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.

Clinical efficacy of fidaxomicin compared with vancomycin and metronidazole in Clostridium difficile infections: a meta-analysis and indirect treatment comparison.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy of fidaxomicin treatment, which has a limited effect on the normal gut flora, compared with vancomycin and metronidazole treatment in Clostridium difficile infections (CDIs). METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted in July to August 2011 and updated in July 2013. For fidaxomicin versus vancomycin, efficacy was evaluated using meta-analysis of data from two Phase III direct comparative studies (n = 1164). As there were no studies comparing fidaxomicin and metronidazole, an indirect comparison was made using data from three vancomycin versus metronidazole studies (n = 345), using the methodology of Bucher et al. (J Clin Epidemiol 1997; 50: 683-91). This provides an OR for the indirect comparison of fidaxomicin versus metronidazole when direct evidence of fidaxomicin versus vancomycin and vancomycin versus metronidazole is available. RESULTS: Clinical cure rates were similar for fidaxomicin and vancomycin; the OR (95% CI) was 1.17 (0.82, 1.66). Recurrence [0.47 (0.34, 0.65)] was significantly lower and sustained cure rates [1.75 (1.35, 2.27)] significantly higher for fidaxomicin than vancomycin. Similar results were obtained in patient subgroups with severe CDI and with non-severe CDI. From the indirect comparison, the likelihood of recurrence [0.42 (0.18, 0.96)] and sustained cure [2.55 (1.44, 4.51)] were significantly improved for fidaxomicin versus metronidazole. Again, similar results were obtained in those with severe and non-severe CDI. CONCLUSIONS: Fidaxomicin provides improved sustained cure rates in patients with CDI compared with vancomycin. An indirect comparison indicates that the same is also true for fidaxomicin versus metronidazole. In view of these data, fidaxomicin may be considered as first-line therapy for CDI.

Leuprolide acetate 1-, 3- and 6-monthly depot formulations in androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer in nine European countries: evidence review and economic evaluation.

OBJECTIVE: Leuprolide is an established luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonist used as first-line treatment in advanced prostate cancer. As different formulations and dosing schedules are likely to have economic implications, we aimed to evaluate their efficacy, safety, and costs in nine European countries: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Netherlands, Poland, and Portugal. METHODS: Database searches identified 13 clinical trials of leuprolide 1- (1 M), 3- (3 M) and 6-monthly (6 M). Only data on leuprolide with Atrigel were compared for all three formulations, which had the same efficacy, safety, and adherence. Cost-minimization analysis accounting for cost of Eligard®, specialist consultations, and diagnostics during up to 12 months follow-up was conducted. The perspective was that of public payers. RESULTS: No significant differences were observed in the percentages of intention-to-treat patients achieving testosterone levels ≤ 50 ng/dL following treatment with Eligard® 1 M (93.3%), 3 M (98.3%), and 6 M (97.3%) (P > 0.05), and adverse event profiles of the three formulations were comparable. Overall, 6 M was the least expensive, with average total annual costs from €788 (Belgium) to €1839 (Portugal). The 3 M option was between 2.5% (Hungary) and 37.6% (Belgium) more expensive than 6 M; 1 M formulation was the most expensive, with costs 15.5% and 151.6% more expensive than 6 M for those countries, respectively. The 3 M option was 11.2%-45.3% less expensive than 1 M. Total costs were associated with frequency of visits for injection and monitoring. The 1 M required twelve visits, 3 M 4.4-4.8 visits, and 6 M 2.1-2.3 visits. Up to 50% additional visits could be funded with the savings resulting from switching eligible patients from 1 M and 3 M to 6 M. Results were stable in univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: Eligard® formulations offer comparable efficacy and safety, but different dosing schedules require different number of visits. The 6 M formulation offers the greatest cost savings and should be considered the treatment of choice in eligible patients in Europe.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of solifenacin versus oxybutynin immediate-release in the treatment of patients with overactive bladder in the United Kingdom.

OBJECTIVE: To carry out a cost-utility analysis comparing initial treatment with solifenacin 5 mg/day vs oxybutynin immediate-release (IR) 15 mg/day for the treatment of patients with overactive bladder (OAB) from the perspective of the U.K. National Health Service (NHS). METHODS: A Markov model with six health states was developed to follow a cohort of OAB patients treated with either solifenacin or oxybutynin during a 1-year period. Costs and utilities were accumulated as patients transited through the health states in the model and a drop-out state. Some of the solifenacin patients were titrated from 5 mg to 10 mg/day at 8 weeks. A proportion of drop-out patients were assumed to continue treatment with tolterodine ER. Utility values were obtained from a Swedish study and pad use was based on a multinational clinical trial. Adherence rates for individual treatments were derived from a U.K. database study. For pad use and utility values, the drop-out state was split between those patients who were no longer receiving treatment and those on second-line therapy. Patients on second-line therapy who drop-out were referred for a specialist visit. Results were expressed in terms of incremental cost-utility ratios. RESULTS: Total annual costs for solifenacin and oxybutynin were £504.30 and £364.19, respectively. First-line drug use represents 49% and 4% of costs and pad use represent 23% and 40% of costs for solifenacin and oxybutynin, respectively. Differences between cumulative utilities were small but were greater for solifenacin (0.7020 vs. 0.6907). The baseline incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £12,309/QALY. CONCLUSION: Under the baseline assumptions, solifenacin would appear to be cost-effective with an incremental cost-utility of less than £20,000/QALY. However, small differences in utility between the alternatives and the large number of drop-outs means that the results are sensitive to small adjustments in the values of utilities assigned to the drop-out state.

Deriving health state utilities for the numerical pain rating scale.

BACKGROUND: The use of patient reported outcome measures within cost-effectiveness analysis has become commonplace. However, specific measures are required that produce values, referred to as 'utilities', that are capable of generating quality adjusted life years. One such measure - the EQ-5D - has come under criticism due to the inherent limitations of its three-level response scales. In evaluations of chronic pain, the numerical pain rating scale (NPRS) which has eleven levels is routinely used which has a greater measurement range, but which can not be used in cost-effetiveness analyses. This study derived utility values for a series of EQ-5D health states that replace the pain dimensions with the NPRS, thereby allowing a potentially greater range of pain intensities to be captured and included in economic analyses. METHODS: Interviews were undertaken with 100 member of the general population. Health state valuations were elicited using the time trade-off approach with a ten year time horizon. Additionally, respondents were asked where the EQ-5D response scale descriptors of moderate and extreme pain lay on the 11-point NPRS scale. RESULTS: 625 valuations were undertaken across the study sample with the crude mean health state utilities showing a negative non-linear relationship with respect to increasing pain intensity. Relative to a NPRS of zero (NPRS0), the successive pain levels (NPRS1-10) had mean decrements in utility of 0.034, 0.043, 0.061, 0.121, 0.144, 0.252, 0.404, 0.575, 0.771 and 0.793, respectively. When respondents were asked to mark on the NPRS scale the EQ-5D pain descriptors of moderate and extreme pain, the median responses were '4' and '8', respectively. CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate the potential floor effect of the EQ-5D with respect to pain and provide estimates of health reduction associated with pain intensity described by the NPRS. These estimates are in excess of the decrements produced by an application of the EQ-5D scoring tariff for both the United States and the United Kingdom.