The study findings necessitate closer care management in this population in order to improve outcomes and reduce healthcare spending.

Cost-Utility of All-Oral Direct-Acting Antiviral Regimens for the Treatment of Genotype 1 Chronic Hepatitis C Virus-Infected Patients in Hong Kong.

BACKGROUND: Direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) are entering the hepatitis C virus (HCV) treatment landscape in Hong Kong, prompting the need for cost-effectiveness evaluations of these interventions to enable optimal use of healthcare resources. AIMS: This study aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of DAAs to standard-of-care pegylated interferon plus ribavirin (RBV) in treatment-naïve patients without significant liver fibrosis and to compare different DAAs in patients who are treatment-experienced and/or have advanced liver disease. METHODS: A Markov model was constructed to evaluate cost-effectiveness over a lifetime time horizon from the payer perspective. The target population was treatment-naïve and treatment-experienced HCV genotype 1 patients, stratified by degree of liver fibrosis. The model consists of 16 health states encompassing METAVIR fibrosis score (F0-F4), treatment success or failure, decompensated cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma, liver transplant, and liver-related death. The proportions of patients achieving sustained virologic response were obtained from clinical trials. Other inputs were obtained from published and local data. The primary outcome was incremental cost-utility ratio for each DAA versus pegylated interferon + ribavirin and among different DAAs. RESULTS: In treatment-naïve F0-2 HCV patients, all DAAs were cost-effective in genotype 1a and daclatasvir + asunaprevir, elbasvir/grazoprevir, ledipasvir/sofosbuvir, and glecaprevir/pibrentasvir were cost-effective compared to pegylated interferon + ribavirin in genotype 1b. In genotypes 1a and 1b, treatment-experienced patients, and F3-4 patients, elbasvir/grazoprevir was the least costly DAA and economically dominant over most other DAAs. CONCLUSIONS: DAAs can be a cost-effective option for the treatment of genotype 1 HCV patients in Hong Kong, and elbasvir/grazoprevir is cost-effective.

Economic and Humanistic Burden of Cervical Cancer in the United States: Results from a Nationally Representative Survey.

Objective: To measure the economic and humanistic burden of cervical cancer in the United States. Materials and Methods: This was a retrospective analysis of Medical Expenditure Panel Survey data (2006-2015). Cervical cancer cases were identified using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification code "180" or clinical classification software code "26". The control group included women without any cancer diagnosis. Study outcomes included health care resource use (institutional inpatient and outpatient, emergency room, and physician office visits), costs, limitations in activities of daily living, and quality of life (general health status, 12-Item Short Form Health Survey [SF-12] physical and mental component summary [MCS], EuroQol-5D and Short-Form Six-Dimension health utility, and Patient Health Questionnaire-2 depression severity). Generalized linear models, controlling for sociodemographic and clinical covariates, were conducted to compare outcomes between cases and controls. Results: The analytic cohort included 275,246 cervical cancer cases and 146,061,609 noncancer controls. Cases were significantly older (mean age [years]: 42.03 vs. 36.98) and had a higher Charlson comorbidity burden (mean score: 1.06 vs. 0.46) versus controls. Multivariate analyses suggested that compared to controls, cancer cases had significantly higher costs: institutional outpatient ($1,610 vs. $502), physician visit ($2,422 vs. $1,321), and total health care ($10,031 vs. $4,913). Cases were 1.99 (odds ratio [OR]: 1.991; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.23-3.22) and 2.56 (OR: 2.562; 95% CI: 1.78-3.68) times as likely to report activity limitations and poor general health versus controls. Cervical cancer patients had significantly lower SF-12 physical and MCS score, health utility, and higher depression severity. Conclusions: Cervical cancer is associated with significant economic burden, activity limitations, and quality of life impairment among ambulatory women in the United States.

Economic Value of Lost Productivity Attributable to Human Papillomavirus Cancer Mortality in the United States.

Objectives: To estimate years of potential life lost (YPLL) and present value of future lost productivity (PVFLP) associated with premature mortality due to HPV-attributable cancers, specifically those targeted by nonavalent HPV (9vHPV) vaccination, in the United States (US) before vaccine use. Methods: YPLL was estimated from the reported number of deaths in 2017 due to HPV-related cancers, the proportion attributable to 9vHPV-targeted types, and age- and sex-specific US life expectancy. PVFLP was estimated as the product of YPLL by age- and sex-specific probability of labor force participation, annual wage, value of non-market labor, and fringe benefits markup factor. Results: An estimated 7,085 HPV-attributable cancer deaths occurred in 2017 accounting for 154,954 YPLL, with 5,450 deaths (77%) and 121,226 YPLL (78%) attributable to 9vHPV-targeted types. The estimated PVFLP was $3.3 billion for cancer deaths attributable to 9vHPV-targeted types (86% from women). The highest productivity burden was associated with cervical cancer in women and anal and oropharyngeal cancers in men. Conclusions: HPV-attributable cancer deaths are associated with a substantial economic burden in the US, much of which could be vaccine preventable.

