Search

A number of live-attenuated varicella vaccines are produced globally that provide protection against the varicella zoster virus. In Mexico, varicella vaccination is not included in the national immunization program and is recommended for use only in high-risk subgroups. We developed a budget impact model to estimate the impact of universal childhood immunization against varicella on the national payer system in Mexico. A scenario of no varicella vaccination was compared to scenarios with vaccination with a single dose at 13 months of age, in alignment with the existing program of immunization with the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine. Nine different vaccination scenarios were envisioned, differing by vaccine type and by coverage. Varicella cases and treatment costs of each scenario were computed in a dynamic transmission model of varicella epidemiology, calibrated to the population of Mexico. Unit costs were based on Mexico sources or were from the literature. The results indicated that each of the three vaccine types increased vaccine acquisition and administration expenditures but produced overall cost savings in each of the first 10 years of the program, due to fewer cases and reduced varicella treatment costs. A highly effective vaccine at 95% coverage produced the greatest cost savings.

Thitima Kongnakorn,1 Murtuza Bharmal,2 Mairead Kearney,3 Hemant Phatak,4 Agnes Benedict,5 Abhijeet Bhanegaonkar,4 Matthew Galsky6 1Evidence Synthesis, Modeling and Communication, Evidera, London, UK; 2Global Evidence and Value Development, EMD Serono, Inc. (A business of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany), Rockland, MA, USA; 3Global Evidence and Value Development, Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany; 4US Health Economics and Outcomes Research, EMD Serono, Inc. (A business of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany), Rockland, MA, USA; 5Evidence Synthesis, Modeling and Communication, Evidera, Budapest, Hungary; 6Tisch Cancer Institute, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USACorrespondence: Murtuza BharmalGlobal Evidence and Value Development, EMD Serono, Inc. (A business of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany), Rockland, MA, USAEmail murtuza.bharmal@emdserono.comObjective: To estimate the budget impact of introducing avelumab as a second-line (2L) treatment option for patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer (mUC) from the perspective of a US third-party payer (commercial and Medicare).Methods: A budget impact model (BIM) with a three-year time horizon was developed for avelumab. Efficacy and safety data were sourced from published literature and US package inserts. The analysis was conducted in collaboration with a specialist oncologist who validated clinical assumptions. Costs were based on the number of eligible patients, time-to-treatment failure, overall survival, adverse events (AEs), and projected market shares of various treatments.Results: In a hypothetical commercial health plan of 30,000,000 members, 884 patients were estimated to be eligible for 2L treatment over a three-year time period. Without avelumab, the total cost for treating patients with mUC was estimated to be US$70,268,035. The introduction of avelumab increased total costs by $73,438 (0.10% increase). In a hypothetical Medicare health plan of 30,000,000 beneficiaries, a total of 4,705 patients were estimated to be eligible for 2L treatment. Without avelumab, the total cost for treating patients with mUC was estimated to be $292,923,098 from a Medicare perspective; however, with avelumab, there was an increase of $719,324 (0.25% increase) in total costs. Results of the sensitivity analyses demonstrated a cost-neutral impact across all tested scenarios from both perspectives.Conclusion: The BIM estimated that avelumab would have a cost-neutral impact within a US commercial and a Medicare health plan. Overall, avelumab can be an affordable and valuable treatment option for patients with locally advanced or mUC in the 2L setting. These findings demonstrate a consistently favorable budget impact in both populations. Further studies should be conducted to more comprehensively assess the clinical and economic implications of adding avelumab to the treatment armamentarium of 2L mUC.Keywords: urothelial carcinoma, budget impact model, cost analysis, economic analysis, immuno-oncology, chemotherapy

