Cost-effectiveness of molecularly matched off-label therapies for end-stage cancer - the MetAction precision medicine study

Assessing the Cost-Effectiveness of Next-Generation Sequencing as a Biomarker Testing Approach in Oncology and Policy Implications: A Literature Review

OBJECTIVE

A key hurdle in broader next-generation sequencing (NGS) biomarker testing access in oncology is the ongoing debate on NGS's cost-effectiveness. We conducted a systematic review of existing evidence of the costs of NGS as a biomarker testing strategy in oncology and developed policy suggestions.

METHODS

We searched multiple databases for studies reporting cost comparisons and cost-effectiveness of NGS across oncology indications and geographies between 2017 and 2022, inclusive. Inclusion criteria were established based on indication and type of cost-effectiveness analysis provided. We validated analyses and policy recommendations with 5 payer/policy maker interviews in the United States, Europe, and United Kingdom.

RESULTS

Of the 634 identified studies, 29 met inclusion criteria, spanning 12 countries and 6 indications. Cost comparisons of NGS were evaluated using 3 methodologies: (1) comparison of direct testing costs, (2) comparison of holistic testing costs, and (3) comparison of long-term patient outcomes and costs. Targeted panel testing (2-52 genes) was considered cost-effective when 4+ genes were assessed, and larger panels (hundreds of genes) were generally not cost-effective. Holistic analysis demonstrated that NGS reduces turnaround time, healthcare staff requirements, number of hospital visits, and hospital costs. Finally, studies evaluating NGS testing including the cost of targeted therapies generally found the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio to be above common thresholds but highlighted valuable patient benefits.

CONCLUSIONS

Current literature supports NGS's cost-effectiveness as an oncology biomarker testing strategy under specific conditions. These findings underscore the need to develop policies to support holistic assessment of NGS to ensure appropriate reimbursement and access.

Acute ischemic stroke and measurement of apixaban and rivaroxaban: an observational cohort implementation study

Background

Treatment with intravenous thrombolysis for acute ischemic stroke is contraindicated with intake of apixaban/rivaroxaban in the last 48 hours. Recent European Stroke Organization guidelines suggest that thrombolysis can be considered if anti-factor Xa activity (AFXa) is <0.5 × 103 IU/L with low-molecular-weight (LMWH) or unfractionated heparin (UFH) calibrated assays. Some centers also use apixaban/rivaroxaban-calibrated AFXa assays to identify patients with low drug concentrations.

Objectives

To prospectively evaluate the first year of implementation of drug-calibrated AFXa assays at our center with 2500 yearly admittances with suspected stroke.

Methods

Samples were analyzed on Sysmex CS-5100 instruments with Innovance anti-Xa reagents. Thrombolysis could be considered with drug concentrations <25 μg/L. Patients were registered in an institutionally approved quality register. Outcomes included (1) the number of patients receiving thrombolysis after drug measurement, (2) turn-around time for drug concentration measurements, and (3) sensitivity of LMWH/UFH AFXa to apixaban and rivaroxaban.

Results

Apixaban or rivaroxaban was measured in 148 samples, and 4 patients who previously would have been ineligible for thrombolysis were treated with thrombolysis. In total, thrombolysis was administered in 123 patient episodes in the study period. The median turn-around time for the drug measurements was 38 minutes. Apixaban concentrations of 25 μg/L and 50 μg/L corresponded to LMWH/UFH AFXa of 0.13 and 0.27 × 103 IU/L, respectively. There were too few rivaroxaban results for regression analysis.

Conclusion

Implementation of apixaban and rivaroxaban measurements led to a small increase in the number of patients receiving thrombolysis. Excluding significant concentrations of apixaban or rivaroxaban using LMWH/UFH AFXa may be feasible.

Real-world data for precision cancer medicine-A European perspective

Leveraging real-world data (RWD) for drug access is necessary to overcome a key challenge of modern precision oncology: tackling numerous low-prevalence oncogenic mutations across cancers. Withholding a potentially active medication in patients with rare mutations for the sake of control chemotherapy or "best" supportive care is neither practicable nor ethically justifiable anymore, particularly as RWD could meanwhile be used instead, according to scientific principles outlined by the US Food and Drug Administration, European Medicines Agency and other stakeholders. However, practical implementation varies, with occasionally opposite recommendations based on the same evidence in different countries. In the face of growing need for precision drugs, more transparency of evaluation, a priori availability of guidance for the academia and industry, as well as a harmonized framework for health technology assessment across the European Union (EU) are imperative. These could in turn trigger infrastructural changes in national and pan-European registries, cancer management guidelines (e.g., frequency of routine radiologic restaging, inclusion of patient-reported outcomes), and the health data space, to ensure conformity with declared standards and facilitate extraction of RWD sets (including patient-level data) suitable for approval and pricing with minimal effort. For an EU-wide unification of precision cancer medicine, collective negotiation of drug supply contracts and funding solidarity would additionally be required to handle the financial burden. According to experience from pivotal European programs, off-label use could potentially also be harmonized across EU-states to accelerate availability of novel drugs, streamline collection of valuable RWD, and mitigate related costs through wider partnerships with pharmaceutical companies.