Cost-effectiveness of gilteritinib for relapsed/refractory FLT3mut+ acute myeloid leukemia.

BACKGROUND: Patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and confirmed feline McDonough sarcoma (FMS)-like tyrosine kinase 3 gene mutations (FLT3mut+) have a poor prognosis and limited effective treatment options. Gilteritinib is the first targeted therapy approved in the United States and Europe for R/R FLT3mut+ AML with significantly improved efficacy compared with existing treatments. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate gilteritinib against salvage chemotherapy (SC) and best supportive care (BSC) over a lifetime horizon among adult patients with R/R FLT3mut+ AML from a US third-party payer's perspective. METHODS: The model structure of this cost-effectiveness analysis included a decision tree to stratify patients based on their hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) status, followed by 2 separate 3-state partitioned survival models to predict the long-term health status conditional on HSCT status. The ADMIRAL trial data and literature were used to predict probabilities of patients being in different health states until a conservative cure point at year 3. Afterwards, living patients followed the survival outcomes of long-term survivors with AML. Model inputs for utilities, medical resource use, and costs were based on the ADMIRAL trial, published literature, and public sources. All costs were inflated to 2019 US dollars (USD). Total incremental costs (in 2019 USD), life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated. Deterministic sensitivity analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Over a lifetime horizon with a 3.0% annual discount rate, the base-case model estimated that gilteritinib led to an increase of 1.29 discounted QALYs at an additional cost of $148,106 vs SC, corresponding to an ICER of $115,192 per QALY; for BSC, results were an increase of 2.32 discounted QALYs, $249,674, and $107,435, respectively. The base-case findings were robust in sensitivity analyses. The estimated probabilities of gilteritinib being cost-effective vs SC and BSC were 90.5% and 99.8%, respectively, in the probabilistic sensitivity analyses, based on a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Gilteritinib is a cost-effective novel treatment for patients with R/R FLT3mut+ AML in the United States. DISCLOSURES: This work was supported by Astellas Pharma, Inc., which was involved in all stages of the research and manuscript development. Garnham, Pandya, and Shah are employees of Astellas and hold stock/stock options. Zeidan consulted and received personal fees/honoraria and research funding from Astellas. Zeidan also has received research funding from Celgene/BMS, Abbvie, Astex, Pfizer, Medimmune/AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Trovagene/Cardiff Oncology, Incyte, Takeda, Novartis, Amgen, Aprea, and ADC Therapeutics; has participated in advisory boards; has consulted with and/or received honoraria from AbbVie, Otsuka, Pfizer, Celgene/BMS, Jazz, Incyte, Agios, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Novartis, Acceleron, Daiichi Sankyo, Taiho, Seattle Genetics, BeyondSpring, Cardiff Oncology, Takeda, Ionis, Amgen, Janssen, Syndax, Gilead, Kura, Aprea, Lox Oncology, Genentech, Servier, Jasper, Tyme, and Epizyme; has served on clinical trial committees for Novartis, Abbvie, Geron, Gilead, Kura, Lox Oncology, BioCryst, and Celgene/BMS; and has received travel support for meetings from Pfizer, Novartis, and Cardiff Oncology. Qi and Yang are employees of Analysis Group, Inc., which received consulting fees from Astellas for work on this study. Part of this material was presented at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) Annual Meeting; December 7-10, 2019; Orlando, FL.

Phase I/II Clinical Trial-Based Early Economic Evaluation of Acalabrutinib for Relapsed Chronic Lymphocytic Leukaemia.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to construct an early economic evaluation for acalabrutinib for relapsed chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL) to assist early reimbursement decision making. Scenarios were assessed to find the relative impact of critical parameters on incremental costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). METHODS: A partitioned survival model was constructed comparing acalabrutinib and ibrutinib from a UK national health service perspective. This model included states for progression-free survival (PFS), post-progression survival (PPS) and death. PFS and overall survival (OS) were parametrically extrapolated from ibrutinib publications and a preliminary hazard ratio based on phase I/II data was applied for acalabrutinib. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed, and 1296 scenarios were assessed. RESULTS: The base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was £61,941/QALY, with 3.44 incremental QALYs and incremental costs of £213,339. Deterministic sensitivity analysis indicated that survival estimates, utilities and treatment costs of ibrutinib and acalabrutinib and resource use during PFS have the greatest influence on the ICER. Probabilistic results under different development scenarios indicated that greater efficacy of acalabrutinib would decrease the likelihood of cost effectiveness (from 63% at no effect to 2% at maximum efficacy). Scenario analyses showed that a reduction in PFS did not lead to great QALY differences (- 8 to - 14% incremental QALYs) although it did greatly affect costs (- 47 to - 122% incremental pounds). For OS, the opposite was true (- 89 to - 93% QALYs and - 7 to - 39% pounds). CONCLUSIONS: Acalabrutinib is not likely to be cost effective compared with ibrutinib under current development scenarios. The conflicting effects of OS, PFS, drug costs and utility during PFS show that determining the cost effectiveness of acalabrutinib without insight into all parameters complicates health technology assessment decision making. Early assessment of the cost effectiveness of new products can support development choices and reimbursement processes through effective early dialogues between stakeholders.

