Mean lifetime survival estimates following solid organ transplantation in the US and UK.

AIMS: Accurately estimating mean survival after solid organ transplant (SOT) is crucial for efficient healthcare resource allocation decisions. However, registry-based post-transplant recipient survival estimates vary greatly and are incomplete. Often, the methods used in lifetime survival extrapolation may not fit complex transplant data and therefore alternative methods are required. We aimed to explore the flexible cubic spline methodology as a meaningful alternative for estimating lifetime survival following SOT. METHODS: Survival analyses were conducted in kidney, liver, heart, and lung transplant recipients. Mean survival was estimated using flexible cubic splines on the hazard scale fitted with three knots, based on where hazards changed direction, clinical advice, and best-fit curve using Akaike and Bayesian information criterion. The tail was extrapolated when data were no longer available. Extrapolation tails were compared with general population mortality, using age-matched life table hazards, and the highest hazards were taken at all times. RESULTS: We found that mean survival post-transplant was longest for kidney transplants (US: 22.79 years; UK: 26.58 years), followed by liver (US: 20.90 years; UK: 20.38 years), heart (US: 14.82 years; UK: 15.85 years), and lung (US: 9.28 years; UK: 9.21 years). A sensitivity analysis using two knots found differences in survival ranging from -1.30 to +4.83 years across SOTs examined. LIMITATIONS: This study does not represent individual patient survival, survival by age groups, multiple-organ transplants, or assess factors that may impact overall or organ survival. CONCLUSIONS: Our study estimates reflect real-world survival following SOTs and demonstrate the importance of including long-term hazards in survival estimations. These lifetime survival estimates can be used by decision-makers in situations where means are preferred over medians (e.g. population projections, budgetary estimates, and cost-effectiveness models) and can thus offer a meaningful alternative to the estimates used and accepted in current practice.

Evaluating the cost-effectiveness of secukinumab in moderate-to-severe psoriasis: a Japanese perspective.

AIM: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of secukinumab, a fully human anti-interleukin-17A monoclonal antibody, compared to other clinically used biologics (adalimumab, infliximab, and ustekinumab) in Japan for the treatment of moderate-to-severe psoriasis from the healthcare system (total costs) and patient co-payment (using different frequencies of drug purchase) perspectives. METHODS: A decision-tree (first year)/Markov model (subsequent years), with an annual cycle, was developed. The model adopted a 5-year time horizon. Efficacy inputs were obtained from a mixed-treatment comparison analysis, and other model inputs were collected from published literature and local Japanese sources. Model outcomes included quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in terms of cost per QALY gained. The annual discounting rate of 2% was applied to both costs and outcomes. RESULTS: Results for the healthcare system perspective showed that secukinumab had the highest number of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) (4.07) vs other biologics, dominated ustekinumab and infliximab, and the ICER of secukinumab compared to adalimumab was ¥8,418,222/QALY gained. In the patient co-payment perspective with the monthly purchase of drugs, ustekinumab had the lowest co-payment cost, followed by infliximab, adalimumab, and secukinumab. In the patient co-payment perspective with a once every 3 months purchase of secukinumab and adalimumab, the co-payment costs of secukinumab, adalimumab, and ustekinumab became comparable, and infliximab had the highest co-payment cost. LIMITATIONS: Only short-term efficacy data was modeled, as there was a lack of data on long-term outcomes. Treatment sequencing was restricted to first-line biologic treatment. Drop-out rates for comparators were assumed to be equivalent to secukinumab in the absence of available data. CONCLUSIONS: Secukinumab is a cost-efficient treatment for moderate-to-severe psoriasis, providing greater health outcomes to patients at lower total costs compared to infliximab and ustekinumab, as well as comparable patient co-payment relative to other biologic treatments.

A within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis of panitumumab compared with bevacizumab in the first-line treatment of patients with wild-type RAS metastatic colorectal cancer in the US.

