Third-party Payer Perspective Research Articles

Screening for bacterial vaginosis prior to delivery: a cost-effectiveness study.

The objective of this study was to compare the cost and effectiveness of three strategies for screening and/or treating bacterial vaginosis (BV) during pregnancy prior to delivery: (1) the current standard of care, neither test nor treat for BV (Treat None); (2) test all patients for BV at 36 weeks gestation; treat if positive (Test Treat); and (3) treat all patients undergoing cesarean delivery with intravenous metronidazole at time of surgery (Treat All Cesarean). Effectiveness was defined as avoidance of postpartum surgical site infection. A decision analytic cost-effectiveness model was designed from a third-party payer perspective using clinical and cost estimates obtained from the literature, American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program participant use file, National Vital Statistics, Medicare costs, and wholesale drug costs. Cost estimates were inflated to 2020 United States dollars. For this study, effectiveness was defined as postpartum surgical site infections (SSI) avoided. In the base case analysis, the current standard of care, Treat None, was the most expensive and least effective strategy, with a mean cost of $59.16 and infection rate of 3.71%. Treat All Cesarean was the most effective and least expensive strategy, with a mean cost of $53.50 and an infection rate of 2.75%. Test Treat was also relatively inexpensive and effective, with an infection rate of 2.94% and mean cost of $57.05. Compared to Treat None, we would expect the Treat All Cesarean strategy to reduce the infection rate by 26%. These findings suggest that treating pregnant patients with intravenous metronidazole at time of cesarean delivery could be an effective and cost-saving strategy. Testing and treating for BV could also be considered a reasonable strategy, as it has the added benefit of preserving antibiotic stewardship. In no analysis was the standard of care the preferred strategy.

Cost-Effectiveness of Lovotibeglogene Autotemcel (Lovo-Cel) Gene Therapy for Patients with Sickle Cell Disease and Recurrent Vaso-Occlusive Events in the United States.

Gene therapies for sickle cell disease (SCD) may offer meaningful benefits for patients and society. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of lovotibeglogene autotemcel (lovo-cel), a one-time gene therapy administered via autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, compared with common care for patients in the United States (US) with SCD aged ≥12years with ≥4 vaso-occlusive events (VOEs) in the past 24months. We developed a patient-level simulation model accounting for lovo-cel and SCD-related events, complications, and mortality over a lifetime time horizon. The pivotal phase1/2 HGB-206 clinical trial (NCT02140554) served as the basis for lovo-cel efficacy and safety. Cost, quality-of-life, and other clinical data were sourced from HGB-206 data and the literature. Analyses were conducted from US societal and third-party payer perspectives. Uncertainty was assessed through probabilistic sensitivity analysis and extensive scenario analyses. Patients treated with lovo-cel were predicted to survive 23.84years longer on average (standard deviation [SD], 12.80) versus common care (life expectancy, 62.24 versus 38.40years), with associated discounted patient quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gains of 10.20 (SD, 4.10) and direct costs avoided of $1,329,201 (SD, $1,346,446) per patient. Predicted societal benefits included discounted caregiver QALY losses avoided of 1.19 (SD, 1.38) and indirect costs avoided of $540,416 (SD, $262,353) per patient. Including lovo-cel costs ($3,282,009 [SD, $29,690] per patient) resulted in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $191,519 and $124,051 per QALY gained from third-party payer and societal perspectives, respectively. In scenario analyses, the predicted cost-effectiveness of lovo-cel also was sensitive to baseline age and VOE frequency and to the proportion of patients achieving and maintaining complete resolution of VOEs. Our analysis of lovo-cel gene therapy compared with common care for patients in the US with SCD with recurrent VOEs estimated meaningful improvements in survival, quality of life, and other clinical outcomes accompanied by increased overall costs for the health care system and for broader society. The predicted economic value of lovo-cel gene therapy was influenced by uncertainty in long-term clinical effects and by positive spillover effects on patient productivity and caregiver burden.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of durvalumab, tremelimumab, and etoposide-platinum in first-line treatment of extensive-stage small cell lung cancer.

