Cost-effectiveness of eculizumab and efgartigimod for the treatment of anti-acetylcholine receptor antibody-positive generalized myasthenia gravis.

BACKGROUND: Eculizumab and efgartigimod were approved to treat anti-acetylcholine receptor antibody-positive generalized myasthenia gravis (anti-AChR Ab-positive gMG). These relatively new biological treatments provide a more rapid onset of action and improved efficacy compared with conventional immunosuppressive treatments, but at a higher cost. OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of eculizumab and, separately, efgartigimod, each added to conventional therapy vs conventional therapy alone, among patients with refractory anti-AChR Ab-positive gMG and those with anti-AChR Ab-positive gMG, respectively. METHODS: A Markov model with 4 health states was developed, evaluating costs and utility with a 4-week cycle length and lifetime time horizon from a health care system perspective and a modified societal perspective including productivity losses from patients and caregiver burden. Model inputs were informed by key clinical trials and relevant publications identified from targeted literature reviews, and drug costs were identified from Micromedex Red Book. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3% per year. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs; cost per quality-adjusted life-year [QALY] gained) were calculated for each comparison. RESULTS: Among the corresponding populations, lifetime costs and QALYs, respectively, for eculizumab were $5,515,000 and 11.85, and for conventional therapy, $308,000 and 10.29, resulting in an ICER of $3,338,000/QALY gained. For efgartigimod, lifetime costs and QALYs, respectively, were $6,773,000 and 13.22, and for conventional therapy, $322,000 and 9.98, yielding an ICER of $1,987,000/QALY gained. After applying indirect costs in a modified societal perspective, the ICERs were reduced to $3,310,000/QALY gained for eculizumab and $1,959,000/QALY gained for efgartigimod. CONCLUSIONS: Eculizumab and efgartigimod are rapidly acting and effective treatments for myasthenia gravis. However, at their current price, both therapies greatly exceeded common cost-effectiveness thresholds, likely limiting patient access to these therapies.

Cost evaluation of a nurse coordinated outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) program.

A structured, nurse-driven outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) program within an academic healthcare system was associated with reduced odds of 60-day unplanned OPAT readmissions and costs after hospital discharge. These findings may facilitate justifying additional resources for OPAT programs to improve care while decreasing costs.

Cost-effectiveness of full and partial opioid agonists for opioid use disorder in outpatient settings: United States healthcare sector perspective.

INTRODUCTION: Studies show that medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) reduce illicit opioid use, emergency healthcare services, opioid-related overdose, and death. However, few studies have investigated the long-term cost-effectiveness of MOUD in office-based opioid treatment (OBOT) and opioid treatment program (OTP) settings. We aimed to estimate the cost, utility, quality-adjusted life years gained (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of three MOUD compared to each other and counseling without medication from a US healthcare sector perspective. METHODS: Our study developed a Markov model to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis of counseling and three MOUD in the OBOT and OTP settings: sublingual buprenorphine/naloxone (BUPNX), buprenorphine extended-release (XR-BUP) injection, and oral methadone. The model included five health states representing combinations of receiving or off treatment while either using or not actively using illicit opioids, and death. The cycle length was one month; the time-horizon was ten years. The study obtained model inputs from systematic reviews of published literature and public data. A 3 % annual discount rate was applied to cost and utility calculation. The primary outcomes included total costs, life-years (LYs), QALYs, and ICERs. We also conducted a scenario analysis using a hypothetical OBOT outpatient setting with methadone. RESULTS: In the base-case OBOT setting, the total costs and QALYs, respectively, were counseling $22,848, 5.60; BUPNX $29,875, 5.82; and XR-BUP $63,936, 5.87. ICERs were $32,345/QALY (BUPNX vs. counseling) and $625,858/QALY (XR-BUP vs BUPNX). In the OTP setting, the total costs of counseling, methadone, BUPNX, and XR-BUP were $20,124, $27,000, $33,500, and $75,272, respectively. QALYs of methadone were 5.86. QALYs of counseling, BUPNX, and XR-BUP remained the same as in the OBOT setting. Incremental ICERs were $26,714/QALY (methadone vs counseling) and $3,337,623/QALY (XR-BUP vs methadone). BUPNX was dominated by methadone. In the scenario analysis, BUPNX was also dominated by methadone. CONCLUSIONS: Outpatient MOUD resulted in important gains in quality of life and life expectancy. In both OBOT and OTP settings, XR-BUP was not cost-effective. BUPNX was cost-effective in the OBOT setting, while it was dominated by methadone in the OTP setting. The cost-effectiveness of BUPNX and XR-BUP could be enhanced if the costs of these medications were reduced.

