Treatment intensification with bempedoic acid to achieve LDL-C goal in patients with ASCVD: A simulation model using a real-world patient cohort in the US.

Background and aims: Guidelines recommend that high-risk patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) be treated with maximally tolerated statins to lower low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels and reduce the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events. In patients whose LDL-C remains elevated, non-statin adjunct therapies, including ezetimibe (EZE), bempedoic acid (BA), and proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors are recommended. Methods: The impact of BA and EZE in a fixed-dose combination (FDC) on LDL-C goal attainment was evaluated using a simulation model developed for a United States cohort of high-risk adults with ASCVD. Treatment was simulated for 73,056 patients not at goal (LDL-C >70 mg/dL), comparing BA + EZE (FDC), EZE only, and no oral adjunct therapy (NOAT). The addition of PCSK9 inibitors was assumed after 1 year in patients not at LDL-C goal. Treatment efficacy was estimated from clinical trials. Patient-level outcomes were predicted over a 10-year horizon accounting for treatment discontinuation and general mortality. Results: Baseline mean age of the cohort was 67 years, most were White (79%) and male (56%). A majority had established coronary artery disease (75%), 48% had diabetes, and mean LDL-C was 103.0 mg/dL. After 1 year, 79% of patients achieved LDL-C goal (mean, 61.1 mg/dL) with BA + EZE (FDC) compared to 58% and 42% with EZE (71.7 mg/dL) and NOAT (78.4 mg/dL), respectively. Conclusions: This simulation shows that adding BA + EZE (FDC) to maximally tolerated statins would result in more patients achieving LDL-C goal than adding EZE alone or NOAT.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Biomarker Testing to Guide First-Line PARP Inhibitor Maintenance for Patients with Advanced Ovarian Cancer After Response to First-Line Platinum Chemotherapy in the USA.

BACKGROUND: Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor maintenance treatments are available for platinum-sensitive advanced ovarian cancer. Olaparib (O) is available for BRCA mutation patients or in combination with bevacizumab (O+B) for patients with homologous recombination deficiency (HRD+); niraparib (N) is available for all patients. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the cost effectiveness of biomarker testing and maintenance treatments (mTx) with poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor in platinum-sensitive advanced ovarian cancer in the USA. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Ten strategies were evaluated (S1-S10), representing biomarker testing (none, BRCA or HRD), and mTx (O, O+B, N or B). PAOLA-1 data were used to build a model estimating progression-free survival (PFS), second PFS (PFS2) and overall survival for O+B. PFS was modelled through mixture cure models; PFS2 and overall survival were modelled by standard parametric models. Hazard ratios of PFS for O+B versus B, N and O were obtained from the literature to estimate PFS for B, N and O. PFS2 and OS for B, N and O were informed by PFS benefits. RESULTS: S2 (no testing, B) had the lowest cost while S10 (HRD testing, O+B for HRD+ and B for HRD-) had the highest quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). All niraparib strategies were dominated. S2, S4 (BRCA testing, O for BRCA+ and B for BRCA-), S6 (BRCA testing, olaparib plus bevacizumab for BRCA+ and bevacizumab for BRCA-) and S10 were the non-dominated strategies with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $29,095/QALY, $33,786/QALY and $52,948/QALY for S4 versus S2, S6 versus S4 and S10 versus S6, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Homologous recombination deficiency testing followed by O+B for HRD+ and B for HRD- is a highly cost-effective strategy for patients with platinum-sensitive advanced ovarian cancer. A HRD biomarker-guided approach provides most QALYs with good economic value.

Cost-Effectiveness of Brentuximab Vedotin Versus Physician's Choice of Methotrexate or Bexarotene for the Treatment of Cutaneous T-cell Lymphoma in Canada.

