Cost-effectiveness of levodopa/carbidopa/entacapone (Stalevo) compared to standard care in UK Parkinson's disease patients with wearing-off

ABSTRACT

Background and methods: A Markov model was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of levodopa/carbidopa/entacapone (LCE;Stalevo*), in the treatment of patients with Parkinson's disease (PD) and end-of-dose motor fluctuations (wearing-off). LCE, with or without other antiparkinsonian medications, was compared to UK standard care, comprising traditional levodopa/dopa-decarboxylase inhibitor (DDCI) with other antiparkinsonian medications (e.g. selegiline or dopamine agonists) added as needed. The costs and outcomes of both treatments were projected over a period of 10 years from the perspective (a) of society as a whole and (b) of the UK National Health Service (NHS). Sensitivity analyses, including second-order Monte Carlo simulations, were performed to assess the confidence level of the primary results.

Results: Treatment with LCE produced an average gain of +1.04 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) per patient (2.57 vs. 1.53) in the base-case analysis (discount rate 3.5%). This gain was accompanied by a reduction in the total 10-year direct cost of care to society of £10?198 per patient (~ ¤14?800). From the societal perspective, therefore, LCE was dominant, producing better clinical outcomes with lower costs. This dominance was reiterated in all sensitivity analyses of society-focused analysis, including a shortening of the time-frame to 5 years.

Although treatment with LCE resulted in an increase in direct costs per patient of £3239 (£25?756 versus £22?517) to the NHS over the 10-year period analysed, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of LCE was only £3105 per QALY gained (~ ¤4500). All ICERs to the NHS remained below £3800 per QALY gained in univariate sensitivity analyses applying different discount rates. When a shorter, 5-year, time-horizon was analysed, the NHS-related ICER for LCE was £6526 per QALY gained. All these ICERs are within the range usually considered to indicate acceptable or highly acceptable cost effectiveness (defined as < £30?000 per QALY gained).

The results of the Monte Carlo simulations indicated that the likelihood of LCE being either ‘dominant’ or more effective at an ‘acceptable cost’ from either the societal or the NHS perspective was high, exceeding 96% in the base-case sensitivity analysis, and was 93% even when all the uncertainties associated with the model were taken into consideration simultaneously. In particular, compared to standard care, the probability that LCE would provide better outcomes at a lower cost to society as a whole was 77% in the base-case sensitivity analysis and 72% in the scenario involving the highest degree of uncertainty.

Conclusions: In the UK the use of LCE to treat PD patients with wearing-off is beneficial to individual patients and likely to offer money savings to society as a whole, compared with UK standard therapy. The added cost of the medication itself is exceeded by the savings made in other direct costs of PD, mainly those relating to social care or PD-related private expenditures.     

Modelling the cost effectiveness of cholinesterase inhibitors in the management of mild to moderately severe Alzheimer's disease

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost effectiveness (from the UK NHS and personal social services perspective) of the cholinesterase inhibitors donepezil, rivastigmine and galantamine compared with usual care in the treatment of mild to moderately severe Alzheimer's disease. Patients had a mean age of 74 years, a mean disease duration of 1 year and a mean Alzheimer's disease assessment scale-cognitive subscale score of 24. METHODS: A pharmacoeconomic model was used to predict long-term outcomes over a 5-year time horizon and to estimate the cost effectiveness of cholinesterase inhibitors for the management of Alzheimer's disease. The model structure is informed by a systematic review of the literature on the clinical and cost effectiveness of cholinesterase inhibitors and a review of the literature on the costs and outcomes associated with treatment for Alzheimer's disease. The main outcome measure used was the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. All healthcare costs (excluding cholinesterase inhibitor costs) were indexed to pounds sterling (2003 values). Drug costs are 2005 values. Multivariate probabilistic sensitivity analysis and scenario analysis were undertaken to assess uncertainty in the results. RESULTS: The clinical benefits on cognition from treatment with cholinesterase inhibitors resulted in an incremental cost per QALY gained ranging from 53,780 pounds sterling to 74,735 pounds sterling, over 5 years (vs usual care). Uncertainty analysis suggests that the probability of any of these treatments having an incremental cost per QALY of < 30,000 pounds sterling is < 21%. The key determinants of cost effectiveness were the effectiveness of treatment, the mean treatment cost and the cost savings associated with an expected delay in disease progression. CONCLUSIONS: Results presented in this paper suggest that the use of cholinesterase inhibitors may not be a cost-effective use of NHS resources. Guidance from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Effectiveness (NICE) in the UK on their judgements surrounding the acceptability of technologies as an effective use of resources, indicates there would need to be special reasons for accepting cholinesterase inhibitors as a cost-effective use of NHS resources.     

