Health state utility scores in advanced non-small cell lung cancer

Cost-Utility Analysis of Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy Versus Surgery for Patients With Stage I Non-small Cell Lung Cancer in Japan

PURPOSE

Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for patients with operable stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is less invasive than surgery. However, differences in lifetime costs and patient outcomes remain unclear. In this study, a cost-utility analysis of SBRT compared with surgery for Japanese patients with operable stage I NSCLC was conducted.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A partitioned survival model was constructed using each treatment arm's overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) data. The data for the SBRT arm were extracted from the Japanese multicenter cohort study, which enrolled 678 medically operable patients with stage I NSCLC, and patient registry data were used for the surgery arm. The 5-year OS rate was 78.2% for SBRT and 74.8% for surgery from both studies. The 5-year PFS rate was 57.0% for SBRT and 63.4% for surgery. The quality of life values of PFS and progressive disease were obtained from domestic and overseas literature (PFS: 0.74, progressive disease: 0.65). The time horizon was set to 10 years. The expected costs and quality-adjusted life years for each treatment group were calculated. All costs are expressed in Japanese yen converted to US dollars (USD).

RESULTS

SBRT was the dominant strategy, reducing treatment costs by 4,443.8 USD and increasing quality-adjusted life years by 0.131 compared with surgery. According to probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the probability of SBRT being dominant and cost-effective was 50.6% and 72.4%, respectively. Under the budget impact analysis, the total savings for the patients with stage I NSCLC in Japan was 6,252,870.0 USD (n = 1,407).

CONCLUSIONS

SBRT is a more cost-effective option than surgery in patients with medically operable stage I NSCLC in Japan. Large-scale epidemiologic studies that reflect the latest clinical realities, such as OS/PFS, will be needed to validate this study's robustness.

Cost-effectiveness of consolidation durvalumab for inoperable stage III non-small cell lung cancer in Vietnam

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of durvalumab as a treatment option for patients with inoperable stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) from healthcare and partial societal perspectives in Vietnam.

METHOD

A lifetime partitioned survival model was used to evaluate the costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) associated with consolidation durvalumab in comparison with the standard of care alone. Local costs and utilities were incorporated into the model. In the base-case analysis, no discount was applied to the acquisition cost of durvalumab. Scenario-based, one-way and probabilistic-sensitivity analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

The base-case analysis revealed that the intervention resulted in an increase of 1.38 life years or 1.08 QALYs for patients, but the intervention was not deemed cost-effective from either perspective in the base-case analysis. However, with a 70% reduction in the durvalumab acquisition cost, the intervention was observed to be cost-effective when evaluated from a healthcare perspective and when examining the undiscounted results from a partial societal standpoint.

CONCLUSION

This study provides evidence regarding the cost-effectiveness of durvalumab for the treatment of inoperable stage III NSCLC in Vietnam for various scenarios. The intervention was not cost-effective at full acquisition cost, but it is important to acknowledge that cost-effectiveness arguments alone cannot solely guide decision-makers in Vietnam; other criteria, such as budget impact and ethical concerns, are crucial factors to consider in decision-making processes.

Cost-Effectiveness of Adjuvant Abemaciclib and Ribociclib in High-Risk Hormone Receptor-Positive Early Breast Cancer: An Indian Perspective

PURPOSE

Incorporating adjuvant cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) 4/6 inhibitors abemaciclib and ribociclib along with endocrine therapy has been shown to improve invasive disease-free survival (iDFS) for hormone receptor-positive (HR+) human epidermal receptor 2-negative (HER2-) early breast cancer (EBC). This study assesses the cost-effectiveness of this strategy, along with adjuvant aromatase inhibitors from an Indian perspective.

METHODS

A Markov chain model evaluated the cost-effectiveness of abemaciclib and ribociclib with letrozole compared with letrozole alone for HR+/HER2- EBC from a payer perspective in India. Key measures included lifetime quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), life-years (LY), and total costs. This study explores two scenarios for effectiveness: a best-case (BC) scenario, where the benefit of CDK4/6 inhibitors in improving iDFS lasts a lifetime, and a worst-case (WC) scenario, where benefits disappear after 5 years. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were used to account for simulation uncertainty.

RESULTS

In the BC scenario, abemaciclib added 2.17 QALY and 4.96 LY, incurring ₹2,317,957.7 ($27,756.65 in US dollars [USD]) in additional costs. However, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for abemaciclib exceeded India's willingness-to-pay threshold in the BC and WC scenarios. In the BC scenario, ribociclib added 0.98 QALY and 2.58 LY with added costs of ₹1,711,504.32 ($20,494.6 USD). The ICER for ribociclib also surpassed India's threshold in both scenarios. PSA showed that neither drug was cost-effective at the current market prices in either BC/WC scenario. The cost of abemaciclib and ribociclib needs to be reduced by at least 78.61% and 87.19%, respectively, to be cost-effective in the BC scenario.

CONCLUSION

The combination of adjuvant abemaciclib or ribociclib with letrozole is not cost-effective for HR+/HER2- EBC in India in either the BC or WC scenario.

Impact of Lung Cancer on Health-Related Quality of Life, Financial Toxicity, and Household Economics in Patients From the Public and the Private Healthcare Sector in Argentina

OBJECTIVES

Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is Argentina's first cause of cancer death. Most patients have an advanced stage at diagnosis, with poor expected survival. This study aimed to characterize the health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and economic impact of patients treated in the private healthcare sector and compare it with that of the public sector.

METHODS

We undertook an observational cross-sectional study that extended a previous study to a referral private center in Argentina. Outcomes included the EuroQol EQ-5D-3L (to assess HRQOL), Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (financial toxicity instrument), Work Productivity and Activity Impairment - General Health (to assess productivity loss), and out-of-pocket expenses in adults diagnosed of NSCLC.

RESULTS

We included 30 consecutive patients from a private healthcare center (July 2021 to March 2022), totaling 131 patients (n = 101 from previous public study). The whole sample had low quality of life and relevant economic impact. Patients in the private healthcare sector showed lower disease severity and higher educational level and household income. In addition, private healthcare system patients showed higher utility (0.77 vs 0.73; P < .05) and lower impairment of daily activities (41% vs 59%; P = .01). Private health system patients also showed lower financial toxicity as measured by the Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity score (23.9 vs 20.14; P < .05) but showed no differences when financial toxicity was assessed as a dichotomic variable.

CONCLUSIONS

Although patients with NSCLC treated in a private healthcare center in Argentina showed a relevant HRQOL and economic impact, this impact was smaller than the one observed in publicly funded hospitals.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Trastuzumab Deruxtecan Versus Trastuzumab Emtansine for Patients With Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2 Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer in the United States

OBJECTIVES

To assess the cost-effectiveness of trastuzumab deruxtecan compared with trastuzumab emtansine as second-line therapy for patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 positive metastatic breast cancer from a US healthcare sector perspective.

METHODS

A 3-state partitioned survival model was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of trastuzumab deruxtecan compared with trastuzumab emtansine. For both treatments, modeled patients were administered treatment intravenously every 3 weeks indefinitely or until disease progression. Transition parameters were principally derived from the updated DESTINY-Breast03 phase III randomized clinical trial. Costs include drug costs extracted from Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services average sales price and administrative, adverse event, and third-line therapy costs derived from published literature, measured in 2022 US dollars. Health utilities for health states and disutilities for adverse events were sourced from published literature. Effects were measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). We conducted both probabilistic sensitivity analysis and comprehensive scenario analysis to test model assumptions and robustness, while utilizing a lifetime horizon.

RESULTS

In our base-case analysis, total costs for trastuzumab deruxtecan were $1 266 945, compared with $820 082 for trastuzumab emtansine. Total QALYs for trastuzumab deruxtecan were 5.09, compared with 3.15 for trastuzumab emtansine. The base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $230 285/QALY. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that trastuzumab deruxtecan had an 11.1% probability of being cost-effective at a $100 000 per QALY willingness-to-pay threshold.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the higher efficacy of trastuzumab deruxtecan in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 positive metastatic breast cancer, our findings raise concern regarding its value at current prices.

A Health State Utility Study to Elicit Societal Values Associated with Pulmonary Hypertension

Aim

Pulmonary hypertension (PH) is a rare, severe, and progressive pulmonary vascular disease, which includes five subgroups with similar presentation. Symptoms include dyspnea, and fatigue, and can significantly impact one's health-related quality of life (HRQL). Although treatments are mainly medical, PH group 4, chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH), can be managed with procedures, ie pulmonary endarterectomy (PEA) and balloon pulmonary angioplasty (BPA). Currently, drugs in Europe are only approved for pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), and CTEPH therefore the aim of this study was to elicit novel societal health state utilities in the UK for PAH and CTEPH based on disease severity, functional class (FC), clinical events, and treatment procedures specifically for CTEPH.

Material and Methods

Six health states were defined: World Health Organization (WHO)-FC II, WHO-FC III, and WHO-FC IV [defined by the New York Heart Association (NYHA)]; PH-related hospitalization; and "BPA procedure and recovery" and "PEA surgery and recovery". Health states were based on a targeted literature review and two rounds of interviews with clinical experts (N = 4) and patients (N = 6). Draft health states were validated in cognitive debriefing interviews with clinical experts (N = 3). Health states were valued by the UK general public (n = 200), using a visual analogue scale (VAS) and time trade-off (TTO) assessment with the lead time method.

Results

The mean TTO values/utilities were 0.81 (FC II), 0.80 (BPA), 0.78 (PEA), 0.59 (FC III), 0.28 (FC IV), and 0.25 (PH-related hospitalization). Each progression in FC was associated with worse TTO scores.

Conclusion

This study reports societal utility values for PAH and CTEPH in the UK. It provides first utility estimates for states such as BPA procedure and recovery, PEA surgery and recovery and PH-related hospitalization for this population. The results show important distinctions between FC, treatment procedures, and hospitalization, and the significant burden of disease on HRQL.

Cost-effectiveness of stereotactic body radiotherapy versus conventional fractionated radiotherapy for medically inoperable, early-stage non-small cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND

Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is a novel radio-therapeutic technique that has recently emerged as standard-of-care treatment for medically inoperable, early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In this study, we compared the cost-effectiveness of SBRT with that of conventional fractionated radiotherapy (CFRT) in patients with medically inoperable, early-stage NSCLC from the perspective of the Chinese health system.

METHODS

A Markov model was developed to describe health states of patients after treatment with SBRT and CFRT. The recurrence risks, treatment toxicities, and utilities inputs were obtained from the literature. The costs were based on listed prices and real-world evidence. A simulation was conducted to determine the post-treatment lifetime years. For each treatment, the total costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) per QALY were calculated. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the uncertainty of the model parameters.

RESULTS

In the base case analysis, SBRT was associated with a mean cost of USD16,933 and 2.05 QALYs, whereas CFRT was associated with a mean cost of USD17,726 and 1.61 QALYs. SBRT is a more cost-effective strategy compared with CFRT for medically inoperable, early-stage NSCLC, with USD 1802 is saved for every incremental QALY. This result was validated by DSA and PSA, in which SBRT remained the most cost-effective option.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings suggested that, compared to CFRT, SBRT may be considered a more cost-effective strategy for medically inoperable, early-stage NSCLC.

Bleeding risk in patients prescribed dual antiplatelet therapy and triple therapy after coronary interventions: the ADAPTT retrospective population-based cohort studies

Background

Bleeding among populations undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting and among conservatively managed patients with acute coronary syndrome exposed to different dual antiplatelet therapy and triple therapy (i.e. dual antiplatelet therapy plus an anticoagulant) has not been previously quantified.

