Journal of Medical Economics最新文献

Background and objectives: This study presents a budget impact analysis (BIA) conducted in Saudi Arabia, evaluating the cost implications of adopting semaglutide, tirzepatide, or dulaglutide in the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients. The analysis aims to assess the individual budgetary impact of these treatment options on healthcare budgets and provide insights for decision-makers.

Methods: A prevalence-based BIA was developed using real-world and clinical trials data. The model considered disease epidemiology, medication prices, diabetes management expenses, cardiovascular (CV) complications costs, and weight reduction savings over a 5-year time horizon. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (OWSA, PSA) were performed to assess the robustness of the results.

Results: Over a 5-year period, the cumulative budget impact for semaglutide, tirzepatide, and dulaglutide were 85,923,089 USD, 169,790,195 USD, and 94,558,356 USD, respectively. Hypothetical scenarios considering price parity between semaglutide and tirzepatide are associated with financial impacts of 85,923,091 USD and 86,475,335 USD, respectively. In the public sector, semaglutide showed the lowest incidence of 3-point major adverse CV events (3P-MACE), with tirzepatide leading in weight loss and HbA1c reduction, and dulaglutide presenting the highest 3P-MACE rates and least improvements in HbA1c and weight. A breakeven analysis suggested that tirzepatide's list price would need to be $199.91 lower than its current list price to achieve budget impact parity with semaglutide based on currently available evidence. Results from the OWSA suggested that risk reductions for CV events were key drivers of budget impact. PSA results were confirmatory of base-case analyses.

Conclusions: CV cost-offsets and drug acquisition considerations may make semaglutide a favorable use of resources for Saudi budget planners and decision-makers. These results were robust to assumptions regarding the list price of tirzepatide.

Introduction: Our cost-of-illness (COI) model adopted the perspective of both payer and society over a time horizon of 5 years to measure the economic burden of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) in Malaysia.

Methodology: Our COI model utilized a prevalence-based model to estimate the costs and economic consequences of SLE in Malaysia. The clinical parameters were obtained from published literature and validated using the Delphi panel. Direct and indirect medical costs were measured, including disease management, transient events, and indirect costs. One-way sensitivity analysis was also performed.

Results: The number of target Malaysian patients with SLE in the COI model was 18,121. At diagnosis, the numbers of SLE patients with mild, moderate, and severe phenotypes were 2,582, 13,897, and 1,642, respectively. The total SLE cost in Malaysia over 5 years from both payer and society perspectives was estimated at MYR 678 million and 2 billion, respectively. The results showed a considerable cost burden due to productivity losses resulting from SLE-related morbidity and mortality. Over a 5-year time horizon, the costs per patient per year from the payer and society perspectives were MYR 7,484 ($4766) and 24,281($15,465), respectively.

Conclusion: Our study demonstrated the substantial economic burden of SLE in Malaysia over a time horizon of 5 years. It affects adults of working age, in addition to the costs of SLE management and its consequences, such as flares, infection, and organ damage. Our COI model indicated that disease management costs among patients with higher disease severity were higher than those among patients with a mild phenotype. Hence, more attetion should be paid to limiting the progression of SLE and the occurrence of flares, with the need for further economic evaluation of novel treatments that could lead to better outcomes.

Objective: To compare healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and all-cause medical costs among individuals aged ≥50 years who received influenza and COVID-19 vaccines on the same day and those who received influenza vaccine only.

Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study leveraging Optum's de-identified Clinformatics DataMart from 8/31/2021 to 7/31/2023. Individuals aged ≥50 years continuously enrolled in health plans for 1 year prior and until 7/31/2023 were included. Two cohorts were formed based on vaccination status between 8/31/2022 and 1/31/2023: co-administered influenza and COVID-19 vaccines (co-admin cohort) and influenza vaccine only (influenza cohort). Associations between vaccination status and all-cause, influenza-related, COVID-related, pneumonia-related, and cardiorespiratory-related hospitalization, outpatient or emergency room visits and all-cause medical costs were estimated by weighted generalized linear models, adjusting for confounding by stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting.

Results: 613,156 (mean age: 71) and 1,340,011 (mean age: 72) individuals were included in the co-admin and influenza cohorts, respectively. After weighting, the baseline characteristics were balanced between cohorts. The co-admin cohort was at statistically significant lower risk of all-cause (RR: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.93-0.96), COVID-19-related (RR: 0.59, 95% CI: 0.56-0.63), cardiorespiratory-related (RR: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.93-0.96) and pneumonia-related (RR: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.83-0.90) hospitalization but not influenza-related hospitalizations (RR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.81, 1.04) compared with the influenza cohort. Co-administration was associated with 3% lower all-cause medical cost (cost ratio: 0.974, 95% CI: 0.968, 0.979) during the follow-up period compared to receiving influenza vaccine only.