AIMS: This analysis investigated the cost-effectiveness of panitumumab plus mFOLFOX6 (oxaliplatin, 5-fluorouracil, and leucovorin) compared with bevacizumab plus mFOLFOX6 in the first-line treatment of patients with wild-type RAS metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The cost-effectiveness analysis was developed from a third-party payer perspective in the US and was implemented using a partitioned survival model with health states for first-line treatment (progression-free), disease progression with and without subsequent active treatment, and death. Survival analyses of patients with wild-type RAS mCRC from the PEAK head-to-head clinical trial of panitumumab vs bevacizumab were performed to estimate time in the model health states. Additional data from PEAK informed the amount of each drug consumed, duration of therapy, subsequent therapy use, and toxicities related to mCRC treatment. Literature and US public data sources were used to estimate unit costs associated with treatment and duration of subsequent active therapies. Utility weights were calculated from patient-level data from panitumumab trials in the first-, second-, and third-line settings. A life-time perspective was taken with future costs and outcomes discounted at 3% per annum. Scenario, one-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Compared with bevacizumab, the use of panitumumab resulted in an incremental cost of US $60,286, and an incremental quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) of 0.445, translating into a cost per QALY gained of US $135,391 in favor of panitumumab. Results were sensitive to wastage and dose rounding assumptions modeled. LIMITATIONS: Progression-free and overall survival were extrapolated beyond the follow-up of the primary analysis using fitted parametric curves. Costs and quality of life were estimated from multiple and different data sources. CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy of panitumumab in extending progression-free and overall survival and improving quality of life makes it a cost-effective option for first-line treatment of patients with wild-type RAS mCRC compared with bevacizumab.

Higher Psoriasis Skin Clearance Is Associated with Lower Annual Indirect Costs in the United States: A Post Hoc Analysis from the CLEAR Study.

BACKGROUND: Psoriasis is associated with a high economic burden to society. New psoriasis systemic treatments offer the potential for improved skin clearance. Whether a higher degree of clearing translates into economic benefit through decreased work impairment has not been fully determined. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether more complete clearing of psoriasis is associated with a reduction in disease-related indirect costs. METHODS: Pooled data from employed patients included in the CLEAR study, a phase 3b study comparing the efficacy and safety of secukinumab (337 subjects) versus ustekinumab (339 subjects), were classified into 4 levels of skin clearance improvement at weeks 16 and 52: Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) improvement from baseline of < 50% (PASI < 50), 50%-74% (PASI 50-74), 75%-89% (PASI 75-89), and ≥ 90% (PASI ≥ 90). Patients completed the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment questionnaire for psoriasis (WPAI-PSO), which assessed absenteeism, presenteeism, and a composite overall work impairment over the previous 7 days at weeks 16 and 52. U.S. Department of Labor data were used to calculate annual indirect costs due to work productivity loss. RESULTS: In the CLEAR study, 452 (67%) were employed at baseline and included in this analysis. At week 16, mean overall work impairment significantly decreased with higher PASI improvements: 22.8% for PASI < 50, compared with 13.3% for PASI 50-74 (P = 0.001); 6.4% for PASI 75-89 (P < 0.001); and 4.9% for PASI ≥ 90 (P < 0.001), with the majority of work impairment related to presenteeism. Calculated mean work hours lost by overall work impairment decreased with higher PASI improvements: 8.2 hours lost/week (429 hours/year) for patients with PASI 50; 4.6 hours lost/week (251 hours/year) for PASI 50-74; 2.3 hours lost/week (121 hours/year) for PASI 75-89; and 1.8 hours lost/week (93 hours/year) for PASI ≥ 90. Associated mean annual indirect costs due to work productivity loss per worker decreased with higher PASI improvements: $10,318 for PASI < 50, $6,042 for PASI 50-74, $2,901 for PASI 75-89, and $2,233 for PASI ≥ 90. Similar results were observed at week 52. Mean overall work impairment decreased with higher PASI improvements, ranging from 26.3% for PASI < 50 to 6.9% for PASI ≥ 90. A decrease in overall work hours lost (ranging from 9.5 hours lost/week [495 hours/year] for PASI < 50 to 2.5 hours/week [130 hours/year] for PASI ≥ 90), as well as associated annual indirect costs due to work productivity loss (ranging from $11,906 for PASI < 50 to $3,125 for PASI ≥ 90), were also shown with higher PASI improvements at week 52. CONCLUSIONS: Among working patients with moderate to severe psoriasis, higher PASI improvements were associated with lower work productivity loss and reduced annual indirect costs. By improving and sustaining skin clearance, psoriasis treatments may contribute to increased work productivity and decreased societal economic burden. DISCLOSURES: Funding for this study was provided by Novartis Pharmaceuticals. Zhao and Herrera are employed by Novartis. Gilloteau is employed by Novartis Pharma AG. McBride, Graham, and Miles are employed by RTI Health Solutions, which provides consulting and other research services to pharmaceutical, device, governmental, and nongovernmental organizations and received funding from Novartis for manuscript development, analysis development, and general consultation. Feldman reports grants and personal fees from Novartis, Abbvie, Janssen, Lilly, and Celgene, along with personal fees from Amgen and Valeant.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of secukinumab for the treatment of active psoriatic arthritis: a Canadian perspective.

