Real-world treatment modalities, health care resource utilization, and costs among commercially insured patients with newly diagnosed major depressive disorder in the United States

BACKGROUND: In the United States, major depressive disorder (MDD) is one of the most prevalent mental health disorders. Treatment guidelines for MDD recommend pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic therapies tailored to the patient's disease severity, level of function, and comorbid health conditions. While previous studies examined real-world pharmacologic treatment patterns and costs among patients with MDD, few have examined the use of nonpharmacologic treatments and their association with health care resource utilization (HCRU) and cost. OBJECTIVE: To describe prevalence and associations between patient/provider characteristics and treatment modality and characterize HCRU and cost by treatment modality for patients with newly diagnosed MDD. METHODS: Commercially insured US patients, aged 18-62 years with newly diagnosed MDD between January 1, 2017, and September 30, 2019, were retrospectively identified from the Healthcare Integrated Research Database. Eligible patients were continuously enrolled in the health plan for 1 year before and 2 years after the first MDD diagnosis (index date). Those with co-occurring schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, postpartum depression, substance use disorder, and any prior MDD treatments were excluded. Treatment modalities assessed in the 2-year post-index period included antidepressant only (Rx-only), nonpharmacologic only (non-Rx-only), both antidepressant and nonpharmacologic (combination), and no treatment. HCRU and costs were assessed in the 2-year post-index period by treatment modality. Regression models identified associations between patient/provider characteristics and treatment modality, and the relationship between treatment modality and MDD severity changes. RESULTS: In total, 12,657 patients were included (mean age: 36 years; 60% female). During follow-up, 34% of patients received Rx-only, 25% received non-Rx-only, 28% received combination, and 13% received no treatment. MDD severity at diagnosis (26% mild, 54% moderate, 20% severe) was available for 51% of patients. Post-index inpatient hospitalizations were 11% for those with Rx-only, 10% for non-Rx-only, 16% for combination, and 29% for no treatment, whereas all-cause mean monthly total costs were $792, $633, $786, and $1,292, respectively. In multinomial logistic regression, age, sex, geographic region and urbanicity of patient residence, socioeconomic status, diagnosing provider specialty, and initial diagnosis location were significantly associated (P < 0.05) with treatment modality. In multivariable logistic regression, recipients of Rx-only (odds ratio = 2.03, P < 0.01) or combination (odds ratio = 3.26, P < 0.01) had higher odds of improving MDD severity than patients who received no treatment. CONCLUSIONS: In this real-world sample of commercially insured patients, we observed variations in outcomes by treatment modality and an association between treatment modality and disease severity. Further research is needed to explore the underlying causal relationships between treatment modality and patient outcomes. Study Registration: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/YQ6B3 DISCLOSURES: Dr Grabner is an employee of Carelon Research, which received funding from the Innovation and Value Initiative for the conduct of the study on which this manuscript is based. Ms Pizzicato and Mr Yang were employees of Carelon Research at the time the study was conducted. Dr Grabner is a shareholder of Elevance Health. Drs Xie and Chapman are employees of the Innovation and Value Initiative.

Treatment goals for rheumatoid arthritis: patient engagement and goal collection

Aim: We developed the Patient-Engaged Health Technology Assessment strategy for survey-based goal collection from patients to yield patient-important outcomes suitable for use in multi-criteria decision analysis. Methods: Rheumatoid arthritis patients were recruited from online patient networks for proof-of-concept testing of goal collection and prioritization using a survey. A Project Steering Committee and Expert Panel rated the feasibility of scaling to larger samples. Results: Survey respondents (n = 47) completed the goal collection exercise. Finding effective treatments was rated by respondents as the most important goal, and reducing stiffness was rated as the least important. Feedback from our steering committee and expert panel support the approach's feasibility for goal identification and ranking. Conclusion: Goals relevant for treatment evaluation can be identified and rated for importance by patients to permit wide input from patients with lived experience of disease.

Preferences for Treatments for Major Depressive Disorder: Formative Qualitative Research Using the Patient Experience

OBJECTIVES

The goals of this formative research are to elicit attributes of treatment and desired outcomes that are important to individuals with major depressive disorder (MDD), to develop a stated preference instrument, and to pre-test the instrument.

METHODS

A three-phase survey study design elicited the patient's journey with MDD to design and pre-test the discrete choice experiment (DCE) instrument. Participants were 20 adults aged ≥ 18 with MDD who did not also have bipolar disorder or post-partum depression. We engaged patient advocates and a multi-disciplinary stakeholder advisory group to select and refine attributes for inclusion in a DCE instrument. The DCE was incorporated into a survey that also collected depression treatment and management and sociodemographic characteristics. The DCE was pre-tested with ten adults with MDD.

RESULTS

Six attributes were included in the DCE: mode of treatment (medicine only, psychotherapy only, all modalities including brain stimulation), time to treatment effect (6, 9, 12 weeks), days of hopefulness (2, 4, 6 days/week), effect on productivity (40%, 60%, 90% increase), relations with others (strained, improved, no impact), and out-of-pocket costs ($30, $60, $90/month). The DCE test led to the refinement of mode of treatment (medicine, medicine and psychotherapy, and all modalities); time to treatment effect (4, 6, 9 weeks); monthly out-of-pocket costs ($30, $90, $270).

CONCLUSIONS

MDD treatment preferences revealed trade-offs among mode of treatment, time to treatment effect, functional outcomes, and cost. The findings demonstrate the potential for meaningfully incorporating the patient experience in preference measures.

Cost-Effectiveness of Nadofaragene Firadenovec and Pembrolizumab in Bacillus Calmette-Guérin Immunotherapy Unresponsive Non-Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer

OBJECTIVES

Nadofaragene firadenovec is a gene therapy for bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG)-unresponsive non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) undergoing Food and Drug Administration review. Pembrolizumab is approved for treating patients with BCG-unresponsive NMIBC with carcinoma in situ (CIS). We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of these treatments compared with a hypothetical therapeutic alternative, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, in CIS and non-CIS BCG-unresponsive NMIBC populations.

METHODS

We developed a Markov cohort simulation model with a 3-month cycle length and lifetime horizon to estimate the total costs, QALYs, and cost per additional QALY from the health sector perspective. Clinical inputs were informed by results of single-arm clinical trials evaluating the treatments, and systematic literature reviews were conducted to obtain other model inputs. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess uncertainty in model results.

RESULTS

Nadofaragene firadenovec, at a placeholder price 10% higher than the price of pembrolizumab, had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $263 000 and $145 000 per QALY gained in CIS and non-CIS populations, respectively. Pembrolizumab had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $168 000 per QALY gained for CIS. A 5.4% reduction in pembrolizumab's price would make it cost-effective. The model was sensitive to many inputs, especially to the probabilities of disease progression, initial treatment response and durability, and drug price.

CONCLUSIONS

The cost-effectiveness of nadofaragene firadenovec will depend upon its price. Pembrolizumab, although not cost-effective in our base-case analysis, is an important alternative in this population with an unmet medical need. Comparative trials of these treatments are warranted to better estimate cost-effectiveness.

The Cost-Effectiveness of Belimumab and Voclosporin for Patients with Lupus Nephritis in the United States

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Despite existing therapies, people with lupus nephritis progress to kidney failure and have reduced life expectancy. Belimumab and voclosporin are two new disease-modifying therapies recently approved for the treatment of lupus nephritis.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

A de novo economic model was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of these therapies, including the following health states: "complete response," "partial response," and "active disease" defined by eGFR and proteinuria changes, kidney failure, and death. Short-term data and mean cohort characteristics were sourced from pivotal clinical trials of belimumab (the Belimumab International Study in Lupus Nephritis) and voclosporin (the Aurinia Urinary Protection Reduction Active-Lupus with Voclosporin trial and Aurinia Renal Response in Active Lupus With Voclosporin). Risk of mortality and kidney failure were on the basis of survival modeling using published Kaplan-Meier data. Each drug was compared with the standard of care as represented by the comparator arm in its respective pivotal trial(s) using US health care sector perspective, with a societal perspective also explored.

RESULTS

In the health care perspective probabilistic analysis, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for belimumab compared with its control arm was estimated to be approximately $95,000 per quality-adjusted life year. The corresponding incremental ratio for voclosporin compared with its control arm was approximately $150,000 per quality-adjusted life year. Compared with their respective standard care arms, the probabilities of belimumab and voclosporin being cost effective at a threshold of $150,000 per quality-adjusted life year were 69% and 49%, respectively. Cost-effectiveness was dependent on assumptions made regarding survival in response states, costs and utilities in active disease, and the utilities in response states. In the analysis from a societal perspective, the incremental ratio for belimumab was estimated to be approximately $66,000 per quality-adjusted life year, and the incremental ratio for voclosporin was estimated to be approximately $133,000 per quality-adjusted life year.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with their respective standard care arms, belimumab but not voclosporin met willingness-to-pay thresholds of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life year. Despite potential clinical superiority in the informing trials, there remains high uncertainty around the cost-effectiveness of voclosporin.

Developing a Framework for the Health Technology Assessment of Histology-independent Precision Oncology Therapies

The arrival of precision oncology is challenging the evidence standards under which technologies are evaluated for regulatory approval as well as for health technology assessment (HTA) purposes. Several key concepts are discussed to highlight the source of the challenges in evaluating these products, particularly those impacting the HTA of histology-independent therapies. These include the basket trial design, high uncertainty in (potentially substantial) benefits for histology-independent therapies, and the inability to identify and quantify benefits of standard of care in daily practice when the biomarker is not currently used in practice. There is little precedent for a technology with the unique mixture of challenges for HTA of histology-independent therapies and they will be evaluated using standard HTA, as there currently is no evidence suggesting the standard HTA framework is not appropriate. A number of questions proposed to help guide HTA bodies when assessing the appropriateness of local processes to optimally evaluate histology-independent therapies. Pragmatic solutions are further proposed to decrease uncertainty in the benefits of histology independent therapies as well as fill gaps in comparative evidence. The proposed solutions ensure a consistent and streamlined approach to evaluation across histology-independent products, although with varying strengths and limitations. Alongside these solutions, sponsors should engage early with HTA bodies/payers and regulatory agencies through parallel/joint scientific advice to facilitate the integration of both regulatory and HTA perspectives into one clinical development programme, potentially reconciling evidence requirements.

