Cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban versus warfarin for treatment of nonvalvular atrial fibrillation in patients with worsening renal function.

BACKGROUND: Nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) is highly prevalent and increases the risks of cardiovascular events. In a recent subgroup analysis, treatment response was shown to vary for patients exhibiting worsening renal function (WRF) on-treatment. It is important to understand the cost-effectiveness of novel oral anticoagulant (NOAC) use in this population. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) was conducted using a Markov model to determine whether NOAC rivaroxaban treatment is cost-effective relative to warfarin in NVAF patients with on-treatment WRF. Input parameters were sourced from clinical literature including a multicenter clinical trial and subgroup analysis. We studied elderly US male patients at increased risk for stroke (CHADS2 score ≥ 2) undergoing treatment for NVAF and exhibiting WRF. Main outcome measures included total healthcare costs in 2017 US dollars (societal perspective), total quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), and incremental net monetary benefits (INMB) per-patient. RESULTS: The remaining lifetime use of rivaroxaban is associated with 5.69 QALYs at a cost of $66,075 per patient, while warfarin produced 5.22 QALYs with costs of $78,504 per patient. At a willingness-to-pay (WTP) of $150,000 per QALY, incremental net monetary benefits (INMB) per patient are $83,590. In our population, treatment with warfarin was dominated by rivaroxaban in 99.4% of 10,000 simulations. CONCLUSIONS: Rivaroxaban is likely a dominant treatment over warfarin in elderly US male NVAF patients exhibiting WRF, providing increased QALYs at a decreased overall cost. Application of these findings may require healthcare providers to predict which patients are likely to exhibit WRF.

Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Sequential Treatment of Abaloparatide Followed by Alendronate Versus Teriparatide Followed by Alendronate in Postmenopausal Women With Osteoporosis in the United States.

BACKGROUND: The US Food and Drug Administration has recently approved abaloparatide (ABL) for treatment of women with postmenopausal osteoporosis (PMO) at high risk of fracture. With increasing health care spending and drug prices, it is important to quantify the value of newly available treatment options for PMO. OBJECTIVE: To determine cost-effectiveness of ABL compared with teriparatide (TPTD) for treatment of women with PMO in the United States. METHODS: A discrete-event simulation (DES) model was developed to assess cost-effectiveness of ABL from the US health care perspective. The model included three 18-month treatment strategies with either placebo (PBO), TPTD, or ABL, all followed by additional 5-year treatment with alendronate (ALN). High-risk patients were defined as women with PMO ⩾65 years old with a prior vertebral fracture. Baseline clinical event rates, risk reductions, and patient characteristics were based on the Abaloparatide Comparator Trial in Vertebral Endpoints (ACTIVE) trial. RESULTS: Over a 10-year period, the DES model yielded average total discounted per-patient costs of $10 212, $46 783, and $26 837 and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of 6.742, 6.781, and 6.792 for PBO/ALN, TPTD/ALN, and ABL/ALN, respectively. Compared with TPTD/ALN, ABL/ALN accrued higher QALYs at lower cost and produced an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $333 266/QALY relative to PBO/ALN. In high-risk women, ABL/ALN also had more QALYs and less cost over TPTD/ALN and yielded an ICER of $188 891/QALY relative to PBO/ALN. Conclusion and Relevance: ABL is a dominant treatment strategy over TPTD. In women with PMO at high risk of fracture, ABL is an alternative cost-effective treatment.

Factors Associated with Failure to Achieve SVR in Hepatitis C Genotype 3 Patients Within an Integrated Care Delivery System.

