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.     

Emerging Therapies for COVID-19: The Value of Information From More Clinical Trials

ObjectivesThe COVID-19 pandemic necessitates time-sensitive policy and implementation decisions regarding new therapies in the face of uncertainty. This study aimed to quantify consequences of approving therapies or pursuing further research: immediate approval, use only in research, approval with research (eg, emergency use authorization), or reject.MethodsUsing a cohort state-transition model for hospitalized patients with COVID-19, we estimated quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and costs associated with the following interventions: hydroxychloroquine, remdesivir, casirivimab-imdevimab, dexamethasone, baricitinib-remdesivir, tocilizumab, lopinavir-ritonavir, interferon beta-1a, and usual care. We used the model outcomes to conduct cost-effectiveness and value of information analyses from a US healthcare perspective and a lifetime horizon.ResultsAssuming a $100 000-per-QALY willingness-to-pay threshold, only remdesivir, casirivimab-imdevimab, dexamethasone, baricitinib-remdesivir, and tocilizumab were (cost-) effective (incremental net health benefit 0.252, 0.164, 0.545, 0.668, and 0.524 QALYs and incremental net monetary benefit $25 249, $16 375, $54 526, $66 826, and $52 378). Our value of information analyses suggest that most value can be obtained if these 5 therapies are approved for immediate use rather than requiring additional randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (net value $20.6 billion, $13.4 billion, $7.4 billion, $54.6 billion, and $7.1 billion), hydroxychloroquine (net value $198 million) is only used in further RCTs if seeking to demonstrate decremental cost-effectiveness and otherwise rejected, and interferon beta-1a and lopinavir-ritonavir are rejected (ie, neither approved nor additional RCTs).ConclusionsEstimating the real-time value of collecting additional evidence during the pandemic can inform policy makers and clinicians about the optimal moment to implement therapies and whether to perform further research.     

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

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

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.     

Is Dietetic Treatment for Undernutrition in Older Individuals in Primary Care Cost-Effective?

ObjectivesUndernutrition in older age is associated with adverse clinical outcomes and high health care costs. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a dietetic treatment in primary care compared with usual care in older, undernourished, community-dwelling individuals.DesignA parallel randomized controlled trial.SettingPrimary care.ParticipantsA total of 146 undernourished, independently living older (≥65 years) individuals.InterventionDietetic treatment.MeasurementsMain outcomes were change in kilogram body weight compared with baseline and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) after 6 months. Costs were measured from a societal perspective. The main analysis was performed according to the intention-to-treat principle. Multiple imputation was used to impute missing data and bootstrapping was used to estimate uncertainty surrounding cost differences and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Cost-effectiveness planes and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were estimated.ResultsThe participants were randomized to receive either dietetic treatment (n = 72) or usual care (n = 74). After 6 months, no statistically significant differences were found between the dietetic treatment and usual care group in body weight change (mean difference 0.78 kg, 95% CI −0.26–1.82), QALYs (mean difference 0.001, 95% CI −0.04–0.04) and total costs (mean difference €1645, 95% CI −525–3547). The incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) for QALYs was not interpretable. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for body weight gain was 2111. The probability that dietetic treatment is cost-effective compared with usual care was 0.78 for a ceiling ratio of €5000 for body weight and 0.06 for a ceiling ratio of €20.000 for QALY.ConclusionIn this study, dietetic treatment in older, undernourished, community-dwelling individuals was not cost-effective compared with usual care.     

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

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

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

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

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.     

Economic Evaluation of Tocilizumab Monotherapy Compared to Adalimumab Monotherapy in the Treatment of Severe Active Rheumatoid Arthritis

