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.     

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.     

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.     

Cost-effectiveness of a 3-antigen versus single-antigen vaccine for the prevention of hepatitis B in adults in the United States

ObjectivesThe first 3-antigen hepatitis B vaccine was approved by the United States (US) Food and Drug Administration in November 2021 and was recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 2022. We estimated the cost-effectiveness of this 3-antigen vaccine (PreHevbrio™) relative to the single-antigen vaccine, Engerix-B^TM, to prevent hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection among US adults.MethodsA cost-effectiveness model was developed using a combined decision-tree and Markov structure to follow 100,000 adults over their remaining lifetimes after vaccination with either the 3-antigen or single-antigen vaccine. Outcomes from societal and healthcare sector perspectives were calculated for adults aged 18–44, 45–64, and ≥65 years; adults with diabetes; and adults with obesity. Seroprotection rates were obtained from the phase 3, head-to-head PROTECT trial (NCT03393754). Incidence, vaccine costs, vaccine adherence rates, direct and indirect costs, utilities, transition probabilities, and mortality were obtained from published sources. Health outcomes and costs (2020 USD) were discounted 3% annually and reported by vaccine and population. One-way sensitivity and scenario analyses were conducted.ResultsIn the model, the 3-antigen vaccine led to fewer HBV infections, complications, and deaths compared with the single-antigen vaccine in all modeled populations due to higher rates and faster onset of seroprotection. Compared with the single-antigen vaccine, the 3-antigen vaccine had better health outcomes, more quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and lower costs in adults aged 18–64 years, adults with diabetes, and adults with obesity (dominant strategy). For adults aged ≥65 years, the 3-antigen vaccine was cost-effective compared with the single-antigen vaccine ($26,237/QALY gained) below common willingness-to-pay thresholds ($50,000-$100,000/QALY gained). In sensitivity analyses, results were sensitive to vaccine cost per dose, incidence, and age at vaccination.ConclusionThe recently approved 3-antigen vaccine is a cost-saving or cost-effective intervention for preventing HBV infection and addressing the long-standing burden of hepatitis B among US adults.     

Cost-Effectiveness of Switching to Exemestane after 2 to 3 Years of Therapy with Tamoxifen in Postmenopausal Women with Early-Stage Breast Cancer

OBJECTIVES: Data from the Intergroup Exemestane Study (IES) suggest that switching to the aromatase inhibitor, exemestane, after 2 to 3 years of tamoxifen therapy prolongs disease-free survival versus continuing on tamoxifen therapy. We sought to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of this management strategy. METHODS: A Markov model was developed to predict patients' transitions across various health states based on treatment strategy (continuing tamoxifen vs. switching to exemestane), breast cancer status (no recurrence, local or distant recurrence, contralateral breast cancer), and other related health events (osteoporosis, endometrial cancer, death). Rates of disease-related events (recurrence and contralateral breast cancer) were estimated using data from the IES. Survival and lifetime medical-care costs by type of disease-related event were estimated using SEER-Medicare data. The model was used to estimate direct costs (in 2004 US dollars), life expectancy, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: Switching to exemestane versus continuing tamoxifen therapy was associated with increased disease-free survival (181 vs. 172 months), QALYs (12.21 vs. 11.89), and net discounted lifetime costs of cancer care ($12,124 vs. $7724 per patient). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of exemestane was $20,100 per QALY gained (95% confidence interval: $12,100, $59,000). Sensitivity analyses showed that results were robust to plausible variations in recurrence rates, costs, and utilities. CONCLUSIONS: Switching postmenopausal early-stage breast cancer patients to exemestane after 2 to 3 years of tamoxifen appears to be a cost-effective treatment strategy versus completing a 5-year course of tamoxifen.     

