Cost-effectiveness of Sorafenib for Treatment of Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma in India

Systemic Therapies for Hepatocellular Carcinoma in India

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a leading cause of cancer-related mortality in India. This review explores the epidemiological trends and the landscape of systemic therapy for HCC in the Indian context, acknowledging the recent shift in etiology from viral hepatitis to lifestyle-associated factors. A comprehensive review of the literature was conducted, including data from the Global Cancer Observatory and the Indian Council of Medical Research, along with a critical analysis of various clinical trials. The article investigates systemic therapies in-depth, discussing their mechanisms, efficacy, and adaptation to Indian healthcare framework. Progression-free survival with a hazard ratio of ≤0.6 compared to sorafenib, overall survival of ∼16-19 months, and objective response rate of 20-30% are the defining thresholds for systemic therapy clinical trials. Systemic therapy for advanced HCC in India primarily involves the use of tyrosine kinase inhibitors such as sorafenib, lenvatinib, regorafenib, and cabozantinib, with sorafenib being the most commonly used drug for a long time. Monoclonal antibodies such as ramucirumab and bevacizumab and immune-checkpoint inhibitors, such as atezolizumab, nivolumab, and pembrolizumab, are expanding treatment horizons. Lenvatinib has emerged as a cost-effective alternative, and the combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab has demonstrated superior outcomes in terms of overall survival and progression-free survival. Despite these advances, late-stage diagnosis and limited healthcare accessibility pose significant challenges, often relegating patients to palliative care. Addressing HCC in India demands an integrative approach that not only encompasses advancements in systemic therapy but also targets early detection and comprehensive care models. Future strategies should focus on enhancing awareness, screening for high-risk populations, and overcoming infrastructural disparities. Ensuring the judicious use of systemic therapies within the constraints of the Indian healthcare economy is crucial. Ultimately, a nuanced understanding of systemic therapeutic options and their optimal utilization will be pivotal in elevating the standard of HCC care in India.

Role of APE1 in hepatocellular carcinoma and its prospects as a target in clinical settings (Review)

In recent years, the incidence of liver cancer has increased annually. However, current medical treatments for liver cancer are limited, and most patients have a high risk of recurrence after surgery. Therefore, the discovery and development of novel treatment targets for liver cancer is urgently needed. Apurinic/apyrimidinic endonuclease 1 (APE1) is a protein that has a DNA repair function and serves an important role in various physiological processes, including reduction-oxidation, cell proliferation and differentiation. The expression levels of APE1 are abnormally elevated in liver cancer cells, as ectopic expression of the APE1 gene has been reported, in addition to other abnormal signs, such as cell proliferation and migration. Therefore, it could be suggested that APE1 is an important indicator of hepatocellular carcinogenesis. APE1 may be used as a therapeutic target for tumors and proposed targeted therapy against abnormal APE1 expression could potentially inhibit the progression of tumors. The present review aimed to introduce the important role of APE1 in the physiological processes of tumor cells and the feasibility of using APE1 as a potential therapeutic target, providing a novel direction for the clinical treatment of liver cancer.

Systemic Therapy for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: ASCO Guideline Update

PURPOSE

To update an evidence-based guideline to assist in clinical decision-making for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

METHODS

ASCO convened an Expert Panel to update the 2020 guideline on systemic therapy for HCC. The panel updated the systematic review to include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published through October 2023 and updated recommendations.

RESULTS

Ten new RCTs met the inclusion criteria and were added to the evidence base.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Atezolizumab + bevacizumab (atezo + bev) or durvalumab + tremelimumab (durva + treme) may be offered first-line for patients with advanced HCC, Child-Pugh class A liver disease, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-1. Where there are contraindications to these therapies, sorafenib, lenvatinib, or durvalumab may be offered first-line. Following first-line treatment with atezo + bev, second-line therapy with a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), ramucirumab (for patients with alpha-fetoprotein [AFP] ≥400 ng/mL), durva + treme, or nivolumab + ipilimumab (nivo + ipi) may be recommended for appropriate candidates. Following first-line therapy with durva + treme, second-line therapy with a TKI is recommended. Following first-line treatment with sorafenib or lenvatinib, second-line therapy options include cabozantinib, regorafenib for patients who previously tolerated sorafenib, ramucirumab (AFP ≥400 ng/mL), nivo + ipi, or durvalumab; atezo + bev or durva + treme may be considered for patients who did not have access to these therapies in the first-line setting, and do not have contraindications. Pembrolizumab or nivolumab are also options for appropriate patients following sorafenib or lenvatinib. Third-line therapy may be considered in Child-Pugh class A patients with good PS, using one of the agents listed previously that has a nonidentical mechanism of action with previously received therapy. A cautious approach to systemic therapy is recommended for patients with Child-Pugh class B advanced HCC. Further guidance on choosing between options is included within the guideline.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/gastrointestinal-cancer-guidelines.

