Cost-utility of triple versus dual inhaler therapy in moderate to severe asthma.

BACKGROUND: An important proportion of asthma patients remain uncontrolled despite using inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting beta-agonists. Clinical guidelines recommend, in these patients, using add-on long-acting muscarinic antagonists (triple therapy) to treatment with high doses of inhaled corticosteroids-long-acting beta2-agonist (dual therapy). The purpose of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of triple therapy versus dual therapy for patients with severe asthma. METHODS: A probabilistic Markov model was created to estimate the cost and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of patients with severe asthma in Colombia. Total costs and QALYS of dual and triple therapy were calculated over a lifetime horizon. Multiple sensitivity analyses were conducted. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated at a willingness-to-pay value of $19,000. RESULTS: The model suggests a potential gain of 1.55 QALYs per patient per year on triple therapy with respect to dual therapy. We observed a difference of US$304 in discounted cost per person-year on triple therapy with respect to dual therapy. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was US$196 in the probabilistic model. In the sensitivity analysis, our base-case results were robust to variations in all assumptions and parameters. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, triple therapy in patients with moderate-severe asthma was cost-effective. Using triple therapy emerges with our results as an alternative before using oral corticosteroids or biologics, especially in resource-limited settings.

Consumption of single products versus fixed-dose combination medicines for hypertension and hyperlipidemia during 2015-2019 in South Korea.

BACKGROUND: Fixed-dose combinations can simplify prescribing, and numerous combination products exist for hypertension and dyslipidemia in South Korea. This study's aim was to compare trends in the consumption of single products versus fixed-dose combinations for hypertension and hyperlipidemia. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We analyzed the Korean national health insurance claims database from January 2015 through December 2019. Consumption of medicines was calculated using the defined daily dose per 1,000 inhabitants per day (DIDs) and expenditures over time. During 2015-2019, the use of antihypertensive drugs increased with an annual growth rate (AGR) of 0.9% for single products and with an AGR of 35.6% for fixed-dose combinations. A notable increase was observed for antihyperlipidemic combination drugs with an AGR of 268.1% compared to single products with 35.7%. For older adults (65+ years), the consumption of drugs for hypertension and hyperlipidemia was 3-4.5 and about 3 times higher, respectively, than in adults aged 20-64 years, and a sharp increase was found in antihyperlipidemic fixed-dose combinations among older adults. A large increase was seen for C09 (agents acting on the renin-angiotensin system) with an AGR of 36.5%, especially C09DB (angiotensin II receptor blockers + calcium channel blockers) was widely used and steeply increased with 114.2%. For antihyperlipidemic drugs, C10AA (HMG CoA reductase inhibitors) accounted for a large share and sharply increased, with 52.1 DIDs in 2019 and with an AGR of 78.4%, whereas C10BA (combinations of various lipid modifying agents) increased 9.6 times from 2.9 DIDs (96 million USD) in 2015 to 27.7 DIDs (912 million USD) in 2019. CONCLUSION: The findings of increased consumption and drug spending among older adults underscores the need for real-world evidence about health outcomes of fixed-dose combinations in this population.

Cost-effectiveness of adding daratumumab or bortezomib to lenalidomide plus dexamethasone for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.

