Olaparib as first line in BRCA-mutated advanced ovarian carcinoma: Is it cost-effective in Spain?

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of olaparib after being funded by the Spanish National Health Service (SNHS) as first-line monotherapy maintenance treatment in patients with advanced high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma (HGSOC) and BRCA mutations in Spain. METHODS: A semi-Markov model with one-month cycles was adapted to the Spanish healthcare setting, using the perspective of the SNHS, and a time horizon of 50 years. Two scenarios were compared: receiving olaparib vs. no maintenance treatment. The model comprised four health states and included the clinical results of the SOLO1 study, along with the direct healthcare costs associated with the use of first-line and subsequent treatment resources (2020 €). A discount rate of 3% was applied for future cost and quality-of-life outcomes. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was also carried out and a cost-effectiveness threshold of €25,000 per quality adjusted life year (QALY) was considered. RESULTS: The introduction of olaparib as a first-line maintenance treatment for advanced HGSOC patients with BRCA mutations implied a cost of €131,614.98 compared to €102,369.54 without olaparib (difference: €29,245.44), with an improvement of 2.00 QALYs (5.56 and 3.57, respectively). Therefore, olaparib is cost-effective for advanced HGSOC patients with BRCA mutations, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €14,653.2/QALY. The results from the PSA showed that 92.1% of the simulations fell below the €25,000/QALY threshold. The model showed that olaparib could improve the overall survival by 2 years, vs. no maintenance treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Olaparib as first-line maintenance treatment is cost-effective in advanced HGSOC patients with BRCA mutations in Spain.

Patient cost sharing during poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor treatment in ovarian cancer.

BACKGROUND: More patients with ovarian cancer are being treated with poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitors because regulatory agencies have granted these drugs new approvals for a variety of treatment indications. However, poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitors are expensive. When administered as a maintenance therapy, these drugs may be administered for months or years. How much of this cost patients experience as out-of-pocket spending is unknown. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to estimate the out-of-pocket spending that patients experience during poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor treatment and to characterize which healthcare services account for that spending. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study was performed with a sample of patients with ovarian cancer treated between 2014 and 2017 with olaparib, niraparib, or rucaparib. Patients were identified using MarketScan, a health insurance claims database. All insurance claims during poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor treatment were collected. The primary outcome variable was the patients' out-of-pocket spending (copayment, coinsurance, and deductibles) during poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor treatment for the medication itself. Other outcomes of interest included out-of-pocket spending for other healthcare services, the types and frequency of other healthcare services used, health plan spending, the estimated proportion of patients' household income used each month for healthcare, and patients' out-of-pocket spending immediately before poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor treatment. RESULTS: We identified 503 patients with ovarian cancer with a median age of 55 years (interquartile range, 50-62 years); 83% of those had out-of-pocket spendings during poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor treatment. The median treatment duration was 124 days (interquartile range, 66-240 days). The mean out-of-pocket spending for poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitors was $305 (standard deviation, $2275) per month. On average, this accounted for 44.8% (standard deviation, 34.8%) of the patients' overall monthly out-of-pocket spending. The mean out-of-pocket spending for other healthcare services was $165 (standard deviation, $769) per month. Health plans spent, on average, $12,661 (standard deviation, $15,668) per month for poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitors and $7108 (standard deviation, $15,254) per month for all other healthcare services. The cost sharing for office visits, laboratory tests, and imaging studies represented the majority of non-poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor treatment out-of-pocket spending. The average amount patients paid for all healthcare services per month during poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor treatment was $470 (standard deviation, $2407), which was estimated to be 8.7% of the patients' monthly household income. The mean out-of-pocket spending in the 12 months before poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor treatment was $3110 (standard deviation, $6987). CONCLUSION: Patients can face high out-of-pocket costs for poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitors, although the sum of cost sharing for other healthcare services used during poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor treatment is often higher. The spending on healthcare costs consumes a large proportion of these patients' household income. Patients with ovarian cancer experience high out-of-pocket costs for healthcare, both before and during poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor treatment.

