RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To assess the available clinical and economic evidence of erenumab vs onabotulinumtoxinA for chronic migraine (CM) and present de-novo indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs) based on available clinical trial data. METHODS: We conducted ITCs based on results from the pivotal 295 trial (NCT02066415) of erenumab vs placebo and published aggregate data from the PREEMPT 1 (NCT00156910) and PREEMPT 2 (NCT00168428) trials of onabotulinumtoxinA vs placebo. ITCs were conducted for CM patients with and without prior administration of onabotulinumtoxinA and among CM patients with ≥3 prior preventive treatment failures. Efficacy was assessed based on responder rates of ≥50% reductions in monthly headache days (MHDs) and monthly migraine days (MMDs) as well as change from baseline in both MHDs and MMDs. RESULTS: Among patients with CM, 140 mg erenumab was associated with a reduction of 1.2 MHD (p = .092) and a reduction of 1.0 MMD (p = .174) compared to onabotulinumtoxinA at Week 12. Among onabotulinumtoxinA-naïve patients, erenumab was associated with a reduction of 1.8 MHD (p = .026) and 1.4 MMD (p = .080) at Week 12. Among patients that had received ≥3 prior preventive treatments, the odds ratios comparing erenumab vs onabotulinumtoxinA were 1.7 for ≥50% responder rates based on reductions in MHD (p = .155) and 1.7 for ≥50% responder rates based on reductions in MMD (p = .140). CONCLUSION: These findings suggest directional benefits (although not reaching the threshold of statistical significance) associated with erenumab vs onabotulinumtoxinA for the preventive treatment of CM. Evidence from this study may inform healthcare stakeholders in treatment selection and optimization for patients with CM.
Assuntos
Toxinas Botulínicas Tipo A , Transtornos de Enxaqueca , Humanos , Toxinas Botulínicas Tipo A/uso terapêutico , Método Duplo-Cego , Cefaleia , Transtornos de Enxaqueca/tratamento farmacológico , Transtornos de Enxaqueca/prevenção & controle , Resultado do TratamentoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Migraine is a common neurological disease that disproportionately affects females and has a peak incidence during productive years, resulting in significant burden. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to determine the cost effectiveness of erenumab for the preventive treatment of migraine. METHODS: A hybrid decision-tree plus Markov model was developed to evaluate the cost effectiveness of erenumab as a migraine treatment compared with best supportive care only for patients experiencing at least 4 monthly migraine days for whom at least two prior preventive treatments had failed. Clinical efficacy data were based on results from four randomized controlled trials of erenumab against placebo. The primary outcomes were costs, migraine days, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was estimated as the cost per QALY gained. The cost per migraine day avoided was also estimated, as were disaggregated direct and indirect costs. The analysis was conducted from Swedish societal and healthcare system perspectives based on total migraine, chronic migraine and episodic migraine populations, using a discount rate of 3% applied to both costs and health benefits and using year 2019 values. RESULTS: In the base-case deterministic analyses, erenumab treatment resulted in ICERs of Swedish krona (SEK) 34,696 (3310) and SEK301,565 (28,769) per QALY gained in the total migraine and episodic migraine populations, respectively. Erenumab was dominant in the chronic migraine population. In the total migraine population, the use of erenumab resulted in a net benefit to society of SEK81,739 (7773) per patient, assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of SEK300,000 (28,528) per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis suggests that erenumab is a cost-effective treatment for migraine with a willingness-to-pay threshold of SEK300,000 per QALY.
