The "e" in cost-effectiveness analyses. A case study of omalizumab efficacy and effectiveness for cost-effectiveness analysis evidence

Real-world cost-effectiveness analysis of NOACs versus VKA for stroke prevention in Spain

Aims

A Markov model was adapted to assess the real-world cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban, dabigatran and apixaban. Each of these non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants was compared with vitamin K antagonist for stroke prevention in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation in Spain.

Methods

All inputs were derived from real-world studies: baseline patient characteristics, clinical event rates, as well as persistence rates for the vitamin K antagonist treatment option. A meta-analysis of real-world studies provided treatment effect and persistence data for rivaroxaban, dabigatran and apixaban, each compared with vitamin K antagonist therapy. The model considered 3-month cycles over a lifetime horizon. The model outcomes included different costs, quality-adjusted life years and life-years gained. Sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the model.

Results

When compared with vitamin K antagonist, rivaroxaban incurred incremental costs of €77 and resulted in incremental quality-adjusted life years of 0.08. The incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year was €952. For the same comparison, the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year for dabigatran was €4,612. Finally, compared with vitamin K antagonist, the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year for apixaban was €32,015. The sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the base case results. The probabilities to be cost-effective versus vitamin K antagonist were 94%, 86% and 35%, respectively, for rivaroxaban, dabigatran and apixaban, considering a willingness-to-pay threshold of €22,000 per quality-adjusted life year gained, based on a cost-effectiveness study of the Spanish National Health System.

Conclusion

These results suggest that rivaroxaban and dabigatran are cost-effective versus vitamin K antagonist for stroke prevention in non-valvular atrial fibrillation, from the Spanish National Health System perspective.

Use of real-world evidence in meta-analyses and cost-effectiveness models

Real-world evidence (RWE) provides external validity, supplementing and enhancing the randomized controlled trial data with valuable information on patient behaviors and outcomes, turning efficacy and safety results into real-world effectiveness and risks, but the use of RWE is associated with challenges. The objectives of this communication were to (1) summarize all guidance on how to conduct an RWE meta-analysis (MA) and how to develop an RWE cost-effectiveness model, (2) to describe our experience, challenges faced and solutions identified, (3) to provide recommendations on how to conduct such analyses. No formal guidelines on how to conduct an RWE MA or to develop an RWE cost-effectiveness model were identified. Using the context of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants in stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation, we conducted an RWE MA, after having identified sources of uncertainty. We then implemented the results in an RWE cost-effectiveness model, defined as a model where all inputs come from RWE, including all parameters related to treatment effect. Based on challenges faced, our first recommendation relates to the necessity of conducting sensitivity analyses, either based on clinical or methodological considerations. Our second recommendation is the need for extensive collaboration with a wide range of experts, during the development of the analyses protocols, the implementation of the analyses and the interpretation of the results. RWE may address a number of gaps related to the treatment effect, and RWE economic evaluations for the treatment effect can provide extremely valuable insights into real-world economic value of interventions. As the increased recognition of the value of RWE could influence health technology assessment decision, and current practices, this communication supports the urgent need of more formal guidelines.

Real-world cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban and apixaban vs VKA in stroke prevention in non-valvular atrial fibrillation in the UK

BACKGROUND

Morbidity and mortality associated with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) imposes a substantial economic burden on the UK healthcare system.

OBJECTIVES

An existing Markov model was adapted to assess the real-world cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban and apixaban, each compared with a vitamin K antagonist (VKA), for stroke prevention in patients with NVAF from the National Health Service (NHS) and personal and social services (PSS) perspective.

METHODS

The model considered a cycle length of 3 months over a lifetime horizon. All inputs were drawn from real-world evidence (RWE): baseline patient characteristics, clinical event and persistence rates, treatment effect (meta-analysis of RWE studies), utility values and resource use. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

The incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year was £14,437 for rivaroxaban, and £20,101 for apixaban, compared with VKA. The probabilities to be cost-effective compared with VKA were 90% and 81%, respectively for rivaroxaban and apixaban, considering a £20,000 threshold. In both comparisons, the results were most sensitive to clinical event rates.

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that rivaroxaban and apixaban are cost-effective vs VKA, based on RWE, considering a £20,000 threshold, from the NHS and PSS perspective in the UK for stroke prevention in patients with NVAF. This economic evaluation may provide valuable information for decision-makers, in a context where RWE is more accessible and its value more acknowledged.

