Cost-effectiveness of golimumab for the treatment of patients with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis in Quebec using a patient level state transition microsimulation.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct cost-effectiveness analyses comparing the addition of golimumab to the standard of care (SoC) for treatment of patients with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis (UC) who are refractory to conventional therapies in Quebec (Canada). METHODS: An individual patient state transition microsimulation model was developed to project health outcomes and costs over 10 years, using a payer perspective. The incremental benefit estimates for golimumab were driven by induction response and risk of a flare. Flare risks post-induction were derived for golimumab from the PURSUIT maintenance trial and extension study, while those for SoC were derived from the placebo arms of the Active Ulcerative Colitis Trials (ACT) 1 and 2. Other inputs were derived from multiple sources, including retrospective claims analyses and literature. Costs are reported in 2014 Canadian dollars. A 5% annual discount rate was applied to costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). RESULTS: Compared with SoC, golimumab was projected to increase the time spent in mild disease or remission states, decrease flare rates, and increase QALYs. These gains were achieved with higher direct medical costs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for golimumab vs SoC was $63,487 per QALY. LIMITATIONS: The long-term flare projections for SoC were based on the data available from the ACT 1 and 2 placebo arms, as data were not available from the PURSUIT maintenance or extension trial. Additionally, the study was limited to only SoC and golimumab, due to the availability of individual patient data to analyze. CONCLUSION: This economic analysis concluded that treatment with golimumab is likely more cost-effective vs SoC when considering cost-effectiveness acceptability thresholds from $50,000-$100,000 per QALY.

Cost-effectiveness of combination daclatasvir-sofosbuvir for treatment of genotype 3 chronic hepatitis C infection in the United States.

BACKGROUND: A phase III trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of Daklinza (daclatasvir or DCV) in combination with sofosbuvir (SOF) for treatment of genotype (GT) 3 hepatitis C virus (HCV) patients. AIM: This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of DCV + SOF vs SOF in combination with ribavirin (RBV) over a 20-year time horizon from the perspective of a United States (US) payer. METHODS: A published Markov model was adapted to reflect US demographic characteristics, treatment patterns, costs of drug acquisition, monitoring, disease and adverse event management, and mortality risks. Clinical inputs came from the ALLY-3 and VALENCE trials. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-utility ratio. Life-years, incidence of complications, number of patients achieving sustained virological response (SVR), and the total cost per SVR were secondary outcomes. Costs (2014 USD) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were discounted at 3% per year. Deterministic, probabilistic, and scenario sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: DCV + SOF was associated with lower costs and better effectiveness than SOF + RBV in the base case and in almost all scenarios (i.e. treatment-experienced, non-cirrhotic, time horizons of 5, 10, and 80 years). DCV + SOF was less costly, but also slightly less effective than SOF + RBV in the cirrhotic and treatment-naïve population scenarios. Results were sensitive to variations in the probability of achieving SVR for both treatment arms. DCV + SOF costs less than $50,000 per QALY gained in 79% of all probabilistic iterations compared with SOF + RBV. CONCLUSION: DCV + SOF is a dominant option compared with SOF + RBV in the US for the overall GT 3 HCV patient population.

Cost-utility analysis of memantine extended release added to cholinesterase inhibitors compared to cholinesterase inhibitor monotherapy for the treatment of moderate-to-severe dementia of the Alzheimer's type in the US.

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of memantine extended release (ER) as an add-on therapy to acetylcholinesterase inhibitor (AChEI) [combination therapy] for treatment of patients with moderate-to-severe Alzheimer's disease (AD) from both a healthcare payer and a societal perspective over 3 years when compared to AChEI monotherapy in the US. METHODS: A phase III trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of memantine ER for treatment of AD patients taking an AChEI. The analysis assessed the long-term costs and health outcomes using an individual patient simulation in which AD progression is modeled in terms of cognition, behavior, and functioning changes. Input parameters are based on patient-level trial data, published literature, and publicly available data sources. Changes in anti-psychotic medication use are incorporated based on a published retrospective cohort study. Costs include drug acquisition and monitoring, total AD-related medical care, and informal care associated with caregiver time. Incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR), life years, care time for caregiver, time in community and institution, time on anti-psychotics, time by disease severity, and time without severe symptoms are reported. Costs and health outcomes are discounted at 3% per annum. RESULTS: Considering a societal perspective over 3 years, this analysis shows that memantine ER combined with an AChEI provides better clinical outcomes and lower costs than AChEI monotherapy. Discounted average savings were estimated at $18,355 and $20,947 per patient and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) increased by an average of 0.12 and 0.13 from a societal and healthcare payer perspective, respectively. Patients on combination therapy spent an average of 4 months longer living at home and spend less time in moderate-severe and severe stages of the disease. CONCLUSION: Combination therapy for patients with moderate-to-severe AD is a cost-effective treatment compared to AChEI monotherapy in the US.

Cost-effectiveness analyses in multiple sclerosis: a review of modelling approaches.

The growing number of disease-modifying treatments (DMTs) for patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) and the high acquisition costs of these DMTs are likely to increase the demand for information on their cost effectiveness. To improve the comparability and applicability of the findings from future cost-effectiveness analyses, it would be useful to have a clear understanding of the methodological challenges of modelling the cost effectiveness of DMTs in MS and the different approaches taken by such studies to date. In contrast to previous review studies, this review focuses on long-term time horizon (≥10 years) simulation-based cost-effectiveness analyses with homogeneous contexts of analysis (i.e. those with similar study objectives, comparators, and target populations) published over the past decade. By doing so, it provides a clearer picture of how modelling approaches taken in the existing studies truly differ across studies, and reveals major areas for improvement in conducting future cost-effectiveness analyses of DMTs for patients with MS.