Assuntos
Transtornos de Enxaqueca , Anticorpos Monoclonais Humanizados , Análise Custo-Benefício , Feminino , Humanos , Transtornos de Enxaqueca/tratamento farmacológico , Transtornos de Enxaqueca/prevenção & controle , Suécia , Falha de TratamentoRESUMO
Purpose: Exacerbations drive outcomes and costs in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). While patient-level (micro) simulation cost-effectiveness models have been developed that include exacerbations, such models are complex. We developed a novel, exacerbation-based model to assess the cost-effectiveness of indacaterol/glycopyrronium (IND/GLY) versus salmeterol/fluticasone (SFC) in COPD, using a Markov structure as a simplification of a previously validated microsimulation model. Methods: The Markov model included three health states: infrequent or frequent exacerbator (IE or FE; ≤1 or ≥2 moderate/severe exacerbations in prior 12 months, respectively), or death. The model used data from the FLAME study and was run over a 10-year horizon. Cycle length was 1 year, after which patients remained in the same health state or transitioned to another. Analysis was conducted from a Swedish payer's perspective (Swedish healthcare costs, converted into Euros), with incremental costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) calculated (discounted 3% annually). Results: At all post-baseline timepoints, IND/GLY was associated with more patients in the IE health state and fewer patients in the FE and dead states relative to SFC. Over a 10-year period, IND/GLY was associated with a cost saving of 1,887/patient, an incremental benefit of 0.142 QALYs, and an addition of 0.057 life-years, compared with SFC. Conclusion: This Markov model represents a novel cost-effectiveness analysis for COPD, with simpler methodology than prior microsimulation models, while retaining exacerbations as drivers of disease progression. In patients with COPD with a history of exacerbations in the previous year, IND/GLY is a cost-effective treatment option compared with SFC.
Assuntos
Glicopirrolato , Indanos , Doença Pulmonar Obstrutiva Crônica , Quinolonas , Broncodilatadores/uso terapêutico , Análise Custo-Benefício , Combinação de Medicamentos , Combinação Fluticasona-Salmeterol/uso terapêutico , Glicopirrolato/uso terapêutico , Humanos , Indanos/uso terapêutico , Cadeias de Markov , Doença Pulmonar Obstrutiva Crônica/tratamento farmacológico , Quinolonas/uso terapêutico , Suécia , Resultado do TratamentoRESUMO
Background: For novel migraine therapies, economic evaluations will be required to understand the trade-offs between additional health benefit and additional cost. The purpose of this study was to conduct a systematic literature review (SLR) to identify previous economic evaluations in migraine from the United Kingdom or Irish perspective to critically appraise these evaluations and to propose, if necessary, a novel modelling approach that can be used for future economic evaluations of migraine therapies.Methods: An SLR was conducted to identify previous economic evaluations of preventive migraine treatments. Key opinion leaders were consulted to determine the criteria for a robust migraine economic evaluation. Economic evaluations identified in the SLR were appraised against these criteria, and a novel cost-effectiveness model structure was then proposed.Results: Eight records reporting on published economic evaluations were identified and critically appraised for general quality. Expert consultation provided 6 recommendations on the ideal model structure for migraine that is both clinically and economically meaningful. A decision-tree plus Markov structure was then developed as a cost-effectiveness model for migraine therapies where each health state is associated with a patient distribution across monthly migraine day (MMD) frequencies.Conclusions: Future migraine economic evaluations should allow for assessments across the full spectrum of migraine, a response-based stopping rule, and the estimation of benefits and resource costs based on MMD frequency. The approach proposed in this paper captures all of the desired elements for an economic evaluation of migraine therapy and is suitable to assess new migraine therapies.
Assuntos
Transtornos de Enxaqueca/tratamento farmacológico , Transtornos de Enxaqueca/economia , Análise Custo-Benefício , Técnicas de Apoio para a Decisão , Recursos em Saúde/economia , Serviços de Saúde/economia , Nível de Saúde , Humanos , Irlanda , Cadeias de Markov , Modelos Econômicos , Aceitação pelo Paciente de Cuidados de Saúde/estatística & dados numéricos , Anos de Vida Ajustados por Qualidade de Vida , Índice de Gravidade de Doença , Reino UnidoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of indacaterol/glycopyrronium (IND/GLY) versus salmeterol/fluticasone (SFC) in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients with moderate to very severe airflow limitation and ≥1 exacerbation in the preceding year. METHODS: A previously published and validated patient-level simulation model was adapted using clinical data from the FLAME trial and real-world cost data from the ARCTIC study. Costs (total monetary costs comprising drug, maintenance, exacerbation, and pneumonia costs) and health outcomes (life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs)) were projected over various time horizons (1, 5, 10 years, and lifetime) from the Swedish payer's perspective and were discounted at 3% annually. Uncertainty in model input values was studied through one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Subgroup analyses were also performed. RESULTS: IND/GLY was associated with lower costs and better outcomes compared with SFC over all the analysed time horizons. Use of IND/GLY resulted in additional 0.192 LYs and 0.134 QALYs with cost savings of 1211 compared with SFC over lifetime. The net monetary benefit (NMB) was estimated to be 8560 based on a willingness-to-pay threshold of 55,000/QALY. The NMB was higher in the following subgroups: severe (GOLD 3), high risk and more symptoms (GOLD D), females, and current smokers. CONCLUSION: IND/GLY is a cost-effective treatment compared with SFC in COPD patients with mMRC dyspnea grade ≥ 2, moderate to very severe airflow limitation, and ≥1 exacerbation in the preceding year.
