Cost-effectiveness of universal and platelet reactivity assay-driven antiplatelet therapy in acute coronary syndrome

Assays monitoring P2Y12 platelet reactivity can accurately predict which patients will have a poor response to clopidogrel. We sought to determine the cost-effectiveness of using platelet reactivity assays (PRAs) to select a dual-antiplatelet regimen for patients with acute coronary syndrome. A hybrid decision tree Markov model was developed to determine the cost-effectiveness of universal clopidogrel, ticagrelor, or prasugrel (given to all patients) or PRA-driven ticagrelor or prasugrel (given to patients with high platelet reactivity, defined as >230 on the VerifyNow P2Y12 assay; the others received generic clopidogrel). We assumed a cohort of 65-year-old patients with acute coronary syndrome and an incidence of high platelet reactivity of 32% and 13% at ~24 to 48 hours after revascularization and 1 month, respectively. The 5-year costs, quality-adjusted life-years, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated for PRA-driven ticagrelor and prasugrel compared with universal clopidogrel, ticagrelor, or prasugrel. PRA-driven ticagrelor and prasugrel were cost-effective compared with universal clopidogrel (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio $40,100 and $49,143/quality-adjusted life-year, respectively); however, universal ticagrelor and prasugrel were not (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio $61,651 and $96,261/quality-adjusted life-year, respectively). Monte Carlo simulation suggested PRA-driven ticagrelor, PRA-driven prasugrel, universal ticagrelor, and universal prasugrel would have an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio <$50,000/quality-adjusted life-year in 52%, 40%, 23%, and 2% of the iterations compared with universal clopidogrel, respectively. Universal ticagrelor and prasugrel were not cost-effective compared with their respective PRA-driven regimens (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio $68,182; $116,875/quality-adjusted life-year, respectively). Monte Carlo simulation suggested universal ticagrelor and prasugrel would have an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio <$50,000/quality-adjusted life-year in 26% and 4% of iterations compared with their respective PRA-driven regimens. The results were most sensitive to differences in agent costs and drug-specific relative risks of death. In conclusion, even with generic clopidogrel, PRA-driven selection of antiplatelet therapy appeared to be a cost-effective strategy with the potential to decrease the overall acute coronary syndrome-associated healthcare costs.

Prasugrel compared to clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutenaous coronary intervention: a Spanish model-based cost effectiveness analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess the long-term cost-effectiveness of 12 months treatment of prasugrel compared to clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the Spanish health care system.

METHODS

A Markov state transition model was developed to estimate health outcomes, quality adjusted life years (QALYs), life years (LY), and costs over patients' lifetimes. Clinical inputs were based on an analysis of the TRITON-TIMI 38 clinical trial. Hospital readmissions captured during the trial in a sub-study of patients from eight countries (and subsequent re-hospitalisations modelled to accrue beyond the time horizon of the trial), were assigned to Spanish diagnosis-related group payment schedules to estimate hospitalisation costs.

RESULTS

Mean total treatment costs were ?11,427 and ?10,910 for prasugrel and clopidogrel respectively. The mean cost of the study drug was ?538 higher for prasugrel vs. clopidogrel, but rehospitalisation costs at 12 months were ?79 lower for prasugrel due to reduced rates of revascularisation. Hospitalisation costs beyond 12 months were higher with prasugrel by ?55, due to longer life expectancy (+0.071 LY and +0.054 QALYs) associated with the decreased nonfatal myocardial infarction rate in the prasugrel group. The incremental cost per life year and QALY gained with prasugrel was ?7,198, and ?9,489, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Considering a willingness-to-pay threshold of ?30,000/QALY gained in the Spanish setting, prasugrel represents a cost-effective option in comparison with clopidogrel among patients with ACS undergoing PCI.

Potential impact of new oral anticoagulants on the management of atrial fibrillation-related stroke in primary care

AIM

Anticoagulant prophylaxis with vitamin K antagonists (such as warfarin) is effective in reducing the risk of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). New oral anticoagulants have emerged as potential alternatives to traditional oral agents. The purpose of this review was to summarise the effectiveness and safety of rivaroxaban, dabigatran and apixaban in stroke prevention in patients with AF in phase III trials, evaluate their cost-effectiveness and consider the implications for primary care.

METHODOLOGY

A literature search was performed between 2007 and 2012, selecting all phase III trials (ROCKET AF, RE-LY and ARISTOTLE) of new oral anticoagulants and relevant cost-benefit studies.

RESULTS

Evidence shows that all three agents are at least as effective as warfarin in the prevention of stroke and systemic emboli, with similar safety profiles. Cost-benefit studies of rivaroxaban and dabigatran further confirm their potential use as alternatives to warfarin in clinical practice. These observations may allow stratification of the general practice AF population, to help prioritise which patients may benefit from receiving a new oral anticoagulant.

CONCLUSION

The clinical and economic benefits of the new oral anticoagulants, along with appropriate risk stratification, may enable a higher number of patients with AF to receive effective and convenient prophylaxis for stroke prevention.