Cost-effectiveness of olaparib as a maintenance treatment for women with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer and BRCA1/2 mutations in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of olaparib monotherapy in the first-line maintenance setting vs. surveillance in women with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer and a BRCA1/2 mutation from a US third-party payer perspective. METHODS: A three-state (progression free, progressed disease, and death) partitioned survival model over a 50-year lifetime horizon was developed. Piecewise models were applied to data from the phase III trial SOLO1 to extrapolate survival outcomes. Health state utilities and adverse event disutilities were obtained from literature and SOLO1. Treatment costs, adverse event costs, and medical costs associated with health states were obtained from publicly available databases, SOLO1, and real-world data. Time on treatment was estimated using the data from SOLO1. Incremental costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and life year (LY) gained were estimated. One-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Over a lifetime horizon, olaparib was associated with an additional 3.63 LYs and 2.93 QALYs, and an incremental total cost of $152,545 vs. surveillance. Incremental cost per LY gained and per QALY gained for olaparib were $42,032 and $51,986, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios remained below $100,000 across a range of inputs and scenarios. In the PSA, the probability of olaparib being cost-effective at a $100,000 per QALY threshold was 99%. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to surveillance, olaparib increases both the LYs and QALYs of women with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer and with a germline or somatic BRCA mutation. Olaparib offers a cost-effective maintenance option for these women from a US third-party payer perspective.

Cost-effectiveness of niraparib, rucaparib, and olaparib for treatment of platinum-resistant, recurrent ovarian carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Olaparib was approved on December 19, 2014 by the US FDA as 4th-line therapy (and beyond) for patients with germline BRCA1/2 mutations; rucaparib was approved on December 19, 2016 as 3rd-line therapy (and beyond) for germline or somatic BRCA1/2-mutated recurrent disease. On October 23, 2019, niraparib was approved for treatment of women with damaging mutations in BRCA1/2 or other homologous recombination repair genes who had been treated with three or more prior regimens. We compared the cost-effectiveness of PARPi(s) with intravenous regimens for platinum-resistant disease. METHODS: Median progression-free survival (PFS) and toxicity data from regulatory trials were incorporated in a model which transitioned patients through response, hematologic complications, non-hematologic complications, progression, and death. Using TreeAge Pro 2017, each PARPi(s) was compared separately to non­platinum-based and bevacizumab-containing regimens. Costs of IV drugs, managing toxicities, infusions, and supportive care were estimated using 2017 Medicare data. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated and PFS was reported in quality adjusted life months for platinum-resistant populations. RESULTS: Non­platinum-based intravenous chemotherapy was most cost effective ($6,412/PFS-month) compared with bevacizumab-containing regimens ($12,187/PFS-month), niraparib ($18,970/PFS-month), olaparib ($16,327/PFS-month), and rucaparib ($16,637/PFS-month). ICERs for PARPi(s) were 3-3.5× times greater than intravenous non­platinum-based regimens. CONCLUSION: High costs of orally administered PARPi(s) were not mitigated or balanced by costs of infusion and managing toxicities of intravenous regimens typically associated with lower response and shorter median PFS. Balancing modest clinical benefit with costs of novel therapies remains problematic and could widen disparities among those with limited access to care.

Real world experience of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor use in a community oncology practice.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to describe the real-world experience, including the clinical and financial burden, associated with PARP inhibitors in a large community oncology practice. METHODS: Retrospective chart review identified patients prescribed olaparib, niraparib or rucaparib for maintenance therapy or treatment of recurrent ovarian, primary peritoneal or fallopian tube cancer across twelve gynecologic oncologists between December 2016 and November 2018. Demographic, financial and clinical data were extracted. One PARP cycle was defined as a single 28-day period. For patients treated with more than one PARPi, each course was described separately. RESULTS: A total of 47 patients and 506 PARP cycles were identified (122 olaparib, 24%; 89 rucaparib, 18%; 294 niraparib, 58%). Incidence of grade ≥ 3 adverse events were similar to previously reported. Toxicity resulted in dose interruption, reduction and discontinuation in 69%, 63% and 29% respectively. Dose interruptions were most frequent for niraparib but resulted in fewer discontinuations (p-value 0.01). Mean duration of use was 7.46 cycles (olaparib 10.52, rucaparib 4.68, niraparib 7.34). Average cost of PARPi therapy was $8018 per cycle. A total of 711 phone calls were documented (call rate 1.4 calls/cycle) with the highest call volume required for care coordination, lab results and toxicity management. CONCLUSIONS: Although the toxicity profile was similar to randomized clinical trials, this real-world experience demonstrated more dose modifications and discontinuations for toxicity management than previously reported. Furthermore, the clinical and financial burden of PARP inhibitors may be significant and future studies should assess the impact on patient outcomes.

