Federal Supply Schedule Research Articles

Equitable Care for Severe Hemophilia_A: Distributional Cost-Effectiveness of Prophylactic Weekly Efanesoctocog Alfa Versus Standard-Care Factor VIII in Patients with Severe Hemophilia_A in the United States

Introduction: Prophylactic coagulation factor replacement is crucial to decrease bleeding episodes and improve quality-adjusted life expectancy (QALE) for patients with severe hemophilia A. Even with prophylactic treatment (i.e., at three to four times weekly) patients remain at risk of bleeding events and still develop chronic arthropathy across their lifetimes. The additional economic burden associated with lifelong prophylactic treatment is a major equity concern for patients with hemophilia A and their families. Efanesoctocog alfa is a recently developed extended half-life agent for hemophilia A prophylaxis and management, supporting the possibility of once-weekly prophylaxis. An open-label multicenter study (XTEND-1) showed that once-weekly dosing of efanesoctocog alfa improves the annualized bleeding rate (ABR) by 77% versus prophylaxis with standard-care factor VIII in patients with severe hemophilia A. We sought to evaluate, both for the first time, the conventional and distributional cost-effectiveness of prophylaxis with efanesoctocog alfa versus with standard-care factor VIII for patients with severe hemophilia A in the United States. Methods: For this independent analysis free of industry influence, we built a Markov model to examine the conventional cost-effectiveness of prophylaxis with efanesoctocog alfa versus standard-care factor VIII for patients with severe hemophilia A. Transition probabilities for ABRs and product utilization were informed by phase 3 study data and supplemented with FDA package insert information. Within ABRs, we accounted for treated bleeding severity and bleeding event types, inclusive of hemarthrosis, intracranial hemorrhage, in addition to assuming the prevalence of chronic arthropathy with SHL (i.e., due to silent bleed burden) is eliminated by efanesoctocog alfa. Costs for the base-case were sourced from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services with negotiated (i.e., lower) cost of efanesoctocog alfa supplied from the Veterans Affairs Federal Supply Schedule Service (VA-FSS). Age-, sex- and disease-specific background mortality were employed. Utilities for severe hemophilia A and disutilities for bleed events and hospitalizations were informed by extensive literature specific to severe hemophilia A. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in USD/QALY, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). The secondary outcome was a threshold analysis for the maximum efanesoctocog alfa price that renders efanesoctocog alfa prophylaxis cost-effective. To account for health inequities in the care of patients with hemophilia A we then conducted a distributional cost-effectiveness analysis (DCEA) to derive an equity weight threshold (i.e., inequality aversion parameter) for the decision of prophylaxis with efanesoctocog alfa versus with standard-care factor VIII. This threshold was then compared to prior estimates for commonly used equity weights in the United States (range 0.5-3.0). Results: In the base-case, prophylaxis with efanesoctocog alfa versus with standard-care factor VIII accrued 19.4 and 15.4 QALYs at mean costs of $17.3 and $9.7 million. The ICER for efanesoctocog alfa was $1,890,000/QALY (95% credible interval 1,190,000-3,330,000). Threshold analysis showed that prophylaxis with efanesoctocog alfa became cost-effective when the price of efanesoctocog alfa decreased by at least 59%. In deterministic sensitivity analysis, the model was most sensitive to the costs of efanesoctocog alfa and factor VIII. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, standard-care factor VIII was favored over efanesoctocog alfa in 100% of 10,000 Monte Carlo simulations. The equity weight threshold for the treatment decision of prophylaxis with efanesoctocotog alfa versus with standard-care factor VIII was 7.4, higher than commonly used equity weights in the US. This implies a threshold that is higher than what has previously been used in the United States, per DCEA standards. Conclusion: As compared to standard-care factor VIII and at VA-FSS pricing, efanesoctocog alfa prophylaxis is conventionally cost-ineffective for patients with severe hemophilia A. Prophylaxis with efanesoctocog alfa does not meet commonly used distributive equity standards in the United States at this time.

Economic Evaluation of Extended-Release Buprenorphine for Persons With Opioid Use Disorder

In 2017, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved a monthly injectable form of buprenorphine, extended-release buprenorphine; published data show that extended-release buprenorphine is effective compared with no treatment, but its current cost is higher and current retention is lower than that of transmucosal buprenorphine. Preliminary research suggests that extended-release buprenorphine may be an important addition to treatment options, but the cost-effectiveness of extended-release buprenorphine compared with transmucosal buprenorphine remains unclear. To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of extended-release buprenorphine compared with transmucosal buprenorphine. This economic evaluation used a state transition model starting in 2019 to simulate the lifetime of a closed cohort of individuals with OUD presenting for evaluation for opioid agonist treatment with buprenorphine. The data sources used to estimate model parameters included cohort studies, clinical trials, and administrative data. The model relied on pharmaceutical costs from the Federal Supply Schedule and health care utilization costs from published studies. Data were analyzed from September 2021 to January 2023. No treatment, treatment with transmucosal buprenorphine, or treatment with extended-release buprenorphine. Mean lifetime costs per person, discounted quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). The simulated cohort included 100 000 patients with OUD receiving (61% male; mean [SD] age, 38 [11] years) or not receiving medication treatment (58% male, mean [SD] age, 48 [18] years). Compared with no medication treatment, treatment with transmucosal buprenorphine yielded an ICER of $19 740 per QALY. Compared with treatment with transmucosal buprenorphine, treatment with extended-release buprenorphine yielded lower effectiveness by 0.03 QALYs per person at higher cost, suggesting that treatment with extended-release buprenorphine was dominated and not preferred. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, treatment with transmucosal buprenorphine was the preferred strategy 60% of the time. Treatment with extended-release buprenorphine was cost-effective compared with treatment with transmucosal buprenorphine at a $100 000 per QALY willingness-to-pay threshold only after substantial changes in key parameters. In this economic evaluation of extended-release buprenorphine compared with transmucosal buprenorphine for the treatment of OUD, extended-release buprenorphine was not associated with efficient allocation of limited resources when transmucosal buprenorphine was available. Future initiatives should aim to improve retention rates or decrease costs associated with extended-release buprenorphine.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of 7 treatments in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer: a public-payer perspective.

