An Economic Analysis of Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Covered Stent Shunt for Variceal Bleeding and Refractory Ascites in a Spanish Setting.

INTRODUCTION: The primary aim is to estimate the cost-effectiveness of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic stent shunt (TIPSS) in two indications from a Spanish perspective. Firstly, as pre-emptive treatment for patients with acute variceal bleeding (indication 1) compared with endoscopic band ligation plus drug therapy. Secondly, to treat refractory ascites (indication 2) compared with large volume paracentesis. METHODS: A two-state (alive and dead) Markov model was developed to capture the costs and health impact for the two indications over a 2-year time horizon with monthly cycles. In the alive state, patients could experience adverse event(s), associated with costs and disutility, such as recurrent variceal bleeding, ascites, and hepatic encephalopathy. Discount rates of 3% for utilities and costs and a cost-effectiveness threshold of €25,000 per QALY were applied. RESULTS: In the base case analysis, TIPSS was estimated to be cost-effective as a pre-emptive treatment for indication 1 (incremental cost and QALYs of - €230 and 0.211, respectively). TIPSS also remained cost-effective (€16,819/QALY) in a conservative scenario analysis, conducted with an alternate source for clinical parameters. The key drivers of the outcomes were survival for the comparator arm, mean band ligation outpatient procedures, and TIPSS treatment costs. TIPSS was estimated to dominate the comparator for indication 2 (incremental cost and QALYs of - €25,687 and 0.531, respectively). The key drivers of the outcomes were monthly paracentesis sessions and cost per inpatient stay for those undergoing paracentesis. CONCLUSIONS: TIPSS is likely to be a cost-effective and a cost-saving treatment in patients with cirrhosis in indications 1 and 2, compared with standard treatments. The analyses estimate clinical benefits along with reduced healthcare costs from avoided downstream resource consumption.

Time and Cost of Hospitalisation for Salvage Therapy in Adults with Philadelphia Chromosome-Negative B Cell Precursor Relapsed or Refractory Acute Lymphoblastic Leukaemia in Spain.

BACKGROUND: Philadelphia chromosome-negative (Ph-) relapsed or refractory (R/R) B-cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL) is rare, and information on its impact on healthcare systems is scarce. OBJECTIVE: To quantify the time and reimbursement associated with hospitalisations of patients with R/R ALL in a Spanish hospital. METHODS: Retrospective review of medical charts identified patients aged ≥ 18 years with Ph- R/R ALL hospitalised between 1998 and 2014. Data were collected from the date of first diagnosis of R/R ALL (index) until death or loss to follow-up. The primary endpoint was the proportion of time hospitalised during chemotherapy. Reimbursement associated with hospitalisations (including associated chemotherapy) was also assessed. RESULTS: Thirty-two patients were eligible for inclusion. Their median age was 41 years, and 50% had a first remission duration of ≤ 1 year; 34% had undergone allogeneic haematological stem-cell transplantation (alloHSCT). Overall, 31 patients had received intensive salvage chemotherapy, during which there were 42 hospitalisations (mean 1.4/patient; mean duration 26 days). Patients spent a mean of 71% of the chemotherapy period in hospital. Total mean reimbursement was €26,417 per patient, almost all (€25,723) attributable to inpatient stays (€18,986/hospitalisation). From the index date to death or loss to follow-up (excluding alloHSCT-related hospitalisations), there were 80 hospitalisations (mean duration 24 days); mean reimbursement was €16,692 per hospitalisation and €41,730 per patient. AlloHSCT (n = 8) involved 18 hospitalisations (mean reimbursement €39,782/hospitalisation; €89,510/patient). CONCLUSION: Data from this sample of patients suggest that hospitalisations in R/R ALL are lengthy and associated with high costs in Spain.

Cost-effectiveness analysis in the Spanish setting of the PEAK trial of panitumumab plus mFOLFOX6 compared with bevacizumab plus mFOLFOX6 for first-line treatment of patients with wild-type RAS metastatic colorectal cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of panitumumab in combination with mFOLFOX6 (oxaliplatin, 5-fluorouracil, and leucovorin) vs bevacizumab in combination with mFOLFOX6 as first-line treatment of patients with wild-type RAS metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in Spain. METHODS: A semi-Markov model was developed including the following health states: Progression free; Progressive disease: Treat with best supportive care; Progressive disease: Treat with subsequent active therapy; Attempted resection of metastases; Disease free after metastases resection; Progressive disease: after resection and relapse; and Death. Parametric survival analyses of patient-level progression free survival and overall survival data from the PEAK Phase II clinical trial were used to estimate health state transitions. Additional data from the PEAK trial were considered for the dose and duration of therapy, the use of subsequent therapy, the occurrence of adverse events, and the incidence and probability of time to metastasis resection. Utility weightings were calculated from patient-level data from panitumumab trials evaluating first-, second-, and third-line treatments. The study was performed from the Spanish National Health System (NHS) perspective including only direct costs. A life-time horizon was applied. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses and scenario sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robustness of the model. RESULTS: Based on the PEAK trial, which demonstrated greater efficacy of panitumumab vs bevacizumab, both in combination with mFOLFOX6 first-line in wild-type RAS mCRC patients, the estimated incremental cost per life-year gained was €16,567 and the estimated incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained was €22,794. The sensitivity analyses showed the model was robust to alternative parameters and assumptions. LIMITATIONS: The analysis was based on a simulation model and, therefore, the results should be interpreted cautiously. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the PEAK Phase II clinical trial and taking into account Spanish costs, the results of the analysis showed that first-line treatment of mCRC with panitumumab + mFOLFOX6 could be considered a cost-effective option compared with bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6 for the Spanish NHS.