Cost-Effectiveness of Maintenance Olaparib for Germline BRCA-Mutated Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Maintenance therapy with the PARP inhibitor olaparib for metastatic pancreatic cancer (MPC) with a germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation has been shown to be effective. We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of maintenance olaparib for MPC from the US payer perspective. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A partitioned survival model was adopted to project the disease course of MPC. Efficacy and toxicity data were gathered from the Pancreas Cancer Olaparib Ongoing (POLO) trial. Transition probabilities were estimated from the reported survival probabilities in each POLO group. Cost and health preference data were derived from the literature. The incremental cost-utility ratio, incremental net-health benefit, and incremental monetary benefit were measured. Subgroup analysis, one-way analysis, and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed to explore the model uncertainties. RESULTS: Maintenance olaparib had an incremental cost-utility ratio of $191,596 per additional progression-free survival (PFS) quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, with a high cost of $132,287 and 0.691 PFS QALY gained, compared with results for a placebo. Subgroup analysis indicated that maintenance olaparib achieved at least a 16.8% probability of cost-effectiveness at the threshold of $200,000/QALY. One-way sensitivity analyses revealed that the results were sensitive to the hazard ratio of PFS and the cost of olaparib. When overall survival was considered, maintenance olaparib had an incremental cost-utility ratio of $265,290 per additional QALY gained, with a high cost of $128,266 and 0.483 QALY gained, compared with results for a placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Maintenance olaparib is potentially cost-effective compared with placebo for patients with a germline BRCA mutation and MPC. Economic outcomes could be improved by tailoring treatment based on individual patient factors.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of palbociclib or ribociclib in the treatment of advanced hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Three CDK4/6 inhibitors, palbociclib (PAL), ribociclib (RIB), and abemaciclib, when combined with letrozole (LET), have been approved as first-line therapy for postmenopausal women with metastatic HR+, HER2- breast cancer. However, an economic evaluation of these newer therapies is currently lacking. The purpose of this article is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of PAL or RIB for the treatment of advanced HR+, HER2- breast cancer in the United States. METHODS: A Markov simulation model was constructed using data from published clinical trials evaluating PAL and RIB. Three simulated treatment strategies included PAL + LET, RIB + LET, or LET alone. The main outcome measures were simulated progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). RESULTS: Simulated median OS was 38.9 months for PAL + LET and 33.0 months for LET alone. Simulated median OS for RIB + LET was 43.3 months. Compared to LET alone, PAL + LET provided an additional 0.48 QALYs, on average, with an ICER of $634,000 per QALY gained; RIB + LET provided an additional 0.86 QALYs, on average, with an ICER of $440,000 per QALY gained. At current prices, neither PAL nor RIB was cost-effective, assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per QALY gained. To reach such a cost-effectiveness threshold, PAL and RIB prices must decrease by approximately 70%. CONCLUSION: Despite significant gains in progression-free survival over letrozole alone, the addition of palbociclib or ribociclib in the treatment of advanced HR+, HER2- breast cancer is not cost-effective in the United States given current drug prices.

Cost-effectiveness and safety of palbociclib and everolimus for treating advanced and recurrent breast cancer.

This retrospective study compares the economic superiority of palbociclib versus everolimus for advanced and recurrent breast cancer. Furthermore, we investigated the safety and treatment continuity of palbociclib and everolimus regimens. Expected costs were calculated based on data from patients with advanced and recurrent breast cancer who were treated with palbociclib and everolimus. The progression-free survival (PFS) from the PALOMA-3 clinical trial and BOLERO-2 clinical trial was used to evaluate the therapeutic efficacy of the regimens. The cost-effectiveness ratio of each chemotherapy agent was calculated by dividing the expected cost by the progression-free survival (PFS). The cost-effectiveness ratio per month was JPY 391,551.3/PFS for palbociclib and JPY 488,690.5/PFS for everolimus (p=0.627). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per month of everolimus to palbociclib was JPY 100,133.7/PFS. For patients receiving everolimus, adverse drug reactions included stomatitis (77.3%), rash (59.1%) and leukopenia (59.1%). For patients receiving palbociclib, neutropenia (69.2%), leukopenia (69.2%) and anemia (30.8%) occurred. In terms of discontinuation owing to adverse events (AEs), pneumonitis, thrombocytopenia, edema, fatigue, and neutropenia were experienced in the everolimus group. The cost-effectiveness of everolimus and palbociclib are equivalent, but since the prevalence of AEs is high in patients receiving everolimus, its AE management is important.

