Are National Comprehensive Cancer Network Evidence Block Affordability Ratings Representative of Real-World Costs? An Evaluation of Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer

PURPOSE

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) developed the Evidence Blocks framework to assess the value of oncology regimens. This study characterizes the relationship between real-world costs and NCCN affordability ratings (ARs) for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) treatments.

METHODS

Using the MarketScan and PharMetrics Plus databases, we identified patients treated between 2012 and 2017 with an aNSCLC regimen evaluated by the NCCN Evidence Blocks. We estimated adjusted mean total per-patient-per-month (PPPM) costs and drug costs for each regimen using a log-linked gamma generalized linear model. Weighted regression was used to examine the correlation between adjusted mean PPPM costs per regimen and NCCN AR.

RESULTS

A total of 25,162 patients with aNSCLC (mean age, 63 years [standard deviation, 10 years]; 52% male) had identifiable regimens. Mean total PPPM cost by therapeutic class ranged from $16,824 for epidermal growth factor receptors to $41,815 for immunotherapy-based treatment. Epidermal growth factor receptor and anaplastic lymphoma kinase inhibitor treatment had lower ARs compared with generic chemotherapy. No therapy was listed as AR group 5 (least expensive). In pairwise comparisons, AR group 1 had significantly higher PPPM total costs compared with AR groups 2 and 4. There were no significant differences in PPPM total cost among AR groups 2, 3, and 4.

CONCLUSION

Real-world aNSCLC treatment costs are often inconsistent with the NCCN ARs. Given that NCCN Evidence Blocks are intended to inform provider-patient discussions and other decision support resources, such as the NCCN Categories of Preference, our results suggest that the NCCN ARs require further refinement and validation.

Targeted Incentive Programs For Lung Cancer Screening Can Improve Population Health And Economic Efficiency

Because an intervention's clinical benefit depends on who receives it, a key to improving the efficiency of lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) is to incentivize its use among the current or former smokers who are most likely to benefit from it. Despite its clinical advantages and cost-effectiveness, only 3.9 percent of the eligible population underwent LDCT screening in 2015. Using individual lung cancer mortality risk, we developed a policy simulation model to explore the potential impact of implementing risk-targeted incentive programs, compared to either implementing untargeted incentive programs or doing nothing. We found that compared to the status quo, an untargeted incentive program that increased overall LDCT screening from 3,900 (baseline) to 10,000 per 100,000 eligible people would save 12,300 life-years and accrue a net monetary benefit (NMB) of $771 million over a lifetime horizon. Increasing screening by the same amount but targeting higher-risk people would yield an additional 2,470-6,600 life-years and an additional $210-$560 million NMB, depending on the extent of the risk-targeting. Risk-targeted incentive programs could include provider-level bonuses, health plan premium subsidies, and smoking cessation programs to maximize their impact. As clinical medicine becomes more personalized, targeting and incentivizing higher-risk people will help enhance population health and economic efficiency.

Adherence to the iDSI reference case among published cost-per-DALY averted studies

BACKGROUND

The iDSI reference case, originally published in 2014, aims to improve the quality and comparability of cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA). This study assesses whether the development of the guideline is associated with an improvement in methodological and reporting practices for CEAs using disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs).

METHODS

We analyzed the Tufts Medical Center Global Health CEA Registry to identify cost-per-DALY averted studies published from 2011 to 2017. Among each of 11 principles in the iDSI reference case, we translated all methodological specifications and reporting standards into a series of binary questions (satisfied or not satisfied) and awarded articles one point for each item satisfied. We then calculated methodological and reporting adherence scores separately as a percentage of total possible points, measured as normalized adherence score (0% = no adherence; 100% = full adherence). Using the year 2014 as the dissemination period, we conducted a pre-post analysis. We also conducted sensitivity analyses using: 1) optional criteria in scoring, 2) alternate dissemination period (2014-2015), and 3) alternative comparator classification.

