Cost-effectiveness analysis of FOLFIRINOX vs gemcitabine with nab-paclitaxel as adjuvant treatment for resected pancreatic cancer in the United States based on PRODIGE-24 and APACT trials.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic cancer is associated with low median overall survival. Combination chemotherapy regimens FOLFIRINOX and gemcitabine with nab-paclitaxel (GemNab) are the new adjuvant treatment standards for resectable pancreatic cancer. PRODIGE-24 and APACT trials demonstrated superior clinical outcomes with FOLFIRINOX and GemNab, each vs gemcitabine monotherapy. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of FOLFIRINOX vs GemNab for resectable pancreatic cancer in adults from the U.S. payer perspective, in order to inform decision makers about which of these treatments is optimal. METHODS: A Markov model with 3 disease states (relapse free, progressive disease, and death) was developed. Cycle length was 1 month, and time horizon was 10 years. Transition probabilities were derived from PRODIGE-24 and APACT survival data. All cost and utility input parameters were obtained from published literature. Cost-effectiveness analysis was performed to obtain total costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), life-years (LYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). A 3% annual discount rate was applied to costs and outcomes. The effect of uncertainty on model parameters was assessed with 1-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA). RESULTS: Our analysis estimated that the cost for FOLFIRINOX was $40,831 higher than GemNab ($99,669 vs. $58,837). Despite increased toxicity, FOLFIRINOX was associated with additional 0.18 QALYs and 0.25 LYs compared with GemNab (QALY: 1.65 vs. 1.47; LY: 2.09 vs. 1.84). The ICER for FOLFIRINOX vs GemNab was $226,841 per QALY and $163,325 per LY. FOLFIRINOX was not cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $200,000 per QALY, and this was confirmed by the PSA. CONCLUSIONS: Total monthly cost for FOLFIRINOX was approximately 1.7 times higher than GemNab. If the WTP threshold increases to or above $250,000 per QALY, FOLFIRINOX then becomes a cost-effective treatment option. DISCLOSURES: This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Albumin for cirrhosis-related complications.

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this paper was to discuss the limitations of the studies serving as the evidence for recommendations in clinical practice guidelines concerning albumin use for cirrhosis-related complications, review relevant studies published since the guidelines and suggest directions for future investigations. COMMENT: There are no recent comprehensive clinical practice guidelines concerning albumin. Instead, more recent albumin guidelines reflect areas of specialty practice such as those by American and European associations for the study of the liver and liver disease. Studies published since the guidelines are useful for helping to define the most appropriate indications for albumin with respect to cirrhosis-related complications, as well as directions for future research. WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: Albumin has a long history of attempts to define appropriate uses by meta-analysis, but given the high cost and episodic shortages of albumin, there is a need for adequately powered randomized controlled trials using current state-of-the-art care evaluating the use of albumin to prevent or treat cirrhosis-related complications.

Clinical Pharmacist-Led Impact on Inappropriate Albumin Utilization and Associated Costs in General Ward Patients.