Cost-Effectiveness of Nadofaragene Firadenovec and Pembrolizumab in Bacillus Calmette-Guérin Immunotherapy Unresponsive Non-Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Nadofaragene firadenovec is a gene therapy for bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG)-unresponsive non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) undergoing Food and Drug Administration review. Pembrolizumab is approved for treating patients with BCG-unresponsive NMIBC with carcinoma in situ (CIS). We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of these treatments compared with a hypothetical therapeutic alternative, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, in CIS and non-CIS BCG-unresponsive NMIBC populations. METHODS: We developed a Markov cohort simulation model with a 3-month cycle length and lifetime horizon to estimate the total costs, QALYs, and cost per additional QALY from the health sector perspective. Clinical inputs were informed by results of single-arm clinical trials evaluating the treatments, and systematic literature reviews were conducted to obtain other model inputs. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess uncertainty in model results. RESULTS: Nadofaragene firadenovec, at a placeholder price 10% higher than the price of pembrolizumab, had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $263 000 and $145 000 per QALY gained in CIS and non-CIS populations, respectively. Pembrolizumab had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $168 000 per QALY gained for CIS. A 5.4% reduction in pembrolizumab's price would make it cost-effective. The model was sensitive to many inputs, especially to the probabilities of disease progression, initial treatment response and durability, and drug price. CONCLUSIONS: The cost-effectiveness of nadofaragene firadenovec will depend upon its price. Pembrolizumab, although not cost-effective in our base-case analysis, is an important alternative in this population with an unmet medical need. Comparative trials of these treatments are warranted to better estimate cost-effectiveness.

Prompt initiation of triple therapy following hospitalization for a chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbation in the United States: An analysis of the PRIMUS study.

BACKGROUND: Severe exacerbations requiring hospitalization contribute a substantial portion of the morbidity and costs of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Triple therapy (inhaled corticosteroid + long-acting ß-agonist + long-acting muscarinic antagonist) is a recommended option for patients who experience recurrent COPD exacerbations or persistent symptoms. Few real-world studies have specifically examined the effect of prompt initiation of triple therapy, specifically among patients hospitalized for a COPD exacerbation. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether prompt initiation of triple therapy following a severe COPD exacerbation was associated with lower risk of subsequent exacerbations and lower health care use and costs and the effects of each 30-day delay of initiation. METHODS: Adults aged 40 years or older with COPD were identified in the Merative MarketScan Databases between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2019, and were required to meet the following criteria: open or closed triple therapy (date of first closed prescription or last component of open=index treatment date), more than 1 inpatient admission with a primary COPD diagnosis (ie, severe exacerbation) in the prior 12 months (index exacerbation), 12 months of continuous enrollment before (baseline) and after (follow-up) index exacerbation, and absence of select respiratory diseases and cancer. Patients were stratified based on timing of open or closed triple therapy after the index exacerbation: prompt (≤30 days), delayed (31-180 days), or very delayed (181-365 days). Multivariable regression controlled for baseline characteristics (age, sex, insurance type, index year, comorbidities, prior treatment, and prior exacerbations) and estimated the odds of subsequent exacerbations, change in the number of exacerbations, and change in health care costs during 12-month follow-up associated with each 30-day delay of triple therapy initiation. RESULTS: A total of 6,772 patients met inclusion criteria (2,968 [43.8%] prompt, 1,998 [29.5%] delayed, and 1,806 [26.7%] very delayed). The adjusted odds of any exacerbation and a severe exacerbation during 12-month follow-up increased by 13% (odds ratio [95% CI]: 1.13 [1.11-1.15]) and 10% (1.10 [1.08-1.12]), respectively, for each 30-day delay in triple therapy initiation, and the mean number of exacerbations increased by 5.4% (95% CI = 4.7%-6.1%). There was a 3.0% increase (95% CI = 2.2%-3.8%) in mean all-cause costs and a 3.7% increase (95% CI = 2.9%-4.6%) in total COPD-related costs for each 30-day delay of triple therapy initiation. CONCLUSIONS: Longer delays in triple therapy initiation after a COPD hospitalization result in greater risk of subsequent exacerbations and higher health care resource use and costs. Adequate post-discharge follow-up care and earlier consideration of triple therapy may improve clinical and economic outcomes among patients with COPD. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by AstraZeneca. Dr Evans is employed by Merative, formerly IBM Watson Health, and Mr Tkacz was employed by IBM Watson Health at the time of this study; Merative/IBM Watson Health received funding from AstraZeneca to conduct this study. Mr Pollack, Dr Staresinic, Dr Feigler, and Dr Patel are employed by AstraZeneca. Dr Touchette, Dr Portillo, and Dr Strange are paid consultants to AstraZeneca. Dr Strange also participates in research grants paid to the Medical University of South Carolina by AstraZeneca, CSA Medical, and Nuvaira, and is a consultant to GlaxoSmithKline, Morair, and PulManage regarding COPD.