BACKGROUND: Multiple myeloma survival rates are steadily increasing due to availability of new drug classes used in combination with corticosteroids and chemotherapy. The latest treatments are daratumumab or bortezomib in combination therapy with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd). Daratumumab, a CD38-targeted, human IgG1k monoclonal antibody, and bortezomib, a proteasome inhibitor, are both approved as regimens for transplant-ineligible relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). There have been cost-effectiveness analyses for daratumumab and bortezomib use in RRMM, but there are limited data regarding cost-effectiveness for daratumumab or bortezomib use in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients who are ineligible for stem cell transplantation. OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost-effectiveness of 3 separate regimens-(1) daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone triple therapy (DRd); (2) bortezomib and lenalidomide plus dexamethasone triple therapy (VRd); and (3) lenalidomide plus dexamethasone (Rd)-in patients with multiple myeloma ineligible for autologous stem cell transplant. METHODS: A 2-state Markov model was developed using a US health system perspective and lifetime time horizon. Transition probabilities were calculated from the latest progression-free survival data reported in two phase 3 randomized controlled trials-MAIA and SWOG S0777-and extrapolated using a Weibull distribution based on the Hoyle Henley method. National data sources were used to obtain costs in 2019 US dollars, discounted by 3%. Health state utilities from available literature were applied to each health state. Utility decrements for adverse events were individualized in each choice branch with utility decrement weighted by the percentage of patients who experienced the adverse event in the MAIA and SWOG S0777 trials. We assumed a treatment would be cost-effective at a willingness to pay (WTP) of $150,000 per progression-free quality-adjusted life-year ($/PFQALY). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Rd standard therapy had the lowest overall cost at $329,867, followed by VRd at $385,434 and DRd with the highest overall total cost at $626,900. Rd was estimated to result in the least amount (1.24) of PFQALYs, followed by VRd at 1.35 PFQALYs and DRd at 1.52 PFQALYs. With a WTP threshold of $150,000 per PFQALY, VRd was not cost-effective compared with Rd standard therapy, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $530,256 per PFQALY. DRd was not cost-effective compared with VRd (ICER = $1,396,318 per PFQALY), nor as compared with Rd standard therapy (ICER = $1060,832). One-way sensitivity analysis showed that our model was sensitive to cost of DRd, VRd, and Rd drugs. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that only at a WTP threshold of $550,000 was VRd cost-effective for 40% of iterations. There were no reasonable WTP thresholds, up to $800,00, where DRd became more cost-effective than VRd. CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first analysis to directly compare the cost-effectiveness of 3 acceptable chemotherapy treatment regimens for patients with multiple myeloma ineligible for autologous stem cell transplant. Neither DRd nor VRd triple therapy were found to be cost-effective vs Rd. Further cost-effectiveness analyses that include overall survival data for daratumumab and bortezomib triple therapies are needed to demonstrate an ICER in QALYs. DISCLOSURES: No funding was received for this study. At the time of this study, Narsipur was a UCSF-Actelion Clinical Research and Medical Communications Fellow, unrelated to this study. The other authors have nothing to disclose.

Cost-Utility of Acromegaly Pharmacological Treatments in a French Context.

