Cost-effectiveness analysis of olaparib and niraparib as maintenance therapy for women with recurrent platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer

Cost-effectiveness analysis of olaparib maintenance therapy for BRCA mutation ovarian cancer in the public sector in Malaysia

INTRODUCTION

Ovarian cancer is one of the most common cancer among women in Malaysia. Patients with ovarian cancer are often diagnosed at an advanced stage. Despite initial response to surgery and chemotherapy, most patients will experience a relapse. Olaparib has been reported have promising effects among BRCA mutated ovarian cancer patients. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of olaparib as a maintenance therapy for BRCA ovarian cancer in Malaysia.

METHODS

We developed a four-state partitioned survival model which compared treatment with olaparib versus routine surveillance (RS) from a Malaysian healthcare perspective. Mature overall survival (OS) data from the SOLO-1 study were used and extrapolated using parametric models. Medication costs and healthcare resource usage costs were derived from local inputs and publications. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were performed to explore uncertainties.

RESULTS

In Malaysia, treating patients with olaparib was found to be more costly compared to RS, with an incremental cost of RM149,858 (USD 33,213). Patients treated with olaparib increased life years by 3.05 years and increased quality adjusted life years (QALY) by 2.76 (9.45 years vs 6.40 years; 7.62 vs 4.86 QALY). This translated to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of RM 49,159 (USD10,895) per life year gained and RM54,357 (USD 12,047) per QALY gained, respectively. ICERs were most sensitive to time horizon of treatment, discount rate for outcomes, cost of treatment and health state costs, but was above the RM53,770/QALY threshold.

CONCLUSION

The use of olaparib is currently not a cost-effective strategy compared to routine surveillance based upon the current price in Malaysia for people with ovarian cancer with BRCA mutation, despite the improvement in overall survival.

Cost-effectiveness of maintenance niraparib with an individualized starting dosage in patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer in China

Objective: Niraparib improved survival in platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer (PSROC) patients versus routine surveillance, accompanied by increased costs. Based on the NORA trial, we evaluated for the first time the cost-effectiveness of maintenance niraparib with individualized starting dosage (ISD) in China. Methods: A Markov model was developed to simulate the costs and health outcomes of each strategy. The total costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were measured. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed to estimate model robustness. Scenario analyses were also conducted. Results: Compared to routine surveillance, niraparib additionally increased QALYs by 0.59 and 0.30 in populations with and without germline BRCA (gBRCA) mutations, with incremental costs of $10,860.79 and $12,098.54, respectively. The ICERs of niraparib over routine surveillance were $18,653.67/QALY and $39,212.99/QALY. At a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $37,488/QALY, the ISD enhanced the likelihood of cost-effectiveness from 9.35% to 30.73% in the gBRCA-mutated group and from 0.77% to 11.74% in the non-gBRCA mutated population. The probability of niraparib being cost-effective in the region with the highest per capita Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in China was 74.23% and 76.10% in the gBRCA-mutated and non-gBRCA mutated population, respectively. Niraparib was 100% cost-effective for National Basic Medical Insurance beneficiaries under the above WTP thresholds. Conclusion: Compared to routine surveillance, the ISD of niraparib for maintenance treatment of PSROC is cost-effective in the gBRCA-mutated population and more effective but costly in the non-gBRCA mutated patients. The optimized niraparib price, economic status, and health insurance coverage may benefit the economic outcome.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of niraparib maintenance therapy in Chinese patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of niraparib versus routine surveillance as maintenance therapy for patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer in China.

METHOD

A three-state partitioned survival model that adopted a lifetime horizon with a 4-week cycle length was developed. Efficacy data were derived from the NORA study. Cost and utility data were obtained from published studies and online databases. The cost and health outcomes were discounted at an annual rate of 5%. In this analysis, the primary outcomes included quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds were set at 1 to 3 times the gross domestic product per capita of China in 2022 ($12,741 to $38,233/QALY). Sensitivity analyses were conducted to verify the robustness of the model results.

RESULTS

In the base-case analysis, niraparib was not found to be cost-effective, with an ICER of $42,888/QALY compared with routine surveillance at the WTP thresholds. One-way deterministic sensitivity analyses indicated that the ICER value was most sensitive to the cost of subsequent treatment in placebo group. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggested that at the WTP thresholds, the probability of niraparib being cost-effective was 2.9% to 50.1%.

