The Value of Survival Gains in Pancreatic Cancer from Novel Treatment Regimens.

BACKGROUND: Metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC) is associated with low survival, with less than 10% of patients surviving 5 years. Recent therapies improve survival outcomes where few alternative therapies exist, but few economic analyses measure the value of survival gains attributable to new therapies. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the value of survival gains in advanced or mPC attributable to the introduction of novel treatment regimens. METHODS: Multivariate Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate real-world survival gains associated with the introduction of gemcitabine (GEM) for patients diagnosed with stage IV or unstaged mPC in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program cancer registries. Then, evidence from clinical trials was used to evaluate the survival gains associated with nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine (nP +GEM) and FOLFIRINOX (FFX) relative to GEM. The survival estimates and clinical trial evidence were used to calibrate an economic model and assess the cumulative value of survival gains in mPC to patients. Costs of treatment were calculated based on published cost-effectiveness studies. RESULTS: We estimated that the introduction of GEM in 1996 was associated with a hazard ratio of 0.920 (P < 0.05) and an increase in median survival from 3.1 to 4.5 months. Results suggested that the value of survival gains attributable to GEM equaled about $71,000 per patient, while the value attributable to nP + GEM was an additional $56,700. Estimates for the value of survival gains per patient, net of total incremental lifetime treatment costs (drugs, adverse events, and other costs), were $50,294 for GEM and an additional $31,900 for nP + GEM. Clinical trials and cost-effectiveness studies reported an overall survival gain from FFX that was larger than, but statistically similar to, nP + GEM and had greater risk of adverse events and total incremental costs. We estimated that the total value of survival gains to mPC patients, net of total costs, associated with GEM was up to $47.6 billion, and the additional values attributable to nP+GEM and FFX were up to $39.0 billion and $26.3 billion, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Historically, mPC patients have faced high disease burden and had few treatment options. Treatments introduced since 1996 have led to improved survival, with varying costs associated with treatment and adverse events. Accounting for total incremental costs, the majority of the value of survival gains from GEM and nP+GEM was retained by mPC patients, highlighting the value of innovation in settings where survival is low and few alternative therapies exist. DISCLOSURES: Support for this research was provided by Celgene. Precision Health Economics was compensated by Celgene for work on this study. MacEwan is an employee of, and Yin is a consultant to, Precision Health Economics. Kaura and Khan are employees of Celgene. Study concept and design were contributed primarily by Yin and MacEwan, along with Kaura and Khan. MacEwan collected the data, and data interpretation was performed primarily by MacEwan and Yin, along with Kaura and Khan. The manuscript was written and revised by MacEwan, Yin, Kaura, and Khan.

Orphan Drug Expenditures In The United States: A Historical And Prospective Analysis, 2007-18.

The Orphan Drug Act of 1983 established incentives for the development of drugs that treat rare, or orphan, diseases. We used the IMS Health MIDAS database of audited biopharmaceutical sales to measure US annual spending on orphan drugs in the period 2007-13, and we estimated spending on the drugs for the period 2014-18. We identified 356 brand-name orphan drugs that were approved by the Food and Drug Administration in the period 1983-2013. While we included orphan drugs with both orphan and other indications, we adjusted spending to include only spending for orphan indications. In 2014 dollars, expenditures on orphan drugs totaled $15 billion in 2007 and $30 billion in 2013-representing 4.8 percent and 8.9 percent of total pharmaceutical expenditures, respectively. Our future trend analysis for the period 2014-18 suggests a slowing in the growth of orphan drug expenditures. The overall impact of orphan drugs on payers' drug budgets is relatively small, and spending on orphan drugs as a percentage of total pharmaceutical expenditures has remained fairly stable. Concerns that growth in orphan drug expenditures may lead to unsustainable drug expenditures do not appear to be justified.

Pharmaceutical expenditure on drugs for rare diseases in Canada: a historical (2007-13) and prospective (2014-18) MIDAS sales data analysis.

