Predicted Public Health and Economic Impact of Respiratory Syncytial Virus Vaccination with Variable Duration of Protection for Adults ≥60 Years in Belgium

Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is a leading cause of acute respiratory infection (ARI) in older adults. This study used a static, cohort-based decision-tree model to estimate the public health and economic impact of vaccination against RSV in Belgians aged ≥60 years compared with no vaccination for different vaccine duration of protection profiles from a healthcare payer perspective. Three vaccine protection durations were compared (1, 3, and 5 years), and several sensitivity and scenario analyses were performed. Results showed that an RSV vaccine with a 3-year duration of protection would prevent 154,728 symptomatic RSV-ARI cases, 3688 hospitalizations, and 502 deaths over three years compared to no vaccination in older adults and would save EUR 35,982,857 in direct medical costs in Belgium. The number needed to vaccinate to prevent one RSV-ARI case was 11 for the 3-year duration profile, while it was 28 and 8 for the 1- and 5-year vaccine duration profiles, respectively. The model was generally robust in sensitivity analyses varying key input values. This study suggested that vaccination could substantially decrease the public health and economic burden of RSV in adults ≥60 years in Belgium, with benefits increasing with a longer duration of vaccine protection.</p

Value of information analysis in telehealth for chronic heart failure management.

ObjectivesValue of information (VOI) analysis provides information on opportunity cost of a decision in healthcare by estimating the cost of reducing parametric uncertainty and quantifying the value of generating additional evidence. This study is an application of the VOI methodology to the problem of choosing between home telemonitoring and nurse telephone support over usual care in chronic heart failure management in the Netherlands.MethodsThe expected value of perfect information (EVPI) and the expected value of partially perfect information (EVPPI) analyses were based on an informal threshold of €20K per quality-adjusted life-year. These VOI-analyses were applied to a probabilistic Markov model comparing the 20-year costs and effects in three interventions. The EVPPI explored the value of decision uncertainty caused by the following group of parameters: treatment-specific transition probabilities between New York Heart Association (NYHA) defined disease states, utilities associated with the disease states, number of hospitalizations and ER visits, health state specific costs, and the distribution of patients per NYHA group. We performed the analysis for two population sizes in the Netherlands-patients in all NYHA classes of severity, and patients in NYHA IV class only.ResultsThe population EVPI for an effective population of 2,841,567 CHF patients in All NYHA classes of severity over the next 20 years is more than €4.5B, implying that further research is highly cost-effective. In the NYHA IV only analysis, for the effective population of 208,003 patients over next 20 years, the population EVPI at the same informal threshold is approx. €590M. The EVPPI analysis showed that the only relevant group of parameters that contribute to the overall decision uncertainty are transition probabilities, in both All NYHA and NYHA IV analyses.ConclusionsResults of our VOI exercise show that the cost of uncertainty regarding the decision on reimbursement of telehealth interventions for chronic heart failure patients is high in the Netherlands, and that future research is needed, mainly on the transition probabilities

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in Telehealth: A Comparison between Home Telemonitoring, Nurse Telephone Support, and Usual Care in Chronic Heart Failure Management

Objectives: To assess the cost effectiveness of home telemonitoring (HTM) and nurse telephone support (NTS) compared with usual care (UC) in the management of patients with chronic heart failure, from a third-party payer's perspective. Methods: We developed a Markov model with a 20-year time horizon to analyze the cost effectiveness using the original study (Trans-European Network-Home-Care Management System) and various data sources. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed to assess the decision uncertainty in our model. Results: In the original scenario (which concerned the cost inputs at the time of the original study), HTM and NTS interventions yielded a difference in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained compared with UC: 2.93 and 3.07, respectively, versus 1.91. An incremental net monetary benefit analysis showed (sic)7,697 and (sic)13,589 in HTM and NTS versus UC at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of (sic)20,000, and (sic)69,100 and (sic)83,100 at a WTP threshold of (sic)80,000, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were (sic)12,479 for HTM versus UC and (sic)8,270 for NTS versus UC. The current scenario (including telenurse cost inputs in NTS) yielded results that were slightly different from those for the original scenario, when comparing all New York Heart Association (NYHA) classes of severity. NTS dominated HTM, compared with UC, in all NYHA classes except NYHA IV. Conclusions: This modeling study demonstrated that HTM and NTS are viable solutions to support patients with chronic heart failure. NTS is cost-effective in comparison with UC at a WTP of (sic)9000/QALY or higher. Like NTS, HTM improves the survival of patients in all NYHA classes and is cost-effective in comparison with UC at a WTP of (sic)14,000/QALY or higher

Reply to Standaert, B. Comment on “Postma et al. Predicted Public Health and Economic Impact of Respiratory Syncytial Virus Vaccination with Variable Duration of Protection for Adults ≥60 Years in Belgium”

We have read the commentary from Baudouin Standaert [...