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

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

Economic impact model of delayed inhibitor development in patients with hemophilia a receiving emicizumab for the prevention of bleeding events.

Aims: Cumulative exogenous factor VIII (FVIII) exposure is an important predictor of developing neutralizing antibodies (inhibitors) to FVIII in patients with persons with hemophilia A (PwHA). The aim of this study was to model the costs of emicizumab versus FVIII prophylaxis and total treatment costs for patients with severe HA.Materials and Methods: An Excel-based decision model was developed to calculate cumulative costs in PwHA over a 20-year time horizon from the US payer perspective. The model considered persons with severe HA beginning at age 12 months with no prior FVIII exposure and initiating prophylaxis with emicizumab or FVIII. PwHA could develop inhibitors on accumulation of 20 FVIII exposure days. PwHA with inhibitors replaced FVIII with bypassing agents until inhibitors resolved spontaneously, following immune tolerance induction (ITI), or at the end of the time horizon. The primary model outcome was the difference in emicizumab versus FVIII treatment costs in 2019 USD. Sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of results.Results: Total incremental cost over 20 years was -$1,945,480 (emicizumab arm, $4,919,058; FVIII arm, $6,864,538). Prophylaxis costs (emicizumab arm, $4,096,105; FVIII arm, $6,290,919) comprised the majority of costs in both groups, followed by breakthrough bleed treatment for the FVIII arm ($342,652) and ITI costs for the emicizumab arm ($733,671). Higher costs in the FVIII group reflected earlier inhibitor development (FVIII, 4 months; emicizumab, 162 months) and switch to bypassing agents.Limitations: The model design reflects a simplified treatment pathway for patients with severe HA who initiate FVIII or emicizumab prophylaxis. In the absence of clinical data, a key conservative assumption of the model is that patients receiving emicizumab and FVIII prophylaxis have the same risk of developing inhibitors.Conclusions: This study suggests that prophylaxis with emicizumab results in cost savings compared to FVIII prophylaxis in HA.

Budget impact of netupitant/palonosetron for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.

Background: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are among the most common and debilitating side-effects patients experience during chemotherapy, and are associated with considerable acute care use and healthcare cost. It is estimated that 70-80% of CINV could be prevented through appropriate use of CINV prophylaxis; however, suboptimal CINV compliance and control remains an issue in clinical practice. Netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA) is a fixed combination of serotonin-3 (5-HT3) and neurokinin-1 (NK1) receptor antagonists (RAs), respectively, indicated for the prevention of acute and delayed nausea and vomiting associated with highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). Phase 3 clinical trials showed a significantly higher complete response rate in both acute and delayed CINV in chemotherapy-naïve patients receiving NEPA compared to patients receiving palonosetron. Objective: The objective of this study was to estimate the budgetary impact of adding NEPA to a US payer or practice formulary for CINV prophylaxis. Methods: A model was developed to estimate the impact of adding NEPA to the formulary of a hypothetical US payer with 1.15 million members, including 150,000 (13%) Medicare beneficiaries. The model compared the annual total costs of CINV-related events and CINV prophylaxis in two scenarios: base year (no NEPA) and comparator year (10% and 5% NEPA usage in HEC and MEC patients, respectively). A univariate sensitivity analysis was conducted to explore the effect of variability in model parameters on the budget impact. Results: A total of 2,021 patients were eligible to receive CINV prophylaxis. With NEPA, CINV prophylaxis costs increased by 0.7% ($3,493,630 vs $3,518,760) while medical costs associated with CINV events decreased by 3.9% ($15,118,639 vs $14,532,442), resulting in a net cost saving of $561,067 (3.0%) for the health plan ($18,612,269 vs $18,051,202), or $0.04 per member per month. This was equivalent to saving $5,011 per patient moved to NEPA. Among all 5-HT3 RA + NK1 RA regimens, NEPA was associated with the lowest CINV-related costs, leading to the lowest total cost of care. Conclusions: Adding NEPA to a payer or practice formulary results in a net decrease in the total budget due to a substantial reduction in CINV event-related resource utilization and medical costs, and an increase in pharmacy costs <1%, saving over $5,000 per patient.

Lost Annual Productivity Costs Due to Uterine Cancer Deaths in the United States in 2014.

