Systematic literature review of treatments for management of complications of ischemic central retinal vein occlusion.

BACKGROUND: To understand the clinical and economic outcomes of treatments for managing complications of ischemic central retinal vein occlusion (iCRVO). METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature review by searching multiple databases and ophthalmology conferences from 2004 to 2015. Studies published in English language and populations of age ≥45 years were included. For clinical endpoints, we defined eligibility criteria as randomized controlled trials, prospective before-and-after study designs, and non-randomized studies reporting on treatments in patients with iCRVO. For economic endpoints, all types of study design except cost-of-illness studies were included. We evaluated the definitions of ischemia, clinical and economic endpoints, and rate of development of complications. Risk of bias was assessed for clinical studies using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. RESULTS: A total of 20 studies (1338 patients) were included. Treatments included anti-vascular endothelial growth factors (anti-VEGFs), steroids, and procedures primarily targeting macular edema and neovascularization. Ischemia was not defined consistently in the included studies. The level of evidence was mostly low. Most treatments did not improve visual acuity significantly. Development of treatment complications ranged from 11 to 57 %. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios reported for anti-VEGFs and steroids were below the accepted threshold of GB£30,000, but considering such treatments only ameliorate disease symptoms they seem relatively expensive. CONCLUSIONS: There is a lack of evidence for any intervention being effective in iCRVO, especially in the prevention of neovascularisation. iCRVO poses a significant clinical and economic burden. There is a need to standardize the definition of ischemia, and for innovative treatments which can significantly improve visual outcomes and prevent neovascular complications.

Assessment of clinical and economic impact of rivaroxaban plus aspirin vs. aspirin alone as a secondary prophylaxis in patients with chronic and symptomatic peripheral arterial disease in the United States.

AIM: The objective in this study was to assess the clinical and economic implications of the inclusion of rivaroxaban as a secondary prophylaxis in patients with chronic or symptomatic peripheral artery disease (PAD) in the United States (US). METHODS: A cost-consequence model was adapted to evaluate the economic impact of rivaroxaban plus aspirin in a hypothetical 1-million-member health plan. The model inputs were taken from multiple sources: efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban + aspirin vs. aspirin alone were abstracted from COMPASS and VOYAGER randomized clinical trials; the prevalence of chronic and symptomatic PAD and incidence rates of clinical events (major adverse cardiac events [MACE], major adverse limb events [MALE], and major bleeding), were abstracted from the analysis of claims data; healthcare costs of clinical events and wholesale acquisition costs for rivaroxaban were abstracted from the literature and Red Book, respectively (2022 USD). One-way sensitivity analyses and subgroup analyses were also conducted. RESULTS: Over one year, with a 5% uptake of rivaroxaban, the model estimated rivaroxaban + aspirin to reduce 21 MACE/MALE events in the PAD patient population. The reduction in these clinical events offsets the increased risk of major bleeding (16 additional events), demonstrating a positive health benefit of the rivaroxaban addition. These benefits led to a $0.27 incremental cost per member per month (PMPM) to a US plan. The major driver of the incremental cost was the cost of rivaroxaban. In a subgroup of patients with the presence of any high-risk factor (heart failure, diabetes, renal insufficiency, or history of vascular disease affecting two or more vascular beds), the incremental PMPM cost was $0.13. CONCLUSIONS: Rivaroxaban + aspirin was found to provide positive net clinical benefit on the annual number of MACE/MALE avoided, with a modest increase in the PMPM cost.

Cost-effectiveness of atrial fibrillation screening in Canadian community practice.

Background: Contemporary guidelines recommend opportunistic screening for atrial fibrillation (AF). Objective: The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of single time point opportunistic AF screening for patients 65 years and older by using the single-lead electrocardiogram. Methods: An established Markov cohort model was adapted by updating the background mortality estimates, epidemiology, screening efficacy, treatment patterns, resource use, and cost inputs to reflect a Canadian health care setting. Inputs were derived from a contemporary prospective screening study performed in Canadian primary care settings (screening efficacy and epidemiology) and the published literature (unit costs, epidemiology, mortality, utility, and treatment efficacy). The impact of screening and oral anticoagulant treatment on the cost and clinical outcomes was analyzed. A Canadian payer perspective over lifetime was used for analysis, with costs expressed in 2019 Canadian dollars. Results: Among the estimated screening-eligible population of 2,929,301 patients, the screening cohort identified an additional 127,670 AF cases compared with the usual care cohort. The model estimated avoidance of 12,236 strokes and incremental quality-adjusted life-years of 59,577 (0.02 per patient) over lifetime in the screening cohort. Cost savings were substantial because of improved health outcomes, reflecting screening being the dominant strategy (affordable and effective). Model results were robust across sensitivity and scenario analyses. Conclusion: Single time point opportunistic screening of AF using a single-lead electrocardiogram device in Canadian patients 65 years and older without known AF may provide improved health outcomes with cost savings from the perspective of a single payer health care environment.