Objectives

The objectives were to estimate hazard ratios for bleeding for different antiplatelet and triple therapy regimens, estimate resources and the associated costs of treating bleeding events, and to extend existing economic models of the cost-effectiveness of dual antiplatelet therapy.

Design

The study was designed as three retrospective population-based cohort studies emulating target randomised controlled trials.

Setting

The study was set in primary and secondary care in England from 2010 to 2017.

Participants

Participants were patients aged ≥ 18 years undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting or emergency percutaneous coronary intervention (for acute coronary syndrome), or conservatively managed patients with acute coronary syndrome.

Data sources

Data were sourced from linked Clinical Practice Research Datalink and Hospital Episode Statistics.

Interventions

Coronary artery bypass grafting and conservatively managed acute coronary syndrome: aspirin (reference) compared with aspirin and clopidogrel. Percutaneous coronary intervention: aspirin and clopidogrel (reference) compared with aspirin and prasugrel (ST elevation myocardial infarction only) or aspirin and ticagrelor.

Main outcome measures

Primary outcome: any bleeding events up to 12 months after the index event. Secondary outcomes: major or minor bleeding, all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, mortality from bleeding, myocardial infarction, stroke, additional coronary intervention and major adverse cardiovascular events.

Results

The incidence of any bleeding was 5% among coronary artery bypass graft patients, 10% among conservatively managed acute coronary syndrome patients and 9% among emergency percutaneous coronary intervention patients, compared with 18% among patients prescribed triple therapy. Among coronary artery bypass grafting and conservatively managed acute coronary syndrome patients, dual antiplatelet therapy, compared with aspirin, increased the hazards of any bleeding (coronary artery bypass grafting: hazard ratio 1.43, 95% confidence interval 1.21 to 1.69; conservatively-managed acute coronary syndrome: hazard ratio 1.72, 95% confidence interval 1.15 to 2.57) and major adverse cardiovascular events (coronary artery bypass grafting: hazard ratio 2.06, 95% confidence interval 1.23 to 3.46; conservatively-managed acute coronary syndrome: hazard ratio 1.57, 95% confidence interval 1.38 to 1.78). Among emergency percutaneous coronary intervention patients, dual antiplatelet therapy with ticagrelor, compared with dual antiplatelet therapy with clopidogrel, increased the hazard of any bleeding (hazard ratio 1.47, 95% confidence interval 1.19 to 1.82), but did not reduce the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (hazard ratio 1.06, 95% confidence interval 0.89 to 1.27). Among ST elevation myocardial infarction percutaneous coronary intervention patients, dual antiplatelet therapy with prasugrel, compared with dual antiplatelet therapy with clopidogrel, increased the hazard of any bleeding (hazard ratio 1.48, 95% confidence interval 1.02 to 2.12), but did not reduce the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (hazard ratio 1.10, 95% confidence interval 0.80 to 1.51). Health-care costs in the first year did not differ between dual antiplatelet therapy with clopidogrel and aspirin monotherapy among either coronary artery bypass grafting patients (mean difference £94, 95% confidence interval -£155 to £763) or conservatively managed acute coronary syndrome patients (mean difference £610, 95% confidence interval -£626 to £1516), but among emergency percutaneous coronary intervention patients were higher for those receiving dual antiplatelet therapy with ticagrelor than for those receiving dual antiplatelet therapy with clopidogrel, although for only patients on concurrent proton pump inhibitors (mean difference £1145, 95% confidence interval £269 to £2195).

Conclusions

This study suggests that more potent dual antiplatelet therapy may increase the risk of bleeding without reducing the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events. These results should be carefully considered by clinicians and decision-makers alongside randomised controlled trial evidence when making recommendations about dual antiplatelet therapy.

Limitations

The estimates for bleeding and major adverse cardiovascular events may be biased from unmeasured confounding and the exclusion of an eligible subgroup of patients who could not be assigned an intervention. Because of these limitations, a formal cost-effectiveness analysis could not be conducted.

Future work

Future work should explore the feasibility of using other UK data sets of routinely collected data, less susceptible to bias, to estimate the benefit and harm of antiplatelet interventions.

Trial registration

This trial is registered as ISRCTN76607611.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 8. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Cost-Utility Analysis of Darolutamide Combined with Androgen Deprivation Therapy for Patients with High-Risk Non-Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer in China

INTRODUCTION

The increasing incidence of prostate cancer (PC) in China leads to a significant disease burden. Although three novel androgen inhibitors (darolutamide, apalutamide, and enzalutamide) have been approved for patients with high-risk non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC), the economic evaluation of these novel treatments in China remains unknown. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the cost-utility of darolutamide combined with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), comparing with apalutamide + ADT and enzalutamide + ADT, in patients with high-risk nmCRPC from a healthcare system perspective in China.

METHODS

A partitioned survival model was developed to capture time spent by patients in three health states: nmCRPC, metastatic CRPC (mCRPC), and death. Clinical outcomes from the ARAMIS, PROSPER, and SPARTAN studies were obtained. In the absence of head-to-head studies, indirect treatment comparisons were conducted to capture the comparative effectiveness between darolutamide + ADT, apalutamide + ADT, and enzalutamide + ADT. The prices of apalutamide and enzalutamide were assumed to be the same as the initial launch price of darolutamide, since post-negotiation prices after national reimbursement drug list (NRDL) inclusion remain confidential. Other health resources costs, baseline characteristics, treatment patterns, and utility were collected through literature or clinical expert interviews. Selected sensitivity analyses were also performed.

RESULTS

For a 20-year time horizon, darolutamide + ADT was associated with lower cost per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) than apalutamide + ADT and enzalutamide + ADT (202,897 Chinese yuan (CNY)/QALY vs. 228,998 CNY/QALY and 221,409 CNY/QALY, respectively) (exchange rate, 1 USD = 6.7871 CNY). Darolutamide + ADT had better health outcomes and lower total costs compared to both apalutamide + ADT (+ 0.22 QALYs and - 72,818 CNY) and enzalutamide + ADT (+ 0.09 QALYs and - 67,451 CNY). Across the modelled sensitivity analyses (including hazard ratios and drug costs), darolutamide + ADT remained dominant or cost-effective.

CONCLUSIONS

This economic evaluation suggested that, in comparison with apalutamide + ADT and enzalutamide + ADT, darolutamide + ADT was a dominant or cost-effective treatment option for patients with high-risk nmCRPC in China.

Cost-Effectiveness of Pharmacologic Treatment Options for Women With Endocrine-Refractory or Triple-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer

PURPOSE

Treatments for endocrine-refractory or triple-negative metastatic breast cancer (mBC) are modestly effective at prolonging life and improving quality of life but can be extremely expensive. Given these tradeoffs in quality of life and cost, the optimal choice of treatment sequencing is unclear. Cost-effectiveness analysis can explicitly quantify such tradeoffs, enabling more informed decision making. Our objective was to estimate the societal cost-effectiveness of different therapeutic alternatives in the first- to third-line sequences of single-agent chemotherapy regimens among patients with endocrine-refractory or triple-negative mBC.

METHODS

Using three dynamic microsimulation models of 10,000 patients each, three cohorts were simulated, based upon prior chemotherapy exposure: (1) unexposed to either taxane or anthracycline, (2) taxane- and anthracycline-exposed, and (3) taxane-exposed/anthracycline-naive. We focused on the following single-agent chemotherapy regimens as reasonable and commonly used options in the first three lines of therapy for each cohort, based upon feedback from oncologists treating endocrine-refractory or triple-negative mBC: (1) for taxane- and anthracycline-unexposed patients, paclitaxel, capecitabine (CAPE), or pegylated liposomal doxorubicin; (2) for taxane- and anthracycline-exposed patients, Eribulin, CAPE, or carboplatin; and (3) for taxane-exposed/anthracycline-naive patients, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin, CAPE, or Eribulin.

RESULTS

In each cohort, accumulated quality-adjusted life-years were similar between regimens, but total societal costs varied considerably. Sequences beginning first-line treatment with paclitaxel, carboplatin, and CAPE, respectively, for cohorts 1, 2, and 3, had lower costs and similar or slightly better outcomes compared with alternative options.

CONCLUSION

In this setting where multiple single-agent chemotherapy options are recommended by clinical guidelines and share similar survival and adverse event trajectories, treatment sequencing approaches that minimize costs early may improve the value of care.

Cost-effectiveness of proton radiotherapy versus photon radiotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer patients: Exploring the model-based approach

INTRODUCTION

Proton radiotherapy (PT) is a promising but more expensive strategy than photon radiotherapy (XRT) for the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PT is probably not cost-effective for all patients. Therefore, patients can be selected using normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) models with predefined criteria. This study aimed to explore the cost-effectiveness of three treatment strategies for patients with stage III NSCLC: 1. photon radiotherapy for all patients (XRT_All); 2. PT for all patients (PT_All); 3. PT for selected patients (PT_{Individualized}).

METHODS

A decision-analytical model was constructed to estimate and compare costs and QALYs of all strategies. Three radiation-related toxicities were included: dyspnea, dysphagia and cardiotoxicity. Costs and QALY's were incorporated for grade 2 and ≥ 3 toxicities separately. Incremental Cost-Effectiven Ratios (ICERs) were calculated and compared to a threshold value of €80,000. Additionally, scenario, sensitivity and value of information analyses were performed.

RESULTS

PT_All yielded most QALYs, but was also most expensive. XRT_All was the least effective and least expensive strategy, and the most cost-effective strategy. For thresholds higher than €163,467 per QALY gained, PT_{Individualized} was cost-effective. When assuming equal minutes per fraction (15 minutes) for PT and XRT, PT_{Individualized} was considered the most cost-effective strategy (ICER: €76,299).

CONCLUSION

Currently, PT is not cost-effective for all patients, nor for patient selected on the current NTCP models used in the Dutch indication protocol. However, with improved clinical experience, personnel and treatment costs of PT can decrease over time, which potentially leads to PT_{Individualized}, with optimal patient selection, will becoming a cost-effective strategy.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Atezolizumab Versus Durvalumab as First-Line Treatment of Extensive-Stage Small-Cell Lung Cancer in the USA

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Durvalumab and atezolizumab are approved as first-line therapy in extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer. Although cost-effectiveness analyses compared these immunotherapy drugs with standard chemotherapy-alone regimens, no head-to-head cost-effectiveness comparisons for these treatments exist. The aim of the present analysis is to determine the cost-effectiveness of durvalumab and atezolizumab as first-line therapy for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer from the US payers' perspective.

METHODS

This study is based on two placebo-controlled, phase 3 clinical trials: CASPIAN and IMpower133. A Markov model was developed to simulate the three health states: progression-free survival, progressed disease, and death in patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer. Transition probabilities were estimated from the clinical trial survival curves and extended with life-time modelling. Health utilities and direct costs of adverse event treatment were included. Main outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) using quality-adjusted life-years saved (QALYS). Sensitivity analysis was performed to assess the impact of variables on the ICER.

RESULTS

Durvalumab group has a cost of $187,503 with an effectiveness of 1.08 while atezolizumab has a cost of $160,219 and an effectiveness of 0.932. Durvalumab is not cost-effective compared to atezolizumab with an ICER of $165,182 QALYS, which is over the willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000. The model was most sensitive to durvalumab cost and the cost of treating durvalumab adverse effects.

CONCLUSIONS

With the ICER of durvalumab treatment group being very close to $150,000, setting a higher willingness-to-pay threshold or decreasing the drug cost through contract pricing can increase the cost-effectiveness of durvalumab compared to atezolizumab.

