Predicting the Societal Value of Lecanemab in Early Alzheimer's Disease in Japan: A Patient-Level Simulation.

INTRODUCTION: Alzheimer's disease (AD), a neurodegenerative disorder that progresses from mild cognitive impairment (MCI) to dementia, is responsible for significant burden on caregivers and healthcare systems. In this study, data from the large phase III CLARITY AD trial were used to estimate the societal value of lecanemab plus standard of care (SoC) versus SoC alone against a range of willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds from a healthcare and societal perspective in Japan. METHODS: A disease simulation model was used to evaluate the impact of lecanemab on disease progression in early AD based on data from the phase III CLARITY AD trial and published literature. The model used a series of predictive risk equations based on clinical and biomarker data from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative and Assessment of Health Economics in Alzheimer's Disease II study. The model predicted key patient outcomes, including life years (LYs), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and total healthcare and informal costs of patients and caregivers. RESULTS: Over a lifetime horizon, patients treated with lecanemab plus SoC gained an additional 0.73 LYs compared with SoC alone (8.50 years vs. 7.77 years). Lecanemab, with an average treatment duration of 3.68 years, was found to be associated with a 0.91 increase in patient QALYs and a total increase of 0.96 when accounting for caregiver utility. The estimated value of lecanemab varied according to the WTP thresholds (JPY 5-15 million per QALY gained) and the perspective employed. From the narrow healthcare payer's perspective, it ranged from JPY 1,331,305 to JPY 3,939,399. From the broader healthcare payer's perspective, it ranged from JPY 1,636,827 to JPY 4,249,702, while from the societal perspective, it ranged from JPY 1,938,740 to JPY 4,675,818. CONCLUSION: The use of lecanemab plus SoC would improve health and humanistic outcomes with reduced economic burden for patients and caregivers with early AD in Japan.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of lemborexant for treating insomnia in Japan: a model-based projection, incorporating the risk of falls, motor vehicle collisions, and workplace accidents.

BACKGROUND: Lemborexant has demonstrated statistically significant improvements in sleep onset and sleep maintenance compared with placebo and zolpidem tartrate extended release, measured both objectively using polysomnography and subjectively using sleep diaries, in the phase 3 clinical trial SUNRISE 1. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of lemborexant compared with suvorexant, zolpidem immediate release (IR), and untreated insomnia. METHODS: A decision-tree model was developed for falls, motor vehicle collisions, and workplace accidents associated with insomnia and insomnia treatments from a Japanese healthcare perspective and with a 6-month time horizon. The model extracted subjective sleep onset latency treatment responses and disutility values for non-responders from SUNRISE 1. Cost-effectiveness was assessed using incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate the impact of parameter uncertainty on the results. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, the mean estimated QALYs for lemborexant, suvorexant, zolpidem-IR, and untreated insomnia were 0.4220, 0.4204, 0.4113, and 0.4163, and expected medical costs were JPY 34 034, JPY 38 371, JPY 38 139, and JPY 15 383, respectively. Lemborexant saved JPY 4337 and JPY 4105 compared with suvorexant or zolpidem-IR, respectively, while conferring QALY benefits. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of lemborexant compared with that of untreated insomnia was JPY 3 220 975 /QALY. Lemborexant was dominant over suvorexant and zolpidem-IR and was cost-effective when compared with untreated insomnia. Sensitivity analyses supported the results' robustness. CONCLUSIONS: In a Japanese clinical practice setting, lemborexant may represent a better investment for treating insomnia in the healthcare system in Japan.

Comparative analysis of medical costs after hepatectomy versus radiofrequency ablation in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma in real-world clinical practice.

AIM: To compare the total medical costs and treatment outcomes in patients with primary hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) according to their initial treatment, that is, hepatectomy or radiofrequency ablation (RFA), in real-world clinical practice in Japan. METHODS: This retrospective observational study was conducted using a medical claims database. Patients who underwent hepatectomy or RFA for primary HCC were matched using propensity score matching methods for available baseline characteristics. The average per-patient total medical costs from the date of initial treatment to up to 3 years were estimated. The 3-year survival and recurrence rates were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: Data of 1726 patients (863 in each group) were analyzed. The average 3-year medical costs were USD 8000 lower in the RFA group than in the hepatectomy group (USD 35,000 vs. USD 43,000). Patients in the RFA group had comparable 3-year overall survival to those in the hepatectomy group (87.6% vs. 90.4%). However, the 3-year recurrence rate was significantly higher in the RFA group than in the hepatectomy group (41.5% vs. 30.8%; hazard ratio = 1.56, 95% confidence interval: 1.31-1.87). CONCLUSIONS: In this 3-year study, patients achieved similar survival rates irrespective of initial treatment, but the RFA group had a lower total medical cost burden than the hepatectomy group. If both treatments are equally feasible, RFA may be a preferable initial curative treatment for primary HCC. However, careful consideration and adequate treatment should be given due to its higher recurrence risk.

