Cost-effectiveness of adding atezolizumab to first-line chemotherapy in patients with advanced triple-negative breast cancer

Framework for developing cost-effectiveness analysis threshold: the case of Egypt

BACKGROUND

Cost-effectiveness analyses rarely offer useful insights to policy decisions unless their results are compared against a benchmark threshold. The cost-effectiveness threshold (CET) represents the maximum acceptable monetary value for achieving a unit of health gain. This study aimed to identify CET values on a global scale, provide an overview of using multiple CETs, and propose a country-specific CET framework specifically tailored for Egypt. The proposed framework aims to consider the globally identified CETs, analyze global trends, and consider the local structure of Egypt's healthcare system.

METHODS

We conducted a literature review to identify CET values, with a particular focus on understanding the basis of differentiation when multiple thresholds are present. CETs of different countries were reviewed from secondary sources. Additionally, we assembled an expert panel to develop a national CET framework in Egypt and propose an initial design. This was followed by a multistakeholder workshop, bringing together representatives of different governmental bodies to vote on the threshold value and finalize the recommended framework.

RESULTS

The average CET, expressed as a percentage of the gross domestic product (GDP) per capita across all countries, was 135%, with a range of 21 to 300%. Interestingly, while the absolute value of CET increased with a country's income level, the average CET/GDP per capita showed an inverse relationship. Some countries applied multiple thresholds based on disease severity or rarity. In the case of Egypt, the consensus workshop recommended a threshold ranging from one to three times the GDP per capita, taking into account the incremental relative quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gain. For orphan medicines, a CET multiplier between 1.5 and 3.0, based on the disease rarity, was recommended. A two-times multiplier was proposed for the private reimbursement threshold compared to the public threshold.

CONCLUSION

The CET values in most countries appear to be closely related to the GDP per capita. Higher-income countries tend to use a lower threshold as a percentage of their GDP per capita, contrasted with lower-income countries. In Egypt, experts opted for a multiple CET framework to assess the value of health technologies in terms of reimbursement and pricing.

Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in the patients with advanced previously treated endometrial cancer: A cost-effectiveness analysis in the United States and in China

PURPOSE

To investigate the cost-effectiveness of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab (LP) compared to chemotherapy as a second-line treatment for advanced endometrial cancer (EC) from the United States and Chinese payers' perspective.

METHODS

In this economic evaluation, a partitioned survival model was constructed from the perspective of the United States and Chinese payers. The survival data were derived from the clinical trial (309-KEYNOTE-775), while costs and utility values were sourced from databases and published literature. Total costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were estimated. The robustness of the model was evaluated through sensitivity analyses, and price adjustment scenario analyses was also performed.

RESULTS

Base-case analysis indicated that LP wouldn't be cost-effective in the United States at the WTP threshold of $200 000, with improved effectiveness of 0.75 QALYs and an additional cost of $398596.81 (ICER $531392.20). While LP was cost-effective in China, with improved effectiveness of 0.75 QALYs and an increased overall cost of $62270.44 (ICER $83016.29). Sensitivity analyses revealed that the above results were stable. The scenario analyses results indicated that LP was cost-effective in the United States when the prices of lenvatinib and pembrolizumab were simultaneously reduced by 61.95% ($26.5361/mg for lenvatinib and $19.1532/mg for pembrolizumab).

CONCLUSION

LP isn't cost-effective in the patients with advanced previously treated endometrial cancer in the United States, whereas it is cost-effective in China. The evidence-based pricing strategy provided by this study could benefit decision-makers in making optimal decisions and clinicians in general clinical practice. More evidence about budget impact and affordability for patients is needed.

Cost-Effectiveness of Treatment Optimisation with Biomarkers for Immunotherapy in Solid Tumours: A Systematic Review

This study investigated the health economic evaluations of predictive biomarker testing in solid tumours treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Searching PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science from June 2010 to February 2022, 58 relevant articles were reviewed out of the 730 screened. The focus was predominantly on non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) (65%) and other solid tumours (40%). Among the NSCLC studies, 21 out of 35 demonstrated cost-effectiveness, notably for pembrolizumab as first-line treatment when preceded by PD-L1 assessment, cost-effective at a threshold of $100,000/QALY compared to the standard of care. However, for bladder, cervical, and triple-negative breast cancers (TNBCs), no economic evaluations met the affordability threshold of $100,000/QALY. Overall, the review highlights a certain degree of uncertainty about the cost-effectiveness of ICI. In particular, we found PD-L1 expression associated with ICI treatment to be a cost-effective strategy, particularly in NSCLC, urothelial, and renal cell carcinoma. The findings suggest the potential value of predictive biomarker testing, specifically with pembrolizumab in NSCLC, while indicating challenges in achieving cost-effectiveness for certain other solid tumours.