Cost-Effectiveness of Artificial Intelligence Support in Computed Tomography-Based Lung Cancer Screening

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer screening is already implemented in the USA and strongly recommended by European Radiological and Thoracic societies as well. Upon implementation, the total number of thoracic computed tomographies (CT) is likely to rise significantly. As shown in previous studies, modern artificial intelligence-based algorithms are on-par or even exceed radiologist's performance in lung nodule detection and classification. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of an AI-based system in the context of baseline lung cancer screening.

METHODS

In this retrospective study, a decision model based on Markov simulation was developed to estimate the quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and lifetime costs of the diagnostic modalities. Literature research was performed to determine model input parameters. Model uncertainty and possible costs of the AI-system were assessed using deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis.

RESULTS

In the base case scenario CT + AI resulted in a negative incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) as compared to CT only, showing lower costs and higher effectiveness. Threshold analysis showed that the ICER remained negative up to a threshold of USD 68 for the AI support. The willingness-to-pay of USD 100,000 was crossed at a value of USD 1240. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed model robustness for varying input parameters.

CONCLUSION

Based on our results, the use of an AI-based system in the initial low-dose CT scan of lung cancer screening is a feasible diagnostic strategy from a cost-effectiveness perspective.

Dynamic contrast-enhanced CT compared with positron emission tomography CT to characterise solitary pulmonary nodules: the SPUtNIk diagnostic accuracy study and economic modelling

BACKGROUND

Current pathways recommend positron emission tomography-computerised tomography for the characterisation of solitary pulmonary nodules. Dynamic contrast-enhanced computerised tomography may be a more cost-effective approach.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the diagnostic performances of dynamic contrast-enhanced computerised tomography and positron emission tomography-computerised tomography in the NHS for solitary pulmonary nodules. Systematic reviews and a health economic evaluation contributed to the decision-analytic modelling to assess the likely costs and health outcomes resulting from incorporation of dynamic contrast-enhanced computerised tomography into management strategies.

DESIGN

Multicentre comparative accuracy trial.

SETTING

Secondary or tertiary outpatient settings at 16 hospitals in the UK.

PARTICIPANTS

Participants with solitary pulmonary nodules of ≥ 8 mm and of ≤ 30 mm in size with no malignancy in the previous 2 years were included.

INTERVENTIONS

Baseline positron emission tomography-computerised tomography and dynamic contrast-enhanced computer tomography with 2 years' follow-up.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcome measures were sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic accuracy for positron emission tomography-computerised tomography and dynamic contrast-enhanced computerised tomography. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios compared management strategies that used dynamic contrast-enhanced computerised tomography with management strategies that did not use dynamic contrast-enhanced computerised tomography.

RESULTS

A total of 380 patients were recruited (median age 69 years). Of 312 patients with matched dynamic contrast-enhanced computer tomography and positron emission tomography-computerised tomography examinations, 191 (61%) were cancer patients. The sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic accuracy for positron emission tomography-computerised tomography and dynamic contrast-enhanced computer tomography were 72.8% (95% confidence interval 66.1% to 78.6%), 81.8% (95% confidence interval 74.0% to 87.7%), 76.3% (95% confidence interval 71.3% to 80.7%) and 95.3% (95% confidence interval 91.3% to 97.5%), 29.8% (95% confidence interval 22.3% to 38.4%) and 69.9% (95% confidence interval 64.6% to 74.7%), respectively. Exploratory modelling showed that maximum standardised uptake values had the best diagnostic accuracy, with an area under the curve of 0.87, which increased to 0.90 if combined with dynamic contrast-enhanced computerised tomography peak enhancement. The economic analysis showed that, over 24 months, dynamic contrast-enhanced computerised tomography was less costly (£3305, 95% confidence interval £2952 to £3746) than positron emission tomography-computerised tomography (£4013, 95% confidence interval £3673 to £4498) or a strategy combining the two tests (£4058, 95% confidence interval £3702 to £4547). Positron emission tomography-computerised tomography led to more patients with malignant nodules being correctly managed, 0.44 on average (95% confidence interval 0.39 to 0.49), compared with 0.40 (95% confidence interval 0.35 to 0.45); using both tests further increased this (0.47, 95% confidence interval 0.42 to 0.51).

LIMITATIONS

The high prevalence of malignancy in nodules observed in this trial, compared with that observed in nodules identified within screening programmes, limits the generalisation of the current results to nodules identified by screening.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings from this research indicate that positron emission tomography-computerised tomography is more accurate than dynamic contrast-enhanced computerised tomography for the characterisation of solitary pulmonary nodules. A combination of maximum standardised uptake value and peak enhancement had the highest accuracy with a small increase in costs. Findings from this research also indicate that a combined positron emission tomography-dynamic contrast-enhanced computerised tomography approach with a slightly higher willingness to pay to avoid missing small cancers or to avoid a 'watch and wait' policy may be an approach to consider.

FUTURE WORK

Integration of the dynamic contrast-enhanced component into the positron emission tomography-computerised tomography examination and the feasibility of dynamic contrast-enhanced computerised tomography at lung screening for the characterisation of solitary pulmonary nodules should be explored, together with a lower radiation dose protocol.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018112215 and CRD42019124299, and the trial is registered as ISRCTN30784948 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02013063.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 17. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Cost-effectiveness of adding daratumumab or bortezomib to lenalidomide plus dexamethasone for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma

BACKGROUND: Multiple myeloma survival rates are steadily increasing due to availability of new drug classes used in combination with corticosteroids and chemotherapy. The latest treatments are daratumumab or bortezomib in combination therapy with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd). Daratumumab, a CD38-targeted, human IgG1k monoclonal antibody, and bortezomib, a proteasome inhibitor, are both approved as regimens for transplant-ineligible relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). There have been cost-effectiveness analyses for daratumumab and bortezomib use in RRMM, but there are limited data regarding cost-effectiveness for daratumumab or bortezomib use in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients who are ineligible for stem cell transplantation. OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost-effectiveness of 3 separate regimens-(1) daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone triple therapy (DRd); (2) bortezomib and lenalidomide plus dexamethasone triple therapy (VRd); and (3) lenalidomide plus dexamethasone (Rd)-in patients with multiple myeloma ineligible for autologous stem cell transplant. METHODS: A 2-state Markov model was developed using a US health system perspective and lifetime time horizon. Transition probabilities were calculated from the latest progression-free survival data reported in two phase 3 randomized controlled trials-MAIA and SWOG S0777-and extrapolated using a Weibull distribution based on the Hoyle Henley method. National data sources were used to obtain costs in 2019 US dollars, discounted by 3%. Health state utilities from available literature were applied to each health state. Utility decrements for adverse events were individualized in each choice branch with utility decrement weighted by the percentage of patients who experienced the adverse event in the MAIA and SWOG S0777 trials. We assumed a treatment would be cost-effective at a willingness to pay (WTP) of $150,000 per progression-free quality-adjusted life-year ($/PFQALY). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Rd standard therapy had the lowest overall cost at $329,867, followed by VRd at $385,434 and DRd with the highest overall total cost at $626,900. Rd was estimated to result in the least amount (1.24) of PFQALYs, followed by VRd at 1.35 PFQALYs and DRd at 1.52 PFQALYs. With a WTP threshold of $150,000 per PFQALY, VRd was not cost-effective compared with Rd standard therapy, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $530,256 per PFQALY. DRd was not cost-effective compared with VRd (ICER = $1,396,318 per PFQALY), nor as compared with Rd standard therapy (ICER = $1060,832). One-way sensitivity analysis showed that our model was sensitive to cost of DRd, VRd, and Rd drugs. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that only at a WTP threshold of $550,000 was VRd cost-effective for 40% of iterations. There were no reasonable WTP thresholds, up to $800,00, where DRd became more cost-effective than VRd. CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first analysis to directly compare the cost-effectiveness of 3 acceptable chemotherapy treatment regimens for patients with multiple myeloma ineligible for autologous stem cell transplant. Neither DRd nor VRd triple therapy were found to be cost-effective vs Rd. Further cost-effectiveness analyses that include overall survival data for daratumumab and bortezomib triple therapies are needed to demonstrate an ICER in QALYs. DISCLOSURES: No funding was received for this study. At the time of this study, Narsipur was a UCSF-Actelion Clinical Research and Medical Communications Fellow, unrelated to this study. The other authors have nothing to disclose.

Cost-Effectiveness of First-Line Cetuximab in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer in Saudi Arabia

OBJECTIVES

Our objective was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of first-line cetuximab in relation to primary tumor location and after resection from the perspective of the Saudi healthcare system over a lifetime horizon.

METHODS

Two standard partitioned survival models were developed in this study comprising 3 health states in each model. The first model was to simulate outcomes and costs of folinic acid, fluorouracil, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) plus cetuximab compared with FOLFIRI alone in 2 target groups-first, in RAS wild-type left-sided metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) and second, in patients administered with 4 cycles of FOLFIRI plus cetuximab, who underwent a resection of liver metastases. The second model compared FOLFIRI plus cetuximab with FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab in wild-type left-sided mCRC and after resection. All cost data and utilities were extracted from published data.

RESULTS

FOLFIRI plus cetuximab in RAS wild-type left-sided mCRC compared with FOLFIRI alone resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of Saudi Riyal (SAR) 180 880 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained ($102 019; cost-effective). After resection of liver metastases, it resulted in SAR140 442 ($79 211) per QALY gained (cost-effective). When comparing FOLFIRI plus cetuximab with FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab, it resulted in SAR35 818 ($20 201) per QALY gained (highly cost-effective). After resection, it resulted in SAR109 612 ($61 822) per QALY gained (highly cost-effective). Thus, FOLFIRI plus cetuximab improved QALYs compared with FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab at the minimized difference in costs in left-sided mCRC and patients with unresectable metastases.

CONCLUSION

FOLFIRI plus cetuximab is cost-effective compared with FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab or FOLFIRI alone in RAS wild-type left-sided mCRC and patients who undergo resection.

Cost-utility analysis of apixaban compared with usual care for primary thromboprophylaxis in ambulatory patients with cancer

Background:

Apixaban (2.5 mg) taken twice daily has been shown to substantially reduce the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) compared with placebo for the primary thromboprophylaxis of ambulatory patients with cancer who are starting chemotherapy and are at intermediate-to-high risk of VTE. We aimed to compare the health system costs and health benefits associated with primary thromboprophylaxis using apixaban with those associated with the current standard of care (where no primary thromboprophylaxis is given), from the perspective of Canada’s publicly funded health care system in this subpopulation of patients with cancer over a lifetime horizon.

Methods:

We performed a cost–utility analysis to estimate the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained with primary thromboprophylaxis using apixaban. We obtained baseline event rates and the efficacy of apixaban from the Apixaban for the Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism in High-Risk Ambulatory Cancer Patients (AVERT) trial on apixaban prophylaxis. We estimated relative risk for bleeding, risk of complications associated with VTE treatment, mortality rates, costs and utilities from other published sources.

Results:

Over a lifetime horizon, apixaban resulted in lower costs to the health system (Can$7902.98 v. Can$14 875.82) and an improvement in QALYs (9.089 v. 9.006). The key driver of cost–effectiveness results was the relative risk of VTE as a result of apixaban. Results from the probabilistic analysis showed that at a willingness to pay of Can$50 000 per QALY, the strategy with the highest probability of being most cost-effective was apixaban, with a probability of 99.87%.

Interpretation:

We found that apixaban is a cost-saving option for the primary thromboprophylaxis of ambulatory patients with cancer who are starting chemotherapy and are at intermediate-to-high risk of VTE.

