Impact of Belimumab on Organ Damage in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus.

Organ damage is a key determinant of poor long-term prognosis and early death in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Prevention of damage is a key treatment goal of the 2019 update of the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) recommendations for SLE management. Belimumab is a monoclonal antibody that inhibits B lymphocyte stimulator (BLyS) and is the only therapy approved for both SLE and lupus nephritis. Here, we review the clinical trial and real-world data on the effects of belimumab on organ damage in adult patients with SLE. Across 4 phase III studies, belimumab in combination with background SLE therapy demonstrated consistent reductions in key drivers of organ damage including disease activity, risk of new severe flares, and glucocorticoid exposure compared to background therapy alone. Long-term belimumab use in SLE also reduced organ damage progression measured by the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics/American College of Rheumatology Damage Index, as reported in open-label extension studies, and propensity score-matched comparative analyses to background therapy alone. Results from a clinical trial showed that in patients with active lupus nephritis, belimumab treatment improved renal response, reduced the risk of renal-related events, and impacted features related to kidney damage progression compared to background therapy alone. The decrease of organ damage accumulation observed with belimumab treatment in SLE, including lupus nephritis, suggest a disease-modifying effect.

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.

Comparative analysis of long-term organ damage in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus using belimumab versus standard therapy: a post hoc longitudinal study.

OBJECTIVE: Long-term extension (LTE) studies of belimumab in SLE do not include a comparator arm, preventing comparisons between belimumab plus standard therapy and standard therapy alone for organ damage accrual. Propensity score matching can be used to match belimumab-treated patients from LTE studies with standard therapy-treated patients from observational cohort studies. This analysis was designed to compare organ damage progression between treatment groups (belimumab plus standard therapy vs standard therapy alone) in patients with SLE with ≥5 years of follow-up, reproducing our previous study with more generalisable data. METHODS: This exploratory post hoc analysis used a heterogeneous population of US and non-US patients receiving monthly intravenous belimumab from pooled BLISS LTE trials (BEL112234/NCT00712933) and standard therapy-treated patients from the Toronto Lupus Cohort. Sixteen clinical variables were selected to calculate the propensity score. RESULTS: The 592 LTE and 381 Toronto Lupus Cohort patients were highly dissimilar across the 16 variables; an adequately balanced sample of 181 LTE and 181 matched Toronto Lupus Cohort patients (mean bias=3.7%) was created using propensity score matching. Belimumab treatment was associated with a smaller increase in Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics/American College of Rheumatology Damage Index (SDI) over 5 years than standard therapy alone (mean treatment difference=-0.453 (95% CI -0.646 to -0.260); p<0.001). Patients treated with belimumab were 60% less likely to progress to a higher SDI score over any given year of follow-up, compared with standard therapy alone (HR (95% CI) 0.397 (0.275 to 0.572); p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Using propensity score matching, this highly heterogeneous sample was sufficiently matched to the Toronto Lupus Cohort, suggesting that patients treated with intravenous belimumab may have reduced organ damage progression versus standard therapy alone. This analysis of a large and diverse pooled SLE population was consistent with our previously published US-focused study.

Organ damage in patients treated with belimumab versus standard of care: a propensity score-matched comparative analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The study (206347) compared organ damage progression in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) who received belimumab in the BLISS long-term extension (LTE) study with propensity score (PS)-matched patients treated with standard of care (SoC) from the Toronto Lupus Cohort (TLC). METHODS: A systematic literature review identified 17 known predictors of organ damage to calculate a PS for each patient. Patients from the BLISS LTE and the TLC were PS matched posthoc 1:1 based on their PS (±calliper). The primary endpoint was difference in change in Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics/American College of Rheumatology Damage Index (SDI) score from baseline to 5 years. RESULTS: For the 5- year analysis, of 567 (BLISS LTE n=195; TLC n=372) patients, 99 from each cohort were 1:1 PS matched. Change in SDI score at Year 5 was significantly lower for patients treated with belimumab compared with SoC (-0.434; 95% CI -0.667 to -0.201; p<0.001). For the time to organ damage progression analysis (≥1 year follow-up), the sample included 965 (BLISS LTE n=259; TLC n=706) patients, of whom 179 from each cohort were PS-matched. Patients receiving belimumab were 61% less likely to progress to a higher SDI score over any given year compared with patients treated with SoC (HR 0.391; 95% CI 0.253 to 0.605; p<0.001). Among the SDI score increases, the proportion of increases ≥2 was greater in the SoC group compared with the belimumab group. CONCLUSIONS: PS-matched patients receiving belimumab had significantly less organ damage progression compared with patients receiving SoC.