PRIMUS - Prompt Initiation of Maintenance Therapy in the US: A Real-World Analysis of Clinical and Economic Outcomes Among Patients Initiating Triple Therapy Following a COPD Exacerbation.

PURPOSE: Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) may experience moderate (requiring outpatient care) or severe (requiring hospitalization) disease exacerbations. Guidelines recommend escalation from dual to triple therapy (inhaled corticosteroid + long-acting beta agonist + long-acting muscarinic antagonist) after two moderate or one severe exacerbation in a year. This study examined whether prompt initiation of triple therapy lowers risk of future exacerbations and reduces healthcare costs, compared to delayed/very delayed triple therapy after an exacerbation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This retrospective observational study of US healthcare claims included patients ≥40 years old with COPD who initiated triple therapy (1/1/2011-3/31/2020) after ≥2 moderate or ≥1 severe exacerbation in the prior year. The earliest of the second moderate or first severe exacerbation was the index date. Patients were stratified by triple therapy timing: prompt (≤30 days post-index), delayed (31-180 days), very delayed (181-365 days). COPD exacerbations, all-cause and COPD-related healthcare utilization and costs were assessed during 12 months post-index (follow-up). Multivariable regression estimated the effect of each 30-day delay in triple therapy on the odds of exacerbations, number of exacerbations, and costs during follow-up, controlling for patient characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 24,770 patients were included: 7577 prompt, 9676 delayed, 7517 very delayed. Each 30-day delay of triple therapy was associated with 11% and 7% increases in the odds of any exacerbation and a severe exacerbation, respectively (odds ratio [95% CI]: 1.11 [1.10-1.13] and 1.07 [1.05-1.08]), a 4.3% (95% CI: 3.9-4.6%) increase in the number of exacerbations, a 1.8% (95% CI: 1.3-2.3%) increase in all-cause costs, and a 2.1% (95% CI: 1.6-2.6%) increase in COPD-related costs during follow-up. CONCLUSION: Promptly initiating triple therapy after two moderate or one severe exacerbation is associated with decreased morbidity and economic burden in COPD. Proactive disease management may be warranted to prevent future exacerbations and lower costs among patients with COPD.

The effectiveness and value of eculizumab and efgartigimod for generalized myasthenia gravis.

