Cost-Effectiveness of Medication Therapy Management Program Across Racial and Ethnic Groups Among Medicare Beneficiaries

ObjectivesEquity and effectiveness of the medication therapy management (MTM) program in Medicare has been a policy focus since its inception. The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the Medicare MTM program in improving medication utilization quality across racial and ethnic groups.MethodsThis study analyzed 2017 Medicare data linked to the Area Health Recourses File. A propensity score was used to match MTM enrollees and nonenrollees, and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio between the 2 groups was calculated. Effectiveness was measured as the proportion of appropriate medication utilization based on medication utilization measures developed by Pharmacy Quality Alliance. Net monetary benefits were compared across racial and ethnic groups at various societal willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds. The 95% confidence intervals were obtained by nonparametric bootstrapping.ResultsMTM dominated non-MTM among the total sample (N = 699 992), as MTM enrollees had lower healthcare costs ($31 135.89 vs $32 696.69) and higher proportions of appropriate medication utilization (87.47% vs 85.31%) than nonenrollees. MTM enrollees had both lower medication costs ($10 681.21 vs $11 003.08) and medical costs ($20 454.68 vs $21 693.61) compared with nonenrollees. The cost-effectiveness of MTM was higher among Black patients than White patients across the WTP thresholds. For instance, at a WTP of $3006 per percentage point increase in effectiveness, the net monetary benefit for Black patients was greater than White patients by $2334.57 (95% confidence interval $1606.53-$3028.85).ConclusionsMTM is cost-effective in improving medication utilization quality among Medicare beneficiaries and can potentially reduce disparities between Black and White patients. Expansion of the current MTM program could maximize these benefits.     

Cost-Effectiveness of Systemic Treatments for Metastatic Castration-Sensitive Prostate Cancer: An Economic Evaluation Based on Network Meta-Analysis

ObjectivesTo assess the cost-effectiveness of systemic treatments for metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer from the US healthcare sector perspective with a lifetime horizon.MethodsWe built a partitioned survival model based on a network meta-analysis of 7 clinical trials with 7287 patients aged 36 to 94 years between 2004 and 2018 to predict patient health trajectories by treatment. We tested parameter uncertainties with probabilistic sensitivity analyses. We estimated drug acquisition costs using the Federal Supply Schedule and adopted generic drug prices when available. We measured cost-effectiveness by an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).ResultsThe mean costs were approximately $392 000 with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) alone and approximately $415 000, $464 000, $597 000, and $959 000 with docetaxel, abiraterone acetate, enzalutamide, and apalutamide, added to ADT, respectively. The mean quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were 3.38 with ADT alone and 3.92, 4.76, 3.92, and 5.01 with docetaxel, abiraterone acetate, enzalutamide, and apalutamide, added to ADT, respectively. As add-on therapy to ADT, docetaxel had an ICER of $42 069 per QALY over ADT alone; abiraterone acetate had an ICER of $58 814 per QALY over docetaxel; apalutamide had an ICER of $1 979 676 per QALY over abiraterone acetate; enzalutamide was dominated. At a willingness to pay below $50 000 per QALY, docetaxel plus ADT is likely the most cost-effective treatment; at any willingness to pay between $50 000 and $200 000 per QALY, abiraterone acetate plus ADT is likely the most cost-effective treatment.ConclusionsThese findings underscore the value of abiraterone acetate plus ADT given its relative cost-effectiveness to other systemic treatments for metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer.     

Cost-Effectiveness of a Serum Biomarker Test for Risk-Stratified Liver Ultrasound Screening for Hepatocellular Carcinoma

ObjectivesRisk-stratified ultrasound screening for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), informed by a serum biomarker test, enables resources to be targeted to patients at the highest risk of developing cancer. We aimed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of risk-stratified screening for HCC in the Australian healthcare system.MethodsA Markov cohort model was constructed to test 3 scenarios for patients with compensated cirrhosis: (1) risk-stratified screening for high-risk patients, (2) all-inclusive screening, and (3) no formal screening. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were undertaken to determine the impact of uncertainty. Scenario analyses were used to assess cost-effectiveness in Australia’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and to determine the impact of including productivity-related costs of mortality.ResultsBoth risk-stratified screening and all-inclusive screening programs were cost-effective compared with no formal screening, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of A$39 045 and A$23 090 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), respectively. All-inclusive screening had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of A$4453 compared with risk-stratified screening and had the highest probability of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of A$50 000 per QALY. Risk-stratified screening had the highest likelihood of cost-effectiveness when the WTP was between A$25 000 and A$35 000 per QALY. Cost-effectiveness results were further strengthened when applied to an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cohort and when productivity costs were included.ConclusionsCirrhosis population-wide screening for HCC is likely to be cost-effective in Australia. Risk-stratified screening using a serum biomarker test may be cost-effective at lower WTP thresholds.     