Liver Resection for Breast Cancer Liver Metastases: A Cost-utility Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of liver resection followed by adjuvant systemic therapy relative to systemic therapy alone for patients with breast cancer liver metastasis. BACKGROUND: Data on cost-effectiveness of liver resection for advanced breast cancer with liver metastasis are lacking. METHODS: A decision-analytic Markov model was constructed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of liver resection followed by postoperative conventional systemic therapy (strategy A) versus conventional therapy alone (strategy B) versus newer targeted therapy alone (strategy C). The implications of using different chemotherapeutic regimens based on estrogen receptor and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status was also assessed. Outcomes included quality-adjusted life months (QALMs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, and net health benefit (NHB). RESULTS: NHB of strategy A was 10.9 QALMs compared with strategy B when letrozole was used as systemic therapy, whereas it was only 0.3 QALMs when docetaxel + trastuzumab was used as a systemic therapy. The addition of newer biological agents (strategy C) significantly decreased the cost-effectiveness of strategy B (conventional systemic therapy alone). The NHB of strategy A was 31.6 QALMs versus strategy C when palbociclib was included in strategy C; similarly, strategy A had a NHB of 13.8 QALMs versus strategy C when pertuzumab was included in strategy C. Monte-Carlo simulation demonstrated that the main factor influencing NHB of strategy A over strategy C was the cost of systemic therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Liver resection in patients with breast cancer liver metastasis proved to be cost-effective when compared with systemic therapy alone, particularly in estrogen receptor-positive tumors or when newer agents were used.

Palbociclib as a first-line treatment in oestrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative, advanced breast cancer not cost-effective with current pricing: a health economic analysis of the Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research (SAKK).

Endocrine therapy continues to be the optimal systemic treatment for metastatic ER(+)HER2(-) breast cancer. The CDK4/6 inhibitor palbociclib combined with letrozole has recently been shown to significantly improve progression-free survival. Here we examined the cost-effectiveness of this regimen for the Swiss healthcare system. A Markov cohort simulation based on the PALOMA-1 trial (Finn et al. in Lancet Oncol 16:25-35, 2015) was used as the clinical course. Input parameters were based on summary trial data. Costs were assessed from the Swiss healthcare system perspective. Adding palbociclib to letrozole (PALLET) compared to letrozole monotherapy was estimated to cost an additional CHF342,440 and gain 1.14 quality-adjusted life years, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of CHF301,227/QALY gained. In univariate sensitivity analyses, no tested variation in key parameters resulted in an ICER below a willingness-to-pay threshold of CHF100,000/QALY. PALLET had a 0 % probability of being cost-effective in probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Lowering PALLET's price by 75 % resulted in an ICER of CHF73,995/QALY and a 73 % probability of being cost-effective. At current prices, PALLET would cost the Swiss healthcare system an additional CHF155 million/year. Palbociclib plus letrozole cannot be considered cost-effective for the first-line treatment of patients with metastatic breast cancer in the Swiss healthcare system.

Changing the cost of care for chronic myeloid leukemia: the availability of generic imatinib in the USA and the EU.

Imatinib is an oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor and considered to be the most successful targeted anti-cancer agent yet developed given its substantial efficacy in treating chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) and other malignant diseases. In the USA and the European Union (EU), Novartis' composition of matter patent on imatinib will expire in 2016. The potential impact on health system spending levels for CML after generic imatinib becomes available is the subject of significant interest among stakeholders. The extent of the potential savings largely depends on whether and to what extent prices decline and use stays the same or even increases. These are also empirical questions since the likely spending implications following generic imatinib's availability are predicated on multiple factors: physicians' willingness to prescribe generic imatinib, molecule characteristics, and health system priorities. This article discusses each of these issues in turn. We then review their implications for the development of country-specific cost-effectiveness models to predict the implications for cost and quality of care from generic imatinib.

