METHODS: We developed a four-state partitioned survival model which compared treatment with olaparib versus routine surveillance (RS) from a Malaysian healthcare perspective. Mature overall survival (OS) data from the SOLO-1 study were used and extrapolated using parametric models. Medication costs and healthcare resource usage costs were derived from local inputs and publications. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were performed to explore uncertainties.
RESULTS: In Malaysia, treating patients with olaparib was found to be more costly compared to RS, with an incremental cost of RM149,858 (USD 33,213). Patients treated with olaparib increased life years by 3.05 years and increased quality adjusted life years (QALY) by 2.76 (9.45 years vs 6.40 years; 7.62 vs 4.86 QALY). This translated to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of RM 49,159 (USD10,895) per life year gained and RM54,357 (USD 12,047) per QALY gained, respectively. ICERs were most sensitive to time horizon of treatment, discount rate for outcomes, cost of treatment and health state costs, but was above the RM53,770/QALY threshold.
CONCLUSION: The use of olaparib is currently not a cost-effective strategy compared to routine surveillance based upon the current price in Malaysia for people with ovarian cancer with BRCA mutation, despite the improvement in overall survival.
PURPOSE: The study aimed to evaluate the budget impact of increasing the uptake of denosumab for the management of postmenopausal osteoporosis in Malaysia.
METHODS: A Markov budget impact model was developed to estimate the financial impact of osteoporosis treatment. We modelled a scenario in which the uptake of denosumab would increase each year compared with a static scenario. A 5-year time horizon from the perspective of a Malaysian MOH healthcare provider was used. Model inputs were based on Malaysian sources where available. Sensitivity analyses were performed to examine the robustness of the modelled results.
RESULTS: An increase in denosumab uptake of 8% per year over a 5-year time horizon would result in an additional budget impact, from MYR 0.26 million (USD 0.06 million) in the first year to MYR 3.25 million (USD 0.78 million) in the fifth year. When expressed as cost per-member-per-month (PMPM), these were less than MYR 0.01 across all five years of treatment. In sensitivity analyses, the acquisition cost of denosumab and medication persistence had the largest impact on the budget.
CONCLUSION: From the perspective of a Malaysian MOH healthcare provider, moderately increasing uptake of denosumab would have a minimal additional budget impact, partially offset by savings in fracture treatment costs. Increasing the use of denosumab appears affordable to reduce the economic burden of osteoporosis in Malaysia.
METHODS: The pharmacology module consisted of a pharmacokinetic distribution of oseltamivir carboxylate daily area under the concentration-time curve at steady state (simulated for 75 mg and 150 mg twice daily regimens for 5 days) and a pharmacodynamic distribution of viral shedding duration obtained from phase II influenza inoculation data. The epidemiological module comprised a susceptible, exposed, infected, recovered (SEIR) model to which drug effect on the basic reproductive number (R0 ), a measure of transmissibility, was linked by reduction of viral shedding duration. The number of infected patients per population of 100 000 susceptible individuals was simulated for a series of pandemic scenarios, varying oseltamivir dose, R0 (1.9 vs. 2.7), and drug uptake (25%, 50%, and 80%). The number of infected patients for each scenario was entered into the health economics module, a decision analytic model populated with branch probabilities, disease utility, costs of hospitalized patients developing complications, and case-fatality rates. Change in quality-adjusted life years was determined relative to base case.
RESULTS: Oseltamivir 75 mg relative to no treatment reduced the median number of infected patients, increased change in quality-adjusted life years by deaths averted, and was cost-saving under all scenarios; 150 mg relative to 75 mg was not cost effective in low transmissibility scenarios but was cost saving in high transmissibility scenarios.
CONCLUSION: This methodological study demonstrates proof of concept that the disciplines of pharmacology, disease epidemiology and health economics can be linked in a single quantitative framework.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to compare the estimates of the economic impact of reducing the AD incidence by feeding a partially hydrolyzed whey-based formula (PHF-W) instead of a standard CMF to high-risk nonexclusively breastfed urban infants for the first 17 weeks of life in the Philippines, Malaysia, and Singapore.
