Use of External Comparators for Health Technology Assessment Submissions Based on Single-Arm Trials.

BACKGROUND: Single-arm trial (SAT) data is increasingly reviewed for drug approvals by regulators and Health Technology Assessment (HTA) bodies. Supplementary data in the form of external comparators (ECs) can be used to provide clinical context to support these drug evaluations. In this study we characterized HTAs for SAT-based submissions, the use of supplementary EC data and outcomes from HTA review. METHODS: HTA Accelerator database was used to describe SAT-based HTA submissions with decisions (2011-2019). RESULTS: A total of 433 SAT-based HTA submissions were identified between 2011 and 2019 with a 13-fold increase during this period. Around 65%(283/433) were in oncology or hem-oncology. Around 52%(226/433) of submissions contained some type of EC data, including prior clinical trials (24%, 104) and real-world data (RWD) (20%, 87), but 40%(175) contained no EC data. The overall acceptance rate for SAT-based submissions was 48% and with RWD EC data acceptance was 59%. In the latest 5-year period (2015-2019), use of RWD ECs increased 22% as a proportion of submissions per year, whereas, prior trial ECs decreased (-14%) and use of no EC remained stable (-2%). Between 2015 to 2017 and 2018 to 2019, acceptance rate for RWD ECs increased by 20% (41% in 2015-2017 to 61% in 2018-2019) whereas prior trial EC use decreased by 10% and no EC submissions decreased 16%. Of 226 submissions using ECs, only 29%(66) used an adjusted indirect treatment comparison method. CONCLUSIONS: SAT-based submissions to HTA bodies are rapidly evolving in terms of composition and acceptance. Types of EC and methodological approach used are important determinants of positive outcomes.

"De-escalation" strategy using micafungin for the treatment of systemic Candida infections: budget impact in France and Germany.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of azole-resistant Candida infections is increasing. Consequently, guidelines for treating systemic Candida infection (SCI) recommend a "de-escalation" strategy: initial broad-spectrum antifungal agents (e.g., echinocandins), followed by switching to fluconazole if isolates are fluconazole sensitive, rather than "escalation" with initial fluconazole treatment and then switching to echinocandins if isolates are fluconazole resistant. However, fluconazole may continue to be used as first-line treatment in view of its low acquisition costs. The aim of this study was, therefore, to evaluate the budget impact of the de-escalation strategy using micafungin compared with the escalation strategy in France and Germany. METHODS: A budget impact model was used to compare de-escalation to escalation strategies. As well as survival, clinical success (resolution/reduction of symptoms and radiographic abnormalities associated with fungal infection), was considered, as was mycological success (eradication of Candida from the bloodstream). Health economic outcomes included cost per health state according to clinical success and mycological success, and budget impact. A 42-day time horizon was used. RESULTS: For all patients with SCI, the budget impact of using de-escalation rather than escalation was greater, but improved rates of survival, clinical success and mycological success were apparent with de-escalation. In patients with fluconazole-resistant isolates, clinical success rates and survival were improved by ~72% with de-escalation versus escalation, producing cost savings of €6,374 and €356 per patient in France and Germany, respectively; improvements of ~72% in mycological success rates with de-escalation versus escalation did not translate into cost savings. CONCLUSION: Modeling provides evidence that when treating SCI in individuals at risk of azole-resistant infections, de-escalation from micafungin has potential cost savings associated with improved clinical success rates.

Cost-effectiveness of a fixed-dose combination of solifenacin and oral controlled adsorption system formulation of tamsulosin in men with lower urinary tract symptoms associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia.