PARP inhibitor maintenance therapy for patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

PURPOSE: To determine the cost-effectiveness of olaparib, a PARP inhibitor, as maintenance therapy for platinum-sensitive (PS) recurrent ovarian cancer. METHODS: Two separate decision analysis models compared the cost of observation versus olaparib maintenance therapy in patients with PS recurrent ovarian cancer, one for patients with a germline BRCA1/2 mutation and one for patients with wild-type BRCA1/2. Patients received six cycles of paclitaxel and carboplatin. Drug costs were estimated using 2014-2015 wholesale acquisition costs. The cost of olaparib was estimated at $13,440 per month. Rate of germline BRCA1/2 mutation was estimated at 20%. Progression-free survival was determined from published data. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) per progression-free life-year saved (PF-LYS) were calculated. A sensitivity analysis estimated the cost at which olaparib would be cost-effective. RESULTS: We estimated that there were 5549 patients diagnosed with PS recurrent ovarian cancer in the United States annually. The cost of observation in 1110 patients with a BRCA1/2 mutation was $5.5 million (M) versus $169.2M for maintenance therapy with olaparib. The ICER for olaparib maintenance therapy in patients with a BRCA mutation was $258,864 per PF-LYS. If the cost of olaparib was decreased to $2500 per month, the ICER was $49,584. For the 4439 patients with wild-type BRCA, the cost of maintenance therapy was $444.2M; the ICER was $600,552 per PF-LYS. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with a germline BRCA1/2 mutation, maintenance therapy with olaparib is not cost-effective with an ICER of $258,864 per PF-LYS. To achieve an ICER of less than $50,000, the cost of olaparib should be $2500 or less per month. For wild-type BRCA1/2 patients, maintenance therapy with olaparib is not cost-effective.

Cost-effectiveness of genotype-guided and dual antiplatelet therapies in acute coronary syndrome.

BACKGROUND: The choice of antiplatelet therapy after acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is complicated: Ticagrelor and prasugrel are novel alternatives to clopidogrel, patients with some genotypes may not respond to clopidogrel, and low-cost generic formulations of clopidogrel are available. OBJECTIVE: To determine the most cost-effective strategy for dual antiplatelet therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention for ACS. DESIGN: Decision-analytic model. DATA SOURCES: Published literature, Medicare claims, and life tables. TARGET POPULATION: Patients having percutaneous coronary intervention for ACS. TIME HORIZON: Lifetime. PERSPECTIVE: Societal. INTERVENTION: Five strategies were examined: generic clopidogrel, prasugrel, ticagrelor, and genotyping for polymorphisms of CYP2C19 with carriers of loss-of-function alleles receiving either ticagrelor (genotyping with ticagrelor) or prasugrel (genotyping with prasugrel) and noncarriers receiving clopidogrel. OUTCOME MEASURES: Direct medical costs, quality-adjusted life years(QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS: The clopidogrel strategy produced$179 301 in costs and 9.428 QALYs. Genotyping with prasugrel was superior to prasugrel alone, with an ICER of $35 800 per QALY relative to clopidogrel. Genotyping with ticagrelor was more effective than genotyping with prasugrel ($30 200 per QALY relative to clopidogrel). Ticagrelor was the most effective strategy($52 600 per QALY relative to genotyping with ticagrelor). RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: Stronger associations between genotype and thrombotic outcomes rendered ticagrelor substantially less cost-effective ($104 800 per QALY). Genotyping with prasugrel was the preferred therapy among patients who could not tolerate ticagrelor. LIMITATION: No randomized trials have directly compared genotyping strategies or prasugrel with ticagrelor. CONCLUSION: Genotype-guided personalization may improve the cost-effectiveness of prasugrel and ticagrelor after percutaneous coronary intervention for ACS, but ticagrelor for all patients may bean economically reasonable alternative in some settings.

Venous leakage treatment revisited: pelvic venoablation using aethoxysclerol under air block technique and Valsalva maneuver.