Comparative cost-effectiveness of first-line pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy alone in persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer

Background

Treating persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer remains challenging. Although pembrolizumab, combined with chemotherapy and bevacizumab, offers a promising first-line option, its cost-effectiveness within the Chinese healthcare system has not been established.

Methods

A partitioned survival model was constructed using patient data from the KEYNOTE-826 trial. Efficacy, safety, and economic data from both trial and real-world practices were utilized to determine the costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of the treatment strategies. Comprehensive insights were gained through the sensitivity and subgroup analyses.

Results

Over five years, the combination of pembrolizumab, chemotherapy, and bevacizumab offered an additional 1.18 QALYs compared to that provided by standard treatments. This regimen increased the costs by US$ 134,502.57, resulting in an ICER of US$ 114,275.67 per QALY, relative to traditional treatment costs. The ICER for the pembrolizumab regimen was further calibrated to be US$ 52,765.69 per QALY. Both ICER values surpassed China's established willingness-to-pay threshold. Importantly, subgroup analysis revealed enhanced cost-effectiveness in patients presenting with a programmed death-ligand 1 combined positive score (PD-L1 CPS) ≥10.

Conclusion

Introducing pembrolizumab alongside chemotherapy and bevacizumab may not be a cost-effective primary strategy for advanced cervical cancer against current standards. However, for patients with a PD-L1 CPS ≥10, the therapeutic and economic outcomes could be improved by adjusting the pembrolizumab price.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of an orphan drug tebentafusp in patients with metastatic uveal melanoma and a call for value-based pricing

The normative regimens recommendations for treating metastatic uveal melanoma (mUM) are absent in the US. Recently, a phase III randomized clinical trial revealed that tebentafusp yielded a conspicuously longer overall survival than the control group. Based on the prominent efficacy, this study aimed to assess whether tebentafusp is cost-effective compared to the control group in patients with untreated mUM. A three-state partitioned survival model was developed to assess the costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) from the perspective of US payers. Scenario analyses and sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore the conclusion uncertainty. Compared with control group, tebentafusp therapy yielded an additional 0.47 QALYs (1.19 vs. 0.72 QALYs) and an incremental cost of $444 280 ($633 822 vs. $189 542). The resultant ICER of $953 230/QALY far outweighed the willingness-to-pay threshold of $200 000/QALY. The ICER was always more than $750 000/QALY in all the univariable and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Scenario analyses indicated that reducing the unit price of tebentafusp to $33.768/µg was associated with a favorable result of tebentafusp being cost-effective. For treatment-naive patients with mUM, the cost of tebentafusp therapy was not worth the improvement in survival benefits at the current price compared to the investigator's choice of therapy. The cost-effectiveness of tebentafusp could be promoted using value-based pricing.

Sensitivity Analysis in Economic Evaluations of Immuno-Oncology Drugs: A Systematic Literature Review

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to review, assess, and report the characteristics and strategies of sensitivity analyses (SAs) that were performed in the context of published economic evaluations of immuno-oncology drugs.

METHODS

The systematic literature search was conducted in Scopus and MEDLINE for articles published from 2005 to 2021. Study selection, based on a predefined set of criteria, was performed by 2 reviewers independently. We included economic evaluations of Food and Drug Administration-approved immuno-oncology drugs that were published in English and assessed the accompanying SAs on a set of items, including the range justification of the baseline parameters within the deterministic SA, the provisions for the correlation/overlay between parameters, and the justification of the chosen parameter distribution for the probabilistic SA, among others.

RESULTS

A total of 98 of 295 publications met the inclusion criteria. A total of 90 studies included a one-way and probabilistic SA and 16 of 98 studies had one-way and scenario analysis, alone or together with probabilistic analysis. Most studies provide explicit references as to the choice of parameters and values; nevertheless, there is a lack of a reference of correlation/overlay between parameters in most of the evaluations. In 26 of 98 studies, the most influential parameter for the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was the under-evaluation drug cost.

CONCLUSIONS

Most of included articles contained an SA that was implemented according to commonly accepted published guidance. The under-evaluation drug cost, the estimates of progression-free survival, the hazard ratio for overall survival, and the time horizon of the analysis seem to play an important part in the robustness of the outcomes.

Cost-effectiveness of trastuzumab deruxtecan in previously treated human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-low metastatic breast cancer

Background

Results from DESTINY-Breast04 trial revealed that trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) improved both progression-free survival and overall survival for patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-low metastatic breast cancer (mBC). However, the economic impact of this practice remains unclear. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of T-DXd on HER2-low mBC from the viewpoint of U.S. payers.