Cost-utility analysis of duloxetine in osteoarthritis: a US private payer perspective

BACKGROUND

Duloxetine has recently been approved in the USA for chronic musculoskeletal pain, including osteoarthritis and chronic low back pain. The cost effectiveness of duloxetine in osteoarthritis has not previously been assessed. Duloxetine is targeted as post first-line (after acetaminophen) treatment of moderate to severe pain.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to estimate the cost effectiveness of duloxetine in the treatment of osteoarthritis from a US private payer perspective compared with other post first-line oral treatments, including nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and both strong and weak opioids.

METHODS

A cost-utility analysis was performed using a discrete-state, time-dependent semi-Markov model based on the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) model documented in its 2008 osteoarthritis guidelines. The model was extended for opioids by adding titration, discontinuation and additional adverse events (AEs). A life-long time horizon was adopted to capture the full consequences of NSAID-induced AEs. Fourteen health states comprised the structure of the model: treatment without persistent AE, six during-AE states, six post-AE states and death. Treatment-specific utilities were calculated using the transfer-to-utility method and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) total scores from a meta-analysis of osteoarthritis clinical trials of 12 weeks and longer. Costs for 2011 were estimated using Red Book, The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project database, the literature and, sparingly, expert opinion. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were undertaken, as well as subgroup analyses of patients over 65 years old and a population at greater risk of NSAID-related AEs.

RESULTS

In the base case the model estimated naproxen to be the lowest total-cost treatment, tapentadol the highest cost, and duloxetine the most effective after considering AEs. Duloxetine accumulated 0.027 discounted quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) more than naproxen and 0.013 more than oxycodone. Celecoxib was dominated by naproxen, tramadol was subject to extended dominance, and strong opioids were dominated by duloxetine. The model estimated an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of US$47,678 per QALY for duloxetine versus naproxen. One-way sensitivity analysis identified the probabilities of NSAID-related cardiovascular AEs as the inputs to which the ICER was most sensitive when duloxetine was compared with an NSAID. When compared with a strong opioid, duloxetine dominated the opioid under nearly all sensitivity analysis scenarios. When compared with tramadol, the ICER was most sensitive to the costs of duloxetine and tramadol. In subgroup analysis, the cost per QALY for duloxetine versus naproxen fell to US$24,125 for patients over 65 years and to US$18,472 for a population at high risk of cardiovascular and gastrointestinal AEs.

CONCLUSION

The model estimated that duloxetine was potentially cost effective in the base-case population and more cost effective for subgroups over 65 years or at high risk of NSAID-related AEs. In sensitivity analysis, duloxetine dominated all strong opioids in nearly all scenarios.

Cost-effectiveness of new oral anticoagulants compared with warfarin in preventing stroke and other cardiovascular events in patients with atrial fibrillation

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective was to assess the cost-effectiveness of new oral anticoagulants compared with warfarin in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. Secondary objectives related to assessing the cost-effectiveness of new oral anticoagulants stratified by center-specific time in therapeutic range, age, and CHADS2 score.

METHODS

Cost-effectiveness was assessed by the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Analysis used a Markov cohort model that followed patients from initiation of pharmacotherapy to death. Transition probabilities were obtained from a concurrent network meta-analysis. Utility values and costs were obtained from published data. Numerous deterministic sensitivity analyses and probabilistic analysis were conducted.

RESULTS

The incremental cost per QALY gained for dabigatran 150 mg versus warfarin was $20,797. Apixaban produced equal QALYs at a higher cost. Dabigatran 110 mg and rivaroxaban were dominated by dabigatran 150 mg and apixaban. Results were sensitive to the drug costs of apixaban, the time horizon adopted, and the consequences from major and minor bleeds with dabigatran. Results varied by a center's average time in therapeutic range, a patient's CHADS2 score, and patient age, with either dabigatran 150 mg or apixaban being optimal.

CONCLUSIONS

Results were highly sensitive to patient characteristics. Rivaroxaban and dabigatran 110 mg were unlikely to be cost-effective. For different characteristics, apixaban or dabigatran 150 mg were optimal. Thus, the choice between these two options may come down to the price of apixaban and further evidence on the impact of major and minor bleeds with dabigatran.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of transmural collaborative care with consultation letter (TCCCL) and duloxetine for major depressive disorder (MDD) and (sub)chronic pain in collaboration with primary care: design of a randomized placebo-controlled multi-Centre trial: TCC:PAINDIP

BACKGROUND

The comorbidity of pain and depression is associated with high disease burden for patients in terms of disability, wellbeing, and use of medical care. Patients with major and minor depression often present themselves with pain to a general practitioner and recognition of depression in such cases is low, but evolving. Also, physical symptoms, including pain, in major depressive disorder, predict a poorer response to treatment. A multi-faceted, patient-tailored treatment programme, like collaborative care, is promising. However, treatment of chronic pain conditions in depressive patients has, so far, received limited attention in research. Cost effectiveness of an integrated approach of pain in depressed patients has not been studied.

