Proposal for capturing patient experience through extended value frameworks of health technologies.

BACKGROUND: Inclusion of patient experience (PEx) in health technology assessment (HTA) has become increasingly important; however, no harmonized approach exists to help manufacturers or decision makers ensure PEx considerations are fair, consistent, and thorough within global HTA frameworks. OBJECTIVE: To develop a proposal for including PEx in the HTA frameworks of health technologies. METHODS: A systematic literature review (SLR) on existing value frameworks (VFs) was conducted to capture how PEx-related value judgment is currently considered. Guided by the results of the SLR, a research group including HTA experts and patient representatives used an iterative process to develop potential value domains to capture PEx, in accordance with international guidelines. Subsequently, a panel of international payer experts was used to challenge the proposed PEx domains and provide recommendations for implementation. RESULTS: The SLR found 61 VFs and multi-criteria decision analyses (MCDAs) that considered PEx; however, PEx-related value elements were often referred to superficially, without clear definitions. Five potential PEx domains, with proposed measures for each, were developed and refined using expert feedback: (1) responsiveness to patient's individual needs, (2) improved health literacy and empowerment, (3) patient and caregiver reported outcomes, (4) household's financial burden, and (5) improved access for vulnerable patient populations. A flexible approach for framework implementation was proposed. CONCLUSIONS: Proposed PEx domains could be implemented at multiple levels of healthcare decision making to formalize consideration of PEx in the assessment of value, either through the extension of existing VFs or to create new PEx-focused VFs and more holistic decision making tools. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded and sponsored by UCB Pharma. The funding agreement ensured the authors' independence in designing the study, interpreting the data, writing, and publishing the report. Charokopou, Mountain, and Szegvari are employed by UCB Pharma. Inotai, Jakab, and Kalo are employed by Syreon Research Institute, which received funding from UCB Pharma for this research. Brixner has received fees from AbbVie, Elevar, Millcreek Outcomes Group, Novartis, Sanofi, UCB Pharma, and Xcenda. Campbell has received grants and contracts from the PhRMA Foundation and the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. During a sabbatical leave, Campbell collaborated with Syreon Research Institute on research projects that included funding from UCB Pharma. Hawkins has received consultancy fees from UCB Pharma. Kristensen has received speakers bureau fees from Pfizer, AbbVie, Amgen, UCB Pharma, Celgene, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Novartis, Eli Lilly, and Janssen Pharmaceuticals and consultancy fees from UCB Pharma.

The Effectiveness and Value of Rivaroxaban and Icosapent Ethyl as Additive Therapies for Cardiovascular Disease.

DISCLOSURES: Funding for this summary was contributed by Arnold Ventures, Commonwealth Fund, California Health Care Foundation, National Institute for Health Care Management (NIHCM), New England States Consortium Systems Organization, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, and Partners HealthCare 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, Cambia Health Services, CVS, Editas, Express Scripts, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Harvard Pilgrim, Health Care Service Corporation, Health Partners, Johnson & Johnson (Janssen), Kaiser Permanente, LEO Pharma, Mallinckrodt, Merck, Novartis, National Pharmaceutical Council, Premera, Prime Therapeutics, Regeneron, Sanofi, Spark Therapeutics, and United Healthcare. Pearson is employed by ICER; Synnott was employed by ICER at the time of this report. Ollendorf, Campbell, and McQueen received grants from ICER for work on this review. Ollendorf also reports advisory board, consulting, and other fees from Sarepta Therapeutics, DBV Technologies, EMD Serono, Gerson Lehman Group, The CEA Registry Sponsors, Autolus, Analysis Group, Amgen, AbbVie, Cytokinetics, Aspen Institute/University of Southern California, and University of Colorado, unrelated to this review.