Cost effectiveness of palivizumab for respiratory syncytial virus prophylaxis in high-risk children: a UK analysis

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost effectiveness of palivizumab (a preventative treatment against severe respiratory syncytial virus [RSV] infection) in children at high risk of hospitalisation, i.e. preterm infants < or = 35 weeks gestation, children with bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) and children with congenital heart disease (CHD). METHODS: A decision tree model was developed employing data sources from the published literature, palivizumab clinical trials, official UK price/tariff lists and national population statistics. The comparator was no prophylaxis. The primary perspective of the study was that of the UK NHS. In a societal perspective scenario analysis, the future lost productivity of a child resulting from RSV-related mortality (indirect costs) was also included. The cost of administration of palivizumab, hospital care for RSV infections and the cost of asthma treatment were included. The analysis was based on a lifetime follow-up period in order to capture the impact of palivizumab on long-term morbidity and mortality resulting from an RSV infection. The primary efficacy outcome in the palivizumab clinical trials was the number of RSV hospitalisations avoided, which was extrapolated to effectiveness outcomes, i.e. number of life-years gained and number of QALYs. Costs and effects were discounted by 3.5%. RESULTS: In preterm infants and children with BPD, prophylaxis with palivizumab compared with no prophylaxis had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 7042 pounds/QALY without discounting outcomes, increasing to 16,720 pounds/QALY after discounting. In babies with CHD, the use of palivizumab resulted in an ICER of 2427 pounds/QALY without discounting outcomes and 6664 pounds/QALY after discounting. One-way sensitivity analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the model. A scenario analysis showed that the inclusion of indirect costs leads to further improvement in the cost-effectiveness outcomes for palivizumab. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that palivizumab prophylaxis against severe RSV infection in children at high risk may be cost effective from the NHS perspective (vs no prophylaxis), and that the positive clinical and economic benefits may persist beyond one RSV season.     

Cost effectiveness of imatinib compared with interferon-alpha or hydroxycarbamide for first-line treatment of chronic myeloid leukaemia

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost utility of imatinib compared with interferon (IFN)-alpha or hydroxycarbamide (hydroxyurea) for first-line treatment of chronic myeloid leukaemia. DESIGN AND SETTING: A cost-utility (Markov) model within the setting of the UK NHS and viewed from a health system perspective was adopted. Transition probabilities and relative risks were estimated from published literature. Costs of drug treatment, outpatient care, bone marrow biopsies, radiography, blood transfusions and inpatient care were obtained from the British National Formulary and local hospital databases. Costs (pound, year 2001-03 values) were discounted at 6%. Quality-of-life (QOL) data were obtained from the published literature and discounted at 1.5%. The main outcome measure was cost per QALY gained. Extensive one-way sensitivity analyses were performed along with probabilistic (stochastic) analysis. RESULTS: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of imatinib, compared with IFNalpha, was pound26,180 per QALY gained (one-way sensitivity analyses ranged from pound19,449 to pound51,870) and compared with hydroxycarbamide was pound86,934 per QALY (one-way sensitivity analyses ranged from pound69,701 to pound147,095) [ pound1=$US1.691=euro1.535 as at 31 December 2002].Based on the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, 50% of the ICERs for imatinib, compared with IFNalpha, fell below a threshold of approximately pound31,000 per QALY gained. Fifty percent of ICERs for imatinib, compared with hydroxycarbamide, fell below approximately pound95,000 per QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: This model suggests, given its underlying data and assumptions, that imatinib may be moderately cost effective when compared with IFNalpha but considerably less cost effective when compared with hydroxycarbamide. There are, however, many uncertainties due to the lack of long-term data.     

Erlotinib monotherapy for the maintenance treatment of non-small cell lung cancer after previous platinum-containing chemotherapy: a NICE single technology appraisal

The UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of erlotinib (Roche) to submit evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of erlotinib as monotherapy for the maintenance treatment of patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and stable disease following previous treatment with four cycles of platinum-containing therapy. The Liverpool Reviews and Implementation Group (LRiG) at the University of Liverpool was commissioned to act as the Evidence Review Group (ERG) for this appraisal. The ERG reviewed the clinical- and cost-effectiveness evidence in two stages and in accordance with the decision problem defined by NICE. The analysis of the submitted models assessed the appropriateness of the approach taken by the manufacturer in modelling the decision problem. Analysis also included reliability of model implementation and the extent of conformity to published standards and prevailing norms of practice within the health economics modelling community. Particular attention was paid to issues likely to have substantial impact on the base-case cost-effectiveness results. Clinical evidence was derived from a multi-centre, double-blind, randomized, phase III study designed to address the overall population of NSCLC patients. Outcomes included progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). The recruited population was mainly from outside of Western Europe and no patients in the pivotal trial had received pemetrexed as a first-line therapy, which is now accepted clinical practice in the UK. The evidence considered in this article includes only the population for whom marketing authorizations has been received--that is, patients with stable disease following first-line therapy. The trial reported a small but statistically significant increase in both PFS and OS in patients with stable disease receiving erlotinib compared with placebo. However, no significant difference was identified in OS when patients with non-squamous disease and stable disease were considered as a subgroup. The economic evidence was focussed on the ERG's assessment of three economic models that related to patients with stable disease and compared erlotinib with placebo in the squamous and non-squamous populations and erlotinib with pemetrexed in the non-squamous population. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) reported by the manufacturer were ￡39,936 per QALY gained (stable disease, all); ￡35,491 per QALY gained (stable disease, squamous); and ￡40,020 per QALY gained (stable disease, non-squamous). In comparison with pemetrexed, in the cases where erlotinib was considered to be superior or equivalent, erlotinib dominated. In the cases where erlotinib was considered to be slightly inferior, then the ICERs ranged between ￡91,789 and ￡511,351 per QALY gained; these ICERs appear in the south-west corner of a cost-effectiveness plane, i.e. erlotinib is cheaper but less effective than pemetrexed. The ERG recalculated the base-case cost-effectiveness results in the manufacturer's submission, considering nine key areas where corrections and/or adjustments were required, related to time horizon, discounting logic, costs of erlotinib and pemetrexed, cost of second-line chemotherapy, unit costs, utility values, PFS and OS. This resulted in ERG-revised ICERs for the stable disease squamous population of ￡44,812 per QALY gained, in the stable disease non-squamous population of ￡68,120 per QALY gained, and, when erlotinib was compared with pemetrexed, the result was ￡84,029 per QALY gained. All values were above NICE's perceived willingness-to-pay threshold. After the second Appraisal Committee meeting, the Committee did not recommend the use of erlotinib in this patient population.     