METHODS/DESIGN

This study is a placebo controlled double blind, three armed randomized multi centre trial. Patients with (sub)chronic pain and a depressive disorder are randomized to either a) collaborative care with duloxetine, b) collaborative care with placebo or c) duloxetine alone. 189 completers are needed to attain sufficient power to show a clinically significant effect of 0.6 SD on the primary outcome measures (PHQ-9 score). Data on depression, anxiety, mental and physical health, medication adherence, medication tolerability, quality of life, patient-doctor relationship, coping, health resource use and productivity will be collected at baseline and after three, six, nine and twelve months.

DISCUSSION

This study enables us to show the value of a closely monitored integrated treatment model above usual pharmacological treatment. Furthermore, a comparison with a placebo arm enables us to evaluate effectiveness of duloxetine in this population in a real life setting. Also, this study will provide evidence-based treatments and tools for their implementation in practice. This will facilitate generalization and implementation of results of this study. Moreover, patients included in this study are screened for pain symptoms, differentiating between nociceptive and neuropathic pain. Therefore, pain relief can be thoroughly evaluated.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NTR1089.

Intervention thresholds for denosumab in the UK using a FRAX®-based cost-effectiveness analysis

The objective was to undertake a health economic analysis of denosumab for the treatment of osteoporosis in women from the UK, using the FRAX® tool. Denosumab was cost-effective in women with a risk of major osteoporotic fracture meeting or exceeding approximately 20% who are unable to take, comply with or tolerate generic alendronate.

INTRODUCTION

Denosumab is a novel biologic agent developed for the treatment of osteoporosis, which has been shown to reduce the risk of fractures in a phase-III trial. The objective of the present study was to undertake a health economic analysis of denosumab in women from the UK. Ten-year probabilities of a major osteoporotic fracture at which denosumab is a cost-effective alternative to no treatment, generic alendronate, risedronate and strontium ranelate were estimated.

METHODS

A previously published Markov model was adapted to incorporate fracture and mortality risk assessments based on absolute fracture probability, as estimated by FRAX®. The model included treatment persistence and residual effect after discontinuation.

RESULTS

At a willingness-to-pay (WTP) of £30,000 per quality-adjusted life year and a 10-year fracture probability equivalent to a woman with a prior fragility fracture, denosumab was cost-effective compared to no treatment from the age of 70 years. At the same WTP, denosumab was-irrespective of age-cost-effective compared to no treatment at a major osteoporotic fracture probability of approximately 20%. Denosumab was estimated to cost-effectively replace strontium, risedronate and generic alendronate at 10-year probabilities exceeding 11, 19 and 32%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

FRAX® facilitates the estimation of cost-effectiveness-based intervention thresholds applicable to patients with different combinations of clinical risk factors, which more closely matches the situation in clinical practice. Denosumab is cost-effective in patients with major osteoporotic fracture probabilities meeting or exceeding approximately 20% who are unable to take, comply with or tolerate generic alendronate.

The cost-effectiveness of duloxetine in chronic low back pain: a US private payer perspective

OBJECTIVE

To assess the cost-effectiveness of duloxetine in the treatment of chronic low back pain (CLBP) from a US private payer perspective.

METHODS

A cost-utility analysis was undertaken for duloxetine and seven oral post-first-line comparators, including nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), weak and strong opioids, and an anticonvulsant. We created a Markov model on the basis of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence model documented in its 2008 osteoarthritis clinical guidelines. Health states included treatment, death, and 12 states associated with serious adverse events (AEs). We estimated treatment-specific utilities by carrying out a meta-analysis of pain scores from CLBP clinical trials and developing a transfer-to-utility equation using duloxetine CLBP patient-level data. Probabilities of AEs were taken from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence model or estimated from osteoarthritis clinical trials by using a novel maximum-likelihood simulation technique. Costs were gathered from Red Book, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project database, the literature, and, for a limited number of inputs, expert opinion. The model performed one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses and generated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and cost acceptability curves.

RESULTS

The model estimated an ICER of $59,473 for duloxetine over naproxen. ICERs under $30,000 were estimated for duloxetine over non-NSAIDs, with duloxetine dominating all strong opioids. In subpopulations at a higher risk of NSAID-related AEs, the ICER over naproxen was $33,105 or lower.

CONCLUSIONS

Duloxetine appears to be a cost-effective post-first-line treatment for CLBP compared with all but generic NSAIDs. In subpopulations at risk of NSAID-related AEs, it is particularly cost-effective.

Random CNT network and regioregular poly(3-hexylthiophen) FETs for pH sensing applications: a comparison

BACKGROUND

Nowadays, there is a tremendous need for cheap disposable sensing devices for medical applications. Materials such as Carbon Nanotubes (CNTs) and regioregular P3HT are proven to offer a huge potential as cost-effective and solution processable semiconductors for (bio)sensing applications.

