Budget impact of adding ivabradine to standard of care in patients with chronic systolic heart failure in the United States

BACKGROUND: Heart failure (HF) costs $21 billion annually in direct health care costs, 80 OBJECTIVE: To estimate the budget impact of ivabradine from a U.S. commercial payer perspective. METHODS: A budget impact model estimated the per-member-per month (PMPM) impact of introducing ivabradine to existing formularies by comparing a reference scenario (SoC) and a new drug scenario (ivabradine + SoC) in hypothetical 1 million-member commercial and Medicare Advantage plans. In both scenarios, U.S. claims data were used for the reference cumulative annual rates of hospitalizations (HF, non-HF cardiovascular [CV], and non-CV), and hospitalization rates were adjusted using SHIFT data. The model controlled for mortality risk using SHIFT and U.S. life table data, and hospitalization costs were obtained from U.S. claims data: HF-related =$37,507; non-HF CV = $28,951; and non-CV =$17,904. The annualized wholesale acquisition cost of ivabradine was $4,500, with baseline use for this new drug at 2 RESULTS: Based on the approved U.S. indication, approximately 2,000 commercially insured patients from a 1 million-member commercial plan were eligible to receive ivabradine. Ivabradine resulted in a PMPM cost savings of$0.01 and $0.04 in years 1 and 3 of the core model, respectively. After including the acquisition price for ivabradine, the model showed a decrease in total costs in the commercial ($991,256 and $474,499, respectively) and Medicare populations ($13,849,262 and $4,280,291, respectively) in year 1. This decrease was driven by ivabradine’s reduction in hospitalization rates. For the core model, the estimated pharmacy-only PMPM in year 1 was$0.01 for the commercial population and $0.24 for the Medicare Advantage population. CONCLUSIONS: Adding ivabradine to SoC led to lower average annual treatment costs. The negative PMPM budget impact indicates that ivabradine is an affordable option for U.S. payers

Financial impact of ivabradine on reducing heart failure penalties under the Hospital Readmission Reduction Program

Objective: The introduction of the Hospital Readmission Reduction Program (HRRP) has led to renewed interest in developing strategies to reduce 30 day readmissions among patients with heart failure (HF). In this study, a model was developed to investigate whether the addition of ivabradine to a standard-of-care (SoC) treatment regimen for patients with HF would reduce HRRP penalties incurred by a hypothetical hospital with excess 30 day readmissions. Research design: A model using a Monte Carlo simulation framework was developed. Model inputs included national hospital characteristics, hospital-specific characteristics, and the ivabradine treatment effect as quantified by a post hoc analysis of the Systolic Heart failure treatment with the If inhibitor ivabradine Trial (SHIFT). Results: The model computed an 83% reduction in HF readmission penalty payments in a hypothetical hospital with a readmission rate of 22.95% (excess readmission ratio = 1.056 over the national average readmission rate of 21.73%), translating into net savings of $44,016. A sensitivity analysis indicated that the readmission penalty is affected by the specific characteristics of the hospital, including the readmission rate, size of the ivabradine-eligible population, and ivabradine utilization. Conclusions: The results of this study indicate that the addition of ivabradine to an SoC treatment regimen for patients with HF may lead to a reduction in the penalties incurred by hospitals under the HRRP. This highlights the role ivabradine can play as part of a wider effort to optimize the care of patients with HF

Budget impact of adding ivabradine to standard of care in patients with chronic systolic heart failure in the United States

BACKGROUND: Heart failure (HF) costs $21 billion annually in direct health care costs, 80 OBJECTIVE: To estimate the budget impact of ivabradine from a U.S. commercial payer perspective. METHODS: A budget impact model estimated the per-member-per month (PMPM) impact of introducing ivabradine to existing formularies by comparing a reference scenario (SoC) and a new drug scenario (ivabradine + SoC) in hypothetical 1 million-member commercial and Medicare Advantage plans. In both scenarios, U.S. claims data were used for the reference cumulative annual rates of hospitalizations (HF, non-HF cardiovascular [CV], and non-CV), and hospitalization rates were adjusted using SHIFT data. The model controlled for mortality risk using SHIFT and U.S. life table data, and hospitalization costs were obtained from U.S. claims data: HF-related =$37,507; non-HF CV = $28,951; and non-CV =$17,904. The annualized wholesale acquisition cost of ivabradine was $4,500, with baseline use for this new drug at 2 RESULTS: Based on the approved U.S. indication, approximately 2,000 commercially insured patients from a 1 million-member commercial plan were eligible to receive ivabradine. Ivabradine resulted in a PMPM cost savings of$0.01 and $0.04 in years 1 and 3 of the core model, respectively. After including the acquisition price for ivabradine, the model showed a decrease in total costs in the commercial ($991,256 and $474,499, respectively) and Medicare populations ($13,849,262 and $4,280,291, respectively) in year 1. This decrease was driven by ivabradine’s reduction in hospitalization rates. For the core model, the estimated pharmacy-only PMPM in year 1 was$0.01 for the commercial population and $0.24 for the Medicare Advantage population. CONCLUSIONS: Adding ivabradine to SoC led to lower average annual treatment costs. The negative PMPM budget impact indicates that ivabradine is an affordable option for U.S. payers

