De Novo Cost-Effectiveness Model Framework for Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis-Modeling Approach and Validation.

BACKGROUND: Nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) is a chronic liver disease associated with hepatic morbidity and mortality and extra-hepatic comorbidities. Published NASH cost-effectiveness models (CEMs) are heterogeneous and consistently omit comorbid conditions that frequently co-exist alongside NASH. We aimed to develop a de novo CEM framework that incorporates extra-hepatic disease states and outcomes alongside hepatic components to enable future estimation of the cost-effectiveness of NASH interventions. METHODS: Patient-level simulation and cohort-level Markov models were implemented in the same framework. Model inputs included fibrosis progression; late-stage liver disease outcomes; comorbidity outcomes for cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and obesity; mortality; health-related quality of life; and direct medical costs. The prototype analysis assessed the cost-effectiveness of obeticholic acid versus standard of care from a US payer perspective over a lifetime horizon with costs and effects discounted at 3% per annum. However, the CEM was designed for easy adaptation to other countries, time horizons, and other considerations. Efficacy and adverse event parameters were obtained from the 18-month interim analysis of the REGENERATE trial. Outputs include total and incremental costs, total life years, and quality-adjusted life years. RESULTS: In this model, total costs, total life years, and quality-adjusted life years were all higher with obeticholic acid compared with standard of care. Cross-validation of this model with the 2016 and 2020 Institute for Clinical and Economic Review models revealed marked differences, mainly driven by mortality inputs, transition probability estimates, and incorporation of the effect of treatment and comorbidities. CONCLUSION: This is the first CEM in NASH to incorporate the clinical consequences of several comorbidities. The flexible yet standardized framework permits estimation of the cost-effectiveness of NASH interventions in a variety of settings. The model currently includes several assumptions and will be further developed as more relevant data become available.

Identification of an Optimal COVID-19 Booster Allocation Strategy to Minimize Hospital Bed-Days with a Fixed Healthcare Budget.

Healthcare decision-makers face difficult decisions regarding COVID-19 booster selection given limited budgets and the need to maximize healthcare gain. A constrained optimization (CO) model was developed to identify booster allocation strategies that minimize bed-days by varying the proportion of the eligible population receiving different boosters, stratified by age, and given limited healthcare expenditure. Three booster options were included: B1, costing US $1 per dose, B2, costing US $2, and no booster (NB), costing US $0. B1 and B2 were assumed to be 55%/75% effective against mild/moderate COVID-19, respectively, and 90% effective against severe/critical COVID-19. Healthcare expenditure was limited to US$2.10 per person; the minimum expected expense using B1, B2, or NB for all. Brazil was the base-case country. The model demonstrated that B1 for those aged <70 years and B2 for those ≥70 years were optimal for minimizing bed-days. Compared with NB, bed-days were reduced by 75%, hospital admissions by 68%, and intensive care unit admissions by 90%. Total costs were reduced by 60% with medical resource use reduced by 81%. This illustrates that the CO model can be used by healthcare decision-makers to implement vaccine booster allocation strategies that provide the best healthcare outcomes in a broad range of contexts.

An Economic Evaluation of the Adjuvanted Quadrivalent Influenza Vaccine Compared with Standard-Dose Quadrivalent Influenza Vaccine in the Spanish Older Adult Population.

Standard-dose quadrivalent influenza vaccines (QIV) are designed to provide protection against all four influenza strains. Adjuvanted QIV (aQIV), indicated for individuals aged 65+ years, combines MF59® adjuvant (an oil-in-water emulsion of squalene oil) with a standard dose of antigen, and is designed to produce stronger and longer immune response, especially in the elderly where immunosenescence reduces vaccine effectiveness. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of aQIV vs. egg-based standard-dose QIV (QIVe) in the elderly population, from the payer and societal perspective in Spain. A dynamic transmission model, which accounts for herd protection, was used to predict the number of medically attended infections in Spain. A decision tree structure was used to forecast influenza-related costs and benefits. Influenza-related probabilities of outpatient visit, hospitalization, work absenteeism, mortality, and associated utilities and costs were extracted from Spanish and European published literature. Relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) was sourced from two different meta-analyses: the first meta-analysis was informed by laboratory-confirmed influenza studies only, resulting in a rVE = 34.6% (CI95% 2-66%) in favor of aQIV; the second meta-analysis included real world evidence influenza-related medical encounters outcomes, resulting in a rVE = 13.9% (CI95% 4.2-23.5%) in benefit of aQIV. All costs were expressed in 2021 euros. Results indicate that replacing QIVe with aQIV in the Spanish elderly population would prevent on average 43,664 influenza complicated cases, 1111 hospitalizations, and 569 deaths (with a rVE = 34.6%) or 19,104 influenza complicated cases, 486 hospitalizations, and 252 deaths (with a rVE = 13.9%). When the rVE of aQIV vs. QIVe is 34.6%, the incremental cost per quality adjusted life years (QALY) gained was €2240 from the payer; from the societal perspective, aQIV was cost saving compared with QIVe. If the rVE was 13.9%, the incremental cost per QALY was €6694 and €3936 from the payer and societal perspective, respectively. Sensitivity analyses validated the robustness of these findings. Results indicate that replacing QIVe with aQIV in the Spanish elderly population is a cost-effective strategy for the Spanish healthcare system.