Limitations: Limitations include the potential residual confounding bias in observational data, measurement errors from claims data, and that the cohort was followed for a single season.

Conclusion: Receiving co-administered COVID-19 and influenza vaccines versus only receiving influenza vaccination reduced the risk of HCRU, especially COVID-19-related hospitalization and all-cause medical costs. Increasing vaccine coverage, particularly for COVID-19, might have public health and economic benefits.

Background: In 2003, the WHO aimed for a 75% or higher influenza vaccination rate among at-risk populations. However, this target was achieved in a few groups during selected seasons in some European countries, and never in Germany. Adults with underlying conditions (UCs) are a critical negleted group for influenza vaccination. This study aimed to identify data gaps in influenza burden and vaccination coverage among adults under 60 with UCs in Germany and bridge these gaps using real-world data.

Material and methods: We conducted systematic research and analyses using German administrative and claims databases from June 2016 to April 2024. We report on epidemiology, direct care costs, indirect costs from work incapacity, vaccination coverage rates, and describe data gaps.

Results: Influenza data for high-risk populations are limited. Comprehensive data on influenza epidemiology and vaccination coverage rates (VCR) is available, though with a delay in data availability. Before and after the pandemic, individuals aged 50-59 had the highest rates of influenza-related hospitalization and ICU admission compared to younger age groups. Across all age groups and seasons, individuals with UC experienced higher rates of medically attended influenza cases, hospitalizations, and healthcare costs, with those aged 35-59 being particularly vulnerable. Vaccine coverage was higher in adults aged 35-59 compared to those aged 18-24, and in females compared to males.

Limitations: Discrepancies of vaccination status, limited data availability, and variations among the extent of UCs.

Conclusion: In Germany, recent policy measures have mainly targeted those aged 60 and above. While this elderly population experiences the highest disease-related impact, influenza can also lead to substantial healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and costs in younger populations with chronic UCs; Facilitating vaccination access for this group, such as through pharmacies, is essential. Definition of quantifiable vaccination targets and measures to increase vaccination rates based on these targets are required.

Aim: Patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis have an increasing number of advanced therapy options including several biologics and Janus kinase inhibitors. Though data on efficacy and safety of these advanced therapies are available, less is known about the potential economic implications of their utilization in Japan. We evaluated the relative value of these advanced therapies in Japan using a locally developed cost per responder model.

Methods: A model was developed using relevant clinical endpoints and treatment costs to calculate cost per responder of all advanced therapies used for moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis treatment in Japan. Cost per responder was assessed in biologic-naïve and biologic-exposed populations, respectively. The model incorporated induction and maintenance therapy pathways as patients progressed through based on efficacy rates (clinical response, clinical remission and endoscopic improvement). Total costs for induction and maintenance included: drug acquisition, drug administration and serious adverse event management (as necessary) for responders, with additional rescue treatment cost only for non-responders.

Results: Upadacitinib showed lower cost per clinical response and cost per clinical remission across both biologic-naïve and biologic-exposed populations with only one exemption in cost per clinical remission in biologic-naïve population. In addition, upadacitinib demonstrated lower cost per endoscopic improvement in both populations. Janus kinase inhibitors outperformed with lower cost per responder than other mediations across all outcomes and patient populations with the exception of tofacitinib for clinical remission in biologic-exposed UC population.

Limitations: Comparative data used in this analysis have been derived from network meta-analysis, not from direct comparison.

Conclusions: The results of this cost per responder analysis suggest upadacitinib is a cost-effective option for the first- and second-line treatment of moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis in Japan.

Aims: Influenza-like illnesses (ILI) affect millions each year in the United States (US). Determining definitively the cause of symptoms is important for patient management. Xpert Xpress CoV-2/Flu/RSV plus (Xpert Xpress) is a rapid, point-of-care (POC), multiplex real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test intended for the simultaneous qualitative detection and differentiation of SARS-CoV-2, influenza A/B, and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV). The objective of our analysis was to develop a cost-consequence model (CCM) demonstrating the clinico-economic impacts of implementing PCR testing with Xpert Xpress compared to current testing strategies.

Methods: A decision tree model, with a 1-year time horizon, was used to compare testing with Xpert Xpress alone to antigen POC testing and send-out PCR strategies in the US outpatient setting from a payer perspective. A hypothetical cohort of 1,000,000 members was modeled, a portion of whom develop symptomatic ILIs and present to an outpatient care facility. Our main outcome measure is cost per correct treatment course.

Results: The total cost per correct treatment course was $1,131 for the Xpert Xpress strategy compared with a range of $3,560 to $5,449 in comparators. POC antigen testing strategies cost more, on average, than PCR strategies.

