A Dutch cost-effectiveness analysis of fremanezumab versus best supportive care in patients with chronic migraine and inadequate response to prior preventive therapy.

BACKGROUND: Chronic migraine (CM) is the most severe and burdensome subtype of migraine. Fremanezumab is a monoclonal antibody that targets the calcitonin gene-related peptide pathway as a migraine preventive therapy. This study aimed to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis of fremanezumab from a societal perspective in the Netherlands, using a Markov cohort simulation model. METHODS: The base-case cost-effectiveness analysis adhered to the Netherlands Authority guidelines. Fremanezumab was compared with best supportive care (BSC; acute migraine treatment only) in patients with CM and an inadequate response to topiramate or valproate and onabotulinumtoxinA (Dutch patient group [DPG]). A supportive analysis was conducted in the broader group of CM patients with prior inadequate response to 2-4 different classes of migraine preventive treatments. One-way sensitivity, probabilistic sensitivity, and scenario analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Over a lifetime horizon, fremanezumab is cost saving compared with BSC in the DPG (saving of €2514 per patient) and led to an increase of 1.45 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). In the broader supportive analysis, fremanezumab was cost effective compared with BSC, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €2547/QALY gained. Fremanezumab remained cost effective in all sensitivity and scenario analyses. CONCLUSION: In comparison to BSC, fremanezumab is cost saving in the DPG and cost effective in the broader population.

Real-world patient characteristics, treatment patterns and costs in relapsing multiple sclerosis patients treated with glatiramer acetate, dimethyl fumarate or teriflunomide in Germany.

Aim: To evaluate adherence, healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs for glatiramer acetate (GA; injectable), dimethyl fumarate (oral) and teriflunomide (oral) in relapsing multiple sclerosis. Patients & methods: Retrospective analyses of a claims database. Results: Teriflunomide patients were older with more co-morbidities and fewer relapses versus GA and dimethyl fumarate. GA patients were mostly disease-modifying therapies (DMTs)-treatment naive. Treatment adherence was 61-70%. All DMTs reduced HRU versus pre-index. Costs were comparable across cohorts. High adherence reduced hospitalizations and several costs versus low adherers. Conclusion: Adherence rates were high and comparable with all DMTs. Similar (and high) reductions in HRU and costs occurred with all DMTs. High adherence improved economic outcomes versus low adherence. Thus, investing in adherence improvement is beneficial to improve outcomes in relapsing multiple sclerosis.

Drugs used for relapsing multiple sclerosis (RMS) include, among others, glatiramer acetate (injection), dimethyl fumarate (tablet) and teriflunomide (tablet). We compared treatment adherence (based on drug claims), healthcare use and costs for these drugs. Treatment adherence and healthcare use was similar for these three drugs. The need to be in hospital was lower with these drugs compared with not using them. No differences in treatment costs were seen between these drugs. Adherence reduced the need for hospital stays and lowered some costs compared with patients who were classified as adherent. RMS patients should be encouraged to take their RMS medication as prescribed. Improving treatment adherence will have a positive effect on RMS, and a good impact on healthcare use and costs.

Assessment of rituximab-abbs, a biosimilar, and rituximab outcomes in patients with CLL or NHL: A real-world UK study.

BACKGROUND: Rituximab (chimeric anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody) treatment is approved for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). Rituximab-abbs (first biosimilar approved in 2017) is expected to significantly reduce healthcare economic burden due to lower acquisition costs. This non-interventional, non-comparative study assessed real-world effectiveness and tolerability of rituximab-abbs and rituximab in treatment-naive patients with CLL or NHL. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Via an online physician survey, 46 UK-registered hematologists and oncologists retrospectively reported on randomly selected patients aged ≥18 years with CLL or NHL with rituximab-abbs or rituximab as first-line immunotherapy. Overall, 201 patient charts were examined across 4 cohorts: rituximab-abbs in CLL, rituximab-abbs in NHL, rituximab in CLL, rituximab in NHL. RESULTS: Demographic profiles across cohorts were similar. Most patients (94 %-100 %) received combination therapy (rituximab-abbs or rituximab mainly with chemotherapy). For both treatments, overall response rate (94 %-98 %) and 1-year overall survival (98 %-100 %) were very high for patients with CLL or NHL. Most common serious adverse events were neutropenia, fatigue, anemia and infusion reactions. The majority of patients (54 %-66 %) did not experience a grade ≥3 adverse event. Healthcare resource utilization was similarly high across cohorts, driven by diagnostic testing, oncologist office visits, and day-case hospital admissions; many patients required supportive medical therapies. Mean annual savings of ∼£1000/patient driven by acquisition costs occurred with rituximab-abbs versus rituximab, administration costs were similar. CONCLUSION: Rituximab-abbs and rituximab demonstrated similar effectiveness and tolerability in treating CLL and NHL in routine UK clinical practice and demonstrate the utility of the biosimilar as a cost-saving alternative treatment.

Long-term cost and utility consequences of short-term clinically important deterioration in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: results from the TORCH study.

