Dataset Information

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Isavuconazole vs. Voriconazole as First-Line Treatment for Invasive Aspergillosis.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Invasive aspergillosis (IA) is associated with a significant clinical and economic burden. The phase III SECURE trial demonstrated non-inferiority in clinical efficacy between isavuconazole and voriconazole. No studies have evaluated the cost-effectiveness of isavuconazole compared to voriconazole. The objective of this study was to evaluate the costs and cost-effectiveness of isavuconazole vs. voriconazole for the first-line treatment of IA from the US hospital perspective.

Methods

An economic model was developed to assess the costs and cost-effectiveness of isavuconazole vs. voriconazole in hospitalized patients with IA. The time horizon was the duration of hospitalization. Length of stay for the initial admission, incidence of readmission, clinical response, overall survival rates, and experience of adverse events (AEs) came from the SECURE trial. Unit costs were from the literature. Total costs per patient were estimated, composed of drug costs, costs of AEs, and costs of hospitalizations. Incremental costs per death avoided and per additional clinical responders were reported. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (DSA and PSA) were conducted.

Results

Base case analysis showed that isavuconazole was associated with a $7418 lower total cost per patient than voriconazole. In both incremental costs per death avoided and incremental costs per additional clinical responder, isavuconazole dominated voriconazole. Results were robust in sensitivity analysis. Isavuconazole was cost saving and dominant vs. voriconazole in most DSA. In PSA, isavuconazole was cost saving in 80.2% of the simulations and cost-effective in 82.0% of the simulations at the $50,000 willingness to pay threshold per additional outcome.

Conclusion

Isavuconazole is a cost-effective option for the treatment of IA among hospitalized patients.

Funding

Astellas Pharma Global Development, Inc.

SUBMITTER: Harrington R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5216061 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundVoriconazole is well established as standard treatment for invasive aspergillosis (IA). In 2017, isavuconazole, a new antifungal from the azole class, with a broader pathogen spectrum, was introduced in Sweden. A model has therefore been developed to compare the cost-effectiveness of isavuconazole and voriconazole in the treatment of possible IA in adults in Sweden.MethodsThe cost-effectiveness of isavuconazole versus voriconazole was evaluated using a decision-tree model. Patients with possible IA entered the model, with 6% assumed to actually have mucormycosis. It was also assumed that pathogen information would become available during the course of treatment for only 50% of patients, with differential diagnosis unavailable for the remainder. Patients who were considered unresponsive to first-line treatment were switched to second-line treatment with liposomal amphotericin-B. Data and clinical definitions included in the model were taken from the published randomised clinical trial comparing isavuconazole with voriconazole for the treatment of IA and other filamentous fungi (SECURE) and the single-arm, open-label trial and case-control analysis of isavuconazole for the treatment of mucormycosis (VITAL). A probabilistic sensitivity analysis was used to estimate the combined parameter uncertainty, and a deterministic sensitivity analysis and a scenario analysis were performed to test the robustness of the model assumptions. The model followed a Swedish healthcare payer perspective, therefore only considering direct medical costs.ResultsThe base case analysis showed that isavuconazole resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 174,890 Swedish krona (SEK) per additional quality adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. This was mainly due to the efficacy of isavuconazole against IA and mucormycosis, as opposed to voriconazole, which is only effective against IA. Sensitivity and scenario analyses of the data showed that the average ICER consistently fell below the willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of 1,000,000 SEK. The probability of isavuconazole being cost-effective at a WTP of 170,000 SEK per QALY gained was 50% and at a WTP of 500,000 SEK per QALY gained was 100%.ConclusionsThis model suggests that the treatment of possible IA with isavuconazole is cost-effective compared with treatment with voriconazole from a Swedish healthcare payer perspective.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:According to a recent randomized, double-blind clinical trial comparing the combination of voriconazole and anidulafungin (VOR+ANI) with VOR monotherapy for invasive aspergillosis (IA) in patients with hematologic disease or with hematopoietic stem cell transplant, mortality was lower after 6 weeks with VOR+ANI than with VOR monotherapy in a post hoc analysis of patients with galactomannan-based IA. The objective of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of VOR+ANI with VOR, from the perspective of hospitals in the Spanish National Health System. METHODS:An economic model with deterministic and probabilistic analyses was used to determine costs per life-year gained (LYG) for VOR+ANI versus VOR in patients with galactomannan-based IA. Mortality, adverse event rates, and life expectancy were obtained from clinical trial data. The costs (in 2015 euros [€]) of the drugs and the adverse event-related costs were obtained from Spanish sources. A Tornado plot and a Monte Carlo simulation (1,000 iterations) were used to assess uncertainty of all model variables. RESULTS:According to the deterministic analysis, for each patient treated with VOR+ANI compared with VOR monotherapy, there would be a total of 0.348 LYG (2.529 vs 2.181 years, respectively) at an incremental cost of €5,493 (€17,902 vs €12,409, respectively). Consequently, the additional cost per LYG with VOR+ANI compared with VOR would be €15,785. Deterministic sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of these findings. In the probabilistic analysis, the cost per LYG with VOR+ANI was €15,774 (95% confidence interval: €15,763-16,692). The probability of VOR+ANI being cost-effective compared with VOR was estimated at 82.5% and 91.9%, based on local cost-effectiveness thresholds of €30,000 and €45,000, respectively. CONCLUSION:According to the present economic study, combination therapy with VOR+ANI is cost-effective as primary therapy of IA in galactomannan-positive patients in Spain who have hematologic disease or hematopoietic stem cell transplant, compared with VOR monotherapy.