Cost-Effectiveness of Tepotinib Versus Capmatinib for the Treatment of Adult Patients With Metastatic Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer Harboring Mesenchymal–Epithelial Transition Exon 14 Skipping

ObjectivesFrom the US Medicare perspective, this study compared the cost-effectiveness of tepotinib and capmatinib for treating metastatic non–small cell lung cancer with tumors harboring mesenchymal–epithelial transition factor gene exon 14 skipping.MethodsA 3-state partitioned survival model assessed outcomes over a lifetime horizon. Parametric survival analysis of the phase 2 VISION trial informed clinical inputs for tepotinib. Capmatinib inputs were captured using hazard ratios derived from an unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison study and published literature. National cost databases, trial data, and literature furnished drug, treatment monitoring, and disease/adverse event management expenditures (2021 US dollars) and utility inputs. Outcomes were discounted at 3% annually.ResultsIn the base case, tepotinib dominated capmatinib in frontline settings (incremental discounted quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs] and costs of 0.2127 and −$47 756, respectively) while realizing an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $274 514/QALY in subsequent lines (incremental QALYs and costs of 0.3330 and $91 401, respectively). In a line agnostic context, tepotinib produced an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $105 383/QALY (incremental QALYs and costs of 0.2794 and $29 447, respectively). Sensitivity and scenarios analyses for individual lines typically supported the base case, whereas those for the line agnostic setting suggested sensitivity to drug acquisition costs and efficacy inputs.ConclusionsTepotinib could be cost-effective versus capmatinib in frontline and line agnostic contexts, considering the range of willingness-to-pay thresholds recommended by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review ($100 000-$150 000/QALY). Tepotinib could be cost-effective in subsequent lines at higher willingness-to-pay levels. These results are to be interpreted cautiously, considering uncertainty in key model inputs.     

Assessing the Value of Cemiplimab for Adults With Advanced Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

ObjectivesTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of cemiplimab in patients with advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC) from a payer perspective in the United States.MethodsA partitioned survival model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of cemiplimab versus historical standard of care (SOC). All inputs were identified based on a systematic literature review, supplemented by expert opinion where necessary. Clinical inputs for cemiplimab were based on individual patient data from a cemiplimab phase 2 single-arm trial (NCT27060498). For SOC, analysis was based on a pooled analysis of single-arm clinical trials and retrospective studies evaluating chemotherapy and epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors (cetuximab, erlotinib, and gefitinib) identified via a systematic literature review (6 of the 27 included studies). Overall survival and progression-free survival were extrapolated over a lifetime horizon. Costs were included for drug acquisition, drug administration, management of adverse events, subsequent therapy, disease management, and terminal care. Unit costs were based on published 2019 US list prices.ResultsIn the base case, cemiplimab versus SOC resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $99 447 per quality adjusted-life year (QALY), where incremental costs and QALYs were $372 108 and 3.74, respectively. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000/QALY, the probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggests a 90% probability that cemiplimab is cost-effective compared to SOC. Scenario analyses resulted in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranging from $90 590 to $148 738.ConclusionsCompared with historical SOC, cemiplimab is a cost-effective use of US payer resources for the treatment of advanced CSCC and is expected to provide value for money.     

The Cost-Effectiveness of Remdesivir for Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19

ObjectivesThis study aimed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of remdesivir, the first novel therapeutic to receive Emergency Use Authorization for the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19, and identify key drivers of value to guide future pricing and reimbursement efforts.MethodsA Markov model evaluated the cost-effectiveness of remdesivir in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 from a US healthcare sector perspective. A lifetime time horizon captured potential long-term costs and outcomes. Model outcomes included discounted total costs, life-years, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Remdesivir was modeled as an addition to standard of care and compared with standard of care alone, including dexamethasone for patients requiring respiratory support. COVID-19 hospitalizations were assumed to be reimbursed through a single payment based on the respiratory support received alongside a remdesivir carveout payment in the base case. Sensitivity and scenario analyses identified key drivers.ResultsAt a unit price of $520 per vial and assuming no survival benefit with remdesivir, the incremental cost-effectiveness was $298 200/QALY for patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 and $1 847 000/QALY for patients with mild COVID-19. Although current data do not support a survival benefit, if one was assumed, the cost-effectiveness estimate was $50 100/QALY for the moderate to severe population and $103 400/QALY for the mild population. Another key driver included the hospitalization payment structure (per diem vs bundled payment).ConclusionsWith the current evidence available, remdesivir’s price is too high to align with its expected health gains for hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Results from this study provide a rationale for iterative health technology assessment.     

