The cost-effectiveness of iruplinalkib versus alectinib in anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive crizotinib-resistant advanced non-small-cell lung cancer patients in China

Background

Iruplinalkib is a second-generation anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) with efficacy in patients with ALK-positive crizotinib-resistant advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), which is independently developed by a Chinese pharmaceutical company. This study examined the cost-effectiveness of iruplinalkib versus alectinib in the Chinese healthcare setting.

Methods

A partitioned survival model was developed to project the economic and health outcomes. Efficacy was derived using unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC). Cost and utility values were obtained from the literature and experts' opinions. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were carried out to evaluate the model's robustness.

Results

Treatment with iruplinalkib versus alectinib resulted in a gain of 0.843 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) with incremental costs of $20,493.27, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $24,313.95/QALY. Parameters related to relative efficacy and drug costs were the main drivers of the model outcomes. From the PSA, iruplinalkib had a 90% probability of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $37,863.56/QALY.

Conclusion

Compared to alectinib, iruplinalkib is a cost-effective therapy for patients with ALK-positive crizotinib-resistant advanced NSCLC.

Economic burden in patients with ALK + non-small cell lung cancer, with or without brain metastases, receiving second-line anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibitors

Aims: To describe the real-world economic burden of patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive (ALK+) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with post-crizotinib, second-line ALK inhibitor therapy.Materials and methods: Retrospective analysis using data from US Optum: Clinformatics Data Mart administrative claims database. Adult patients with ALK + NSCLC treated with ceritinib or alectinib as second-line ALK inhibitors between 1 January 2011 and 30 September 2017 were included. Healthcare costs and resource utilization for up to 1 year of therapy were calculated on a per-patient-per-month (PPPM) basis and stratified by presence or absence of brain metastases (BM). Multivariate regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with costs. Top ten cost drivers of non-inpatient procedure costs were recorded.Results: One hundred and twelve patients received second-line ALK inhibitors. Total mean PPPM healthcare costs were $23,984 for all patients receiving up to 1 year of post-crizotinib, second-line ALK inhibitor therapy. Total mean PPPM costs for patients with BM on or prior to post-crizotinib, second-line ALK inhibitor therapy were 1.37-times as high as those for patients without BM (p = 0.0406). Mean PPPM outpatient visits and inpatient hospitalization stays were higher for patients with BM versus no BM. The main cost drivers for non-inpatient procedures were radiation therapy, medications, and diagnostic radiology.Limitations: Analyses did not include newer ALK-directed therapies. BM development after the index date (defined as the date of the first claim for a second-line ALK inhibitor) may have been misclassified as non-BM. Findings may not be generalizable to patients with no health insurance coverage.Conclusions: Treatment of patients with ALK + NSCLC with ceritinib or alectinib as post-crizotinib, second-line ALK inhibitor therapy represents a high economic burden. Healthcare costs and resource utilization were significantly higher for patients with ALK + NSCLC with BM versus no BM.

Cost-Effectiveness of Alectinib for Patients with Untreated ALK-Positive Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in China

INTRODUCTION

To assess the cost-effectiveness of alectinib versus crizotinib as first-line treatments for advanced anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients from the perspective of China's healthcare system.

METHODS

A Markov model was developed to assess the clinical outcomes and costs of alectinib and crizotinib, which included five health states: progression-free (PF) without central nervous system (CNS) progression, PF with CNS progression, post-progression (PP) without CNS progression, PP with CNS progression, and death. Clinical data for transition probabilities were obtained from the ALEX trial at the updated data cutoff. Healthcare resource utilization and costs were derived from clinical expert opinions and published literature. One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were conducted to assess the uncertainty of the results. Scenario analyses were conducted including using clinical data from the ALESIA trial in Asian patients, using utilities from the ALEX trial, and choosing different parametric survival models.

