A Cost Impact Analysis of clonoSEQ® as a Valid and CE-Certified Minimal Residual Disease (MRD) Diagnostic Compared to No MRD Testing in Multiple Myeloma in Germany.

INTRODUCTION: The measurement of minimal residual disease (MRD) with clonoSEQ® can be used in the assessment of B-cell lymphoid tumor burden throughout treatment with accuracy, sensitivity and standardization when compared to traditional cytomorphology. With the approval of novel treatments, standardized MRD assessment with improved performance is increasingly important. The aim of this analysis is to estimate the cost-effectiveness of MRD testing with clonoSEQ® compared to no MRD testing for patients with multiple myeloma (MM) on maintenance therapy in Germany. METHODS: The cost impact of clonoSEQ® was analyzed from the German statutory insurance perspective. Clinical data were derived from the literature and expert opinions. Cost input was utilized based on publicly available data and literature. Patients in the MRD arm were tested every 6 months. The deterministic Markov model consists of six health states, and every patient begins at the start of maintenance. Included therapies are lenalidomide for maintenance and carfilzomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone for relapse. RESULTS: For a time horizon of 10 years, the deterministic cost impact analysis shows total cost of €279,483 for patients using clonoSEQ® in comparison to €356,623 for simulated patients without MRD testing. The main drivers of the cost differences are saved cost of drug holiday. The savings per patient in 1 year are €18,396. Savings after 3 years are €69,991 per patient. Savings after 10 years are €77,140 per patient. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the underlying model, clonoSEQ® can support German health insurance funds to use high-cost drugs more efficiently in the treatment of myeloma.

Cost savings associated with nutritional support in medical inpatients: an economic model based on data from a systematic review of randomised trials.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Nutritional support improves clinical outcomes during hospitalisation as well as after discharge. Recently, a systematic review of 27 randomised, controlled trials showed that nutritional support was associated with lower rates of hospital readmissions and improved survival. In the present economic modelling study, we sought to determine whether in-hospital nutritional support would also return economic benefits. METHODS: The current economic model applied cost estimates to the outcome results from our recent systematic review of hospitalised patients. In the underlying meta-analysis, a total of 27 trials (n=6803 patients) were included. To calculate the economic impact of nutritional support, a Markov model was developed using transitions between relevant health states. Costs were estimated accounting for length of stay in a general hospital ward, hospital-acquired infections, readmissions and nutritional support. Six-month mortality was also considered. The estimated daily per-patient cost for in-hospital nutrition was US$6.23. RESULTS: Overall costs of care within the model timeframe of 6 months averaged US$63 227 per patient in the intervention group versus US$66 045 in the control group, which corresponds to per patient cost savings of US$2818. These cost savings were mainly due to reduced infection rate and shorter lengths of stay. We also calculated the costs to prevent a hospital-acquired infection and a non-elective readmission, that is, US$820 and US$733, respectively. The incremental cost per life-day gained was -US$1149 with 2.53 additional days. The sensitivity analyses for cost per quality-adjusted life day provided support for the original findings. CONCLUSIONS: For medical inpatients who are malnourished or at nutritional risk, our findings showed that in-hospital nutritional support is a cost-effective way to reduce risk for readmissions, lower the frequency of hospital-associated infections, and improve survival rates.

