Employer-perspective cost comparison of surgical treatments for abnormal uterine bleeding.

Aim: To estimate direct and indirect costs of surgical treatment of abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) from a self-insured employer's perspective. Methods: Employer-sponsored insurance claims data were analyzed to estimate costs owing to absence and short-term disability 1 year following global endometrial ablation (GEA), outpatient hysterectomy (OPH) and inpatient hysterectomy (IPH). Results: Costs for women who had GEA are substantially less than costs for women who had either OPH or IPH, with the difference ranging from approximately $7700 to approximately $10,000 for direct costs and approximately $4200 to approximately $4600 for indirect costs. Women who had GEA missed 21.8-24.0 fewer works days. Conclusion: Study results suggest lower healthcare costs associated with GEA versus OPH or IPH from a self-insured employer perspective.

Breast, Cervical, and Colorectal Cancer Screening: Patterns Among Women With Medicaid and Commercial Insurance.

INTRODUCTION: Despite healthcare reforms mandating expanded insurance coverage and reduced out-of-pocket costs for preventive care, cancer screening rates remain relatively static. No study has measured cancer screening rates for multiple tests among non-Medicare patients. METHODS: This retrospective, population-based claims analysis, conducted in 2016-2017, of commercially insured and Medicaid-insured women aged 30-59 years enrolled in IBM MarketScan Commercial and Medicaid Databases (containing approximately 90 and 17 million enrollees, respectively) during 2010-2015 describes screening rates for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer. Key outcomes were (1) proportion screened for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer among the age-eligible population compared with accepted age-based recommendations and (2) proportion with longer-than-recommended intervals between tests. RESULTS: One half (54.7%) of commercially insured women aged 40-59 years (n=1,538,444) were screened three or more times during the 6-year study period for breast cancer; for Medicaid-insured women (n=78,897), the rates were lower (23.7%). One third (43.4%) of commercially insured and two thirds (68.9%) of Medicaid-insured women had a >2.5-year gap between mammograms. Among women aged 30-59 years, 59.3% of commercially insured women and 31.4% of Medicaid-insured women received two or more Pap tests. The proportion of patients with a >3.5-year gap between Pap tests was 33.9% (commercially insured) and 57.1% (Medicaid-insured). Among women aged 50-59 years, 63.3% of commercially insured women and 47.2% of Medicaid-insured women were screened at least one time for colorectal cancer. Almost all women aged 30-59 years (commercially insured, 99.1%; Medicaid-insured, 98.9%) had at least one healthcare encounter. CONCLUSIONS: Breast and cervical cancer screenings remain underutilized among both commercially insured and Medicaid-insured populations, with lower rates among the Medicaid-insured population. However, almost all women had at least one healthcare encounter, suggesting opportunities for better coordinated care.

Women with Newly Diagnosed Uterine Fibroids: Treatment Patterns and Cost Comparison for Select Treatment Options.

The primary objective of this study was to describe surgical treatment patterns among women with newly diagnosed uterine fibroids (UF). A secondary objective was to estimate the medical costs associated with other common surgical interventions for UF. Claims-based commercial and Medicare data (2011-2016) were used to identify women aged ≥30 years with continuous enrollment for at least 12 months before and after a new diagnosis of UF. Receipt of a surgical or radiologic procedure (hysterectomy, myomectomy, endometrial ablation, uterine artery embolization, and curettage) was the primary outcome. Health care resource utilization and costs were calculated for women with at least 12 months of continuous enrollment following a UF surgical procedure. Among women who met selection criteria, 31.7% of patients underwent a surgical procedure; 20.9% of these underwent hysterectomy. An increase was observed over time in the percentage of women undergoing outpatient hysterectomy (from 27.0% to 40.2%) and hysteroscopic myomectomy (from 8.0% to 11.5%). The cost analysis revealed that total health care costs for hysteroscopic myomectomy ($17,324) were significantly lower (P < 0.001) than those for women who underwent inpatient hysterectomy ($24,027) and those for women undergoing the 3 comparison procedures. Hysterectomy was the most common surgical intervention. Patients undergoing inpatient hysterectomy had the highest health care costs. Although less expensive, minimally invasive approaches are becoming more common; they are performed infrequently in patients with newly diagnosed UF. The results of this study may be useful in guiding decisions regarding the most appropriate and cost-effective surgical treatment for UF.