CDX2 Biomarker Testing and Adjuvant Therapy for Stage II Colon Cancer: An Exploratory Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

ObjectivesAdjuvant chemotherapy is not recommended for patients with average-risk stage II (T3N0) colon cancer. Nevertheless, a subgroup of these patients who are CDX2-negative might benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of testing for the absence of CDX2 expression followed by adjuvant chemotherapy (fluorouracil combined with oxaliplatin [FOLFOX]) for patients with stage II colon cancer.MethodsWe developed a decision model to simulate a hypothetical cohort of 65-year-old patients with average-risk stage II colon cancer with 7.2% of these patients being CDX2-negative under 2 different interventions: (1) test for the absence of CDX2 expression followed by adjuvant chemotherapy for CDX2-negative patients and (2) no CDX2 testing and no adjuvant chemotherapy for any patient. We derived disease progression parameters, adjuvant chemotherapy effectiveness and utilities from published analyses, and cancer care costs from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare data. Sensitivity analyses were conducted.ResultsTesting for CDX2 followed by FOLFOX for CDX2-negative patients had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $5500/quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) compared with no CDX2 testing and no FOLFOX (6.874 vs 6.838 discounted QALYs and $89 991 vs $89 797 discounted US dollar lifetime costs). In sensitivity analyses, considering a cost-effectiveness threshold of $100 000/QALY, testing for CDX2 followed by FOLFOX on CDX2-negative patients remains cost-effective for hazard ratios of <0.975 of the effectiveness of FOLFOX in CDX2-negative patients in reducing the rate of developing a metastatic recurrence.ConclusionsTesting tumors of patients with stage II colon cancer for CDX2 and administration of adjuvant treatment to the subgroup found CDX2-negative is a cost-effective and high-value management strategy across a broad range of plausible assumptions.     

Long-term Health and Economic Impact of Preventing and Reducing Overweight and Obesity in Adolescence

PurposeUsing data from the 2000 National Medical Expenditure Panel Survey and estimates from published studies, this study projected the long-term health and economic impacts of preventing and reducing overweight and obesity in today's adolescents.MethodsWe developed a body mass index progression model to project the impact of a 1% point reduction in both overweight and obese adolescents aged 16–17 years at present on the number of nonoverweight, overweight, and obese adults at age 40 years. We then estimated its impact on the lifetime medical costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) after age 40. Medical costs (in 2007 dollars) and QALYs were discounted to age 17 years.ResultsA 1% point reduction in both overweight and obese adolescents ages 16–17 years at present could reduce the number of obese adults by 52,821 in the future. As a result, lifetime medical care costs after age 40 years would decrease by $586 million and lifetime QALYs would increase by 47,138. In the worst case scenario, the 1% point reduction would lower medical costs by $463 million and increase QALYs by 34,394; in the best case scenario, it would reduce medical costs by $691 million and increase QALYs by 57,149.ConclusionsObesity prevention in adolescents goes beyond its immediate benefits; it can also reduce medical costs and increase QALYs substantially in later life. Therefore, it is important to include long-term health and economic benefits when quantifying the impact of obesity prevention in adolescents.     

The Impact of Funding Inpatient Treatments for COVID-19 on Health Equity in the United States: A Distributional Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

ObjectivesWe conducted a distributional cost-effectiveness analysis (DCEA) to evaluate how Medicare funding of inpatient COVID-19 treatments affected health equity in the United States.MethodsA DCEA, based on an existing cost-effectiveness analysis model, was conducted from the perspective of a single US payer, Medicare. The US population was divided based on race and ethnicity (Hispanic, non-Hispanic black, and non-Hispanic white) and county-level social vulnerability index (5 quintile groups) into 15 equity-relevant subgroups. The baseline distribution of quality-adjusted life expectancy was estimated across the equity subgroups. Opportunity costs were estimated by converting total spend on COVID-19 inpatient treatments into health losses, expressed as quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), using base-case assumptions of an opportunity cost threshold of $150 000 per QALY gained and an equal distribution of opportunity costs across equity-relevant subgroups.ResultsMore socially vulnerable populations received larger per capita health benefits due to higher COVID-19 incidence and baseline in-hospital mortality. The total direct medical cost of inpatient COVID-19 interventions in the United States in 2020 was estimated at $25.83 billion with an estimated net benefit of 735 569 QALYs after adjusting for opportunity costs. Funding inpatient COVID-19 treatment reduced the population-level burden of health inequality by 0.234%. Conclusions remained robust across scenario and sensitivity analyses.ConclusionsTo the best of our knowledge, this is the first DCEA to quantify the equity implications of funding COVID-19 treatments in the United States. Medicare funding of COVID-19 treatments in the United States could improve overall health while reducing existing health inequalities.     