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.

Comparative analysis of disease modelling for health economic evaluations of systemic therapies in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study was to systematically analyse methodological and structural assumptions utilised in model-based health economic evaluations of systemic advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) therapies, discuss the existing challenges, and develop methodological recommendations for future models in advanced HCC.

METHODS

We performed literature searches using five databases (Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, Econlit, and CNKI) up to December 4, 2022. Technology appraisals from Canada, England, Australia, and the United States were also considered. Model-based full economic evaluations of systemic advanced HCC therapies in English or Chinese met the eligibility criteria. The reporting quality was assessed by using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 checklist.

RESULTS

Of 12,863 records retrieved, 55 were eligible for inclusion. Markov model (n = 29, 53%) and partitioned survival model (n = 27, 49%) were the most commonly used modelling techniques. Most studies were based on health-state-driven structure (n = 51, 93%), followed by treatment-line-driven structure (n = 2, 4%) and combination structure (n = 1, 2%). Only three studies (5%) adopted external real-world data to extrapolate the overall survival or calibrate the extrapolation. Few studies reported the assumptions of transition probabilities. Utility modelling approaches were state-based (n = 51, 93%) and time-to-death (n = 1, 2%). Only 13 studies (24%) reported five types of model validation. Economic evaluation results of specific treatment strategies varied among studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Disease modelling for health economic evaluations of systemic therapies in advanced HCC has adopted various modelling approaches and assumptions, leading to marked uncertainties in results. By proposing methodological recommendations, we suggest that future model-based studies for health economic evaluation of HCC therapies should follow good modelling practice guidelines and improve modelling methods to generate reliable health and economic evidence.

A Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness Analyses for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment

BACKGROUND

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is associated with significant financial burden for patients and payers. The objective of this study was to review economic models to identify, evaluate, and compare cost-effectiveness estimates for HCC treatments.

METHODS

A systematic search of the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases to identify economic evaluations was performed and studies that modeled treatments for HCC reporting costs and cost effectiveness were included. Risk of bias was assessed qualitatively, considering costing approach, reported study perspective, and funding received. Intervention costs were adjusted to 2021 US dollars for comparison. For studies reporting quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), we conducted analyses stratified by comparison type to assess cost effectiveness at the time of the analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 27 studies were included. Non-curative versus non-curative therapy comparisons were used in 20 (74.1%) studies, curative versus curative comparisons were used in 5 (18.5%) studies, and curative versus non-curative comparisons were used in 2 (7.4%) studies. Therapy effectiveness was estimated using a QALY measure in 20 (74.1%) studies, while 7 (25.9%) studies only assessed life-years gained (LYG). A health sector perspective was used in 26 (96.3%) of the evaluations, with only 1 study including costs beyond this perspective. Median intervention cost was $53,954 (range $4550-$4,760,835), with a median incremental cost of $6546 (range - $72,441 to $1,279,764). In cost-utility analyses, 11 (55%) studies found the intervention cost effective using a $100,000/QALY threshold at the time of the study, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) ranging from - $1,176,091 to $1,152,440 when inflated to 2021 US dollars.

CONCLUSION

The majority of HCC treatments were found to be cost effective, but with significant variation and with few studies considering indirect costs. Standards for value assessment for HCC treatments may help improve consistency and comparability.