Economic Evaluation of Global Endometrial Ablation Versus Inpatient and Outpatient Hysterectomy for Treatment of Abnormal Uterine Bleeding: US Commercial and Medicaid Payer Perspectives.

Every year, abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) exacts a heavy toll on women's health and leads to high costs for the US health care system. The literature shows that endometrial ablation results in fewer complications, shorter recovery and lower costs than more commonly performed hysterectomy procedures. The objective of this study was to model clinical-economic outcomes, budget impact, and cost-effectiveness of global endometrial ablation (GEA) versus outpatient hysterectomy (OPH) and inpatient hysterectomy (IPH) procedures. A decision tree, state-transition (semi-Markov) economic model was developed to simulate 3 hypothetical cohorts of women who received surgical treatment for AUB (GEA, OPH, and IPH) over 1, 2, and 3 years to evaluate clinical and economic outcomes for GEA vs. OPH and GEA vs. IPH. Two versions of the model were created to reflect both commercial health care payer and US Medicaid perspectives, and analyses were conducted for both payer types. Total health care costs in the first year after GEA were substantially lower compared with those for IPH and OPH. Budget impact analysis results showed that increasing GEA utilization yields total annual cost savings of about $906,000 for a million-member commercial health plan and about $152,000 in cost savings for a typical-sized state Medicaid plan with 1.4 million members. Cost-effectiveness analysis results for both perspectives showed GEA as economically dominant (conferring greater benefit at lower cost) over both OPH and IPH in the 1-year commercial scenario. This study demonstrates that, for some patients, GEA may prove to be a safe, uterus-sparing, cost-effective alternative to OPH and IPH for the surgical treatment of AUB.

Economic analysis and budget impact of clostridial collagenase ointment compared with medicinal honey for treatment of pressure ulcers in the US.

OBJECTIVES: Pressure ulcer (PU) treatment poses significant clinical and economic challenges to health-care systems. The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of enzymatic debridement with clostridial collagenase ointment (CCO) compared with autolytic debridement with medicinal honey (MH) for PU treatment from a US payer/Medicare perspective in the hospital outpatient department setting. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis using a Markov model was developed using a 1-week cycle length across a 1-year time horizon. The three health states were inflammation/senescence, granulation/proliferation (ie, patients achieving 100% granulation), and epithelialization. Data sources included the US Wound Registry, Medicare fee schedules, and other published clinical and cost studies about PU treatment. RESULTS: In the base case analysis over a 1-year time horizon, CCO was the economically dominant strategy (ie, simultaneously conferring greater benefit at less cost). Patients treated with CCO experienced 22.7 quality-adjusted life weeks (QALWs) at a cost of $6,161 over 1 year, whereas MH patients experienced 21.9 QALWs at a cost of $7,149. Patients treated with CCO achieved 11.5 granulation weeks and 6.0 epithelization weeks compared with 10.6 and 4.4 weeks for MH, respectively. The number of clinic visits was 40.1 for CCO vs 43.4 for MH, and the number of debridements was 12.3 for CCO compared with 17.6 for MH. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses determined CCO dominant in 72% of 10,000 iterations and cost-effective in 91%, assuming a benchmark willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000/quality-adjusted life year ($962/QALW). The budget impact analysis showed that for every 1% of patients shifted from MH to CCO, a cost savings of $9,883 over 1 year for a cohort of 1,000 patients was observed by the payer. CONCLUSION: The results of these economic analyses suggest that CCO is a cost-effective, economically dominant alternative to MH in the treatment of patients with PUs in the hospital outpatient department setting.

Value Analysis of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis for Breast Cancer Screening in a US Medicaid Population.

