Search

Relmacabtagene autoleucel (relma-cel) was recently approved in China for treating relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma (r/r LBCL). We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis from the perspective of Chinese healthcare system. A mixture-cure model was developed to project life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), and overall direct cost with a lifetime horizon for patients with r/r LBCL treated with relma-cel versus salvage chemotherapy. Patient-level data from RELIANCE trial and published data from Collaborative Trial in Relapsed Aggressive Lymphoma extension study were used to inform the model. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was estimated and cost-effectiveness was evaluated at the willingness-to-pay threshold of 3 times the national gross domestic product per capita. The model projected that treatment with relma-cel was associated with incremental gains of 5.11 LYs and 5.26 QALYs compared with salvage chemotherapy at an increased cost of ¥1 067 430 (∼$154 152), resulting in an ICER of ¥203 137 (∼$29 435) per QALY. The model was most sensitive to the uncertainty around the estimated cure rate. The ICER of relma-cel was within the willingness-to-pay threshold in the base case and the probability of relma-cel treatment being considered cost-effective was approximately 74%. Compared with salvage chemotherapy, treatment with relma-cel for r/r LBCL in patients who have failed at least 2 lines of systemic therapy is within the cost-effective range from the perspective of Chinese healthcare system and represents a good use of healthcare resources. • Relmacabtagene autoleucel (relma-cel) is a newly approved chimeric antigen receptor T cell drug for treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma (r/r LBCL) who have failed at least 2 lines of systemic therapy in China. Although relma-cel purportedly brings patients with r/r LBCL a potentially curative treatment option, the therapy is associated with high upfront cost. • Our research is the first cost-effectiveness analysis to evaluate whether adoption of relma-cel is a good use of healthcare resources from perspective of Chinese healthcare system. • The mixture-cure model was applied in modeling survival data for relma-cel–treated patients. The model showed that, compared with salvage chemotherapy, treatment with relma-cel for r/r LBCL for its approved indication should be considered cost-effective owing to the unprecedented survival benefits. Our research also illustrated some major limitations in modeling survival data using standard survival analysis approach, which fails to account for potential curative nature of novel cancer therapies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To evaluate the health economics of using continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) therapy versus multiple daily injections (MDI) therapy in children and adolescent patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) in Qingdao, China. A long-term cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted using the IQVIA Core Diabetes Model (CDM). The baseline characteristics of the simulated cohorts were obtained from 213 pediatric T1D patients who received care with CSII(104 cases) or MDI(109 cases) in Qingdao from 1 January 2015 to 31 March 2019. In the essential case, the expenditure of the complications and treatment of the disease with both therapies were evaluated in Chinese currency from the perspective of healthcare system. In a secondary analysis, the model used a 70-year time horizon, and a discount rate of 5% was applied to all future health outcomes and costs. A one-way sensitivity analysis was conducted on delta HbA1c, different prices of insulin pump, price of each upgrade cycle rates and different discount rates. Uncertainty was also evaluated by the probability sensitivity analysis and scenario analysis. In the base-case analysis, the lifetime total costs were lower for CSII group at ¥630,871 per patient compared with ¥672,672 for MDI group. The quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained were 11.612 and 11.197 for patients treated with CSII group and MDI group, respectively. The CSII group was cost-saving compared to MDI group. The feasibility of CSII group being cost-effective was 100% under the threshold of 3 times per capita GDP of China in 2019 (¥212,676) which was indicated from the probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Regarding scenario analysis, the ICER of the CSII group compared to MDI was between −151,583 and 153,366 RMB/QALYs, which is cost-effective. This economic evaluation compared CSII therapy versus MDI therapy for T1D children and adolescent patients in China and findings indicate that CSII should be considered a preferred treatment modality to MDI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Objective: Uncontrolled hypertension (HTN) results in strokes, myocardial infarction (MI), and other complications, which are the leading cause of disability, death, and severe economic consequence. We conducted an economic evaluation to determine the costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) associated with amlodipine (Norvasc) and the angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) in preventing stroke and MI among Chinese HTN patients. Methods: A cost-utility analysis was conducted from the third-party payer perspective. A Markov model was constructed to estimate 5-year costs and health consequences of amlodipine and valsartan. Effectiveness data were based on a published meta-analysis. Utility data were retrieved from the published literature. Costs of MI were retrieved from China Health Statistics Yearbook. Costs of stroke were obtained from retrospective chart review and follow-up interviews in Chinese tertiary hospitals. Costs included costs of drugs, direct medical costs of HTN management, stroke/MI treatment, and follow-up management. Discounting rate used for costs and QALYs was 3%. Results: Total direct medical and drug costs of amlodipine and valsartan (ARB) users were ¥111,731,716 and ¥132,058,611, respectively; total QALYs of amlodipine and valsartan users were 30,648.5 and 30,520.8, respectively. Amlodipine is dominant with lower costs and higher QALYs. This demonstrated that compared with valsartan, amlodipine is a cost-saving therapy with better QALY outcome. When irbesartan data were used in the comparison, the magnitude of cost saving changed but the overall conclusion remained the same. Conclusion: Amlodipine is a cost-saving therapy compared with ARBs in preventing stroke and MI for Chinese HTN patients. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract Purpose Monotherapy with either aspirin or clopidogrel is recommended for long-term use after discontinuation of dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) management after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The present study is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of clopidogrel versus aspirin after 12-month DAPT for patients with ACS who underwent PCI in China. Methods A 2-part model was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of clopidogrel compared with aspirin. The short-term part was a decision tree that included health states such as myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, MI and stroke, cardiovascular death, and death from other causes with a treatment horizon of 1 year (base case), 2 years or 3 years after 12-month DAPT. Major bleeding was included. The long-term (lifetime) part was a Markov model that included different health states such as MI, after MI, stroke, after stroke, and death. Drug acquisition cost and other direct medical costs were based on pricing records, literature, and expert panels. Clinical outcomes and utilities were based on literature. The model output included incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and total costs per patient. Both 1-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) were conducted. Findings In the base–case scenario, the total costs of the treatment with clopidogrel and aspirin were ¥12,590 ($1849/€1590) and ¥10,642 ($1563/€1344), respectively; the total QALYs of the 2 patient populations were 9.7341 and 9.6894, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of ¥43,593 ($6402/€5515) per QALY gained was lower than 3 times of gross domestic product (GDP) per capita in China (¥161,940, $23,786/€20,449). Both 1-way sensitivity analysis and PSA confirmed the robustness of the results. PSA results indicated that clopidogrel was cost effective versus aspirin in 80.5% of the simulations, considering >3 times the GDP per capita as the threshold. Results in other scenarios (clopidogrel or aspirin for 2 or 3 years after 12-month DAPT) also indicated that clopidogrel was more cost effective than aspirin for patients with ACS after 12-month DAPT. Implications Compared with aspirin monotherapy, clopidogrel monotherapy for 1 year after 12-month DAPT was cost effective for patients with ACS who underwent PCI in China. Furthermore, when the duration of clopidogrel the monotherapy extended up to 3 years, clopidogrel was still cost effective compared with aspirin. The study was limited by lack of high-quality efficacy data among the Chinese population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Purpose Induction immunosuppression therapy is used to support optimal outcomes in kidney transplantation. This study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of rabbit antithymocyte globulin (r-ATG) versus ATG-Fresenius (ATG-F) in kidney transplantation in the Chinese setting from the perspective of the health care payer. Methods A 2-part survival model was developed, consisting of a short-term part and a long-term part. The short-term part analyzed the first year, using the decision tree, and consisted of the functioning transplant, acute rejection (AR), delayed graft function (DGF), dialysis, and death health states. The long-term part analyzed 2 to 5 years, using Markov model, and consisted of the functioning transplant, chronic dysfunction, recurring primary disease, dialysis, and death health states, with capture of the association between DGF and graft loss. Costs, including drug acquisition and other direct medical costs, were derived from China IQVIA database (formerly known as IMS) hospital database, chart review, and physician interviews. Clinical outcomes and utility were retrieved from published literature. The model calculated quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and total costs per patient. Costs and QALYs were discounted at an annual rate of 3.5%. Univariate sensitivity analysis and probability sensitivity analysis (PSA) were conducted to assess the impact of uncertainty of the variables on the results. Findings Patients who received r-ATG had more clinical effectiveness than patients who received ATG-F mainly because of less AR, DGF, and dialysis. The incremental QALY was 0.01 over a 1-year time horizon and 0.0496 over a 5-year time horizon. R-ATG and ATG-F drug costs were ¥10,783 and ¥8409, respectively. However, the total treatment costs of the r-ATG arm were lower than the ATG-F arm because of lower costs related to DGF, AR, dialysis, and adverse events. In total, r-ATG saved ¥5423 over the 1-year and ¥7042 over the 5-year time horizon. R-ATG was dominant with lower total direct medical costs and higher QALYs compared with ATG-F. Both univariate sensitivity analysis and PSA found the robustness of the model results. PSA results indicated that r-ATG was cost-effective compared with ATG-F in 86.81% of the simulations, considering <3 times the gross domestic product per capita as the threshold. Implications From the perspective of the health care payer, r-ATG should be considered as the preferred treatment agent for induction therapy for Chinese patients undergoing kidney transplantation because of its lower overall medical costs and greater QALYs gained compared with ATG-F. The study was limited by lack of long-term efficacy data among the Chinese population and lack of comprehensive real-world higher quality costs data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]