Cost-effectiveness of dasatinib and nilotinib for imatinib-resistant or -intolerant chronic phase chronic myeloid leukemia

Cost-effectiveness analysis of dasatinib versus imatinib in pediatric philadelphia chromosome-positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia patients in China

BACKGROUND

Dasatinib and imatinib are the recommended tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) for treating pediatric Philadelphia-positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia (Ph + ALL), and the one which has been approved indication in China is imatinib. Recently, clinical demand for Ph + ALL treatment is becoming unmet gradually with the increasing resistance of imatinib. There are some studies reporting the better efficacy and comparative safety of dasatinib compared with imatinib, but no economic comparison has been published. This study aims to supplement economic evidence by comparing the cost-effectiveness between imatinib and dasatinib in treating pediatric patients with Ph+ ALL in China, and to help clinical rational drug use via multi-dimensional value assessment.

METHODS

A decision tree model combined with a 10-year Markov model were established based on the disease progression. The parameters were collected from published literatures and our hospital's electronic medical records. From the health system perspective, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) between the two treatment groups was calculated through cost-effectiveness analysis and then compared with the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold. The set WTP threshold in this study was 1 times per capita gross domestic product (GDP) of China, as recommended by the World Health Organization. Direct medical costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were calculated and discounted at 5%. The sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the uncertainty and robustness of the results.

RESULTS

The total costs were CNY 1,020,995.35 and CNY 1,035,788.50 in imatinib group and dasatinib group during the 10-year simulation, and the total QALYs were 2.59 and 4.84. Compared with the imatinib treatment group, the ICER was around CNY 6,575.78/ QALY, which was less than the set threshold CNY 70,892/ QALY. The sensitive analyses indicated the robustness of the results.

CONCLUSIONS

The cost-effectiveness analysis shows the potential cost-effective advantages of adding dasatinib comparing with adding imatinib for pediatric Ph + ALL patients in China under the set WTP threshold, which indicates that those patients could achieve more QALYs by paying acceptable fee.

Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors Plus an Anti-VEGF Antibody as the First-Line Treatment for Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Network Meta-Analysis and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Background: Sintilimab + a bevacizumab biosimilar (IBI305) (SB) and atezolizumab + bevacizumab (AB) have been approved for the treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). At present, oncologists and their patients remain indecisive on their preferred treatment regime. Therefore, assessing their efficacy via a network meta-analysis and determining their comparative cost-effectiveness is necessary. Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of SB and AB compared with sorafenib alone for the treatment of unresectable HCC. Materials and Methods: The data used in our analysis were obtained from patients in ORIENT-32 and IMbrave150 phase III randomized clinical trials. A Bayesian network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis that included 1,072 patients were performed in this study. A partitioned survival model was applied to the patients with unresectable HCC. The model was designed with a 15-year time horizon, 1-month cycle, and 5% discount rate for costs and outcomes. In China, an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) value of less than $33,500 (three times the GDP per capita in 2020) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) is considered cost-effective. The influence of parameter uncertainty on the results was verified by one-way deterministic sensitivity analysis and probability sensitivity analysis. Furthermore, scenario analyses of the patient assistance program (PAP) were conducted to explore the cost-effectiveness of SB and AB. Results: For the model of 1,072 patients, treatment with SB produced an additional 0.617 QALYs compared with sorafenib, resulting in an ICER of $39,766.86/QALY. Similarly, treatment with AB produced an additional 0.596 QALYs compared with sorafenib, resulting in an ICER of $103,037.66/QALY. The probability sensitivity analysis showed that when the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was $33,500/QALY, the cost-effectiveness of SB and AB was 15.4 and 0.4%, respectively. However, in the scenario analyses, the probability of SB and AB regimens being cost-effective was 65.4 and 15.8%, respectively, at a WTP of $33,500/QALY. Conclusion: The findings from our study showed that sintilimab + a bevacizumab biosimilar is a cost-effective regimen compared with sorafenib as the first-line therapy for unresectable HCC in China at a $33,500 WTP threshold if sintilimab PAP is considered. However, the atezolizumab + bevacizumab regimen is not cost-effective whether atezolizumab PAP is considered or not.

Economic Model to Evaluate the Cost-Effectiveness of Second-Line Nilotinib Versus Dasatinib for the Treatment of Philadelphia Chromosome-Positive Chronic Myeloid Leukemia (CML-CP) in Italy

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost effectiveness of second-line nilotinib versus dasatinib for the treatment of Philadelphia chromosome-positive chronic myeloid leukemia (CML-CP) patients who are intolerant or resistant to imatinib and can transition to treatment-free remission (TFR).