PURPOSE: Better understanding regarding the clinical-economic value of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) for breast cancer screening for Medicaid enrollees is needed to help inform sound, value-based decision making. The objective of this study was to conduct a clinical-economic value analysis of DBT for breast cancer screening among women enrolled in Medicaid to assess the potential clinical benefits, associated expenditures, and net budget impact of DBT. METHODS: Two annual screening mammography scenarios were evaluated with an economic model: (1) full-field digital mammography and (2) combined full-field digital mammography and DBT. The model focused on two main drivers of DBT value: (1) capacity for DBT to reduce the number of women recalled for additional follow-up imaging and diagnostic services and (2) capacity of DBT to facilitate earlier diagnosis of cancer at earlier stages, when treatment costs are lower. RESULTS: Model analysis results showed that the use of DBT as a mammographic screening modality by Medicaid enrollees potentially reduces the need for follow-up diagnostic services and improves the detection of invasive cancers, allowing earlier, less costly treatment. With the modest incremental reimbursement of $37 for DBT expected for a typical Medicaid claim, annual cost savings from DBT predicted by the model amounts to $8.14 per patient, potentially translating into more than $12,000 savings per year for an average-sized Medicaid plan and as much as $207,000 savings per year for a typical state Medicaid program. CONCLUSIONS: Wider adoption of DBT presents an opportunity to deliver value-based care to Medicaid programs and to help address disparities and barriers to accessing preventive care by some of the nation's most vulnerable citizens.

Economic impact of longer battery life of cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillators in Sweden.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to quantify the impact that longer battery life of cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator (CRT-D) devices has on reducing the number of device replacements and associated costs of these replacements from a Swedish health care system perspective. METHODS: An economic model based on real-world published data was developed to estimate cost savings and avoided device replacements for CRT-Ds with longer battery life compared with devices with industry-standard battery life expectancy. Base-case comparisons were performed among CRT-Ds of three manufacturers - Boston Scientific Corporation, St. Jude Medical, and Medtronic - over a 6-year time horizon, as per the available clinical data. As a sensitivity analysis, we evaluated CRT-Ds as well as single-chamber implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD-VR) and dual-chamber implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD-DR) devices over a longer 10-year period. All costs were in 2015 Swedish Krona (SEK) discounted at 3% per annum. RESULTS: Base-case analysis results show that up to 603 replacements and up to SEK 60.4 million cumulative-associated costs could be avoided over 6 years by using devices with extended battery life. The pattern of savings over time suggests that savings are modest initially but increase rapidly beginning in the third year of follow-up with each year's cumulative savings two to three times the previous year. Evaluating CRT-D, ICD-VR, and ICD-DR devices together over a longer 10-year period, the sensitivity analysis showed 2,820 fewer replacement procedures and associated cost savings of SEK 249.3 million for all defibrillators with extended battery life. CONCLUSION: Extended battery life is likely to reduce device replacements and associated complications and costs, which may result in important cost savings and a more efficient use of health care resources as well as a better quality of life for heart failure patients in Sweden.

Cost-effectiveness of edoxaban versus rivaroxaban for stroke prevention in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) in the US.

BACKGROUND: Understanding the value of new anticoagulation therapies compared with existing therapies is of paramount importance in today's cost-conscious and efficiency-driven health care environment. Edoxaban and rivaroxaban for stroke prevention in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients with CHADS2 scores ≥2 have been evaluated in pivotal trials versus warfarin. The relative value of edoxaban versus rivaroxaban would be of interest to health care stakeholders and patients who prefer a once-daily treatment option for long-term stroke prevention in NVAF. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the relative cost-effectiveness of two once-daily regimens of novel oral anticoagulation therapy - edoxaban (60 mg/30 mg dose-reduced) versus rivaroxaban (20 mg/15 mg dose-reduced) - for stroke prevention in NVAF patients from a US health-plan perspective. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A Markov model simulated lifetime risk and treatment of stroke, systemic embolism, major bleeding, clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding, myocardial infarction, and death in NVAF patients treated with edoxaban or rivaroxaban. Efficacy and safety data were derived from a network meta-analysis that utilized data from patients enrolled in ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 and ROCKET-AF. Health care cost and utility data were obtained from published sources. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $150,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained were used as thresholds for "highly cost-effective", "cost-effective", and "not cost-effective" treatment options, respectively, as per American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines. RESULTS: Edoxaban was dominant relative to rivaroxaban, such that it was associated with lower total health care costs and better effectiveness in terms of QALYs in the base-case analysis. Results were supported by probabilistic sensitivity analyses that showed edoxaban as either dominant or a highly cost-effective alternative (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio <$50,000) to rivaroxaban in 88.4% of 10,000 simulations. CONCLUSION: Results of this study showed that the once-daily edoxaban (60 mg/30 mg dose-reduced) regimen is a cost-saving or highly cost-effective treatment relative to rivaroxaban (20 mg/15 mg dose-reduced) for stroke prevention in NVAF patients with CHADS2 ≥2.