Cost-effectiveness analyses of natalizumab (Tysabri) compared with other disease-modifying therapies for people with highly active relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in the UK

BACKGROUND: Natalizumab (Tysabri) is a new disease-modifying therapy that has been shown to be clinically effective in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) and has been licensed for use in patients with highly active RRMS (HARRMS). These patients are those who experience higher relapse rates and faster disability progression than the general RRMS population. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the cost effectiveness of natalizumab compared with interferon-beta, glatiramer acetate and best supportive care from various UK cost perspectives. METHODS: A 30-year Markov model was developed, based on previously published models for multiple sclerosis, to estimate transition between disability states and the probability of relapse within disability states. The model was parameterized with data from the UK Multiple Sclerosis (MS) Survey 2005 and data from the AFFIRM study, a 2-year multicentre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of natalizumab in RRMS patients. Additional data were sourced from the literature. A UK societal cost perspective was used in the base case, with additional cost perspectives considered in the sensitivity analysis. The baseline characteristics for the patient group were taken from the patient population in the AFFIRM study (mean age 36 years, mean time since diagnosis 5 years and a mean Kurtzke Extended Disability Status Scale [EDSS] score of 2.5). The model and its parameterization were designed and developed to support a reimbursement application for natalizumab submitted to the UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). Efficacies for natalizumab and glatiramer acetate were taken from clinical trial data, and for interferon-beta from a meta-analysis of clinical trial data. Disutilities from adverse events for each comparator were also included in the model. Outcomes and costs were discounted at 3.5% per anum.Costs for interferon-beta and glatiramer acetate were based on published prices (year 2006 values) under the UK Risk Sharing Scheme, and for natalizumab the UK NHS list price was used. Diagnostic, administration and adverse event costs were also included. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated for the base case, and a probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed to assess the probability of cost effectiveness at different willingness-to-pay thresholds. RESULTS: The ICER for natalizumab compared with interferon-beta was 2300 pound per QALY. Compared with glatiramer acetate, it was 2000 pound per QALY, and compared with best supportive care it was 8200 pound per QALY. From a health and social care cost perspective, the ICERs were 18,700 pound, 20,400 pound and 25,500 per QALY, respectively. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of 30,000 pound per QALY, the probability of natalizumab being cost effective against any comparator from a societal perspective was >89%. CONCLUSION: If UK society is willing to pay more than 8200 pound per QALY, or Health and Social Services are willing to pay more than 26,000 pound per QALY, this analysis suggests that natalizumab is likely to be a cost-effective treatment for all patients with HARRMS.     

Cost effectiveness of extended adjuvant letrozole in postmenopausal women after adjuvant tamoxifen therapy: the UK perspective

BACKGROUND: MA17 was a randomised placebo-controlled trial of letrozole 2.5 mg/day in 5187 estrogen receptor-positive, 50% node-negative, postmenopausal women (median age 62 years at enrollment) with early breast cancer, post-5 years' adjuvant tamoxifen therapy. The objective of this evaluation was to extrapolate the findings from the MA17 trial to estimate the lifetime cost effectiveness of letrozole in this setting. METHODS: A Markov model was used to estimate the incremental cost per QALY gained with extended adjuvant letrozole versus no therapy. Probabilities of disease progression and death were estimated using data from the MA17 study and other secondary sources. Costs of breast cancer care (letrozole therapy, surveillance, recurrences, terminal care) and treatment of osteoporosis and utilities were derived from literature. A full probabilistic sensitivity analysis was undertaken. The analysis was conducted from the perspective of the UK National Health Service (NHS) and cost estimates reflect 2004 values. All costs and outcomes were discounted at 3.5%. RESULTS: Extended adjuvant letrozole resulted in a gain of 0.36 QALYs per patient (13.66 vs 13.30 with no therapy). These benefits were obtained at an additional expected lifetime cost of 3732 pounds per patient (10,833 pounds letrozole vs 7101 pounds with no therapy). Cost effectiveness was estimated at 10,338 pounds per QALY gained (95% CI 5276, 43,828). The results were robust to sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: Five years of letrozole therapy appears to be cost effective from the NHS perspective and should be considered in women with early breast cancer, following tamoxifen adjuvant therapy.     