Real-World Setting Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Comparing Three Therapeutic Schemes of One-Year Adjuvant Trastuzumab in HER2-Positive Early Breast Cancer from the Cyprus NHS Payer Perspective

Introduction: This study is one of the first real-world cost-effectiveness analyses of one-year adjuvant trastuzumab used in HER2-positive early female breast cancer in comparison to chemotherapy alone. It is just the second one in Europe, the first one in Cyprus, and the fourth one worldwide ever carried out using real-world data. Methods: Using a Markov model (four health states), a cost-effectiveness analysis was carried out both over 20 years and for a lifetime horizon. The sampling method used in this study was the randomized sampling of 900 women. Results: The findings for the 20-year horizon showed that all trastuzumab arms were more cost-effective, with a willingness-to-pay threshold of only €60,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) [incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER): €40,436.10/QALY]. For the lifetime horizon, with thresholds of €20,000, €40,000, and €60,000/QALY, all trastuzumab arms were found to be more cost-effective (ICER: €17,753.85/QALY). Moreover, for the 20-year and the lifetime horizons, with thresholds of €20,000/QALY, €40,000/QALY, and €60,000/QALY, the most cost-effective of the three subgroups (anthracyclines and then trastuzumab, no anthracyclines and then trastuzumab, and anthracyclines, taxanes, and trastuzumab) was that of anthracyclines and then trastuzumab (ICER: €18,301.55/QALY and €8954.97/QALY, respectively). Conclusions: The study revealed that adjuvant trastuzumab for one year in female HER2-positive early breast cancer can be considered cost-effective.

Cost-effectiveness of omalizumab for the treatment of moderate-to-severe uncontrolled allergic asthma in the United States

Objective: Uncontrolled asthma is associated with considerable clinical burden and costs to payers and patients. US economic models evaluating biologics using data from clinical trials demonstrate high incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), but the cost-effectiveness based on real-world treatment patterns is unknown. This analysis used real-world evidence to assess the cost-effectiveness of adding omalizumab to standard of care (SOC).Methods: A Markov model was applied to track patients' health states in 2-week cycles, comparing costs and treatment effects of SOC alone versus SOC + omalizumab over a lifetime (US payer perspective). Outcomes included exacerbation events, life years, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), total costs, and an ICER. Patient characteristics, exacerbations, patient-reported outcomes, and work productivity were derived from the real-world PROSPERO (Prospective Study to Evaluate Predictors of Clinical Effectiveness in Response to Omalizumab) study. Published literature informed mortality, exacerbation-related disutility, and unit costs. Sensitivity analyses assessed model robustness.Results: Over a lifetime horizon, omalizumab was associated with an increase of 2.0 QALYs at a cost of $US 148,319 in patients with uncontrolled asthma (ICER of $75,319/QALY gained) and a reduction in exacerbations of 6.0 events/patient. Accounting for responder status improved the ICER ($70,505/QALY); incorporating indirect costs further reduced the ICER. One-way and multivariate sensitivity analyses confirmed that the base case outcome was robust to variation in inputs.Conclusions: Based on real-world outcomes, omalizumab may be cost-effective for uncontrolled asthma from the US payer perspective. Including broader evidence on treatment discontinuation, caregiver burden, and oral corticosteroid reduction from real-world studies may better reflect the effects and value of omalizumab for all healthcare stakeholders.

A Systematic Review of Decision-Analytic Models for Evaluating Cost-Effectiveness of Asthma Interventions

OBJECTIVE

To demonstrate the landscape of model-based economic studies in asthma and highlight where there is room for improvement in the design and reporting of studies.

DESIGN

A systematic review of the methodologies of model-based, cost-effectiveness analyses of asthma-related interventions was conducted. Models were evaluated for adherence to best-practice modeling and reporting guidelines and assumptions about the natural history of asthma.

METHODS

A systematic search of English articles was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and citations within reviewed articles. Studies were summarized and evaluated based on their adherence to the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS). We also studied the underlying assumptions about disease progression, heterogeneity in disease course, comorbidity, and treatment effects.

RESULTS

Forty-five models of asthma were included (33 Markov models, 10 decision trees, 2 closed-form equations). Novel biological treatments were evaluated in 12 studies. Some of the CHEERS' reporting recommendations were not satisfied, especially for models published in clinical journals. This was particularly the case for the choice of the modeling framework and reporting on heterogeneity. Only 13 studies considered any subgroups, and 2 explicitly considered the impact of comorbidities. Adherence to CHEERS requirements and the quality of models generally improved over time.