Objective: Efficacy of pharmacological treatments for acromegaly has been assessed in many clinical or real-world studies but no study was interested in economics evaluation of these treatments in France. Therefore, the objective of this study was to estimate the cost-utility of second-line pharmacological treatments in acromegaly patients. Methods: A Markov model was developed to follow a cohort of 1,000 patients for a lifetime horizon. First-generation somatostatin analogues (FGSA), pegvisomant, pasireotide and pegvisomant combined with FGSA (off label) were compared. Efficacy was defined as the normalization of insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) concentration and was obtained from pivotal trials and adjusted by a network meta-analysis. Costs data were obtained from French databases and literature. Utilities from the literature were used to estimate quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Results: The incremental cost-utility ratios (ICUR) of treatments compared to FGSA were estimated to be 562,463 € per QALY gained for pasireotide, 171,332 € per QALY gained for pegvisomant, and 186,242 € per QALY gained for pegvisomant + FGSA. Pasireotide seems to be the least cost-efficient treatment. Sensitivity analyses showed the robustness of the results. Conclusion: FGSA, pegvisomant and pegvisomant + FGSA were on the cost-effective frontier, therefore, depending on the willingness-to-pay for an additional QALY, they are the most cost-effective treatments. This medico-economic analysis highlighted the consistency of the efficiency results with the efficacy results assessed in the pivotal trials. However, most recent treatment guidelines recommend an individualized treatment strategy based on the patient and disease profile.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of FOLFIRINOX vs gemcitabine with nab-paclitaxel as adjuvant treatment for resected pancreatic cancer in the United States based on PRODIGE-24 and APACT trials.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic cancer is associated with low median overall survival. Combination chemotherapy regimens FOLFIRINOX and gemcitabine with nab-paclitaxel (GemNab) are the new adjuvant treatment standards for resectable pancreatic cancer. PRODIGE-24 and APACT trials demonstrated superior clinical outcomes with FOLFIRINOX and GemNab, each vs gemcitabine monotherapy. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of FOLFIRINOX vs GemNab for resectable pancreatic cancer in adults from the U.S. payer perspective, in order to inform decision makers about which of these treatments is optimal. METHODS: A Markov model with 3 disease states (relapse free, progressive disease, and death) was developed. Cycle length was 1 month, and time horizon was 10 years. Transition probabilities were derived from PRODIGE-24 and APACT survival data. All cost and utility input parameters were obtained from published literature. Cost-effectiveness analysis was performed to obtain total costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), life-years (LYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). A 3% annual discount rate was applied to costs and outcomes. The effect of uncertainty on model parameters was assessed with 1-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA). RESULTS: Our analysis estimated that the cost for FOLFIRINOX was $40,831 higher than GemNab ($99,669 vs. $58,837). Despite increased toxicity, FOLFIRINOX was associated with additional 0.18 QALYs and 0.25 LYs compared with GemNab (QALY: 1.65 vs. 1.47; LY: 2.09 vs. 1.84). The ICER for FOLFIRINOX vs GemNab was $226,841 per QALY and $163,325 per LY. FOLFIRINOX was not cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $200,000 per QALY, and this was confirmed by the PSA. CONCLUSIONS: Total monthly cost for FOLFIRINOX was approximately 1.7 times higher than GemNab. If the WTP threshold increases to or above $250,000 per QALY, FOLFIRINOX then becomes a cost-effective treatment option. DISCLOSURES: This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Cost-Effectiveness of Combination Therapy for Patients With Systemic Sclerosis-Related Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension.

Background To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of combination pulmonary arterial hypertension specific therapy in systemic sclerosis-related PAH. Methods and Results Health outcomes and costs were captured through data linkage. Health utility was derived from Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36 scores. A probabilistic discrete-time model was developed to simulate lifetime changes in costs and health utility. Mortality was predicted using a Gompertz parametric survival model. For both treatment arms, the simulations were started using the same cohort of 10 000 patients. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed using the Monte Carlo simulation with 1000 sets of sampled parameter values. Of 143 patients with systemic sclerosis-related pulmonary arterial hypertension, 89 were on monotherapy and 54 on combination therapy. Mean simulated costs per patient per year in monotherapy and combination therapy groups were AU$23 411 (US$16 080) and AU$29 129 (US$19 982), respectively. Mean life years and quality-adjusted life years from pulmonary arterial hypertension diagnosis to death of patients receiving monotherapy were 7.1 and 3.0, respectively, and of those receiving combination therapy were 9.2 and 3.9, respectively. Incremental costs per life year and quality-adjusted life year gained of combination therapy compared with monotherapy were AU$47 989 (US$32 920) and AU$113 823 (US$78 082), respectively. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of AU$102 000 (US$69 972) per life year gained, and of AU$177 222 (US$121 574) per quality-adjusted life year gained, the probability of combination therapy being cost-effective was 0.95. Conclusions The incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained of combination therapy compared with monotherapy was substantial in the base case analysis. Given the fatal prognosis of systemic sclerosis-related pulmonary arterial hypertension and the incremental cost per life year of AU$47 989 (US$32 920), combination therapy could be considered cost-effective in systemic sclerosis-related pulmonary arterial hypertension.