Recently, several new treatment regimens have been approved for treating metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, building on androgen deprivation therapy alone. These include docetaxel androgen deprivation therapy, abiraterone acetate-prednisone androgen deprivation therapy, apalutamide androgen deprivation therapy, enzalutamide androgen deprivation therapy, darolutamide-docetaxel androgen deprivation therapy, and abiraterone-prednisone androgen deprivation therapy with docetaxel. There are no validated predictive biomarkers for choosing a specific regimen. The goal of this study was to conduct a health economic outcome evaluation to determine the optimal treatment from the US public sector (Veterans Affairs). We developed a partitioned survival model in which metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer patients transitioned between 3 health states (progression free, progressive disease to castrate resistance state, and death) at monthly intervals based on Weibull survival model estimated from published Kaplan-Meier curves using a Bayesian network meta-analysis of 7 clinical trials (7208 patients). The effectiveness outcome in our model was quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Cost input parameters included initial and subsequent treatment costs and costs for terminal care and for managing grade 3 or higher drug-related adverse events and were obtained from the Federal Supply Schedule and published literature. Average 10-year costs ranged from $34 349 (androgen deprivation therapy) to $658 928 (darolutamide-docetaxel androgen deprivation therapy) and mean QALYs ranged from 3.25 (androgen deprivation therapy) to 4.57 (enzalutamide androgen deprivation therapy). Treatment strategies docetaxel androgen deprivation therapy, enzalutamide androgen deprivation therapy docetaxel, apalutamide androgen deprivation therapy, and darolutamide-docetaxel androgen deprivation therapy were eliminated because of dominance (ie, they were more costly and less effective than other strategies). Of the remaining strategies, abiraterone acetate-prednisone androgen deprivation therapy was the most cost-effective strategy at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000/QALY (incremental cost-effectiveness ratios = $21 247/QALY). Our simulation model found abiraterone acetate-prednisone androgen deprivation therapy to be an optimal first-line treatment for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer from a public (Veterans Affairs) payer perspective.

Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of seven treatment regimens in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC): A public payer perspective using network meta-analysis.

5081 Background: Recently several new drug treatment regimens have been approved in mHSPC state, building on using androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) alone. These include docetaxel + ADT (DA), Abiraterone Acetate + Prednisone + ADT (AAP), Apalutamide + ADT (AAT), Enzalutamide + ADT (ET), Darolutamide + Docetaxel + ADT (DAD) and AAP + ADT + Docetaxel (AAD). At present, there are no predictive biomarkers for choosing a specific drug regimen over the other. The goal of this study was to conduct an economic evaluation of FDA-approved standard of care drug regimens in the current management of mHSPC state to determine a cost-effective optimal treatment from the US public sector (Veterans Affairs-VA) perspective with a 10-year time horizon. Methods: We developed a partitioned survival model in which mHSPC patients (pts) transitioned between three health states (progression free, progressive disease to castrate resistance state, and death) at monthly intervals based on Weibull survival model estimated from published Kaplan-Meier curves using a network meta-analysis. A Bayesian network meta-analysis of seven randomized clinical trials included 7,208 mHSPC pts. The effectiveness outcome in our model was quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) with utility values obtained from published literature. Costs in our model included those associated with treatment regimens, subsequent therapies, terminal care, and for managing grade 3-4 drug related adverse events. Costs were obtained from the Federal Supply Schedule and published literature. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated for nondominated treatments. Results: Average 10-year costs ranged from $32,697 (ADT) to $649,622 (DAD). Mean QALYs ranged from 3.25 (ADT) to 4.57 (ET). Treatment with DAT, EAD, and DAD were eliminated due to dominance (i.e. they were more costly and less effective than other treatments). AAT was the most cost-effective strategy at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY (ICER = $70,150/QALY). Results from our analysis for all regimens are shown. Conclusions: Our CEA simulation model found AAT is an optimal cost-effective first-line treatment strategy in mHSPC state from a public (VA) payer perspective. [Table: see text]

Cost-effectiveness of trastuzumab deruxtecan in HER2 low metastatic breast cancer.