CONCLUSION

It would be difficult to replicate the findings of contemporary model-based evaluations of asthma-related interventions given that only a minority of studies reported the essential parameters of their studies. Current asthma models generally lack consideration of disease heterogeneity and do not seem to be ready for evaluation of precision medicine technologies.

Cost-effectiveness analyses using real-world data: an overview of the literature

Objectives: Real-world evidence (RWE) may provide good estimates of absolute event probabilities and costs in patients in actual clinical practice, but their use in decision-analytic models poses many challenges. A literature review based on a systematic search was conducted to summarize the limitations of using RWE in decision-analytic modeling reported in the literature, but also to identify existing recommendations about real-world modeling. Methods: A literature search was performed on Medline and Embase databases, as well as relevant websites. No restrictions in language or geographical scope were imposed. Results: A total of 14 references were included. RWE is recognized as a valuable source of data for market access and reimbursement, and as a complement to clinical trial evidence for treatment pathways, resource use, long-term natural history, and effectiveness. The main limitations identified in the literature were: confounding bias, missing data, lack of accurate data related to drug exposure and outcomes, errors during the record-keeping process, protection of private data, and insufficient numbers of patients. Although most submission guidelines recognized the potential biases associated with RWE, guidance on the appropriate methods to deal with these biases, and approaches to review different relevant evidence to inform model development, were scarce. Several initiatives have attempted to provide guidance on the use of RWE in decision-modeling. Conclusions: RWE is likely to be particularly valuable for informing healthcare policy-makers when formulating appropriate treatment pathways, encouraging the optimal allocation of scarce resources, and improving aggregate patient outcomes. However, little guidance is available on the relative merits of using efficacy and/or effectiveness evidence in Health Technology Appraisal submissions. Further research is needed to better understand these methods and their potential applications in a broader range of scenarios and simulation studies, and their impact on economic modeling.

Cost-Effectiveness of Biological Asthma Treatments: A Systematic Review and Recommendations for Future Economic Evaluations

BACKGROUND

Recently developed asthma biological therapies have been shown to provide relief for severe asthma patients not controlled by inhaled treatment. Given the relatively high costs of biological therapies, cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) may be required as a prerequisite for coverage and reimbursement.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to systematically review published literature on the economic impact of biological asthma therapies and to identify key drivers that impact cost-effectiveness in order to provide recommendations for future economic evaluations.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature search in PubMed and Google Scholar. We included studies that assessed the cost-effectiveness of asthma biologics and were published in English between 2000 and 2018. The Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument was used to evaluate quality.

RESULTS

Twenty asthma biological CEAs were identified. Nineteen studies analyzed the cost-effectiveness of omalizumab, and one study analyzed mepolizumab. Ten studies concluded that omalizumab was cost-effective in base-case scenarios, four studies concluded omalizumab was not cost-effective, and the remaining studies concluded omalizumab or mepolizumab was cost-effective only when targeted to specific severe subgroups or given considerable price discounts. Key drivers of cost-effectiveness included day-to-day health-related quality of life (HRQoL), asthma-related mortality, acquisition price of the biological therapy, and time horizon.

CONCLUSIONS

Most studies recommended carefully targeting biological therapy to specific populations such as responders or discounting acquisition price in order to further improve value. The quality of the studies was generally satisfactory, but improved evidence is needed linking HRQoL to utilities as well as understanding interventions' impact on asthma-related mortality. Key recommendations from this review may allow for greater comparability across future cost-effectiveness studies.

Prospects for Monoclonal Antibody Therapy in Pediatric Asthma

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The profile of biologic therapies for asthma is growing rapidly. We discuss how to match the proper pediatric patient with the most effective therapy.

RECENT FINDINGS

Currently available biologic therapies are most effective in patients with T2 high asthma. Newer drugs are currently being studied which target TSLP and interleukin 33. These newer drugs may provide options for asthmatics who do not respond to the current anti-IgE, anti-IL5, and anti-IL4/13 therapies. Asthma is a heterogeneous disease which can be driven by different inflammatory mediators in different patients. To select the most effective biologic therapy for a pediatric patient, the asthma phenotype must first be determined. The steep cost of biologics limits their use, which makes proper pairing of patient to therapy even more crucial. Presently, several therapies exist for T2 high asthma, but it is hoped in the future that development of drugs effective for T2 low asthmatics will be available as well.

