Clopidogrel: a pharmacoeconomic review of its use in patients with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndromes

Clopidogrel (Plavix) is a selective inhibitor of adenosine diphosphate-induced platelet aggregation. In patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) [unstable angina or non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction], clopidogrel plus aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid) for up to 1 year significantly reduced the risk of cardiovascular events relative to placebo plus aspirin in the well designed clinical trial CURE (Clopidogrel in Unstable angina to prevent Recurrent Events) and its substudy in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) [PCI-CURE]. In pharmacoeconomic evaluations based on data from these trials conducted in a number of countries that used a variety of models, methods and/or type of costs, clopidogrel plus aspirin was consistently predicted to be cost effective relative to aspirin alone in the management of patients with ACS, including those undergoing PCI. Clopidogrel plus aspirin in patients with ACS reduced the incremental cost per cardiovascular event prevented and/or life-year gained (LYG) relative to aspirin alone in analyses using within-trial data (including longer-term analyses incorporating life-expectancy estimates) from the CURE or PCI-CURE studies. In Markov models of cost effectiveness with a lifetime horizon from a healthcare payer perspective based on the CURE trial, relative to aspirin alone, clopidogrel plus aspirin for 1 year was predicted to have incremental costs per LYG of 8132Euro in Spain (2003 values) and 1365Euro in Sweden (2000 values). In similar Swedish analyses from a healthcare payer perspective, clopidogrel plus aspirin for 1 year was predicted to have incremental costs per LYG of 10,993Euro (2004 values) relative to aspirin alone based on data from the PCI-CURE substudy. Broadly similar results have also been reported in modelled analyses from other countries. Cost-utility analyses based on the CURE trial suggest that, relative to lifelong aspirin alone, clopidogrel plus aspirin for 1 year followed by aspirin alone is associated with incremental costs per QALY gained that are below the traditional threshold of cost utility in Spain, the UK and the US. In patients with ACS, including those undergoing PCI, the addition of clopidogrel to standard therapy with aspirin is clinically effective in preventing cardiovascular events. Available pharmacoeconomic data from several countries, despite some inherent limitations, support the use of clopidogrel plus aspirin for up to 1 year as a cost-effective treatment relative to aspirin alone in this patient population.     

Updated estimates of survival and cost effectiveness for imatinib versus interferon-alpha plus low-dose cytarabine for newly diagnosed chronic-phase chronic myeloid leukaemia

BACKGROUND: For trials in which participants are followed beyond the main study period to assess long-term outcomes, economic evaluations conducted using short-term data should be systematically updated to reflect new information. METHODS: We used 60-month survival data from the IRIS (International Randomized study of Interferon vs STI571) trial to update previously published cost-effectiveness estimates, based on 19 months of follow-up, of imatinib versus interferon (IFN)-alpha plus low-dose cytarabine in patients with chronic-phase chronic myeloid leukaemia. For patients treated with imatinib, we used the 60-month data to calibrate the survival curves generated from the original cost-effectiveness model. We used historical data to model survival for patients randomized to IFNalpha. We updated costs for medical resources using 2006 Medicare reimbursement rates and applied average wholesale prices (AWPs) and wholesale acquisition costs (WACs) to study medications. RESULTS: Five-year survival for patients randomized to imatinib was better than predicted in the original model (89.4% vs 83.2%). We estimated remaining life expectancy with first-line imatinib to be 19.1 life-years (3.8 life-years over the original model) and 15.2 QALYs (3.1 QALYs over the original estimate). Estimates for IFNalpha remained at 9.1 life-years and 6.3 QALYs. When we applied AWPs to study medications, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were $US 51,800-57,500 per QALY. When we applied WACs, ICERs were $US 42,000-46,200 per QALY. CONCLUSION: Although the analysis revealed that the original survival estimates were conservative, the updated cost-effectiveness ratios were consistent with, or slightly higher than, the original estimates, depending on the method for assigning costs to study medications.     

Economic evaluation of sorafenib in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma in Canada

ABSTRACT

Background: A randomized phase III trial of sorafenib vs. placebo in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) demonstrated that sorafenib significantly prolonged overall survival (OS) compared to placebo.

