Dataset Information

Primary immunodeficiency disease: a cost-utility analysis comparing intravenous vs subcutaneous immunoglobulin replacement therapy in Australia.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Hospital-based intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) treatment has been the standard treatment mode for patients with primary immunodeficiency disease (PID). With the newer home-based subcutaneous immunoglobulin (SCIg) becoming approved for use in most countries, the question arises as to whether SCIg is a cost-effective treatment mode compared to IVIg in Australia.

Materials and methods

We developed a Markov cohort simulation model with six health states: PID without infection, PID with infection treated at home or hospital, bronchiectasis without infection, bronchiectasis with infection treated at home or hospital, bronchiectasis with chronic Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection, and death, from an Australian healthcare system perspective. A 10-year time horizon with weekly cycles was chosen, and the expected costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of the two treatment options estimated.

Results

The cumulative 10-year cost per patient was 297,547 Australian dollars (A$) with IVIg and A$ 251,713 for SCIg. IVIg resulted in 5.55 QALYs and SCIg 5.57 QALYs. Thus, SCIg appears to be a cost-saving option and possibly improves QALY from the Australian healthcare system perspective (i.e., the dominant treatment option). A probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that the SCIg option is preferred in 93.2% of simulations given willingness to pay of A$ 50,000 per QALY gained.

Discussion

The results suggest that home-based SCIg is a cost-effective treatment option for patients with PID in Queensland, Australia.

SUBMITTER: Windegger TM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7141942 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceLifelong immunoglobulin replacement therapy (IRT) is standard-of-care treatment for congenital agammaglobulinemia but accrues high annual costs ($30 000-$90 000 per year) and decrements to quality of life over patients' life spans. Hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) offers an alternative 1-time therapy, but has high morbidity and mortality.ObjectiveTo evaluate the cost utility of IRT vs matched sibling donor (MSD) and matched unrelated donor (MUD) HSCT to treat patients with agammaglobulinemia in the US.Design, setting, and participantsThis economic evaluation used Markov analysis to model the base-case scenario of a patient aged 12 months with congenital agammaglobulinemia receiving lifelong IRT vs MSD or MUD HSCT. Costs, probabilities, and quality-of-life measures were derived from the literature. Microsimulations estimated premature deaths for each strategy in a virtual cohort. One-way sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analyses evaluated uncertainty around parameter estimates performed from a societal perspective over a 100-year time horizon. The threshold for cost-effective care was set at $100 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). This study was conducted from 2020 across a 100-year time horizon.ExposuresImmunoglobulin replacement therapy vs MSD or MUD HSCT for treatment of congenital agammaglobulinemia.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcomes were incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) expressed in 2020 US dollars per QALY gained and premature deaths associated with each strategy.ResultsIn this economic evaluation of patients with congenital agammaglobulinemia, lifelong IRT cost more than HSCT ($1 512 946 compared with $563 776 [MSD] and $637 036 [MUD]) and generated similar QALYs (20.61 vs 17.25 [MSD] and 17.18 [MUD]). Choosing IRT over MSD or MUD HSCT yielded ICERs of $282 166 per QALY gained over MSD and $255 633 per QALY gained over MUD HSCT, exceeding the US willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000/QALY. However, IRT prevented at least 2488 premature deaths per 10 000 microsimulations compared with HSCT. When annual IRT price was reduced from $60 145 to below $29 469, IRT became the cost-effective strategy. Findings remained robust in sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.Conclusions and relevanceIn the US, IRT is more expensive than HSCT for agammaglobulinemia treatment. The findings of this study suggest that IRT prevents more premature deaths but does not substantially increase quality of life relative to HSCT. Reducing US IRT cost by 51% to a value similar to IRT prices in countries implementing value-based pricing may render it the more cost-effective strategy.

Project description:ObjectivesTo evaluate the 1-year cost-effectiveness between three different initial treatment strategies in autoantibody-negative RA patients, according to 2010 criteria.MethodsFor this analysis we selected all RA patients within the intermediate probability stratum of the treatment in the Rotterdam Early Arthritis Cohort (tREACH) trial. The tREACH had a treat-to-target approach, aiming for low DAS <2.4, and treatment adjustments could occur every 3 months. Initial treatment strategies consisted of MTX 25 mg/week (initial MTX, iMTX), iHCQ 400 mg/day or an oral glucocorticoids tapering scheme without DMARDs (iGCs). Data on quality-adjusted life-years, measured with the European Quality of Life 5-Dimensions 3 Levels (EQ-5D-3L), healthcare and productivity costs were used.ResultsAverage quality-adjusted life-years (s.d.), for iMTX, iHCQ and iGCs were respectively 0.71 (0.14), 0.73 (0.14) and 0.71 (0.15). The average total costs (s.d.) for iMTX, iHCQ and iGCs were, respectively, €10 832 (14.763), €11 208 (12.801) and €10 502 (11.973). Healthcare costs were mainly determined by biological costs, which were significantly lower in the iHCQ group compared with iGCs (P < 0.05). However, costs due to presenteeism were the highest in the iHCQ group (55%) followed by iMTX (27%) and iGCs (18%). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios did not differ between treatment strategies. At a willingness-to-pay level of €50 000, the Dutch threshold for reimbursement of medical care, iHCQ had the highest probability (38.7%) of being cost-effective, followed by iGCs (31.1%) and iMTX (30.2%).ConclusioniHCQ had the lowest healthcare and highest productivity costs, resulting in a non-significant incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. However, iHCQ had the highest chance of being cost-effective at the Dutch willingness-to-pay threshold for healthcare reimbursement. Therefore, we believe that iHCQ is a good alternative to iMTX in autoantibody-negative RA patients, but validation is needed.Clinical trial registration numberISRCTN26791028.