Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Maternal Immunization with RSVpreF Vaccine for the Prevention of Respiratory Syncytial Virus Among Infants in Spain.

INTRODUCTION: Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is the leading cause of acute lower respiratory infections (ALRI) in children under one year of age. In high-income countries, RSV infections cause a significant overload of care every winter, imposing a significant burden to the healthcare system, which has made the development of prevention strategies a major global health priority. In this context, a new bivalent RSV prefusion F protein-based vaccine (RSVpreF) has recently been approved. The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of vaccinating pregnant women with the RSVpreF vaccine to prevent RSV in infants from the Spanish National Healthcare System (NHS) perspective. METHODS: A hypothetical cohort framework and a Markov-type process were used to estimate clinical outcomes, costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALY) and cost-per-QALY gained (willingness-to-pay threshold: €25,000/QALY) for newborn infants born to RSV-vaccinated versus unvaccinated mothers over an RSV season. The base case analysis was performed from the NHS perspective including direct costs (€2023) and applying a discount of 3% to future costs and outcomes. To evaluate the robustness of the model, several scenarios, and deterministic and probabilistic analyses were carried out. All the parameters and assumptions were validated by a panel of experts. RESULTS: The results of the study showed that year-round maternal vaccination program with 70% coverage is a dominant option compared to no intervention, resulting in direct cost savings of €1.8 million each year, with an increase of 551 QALYs. Maternal vaccination could prevent 38% of hospital admissions, 23% of emergency room visits, 19% of primary care visits, and 34% of deaths due to RSV. All scenario analyses showed consistent results, and according to the probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA), the probability of maternal vaccination being cost-effective versus no intervention was 99%. CONCLUSIONS: From the Spanish NHS perspective, maternal vaccination with bivalent RSVpreF is a dominant alternative compared with a non-prevention strategy.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Abrocitinib Compared with Other Systemic Treatments for Severe Atopic Dermatitis in Spain.

INTRODUCTION: Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic, inflammatory skin disease characterized by itchy, painful, and dry skin. Despite the great number of available therapies, economic evaluations are still needed to provide evidence on their cost efficiency. This research aimed to evaluate the cost effectiveness of the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor abrocitinib (200 mg) compared with dupilumab (300 mg), tralokinumab (300 mg), baricitinib (2 and 4 mg), and upadacitinib (15 and 30 mg) for the treatment of patients with severe AD from the Spanish National Health System (NHS) perspective. METHODS: A hybrid model consisting of a decision tree linked to a Markov model was developed to estimate costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), total years in response and incremental cost-per-QALY gained (willingness-to-pay [WTP] threshold: €25,000/QALY). Adults with severe AD entered the decision tree and response (75% reduction in baseline Eczema Area and Severity Index score, EASI-75) was considered at 16 and 52 weeks. After this time, patients entered the Markov model (remainder of the 10-year time horizon), which consisted of three health states: maintenance with active therapy, subsequent treatment, or death. All costs were presented in 2022 euros (€). Additionally, cost per number-needed-to-treat (NNT) was calculated for abrocitinib and dupilumab based on a head-to-head post-hoc analysis. RESULTS: Abrocitinib 200 mg was dominant (i.e., lower incremental costs and higher incremental benefit) compared with all studied alternatives (dupilumab 300 mg, tralokinumab 300 mg, baricitinib 2 and 4 mg, upadacitinib 15 and 30 mg) with a QALYs gain of 0.49, 0.60, 0.64, 0.43, 0.45, and 0.08, respectively, and per-person costs savings of €22,097, €24,140, €14,825, €7,116, €12,805, and €45,189, respectively. Considering the WTP threshold, abrocitinib was dominant or cost effective compared with all alternatives for most simulations. Additionally, abrocitinib was dominant compared with all alternatives when evaluating the cost effectiveness over a 5-year time horizon. NNT showed that abrocitinib was dominant versus dupilumab. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the study show that abrocitinib is a cost-effective therapy compared with other JAK inhibitors and biological therapies from the Spanish NHS perspective.

