Assessing the Cost-effectiveness of a Hypothetical Disease-modifying Therapy With Limited Duration for the Treatment of Early Symptomatic Alzheimer Disease.

PURPOSE: Clinical trials have produced promising results for disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for Alzheimer's disease (AD); however, the evidence on their potential cost-effectiveness is limited. This study assesses the cost-effectiveness of a hypothetical DMT with a limited treatment duration in AD. METHODS: We developed a Markov state-transition model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of a hypothetical DMT plus best supportive care (BSC) versus BSC alone among Americans living with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) due to AD or mild AD. AD states included MCI due to AD, mild AD, moderate AD, severe AD, and death. A hypothetical DMT was assumed to confer a 30% reduction in progression from MCI and mild AD. The base case annual drug acquisition cost was assumed to be $56,000. Other medical and indirect costs were obtained from published literature or list prices. Utilities for patients and caregivers were obtained from the published literature and varied by AD state and care setting (community care or long-term care). We considered 3 DMT treatment strategies: (1) treatment administered until patients reached severe AD (continuous strategy), (2) treatment administered for a maximum duration of 18 months or when patients reached severe AD (fixed-duration strategy), and (3) 40% of patients discontinuing treatment at 6 months because of amyloid plaque clearance and the remaining patients continuing treatment until 18 months or until they reached severe AD (test-and-discontinue strategy). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated as the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. FINDINGS: From the health care sector perspective, continuous treatment with a hypothetical DMT versus BSC resulted in an ICER of $612,354 per QALY gained. The ICER decreased to $157,288 per QALY gained in the fixed-duration strategy, driven by large reductions in treatment costs. With 40% of patients discontinuing treatment at 6 months (test-and-discontinue strategy), the ICER was $125,631 per QALY gained. In sensitivity and scenario analyses, the ICER was the most sensitive to changes in treatment efficacy, treatment cost, and the initial population AD state distribution. From the modified societal perspective, ICERs were 6.3%, 20.4%, and 25.1% lower than those from the health care sector perspective for the continuous, fixed-duration, and test-and-discontinue strategies, respectively. IMPLICATIONS: Under a set of assumptions for annual treatment costs and the magnitude and duration of treatment efficacy, DMTs used for a limited duration may deliver value consistent with accepted US cost-effectiveness thresholds.

The Budget Impact of Increased Use of Febuxostat in the Management of Gout: A US Health Plan Managed Care Pharmacy and Medical Costs Perspective.

PURPOSE: Gout is a chronic disease characterized by the deposition of urate crystals in the joints and throughout the body, caused by an excess burden of serum uric acid (sUA). The study estimates pharmacy and medical cost budgetary impacts of wider adoption by US payers of febuxostat, a urate-lowering therapy (ULT) for the treatment of gout. METHODS: A US payer-perspective budget impact model followed ULT patients from a 1,000,000-member plan over 3 years. The current market share scenario, febuxostat (6%) and ULT allopurinol (94%), was compared with an 18% febuxostat market share. Data were implemented from randomized controlled trials, census and epidemiologic studies, and real-world database analyses. An innovation was the inclusion of gout-related chronic kidney disease costs. Cost results were estimated as annual and cumulative incremental costs, expressed as total costs, cost per member per month, and cost per treated member per month. Clinical results were also estimated. FINDINGS: Increasing the febuxostat market share resulted in a 6.3% increase in patients achieving the sUA target level of <6.0 mg/dL and a 1.4% reduction in gout flares during the 3-year period. Total cost increased 1.4%, with a 49.9% increase in ULT costs, a 1.4% reduction in flare costs, a 1.2% reduction in chronic kidney disease costs, and a 2.8% reduction in gout care costs. The cumulative incremental costs were $1,307,425 in the first year, $1,939,016 through the second year, and $2,092,744 through the third year. By the third year, savings in medical costs offset most of the increase in treatment costs. Impacts on cumulative cost per member per month and cumulative cost per treated member per month followed the same pattern, with the highest impact in the first year and cumulative impacts declining during the 3-year period. The cumulative cost per member per month impact was estimated as $0.109, $0.081, and $0.058 and the cumulative cost per treated member per month impact was estimated as $12.416, $9.207, and $6.625 in the first year, through the second year, and through the third year, respectively. IMPLICATIONS: Expanding the febuxostat market share would result in improved clinical outcomes, but with an overall increase in costs over 3 years due to higher costs of treatment. By the third year, savings in medical costs, primarily in chronic kidney disease costs, would offset most of the increase in treatment costs. Expanded use of febuxostat in the treatment of all gout patients, independent of renal impairment status, should be considered based on improved clinical outcomes and longer-term medical cost savings associated with these improved outcomes.