METHODS

A partitioned survival model was developed to compare the cost effectiveness of nilotinib versus dasatinib. The model was developed from the Italian healthcare payer perspective and included the following health states: on second-line tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), off second-line TKI, accelerated phase/blastic crisis, TFR, and death. Progression-free and overall survival curves were derived from patient-level data that compared nilotinib and dasatinib as second-line therapy in CML-CP patients who were resistant or intolerant to imatinib. Drug costs, healthcare costs, and adverse event costs were based on real-world evidence and publicly available databases. Cost effectiveness was estimated over a 40-year time horizon. Scenario analyses were performed by adjusting time horizon, TFR parameters, costs, and utilities.

RESULTS

Second-line nilotinib resulted in greater time spent in TFR (0.91 life-years), increased quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (1.89), increased life-years (2.16), and decreased per-patient costs (- 38,760 €). Therefore, nilotinib was strongly dominant compared with dasatinib in the base-case analysis. Nilotinib remained strongly dominant in most scenario analyses including shorter time horizon, exclusion of TFR, and varying TKI drug costs.

CONCLUSIONS

While the model showed that nilotinib treatment of imatinib-intolerant or resistant CML-CP patients was more effective and less costly than dasatinib treatment, there is considerable uncertainty in the findings.

Cost-Effectiveness of Bosutinib for the Treatment of Adult Patients with Chronic Phase Chronic Myeloid Leukemia in the Second-Line Setting

BACKGROUND

A recently conducted matching-adjusted indirect comparison demonstrated that bosutinib improved progression-free survival, and delayed progression to advanced disease compared with dasatinib and nilotinib in patients with second line (2L) chronic-phase chronic myeloid leukemia (CP-CML). However, the long-term clinical and economic impact of using bosutinib versus dasatinib and nilotinib has not been evaluated. The objective was to determine the cost-effectiveness of bosutinib compared with dasatinib and bosutinib compared with nilotinib from a US payer perspective.

METHODS

A cost-effectiveness model was developed using partition survival methods and three health states: progression-free, progression, and death. Trial data (individual patient-level and aggregate-level data) informed the progression-free and overall survival estimates. Costs included drugs and medical resource use. Utility values were obtained from literature. Sensitivity analyses (SAs) included one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSAs).

RESULTS

Comparing bosutinib versus dasatinib resulted in a gain of 0.4 discounted life years, 1.5 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental costs of $28,459 (values in 2020 US dollars), for an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $19,811/QALY gained. Comparing bosutinib versus nilotinib resulted in a gain of 0.8 discounted life-years, 1.8 QALYs, and incremental costs of $76,563, for an ICER of $41,932/QALY gained. Drug costs and extrapolation distribution type were the main drivers of the model in the one-way SAs. In the PSAs, bosutinib had >90% and >80% probabilities of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY versus dasatinib and nilotinib, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that compared with dasatinib and nilotinib, bosutinib may represent good value for money for treating 2L CP-CML patients.

Enabling access to molecular monitoring for chronic myeloid leukemia patients is cost effective in China

Objective

To determine the cost effectiveness of molecular monitoring in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia in the chronic phase (CML-CP) compared to no molecular monitoring from a Chinese payer perspective.

Methods

Analyses were conducted using a semi-Markov model with a 50-year time horizon. Population data from multicenter registry-based studies of Chinese patients with CML-CP informed the model. Transition probabilities were based on time-to-event data from the literature. Utility values were obtained from published studies and were assumed to be the same for patients with and without molecular monitoring. Costs were based on values commonly used in the Chinese healthcare system, including drug acquisition, drug administration, follow-up, treatment for disease progression, molecular monitoring, and terminal care costs, and were in the local currency (2020 Chinese Yuan RMB [¥]). Outcomes were total life-years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), lifetime costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.

Results

Molecular monitoring was dominant to no molecular monitoring, with increased LYs (1.52) and QALYs (1.90) and costs savings (¥93,840) over a lifetime compared to no monitoring in discounted analyses. The opportunity of patients that receive molecular monitoring to discontinue treatment during treatment-free remission, an opportunity not afforded to those without molecular monitoring, was the principle driver of this result. Results were similar across multiple clinical scenarios. Particularly, molecular monitoring remained dominant even if the proportion of patients achieving deep molecular response (DMR) was reduced by 10%-30%, or the proportion of patients maintaining DMR for 1 year was reduced by 10%-30% or increased by 10%. Cost savings in these scenarios ranged from ¥62,230 to ¥103,964.

Conclusions

Overall, this analysis demonstrates that adherence to guideline recommendations of regular molecular monitoring of patients with CML-CP treated with TKIs provides significant clinical benefit that leads to substantial cost savings compared to no molecular monitoring from the perspective of a Chinese payer. In a time where healthcare systems have limited resources to allocate to optimal patient care, investment in molecular monitoring is an ideal choice for improving patient benefits at a reduced cost.