RESULTS

In base case analysis, alectinib yielded an additional 1.04 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) with incremental costs of $54,827, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $52,869/QALY. In scenario analysis, the ICER was $56,787/QALY using clinical data from the ALESIA trial. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the probabilities of alectinib being cost-effective were 0.4% and 43.7% when the willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds were $28,109/QALY and $50,000/QALY, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Alectinib could prolong the mean time of PF and delay the time to CNS progression. However, because of its high drug cost, alectinib was unlikely to be cost-effective for untreated ALK-positive NSCLC patients in China.

Cost Effectiveness of Alectinib vs. Crizotinib in First-Line Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase-Positive Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer

BACKGROUND

The recently completed ALEX trial demonstrated that alectinib improved progression-free survival, and delayed time to central nervous system progression compared with crizotinib in patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive non-small-cell lung cancer. However, the long-term clinical and economic impact of using alectinib vs. crizotinib has not been evaluated. The objective of this study was to determine the potential cost utility of alectinib vs. crizotinib from a US payer perspective.

METHODS

A cost-utility model was developed using partition survival methods and three health states: progression-free, post-progression, and death. ALEX trial data informed the progression-free and overall survival estimates. Costs included drug treatments and supportive care (central nervous system and non-central nervous system). Utility values were obtained from trial data and literature. Sensitivity analyses included one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

Treatment with alectinib vs. crizotinib resulted in a gain of 0.91 life-years, 0.87 quality-adjusted life-years, and incremental costs of US$34,151, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of US$39,312/quality-adjusted life-year. Drug costs and utilities in the progression-free health state were the main drivers of the model in the one-way sensitivity analysis. From the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, alectinib had a 64% probability of being cost effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of US$100,000/quality adjusted life-year.

CONCLUSIONS

Alectinib increased time in the progression-free state and quality-adjusted life-years vs. crizotinib. The marginal cost increase was reflective of longer treatment durations in the progression-free state. Central nervous system-related costs were considerably lower with alectinib. Our results suggest that compared with crizotinib, alectinib may be a cost-effective therapy for treatment-naïve patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive non-small-cell lung cancer.

The cost-effectiveness of alectinib in anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive (ALK+) advanced NSCLC previously treated with crizotinib

Introduction Anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) targeting drugs provide an important option for advanced non-small cell lung cancer patients with this distinct tumor type; however, there is considerable uncertainty as to which drug provides the optimal value after crizotinib treatment. This study estimated the cost-utility of alectinib vs ceritinib from a US payer perspective. Methods A cost-utility model was developed using partition survival methods and three health states: progression-free (PF), post-progression (PP), and death. Survival data were derived from the key clinical trials (alectinib: NP28761 & NP28673, ceritinib: ASCEND I and II). Costs included drugs, adverse events, and supportive care. Utilities were based on trial data and the literature. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were performed to assess parameter uncertainty. Results Treatment with alectinib vs ceritinib resulted in increases of 2.55 months in the PF state, 0.44 quality adjusted life-years (QALYs), and $13,868, yielding a mean cost/QALY of $31,180. In the PSA, alectinib had a 96% probability of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay of $100,000/QALY. Drivers of model results were drug costs and utilities in the PF health state. The ICER ranged from $10,600-$65,000 per QALY in scenario analyses, including a sub-group analysis limited to patients with prior chemotherapy and crizotinib treatment. Conclusions Treatment with alectinib in ALK + crizotinib-treated patients increased time progression-free and QALYs vs ceritinib. The marginal cost increase was driven by longer treatment durations with alectinib. This model demonstrates that alectinib may be considered a cost-effective treatment after progression on crizotinib.

[The effectiveness of carvedilol in heart failure]

BACKGROUND

The third generation beta-blocker (carvedilol) is effective in reduction of hypertension, and of mortality and morbidity as a supplement to conventional drugs of heart failure therapies (diuretics, ACE inhibitors), based on randomized controlled trials and retrospective analysis.