RESULTS

Articles averaged 60% adherence to methodological specifications and 74% adherence to reporting standards. While methodological adherence scores did not significantly improve (59% pre-2014 vs. 60% post-2014, p = 0.53), reporting adherence scores increased slightly over time (72% pre-2014 vs. 75% post-2014, p<0.01). Overall, reporting adherence scores exceeded methodological adherence scores (74% vs. 60%, p<0.001). Articles seldom addressed budget impact (9% reporting, 10% methodological) or equity (7% reporting, 7% methodological).

CONCLUSIONS

The iDSI reference case has substantial potential to serve as a useful resource for researchers and policy-makers in global health settings, but greater effort to promote adherence and awareness is needed to achieve its potential.

Challenges with Forecasting Budget Impact: A Case Study of Six ICER Reports

BACKGROUND

Payers frequently rely on budget impact model (BIM) results to help determine drug coverage policy and its effect on their bottom line. It is unclear whether BIMs typically overestimate or underestimate real-world budget impact.

OBJECTIVE

We examined how different modeling assumptions influenced the results of 6 BIMs from the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER).

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective analysis of pharmaceutical sales data.

METHODS

From ICER reports issued before 2016, we collected estimates of 3 BIM outputs: aggregate therapy cost (ie, cost to treat the patient population with a particular therapy), therapy uptake, and price. We compared these against real-world estimates that we generated using drug sales data. We considered 2 classes of BIM estimates: those forecasting future uptake of new agents, which assumed "unmanaged uptake," and those describing the contemporaneous market state (ie, estimates of current, managed uptake and budget impact for compounds already on the market).

RESULTS

Differences between ICER's estimates and our own were largest for forecasted studies. Here, ICER's uptake estimates exceeded real-world estimates by factors ranging from 7.4 (sacubitril/valsartan) to 54 (hepatitis C treatments). The "unmanaged uptake" assumption (removed from ICER's approach in 2017) yields large deviations between BIM estimates and real-world consumption. Nevertheless, in some cases, ICER's BIMs that relied on current market estimates also deviated substantially from real-world sales data.

CONCLUSIONS

This study highlights challenges with forecasting budget impact. In particular, assumptions about uptake and data source selection can greatly influence the accuracy of results.

An Update on Iatrogenic Biliary Injuries: Identification, Classification, and Management

Common bile duct injury is a feared complication of cholecystectomy, with an incidence of 0.1% to 0.6%. A majority of injuries go unnoticed at index operation, and postoperative diagnosis can be difficult. Patient presentation can vary from vague abdominal pain to uncontrolled sepsis and peritonitis. Diagnostic evaluation typically begins with ultrasound or CT scan in the acute setting, and source control is paramount at time of presentation. In a stable patient, hepatobiliary iminodiacetic acid scan can be useful in identifying an ongoing bile leak, which requires intervention. A variety of diagnostic techniques define biliary anatomy. Treatment often requires a multidisciplinary approach.

Cost comparison across heart failure patients with reduced and preserved ejection fractions: Analyses of inpatient decompensated heart failure admissions

BACKGROUND

Heart failure (HF) is the leading cause of inpatient admissions in the US for adults aged over 65 years and accounts for more than $17 billion in Medicare expenditures annually. There are limited published data on factors influencing expenditure and the relationship between cost and hospital length of stay. We sought to describe institutional costs of HF hospitalization, as well as demographic and clinical predictors of higher hospitalization costs in an academic hospital setting.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Demographic and clinical information was collected retrospectively for 564 unique consecutive patients with a decompensated HF admission during 2010-2013. Forty-six percent had a baseline LVEF >40%, categorized as HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Forty-three percent were female and the mean age was 71 years. Patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) were predominantly male, younger and had a lower burden of baseline comorbidities than HFpEF patients. Length of stay was longer for HFrEF (median 4 days) than HFpEF (median 3 days, p = 0.01). Mean total hospitalization cost was $9521. Mean costs trended higher for HFrEF patients than for HFpEF patients ($10,286 versus $8858, p = 0.07). Room and board contributed more than half of all costs.