1593 Background: In recent years, metastatic breast cancer treatment has been revolutionized by new therapies that improve overall survival in phase three randomized clinical trials. These drugs are often more expensive than traditional cytotoxics. In 2022, the Destiny-Breast04 trial results showed that trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) improved survival in HER2 low metastatic breast cancer patients; FDA approval shortly thereafter greatly expanded the potential market capitalization of T-DXd. While the trial demonstrated T-DXd’s clinical efficacy, its cost-effectiveness remains unknown. Methods: We developed a decision-analytic state transition Markov model to simulate a hypothetical cohort of HER2 low metastatic breast cancer patients to assess the cost-effectiveness of T-DXd compared to a physician's choice chemotherapy from a US healthcare payer perspective over a lifetime horizon. Each month, simulated patients could remain progression-free, progress, have a non-interstitial lung disease (ILD) treatment-related adverse event leading to drug discontinuation (TRAE), have ILD leading to drug discontinuation, progress after either a TRAE or ILD, or die. Patients with either a TRAE or ILD were presumed to be progression free directly after discontinuation of the offending agent, and hence eligible for a different therapy. We calibrated the model to outcome data from the Destiny-Breast04 trial, supplemented with data from other relevant metastatic breast cancer clinical trials. Health-related quality-of-life weights were derived from studies of metastatic breast cancer patients. Drug prices (2020 USD) were extracted from the Federal Supply Schedule. Outcomes included discounted (3% annual) quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), life years, lifetime costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER). We varied T-DXd price and efficacy in a two-way sensitivity analysis to assess our findings’ robustness. Results: Modeled life expectancies with T-DXd and chemotherapy were 26.5 and 21.5 months, respectively (T-DXd: 1.19 QALYs; chemotherapy: 0.93 QALYs). Discounted lifetime costs were 315,000 for T-DXd and 203,000 for chemotherapy; T-DXd cost 431,000 per QALY gained, surpassing a cost effectiveness threshold of 150,000 per QALY gained. The two-way sensitivity analysis showed that, across a range of plausible efficacies, T-DXd would need a price reduction of approximately 50% to be cost-effective at the $150,000 threshold. Conclusions: While providing clinical benefits, our model-based analysis finds that at current prices, T-DXd for HER2 low metastatic breast cancer is not cost-effective at traditional thresholds. Substantial price reduction for T-DXd to a level much closer to prices of comparator cytotoxics could greatly increase the value for money T-DXd provides patients.

Cost Effectiveness of Letermovir for Cytomegalovirus Prophylaxis Compared with Pre-Emptive Therapy in Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplant Recipients in the United States.

The aim of this study was to assess the cost effectiveness of letermovir prophylaxis with the option for subsequent pre-emptive therapy (PET) for the prevention of cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection compared with a PET-only scenario in adult allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (allo-HCT) recipients in the United States over a 10-year time horizon. A publicly available decision tree model was constructed using a commercial third-party payer perspective to simulate an allo-HCT recipient's clinical trajectory in the first-year post-transplant, followed by entry to a Markov model to simulate years 2 through 10. Clinical inputs and utility estimates were derived from published literature. Costs were derived from published literature and US Department of Veterans Affairs Federal Supply Schedule drug pricing. Outcomes assessed included life expectancy, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), direct medical costs, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were performed to test the robustness of the findings. Compared with PET alone, letermovir prophylaxis was projected to increase life-years per person (4.99 vs. 4.70 life-years), and increase QALYs (3.29 vs. 3.08) and costs (US$83.411 vs. US$70,698), yielding an ICER of US$59,356 per QALY gained. One-way sensitivity analyses indicated our model was sensitive to mortality (ICER: $164,771/QALY) and utility (letermovir ICER: $117,447/QALY; PET ICER: $107,290/QALY) in the first-year post-transplant. In 57.1% of the PSA simulations, letermovir was a cost-effective option using a willingness-to-pay threshold of US$100,000 per QALY. Letermovir prophylaxis is cost effective compared with PET alone with a willingness-to-pay threshold of US$100,000 per QALY gained. Sensitivity analysis results indicate future research is required to understand the impact of mortality and quality of life in the first-year post-transplant to arrive at a conclusive decision on letermovir adoption.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of seven treatment regimens in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC): A public payer perspective using network meta-analysis.

268 Background: Recently several new treatment regimens have been approved for treating mHSPC, building on the previous standard of care using androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) alone. These include docetaxel+ADT (DA), Abiraterone Acetate+Prednisone+ADT (AAP), Apalutamide+ADT (AAT), Enzalutamide+ADT (ET), Darolutamide+Docetaxel+ADT (DAD) and Abiraterone+Prednisone+ADT+Docetaxel (AAD). There are no current predictive biomarkers for choosing any specific regimen. The goal of this study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of these new treatments from the US public sector perspective with a lifetime horizon. Methods: We developed a partitioned survival model in which mHSPC patients transitioned between three health states (progression free, progressive disease to castrate resistance state, and death) at monthly intervals based on Weibull survival model estimated from published Kaplan-Meier curves using a network meta-analysis. A Bayesian network meta-analysis of seven clinical trials included 7,208 patients. The effectiveness outcome in our model was quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) with utility values obtained from published literature. Costs in our model included those associated with treatment regimens and subsequent therapies, terminal care, and for managing grade 3-4 drug related adverse events, and were obtained from the Federal Supply Schedule and published literature. Results: Average lifetime costs ranged from $154,139 (AAP) to $770,848 (DAD) and mean QALYs ranged from 3.33 (ADT) to 5.08 (ET). All treatment strategies other than AAP and ET were eliminated due to dominance. Compared to AAP, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for ET was $484,943/QALY. Results from our analysis including all regimens are shown. Conclusions: Our simulation model found that ET in mHSPC state yielded the most QALYs and would be the most cost-effective option with a WTP threshold as high as $500,000/QALY. However, for a WTP threshold of $150,000/QALY, AAP was the most cost-effective treatment strategy. [Table: see text]

Cost-effectiveness of abiraterone acetate for high-risk nnon-metastatic prostate cancer.