Research design and methods: A Markov model was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of sorafenib vs. best supportive care (BSC) in HCC from the perspective of the Canadian provincial Ministry of Health. The model followed survival and time to progression (TTP) in monthly cycles based on the extrapolation of patient level trial data. Health effects were expressed as life-years gained (LYG). Resource use included drugs, physician visits, laboratory tests, scans, and hospitalizations. Unit costs were gathered from public sources and were expressed in 2007 Canadian Dollars. Costs and effects were evaluated over a lifetime and discounted at 5%. Results were presented as mean ± standard deviation. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted.

Results: LYG was longer for sorafenib (1.52 ± 0.16 vs. 1.03 ± 0.09 LYG/patient for sorafenib and BSC, respectively). The lifetime total costs were $47 511 ± 3 656 for sorafenib and $10 376 ± 1 649 for BSC, resulting in an incremental cost–effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $75 821/LYG, and deterministic ICER of $75 759/LYG. The results were most sensitive to OS, TTP and BSC costs after progression. Sensitivity analyses results showed that the model was robust.

Conclusions: The economic evaluation indicates that sorafenib is cost-effective as compared to BSC in HCC. Limitations include multiple data sources, use of expert opinion for resource use, and the lack of utility data.     

Cost effectiveness of ramipril in patients at high risk for cardiovascular events : economic evaluation of the HOPE (Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation) study for Germany from the Statutory Health Insurance perspective

BACKGROUND: In the HOPE (Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation) trial, ramipril (compared with placebo) significantly reduced cardiovascular death and all-cause mortality as well as the incidence of costly cardiovascular events, such as myocardial infarction, revascularisation, stroke, cardiac arrest, hospitalisation due to heart failure and worsening angina pectoris, new-onset diabetes mellitus and microvascular diabetic complications. OBJECTIVE: Data from the HOPE study were used in a cost-effectiveness analysis to determine the additional cost per life-year gained (LYG) when the ACE inhibitor ramipril was added to the current medication of patients at high risk for cardiovascular events. The aim was to establish the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of ramipril versus placebo from the perspective of the Statutory Health Insurance (SHI) provider in Germany, for both the study population as a whole and for the subgroup of patients with diabetes. DESIGN: A modelling approach was used, based on secondary analysis of published data and retrospective application of costs. In the base-case analysis, average case-related expenses of the SHI were applied and LYG were quantified using the average of the difference between the survival rates in the ramipril and placebo groups during the HOPE trial. LYG beyond the trial duration were estimated by the method of declining exponential approximation of life expectancy. RESULTS: After a treatment period of 4.5 years, the ICER of ramipril versus placebo was Euros 4074/LYG and Euros 2486/LYG (discounted at 5% per annum and in 1998-2002 values; Euro 1 approximately USD 0.88; first quarter 2002 values) for the HOPE study population as a whole and the subgroup of patients with diabetes, respectively. To test the model's robustness, the influence of the model variables on the results was quantified using a deterministic model, and a best-case/worst-case scenario analysis. The effect of random variables was investigated in a Monte Carlo simulation. The acquisition cost for ramipril had the greatest impact on the ICER of ramipril (2.2-fold greater than the impact of the number of LYG). In 95% of the 10,000 simulation steps, the ICER of ramipril after 4.5 years of treatment was between Euros 1290 and Euros 9005 per LYG for the entire HOPE study population and between Euros 290 and Euros 6115 per LYG in the diabetic subgroup. CONCLUSIONS: Results of this evaluation suggest that ramipril is likely to be cost effective in secondary prevention of cardiovascular events from the perspective of the SHI (third-party payer) in Germany. The estimated ICER of ramipril compares well with other ICERs of widely accepted treatments used for the management of cardiovascular diseases, such as HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors.     