BACKGROUND: Inappropriate albumin use in clinical practice remains problematic. Health-systems face continued challenges in promoting cost-appropriate use. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical and economic impact of a clinical pharmacist-led intervention strategy targeting inappropriate albumin use in general ward patients. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study evaluated all adult (≥18 years) general ward patients administered ≥1 dose of albumin at a university medical center over a 2-year period. The intervention consisted of a clinical pharmacist-led strategy intervening on all albumin orders not in accordance with institutional guidelines. The primary end point was to compare inappropriate albumin utilization before and after implementation. Secondary end points compared the rates of inappropriate albumin use adjusted for hospital admission and patient-days as well as associated costs by appropriateness between study periods. RESULTS: A total of 4420 patients were screened, with 1971 (44.6%) patients meeting inclusion criteria. The clinical pharmacist strategy significantly reduced inappropriate albumin (grams) utilization by 86.0% (P < 0.001). A 7-fold reduction of inappropriate albumin administered adjusted for the number of patient admissions was found from the preimplementation period following clinical pharmacist intervention strategy implementation (415.3 ± 83.2 vs 57.5 ± 34.2 g per 100 general ward hospital admissions, respectively; P < 0.001). Also, the adjusted inappropriate albumin rate was reduced from 62.2 ± 12.3 to 8.6 ± 5.2 g per 100 patient-days in the preimplementation and postimplementation periods, respectively (P < 0.001). Annual cost savings were $421 455 overall, with $341 930 resulting from mitigation of inappropriate use. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: Clinical pharmacist-led interventions significantly reduced inappropriate albumin use and costs in hospitalized patients.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of atezolizumab in advanced triple-negative breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: The IMpassion130 trial demonstrated that adding atezolizumab to nanoparticle albumin-bound (nab)-paclitaxel improved the survival of patients with untreated, advanced, programmed death ligand 1 (PDL1)-positive triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). In view of the high cost of immunotherapy, it is important to examine its value with respect to both benefits and costs. In this study, the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab/nab-paclitaxel combination therapy relative to nab-paclitaxel monotherapy was evaluated for the first-line treatment of advanced, PDL1-positive TNBC, from a healthcare system perspective. METHODS: A three-state partitioned-survival model was developed to compare the clinical and economic outcomes of treatment with atezolizumab/nab-paclitaxel combination therapy with nab-paclitaxel monotherapy in patients with advanced TNBC. Clinical data were obtained from the IMpassion130 trial and extrapolated to 5 years. Health state utilities were retrieved from the literature, while direct costs (in Singapore dollars, S$) were sourced from public healthcare institutions in Singapore. The primary outcomes of the model were life years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses and scenario analyses were conducted to explore the impact of specific assumptions and uncertainties. RESULTS: Adding atezolizumab to nab-paclitaxel resulted in an additional 0.361 QALYs (0.636 LYs) at an ICER of S$324,550 per QALY gained. The ICER remained high at S$67,092 per QALY even when atezolizumab was priced zero. One-way sensitivity analysis showed that the ICER was most sensitive to variations in the cost of atezolizumab and the time horizon. Scenario analyses confirmed that the ICERs remained high even under extremely favourable assumptions. CONCLUSIONS: Given the exceedingly high ICER, adding atezolizumab to nab-paclitaxel was unlikely to represent good value for money for the treatment of advanced PDL1-positive TNBC. Our findings will be useful in informing funding policy decisions alongside other considerations such as comparative effectiveness, unmet need and budget impact.

Economic model of albumin infusion in septic shock: The EMAISS study.

BACKGROUND: The cost-effectiveness of albumin-based fluid support in patients with septic shock is currently unknown. METHODS: In a simulation study, we compared standard medical practice and systematic 20% albumin infusion. The study population consisted of patients with septic shock admitted to one of the 28 ICUs belonging to the Cub-Réa regional database between 1 January 2014 and 31 December 2016. Cost estimates were based on French diagnosis-related groups and fixed daily prices. Estimation of mortality reduction relied on ALBIOS trial data documenting a Risk Ratio of 0.87 in a non-preplanned subgroup of patients with septic shock. Life expectancy was estimated with follow up data of 184 patients with septic shock admitted in the year 2000 in the same ICUs. Several sensitivity analyses were performed including a one-way Deterministic Sensitivity Analysis (DSA) and a Probabilistic multivariate Sensitivity Analysis (PSA). RESULTS: About 6406 patients were included. In the base-case scenario, the mean live years gained with albumin was 0.49. The mean extra cost of using albumin was €480 per year. The cost per year gained was €974. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the results. The probability of albumin being cost-effective was 95% and 97% for a threshold fixed at €20 000 and €30 000 per life-year saved, respectively. CONCLUSION: Based on the risk reduction observed in the septic shock subgroup analysis of the ALBIOS dataset, the application of the ALBIOS trial results to Cub-Réa data may suggest that albumin infusion is likely cost-effective in septic shock.

First-Line Treatment With Atezolizumab Plus Nab-Paclitaxel for Advanced Triple-Negative Breast Cancer: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The authors conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis incorporating recent phase III clinical trial (IMpassion130) data to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab in combination with nab-paclitaxel (AnP) against nab-paclitaxel alone as the first-line treatment for advanced triple-negative breast cancer in developed and developing countries. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A decision-analytic Markov model was developed using IMpassion130 data to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of AnP over a lifetime from the US health care payer and Chinese health care system perspective. Model inputs were derived from IMpassion130 and published literature. The primary outcomes of the model were quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Uncertainty was addressed using univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: For the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, the projected mean outcome was better with AnP (1.41 QALYs) than with nab-paclitaxel alone (0.99 QALYs). Similar results were obtained for the programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1)-positive population, with the obtained mean outcomes of 1.66 and 0.88 QALYs, respectively. For the Unites States, the ICER values comparing AnP with nab-paclitaxel were US$331,996.89 and US$229,359.88 per QALY gained for the ITT and PD-L1-positive populations, respectively. For China, the ICER values were US$106,339.26 and US$72,971.88 per QALY gained for the ITT and PD-L1-positive populations, respectively. The univariate sensitivity analysis indicated that the price of atezolizumab was the most influential factor in our study. AnP had 0% cost-effectiveness at the willingness-to-pay thresholds of US$150,000/QALY in the United States and US$29,383/QALY in China. CONCLUSION: AnP is not a cost-effective choice as the first-line treatment for advanced triple-negative breast cancer in the United States and China.

Clinical Pharmacist-Led Impact on Inappropriate Albumin Use and Costs in the Critically Ill.

Background:Optimal albumin use in the intensive care unit (ICU) remains challenging with inappropriate use approaching 50%. No published reports have described clinical pharmacist impact aimed at mitigating inappropriate albumin use in the ICU. Objective: To evaluate the clinical and economic impact of a clinical pharmacist-led intervention strategy targeting inappropriate albumin in the ICU. Methods: A retrospective cohort study evaluated all adult (≥18 years) ICU patients administered albumin at an academic medical center over a 2-year period. Institutional guidelines were developed with clinical pharmacists targeting inappropriate albumin use. The primary end point was to compare inappropriate use of albumin administered before and after pharmacist intervention implementation. Secondary analyses compared the overall albumin use between study periods. In-hospital mortality, length of stay, and albumin-related costs between study periods were also compared. Results: A total of 4419 patients were identified, with 2448 (55.4%) critically ill patients included. The pharmacist-led strategy resulted in a 50.9% reduction of inappropriate albumin use (P < 0.001). The rate of inappropriate albumin use was 44.3 ± 10.5 and 5.5 ± 2.9 g per patient-day in the preimplementation and postimplementation periods, respectively (P < 0.001). Costs associated with overall and inappropriate albumin use in the ICU decreased by 34.8% and 87.1%, respectively. Total annual cost-savings was $355 393 in the ICUs. No differences in clinical outcomes were found. Conclusion and Relevance: Clinical pharmacist-led interventions reduced overall and inappropriate albumin use and costs without negatively affecting clinical outcomes.

Albumin Usage in Iran.

BACKGROUND: Human albumin is an expensive therapy with inappropriate use in many clinical conditions. Inappropriate use of albumin imposes a substantial economic burden on the healthcare system and society. Drug use evaluation (DUE) is one method of assessing the appropriateness of drug use which has been powered by increasing concern about the cost-effectiveness of drugs. The objective of this study is to systematically review the appropriateness of albumin utilization in Iranian hospitals. METHODS: We searched the PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS, and Google Scholar for articles in English and SID, Magiran, Medlib, and Irandoc for articles in Persian from 1997 to 2018. Studies on the DUE of albumin in Iranian hospitals were included in this study. Articles conducted outside Iran, editorials, letters and review articles were excluded. RESULTS: In total, eight studies were selected for the final review. The majority of the papers were conducted in Tehran. In most studies, the highest albumin consumption was related to the intensive care unit. The most frequent reasons for prescribing albumin were edema, hypoalbuminemia, volume expansion after heart surgery, ascites, cardiac surgery and cirrhosis. Of the studies included, five studies evaluated the costs of drug use. CONCLUSION: Our findings show that inappropriate use of albumin imposes a relatively high additional cost on the society. The included studies show that the percentage of inappropriate use of albumin is relatively high in Iran and this abuse is an essential problem in Iranian hospitals. Prescription based on standard guidelines could improve rational use of albumin and lead to savings in treatment costs.

A Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Albumin in Septic Shock: A Patient-level Data Analysis.

PURPOSE: Albumin-based fluid therapy in septic shock is a matter of debate and criticism. The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of albumin therapy in patients with septic shock. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted in Imam Khomeini, Sina, and Shariati hospitals on patients with septic shock admitted to intensive care units from March 31, 2016 to September 22, 2017. Data sources were the health information system database and patient medical records. The patients with potential septic shock were identified based on norepinephrine use. Septic shock was confirmed after medical record review based on systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria, antibiotic use, and fluid therapy. Patients who received albumin in the fluid therapy were compared with patients treated without albumin. The 28-day mortality, life-year gain, and cost-effectiveness were evaluated. FINDINGS: The addition of albumin had no significant increase in life-year gain (mean difference = 0.67; 95% CI, -2.25 to 3.58). However, the addition of albumin increased the total cost of treatment by US $3846.07 (95% CI, US $2093.46-US $5598.98). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio calculated based on the mean life-years gained was US$5740.40 per a life-year gained. The net monetary benefit was negative (-355.4; 95% CI, -15,387.61 to 14,676.81), and the probability that the addition of albumin will be cost-effective at a gross domestic product per capita was 40.0%. IMPLICATIONS: Albumin-based fluid therapy does not improve the 28-day mortality of patients with septic shock. The addition of albumin in the fluid therapy of patients with septic shock was not cost-effective. Both the observational and retrospective nature of the study was expected to introduce bias. We recommend a cost-effectiveness analysis combined with clinical trials to settle the debate once and for all.

Is Albumin-based Resuscitation in Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock Justifiable? An Evidence from a Cost-effectiveness Evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Fluid and antimicrobial therapy are the essential parts of sepsis management. The type of fluid to resuscitate with is an unsettled issue in the treatment of severe sepsis and septic shock. The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of albumin-based resuscitation over crystalloids. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted by extracting data from a database of Sina Hospital, Islamic Republic of Iran. A decision tree was constructed by using Tree Age Pro 2011. The patients were grouped based on the types of fluids used for resuscitation into crystalloid alone or crystalloid + albumin groups at the initial decision node. The patients were followed from the onset of severe sepsis and septic shock upto 28 days. The healthcare payers' perspective was considered in constructing the model. The cost was measured in US dollars and the effectiveness was measured by life years gained. RESULTS: The addition of albumin during resuscitation of patients with severe sepsis and septic shock has an effectiveness gain of 0.09 life years and cost increment of 495.00 USD. The estimated ICER for this analysis was 5500.00 USD per life year gained. The probability that albumin is cost-effective at one GDP per capita is 49.5%. CONCLUSION: Albumin-based resuscitation is not cost-effective in Iran when a GDP per capita was considered for a life year gain. The cost-effectiveness was insensitive to the cost of standard care. We recomend the caustious use albumin as per the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guideline.

Oral midodrine is comparable to albumin infusion in cirrhotic patients with refractory ascites undergoing large-volume paracentesis: results of a pilot study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Albumin infusion reduces the incidence of postparacentesis circulatory dysfunction among patients with cirrhosis and tense ascites compared with no treatment. Less costly treatment alternatives such as vasoconstrictors have been investigated, but the results are controversial. Midodrine, an oral α1-adrenergic agonist, increases effective circulating blood volume and renal perfusion by increasing systemic and splanchnic blood pressure. Our aim is to assess whether or not morbidity in terms of renal dysfunction, hyponatremia, systemic, or portal hemodynamics derangement or mortality differed in patients receiving albumin versus midodrine. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Seventy-five patients with cirrhosis and refractory ascites were randomized to receive albumin infusion, oral midodrine for 2 days, or oral midodrine for 30 days after therapeutic large volume paracentesis (LVP). The primary endpoints were development of renal impairment or hyponatremia, change in systemic and portal hemodynamics, cost, and mortality in the short-term and long-term follow-up. RESULTS: No significant difference was found between groups in the development of renal impairment, hyponatremia, or mortality 6 and 30 days after LVP. A significant increase in 24-h urine sodium excretion was noted in the midodrine 30-day group. Renal perfusion improved significantly with the midodrine intake for 30 days only. The cost of midodrine therapy was significantly lower than albumin. CONCLUSION: Midodrine is as effective as albumin in reducing morbidity and mortality among patients with refractory ascites undergoing LVP at a significantly lower cost. Long-duration midodrine intake can be more useful than shorter duration intake in terms of improvement of renal perfusion and sodium excretion.

Clinical and economical impacts of guideline implementation by the pharmaceutical care unit for high cost medications in a referral teaching hospital.

BACKGROUND: Irrational drug use is a global health challenge in all healthcare settings, such as hospitals. This study evaluated the impact of an intervention by the pharmaceutical care unit on the use pattern of high-value medications and their direct costs in a referral hospital. METHODS: This interventional, prospective study was carried out in clinical wards of Namazi Hospital (Shiraz University of Medical Sciences) during six months from May 2015 to October 2015. Clinical pharmacists completed the checklists for albumin, intravenous (IV) pantoprazole, and IV immune globulin (IVIG), as three high-cost medications. When ordering these medications, the physicians were asked to complete the checklists. Then, trained pharmacists examined the checklists, based on the clinical and paraclinical conditions. RESULTS: The total number of administered medications and their relative cost decreased by 50.76% through guideline implementation; the difference was significant (P <  0.001). In addition, the direct cost of albumin and IV pantoprazole significantly decreased (55.8% and 83.92%, respectively). In contrast, the direct cost of IVIG increased by 40.9%. After guideline implementation, the monthly direct cost of all three medications decreased by $77,720 (55.88%). The all-cause in-hospital mortality rate did not change significantly due to the intervention. The median length of hospital stay was six and seven days, respectively in the pre- and post-intervention periods. CONCLUSION: Based on the findings, implementation of guidelines by the pharmaceutical care unit caused a significant reduction in albumin and IV pantoprazole consumption and reduced their direct costs in a referral center in Iran.

The Value of Survival Gains in Pancreatic Cancer from Novel Treatment Regimens.

BACKGROUND: Metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC) is associated with low survival, with less than 10% of patients surviving 5 years. Recent therapies improve survival outcomes where few alternative therapies exist, but few economic analyses measure the value of survival gains attributable to new therapies. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the value of survival gains in advanced or mPC attributable to the introduction of novel treatment regimens. METHODS: Multivariate Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate real-world survival gains associated with the introduction of gemcitabine (GEM) for patients diagnosed with stage IV or unstaged mPC in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program cancer registries. Then, evidence from clinical trials was used to evaluate the survival gains associated with nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine (nP +GEM) and FOLFIRINOX (FFX) relative to GEM. The survival estimates and clinical trial evidence were used to calibrate an economic model and assess the cumulative value of survival gains in mPC to patients. Costs of treatment were calculated based on published cost-effectiveness studies. RESULTS: We estimated that the introduction of GEM in 1996 was associated with a hazard ratio of 0.920 (P < 0.05) and an increase in median survival from 3.1 to 4.5 months. Results suggested that the value of survival gains attributable to GEM equaled about $71,000 per patient, while the value attributable to nP + GEM was an additional $56,700. Estimates for the value of survival gains per patient, net of total incremental lifetime treatment costs (drugs, adverse events, and other costs), were $50,294 for GEM and an additional $31,900 for nP + GEM. Clinical trials and cost-effectiveness studies reported an overall survival gain from FFX that was larger than, but statistically similar to, nP + GEM and had greater risk of adverse events and total incremental costs. We estimated that the total value of survival gains to mPC patients, net of total costs, associated with GEM was up to $47.6 billion, and the additional values attributable to nP+GEM and FFX were up to $39.0 billion and $26.3 billion, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Historically, mPC patients have faced high disease burden and had few treatment options. Treatments introduced since 1996 have led to improved survival, with varying costs associated with treatment and adverse events. Accounting for total incremental costs, the majority of the value of survival gains from GEM and nP+GEM was retained by mPC patients, highlighting the value of innovation in settings where survival is low and few alternative therapies exist. DISCLOSURES: Support for this research was provided by Celgene. Precision Health Economics was compensated by Celgene for work on this study. MacEwan is an employee of, and Yin is a consultant to, Precision Health Economics. Kaura and Khan are employees of Celgene. Study concept and design were contributed primarily by Yin and MacEwan, along with Kaura and Khan. MacEwan collected the data, and data interpretation was performed primarily by MacEwan and Yin, along with Kaura and Khan. The manuscript was written and revised by MacEwan, Yin, Kaura, and Khan.