Budget Impact of Belantamab Mafodotin (Belamaf) Adoption in the Treatment of Patients with Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma in the United States.

PURPOSE: Estimate the budget impact of belantamab mafodotin (belamaf) for patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) who have received ≥4 prior therapies, including an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody, a proteasome inhibitor, and an immunomodulatory agent. METHODS: A budget impact analysis (BIA) was developed to estimate the cost difference between current (no belamaf) and projected (with belamaf) market scenarios over 3 years. Comparators were identified from a systematic literature review and included selinexor + dexamethasone or best supportive care. The number of treatment-eligible patients were estimated using an epidemiology model. Base-case analyses were conducted from a US commercial payer perspective (cost year: 2019). Model inputs included market share estimates, treatment duration, and costs of drug acquisition/administration, concomitant medications, adverse event (AE) management, treatment monitoring, and subsequent treatments based on published literature/cost databases. Budget impact, calculated as the difference in costs between current and projected scenarios over 3 years, was reported as cost per member per month (PMPM) and per member per year (PMPY). One-way sensitivity analysis assessed which key parameters most affected model outcomes. Alternative scenarios were tested (1- or 5-year time horizon; Medicare perspective; negligible cost of mental status change AE). RESULTS: In a hypothetical commercial payer health plan with 1 million members, 33 patients were identified as treatment-eligible over 3 years. Introducing belamaf for patients with RRMM resulted in an estimated budget-neutral PMPM cost of -$0.0003 and PMPY of -$0.004, based on n=9/33 patients receiving treatment. Sensitivity analyses showed that budget impact in the base case was most sensitive to changes in treatment duration and drug acquisition costs. Base-case results were consistent across all scenarios assessed. CONCLUSION: BIA indicates that adoption of belamaf in this patient population would be budget neutral for a US health plan.

Belantamab mafodotin for the treatment of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma in heavily pretreated patients: a US cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) require several lines of therapy, with typically shorter remission duration with each additional line. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The cost-effectiveness of belantamab mafodotin (belamaf; DREAMM-2; NCT03525678) was compared with selinexor plus dexamethasone (SEL+DEX; STORM Part 2; NCT02336815) among patients with RRMM who have received at least four prior therapies. The base case used a US commercial payer's perspective over a 10-year time horizon. Efficacy data were based on parametric survival analysis of DREAMM-2 and matching-adjusted indirect treatment comparison between DREAMM-2 and STORM Part 2, which assessed relative treatment effects between belamaf and SEL+DEX. Cost inputs included drug treatment, concomitant medications, adverse event management, subsequent treatments, and disease management. RESULTS: Belamaf decreased total treatment costs per patient by $14,267 and increased patient life years by 0.74 and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) by 0.49 versus SEL+DEX. Patients receiving belamaf accrued 0.12 fewer progression-free life years versus patients on SEL+DEX. CONCLUSIONS: From a US commercial payer's perspective, belamaf had lower costs, and increased QALYs and life-year gain, compared with SEL+DEX. Belamaf is therefore likely to be a cost-effective treatment option for patients with RRMM who have received four or more prior lines of therapy.