OBJECTIVE

To analyse the efficacy of carvedilol in the treatment of heart failure with special focused on morbidity, mortality endpoints.

METHODS

We assessed the multicenter, randomised, double-blind studies involving more than 150 patients (1995-2005) from MEDLINE database, in which carvedilol was used in the case of moderate to severe heart failure. We also present the results of health-economic publications (2000-2005).

RESULTS

In U.S. Carvedilol Heart Failure Study (n 1096) the mortality declined by 65% (3.2% vs. 7.8%; p <0.001) with carvedilol vs. placebo, while the cardiovascular hospitalization decline was 27% (14.1% vs. 19.6%; p = 0.036) in heart failure (LVEF < or = 5%) applied together with the basic therapy (diuretic and ACE-inhibitor). In the COPERNICUS trial the efficacy of carvedilol was compared to placebo in the case of severe HF patients (LVEF < 25%, n = 2889). The annual mortality risk declined by 35% (19.7% vs. 12.8%, 95% CI 19-48%, p = 0.00013) while the risk of mortality or any risk of hospitalisation by 24% (p = 0.00004) in the active group. The CAPRICORN study (LVEF < or = 0%, n=1959) showed that carvedilol is efficacious in reduction of total (HR: 0.77; 95% CI 0.60-0.98; p = 0.031) and cardiovascular mortality (HR: 0.75; 95% CI 0.58-0.96; p = 0.024) as far as high-risk patients are concerned.

CONCLUSION

The effectiveness of carvedilol is certified in reduction of mortality and hospitalization in the treatment of moderate-severe heart-failure as part of the combination therapy. The benefits of use of the drug are well measurable not only on the level of patients but on the suppliers and the financer as well, thanks to the decline of resource utilization.

[Congestive heart failure in Spain: cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analyses of treatment with beta-blockers]

OBJECTIVE

Beta-blockers (BB) have proven to be effective in the treatment of congestive heart failure (CHF). This study is an economic analysis for the addition of BB to standard treatment of CHF.

PATIENTS AND METHOD

Randomized, double-blinded controlled studies are included, with 1,647 patients treated with bisoprolol, 3,034 treated with carvedilol, 2,432 treated with metoprolol, and 6,807 treated with placebo. Direct costs of BB treatment and of every hospitalization episode are assessed. Cost-effectiveness is assessed as cost in euros by prevented death, and cost-benefit as the difference between hospitalization costs and BB costs. The study is conducted from the perspective of a third-party payer.

RESULTS

Two studies with bisoprolol, six with carvedilol, and five with metoprolol are included, with an average follow-up of 13.5 months. Carvedilol prevents 5.07% of deaths per year of treatment and is more effective than bisoprolol (3.82% of avoided deaths) and metoprolol (3.03%). Cost-effectiveness ratio (cost for every prevented death and year) was 10,832 euros for bisoprolol, 17,516 euros for carvedilol and 16,664 euros for metoprolol. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for carvedilol ranges between 12,631 euros and 86,610 euros for life saved. All BB generate costs saving for hospitalization but only bisoprolol provides a net profit. Benefit-cost index is 1.13 for bisoprolol, 0.26 for carvedilol and 0.59 for metoprolol.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of BB in the treatment of CHF is an effective and cost-effective alternative. Carvedilol is the most effective alternative, and bisoprolol the most cost-effective alternative and the drug with greater benefit-cost index.

Carvedilol reduces the costs of medical care in severe heart failure: An economic analysis of the COPERNICUS study applied to the United Kingdom

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to determine the effects of carvedilol on the costs related to the treatment of severe chronic heart failure (CHF).

METHODS

Costs for the treatment for heart failure within the National Health Service (NHS) in the United Kingdom (UK) were applied to resource utilisation data prospectively collected in all patients randomized into the Carvedilol Prospective Randomized Cumulative Survival (COPERNICUS) Study. Unit-specific, per diem (hospital bed day) costs were used to calculate expenditures due to hospitalizations. We also included costs of carvedilol treatment, general practitioner surgery/office visits, hospital out-patient clinic visits and nursing home care based on estimates derived from validated patterns of clinical practice in the UK.