Baseline history of patients using selexipag for pulmonary arterial hypertension.

INTRODUCTION: Since its introduction to the market in 2016, selexipag has been an alternative oral therapy among both treatment-naïve patients and those with mono or dual therapy failure; however, limited information is available regarding the presentation and management of patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) prior to selexipag initiation. This study examined treatment patterns, healthcare utilization, and costs in the 12 months prior to and the 6 months following selexipag initiation. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of adult commercial and Medicare Advantage with Part D (MAPD) health plan members with a medical or pharmacy claim for selexipag from 1 January 2016 through 31 May 2017, a diagnosis of pulmonary hypertension, and continuous health plan enrollment for 12 months prior to selexipag initiation (baseline period). Treatment patterns, healthcare utilization, and costs were measured over the baseline period and the 6 months following selexipag initiation (among patients with ⩾6 months of follow up). RESULTS: After inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied, 95 patients were included in the analysis. At study start, 57.9% of patients were prescribed combination therapy, increasing to 69.5% immediately prior to selexipag initiation. Approximately 60% of patients had one baseline regimen. Emergency visits and inpatient admissions during the baseline period occurred in 63.2% and 48.4% of patients, respectively. Baseline medical costs rose steadily, increasing 266.8% in commercial and 26.7% in MAPD enrollees from the beginning to the end of the 12-month baseline period. PAH-related healthcare costs accounted for more than 80% of total costs. Mean medical costs in the 6 months following selexipag initiation were US$17,215 in commercial and US$23,976 in MAPD enrollees. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patients with PAH remained on the same therapy in the 12 months prior to selexipag initiation despite high rates of healthcare utilization and increasing costs. Mean medical costs appeared to decrease after adding or switching to selexipag.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of liraglutide versus sitagliptin or exenatide in patients with inadequately controlled Type 2 diabetes on oral antidiabetic drugs in Greece.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of liraglutide versus sitagliptin or exenatide, added to oral antidiabetic drug mono- or combination therapy respectively, in patients with Type 2 diabetes in Greece. METHODS: The CORE Diabetes Model, a validated computer simulation model, was adapted to the Greek healthcare setting. Patient and intervention effects data were gathered from a clinical trial comparing liraglutide 1.2 mg once daily vs. sitagliptin 100 mg once daily, both combined with metformin, and a clinical trial comparing liraglutide 1.8 mg once daily vs. exenatide 10 µg twice daily, both as add-on to metformin, glimepiride or both. Direct costs were reported in 2013 Euros and calculated based on published and local sources. All future outcomes were discounted at 3.5% per annum, and the analysis was conducted from the perspective of a third-party payer in Greece. RESULTS: Over a patient's lifetime, treatment with liraglutide 1.2 mg vs. sitagliptin drove a mean increase in discounted life expectancy of 0.13 (SD 0.23) years and in discounted quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.19 (0.16) quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), whereas therapy with liraglutide 1.8 mg vs. exenatide yielded increases of 0.14 (0.23) years and 0.19 (0.16) QALYs respectively. As regards lifetime direct costs, liraglutide 1.2 mg resulted in greater costs of €2797 (€1468) versus sitagliptin, and so did liraglutide 1.8 mg compared with exenatide (€1302 [€1492]). Liraglutide 1.2 and 1.8 mg doses were associated with incremental cost effectiveness ratios of €15101 and €6818 per QALY gained, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Liraglutide is likely to be a cost-effective option for the treatment of Type 2 diabetes in a Greek setting.