A cost-utility analysis of losartan versus atenolol in the treatment of hypertension with left ventricular hypertrophy

INTRODUCTION: The LIFE (Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension) study demonstrated a 13% relative risk reduction in the primary composite endpoint (myocardial infarction, stroke or death) for patients with hypertension and electrocardiographically diagnosed left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) treated with losartan compared with atenolol. Losartan recipients also had a 25% relative risk reduction for stroke compared with atenolol recipients. Incorporating the results found in the LIFE study into an economic model, an incremental cost-effectiveness analysis was performed comparing losartan with atenolol in the treatment of 67-year old patients with hypertension and LVH. METHODS: A Markov state transition model, based on published results of the LIFE trial (mean follow-up of 4.8 years), was utilised to extrapolate the outcomes observed in this trial to the patients' lifetime. Utility estimates for the associated health states were obtained from various published sources. Lifetime treatment costs were calculated adopting a societal perspective. Both costs and benefits were discounted and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: The estimated ICER for losartan versus atenolol was 1337 Canadian dollars per QALY gained (1 Canadian dollar =0.75 US dollars, 2002 values). This ICER was robust to extensive sensitivity analysis, demonstrating a 95% probability that the ICER would be <20,000 Canadian dollars per QALY gained. CONCLUSION: From a Canadian societal perspective, losartan appears to be a cost-effective alternative to atenolol in patients with hypertension and LVH. The estimated ICERs, including the sensitivity analyses, were within the range of cost-effectiveness ratios for various currently funded interventions and drugs in developed countries.     

Cost-effectiveness analysis of the addition of rituximab to CHOP in young patients with good-prognosis diffuse large-B-cell lymphoma

BACKGROUND and objective: Diffuse large-B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is an aggressive form of lymphoma. It accounts for 30-40% of all new cases of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and is the subtype with the highest overall incidence. Before the development of monoclonal antibodies, the standard treatment of newly diagnosed DLBCL was based on combination therapy with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisone (CHOP). Current treatment consists of the combination of CHOP and the monoclonal antibody rituximab (R-CHOP regimen), with recovery rates of 70%. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy (survival) and direct medical costs of two chemotherapy regimens, R-CHOP and CHOP, in the treatment of DLBCL in young patients with a good prognosis. METHODS: A decision-analysis model with tree structure was used to compare R-CHOP and CHOP in the treatment of young patients with DLBCL from the perspective of the Italian National Health Service. Patients entered at the root of the tree and followed one of the six possible therapeutic pathways. After receiving one of the two chemotherapy treatments (R-CHOP or CHOP) for 5 months, patients could have a complete response or not. In the presence of no response, patients underwent rescue therapy. In the case of relapse after 3 years' follow-up (following an initial complete response at 5 months), patients were given rescue therapy. The model provided an estimate of mean survival (life-years gained [LYG]) and mean costs (direct medical costs) over a period of 3 years. Both survival and costs were discounted at a rate of 3%. Costs were in euro, year 2007 values. Several sensitivity analyses were carried out with varying clinical parameters. RESULTS: The LYG with the R-CHOP regimen was higher (2.697 LYG per patient) than with the CHOP regimen (2.517 LYG per patient). When taking into account the cost of rescue therapy, the overall mean treatment cost per patient was lower with the R-CHOP regimen (22,113.44 euro) than with the CHOP regimen (22,831.17 euro). Sensitivity analyses showed that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios per LYG for complete response at 5 months (16,816.00 euro) and for relapse-free survival at 3 years (11,967.12 euro) were below the internationally accepted threshold (50,000 euro). Furthermore, for survival at 3 years, R-CHOP was confirmed as the dominant therapy (lower expected mean costs, higher number of LYG). CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrated the clinical and economic benefits of adding rituximab to a CHOP chemotherapy regimen in young patients who present with DLBCL with good prognosis. The higher costs associated with rituximab were offset by the significantly lower rescue therapy costs. Further studies that include patients with unfavourable prognosis are needed to confirm these findings.     

Quantitative medical cost-effectiveness analysis of molecular-targeting cancer drugs in Japan

Background

In Japan, both incidence and mortality rates of cancers have continuously increased and medical costs are growing more rapidly than the overall economy of Japan. However, there is no consensus threshold for cost-effectiveness in medical care, and few studies have investigated cost-effectiveness of medical care in Japan. The present study was to determine the direct costs of molecular-targeting drugs that were recently approved in Japan through simple and quantitative calculations. Thus, we calculated an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and the cost per life-year gained (LYG) by using reported data from randomized clinical trials for various cancers.