Does Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Overvalue Potential Cures? Exploring Alternative Methods for Applying a "Shared Savings" Approach to Cost Offsets

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate alternative methods to calculate and/or attribute economic surplus in the cost-effectiveness analysis of single or short-term therapies.

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature review of articles describing alternative methods for cost-effectiveness analysis of potentially curative therapies whose assessment using traditional methods may suggest unaffordable valuations owing to the magnitude of estimated long-term quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gains or cost offsets. Through internal deliberation and discussion with staff at the Health Technology Assessment bodies in England and Canada, we developed the following 3 alternative methods for further evaluation: (1) capping annual costs in the comparator arm at $150 000 per year; (2) "sharing" the economic surplus with the health sector by apportioning only 50% of cost offsets or 50% of cost offsets and QALY gains to the value of the therapy; and (3) crediting the therapy with only 12 years of the average annual cost offsets or cost offsets and QALY gains over the lifetime horizon. The impact of each alternative method was evaluated by applying it in an economic model of 3 hypothetical condition-treatment scenarios meant to reflect a diversity of chronicity and background healthcare costs.

RESULTS

The alternative with greatest impact on threshold price for the fatal pediatric condition spinal muscular atrophy type 1 was the 12-year cutoff scenario. For a hypothetical one-time treatment for hemophilia A, capping cost offsets at $150 000 per year had the greatest impact. For chimeric antigen receptor T-cell treatment of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, capping cost offsets or using 12-year threshold had little impact, whereas 50% sharing of surplus including QALY gains and cost offsets greatly reduced threshold pricing.

CONCLUSIONS

Health Technology Assessment bodies and policy makers will wrestle with how to evaluate single or short-term potentially curative therapies and establish pricing and payment mechanisms to ensure sustainability. Scenario analyses using alternative methods for calculating and apportioning economic surplus can provide starkly different assessment results. These methods may stimulate important societal dialogue on fair pricing for these novel treatments.

Cost-effectiveness of oral semaglutide added to current antihyperglycemic treatment for type 2 diabetes

BACKGROUND: Oral semaglutide is the first oral formulation of a glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist to be approved in the United States for glycemic control in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). While oral semaglutide is not indicated for reduction of cardiovascular event risk, its label does include evidence of no increase in cardiovascular risk in people who received oral semaglutide. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the incremental value of oral semaglutide added to existing antihyperglycemic treatment for people with T2DM with additional risk for cardiovascular disease. METHODS: We estimated the lifetime cost-effectiveness of oral semaglutide added to current antihyperglycemic treatment for T2DM using a microsimulation model based primarily on the UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Outcomes Model 2 (OM2) equations. Oral semaglutide added to current antihyperglycemic treatment was separately compared with (a) ongoing background antihyperglycemic treatment, (b) sitagliptin, (c) empagliflozin, and (d) liraglutide. Comparators sitagliptin, empagliflozin, and liraglutide were added to ongoing antihyperglycemic treatment. We applied hazard ratios derived from a network meta-analysis for cardiovascular and renal outcomes to the UKPDS OM2 estimated baseline rates. Health state utilities and costs were derived from the published literature. We estimated total costs, life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), clinical events, and cost per major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) avoided, over a lifetime time horizon using discount rates of 3% for costs and outcomes. RESULTS: The lifetime total cost for people treated with oral semaglutide was $311,300, with costs for the other comparators ranging from $262,800 (background treatment alone) to $287,800 (liraglutide). Oral semaglutide resulted in the fewest MACE, including the fewest cardiovascular deaths. Among the 5 modeled treatment strategies, oral semaglutide had the highest LYs gained (8.43 vs. 7.76 [background treatment alone] to 8.29 [empagliflozin and liraglutide]) and the highest QALYs gained (4.11 vs. 3.70 [background treatment alone] to 4.03 [empagliflozin]). Oral semaglutide would likely be considered cost-effective compared with liraglutide (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER] = $40,100), and moderately cost-effective versus background treatment alone ([ICER] = $117,500/QALY) and sitagliptin (ICER = $145,200/QALY). The ICER for oral semaglutide compared with empagliflozin was approximately $458,400 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: As modeled, oral semaglutide as an add-on therapy to background antihyperglycemic treatment produced incremental benefits in MACE avoided, along with greater QALYs compared with background antihyperglycemic treatment alone. Oral semaglutide use resulted in better outcomes than background treatment alone or sitagliptin, and similar outcomes to liraglutide or empagliflozin with overlapping 95% confidence ranges for QALYs. Oral semaglutide was estimated to be cost-effective compared with liraglutide and to have incremental cost-effectiveness ratios between $100,000 and $150,000 per QALY versus sitagliptin and background therapy alone, but it did not meet these thresholds compared with empagliflozin. DISCLOSURES: Funding for this study was provided by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, an independent organization that evaluates the evidence on the value of health care interventions. ICER reports grants from Laura and John Arnold Foundation, California Health Care Foundation, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, and Kaiser Foundation Health Plan. ICER's annual policy summit is supported by dues from AbbVie, Aetna, America's Health Insurance Plans, Anthem, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Blue Shield of CA, Cambia Health Services, CVS, Editas, Evolve Pharmacy, Express Scripts, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Harvard Pilgrim, Health Care Service Corporation, Health Partners, Humana, Johnson & Johnson (Janssen), Kaiser Permanente, LEO Pharma, Mallinckrodt, Merck, Novartis, National Pharmaceutical Council, Premera, Prime Therapeutics, Regeneron, Sanofi, Spark Therapeutics, uniQure, and United Healthcare. Rind, Fazioli, Chapman, and Pearson are employed by ICER. Guzauskas and Hansen have nothing to disclose. Study results were presented at the New England Comparative Effectiveness Public Advisory Council (New England CEPAC), November 14, 2019, at Brown University, Providence, RI.

Cost effectiveness of nusinersen for patients with infantile-onset spinal muscular atrophy in US

Background

Patients with infantile-onset spinal muscular atrophy (SMA), a rare, genetic neuromuscular disease, do not achieve key motor function milestones (e.g., sitting) and have short life expectancy in the absence of treatment. Nusinersen is a disease-modifying therapy for patients with SMA.

Objective

The aim of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of nusinersen compared to best supportive care (BSC) in patients diagnosed with infantile-onset SMA in the US.

Methods

A de novo economic model was developed with the following health states: “permanent ventilation”, “not sitting”, “sitting”, “walking”, and “death”. Short-term data were sourced from the pivotal clinical trials and studies of nusinersen (ENDEAR and SHINE). Motor function milestones achieved at the end of follow-up in the clinical trials were assumed to be sustained until death. Mortality risks were based on survival modelling of relevant published Kaplan–Meier data. Costs, life years (LYs), and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were discounted at 3% per annum, and the analyses were performed from a US health care sector perspective. Scenario analyses and sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the results to key parameters.

Results

In our base-case analysis, nusinersen treatment achieves greater QALYs and more LYs (3.24 and 7.64, respectively) compared with BSC (0.46 QALYs and 2.40 LYs, respectively), resulting in an incremental cost per QALY gained of approximately $1,112,000 and an incremental cost per LY gained of $590,000 for nusinersen compared to BSC. The incremental cost effectiveness ratios did not fall below $990,000 per QALY gained in scenario and sensitivity analyses. Results were most sensitive to the length of survival, background health care costs, and utility in the “not sitting” and “sitting” health states.

Conclusions

The estimated incremental cost-effectiveness of nusinersen from a US health care sector perspective exceeded traditional cost-effectiveness thresholds. Cost-effectiveness was dependent on assumptions made regarding survival, costs, utilities, and whether the motor function milestones were sustained over lifetime. Given the relatively short-term effectiveness data available for the treatment, a registry to collect long-term data of infantile-onset SMA patients is recommended.

Cost-Effectiveness of Ivacaftor Therapy for Treatment of Cystic Fibrosis Patients With the G551D Gating Mutation

OBJECTIVES

Cystic fibrosis (CF) is a rare genetic disease with no cure. Until recently, treatment has targeted symptoms of the disease and not the disease-causing genetic defect. Ivacaftor is included in a new class of breakthrough drugs targeting the genetic defects of CF. We sought to estimate the long-term cost-effectiveness of ivacaftor from a US payer perspective.

METHODS

We developed an individual-level microsimulation model that followed a cohort of heterogeneous US CF patients over a lifetime. The primary outcome of interest was quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). We also compared unadjusted life years, count of acute pulmonary exacerbations, and count of lung transplants over a lifetime between patients treated with ivacaftor plus best supportive care and patients treated with best supportive care alone. We conducted one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses to test the impact of various model inputs and uncertainties.

RESULTS

We found a substantial increase in QALYs, life years, and treatment costs over a lifetime for patients treated with ivacaftor plus best supportive care versus best supportive care alone. Discounted results for ivacaftor were 22.92 QALYs and $8 797 840 in total lifetime costs compared to 16.12 QALYs and $2 336 366 lifetime costs for best supportive care alone. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were $950 217 per QALY. Results from the probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated a 0% chance that ivacaftor was cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $500 000 per QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with ivacaftor plus best supportive care versus best supportive care alone is not cost-effective at or near commonly accepted WTP thresholds.

Achieving Appropriate Model Transparency: Challenges and Potential Solutions for Making Value-Based Decisions in the United States

Transparency in decision modeling remains a topic of rigorous debate among healthcare stakeholders, given tensions between the potential benefits of external access during model development and the need to protect intellectual property and reward research investments. Strategies to increase decision model transparency by allowing direct external access to a model's structure, source code, and data can take on many forms but are bounded between the status quo and free publicly available open-source models. Importantly, some level of transparency already exists in terms of methods and other technical specifications for published models. The purpose of this paper is to delineate pertinent issues surrounding efforts to increase transparency via direct access to models and to offer key considerations for the field of health economics and outcomes research moving forward from a US academic perspective. Given the current environment faced by modelers in academic settings, expected benefits and challenges of allowing direct model access are discussed. The paper also includes suggestions for pathways toward increased transparency as well as an illustrative real-world example used in work with the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review to support assessments of the value of new health interventions. Potential options to increase transparency via direct model access during model development include adequate funding to support the additional effort required and mechanisms to maintain security of the underlying intellectual property. Ultimately, the appropriate level of transparency requires balancing the interests of several groups but, if done right, has the potential to improve models and better integrate them into healthcare priority setting and decision making in the US context.

United States Valuation of EQ-5D-5L Health States Using an International Protocol

OBJECTIVE

To derive a US-based value set for the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire using an international, standardized protocol developed by the EuroQol Group.

METHODS

Respondents from the US adult population were quota-sampled on the basis of age, sex, ethnicity, and race. Trained interviewers guided participants in completing composite time trade-off (cTTO) and discrete choice experiment (DCE) tasks using the EuroQol Valuation Technology software and routine quality control measures. Data were modeled using a Tobit model for cTTO data, a mixed logit model for DCE data, and a hybrid model that combined cTTO and DCE data. Model performance was compared on the basis of logical ordering of coefficients, statistical significance, parsimony, and theoretical considerations.

RESULTS

Of 1134 respondents, 1062, 1099, and 1102 respondents provided useable cTTO, DCE, and cTTO or DCE responses, respectively, on the basis of quality control criteria and interviewer judgment. Respondent demographic characteristics and health status were similar to the 2015 US Census. The Tobit model was selected as the preferred model to generate the value set. Values ranged from -0.573 (55 555) to 1 (11 111), with 20% of all predicted health states scores less than 0 (ie, worse than dead).

CONCLUSIONS

A societal value set for the EQ-5D-5L was developed that can be used for economic evaluations and decision making in US health systems. The internationally established, standardized protocol used to develop this US-based value set was recommended by the EuroQol Group and can facilitate cross-country comparisons.

New Cost-Effectiveness Methods to Determine Value-Based Prices for Potential Cures: What Are the Options?

Evaluating different approaches to assessing the clinical effectiveness and value of potential cures will be essential to arm the policymaker, payer, and manufacturer communities with a platform that can reward innovation while supporting a sustainable health insurance system. Potential cures will accentuate concerns about substantial uncertainty in long-term outcomes. They will also focus attention on whether broader elements of value need to be incorporated and whether specific social values have a special place in evaluations of potential cures. In addition, the large magnitudes of potential health gain and cost offsets may require new methods before translation into value-based price recommendations. This article analyzes the challenges and presents several options to modify the conduct and presentation of cost-effectiveness analyses to ensure they provide policy-relevant assessments of the value of potential cures.

Can We Develop Sustainable and Sharable Cost-Effectiveness Models for Value Assessment in the U.S. Health Care System?

There is currently a movement to make economic models more transparent, with some arguing for completely open-source models. However, increasing model transparency raises several logistical challenges, including ownership and funding. This article outlines recent experience and approaches to some of the logistical hurdles that must be overcome in pursuit of more transparent economic models. The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) has recently completed a pilot transparency initiative that made drafts of executable economic models available to involved drug manufacturers during the review process. By directly viewing and interacting with models' structures, inputs, key assumptions, and results, stakeholders were better equipped to provide valuable feedback as part of the health technology assessments. This experience, along with feedback received from the modeling collaborators and relevant manufacturers during this pilot, have helped determine ICER's approach to sharing economic models associated with ongoing and future evidence reviews. This process has been expanded to all assessments going forward, making it the standard approach to model transparency. DISCLOSURES: No outside funding supported the writing of this article. Both authors are employees of the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), which is an an independent organization that evaluates the evidence on the value of health care interventions. ICER receives grant funding from the California Healthcare Foundation, Laura and John Arnold Foundation, and New England States Consortium Systems Organization. ICER's annual policy summit is supported by dues from Aetna, AHIP, Allergan, Alnylam, Anthem, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Blue Shield of California, Cambia Health Services, CVS Caremark, Editas, Express Scripts, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, Health Care Service Corporation, Health Partners, Johnson & Johnson, Kaiser Permanente, LEO, Mallinckrodt, Merck, National Pharmaceutical Council, Novartis, Premera, Prime Therapeutics, Regeneron, Sanofi, Spark Therapeutics, and United Healthcare.

Impact of Abuse Deterrent Formulations of Opioids in Patients With Chronic Pain in the United States: A Cost-Effectiveness Model

OBJECTIVE

Opioid abuse is a significant public health problem in the United States. We evaluate the clinical effectiveness and economic impact of abuse-deterrent formulations (ADF) of opioids relative to non-ADF opioids in preventing abuse.

METHODS

We developed a cost-effectiveness model simulating 2 cohorts of 100 000 noncancer, chronic-pain patients newly prescribed either ADF or non-ADF extended-release (ER) opioids and followed them over 5 years, tracking new events of opioid abuse and opioid-related overdose deaths in addition to tracking 5-year cumulative costs of therapeutic use and abuse of ADF and non-ADF opioids. Patients in each cohort entered the model for therapeutic opioid use from where they could continue in that pathway, discontinue opioid use, or abuse opioids or die of opioid overdose-related or unrelated causes. In addition, one-way sensitivity and scenario analysis were conducted.

RESULTS

Over a 5-year time period, using ADF opioids prevented an additional 2300 new cases of opioid abuse at an additional cost of approximately $535 million to the healthcare sector. Threshold analyses showed that a 40% decrease in ADF opioid costs was required to attain cost neutrality between the 2 cohorts, whereas a 100% effectiveness in abuse reduction still did not result in cost neutrality. A 43% decrease in diversion with ADFs relative to non-ADFs was required to attain cost neutrality. Including a societal perspective produced results directionally similar to the base-case analysis findings.

CONCLUSION

ADF opioids have the potential to prevent new cases of opioid abuse, but at substantially higher costs to the health system.

Cost Utility of Voretigene Neparvovec for Biallelic RPE65-Mediated Inherited Retinal Disease

OBJECTIVE

The gene therapy voretigene neparvovec (VN) is the first Food and Drug Administration-approved treatment for vision loss owing to the ultra-rare RPE65-mediated inherited retinal disorders. We modeled the cost-utility of VN compared with standard of care (SoC).

STUDY DESIGN

A 2-state Markov model, alive and dead, with a lifetime horizon.

METHODS

Visual acuity (VA) and visual field (VF) were tracked to model quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). VN led to an improvement in VA and VF that we assumed was maintained for 10 years followed by a 10-year waning period. The cost of VN was $850 000, and other direct medical costs for depression and trauma were included for a US healthcare system perspective. A modified societal perspective also included direct nonmedical costs and indirect costs.

RESULTS

VN provided an additional 1.3 QALYs over the remaining lifetime of an individual. The average total lifetime direct medical cost for individuals treated with VN was $1 039 000 compared with $213 400 for SoC, leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $643 800/QALY from the US healthcare system perspective. Direct nonmedical costs totalled $1 070 900 for VN and $1 203 300 for SoC, and indirect costs totalled $405 400 for VN and $482 900 for SoC, leading to an ICER of $480 100/QALY from the modified societal perspective.

CONCLUSIONS

At the current price, VN was unlikely to reach traditional cost-effectiveness standards compared with SoC. VN has important implications for both development and pricing of future gene therapies; therefore clinical and economic analyses must be carefully considered.

Long-term Survival and Cost-effectiveness Associated With Axicabtagene Ciloleucel vs Chemotherapy for Treatment of B-Cell Lymphoma

IMPORTANCE

Axicabtagene ciloleucel, a chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy, represents a new and potentially curative treatment option for B-cell lymphoma. It is expected to have long-term survival benefits; however, long-term survival data are limited.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the long-term survival and cost-effectiveness of axicabtagene ciloleucel for treatment of relapsed or refractory B-cell lymphoma.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Economic evaluation study using a survival analysis that digitized and extrapolated survival curves published in the ZUMA-1 trial (Safety and Efficacy of KTE-C19 in Adults With Refractory Aggressive Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma), which enrolled patients between November 2015 and September 2016 and had a maximum follow-up of 24 months. Five different survival models (standard parametric, flexible parametric, 2 mixture cure models, and a flexible parametric mixture model) were used to extrapolate the survival curves to a lifetime horizon from January through June 2018. A cost-effectiveness analysis, from both a trial-based and lifetime horizon, was also conducted to inform the value of this novel therapy. The model was based on data from 111 patients with B-cell lymphoma who were enrolled in the ZUMA-1 trial.

INTERVENTIONS

One-time administration of axicabtagene ciloleucel compared with chemotherapy.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Undiscounted and discounted life-years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), total costs, and incremental costs per LY and QALY gained.

RESULTS

The modeled cohort of 111 patients started at 58 years of age. At the end of the trial, treatment with axicabtagene ciloleucel resulted in 0.48 more LYs and 0.34 more QALYs than chemotherapy, producing a cost-effectiveness estimate of $896 600 per QALY for public payers and $1 615 000 per QALY for commercial payers. Extrapolated long-term survival for patients treated with axicabtagene ciloleucel ranged from 2.83 to 9.19 discounted LYs and from 2.07 to 7.62 discounted QALYs. Incrementally, treatment with axicabtagene ciloleucel was associated with 1.89 to 5.82 discounted LYs and 1.52 to 4.90 discounted QALYs vs chemotherapy. With the use of these incremental estimates of survival, cost-effectiveness estimates ranged from $82 400 to $230 900 per QALY gained for public payers and from $100 400 to $289 000 per QALY gained for commercial payers.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Treatment with axicabtagene ciloleucel appears to be associated with incremental gains in survival over chemotherapy. The range in projected long-term survival was wide and reflected uncertainty owing to limited follow-up data. Cost-effectiveness is associated with long-term survival, with further evidence needed to reduce uncertainty.

Assessing the Value of Sarilumab Monotherapy for Adults with Moderately to Severely Active Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

BACKGROUND

Rheumatoid arthritis is associated with a societal burden greater than $39 billion annually. Novel treatments, known as targeted immune modulators (TIMs), are expensive but effective, producing improvements in response rates compared with conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (cDMARDs). Sarilumab, a TIM approved in 2017, shows superior improvements compared with cDMARDs and produced significantly greater likelihood of achieving response and improvement in the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index than adalimumab monotherapy. Although sarilumab monotherapy has shown improvements over cDMARDs and the TIM market leader adalimumab, treatment with sarilumab is costly, with an annual wholesale acquisition cost of $39,000.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the lifetime cost-effectiveness of starting treatment with sarilumab monotherapy for adult patients with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis who have had an inadequate response to cDMARDs.

METHODS

A sequential treatment cohort model followed a hypothetical cohort from initiation of sarilumab monotherapy until death. The model allowed patients to switch therapies up to 3 times due to effectiveness or adverse events. The first switch was to a TIM within the same treatment category; the second switch was to a TIM within a different treatment category; and the third switch was to a cDMARD. Sarilumab monotherapy was compared with a cDMARD (methotrexate) and the TIM market leader (adalimumab monotherapy). Key risk and benefit evidence came from clinical studies and network meta-analyses of data on radiographic progression and response. We used a lifetime time horizon and the U.S. health sector payer perspective assuming therapy net pricing. We also incorporated loss of productivity to reflect a restricted societal perspective.

RESULTS

Over a lifetime time horizon, a treatment pathway starting with sarilumab resulted in 17.16 life-years and 13.66 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Treatment pathways starting with the cDMARD resulted in 16.54 life-years and 11.77 QALYs; treatment pathways starting with adalimumab resulted in 17.05 life-years and 13.35 QALYs. Total costs for sarilumab ($492,000 for payer perspective, $634,000 for societal perspective) were less than total costs for adalimumab ($536,000 for payer perspective, $689,000 for societal perspective) but higher than total costs for the cDMARD ($63,000 for payer perspective, $272,000 for societal perspective). When compared with cDMARD therapy, sarilumab resulted in a cost-effectiveness estimate of $227,000 per QALY gained from the payer perspective and $191,000 per QALYs gained from the societal perspective. When compared with adalimumab, sarilumab was dominant from both perspectives.

CONCLUSIONS

Sarilumab resulted in better health outcomes than conventional therapy alone. However, its additional cost with assumed class-level net prices led to cost-effectiveness estimates above commonly cited thresholds. When compared with the market leader, sarilumab achieved favorable value. This evaluation informs stakeholders of the value of sarilumab and its alternatives to promote high value practices in health care.

DISCLOSURES

Funding for this research was contributed by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER). Ollendorf, Chapman, Kumar, Synnott, and Agboola are employees of ICER, an independent organization that evaluates the evidence on the value of health care interventions, which is funded by grants from the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, Blue Shield of California Foundation, and the California HealthCare Foundation. The organization's annual policy summit is supported by dues from Aetna, AHIP, Anthem, Blue Shield of California, CVS Caremark, Express Scripts, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, Omeda Rx, United Healthcare, Kaiser Permanente, Premera Blue Cross, AstraZeneca, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, National Pharmaceutical Council, Takeda, Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, and Humana. This work is an extension of an analysis presented at the New England Comparative Effectiveness Public Advisory Council on March 24, 2017, where the authors received public feedback on the analysis, results, and effect of a value assessment for targeted immune modulators. At the time of presentation, sarilumab was still an investigational product; therefore, a price was not known, so cost-effectiveness estimates were not generated. Since the presentation of that material, additional evidence for sarilumab has become available. The additional evidence has been incorporated into this analysis to present cost-effectiveness estimates for sarilumab.

Long-term Survival and Value of Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-Cell Therapy for Pediatric Patients With Relapsed or Refractory Leukemia

IMPORTANCE

Among children and young adults with relapsed or refractory B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia, the rate of 5-year disease-free survival is 10% to 20%. Approval of tisagenlecleucel, a chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy, represents a new and potentially curative treatment option. However, tisagenlecleucel is expensive, with a current list price of $475 000 per one-time administration.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the long-term survival and value of tisagenlecleucel for children and young adults with B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

In this cost-effectiveness analysis, a decision analytic model was designed to extrapolate trial evidence to a patient lifetime horizon. The survival evidence for the model was extracted from 3 studies: B2202 (enrolled patients from April 8, 2015, to November 23, 2016), B2205J (enrolled patients from August 14, 2014, to February 1, 2016), and B2101J (enrolled patients from March 15, 2012, to November 30, 2015). Long-term survival and outcomes of patients younger than 25 years with B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia that is refractory or in second or later relapse were derived using flexible parametric modeling from the direct extrapolation of event-free survival and overall survival curves. The published Kaplan-Meier curves were digitized from November 1, 2017, to November 30, 2017, using an algorithm to impute patient-level time-to-event data. Sensitivity and scenario analyses assessed uncertainty in the evidence and model assumptions to further bound the range of cost-effectiveness. Data were analyzed from December 1, 2017, to March 31, 2018.

INTERVENTIONS

The primary intervention of interest was tisagenlecleucel. The comparator of interest was the chemoimmunotherapeutic agent clofarabine.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Model outcomes included life-years gained, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained, and incremental costs per life-year and QALY gained.

RESULTS

Forty percent of patients initiating treatment with tisagenlecleucel are expected to be long-term survivors, or alive and responding to treatment after 5 years. Tisagenlecleucel had a total discounted cost of $667 000, with discounted life-years gained of 10.34 years and 9.28 QALYs gained. The clofarabine comparator had a total discounted cost of approximately $337 000, with discounted life-years gained of 2.43 years and 2.10 QALYs gained. This difference resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of approximately $42 000 per life-year gained and approximately $46 000 per QALY gained for tisagenlecleucel vs clofarabine. These results were robust to probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Across scenario analyses that included more conservative assumptions regarding long-term relapse and survival, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio ranged from $37 000 to $78 000 per QALY gained.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Tisagenlecleucel likely provides gains in survival and seems to be priced in alignment with these benefits. This study suggests that payers and innovators should develop novel payment models that reduce the risk and uncertainty around long-term value and provide safeguards to ensure high-value care.

Cost-Effectiveness of Targeted Pharmacotherapy for Moderate to Severe Plaque Psoriasis

BACKGROUND

Newer classes of targeted drugs for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis are more effective and more expensive than older classes, posing a difficult and potentially costly decision about whether to use them as initial targeted treatments.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the clinical and economic outcomes of initial targeted treatment for the following drugs: adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab (TNFα inhibitors); apremilast (PDE4 inhibitor); ustekinumab (IL-12/23 inhibitor); and ixekizumab, secukinumab, and brodalumab (IL-17 inhibitors).

METHODS

We developed a Markov model to simulate patient outcomes as measured by quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and health care costs over a 10-year period. We assumed that patients who fail initial targeted treatment either proceed to subsequent therapy or discontinue targeted treatment. Effectiveness estimates for initial treatment were defined as improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) from baseline and derived from a 2018 network meta-analysis. Wholesale acquisition drug costs were discounted by a class-specific, empirically derived rebate percentage off of 2016 costs. We conducted one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses to assess uncertainty in results.

RESULTS

The incremental benefits compared with no targeted treatment were, in descending order: ixekizumab 1.68 QALYs (95% credible range [CR] = 1.11-2.02), brodalumab 1.64 QALYs (95% CR = 1.08-1.98), secukinumab 1.51 QALYs (95% CR = 1.00-1.83), ustekinumab 1.43 QALYs (95% CR=0.94-1.74), infliximab 1.27 QALYs (95% CR = 0.89-1.55), adalimumab 1.15 QALYs (95% CR = 0.76-1.44), etanercept 0.97 QALYs (95% CR = 0.61-1.25), and apremilast 0.87 QALYs (95% CR = 0.52-1.17). Costs of care without targeted treatment totaled $66,451, and costs of targeted treatment ranged from $137,080 (apremilast) to $255,422 (ustekinumab). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis results indicated that infliximab and apremilast are likely to be the most cost-effective initial treatments at willingness-to-pay thresholds around $100,000 per QALY, while IL-17 drugs are more likely to be cost-effective at thresholds approaching $150,000 per QALY. Acquisition cost of the initial targeted drug and utility of clinical response were the most influential parameters.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that initial targeted treatment with IL-17 inhibitors is the most effective treatment strategy for plaque psoriasis patients who have failed methotrexate and phototherapy. Apremilast, brodalumab, infliximab, ixekizumab, and secukinumab are cost-effective at different willingness-to-pay thresholds. Additional research is needed on whether the effectiveness of targeted agents changes when used after previously targeted agents.

DISCLOSURES

Funding for this study was contributed by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER). Ollendorf, Chapman, Pearson, and Kumar are current employees, and Loos and Liu are former employees, of ICER, an independent organization that evaluates the evidence on the value of health care interventions, which is funded by grants from the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, Blue Shield of California Foundation, and the California HealthCare Foundation. ICER's annual policy summit is supported by dues from Aetna, AHIP, Anthem, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Blue Shield of California, Cambia Health Solutions and MedSavvy, CVS Caremark, Editas, Express Scripts, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, Health Care Service Corporation, OmedaRx, United Healthcare, Johnson & Johnson, Kaiser Permanente, Premera Blue Cross, Merck, National Pharmaceutical Council, Takeda, Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, Humana, Prime Therapeutics, Sanofi, and Spark Therapeutics. Linder owns stock in Amgen, Biogen, and Eli Lilly; has contingent value rights in Sanofi Genzyme (related to alemtuzumab for multiple sclerosis); has received grant support from Astellas Pharma not related to this study and Clintrex, which was supported by AstraZeneca on an unrelated topic; and has received an honorarium from the Society of Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) as part of the SHEA Antimicrobial Stewardship Research Workshop Planning Committee, an educational activity supported by Merck. No other authors have potential conflicts of interest.

Disease-Modifying Therapies for Relapsing-Remitting and Primary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis: A Cost-Utility Analysis

BACKGROUND

Several disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) treat relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) and primary progressive multiple sclerosis (PPMS). Few comprehensive cost-effectiveness analyses exist in this area, particularly from a payer perspective, despite rapidly increasing prices of DMTs.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to systematically compare cost effectiveness of all relevant DMTs for first-line treatment of RRMS, second-line treatment of RRMS, and first-line treatment of PPMS.

METHODS

We used a Markov model with health states based on Expanded Disability Status Score categories. Upon discontinuing first-line treatment, RRMS patients continued to second-line therapy then to supportive care, and PPMS patients moved directly to supportive care. Data was sourced from clinical trials and commercially and publicly available sources. The target population was treatment-naïve adults with RRMS or PPMS. We used a lifetime horizon from a US payer perspective, and compared DMTs for RRMS (first-line: dimethyl fumarate, glatiramer acetate, interferon β-1a, interferon β-1b, peginterferon β-1a, teriflunomide, natalizumab, fingolimod, and ocrelizumab; second-line: alemtuzumab, natalizumab, fingolimod, and ocrelizumab), ocrelizumab for PPMS, and supportive care. Outcome measures included total costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).

RESULTS

For RRMS first-line therapy, ocrelizumab dominated the other DMTs with an ICER of US$166,338/QALY compared with supportive care. For RRMS second-line therapy, alemtuzumab dominated the other three DMTs, providing more QALYs for lower costs. For PPMS, ocrelizumab had an ICER of US$648,799/QALY compared with supportive care. Wide variability in results was observed in the probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Results were sensitive to the relative risk of progression and cost of DMTs.

CONCLUSIONS

Ocrelizumab would likely be cost effective as a first-line treatment for RRMS with a discounted price but was not cost effective for PPMS. Alemtuzumab dominated other options for second-line treatment of RRMS. Other DMTs were generally similar in terms of costs and health outcomes, providing health benefits compared to supportive care but with significant added costs. If drug prices were lowered, more DMTs could be cost effective.

The Authors Respond

DISCLOSURES

Funding for the Carlson et al. study was provided in part by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. Ollendorf, Synnott, Chapman, and Pearson disclosed grants from Blue Shield of California Foundation, California Health Care Foundation, Laura and John Arnold Foundation, Aetna, AHIP, Anthem, Blue Shield of California, CVS Caremark, Express Scripts, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, OmedaRx, United Healthcare, Kaiser Permanente, Premera, AstraZeneca, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, National Pharmaceutical Council, Takeda, Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, Spark Therapeutics, Sanofi, Prime Therapeutics, and Health Care Service Corporation. Carlson disclosed grants from the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review and personal fees from Seattle Genetics, Genentech, and Pfizer. Russo, Guzauskas, Liu, and Brouwer have nothing to disclose.

Evaluating and Valuing Drugs for Rare Conditions: No Easy Answers

We find ourselves in an era of unprecedented growth in the development and use of so-called "orphan" drugs to treat rare diseases, which are poised to represent more than one-fifth of pharmaceutical expenditures by 2022. This widespread use has been facilitated by legislative and regulatory incentives in both the United States and abroad, yet US payers and health systems have not yet made a concerted effort to understand whether and how rare diseases require special considerations on their part and how to adapt traditional methods of health technology assessment and economic evaluation to accommodate these situations. In this article, we explore the general ethical dilemmas that rare diseases present, steps taken by health technology assessment bodies worldwide to define the level of rarity that would necessitate special measures and the modifications to their assessment and valuation processes needed, and the contextual components for rare-disease evaluation that lie outside of the assessment framework as a guide to US decision makers on constructing a formal and relevant process stateside.

The association between insurance coverage for insulin pen needles and healthcare resource utilization among insulin-dependent patients with diabetes in China

Background

Pen needles are an important component of insulin delivery among patients with diabetes, but are not universally covered in China. We compared clinical and economic characteristics of insulin-dependent patients in China who have some level of pen needle (PN) reimbursement to those with no PN reimbursement.

Methods

A cross-sectional study was conducted among 400 insulin users with Type 1 or Type 2 diabetes treated in outpatient endocrinology units of four large tertiary care hospitals in Nanjing, Chongqing, Beijing and Zhengzhou. Demographics, medical history, healthcare resource utilization (RU), out-of-pocket costs, insurance and PN reimbursement status were surveyed. Unit costs were assigned to healthcare RU and compared using descriptive statistics and multivariate regression models.

Results

A total of 400 patients were analyzed; 142 (35.5%) with some level of PN coverage/reimbursement and 258 (64.5%) without. Patients without PN reimbursement had a higher prevalence of lipohypertrophy (59.3% vs. 40.7%, p = 0.0007), greater median PN reuse (12 vs. 7 times per needle, p < 0.0001), greater 6-month insulin costs (1591 vs. 1328 Renminbi [RMB], p = 0.0025) and total unadjusted 6-month expenditures (6433 vs. 4432 RMB, p < 0.0001), respectively. After controlling for clinical and demographic characteristics, patients without PN reimbursement had 4.6 times greater odds of high costs compared to those with PN reimbursement.

Conclusions

Insulin users without PN reimbursement may pose a greater economic burden to China compared to those with PN reimbursement. Expansion of insurance coverage for insulin PNs can improve the quality of care and potentially help reduce the economic burden in this population.

Cost-effectiveness of Drugs to Treat Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma in the United States

BACKGROUND

New 3-drug regimens have been developed and approved to treat multiple myeloma (MM). The absence of direct comparative data and the high cost of treatment support the need to assess the relative clinical and economic outcomes across all approved regimens.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of treatments for relapsed and/or refractory MM from a U.S. health system perspective.

METHODS

We developed a partition survival model with 3 health states (progression-free, progression, and death) to evaluate the following regimens: carfilzomib (CFZ), elotuzumab (ELO), ixazomib (IX), daratumumab (DAR), and panobinostat (PAN) in combination with lenalidomide (LEN) or bortezomib (BOR) plus dexamethasone (DEX) in the second and/or third line of therapy. To estimate relative treatment effects, we developed a network meta-analysis and applied progression-free survival hazard ratios to baseline parametric progression-free survival functions derived from pooled data on LEN+DEX. We estimated overall survival using data on the relationship between progression-free survival and overall survival from a large meta-analysis of MM patients. Modeled costs included those related to drug treatment, administration, monitoring, adverse events, and progression. Utilities were from publicly available data and manufacturer data, if published sources were unavailable.

RESULTS

Model results showed that regimens containing DAR yielded the highest expected life years (DAR range: 6.71-7.38 vs. non-DAR range: 3.25-5.27) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALY; DAR range: 4.38-5.44 vs. non-DAR range: 2.04-3.46), with DAR+BOR+DEX (second line) and PAN+BOR+DEX (third line) as the most cost-effective options (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio: $50,700 and cost saving, respectively). The applicability of the PAN+BOR+DEX result may be challenging, however, because of ongoing toxicity concerns. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, second-line DAR+BOR+DEX and third-line PAN+BOR+DEX had an 89% and 87% probability of being cost-effective at the $150,000 per QALY threshold, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The introduction of newer drugs and regimens to treat second- and third-line relapsed/refractory MM appears to provide clinical benefits by lengthening progression-free and overall survival and improving quality of life. However, only the addition of DAR or PAN may be considered cost-effective options according to commonly cited thresholds, and PAN+BOR+DEX results require cautious interpretation. Achieving levels of value more closely aligned with patient benefit would require substantial discounts from the remaining agents evaluated.

DISCLOSURES

Funding for this work was provided in part by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, which collaborated on the design, conduct, and reporting of this evaluation. During the conduct of this study, Ollendorf, Synnott, Chapman, and Pearson report grants from Blue Shield of California Foundation, California Health Care Foundation, and Laura and John Arnold Foundation and also report other grants from Aetna, AHIP, Anthem, Blue Shield of California, CVS Caremark, Express Scripts, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, OmedaRx, United Healthcare, Kaiser Permanente, Premera, AstraZeneca, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, National Pharmaceutical Council, Takeda, Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, Spark Therapeutics, Sanofi, Prime Therapeutics, and Health Care Service Corporation outside the submitted work. Carlson reports grants from the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Seattle Genetics, Genentech, and Pfizer outside the submitted work. Russo, Guzauskas, Liu, and Brouwer have nothing to disclose. Study concept and design were contributed by Carlson, Guzauskas, and Ollendorf. Guzauskas, Chapman, Synnott, and Liu collected the data, and Carlson, Guzauskas, Chapman, and Ollendorf contributed to data analysis, along with Synnott and Liu. The manuscript was written by Carlson, Guzauskas, and Brouwer, along with Chapman, Synnott, and Ollendorf, and revised by Carlson, Brouwer, and Guzauskas, along with Chapman, Synnott, and Ollendorf.

Assessing the value of mepolizumab for severe eosinophilic asthma: a cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

Adding mepolizumab to standard treatment with inhaled corticosteroids and controller medications could decrease asthma exacerbations and use of long-term oral steroids in patients with severe disease and increased eosinophils; however, mepolizumab is costly and its cost effectiveness is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the cost effectiveness of mepolizumab.

METHODS

A Markov model was used to determine the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained for mepolizumab plus standard of care (SoC) and for SoC alone. The population, adults with severe eosinophilic asthma, was modeled for a lifetime time horizon. A responder scenario analysis was conducted to determine the cost effectiveness for a cohort able to achieve and maintain asthma control.

RESULTS

Over a lifetime treatment horizon, 23.96 exacerbations were averted per patient receiving mepolizumab plus SoC. Avoidance of exacerbations and decrease in long-term oral steroid use resulted in more than $18,000 in cost offsets among those receiving mepolizumab, but treatment costs increased by more than $600,000. Treatment with mepolizumab plus SoC vs SoC alone resulted in a cost-effectiveness estimate of $386,000 per QALY. To achieve cost effectiveness of approximately $150,000 per QALY, mepolizumab would require a more than 60% price discount. At current pricing, treating a responder cohort yielded cost-effectiveness estimates near $160,000 per QALY.

CONCLUSION

The estimated cost effectiveness of mepolizumab exceeds value thresholds. Achieving these thresholds would require significant discounts from the current list price. Alternatively, treatment limited to responders improves the cost effectiveness toward, but remains still slightly above, these thresholds. Payers interested in improving the efficiency of health care resources should consider negotiations of the mepolizumab price and ways to predict and assess the response to mepolizumab.

Cost-Effectiveness of Sacubitril-Valsartan in Patients With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction

BACKGROUND

Sacubitril-valsartan therapy reduces cardiovascular mortality compared with enalapril therapy in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of sacubitril-valsartan versus angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor therapy in patients with chronic heart failure.

DESIGN

Markov decision model.

DATA SOURCES

Clinical trials, observational analyses, reimbursement data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, drug pricing databases, and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention life tables.

TARGET POPULATION

Patients at an average age of 64 years, New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II to IV heart failure, and left ventricular ejection fraction of 0.40 or less.

TIME HORIZON

Lifetime.

PERSPECTIVE

Societal.

INTERVENTION

Treatment with sacubitril-valsartan or lisinopril.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs, heart failure hospitalizations, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios.

RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS

The sacubitril-valsartan group experienced 0.08 fewer heart failure hospitalization, 0.69 additional life-year, 0.62 additional QALY, and $29 203 in incremental costs, equating to a cost per QALY gained of $47 053. The cost per QALY gained was $44 531 in patients with NYHA class II heart failure and $58 194 in those with class III or IV heart failure.

RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

Sacubitril-valsartan treatment was most sensitive to the duration of improved outcomes, with a cost per QALY gained of $120 623 if the duration was limited to the length of the trial (median, 27 months). No variations in other parameters caused the cost to exceed $100 000 per QALY gained.

LIMITATION

The benefit of sacubitril-valsartan is based on a single clinical trial.

CONCLUSION

Treatment with sacubitril-valsartan provides reasonable value in reducing cardiovascular mortality and morbidity in patients with NYHA class II to IV heart failure.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and Institute for Clinical and Economic Review.

Can We Better Prioritize Resources for Cost-Utility Research?

Purpose. We examined 512 published cost-utility analyses (CUAs) in the U.S. and other developed countries from 1976 through 2001 to determine: 1) the types of interventions studied; 2) whether they cover diseases and conditions with the highest burden; and, 3) to what extent they have covered leading health concerns defined by the Healthy People 2010 report. Data and Methods. We compared rankings of the most common diseases covered by the CUAs to rankings of U.S. disease burden. We also examined the extent to which CUAs covered key Healthy People 2010 priorites. Results. CUAs have focused mostly on pharmaceuticals (40%) and surgical procedures (16%). When compared to leading causes of DALYs, the data show overrepresentation of CUAs in cerebrovascular disease, diabetes, breast cancer, and HIV/AIDS, and underrepresentation in depression and bipolar disorder, injuries, and substance abuse disorders. Few CUAs have targeted Healthy People 2010 areas, such as physical activity. Conclusions. Published CUAs are associated with burden measures, but have not covered certain important health problems. These discrepancies do not alone indicate that society has been targeting resources for research inefficiently, but they do suggest the need to formalize the question of where each CUA research dollar might do the most good.

Investigating rates of CINV across settings of care in Medicare: A retrospective claims-based analysis

297

Background: Clinical practice may differ according to settings of care and may impact both the quality of care delivered and, ultimately, patient outcomes. This study describes the differences in chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) rates between chemotherapy (CT) naïve Medicare cancer patients starting CT in a hospital outpatient (HOP) or community outpatient (COP) setting. Methods: Using the 5% Medicare Fee-for-Service standard analytic files, patients with a new claim of CT and ≥1 outpatient cancer diagnosis claim between 1/1/10 – 6/30/11 were identified. Patients with a previous inpatient cancer diagnosis, multi-day CT cycles or who switched CT relevant to emetogenic potential were excluded. CINV was defined using relevant claims-based ICD-9-CM diagnosis and procedure codes within days 2-7 of the first 8 single-day CT cycles or the first 6 months following the index CT claim. CINV events were evaluated descriptively and using regression models. Results: Medicare patients receiving CT in HOP (n=1,007) vs. COP (n=1,080) were similar in demographics such as age, race, and baseline healthcare costs. However, Medicare patients receiving CT in COP compared to those in HOP settings were more likely to be female (57.0% vs. 44.7%), breast cancer patients (27.6% vs. 16.0%), live in the South region (37.7% vs. 32.3%), have higher Charlson Comorbidity Index scores (mean 5.2 vs. 4.8) and receive moderately to highly emetogenic CT (44.1% vs. 36.0%) (all p<0.05). Overall, 13.9% had any CINV in the evaluation period. More CINV events per patient were reported among those in COP compared to those in HOP settings (0.43 vs 0.27, p <0.05). However, differences between settings of care were not shown to be significantly different in adjusted regression analyses (p=0.177). Conclusions: We found the population characteristics between Medicare patients treated with CT in HOP and COP to vary on a number of factors. However, after controlling for these differences, our results suggest the number of CINV events was similar across settings of care. Future research should further clarify how differences in quality of care for antiemesis between COP and HOP settings may impact the incidence of CINV events in this population.

Understanding the impact of settings of care and the development of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting within a population of commercially insured patients

298

Background: Research evaluating the impact of different clinical practice patterns according to settings of care and oncology patient outcomes is limited. This study describes chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) rates in chemotherapy (CT) naïve cancer patients starting CT in a hospital outpatient (HOP) or community outpatient (COP) setting. Methods: Using the Optum Normative Health Information Database, patients with a new claim of CT and ≥1 outpatient cancer diagnosis claim between 1/1/06 – 6/30/12 were identified. Patients with previous inpatient cancer diagnoses, multi-day CT regimens or Medicare/Medicaid patients were excluded. CINV was defined using relevant claims-based ICD-9-CM diagnosis and procedure codes or a prescription claim for antiemetics within days 2-7 of 1st 8 CT cycles or 1st 6 months following the index CT claim. CINV events were evaluated descriptively and using regression models Results: Patients receiving CT in HOP vs. COP were similar in age. Patients receiving CT in COP vs. HOP setting were more likely to be female (78.7% vs. 62.8%), breast cancer patients (66.8% vs. 46.7%), live in the South region (49.7% vs. 44.1%) and have higher baseline healthcare costs (mean $24,950 vs. $24,629) (all p<0.05). Patients in the HOP vs. COP settings had higher Charlson Comorbidity Index scores (mean 3.9 vs. 3.3, p < 0.05). More CINV events were reported for patients in COP vs. those in HOP settings (p < 0.05) (Table). After adjusting for clinical and demographic factors, number of CINV events remained higher for COP vs. HOP settings. However, we were unable to control for antiemetic prophylaxis use or CT emetogenic potential, due to coding irregularities. Conclusions: Results suggest cancer patients starting CT in COP vs. HOP settings may have more CINV events. However, further analyses are needed to explore the impact of antiemetic prophylaxis use or CT emetogenic potential on CINV events between settings of care. [Table: see text]

Economic outcomes of exenatide vs liraglutide in type 2 diabetes patients in the United States: results from a retrospective claims database analysis

OBJECTIVE

The safety and efficacy of the GLP-1 receptor agonists exenatide BID (exenatide) and liraglutide for treating type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) have been established in clinical trials. Effective treatments may lower overall treatment costs. This study examined cost offsets and medication adherence for exenatide vs liraglutide in a large, managed care population in the US.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort analysis comprising adult patients with T2DM who initiated exenatide or liraglutide between 1/1/2010 and 6/30/2010 and had 6 months pre-index and post-index continuous eligibility. Patients were propensity score-matched to controls for baseline differences. Medication adherence was measured by proportion of days covered (PDC). Paired t-test and McNemar's test were used to compare outcomes.

RESULTS

Matched exenatide and liraglutide cohorts (n=1347 pairs) had similar average total 6-month follow-up costs ($6688 vs $7346). However, exenatide patients had significantly lower mean pharmacy costs ($2925 vs $3272, p<0.001). Among liraglutide patients, patients receiving the 1.8 mg dose had significantly higher average total costs compared to those receiving the 1.2 mg dose ($8031 vs $6536, p=0.026), with higher mean pharmacy costs in the 1.8 mg cohort ($3935 vs $3146, p<0.001). There were no significant differences in inpatient or outpatient costs or medication adherence between groups (mean PDC: exenatide 56% vs liraglutide 57%, p=0.088).

LIMITATIONS

The study assumed that all information needed for case classification and matching of cohorts was present and not differential across cohorts. The study did not control for covariates that were unavailable, such as HbA1c and duration of diabetes.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients initiating exenatide vs liraglutide for T2DM had similar medication adherence and total healthcare costs; however, exenatide patients had significantly lower total pharmacy costs. Patients prescribed 1.8 mg liraglutide had significantly higher costs compared to those on 1.2 mg.

Determining initial and follow-up costs of cardiovascular events in a US managed care population

Background

Cardiovascular (CV) events are prevalent and expensive worldwide both in terms of direct medical costs at the time of the event and follow-up healthcare after the event. This study aims to determine initial and follow-up costs for cardiovascular (CV) events in US managed care enrollees and to compare to healthcare costs for matched patients without CV events.

Methods

A 5.5-year retrospective matched cohort analysis of claims records for adult enrollees in ~90 US health plans. Patients hospitalized for first CV event were identified from a database containing a representative sample of the commercially-insured US population. The CV-event group (n = 29,688) was matched to a control group with similar demographics but no claims for CV-related events. Endpoints were total direct medical costs for inpatient and outpatient services and pharmacy (paid insurance amount).

Results

Overall, mean initial inpatient costs were US dollars ($) 16,981 per case (standard deviation [SD] = $20,474), ranging from $6,699 for a transient ischemic attack (mean length of stay [LOS] = 3.7 days) to $56,024 for a coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) (mean LOS = 9.2 days). Overall mean health-care cost during 1-year follow-up was $16,582 (SD = $34,425), an excess of $13,792 over the mean cost of matched controls. This difference in average costs between CV-event and matched-control subjects was $20,862 and $26,014 after two and three years of follow-up. Mean overall inpatient costs for second events were similar to those for first events ($17,705/case; SD = $22,703). The multivariable regression model adjusting for demographic and clinical characteristics indicated that the presence of a CV event was positively associated with total follow-up costs (P < 0.0001).

Conclusions

Initial hospitalization and follow-up costs vary widely by type of CV event. The 1-year follow-up costs for CV events were almost as high as the initial hospitalization costs, but much higher for 2- and 3-year follow-up.

The modeled lifetime cost-effectiveness of published adherence-improving interventions for antihypertensive and lipid-lowering medications

OBJECTIVE

 We sought to compare the cost-effectiveness of different interventions that have been shown to improve adherence with antihypertensive and lipid-lowering therapy, by combining a burden of nonadherence model framework with literature-based data on adherence-improving interventions.

METHODS

  MEDLINE was reviewed for studies that evaluated ≥1 adherence intervention compared with a control, used an adherence measure other than self-report, and followed patients for ≥6 months. Effectiveness was assessed as Relative Improvement, ratio of adherence with an intervention versus control. Costs, standardized to 12 months and adjusted to 2007 US$, and effectiveness estimates for each intervention were entered into a previously published model designed to measure the burden of nonadherence with antihypertensive and lipid-lowering medications, in a hypertensive population. Outputs included direct medical costs and incremental costs per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained.

RESULTS

 After screening, 23 eligible adherence-improving interventions were identified from 18 studies. Relative Improvement ranged from 1.13 to 3.60. After eliminating more costly/less effective interventions, two remained. Self-monitoring, reminders, and educational materials incurred total health-care costs of $17,520, and compared with no adherence intervention, had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $4984 per QALY gained. Pharmacist/nurse management incurred total health-care costs of $17,896, and versus self-monitoring, reminders, and education had an ICER of $6358 per QALY gained.

CONCLUSIONS

 Of published interventions shown to improve adherence, reminders and educational materials, and a pharmacist/nurse management program, appear to be cost-effective and should be considered before other interventions. Understanding relative cost-effectiveness of adherence interventions may guide design and implementation of efficient adherence-improving programs.

Does a single-pill antihypertensive/lipid-lowering regimen improve adherence in US managed care enrolees? A non-randomized, observational, retrospective study

BACKGROUND

A previous study in 4703 patients suggested that a single-pill combination of amlodipine and atorvastatin is associated with greater adherence to therapy than a two-pill calcium channel antagonist (calcium channel blocker [CCB]) and HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor (statin) regimen. However, the impact of prior medication use on the potential adherence benefits of single-pill amlodipine/atorvastatin has not been studied.

OBJECTIVE

To compare adherence to single-pill amlodipine/atorvastatin versus two-pill CCB + statin regimens in a large managed care population, stratified according to prior CCB and statin use.

METHODS

This retrospective study was conducted among managed care enrolees in the US. Patients included in the analysis had to have a pharmacy claim for single-pill amlodipine/atorvastatin or claims for both a CCB and a statin within any 30-day window between April 2004 and April 2005. Adherence was measured over 6 months following the index date (the date of the first single-pill amlodipine/atorvastatin claim or of the claim for the second medication class for any two-pill CCB + statin regimen) as the proportion of days covered (PDC) by both CCB and statin therapy; patients were considered 'adherent' if PDC was > or =80%. Patients were divided into four cohorts based on pre-index CCB and statin use: (i) naive (CCB)/naive (statin); (ii) experienced (CCB)/naive (statin); (iii) naive (CCB)/experienced (statin); and (iv) experienced (CCB)/experienced (statin). Within each cohort, adherence was compared for patients receiving single-pill amlodipine/atorvastatin versus two-pill amlodipine + atorvastatin or other two-pill CCB + statin regimens (including amlodipine or atorvastatin but not both) at index. Multivariable logistic regression with propensity score weighting was used to adjust for covariates, including age, sex and co-morbidities.

RESULTS

In total, 35,430 patients were included in the analysis. At month 6 (after adjusting for covariates), patients in the experienced (CCB)/naive (statin) cohort receiving single-pill amlodipine/atorvastatin were more than twice as likely to be adherent as those receiving two-pill amlodipine + atorvastatin (odds ratio [OR] 2.20; p < 0.0001) or other two-pill CCB + statin regimens (OR 2.75; p < 0.0001). Similarly, patients in the naive (CCB)/experienced (statin) cohort receiving single-pill amlodipine/atorvastatin were more likely to be adherent than those receiving two-pill amlodipine + atorvastatin (OR 1.72; p < 0.0001) or other two-pill CCB + statin regimens (OR 2.81; p < 0.0001). In contrast, in the naive (CCB)/naive (statin) cohort there was no significant difference in adherence between patients receiving single-pill amlodipine/atorvastatin versus two-pill amlodipine + atorvastatin (OR 1.00), although patients receiving single-pill amlodipine/atorvastatin were slightly more likely to be adherent than those receiving other two-pill CCB + statin regimens (OR 1.29; p < 0.01). In the experienced (CCB)/experienced (statin) cohort there was also no significant difference between patients receiving single-pill amlodipine/atorvastatin versus two-pill amlodipine + atorvastatin (OR 1.08), and only a slightly greater likelihood of achieving adherence to single-pill amlodipine/atorvastatin versus other two-pill CCB + statin regimens (OR 1.19; p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

This large retrospective study confirms previous observations that single-pill amlodipine/atorvastatin can help improve adherence versus two-pill CCB + statin regimens. However, greater improvements in adherence are likely to be observed in patients with prior experience of either CCB or statin therapy than in those either naive to, or experienced with, both therapies.

Association between adherence to calcium-channel blocker and statin medications and likelihood of cardiovascular events among US managed care enrollees

Background

Prior studies have found that patients taking single-pill amlodipine/atorvastatin (SPAA) have greater likelihood of adherence at 6 months than those taking 2-pill calcium-channel blocker and statin combinations (CCB/statin). This study examines whether this adherence benefit results in fewer cardiovascular (CV) events.

Methods

A retrospective cohort study was conducted using administrative claims data from the IMS LifeLink: US Health Plan Claims database, identifying adults already taking CCB or statin (but not both) who had an index event of either initiating treatment with SPAA or adding CCB to statin (or vice versa) between April 1, 2004 to August 31, 2005. Inclusion criteria included age 18+ years, continuously enrolled for minimum of 6 months prior and 18 months following treatment initiation, >1 diagnosis of hypertension, and no prescription claims for SPAA or added CCB or statin for 6 months prior. Exclusion criteria included >1 claim with missing or invalid days supplied, age 65+ years and not enrolled in Medicare Advantage, or history of prior CV events, cancer diagnosis, or chronic renal failure. The primary outcome measure was the rate of CV events (myocardial infarction, heart failure, angina, other ischemic heart disease, stroke, peripheral vascular disease, or revascularization procedure) from 6 to 18 months following index date, analyzed at three levels: 1) all adherent vs. non-adherent patients, 2) SPAA vs. dual-pill patients (regardless of adherence level), and 3) adherent SPAA, adherent dual-pill, and non-adherent SPAA patients vs. non-adherent dual-pill patients.

Results

Of 1,537 SPAA patients, 56.5% were adherent at 6 months, compared with 21.4% of the 17,910 CCB/statin patients (p < 0.001). Logistic regression found SPAA patients more likely to be adherent (OR = 4.7, p < 0.001) than CCB/statin patients. In Cox proportional hazards models, being adherent to either regimen was associated with significantly lower risk of CV event (HR = 0.77, p = 0.003). A similar effect was seen for SPAA vs. CCB/statin patients (HR = 0.68, p = 0.02). In a combined model, the risk of CV events was significantly lower for adherent CCB/statin patients (HR = 0.79, p = 0.01) and adherent SPAA patients (HR = 0.61, p = 0.03) compared to non-adherent CCB/statin patients.