Cost-effectiveness of add-on treatments to metformin in a Swedish setting: liraglutide vs sulphonylurea or sitagplitin.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate long-run cost-effectiveness in a Swedish setting for liraglutide compared with sulphonylureas (glimepiride) or sitagliptin, all as add-on to metformin for patients with type 2 diabetes insufficiently controlled with metformin in monotherapy. METHODS: The IHE Cohort Model of Type 2 Diabetes was used to evaluate clinical and economic outcomes from a societal perspective. Model input data were obtained from two clinical trials, the Swedish National Diabetes Register and the literature. Cost data reflected year 2013 price level. The robustness of results was checked with one-way-sensitivity analysis and probability sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: The cost per QALY gained for liraglutide (1.2 mg) compared to SU (glimepiride 4 mg), both as add-on to metformin, ranged from SEK 226,000 to SEK 255,000 in analyzed patient cohorts. The cost per QALY for liraglutide (1.2 mg) vs sitagliptin (100 mg) as second-line treatment was lower, ranging from SEK 149,000 to SEK 161,000. Costs of preventive treatment were driving costs, but there was also a cost offset from reduced costs of complications of ∼ 20%. Notable cost differences were found for nephropathy, stroke, and heart failure. The predicted life expectancy with liraglutide increased the cost of net consumption for liraglutide. LIMITATIONS: The analysis was an ex-ante analysis using model input data from clinical trials which may not reflect effectiveness in real-world clinical practice in broader patient populations. This limitation was explored in the sensitivity analysis. The lack of specific data on loss of production due to diabetes complications implied that these costs may be under-estimated. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment strategies with liraglutide 1.2 mg improved the expected quality-of-life and increased costs when compared to SU and to sitagliptin for second-line add-on treatments. The cost per QALY for liraglutide was in the range considered medium by Swedish authorities.

Access to expensive cancer drugs in Dutch daily practice: should we be concerned?

BACKGROUND: To investigate whether equal access to bortezomib has been achieved under the Dutch policy regulations that guarantee equal access to expensive inpatient drugs. METHODS: We investigated accessibility to bortezomib treatment at national and regional levels by (i) conducting interviews with stakeholders in the Dutch healthcare system to explore prescription barriers and (ii) tabulating sales data from 2004-2009 and trial participation rates. RESULTS: Interviews revealed awareness of the high treatment costs, although prescription barriers were not encountered. National use of bortezomib increased slowly (treating 2% of patients in 2004 to 17% in 2009), indicating a long adjustment period. Furthermore, use remains below the rate estimated by the professional association of haematologists (27%). Regional differences were found for both daily practice use (e.g. ranging from 13-27% in 2009) and clinical trial participation (e.g. ranging from 1-12% in 2006). CONCLUSION: Our results were somewhat conflicting: interviews did not reveal any prescription barriers, but quantitative methods showed regional differences, signs of underutilisation, and access inequality. Investigating use and accessibility, based on data triangulation, provides valuable feedback which can enhance evidence-based decision making for both physicians and policymakers. This could improve appropriate and efficient use and ensure equal access to expensive drugs.

Policymaker, please consider your needs carefully: does outcomes research in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma reduce policymaker uncertainty regarding value for money of bortezomib?

INTRODUCTION: Dutch policy regulations require outcomes research for the assessment of appropriate drug use and cost-effectiveness after 4 years of temporary reimbursement. We investigated whether outcomes research reduced policymaker uncertainty regarding the question whether the costs are worth public funding. METHODS: Our cohort study included 139 patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma who were treated outside of a clinical study; 72 received bortezomib and 67 did not receive bortezomib. Detailed data were retrospectively collected from medical records in 38% of Dutch hospitals. RESULTS: All patients received second-line treatment; 65%, 40%, and 14%, received three, four, or five or more lines of therapy. Neither a specific treatment sequence nor an appropriate comparator could be identified because of large variation in regimes. Kaplan-Meier curves showed an increased overall survival (mean [median] 29.5 [33.2] vs. 28.0 [21.6] months) for patients treated with bortezomib (Wilcoxon P = 0.01). Total mean costs were €81,626 (range €17,793-€229,783) and €52,760 (range €748-€179,571) for patients receiving bortezomib and patients not receiving bortezomib, respectively. Patients treated with bortezomib, however, were not comparable to other patients despite attempts to correct for confounding. Therefore, it was impossible to develop a feasible model to obtain a valid incremental cost-effectiveness estimate. CONCLUSIONS: It was possible to develop evidence on bortezomib's use, effects, and costs in everyday practice. Much uncertainty, however, remained regarding its cost-effectiveness. Policymakers should carefully consider whether outcomes research sufficiently decreases uncertainty or whether other options (e.g., finance- and/or outcomes-based risk-sharing arrangements) are more appropriate to ensure sufficient value for money of expensive drugs.

Comparative cost-effectiveness models for the treatment of multiple myeloma.

OBJECTIVES: To compare cost effectiveness models for the first-line treatment of multiple myeloma, and explore the differences between the models' structure, parameters, assumptions and results. METHODS: Three cost effectiveness models for the treatment of multiple myeloma, were compared that had been developed to inform resource allocation in the UK for the chemotherapy regimens bortezomib, melphalan and prednisolone (BMP); and melphalan, prednisolone and thalidomide (MPT) versus melphalan and prednisolone (MP). The models used alternative approaches and assumptions to estimate the overall survival and progression-free survival for each of the interventions. Through the use of sensitivity analyses, the most influential parameters and assumptions of each of the models were identified. RESULTS: The models developed by the manufacturers gave conflicting results, with each manufacturer favouring their drug. The differences between the model results were determined by two parameters: the hazard ratio for overall survival for MPT vs. MP and the cost of bortezomib. CONCLUSIONS: Using models developed for assessing treatments for multiple myeloma we demonstrated that it was feasible to compare models, which then aided decision makers in making reimbursement decisions.