358 Background: In a primary analysis of the STAMPEDE protocol, the addition of Abiraterone acetate to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in men with castration sensitive, high-risk, non-metastatic prostate cancer was associated with significantly higher rates of metastasis-free survival compared with ADT alone. However, the cost-effectiveness of Abiraterone in this population remains unaddressed. Methods: A decision model based on partitioned survival simulations estimated costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALY), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) associated with ADT with or without Abiraterone. This analysis was performed from a United States healthcare sector perspective. We estimated drug acquisition costs using the Federal Supply Schedule. Given current heterogeneity in prescription drug coverage, we used both brand-name and generic drug prices. The willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was $100,000 per QALY. Analyses were performed over the published STAMPEDE trial with median follow-up duration of 72 months. Model input parameters were based on the STAMPEDE trial data as well as best available and most recent data provided in the published literature. Sensitivity analyses explored uncertainty with regard to the model assumptions. Results: Using brand-name pricing, the addition of Abiraterone to ADT was associated with an increase in net costs by $217,616, and an increase in QALYS by 0.79. Therefore, the ICER associated with brand-name Abiraterone was $277,156 per QALY. Sensitivity analyses revealed that the monthly price of Abiraterone would need to be less than or equal to $2,581 in order to be cost-effective at a WTP threshold of $100,000 per QALY. In contrast, generic Abiraterone was associated with an increase in net costs by $45,325, and a cost-effective ICER of $57,726 per QALY. Conclusions: Abiraterone for high-risk non-metastatic prostate cancer is cost-effective using generic pricing. However, current brand-name pricing is roughly four times the threshold of cost-effectiveness, underscoring the need to increase access to generic drugs in the United States.

Estimates of Medicaid and Non-Medicaid Net Prices of Top-Selling Brand-name Drugs Incorporating Best Price Rebates, 2015 to 2019

The US spends far more on brand-name prescription drugs than other comparable countries. However, studies of prescription drug spending in the US are often limited because there can be substantial differences in the confidential rebates that drug manufacturers pay to Medicaid vs other payers. To demonstrate an approach for improved estimation of Medicaid rebates through case studies of 18 top-selling drugs to better understand trends in net Medicaid and non-Medicaid spending and prices for brand-name drugs. This was a cross-sectional study of US pricing data from 2015 to 2019 derived from Medicaid State Drug Utilization data SSR Health, Medi-Span, the Federal Supply Schedule, and IQVIA. Pricing data for 18 top-selling brand-name drugs measured consistently in both SSR Health, which captures US sales reported by publicly traded companies, and IQVIA's top US prescription drugs by nondiscounted spending in 2015 to 2019. Data were accessed and analyzed from January 2019 to June 2021. Gross and net Medicaid and non-Medicaid drug spending for the sample of 18 drugs and prices corresponding to a 30-day supply of medication. Medicaid aggregate gross spending for the 18 drugs in the sample increased 173%, from $3.6 billion in 2015 to $9.9 billion in 2019, and estimated net spending after discounts increased by 119%, from $1.4 billion to $3.0 billion. Medicaid inflation-linked rebates reduced average gross price per 30-day supply by an estimated 43% in 2019, and up to 67% for individual drugs. In addition to the basic rebate, the best price provision reduced the average gross price per 30-day supply by an estimated 3% in 2019 and up to 54% for individual drugs. Between 2015 and 2019 across all study drugs, estimated average non-Medicaid net 30-day prices were between 1.9 and 2.6 times higher than Medicaid net prices. Excluding adalimumab-a spending anomaly because of the entry of a new high-cost formulation-net prices weighted by average gross spending decreased annually by 1% from 2015 through 2019 for Medicaid, while increasing by 2% for non-Medicaid payers. In this cross-sectional study of 18 top-selling brand-name drugs, excluding 1 anomaly, Medicaid average net prices declined from 2015 to 2019. Simultaneously, for non-Medicaid payers, net price increased more than previously published marketwide growth rates, raising the importance of restraining drug price growth in non-Medicaid markets. Rigorous and transparent methods to estimate Medicaid discounts are imperative to understand patterns in Medicaid and non-Medicaid prices and develop policies that better align drug prices with clinical benefits.

Fidaxomicin to prevent recurrent Clostridioides difficile: what will it cost in the USA and Canada?

Recent changes in guidelines for managing Clostridioides difficile infections (CDI) have placed fidaxomicin as a first-line treatment. To estimate the net cost of first-line fidaxomicin compared to vancomycin in the American and Canadian healthcare systems and to estimate the price points at which fidaxomicin would become cost saving for the prevention of recurrence. We identified randomized, placebo-controlled trials directly comparing fidaxomicin with vancomycin that reported on recurrence. Medication costs were obtained from the Veterans Affairs Federal Supply Schedule (US) and the Quebec drug formulary (Canada). The average cost of a CDI recurrence was established through a systematic review for each country. For efficacy, data on CDI recurrence at day 40 were pooled using a restricted maximal likelihood random effects model. For the cost review, the mean cost across identified studies was adjusted to reflect May 2022 dollars. These were used to estimate the net cost per recurrence prevented with fidaxomicin and the price point below which fidaxomicin would be cost saving. The estimated mean system costs of a CDI recurrence were $15 147USD and $8806CAD, respectively. Preventing one recurrence by using first-line fidaxomicin over vancomycin would cost $38 222USD (95%CI $30 577-$57 332) and $13 760CAD (95%CI $11 008-$20 640), respectively. The probability that fidaxomicin was cost saving exceeded 95% if priced below $1140USD or $860CAD, respectively. An increased drug expenditure on fidaxomicin may not be offset through recurrence prevention unless the fidaxomicin price is negotiated.

