Cost-Effectiveness of Cabozantinib in the Second-Line Treatment of Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Treatment options are limited for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) that progresses after treatment with sorafenib. Cabozantinib, an oral small molecule inhibitor of multiple tyrosine kinase receptors, recently showed improved overall survival (OS) compared with placebo in sorafenib-pretreated patients with advanced HCC in the CELESTIAL trial. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of cabozantinib for second-line treatment of patients with advanced HCC from a US healthcare system perspective. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Cost and utility data were extracted from the CELESTIAL trial and used to determine the cost-effectiveness of cabozantinib compared with placebo plus best supportive care. The main outcome of this study was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), expressed as cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained by using cabozantinib compared with placebo plus best supportive care in sorafenib-pretreated HCC. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis using data from the CELESTIAL trial, the incremental QALY and ICER were 0.067 and $1,040,675 for cabozantinib compared with placebo and best supportive care. OS reported in the CELESTIAL trial (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.63-0.92) had the strongest association with the ICER. In one-way sensitivity analyses, there were no scenarios in which cabozantinib was cost-effective. In a cost-threshold analysis, cabozantinib would have to be priced at least $50 per pill to be cost-effective considering a willingness to pay of $100,000 per QALY. Although the CELESTIAL trial demonstrated that cabozantinib improves OS compared with placebo in patients with HCC that progresses after treatment with sorafenib, our analysis shows that cabozantinib is not a cost-effective therapy in this scenario. CONCLUSIONS: At current costs, cabozantinib is not cost-effective for second-line therapy of HCC in the United States.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of abiraterone, docetaxel or placebo plus androgen deprivation therapy for hormone-sensitive advanced prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the addition of chemotherapy or abiraterone to androgen deprivation. METHODS: We developed an analytical model to determine the cost-effectiveness of the addition of docetaxel or abiraterone versus androgen deprivation therapy alone. Direct and indirect costs were included in the model. The effects were expressed in Quality-Adjusted Life Years adjusted for side effects. RESULTS: Compared to androgen deprivation therapy alone, the addition of chemotherapy and of abiraterone generated 0.492 and 0.999, respectively, in Quality-Adjusted Life Years. Abiraterone led to a Quality-Adjusted Life Years gain of 0.506 compared to docetaxel. The incremental costs per Quality-Adjusted Life Years were R$ 133.649,22 for docetaxel, R$ 330.828,70 for abiraterone and R$ 571.379,42 for abiraterone compared to docetaxel, respectively. CONCLUSION: The addition of chemotherapy to androgen deprivation therapy is more cost-effective than the addition of abiraterone to androgen deprivation therapy. However, discounts on abiraterone cost might improve cost-effectiveness.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of abiraterone, docetaxel or placebo plus androgen deprivation therapy for hormone-sensitive advanced prostate cancer / Análise de custo-efetividade da adição de abiraterona ou quimioterapia ao tratamento do câncer de próstata metastático hormônio-sensível

ABSTRACT Objective To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the addition of chemotherapy or abiraterone to androgen deprivation. Methods We developed an analytical model to determine the cost-effectiveness of the addition of docetaxel or abiraterone versus androgen deprivation therapy alone. Direct and indirect costs were included in the model. The effects were expressed in Quality-Adjusted Life Years adjusted for side effects. Results Compared to androgen deprivation therapy alone, the addition of chemotherapy and of abiraterone generated 0.492 and 0.999, respectively, in Quality-Adjusted Life Years. Abiraterone led to a Quality-Adjusted Life Years gain of 0.506 compared to docetaxel. The incremental costs per Quality-Adjusted Life Years were R$ 133.649,22 for docetaxel, R$ 330.828,70 for abiraterone and R$ 571.379,42 for abiraterone compared to docetaxel, respectively. Conclusion The addition of chemotherapy to androgen deprivation therapy is more cost-effective than the addition of abiraterone to androgen deprivation therapy. However, discounts on abiraterone cost might improve cost-effectiveness.