Background: An estimated 11,350 uterine cancer deaths are projected to occur in the United States in 2018. We constructed an economic model to estimate the annual productivity costs associated with uterine cancer death, for the year 2014. Materials and Methods: The model calculated the number of women who would be alive in 2014 if they had not died of uterine cancer, and the lost earnings resulting from early mortality. The age-stratified number of deaths from uterine cancer per year (1935-2014) was obtained from the National Center for Health Statistics. Life expectancy by birth year was used to determine the probability of survival to the age the patient would have been in 2014, had she not died of uterine cancer. The proportion of patients employed and median annual wage and fringe benefits per year were obtained from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The primary model outcome was the total annual productivity costs attributable to uterine cancer deaths in 2014. Results: A total of 558,717 women in the United States died of uterine cancer between 1935 and 2014. The model estimated that 110,792 of these women would be alive in 2014 had they not died of uterine cancer; of these, 24,758 would have been part of the work force based on age and labor participation rate. The total productivity loss in 2014 due to uterine cancer was estimated at $1.35 billion. Conclusion: Uterine cancer deaths in the United States are associated with substantial indirect costs owing to lost earnings. Total productivity losses are more than half of the estimated annual direct costs of uterine cancer care.

Projected impact of elbasvir/grazoprevir in patients with hepatitis C virus genotype 1 and chronic kidney disease in Vietnam.

BACKGROUND: Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is an important cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). The objective of this study was to predict the impact of EBR/GZR on the incidence of liver and kidney related complications compared with no treatment (NoTx) and pegylated interferon plus ribavirin (pegIFN/RBV) in patients with CKD stage 4/5 in Vietnam. METHODS: We developed a mathematical model of the natural history of chronic HCV, CKD, and liver disease. Efficacy of EBR/GZR and pegIFN/RBV were derived from the C-SURFER trial and a meta-analysis, respectively. We calculated lifetime cumulative morbidity and mortality rates, including incidence of decompensated cirrhosis (DC), hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), and life expectancy. RESULTS: Estimated lifetime incidence of DC was significantly reduced in patients receiving EBR/GZR (3.47%) compared to NoTx (18.14%) and pegIFN/RBV (9.01%). Estimated incidence of HCC was 1.02%, 21.64%, and 8.90%, and 1.02% in patients receiving EBR/GZR, NoTx, and pegIFN/RBV. EBR/GZR was estimated to extend life expectancy by 4.2 and 2.0 years compared with NoTx and pegIFN/RBV. CONCLUSIONS: Our model predicted that EBR/GZR will significantly reduce the incidence of liver-related complications and prolong life in patients with chronic HCV GT1 infection and CKD compared with NoTx or pegIFN/RBV.

Effective Antimicrobial Stewardship Strategies for Cost-effective Utilization of Telavancin for the Treatment of Patients With Hospital-acquired Bacterial Pneumonia Caused by Staphylococcus aureus.

PURPOSE: Clinicians and stewardship programs are challenged with positioning of novel, higher priced antibiotic agents for the treatment of clinical infections. We developed a decision-analytic model to describe costs, including drug, total treatment costs, and health care outcomes, associated with telavancin (TLV) compared with vancomycin (VAN) for patients with Staphylococcus aureus (SA) hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia (HABP). METHODS: This decision-analytic model assessed the treatment of SA-HABP with TLV versus VAN. Data were obtained from the ATTAIN (Assessment of Telavancin for Treatment of Hospital-Acquired Pneumonia) clinical trials on the following: the probability of clinical cure; probability of nephrotoxicity; and prevalence of polymicrobial infection (30%), methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) (68%), and SA with VAN MIC ≥1 µg/mL (85%). Data on length of stay for cure (10 days), failure (10 additional days), and nephrotoxicity (3.5 days) were based on literature. Cost per treated patient and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per additional cure were calculated for SA-HABP and for monomicrobial SA-HABP. One-way sensitivity analyses were performed. FINDINGS: Patients with SA-HABP were sub-grouped by methicillin susceptibility (n = 140, 32%) or resistance (n = 293, 68%), and occurrence of polymicrobial (n = 128, 30%) vs monomicrobial (n = 305, 70%) infections. Under the base case, hospital cost for patients with HABP treated with TLV was $42,564 and with VAN, it was $42,296. Telavancin was associated with higher drug ($2082) and nephrotoxicity ($467) costs and lower intensive care unit (-$1738) and ventilator (-$114) costs. ICER was $4156 per additional cure. ICER was sensitive to probabilities of cure, length of treatment in cures, intensive care unit cost, TLV cost, and additional length of stay due to failure. For monomicrobial SA-HABP, TLV was associated with a net cost savings of $907 per patient and yielded economic dominance. IMPLICATIONS: Our decision-analytic model suggests that TLV for monomicrobial SA-HABP is associated with higher drug acquisition costs but a favorable ICER relative to VAN, provided that effective antimicrobial stewardship limits therapy to 7 days. Sensitivity analyses suggest a potential economic benefit of TLV treatment with appropriate patient selection. Antimicrobial stewardship programs may be able to reduce total costs through judicious use of novel antimicrobial agents. ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT00107952 and NCT00124020.

