Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Molnupiravir Versus Best Supportive Care for the Treatment of Outpatient COVID-19 in Adults in the US.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) imposes a substantial and ongoing burden on the US healthcare system and society. Molnupiravir is a new oral antiviral for treating COVID-19 in outpatient settings. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness profile of molnupiravir versus best supportive care in the treatment of adult patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 at risk of progression to severe disease, from a US payer's perspective. METHODS: The model was developed using a decision tree for the short-term acute phase of COVID-19 and a Markov state transition model for the long-term post-acute phase. This model compared molnupiravir with best supportive care as consistent with the MOVe-OUT trial. Costs were reported in 2021 US dollars. Transition probabilities were derived from the phase III MOVe-OUT trial and the TriNetX real-world electronic health records database. Costs were derived from the TriNetX database and utility values from a de novo, vignette-based utility study. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (DSA/PSA) were conducted. Primary outcomes included proportion hospitalized, proportion who died overall and by highest healthcare setting at the end of the acute phase, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental costs per QALY gained over a lifetime (100 years) horizon, discounted at 3% annually and assessed at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $100,000 per QALY. RESULTS: In this model, the use of molnupiravir led to an increase in QALYs (0.210) and decrease in direct total medical costs (-$895) per patient across a lifetime horizon, compared with best supportive care in COVID-19 outpatients. Molnupiravir was the dominant intervention when compared with best supportive care. Patients treated with molnupiravir were less likely to be hospitalized (6.38% vs. 9.20%) and more likely to remain alive (99.88% vs. 98.71%) during the acute phase. Through DSA, molnupiravir treatment effect of hospitalization reduction was identified to be the most influential parameter, and through PSA, molnupiravir remained dominant in 84% of the total simulations and, overall, 100% cost effective. CONCLUSION: This analysis suggests that molnupiravir is cost effective compared with best supportive care for the treatment of adult outpatients with COVID-19. However, our study was limited by the unavailability of the most recent information on the rapidly evolving pandemic, including new viral variants, patient populations affected, and changes in standards of care. Further research should explore the impact of vaccination on the cost effectiveness of molnupiravir and other therapies, based on real-world data, to account for these changes, including the impact of vaccination and immunity.

Cost Effectiveness of Vericiguat for the Treatment of Chronic Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction Following a Worsening Heart Failure Event from a US Medicare Perspective.

OBJECTIVE: Given the high economic burden of disease among adult patients with chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) following a worsening heart failure event in the US, this study aimed to estimate the cost effectiveness of vericiguat plus prior standard-of-care therapies (PSoCT) versus PSoCT alone from a US Medicare perspective. METHODS: A four-state Markov model (alive prior to heart failure hospitalization, alive during heart failure hospitalization, alive post-heart failure hospitalization, and death) was developed to predict clinical and economic outcomes, based on the results of the VICTORIA trial, in which patients with chronic HFrEF following a worsening heart failure were randomized to placebo or vericiguat, in addition to PSoCT, which consisted of ß-blockers, renin-angiotensin-aldosterone inhibitors, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, and the angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor sacubitril/valsartan. Risks of heart failure hospitalization and cardiovascular mortality were based on multivariable regression models derived from VICTORIA data. Utilities were derived from VICTORIA EQ-5D data and the literature. Costs included drug acquisition, heart failure hospitalization, routine care, and terminal care. Primary outcomes included heart failure hospitalization, cardiovascular mortality, life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental costs per QALY gained over a 30-year lifetime horizon, discounted at 3.0% annually. RESULTS: For the VICTORIA overall intent-to-treat population, compared with PSoCT, vericiguat plus PSoCT resulted in 19 fewer heart failure hospitalizations and 13 fewer cardiovascular deaths per 1000 patients, as well as 0.28 QALY gained per patient at an incremental cost of $23,322, leading to $82,448 per QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the results of VICTORIA, patients treated with vericiguat had lower rates of heart failure hospitalization and cardiovascular death. The addition of vericiguat to PSoCT was estimated to increase QALYs and to be cost effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per QALY gained.

Budget Impact Analysis of Vericiguat for the Treatment of Chronic Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction Following a Worsening Event.