CONCLUSIONS

In this single-center study, we observed a trend towards higher HF hospitalization costs for patients with HFrEF, compared to HFpEF, even though patients with HFpEF are older and had more comorbid conditions. Costs were largely driven by length of stay, with higher heart rate at admission, lower systolic blood pressure, and higher creatinine associated with higher inpatient costs.

Use and Misuse of Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Thresholds in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: Trends in Cost-per-DALY Studies

OBJECTIVES

To determine what thresholds are most often cited in the cost-effectiveness literature for low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), given various recommendations proposed and used in the literature to date, and thereafter to assess whether studies appropriately justified their use of threshold values.

METHODS

We reviewed the contents of the Tufts Medical Center Global Health Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry, a repository of all English language cost-per-disability-adjusted life-year averted studies indexed in PubMed. Our review included all catalogued cost-per-disability-adjusted life-year studies published from 2000 through 2015. We restricted attention to studies that investigated interventions in LMICs.

RESULTS

Our analysis identified 381 studies (80%) focused on LMICs. Of these studies, 250 (66%) cited the World Health Organization's 1 to 3 times gross domestic product per capita threshold. A full-text review of 60 (24%) of these articles (randomly selected) revealed that none justified use of this threshold in the particular country or countries studied beyond citing (generic) guideline documents.

CONCLUSIONS

Cost-effectiveness analysis can help inform health care spending, but its value depends on incorporating assumptions that are valid for the applicable setting. Rather than rely on commonly used, generic economic thresholds, we encourage authors to use context-specific thresholds that reflect local preferences.

Early-stage Hodgkin lymphoma in the modern era: simulation modelling to delineate long-term patient outcomes

We developed a novel simulation model integrating multiple data sets to project long-term outcomes with contemporary therapy for early-stage Hodgkin lymphoma (ESHL), namely combined modality therapy (CMT) versus chemotherapy alone (CA) via ¹⁸ F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography response-adaption. The model incorporated 3-year progression-free survival (PFS), probability of cure with/without relapse, frequency of severe late effects (LEs), and 35-year probability of LEs. Furthermore, we generated estimates for quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and unadjusted survival (life years, LY) and used model projections to compare outcomes for CMTversusCA for two index patients. Patient 1: a 25-year-old male with favourable ESHL (stage IA); Patient 2: a 25-year-old female with unfavourable ESHL (stage IIB). Sensitivity analyses assessed the impact of alternative assumptions for LE probabilities. For Patient 1, CMT was superior to CA (CMT incremental gain = 0·11 QALYs, 0·21 LYs). For Patient 2, CA was superior to CMT (CA incremental gain = 0·37 QALYs, 0·92 LYs). For Patient 1, the advantage of CMT changed minimally when the proportion of severe LEs was reduced from 20% to 5% (0·15 QALYs, 0·43 LYs), whereas increasing the severity proportion for Patient 2's LEs from 20% to 80% enhanced the advantage of CA (1·1 QALYs, 6·5 LYs). Collectively, this detailed simulation model quantified the long-term impact that varied host factors and alternative contemporary treatments have in ESHL.