Clarithromycin versus furazolidone for naïve Helicobacter pylori infected patients in a high clarithromycin resistance area.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: The increase in antibiotic resistance makes the eradication of Helicobacter pylori more difficult. Considering the limitations of the application of susceptibility-guided therapy, it is important to find an effective empirical regimen. The aim of the study is to compare the efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of clarithromycin-based bismuth-containing quadruple therapy (C-BQT) and furazolidone-based bismuth-containing quadruple therapy (F-BQT) in naïve H. pylori positive patients. METHODS: This was an open-label, randomized controlled, crossover trial. The trial comprised two phases. In C-F group, patients received C-BQT in the first phase; those who were still positive for H. pylori infection after the first phase entered the second phase to receive F-BQT as rescue treatment. In F-C group, patients were treated with F-BQT firstly and rescued with C-BQT. RESULTS: As first-line treatments, the eradication rates of C-BQT and F-BQT were 89.7% (157/175) and 92.0% (161/175) (P = 0.458) in intention-to-treat analysis and 93.4% (156/167) and 95.8% (161/168) (P = 0.327) in per-protocol analysis, respectively. The cumulative eradication rates of the C-F group and the F-C group were both 94.3% in intention-to-treat analysis (P = 1.000). Cost-effectiveness indexes of F-BQT and C-BQT were 0.54 and 1.24 in first-line treatments. Frequencies of adverse events in F-BQT and C-BQT had no differences (36.0% in C-BQT vs 32.6% in F-BQT, P = 0.499). CONCLUSIONS: Furazolidone-based bismuth-containing quadruple therapy should be preferred for its excellent cost-effectiveness and acceptable safety.

Cost effectiveness of caplacizumab in acquired thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura.

Acquired thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (TTP) is a life-threatening disease characterized by thrombotic microangiopathy leading to end-organ damage. The standard of care (SOC) treatment is therapeutic plasma exchange (TPE) alongside immunomodulation with steroids, with increasing use of rituximab ± other immunomodulatory agents. The addition of caplacizumab, a nanobody targeting von Willebrand factor, was shown to accelerate platelet count recovery and reduce TPE treatments and hospital length of stay in TTP patients treated in 2 major randomized clinical trials. The addition of caplacizumab to SOC also led to increased bleeding from transient reductions in von Willebrand factor and increased relapse rates. Using data from the 2 clinical trials of caplacizumab, we performed the first-ever cost-effectiveness analysis in TTP. Over a 5-year period, the projected incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in our Markov model was $1 482 260, significantly above the accepted 2019 US willingness-to-pay threshold of $195 300. One-way sensitivity analyses showed the utility of the well state and the cost of caplacizumab to have the largest effects on ICER, with a reduction in caplacizumab cost demonstrating the single greatest impact on lowering the ICER. In a probabilistic sensitivity analysis, SOC was favored over caplacizumab in 100% of 10 000 iterations. Our data indicate that the addition of caplacizumab to SOC in treatment of acquired TTP is not cost effective because of the high cost of the medication and its failure to improve relapse rates. The potential impact of caplacizumab on health system cost using longer term follow-up data merits further study.

Cost-effectiveness of intermittent preventive treatment with dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine for malaria during pregnancy: an analysis using efficacy results from Uganda and Kenya, and pooled data.