Purpose: Clinically important deterioration (CID) in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a novel composite endpoint that assesses disease stability. The association between short-term CID and future economic and quality of life (QoL) outcomes has not been previously assessed. This analysis considers 3-year data from the TOwards a Revolution in COPD Health (TORCH) study, to examine this question. Patients and methods: This post hoc analysis of TORCH (NCT00268216) compared costs and utilities at 3 years among patients without CID (CID-) and with CID (CID+) at 24 weeks. A positive CID status was defined as either: a deterioration in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) of ≥100 mL from baseline; or a ≥4-unit increase from baseline in St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score; or the incidence of a moderate/severe exacerbation. Patients from all treatment arms were included. Utility change was based on the EQ-5D utility index. Costs were based on healthcare resource utilization from 24 weeks to end of follow-up combined with unit costs for the UK (2016 GBP), and reported as per patient per year (PPPY). Adjusted estimates were generated controlling for baseline characteristics, treatment assignment, and number of CID criteria met. Results: Overall, 3,769 patients completed the study and were included in the analysis (stable CID- patients, n=1,832; unstable CID+ patients, n=1,937). At the end of follow-up, CID- patients had higher mean (95% confidence interval [CI]) utility scores than CID+ patients (0.752 [0.738, 0.765] vs 0.697 [0.685, 0.71]; difference +0.054; P<0.001), and lower costs PPPY (£538 vs £916; difference: £378 [95% CI: £244, £521]; P<0.001). The cost differential was primarily driven by the difference in general hospital ward days (P=0.003). Conclusion: This study demonstrated that achieving early stability in COPD by preventing short-term CID is associated with better preservation of future QoL alongside reduced healthcare service costs.

Economic evaluation of ropinirole prolonged release for treatment of Parkinson's disease in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: By using the findings obtained from the PREPARED study, we aimed to estimate the cost effectiveness of ropinirole prolonged release (PR) [Requip-Modutab(®)] in Parkinson's disease (PD) versus ropinirole immediate release (IR). In the PREPARED study, ropinirole PR provided a significantly greater improvement in time spent 'off' than ropinirole IR when used as an add-on to levodopa. METHODS: A health state transition model was developed-based on Hoehn and Yahr (HY) stages in PD-to compare the two treatment strategies. The Markov model included the following treatment-related aspects: (i) rate of disease progression; (ii) rates of dyskinesia; and (iii) medication adherence. RESULTS: In our approach, the base-case analysis showed a favourable pharmacoeconomic profile of ropinirole PR versus ropinirole IR. In particular, general cost savings were estimated combined with modest gains in quality of life, due to reduced disease progression and lower dyskinesia rates. Sensitivity analyses showed that this result was rather robust for varying parameters deterministically, although cost savings were lost in some instances. In particular, the treatment benefits of lower dyskinesia rates and improved adherence influenced the cost-effectiveness outcome. Nonetheless, the cost effectiveness remained acceptable within the limits that were investigated. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed that the probability of accepting PR over IR exceeded 95 % for all relevant 'willingness-to-pay' thresholds. CONCLUSION: The results of our study indicate a high likelihood of ropinirole PR being cost saving or at least being considered cost effective for use in the Netherlands. However, claims included in our model regarding dyskinesia and improved medication adherence should be further supported by data from daily practice.

Cost-effectiveness of conservative treatments for neck pain: a systematic review on economic evaluations.

PURPOSE: Various conservative interventions have been used for the treatment of non-specific neck pain. The aim of this systematic review was to investigate the cost-effectiveness of conservative treatments for non-specific neck pain. METHODS: Clinical and economic electronic databases, reference lists and authors' databases were searched up to 13 January 2011. Two reviewers independently selected studies for inclusion, performed the risk of bias assessment and data extraction. RESULTS: A total of five economic evaluations met the inclusion criteria. All studies were conducted alongside randomised controlled trials and included a cost-utility analysis, and four studies also conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis. Most often, the economic evaluation was conducted from a societal or a health-care perspective. One study found that manual therapy was dominant over physiotherapy and general practitioner care, whilst behavioural graded activity was not cost-effective compared to manual therapy. The combination of advice and exercise with manual therapy was not cost-effective compared to advice and exercise only. One study found that acupuncture was cost-effective compared to a delayed acupuncture intervention, and another study found no differences on cost-effectiveness between a brief physiotherapy intervention compared to usual physiotherapy. Pooling of the data was not possible as heterogeneity existed between the studies on participants, interventions, controls, outcomes, follow-up duration and context related socio-political differences. CONCLUSION: At present, the limited number of studies and the heterogeneity between studies warrant no definite conclusions on the cost-effectiveness of conservative treatments for non-specific neck pain.

Stay@Work: Participatory Ergonomics to prevent low back and neck pain among workers: design of a randomised controlled trial to evaluate the (cost-)effectiveness.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) and neck pain (NP) are a major public health problem with considerable costs for individuals, companies and society. Therefore, prevention is imperative. The Stay@Work study investigates the (cost-)effectiveness of Participatory Ergonomics (PE) to prevent LBP and NP among workers. METHODS: In a randomised controlled trial (RCT), a total of 5,759 workers working at 36 departments of four companies is expected to participate in the study at baseline. The departments consisting of about 150 workers are pre-stratified and randomised. The control departments receive usual practice and the intervention departments receive PE. Within each intervention department a working group is formed including eight workers, a representative of the management, and an occupational health and safety coordinator. During a one day meeting, the working group follows the steps of PE in which the most important risk factors for LBP and NP, and the most adequate ergonomic measures are identified on the basis of group consensus. The implementation of ergonomic measures at the department is performed by the working group. To improve the implementation process, so-called 'ergocoaches' are trained. The primary outcome measure is an episode of LBP and NP. Secondary outcome measures are actual use of ergonomic measures, physical workload, psychosocial workload, intensity of pain, general health status, sick leave, and work productivity. The cost-effectiveness analysis is performed from the societal and company perspective. Outcome measures are assessed using questionnaires at baseline and after 6 and 12 months. Data on the primary outcome as well as on intensity of pain, sick leave, work productivity, and health care costs are collected every 3 months. DISCUSSION: Prevention of LBP and NP is beneficial for workers, employers, and society. If the intervention is proven (cost-)effective, the intervention can have a major impact on LBP and NP prevention and, thereby, on work disability prevention. Results are expected in 2010. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN27472278.