Assessment of Medical and Public Assistance Expenditures and Employment Among US Adults With Cancer Diagnoses.

Importance: Prior research suggests significant social value associated with increased longevity due to preventing and treating cancer. Other social costs associated with cancer, such as unemployment, public medical spending, and public assistance, may also be sizable. Objective: To examine whether a cancer history is associated with receipt of disability insurance, income, employment, and medical spending. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Study (MEPS) (2010-2016) for a nationally representative sample of US adults aged 50 to 79 years. Data were analyzed from December 2021 to March 2023. Exposure: Cancer history. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were employment, public assistance receipt, disability, and medical expenditures. Variables for race, ethnicity, and age were used as controls. A series of multivariate regression models were used to assess the immediate and 2-year association of a cancer history with disability, income, employment, and medical spending. Results: Of 39 439 unique MEPS respondents included in the study, 52% were female, and the mean (SD) age was 61.44 (8.32) years; 12% of respondents had a history of cancer. Individuals with a cancer history who were aged 50 to 64 years were 9.80 (95% CI, 7.35-12.25) percentage points more likely to have a work-limiting disability and were 9.08 (95% CI, 6.22-11.94) percentage points less likely to be employed compared with individuals in the same age group without a history of cancer. Nationally, cancer accounted for 505 768 fewer employed individuals in the population aged 50 to 64 years. A cancer history was also associated with an increase of $2722 (95% CI, $2131-$3313) in medical spending, $6460 (95% CI, $5254-$7667) in public medical spending, and $515 (95% CI, $337-$692) in other public assistance spending. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, a history of cancer was associated with increased likelihood of disability, higher medical spending, and decreased likelihood of employment. These findings suggest there may be gains beyond increased longevity if cancer can be detected and treated earlier.

Patient Preferences for Multi-Cancer Early Detection (MCED) Screening Tests.

BACKGROUND: Emerging blood-based multi-cancer early detection (MCED) tests can detect a variety of cancer types across stages with a range of sensitivity, specificity, and ability to predict the origin of the cancer signal. However, little is known about the general US population's preferences for MCED tests. OBJECTIVE: To quantify preferences for MCED tests among US adults aged 50-80 years using a discrete choice experiment (DCE). METHODS: To quantify preferences for attributes of blood-based MCED tests, an online DCE was conducted with five attributes (true positives, false negatives, false positives, likelihood of the cancer type unknown, number of cancer types detected), among the US population aged 50-80 years recruited via online panels and social media. Data were analyzed using latent class multinomial logit models and relative attribute importance was obtained. RESULTS: Participants (N = 1700) were 54% female, mean age 63.3 years. Latent class modeling identified three classes with distinct preferences for MCED tests. The rank order of attribute importance based on relative attribute importance varied by latent class, but across all latent classes, participants preferred higher accuracy (fewer false negatives and false positives, more true positives) and screenings that detected more cancer types and had a lower likelihood of cancer type unknown. Overall, 72% of participants preferred to receive an MCED test in addition to currently recommended cancer screenings. CONCLUSIONS: While there is significant heterogeneity in cancer screening preferences, the majority of participants preferred MCED screening and the accuracy of these tests is important. While the majority of participants preferred adding an MCED test to complement current cancer screenings, the latent class analyses identified a small (16%) and specific subset of individuals who value attributes differently, with particular concern regarding false-negative and false-positive test results, who are significantly less likely to opt-in.

Impact of early detection on cancer curability: A modified Delphi panel study.