Pramipexole and levodopa in early Parkinson's disease: dynamic changes in cost effectiveness

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: In chronic disease, treatment effects and costs accumulate over time; hence, the choice of time horizon in cost-effectiveness analysis can be particularly important. In this article we analyse the dynamic changes in cumulative costs, effects and incremental cost effectiveness of two competing drug strategies in patients with early Parkinson's disease (PD). METHODS: Three hundred and one subjects with PD were randomised to initial pramipexole or levodopa and followed every 3 months over a 4-year period. Healthcare resource use was recorded in patient diaries and valued using a variety of sources at year 2002 US dollar values. Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was measured using the EuroQoL EQ-5D. The study was conducted from a US societal perspective. Missing data were imputed using a multivariate fixed-effects model. Additional quality adjusted life years (QALY) gained by using pramipexole compared with levodopa were estimated as the area between the normalised treatment HRQoL profiles. The QALYs and costs for each treatment arm were calculated for various study horizons.The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and the net monetary benefit (NB) [using 50,000 US dollars, 100,000 US dollars and 150,000 US dollars as the value of a QALY] were estimated, and were bootstrapped to calculate the standard errors. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEAC) were built to estimate the probability that pramipexole was cost effective given different societal values of QALY, for various study horizons.We conducted sensitivity analyses on the ICER and the NB to test their robustness to various assumptions about missing data, for various subpopulations and under changes in the drug prices. RESULTS: Under the base-case assumptions, the ICER for pramipexole was 42,989 US dollars per QALY. Using the CEAC approach, the probability that pramipexole was cost effective relative to levodopa over the first 4 years was 0.57, 0.77 and 0.82 when a QALY was valued at 50,000 US dollars, 100,000 US dollars, and 150,000 US dollars, respectively. Over time, the ICER for pramipexole improved and uncertainty around the ICER decreased. If, after treatment withdrawal, HRQoL improved in pramipexole subjects and declined in levodopa subjects (best-case scenario for pramipexole), the probability of pramipexole being cost effective increased to 0.88, 0.96 and 0.98, respectively. Factors that improved the ICER of pramipexole were a decrease in the relative price of pramipexole and having low HRQoL or depression at baseline. CONCLUSIONS: The cost effectiveness of pramipexole compared with levodopa in the treatment of early PD increased as the time horizon of the clinical trial extended from 2 to 4 years. Our results suggest that pramipexole is more cost effective for patients with depression and low baseline HRQoL than in other patient subgroups.     

Atorvastatin: a pharmacoeconomic review of its use in the primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular events

Atorvastatin is a lipid-lowering agent that has been evaluated in a number of primary and secondary intervention studies. In the primary prevention trials ASCOT-LLA and CARDS, atorvastatin 10 mg/day significantly reduced cardiovascular events compared with placebo. A prospectively conducted economic analysis of the 3.3-year ASCOT-LLA trial showed that atorvastatin was associated with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of euro11,693 (UK) and euro12,673 (Sweden) per event avoided (2002 values). Longer-term modelled analyses using data from CARDS showed ICERs of euro8046 (Spain) and 6471pound (UK) per QALY gained (2003/2004 values), and a US analysis showed atorvastatin was dominant versus no statin when modelled over the lifetime of a representative US diabetic primary prevention population. In a modelled analysis based on results of the IDEAL trial, which showed significant reductions in cardiovascular endpoints with high-dose atorvastatin (80 mg/day) compared with conventional-dose simvastatin in patients with stable coronary heart disease, ICER values were below the commonly used cost-effectiveness threshold of euro50,000 per QALY gained in Norway, Sweden and Denmark, but were above this threshold in Finland (2005 values). A modelled US analysis that also included data from IDEAL and other sources showed an ICER of $US33,400 per QALY gained, assuming the incremental difference in acquisition cost between high-dose atorvastatin and conventional-dose simvastatin was $US1.40/day (2005 value). Most cost-effectiveness analyses with atorvastatin in patients with acute coronary syndrome used data from the 16-week MIRACL study, which showed a significant reduction in cardiovascular events with high-dose atorvastatin compared with placebo. Analyses were conducted in North America and Europe and showed that 31-86% of the acquisition cost of high-dose atorvastatin was offset by reductions in costs associated with cardiovascular events. Across five countries, ICER values ranged from approximate $US850 to $US4100 per event avoided (2000/2001 values). Another analysis conducted in the US used longer-term data and showed that high-dose atorvastatin versus conventional-dose statin was associated with an ICER of $US12,900 per QALY gained, assuming the daily difference in acquisition cost was $US1.40 (2005 value). In conclusion, atorvastatin has demonstrated beneficial effects on various cardiovascular endpoints in large, well designed primary and secondary intervention trials. These benefits in moderate- to high-risk patients were achieved at a relatively low incremental cost and, across the economic analyses, a substantial proportion of atorvastatin acquisition costs was offset by reductions in healthcare resource use associated with cardiovascular events. Cost-effectiveness analyses based on major clinical trials comparing atorvastatin with placebo, usual medical care, simvastatin or pravastatin have generally shown that atorvastatin is associated with favourable ICER values, often well below commonly used cost-effectiveness thresholds. These modelled analyses have the inherent limitation that projecting long-term outcomes beyond the time period of a clinical trial imparts a degree of uncertainty to the results. Nevertheless, while some findings were sensitive to changes in model assumptions, such as the long-term benefits of statin therapy, most sensitivity analyses showed that results of the base-case analyses were robust to plausible changes in key parameters. Although a clear pattern is not evident from available data, intuitively, the value of atorvastatin would be expected to increase with the patient's risk for serious cardiovascular events.     