Anticoagulant Therapy for Cancer-Associated Thrombosis : A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) offer an alternative to low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) and warfarin for treating cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT). To determine the cost and effectiveness of DOACs versus LMWH. Cohort-state transition decision analytic model. Network meta-analysis comparing DOACs versus LMWH. Adult patients with cancer at the time they develop thrombosis. Lifetime. Health care sector. Strategies of 1) enoxaparin, 2) apixaban, 3) edoxaban, and 4) rivaroxaban for treatment of CAT. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in 2022 U.S. dollars per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. In the base-case scenario, using drug prices from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Federal Supply Schedule, apixaban dominated enoxaparin and edoxaban by being less costly and more effective. Rivaroxaban was slightly more effective than apixaban, with an ICER of $493246. In a scenario analysis using "real-world" drug prices from GoodRx, rivaroxaban was cost-effective with an ICER of $50053 per QALY. Results were highly sensitive to monthly drug costs. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed that at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50000 per QALY, apixaban was preferred in 80% of simulations. However, sensitivity analyses also demonstrated that apixaban only remained cost-effective if monthly medication costs were below $530. Above this, rivaroxaban became cost-effective. An assumption was made that patients would continue anticoagulation indefinitely unless they suffered a major bleed. Nonmedical costs such as patient and caregiver loss of productivity were not accounted for, and long-term thrombotic complications were not explicitly modeled. The 3 DOACs are more effective and more cost-effective than LMWH. The most cost-effective DOAC depends on the relative cost of each of these agents. These are important considerations for treating physicians and health policymakers. None.

Cost-effectiveness of Empagliflozin in Patients With Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction

In the Empagliflozin Outcome Trial in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction (EMPEROR-Preserved), empagliflozin significantly reduced hospitalizations for heart failure while improving patient-reported health status compared with placebo. The long-term cost-effectiveness of empagliflozin among patients who have heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) remains unclear. To estimate the cost-effectiveness of empagliflozin in patients with HFpEF. This cost-effectiveness analysis performed from October 2021 to April 2022 included a Markov model using estimates of treatment efficacy, event probabilities, and utilities from EMPEROR-Preserved and published literature. Costs were derived from national surveys and pricing data sets. Quality of life was imputed from a heart failure-specific quality-of-life measure. Two analyses were performed, with and without a treatment effect on cardiovascular mortality. Subgroup analyses were based on diabetes status, ejection fraction, and health status impairment due to heart failure. The model reproduced the event rates and risk reduction with empagliflozin observed in EMPEROR-Preserved over 26 months of follow-up; future projections extended across the lifetime of patients. Empagliflozin or standard of care. Hospitalizations for heart failure, life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), lifetime costs, and lifetime incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. A total of 5988 patients were included in the analysis, with a mean age of 72 years, New York Heart Association class II to IV heart failure, and left ventricular ejection fraction greater than 40%. At the Federal Supply Schedule price of $327 per month, empagliflozin yielded 0.06 additional QALYs and $26 257 incremental costs compared with standard of care, producing a cost per QALY gained of $437 442. Incremental costs consisted of total drug costs of $29 586 and savings of $3329 from reduced hospitalizations for heart failure. Cost-effectiveness was similar across subgroups. The results were most sensitive to the monthly cost, quality-of-life benefit, and mortality effect of empagliflozin. A price reduction to $153 per month, incremental utility of 0.02, or 8% reduction in cardiovascular mortality would bring empagliflozin to $180 000 per QALY gained, the threshold for intermediate value. Using Medicare Part D monthly pricing of $375 after rebates and $511 before rebates, empagliflozin would remain low value at $509 636 and $710 825 per QALY gained, respectively. Cost-effectiveness estimates were robust to variation in the frequency and disutility of heart failure hospitalizations. In this economic evaluation, based on current cost-effectiveness benchmarks, empagliflozin provides low economic value compared with standard of care for HFpEF, largely due to its lack of efficacy on mortality and small benefit on quality of life.

Societal Cost of Opioid Use in Symptomatic Knee Osteoarthritis Patients in the United States.

Symptomatic knee osteoarthritis (SKOA) is a chronic, disabling condition, requiring long-term pain management; over 800,000 SKOA patients in the US use opioids on a prolonged basis. We aimed to characterize the societal economic burden of opioid use in this population. We used the Osteoarthritis Policy Model, a validated computer simulation of SKOA, to estimate the opioid-related lifetime and annual cost generated by the US SKOA population. We included direct medical, lost productivity, criminal justice, and diversion costs. We modeled the SKOA cohort with a mean ± SD age of 54 ± 14 years and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index pain score of 29 ± 17 (0-100, 100 = worst). We estimated annual costs of strong ($1,381) and weak ($671) opioid regimens using Medicare fee schedules, Red Book, the Federal Supply Schedule, and published literature. The annual lost productivity and criminal justice costs of opioid use disorder (OUD), obtained from published literature, were $11,387 and $4,264, per-person, respectively. The 2015-2016 Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey provided OUD prevalence. We conducted sensitivity analyses to examine the robustness of our estimates to uncertainty in input parameters. Assuming 5.1% prevalence of prolonged strong opioid use, the total lifetime opioid-related cost generated by the US SKOA population was estimated at $14.0 billion, of which only $7.45 billion (53%) were direct medical costs. Lost productivity, diversion, and criminal justice costs comprise approximately half of opioid-related costs generated by the US SKOA population. Reducing prolonged opioid use may lead to a meaningful reduction in societal costs that can be used for other public health causes.