Cost-Effectiveness and Burden of Disease for Adjuvanted Quadrivalent Influenza Vaccines Compared to High-Dose Quadrivalent Influenza Vaccines in Elderly Patients in Spain.

Influenza is a contagious respiratory disease that causes severe illness and death, particularly in elderly populations. Two enhanced formulations of quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV) are available in Spain. Adjuvanted QIV (aQIV) is available for those aged 65+ and high-dose QIV (HD-QIV) for those aged 60+. In this study, we used a health economic model to assess the costs and outcomes associated with using aQIV or HD-QIV in subjects aged 65+. Using aQIV instead of HD-QIV to vaccinate an estimated 5,126,343 elderly people results in reductions of 5405 symptomatic cases, 760 primary care visits, 171 emergency room visits, 442 hospitalizations, and 26 deaths in Spain each year. Life-years (LYs) and quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs) increases by 260 and 206, respectively, each year. Savings from a direct medical payer perspective are EUR 63.6 million, driven by the lower aQIV vaccine price and a minor advantage in effectiveness. From a societal perspective, savings increase to EUR 64.2 million. Results are supported by scenario and sensitivity analyses. When vaccine prices are assumed equal, aQIV remains dominant compared to HD-QIV. Potential savings are estimated at over EUR 61 million in vaccine costs alone. Therefore, aQIV provides a highly cost-effective alternative to HD-QIV for people aged 65+ in Spain.

Health Impact and Cost-effectiveness Assessment for the Introduction of Universal Varicella Vaccination in Switzerland.

BACKGROUND: Varicella, caused by the varicella-zoster virus, is a highly contagious infectious disease with substantial health and economic burden to society. Universal varicella vaccination (UVV) is not yet recommended by the Swiss National Immunization Program, which instead recommends catch-up immunization for children, adolescents and adults 11-40 years of age who have no reliable history of varicella or are varicella-zoster virus-IgG seronegative. The objective of this study was to perform an assessment of health impact and cost-effectiveness comparing UVV with current practice and recommendations in Switzerland. METHODS: A dynamic transmission model for varicella was adapted to Switzerland comparing 2 base-case schedules (no infant vaccination and 10% coverage with infant vaccination) to 3 different UVV schedules using quadrivalent (varicella vaccine combined with measles-mumps-rubella) and standalone varicella vaccines administered at different ages. Modeled UVV coverage rates were based on current measles-mumps-rubella coverage of approximately 95% (first dose) and 90% (second dose). Direct medical costs and societal perspectives were considered, with cost and outcomes discounted and calculated over a 50-year time horizon. RESULTS: UVV would reduce the number of varicella cases by 88%-90%, hospitalizations by 62%-69% and deaths by 75%-77%. UVV would increase direct medical costs by Swiss Franc (CHF) 39-49 (US $43-54) per capita and costs from a societal perspective by CHF 32-40 (US $35-44). Incremental quality-adjusted life-years per capita increased by 0.0012-0.0014. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for the UVV schedules versus the base-case were CHF 31,194-35,403 (US $34,452-39,100) per quality-adjusted life-year from the direct medical cost perspective and CHF 25,245-29,552 (US $27,881-32,638) from the societal perspective. CONCLUSIONS: UVV appears highly effective and cost-effective when compared with current clinical practice and recommendations in Switzerland from both a direct medical costs perspective and societal perspective.

Estimated cost-effectiveness and burden of disease associated with quadrivalent cell-based and egg-based influenza vaccines in Spain.