Project description:ImportanceTreatment with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab may prolong overall survival among patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. However, to our knowledge, the cost-effectiveness of using this high-priced therapy for this indication is currently unknown.ObjectiveTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab to treat unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma from the US payer perspective.Design, setting, and participantsThis economic evaluation used a partitioned survival model consisting of 3 discrete health states to assess the cost-effectiveness of treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab vs sorafenib. The characteristics of patients in the model were similar to patients in a phase 3, open-label randomized clinical trial (IMbrave150) who had unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma and had not previously received systemic treatment. Key clinical data were generated from the IMbrave150 trial conducted between March 15, 2018, and January 30, 2019, and cost and health preference data were collected from the literature.Main outcomes and measuresCosts, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost-utility ratios, incremental net health benefits, and incremental net monetary benefits were calculated for the 2 treatment strategies. Subgroup, 1-way sensitivity, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.ResultsTreatment of hepatocellular carcinoma with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab added 0.530 QALYs and resulted in an incremental cost of $89 807 compared with sorafenib therapy, which had an incremental cost-utility ratio of $169 223 per QALY gained. The incremental net health benefit was -0.068 QALYs, and the incremental net monetary benefit was -$10 202 at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000/QALY. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that treatment with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab achieved a 35% probability of cost-effectiveness at a threshold of $150 000/QALY. One-way sensitivity analysis revealed that the results were most sensitive to the hazard ratio of overall survival. The subgroup analysis found that treatment with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab was associated with preferred incremental net health benefits in several subgroups, including patients with hepatitis B and C.Conclusions and relevanceAtezolizumab plus bevacizumab treatment is unlikely to be a cost-effective option compared with sorafenib for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. Reducing the prices of atezolizumab and bevacizumab may improve cost-effectiveness. The economic outcomes also may be improved by tailoring treatments based on individual patient factors.

Project description:IntroductionA clinical trial (RACAT) reported the noninferiority of triple therapy compared to biologic agents (etanercept + methotrexate), and previous studies confirmed that biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) are more expensive but less beneficial than triple therapy for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in whom methotrexate (MTX) fails. However, from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system, the cost-effectiveness of triple therapy versus bDMARD treatment sequences as a first-line therapy for patients with RA is still unclear.MethodsAn individual patient simulation model was used to extrapolate the lifetime cost and health outcomes by tracing patients from initial treatment through switches to further treatment lines in a sequence. Therapeutic efficacy and physical function were evaluated using the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response, 28-Joint Disease Activity Score (DAS28), and Health Assessment Questionnaire score. All input parameters in the model were derived from published studies, national databases, local hospitals, and experts' opinions. Both direct costs and indirect costs were taken into consideration. Probabilistic and one-way sensitivity analyses were performed to test the uncertainty of the model, as were multiple scenario analyses.ResultsThe lifetime analysis demonstrated that triple therapy was associated with lower costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) than bDMARD sequences. These resulted in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) ranging from $87,090/QALY to $104,032/QALY, higher than the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold in China ($30,950/QALY). The baseline DAS28 impacted the model outcomes the most. Scenario analyses indicated that adding triple therapy to bDMARD sequences as a first-, second-, third-, or fourth-line therapy is very cost-effective, at a WTP of $10,316/QALY.ConclusionsFrom a Chinese payer perspective, triple therapy as first-line treatment in treatment sequence could be regarded as cost-effectiveness option for patients who failed MTX, compared to bDMARDs as first-line treatment, and instead of prescribing triple therapy as a substitute for bDMARDs as a first-line treatment, adding triple therapy to the bDMARD treatment sequence is likely to be very cost-effective for patients with active RA compared to bDMARD sequences.