BACKGROUND: Prevention of malaria infection during pregnancy in HIV-negative women currently relies on the use of long-lasting insecticidal nets together with intermittent preventive treatment in pregnancy with sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine (IPTp-SP). Increasing sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine resistance in Africa threatens current prevention of malaria during pregnancy. Thus, a replacement for IPTp-SP is urgently needed, especially for locations with high sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine resistance. Dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine is a promising candidate. We aimed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of intermittent preventive treatment in pregnancy with dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine (IPTp-DP) versus IPTp-SP to prevent clinical malaria infection (and its sequelae) during pregnancy. METHODS: We did a cost-effectiveness analysis using meta-analysis and individual trial results from three clinical trials done in Kenya and Uganda. We calculated disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) arising from stillbirths, neonatal death, low birthweight, mild and moderate maternal anaemia, and clinical malaria infection, associated with malaria during pregnancy. Cost estimates were obtained from data collected in observational studies, health-facility costings, and from international drug procurement databases. The cost-effectiveness analyses were done from a health-care provider perspective using a decision tree model with a lifetime horizon. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses using appropriate parameter ranges and distributions were also done. Results are presented as the incremental cost per DALY averted and the likelihood that an intervention is cost-effective for different cost-effectiveness thresholds. FINDINGS: Compared with three doses of sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine, three doses of dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine, delivered to a hypothetical cohort of 1000 pregnant women, averted 892 DALYs (95% credibility interval 274 to 1517) at an incremental cost of US$7051 (2653 to 13 038) generating an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $8 (2 to 29) per DALY averted. Compared with monthly doses of sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine, monthly doses of dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine averted 534 DALYS (-141 to 1233) at a cost of $13 427 (4994 to 22 895), resulting in an ICER of $25 (-151 to 224) per DALY averted. Both results were highly robust to most or all variations in the deterministic sensitivity analysis. INTERPRETATION: Our findings suggest that among HIV-negative pregnant women with high uptake of long-lasting insecticidal nets, IPTp-DP is cost-effective in areas with high malaria transmission and high sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine resistance. These data provide a comprehensive overview of the current evidence on the cost-effectiveness of IPTp-DP. Nevertheless, before a policy change is advocated, we recommend further research into the effectiveness and costs of different regimens of IPTp-DP in settings with different underlying sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine resistance. FUNDING: Malaria in Pregnancy Consortium, which is funded through a grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to the Liverpool School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

Half-dose fulvestrant plus anastrozole as a first-line treatment for hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The S0226 trial demonstrated that the combination of half-dose fulvestrant (FUL) and anastrozole (ANA) (F&A) caused a significant improvement in overall survival (OS) versus ANA monotherapy for first-line treatment of postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer (PMW-MBC (HR+)). The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of F&A in the first-line treatment for PMW-MBC (HR+) in China. DESIGN: We constructed a Markov model over a life-time horizon. The clinical outcomes and utility data were obtained from published literature. Cost data were obtained from official Chinese websites. Sensitivity analyses were performed to test result uncertainty. SETTING: Chinese healthcare system perspective. POPULATION: A hypothetical cohort of adult patients presenting with PMW-MBC (HR+). INTERVENTIONS: F&A compared with full-dose FUL and ANAmonotherapy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome of this study was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALY). RESULTS: ANA was estimated to have the lowest cost and minimum life-years. The ICER of F&A versus ANA was US$15 665.891/QALY with incremental cost and QALY of US$12 401.120 and 0.792, respectively, which was less than the willingness-to-pay of US$29 383/QALY. Compared with F&A, FUL yielded a higher cost and a shorter lifetime; hence, it was identified as a dominated strategy. The univariate sensitivity analysis indicated the price of FUL was the most influential factor in our study. The probability that F&A was cost-effective at a threshold of US$29 383/QALY in China was 86.5%. CONCLUSION: F&A is a cost-effective alternative to FUL and ANA monotherapy for the first-line treatment of PMW-MBC (HR+) in China. F&A is a promising first-line treatment for PMW-MBC (HR+), and more research is needed to evaluate the economy of using F&A in other countries.

Mifepristone Combination Therapy Compared With Misoprostol Monotherapy for the Management of Miscarriage: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether mifepristone pretreatment adversely affects the cost of medical management of miscarriage. METHODS: Decision tree analyses were constructed, and Monte Carlo simulations were run comparing costs of combination therapy (mifepristone and misoprostol) with monotherapy (misoprostol alone) for medical management of miscarriage in multiple scenarios weighing clinical practice, patient income, and surgical evacuation modalities for failed medical management. Rates of completed medical evacuation for each were obtained from a recent randomized controlled trial. RESULTS: In every scenario, combination therapy offered a significant cost advantage over monotherapy. Using a Monte Carlo analysis, cost differences favoring combination therapy ranged from 6.3% to 19.5% in patients making federal minimum wage. The cost savings associated with combination therapy were greatest in scenarios using a staged approach to misoprostol administration and in scenarios using in-operating room dilation and curettage as the only modality for uterine evacuation, a savings of $190.20 (99% CI 189.35-191.07) and $217.85 (99% CI 217.19-218.50) per patient in a low-income wage group, respectively. A smaller difference was seen in scenarios using in-office manual vacuum aspiration to complete medical management failures. As patients' wages increased, the difference in cost between combination therapy and monotherapy increased. CONCLUSION: Mifepristone combined with misoprostol is, overall, more cost effective than monotherapy, and therefore cost should not be a deterrent to its adoption in the management of miscarriage.