METHODS

CNT-based field-effect transistors (CNT-FETs) as well as regioregular P3HT-based ones (P3HT-FETs) are fabricated and operated in the so-called electrolyte-gated configuration. The active layer of the P3HT-FETs consists of a spin-coated regioregular P3HT layer, which serves on one hand as the active sensing element and on the other hand as passivation layer for the transistor's metal contacts. The active layer of the nanotube transistors consists of a randomly distributed single walled CNT-network (>90% semiconducting tubes) deposited from a CNT-ink solution by spin-coating.

RESULTS

We compare both devices concerning their stability in aqueous environment and their response when exposed to buffers with different pH. We found that even if P3HT shows lower stability its pH sensitivity is reproducible even after long-term measurements.

CONCLUSION

CNT-FETs and P3HT-FETs offer different advantages and drawbacks concerning their stability in solution and the ease of fabrication. A discussion of their different sensing mechanisms as well as sensitivity is given here.

GENERAL SIGNIFICANCE

This work reports on fast and cost-effective production of solution processable thin-film transistors based on carbon nanotubes and regioregular P3HT and demonstrates their suitability as reliable pH sensors. This article is part of a Special Issue entitled Organic Bioelectronics - Novel Applications in Biomedicine.

Prasugrel vs clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a model-based cost-effectiveness analysis for Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands, and Turkey

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of 12-months treatment with prasugrel vs clopidogrel from four European healthcare systems' perspectives (Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands, and Turkey).

METHODS

In the TRITON-TIMI 38 trial, patients with an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) were treated with prasugrel or clopidogrel. Prasugrel reduced the composite end-point (cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke), but increased TIMI major bleeding. A Markov model was constructed to facilitate a lifetime horizon for the analysis. A series of risk equations constructed using individual patient data from TRITON-TIMI 38 was used to estimate risks of clinical events. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were derived by weighting survival time by estimates of health-related quality-of-life. Incremental cost-effectiveness is presented based on differences in treatments' mean costs and QALYs for the licensed population in TRITON-TIMI 38, and the sub-groups of UA-NSTEMI, STEMI, diabetes, and the 'core clinical cohort' (<75 years, ≥60 kg, no history of stroke or TIA).

RESULTS

Mean cost of study drug was €364 (Turkey) to €818 (Germany) higher for prasugrel vs clopidogrel. Rehospitalization costs at 12 months were lower for prasugrel due to reduced rates of revascularization, although hospitalization costs beyond 12 months were higher due to longer life expectancy associated with lower rates of non-fatal MI in the prasugrel group. The incremental cost per QALY saved with prasugrel in the licensed population ranged from €6520 (for Sweden) to €14,350 for (Germany). Prasugrel's cost per QALY was more favourable still in the STEMI and diabetes sub-groups of the licensed population.

LIMITATIONS

Probabilistic analyses of the whole trial population is impractical due to the number of individual patient profiles over which population level results are calculated.

CONCLUSION

Among patients undergoing PCI for ACS, treatment with prasugrel compared with clopidogrel resulted in favourable cost-effectiveness profiles from these healthcare systems' perspectives.

[How to properly use warfarin and new anticoagulants]

Warfarin has unmet medical needs such as blood coagulation monitoring, limitation of vitamin K intake, and interaction with other drugs, while novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) do not have such kind of unmet medical needs. Therefore, NOACs are recommended to busy patients or patients far from hospitals, or who do not want to limit vitamin K or use many other drugs concomitantly. NOACs are also recommended to patients with low time in therapeutic range (TTR). NOACs are also recommended to warfarin-naïve patients. Warfarin is recommended to patients with economical difficulty because it is much cheaper than NOACs. If needed, warfarin should be selected in patients with renal insufficiency or under hemodialysis because NOACs are contraindicated. New guidelines by the European Society of Cardiology recommend NOACs to low risk patients with CHA2DS2-VASc score 1, and also as the first line to those with CHA2DS2-VASc 2 or more. Finally, drug should be determined by patients' preference. Doctors should give adequate information helpful for patients' selection.

Longitudinal analysis of healthcare costs: a case study of patients with major depressive disorder treated with duloxetine

OBJECTIVE

To develop and apply a longitudinal model that adjusts for pre-treatment covariates to examine the trajectory of healthcare costs in duloxetine patients with major depressive disorder (MDD).

METHODS

Retrospective healthcare cost data from Thomson Reuters Marketscan® Database included 10,987 patients with MDD, aged 18-64, receiving duloxetine at low (<60 mg/day), standard (60 mg/day), or high (>60 mg/day) initial doses. A linear mixed-effects model for repeated measures used dose, month, and dose*month as fixed effects and patient (dose) as a random effect, and adjusted for demographics, comorbidities, body system disorders, and prior medication history. Model goodness-of-fit was evaluated with R(2). Rates of change (slopes) were estimated from the fitted model and differences in the cost trajectory among dosing cohorts were tested using the F-test. Bootstrapping and propensity score (PS) stratification were conducted to provide sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

Main effects and covariates were all significant (p < 0.05). Adjustment by pre-treatment covariates greatly improved the model fit (R(2 )= 0.43). The model revealed a significant increase in healthcare costs in the 6 months preceding and a significant decrease in the 6 months following duloxetine initiation for each initial dose cohort and the overall cohort (p < 0.05). In both the pre- and post-treatment periods, the high initial-dose cohort had higher healthcare costs than standard or low initial-dose cohorts (p < 0.05). Bootstrapping and PS stratification confirmed these test results.