Purpose Improvement in long-term outcomes through innovative, cost-effective medical technologies is a focus for endovascular procedures aimed at treating symptomatic lower-limb peripheral arterial disease (PAD). The advent of drug-eluting stents (DES) has improved symptomatic PAD treatment via a reduction in high rates of target lesion revascularisation (TLR). The present study aimed to compare the 5-year financial impact of treatment with Eluvia, a new paclitaxel-eluting stent, versus treatment with Zilver PTX, a drug-coated stent, among patients in Australia by developing a budget impact model (BIM). Methods A BIM was developed from an Australian public hospital payer perspective using Australian national cost weights (AUD), published literature, and public hospital audit data. Clinical outcomes, including clinically driven TLRs (CD-TLRs), adverse events, and length of stay, were based on the 2-year results of the IMPERIAL trial, which compared Eluvia DES to Zilver PTX. Results Assuming EVP eligibility rate of 80% and DES uses rate ranging from 10 to 28% (superficial femoral artery lesions only), the 5-year model forecasted a treatment population between 14,428 and 40,399 patients. The model estimated 1499–4198 fewer CD-TLRs and 16,515–46,243 fewer hospital days with Eluvia DES use. This translated to 5-year potential savings of $4.3–$12.1 million to the Australian public hospital payer attributable to reduced CD-TLRs for Eluvia DES and $33.1–$92.6 million to Australian public hospitals owing to reduced adverse events and hospital bed days. Conclusion Eluvia DES use as treatment for symptomatic lower-limb PAD could lead to potential savings for the Australian public healthcare system based on improved patient outcomes.

Single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) can severely impact individual drug response and health outcomes in cancer patients. Genetic tests to screen for marker SNPs are available to adjust the drug dose of oncologicals to the patient’s needs. However, it is unclear whether the positive effects outbalance the increased costs or even lead to an overall cost reduction. This very pragmatic analysis used three frequently used oncologicals for the treatment of breast cancer to evaluate whether preemptive pharmacogenetic testing may have a cost-reducing impact on health care spending in the Swiss health care system. Our results indicate that oncopharmacogenetics might help to reduce health care costs (ie, by avoiding adverse drug effects) and to increase efficiency of drugs in oncologic patients., PHARMACOGENOMICS & PERSONALIZED MEDICINE, 11

Background During cataract surgery, maintaining an adequate degree of mydriasis throughout the entire operation is critical to allow for visualisation of the capsulorhexis and the crystalline lens. Good anaesthesia is also essential for safe intraocular surgery. Mydrane® is a new injectable intracameral solution containing two mydriatics (tropicamide 0.02% and phenylephrine 0.31%) and one anaesthetic (lidocaine 1%) that was developed as an alternative to the conventional topical pre-operative mydriatics used in cataract surgery. This study aimed to estimate the budget impact across a one year time frame using Mydrane® instead of topical dilating eye drops, for a UK hospital performing 3,000 cataract operations a year. Methods A budget impact model (BIM) was developed to compare the economic outcomes associated with the use of Mydrane® versus topical drops (tropicamide 0.5% and phenylephrine 10%) in patients undergoing cataract surgery in a UK hospital. The outcomes of interest included costs and resource use (e.g. clinician time, mydriasis failures, operating room time, number of patients per vial of therapy etc.) associated with management of mydriasis in patients undergoing cataract surgery. All model inputs considered the UK hospital perspective without social or geographical variables. Deterministic sensitivity analyses were also performed to assess the model uncertainty. Results Introduction of Mydrane® is associated with a cost saving of £6,251 over 3,000 cataract surgeries in one year. The acquisition costs of the Mydrane® (£18,000 by year vs. £3,330 for eye drops) were balanced by substantial reductions in mainly nurses’ costs and time, plus a smaller contribution from savings in surgeons’ costs (£20,511) and lower costs associated with auxiliary dilation (£410 due to avoidance of additional dilation methods). Results of the sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the model to the variation of inputs. Except for the duration of one session of eye drop instillation and the cost of Mydrane®, Mydrane® achieved an incremental cost gain compared to tropicamide/phenylephrine eye drops. Conclusions Despite a higher acquisition cost of Mydrane®, the budget impact of Mydrane® on hospital budgets is neutral. Mydrane® offers a promising alternative to traditional regimes using eye drops, allowing for a better patient flow and optimisation of the surgery schedule with neutral budget impact.