METHODS: In each country, a mathematical model simulated AD incidence and burden from birth to 6 years of age of using PHF-W versus CMF in the target population using data from the German Infant Nutritional Intervention study. The models integrated literature, current cost and market data, and expert clinician opinion. Modeled outcomes included AD risk reduction, time spent after AD diagnosis, AD symptom-free days, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and costs (direct and indirect). Outcomes were discounted at 3% per year. Costs were expressed in USD.
RESULTS: Feeding high-risk infants PHF-W instead of CMF resulted in an estimated absolute 14% (95% CI 1-24) AD risk reduction, a 0.69-year (95% CI 0.25-1.13) reduction in the time spent after AD diagnosis per child, reductions of 16-38 AD days, and gains in 0.02-0.04 QALYs, depending on the country. The per-child AD-related 6-year cost-saving estimates of feeding high-risk infants with PHF-W versus CMF were USD 739 in Singapore, USD 372 in Malaysia, and USD 237 in the Philippines.
METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed using electronic databases, such as EMBASE, PubMed/Medline, CINAHL, NHS and CEA Registry from 2000 until 2017. The quality of each included study was assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Economic Evaluations and Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards Statement checklist.
RESULTS: Of the 313 papers retrieved, five papers were included in this review after assessment for eligibility. The majority of the studies were cost-effectiveness studies, comparing ASP to standard care. Four included economic studies were conducted from the provider (hospital) perspective while the other study was from payer (National Health System) perspective. The cost included for economic analysis were as following: personnel costs, warded cost, medical costs, procedure costs and other costs.
CONCLUSIONS: All studies were generally well-conducted with relatively good quality of reporting. Implementing ASP in the hospital setting may be cost-effective. However, comprehensive cost-effectiveness data for ASP remain relatively scant, underlining the need for more prospective clinical and epidemiological studies to incorporate robust economic analyses into clinical decisions. This article is open to POST-PUBLICATION REVIEW. Registered readers (see "For Readers") may comment by clicking on ABSTRACT on the issue's contents page.
DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Ten-year horizon (2016-25) modeling study of opioid addiction epidemic and treatment that accommodated potential peer effects in opioid use initiation and supply-induced treatment demand in three Ukrainian cities: Kyiv, Mykolaiv and Lviv, comprising a simulated population of people at risk of and with OUD.
MEASUREMENTS: Incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained in the simulated population.
FINDINGS: An estimated 12.2-, 2.4- and 13.4-fold OAT capacity increase over 2016 baseline capacity in Kyiv, Mykolaiv and Lviv, respectively, would be cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay of one per-capita gross domestic product (GDP) per quality-adjusted life-year gained. This result is robust to parametric and structural uncertainty. Even under the most ambitious capacity increase, OAT coverage (i.e. the proportion of people with OUD receiving OAT) over a 10-year modeling horizon would be 20, 11 and 17% in Kyiv, Mykolaiv and Lviv, respectively, owing to limited demand.
CONCLUSIONS: It is estimated that a substantial increase in opioid agonist treatment (OAT) capacity in three Ukrainian cities would be cost-effective for a wide range of willingness-to-pay thresholds. Even a very ambitious capacity increase, however, is unlikely to reach internationally recommended coverage levels. Further increases in coverage may be limited by demand and would require addressing existing structural barriers to OAT access.
METHODS: A Markov model was developed to compare the cost effectiveness of various biologic sequential treatments in a hypothetical cohort of moderate to severe psoriasis patient in Malaysia over a lifetime horizon. The model simulated the progression of patients through three lines of active biologic therapy, before transitioning to best supportive care. Costs and effects were discounted annually at a rate of 3%.
RESULTS: First line secukinumab has produced lowest incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICERs) when compared to first line systemic [ICERs value; US$152,474 (first set analysis) and US$110,572 (second set analysis)] and first line phototherapy [ICERs value; US$147,057 (first set analysis) and US$107,616 (second set analysis)]. However, these values were slightly higher than the Malaysian based threshold of three times gross domestic product per capita, US$104,337. A 40% reduction in the unit costs of reference biologics renders most of the evaluated treatment sequences cost-effective.
CONCLUSION: Adding biosimilar to the current treatment sequence could achieve cost savings ranging from 4.3% to 10.8% without significant loss of effectiveness. Given the significant impact of comorbidities and the resulting decline in quality of life among individuals with psoriasis, it may be justifiable to establish a threshold of up to US$184,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) for the provision of therapies in the context of Malaysia.