Methods

Between 2008 and 2011, we reviewed seven molecular-targeting drugs that were approved for treatment of five cancers in Japan. These drugs included Bevacizumab, sorafenib, sunitinib, temsirolimus, Lapatinib, and panitumumab. Direct cost, ICER, and LYG of the drugs were estimated from the randomized phase III clinical trial data referred to in package leaflets. Effectiveness was defined as the prolongation of both median overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Costs were calculated as those of molecular-targeting drugs. Subsequently, ICER was based on 1-month increases in both OS and PFS periods and 1% increases in OS, and LYG was determined.

Results

Direct costs ranged from ¥724,804 ($9,060) to ¥1,506,628 ($18,833). ICERs of the drugs ranged from ¥724,804 ($9,060) to ¥1,506,628 ($18,833) for a 1-month increase in OS. For each month of PFS, ICERs ranged from ¥372,243 ($4,653) to ¥7,399,877 ($92,498). The costs of Bevacizumab and sorafenib for treatment of HCC per 1% increase in OS were ¥376,657 ($4,708) and ¥313,733 ($3,922), respectively. LYG ranged from ¥8,697,650 ($108,721) to ¥18,079,530 ($225,994).

Conclusions

Some molecular-targeting drugs are not cost-effective. Considering ethical and moral issues, we should establish economic endpoints to approve new drugs in Japan.     

Paclitaxel: a pharmacoeconomic review of its use in the treatment of ovarian cancer.

Paclitaxel belongs to the group of antitumour agents called the taxanes. Its efficacy in advanced ovarian cancer has been established in large, randomised phase III clinical trials. When used in combination with cisplatin for first-line treatment of advanced ovarian cancer, it is superior to cyclophosphamide/cisplatin, with gains in median survival of around 1 year. Paclitaxel plus carboplatin has similar efficacy to paclitaxel plus cisplatin. There is now consensus that paclitaxel plus either carboplatin or cisplatin is the recommended first-line therapy for patients with advanced ovarian cancer. The particular combination employed may vary between institutions and geographical regions, although paclitaxel plus carboplatin is generally better tolerated (i.e. lower incidence of non-haematological adverse events) than paclitaxel plus cisplatin and is widely used in many countries. Paclitaxel is also used as monotherapy in second-line (salvage) treatment of ovarian cancer. Pharmacoeconomic analyses performed to date have primarily focused on first-line therapy comparing the combination of paclitaxel/cisplatin with cyclophosphamide/cisplatin. All studies incorporated clinical outcomes data, most commonly from the Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG) 111 trial, showing a survival advantage for paclitaxel/cisplatin. These studies report incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) ranging from $US 6395 per additional life-year gained (LYG) in Spain (1995/96 values) to $US 44,690 per additional progression-free LYG in France (year of costs not reported). Five studies were based in the US and Canada and these reported very similar ICERs of $US 13,135 (year of costs not reported) to $US 25,131 (1993 costs) per additional LYG. In all of these studies the incremental costs of paclitaxel/cisplatin therapy fall well within the commonly cited threshold limit of $US 50,000 for new therapies and compare well with incremental costs reported for other oncological and life-saving therapies. Patient preferences and quality of life are important issues due to the short survival of patients with advanced ovarian cancer. Two cost-utility studies reported similar incremental cost-utility ratios (ICURs). In the study based on US costs, the ICUR of paclitaxel/cisplatin treatment was US $18,200 per additional quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) [1995 drug costs]. In a Canadian study the ICUR ranged from 11,600 Canadian dollars ($Can) to $Can 24,200 (1996 costs) per additional progression-free QALY depending on the choice of second-line treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Paclitaxel used in combination with cisplatin offers survival and utility gains versus cyclophosphamide plus cisplatin, when used as first-line treatment in patients with stage III or IV ovarian cancer. The incremental cost for these gains is within the accepted range for healthcare interventions. However, pharmacoeconomic analyses of paclitaxel plus carboplatin--a combination widely accepted for use in women with advanced ovarian cancer and with clinical advantages over paclitaxel plus cisplatin in terms of ease of administration and tolerability profile--are currently lacking. Nevertheless, results of available pharmacoeconomic data support the clinical use of paclitaxel/platinum combinations, particularly paclitaxel plus cisplatin, as a first-line chemotherapy treatment option in patients with advanced ovarian cancer.     