DISCLOSURES: Funding for this summary was contributed by Arnold Ventures, The Donaghue Foundation, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, and Kaiser Foundation Health Plan to the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), an independent organization that evaluates the evidence on the value of health care interventions. ICER's annual policy summit is supported by dues from AbbVie, America's Health Insurance Plans, Anthem, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Blue Shield of CA, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Cambia Health Services, CVS, Editas, Evolve Pharmacy, Express Scripts, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Harvard Pilgrim, Health Care Service Corporation, HealthFirst, Health Partners, Humana, Johnson & Johnson (Janssen), Kaiser Permanente, LEO Pharma, Mallinckrodt, Merck, Novartis, National Pharmaceutical Council, Pfizer, Premera, Prime Therapeutics, Regeneron, Sanofi, Sun Life Financial, uniQure, and United Healthcare. Agboola, Nikitin, and Pearson are employed by ICER. Through their affiliated institutions, Tice, Touchette, and Lien received funding from ICER for the work described in this summary.

Trend in Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor Utilization, Price, and Out-of-Pocket Costs in Patients With Chronic Myelogenous Leukemia.

PURPOSE: Treatment of chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) has improved survival but is associated with significant financial burden. We measured the annual trend in TKI utilization, Medicare gross payment, and patient out-of-pocket (OOP) expenditure from 2007 to 2016. METHODS: We used SEER linked to Medicare part-D claims data to identify prevalent CML cases from 2007 to 2016. TKI utilization was measured as the proportion of cases with at least one TKI fill in each year. Average TKI gross payment and median per-member per-month OOP expenditure were calculated from claims data and plotted annually from 2007 to 2016. Year-to-year percent change in gross payment and OOP expenditure was compared with inflation indices. RESULTS: The cohort included 3,189 CML cases with at least one TKI claim. The proportion of prevalent patients with a TKI fill in a year increased from 17.9% in 2007 to 52.8% in 2015. The average annual gross payment per 30-day supply of a TKI increased by an average of 12.8% throughout the period from $9,000 to $10,000 US dollars in 2016. There was no increasing trend in median OOP expenditure per 30-day supply, which varied between $450 and $600 US dollars. CONCLUSION: Rising TKI use and TKI drug prices place considerable financial pressure on Medicare part-D insurers. Although there was no increasing trend in OOP expenditure, it may be burdensome for Medicare patients who are likely retired on a fixed income. Our findings support legislation that mitigates increasing drug prices to protect the Medicare system and its beneficiaries.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of a Pharmacist-Led Medication Therapy Management Program: Hypertension Management.

OBJECTIVES: Uncontrolled hypertension is a common cause of cardiovascular disease, which is the deadliest and costliest chronic disease in the United States. Pharmacists are an accessible community healthcare resource and are equipped with clinical skills to improve the management of hypertension through medication therapy management (MTM). Nevertheless, current reimbursement models do not incentivize pharmacists to provide clinical services. We aim to investigate the cost-effectiveness of a pharmacist-led comprehensive MTM clinic compared with no clinic for 10-year primary prevention of stroke and cardiovascular disease events in patients with hypertension. METHODS: We built a semi-Markov model to evaluate the clinical and economic consequences of an MTM clinic compared with no MTM clinic, from the payer perspective. The model was populated with data from a recently published controlled observational study investigating the effectiveness of an MTM clinic. Methodology was guided using recommendations from the Second Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine, including appropriate sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Compared with no MTM clinic, the MTM clinic was cost-effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $38 798 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. The incremental net monetary benefit was $993 294 considering a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per QALY. Health-benefit benchmarks at $100 000 per QALY and $150 000 per QALY translate to a 95% and 170% increase from current reimbursement rates for MTM services. CONCLUSIONS: Our model shows current reimbursement rates for pharmacist-led MTM services may undervalue the benefit realized by US payers. New reimbursement models are needed to allow pharmacists to offer cost-effective clinical services.

The effectiveness and value of novel acute treatments for migraine.