BACKGROUND: Health Canada has defined rare diseases as life-threatening, seriously debilitating, or serious chronic conditions affecting a very small number of patients (~1 in 2,000 persons). An estimated 9 % of Canadians suffer from a rare disease. Drugs treating rare diseases (DRDs) are also known as orphan drugs. While Canada is currently developing an orphan drug framework, in the United States (US), the Orphan Drug Act (ODA) of 1983 established incentives for the development of orphan drugs. This study measured total annual expenditure of orphan drugs in Canada (2007-13) and estimated future (2014-18) orphan drug expenditure. METHODS: Orphan drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the US were used as a proxy for the orphan drug landscape in Canada. Branded, orphan drugs approved by the FDA between 1983 through 2013 were identified (N = 356 unique products). Only US orphan drugs with the same orphan indication(s) approved in Canada were included in the analysis. Adjustment via an indication factoring was applied to products with both orphan and non-orphan indications using available data sources to isolate orphan-indication sales. The IMS Health MIDAS database of audited biopharmaceutical sales was utilized to measure total orphan drug expenditure, calculated annually from 2007-2013 and evaluated as a proportion of total annual pharmaceutical drug expenditure (adjusted to 2014 CAD). RESULTS: Between 2007 and 2013, expenditure was measured for a final N = 147 orphan drugs. Orphan drug expenditure totaled $610.2 million (M) in 2007 and $1,100.0 M in 2013, representing 3.3- 5.6 % of total Canadian pharmaceutical drug expenditure in 2007-2013, respectively. Future trend analysis suggests orphan drug expenditure will remain under 6 % of total expenditure in 2014-18. CONCLUSIONS: While the number of available orphan drugs and associated expenditure increased over time, access remains an issue, and from the perspectives of society and equity, overall spending on orphan drugs is lower relative to the number of patients affected with an orphan disease in Canada. The overall budget impact of orphan drugs is small and fairly stable relative to total pharmaceutical expenditure. Concerns that growth in orphan drug expenditure may lead to unsustainable drug expenditure do not appear to be justified.

Nab-paclitaxel, docetaxel, or solvent-based paclitaxel in metastatic breast cancer: a cost-utility analysis from a Chinese health care perspective.

BACKGROUND: Paclitaxel and docetaxel are commonly used for metastatic breast cancer in the People's Republic of China. To improve the safety and efficacy of paclitaxel, an albumin-bound formulation (nab) is now available in the People's Republic of China (Abraxane(®)). To provide health economic data for the key stakeholders, a cost-utility analysis comparing nab-paclitaxel to docetaxel, both as alternatives to paclitaxel, was conducted. METHODS: A meta-analysis of clinical outcomes Phase III trials comparing nab-paclitaxel (260 mg/m(2) every [q] 3 weeks) or branded docetaxel (100 mg/m(2) q 3 weeks), to solvent-based branded paclitaxel (175 mg/m(2) q 3 weeks) was undertaken to provide safety and clinical data. Resource use data for the delivery of anticancer therapy and for the treatment of grade 3/4 toxicity was collected from a time and motion study conducted in three Chinese cancer centers and from a survey of clinicians. Using the Time Trade-Off technique, health utility estimates were derived from interviewing 28 breast cancer patients from one cancer center in the People's Republic of China. All costs were reported in 2014 US dollars. RESULTS: Nab-paclitaxel had the most favorable safety profile, characterized with the lowest incidence of grade 3/4 neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, anemia, and stomatitis. When the median number of cycles delivered from the clinical trials was applied, nab-paclitaxel had a cost per course of $19,752 compared with $8,940 and $13,741 for paclitaxel and docetaxel, respectively. As an alternative to paclitaxel, the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained with nab-paclitaxel suggested better value than with docetaxel ($57,900 vs $130,600). CONCLUSION: Nab-paclitaxel appears to be a cost-effective option compared with docetaxel and paclitaxel, for metastatic breast cancer in the People's Republic of China.