Analysis of the cost-effectiveness of treatment strategies for CML with incorporation of treatment discontinuation

The cost of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) in the treatment of chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) is a substantial economic burden. In Japan, imatinib, dasatinib, and nilotinib are now approved as first-line treatment of CML in chronic phase. Recent "stop TKI" trials have shown that TKIs can be safely discontinued in nearly one-half of patients with sustained deep molecular response (DMR). In this study, we analyzed the cost-effectiveness of a simulated 10 years of CML treatment including stop TKI in both the United States and Japan. We constructed Markov models to compare 4 strategies in which treatment was initiated with imatinib, dasatinib, nilotinib, or any of these TKIs at the physician's discretion. Treatment was switched to another TKI in the case of intolerance or resistance to the initial TKI, and TKIs were discontinued if DMR persisted for 2 years. "Imatinib first" offered 7.34 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) at the cost of $1 022 148 in the United States (US dollars) and ¥32 526 785 in Japan (Japanese yen). In comparison with imatinib first, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per QALY of "dasatinib first" (7.68 QALY, $1 236 052, ¥51 506 254), "nilotinib first" (7.64 QALY, $1 245 667, ¥39 635 598), and "physician's choice" (7.55 QALY, $1 167 818, ¥41 187 740) was $641 324, $696 717, and $666 634 in the United States and ¥54 456 325, ¥23 154 465, and ¥39 635 615 in Japan, respectively. None of the 3 strategies met the willingness-to-pay threshold. The results were robust to univariate and multivariate sensitivity analyses. Imatinib first was shown to be the most cost-effective approach even with the incorporation of stop TKI.

Model-Based Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Panitumumab Plus FOLFIRI for the Second-Line Treatment of Patients with Wild-Type Ras Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

INTRODUCTION

The NCT00339183 trial demonstrated that adding panitumumab to fluorouracil, leucovorin and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) as a second-line therapy of wild-type RAS metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) increases the median progression-free survival (PFS). Nevertheless, panitumumab is not yet approved in China, and the costs and outcomes of the therapy are still unclear. We estimated the cost-effectiveness of this intervention from the perspective of Chinese health care systems by constructing two pricing scenarios for panitumumab. Scenario 1: Pricing is based on the price of a similar product (cetuximab) in China. Scenario 2: We estimated the value-based price.

METHODS

A partitioned survival model was created based on the results of the NCT00339183 trial, which evaluated panitumumab plus FOLFIRI versus FOLFIRI. The model simulated the disease progression. We calculated medical costs from the perspectives of the Chinese health care systems. The primary outcome measures were costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).

RESULTS

In scenario 1, compared with FOLFIRI alone, FOLFIRI with panitumumab arm had an ICER of ¥1,539,988/QALY. The most influential factors were the mean overall survival (OS), utility before progression and cost of panitumumab. The probability of panitumumab plus FOLFIRI being cost-effective in China was 0% when the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was ¥193,932/QALY. In scenario 2, when the cost of panitumumab was assumed to be ¥4032.61 or ¥5218.96 per cycle, the ICERs approximated the WTP thresholds of ¥193,932/QALY or ¥420,633/QALY, respectively. In this value-based pricing scenario, panitumumab plus FOLFIRI is estimated to be cost-effective.

CONCLUSION

We construct two pricing scenarios in China. In scenario 1, panitumumab plus FOLFIRI as a second-line therapy of mCRC provided an incremental benefit, but simultaneously increased costs (at the current price) even further. In scenario 2, when the value-based price was adopted, panitumumab plus FOLFIRI was estimated to be cost-effective. Our study establishes a pricing framework for new anticancer drugs to reflect the economics of drugs.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT00339183.

Economic Evaluations of Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors for Patients with Chronic Myeloid Leukemia in Middle- and High-Income Countries: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this systematic review was to conduct a comprehensive assessment of economic evaluations of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) in middle- and high-income countries.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted in Embase, MEDLINE (via PubMed) and the Cochrane library on March 3, 2018 to identify economic evaluations of chronic myeloid leukemia that met the inclusion criteria. Data on such parameters as patient characteristics, cost components, and main outcomes were extracted from eligible studies.

RESULTS

The literature review retrieved 798 studies, 17 of which fulfilled the eligibility criteria. Eight studies included an economic analysis on newly diagnosed patients with CML. Seven studies investigated people with CML who were resistant or intolerant to standard-dose imatinib. One article focused on chronic phase (CP)-CML patients who experienced failure with first-line treatment for interferon-α. The last study investigated advanced stages of CML patients. Most studies (n = 70.6%) were conducted in high-income countries. Only five studies (n = 29.4%) were performed in middle-income countries. Most studies used a Markov model. The time horizon varied from six months to life-time.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite high costs, the included studies indicate that imatinib regimens are cost effective in newly diagnosed patients with CP-CML. For people with CML who are resistant or intolerant to standard-dose imatinib, dasatinib is likely to be a more cost-effective strategy in middle-income countries. More studies are necessary to assess the long-term efficacy and cost effectiveness of novel treatment options.