DISCLOSURES: Funding for this summary was contributed by Arnold Ventures, California Health Care Foundation, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, and Kaiser Foundation Health Plan to the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), an independent organization that evaluates the evidence on the value of health care interventions. ICER's annual policy summit is supported by dues from Aetna, America's Health Insurance Plans, Anthem, Allergan, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Blue Shield of CA, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Cambia Health Services, CVS, Editas, Express Scripts, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Harvard Pilgrim, Health Care Service Corporation, HealthFirst, Health Partners, Johnson & Johnson (Janssen), Kaiser Permanente, LEO Pharma, Mallinckrodt, Merck, Novartis, National Pharmaceutical Council, Pfizer, Premera, Prime Therapeutics, Regeneron, Sanofi, Spark Therapeutics, and United Healthcare. Agboola, Borrelli, Rind, and Pearson are employed by ICER. Touchette, through the University of Illinois at Chicago, received funding from ICER for development of the economic model described in this publication. Atlas has nothing to disclose.

Work-Sampling Study of an Innovative Care Coordination Program Aimed at Children With Chronic Health Conditions.

PURPOSE OF STUDY: To estimate time allocation and labor cost for care coordinators (CCs), community health workers (CHWs), and mental health workers (MHWs) to conduct care coordination tasks in a pediatric care coordination program. PRIMARY PRACTICE SETTING: A public tertiary academic medical center in Chicago, IL. METHODOLOGY AND SAMPLE: A work-sampling study was conducted using a text message-based survey on 5 CCs, 20 CHWs, and 4 MHWs who volunteered to participate. Workers were randomly sampled within working hours to collect information on who was the subject of interaction and what service was being delivered over a 6-month period. Time allocation of workers to different subjects and services was summarized using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Care coordinators allocated 41% of their time to managing CHW teams. Community health workers allocated 37% of time providing services directly to children and 26% to the parent/caregiver. Mental health workers allocated 16% of time providing services to children and 29% to the parent/caregiver. The care coordination program serviced 5,965 patients, with a total annual labor cost of $1,455,353. IMPLICATIONS FOR CASE MANAGEMENT PRACTICE: Community health workers spent the majority of time working with patients and their families to conduct assessments. Mental health workers primarily addressed children's needs through their caregivers. Care coordinators primarily supported CHWs in coordinating care. Results may be used to inform development of such programs by determining services most often utilized, and labor cost may be used to inform program implementation and reimbursement.

The Authors Respond.

DISCLOSURES: The writing of the original report referred to in this letter was sponsored by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER). Agboola, Fazioli, and Pearson are employed by ICER. Touchette reports grants from ICER during the course of the original work and personal fees from Monument Analytics, unrelated to this work. Atlas has nothing to disclose.

The Effectiveness and Value of Esketamine for the Management of Treatment-Resistant Depression.

DISCLOSURES: Funding for this summary was contributed by the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, National Institute for Health Care Management, California Health Care Foundation, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare, and Kaiser Foundation Health Plan to the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), an independent organization that evaluates the evidence on the value of health care interventions. ICER's annual policy summit is supported by dues from Aetna, America's Health Insurance Plans, Anthem, AstraZeneca, Allergan, Alnylam, Biogen, Blue Shield of California, Cambia Health Services, CVS Caremark, Editas, Express Scripts, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, Health Care Service Corporation, HealthPartners, HealthFirst, Johnson & Johnson (Janssen), Kaiser Permanente, LEO Pharma, Mallinkrodt Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Novartis, National Pharmaceutical Council, Premera, Prime Therapeutics, Regeneron, Sanofi, Spark Therapeutics, and United Healthcare. Agboola, Fazioli, and Pearson are employed by ICER. Touchette reports grants from ICER during the course of this work and personal fees from Monument Analytics, unrelated to this work. Atlas has nothing to disclose.