Durvalumab plus etoposide-platinum (DEP) showed sustained overall survival improvements in patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) compared to etoposide-platinum (EP), but adding tremelimumab to DEP (DTEP) did not significantly improve outcomes. A third-party payer perspective is taken here to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of DTEP, DEP, and EP for ES-SCLC. The cost-effectiveness was evaluated by partitioning survival models into 3 mutually exclusive health states. In this model, clinical characteristics and outcomes were obtained from the CASPIAN. Model robustness was evaluated through 1-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Outcome measurements included costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, life-years, incremental net health benefit, and incremental net monetary benefit. The analysis was conducted with a 10-year lifetime horizon in a United States setting. Compared with EP, DEP, and DTEP were associated with an increment of 0.480 and 0.313 life-years, and an increment of 0.247 and 0.165 QALYs, as well as a $139,788 and $170,331 increase in cost per patient. The corresponding ICERs were $565,807/QALY and $1033,456/QALY, respectively. The incremental net health benefit and incremental net monetary benefit of DEP or DTEP were -0.685 QALYs and -$102,729, or -0.971 QALYs and -$145,608 at a willingness to pay threshold of $150,000/QALY, respectively. Compared with DTEP, DEP was dominated. DTEP and DEP were 100% unlikely to be cost-effective if the willingness to pay threshold was $150,000/QALY. DEP was cost-effective compared to EP when durvalumab was priced below $0.994/mg. Compared with EP, DEP, and DTEP were unlikely to be considered cost-effective across all subgroups. DEP and DTEP were not cost-effective options in the first-line treatment for ES-SCLC compared with EP, from the third-party payer perspective in the United States. Compared with DTEP, DEP was dominated.

Cost-Effectiveness of Radar Localisation Versus Wire Localisation for Wide Local Excision of Non-palpable Breast Cancer

BackgroundWire localisation (WL) is the “gold standard” localisation technique for wide local excision (WLE) of non-palpable breast lesions but has disadvantages that have led to the development of wireless techniques. This study compared the cost-effectiveness of radar localisation (RL) to WL.MethodsThis was a single-institution study of 110 prospective patients with early-stage breast cancer undergoing WLE using RL with the SCOUT® Surgical Guidance System (2021–2023) compared with a cohort of 110 patients using WL. Margin status, re-excision rates, and surgery delays associated with preoperative localisation were compared. Costs from a third-party payer perspective in Australian dollars (AUD$) calculated by using microcosting, break-even point, and cost-utility analyses.ResultsA total of 110 WLEs using RL cost a total of AUD$402,281, in addition to the device cost of AUD$77,150. The average additional cost of a surgery delay was AUD$2318. Use of RL reduced the surgery delay rate by 10% (p = 0.029), preventing 11 delays with cost savings of AUD$25,496. No differences were identified in positive margin rates (RL: 11.8% vs. WL: 17.3%, p = 0.25) or re-excision rates (RL: 14.5% vs. WL: 21.8%, p = 0.221). In total, 290 RL cases are needed to break even. The cost of WLE using RL was greater than WL by AUD$567. There was a greater clinical benefit of 1.15 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and an incremental cost-utility ratio of AUD$493 per QALY favouring RL.ConclusionsRoutine use of RL was a more cost-effective intervention than WL. Close to 300 RL cases are likely needed to be performed to recover costs of the medical device.Clinical trial registration: ACTRN12624000068561.

Cost-effectiveness of severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) testing and isolation strategies in nursing homes.

Nursing home residents may be particularly vulnerable to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Therefore, a question is when and how often nursing homes should test staff for COVID-19 and how this may change as severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) evolves. We developed an agent-based model representing a typical nursing home, COVID-19 spread, and its health and economic outcomes to determine the clinical and economic value of various screening and isolation strategies and how it may change under various circumstances. Under winter 2023-2024 SARS-CoV-2 omicron variant conditions, symptom-based antigen testing averted 4.5 COVID-19 cases compared to no testing, saving $191 in direct medical costs. Testing implementation costs far outweighed these savings, resulting in net costs of $990 from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services perspective, $1,545 from the third-party payer perspective, and $57,155 from the societal perspective. Testing did not return sufficient positive health effects to make it cost-effective [$50,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) threshold], but it exceeded this threshold in ≥59% of simulation trials. Testing remained cost-ineffective when routinely testing staff and varying facemask compliance, vaccine efficacy, and booster coverage. However, all antigen testing strategies became cost-effective (≤$31,906 per QALY) or cost saving (saving ≤$18,372) when the severe outcome risk was ≥3 times higher than that of current omicron variants. SARS-CoV-2 testing costs outweighed benefits under winter 2023-2024 conditions; however, testing became cost-effective with increasingly severe clinical outcomes. Cost-effectiveness can change as the epidemic evolves because it depends on clinical severity and other intervention use. Thus, nursing home administrators and policy makers should monitor and evaluate viral virulence and other interventions over time.