RESULTS

The estimated cost of carvedilol therapy and related ambulatory care for the 1156 patients assigned to active treatment was pound530,771 ( pound44.89 per patient/month of follow-up). However, patients assigned to carvedilol were hospitalised less often and accumulated fewer and less expensive days of admission. Consequently, the total estimated cost of hospital care was pound3.49 million in the carvedilol group compared with pound4.24 million for the 1133 patients in the placebo arm. The cost of post-discharge care was also less in the carvedilol than in the placebo group ( pound479,200 vs. pound548,300). Overall, the cost per patient treated in the carvedilol group was pound3948 compared to pound4279 in the placebo group. This equated to a cost of pound385.98 vs. pound434.18, respectively, per patient/month of follow-up: an 11.1% reduction in health care costs in favour of carvedilol.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that not only can carvedilol treatment increase survival and reduce hospital admissions in patients with severe CHF but that it can also cut costs in the process.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of carvedilol for the treatment of chronic heart failure in Japan

BACKGROUND

The cost-effectiveness of beta-blocker use in patients with chronic heart failure (CHF) has never been elucidated in a Japanese study.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A Markov model for outpatients with CHF was constructed to simulate remaining life expectancy and expected medical costs for each patient. Each patient was assumed that they received either carvedilol in addition to conventional therapies (ie, digitalis, diuretics, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors) or conventional therapies alone. Analyses were conducted both for each patient's remaining lifetime and for a period of 5 years. Analyses were performed from the perspective of Japanese healthcare insurance. Analysis for treatment over the course of each patient's expected life span with carvedilol plus conventional therapies versus conventional therapies alone yielded expected medical costs of 3.5 million yen and 5.5 million yen respectively, and a life expectancy of 121 months and 88 months, respectively. The analysis of a 5-year period yielded 1.4 million yen and 2.8 million yen in expected medical costs and 49 and 45 months life expectancy, respectively, for carvedilol versus conventional therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Carvedilol treatment for CHF patients is a highly cost-effective method of therapy in the Japanese medical environment.

In heart failure, all beta-blockers are not necessarily equal

The Carvedilol or Metoprolol European Trial (COMET; Lancet 2003; 362:7-13) found that in patients with heart failure, survival appears to be better with carvedilol than with immediate-release metoprolol tartrate. Whether the target doses used were equivalent (carvedilol 25 mg twice daily vs metoprolol tartrate 50 mg twice daily) has been debated, but the COMET trial shows that drugs in the same class do not necessarily have the same effects. Given the overwhelming evidence of the benefit of carvedilol, metoprolol succinate, and bisoprolol in patients with heart failure, we should all strive to increase the use of these drugs in appropriate doses.

Cost-effectiveness of beta-blocker treatment in heart failure

There is a growing economic burden from the treatment of heart failure that accounts for more than 5% of total health care expenditures. Hospitalization contributes between 60% and 75% of this total expense. The addition of beta-blockers to conventional heart failure therapy results in a significant reduction in hospitalization. As a consequence, beta-blocker therapy in heart failure is very cost-effective and compares favorably to that of other generally accepted medical interventions

Cost effectiveness of beta blocker therapy for patients with chronic severe heart failure in Ireland

Management of heart failure is estimated to consume 1% to 2% of total healthcare resources and recent data from the UK suggests this may be as high as 4% with hospital admissions accounting for approximately 70% of this expenditure. The safety and efficacy of b-blockers when added to standard therapy i.e. ACE inhibitors in chronic heart failure has recently been demonstrated in large placebo controlled trials. The ability of b-blockers to reduce hospital admission rates would be expected to prove cost effective. In this study the cost effectiveness of the b-blocker carvedilol when added to standard therapy in patients with severe heart failure was determined. Using economic modelling techniques and Irish cost data the incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) for carvedilol therapy was 1,560 Euro per life year gained (LYG). Sensitivity analysis demonstrated an ICER range of 1,560 Euro/LYG to 7,322 Euro/LYG under a variety of assumptions. This suggests that carvedilol therapy for patients with severe chronic heart failure is not only safe and effective but is highly cost effective in the Irish healthcare setting.