LIMITATIONS

The analyses performed here were based on non-randomized, observational data, and thus subject to potential biases due to unmeasured confounding.

CONCLUSIONS

Longitudinal models, compared with conventional mean-based methods, provide better opportunities to assess changes in cost trajectory patterns around the time of changes in medical treatment. In insured patients with MDD started on duloxetine, healthcare costs increased before duloxetine initiation, perhaps signaling a clinical deterioration that led to a change in treatment strategy. Healthcare costs then decreased following duloxetine initiation.

Genetic testing in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

The CYP2C19 genotype is a predictor of adverse cardiovascular events in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) treated with clopidogrel.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a CYP2C19*2 genotype-guided strategy of antiplatelet therapy in ACS patients undergoing PCI, compared with two 'no testing' strategies (empiric clopidogrel or prasugrel).

METHODS

We developed a Markov model to compare three strategies. The model captured adverse cardiovascular events and antiplatelet-related complications. Costs were expressed in 2010 US dollars and estimated using diagnosis-related group codes and Medicare reimbursement rates. The net wholesale price for prasugrel was estimated as $5.45 per day. A generic estimate for clopidogrel of $1.00 per day was used and genetic testing was assumed to cost $500.

RESULTS

Base case analyses demonstrated little difference between treatment strategies. The genetic testing-guided strategy yielded the most QALYs and was the least costly. Over 15 months, total costs were $18 lower with a gain of 0.004 QALY in the genotype-guided strategy compared with empiric clopidogrel, and $899 lower with a gain of 0.0005 QALY compared with empiric prasugrel. The strongest predictor of the preferred strategy was the relative risk of thrombotic events in carriers compared with wild-type individuals treated with clopidogrel. Above a 47% increased risk, a genotype-guided strategy was the dominant strategy. Above a clopidogrel cost of $3.96 per day, genetic testing was no longer dominant but remained cost-effective.

CONCLUSIONS

Among ACS patients undergoing PCI, a genotype-guided strategy yields similar outcomes to empiric approaches to treatment, but is marginally less costly and more effective.

The cost effectiveness of genetic testing for CYP2C19 variants to guide thienopyridine treatment in patients with acute coronary syndromes: a New Zealand evaluation

BACKGROUND

A recent clinical trial has demonstrated that patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) and the reduced function allele CYP2C19*2 (*2 allele), who are treated with thienopyridines, have an increased risk of adverse cardiac events with clopidogrel, but not with prasugrel. The frequency of the *2 allele varies by ethnicity and the Maoris, Asians and Pacific Islanders of New Zealand have a relatively high incidence.

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to evaluate, from a New Zealand health system perspective, the cost effectiveness of treating all ACS patients with generic clopidogrel compared with prasugrel, and also compared with the genetically guided strategy that *2 allele carriers receive prasugrel and non-carriers receive clopidogrel.

METHODS

A decision-tree model consisting of five health states (myocardial infarction, stroke, bleeding, stent thrombosis and cardiovascular death) was developed. Clinical outcome data (two TRITON-TIMI 38 genetic sub-studies) comparing clopidogrel and prasugrel for both *2 allele carriers and non-carriers were combined with the prevalence of the heterozygosity for the *2 allele in New Zealand Europeans (15%), Maoris (24%), Asians (29%) and Pacific Islanders (45%) to determine the predicted adverse event rate for the New Zealand population. National hospital diagnosis-related group (DRG) discharge codes were used to determine alternative adverse event rates, along with the costs of hospitalizations during the 15 months after patients presented with an ACS. The primary outcome measure was the incremental cost per QALY (calculated using literature-reported weights). Monte Carlo simulations and alternative scenario analysis based on both clinical trial and national hospital incidence were used. Additional analysis considered the overall TRITON-TIMI 38 rates. Costs (in New Zealand dollars [$NZ], year 2009 values) and benefits were discounted at 3% per annum.