Adherence and Persistence with DPP-4 Inhibitors Versus Pioglitazone in Type 2 Diabetes Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease: A Retrospective Claims Database Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Adherence and persistence with diabetes medication play an important role in glycemic control and may differ by medication class. However, there is a lack of research comparing diabetes medications in patients with renal impairment, despite the challenges and higher burden associated with managing this population. OBJECTIVE: To compare adherence and persistence among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and nondialysis chronic kidney disease (CKD) treated with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors versus pioglitazone. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used Truven MarketScan administrative claims databases from 2009 to 2015. One-year adherence for patients with T2DM and nondialysis CKD who initiated therapy with either a DPP-4 inhibitor or pioglitazone was measured by proportion of days covered (PDC) following an initial dispensing, and PDC ≥ 0.80 was coded as adherent. Persistence was calculated as the days between the index date and last day with the index medication on hand, based on the end of the last days supply or the end of follow-up (i.e., 365 days), whichever occurred first. Multivariate logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate confounder-adjusted differences between the groups for adherence and persistence. RESULTS: The final cohort included 9,019 patients (DPP-4 inhibitors: 7,002; pioglitazone: 2,017). In the adjusted analysis, DPP-4 inhibitor users demonstrated a 1.41 (95% CI = 1.25-1.59) higher odds of being adherent compared with pioglitazone users. Overall adjusted HR for persistence was 0.74 (95% CI = 0.69-0.79), which favored DPP-4 inhibitors compared with pioglitazone. Relative to 2010, persistence with pioglitazone decreased in 2011-2012 and then increased in 2013-2014. In the subgroup analysis, DPP-4 inhibitors first had lower (2010: OR = 0.78, 95% CI = 0.70-0.87; 2011-2012: OR = 0.60, 95% CI = 0.54-0.66) and then similar (2013-2014: OR = 1.03, 95% CI = 0.88-1.19) hazards of nonpersistence compared with pioglitazone. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with T2DM and nondialysis CKD, the use of DPP-4 inhibitors was associated with better adherence compared with pioglitazone. However, following the approval of generic pioglitazone and associated lower cost sharing after 2012, the magnitude of difference in adherence between the medication classes reduced. Similarly, safety warnings in 2011 and approval of generic products in 2012 may have affected pioglitazone persistence, leading to first higher and then similar hazards for nonpersistence with pioglitazone as compared with DPP-4 inhibitors. These shifts in the results for pioglitazone warrant further investigation and close monitoring of the population initiating this medication. DISCLOSURES: No funding was received for this study. The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose. An abstract for this study was presented as a podium presentation at the International Society of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) 2019 Annual Meeting; May 18-22, 2019; New Orleans, LA.

Achieving Appropriate Model Transparency: Challenges and Potential Solutions for Making Value-Based Decisions in the United States.

Transparency in decision modeling remains a topic of rigorous debate among healthcare stakeholders, given tensions between the potential benefits of external access during model development and the need to protect intellectual property and reward research investments. Strategies to increase decision model transparency by allowing direct external access to a model's structure, source code, and data can take on many forms but are bounded between the status quo and free publicly available open-source models. Importantly, some level of transparency already exists in terms of methods and other technical specifications for published models. The purpose of this paper is to delineate pertinent issues surrounding efforts to increase transparency via direct access to models and to offer key considerations for the field of health economics and outcomes research moving forward from a US academic perspective. Given the current environment faced by modelers in academic settings, expected benefits and challenges of allowing direct model access are discussed. The paper also includes suggestions for pathways toward increased transparency as well as an illustrative real-world example used in work with the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review to support assessments of the value of new health interventions. Potential options to increase transparency via direct model access during model development include adequate funding to support the additional effort required and mechanisms to maintain security of the underlying intellectual property. Ultimately, the appropriate level of transparency requires balancing the interests of several groups but, if done right, has the potential to improve models and better integrate them into healthcare priority setting and decision making in the US context.

Cost-Effectiveness of Strategies to Personalize the Selection of P2Y12 Inhibitors in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome.