Expert consensus on the potential benefits of early cancer detection does not exist for most cancer types. We convened 10 practicing oncologists using a RAND/UCLA modified Delphi panel to evaluate which of 20 solid tumors, representing >40 American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC)-identified cancer types and 80% of total cancer incidence, would receive potential clinical benefits from early detection. Pre-meeting, experts estimated how long cancers take to progress and rated the current curability and benefit (improvement in curability) of an annual hypothetical multi-cancer screening blood test. Post-meeting, experts rerated all questions. Cancers had varying estimates of the potential benefit of early cancer detection depending on estimates of their curability and progression by stage. Cancers rated as progressing quickly and being curable in earlier stages (stomach, esophagus, lung, urothelial tract, melanoma, ovary, sarcoma, bladder, cervix, breast, colon/rectum, kidney, uterus, anus, head and neck) were estimated to be most likely to benefit from a hypothetical screening blood test. Cancer types rated as progressing quickly but having comparatively lower cure rates in earlier stages (liver/intrahepatic bile duct, gallbladder, pancreas) were estimated to have medium likelihood of benefit from a hypothetical screening blood test. Cancer types rated as progressing more slowly and having higher curability regardless of stage (prostate, thyroid) were estimated to have limited likelihood of benefit from a hypothetical screening blood test. The panel concluded most solid tumors have a likelihood of benefit from early detection. Even among difficult-to-treat cancers (e.g., pancreas, liver/intrahepatic bile duct, gallbladder), early-stage detection was believed to be beneficial. Based on the panel consensus, broad coverage of cancers by screening blood tests would deliver the greatest potential benefits to patients.

The Potential Value-Based Price of a Multi-Cancer Early Detection Genomic Blood Test to Complement Current Single Cancer Screening in the USA.

BACKGROUND: Multi-cancer early detection (MCED) testing could increase detection of cancer at early stages, when survival outcomes are better and treatment costs are lower, but is expected to increase screening costs. This study modeled an MCED test for 19 solid cancers in a US population and estimated the potential value-based price (the maximum price to meet a given willingness to pay) of the MCED test plus current single cancer screening (usual care) compared to usual care alone from a third-party payer perspective over a lifetime horizon. METHODS: A hybrid cohort-level state-transition and decision-tree model was developed to estimate the clinical and economic outcomes of annual MCED testing between age 50 and 79 years. The impact on time and stage of diagnosis was computed using an interception modeling approach, with the consequences of cancer modeled based on stage at diagnosis. The model parameters were mainly sourced from the literature, including a published case-control study to inform MCED test performance. All costs were inflated to 2021 US dollars. RESULTS: Multi-cancer early detection testing shifted cancer diagnoses to earlier stages, with a 53% reduction in stage IV cancer diagnoses, resulting in longer overall survival compared with usual care. Addition of MCED decreased per cancer treatment costs by $5421 and resulted in a gain of 0.13 and 0.38 quality-adjusted life-years across all individuals in the screening program and those diagnosed with cancer, respectively. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, the potential value-based price of an MCED test was estimated at $1196. The projected survival of individuals diagnosed with cancer and the number of cancers detected at an earlier stage by MCED had the greatest impact on outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: An MCED test with high specificity would potentially improve long-term health outcomes and reduce cancer treatment costs, resulting in a value-based price of $1196 at a $100,000/quality-adjusted life-year willingness-to-pay threshold.

Cost of cancer management by stage at diagnosis among Medicare beneficiaries.

OBJECTIVE: Estimate the annual cost of care in the 5 years following a cancer diagnosis for 17 invasive cancer types, by stage at diagnosis. METHODS: We used 2012-2016 data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registry-Medicare claims database to examine cost of care among Medicare beneficiaries with a confirmed cancer diagnosis based on International Classification of Diseases for Oncology, Third Edition histology codes reported in SEER. Beneficiaries contributed to the annual cost calculations (Years 1-5) using their observed time after diagnosis. Beneficiaries were continuously enrolled in fee-for-service Medicare Parts A/B and Part D during follow-up. Total, inpatient, outpatient, and pharmacy cancer-related service costs were calculated. RESULTS: From 2012 to 2016, we identified 597,778 Medicare beneficiaries with incident cancer diagnosis within 5 years (Stage I, II, III, and IV: 32.6%, 33.4%, 15.9%, and 18.0%, respectively). In Year 1, mean (standard deviation) total costs for Stage I diagnoses varied from $7640 ($17,378) (prostate) to $94,636 ($117,636) (pancreas). Total costs increased by stage and reached $58,783 ($92,344) (prostate) to $156,982 ($175,009) (stomach) for Stage IV diagnoses in Year 1. Costs in Year 1 were significantly higher for Stage IV diagnoses than for earlier stages across all cancer types. In Years 2-5, total costs were lower than in Year 1 but continued to increase by stage. CONCLUSIONS: Beneficiaries diagnosed at later stages of cancer have higher costs of care (up to 7 times as much) than those diagnosed at earlier stages. Earlier cancer diagnosis may lead to more efficient treatment and decreased management cost.

