RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: There is an unmet need for well-tolerated antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) that effectively control focal onset seizures. This study aimed to evaluate the economic value of new AEDs in the treatment of focal onset seizure, with or without secondary generalization, in Finnish adults and adolescents with epilepsy, comparing brivaracetam with perampanel as adjunctive AEDs. METHODS: Economic value was assessed using cost-utility analysis. Periods of AED initiation, titration, response assessment (seizure freedom, ≥ 50% reduction, no response), switching in no response or treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), and death were simulated using a discrete-event simulation model. Responses and switching were simulated based on a comprehensive Bayesian network meta-analysis. The primary modeled outcome was the 3%/year discounted incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Discounted quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), payer costs (year 2017 Euro) per patient, and net monetary benefit (NMB) were secondary outcomes. Probabilistic and comprehensive deterministic sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Brivaracetam was more efficacious and had fewer TEAEs than perampanel and other AEDs. Modeled average 5-year QALYs and costs were 3.671 and 28,297 for brivaracetam and 3.611 and 27,979 for perampanel, respectively. The resulting ICER for brivaracetam versus perampanel was only 5345/QALY gained in a deterministic base case scenario. Brivaracetam had a positive NMB and high probability of cost-effectiveness of 1190 and 71% or 1944 and 80% with the assumed willingness to pay of 25,358 or 38,036/QALY gained, respectively. The primary result was robust, with a positive NMB persistent in all sensitivity analysis scenarios. When switching from brivaracetam to perampanel was excluded from the modeling or switching from perampanel to brivaracetam was included, brivaracetam was cost-saving and more effective than perampanel (dominant). CONCLUSION: These simulated comparisons demonstrated that brivaracetam was more effective and potentially also more affordable than perampanel. Thus, brivaracetam is likely a cost-effective and net beneficial alternative to perampanel for treatment of focal onset seizures. Plain language summary available for this article.
Asunto(s)
Anticonvulsivantes/economía , Epilepsia/tratamiento farmacológico , Pirrolidinonas/economía , Años de Vida Ajustados por Calidad de Vida , Convulsiones/tratamiento farmacológico , Adolescente , Adulto , Anticonvulsivantes/uso terapéutico , Teorema de Bayes , Análisis Costo-Beneficio , Quimioterapia Combinada , Epilepsia/economía , Femenino , Finlandia , Humanos , Pirrolidinonas/uso terapéutico , Convulsiones/economía , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
Raltegravir is a first-in-class HIV-1 integrase inhibitor with established antiviral efficacy in treatment-naive and treatment-experienced patients with multidrug-resistant HIV-1 infection. In this article, we summarize pharmacoeconomic evaluations of raltegravir-based treatment regimens, compared with alternative therapies, in the treatment of patients with HIV infection and/or AIDS. Cost-effectiveness evaluations of raltegravir in treatment-experienced patients conducted using a continuous-time, state-transition Markov cohort model suggest that raltegravir, combined with optimized background therapy, falls within the range that would generally be considered cost effective compared with optimized therapy alone in Spanish, Swiss and UK health systems. In treatment-naive populations, raltegravir was evaluated using a three-stage continuous-time state-transition cohort model. Raltegravir-based initiation treatment strategies (first-line raltegravir) were compared with protease inhibitor and non-nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitor initiation strategies, in which raltegravir was retained for salvage therapy. First-line raltegravir was cost-effective versus retaining raltegravir for salvage therapy in several European populations. A separate economic model was used to evaluate first-line raltegravir against two alternative initiation regimens representing standard clinical practice in Australia; raltegravir proved to be cost effective in both scenarios. In all studies examined, results were sensitive to factors including treatment duration, mortality rate, analytic time horizon, health utility weights, cost of raltegravir and optimized therapy, incidence of opportunistic infection and discount rates. Nonetheless, raltegravir remained cost effective under most scenarios.
Asunto(s)
Infecciones por VIH/tratamiento farmacológico , Infecciones por VIH/economía , Inhibidores de Integrasa VIH/economía , Inhibidores de Integrasa VIH/uso terapéutico , VIH-1/efectos de los fármacos , Pirrolidinonas/economía , Pirrolidinonas/uso terapéutico , Australia , Análisis Costo-Beneficio , Costos de los Medicamentos , Farmacorresistencia Viral , Europa (Continente) , Infecciones por VIH/complicaciones , Infecciones por VIH/mortalidad , Infecciones por VIH/virología , Inhibidores de Integrasa VIH/efectos adversos , VIH-1/patogenicidad , Humanos , Cadenas de Markov , Modelos Económicos , Pirrolidinonas/efectos adversos , Años de Vida Ajustados por Calidad de Vida , Raltegravir Potásico , Terapia Recuperativa/economía , Factores de Tiempo , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
Raltegravir, a novel HIV-1 integrase inhibitor, has superior efficacy with optimized background treatment (OBT) vs. placebo + OBT in treatment-experienced HIV-1 patients. This study assessed the long-term cost effectiveness of raltegravir from a Spanish National Healthcare System perspective. A cohort-state-transition model was used to estimate clinical and economic outcomes associated with raltegravir + OBT vs. OBT alone. Subjects were stratified into health states according to HIV RNA level, CD4 count, and opportunistic infection (OI) history, and could transition into different health states over time based on projected long-term efficacy. Each health state was associated with a distinct treatment cost and utility (QoL) score. Model inputs for mortality, resource utilization, unit costs, OI risk, and long-term durability of viral suppression were obtained from clinical trials, published studies, and database analyses. Model outcomes were reported as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in 2007 Euros per quality-adjusted life-year (euro/QALY) gained. Costs and QALYs were discounted at 6% per year based on Spanish cost-effectiveness guidelines. Extensive sensitivity analyses were conducted. Five years of treatment with raltegravir + OBT resulted in an additional 4.5 years of undiscounted life expectancy vs. OBT alone. The ICER of raltegravir + OBT vs. OBT alone was euro22,908/QALY and euro31,431/QALY for 3- and 5-year use, respectively. Lower ICERs were observed with lower discount rates (3%) for costs and benefits, lower raltegravir price (20%), and shorter treatment duration (3 years). ICER was also sensitive to analytical time horizon and alternative sources of QoL scores. In treatment-experienced Spanish patients, raltegravir was projected to provide survival benefits and be cost effective.