Economic Implications of Preventing Major Cardiovascular and Limb Events with Rivaroxaban plus Aspirin in Patients with Coronary or Peripheral Artery Disease in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic coronary artery disease (CAD) and/or peripheral artery disease (PAD) have increased risks for cardiovascular (CV)-related morbidity and mortality. In the Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies (COMPASS) clinical trial of such patients, rivaroxaban plus aspirin demonstrated a significant reduction in major adverse CV events (MACE), a composite of stroke, myocardial infarction, and CV death, and major adverse limb events (MALE), a composite of chronic and acute limb ischemia, and major amputation resulting from vascular events, versus aspirin alone. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the 1-year economic implications of preventing MACE and MALE with the use of rivaroxaban plus aspirin versus aspirin alone among patients with chronic CAD and/or PAD in a US commercial health plan. METHOD: A cost-consequence model was developed to evaluate the economic impact of rivaroxaban plus aspirin in a hypothetical 1-million-member health plan. The model inputs were taken from the COMPASS study (ie, the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban plus aspirin vs aspirin), Optum Integrated Database (ie, the prevalence of chronic CAD and/or PAD, incidence rates, and healthcare costs of MACE, MALE, and major bleeding), and the RED BOOK (ie, wholesale drug acquisition costs). The cost inputs were in 2019 US dollars. One-way sensitivity analyses and subgroup analyses were conducted. RESULTS: A 1-year treatment with rivaroxaban plus aspirin resulted in reductions of MACE and MALE, which balance the increased risk for bleeding versus aspirin alone and indicate a net health benefit for this drug regimen. These reductions were achieved at an incremental per-member per-month (PMPM) cost of $0.16, mainly because of rivaroxaban's acquisition cost. In patients with ≥2 MACE or MALE risk factors, the incremental PMPM cost was $0.09, given the increased offset in rivaroxaban's acquisition cost by reduced rates of MACE or MALE. CONCLUSIONS: In an era of emerging thrombocardiology, treatment with rivaroxaban plus aspirin offers an effective thrombotic risk management strategy for healthcare stakeholders in the management of chronic CAD and/or PAD. The contribution of rivaroxaban would be greater in patients with ≥2 risk factors for MACE or MALE.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Vedolizumab Compared with Other Biologics in Anti-TNF-Naïve Patients with Moderate-to-Severe Ulcerative Colitis in Japan.

BACKGROUND: Vedolizumab (VDZ) was approved by the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare in 2018 for the treatment of patients with moderate-to-severe active ulcerative colitis (UC). The comparative cost-effectiveness of VDZ compared with other biologics is unknown in Japan. This information could be useful for decision makers at the time of repricing biologics for the treatment of patients with moderate-to-severe UC. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to assess the cost-effectiveness of VDZ versus other branded biologics for the treatment of patients with moderate-to-severe UC who were anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-naïve, from the Japanese public healthcare payer perspective. METHODS: A hybrid decision tree/Markov model was developed to predict the number of patients who achieved response and remission at the end of the induction phase and sustained it during the maintenance phase, translating this into quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and costs. Treatment-related adverse events, discontinuation and surgery, and their impact on QALYs and costs were also modeled. A systematic literature review and network meta-analysis were conducted to estimate the comparative efficacy of each treatment versus placebo. Rates of adverse events, surgery, surgery complications, and utilities were from the literature. Costs (2018 Japanese yen) were obtained from the Japanese National Health Insurance drug price list and medical fee table and local claims databases. Clinical and economic outcomes were projected over a lifetime and discounted at 2% annually. RESULTS: Over a lifetime, VDZ yielded greater QALYs and cost savings compared with golimumab and was cost-effective compared with adalimumab and infliximab (incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ¥4,821,940 and ¥4,687,692, respectively). Deterministic and probabilistic analyses supported the robustness of the findings in the base-case analysis, indicating that VDZ was either dominant or cost-effective in most scenarios and replications. The main limitations of this analysis include excluding tofacitinib and infliximab biosimilar as comparators, health-state utility estimates were obtained from population studies in the United Kingdom, and the impact of subsequent (i.e., second-line) biologic treatment was not evaluated. CONCLUSION: Our analysis suggests that VDZ is dominant or cost-effective compared with other branded biologics for the treatment of anti-TNF-naïve patients with moderate-to-severe UC in Japan.

Clinical and economic outcomes of treatment sequences for intermediate- to poor-risk advanced renal cell carcinoma.

Aim: To assess the cost-effectiveness of treatment sequences for patients with intermediate- to poor-risk advanced renal cell carcinoma. Patients & methods: A discrete event simulation model was developed to estimate patients' lifetime costs and survival. Efficacy inputs were derived from the CheckMate 214 and CheckMate 025 studies and network meta-analyses. Safety and cost data were obtained from the published literature. Results: The estimated average quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained was the highest on nivolumab + ipilimumab-initiated sequences (3.6-5.3 QALYs) versus tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI)-initiated sequences (2.1-3.7 QALYs). Incremental cost per QALY gained for nivolumab + ipilimumab-initiated sequences was below the willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 versus other sequences. Conclusion: Immuno-oncology combination therapy followed by TKIs is cost-effective versus TKI sequences followed by immuno-oncology or sequencing TKIs.