RESULTS

Actual hospital-based adverse event rates were higher than those reported in the TRITON-TIMI 38 randomized controlled trial and the genetic sub-studies, especially for myocardial infarction and cardiovascular death, and for Maoris and Pacific Islanders. For both sources of adverse event rates, treating the population with prasugrel was associated with worse outcomes (QALYs) than clopidogrel. However, prasugrel became cost effective ($NZ31 751/QALY) when the overall TRITON-TIMI 38 rates were used. A genetic test to guide the selected use of prasugrel was cost effective ($NZ8702/QALY versus $NZ24 617/QALY) for hospital and clinical trial incidence, respectively. Based on the hospital rates, the genetically guided strategy was especially cost effective for Maoris ($NZ7312/QALY) and Pacific Islanders ($NZ7041/QALY). These results were robust to the sensitivity analysis, except the genetically guided strategy under the 15-month clinical trial event rate scenario ($NZ168 748/QALY) did not remain cost effective under a $NZ50 000 threshold.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of a genetic test to guide thienopyridine treatment in patients with ACS is a potentially cost-effective treatment strategy, especially for Maoris and Pacific Islanders. This treatment strategy also has the potential to reduce ethnic health disparities that exist in New Zealand. However, the results comparing clopidogrel and prasugrel are sensitive to whether the genetic sub-studies or the overall TRITON-TIMI 38 rates are used. While the national hospital event rates may be more appropriate for the New Zealand population, many assumptions are required when they are used to adjust the genetic sub-studies rates.

Value-of-information analysis to reduce decision uncertainty associated with the choice of thromboprophylaxis after total hip replacement in the Irish healthcare setting

BACKGROUND

The National Centre for Pharmacoeconomics, in collaboration with the Health Services Executive, considers the cost effectiveness of all new medicines introduced into Ireland. Health Technology Assessments (HTAs) are conducted in accordance with the existing agreed Irish HTA guidelines. These guidelines do not specify a formal analysis of value of information (VOI).

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to demonstrate the benefits of using VOI analysis in decreasing decision uncertainty and to examine the viability of applying these techniques as part of the formal HTA process for reimbursement purposes within the Irish healthcare system.

METHOD

The evaluation was conducted from the Irish health payer perspective. A lifetime model evaluated the cost effectiveness of rivaroxaban, dabigatran etexilate and enoxaparin sodium for the prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism after total hip replacement. The expected value of perfect information (EVPI) was determined directly from the probabilistic analysis (PSA). Population-level EVPI (PEVPI) was determined by scaling up the EVPI according to the decision incidence. The expected value of perfect parameter information (EVPPI) was calculated for the three model parameter subsets: probabilities, preference weights and direct medical costs.

RESULTS

In the base-case analysis, rivaroxaban dominated both dabigatran etexilate and enoxaparin sodium. PSA indicated that rivaroxaban had the highest probability of being the most cost-effective strategy over a threshold range of &U20AC;0-&U20AC;100 000 per QALY. At a threshold of &U20AC;45 000 per QALY, the probability that rivaroxaban was the most cost-effective strategy was 67%. At a threshold of &U20AC;45 000 per QALY, assuming a 10-year decision time horizon, the PEVPI was &U20AC;11.96 million and the direct medical costs subset had the highest EVPPI value (&U20AC;9.00 million at a population level). In order to decrease uncertainty, a more detailed costing study was undertaken. In the subsequent analysis, rivaroxaban continued to dominate both comparators. In the PSA, rivaroxaban continued to have the highest probability of being optimal over the threshold range &U20AC;0-&U20AC;100 000 per QALY. At &U20AC;45 000 per QALY, the probability that rivaroxaban was the most cost-effective strategy increased to 80%. At &U20AC;45 000 per QALY, the 10-year PEVPI decreased to &U20AC;3.58 million and the population value associated with the direct medical costs fell to &U20AC;1.72 million.

CONCLUSION

This increase in probability of cost effectiveness, coupled with a substantially reduced potential opportunity loss could influence a decision maker's confidence in making a reimbursement decision. On discussions with the decision maker we now intend to incorporate the use of VOI into our HTA process.

Prasugrel

Prasugrel is a third-generation thienopyridine which selectively inhibits the platelet P2Y(12) receptor more rapidly, more potently, and with less interindividual response variability compared with the second-generation thienopyridine clopidogrel. Large-scale phase III clinical testing showed that in high-to moderate-risk acute coronary syndrome patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, prasugrel translates into a greater reduction in ischemic events, including stent thrombosis, in the short and long term compared to clopidogrel. Prasugrel, however, is associated with an increased risk of major bleeding, which is more pronounced in certain patient subgroups. The ideal patient population for prasugrel use are those patients without prior transient ischemic attack/stroke, <75 years of age and >60 kg in whom the greatest ischemic benefit is achieved without a significant increase in major bleeding risk. Dose modifications in specific populations or at given time-points may represent an avenue to minimize bleeding risk and therefore maximize the clinical benefit of prasugrel. Ongoing clinical studies with prasugrel will better define the safety and efficacy profiles of this agent and potentially set the basis for new indications for use.

A multi-perspective cost-effectiveness analysis comparing rivaroxaban with enoxaparin sodium for thromboprophylaxis after total hip and knee replacement in the German healthcare setting

BACKGROUND

Patients undergoing major orthopaedic surgery (MOS), such as total hip (THR) or total knee replacement (TKR), are at high risk of developing venous thromboembolism (VTE). For thromboembolism prophylaxis, the oral anticoagulant rivaroxaban has recently been included in the German diagnosis related group (DRG) system. However, the cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban is still unclear from both the German statutory health insurance (SHI) and the German hospital perspective.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban from the German statutory health insurance (SHI) perspective and to analyse financial incentives from the German hospital perspective.