Cost-effectiveness of gilteritinib for relapsed/refractory FLT3mut+ acute myeloid leukemia

BACKGROUND: Patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and confirmed feline McDonough sarcoma (FMS)-like tyrosine kinase 3 gene mutations (FLT3^mut+) have a poor prognosis and limited effective treatment options. Gilteritinib is the first targeted therapy approved in the United States and Europe for R/R FLT3^mut+ AML with significantly improved efficacy compared with existing treatments. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate gilteritinib against salvage chemotherapy (SC) and best supportive care (BSC) over a lifetime horizon among adult patients with R/R FLT3^mut+ AML from a US third-party payer's perspective. METHODS: The model structure of this cost-effectiveness analysis included a decision tree to stratify patients based on their hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) status, followed by 2 separate 3-state partitioned survival models to predict the long-term health status conditional on HSCT status. The ADMIRAL trial data and literature were used to predict probabilities of patients being in different health states until a conservative cure point at year 3. Afterwards, living patients followed the survival outcomes of long-term survivors with AML. Model inputs for utilities, medical resource use, and costs were based on the ADMIRAL trial, published literature, and public sources. All costs were inflated to 2019 US dollars (USD). Total incremental costs (in 2019 USD), life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated. Deterministic sensitivity analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Over a lifetime horizon with a 3.0% annual discount rate, the base-case model estimated that gilteritinib led to an increase of 1.29 discounted QALYs at an additional cost of $148,106 vs SC, corresponding to an ICER of $115,192 per QALY; for BSC, results were an increase of 2.32 discounted QALYs, $249,674, and $107,435, respectively. The base-case findings were robust in sensitivity analyses. The estimated probabilities of gilteritinib being cost-effective vs SC and BSC were 90.5% and 99.8%, respectively, in the probabilistic sensitivity analyses, based on a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Gilteritinib is a cost-effective novel treatment for patients with R/R FLT3^mut+ AML in the United States. DISCLOSURES: This work was supported by Astellas Pharma, Inc., which was involved in all stages of the research and manuscript development. Garnham, Pandya, and Shah are employees of Astellas and hold stock/stock options. Zeidan consulted and received personal fees/honoraria and research funding from Astellas. Zeidan also has received research funding from Celgene/BMS, Abbvie, Astex, Pfizer, Medimmune/AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Trovagene/Cardiff Oncology, Incyte, Takeda, Novartis, Amgen, Aprea, and ADC Therapeutics; has participated in advisory boards; has consulted with and/or received honoraria from AbbVie, Otsuka, Pfizer, Celgene/BMS, Jazz, Incyte, Agios, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Novartis, Acceleron, Daiichi Sankyo, Taiho, Seattle Genetics, BeyondSpring, Cardiff Oncology, Takeda, Ionis, Amgen, Janssen, Syndax, Gilead, Kura, Aprea, Lox Oncology, Genentech, Servier, Jasper, Tyme, and Epizyme; has served on clinical trial committees for Novartis, Abbvie, Geron, Gilead, Kura, Lox Oncology, BioCryst, and Celgene/BMS; and has received travel support for meetings from Pfizer, Novartis, and Cardiff Oncology. Qi and Yang are employees of Analysis Group, Inc., which received consulting fees from Astellas for work on this study. Part of this material was presented at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) Annual Meeting; December 7-10, 2019; Orlando, FL.

Is olaparib cost effective in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients with at least one favorable gene mutation in BRCA1, BRCA2 or ATM?

Aim: To compare the cost-effectiveness of olaparib versus control treatment in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients with at least one gene mutation in BRCA1, BRCA2 or ATM from the US payer perspective. Methods: A Markov model was constructed to assess the quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Sensitivity analyses and scenario analyses were conducted to explore the impact of uncertainties. Results: The base-case result indicated that, for patients with specific gene mutations, olaparib gained 1.26 QALYs and USD$157,732 total cost. Compared with control treatment, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of olaparib was USD$248,248/QALY. The price of olaparib was the most influential parameter. Conclusion: Olaparib is not cost effective in comparison with control treatment in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients with specific gene mutations.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of cemiplimab vs pembrolizumab for treatment of advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma

BACKGROUND: Most cutaneous squamous cell carcinomas (CSCCs) can be treated with surgical excision or radiation; however, approximately 1% of patients develop advanced disease. In 2018, the FDA approved cemiplimab-rwlc as the first programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) monoclonal antibody for the treatment of patients with metastatic CSCC or locally advanced CSCC who are not candidates for curative surgery or curative radiation. In June 2020, pembrolizumab, another PD-1 monoclonal antibody, was approved for the treatment of patients with recurrent or metastatic CSCC who are not candidates for curative surgery or radiation. We previously reported on the cost-effectiveness of cemiplimab vs historical standard of care for the treatment of advanced CSCC from a US perspective. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of cemiplimab vs pembrolizumab for patients with advanced CSCC in the United States. METHODS: A "partitioned survival" framework was used to assess the cost-effectiveness of cemiplimab vs pembrolizumab. Clinical inputs were based on the most recent data cut of the phase 2 trials for cemiplimab (EMPOWER-CSCC-1; NCT02760498) and pembrolizumab (KEYNOTE-629). Progression-free survival and overall survival were extrapolated using parametric models until all patients had progressed or died. Health state utilities were derived from data collected in the EMPOWER-CSCC-1 trial. Costs included drug acquisition, drug administration, disease management, terminal care, and adverse events and were based on published 2020 US list prices. To assess model uncertainty, 1-way sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were conducted, alongside scenario analyses evaluating key modeling assumptions. RESULTS: In the base case, cemiplimab resulted in an incremental gain of 3.44 life-years (discounted) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $130,329 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) vs pembrolizumab. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000/QALY, PSA indicated a 71% probability that cemiplimab is cost-effective when compared with pembrolizumab. Scenario analysis resulted in ICERs ranging from $115,909 to $187,374. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that cemiplimab is a cost-effective treatment for patients with advanced CSCC, compared with pembrolizumab. These results should be interpreted cautiously in the absence of head-to-head trials; however, in the absence of such data, these results can be used to inform health care decisions over resource allocation. DISCLOSURES: This study was supported by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Sanofi. Paul, Cope, Keeping, Mojebi, and Ayers are employees of PRECISIONheor, which received funding to produce this work. Chen, Kuznik, and Xu are employees and stockholders of Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Sasane is an employee and stockholder of Sanofi, Inc. Konidaris, Atsou, and Guyot are employees of Sanofi, Inc. The authors were responsible for all content and editorial decisions and received no honoraria related to the development of this publication.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Stereotactic Ablative Body Radiotherapy for the Treatment of Oligometastatic Tumors versus Standard of Care

BACKGROUND

Recent clinical trial results reported that stereotactic radiotherapy (SABR) may improve survival for patients with oligometastatic (OM) cancer. Given that these results come from a phase II trial, there remains considerable uncertainty about this finding, and about the cost-effectiveness of SABR for patients with OM cancer. In this analysis, we estimate the cost-effectiveness of SABR for oligometastatic cancer patients.

METHODS

A probabilistic time-dependent Markov model was constructed to simulate treatment of oligometastatic cancer patients over five- and ten-year time horizons. The primary data source was the phase II, Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy for the Comprehensive Treatment of Oligometastases (SABR-COMET )trial and supplemented with data from the literature. We estimated the effect of SABR and the standard of care (SoC) using quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Costs were measured from a provincial payer perspective (2018 Canadian dollars).

RESULTS

In the reference case analysis (five-year time horizon), SABR was associated with additional incremental costs of CAD 38,487 and an incremental QALY gain of 0.84. This resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of CAD 45,726 per QALY gained. Over a ten-year time horizon, the increased uncertainty in the long-term effectiveness of SABR resulted in an ICER of CAD 291,544 per QALY gained. Estimates from the probabilistic analysis indicated that at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of CAD 50,000 and CAD 100,000 per QALY gained, there is 54% and 78% probability (respectively) that SABR would be cost-effective using the five-year time horizon.

CONCLUSIONS

The adoption of SABR therapy requires a considerable upfront capital investment. Our results suggest that the cost-effectiveness of SABR is contingent on the uncertainty in the evidence base. Further clinical trials to confirm the effectiveness of SABR and research into the real-world costs associated with this treatment could reduce the uncertainty around implementation of the technology.

Cost-effectiveness of ribociclib plus endocrine therapy versus placebo plus endocrine therapy in HR-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer

BACKGROUND: The 2015 American Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines recommend first-line treatment of hormone receptor (HR)-positive breast cancer with endocrine therapy plus or minus palbociclib, a selective cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK)4/6 inhibitor. In 2018, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved ribociclib, a new orally available selective CDK4/6 inhibitor. While gains in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) from ribociclib are important for clinical and treatment outcomes, trade-offs in adverse events (AEs) and additional costs necessitate cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) to assist consideration by third-party payer systems, physicians, and patients. OBJECTIVES: To (a) develop a Markov model and (b) determine the cost-effectiveness of ribociclib plus endocrine therapy versus endocrine therapy alone as treatment for premenopausal and perimenopausal patients with HR-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative breast cancer. METHODS: A lifetime 3-state Markov model ("stable," "progressed," and "dead" health states) was developed using a U.S. payer perspective. Transition probabilities were calculated based on OS and PFS outcomes from the randomized controlled phase 3 trial MONALEESA-7. These Kaplan-Meier curves were extended to lifetime by estimating best-fit distributions using loglogistic distribution for ribociclib curves and Weibull distribution for placebo curves. Costs were obtained from national data sources using 2019 U.S. dollars (USD) and discounted by 3%. Utilities were obtained via published breast cancer literature and were included for each health state and for time spent with each AE. Results were expressed as an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) expressed as USD per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) saved. Treatments were assumed to be cost-effective based on a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000 per QALY gained. Base-case, 1-way sensitivity tornado diagrams and probabilistic sensitivity analyses demonstrated changes in the ICER and were driven by the cost of ribociclib and the utility of remaining in the stable health state. RESULTS: Ribociclib plus endocrine therapy was cost-effective at an ICER of $124,513 per QALY when compared with endocrine therapy alone at a WTP threshold of $150,000. The ribociclib plus endocrine therapy arm had an effectiveness of 5.28 QALYs and a total cost of $385,112, while placebo plus endocrine therapy provided only 2.46 QALYs at a lower total cost of $67.246. The model was sensitive to the cost of ribociclib and the utility of time spent in the stable health state. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that endocrine therapy alone was cost-effective until a WTP of $125,000 and was cost-effective 72% of the time at the WTP threshold. CONCLUSIONS: Ribociclib plus endocrine therapy is more cost-effective than endocrine therapy alone. Professionals in managed care settings should consider the pharmacoeconomic benefits of ribociclib for the treatment of HR-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer as they make value-based formulary decisions. Further CEAs should be considered as direct treatment comparison trials between CDK4/6 inhibitors are completed in the future. DISCLOSURES: No outside funding supported this study. The authors have nothing to disclose.

Lutetium oxodotreotide (177Lu-Dotatate) for the treatment of unresectable or metastatic progressive gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: a cost-effectiveness analysis for Scotland

Background

Gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NETs) represent a heterogenous group of tumors. Findings from the phase III NETTER-1 trial showed that treatment of unresectable/metastatic progressive gastrointestinal (GI) NETs with ¹⁷⁷Lu-Dotatate resulted in a significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) compared with best supportive care (BSC) with high dose octreotide long-acting repeatable (LAR) 60 mg. A health economic analysis was performed using input data from clinical studies and data derived from an indirect comparison to determine the cost-effectiveness of ¹⁷⁷Lu-Dotatate in the treatment of GI-NETs and pancreatic NETs (P-NETs) in Scotland.