Reimbursement claims analysis of outcomes with carvedilol and metoprolol

OBJECTIVE

To compare resource use and costs in heart failure (HF) patients receiving metoprolol, a selective beta1-receptor blocker, with carvedilol, which blocks beta1-, beta2-, and alpha1-adrenergic receptors, by use of a retrospective reimbursement-claims analysis.

METHODS

Resource use and cost data were extracted for patients diagnosed with HF and treated with carvedilol or metoprolol for 6 months after the initiation of the respective therapy, by use of claims submitted to 6 healthcare plans. A modified Charlson index was used to assess comorbidity. Stepwise logistic regression was used to measure the influence of treatment on hospitalization.

RESULTS

Claims from 139 carvedilol and 106 metoprolol patients showed that carvedilol patients experienced significantly fewer total hospitalizations (36.0% vs. 62.3%, respectively; p < 0.001) and emergency department visits (23.7% vs. 42.5%, respectively; p = 0.002) and a trend for fewer HF-related (7.9% vs. 14.2%, respectively; NS) and cardiac-related hospitalizations (15.1% vs. 24.5%, respectively; NS). Treatment with carvedilol was associated with a significant decrease in the risk of any hospitalization (adjusted odds ratio 0.35, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.63; p <0.001). Higher pharmacy costs (mean $1677 vs. $1322; p <0.001) and lower total costs (mean $8100 vs. $14475; p = 0.025) were observed in carvedilol-treated compared with metoprolol-treated patients, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with metoprolol, the more comprehensive adrenergic blockade achieved with carvedilol may translate into greater clinical benefits in patients with HF. Despite higher pharmacy costs, lower total costs were observed in carvedilol-treated patients.

Medical resource use and costs of congestive heart failure after carvedilol use

A retrospective cohort study based on claims and medical chart data was conducted to compare healthcare use and costs in congestive heart failure patients with and without carvedilol. Adult patients with a minimum of two claims with a valid congestive heart failure diagnosis from 1997 to 1999 were included. Patients receiving continuous carvedilol treatment for at least 4 months were considered study case patients. Case patients were matched based on age, gender, race, and concomitant medication. Healthcare use and costs were compared between the case and control groups. A total of 128 case and 147 control patients were identified. There were no significant differences in demographic characteristics, concomitant medication, or New York Heart Association classification between these two groups. Analysis of variance and chi-square analyses were conducted for continuous and categorical variables, respectively. Statistical adjustments were made using a multivariate model. Carvedilol had a significant economic reduction in the overall expenditures by approximately $14,530. Facility expenditures were approximately $9,000 lower for the carvedilol group than for the control group. Carvedilol-treated patients had less frequent hospital admissions and shorter lengths of stay compared with patients not receiving carvedilol. Congestive heart failure patients receiving carvedilol have significantly less healthcare use and costs than patients not receiving carvedilol.

A cost-effectiveness analysis of bisoprolol for heart failure

AIMS

This study considers the cost-effectiveness of bisoprolol in heart failure patients as an adjunctive therapy to usual treatment.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A cost-effectiveness model was constructed using data available from the CIBIS I & II trials and other secondary sources. Differences in patient survival rates were calculated for bisoprolol (n=1327) and placebo groups (n=1320) extrapolating data over a 5-year period, under limited and extended benefits scenarios to calculate life years gained (LYG). Hospitalisation rates were calculated using data from both CIBIS trials. Costs were considered under two different patient management protocols for treatment initiation - shared care by outpatient clinics and GPs and initiation by a nurse working in the community. Discounted LYG were calculated to be 0.228 under the limited benefits scenario and 0.368 under the extended benefits scenario. Under the extended benefits scenario shared care resulted in a cost of pound268 per LYG or pound412 per LYG for community initiation. Under the limited benefits scenario the costs were a pound135 saving and pound69, respectively.