Unintended consequences of the potential phase-out of gamma irradiation

The radioisotope cobalt-60 (Co-60) is important for commercial, medical, and agricultural applications. Its widespread use has meant that Co-60 can be found in less secured facilities, leading to the fear that unauthorized persons could obtain and use it to produce a "dirty bomb". This potential security concern has led to government calls for phasing-out Co-60 and other radiation sources, despite ongoing safety and security regulations for handling, transport and use of radioactive sealed sources. This paper explores potential implications of phasing out radioisotopic technologies, including unintended safety and cost consequences for healthcare and food in the US and globally. The use of Co-60 for healthcare and agricultural applications is well-documented. Co-60 is used to sterilize single-use medical devices, tissue allografts, and a range of consumer products. Co-60 is used in Gamma Knife treatment of brain tumors in over 70,000 patients annually. Co-60 is also used to preserve food and kill insects and pathogens that cause food-borne illness. Co-60 is effective, reliable, and predictable. Limitations of alternative sterilization technologies include complex equipment, toxicities, incompatibilities with plastic, and physical hazards. Alternative ionizing radiation sources for wide-reaching applications, including e-beam and x-ray radiation, have advantages and drawbacks related to commercial scale capacity, penetrability, complexity and reliability. Identifying acceptable alternatives would require time, costs and lengthy regulatory review. FDA testing requirements and other hurdles would delay replacement of existing technologies and slow medical innovation, even delaying access to life-saving therapies.  A phase-out would raise manufacturing costs, and reduce supply-chain efficiencies, potentially increasing consumer prices, and reducing supply. These consequences are poorly understood and merit additional research. Given Co-60's importance across medical and non-medical fields, restrictions on Co-60 warrant careful consideration and evaluation before adoption.

Comparing the cost-per-QALYs gained and cost-per-DALYs averted literatures

Background: We examined the similarities and differences between studies using two common metrics used in cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs): cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained and cost per disability-adjusted life year (DALY) averted. Methods: We used the Tufts Medical Center CEA Registry, which contains English-language cost-per-QALY gained studies, and the Global Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (GHCEA) Registry, which contains cost-per-DALY averted studies. We examined study characteristics, including intervention type, sponsor, country, and primary disease, and also compared the number of published CEAs to disease burden for major diseases and conditions across geographic regions. Results: We identified 6,438 cost-per-QALY and 543 cost-per-DALY studies published through 2016 and observed rapid growth for both literatures. Cost-per-QALY studies most often examined pharmaceuticals and interventions in high-income countries. Cost-per-DALY studies predominantly focused on infectious disease interventions and interventions in low and lower-middle income countries. We found that while diseases imposing a larger burden tend to receive more attention in the cost-effectiveness analysis literature, the number of publications for some diseases and conditions deviates from this pattern, suggesting "under-studied" conditions (e.g., neonatal disorders) and "over-studied" conditions (e.g., HIV and TB). Conclusions: The CEA literature has grown rapidly, with applications to diverse interventions and diseases.  The publication of fewer studies than expected for some diseases given their imposed burden suggests funding opportunities for future cost-effectiveness research.

Comparing the cost-per-QALYs gained and cost-per-DALYs averted literatures

Background: We examined the similarities and differences between studies using two common metrics used in cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs): cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained and cost per disability-adjusted life year (DALY) averted. Methods: We used the Tufts Medical Center CEA Registry, which contains English-language cost-per-QALY gained studies, and the Global Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (GHCEA) Registry, which contains cost-per-DALY averted studies. We examined study characteristics, including intervention type, sponsor, country, and primary disease, and also compared the number of published CEAs to disease burden for major diseases and conditions across geographic regions. Results: We identified 6,438 cost-per-QALY and 543 cost-per-DALY studies published through 2016 and observed rapid growth for both literatures. Cost-per-QALY studies most often examined pharmaceuticals and interventions in high-income countries. Cost-per-DALY studies predominantly focused on infectious disease interventions and interventions in low and lower-middle income countries. We found that while diseases imposing a larger burden tend to receive more attention in the cost-effectiveness analysis literature, the number of publications for some diseases and conditions deviates from this pattern, suggesting "under-studied" conditions (e.g., neonatal disorders) and "over-studied" conditions (e.g., HIV and TB). Conclusions: The CEA literature has grown rapidly, with applications to diverse interventions and diseases.  The publication of fewer studies than expected for some diseases given their imposed burden suggests funding opportunities for future cost-effectiveness research.

Risk-Targeted Lung Cancer Screening: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

BACKGROUND

Targeting low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) for lung cancer screening to persons at highest risk for lung cancer mortality has been suggested to improve screening efficiency.

