Dataset Information

Cost-Effectiveness, Burden of Disease and Budget Impact of Inclisiran: Dynamic Cohort Modelling of a Real-World Population with Cardiovascular Disease.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

We aimed to estimate the cost-effectiveness, burden of disease and budget impact of inclisiran added to standard-of-care lipid-lowering therapy in the real-world secondary cardiovascular prevention population in Switzerland.

Methods

An open-cohort Markov model captured event risks by sex, age and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol based on epidemiological and real-world data. Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol reduction with add-on inclisiran was based on trial results and translated to meta-analysis-based relative risks of cardiovascular events. Unit costs for 2018 were based on publicly available sources, adopting a Swiss healthcare system perspective. Price assumptions of Swiss francs (CHF) 500 and CHF 3,000 per dose of inclisiran were evaluated, combined with uptake assumptions for burden of disease and budget impact. The assessment of cost-effectiveness used a discount rate of 3% per year. We performed deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses, and extensive scenario analyses.

Results

Patients treated with inclisiran gained a 0.291 qualityadjusted life-year at an incremental cost per QALY gained of CHF 21,107/228,040 (life-long time horizon, discount rate 3%) under the lower/higher price. Inclisiran prevented 1025 cardiovascular deaths, 3425 acute coronary syndrome episodes, and 1961 strokes in 48,823 patients ever treated during 10 years; the 5-year budget impact was CHF 49.3/573.4 million under the lower/higher price. Estimates were sensitive to calibration targets and treatment eligibility; burden of disease/budget impact results also to uptake. Limitations included uncertainties about model assumptions and the size and characteristics of the population modelled.

Conclusions

Inclisiran may be cost-effective at a willingness to pay of CHF 30,000 if priced at CHF 500; a threshold upwards of CHF 250,000 will be required if priced at CHF 3000. Inclisiran could enable important reductions in cardiovascular burden particularly under broader eligibility with a budget impact range from moderate to high depending on price.

SUBMITTER: Galactionova K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9300545 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionWhile the liraglutide effect and action in diabetes (LEAD-6) clinical trial compared the efficacy and safety of liraglutide once daily (LIRA) to exenatide twice daily (EXEN) in adult patients with type 2 diabetes, few studies have explored the associated per-patient costs of glycemic goal achievement of their use in a real-world clinical setting.MethodsThis retrospective cohort study used integrated medical and pharmacy claims linked with glycated hemoglobin A1C (A1C) results from the IMS Patient-Centric Integrated Data Warehouse. Patients' ≥18 years and naïve to incretin therapies during a 6-month pre-index period, with ≥1 prescription for LIRA or EXEN between January 2010 and December 2010, were included. Patients with evidence of insulin use (pre- or post-index) were excluded. Only patients who were persistent on their index treatment during a 180-day post-index period were included. Follow-up A1C assessments were based on available laboratory data within 45 days before or after the 6-month post-index point in time. Diabetes-related pharmacy costs over the 6-month post-index period were captured and included costs for both the index drugs and concomitant diabetes medications.Results234 LIRA and 182 EXEN patients were identified for the analysis. The adjusted predicted diabetes-related pharmacy costs per patient over the 6-month post-index period were higher for LIRA compared to EXEN ($2,002 [95% confidence interval (CI): $1,981, $2,023] vs. $1,799 [95% CI: $1,778, $1,820]; P < 0.001). However, a higher adjusted predicted percentage of patients on LIRA reached A1C < 7% goal (64.4% [95% CI: 63.5, 65.3] vs. 53.6% [95% CI: 52.6, 54.6]; P < 0.05), translating into lower average diabetes-related pharmacy costs per successfully treated patient for LIRA as compared to EXEN ($3,108 vs. $3,354; P < 0.0001).ConclusionsAlthough predicted diabetes-related pharmacy costs were greater with LIRA vs. EXEN, a higher proportion of patients on LIRA achieved A1C < 7%, resulting in a lower per-patient cost of A1C goal achievement with LIRA compared to EXEN.

Project description:BackgroundPast experience and modelling suggest that, in most cases, mass treatment strategies are not likely to succeed in interrupting Plasmodium falciparum malaria transmission. However, this does not preclude their use to reduce disease burden. Mass screening and treatment (MSAT) is preferred to mass drug administration (MDA), as the latter involves massive over-use of drugs. This paper reports simulations of the incremental cost-effectiveness of well-conducted MSAT campaigns as a strategy for P. falciparum malaria disease-burden reduction in settings with varying receptivity (ability of the combined vector population in a setting to transmit disease) and access to case management.MethodsMSAT incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated in different sub-Saharan African settings using simulation models of the dynamics of malaria and a literature-based MSAT cost estimate. Imported infections were simulated at a rate of two per 1,000 population per annum. These estimates were compared to the ICERs of scaling up case management or insecticide-treated net (ITN) coverage in each baseline health system, in the absence of MSAT.ResultsMSAT averted most episodes, and resulted in the lowest ICERs, in settings with a moderate level of disease burden. At a low pre-intervention entomological inoculation rate (EIR) of two infectious bites per adult per annum (IBPAPA) MSAT was never more cost-effective than scaling up ITNs or case management coverage. However, at pre-intervention entomological inoculation rates (EIRs) of 20 and 50 IBPAPA and ITN coverage levels of 40 or 60%, respectively, the ICER of MSAT was similar to that of scaling up ITN coverage further.ConclusionsIn all the transmission settings considered, achieving a minimal level of ITN coverage is a "best buy". At low transmission, MSAT probably is not worth considering. Instead, MSAT may be suitable at medium to high levels of transmission and at moderate ITN coverage. If undertaken as a burden-reducing intervention, MSAT should be continued indefinitely and should complement, not replace, case management and vector control interventions.