Locally Advanced Gastric Cancer Management: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

Across the nation, patients with locally advanced gastric cancer (LAGC) are managed with modalities including upfront surgery (US) and perioperative chemotherapy (PCT). Preoperative therapies have demonstrated survival benefits over US and thus long-term outcomes are expected to vary between the options. However, as these 2 modalities continue to be regularly employed, we sought to perform a decision analysis comparing the costs and quality-of-life associated with the treatment of patients with LAGC to identify the most cost-effective option. We designed a decision tree model to investigate the survival and costs associated with the most commonly utilized management modalities for LAGC in the United States: US and PCT. The tree described costs and treatment strategies over a 6-month time horizon. Costs were derived from 2022 Medicare reimbursement rates using the third-party payer perspective for physicians and hospitals. Effectiveness was represented using quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). One-way, two-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were utilized to test the robustness of our findings. PCT was the most cost-effective treatment modality for patients with LAGC over US with a cost of $40,792.16 yielding 3.11 QALYs. US has a cost of $55,575.57 while yielding 3.15 QALYs; the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was $369,585.25. One-way and two-way sensitivity analyses favored PCT in all variations of variables across their standard deviations. Across 100,000 Monte Carlo simulations, 100% of trials favored PCT. In our model simulating patients with LAGC, the most cost-effective treatment strategy was PCT. While US demonstrated improved QALYs over PCT, the associated cost was too great to justify its use.

Going Forward: Potential Impact of Protein-Based COVID-19 Vaccination Coverage on Population Outcomes and Costs in the United States.

Policymakers in the United States (US) recommend coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination with a monovalent 2023-2024 vaccine formulation based on the Omicron XBB.1.5 variant. We estimated the potential US population-level health and economic impacts of increased COVID-19 vaccine coverage that might be expected with the availability of a protein-based vaccine with simpler storage requirements in addition to messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) vaccines. A Markov model was developed to estimate 1-year COVID-19-related costs, cases, hospitalizations, and deaths with and without the availability of a protein-based vaccine option. The model population was stratified by age and risk status. Model inputs were sourced from published literature or derived from publicly available data. Our model estimated that a five-percentage-point increase in coverage due to the availability of a protein-based vaccine option would prevent over 500,000 cases, 66,000 hospitalizations, and 3000 COVID-19-related deaths. These clinical outcomes translated to 42,000 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of USD 16,141/QALY from a third-party payer perspective. In sensitivity analyses, outcomes were most sensitive to COVID-19 incidence and severity across age groups. The availability of a protein-based vaccine option in the US could reduce hospitalizations and deaths and is predicted to be cost-effective.

The short-term cost-effectiveness of once-weekly semaglutide versus once-weekly dulaglutide for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus in Colombian adults.

Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) is a highly prevalent disease worldwide and in Colombia, representing one of the main causes of death and placing a considerable burden on healthcare systems. 13 classes of drugs are approved for the treatment of T2DM, with Glucagon-like Peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists being a first-line treatment option for patients with or at high risk of certain cardiovascular diseases and chronic kidney disease. The objective of this study is to conduct a short-term cost-effectiveness analysis of once-weekly semaglutide versus once-weekly dulaglutide in Colombian adults with T2DM, from a third-party payer perspective. Numbers needed to treat were calculated for different single and composite endpoints of the SUSTAIN 7 trial, annual costs for once weekly semaglutide 1.0 mg and dulaglutide 1.5 mg were extracted from the public SISMED database. With these inputs a cost of control model was developed, to obtain the annual cost of bringing one T2DM patient to relevant clinical outcomes by using semaglutide or dulaglutide. Semaglutide was considered cost-effective compared to dulaglutide across all pre-specified endpoints, even in the different scenarios evaluated in the sensitivity analyses, and in a particularly pronounced manner for weight loss outcomes. Semaglutide at a dose of 1.0 mg once-weekly was cost-effective compared to dulaglutide 1.5 mg across all outcomes in the short-term, making it an appropriate first-line choice in the treatment of T2DM when deciding between these two GLP-1 receptor agonists. This is the first short-term cost-effectiveness study of semaglutide and dulaglutide in T2DM Colombian patients. Our modeled results suggest that once-weekly semaglutide represents a cost-effective option for treating individuals with T2DM in Colombia who are not achieving glycaemia control with metformin, and it would be expected to improve HbA1C, promote greater weight loss and reduce costs from a third-payer perspective compared with treatment with dulaglutide.

