Lindsay Claxton

Cost-effectiveness of stent-retriever thrombectomy in combination with IV t-PA compared with IV t-PA alone for acute ischemic stroke in the UK.

Abstract Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of neurothrombectomy with a stent retriever (Solitaire* Revascularization Device) in treating acute ischemic stroke patients from the UK healthcare provider perspective. Methods: A Markov model was developed to simulate health outcomes and costs of two therapies over a lifetime time horizon: stent-retriever thrombectomy in combination with intravenous tissue-type plasminogen activator (IV t-PA), and IV t-PA alone. The model incorporated an acute phase (0–90 days) and a rest of life phase (90+ days). Health states were defined by the modified Rankin Scale score. During the rest of life phase, patients remained in the same health state until a recurrent stroke or death. Clinical effectiveness and safety data were taken from the SWIFT PRIME study. Resource use and health state utilities were informed by published data. Results: Combined stent-retriever thrombectomy and IV t-PA led to improved quality-of-life and increased life expectancy compared to IV t-PA alone. The higher treatment costs associated with the use of stent-retriever thrombectomy were offset by long-term cost savings due to improved patient health status, leading to overall cost savings of £33 190 per patient and a net benefit of £79 402. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the results were robust to a wide range of parameter inputs. Limitations: The acute and long-term costs resource use data were taken from a study based on a patient population that was older and may have had additional comorbidities than the SWIFT PRIME population, resulting in costs that may not be representative of the cohort within this model. In addition, the estimates may not reflect stroke care today as no current evidence is available; however, the cost estimates were deemed reasonable by clinical opinion. Conclusions: Combined stent-retriever neurothrombectomy and IV t-PA is a cost-effective treatment for acute ischemic stroke compared with IV t-PA alone.

Modelling the cost-effectiveness of human milk and breastfeeding in preterm infants in the United Kingdom

ObjectivesTo estimate the cost savings and health benefits in the UK NHS that could be achieved if human milk usage in the NICU was increased.MethodsA systematic review established the disease areas with the strong sources of evidence of the short, medium and long-term benefits of human milk for preterm infants as opposed to the use of formula milk. The analysis assessed the economic impact of reducing rates of necrotising enterocolitis, sepsis, sudden infant death syndrome, leukaemia, otitis media, obesity and neurodevelopmental impairment.ResultsBased on the number of preterm babies born in 2013, if 100% of premature infants being fed mother’s milk could be achieved in the NICU, the total lifetime cost savings to the NHS due to improved health outcomes is estimated to be £46.7 million (£30.1 million in the first year) with a total lifetime QALY gain of 10,594, There would be 238 fewer deaths due to neonatal infections and SIDS, resulting in a reduction of approximately £153.4 million in lifetime productivity. Sensitivity analyses indicated that results were robust to a wide range of inputs.ConclusionsThis analysis established that increasing the use of human milk in NICUs in the UK would lead to cost savings to the NHS. More research is needed on the medium and long term health and economic outcomes associated with breastfeeding preterm infants, and the differences between mother’s own and donor breast milk.

The Cost-Effectiveness of Ranibizumab Treat and Extend Regimen Versus Aflibercept in the UK

IntroductionWet age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is a chronic eye condition that causes severe deterioration of vision and even blindness. Current wet AMD treatment in the UK involves the vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors ranibizumab and aflibercept. Patients with wet AMD require frequent and long-term monitoring for treatment to be effective, contributing to a substantial resource burden at wet AMD centers. The European license for ranibizumab was recently updated with an individualized ‘treat and extend’ (T&E) regimen, comprising a structured monitoring and treatment protocol. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of ranibizumab T&E versus aflibercept within a UK setting.MethodsAn individual patient-level simulation model was developed utilizing treatment effects from a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. The model was conducted from a UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective over a lifetime horizon and the base case utilized probabilistic sensitivity analysis to assess uncertainty in the model. Additional scenario analyses were conducted to assess the impact of changes to the model inputs.ResultsRanibizumab T&E was found to be more effective and less costly than aflibercept, providing, on average, an additional 1.058 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and a cost-saving of £19,604 over a lifetime horizon. At list price, ranibizumab T&E was found to be cost-effective versus aflibercept in 100% of simulations at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per QALY. The robustness of the results was tested in several scenario analyses; ranibizumab T&E was found to be more effective, and less costly, than aflibercept in the vast majority of cases.ConclusionThis evaluation suggests that treating patients with ranibizumab according to the T&E regimen could be a better use of NHS resources than aflibercept, and could, therefore, be considered as a first-line regimen for patients with wet AMD in the UK.FundingNovartis Pharmaceuticals UK Limited.