BACKGROUND: Storage symptoms, associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), often co-exist with voiding symptoms in men with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS). Storage symptoms are likely to be most bothersome, and may not be adequately resolved by treatment with α-blocker or antimuscarinic monotherapy. A recent randomised controlled phase 3 trial (NEPTUNE) demonstrated that a fixed-dose combination (FDC) of solifenacin 6 mg plus an oral controlled absorption system (OCAS™) formulation of tamsulosin (TOCAS, 0.4 mg) improved storage symptoms, as well as quality of life, compared with TOCAS alone in men with moderate-to-severe storage symptoms and voiding symptoms. This analysis aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of a FDC tablet of solifenacin 6 mg plus TOCAS relative to tolterodine plus tamsulosin given concomitantly, from the perspective of the UK National Health Service (NHS). METHODS: A Markov model was developed for men aged ≥45 years with LUTS/BPH who have moderate-to-severe storage symptoms and voiding symptoms. The model calculated cost-effectiveness over an analytical time horizon of 1 year and estimated total treatment costs, quality adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. RESULTS: The FDC tablet of solifenacin 6 mg plus TOCAS was associated with lower total annual costs (£860 versus £959) and increased QALYs (0.839 versus 0.836), and was therefore dominant compared with tolterodine plus tamsulosin. Time horizon, discontinuation or withdrawal rates, drug cost and utility values were the main drivers of cost-effectiveness. The probability that the FDC tablet of solifenacin 6 mg plus TOCAS is cost-effective was 100% versus tolterodine plus tamsulosin, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000/QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: The FDC tablet of solifenacin 6 mg plus TOCAS provides important clinical benefits and is a cost-effective treatment strategy in the UK NHS compared with tolterodine plus tamsulosin for men with both storage and voiding LUTS/BPH.

Economic Evaluation of Fidaxomicin for the Treatment of Clostridium Difficile Infection (C. difficile-associated diarrhoea) in Ireland.

Background: Clostridium difficile is associated with 20-30% of cases of antibiotic-associated diarrhoea. The incidence of C. difficile infection (CDI) is higher in Ireland than in other countries in Europe, and it is associated with considerable morbidity. Previously recommended standard therapeutic options were vancomycin and metronidazole, but the macrocyclic antibiotic fidaxomicin has recently been recommended for use in adults with CDI in Ireland. Objectives: To perform a cost-utility analysis of fidaxomicin compared to oral metronidazole (used to treat initial non-severe disease and first non-severe recurrence) and oral vancomycin (used to treat severe disease and any non-severe recurrence beyond the first) for the treatment of CDI. Methods: A Markov model was used to determine the cost-utility of fidaxomicin in the treatment of all adult CDI patients (base case), patients with severe CDI and patients with initial CDI recurrences, respectively. Patients enter the model in the CDI health state and are treated either with fidaxomicin or current standard of care (oral metronidazole for non-severe CDI; vancomycin for severe CDI) for 10 days. The time horizon was 1 year. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. Health state utilities were derived from the literature. The perspective was that of the Irish Health Service Executive (HSE). Results: In the base case, fidaxomicin was dominant to current standard-of-care therapy, with cost savings of €2,904 and incremental quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gain of 0.031. The main drivers of costeffectiveness were recurrence rates and cost of hospitalization. Fidaxomicin was also dominant for all patient subgroups. The probability of fidaxomicin being cost-effective in all patients with CDI at a willingness to pay threshold of €45,000 per QALY gained was 82%. Conclusion: Fidaxomicin was dominant to the current standard-of-care therapy for CDI. Based on this analysis, fidaxomicin has received reimbursement for CDI treatment under the High Tech Drug Scheme in Ireland.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of fidaxomicin versus vancomycin in Clostridium difficile infection.

OBJECTIVES: Fidaxomicin was non-inferior to vancomycin with respect to clinical cure rates in the treatment of Clostridium difficile infections (CDIs) in two Phase III trials, but was associated with significantly fewer recurrences than vancomycin. This economic analysis investigated the cost-effectiveness of fidaxomicin compared with vancomycin in patients with severe CDI and in patients with their first CDI recurrence. METHODS: A 1 year time horizon Markov model with seven health states was developed from the perspective of Scottish public healthcare providers. Model inputs for effectiveness, resource use, direct costs and utilities were obtained from published sources and a Scottish expert panel. The main model outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), expressed as cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY), for fidaxomicin versus vancomycin; ICERs were interpreted using willingness-to-pay thresholds of £20,000/QALY and £30,000/QALY. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Total costs were similar with fidaxomicin and vancomycin in patients with severe CDI (£14,515 and £14,344, respectively) and in patients with a first recurrence (£16,535 and £16,926, respectively). Improvements in clinical outcomes with fidaxomicin resulted in small QALY gains versus vancomycin (severe CDI, +0.010; patients with first recurrence, +0.019). Fidaxomicin was cost-effective in severe CDI (ICER £16,529/QALY) and dominant (i.e. more effective and less costly) in patients with a first recurrence. The probability that fidaxomicin was cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £30,000/QALY was 60% for severe CDI and 68% in a first recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: Fidaxomicin is cost-effective in patients with severe CDI and in patients with a first CDI recurrence versus vancomycin.

