INES: Interactive tool for construction and extrapolation of partitioned survival models

BACKGROUND

INES (INteractive model for Extrapolation of Survival and cost) provides an open-access tool powered by R that implements three-state partitioned survival models (PSM). This article describes the properties of the tool, and the situations where INES may or may not be suitable.

METHODS

INES is designed to be used by investigators or healthcare professionals who have a good grasp of the principles of economic evaluation and understand the strengths and weaknesses of partitioned survival models, but are not sufficiently familiar with a statistical package such as Excel or R to be able to construct and test a de-novo PSM themselves. INES is delivered to the user via a batch file. Once downloaded to the user's hard drive, it interacts with the user via a portable version of R with web interactivity built in Shiny. INES requires absolutely no knowledge of R and the user does not need to have R or any of its dependences installed. Hence the user will deal with a standalone Shiny app. Inputs (digitalized survival curves, unit costs, posology, hazard ratios, discount rate) can be uploaded from a template spreadsheet.

RESULTS

The INES application provides a seamlessly integrated package for estimating a set of parametric hazard functions for progression free and overall survival, selecting an appropriate function from this menu, and applying this as an input to a PSM to calculate mean costs and quality-adjusted life years. Examples are given that may serve as a tutorial.

CONCLUSION

INES offers a rapid, flexible, robust and transparent tool for parametric survival analysis and calculating a PSM that can be used in many different contexts.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of the first-line EGFR-TKIs in patients with advanced EGFR-mutated non-small-cell lung cancer

AIM

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of first-line treatments, such as erlotinib, gefitinib, afatinib, dacomitinib, and osimertinib, for patients diagnosed with stage IIIB/IV NSCLC harboring EGFR mutations.

MATERIALS & METHODS

A partitioned survival model was developed to estimate quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) from the perspective of the Spanish National Health System. Two Bayesian NMAs were performed independently, by using the polynomial fraction method to fit Kaplan-Meier curves for overall survival and progression-free survival. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the uncertainty.

RESULTS

The ICER was calculated for the four first-line treatments by comparing them with gefitinib, and the ratios obtained were as follows: €166,416/QALY for osimertinib, €183,682/QALY for dacomitinib, €167,554/QALY for afatinib, €36,196/QALY for erlotinib. It was seen that patients who received osimertinib presented higher QALYs (0.49), followed by dacomitinib (0.33), afatinib (0.32), erlotinib (0.31), and gefitinib (0.28).

CONCLUSIONS

Gefitinib is the most cost-effective treatment. In terms of QALYs gained, Osimertinib was more effective than all other TKIs. Nevertheless, with a Spanish threshold of €24,000/QALY, the reduction in the acquisition cost of osimertinib will have to be greater than 70%, to obtain a cost-effectiveness alternative.

Dacomitinib in first-line treatment of advanced EGFR-mutated non-small-cell lung cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis

Aim: To assess the cost-effectiveness of first-line treatment with dacomitinib compared with gefitinib in patients newly diagnosed with advanced NSCLC EGFR-positive in the context of Spain. Materials & methods: A partitioned survival model was developed including costs, utilities and disutilities to estimate quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio when treating with dacomitinib versus gefitinib. Results: Dacomitinib presented higher QALYs (0.51) compared with gefitinib (0.45). Dacomitinib costs were €33,061 in comparison with €26,692 for gefitinib arm. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €111,048 was obtained for dacomitinib. Conclusion: Dacomitinib was more effective in terms of QALYs gained than gefitinib. However, to obtain a cost-effectiveness alternative, a discount greater than 25% in dacomitinib acquisition cost is required.

Analysis of first-line treatment in older patients with metastasic colorectal cancer

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to analyse the effectiveness and safety of first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (CRCm) in older patients treated in a tertiary hospital.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This was an observational and retrospective study, including patients aged 75 years or older, with CRCm, who received chemotherapy treatment in 2017. The main variables studied were type of treatment, Progression-Free Survival (PFS), Overall Survival (OS), dose reductions, and treatment delays due to adverse events.

RESULTS

A total of 59 patients (71.2% men) with a median age of 76 years were enrolled in this study. About 70% presented colon cancer, with the left colon being the most frequent location. They were treated with 9 different schemes, in most cases using polychemotherapy and biological agents. The median PFS and OS was 12 and 30 months, respectively. A total of 23/59 of patients started treatment at doses lower than recommended in the clinical practice guidelines. In terms of safety, 34/59 of patients had at least one dose reduction, and 30/59 suffered one treatment delay. The most frequent adverse reactions were asthenia, peripheral neuropathy, diarrhoea, and palmoplantar erythrodysesthesia.