Methods

Using the clinical data from the DESTINY-Breast04 trial, a three-state Markov model was created to assess the economic and health effects of T-DXd versus chemotherapy. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and willingness-to-pay threshold were determined and compared. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were used to measure parameter uncertainty.

Results

In the overall HER2-low population, T-DXd provided additional 0.47 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) at an increased cost of $149,222 compared with chemotherapy, yielding an ICER of $317,494/QALY. The ICER was $353,903/QALY in the hormone receptor (HR)-positive subgroup, which decreased to $259,825/QALY in the HR-negative subgroup. The sensitivity analysis found that T-DXd would not be cost-effective in the base-case. The expected cost of T-DXd will be less than $4,281/cycle ($11.33/mg) or $1,903/cycle ($5.03/mg) to achieve a 50 or 90% cost-benefit probability, respectively.

Conclusions

T-DXd provides significant health benefit for patients with HER2-low mBC compared with chemotherapy but is unlikely to be cost-effective in the United States.

Cost-effectiveness of sacituzumab govitecan versus chemotherapy in advanced or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer

PURPOSE

The ASCENT trial demonstrated the efficacy of sacituzumab govitecan for the treatment of advanced or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). The current study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of receiving sacituzumab govitecan compared with standard of care chemotherapy from the United States payer perspective.

METHODS

A partitioned survival approach was used to project the disease course of advanced or metastatic TNBC. Two survival modes were applied to analyze two groups of patients. The survival data were gathered from the ASCENT trial. Direct medical costs were derived from the data of Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Utility data was collected from the published literature. The incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) was the primary outcome that measured the cost-effectiveness of therapy regimen. One-way sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were implemented to explore the uncertainty and validate the stability of results.

RESULTS

In the base-case, the ICUR of sacituzumab govitecan versus chemotherapy is $ 778,771.9/QALY and $ 702,281/QALY for full population group and brain metastatic-negative (BMN) group with the setting of classic survival mode. And in the setting of cure survival mode, the ICUR is $ 506,504.5/QALY for the full population group and $ 274,232.0/QALY for BMN population group. One-way sensitivity analyses revealed that the unit cost of sacituzumab govitecan and body weight were key roles that lower the ICUR value. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses also showed that reducing the unit price of sacituzumab govitecan can improve the likelihood of becoming cost-effective.

CONCLUSION

The cost-effectiveness analysis suggested that from a US payer perspective, sacituzumab govitecan at current price is unlikely to be a preferred option for patients with advanced or metastatic TNBC at a threshold of $ 150,000/QALY.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of atezolizumab plus chemotherapy as first-line treatment for patients with advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer in China

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of adding atezolizumab to first-line chemotherapy for advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) from Chinese healthcare system.

METHODS

A partitioned survival model (PSM) was established to simulate 3-week patients transition in a 20-year time horizon to estimate the health and economic outcomes of adding atezolizumab to first-line chemotherapy for advanced nonsquamous NSCLC. Costs and utility values were obtained from the local charges and published studies. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to confirm the robustness of the model results.

RESULTS

Atezolizumab plus chemotherapy yielded additional 0.36 life years (LYs) and 0.23 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and the marginal cost was $60,154.48, resulting in an ICER of atezolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy was $267,264.85/QALY. One-way sensitivity analyses revealed that the cost of atezolizumab was the main driver of the model outcomes, and the probabilistic sensitivity analyses suggested that atezolizumab plus chemotherapy had 0% probability of being cost-effective first-line option at the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $37,652/QALY in China.

CONCLUSIONS

Atezolizumab plus chemotherapy could not be considered cost-effective compared with chemotherapy alone as the first-line strategy for patients with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC in China. And appropriately reduce the price of atezolizumab is necessary.

Economic Evaluation of Trastuzumab Deruxtecan in Previously Treated HER2-Low Advanced Breast Cancer in the United States

PURPOSE

Recently, the DESTINY-Breast04 trial revealed that significant benefits in both overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with HER2-low advanced or metastatic breast cancer treated with trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) compared with chemotherapy. The current study assessed the cost-effectiveness of T-DXd from the perspective of the United States payer.

METHODS

We developed a partitioned survival model to project the disease course of breast cancer. The OS and PFS data were derived from the DESTINY-Breast04 trial. We extrapolate the survival data beyond the follow-up time to assess the long-term survival prognosis. Direct medical costs and utility data were collected. The incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) was the primary outcome that evaluated the cost-effectiveness of a therapy regimen. One-way sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were implemented to explore the uncertainty of outputs.

