Budget Impact Analysis of Vibegron for the Treatment of Overactive Bladder in the USA.

BACKGROUND: Overactive bladder (OAB) is associated with considerable clinical and economic burden. Treatment of patients with OAB using anticholinergics is limited by tolerability issues and increased anticholinergic burden, which is associated with increased risk of dementia and falls/fractures. This analysis assessed the budget impact of introducing the ß3-adrenergic agonist vibegron for the treatment of patients with OAB from US commercial payor and Medicare perspectives. METHODS: A budget impact model (BIM) with a 5-year time horizon was developed using a top-down, prevalence-based approach and projected market shares for 1-million-member US commercial and Medicare plans. The BIM included vibegron, mirabegron, and anticholinergics, incorporating changes in clinical outcomes (efficacy, drug-drug interactions, anticholinergic burden (ACB), OAB-related comorbidities, and adverse events (AEs)). Costs per member per month (PMPM) and per treated member per month (PTMPM) were determined. One-way sensitivity analyses quantified the impact of changes in key variables. RESULTS: The introduction of vibegron was associated with a modest increase in PMPM cost over 5 years of $0.12 (range for years 1‒5, $0.01‒$0.26) for commercial payors and $0.24 ($0.01‒$0.52) for Medicare (PTMPM cost: $2.70 ($0.17‒$4.85) and $3.15 ($0.19‒$5.82), respectively). Costs were partially offset by savings related to decreased third-line treatment use, yearly decreases in AE and comorbidity incidence, reduced drug-drug interactions, and reduced ACB associated with vibegron introduction. PMPM costs were most sensitive to vibegron market share assumptions, OAB prevalence, and vibegron persistence at 1 month for private payors and Medicare and additionally vibegron persistence at 12 months for Medicare. CONCLUSIONS: Vibegron may address unmet needs in treating OAB and is a useful addition to health plans while minimizing risks of anticholinergic AEs, ACB, and drug-drug interactions, which may partially offset increased pharmacy costs.

Adults with overactive bladder (OAB) experience frequent and sudden urges to urinate. OAB affects more than 100 million men and women in the USA. In 2020, the projected cost of OAB was $82.6 billion. One of the standard treatments for OAB includes a class of drugs called anticholinergics. Anticholinergic drugs can cause side effects such as dry mouth and constipation. Over time, taking a lot of anticholinergic drugs may lead to increased risk of cognitive impairment or dementia. Vibegron is from a different class of drug for the treatment of OAB known as ß₃-adrenergic receptor agonists. Adding a new drug to the market may have a financial impact on healthcare plans. This study assessed if adding vibegron for treating OAB is affordable in US commercial and Medicare plans. Adding vibegron to a health plan somewhat increased monthly costs over 5 years. For commercial insurance plans, monthly costs over 5 years increased $0.12 per person enrolled in the plan. For Medicare plans, monthly costs over 5 years increased $0.24 per person enrolled in the plan. However, adding vibegron to the market lowered overall costs not directly related to OAB by lowering healthcare costs related to taking a lot of anticholinergic drugs or costs of outpatient visits. Vibegron for treating OAB may be a helpful addition to health plans. Vibegron may reduce some healthcare costs for patients with OAB.

Computer Modeling of Diabetes and Its Transparency: A Report on the Eighth Mount Hood Challenge.

OBJECTIVES: The Eighth Mount Hood Challenge (held in St. Gallen, Switzerland, in September 2016) evaluated the transparency of model input documentation from two published health economics studies and developed guidelines for improving transparency in the reporting of input data underlying model-based economic analyses in diabetes. METHODS: Participating modeling groups were asked to reproduce the results of two published studies using the input data described in those articles. Gaps in input data were filled with assumptions reported by the modeling groups. Goodness of fit between the results reported in the target studies and the groups' replicated outputs was evaluated using the slope of linear regression line and the coefficient of determination (R2). After a general discussion of the results, a diabetes-specific checklist for the transparency of model input was developed. RESULTS: Seven groups participated in the transparency challenge. The reporting of key model input parameters in the two studies, including the baseline characteristics of simulated patients, treatment effect and treatment intensification threshold assumptions, treatment effect evolution, prediction of complications and costs data, was inadequately transparent (and often missing altogether). Not surprisingly, goodness of fit was better for the study that reported its input data with more transparency. To improve the transparency in diabetes modeling, the Diabetes Modeling Input Checklist listing the minimal input data required for reproducibility in most diabetes modeling applications was developed. CONCLUSIONS: Transparency of diabetes model inputs is important to the reproducibility and credibility of simulation results. In the Eighth Mount Hood Challenge, the Diabetes Modeling Input Checklist was developed with the goal of improving the transparency of input data reporting and reproducibility of diabetes simulation model results.

The Budget Impact of Increased Use of Febuxostat in the Management of Gout: A US Health Plan Managed Care Pharmacy and Medical Costs Perspective.

