Background Lenvatinib demonstrated a treatment effect on overall survival by the statistical confirmation of non-inferiority to sorafenib for the first-line treatment of uHCC. The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of lenvatinib compared with sorafenib for patients with uHCC in Japan. Methods A partitioned-survival model was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of lenvatinib versus sorafenib when treating uHCC patients over a lifetime horizon and considering total public healthcare expenditure. Efficacy and safety data were extracted from the REFLECT trial. Utility values were derived from the European Quality-of-Life 5-Dimension Questionnaire, conducted with patients enrolled in the REFLECT trial. Direct medical costs, such as primary drug therapy, outpatient visits, diagnostic tests, hospitalization, post-progression therapy, and adverse-event treatments, were included. Cost parameters unavailable in the clinical trial or publications were obtained based on the consolidated clinical standards from a Delphi panel of four Japanese medical experts. Results For lenvatinib versus sorafenib, the incremental cost was − 406,307 Japanese Yen (JPY), and the incremental life years and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were 0.27 and 0.23, respectively. Thus, lenvatinib dominated sorafenib, due to the mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratio falling in the fourth quadrant, conferring more benefit at lower costs compared with sorafenib. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that 81.3% of the simulations were favorable to lenvatinib compared with sorafenib, with a payer’s willingness-to-pay-per-QALY of 5 million JPY. Conclusions Lenvatinib was cost-effective compared with sorafenib for the first-line treatment of uHCC in Japan. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s00535-019-01554-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background: Alzheimer’s disease dementia (ADD) is the leading cause of long-term care in Japan. Objective: This study estimates the annual healthcare and long-term care costs in fiscal year 2018 for adults over 65 years of age with ADD in Japan and the informal care costs and productivity loss for their families. Methods: Healthcare and long-term care costs for ADD were estimated according to the disease severity classified by the clinical dementia rating (CDR) score, using reports from a literature review. For the costs of time spent on caregiving activities, productivity loss for ADD family caregivers aged 20–69 and informal care costs for all ADD family caregivers were estimated. Results: The total healthcare cost of ADD was JPY 1,073 billion, of which 86% (JPY 923 billion) was attributed to healthcare costs other than ADD drug costs (JPY 151 billion). The healthcare costs other than ADD drug costs by severity were less than JPY 200 billion for CDR–0.5, CDR-1, and CDR-2, respectively, but increased to JPY 447 billion (48%) for CDR-3. The public long-term care costs were estimated to be JPY 4,783 billion, which increased according to the severity. Total productivity loss for ADD family caregivers aged 20–69 was JPY 1,547 billion and the informal care cost for all ADD family caregivers was JPY 6,772 billion. Conclusion: ADD costs have a significant impact on public-funded healthcare, long-term care systems, and families in Japan. To minimize the economic burden of ADD, prolonging healthy life expectancy is the key factor to address.

Background: Alzheimer’s disease (AD) increases societal costs and decreases the activities of daily living (ADL) and quality of life (QoL) of the affected individuals. Objective: We assess the impact of AD severity on ADL, QoL, and caregiving costs in Japanese facilities for the elderly. Methods: Patients with AD in facilities for the elderly were included (47 facilities, N = 3,461). The QoL, ADL, and disease severity of patients were assessed using Barthel Index (BI), EuroQoL-5D-5L (EQ-5D-5L), and Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), respectively. Annual caregiving costs were estimated using patients’ claims data. The patients were subcategorized into the following three groups according to the MMSE score: mild (21≤MMSE≤30), moderate (11≤MMSE≤20), and severe (0≤MMSE≤10). Changes among the three groups were evaluated using the Jonckheere-Terpstra test. Results: Four hundred and one participants were on anti-AD medicines, of whom 287 (age: 86.1±6.4 years, 76.7% women) in the mild (n = 53, 84.0±6.9 years, 71.7%), moderate (n = 118, 86.6±5.9 years, 76.3%), and severe (n = 116, 86.6±6.5 years, 79.3%) groups completed the study questionnaires. The mean BI and EQ-5D-5L scores for each group were 83.6, 65.1, and 32.8 and 0.801, 0.662, and 0.436, respectively. The mean annual caregiving costs were 2.111, 2.470, and 2.809 million JPY, respectively. As AD worsened, the BI and EQ-5D-5L scores decreased and annual caregiving costs increased significantly. Conclusion: AD severity has an impact on QoL, ADL, and caregiving costs.

Background: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the leading causes of cancer-related mortality in Japan. Prognosis is poor, and until recently sorafenib was the only treatment option available for patients with unresectable disease. Lenvatinib is the first therapy to demonstrate noninferiority to sorafenib. An analysis was conducted using clinical data from Japanese patients in the phase III REFLECT trial to assess the cost-effectiveness of lenvatinib versus sorafenib for first-line treatment of unresectable HCC in Japan.Methods: A partitioned survival model was implemented adopting the perspective of the Japanese healthcare system, with costs and outcomes modeled over a lifetime horizon and using a discount rate of 2%, as per Japanese guidelines. Population data from the Japanese subpopulation of REFLECT were used to extrapolate outcomes, and costs and resource use were based on Japanese sources. The Japanese tariff was applied to EQ-5D data collected during the REFLECT clinical trial to obtain utility values reflecting the preferences of the Japanese population.Results: Compared with sorafenib, lenvatinib is dominant because it is associated with a reduction in incremental costs of U156 799 and incremental quality-adjusted life-years of 0.31. These results were robust to changes in key assumptions, and probabilistic outcomes aligned with deterministic outcomes. Conclusion:Given the use of Japan-specific data in the cost-effectiveness model, it is expected that the use of lenvatinib as a first-line treatment in Japan will be associated with cost savings and improved clinical outcomes versus sorafenib for patients with unresectable HCC.

Background Lemborexant has demonstrated statistically significant improvements in sleep onset and sleep maintenance compared with placebo and zolpidem tartrate extended release, measured both objectively using polysomnography and subjectively using sleep diaries, in the phase 3 clinical trial SUNRISE 1. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of lemborexant compared with suvorexant, zolpidem immediate release (IR), and untreated insomnia. Methods A decision-tree model was developed for falls, motor vehicle collisions, and workplace accidents associated with insomnia and insomnia treatments from a Japanese healthcare perspective and with a 6-month time horizon. The model extracted subjective sleep onset latency treatment responses and disutility values for non-responders from SUNRISE 1. Cost-effectiveness was assessed using incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate the impact of parameter uncertainty on the results. Results In the base-case analysis, the mean estimated QALYs for lemborexant, suvorexant, zolpidem-IR, and untreated insomnia were 0.4220, 0.4204, 0.4113, and 0.4163, and expected medical costs were JPY 34 034, JPY 38 371, JPY 38 139, and JPY 15 383, respectively. Lemborexant saved JPY 4337 and JPY 4105 compared with suvorexant or zolpidem-IR, respectively, while conferring QALY benefits. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of lemborexant compared with that of untreated insomnia was JPY 3 220 975 /QALY. Lemborexant was dominant over suvorexant and zolpidem-IR and was cost-effective when compared with untreated insomnia. Sensitivity analyses supported the results' robustness. Conclusions In a Japanese clinical practice setting, lemborexant may represent a better investment for treating insomnia in the healthcare system in Japan.