IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-03696350.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Cost-Utility Analysis of STN1013001, a Latanoprost Cationic Emulsion, versus Other Latanoprost Formulations (Latanoprost) in Open-Angle Glaucoma or Ocular Hypertension and Ocular Surface Disease in France

Author

Listed:
  • Carlo Lazzaro
  • Cecile van Steen
  • Florent Aptel

    (CHUGA - Centre Hospitalier Universitaire [CHU Grenoble])

  • Cedric Schweitzer

    (BPH - Bordeaux population health - UB - Université de Bordeaux - Institut de Santé Publique, d'Épidémiologie et de Développement (ISPED) - INSERM - Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale, CHU Bordeaux - Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Bordeaux)

  • Luigi Angelillo

Abstract

PURPOSE: To investigate the cost utility of STN1013001, a latanoprost cationic emulsion, versus Latanoprost in patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension (OAG/OHT) and concomitant ocular surface disease (OSD) in France. METHODS: An early Markov model, including 7 health states and a 1-year cycle length, was developed to estimate the cost utility of STN1013001 versus Latanoprost from the French health system perspective over a 5-year time horizon. The model was populated with pooled data (treatment adherence, quality of life, disease progression, and resource utilization) collected, via a questionnaire, from a convenience sample of 5 French glaucoma specialists. Remaining data were retrieved from published sources. Half-cycle correction and 2.5% real social discount rate were applied to costs (in €2020), life years saved (LYS), and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) was contrasted against the informal willingness-to-pay (WTP) range for incremental LYS or QALY gained (€30,000-€50,000) suggested for France. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses tested the robustness of the baseline ICUR. RESULTS: Over a 5-year time horizon, STN1013001 resulted in an incremental 0.35 QALYs gained at an incremental cost of €7.39 compared to Latanoprost, resulting in an ICUR of €21.26. This is well below the lower limit of the unofficial WTP range proposed for France. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the baseline results. CONCLUSION: Once on the market, STN1013001 will provide the French health system with a cost-effective treatment versus Latanoprost for OAG/OHT + OSD patients. These results should be confirmed by future economic evaluations carried out alongside empirical trials.