Background: Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) have dramatically improved survival in chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase (CML‐CP), with a high percentage of patients reaching a major molecular response (MMR). Recently, several clinical trials demonstrated that some patients with CML-CP who achieve a sustained MMR on tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) therapy can safely discontinue their therapy and attempt treatment-free remission (TFR).Objective: The aim of the study was to evaluate the clinical and economic impact of TFR in naïve patients with CML-CP who start treatment with nilotinib, imatinib or dasatinib as first-line therapy, from the perspective of the Italian National Health Service (NHS).Methods: An Excel-based budget impact model was developed, in order to estimate the costs of the patients in first-line pharmacological treatment with CML. A specific Markov model was built, to simulate seven years of treatment with different TKIs. A systematic literature review was carried out, to identify the epidemiological and economic data, which were subsequently used to inform the model. The model considers two scenarios: 1) a Standard of Care (SoC) scenario, with the current estimated distribution of patients over the various TKI treatment, versus 2) an innovative scenario, characterized by an increase in the use of nilotinib (+28%) and generic imatinib (+35%) and a decrease in the use of dasatinib (-17%). A one-way deterministic sensitivity analysis was performed, in order to consider the variability of the results as a function of the main parameters considered in the model.Results: The model estimated that 775 patients with CML-CP could be treated with a TKI as first-line drug. The innovative scenario could increase TFR patients by approximately 60% and reduce the costs by more than € 30 million over 7 years. The increase in the use of nilotinib and the generic imatinib would generate a significant expenditure reduction.Conclusions: This study demonstrates the economic effects of discontinuing TKIs in CML-CP patients. The increase in the use of nilotinib and the generic imatinib could generate an increase in the number of patients who achieve TFR, as well as an actual cost reduction.

Umberto Restelli,1,2 Massimo Andreoni,3 Andrea Antinori,4 Marzia Bonfanti,2 Giovanni Di Perri,5 Massimo Galli,6 Adriano Lazzarin,7 Giuliano Rizzardini,8,9 Davide Croce1,2 1Department of Community Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa; 2Centro di Ricerca in Economia e Management in Sanità e nel Sociale (CREMS), Università Carlo Cattaneo – LIUC, Castellanza (VA), Italy; 3Clinical Infectious Diseases, Tor Vergata University (PTV), Rome, Italy; 4Clinical Department, National Institute for Infectious Diseases "L. Spallanzani," Rome, Italy; 5Department of Medical Sciences, Infectious Diseases, Amedeo di Savoia Hospital, Turin, Italy; 6Third Division of Infectious Diseases, "Luigi Sacco" Hospital, Milan, Italy; 7Department of Infectious Diseases, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy; 8First and Second Divisions of Infectious Diseases, "Luigi Sacco" Hospital, Milan, Italy; 9School of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa Background: Deintensification and less drug regimen (LDR) antiretroviral therapy (ART) strategies have proved to be effective in terms of maintaining viral suppression in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-positive patients, increasing tolerability, and reducing toxicity of antiretroviral drugs administered to patients. However, the economic impact of these strategies have not been widely investigated. The aim of the study is to evaluate the economic impact that ART LDR could have on the Italian National Health Service (INHS) budget. Methods: A budget impact model was structured to assess the potential savings for the INHS by the use of ART LDR for HIV-positive patients with a 3 year perspective. Data concerning ART cost, patient distribution within different ARTs, and probabilities for patients to change ART on a yearly basis were collected within four Italian infectious diseases departments, providing ART to 13.7% of the total number of patients receiving ART in Italy. Results: The LDR investigated (protease inhibitor-based dual and monotherapies) led to savings for the hospitals involved when compared to the "do nothing" scenario on a 3 year basis, between 6.7% (23.11 million €) and 12.8% (44.32 million €) of the total ART expenditures. The mean yearly cost per patient is reduced from 9,875 € in the do nothing scenario to a range between 9,218 € and 8,615 €. The use of these strategies within the four departments involved would have led to a reduction of ART expenditures for the INHS of between 1.1% and 2.1% in 3 years. Conclusion: ART LDR simplification would have a significant impact in the reduction of ART-related costs within the hospitals involved in the study. These strategies could therefore be addressed as a sustainable answer to the public financing reduction observed within the INHS in the last year, allowing therapies to be dispensed without affecting the quality of the services provided. Keywords: antiretroviral therapy, Italy, budget impact model, monotherapy, dual therapy, cost