ObjectivesTo estimate the cost-effectiveness of tocilizumab (TCZ) monotherapy (Mono) versus adalimumab (ADA) Mono from the US payer perspective in patients with rheumatoid arthritis for whom methotrexate is inappropriate.MethodsWe compared TCZ Mono (8 mg/kg monthly) with ADA Mono (40 mg every other week), using efficacy results from a head-to-head study, ADalimumab ACTemrA (ADACTA). We calculated the incremental cost per responder (achievement of American College of Rheumatology [ACR] 20% improvement criteria, ACR 50% improvement criteria, ACR 70% improvement criteria, or low disease activity score) for TCZ versus ADA at 6 months. A patient-level simulation was used to estimate the lifetime incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) of initiating treatment with TCZ Mono versus ADA Mono. Both drugs are followed by an etanercept-certolizumab-palliative care sequence. Nonresponders discontinue at 6 months; responders experience a constant probability of discontinuation. Discontinuers move to the next treatment. ACR responses produce changes in the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) score. We mapped the HAQ score to utility to estimate QALYs. Costs include those related to hospitalization and those related to treatment (drug acquisition, administration, and monitoring). Probabilistic and one-way sensitivity analyses were conducted, along with several scenario analyses.ResultsCompared with ADA, TCZ was more effective, with an estimated 6-month incremental cost ranging from $6,570 per additional low disease activity score achiever to $14,265 per additional ACR 70% improvement criteria responder. The lifetime incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $36,944/QALY.ConclusionsTCZ Mono is projected to be cost-effective compared with ADA Mono in patients with severe rheumatoid arthritis for whom methotrexate is not appropriate, from a US payer perspective.     

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.     

Cost-Effectiveness of Providing the Depression Care for People With Cancer Program to Patients With Prostate Cancer in the United States

ObjectivesThe Depression Care for People with Cancer program (DCPC) is a cost-effective depression care model for UK patients with cancer. However, DCPC’s cost-effectiveness in the United States is unknown, particularly for patients with prostate cancer in the United States. This study evaluates the health and economic impact of providing DCPC to patients with prostate cancer.MethodsDCPC was compared with usual care in a mathematical model that simulates depression and its outcomes in a hypothetical cohort of US patients with prostate cancer. DCPC was modeled as a sequential combination of universal depression screening, post-screening evaluations, and first-line combination therapy. Primary outcomes were lifetime direct costs of depression care, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Secondary outcomes included life expectancy, number of depression-free months and lifetime depressive episodes, duration of depressive episodes, cumulative incidence of depression, lifetime depression diagnoses/misdiagnoses, and the cumulative incidence of maintenance therapy for depression. Sensitivity analyses were used to examine uncertainty.ResultsIn the base case, DCPC dominated usual care by offering 0.11 more QALYs for $2500 less per patient (from averted misdiagnoses). DCPC also offered 5 extra depression-free months, shorter depressive episodes, and a lower chance of maintenance therapy. DCPC’s trade-offs were a higher cumulative incidence of depression and more lifetime depressive episodes. Life expectancy was identical under usual care and DCPC. Sensitivity analyses indicate that DCPC was almost always preferable to usual care.ConclusionCompared with usual care, DCPC may offer more value to US patients with prostate cancer. DCPC should be considered for inclusion in prostate cancer survivorship care guidelines.     

Cost-Effectiveness and Economic Burden Analyses on All First-Line Treatments of Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia

ObjectivesSeveral chemoimmunotherapy and targeted treatment regimens are approved as front-line therapies in chronic lymphocytic leukemia. We estimated for the 10-year cost-effectiveness of these treatment regimens and the economic burden of following the estimated risk-stratified 21 040 patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia diagnosed in 2020 for 10 years.MethodsA Markov model with 7 exclusive health states was specified over a 10-year time horizon. Treatment effectiveness inputs were obtained from a novel network meta-analysis on the progression-free survival, overall survival curves, and time to next treatment. Costs and utilities inputs were included for each health state for each treatment and discounted at 3.0%/year. Life-years (LYs) and quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs) for each treatment were determined. Using the lowest cost regimen as reference, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) were estimated. The 10-year per-patient cost was determined by risk status and by initial treatment.ResultsVenetoclax-plus-obinutuzumab was the lowest cost regimen, hence the reference. Superior in effectiveness to all chemoimmunotherapies, it was cost saving. With the highest effectiveness gains at 6.26 LYs and 5.01 QALYs and despite being the most expensive regimen ($1 298 638 per patient), acalabrutinib-plus-obinutuzumab yielded the best ICER ($409 343/LY gained) and ICUR ($501 236/QALY gained). The remaining ICERs of targeted therapies ranged from $512 101/LY gained to $793 236/LY gained and the ICURs from $579 737/QALY gained to $869 300/QALY gained. The 10-year postdiagnosis low/high (venetoclax-plus-obinutuzumab/acalabrutinib-plus-obinutuzumab) economic burden ranges were $42 690 to $98 665 for low-risk, $141 339 to $326 660 for intermediate-risk, and $273 650 to $632 453 for high-risk patients.ConclusionsCompared with venetoclax-plus-obinutuzumab, chemoimmunotherapies are associated with less health benefits at higher cost. The targeted therapies achieve greater benefits at higher cost.     