INTRODUCTION: Brentuximab vedotin versus physician's choice of methotrexate (MTX) or bexarotene (BEX) significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) (median PFS, 16.7 vs. 3.5 months) and delayed time to subsequent treatment (8.4 vs. 3.7 months), with similar overall survival in patients with CD30-expressing mycosis fungoides (MF) or primary cutaneous anaplastic large cell lymphoma (pcALCL), two types of cutaneous T-cell lymphomas. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of brentuximab vedotin versus MTX or BEX from a Canadian healthcare payer perspective in the indicated population. METHODS: A 5-state partitioned survival model [pre-progression, non-stem cell transplant (SCT) post-progression, SCT, SCT relapse, death] with a weekly cycle length and 45-year lifetime horizon has been developed. Health-state occupancies, utility estimates, and treatment duration were informed by ALCANZA. Other inputs and costs came from the literature or clinician experts. Scenario analyses varied key parameters and tested assumptions. RESULTS: Brentuximab vedotin versus MTX or BEX was cost-effective; the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was CAN$43,790 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Brentuximab vedotin was more effective (incremental life years: 0.15; QALYs: 0.25) and total treatment costs were slightly higher (incremental costs: $11,105) than MTX or BEX. Key model drivers included end-stage care duration, SCT eligibility, and brentuximab vedotin retreatment rates. CONCLUSION: Brentuximab vedotin compared with MTX or BEX was cost-effective for CD30-expressing MF and pcALCL. Brentuximab vedotin's higher drug costs versus MTX or BEX were offset by decreased post-progression and end-stage management costs, and showed a 0.25 QALY gain versus MTX or BEX, and increased the proportion of patients eligible for potentially curative SCT.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Olaparib in Combination with Bevacizumab Compared with Bevacizumab Monotherapy for the First-Line Maintenance Treatment of Homologous Recombination Deficiency-Positive Advanced Ovarian Cancer.

BACKGROUND: In the PAOLA-1 trial, olaparib plus bevacizumab demonstrated significant clinical benefit following partial or complete response to platinum-based chemotherapy in homologous recombination deficiency (HRD)-positive ovarian cancer. Our study evaluated the cost effectiveness of olaparib plus bevacizumab compared with bevacizumab alone as a maintenance treatment for women in this population. METHODS: Our model was a cohort-level partitioned survival model with a lifetime horizon from a US healthcare system perspective. Its four health states were progression-free, post first progression, post second progression, and death, modeled using time to first progression (PFS1), second progression (PFS2), and overall survival (OS) from PAOLA-1. We modeled PFS1 through mixture survival modeling, and PFS2 and OS by fitting standard parametric models. Time-on-treatment was sourced directly from PAOLA-1, with treatment capped at 24 months for olaparib and 15 months for bevacizumab. Costs included drug acquisition and administration, adverse events, disease management, biomarker testing, and subsequent treatments. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses tested the results. RESULTS: Compared with bevacizumab alone, olaparib plus bevacizumab increased quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs; +2.89) and life-years (LYs; +3.43) at an incremental cost of $164,209, leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $56,863 per QALY. Olaparib plus bevacizumab had a 97.0% probability of being cost effective compared with bevacizumab alone at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per QALY. CONCLUSION: The addition of olaparib to bevacizumab led to clinically significant increases in progression-free survival, resulting in substantial predicted LYs and QALYs gained, while being cost effective in the maintenance treatment of advanced ovarian cancer with HRD in the US.

Cost Effectiveness of Ceftolozane/Tazobactam Compared with Meropenem for the Treatment of Patients with Ventilated Hospital-Acquired Bacterial Pneumonia and Ventilator-Associated Bacterial Pneumonia.

INTRODUCTION: The clinical efficacy and safety of ceftolozane/tazobactam for the treatment of ventilated hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia (vHABP) and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (VABP) has been demonstrated in the phase III randomised controlled trial ASPECT-NP. However, there are no published data on the cost-effectiveness of ceftolozane/tazobactam for vHABP/VABP. These nosocomial infections are associated with high rates of morbidity and mortality, and are increasingly complicated by growing rates of resistance and the inappropriate use of antimicrobials. This study is to assess the cost-effectiveness of ceftolozane/tazobactam compared with meropenem for the treatment of vHABP/VABP in a US hospital setting. METHODS: A short-term decision tree followed by a long-term Markov model was developed to estimate lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years associated with ceftolozane/tazobactam and meropenem in the treatment of patients with vHABP/VABP. Pathogen susceptibility and clinical efficacy were informed by the Program to Assess Ceftolozane/Tazobactam Susceptibility (PACTS) database and ASPECT-NP, respectively. A US healthcare sector perspective was adopted, capturing direct costs borne by third-party payers or integrated health systems, and direct health effects for patients. RESULTS: In the confirmed treatment setting (post-susceptibility results), the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for ceftolozane/tazobactam compared to meropenem was US$12,126 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY); this reduced when used in the early treatment setting (before susceptibility results) at $4775/QALY. CONCLUSION: Ceftolozane/tazobactam represents a highly cost-effective treatment option for patients with vHABP/VABP versus meropenem when used in either the confirmed or early treatment setting; with increased cost-effectiveness shown in the early setting.