High-Dose Hemodialysis versus Conventional In-Center Hemodialysis: A Cost-Utility Analysis from a UK Payer Perspective

ObjectiveTo investigate the cost-effectiveness of high-dose hemodialysis (HD) versus conventional in-center HD (ICHD), over a lifetime time horizon from the UK payer’s perspective.MethodsWe used a Markov modeling approach to compare high-dose HD (in-center or at home) with conventional ICHD using current and hypothetical home HD reimbursement tariffs in England. Sensitivity analyses tested the robustness of the results. The main outcome measure was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) expressed as a cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY).ResultsOver a lifetime, high-dose HD in-center (5 sessions/wk) is associated with higher per-patient costs and QALYs (increases of £108,713 and 0.862, respectively) versus conventional ICHD. The corresponding ICER (£126,106/QALY) indicates that high-dose HD in-center is not cost-effective versus conventional ICHD at a UK willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 to £30,000. High-dose HD at home is associated with lower total costs (£522 less per patient) and a per-patient QALY increase of 1.273 compared with ICHD under the current Payment-by Results reimbursement tariff (£456/wk). At an increased home HD tariff (£575/wk), the ICER for high-dose HD at home versus conventional ICHD is £17,404/QALY. High-dose HD at home had a 62% to 84% probability of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 to £30,000/QALY.ConclusionsAlthough high-dose HD has the potential to offer improved clinical and quality-of-life outcomes over conventional ICHD, under the current UK Payment-by Results reimbursement scheme, it would be considered cost-effective from a UK payer perspective only if conducted at home.     

Cost-Effective Analysis of Dual-Energy Computed Tomography for the Diagnosis of Occult Hip Fractures Among Older Adults

ObjectiveEarly and accurate diagnosis of hip fractures minimizes morbidity and mortality. Although current guidelines favor magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for the diagnosis of occult hip fractures, a new technology called dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) seems an effective alternative. This article investigates a potentially cost-effective strategy for the diagnosis of occult hip fractures in older adults in Singapore.MethodsA decision tree model was developed to compare costs from a payer’s perspective and outcomes in terms of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of different imaging strategies for diagnosing occult hip fracture, comparing MRI with DECT supplementing single-energy computed tomography (SECT) and SECT alone. Model inputs were obtained from local sources where available. Sensitivity analyses are performed to test the robustness of the results.ResultsThe MRI strategy was dominated by the DECT strategy, whereas DECT supplementing SECT provided 0.30 more QALYs at an incremental cost of SGD106.41 with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of SGD352.52 per QALY relative to SECT alone. DECT seemed a cost-effective strategy at a willingness-to-pay threshold of SGD50 000 per QALY.ConclusionDECT supplementing SECT is a cost-effective imaging strategy to diagnose occult hip fractures among older adults in Singapore and should be included in clinical pathways to expedite timely treatment and considered for reimbursement schemes.     

Cost-Effectiveness of First-Line Pembrolizumab Monotherapy Versus Chemotherapy in High Programmed Death-Ligand 1 Advanced Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer in the Irish Healthcare Setting