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 Comprehensive Approach for Hypertension Control in Low-Income Settings in Argentina: Trial-Based Analysis of the Hypertension Control Program in Argentina

Background

A recent cluster randomized trial evaluating a multicomponent intervention showed significant reductions in blood pressure in low-income hypertensive subjects in Argentina.

A New Type 2 Diabetes Microsimulation Model to Estimate Long-Term Health Outcomes,Costs, and Cost-Effectiveness

ObjectivesThis study aimed to develop a microsimulation model to estimate the health effects, costs, and cost-effectiveness of public health and clinical interventions for preventing/managing type 2 diabetes.MethodsWe combined newly developed equations for complications, mortality, risk factor progression, patient utility, and cost—all based on US studies—in a microsimulation model. We performed internal and external validation of the model. To demonstrate the model’s utility, we predicted remaining life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and lifetime medical cost for a representative cohort of 10 000 US adults with type 2 diabetes. We then estimated the cost-effectiveness of reducing hemoglobin A1c from 9% to 7% among adults with type 2 diabetes, using low-cost, generic, oral medications.ResultsThe model performed well in internal validation; the average absolute difference between simulated and observed incidence for 17 complications was < 8%. In external validation, the model was better at predicting outcomes in clinical trials than in observational studies. The cohort of US adults with type 2 diabetes was projected to have an average of 19.95 remaining life-years (from mean age 61), incur $187 729 in discounted medical costs, and accrue 8.79 discounted QALYs. The intervention to reduce hemoglobin A1c increased medical costs by $1256 and QALYs by 0.39, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $9103 per QALY.ConclusionsUsing equations exclusively derived from US studies, this new microsimulation model achieves good prediction accuracy in US populations. The model can be used to estimate the long-term health impact, costs, and cost-effectiveness of interventions for type 2 diabetes in the United States.     

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%.     

Suprachoroidal Injection of Triamcinolone Acetonide Injectable Suspension for the Treatment of Macular Edema Associated With Uveitis in the United States: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

ObjectivesSuprachoroidal injection of triamcinolone acetonide is the first Food and Drug Administration–approved treatment for macular edema associated with uveitis. A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed comparing this treatment with best supportive care (BSC) for the management of this indication from US Medicare and commercial payer perspectives.MethodsA patient-level simulation was developed per the patient characteristics and changes in best-corrected visual acuity letter scores observed in a phase III study of triamcinolone acetonide (PEACHTREE). The wholesale acquisition cost of triamcinolone acetonide was $1650/injection; suprachoroidal injection cost was assumed at $200/injection. Healthcare costs were informed by a US claims–based analysis. Mortality risk associated with severe vision loss and blindness was modeled by applying a hazard ratio to all-cause mortality rates of the US general population. Health-related quality of life weights, obtained from a regression model fitted to the Visual Function Questionnaire-25 data from PEACHTREE, were applied based on the best-corrected visual acuity scores of both eyes. Costs (2020 US dollar) and benefits were discounted at 3% annually. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were estimated over a 10-year horizon.ResultsIn the base-case, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio comparing triamcinolone acetonide with BSC was $28 479 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. The wholesale acquisition cost for triamcinolone acetonide for suprachoroidal use was ～68%, ～56%, and ～27% below the willingness-to-pay thresholds of $150 000, $100 000, and $50 000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, respectively. Results were robust in sensitivity and scenario analyses.ConclusionsTriamcinolone acetonide for suprachoroidal use is cost-effective compared with BSC for patients with macular edema associated with uveitis.     

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 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.