PURPOSE: Gout is a chronic disease characterized by the deposition of urate crystals in the joints and throughout the body, caused by an excess burden of serum uric acid (sUA). The study estimates pharmacy and medical cost budgetary impacts of wider adoption by US payers of febuxostat, a urate-lowering therapy (ULT) for the treatment of gout. METHODS: A US payer-perspective budget impact model followed ULT patients from a 1,000,000-member plan over 3 years. The current market share scenario, febuxostat (6%) and ULT allopurinol (94%), was compared with an 18% febuxostat market share. Data were implemented from randomized controlled trials, census and epidemiologic studies, and real-world database analyses. An innovation was the inclusion of gout-related chronic kidney disease costs. Cost results were estimated as annual and cumulative incremental costs, expressed as total costs, cost per member per month, and cost per treated member per month. Clinical results were also estimated. FINDINGS: Increasing the febuxostat market share resulted in a 6.3% increase in patients achieving the sUA target level of <6.0 mg/dL and a 1.4% reduction in gout flares during the 3-year period. Total cost increased 1.4%, with a 49.9% increase in ULT costs, a 1.4% reduction in flare costs, a 1.2% reduction in chronic kidney disease costs, and a 2.8% reduction in gout care costs. The cumulative incremental costs were $1,307,425 in the first year, $1,939,016 through the second year, and $2,092,744 through the third year. By the third year, savings in medical costs offset most of the increase in treatment costs. Impacts on cumulative cost per member per month and cumulative cost per treated member per month followed the same pattern, with the highest impact in the first year and cumulative impacts declining during the 3-year period. The cumulative cost per member per month impact was estimated as $0.109, $0.081, and $0.058 and the cumulative cost per treated member per month impact was estimated as $12.416, $9.207, and $6.625 in the first year, through the second year, and through the third year, respectively. IMPLICATIONS: Expanding the febuxostat market share would result in improved clinical outcomes, but with an overall increase in costs over 3 years due to higher costs of treatment. By the third year, savings in medical costs, primarily in chronic kidney disease costs, would offset most of the increase in treatment costs. Expanded use of febuxostat in the treatment of all gout patients, independent of renal impairment status, should be considered based on improved clinical outcomes and longer-term medical cost savings associated with these improved outcomes.

Evaluation of a patient self-directed mealtime insulin titration algorithm: a US payer perspective.

Objective To model the potential economic impact of implementing the AUTONOMY once daily (Q1D) patient self-titration mealtime insulin dosing algorithm vs standard of care (SOC) among a population of patients with Type 2 diabetes living in the US. Methods Three validated models were used in this analysis: The Treatment Transitions Model (TTM) was used to generate the primary results, while both the Archimedes (AM) and IMS Core Diabetes Models (IMS) were used to test the veracity of the primary results produced by TTM. Models used data from a 'real world' representative sample of patients (2012 US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey) that matched the characteristics of US patients enrolled in the randomized controlled trial 'AUTONOMY' cohort. The base-case time horizon was 10 years. Results The modeling results from TTM demonstrated that total costs in the base-case were reduced by $1732, with savings predicted to occur as early as year 1. Results from the three models were consistent, showing a reduction in total costs for all sensitivity analyses. Limitations Data from short-term clinical trials were used to develop long-term projections. The nature of such extrapolation leads to increased uncertainty. Conclusion The results from all three models indicate that the AUTONOMY Q1D algorithm has the potential to abate total costs as early as the first year.

Febuxostat in the management of gout: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost-effectiveness of febuxostat vs allopurinol for the management of gout. METHODS: A stochastic microsimulation cost-effectiveness model with a US private-payer perspective and 5-year time horizon was developed. Model flow based on guideline and real-world treatment paradigms incorporated gout flare, serum uric acid (sUA) testing, treatment titration, discontinuation, and adverse events, chronic kidney disease (CKD) incidence and progression, and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) incidence. Outcomes were estimated for the general gout population and for gout patients with CKD stages 3/4. Modeled treatment interventions were daily oral febuxostat 40-80 mg and allopurinol 100-300 mg. Baseline patient characteristics were taken from epidemiologic studies, efficacy data from randomized controlled trials, adverse event rates from package inserts, and costs from the literature, government sources, and expert opinion. Eight clinically-relevant incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were estimated: per patient reaching target sUA, per flare avoided, per CKD incidence, progression, stages 3/4 progression, and stage 5 progression avoided, per incident T2DM avoided, and per death avoided. RESULTS: Five-year incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for the general gout population were $5377 per patient reaching target sUA, $1773 per flare avoided, $221,795 per incident CKD avoided, $29,063 per CKD progression avoided, $36,018 per progression to CKD 3/4 avoided, $71,426 per progression to CKD 5 avoided, $214,277 per incident T2DM avoided, and $217,971 per death avoided. In patients with CKD 3/4, febuxostat dominated allopurinol for all cost-effectiveness outcome measures. CONCLUSIONS: Febuxostat may be a cost-effective alternative to allopurinol, especially for patients with CKD stages 3 or 4.