CONCLUSION

This analysis has shown bisoprolol to be an economically attractive therapy in comparison with other treatments. It is hoped that its adoption by clinicians will be rapid, despite the labour intensive and time consuming up-titration process involved in its initiation.

Cost-effectiveness of beta-blocker therapy with metoprolol or with carvedilol for treatment of heart failure in Canada

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of beta-blocker therapy with either metoprolol or carvedilol in addition to conventional therapy for patients with heart failure (HF) in Canada.

DESIGN

A Markov simulation was used to estimate the costs and life expectancy for treating patients with conventional therapy alone and with the addition of metoprolol or carvedilol. Although carvedilol has been marketed in Canada since 1999, metoprolol succinate has yet to be marketed there, so the price is unknown. Therefore we input a Canadian price based on the price ratio of the 2 drugs in the United States.

RESULTS

For subjects aged 60 years at HF onset, the expected years of life are 4.53 years for those treated with conventional therapy alone, 5.70 years for those who receive conventional therapy plus metoprolol, and 6.21 years for those who receive conventional therapy plus carvedilol. The expected costs (in 1999 Canadian dollars) are $8,989, $13,833, and $18,114, respectively. This yields incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for metoprolol relative to conventional therapy alone of $4,140 per life-year gained, and for carvedilol relative to metoprolol, the ICER is $8,394 per life-year gained.

CONCLUSIONS

In addition to conventional therapy with furosemide and angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors, treatment with either metoprolol or carvedilol confers a survival benefit that is attractive from a cost-effectiveness point of view. Until better information becomes available, it is not possible to distinguish between the two beta-blockers on the basis of cost-effectiveness. This means that the choice of beta-blockers for HF should be based largely on clinical considerations because both beta-blockers prolong life at relatively low cost.

Cost-effectiveness results from the US Carvedilol Heart Failure Trials Program

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of carvedilol, a beta-blocker that is approved for use in the US for the treatment of heart failure, based on data from Phase III clinical trials.

METHODS

We conducted an economic evaluation alongside the US Carvedilol Heart Failure Trials Program, which consisted of four concurrent, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials; the mean duration of follow-up across these four trials was 6.5 months (the program was terminated prematurely based on a finding of a 65% mortality benefit). Using data from these trials, we examined the cost-effectiveness of carvedilol in terms of the estimated cost per death averted among patients randomized to such therapy versus those receiving placebo. Attention was focused on the cost of carvediol therapy plus the cost of cardiovascular-related inpatient care. Costs of care were estimated by combining infomation on healthcare utilization from the clinical trials with secondary sources of cost data.

RESULTS

Patients randomized to receive carvedilol had lower mean +/- SD estimated costs of cardiovascular-related inpatient care over 6.5 months compared with those receiving placebo ($1912 +/- $7595 vs. $4463 +/- $20,565, respectively). As mortality alsowas lower among carvedilol patients, the estimated cost per death averted was negative. The probability that carvedilol would both increase survival and decrease costs of cardiovascular-related care over a 6.5-month period was estimated to be 0.98.

CONCLUSIONS

Data from the US Carvedilol Heart Failure Trials Program indicate that carvedilol reduces mortality in patients with heart failure; our study suggests that it also may be cost-saving over a period of approximately six months.

