A539index on 12 -24 and 96 -104 weeks of therapy. The costs of drug treatment from Russian healthcare system perspective were calculated for 2 years. Drug prices were derived from the list of registered maximal manufacture's prices for vital and essential drugs; expected price of secukinumab was submitted by its manufacturer. Oneway sensitivity analysis was performed. Results: Secukinumab has the lowest ICER among all biologic drugs indicated for AS treatment in Russia -€ 26,637 per patient, who has achieved ASAS20 response at 2 years. Secukinumab is also cheaper than all other biologic agents: its cost for 2 years is € 15,343, while other drugs require from € 15,926 to € 46,995 over the same period. The price of secukinumab should increase at least up to 3,6% from presently expected in order it to lose its advantages over other biologics. ConClusions: Secukinumab will provide a new cost-effective option for AS treatment in Russian Federation if the expected price is not changed.

breast (EBC/MBC) and metastatic gastric cancer (MGC) in Italy. METHODS: Drug and administration costs were included. Official, public drug prices were used for Herceptin® SC and IV, and a mandatory 20% discount was applied for all trastuzumab biosimilars. All IV trastuzumab formulations are available in 150mg vials, whereas only KANJINTI® would be available also in 420-mg vials. Drug costs were calculated for two scenarios: no vial-sharing and full vialsharing (i.e. no drug wastage). For the no vial-sharing scenario, patient weight distributions by indication were implemented accounting for optimal vial combinations to minimise drug wastage. RESULTS: KANJINTI® was shown to generate savings ranging from V1,670 to V3,358 per patient vs. SC Herceptin® across indications; V5,877 to V7,918 vs. IV Herceptin®; and V958 to V1,236 vs. other trastuzumab biosimilars in the scenario with no vial-sharing. With full vialsharing, KANJINTI® would generate savings ranging from V4,300 to V5,761 per patient vs. SC Herceptin®; V4,097 to V5,715 vs. IV Herceptin®; and no additional savings vs. other trastuzumab biosimilars. With no vial-sharing, KANJINTI® was the least costly treatment for EBC patients weighing 75 kg or less (60.25% of patients); with full vial-sharing, KANJINTI® was the least costly treatment for EBC patients weighing 89 kg or lower (87.5%). Similar results were obtained for MBC and MGC patients. CONCLUSIONS: KANJINTI® is the least costly treatment option for the vast majority of patients, with the potential to realise budget savings compared with all other trastuzumab treatment options. The availability of the 420-mg vial allows a reduction of drug wastage and the generation of further savings with biosimilars when full vial-sharing is not possible. OBJECTIVES:Multiple myeloma (MM) is a progressive, fatal cancer that affects the plasma cells. It accounts for 1% of all malignancies and 10% of all hematological cancers. In Austria, nearly 350 people are newly diagnosed every year. The nationwide, age-standardized incidence of MM for 2015 is 4.9 per 100,000 inhabitants. The aim of this cost comparison is to analyze differences in resource consumption and costs of treatment alternatives administered in different settings. Oral Ixazomib was compared with infusable Carfilzomib, Elotuzumab and Daratumumab, all in combination with Lenalidomide and Dexamethasone. Daratumumab requires premedication. METHODS: A costing model with a six month time horizon was developed from the payer's perspective in 2017 Euros. The main objective of the model was to assess differences in resource consumption (medication, personal, material, monitoring and day clinic) and related costs. In order to conduct the analysis a bottom-up micro-costing approach was carried out. Personal, material and monitoring costs were calculated based on a resource utilization survey via questionnaire. RESULTS: Total treatment costs for Ixazomib+Lenalidomide+Dexamethasone (IxLenDex) amount to 94,000 V over a time horizon of 6 months. Carfilzomi-b+Lenalidomide+Dexam...

No abstract

A597economic, and epidemiologic outcomes in NSI were included. Subsequently, a decision tree was developed to estimate and compare the yearly costs incurred while using safety engineered device needle devices (SED) compared to non-SED. For this cost impact analysis, we quantified the annual total direct medical cost per HCW per NSI. Results: The prevalence and frequency of NSI in India ranged from 61 % to 79.5% and 2.3 to 4.5 per HCW per year respectively. Incidence density was 228.57 per 100 person days. 79.5% to 90.5% HCWs reported having at least one NSI in their career. In a hypothetical cohort of 100 HCWs, costs per HCW per year per NSI episode avoided was ₹ (Indian Rupee) 47,861($744). The components comprising this cost element were costs incurred due to injecting needle, suturing needle, cannula, and other needles, respectively as per the literature. Hence, the breakdown of ₹ 47,861 were estimated as ₹ 23,930

Objectives: HBV-related liver disease in advanced stages can only be treated by liver transplantation. Long-term combination prophylaxis with virustatics and HBV-specific immunoglobulins (HBIG) is necessary to protect the liver from being re-infected after transplant. In France, HBIG is available in 2 administration routes: an intravenous infusion (IVHBIG) and a subcutaneous injection (SCHBIG). The objective of this analysis is to evaluate the economic impact of those two routes of administration from the public payer perspective. MethOds: In a center of excellence for hepatology in Paris, which performs over 100 liver transplants per year, ten patients were switched from IVHBIG to SCHBIG. Patients were monitored regarding treatment regime and costs of both alternatives. Costs included were the product prices of SCHBIG, IVHBIG and virustatics, the costs for product administration and for biologic tests, transportation and therapeutic education. A model was built to compare the costs of both prophylaxis methods over a 3-year time frame from a public payer perspective. Results: The total cost for 3 years of prophylaxis was € 505,000 for the group treated with IVHBIG and € 265,000 for SCHBIG group. Treatment expenditure was mainly driven by the product cost for HBIG. After switching from the intravenous to the subcutaneous route, the dosage of HBIG could be reduced to 23% of the original dose while keeping protective HBIG trough levels in the blood serum. Therefore, even though the price per unit is higher for SCHBIG, the total costs were significantly lower. Additionally, the possibility of selfadministration led to savings as transportation and infusion in the day care hospital were avoided. cOnclusiOns: The result of the budget impact model shows that the use of SCHBIG leads to cost savings from a public payer perspective when compared to IVHBIG. Thus, the switch from IVHBIG to SCHBIG can be recommended from a cost-effectiveness point of view.Objectives: Patients with haematologic malignancies are at high risk of breakthrough invasive fungal infections (bIFIs), which are associated with high morbidity and mortality. Anti-mould prophylaxis and treatments have been introduced which have improved patient outcomes. This analysis estimates the budget impact of posacoanzole and itraconaozole, two prophylactic agents that prevent bIFIs in patients with acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) and myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS). MethOds: We developed a budget impact model looking at the costs of a hypothetical cohort of 100 patients in a posaconazole primary prophylaxis pathway versus an itraconazole primary prophylaxis pathway. The key cost and efficiency drivers considered are: drug acquisition, diagnostic test, antibiotic and hospitalisation costs associated with a bIFI. Key data on the costs of an infection come from a peer-reviewed published observational study in the UK. Differences in bIFI rates between posaconazole and itraconazole were demonstrated in multi-centre Phase 3 randomised controlled trials. Results: For 100 pat...