OBJECTIVES: Our study used data from the most recent network meta-analysis (NMA) and local parameters to assess the cost effectiveness of non-statin agents in statin-treated patients with a history of CVD.
METHODS: A published Markov model was adopted to investigate lifetime outcomes: (1) number of recurrent CVD events prevented, (2) quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained, (3) costs and (4) incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors (PCSK9i) and ezetimibe added to statin therapy. Event rates and effectiveness inputs were obtained from the NMA. Cost and utility data were gathered from published studies conducted in Thailand. A series of sensitivity analyses were performed.
RESULTS: Patients receiving PCSK9i and ezetimibe experienced fewer recurrent CVD events (number needed to treat [NNT] 17 and 30) and more QALYs (0.168 and 0.096 QALYs gained per person). However, under the societal perspective and at current acquisition costs in 2018, ICERs of both agents were $US1,223,995 and 27,361 per QALY gained, respectively. Based on threshold analyses, the costs need to be reduced by 97 and 85%, respectively, for PCSK9i and ezetimibe to be cost-effective.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite the proven effectiveness of PCSK9i and ezetimibe, the costs of these agents need to reduce to a much greater extent than in HICs to be cost-effective in Thailand.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to examine the cost-effectiveness of second-line endocrine therapies for the treatment of postmenopausal women with HR + and HER2 - mBC.
METHODS: A Markov model was developed to analyze the cost-effectiveness of the therapies over a 15-year time horizon from a public healthcare payer's perspective. The efficacy and utility parameters were determined via a systematic search of the literature. Direct medical care costs were used. A discount rate of 2% was applied for costs and outcomes. Subgroup analysis was performed for non-visceral metastasis. A series of sensitivity analyses, including probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) and threshold analysis were performed.
RESULTS: Base-case analyses estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of 3 million and 6 million Japanese yen (JPY)/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained for TOR and FUL 500 mg relative to EXE, respectively. FUL 250 mg and EXE + EVE were dominated. The overall survival (OS) highly influenced the ICER. With a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of 5 million JPY/QALY, the probability of TOR being cost-effective was the highest. Subgroup analysis in non-visceral metastasis revealed 0.4 and 10% reduction in ICER from the base-case results of FUL5 500 mg versus EXE and TOR versus EXE, respectively, while threshold analysis indicated EVE and FUL prices should be reduced 73 and 30%, respectively.
CONCLUSION: As a second-line therapy for postmenopausal women with HR +/HER2 - mBC, TOR may be cost-effective relative to other alternatives and seems to be the most favorable choice, based on a WTP threshold of 5 million JPY/QALY. FUL 250 mg is expected to be as costly and effective as EXE. The cost-effectiveness of EXE + EVE and FUL 500 mg could be improved by a large price reduction. However, the results are highly sensitive to the hazard ratio of OS. Policy makers should carefully interpret and utilize these findings.
Methods: We used a Markov microsimulation model to compare the cost-effectiveness of zoledronic acid with alendronate in Chinese postmenopausal osteoporotic women with no fracture history at various ages of therapy initiation from health care payer perspective.
Results: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for the zoledronic acid versus alendronate were $23,581/QALY at age 65 years, $17,367/QALY at age 70 years, $14,714/QALY at age 75 years, and $12,169/QALY at age 80 years, respectively. In deterministic sensitivity analyses, the study demonstrated that the two most impactful parameters were the annual cost of zoledronic acid and the relative risk of hip fracture with zoledronic acid. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, the probabilities of zoledronic acid being cost-effective compared with alendronate were 70-100% at a willingness-to-pay of $29,340 per QALY.
Conclusions: Among postmenopausal osteoporotic women in China, zoledronic acid therapy is cost-effective at all ages examined from health care payer perspective, compared with weekly oral alendronate. In addition, alendronate treatment is shown to be dominant for patients at ages 65 and 70 with full persistence. This study will help clinicians and policymakers make better decisions about the relative economic value of osteoporosis treatments in China.
OBJECTIVES: To systematically review the existing cost-effectiveness evaluations of breast-cancer medication in developing-countries.
METHODOLOGY: A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, and EconLit. Two researchers determined the final articles, extracted data, and evaluated their quality using the Quality of Health-Economic Studies (QHES) tool. The interclass-correlation-coefficient (ICC) was calculated to assess interrater-reliability. Data were summarized descriptively.