Economic evaluation of individualized nutritional support in medical inpatients: Secondary analysis of the EFFORT trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Existing guidelines support the importance of nutritional interventions for medical inpatients at malnutrition risk to alleviate the impact of malnutrition on outcomes. While recent studies have reported positive effects of nutritional support on health outcomes, limited evidence exists on whether in-hospital nutritional support also results in economic advantages. We report the results of the economic evaluation of EFFORT-a pragmatic, investigator-initiated, open-label, multicenter trial. METHODS: A total of 2028 medical inpatients at nutritional risk were randomly assigned to receive individualized nutritional support to reach protein and energy goals (intervention group; n = 1015) or standard hospital food (control group; n = 1013). To calculate the economic impact of nutritional support, a Markov model was developed with relevant health states. Costs were estimated for days in normal hospital ward and in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU), hospital-acquired complications, and nutritional support. We used a Euro conversion rate of 0.93216 Euro for 1 Swiss Franc (CHF). RESULTS: The estimated per-patient cost was CHF90 (83.78 €) for the in-hospital nutritional support and CHF283.85 (264.23 €) when also considering dietitian consultation time. Overall costs of care within 30 days of admission averaged CHF29,263 (27,240 €) per-patient in the intervention group versus CHF29,477 (27,439 €) in the control group resulting in per-patient cost savings of CHF214 (199 €). Per-patient cost savings was CHF19.56 (18.21 €) when also accounting for dietician costs (full cost analysis). These cost savings were mainly due to reduced ICU length of stay and fewer complications. We also calculated costs to prevent adverse outcomes, which were CHF276 (256 €) for one severe complication, CHF2,675 (2490 €) for one day in ICU, and CHF7,975 (7423 €) for one death. For the full cost analysis, these numbers were CHF872 (811 €), CHF8,459 (7874 €) and CHF25,219 (23,475 €). Sensitivity analyses confirmed the original findings. CONCLUSIONS: Our evaluation demonstrates that in-hospital nutritional support for medical inpatients is a highly cost-effective intervention to reduce risks for ICU admissions and hospital-associated complications, while improving patient survival. The positive clinical and economic benefits of nutritional support in at-risk medical inpatients calls for comprehensive nutrition programs, including malnutrition screening, consultation, and nutritional support. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02517476.

A cost-effectiveness analysis of a hydration response technology dressing in the treatment of venous leg ulcers in the UK.

OBJECTIVE: Venous leg ulcers (VLUs) cause significant pain and suffering for patients. Additionally, they place considerable financial and service burden on the National Health Service (NHS). A large proportion of VLUs do not heal within the standard time frame of 16-24 weeks, resulting in static wounds which commonly have issues with increasing exudate production. As the NHS continues to face times of austerity, services need to find solutions to be able to reduce costs and release nursing time while maintaining standards of care. Cutimed Sorbion Sachet S, a hydration response technology dressing (HRTD), is a treatment option for the management of patients with a VLU. The objective of this study was to provide an update of the health economic analysis of HRTD in comparison with relevant comparators in the UK with current cost data. METHOD: HRTD was compared against four different dressings, Zetuvit Plus (a super absorbent polymer dressing SAP), DryMax extra (a superabsorbent dressing, SADM), KerraMax Care (superabsorbent dressing, SAKM) and Eclypse (superabsorbent dressing, SAE) from a cost-effectiveness perspective. Clinical data were derived from literature and expert opinion. Cost input was utilised based on publicly available data and literature. The average patient in the model is assumed to be 65 years with a diagnosed VLU. It is assumed that patients in the different treatment arms have the same background mortality, hence the endpoint mortality is not included in the model. The analysis is based on a deterministic Markov model derived from Harding et al. with weekly cycles. The following assumptions are made: first, all patients start in a static health state with a non-healed but non-progressing VLU. It is assumed in the model that patients wounds can transition to a deteriorating state or one where a wound is improving or could progress. Additionally, VLUs could be healed from a progressed wound (i.e. improved wound), or they could develop into a severe wound with complications (infections) to be treated in hospitals. The time frame for the analysis was fixed for one year and no re-occurence after healing was assumed to happen. RESULTS: The cost-effectiveness analysis demonstrates health economic dominance of HRDT being more effective and cost-saving against all analysed comparators. When using literature-based input values, the incrementally higher healing rates for HRDT are 11.04 months (versus SAP), 29.04 months (versus SADM), 1.68 months (versus SAKM) and 11.04 months (versus SAE). Cost savings per patient were £37.60 versus SAP, £171.68 versus SADM, £3.13 versus SAKM and £43.63 versus SAE. CONCLUSION: Clinical benefits and cost savings increase when real-life practice assumptions, based on expert opinion, are included. Based on the underlying health economic model, HRDT is more effective and less costly than other comparative products in VLUs in the UK.