Methods

Cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from the payer perspective using a three-state partitioned survival model. In the base case ¹⁷⁷Lu-Dotatate was compared with BSC in gastrointestinal (GI)-NETs using clinical data from the NETTER-1 trial. A secondary analysis comparing ¹⁷⁷Lu-Dotatate with BSC, everolimus or sunitinib in patients with P-NETs was also performed using hazard ratios inferred from indirect comparisons. The base case analysis was performed over a 20-year time horizon with an annual discount rate of 3.5% for both costs and clinical outcomes.

Results

For unresectable/metastatic progressive GI-NETs treatment with ¹⁷⁷Lu-Dotatate led to a gain in quality-adjusted life expectancy of 1.33 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) compared with BSC due to extended PFS and OS. Mean total lifetime costs were GBP 35,701 higher with ¹⁷⁷Lu-Dotatate, leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of GBP 26,830 per QALY gained.

In analyses in patients with P-NETs ¹⁷⁷Lu-Dotatate was associated with ICERs below GBP 30,000 per QALY gained in comparisons with BSC, sunitinib and everolimus.

Conclusions

Cost-effectiveness analyses demonstrated that, in Scotland, from the payer perspective, ¹⁷⁷Lu-Dotatate at the set acquisition cost is a cost-effective treatment option for patients with unresectable or metastatic progressive GI-NETs or P-NETs.

An economic evaluation of vagus nerve stimulation as an adjunctive treatment to anti-seizure medications for the treatment of drug-resistant epilepsy in England

INTRODUCTION

Anti-seizure medications (ASMs) are commonly used to prevent recurring epileptic seizures, but around a third of people with epilepsy fail to achieve an adequate response. Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) is clinically recommended for people with drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE) who are not suitable for surgery, but the cost-effectiveness of the intervention has not recently been evaluated. The study objective is to estimate costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) associated with using VNS as an adjunct to ongoing ASM therapy, compared to the strategy of using only ASMs in the treatment of people with DRE, from an English National Health Service perspective.

METHODS

A cohort state transition model was developed in Microsoft Excel to simulate costs and QALYs of the VNS + ASM and ASM only strategies. Patients could transition between five health states, using a 3-month cycle length. Health states were defined by an expected percentage reduction in seizure frequency, derived from randomized control trial data. Costs included the VNS device as well as its installation, setup, and removal; ASM therapy; adverse events associated with VNS (dyspnea, hoarseness, and cough); and health-state costs associated with epilepsy including hospitalizations, emergency department visits, neurologist visits, and primary care visits. A range of sensitivity analyses, including probabilistic sensitivity analysis, were run to assess the impact of parameter and structural uncertainty.

RESULTS

In the base case, VNS + ASM had an estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £17,771 per QALY gained compared to ASMs alone. The cost-effective ICER was driven by relative reductions in expected seizure frequency and the differences in health care resource use associated therewith. Sensitivity analyses found that the amount of resource use per epilepsy-related health state was a key driver of the cost component.

CONCLUSIONS

VNS is expected to be a cost-effective intervention in the treatment of DRE in the English National Health Service.

Is SABR Cost-Effective in Oligometastatic Cancer? An Economic Analysis of the SABR-COMET Randomized Trial

PURPOSE

The phase 2 randomized study SABR-COMET demonstrated that in patients with controlled primary tumors and 1 to 5 oligometastatic lesions, SABR was associated with improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared with standard of care (SoC), but with higher costs and treatment-related toxicities. The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of SABR versus SoC in this setting.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A Markov model was constructed to perform a cost-utility analysis from the Canadian health care system perspective. Utility values and transition probabilities were derived from individual-level data from the SABR-COMET trial. One-way, 2-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. Costs were expressed in 2018 CAD. A separate analysis based on US payer's perspective was performed. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) was used.

RESULTS

In the base case scenario, SABR was cost-effective at an ICER of $37,157 per QALY gained. This finding was most sensitive to the number of metastatic lesions treated with SABR (ICER: $28,066 per QALY for 2, increasing to $64,429 per QALY for 5), difference in chemotherapy use (ICER: $27,173-$53,738 per QALY), and PFS hazard ratio (HR) between strategies (ICER: $31,548-$53,273 per QALY). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed that SABR was cost-effective in 97% of all iterations. Two-way sensitivity analysis demonstrated a nonlinear relationship between the number of lesions and the PFS HR. To maintain cost-effectiveness for each additional metastasis, the HR must decrease by approximately 0.047. The US cost analysis yielded similar results, with an ICER of $54,564 (2018 USD per QALY) for SABR.

CONCLUSIONS

SABR is cost-effective for patients with 1 to 5 oligometastatic lesions compared with SoC.

Cost-effectiveness of Lutetium [177Lu] oxodotreotide versus best supportive care with octreotide in patients with midgut neuroendocrine tumors in France

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

In France, there are approximately 2,400 new cases of neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) annually. Peptide receptor radionuclide therapy with ¹⁷⁷Lu-Dotatate plus long-acting repeatable [LAR] octreotide 30 mg has been shown to significantly improve progression-free survival and overall survival relative to high-dose octreotide LAR 60 mg in patients with unresectable or metastatic progressive midgut NETs. A long-term cost-effectiveness analysis was performed to assess whether ¹⁷⁷Lu-Dotatate is a cost-effective option versus octreotide 60 mg for patients with unresectable/metastatic progressive midgut NETs from the perspective of French healthcare payer.

METHODS

The analysis was performed using a three-state partitioned survival model. In the base case analysis ¹⁷⁷Lu-Dotatate plus octreotide LAR 30 mg was compared with high-dose octreotide LAR 60 mg in patients with midgut NETs. Survival data were obtained from the phase III NETTER-1 trial in patients with metastatic midgut NETs. Future costs and clinical outcomes were discounted at 4% per annum. One-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

In the base case analysis, for patients with midgut NETs, ¹⁷⁷Lu-Dotatate treatment improved quality-adjusted life expectancy by 1.21 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) relative to octreotide LAR 60 mg and the lifetime treatment costs were EUR 50,784 higher with ¹⁷⁷Lu-Dotatate resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of EUR 42,106 per QALY gained versus octreotide LAR 60 mg. When compared with everolimus, ¹⁷⁷Lu-Dotatate was associated with an ICER of EUR 59,769 per QALY gained. Sensitivity analyses showed that the results were sensitive to methods used to extrapolate survival data.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with advanced progressive midgut NETs ¹⁷⁷Lu-Dotatate is likely to be considered a cost-effective option versus octreotide 60 mg from the perspective of the French healthcare payer.

Cost-effectiveness of lutetium (177Lu) oxodotreotide vs everolimus in gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors in Norway and Sweden

BACKGROUND

Gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NETs) represent a relatively rare and heterogenous group of tumors. Currently available treatment options for patients with progressive GEP-NETs include lutetium (¹⁷⁷Lu) oxodotreotide (¹⁷⁷Lu-Dotatate) and everolimus [as well as sunitinib for patients with pancreatic NETs (P-NETs)].

AIM

To perform a health economic analysis to determine the cost-effectiveness of ¹⁷⁷Lu-Dotatate compared with everolimus in patients with unresectable or metastatic midgut-NETs or P-NETs in both Sweden and Norway.

METHODS

Simulations were performed using a three-state partitioned survival model and analyses were performed separately for patients with midgut-NETs and P-NETs. Clinical input data were sourced from an indirect comparison that utilized survival data from clinical trials of ¹⁷⁷Lu-Dotatate and everolimus. The analyses were performed from the healthcare payer perspective over a time horizon of 20 years. For Sweden, future costs and clinical outcomes were discounted at 3% per annum. For Norway, a discount rate of 4% per annum was applied.

RESULTS

For Sweden, improved survival outcomes and higher lifetime costs with ¹⁷⁷Lu-Dotatate resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of SEK 391194 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained for midgut NETs and SEK 16764 per QALY gained for P-NETs for ¹⁷⁷Lu-Dotatate compared with everolimus. For Norway, the corresponding ICERs were NOK 244444 per QALY gained and NOK 106451 per QALY gained, respectively. One-way sensitivity analyses revealed that the results were most sensitive to changes in drug acquisition costs and health state utility values.

CONCLUSION

In both Sweden and Norway, from a healthcare provider perspective, ¹⁷⁷Lu-Dotatate is likely to be considered cost-effective relative to everolimus for the treatment of patients with unresectable or metastatic, progressive midgut-NETs or P-NETs. 

Distinct models to assess the cost-effectiveness of EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitors for the treatment of metastatic non-small cell lung cancer in the context of the Brazilian Unified Health Care System

Objective:

Lung cancer is an important health problem due to its high incidence and mortality. The treatment of metastatic disease improved after the molecular pathways of cancer came to be known. However, targeted therapy is unavailable to many patients treated within the Brazilian Sistema Único de Saúde (SUS, Unified Health Care System). Our objective was to assess the cost-effectiveness of erlotinib, gefitinib, and afatinib versus that of chemotherapy for the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer in the context of the SUS.

Methods:

Different analytical models were developed based on data in the literature. The outcomes were presented in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) per QALY gained. All costs related to treatment and supportive therapies were included in the models.

Results:

In one model, data from retrospective studies showed 2.01 life-years saved and a mean QALY gain of 1.169. The ICER per QALY gained ranged from R$48,451.29 (for gefitinib) to R$85,559.22 (for erlotinib). In another model, data from a meta-analysis showed −0.01 life-years saved and a mean QALY gain of 0.178. The ICER per QALY gained ranged from R$27,028.30 (for gefitinib) to R$75,203.26 (for erlotinib).

Conclusions:

There is no ideal analytical model for the SUS. However, targeted therapy with EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitors has been shown to be cost-effective in various scenarios. The adoption of drug price discounts will improve the cost-effectiveness of treatment.

A cost-effectiveness analysis of trastuzumab-containing treatment sequences for HER-2 positive metastatic breast cancer patients in Taiwan

OBJECTIVE

Treatment options for HER-2-positive metastatic breast cancer (mBC) patients have expanded markedly since trastuzumab approval in 1998. Several other regimens are now available, including pertuzumab plus trastuzumab plus docetaxel, T-DM1, capecitabine plus lapatinib, and trastuzumab plus lapatinib. This study assesses the cost-effectiveness of four treatment sequences for HER-2-positive mBC according to the Taiwanese National Health Insurance Administration (TNHIA).

METHODS

Costs (U.S. Dollars) and effectiveness (quality-adjusted life years) of four treatment sequences for HER-2-positive mBC patients were examined using a Markov model over a lifetime horizon. Transition probabilities, disease progression, and probability of adverse events and survival were derived from clinical trial data. Costs and health utilities were estimated from TNHIA, Taipei Medical University Hospital, and the literature. Deterministic, probabilistic sensitivity analyses and a scenario analysis examined parameter uncertainty and accounted for drug wastage in dosage and cost calculations.

RESULTS

Sequence 3 (1st line: trastuzumab plus docetaxel; 2nd line: T-DM1; 3rd line: trastuzumab plus lapatinib) was the most cost-effective sequence followed by sequence 1 (1st line: pertuzumab plus trastuzumab plus docetaxel; 2nd line: T-DM1; 3rd line: capecitabine plus lapatinib), and sequence 4 (1st line: trastuzumab plus docetaxel; 2nd line: trastuzumab plus lapatinib; 3rd line: trastuzumab plus capecitabine), respectively. The model was sensitive to costs and transition probabilities, but not particularly sensitive to the wastage assumption.

