Comparison of the metabolic and economic consequences of long-term treatment of schizophrenia using ziprasidone, olanzapine, quetiapine and risperidone in Canada: a cost-effectiveness analysis

Rationale, aims and objectives  Second-generation antipsychotic agents have varying propensities to cause weight gain, elevated lipid levels and associated long-term complications. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of four second-generation antipsychotic agents used in Canada for the treatment of schizophrenia (ziprasidone, olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone) with a focus on their long-term metabolic consequences. Method  Using data from the Clinical Antipsychotic Trials of Intervention Effectiveness Study, a semi-Markov model was developed to predict the incidence and associated costs of type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular complications (e.g. angina, myocardial infarction, stroke, cardiovascular disease death), and acute psychiatric hospitalizations in patients with chronic schizophrenia treated over 5 years. Incremental costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained were calculated from the perspective of the Canadian provincial ministries of health. Scenario and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. Results  The total average cost of treatment with ziprasidone was $25 301 versus$28 563 with olanzapine, $26 233 with quetiapine and$21 831 with risperidone. Ziprasidone had the lowest predicted number of type 2 diabetes cases and cardiovascular disease events, and the highest QALY gains. Patients receiving quetiapine had the highest predicted number of hospitalizations. Ziprasidone was less costly and resulted in more QALYs compared with olanzapine and quetiapine. Compared with risperidone, ziprasidone was more costly and had higher QALYs, with an incremental cost per QALY gained of $218 060. Conclusion  Compared with olanzapine and quetiapine, ziprasidone produced savings to the health care system. Although ziprasidone generated incremental expenditures versus risperidone, it resulted in more QALYs. Based on this analysis, ziprasidone treatment possesses cost and therapeutic advantages compared with olanzapine and quetiapine

Cost-effectiveness of empagliflozin versus canagliflozin, dapagliflozin, or standard of care in patients with type 2 diabetes and established cardiovascular disease

Introduction Empagliflozin, a sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitor, is approved in the USA to reduce risk of cardiovascular (CV) death in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and established CV disease, based on EMPA-REG OUTCOME (Empagliflozin Cardiovascular Outcome Event Trial in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Patients) trial results. Empagliflozin reduced major adverse CV event (MACE) by 14%, CV death by 38%, and hospitalization for heart failure (HHF) by 35% vs placebo, each on top of standard of care (SoC). SGLT-2 inhibitors canagliflozin and dapagliflozin have also been compared with placebo, all on top of SoC, in CV outcome trials. In the CANVAS (Canagliflozin Cardiovascular Assessment Study) Program, canagliflozin reduced MACE by 14% and HHF by 33%. Dapagliflozin reduced HHF by 27% in the DECLARE-TIMI 58 trial (Multicenter Trial to Evaluate the Effect of Dapagliflozin on the Incidence of Cardiovascular Events). This analysis estimated the cost-effectiveness of empagliflozin versus canagliflozin, dapagliflozin, or SoC, in US adults with T2DM and established CV disease.Research design and methods Individual patient-level discrete-event simulation was conducted to predict time-to-event for CV and renal outcomes, and specific adverse events over patients’ lifetimes. Occurrence of events in EMPA-REG OUTCOME was estimated based on event-free survival curves with time-dependent covariates. An HR for canagliflozin or dapagliflozin versus empagliflozin on each clinical event was estimated from published CANVAS, DECLARE-TIMI 58, and EMPA-REG OUTCOME data using indirect treatment comparison. Public sources provided US costs and utilities.Results The model predicted longer survival for empagliflozin versus canagliflozin, dapagliflozin, and SoC mainly due to direct reduction in CV death. Empagliflozin dominated canagliflozin, yielding more quality-adjusted life years (QALYs; 0.38) at a lower cost (−US$306). Compared with dapagliflozin and SoC, empagliflozin yielded 0.50 and 0.84 incremental QALYs at US$1517 and US$27 539 incremental costs, yielding incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of US$3054/QALY and US$32 848/QALY, respectively.Conclusions Empagliflozin was projected to dominate canagliflozin and be highly cost-effective compared with dapagliflozin and SoC using US healthcare costs

Economic evaluation of betibeglogene autotemcel (Beti-cel) gene addition therapy in transfusion-dependent β-thalassemia