Fixed Combination Calcipotriene and Betamethasone Dipropionate (Cal/BD) Foam for Beyond-Mild Psoriasis: A Possible Alternative to Systemic Medication.

Calcipotriene 0.005% plus betamethasone dipropionate 0.064% (Cal/BD) aerosol foam is a topical agent indicated for the treatment of plaque psoriasis. While topical treatments are typically reserved for milder disease, in clinical trials with Cal/BD foam, the vast majority of patients had beyond-mild psoriasis at baseline, and multiple studies (including subgroup analyses from randomized controlled trials and other small-scale studies) have demonstrated favorable outcomes with the use of Cal/BD foam in this population. The objective of this article is to review existing data on the efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of Cal/BD foam used in patients with beyond-mild psoriasis, either alone as topical monotherapy or as adjunctive therapy. Practical recommendations for managing beyond-mild psoriasis with Cal/BD foam are also provided. J Drugs Dermatol. 2020;19(8): doi:10.36849/JDD.2020.5300.

Cost-Effectiveness and Efficacy of a Novel Combination Regimen in Acromegaly: A Prospective, Randomized Trial.

CONTEXT: Combination therapy with somatostatin receptor ligand (SRL) plus pegvisomant for patients with acromegaly is recommended after a maximizing dose on monotherapy. Lower-dose combination regimens are not well studied. OBJECTIVE: To compare cost-effectiveness and efficacy of 3 lower-dose combination regimens in controlled and uncontrolled acromegaly. DESIGN AND SETTING: Prospective, randomized, open-label, parallel arm study at a tertiary referral pituitary center. PATIENTS: Adults with acromegaly regardless of response to prior SRL and biochemical control status at baseline, stratified by an SRL dose required for insulin-like growth factor (IGF)-I normalization during any 3-month period within 12 months preceding enrollment. INTERVENTION: Combination therapy for 24 to 32 weeks on arm A, high-dose SRL (lanreotide 120 mg/octreotide long-acting release [LAR] 30 mg) plus weekly pegvisomant (40-160 mg/week); arm B, low-dose SRL (lanreotide 60 mg/octreotide LAR 10 mg) plus weekly pegvisomant; or arm C, low-dose SRL plus daily pegvisomant (15-60 mg/day). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Monthly treatment cost in each arm in participants completing ≥ 24 weeks of therapy. RESULTS: Sixty patients were enrolled and 52 were evaluable. Fifty of 52 (96%) demonstrated IGF-I control regardless of prior SRL responsiveness (arm A, 14/15 [93.3%]; arm B, 22/23 [95.7%]; arm C, 14/14 [100%]). Arm B was least costly (mean, $9837 ±â€…1375 per month), arm C was most expensive (mean, $22543 ±â€…11158 per month), and arm A had an intermediate cost (mean, $14261 ±â€…1645 per month). Approximately 30% of patients required pegvisomant dose uptitration. Rates of adverse events were all < 10%. CONCLUSIONS: Low-dose SRL plus weekly pegvisomant represents a novel dosing option for achieving cost-effective, optimal biochemical control in patients with uncontrolled acromegaly requiring combination therapy.

Cost-Effectiveness of Focal Mass Drug Administration and Mass Drug Administration with Dihydroartemisinin-Piperaquine for Malaria Prevention in Southern Province, Zambia: Results of a Community-Randomized Controlled Trial.

