An economic evaluation of the expanded food and nutrition education program

ObjectiveTo evaluate the New York State Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program using economic methodology.DesignData were collected by nutrition educators in a pretest, posttest design with an epidemiological modeling approach to assess costs and estimate potential health benefits of the state program.SettingCooperative Extension, 35 counties.Participants5730 low-income participants.InterventionSeries of 6 or more food and nutrition lessons.Main outcome measuresCost (program and participant); health benefits in quality adjusted life years (QALYs); and monetized benefits: society's willingness to pay for QALYs, and benefits of avoiding or delaying health care costs and loss of productivity.AnalysisCost-effectiveness estimated from behavior change and QALY weights. Cost–benefit ratios estimated from costs and monetized benefits. Sensitivity analyses provided ranges where lack of agreement exists around parameters' values.ResultsCost was $892/graduate. Cost-effectiveness was 245 QALYs saved, at $20 863/QALY (sensitivity 42-935 QALYs, $5467-$130 311 per QALY). Societal willingness to pay benefit-to-cost ratio was $9.58:$1.00 (sensitivity $1.44-$41.92:$1:00); narrow governmental benefit-to-cost ratio was $0.82:$1.00 (sensitivity $0.08-$4.33:$1:00).Conclusions and implicationsOutcome data indicate that food and nutrition behavior changes resulting from the Program are likely to improve future health and reduce health care costs. Cost-effectiveness is estimated to be as great as for many current health interventions.     

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 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.     

Health Years in Total: A New Health Objective Function for Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

ObjectivesTo find an alternative for quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and equal value of life (EVL) measures. Despite the importance of QALY in cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA)—because it captures the effects of both life expectancy and health-related quality of life (QOL) and enables comparisons across interventions and disease areas—its potential to be discriminatory towards patients with lower QOL presents a critical challenge that has resulted in the exclusion of its use in some public decision making (eg, US Medicare) on healthcare in the United States. Alternatives to QALY, such as EVL, have not gained traction because EVL fails to recognize the QOL gains during added years of life.MethodsWe present a new metric for effectiveness for CEA, health years in total (HYT), which overcomes both the specific distributional issue raised by QALY and the efficiency challenges of EVL.ResultsThe HYT framework separates life expectancy changes and QOL changes on an additive scale. HYT have the same axiomatic foundations as QALY and perform better than both QALY, in terms of the discriminatory implications, and EVL, in terms of capturing QOL gains during added years of life. HYT are straightforward to calculate within a CEA model. We found that thresholds of $34 000/HYT and $89 000/HYT correspond to CEA thresholds of $50 000/QALY and $150 000/QALY, respectively.ConclusionsThe HYT framework may provide a viable alternative to both the QALY and the EVL; its application to diverse healthcare technologies and stakeholder assessments are important next steps in its development and evaluation.     

Expected cost effectiveness of high-dose trivalent influenza vaccine in US seniors

ObjectivesSeniors are particularly vulnerable to complications resulting from influenza infection. Numerous influenza vaccines are available to immunize US seniors, and practitioners must decide which product to use. Options include trivalent and quadrivalent standard-dose inactivated influenza vaccines (IIV3 and IIV4 respectively), as well as a high-dose IIV3 (HD). Our research examines the public health impact, budget impact, and cost-utility of HD versus IIV3 and IIV4 for immunization of US seniors 65 years of age and older.MethodsOur model was based on US influenza-related health outcome data. Health care costs and vaccine prices were obtained from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Efficacies of IIV3 and IIV4 were estimated from various meta-analyses of IIV3 efficacy. The results of a head-to-head randomized controlled trial of HD vs. IIV3 were used to estimate relative efficacy of HD. Conservatively, herd protection was not considered.ResultsCompared to IIV3, HD would avert 195,958 cases of influenza, 22,567 influenza-related hospitalizations, and 5423 influenza-related deaths among US seniors. HD generates 29,023 more Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) and a net societal budget impact of $154 million. The Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) for this comparison is $5299/QALY. 71% of the probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) simulations were <$100,000/QALY.Compared to IIV4, HD would avert 169,257 cases of influenza, 21,222 hospitalizations and 5212 deaths. HD generates 27,718 more QALYs and a net societal budget impact of −$17 million and as such dominates IIV4. For this comparison, 81% of PSA simulations were <$100,000/QALY.ConclusionsHD is expected to achieve significant reductions in influenza-related morbidity and mortality. Further, HD is a cost effective alternative to both IIV3 and IIV4 in seniors. Our conclusions were robust in the face of sensitivity analyses.     