Societal Preferences for Meningococcal B Vaccination in Children: A Discrete Choice Experiment in Spain.

INTRODUCTION: Immunization is the most effective strategy for the prevention of invasive meningococcal disease caused by Neisseria meningitidis serogroup B (MenB); however, parents need to weigh the risk-benefit and financial impact of immunizing their children against MenB in the absence of a national immunization program (NIP). This study aimed to explore societal preferences (of parents and pediatricians) regarding the attributes of a MenB vaccine in Spain. METHODS: A discrete choice experiment (DCE) based on cross-sectional surveys was carried out to determine preferences. A literature review and scientific committee determined the six attributes related to the MenB vaccine included in the DCE: vaccination age, cost, duration, percentage of protection, adverse events probability, and expert/authority recommendation. Data were analyzed using a mixed logit model. Relative importance (RI) of attributes was calculated and compared between parents and pediatricians. RESULTS: A total of 278 parents [55.8% female, mean age 40.4 (standard deviation, SD 7.3) years] and 200 pediatricians [73.0% female, mean age 45.8 (SD 12.9) years] answered the DCE. For parents, the highest RI was attributed to vaccine cost, expert/authority recommendation, and percentage of protection (26.4%, 26.1%, and 22.9%, respectively), while for pediatricians the highest RI was assigned to percentage of protection, expert/authority recommendation, and vaccination age (27.2%, 23.7%, and 22.6%, respectively). Significant differences between parents and pediatricians were found in the RI assigned to all attributes (p < 0.001), except for vaccine recommendation. CONCLUSION: In the decision regarding MenB vaccination, cost was a driver in parental decision-making but had a low RI for pediatricians and, conversely, vaccination age was highly valued by pediatricians but was the attribute with least importance for parents. Despite these differences, expert/authority recommendation and percentage of protection were essential criteria for both groups. These results provide relevant information about MenB vaccination, highlighting the importance of considering societal preferences for NIP inclusion.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Triple Therapy with Budesonide/ Glycopyrronium/ Formoterol Fumarate versus Dual Therapy in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease in Spain.

Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of Budesonide/Glycopyrronium/Formoterol (BUD/GLY/FOR) versus LAMA/LABA and ICS/LABA, respectively, in patients with moderate to severe COPD, from the Spanish National Healthcare System (NHS) perspective. Methods: A lifetime Markov model with monthly cycle length was developed with baseline and treatment effect data from ETHOS clinical trial, together with utility values from literature and Spanish healthcare resource costs (€, 2021). A 3% annual discount rate was used for costs and benefits. The model comprised ten health states: nine forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1)-related, which were divided by three levels of severity: moderate (FEV1 ≥50% and <80%); severe (FEV1 ≥30% and <50%) and very severe (FEV1 <30%) and a death state. Each FEV1-health state was divided into no exacerbation, moderate exacerbation, and severe exacerbations. An expert panel validated data and assumptions. Outcomes were measured as incremental cost per exacerbation avoided, per life year (LY) gained, and per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained (ICUR). One-way (OWSA), scenario, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were performed. Results: According to this cost-effectiveness analysis based on a Markov model, BUD/GLY/FOR was associated with a lower totals exacerbation per patient (12.80) compared to LAMA/LABA (13.36) and ICS/LABA (13.23) and higher LYs (10.32 vs 10.14 and 10.06, respectively) and QALYs (7.55 vs 7.41 and 7.32, respectively). The incremental costs were €850.95, and €2422.26, respectively, per exacerbation avoided, €2733.38 and €4111.15, respectively, per LY gained and €3461.19 and €4545.24 per QALY gained. OWSA showed that the model was most sensitive to the costs of treatments following discontinuation, but the ICUR remained below the cost-effectiveness threshold of €25,000 per QALY gained. In the PSA, the probability of BUD/GLY/FOR being cost-effective was 91.32% vs LAMA/LABA and 99.29% vs ICS/LABA. Conclusion: BUD/GLY/FOR is a cost-effective treatment strategy for Spanish NHS patients with COPD compared to dual therapies.