Cost-effectiveness of brentuximab vedotin plus chemotherapy for previously untreated CD30-positive peripheral T-cell lymphoma in Canada.

AIMS: To support reimbursement requests in Canada, we evaluated the cost-effectiveness of brentuximab vedotin (Adcetris) in combination with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and prednisone (A + CHP) compared with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (CHOP) as frontline treatment for CD30-expressing peripheral T-cell lymphomas (PTCLs) using results from the ECHELON-2 clinical trial. The PTCL subtypes included were systemic anaplastic large cell lymphoma (sALCL), PTCL-not otherwise specified (PTCL-NOS), and angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma (AITL). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A partitioned survival model consisting of three health states (progression-free survival [PFS], post-progression survival [PPS], and death) was constructed from the perspective of the Canadian publicly funded healthcare system over a lifetime horizon. Efficacy, safety, and health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) data were obtained from ECHELON-2. Medical resource use and costs were derived from Canadian literature and standard sources. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) per life-years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained were calculated. Sensitivity analyses were performed to account for uncertainty in key parameters. All costs are reported in Canadian dollars. RESULTS: A + CHP, when compared with CHOP, was associated with an estimated mean gain of 2.90 LYs and 2.38 QALYs and a mean incremental cost of $76,491. The ICER for A + CHP compared with CHOP was estimated at $26,340 per LY gained and $32,177 per QALY gained. In sensitivity analyses, the ICERs remained below $60,000 per QALY gained. Time horizon, patient starting age, and discount rate affected the results, as the ICER was driven by long-term survival gains observed with A + CHP compared with CHOP. LIMITATIONS: Real-world downstream treatments (such as stem cell transplantation) may differ from the treatment protocol followed in the ECHELON-2 trial. CONCLUSIONS: A + CHP compared with CHOP provides a cost-effective treatment option with improved clinical outcomes that are clinically relevant and a comparable safety profile for adults with previously untreated CD30-expressing sALCL, PTCL-NOS, or AITL in Canada.

Cost-Effectiveness of Empagliflozin in Patients With Diabetic Kidney Disease in the United States: Findings Based on the EMPA-REG OUTCOME Trial.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Benefits of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors on kidney outcomes have been demonstrated in clinical trials. Among patients with type 2 diabetes and established cardiovascular (CV) disease enrolled in the EMPA-REG OUTCOME study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01131676), empagliflozin added to standard of care (SOC) reduced the risk of incident or worsening nephropathy compared with SOC alone. This analysis evaluated the cost-effectiveness of empagliflozin versus SOC alone in the subpopulation with diabetic kidney disease (DKD) from the perspective of US commercial insurers and Medicare. STUDY DESIGN: Discrete event simulation model. SETTING & POPULATION: Patients with DKD in a US health care system. INTERVENTIONS: Empagliflozin 10 or 25mg with SOC versus SOC alone. SOC included glucose-lowering therapies and medications to treat CV risk factors. OUTCOMES: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (2020 US dollars per quality-adjusted life-year [QALY] gained). Costs and QALYs were discounted 3.0% per year. MODEL, PERSPECTIVE, & TIME FRAME: Cost-effectiveness analysis, commercial insurers and Medicare perspective, lifetime horizon. RESULTS: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of empagliflozin with SOC versus SOC alone was $25,974 per QALY. Empagliflozin added 0.67 QALYs and $17,322 per patient over a lifetime horizon. Results were driven by fewer clinical events (including CV death, heart failure hospitalization, albuminuria progression, and a composite kidney outcome) experienced by patients receiving empagliflozin with SOC versus SOC alone. Results were sensitive to rates of CV death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and heart failure hospitalization, as well as to drug costs and time horizon. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses indicated 91% of simulations at <$50,000 per QALY. LIMITATIONS: The EMPA-REG OUTCOME study was not powered to assess treatment benefits in a subgroup and excluded patients with estimated glomerular filtration rate<30mL/min/1.73m2. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the EMPA-REG OUTCOME study, this cost-effectiveness analysis suggests that, for commercial insurers and Medicare, adding empagliflozin to SOC may be a cost-effective treatment option for patients with DKD.

Estimating the population health impact of a multi-cancer early detection genomic blood test to complement existing screening in the US and UK.