Simvastatin after orthotopic heart transplantation. Costs and consequences.

OBJECTIVE: Recent data indicate that the combination of a low cholesterol diet and simvastatin following heart transplantation is associated with significant reduction of serum cholesterol levels, lower incidence of graft vessel disease (GVD) and significantly superior 4-year survival rates than dietary treatment alone. On the basis of this first randomised long term study evaluating survival as the clinical end-point, we investigated the cost effectiveness of the above regimens as well as the long term consequences for the patient and for heart transplantation as a high-tech procedure. DESIGN AND SETTING: The perspective of the economic analysis was that of the German health insurance fund. Life-years gained were calculated on the basis of the Kaplan-Meier survival curves from the 4-year clinical trial and from the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation (ISHLT) overall survival statistics. Incremental costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were determined using various sources of data, and both costs and consequences were discounted by 3% per year. Sensitivity analyses using alternative assumptions were conducted in addition to the base-case analysis. PATIENTS AND PARTICIPANTS: As in the original clinical trial, the target population of the economic evaluation comprised all heart transplant recipients on standard triple immunosuppression consisting of cyclosporin, azathioprine and prednisolone, regardless of the postoperative serum lipid profile. INTERVENTIONS: The therapeutic regimens investigated in the analysis were the American Heart Association (AHA) step II diet plus simvastatin (titrated to a maximum dosage of 20 mg/day) and AHA step II diet alone. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES AND RESULTS: Four years of treatment with simvastatin (mean dosage 8.11 mg/day) translated into an undiscounted survival benefit per patient of 2.27 life-years; 0.64 life-years within the trial period and 1.63 life-years thereafter. Discounted costs per year of life gained were $US1050 (sensitivity analyses $US800 to $US15,400) for simvastatin plus diet versus diet alone and $US18,010 (sensitivity analyses $US17,130 to $US21,090) for heart transplantation plus simvastatin versus no transplantation (all costs reflect 1997 values; $US1 = 1.747 Deutschmarks). CONCLUSIONS: Prevention of GVD with simvastatin after heart transplantation was cost effective in all the scenarios examined with impressive prolongation of life expectancy for the heart recipient. Simvastatin also achieved an internationally robust 21% improvement in the cost effectiveness of heart transplantation compared with historical cost-effectiveness data.     

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

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

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

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

A cost-effectiveness analysis of pioglitazone plus metformin compared with rosiglitazone plus metformin from a third-party payer perspective in the US*

ABSTRACT

Objective: The long-term cost-effectiveness of using pioglitazone plus metformin (Actoplusmet^?) compared with rosiglitazone plus metformin (Avandamet^?) in treating type 2 diabetes (T2DM) was assessed from a US third-party payer perspective.

Research design and methods: Clinical efficacy (change in HbA_1c and lipids) and baseline cohort parameters were extracted from a 12-month, randomized clinical trial (Derosa et al., 2006) evaluating the efficacy and tolerability of pioglitazone versus rosiglitazone, both in addition to metformin, in adult T2DM patients with insufficient glucose control (n?=?96). A Markov-based model was used to project clinical and economic outcomes over 35 years, discounted at 3% per annum. Costs for complications were taken from published sources. Base-case assumptions were assessed through several sensitivity analyses.

Main outcome measures: Outcomes included incremental life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), total direct medical costs, cumulative incidence of complications and associated costs, and incremental cost–effectiveness ratios (ICERs).

Results: Compared to rosiglitazone plus metformin, pioglitazone plus metformin was projected to result in a modest improvement in 0.187 quality-adjusted life-years. Over patients’ lifetimes, total direct medical costs were projected to be marginally lower with pioglitazone plus metformin (difference –$526.), largely due to reduced CVD complication costs. While costs were higher among renal, ulcer/amputation/neuropathy, and eye complications in the pioglitazone plus metformin group, the cost savings for CVD complications outweighed their economic impact. Pioglitazone plus metformin was found to be a dominant long-term treatment strategy in the US compared to rosiglitazone plus metformin. Sensitivity analyses showed findings to be robust under almost all scenarios, including short-term time horizons, 6% discounting, removal of individual lipid parameters, and modifications of patient cohort to more closely represent a US T2DM population. Pioglitazone plus metformin was no longer dominant with 0% discounting, with 25% reduction in its HbA_1c effects, or with a 15% increase in its acquisition price.