A cost-consequence analysis of the preferential use of secukinumab versus adalimumab for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficiency of secukinumab compared to adalimumab as first biologic treatment for psoriatic arthritis (PsA) from the Spanish National Health System (SNHS) perspective. METHODS: A cost-consequence analysis of the cost and clinical response of two treatment strategies was conducted over a 2-year time horizon. A hypothetical cohort of 10 patients with PsA initiated treatment with secukinumab 150mg (cohort A) or adalimumab 40mg (cohort B), respectively. Patients achieving clinical response (ACR20/50/70) at week 24 continued the initial treatment, while patients with inadequate response switched to secukinumab 300mg. Pharmacological costs were calculated based on SmPC (notified ex-factory price). The lowest cost of adalimumab biosimilar was considered. Data on clinical response were extracted from the two matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) published comparing secukinumab vs adalimumab. Results were expressed as the cost difference between the two cohorts (€, 2019) and were calculated for each clinical response criteria (ACR20/50/70) and for each MAIC. Sensitivity analysis assessed the impact of potential discounts on the cost of adalimumab while maintaining the cost of secukinumab unchanged. RESULTS: Depending on the MAIC used, the cost of initiating biologic treatment for PsA with secukinumab 150mg was 18-33% lower than the one estimated for adalimumab 40mg, for ACR20, 18-28% for ACR50, and 16-23% for ACR70 response rate. Sensitivity analysis showed that it would be necessary a discount of 40-60%, 40-65% and 50-75% over the adalimumab cost to compensate for the differences in efficacy observed for ACR20/50/70, respectively, depending on the MAIC used. CONCLUSION: In patients with PsA, secukinumab could be considered a more efficient first-line biologic treatment compared to adalimumab, from the SNHS perspective.

A cost-consequence analysis of the preferential use of secukinumab versus adalimumab for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis / Análisis de las consecuencias en materia de costos del uso preferencial del secukinumab en comparación con el adalimumab para el tratamiento de la artritis psoriásica

Objectives: To assess the efficiency of secukinumab compared to adalimumab as first biologic treatment for psoriatic arthritis (PsA) from the Spanish National Health System (SNHS) perspective. Methods: A cost-consequence analysis of the cost and clinical response of two treatment strategies was conducted over a 2-year time horizon. A hypothetical cohort of 10 patients with PsA initiated treatment with secukinumab 150mg (cohort A) or adalimumab 40mg (cohort B), respectively. Patients achieving clinical response (ACR20/50/70) at week 24 continued the initial treatment, while patients with inadequate response switched to secukinumab 300mg. Pharmacological costs were calculated based on SmPC (notified ex-factory price). The lowest cost of adalimumab biosimilar was considered. Data on clinical response were extracted from the two matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) published comparing secukinumab vs adalimumab. Results were expressed as the cost difference between the two cohorts (€, 2019) and were calculated for each clinical response criteria (ACR20/50/70) and for each MAIC. Sensitivity analysis assessed the impact of potential discounts on the cost of adalimumab while maintaining the cost of secukinumab unchanged. Results: Depending on the MAIC used, the cost of initiating biologic treatment for PsA with secukinumab 150mg was 18–33% lower than the one estimated for adalimumab 40mg, for ACR20, 18–28% for ACR50, and 16–23% for ACR70 response rate. Sensitivity analysis showed that it would be necessary a discount of 40–60%, 40–65% and 50–75% over the adalimumab cost to compensate for the differences in efficacy observed for ACR20/50/70, respectively, depending on the MAIC used. Conclusion: In patients with PsA, secukinumab could be considered a more efficient first-line biologic treatment compared to adalimumab, from the SNHS perspective.(AU)