Suggested Citation

  • Carlo Lazzaro & Cecile van Steen & Florent Aptel & Cedric Schweitzer & Luigi Angelillo, 2022. "Cost-Utility Analysis of STN1013001, a Latanoprost Cationic Emulsion, versus Other Latanoprost Formulations (Latanoprost) in Open-Angle Glaucoma or Ocular Hypertension and Ocular Surface Disease in Fr," Post-Print hal-03696350, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-03696350
    DOI: 10.1155/2022/3837471
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.science/hal-03696350v1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hal.science/hal-03696350v1/document
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1155/2022/3837471?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jose Bartelt-Hofer & Lilia Ben-Debba & Steffen Flessa, 2020. "Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations in Primary Open-Angle Glaucoma: Decision Analytic Modeling Insights," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 5-12, March.
    2. Glick, Henry A. & Doshi, Jalpa A. & Sonnad, Seema S. & Polsky, Daniel, 2014. "Economic Evaluation in Clinical Trials," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 2, number 9780199685028.
    3. Maarten J. IJzerman & Hendrik Koffijberg & Elisabeth Fenwick & Murray Krahn, 2017. "Emerging Use of Early Health Technology Assessment in Medical Product Development: A Scoping Review of the Literature," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(7), pages 727-740, July.
    4. Aaron A. Stinnett & A. David Paltiel, 1997. "Estimating CE Ratios under Second-order Uncertainty," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 17(4), pages 483-489, October.
    5. Briggs, Andrew & Sculpher, Mark & Claxton, Karl, 2006. "Decision Modelling for Health Economic Evaluation," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198526629.
    6. William C. Black, 1990. "The CE Plane," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 10(3), pages 212-214, August.
    7. Drummond, Michael F. & Sculpher, Mark J. & Claxton, Karl & Stoddart, Greg L. & Torrance, George W., 2015. "Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 4, number 9780199665884.
    8. Jose Bartelt-Hofer & Steffen Flessa, 2020. "Authors’ Reply to Salamanca: “Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations in Primary Open Angle Glaucoma: Decision Analytic Modeling Insights”," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 4(3), pages 551-552, September.
    9. Frank A. Sonnenberg & J. Robert Beck, 1993. "Markov Models in Medical Decision Making," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 13(4), pages 322-338, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Osvaldo Ulises Garay & Marie Libérée Nishimwe & Marwân-al-Qays Bousmah & Asmaa Janah & Pierre-Marie Girard & Geneviève Chêne & Laetitia Moinot & Luis Sagaon-Teyssier & Jean-Luc Meynard & Bruno Spire &, 2019. "Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Lopinavir/Ritonavir Monotherapy Versus Standard Combination Antiretroviral Therapy in HIV-1 Infected Patients with Viral Suppression in France (ANRS 140 DREAM)," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 3(4), pages 505-515, December.
    2. Matthew Franklin & James Lomas & Simon Walker & Tracey Young, 2019. "An Educational Review About Using Cost Data for the Purpose of Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(5), pages 631-643, May.
    3. Marwân-al-Qays Bousmah & Marie Libérée Nishimwe & Tamara Tovar-Sanchez & Martial Lantche Wandji & Mireille Mpoudi-Etame & Gwenaëlle Maradan & Pierrette Omgba Bassega & Marie Varloteaux & Alice Montoyo, 2021. "Cost-Utility Analysis of a Dolutegravir-Based Versus Low-Dose Efavirenz-Based Regimen for the Initial Treatment of HIV-Infected Patients in Cameroon (NAMSAL ANRS 12313 Trial)," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 39(3), pages 331-343, March.
    4. Kevin Kennedy & Gurkaran Sarohia & Dominik Podbielski & Simon Pickard & Jean-Eric Tarride & Feng Xie, 2024. "Systematic methodological review of health state values in glaucoma cost-utility analyses," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 25(8), pages 1417-1435, November.
    5. Marta O Soares & L Canto e Castro, 2010. "Simulation or cohort models? Continuous time simulation and discretized Markov models to estimate cost-effectiveness," Working Papers 056cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    6. Chiranjeev Sanyal & Don Husereau, 2020. "Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations of Services Provided by Community Pharmacists," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 375-392, June.
    7. Qi Cao & Erik Buskens & Hans L. Hillege & Tiny Jaarsma & Maarten Postma & Douwe Postmus, 2019. "Stratified treatment recommendation or one-size-fits-all? A health economic insight based on graphical exploration," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(3), pages 475-482, April.
    8. Hossein Haji Ali Afzali & Laura Bojke & Jonathan Karnon, 2018. "Model Structuring for Economic Evaluations of New Health Technologies," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(11), pages 1309-1319, November.
    9. Salah Ghabri & Françoise F. Hamers & Jean Michel Josselin, 2016. "Exploring Uncertainty in Economic Evaluations of Drugs and Medical Devices: Lessons from the First Review of Manufacturers’ Submissions to the French National Authority for Health," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(6), pages 617-624, June.
    10. Yasuhiro Hagiwara & Takeru Shiroiwa, 2022. "Estimating Value-Based Price and Quantifying Uncertainty around It in Health Technology Assessment: Frequentist and Bayesian Approaches," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 42(5), pages 672-683, July.
    11. Mattias Ekman & Peter Lindgren & Carolin Miltenburger & Genevieve Meier & Julie Locklear & Mary Chatterton, 2012. "Cost Effectiveness of Quetiapine in Patients with Acute Bipolar Depression and in Maintenance Treatment after an Acute Depressive Episode," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(6), pages 513-530, June.
    12. Amr Makady & Ard Veelen & Páll Jonsson & Owen Moseley & Anne D’Andon & Anthonius Boer & Hans Hillege & Olaf Klungel & Wim Goettsch, 2018. "Using Real-World Data in Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Practice: A Comparative Study of Five HTA Agencies," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(3), pages 359-368, March.
    13. Sara Kaveh & Nashmil Ghadimi & Amirhossein Zarei Alvar & Kamran Roudini & Rajabali Daroudi, 2024. "Trastuzumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in HER2-positive gastric cancer treatment in Iran: a cost-effectiveness analysis," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 14(1), pages 1-14, December.
    14. Matthew Franklin & James Lomas & Gerry Richardson, 2020. "Conducting Value for Money Analyses for Non-randomised Interventional Studies Including Service Evaluations: An Educational Review with Recommendations," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 38(7), pages 665-681, July.
    15. Charles Yan & Jeff Round & Ilke Akpinar & Chantal E. Atwood & Lesly Deuchar & Mohit Bhutani & Richard Leigh & Michael K. Stickland, 2023. "Cost Analysis of a Transition Care Bundle Compared with Usual Care for COPD Patients Being Discharged from Hospital: Evaluation of a Randomized Controlled Trial," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 7(3), pages 493-505, May.
    16. Joseph Kwon & Ruairidh Milne & Clare Rayner & Román Rocha Lawrence & Jordan Mullard & Ghazala Mir & Brendan Delaney & Manoj Sivan & Stavros Petrou, 2024. "Impact of Long COVID on productivity and informal caregiving," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 25(7), pages 1095-1115, September.
    17. David Brain & Ruth Tulleners & Xing Lee & Qinglu Cheng & Nicholas Graves & Rosana Pacella, 2019. "Cost-effectiveness analysis of an innovative model of care for chronic wounds patients," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(3), pages 1-13, March.
    18. Hiral Anil Shah & Tim Baker & Carl Otto Schell & August Kuwawenaruwa & Khamis Awadh & Karima Khalid & Angela Kairu & Vincent Were & Edwine Barasa & Peter Baker & Lorna Guinness, 2023. "Cost Effectiveness of Strategies for Caring for Critically Ill Patients with COVID-19 in Tanzania," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 7(4), pages 537-552, July.
    19. Ezeofor Victory & Edwards T. Rhiannon & Burnside Girvan & Adair Pauline & Pine M. Cynthia, 2022. "Cost-effectiveness Analysis of the Dental RECUR Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial: Evaluating a Goal-oriented Talking Intervention to Prevent Reoccurrence of Dental Caries in Children," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 20(3), pages 431-445, May.
    20. Astrid Van Muylder & Thomas D’Hooghe & Jeroen Luyten, 2023. "Economic Evaluation of Medically Assisted Reproduction: A Methodological Systematic Review," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 43(7-8), pages 973-991, October.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-03696350. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.