Conclusions: Under a range of assumptions and study limitations around cohorts, clinical effects, and treatment patterns, this long-term analysis showed that pioglitazone plus metformin, when compared to rosiglitazone plus metformin, was a dominant treatment strategy within the US payer setting. Results were driven by the combination of modest differences in QALYs and modest savings in total complication costs over 35 years.     

Cost-effectiveness analysis of ramipril in heart failure after myocardial infarction. Economic evaluation of the Acute Infarction Ramipril Efficacy (AIRE) study for Germany from the perspective of Statutory Health Insurance.

OBJECTIVE: Data from the Acute Infarction Ramipril Efficacy (AIRE) study were used in a cost-effectiveness analysis to determine the incremental cost per life-year gained (LYG) when the ACE inhibitor ramipril was added to conventional treatment in patients with heart failure after acute myocardial infarction. In the AIRE trial, the addition of ramipril significantly lowered rates of total mortality and rehospitalisation due to heart failure. DESIGN AND SETTING: The cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted from the perspective of the Statutory Health Insurance (SHI) provider in Germany. A modelling approach was used which was based on secondary analysis of existing data, and costs were those incurred by SHI (i.e. expenses of SHI). In the base-case analysis, average case-related expenses of SHI were applied and LYG were quantified by the method of Kaplan and Meier. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES AND RESULTS: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of ramipril varied between 2500 and 8300 deutschmarks (DM) per LYG (1993 values for inpatient and 1995 values for outpatient treatment; DM1 approximately $US0.70), according to the treatment periods of 3.8 years and 1 year, respectively. In the sensitivity analysis, the robustness of the model and its results was shown when the extent of influence of different model variables on the base-case results was investigated. First, survival probability and LYG were estimated according to the Weibull method. Second, the dependency of the target variable (i.e. incremental cost per LYG) on random variables was described in a simulation. Third, the influence of the model variables on the target variable was quantified using a deterministic model. The variance of the target variable was broad and the hospitalisation impact of adding ramipril to conventional treatment was an independent variable with much greater influence on the target variable than the parameter of clinical effectiveness, i.e. the number of LYG. CONCLUSION: Results of this evaluation showed that ramipril has a favourable incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the treatment of heart failure in post myocardial infarction patients and can be considered an economical therapeutic agent from the perspective of SHI (third-party payer) in Germany.     

Cost-effectiveness of statins in the prevention of coronary heart disease events in middle-aged Finnish men

ABSTRACT

Objective: This study evaluated the long-term cost-effectiveness of atorvastatin 20?mg, rosuvastatin 10?mg and simvastatin 40?mg in primary and secondary prevention of CHD in Finland.

Research design and methods: The effect of statin therapy on the incidence of CHD and the expected total costs of the disease were described using a Markov state transition model. Due to the limited amount of evidence concerning mortality and morbidity for rosuvastatin, the model was used to transmute the efficiency data of all statins (decrease in total cholesterol) into long-term endpoints (myocardial infarction, death) using risk functions of the FINRISK and 4S studies. The study followed a characterized cohort of 55-year-old Finnish men with an average 3.3–6.6?%?baseline risk of dying from cardiovascular disease within a 10-year period.

Main outcome measures: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for atorvastatin and rosuvastatin, compared with simvastatin, measured as cost of life years gained (€/LYG) and cost of quality adjusted life years gained (€/QALY).

Results: The use of rosuvastatin increased the life expectancy by 0.27 years on average (LYG) compared with simvastatin, producing additional 0.08 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Compared with simvastatin, the cost of one LYG with rosuvastatin was €10 834 and the cost of one QALY gained was €36 548 (discount rate 5?%?per annum). Corresponding figures for atorvastatin were €31 286/LYG and €105 599/QALY.