OBJECTIVE: The study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of secukinumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody that selectively neutralizes interleukin (IL)-17A, vs currently licensed biologic treatments in patients with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA) from a Canadian healthcare system perspective. METHODS: A decision analytic semi-Markov model evaluated the cost-effectiveness of secukinumab 150 mg and 300 mg compared to subcutaneous biologics adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, and ustekinumab, and intravenous biologics infliximab and infliximab biosimilar in biologic-naive and biologic-experienced patients over a lifetime horizon. The response to treatments was evaluated after 12 weeks by PsA Response Criteria (PsARC) response rates. Non-responders or patients discontinuing initial-line of biologic treatment were allowed to switch to subsequent-line biologics. Model input parameters (Psoriasis Area Severity Index [PASI], Health Assessment Questionnaire [HAQ], withdrawal rates, costs, and resource use) were collected from clinical trials, published literature, and other Canadian sources. Benefits were expressed as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). An annual discount rate of 5% was applied to costs and benefits. The robustness of the study findings were evaluated via sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Biologic-naive patients treated with secukinumab achieved the highest number of QALYs (8.54) at the lowest cost (CAD 925,387) over a lifetime horizon vs all comparators. Secukinumab dominated all treatments, except for infliximab and its biosimilar, which achieved minimally more QALYs (8.58). However, infliximab and its biosimilar incurred more costs than secukinumab (infliximab: CAD 1,015,437; infliximab biosimilar: CAD 941,004), resulting in higher cost-effectiveness estimates relative to secukinumab. In the biologic-experienced population, secukinumab dominated all treatments as it generated more QALYs (8.89) at lower costs (CAD 954,692). Deterministic sensitivity analyses indicated the results were most sensitive to variation in PsARC response rates, change in HAQ, and utility values in both populations. CONCLUSIONS: Secukinumab is either dominant or cost-effective vs all licensed biologics for the treatment of active PsA in biologic-naive and biologic-experienced populations in Canada.

Economic Evaluation of Dupilumab for the Treatment of Moderate-to-Severe Atopic Dermatitis in Adults.