METHODS

Based on data from the RECORD trials and German cost data, a decision tree was built. The model was run for two settings (THR and TKR) and two perspectives (SHI and hospital) per setting.

RESULTS

Prophylaxis with rivaroxaban reduces VTE events (0.02 events per person treated after TKR; 0.007 after THR) compared with enoxaparin. From the SHI perspective, prophylaxis with rivaroxaban after TKR is cost saving (€27.3 saving per patient treated). However, the cost-effectiveness after THR (€17.8 cost per person) remains unclear because of stochastic uncertainty. From the hospital perspective, for given DRGs, the hospital profit will decrease through the use of rivaroxaban by €20.6 (TKR) and €31.8 (THR) per case respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on our findings, including rivaroxaban for reimbursement in the German DRG system seems reasonable. Yet, adequate incentives for German hospitals to use rivaroxaban are still lacking.

Duloxetine use in chronic low back pain: treatment patterns and costs

BACKGROUND

Little is known about the real-world treatment patterns and costs of patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP) who are treated with duloxetine compared with those receiving other non-surgical treatments.

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to compare the real-world treatment patterns and costs between patients with CLBP who initiated duloxetine and matched controls who initiated another non-surgical treatment.

METHODS

The study sample was selected from a US privately insured claims database (2004-8). Selected patients were aged 18-64 years, and had a low back pain (LBP) diagnosis (per Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set [HEDIS] specifications) with a subsequent CLBP-qualifying diagnosis recorded ≥90 days after the initial LBP diagnosis. Duloxetine-treated patients had ≥1 duloxetine prescription within 6 months after CLBP diagnosis, no prior duloxetine claim, and continuous eligibility ≥12 months before first LBP diagnosis and ≥6 months after index duloxetine prescription (study period). Because duloxetine patients had higher rates of co-morbidities, 553 duloxetine-treated patients were matched to 553 control patients who initiated another non-surgical LBP treatment based on propensity score and time from first LBP diagnosis to treatment initiation. A subset (n = 103 each) of matched employees with disability data was also analysed to assess work loss. Main outcomes measures included study period treatment rates and direct (medical and drug) costs from a third-party payer perspective and employee indirect (work-loss) costs. McNemar tests were used to compare LBP treatment rates. Bias-corrected bootstrapping t-tests were used to compare costs.

RESULTS

After matching, the two groups had balanced baseline characteristics including demographics, LBP diagnostic categories, co-morbidity profiles, resource use, treatment patterns and mean direct costs. During the 6-month study period, matched duloxetine-treated patients had significantly lower rates of other pharmacological therapy (e.g. 56.2% vs 64.9% narcotic opioids, p = 0.0024; 34.9% vs 49.5% NSAIDs, p < 0.0001) and non-invasive therapy (28.8% vs 38.5% chiropractic therapy, p = 0.0007; 25.5% vs 35.4% physical therapy, p = 0.0004; 17.5% vs 28.4% exercise therapy, p < 0.0001) than controls. Duloxetine-treated patients versus controls had similar back surgery rates (2.2% vs 3.8%; p = 0.1127) and similar direct costs ($US7658 vs $US7439; p = 0.8119). Among CLBP employees, duloxetine-treated employees versus controls had lower rates of other non-surgical therapy, similar back surgery rates (0.0% vs 3.9%; p = 0.1250), lower total direct and indirect costs ($US5227 vs $US7299; p = 0.0418), and similar indirect costs ($US1806 vs $US2664; p = 0.0528).

CONCLUSIONS

Duloxetine treatment in CLBP patients/employees versus other non-surgical treatment was associated with reduced rates of non-surgical therapies and similar back surgery rates, without increased costs.

Cost-effectiveness of cytochrome P450 2C19 genotype screening for selection of antiplatelet therapy with clopidogrel or prasugrel

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To estimate the cost-effectiveness of genotype-guided selection of antiplatelet therapy compared with selecting clopidogrel or prasugrel irrespective of genotype.

DESIGN

Decision model based on event occurrence in the Trial to Assess Improvement in Therapeutic Outcomes by Optimizing Platelet Inhibition with Prasugrel-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TRITON-TIMI) 38.