CONCLUSIONS

From the perspective of the TNHIA, trastuzumab plus docetaxel as 1st line followed by T-DM1 and trastuzumab plus lapatinib as 2nd and 3rd line represents the most cost-effective strategy among the four sequences considered for treating HER-2-positive mBC patients.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Fulvestrant 500 mg in Endocrine Therapy-Naïve Postmenopausal Women with Hormone Receptor-Positive Advanced Breast Cancer in the UK

INTRODUCTION

The selective estrogen receptor degrader fulvestrant is approved for the first-line treatment of postmenopausal patients with hormone receptor-positive (HR+), locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer who have not received prior endocrine therapy. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of fulvestrant versus comparator treatments in endocrine therapy-naïve patients with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer.

METHODS

A three-health-state (progression free, progressed disease, and death) partitioned survival model from the UK National Health Service and Personal Social Services perspective was developed to extrapolate study data for the cumulative probability of progression-free survival and overall survival to a lifetime (30-year) horizon. Relative comparator data were derived from a systematic literature review-informed network meta-analysis. Sensitivity analyses were applied to assess the impact of uncertainty in the parameter input values on the results.

RESULTS

Over a lifetime horizon (30 years), the incremental cost (British pounds sterling) per patient associated with fulvestrant treatment was £18,867 versus anastrozole, £23,097 versus letrozole, and £17,131 versus tamoxifen, with incremental quality-adjusted life-years of 0.55, 0.77, and 0.76, respectively, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of £34,109, £29,827, and £22,532, respectively. The largest difference in costs between fulvestrant and the comparators was related to treatment costs.

CONCLUSIONS

Results suggest that fulvestrant could potentially be a cost-effective option compared with other endocrine monotherapies (anastrozole, letrozole, and tamoxifen) for treating endocrine therapy-naïve, postmenopausal women with HR+, locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer.

Real-world health utility scores and toxicities to tyrosine kinase inhibitors in epidermal growth factor receptor mutated advanced non-small cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND

As the treatment landscape in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harboring mutations in the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFRm) continues to evolve, real-world health utility scores (HUS) become increasingly important for economic analyses.

METHODS

In an observational cohort study, questionnaires were completed in EGFRm NSCLC outpatients, to include demographics, EQ-5D-based HUS and patient-reported toxicity and symptoms. Clinical and radiologic characteristics together with outcomes were extracted from chart review. The impact of health states, treatment type, toxicities, and clinical variables on HUS were evaluated.

RESULTS

Between 2014 and 2018, a total of 260 patients completed 994 encounters. Across treatment groups, patients with disease progression had lower HUS compared to controlled disease (0.771 vs 0.803; P = .01). Patients predominantly received gefitinib as the first-line EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) (n = 157, mean-HUS = 0.798), whereas osimertinib (n = 62, mean-HUS = 0.806) and chemotherapy (n = 38, mean-HUS = 0.721) were more likely used in subsequent treatment lines. In longitudinal analysis, TKIs retained high HUS (>0.78) compared to chemotherapy (HUS < 0.74). There were no differences between the frequency or severity of toxicity scores in patients receiving gefitinib compared to osimertinib; however, TKI therapy resulted in fewer toxicities than chemotherapy (P < .05), with the exception of worse diarrhea and skin rash (P < .001). Severity in toxicities inversely correlated with HUS (P < .001). Clinico-demographic factors significantly affecting HUS included age, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Score (ECOG PS), disease state, treatment group, and metastatic burden.

CONCLUSIONS

In a real-world EGFRm population, patients treated with gefitinib or osimertinib had similar HUS and toxicities, scores which were superior to chemotherapy. Health utility scores inversely correlated with patient-reported toxicity scores. In the era of targeted therapies, future economic analyses should incorporate real-world HUS.

Dynamic Changes of Health Utility in Lung Cancer Patients Receiving Different Treatments: A 7-Year Follow-up

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to estimate the utility values of all subtypes of lung cancer. The trajectories after different kinds of treatments and their major determinants were explored on the basis of real-world data and repeated measurements.

METHODS

From 2011 to 2017, all patients with lung cancer who visited a medical center were invited to fill out the EuroQol Five-Dimension and WHO Quality of Life-Brief questionnaires at each visit. Utility values of quality of life (QoL) after diagnosis and treatments were depicted using a kernel smoothing method. We constructed linear mixed models to predict health utility in each time period and cross-validated them with domain scores of the WHO Quality of Life-Brief.

RESULTS

A total of 1715 patients were enrolled, with 6762 QoL measurements. Utility values were lower in patients with advanced-stage disease and older patients. Patients receiving second-line targeted therapy showed higher utility values at 0 to 3 months, 3 to 6 months, and 6 months and beyond (0.89, 0.90, and 0.88, respectively) than did those undergoing chemotherapy (0.81, 0.85, and 0.80, respectively). After using mixed models to control confounders, including poor performance status and disease progression, patients receiving second-line chemotherapy showed health utility similar to that at quasi-baseline, whereas utility values related to second-line targeted therapy were higher at 3 to 6 months and 6 months and beyond (β = 0.07, p = 0.010 and β = 0.07, p < 0.001, respectively). There was convergent validity between the utility values and scores of the physical and psychological domains.

CONCLUSION

Targeted therapy provided treated patients with a higher health utility value than was provided to those treated with chemotherapy. Development of the longitudinal trajectory may help predict changes in QoL and improve the care of lung cancer survivors.

The Impact of Brain Metastases and Associated Neurocognitive Aspects on Health Utility Scores in EGFR Mutated and ALK Rearranged NSCLC: A Real World Evidence Analysis

BACKGROUND

In lung cancer, brain metastases (BM) and their treatment are associated with high economic burden and inferior health-related quality of life. In the era of targeted therapy, real world evidence through health utility scores (HUS) is critical for economic analyses.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In a prospective observational cohort study (2014-2016), outpatients with stage IV lung cancer completed demographic and EQ-5D-3L surveys (to derive HUS). Health states and clinicopathologic variables were obtained from chart abstraction. Patients were categorized by the presence or absence of BM; regression analyses identified factors that were associated with HUS. A subset of patients prospectively completed neurocognitive function (NCF) tests and/or the FACT-brain (FACT-Br) questionnaire, which were then correlated with HUS (Spearman coefficients; regression analyses).

RESULTS

Of 519 patients with 1,686 EQ-5D-3L-derived HUS, 94 (18%) completed NCF tests and 107 (21%) completed FACT-Br; 301 (58%) never developed BM, 24 (5%) developed first BM during study period, and 194 (37%) had BM at study entry. The sample was enriched (46%) for EGFR mutations (EGFRm) and ALK-rearrangements (ALKr). There were no HUS differences by BM status overall and in subsets by demographics. In multivariable analyses, superior HUS was associated with having EGFRm/ALKr (p < .0001), no prior radiation for extracranial disease (p < .001), and both intracranial (p = .002) and extracranial disease control (p < .01). HUS correlated with multiple elements of the FACT-Br and tests of NCF.

CONCLUSION

Having BM in lung cancer is not associated with inferior HUS in a population enriched for EGFRm and ALKr. Patients exhibiting disease control and those with oncogene-addicted tumors have superior HUS.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

In the setting of EGFR mutations or ALK rearrangement non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), a diagnosis of brain metastases no longer consigns the patient to an inferior health state suggesting that new economic analyses in NSCLC are needed in the era of targeted therapies. Additionally, the EQ-5D questionnaire is associated with measures of health-related quality of life and neurocognitive scores suggesting this tool should be further explored in prospective clinical studies.

Cost-effectiveness of standard utilization of zoledronic acid for bone metastases from advanced lung cancer in China

Aim: To assess the cost-effectiveness of standard utilization of zoledronic acid (ZA) relative to real-world utilization of ZA for bone metastasis (BM) in Chinese patients with advanced lung cancer. Materials & methods: A decision analytic model was constructed to simulate health benefits and medical costs associated with standard and real-world utilization of ZA for BM in Chinese patients with advanced lung cancer. Results: Compared with real-world utilization of ZA, standard utilization of ZA reduced cumulative risk of skeletal-related events (45.7 vs 63.6%), increased quality-adjusted life years (0.673 vs 0.626 QALY) and saved cumulated medical costs (¥343,163 vs ¥376,943). Conclusion: Standard utilization of ZA dominated real-world utilization of ZA for BM in Chinese patients with advanced lung cancer from cost-effectiveness perspective.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of abiraterone, docetaxel or placebo plus androgen deprivation therapy for hormone-sensitive advanced prostate cancer

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the addition of chemotherapy or abiraterone to androgen deprivation.

METHODS

We developed an analytical model to determine the cost-effectiveness of the addition of docetaxel or abiraterone versus androgen deprivation therapy alone. Direct and indirect costs were included in the model. The effects were expressed in Quality-Adjusted Life Years adjusted for side effects.

RESULTS

Compared to androgen deprivation therapy alone, the addition of chemotherapy and of abiraterone generated 0.492 and 0.999, respectively, in Quality-Adjusted Life Years. Abiraterone led to a Quality-Adjusted Life Years gain of 0.506 compared to docetaxel. The incremental costs per Quality-Adjusted Life Years were R$ 133.649,22 for docetaxel, R$ 330.828,70 for abiraterone and R$ 571.379,42 for abiraterone compared to docetaxel, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The addition of chemotherapy to androgen deprivation therapy is more cost-effective than the addition of abiraterone to androgen deprivation therapy. However, discounts on abiraterone cost might improve cost-effectiveness.

A Systematic Review of Utility Score Assessments in the Breast Surgery Cost-Analysis Literature

BACKGROUND

Surgery for breast cancer can have significant impact on patient quality-of-life. Cost-utility analysis provides a way to analyze the economic impact of a surgical procedure with the change in a patient's quality of life. Utility scores are used in these analyses to quantify the impact on quality of life. We undertook a systematic review of the literature on breast cancer surgical procedures to compile a repository of utility scores and to assess gaps in the current literature.

METHODS

Following PRISMA guidelines, a systematic review was performed for studies reporting utility scores for breast surgery and breast reconstruction. The health states and utility scores were extracted and grouped into seven procedural categories based on oncologic and reconstructive methods. Mean utility score and ranges were calculated and reported for each procedural category.

RESULTS

Nineteen articles met the inclusion criteria assessing 118 health states. Most utility scores were obtained from healthcare professionals. Breast-conserving therapy yielded the highest mean utility score at 0.79, whereas mastectomy yielded a mean utility score of 0.75. Among reconstruction health states, implant reconstruction had a lower score than autologous reconstruction (0.64 implant vs. latissimus dorsi 0.69 and TRAM/DIEP 0.71). No utility scores were found associated with oncoplasty or nipple-sparing mastectomy procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

A reliable body of utility scores is important in enabling future cost-utility and value-based analysis comparisons for breast surgical oncology. Additional work is needed to obtain health state assessments from the patient perspective, as well as assessment of more modern surgical and reconstructive approaches.

Disease severity-based evaluation of utility weights for lung cancer-related health states in Korea

BACKGROUND

Utility weight, a measure of health-related quality of life, is used in disease burden measurements and economic evaluations. In this study, we used the visual analogue scale (VAS) and standard gamble (SG) method to determine the utility weights of lung cancer health states in South Korea from a societal perspective.

METHODS

Six hypothetical health states for lung cancer or a related health state reflective of disease severity were developed: 1) Stage I, 2) Stage II, 3) Stage IIIa, 4) Stage IIIB, 5) Stage IV, and 6) Pulmonary nodule. The description of each health state description was divided into four parts: diagnosis, symptoms, treatment, and progression and prognosis. A total of 515 representative adult Korean participants used a VAS and SG to evaluate these six health states via face-to-face computer-assisted interviews. The means, standard deviations, and median utility weights of the six health states were estimated by valuation method.

