Impact of a New Cost-Effectiveness Threshold Implementation on Cancer Formulary Decisions in Jordan

Cost-Utility Analysis of Maintenance Pemetrexed Plus Best Supportive Care Compared With Best Supportive Care Alone in Treating Patients With Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in Jordan

OBJECTIVES

To assess the cost-effectiveness of maintenance pemetrexed plus best supportive care (BSC) in non-small cell lung cancer patients from a Jordanian healthcare system perspective.

METHODS

A Markov model with 4 health states was developed to estimate life years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), costs, and the incremental cost-utility ratio of pemetrexed plus BSC versus BSC. A lifelong time horizon was used in the base-case analysis. The transition probabilities were estimated from the PARAMOUNT trial, the utility weights were taken from published literature, and costs were based on data and unit costs at King Hussein Cancer Center and the Jordan Food and Drug Administration. Both costs and outcomes were discounted using a 3%. The parameter uncertainty was tested using deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

The base-case analysis showed that pemetrexed plus BSC increased QALYs and cost compared with BSC. Pemetrexed plus BSC leads to incremental 0.255 QALYs and incremental costs of US $30 826, resulting in an incremental cost-utility ratio of US $120 886/QALY. The results were sensitive to changes in the utility estimates during the progression-free health state, the progression health state, and the cost of postprogression medications The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that the probability of pemetrexed plus BSC being a cost-effective option compared with BSC is 0 at a threshold of $56 000.

CONCLUSIONS

Maintenance pemetrexed for non-small cell lung cancer is not a cost-effective option compared with BSC from a healthcare system perspective based on the listed price at a threshold of $56 000/QALY.

Cost-utility analysis of Pembrolizumab compared to other alternative immunotherapy and chemotherapy treatments for patients with advanced melanoma in Iran

OBJECTIVES

Immunotherapy drugs like Pembrolizumab have shown significant improvements in treatment outcomes of advanced melanoma. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-utility of Pembrolizumab compared to other immunotherapy and chemotherapy drugs in the first-line treatment of advanced melanoma in Iran.

METHODS

A partitioned-survival model, based on data from a recent randomized phase 3 study (KEYNOTE-006) and recent meta-analysis, was used to divide Overall survival (OS) time into Progression-free survival (PFS) and post-progression survival for Pembrolizumab, Nivolumab, Ipilimumab, Dacarbazine, Temozolomide, Carboplatin, and Paclitaxel combination. Quality Life Years (QALY) and Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) were considered as the final outcome.

RESULTS

The ICER of Ipilimumab, Nivolumab, Nivolumab & Ipilimumab, and Pembrolizumab compared to Temozolomide was calculated as $40,365.53, $19,591.13, $24,578, and $47,324.2 per QALY, respectively. Scenario analysis demonstrated if the price of one vial of Nivolumab 100 is $90.51, each vial of Pembrolizumab is $119.20, and each vial of Ipilimumab is $101.54, they will be cost-effective in Iran.

CONCLUSION

None of the immunotherapy drugs studied were found to be cost-effective when considering the cost-effectiveness threshold of $3,532. Therefore, a cost reduction of more than 90% in the prices of immunotherapy drugs would be necessary for them to be considered cost-effective in Iran.

Methodological Approaches to Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in Saudi Arabia: What Can We Learn? A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

The recent establishment of the health technology assessment (HTA) entity in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) has resulted in increased interest in economic evaluation. The aim of this study is to evaluate the technical approaches used in published economic evaluations and the limitations reported by the authors of the respective studies that could affect the ability to perform economic evaluations in the KSA.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature review of published economic evaluations performed for the KSA over the past 10 years. An electronic literature search of the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases was performed. A CHEERS checklist was used to assess the quality of reporting. Reported limitations were classified into domains including the definition of perspectives, identification of comparators, estimation of costs and resources, and use of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio threshold.

RESULTS

Twelve evaluations were identified; most involved cost-effectiveness analysis (92%). Missing and unclear data were found within the CHEERS criteria. Regardless of the perspective used, most described the perspective as an "institutional" perspective (70%) and almost half were reclassified by the current reviewer (42%). Most did not clearly state the comparator (83%), and published model comparators were commonly used (50%). Resource estimation was mostly performed by the authors of the respective studies (67%), and costs were mostly obtained from hospital institutional data (75%). The lack of an established threshold for the country-specific willingness to pay was observed in 50% of the analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Economic evaluations from the KSA are limited. Capacity building and country-specific HTA guidelines could improve the quality of evaluations to better inform decision making.

HIGHLIGHTS

Economic analysis of health technology should follow standard guidelines. Unfortunately, these guides are often underutilized, and our findings identify considerable missing, not clearly stated, or incomplete data within the analyses, which can weaken the impact of the recommendations.The limitations reported by the authors of the respective studies emphasize the suboptimal quality of the reporting. A lack of data was frequently identified and resulted in using "institutional" practice as a major source of data input for the analyses.In light of the call for the establishment of an HTA entity in the KSA, framing a standard analytic approach when conducting economic evaluations will support HTA in informing resource allocation decisions. We hope that our findings highlight the need for country-specific guidance to improve practice and enhance future research.