Purpose Diabetic macular edema (DME) is a leading cause of vision loss and blindness. The aim of this study was to evaluate the economic benefits of introducing additional alternative technologies (Dexamethasone intravitreal implant - DEX - and Aflibercept injections), compared with the historical scenario of Ranibizumab intravitreal injections. Methods A 3-year budget impact model was developed, taking into consideration the perspective of the Lombardy Region Healthcare Service (LRHS). Total administration costs (real-life data retrieved from clinical practice at three Departments of Ophthalmology) as well as costs related to the management of potential adverse events (information collected from the literature) were analysed. Results Over a 36-month horizon, the results showed that a higher consumption of DEX could lead to significant economic savings for the Regional Healthcare Service, ranging from a minimum of -4.35% (if DEX were used only in the second-line of treatment) to a maximum of -12.97% (if DEX were used in both the first-line and second-line), including the potential impact of adverse events. Therapy costs with Aflibercept and Ranibizumab were similar. Conclusions This study demonstrates that concentrating all eligible patients within the Ranibizumab regimen is unlikely to represent a cost-effective strategy. Indeed, significant economic advantages would be achieved by introducing the other licensed alternatives, Dexamethasone implant and Aflibercept, thus optimising DME Italian healthcare expenditure. The results demonstrate DEX as an advantageous technological alternative for the target population affected by DME, both as a first- and second-line treatment option, reducing the economic burden of the pathology for the Regional/National Health Service.

Davide Croce,1,2 Marzia Bonfanti,1 Umberto Restelli1,2 1Center for Research on Health Economics, Social and Health Care Management, Università Cattaneo, Castellanza, Italy; 2School of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa Background: Hepatitis C virus (HCV) affects an estimated number of people between 130 million and 210 million worldwide. In the next few years, the Italian National Health Service will face a growing trend of patients requiring HCV antiviral treatments. The aim of the analysis was to estimate the time horizon in which it would be possible to treat HCV-infected patients and the related direct medical costs (antiviral treatment and monitoring activities) from the Italian National Health Service point of view.Methodology: In order to estimate the number of HCV-infected patients in Italy, we considered a top-down (considering published data) and a bottom-up approach. The number of years needed for treatment and related direct costs were estimated through the development of a static deterministic model.Results: The estimated number of HCV-infected patients in Italy varies from 2.7 (estimated through a top-down approach) to 0.6 million (estimated through a bottom-up approach) and0.3million (measured through a bottom-up approach). Considering the last two scenarios and the use of interferon-free therapies for 50,000 patients per year, treatment for HCV-infected patients could be at a cost of €13.7 billion and €7.0 billion by 2030 and 2023, respectively.Conclusion: The treatment for HCV-infected patients in Italy is a challenging target for the financial implications of patient care. HCV infection could be controlled or eliminated in a 10- to 15-year time horizon. The cost of treatment can hardly be dealt with using the traditional economic tools but should be faced through multiyear investments, as health benefits are expected in the long period. National Health Service stakeholders (industry, government, insurance, and also patients) will have to identify suitable financial instruments to face the new expenditure required. Keywords: sustainability, financial disease scenario, budget impact model