Treatment patterns and medical costs after hepatectomy in real-world practice for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma in Japan.

AIM: To examine the treatment patterns and medical costs in real-world practice among patients who received hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in Japan. METHODS: Data of patients who underwent hepatectomy as an initial therapy for primary HCC were extracted from a Japanese medical claims database from April 2008 to December 2019. The types of additional treatments for recurrent HCC and medical costs for up to 3 years from the first hepatectomy were analyzed. The average cumulative cost per patient starting on the date of the first hepatectomy was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier sample-average method. RESULTS: Data from 2 342 patients (median age, 71 years) were analyzed. Overall, 35.6% of patients received at least one HCC treatment within 3 years of the first hepatectomy. The total average cumulative 3-years medical cost was JPY 4 993 300 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 4 804 100 to 5 220 500). Surgical procedures were the most costly components in the first month after hepatectomy, whereas the costs of drugs, which mainly included antiviral and antineoplastic medications, increased thereafter. Patients with advanced stage HCC, hepatitis C, or a higher Charlson Comorbidity Index at hepatectomy, or those who required additional treatment, especially with antineoplastic drugs for recurrent HCC, incurred higher medical costs. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with HCC after hepatectomy experienced a large economic burden, which was more serious for those with advanced stage HCC, higher comorbidities, and hepatitis at baseline and for patients treated with antineoplastic drugs. A treatment selection that considers its medical cost burden would help to reduce some of these economic burdens.

Economic Burden of Alzheimer's Disease Dementia in Japan.

BACKGROUND: Alzheimer's disease dementia (ADD) is the leading cause of long-term care in Japan. OBJECTIVE: This study estimates the annual healthcare and long-term care costs in fiscal year 2018 for adults over 65 years of age with ADD in Japan and the informal care costs and productivity loss for their families. METHODS: Healthcare and long-term care costs for ADD were estimated according to the disease severity classified by the clinical dementia rating (CDR) score, using reports from a literature review. For the costs of time spent on caregiving activities, productivity loss for ADD family caregivers aged 20-69 and informal care costs for all ADD family caregivers were estimated. RESULTS: The total healthcare cost of ADD was JPY 1,073 billion, of which 86% (JPY 923 billion) was attributed to healthcare costs other than ADD drug costs (JPY 151 billion). The healthcare costs other than ADD drug costs by severity were less than JPY 200 billion for CDR 0.5, CDR 1, and CDR 2, respectively, but increased to JPY 447 billion (48%) for CDR 3. The public long-term care costs were estimated to be JPY 4,783 billion, which increased according to the severity. Total productivity loss for ADD family caregivers aged 20-69 was JPY 1,547 billion and the informal care cost for all ADD family caregivers was JPY 6,772 billion. CONCLUSION: ADD costs have a significant impact on public-funded healthcare, long-term care systems, and families in Japan. To minimize the economic burden of ADD, prolonging healthy life expectancy is the key factor to address.

Impact of the Severity of Alzheimer's Disease on the Quality of Life, Activities of Daily Living, and Caregiving Costs for Institutionalized Patients on Anti-Alzheimer Medications in Japan.

BACKGROUND: Alzheimer's disease (AD) increases societal costs and decreases the activities of daily living (ADL) and quality of life (QoL) of the affected individuals. OBJECTIVE: We assess the impact of AD severity on ADL, QoL, and caregiving costs in Japanese facilities for the elderly. METHODS: Patients with AD in facilities for the elderly were included (47 facilities, N = 3,461). The QoL, ADL, and disease severity of patients were assessed using Barthel Index (BI), EuroQoL-5D-5L (EQ-5D-5L), and Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), respectively. Annual caregiving costs were estimated using patients' claims data. The patients were subcategorized into the following three groups according to the MMSE score: mild (21≤MMSE≤30), moderate (11≤MMSE≤20), and severe (0≤MMSE≤10). Changes among the three groups were evaluated using the Jonckheere-Terpstra test. RESULTS: Four hundred and one participants were on anti-AD medicines, of whom 287 (age: 86.1±6.4 years, 76.7% women) in the mild (n = 53, 84.0±6.9 years, 71.7%), moderate (n = 118, 86.6±5.9 years, 76.3%), and severe (n = 116, 86.6±6.5 years, 79.3%) groups completed the study questionnaires. The mean BI and EQ-5D-5L scores for each group were 83.6, 65.1, and 32.8 and 0.801, 0.662, and 0.436, respectively. The mean annual caregiving costs were 2.111, 2.470, and 2.809 million JPY, respectively. As AD worsened, the BI and EQ-5D-5L scores decreased and annual caregiving costs increased significantly. CONCLUSION: AD severity has an impact on QoL, ADL, and caregiving costs.