Application of Health Technology Assessment for Oncology Care in India: Implications for Ayushman Bharat Pradhan Mantri Jan Aarogya Yojana

A health system is considered efficient when it provides maximum health gains to the population from the available resources. Newer drugs, diagnostics and treatment strategies aim to improve the health of the population, however, they come at an increased cost. Therefore, for an efficient health system, it needs to be decided if the extra cost being incurred is justified to achieve the extra health gains. In this regard, health technology assessment (HTA) helps to make evidence informed decisions by evaluating relative cost and benefits of the available interventions. Economic evidence generated by HTA can also be used in framing standard treatment guidelines (STGs) for high-cost cancer care. In multi-payer systems like India, the decisions regarding the clinical management of patients are taken based on the patients' ability to pay, which creates inequities in utilization of healthcare. Ayushman Bharat Pradhan Mantri Jan Aarogya Yojana (AB PM-JAY) offers an opportunity to ensure equity as it reduces financial barriers, besides having a potential to affect efficiency by including only cost-effective interventions in the benefit package. As a result, informed clinical decisions based upon HTA evidence can make cancer treatment more efficient, equitable and affordable for the patients.

The state of cost-utility analysis in India: A systematic review

Aims:

Cost-utility studies are crucial tools that help policy-makers promote appropriate resource allocation. The objective of this study was to evaluate the extent and quality of cost-utility analysis (CUA) in India through a systematic literature review.

Methods:

Comprehensive database search was conducted to identify the relevant literature published from November 2009 to November 2019. Gray literature and hand searches were also performed. Two researchers independently reviewed and assessed study quality using Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist.

Results:

Thirty-five studies were included in the final review. Thirteen studies used Markov model, five used decision tree model, four used a combination of decision tree and Markov model and one each used microsimulation and dynamic compartmental model. The primary therapeutic areas targeted in CUA were infectious diseases (n = 12), ophthalmology (n = 5), and endocrine disorders (n = 4). Five studies were carried out in Tamil Nadu, four in Goa, three in Punjab, two each in Delhi, Maharashtra, and Uttar Pradesh, and one each in West Bengal and Karnataka. Twenty-three, eight, and four studies were found to be of excellent, very good, and good quality, respectively. The average quality score of the studies was 19.21 out of 24.

Conclusions:

This systematic literature review identified the published CUA studies in India. The overall quality of the included studies was good; however, features such as subgroup analyses and explicit study perspective were missing in several evaluations.

Cost-Effectiveness of Temozolamide for Treatment of Glioblastoma Multiforme in India

PURPOSE

Glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) has poor outcomes following surgery and radiation. Adjuvant temozolamide along with radiation therapy has been shown to improve survival. In this paper, we evaluate the cost-effectiveness of concomitant temozolamide with radiation and maintenance temozolamide for 6 months of treatment for GBM in India.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We used a Markov model to evaluate the lifetime costs and consequences of treating GBM with radiation alone versus radiation with adjuvant temozolamide. The model was calibrated using the published evidence from European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer-NCIC trial on progression-free survival and overall survival to estimate the life years (LYs) and quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs). Cost of treatment and management of complications were estimated using the data from the National Health System Cost Database and Indian studies. Future cost and consequences were discounted at 3%. Incremental cost per QALY gained with temozolamide was estimated to assess cost effectiveness.

RESULTS

Temozolamide resulted in an increase of 0.59 (0.53-0.66) LY and 0.33 (0.29-0.40) QALY per person at an incremental cost of ₹75,120 in Indian national rupee (INR) (59,337-93,960). Overall, the use of temozolamide incurs an incremental cost of ₹212,020 INR (138,127-401,466) per QALY gained, which has a 4.7% probability to be cost-effective at 1-time per capita Gross Domestic Product (GDP) threshold. In case the current price of temozolamide could be decreased by 90%, the probability of its use for GBM being cost-effective increases to 80%.

CONCLUSION

Temozolamide is not cost-effective for treatment of patients with GBM in India. This evidence should be used while framing guidelines for treatment and price regulation.

Discovery of an Orally Efficacious MYC Inhibitor for Liver Cancer Using a GNMT-Based High-Throughput Screening System and Structure-Activity Relationship Analysis

Glycine-N-methyl transferase (GNMT) downregulation results in spontaneous hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Overexpression of GNMT inhibits the proliferation of liver cancer cell lines and prevents carcinogen-induced HCC, suggesting that GNMT induction is a potential approach for anti-HCC therapy. Herein, we used Huh7 GNMT promoter-driven screening to identify a GNMT inducer. Compound K78 was identified and validated for its induction of GNMT and inhibition of Huh7 cell growth. Subsequently, we employed structure-activity relationship analysis and found a potent GNMT inducer, K117. K117 inhibited Huh7 cell growth in vitro and xenograft in vivo. Oral administration of a dosage of K117 at 10 mpk (milligrams per kilogram) can inhibit Huh7 xenograft in a manner equivalent to the effect of sorafenib at a dosage of 25 mpk. A mechanistic study revealed that K117 is an MYC inhibitor. Ectopic expression of MYC using CMV promoter blocked K117-mediated MYC inhibition and GNMT induction. Overall, K117 is a potential lead compound for HCC- and MYC-dependent cancers.

