Kommandantvold Svenn Alexander, Chang Shih-Chen, Surinach Andy, Yau Vincent, Best Jennie H, Zaraket Hassan, Zhou Hao, Frimpter Jeff, Blanchet Zumofen Marie-Helene
Roche Norway, F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG, Roche Norge AS, Brynsengfaret 6B, 0667, Oslo, Norway.
Genentech Inc, South San Francisco, CA, USA.
Infect Dis Ther. 2024 Sep;13(9):2071-2087. doi: 10.1007/s40121-024-01027-9. Epub 2024 Aug 16.
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.
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.
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.
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.
本研究旨在从美国医保支付方的角度,利用美国一项真实世界行政索赔研究的数据,评估巴洛沙韦酯与奥司他韦或不进行抗病毒治疗相比的成本效益。鉴于巴洛沙韦能够迅速停止病毒 shedding,还探讨了巴洛沙韦导致人群水平的病毒传播减少所带来的潜在健康经济影响。
针对季节性流感(2018 - 2020年)开发了一个决策树成本效益模型,采用终身时间范围,成本和质量调整生命年(QALY)的贴现率为3.0%。年龄≥12岁的患者可以接受巴洛沙韦、奥司他韦或不进行抗病毒治疗。患者特征、并发症和成本来自于Merative™ MarketScan研究数据库,包括美国商业索赔以及医疗保险和医疗补助补充数据库。一项情景分析探讨了巴洛沙韦减少病毒传播的影响。
在基础病例分析中,与奥司他韦(增量成本效益比[ICER],每获得一个QALY为6813美元)或不进行抗病毒治疗(ICER,每获得一个QALY为669美元)相比,在支付意愿阈值为100,000美元/QALY的情况下,巴洛沙韦具有成本效益。与奥司他韦和不进行治疗相比,巴洛沙韦的净货币效益(NMB)分别为1180美元和6208美元。巴洛沙韦的NMB随着病毒传播的减少呈线性增加,病毒传播减少5%时,与奥司他韦相比NMB为2592美元,与不进行治疗相比为7621美元。与奥司他韦相比,当病毒传播减少12.0%,与不进行抗病毒治疗相比减少6.0%时,巴洛沙韦开始占据主导地位(更有效且成本更低,ICER < 0)。
与奥司他韦或不进行抗病毒治疗相比,巴洛沙韦具有成本效益。从美国医保支付方的角度来看,巴洛沙韦减少病毒传播的潜力带来了巨大的经济效益。