Integrating a Polygenic Risk Score for Coronary Artery Disease as a Risk-Enhancing Factor in the Pooled Cohort Equation: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Study.

Background Cardiovascular diseases are the leading cause of death in the United States, yet a significant proportion of adults at high risk remain undetected by standard screening practices. Polygenic risk score for coronary artery disease (CAD-PRS) improves precision in determining the 10-year risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease but health benefits and health care costs associated with CAD-PRS are unknown. We examined the cost-effectiveness of including CAD-PRS as a risk-enhancing factor in the pooled cohort equation (PCE)-the standard of care for determining the risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease-versus PCE alone. Methods and Results We applied a Markov model on a cohort of 40-year-old individuals with borderline or intermediate 10-year risk (5% to <20%) for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease to identify those in the top quintile of the CAD-PRS distribution who are at high risk and eligible for statin prevention therapy. Health outcomes examined included coronary artery disease (CAD; ie, myocardial infarction) and ischemic stroke. The model projected medical costs (2019 US$) of screening for CAD, statin prevention therapy, treatment, and monitoring patients living with CAD or ischemic stroke and quality-adjusted life-years for PCE+CAD-PRS versus PCE alone. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses and scenario analyses were performed to examine uncertainty in parameter inputs. PCE+CAD-PRS was dominant compared with PCE alone in the 5- and 10-year time horizons. We found that, respectively, PCE+CAD-PRS had 0.003 and 0.011 higher mean quality-adjusted life-years and $40 and $181 lower mean costs per person screened, with 29 and 50 fewer events of CAD and ischemic stroke in a cohort of 10 000 individuals compared with PCE alone. The risk of developing CAD, the effectiveness of statin prevention therapy, and the cost of treating CAD had the largest impact on the cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained. However, this cost remained below the $50 000 willingness-to-pay threshold except when the annual risk of developing CAD was <0.006 in the 5-year time horizon. Results from Monte Carlo simulation indicated that PCE+CAD-PRS would be cost-effective. with the probability of 94% and 99% at $50 000 willingness-to-pay threshold in the 5- and 10-year time horizon, respectively. Conclusions Implementing CAD-PRS as a risk-enhancing factor in the PCE to determine the risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease reduced the mean cost per individual, improved quality-adjusted life-years, and averted future events of CAD and ischemic stroke when compared with PCE alone.

Economic impact of using maternal plasma cell-free DNA testing to guide further workup in recurrent pregnancy loss.

OBJECTIVE: We have previously demonstrated that maternal-plasma cell-free DNA (cfDNA)-testing can detect chromosomal anomalies in recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) with 81.8% sensitivity and 90.3% specificity. Here we assess whether this is cost effective in guiding further workup in RPLs. METHOD: A decision-analytic model was developed to compare the cost of various RPL management pathways: (1) current American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) RPL workup; (2) microarray or karyotyping analysis of products of conception (POCs) and RPL workup only for euploid cases; and (3) cfDNA testing and RPL workup only for euploid cases. Sample accessibility, failure rates, and sensitivity were specified for each test. Costs of sample collection, genetic tests, and RPL workup were considered. Analysis outcomes included detection rate of chromosomal anomaly and cost per patient tested. RESULTS: In comparison to existing cytogenetic testing on POCs, cfDNA testing pathway allowed for better sample accessibility with a lower cost per patient. In addition, using cfDNA to guide further workup significantly increases the number of causative fetal chromosome anomalies detected, reducing the number of patients undergoing unnecessary workup resulting in an overall cost savings. CONCLUSION: Our study showed that inclusion of cfDNA testing is a cost-effective approach to guide RPL workup.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of dabigatran versus rivaroxaban for stroke prevention in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation using real-world evidence in elderly US Medicare beneficiaries.

OBJECTIVE: Dabigatran and rivaroxaban have been approved by the US FDA to reduce the risk of stroke and systemic embolism in non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients. Newly published real-world evidence based on the US population found that elderly Medicare patients with NVAF treated with rivaroxaban experienced statistically significant increases in intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) and major extracranial bleeding, and statistically nonsignificant decreases in thromboembolic stroke and acute myocardial infarction (AMI) compared with dabigatran. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of dabigatran vs. rivaroxaban for the treatment of US Medicare NVAF patients. METHODS: A previously published Markov model was adapted to compare dabigatran and rivaroxaban. The model considered thromboembolic stroke, bleeding events, and AMI based on the published real-world event risks. Model outputs included clinical event rates, costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). RESULTS: Dabigatran patients experienced fewer ICH and major extracranial bleeding events than rivaroxaban patients, but more stroke and AMI events. Dabigatran was found to yield lower costs and higher QALYs than rivaroxaban, with incremental costs of -$3534 and incremental QALYs of 0.004. Results remained consistent in sensitivity analyses, with a positive net monetary benefit (willingness-to-pay thresholds of $50,000 and $100,000 per QALY) for dabigatran over rivaroxaban for all model inputs tested. CONCLUSIONS: In this study using US Medicare real-world data, dabigatran was found to dominate rivaroxaban. The analyses were limited by the short follow-up period of the real-world data and results may not be generalizable to other patient populations.