Cost-Effectiveness of Lenvatinib in the Treatment of Patients With Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinomas in Japan: An Analysis Using Data From Japanese Patients in the REFLECT Trial.

BACKGROUND: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the leading causes of cancer-related mortality in Japan. Prognosis is poor, and until recently sorafenib was the only treatment option available for patients with unresectable disease. Lenvatinib is the first therapy to demonstrate noninferiority to sorafenib. An analysis was conducted using clinical data from Japanese patients in the phase III REFLECT trial to assess the cost-effectiveness of lenvatinib versus sorafenib for first-line treatment of unresectable HCC in Japan. METHODS: A partitioned survival model was implemented adopting the perspective of the Japanese healthcare system, with costs and outcomes modeled over a lifetime horizon and using a discount rate of 2%, as per Japanese guidelines. Population data from the Japanese subpopulation of REFLECT were used to extrapolate outcomes, and costs and resource use were based on Japanese sources. The Japanese tariff was applied to EQ-5D data collected during the REFLECT clinical trial to obtain utility values reflecting the preferences of the Japanese population. RESULTS: Compared with sorafenib, lenvatinib is dominant because it is associated with a reduction in incremental costs of ¥156 799 and incremental quality-adjusted life-years of 0.31. These results were robust to changes in key assumptions, and probabilistic outcomes aligned with deterministic outcomes. CONCLUSION: Given the use of Japan-specific data in the cost-effectiveness model, it is expected that the use of lenvatinib as a first-line treatment in Japan will be associated with cost savings and improved clinical outcomes versus sorafenib for patients with unresectable HCC.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of lenvatinib treatment for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC) compared with sorafenib in Japan.

BACKGROUND: Lenvatinib demonstrated a treatment effect on overall survival by the statistical confirmation of non-inferiority to sorafenib for the first-line treatment of uHCC. The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of lenvatinib compared with sorafenib for patients with uHCC in Japan. METHODS: A partitioned-survival model was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of lenvatinib versus sorafenib when treating uHCC patients over a lifetime horizon and considering total public healthcare expenditure. Efficacy and safety data were extracted from the REFLECT trial. Utility values were derived from the European Quality-of-Life 5-Dimension Questionnaire, conducted with patients enrolled in the REFLECT trial. Direct medical costs, such as primary drug therapy, outpatient visits, diagnostic tests, hospitalization, post-progression therapy, and adverse-event treatments, were included. Cost parameters unavailable in the clinical trial or publications were obtained based on the consolidated clinical standards from a Delphi panel of four Japanese medical experts. RESULTS: For lenvatinib versus sorafenib, the incremental cost was - 406,307 Japanese Yen (JPY), and the incremental life years and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were 0.27 and 0.23, respectively. Thus, lenvatinib dominated sorafenib, due to the mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratio falling in the fourth quadrant, conferring more benefit at lower costs compared with sorafenib. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that 81.3% of the simulations were favorable to lenvatinib compared with sorafenib, with a payer's willingness-to-pay-per-QALY of 5 million JPY. CONCLUSIONS: Lenvatinib was cost-effective compared with sorafenib for the first-line treatment of uHCC in Japan.

Investigation of Evidence Sources for Health-Related Quality of Life in Cost-Utility Analysis of Pharmaceuticals in Japan.

OBJECTIVE: To provide an overview of how current utility values were obtained in the cost-utility analysis (CUA) for pharmaceuticals in Japan on the basis of methodological guidelines developed in England and Wales, Australia, Canada, France, and Japan by conducting a systematic review of the published literature. METHODS: We searched and reviewed CUAs conducted for pharmaceuticals in Japan, reporting the results as cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). The databases we used were PubMed, EconLit, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, and the Japan Medical Abstracts Society. The search terms were "QALY" and "Japan" or "cost utility" and "Japan" in the PubMed database, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, and EconLit. In the search on the Japan Medical Abstracts Society database, we used the term "QALY." RESULTS: In total, 41 CUA articles met the selection criteria and the most common method of obtaining utility values was derived from the published literature (31 CUAs, 168 utility values). Five CUAs were elicited by directly asking the participants regarding their own health state, and four CUAs used "mapping" techniques in which utility values were linked to clinical results. The most commonly used instrument was the EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire followed by the time-trade-off. A few CUAs mentioned how they selected the literature for the utility values, and some utility values were combined across different sources, using different methods, and obtained from different locations. CONCLUSIONS: Practical methodological guidelines need to be developed to provide standardized methods of presenting the procedure of using utility values from the literature. Although transferability of utility values across jurisdictions has not been discussed fully, this topic should be covered in methodological guidelines and recommend best practices for evaluations.