Out-of-Pocket Spending Not Associated with Oral Oncolytic Survival Benefit

BACKGROUND

With total and out-of-pocket spending for oral oncolytics rising, there is increased interest in choosing oncology treatments based on their clinical value relative to cost.

OBJECTIVE

To determine if out-of-pocket spending varied for higher versus lower benefit oral oncology drugs reimbursed by commercial insurers.

METHODS

This study was a retrospective analysis of commercial insurer prescription drug claims filed between 2007 and 2014 for 13 oral oncolytics approved before 2009. We calculated mean monthly out-of-pocket payment for each fill by patient. We then categorized oral oncolytics by their overall and progression-free survival benefits for each FDA-approved indication, using evidence from published studies. We assessed the relationship of survival benefit with mean monthly out-of-pocket payment, adjusting for demographic and plan characteristics.

RESULTS

Our population included 44,113 patients aged 18-65 years (mean 52.5 [SD 9.4]) with a cancer diagnosis who filled 731,354 prescriptions. The most commonly represented oncolytics were imatinib (37.4% of fills), lenalidomide (17.7% of fills), and dasatinib (10.0% of fills). Approximately 32.3% of fills were for drug-indication pairs with an overall survival benefit of 4+ years. In adjusted analyses, there was no clear pattern to suggest that out-of-pocket payments differed with drug indication-specific survival benefits. Drugs for indications providing > 0 to 1 year of overall survival benefit were significantly more likely to have a lower out-of-pocket payment versus those prescribed off-label, but there were no significant differences in out-of-pocket payments between drugs and associated indications in any other survival category versus drugs used off-label.

CONCLUSIONS

Out-of-pocket payments for oral oncolytics were not clearly related to indication-specific value in commercially insured patients. This finding suggests that despite increased attention to value- and indication-based drug pricing, cost sharing for oral oncolytics does not currently reflect these goals.

DISCLOSURES

This project was supported by Research Scholar Grant RSGI-14-030-01-CPHPS from the American Cancer Society; the NIH Building Interdisciplinary Research Careers in Women's Health (BIRCWH) K12 Program; the North Carolina Translational and Clinical Sciences Institute (UL1TR001111) Grant; and K24CA181510 from the National Cancer Institute. The authors have no disclosures. Data from this study were presented at the 2017 American Society for Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting on June 5, 2017, in Chicago, Illinois.

An economic analysis of high-dose imatinib, dasatinib, and nilotinib for imatinib-resistant chronic phase chronic myeloid leukemia in China: A CHEERS-compliant article

BACKGROUND

The aim of the study was to test the cost-effectiveness of dasatinib compared to high-dose imatinib and nilotinib in Chinese patients who were diagnosed with imatinib-resistant chronic myeloid leukemia in the chronic phase (CML-CP).

METHODS

A Markov model combined with clinical effectiveness, utility, and cost data was used. The sensitivity analyses were conducted to determine the robustness of the model outcomes. The impact of patient assistance programs (PAPs) was assessed.

RESULTS

Treatment with dasatinib is expected to produce 3.65, 0.59, and 0.15 more quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) in comparison with high-dose imatinib (600 and 800 mg) and nilotinib, respectively. When a PAP was available, dasatinib yielded an incremental cost of $16,417 per QALY compared to imatinib (600 mg) and was cost-saving compared to imatinib (800 mg) and nilotinib.

CONCLUSION

When PAP is available in the Chinese setting, dasatinib is likely to be a cost-effective strategy for patients with CML-CP standard-dose imatinib resistance. The results should be carefully explained due to the assumptions and limitations used in the study.

Nilotinib versus dasatinib as second-line therapy in patients with Philadelphia chromosome-positive chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase who are resistant or intolerant to imatinib: a cost-effectiveness analysis based on real-world data

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of second-line nilotinib vs dasatinib among patients with Philadelphia chromosome-positive chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase (Ph+ CML-CP) who are resistant or intolerant to imatinib, from a US third-party perspective.

METHODS

A lifetime partitioned survival model was developed to compare the costs and effectiveness of nilotinib vs dasatinib, which included four health states: CP on treatment, CP post-discontinuation, progressive disease (accelerated phase [AP] or blast crisis [BC]), and death. Time on treatment, progression-free survival, and overall survival of nilotinib and dasatinib were estimated using real-world comparative effectiveness data. Parametric survival models were used to extrapolate outcomes beyond the study period. Drug treatment costs, medical costs, and adverse event costs were obtained from the literature and publicly available databases. Utilities of health states were derived from the literature. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, including incremental cost per life-year (LY) gained and incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, were estimated comparing nilotinib and dasatinib. Deterministic sensitivity analyses were performed by varying patient characteristics, cost, and utility inputs.