BACKGROUND: Multi-cancer early detection (MCED) next-generation-sequencing blood tests represent a potential paradigm shift in screening. METHODS: We estimated the impact of screening in the US and UK. We used country-specific parameters for uptake, and test-specific sensitivity and false-positive rates for current screening: breast, colorectal, cervical and lung (US only) cancers. For the MCED test, we used cancer-specific sensitivities by stage. Outcomes included the true-positive:false-positive (TP:FP) ratio; and the cost of diagnostic investigations among screen positives, per cancer detected (Diagcost). Outcomes were estimated for recommended screening only, and then when giving the MCED test to anyone without cancer detected by current screening plus similarly aged adults ineligible for recommended screening. RESULTS: In the US, current screening detects an estimated 189,498 breast, cervical, colorectal and lung cancers. An MCED test with 25-100% uptake detects an additional 105,526-422,105 cancers (multiple types). The estimated TP:FP (Diagcost) was 1.43 ($89,042) with current screening but only 1:1.8 ($7060) using an MCED test. For the UK the corresponding estimates were 1:18 (£10,452) for current screening, and 1:1.6 (£2175) using an MCED test. CONCLUSIONS: Adding an MCED blood test to recommended screening can potentially be an efficient strategy. Ongoing randomised studies are required for full efficacy and cost-effectiveness evaluations.

Health state utility values by cancer stage: a systematic literature review.

OBJECTIVES: Cancer diagnoses at later stages are associated with a decrease in health-related quality of life (HRQOL). Health state utility values (HSUVs) reflect preference-based HRQOL and can vary based on cancer type, stage, treatment, and disease progression. Detecting and treating cancer at earlier stages may lead to improved HRQOL, which is important for value assessments. We describe published HSUVs by cancer type and stage. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted using Embase, MEDLINE®, EconLit, and gray literature to identify studies published from January 1999 to September 2019 that reported HSUVs by cancer type and stage. Disutility values were calculated from differences in reported HSUVs across cancer stages. RESULTS: From 13,872 publications, 27 were eligible for evidence synthesis. The most frequent cancer types were breast (n = 9), lung (n = 5), colorectal (n = 4), and cervical cancer (n = 3). Mean HSUVs decreased with increased cancer stage, with consistently lower values seen in stage IV or later-stage cancer across studies (e.g., - 0.74, - 0.44, and - 0.51 for breast, colorectal, and cervical cancer, respectively). Disutility values were highest between later-stage (metastatic or stage IV) cancers compared to earlier-stage (localized or stage I-III) cancers. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides a summary of HSUVs across different cancer types and stages that can inform economic evaluations. Despite the large variation in HSUVs overall, a consistent decline in HSUVs can be seen in the later stages, including stage IV. These findings indicate substantial impairment on individuals' quality of life and suggest value in early detection and intervention.

Economic evaluation of betibeglogene autotemcel (Beti-cel) gene addition therapy in transfusion-dependent ß-thalassemia.

Background: Standard of care (SoC) for transfusion-dependent ß-thalassemia (TDT) requires lifelong, regular blood transfusions as well as chelation to reduce iron accumulation. Objective: This study investigates the cost-effectiveness of betibeglogene autotemcel ('beti-cel'; LentiGlobin for ß-thalassemia) one-time, gene addition therapy compared to lifelong SoC for TDT. Study design: Microsimulation model simulated the lifetime course of TDT based on a causal sequence in which transfusion requirements determine tissue iron levels, which in turn determine risk of iron overload complications that increase mortality. Clinical trial data informed beti-cel clinical parameters; effects of SoC on iron levels came from real-world studies; iron overload complication rates and mortality were based on published literature. Setting: USA; commercial payer perspective Participants: TDT patients age 2-50 Interventions: Beti-cel is compared to SoC. Main outcome measure: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) utilizing quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) Results: The model predicts beti-cel adds 3.8 discounted life years (LYs) or 6.9 QALYs versus SoC. Discounted lifetime costs were $2.28 M for beti-cel ($572,107 if excluding beti-cel cost) and $2.04 M for SoC, with a resulting ICER of $34,833 per QALY gained. Conclusion: Beti-cel is cost-effective for TDT patients compared to SoC. This is due to longer survival and cost offset of lifelong SoC.

