Cost-Effectiveness of Brexanolone Versus Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors for the Treatment of Postpartum Depression in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Brexanolone injection (BRX) was approved by the FDA in 2019 for the treatment of adult patients with postpartum depression (PPD), but its cost-effectiveness has not yet been evaluated. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of BRX compared with treatment with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) for PPD. METHODS: We projected costs (2018 U.S. dollars) and health (quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs]) for mothers treated with BRX or SSRIs and their children. A health state transition model projected clinical and economic outcomes for mothers based on the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale, from a U.S. payer perspective. The modeled population consisted of adult patients with moderate to severe PPD, similar to BRX clinical trial patients. Short-term efficacy for BRX and SSRIs came from an indirect treatment comparison. Long-term efficacy outcomes over 4 weeks, 11 years (base case), and 18 years were based on results from an 18-year longitudinal study. Maternal health utility values came from analysis of trial-based short-form 6D responses. Other inputs were derived from the literature. RESULTS: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for BRX versus SSRIs was $106,662 per QALY gained over an 11-year time horizon. Drug and administration costs for BRX averaged $38,501, compared with $25 for SSRIs over the studied time horizon. Maternal total direct medical costs averaged $65,908 in the BRX arm, compared with $73,653 in the SSRI arm. BRX-treated women averaged 6.230 QALYs compared with 5.979 QALYs for the SSRI arm. Adding partner costs and utilities in a sensitivity analysis further favored BRX. Results were sensitive to the severity of PPD at baseline and the model time horizon. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses indicated that BRX was cost-effective at the $150,000-per-QALY threshold with 58% probability. CONCLUSIONS: Analysis using a state transition model showed BRX to be a cost-effective therapy compared with SSRIs for treating women with PPD. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Sage Therapeutics, Cambridge, MA. Eldar-Lissai, Gerbasi, and Hodgkins are employees of Sage Therapeutics and own stock or stock options in the company. Gerbasi also reports previous employment with Policy Analysis Inc. Cohen contributed to this work as an independent consultant. Meltzer-Brody has a sponsored clinical research agreement with Sage Therapeutics to the University of North Carolina, as well as a sponsored research agreement from Janssen to the University of North Carolina, unrelated to this work. Meltzer-Brody has also received personal consulting fees from Cala Health and MedScape, unrelated to this work. Johnson, Chertavian, and Bond are employees of Medicus Economics, which was paid fees by Sage to conduct the research for this study. Study findings do not necessarily represent the views of CEVR or Tufts Medical Center.

Budget Impact of Dabrafenib and Trametinib in Combination as Adjuvant Treatment of BRAF V600E/K Mutation-Positive Melanoma from a U.S. Commercial Payer Perspective.

BACKGROUND: Before the approval of dabrafenib and trametinib in combination, there were no approved therapies in the adjuvant setting that target the RAS/RAF/MEK/ERK pathway. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the budget impact of dabrafenib and trametinib in combination for adjuvant treatment of patients with BRAF V600 mutation-positive resected Stage IIIA, IIIB, or IIIC melanoma from a U.S. commercial payer perspective using data from the COMBI-AD trial, as well as other sources. METHODS: The budget impact of dabrafenib and trametinib in combination for patients with BRAF V600E/K mutation-positive, resected Stage IIIA, IIIB, or IIIC melanoma was evaluated from the perspective of a hypothetical population of 1 million members with demographic characteristics consistent with those of a commercially insured U.S. insurance plan (i.e., adults aged less than 65 years) using an economic model developed in Microsoft Excel. The model compared melanoma-related health care costs over a 3-year projection period under 2 scenarios: (1) a reference scenario in which dabrafenib and trametinib are assumed to be unavailable for adjuvant therapy and (2) a new scenario in which the combination is assumed to be available. Treatments potentially displaced by dabrafenib and trametinib were assumed to include observation, high-dose interferon alpha-2b, ipilimumab, and nivolumab. Costs considered in the model include those of adjuvant therapies and treatment of locoregional and distant recurrences. The numbers of patients eligible for treatment with dabrafenib and trametinib were based on data from cancer registries, published sources, and assumptions. Treatment mixes under the reference and new scenarios were based on market research data, clinical expert opinion, and assumptions. Probabilities of recurrence and death were based on data from the COMBI-AD trial and an indirect treatment comparison. Medication costs were based on wholesale acquisition cost prices. Costs of distant recurrence were from a health insurance claims study. RESULTS: In a hypothetical population of 1 million commercially insured members, 48 patients were estimated to become eligible for treatment with dabrafenib and trametinib in combination over the 3-year projection period; in the new scenario, 10 patients were projected to receive such treatment. Cumulative costs of melanoma-related care were estimated to be $6.3 million in the reference scenario and $6.9 million in the new scenario. The budget impact of dabrafenib and trametinib in combination was an increase of $549 thousand overall and 1.5 cents per member per month. CONCLUSIONS: For a hypothetical U.S. commercial health plan of 1 million members, the budget impact of dabrafenib and trametinib in combination as adjuvant treatment for melanoma is likely to be relatively modest and within the range of published estimates for oncology therapies. These results may assist payers in making coverage decisions regarding the use of adjuvant dabrafenib and trametinib in melanoma. DISCLOSURES: Funding for this research was provided to Policy Analysis Inc. (PAI) by Novartis Pharmaceuticals. Stellato, Moynahan, and Delea are employed by PAI. Ndife, Koruth, Mishra, and Gunda are employed by Novartis. Ghate was employed by Novartis at the time of this study and is shareholder in Novartis, Provectus Biopharmaceuticals, and Mannkind Corporation. Gerbasi was employed by PAI at the time of this study and is currently an employee, and stockholder, of Sage Therapeutics. Delea reports grant funding from Merck and research funding from Amgen, Novartis, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Takeda, Jazz, EMD Serono, and 21st Century Oncology, unrelated to this work.