Cost and Quality of Life Outcomes of the STepped Exercise Program for Patients With Knee OsteoArthritis Trial

ObjectivesThis study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the randomized clinical trial STEP-KOA (STepped Exercise Program for patients with Knee OsteoArthritis).MethodsThe trial included 230 intervention and 115 control participants from 2 Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers. A decision tree simulated outcomes for cohorts of patients receiving arthritis education (control) or STEP-KOA (intervention), which consisted of an internet-based exercise training program (step 1), phone counseling (step 2), and physical therapy (step 3) according to patient’s response. Intervention costs were assessed from the VA perspective. Quality of life (QOL) was measured using 5-level EQ-5D US utility weights. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated as the difference in costs divided by the difference in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) between arms at 9 months. A Monte Carlo probabilistic sensitivity analysis was used to generate a cost-effectiveness acceptability curve.ResultsThe adjusted model found differential improvement in QOL utility weights of 0.042 (95% confidence interval 0.003-0.080; P=.03) for STEP-KOA versus control at 9 months. In the base case, STEP-KOA resulted in an incremental gain of 0.028 QALYs and an incremental cost of $279 per patient for an ICER of $10 076. One-way sensitivity analyses found the largest sources of variation in the ICER were the impact on QOL and the need for a VA-owned tablet. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis found a 98% probability of cost-effectiveness at $50 000 willingness-to-pay per QALY.ConclusionsSTEP-KOA improves QOL and has a high probability of cost-effectiveness. Resources needed to implement the program will decline as ownership of mobile health devices increases.     

The Lifetime Economic Burden of Inaccurate HER2 Testing: Estimating the Costs of False-Positive and False-Negative HER2 Test Results in US Patients with Early-Stage Breast Cancer

BackgroundPatients with breast cancer whose tumors test positive for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) are treated with HER2-targeted therapies such as trastuzumab, but limitations with HER2 testing may lead to false-positive (FP) or false-negative (FN) results.ObjectivesTo develop a US-level model to estimate the effect of tumor misclassification on health care costs and patient quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs).MethodsDecision analysis was used to estimate the number of patients with early-stage breast cancer (EBC) whose HER2 status was misclassified in 2012. FP results were assumed to generate unnecessary trastuzumab costs and unnecessary cases of trastuzumab-related cardiotoxicity. FN results were assumed to save money on trastuzumab, but with a loss of QALYs and greater risk of disease recurrence and its associated costs. QALYs were valued at $100,000 under a net monetary benefit approach.ResultsAmong 226,870 women diagnosed with EBC in 2012, 3.12% (n = 7,070) and 2.18% (n = 4,955) were estimated to have had FP and FN test results, respectively. Approximately 8400 QALYs (discounted, lifetime) were lost among women not receiving trastuzumab because of FN results. The estimated incremental per-patient lifetime burden of FP or FN results was $58,900 and $116,000, respectively. The implied incremental losses to society were $417 million and $575 million, respectively.ConclusionsHER2 tests result in misclassification and nonoptimal treatment of approximately 12,025 US patients with EBC annually. The total economic societal loss of nearly $1 billion suggests that improvements in HER2 testing accuracy are needed and that further clinical and economic studies are warranted.     

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.     

A model for cost-effectiveness analyses of smoking cessation interventions applied to a Quit-and-Win contest for mothers of small children