Cost-effectiveness of empagliflozin versus canagliflozin, dapagliflozin, or standard of care in patients with type 2 diabetes and established cardiovascular disease.

INTRODUCTION: Empagliflozin, a sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitor, is approved in the USA to reduce risk of cardiovascular (CV) death in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and established CV disease, based on EMPA-REG OUTCOME (Empagliflozin Cardiovascular Outcome Event Trial in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Patients) trial results. Empagliflozin reduced major adverse CV event (MACE) by 14%, CV death by 38%, and hospitalization for heart failure (HHF) by 35% vs placebo, each on top of standard of care (SoC). SGLT-2 inhibitors canagliflozin and dapagliflozin have also been compared with placebo, all on top of SoC, in CV outcome trials. In the CANVAS (Canagliflozin Cardiovascular Assessment Study) Program, canagliflozin reduced MACE by 14% and HHF by 33%. Dapagliflozin reduced HHF by 27% in the DECLARE-TIMI 58 trial (Multicenter Trial to Evaluate the Effect of Dapagliflozin on the Incidence of Cardiovascular Events). This analysis estimated the cost-effectiveness of empagliflozin versus canagliflozin, dapagliflozin, or SoC, in US adults with T2DM and established CV disease. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Individual patient-level discrete-event simulation was conducted to predict time-to-event for CV and renal outcomes, and specific adverse events over patients' lifetimes. Occurrence of events in EMPA-REG OUTCOME was estimated based on event-free survival curves with time-dependent covariates. An HR for canagliflozin or dapagliflozin versus empagliflozin on each clinical event was estimated from published CANVAS, DECLARE-TIMI 58, and EMPA-REG OUTCOME data using indirect treatment comparison. Public sources provided US costs and utilities. RESULTS: The model predicted longer survival for empagliflozin versus canagliflozin, dapagliflozin, and SoC mainly due to direct reduction in CV death. Empagliflozin dominated canagliflozin, yielding more quality-adjusted life years (QALYs; 0.38) at a lower cost (-US$306). Compared with dapagliflozin and SoC, empagliflozin yielded 0.50 and 0.84 incremental QALYs at US$1517 and US$27 539 incremental costs, yielding incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of US$3054/QALY and US$32 848/QALY, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Empagliflozin was projected to dominate canagliflozin and be highly cost-effective compared with dapagliflozin and SoC using US healthcare costs.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of empagliflozin versus sitagliptin as second-line therapy for treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes in the United States.

AIM: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of sequential addition of empagliflozin versus sitagliptin after metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) with or without cardiovascular disease (CVD) from the perspective of the US healthcare payer. METHODS: An individual simulation model predicted lifetime diabetes-related complications, using UKPDS-OM2 equations in patients without CVD, and EMPA-REG OUTCOME equations in patients with CVD. Additional US-based sources informed inputs for population characteristics, adverse events, non-CV death, treatment escalation, quality of life and costs. Costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were discounted 3.0% annually. RESULTS: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for second-line empagliflozin versus sitagliptin in the overall T2D population was $6967/QALY. Empagliflozin led to longer CVD-free survival (0.07 years) and an 11% reduction in CV death in patients with CVD compared with sitagliptin. Empagliflozin resulted in greater benefits with greater costs in patients with versus without baseline CVD, yielding ICERs of $3589/QALY versus $12 577/QALY, respectively. Results were consistent across a range of deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses and scenarios. CONCLUSION: Compared with sitagliptin, empagliflozin was cost-effective (at $50 000/QALY US threshold) as a second-line treatment to metformin for T2D patients with or without CVD in the United States. Our findings lend additional support for more widespread adoption of guidelines by healthcare decision-makers for T2D treatment.

Cost-effectiveness of empagliflozin in the UK in an EMPA-REG OUTCOME subgroup with type 2 diabetes and heart failure.