Peripheral blood stem cell mobilization in multiple myeloma patients treat in the novel therapy-era with plerixafor and G-CSF has superior efficacy but significantly higher costs compared to mobilization with low-dose cyclophosphamide and G-CSF.

Studies comparing the efficacy and cost of peripheral blood stem and progenitor cells mobilization with low-dose cyclophosphamide (LD-CY) and granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) against plerixafor and G-CSF, in multiple myeloma (MM) patients treated in the novel therapy-era are not available. Herein, we report mobilization outcomes of 107 patients who underwent transplantation within 1-year of starting induction chemotherapy with novel agents. Patients undergoing mobilization with LD-CY (1.5 gm/m(2)) and G-CSF (n = 74) were compared against patients receiving plerixafor and G-CSF (n = 33). Compared to plerixafor, LD-CY was associated with a significantly lower median peak peripheral blood CD34+ cell count (68/µL vs. 36/µL, P = 0.048), and lower CD34+ cell yield on day 1 of collection (6.9 × 10(6)/kg vs. 2.4 × 10(6)/kg, P = 0.001). Six patients (8.1%) in the LD-CY group experienced mobilization failure, compared to none in the plerixafor group. The total CD34+ cell yield was significantly higher in the plerixafor group (median 11.6 × 10(6)/kg vs. 7 × 10(6)/kg; P-value = 0.001). Mobilization with LD-CY was associated with increased (albeit statistically non-significant) episodes of febrile neutropenia (5.4% vs. 0%; P = 0.24), higher use of intravenous antibiotics (6.7% vs. 3%; P = 0.45), and need for hospitalizations (9.4% vs. 3%; P = 0.24). The average total cost of mobilization in the plerixafor group was significantly higher compared to the LD-CY group ($28,980 vs. $19,626.5 P-value < 0.0001). In conclusion, in MM plerixafor-based mobilization has superior efficacy, but significantly higher mobilization costs compared to LD-CY mobilization. Our data caution against the use of LD-CY in MM patients for mobilization, especially after induction with lenalidomide-containing regimens.

Retrospective database analysis of the impact of prior authorization for type 2 diabetes medications on health care costs in a Medicare Advantage Prescription Drug Plan population.

BACKGROUND: Health plans and pharmacy benefit managers have implemented utilization management strategies for newer type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) medications to control pharmacy expenditures. Little is known about the impact of utilization management strategies on overall health care costs and subsequent use of T2DM medications among members who request, but do not receive, a T2DM medication requiring prior authorization (PA).  OBJECTIVE: To examine the relationship between the receipt of a T2DM medication requiring PA, health care costs, and subsequent treatment for T2DM.  METHODS: A retrospective cohort study using pharmacy, medical, and laboratory claims data was conducted among Medicare Advantage Prescription Drug plan members with a denied claim for a T2DM medication requiring PA (sitagliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor [DPP-4i], and exenatide, an incretin mimetic) between January 1, 2008, and June 30, 2009. Subjects were required to have 12 months of continuous enrollment both before and after the index date. The entire study period was 24 months in duration, including a 12-month pre-index and 12-month post-index period. Three cohorts were identified: 1 that received a medication requiring PA (denied claim, subsequent fill) and 2 nonfilling control groups. Both control groups requested a medication requiring PA, as evidenced by the denied claim, but neither received the medication, either because the medication was not authorized or the member chose not to fill. Claims-based estimates were used to infer whether the individual likely met the criteria for PA, with 1 control group designated as having met the claims-based criteria (qualifying nonfilling cohort) and the other not having done so (nonqualifying nonfilling cohort.) The primary endpoint evaluated was the relationship between PA medication fill status and plan-paid costs (medical [including laboratory] and pharmacy) over the 12-month post-denial period, with generalized linear models adjusting for key covariates including demographics, concomitant medications, pre-index costs, pre-index adherence, and comorbidities. The secondary endpoint of T2DM medication use (post-denial) among the 2 nonfilling control groups was also evaluated.  RESULTS: There were 1,728 members identified who received medication for T2DM requiring PA (the received authorization cohort) and 2,373 who did not (606 qualifying nonfilling cohort; 1,767 nonqualifying nonfilling cohort.) Cohorts were similar with regard to age and gender, but the nonfilling cohort had more comorbidities. Total unadjusted plan-paid 12-month costs were lowest among the received authorization cohort ($11,739), slightly higher ($11,980) for the qualifying nonfilling cohort, and notably higher for the nonqualifying nonfilling cohort ($12,962), although no differences were statistically significant. After adjusting for key covariates, the difference between the nonqualifying nonfilling cohort ($11,980) and the received authorization cohort ($11,729) was statistically significant (P = 0.034). Large differences in plan-paid medical costs ($10,127 for the nonqualifying nonfilling cohort vs. $8,192 for the received authorization cohort) appeared to drive the overall cost totals and were significant in both the unadjusted (P = 0.005) and adjusted models (P less than 0.001). Pharmacy costs were significantly lower for the nonqualifying nonfilling cohort in the adjusted model and for the qualifying nonfilling cohort in both models (all P less than 0.001), but the lower pharmacy costs were not offset by the higher medical costs. In examining the use of medication for treatment of T2DM following the denied claim, 10.6% of the qualifying nonfilling cohort and 13.4% of the nonqualifying nonfilling cohort added another oral therapy, 10.2% and 5.8% added insulin, and 11.9% and 7.1% had treatment intensification, respectively. More than half (56.1%) of the qualifying nonfilling cohort, but only 32.1% of the nonqualifying nonfilling cohort, maintained current therapy.   CONCLUSIONS: This study found higher plan-paid health care costs (overall and medical alone) among members who requested a type 2 diabetes medication requiring PA, but never received it, compared with those who qualified for and received the requested medication. A notable number of individuals who were assumed to have met the criteria based on a claims-based equivalent, but who never received the medication, made no change to their current therapy. Failure of a member to take medication deemed necessary by his or her physician could translate to inadequate control of the diabetic condition and result in an excess of resource utilization and costs for treating the disease and associated comorbidities. In light of the present findings, health plans should consider not only the impact of utilization management strategies on reducing pharmacy costs, but the broader implication for overall health care costs and subsequent treatment patterns among members. 