Long-Term Impact of Belimumab on Health-Related Quality of Life and Fatigue in Patients With Systemic Lupus Erythematosus: Six Years of Treatment.

OBJECTIVE: To report long-term health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and fatigue outcomes in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) receiving belimumab. METHODS: Patients with SLE who completed the Study of Belimumab in Subjects with SLE 76-week trial (BLISS-76) were enrolled in this continuation study (BEL112233 [ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00724867]). The belimumab groups continued to receive the same dose (1 mg/kg or 10 mg/kg) intravenously. After March 2011, all patients received belimumab 10 mg/kg every 28 days plus standard therapy. The placebo group switched to belimumab 10 mg/kg. HRQoL and fatigue assessments included the Short Form 36 (SF-36) health survey and the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT)-Fatigue subscale. Post hoc subgroup analyses (BEL206350) assessed clinical characteristics associated with improved HRQoL and fatigue. RESULTS: Of the 268 patients enrolled, 140 completed the study. Patients receiving long-term belimumab treatment reported continued improvements in HRQoL and fatigue. At study year 6, the mean ± SD SF-36 physical component summary (PCS) score and the mental component summary (MCS) score increased from 37.0 ± 9.9 at baseline to 41.7 ± 10.0 (mean ± SD change 4.8 ± 9.4) and from 44.3 ± 11.3 to 47.0 ± 11.6 (mean ± SD change 2.7 ± 11.3) for the PCS and MCS, respectively, exceeding the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) for improvement (2.5 units). The mean ± SD FACIT-Fatigue score exceeded the MCID of 4 at study years 1-5; at study year 6, the mean ± SD change was 3.7 ± 11.8. Statistically significant associations were observed between parent trial treatment groups and change from baseline in PCS, MCS, and FACIT-Fatigue scores (P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Long-term control of SLE disease activity with belimumab plus standard therapy translates into meaningful improvements in patient-reported fatigue and HRQoL.

External Validation of Health Economic Decision Models for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD): Report of the Third COPD Modeling Meeting.

OBJECTIVES: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULT: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.

Patient Heterogeneity in Health Economic Decision Models for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Are Current Models Suitable to Evaluate Personalized Medicine?

OBJECTIVES: To assess how suitable current chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) cost-effectiveness models are to evaluate personalized treatment options for COPD by exploring the type of heterogeneity included in current models and by validating outcomes for subgroups of patients. METHODS: A consortium of COPD modeling groups completed three tasks. First, they reported all patient characteristics included in the model and provided the level of detail in which the input parameters were specified. Second, groups simulated disease progression, mortality, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and costs for hypothetical subgroups of patients that differed in terms of sex, age, smoking status, and lung function (forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV1] % predicted). Finally, model outcomes for exacerbations and mortality for subgroups of patients were validated against published subgroup results of two large COPD trials. RESULTS: Nine COPD modeling groups participated. Most models included sex (seven), age (nine), smoking status (six), and FEV1% predicted (nine), mainly to specify disease progression and mortality. Trial results showed higher exacerbation rates for women (found in one model), higher mortality rates for men (two models), lower mortality for younger patients (four models), and higher exacerbation and mortality rates in patients with severe COPD (four models). CONCLUSIONS: Most currently available COPD cost-effectiveness models are able to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of personalized treatment on the basis of sex, age, smoking, and FEV1% predicted. Treatment in COPD is, however, more likely to be personalized on the basis of clinical parameters. Two models include several clinical patient characteristics and are therefore most suitable to evaluate personalized treatment, although some important clinical parameters are still missing.