Conclusions

Patients receiving SPAA rather than a 2-pill CCB/statin regimen are more likely to be adherent. In turn, adherence to CCB and statin medications is associated with lower risk of CV events in primary prevention patients.

The cost and effectiveness of adherence-improving interventions for antihypertensive and lipid-lowering drugs*

AIMS

Adherence to cardiovascular medications is poor. Accordingly, interventions have been proposed to improve adherence. However, as intervention-associated costs are rarely considered in full, we sought to review the effectiveness and costs associated with different adherence-improving interventions for cardiovascular disease therapies.

METHODS

We reviewed MEDLINE to update a prior review of interventions to improve adherence with antihypertensive and/or lipid-lowering therapy covering January 1972 to June 2002, to add studies published from July 2002 to October 2007. Eligible studies evaluated > or = 1 intervention compared with a control, used measures other than self-report, reported significant improvement in adherence and followed patients for > or = 6 months. Effectiveness was measured as relative improvement (RI), the ratio of adherence in the intervention group to the control group. Costs were calculated based on those reported in the analysis, if available or estimated based on resource use described. All costs were truncated to 6 months and adjusted to 2007 US$.

RESULTS

Of 755 new articles, five met all eligibility criteria. Combining with the prior review gave 23 interventions from 18 studies. RI in adherence ranged from 1.11 to 4.65. Six-month intervention costs ranged from $10 to $142 per patient. Reminders had the lowest effectiveness (RI: 1.11-1.14), but were least costly ($10/6 months). Case management was most effective (RI: 1.23-4.65), but the most costly ($90-$130/6 months).

CONCLUSIONS

Generally, we found a positive association between intervention costs and effectiveness. Therefore, consideration of intervention costs, along with the benefits afforded to adherence, may help guide the design and implementation of adherence-improving programs.

Can adherence to antihypertensive therapy be used to promote adherence to statin therapy?

OBJECTIVE

To compare adherence with statin therapy in patients switching to single-pill amlodipine besylate/atorvastatin calcium with patients adding a separate statin to their amlodipine regimen.

METHODS

We identified hypertensive patients prescribed amlodipine who switched to amlodipine/atorvastatin (switch) or added a statin to their amlodipine regimen (add-on) from July 2004 to June 2007. Propensity score matching (1 switch:3 add-on) was applied based on 'nearest neighbor' approach. The primary adherence measure was patients with proportion of days covered (PDC) >/=0.80 at 180 days; secondary measures included mean PDC and persistence. A sensitivity analysis was performed, accounting for total statin/amlodipine exposure.

RESULTS

Among 4556 matched patients (n = 1139 switch; n = 3417 add-on), mean age was 53.9 years and 52.1% were male. After 180 days, adherence with statin therapy was higher for the switch vs add-on cohort (50.8% vs 44.3%; P < 0.001). After adjusting for pre-index amlodipine adherence, the switch cohort was more likely to be adherent than the add-on cohort (odds ratio: 1.64 [95% confidence interval: 1.42 to 1.89]). Persistence was higher in the switch than the add-on cohort (127.6 vs 117 days; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Hypertensive patients taking amlodipine who initiated statin therapy via single-pill amlodipine/atorvastatin were more likely to remain adherent to their statin than patients adding a separate statin to their antihypertensive regimen.

Incremental cardiovascular costs and resource use associated with diabetes: an assessment of 29,863 patients in the US managed-care setting

Background

Patients with type 2 diabetes are at increased risk of cardiovascular events, and there is an associated economic burden attached to this risk. We conducted a retrospective claims database analysis to evaluate incremental cardiovascular costs in diabetic versus non-diabetic patients hospitalized for a cardiovascular event.

Methods

Patients hospitalized for a cardiovascular event between January 1, 2001 and June 30, 2005 were identified from a large US managed-care population. Diabetic patients were identified by evidence of type 2 diabetes in the 12 months prior to the index hospitalization. Direct medical costs and resource use - including inpatient expenditures (for the index and first recurrent hospitalizations), as well as outpatient, laboratory, and pharmacy expenditures (during the 3-year follow-up period) - were determined for patients with or without diabetes.

Results

Of the 29,863 patients identified with a cardiovascular hospitalization, 5,501 patients (18.4%) had a history of diabetes in the pre-index period (mean age, 57.8 years; 42.1% female). The overall mean follow-up period was 22.8 months. The incidence of subsequent cardiovascular events in the first year of follow-up was significantly higher for patients with diabetes compared with non-diabetic patients for all types of cardiovascular events except angina. Compared with non-diabetic patients, patients with diabetes had similar mean direct medical costs per patient for the index cardiovascular hospitalization ($17,435 versus $16,917; P = 0.09), and the first recurrent cardiovascular hospitalization ($18,488 versus $17,481; P = 0.2), yet higher mean total direct medical costs per patient for cardiovascular events during follow-up years (Year 1: $8,805 versus $6,982; Year 2: $13,860 versus $10,056; Year 3: $16,149 versus $12,163; all P ≤ 0.0002). The cost difference between diabetic and non-diabetic patients remained significant after adjusting for age, gender and other potential confounders in multivariate regression analysis. The mean (SD) total period of inpatient cardiovascular hospitalization after 3 years of follow-up was 3.3 (12.4) days for patients with diabetes compared with 1.8 (5.8) days for non-diabetic patients (P < 0.0001).

Conclusion

Diabetic patients hospitalized for a cardiovascular event incur higher costs for cardiovascular care than their non-diabetic counterparts. This analysis of the incremental cardiovascular cost and resource use provides the basis for greater accuracy and precision when modeling the economic value of initiatives aimed at reducing cardiovascular morbidity in patients with diabetes mellitus.

Drug titration patterns and HbA 1c levels in type 2 diabetes

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate oral antidiabetes drug (OAD) use, haemoglobin A(1c) (HbA(1c)) testing and glycaemic control in type 2 diabetes patients.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective analysis based on claims data from the Integrated Healthcare Information Services (IHCIS) National Managed Care Benchmark Database.

METHODS

OAD use and HbA(1c) testing were analysed for patients with >or= 2 claims indicating diagnosis of type 2 diabetes and >or= 1 90-day OAD treatment period between 1 January, 2000 and 30 June, 2006. Likelihood of HbA(1c) testing was examined using multivariable logistic regression analyses, adjusting for OAD regimen and patients' sociodemographical characteristics.

RESULTS

Patients were classified based on initial OAD regimen: metformin (MET) (n = 22,203; 41.3%), sulphonylurea (SFU) (n = 18,439; 34.3%), thiazolidinedione (TZD) (n = 7663; 14.3%), SFU + MET (n = 5467; 10.2%) and TZD + MET (n = 2355; 4.2%). A total of 51.5% of patients had HbA(1c) testing during 90 days preceding OAD initiation through regimen completion. Approximately, 65% of MET and 58% of SFU patients had no titration of initial regimen. Patients demonstrating inadequate glucose control decreased from 68.5% at baseline to 46.9% within 90 days of regimen initiation. Multivariable logistic regression indicated several negative predictors of HbA(1c) testing, including SFU use, age 65+ years, moderate insurance copayment and preindex inpatient utilisation. Multivariable logistic regression of variables associated with reduced likelihood of up-titration included TZD, SFU + MET, or TZD + MET treatment, age 18-34 years, Medicare insurance and any preindex healthcare utilisation.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients are not being transitioned to additional OADs in a stepwise fashion and/or are receiving inadequate titration on current OAD regimens. The low rate of HbA(1c) testing and rates of control are contributing factors.

Generic and therapeutic statin switches and disruptions in therapy

BACKGROUND

The study objective was to compare dose-equivalence, adherence and subsequent switch rates among patients recently switched from a branded to generic version of the same statin (generic substitution, GS) vs. those switched from branded statin to generic version of a different statin (therapeutic substitution, TS).

METHODS

In a retrospective cohort analysis among adult enrollees in over 90 US health plans, the authors identified adult patients who switched from a branded to generic statin from July-December 2006 (simvastatin became generic in June 2006). Patients were classified by type of statin switch: GS (e.g., branded simvastatin --> generic simvastatin), and TS (e.g., branded atorvastatin --> generic simvastatin). Demographic and clinical data were collected from claims before switch through 6 months follow-up. Separate outcomes of interest included proportion of patients that switched to a less potent daily dose, that switched back to previous branded statin after switch, and that were at least 80% adherent during the 6 months after initial switch. Significant predictors of each clinical outcome were identified using multivariable logistic regression models, adjusting for differences between groups in covariates and potential confounders.

RESULTS

The 6-month TS (n = 3807) and GS (n = 40,165) groups were generally similar demographically. Compared to GS, TS patients were significantly more likely to be switched to a less potent dose (26.2% vs. 0.5%, adjusted odds ratio [AOR] in patients with high-potency index medication = 83.4, p < 0.0001); 33% less likely to be adherent in the 6 months after switch (67.7% vs. 75.9%, AOR in patients with no switch in first 6 months follow-up = 0.67, p < 0.0001); and four times more likely to switch back to previous branded statin (11.3% vs. 2.9%, AOR = 4.1, p < 0.0001).

LIMITATIONS

This study did not account for co-payment changes, lipid measurements, or changes in pill burden.

CONCLUSIONS

While this study did not have data on why patients had TS (e.g., for cost or clinical reasons), TS was more likely to involve a subsequent disruption to statin therapy than GS. TS could potentially lead to adverse impacts on patients' outcomes, and should be studied further.