Evaluating the short-term cost-effectiveness of liraglutide versus sitagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes failing metformin monotherapy in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Effective glycemic control can reduce the risk of serious micro- and macrovascular complications in type 2 diabetes. However, many patients fail to reach glycemic targets due partly to low efficacy and adverse effects of treatment such as hypoglycemia or weight gain. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the short-term cost-effectiveness of liraglutide versus sitagliptin, in terms of cost per patient reaching a glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) target with no hypoglycemia and no weight gain after 52 weeks, based on a recently published trial.  METHODS: Data were taken from a 52-week randomized, controlled trial (NCT00700817) in which adults with type 2 diabetes (mean age = 55 years, HbA1c = 8.4%, body mass index = 33 kg/m2) failing metformin monotherapy were randomly allocated to receive either liraglutide 1.2 mg, liraglutide 1.8 mg, or sitagliptin 100 mg daily, in addition to metformin. For the cost-effectiveness analysis, the proportion of patients achieving a clinically relevant composite endpoint, defined as HbA1c less than 7.0%, with no reported hypoglycemia and no gain in body weight, was estimated using logistic regression. Trial data showed that 38.9% of patients on liraglutide 1.2 mg and 49.9% on liraglutide 1.8 mg achieved the composite endpoint, compared with 18.6% on sitagliptin at 52 weeks. Costs of antihyperglycemia medications were accounted for based on published wholesale acquisition costs in 2012 U.S. dollars.  RESULTS: Overall pharmacy costs (needle costs included) were higher for patients on liraglutide than sitagliptin. The cost per patient achieving an HbA1c less than 7% was lowest for patients receiving liraglutide 1.2 mg ($7,993) and highest for patients receiving sitagliptin ($11,570). When expressed as the mean cost per patient reaching target HbA1c with no hypoglycemia or weight gain (cost of control), costs were notably lower on liraglutide than on sitagliptin. Annual mean costs of control were $10,335 on liraglutide 1.2 mg and $11,755 on liraglutide 1.8 mg versus $16,858 on sitagliptin. CONCLUSION: The mean cost per patient achieving control, defined as reaching HbA1c target with no hypoglycemia or weight gain, was lower with liraglutide than with sitagliptin based on data from a recently published 52-week clinical trial. 

Total cost comparison in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma.