Cost effectiveness of tumour necrosis factor-alpha inhibitors as first-line agents in rheumatoid arthritis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is an autoimmune disease with an unknown aetiology that results in >9 million physician visits and >250 000 hospitalisations per year in the US. Tumour necrosis factor-alpha (TNFalpha) inhibitors are effective agents in treating RA; however, their cost effectiveness as first-line agents has not been investigated. This study aimed to examine the cost effectiveness of using TNFalpha inhibitors (both as monotherapy and in combination with methotrexate) as first-line agents versus methotrexate (monotherapy) from a payer perspective. METHODS: A Markov model was developed utilising a discount rate of 3% per annum, a cycle length of 1 year and a lifetime time-horizon for a hypothetical cohort of US females aged 55-60 years who had been diagnosed with RA. The source of data for predicted probabilities, expected mortality rates and treatment costs in year 2005 US dollars (drug, toxicity, monitoring and hospitalisation) was from the literature. These costs are assigned in 5-year cycles (calculated from initial 1-year estimates) along with the effect on quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), which were calculated using the Health Assessment Questionnaire score. Univariate sensitivity analyses were conducted on all relevant parameters. RESULTS: Adalimumab, etanercept, adalimumab plus methotrexate and infliximab plus methotrexate had incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) versus methotrexate monotherapy of $US63 769, $US89 772, $US194 589 and $US409 523 per QALY, respectively. When taking into consideration age at diagnosis, the ICER for etanercept ranged from $US84 129 to $US96 225 per QALY. In considering males for the base-case age at diagnosis, the ICER for etanercept versus methotrexate was $US85 100 per QALY. The average lifetime cost across all treatment arms in a woman diagnosed between 55 and 60 years of age was $US211 702. CONCLUSION: While these ICERs cannot be used to directly compare one biological agent with another since there are no comparative trials, they do provide a valid comparison versus methotrexate as first-line agents. Depending where the cost-effectiveness threshold is drawn (i.e. whether it is considered to be $US50 000 or $US100 000 per QALY), etanercept and adalimumab may be considered relatively cost-effective first-line treatments for RA compared with methotrexate monotherapy.     

The cost-effectiveness of radiofrequency ablation for treating patients with gastric antral vascular ectasia refractory to first line endoscopic therapy

Abstract

Objective: This economic evaluation aims to provide a preliminary assessment of the cost-effectiveness of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) compared with argon plasma coagulation (APC) when used to treat APC-refractory gastric antral vascular ectasia (GAVE) in symptomatic patients.

Methods: A Markov model was constructed to undertake a cost-utility analysis for adults with persistent symptoms secondary to GAVE refractory to first line endoscopic therapy. The economic evaluation was conducted from a UK NHS and personal social services (PSS) perspective, with a 20-year time horizon, comparing RFA with APC. Patients transfer between health states defined by haemoglobin level. The clinical effectiveness data were sourced from expert opinion, resource use and costs were reflective of the UK NHS and benefits were quantified using Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) with utility weights taken from the literature. The primary output was the Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER), expressed as cost per QALY gained.

Results: Over a lifetime time horizon, the base case ICER was £4840 per QALY gained with an 82.2% chance that RFA was cost-effective at a threshold of £20,000 per QALY gained. The model estimated that implementing RFA would result in reductions in the need for intravenous iron, endoscopic intervention and requirement for blood transfusions by 27.1%, 32.3% and 36.5% respectively. Compared to APC, RFA was associated with an estimated 36.7% fewer procedures.

Conclusions: RFA treatment is likely to be cost-effective for patients with ongoing symptoms following failure of first line therapy with APC and could lead to substantive reductions in health care resource.     

The cost effectiveness of infliximab for severe treatment-resistant rheumatoid arthritis in the UK

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost effectiveness (from the UK NHS and personal social service perspectives) of infliximab plus methotrexate (MTX) compared with MTX alone, in the treatment of patients with severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who were not adequately controlled on disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and who were resistant to MTX. METHOD: Clinical data for the first year of therapy were taken from the ATTRACT (Anti-Tumour Necrosis Factor Trial in Rheumatoid Arthritis with Concomitant Therapy) and a Markov model developed to assess costs and consequences in the longer term. Transition probabilities and health state valuations for the model were estimated based on the ARAMIS (Arthritis, Rheumatism, and Aging Medical Information System) cohort, and resource use and costs ( 2,000 pounds values) obtained from various sources in the UK. Univariate sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the robustness of the results. RESULTS: The primary analysis suggested that infliximab plus MTX had an ICER of 33,618 pounds per QALY gained. Alternative modelling assumptions and various other sensitivity analyses were applied, but the ICER always remained within the range for interventions typically funded by the NHS. CONCLUSION: This model suggests, with its underlying assumptions and data, that the combination of infliximab and MTX may be a cost-effective treatment (from the UK NHS and personal social service perspectives) for patients experiencing RA that cannot be maintained on MTX alone.     

