scholarly journals Denosumab for Elderly Men with Osteoporosis: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis from the US Payer Perspective

2015 ◽  
Vol 2015 ◽  
pp. 1-9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stuart Silverman ◽  
Irene Agodoa ◽  
Morgan Kruse ◽  
Anju Parthan ◽  
Eric Orwoll
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Drug Efficacy ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life Years ◽  
Payer Perspective ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Persistence Rates ◽  
The Us ◽  
Generic Alendronate ◽  
The Cost

Purpose. To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of denosumab versus other osteoporotic treatments in older men with osteoporosis from a US payer perspective.Methods. A lifetime cohort Markov model previously developed for postmenopausal osteoporosis (PMO) was used. Men in the model were 78 years old, with a BMDT-score of −2.12 and a vertebral fracture prevalence of 23%. During each 6-month Markov cycle, patients could have experienced a hip, vertebral or nonhip, nonvertebral (NHNV) osteoporotic fracture, remained in a nonfracture state, remained in a postfracture state, or died. Background fracture risks, mortality rates, persistence rates, health utilities, and medical and drug costs were derived from published sources. Previous PMO studies were used for drug efficacy in reducing fracture risk. Lifetime expected costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated for denosumab, generic alendronate, risedronate, ibandronate, teriparatide, and zoledronate.Results. Denosumab had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $16,888 compared to generic alendronate and dominated all other treatments. Results were most sensitive to changes in costs of denosumab and the relative risk of hip fracture.Conclusion. Despite a higher annual treatment cost compared to other medications, denosumab is cost-effective compared to other osteoporotic treatments in older osteoporotic US men.

scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness of Adding Ribociclib to Endocrine Therapy for Patients With HR-Positive, HER2-Negative Advanced Breast Cancer Among Premenopausal or Perimenopausal Women

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eunae Jeong ◽  
Changjun Wang ◽  
Leslie Wilson ◽  
Lixian Zhong
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Advanced Breast Cancer ◽  
Endocrine Therapy ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Advanced Breast ◽  
Payer Perspective ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Cost

PurposeTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of adding ribociclib to endocrine therapy for pre/perimenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal receptor 2-negative (HER2-) advanced breast cancer from the US payer perspective.MethodsA partitioned survival analysis model with three health states (progression-free, progressed disease, and death) was developed to compare the cost and effectiveness of ribociclib in combination with endocrine therapy versus endocrine therapy alone based on clinical data from the MONALEESA-7 phase 3 randomized clinical trials. Life years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and total costs were estimated and used to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) over a lifetime. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the uncertainties of model inputs. Additional scenario analyses were performed.ResultsIn the base-case, ribociclib plus endocrine therapy was more effective than endocrine therapy with an additional 1.39 QALYs but also more costly with an ICER of $282,996/QALY. One-way deterministic sensitivity analysis showed that overall survival associated with the treatments and the cost of ribociclib had the greatest impact on the ICER. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that only beyond a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $272,867, ribociclib plus endocrine therapy would surpass endocrine therapy alone as a cost-effective option.ConclusionsFrom the US payer perspective, ribociclib plus endocrine therapy for pre/perimenopausal patients with HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer is not cost-effective at a WTP threshold of $100,000 or $150,000 per QALY in comparison of endocrine therapy alone.

Lenvatinib versus sorafenib for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: a cost–effectiveness analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (8) ◽  
pp. 553-562
Author(s):  
Hongfu Cai ◽  
Longfeng Zhang ◽  
Na Li ◽  
Bin Zheng ◽  
Maobai Liu
Keyword(s):  
Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life Years ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Sorafenib Treatment ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life

Aim: To investigate the cost–effectiveness of lenvatinib and sorafenib in the treatment of patients with nonresected hepatocellular carcinoma in China. Materials & methods: Markov model was used to simulate the direct medical cost and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Clinical data were derived from the Phase 3 randomized clinical trial in a Chinese population. Results: Sorafenib treatment resulted in 1.794 QALYs at a cost of $43,780.73. Lenvatinib treatment resulted in 2.916 QALYs for patients weighing <60 and ≥60 kg at a cost of $57,049.43 and $75,900.36, The incremental cost–effectiveness ratio to the sorafenib treatment group was $11,825.94/QALY and $28,627.12/QALY, respectively. Conclusion: According to WHO’s triple GDP per capita, the use of lenvatinib by providing drugs is a cost-effective strategy.

Cost-effectiveness of nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine versus erlotinib plus gemcitabine in metastatic pancreatic cancer.