Denosumab versus zoledronic acid for treatment of bone metastases in men with castration-resistant prostate cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Denosumab has been approved in the US for skeletal-related event (SRE) prevention in bone-metastatic prostate cancer on the basis of a phase III clinical trial in which denosumab reduced SREs relative to zoledronic acid. Overall survival, disease progression, and serious adverse events did not differ significantly between groups. This analysis assessed the cost-effectiveness of denosumab vs zoledronic acid in bone-metastatic prostate cancer from a US payer perspective. METHODS: A literature-based Markov model, wherein inputs were selected to reproduce clinical trial outcomes, was developed to estimate the survival, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), number and costs of SREs, and drug and administration costs for patients receiving denosumab or zoledronic acid over 27 months. QALYs were estimated by assigning health-state utilities. SRE-related costs and utilities were literature-based. Outcomes were discounted 3% per annum, and model robustness was tested via scenario, univariate, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Denosumab resulted in fewer estimated SREs (-0.241; 1.036 vs 1.277), more QALYs (0.0074; 0.9306 vs 0.9232), and lower SRE-related costs (-$2340; $8824 vs $11,164), but higher drug-related costs ($10,181; $23,144 vs $12,963) and total costs ($7841; $31,968 vs $24,127) vs zoledronic acid. The base case estimated cost per QALY-gained was $1,058,741. CONCLUSION: This analysis was limited by the restricted availability of clinical data and the need to use projection methods beyond the trial time frame. However, a wide range of scenarios predicted denosumab to have an incremental cost/QALY gained above what may be considered acceptable value for money in the US. This raises important questions regarding the pharmacoeconomic value of denosumab in bone-metastatic prostate cancer.

Cost-effectiveness of denosumab versus zoledronic acid in the management of skeletal metastases secondary to breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Denosumab has been approved in the United States for the prevention of skeletal-related events (SREs) in metastatic breast cancer. In a Phase III trial in patients with bone-metastatic breast cancer (N = 2033), denosumab was associated with a significantly delayed time to first SRE (by 18%; P < 0.001 noninferiority; P = 0.01 superiority) and time to first and subsequent SREs (by 23%; P = 0.001). Overall survival (HR = 0.95; 95% CI, 0.81-1.11; P = 0.49) and disease progression (HR = 1.00; 95% CI, 0.89-1.11; P = 0.93) did not differ significantly between groups. Denosumab was associated with a nonsignificant reduction in serious adverse events (44.4% vs 46.5%). OBJECTIVES: Given the current ambiguity regarding the cost-effectiveness of these agents in light of these trial outcomes, the present analysis assessed, from a US payer perspective, the cost-effectiveness of denosumab versus zoledronic acid in patients with bone metastases secondary to breast cancer. METHODS: A literature-based Markov model was developed to estimate the survival, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained, number and costs of SREs, and drug and administration costs in patients receiving denosumab or zoledronic acid over 27 and 60 months. Clinical inputs reproduced the trial outcomes. SRE-related costs and utilities were literature based. Costs and QALYs were discounted 3% annually. RESULTS: In the 27-month base-case analysis, denosumab was associated with fewer SREs (-0.298), more QALYs (+0.0102), and lower SRE-related costs (-$2016), but higher drug-related (+$9123) and total costs (+$7107) versus zoledronic acid. The cost per QALY gained (ie, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER]) was $697,499. In sensitivity analyses, the ICER ranged from $192,472 to $1,340,901/QALY, depending on assumptions regarding treatment benefits, drug costs, and analytical horizon. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, denosumab was cost-effective in 2 of 5000 modeled replicates (0.04%). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the limitations of restricted availability of clinical data and uncertainty regarding the price of generic zoledronic acid, the findings from the present analysis suggest that the use of denosumab is associated with a high ICER compared with zoledronic acid. This finding may raise important questions regarding the economic value of denosumab in bone-metastatic breast cancer.

Pharmacoeconomics of bisphosphonates for skeletal-related event prevention in metastatic non-breast solid tumours.