INTRODUCTION: In the USA, patients with chronic heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) following a worsening HF event (WHFE) have significantly increased healthcare resource use and medical costs. This analysis aimed to estimate the budget impact of vericiguat as an add-on therapy to guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) for the treatment of chronic HFrEF following a WHFE from a US commercial payer perspective. METHODS: A model was developed to estimate the budget impact of adding vericiguat to the formulary by comparing a current scenario (GDMT) and a new scenario (vericiguat plus GDMT) to a hypothetical 10-million-member commercial payer over a 3-year time horizon. Epidemiology data was obtained from literature. Treatment utilization rates of GDMT and clinical inputs (HF hospitalization and cardiovascular [CV] morality) were based on the VICTORIA trial in which patients with chronic HFrEF following a WHFE were randomized to GDMT plus placebo or GDMT plus vericiguat. Costs (2020 US$) included drug acquisition, hospitalization, routine care, and mortality. RESULTS: Approximately 20,510 prevalent cases in year 1 and 3109 annual incident cases in subsequent years were estimated to be eligible for treatment with vericiguat. At a utilization rate of 5%, 10%, and 15% for vericiguat over years 1-3, the per member per month (PMPM) budget impact was estimated to be $0.048, $0.064, and $0.086, respectively, associated with 44, 32, and 30 fewer HF hospitalizations and 7, 12, and 18 fewer CV deaths, respectively. Reduction in HF hospitalizations and CV deaths reduced the budget impact by 14% in total over 3 years. CONCLUSION: Adding vericiguat to commercial plan formulary was associated with limited budget impact, primarily driven by drug acquisition costs but partially offset by reduced cost of HF hospitalizations and CV deaths.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of cytomegalovirus prophylaxis in allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant recipients from a US payer perspective.

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of letermovir versus no prophylaxis for the prevention of cytomegalovirus infection and disease in adult cytomegalovirus-seropositive allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) recipients. A decision model for 100 patients was developed to estimate the probabilities of cytomegalovirus infection, cytomegalovirus disease, various other complications, and death in patients receiving letermovir versus no prophylaxis. The probabilities of clinical outcomes were based on the pivotal phase 3 trial of letermovir use for cytomegalovirus prophylaxis versus placebo in adult cytomegalovirus-seropositive recipients of an allo-HCT. Costs of prophylaxis with letermovir and of each clinical outcome were derived from published sources or the trial clinical study reports. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in terms of cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained were used in the model. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore uncertainty around the base-case analysis. In this model, the use of letermovir prophylaxis would lead to an increase of QALYs (619) and direct medical cost ($1 733 794) compared with no prophylaxis (578 QALYs; $710 300) in cytomegalovirus-seropositive recipients of an allo-HCT. Letermovir use for cytomegalovirus prophylaxis was a cost-effective option versus no prophylaxis with base-case analysis ICER $25 046/QALY gained. One-way sensitivity analysis showed the most influential parameter was mortality rate. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed a 92% probability of letermovir producing an ICER below the commonly accepted willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000/QALY gained. Based on this model, letermovir use for cytomegalovirus prophylaxis was a cost-effective option in adult cytomegalovirus-seropositive recipients of an allo-HCT.

Budget Impact of Oral Semaglutide Intensification versus Sitagliptin among US Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Uncontrolled with Metformin.

BACKGROUND: Oral semaglutide was approved in 2019 for blood glucose control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and was the first oral glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA). T2DM is associated with substantial healthcare expenditures in the US, so the cost of a new intervention should be weighed against clinical benefits. OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the budget impact of a treatment pathway with oral semaglutide 14 mg daily versus oral sitagliptin 100 mg daily among patients not achieving target glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) level despite treatment with metformin. METHODS: This study used the validated IQVIA™ CORE Diabetes Model to simulate the treatment impact of oral semaglutide 14 mg and sitagliptin 100 mg over a 5-year time horizon from a US healthcare sector (payer) perspective. Trial data (PIONEER 3) informed cohort characteristics and treatment effects, and literature sources informed event costs. Population and market share data were from the literature and data on file. The analysis evaluated the estimated budget impact of oral semaglutide 14 mg use for patients currently using sitagliptin 100 mg considering both direct medical and treatment costs to understand the impact on total cost of care, given underlying treatment performance and impact on avoidable events. RESULTS: In a hypothetical plan of 1 million lives, an estimated 1993 patients were treated with sitagliptin 100 mg in the target population. Following these patients over 5 years, the incremental direct medical and treatment costs of a patient using oral semaglutide 14 mg versus sitagliptin 100 mg was $US16,562, a 70.7% increase (year 2019 values). A hypothetical payer would spend an additional $US3,300,143 (7.1%) over 5 years for every 10% of market share that oral semaglutide 14 mg takes away from sitagliptin 100 mg. Univariate and scenario analyses with alternate inputs and assumptions demonstrated consistent results. CONCLUSIONS: Use of oral semaglutide 14 mg in patients currently receiving sitagliptin 100 mg substantially increases the budget impact for patients with T2DM whose blood glucose level is not controlled with metformin over a 5-year time horizon for US healthcare payers.

Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) have many treatment options. Choices depend on factors such as cost, preference, and patient characteristics. Oral semaglutide was recently approved for the treatment of T2DM as the first oral therapy of its class. This study estimated the cost for patients treated with sitagliptin 100 mg, a commonly used T2DM treatment, versus oral semaglutide 14 mg for patients whose disease is not well controlled with metformin. Costs and effects were estimated over 5 years for each treatment strategy using predictive model equations and clinical trial data for the two treatments. These costs were considered for both a hypothetical healthcare plan of 1 million lives and the full US population. A patient treated with oral semaglutide 14 mg would expect to see 70.7% higher costs than a patient treated with sitagliptin 100 mg over 5 years. For every 10% of patients who would switch from sitagliptin 100 mg to oral semaglutide 14 mg, costs would increase by 7.1%. Changing the cost of oral semaglutide 14 mg had the greatest impact on model results. The findings from the analysis were consistent across a range of alternate model inputs. Oral semaglutide 14 mg is more costly than sitagliptin 100 mg over 5 years.

Cost-effectiveness of letermovir as cytomegalovirus prophylaxis in adult recipients of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in Hong Kong.

BACKGROUND: The cost-effectiveness of letermovir as cytomegalovirus (CMV) prophylaxis in adult seropositive patients undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), compared with the conventional strategy of preemptive treatment, has not been evaluated in Asia. METHODS: A decision analytical model, simulating the clinical progression of CMV infection on a lifetime horizon, was developed to compare prophylactic strategy with letermovir with preemptive therapy alone as anti-CMV strategies. Prophylaxis comprised administering letermovir for 14 weeks, with clinical outcomes measured at 24 weeks, followed by preemptive therapy if CMV infection occurred. This approach was modeled on outcomes of the letermovir phase 3 clinical study. The model enumerated the cost of letermovir prophylaxis, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost per QALYs gained with prophylaxis. The opposite arm involved regular monitoring and preemptive therapy for CMV reactivation. Real-world costs from the adult HSCT center at Queen Mary Hospital, Hong Kong, were adopted for analysis. Costs and clinical benefits, expressed as QALYs, were discounted at 3% per year. RESULTS: Letermovir prophylaxis compared with preemptive therapy only would lead to an increase of life-year and QALYs at increased costs. Incremental cost-effectiveness analysis showed that letermovir prophylaxis had an associated cost of HKD 193,580 for each life-year gained, and HKD 234,675 for each QALY gained. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that the majority of incremental cost-effectiveness ratio fell below the cost-effectiveness threshold of HKD 382,046 (one gross domestic product per capita) per QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: Letermovir prophylaxis would be cost-effective for preventing CMV infection in adult seropositive allogeneic HSCT recipients in Hong Kong.

Assessment of Reported Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Atypical Antipsychotics in the Treatment of Behavioral and Psychological Symptoms of Dementia: A Network Meta-analysis.

