The Potential Economic Impact of the Updated COVID-19 mRNA Fall 2023 Vaccines in Japan.

This analysis estimates the economic and clinical impact of a Moderna updated COVID-19 mRNA Fall 2023 vaccine for adults ≥18 years in Japan. A previously developed Susceptible-Exposed-Infected-Recovered (SEIR) model with a one-year analytic time horizon (September 2023-August 2024) and consequences decision tree were used to estimate symptomatic infections, COVID-19 related hospitalizations, deaths, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for a Moderna updated Fall 2023 vaccine versus no additional vaccination, and versus a Pfizer-BioNTech updated mRNA Fall 2023 vaccine. The Moderna vaccine is predicted to prevent 7.2 million symptomatic infections, 272,100 hospitalizations and 25,600 COVID-19 related deaths versus no vaccine. In the base case (healthcare perspective), the ICER was ¥1,300,000/QALY gained ($9400 USD/QALY gained). Sensitivity analyses suggest results are most affected by COVID-19 incidence, initial vaccine effectiveness (VE), and VE waning against infection. Assuming the relative VE between both bivalent vaccines apply to updated Fall 2023 vaccines, the base case suggests the Moderna version will prevent an additional 1,100,000 symptomatic infections, 27,100 hospitalizations, and 2600 deaths compared to the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. The updated Moderna vaccine is expected to be highly cost-effective at a ¥5 million willingness-to-pay threshold across a wide range of scenarios.

Clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of the updated COVID-19 mRNA Autumn 2023 vaccines in Germany.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the potential clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) mRNA vaccines updated for Autumn 2023 in adults aged ≥60 years and high-risk persons aged 30-59 years in Germany over a 1-year analytic time horizon (September 2023-August 2024). METHODS: A compartmental Susceptible-Exposed-Infected-Recovered model was updated and adapted to the German market. Numbers of symptomatic infections, a number of COVID-19 related hospitalizations and deaths, costs, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained were calculated using a decision tree model. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of an Autumn 2023 Moderna updated COVID-19 (mRNA-1273.815) vaccine was compared to no additional vaccination. Potential differences between the mRNA-1273.815 and the Autumn Pfizer-BioNTech updated COVID-19 (XBB.1.5 BNT162b2) vaccines, as well as societal return on investment for the mRNA-1273.815 vaccine relative to no vaccination, were also examined. RESULTS: Compared to no autumn vaccination, the mRNA-1273.815 campaign is predicted to prevent approximately 1,697,900 symptomatic infections, 85,400 hospitalizations, and 4,100 deaths. Compared to an XBB.1.5 BNT162b2 campaign, the mRNA-1273.815 campaign is also predicted to prevent approximately 90,100 symptomatic infections, 3,500 hospitalizations, and 160 deaths. Across both analyses we found the mRNA-1273.815 campaign to be dominant. CONCLUSIONS: The mRNA-1273.815 vaccine can be considered cost-effective relative to the XBB.1.5 BNT162b2 vaccine and highly likely to provide more benefits and save costs compared to no vaccine in Germany, and to offer high societal return on investment.

The potential clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of the updated COVID-19 mRNA fall 2023 vaccines in the United States.

AIMS: To assess the potential clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines updated for fall 2023 in adults aged ≥18 years over a 1-year analytic time horizon (September 2023-August 2024). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A compartmental Susceptible-Exposed-Infected-Recovered model was updated to reflect COVID-19 cases in summer 2023. The numbers of symptomatic infections, COVID-19-related hospitalizations and deaths, and costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained were calculated using a decision tree model. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of a Moderna updated mRNA fall 2023 vaccine (Moderna Fall Campaign) was compared to no additional vaccination. Potential differences between the Moderna and the Pfizer-BioNTech fall 2023 vaccines were also examined. RESULTS: Base case results suggest that the Moderna Fall Campaign would decrease the expected 64.2 million symptomatic infections by 7.2 million (11%) to 57.0 million. COVID-19-related hospitalizations and deaths are expected to decline by 343,000 (-29%) and 50,500 (-33%), respectively. The Moderna Fall Campaign would increase QALYs by 740,880 and healthcare costs by $5.7 billion relative to no vaccine, yielding an ICER of $7700 per QALY gained. Using a societal cost perspective, the ICER is $2100. Sensitivity analyses suggest that vaccine effectiveness, COVID-19 incidence, hospitalization rates, and costs drive cost-effectiveness. With a relative vaccine effectiveness of 5.1% for infection and 9.8% for hospitalization for the Moderna vaccine versus the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, use of the Moderna vaccine is expected to prevent 24,000 more hospitalizations and 3300 more deaths than the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. LIMITATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS: As COVID-19 becomes endemic, future incidence, including patterns of infection, are highly uncertain. The effectiveness of fall 2023 vaccines is unknown, and it is unclear when a new variant that evades natural or vaccine immunity will emerge. Despite these limitations, our model predicts the Moderna Fall Campaign vaccine is highly cost-effective across all sensitivity analyses.

