This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of prophylaxis with rivaroxaban vs. enoxaparin in the prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE) after total hip replacement (THR) and total knee replacement (TKR) from the perspective of the Canadian healthcare system. A model was developed that included both acute VTE (represented as a decision tree) and long-term complications (represented as a Markov process with one-year cycles). Transition probabilities were derived from phase III clinical trials comparing rivaroxaban with enoxaparin and published literature. Costs were derived from the Ontario Case Costing Initiative and publicly available sources. Utilities were derived from published literature. The model reported VTE event rates, quality-adjusted life expectancy and direct medical costs over a five-year horizon. Costs are reported in 2007 Canadian Dollars (C$). When rivaroxaban and enoxaparin are compared in patients undergoing THR, rivaroxaban dominates enoxaparin. That is, rivaroxaban is associated with improved health outcomes as measured by increased quality-adjusted life years (QALYs; 0.0006) and fewer symptomatic VTE events (0.0061), and also with lower cost (savings of C$300) per patient. Similarly, rivaroxaban dominates enoxaparin in patients undergoing TKR, achieving a gain of 0.0018 QALYs, a reduction of 0.0192 symptomatic venous thromboembolic events and savings of C$129 per patient. Rivaroxaban is a cost-effective alternative to enoxaparin for VTE prophylaxis in patients undergoing THR and TKR. Over a five-year horizon, rivaroxaban dominated enoxaparin in the prevention of VTE events in patients undergoing THR and TKR, providing more quality-of-life benefit at a lower cost.

BackgroundIdiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a debilitating condition with significant morbidity and poor survival. Since 2010, there has been increased activity in the development of treatments that aim to delay progression of the disease.ObjectiveOur study involves a comprehensive review of the literature for evidence on health-related quality of life (HRQoL), healthcare resource use (HCRU) and costs, and an assessment of the burden of illness of the condition.MethodsWe carried out a systematic literature review (SLR) to identify economic evaluations and HRQoL studies. We searched EMBASE, MEDLINE and MEDLINE In Process for relevant studies from database origins to April 2017. Alongside the presentation of the study characteristics and the available evidence, we carried out a qualitative comparison using reference population estimates for HRQoL and national health expenditure for costs.ResultsOur search identified a total of 3241 records. After removing duplicates and not relevant articles, we analysed 124 publications referring to 88 studies published between 2000 and 2017. Sixty studies were HRQoL and 28 were studies on costs or HCRU. We observed an exponential growth of publications in the last 3–5 years, with the majority of the studies conducted in Europe and North America. Among the HRQoL studies, and despite regional differences, there was some agreement between estimates on the absolute and relative level of HRQoL for patients with IPF compared with the general population. Regarding costs, after adjustments for the cost years and currency, the suggested annual per capita cost of patients with IPF in North America was estimated around US$20,000, 2.5–3.5 times higher than the national healthcare expenditure. Additionally, studies that analysed patients with IPF alongside a matched control cohort suggested a significant increase in resource use and cost.ConclusionThe reviewed evidence indicates that IPF has considerable impact on HRQoL, relative to the general population levels. Furthermore, in studies of cost and resource use, most estimates of the burden were consistent in suggesting an excess cost for patients with IPF compared with a control cohort or the national health expenditure. This confirms IPF as a growing threat for public health worldwide, with considerable impact to the patients and healthcare providers.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s40273-018-0631-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundInternational guidelines recommend nintedanib (OFEV®) as an option for the treatment of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF).ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to assess the cost effectiveness of nintedanib versus pirfenidone, N-acetylcysteine and best supportive care (BSC) for the treatment of IPF from a UK payer’s perspective.MethodsA Markov model was designed to capture the changes in the condition of adults with IPF. Efficacy outcomes included mortality, lung function decline and acute exacerbations. Treatment safety (serious adverse events) and tolerability (overall discontinuation) were also considered. The baseline risk of these events was derived from patient-level data from the placebo arms of nintedanib clinical trials (TOMORROW, INPULSIS-1, INPULSIS-2). A network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted to estimate the relative effectiveness of the comparator treatments. Quality of life and healthcare resource use data from the clinical trials were also incorporated in the economic model.ResultsNintedanib showed statistically significant differences against placebo on acute exacerbation events avoided and lung function decline. In the cost-effectiveness analysis, the results were split between two treatments with relative low costs and modest effectiveness (BSC and N-acetylcysteine) and two that showed improved effectiveness (lung function) and higher costs (nintedanib and pirfenidone). All comparators were assumed to have similar projected survival and the difference in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) was driven by the acute exacerbations and lung function estimates. In the base-case deterministic pairwise comparison with pirfenidone, nintedanib was found to have fewer acute exacerbations and resulted in less costs and more QALYs gained.ConclusionsCompared with BSC (placebo), nintedanib and pirfenidone were the only treatments to show statistical significance in the efficacy parameters. We found substantial uncertainty in the overall cost-effectiveness results between nintedanib and pirfenidone. N-Acetylcysteine was largely similar to BSC but with a worse survival profile.INPULSIS-1 and INPULSIS-2 ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT01335464 and NCT01335477Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s40273-016-0480-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

No abstract

The analysis demonstrates that, in Italy, replacing another biologic DMARD with tocilizumab or adding tocilizumab to the current standard of care is a cost-effective strategy in the treatment of RA patients with inadequate responses to tDMARDs.

Evidence from the only large head-to-head RCT comparing rosiglitazone and pioglitazone suggests that more favourable changes in serum lipid profiles in patients treated with pioglitazone translate into improved health outcomes in terms of reduced morbidity and mortality and greater gains in QOL. In addition, this analysis indicates that treatment with pioglitazone is associated with lower costs than rosiglitazone. Therefore, in the UK, adjunctive pioglitazone may represent a cost-effective treatment choice for patients with type 2 diabetes who have insufficient glycaemic control while receiving the maximal tolerated dose of metformin monotherapy.

This cost-effectiveness analysis indicated that the addition of cetuximab to high-dose radiotherapy offers a good value-for-money alternative to radiotherapy alone in the treatment of locally advanced head and neck cancer in five European countries.