Cost-Effectiveness of Glycopyrronium Bromide Compared with Tiotropium in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease in Sweden.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to compare the cost effectiveness of once-daily Seebri Breezhaler(®) (glycopyrronium bromide) 50 µg with Spiriva(®) (tiotropium bromide) 18 µg in the maintenance treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in the Swedish setting. METHODS: A previously published COPD Markov model accounting for disease progression and treatment discontinuation was used. Disease progression included the annual decline in forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1) and occurrence of any exacerbations. Efficacy in the model consisted of FEV1 improvement between baseline and 12 weeks and the annual risk ratio of having an exacerbation compared to placebo. These clinical efficacy inputs were derived from a 1-year head-to-head trial comparing glycopyrronium 50 µg to tiotropium 18 µg. Utility values and cost estimates were obtained from the literature. The base-case analysis was performed for a 3-year time horizon. Cost and effects were discounted with 3% in accordance to Swedish guidelines. Uncertainty was assessed by one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Glycopyrronium was found to be less costly and more effective than tiotropium in moderate to severe COPD patients with cost savings of 5197 Swedish kronor (€570, US$725) per patient over a 3-year time horizon. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that over 99% of the iterations produced dominant results for glycopyrronium. CONCLUSION: Glycopyrronium bromide 50 µg once daily can be considered a cost effective alternative to tiotropium bromide 18 µg once daily in the maintenance treatment of COPD patients in Sweden.

Cost-effectiveness of the LABA/LAMA dual bronchodilator indacaterol/glycopyrronium in a Swedish healthcare setting.

BACKGROUND: Indacaterol/glycopyrronium (IND/GLY) is a once-daily inhaled fixed-dose combination of indacaterol (IND), a long-acting ß2-adrenergic agonist (LABA), and glycopyrronium (GLY), a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) for use as maintenance treatment to relieve symptoms of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in adults. OBJECTIVE: To determine the economic benefits of IND/GLY compared with the free combination of indacaterol and glycopyrronium (IND + GLY), and with the fixed-dose combination of salmeterol/fluticasone (SFC), in a moderate-to-severe COPD population with low-exacerbation risk. The model-based analysis extrapolated results up to lifetime time horizon and calculated costs per quality-adjusted life year. METHODS: Assuming equal efficacy, a cost-minimisation analysis compared IND/GLY vs IND + GLY using model inputs from the double-blind, randomised SHINE trial. The double-blind, randomised ILLUMINATE and TORCH trials were used to analyse cost-effectiveness versus SFC. To consider ICS-related pneumonia events, published odds ratio comparing an ICS-exposed group to a control group of COPD patients was used. Direct and indirect drug costs as well as drug acquisition costs (in Swedish Krona [SEK]) were derived from published Swedish sources. Cost and effects were discounted with 3%. Uncertainty was assessed by one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA). RESULTS: IND/GLY was cost-saving vs IND + GLY with incremental savings of SEK (EUR) 768 (85), and 3309 (368) per patient over one and five years. IND/GLY was found to be less costly and more effective compared to SFC with cost savings of SEK (EUR) 2744 (303), 8854 (976), 13,938 (1536), 27,495 (3031) and 43,033 (4744) over one, three, five, ten years and lifetime. The PSA indicated that all iterations produced dominant results for IND/GLY. CONCLUSION: IND/GLY is cost-minimising vs IND + GLY and dominates SFC in the maintenance treatment of COPD patients in Sweden. Encouraging dual bronchodilator therapy over an ICS-containing combination results in lower total costs and better outcomes compared to combination therapy including fluticasone in moderate-to-severe COPD patients with low exacerbation risk.