CONCLUSION

Our patients presented baseline clinical characteristics similar to the general adult population, with no tumour characteristics associated with advanced age. The efficacy and toxicity were similar to those in the clinical trials, although our patients had more dose reductions. Considering the heterogeneity of patients and in the absence of clinical trials in the older population, real-life studies can be very useful.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of infliximab, adalimumab, golimumab, vedolizumab and tofacitinib for moderate to severe ulcerative colitis in Spain

OBJECTIVE

Despite the biological drugs, the treatment of moderate to severe ulcerative colitis is still a challenge, particularly in resource-limited settings. The aim of this study was to assess the efficiency of biological drugs and tofacitinib for moderate to severe ulcerative colitis in the Spanish context.

METHODS

A Markov model was built to simulate the progression of moderate to severe ulcerative colitis in a cohort of patients. The model used a time horizon of 10 years. The perspective chosen was the National Health Service, with a discount rate of 3%, and a threshold of €30,000/quality adjusted life-year (QALY). It carried out a one-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis.

RESULTS

The comparison of infliximab with adalimumab and golimumab estimated an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €43,928.07/QALY and €31,340.69/QALY, with a difference of - 0.43 and - 0.82 QALY, respectively. Vedolizumab vs infliximab achieved an ICER of €122,890.19/QALY with a gain of 0.46 QALY. The comparison of infliximab with tofacitinib yielded an estimated ICER of €270,503.19/QALY, with a slight gain in QALY (0.16). The one-way sensitivity analysis showed a robust study.

CONCLUSION

For a threshold of €30,000/QALY, adalimumab was the most cost-effective treatment versus infliximab for moderate to severe ulcerative colitis in Spain.

Osimertinib in first-line treatment of advanced EGFR-mutated non-small-cell lung cancer: a cost–effectiveness analysis

Aim: Osimertinib improves progression-free survival in first-line EGFR mutation–positive non-small-cell lung cancer. Materials & methods: A Markov cohort model including costs, utilities and disutilities, was conducted to estimate quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and incremental cost–effectiveness ratio when treating with osimertinib versus standard first-line tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). Results: Osimertinib presented higher QALYs (0.61) compared with standard EGFR–TKIs (0.42). Osimertinib costs were €83,258.99, in comparison with €29,209.45 for the standard EGFR–TKIs. An incremental cost–effectiveness ratio of €273,895.36/QALY was obtained for osimertinib. Conclusion: Osimertinib was more effective in terms of QALYs gained than comparators (erlotinib–gefitinib). However, to obtain a cost–effectiveness alternative, a discount greater than 60% in osimertinib acquisition cost is required.

Cost-effectiveness of lenalidomide maintenance in patients with multiple myeloma who have undergone autologous transplant of hematopoietic progenitor cells

The objective of this article is to analyze the ratio of cost-effectiveness and budgetary impact of lenalidomide treatment in patients with multiple myeloma who have undergone autologous transplant in Spain. The analyses were based on clinical trials CALGB 100104 and IFM 2005-02, from the perspective of the National Health System. The alternatives compared were the treatment with lenalidomide against maintenance without treatment (MwT). Efficiency measures used were years of life gained (YGs) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). According to the CALGB 100104 trial data, the average health costs of patients who were treated with lenalidomide for 120 months was €836,534.31 and without treatment was €528,963.63. The effectiveness of the lenalidomide group was 7.59YGs (5.72 QALY) against 6.58 of MwT (4.61 QALY). The incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) was €277,456.72/QALY and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was €303,191.05/YGs. From the analysis, the IFM2005-02 trial obtained 5.13 QALY in the lenalidomide group against the 4.98 QALY in the MwT group, with an ICUR of €1,502,780.55/QALY. In terms of budgetary impact, a range between 799 and 1452 patients susceptible to receive treatment with lenalidomide was assumed in Spain. In conclusion, the results show a high ICUR and budgetary impact, which adds uncertainty about the maximum prudent duration of the treatment.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of second-line pharmacological treatment of acromegaly in Spain

