Cost Effectiveness of Ribociclib and Palbociclib in the Second-Line Treatment of Hormone Receptor-Positive, HER2-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer in Post-Menopausal Indian Women

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Systemic Therapy for Intensification of Treatment in Metastatic Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer in India

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Androgen-deprivation therapy is the mainstay of treatment for patients with newly diagnosed metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC). However, the intensification of treatment with either docetaxel or novel anti-androgens (abiraterone-acetate plus prednisone [AAP], enzalutamide, and apalutamide) is being recommended based on the improved clinical outcomes and quality of life among patients. This study aimed to determine the most cost-effective drug for treatment intensification for patients with mHSPC in India.

METHODS

A Markov model was developed with four health states: progression-free survival, progressive disease, best supportive care, and death. Lifetime costs and consequences were estimated for four treatment sequences: AAP-first, enzalutamide-first, apalutamide-first, and docetaxel-first. Incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained with a given treatment option was compared against the next best alternative and assessed for cost effectiveness using a willingness to pay threshold of 1 × per capita gross domestic product in India.

RESULTS

We estimated that the total lifetime cost per patient was ₹1,367,454 (US$17,487), ₹2,168,885 (US$27,735), ₹7,678,501 (US$98,190), and ₹1,358,746 (US$17,375) in the AAP-first, enzalutamide-first, apalutamide-first, and docetaxel-first treatment sequence, respectively. The mean quality-adjusted life-years lived per patient were 4.78, 5.03, 3.22, and 2.61, respectively. The AAP-first sequence incurs an incremental cost of ₹4014 (US$51) per quality-adjusted life-year gained as compared with the docetaxel-first sequence, with a 87% probability of being cost effective at the willingness-to-pay threshold of 1 × per-capita gross domestic product of India. The use of AAP-first also incurs an incremental net monetary benefit of ₹396,491 (US$5070) as compared with the docetaxel-first treatment sequence. Nearly a 48% reduction in the price of enzalutamide is required to make it a cost-effective treatment sequence as compared with AAP-first in India.

CONCLUSIONS

We concur with the inclusion of standard-dose AAP in India's publicly financed health insurance scheme for the intensification of treatment in mHSPC as it is the only cost-effective sequence among the various novel anti-androgens when compared with the docetaxel-first treatment sequence. Furthermore, a systematic reduction in the price of enzalutamide would further help to improve clinical outcomes among patients with mHSPC.

Economic Evaluation of Targeted Therapies for Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase- and ROS1 Fusion-Positive Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in India

PURPOSE

Targeted therapies, such as crizotinib and ceritinib, have shown promising results in treating non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with specific oncogenic drivers like anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK), c-ros (ROS1) oncogene, etc. This study aims to assess the cost-effectiveness of these therapies for patients with NSCLC in India.

METHODS

The Markov model consisted of three health states: progression-free survival, progressive disease, and death. Lifetime costs and consequences were estimated for three treatment arms: crizotinib, ceritinib, and chemotherapy for patients with ALK- and ROS1-positive NSCLC. Incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained with crizotinib and ceritinib was compared to chemotherapy and assessed using a willingness-to-pay threshold of one-time per capita gross domestic product in India.

RESULTS

The total lifetime cost per patient for ALK-positive NSCLC was ₹332,456 ($4,054 US dollars [USD]), ₹1,284,100 ($15,659 USD), and ₹2,337,779 ($28,509 USD) in the chemotherapy, crizotinib, and ceritinib arms, respectively. The mean QALYs lived per patient were 1.20, 2.21, and 3.34, respectively. For patients with ROS1-positive NSCLC, the total cost was ₹323,011 ($3,939 USD) and ₹1,763,541 ($21,507 USD) for chemotherapy and crizotinib, with mean QALYs lived per patient of 1.16 and 2.73, respectively. Nearly 92% and 81% reduction in the price of ceritinib and crizotinib is required to make it a cost-effective treatment option for ALK- and ROS1-positive NSCLC, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Our study findings suggest that the prices of ceritinib and crizotinib need to be reduced significantly to justify their value for inclusion in India's publicly financed health insurance scheme for treatment of patients with locally advanced/metastatic ALK- and ROS1-positive NSCLC, respectively.