Cost-effectiveness of DTG + ABC/3TC versus EFV/TDF/FTC for first-line treatment of HIV-1 in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: Data from the SINGLE trial demonstrated that 88% of treatment-naïve HIV-1 patients treated with dolutegravir and abacavir/lamivudine (DTG + ABC/3TC) achieved viral suppression at 48 weeks compared with 81% of patients treated with efavirenz/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine (EFV/TDF/FTC). It is unclear how this difference in short-term efficacy impacts long-term cost-effectiveness of these regimens. This study sought to evaluate long-term cost-effectiveness of DTG + ABC/3TC vs EFV/TDF/FTC from a US payer perspective. METHODS: This study is an individual discrete-event simulation which tracked the disease status and treatment pathway of HIV-1 patients. The model simulated treatment over a lifetime horizon by tracking change in patients' CD4 count, clinical events occurrence (opportunistic infections, cancer, and cardiovascular events), treatment switch, and death. The model included up to four lines of treatment. Baseline patient characteristics, efficacy, and safety of DTG + ABC/3TC and EFV/TDF/FTC were informed by data from the SINGLE trial. The efficacy of subsequent treatment lines, clinical event risks, mortality, cost, and utility inputs were based on literature and expert opinion. Outcomes were lifetime discounted medical costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). RESULTS: Compared with EFV/TDF/FTC, DTG + ABC/3TC increased lifetime costs by $19,153 and per person survival by 0.12 QALYs, resulting in an ICER of $158,890/QALY. ICERs comparing DTG + ABC/3TC to EFV/TDF/FTC remained above the traditional, US willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000/QALY gained in all scenarios, and above $100,000 or $150,000/QALY gained in most scenarios. LIMITATIONS: Due to data limitations, the treatment patterns, CD4 count during viral rebound and treatment switch, viral rebound after trial end, and long-term adverse event-related treatment discontinuation were based on assumptions, presented to and approved by clinical experts. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with EFV/TDF/FTC, DTG + ABC/3TC resulted in higher cost and only slightly increased QALYs over a lifetime, with an ICER that exceeded the standard cost-effectiveness threshold. This indicates that the incremental benefit in effectiveness associated with DTG + ABC/3TC may not be worth the incremental increase in costs.

Cost-effectiveness of DTG+ABC/3TC versus EFV/TDF/FTC for first-line treatment of HIV-1 in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: Data from the SINGLE trial demonstrated that 88% of treatment-naive HIV-1 patients treated with dolutegravir and abacavir/lamivudine (DTG+ABC/3TC) achieved viral suppression at 48 weeks compared with 81% of patients treated with efavirenz/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine (EFV/TDF/FTC). It is unclear how this difference in short-term efficacy impacts long-term cost-effectiveness of these regimens. This study sought to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of DTG+ABC/3TC versus EFV/TDF/FTC from a US payer perspective. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An individual discrete-event simulation model tracked the disease status and treatment pathway of HIV-1 patients. The model simulated treatment over a lifetime horizon by tracking change in patients' CD4 count, occurrence of clinical events (opportunistic infections, cancer and cardiovascular events), treatment switch and death. The model included up to four lines of treatment. Baseline patient characteristics, efficacy and safety of DTG+ABC/3TC and EFV/TDF/FTC were informed by data from the SINGLE trial. The efficacy of subsequent lines of treatment, clinical event risks, mortality, cost and utility inputs were based on literature and expert opinion. Outcomes were lifetime medical costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (both discounted at 3% per annum) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). RESULTS: Compared with EFV/TDF/FTC, DTG+ABC/3TC increased lifetime costs by $58,188 and per-person survival by 0.12 QALYs, resulting in an ICER of $482,717/QALY. In sensitivity analyses testing conservative assumptions about EFV/TDF/FTC's efficacy beyond the trial period, ICERs comparing DTG+ABC/3TC to EFV/TDF/FTC remained high (lowest reported ICER of $365,662/QALY). In a scenario in which the price of EFV/TDF/FTC was reduced by 10% to reflect the potential for price reduction as EFV goes off patent, DTG+ABC/3TC's ICER compared to EFV/TDF/FTC was $600,916/QALY. When DTG+ABC/3TC's price was reduced by 10%, the resulting ICER comparing DTG+ABC/3TC to EFV/TDF/FTC was $302,171/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with EFV/TDF/FTC, DTG+ABC/3TC resulted in substantially higher cost, slightly better QALY over lifetime, and ICERs far exceeding standard cost-effectiveness thresholds, indicating that the incremental benefit in efficacy associated with DTG+ABC/3TC may not be worth the incremental increase in costs.