Adapting health technology assessment for drugs, medical devices, and health programs: Methodological considerations from the Indian experience

INTRODUCTION

Heterogeneity in methods of economic evaluation makes the use of health technology assessment (HTA) evidence difficult. Thereby, several countries including India have developed their own standard guidelines for conducting HTAs. However, diverse HTA studies involving drugs, medical devices, health programs, and platforms require an adaptation of the standard methods.

AREAS COVERED

This review presents the specific characteristics of HTAs involving medical devices and health programs requiring adaptation of the standard guidelines. We use recent HTA studies in India to illustrate specific issues. These considerations involve the nature of decision-making problems, multiple scenarios in case of health programs, and specific attention to costing and the valuation of consequences. In case of medical devices, we discuss the issue of costing application of devices, multiple usage, learning curve for achieving effects, long causal path for health outcomes, and the issue of valuing false positives.

EXPERT OPINION

While standard guidelines are essential, specific features of health programs and medical devices need to be considered while undertaking HTAs. Additionally, the context in which the HTA is being undertaken, characteristics of the health system, methods of financing healthcare, and demand-side characteristics of healthcare utilization should be reflected in the HTA for health programs and medical devices.

Systemic Therapy for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: ASCO Guideline

PURPOSE

To develop an evidence-based clinical practice guideline to assist in clinical decision making for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

METHODS

ASCO convened an Expert Panel to conduct a systematic review of published phase III randomized controlled trials (2007-2020) on systemic therapy for advanced HCC and provide recommended care options for this patient population.

RESULTS

Nine phase III randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Atezolizumab + bevacizumab (atezo + bev) may be offered as first-line treatment of most patients with advanced HCC, Child-Pugh class A liver disease, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG PS) 0-1, and following management of esophageal varices, when present, according to institutional guidelines. Where there are contraindications to atezolizumab and/or bevacizumab, tyrosine kinase inhibitors sorafenib or lenvatinib may be offered as first-line treatment of patients with advanced HCC, Child-Pugh class A liver disease, and ECOG PS 0-1. Following first-line treatment with atezo + bev, and until better data are available, second-line therapy with a tyrosine kinase inhibitor may be recommended for appropriate candidates. Following first-line therapy with sorafenib or lenvatinib, second-line therapy options for appropriate candidates include cabozantinib, regorafenib for patients who previously tolerated sorafenib, or ramucirumab (for patients with α-fetoprotein ≥ 400 ng/mL), or atezo + bev where patients did not have access to this option as first-line therapy. Pembrolizumab or nivolumab are also reasonable options for appropriate patients following sorafenib or lenvatinib. Consideration of nivolumab + ipilimumab as an option for second-line therapy and third-line therapy is discussed. Further guidance on choosing between therapy options is included within the guideline. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/gastrointestinal-cancer-guidelines.

Cytotoxic Chemotherapy as an Alternative for Systemic Treatment of Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Developing Countries

Systemic therapy options nowadays for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) are either immunotherapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors or targeted therapy. As the incidence of liver cancer is much higher in developing countries, these new medications are not readily accessible for most of the patients. Cytotoxic chemotherapy agents are more available and affordable in developing countries. We are trying to explore the effectiveness of the newer cytotoxic agents in the systematic treatment for advanced HCC. This is a systematic review of all randomized controlled trials since 1997 that utilized systemic cytotoxic chemotherapy agents in the systemic treatment for advanced HCC using Scopus, PubMed, and Cochrane library up to February 2020. Six randomized trials were found. Different drugs and dosages were used, so it was statistically inappropriate to conduct a meta-analysis. No Phase III trial showed statistically significant overall survival (OS) benefit for cytotoxic chemotherapy, except subgroup analysis of Chinese patients in one study who had leucovorin, fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) regimen. There was no significant progression-free survival (PFS) or response rate in the Phase II trials. There are not enough data to infer the actual benefits of systemic cytotoxic chemotherapy in advanced HCC. However, oxaliplatin-based regimens may give feasible results. Health systems with limited access to targeted therapy and immunotherapy agents may use oxaliplatin-based regimens in clinical trials for advanced HCC. These results should be confirmed in multiple future randomized clinical trials.

