A UK-based cost-utility analysis of indacaterol, a once-daily maintenance bronchodilator for patients with COPD, using real world evidence on resource use

Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Principles of Economic Evaluation in a Pandemic Setting: An Expert Panel Discussion on Value Assessment During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic

As the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic continues to generate significant morbidity and mortality as well as economic and societal impacts, the landscape of potential treatments has slowly begun to broaden. In the case of a novel disease with widespread consequences, society is more likely to place significant value on interventions that reduce the outsized economic burden of COVID-19. Treatments for severe disease will have a different value profile to that of large-scale vaccines because of their application in targeted and potentially small subsets of those with symptomatic disease vs broad deployment as a preventative measure. Where vaccines reduce transmissibility of COVID-19, use of therapeutics will target symptoms, up to and including death for infected individuals. This paper describes discussions from a virtual expert panel that met to attempt a consensus on how existing principles of economic evaluation should be applied to therapeutics that emerge in a pandemic setting, with specific focus on severe hospitalised cases of COVID-19. The panel concluded that the core principles of economic evaluation do not need to be drastically overhauled to meet the challenges of a pandemic, but that there are several additional elements of value such as equity, disease severity, insurance value, and scientific and family spillover effects that should be considered when presenting results to decision makers. The panel also highlighted the persistent challenges on how society should value novel therapies, such as the appropriate cost-effectiveness threshold to apply, which are particularly salient during a pandemic

Cost-effectiveness analysis of pemetrexed versus docetaxel in the second-line treatment of non-small cell lung cancer in Spain: results for the non-squamous histology population

BackgroundThe objective of this study was to conduct a cost-effectiveness evaluation of pemetrexed compared to docetaxel in the treatment of advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) for patients with predominantly non-squamous histology in the Spanish healthcare setting.MethodsA Markov model was designed consisting of stable, responsive, progressive disease and death states. Patients could also experience adverse events as long as they received chemotherapy. Clinical inputs were based on an analysis of a phase III clinical trial that identified a statistically significant improvement in overall survival for non-squamous patients treated with pemetrexed compared with docetaxel. Costs were collected from the Spanish healthcare perspective.ResultsOutcomes of the model included total costs, total quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), total life years gained (LYG) and total progression-free survival (PFS). Mean survival was 1.03 years for the pemetrexed arm and 0.89 years in the docetaxel arm; QALYs were 0.52 compared to 0.42. Per-patient lifetime costs were € 34677 and € 32343, respectively. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were € 23967 per QALY gained and € 17225 per LYG.ConclusionsPemetrexed as a second-line treatment option for patients with a predominantly non-squamous histology in NSCLC is a cost-effective alternative to docetaxel according to the € 30000/QALY threshold commonly accepted in Spain

The Cost Effectiveness and Budget Impact of Introducing Indacaterol into the Colombian Health System

7 páginasObjectives The main objectives were to estimate the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of indacaterol (a once-daily, long-acting-beta2-agonist) compared with 1) salmeterol/fluticasone, 2) formoterol/budesonide, and 3) tiotropium for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in Colombia. Methods A Markov model was utilized to simulate the progressive course of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, distinguished by forced expiratory volume in 1 second predicted according to the four Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease severity stages by using prebronchodilation values. Efficacy was based on the initial improvement in forced expiratory volume in 1 second, taken from either a network meta-analysis (salmeterol/fluticasone and formoterol/budesonide) or a randomized controlled trial (tiotropium). Colombian direct costs and life tables were incorporated in the adaptation, and analysis was performed from a health care payer perspective, discounting future costs (presented as US dollars) and benefits at 5%. A budget impact model was built to estimate the cost impact of indacaterol in Colombia over 3 and 5 years. Results Indacaterol was found to be dominant (i.e., less costly and more effective) against both salmeterol/fluticasone and formoterol/budesonide per life year and quality-adjusted life-year gained after a 5-year time horizon. The average cost saving against salmeterol/fluticasone and formoterol/budesonide was US $411 and US$909 per patient, respectively. All probabilistic sensitivity analysis simulations indicated indacaterol to be less costly than salmeterol/fluticasone and formoterol/budesonide. Indacaterol was more effective and more costly than tiotropium, corresponding to an incremental cost-utility ratio of US $2584 per quality-adjusted life-year

Cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban versus warfarin for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation in the Belgian healthcare setting