Objective: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of second-line pharmacological treatments in patients with acromegaly resistant to first-generation somatostatin analogues (FG SSA) from the Spanish National Health System (NHS) perspective.Methods: A Markov model was developed to analyze the cost-effectiveness of pegvisomant and pasireotide in FG SSA-resistant acromegaly, simulating a cohort of patients from the treatment beginning to death. Treatment with pegvisomant or pasireotide was compared to FG SSA retreatment. Efficacy data were obtained from clinical trials and utilities from the literature. Direct health costs were obtained from Spanish sources (€2018).Results: The Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) of pegvisomant vs. FG SSA was €85,869/Quality-adjusted life years (QALY). The ICER of pasireotide vs. FG SSA was €551,405/QALY. The ICER was mainly driven by the incremental efficacy (4.41 QALY for pegvisomant vs. FG SSA and 0.71 QALY for pasireotide vs. FG SSA), with a slightly lower increase in costs with pegvisomant (€378,597 vs. FG SSA) than with pasireotide (€393,151 vs. FG SSA).Conclusion: The ICER of pasireotide compared to FG SSA was six times higher than the ICER of pegvisomant vs. FG SSA. Pegvisomant is a more cost-effective alternative for the treatment of acromegaly in FG SSA-resistant patients in the Spanish NHS.

Network meta-analysis of tofacitinib versus biologic treatments in moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis patients

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is an autoimmune disease characterized primarily by inflammation and pain in the joints. Tofacitinib is an oral drug recently approved for RA treatment; it inhibits Janus protein kinases (JAK) that reduces RA symptoms when conventional DMARDs do not trigger a response. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of biological DMARDs in monotherapy or combined with methotrexate in RA patients and compare the treatments.

METHODS

We reviewed the literature for articles published up to June 2017, evaluating the efficacy and safety of the biological DMARDs indicated for RA in patients with inadequate responses to conventional DMARDs and naïve to biological DMARDs, in similar populations, considering ACR50 as the efficacy variable. The odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated for each drug combination, and these parameters were transformed into differences in responses to assess the effectiveness of the alternative medicines. Equivalence therapeutic alternatives (ETA) were ensured to assess the possibility of considering these medications with equivalent efficacy. A network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed using Bayesian approaches and the fixed-effects model.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Twenty-seven randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that met the pre-established criteria were identified. The 95% CI of biological DMARDs was higher than that of placebo without methotrexate, except for certolizumab, golimumab-m, anakinra-m and adalimumab monotherapy. These DMARDs performed significantly better than the placebo, except for etanercept, certolizumab, tofacitinib and golimumab. Certolizumab-m was better than anakinra-m and adalimumab, and tocilizumab alone or combined with methotrexate was superior to adalimumab. Etanercept-m yielded a higher difference in responses compared with the other biological DMARDs, which presented more homogeneous responses, except for adalimumab and anakinra-m, which yielded worse results. None of the biological DMARDs displayed ETA to etanercept-m; however, they displayed ETA with certolizumab-m, except for adalimumab and anakinra-m.

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

All biological DMARDs used in combination with methotrexate, except for etanercept, anakinra, certolizumab and tocilizumab without methotrexate, were displayed ETA on using ACR50 at week 24 in patients naïve to biological DMARDs. Etanercept displayed a greater difference in responses, although the high uncertainty of the comparative results prevented the confirmation of the increased efficacy of this drug.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of infliximab, adalimumab, golimumab and vedolizumab for moderate to severe ulcerative colitis in Spain

OBJECTIVES

Assess the efficiency of biologic treatment for moderate to severe ulcerative colitis (UC) which are indicated and financed for this pathology by Spain.

METHODS

A Markov model was constructed to simulate the progression in a cohort of patients with moderate to severe UC. The perspective chosen was National Health Service with an over 10 years of time horizon, with a discount rate of 3%, and established threshold of €30,000/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY).

RESULTS

The comparison between infliximab versus adalimumab achieved an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €45,582/QALY, with a 0.900 QALYs difference of efficacy and an incremental cost of €41,036. Golimumab versus adalimumab reached an ICER of €2,175,992/QALY, with a difference of 0.001 QALY in efficacy and a raising cost to €2,611. The comparison between vedolizumab with adalimumab achieved an ICER of €90,532/QALY, 0.930 QALYs of difference and an increasing cost of €84,218. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis shows that adalimumab would be cost-effective in the 65.2% of the simulations, infliximab in the 18.4%, golimumab in the 16.4% and vedulizumab for the 0%.

CONCLUSIONS

Among all these drugs studied, adalimumab is the most cost-effective drug for the treatment of moderate to severe UC for a threshold of €30,000/QALY in Spain.