CONCLUSIONS

Niraparib improves the survival benefit of platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer patients. However, it seems to be less cost-effective, as it has higher costs than routine surveillance at the WTP thresholds. Reasonable dose reduction according to the patient's actual situation or lowering the price of niraparib can improve its cost-effectiveness.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Cost-effectiveness of fuzuloparib compared to routine surveillance, niraparib and olaparib for maintenance treatment of patients with germline BRCA1/2 mutation and platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian carcinoma in China

Background: Maintenance therapy with the poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPis) for platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian carcinoma (OC) have proven to be effective compared with placebo. We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness (CE) of maintenance fuzuloparib compared to routine surveillance (RS), niraparib and olaparib for platinum-sensitive recurrent OC from the Chinese healthcare systems. Method: A partitioned survival model with three-state (progression-free, progressed, death) was constructed utilizing TreeAge Pro 2011 software to evaluate the economic value of fuzuloparib, niraparib and olaparib maintenance treatment for platinum-sensitive recurrent OC based on the clinical data derived from FZOCUS-2, ENGOT-OV16/NOVA and ENGOT-Ov21/SOLO2. Transition probabilities were estimated from the reported survival probabilities in those trials. Cost and health preference data were derived from the literature. The quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and lifetime costs were measured for this analysis. A 5 years horizon and 5%/year discount rates were used. One-way analysis, and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) were performed to explore the model uncertainties. Results: Total cost of fuzuloparib, niraparib and olaparib were $31628.10, $48183.48 and $54605.54, whereas they had an incremental cost-utility ratio of $31992.69, $32216.08 and $23359.26 per additional progression-free survival (PFS) QALYs gained compared with RS, relatively. Model showed that maintenance fuzuloparib achieved at least an 85.5% probability of CE at the threshold of $37654.50/QALY. One-way sensitivity analysis revealed that the results were sensitive to the PFS and the price of medicines. Conclusion: Fuzuloparib was less cost-effective for patients with germline BRCA1/2 mutation and platinum-sensitive recurrent OC compared to olaparib, but was superior to niraparib from the Chinese healthcare systems perspective.

Cost-effectiveness of PARP inhibitors in malignancies: A systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor (PARPi) have become a mainstay for the treatment of BRCA-mutant malignancies. PARPis are likely to be more effective but also bring an increase in costs. Thus, we aimed at evaluating the cost effectiveness of PARPis in the treatment of malignancies.

METHODS

Studies of cost effectiveness of PARPis were searched from PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library. Key information was extracted from the identified studies and reviewed. Quality of the included studies was evaluated using Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument. Modeling techniques, measurement of parameters and uncertainty analysis were analyzed across studies. Interventions and cost-effectiveness results were reported stratified by patient population.

RESULTS

Among the 25 studies identified, we included 17 on ovarian cancer, 2 on breast cancer, 3 on pancreatic cancer, and 3 on prostate cancer that involved olaparib, niraparib, rucaparib, and talazoparib. All studies had a QHES score of above 75. In the maintenance therapy of ovarian cancer, additional administration of olaparib was cost-effective for newly diagnosed patients after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy but was not cost-effective for platinum-sensitive recurrent patients in majority studies. However, the economic value of other PARPis in ovarian cancer as well as all PARPis in other tumors remained controversial. Cost-effectiveness of PARPi was primarily impacted by the costs of PARPi, survival time, health utility and discount rate. Moreover, genetic testing improved the cost-effectiveness of PARPi treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

PARPi is potentially cost-effective for patients with ovarian, pancreatic, or prostate cancer. Genetic testing can improve the cost-effectiveness of PARPi.

Cost-Effectiveness of Poly ADP-Ribose Polymerase Inhibitors in Cancer Treatment: A Systematic Review

Background: PARP inhibitors have shown significant improvement in progression-free survival, but their costs cast a considerable financial burden. In line with value-based oncology, it is important to evaluate whether drug prices justify the outcomes.

Objectives: The aim of the study was to systematically evaluate PARP inhibitors on 1) cost-effectiveness against the standard care, 2) impact on cost-effectiveness upon stratification for genetic characteristics, and 3) identify factors determining their cost-effectiveness, in four cancer types.

Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library using designated search terms, updated to 31 August 2021. Trial-based or modeling cost-effectiveness analyses of four FDA-approved PARP inhibitors were eligible. Other studies known to authors were included. Reference lists of selected articles were screened. Eligible studies were assessed for methodological and reporting quality before review.

Results: A total of 20 original articles proceeded to final review. PARP inhibitors were not cost-effective as recurrence maintenance in advanced ovarian cancer despite improved performance upon genetic stratification. Cost-effectiveness was achieved when moved to upfront maintenance in a new diagnosis setting. Limited evidence indicated non–cost-effectiveness in metastatic breast cancer, mixed conclusions in metastatic pancreatic cancer, and cost-effectiveness in metastatic prostate cancer. Stratification by genetic testing displayed an effect on cost-effectiveness, given the plummeting ICER values when compared to the “treat-all” strategy. Drug cost was a strong determinant for cost-effectiveness in most models.

Conclusions: In advanced ovarian cancer, drug use should be prioritized for upfront maintenance and for patients with BRCA mutation or BRCAness at recurrence. Additional economic evaluations are anticipated for novel indications.