De-escalation from micafungin is a cost-effective alternative to traditional escalation from fluconazole in the treatment of patients with systemic Candida infections.

BACKGROUND: Systemic Candida infections (SCI) occur predominantly in intensive care unit patients and are a common cause of morbidity and mortality. Recently, changes in Candida epidemiology with an increasing prevalence of SCI caused by Candida non-albicans species have been reported. Resistance to fluconazole and azoles in general is not uncommon for non-albicans species. Despite guidelines recommending initial treatment with broad-spectrum antifungals such as echinocandins with subsequent switch to fluconazole if isolates are sensitive (de-escalation strategy), fluconazole is still the preferred first-line antifungal (escalation) in many clinical practice settings. After diagnosis of the pathogen, the initial therapy with fluconazole is switched to a broad-spectrum antifungal if a non-albicans is identified. METHODS: The cost-effectiveness of initial treatment with micafungin (de-escalation) vs fluconazole (escalation) in patients with SCI was estimated using decision analysis based on clinical and microbiological data from pertinent studies. The model horizon was 42 days, and was extrapolated to cover a lifetime horizon. All costs were analyzed from the UK NHS perspective. Several assumptions were taken to address uncertainties; the limitations of these assumptions are discussed in the article. RESULTS: In patients with fluconazole-resistant isolates, initial treatment with micafungin avoids 30% more deaths and successfully treats 23% more patients than initial treatment with fluconazole, with cost savings of £1621 per treated patient. In the overall SCI population, de-escalation results in 1.2% fewer deaths at a marginal cost of £740 per patient. Over a lifetime horizon, the incremental cost-effectiveness of de-escalation vs escalation was £15,522 per life-year and £25,673 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: De-escalation from micafungin may improve clinical outcomes and overall survival, particularly among patients with fluconazole-resistant Candida strains. De-escalation from initial treatment with micafungin is a cost-effective alternative to escalation from a UK NHS perspective, with a differential cost per QALY below the 'willingness-to-pay' threshold of £30,000.

Pharmacoeconomic model of topical treatment options of mild to moderate psoriasis vulgaris in Germany.

BACKGROUND: Psoriasis vulgaris is one of the most common dermatologic diseases in Germany with a prevalence of about 2%. Along with efficacy and safety, costs are an important criterion for selecting appropriate therapy for this chronic disease. The majority of the patients with mild to moderate psoriasis vulgaris can be successfully treated with topical therapy alone. The most important agents are vitamin D(3) analogs and corticosteroids either as single agents or in a fixed combination (Daivobet). METHODS: For the evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of different topical psoriasis treatments, a Markov model was developed that compares a fixed combination treatment followed by calcipotriol with a morning/evening application of the individual agents, as well as a comparison with tacalcitol. RESULTS: The pharmacoeconomic evaluation showed a higher cost-effectiveness of the fixed combination treatment compared to using single agents (morning/evening) and to the tacalcitol. Treatment with the fix combination is more effective and more economic. Additional sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the advantage remains even when assuming a maximum compliance for twice daily usage, and varying the effectiveness of the fixed combination by 10%. CONCLUSIONS: The treatment of mild to moderate psoriasis with a fixed calcipotriol/betamethasone combination is a more cost-effective treatment than a treatment with the single agents or tacalcitol monotherapy.