Influenza is a viral respiratory disease that causes significant clinical and economic burden globally. Quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV) is frequently used to protect people who have a high-risk of developing influenza complications due to comorbidities. QIV offers protection against influenza A (A/H1N1 and H3N2) and B (B/Victoria, and B/Yamagata) strains. The European Medicines Agency has recently approved a cell-based QIV (QIVc) in people aged over 9 years old. QIVc has been shown to be more effective at preventing influenza than traditional egg-based QIV (QIVe). In this study, we use a health economic model adapted to Spain to assess the costs and outcomes associated with using QIVc instead of QIVe in people aged 9-64 at high-risk of complications. Observed vaccine coverage of 32% in the 9-17 age group, 17% in those aged 18-59, and 22% for ages 60-64 was used in the analysis. In total, 2.5 million people were vaccinated in the simulations. Using QIVc instead of QIVe was associated with 16,221fewer symptomatic cases, 4,522 fewer primary care visits, 1,015 fewer emergency room visits and 88 fewer hospitalizations. From a societal perspective, QIVc was more effective and less expensive compared to QIVe, leading to a cost-saving of €3.4 million. From a public payer perspective, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for QIVc vs QIVe was €12,852 per QALY gained. In conclusion, QIVc offers a cost-effective alternative to QIVe and should be considered as an alternative vaccine to QIVe for people aged 9-64 at high-risk of influenza complications in Spain.

A retrospective real-world study of dapagliflozin versus other oral antidiabetic drugs added to metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes.

OBJECTIVES: The efficacy of dapagliflozin as add-on therapy to metformin has been assessed in randomized trials. However, its effectiveness has not been assessed in a US real-world setting. METHODS: Electronic medical record (EMR) data were used to compare clinical outcomes among patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) treated with dapagliflozin and metformin with or without other oral antidiabetic drugs (D + M ± OAD), versus metformin with at least 1 other OAD (M + OAD). Adult patients with T2D on these regimens from January 01, 2014, to February 28, 2015, were identified in a US EMR database, with the date of first prescription for dapagliflozin (D + M ± OAD) or other OAD (M + OAD) as the index date. Patients were observed for 12 months before the index date (baseline) and 12 months afterward (ie, follow-up). Patients in the M + OAD group were propensity score matched 1:1 to those in the D + M ± OAD group. Outcomes included change in glycated hemoglobin (A1C) level, weight, and systolic and diastolic blood pressures (SBP/DBP) from baseline to follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 1093 patients receiving M + OAD were matched to 1093 patients receiving D + M ± OAD. Compared with those given M + OAD, patients given D + M ± OAD had a greater reduction in A1C level (mean, -1.0% vs -0.7%; P <.01), greater weight loss (-1.8 kg vs -0.7 kg, P <.01), and greater change in SBP (-3.6 mm Hg vs -0.1 mm Hg, P <.01) and DBP (-2.0 mm Hg vs -0.6 mm Hg, P <.01) from baseline to follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: In current US clinical practice, patients receiving D + M ± OAD had greater reductions in important clinical outcomes of T2D-A1C level, weight loss, and blood pressure-versus patients receiving M + OAD. This study supports the use of dapagliflozin as add-on therapy to metformin with or without other OADs for patients with T2D.

Cost-utility analysis of tiotropium versus usual care in patients with COPD in the UK and Belgium.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-utility of adding tiotropium to usual care versus usual care alone for patients with moderate to very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in the UK and Belgium. METHODS: A four-state Markov model was developed with three disease severity states (moderate, severe, very severe) and death. Severity was based on post-bronchodilator FEV1 and transitions were based on outcomes of the Understanding Potential Long Term Impacts on Function with Tiotropium (UPLIFT®) trial. Utilities were derived from EQ-5D scores for a subset of UPLIFT® patients. UK costs were evaluated separately for England (E), and for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (SWNI). Belgian (B) costs were obtained from local sources. Uncertainty was assessed by deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA). RESULTS: Adding tiotropium to usual care resulted in an incremental cost per patient of €969 (B), £796 (E), and £812 (SWNI), and incremental QALYs of 0.052 (B), and 0.051 (E, SWNI). The four-year incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were €18,617 (B), £15,567 (E) and £15,890 (SWNI) per QALY. Probability of tiotropium being cost-effective at £30,000 (€50,000) per QALY gained was greater than 60%. CONCLUSIONS: At willingness to pay thresholds of £(€) 30,000 per QALY gained, adding tiotropium to usual care is cost-effective.

Cost-effectiveness of dabigatran etexilate for the prevention of stroke and systemic embolism in UK patients with atrial fibrillation.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of dabigatran etexilate, a new oral anticoagulant, versus warfarin and other alternatives for the prevention of stroke and systemic embolism in UK patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). METHODS: A Markov model estimated the cost-effectiveness of dabigatran etexilate versus warfarin, aspirin or no therapy. Two patient cohorts with AF (starting age of <80 and ≥80 years) were considered separately, in line with the UK labelled indication. Modelled outcomes over a lifetime horizon included clinical events, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), total costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). RESULTS: Patients treated with dabigatran etexilate experienced fewer ischaemic strokes (3.74 dabigatran etexilate vs 3.97 warfarin) and fewer combined intracranial haemorrhages and haemorrhagic strokes (0.43 dabigatran etexilate vs 0.99 warfarin) per 100 patient-years. Larger differences were observed comparing dabigatran etexilate with aspirin or no therapy. For patients initiating treatment at ages <80 and ≥80 years, the ICERs for dabigatran etexilate were £4831 and £7090/QALY gained versus warfarin with a probability of cost-effectiveness at £20 000/QALY gained of 98% and 63%, respectively. For the patient cohort starting treatment at ages <80 years, the ICER versus aspirin was £3457/QALY gained and dabigatran etexilate was dominant (ie, was less costly and more effective) compared with no therapy. These results were robust in sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: This economic evaluation suggests that the use of dabigatran etexilate as a first-line treatment for the prevention of stroke and systemic embolism is likely to be cost-effective in eligible UK patients with AF.