AIMS: The first aim of this study was to develop a model that predicts health and economic consequences of smoking cessation in Sweden, striving to follow the methodological recommendations to reflect the societal perspective and to use the health measure quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The second aim was to apply the model estimates to a smoking cessation intervention. METHODS: A Markov cost-effectiveness model was developed on smoking-related lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and cardiovascular disease. Swedish primary data on medical treatment costs and quality-of-life weights were used, supplemented with secondary data on other societal effects and the disease and death risks. The model simulations were applied to a "Quit-and-Win" contest for mothers of pre-school children. In total, 238 women participated, with 34 sustained tobacco-free at 12-month follow-up. RESULTS: The cost-effectiveness model estimates a gain of 0.34 to 0.55 QALYs (discounted 3%), and cost savings of SEK 20-35,000 per female quitter in the age range 15 to 49 years. The cost-effectiveness analyses of the intervention showed intervention costs per quitter of SEK 7,850, and intervention costs per life-years saved (YLS) (discounted 3%) of SEK 13,200. The cost-utility analysis demonstrated cost savings and a gain of 16 QALYs. CONCLUSIONS: The cost-utility analysis estimated health gains and cost savings resulting from the "Quit-and-Win" contest. As the model estimates on the differences in societal cost between smokers and quitters are considerable, many tobacco control programmes would result in cost savings. The construction of an optimal mix of tobacco control policies, however, demands incremental calculations on a range of programmes.     

Cost-utility analysis of interferon beta-1b in secondary progressive multiple sclerosis

OBJECTIVES: Interferon beta-1b has recently become available for the treatment of secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (SPMS). This study aims at estimating the cost-effectiveness of this new treatment that has been shown in a clinical trial to reduce the progression of the disease. Effectiveness is measured as the number of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained from the reduction in progression. Because the clinical trial period will only capture part of the treatment's effect in terms of QALYs gained, since benefits achieved during the trial will have an effect beyond it, the cost-effectiveness analysis involves modeling over the longer term using complementary data. METHODS: A Markov model with states based on disability expressed by EDSS scores was used. Transition probabilities were calculated directly from clinical trial data for the first 3 years and then extrapolated to 10 years. Mean costs and utilities for each Markov state were calculated from a population-based cross-sectional study in Sweden. RESULTS: The incremental cost per QALY is SEK 342,700 (US $39,250; US $1 = SEK 8.73, March 10, 2000) when all costs (direct, informal care, and indirect) are included (discounted 3%). When indirect costs are excluded, the cost per QALY is SEK 542,000 ($62,100). CONCLUSIONS: Cost-effectiveness analysis in SPMS requires that the effect of treatment beyond clinical trials be included. Also, analysis should be done from a societal perspective, since many of the costs occur outside the healthcare system. The cost-utility ratios estimated in this analysis are at or below the mean threshold value indicated in a recent survey of health economists ($60,000).     

Cost-Effectiveness of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation versus Antidepressant Therapy for Treatment-Resistant Depression

BackgroundRepetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) therapy is a clinically safe, noninvasive, nonsystemic treatment for major depressive disorder.ObjectiveWe evaluated the cost-effectiveness of rTMS versus pharmacotherapy for the treatment of patients with major depressive disorder who have failed at least two adequate courses of antidepressant medications.MethodsA 3-year Markov microsimulation model with 2-monthly cycles was used to compare the costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of rTMS and a mix of antidepressant medications (including selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, tricyclics, noradrenergic and specific serotonergic antidepressants, and monoamine oxidase inhibitors). The model synthesized data sourced from published literature, national cost reports, and expert opinions. Incremental cost-utility ratios were calculated, and uncertainty of the results was assessed using univariate and multivariate probabilistic sensitivity analyses.ResultsCompared with pharmacotherapy, rTMS is a dominant/cost-effective alternative for patients with treatment-resistant depressive disorder. The model predicted that QALYs gained with rTMS were higher than those gained with antidepressant medications (1.25 vs. 1.18 QALYs) while costs were slightly less (AU $31,003 vs. AU $31,190). In the Australian context, at the willingness-to-pay threshold of AU $50,000 per QALY gain, the probability that rTMS was cost-effective was 73%. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the superiority of rTMS in terms of value for money compared with antidepressant medications.ConclusionsAlthough both pharmacotherapy and rTMS are clinically effective treatments for major depressive disorder, rTMS is shown to outperform antidepressants in terms of cost-effectiveness for patients who have failed at least two adequate courses of antidepressant medications.     