Conclusions: If the decision makers’ willingness to pay for a QALY gained is around €40 000 there is a high probability (?>?50?%?) that rosuvastatin represents a cost-effective form of therapy in the prevention of CHD in middle-aged men with an average 3.3–6.6?%?risk of dying within 10 years from cardiovascular disease. However, the true clinical impact of these results needs confirmation from on-going clinical trials, as the role of rosuvastatin in reducing clinical events is pending, but for simvastatin and atorvastatin established.     

Chemotherapy of metastatic colorectal cancer: fluorouracil plus folinic acid and irinotecan or oxaliplatin

(1) Following the recent introduction of several new cytotoxic agents, a new look at the role of chemotherapy in metastatic colorectal cancer is needed. (2) In one clinical trial of first-line treatment, fluorouracil + folinic acid infusion, after an initial bolus (LV-5FU2 protocol), was more effective and better tolerated than bolus administration alone (Mayo Clinic protocol). (3) Five comparative trials failed to show that raltitrexed was more effective than fluorouracil + folinic acid in first-line treatment, and it has more serious adverse effects. (4) There are no comparative trials of capecitabine or tegafur + uracil versus fluorouracil + folinic acid (LV-5FU2 protocol) in first-line treatment. (5) In three comparative randomised trials involving previously untreated patients, adjunction of oxaliplatin to the fluorouracil + folinic acid combination (FOLFOX protocol) increased both tumour response rate and progression-free survival (by about 2 months), but it also caused more neuropathies, severe diarrhea and severe neutropenia. (6) In two comparative trials of first-line treatment, adjunction of irinotecan to fluorouracil + folinic acid (FOLFIRI protocol) increased the median survival time by about 3 months, to 15-17 months, but increased the incidence of diarrhea, neutropenia, serious cardiovascular disorders and severe thrombosis. (7) In second-line treatment, irinotecan is the only properly assessed drug with a positive impact, prolonging survival compared with appropriate palliative care (34 months after diagnosis, versus 27 months). (8) In one comparative trial, first-line treatment with the FOLFOX protocol, followed by the FOLFIRI protocol, resulted in the same median survival time (21 months) as the reverse sequence. (9) In practice, the first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer appears to be the fluorouracil + folinic acid combination (LV-5FU2 protocol) plus either oxaliplatin (FOLFOX protocol) or irinotecan (FOLFIRI protocol). The reference second-line treatment is the FOLFIRI protocol (or the FOLFOX protocol if the FOLFIRI protocol has already been used). These treatments were associated with the longest survival in one trial.     

Adjuvant chemotherapy of colon cancer: lymph node involvement without metastases

(1) The standard treatment for colon cancer is surgical excision, but without additional treatment nearly 50% of surgically treated patients die from relapse and metastatic disease progression. Adjuvant chemotherapy is designed to reduce the risk of post-surgical relapse. (2) The standard adjuvant chemotherapy is a combination of fluorouracil + folinic acid administered intravenously for 6 months (de Gramont protocol). (3) In patients with stage III disease (corresponding to Dukes stage C: lymph node involvement but no metastases), the 5-year survival rate after a 6-month course of fluorouracil + folinic acid is significantly higher than with placebo (63% versus 51%). The efficacy of this treatment has not been established in patients with stage II disease (no lymph node involvement or metastases), for whom the overall 5-year survival rate is about 80%. (4) In one trial a combination of oxaliplatin + fluorouracil + folinic acid (FOLFOX 4 protocol) failed to increase the overall 3-year survival rate more than the fluorouracil + folinic acid combination. It increased the event-free survival rate (72.2% versus 65.3%) but had more severe adverse effects, including: neuropathies (in about 12% of patients), neutropenia (41%), and gastrointestinal disturbances (5% to 10% of patients had nausea, vomiting and diarrhoea). (5) Capecitabine, a fluorouracil precursor, does not appear to be more effective than fluorouracil, but it does provide an alternative oral treatment with a slightly different profile of adverse effects (more frequent erythrodysesthesia, etc.). (6) In practice, adjuvant treatment with fluorouracil + folinic acid should be offered to patients with surgically treated stage-III colonic cancer.     