Economic evaluation for the US of nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine versus FOLFIRINOX versus gemcitabine in the treatment of metastatic pancreas cancer.

BACKGROUND: Nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine (NAB-P + GEM) and FOLFIRINOX have shown superior efficacy over gemcitabine (GEM) in the treatment of metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDA). Although the incremental clinical benefits are modest, both treatments represent significant advances in the treatment of a high-mortality cancer. In this independent economic evaluation for the US, the aim was to estimate the comparative cost-utility and cost-effectiveness of these three regimens from the payer perspective. METHODS: In the absence of a direct treatment comparison in a single clinical trial, the Bucher indirect comparison method was used to estimate the comparative efficacy of each regimen. A Markov model evaluated life years (LY) and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained with NAB-P + GEM and FOLFIRINOX over GEM, expressed as incremental cost-effectiveness (ICER) and cost-utility ratios (ICUR). All costs and outcomes were discounted at 3%/year. The impact of parameter uncertainty on the model was assessed by probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: NAB-P + GEM was associated with differentials of +0.180 LY and +0.127 QALY gained over GEM at an incremental total cost of $25,965; yielding an ICER of $144,096/LY and ICUR of $204,369/QALY gained. FOLFIRINOX was associated with differentials of +0.368 LY and +0.249 QALY gained over GEM at an incremental total cost of $93,045; yielding an ICER of $253,162/LY and ICUR of $372,813/QALY gained. In indirect comparison, the overall survival hazard ratio (OS HR) for NAB-P + GEM vs FOLFIRINOX was 0.79 (95%CI = 0.59-1.05), indicating no superiority in OS of either regimen. FOLFIRINOX had an ICER of $358,067/LY and an ICUR of $547,480/QALY gained over NAB-P + GEM. Tornado diagrams identified variation in the OS HR, but no other parameters, to impact the NAB-P + GEM and FOLFIRINOX ICURs. CONCLUSIONS: In the absence of a statistically significant difference in OS between NAB-P + GEM and FOLFIRINOX, this US analysis indicates that the greater economic benefit in terms of cost-savings and incremental cost-effectiveness and cost-utility ratios favors NAB-P + GEM over FOLFIRINOX.

Human Albumin Use in Adults in U.S. Academic Medical Centers.

OBJECTIVE: To determine rates and predictors of albumin administration, and estimated costs in hospitalized adults in the United States. DESIGN: Cohort study of adult patients from the University HealthSystem Consortium database from 2009 to 2013. SETTING: One hundred twenty academic medical centers and 299 affiliated hospitals. PATIENTS: A total of 12,366,264 hospitalization records. INTERVENTIONS: Analysis of rates and predictors of albumin administration, and estimated costs. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Overall the proportion of admissions during which albumin was administered increased from 6.2% in 2009 to 7.5% in 2013; absolute difference 1.3% (95% CI, 1.30-1.40%; p < 0.0001). The increase was greater in surgical patients from 11.7% in 2009 to 15.1% in 2013; absolute difference 3.4% (95% CI, 3.26-3.46%; p < 0.0001). Albumin use varied geographically being lowest with no increase in hospitals in the North Eastern United States (4.9% in 2009 and 5.3% in 2013) and was more common in bigger (> 750 beds; 5.2% in 2009 and 7.3% in 2013) compared to smaller hospitals (< 250 beds; 4.4% in 2009 to 6.2% in 2013). Factors independently associated with albumin use were appropriate indication for albumin use (odds ratio, 65.220; 95% CI, 62.459-68.103); surgical admission (odds ratio, 7.942; 95% CI, 7.889-7.995); and high severity of illness (odds ratio, 8.933; 95% CI, 8.825-9.042). Total estimated albumin cost significantly increased from $325 million in 2009 to $468 million in 2013; (absolute increase of $233 million), p value less than 0.0001. CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of hospitalized adults in the United States receiving albumin has increased, with marked, and currently unexplained, geographic variability and variability by hospital size.