Community-wide administration of antimalarial drugs in therapeutic doses is a potential tool to prevent malaria infection and reduce the malaria parasite reservoir. To measure the effectiveness and cost of using the antimalarial drug combination dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine (DHAp) through different community-wide distribution strategies, Zambia's National Malaria Control Centre conducted a three-armed community-randomized controlled trial. The trial arms were as follows: 1) standard of care (SoC) malaria interventions, 2) SoC plus focal mass drug administration (fMDA), and 3) SoC plus MDA. Mass drug administration consisted of offering all eligible individuals DHAP, irrespective of a rapid diagnostic test (RDT) result. Focal mass drug administration consisted of offering DHAP to all eligible individuals who resided in a household where anyone tested positive by RDT. Results indicate that the costs of fMDA and MDA per person targeted and reached are similar (US$9.01 versus US$8.49 per person, respectively, P = 0.87), but that MDA was superior in all cost-effectiveness measures, including cost per infection averted, cost per case averted, cost per death averted, and cost per disability-adjusted life year averted. Subsequent costing of the MDA intervention in a non-trial, operational setting yielded significantly lower costs per person reached (US$2.90). Mass drug administration with DHAp also met the WHO thresholds for "cost-effective interventions" in the Zambian setting in 90% of simulations conducted using a probabilistic sensitivity analysis based on trial costs, whereas fMDA met these criteria in approximately 50% of simulations. A sensitivity analysis using costs from operational deployment and trial effectiveness yielded improved cost-effectiveness estimates. Mass drug administration may be a cost-effective intervention in the Zambian context and can help reduce the parasite reservoir substantially. Mass drug administration was more cost-effective in relatively higher transmission settings. In all scenarios examined, the cost-effectiveness of MDA was superior to that of fMDA.

Inhaled Corticosteroid-Containing Regimens Reduce Hospitalizations and Healthcare Costs among Elderly Asthmatics: Real-World Validation Using the National Health Insurance Claims Database.

The high rates of mortality and hospitalization among elderly asthmatics, as well as their increasing healthcare costs have become an important public health issue. It would be worthwhile to assess whether inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) can resolve these problems. To explore ICS prescription rates for elderly asthmatics and the factors influencing them and to investigate their association with hospitalization and healthcare costs, we analyzed data from the National Health Insurance Claims Database for the same time frame (December 1 to February 28) across three different periods (2011-2012; 2014-2015; and 2017-2018), from which we identified 6,619, 5,619, and 6,880 elderly individuals, respectively. The prescription rates of ICS increased (52.8%, 65.5% and 68.8%, in the first, second and third survey period, respectively) and inversely the hospital admission rates declined (3.7%, 3.2% and 2.5%, in the first, second and third survey period, respectively). The total healthcare costs per month were significantly lower for patients who received ICS-containing regimens than for those who did not. A multivariate analysis revealed that increasing age, rural residence, receiving a prescription from a clinic, hospital admission, and prescription of asthma medications other than ICS were associated with non-prescription of ICS, whereas cross-boundary treatment increased the ICS-prescription rate. Our study suggests that increases in the prescription rate of ICS are associated with reduced hospital admission rates and lower medical costs in the real-world. ICS prescription rates in rural areas and at clinics, which remain low, need to be increased.

Cost-utility analysis of interferon-free treatments for patients with early-stage genotype 1 hepatitis C virus in Brazil.

INTRODUCTION: We conducted a cost-utility analysis of available interferon-free treatments for patients with early-stage genotype 1 chronic hepatitis C based on a Brazilian public health system perspective. METHODS: A Markov model was derived using a cohort of stage F0-F2 patients treated as recommended by the Brazilian national guidelines. RESULTS: Glecaprevir plus pibrentasvir was superior to all other treatments, followed by sofosbuvir plus velpatasvir. Sofosbuvir plus daclatasvir was identified as the least cost-effective option. CONCLUSIONS: The above findings were confirmed via probabilistic sensitivity analysis and the tested scenarios.

Add-On Therapies in Cardiovascular Disease: Reviewing ICER's Report and the Potential Effect on Payers.

DISCLOSURES: No outside funding supported this commentary. The authors have nothing to disclose.

Cost-Effectiveness of Rifaximin Treatment in Patients with Hepatic Encephalopathy.

