Budget Impact Model to Evaluate the Inclusion of a Pre-Filled Syringe Compared to Vial Application of Denosumab in Patients with Four Cancer Types in Mexico
Author(s)
BARBARA MONROY CRUZ, BA1, Veronica Lopez, MD2, David-Steven Góngora, MsC3;
1AMGEN, Value and Access Manager, Mexico City, Mexico, 2AMGEN, Mexico City, Mexico, 3IQVIA, Mexico City, Mexico
1AMGEN, Value and Access Manager, Mexico City, Mexico, 2AMGEN, Mexico City, Mexico, 3IQVIA, Mexico City, Mexico
Presentation Documents
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the financial impact and potential cost savings on the budget of Mexican public health institutions associated with the use of denosumab pre-filled syringe (PFS) versus currently existing vial to treat patients with four types of cancer.
METHODS: Direct and indirect costs associated with the two presentations of denosumab were evaluated. Direct costs included all resources and procedures involved in the administration of denosumab. Indirect costs accounted for patients’ lost wages due to workdays missed due to application of denosumab. Costs of resources, procedures, average daily wages, and annual expenditures on medications of the main Mexican public health institutions were obtained from the literature and/or from official public sources. Target populations (patients with lung, prostate, breast and multiple myeloma cancers) were estimated using incidence data from Globocan, considering one year of treatment. The budget impact associated with this population for each of the public health institutions in Mexico was estimated.
RESULTS: The total annual cost (direct and indirect costs) of the vial application is $91,139 MXN vs $78,094 MXN for the PFS application. Thus, the PFS represents savings of 14% per patient vs the vial. Consequently, the PFS is a cost-saving option for all institutions, reducing their expenses between 0.09 and 0.52%. Time savings related to PFS use is 2.17 days per year.
CONCLUSIONS: The denosumab PFS provides cost savings for all Mexican public health institutions. In addition, patients and caregivers also benefit from the use of PFS in terms of indirect costs and time saved which could be used in other activities.
METHODS: Direct and indirect costs associated with the two presentations of denosumab were evaluated. Direct costs included all resources and procedures involved in the administration of denosumab. Indirect costs accounted for patients’ lost wages due to workdays missed due to application of denosumab. Costs of resources, procedures, average daily wages, and annual expenditures on medications of the main Mexican public health institutions were obtained from the literature and/or from official public sources. Target populations (patients with lung, prostate, breast and multiple myeloma cancers) were estimated using incidence data from Globocan, considering one year of treatment. The budget impact associated with this population for each of the public health institutions in Mexico was estimated.
RESULTS: The total annual cost (direct and indirect costs) of the vial application is $91,139 MXN vs $78,094 MXN for the PFS application. Thus, the PFS represents savings of 14% per patient vs the vial. Consequently, the PFS is a cost-saving option for all institutions, reducing their expenses between 0.09 and 0.52%. Time savings related to PFS use is 2.17 days per year.
CONCLUSIONS: The denosumab PFS provides cost savings for all Mexican public health institutions. In addition, patients and caregivers also benefit from the use of PFS in terms of indirect costs and time saved which could be used in other activities.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2025-05, ISPOR 2025, Montréal, Quebec, CA
Value in Health, Volume 28, Issue S1
Code
EE222
Topic
Economic Evaluation
Topic Subcategory
Budget Impact Analysis
Disease
SDC: Oncology