2014 ◽  
Vol 32 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 353-353 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. Gabriela Chiorean ◽  
Scott Whiting ◽  
Gary Binder ◽  
George Dranitsaris ◽  
Victoria Manax
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Payer Perspective ◽  
The Us ◽  
Recent Phase ◽  
Cost Effective Alternative ◽  
The Cost

353 Background: In a recent phase III trial nab-paclitaxel (albumin-bound paclitaxel) + gemcitabine (nab-P/G) demonstrated a 1.8 month, or 27%, improvement in median overall survival (OS) (HR = 0.72, P < 0.001) vs gemcitabine (G) in first-line metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC). nab-P/G had higher 1 year OS (35% vs 22%) and improved PFS by 1.8 months (HR = 0.69, P < 0.01). nab-P/G is the first taxane based therapy to show a significant OS improvement in a phase III mPC trial. Erlotinib + gemcitabine (E/G) has also demonstrated activity in mPC, with a 0.3 month OS benefit vs G (HR = 0.82, P = 0.04), a 1 year OS of 23% vs 17%, and 0.2 months PFS benefit (HR = 0.77, P = 0.004) vs G. A cost-effectiveness analysis measuring the cost per life year (LY) gained for nab-P/G and E/G was conducted from the US payer perspective. Methods: Costs and clinical outcomes were evaluated fromnab-P/G vs G and E/G vs G trials of mPC. Health care resource use and the management of grade III/IV adverse events (AE) were collected from a large multisite US oncology clinic, expert opinion, and literature (2012 US dollars). Drug cost per cycle was multiplied by the median cycles delivered from the trials for nab-P/G and E/G. Results: Duration of therapy was 4 months for nab-P/G vs 3.9 months for E/G. Total cost for nab-P/G was $24,984 vs $23,044 for E/G, including drug, administration and AE management. AE costs were similar between the two therapies (Table). Differences of > 5% were noted in neutropenia (rates: nab-P/G = 33%; E/G = 24%), neuropathy (nab-P/G = 17%; E/G = 1%), and rash (nab-P/G = 0%; E/G = 6%). The net survival advantage for nab-P/G vs E/G was 1.5 incremental life months gained. Nab-P/G was cost-effective relative to E/G, at a cost of $15,522 per incremental life year gained. Conclusions: nab-P/G is a cost-effective alternative to E/G in mPC, bringing more months of OS at < $16,000 cost per incremental life year gained. [Table: see text]

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness analysis of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy as first-line therapy for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (11) ◽  
pp. e0258605
Author(s):  
Qiao Liu ◽  
Chongqing Tan ◽  
Lidan Yi ◽  
Xiaomin Wan ◽  
Liubao Peng ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Small Cell ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Small Cell Lung ◽  
First Line ◽  
Payer Perspective ◽  
The Us ◽  
Extensive Stage ◽  
The Cost

Background The phase III KEYNOTE-604 study confirmed the benefit of pembrolizumab combined with chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). Taken into account the clinical benefits of pembrolizumab and its high cost, this study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of adding pembrolizumab to standard first-line etoposide-platinum (EP) for patients with ES-SCLC from the US payer perspective. Methods A Markov model was developed to compare the cost and quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) of pembrolizumab plus EP and placebo plus EP over a 10-year time horizon. Clinical efficacy and safety data were pooled from the KEYNOTE-604 trial. Utilities were obtained from published resources. Costs were mainly collected from Medicare in 2020. Sensitivity analyses were performed to examine the robustness of our model. Results Adding pembrolizumab to standard first-line EP resulted in the better effectiveness than EP chemotherapy alone for ES-SCLC by 0.22 QALYs. Pembrolizumab plus EP was dominated economically by placebo plus EP, leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $334,373/ QALY. Deterministic sensitivity analyses indicated that the uncertainty in model parameters exerted no substantial effect on our results. Probability sensitivity analysis indicated that probabilities for pembrolizumab plus EP being cost-effective within a wide range of willingness to pay were modest. Conclusion From the US payer perspective, the first-line treatment for ES-SCLC with pembrolizumab plus EP was not cost-effective compared with placebo plus EP. Although pembrolizumab combination chemotherapy was beneficial to the survival of ES-SCLC, price reduction may be the necessary to improve its cost-effectiveness.

scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness of Ipilimumab Plus Anti-PD-1 Therapy Versus Ipilimumab Alone in Patients With Metastatic Melanoma Resistant to Anti-PD-(L)1 Monotherapy

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ye Peng ◽  
Xiaohui Zeng ◽  
Liubao Peng ◽  
Qiao Liu ◽  
Lidan Yi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Metastatic Melanoma ◽  
Subgroup Analysis ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life Year ◽  
Cost Information ◽  
Payer Perspective ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life