The evaluation of clinical and cost outcomes associated with earlier initiation of insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

BACKGROUND: The treatment for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) follows a stepwise progression. As a treatment loses its effectiveness, it is typically replaced with a more complex and frequently more costly treatment. Eventually this progression leads to the use of basal insulin typically with concomitant treatments (e.g., metformin, a GLP-1 RA [glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist], a TZD [thiazolidinedione] or a DPP-4i [dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor]) and, ultimately, to basal-bolus insulin in some forms. As the cost of oral antidiabetics (OADs) and noninsulin injectables have approached, and in some cases exceeded, the cost of insulin, we reexamined the placement of insulin in T2DM treatment progression. Our hypothesis was that earlier use of insulin produces clinical and cost benefits due to its superior efficacy and treatment scalability at an acceptable cost when considered over a 5-year period. OBJECTIVES: To (a) estimate clinical and payer cost outcomes of initiating insulin treatment for patients with T2DM earlier in their treatment progression and (b) estimate clinical and payer cost outcomes resulting from delays in escalating treatment for T2DM when indicated by patient hemoglobin A1c levels. METHODS: We developed a Monte Carlo microsimulation model to estimate patients reaching target A1c, diabetes-related complications, mortality, and associated costs under various treatment strategies for newly diagnosed patients with T2DM. Treatment efficacies were modeled from results of randomized clinical trials, including the time and rate of A1c drift. A typical treatment progression was selected based on the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes guidelines as the standard of care (SOC). Two treatment approaches were evaluated: two-stage insulin (basal plus antidiabetics followed by biphasic plus metformin) and single-stage insulin (biphasic plus metformin). For each approach, we analyzed multiple strategies. For each analysis, treatment steps were sequentially and cumulatively removed from the SOC until only the insulin steps remained. Delays in escalating treatment were evaluated by increasing the minimum time on a treatment within each strategy. The analysis time frame was 5 years. RESULTS: Relative to SOC, the two-stage insulin approach resulted in 0.10% to 1.79% more patients achieving target A1c (<7.0%), at incremental costs of $95 to $3,267. (The ranges are due to the different strategies within the approach.) With the single-stage approach, 0.50% to 2.63% more patients achieved the target A1c compared with SOC at an incremental cost of -$1,642 to $1,177. Major diabetes-related complications were reduced by 0.38% to 17.46% using the two-stage approach and 0.72% to 25.92% using the single-stage approach. Severe hypoglycemia increased by 17.97% to 60.43% using the two-stage approach and 6.44% to 68.87% using the single-stage approach. In the base case scenario, the minimum time on a specific treatment was 3 months. When the minimum time on each treatment was increased to 12 months (i.e., delayed), patients reaching A1c targets were reduced by 57%, complications increased by 13% to 76%, and mortality increased by 8% over 5 years when compared with the base case for the SOC. However, severe hypoglycemic events were reduced by 83%. CONCLUSIONS: As insulin was advanced earlier in therapy in the two-stage and single-stage approaches, patients reaching their A1c targets increased, severe hypoglycemic events increased, and diabetes-related complications and mortality decreased. Cost savings were estimated for 3 (of 4) strategies in the single-stage approach. Delays in treatment escalation substantially reduced patients reaching target A1c levels and increased the occurrence of major nonhypoglycemic diabetic complications. With the exception of substantial increases in severe hypoglycemic events, earlier use of insulin mitigates the clinical consequences of these delays.

Estimated economic benefits from low-frequency administration of atypical antipsychotics in treatment of schizophrenia: a decision model.

The objective of this study was to quantify the direct medical resources used and the corresponding burden of disease in the treatment of patients with schizophrenia. Because low-frequency administration (LFA) of risperidone guarantees adherence during treatment intervals and offers fewer opportunities to discontinue, adherence and persistence were assumed to improve, thereby reducing relapses of major symptoms.A decision tree model including Markov processes with monthly cycles and a five-year maximum timeframe was constructed. Costs were adapted from the literature and discounted at a 3% annual rate. The population is a demographically homogeneous cohort of patients with schizophrenia, differentiated by initial disease severity (mildly ill, moderately ill, and severely ill). Treatment parameters are estimated using published information for once-daily risperidone standard oral therapy (RIS-SOT) and once-monthly risperidone long-acting injection (RIS-LAI) with LFA therapy characteristics derived from observed study trends. One-year and five-year results are expressed as discounted direct medical costs and mean number of relapses per patient (inpatient, outpatient, total) and are estimated for LFA therapies given at three, six, and nine month intervals.The one-year results show that LFA therapy every 3 months (LFA-3) ($6,088) is less costly than either RIS-SOT ($10,721) or RIS-LAI ($9,450) with similar trends in the 5-year results. Moreover, the model predicts that LFA-3 vs. RIS-SOT vs. RIS LAI therapy will reduce costly inpatient relapses (0.16 vs. 0.51 vs. 0.41). Extending the interval to six (LFA-6) and nine (LFA-9) months resulted in further reductions in relapse and costs.Limitations include the fact that LFA therapeutic options are hypothetical and do not yet exist and limited applicability to compare one antipsychotic agent versus another as only risperidone therapy is evaluated. However, study results have quantified the potential health state improvements and potential direct medical cost savings achievable with the development and use of LFA medication delivery technologies.