Efficacy and cost-effectiveness of dabigatran etexilate versus warfarin in atrial fibrillation in different age subgroups.

This study aims to estimate the cost-effectiveness of dabigatran 150 mg twice daily versus warfarin for stroke and systemic embolism risk reduction in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation initiating treatment before age 75 (<75), at or after age 75 (≥ 75), and the overall population (All) from a US Medicare payer perspective. Clinical event rates by age cohort with dabigatran or warfarin for safety-on-treatment and intent-to-treat populations were estimated from Randomized Evaluation of Long-Term Anticoagulation Therapy (RE-LY). An economic model was adapted using these data to evaluate the impact of starting age on clinical and economic outcomes. Costs were obtained from Medicare payment schedules and utilities from publications. Model outputs included event rates, costs, quality-adjusted life-years, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. The RE-LY analysis shows that the <75 cohort has lower rates of all events than the ≥ 75 cohort; versus warfarin, dabigatran performed better in main efficacy and safety in all age cohorts with the exception of extracranial hemorrhage in the ≥ 75 cohort. The clinical event costs avoided per patient for dabigatran were $1,100, $135, and $713 for cohorts <75, ≥ 75, and All, respectively. Extrapolating over a lifetime horizon, the model found that dabigatran resulted in lower rates of stroke and intracranial hemorrhage and higher rates for extracranial hemorrhage versus warfarin for all age cohorts. Lifetime quality-adjusted life-years and costs were higher for dabigatran than warfarin, resulting in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $52,773, $65,946, and $56,131 for cohorts <75, ≥ 75, and All, respectively. In conclusion, dabigatran was cost-effective versus warfarin in US patients with atrial fibrillation regardless of age of treatment initiation.

A comparative analysis of models used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of dabigatran versus warfarin for the prevention of stroke in atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: A number of models exploring the cost-effectiveness of dabigatran versus warfarin for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation have been published. These studies found dabigatran was generally cost-effective, considering well-accepted willingness-to-pay thresholds, but estimates of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) varied, even in the same setting. The objective of this study was to compare the findings of the published economic models and identify key model features accounting for differences. METHODS: All aspects of the economic evaluations were reviewed: model approach, inputs, and assumptions. A previously published model served as the reference model for comparisons of the selected studies in the US and UK settings. The reference model was adapted, wherever possible, using the inputs and key assumptions from each of the other published studies to determine if results could be reproduced in the reference model. Incremental total costs, incremental quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and ICERs (cost per QALY) were compared between each study and the corresponding adapted reference model. The impact of each modified variable or assumption was tracked separately. RESULTS: The selected studies were in the US setting (2), the Canadian setting (1), and the UK setting (2). All models used the Randomized Evaluation of Long-Term Anticoagulation study (RE-LY) as the main source for clinical inputs, and all used a Markov modelling approach, except one that used discrete event simulation. The reference model had been published in the Canadian and UK settings. In the UK setting, the reference model reported an ICER of UK£4,831, whereas the other UK-based analysis reported an ICER of UK£23,082. When the reference model was modified to use the same population characteristics, cost inputs, and utility inputs, it reproduced the results of the other model (ICER UK£25,518) reasonably well. Key reasons for the different results between the two models were the assumptions on the event utility decrement and costs associated with intracranial haemorrhage, as well as the costs of warfarin monitoring and disability following events. In the US setting, the reference model produced an ICER similar to the ICER from one of the US models (US$15,115/QALY versus US$12,386/QALY, respectively) when modelling assumptions and input values were transferred into the reference model. Key differences in results could be explained by the population characteristics (age and baseline stroke risk), utility assigned to events and specific treatments, adjustment of stroke and intracranial haemorrhage risk over time, and treatment discontinuation and switching. The reference model was able to replicate the QALY results, but not the cost results, reported by the other US cost-effectiveness analysis. The parameters driving the QALY results were utility values by disability levels as well as utilities assigned to specific treatments, and event and background mortality rates. CONCLUSIONS: Despite differences in model designs and structures, it was mostly possible to replicate the results published by different authors and identify variables responsible for differences between ICERs using a reference model approach. This enables a better interpretation of published findings by focusing attention on the assumptions underlying the key model features accounting for differences.

Dabigatran versus rivaroxaban for the prevention of stroke and systemic embolism in atrial fibrillation in Canada. Comparative efficacy and cost-effectiveness.