ObjectivesThis study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab monotherapy in the first-line treatment of advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in adults whose tumors expressed programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) with a tumor proportion score (TPS) ≥ 50% in the Irish healthcare setting.MethodsEffectiveness inputs were derived from the 5-year analysis of KEYNOTE-024 phase III clinical trial. The intervention was pembrolizumab monotherapy; the comparator was a weighted average of the 5 chemotherapy regimens from the trial. The population included those with previously untreated advanced PD-L1 TPS ≥ 50% NSCLC. A de novo partitioned survival model was developed. Survival modeling was done using Bayesian model averaging on fitted parametric functions. Costs included drug acquisition, treatment initiation, administration and monitoring, adverse events, subsequent treatments, and terminal care. Costs and health state utilities were sourced from the literature and Irish sources. The model had a 20-year time horizon. The perspective taken was the Health Service Executive. A 4% discount rate was applied. Outcomes were expressed as an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), measured in terms of incremental costs per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis and 1-way sensitivity analyses were conducted.ResultsThe model estimated a base case ICER of €54 237 per QALY. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis estimated an average ICER of €54 568 per QALY and a 11% probability of cost-effectiveness at the Irish cost-effectiveness threshold of €45 000 per QALY.ConclusionAt the current list price, first-line pembrolizumab monotherapy is not considered cost-effective for the treatment of advanced PD-L1 TPS ≥ 50% NSCLC in the Irish healthcare setting.     

Cost-effectiveness of pediatric norovirus vaccination in daycare settings

ObjectiveNoroviruses are the leading cause of acute gastroenteritis in the United States and outbreaks frequently occur in daycare settings. Results of norovirus vaccine trials have been promising, however there are open questions as to whether vaccination of daycare children would be cost-effective. We investigated the incremental cost-effectiveness of a hypothetical norovirus vaccination for children in daycare settings compared to no vaccination.MethodsWe conducted a model-based cost-effectiveness analysis using a disease transmission model of children attending daycare. Vaccination with a 90% coverage rate in addition to the observed standard of care (exclusion of symptomatic children from daycare) was compared to the observed standard of care. The main outcomes measures were infections and deaths averted, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Cost-effectiveness was analyzed from a societal perspective, including medical costs to children as well as productivity losses of parents, over a two-year time horizon. Data sources included outbreak surveillance data and published literature.ResultsA 50% efficacious norovirus vaccine averts 571.83 norovirus cases and 0.003 norovirus-related deaths per 10,000 children compared to the observed standard of care. A $200 norovirus vaccine that is 50% efficacious has a net cost increase of $178.10 per child and 0.025 more QALYs, resulting in an ICER of $7,028/QALY. Based on the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, we estimated that a $200 vaccination with 50% efficacy was 94.0% likely to be cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay of $100,000/QALY threshold and 95.3% likely at a $150,000/QALY threshold.ConclusionDue to the large disease burden associated with norovirus, it is likely that vaccinating children in daycares could be cost-effective, even with modest vaccine efficacy and a high per-child cost of vaccination. Norovirus vaccination of children in daycare has a cost-effectiveness ratio similar to other commonly recommended childhood vaccines.     

Cost-effectiveness of introducing an MF59-adjuvanted trivalent influenza vaccine for older adults in Argentina

IntroductionInfluenza surveillance in Argentina reported influenza-like illness at a rate of 3500/100,000, a hospitalization rate of 15.5/100,000, and a death rate of 0.32/100,000 annually in adults aged over 65 years. The high burden of disease may be due to a combination of immunosenescence and the suboptimal clinical effectiveness of conventional, non-adjuvanted influenza vaccines in this age group. There is a clinical need for more effective influenza vaccines in this population. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of an MF59®-adjuvanted trivalent influenza vaccine (aTIV) in adults aged over 65 years in Argentina compared with the non-adjuvanted trivalent influenza vaccine (TIV) used under the current national vaccination policy.MethodsA decision tree cost-effectiveness model was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of switching from TIV to aTIV in Argentinian older adults. The model compared cost and health benefits of vaccination in one influenza season from the payer perspective. The main predictions included survival, quality-adjusted survival, and costs. Model inputs were sourced from Argentina or internationally where local data was considered inaccurate. Vaccine efficacy assumptions were extracted from recently published, peer-reviewed scientific literature.ResultsSwitching from TIV to aTIV would result in 170 deaths averted and 1310 incremental quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per QALY was US $2660.59 from the payer perspective. In all sensitivity analyses, aTIV remained highly cost-effective. The probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed a 95% CI per QALY of US $113.74–7721.67.ConclusionIntroducing an adjuvanted influenza vaccine in Argentina is potentially beneficial and cost-effective relative to the currently-used TIV through the reduction of disease burden and utilization of healthcare resources.     