OBJECTIVES: Advances in survival in multiple myeloma have focused payer attention on the cost of care. An assessment was conducted to compare the costs of two recent treatments for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (rrMM), from the perspective of a US payer. METHODS: An economic model estimated the total costs of care for two guideline-recommended therapies in rrMM patients: bortezomib (BORT) and lenalidomide plus dexamethasone (LEN/DEX). To evaluate total treatment costs, the costs associated with drug treatment, medical resource utilization, and adverse event (AE) management were determined for each regimen over a common 1-year period. Medical costs and grade 3/4 AE costs were based on rates from published literature, package inserts, and fee schedules (US dollars). To evaluate cost per outcome, assessments determined the monthly costs without disease progression based on pivotal clinical trials (APEX [BORT] and MM-009/MM-010 [LEN/DEX]). Univariate sensitivity analyses and alternative scenarios were also conducted. RESULTS: Drug costs for the treatments were very similar, differing by under $10 per day. Medical and AE management costs for BORT were higher by more than $40 per day. Treatment with BORT had annual excess total costs of >$17,000 compared with LEN/DEX. A cost advantage for LEN/DEX was maintained across a variety of sensitivity analyses. Total cost per month without progression was 11% lower with LEN/DEX. LIMITATIONS: This analysis relied on separate studies having similar comparators, populations, and end-points. Actual treatment patterns and costs pre- and post-relapse may vary from the base scenario and sensitivities modeled. The 12-month time frame captures the preponderance of costs for a relapse line of therapy, yet may not reflect the entirety of costs. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether, or how, a difference in the lifetime costs of the two regimens would vary from the 1-year cost difference. CONCLUSION: While rrMM treatment with BORT and LEN/DEX had comparable drug costs, total treatment costs for BORT were higher due to ongoing direct medical and AE management costs. Total costs per outcome (a month without disease progression) were lower for LEN/DEX.

Pharmacoeconomic analysis of DPP-4 inhibitors.

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors and other incretin-related drugs have attracted attention as antidiabetic agents, but they are expensive. The Japanese government has adopted a policy of reducing healthcare costs, and medical institutions must provide medical care while considering economic efficiency. This study was a comparative survey of the usage, treatment effectiveness, and cost of DPP-4 inhibitors. The subjects were patients prescribed DPP-4 inhibitors (sitagliptin, vildagliptin, and alogliptin) at Gifu Municipal Hospital between February 2010 and August 2011. HbA1c: Japan Diabetes Society values (%) and concomitant antidiabetic agents were surveyed for 12 weeks after the start of DPP-4 inhibitors. A cost-effectiveness analysis showed that the cost required for a 0.1% decrease in HbA1c for 12 weeks was the lowest with vildagliptin (2,478 yen; decrease in HbA1c: 0.75% +/- 0.85%). In a cost analysis with a virtual cohort of 1000 patients, the number of patients who achieved the treatment target (HbA1c 6.5%) was estimated with respect to a virtual cohort created based on the HbA1c level (7.59 +/- 1.13%) at baseline of 307 patients, in cases assuming the use of each DPP-4 inhibitor. In addition, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was obtained with sitagliptin 50 mg as the reference. The number of patients achieving the treatment target was the highest with vildagliptin 100 mg (413 of 1000 patients), and the estimated ICER of 28,359 yen was the lowest. Robustness was also confirmed with a sensitivity analysis. These results suggest that vildagliptin provides a superior cost-benefit.

Long-term cost-consequence analysis of exenatide once weekly vs sitagliptin or pioglitazone for the treatment of type 2 diabetes patients in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: Exenatide once-weekly (ExQW) is a GLP-1 receptor agonist shown to lower glucose and cardiovascular risk factors in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). The objective of this study was to estimate the clinical benefits and associated economic benefits of treatment with ExQW compared with sitagliptin or pioglitazone in the US. METHODS: The IMS CORE Diabetes Model, a validated computer simulation model, was used to project lifetime clinical outcomes and complication costs. The costs of glucose-lowering drugs were excluded as not all prices were available. Baseline patient characteristics (mean values: age, 52.5 years; diabetes duration, 6 years; HbA1(c), 8.51%; body mass index, 32.12 kg/m(2)) and clinical data were derived from a phase 3 clinical trial that compared ExQW with sitagliptin or pioglitazone in T2DM patients. At 6 months, patients treated with ExQW had greater improvements in HbA1(c) and body weight than those treated with sitagliptin or pioglitazone. Complication costs were extracted from published sources. Health outcomes and costs were discounted at 3% per year. Sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Over 35 years, and compared with sitagliptin or pioglitazone, ExQW increased life expectancy by, respectively, 0.28 (13.76 ± 0.17 vs 13.48 ± 0.18) and 0.17 years (13.76 ± 0.17 vs 13.59 ± 0.17), and quality-adjusted life years by, respectively, 0.28 (9.56 ± 0.12 vs 9.28 ± 0.12) and 0.24 years (9.56 ± 0.12 vs 9.32 ± 0.12). ExQW was associated with lower lifetime complication costs: compared with sitagliptin or pioglitazone, ExQW saved, respectively US$2215 (US$55,647 ± 2039 vs US$57,862 ± 2159) and US$933 (US$55,647 ± 2039 vs US$56,580 ± 2007) direct cost per patient. Cost-savings resulted mainly from a lower projected cumulative incidence of cardiovascular diseases and neuropathic complications. LIMITATIONS: Short-term changes in surrogate end-points were used to project lifetime effects on clinical outcomes. Pharmacy costs were excluded from the analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Over a patient's lifetime, ExQW was projected to improve health and decrease diabetes-related complication costs compared with sitagliptin or pioglitazone.