RESULTS

Over a lifetime horizon, nilotinib-treated patients were associated with 11.7 LYs, 9.1 QALYs, and a total cost of $1,409,466, while dasatinib-treated patients were associated with 9.5 LYs, 7.3 QALYs, and a total cost of $1,422,122. In comparison with dasatinib, nilotinib was associated with better health outcomes (by 2.2 LYs and 1.9 QALYs) and lower total costs (by $12,655). Deterministic sensitivity analysis results showed consistent findings in most scenarios.

LIMITATIONS

In the absence of long-term real-world data, the lifetime projection could not be validated.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with dasatinib, second-line nilotinib was associated with better life expectancy, better quality-of-life, and lower costs among patients with Ph+ CML-CP who were resistant or intolerant to imatinib.

Economic evaluation of nivolumab as a second-line treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma from US and Chinese perspectives

BACKGROUND

Nivolumab is a new standard of care for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) and provides an overall survival benefit of 5.40 months in comparison with everolimus. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab for the second-line treatment of mRCC from the perspective of US payers and identified the range of drug costs for which the addition of nivolumab to standard therapy could be considered cost-effective from a Chinese perspective.

METHODS

A partitioned survival model was constructed to estimate lifetime costs, life-years, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Costs were estimated for the US and Chinese health care systems. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Nivolumab provided an additional 0.29 QALYs at a cost of $151,676/QALY in the United States. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY, at the current cost of nivolumab, the chance of nivolumab being cost-effective was 3.10%. For China, when nivolumab cost less than $7.90 or $9.70/mg, there was a nearly 90% likelihood that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for nivolumab would be less than $22,785 or $48,838/QALY, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

For the United States, nivolumab is unlikely to be a high-value treatment for mRCC at the current price, and a price reduction appears to be justified. In China, value-based prices for nivolumab are $7.90 and $9.70/mg for the country and Beijing City, respectively. This study could and should inform the multilateral drug-price negotiations in China that may be upcoming for nivolumab. Cancer 2017;123:2634-41. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of second-line tyrosine kinase inhibitor treatment for chronic myelogenous leukemia

AIM

A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed for sequential treatments of chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) after failure of 1st line imatinib, from a commercial payer perspective in the US.

METHODS

A Markov model was developed to simulate lifetime treatment costs and health outcomes for TKI sequences for treatment of patients resistant or intolerant to 1st-line imatinib. Five health states were included, chronic phase 2nd-line TKI, chronic phase 3rd-line TKI, chronic phase post-TKI, advanced phases, and death. Efficacy (response achievement, loss of response, transformation, death) and safety (adverse events incidence, discontinuation) data are based on clinical trials. Resource utilization, costs, and utilities were based on product labels and publically available data. Uncertainty analyses were conducted for key inputs.

RESULTS

In patients failing imatinib, dasatinib-initiating treatment sequences provide the most survival (ΔLYs = 0.2-2.0), QALYs (ΔQALYs = 0.2-1.9), and accrue highest CML-related costs (ΔCosts = $64,000-$222,000). The average ICER per QALY for dasatinib- vs imatinib-initiating sequences is $100,000 for an imatinib-resistant population. The average ICER per QALY for dasatinib- vs nilotinib-initiating sequences is $170,000 for an imatinib-resistant population, and $160,000 for an imatinib-intolerant population.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis suggests that dasatinib is associated with increased survival and quality of life compared to high dose imatinib and to a smaller extent with nilotinib, among patients resistant or intolerant to 1st-line imatinib, primarily based on higher cytogenetic response rates observed in clinical studies of dasatinib. Head-to-head studies of sequential use of dasatinib and nilotinib are needed to validate the model findings of improved survival (LYs) with better quality-of-life (QALYs) for patients initiating dasatinib in 2nd-line. However, the model findings (in light of higher cytogenetic response rates with dasatinib) are supported by other studies showing improved quality-of-life for responders, and improved survival for patients achieving cytogenetic response.

Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Sequential Treatment of Patients with Chronic Myeloid Leukemia in the United States: A Decision Analysis

Currently several tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) are approved for treatment of chronic myeloid leukemia (CML). Our goal was to identify the optimal sequential treatment strategy in terms of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness for CML patients within the US health care context. We evaluated 18 treatment strategies regarding survival, quality-adjusted survival, and costs. For model parameters, the literature data, expert surveys, registry data, and economic databases were used. Evaluated strategies included imatinib, dasatinib, nilotinib, bosutinib, ponatinib, stem-cell transplantation (SCT), and chemotherapy. We developed a Markov state-transition model, which was analyzed as a cohort simulation over a lifelong time horizon with a third-party payer perspective and discount rate of 3%. Remaining life expectancies ranged from 5.4 years (3.9 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs)) for chemotherapy treatment without TKI to 14.4 years (11.1 QALYs) for nilotinib→dasatinib→chemotherapy/SCT. In the economic evaluation, imatinib→chemotherapy/SCT resulted in an incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) of $171,700/QALY compared to chemotherapy without TKI. Imatinib→nilotinib→chemotherapy/SCT yielded an ICUR of $253,500/QALY compared to imatinib→chemotherapy/SCT. Nilotinib→dasatinib→chemotherapy/SCT yielded an ICUR of $445,100/QALY compared to imatinib→nilotinib→chemotherapy/SCT. All remaining strategies were excluded due to dominance of the clinically superior strategies. Based on our analysis and current treatment guidelines, imatinib→nilotinib→chemotherapy/SCT and nilotinib→dasatinib→chemotherapy/SCT can be considered cost-effective for patients with CML, depending on willingness-to-pay.

The role of dasatinib in the management of chronic myeloid leukemia

Dasatinib is a second-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) for chronic, blastic, or accelerated phase chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) patients who are resistant or intolerant to previous treatment. It potently inhibits BCR/ABL and SRC-family kinases (SRC, LCK, HCK, YES, FYN, FGR, BLK, LYN, FRK), as well as c-KIT, PDGFR-a and -b, and ephrin receptor kinase. Various clinical trials have provided evidence that it has more durable complete hematologic and cytogenetic responses, as well as more potency in imatinib-resistant or -intolerant CML, and it has also shown its advantages in newly diagnosed CML compared to imatinib. In this review, we mainly focus on the structure, mechanisms, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacogenetics of dasatinib. We also summarize clinical trials with dasatinib on CML and provide our recommendations for dasatinib in the treatment of CML.

Cost-effectiveness of the sequential application of tyrosine kinase inhibitors for the treatment of chronic myeloid leukemia

Several tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) are approved for chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) therapy. We evaluated the long-term cost-effectiveness of seven sequential therapy regimens for CML in Austria. A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed using a state-transition Markov model. As model parameters, we used published trial data, clinical, epidemiological and economic data from the Austrian CML registry and national databases. We performed a cohort simulation over a life-long time-horizon from a societal perspective. Nilotinib without second-line TKI yielded an incremental cost-utility ratio of 121,400 €/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) compared to imatinib without second-line TKI after imatinib failure. Imatinib followed by nilotinib after failure resulted in 131,100 €/QALY compared to nilotinib without second-line TKI. Nilotinib followed by dasatinib yielded 152,400 €/QALY compared to imatinib followed by nilotinib after failure. Remaining strategies were dominated. The sequential application of TKIs is standard-of-care, and thus, our analysis points toward imatinib followed by nilotinib as the most cost-effective strategy.

Cost-effectiveness analyses of targeted oral anti-cancer drugs: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Over the last 15 years, a paradigm shift in oncology has led to the approval of dozens of targeted oral anti-cancer medications (OAMs), which have become the standard of care for certain cancers. While more convenient for patients than infused drugs, the possibility of non-adherence and the frequently high costs of targeted OAMs have proven controversial.

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to perform the first comprehensive review of cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) of targeted OAMs.

METHODS

A literature search in PubMed, The Cochrane Library, and the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) reports published by the National Institute for Health Research HTA Programme in the UK was performed, covering articles published in the 5 years prior to 30 September 2013. Our inclusion criteria were peer-reviewed English-language full-text original research articles with a primary focus on CEA related to targeted OAMs. We categorized these articles by treatment setting (i.e. cancer site/type, line of therapy, and treatment and comparator) and synthesized information from the articles into summary tables.

RESULTS

We identified 41 CEAs covering nine of the 18 targeted OAMs approved by the US FDA as of December 2012. These medications were studied in seven cancers, most often as second-line therapy for advanced-stage patients. In over half of treatment settings where a targeted OAM was compared with treatment that was not a targeted OAM, targeted OAMs were considered cost effective. Limitations in interpreting these findings include the risk of bias due to author conflicts of interest, cross-country variation, and difficulties in generalizing clinical trial evidence to community practice.

CONCLUSIONS

Several types of cost-effectiveness studies remain under-represented in the literature on targeted OAMs, including those for follow-on indications approved after the initial indication for a drug and for off-label indications, head-to-head comparisons of targeted OAMs with other targeted OAMs and targeted intravenous therapies, and studies that adopt a perspective other than the payer's. Keeping up with the increasing number of approved targeted OAMs will also prove an important challenge for economic evaluation.