Febuxostat in the management of gout: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost-effectiveness of febuxostat vs allopurinol for the management of gout. METHODS: A stochastic microsimulation cost-effectiveness model with a US private-payer perspective and 5-year time horizon was developed. Model flow based on guideline and real-world treatment paradigms incorporated gout flare, serum uric acid (sUA) testing, treatment titration, discontinuation, and adverse events, chronic kidney disease (CKD) incidence and progression, and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) incidence. Outcomes were estimated for the general gout population and for gout patients with CKD stages 3/4. Modeled treatment interventions were daily oral febuxostat 40-80 mg and allopurinol 100-300 mg. Baseline patient characteristics were taken from epidemiologic studies, efficacy data from randomized controlled trials, adverse event rates from package inserts, and costs from the literature, government sources, and expert opinion. Eight clinically-relevant incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were estimated: per patient reaching target sUA, per flare avoided, per CKD incidence, progression, stages 3/4 progression, and stage 5 progression avoided, per incident T2DM avoided, and per death avoided. RESULTS: Five-year incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for the general gout population were $5377 per patient reaching target sUA, $1773 per flare avoided, $221,795 per incident CKD avoided, $29,063 per CKD progression avoided, $36,018 per progression to CKD 3/4 avoided, $71,426 per progression to CKD 5 avoided, $214,277 per incident T2DM avoided, and $217,971 per death avoided. In patients with CKD 3/4, febuxostat dominated allopurinol for all cost-effectiveness outcome measures. CONCLUSIONS: Febuxostat may be a cost-effective alternative to allopurinol, especially for patients with CKD stages 3 or 4.

Comparison of vials and prefilled pens of a rapid-acting insulin analog on pharmacy budgets in a long-term care setting.

OBJECTIVE: Estimate budgetary impact for skilled nursing facility converting from individual patient supply (IPS) delivery of rapid-acting insulin analog (RAIA) 10-mL vials or 3-mL prefilled pens to 3-mL vials. DESIGN: A budget-impact model used insulin volume purchased and assumptions of length of stay (LOS), daily RAIA dose, and delivery protocol to estimate the cost impact of using 3-mL vials. SETTING: Skilled nursing facility. PARTICIPANTS: Medicare Part A patients. INTERVENTIONS: Simulations conducted using 12-month current and future scenarios. Comparisons of RAIA use for 13- and 28-day LOS. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: RAIA costs and savings, waste reduction. RESULTS: For patients with 13-day LOS using 20 units/day of IPS insulin, the model estimated a 70% reduction in RAIA costs and units purchased and a 95% waste reduction for the 3-mL vial compared with the 10-mL vial. The estimated costs for prefilled pen use were 58% lower than for use of 10-mL vials. The incremental savings associated with 3-mL vial use instead of prefilled pens was 28%, attributable to differences in per-unit cost of insulin in vials versus prefilled pens. Using a more conservative scenario of 28-day LOS at 20 units/day, the model estimated a 40% reduction in RAIA costs and units purchased, resulting in a 91% reduction in RAIA waste for the 3-mL vial, compared with 10-mL vial. CONCLUSION: Budget-impact analysis of conversion from RAIA 10-mL vials or 3-mL prefilled pens to 3-mL vials estimated reductions in both insulin costs and waste across multiple scenarios of varying LOS and patient daily doses for skilled nursing facility stays.

Using common random numbers in health care cost-effectiveness simulation modeling.