Pharmacoeconomics of Biologic Therapy

Novel biologic agents have allowed clinicians to achieve improved patient outcomes. Appropriate pharmacoceconomic analyses demand evaluation of all relevant costs, including the treatments, the disease and comorbidities, and costs of alternative treatments, including their short- and long-term side effects. Only with complete data can the value of therapies be correctly estimated. By assessing costs, pharmacoeconomic studies complement studies of efficacy and safety, helping to determine the relationships of treatment and outcome. This article provides a broad framework for understanding and evaluating published economic analyses and identifying the key costs and benefits caring for patients with asthma and other immune diseases.

Targeting patients with asthma for omalizumab therapy: choosing the right patient to get the best value for money

The asthma syndrome has many manifestations, termed phenotypes, that arise by specific cellular and molecular mechanisms, termed endotypes. Understanding an individual's asthma phenotype helps clinicians make rational therapeutic decisions while the understanding of endotypes has led to the development of specific precision medications. Allergic asthma is an example of an asthma phenotype and omalizumab, a monoclonal antibody that neutralizes serum immunoglobulin (Ig)E, is a specific targeted treatment which was developed as a result of an understanding of the endotype of allergic asthma. Omalizumab has been widely used in clinical practice in Europe for over a decade as an add-on therapy to treat patients who have severe refractory allergic asthma. Over this period, many centres have reported their experience with omalizumab as an add-on therapy in patients with severe asthma. These 'real world' clinical effectiveness studies have confirmed the benefits, cost-effectiveness and clinical utility of this medication. Combining the outcomes of both sources of research has yielded important insights that may benefit patients with severe asthma, clinicians who treat them, as well as the funding agencies that reimburse the cost of this medication. The purpose of this review is to describe how to identify and evaluate a patient with asthma for whom treatment with omalizumab may be of clinical and cost-effective benefit. The assessment and investigations used to confirm allergic asthma, the objective assessment of adherence to asthma therapy and the expected benefits of add-on omalizumab treatment are described.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Omalizumab for the Treatment of Severe Persistent Asthma in Real Clinical Practice in Spain

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Omalizumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody that targets circulating immunoglobulin E molecules to treat severe uncontrolled asthma. The aim of this study was to determine the cost effectiveness of omalizumab compared with standard treatment for the control of severe persistent asthma according to data from patients treated in a specialized asthma unit.

METHODS

This was an observational, retrospective, single-center study in the setting of the Pulmonology and Respiratory Allergy Service, Thorax Institute, Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. Data were collected by review of medical records of 86 uncontrolled severe persistent asthma patients treated with omalizumab from January 2005 to April 2014. Effectiveness was assessed by the reduction in asthma exacerbations and 3-point increases in the Asthma Control Test (ACT) score. The economic evaluation was performed from the societal perspective, including direct health costs (resource use and drug treatments) and indirect costs (disease impact on labor productivity) in 2016 Euros. The time horizon was 12 months before and after the initiation of treatment with omalizumab. Results were expressed using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).

RESULTS

Taking into account only direct costs, the ICERs were €1487.46 (95 % confidence interval [CI] 1241.21-1778.34) per exacerbation avoided and €5425.13 (95 % CI 4539.30-6551.03) per 3-point increase in the ACT. When indirect costs were included, the ICERs were €1130.93 (95 % CI 909.08-1392.86) per exacerbation avoided, and €4124.79 (95 % CI 3281.69-5186.73) per 3-point increase in the ACT.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study confirm the effectiveness of the addition of omalizumab to standard therapy in patients with uncontrolled severe persistent asthma.

Assessing the value of mepolizumab for severe eosinophilic asthma: a cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

Adding mepolizumab to standard treatment with inhaled corticosteroids and controller medications could decrease asthma exacerbations and use of long-term oral steroids in patients with severe disease and increased eosinophils; however, mepolizumab is costly and its cost effectiveness is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the cost effectiveness of mepolizumab.

METHODS

A Markov model was used to determine the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained for mepolizumab plus standard of care (SoC) and for SoC alone. The population, adults with severe eosinophilic asthma, was modeled for a lifetime time horizon. A responder scenario analysis was conducted to determine the cost effectiveness for a cohort able to achieve and maintain asthma control.