Objetivos: Evaluar la eficiencia de secukinumab comparado con adalimumab como primer tratamiento biológico para la artritis psoriásica desde la perspectiva del Sistema Nacional de Salud español. Métodos: Se realizó un análisis de coste-consecuencia considerando el coste y la respuesta clínica a dos estrategias de tratamiento, en un horizonte temporal de 2 años. Una cohorte hipotética de 10 pacientes con artritis psoriásica inició el tratamiento con secukinumab 150mg (cohorte A) o adalimumab 40mg (cohorte B), respectivamente. Los pacientes con respuesta clínica (ACR20/50/70) en la semana 24 continuaron el tratamiento inicial, mientras que los pacientes con respuesta inadecuada recibieron 300mg de secukinumab. Los costes farmacológicos se calcularon en base a la ficha técnica (precio notificado). Se consideró el coste más bajo de adalimumab biosimilar. Los datos de respuesta clínica se extrajeron de los dos estudios publicados de comparación indirecta ajustada entre secukinumab y adalimumab. Se calculó la diferencia de coste entre las dos cohortes (€, 2019) para cada criterio de respuesta (ACR20/50/70) y para cada estudio. El análisis de sensibilidad evaluó los resultados aplicando posibles descuentos sobre el coste de adalimumab, manteniendo constante el coste de secukinumab. Resultados: Dependiendo del estudio utilizado, el coste de iniciar el tratamiento biológico con secukinumab 150mg fue un 18-33% menor que el estimado para adalimumab 40mg, para ACR20, 18-28% para ACR50, y 16-23% para ACR70. El análisis de sensibilidad mostró que sería necesario un descuento del 40-60%, 40-65% y 50-75% sobre el coste del adalimumab para compensar las diferencias de eficacia observadas para ACR20/50/70, respectivamente.Conclusión: En pacientes con artritis psoriásica, la elección de secukinumab como terapia biológica inicial podría considerarse una opción más eficiente comparado con adalimumab desde la perspectiva del Sistema Nacional de Salud español.(AU)

A Cost-Consequence Analysis of the Preferential Use of Secukinumab Versus Adalimumab for the Treatment of Psoriatic Arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficiency of secukinumab compared to adalimumab as first biologic treatment for psoriatic arthritis (PsA) from the Spanish National Health System (SNHS) perspective. METHODS: A cost-consequence analysis of the cost and clinical response of two treatment strategies was conducted over a 2-year time horizon. A hypothetical cohort of 10 patients with PsA initiated treatment with secukinumab 150mg (cohort A) or adalimumab 40mg (cohort B), respectively. Patients achieving clinical response (ACR20/50/70) at week 24 continued the initial treatment, while patients with inadequate response switched to secukinumab 300mg. Pharmacological costs were calculated based on SmPC (notified ex-factory price). The lowest cost of adalimumab biosimilar was considered. Data on clinical response were extracted from the two matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) published comparing secukinumab vs adalimumab. Results were expressed as the cost difference between the two cohorts (€, 2019) and were calculated for each clinical response criteria (ACR20/50/70) and for each MAIC. Sensitivity analysis assessed the impact of potential discounts on the cost of adalimumab while maintaining the cost of secukinumab unchanged. RESULTS: Depending on the MAIC used, the cost of initiating biologic treatment for PsA with secukinumab 150mg was 18-33% lower than the one estimated for adalimumab 40mg, for ACR20, 18-28% for ACR50, and 16-23% for ACR70 response rate. Sensitivity analysis showed that it would be necessary a discount of 40-60%, 40-65% and 50-75% over the adalimumab cost to compensate for the differences in efficacy observed for ACR20/50/70, respectively, depending on the MAIC used. CONCLUSION: In patients with PsA, secukinumab could be considered a more efficient first-line biologic treatment compared to adalimumab, from the SNHS perspective.

What Matters Most to Patients and Rheumatologists? A Discrete Choice Experiment in Rheumatoid Arthritis.

