Cost-effectiveness of romosozumab for the treatment of postmenopausal women at very high risk of fracture in Canada.

This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of 1 year of romosozumab followed by alendronate versus oral bisphosphonates alone in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis at very high risk for fracture in Canada. Results showed that romosozumab sequenced to alendronate is a cost-effective treatment option, dominating both alendronate and risedronate alone. PURPOSE: To demonstrate the value of romosozumab sequenced to alendronate compared to alendronate or risedronate alone, for the treatment of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women with a history of osteoporotic fracture and who are at very high risk for future fracture in Canada. METHODS: A Markov model followed a hypothetical cohort of postmenopausal osteoporotic women at very high risk for future fractures, to estimate the cost-effectiveness of romosozumab and alendronate compared to oral bisphosphonates alone. A total treatment period of 5 years was assumed. Quality-adjusted life years and costs were estimated for each comparator across health states defined by different types of fragility fractures. RESULTS: Romosozumab/alendronate was associated with a lifetime gain of 0.103 and 0.127 QALYs and a cost reduction of $343 and $3805, relative to alendronate and risedronate, respectively. These results were driven by a reduction of the number of fractures (2561 per 1000 patients, versus 2700 for alendronate and 2724 for risedronate over lifetime). Romosozumab/alendronate had the highest probability of being cost-effective, relative to alendronate and risedronate, at any willingness to pay threshold value. CONCLUSION: Romosozumab/alendronate was associated with reduced costs and greater benefit relative to other comparators. Probabilistic, deterministic, and scenario analyses indicate that romosozumab/alendronate represents the best value for money; the uncertainty analyses are robust, and therefore romosozumab should be considered for reimbursement by public drug plans in Canada .

Prospective risk and protective factors for psychopathology and wellbeing in civilian emergency services personnel: a systematic review.

Emergency services personnel have an elevated risk of developing mental health conditions. Most research in this area is cross-sectional, which precludes inferences about temporal and potentially causal relationships between risk and protective factors and mental health outcomes. The current study systematically reviewed prospective studies of risk and protective factors for mental health outcomes in civilian emergency services personnel (firefighters, paramedics, police) assessed at pre-operational and operational stages. Out of 66 eligible prospective studies identified, several core groups of risk and protective factors emerged: (1) cognitive abilities; (2) coping tendencies; (3) personality factors; (4) peritraumatic reactions and post-trauma symptoms; (5) workplace factors; (6) interpersonal factors; (7) events away from work. Although there was insufficient evidence for many associations, social support was consistently found to protect against the development of mental health conditions, and peritraumatic dissociation, prior mental health issues, and prior trauma exposure were risk factors for future mental health conditions. Among operational studies, neuroticism was significantly associated with future PTSD symptoms, burnout, and general poor mental health, and avoidance and intrusion symptoms of PTSD were associated with future PTSD and depression symptoms. The current review results provide important targets for future research and interventions designed to improve the mental health of emergency services personnel.

Economic analysis of bevacizumab, cetuximab, and panitumumab with fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of KRAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).

OBJECTIVE: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most commonly diagnosed cancer in Canada (excluding non-melanoma skin cancers). Bevacizumab is a recombinant humanized monoclonal antibody that selectively binds to human vascular endothelial growth factor. A sub-study confirmed its effectiveness in KRAS wild-type patients. Recent evidence has shown clinical benefit from anti-epidermal growth factor treatments cetuximab and panitumumab in these patients. The cost-effectiveness, to the Canadian healthcare system, of fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy (FBC) in combination with bevacizumab, cetuximab, or panitumumab was assessed for first-line treatment of KRAS wild-type mCRC patients. METHODS: A Markov model was developed and calibrated to progression-free/overall survival, using separately reported trial survival and adverse event results for each comparator. Health-state resource utilization was derived from published data and oncologist input. Utilities and unit prices were obtained from published literature and standard Canadian sources. RESULTS: Results per patient are over a lifetime horizon, to a maximum of 10 years, with 5% annual discounting. Comparators are ordered by total cost and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of each is determined against the previous non-dominated therapy. Compared to FBC alone, bevacizumab + FBC has an ICER of $131,600 per QALY gained. Compared to bevacizumab + FBC, panitumumab + FBC is dominated and cetuximab + FBC has an ICER of $3.8 million per QALY. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, bevacizumab + FBC had ∼100%, ∼100%, and 98.9% probabilities of being more cost-effective than both of the other combination treatments at thresholds of $50,000/QALY, $100,000/QALY, and $200,000/QALY, respectively. CONCLUSION: For first-line treatment of KRAS-WT mCRC, bevacizumab + FBC is associated with substantially lower costs as compared to panitumumab + FBC or cetuximab + FBC. Key limitations were that survival curves and adverse event rates were taken from separate clinical trials and that an indirect comparison was not included. Given these findings, bevacizumab is likely to offer the best value for money for this patient population.

Modeling the impact of the difference in cross-protection data between a human papillomavirus (HPV)-16/18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine and a human papillomavirus (HPV)-6/11/16/18 vaccine in Canada.

BACKGROUND: In Canada, two vaccines that have demonstrated high efficacy against infection with human papillomavirus (HPV) types -16 and -18 are available. The HPV-6/11/16/18 vaccine provides protection against genital warts (GW) while the HPV-16/18 vaccine may provide better protection against other oncogenic HPV types. In this analysis, the estimated clinical and economic benefit of each of these vaccines was compared in the Canadian setting. METHODS: A Markov model of the natural history of HPV infection among women, cervical cancer (CC) and GW was used to estimate the impact of vaccinating a cohort of 100,000 12-year-old females on lifetime outcomes and healthcare system costs (no indirect benefit in males included). A budget impact model was used to estimate the impact of each vaccine by province. RESULTS: In the base case, vaccination with the HPV-16/18 vaccine was predicted to prevent 48 additional CC cases, and 16 additional CC deaths, while vaccination with the HPV-6/11/16/18 vaccine was predicted to prevent 6,933 additional GW cases. Vaccination with the HPV-16/18 vaccine was estimated to save 1 additional discounted quality adjusted life year (QALY) at an overall lower lifetime cost to the healthcare system compared to the HPV-6/11/16/18 vaccine (assuming vaccine price parity). In sensitivity analyses, the HPV-6/11/16/18 vaccine was associated with greater QALYs saved when the cross-protection efficacy of the HPV-16/18 vaccine was reduced, or the burden of GW due to HPV-6/11 was increased. In most scenarios with price parity, the lifetime healthcare cost of the strategy with the HPV-16/18 vaccine was predicted to be lower than the HPV-6/11/16/18 vaccine. In the probabilistic sensitivity analyses, the HPV-16/18 vaccine provided more QALY benefit than the HPV-6/11/16/18 vaccine in 49.2% of scenarios, with lower relative lifetime costs in 83.5% of scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the predicted lifetime healthcare costs and QALYs saved by implementing each of the vaccines are similar. Vaccination with the HPV-16/18 vaccine is expected to be associated with reduced CC disease morbidity and mortality compared to vaccination with the HPV-6/11/16/18 vaccine. Differences in these outcomes depend on the extent of cervical disease prevented by cross-protection and the burden of GW caused by HPV-6/11.