Masafumi Kato

Introduction Short bowel syndrome (SBS) is associated with a significant mental and physical burden for patients and caregivers. Standard of care (SOC) for SBS includes parenteral support (PS) to optimize intestinal function. Teduglutide, a recombinant human glucagon-like peptide 2 analogue, reduces the need for PS in patients with SBS. In this study, we assessed the cost-effectiveness of teduglutide in pediatric patients with SBS from multiple perspectives, considering the caregiver’s burden. Methods A Markov model was used to evaluate cost (Japanese yen, JPY) and effectiveness (quality-adjusted life years, QALYs) of teduglutide compared with SOC for pediatric patients with SBS in Japan. We conducted a base-case analysis and selected sensitivity and scenario analyses from three perspectives: (1) the public healthcare payer, (2) the public healthcare and long-term care payer, and (3) society. Results In the base-case analysis, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was 9,533,412 JPY per QALY from the public healthcare payer perspective, 6,335,980 JPY per QALY from the public healthcare and long-term care payer perspective, and 3,510,371 JPY per QALY from the societal perspective. The probability that cost-effectiveness of teduglutide is favorable from a societal perspective was 59.3%. In all scenario analyses, consistent with the base-case analysis, ICERs for teduglutide compared with SOC were different depending on whether caregiver utility and productivity loss were considered. Conclusions Incorporating the caregiver’s burden in the cost-effectiveness analysis of teduglutide for pediatric patients with SBS provided a more comprehensive assessment of the value of teduglutide for patients, their families, and society. This approach enhances our understanding of the overall value of a treatment, especially for diseases with significant caregiver burden.

Aims: The treatment landscape of renal cell carcinoma has changed with the introduction of targeted therapies. While the clinical benefit of cabozantinib is well established for Japanese patients who have received prior treatment, the economic benefit remains unclear. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of cabozantinib compared with everolimus, axitinib, and nivolumab in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma who have failed at least one prior therapy in Japan.Methods: A cost-effectiveness model was developed using a partitioned survival approach and a public healthcare payer's perspective. Over a lifetime horizon, clinical and economic implications were estimated according to a three-health-state structure: progression-free, post-progression, and death. Key clinical inputs and utilities were derived from the METEOR trial, and a de novo network meta-analysis and cost data were obtained from publicly available Japanese data sources. Costs, quality-adjusted life-years, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were estimated. Costs and health benefits were discounted annually at 2%.Results: Cabozantinib was more costly and effective compared with everolimus and axitinib, with deterministic incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of ¥5,375,559 and ¥2,223,138, respectively. Compared to nivolumab, cabozantinib was predicted to be less costly and more effective. Sensitivity and scenario analyses demonstrated that the key drivers of cost-effectiveness results were the estimation of overall survival and treatment duration, relative efficacy, drug costs, and subsequent treatment costs.Limitations: METEOR was an international trial but did not enroll any patients from Japan. Efficacy and safety data from METEOR were used as a proxy for the Japanese population following validation by clinical experts, and alternative assumptions specific to clinical practice in Japan were evaluated in scenario analyses.Conclusions: In Japan, cabozantinib is a cost-effective alternative to everolimus, axitinib, and nivolumab for the treatment of patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma who have received at least one prior line of therapy.