State of cancer care in India and opportunities for innovation

Cancer is one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality in India. Despite recent medical and technological advances, the cancer burden in India remains high and continues to rise. Moreover, substantial regional disparities in cancer incidence and access to essential medical resources exist throughout the country. While innovative and effective cancer therapies hold promise for improving patient outcomes, several barriers hinder their development and utilization in India. Here we provide an overview of these barriers, including challenges related to patient awareness, inadequate infrastructure, scarcity of trained oncology professionals, and the high cost of cancer care. Furthermore, we discuss the limited availability of cancer clinical trials in the country, along with an examination of potential avenues to enhance cancer care in India. By confronting these hurdles head-on and implementing innovative, pragmatic solutions, we take an indispensable step toward a future where every cancer patient in the country can access quality care.

Financial toxicity of cancer treatment in India: towards closing the cancer care gap

Background

The rising economic burden of cancer on patients is an important determinant of access to treatment initiation and adherence in India. Several publicly financed health insurance (PFHI) schemes have been launched in India, with treatment for cancer as an explicit inclusion in the health benefit packages (HBPs). Although, financial toxicity is widely acknowledged to be a potential consequence of costly cancer treatment, little is known about its prevalence and determinants among the Indian population. There is a need to determine the optimal strategy for clinicians and cancer care centers to address the issue of high costs of care in order to minimize the financial toxicity, promote access to high value care and reduce health disparities.

Methods

A total of 12,148 cancer patients were recruited at seven purposively selected cancer centres in India, to assess the out-of-pocket expenditure (OOPE) and financial toxicity among cancer patients. Mean OOPE incurred for outpatient treatment and hospitalization, was estimated by cancer site, stage, type of treatment and socio-demographic characteristics. Economic impact of cancer care on household financial risk protection was assessed using standard indicators of catastrophic health expenditures (CHE) and impoverishment, along with the determinants using logistic regression.

Results

Mean direct OOPE per outpatient consultation and per episode of hospitalization was estimated as ₹8,053 (US$ 101) and ₹39,085 (US$ 492) respectively. Per patient annual direct OOPE incurred on cancer treatment was estimated as ₹331,177 (US$ 4,171). Diagnostics (36.4%) and medicines (45%) are major contributors of OOPE for outpatient treatment and hospitalization, respectively. The overall prevalence of CHE and impoverishment was higher among patients seeking outpatient treatment (80.4% and 67%, respectively) than hospitalization (29.8% and 17.2%, respectively). The odds of incurring CHE was 7.4 times higher among poorer patients [Adjusted Odds Ratio (AOR): 7.414] than richest. Enrolment in PM-JAY (CHE AOR = 0.426, and impoverishment AOR = 0.395) or a state sponsored scheme (CHE AOR = 0.304 and impoverishment AOR = 0.371) resulted in a significant reduction in CHE and impoverishment for an episode of hospitalization. The prevalence of CHE and impoverishment was significantly higher with hospitalization in private hospitals and longer duration of hospital stay (p < 0.001). The extent of CHE and impoverishment due to direct costs incurred on outpatient treatment increased from 83% to 99.7% and, 63.9% to 97.1% after considering both direct and indirect costs borne by the patient and caregivers, respectively. In case of hospitalization, the extent of CHE increased from 23.6% (direct cost) to 59.4% (direct+ indirect costs) and impoverishment increased from 14.1% (direct cost) to 27% due to both direct and indirect cost of cancer treatment.

Conclusion

There is high economic burden on patients and their families due to cancer treatment. The increase in population and cancer services coverage of PFHI schemes, creating prepayment mechanisms like E-RUPI for outpatient diagnostic and staging services, and strengthening public hospitals can potentially reduce the financial burden among cancer patients in India. The disaggregated OOPE estimates could be useful input for future health technology analyses to determine cost-effective treatment strategies.