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. 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. 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. CONCLUSIONS: Mortality was the most important factor determining the differences in cost-effectiveness outcomes between models.

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

BACKGROUND: 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. OBJECTIVE: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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 €8,809 per QALY or €7,493 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 €35,000/QALY gained be considered. CONCLUSIONS: 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.

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

INTRODUCTION: Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) is a chronic, progressive disease that is not curable. However, there are effective treatments available. In the UK, long-acting bronchodilators are first-line treatments for COPD patients requiring maintenance therapy, and there are several options available. The aim of this study is to establish, from the UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective, the cost-effectiveness profile of indacaterol, the first once-daily long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA), compared with tiotropium and salmeterol, in patients with moderate to severe COPD. In assessing the cost-effectiveness of COPD therapies, this study has the advantage of using real world evidence on the resource use associated with COPD management across the spectrum of the disease. METHODS: A Markov model was developed with four health states following the GOLD classification for severity of airflow limitation. The model time horizon was 3 years, and the cycle length was 3 months. From each state, patients could experience a severe or non-severe exacerbation, move to a different COPD state, remain in the current state or die. Transition probabilities were based on data from the indacaterol clinical trials. The majority of the resource use data was taken from the Optimum Patient Care Research Database (OPCRD), which contains data from over 20,000 COPD patients in England and Scotland. Cost data were taken from UK-based sources and published literature and presented for the cost year 2011. Health-related quality of life was the main outcome of interest and utility data for the COPD states were based on data from the indacaterol clinical trials and disutility due to exacerbations were taken from the literature. Both one way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the results. RESULTS: Indacaterol dominated in the comparison with salmeterol producing an incremental QALY gain of 0.008 and cost savings of £110 per patient over a 3-year time horizon. In the comparison with tiotropium over the same time horizon, indacaterol remained the dominant strategy, producing an incremental QALY gain of 0.008 and cost savings of £248 per patient. The one-way sensitivity analysis indicates that the proportion of patients in each of the COPD stages and the mortality rate associated with Very Severe COPD are the variables with the largest impact on the results. The probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed that over 72 % and 89 % of the iterations when compared with salmeterol and tiotropium, respectively, produced dominant results for indacaterol. CONCLUSION: The analyses demonstrate that indacaterol dominates both tiotropium and salmeterol in the base case and is likely to remain cost-effective under a range of assumptions.

Improving clinical reality in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease economic modelling : development and validation of a micro-simulation approach.

BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a progressive and irreversible disease responsible for the deaths of 3 million people worldwide in 2005, and predicted to be the third leading cause of death worldwide by 2030. Many COPD models developed to date have followed a Markov structure, in which patients or populations can move between defined health states over successive time periods or cycles. In COPD, health states are typically based on disease severity defined solely by lung function, as described by the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) guidelines. These current modelling methods may restrict the ability to reflect the disease progression/clinical pathway or clinical practice. OBJECTIVES: Given these limitations in previous COPD models, the authors aimed to develop a more flexible model that could improve on the description of the clinical disease pathway. The overall objective of this model was to inform the development of policies, guidelines or cost-effectiveness analyses. A second objective was to validate the model in relation to existing epidemiology studies of COPD. METHODS: A patient simulation model was developed in Microsoft Excel™. The predictability of the model was tested by populating it with data from natural history of disease studies as well as with clinical trial data. Each patient moves through the model with demographic characteristics randomly generated from a set distribution. These characteristics determine the risk of clinical events occurring in the model. RESULTS: The validation with these studies found the model to have generally good predictive ability, yielding in this way a good degree of external validity. CONCLUSIONS: The micro-simulation model is a flexible approach for modelling COPD that allows consideration of complex COPD treatment pathways. The model was found to be generally robust in terms of predicting clinical outcomes of published studies when tested against other studies. It has significant potential as a tool for supporting future COPD treatment positioning decisions as well as to inform the development of policies, guidelines or cost-effectiveness analyses.

