Prophylactic pasireotide administration following pancreatic resection reduces cost while improving outcomes.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Pasireotide decreases leak rates after pancreatic resection, though significant drug cost may be prohibitive. We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis to determine whether prophylactic pasireotide possesses a reasonable cost profile. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness model compared pasireotide administration after pancreatic resection versus usual care, populated by probabilities of clinical outcomes from a randomized trial and hospital costs (2013 US$) from a university pancreatic disease center. Sensitivity analyses were performed to identify influential clinical components of the model. RESULTS: With the cost of pasireotide included, per patient costs of pancreatectomy, including those for readmission, were lower in the intervention arm (41,769 versus 42,159$; net savings of 390$, or 1%). This was associated with a 56% reduction in pancreatic fistula/pancreatic leak/abscess (PF/PL/A; 21.9-9.2%). Pasireotide cost would need to increase by over 15.4% to make the intervention strategy more costly than usual care. Sensitivity analyses exploring variability of key model inputs demonstrated that the three strongest drivers of cost were (i) cost of pasireotide; (ii) probability of readmission; and (iii) probability of PF/PL/A. CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic pasireotide administration following pancreatectomy is cost savings, reducing expensive post-operative sequealae (major complications and readmissions). Pasireotide should be utilized as a cost-saving measure in pancreatic resection. J. Surg. Oncol. 2016;113:784-788. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

How Much Should We Pay to Minimize Pancreatic Leak? The Cost-effectiveness of Pasireotide in Pancreatic Resection: RETRACTED.

INTRODUCTION: Pasireotide was recently shown to decrease leak rates after pancreatic resection, though the significant cost of the drug may be prohibitive. We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis to determine whether prophylactic pasireotide possesses a reasonable cost profile by improving outcomes. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness model was constructed to compare pasireotide administration after pancreatic resection versus usual care, populated by probabilities of clinical outcomes from a recent randomized trial and hospital costs (2013 US$) from a university pancreatic disease center. Sensitivity analyses were performed to identify the most influential clinical components of the model. RESULTS: Without considering pasireotide cost, prophylactic use of the drug saved an average of $8,109 per patient. However, when the cost of pasireotide was included, per patient costs increased from $42,159 to $77,202. This was associated with a 56% reduction in pancreatic fistula/pancreatic leak/abscess (PF/PL/A) (21.9% to 9.2%). The resultant cost per PF/PL/A avoided was $301,628. Threshold analysis demonstrated that for this intervention to be cost neutral, either the purchase price of pasireotide ($43,172) must be reduced by 92.3% (to $3324) or drug reimbursement must be $39,848. Sensitivity analyses exploring variable perioperative mortality, rate of PF/PL/A, and readmission rates did not significantly alter model outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Our analyses demonstrate that when prophylactic pasireotide is administered, the cost per PF/PL/A avoided is approximately $300,000. Aggressive pricing negotiation, payer reimbursement for the drug, high-volume use, and consensus among the public, payers, and surgical community regarding the value of reducing morbidity will ultimately determine the utility of widespread pasireotide application in pancreatic resection.