Cost-effectiveness analysis of prognostic gene expression signature-based stratification of early breast cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: The individual risk of recurrence in hormone receptor-positive primary breast cancer patients determines whether adjuvant endocrine therapy should be combined with chemotherapy. Clinicopathological parameters and molecular tests such as EndoPredict(®) (EPclin) can support decision making in patients with estrogen receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative cancer. OBJECTIVE: Using a life-long Markov state transition model, we determined the health economic impact and incremental cost effectiveness of EPclin-based risk stratification in combination with clinical guidelines [German-S3, National Comprehensive Cancer Center Network (NCCN), and St. Gallen] to decide on chemotherapy use. METHODS: Information on overall and metastasis-free survival came from Austrian Breast & Colorectal Cancer Study Group clinical trials 6/8 (n = 1,619) and published literature. Effectiveness was assessed as quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Costs (2010) were assessed from a German third-party payer perspective. RESULTS: Lifetime costs per patient ranged from 28,268 (St.Gallen and EPclin) to 33,756 (NCCN). Due to an imperfect prognostic value and differences in chemotherapy use, strategies achieved between 13.165 QALYs (NCCN) and 13.173 QALYs (EPclin alone) per patient. Using German-S3 as reference, three strategies showed dominant results (St. Gallen and EPclin, German-S3 and EPclin, EPclin alone). Compared to German-S3, the addition of EPclin saved 3,388 and gained 0.002 QALYs per patient. Combining guidelines with EPclin remained preferable in sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that molecular markers can be sensibly combined with clinical guidelines to determine the risk profile of adjuvant breast cancer patients. Compared with the current German best practice (German-S3), combinations of EPclin with the St. Gallen, German-S3 or NCCN guideline and EPclin alone were dominant from the perspective of the German healthcare system.

Cost-effectiveness of bivalirudin versus heparin plus glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor in the treatment of acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of bivalirudin versus heparin and glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor (H-GPI) in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) for acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), from a UK health service perspective. DESIGN: Cost-utility analysis with life-long time horizon. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness. METHODS: Event risks and medical resource use data derived from the HORIZONS-AMI trial were entered into a decision analytic model. Clinical events until the end of year 1 (main model) or year 3 (alternative model) were modelled in detail. Adjustments were applied to approximate UK routine practice characteristics. Life expectancy of 1-year or 3-year survivors, health-state utilities, initial hospitalisation length of stay in the comparator strategy and unit costs were based on UK sources. Costs and effects were discounted at 3.5%. RESULTS: The main model predicted bivalirudin and H-GPI patients to survive 11.52 and 11.35 (undiscounted) years on average, respectively, and to accrue 6.26 and 6.17 QALYs. Patient lifetime costs were £267 lower in the bivalirudin strategy (£12 843 vs £13 110). Extensive sensitivity and scenario analyses confirmed these results to be robust. In probabilistic analysis, quality-adjusted survival was higher and costs were lower with bivalirudin in 95.0% of simulation runs. In 99.2%, cost-effectiveness was better than £20 000 per QALY gained. Results from the alternative model were fully consistent. CONCLUSION: The use of bivalirudin instead of H-GPI in STEMI patients undergoing PPCI is cost-effective, and offers a high probability of dominance. Background treatment with aspirin and clopidogrel is assumed.

Cost-effectiveness of oral alitretinoin in patients with severe chronic hand eczema--a long-term analysis from a Swiss perspective.