RESULTS

The two valuation methods of the scenarios yielded the same mean utility rankings. Pulmonary nodule received the highest rank (VAS, 0.66 and SG, 0.83), whereas Stage 4 was assigned the lowest rank (VAS, 0.09 and SG, 0.31). For all health states, the mean utility weights calculated using the SG were greater than those calculated using the VAS. The differences between the utility weights obtained using the two valuation methods ranged from 0.14 (Stage I) to 0.22 (Stage IV). The two approaches tended to yield larger differences for more severe stages.

CONCLUSIONS

This study determined utilities for squamous cell lung cancer that will be useful for estimating the burden of lung cancer and for conducting economic evaluations of lung cancer interventions.

Greater Spending Associated with Improved Survival for Some Cancers in OCM-Defined Episodes

BACKGROUND

Previous research finds significant variation in spending and utilization across regions, with little evidence of differences in outcomes. While such findings have been interpreted as evidence that spending can be reduced without compromising patient outcomes, the link between spending variation and outcomes remains a critical question.

OBJECTIVE

To use evidence from geographic variations in spending and an individual-level survival analysis to test whether spending within oncology care episodes is associated with survival, where episodes are defined as in the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation's Oncology Care Model (OCM).

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort analysis, patient data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results Medicare (SEER-Medicare) database for 2007-2013 were linked to hospital referral regions (HRRs) using ZIP codes. Patients in the SEER program are a part of selected population-based cancer registries throughout the United States whose records are linked to Medicare enrollment and claims data (93% of elderly registry patients were successfully linked to Medicare data). Episodes of cancer care were defined as in the OCM: 6 months following a triggering chemotherapy claim. We analyzed episodes of care for 5 tumor types: advanced breast cancer (BC), non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), renal cell carcinoma (RCC), multiple myeloma (MM), and chronic myeloid leukemia (CML). We removed the effects of differentials in Medicare payment rates, which were mostly geographic. Regression analysis was then used to calculate standardized spending levels for each HRR, that is, spending adjusted for differences in patient and episode characteristics. To examine the effect of spending during OCM-defined episodes on individual-level survival, we used Cox regression with patient characteristics and standardized HRR spending per episode as covariates. To address concerns that may arise from multiple comparisons across the 5 tumor types, we used the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure to control the false discovery rate.

RESULTS

Our analysis showed significant differences in standardized spending across HRRs. Compared with spending at the 20th percentile episode, spending at the 80th percentile ranged from 25% higher ($57,392 vs. $45,995 for MM) to 47% higher ($36,920 vs. $24,127 for RCC), indicating practice style variation across regions. The hazard of dying for patients with NSCLC and MM statistically significantly decreased by 7% (HR = 0.93, P = 0.006) and 13% (HR = 0.87, P = 0.019), respectively, for a $10,000 increase in standardized spending (in 2013 U.S. dollars). For the 3 other cancers, spending effects were not statistically significant. After using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure with a 5% false discovery rate, the effects of increased spending on improved survival for NSCLC and MM remained statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

The association we found between spending and survival suggests caution may be warranted for physicians, pharmacists, other health care professionals, and policymakers involved in efforts to reduce across-the-board spending within OCM-defined episodes for at least 2 of the 5 cancers studied.

DISCLOSURES

Funding for this research was provided by Novartis Pharmaceuticals to Precision Health Economics in support of research design, analysis, and technical writing services. The funder provided input on study design and comments on the draft report. Baumgardner, Shahabi, and Linthicum are employees of Precision Health Economics (PHE), a health care consultancy to the insurance and life science industries, including firms that market oncology therapies. Vine was an employee of PHE at the time of this research. Zacker is an employee of and shareholder in Novartis Pharmaceuticals. Lakdawalla is a consultant to PHE and holds equity in its parent company, Precision Medicine Group.

Health-related quality of life impact of minor and major bleeding events during dual antiplatelet therapy: a systematic literature review and patient preference elicitation study

Background

Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) is the recommended preventative treatment for secondary ischaemic events, but increases the risk of bleeding, potentially affecting patients’ health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL). Varied utility decrements have been used in cost-effectiveness models assessing alternative DAPT regimens, but it is unclear which of these decrements are most appropriate. Therefore, we reviewed existing sources of utility decrements for bleeds in patients receiving DAPT and undertook primary research to estimate utility decrements through a patient elicitation exercise using vignettes and the EuroQol EQ-5D.

Methods

MEDLINE, PubMed and references of included studies were searched. Primary research and decision analytic modelling studies reporting utility decrements for bleeds related to DAPT were considered. For the primary research study, 21 participants completed an elicitation exercise involving vignettes describing minor and major bleeds and the EQ-5D-3 L and EQ-5D-5 L. Utility decrements were derived using linear regression and compared to existing estimates.

Results

Four hundred forty-two citations were screened, of which 12 studies were included for review. Reported utility decrements ranged from − 0.002 to − 0.03 for minor bleeds and − 0.007 to − 0.05 for major bleeds. Data sources used to estimate the decrements, however, lacked relevance to our population group and few studies adequately reported details of their measurement and valuation approaches. No study completely adhered to reimbursement agency requirements in the UK according to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence reference case. Our primary research elicited utility decrements overlapped existing estimates, ranging from − 0.000848 to − 0.00828 for minor bleeds and − 0.0187 to − 0.0621 for major bleeds. However, the magnitude of difference depended on the instrument, estimation method and valuation approach applied.

Conclusions

Several sources of utility decrements for bleeds are available for use in cost-effectiveness analyses, but are of limited quality and relevance. Our elicitation exercise has derived utility decrements from a relevant patient population, based on standardised definitions of minor and major bleeding events, using a validated HRQoL instrument and have been valued using general population tariffs. We suggest that our utility decrements be used in future cost-effectiveness analyses of DAPT.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12955-018-1019-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Systematic review of health state utility values in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer with a focus on previously treated patients

BACKGROUND

Health state utility values (HSUVs) are an important input to economic evaluations and the choice of HSUV can affect the estimate of relative cost-effectiveness between interventions. This systematic review identified utility scores for patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC), as well as disutilities or utility decrements relevant to the experience of patients with mNSCLC, by treatment line and health state.

METHODS

The MEDLINE®, Embase and Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched (September 2016) for publications describing HSUVs in mNSCLC in any treatment line. The EQ-5D website, the School of Health and Related Research Health Utilities Database (ScHARRHUD) and major pharmacoeconomic and clinical conferences in 2015-2016 were also queried. Studies in adults with previously treated mNSCLC were selected for further analysis. The information extracted included study design, description of treatment and health state, respondent details, instrument and tariff, HSUV or (dis) utility decrement estimates, quality of study, and appropriateness for use in economic evaluations.

RESULTS

Of 1883 references identified, 36 publications of 34 studies were included: 19 reported EQ-5D scores; eight reported HSUVs from valuations of vignettes made by members of the public using standard gamble (SG) or time trade-off (TTO); two reported SG or TTO directly elicited from patients; two reported EQ-5D visual analogue scale scores only; one reported Assessment of Quality of Life instrument scores; one reported HSUVs for caregivers to patients with mNSCLC using the 12-item Short-Form Health Survey; and one estimated HSUVs based on expert opinion. The range of HSUVs identified for comparable health states showed how differences in study type, tariff, health state and the measures used can drive variation in HSUV estimates.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review provides a set of published HSUVs that are relevant to the experience of adult patients previously treated for mNSCLC. Our review begins to address the challenge of identifying reliable estimates of utility values in mNSCLC that are suitable for use in economic evaluations, and also highlights how varying estimates result from differences in methodology.

Cost-Effectiveness of Second-Line Endocrine Therapies in Postmenopausal Women with Hormone Receptor-positive and Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-negative Metastatic Breast Cancer in Japan

BACKGROUND

Exemestane (EXE), exemestane + everolimus (EXE + EVE), toremifene (TOR), and fulvestrant (FUL) are second-line endocrine therapies for postmenopausal hormone receptor-positive (HR +)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2 -) metastatic breast cancer (mBC) in Japan. Although the efficacy of these therapies has been shown in recent studies, cost-effectiveness has not yet been determined in Japan.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to examine the cost-effectiveness of second-line endocrine therapies for the treatment of postmenopausal women with HR + and HER2 - mBC.

METHODS

A Markov model was developed to analyze the cost-effectiveness of the therapies over a 15-year time horizon from a public healthcare payer's perspective. The efficacy and utility parameters were determined via a systematic search of the literature. Direct medical care costs were used. A discount rate of 2% was applied for costs and outcomes. Subgroup analysis was performed for non-visceral metastasis. A series of sensitivity analyses, including probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) and threshold analysis were performed.

RESULTS

Base-case analyses estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of 3 million and 6 million Japanese yen (JPY)/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained for TOR and FUL 500 mg relative to EXE, respectively. FUL 250 mg and EXE + EVE were dominated. The overall survival (OS) highly influenced the ICER. With a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of 5 million JPY/QALY, the probability of TOR being cost-effective was the highest. Subgroup analysis in non-visceral metastasis revealed 0.4 and 10% reduction in ICER from the base-case results of FUL5 500 mg versus EXE and TOR versus EXE, respectively, while threshold analysis indicated EVE and FUL prices should be reduced 73 and 30%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

As a second-line therapy for postmenopausal women with HR +/HER2 - mBC, TOR may be cost-effective relative to other alternatives and seems to be the most favorable choice, based on a WTP threshold of 5 million JPY/QALY. FUL 250 mg is expected to be as costly and effective as EXE. The cost-effectiveness of EXE + EVE and FUL 500 mg could be improved by a large price reduction. However, the results are highly sensitive to the hazard ratio of OS. Policy makers should carefully interpret and utilize these findings.

A cost-effectiveness analysis of consolidative local therapy in oligometastatic non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)

BACKGROUND

Novel systemic therapies have improved the prognosis of metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but costs of some of these drugs are a matter of ongoing debate. More recently, local therapies (LT) such as radiotherapy and surgery have been suggested as additional treatment in oligometastatic NSCLC demonstrating an improved progression-free survival (PFS) in a phase II trial compared to maintenance chemotherapy (MC) alone. The aim of this analysis was to assess the cost-effectiveness of local therapies in oligometastatic NSCLC.

METHODS

We constructed a Markov model comparing the cost-effectiveness of LT versus MC for oligometastatic NSCLC from the Swiss healthcare payer's perspective. Treatment specifications and PFS were based on the phase II trial (NCT01725165). Overall survival (OS) was inferred from a recent phase III trial. Utilities were taken from published data. Primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness-ratio (ICER, costs in Swiss Francs (CHF) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained).

RESULTS

PFS in the model was 3.8 months for MC and 11.4 months for LT (compared to 3.9 months and 11.9 months in the trial). OS in the model was 15.5 months in both arms. LT was cost-effective with a gain of 0.24 QALYs at an additional cost of CHF 9641, resulting in an ICER of CHF 40,972/QALY gained. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses demonstrated that LT was dominant or cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of CHF 100,000 per QALY in 61.7% of the simulations.

CONCLUSIONS

LT may be cost-effective for selected patients with oligometastatic NSCLC responding to first-line systemic therapy.

Cost-effectiveness of Osimertinib in the First-Line Treatment of Patients With EGFR-Mutated Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

Importance

The survival of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) gene mutations has improved substantially in the last decade with the development of targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). Osimertinib, a third-generation TKI that is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of patients who develop EGFR T790M mutations, has recently shown improved clinical outcomes compared with gefitinib and erlotinib for treatment-naive patients.

Objective

The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of osimertinib for the first-line treatment of patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC.

Design, Setting, and Participants

For this cost-effectiveness analysis, we extracted individual patient data from the FLAURA randomized clinical trial and used findings of our earlier meta-analysis to develop a decision-analytic model and determine the cost-effectiveness of osimertinib (AZD9291) compared with first- and second-generation EGFR-TKIs over a 10-year time horizon. All direct costs were based on US and Brazilian payer perspectives.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The main outcome of this study was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) expressed as cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained by using osimertinib compared with first- or second-generation EGFR-TKIs in previously untreated EGFR-mutated NSCLC.