Assuntos
Análise Custo-Benefício/métodos , Combinação Fluticasona-Salmeterol/economia , Glicopirrolato/economia , Indanos/economia , Modelos Econômicos , Vigilância da População/métodos , Doença Pulmonar Obstrutiva Crônica/economia , Quinolonas/economia , Idoso , Método Duplo-Cego , Combinação de Medicamentos , Feminino , Combinação Fluticasona-Salmeterol/administração & dosagem , Glicopirrolato/administração & dosagem , Humanos , Indanos/administração & dosagem , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Doença Pulmonar Obstrutiva Crônica/tratamento farmacológico , Doença Pulmonar Obstrutiva Crônica/epidemiologia , Quinolonas/administração & dosagem , Suécia/epidemiologiaRESUMO
Costs and utilities are key inputs into any cost-effectiveness analysis. Their estimates are typically derived from individual patient-level data collected as part of clinical studies the follow-up duration of which is often too short to allow a robust quantification of the likely costs and benefits a technology will yield over the patient's entire lifetime. In the absence of long-term data, some form of temporal extrapolation-to project short-term evidence over a longer time horizon-is required. Temporal extrapolation inevitably involves assumptions regarding the behaviour of the quantities of interest beyond the time horizon supported by the clinical evidence. Unfortunately, the implications for decisions made on the basis of evidence derived following this practice and the degree of uncertainty surrounding the validity of any assumptions made are often not fully appreciated. The issue is compounded by the absence of methodological guidance concerning the extrapolation of non-time-to-event outcomes such as costs and utilities. This paper considers current approaches to predict long-term costs and utilities, highlights some of the challenges with the existing methods, and provides recommendations for future applications. It finds that, typically, economic evaluation models employ a simplistic approach to temporal extrapolation of costs and utilities. For instance, their parameters (e.g. mean) are typically assumed to be homogeneous with respect to both time and patients' characteristics. Furthermore, costs and utilities have often been modelled to follow the dynamics of the associated time-to-event outcomes. However, cost and utility estimates may be more nuanced, and it is important to ensure extrapolation is carried out appropriately for these parameters.
Assuntos
Tecnologia Biomédica/economia , Análise Custo-Benefício/métodos , Modelos Econômicos , Avaliação da Tecnologia Biomédica/métodos , Tomada de Decisões , Humanos , Anos de Vida Ajustados por Qualidade de Vida , Fatores de Tempo , IncertezaRESUMO
BACKGROUND: To conduct a cost-utility analysis of ranibizumab versus aflibercept for the treatment of patients with visual impairment due to diabetic macular edema (DME) in the Greek setting. METHODS: A Markov model was adapted to compare the use of ranibizumab 0.5 mg (pro re nata-PRN and treat and extend-T&E) to aflibercept 2 mg (every 8 weeks after five initial doses) in DME. Patients transitioned at a 3-month cycle among nine specified health states (including death) over a lifetime horizon. Transition probabilities, utilities, as well as DME-related mortality were extracted from relevant clinical trials, a network meta-analysis and other published studies. The analysis was conducted from payer perspective and as such only costs reimbursed by the payer were considered (year 2014). The incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained and the net monetary benefit was the main outcome measures. RESULTS: Τhe use of PRN and T&E ranibizumab regimens were shown to be cost saving comparing to aflibercept (by 2824 and 22, respectively), and more beneficial in terms of QALYs gained (+0.05) and time without visual impairment (0.031 and 0.034 years), thereby dominating aflibercept. Moreover, ranibizumab used as PRN or T&E resulted in a net monetary benefit of 3984 and 1278, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Both PRN and T&E ranibizumab regimens were more beneficial and less costly compared to aflibercept for the management of DME. Hence, ranibizumab seems to be a dominant option for the treatment of visual impairment due to DME in the Greek setting.