Systematic assessment of decision-analytic models for chronic myeloid leukemia

BACKGROUND

Several tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) are approved for the treatment of chronic myeloid leukemia (CML). Decision-analytic modeling can help to extrapolate data from short-term clinical trials and also consider quality of life when evaluating different treatment strategies.

OBJECTIVE

Our goal was to describe and analyze the structural and methodological approaches of published decision-analytic models for various treatment strategies in CML and to derive recommendations for the development of future CML models.

DATA SOURCES

We performed a systematic literature search in electronic databases (MEDLINE/PreMEDLINE, EconLit, EMBASE, NHS EED, and Tuft's CEA Registry) to identify published studies evaluating CML treatment strategies using mathematical models. The search was updated in August 2013.

STUDY SELECTION

The models were required to compare different treatment strategies in relation to relevant clinical and patient-relevant health outcomes [e.g., life-years gained, quality-adjusted life-years] over a defined time horizon and population.

STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS

We used standardized forms for data extraction, description of study design, methodological framework, and data sources for each model.

RESULTS

We identified 18 different decision-analytic modeling studies. Of these, 17 included economic evaluations. Modeling approaches included decision trees, Markov cohort models, state-transition models with individual (Monte Carlo) simulations, and mathematical equations. Analytic time horizons ranged from 2 years to a lifetime. Treatment strategies compared included bone marrow or stem cell transplantation, conventional chemotherapy, interferon-α, and TKIs. Only one model evaluated a second-generation TKI. Most models did not report a model validation. All models conducted deterministic sensitivity analyses and four reported a probabilistic sensitivity analysis.

LIMITATIONS

Articles that were not published in English or German were not included in this review. Our literature search was restricted to published full-text articles in certain databases. Therefore, publications that met our inclusion criteria but were published in different databases, different languages, or as abstracts only may have been missed.

CONCLUSIONS

While several well-designed models of CML treatment strategies exist, there remains a need for the assessment of the long-term efficacy and cost effectiveness of novel treatment options such as second-generation TKIs. Additionally, these models should be validated using independent data.

Determinants of survival in patients with chronic myeloid leukaemia treated in the new era of oral therapy: findings from a UK population-based patient cohort

OBJECTIVES

To examine contemporary survival patterns in the general population of patients diagnosed with chronic myeloid leukaemia (CML), and to identify patient groups with less than optimal outcomes.

DESIGN

Prospective population-based cohort.

SETTING

The UK's Haematological Malignancy Research Network (catchment population 3.6 million, with >2000 new haematological malignancies diagnosed annually).

PARTICIPANTS

All patients newly diagnosed with CML, from September 2004 to August 2011 and followed up to 31 March 2013.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Incidence and survival.

RESULTS

With a median diagnostic age of 59 years, the CML age standardised (European) incidence was 0.9/100 000 (95% CIs 0.8 to 0.9), 5-year overall survival was 78.9% (72.3 to 84.0) and 5-year relative survival 88.6% (81.0 to 93.3). The efficacy of treatment across all ages was clearly demonstrated; the relative survival curves for those under 60 and over 60 years being closely aligned. Survival findings were similar for men and women, but varied with deprivation; the age and sex adjusted HR being 3.43 (1.89 to 6.22) for deprivation categories 4-5 (less affluent) versus 1-3 (more affluent). None of these differences were attributable to the biological features of the disease.

CONCLUSIONS

When therapy is freely provided, population-based survival for CML is similar to that reported in clinical trials, and age loses its prognostic significance. However, although most of the patients with CML now experience close to normal lifespans, those living in more deprived areas tend to have poorer outcomes, despite receiving the same clinical care. A significant improvement in overall population outcomes could be achieved if these socioeconomic differences, which may reflect the treatment compliance, could be eliminated.

Systematic review of drug administration costs and implications for biopharmaceutical manufacturing

BACKGROUND

The acquisition costs of biologic drugs are often considered to be relatively high compared with those of nonbiologics. However, the total costs of delivering these drugs also depend on the cost of administration. Ignoring drug administration costs may distort resource allocation decisions because these affect cost effectiveness.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this systematic review were to develop a framework of drug administration costs that considers both the costs of physical administration and the associated proximal costs; and, as a case example, to use this framework to evaluate administration costs for biologics within the UK National Health Service (NHS).

METHODS

We reviewed literature that reported estimates of administration costs for biologics within the UK NHS to identify how these costs were quantified and to examine how differences in dosage forms and regimens influenced administration costs. The literature reviewed were identified by searching the Centre for Review and Dissemination Databases (DARE, NHS EED and HTA); EMBASE (The Excerpta Medica Database); MEDLINE (using the OVID interface); Econlit (EBSCO); Tufts Medical Center Cost Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) Registry; and Google Scholar.