A Framework to Evaluate the Cost-Effectiveness of the NADiA ProsVue Slope to Guide Adjuvant Radiotherapy among Men with High-Risk Characteristics Following Prostatectomy for Prostate Cancer

ObjectivesThe NADiA ProsVue is a prognostic system that measures prostate-specific antigen slope to identify men at lower risk of clinical recurrence of prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. We developed a decision-modeling framework to evaluate its cost-effectiveness to guide the use of adjuvant radiotherapy (ART).MethodsWe populated the model using patient-level data and external sources. Patients were classified as intermediate risk or high risk on the basis of Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment-Postsurgical (CAPRA-S) nomogram and then stratified by the ProsVue slope (≤2 pg/mL/mo; >2 pg/mL/mo) and receipt of ART. In sensitivity analyses, we varied the effect of the ProsVue slope on the use of ART and other model parameters.ResultsThe cost-effectiveness of the ProsVue-guided strategy varied widely because of small differences in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) at 10 years. In the intermediate-risk group, when the use of ART decreased from 20% (standard care) to 7.5% among patients with a ProsVue slope value of 2 pg/mL/mo or less, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $25,160/QALY. In the high-risk group, the use of ART would have to decrease from 40% (standard care) to 11.5% among those with a ProsVue slope value of 2 pg/mL/mo or less to obtain a ratio of $50,000/QALY. The cost-effectiveness ratios were sensitive to varying benefits of salvage therapy, quality of life, and costs of ART and ProsVue testing.ConclusionsThe effect of the ProsVue system on costs will be dependent on the extent to which ART decreases among men identified as having a low risk of recurrence. Its effect on QALYs will remain conditional on uncertain clinical and quality-of-life benefits associated with ART.     

Cost-Effectiveness of Ivacaftor Therapy for Treatment of Cystic Fibrosis Patients With the G551D Gating Mutation

ObjectivesCystic fibrosis (CF) is a rare genetic disease with no cure. Until recently, treatment has targeted symptoms of the disease and not the disease-causing genetic defect. Ivacaftor is included in a new class of breakthrough drugs targeting the genetic defects of CF. We sought to estimate the long-term cost-effectiveness of ivacaftor from a US payer perspective.MethodsWe developed an individual-level microsimulation model that followed a cohort of heterogeneous US CF patients over a lifetime. The primary outcome of interest was quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). We also compared unadjusted life years, count of acute pulmonary exacerbations, and count of lung transplants over a lifetime between patients treated with ivacaftor plus best supportive care and patients treated with best supportive care alone. We conducted one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses to test the impact of various model inputs and uncertainties.ResultsWe found a substantial increase in QALYs, life years, and treatment costs over a lifetime for patients treated with ivacaftor plus best supportive care versus best supportive care alone. Discounted results for ivacaftor were 22.92 QALYs and $8 797 840 in total lifetime costs compared to 16.12 QALYs and $2 336 366 lifetime costs for best supportive care alone. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were $950 217 per QALY. Results from the probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated a 0% chance that ivacaftor was cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $500 000 per QALY.ConclusionsTreatment with ivacaftor plus best supportive care versus best supportive care alone is not cost-effective at or near commonly accepted WTP thresholds.     

The Economic Value of Innovative Treatments over the Product Life Cycle: The Case of Targeted Trastuzumab Therapy for Breast Cancer