INTRODUCTION: Dupilumab significantly improves signs and symptoms of atopic dermatitis (AD), including pruritus, symptoms of anxiety and depression, and health-related quality of life versus placebo in adults with moderate-to-severe AD. Since the cost-effectiveness of dupilumab has not been evaluated, the objective of this analysis was to estimate a value-based price range in which dupilumab would be considered cost-effective compared with supportive care (SC) for treatment of moderate-to-severe AD in an adult population. METHODS: A health economic model was developed to evaluate from the US payer perspective the long-term costs and benefits of dupilumab treatment administered every other week (q2w). Dupilumab q2w was compared with SC; robustness of assumptions and results were tested using sensitivity and scenario analyses. Clinical data were derived from the dupilumab LIBERTY AD SOLO trials; healthcare use and cost data were from health insurance claims histories of adult patients with AD. The annual price of maintenance therapy with dupilumab to be considered cost-effective was estimated for decision thresholds of US$100,000 and $150,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. RESULTS: In the base case, the annual maintenance price for dupilumab therapy to be considered cost-effective would be $28,770 at a $100,000 per QALY gained threshold, and $39,940 at a $150,000 threshold. Results were generally robust to parameter variations in one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: Dupilumab q2w compared with SC is cost-effective for the treatment of moderate-to-severe AD in US adults at an annual price of maintenance therapy in the range of $29,000-$40,000 at the $100,000-$150,000 per QALY thresholds. FUNDING: Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Economic Analysis of Panitumumab Compared With Cetuximab in Patients With Wild-type KRAS Metastatic Colorectal Cancer That Progressed After Standard Chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: In this analysis, we compared costs and explored the cost-effectiveness of subsequent-line treatment with cetuximab or panitumumab in patients with wild-type KRAS (exon 2) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) after previous chemotherapy treatment failure. Data were used from ASPECCT (A Study of Panitumumab Efficacy and Safety Compared to Cetuximab in Patients With KRAS Wild-Type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer), a Phase III, head-to-head randomized noninferiority study comparing the efficacy and safety of panitumumab and cetuximab in this population. METHODS: A decision-analytic model was developed to perform a cost-minimization analysis and a semi-Markov model was created to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of panitumumab monotherapy versus cetuximab monotherapy in chemotherapy-resistant wild-type KRAS (exon 2) mCRC. The cost-minimization model assumed equivalent efficacy (progression-free survival) based on data from ASPECCT. The cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted with the full information (uncertainty) from ASPECCT. Both analyses were conducted from a US third-party payer perspective and calculated average anti-epidermal growth factor receptor doses from ASPECCT. Costs associated with drug acquisition, treatment administration (every 2 weeks for panitumumab, weekly for cetuximab), and incidence of infusion reactions were estimated in both models. The cost-effectiveness model also included physician visits, disease progression monitoring, best supportive care, and end-of-life costs and utility weights estimated from EuroQol 5-Dimension questionnaire responses from ASPECCT. FINDINGS: The cost-minimization model results demonstrated lower projected costs for patients who received panitumumab versus cetuximab, with a projected cost savings of $9468 (16.5%) per panitumumab-treated patient. In the cost-effectiveness model, the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained revealed panitumumab to be less costly, with marginally better outcomes than cetuximab. IMPLICATIONS: These economic analyses comparing panitumumab and cetuximab in chemorefractory wild-type KRAS (exon 2) mCRC suggest benefits in favor of panitumumab. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01001377.

Economic Evaluation of Cinacalcet in the United States: The EVOLVE Trial.

BACKGROUND: Previous economic evaluations of cinacalcet in patients with secondary hyperparathyroidism (sHPT) relied on the combination of surrogate end points in clinical trials and epidemiologic studies. OBJECTIVES: The objective was to conduct an economic evaluation of cinacalcet on the basis of the EValuation Of Cinacalcet HCl Therapy to Lower CardioVascular Events (EVOLVE) trial from a US payer perspective. METHODS: We developed a semi-Markov model to assess the cost-effectiveness of cinacalcet in addition to conventional therapy, compared with conventional therapy alone, in patients with moderate-to-severe sHPT receiving hemodialysis. We used treatment effect estimates from the unadjusted intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis and prespecified covariate-adjusted ITT analysis as our main analyses. We assessed model sensitivity to variations in individual inputs and overall decision uncertainty through probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for cinacalcet was $61,705 per life-year and $79,562 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained using the covariate-adjusted ITT analysis. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggested a 73.2% chance of the ICER being below a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000. Treatment effects from unadjusted ITT analysis yielded an ICER of $115,876 per QALY. The model was most sensitive to the treatment effect on mortality. CONCLUSIONS: In the unadjusted ITT analysis, cinacalcet does not represent a cost- effective use of health care resources when applying a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per QALY. When using the covariate-adjusted ITT treatment effect, which represents the least biased estimate, however, cinacalcet is a cost-effective therapy for patients with moderate-to-severe sHPT on hemodialysis.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of anidulafungin for the treatment of candidaemia and other forms of invasive candidiasis.