OBJECTIVES: To identify the problem of separating statistical noise from treatment effects in health outcomes modeling and analysis. To demonstrate the implementation of one technique, common random numbers (CRNs), and to illustrate the value of CRNs to assess costs and outcomes under uncertainty. METHODS: A microsimulation model was designed to evaluate osteoporosis treatment, estimating cost and utility measures for patient cohorts at high risk of osteoporosis-related fractures. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated using a full implementation of CRNs, a partial implementation of CRNs, and no CRNs. A modification to traditional probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was used to determine how variance reduction can impact a decision maker's view of treatment efficacy and costs. RESULTS: The full use of CRNs provided a 93.6 percent reduction in variance compared to simulations not using the technique. The use of partial CRNs provided a 5.6 percent reduction. The PSA results using full CRNs demonstrated a substantially tighter range of cost-benefit outcomes for teriparatide usage than the cost-benefits generated without the technique. CONCLUSIONS: CRNs provide substantial variance reduction for cost-effectiveness studies. By reducing variability not associated with the treatment being evaluated, CRNs provide a better understanding of treatment effects and risks.

The cost effectiveness of teriparatide as a first-line treatment for glucocorticoid-induced and postmenopausal osteoporosis patients in Sweden.

BACKGROUND: This paper presents the model and results to evaluate the use of teriparatide as a first-line treatment of severe postmenopausal osteoporosis (PMO) and glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (GIOP). The study's objective was to determine if teriparatide is cost effective against oral bisphosphonates for two large and high risk cohorts. METHODS: A computer simulation model was created to model treatment, osteoporosis related fractures, and the remaining life of PMO and GIOP patients. Natural mortality and additional mortality from osteoporosis related fractures were included in the model. Costs for treatment with both teriparatide and oral bisphosphonates were included. Drug efficacy was modeled as a reduction to the relative fracture risk for subsequent osteoporosis related fractures. Patient health utilities associated with age, gender, and osteoporosis related fractures were included in the model. Patient costs and utilities were summarized and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for teriparatide versus oral bisphosphonates and teriparatide versus no treatment were estimated.For each of the PMO and GIOP populations, two cohorts differentiated by fracture history were simulated. The first contained patients with both a historical vertebral fracture and an incident vertebral fracture. The second contained patients with only an incident vertebral fracture. The PMO cohorts simulated had an initial Bone Mineral Density (BMD) T-Score of -3.0. The GIOP cohorts simulated had an initial BMD T-Score of -2.5. RESULTS: The ICERs for teriparatide versus bisphosphonate use for the one and two fracture PMO cohorts were €36,995 per QALY and €19,371 per QALY. The ICERs for teriparatide versus bisphosphonate use for the one and two fracture GIOP cohorts were €20,826 per QALY and €15,155 per QALY, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The selection of teriparatide versus oral bisphosphonates as a first-line treatment for the high risk PMO and GIOP cohorts evaluated is justified at a cost per QALY threshold of €50,000.

Budget impact analysis of insulin therapies and associated delivery systems.

PURPOSE: A budget impact analysis of insulin therapies and associated delivery systems is presented. METHODS: Based on inputted procurement totals, per-item costs (based on 2011 average wholesale price), insulin distribution system (floor stock or individual patient supply), waste, and treatment protocols for a specified time frame, the budget impact model approximated the number of patients treated with subcutaneous insulin, costs, utilization, waste, and injection mechanism (pen safety needle or syringe) costs. To calculate net changes, results of one-year 3-mL vial use were subtracted from one-year 10-mL vial or 3-mL pen use. RESULTS: Switching from a 10-mL vial to a 3-mL vial was associated with reductions in both costs and waste. The net reductions in costs and waste ranged from $15,482 and 120,000 IU, respectively, for floor-stock 10-mL vial to floor-stock 3-mL vial conversion to $871,548 and 6,750,000 IU, respectively, for individual patient supply 10-mL vial to floor-stock 3-mL vial conversion. Switching from floor-stock 10-mL vials to individual patient supply 3-mL vials increased costs and waste by $164,659 and 1,275,000 IU, respectively. Converting from individual patient supply 3-mL pens to individual patient supply 3-mL vials reduced costs by $117,236 but did not decrease waste. CONCLUSION: A budget impact analysis of the conversion of either 10-mL insulin vials or 3-mL insulin pens to 3-mL insulin vials found reductions in both cost and waste, except when converting from floor-stock 10-mL vials to individual patient supply 3-mL vials.