Cost-effectiveness of dabrafenib and trametinib in combination as adjuvant treatment of BRAF V600E/K mutation-positive melanoma from a US healthcare payer perspective.

Objective: The COMBI-AD trial demonstrated the efficacy and safety of dabrafenib and trametinib in combination vs placebo as adjuvant treatment of patients with BRAF V600E/K mutation-positive resected Stage IIIA (lymph node metastasis >1 mm), IIIB, or IIIC melanoma. This analysis evaluated the cost-effectiveness of dabrafenib and trametinib vs observation from a US healthcare payer perspective.Methods: This evaluation employed a non-homogeneous, semi-Markov, cohort model with health states for relapse-free survival (RFS), post-locoregional recurrence (LR), post-distant recurrence (DR) receiving first-line treatment, and post-DR receiving second-line treatment. A 50-year modeling time horizon was used. Transition probabilities were estimated based on individual patient data (IPD) from the COMBI-AD trial. Health-state utilities were estimated using EuroQol (EQ-5D) index values from COMBI-AD and published sources. Direct medical costs associated with treatment of melanoma were considered, including costs of BRAF mutation testing, medication and administration costs for adjuvant and metastatic treatments, costs of treating recurrence, and costs of adverse events. Costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were discounted at 3.0% annually.Results: Compared with observation, adjuvant dabrafenib and trametinib was estimated to result in a gain of 2.15 QALYs at an incremental cost of $74,518. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was estimated to be $34,689 per QALY. In deterministic sensitivity analyses, the ICER was sensitive to the cost of dabrafenib and trametinib and the distribution used for projecting RFS beyond the end of follow-up in the COMBI-AD trial. At a cost-effectiveness threshold of $100,000 per QALY, the probability that dabrafenib and trametinib is cost-effective was estimated to be 92%.Conclusions: Given generally-accepted cost-effectiveness threshold values in the US, dabrafenib plus trametinib is likely to be a cost-effective adjuvant therapy for patients with BRAF mutation positive melanoma. These results may be useful for policy-makers in their deliberations regarding reimbursement and access to this treatment.

High burden of mental illness and low utilization of care among school-going youth in Central Haiti: A window into the youth mental health treatment gap in a low-income country.

BACKGROUND: The mental health treatment gap for youth in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) is substantial; strategies for redress are urgently needed to mitigate the serious health and social consequences of untreated mental illness in youth. AIMS: To estimate the burden of major depressive episode (MDE) and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) as well as utilization of care among Haitian youth in order to describe the mental health treatment gap in a LMIC setting. METHODS: We estimated the point prevalence of MDE, PTSD, and subthreshold variants in a school-based sample of youth ( n = 120, ages 18-22 years) using a modified Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV-TR Axis I Disorders (SCID)-based interview and examined treatment utilization among those receiving one of these diagnoses. We assessed additional psychopathology with self-report measures to examine validity of study diagnostic assignments. RESULTS: The combined prevalence of full-syndrome or subthreshold MDE or PTSD was high (36.7%). A large majority of affected individuals (88.6%) had accessed no mental health services in the health sector, and 36.4% had accessed no care of any kind in either the health or folk sectors in the past year. CONCLUSION: Findings demonstrate a high mental health burden among Haiti's youth and that many youth with MDE and PTSD are not accessing mental health care.