RESULTS

We identified 4,344 potentially relevant studies, of which 43 studies were selected for this systematic review. We extracted estimates of the administration costs of biologics from these studies. We found evidence of variation in the way that administration costs were measured, and that this affected the magnitude of costs reported, which could then influence cost effectiveness.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggested that manufacturers of biologic medicines should pay attention to formulation issues and their impact on administration costs, because these affect the total costs of healthcare delivery and cost effectiveness.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS)--explanation and elaboration: a report of the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluation Publication Guidelines Good Reporting Practices Task Force

BACKGROUND

Economic evaluations of health interventions pose a particular challenge for reporting because substantial information must be conveyed to allow scrutiny of study findings. Despite a growth in published reports, existing reporting guidelines are not widely adopted. There is also a need to consolidate and update existing guidelines and promote their use in a user-friendly manner. A checklist is one way to help authors, editors, and peer reviewers use guidelines to improve reporting.

OBJECTIVE

The task force's overall goal was to provide recommendations to optimize the reporting of health economic evaluations. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement is an attempt to consolidate and update previous health economic evaluation guidelines into one current, useful reporting guidance. The CHEERS Elaboration and Explanation Report of the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluation Publication Guidelines Good Reporting Practices Task Force facilitates the use of the CHEERS statement by providing examples and explanations for each recommendation. The primary audiences for the CHEERS statement are researchers reporting economic evaluations and the editors and peer reviewers assessing them for publication.

METHODS

The need for new reporting guidance was identified by a survey of medical editors. Previously published checklists or guidance documents related to reporting economic evaluations were identified from a systematic review and subsequent survey of task force members. A list of possible items from these efforts was created. A two-round, modified Delphi Panel with representatives from academia, clinical practice, industry, and government, as well as the editorial community, was used to identify a minimum set of items important for reporting from the larger list.

RESULTS

Out of 44 candidate items, 24 items and accompanying recommendations were developed, with some specific recommendations for single study-based and model-based economic evaluations. The final recommendations are subdivided into six main categories: 1) title and abstract, 2) introduction, 3) methods, 4) results, 5) discussion, and 6) other. The recommendations are contained in the CHEERS statement, a user-friendly 24-item checklist. The task force report provides explanation and elaboration, as well as an example for each recommendation. The ISPOR CHEERS statement is available online via Value in Health or the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluation Publication Guidelines Good Reporting Practices - CHEERS Task Force webpage (http://www.ispor.org/TaskForces/EconomicPubGuidelines.asp).

CONCLUSIONS

We hope that the ISPOR CHEERS statement and the accompanying task force report guidance will lead to more consistent and transparent reporting, and ultimately, better health decisions. To facilitate wider dissemination and uptake of this guidance, we are copublishing the CHEERS statement across 10 health economics and medical journals. We encourage other journals and groups to consider endorsing the CHEERS statement. The author team plans to review the checklist for an update in 5 years.

Cost-effectiveness of cetuximab, cetuximab plus irinotecan, and panitumumab for third and further lines of treatment for KRAS wild-type patients with metastatic colorectal cancer

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the cost-effectiveness of cetuximab monotherapy, cetuximab plus irinotecan, and panitumumab monotherapy compared with best supportive care (BSC) for the third and subsequent lines of treatment of patients with Kirsten rat sarcoma wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer from the perspective of the UK National Health Service.

METHODS

An "an area under the curve" cost-effectiveness model was developed. The clinical effectiveness evidence for both cetuximab and panitumumab was taken from a single randomized controlled trial (RCT) in each case and for cetuximab plus irinotecan from several sources.

RESULTS

Patients are predicted to survive for approximately 6 months on BSC, 8.5 months on panitumumab, 10 months on cetuximab, and 16.5 months on cetuximab plus irinotecan. Panitumumab is dominated, and cetuximab is extended dominated. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £95,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) was estimated for cetuximab versus BSC and is likely to be relatively accurate, because the relevant clinical evidence is taken from a high-quality RCT. The estimated ICER for panitumumab versus BSC, at £187,000 per QALY, is less certain due to assumptions in the adjustment for the substantial crossing-over of patients in the RCT. The ICER for cetuximab plus irinotecan versus BSC, at £88,000 per QALY, is least certain due to substantial uncertainty about progression-free survival, treatment duration, and overall survival. Nonetheless, when key parameters are varied within plausible ranges, all three treatments always remain poor value for money.

CONCLUSIONS

All three treatments are highly unlikely to be considered cost-effective in this patient population in the United Kingdom. We explain how the reader can adapt the model for other countries.