Cost-Effectiveness of Obinutuzumab in Combination with Bendamustine Followed by Obinutuzumab Maintenance versus Bendamustine Alone in Treatment of Patients with Rituximab-Refractory Follicular Lymphoma in Norway.

AIMS: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of obinutuzumab in combination with bendamustine followed by obinituzumab maintenance (Obin-Benda) compared to bendamustine alone (Benda) in patients with refractory follicular lymphoma (FL) in a Norwegian setting. METHODS: A three-state area-under-the-curve (AUC) model was developed. The states included were progression-free-survival (PFS), progressed disease (PD), and death. Each state had costs and utilities assigned to it. The pivotal phase III randomized controlled trial GADOLIN was used for clinical input in the model along with Norwegian cost estimates. The trial demonstrated that Obin-Benda improved overall survival (OS), with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.67 (95% CI 0.47-0.96), and reduced the likelihood of progression or death (HR 0.52, 95% CI 0.39-0.69) compared to Benda. The model used EQ-5D data collected in the GADOLIN trial, with UK tariffs assigned to the EQ-5D scores. RESULTS: The total quality adjusted life-years (QALYs) for the patients on Obin-Benda were estimated to be 4.67, compared to 3.65 for Benda, while the total costs were estimated to be €98,849 and €51,570, respectively. Obin-Benda had an incremental gain of 1.02 QALYs compared to Benda, at an additional cost of €47,279. The estimated deterministic incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was €46,438 per QALY gained, while the probabilistic ICER was €46,887 per QALY gained (95% CI €34,772-€59,443). The results were robust to changes in various sensitivity and scenario analyses. CONCLUSIONS: The cost-effectiveness threshold in Norway is not public, but based on previous decisions it is estimated to be up to approximately €89,000 per QALY (NOK 800,000). The results of the analysis indicate that obinutuzumab in combination with bendamustine followed by obinutuzumab maintenance may be cost-effective compared to bendamustine alone in Norway.

Ticagrelor treatment in patients with acute coronary syndrome is cost-effective in Sweden and Denmark.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of treating patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) for 12 months with ticagrelor compared with generic clopidogrel in Sweden and Denmark. DESIGN: Decision-analytic model to estimate lifetime costs, life-expectancy, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) with ticagrelor and clopidogrel. Event rates, healthcare resource use, and health-related quality of life during 12 months of therapy were estimated from the PLATelet inhibition and patient Outcomes (PLATO) trial. Beyond 12 months, quality-adjusted survival and costs were estimated conditional on events occurring during the 12 months of therapy. When available, country-specific data were employed in the analysis. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios are presented from a healthcare perspective and a broader societal perspective including costs falling outside the healthcare sector in 2010 local currency. RESULTS: The cost per QALY with ticagrelor compared with generic clopidogrel was SEK 25 022 and DKK 26 892 for Sweden and Denmark, respectively, from a healthcare perspective. The cost per QALY from a broader societal perspective was SEK 24 290 and DKK 25 051 for Sweden and Denmark, respectively. CONCLUSION: The cost per QALY of treating ACS-patients with ticagrelor compared with generic clopidogrel is below the conventional thresholds of cost-effectiveness in Sweden and Denmark.