A VA Federal Supply Schedule (VAFSS)–based cost-effectiveness analysis of immunotherapy-tyrosine kinase inhibitor (IO-TKI) regimens and sunitinib in the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC).

312 Background: Recent FDA approvals for mRCC treatment have resulted in increased effectiveness, drug choices, and costs. We performed a cost effectiveness analysis (CEA) of six recently approved IO-TKI drug combinations and sunitinib. Methods: We used a Markov simulation model from the healthcare sector perspective with a lifetime time horizon. The 7 treatment drug strategies considered in this model included: (1) atezolizumab + bevacizumab (AB), (2) avelumab + axitinib (AA), (3) pembrolizumab + axitinib (PA), (4) nibolumab + ipilimumab(NI), (5) nibolumab + cabozantinib (NC), (6) lenvatinib + pembrolizumab (LP), and (7) sunitinib (S). Input parameters of drug effectiveness and toxicities to construct the model were based on published randomized studies that led to drug approvals. Direct costs for treatment were derived using the VA Federal Supply Schedule (VAFSS). Markov model simulates patient transition between 3 health states at monthly intervals: progression free, progressive disease, and death. The cost-effectiveness outcome in our model were and life-years (LYs), progression-free life-years (PFLYs) gained, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) with utility values based on published literature. Results: The table highlights results of the CEA. The least expensive drug combination was NI ($442,218) while the most expensive was LP ($963,610). AA yielded the most LYs (5.51) and QALYs (5.62) and LP yielded the most PFLYs (1.64) while NL yielded the least LYs (4.35) and PFLYs (1.47) and LP yielded the least QALYs (4.19). AB and S were absolutely dominated strategies yielding less effectiveness and cost more in terms of effectiveness measures. Depending on acceptable willingness-to-pay (WTP) and effectiveness measures, PA or AA were the most cost-effective strategies. Conclusions: Our analyses suggest that based on direct cost acquisition using VA FSS, PA or AA were cost-effective strategies for mRCC with WTP of $20,000 to $200,000 per QALY.[Table: see text]

Cost-Effectiveness of Systemic Treatments for Metastatic Castration-Sensitive Prostate Cancer: An Economic Evaluation Based on Network Meta-Analysis

ObjectivesTo assess the cost-effectiveness of systemic treatments for metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer from the US healthcare sector perspective with a lifetime horizon. MethodsWe built a partitioned survival model based on a network meta-analysis of 7 clinical trials with 7287 patients aged 36 to 94 years between 2004 and 2018 to predict patient health trajectories by treatment. We tested parameter uncertainties with probabilistic sensitivity analyses. We estimated drug acquisition costs using the Federal Supply Schedule and adopted generic drug prices when available. We measured cost-effectiveness by an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). ResultsThe mean costs were approximately $392 000 with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) alone and approximately $415 000, $464 000, $597 000, and $959 000 with docetaxel, abiraterone acetate, enzalutamide, and apalutamide, added to ADT, respectively. The mean quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were 3.38 with ADT alone and 3.92, 4.76, 3.92, and 5.01 with docetaxel, abiraterone acetate, enzalutamide, and apalutamide, added to ADT, respectively. As add-on therapy to ADT, docetaxel had an ICER of $42 069 per QALY over ADT alone; abiraterone acetate had an ICER of $58 814 per QALY over docetaxel; apalutamide had an ICER of $1 979 676 per QALY over abiraterone acetate; enzalutamide was dominated. At a willingness to pay below $50 000 per QALY, docetaxel plus ADT is likely the most cost-effective treatment; at any willingness to pay between $50 000 and $200 000 per QALY, abiraterone acetate plus ADT is likely the most cost-effective treatment. ConclusionsThese findings underscore the value of abiraterone acetate plus ADT given its relative cost-effectiveness to other systemic treatments for metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer.

Economic Outcomes of Rehabilitation Therapy in Older Patients With Acute Heart Failure in the REHAB-HF Trial

