Evaluation of Tucatinib in HER2-Positive Breast Cancer Patients With Brain Metastases: A United States-Based Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Cost-effectiveness analysis of tislelizumab in combination with chemotherapy for the first-line treatment of patients with metastatic or recurrent nasopharyngeal carcinoma in China

BACKGROUND

The combination of tislelizumab and gemcitabine plus cisplatin (GP) in the first-line treatment of patients with recurrent or metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma (R/M NPC) has yielded significant results. However, it is not clear whether this treatment option is cost-effective in China. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of tislelizumab plus GP for the first-line treatment of R/M NPC from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system.

METHODS

A partitioned survival model with three discrete health states was constructed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of tislelizumab plus GP versus GP in patients with R/M NPC. The target population enrolled in the RATIONALE-309 trial had previously not treated for R/M NPC. Drug costs were obtained from relevant databases, and the remaining cost and health utility data were collected from the literature. The main outcomes include the expected life years, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), total cost, and incremental cost-benefit ratio (ICER).

RESULTS

The tislelizumab plus GP regimen produced an additional cost ($18392.76) and additional 1.57 QALYs compared with GP used alone. The ICER was $18392.75/QALYs. Sensitivity analysis showed that the analysis was robust and the utility of PD status was most sensitive to the model results. The possibility of tislelizumab plus GP being cost-effective at the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $37 653/QALY was 99.8%. Subgroup analysis showed that high PD-L1 expression had little impact on the ICER of this regimen.

CONCLUSION

In patients with R/M NPC, the regimen of tislelizumab plus GP, as the first-line treatment, is more cost-effective than the GP regimen in China.

Unlocking the synthetic approaches and clinical application of approved small-molecule drugs for gastrointestinal cancer treatment: A comprehensive exploration

Gastrointestinal (GI) cancers encompass a group of malignancies affecting the digestive system, including the stomach, esophagus, liver, colon, rectum and pancreas. These cancers represent a significant global health burden, necessitating effective treatment strategies. Small-molecule drugs have emerged as crucial therapeutic options in the fight against GI cancers due to their oral bioavailability, targeted mechanisms of action, and well-established safety profiles. The review then elucidates the clinical applications and synthetic methods of clinically approved small-molecule drugs for the treatment of GI cancer, shedding light on their mechanisms of action and their potential in mitigating GI cancer progression. The review also discusses future prospects and the evolving landscape of small-molecule drug development in GI oncology, highlighting the potential for personalized medicine. In summary, this review provides valuable insights into cutting-edge strategies for harnessing clinically approved small-molecule drugs to combat GI cancer effectively.

First-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab for unresectable MPM in China: a cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

The regimen of nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NI) has been recommended by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology-Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma (Version 1.2022) and Chinese Guidelines for the Clinical Diagnosis and Treatment of Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma (2021 edition) as the first-line treatment for Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma (MPM). But whether immunotherapy has a financial advantage over conventional chemotherapy (pemetrexed plus cisplatin/carboplatin, C) is uncertain.

METHODS

Based on survival and safety data from the CheckMate 743 clinical trial (NCT02899299), a partitioned survival model was constructed using TreeAge Pro2022 software. The model cycle was set to 1 month and the study period was 10 years. The output indicators included total cost, quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to assess the robustness of the results, considering only direct medical costs.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The ICER for group NI versus Group C was $375,656/QALY in all randomized patients, $327,943/QALY in patients with epithelioid histology, and $115,495/QALY in patients with non-epithelioid histology. The ICERs of all three different populations all exceeded the willingness-to-pay threshold (three times the per capita gross domestic product of China in 2021). The results of univariate sensitivity analysis showed that the price of pemetrexed and nivolumab had great influence on the analysis results. The results of the probabilistic sensitivity analysis show that the probability of the NI scheme being more economical in all three different populations was 0.

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

From the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system, in patients with unresectable MPM, NI has no economic advantage over C.

Whether and How Disutilities of Adverse Events were Used in the Economic Evaluation of Drug Therapy for Cancer Treatment

BACKGROUND

The disutilities of adverse events (AEs) are important inputs for cost-utility analysis (CUA), reflecting the impacts of AEs on health outcomes. Health technology assessment institutions and scholars have proposed recommendations for applying disutility values in economic evaluations.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to identify the current use of disutilities of AEs as model parameters in the CUA of cancer drug therapy and to compare the discrepancies between the use of disutilities and published recommendations.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted on the PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases, as well as the official websites of the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG), the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH), and the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) for CUAs of drug therapy for cancer published in English from January 2019 to April 2022. Information about the use of disutilities of AEs (whether and how disutilities were used, or why they were not used) in selected studies was extracted and compared with published recommendations. Descriptive analyses were used to summarize the results.

RESULTS

A total of 467 CUAs were included, 54% (254/467) of which included disutilities of AEs in their model. The proportion that included these disutilities increased from 2019 to 2021, ranging from 47% (51/107) to 61% (116/190). Only 6% (15/254) of the CUAs using disutilities of AEs considered all five recommendations about the justification for inclusion and exclusion, description of values and sources, grades of AEs, calculation, and uncertainty analyses. Only 15% (72/467) provided a clear justification for inclusion and exclusion of disutilities of AEs, and 7% (17/254) did not provide values or sources. In total, 69% (175/254) of the analyses focused on AEs of grade 3 or greater, and 11% (28/254) applied utility decrements for grades 1 and 2. Disutilities of AEs were generally calculated using the incidence rates, which were clearly stated in 49% (65/132) of the analyses. Uncertainty analyses were conducted in 84% (214/254) of the CUAs.

CONCLUSIONS

The current use of disutilities of AEs in CUAs shows some discrepancies with recommendations proposed in the literature. One is that detailed information about the use of disutilities of AEs was not reported and the other is that essential methods to analyze the impact of AEs on quality-adjusted life-years were not thoroughly conducted. Therefore, it is suggested that researchers should attach importance to the impact of AEs on health-related quality of life. Furthermore, an application process was developed for the disutilities of AEs to remind and guide researchers to correctly use the disutilities of AEs as parameters in the decision-analytic model.

The Value of Tucatinib in Metastatic HER2-Positive Breast Cancer Patients: An Italian Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

BACKGROUND

This study was aimed at estimating the appropriate price of tucatinib plus trastuzumab and capecitabine (TXC), as third-line treatment, in HER2⁺ breast cancer (BC) patients from the Italian National Health System (NHS) perspective.

METHODS

A partitioned survival model with three mutually exclusive health states (i.e., progression-free survival (PFS), progressive disease (PD), and death) was used to estimate the price of tucatinib vs trastuzumab emtansine (TDM-1), considering a willingness to pay (WTP) of 60,000 EUR. Data from the HER2CLIMB trial, the Italian population, and the literature were used as input. The model also estimated the total costs and the life-years (LY) of TXC and TDM1. Deterministic and probabilistic (PSA) sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate the robustness of the model.

RESULTS

In the base case scenario, the appropriate price of tucatinib was 4828.44 EUR per cycle. The TXC resulted in +0.28 LYs and +16,628 EUR compared with TDM-1. Results were mainly sensitive to therapy intensity variation. In PSA analysis, TXC resulted cost-effective in 53% of the simulations. Assuming a WTP ranging 20,000-80,000 EUR, the tucatinib price ranged from 4090.60 to 5197.41 EUR.

CONCLUSIONS

This study estimated the appropriate price for tucatinib according to different WTP in order to help healthcare decision makers to better understand the treatment value.