Cost-effectiveness of overactive bladder treatments from a US commercial and payer perspective.

Aim: The cost-effectiveness of treatment options (anticholinergics, ß3-adrenoceptor agonists, onabotulinumtoxinA, sacral nerve stimulation and percutaneous tibial stimulation [the latter two including new rechargeable neurostimulators]) for the management of overactive bladder (OAB) were compared with best supportive care (BSC) using a previously published Markov model. Materials & methods: Cost-effectiveness was evaluated over a 15-year time horizon, and sensitivity analyses were performed using 2- and 5-year horizons. Discontinuation rates, resource utilization, and costs were derived from published sources. Results: Using Medicare and commercial costs over a 15-year time period, onabotulinumtoxinA 100U had incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) gained of $39,591/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and $42,255/QALY, respectively, versus BSC, which were the lowest ICERs of all assessed treatments. The sensitivity analyses at 2- and 5-year horizons also showed onabotulinumtoxinA to be the most cost-effective of all assessed treatments versus BSC. Conclusion: OnabotulinumtoxinA 100U is currently the most cost-effective treatment for OAB.

Cost-effectiveness of topical glycopyrronium tosylate for the treatment of primary axillary hyperhidrosis.

AIMS: Primary axillary hyperhidrosis (PAHH) is a condition characterized by excessive sweating that negatively impacts health-related quality of life, with significant psychological and social impacts. Glycopyrronium tosylate (GT) is a topical anticholinergic approved in the United States for treatment of PAHH in patients 9 years of age and older. Our objective was to assess the cost-effectiveness of GT as first-line topical therapy compared to topical aluminum chloride from a United States commercial perspective. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A Markov model was developed consisting of four health states based on the Hyperhidrosis Disease Severity Scale (HDSS) over a time horizon of 5 years with discount rates of 3% for both costs and outcomes. Transitions between health states were driven by HDSS response, defined as an improvement of ≥2 points. Non-responders and those who discontinue could switch to later line treatments or no treatment. Health utility scores were based on HDSS scores, supported by published literature. RESULTS: Over 5 years, GT yielded 0.12 greater QALYs and 0.93 greater LYs with response compared to treatment with prescription aluminum chloride at an incremental cost of $10,584. Relative to prescription aluminum chloride, GT resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $87,238 per QALY gained, $11,349 per LY with response. The ICER fell below $100,000 for 66% of probabilistic sensitivity analysis simulations and below $150,000 for 82% of simulations. LIMITATIONS: This analysis represents a simplified scenario of a hypothetical PAHH patient. Due to sparse data, assumptions were required for treatment patterns, efficacy, and persistence. CONCLUSION: Based on the analysis of incremental cost per QALY gained, GT may be cost-effective relative to prescription aluminum chloride at commonly accepted willingness to pay thresholds.

Evaluating the Presence of Cognitive Biases in Health Care Decision Making: A Survey of U.S. Formulary Decision Makers.

BACKGROUND: Behavioral economics is a field of economics that draws on insights from psychology to understand and identify patterns of decision making. Cognitive biases are psychological tendencies to process information in predictable patterns that result in deviations from rational decision making. Previous research has not evaluated the influence of cognitive biases on decision making in a managed care setting. OBJECTIVE: To assess the presence of cognitive biases in formulary decision making. METHODS: An online survey was conducted with a panel of U.S. pharmacy and medical directors who worked at managed care organizations and served on pharmacy and therapeutics committees. Survey questions assessed 4 cognitive biases: relative versus absolute framing effect, risk aversion, zero-risk bias, and delay discounting. Simulated data were presented in various scenarios related to adverse event profiles, drug safety and efficacy, and drug pricing for new hypothetical oncology products. Survey questions prompted participants to select a preferred drug based on the information provided. Survey answers were analyzed to identify decision patterns that could be explained by the cognitive biases. Likelihood of bias was analyzed via chi-square tests for framing effect, risk aversion, and zero-risk bias. The delay discounting section used a published algorithm to characterize discounting patterns. RESULTS: A total of 35 pharmacy directors and 19 medical directors completed the survey. In the framing effect section, 80% of participants selected the suboptimal choice in the relative risk frame, compared with 38.9% in the absolute risk frame (P < 0.0001). When assessing risk aversion, 42.6% and 61.1% of participants displayed risk aversion in the cost- and efficacy-based scenarios, respectively, but these were not statistically significant (P = 0.27 and P = 0.10, respectively). In the zero-risk bias section, results from each scenario diverged. In the first zero-risk bias scenario, 90.7% of participants selected the drug with zero risk (P < 0.001), but in the second scenario, only 32.1% chose the zero-risk option (P < 0.01). In the section assessing delay discounting, 54% of survey participants favored a larger delayed rebate over a smaller immediate discount. A shallow delay discounting curve was produced, which indicated participants discounted delayed rewards to a minimal degree. CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacy and medical directors, like other decision makers, appear to be susceptible to some cognitive biases. Directors demonstrated a tendency to underestimate risks when they were presented in relative risk terms but made more accurate appraisals when information was presented in absolute risk terms. Delay discounting also may be applicable to directors when choosing immediate discounts over delayed rebates. However, directors neither displayed a statistically significant bias for risk aversion when assessing scenarios related to drug pricing or clinical efficacy nor were there significant conclusions for zero-risk biases. Further research with larger samples using real-world health care decisions is necessary to validate these findings. DISCLOSURES: This research was funded by Xcenda. Mezzio, Nguyen, and O'Day are employees of Xcenda. Kiselica was employed by Xcenda at the time the study was conducted. The authors have nothing to disclose. A portion of the preliminary data was presented as posters at the 2017 AMCP Managed Care & Specialty Pharmacy Annual Meeting; March 27-30, 2017; in Denver, CO, and the 2017 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research 22nd Annual International Meeting; May 20-24, 2017; in Boston, MA.