BACKGROUND: Candidaemia and other forms of invasive candidiasis (C/IC) in the intensive care unit are challenging conditions that are associated with high rates of mortality. New guidelines from the European Society for Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases strongly recommend echinocandins for the first-line treatment of C/IC. Here, a cost-effectiveness model was developed from the United Kingdom perspective to examine the costs and outcomes of antifungal treatment for C/IC based on the European Society for Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases guidelines. METHODS: Costs and treatment outcomes with the echinocandin anidulafungin were compared with those for caspofungin, micafungin and fluconazole. The model included non-neutropenic patients aged ≥16 years with confirmed C/IC who were receiving intravenous first-line treatment. Patients were categorised as either a clinical success or failure (patients with persistent/breakthrough infection); successfully treated patients switched to oral therapy, while patients categorised as clinical failures switched to a different antifungal class. Other inputs were all-cause mortality at 6 weeks, costs of treatment-related adverse events and other medical resource utilisation costs. Resource use was derived from the published literature and from discussion with clinical experts. Drug-acquisition/administration costs were taken from standard United Kingdom costing sources. RESULTS: The model indicated that first-line anidulafungin could be considered cost-effective versus fluconazole (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio £813 per life-year gained) for the treatment of C/IC. Anidulafungin was cost-saving versus caspofungin and micafungin due to lower total costs and a higher rate of survival combined with a higher probability of clinical success. DISCUSSION: European Society for Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases guidelines recommend echinocandins for the first-line treatment of C/IC; our model indicated that anidulafungin marries clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: From the United Kingdom perspective, anidulafungin was cost-effective compared with fluconazole for the treatment of C/IC and was cost-saving versus the other echinocandins.

Cost-minimization analysis of panitumumab compared with cetuximab for first-line treatment of patients with wild-type RAS metastatic colorectal cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the costs of first-line treatment with panitumumab + FOLFOX in comparison to cetuximab + FOLFIRI among patients with wild-type (WT) RAS metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in the US. METHODS: A cost-minimization model was developed assuming similar treatment efficacy between both regimens. The model estimated the costs associated with drug acquisition, treatment administration frequency (every 2 weeks for panitumumab, weekly for cetuximab), and incidence of infusion reactions. Average anti-EGFR doses were calculated from the ASPECCT clinical trial, and average doses of chemotherapy regimens were based on product labels. Using the medical component of the consumer price index, adverse event costs were inflated to 2014 US dollars, and all other costs were reported in 2014 US dollars. The time horizon for the model was based on average first-line progression-free survival of a WT RAS patient, estimated from parametric survival analyses of PRIME clinical trial data. RESULTS: Relative to cetuximab + FOLFIRI in the first-line treatment of WT RAS mCRC, the cost-minimization model demonstrated lower projected drug acquisition, administration, and adverse event costs for patients who received panitumumab + FOLFOX. The overall cost per patient for first-line treatment was $179,219 for panitumumab + FOLFOX vs $202,344 for cetuximab + FOLFIRI, resulting in a per-patient saving of $23,125 (11.4%) in favor of panitumumab + FOLFOX. CONCLUSIONS: From a value perspective, the cost-minimization model supports panitumumab + FOLFOX instead of cetuximab + FOLFIRI as the preferred first-line treatment of WT RAS mCRC patients requiring systemic therapy.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of panitumumab plus mFOLFOX6 compared with bevacizumab plus mFOLFOX6 for first-line treatment of patients with wild-type RAS metastatic colorectal cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the cost-effectiveness of panitumumab plus mFOLFOX6 (oxaliplatin, 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin) compared with bevacizumab plus mFOLFOX6 in first-line treatment of patients with wild-type RAS metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). DESIGN: A semi-Markov model was constructed from a French health collective perspective, with health states related to first-line treatment (progression-free), disease progression with and without subsequent active treatment, resection of metastases, disease-free after successful resection and death. METHODS: Parametric survival analyses of patient-level progression-free and overall survival data from the only head-to-head clinical trial of panitumumab and bevacizumab (PEAK) were performed to estimate transitions to disease progression and death. Additional data from PEAK informed the amount of each drug consumed, duration of therapy, subsequent therapy use, and toxicities related to mCRC treatment. Literature and French public data sources were used to estimate unit costs associated with treatment and duration of subsequent active therapies. Utility weights were calculated from patient-level data from panitumumab trials in the first-, second- and third-line settings. A life-time perspective was applied. Scenario, one-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Based on a head-to-head clinical trial that demonstrates better efficacy outcomes for patients with wild-type RAS mCRC who receive panitumumab plus mFOLFOX6 versus bevacizumab plus mFOLFOX6, the incremental cost per life-year gained was estimated to be €26,918, and the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained was estimated to be €36,577. Sensitivity analyses indicate the model is robust to alternative parameters and assumptions. CONCLUSIONS: The incremental cost per QALY gained indicates that panitumumab plus mFOLFOX6 represents good value for money in comparison to bevacizumab plus mFOLFOX6 and, with a willingness-to-pay ranging from €40,000 to €60,000, can be considered cost-effective in first-line treatment of patients with wild-type RAS mCRC.