Ipilimumab in 2nd line treatment of patients with advanced melanoma: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of ipilimumab (3 mg/kg) compared with best supportive care (BSC) in pre-treated advanced melanoma patients. METHODS: The analysis was based on a US payer perspective and lifetime time horizon. A three-state Markov model was developed representing clinical outcomes, quality-of-life, and healthcare resource use of patients treated with ipilimumab and BSC. Transitions between states were modeled using overall and progression-free survival data from the MDX010-20 trial. Utility data were from a melanoma-specific study of the health state preferences of the general population. Disease management costs expressed in 2011 US Dollars were based on healthcare resource use observed in a US retrospective medical chart study. Uncertainty was analyzed using one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: The gain in life years and QALYs from introducing ipilimumab over BSC were 1.88 years (95% CI = 1.62-2.20) and 1.14 (95% CI = 1.01-1.34) QALYs, respectively, over the lifetime time horizon. The estimated incremental cost of treating with ipilimumab vs BSC was $146,716 (95% CI = $130,992-$164,025). The estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were $78,218 per life year gained and $128,656 per QALY gained. Ipilimumab was 95% likely to be cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay of $146,000/QALY. LIMITATIONS: Ipilimumab's method of action causes a tumor response pattern that differs from the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors upon which the model is based, leading to a potential under-estimate of quality-of-life of ipilimumab patients. Survival and QALY gains were related to the time horizon of the analysis. Sensitivity analyses indicated that qualitative conclusions regarding the cost-effectiveness of ipilimumab were unchanged when the method of quality adjustment and the time horizon were varied. CONCLUSION: The analysis shows that the estimated cost-effectiveness of ipilimumab is within what has been shown to be acceptable to payers for oncology products in the US.

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

OBJECTIVES: 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. CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate that by replacing salmeterol/fluticasone or formoterol/budesonide with indacaterol, there are possible cost savings for the Colombian health care system. This was demonstrated by both cost-effectiveness and budget impact models.

Cost-utility analysis of indacaterol in Germany: a once-daily maintenance bronchodilator for patients with COPD.

INTRODUCTION: Indacaterol is a novel inhaled once-daily long-acting beta(2)-agonist (LABA) for the maintenance treatment of COPD that has been compared to existing inhaled monotherapies on a number of symptomatic endpoints in clinical studies. With constrained healthcare budgets, the objective of this analysis was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of indacaterol 150 µg, the approved starting dose for maintenance therapy, from a German heath service perspective against the most widely used bronchodilator tiotropium, and the twice-daily LABA, salmeterol. METHODS: A Markov model was developed with the following main health states: Mild, Moderate, Severe, and Very Severe COPD, based on pre-bronchodilator FEV(1) measures reported in the indacaterol clinical trials, and death. Each disease severity health state had two associated health states for severe or non-severe exacerbation. The model considered patients with moderate to severe COPD, with a mean age of 64 years. The base case time horizon was three years, with discounting set at 3% for costs and benefits. Selected clinical inputs and health state utilities were derived from indacaterol clinical trials, while costs were based on publicly available drug prices and tariffs or published sources. Inputs describing disease progression were based on published data on the rate of FEV(1) decline. RESULTS: Point-estimates show that indacaterol 150 µg is dominant (lower total costs and better outcomes) against tiotropium and salmeterol. An alternative analysis comparing indacaterol 300 µg (maximum dose) against tiotropium, showed an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of approximately €28,300 per QALY. CONCLUSION: Indacaterol is cost-effective compared to tiotropium and salmeterol.

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.

BACKGROUND: The 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. METHODS: A 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. RESULTS: Outcomes 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 euros and 32343 euros, respectively. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were 23967 euros per QALY gained and 17225 euros per LYG. CONCLUSIONS: Pemetrexed 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 euros /QALY threshold commonly accepted in Spain.