Which Is More Valuable,Longer Survival or Better Quality of Life? Israeli Oncologists’ and Family Physicians’ Attitudes Toward the Relative Value of New Cancer and Congestive Heart Failure Interventions

ObjectivesWe determined how Israeli oncologists and family physicians value life-prolongation versus quality-of-life (QOL)-enhancing outcomes attributable to cancer and congestive heart failure interventions.MethodsWe presented physicians with two scenarios involving a hypothetical patient with metastatic cancer expected to survive 12 months with current treatment. In a life-prolongation scenario, we suggested that a new treatment increases survival at an incremental cost of $50,000 over the standard of care. Participants were asked what minimum improvement in median survival the new therapy would need to provide for them to recommend it over the standard of care. In the QOL-enhancing scenario, we asked the maximum willingness to pay for an intervention that leads to the same survival as the standard treatment, but increases patient’s QOL from 50 to 75 (on a 0–100 scale). We replicated these scenarios by substituting a patient with congestive heart failure instead of metastatic cancer. We derived the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained threshold implied by each response.ResultsIn the life-prolongation scenario, the cost-effectiveness thresholds implied by oncologists were $150,000/QALY and $100,000/QALY for cancer and CHF, respectively. Cost-effectiveness thresholds implied by family physicians were $50,000/QALY regardless of the disease type. Willingness to pay for the QOL-enhancing scenarios was $60,000/QALY and did not differ by physicians’ specialty or disease.ConclusionsOur findings suggest that family physicians value life-prolonging and QOL-enhancing interventions roughly equally, while oncologists value interventions that extend survival more highly than those that improve only QOL. These findings may have important implications for coverage and reimbursement decisions of new technologies.     

Evaluating the Cost-Effectiveness of Changes to the Surveillance Intervals in the UK Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Screening Programme

ObjectivesTo investigate the safety and cost-effectiveness of lengthening the time between surveillance ultrasound scans in the UK Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm (AAA) Screening Programme.MethodsA discrete event simulation model was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of AAA screening for men aged 65, comparing current surveillance intervals to 6 alternative surveillance interval strategies that lengthened the time between surveillance scans for 1 or more AAA size categories. The model considered clinical events and costs incurred over a 30-year time horizon and the cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). The model adopted the National Health Service perspective and discounted future costs and benefits at 3.5%.ResultsCompared with current practice, alternative surveillance strategies resulted in up to a 4% reduction in the number of elective AAA repairs but with an increase of up to 1.6% in the number of AAA ruptures and AAA-related deaths. Alternative strategies resulted in a small reduction in QALYs compared to current practice but with reduced costs. Two strategies that lengthened surveillance intervals in only very small AAAs (3.0-3.9 cm) provided, at a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20 000 per QALY, the highest positive incremental net benefit. There was negligible chance that current practice is the most cost-effective strategy at any threshold below £40 000 per QALY.ConclusionsLengthening surveillance intervals in the UK Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Screening Programme, especially for small AAA, can marginally reduce the incremental cost per QALY of the program. Nevertheless, whether the cost savings from refining surveillance strategies justifies a change in clinical practice is unclear.     

An Empiric Estimate of the Value of Life: Updating the Renal Dialysis Cost-Effectiveness Standard

ObjectivesProposals to make decisions about coverage of new technology by comparing the technology's incremental cost-effectiveness with the traditional benchmark of dialysis imply that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of dialysis is seen a proxy for the value of a statistical year of life. The frequently used ratio for dialysis has, however, not been updated to reflect more recently available data on dialysis.MethodsWe developed a computer simulation model for the end-stage renal disease population and compared cost, life expectancy, and quality-adjusted life expectancy of current dialysis practice relative to three less costly alternatives and to no dialysis. We estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for these alternatives relative to the next least costly alternative and no dialysis and analyzed the population distribution of the ratios. Model parameters and costs were estimated using data from the Medicare population and a large integrated health-care delivery system between 1996 and 2003. The sensitivity of results to model assumptions was tested using 38 scenarios of one-way sensitivity analysis, where parameters informing the cost, utility, mortality and morbidity, etc. components of the model were by perturbed +/?50%.ResultsThe incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of dialysis of current practice relative to the next least costly alternative is on average $129,090 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) ($61,294 per year), but its distribution within the population is wide; the interquartile range is $71,890 per QALY, while the 1st and 99th percentiles are $65,496 and $488,360 per QALY, respectively. Higher incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were associated with older age and more comorbid conditions. Sensitivity to model parameters was comparatively small, with most of the scenarios leading to a change of less than 10% in the ratio.ConclusionsThe value of a statistical year of life implied by dialysis practice currently averages $129,090 per QALY ($61,294 per year), but is distributed widely within the dialysis population. The spread suggests that coverage decisions using dialysis as the benchmark may need to incorporate percentile values (which are higher than the average) to be consistent with the Rawlsian principles of justice of preserving the rights and interests of society's most vulnerable patient groups.     