Medication, equipment, and supply costs for common interventions providing extended post-surgical analgesia following total knee arthroplasty in US hospitals.

AIMS: To estimate the cost to hospitals of materials (i.e. medications, equipment, and supplies) required to administer common interventions for post-surgical analgesia after total knee arthroplasty (TKA), including single-injection peripheral nerve block (sPNB), continuous peripheral nerve block (cPNB), periarticular infiltration of multi-drug cocktails, continuous epidural analgesia, intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IV PCA), and local infiltration of bupivacaine liposome injectable suspension (BLIS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This analysis was conducted using a mixed methods approach combining published literature, publicly available data sources, and administrative data, to first identify the materials required to administer these interventions, and then estimate the cost to the hospital of those materials. Medication costs were estimated primarily using the Wholesale Acquisition Costs (WAC), the cost of reusable equipment was obtained from published sources, and costs for disposable supplies were obtained from the US Government Services Administration (GSA) database. Where uncertainty existed about the technique used when administering these interventions, costs were calculated for multiple scenarios reflecting different assumptions. RESULTS: The total cost of materials (i.e. medications, equipment, and supplies) required to provide post-surgical analgesia was $41.88 for sPNB with bupivacaine; $756.57 for cFNB with ropivacaine; $16.38 for periarticular infiltration with bupivacaine, morphine, methylprednisolone, and cefuroxime; $453.84 for continuous epidural analgesia with fentanyl and ropivacaine; $178.94 for IV PCA with morphine; and $319.00 for BLIS. LIMITATIONS: This analysis did not consider the cost of healthcare providers required to administer these interventions. In addition, this analysis focused on the cost of materials and, therefore, did not consider aspects of relative efficacy or safety, or how the choice of intervention for post-surgical analgesia might impact outcomes such as length of stay, re-admissions, discharge status, adverse events, or total hospitalization costs. CONCLUSIONS: This study provided an estimate of the costs to hospitals for materials required to administer commonly used interventions for post-surgical analgesia after TKA.

Cost-Utility of Elbasvir/Grazoprevir in Patients with Chronic Hepatitis C Genotype 1 Infection.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-utility of treatment with elbasvir/grazoprevir (EBR/GZR) regimens compared with ledipasvir/sofosbuvir (LDV/SOF), ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir + dasabuvir ± ribavirin (3D ± RBV), and sofosbuvir/velpatasvir (SOF/VEL) in patients with chronic hepatitis C genotype (GT) 1 infection. METHODS: A Markov cohort state-transition model was constructed to evaluate the cost-utility of EBR/GZR ± RBV over a lifetime time horizon from the payer perspective. The target population was patients infected with chronic hepatitis C GT1 subtypes a or b (GT1a or GT1b), stratified by treatment history (treatment-naive [TN] or treatment-experienced), presence of cirrhosis, baseline hepatitis C virus RNA (< or ≥6 million IU/mL), and presence of NS5A resistance-associated variants. The primary outcome was incremental cost-utility ratio for EBR/GZR ± RBV versus available oral direct-acting antiviral agents. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the model. RESULTS: EBR/GZR ± RBV was economically dominant versus LDV/SOF in all patient populations. EBR/GZR ± RBV was also less costly than SOF/VEL and 3D ± RBV, but produced fewer quality-adjusted life-years in select populations. In the remaining populations, EBR/GZR ± RBV was economically dominant. One-way sensitivity analyses showed varying sustained virologic response rates across EBR/GZR ± RBV regimens, commonly impacted model conclusions when lower bound values were inserted, and at the upper bound resulted in dominance over SOF/VEL in GT1a cirrhotic and GT1b TN noncirrhotic patients. Results of the probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that EBR/GZR ± RBV was cost-effective in more than 99% of iterations in GT1a and GT1b noncirrhotic patients and more than 69% of iterations in GT1b cirrhotic patients. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with other oral direct-acting antiviral agents, EBR/GZR ± RBV was the economically dominant regimen for treating GT1a noncirrhotic and GT1b TN cirrhotic patients, and was cost saving in all other populations.