ObjectivePharmacoeconomic analyses typically project the expected cost-effectiveness of a new product for a specific indication. This analysis develops a dynamic life-cycle model to conduct a multiindication evaluation using the case of trastuzumab licensed in the United States for both early-stage and metastatic (or late-stage) human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive breast cancer therapy (early breast cancer [EBC]; metastatic breast cancer [MBC]), approved in 2006 and 1998, respectively.MethodsThis dynamic model combined information on expected incremental cost-utility ratios for specific indications with an epidemiologically based projection of utilization by indication over the product life cycle—from 1998 to 2016. Net economic value was estimated as the cumulative quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained over the life cycle multiplied by a societal valuation of health gains ($/QALY) minus cumulative net direct treatment costs. Sensitivity analyses were performed under a range of assumptions.ResultsWe projected that the annual number of EBC patients receiving trastuzumab will be more than three times that of MBC by 2016, in part because adjuvant treatment reduces the future incidence of MBC. Over this life cycle, the estimated overall incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was $35,590/QALY with a total of 432,547 discounted QALYs gained. Under sensitivity analyses, the overall ICER varied from $21,000 to $53,000/QALY, and the projected net economic value resulting from trastuzumab treatment ranged from $6.2 billion to $49.5 billion.ConclusionsAverage ICERs for multiindication compounds can increase or decrease over the product life cycle. In this example, the projected overall life-cycle ICER for trastuzumab was less than one half of that in the initial indication. This dynamic perspective—versus the usual static one—highlights the interdependence of drug development decisions and investment incentives, raising important reimbursement policy issues.     

Cost-Effectiveness of Chemotherapy for Breast Cancer and Age Effect in Older Women

BackgroundPrevious economic evaluations compared specific chemotherapy agents using input parameters from clinical trials and resource utilization costs. Cost-effectiveness of treatment groups (drug classes) using community-level effectiveness and cost data, however, has not been assessed for elderly patients with breast cancer.ObjectiveTo assess the cost-effectiveness of chemotherapy regimens by age and disease stage under “real-world” conditions for patients with breast cancer.MethodsThe Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results-Medicare data were used to identify patients with breast cancer with American Joint Committee on Cancer stage I/II/IIIa, hormone receptor–negative (estrogen receptor–negative and progesterone receptor–negative) patients from 1992 to 2009. Patients were categorized into three adjuvant treatment groups: 1) no chemotherapy, 2) anthracycline, and 3) non–anthracycline-based chemotherapy. Median life-years and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were measured using Kaplan-Meier analysis and were evaluated against average total health care costs (2013 US dollars).ResultsA total of 4575 patients (propensity score–matched) were included for the primary analysis. The anthracycline group experienced 12.05 QALYs and mean total health care costs of $119,055, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $7,688 per QALY gained as compared with the no chemotherapy group (QALYs 7.81; average health care cost $86,383). The non–anthracycline-based group was dominated by the anthracycline group with lower QALYs (9.56) and higher health care costs ($122,791). Base-case results were found to be consistent with the best-case and worst-case scenarios for utility assignments. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios varied by age group (range $3,790–$90,405 per QALY gained).ConclusionsAnthracycline-based chemotherapy was found cost-effective for elderly patients with early stage (stage I, II, IIIa) breast cancer considering the US threshold of $100,000 per QALY. Further research may be needed to characterize differential effects across age groups.     

An Ounce of Prevention Is Worth a Pound of Cure: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Incidentally Detected Aneurysms in Functional MRI Research

PurposeDespite ongoing debate about best practices for managing incidentally detected findings in brain research studies using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), this issue has not been investigated from a health economics viewpoint. We applied a decision-analytic approach to assess the benefit of various strategies for functional MRI (fMRI) studies using intracranial aneurysms (IA) as a model.MethodsA decision tree and Markov model were created to simulate the impact on the lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) of four different strategies for review of scans for the presence of IA. To populate the decision model, we used current evidence from the literature and results from a survey of experts.ResultsReview of the anatomical scans by a nonspecialist is not cost-effective in any of the subgroups of participants. Full clinical examination of women with a positive family history before enrollment in a study is cost-effective. Cost-effectiveness of reviewing scans obtained from women without a family history and men with a positive family history of IA depends on the willingness-to-pay (λ) for a QALY: at λ of $50,000/QALY, review of scans by a specialist is cost-effective, whereas at λ of $100,000/QALY, a full clinical workup is the best option. Compared with not reviewing any scans, a customized strategy for each subgroup of participants results in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $12,503 for λ = $50,000/QALY and $32,767 for λ = $100,000/QALY.ConclusionTailored strategies based on the characteristics of research participants and λ for one QALY are needed to address the problem of incidental findings in research fMRI studies.     