Assessing the Value of Sarilumab Monotherapy for Adults with Moderately to Severely Active Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Rheumatoid arthritis is associated with a societal burden greater than $39 billion annually. Novel treatments, known as targeted immune modulators (TIMs), are expensive but effective, producing improvements in response rates compared with conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (cDMARDs). Sarilumab, a TIM approved in 2017, shows superior improvements compared with cDMARDs and produced significantly greater likelihood of achieving response and improvement in the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index than adalimumab monotherapy. Although sarilumab monotherapy has shown improvements over cDMARDs and the TIM market leader adalimumab, treatment with sarilumab is costly, with an annual wholesale acquisition cost of $39,000. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the lifetime cost-effectiveness of starting treatment with sarilumab monotherapy for adult patients with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis who have had an inadequate response to cDMARDs. METHODS: A sequential treatment cohort model followed a hypothetical cohort from initiation of sarilumab monotherapy until death. The model allowed patients to switch therapies up to 3 times due to effectiveness or adverse events. The first switch was to a TIM within the same treatment category; the second switch was to a TIM within a different treatment category; and the third switch was to a cDMARD. Sarilumab monotherapy was compared with a cDMARD (methotrexate) and the TIM market leader (adalimumab monotherapy). Key risk and benefit evidence came from clinical studies and network meta-analyses of data on radiographic progression and response. We used a lifetime time horizon and the U.S. health sector payer perspective assuming therapy net pricing. We also incorporated loss of productivity to reflect a restricted societal perspective. RESULTS: Over a lifetime time horizon, a treatment pathway starting with sarilumab resulted in 17.16 life-years and 13.66 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Treatment pathways starting with the cDMARD resulted in 16.54 life-years and 11.77 QALYs; treatment pathways starting with adalimumab resulted in 17.05 life-years and 13.35 QALYs. Total costs for sarilumab ($492,000 for payer perspective, $634,000 for societal perspective) were less than total costs for adalimumab ($536,000 for payer perspective, $689,000 for societal perspective) but higher than total costs for the cDMARD ($63,000 for payer perspective, $272,000 for societal perspective). When compared with cDMARD therapy, sarilumab resulted in a cost-effectiveness estimate of $227,000 per QALY gained from the payer perspective and $191,000 per QALYs gained from the societal perspective. When compared with adalimumab, sarilumab was dominant from both perspectives. CONCLUSIONS: Sarilumab resulted in better health outcomes than conventional therapy alone. However, its additional cost with assumed class-level net prices led to cost-effectiveness estimates above commonly cited thresholds. When compared with the market leader, sarilumab achieved favorable value. This evaluation informs stakeholders of the value of sarilumab and its alternatives to promote high value practices in health care. DISCLOSURES: Funding for this research was contributed by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER). Ollendorf, Chapman, Kumar, Synnott, and Agboola are employees of ICER, an independent organization that evaluates the evidence on the value of health care interventions, which is funded by grants from the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, Blue Shield of California Foundation, and the California HealthCare Foundation. The organization's annual policy summit is supported by dues from Aetna, AHIP, Anthem, Blue Shield of California, CVS Caremark, Express Scripts, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, Omeda Rx, United Healthcare, Kaiser Permanente, Premera Blue Cross, AstraZeneca, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, National Pharmaceutical Council, Takeda, Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, and Humana. This work is an extension of an analysis presented at the New England Comparative Effectiveness Public Advisory Council on March 24, 2017, where the authors received public feedback on the analysis, results, and effect of a value assessment for targeted immune modulators. At the time of presentation, sarilumab was still an investigational product; therefore, a price was not known, so cost-effectiveness estimates were not generated. Since the presentation of that material, additional evidence for sarilumab has become available. The additional evidence has been incorporated into this analysis to present cost-effectiveness estimates for sarilumab.

Cost-Effectiveness of Biological Asthma Treatments: A Systematic Review and Recommendations for Future Economic Evaluations.

BACKGROUND: Recently developed asthma biological therapies have been shown to provide relief for severe asthma patients not controlled by inhaled treatment. Given the relatively high costs of biological therapies, cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) may be required as a prerequisite for coverage and reimbursement. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to systematically review published literature on the economic impact of biological asthma therapies and to identify key drivers that impact cost-effectiveness in order to provide recommendations for future economic evaluations. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature search in PubMed and Google Scholar. We included studies that assessed the cost-effectiveness of asthma biologics and were published in English between 2000 and 2018. The Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument was used to evaluate quality. RESULTS: Twenty asthma biological CEAs were identified. Nineteen studies analyzed the cost-effectiveness of omalizumab, and one study analyzed mepolizumab. Ten studies concluded that omalizumab was cost-effective in base-case scenarios, four studies concluded omalizumab was not cost-effective, and the remaining studies concluded omalizumab or mepolizumab was cost-effective only when targeted to specific severe subgroups or given considerable price discounts. Key drivers of cost-effectiveness included day-to-day health-related quality of life (HRQoL), asthma-related mortality, acquisition price of the biological therapy, and time horizon. CONCLUSIONS: Most studies recommended carefully targeting biological therapy to specific populations such as responders or discounting acquisition price in order to further improve value. The quality of the studies was generally satisfactory, but improved evidence is needed linking HRQoL to utilities as well as understanding interventions' impact on asthma-related mortality. Key recommendations from this review may allow for greater comparability across future cost-effectiveness studies.

Assessing the value of mepolizumab for severe eosinophilic asthma: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Adding mepolizumab to standard treatment with inhaled corticosteroids and controller medications could decrease asthma exacerbations and use of long-term oral steroids in patients with severe disease and increased eosinophils; however, mepolizumab is costly and its cost effectiveness is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost effectiveness of mepolizumab. METHODS: A Markov model was used to determine the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained for mepolizumab plus standard of care (SoC) and for SoC alone. The population, adults with severe eosinophilic asthma, was modeled for a lifetime time horizon. A responder scenario analysis was conducted to determine the cost effectiveness for a cohort able to achieve and maintain asthma control. RESULTS: Over a lifetime treatment horizon, 23.96 exacerbations were averted per patient receiving mepolizumab plus SoC. Avoidance of exacerbations and decrease in long-term oral steroid use resulted in more than $18,000 in cost offsets among those receiving mepolizumab, but treatment costs increased by more than $600,000. Treatment with mepolizumab plus SoC vs SoC alone resulted in a cost-effectiveness estimate of $386,000 per QALY. To achieve cost effectiveness of approximately $150,000 per QALY, mepolizumab would require a more than 60% price discount. At current pricing, treating a responder cohort yielded cost-effectiveness estimates near $160,000 per QALY. CONCLUSION: The estimated cost effectiveness of mepolizumab exceeds value thresholds. Achieving these thresholds would require significant discounts from the current list price. Alternatively, treatment limited to responders improves the cost effectiveness toward, but remains still slightly above, these thresholds. Payers interested in improving the efficiency of health care resources should consider negotiations of the mepolizumab price and ways to predict and assess the response to mepolizumab.

The "e" in cost-effectiveness analyses. A case study of omalizumab efficacy and effectiveness for cost-effectiveness analysis evidence.

This article is a call for increased use of real-world evidence in health technology assessment and related policy and decision making. There is currently a disconnect between evidence used to guide regulatory approval of therapies and evidence used to inform therapeutic coverage and reimbursement decisions. Public and private payers need to understand not only whether an intervention works but also whether it offers good value compared with licensed alternatives (not placebo) as they are used in the real-world practice and population (not in a controlled trial environment). Addressing such concerns requires evidence to be drawn from a wide range of study designs, but with consideration and weighting given to their relative strengths and weaknesses, as well as their position on the pragmatic-explanatory (i.e., effectiveness-efficacy) continuum. The potential impact of using different types of evidence to inform cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is discussed for omalizumab, comparing and contrasting a CEA model informed by an omalizumab efficacy trial to a CEA model drawing primarily on evidence from effectiveness observational studies of omalizumab. There was reasonable agreement between the two omalizumab CEA models, although the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio generated by the effectiveness observational study-driven model was more favorable for omalizumab. Health technology assessment bodies and payers must use their judgment to determine which components of efficacy-based and effectiveness-based CEA evidence are most closely aligned with their goals. For each CEA evidence component, perhaps the two E's form bounds of the truth as well as a fuller picture of the uncertainty surrounding the truth.

Cost analysis of interventions for antimuscarinic refractory patients with overactive bladder.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate average, initial, and cumulative procedure related costs from a US payer perspective extending up to 3 years for the overactive bladder (OAB) interventions: sacral neuromodulation (SNM), intra-detrusor botulinum toxin A (BoNTA), and augmentation cystoplasty (AC) for antimuscarinic refractory patients. METHODS: Costs (2007 US dollars) were calculated using Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes, Ambulatory Payment Classification (APC) codes; Diagnosis Related Group (DRG) payments, and Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) Level II Codes extracted from the literature and from the SNM device manufacturer. CPT codes were converted to costs using the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Relative Value Unit (RVU) fee schedule. Sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate assumptions and uncertainty of results based on plausible variation in estimates of key cost drivers. RESULTS: The initial treatment cost was $22,226, $1,313, and $10,252 for SNM, intra-detrusor injection of BoNTA, and AC respectively. The first-year cost was $23,614, $2626, and $11,637 respectively. Three years after initiating treatment, the cumulative cost was $26,269, $7651, and $14,337 respectively. Sensitivity analyses revealed that SNM persisted as the most costly intervention in all scenarios. The 3-year cumulative cost range produced by the sensitivity analyses for SNM, BoNTA, and AC was $25,384-$27,357, $4586-$11,476, and $12,315-$16,830, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: All estimates of cost endpoints for SNM were greater than those for BoNTA and AC. These cost estimates, when combined with data on outcomes and risks, are important components of a robust health care technology assessment of antimuscarinic treatment failure options.