INTRODUCTION: To determine patient and rheumatologist preferences for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatment attributes in Spain and to evaluate their attitude towards shared decision-making (SDM). METHODS: Observational, descriptive, exploratory and cross-sectional study based on a discrete choice experiment (DCE). To identify the attributes and their levels, a literature review and two focus groups (patients [P] = 5; rheumatologists [R] = 4) were undertaken. Seven attributes with 2-4 levels were presented in eight scenarios. Attribute utility and relative importance (RI) were assessed using a conditional logit model. Patient preferences for SDM were assessed using an ad hoc questionnaire. RESULTS: Ninety rheumatologists [52.2% women; mean years of experience 18.1 (SD: 9.0); seeing an average of 24.4 RA patients/week (SD: 15.3)] and 137 RA patients [mean age: 47.5 years (SD: 10.7); 84.0% women; mean time since diagnosis of RA: 14.2 years (SD: 11.8) and time in treatment: 13.2 years (SD: 11.2), mean HAQ score 1.2 (SD: 0.7)] participated in the study. In terms of RI, rheumatologists and RA patients viewed: time with optimal QoL: R: 23.41%/P: 35.05%; substantial symptom improvement: R: 13.15%/P: 3.62%; time to onset of treatment action: R: 16.24%/P: 13.56%; severe adverse events: R: 10.89%/P: 11.20%; mild adverse events: R: 4.16%/P: 0.91%; mode of administration: R: 25.23%/P: 25.00%; and added cost: R: 6.93%/P: 10.66%. Nearly 73% of RA patients were involved in treatment decision-making to a greater or lesser extent; however, 27.4% did not participate at all. CONCLUSION: Both for rheumatologists and patients, the top three decision-making drivers are time with optimal quality, treatment mode of administration and time to onset of action, although in different ranking order. Patients were willing to be more involved in the treatment decision-making process.

Secukinumab is the most efficient treatment for achieving clear skin in psoriatic patients: a cost-consequence study from the Spanish National Health Service.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost consequence of biologic drugs for moderate-to-severe psoriasis from the perspective of the Spanish National Health System. METHODS: We built a decision tree with a two-year time horizon. Efficacy data for biologics (etanercept, infliximab, adalimumab, ustekinumab and secukinumab) were drawn from published meta-analyses: PASI75 for the induction phase and PASI90 for the rest of follow-up. Patients with PASI < 75 at week 10-16 were switched to another biologic agent. Efficacy at week 24 was considered the highest possible efficacy for each drug and assumed to remain constant throughout the two-year period. Only drug treatment costs were used. The number needed to treat (NNT), annual cost per patient, annual cost per patient with PASI90 (cost per responder) and cost of primary failure (PASI < 75 at first efficacy evaluation) were calculated. RESULTS: Secukinumab monotherapy was associated with the lowest cost per responder, followed by infliximab and ustekinumab. Treatment sequences starting with secukinumab were the most efficient, having the lowest NNT and cost per responder. Although the annual cost per treatment is similar for all drugs, there are huge differences in the cost per responder. CONCLUSIONS: Secukinumab as first-line biologic treatment is the most efficient treatment for moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis in the short-to-medium term.

Patients' and rheumatologists' preferences for the attributes of biological agents used in the treatment of rheumatic diseases in Spain.

PURPOSE: To define importance values assigned to attributes of biological agents (BAs) by Spanish patients with rheumatic diseases (rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, and psoriatic arthritis) and rheumatologists. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was an observational, cross-sectional design based upon a rank-based full-profile conjoint analysis. A literature review and four focus groups were undertaken to identify attributes and levels. An orthogonal matrix, combining the selected levels of attributes, was used to define scenarios. Participants ranked eight scenarios from 1 (most preferred) to 8 (least preferred). The relative importance (RI) of attributes was calculated. Multivariate regression analysis was performed to identify the characteristics that influenced the values of RI. A total of 488 patients (male 50.9%, mean age 50.6 [standard deviation {SD} 12.06] years, rheumatoid arthritis 33.8%, ankylosing spondylitis 32.4%, psoriatic arthritis 33.8%; mean time since diagnosis 12.6 [SD 8.2] years) and 136 rheumatologists (male 50.4%, mean age 46.4 [SD 9.1] years, mean time of practice 16.7 [SD 8.8] years) participated. RESULTS: The ideal BAs for patients and physicians, respectively, should allow pain relief and improvement of functional capacity (RI 39% and 44.7%), with low risk of adverse events (RI 24.9% and 30.5%), a long time prior to perceiving the need for a new dose (RI 16.4% and 12.4%), and self-administration at home (RI 19.7% and 12.5%), as identified through their preferences. CONCLUSION: Although efficacy and safety are paramount for patients and rheumatologists to make a choice regarding BAs, the need for a low frequency of administration and the administration method also play a role as preference attributes for BAs.