African Program for Onchocerciasis Control 1995–2010: Impact of Annual Ivermectin Mass Treatment on Off-Target Infectious Diseases

Since its initiation in 1995, the African Program for Onchocerciasis Control (APOC) has had a substantial impact on the prevalence and burden of onchocerciasis through annual ivermectin mass treatment. Ivermectin is a broad-spectrum anti-parasitic agent that also has an impact on other co-endemic parasitic infections. In this study, we roughly assessed the additional impact of APOC activities on the burden of the most important off-target infections: soil-transmitted helminthiases (STH; ascariasis, trichuriasis, hookworm, and strongyloidiasis), lymphatic filariasis (LF), and scabies. Based on a literature review, we formulated assumptions about the impact of ivermectin treatment on the disease burden of these off-target infections. Using data on the number of ivermectin treatments in APOC regions and the latest estimates of the burden of disease, we then calculated the impact of APOC activities on off-target infections in terms of disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) averted. We conservatively estimated that between 1995 and 2010, annual ivermectin mass treatment has cumulatively averted about 500 thousand DALYs from co-endemic STH infections, LF, and scabies. This impact comprised approximately an additional 5.5% relative to the total burden averted from onchocerciasis (8.9 million DALYs) and indicates that the overall cost-effectiveness of APOC is even higher than previously reported

Regorafenib versus Cabozantinib as a Second-Line Treatment for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: An Anchored Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison of Efficacy and Safety

Introduction: The tyrosine kinase inhibitors regorafenib and cabozantinib remain the mainstay in second-line treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). There is currently no clear evidence of superiority in efficacy or safety to guide choice between the two treatments. Methods: We conducted an anchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison using individual patient data from the RESORCE trial of regorafenib and published aggregate data from the CELESTIAL trial of cabozantinib. Second-line HCC patients with prior sorafenib exposure of ≥3 months were included in the analyses. Hazard ratios (HRs) and restricted mean survival time (RMST) were estimated to quantify differences in overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Safety outcomes compared were rates of grade 3 or 4 adverse events (AEs), occurring in >10% of patients, and discontinuation or dose reduction due to treatment-related AEs. Results: After matching adjustment for differences in baseline patient characteristics, regorafenib showed a favorable OS (HR, 0.80; 95% CI: 0.54, 1.20) and ∼3-month-longer RMST over cabozantinib (RMST difference, 2.76 months; 95% CI: −1.03, 6.54), although not statistically significant. For PFS, there was no numerical difference in HR (HR, 1.00; 95% CI: 0.68, 1.49) and no clinically meaningful difference based on RMST analyses (RMST difference, −0.59 months; 95% CI: −1.83, 0.65). Regorafenib showed a significantly lower incidence of discontinuation (risk difference, −9.2%; 95% CI: −17.7%, −0.6%) and dose reductions (−15.2%; 95% CI: −29.0%, −1.5%) due to treatment-related AEs (any grade). Regorafenib was also associated with a lower incidence (not statistically significant) of grade 3 or 4 diarrhea (risk difference, −7.1%; 95% CI: −14.7%, 0.4%) and fatigue (−6.3%; 95% CI: −14.6%, 2.0%). Conclusion: This indirect treatment comparison suggests, relative to cabozantinib, that regorafenib could be associated with favorable OS (not statistically significant), lower rates of dose reductions and discontinuation due to treatment-related AEs, and lower rates of severe diarrhea and fatigue

Sensitivity analysis for the impact of assumed parameter values on the total averted burden.

<p>For each parameter (y-axis), the figure between brackets indicates the relative amount by which it was varied in the sensitivity analysis.</p

Burden of off-target infections averted by annual ivermectin mass treatment with ivermectin in Africa.

<p>^a These figures are the product of the potential disease burden due to off-target infections in people treated with ivermectin and the assumed effect of ivermectin treatment on the disease burden (see <a href="http://www.plosntds.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pntd.0004051#pntd.0004051.box001" target="_blank">Box 1</a>).</p><p>^b Estimates for Sudan and South Sudan are merged, as information on the burden per capita was reported for the two together [<a href="http://www.plosntds.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pntd.0004051#pntd.0004051.ref014" target="_blank">14</a>].</p><p>Figures represent the cumulative burden averted between 1995 and 2010 in areas covered by the African Programme for Onchocerciasis Control.</p