Economic impact of beta blockade in heart failure

We reviewed the literature on clinical trials of beta-adrenergic blockade for treatment of heart failure, seeking evidence of reductions in hospital admissions. To analyze the economic implications of six clinical trials, we developed a stochastic cost model to generate estimates of total medical costs resulting from heart failure and related causes. The model includes inpatient, outpatient, and professional cost estimates based on Medicare claims data, and it is driven by traditional endpoint statistics reported in the clinical trial literature. It provides a common framework for comparing cost effectiveness across clinical trials in the absence of detailed cost information collected in the trial. The incremental expected cost per year of life saved is $3,300 for bisoprolol, $2,500 for metoprolol, and $6,700 for carvedilol. The cost per year of life saved for each compound is well below accepted standards for cost effectiveness. These results are sensitive to the cost of drug therapy and the relative mortality rate for the experimental group. For example, if the relative mortality rate of the experimental group were to increase from the reported 40% to 82%, and if the annual cost of the drug were to decrease from $2,000 to $500, then we estimate that carvedilol would break even and the cost per year of life saved would drop to zero. Whether beta-blocker therapy, as assumed, sustains its differential effectiveness in terms of relative mortality risk beyond the study duration has not been demonstrated.

[Economic study of carvedilol in heart failure. A cost effectiveness study in France]

A programme of four phase III clinical trials carried out in the USA on 1094 patients showed that Carvedilol, associated with the usual bitherapy and eventually with digitalis, reduced the mortality and number of hospital admissions of patients with cardiac failure. These results, transposed to the French population, may be used to evaluate the economic advantages of Carvedilol by developing a cost-effectiveness study which consists in relating the direct expenses (drugs and hospital admissions) of each of the two strategies, with or without Carvedilol, to their respective mortalities. Hospital expenses were estimated with respect to the H.M.G. corresponding to each hospital stay at 1997-1998 values. The cost in the Carvedilol group was 2,823 FF per patient (including 1,491 FF for the drug itself) but 2,056 FF were economised in hospital expenses. With an increased cost of 767 FF but a 50% reduction in mortality corresponding to a difference in mortality of 45@1000, the cost-effectiveness of Carvedilol was 17,040 per life saved and 2,130 FF per additional year of life expectancy. A study of the sensitivity produced even more favourable results of Carvedilol. An evaluation of hospital expenses on the basis of AP-HP data indicates that the addition of Carvedilol is associated with a 4,425 FF reduction in hospital expenses, which makes it a cost saving strategy.

Cost effectiveness of carvedilol for heart failure

In this study, we examine the cost effectiveness of carvedilol for the treatment of chronic heart failure (CHF). We use a Markov model to project life expectancy and lifetime medical care costs for a hypothetical cohort of patients with CHF who were assumed alternatively to receive carvedilol plus conventional therapy (digoxin, diuretics, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors) or conventional therapy alone. Patients on carvedilol were assumed to experience a reduced risk of death and hospitalization for CHF, which is consistent with findings from the US Carvedilol Heart Failure Trials Program. The benefits of carvedilol were projected under 2 alternative scenarios. In the first ("limited benefits"), benefits were conservatively assumed to persist for 6 months, the average duration of follow-up in these clinical trials, and then end abruptly. In the other ("extended benefits"), they were arbitrarily assumed to persist for 6 months and then decline gradually over time, vanishing by the end of 3 years. We estimated our model using data from the US Carvedilol Heart Failure Trials Program and other sources. For patients receiving conventional therapy alone, estimated life expectancy was 6.67 years; corresponding figures for those also receiving carvedilol were 6.98 and 7.62 years under the limited and extended benefits scenarios, respectively. Expected lifetime costs of CHF-related care were estimated to be $28,756 for conventional therapy, and $36,420 and $38,867 for carvedilol (limited and extended benefits, respectively). Cost per life-year saved for carvedilol was $29,477 and $12,799 under limited and extended benefits assumptions, respectively. The cost effectiveness of carvedilol for CHF compares favorably to that of other generally accepted medical interventions, even under conservative assumptions regarding the duration of therapeutic benefit.