背景:本研究旨在使用来自真实世界的美国行政索赔研究的数据,从美国付款人的角度评估巴洛沙韦与奥司他韦或无抗病毒治疗的成本效益。考虑到baloxavir的快速停止病毒脱落的能力,还探讨了巴洛沙韦诱导的人群水平的病毒传播减少的潜在健康经济影响.
方法:针对季节性流感(2018-2020年)开发了决策树成本效益模型,使用终生时间范围,对成本和质量调整寿命年(QALYs)进行3.0%的折扣。年龄≥12岁的患者可以接受baloxavir,奥司他韦或无抗病毒治疗。患者特征,并发症,成本来自Merative™MarketScan®研究数据库,包括美国商业索赔以及Medicare和Medicaid补充数据库。情景分析探讨了巴洛沙韦减少病毒传播的影响。
结果:在基本情况分析中,与奥司他韦[增量成本效益比(ICER)相比,巴洛沙韦在10万美元/QALY的支付意愿门槛内具有成本效益,$6813/QALY获得]或无抗病毒治疗(ICER,669美元/季度上涨)。与奥司他韦相比,巴洛沙韦的净货币收益(NMB)为1180美元和6208美元,没有治疗,分别。baloxavir的NMB随着病毒传播的减少而线性增加,与奥司他韦相比,传播减少5%产生的NMB为2592美元,与不治疗相比产生7621美元。Baloxavir成为主导(更有效,成本更低,ICERs<0)与奥司他韦相比,病毒传播减少12.0%,与无抗病毒治疗相比减少6.0%。
结论:与奥司他韦或无抗病毒治疗相比,巴洛沙韦具有成本效益。从美国付款人的角度来看,baloxavir减少病毒传播的潜力提供了巨大的经济利益。
Baloxavir是一种处方药,可以减少流感症状的持续时间,并减少流感并发症的可能性,包括可能需要住院治疗的严重并发症。Baloxavir可以通过减少感染者的病毒脱落的数量和持续时间来减少流感向健康人的传播。我们设计了一个模型来估计使用巴洛沙韦与另一种流感治疗的成本效益,被称为奥司他韦,或者根本没有流感治疗。使用baloxavir导致更多的成本节约比奥司他韦或没有治疗的人在美国谁拥有商业健康保险。Baloxavir在减少流感病例数(传播益处)的情况下更具成本效益。这最终可能会对庞大的健康保险人群产生有意义的好处。
BACKGROUND: 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.
CONCLUSIONS: 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.
Baloxavir is a prescription medicine that reduces the duration of flu symptoms and reduces the likelihood of complications from the flu, including serious complications that may require hospitalization. Baloxavir may reduce the spread of the flu to healthy people by reducing the amount and duration of virus shedding from infected people. We designed a model to estimate the cost benefits of using baloxavir versus another flu treatment, known as oseltamivir, or no flu treatment at all. Using baloxavir led to more cost savings than
oseltamivir or no treatment for people in the US who have commercial health insurance. Baloxavir was even more cost-effective in the scenario where it reduced the number of flu cases (transmission benefit). This could ultimately have a meaningful benefit across a large health insurance population.