BACKGROUND: Achievement of sustained virologic response (SVR) and factors associated with treatment failure in hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 3 have been described in tertiary and referral care settings, with rates of SVR reported to range between 72% and 89%. Fewer data exist on SVR outside of these settings. OBJECTIVE: To describe rates of SVR and characterize factors associated with achievement of SVR within an integrated health care delivery system. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of genotype 3 HCV patients treated with dual therapy (pegylated interferon-alpha plus ribavirin) was conducted at Kaiser Permanente Southern California. Adult patients diagnosed with HCV and testing positive for HCV-RNA genotype 3 were identified from electronic medical records. Data were collected on patient demographics, baseline health status, and comorbid conditions. A multivariate logistic regression model was used to determine the association between baseline patient factors and SVR. RESULTS: A total of 484 HCV genotype 3 patients met the eligibility criteria. The median age was 49 years, and 65.7% were male. Overall, 252 (52.1%) achieved SVR. Aged ≥ 45 years and male gender were associated with lower rates of SVR; cirrhosis and chronic diseases (diabetes and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) were also associated with lower rates of SVR. CONCLUSIONS: SVR was lower in patients within an integrated care delivery system than in those in tertiary and referral centers. Males and older patients had lower rates of SVR, as well as patients with cirrhosis, diabetes, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Cost effectiveness of moderate to severe psoriasis therapy with etanercept and ustekinumab in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Limited information is available on the cost effectiveness of ustekinumab and alternative biologic treatments in a United States (US) setting. Given the recent head-to-head clinical trial study of ustekinumab and etanercept, an economic model comparing the two treatments can be constructed. Etanercept and ustekinumab are indicated for the treatment of chronic moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in adult patients who are candidates for phototherapy or systemic therapy. OBJECTIVE: Clinical trials have evaluated the efficacy of ustekinumab, an anti-cytokine biologic, for the treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis. This study evaluated the cost effectiveness of ustekinumab compared with etanercept from a US societal perspective. METHODS: A Markov model was constructed to simulate the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained every 12 weeks over a base-case 3-year time horizon. A hypothetical patient cohort was based on the characteristics of the phase III Active Comparator Psoriasis Trial (ACCEPT). The main outcome measures were costs and QALYs, which were estimated from the US societal perspective. Costs, utilities, treatment strategy, and resource use estimates were obtained from relevant literature. All costs were adjusted to 2011 US dollars. A 3 % annual discount rate was applied to costs and QALYs. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were in US dollars per QALY gained. RESULTS: For the base-case 3-year time horizon, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio comparing ustekinumab 90 mg with etanercept 50 mg was US$384,401 per QALY gained. Ustekinumab 45 mg dominates etanercept 50 mg for the same time horizon. These results were robust to sensitivity analyses involving treatment strategy, transition probabilities, valuing outcomes, and resource use and costs. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggests ustekinumab 90 mg has a minimal (4 %) chance of being cost effective compared with etanercept 50 mg at a willingness-to-pay threshold of US$150,000 per QALY improvement. For the same threshold, ustekinumab 45 mg has a high (88 %) chance of being cost effective compared with etanercept 50 mg. CONCLUSION: Under typical US willingness-to-pay cutoffs, ustekinumab 90 mg is not cost effective compared with etanercept 50 mg therapy in moderate to severe psoriasis patients for the base-case 3-year time horizon. Ustekinumab 45 mg dominates etanercept 50 mg therapy for an equivalent patient psoriasis severity and time horizon.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of rizatriptan and sumatriptan versus Cafergot in the acute treatment of migraine.

BACKGROUND: Both ergotamine and selective serotonin 5-HT(1B/1D) receptor agonists ('triptans') are currently used in the treatment of moderate to severe migraine. Ergotamine is a traditional therapy with a lower drug acquisition cost compared with triptans. It has been shown that triptans are more efficacious than ergotamine, but the higher acquisition costs and shorter duration of action are disadvantages of triptans compared with ergotamine. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to provide a comparison of the cost-effectiveness of rizatriptan 10 mg and sumatriptan 50 mg tablets with that of a fixed-dose combination of ergotamine tartrate plus caffeine (Cafergot) in the treatment of an acute migraine attack. The cost-effectiveness of rizatriptan in comparison with sumatriptan was also assessed. METHODS: Three separate decision tree models were developed (model 1: rizatriptan vs Cafergot; model 2: sumatriptan vs Cafergot; model 3: rizatriptan vs sumatriptan). The time horizon was 1 year. Cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted from the societal perspective using cost and effectiveness estimates from the literature. All costs were converted to US dollars (2003). The cost-effectiveness ratio was expressed as incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. RESULTS: Base case evaluation showed that both rizatriptan and sumatriptan dominated Cafergot. The net annual saving associated with use of rizatriptan was US dollars 622.98 per patient, with an incremental QALY of 0.001. Use of sumatriptan resulted in a saving of US dollars 620.90 and an increase in QALY. The cost-effective ratios were not sensitive to changes in key variables such as efficacy, utility, drug costs, hospitalisation cost and patient preference over alternative therapies. The study further showed that rizatriptan is more cost effective than sumatriptan, as evidenced by its lower cost and greater effectiveness. Sensitivity analysis showed that the cost-effectiveness ratios were sensitive to moderate changes in drug efficacy. CONCLUSION: Rizatriptan and sumatriptan were less costly and more effective than Cafergot in the treatment of an acute migraine attack. Rizatriptan was somewhat less costly and more effective than sumatriptan. Additional quality-of-life studies are needed to confirm the benefits of using triptans in the management of migraine.