Canadian patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) in whom anticoagulation is appropriate have two new choices for anticoagulation for prevention of stroke and systemic embolism--dabigatran etexilate (dabigatran) and rivaroxaban. Based on the RE-LY and ROCKET AF trial results, we investigated the cost-effectiveness of dabigatran (twice daily dosing of 150 mg or 110 mg based on patient age) versus rivaroxaban from a Canadian payer perspective. A formal indirect treatment comparison (ITC) of dabigatran versus rivaroxaban was performed, using dabigatran clinical event rates from RE-LY for the safety-on-treatment population, adjusted to the ROCKET AF population. A previously described Markov model was modified to simulate anticoagulation treatment using ITC results as inputs. Model outputs included total costs, event rates, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The ITC found when compared to rivaroxaban, dabigatran had a lower risk of intracranial haemorrhage (ICH) (relative risk [RR] = 0.38; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.21 - 0.67) and stroke (RR = 0.62; 95%CI 0.45-0.87). Over a lifetime horizon, the model found dabigatran-treated patients experienced fewer ICHs (0.33 dabigatran vs. 0.71 rivaroxaban) and ischaemic strokes (3.40 vs. 3.96) per 100 patient-years, and accrued more QALYs (6.17 vs. 6.01). Dabigatran-treated patients had lower acute care and long-term follow-up costs per patient ($52,314 vs. $53,638) which more than offset differences in drug costs ($7,299 vs. $6,128). In probabilistic analysis, dabigatran had high probability of being the most cost-effective therapy at common thresholds of willingness-to-pay (93% at a $20,000/QALY threshold). This study found dabigatran is economically dominant versus rivaroxaban for prevention of stroke and systemic embolism among Canadian AF patients.

Cost-effectiveness of a fourth-generation combination immunoassay for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) antibody and p24 antigen for the detection of HIV infections in the United States.

PURPOSE: The US Food and Drug Administration recently approved the first 4th-generation HIV test. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of the 4th-generation assay versus a 3rd-generation test in screening for HIV infections in the United States. METHODS: An exploratory microsimulation model was developed that follows hypothetical individuals and simulates the course of HIV/AIDS, treatment with highly active antiretroviral therapy, and transmissions. RESULTS: With a 1% HIV prevalence, screening 1.5 million individuals with the 4th- versus 3rd-generation assay resulted in detection of 266 additional HIV cases at an incremental cost per additional HIV case detected of $63,763, an additional 489 life years and 395 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and 26 HIV transmissions prevented. Although lifetime costs were increased by $33.6 million, the incremental cost/QALY gained was $85,206. The 4th-generation test was more cost-effective in high incidence settings. The number needed to screen to detect one additional HIV case was 5,635. CONCLUSIONS: Screening using the 4th-generation assay may be cost-effective for HIV detection in appropriate settings, resulting in increased case identification, fewer transmissions, extended life, and increased quality of life. With early and accurate detection, this 4th-generation test may provide a suitable alternative to current 3rd-generation tests.

Economic analysis of decitabine versus best supportive care in the treatment of intermediate- and high-risk myelodysplastic syndromes from a US payer perspective.

BACKGROUND: Myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) are blood and bone marrow disorders that occur primarily in the elderly population, with 30% of all cases progressing to acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Red blood cell transfusions--a conventional treatment of MDS--have been associated with high costs and decreased quality of life compared with transfusion independence. Phase III clinical trial data suggest that decitabine may offer an improved AML-free survival versus best supportive care (BSC), which consists of red blood cell transfusions, deferoxamine, erythropoiesis-stimulating agents, platelet transfusions, and colony-stimulating factors. The US Food and Drug Administration has approved a 5-day outpatient decitabine dosing regimen, which might reduce administration costs compared with the standard 3-day inpatient regimen. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of 5-day dosing of decitabine versus BSC in US patients with intermediate- and high-risk MDS from a US payer perspective. METHODS: A Markov model with 3 health states (MDS, AML, and death) was constructed to simulate natural disease progression. The model followed patients in 4-week cycles for ≤ 5 years. Clinical inputs and patient characteristics were based on decitabine Phase III clinical trial data. Costs of supportive care and adverse events were based on trial resource utilization data. Drug and AML costs were obtained from published sources. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to determine the impact of model parameters on results. RESULTS: In the base-case model, decitabine yielded 0.276 additional year of AML-free survival and 0.052 more quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) compared with BSC. Total decitabine and administration costs over the 5-year time horizon were $28,933. Total direct medical costs were $122,940 in the decitabine arm and $122,666 in the BSC arm. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for decitabine versus BSC was $5277 per QALY gained. Sensitivity analyses indicated that decitabine had a higher probability than BSC of being cost-effective despite the uncertainty around some model parameters, including survival. CONCLUSION: In this study, decitabine administered on a 5-day dosing schedule was likely a cost-effective treatment option in patients with intermediate- and high-risk MDS from a US payer perspective.