Cost-Effectiveness of Drug-Eluting Stents in a US Medicare Setting: A Cost-Utility Analysis with 3-Year Clinical Follow-Up Data

Background:  There is only limited information about cost-effectiveness of drug-eluting compared with bare metal stents (BMS) over a time horizon of more than 1 year.
Methods and Results:  We developed a Markov model based on clinical outcome data from a meta-analysis including 17 randomized controlled trials comparing drug-eluting versus BMS with a minimum follow-up of 1 (n = 8221) and a maximum follow-up of 3 years (n = 4105) in patients with chronic coronary artery disease. Costs were obtained as reimbursement rates for diagnosis related groups from the US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. All costs and effects were discounted at 3% annually. All costs are reported in US dollars of the financial year 2007. The incremental effects are 0.002 (95% confidence interval −0.039 to 0.041) quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for the sirolimus- and −0.001 (−0.040 to 0.038) QALYs for the paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES). The incremental costs are $2790 for the sirolimus- and $3838 for the PES. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio is >$1,000,000 per QALY for the sirolimus-eluting stent. PES are dominated by BMS (i.e., less effective and more costly). Among various sensitivity analyses performed, the model proved to be robust.
Conclusions:  Our analysis from a US Medicare perspective suggests that drug-eluting stents are not cost-effective compared with BMS when implanted in unselected patients with symptomatic ischemic coronary artery disease.     

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%.     

Comparing the Cost-Effectiveness of Rituximab Maintenance and Radioimmunotherapy Consolidation versus Observation Following First-Line Therapy in Patients with Follicular Lymphoma

BackgroundPhase 3 randomized trials have shown that maintenance rituximab (MR) therapy or radioimmunotherapy (RIT) consolidation following frontline therapy can improve progression-free survival for patients with follicular lymphoma (FL), but the cost-effectiveness of these approaches with respect to observation has not been examined using a common modeling framework.ObjectivesTo evaluate and compare the economic impact of MR and RIT consolidation versus observation, respectively, following the first-line induction therapy for patients with advanced-stage FL.MethodsWe developed Markov models to estimate patients’ lifetime costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and life-years (LYs) after MR, RIT, and observation following frontline FL treatment from the US payer’s perspective. Progression risks, adverse event probabilities, costs, and utilities were estimated from clinical data of Primary RItuximab and MAintenance (PRIMA) trial, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) trial (for MR), and First-line Indolent Trial (for RIT) and the published literature. We evaluated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for direct comparisons between MR/RIT and observation. Model robustness was addressed by one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.ResultsCompared with observation, MR provided an additional 1.089 QALYs (1.099 LYs) and 1.399 QALYs (1.391 LYs) on the basis of the PRIMA trial and the ECOG trial, respectively, and RIT provided an additional 1.026 QALYs (1.034 LYs). The incremental cost per QALY gained was $40,335 (PRIMA) or $37,412 (ECOG) for MR and $40,851 for RIT. MR and RIT had comparable incremental QALYs before first progression, whereas RIT had higher incremental costs of adverse events due to higher incidences of cytopenias.ConclusionsMR and RIT following frontline FL therapy demonstrated favorable and similar cost-effectiveness profiles. The model results should be interpreted within the specific clinical settings of each trial. Selection of MR, RIT, or observation should be based on patient characteristics and expected trade-offs for these alternatives.     

Cost-effectiveness of a mobile-phone text messaging intervention on type 2 diabetes—A randomized-controlled trial

AimsTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a mobile phone text messaging program for people with type 2 diabetes mellitus.MethodsWe performed a generalized cost-effectiveness analysis in a randomized controlled trial in Bangladesh. Patients with type 2 diabetes were randomized (1:1) to a text messaging intervention plus standard-care or standard-care alone. Intervention participants received a text message daily for 6 months encouraging healthy lifestyles. Costs to users and the health systems were measured. The EQ-5D-3L was used to measure improvements in health-related quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Intervention costs were expressed as average cost-effectiveness ratios (cost-per 1% unit-reduction in glycated haemoglobin HbA1c and cost per QALY gained), based on the World Health Organization cost effectiveness and strategic planning (WHO-CHOICE) method.ResultsIn 236 patients [mean age 48 (SD9.6) years] the adjusted difference in accumulated QALYs between the intervention and the control group over the 6-month period was 0.010 (95%CI: 0.000; 0.021). Additional costs per-patient averaged 24 international dollars (Intl.$), resulting in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of 38 Intl.$ per % glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) reduction and 2406 Intl.$ per QALY gained. The total intervention costs for the mobile phone text messaging program was 2842 Int.$.ConclusionText messaging might be a valuable addition to standard treatment for diabetes care in low-resource settings and predicted to lead an overall saving in health systems costs. Studies with longer follow-up and larger samples are needed to draw reliable conclusions.     