OBJECTIVE

To quantify the value of risk-targeted selection for lung cancer screening compared with National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) eligibility criteria.

DESIGN

Cost-effectiveness analysis using a multistate prediction model.

DATA SOURCES

NLST.

TARGET POPULATION

Current and former smokers eligible for lung cancer screening.

TIME HORIZON

Lifetime.

PERSPECTIVE

Health care sector.

INTERVENTION

Risk-targeted versus NLST-based screening.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Incremental 7-year mortality, life expectancy, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs, and cost-effectiveness of screening with LDCT versus chest radiography at each decile of lung cancer mortality risk.

RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS

Participants at greater risk for lung cancer mortality were older and had more comorbid conditions and higher screening-related costs. The incremental lung cancer mortality benefits during the first 7 years ranged from 1.2 to 9.5 lung cancer deaths prevented per 10 000 person-years for the lowest to highest risk deciles, respectively (extreme decile ratio, 7.9). The gradient of benefits across risk groups, however, was attenuated in terms of life-years (extreme decile ratio, 3.6) and QALYs (extreme decile ratio, 2.4). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were similar across risk deciles ($75 000 per QALY in the lowest risk decile to $53 000 per QALY in the highest risk decile). Payers willing to pay $100 000 per QALY would pay for LDCT screening for all decile groups.

RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

Alternative assumptions did not substantially alter our findings.

LIMITATION

Our model did not account for all correlated differences between lung cancer mortality risk and quality of life.

CONCLUSIONS

Although risk targeting may improve screening efficiency in terms of early lung cancer mortality per person screened, the gains in efficiency are attenuated and modest in terms of life-years, QALYs, and cost-effectiveness.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

National Institutes of Health (U01NS086294).

Patient Variability Seldom Assessed in Cost-effectiveness Studies

BACKGROUND

Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) estimates can vary substantially across patient subgroups when patient characteristics influence preferences, outcome risks, treatment effectiveness, life expectancy, or associated costs. However, no systematic review has reported the frequency of subgroup analysis in CEA, what type of heterogeneity they address, and how often heterogeneity influences whether cost-effectiveness ratios exceed or fall below conventional thresholds.

METHODS

We reviewed the CEA literature cataloged in the Tufts Medical Center CEA Registry, a repository describing cost-utility analyses published through 2016. After randomly selecting 200 of 642 articles published in 2014, we ascertained whether each study reported subgroup results and collected data on the defining characteristics of these subgroups. We identified whether any of the CEA subgroup results crossed conventional cost-effectiveness benchmarks (e.g., $100,000 per QALY) and compared characteristics of studies with and without subgroup-specific findings.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight studies (19%) reported patient subgroup results. Articles reporting subgroup analyses were more likely to be US-based, government funded (v. drug industry- or nonprofit foundation-funded) studies, with a focus on primary or secondary (v. tertiary) prevention (P < 0.05 for comparisons). One or more patient characteristics were used to stratify CEA results 68 times within the 38 studies, with most stratifications using one characteristic (n = 47), most commonly age (n = 35). Among the 23 stratifications reported alongside average ratios in US studies, 13 produced subgroup ratios that crossed a conventional CEA ratio benchmark.

CONCLUSIONS

Most CEAs do not report any subgroup results, and those that do most often stratify only by patient age. Over half of the subgroup analyses reported could lead to different value-based decision making for at least some patients.

Measuring the Value of New Drugs: Validity and Reliability of 4 Value Assessment Frameworks in the Oncology Setting

BACKGROUND

Several organizations have developed frameworks to systematically assess the value of new drugs.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the convergent validity and interrater reliability of 4 value frameworks to understand the extent to which these tools can facilitate value-based treatment decisions in oncology.

METHODS

Eight panelists used the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) frameworks to conduct value assessments of 15 drugs for advanced lung and breast cancers and castration-refractory prostate cancer. Panelists received instructions and published clinical data required to complete the assessments, assigning each drug a numeric or letter score. Kendall's Coefficient of Concordance for Ranks (Kendall's W) was used to measure convergent validity by cancer type among the 4 frameworks. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were used to measure interrater reliability for each framework across cancers. Panelists were surveyed on their experiences.