RESULTS: Fourteen pharmacoeconomic studies published from 2009 to 2019 were included. Thirteen used patient-life-years as their effectiveness unit, of which 10 used quality-adjusted life-years. Most of the evaluations focused on trastuzumab as a single agent or on regimens containing trastuzumab (n = 10). The conclusion of cost-effectiveness analysis varied among the studies. All the studies were of high quality (QHES score >75). Interrater reliability between the two reviewers was high (ICC = 0.76).
CONCLUSION: In many studies included in the review, the use of breast-cancer drugs in developing countries was not cost-effective. Yet, more pharmacoeconomic evaluations for the use of recently approved agents in different disease stages are needed in developing countries.
METHODS: Using a decision tree model, clinical and economic outcomes associated with olanzapine-containing regimen and standard antiemetic regimen (doublet antiemetic regimen: dexamethasone+first generation 5HT3RA) in most SEA countries except in Singapore (triplet antiemetic regimen: dexamethasone+first generation 5HT3RA + aprepitant) for CINV prevention following HEC were evaluated. This analysis was performed in Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Singapore, using societal perspective method with 5-day time horizon. Input parameters were derived from literature, network meta-analysis, government documents, and hospital databases. Outcomes were incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in USD/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. A series of sensitivity analyses including probabilistic sensitivity analysis were also performed.
RESULTS: Compared to doublet antiemetic regimen, addition of olanzapine resulted in incremental QALY of 0.0022-0.0026 with cost saving of USD 2.98, USD 27.71, and USD 52.20 in Thailand, Malaysia, and Indonesia, respectively. Compared to triplet antiemetic regimen, switching aprepitant to olanzapine yields additional 0.0005 QALY with cost saving of USD 60.91 in Singapore. The probability of being cost-effective at a cost-effectiveness threshold of 1 GDP/capita varies from 14.7 to 85.2% across countries.
CONCLUSION: The use of olanzapine as part of standard antiemetic regimen is cost-effective for the prevention of CINV in patients receiving HEC in multiple SEA countries.
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.
METHODS: Cost-effectiveness analysis used decision tree and Markov models to estimate lifetime costs and health benefits from societal perspective, based on a cohort of 509 metabolic syndrome patients in Thailand. Data were obtained from published literatures and Thai database. Results were reported as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in 2014 US dollars (USD) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained with discount rate of 3%. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the influence of parameter uncertainty on the results.
RESULTS: The ICER of ultrasonography screening of 50-year-old metabolic syndrome patients with intensive weight reduction program was 958 USD/QALY gained when compared with no screening. The probability of being cost-effective was 67% using willingness-to-pay threshold in Thailand (4848 USD/QALY gained). Screening before 45 years was cost saving while screening at 45 to 64 years was cost-effective.
CONCLUSIONS: For patients with metabolic syndromes, ultrasonography screening for NAFLD with intensive weight reduction program is a cost-effective program in Thailand. Study can be used as part of evidence-informed decision making.
TRANSLATIONAL IMPACTS: Findings could contribute to changes of NAFLD diagnosis practice in settings where economic evidence is used as part of decision-making process. Furthermore, study design, model structure, and input parameters could also be used for future research addressing similar questions.
METHODS: A Markov cohort model reflecting the natural history of HPV infection accounting for oncogenic and low-risk HPV was adapted for 13 year old Malaysian girls cohort (n = 274,050). Transition probabilities, utilities values, epidemiological and cost data were sourced from published literature and local data. Vaccine effectiveness was based on overall efficacy reported from 3-doses clinical trials, with the assumption that the 2-doses is non-inferior to the 3-doses allowing overall efficacy to be inferred from the 3-doses immunogenicity data. Price parity and life-long protection were assumed. The payer perspective was adopted, with appropriate discounting for costs (3 %) and outcomes (3 %). One way sensitivity analysis was conducted. The sensitivity analysis on cost of vaccine, vaccine coverage and discount rate with a 2-doses protocol was performed.
RESULT: The 3-doses and 2-doses regimes showed same number of Cervical Cancers averted (361 cases); QALYs saved at 7,732,266. However, the lifetime protection under the 2-doses regime, showed a significant cost-savings of RM 36, 722,700 compared to the 3-doses scheme. The MOH Malaysia could vaccinate 137,025 more girls in this country using saving 2-doses regime vaccination programme. The model predicted that 2-doses HPV vaccination schemes can avoid additional 180 Cervical Cancers and 63 deaths compare to 3-doses.
CONCLUSION: A 2-doses HPV vaccination scheme may enable Malaysian women to be protected at a lower cost than that achievable under a 3-doses scheme, while avoiding the same number of Cervical Cancer cases and deaths. Using the saving money with 2-doses, more Cervical Cancers and deaths can be avoided.