RESUMO Objetivo Avaliar a relação custo-efetividade da adição de quimioterapia ou abiraterona à terapia de privação hormonal. Métodos Um modelo analítico foi desenvolvido para determinar a relação custo-efetividade da adição de docetaxel ou abiraterona comparada à terapia de privação hormonal isolada. Custos diretos e indiretos foram incluídos no modelo. Os efeitos foram expressos em Anos de Vida Ajustados para Qualidade corrigidos pelos efeitos colaterais de cada terapia. Resultados A adição de quimioterapia e de abiraterona à terapia de privação hormonal aumentou os Anos de Vida Ajustados para Qualidade em 0,492 e 0,999, respectivamente, em comparação à terapia de privação hormonal isolada. A abiraterona promoveu ganho de Anos de Vida Ajustados para Qualidade de 0,506 em relação ao docetaxel. O custo incremental por Anos de Vida Ajustados para Qualidade foi R$ 133.649,22 para o docetaxel, R$ 330.828,70 para a abiraterona e R$ 571.379,42 para a abiraterona comparada ao docetaxel. Conclusão A adição de quimioterapia à terapia de privação hormonal é mais custo-efetiva que a adição de abiraterona à terapia de privação hormonal. Contudo, descontos no custo da abiraterona poderiam tornar esse tratamento mais custo-efetivo.

Cost-utility of ranolazine for the symptomatic treatment of patients with chronic angina pectoris in Spain.

BACKGROUND: Ranolazine is an antianginal agent that was approved in the EU in 2008 as an add-on therapy for symptomatic chronic angina pectoris treatment in patients who are inadequately controlled by, or are intolerant to, first-line antianginal therapies. These patients' quality of life is significantly affected by more frequent angina events, which increase the risk of revascularization. OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-utility of ranolazine versus placebo as an add-on therapy for the symptomatic treatment of patients with chronic angina pectoris in Spain. METHODS: A decision tree model with 1-year time horizon was designed. Transition probabilities and utility values for different angina frequencies were obtained from the literature. Costs were obtained from Spanish official DRGs for patients with chronic angina pectoris. We calculated the incremental cost-utility ratio of using ranolazine compared with a placebo. Sensitivity analyses, by means of Monte Carlo simulations, were performed. Acceptability curves and expected value of perfect information were calculated. RESULTS: The incremental cost-utility ratio was €8,455 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) per patient in Spain. Sensitivity analyses showed that if the decision makers' willingness to pay is €15,000 per QALY, the treatment with ranolazine will be cost effective at a 95 % level of confidence. The incremental cost-utility ratio is particularly sensitive to changes in utility values of those non-hospitalized patients with mild or moderate angina frequency. CONCLUSIONS: Ranolazine is a highly efficient add-on therapy for the symptomatic treatment of chronic angina pectoris in patients who are inadequately controlled by, or intolerant to, first-line antianginal therapies in Spain.

Cost-benefit analysis of second-generation antipsychotics and placebo in a randomized trial of the treatment of psychosis and aggression in Alzheimer disease.

CONTEXT: Second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) are prescribed for psychosis, aggression, and agitation in Alzheimer disease (AD). OBJECTIVE: To conduct a cost-benefit analysis of SGAs and placebo (taken to represent a "watchful waiting" treatment strategy) for psychosis and aggression in outpatients with AD. DESIGN: Randomized placebo-controlled trial of alternative SGA initiation strategies. SETTING: Forty-two outpatient clinics. PARTICIPANTS: Outpatients with AD and psychosis, aggression, or agitation (N = 421). Intervention Participants were randomly assigned to treatment with olanzapine, quetiapine fumarate, risperidone, or placebo with the option of double-blind rerandomization to another antipsychotic or citalopram hydrobromide or open treatment over 9 months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Monthly interviews documented health service use and costs. The economic perspective addressed total health care and medication costs. Costs of study drugs were estimated from wholesale prices with adjustment for discounts and rebates. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were assessed with the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 and were supplemented with measures of functioning, activities of daily living, and quality of life. Primary analyses were conducted using all available data. Secondary analyses excluded observations after the first medication change (ie, phase 1 only). Cost-benefit analysis was conducted using the net health benefits approach in a sensitivity analysis in which QALYs were valued at $50,000 per year and $100,000 per year. RESULTS: Average total health costs, including medications, were significantly lower for placebo than for SGAs, by $50 to $100 per month. There were no differences between treatments in QALYs or other measures of function. Phase 1-only analyses were broadly similar. Net-benefit analysis showed greater net health benefits for placebo as compared with other treatments, with probabilities ranging from 50% to 90%. CONCLUSIONS: There were no differences in measures of effectiveness between initiation of active treatments or placebo (which represented watchful waiting) but the placebo group had significantly lower health care costs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00015548.