An Economic Evaluation of Tofacitinib Treatment in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Modeling the Cost of Treatment Strategies in the United States

BACKGROUND Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Tofacitinib is approved in the United States for use in adults with moderately to severely active RA and an inadequate response or intolerance to methotrexate. OBJECTIVES To (a) evaluate, using an economic model, the treatment costs of an RA strategy including tofacitinib, compared with adalimumab, etanercept, certolizumab and tocilizumab biologic RA treatment strategies, which are commonly prescribed in the United States, and (b) assess the economic impact of monotherapy and combination therapy in patients who had an inadequate response to methotrexate therapy (MTX-IR analysis) and to combination therapy in patients who had an inadequate response to a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNF-IR analysis). METHODS A transparent, Excel-based economic model with a decision-tree approach was developed to evaluate costs over a 1- and 2-year time horizon. The model compared tofacitinib 5 mg twice a day (BID) either as monotherapy or in combination with MTX with similarly labeled biologic therapies. Response to treatment was modeled as American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20/50/70 response. ACR20 represented clinical response and determined whether patients continued therapy. ACR response rates at 6-month intervals were sourced from prescribing information and safety event rates from a published meta-analysis. Following an adverse event or a lack of response to treatment, it was assumed that 75% of patients switched to the next line of treatment (first to abatacept and then to rituximab). The perspective was that of a U.S. payer. Costs were reported in 2015 U.S. dollars and included drug wholesale acquisition costs, monitoring, drug administration, and treatment for minor and serious adverse events. The patient population eligible for treatment was based on the total number of members (i.e., RA and non-RA) in a payer organization; members with RA treated with biologic therapies were estimated using epidemiological data. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore the impact of varying key parameters, including treatment-switching probability, product rebate, major rates of adverse drug reaction, and ACR20 rates, on the model outcomes. RESULTS Tofacitinib combination therapy after MTX failure was associated with the lowest cost per member per month (PMPM) over a 2-year time frame at

A Comparison of Modelling Techniques: Patient Simulation Verse Markov Modelling in Ophthalmology

5.53, compared with

Simulation Modelling in Ophthalmology: Application to Cost Effectiveness of Ranibizumab and Aflibercept for the Treatment of Wet Age-Related Macular Degeneration in the United Kingdom

6.49 for adalimumab,

An economic model for the use of yoghurt in type 2 diabetes risk reduction in the UK

6.43 for etanercept,

An Economic Evaluation of Tofacitinib Treatment in Rheumatoid Arthritis After Methotrexate or After 1 or 2 TNF Inhibitors from a U.S. Payer Perspective

5.95 for certolizumab, and

Modelling the cost-effectiveness of tofacitinib for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in the United States

5.89 for tocilizumab. Similar savings were observed when all biologics were administered as monotherapy. Tofacitinib combination therapy was also associated with the lower PMPM cost compared with adalimumab combination therapy in the TNF-IR analysis. Tofacitinib was also among the lowest cost per ACR20 responder in each analysis. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that tofacitinib would potentially be cost saving even in the least optimistic scenarios. CONCLUSIONS This analysis suggests that tofacitinib 5 mg BID following MTX failure is a lower cost per patient treatment option when used either as monotherapy or combination therapy, compared with adalimumab, etanercept, certolizumab and tocilizumab biologic regimens. Tofacitinib + MTX in TNF-IR patients was also predicted to be a lower-cost treatment option compared with adalimumab+MTX and was associated with the lowest cost per ACR 20/50/70 responder. DISCLOSURES This study was funded by Pfizer, which determined the research topic and paid York Health Economics Consortium to develop the analysis and conduct the research. York Health Economics Consortium has received consultancy fees from Pfizer. Gerber, Wallenstein, Mendelsohn, Bourret, Singh, and Moynagh are employees and shareholders of Pfizer. Editorial support was funded by Pfizer and was provided by Claxton, Jenks, and Taylor, who are employees of York Health Economics Consortium. Study concept and design were contributed primarily by Taylor, Jenks, Gerber, and Singh, along with the other authors. Gerber, Moynagh, and Singh collected the data, assisted by Bouret and Mendelsohn; data interpretation was performed by Claxton, Gerber, Bouret, and Mendelsohn. The manuscript was written primarily by Claxton, with assistance from the other authors, and revised by Claxton, Gerber, Bouret, and Mendelsohn, with assistance from the other authors.

THU0343 Modelling the Costs and Outcomes Associated with Sequence of Treatment with and Without Tofacitinib for the Treatment of Moderate to Severe Rheumatoid Arthritis in the US

To avoid extrapolation of the results of these models to specific drugs, the parameter inputs do not reflect any interventions in particular, but were based on published literature to ensure internal validity. The model was driven by visual acuity (VA) score, as measured by ETDRS. In the Markov model, health states were defined as bands of 10 letters. A individual patient dataset was simulated, which contained VA in the study eye at three-monthly follow-up points for two years. From this dataset, a set of eight unique transition matrices for the Markov model and mean change in VA were calculated for two comparator options, for the study eye. It was not possible to explicitly model two eyes in the Markov model, since it would be necessary to make assumptions about the behaviour of the fellow. Drug A was assumed to be more effective than Drug B.