Bisphosphonates reduce the risk of skeletal-related events (SREs; i.e. spinal cord compression, pathological fracture, radiation or surgery to the bone, and hypercalcaemia) in patients with metastatic cancer. A number of analyses have been conducted to assess the cost effectiveness of bisphosphonates in patients with bone metastases secondary to breast cancer, but few in other solid tumours. This is a review of cost-effectiveness analyses in patients with non-breast solid tumours and bone metastases. A literature search was conducted to identify cost-effectiveness analyses reporting the cost per QALY gained of bisphosphonates in patients with metastatic bone disease secondary to non-breast solid tumours. Four analyses met inclusion criteria. These included two in prostate cancer (one of which used a global perspective but expressed results in $US, and the other reported from a multiple country perspective: France, Germany, Portugal and the Netherlands). The remaining analyses were in lung cancer (in the UK, France, Germany, Portugal and the Netherlands), and renal cell carcinoma (in the UK, France and Germany). In each analysis, the cost effectiveness of zoledronic acid versus placebo was analysed. Zoledronic acid was found to be cost effective in all European countries across all three indications but not in the sole global prostate cancer analysis. Across countries and indications, assumptions regarding patient survival, drug cost and baseline utility (i.e. patient utility with metastatic disease but without an SRE) were the most robust drivers of modelled estimates. Assumptions of SRE-related costs were most often the second strongest cost driver. Further review indicated that particular attention should be paid to the inclusion or exclusion of nonsignificant survival benefits, whether health state utilities were elicited from community or patient samples or author assumptions, delineation between symptomatic and asymptomatic SREs, and the methods with which SRE disutility was modelled over time. While the field of cost-effectiveness analysis in solid tumours other than breast cancer is still evolving, outcomes will likely continue to be driven by drug cost and assumptions regarding treatment benefits. Although considerations such as adverse events and administration costs are important, they were not found to influence cost-effectiveness estimates greatly. As zoledronic acid will lose patent protection in 2013 and subsequently be greatly reduced in price, it is likely that the field of cost effectiveness will change with regard to SRE-limiting agents. Meanwhile, research should be conducted to improve our understanding of the impact on quality of life and medical costs of preventing SREs.

Cost-effectiveness of zoledronic acid vs clodronic acid for newly-diagnosed multiple myeloma from the United Kingdom healthcare system perspective.

OBJECTIVE: In the Medical Research Council Myeloma IX Study (MMIX), zoledronic acid (ZOL) 4 mg 3-4/week reduced the incidence of skeletal-related events (SREs), increased progression free survival (PFS), and prolonged overall survival (OS), compared with clodronic acid (CLO) 1600 mg daily, in 1970 patients with newly-diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM). METHODS: An economic model was used to project PFS, OS, the incidence of SREs and adverse events and expected lifetime healthcare costs for patients with newly-diagnosed MM who are alternatively assumed to receive ZOL or CLO. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER] of ZOL vs CLO was calculated as the ratio of the difference in cost to the difference in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Model inputs were based on results of MMIX and published sources. RESULTS: Compared with CLO, treatment with ZOL increases QALYs by 0.30 at an additional cost of £1653, yielding an ICER of £5443 per QALY gained. If the threshold ICER is £20,000 per QALY, the estimated probability that ZOL is cost-effective is 90%. LIMITATIONS: The main limitation of this study is the lack of data on the effects of zoledronic acid on survival beyond the end of follow-up in the MMIX trial. However, cost-effectiveness was favourable even under the highly conservative scenario in which the timeframe of the model was limited to 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with clodronic acid, zoledronic acid represents a cost-effective treatment alternative in patients with multiple myeloma.

Retrospective evaluation of the clinical benefit of long-term continuous use of zoledronic acid in patients with lung cancer and bone metastases.