ObjectiveThe use of ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 has recently been shown to significantly improve the survival of patients with metastatic melanoma resistant to anti-PD-(L)1 monotherapy. The study assessed the cost-effectiveness of ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 therapy in this population from the US payer perspective.Materials and MethodsA Markov model was created based on a retrospective analysis of patients with metastatic melanoma who were resistant to anti-PD-(L)1. Cost information was obtained from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and literature-based costs. The utility value was derived from the published literature. The results of the model was the total cost, quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The uncertainty of the model was addressed through sensitivity analysis. In addition, we also conducted subgroup analysis.ResultsIpilimumab plus anti-PD-1 provided an improvement of 1.39 QALYs and 2.48 LYs, at a ICER of $73,163 per QALY. The HR of OS was the variable that had the greatest impact on ICER. Compared to ipilimumab, the probability of ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 being cost-effective was 94% at the WTP of $150,000/QALY. The results of the subgroup analysis showed that the ICER in the majority of the subgroups was less than $150,000/QALY.ConclusionsIpilimumab plus anti-PD-1 was likely to be cost-effective compared to ipilimumab for patients with metastatic melanoma who are resistant to anti-PD-(L)1 at a WTP threshold of 150,000/QALY.

Cost–effectiveness analysis of intravitreal aflibercept in the treatment of diabetic macular edema in China

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 161-175
Author(s):  
Jian Ming ◽  
Yabing Zhang ◽  
Xun Xu ◽  
Mingwei Zhao ◽  
Yusheng Wang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Macular Edema ◽  
Diabetic Macular Edema ◽  
Laser Photocoagulation ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Dominant Strategy ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life Years ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Intravitreal Aflibercept ◽  
The Cost

Aim: To evaluate the cost–effectiveness of intravitreal aflibercept compared with macular laser photocoagulation and ranibizumab for diabetic macular edema (DME) in China. Methods: A Markov model was developed to reflect the vision changes in DME patients. Parameters were estimated from VIVID-EAST trial data, published literature and physician surveys. Results: In a 20-year horizon, intravitreal aflibercept was associated with 7.825 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and 217,841 Chinese Yuan Renminbi (CNY), laser photocoagulation was associated with 7.189 QALYs and 135,489 CNY, and ranibizumab was associated with 7.462 QALYs and 222,477 CNY. The incremental cost–effectiveness ratios were 129,397 CNY/QALY and -12,774 CNY/QALY for intravitreal aflibercept versus laser photocoagulation and ranibizumab, respectively. Conclusion: Intravitreal aflibercept was considered as a cost-effective strategy for DME when compared with laser photocoagulation; it was considered as a dominant strategy when compared with ranibizumab.

The cost–effectiveness of low-dose budesonide as a Step 2 treatment for pediatric asthma in China

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (16) ◽  
pp. 1141-1151
Author(s):  
Xiaoling Wang ◽  
Honghao Fang ◽  
Kunling Shen ◽  
Tianyi Liu ◽  
Jipan Xie ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Low Dose ◽  
Rescue Therapy ◽  
Chinese Patient ◽  
Severe Exacerbation ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life Years ◽  
Payer Perspective ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life

Aim: To compare the cost–effectiveness of low-dose budesonide versus montelukast among patients aged 1–5 years from a Chinese patient and healthcare payer perspective. Materials & methods: A Markov model based on exacerbation states was developed. Exacerbation was defined as the need for rescue therapy (mild exacerbation) or hoscopitalization (moderate-to-severe exacerbation). Inputs including efficacy (i.e., exacerbation rates), mortality, utilities, costs and treatment adherence were obtained from literature. Results: Compared with montelukast, low-dose budesonide led to fewer exacerbation events (1.44 vs 2.15), lower costs (¥3675 vs 4130) and slightly more quality-adjusted life years (0.974 vs 0.967) over 1 year. Conclusion: These findings may improve the use of low-dose budesonide, an economically and clinically preferable treatment to montelukast in pediatric patients.