Ribociclib with an Aromatase Inhibitor for Previously Untreated, HR-Positive, HER2-Negative, Locally Advanced or Metastatic Breast Cancer: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, as part of the institute's single technology appraisal process, invited the manufacturer of ribociclib (Kisqali((R)), Novartis) to submit evidence regarding the clinical and cost effectiveness of the drug in combination with an aromatase inhibitor for the treatment of previously untreated, hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative, locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer. Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd and Erasmus University Rotterdam were commissioned as the Evidence Review Group for this submission. The Evidence Review Group reviewed the evidence submitted by the manufacturer, corrected and validated the manufacturer's decision analytic model, and conducted exploratory analyses to assess the robustness and validity of the presented clinical and cost-effectiveness results. This article describes the company submission, the Evidence Review Group assessment and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence subsequent decisions. The main clinical effectiveness evidence was obtained from the MONALEESA-2 trial, a randomised controlled trial comparing ribociclib plus letrozole with placebo plus letrozole. Progression-free survival was significantly longer in the ribociclib group (95% confidence interval, 19.3-not reached) vs. 14.7 months (95% confidence interval 13.0-16.5) in the placebo group. To assess the cost effectiveness of ribociclib in combination with an aromatase inhibitor, the company developed an individual patient-level model using a discrete-event simulation approach in Microsoft((R)) Excel. In the model, simulated patients move through a series of three health states until death, i.e. first-line progression-free survival, second-line progression-free survival and progressive disease. The length of progression-free survival during the first line was informed by the MONALEESA-2 trial. The benefit in progression-free survival in the first line was transferred to a benefit in overall survival assuming full progression-free survival to overall survival surrogacy (because of the immaturity of overall survival data from the MONALEESA-2 trial). Patient-level data from the BOLERO-2 trial, evaluating the addition of everolimus to exemestane in the second-line treatment of postmenopausal HR-positive advanced breast cancer, were used to inform the length of progression-free survival during the second line. Costs included in the model were treatment costs (e.g. technology acquisition costs of first, second, third and/or later line treatments), drug administration costs, monitoring costs and health state costs (including terminal care). Additionally, the costs of adverse events associated with the first-line treatment were incorporated. The Evidence Review Group recalculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio using data from a different data cut-off date from the MONALEESA-2 trial and by changing some assumptions (e.g. progression-free survival to overall survival surrogacy approach and post-progression third and/or later line treatment-related costs). After two appraisal committee meetings and a revised base case submitted by the company (including a second enhanced patient access scheme discount), the committee concluded that taking into account the uncertainties in the calculation of the cost effectiveness, there were plausible cost-effectiveness estimates broadly in the range that could be considered as a cost-effective use of National Health Service resources.Therefore, ribociclib was recommended as a treatment option for the first-line treatment of hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative breast cancer, contingent on the company providing ribociclib with the discount agreed in the second enhanced patient access scheme.</p

Ramucirumab for Treating Advanced Gastric Cancer or Gastro-Oesophageal Junction Adenocarcinoma Previously Treated with Chemotherapy: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the company that manufactures ramucirumab (Cyramza®, Eli Lilly and Company) to submit evidence of the clinical and cost effectiveness of the drug administered alone (monotherapy) or with paclitaxel (combination therapy) for treating adults with advanced gastric cancer or gastro-oesophageal junction (GC/GOJ) adenocarcinoma that were previously treated with chemotherapy, as part of the Institute’s single technology appraisal (STA) process. Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd (KSR), in collaboration with Erasmus University Rotterdam, was commissioned to act as the Evidence Review Group (ERG). This paper describes the company’s submission, the ERG review, and NICE’s subsequent decisions. Clinical effectiveness evidence for ramucirumab monotherapy (RAM), compared with best supportive care (BSC), was based on data from the REGARD trial. Clinical effectiveness evidence for ramucirumab combination therapy (RAM + PAC), compared with paclitaxel monotherapy (PAC), was based on data from the RAINBOW trial. In addition, the company undertook a network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare RAM + PAC with BSC and docetaxel. Cost-ef