Oxaliplatin: in operable colorectal cancer

Oxaliplatin is available in numerous countries for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (in conjunction with fluoropyrimidine therapy). The activity of oxaliplatin in advanced disease has led to investigation of its potential in operable disease. The addition of oxaliplatin to adjuvant therapy with fluorouracil and folinic acid (FOLFOX4 regimen) is associated with a significantly greater disease-free survival at 3 years (78% vs 73%; p = 0.002), according to results of the MOSAIC (Multicenter International Study of Oxaliplatin/5FU/Leucovorin [folinic acid] in the Adjuvant Treatment of Colon Cancer) trial, a study in 2246 patients with stage II or III colon cancer. In addition, a 23% reduction in the risk of disease recurrence after surgery was seen with FOLFOX4 compared with fluorouracil/folinic acid in the MOSAIC trial. Results from several phase I/II studies suggest that the addition of oxaliplatin to preoperative radiochemotherapy may be of benefit in patients with locally advanced lower rectal cancer in terms of disease downstaging and sphincter preservation. Oxaliplatin was generally well tolerated in the MOSAIC trial and neuro- and myelotoxicity with FOLFOX4 were manageable.     

Capecitabine, alone and in combination, in the management of patients with colorectal cancer: a review of the evidence

Capecitabine, an oral prodrug of fluorouracil (5FU), has shown efficacy in terms of progression-free and overall survival at least equivalent to standard folinic acid (leucovorin)-modulated intravenous 5FU bolus regimens in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Moreover, capecitabine has demonstrated a better tolerability profile, producing a significantly lower occurrence of severe stomatitis than 5FU plus folinic acid regimens, making this drug particularly attractive for treating elderly patients. In addition, capecitabine can be combined with other active drugs such as irinotecan or oxaliplatin. Indeed, the combination of capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX regimen) now represents a new standard of care for the metastatic disease and is also under evaluation in the adjuvant setting. The combination of new biological drugs, such as bevacizumab, with the XELOX regimen was shown to further prolong the time to progression of metastatic disease, and might reduce the risk of recurrence for those with resected colon cancer with poor risk factors. Cost-effectiveness analyses have demonstrated that, despite higher acquisition costs, capecitabine appears to be more cost effective than standard treatments for the management of colorectal cancer patients.     

Bevacizumab: new drug. Metastatic colorectal cancer: good in theory, not in practice

(1) The prognosis for metastatic colorectal cancer is grim. The best treatment results are obtained by adding irinotecan to first-line fluorouracil + folinic acid therapy and then oxaliplatin to second-line fluorouracil + folinic acid therapy (or the reverse sequence), but median survival time still fails to exceed 2 years. (2) Bevacizumab is a monoclonal antibody directed against vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), a mediator involved in angiogenesis. Bevacizumab is marketed in Europe for first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer, in combination with fluorouracil + folinic acid (with or without irinotecan). (3) The clinical evaluation includes 3 comparative trials. A double-blind trial involving 813 patients compared the American IFL protocol (irinotecan + fluorouracil + folinic acid) + placebo with the IFL protocol + bevacizumab. Median survival time was shorter with IFL + placebo (15.6 versus 20.3 months), but the results are difficult to extrapolate to the situation in Europe, where the FOLFIRI protocol is used (irinotecan + fluorouracil + folinic acid). This protocol is more effective than the IFL protocol. (4) Another double-blind trial, involving 204 patients, compared another American protocol, fluorouracil + folinic acid + placebo, with fluorouracil + folinic acid + bevacizumab. Median survival time did not differ significantly between the groups (12.9 and 16.6 months). (5) A combined analysis of 3 comparative trials showed an increase in median survival time of 3.3 months (17.9 versus 14.6 months) when bevacizumab was added to a fluorouracil + folinic acid combination. An indirect comparison suggests that this is no better than adding irinotecan. (6) In second-line treatment, preliminary data from a trial of bevacizumab + FOLFOX 4 (oxaliplatin + fluorouracil + folinic acid) fail to show a tangible benefit for bevacizumab. (7) Bevacizumab adjunction to current chemotherapy protocols increased the frequency of some potentially serious reactions, such as cardiovascular disorders (hypertension, arterial thrombosis); tumour haemorrhage; intestinal perforation; wound healing; and haematological disorders (severe leukopenia, etc.). (8) In practice, there is no evidence that bevacizumab is any better than current European chemotherapy protocols for first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer.