Originator recombinant human follitropin alfa versus recombinant human follitropin alfa biosimilars in Spain: A cost-effectiveness analysis of assisted reproductive technology related to fresh embryo transfers

This study compared the cost per live birth and cost-effectiveness of the originator recombinant human follicle-stimulating hormone follitropin alfa (r-hFSH-alfa) and r-hFSH-alfa biosimilars for ovarian stimulation prior to assisted reproductive technology treatment in Spain. A decision tree model was developed, comprising pregnancy and live birth for one treatment cycle with fresh embryo transfer. Clinical inputs were based on a recent meta-analysis by Chua et al. [4]. Cost inputs were extracted from publicly available Spanish sources. The costs per live birth were lower with originator r-hFSH-alfa (€18,138) versus r-hFSH-alfa biosimilars (€20,377). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was €7208 for originator r-hFSH-alfa versus biosimilars. Drug acquisition costs for originator r-hFSH-alfa represented 10.5% of total costs in the base case analysis, and 6.2% in a treatment cycle resulting in live birth with one fresh embryo transfer. Results from the sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the findings.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of recombinant human follicle-stimulating hormone alfa(r-hFSH) and urinary highly purified menopausal gonadotropin (hMG) based on data from a large German registry

This was a retrospective real-world evidence analysis of the costs per live birth for reference recombinant human follicle-stimulating hormone alfa (r-hFSH-alfa) versus highly purified urinary human menopausal gonadotropin (hMG-HP), based on data from a German in vitro fertilization registry (RecDate). Pregnancy and live birth rates from the RecDate real-world evidence study over three complete assisted reproductive technology (ART) cycles using the same gonadotropin drug were used as clinical inputs. Costs related to ART treatment and to drugs were obtained from public sources. Treatment with r-hFSH-alfa resulted in higher adjusted cumulative live birth rates versus hMG-HP after one (25.3% vs. 22.3%), two (30.9% vs. 27.5%), and three (31.9% vs. 28.6%) ART cycles. Costs per live birth were lower with r-hFSH-alfa versus hMG-HP after one (€17,938 vs. €20,054), two (€18,251 vs. €20,437), and three (€18,473 vs. €20,680) ART cycles. r-hFSH-alfa was found to be a cost-effective strategy compared with hMG-HP over three cycles.

Cost-effectiveness of single-inhaler extrafine beclometasone dipropionate/formoterol fumarate/glycopyrronium in patients with uncontrolled asthma in England

BACKGROUND

In patients with asthma that is uncontrolled by a medium- or high-dose inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) plus long-acting β₂-agonist (LABA), a maintenance therapy option is the addition of a long-acting muscarinic agonist, either via multiple inhalers, or single-inhaler triple therapy (SITT). One SITT is the extrafine formulation of beclometasone dipropionate/formoterol fumarate/glycopyrronium (BDP/FF/G). We used data from two 52-week clinical trials (TRIMARAN and TRIGGER), both conducted in adults with asthma uncontrolled by ICS/LABA, to investigate the cost-effectiveness of BDP/FF/G.

METHODS

A Markov cohort state transition model (focusing on exacerbations) was used to investigate the cost-effectiveness of medium- or high-dose BDP/FF/G vs medium- or high-dose BDP/FF, and high-dose BDP/FF/G vs high-dose BDP/FF + tiotropium. The model analysed cost, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), and was developed from the England National Health Service perspective (2020 costs). Uncertainty of the inputs was estimated using one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

Both medium- and high-dose BDP/FF/G were cost-effective vs BDP/FF, with ICERs of £12,224 and £15,587 per QALY gained. High-dose BDP/FF/G was dominant vs BDP/FF + tiotropium, as it was both cheaper and gained QALYs. Sensitivity analyses were consistent with the base model: medium- and high-dose BDP/FF/G had 94.3% and 88.3% likelihoods to be cost-effective vs BDP/FF; high-dose BDP/FF/G had 100% likelihood to be a dominant strategy vs BDP/FF + tiotropium.

CONCLUSIONS

Both medium- and high-dose BDP/FF/G were cost-effective vs medium- and high-dose BDP/FF in adults with asthma that was uncontrolled by ICS/LABA. In addition, high-dose BDP/FF/G was a dominating strategy to high-dose BDP/FF + tiotropium.

CLINICALTRIALS

GOV: NCT02676076 and NCT02676089.

Cost Effectiveness of Subcutaneous Vedolizumab for Maintenance Treatment of Ulcerative Colitis in Canada

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Ulcerative colitis is highly prevalent in Canada and cost-effective ulcerative colitis therapies are warranted. Vedolizumab subcutaneous (SC) formulation was recently approved for ulcerative colitis maintenance therapy. We assessed vedolizumab SC cost effectiveness vs conventional and advanced therapeutics in patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis from a Canadian public healthcare payer perspective.

METHODS

A hybrid decision tree/Markov model was developed to evaluate vedolizumab SC costs, quality-adjusted life-years, and cost effectiveness vs conventional therapy, adalimumab SC, infliximab intravenous, golimumab SC, tofacitinib, ustekinumab SC, and vedolizumab intravenous. This model predicts the number of patients achieving clinical response and remission after treatment induction, and sustained benefit during maintenance treatment. To account for statistical uncertainties, the base-case analysis was conducted in a probabilistic manner. Scenario analyses examined the impact of previous treatment with anti-tumor necrosis factor agents, dose escalation, loss of efficacy, and treatment adherence.

RESULTS

In the base-case analysis, conventional therapy was the most cost-effective therapeutic option in the overall population. Vedolizumab SC was cost effective and dominant compared with other advanced therapies (adalimumab, golimumab, infliximab, tofacitinib 5 mg, ustekinumab, and vedolizumab intravenous). The annual vedolizumab SC cost per patient was reduced vs ustekinumab SC, tofacitinib 5 mg, vedolizumab intravenous, and golimumab SC by $47,024, $3251, $2120, and $2004 (Canadian dollars), respectively, and exceeded that of infliximab, adalimumab, and conventional therapy by $582, $3293, and $41,024, respectively. Among the treatments, vedolizumab SC generated the highest quality-adjusted life-years overall (14.21), which translated into the best incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-years gained over conventional therapy in the overall population ($109,374) and in anti-tumor necrosis factor-naïve and anti-tumor necrosis factor-experienced patients ($41,658/$114,287).

CONCLUSIONS

Conventional therapy offered the most cost-effective therapeutic option followed by vedolizumab SC. Based on a $50,000/quality-adjusted life-year threshold, vedolizumab was cost effective in anti-tumor necrosis factor-naïve patients but not the overall population also when compared to conventional therapy.

Cost-utility analysis of bariatric surgery

BACKGROUND

The objective of the study was to evaluate the cost-utility of bariatric surgery in England.

METHODS

A state-transition Markov model was developed to compare the costs and outcomes of two treatment approaches for patients with morbid obesity: bariatric surgery, including gastric bypass, sleeve gastrectomy and adjustable gastric banding; and non-surgical usual care. Parameters of the effectiveness of surgery and complications were informed by data from the UK National Bariatric Surgery Registry, the Scandinavian Obesity Registry and the Swedish Obese Subjects study. Costs and utilities were informed by UK sources.

RESULTS

Bariatric surgery was associated with reduced mean costs to the health service by €2742 (£1944), and gain of 0·8 life-years and 4·0 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) over a lifetime compared with usual care. Bariatric surgery also had the potential to reduce the lifetime risks of obesity-related cardiovascular diseases and diabetes. Delaying surgery for up to 3 years resulted in a reduction of 0·7 QALYs and a minor decrease of €2058 (£1459) in associated healthcare costs.

