Is the Scope of Costs Considered in Budget Impact Analyses for Anticancer Drugs Rational? A Systematic Review and Comparative Study

Background: With the increasing disease burden of cancer worldwide, more and more anticancer drugs have been approved in many countries, and the results of budget impact analyses (BIAs) have become important evidence for related reimbursement decisions.Objectives: We systematically reviewed whether BIAs for anticancer drugs consider the scope of costs rationally and compared the results of different cost scopes to provide suggestions for future analyses and decision-making.Methods: Eligible BIAs published in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library from 2016 to 2021 were identified based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We extracted 15 terms from the included studies and analyzed how they considered the scope of costs. In addition, a budget impact model was developed for the introduction of geptanolimab to China's National Reimbursement Drug List to enable a comparison of two cost-scope scenarios.Results: A total of 29 studies were included in the systematic review. All 29 studies considered the costs of anticancer drugs, and 25 (86%) also considered condition-related costs, but only 11 (38%) considered subsequent treatment costs. In the comparative study, the predicted budget impacts from 2022 to 2024 were significantly impacted by subsequent treatment costs, with annual differences between the two cost-scope scenarios of $39,546,664, $65,866,161, and $86,577,386, respectively.Conclusions: The scope of costs considered in some existing BIAs for anticancer drugs are not rational. The variations between different cost scopes in terms of budget impact were significant. Thus, BIAs for anticancer drugs should consider a rational scope of costs that adheres to BIA guidelines. Researchers and decision-makers should pay more attention to the scope of costs to achieve better-quality BIAs for anticancer drugs and enhance reimbursement decision-making.

Economic Evaluation of The Budget Impact of Precision Medicine Testing for The Treatment of Psoriasis

Objective: This study was a budget impact analysis based on a budget impact model (BIM) and formularies from different commercial payer types (excluding Medicare and Medicaid). The primary objective of this study was to determine the potential cost savings utilizing precision medicine testing of biologics in patients with psoriasis. The evaluation projects the predicted cost savings of multiple formulary scenarios, simulated through the BIM. Methods: A budget impact model was constructed to simulate the impact of Mind.Px, a transcriptomic predictive precision medicine test that can discriminate between psoriasis responders and non-responders, on psoriasis drug usage. This model simulated the impact of Mind.Px on different formularies and cost scenarios, considering the efficacy of individual biologics. All formularies used were acquired from the Policy Reporter database. Results: Several payers representing a spectrum of covered lives populations were used to simulate the impact of Mind.Px through the budget impact model. The budget impact model returned cost savings as low as $5,138 annually to as high as $13,141 annually. Based on the analysis of this subset of payers, the model yielded average cost savings of $8,492 annually as well as an average wasted spend savings of $16,567. All Savings are represented on an annual per patient basis. Conclusions: These savings demonstrate the potential cost savings that precision medicine testing can provide to ease the economic burden on payers, clinics/hospital systems, and patients, and may fill the need for a better method to prescribe drugs for the treatment of psoriasis.

A Budget Impact Model for the use of Drug-Eluting Stents in Patients with Symptomatic Lower-Limb Peripheral Arterial Disease: An Australian Perspective

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.

PP339 A Budget Impact Model Of The EluviaTM Drug-Eluting Stent from The Australian Public Hospital And National Payer Perspective

IntroductionImproving long-term outcomes like target lesions revascularizations (TLRs) is a focus for endovascular interventions aimed at treating symptomatic lower-limb peripheral arterial disease (PAD). EluviaTM, a paclitaxel-eluting drug-eluting stent (DES) was shown to further reduce TLRs when compared with the paclitaxel-coated Zilver® PTX® stent in the IMPERIAL trial, a global, randomized controlled study. This budget-impact evaluation investigated cost-savings from Eluvia-use when compared with Zilver PTX, relying on the 12- to 24-month outcomes from the IMPERIAL trial.MethodsA budget-impact model comparing Eluvia and Zilver PTX was developed from the Australian public healthcare payer, and an individual hospital perspective, with a 5-year time-horizon. Observed trial results were applied to each year's incident population and associated costs, and no extrapolation was conducted. The analysis used publicly available Australian national hospital cost data, population estimates, procedural statistics, epidemiological literature, and data from public hospital audits to verify eligible population for endovascular procedures (EVP) including DES. All costs were captured in Australian dollars (AUD), where AUD 1 = USD 0.69 (June 2020).ResultsAssuming 80-percent EVP eligibility, and a DES-use range of 10–28 percent, the 5-year model estimated potential national savings of AUD 4.3–12.1 million (M) [USD 3–8.3M] to the public healthcare payer, driven by reduced TLRs from Eluvia-use compared with Zilver-PTX. The model projected potential national savings of AUD 33.1–92.6M (USD 22.8–63.9M) to individual hospitals through reduced hospital bed days for adverse events (AE). The model forecasted 14,428–40,399 treated patients; 1,499–4,198 fewer TLRs; and 16,515–46,243 fewer hospital days for AE. At a state level, projected hospital savings were: New South Wales AUD 10.9–30.7M [USD 7.5–21.1M]; Victoria AUD 8.4–23.4M [USD 5.8–16.1M]; Queensland AUD 6.5–18.3M [USD 4.5–12.6M]; Western Australia AUD 3.4–9.5M [USD 2.3–6.5M]; South Australia AUD 2.3–6.4M [USD 1.6–4.4M].ConclusionsTreatment of symptomatic lower-limb PAD with the Eluvia DES could lead to potential savings for the Australian healthcare system, at the national, state, and the local hospital level, based on improved patient outcomes.