A Budget Impact Model of the Addition of Telotristat Ethyl Treatment to the Standard of Care in Patients with Uncontrolled Carcinoid Syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Carcinoid syndrome, a rare condition in patients with neuroendocrine tumours, characterised by flushing and diarrhoea, severely affects patients' quality of life. The current carcinoid syndrome standard of care includes somatostatin analogues, but some patients experience uncontrolled symptoms despite somatostatin analogue therapy. Telotristat ethyl is a novel treatment approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and US FDA that significantly reduces bowel movement frequency in patients with uncontrolled carcinoid syndrome. OBJECTIVE: We developed a model to evaluate the 5-year budget impact of introducing telotristat ethyl to standard care in Swedish patients with uncontrolled carcinoid syndrome. METHODS: Treatment response in the 12-week phase III TELESTAR trial (NCT01677910) informed telotristat ethyl efficacy; subsequently, health states were captured by a Markov model using 4-week cycles. TELESTAR open-label extension data informed telotristat ethyl discontinuation. The number of treatment-eligible patients was estimated from literature reviews reporting the prevalence, incidence and mortality of carcinoid syndrome. A Swedish database study informed real-world costs related to carcinoid syndrome and carcinoid heart disease costs. Telotristat ethyl market share was assumed to increase annually from 24% (year 1) to 70% (year 5). RESULTS: Over the 5-year model horizon, 44 patients were expected to initiate telotristat ethyl treatment. The cumulative net budget impact of adding telotristat ethyl to current standard of care was €172,346; per-year costs decreased from €66,495 (year 1) to €29,818 (year 5). Increased drug costs from adding telotristat ethyl were offset by reduced costs elsewhere. CONCLUSIONS: The expected budget impact of adding telotristat ethyl to the standard of care in Sweden was relatively low, largely because of the rarity of carcinoid syndrome.

Cost per response analysis of strategies for chronic immune thrombocytopenia.

OBJECTIVES: This analysis estimated the cost per response and the incremental cost per additional responder of romplostim, eltrombopag, and the "watch-and-rescue" (monitoring until rescue therapies are required) strategy in adults with chronic immune thrombocytopenia (ITP). STUDY DESIGN: The decision tree is designed to estimate the total cost per response for romiplostim, eltrombopag, and watch and rescue over a 24-week time horizon; cost-effectiveness was evaluated in terms of incremental cost per additional responder. METHODS: Model inputs including response rates, bleeding-related episode (BRE) rates, and costs were estimated from registrational trial data, an independent Bayesian indirect comparison, database analyses, and peer-reviewed publications. Costs were applied to the proportions of patients with treatment response and nonresponse (based on platelet count). The total cost per response and the incremental cost per additional responder for each treatment were calculated. Sensitivity analyses and alternative analyses were performed. RESULTS: With higher total costs and greater treatment efficacy, romiplostim and eltrombopag had a lower 24-week cost per response and a lower average number of BREs than watch and rescue. Eltrombopag was weakly dominated by romiplostim. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of romiplostim versus watch and rescue was $46,000 per additional responder. The model results are most sensitive to response rates of romiplostim and watch and rescue and the BRE rate for splenectomized nonresponders. Alternative analyses results were similar to the base case. CONCLUSIONS: In adults with chronic ITP, romiplostim represents an efficient way to achieve response, with lower costs per response than eltrombopag; both romiplostim and eltrombopag had lower costs per response than watch and rescue.

Granulocyte colony-stimulating factors in the prevention of febrile neutropenia: review of cost-effectiveness models.

