A Real-World Observational Study of the Use and Associated Costs of Treating Neuroendocrine Tumors With Somatostatin Analogs in Canada.

OBJECTIVES: Somatostatin analogs (SSAs; lanreotide autogel and octreotide long-acting release) are used to treat neuroendocrine tumors; however, factors that influence SSA use are unclear. METHODS: This real-world, observational study collected data from private/public pharmacy claims for patients using SSAs in Canada. Data relating to dosing regimens, injection burden, treatment persistence, and costs were retrospectively analyzed for treatment-naive patients. RESULTS: Overall, 1545 patients were included in the analysis of dosing regimens, 908 for injection burden, 453 for treatment persistence, and 903 for treatment-associated costs. Compared with lanreotide, treatment with octreotide long-acting release was more likely associated with treatment above the maximum recommended dose (odds ratio, 16.2; 95% confidence interval, 4.3-136.2; P < 0.0001), higher weighted average long-acting SSA injection burden (13.4 vs 12.5, P < 0.0001), and a higher number of rescue medication claims per patient (0.22 vs 0.03, P < 0.0001). Treatment with lanreotide autogel was associated with greater treatment persistence (hazard ratio, 0.58; 95% confidence interval, 0.42-0.80; P = 0.001) and lower mean annual costs of treatment than octreotide long-acting release (Canadian dollars $27,829.35 vs $31,255.49; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: These findings provide valuable insight into SSA use in clinical settings and may inform treatment selection.

Cost effectiveness and impact on quality of life of abobotulinumtoxinA and onabotulinumtoxinA in the treatment of children with lower limb spasticity in Canada.

Background: Injectable botulinum neurotoxins are a mainstay of treatment for pediatric spasticity. AbobotulinumtoxinA and onabotulinumtoxinA are both injectable toxin therapies used to treat pediatric lower limb (PLL) spasticity in Canada. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of abobotulinumtoxinA vs. onabotulinumtoxinA in the treatment of PLL spasticity in Canada.Methods: A probabilistic Markov cohort model with a 2-year time horizon was developed, with health states defined by response to therapy, as characterized by the goal attainment scale (GAS). Based on randomized controlled trial evidence, response to therapy was similar or higher for abobotulinumtoxinA relative to onabotulinumtoxinA; uncertainty was incorporated into model parameters, however, as the two therapies have not been compared head-to-head. Canadian resource use and cost data were incorporated.Results: In the base case, abobotulinumtoxinA generated 1.48 quality-adjusted life years over the model time horizon, compared to 1.47 for onabotulinumtoxinA. AbobotulinumtoxinA was associated with cost savings of $123 CAD, reflecting lower costs in both medication acquisition and health services. The estimated improvement to quality of life and reduced costs result in an estimate of economic dominance for abobotulinumtoxinA over onabotulinumtoxinA. This dominant result persisted across probabilistic and scenario analyses.Key points for decision makersBased on a review of available clinical evidence, abobotulinumtoxinA was found to have significant and/or numerical efficacy benefits to onabotulinumtoxinA on functional outcomes (Goal Attainment Scale) and tone (Modified Ashworth Scale) and in the treatment of pediatric lower limb spasticityIn this cost-effectiveness analysis, abobotulinumtoxinA was found to be associated with greater quality-adjusted life years and lower costs than onabotulinumtoxinA (economically dominant)A limitation of this analysis was the uncertainty around key parameters. Specifically, the lack of head-to-head comparison data for the two therapies, and variable data regarding likely onabotulinumtoxinA dosing in PLL in clinical practice. However, across a range of plausible scenarios, the economic dominant result remained.

Canadian economic evaluation of budesonide-formoterol as maintenance and reliever treatment in patients with moderate to severe asthma.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the cost-effectiveness of budesonide-formoterol in a single inhaler used as both maintenance and reliever medication versus clinician-directed titration of salmeterol-fluticasone as maintenance medication, plus salbutamol taken as needed, in controlling asthma in adults and adolescents. METHODS: A Canadian economic evaluation was conducted based on the results of a large (n=2143), open-label, randomized, controlled effectiveness trial in which health resource use was prospectively collected. The primary outcome measurement was the time to the first severe exacerbation. Costs included direct medical costs (physician and emergency room visits, hospitalizations, asthma drug costs, etc) and productivity (absenteeism). The time horizon was one year, which corresponded to the duration of the clinical trial. Prices were obtained from 2005 Canadian sources. Both health care and societal perspectives were considered, and deterministic univariate sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: In the clinical trial, budesonide-formoterol as maintenance and reliever treatment was superior to salmeterol-fluticasone with respect to the time to the first severe exacerbation, overall rate of exacerbations and use of as-needed reliever medication. The annualized rate of severe exacerbations was 0.24 events/patient in the budesonide-formoterol arm and 0.31 events/patient in the salmeterol-fluticasone arm (P=0.0025). From a health care perspective, the mean cost per patient-year was $1,315 in the budesonide-formoterol arm versus $1,541 in the salmeterol-fluticasone arm. From a societal perspective, the mean cost per patient-year was $1,538 in the budesonide-formoterol arm and $1,854 in the salmeterol-fluticasone arm. Budesonide-formoterol was dominant (more effective and less expensive) in the base case analysis from both perspectives. The results were robust under sensitivity testing. CONCLUSIONS: The strategy that allows budesonide-formoterol to be used in a single inhaler as both maintenance and reliever medication proved to be more effective and less expensive than a strategy of clinician-directed titration of salmeterol-fluticasone with salbutamol as reliever therapy.