Social value of a quality-adjusted life year (QALY) in Spain: the point of view of oncologists

International Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Durvalumab in Stage III Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

Importance

Standard of care for unresectable locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) involves definitive chemoradiotherapy followed by maintenance therapy with durvalumab. However, the cost of durvalumab has been cited as a barrier to its use in various health systems.

Objective

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of durvalumab vs placebo as maintenance therapy in patients with unresectable stage III NSCLC from 4 international payer perspectives (US, Brazil, Singapore, and Spain).

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this economic evaluation, a Markov model was designed to compare the lifetime cost-effectiveness of maintenance durvalumab for unresectable stage III NSCLC with that of placebo, using 5-year outcomes data from the PACIFIC randomized placebo-controlled trial. Individual patient data were extracted from the PACIFIC, KEYNOTE-189, ADAURA, ALEX, and REVEL randomized clinical trials to develop a decision-analytic model to determine the cost-effectiveness of durvalumab compared with placebo maintenance therapy over a 10-year time horizon. Direct costs, adverse events, and patient characteristics were based on country-specific payer perspectives and demographic characteristics. The study was conducted from June 1, 2022, through December 27, 2023.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Life-years, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), lifetime costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated at country-specific willingness-to-pay thresholds ([data reported in US$] US: $150 000 per QALY; Brazil: $22 251 per QALY; Singapore: $55 288 per QALY, and Spain: $107 069 per QALY). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to account for parameters of uncertainty. A cost-threshold analysis was also performed.

Results

The US base-case model found that treatment with durvalumab was associated with an increased cost of $114 394 and improved effectiveness of 0.50 QALYs compared with placebo, leading to an ICER of $228 788 per QALY. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, according to base-case models, were $141 146 for Brazil, $153 461 for Singapore, and $125 193 for Spain. Durvalumab price adjustments to the PACIFIC data improved cost-effectiveness in Singapore, with an ICER of $45 164. The model was most sensitive to the utility of durvalumab.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cost-effectiveness analysis of durvalumab as maintenance therapy for unresectable stage III NSCLC, the therapy was found to be cost-prohibitive from the perspective of various international payers according to country-specific willingness-to-pay thresholds per QALY. The findings of the study suggest that discounted durvalumab acquisition costs, as possible in Singapore, might improve cost-effectiveness globally.

[What is an efficient health intervention in Spain in 2020?]

Fifteen years ago, Gaceta Sanitaria published the article entitled "What is an efficient health technology in Spain?" The growing interest in setting the price of new technologies based on the value they provide to health systems and the experience accumulated by the countries in our environment make it opportune to review what constitutes an efficient health intervention in Spain in 2020. Cost-effectiveness analysis continues to be the reference method to maximize social health outcomes with the available resources. The interpretation of its results requires establishing reference values that serve as a guide on what constitutes a reasonable value for the health care system. Efficiency thresholds must be flexible and dynamic, and they need to be updated periodically. Its application should be based on and transparency, and consider other factors that reflect social preferences. Although setting thresholds is down to political decision-makers, in Spain it could be reasonable to use thresholds of 25,000 and 60,000 Euros per QALY. However, currently, in addition to determining exact figures for the threshold, the key question is whether the Spanish National Health System is able and willing to implement a payment model based on value, towards achieving gradual financing decisions and, above all, to improve the predictability, consistency and transparency of the process.

The Value of Medicines: A Crucial but Vague Concept

Health Technology Assessment is increasingly used to evaluate the value of healthcare products and to prioritize resources; however, defining exactly what value is and how it should be measured remains a challenge. In this article, we report the results of a literature review, focusing on nine European countries, with the aim of investigating how value is defined from the perspective of different stakeholders, how definitions of value are used, and how value is incorporated into decision making. Only three articles were identified that presented definitions of value, and there was no single shared definition of value in healthcare, which appears to be a highly subjective concept. The majority of the countries investigated combine clinical assessment with economic evaluation to make reimbursement recommendations; the quality-adjusted life-year is the most commonly used measure of value but does not capture broader aspects of value that may be important to patients and healthcare systems. We describe the use of value-based pricing and multi-criteria decision analysis, two approaches to the incorporation of broader aspects of value into decision making. Overall, we have identified considerable variation in how a product's value is defined by different stakeholders. Although a universal understanding of value in healthcare is important, it is clear that current definitions are insufficient, potentially leading to inconsistent reimbursement decisions. Ultimately, the establishment of clearer policies for defining and measuring value in healthcare is needed, and is likely to lead to improvements in the consistency of decision making.

Do new cancer drugs offer good value for money? The perspectives of oncologists, health care policy makers, patients, and the general population

BACKGROUND

In oncology, establishing the value of new cancer treatments is challenging. A clear definition of the different perspectives regarding the drivers of innovation in oncology is required to enable new cancer treatments to be properly rewarded for the value they create. The aim of this study was to analyze the views of oncologists, health care policy makers, patients, and the general population regarding the value of new cancer treatments.

METHODS

An exploratory and qualitative study was conducted through structured interviews to assess participants' attitudes toward cost and outcomes of cancer drugs. First, the participants were asked to indicate the minimum survival benefit that a new treatment should have to be funded by the Spanish National Health System (NHS). Second, the participants were requested to state the highest cost that the NHS could afford for a medication that increases a patient's quality of life (QoL) by twofold with no changes in survival. The responses were used to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).

RESULTS

The minimum improvement in patient survival means that justified inclusions into the NHS were 5.7, 8.2, 9.1, and 10.4 months, which implied different ICERs for oncologists (€106,000/quality-adjusted life year [QALY]), patients (€73,520/QALY), the general population (€66,074/QALY), and health care policy makers (€57,471/QALY), respectively. The costs stated in the QoL-enhancing scenario were €33,167, €30,200, €26,000, and €17,040, which resulted in ICERs of €82,917/QALY for patients, €75,500/QALY for the general population, €65,000/QALY for oncologists, and €42,600/QALY for health care policy makers, respectively.

CONCLUSION

All estimated ICER values were higher than the thresholds previously described in the literature. Oncologists most valued gains in survival, whereas patients assigned a higher monetary value to treatments that enhanced QoL. Health care policy makers were less likely to pay more for therapeutic improvements compared to the remaining participants.