Cost-Effectiveness of Antiobesity Drugs for Adolescents With Severe Obesity

Although the American Academy of Pediatrics has recommended treatment with antiobesity drugs for adolescents, the cost-effectiveness of antiobesity drugs for this population is still unknown. To quantify cost-effectiveness of different antiobesity drugs available for pediatric use. This economic evaluation used a Markov microsimulation model with health states defined by obesity levels. Effectiveness was measured by quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and costs were calculated from third-party payer perspective, estimated in 2023 US dollars over a 10-year horizon. Data were obtained from the published literature. Antiobesity drugs orlistat, liraglutide, semaglutide, and phentermine-topiramate vs no treatment. Metformin hydrochloride and 2 types of bariatric surgical procedures (sleeve gastrectomy and gastric bypass) were considered in sensitivity analysis. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Among the 4 antiobesity drugs currently approved for pediatric use, phentermine-topiramate was the most cost-effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $93 620 per QALY relative to no treatment in this simulated cohort of 10 000 adolescents aged 12 to 17 years (mode, 15 years) with severe obesity (62% female). While semaglutide offered more QALYs than phentermine-topiramate, its higher cost resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio ($1 079 480/QALY) that exceeded the commonly used willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 to $150 000/QALY. Orlistat and liraglutide cost more and were less effective than phentermine-topiramate and semaglutide, respectively. Sleeve gastrectomy and gastric bypass were more effective than phentermine-topiramate but were also more costly, rendering them not cost-effective compared with phentermine-topiramate at the willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 to $150 000/QALY. In this economic evaluation of weight loss drugs for adolescents with severe obesity, we found phentermine-topiramate to be a cost-effective treatment at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 to $150 000/QALY. Further research is needed to determine long-term drug efficacy and how long adolescents continue treatment.

Análisis de costo-efectividad del abordaje clínico en fase temprana vs. fase establecida en una cohorte de pacientes con artritis reumatoide de una institución prestadora de servicios de salud de cuarto nivel en Colombia

IntroductionRheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a high-cost disease, which allows patients to be classified into early or established phase approaches. ObjectiveThe purpose of this work was to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing both phases with patient data at a 6-month time horizon from a third-party payer perspective. Materials and methodsThe population was delimited. The costs and effectiveness of each of the phases were estimated. A decision tree-type economic evaluation model was developed, and the Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) was calculated with the respective sensitivity analyses, both deterministic and probabilistic. ResultsIn terms of costs, it was found that for effectiveness in goals, the cost was 85% higher in the established than in the early phase. Similarly, for non-target effectiveness, the cost was 77% higher in the established than in the early phase. On the other hand, the effectiveness results were better in the early phase compared to the established phase. Regarding the ICER, it was determined that the early phase approach saves $2,326,389 COPcte (colombian pesos current currency) per patient in goals at 6 months of treatment, compared to the established phase approach. ConclusionThe clinical approach to early-stage rheumatoid arthritis is a less costly and more effective alternative vs. the established phase, as it generates savings for the third-party payer over a 6-month time horizon, from a third-party payer perspective.