The Clinical and Economic Benefits of Co-Testing Versus Primary HPV Testing for Cervical Cancer Screening: A Modeling Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Consensus United States cervical cancer screening guidelines recommend use of combination Pap plus human papillomavirus (HPV) testing for women aged 30 to 65 years. An HPV test was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2014 for primary cervical cancer screening in women age 25 years and older. Here, we present the results of clinical-economic comparisons of Pap plus HPV mRNA testing including genotyping for HPV 16/18 (co-testing) versus DNA-based primary HPV testing with HPV 16/18 genotyping and reflex cytology (HPV primary) for cervical cancer screening. METHODS: A health state transition (Markov) model with 1-year cycling was developed using epidemiologic, clinical, and economic data from healthcare databases and published literature. A hypothetical cohort of one million women receiving triennial cervical cancer screening was simulated from ages 30 to 70 years. Screening strategies compared HPV primary to co-testing. Outcomes included total and incremental differences in costs, invasive cervical cancer (ICC) cases, ICC deaths, number of colposcopies, and quality-adjusted life years for cost-effectiveness calculations. Comprehensive sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: In a simulation cohort of one million 30-year-old women modeled up to age 70 years, the model predicted that screening with HPV primary testing instead of co-testing could lead to as many as 2,141 more ICC cases and 2,041 more ICC deaths. In the simulation, co-testing demonstrated a greater number of lifetime quality-adjusted life years (22,334) and yielded $39.0 million in savings compared with HPV primary, thereby conferring greater effectiveness at lower cost. CONCLUSIONS: Model results demonstrate that co-testing has the potential to provide improved clinical and economic outcomes when compared with HPV primary. While actual cost and outcome data are evaluated, these findings are relevant to U.S. healthcare payers and women's health policy advocates seeking cost-effective cervical cancer screening technologies.

Cost-Effectiveness of Global Endometrial Ablation vs. Hysterectomy for Treatment of Abnormal Uterine Bleeding: US Commercial and Medicaid Payer Perspectives.

Cost-effectiveness modeling studies of global endometrial ablation (GEA) for treatment of abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) from a US perspective are lacking. The objective of this study was to model the cost-effectiveness of GEA vs. hysterectomy for treatment of AUB in the United States from both commercial and Medicaid payer perspectives. The study team developed a 1-, 3-, and 5-year semi-Markov decision-analytic model to simulate 2 hypothetical patient cohorts of women with AUB-1 treated with GEA and the other with hysterectomy. Clinical and economic data (including treatment patterns, health care resource utilization, direct costs, and productivity costs) came from analyses of commercial and Medicaid claims databases. Analysis results show that cost savings with simultaneous reduction in treatment complications and fewer days lost from work are achieved with GEA versus hysterectomy over almost all time horizons and under both the commercial payer and Medicaid perspectives. Cost-effectiveness metrics also favor GEA over hysterectomy from both the commercial payer and Medicaid payer perspectives-evidence strongly supporting the clinical-economic value about GEA versus hysterectomy. Results will interest clinicians, health care payers, and self-insured employers striving for cost-effective AUB treatments.

Cost effectiveness of endometrial ablation with the NovaSure(®) system versus other global ablation modalities and hysterectomy for treatment of abnormal uterine bleeding: US commercial and Medicaid payer perspectives.