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-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 Tumor Genomic Profiling to Guide First-Line Targeted Therapy Selection in Patients With Metastatic Lung Adenocarcinoma

ObjectivesA cost-effectiveness analysis comparing comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) of 10 oncogenes, targeted gene panel testing (TGPT) of 4 oncogenes, and no tumor profiling over the lifetime for patients with metastatic lung adenocarcinoma from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ perspective was conducted.MethodsA decision analytic model used 10 000 hypothetical Medicare beneficiaries with metastatic lung adenocarcinoma to simulate outcomes associated with CGP (ALK, BRAF, EGFR, ERBB2, MET, NTRK1, NTRK2, NTRK3, RET, ROS1), TGPT (ALK, BRAF, EGFR, ROS1), and no tumor profiling (no genes tested). First-line targeted cancer-directed therapies were assigned if actionable gene variants were detected; otherwise, nontargeted cancer-directed therapies were assigned. Model inputs were derived from randomized trials (progression-free survival, adverse events), the Veterans Health Administration and Medicare (drug costs), published studies (nondrug cancer-related management costs, health state utilities), and published databases (actionable variant prevalences). Costs (2019 US$) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were discounted at 3% per year. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses used 1000 Monte Carlo simulations.ResultsNo tumor profiling was the least costly/person ($122 613 vs $184 063 for TGPT and $188 425 for CGP) and yielded the least QALYs/person (0.53 vs 0.73 for TGPT and 0.74 for CGP). The costs per QALY gained and corresponding 95% confidence interval were $310 735 ($278 323-$347 952) for TGPT vs no tumor profiling and $445 545 ($322 297-$572 084) for CGP vs TGPT. All probabilistic sensitivity analysis simulations for both comparisons surpassed the willingness-to-pay threshold ($150 000 per QALY gained).ConclusionCompared with no tumor profiling in patients with metastatic lung adenocarcinoma, tumor profiling (TGPT, CGP) improves quality-adjusted survival but is not cost-effective.     

Cost-Effectiveness of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Prostate Cancer Screening: A Microsimulation Study

ObjectiveThis study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with combinations of targeted biopsy (TBx) and systematic biopsy (SBx) for early prostate cancer detection in Sweden.MethodsA cost-utility analysis was conducted from a lifetime societal perspective using a microsimulation model. Five strategies included no screening and quadrennial screening for men aged 55 to 69 years using SBx alone, TBx on positive MRI (MRI + TBx), combined TBx/SBx on positive MRI (MRI + TBx/SBx), and SBx on negative MRI with TBx/SBx on positive MRI (MRI − SBx, MRI + TBx/SBx). Test characteristics were based on a recent Cochrane review. We predicted the number of biopsies, costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios.ResultsThe screening strategies were classified in Sweden as high costs per QALY gained compared with no screening. Using MRI + TBx and MRI + TBx/SBx reduced the number of biopsy episodes across a lifetime by approximately 40% compared with SBx alone. Both strategies showed strong dominance over SBx alone and MRI − SBx, MRI + TBx. Compared with MRI + TBx, the MRI + TBx/SBx strategy had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of more than €200 000 per QALY gained, which was classified in Sweden as a very high cost. These predictions were robust in the probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Limitations included generalizability of the model assumptions and uncertainty regarding the health-state values and study heterogeneity from the Cochrane review.ConclusionsMRI + TBx and MRI + TBx/SBx showed strong dominance over alternative screening strategies. MRI + TBx resulted in similar or marginally lower gains in QALYs and lower costs than MRI + TBx/SBx. MRI + TBx was considered the optimal choice among the screening strategies.     

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%.     

Cost effectiveness of chemoprevention for prostate cancer with dutasteride in a high-risk population based on results from the REDUCE Clinical trial

Background

The REDUCE trial examined whether chemoprevention with the dual 5-alpha reductase inhibitor, dutasteride, reduced risk of prostate cancer (PCa) detection on biopsy.

Objective

We examined the cost effectiveness of dutasteride compared with placebo in preventing PCa in men at increased risk as seen in REDUCE, from a US payer perspective.