Economic evaluation of tegaserod vs. placebo in the treatment of patients with irritable bowel syndrome: an analysis of the TENOR study.

OBJECTIVES: Tegaserod is effective, safe, and well-tolerated in the treatment of patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) with constipation. The aim of this study was to assess, from a payer perspective, the cost-effectiveness of tegaserod in the treatment of IBS patients, based on the TEgaserod in NORdic region (TENOR) trial data. METHODS: Female and male patients (Rome II criteria) were randomized to receive tegaserod 6 mg b.i.d. or placebo for 12 weeks. Patients (247 tegaserod; 238 placebo) completed the EuroQol EQ-5D questionnaire at baseline, Week 4, and Week 12. A 12-week economic study was undertaken to assess the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of tegaserod in terms of cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were calculated to estimate the probability of tegaserod being cost-effective at different benchmark values of cost per QALY gained. RESULTS: By assuming a daily drug cost to payers of Euro 2, Euro 3, and Euro 4, the ICER of tegaserod ranges between Euro 19,000 and Euro 38,000 per QALY gained, with the percentage of the bootstrap estimates below the willingness to pay level of Euro 50,000 per QALY gained ranging between 90% and 69%. CONCLUSIONS: This study established directly from a randomized controlled clinical trial that tegaserod is cost-effective in the treatment of non-D-IBS patients.

Assessing the health and economic impact of galantamine treatment in patients with Alzheimer's disease in the health care systems of different countries.

INTRODUCTION: Cholinesterase inhibitors have been shown to improve cognitive function and improve or maintain global function. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the long-term economic impact of treating patients with Alzheimer's disease with galantamine in seven healthcare systems: Australia, Canada, Finland, New Zealand, Sweden, the Netherlands and the UK. METHODS: The time until patients require full-time care (FTC), defined as the consistent requirement for a significant amount of care giving and supervision each day, and the associated costs were evaluated using the 'Assessment of Health Economics in Alzheimer's Disease (AHEAD)' model. Efficacy data were obtained from three clinical trials comparing galantamine with placebo and local cost and resource use data were determined for each country. Forecast costs reported in Euros (2001 value), were made for up to 10 years in each healthcare system. All costs were determined from a perspective somewhat broader than that of a comprehensive payer, including social services. Both benefits and costs were discounted at 3%. RESULTS: Galantamine (16 mg/day) is predicted to delay the need for FTC by 6.8%, thus the cumulative cost of care over 10 years is expected to be reduced, and this offsets much or all of the cost of galantamine. Approximately five patients need to be treated to avoid 1 year of FTC. In each healthcare system, FTC was estimated to account for 61-92% of the cost. Savings were estimated for most of the countries. For those countries with an expected expense, there were reasonable costs per FTC month avoided (euro553, discounted) and costs per quality-adjusted life year gained (euro25,000). CONCLUSION: In addition to the clinical benefits associated with galantamine treatment, the savings predicted from delaying FTC may offset the treatment costs.

Cost implications of the use of ramipril in high-risk patients based on the Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation (HOPE) study.

BACKGROUND: The HOPE study has demonstrated that ramipril is beneficial (ie, prevents cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and stroke) for a broad range of patients without evidence of left ventricular dysfunction or heart failure who are at high risk for cardiovascular event. In this study, we report the cost implications, in both the United States and Canada, of the use of ramipril after the HOPE study. METHODS AND RESULTS: A third-party perspective was chosen (Medicare for the United States and Ministry of Health for Canada). We calculated the costs of the management strategies of ramipril and placebo. An annual discount rate of 3% was used over the 4.5 years of follow-up. Sensitivity analyses were performed. Costs are reported in United States dollars and in Canadian dollars, respectively. The total costs per patient (including acquisition costs of ramipril) were not different between the groups in both countries (United States, $13 520 versus $13 631; Canada, $8702 versus $8588). From the distribution of cases in the bootstrap analysis, we found that 90% of cases fall either into a cost-neutral or cost-saving situation (64% in United States and 27% in Canada) or into a cost-effectiveness situation with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio <$10 000 (in respective currency) per primary event saved. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of these results, we suggest that the use of ramipril is likely to represent an efficient use of resources in both countries. These findings support the use of ramipril in populations included in the HOPE study.