Factors determining waste generation in Spanish towns and cities.

This paper analyzes the generation and composition of municipal solid waste in Spanish towns and cities with more than 5000 inhabitants, which altogether account for 87% of the Spanish population. To do so, the total composition and generation of municipal solid waste fractions were obtained from 135 towns and cities. Homogeneity tests revealed heterogeneity in the proportions of municipal solid waste fractions from one city to another. Statistical analyses identified significant differences in the generation of glass in cities of different sizes and in the generation of all fractions depending on the hydrographic area. Finally, linear regression models and residuals analysis were applied to analyze the effect of different demographic, geographic, and socioeconomic variables on the generation of waste fractions. The conclusions show that more densely populated towns, a hydrographic area, and cities with over 50,000 inhabitants have higher waste generation rates, while certain socioeconomic variables (people/car) decrease that generation. Other socioeconomic variables (foreigners and unemployment) show a positive and null influence on that waste generation, respectively.

Evolution of sorted waste collection: a case study of Spanish cities.

This work analyses how selective collection evolved over the period 1998-2007 in Spanish towns and cities with more than 50 000 inhabitants. To do so, both the legislation in force during the years included in the study and logistic factors, such as the radius of action of the pick-up points, were taken into account. Information about the towns and cities was obtained from a survey sent out in 1998 and 2007 to the councils of the municipalities included in the study. The results obtained in the two years show that the most widely implemented separate collection system in 1998 no longer existed in 2007 but, in order to comply with the law, had been transformed by adding new fractions, above all that of lightweight packaging. To determine whether the targets set by law as regards recovery and recycling were met in the two years, an efficiency indicator was used to evaluate the effectiveness of the collection systems. Results show how separation increased in the paper/board and glass fractions.

Analysis of collection systems for sorted household waste in Spain.

This work analyses the separate collection systems used in Spanish towns with between 5000 and 50,000 inhabitants. The study looks at the systems and their efficiency by means of the indicators fractioning rate, quality in container rate and separation rate. The results obtained are compared with those from a similar study conducted earlier that was applied to towns and cities with populations over 50,000. It can be concluded that the most widely implemented system in Spain involves the collection of mixed waste from kerbside bins and picking up paper/cardboard, glass and lightweight packaging from drop-off points. Findings show that the best system is the one that collects mixed waste, organic material and multiproduct waste door-to-door, and glass from drop-off points. The indicator separation rate made it possible to establish beta regression models to analyse the influence of the following logistic variables: inhabitants per point (people/pt), time (years) and frequency of collection (freq). From these models it can be seen that people/pt has a negative effect on all the fractions, while freq and years have a positive effect in the case of paper.

Comparison of different collection systems for sorted household waste in Spain.

The purpose of this study was to identify the different selective collection systems implemented in Spanish cities and to analyse the efficiency and extent to which the targets proposed by current law are met in each case. After defining the indicators to be used to quantify the efficiency of a selective collection system, a survey was designed to gather the information needed to calculate them. This survey was sent out to all Spanish cities with a population of over 50,000 inhabitants. Four different selective collection systems were also identified. For each of the four cases the indicators were calculated and analyzed to determine which one was the best system. The best values were obtained from the system with separation in five fractions: paper/cardboard, glass and lightweight packaging at drop-off points, organic waste and mixed waste in kerbside bins. Two regression models (linear and exponential) were developed in systems with enough data to explain and predict the variation in the amounts of materials that were separated correctly into containers, depending on the distance between containers and citizens. Nevertheless, the percentages of separation at source of paper/cardboard and lightweight packaging are still far from reaching the targets set by law.