Cost-effectiveness analysis of second-line tyrosine kinase inhibitor treatment for chronic myelogenous leukemia.

AIM: A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed for sequential treatments of chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) after failure of 1st line imatinib, from a commercial payer perspective in the US. METHODS: A Markov model was developed to simulate lifetime treatment costs and health outcomes for TKI sequences for treatment of patients resistant or intolerant to 1st-line imatinib. Five health states were included, chronic phase 2nd-line TKI, chronic phase 3rd-line TKI, chronic phase post-TKI, advanced phases, and death. Efficacy (response achievement, loss of response, transformation, death) and safety (adverse events incidence, discontinuation) data are based on clinical trials. Resource utilization, costs, and utilities were based on product labels and publically available data. Uncertainty analyses were conducted for key inputs. RESULTS: In patients failing imatinib, dasatinib-initiating treatment sequences provide the most survival (ΔLYs = 0.2-2.0), QALYs (ΔQALYs = 0.2-1.9), and accrue highest CML-related costs (ΔCosts = $64,000-$222,000). The average ICER per QALY for dasatinib- vs imatinib-initiating sequences is $100,000 for an imatinib-resistant population. The average ICER per QALY for dasatinib- vs nilotinib-initiating sequences is $170,000 for an imatinib-resistant population, and $160,000 for an imatinib-intolerant population. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis suggests that dasatinib is associated with increased survival and quality of life compared to high dose imatinib and to a smaller extent with nilotinib, among patients resistant or intolerant to 1st-line imatinib, primarily based on higher cytogenetic response rates observed in clinical studies of dasatinib. Head-to-head studies of sequential use of dasatinib and nilotinib are needed to validate the model findings of improved survival (LYs) with better quality-of-life (QALYs) for patients initiating dasatinib in 2nd-line. However, the model findings (in light of higher cytogenetic response rates with dasatinib) are supported by other studies showing improved quality-of-life for responders, and improved survival for patients achieving cytogenetic response.

The short-term cost-effectiveness of once-daily liraglutide versus once-weekly exenatide for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a chronic metabolic disease with substantial morbidity, mortality, and economic impacts. Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, such as once-daily (QD) liraglutide and once-weekly (QW) exenatide, are FDA-approved treatment for T2DM. Head-to-head trials and meta-analyses comparing these agents have reported clinically meaningful improvements but small differences in glycemic control between both agents. In this study, we calculate and compare the cost-effectiveness implications of these alternative effectiveness outcomes. METHODS: We developed a decision model to evaluate the short-term cost-effectiveness of exenatide QW 2 mg versus liraglutide QD 1.8 mg in T2DM patients, with effectiveness measured as reduction in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c). In the base case, the model tracks change in HbA1c and direct medical expenditure over a 6-month time horizon. We calculated and compared the cost per 1% reduction in HbA1c of models populated with clinical data from a head-to-head randomized, controlled trial (DURATION-6) and a network meta-analysis. Expenditure inputs were derived from wholesale acquisition costs and published sources. RESULTS: In the base case, 6-month expenditure for the liraglutide and exenatide strategies were $3,509 and $2,618, respectively. Using clinical data from DURATION-6 and the network meta-analysis, the liraglutide strategy had an incremental cost per 1% reduction in HbA1c of $4,773 and $27,179, respectively. The most influential model parameters were drug costs, magnitude of HbA1c reduction in patients on treatment for >1 month, and liraglutide gastrointestinal adverse event rate. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) using DURATION-6 data, the exenatide strategy was optimal at willingness-to-pay levels below $4,800 per 1% reduction in HbA1c. In a PSA using meta-analysis data, the exenatide strategy was dominant. CONCLUSIONS: Our modeled results demonstrate that the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of liraglutide QD 1.8 mg relative to exenatide QW 2 mg depend largely on the chosen source of the clinical data.

The effect of community-level unemployment on preventive oral health care utilization.

OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that high community-level unemployment is associated with reduced use of preventive dental care services by a dentally insured population. DATA: The study uses monthly data on population dental visits and unemployment in the Seattle and Spokane areas from 1995 to 2004. Utilization data come from Washington Dental Services. Unemployment data were obtained from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Washington's Employment Security Department. STUDY DESIGN: The study uses a Box-Jenkins Autoregressive Integrated Moving Average (ARIMA) method to measure the association between the variables over time. The approach controls for the effects of autocorrelation, seasonality, and confounding variables. FINDINGS: In the Seattle area, an unexpected 10,000 unit increase in the number of unemployed individuals is associated with a 1.24 percent decrease in preventive visits during the month ( p=.0043). In the Spokane area, a similar increase in unemployment is associated with a 5.95 percent decrease in preventive visits ( p=.0326). The findings persist when the independent variable is the number of initial unemployment insurance claims. CONCLUSIONS: The analysis suggests that utilization of preventive dental care declines during periods of high community-level unemployment. Community-level unemployment may impede or distract populations from utilizing preventive dental services. The study's findings have implications for insurers, dentists, policy makers, and researchers.