Adverse event costs associated with first-line therapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer in the United States: An analysis of clinical trials of immune checkpoint inhibitors.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors, such as pembrolizumab, nivolumab, and atezolizumab, have demonstrated substantial survival benefits in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, there is limited evidence on their relative safety profiles and adverse event (AE)-related cost burden. OBJECTIVE: To compare the AE management costs of nivolumab plus ipilimumab with and without limited chemotherapy with those of chemotherapy, pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy, and atezolizumab plus chemotherapy in a first-line setting among patients with advanced NSCLC. METHODS: The mean per-patient AE costs were estimated using the incidence of all-cause grade 3/4 AEs with any-grade incidence greater than or equal to 15% and the corresponding costs of AE management in the inpatient setting. AE rates were obtained from individual patient data from the CheckMate 227 and CheckMate 9LA trials for nivolumab plus ipilimumab with/without limited chemotherapy and aggregated data from the KEYNOTE-189 and KEYNOTE-407 trials for pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy and the IMpower130 trial for atezolizumab plus chemotherapy. AE management costs from the third-party payer perspective were estimated based on inpatient medical costs from the 2016 United States Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project National Inpatient Sample. All costs were inflated to 2020 US dollars. RESULTS: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab and nivolumab plus ipilimumab plus limited chemotherapy were associated with lower per-patient grade 3/4 AE costs compared with chemotherapy ($1,708 and $624 lower over the treatment course, respectively). Compared with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy, nivolumab plus ipilimumab was associated with lower grade 3/4 AE costs in patients with nonsquamous histology (difference: -$4,866) and squamous histology (difference: -$3,795), and nivolumab plus ipilimumab with limited chemotherapy also had lower AE costs for both nonsquamous (difference: -$2,800) and squamous (difference: -$2,753) disease. Similarly, nivolumab plus ipilimumab and nivolumab plus ipilimumab plus limited chemotherapy were also associated with lower AE costs ($11,400 and $8,809 lower, respectively) compared with atezolizumab plus chemotherapy among patients with nonsquamous disease. In particular, nivolumab plus ipilimumab without or with limited chemotherapy were associated with much lower AE costs of hematological AEs compared with chemotherapy and other immune checkpoint inhibitor-based treatments in combination with a full course of chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab with/without limited chemotherapy was associated with lower AE management costs compared with chemotherapy, pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy, and atezolizumab plus chemotherapy as first-line treatment for advanced NSCLC. The AE cost benefits were largely driven by the lower cost burden for hematological AEs for nivolumab plus ipilimumab with/without limited chemotherapy. DISCLOSURES This study was supported by Bristol-Myers Squibb. The sponsor was involved in all aspects of the work and in the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. Dr Stenehjem has received consulting fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr Lubinga was an employee of Bristol-Myers Squibb at the time of the study's conduct and holds stock/options. Drs Betts and Wu are employees of Analysis Group, Inc., a consulting company that has received funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb for this research.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of PET-CT Surveillance After Treatment of Human Papillomavirus-Positive Oropharyngeal Cancer.

To determine the cost-effectiveness of surveillance imaging with PET/CT scan among patients with human papillomavirus-positive oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma. Cost-effectiveness analysis. Oncologic care centers in the United States with head and neck oncologic surgeons and physicians. We compared the cost-effectiveness of 2 posttreatment surveillance strategies: clinical surveillance with the addition of PET/CT scan versus clinical surveillance alone in human papillomavirus-positive oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma patients. We constructed a Markov decision model which was analyzed from a third-party payer's perspective using 1-year Markov cycles and a 30-year time horizon. Values for transition probabilities, costs, health care utilities, and their studied ranges were derived from the literature. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for PET/CT with clinical surveillance versus clinical surveillance alone was $89,850 per quality-adjusted life year gained. Flexible fiberoptic scope exams during clinical surveillance would have to be over 51% sensitive or PET/CT scan cost would have to exceed $1678 for clinical surveillance alone to be more cost-effective. The willingness-to-pay threshold at which imaging surveillance was equally cost-effective to clinical surveillance was approximately $80,000/QALY. Despite lower recurrence rates of human papillomavirus-positive oropharyngeal cancer, a single PET/CT scan within 6 months after primary treatment remains a cost-effective tool for routine surveillance when its cost does not exceed $1678. The cost-effectiveness of this strategy is also dependent on the clinical surveillance sensitivity (flexible fiberoptic pharyngoscopy), and willingness-to-pay thresholds which vary by country.

Estimating the Clinical and Economic Impact of Switching from the 13-Valent Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccine (PCV13) to Higher-Valent Options in Greek Infants.

In June 2010, Greece introduced the 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13) for pediatric vaccination and has since observed a large decrease in pneumococcal disease caused by these vaccine serotypes, yet the disease prevalence of non-vaccine serotypes has increased. Two higher-valent conjugate vaccines, a 15-valent (PCV15) and a 20-valent (PCV20), were developed to improve serotype coverage and combat serotype replacement. A decision-analytic model was adapted to the Greek setting using historical pneumococcal disease trends from PCV13 to forecast future clinical and economic outcomes of higher-valent PCVs over a 10-year period (2023-2033). The model estimated outcomes related to invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD), hospitalized and non-hospitalized pneumonia, and otitis media (OM) resulting from a switch in vaccination programs to PCV15 in 2023 or switching to PCV20 in 2024. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated from the third-party payer's perspective in the Greek healthcare system. Compared to implementing PCV15 one year earlier, switching from PCV13 to PCV20 in 2024 was estimated to be a cost-saving strategy by saving the Greek health system over EUR 50 million in direct medical costs and averting over 250 IPD cases, 54,800 OM cases, 8450 pneumonia cases, and 255 deaths across all ages over a 10-year period.