Warfarin, an inexpensive drug that has been available for over half a century, has been the mainstay of anticoagulant therapy for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Recently, rivaroxaban, a novel oral anticoagulant (NOAC) which offers some distinct advantages over warfarin, the standard of care in a world without NOACs, has been introduced and is now recommended by international guidelines. The aim of this study was to evaluate, from a Belgian healthcare payer perspective, the cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban versus use of warfarin for the treatment of patients with non-valvular AF at moderate to high risk. A Markov model was designed and populated with local cost estimates, safety-on-treatment clinical results from the pivotal phase III ROCKET AF trial and utility values obtained from the literature. Rivaroxaban treatment was associated with fewer ischemic strokes and systemic embolisms (0.308 vs. 0.321 events), intracranial bleeds (0.048 vs. 0.063), and myocardial infarctions (0.082 vs. 0.095) per patient compared with warfarin. Over a lifetime time horizon, rivaroxaban led to a reduction of 0.042 life-threatening events per patient, and increases of 0.111 life-years and 0.094 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) versus warfarin treatment. This resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of a,not sign8,809 per QALY or a,not sign7,493 per life-year gained. These results are based on valuated data from 2010. Sensitivity analysis indicated that these results were robust and that rivaroxaban is cost-effective compared with warfarin in 87 % of cases should a willingness-to-pay threshold of a,not sign35,000/QALY gained be considered. The present analysis suggests that rivaroxaban is a cost-effective alternative to warfarin therapy for the prevention of stroke in patients with AF in the Belgian healthcare setting

External validation of health economic decision models for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD): report of the third COPD modeling meeting

To validate outcomes of presently available chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) cost-effectiveness models against results of two large COPD trials-the 3-year TOwards a Revolution in COPD Health (TORCH) trial and the 4-year Understanding Potential Long-term Impacts on Function with Tiotropium (UPLIFT) trial. Participating COPD modeling groups simulated the outcomes for the placebo-treated groups of the TORCH and UPLIFT trials using baseline characteristics of the trial populations as input. Groups then simulated treatment effectiveness by using relative reductions in annual decline in lung function and exacerbation frequency observed in the most intensively treated group compared with placebo as input for the models. Main outcomes were (change in) total/severe exacerbations and mortality. Furthermore, the absolute differences in total exacerbations and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were used to approximate the cost per exacerbation avoided and the cost per QALY gained. Of the six participating models, three models reported higher total exacerbation rates than observed in the TORCH trial (1.13/patient-year) (models: 1.22-1.48). Four models reported higher rates than observed in the UPLIFT trial (0.85/patient-year) (models: 1.13-1.52). Two models reported higher mortality rates than in the TORCH trial (15.2%) (models: 20.0% and 30.6%) and the UPLIFT trial (16.3%) (models: 24.8% and 36.0%), whereas one model reported lower rates (9.8% and 12.1%, respectively). Simulation of treatment effectiveness showed that the absolute reduction in total exacerbations, the gain in QALYs, and the cost-effectiveness ratios did not differ from the trials, except for one model. Although most of the participating COPD cost-effectiveness models reported higher total exacerbation rates than observed in the trials, estimates of the absolute treatment effect and cost-effectiveness ratios do not seem different from the trials in most models. [Abstract copyright: Copyright © 2017 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Cost-effectiveness models for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: cross-model comparison of hypothetical treatment scenarios

Objectives: To compare different chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) cost-effectiveness models with respect to structure and input parameters and to cross-validate the models by running the same hypothetical treatment scenarios.<p></p> Methods: COPD modeling groups simulated four hypothetical interventions with their model and compared the results with a reference scenario of no intervention. The four interventions modeled assumed 1) 20% reduction in decline in lung function, 2) 25% reduction in exacerbation frequency, 3) 10% reduction in all-cause mortality, and 4) all these effects combined. The interventions were simulated for a 5-year and lifetime horizon with standardization, if possible, for sex, age, COPD severity, smoking status, exacerbation frequencies, mortality due to other causes, utilities, costs, and discount rates. Furthermore, uncertainty around the outcomes of intervention four was compared.<p></p> Results: Seven out of nine contacted COPD modeling groups agreed to participate. The 5-year incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for the most comprehensive intervention, intervention four, was €17,000/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) for two models, €25,000 to €28,000/QALY for three models, and €47,000/QALY for the remaining two models. Differences in the ICERs could mainly be explained by differences in input values for disease progression, exacerbation-related mortality, and all-cause mortality, with high input values resulting in low ICERs and vice versa. Lifetime results were mainly affected by the input values for mortality. The probability of intervention four to be cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay value of €50,000/QALY was 90% to 100% for five models and about 70% and 50% for the other two models, respectively.<p></p> Conclusions: Mortality was the most important factor determining the differences in cost-effectiveness outcomes between models