OBJECTIVES: Abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) interferes with physical, emotional, and social well-being, impacting the quality of life of more than 10 million women in the USA. Hysterectomy, the most common surgical treatment of AUB, has significant morbidity, low mortality, long recovery, and high associated health care costs. Global endometrial ablation (GEA) provides a surgical alternative with reduced morbidity, cost, and recovery time. The NovaSure(®) system utilizes unique radiofrequency impedance-based GEA technology. This study evaluated cost effectiveness of AUB treatment with NovaSure ablation versus other GEA modalities and versus hysterectomy from the US commercial and Medicaid payer perspectives. METHODS: A health state transition (semi-Markov) model was developed using epidemiologic, clinical, and economic data from commercial and Medicaid claims database analyses, supplemented by published literature. Three hypothetical cohorts of women receiving AUB interventions were simulated over 1-, 3-, and 5-year horizons to evaluate clinical and economic outcomes for NovaSure, other GEA modalities, and hysterectomy. RESULTS: Model analyses show lower costs for NovaSure-treated patients than for those treated with other GEA modalities or hysterectomy over all time frames under commercial payer and Medicaid perspectives. By Year 3, cost savings versus other GEA were $930 (commercial) and $3,000 (Medicaid); cost savings versus hysterectomy were $6,500 (commercial) and $8,900 (Medicaid). Coinciding with a 43%-71% reduction in need for re-ablation, there were 69%-88% fewer intervention/reintervention complications for NovaSure-treated patients versus other GEA modalities, and 82%-91% fewer versus hysterectomy. Furthermore, NovaSure-treated patients had fewer days of work absence and short-term disability. Cost-effectiveness metrics showed NovaSure treatment as economically dominant over other GEA modalities in all circumstances. With few exceptions, similar results were shown for NovaSure treatment versus hysterectomy. CONCLUSION: Model results demonstrate strong financial favorability for NovaSure ablation versus other GEA modalities and hysterectomy from commercial and Medicaid payer perspectives. Results will interest clinicians, health care payers, and self-insured employers striving for cost-effective AUB treatments.

Comparison of direct and indirect costs of abnormal uterine bleeding treatment with global endometrial ablation and hysterectomy.

AIM: The objective was to compare abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) direct healthcare costs and indirect work absence or short-term disability costs associated with treatment with second-generation global endometrial ablation (GEA) or hysterectomy. METHODS: Women aged 30-55 years with AUB who underwent GEA or hysterectomy during 2006-2010 were identified in the Truven Health MarketScan(®) Commercial and Health and Productivity Management databases. RESULTS & CONCLUSION: Two-thirds (66.3%) of the 61,602 study patients underwent GEA compared with hysterectomy (33.7%). Hysterectomy patients had higher treatment costs (US$12,147 vs 5837; p < 0.001), higher annual absenteeism costs (US$7543 vs 5621; p < 0.001), were four-times more likely to have a short-term disability claim (84 vs 21%; p < 0.001) and had higher per-patient short-term disability costs (US$5744 vs 1361; p < 0.001). Overall hysterectomy costs were approximately twice those of GEA.

Retrospective database analysis of clinical outcomes and costs for treatment of abnormal uterine bleeding among women enrolled in US Medicaid programs.

BACKGROUND: Women with abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) may be treated surgically with hysterectomy or global endometrial ablation (GEA), an outpatient procedure. We compared the costs and clinical outcomes of these surgical procedures for AUB among women in Medicaid programs. METHODS: The Truven Health MarketScan(®) Medicaid Multi-State Database was used to identify Medicaid women aged 30-55 years with AUB who newly initiated GEA or hysterectomy (index event) during 2006-2010. Patients were required to have 12 months of continuous enrollment pre-index and post-index. Baseline characteristics were assessed in the pre-index period; health care utilization and costs (2011 USD), treatment complications, and reinterventions were assessed in the post-index period. RESULTS: Of 1,880 women who met the study criteria (mean age 40.7 years), 53.4% were Caucasian, 33.1% were African-American, and 2.3% were Hispanic; many (42.8%) received their Medicaid eligibility due to disability. Similar proportions received GEA (50.9%) or hysterectomy (49.1%). At baseline, both groups also had similar Deyo-Charlson Comorbidity scores (0.65), and use of antibiotics (69.4%), nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (56.3%), and oral contraceptives (5.3%). More hysterectomy patients than GEA patients had a treatment-related complication (52% versus 36%, respectively, P<0.001). Initial treatment costs were higher for hysterectomy ($11,270) than for GEA ($3,958, P<0.001); monthly gynecology-related costs in the remainder of the year were not significantly different for hysterectomy ($63) and GEA ($16, P=0.11). CONCLUSION: Hysterectomy was nearly three times more costly than GEA for initial treatment of AUB, and associated with more treatment-related complications. These results may be informative in the context of new federal mandates for Medicaid expansion, which are likely to focus on cost savings through use of outpatient treatments such as GEA.