Cost-effectiveness for metastatic colorectal cancer.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e15003-e15003
Author(s):  
Linli Yao ◽  
Jiaqi Han ◽  
Longjiang She ◽  
Dong Ding ◽  
Mengting Liao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
The Third ◽  
Scenario Analyses ◽  
Payer Perspective ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Third Line ◽  
The Cost

e15003 Background: As standard third-line treatments for metastatic colorectal cancer, regorafenib and fruquintinib, compared with placebo, increase median overall survival by 2.5 months and 2.7 months, respectively. Given the incremental clinical benefit, we aim to estimate the cost effectiveness of regorafenib versus fruquintinib in the third-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer from Chinese payer perspective. Methods: A mathematical Markov model was established to project the cost-effectiveness of regorafenib versus fruquintinib from the CONCUR and FRESCO clinical trials. Quality-adjusted-life-years (QALYs) were analyzed with extracted data from the trials. Willingness to pay (WTP) of $26508 was used. Drug costs were estimated from the perspectives of the health care system in the People’s Republic of China. One way sensitivity and scenario analyses were performed by varying potentially modifiable parameters of the model. Results: Fruquintinib, compared with regorafenib, provided an additional 0.028 QALYs (0.274 QALYs versus 0.246 QALYs) at less cost ($33536 versus $35607). Conclusions: Fruquintinib is more cost-effective than regorafenib as the third-line management for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer when WTP is $26508.

Cost-Effectiveness of Posaconazole vs Fluconazole in the Prevention of Invasive Fungal Infections among Patients with Graft-Versus-Host Disease (GVHD) in the US.

Blood ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 110 (11) ◽  
pp. 3336-3336 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amy K. O’Sullivan ◽  
Milton C. Weinstein ◽  
Ankur Pandya ◽  
David Thompson ◽  
Amelia Langston ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Graft Versus Host Disease ◽  
Fungal Infections ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Graft Versus Host ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Long Term Mortality

Abstract Trial data suggest that posaconazole is similar to fluconazole in preventing invasive fungal infections (IFIs) among allogeneic progenitor cell transplant recipients with graft-versus-host disease (GVHD). We estimated the cost-effectiveness of posaconazole versus fluconazole in this population in the US. A decision-analytic model was developed to estimate the average per patient treatment costs, IFIs avoided, life-years gained, and incremental cost per life-year gained of prophylaxis (2006 US$). The model extrapolates the trial results to a lifetime horizon to include long-term mortality due to GVHD. In the model, patients are assumed to receive posaconazole or fluconazole; efficacy data were obtained from the clinical trial. Long-term mortality and prophylaxis drug and IFI treatment costs were estimated from secondary sources. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. Posaconazole is associated with fewer IFIs (0.05 vs. 0.09), increased life years (7.87 vs. 7.66), and higher IFI-related costs (prophylaxis and IFI treatment) ($8,750 vs. $5,530) per patient relative to fluconazole. Costs for treatment of IFIs comprised 95% of the total cost for fluconazole and 35% for posaconazole. The incremental cost-effectiveness of posaconazole versus fluconazole is estimated to be $15,700 per life-year saved. Results are most sensitive to changes in the cost of treating an IFI and the efficacy of prophylaxis. Results from the probabilistic analysis indicate that there is an 88% probability that posaconazole is cost-effective at a $50,000 per life year saved threshold. We conclude that posaconazole is a cost-effective strategy for the prevention of IFIs in patients with GVHD.

scholarly journals Angiotensin II for the treatment of distributive shock in the intensive care unit: A US cost-effectiveness analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 36 (2) ◽  
pp. 145-151
Author(s):  
Laurence W. Busse ◽  
Gina Nicholson ◽  
Robert J. Nordyke ◽  
Cho-Han Lee ◽  
Feng Zeng ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Angiotensin Ii ◽  
Adult Population ◽  
Survival Rates ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Us ◽  
Distributive Shock ◽  
The Cost

BackgroundPatients with distributive shock who are unresponsive to traditional vasopressors are commonly considered to have severe distributive shock and are at high mortality risk. Here, we assess the cost-effectiveness of adding angiotensin II to the standard of care (SOC) for severe distributive shock in the US critical care setting from a US payer perspective.MethodsShort-term mortality outcomes were based on 28-day survival rates from the ATHOS-3 study. Long-term outcomes were extrapolated to lifetime survival using individually estimated life expectancies for survivors. Resource use and adverse event costs were drawn from the published literature. Health outcomes evaluated were lives saved, life-years gained, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained using utility estimates for the US adult population weighted for sepsis mortality. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses assessed uncertainty around results. We analyzed patients with severe distributive shock from the ATHOS-3 clinical trial.ResultsThe addition of angiotensin II to the SOC saved .08 lives at Day 28 compared to SOC alone. The cost per life saved was estimated to be $108,884. The addition of angiotensin II to the SOC was projected to result in a gain of .96 life-years and .66 QALYs. This resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $12,843 per QALY. The probability of angiotensin II being cost-effective at a threshold of $50,000 per QALY was 86 percent.ConclusionsFor treatment of severe distributive shock, angiotensin II is cost-effective at acceptable thresholds.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document