Importance: Atypical antipsychotics offer modest effectiveness compared with placebo but with serious safety risks, including a boxed warning for the risk of death in the treatment of behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD). Their comparative effectiveness and safety are not fully known. Objective: To assess the relative benefits and safety of atypical antipsychotics in the treatment of BPSD shown in randomized clinical trials using network meta-analysis. Data Sources: PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, PsychINFO, and Cochrane Library were searched from their inception until May 31, 2018. Key terms included dementia and atypical antipsychotics. Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials comparing any atypical antipsychotic with another atypical antipsychotic or with placebo were included in the analysis. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two independent reviewers used a standardized data extraction and quality assessment form. Random-effects network meta-analyses were performed. Effect sizes were reported as standardized mean differences (SMDs) for continuous outcomes and odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous outcomes with 95% CIs. In addition to ORs, the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was ascertained, which represents the percentage of the effectiveness or safety for each treatment compared with a hypothetical treatment that would be ranked first without uncertainty. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary effectiveness outcome assessed was the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI); secondary effectiveness outcomes were the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) and Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI). The primary safety outcomes were death and cerebrovascular adverse events (CVAEs). Secondary safety outcomes were extrapyramidal signs/symptoms; somnolence/sedation; falls, fracture, or injury; and urinary tract infection/incontinence. Results: Seventeen studies (5373 patients) were included. The mean (SD) age of all participants was 80.8 (3.1) years, and most were women (3748 [69.8%]). Compared with placebo, aripiprazole was associated with improvement in outcomes on the NPI (SMD, -0.17; 95% CI, -0.31 to -0.02), BPRS (SMD, -0.20; 95% CI, -0.35 to -0.05), and CMAI (SMD, -0.30; 95% CI, -0.55 to -0.05); quetiapine was associated with improvement in outcomes on the BPRS (SMD, -0.24; 95% CI, -0.46 to -0.01), and risperidone was associated with improvement in outcomes on the CMAI (SMD, -0.26; 95% CI, -0.37 to -0.15). Differences between atypical antipsychotics were not significant for effectiveness, death, or CVAE. Compared with placebo, risperidone (OR, 3.85; 95% CI, 1.55-9.55) and olanzapine (OR, 4.28; 95% CI, 1.26-14.56) were associated with increased risk of CVAEs. The SUCRA estimated relative ranking of treatments suggested that aripiprazole might be the most effective and safe atypical antipsychotic and that olanzapine provides the least benefit overall; however, these results should be interpreted with caution where point estimates (OR and SMD) show that there is no statistically significant difference. Conclusions and Relevance: This network meta-analysis supports the existence of a trade-off between the effectiveness and safety of atypical antipsychotics in the treatment of BPSD and confirms that a single most effective and safe treatment option does not exist. Clinicians should individualize the assessment of safety risks against expected benefits when prescribing these medications to patients with dementia.

Systematic assessment of decision analytic models for the cost-effectiveness of bariatric surgery for morbid obesity.

Bariatric surgery among patients with morbid obesity is very effective for providing long-term weight loss and remission of obesity-related co-morbidities. However, it is very expensive and its cost effectiveness is commonly argued. Long-term cost-effectiveness evaluations of bariatric surgery have often relied on decision models. A systematic review was performed on the methodologic approaches and their quality, evaluated the quality of reporting, and summarized findings and conclusions in published cost-effectiveness models of bariatric surgery for morbid obesity. A search from different databases with an end date of October 15, 2017 was completed. The initial search for title and abstract screening resulted in 741 articles. A total of 50 articles were included for full-text review and 23 economic evaluation studies were included in the systematic review. The reporting quality scores of most articles were rated as acceptable between 61% and 100%. Most studies (89%) were modeled for adult patients with age range between 25 and 75 years old. Sixty-one percent of studies defined their health states by the existence or absence of different obesity-related co-morbidities. Eleven percent of studies took the societal perspective. Most studies (61%) used a lifetime horizon. Thirty-nine percent of studies identified the extent of weight loss as the most sensitive and influential parameter. Seventeen (74%) did not report a formal model validation. Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass was reported as the most cost-effective strategy most often when it compared with no treatment or medical management. While most had acceptable quality of reporting levels, several gaps in the quality of reporting and quality of methods emerged, which led to recommendations for how to improve quality in future studies.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Bariatric Surgery for Morbid Obesity.

BACKGROUND: In the USA, three types of bariatric surgeries are widely performed, including laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG), laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB), and laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB). However, few economic evaluations of bariatric surgery are published. There is also scarcity of studies focusing on the LSG alone. Therefore, this study is evaluating the cost-effectiveness of bariatric surgery using LRYGB, LAGB, and LSG as treatment for morbid obesity. METHODS: A microsimulation model was developed over a lifetime horizon to simulate weight change, health consequences, and costs of bariatric surgery for morbid obesity. US health care prospective was used. A model was propagated based on a report from the first report of the American College of Surgeons. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in terms of cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained were used in the model. Model parameters were estimated from publicly available databases and published literature. RESULTS: LRYGB was cost-effective with higher QALYs (17.07) and cost ($138,632) than LSG (16.56 QALYs; $138,925), LAGB (16.10 QALYs; $135,923), and no surgery (15.17 QALYs; $128,284). Sensitivity analysis showed initial cost of surgery and weight regain assumption were very sensitive to the variation in overall model parameters. Across patient groups, LRYGB remained the optimal bariatric technique, except that with morbid obesity 1 (BMI 35-39.9 kg/m2) patients, LSG was the optimal choice. CONCLUSION: LRYGB is the optimal bariatric technique, being the most cost-effective compared to LSG, LAGB, and no surgery options for most subgroups. However, LSG was the most cost-effective choice when initial BMI ranged between 35 and 39.9 kg/m2.