Cost-Effectiveness of Care Coordination for Children With Chronic Noncomplex Medical Conditions: Results From a Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial

ObjectivesTo assess the cost-effectiveness of care coordination, compared with standard care, for children with chronic noncomplex medical conditions.MethodsA total of 81 children aged between 2 and 15 years newly diagnosed with a noncomplex chronic condition were randomized to either care coordination or standard care as part of a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Families receiving care coordination were provided access to an Allied Health Liaison Officer, who facilitated family-centered healthcare access across hospital, education, primary care, and community sectors. Costs were estimated over a 12-month period from the perspective of the Australian health system. Health outcomes were valued as quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Caregiver productivity costs were included in an alternative base-case analysis, and key assumptions were tested in a series of one-way sensitivity analyses. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted to investigate the overall impact of uncertainty in the data.ResultsChildren in the intervention arm incurred an average of $17 in additional health system costs (95% confidence interval ?3861 to 1558) and gained an additional 0.031 QALYs (95% confidence interval ?0.29 to 0.092) over 12 months, producing an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $548 per QALY. When uncertainty was considered, there was a 73% likelihood that care coordination was cost-effective from a health system perspective, assuming a willingness to pay of $50 000 per QALY. This increased to 78% when caregiver productivity costs were included.ConclusionsCare coordination is likely to be a cost-effective intervention for children with chronic noncomplex medical conditions in the Australian healthcare setting.     

Cost-Effectiveness of Cemiplimab Versus Standard of Care in the United States for First-Line Treatment of Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer With Programmed Death-Ligand 1 Expression ≥50%

ObjectivesThis study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness, from a US commercial payer perspective, of cemiplimab versus other first-line treatments for advanced non-small cell lung cancer with programmed death-ligand 1 expression ≥50%.MethodsA 30-year “partitioned survival” model was constructed. Overall survival and progression-free survival were estimated by applying time-varying hazard ratios from a network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Overall survival and progression-free survival were estimated from EMPOWER-Lung 1 (cemiplimab monotherapy vs chemotherapy) and KEYNOTE-024 and KEYNOTE-042 (pembrolizumab monotherapy vs chemotherapy). Drug acquisition costs were based on published 2020 US list prices. A 3% discount rate was applied to life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and costs. A deterministic analysis was performed on the base case; 1-way sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analyses assessed model and parameter uncertainties.ResultsCemiplimab was associated with increased time in the “preprogression” (13.08 vs 7.90 and 6.08 months) and “postprogression” (47.30 vs 29.49 and 14.78 months) health states versus pembrolizumab and chemotherapy, respectively. Compared with pembrolizumab and chemotherapy, cemiplimab generated 1.00 (95% CI ?0.266 to 2.440) and 1.78 (95% CI 0.607-3.20) incremental QALYs, respectively, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $68 254 and $89 219 per QALY for cemiplimab versus pembrolizumab and cemiplimab versus chemotherapy, respectively. The probability of cemiplimab being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 to $150 000 per QALY was 62% to 76% versus pembrolizumab and 56% to 84% versus chemotherapy.ConclusionsFindings suggest that cemiplimab, versus pembrolizumab or versus chemotherapy, is a cost-effective first-line treatment option for advanced non-small cell lung cancer with programmed death-ligand 1 expression ≥50%.     

Linezolid Versus Vancomycin in the Empiric Treatment of Nosocomial Pneumonia: A Cost-Utility Analysis Incorporating Results from the ZEPHyR Trial