In the Rehabilitation Therapy in Older Acute Heart Failure Patients (REHAB-HF) trial, a novel 12-week rehabilitation intervention demonstrated significant improvements in validated measures of physical function, quality of life, and depression, but no significant reductions in rehospitalizations or mortality compared with a control condition during the 6-month follow up. The economic implications of these results are important given the increasing pressures for cost containment in health care. To report the economic outcomes of the REHAB-HF trial and estimate the potential cost-effectiveness of the intervention. The multicenter REHAB-HF trial randomized 349 patients 60 years or older who were hospitalized for acute decompensated heart failure to rehabilitation intervention or a control group; patients were enrolled from September 17, 2014, through September 19, 2019. For this preplanned secondary analysis of the economic outcomes, data on medical resource use and quality of life (via the 5-level EuroQol 5-Dimension scores converted to health utilities) were collected. Medical resource use and medication costs were estimated using 2019 US Medicare payments and the Federal Supply Schedule, respectively. Cost-effectiveness was estimated using the validated Tools for Economic Analysis of Patient Management Interventions in Heart Failure Cost-Effectiveness Model, which uses an individual-patient simulation model informed by the prospectively collected trial data. Data were analyzed from March 24, 2019, to December 1, 2020. Rehabilitation intervention or control. Costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and the lifetime estimated cost per QALY gained (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio). Among the 349 patients included in the analysis (183 women [52.4%]; mean [SD] age, 72.7 [8.1] years; 176 non-White [50.4%] and 173 White [49.6%]), mean (SD) cumulative costs per patient were $26 421 ($38 955) in the intervention group (excluding intervention costs) and $27 650 ($30 712) in the control group (difference, -$1229; 95% CI, -$8159 to $6394; P = .80). The mean (SD) cost of the intervention was $4204 ($2059). Quality of life gains were significantly greater in the intervention vs control group during 6 months (mean utility difference, 0.074; P = .001) and sustained beyond the 12-week intervention. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were estimated at $58 409 and $35 600 per QALY gained for the full cohort and in patients with preserved ejection fraction, respectively. These analyses suggest that longer-term benefits of this novel rehabilitation intervention, particularly in the subgroup of patients with preserved ejection fraction, may yield good value to the health care system. However, long-term cost-effectiveness is currently uncertain and dependent on the assumption that benefits are sustained beyond study follow-up, which needs to be corroborated in future trials in this patient population.

Branded Price Variation in the United States Drug Market, 2010 to 2019

The transaction price for branded drugs in the United States often varies widely by the eventual payer, a fact that can complicate research and policy discussions surrounding drug pricing. We combine publicly-available data on branded drug prices from a host of sources—prices paid by Medicare (Parts B and D), the Veterans Affairs Administration (VA), those included in the Federal Supply Schedule (FSS), invoice prices paid by pharmacies described in National Average Drug Acquisition Costs (NADAC), list prices, and payments ultimately received by drug makers—to illustrate how prices vary across the U.S. market and how these relationships changed from 2010 to 2019. We document large variation across payers and find VA prices are generally the lowest, averaging nearly 50% below list prices during our study period, which is meaningfully lower than the average prices manufacturers ultimately receive. Some net prices, like those in Part D and average payments received by manufacturers, have diverged substantially from list prices in the last decade and are now much closer to the published VA and FSS prices. In part, this reflects unexpected net price increases among published VA and FSS prices that is worthy of future study.

The cost-effectiveness of therapeutic drug monitoring for the prescription drug-based treatment of chronic myeloid leukemia.

BACKGROUND: A recent study demonstrating the use of Therapeutic Drug Monitoring (TDM) in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) resulted in a higher response rate with imatinib (IM) than demonstrated in second-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitor studies. The cost-effectiveness of TDM combined with IM (IM TDM) in first-line CML treatment has not yet been studied. OBJECTIVES: To determine the cost-effectiveness of IM TDM for the first-line treatment of CML compared to tyrosine kinase inhibitor only treatment. METHODS: A recently published cost-effectiveness model of tyrosine kinase inhibitor-treatment in CML was modified to include IM TDM as a first-line tyrosine kinase inhibitor-based CML treatment option. Efficacy inputs for major molecular response (MMR) rates were taken from previously published studies: IM TDM 65%, dasatinib 52%, nilotinib 53%. Annual tyrosine kinase inhibitor drug prices were derived from the Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) and the average and lowest wholesale acquisition costs (WAC) reported in the Red Book; the annual cost of TDM was $228. Other input costs modeled in the original CML CEA model were updated to 2016 US dollars using the medical service component of the Consumer Price Index. A US payer perspective was used with a 5-year time horizon and a 3.0% discount rate. The model compared first-line IM TDM versus IM alone, nilotinib (NIL) or dasatinib (DAS) in terms of the following outcomes: costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and cost-effectiveness (total cost/QALY). Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed using all key clinical and economic parameters. RESULTS: This study found that IM TDM dominates IM alone with $15,452 to $36,940 in savings and 0.25 higher QALYs. Using FSS, per patient total costs for IM and IM TDM were $270,905 and $233,965, respectively.; Using average WAC, these costs were $461,657 and $446,205, and using lowest WAC, these costs were $366,966 and $350,090. The results comparing first line using of IM TDM to NIL/DAS found that TDM IM had higher QALYs and lower costs (0.08 QALYs lower, and $117,006 to $172,420 savings per patient [varying by price basis]). Thus, in terms of cost-effectiveness, IM TDM dominates NIL/DAS with both lower costs and higher QALYs. CONCLUSIONS: IM TDM is a clinically and economically viable first-line treatment option for CML. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Saladax Biomedical. Salamone is an employee of Saladax Biomedical. This study was presented at the IATDMCT Congress, September 2018, Brisbane, Australia.