Results

In the base case using the data as reported in the FLAURA trial, the incremental QALY for osimertinib was 0.594 compared with the first- and second-generation EGFR-TKIs. In the United States, the osimertinib ICERs were $226 527 vs erlotinib, $231 123 vs gefitinib, and $219 874 vs afatinib. In Brazil, the ICERs were $162 329, $180 804, and $175 432, respectively. The overall survival (95% CI) reported in the FLAURA trial (hazard ratio, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.45-0.88) had the strongest association with the ICER (ranging from $84 342 to $859 771). Osimertinib price adjustments to the FLAURA trial data improved cost-effectiveness. For example, a discount of 10% on osimertinib acquisition cost was associated with a 20% decreased ICER compared with the base case ICER, and a discount of 20% on osimertinib acquisition cost was associated with a 40% decreased ICER compared with the base case ICER.

Conclusions and Relevance

At current costs, by World Health Organization cost-effectiveness threshold criteria, osimertinib is not cost-effective for first-line therapy of EGFR-mutated NSCLC in either the United States or Brazil.

The effect of PD-L1 testing on the cost-effectiveness and economic impact of immune checkpoint inhibitors for the second-line treatment of NSCLC

Background

Immune checkpoint inhibitors improve outcomes compared with chemotherapy in lung cancer. Tumor PD-L1 receptor expression is being studied as a predictive biomarker. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness and economic impact of second-line treatment with nivolumab, pembrolizumab, and atezolizumab with and without the use of PD-L1 testing for patient selection.

Design

We developed a decision-analytic model to determine the cost-effectiveness of PD-L1 assessment and second-line immunotherapy versus docetaxel. The model used outcomes data from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and drug acquisition costs from the United States. Thereafter, we used epidemiologic data to estimate the economic impact of the treatment.

Results

We included four RCTs (2 with nivolumab, 1 with pembrolizumab, and 1 with atezolizumab). The incremental quality-adjusted life year (QALY) for nivolumab was 0.417 among squamous tumors and 0.287 among non-squamous tumors and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were $155 605 and $187 685, respectively. The QALY gain in the base case for atezolizumab was 0.354 and the ICER was $215 802. Compared with treating all patients, the selection of patients by PD-L1 expression improved incremental QALY by up to 183% and decreased the ICER by up to 65%. Pembrolizumab was studied only in patients whose tumors expressed PD-L1. The QALY gain was 0.346 and the ICER was $98 421. Patient selection also reduced the budget impact of immunotherapy.

Conclusion

The use of PD-L1 expression as a biomarker increases cost-effectiveness of immunotherapy but also diminishes the number of potential life-years saved.

Health state utilities in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer in China

AIM

Non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is a leading global health threat that impairs patient health outcomes. Health state utilities are fundamental values in economic evaluation and significantly vary across countries. Given the scarce data on the Chinese population, the current study measured utility values in the Chinese patients with NSCLC.

METHODS

This study was conducted as a cross-sectional survey of patients with advanced NSCLC at the Shanghai Chest Hospital. Utility values were assessed using the EuroQol five-dimension (EQ-5D) instrument and scored based on the Chinese-specific value algorithm. Predictors of utility values were examined using a subgroup analysis and a multiple regression model.

RESULTS

The mean EQ-5D utility value of recruited patients was 0.814. The regression analysis revealed that tumor stage, treatment regimen and line of therapy were the potential predictors of utility values.

CONCLUSION

This study provides the Chinese-specific health utility data for advanced NSCLC using the EQ-5D.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of stereotactic body radiotherapy and surgery for medically operable early stage non small cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND

Projections estimate an increase of 50% of the incidence of lung cancer by 2030. Early-stage non-small cell lung cancer represented 19% of NSCLC cases diagnosed in the US between 2005 and 2011. There is rising evidence in favour of lung cancer screening, which will reduce the occurrence of later-stage lung cancers while raising the incidence of early-stage NSCLC. Current guidelines state that for early-stage NSCLC, surgical resection should be performed, and stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is an option for patients who are non-medically operable. In this study, we compared the cost-effectiveness of SBRT with lobectomy in medically operable patients.

METHODS

We developed a Markov model based on the survival results of two randomized studies comparing SBRT and video assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) lobectomy in early-stage NSCLC, to describe survival and treatment related complications of patients treated for early-stage NSCLC. This analysis was conducted from the French payer perspective on a lifetime perspective. Utility values, recurrence risks, and costs were adapted from the literature. Deterministic (DSA) and probabilistic (PSA) sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the influence of the assumptions made.

RESULTS

The Markov model developed was consistent with survival data reported in the pool analysis of the randomized studies. SBRT and lobectomy total costs were 9,234.15€ and 10,726.98€, respectively, and the quality-adjusted life expectancies were 16.35 and 15.80 QALYs, respectively. The DSA, run on every assumption made, revealed that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was mainly sensitive to the decrement of utility caused by treatment related complications and initial cost of both surgery and SBRT. The PSA showed that SBRT had the highest probability of cost-effectiveness compared to lobectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first medico-economic study evaluating SBRT and lobectomy in stage I NSCLC based on randomized studies, and our analyses suggest that SBRT is dominant over lobectomy in operable early-stage NSCLC treatment. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses confirmed that this result was robust and that it was not modified by the assumptions made in the Markov model building.

The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cetuximab (review of technology appraisal no. 176) and panitumumab (partial review of technology appraisal no. 240) for previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer: a systematic review and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer is the fourth most commonly diagnosed cancer in the UK after breast, lung and prostate cancer. People with metastatic disease who are sufficiently fit are usually treated with active chemotherapy as first- or second-line therapy. Targeted agents are available, including the antiepidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) agents cetuximab (Erbitux^®, Merck Serono UK Ltd, Feltham, UK) and panitumumab (Vecitibix^®, Amgen UK Ltd, Cambridge, UK).

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of panitumumab in combination with chemotherapy and cetuximab in combination with chemotherapy for rat sarcoma (RAS) wild-type (WT) patients for the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer.

DATA SOURCES

The assessment included a systematic review of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness studies, a review and critique of manufacturer submissions, and a de novo cohort-based economic analysis. For the assessment of effectiveness, a literature search was conducted up to 27 April 2015 in a range of electronic databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library.

REVIEW METHODS

Studies were included if they were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or systematic reviews of RCTs of cetuximab or panitumumab in participants with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer with RAS WT status. All steps in the review were performed by one reviewer and checked independently by a second. Narrative synthesis and network meta-analyses (NMAs) were conducted for outcomes of interest. An economic model was developed focusing on first-line treatment and using a 30-year time horizon to capture costs and benefits. Costs and benefits were discounted at 3.5% per annum. Scenario analyses and probabilistic and univariate deterministic sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

The searches identified 2811 titles and abstracts, of which five clinical trials were included. Additional data from these trials were provided by the manufacturers. No data were available for panitumumab plus irinotecan-based chemotherapy (folinic acid + 5-fluorouracil + irinotecan) (FOLFIRI) in previously untreated patients. Studies reported results for RAS WT subgroups. First-line treatment with anti-EGFR therapies in combination with chemotherapy appeared to have statistically significant benefits for patients who are RAS WT. For the independent economic evaluation, the base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for RAS WT patients for cetuximab plus oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy (folinic acid + 5-fluorouracil + oxaliplatin) (FOLFOX) compared with FOLFOX was £104,205 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained; for panitumumab plus FOLFOX compared with FOLFOX was £204,103 per QALY gained; and for cetuximab plus FOLFIRI compared with FOLFIRI was £122,554 per QALY gained. The ICERs were sensitive to treatment duration, progression-free survival, overall survival (resected patients only) and resection rates.

LIMITATIONS

The trials included RAS WT populations only as subgroups. No evidence was available for panitumumab plus FOLFIRI. Two networks were used for the NMA and model, based on the different chemotherapies (FOLFOX and FOLFIRI), as insufficient evidence was available to the assessment group to connect these networks.

CONCLUSIONS

Although cetuximab and panitumumab in combination with chemotherapy appear to be clinically beneficial for RAS WT patients compared with chemotherapy alone, they are likely to represent poor value for money when judged by cost-effectiveness criteria currently used in the UK. It would be useful to conduct a RCT in patients with RAS WT.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42015016111.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Axitinib, cabozantinib, everolimus, nivolumab, sunitinib and best supportive care in previously treated renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

Several therapies have recently been approved for use in the NHS for pretreated advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (amRCC), but there is a lack of comparative evidence to guide decisions between them.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of axitinib (Inlyta®, Pfizer Inc., NY, USA), cabozantinib (Cabometyx®, Ipsen, Slough, UK), everolimus (Afinitor®, Novartis, Basel, Switzerland), nivolumab (Opdivo®, Bristol-Myers Squibb, NY, USA), sunitinib (Sutent®, Pfizer, Inc., NY, USA) and best supportive care (BSC) for people with amRCC who were previously treated with vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-targeted therapy.

DATA SOURCES

A systematic review and mixed-treatment comparison (MTC) of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs. Primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary outcomes were objective response rates (ORRs), adverse events (AEs) and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library were searched from inception to January and June 2016 for RCTs and non-RCTs, respectively. Two reviewers abstracted data and performed critical appraisals.

REVIEW METHODS

A fixed-effects MTC was conducted for OS, PFS [hazard ratios (HRs)] and ORR (odds ratios), and all were presented with 95% credible intervals (CrIs). The RCT data formed the primary analyses, with non-RCTs and studies rated as being at a high risk of bias included in sensitivity analyses (SAs). HRQoL and AE data were summarised narratively. A partitioned survival model with health states for pre progression, post progression and death was developed to perform a cost-utility analysis. Survival curves were fitted to the PFS and OS results from the MTC. A systematic review of HRQoL was undertaken to identify sources of health state utility values.

RESULTS

Four RCTs (n = 2618) and eight non-RCTs (n = 1526) were included. The results show that cabozantinib has longer PFS than everolimus (HR 0.51, 95% CrI 0.41 to 0.63) and both treatments are better than BSC. Both cabozantinib (HR 0.66, 95% CrI 0.53 to 0.82) and nivolumab (HR 0.73, 95% CrI 0.60 to 0.89) have longer OS than everolimus. SAs were consistent with the primary analyses. The economic analysis, using drug list prices, shows that everolimus may be more cost-effective than BSC with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £45,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), as it is likely to be considered an end-of-life treatment. Cabozantinib has an ICER of £126,000 per QALY compared with everolimus and is unlikely to be cost-effective. Nivolumab was dominated by cabozantinib (i.e. more costly and less effective) and axitinib was dominated by everolimus.

LIMITATIONS

Treatment comparisons were limited by the small number of RCTs. However, the key limitation of the analysis is the absence of the drug prices paid by the NHS, which was a limitation that could not be avoided owing to the confidentiality of discounts given to the NHS.

CONCLUSIONS

The RCT evidence suggests that cabozantinib is likely to be the most effective for PFS and OS, closely followed by nivolumab. All treatments appear to delay disease progression and prolong survival compared with BSC, although the results are heterogeneous. The economic analysis shows that at list price everolimus could be recommended as the other drugs are much more expensive with insufficient incremental benefit. The applicability of these findings to the NHS is somewhat limited because existing confidential patient access schemes could not be used in the analysis. Future work using the discounted prices at which these drugs are provided to the NHS would better inform estimates of their relative cost-effectiveness.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016042384.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.