Cost-utility analysis of liraglutide compared with sulphonylurea or sitagliptin, all as add-on to metformin monotherapy in Type 2 diabetes mellitus.

AIM: To investigate the cost-effectiveness of liraglutide as add-on to metformin vs. glimepiride or sitagliptin in patients with Type 2 diabetes uncontrolled with first-line metformin. METHODS: Data were sourced from a clinical trial comparing liraglutide vs. glimepiride, both in combination with metformin, and a clinical trial comparing liraglutide vs. sitagliptin, both as add-on to metformin. Only the subgroup of patients in whom liraglutide was added to metformin monotherapy was included in the cost-utility analysis. The CORE Diabetes Model was used to simulate outcomes and costs with liraglutide 1.2 and 1.8 mg vs. glimepiride and vs. sitagliptin over patients' lifetimes. Treatment effects were taken directly from the trials. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3.5% per annum and costs were accounted from a third-party payer (UK National Health System) perspective. RESULTS: Treatment with liraglutide 1.2 and 1.8 mg resulted, respectively, in mean increases in quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.32 ± 0.15 and 0.28 ± 0.14 quality-adjusted life years vs. glimepiride, and 0.19 ± 0.15 and 0.31 ± 0.15 quality-adjusted life years vs. sitagliptin, and was associated with higher costs of £ 3003 ± £ 678 and £ 4688 ± £ 639 vs. glimepiride, and £ 1842 ± £ 751 and £ 3224 ± £ 683 vs. sitagliptin, over a patient's lifetime. Both liraglutide doses were cost-effective, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of £ 9449 and £ 16,501 per quality-adjusted life year gained vs. glimepiride, and £ 9851 and £ 10,465 per quality-adjusted life year gained vs. sitagliptin, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Liraglutide, added to metformin monotherapy, is a cost-effective option for the treatment of Type 2 diabetes in a UK setting.