The Cost-Effectiveness of Therapeutic Drug Monitoring (TDM) of Generic Imatinib for the Treatment of Chronic Myelogenous Leukemia

INTRODUCTIONA recent clinical study of using therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of imatinib mesylate (IM) for the treatment of chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) found that the cytogenetic response at 12 months was significantly improved with IM TDM (Rousselot, P. et al. Blood 2015 126:133).Given that tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) other than IM had previously shown more rapid molecular responses at standard doses, the improved IM efficacy using TDM provides new clinical information when selecting a CML treatment.A recent cost-effectiveness analysis of TKI for CML found that, when considering the pending loss of patent exclusivity of IM, using IM as a first-line treatment is the most cost-effective treatment option. However, since the loss of patent exclusivity, no studies have considered the cost-effectiveness of IM since the loss of patent exclusivity, nor has the cost-effectiveness of IM TDM been evaluated. OBJECTIVEThe objective of the study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of using generic IM TDM for the first-line treatment of CML. METHODSA peer-reviewed and published TKI cost-effectiveness model in the CML (Padula, WV, et al. JNCI, 2016 Mar 4;108(7)) was modified to include IM TDM as a treatment option. Efficacy inputs for major molecular response (MMR) rates were taken from published clinical studies: IM TDM 65%, dasatinib 52%, nilotinib 53% (Kantarjian H, , et al N Engl J Med. 2010;362:2260-2270; Kantarjian HM, et al. Blood. 2012;119:1123-1129. Larson RA, et al. Leukemia. 2012;26:2197-2203).Using the Federal Supply Schedule and average and lowest wholesale acquisition cost as price bases, alternative estimates were used for drug prices including generic IM. The cost of TDM for IM was added to the IM TDM comparator arm at $228 annually (6 tests at $38 each) over the 5-year time horizon. Other input costs were updated to 2016 U.S. Dollars using the Medical Service index of the Consumer Price Index.A U.S. payer perspective was used with a 5-year time horizon and a 3.0% discount rate. The model compared first-line IM TDM versus first-line IM alone, first-line dasatinib or nilotinib (D/N) in terms of costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and cost-effectiveness. Univariate (one-way) and multivariate (two-way) sensitivity analysis was performed on all key clinical and economic parameters. RESULTSThe model found that IM TDM dominates IM alone with $15,452 to $36,940 in savings and 0.25 higher QALYs. Using an FSS price basis, per patient total costs for IM and IM TDM were $270,905 and $233,965, respectively. For WAC average pricing, these costs were $461,657 and $446,205, respectively, and for the lowest WAC pricing, these costs were $366,966 and $350,090, respectively.The results comparing first line using of IM TDM to D/N found that IM TDM had slightly higher QALYs and lower costs (0.08 QALYs, and $117,006 to $172,420 savings per patient [varying by price basis]). Thus, in terms of cost-effectiveness, IM TDM dominates D/N with both lower costs and higher QALYs.The model also found that for each first-line IM TDM patient responding for 5 years $114,577 to $207,564 was saved versus patients receiving first-line D/N. Sensitivity analysis confirmed that the results are robust. CONCLUSIONThe analysis found that IM TDM dominates IM alone and D/N under a wide range of price scenarios. The analysis suggests that IM TDM is both a clinically and economically viable first-line treatment option for CML. DisclosuresSalamone:Saladax Biomedical, Inc: Employment, Equity Ownership. Becker:Saladax Biomedical, Inc.: Consultancy. Padula:Saladax Biomedical, Inc: Research Funding.

Real-World Six-Year National Cost-Minimization Analysis of IncobotulinumtoxinA and OnabotulinumtoxinA in the VA/DoD Healthcare Systems.

PurposeThis study sought to perform a real-world, long-term cost-minimization analysis for incobotulinumtoxinA (Xeomin®) versus onabotulinumtoxinA (Botox®), given the established non-inferiority when utilized at similar doses.MethodsThe Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and Department of Defense (DoD) national healthcare systems were included in this analysis. Real-world purchase data for incobotulinumtoxinA were used to estimate the direct drug costs between calendar years 2014 and 2019. Publicly available federal pharmaceutical prices (Federal Supply Schedule and Big 4) were used. The primary outcome was the difference in total direct costs nationally for incobotulinumtoxinA (real-world) versus having hypothetically utilized onabotulinumtoxinA (projected) for similar utilization. Sites utilizing ≥100 vials (of 100 Unit equivalents) of incobotulinumtoxinA annually were categorized as “major adopters”. IncobotulinumtoxinA 50 Unit vials were assumed to be an alternative to a 100 Unit vial of onabotulinumtoxinA for 50% of such vial purchases in the base case scenario to account for differences in wastage.ResultsOver the six-year study time frame, 156 sites (76.8%) utilized incobotulinumtoxinA of the 203 total VA healthcare systems and DoD medical centers. Of these sites, 67 were major adopters for at least one year, with a mean of 3.4 years spent as a major adopter over the study period. Average annual savings per major adopter was $105,782. IncobotulinumtoxinA costs for all VA/DoD sites was $46.39 million for the six-year period versus a projected $71.92 million onabotulinumtoxinA cost—a total savings of $25.53 million (35.5% relative reduction). Approximately, 82.8% of savings stemmed from lower drug acquisition cost ($21.14 million) and 17.2% of savings ($4.39 million) was related to reduced wastage. It was estimated that a total of 9958 extra onabotulinumtoxinA 100 Unit vials would have been wasted during the six-year period, translating to the need for a 5.9% increase in vial purchases versus incobotulinumtoxinA.ConclusionMeaningful cost savings were realized related to incobotulinumtoxinA adoption over a long-term time frame in the VA/DoD healthcare systems.