Interferon-free therapies for patients with chronic hepatitis C genotype 3 infection: A systematic review

Treatment of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection with genotype 3 remains a challenge. The HCV elimination rate with direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) is lower than the values reported for other HCV genotypes. In addition, genotype 3-infected patients have a higher risk of disease progression and hepatocellular carcinoma. The aim of this study was to review the relevant literature concerning the treatment of HCV genotype 3 patients with interferon-free regimens. A literature search was conducted in the PubMed/Medline, Embase and Web of Science electronic databases. Trials enrolling patients with chronic hepatitis C infection treated with DAAs with or without ribavirin were included. Two investigators independently evaluated the trials for inclusion criteria, risk of bias and data extraction. The primary outcome was sustained virological response (SVR). In total, 323 references were identified, and 29 met the inclusion criteria: 18 general clinical trials, three general observational studies, three studies in patients with decompensated liver cirrhosis and four studies in HIV-HCV-coinfected patients. Overall, 4068 genotype 3 patients were included. As compared with sofosbuvir and ribavirin for 24 weeks, sofosbuvir/velpatasvir for 12 weeks or sofosbuvir plus daclatasvir plus ribavirin for 12 weeks provided higher SVR rates, particularly in patients with cirrhosis. Treatment of patients with decompensated cirrhosis remains a great challenge. Sofosbuvir/ledipasvir+ribavirin for 12 weeks were associated with an SVR of 85% in these patients. In summary, treatment of HCV genotype 3 patients is improving rapidly, and this population may no longer be considered a difficult-to-treat subgroup in the near future.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of therapeutic options for chronic hepatitis C genotype 3 infected patients

BACKGROUND

This study provides a cost-effectiveness analysis of therapeutic strategies for chronic hepatitis C genotype 3 infected patients in Spain.

METHODS

A Markov model was designed to simulate the progression in a cohort of patients aged 50 years over a lifetime horizon.

RESULTS

Sofosbuvir (SOF) plus peginterferon and ribavirin for 12 weeks was a cost-effective option when compared to standard of care (SoC) in the treatment of both 'moderate fibrosis' and 'cirrhotic' patients. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were €35,276/QALY and €18,374/QALY respectively. ICERs for SOF plus daclatasvir (DCV) regimens versus SoC were over the threshold limit considered, at €56,178/QALY and €77,378/QALY for 'moderate fibrosis' and 'cirrhotic' patients respectively.

CONCLUSION

Addition of SOF to IFN-based regimens for genotype 3 was cost-effective for both 'moderate fibrosis' and 'cirrhotic' patients. IFN-free options including SOF and DCV association required price reductions lower than the list prices to be considered cost-effective.

Sofosbuvir plus simeprevir for the treatment of genotype 1 chronic hepatitis C: a review of evidence

Sofosbuvir (SOF) with simeprevir (SIM) combination was the first interferon-free regimen that reached optimal results in terms of sustained viral response (SVR). Areas covered: A systematic review of the scientific literature concerning the effects that the SOF/SIM combination had on hepatitis C genotype 1 patients yielded 771 references. After the revision process, four clinical trials and 15 observational studies met the inclusion criteria; in total, these studies involved 5,766 patients. The SVR ranged from 67% to 100% depending on the patients' viral subtype and cirrhosis status. Adverse effects were common, but treatment discontinuation related to drug toxicity occurred in less than 5% of cases. Expert commentary: The SOF/SIM combination exhibits efficacy and tolerability profiles that are similar to those of the other available interferon-free combinations used for non-cirrhotic genotype 1b patients. Meanwhile, for patients with advanced cirrhosis or genotype 1a, this approach cannot be considered a routine treatment option due to the unsatisfactory results.

[Cost-effectiveness analysis of sofosbuvir-simeprevir regimens for chronic hepatitis C genotype 1 patients with advanced fibrosis]

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to measure the cost-effectiveness of the treatment with simeprevir and sofosbuvir in chronic hepatitis C genotype 1 patients with F3-F4 levels of fibrosis, according to the results of the COSMOS trial.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A Markov model was used to estimate the costs and clinical outcomes from the start of therapy. In the model, the progression was simulated alongside the different health states of the chronic liver disease associated with chronic hepatitis C using whole life as time-horizon.

RESULTS

The 12-weeks treatment schemes was below the threshold of €40,000 per quality-adjusted life year. On the contrary, despite the 50% cost reduction, the 24-weeks regimen demonstrated a limited level of efficiency when compared with the willingness to pay used in the Spanish medical literature.

CONCLUSIONS

This finding would support the introduction of a flat rate in the price of drugs without taking into account the duration of treatment to ensure that treatment with 24 weeks was efficient.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of simeprevir with daclatasvir for non-cirrhotic genotype-1b-naïve patients plus chronic hepatitis C

BACKGROUND

The cost of interferon-free combination therapies remains high to provide widespread access to treatment, regardless of fibrosis stage.