ObjectiveTo examine the cost-effectiveness of vancomycin versus linezolid in the empiric treatment of nosocomial pneumonias incorporating results from a recent prospective, double-blind, multicenter, controlled trial in adults with suspected methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) nosocomial pneumonia.MethodsA decision-analytic model examining the cost-effectiveness of linezolid versus vancomycin for the empiric treatment of nosocomial pneumonia was created. Publicly available cost, efficacy, and utility data populated relevant model variables. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis varied parameters in 10,000 Monte-Carlo simulations, and univariate sensitivity analyses assessed the impact of model uncertainties and the robustness of our conclusions.ResultsResults indicated that the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) increased 6% ($22,594 vs. $23,860) by using linezolid versus vancomycin for nosocomial pneumonia. The incremental cost per QALY gained by using linezolid over vancomycin was $6,089, and the incremental cost per life saved was $68,615 with the use of linezolid. Vancomycin dominated linezolid in the subset of patients with documented MRSA. The incremental cost per QALY gained using linezolid if no mortality benefit exists between agents or a 60-day time horizon was analyzed was $19,608,688 and $443,662, respectively.ConclusionsLinezolid may be a cost-effective alternative to vancomycin in the empiric treatment of patients with suspected MRSA nosocomial pneumonia; however, results of our model were highly variable on a number of important variables and assumptions including mortality differences and time frame analyzed.     

Economic Evaluation of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Depression: A Systematic Review

ObjectivesThis study aimed to conduct a systematic review of cost-utility studies of internet-based and face-to-face cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) for depression from childhood to adulthood and to examine their reporting and methodological quality.MethodsA structured search for cost-utility studies concerning CBT for depression was performed in 7 comprehensive databases from their inception to July 2020. Two reviewers independently screened the literature, abstracted data, and assessed quality using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards and Quality of Health Economic Studies checklists. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) across all studies. To make a relevant comparison of the ICERs across the identified studies, cost data were inflated to the year 2020 and converted into US dollars.ResultsThirty-eight studies were included in this review, of which 26 studies (68%) were deemed of high methodological quality and 12 studies (32%) of fair quality. Despite differences in study designs and settings, the conclusions of most included studies for adult depression were general agreement; they showed that face-to-face CBT monotherapy or combination therapy compared with antidepressants and usual care for adult depression were cost-effective from the societal, health system, or payer perspective (ICER ?$241 212.4/quality-adjusted life-year [QALY] to $33 032.47/QALY, time horizon 12-60 months). Internet-based CBT regardless of guided or unguided also has a significant cost-effectiveness advantage (ICER ?$37 717.52/QALY to $73 841.34/QALY, time horizon 3-36 months). In addition, CBT was cost-effective in preventing depression (ICER ?$23 932.07/QALY to $26 092.02/QALY, time horizon 9-60 months). Nevertheless, the evidence for the cost-effectiveness of CBT for children and adolescents was still ambiguous.ConclusionsFair or high-quality evidence showed that CBT monotherapy or combination therapy for adult depression was cost-effective; whether CBT-related therapy was cost-effective for children and adolescents depression remains inconclusive.     

Cost-Effectiveness of the 21-Gene Assay for Guiding Adjuvant Chemotherapy Decisions in Early Breast Cancer

ObjectivesAdjuvant chemotherapy decisions in early breast cancer are complex. The 21-gene assay can potentially aid such decisions, but costs US $4175 per patient. Adjuvant! Online is a freely available decision aid. We evaluate the cost-effectiveness of using the 21-gene assay in conjunction with Adjuvant! Online, and of providing adjuvant chemotherapy conditional upon risk classification.MethodsA probabilistic Markov decision model simulated risk classification, treatment, and the natural history of breast cancer in a hypothetical cohort of 50-year-old women with lymph node–negative, estrogen receptor– and/or progesterone receptor–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2/neu–negative early breast cancer. Cost-effectiveness was considered from an Ontario public-payer perspective by deriving the lifetime incremental cost (2012 Canadian dollars) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) for each strategy, and the probability each strategy is cost-effective, assuming a willingness-to-pay of $50,000 per QALY.ResultsThe 21-gene assay has an incremental cost per QALY in patients at low, intermediate, or high Adjuvant Online! risk of $22,440 (probability cost-effective 78.46%), $2,526 (99.40%), or $1,111 (99.82%), respectively. In patients at low (high) 21-gene assay risk, adjuvant chemotherapy increases (reduces) costs and worsens (improves) health outcomes. For patients at intermediate 21-gene assay risk and low, intermediate, or high Adjuvant! Online risk, chemotherapy has an incremental cost per QALY of $44,088 (50.59%), $1,776 (77.65%), or $1,778 (82.31%), respectively.ConclusionsThe 21-gene assay appears cost-effective, regardless of Adjuvant! Online risk. Adjuvant chemotherapy appears cost-effective for patients at intermediate or high 21-gene assay risk, although this finding is uncertain in patients at intermediate 21-gene assay and low Adjuvant! Online risk.