BACKGROUND: For patients with bone metastases, skeletal-related events including fracture are common, can cause considerable morbidity, and may reduce overall survival (OS). This retrospective analysis assessed the effect of Zometa (zoledronic acid, ZOL), an intravenous bisphosphonate (IV-BP), on fracture risk and OS in patients with bone metastases from lung cancer (LC). (Zometa is a registered trademark of Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, USA.) METHODS: A claims-based analysis using commercial and Medicare Advantage data from >45 US managed-care plans was used to evaluate the association between fracture risk and treatment persistency (31-90, 91-180, 181-365, and ≥366 days) and follow-up duration in LC patients diagnosed with bone metastases between 01/01/2001 and 12/31/2006 and treated with ZOL or without (no IV-BP). Persistency was defined as the absence of a >45-day gap between ZOL treatments. Analysis of variance tests were used to compare follow-up duration, a proxy for OS, between ZOL persistency groups. The effect of time to treatment with ZOL was also assessed. RESULTS: In 9874 LC patients with bone metastases (n = 1090 ZOL; n = 8784 no IV-BP) the unadjusted relative fracture risk was reduced by 40% with ZOL vs no IV-BP; fracture risk decreased consistently with increasing duration of ZOL treatment. Even short-term (31-90 days) ZOL significantly reduced fracture risk (47%) vs no IV-BP (p = 0.005) with adjustment for differences in demographic and clinical characteristics. Delaying ZOL until after bone metastases were diagnosed significantly increased fracture risk (p = 0.0017). For a sub-set of patients included in a survival analysis (n = 550 ZOL; n = 4512 no IV-BP), mortality was significantly lower (mean, 38.6 vs 46.8 deaths/100 person-years; p = 0.038) in those treated with ZOL vs no IV-BP. LIMITATIONS: Interpretation of this claims-based analysis must be tempered by the inherent limitations of observational data, such as limited clinical information and the ability to control for prognostic factors. CONCLUSIONS: This retrospective analysis demonstrates that LC patients with bone metastases receiving ZOL had significantly reduced risk of fracture (p = 0.005) and death (p < 0.038) vs patients receiving no IV-BP. Longer ZOL persistency consistently yielded better outcomes, with ≥12 months' treatment producing the greatest benefit.

Assessment of zoledronic acid treatment patterns and clinical outcomes in patients with bone metastases from genitourinary cancers.

BACKGROUND: Patients with bone metastases secondary to genitourinary (GU) cancer are at risk for skeletal-related events (SREs), including bone pain requiring palliative radiotherapy, fractures or surgery to bone, spinal cord compression, and hypercalcemia of malignancy. These SREs can be debilitating and potentially life-limiting. This study examined treatment practices and the association of treatment patterns with Zometa (zoledronic acid, ZOL), an intravenous bisphosphonate (IV-BP), with SREs and fractures. (Zometa is a registered trademark of Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, USA.) METHODS: Retrospective analysis of commercial and Medicare Advantage enrollment and medical claims data was performed to evaluate IV-BP use and SRE patterns in adult patients with GU cancers. Criteria included diagnosis of ≥1 bone metastasis and prostate cancer (PC), renal cell carcinoma (RCC), or bladder cancer (BlC) between January 2001 and December 2006; continuous healthcare plan enrollment for ≥6 months before the index date; and no evidence of prior IV-BP use. Patients were followed until disenrollment from the healthcare plan or December 2007. RESULTS: Of 6347 patients (PC, n = 4976; RCC, n = 941; BlC, n = 430; mean [standard deviation] age: 68.9 [11.1] years), only approximately 23% received ZOL. The mean time between diagnosis of bone metastasis and ZOL initiation was approximately 108 days. Among patients with PC, fracture risk was significantly smaller for ZOL vs no IV-BP (incidence rate ratio = 0.70; p < 0.001), and 2-year survival was significantly longer for ZOL-treated vs no IV-BP patients (p = 0.007). Patients with longer persistency on ZOL had a smaller fracture risk than patients with shorter persistency. Sub-set analyses were not performed for RCC and BIC because the proportion of patients treated was too low. LIMITATIONS: Interpretation of this claims-based analysis must be tempered by the inherent limitations of observational data, such as limited and accurate available information, and unavailable information including clinical or disease-specific parameters. CONCLUSIONS: Intravenous BP therapy is not always received in patients with bone metastases secondary to GU cancers, and, when used, there are typically long time periods before treatment initiation. Without IV-BPs, PC patients have significantly larger risks of fracture and death compared with ZOL-treated patients, and benefits appear to be larger with increasing persistency on ZOL.