PURPOSE: Perform a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing strategies for selecting P2Y12 inhibitors in acute coronary syndrome (ACS). METHODS: Six strategies for selection of P2Y12 inhibitors in ACS were compared from the US healthcare system perspective: (1) clopidogrel for all (universal clopidogrel); (2) ticagrelor guided by platelet reactivity assay (PRA; clopidogrel + phenotype); (3) ticagrelor use only in CYP2C19 poor metabolizers (genotype + conservative ticagrelor); (4) ticagrelor use in both CYP2C19 intermediate and poor metabolizers (genotype + liberal ticagrelor); (5) ticagrelor use only in patients with CYP2C19 polymorphisms and clopidogrel nonresponse by PRA (genotype + phenotype); and (6) ticagrelor for all (universal ticagrelor). A decision model was developed to model major adverse cardiovascular events and bleeding during 1 year of treatment with a P2Y12 inhibitor. Model inputs were identified from the literature. Lifetime costs were adjusted to 2017 US dollars; quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were projected using a Markov model. The primary endpoint was the incremental cost-effectiveness compared to the next best option along the cost-effectiveness continuum. Sensitivity analyses were performed on all model inputs to assess their influence on the incremental cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: In the base case analysis, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) for the clopidogrel + phenotype, genotype + liberal ticagrelor, and universal ticagrelor strategies were $12,119/QALY, $29,412/QALY, and $142,456/QALY, respectively. Genotype + conservative ticagrelor and genotype + phenotype were not cost-effective due to second-order dominance. Genotype + liberal ticagrelor compared to clopidogrel + phenotype demonstrated the highest acceptance (97%) at a willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of $100,000/QALY. CONCLUSION: Cost-effective strategies to personalize P2Y12 inhibition in ACS include clopidogrel +phenotype and genotype + liberal ticagrelor. Universal ticagrelor may be considered cost-effective at a higher WTP threshold ($150,000/QALY). Genotype + liberal ticagrelor exhibited the highest acceptability compared to clopidogrel + phenotype over the widest range of WTP thresholds and may be preferred.

Impact of a Medication Therapy Management Clinic on Glycosylated Hemoglobin, Blood Pressure, and Resource Utilization.

BACKGROUND: Medication therapy management is widely promoted to improve care. However, few well-controlled studies have evaluated its impact. OBJECTIVES: We evaluated whether enrollment in a comprehensive medication therapy management clinic (MTMC) was associated with improved 12-month outcomes. METHODS: This institutional review board approved study was a retrospective controlled cohort study in an academic health center serving low-income, African American and Latino populations. Between 2001 and 2011 MTMC patients were matched to control patients by age, gender, and comorbidities. Outcomes were mean change in glycosylated hemoglobin (A1C), diastolic (DBP) and systolic blood pressure (SBP), and emergency department (ED) and hospital admissions at 6 and 12 months. A difference-in-difference analysis was conducted for each outcome of interest, adjusting for observed, unmatched confounders. RESULTS: Patients with diabetes and receiving MTMC had greater A1C improvements, compared with controls, of 0.54% (P = 0.0067) at 6 months and 0.63% (P = 0.0160) at 12 months. At 6 months, SBP and DBP decreased in MTMC patients by 6.5 mm Hg (P = 0.0108) and 3.8 mm Hg (P = 0.0136) more than controls, respectively. At 12 months, those receiving MTMC services had SBP and DBP decreases, respectively, of 8.2 mm Hg (P = 0.0018) and 1.7 mm Hg (P = 0.2691) compared with controls. ED and hospital visits were not statistically significantly different between groups. Conclusion and Relevance: This MTMC potentially improved outcomes for referred patients in whom target goals were difficult to achieve and can serve as a model for other similar medication management programs.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of lumacaftor and ivacaftor combination for the treatment of patients with cystic fibrosis in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Lumacaftor/ivacaftor was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as a combination treatment for Cystic Fibrosis (CF) patients who are homozygous for the F508del mutation. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of lumacaftor/ivacaftor combination for the treatment of CF homozygous for F508del CF Transmembrane Conductance Regulator (CFTR) mutation. METHODS: A Markov-state transition model following a cohort of 12 year-old CF patients homozygous for F508del CFTR mutation in the United States (US) over two, four, six, eight and ten years from a payer's perspective was developed using TreeAge Pro 2016. Markov states included: mild (percentage of predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 s or FEV1 > 70%), moderate (FEV1 40-70%), severe (FEV1 < 40%) disease, post-transplant, and death. Pulmonary exacerbation and lung transplant were included as transition states. All the input parameters were estimated from the literature. A 1-year cycle length and 3% discount rate were applied. To assess uncertainty in long-term treatment effects, several scenarios were modelled: 100% long-term effectiveness (base-case), defined as improvement in FEV1 in the first year followed by no annual FEV1 decline and a constant reduction in pulmonary exacerbations throughout, 75%, 50%, 25% and 0% (worst case) long-term effectiveness, where treatment effects were intermediate from the second year of treatment until the end of the time horizon. Other scenarios included changing the starting age of the cohort to 6 and 25 years. Primary outcome included incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in terms of cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to determine uncertainty. RESULTS: Under the base-case, Lumacaftor/ivacaftor resulted in higher QALYs (7.29 vs 6.84) but at a very high cost ($1,778,920.88) compared to usual care ($116,155.76) over a 10-year period. The ICER for base-case and worst-case scenarios were $3,655,352 / QALY, and $8,480,265/QALY gained, respectively. In the base-case, lumacaftor/ivacaftor was cost-effective at a threshold of $150,000/QALY-gained when annual drug costs were lower than $4153. The results were not substantially affected by the sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: The intervention produces large QALY gains but at an extremely high cost, resulting in an ICER that would not typically be covered by any insurer. Lumacaftor/ivacaftor's status as an orphan drug complicates coverage decisions.