Cost-effectiveness of several atypical antipsychotics in orally disintegrating tablets compared with standard oral tablets in the treatment of schizophrenia in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: Although the use of innovative drug delivery systems, like orally disintegrating antipsychotic tablets (ODT), may facilitate medication adherence and help reduce the risk of relapse and hospitalization, no information is available about the comparative cost-effectiveness of standard oral tablets (SOT) vs ODT formulations in the treatment of schizophrenia. This study compared the cost-effectiveness of olanzapine ODT and olanzapine SOT in the usual treatment of outpatients with schizophrenia from a US healthcare perspective. The study also compared olanzapine ODT with risperidone and aripiprazole, two other atypical antipsychotics available in both ODT and SOT formulations. METHODS: Published medical literature and a clinical expert panel were used to populate a 1-year Monte Carlo Micro-simulation model. The model captures clinical and cost parameters including adherence levels, treatment discontinuation by reason, relapse with and without inpatient hospitalization, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), treatment-emergent adverse events, healthcare resource utilization, and associated costs. Key outcomes were total annual direct cost per treatment, QALY, and incremental cost-effectiveness (ICER) per 1 QALY gained. RESULTS: Based on model projections, olanzapine ODT therapy was more costly ($9808 vs $9533), but more effective in terms of a lower hospitalization rate (15% vs 16%) and better QALYs (0.747 vs 0.733) than olanzapine SOT therapy. Olanzapine ODT was more cost-effective than olanzapine SOT (ICER: $19,643), more cost-effective than risperidone SOT therapy (ICER: $39,966), and dominant (meaning less costly and more effective) than risperidone ODT and aripiprazole in ODT or SOT formulations. LIMITATIONS: Lack of head-to-head randomized studies comparing the three studied atypical antipsychotics required making input assumptions that need further study. CONCLUSIONS: This micro-simulation found that the utilization of olanzapine ODT for the treatment of schizophrenia is predicted to be more cost-effective than any other ODT or SOT formulations of the studied atypical antipsychotic medications.

Cost-effectiveness of olanzapine long-acting injection in the treatment of patients with schizophrenia in the United States: a micro-simulation economic decision model.

OBJECTIVE: To compare, from the perspective of third-party payers in the United States health care system, the cost-effectiveness of olanzapine long-acting injection (LAI, depot) with alternative antipsychotic agents including risperidone-LAI, paliperidone-LAI, haloperidol-LAI, and oral olanzapine, in the treatment of patients with schizophrenia who have been non-adherent or partially adherent with oral antipsychotics. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A 1-year micro-simulation economic decision model was developed to simulate the dynamics of usual care of patients with schizophrenia who continue, discontinue, switch, or restart their medication. The model uses a range of clinical and cost parameters including adherence levels, relapse with and without hospitalization, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), treatment discontinuation rates by reason, treatment-emergent adverse events, suicide, health care resource utilization, and direct health care costs. Published medical literature and a clinical expert panel were used to develop baseline model assumptions. OUTCOME MEASURES: Key model outputs include annual total direct cost (US$) per treatment and incremental cost-effectiveness values per additional QALY gained. RESULTS: Model results found that the olanzapine-LAI treatment strategy was more effective (greater QALYs) and less costly than risperidone-LAI, paliperidone-LAI, and haloperidol-LAI. In addition, olanzapine-LAI was both more effective and more costly, with an estimated incremental cost/QALY of $26,824 compared to oral olanzapine. The base-case and multiple sensitivity analyses found olanzapine-LAI to remain within acceptable cost-effective ranges (<$50,000) in terms of incremental cost/QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: This micro-simulation model finds the olanzapine-LAI treatment strategy to result in better effectiveness and to be a cost-effective alternative compared to oral olanzapine and the LAI formulations of risperidone, paliperidone, and haloperidol in the treatment of non-adherent and partially adherent patients with schizophrenia in the United States. A key limitation is the assumption how LAI therapies compare to oral counterparts due to sparse head-to-head data. Further research is needed to verify baseline assumptions.