Current challenges in health economic modeling of cancer therapies: a research inquiry.

BACKGROUND: The demand for economic models that evaluate cancer treatments is increasing, as healthcare decision makers struggle for ways to manage their budgets while providing the best care possible to patients with cancer. Yet, after nearly 2 decades of cultivating and refining techniques for modeling the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of cancer therapies, serious methodologic and policy challenges have emerged that question the adequacy of economic modeling as a sound decision-making tool in oncology. OBJECTIVES: We sought to explore some of the contentious issues associated with the development and use of oncology economic models as informative tools in current healthcare decision-making. Our objective was to draw attention to these complex pharmacoeconomic concerns and to promote discussion within the oncology and health economics research communities. METHODS: Using our combined expertise in health economics research and economic modeling, we structured our inquiry around the following 4 questions: (1) Are economic models adequately addressing questions relevant to oncology decision makers; (2) What are the methodologic limitations of oncology economic models; (3) What guidelines are followed for developing oncology economic models; and (4) Is the evolution of oncology economic modeling keeping pace with treatment innovation? Within the context of each of these questions, we discuss issues related to the technical limitations of oncology modeling, the availability of adequate data for developing models, and the problems with how modeling analyses and results are presented and interpreted. DISCUSSION: There is general acceptance that economic models are good, essential tools for decision-making, but the practice of oncology and its rapidly evolving technologies present unique challenges that make assessing and demonstrating value especially complex. There is wide latitude for improvement in oncology modeling methodologies and how model results are presented and interpreted. CONCLUSION: Complex technical and data availability issues with oncology economic modeling pose serious concerns that need to be addressed. It is our hope that this article will provide a framework to guide future discourse on this important topic.

Cost-effectiveness of Telaprevir combination therapy for chronic hepatitis C.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the expected long-term health and economic outcomes of telaprevir (TVR) plus peginterferon alfa-2a and ribavirin (PR), a regimen that demonstrated substantially increased sustained virologic response (SVR) compared with PR alone in adults with chronic genotype 1 hepatitis C virus (HCV) and compensated liver disease in the Phase III studies ADVANCE (treatment-naïve patients) and REALIZE (relapsers, partial responders, and null responders to previous PR treatment). STUDY DESIGN: A decision-analytic model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of TVR+PR vs. PR in the United States (US). METHODS: Patients first moved through the 72-week decision-tree treatment phase of the model and then entered the cyclic Markov post-treatment phase. Clinical data (patient characteristics, SVR rates, and adverse event rates and durations) were obtained from ADVANCE and REALIZE. Health-state transition probabilities, drug and other costs (in 2012/2013 US dollars), and utility values were obtained from the trials, published studies, and publicly available sources. Outcomes were discounted at 3% per year. RESULTS: Regardless of treatment history, patients receiving TVR+PR were projected to experience fewer liver-disease complications, more life-years, and more quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) than patients receiving PR. In prior relapsers, TVR+PR was dominant, with lower total medical costs and more QALYs. For the other patient subgroups, incremental costs per QALY gained were between $16,778 (treatment-naïve patients) and $34,279 (prior null responders). Extensive sensitivity analyses confirmed robust model results. CONCLUSIONS: At standard willingness-to-pay thresholds, TVR+PR represents a cost-effective treatment option compared with PR alone for patients with chronic genotype 1 HCV and compensated liver disease in the US. Future analyses are needed to compare TVR+PR with all existing HCV treatment options.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of interferon beta-1b for the treatment of patients with a first clinical event suggestive of multiple sclerosis.