Economic perspective of cancer treatment in India

Financial constraints faced by the families play a vital role in cancer treatment refusal, non-adherence, and failure of the prescribed therapy. This review aims to give an insight into the economic perspective of cancer treatment in India, focusing on the accessibility and affordability of oncological drugs, and the move towards generics/biosimilars without compromising on the quality of the treatment. The monthly cost of a set of drugs available in India for the treatment of solid malignancies, approved after 2010 by the US FDA and the Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI) were calculated based on standard patient parameters. The information on the clinical trial, the monthly cost of treatment, and the availability of its equivalent have been compiled. Newer cancer drugs are approved based on surrogate endpoints, with a very modest prolongation of life, but the cost incurred can be unbearable. There is a considerable variation in costs between the innovator and the equivalent drugs, making the latter cost-effective. We have highlighted the importance of generics and biosimilars, as a cost-cutting strategy, in delivering state-of-art health care with a lesser chance of treatment abandonment: this will ensure that all patients have equal access to personalized medicine which are reliable, effective, and affordable for better curative, supportive, and palliative care.

Cost Effectiveness of Trastuzumab for Management of Breast Cancer in India

PURPOSE

We undertook this study to evaluate the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained with use of adjuvant trastuzumab as compared with chemotherapy alone among patients with nonmetastatic breast cancer in India.

METHODS

We used a Markov model to estimate the incremental cost of using trastuzumab (for 1 year, 6 months, or 9 weeks) as compared with chemotherapy alone using a societal perspective, excluding indirect productivity losses. Although the outcomes (QALYs) in the standard chemotherapy arm were estimated after calibrating the model as per survival data from 2 Indian cancer registries, effectiveness estimates from the HERA trial and a joint analysis of the NSABP B-31 and NCCTG N9831 trials were used to estimate the consequences of 1-year trastuzumab use. The cost of treatment was estimated using national standard treatment guidelines and real-world use estimates for different treatment modalities as per data from Indian cancer registries. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was undertaken to evaluate parameter uncertainty.

RESULTS

For 1 year of trastuzumab use, the incremental benefit per patient, incremental cost per QALY gained, and probability of being cost effective using HERA trial estimates were 1.29 QALYs, 178,877 Indian national rupees (INRs; US$2,558), and 4%, respectively, whereas the corresponding figures using joint analysis estimates were 1.69 QALYs, INR 134,413 (US$1,922), and 57.3%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Use of trastuzumab for 1 year is not cost effective in India at the current price. However, trastuzumab use for 9 weeks is cost effective and should be included in clinical guidelines and reimbursement policies. A price reduction of 15% to 35% increases the probability of 1-year trastuzumab use being cost effective, to 90%.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis and Decision Modelling: A Tutorial for Clinicians

Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) provides information on how much extra do we need to spend per unit gain in health outcomes with introduction of any new healthcare intervention or treatment as compared to the alternative. This information is crucial to make decision regarding funding any new drug, diagnostic test or determining standard treatment protocol. It becomes even more important to consider this evidence in resource constrained low-income and middle-income country settings. Generating evidence on costs and consequences of a treatment or intervention could be performed in the setting of a randomized controlled trial, which is the perfect platform to evaluate efficacy or effectiveness. However, we argue that randomized controlled trial (RCT) offers an incomplete setting to generate comprehensive data on all costs and consequences for the purpose of a CEA. Hence, it is needed to use a decision model, either in combination with the evidence from RCT or alone. In this article, we demonstrate the application of decision model-based economic evaluation using 2 separate techniques - a decision tree and a Markov model. We argue that application of a decision model allows computation of health benefits in terms of utility-based measure such as a quality-adjusted life year or disability-adjusted life year which is preferred for a CEA, measure distal costs and consequences which are much more downstream to the application of intervention, allows comparison with multiple intervention and comparators, and provides opportunity of making use of evidence from multiple sources rather than a single RCT which may have limited generalizability. This makes the use of such evidence much more acceptable for clinical use and policy relevant.