Updating and confirming an industry-sponsored pharmacoeconomic model: comparing two antipsychotics in the treatment of schizophrenia.

OBJECTIVE: This study updated a 2001 decision economic model that used indirect data and confirmed its findings by developing a new cost-effectiveness model by using now available head-to-head data. The models compared olanzapine with ziprasidone in the treatment of schizophrenia in the United States. METHODS: A decision analytic modeling approach was used to estimate annual health-care costs and health outcomes, incorporating events such as response, relapse, and suicide. Patients without response to first-line treatment switched to the other comparator. Decision tree probabilities were extracted from head-to-head studies and other published clinical literature. Direct health-care costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated on the basis of resource use and utility weights for initial and relapse episodes, maintenance therapy, and extended episodes of illness. Disutilities associated with treatment-emergent adverse events were included. RESULTS: Consistent with the 2001 model, this model found that first-line treatment with olanzapine is associated with fewer hospital days, fewer days with extrapyramidal symptoms, and higher QALYs than is first-line treatment with ziprasidone. Total costs were lower for the olanzapine pathway ($70,232-$72,776 vs. $73,086-$73,310 in the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale analysis) due to the cost savings associated with reduced health-care resource use. The incremental cost per QALY gained indicated that the olanzapine pathway dominated the ziprasidone pathway. CONCLUSIONS: Decision analytic models should be continuously assessed against new data. This case study shows that incorporating new data confirmed results of a previously published model in which olanzapine was associated with better expected health outcomes and lower total health-care costs than was ziprasidone.

Lifetime cost-effectiveness of calcineurin inhibitor withdrawal after de novo renal transplantation.

After renal transplantation, immunosuppressive regimens associated with high short-term survival rates are not necessarily associated with high long-term survival rates, suggesting that regimens may need to be optimized over time. Calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) withdrawal from a sirolimus-based immunosuppressive regimen may maximize the likelihood of long-term graft and patient survival by minimizing CNI-associated nephrotoxicity. In this study, a lifetime Markov model was created to compare the cost-effectiveness of a sirolimus-based CNI withdrawal regimen (sirolimus plus steroids) with other common CNI-containing regimens in adult de novo renal transplantation patients. Long-term graft survival was estimated by renal function and data from published studies and the US transplant registry, including short- and long-term outcomes, utility weights, and health-state costs were incorporated. Drug costs were based on average daily consumption and wholesale acquisition costs. The model suggests that treatment with sirolimus plus steroids is more efficacious and less costly than regimens consisting of a CNI, mycophenolate mofetil, and steroids; therefore, CNI withdrawal not only shows potential for long-term clinical benefits but also is expected to be cost-saving over a patient's life compared with the most commonly prescribed CNI-containing regimens.