SUMMARY Objective The objective of this study is to evaluate the economic benefits of immunoglobulin replacement therapy achieved subcutaneously (subcutaneous immunoglobulin, SCIG) by the rapid push method compared to intravenous infusion therapy (intravenous immunoglobulin, IVIG) in primary immune deficiency (PID) patients from the healthcare system perspective in the context of the adult SCIG home infusion program based at St Paul's Hospital, Vancouver, Canada. Materials and methods SCIG and IVIG options were compared in cost-minimisation and budget impact models (BIMs) over 3 years. Sensitivity analyses were performed for both models to evaluate the impact of varying modality of IVIG treatments and proportion of patients switching from IVIG to SCIG. Results The cost-minimisation model estimated that SCIG treatment reduced cost to the healthcare system per patient of $5736 over 3 years, principally because of less use of hospital personnel. This figure varied between $5035 and $8739 depending on modality of IVIG therapy. Assuming 50% of patients receiving IVIG switched to SCIG, the BIM estimated cost savings for the first 3 years at $1·308 million or 37% of the personnel and supply budget. These figures varied between $1·148 million and $2·454 million (36 and 42%) with varying modalities of IVIG therapy. If 75% of patients switched to SCIG, the reduced costs reached $1·962 million or 56% of total budget. Conclusion This study demonstrated that from the health system perspective, rapid push home-based SCIG was less costly than hospital-based IVIG for immunoglobulin replacement therapy in adult PID patients in the Canadian context.

Objective: to estimate the impact of lapatinib utilization within the Italian National Health Service (NHS) resources consumption. Lapatinib is an oral inhibitor of kinase protein, approved as dual therapy with capecitabine for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer patients with HER2 overexpression who experience disease progression despite trastuzumab treatment. Methods: the analysis is based on a model, which structure can be summarized as follows: a) national cancer registries-based estimate of the yearly number of HER2+ breast cancer patients who develop metastatic disease in Italy; b) literature-based identification of the rate of patients eligible to receive lapatinib; c) identification of the current therapeutic strategy-mix; d) costing of the alternatives, and e) calculation of budget impact. Direct NHS costs (drug acquisition and administration, and monitoring for 8 cycles of 21 days) are estimated based on current Italian prices and tariffs. Results: the annual number of patients eligible for lapatinib-based therapy can vary from 1,676 to 2,172, according to the expected extent of the trastuzumab use as adjuvant therapy. The current strategy-mix beyond progression is based on drugs used in the clinical practice, with a portion of patients continuing trastuzumab. Pharmaceutical cost of lapatinib results higher than the average cost of the current pattern of treatments. This cost increase would be partially offset by the reduction of laboratory tests and hospital personnel work for the oral administration of lapatinib, as compared to intravenous strategies. Furthermore, a risk sharing agreement has been adopted by NHS and manufacturer, according to which the NHS pays only for responding patients. As a consequence, lapatinib-based therapy would increase yearly NHS expenditure by about 3.8-4.9 millions of euro. Conclusions: lapatinib is the only treatment option specifically indicated for the management of HER2+, metastatic breast cancer in patients who received prior treatments including trastuzumab and is estimated to induce a low budget impact for the Italian NHS.

Purpose The Zilver PTX drug-eluting stent (Cook Ireland Ltd., Limerick, Ireland) represents an advance in endovascular treatments for atherosclerotic superficial femoral artery (SFA) disease. Clinical data demonstrate improved clinical outcomes compared to bare-metal stents (BMS). This analysis assessed the likely impact on the French public health care budget of introducing reimbursement for the Zilver PTX stent. Methods A model was developed in Microsoft Excel to estimate the impact of a progressive transition from BMS to Zilver PTX over a 5-year horizon. The number of patients undergoing SFA stenting was estimated on the basis of hospital episode data. The analysis from the payer perspective used French reimbursement tariffs. Target lesion revascularization (TLR) after primary stent placement was the primary outcome. TLR rates were based on 2-year data from the Zilver PTX single-arm study (6 and 9 %) and BMS rates reported in the literature (average 16 and 22 %) and extrapolated to 5 years. Net budget impact was expressed as the difference in total costs (primary stenting and reinterventions) for a scenario where BMS is progressively replaced by Zilver PTX compared to a scenario of BMS only. Results The model estimated a net cumulative 5-year budget reduction of €6,807,202 for a projected population of 82,316 patients (21,361 receiving Zilver PTX). Base case results were confirmed in sensitivity analyses. Conclusion Adoption of Zilver PTX could lead to important savings for the French public health care payer. Despite higher initial reimbursement for the Zilver PTX stent, fewer expected SFA reinterventions after the primary stenting procedure result in net savings.