Economic analyses comparing tiotropium with ipratropium or salmeterol in UK patients with COPD.

AIMS: This study presents a cost-effectiveness and budget impact analysis comparing cost and outcomes for UK patients with COPD treated with either tiotropium, ipratropium or salmeterol. METHODS: A previously-published COPD cost-effectiveness model was adapted for the UK, then used to estimate the cost-effectiveness of tiotropium compared to salmeterol and ipratropium. Additional epidemiological data were used to estimate the budget impact of switching patients from ipratropium or salmeterol to tiotropium. RESULTS: In England, the estimated annual cost per patient on tiotropium was pound1350, on salmeterol was pound1404, and on ipratropium was pound1427; in Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland (S/W/NI) these costs were pound1439, pound1565, and pound1631, respectively. Tiotropium patients experienced better quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) across all comparisons, and this option was therefore dominant compared to salmeterol and ipratropium. The probability of tiotropium being dominant ranged from 72% to 87% across comparisons. At a willingness to pay threshold of pound20,000 per QALY, tiotropium had at least a 97% chance of being cost-effective. The estimated annual saving per primary care trust (PCT) of switching patients from salmeterol and ipratropium to tiotropium in England was pound230,000 and in S/W/NI was pound160,000. CONCLUSIONS: Tiotropium is a cost-effective alternative to ipratropium and salmeterol, and switching COPD patients from ipratropium and salmeterol to tiotropium could result in considerable cost savings for PCTs along with improvements in quality-of-life.

Cost-effectiveness analyses of natalizumab (Tysabri) compared with other disease-modifying therapies for people with highly active relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in the UK.

BACKGROUND: Natalizumab (Tysabri) is a new disease-modifying therapy that has been shown to be clinically effective in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) and has been licensed for use in patients with highly active RRMS (HARRMS). These patients are those who experience higher relapse rates and faster disability progression than the general RRMS population. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the cost effectiveness of natalizumab compared with interferon-beta, glatiramer acetate and best supportive care from various UK cost perspectives. METHODS: A 30-year Markov model was developed, based on previously published models for multiple sclerosis, to estimate transition between disability states and the probability of relapse within disability states. The model was parameterized with data from the UK Multiple Sclerosis (MS) Survey 2005 and data from the AFFIRM study, a 2-year multicentre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of natalizumab in RRMS patients. Additional data were sourced from the literature. A UK societal cost perspective was used in the base case, with additional cost perspectives considered in the sensitivity analysis. The baseline characteristics for the patient group were taken from the patient population in the AFFIRM study (mean age 36 years, mean time since diagnosis 5 years and a mean Kurtzke Extended Disability Status Scale [EDSS] score of 2.5). The model and its parameterization were designed and developed to support a reimbursement application for natalizumab submitted to the UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). Efficacies for natalizumab and glatiramer acetate were taken from clinical trial data, and for interferon-beta from a meta-analysis of clinical trial data. Disutilities from adverse events for each comparator were also included in the model. Outcomes and costs were discounted at 3.5% per anum. Costs for interferon-beta and glatiramer acetate were based on published prices (year 2006 values) under the UK Risk Sharing Scheme, and for natalizumab the UK NHS list price was used. Diagnostic, administration and adverse event costs were also included. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated for the base case, and a probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed to assess the probability of cost effectiveness at different willingness-to-pay thresholds. RESULTS: The ICER for natalizumab compared with interferon-beta was 2300 pound per QALY. Compared with glatiramer acetate, it was 2000 pound per QALY, and compared with best supportive care it was 8200 pound per QALY. From a health and social care cost perspective, the ICERs were 18,700 pound, 20,400 pound and 25,500 per QALY, respectively. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of 30,000 pound per QALY, the probability of natalizumab being cost effective against any comparator from a societal perspective was >89%. CONCLUSION: If UK society is willing to pay more than 8200 pound per QALY, or Health and Social Services are willing to pay more than 26,000 pound per QALY, this analysis suggests that natalizumab is likely to be a cost-effective treatment for all patients with HARRMS.