OBJECTIVES: To assess, from a Swedish societal perspective, the cost effectiveness of interferon ß-1b (IFNB-1b) after an initial clinical event suggestive of multiple sclerosis (MS) (ie, early treatment) compared with treatment after onset of clinically definite MS (CDMS) (ie, delayed treatment). METHODS: A Markov model was developed, using patient level data from the BENEFIT trial and published literature, to estimate health outcomes and costs associated with IFNB-1b for hypothetical cohorts of patients after an initial clinical event suggestive of MS. Health states were defined by Kurtzke Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) scores. Model outcomes included quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), total costs (including both direct and indirect costs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Sensitivity analyses were performed on key model parameters to assess the robustness of model results. RESULTS: In the base case scenario, early IFNB-1b treatment was economically dominant (ie, less costly and more effective) versus delayed IFNB-1b treatment when QALYs were used as the effectiveness metric. Sensitivity analyses showed that the cost-effectiveness results were sensitive to model time horizon. Compared with the delayed treatment strategy, early treatment of MS was also associated with delayed EDSS progressions, prolonged time to CDMS diagnosis, and a reduction in frequency of relapse. CONCLUSION: Early treatment with IFNB-1b for a first clinical event suggestive of MS was found to improve patient outcomes while controlling costs.

Pharmacoeconomic considerations in treating iron overload in patients with ß-thalassaemia, sickle cell disease and myelodysplastic syndromes in the US: a literature review.

Patients with ß-thalassaemia, sickle cell disease (SCD) and myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) require chronic blood transfusions, which can lead to iron overload and substantial morbidity and mortality. To reduce the excess iron and its deleterious effects, available iron chelation therapy (ICT) in the US includes oral deferasirox or infusional deferoxamine (DFO). The aim of this study was to review and synthesize the available pharmacoeconomic evidence on ICT in patients with ß-thalassaemia, SCD and MDS in the US. We systematically identified and reviewed pharmacoeconomic studies of ICT in patients with ß-thalassaemia, SCD and MDS that either were published in MEDLINE-indexed, English-language journals from 1999 to 2009, or appeared in medical society websites and scientific meeting abstracts. We assessed available cost-of-illness, cost-of-treatment, cost-consequence, cost-effectiveness, utility and patient-satisfaction studies. The majority of the 20 identified studies assessed cost of treatment, mainly focusing on acquisition and administration costs of ICTs. Gaps in the published literature include current data on direct medical costs for patients with MDS, direct medical costs associated with complications of iron overload, direct non-medical costs, indirect costs and patient utilities. Different underlying model assumptions, methodologies and comparators were found in the cost-effectiveness studies, which yielded a broad range of incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for different ICTs. Comprehensive cost-of-illness studies are needed to address data gaps in the published literature regarding the economic burden of iron overload. Comparative-effectiveness studies that evaluate clinical, economic and patient-reported outcomes would help the medical community to better understand the value of different ICTs.

The economic burden of metastatic breast cancer: a systematic review of literature from developed countries.

OBJECTIVE: Breast cancer, the most common malignant cancer among women in Western countries, has poor prognosis following metastasis. New therapies potentially extend survival, but their value is questioned when benefits are incremental and expensive. The objective of our study was to understand the economic impact of metastatic breast cancer (MBC) and its treatment, and to evaluate the designs of these studies. METHODS: We systematically reviewed the MEDLINE-indexed, English-language literature, identifying 31 articles on the economic evaluation of MBC in 10 developed countries, including studies of per-patient costs, gross national costs, and cost-effectiveness models. We also included health technology assessments (HTAs) from government and regulatory agencies. RESULTS: Total per-patient costs of MBC are only available for Sweden ($17,301-$48,169 annually, depending on patient age (2005 USD)). Most economic analyses of per-patient direct costs originate from the US; across all countries, data indicate that this burden is substantial. Gross national costs of MBC are available only for the UK (cost of incident MBC cases is estimated to be $22 million annually (2002 GBP)). Many cost-effectiveness analyses suggest that a number of new and established treatments are cost-effective compared to standard care in various countries, but many offer small increments in survival. The cost-effectiveness of trastuzumab, capecitabine, and nab-paclitaxel has been evaluated in many recent studies. CONCLUSION: Most economic evaluations of MBC have utilized secondary rather than primary data, and have used scenarios and assumptions which may be inaccurate or outdated. The quality of evidence disseminated to decision-makers could be improved by adherence to best practices in cost-effectiveness analyses.