Restricted Albumin Utilization Is Safe and Cost Effective in a Cardiac Surgery Intensive Care Unit.

BACKGROUND: Volume expansion is often necessary after cardiac surgery, and albumin is often administered. Albumin's high cost motivated an attempt to reduce its utilization. This study analyzes the impact limiting albumin infusion in a cardiac surgery intensive care unit. METHODS: This retrospective study analyzed albumin use between April 2014 and April 2015 in patients admitted to a cardiac surgery intensive care unit. During the first 9 months, there were no restrictions. In January 2015, institutional guidelines limited albumin use to patients requiring more than 3 L crystalloid in the early postoperative period, hypoalbuminemic patients, and to patients considered fluid overloaded. Albumin utilization was obtained from pharmacy records and compared with outcome quality metrics. RESULTS: In all, 1,401 patients were admitted over 13 months. Albumin use, mortality, ventilator days, patients receiving transfusions, and length of stay were compared for 961 patients before and 440 patients after guidelines were initiated. After restrictive guidelines were instituted, albumin utilization was reduced from a mean of 280 monthly doses to a mean of 101 monthly doses (p < 0.001). There was also a trend toward reduced ventilator days. Mortality, length of stay, and transfusion requirements demonstrated no significant change. Based on an average wholesale price and an average monthly reduction of 180 albumin doses, the cardiac surgery intensive care unit demonstrated more than $45,000 of wholesale savings per month after restrictions were implemented. CONCLUSIONS: Albumin restriction in the cardiac surgery intensive care unit was feasible and safe. Significant reductions in utilization and cost with no changes in morbidity or mortality were demonstrated. These findings may provide a strategy for reducing cost while maintaining quality of care.

Cost description of chemotherapy regimens for the treatment of metastatic pancreas cancer.

Multiple chemotherapy regimens are available for the treatment of metastatic pancreas cancer (mPCA). Choice of regimen is based on the patient's performance status and toxicity profile of the regimen. The objective of this study was to analyze the costs of first-line regimens to further aid in decision-making and develop a platform upon which to assess value. We calculated the monthly cost for individual standard regimens (gemcitabine, gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel, gemcitabine/erlotinib and FOLFIRINOX) and the overall treatment cost for a course of therapy based on the median progression-free survival achieved in published studies. In addition to cost of drugs, we included administration costs and costs of toxicities (including growth factor support, blood product transfusion and hospitalization for toxicities). Costs for administration and management of adverse events were based on Medicare reimbursement rates for hospital and physician services. Drug costs were based on Medicare average sale prices (all 2014 US$). The monthly costs for gemcitabine, FOLFIRINOX, gemcitabine/erlotinib and gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel were $1363, $7234, $8007 and $12,221, respectively. The overall treatment costs for a course of the same regimens based on median PFS were $5043, $46,298, $51,004 and $67,216, respectively. The choice of chemotherapy regimen for mPCA should be based on tolerability and efficacy of the regimen individualized to patient's performance status. Healthcare systems have finite resources; thus, there is increasing emphasis on metrics to define value in health care when outcomes of therapy are similar or produce marked differences in value. These data provide useful financial information to incorporate into the decision-making process.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of treatments for metastatic pancreatic cancer based on PRODIGE and MPACT trials.