BACKGROUND: Hepatic encephalopathy (HE) is a complication of cirrhosis of the liver causing neuropsychiatric abnormalities. Clinical manifestations of overt HE result in increased health care resource utilization and effects on patient quality of life. While lactulose has historically been the mainstay of treatment for acute HE and maintenance of remission, there is an unmet need for additional therapeutic options with a favorable adverse event profile. Compared with lactulose alone, rifaximin has demonstrated proven efficacy in complete reversal of HE and reduction in the incidence of HE recurrence, mortality, and hospitalizations. Evidence suggests the benefit of long-term prophylactic therapy with rifaximin; however, there is a need to assess the economic impact of rifaximin treatment in patients with HE. OBJECTIVE: To assess the incremental cost-effectiveness of rifaximin ± lactulose versus lactulose monotherapy in patients with overt HE. METHODS: A Markov model was developed in Excel with 4 health states (remission, overt HE, liver transplantation, and death) to predict costs and outcomes of patients with HE after initiation of maintenance therapy with rifaximin ± lactulose to avoid recurrent HE episodes. Cost-effectiveness of rifaximin was evaluated through estimation of incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) or life-year (LY) gained. Analyses were conducted over a lifetime horizon. One-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess uncertainty in results. RESULTS: The rifaximin ± lactulose regimen provided added health benefits despite an additional cost versus lactulose monotherapy. Model results showed an incremental benefit of $29,161 per QALY gained and $27,762 per LY gained with rifaximin ± lactulose versus lactulose monotherapy. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the rifaximin ± lactulose regimen was cost-effective ~99% of the time at a threshold of $50,000 per QALY/LY gained, which falls within the commonly accepted threshold for incremental cost-effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical benefit of rifaximin, combined with an acceptable economic profile, demonstrates the advantages of rifaximin maintenance therapy as an important option to consider for patients at risk of recurrent HE. DISCLOSURES: This analysis was funded by Salix Pharmaceuticals, a division of Bausch Health US. Salix and Xcenda collaborated on the methods, and Salix, Xcenda, Jesudian, and Ahmad collaborated on the writing of the manuscript and interpretation of results. Bozkaya and Migliaccio-Walle are employees of Xcenda. Ahmad reports speaker fees from Salix Pharmaceuticals, unrelated to this study. Jesudian reports consulting and speaker fees from Salix Pharmaceuticals, unrelated to this study. The results from this model were presented at AASLD: The Liver Meeting 2014; November 7-11; Boston, MA.

The Effectiveness and Value of Rivaroxaban and Icosapent Ethyl as Additive Therapies for Cardiovascular Disease.

DISCLOSURES: Funding for this summary was contributed by Arnold Ventures, Commonwealth Fund, California Health Care Foundation, National Institute for Health Care Management (NIHCM), New England States Consortium Systems Organization, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, and Partners HealthCare to the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), an independent organization that evaluates the evidence on the value of health care interventions. ICER's annual policy summit is supported by dues from Aetna, America's Health Insurance Plans, Anthem, Allergan, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Blue Shield of CA, Cambia Health Services, CVS, Editas, Express Scripts, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Harvard Pilgrim, Health Care Service Corporation, Health Partners, Johnson & Johnson (Janssen), Kaiser Permanente, LEO Pharma, Mallinckrodt, Merck, Novartis, National Pharmaceutical Council, Premera, Prime Therapeutics, Regeneron, Sanofi, Spark Therapeutics, and United Healthcare. Pearson is employed by ICER; Synnott was employed by ICER at the time of this report. Ollendorf, Campbell, and McQueen received grants from ICER for work on this review. Ollendorf also reports advisory board, consulting, and other fees from Sarepta Therapeutics, DBV Technologies, EMD Serono, Gerson Lehman Group, The CEA Registry Sponsors, Autolus, Analysis Group, Amgen, AbbVie, Cytokinetics, Aspen Institute/University of Southern California, and University of Colorado, unrelated to this review.