Methods

A Markov model was developed to compare costs and outcomes of chemoprevention with dutasteride 0.5 mg/day or placebo with usual care in men aged 50–75 years, with serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) of 2.5–10 ng/mL (men aged <60 years) or 3.0–10 ng/mL (men aged ≥60 years), and with a single negative prostate biopsy in the prior 6 months. The model simulated the REDUCE cohort annually through different health states over 4-, 10-year and lifetime time horizons. Risks of PCa for men receiving placebo and dutasteride were obtained from REDUCE. Rates of acute urinary retention events and benign prostate hyperplasia-related surgeries also came from REDUCE. Costs and utilities were obtained from published literature. All costs are reported in $US, year 2009 values.

Results

The model indicated that, over 10 years, dutasteride patients would experience fewer PCas (251 vs 312 per 1000 patients) at increased cost ($US15341 vs $US12316) than placebo patients. Although life-years were not substantially affected, the model calculated an increase in QALYs of 0.14 for dutasteride patients. Chemoprevention with dutasteride appeared to be cost effective, with an incremental cost per QALY of $US21 781 and cost per PCa avoided of $US50 254. The 4-year and lifetime incremental costs per QALY were $US18 409 and $US22498, respectively.

Conclusions

Despite increased cost due to taking a drug for prevention, dutasteride 0.5 mg/day may be cost effective in men at increased risk for PCa.     

Cost-Effectiveness of the Wellness Incentives and Navigation (WIN) Program

ObjectivesPromoting patient involvement in managing co-occurring physical and mental health conditions is increasingly recognized as critical to improving outcomes and controlling costs in this growing chronically ill population. The main objective of this study was to conduct an economic evaluation of the Wellness Incentives and Navigation (WIN) intervention as part of a longitudinal randomized pragmatic clinical trial for chronically ill Texas Medicaid enrollees with co-occurring physical and mental health conditions.MethodsThe WIN intervention used a personal navigator, motivational interviewing, and a flexible wellness expense account to increase patient activation, that is, the patient’s knowledge, skills, and confidence in managing their self-care and co-occurring physical and mental health conditions. Regression models were fit to both participant-level quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and total costs of care (including the intervention) controlling for demographics, health status, poverty, Medicaid managed care plan, intervention group, and baseline health utility and costs. Incremental costs and QALYs were calculated based on the difference in predicted costs and QALYs under intervention versus usual care and were used to calculate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Confidence intervals were calculated using Fieller’s method, and sensitivity analyses were performed.ResultsThe mean ICER for the intervention compared with usual care was $12 511 (95% CI $8971-$16 842), with a sizable majority of participants (70%) having ICERs below $40 000. The WIN intervention also produced higher QALY increases for participants who were sicker at baseline compared to those who were healthier at baseline.ConclusionThe WIN intervention shows considerable promise as a cost-effective intervention in this challenging chronically ill population.     

Cost-Effectiveness of Second-Generation Antipsychotics for the Treatment of Schizophrenia

ObjectiveTo compare the cost-effectiveness of alternate treatment strategies using second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) for patients with schizophrenia.MethodsWe developed a Markov model to estimate the costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for different sequences of treatments for 40-year-old patients with schizophrenia. We considered first-line treatment with one of the four SGAs: olanzapine (OLZ), risperidone (RSP), quetiapine (QTP), and ziprasidone (ZSD). Patients could switch to another of these antipsychotics as second-line therapy, and only clozapine (CLZ) was allowed as third-line treatment. We derived parameter estimates from the Clinical Antipsychotic Trial of Intervention Effectiveness (CATIE) study and published sources.ResultsThe ZSD-QTP strategy (first-line treatment with ZSD, change to QTP if ZSD is discontinued, and switch to CLZ if QTP is discontinued) was most costly while yielding the greatest QALYs, with an incremental cost-effective ratio (ICER) of $542,500 per QALY gained compared with the ZSD-RSP strategy. However, the ZSD-RSP strategy had an ICER of $5,200/QALY gained versus the RSP-ZSD strategy and had the greatest probability of being cost-effective given a willingness-to-pay threshold between $50,000 and $100,000 per QALY. All other treatment strategies were more costly and less effective than another strategy or combination of other strategies. Results varied by different time horizons adopted.ConclusionsThe ZSD-RSP strategy was most cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold between $5,200 and $542,500 per QALY. Our results should be interpreted with caution because they are based largely on the CATIE trial with potentially limited generalizability to all patient populations and doses of SGAs used in practice.     

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.