RESULTS

Kendall's W across all 4 frameworks for breast, lung, and prostate cancer drugs was 0.560 (P= 0.010), 0.562 (P = 0.010), and 0.920 (P < 0.001), respectively. Pairwise, Kendall's W for breast cancer drugs was highest for ESMO-ICER and ICER-NCCN (W = 0.950, P = 0.019 for both pairs) and lowest for ASCO-NCCN (W = 0.300, P = 0.748). For lung cancer drugs, W was highest pairwise for ESMO-ICER (W = 0.974, P = 0.007) and lowest for ASCO-NCCN (W = 0.218, P = 0.839); for prostate cancer drugs, pairwise W was highest for ICER-NCCN (W = 1.000, P < 0.001) and lowest for ESMO-ICER and ESMO-NCCN (W = 0.900, P = 0.052 for both pairs). When ranking drugs on distinct framework subdomains, Kendall's W among breast cancer drugs was highest for certainty (ICER, NCCN: W = 0.908, P = 0.046) and lowest for clinical benefit (ASCO, ESMO, NCCN: W = 0.345, P = 0.436). Among lung cancer drugs, W was highest for toxicity (ASCO, ESMO, NCCN: W = 0. 944, P < 0.001) and lowest for certainty (ICER, NCCN: W = 0.230, P = 0.827); and among prostate cancer drugs, it was highest for quality of life (ASCO, ESMO: W = 0.986, P = 0.003) and lowest for toxicity (ASCO, ESMO, NCCN: W = 0.200, P = 0.711). ICC (95% CI) for ASCO, ESMO, ICER, and NCCN were 0.800 (0.660-0.913), 0.818 (0.686-0.921), 0.652 (0.466-0.834), and 0.153 (0.045-0.371), respectively. When scores were rescaled to 0-100, NCCN provided the narrowest band of scores. When asked about their experiences using the ASCO, ESMO, ICER, and NCCN frameworks, panelists generally agreed that the frameworks were logically organized and reasonably easy to use, with NCCN rated somewhat easier.

CONCLUSIONS

Convergent validity among the ASCO, ESMO, ICER, and NCCN frameworks was fair to excellent, increasing with clinical benefit subdomain concordance and simplicity of drug trial data. Interrater reliability, highest for ASCO and ESMO, improved with clarity of instructions and specificity of score definitions. Continued use, analyses, and refinements of these frameworks will bring us closer to the ultimate goal of using value-based treatment decisions to improve patient care and outcomes.

DISCLOSURES

This work was funded by Eisai Inc. Copher and Knoth are employees of Eisai Inc. Bentley, Lee, Zambrano, and Broder are employees of Partnership for Health Analytic Research, a health services research company paid by Eisai Inc. to conduct this research. For this study, Cohen, Huynh, and Neville report fees from Partnership for Health Analytic Research. Outside of this study, Cohen receives grants and direct consulting fees from various companies that manufacture and market pharmaceuticals. Mei reports a grant from Eisai Inc. during this study. The other authors have no disclosures to report. Study concept and design were contributed by Bentley and Broder, with assistance from Elkin and Cohen. Bentley took the lead in data collection, along with Elkin, Huynh, Mukherjea, Neville, Mei, Popescu, Lee, and Zambrano. Data interpretation was performed by Bentley and Broder, along with Elkin, Cohen, Copher, and Knoth. The manuscript was written primarily by Bentley, along with Elkin and Broder, and revised by Bentley, Broder, Elkin, Cohen, Copher, and Knoth. Select components of this work's methods were presented at ISPOR 19th Annual European Congress held in Vienna, Austria, October 29-November 2, 2016, and Society for Medical Decision Making 38th Annual North American Meeting held in Vancouver, Canada, October 23-26, 2016.