CONCLUSION

Currently used surgical methods were found to be cost saving over the lifetime of individuals treated in England.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of bariatric surgery for morbid obesity in Belgium

AIMS

This study presents the cost-effectiveness analysis of bariatric surgery in Belgium from a third-party payer perspective for a lifetime and 10-year horizon.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A decision analytic model incorporating Markov process was developed to compare the cost-effectiveness of gastric bypass, sleeve gastrectomy, and adjustable gastric banding against conventional medical management (CMM). In the model, patients could undergo surgery, or experience post-surgery complications, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, or die. Transition probabilities, costs, and utilities were derived from the literature. The impact of different surgical methods on body mass index (BMI) level in the base-case analysis was informed by the Scandinavian Obesity Surgery Registry and the Swedish Obese Subject (SOS) study. Healthcare resource use and costs were obtained from Belgian sources. A base-case analysis was performed for the population, the characteristics of which were obtained from surgery candidates in Belgium.

RESULTS

In the base-case analysis over a 10-year time horizon, the increment in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained from bariatric surgery vs CMM was 1.4 per patient, whereas the incremental cost was €3,788, leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €2,809 per QALY. Over a lifetime, bariatric surgery produced savings of €9,332, an additional 1.1 life years and 5.0 QALYs. Bariatric surgery was cost-effective at 10 years post-surgery and dominant over conventional management over a lifetime horizon.

LIMITATIONS

The model did not include the whole scope of obesity-related complications, and also did not account for variation in surgery outcomes for different populations of diabetic patients. Also, the data about management of patients after surgery was based on assumptions and the opinion of a clinical expert.

CONCLUSIONS

It was demonstrated that a current mix of bariatric surgery methods was cost-effective at 10 years post-surgery and cost-saving over the lifetime of the Belgian patient cohort considered in this analysis.

Cost analysis of bariatric surgery in Denmark made with a decision-analytic model

INTRODUCTION

Bariatric surgery offers effective obesity treatment. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of bariatric surgery in Denmark from a third-party payer perspective in the mid- (ten years) and long-term (lifetime).

METHODS

A state-transition Markov model was developed in which patients may experience surgery, post-surgery complications, diabetes mellitus type 2, cardiovascular diseases or die. Transition probabilities, costs and utilities were informed by the literature. Three types of surgery were included: gastric bypass, sleeve gastrectomy and adjustable gastric banding. The impact of different surgical methods on BMI level was informed by the Danish Obesity Surgery Registry (Dansk Fedmekirurgiregister).

RESULTS

In the ten-year base-case analysis, bariatric surgery led to a cost increment of 19,332 DKK and generated an additional 1.1 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). In the course of a lifetime, surgery leads to savings of 36,403 DKK, an additional 0.7 life years and 2.9 QALYs. Bariatric surgery was cost-effective at ten years with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 17,818 DKK per QALY and was dominant over conservative management in the course of a lifetime. Up to three years of delay in the provision of surgery resulted in a reduction of life years, a lower QALY gain and a minor decrease in healthcare costs.

CONCLUSIONS

In Denmark, bariatric surgery is cost-effective at ten years and may produce a significant reduction in healthcare costs over the course of a lifetime in persons with severe obesity.

FUNDING

Synergus AB received support for economic model development from Covidien AG (now part of Medtronic).

TRIAL REGISTRATION

not relevant.

Cost-Utility Analysis of Bariatric Surgery in Italy: Results of Decision-Analytic Modelling

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of bariatric surgery in Italy from a third-party payer perspective over a medium-term (10 years) and a long-term (lifetime) horizon.

METHODS

A state-transition Markov model was developed, in which patients may experience surgery, post-surgery complications, diabetes mellitus type 2, cardiovascular diseases or die. Transition probabilities, costs, and utilities were obtained from the Italian and international literature. Three types of surgeries were considered: gastric bypass, sleeve gastrectomy, and adjustable gastric banding. A base-case analysis was performed for the population, the characteristics of which were obtained from surgery candidates in Italy.

RESULTS

In the base-case analysis, over 10 years, bariatric surgery led to cost increment of EUR 2,661 and generated additional 1.1 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Over a lifetime, surgery led to savings of EUR 8,649, additional 0.5 life years and 3.2 QALYs. Bariatric surgery was cost-effective at 10 years with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of EUR 2,412/QALY and dominant over conservative management over a lifetime.

CONCLUSION

In a comprehensive decision analytic model, a current mix of surgical methods for bariatric surgery was cost-effective at 10 years and cost-saving over the lifetime of the Italian patient cohort considered in this analysis.