AIMS: Heart failure (HF) and type 2 diabetes (T2D), common co-morbidities, translate into worse patient prognoses and higher direct costs than for either condition alone. Empagliflozin has been shown to markedly reduce cardiovascular (CV) deaths and HF hospitalizations (HHF) in HF patients with T2D. This study evaluated the lifetime cost-effectiveness of supplementing standard of care (SoC) with empagliflozin, relative to SoC alone, in HF patients with T2D from the UK payer perspective. METHODS AND RESULTS: An existing discrete-event simulation model was adapted for the economic evaluation. Risk equations developed from time-dependent parametric survival analyses using patient-level HF subpopulation data from the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial were employed to predict CV and renal events. Non-CV death, utility weights, and costs were drawn from UK sources. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs were discounted at 3.5% per annum. Relative to SoC, empagliflozin with SoC yielded fewer first HHF, recurrent HHF, CV death, and non-fatal myocardial infarction but more non-fatal stroke events. Empagliflozin with SoC vs. SoC alone was associated with increased average life expectancy (10.80 vs. 9.59 LYs) and quality of life (6.27 vs. 5.62 QALYs), though at higher lifetime cost (£18 197 vs. £16 829) per person, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £2093 per QALY. The probability of empagliflozin being cost-effective in the HF subpopulation at a £20 000 per QALY willingness-to-pay threshold was 91%. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis suggests that adding empagliflozin to SoC in HF patients with T2D constitutes a cost-effective use of UK healthcare resources and may provide long-term health benefits to patients.

Cost-effectiveness of brentuximab vedotin with chemotherapy in treatment of CD30-expressing PTCL.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of brentuximab vedotin (Adcetris) in combination with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and prednisone (A+CHP) in the first-line setting for CD30-expressing peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL). STUDY DESIGN: An economic model was developed using clinical and quality-of-life (QOL) data from the ECHELON-2 trial, in which A+CHP demonstrated significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) versus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (CHOP). METHODS: A partitioned survival model, consisting of 3 health states (PFS, postprogression survival, and death), was constructed from a US payer perspective over a lifetime time horizon. PFS and OS observed from ECHELON-2 were extrapolated using standard parametric distributions. The best-fitting distributions (log-normal for both arms) were selected based on statistical goodness of fit and clinical plausibility of the long-term projections. Utilities were based on the European Quality of Life 5-Dimensional data collected in ECHELON-2. Medical resource use and costs were from literature and standard sources. RESULTS: The model predicted that A+CHP extended PFS and OS by 2.92 and 3.38 years, respectively, over CHOP. After incorporating QOL and discounting, A+CHP was associated with 1.79 quality-adjusted life-years gained at a total incremental cost of $159,388, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $89,217. Sensitivity analyses provided ICERs ranging approximately from $57,000 to $138,000. The estimated probability that A+CHP is cost-effective compared with CHOP was 82% at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the ECHELON-2 trial data, this analysis found A+CHP to be cost-effective for patients with previously untreated CD30-expressing PTCL.

Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Empagliflozin in Japan Based on Results From the Asian subpopulation in the EMPA-REG OUTCOME Trial.

PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of empagliflozin in Japan based on the Asian subpopulation in the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial. METHODS: The trial has shown a reduction in the risk for cardiovascular (CV) and renal events with empagliflozin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and established CV disease. A cost-effectiveness analysis based on the overall population of the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial was reported previously by using a lifetime discrete event simulation model. The same modeling frame was adapted to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of treatment with empagliflozin added to standard of care (SoC) compared with SoC alone in Japan. The time to relevant clinical events and the hazard ratios were derived from an Asian subpopulation in the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial. The costs for each event were estimated from a Japanese medical claims database. Direct medical costs, life expectancy, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were calculated from the public health care perspective. FINDINGS: Treatment with empagliflozin was estimated to increase life expectancy by 6.2 years and 2.7 QALYs, whereas total cost increased by 1,115,475 yen compared with treatment with SoC alone. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was 415,849 yen/QALY. In the sensitivity analysis, there was no case that was in excess of the reference value of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio in the pilot introduction for price revision in Japan (ie, 5 million yen/QALY). IMPLICATIONS: Based on the Asian subpopulation in the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial, our results suggest that empagliflozin added to SoC is highly cost-effective compared with SoC alone in Japan.

Outcomes and costs of remote patient monitoring among patients with implanted cardiac defibrillators: An economic model based on the PREDICT RM database.

