BackgroundNucleos(t)ide analogs (NUCs) are the standard of care for chronic hepatitis B (CHB). The present analysis aimed to determine the cost effectiveness of NUCs in Chinese healthcare settings.MethodsA Markov model was used to simulate two therapeutic strategies for a hypothetical patient cohort diagnosed with hepatitis B e antigen-positive CHB, unwilling or unable to receive interferon therapy, and about to start treatment with any NUC. The first strategy included NUC monotherapy without sequencing (telbivudine [LDT], entecavir [ETV], tenofovir [TDF], lamivudine [LAM], adefovir dipivoxil [ADV], and combination therapies of either LDT and ADV or LDT and TDF, followed by best supportive care [BSC]). The second strategy included sequential therapies of individual NUCs: LAM → ADV, ADV → LAM, LDT → ADV, and ETV → ADV, followed by BSC. The analysis included two scenarios: with and without costs due to nephrotoxicity. Renal impact was quantified as costs alone, without consideration for quality of life decrements.ResultsWhen renal impact was not considered, without treatment sequencing, LDT was cost effective compared with other NUCs. Amongst the strategies with sequencing, LDT → ADV was cost effective. The results were similar when renal impact was considered. However, LDT strategy demonstrated better cost effectiveness. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, in both scenarios, LDT → ADV sequence was cost effective with 51 % probability even at willingness to pay of $20,000.ConclusionUse of LDT, as compared with other NUCs, is cost effective in CHB treatment in Chinese healthcare settings. Considering the detrimental renal impact, overall costs for all treatment options were increased. However, the increase for LDT was comparatively small.

Objective: The COMBI-AD trial demonstrated the efficacy and safety of dabrafenib and trametinib in combination vs placebo as adjuvant treatment of patients with BRAF V600E/K mutation-positive resected Stage IIIA (lymph node metastasis >1 mm), IIIB, or IIIC melanoma. This analysis evaluated the cost-effectiveness of dabrafenib and trametinib vs observation from a US healthcare payer perspective. Methods: This evaluation employed a non-homogeneous, semi-Markov, cohort model with health states for relapse-free survival (RFS), post-locoregional recurrence (LR), post-distant recurrence (DR) receiving first-line treatment, and post-DR receiving second-line treatment. A 50-year modeling time horizon was used. Transition probabilities were estimated based on individual patient data (IPD) from the COMBI-AD trial. Health-state utilities were estimated using EuroQol (EQ-5D) index values from COMBI-AD and published sources. Direct medical costs associated with treatment of melanoma were considered, including costs of BRAF mutation testing, medication and administration costs for adjuvant and metastatic treatments, costs of treating recurrence, and costs of adverse events. Costs and qualityadjusted life-years (QALYs) were discounted at 3.0% annually. Results: Compared with observation, adjuvant dabrafenib and trametinib was estimated to result in a gain of 2.15 QALYs at an incremental cost of $74,518. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was estimated to be $34,689 per QALY. In deterministic sensitivity analyses, the ICER was sensitive to the cost of dabrafenib and trametinib and the distribution used for projecting RFS beyond the end of follow-up in the COMBI-AD trial. At a cost-effectiveness threshold of $100,000 per QALY, the probability that dabrafenib and trametinib is cost-effective was estimated to be 92%. Conclusions: Given generally-accepted cost-effectiveness threshold values in the US, dabrafenib plus trametinib is likely to be a cost-effective adjuvant therapy for patients with BRAF mutation positive melanoma. These results may be useful for policy-makers in their deliberations regarding reimbursement and access to this treatment.

BackgroundChronic lung infection with Pseudomonas aeruginosa occurs in approximately 50% of patients with cystic fibrosis (CF). This infection further compromises lung function, and significantly contributes to the increased healthcare costs.ObjectivesInhaled tobramycin, used to manage P. aeruginosa infection in CF patients, is available as powder (tobramycin inhalation powder, TIP) and solution (tobramycin inhalation solution, TIS). Evidence suggests increased adherence with the use of TIP over TIS. Hence, this analysis aimed to evaluate the potential pharmacoeconomic benefit of increased adherence with TIP over TIS in the US setting.MethodsA patient-level simulation model was developed to compare TIP with TIS. Both costs and benefits were predicted over a 10-year time horizon from a payer’s perspective, and were discounted annually at 3%. All costs were presented in 2016 US dollars.ResultsTIP was associated with greater quality-adjusted life-years (by 0.27) and lower total costs (by US$36,168) as compared with TIS over a 10-year time horizon. TIP-treated patients experienced a decreased mean number of exacerbations than TIS-treated patients (39.24 vs 50.20). Furthermore, administration of TIP via the T-326 Inhaler was associated with significant cost savings per patient, because of the nebulizer required for administering TIS (by US$1596) and exacerbation costs (by US$76,531). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that TIP was dominant over TIS in 100% of the simulations.ConclusionTIP is likely to be a more cost-effective treatment than TIS, and therefore may reduce the economic burden of CF.

Secukinumab is either dominant or cost-effective vs all licensed biologics for the treatment of active PsA in biologic-naive and biologic-experienced populations in Canada.