Mortality, length of stay and costs associated with acute graft-versus-host disease during hospitalization for allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.

OBJECTIVE: Acute graft-versus-host disease (aGVHD) is a common and life-threatening complication of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT). The extent to which aGVHD increases inpatient costs associated with allo-HSCT has not been thoroughly evaluated. In this analysis, mortality, hospital length of stay (LOS) and costs associated with aGVHD during allo-HSCT admissions are evaluated. METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of discharge records from the National Inpatient Sample database for patients receiving allo-HSCT between 1 January 2009 and 31 December 2013. Allo-HSCT discharges with an aGVHD diagnosis were included in the aGVHD group and those without any graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) diagnosis comprised the non-GVHD group. Mortality, LOS and costs were compared between the two groups, as well as within subgroups, including age (<18 vs. ≥18 years) and survival status (alive vs. deceased) at discharge. RESULTS: Overall, mortality (16.2% vs. 5.3%; p < .01), median hospital LOS (42.0 vs. 26.0 days; p < .01) and median total costs ($173,144 vs. $98,982; p < .01) were significantly increased in patients with aGVHD versus those without GVHD during hospitalizations for allo-HSCT, irrespective of age group. Patients with aGVHD who were <18 years of age had a lower mortality rate but greater hospital LOS and total costs versus patients aged ≥18 years. Patients who died during allo-HSCT hospitalization had longer LOS and incurred greater costs than those who survived in both the aGVHD and non-GVHD groups. CONCLUSION: Occurrence of aGVHD during allo-HSCT admissions resulted in a tripling of the mortality rate and a near doubling of hospital LOS and total costs. In addition, death during allo-HSCT hospitalizations was associated with greater healthcare utilization and costs. Effectively mitigating aGVHD may improve survival and substantially reduce hospital LOS and costs for allo-HSCT.

Budgetary Impact of Adding Riociguat to a US Health Plan for the Treatment of Patients with Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension or Chronic Thromboembolic Pulmonary Hypertension.

BACKGROUND: Pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) and chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH) are chronic, debilitating, and life-threatening conditions. Riociguat is the first and only pharmacotherapy approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of PAH and for CTEPH in patients who are either inoperable or have persistent pulmonary hypertension after surgery. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the budgetary impact of adding riociguat to a US health plan's formulary for the treatment of patients with PAH or CTEPH using a budget impact analytic model. METHODS: A customizable, Microsoft Excel-based decision analytic tool was developed to estimate the impact of riociguat on per-member per-month (PMPM) and per-member per-year (PMPY) bases in Medicare and non-Medicare health plans. The economic impact was calculated based on 1 million insured lives, published prevalence estimates of PAH and CTEPH, pharmacotherapy-eligible patients with PAH or CTEPH, administration costs, and monitoring costs related to pharmacotherapy. The drug costs were based on wholesale acquisition costs, and the medical costs were derived from Truven Health MarketScan claims data and the Medicare 2013 Clinical Diagnostic Laboratory Fee Schedule and Physician Fee Schedule. The market share for approved treatments was based on a tracking study of physicians treating patients with PAH or CTEPH. A sensitivity analysis was used to test the model's robustness. RESULTS: In a hypothetical plan population of 1 million members, the model estimated that 7 patients with PAH and 2 patients with CTEPH would be suitable for pharmacotherapy. Overall, 3 patients (1 with PAH and 2 with CTEPH) were receiving riociguat in a health plan consisting of patients with commercial and with Medicare insurance coverage. The incremental PMPY and PMPM costs for providing insurance coverage for riociguat were $0.27 and $0.02, respectively, for non-Medicare and Medicare health plans. Sensitivity analyses indicated that the budget impact increased by $0.01 PMPM, with a 25% increase in base-case parameter values. CONCLUSION: Riociguat is a first-in-class and the only FDA-approved treatment for patients with PAH or CTEPH-2 debilitating, chronic, and life-threatening conditions with poor prognosis. This drug offers health plans an effective and safe treatment option, with a minimal economic impact. The financial impact to a health plan of providing coverage for riociguat in the first year of treatment was as low as $0.02 PMPM. The real-world budget impact of riociguat needs to be measured using real-world evidence to validate our results.