Dataset Information

Early Treatment Uptake and Cost Burden of Hepatitis C Therapies Among Newly Diagnosed Hepatitis C Patients with a Particular Focus on HIV Coinfection.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Despite the high efficacy and safety associated with direct-acting antivirals (DAAs), access to HCV treatment has been frequently restricted because of the high DAA drug costs.

Objectives

To (1) compare HCV treatment initiation rates between HCV monoinfected and HCV/HIV coinfected patients before (pre-DAA period) and after (post-DAA period) all-oral DAAs became available; and to (2) estimate the HCV treatment costs for payers and patients.

Research design and methods

A retrospective analysis of the MarketScan^® Databases (2009-2016) was conducted for newly diagnosed HCV patients. Multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate the odds ratio (OR) of initiating HCV treatments during the pre-DAA and post-DAA periods. Kruskal-Wallis test was used to compare drug costs for dual, triple and all-oral therapies.

Results

A total of 15,063 HCV patients [382 (2.5%) HIV coinfected] in the pre-DAA period and 14,896 [429 (2.9%) HIV coinfected] in the post-DAA period were included. HCV/HIV coinfected patients had lower odds of HCV treatment uptake compared to HCV monoinfected patients during the pre-DAA period [OR, 0.59; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.45-0.78], but no significant difference in odds of HCV treatment uptake was observed during the post-DAA period (OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.87-1.33). From 2009 to 2016, average payers' treatment costs (dual, $20,820; all-oral DAAs, $99,661; p < 0.001) as well as average patients' copayments (dual, $593; all-oral DAAs $933; p < 0.001) increased significantly.

Conclusions

HCV treatment initiation rates increased, especially among HCV/HIV coinfected patients, from the pre-DAA to the post-DAA period. However, payers' expenditures per course of therapy saw an almost fivefold increase and patients' copayments increased by 55%.

SUBMITTER: van Boemmel-Wegmann S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7358122 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceProstate radiation therapy (PRT) is a treatment option in men with low-volume metastatic prostate cancer based on the results of the Systemic Therapy in Advancing or Metastatic Prostate Cancer: Evaluation of Drug Efficacy Arm H (STAMPEDE-H) trial. However, the cost-effectiveness of this treatment remains unaddressed.ObjectiveTo assess the cost-effectiveness of PRT when added to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for men with low-volume metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC).Design, setting, and participantsThis economic evaluation used microsimulation modeling to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of adding PRT to ADT. A simulated cohort of 10 000 individuals with low-volume mHSPC was created. Data from men with low-volume mHSPC were extracted and analyzed from January 18, 2019, through July 4, 2020. Transition probabilities were extracted from the STAMPEDE-H study. Health states included stable disease, progression, second progression, and death. Individual grade 2 or higher genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxic events associated with PRT were tracked. Univariable deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses explored uncertainty with regard to the model assumptions. Health state utility estimates were based on the published literature.ExposuresThe combination of PRT and ADT using regimens of 20 fractions and 6 weekly fractions.Main outcomes and measuresOutcomes included net quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs in US dollars, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. A strategy was classified as dominant if it was associated with higher QALYs at lower costs than the alternative and dominated if it was associated with fewer QALYs at higher costs than the alternative.ResultsFor the base case scenario of men 68 years of age with low-volume mHSPC, the modeled outcomes were similar to the target clinical data for overall survival, failure-free survival, and rates of PRT-related toxic effects. The addition of PRT was a dominant strategy compared with ADT alone, with a gain of 0.16 QALYs (95% CI, 0.15-0.17 QALYs) and a reduction in net costs by $19 472 (95% CI, $23 096-$37 362) at 37 months of follow-up and a gain of 0.81 QALYs (95% CI, 0.73-0.89 QALYs) and savings of $30 229 (95% CI, $23 096-$37 362) with lifetime follow-up.Conclusions and relevanceIn the economic evaluation, PRT was a dominant treatment strategy compared with ADT alone. These findings suggest that addition of PRT to ADT is a cost-effective treatment for men with low-volume mHSPC.

Project description:ObjectiveAnti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapies have revolutionized the treatment of clinically significant diabetic macular edema (CSDME); yet these agents are expensive, and whether they are cost-effective is unclear. The purpose of this study is to determine the most cost-effective treatment option for patients with newly diagnosed CSDME: focal laser photocoagulation alone (L), focal laser plus intravitreal ranibizumab (L+R), focal laser plus intravitreal bevacizumab (L+B), or focal laser plus intravitreal triamcinolone (L+T) injections.DesignCost-effectiveness analysis.ParticipantsHypothetical cohort of 57-year-old patients with newly diagnosed CSDME.MethodsBy using a Markov model with a 25-year time horizon, we compared the incremental cost-effectiveness of treating patients with newly diagnosed CSDME using L, L+R, L+B, or L+T. Data came from the DRCRnet randomized controlled trial, the Medicare fee schedule, and the medical literature.Main outcome measuresCosts, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental costs per QALY gained.ResultsCompared with L, the incremental cost-effectiveness of L+R and L+B was $89903/QALY and $11138/QALY, respectively. L+T was dominated by L. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that, at a willingness to pay (WTP) of $50000/QALY, L was approximately 70% likely to be the preferred therapy over L+R and L+T. However, at a WTP of $100000/QALY, more than 90% of the time, L+R therapy was the preferred therapy compared with L and L+T. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, L+B was found to be the preferred therapy over L and L+T for any WTP value >$10000/QALY. Sensitivity analyses revealed that the annual risk of cerebrovascular accident would have to be at least 1.5% higher with L+B than with L+R for L+R to be the preferred treatment. In another sensitivity analysis, if patients require <8 injections per year over the remainder of the 25-year time horizon, L+B would cost <$100000/QALY, whereas L+R would be cost-effective at a WTP of $100000/QALY if patients require fewer than 0.45 injections per year after year 2.ConclusionsWith bevacizumab and ranibizumab assumed to have equivalent effectiveness and similar safety profiles when used in the management of CSDME, bevacizumab therapy confers the greatest value among the different treatment options for CSDME.Financial disclosure(s)The author(s) have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article.

Project description:Six oral medication classes have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. Although all of these agents effectively lower blood glucose, the evidence supporting their impact on other clinical events is variable. There also are substantial cost differences between agents. We aimed to evaluate temporal trends in the use of specific drugs for the initial management of type 2 diabetes and to estimate the economic consequences of non-recommended care.We studied a cohort of 254,973 patients, aged 18 to 100 years, who were newly initiated on oral hypoglycemic monotherapy between January 1, 2006, and December 31, 2008, by using prescription claims data from a large pharmacy benefit manager. Linear regression models were used to assess whether medication initiation patterns changed over time. Multivariate logistic regression models were constructed to identify independent predictors of receiving initial therapy with metformin. We then measured the economic consequences of prescribing patterns by drug class for both patients and the insurer.Over the course of the study period, the proportion of patients initially treated with metformin increased from 51% to 65%, whereas those receiving sulfonylureas decreased from 26% to 18% (P<.001 for both). There was a significant decline in the use of thiazolidinediones (20.1%-8.3%, P<.001) and an increase in prescriptions for dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (0.4%-7.3%, P<.001). Younger patients, women, and patients receiving drug benefits through Medicare were least likely to initiate treatment with metformin. Combined patient and insurer spending for patients who were initiated on alpha-glucosidase inhibitors, thiazolidinediones, meglitinides, or dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors was $677 over a 6-month period compared with $116 and $118 for patients initiated on metformin or a sulfonylurea, respectively, a cost difference of approximately $1120 annually per patient.Approximately 35% of patients initiating an oral hypoglycemic drug did not receive recommended initial therapy with metformin. These practice patterns also have substantial implications for health care spending.

Project description:PurposeWe sought to determine the most cost-effective treatment for patients with newly diagnosed neovascular macular degeneration: monthly or as-needed bevacizumab injections, or monthly or as-needed ranibizumab injections.DesignCost-effectiveness analysis.ParticipantsHypothetical cohort of 80-year-old patients with newly diagnosed neovascular macular degeneration.MethodsUsing a mathematical model with a 20-year time horizon, we compared the incremental cost-effectiveness of treating a hypothetical cohort of 80-year-old patients with newly diagnosed neovascular macular degeneration using monthly bevacizumab, as-needed bevacizumab, monthly ranibizumab, or as-needed ranibizumab. Data came from the Comparison of Age-related macular degeneration Treatment Trial (CATT), the Medicare Fee Schedule, and the medical literature.Main outcome measuresCosts, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental costs per QALY gained.ResultsCompared with as-needed bevacizumab, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of monthly bevacizumab is $24,2 357/QALY. Monthly ranibizumab gains an additional 0.02 QALYs versus monthly bevacizumab at an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of >$10 million/QALY. As-needed ranibizumab was dominated by monthly bevacizumab, meaning it was more costly and less effective. In sensitivity analyses assuming a willingness to pay of $100,000/QALY, the annual risk of serious vascular events would have to be ≥2.5 times higher with bevacizumab than that observed in the CATT trial for as-needed ranibizumab to have an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of <$100,000/QALY. In another sensitivity analysis, even if every patient receiving bevacizumab experienced declining vision by 1 category (e.g., from 20/25-20/40 to 20/50-20/80) after 2 years but every patient receiving ranibizumab retained their vision level, as-needed ranibizumab would have an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $97,340/QALY.ConclusionsEven after considering the potential for differences in risks of serious adverse events and therapeutic effectiveness, bevacizumab confers considerably greater value than ranibizumab for the treatment of neovascular macular degeneration.

Project description:ObjectivesThis observational study identified attributes of patient-reported satisfaction with therapy for multiple myeloma (MM), described the treatment-related time burden and indirect costs, and investigated the effect of administration route (oral vs. injectable) on these outcomes among patients with newly diagnosed MM (NDMM) and among caregivers.MethodsPatients residing in the USA with a self-reported diagnosis of NDMM were recruited from PatientsLikeMe, MyelomaCrowd, and Facebook (16 December 2016 and 6 July 2017) to complete an electronic survey including questions on treatment experience, economic burden, and standardized patient-reported outcome measures, including the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication with three domains (global satisfaction, effectiveness, and convenience) and the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire. Univariate and multivariate analyses identified predictors of patient-perceived treatment satisfaction.ResultsAmong 188 patients, worse Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) was correlated with lower patient-perceived effectiveness and convenience of their current treatment. White race and oral administration route were independently correlated with higher patient-perceived convenience of treatment. Injectable therapy use was associated with a trend towards increased activity impairment (43 vs. 34%; p = 0.05) and significantly higher time burden of treatment administration, with threefold higher adjusted indirect costs of MM therapy compared with solely orally administered therapies (monthly mean $US482 vs. 153; 2016 values; p < 0.0001).ConclusionsFactors associated with patient-perceived satisfaction with NDMM treatment-ECOG PS, race, administration route-warrant increased attention in shared treatment decision making to help identify patient needs and improve the patient's treatment experience. The use of orally administered therapies could improve patients' activity impairment and reduce the time burden associated with therapy.