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the effectiveness of pelvic vein embolization with aethoxysclerol in aero-block technique for the treatment of impotence due to venous leakage in men using sildenafil for intercourse. The aim of the procedure was to reduce the use of sildenafil. METHODS: A total of 96 patients with veno-occlusive dysfunction, severe enough for the need of PDE5 inhibitors for vaginal penetration, underwent pelvic venoablation with aethoxysclerol. The mean patient age was 53.5 years. Venous leaks were identified by Color Doppler Ultrasound after intracavernous alprostadil injection. Under local anesthesia a 20-gauge needle was inserted into the deep dorsal penile vein. The pelvic venogram was obtained through deep dorsal venography. Aethoxysclerol 3% as sclerosing agent was injected after air-block under Valsalva manoeuver. Success was defined as the ability to achieve vaginal insertion without the aid of any drugs, vasoactive injections, penile prosthesis, or vacuum device. Additionally, a pre- and post- therapy IIEF score and a digital overnight spontaneous erections protocol (OSEP) with the NEVA™-system was performed. RESULTS: At 3 month follow-up 77 out of 96 patients (80.21%) reported to have erections sufficient for vaginal insertion without the use of any drug or additional device. Four (4.17%) patients did not report any improvement. Follow up with color Doppler ultrasound revealed a new or persistent venous leakage in 8 (8.33%) of the patients. No serious complications occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Our new pelvic venoablation technique using aethoxysclerol in air-block technique was effective, minimally invasive, and cost-effective. All patients were able to perform sexual intercourse without the previously used dosage of PDE5 inhibitor. This new method may help in patients with contra-indications against PDE5 inhibitors, in patients who cannot afford the frequent usage of expensive oral medication or those who do not fully respond to PDE5-inhibitors.

Management of ED under the "severe distress" criteria in the NHS: a real-life study.

INTRODUCTION: The United Kingdom is unusual in that a significant proportion of patients with erectile dysfunction (ED) have their treatment fully reimbursed by the National Health Service (NHS). This may have consequences for the choice of treatment and for compliance with treatment. AIMS: The aim of this study was to evaluate the use and cost implications of phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor in an NHS setting. METHODS: Basic demographics and data on ED management for patients treated from January 2000 to April 2011 were obtained from a prospectively accrued database. We reviewed drug usage and costs as well as switching between drugs. Patients were given the choice of all available therapies and were followed up annually. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Switching, compliance, and costs of treating ED under the "severe distress" criteria in the NHS were reviewed for this study. RESULTS: Two thousand one hundred fifty-nine patients qualified for reimbursed therapy. Two hundred twenty-six patients were excluded from further analysis owing to missing data. Patients were followed up on an annual basis. The mean patient age was 60.2 years (min 23, max 90), and the mean follow-up was 50.8 months (min 1, max 127). Six hundred ninety-six were started on sildenafil, 990 on tadalafil, 163 on vardenafil, and 84 on intracavernosal alprostadil. Eighteen percent of patients initially started on the scheme and stopped medication unilaterally. Of the patients, 12.3% changed their medication during follow-up. The cost of drugs increased year by year from £257,100 in 2007 to £352,519 in 2011. CONCLUSIONS: Our real-life observational study shows that in our institution, dropout of therapy is unusual. We hypothesize that this reflects, in part, the reimbursement issue. We also found that switching between drugs was unusual, although there are several possible explanations for that. Although this is a successful system for the patients, the hospital, which bears the costs of medication, is finding this an increasing economic drain.

Cost-effectiveness of second-generation antipsychotics for the treatment of schizophrenia.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost-effectiveness of alternate treatment strategies using second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) for patients with schizophrenia. METHODS: We developed a Markov model to estimate the costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for different sequences of treatments for 40-year-old patients with schizophrenia. We considered first-line treatment with one of the four SGAs: olanzapine (OLZ), risperidone (RSP), quetiapine (QTP), and ziprasidone (ZSD). Patients could switch to another of these antipsychotics as second-line therapy, and only clozapine (CLZ) was allowed as third-line treatment. We derived parameter estimates from the Clinical Antipsychotic Trial of Intervention Effectiveness (CATIE) study and published sources. RESULTS: The ZSD-QTP strategy (first-line treatment with ZSD, change to QTP if ZSD is discontinued, and switch to CLZ if QTP is discontinued) was most costly while yielding the greatest QALYs, with an incremental cost-effective ratio (ICER) of $542,500 per QALY gained compared with the ZSD-RSP strategy. However, the ZSD-RSP strategy had an ICER of $5,200/QALY gained versus the RSP-ZSD strategy and had the greatest probability of being cost-effective given a willingness-to-pay threshold between $50,000 and $100,000 per QALY. All other treatment strategies were more costly and less effective than another strategy or combination of other strategies. Results varied by different time horizons adopted. CONCLUSIONS: The ZSD-RSP strategy was most cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold between $5,200 and $542,500 per QALY. Our results should be interpreted with caution because they are based largely on the CATIE trial with potentially limited generalizability to all patient populations and doses of SGAs used in practice.

