Svenn Alexander Kommandantvold, Shih-Chen Chang, Andy Surinach, Vincent Yau, Jennie H Best, Hassan Zaraket, Hao Zhou, Jeff Frimpter, Marie-Helene Blanchet Zumofen
{"title":"在美国,治疗流感时使用 Baloxavir Marboxil 与使用奥司他韦或不使用奥司他韦治疗的成本效益。","authors":"Svenn Alexander Kommandantvold, Shih-Chen Chang, Andy Surinach, Vincent Yau, Jennie H Best, Hassan Zaraket, Hao Zhou, Jeff Frimpter, Marie-Helene Blanchet Zumofen","doi":"10.1007/s40121-024-01027-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>This study sought to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of baloxavir marboxil compared with oseltamivir or no antiviral treatment from a US payer perspective using data from a real-world US administrative claims study. Given baloxavir's ability to rapidly stop viral shedding, the potential health economic implications of a baloxavir-induced population-level reduction in viral transmission was also explored.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A decision tree cost-effectiveness model was developed for seasonal influenza (2018-2020) using a lifetime time horizon with 3.0% discounting for costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Patients aged ≥ 12 years could receive baloxavir, oseltamivir or no antiviral treatment. Patient characteristics, complications, and costs were derived from the Merative™ MarketScan<sup>®</sup> Research Databases including US commercial claims and Medicare and Medicaid Supplemental databases. A scenario analysis explored the impact of reduced viral transmission with baloxavir.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the base case analysis, baloxavir was cost-effective within a willingness-to-pay threshold of US$100,000/QALY compared with oseltamivir [incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), $6813/QALY gained] or no antiviral treatment (ICER, $669/QALY gained). The net monetary benefit (NMB) of baloxavir was $1180 and $6208 compared with oseltamivir and no treatment, respectively. The NMB of baloxavir increased linearly with reductions in viral transmission, where a 5% transmission reduction yielded an NMB of $2592 versus oseltamivir and $7621 versus no treatment. Baloxavir became dominant (more effective and less costly, with ICERs < 0) starting with a 12.0% reduction in viral transmission versus oseltamivir and 6.0% versus no antiviral treatment.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Baloxavir was cost-effective compared with oseltamivir or no antiviral treatment. The potential of baloxavir to reduce viral transmission offers a substantial economic benefit from a US payer perspective.</p>","PeriodicalId":13592,"journal":{"name":"Infectious Diseases and Therapy","volume":" ","pages":"2071-2087"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11343959/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cost-Effectiveness of Baloxavir Marboxil Versus Oseltamivir or no Treatment for the Management of Influenza in the United States.\",\"authors\":\"Svenn Alexander Kommandantvold, Shih-Chen Chang, Andy Surinach, Vincent Yau, Jennie H Best, Hassan Zaraket, Hao Zhou, Jeff Frimpter, Marie-Helene Blanchet Zumofen\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s40121-024-01027-9\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>This study sought to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of baloxavir marboxil compared with oseltamivir or no antiviral treatment from a US payer perspective using data from a real-world US administrative claims study. Given baloxavir's ability to rapidly stop viral shedding, the potential health economic implications of a baloxavir-induced population-level reduction in viral transmission was also explored.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A decision tree cost-effectiveness model was developed for seasonal influenza (2018-2020) using a lifetime time horizon with 3.0% discounting for costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Patients aged ≥ 12 years could receive baloxavir, oseltamivir or no antiviral treatment. Patient characteristics, complications, and costs were derived from the Merative™ MarketScan<sup>®</sup> Research Databases including US commercial claims and Medicare and Medicaid Supplemental databases. A scenario analysis explored the impact of reduced viral transmission with baloxavir.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the base case analysis, baloxavir was cost-effective within a willingness-to-pay threshold of US$100,000/QALY compared with oseltamivir [incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), $6813/QALY gained] or no antiviral treatment (ICER, $669/QALY gained). The net monetary benefit (NMB) of baloxavir was $1180 and $6208 compared with oseltamivir and no treatment, respectively. The NMB of baloxavir increased linearly with reductions in viral transmission, where a 5% transmission reduction yielded an NMB of $2592 versus oseltamivir and $7621 versus no treatment. Baloxavir became dominant (more effective and less costly, with ICERs < 0) starting with a 12.0% reduction in viral transmission versus oseltamivir and 6.0% versus no antiviral treatment.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Baloxavir was cost-effective compared with oseltamivir or no antiviral treatment. The potential of baloxavir to reduce viral transmission offers a substantial economic benefit from a US payer perspective.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":13592,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Infectious Diseases and Therapy\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"2071-2087\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11343959/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Infectious Diseases and Therapy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40121-024-01027-9\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/8/16 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"INFECTIOUS DISEASES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Infectious Diseases and Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40121-024-01027-9","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/16 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Cost-Effectiveness of Baloxavir Marboxil Versus Oseltamivir or no Treatment for the Management of Influenza in the United States.
Introduction: This study sought to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of baloxavir marboxil compared with oseltamivir or no antiviral treatment from a US payer perspective using data from a real-world US administrative claims study. Given baloxavir's ability to rapidly stop viral shedding, the potential health economic implications of a baloxavir-induced population-level reduction in viral transmission was also explored.
Methods: A decision tree cost-effectiveness model was developed for seasonal influenza (2018-2020) using a lifetime time horizon with 3.0% discounting for costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Patients aged ≥ 12 years could receive baloxavir, oseltamivir or no antiviral treatment. Patient characteristics, complications, and costs were derived from the Merative™ MarketScan® Research Databases including US commercial claims and Medicare and Medicaid Supplemental databases. A scenario analysis explored the impact of reduced viral transmission with baloxavir.
Results: In the base case analysis, baloxavir was cost-effective within a willingness-to-pay threshold of US$100,000/QALY compared with oseltamivir [incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), $6813/QALY gained] or no antiviral treatment (ICER, $669/QALY gained). The net monetary benefit (NMB) of baloxavir was $1180 and $6208 compared with oseltamivir and no treatment, respectively. The NMB of baloxavir increased linearly with reductions in viral transmission, where a 5% transmission reduction yielded an NMB of $2592 versus oseltamivir and $7621 versus no treatment. Baloxavir became dominant (more effective and less costly, with ICERs < 0) starting with a 12.0% reduction in viral transmission versus oseltamivir and 6.0% versus no antiviral treatment.
Conclusion: Baloxavir was cost-effective compared with oseltamivir or no antiviral treatment. The potential of baloxavir to reduce viral transmission offers a substantial economic benefit from a US payer perspective.
期刊介绍:
Infectious Diseases and Therapy is an international, open access, peer-reviewed, rapid publication journal dedicated to the publication of high-quality clinical (all phases), observational, real-world, and health outcomes research around the discovery, development, and use of infectious disease therapies and interventions, including vaccines and devices. Studies relating to diagnostic products and diagnosis, pharmacoeconomics, public health, epidemiology, quality of life, and patient care, management, and education are also encouraged.
Areas of focus include, but are not limited to, bacterial and fungal infections, viral infections (including HIV/AIDS and hepatitis), parasitological diseases, tuberculosis and other mycobacterial diseases, vaccinations and other interventions, and drug-resistance, chronic infections, epidemiology and tropical, emergent, pediatric, dermal and sexually-transmitted diseases.