INTRODUCTION: We reviewed the evolution of the methods used in cost-effectiveness analyses of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) in the primary and secondary prevention of febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients receiving myelosuppressive cancer chemotherapy. Areas covered: FN is a side effect of myelosuppressive chemotherapy associated with significant morbidity, mortality, and costs. The risk of FN may depend on the drugs used within a chemotherapy regimen, and an FN event may cause chemotherapy dose reductions or delays in subsequent cycles. Expert commentary: More recent pharmacoeconomic models have reflected these clinical observations by modeling sequential chemotherapy regimens to account for FN risk on a per-cycle basis, and by accounting for chemotherapy dose reductions and consequent survival losses.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Prophylaxis Treatment Strategies to Reduce the Incidence of Febrile Neutropenia in Patients with Early-Stage Breast Cancer or Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost effectiveness of no prophylaxis, primary prophylaxis (PP), or secondary prophylaxis (SP) with granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs), i.e., pegfilgrastim, lipegfilgrastim, filgrastim (6- and 11-day), or lenograstim (6- and 11-day), to reduce the incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients with stage II breast cancer receiving TC (docetaxel, cyclophosphamide) and in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) receiving R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone) over a lifetime horizon from a Belgian payer perspective. METHODS: A Markov cycle tree tracked FN events during chemotherapy (3-week cycles) and long-term survival (1-year cycles). Model inputs, including the efficacy of each strategy, risk of reduced relative dose intensity (RDI), and the impact of RDI on mortality, utilities, and costs (in €; 2014 values) were estimated from public sources and the published literature. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were assessed for each strategy for costs per FN event avoided, life-year (LY) saved, and quality-adjusted LY (QALY) saved. LYs and QALYs saved were discounted at 1.5% annually. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (DSAs and PSAs) were conducted. RESULTS: Base-case ICERs for PP with pegfilgrastim relative to SP with pegfilgrastim were €15,500 per QALY and €14,800 per LY saved for stage II breast cancer and €7800 per QALY and €6900 per LY saved for NHL; other comparators were either more expensive and less effective than PP or SP with pegfilgrastim or had lower costs but higher ICERs (relative to SP with pegfilgrastim) than PP with pegfilgrastim. Results of the DSA for breast cancer and NHL comparing PP and SP with pegfilgrastim indicate that the model results were most sensitive to the cycle 1 risk of FN, the proportion of FN events requiring hospitalization, the relative risk of FN in cycles ≥2 versus cycle 1, no history of FN, and the mortality hazard ratio for RDI (<90% vs ≥90% [for NHL]). In the PSAs for stage II breast cancer and NHL, the probabilities that PP with pegfilgrastim was cost effective or dominant versus all other prophylaxis strategies at a €30,000/QALY willingness-to-pay threshold were 52% (other strategies ≤24%) and 58% (other strategies ≤24%), respectively. CONCLUSION: From a Belgian payer perspective, PP with pegfilgrastim appears cost effective compared to other prophylaxis strategies in patients with stage II breast cancer or NHL at a €30,000/QALY threshold.

Cost-effectiveness of prophylaxis treatment strategies for febrile neutropenia in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the cost-effectiveness of primary prophylaxis (PP) or secondary prophylaxis (SP) with pegfilgrastim, filgrastim (6-day and 11-day), or no prophylaxis to reduce the risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer receiving docetaxel or topotecan. METHODS: A Markov model was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of PP vs SP from a US payer perspective. Model inputs, including the efficacy of each strategy (relative risk of FN with prophylaxis compared to no prophylaxis) and mortality, costs, and utility values were estimated from public sources and peer-reviewed publications. Incremental cost-effectiveness was evaluated in terms of net cost per FN event avoided, incremental cost per life-year saved (LYS), and incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained over a lifetime horizon. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (DSA and PSA) were conducted. RESULTS: For patients receiving docetaxel, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for PP vs SP with pegfilgrastim was $7900 per QALY gained, and PP with pegfilgrastim dominated all other comparators. For patients receiving topotecan, PP with pegfilgrastim dominated all comparators. Model results were most sensitive to baseline FN risk. PP vs SP with pegfilgrastim was cost effective in 68% and 83% of simulations for docetaxel and in >99% of simulations for topotecan at willingness-to-pay thresholds of $50,000 and $100,000 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: PP with pegfilgrastim should be considered cost effective compared to other prophylaxis strategies in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer receiving docetaxel or topotecan with a high risk of FN.

Primary vs secondary prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim for the reduction of febrile neutropenia risk in patients receiving chemotherapy for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma: cost-effectiveness analyses.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the cost-effectiveness of primary vs secondary prophylaxis (PP vs SP) with pegfilgrastim to reduce the risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) in Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma (NHL) patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy from a US payer perspective. METHODS: A Markov model was used to compare PP vs SP with pegfilgrastim in a cohort of patients receiving six cycles of cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, and prednisone (CHOP) or CHOP plus rituximab (CHOP-R) chemotherapy. Model inputs, including efficacy of pegfilgrastim in reducing risk of FN and costs, were estimated from publicly available sources and peer-reviewed publications. Incremental cost-effectiveness was evaluated in terms of net cost per life-year saved (LYS), per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, and per FN event avoided over a lifetime horizon. Deterministic and probabilistic analyses were performed to assess sensitivity and robustness of results. RESULTS: Lifetime costs for PP were $5000 greater than for SP; however, PP was associated with fewer FN events and more LYs and QALYs gained vs SP. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for PP vs SP for CHOP were $13,400 per FN event avoided, $29,500 per QALY gained, and $25,800 per LYS. CHOP-R results were similar ($15,000 per FN event avoided, $33,000 per QALY gained, and $28,900 per LYS). Results were most sensitive to baseline FN risk, cost per FN episode, and odds ratio for reduced relative dose intensity due to prior FN event. PP was cost-effective vs SP in 85% of simulations at a $50,000 per QALY threshold. LIMITATIONS: In the absence of NHL-specific data, estimates for pegfilgrastim efficacy and relative risk reduction of FN were based on available data for neoadjuvant TAC in patients with breast cancer. Baseline risks of FN for CHOP and CHOP-R were assumed to be equivalent. CONCLUSIONS: PP with pegfilgrastim is cost-effective compared to SP with pegfilgrastim in NHL patients receiving CHOP or CHOP-R.