The short-term cost-effectiveness of once-weekly semaglutide versus once-weekly dulaglutide for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus in Colombian adults

Background: Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) is a highly prevalent disease worldwide and in Colombia, representing one of the main causes of death and placing a considerable burden on healthcare systems. 13 classes of drugs are approved for the treatment of T2DM, with Glucagon-like Peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists being a first-line treatment option for patients with or at high risk of certain cardiovascular diseases and chronic kidney disease. The objective of this study is to conduct a short-term cost-effectiveness analysis of once-weekly semaglutide versus once-weekly dulaglutide in Colombian adults with T2DM, from a third-party payer perspective. Methods: Numbers needed to treat were calculated for different single and composite endpoints of the SUSTAIN 7 trial, annual costs for once weekly semaglutide 1.0 mg and dulaglutide 1.5 mg were extracted from the public SISMED database. With these inputs a cost of control model was developed, to obtain the annual cost of bringing one T2DM patient to relevant clinical outcomes by using semaglutide or dulaglutide. Results: Semaglutide was considered cost-effective compared to dulaglutide across all pre-specified endpoints, even in the different scenarios evaluated in the sensitivity analyses, and in a particularly pronounced manner for weight loss outcomes. Semaglutide at a dose of 1.0 mg once-weekly was cost-effective compared to dulaglutide 1.5 mg across all outcomes in the short-term, making it an appropriate first-line choice in the treatment of T2DM when deciding between these two GLP-1 receptor agonists. Conclusions: This is the first short-term cost-effectiveness study of semaglutide and dulaglutide in T2DM Colombian patients. Our modeled results suggest that once-weekly semaglutide represents a cost-effective option for treating individuals with T2DM in Colombia who are not achieving glycaemia control with metformin, and it would be expected to improve HbA1C, promote greater weight loss and reduce costs from a third-payer perspective compared with treatment with dulaglutide.

Health Outcomes and Cost-effectiveness of Monoclonal SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies as Pre-exposure Prophylaxis

Pre-exposure prophylaxis with neutralizing SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibodies (mAbs PrEP) prevents infection and reduces hospitalizations and the duration thereof for COVID-19 and death among high-risk individuals. However, reduced effectiveness due to a changing SARS-CoV-2 viral landscape and high drug prices remain substantial implementation barriers. To assess the cost-effectiveness of mAbs PrEP as COVID-19 PrEP. For this economic evaluation, a decision analytic model was developed and parameterized with health care outcome and utilization data from individuals with high risk for COVID-19. The SARS-CoV-2 infection probability, mAbs PrEP effectiveness, and drug pricing were varied. All costs were collected from a third-party payer perspective. Data were analyzed from September 2021 to December 2022. Health care outcomes including new SARS-CoV-2 infections, hospitalization, and deaths. The cost per death averted and cost-effectiveness ratios using a threshold for prevention interventions of $22 000 or less per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. The clinical cohort consisted of 636 individuals with COVID-19 (mean [SD] age 63 [18] years; 341 [54%] male). Most individuals were at high risk for severe COVID-19, including 137 (21%) with a body mass index of 30 or higher, 60 (9.4%) with hematological malignant neoplasm, 108 (17%) post-transplantation, and 152 (23.9%) who used immunosuppressive medication before COVID-19. Within the context of a high (18%) SARS-CoV-2 infection probability and low (25%) effectiveness the model calculated a short-term reduction of 42% ward admissions, 31% intensive care unit (ICU) admissions, and 34% deaths. Cost-saving scenarios were obtained with drug prices of $275 and 75% or higher effectiveness. With a 100% effectiveness mAbs PrEP can reduce ward admissions by 70%, ICU admissions by 97%, and deaths by 92%. Drug prices, however, need to reduce to $550 for cost-effectiveness ratios less than $22 000 per QALY gained per death averted and to $2200 for ratios between $22 000 and $88 000. In this study, use of mAbs PrEP for preventing SARS-CoV-2 infections was cost-saving at the beginning of an epidemic wave (high infection probability) with 75% or higher effectiveness and drug price of $275. These results are timely and relevant for decision-makers involved in mAbs PrEP implementation. When newer mAbs PrEP combinations become available, guidance on implementation should be formulated ensuring a fast rollout. Nevertheless, advocacy for mAbs PrEP use and critical discussion on drug prices are necessary to ensuring cost-effectiveness for different epidemic settings.