Cost effectiveness of rosuvastatin in patients at risk of cardiovascular disease based on findings from the JUPITER trial.

OBJECTIVE: This study assessed the long-term cost effectiveness of rosuvastatin therapy compared with placebo in reducing the incidence of major cardiovascular (CVD) events and mortality. METHODS: A probabilistic Monte Carlo simulation model estimated long-term cost effectiveness of rosuvastatin therapy (20 mg daily) for the prevention of CVD mortality and morbidity. The model included three stages: (1) CVD prevention simulating the 4 years of the JUPITER trial, (2) initial CVD prevention beyond the trial, and (3) subsequent CVD event prevention. A US payer perspective was assessed reflecting direct medical costs, and up to a lifetime horizon. Sensitivity analyses tested the robustness of the model estimates. RESULTS: For a hypothetical cohort of 100,000 patients at moderate and high risk of CVD events based on Framingham risk of ≥10%, estimated quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained with rosuvastatin therapy compared with placebo was 33,480 over a lifetime horizon, and 25,380 and 9916 over 20-year and 10-year horizons, respectively. Approximately 12,073 events were avoided over the lifetime; 6,146 non-fatal MIs, 2905 non-fatal strokes, and 4030 CVD deaths avoided. Estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for cost per QALY was $7062 (lifetime), $10,743 (20-year horizon), and $44,466 (10-year horizon). For a hypothetical cohort similar to the overall JUPITER population, the cost per QALY ICER was $11,025 for the lifetime and $60,112 for a 10-year horizon. LIMITATIONS: The cost-effectiveness comparison of rosuvastatin 20 mg was against no active treatment (as opposed to an alternative statin) due to lack of comparative cardiovascular morbidity and mortality risk reduction data for other statins in a population similar to the JUPITER trial population. The analysis was conducted from the payer perspective and lack of inclusion of indirect costs limit interpretability of results from a societal perspective. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with rosuvastatin 20 mg daily, is a cost-effective treatment alternative to no treatment in patients at a higher risk (Framingham risk≥10%) of CVD.

Cost-effectiveness model comparing olanzapine and other oral atypical antipsychotics in the treatment of schizophrenia in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Schizophrenia is often a persistent and costly illness that requires continued treatment with antipsychotics. Differences among antipsychotics on efficacy, safety, tolerability, adherence, and cost have cost-effectiveness implications for treating schizophrenia. This study compares the cost-effectiveness of oral olanzapine, oral risperidone (at generic cost, primary comparator), quetiapine, ziprasidone, and aripiprazole in the treatment of patients with schizophrenia from the perspective of third-party payers in the U.S. health care system. METHODS: A 1-year microsimulation economic decision model, with quarterly cycles, was developed to simulate the dynamic nature of usual care of schizophrenia patients who switch, continue, discontinue, and restart their medications. The model captures clinical and cost parameters including adherence levels, relapse with and without hospitalization, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), treatment discontinuation by reason, treatment-emergent adverse events, suicide, health care resource utilization, and direct medical care costs. Published medical literature and a clinical expert panel were used to develop baseline model assumptions. Key model outcomes included mean annual total direct cost per treatment, cost per stable patient, and incremental cost-effectiveness values per QALY gained. RESULTS: The results of the microsimulation model indicated that olanzapine had the lowest mean annual direct health care cost ($8,544) followed by generic risperidone ($9,080). In addition, olanzapine resulted in more QALYs than risperidone (0.733 vs. 0.719). The base case and multiple sensitivity analyses found olanzapine to be the dominant choice in terms of incremental cost-effectiveness per QALY gained. CONCLUSION: The utilization of olanzapine is predicted in this model to result in better clinical outcomes and lower total direct health care costs compared to generic risperidone, quetiapine, ziprasidone, and aripiprazole. Olanzapine may, therefore, be a cost-effective therapeutic option for patients with schizophrenia.