Cost effectiveness of dalteparin for preventing venous thromboembolism in abdominal surgery

INTRODUCTION: Patients undergoing abdominal surgeries face substantial risk of experiencing venous thromboembolic events in the perioperative period. The low-molecular-weight heparin dalteparin sodium is clinically effective in reducing the incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in these patients. Dalteparin may be used in low (2500 units [U]) and high (5000 U) once-daily doses for this indication. However, the cost effectiveness of dalteparin 5000 U compared with dalteparin 2500 U and unfractionated heparin (UFH) for this indication has not been studied. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a cost-utility analysis to evaluate the cost effectiveness of dalteparin compared with UFH for preventing VTE in patients undergoing elective abdominal surgery. METHODS: A Markov model, from a healthcare perspective, was constructed to evaluate the cost effectiveness of dalteparin 5000 U and dalteparin 2500 U compared with UFH. A 69-year-old mixed sex patient population was studied using pooled probabilities of clinical outcomes from randomised, controlled trials. Cost data were mostly derived from Medicare reimbursement, in year 2002-03 values. Cost effectiveness was measured as cost per QALY gained over the patient's lifetime. RESULTS: Total costs for patients given UFH, dalteparin 2500 U and dalteparin 5000 U were US45,855 dollars, US45,882 dollars and US46,308 dollars, respectively, while QALYs were 9.5603, 9.5632 and 9.5811, respectively. Hence, the incremental cost effectiveness of dalteparin 5000 U over dalteparin 2500 U and UFH was US23,799 dollars/QALY and US21,779 dollars/QALY gained, respectively. Similarly, cost effectiveness for dalteparin 2500 U over UFH was US9310 dollars/QALY gained. Univariate sensitivity analysis showed that dalteparin 5000 U maintained its cost effectiveness (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER] or =90% patients receive the benefit of the medication, policy makers would need to commit substantially more resources than suggested by the baseline ICERs.     

A cost-effectiveness analysis of docetaxel in the second-line treatment of non-small cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND: Whilst lung cancer is the most common form of cancer in England and Wales (annual incidence rate of 50 per 100,000) it does not always receive the policy attention accorded to other types of cancer, such as breast and colorectal. Nevertheless, the burden of lung cancer is significant and the UK NHS Plan for cancer has set out the government's commitment to improving all cancer services. The question faced by the NHS is which interventions are most cost effective in implementing this plan. OBJECTIVE: To develop a model to assess the economics of second-line treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) from the perspective of the UK NHS, based on the resources and outcomes from the pivotal clinical study comparing docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) with best supportive care (BSC). METHODS: The area under the survival curve for each treatment was analysed and the difference in mean survival between the docetaxel group and the BSC group was calculated as 3.82 months. Measurable incremental costs for the docetaxel group were largely driven by drug acquisition and administration. These cost drivers, as well as toxicity treatment costs and cost offsets, were varied in the sensitivity analysis. Although the overall timeframe for the model was 2 years, discounting was not applied as the resources and benefits of docetaxel use in this setting are realised relatively immediately. RESULTS: The base case cost-effectiveness analysis (mean values) reported a cost per life-year gained of 13,863 pounds sterling for docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) (year 2000/2001 values). Sensitivity analysis showed that the number of treatment cycles per patient, which affected total treatment cost, had most influence on the cost per life-year gained in the base case scenario. Using the 95% confidence intervals around the mean number of treatment cycles, the base case cost per life-year gained varied from 10,985 pounds sterling to 16,738 pounds sterling. Using the 95% confidence intervals around the mean difference in survival, to represent best and worst case scenarios, the cost per life-year saved ranged from 10,020 pounds sterling to 32,781 pounds sterling . CONCLUSION: This model suggests, with its underlying assumptions and data, docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) in 3-weekly cycles is a cost-effective second-line treatment, from the perspective of the NHS, for pretreated NSCLC in terms of survival gains made for a reasonable increase in costs.     

Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion versus multiple daily injections of insulin: economic comparison in adult and adolescent type 1 diabetes mellitus in Australia