Comparison of 6-Month Costs Between Oral Antiplatelet Agents Following Acute Coronary Syndrome.

BACKGROUND: In patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), newer antiplatelet agents prasugrel and ticagrelor have lower rates of cardiovascular events when compared with clopidogrel. However, it is unclear whether there are differences in economic outcomes when comparing these agents in ACS-PCI patients. OBJECTIVE: To assess aggregated costs and medical resource utilization among ACS-PCI patients prescribed prasugrel, ticagrelor, or generic clopidogrel, using a large commercial insurance claims database. METHODS: Costs attributable to any medical and pharmacy service and resource utilization including number of admissions, length of hospital stay, emergency room visits, and office visits over the 180-day postdischarge period were compared. All-cause and cardiovascular health care costs and resource utilization were separately analyzed for patients enrolled in the data over the continuous follow-up (CFU) period, and for patients continuously taking their initial treatment for 6 months (CTX). Potential confounders collected over a 6-month baseline assessment period were controlled for, using a generalized linear model. RESULTS: Over the 180-day follow-up, prasugrel and ticagrelor patients underwent fewer admissions (rate ratio [RR] = 0.87, 95% CI = 0.80-0.95) from CFU and RR = 0.81, 95% CI = 0.71-0.89 from CTX) compared with clopidogrel patients. The newer agent cohort incurred more overall health care costs than the generic clopidogrel group, with added costs of $957 (95% CI = $236-$1,725) in the CFU group and $1,122 (95% CI = $455-$1,865) in the CTX group, which were smaller than the increase in all-cause outpatient pharmacy costs associated with the newer agents versus clopidogrel (CFU: $1,175, 95% CI = $1,079-$1,278 and CTX: $1,360, 95% CI = $1,256-$1,487). Overall, there was no statistically significant difference in the economic outcomes associated with prasugrel and ticagrelor. There were, however, significant correlations between all-cause and cardiovascular-related outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The higher price of prasugrel and ticagrelor was partially offset by a decrease in hospital admission compared with generic clopidogrel over a 6-month postdischarge period. Aggregated medical costs and resource utilization were not significantly different between prasugrel and ticagrelor patients. DISCLOSURES: No funding was received for this study. DiDomenico has received an honorarium from Amgen for preparation of a heart failure drug monograph for Pharmacy Practice News and serves as an advisory board member for a heart failure program at Otsuka America Pharmaceuticals and for Novartis Pharmaceuticals. Touchette has received unrestricted grant funding from Cardinal Health, Sunovion Pharmaceuticals, and Takeda and has served as a consultant to and director of the American College of Clinical Pharmacy Practice-Based Research Network on a study funded by Pfizer. Walton has served as a paid consultant for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Baxter, Merck, Genentech, Primus, Takeda, and Abbott. The other authors have nothing to disclose.