Cost-Effectiveness of Pediatric Influenza Vaccination in The Netherlands

ObjectiveThis study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of extending the Dutch influenza vaccination program for elderly and medical high-risk groups to include pediatric influenza vaccination, taking indirect protection into account.MethodsAn age-structured dynamic transmission model was used that was calibrated to influenza-associated GP visits over 4 seasons (2010-2011 to 2013-2014). The clinical and economic impact of different pediatric vaccination strategies were compared over 20 years, varying the targeted age range, the vaccine type for children or elderly and high-risk groups. Outcome measures include averted symptomatic infections and deaths, societal costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Costs and QALYs were discounted at 4% and 1.5% annually.ResultsAt an assumed coverage of 50%, adding pediatric vaccination for 2- to 17-year-olds with quadrivalent live-attenuated vaccine to the current vaccination program for elderly and medical high-groups with quadrivalent inactivated vaccine was estimated to avert, on average, 401 820 symptomatic cases and 72 deaths per year. Approximately half of averted symptomatic cases and 99% of averted deaths were prevented in other age groups than 2- to 17-year-olds due to herd immunity. The cumulative discounted 20-year economic impact was 35 068 QALYs gained and €1687 million saved, that is, the intervention was cost-saving. This vaccination strategy had the highest probability of being the most cost-effective strategy considered, dominating pediatric strategies targeting 2- to 6-year-olds or 2- to 12-year-olds or strategies with trivalent inactivated vaccine.ConclusionModeling indicates that introducing pediatric influenza vaccination in The Netherlands is cost-saving, reducing the influenza-related disease burden substantially.     

The potential impact of increased recombinant zoster vaccine coverage on the burden of herpes zoster among adults aged 50–59 years

IntroductionRecombinant zoster vaccine (RZV) is recommended in the US for prevention of herpes zoster (HZ) in adults aged ≥50 years. Vaccination rates remain suboptimal for adults 50–59 years compared with adults ≥50 years overall. The objective of this study was to model changes in outcomes associated with improved RZV vaccination coverage in US adults 50–59 years.MethodsA multicohort Markov model compared a scenario using real-world vaccination coverage for US adults 50–59 years in 2020 versus scenarios assuming higher coverage. Outcomes, based on a lifetime horizon, included HZ cases and complications avoided, quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), and costs. Model inputs included HZ epidemiology, RZV vaccine efficacy, coverage, adverse events, and costs, based on published literature and US sources. Some inputs were updated from previous models, including real-world estimates of RZV coverage, series completion, and reflecting longer-term data on waning of vaccine efficacy. The model utilized a cohort size of 42,756,488 individuals based on the 2020 US population census.ResultsThe model projected that increasing RZV coverage in adults 50–59 years from 7.3 % to 14.6 % (to coverage for adults 60–64 years in 2020) would avoid an additional 504,468 HZ cases, 42,077 postherpetic neuralgia cases, and 56,247 cases of other HZ-associated complications. The increase in vaccine coverage would result in higher vaccination-related costs of $1,172,411,566, but the avoided HZ cases and complications would be expected to result in direct cost savings of $721,973,386 and indirect cost savings of $593,497,480 from avoided productivity loss. Overall, a gain of 5,230 discounted QALYs and cost savings of $143,059,299 from a societal perspective would be realized.ConclusionModestly higher RZV coverage in US adults 50–59 years could reduce the clinical burden associated with HZ and may result in societal cost savings. These findings demonstrate the potential value of increasing RZV vaccination in this population.