Limitations: Simplifying model assumptions were used to allow for modeling ease. In clinical practice, treatment options, costs, and diagnostic test sensitivity and specificity may differ from what is included in the model. Additionally, the most recent incidence and prevalence data was used within the model, which is not reflective of historical averages due to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

Conclusion: The Xpert Xpress CoV-2/Flu/RSV plus test allows for rapid and accurate diagnostic results, leading to reductions in testing costs and downstream healthcare resource utilization compared to other testing strategies. Compared to POC antigen testing strategies, PCR strategies were more efficient due to improved diagnostic accuracy and reduced use of confirmatory testing.

Objective: To estimate the potential budget impact on US third party payers (commercial or Medicare) associated with addition of selpercatinib as a tumor-agnostic treatment for patients with Rearranged during Transfection (RET)-altered solid tumors.

Methods: An integrated budget impact model (iBIM) with 3-year (Y) time horizon was developed for 19 RET-altered tumors. It is referred to as an integrated model because it is a single model that integrated results across multiple tumor types (as opposed to tumor-specific models developed traditionally). The model estimated eligible patient populations and included tumor-specific comparator treatments for each tumor type. Estimated annual total costs (2022USD, $) included costs of drug, administration, supportive care, and toxicity. For a one-million-member plan, the number of patients with RET-altered tumors eligible for treatment, incremental total costs, and incremental per-member per-month (PMPM) costs associated with introduction of selpercatinib treatment were estimated. Uncertainty associated with model parameters was assessed using various sensitivity analyses.

Results: Commercial perspective estimated 11.68 patients/million with RET-altered tumors as treatment-eligible annually, of which 7.59 (Y1), 8.17 (Y2), and 8.76 (Y3) patients would be selpercatinib-treated (based on forecasted market share). The associated incremental total and PMPM costs (commercial) were estimated to be: $873,099 and $0.073 (Y1), $2,160,525 and $0.180 (Y2), and $2,561,281 and $0.213 (Y3), respectively. The Medicare perspective estimated 55.82 patients/million with RET-altered tumors as treatment-eligible annually, of which 36.29 (Y1), 39.08 (Y2), and 41.87 (Y3) patients would be selpercatinib-treated. The associated incremental total and PMPM costs (Medicare) were estimated to be: $4,447,832 and $0.371 (Y1), $11,076,422 and $0.923 (Y2), and $12,637,458 and $1.053 (Y3), respectively. One-way sensitivity analyses across both perspectives identified drug costs, selpercatinib market share, incidence of RET, and treatment duration as significant drivers of incremental costs.

Conclusions: Three-year incremental PMPM cost estimates suggest a modest impact on payer-budgets associated with introduction of tumor-agnostic selpercatinib treatment.

Background and aims: Cardiac ablation is a well-established method for treating atrial fibrillation (AF). Pulsed field ablation (PFA) is a non-thermal therapeutic alternative to radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and cryoballoon ablation (CRYO). PFA uses high-voltage electric pulses to target cells. The present analysis aims to quantify the costs, outcomes, and resources associated with these three ablation strategies for paroxysmal AF.

Methods: Real-world clinical data were prospectively collected during index hospitalization by three European medical centers (Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands) specialized in cardiac ablation. These data included procedure times (pre-procedural, skin-to-skin and post-procedural), resource use, and staff burden. Data regarding complications associated with each of the three treatment options and redo procedures were extracted from the literature. Costs were collected from hospital economic formularies and published cost databases. A cost-consequence model from the hospital perspective was built to estimate the impact of the three treatment options in terms of effectiveness and costs.

Results: Across the three centers, N = 91 patients were included over a period of 12 months. A significant difference was seen in pre-procedural time (mean ± SD, PFA: 13.6 ± 3.7 min, CRYO: 18.8 ± 6.6 min, RFA: 20.4 ± 6.4 min; p < .001). Procedural time (skin-to-skin) was also different across alternatives (PFA: 50.9 ± 22.4 min, CRYO: 74.5 ± 24.5 min, RFA: 140.2 ± 82.4 min; p < .0001). The model reported an overall cost of €216,535 per 100 patients treated with PFA, €301,510 per 100 patients treated with CRYO and €346,594 per 100 patients treated with RFA. Overall, the cumulative savings associated with PFA (excluding kit costs) were €850 and €1,301 per patient compared to CRYO and RFA, respectively.

Conclusion: PFA demonstrated shorter procedure time compared to CRYO and RFA. Model estimates indicate that these time savings result in cost savings for hospitals and reduce outlay on redo procedures. Clinical practice in individual hospitals varies and may impact the ability to transfer the results of this analysis to other settings.