BACKGROUND: Remote monitoring of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators has been associated with reduced rates of all-cause rehospitalizations and mortality among device recipients, but long-term economic benefits have not been studied. METHODS AND RESULTS: An economic model was developed using the PREDICT RM database comparing outcomes with and without remote monitoring. The database included patients ages 65 to 89 who received a Boston Scientific device from 2006 to 2010. Parametric survival equations were derived for rehospitalization and mortality to predict outcomes over a maximum time horizon of 25 years. The analysis assessed rehospitalization, mortality, and the cost-effectiveness (expressed as the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year) of remote monitoring versus no remote monitoring. Remote monitoring was associated with reduced mortality; average life expectancy and average quality-adjusted life years increased by 0.77 years and 0.64, respectively (6.85 life years and 5.65 quality-adjusted life years). When expressed per patient-year, remote monitoring patients had fewer subsequent rehospitalizations (by 0.08 per patient-year) and lower hospitalization costs (by $554 per patient year). With longer life expectancies, remote monitoring patients experienced an average of 0.64 additional subsequent rehospitalizations with increased average lifetime hospitalization costs of $2784. Total costs of outpatient and physician claims were higher with remote monitoring ($47 515 vs $42 792), but average per patient-year costs were lower ($6232 vs $6244). The base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $10 752 per quality-adjusted life year, making remote monitoring high-value care. CONCLUSION: Remote monitoring is a cost-effective approach for the lifetime management of patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators.

The Economic Impact of New Therapeutic Interventions on Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI) Symptom Scores in Patients with Alzheimer Disease.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Few studies have modeled individual Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI) symptom scores for Alzheimer disease (AD) patients and assessed the value of therapeutic interventions that can potentially impact them. The main objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of new AD symptomatic treatments on relevant health economic outcomes via their potential effects on cognition and neuropsychiatric symptoms such as depression, irritability, anxiety, and sleep disorder. METHODS: We enhanced the previously published AHEAD model (Assessment of Health Economics in Alzheimer's Disease) by including new variables and functional relations to capture the NPI's individual neuropsychiatric symptoms in addition to the total NPI score. This update allowed us to study the longitudinal effect of improvements in specific NPI subscale scores and the downstream impact on outcomes such as psychiatric medication use, survival, and institutional placement. RESULTS: The model base-case results showed that a hypothetical treatment with symptomatic effects on anxiety, depression, and irritability NPI subscales was not cost-effective; however, the treatment's cost-effectiveness was improved once a direct link between NPI subscales and mortality was explored or under relatively stronger treatment effects. CONCLUSION: Treatments that influence specific symptoms within the overall NPI have the potential to improve patient outcomes in a cost-effective way. This model is a useful tool for evaluating target product profiles of drugs with effect on NPI symptoms in early stages of development.

Alzheimer's disease Archimedes condition-event simulator: Development and validation.

INTRODUCTION: Several advances have been made in Alzheimer's Disease (AD) modeling, however, there remains a need for a simulator that represents the full scope of disease progression and can be used to study new disease-modifying treatments for early-stage and even prodromal AD. METHODS: We developed AD Archimedes condition-event simulator, a patient-level simulator with a focus on simulating the effects of early interventions through changes in biomarkers of AD. The simulator incorporates interconnected predictive equations derived from longitudinal data sets. RESULTS: The results of external validations on AD Archimedes condition-event simulator showed that it provides reasonable estimates once compared to literature results on transition to dementia AD, institutionalization, and mortality. A case study comparing a disease-modifying treatment and a symptomatic treatment also showcases the benefits of early treatment. DISCUSSION: The AD Archimedes condition-event simulator is designed to perform economic evaluation on various interventions through close tracking of disease progression and the related clinical outcomes.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of dabigatran versus rivaroxaban for stroke prevention in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation using real-world evidence in elderly US Medicare beneficiaries.