The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of bortezomib and thalidomide in combination regimens with an alkylating agent and a corticosteroid for the first-line treatment of multiple myeloma: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Multiple myeloma (MM) is the second most common haematological cancer in the UK. MM is not curable but can be treated with a combination of supportive measures and chemotherapy that aim to extend the duration and quality of survival. The majority of patients are not able to withstand intensive treatment, such as high-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell transplantation (SCT), and so they are offered single-agent or combination chemotherapy. Combination therapies typically include chemotherapy with an alkylating agent and a corticosteroid. More recently, combination therapies have incorporated drugs such as thalidomide (Thalidomide Celgene®, Celgene) and bortezomib (Velcade®, Janssen-Cilag). OBJECTIVE: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of bortezomib or thalidomide in combination chemotherapy regimens with an alkylating agent and a corticosteroid for the first-line treatment of MM. DATA SOURCES: Electronic bibliographic databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library, were searched from 1999 to 2009 for English-language articles. Bibliographies of articles, grey literature sources and manufacturers' submissions were also searched. Experts in the field were asked to identify additional published and unpublished references. REVIEW METHODS: Titles and abstracts were screened for eligibility by two reviewers independently. The inclusion criteria specified in the protocol were applied to the full text of retrieved papers by one reviewer and checked independently by a second reviewer. Data extraction and quality assessment were undertaken by one reviewer and checked by a second reviewer. Differences in opinion were resolved through discussion at each stage. A cost-utility decision-analytic model was used to compare the cost-effectiveness estimates of bortezomib in combination with melphalan and prednisolone/prednisone (VMP), thalidomide in combination with cyclophosphamide and attenuated dexamethasone (CTDa), and thalidomide in combination with melphalan and prednisolone/prednisone (MPT) versus melphalan and prednisolone/prednisone (MP). RESULTS: A total of 1436 records were screened and 40 references were retrieved for the systematic review of clinical effectiveness. Five randomised controlled trials (RCTs) met the inclusion criteria for the review: one RCT evaluated VMP, three evaluated MPT and one evaluated CTDa. The comparator in all of the included trials was MP. The review found that VMP and MPT can both be considered more clinically effective than MP for the first-line treatment of MM in people for whom high-dose therapy and SCT would not be appropriate. CTDa was more effective than MP in terms of complete response but data on survival outcomes did not meet the inclusion criteria. Cost-effectiveness analysis indicated that MPT has a greater probability of being cost-effective than either VMP or CTDa. LIMITATIONS: For most RCTs, details needed to judge study quality were incompletely reported. All studies stated that the analyses followed intention-to-treat principles but none adequately reported data censoring. Only one RCT contributed data on VMP and the published peer-reviewed follow-up data were immature. For MPT, overall survival data from two trials were eligible for inclusion but the doses of thalidomide differed between the trials and the treatment period was not reflective of current UK practice so the generalisability of the findings was uncertain. Two RCTs had a maintenance phase with thalidomide that did not meet the inclusion criteria so some of these results were not eligible for the review. Limited evidence on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was provided by the single trial of VMP versus MP. CONCLUSIONS: Service provision is unlikely to change greatly. As uncertainties remain, further research is needed regarding the use of bortezomib- and thalidomide-containing combination regimens. Head-to-head trials of bortezomib- and thalidomide-containing combination regimes are required, including assessments of patient HRQoL in response to treatment. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Cost-effectiveness of novel relapsed-refractory multiple myeloma therapies in Norway: lenalidomide plus dexamethasone vs bortezomib.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost-effectiveness (cost per additional life-year [LY] and quality-adjusted life-year [QALY] gained) of lenalidomide plus dexamethasone (LEN/DEX) compared with bortezomib for the treatment of relapsed-refractory multiple myeloma (rrMM) in Norway. METHODS: A discrete-event simulation model was developed to predict patients? disease course using patient data, best response, and efficacy levels obtained from LEN/DEX MM-009/-010 trials and the bortezomib (APEX) published clinical trial. Predictive equations for time-to-progression (TTP) and post-progression survival (PPS) were developed by identifying the best fitting parametric survival distributions and selecting the most significant predictors. Disease and adverse event management was obtained via survey from Norwegian experts. Costs, derived from official Norwegian pricing data bases, included drug, administration, monitoring, and adverse event management costs. RESULTS: Complete or partial responders were 65% for LEN/DEX compared to 43% for bortezomib. Derived median TTP was 11.45 months for LEN/DEX compared to 5.15 months for bortezomib. LYs and QALYs were higher for LEN/DEX (4.06 and 2.95, respectively) than for bortezomib (3.11 and 2.19, respectively). The incremental costs per QALY and LY gained from LEN/DEX were NOK 247,978 and NOK 198,714, respectively, compared to bortezomib. Multiple sensitivity analyses indicated the findings were stable. The parameters with the greatest impact were 4-year time horizon (NOK 441,457/QALY) and higher bound confidence intervals for PPS (NOK 118,392). LIMITATIONS: The model analyzed two therapies not compared in head-to-head trials, and predicted results using an equation incorporating patient-level characteristics. It is a limited estimation of the costs and outcomes in a Norwegian setting. CONCLUSIONS: The simulation model showed that treatment with LEN/DEX leads to greater LYs and QALYs when compared to bortezomib in the treatment of rrMM patients. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio indicated treatment with LEN/DEX to be cost-effective and was the basis of the reimbursement approval of LEN/DEX in Norway.

Ideal vial size for bortezomib: real-world data on waste and cost reduction in treatment of multiple myeloma in Brazil.

OBJECTIVES: Single-size vials of drugs may be a source of waste and increase in treatment costs. Bortezomib, indicated for multiple myeloma (MM) treatment, is available in 3.5-mg vials, a quantity higher than the average dose commonly prescribed. This analysis aimed to demonstrate, through real-world data, which would be the optimal vial presentation for bortezomib in Brazil and quantify the reduction in medication waste related to this option. METHODS: From November 2007 to October 2009 all patients with MM treated with bortezomib were identified via the Evidências database. Analysis of prescribed, dispensed, and wasted doses, their costs and projections of the ideal vial size were performed. RESULTS: Thirty-five patients (mean body surface area of 1.73 m(2)) received 509 infusions in 131 cycles of treatment (average of 3.77 cycles per patient). The average dose prescribed was 2.1 mg per infusion (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.97-2.26) with average waste of 39.5% of the vial content (95% CI 35.35-43.76). The mean waste per patient per day was 1.38 mg (95% CI 1.24-1.52). If a 3-mg vial were available, the average drug waste per patient per day would be 0.88 mg (95% CI 0.74-1.03) or 36.2% less. With a 2.5-mg vial the waste would be 1.05 mg (95% CI 0.81-1.29) or 23.9% less. If two presentations were available (2.5 mg and 0.5 mg), the waste would be 0.52 mg (95% CI 0.4-0.63) or 62.5% less. Considering the price of the different vials to be proportional to the original 3.5-mg vial, the cost would be also reduced by the same rates described above. CONCLUSIONS: A simple adjustment in vial size may reduce the waste of bortezomib by 36% to 62% and can also reduce the cost of treatment.