[Impact of potentially inappropriate drug usage on health insurance business results]. / Auswirkungen der Einnahme potenziell inadäquater Medikamente auf die Ergebnisse eines Versicherungs-unternehmens.

In Germany a list was drawn up that included 83 potentially inappropriate drugs. The PRISCUS list published in 2010 was intended to highlight certain problems in the pharmakotherapy of elderly patients and serve as a support for improved medicine safety. Almost a third of the insurance portfolio of the HALLESCHE Krankenversicherung aged over 75 years takes drugs that are on the PRISCUS list. Benzodiazepine and Z-drugs are taken most frequently. The costs per insurant with potentially inappropriate medication are on average higher than for policyholders who do not take drugs on the PRISCUS list. The costs per insurant are rising, with an increase in the number of PRISCUS agents being taken as well. However, there is still no scientific proof that potentially inappropriate drugs lead to adverse drug events.

Health care resource utilization and costs for treatment-experienced people with HIV switching or restarting antiretroviral regimens since 2018.

BACKGROUND: There is a need to understand health care resource utilization (HCRU) and costs associated with treatment-experienced people with HIV (PWH) switching treatment regimens. OBJECTIVE: To describe HCRU and cost during lines of antiretroviral therapy (ART) for treatment-experienced PWH switching to or restarting guideline-recommended, integrase strand transfer inhibitor (INSTI)-based multitablet regimens and single-tablet regimens. METHODS: This retrospective claims study used data from Optum Research Database (January 1, 2010, to March 31, 2020) to identify lines of therapy (LOTs) for treatment-experienced adults who switched to or restarted INSTI-based regimens between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2019. The first LOT during the study period was included in the analysis. We examined all-cause HCRU and costs and HIV-related HCRU and combined costs to the health plan and direct patient costs by site of service and compared between INSTI-based regimens: bictegravir/emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide (B/F/TAF) (single tablet) vs dolutegravir/abacavir/lamivudine (DTG/ABC/3TC) (single tablet), dolutegravir + emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide (DTG+FTC/TAF) (multitablet), and dolutegravir + emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (DTG+FTC/TDF) (multitablet). Analysis of HCRU by site of service was conducted following inverse probability treatment weighting. Multivariable regression was conducted using a generalized linear model with stepwise covariate selection to estimate HIV-related medical costs and control for remaining differences after inverse probability treatment weighting. RESULTS: 4,251 PWH were identified: B/F/TAF (n = 2,727; 64.2%), DTG/ABC/3TC (n = 898; 21.1%), DTG+FTC/TAF (n = 539; 12.7%), and DTG+FTC/TDF (n = 87; 2.1%). PWH treated with DTG+FTC/TAF had a significantly higher mean of all-cause ambulatory visits than PWH treated with B/F/TAF (1.8 vs 1.6, P < 0.001). A significantly smaller proportion of PWH treated with DTG/ABC/3TC had an all-cause ambulatory visit vs PWH treated with B/F/TAF (90.6% vs 93.9%, P < 0.001). All-cause total costs were not significantly different between regimens. Mean (SD) medical HIV-related costs per month during the LOT were not significantly different between B/F/TAF $699 (3,602), DTG/ABC/3TC $770 (3,469), DTG+FTC/TAF $817 (3,128), and DTG+FTC/TDF $3,570 (17,691). After further controlling for unbalanced measures, HIV-related medical costs during the LOT were higher (20%) but did not reach statistical significance for DTG/ABC/3TC (cost ratio = 1.20, 95% CI = 0.851-1.694; P = 0.299), 49% higher for DTG+FTC/TAF (cost ratio = 1.489, 95% CI = 1.018-2.179; P = 0.040), and almost 11 times greater for DTG+FTC/TDF (cost ratio = 10.759, 95% CI = 2.182-53.048; P = 0.004) compared with B/F/TAF. CONCLUSIONS: HIV-related medical costs during the LOT were lowest for PWH treated with INSTI-based single-tablet regimens. Simplifying treatment regimens may help PWH maintain lower health care costs.