PATIENTS

Simulated cohort of patients with acute coronary syndrome scheduled to undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), consisting of three arms: those receiving genotype-guided antiplatelet therapy with clopidogrel or prasugrel, those receiving clopidogrel regardless of genotype, and those receiving prasugrel regardless of genotype.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

All three arms of the model incorporated the probability that patients would experience a cardiovascular event (death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke), a bleeding event (major or minor bleeding), or no event while receiving antiplatelet therapy during the 15 months after the scheduled PCI. The cytochrome P450 (CYP) 2C19 genotype determined antiplatelet drug selection in the genotyping group. Cost-effectiveness was expressed as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for each event avoided in the genotype-guided therapy arm versus the other two arms. Genotype-guided antiplatelet therapy was dominant, or more effective and less costly, when compared with the selection of clopidogrel (ICER -$6760 [95% confidence interval (CI) -$6720 to -$6790]) or prasugrel (ICER -$11,710 [95% CI -$11,480 to -$11,950]) for all patients without regard to genotype. Genotype-guided therapy that included generic clopidogrel was dominant to prasugrel for all patients (ICER -$27,160 [95% CI -$27,890 to -$26,420]). Cost savings were not evident when genotype-guided therapy that included generic clopidogrel was compared with generic clopidogrel for all patients (ICER $2300 [95% CI $2290 to $2320]). [Correction added after online publication 12-Mar-2012: In the previous sentence -$2300 has been corrected as $2300.].

CONCLUSION

Genotype-guided antiplatelet therapy selection may be more cost-effective and may provide more clinical value due to fewer adverse outcomes.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of pharmacologic treatment of fibromyalgia in Mexico

OBJECTIVE

To identify, from the Mexican Public Health System perspective, which would be the most cost-effective treatment for patients with Fibromyalgia (FM).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A Markov model including three health states, divided by pain intensity (absence or presence of mild, moderate or severe pain) and considering three-month cycles; costs and effectiveness were estimated for amitriptyline (50mg/day), fluoxetine (80 mg/day), duloxetine (120 mg/day), gabapentin (900 mg/day), pregabalin (450 mg/day), tramadol/acetaminophen (150 mg/1300 mg/día) and amitriptyline/fluoxetine (50mg/80 mg/día) for the treatment of FM. The clinical outcome considered was the annual rate of pain control. Probabilities assigned to the model were collected from published literature. Direct medical costs for FM treatment were retrieved from the 2006 data of the Mexican Institute of Social Security (IMSS) databases and were expressed in 2010 Mexican Pesos. Probabilistic Sensitivity Analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

The best pain control rate was obtained with pregabalin (44.8%), followed by gabapentin (38.1%) and duloxetine (34.2%). The lowest treatment costs was for amitriptyline ($ 9047.01), followed by fluoxetine ($ 10,183.89) and amitriptyline/fluoxetine ($ 10,866.01). By comparing pregabalin vs amitriptyline, additional annual cost per patient for pain control would be around $ 50.000 and $ 75.000 and would result cost-effective in 70% and 80% of all cases.

CONCLUSIONS

Among all treatment options for FM, pregabalin achieved the highest pain control and was cost-effective in 80% of patients of the Mexican Public Health System.

Cost effectiveness of rivaroxaban versus enoxaparin for prevention of post-surgical venous thromboembolism from a U.S. payer's perspective

BACKGROUND

Major orthopaedic surgery, such as total hip replacement (THR) and total knee replacement (TKR), is associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE).

OBJECTIVE

Clinical trials have demonstrated the efficacy of rivaroxaban, a once-daily, orally administered Factor Xa inhibitor, for the prevention of VTE in patients undergoing THR or TKR. This analysis evaluated the cost effectiveness of rivaroxaban compared with enoxaparin, from a U.S. payer's perspective.

METHODS

A decision-analytic model was developed to compare the costs and outcomes associated with rivaroxaban and enoxaparin for the prevention of VTE. The model replicated short-term clinical outcomes from the phase III RECORD trials. RECORD1 and RECORD2 compared rivaroxaban 10 mg daily (qd), given for 35 days, with enoxaparin 40 mg qd, given for 35 days or 10 to 14 days, respectively, in patients undergoing THR. RECORD3 compared 10 mg of rivaroxaban qd for 10 to 14 days versus 40 mg of enoxaparin qd for 10 to 14 days in patients undergoing TKR. The decision-analytic model also included data on long-term complications and sequelae as captured in observational studies and databases. It also included direct year 2010 medical costs over 1-year and 5-year time horizons. A series of sensitivity analyses were performed to determine the impact of different factors on the results of the model. Results of the cost-effectiveness analysis were reported in terms of symptomatic VTE events avoided.

RESULTS

Rivaroxaban was associated with cost savings of $US 511.93 per patient and prevented an average of 0.0145 symptomatic VTE events per patient in the THR population, compared with enoxaparin. For a TKR population, 10 to 14 days of rivaroxaban prophylaxis was associated with cost savings of $US 465.74 and prevented an average 0.0193 symptomatic VTE events per patient. Sensitivity analysis suggested that the results of the model were robust, with cost savings ranging from $US 133.96-629.57 in the THR population and $US 293.01-848.68 in the TKR population, depending on the variables used. Sensitivity analysis also suggested that the economic profile of rivaroxaban is improved when the time horizon of the model is extended from 1 year to 5 years. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis confirmed the findings of baseline results, showing that rivaroxaban was less costly and more effective in all model simulations for both populations.

CONCLUSIONS

This decision-analytic model analysis, from the U.S. payer's perspective, concluded that rivaroxaban may be cost saving in both the THR and the TKR populations, when compared with enoxaparin in the U.S.