OBJECTIVE: Dabigatran and rivaroxaban have been approved by the US FDA to reduce the risk of stroke and systemic embolism in non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients. Newly published real-world evidence based on the US population found that elderly Medicare patients with NVAF treated with rivaroxaban experienced statistically significant increases in intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) and major extracranial bleeding, and statistically nonsignificant decreases in thromboembolic stroke and acute myocardial infarction (AMI) compared with dabigatran. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of dabigatran vs. rivaroxaban for the treatment of US Medicare NVAF patients. METHODS: A previously published Markov model was adapted to compare dabigatran and rivaroxaban. The model considered thromboembolic stroke, bleeding events, and AMI based on the published real-world event risks. Model outputs included clinical event rates, costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). RESULTS: Dabigatran patients experienced fewer ICH and major extracranial bleeding events than rivaroxaban patients, but more stroke and AMI events. Dabigatran was found to yield lower costs and higher QALYs than rivaroxaban, with incremental costs of -$3534 and incremental QALYs of 0.004. Results remained consistent in sensitivity analyses, with a positive net monetary benefit (willingness-to-pay thresholds of $50,000 and $100,000 per QALY) for dabigatran over rivaroxaban for all model inputs tested. CONCLUSIONS: In this study using US Medicare real-world data, dabigatran was found to dominate rivaroxaban. The analyses were limited by the short follow-up period of the real-world data and results may not be generalizable to other patient populations.

Comparación del coste-utilidad de los anticoagulantes orales de acción directa en la prevención de ictus en la fibrilación auricular no valvular en España / Comparison of the cost-utility of direct oral anticoagulants for the prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation in Spain

Introducción. El apixabán, el dabigatrán y el rivaroxabán son tres anticoagulantes orales de acción directa (ACOD) indicados para la prevención del ictus y la embolia sistémica en pacientes con fibrilación auricular no valvular (FANV) en España. Objetivo. Comparar el coste-utilidad de los tres ACOD frente a los antivitamina K. Pacientes y métodos. Se utilizó un modelo Markov con ciclos trimestrales para simular pacientes con FANV desde que inician su tratamiento hasta el resto de su vida desde la perspectiva del Sistema Nacional de Salud. El modelo incorporó 36 estados de salud, incluyendo combinaciones de tratamientos, discapacidad y antecedentes de eventos, y consideró una cohorte hipotética de 10.000 pacientes con FANV. La eficacia relativa se calculó a partir de una comparación indirecta formal de los tratamientos según los datos de los ensayos pivotales de cada ACOD. Resultados. El dabigatrán se asoció al valor máximo de años de vida ajustados por calidad (AVAC) (8,40 AVAC), seguido del apixabán (8,33 AVAC), el rivaroxabán (8,15 AVAC) y el acenocumarol (8,03 AVAC). Los costes totales fueron menores con el acenocumarol (22.230 €), seguido del dabigatrán (24.564 €), el apixabán (24.655 €) y el rivaroxabán (25.900 €). La ratio coste-utilidad incremental frente a los antivitamina K fue de 6.397, 8.039 y 29.957 €/AVAC para el dabigatrán, el apixabán y el rivaroxabán, respectivamente. Comparados entre ellos, el dabigatrán dominó al apixabán y al rivaroxabán. Los análisis de sensibilidad confirmaron la robustez del caso base. Conclusiones. Los tres ACOD son coste-efectivos frente al acenocumarol. El dabigatrán es económicamente dominante frente al rivaroxabán y al apixabán en España, al ser más efectivo y menos costoso (AU)

Introduction. Apixaban, dabigatran and rivaroxaban are three new direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) used in the prevention of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) in Spain. Aim. To assess the relative cost-utility of the three DOACs compared with vitamin K antagonists. Patients and methods. A Markov model with 3-month cycles was used to simulate NVAF patients starting with treatment and followed up for their lifetime from the perspective of the National Health System. The model included 36 health states including treatment combinations, disability and events history and considered a hypothetical cohort of 10,000 NVAF patients. Relative efficacy was calculated from a formal indirect treatment comparison using data from the pivotal trials of each DOAC. Results. Dabigatran was associated with the highest number of quality-adjusted life years (QALY) (8.40 QALY), followed by apixaban (8.33 QALY), rivaroxaban (8.15 QALY) and acenocoumarol (8.03 QALY). Patients taking acenocoumarol had the lowest total costs (€22,230), followed by dabigatran (€24,564), apixaban (€24,655) and rivaroxaban (€25,900). Incremental cost-utility ratios compared to vitamin K antagonists, were €6,397, €8,039 and €29,957/QALY for dabigatran, apixaban and rivaroxaban, respectively. If compared together, dabigatran dominated apixaban and rivaroxaban. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the baseline case. Conclusions. All three direct anticoagulants are cost-effective against acenocoumarol. Dabigatran is economically dominant over rivaroxaban and apixaban in the Spanish setting, as it is more effective and cheaper (AU)