METHODS: Long-term costs and outcomes were projected using a validated IMS CORE Diabetes Model, version 8.5. Cohort characteristics, baseline risk factors, and costs of diabetes complications were derived from Thai data sources. Relative risk was derived from a systematic review and meta-analysis study. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3% per annum. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was presented in 2015 US Dollars (USD). A series of one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.
RESULTS: IDet yielded slightly greater quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) (8.921 vs 8.908), but incurred higher costs than IGlar (90,417.63 USD vs 66,674.03 USD), resulting in an ICER of ∼1.7 million USD per QALY. The findings were very sensitive to the cost of IDet. With a 34% reduction in the IDet cost, treatment with IDet would become cost-effective according to the Thai threshold of 4,434.59 USD per QALY.
CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with IDet in patients with T2DM who had uncontrolled blood glucose with oral anti-diabetic agents was not a cost-effective strategy compared with IGlar treatment in the Thai context. These findings could be generalized to other countries with a similar socioeconomics level and healthcare systems.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A Markov model was used to evaluate the economic and treatment outcomes of warfarin care bundles and NOACs compared with usual warfarin care. Cost-effectiveness was assessed from a societal perspective over a lifetime horizon with 3% discount rate in a hypothetical cohort of 65-year-old atrial fibrillation patients. Input parameters were derived from published literature, meta-analysis and local data when available. The outcome measure was incremental cost per quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained (ICER).
RESULTS: Using USD5104 as the threshold of willingness-to-pay per QALY, patient's self-management of warfarin was cost-effective when compared to usual warfarin care, with an ICER of USD1395/QALY from societal perspective. All NOACs were not cost-effective in Thailand, with ICER ranging from USD8678 to USD14,247/QALY. When compared to the next most effective intervention, patient's self-testing and genotype-guided warfarin dosing were dominated. In the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve, patient's self-management had the highest probability of being cost-effective in Thailand, approximately 78%. Results were robust over a range of inputs in sensitivity analyses.
CONCLUSIONS: In Thailand, NOACs were unlikely to be cost-effective at current prices. Conversely, patient's self-management is a highly cost-effective intervention and may be considered for adoption in developing regions with resource-limited healthcare systems.
METHODS: A Markov model cohort simulation with a 6-month cycle length to predict acute coronary syndrome, stroke, and heart failure throughout lifetime was performed. A cohort of 399 patients was obtained from two prospective, cluster randomized controlled clinical trials implementing physician-pharmacist collaborative interventions in community-based medical offices in the Midwest, USA. Framingham risk equations and other algorithms were used to predict the vascular diseases. SBP reduction due to the interventions deteriorated until 5 years. Direct medical costs using a payer perspective were adjusted to 2015 dollar value, and the main outcome was quality-adjusted life years (QALYs); both were discounted at 3%. The intervention costs were estimated from the trials, whereas the remaining parameters were from published studies. A series of sensitivity analyses including changing patient risks of vascular diseases, probabilistic sensitivity analysis, and a cost-effectiveness acceptability curve were performed.
RESULTS: The lifetime incremental costs were $26 807.83 per QALY (QALYs gained = 0.14). The intervention provided the greatest benefit for the high-risk patients, moderate benefit for the trial patients, and the lowest benefit for the low-risk patients. If a payer is willing to pay $50 000 per QALY gained, in 48.6% of the time the intervention would be cost-effective.
CONCLUSION: Team-based care such as a physician-pharmacist collaboration appears to be a cost-effective strategy for treating hypertension. The intervention is most cost-effective for high-risk patients.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The EQ- 5D was cross-culturally adapted and translated using an iterative process following standard guidelines. Consenting adult Malay- and Tamil-speaking subjects at a primary care facility in Singapore were interviewed using a questionnaire (including the EQ-5D, a single item assessing global health, the SF-8 and sociodemographic questions) in their respective language versions. Known-groups and convergent construct validity of the EQ-5D was investigated by testing 30 a priori hypotheses per language at attribute and overall levels.
RESULTS: Complete data were obtained for 94 Malay and 78 Indian patients (median age, 54 years and 51 years, respectively). At the attribute level, all 16 hypotheses were fulfilled with several reaching statistical significance (Malay: 4; Tamil: 5). At the overall level, 42 of 44 hypotheses related to the EQ-5D/ EQ-VAS were fulfilled (Malay: 22; Tamil: 20), with 21 reaching statistical significance (Malay: 9; Tamil: 12).
CONCLUSION: In this study among primary care patients, the Singapore Malay and Tamil EQ-5D demonstrated satisfactory known-groups and convergent validity.