Retrospective database analysis of the effect of zoledronic acid on skeletal-related events and mortality in women with breast cancer and bone metastasis in a managed care plan.

BACKGROUND: Bone metastases are common in patients with advanced breast cancer, and place patients at risk for skeletal-related events (SREs) including pathologic fracture, spinal cord compression, hypercalcemia of malignancy, and the need for radiotherapy and/or surgery to bone. These SREs are associated with reduced survival and quality-of-life. The nitrogen-containing bisphosphonates Zometa (zoledronic acid, ZOL) and Aredia (pamidronate disodium, PAM) reduce SRE risk in patients with bone metastases from breast cancer. This database analysis compared SRE and mortality rates in a real-life setting in women with breast cancer receiving ZOL and PAM, and assessed long-term ZOL benefit. METHODS: A retrospective, claims-based analysis was conducted using commercial and Medicare Advantage data from >45 US managed-care plans. Eligible adult patients had diagnoses for breast cancer and bone metastasis between 01/01/01 and 12/31/06, continuous enrollment in the health plan, and no evidence of bone metastasis or intravenous bisphosphonate (IV-BP) use for 6 months before their first ZOL or PAM infusion. Patients were followed until disenrollment (including mortality) or end of the analysis period (12/31/07). Persistency was defined as absence of a >45-day gap between IV-BP treatments. RESULTS: Of 8757 patients (mean age, 58.1 [SD 12.4] years), approximately 30% were treated with ZOL, 15% with PAM, and 55% with no IV-BP. Patients treated with ZOL had a moderately lower incidence of SREs (mean, 36.2 vs 40.0 SREs/100 person-years; p = 0.0707) and significantly lower mortality (mean, 6.5 vs 11.2 deaths/100 person-years; p < 0.001) compared with PAM-treated patients. Longer persistency with ZOL was associated with lower risk of fracture and all SREs (trend-test p = 0.0076 and p = 0.0200, respectively). LIMITATIONS: Interpretation of this claims-based analysis must be tempered by the inherent limitations of observational data, such as imbalances in patient populations and the potential for bias in treatment selection. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis suggests that fewer than half of breast cancer patients with bone metastases receive IV-BPs. Longer persistence with ZOL was associated with lower SRE risk, and ZOL-treated patients had longer survival and a non-significant trend toward fewer SREs compared with PAM.

Cost-effectiveness of zoledronic acid in the management of skeletal metastases in patients with lung cancer in France, Germany, Portugal, the Netherlands, and the United kingdom.

BACKGROUND: Zoledronic acid (ZOL) significantly reduces the risk of new skeletal-related events (SREs) in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who have bone metastases. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the cost and cost-effectiveness of ZOL in the management of skeletal metastases in this population across 5 European countries (France, Germany, United Kingdom, Portugal, and the Netherlands) from the perspective of national health care. METHODS: This cost-effectiveness analysis was based on a subset of patients with NSCLC who were enrolled in a Phase III trial of patients with bone metastases secondary to a variety of solid tumors. In this trial, patients were randomized to receive ZOL or placebo every 3 weeks for up to 21 months. Survival, SRE incidence, and number of infusions administered were derived from the clinical trial. Costs of SREs were estimated using hospital Diagnosis Related Group tariffs and published data. Drug, drug administration, and supply costs were obtained from published and internet sources. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated based on the published utilities and modeled survival and frequency of SREs. Uncertainty surrounding outcomes was addressed via univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Compared with patients receiving placebo (n = 120), patients receiving ZOL (n = 124) experienced an estimated 0.79 fewer SREs and gained an estimated 0.02 QALYs. ZOL use in patients with NSCLC and bone metastases was associated with a reduction in SRE costs (ranging from €1547 to €1893 [2007-2008 €], depending on the country). After adding drug and drug administration costs, ZOL use resulted in a net savings of €288 per patient in Germany, €209 in the United Kingdom, and €113 in Portugal. In France and the Netherlands, costs increased (€17 and €178, respectively), but the costs per QALY gained were low (€786 and €8278, respectively). In univariate sensitivity analyses, the cost per QALY for ZOL versus placebo was ≤€50,000 for all scenarios tested. The results were most sensitive to assumptions regarding survival, number of ZOL infusions, and the costs of SREs. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that ZOL cost ≤€50,000 per QALY in 65% to 83% of model simulations (depending on country). However, some degree of uncertainty remained as the 95th percentile of cost per QALY was high. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis is subject to the usual limitations of cost-effectiveness models, which combine assumptions and data from multiple sources. Nevertheless, based on the assumptions used herein, the present model suggests that ZOL increases QALYs and is cost saving and/or cost effective compared with placebo in patients with NSCLC in France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Portugal, and the Netherlands.

