The macroeconomic impact of a dengue outbreak: Case studies from Thailand and Brazil.

BACKGROUND: Dengue is spreading in (sub)tropical areas, and half of the global population is at risk. The macroeconomic impact of dengue extends beyond healthcare costs. This study evaluated the impact of dengue on gross domestic product (GDP) based on approaches tailored to two dengue-endemic countries, Thailand and Brazil, from the tourism and workforce perspectives, respectively. FINDINGS: Because the tourism industry is a critical economic sector for Thailand, lost tourism revenues were estimated to analyze the impact of a dengue outbreak. An input-output model estimated that the direct effects (on international tourism) and indirect effects (on suppliers) of dengue on tourism reduced overall GDP by 1.43 billion US dollars (USD) (0.26%) in the outbreak year 2019. The induced effect (reduced employee income/spending) reduced Thailand's GDP by 375 million USD (0.07%). Overall, lost tourism revenues reduced Thailand's GDP by an estimated 1.81 billion USD (0.33%) in 2019 (3% of annual tourism revenue). An inoperability input-output model was used to analyze the effect of workforce absenteeism on GDP due to a dengue outbreak in Brazil. This model calculates the number of lost workdays associated with ambulatory and hospitalized dengue. Input was collected from state-level epidemiological and economic data for 2019. An estimated 22.4 million workdays were lost in the employed population; 39% associated with the informal sector. Lost workdays due to dengue reduced Brazil's GDP by 876 million USD (0.05%). CONCLUSIONS: The economic costs of dengue outbreaks far surpass the direct medical costs. Dengue reduces overall GDP and inflicts national economic losses. With a high proportion of the population lacking formal employment in both countries and low income being a barrier to seeking care, dengue also poses an equity challenge. A combination of public health measures, like vector control and vaccination, against dengue is recommended to mitigate the broader economic impact of dengue.

Cost-Effectiveness of Tepotinib Versus Capmatinib for the Treatment of Adult Patients With Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Harboring Mesenchymal-Epithelial Transition Exon 14 Skipping.

OBJECTIVES: From the US Medicare perspective, this study compared the cost-effectiveness of tepotinib and capmatinib for treating metastatic non-small cell lung cancer with tumors harboring mesenchymal-epithelial transition factor gene exon 14 skipping. METHODS: A 3-state partitioned survival model assessed outcomes over a lifetime horizon. Parametric survival analysis of the phase 2 VISION trial informed clinical inputs for tepotinib. Capmatinib inputs were captured using hazard ratios derived from an unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison study and published literature. National cost databases, trial data, and literature furnished drug, treatment monitoring, and disease/adverse event management expenditures (2021 US dollars) and utility inputs. Outcomes were discounted at 3% annually. RESULTS: In the base case, tepotinib dominated capmatinib in frontline settings (incremental discounted quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs] and costs of 0.2127 and -$47 756, respectively) while realizing an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $274 514/QALY in subsequent lines (incremental QALYs and costs of 0.3330 and $91 401, respectively). In a line agnostic context, tepotinib produced an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $105 383/QALY (incremental QALYs and costs of 0.2794 and $29 447, respectively). Sensitivity and scenarios analyses for individual lines typically supported the base case, whereas those for the line agnostic setting suggested sensitivity to drug acquisition costs and efficacy inputs. CONCLUSIONS: Tepotinib could be cost-effective versus capmatinib in frontline and line agnostic contexts, considering the range of willingness-to-pay thresholds recommended by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review ($100 000-$150 000/QALY). Tepotinib could be cost-effective in subsequent lines at higher willingness-to-pay levels. These results are to be interpreted cautiously, considering uncertainty in key model inputs.

Budget impact of tepotinib in the treatment of adult patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer harboring METex14 skipping alterations in the United States.

AIMS: To estimate the budget impact of adding tepotinib to United States (US) health plans for treating adult patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) harboring mesenchymal-epithelial transition exon 14 (METex14) skipping alterations. METHODS: The base-case analysis was conducted from the perspective of a hypothetical Medicare plan of 1 million members. Scenarios were analysed for other US health plans. Treatments included tepotinib, capmatinib, crizotinib, and standard of care (SoC). Patients eligible for tepotinib were estimated from published epidemiological data and literature, and real-world evidence. Clinical inputs were derived from the phase II VISION trial, US prescribing information, and published literature. Tepotinib uptake and projected testing rates for METex14 skipping alterations were based on market research. Unit costs (2020 US dollars (USD)) and resource utilization associated with drug acquisition and administration, treatment monitoring, disease and adverse event (AE) management, and subsequent treatment were derived primarily from public sources. RESULTS: In the base-case, 38-65 patients were eligible for tepotinib each year over the three-year time horizon. The cumulative net budgetary impact of tepotinib was -$692,541 (-2.6%); $26,531,670 in the scenario without tepotinib and $25,839,129 in the scenario with tepotinib. A negligible net budget impact was observed per member per month (PMPM) at $0.2457 and $0.2393, respectively, before and after tepotinib's introduction. Results were most sensitive to variability in unit costs of capmatinib and tepotinib and their corresponding median treatment durations. Sensitivity and scenario analyses support the conclusion that introducing tepotinib will have minimal budgetary impact for Medicare health plans. Similar results were obtained for other US health plans. LIMITATIONS: Assumptions and expert opinion were applied to address data gaps in key model inputs. CONCLUSIONS: The estimated budgetary impact of tepotinib for the treatment of adult patients with mNSCLC harboring METex14 skipping alterations is minimal from the perspective of US health plans.