BACKGROUND: Recent meta-analyses in the published medical literature have found improved glycaemic control with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) compared with multiple daily injections (MDI) of insulin for patients with diabetes mellitus. In Australia, CSII is predominantly used in type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) patient populations. OBJECTIVE/INTERVENTION: To project long-term costs and outcomes of CSII (Novorapid or Humalog) compared with MDI (NPH insulin plus Novorapid or Humalog) in adult and adolescent T1DM patients in Australia. METHODS: The study was a modelling analysis utilising a lifetime horizon in adult and adolescent specialty care T1DM patient populations from Australia. Published Australian diabetes complication costs (adjusted to Australian dollars [$A], year 2006 values), treatment costs and discount rates of 5.0% per annum were applied to costs and clinical outcomes. A lifetime horizon was taken, considering only direct medical costs and excluding indirect and non-medical costs. The validated CORE diabetes model employs standard Markov/Monte Carlo simulation techniques. It was used to simulate diabetes progression in Australian adult (mean age 43 years, duration of diabetes 17 years, mean glycosylated haemoglobin [HbA(1c)] 8.2%) and adolescent (mean age 17 years, duration of diabetes 6 years, mean HbA(1c) 8.9%) patients with baseline characteristics taken predominantly from Australian National Diabetes Information Audit and Benchmarking (ANDIAB) in Australia. The main outcome measures were incremental costs and effectiveness of CSII compared with MDI in Australian adult and adolescent patients with T1DM. RESULTS: Mean direct lifetime costs were $A34,642 higher with CSII treatment than with MDI for adult patients and $A41,779 higher for adolescent patients. Treatment with CSII was associated with an improvement in life expectancy of 0.393 years for adults compared with MDI and 0.537 years for adolescents. The corresponding gains in QALYs were 0.467 QALYs and 0.560 QALYs for adults and adolescents, respectively. This produced incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of $A88,220 and $A77,851 per life-year gained for CSII compared with MDI for adult and adolescent T1DM patients, respectively, in Australia. These data also produced corresponding ICERs of $A74,147 per QALY and $A74,661/QALY for adult and adolescent T1DM patients, respectively. Sensitivity analyses suggested that our base-case assumptions were mostly robust with improvements in ICERs for reduction in hypoglycaemic events with CSII treatment and worse ICERs for lower HbA(1c) changes associated with CSII treatment compared with MDI. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis suggests that CSII is associated with ICERs in the range of $A53,022-259,646 per QALY gained, with most ICERs representing good value for money in Australia under the majority of scenarios explored.     

Cardiovascular prophylaxis with aspirin: costs of supply and management of upper gastrointestinal and renal toxicity

AIMS: To determine the cost to the NHS of prescribed low-dose aspirin. METHODS: This was a population based observational cohort study. Patients from Tayside Scotland (17 244 new users of dispensed aspirin each with 10 matched comparators) were included. A pragmatic analysis totalled costs from the start to end of the study and compared these with a matched cohort of aspirin nonusers to estimate excess costs. Fastidious analyses were done of subjects with no prior history of upper gastrointestinal (UGI) or renal disease where the cost that occurred during aspirin exposure, the 30 days following aspirin exposure and subsequent nonexposure was calculated adjusting for risk factors in each period. RESULTS: Subjects took aspirin for only 1.18 of the 2.53 years follow-up (47% compliance). Aspirin use cost an additional 49.86 UK pounds per year (pragmatic analysis) made up of 1.96 UK pounds for aspirin tablets (4%), 5.49 UK pounds for dispensing costs (11%), 24.60 UK pounds for UGI complications (49%) and 17.81 UK pounds for renal complications (36%). The costs for managing complications were substantially lower in the fastidious analysis (2.66 UK pounds for UGI complications and 2.92 UK pounds for renal complications). Assuming that the antiplatelet trial meta-analysis is an accurate assessment of the benefits of aspirin, the costs of preventing one vascular event lay between 62 500 UK pounds (primary prevention, pragmatic analysis) and 867 UK pounds (secondary prevention, fastidious analysis). These costs may be underestimates due to the low compliance observed. CONCLUSIONS: Compliance with aspirin was poor. Serious adverse events were uncommon but despite this aspirin cost the NHS between 6 and 25 times the cost of aspirin tablets due to dispensing costs and the cost of managing adverse effects.     

Post-exposure influenza prophylaxis with oseltamivir: cost effectiveness and cost utility in families in the UK

OBJECTIVES: To assess the cost effectiveness and cost utility of preventing post-exposure influenza infection using the neuraminidase inhibitor oseltamivir from a healthcare payer's perspective in the UK. METHODS: A simulation model was developed, based on clinical trial results and published data, to predict morbidity and mortality due to influenza and to compare oseltamivir post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) with no prophylaxis within families with members aged >or=13 years. Two scenarios were tested:1. Comparison of patients receiving PEP versus patients not receiving PEP and not being treated with oseltamivir should they become infected. 2. Comparison of patients receiving PEP versus patients not receiving PEP but being treated with oseltamivir should they become infected. The model was run with an attack rate in household contacts of 8% for the base case, with higher rates (up to 30%, representing pandemic conditions) tested in sensitivity analyses. A societal perspective and other key parameters were tested in sensitivity analysis. The year of costing was 2002. The time span for the model was up to 1 year (including one influenza season), but loss of life was included in the QALY calculation and based on expected life expectancy. RESULTS: PEP with oseltamivir results in reduced morbidity (i.e. fewer influenza cases) and associated reductions in complications, hospitalisations and mortality due to influenza. When comparing oseltamivir PEP with no prophylaxis for contact attack rates of 8%, 12% and 30%, the mean costs per QALY gained for scenario one were estimated at 29,938 pounds, 18,697 pounds and 5403 pounds, respectively; the mean costs per case avoided were 467 pounds, 293 pounds and 84 pounds, respectively. The corresponding results for scenario two were 52,202 pounds, 31,610 pounds and 9688 pounds per QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: PEP with oseltamivir is likely to be a cost-effective strategy for family contacts in the UK from a healthcare payer perspective when influenza-like illness contact attack rates are 8% or higher and the only treatment given is 'usual care'.     