Cost-effectiveness of zoledronic acid plus endocrine therapy in premenopausal women with hormone-responsive early breast cancer.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of adding zoledronic acid 4 mg intravenously every 6 months to endocrine therapy in premenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive early breast cancer from a US health care system perspective. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A Markov model was developed to predict disease progression, mortality, and costs of breast cancer care for premenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive early breast cancer receiving up to 3 years of (1) endocrine therapy (goserelin plus tamoxifen or anastrozole); or (2) endocrine therapy plus zoledronic acid. Model parameters were obtained from ABCSG-12 (Austrian Breast and Colorectal Cancer Study Group Trial-12) and the literature. The incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained with zoledronic acid was calculated under 2 scenarios: (1) benefits of zoledronic acid persist to maximum (7 years) follow-up in ABCSG-12 ("trial benefits") or (2) benefits persist until death ("lifetime benefits"). RESULTS: Adding zoledronic acid to endocrine therapy was projected to yield a gain of 0.41 life years (LYs) and 0.43 QALYs assuming trial benefits and 1.34 LYs and 1.41 QALYs assuming lifetime benefits. Assuming trial benefits, the incremental cost per QALY gained with zoledronic acid was $9300. Assuming lifetime benefits, zoledronic acid was estimated to increase QALYs and reduce costs. Cost per QALY gained was

Risk-factor clustering and cardiovascular disease risk in hypertensive patients.

BACKGROUND: Patients with hypertension often have other major risk factors for cardiovascular disease (CVD). Little is known, however, about the extent of risk-factor clustering in these patients and its importance in CVD risk and medical-care costs. METHODS: Study subjects were selected from the electronic medical records system of Kaiser Permanente Northwest, a large health maintenance organization, and included all patients aged > or =35 years with hypertension who were free of CVD in 1998. Subjects were stratified into eight risk-factor clusters based on whether or not they also had diabetes, hyperlipidemia, or a high body mass index (BMI). The risk of cardiovascular events was examined in each cluster over 6 years beginning January 1, 1999, using Kaplan-Meier methods and Cox proportional hazards models. Cumulative total medical-care costs (per patient) over 6 years also were examined. RESULTS: A total of 57,573 patients with hypertension who were free of CVD in 1998 were identified; 56% of subjects also had diabetes, hyperlipidemia, or high BMI. In analyses controlling for age, sex, and smoking status, the relative risk of cardiovascular events over 6 years was highest for patients with comorbid diabetes, ranging from 2.07 (95% confidence interval, 1.86-2.30) for those with diabetes only to 2.80 (95% confidence interval, 2.48-3.17) for those with diabetes, hyperlipidemia, and high BMI. Cumulative medical-care costs generally increased with additional risk factors. Comorbid diabetes had the greatest impact on costs over 6 years. CONCLUSIONS: More than 50% of patients with hypertension also had diabetes, hyperlipidemia, or high BMI. Patients with these additional risk factors (especially diabetes) had a substantially higher CVD risk and medical-care costs.