Cost-Utility Analysis of Midurethral Sling Timing Among Women Undergoing Prolapse Surgery.

There are no guidelines regarding the ideal timing of midurethral sling (MUS) placement following prolapse repair. The objective of this study was to estimate the cost-utility of concomitant MUS versus staged MUS among women undergoing apical suspension surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. Cost-utility modeling using a decision analysis tree compared concomitant MUS with staged MUS over a 1-year time horizon. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Six scenarios were modeled to estimate cost-utilities for women with preoperative overt, occult, or no stress urinary incontinence (SUI) who underwent either minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy or vaginal native tissue apical suspension. Possible complications of de novo overactive bladder, urinary retention requiring sling lysis, mesh exposure, and persistent SUI were included. Costs from a third-party payer perspective were derived from Medicare 2022 reimbursements. One-way sensitivity analyses were performed. Among women without preoperative SUI, staged MUS was the dominant strategy for both surgical routes with higher utility and lower costs. For women with either occult or overt SUI undergoing sacrocolpopexy or vaginal repair, concomitant MUS was cost-effective (ICER = $21,114-$96,536 per quality-adjusted life-year). Therefore, concomitant MUS is preferred for patients with preoperative SUI as higher costs were offset by higher effectiveness. One-way sensitivity analyses demonstrated that ICERs were most affected by probability of cure following MUS. A staged MUS procedure is the dominant strategy for women undergoing apical prolapse repair without preoperative SUI. In women with either overt or occult SUI, the ICER was below the willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year, suggesting that concomitant MUS surgery is cost-effective.

Cost-Effectiveness of SGLT2 Inhibitors in a Real-World Population: A MICADO Model-Based Analysis Using Routine Data from a GP Registry.

Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) have been shown to reduce the risk of cardiovascular complications, which largely drive diabetes' health and economic burdens. Trial results indicated that SGLT2i are cost effective. However, these findings may not be generalizable to the real-world target population. This study aims to evaluate the cost effectiveness of SGLT2i in a routine care type 2 diabetes population that meets Dutch reimbursement criteria using the MICADO model. Individuals from the Hoorn Diabetes Care System cohort (N = 15,392) were filtered to satisfy trial inclusion criteria (including EMPA-REG, CANVAS, and DECLARE-TIMI58) or satisfy the current Dutch reimbursement criteria for SGLT2i. We validated a health economic model (MICADO) by comparing simulated and observed outcomes regarding the relative risks of events in the intervention and comparator arm from three trials, and used the validated model to evaluate the long-term health outcomes using the filtered cohorts' baseline characteristics and treatment effects from trials and a review of observational studies. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of SGLT2i, compared with care-as-usual, was assessed from a third-party payer perspective, measured in euros (2021 price level), using a discount rate of 4% for costs and 1.5% for effects. From Dutch individuals with diabetes in routine care, 15.8% qualify for the current Dutch reimbursement criteria for SGLT2i. Their characteristics were significantly different (lower HbA1c, higher age, and generally more preexisting complications) than trial populations. After validating the MICADO model, we found that lifetime ICERs of SGLT2i, when compared with usual care, were favorable (<€20,000/QALY) for all filtered cohorts, resulting in an ICER of €5440/QALY using trial-based treatment effect estimates in reimbursed population. Several pragmatic scenarios were tested, the ICERs remained favorable. Although the Dutch reimbursement indications led to a target group that deviates from trial populations, SGLT2i are likely to be cost effective when compared with usual care.

Short-term locally advanced gastric cancer management: A cost-effectiveness analysis.