PURPOSE: Fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX) and gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (GEM-N) have shown a significant survival benefit for the treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of FOLFIRINOX versus GEM-N for treating metastatic pancreatic cancer based on the PRODIGE and MPACT trials. METHODS: A decision model was performed to compare FOLFIRINOX with GEM-N. Primary base case data were identified from PRODIGE and MPACT trials. Costs were estimated and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated at West China Hospital, Sichuan University, China. Survival benefits were reported in quality-adjusted life-years (QALY). Finally, sensitive analysis was performed by varying potentially modifiable parameters in the model. RESULTS: The base-case analysis showed that FOLFIRINOX cost $37,203.75 and yielded a survival of 0.67 QALY, and GEM-N cost $32,080.59 and yielded a survival of 0.51 QALY in the entire treatment. Thus, the ICER of FOLFIRINOX versus GEM-N was $32,019.75 per QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: The GEM-N regimen was more cost-effective compared with the FOLFIRINOX regimen for the treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer from a Chinese perspective.

Impact of a Sequential Intervention on Albumin Utilization in Critical Care.

OBJECTIVES: Literature generally finds no advantages in mortality risk for albumin over cheaper alternatives in many settings. Few studies have combined financial and nonfinancial strategies to reduce albumin overuse. We evaluated the effect of a sequential multifaceted intervention on decreasing albumin use in ICU and explore the effects of different strategies. DESIGN: Prospective prepost cohort study. SETTING: Eight ICUs at two hospitals in an academic healthcare system. PATIENTS: Adult patients admitted to study ICUs from September 2011 to August 2014 (n = 22,004). INTERVENTIONS: Over 2 years, providers in study ICUs participated in an intervention to reduce albumin use involving monthly feedback and explicit financial incentives in the first year and internal guidelines and order process changes in the second year. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Outcomes measured were albumin orders per ICU admission, direct albumin costs, and mortality. Mean (SD) utilization decreased 37% from 2.7 orders (6.8) per admission during the baseline to 1.7 orders (4.6) during the intervention (p < 0.001). Regression analysis revealed that the intervention was independently associated with 0.9 fewer orders per admission, a 42% relative decrease. This adjusted effect consisted of an 18% reduction in the probability of using any albumin (p < 0.001) and a 29% reduction in the number of orders per admission among patients receiving any (p < 0.001). Secondary analysis revealed that probability reductions were concurrent with internal guidelines and order process modification while reductions in quantity occurred largely during the financial incentives and feedback period. Estimated cost savings totaled $2.5M during the 2-year intervention. There was no significant difference in ICU or hospital mortality between baseline and intervention. CONCLUSIONS: A sequential intervention achieved significant reductions in ICU albumin use and cost savings without changes in patient outcomes, supporting the combination of financial and nonfinancial strategies to align providers with evidence-based practices.

Economic evaluation for the UK of nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine in the treatment of metastatic pancreas cancer.

BACKGROUND: The combination of nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine (NAB-P+GEM) has shown superior efficacy over GEM monotherapy in metastatic pancreas cancer (MPC). Independent cost-effectiveness/utility analyses of NAB-P+GEM from the payer perspective have not been conducted for the UK. METHODS: A Markov model simulating the health outcomes and total costs was developed to estimate the life years gained (LYG) and quality-adjusted life years gained (QALY) and incremental cost-effectiveness (ICER) and cost-utility ratios (ICUR) for patients with MPC in a base case and in a probabilistic (PSA) sensitivity analysis. Total cost included the cost of supportive care medications, administration, chemotherapy, disease monitoring, and adverse reactions; and was discounted at 3.5% per year. A full lifetime horizon and third party payer perspective was chosen. RESULTS: The total cost of NAB-P+GEM was £5466 higher than the cost for GEM. Respectively, LYGs were 0.97 vs 0.79 and QALYs were 0.52 vs 0.45, with ICER of £30 367/LYG and ICUR of £78 086/QALY, confirmed by PSA. CONCLUSIONS: The superior survival efficacy of NAB-P+GEM over GEM in the management of MPC is associated with positive cost-effectiveness and cost-utility.