Background: Standard of care (SoC) for transfusion-dependent β-thalassemia (TDT) requires lifelong, regular blood transfusions as well as chelation to reduce iron accumulation. Objective: This study investigates the cost-effectiveness of betibeglogene autotemcel (‘beti-cel’; LentiGlobin for β-thalassemia) one-time, gene addition therapy compared to lifelong SoC for TDT. Study design: Microsimulation model simulated the lifetime course of TDT based on a causal sequence in which transfusion requirements determine tissue iron levels, which in turn determine risk of iron overload complications that increase mortality. Clinical trial data informed beti-cel clinical parameters; effects of SoC on iron levels came from real-world studies; iron overload complication rates and mortality were based on published literature. Setting: USA; commercial payer perspective Participants: TDT patients age 2–50 Interventions: Beti-cel is compared to SoC. Main outcome measure: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) utilizing quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) Results: The model predicts beti-cel adds 3.8 discounted life years (LYs) or 6.9 QALYs versus SoC. Discounted lifetime costs were $2.28 M for beti-cel ($572,107 if excluding beti-cel cost) and $2.04 M for SoC, with a resulting ICER of$34,833 per QALY gained. Conclusion: Beti-cel is cost-effective for TDT patients compared to SoC. This is due to longer survival and cost offset of lifelong SoC

Systematic review and mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials of primary oral antifungal prophylaxis in allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant recipients

Background: Antifungal prophylaxis is a promising strategy for reducing invasive fungal infections (IFIs) in allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant (alloHCT) recipients, but the optimum prophylactic agent is unknown. We used mixed treatment comparison (MTC) meta-analysis to compare clinical trials examining the use of oral antifungals for prophylaxis in alloHCT recipients, with the goal of informing medical decision-making. Methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of fluconazole, itraconazole, posaconazole, and voriconazole for primary antifungal prophylaxis were identified through a systematic literature review. Outcomes of interest (incidence of IFI/invasive aspergillosis/invasive candidiasis, all-cause mortality, and use of other antifungals) were extracted from eligible RCTs and incorporated into a Bayesian hierarchical random-effects MTC. Results: Five eligible RCTs, randomizing 2147 patients in total, were included. Relative to fluconazole, prophylaxis with itraconazole (odds ratio [OR]: 0.52; interquartile range [IQR]: 0.35-0.76), posaconazole (OR: 0.56; IQR: 0.32-0.99), and voriconazole (OR: 0.46; IQR: 0.28-0.73) reduced incidence of overall proven/probable IFI. Posaconazole (OR: 0.31; IQR: 0.17-0.58) and voriconazole (OR: 0.33; IQR: 0.17-0.58) prophylaxis reduced proven/ probable invasive aspergillosis more than itraconazole (OR: 0.68; IQR: 0.42-1.12). All-cause mortality was similar across all mould-active agents. Conclusion: As expected, mould-active azoles prevented IFIs, particularly invasive aspergillosis, more effectively than fluconazole in alloHCT recipients. The paucity of comparative efficacy data suggests that other factors such as long-term tolerability, availability of intravenous formulations, local IFI epidemiology, and drug costs may need to form the basis for selection among the mould-active azoles

Economic evaluation of azoles as primary prophylaxis for the prevention of invasive fungal infections in Spanish patients undergoing allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplant

Patients undergoing allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (alloHSCT) are at risk of developing invasive fungal infections (IFIs). Even with introduction of oral triazole antifungal agents (fluconazole, itraconazole, posaconazole and voriconazole) IFI-associated morbidity and mortality rates and economic burden remain high. Despite their proven efficacy, it is currently unknown which is the most cost--effective antifungal prophylaxis (AFP) agent. To determine the costs and outcomes associated with AFP, a decision-analytic model was used to simulate treatment in a hypothetical cohort of 1000 patients undergoing alloHSCT from the perspective of the Spanish National Health System. Generic itraconazole was the least costly AFP ((SIC) 162) relative to fluconazole ((SIC) 500), posaconazole oral suspension ((SIC) 8628) or voriconazole ((SIC) 6850). Compared with posaconazole, voriconazole was associated with the lowest number of breakthrough IFIs (36 vs 60); thus, the model predicted fewer deaths from breakthrough IFI for voriconazole (24) than posaconazole (33), and the lowest predicted costs associated with other licensed antifungal treatment and IFI treatment in a cohort of 1000. Voriconazole-resulted in cost savings of (SIC) 4707 per patient compared with posaconazole. Itraconazole demonstrated a high probability of being cost-effective. As primary AFP in alloHSCT patients 180 days posttransplant, voriconazole was more likely to be cost-effective than posaconazole regarding cost per additional IFI and additional death avoided