AIM

To estimate the cost-effectiveness of simeprevir/daclatasvir (SMV/DCV) therapy in treatment-naïve chronic hepatitis C genotype-1b patients with moderate fibrosis.

METHODS

A Markov model was developed to simulate the natural history of chronic hepatitis C progression. The model estimated lifetime healthcare costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) for a cohort of patients from the Spanish National Healthcare System perspective. The cost-effectiveness threshold considered was €40,000/QALY. The treatment strategies analyzed were SMV/DCV, peginterferon/ribavirin/telaprevir, and peginterferon/ribavirin/boceprevir. A sensitivity analysis was carried out.

RESULTS

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of the SMV/DCV strategy were €23,774/QALY and €28,524/QALY compared with that of telaprevir or boceprevir triple therapy, respectively, for genotype-1b patients with moderate fibrosis.

CONCLUSIONS

SMV/DCV combination compared with the standard of care previous to the arrival of second-generation direct-acting antivirals fell below generally accepted willingness-to-pay threshold. Results obtained should be supported by ongoing clinical trials.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of sofosbuvir-based regimens for chronic hepatitis C

BACKGROUND

A new scenario of therapy for chronic hepatitis C (CHC) is being established with the approval of sofosbuvir (SOF).

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the cost-effectiveness of SOF-based regimens approved in the Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC) versus the standard of care for different genotypes and patient populations (naive or pretreated).

METHODS

A Markov model simulating CHC progression was used to estimate disease treatment costs and effects over patients' lifetimes, from the Spanish National Public Healthcare System perspective. Different therapeutic options were analysed for genotypes 1, 2 and 3 in naive population and for genotype 2 and 3 pretreated patients, according to data obtained from clinical trials. A one-way sensitivity analysis was performed to evaluate the uncertainty of certain parameters: treatment starting age, transition probabilities, drug costs and discount rate. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis was also carried out.

RESULTS

For the naive population, the option SOF+pegylated-interferon-α (pIFN)+ribavirin (RBV) for 12 weeks recorded in SmPC for genotype 1 and 3 versus pIFN+RBV for 24 weeks estimated an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) below the €40,000/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) benchmark. For the pretreated population, SOF triple therapy reached an ICER on the threshold limit for genotype 3. Other options included in SmPC for different genotypes exceeded the accepted efficiency limit in our setting.

CONCLUSIONS

The options that included SOF+RBV+pIFN in a 12-week course regimen fell below the efficiency threshold considered in our setting. IFN-free regimens administered for 24 weeks reached figures over the benchmark of €40,000/QALY.

Cost analysis of adult parenteral nutrition systems: three-compartment bag versus customized

BACKGROUND

Parenteral nutrition (PN) is a costly technology used widely to provide nutrition to patients who have an inaccessible or non-functioning intestine. Two all-in-one systems currently being used are customized formulations and three-compartment bags.

OBJECTIVE

To provide a systematic cost comparison of the two all-in-one PN systems: individualized (made from nutrient solutions) versus commercialized (made from three-compartment bag), both prepared in hospital pharmacies.

SETTING

This study was conducted in three public Spanish hospitals.

METHOD

We conducted a cost-minimization study to analyze prospectively the total cost of PN bags, accounting for all of the processes involved in preparing and delivering PN bags (cost of manpower, nutrition solutions, medical supplies and quality controls) in three different healthcare settings. To compare therapeutic alternatives of equivalent nutritional value, the study was performed for the most frequently employed formulation and similar to commercial preparations. A univariate sensitivity analysis was performed to evaluate the impact of different rates of use of three-compartment PN bag.

RESULTS

157 routine acts of PN bag preparation (65 customized and 92 three-compartment) were observed and timed over 9 days. Total costs of the 157 PN bags were included in the study. Mean costs of customized bags were higher than three-compartment bags, 51.16 ± 5.63 € versus 39.69 ± 3.00 € respectively (p < 0.01). Manpower costs were responsible for the majority of the differences found (70%). The time to complete an adult bag for the hospital compounded system was a mean of 25.9 minutes longer than the three-compartment system. In scenarios using a three-compartment system for 30%, 70% and 90% of PN provision, a cost savings of 4.3%, 10.1% and 12.9% respectively could be achieved. Greatest rates of changing from customized bags (70% and 90%), in a hospital with 1,800 PN bags/year, might reduce the annual budget by 9306 € and 11,964.8 €, respectively. Meanwhile, in a large facility the savings for 8,000 TPN days would be 64,248 € and 82,605 €, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Since seeking cost-reduction of effective treatments is needed, the use of three-compartment bags for standard adult PN could lead to cost savings. Our data should be helpful for health care providers to calculate their own cost of administer.