BACKGROUND: The impact on patients suffering from chronic hand eczema (CHE) is enormous, as no licensed systemic treatment option with proven efficacy for CHE is available. Alitretinoin is a novel agent which showed high clinical efficacy in patients with severe, refractory CHE. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of alitretinoin for CHE patient treatment from a Swiss third party payer perspective. A further objective of this study was to determine the burden of disease in Switzerland. METHODS: A long-term Markov cohort simulation model was used to estimate direct medical costs (euro) and clinical effectiveness (quality adjusted life years, QALYs) of treating severe CHE patients with alitretinoin. Comparison was against the standard treatment of supportive care (optimised emollient therapy). Information on response rates were derived from a randomized controlled clinical trial. Costs were considered from the perspective of the Swiss health system. Swiss epidemiological data was derived from official Swiss Statistic institutions. RESULTS: Annual costs of alitretinoin treatment accounted for 2'212 euro. After a time horizon of 22.4 years, average remaining long-term costs accounted for 42'208 euro or 38'795 euro in the alitretinoin and the standard treatment arm, respectively. Compared with the standard therapy, the addition of alitretinoin yielded an average gain of 0.230 QALYs at the end of the simulation. Accordingly, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio resulted in 14'816 euro/QALY gained. These results were robust to changes in key model assumptions. CONCLUSION: The therapy for CHE patients is currently insufficient. In our long-term model we identified the treatment with alitretinoin as a cost-effective alternative for the therapy of CHE patients in Switzerland.

Developments in influenza vaccination coverage in England, Scotland and Wales covering five consecutive seasons from 2001 to 2006.

This study aims at assessing trends in influenza vaccination coverage from 2001 to 2006 in Great Britain, at understanding drivers and barriers to vaccination and at identifying vaccination intentions for influenza season 2006/2007. In seasons 2001/2002 to 2005/2006, telephone-based household surveys representative of the population from age 16 were conducted, with about 2000 interviews per season (10,095 in total). Overall influenza vaccination coverage rate in Great Britain reached 25.9% in season 2005/2006. A sub-analysis showed that the highest coverage was reported in Wales reaching 33.3%. In the elderly recommended vaccination (from age 65), the coverage reached 79% in 2005/2006. Advice from the family doctor and the perception that influenza is a serious illness were the most frequent reasons for getting vaccinated. The most frequent reasons for not getting vaccinated, in persons never vaccinated before, were that they had not considered immunisation or had not received a recommendation from their family doctor. Those vaccinated in the past but not in the current season said they had not thought about vaccination/forgot. A gap continues to exist between those with intention to get vaccinated and those actually vaccinated, indicating a potential to increase vaccination coverage rate in the future. Our study shows that stable vaccination coverage rates were observed from 2002 to 2006 in Great Britain. The coverage had increased in Wales and in Scotland. The coverage among the elderly above 65 years was the highest in Europe. Although Great Britain complies with national and international goals of vaccination coverage rates effort is needed to ensure high vaccination coverage rates at the same level in the future.

The economic value of childhood varicella vaccination in France and Germany.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the economic impact of childhood varicella vaccination in France and Germany. METHODS: A common methodology based on the use of a varicella transmission model was used for the two countries. Cost data (2002 per thousand) were derived from two previous studies. The analysis focused on a routine vaccination program for which three different coverage rates (CRs) were considered (90%, 70%, and 45%). Catch-up strategies were also analyzed. A societal perspective including both direct and indirect costs and a third-party payer perspective were considered (Social Security in France and Sickness Funds in Germany). RESULTS: A routine vaccination program has a clear positive impact on varicella-related morbidity in both countries. With a 90% CR, the number of varicella-related deaths was reduced by 87% in Germany and by 84% in France. In addition, with a CR of 90%, routine varicella vaccination induces savings in both countries from both societal (Germany 61%, France 60%) and third-party payer perspectives (Germany 51%, France 6.7%). For lower CRs, routine vaccination remains cost saving from a third-party payer perspective in Germany but not in France, where it is nevertheless cost-effective (cost per life-year gained of 6521 per thousand in the base case with a 45% CR). CONCLUSION: Considering the impact of vaccination on varicella morbidity and costs, a routine varicella vaccination program appears to be cost saving in Germany and France from both a societal and a third-party payer perspective. For France, routine varicella vaccination remains cost-effective in worst cases when a third-party payer perspective is adopted. Catch-up programs provide additional savings.