ObjectiveSecukinumab, a fully human monoclonal IgG1 antibody that selectively neutralizes the proinflammatory cytokine IL-17A, has been approved in Europe in 2015 for the treatment of adult patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and ankylosing spondylitis (AS). This analysis assessed the budget impact of introduction of secukinumab to the Italian market for all three indications from the perspective of the Italian National Health Service.Materials and methodsA cross-indication budget impact model was developed and included biologic-treated adult patients diagnosed with psoriasis, PsA, and AS. The analyses were conducted over a 3-year time horizon and included direct costs (drug therapy costs, administration costs, diseases-related costs, and adverse events costs). Model input parameters (epidemiology, market share projections, resource use, and costs) were obtained from the published literature and other Italian sources. The robustness of the results was tested via one-way sensitivity analyses: secukinumab cost, secukinumab market share, intravenous administration costs, and adverse events costs were varied by ±10%.ResultsThe total patient population for secukinumab over the 3-year timeframe was projected to be 6,648 in the first year, increasing to 12,001 in the third year, for all three indications combined (psoriasis, PsA, and AS). Compared to a scenario without secukinumab in the market, the introduction of secukinumab in the market for the treatment of psoriasis, PsA, and AS showed a cumulative 3-year incremental budget impact of −5%, corresponding to savings of €66.1 million and per patient savings of about €1,855. The majority of the cost savings came from the adoption of secukinumab in AS (58%), followed by PsA (29%) and psoriasis (13%). Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the results.ConclusionResults from this cross-indication budget impact model show that secukinumab is a cost-saving option for the treatment of PsA, AS, and psoriasis patients in Italy.

Aim: To assess the cost-effectiveness of interleukin (IL)-17A inhibitor secukinumab vs the currently licensed biologic therapies in ankylosing spondylitis (AS) patients from a Canadian healthcare system perspective. Methods: A decision analytic model (semi-Markov) evaluated the cost-effectiveness of secukinumab 150 mg compared to certolizumab pegol, adalimumab, golimumab, etanercept and etanercept biosimilar, and infliximab and infliximab biosimilar in a biologic-naïve population, over 60 years of time horizon (lifetime). The Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI 50) response rate was used to assess treatment response at week 12. Non-responders or patients discontinuing initial-line of biologic therapy were allowed to switch to subsequent-line biologics. Model input parameters (short-term and long-term changes in BASDAI and Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index [BASFI], withdrawal rates, adverse events, costs, resource use, utilities, and disutilities) were obtained from clinical trials, published literature, and other Canadian sources. Benefits were expressed as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Cost and benefits were discounted with an annual discount rate of 1.5% for all treatments. Results: In the biologic-naïve population, secukinumab 150 mg dominated all comparators, as patients treated with secukinumab 150 mg achieved the highest QALYs (16.46) at the lowest cost (CAD 533,010) over a lifetime horizon vs comparators. In the deterministic sensitivity analysis, results were most sensitive to changes in baseline BASFI non-responders, BASDAI 50 at 3 months and discount rates. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that secukinumab 150 mg demonstrated higher probability of achieving maximum net monetary benefit vs all comparators at various cost thresholds. Conclusions: This analysis demonstrates that secukinumab 150 mg is the most cost-effective treatment option for biologic-naïve AS patients compared to certolizumab pegol, adalimumab, golimumab, etanercept and etanercept biosimilar, and infliximab and infliximab biosimilar for a lifetime horizon in Canada. Treatment with secukinumab translates into substantial benefits for patients and the healthcare system.

This study assesses the cost-effectiveness of secukinumab vs currently licensed biologics for the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis (AS) from the Finnish health care system perspective. Methods: A semi-Markov model compared secukinumab with adalimumab, adalimumab biosimilar, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, etanercept biosimilar, golimumab, and infliximab in a biologic-naïve population over a lifetime horizon. The Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) was used to assess the treatment response. Efficacy inputs were obtained from the network meta-analysis, and other model inputs were obtained from the published literature and Finnish sources. Main study outcomes included quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio in terms of cost per QALY gained. Robustness of results was confirmed by sensitivity analyses and alternative scenario analyses. Results: Secukinumab achieved highest QALYs (13.1) at lowest expected lifetime cost (€279,872) vs other comparators in biologic-naïve AS patients in the base case analysis, thus it dominated other biologics. Golimumab had a second highest QALYs (12.9) at the total cost of €309,551. Results were sensitive to variation in BASDAI 50 response for secukinumab, baseline Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI) score across all drugs, change in BASDAI and BASFI scores, and discount rates as observed in the one-way sensitivity analyses. Secukinumab was either dominant or cost-effective treatment in different alternative scenarios. Conclusion: Secukinumab presented itself to be the dominant (ie, less costly and more effective) treatment vs other comparators for the biologic-naïve patients with AS in Finland.

Objective To determine the cost effectiveness of secukinumab, a fully human interleukin-17A inhibitor, for adults in the UK with active ankylosing spondylitis (AS) who have not responded adequately to previous treatment with conventional care (CC; biologic-naïve population) or previous biologic therapy (biologic-experienced population). Perspective and Setting UK National Health Service (NHS). Methods The model was structured as a 3-month decision tree leading into a Markov model. Comparators were licensed tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (including available biosimilars) and CC in the biologic-naïve and biologic-experienced populations, respectively. Clinical parameters captured treatment response, short-term disease activity and patient functioning, as well as long-term structural disease progression. Utilities were derived from secukinumab trial data. List prices were used for all drugs. The cost year was 2017 and costs and outcomes were discounted at 3.5%. Results In the biologic-naïve population, secukinumab dominated adalimumab and certolizumab pegol. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) versus other comparators were either below £10,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained or south-west ICERs that implied cost effectiveness of secukinumab. In biologicexperienced patients, the ICER for secukinumab versus CC was £4927 per QALY gained. Treatment response rates, short-term treatment effects, long-term radiographic progression and biologic acquisition costs were key model drivers. Scenario analysis found results to be robust to changes in model structural assumptions. Probabilistic analysis identified greater uncertainty in results in the biologic-naïve population. Conclusions Even at list price, secukinumab appears to represent a cost-effective use of NHS resources for biologic-naïve and biologic-experienced patients with active AS. Further research on long-term radiographic progression outcomes would be valuable for future cost-effectiveness analyses in AS.