A Cost-Effectiveness Framework for COVID-19 Treatments for Hospitalized Patients in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic is a global crisis impacting population health and the economy. We describe a cost-effectiveness framework for evaluating acute treatments for hospitalized patients with COVID-19, considering a broad spectrum of potential treatment profiles and perspectives within the US healthcare system to ensure incorporation of the most relevant clinical parameters, given evidence currently available. METHODS: A lifetime model, with a short-term acute care decision tree followed by a post-discharge three-state Markov cohort model, was developed to estimate the impact of a potential treatment relative to best supportive care (BSC) for patients hospitalized with COVID-19. The model included information on costs and resources across inpatient levels of care, use of mechanical ventilation, post-discharge morbidity from ventilation, and lifetime healthcare and societal costs. Published literature informed clinical and treatment inputs, healthcare resource use, unit costs, and utilities. The potential health impacts and cost-effectiveness outcomes were assessed from US health payer, societal, and fee-for-service (FFS) payment model perspectives. RESULTS: Viewing results in aggregate, treatments that conferred at least a mortality benefit were likely to be cost-effective, as all deterministic and sensitivity analyses results fell far below willingness-to-pay thresholds using both a US health payer and FFS payment perspective, with and without societal costs included. In the base case, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) ranged from $22,933 from a health payer perspective using bundled payments to $8028 from a societal perspective using a FFS payment model. Even with conservative assumptions on societal impact, inclusion of societal costs consistently produced ICERs 40-60% lower than ICERs for the payer perspective. CONCLUSION: Effective COVID-19 treatments for hospitalized patients may not only reduce disease burden but also represent good value for the health system and society. Though data limitations remain, this cost-effectiveness framework expands beyond current models to include societal costs and post-discharge ventilation morbidity effects of potential COVID-19 treatments.

Estimated Impact of Public and Private Sector COVID-19 Diagnostics and Treatments on US Healthcare Resource Utilization.

INTRODUCTION: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has imposed a considerable burden on the United States (US) health system, with particular concern over healthcare capacity constraints. METHODS: We modeled the impact of public and private sector contributions to developing diagnostic testing and treatments on COVID-19-related healthcare resource use. RESULTS: We estimated that public sector contributions led to at least 30% reductions in COVID-19-related healthcare resource utilization. Private sector contributions to expanded diagnostic testing and treatments led to further reductions in mortality (- 44%), intensive care unit (ICU) and non-ICU hospital beds (- 30% and - 28%, respectively), and ventilator use (- 29%). The combination of lower diagnostic test sensitivity and proportions of patients self-isolating may exacerbate case numbers, and policies that encourage self-isolating should be considered. CONCLUSION: While mechanisms exist to facilitate research, development, and patient access to diagnostic testing, future policies should focus on ensuring equitable patient access to both diagnostic testing and treatments that, in turn, will alleviate COVID-19-related resource constraints.

The Meth Project and Teen Meth Use: New Estimates from the National and State Youth Risk Behavior Surveys.

In this note, we use data from the national and state Youth Risk Behavior Surveys for the period 1999 through 2011 to estimate the relationship between the Meth Project, an anti-methamphetamine advertising campaign, and meth use among high school students. During this period, a total of eight states adopted anti-meth advertising campaigns. After accounting for pre-existing downward trends in meth use, we find little evidence that the campaign curbed meth use in the full sample. We do find, however, some evidence that the Meth Project may have decreased meth use among White high school students.