e16065 Background: Across the nation, patients with locally advanced gastric cancer (LAGC) are managed with modalities including upfront surgery (US), neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy (NCRT), and perioperative chemotherapy (PCT). Treatment modalities themselves are associated with adverse effects which can lead to difficulty with treatment adherence in the short-term. As preoperative therapies have demonstrated survival benefits over US, long-term outcomes are expected to vary, but it is not known if differences in adherence impacts short-term treatment outcomes. We sought to perform a decision analysis comparing costs and quality-of-life associated with short-term outcomes in the treatment of patients with LAGC to identify the most cost-effective option. Methods: We designed a decision tree model to investigate the survival and costs associated with the three utilized management modalities for T2 or higher gastric cancer in the United States: US, PCT, and NCRT. The tree described costs and treatment strategies over a six-month time horizon to incorporate the complete treatment regimen and various treatment failure points encountered during therapy. Costs were derived from 2022 Medicare reimbursement rates using the third-party payer perspective for physicians and hospitals. Effectiveness was represented using quality-adjusted life months (QALMs). One QALM equates to one month of perfect health, while zero QALMs is equivalent to death. One-way, two-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were utilized to test the robustness of our findings. Results: PCT was the most cost-effective treatment modality for LAGC over US and NCRT with a cost of $40,792.16 with 4.14 QALMs. US had a cost of $55,575.57 with 4.20 QALMs. NCRT was dominated by the other options with a cost of $56,510.64 with 3.70 QALMs. Across 100,000 Monte-Carlo simulations, 55.2% of trials favored PCT and the remainder favored US (44.8%). NCRT was not favored in the probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Finally, one-way and two-way sensitivity analyses did not identify any situations where alternative treatment modalities were preferred over PCT. Conclusions: In our simulated patients with diagnosed gastric cancer, the most cost-effective treatment strategy was PCT. This further confirms the preference of this modality over others in LAGC. While US demonstrated improved QALMs over PCT, the associated cost was too great to justify the benefits. [Table: see text]

Cost-effectiveness of sacituzumab govitecan in hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative metastatic breast cancer.

The efficiency and safety of sacituzumab govitecan (SG) for the therapy of hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/human epidermal receptor 2-negative (HER2-) metastatic breast cancer (BC) has been demonstrated. The aim of this study is to evaluate its cost-effectiveness on HR+/HER2- metastatic BC from the third-party payer perspective in the United States. We performed the cost-effectiveness of SG and chemotherapy using a partitioned survival model. TROPiCS-02 provided clinical patients for this study. We evaluated the robustness of this study by one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Subgroup analyses were also conducted. The outcomes were costs, life-years, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), incremental net health benefit (INHB), and incremental net monetary benefit (INMB). SG treatment was related to an increase of 0.284 life years and 0.217 QALYs over chemotherapy, as well as a cost increase of $132,689, reaching an ICER of $612,772/QALY. The INHB was -0.668 QALYs, and the INMB was -$100,208. SG was not cost-effective at the willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000/QALY. The outcomes were sensitive to patient body weight and cost of SG. SG may be cost-effective at the WTP threshold of $150,000/QALY if the price is less than $3.997/mg or the weight of patients is under 19.88 kg. Based on the subgroup analysis, SG did not prove cost-effective in all subgroups at the WTP threshold of $150,000/QALY. From a third-party payer standpoint in the United States, SG was not cost-effective, even though it had a clinically significant advantage over chemotherapy for the treatment of HR+/HER2- metastatic BC. The cost-effectiveness of SG can be improved if the price is substantially reduced.

Cost-effectiveness of cemiplimab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy for the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

In patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC), cemiplimab plus chemotherapy prolonged overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) significantly compared to chemotherapy alone. The cost-effectiveness of these drugs is still uncertain. The aim of this study is to assess the cost-effectiveness of cemiplimab plus chemotherapy compared with chemotherapy for the treatment of aNSCLC from the third-party payer perspective in the United States. The cost-effectiveness of cemiplimab with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy for the treatment of aNSCLC was evaluated using a partitioned survival model containing three mutually incompatible health states. The clinical characteristics and outcomes used in the model were gathered from EMPOWER-Lung 3 trial. We have conducted deterministic one-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis in order to evaluate the robustness of the model. The primary outcomes considered were the costs, life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), incremental net health benefits (INHB), and incremental net monetary benefits (INMB). Treatment of aNSCLC with cemiplimab plus chemotherapy increased efficacy by 0.237 QALYs and was associated with an increased total cost of $50,796 compared to chemotherapy alone, resulting in an ICER of $214,256/QALY gained. At a WTP threshold of $150,000/QALY, the INHB of cemiplimab plus chemotherapy was 0.203 QALYs and the INMB was $304,704 compared to chemotherapy alone. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed that there was only a 0.04% chance that cemiplimab with chemotherapy would be cost-effective at a WTP threshold of $150,000/QALY. The performance of model was mainly determined by the price of cemiplimab, according to a one-way sensitivity analysis. From the third-party payer perspective, cemiplimab combined chemotherapy is unlikely to be a cost-effective option for the treatment of aNSCLC at the WTP threshold of $150,000/QALY in the United States.