RESULTS

Over a lifetime treatment horizon, 23.96 exacerbations were averted per patient receiving mepolizumab plus SoC. Avoidance of exacerbations and decrease in long-term oral steroid use resulted in more than $18,000 in cost offsets among those receiving mepolizumab, but treatment costs increased by more than $600,000. Treatment with mepolizumab plus SoC vs SoC alone resulted in a cost-effectiveness estimate of $386,000 per QALY. To achieve cost effectiveness of approximately $150,000 per QALY, mepolizumab would require a more than 60% price discount. At current pricing, treating a responder cohort yielded cost-effectiveness estimates near $160,000 per QALY.

CONCLUSION

The estimated cost effectiveness of mepolizumab exceeds value thresholds. Achieving these thresholds would require significant discounts from the current list price. Alternatively, treatment limited to responders improves the cost effectiveness toward, but remains still slightly above, these thresholds. Payers interested in improving the efficiency of health care resources should consider negotiations of the mepolizumab price and ways to predict and assess the response to mepolizumab.

Incorporating real-world clinical practice in multiple sclerosis economic evaluations

Using evidence from short-term randomized controlled trials, decision-analytic models project costs, risks and benefits of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for multiple sclerosis (MS). Such trial-informed models lack the breadth needed to generalize to clinical practice or policy due to limitations: lack of DMT switching/discontinuation, limited head-to-head DMT comparisons and efficacy, not effectiveness, designs. We present an illustrative example that incorporates treatment switching and discontinuation by estimating the cost-effectiveness (value) of first-line natalizumab versus second-line natalizumab treatment for relapsing-remitting MS patients negative for anti-JC virus antibodies. Treating JC virus-negative relapsing-remitting MS patients with natalizumab as first-line provided better value compared with second-line. Decision-makers should consider this evidence for treatment step-edit policies through modeling scenarios closer to clinical practice.

Dynamic medication adherence modeling in primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: a Markov microsimulation methods application

BACKGROUND

Real-world patients' medication adherence is lower than that of clinical trial patients. Hence, the effectiveness of medications in routine practice may differ.

OBJECTIVES

The study objective was to compare the outcomes of an adherence-naive versus a dynamic adherence modeling framework using the case of statins for the primary prevention of cardiovascular (CV) disease.

METHODS

Statin adherence was categorized into three state-transition groups on the basis of an epidemiological cohort study. Yearly adherence transitions were incorporated into a Markov microsimulation using TreeAge software. Tracker variables were used to store adherence transitions, which were used to adjust probabilities of CV events over the patient's lifetime. Microsimulation loops "random walks" estimated the average accrued quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and CV events. For each 1,000-patient microsimulations, 10,000 outer loops were performed to reflect second-order uncertainty.

RESULTS

The adherence-naive model estimated 0.14 CV events avoided per person, whereas the dynamic adherence model estimated 0.08 CV events avoided per person. Using the adherence-naive model, we found that statin therapy resulted in 0.40 QALYs gained over the lifetime horizon on average per person while the dynamic adherence model estimated 0.22 incremental QALYs gained. Subgroup analysis revealed that maintaining high adherence in year 2 resulted in 0.23 incremental QALYs gained as compared with 0.16 incremental QALYs gained when adherence dropped to the lowest level.

CONCLUSIONS

A dynamic adherence Markov microsimulation model reveals risk reduction and effectiveness that are lower than with an adherence-naive model, and reflective of real-world practice. Such a model may highlight the value of improving or maintaining good adherence.

New strategies with anti-IgE in allergic diseases

IgE has long been known as a therapeutic target for allergic disease, but the difficulty has been in selecting agents that don't trigger cross linkage of IgE when bound to its high affinity receptor (FceR1) on mast cells and basophils. By "designing" a monoclonal antibody (mAb) which targets that part of IgE that binds to that binds to the a-chain of FceR1, the allergic cascade can be effectively interrupted and diseases such as asthma greatly improved, providing a substantial part of their phenotype engages IgE. Clinical trials and real life studies confirm this. Beyond asthma, a whole range of other diseases dependent upon IgE initiation and triggering are being identified. These diseases are now being explored as being amenable to anti-IgE therapy some of which are comorbidities of asthma and others not. The advent of an even more potent anti-IgE mAb - QGE031 - is creating further opportunities for anti-IgE therapy to improve the lives of so many people with IgE-related diseases.