Cost-effectiveness model for neovascular age-related macular degeneration: comparing early and late treatment with pegaptanib sodium based on visual acuity.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost-effectiveness of pegaptanib and usual care within three distinct cohorts of subfoveal neovascular age-related macular degeneration (NV-AMD) patients, that is, those with early, moderate, and late disease, using a comprehensive economic model. METHODS: A Markov framework was used to model lifetime movement of a subfoveal NV-AMD cohort through health states based on visual acuity. The model takes a US payer perspective of patients over the age of 65 years. Clinical efficacy was based on published results for the 0.3 mg pegaptanib and usual care groups. Expert interviews were conducted to determine adverse event treatment patterns and vision rehabilitation resource use. Incidence and costs of comorbidities such as depression and fractures associated with the effects of declining visual acuity were based on our previously published analysis of Medicare data. Transition probabilities were derived from published clinical trial data for each 3-month cycle. Utilities were derived from published sources. Three runs of the model were conducted with cohorts of newly diagnosed patients. Patients were classified as having early, moderate, or late NV-AMD defined as visual acuity in the better-seeing eye of 20/40 to more than 20/80, 20/80 to more than 20/200, and 20/200 to more than 20/400, respectively. Costs and outcomes were discounted 3.0% per annum. RESULTS: Incremental costs per vision-year gained and per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for early NV-AMD patients were approximately one-third those of patients with late disease ($15,279 vs. $57,230 and $36,282 vs. $132,381, respectively). On average, patients treated early with either pegaptanib or usual care incurred lower lifetime total direct costs than those treated later. Sensitivity analysis showed that base-case incremental costs per QALY gained for pegaptanib versus usual care were relatively robust. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with subfoveal NV-AMD, treatment with pegaptanib should be started as early as possible to maximize the clinical and economic benefits.

Ethnic disparities in health-related quality of life among older rural adults with diabetes.

Diabetes mellitus disproportionately affects ethnic minorities and has serious economic, social, and personal implications. This study examines the effect of diabetes disease burden and social resources on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) among older rural adults with diabetes. Data come from a population-based cross-sectional survey of 701 adults (age > or =65 years) with diabetes in North Carolina from three ethnic groups: African American, Native American, and White. HRQOL was assessed using the 12-item short-form health survey (SF-12). Mean scores were 35.1 +/- 11.4 and 50.5 +/- 10.8 for the physical and mental components of the SF-12, respectively. In bivariate analyses, scores were significantly lower for Native Americans than Whites for both components. In multivariate analyses, higher physical HRQOL was associated with male sex, greater mobility ability, fewer chronic conditions, exercising vs not exercising, fewer depressive symptoms, and not receiving process assistance. Higher mental HRQOL was associated with greater mobility ability, fewer chronic conditions, and a high school education or more. Diabetes appears to have a substantial effect on physical HRQOL. Physical disability associated with diabetes may have a greater impact in the rural environment than in other areas. Aspects of rural social milieu may help to keep mental HRQOL high, even in the face of severe chronic disease. Ethnic differences in HRQOL are largely accounted for by diabetes disease burden and, to a lesser extent, social resources. Strategies to reduce diabetes-related complications (long term) and assist mobility (short term) may reduce ethnic disparities in HRQOL.

Leaving family for work: ambivalence and mental health among Mexican migrant farmworker men.

Men migrating to the United States from Mexico and Central America confront opposing family norms. They need to leave their families to gain family economic security; yet, leaving renders their families vulnerable. We examined the mental health implications of the opposing family norms inherent in migration using an ambivalence framework. We interviewed 60 Latino migrant farmworkers working in North Carolina. Most were from Mexico; each had left a wife and children in his country of origin. Analysis indicated that family ambivalence was common. Ambivalence was associated with anxiety symptoms (but not depression or alcohol dependence), especially among men who were unable to contact their families regularly. Results show the usefulness of the ambivalence framework, and suggest that the origins of poor migrant mental health may reside in circumstances preceding migration. Study recommendations include facilitating family contact by expanding access to telephones among migrant workers.