Potential costs and effects of the National Service Framework for Coronary Heart Disease in the UK

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the costs and effect of implementing the National Service Framework for Coronary Heart Disease (CHD) in the UK. DESIGN: Decision trees were built on the results from randomised controlled trials on improving coronary revascularisation. All costs were presented in UK pounds (1997 values). PATIENTS: Each year 6600 new patients with CHD are expected to require revascularisation in the UK. INTERVENTIONS: The new patients would be equally divided into those undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and those undergoing a percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) i.e., percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PCTA). PTCA could be administered with or without abciximab (a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor antagonist), stent, or stent plus abciximab (stent+). RESULTS: CABG/stent alone has an incremental cost of more than 115,489 pounds per additional quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained compared with CABG/ PTCA+. This high incremental cost is not attractive because if CABG/ stent would be added to abciximab (CABG/stent+) its incremental cost-effectiveness ratio would be 2529 pounds per extra QALY compared with CABG/stent. Therefore, the debate should not be limited to the issue of stents but it should focus on the need for administering abciximab in addition to stent. The 5-year direct costs of implementing such a strategy in the UK is expected to be 50.6 million pounds (1997 values). CONCLUSIONS: Abciximab and probably any glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor antagonists should be added to any PCI, especially if stents are used.     

Cost-effectiveness of biological therapy for Crohn's disease: Markov cohort analyses incorporating United Kingdom patient-level cost data

Background  Anti-TNF-alpha agents for Crohn's disease (CD) have good clinical efficacy but high acquisition cost compared to rival drugs.
Aim  To assess the cost-effectiveness of infliximab and adalimumab for Crohn's disease from the perspective of the UK NHS, incorporating recent trial and observational data.
Methods  Lifetime Markov analyses constructed to simulate quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and costs. CD was represented by four health-states representing: Full response, partial response, nonresponse, surgery and death. The course of CD under standard care was based on the Olmsted county cohort. Systematic review identified ACCENT I (infliximab) and CHARM (adalimumab) as sources for efficacy data. We modelled an intention-to-treat strategy for biologics including surgical rates based on observational data, cost estimates from our UK dataset and utilities from an algorithm converting CDAI to EQ-5D utilities.
Results  The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) compared to standard care for 1-year of treatment with infliximab or adalimumab were £19 050 and £7190 per QALY gained, respectively. Lifetime therapy was dominated by standard care. Analyses over shorter time horizons, matched to treatment duration, resulted in unfavourable ICERs.
Conclusion  The model suggests acceptable ICERs for biological agents when considering a lifetime horizon with periods of up to 4 years continuous therapy. As with all economic evaluations, the results may not be generalizable beyond the perspective of analysis.     

The cost-effectiveness of palivizumab for respiratory syncytial virus prophylaxis in premature infants with a gestational age of 32–35 weeks: a Canadian-based analysis

ABSTRACT

Background: Prophylactic therapy with palivizumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody, has been shown to reduce the number of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV)-related hospitalizations in preterm infants, including those in the 32–35 weeks’ gestational age (GA) subgroup. The cost-effectiveness of this therapy in Canada is unknown.

Objectives: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of palivizumab as respiratory syncytial virus prophylaxis in premature infants born at 32–35 weeks’ GA.

Design: A decision analytic model was designed to compare both direct and indirect medical costs and benefits of prophylaxis in this subgroup of premature infants. Sensitivity analyses were performed to ascertain the robustness of the model for five point estimates: mortality rate, discounting rates, health-utility values, degree of vial-sharing and administration costs. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was also conducted.

Setting: Canadian publicly funded health-care system (Ministry of Health payer perspective) for base-case analysis. Societal perspective, accounting for future lost productivity, was adopted for a secondary analysis.

Participants: Canadian infants born at 32–35 weeks’ GA without chronic lung disease.

Interventions: Palivizumab prophylaxis versus no prophylaxis.

Main outcome measures: Expected costs and incremental cost–effectiveness ratio expressed as cost per life-year gained (LYG) and quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) using 2007 Canadian dollars.

Results: The expected costs were higher for palivizumab prophylaxis as compared with no prophylaxis. The incremental cost–effectiveness ratio (ICER) for the base-case scenario was $20 924 per QALY after discounting, which is considered cost-effective in Canada. When the uncertainty of the input parameter assumptions was tested through sensitivity analyses assessing several data sources for five key parameters, no substantial differences were found from the base-case results. The PSA indicated a 0.99 probability that the ICER for palivizumab was less than $50 000/QALY. Sub-analyses that varied the number of risk factors found that for infants with two or more risk factors, or at least moderate risk, palivizumab had incremental costs per QALY that indicated moderate-to-strong evidence for adoption (range: $808–81 331, per QALY).

Conclusions: Palivizumab was cost-effective and the authors’ model supports prophylaxis for infants born at 32–35 weeks’ GA, particularly those with more than two risk factors or at least a moderate level of risk according to a risk scoring tool.