RESULTS

In the base-case, the ICUR of T-DXd versus chemotherapy is $346,571.8/QALY and $337,789.4/QALY for all patients group and hormone-receptor-positive (HR+) subgroup, respectively. One-way sensitivity analyses revealed that the hazard ratio of OS, the unit cost of T-DXd, and body weight had a relatively large impact on the base-case result. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed that the likelihood that T-DXd was cost-effective is 14.5% and 12.6% for all patients group and HR+ subgroup, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The cost-effectiveness analysis suggested that, at current price, trastuzumab deruxtecan is unlikely to be a preferred option for patients with HER2-low breast cancer at a threshold of $150,000/QALY from a US payer perspective.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of trastuzumab deruxtecan versus trastuzumab emtansine for HER2-positive breast cancer

Background: The DESTINY-Breast03 clinical trial demonstrated that trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) outperformed trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) in progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive metastatic breast cancer (mBC). Considering the excessive cost of antibody-drug conjugates, the clinical value of T-DXd must be assessed by both its efficacy and cost. We compared the cost-effectiveness of T-DXd and T-DM1 for patients with HER2-positive mBC pretreated with anti-HER2 antibodies and a taxane from the perspectives of the United States (US) and China.

Methods: A comprehensive Markov model based on the DESTINY-Breast03 phase III randomized clinical trial was used to compared the cost and effectiveness of T-DXd and T-DM1 for HER2-positive mBC. Data on direct medical cost and utilities were collected from published literatures. The recorded data included the costs, quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and incremental net-health benefit (INHB). Sensitivity analysis was conducted to measure the potential uncertainty due to parameter variability. Additional subgroup cost-effectiveness analysis was performed.

Results: Treatment of HER2-positive mBC with T-DXd gained 0.73 QALYs compared with T-DM1 strategy. The incremental cost was $59,942 in the US, with an ICER of $ 82,112/QALY and an INHB of 0.33 QALYs, respectively. In China, the incremental cost of T-DXd versus T-DM1 was $222,680, with an ICER of $305,041/QALY and a negative INHB of -5.18 QALYs. At willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000/QALY in the US and $37,653/QALY in China, the probability of T-DXd as the dominant option was 77.5 and 0.1%, respectively. The unit price of T-DXd greatly influenced the results according to one-way sensitivity analysis. To meet the 50% or 90% chance of being cost-effective, the estimated cost of T-DXd would need to be less than $17.24/mg and $12.06/mg in China, respectively.

Conclusion: T-DXd is more cost-effective than T-DM1 for patients with HER2-positive mBC in the US, but not in China at current drug prices.

Combination of microtubule targeting agents with other antineoplastics for cancer treatment

Microtubule targeting agents (MTAs) have attracted extensive attention for cancer treatment. However, their clinical efficacies are limited by intolerable toxicities, inadequate efficacy and acquired multidrug resistance. The combination of MTAs with other antineoplastics has become an efficient strategy to lower the toxicities, overcome resistance and improve the efficacies for cancer treatment. In this article, we review the combinations of MTAs with some other anticancer drugs, such as cytotoxic agents, kinases inhibitors, histone deacetylase inhibitors, immune checkpoints inhibitors, to overcome these obstacles. We strongly believe that this review will provide helpful information for combination therapy based on MTAs.

The Predictive Value of PD-L1 Expression Level in Evaluating the Cost-Effectiveness of Atezolizumab/Pembrolizumab

Objective

Recently, the significant improvement of atezolizumab and pembrolizumab over chemotherapy for treatment-naïve stage IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has been demonstrated, but the cost-effectiveness of these regimens remains unknown.

Methods

A Markov model was adapted from the US healthcare perspective to assess the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab, pembrolizumab, and chemotherapy in treatment-naïve NSCLC. Pseudo-individual patient data were generated from digitized Kaplan–Meier curves. Direct medical costs and utility values were sourced from the database and literature. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), total costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were computed. Sensitivity analyses and budgetary impact analyses were calculated.

Results

In any and high programmed cell death 1-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression populations, with chemotherapy, atezolizumab provided ICERs of $234,990 and $130,804 per QALY, while pembrolizumab yielded ICERs of $424,797 and $140,873 per QALY. The ICER of atezolizumab vs. pembrolizumab was $56,635 and $115,511.82 in any and high PD-L1 expression population, respectively. The critical drivers of ICERs included the cost of atezolizumab and pembrolizumab. The accumulated incremental budgetary impact of atezolizumab vs. chemotherapy increased to approximately $39.1 million in high PD-L1 expression patients over 5 years.

Conclusions

In the high PD-L1 expression population, both atezolizumab and pembrolizumab were cost-effective for stage IV NSCLC compared to chemotherapy, which is contrary to that in any PD-L1 expression population. Atezolizumab shows a higher acceptability in both populations. Treating with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) has a substantial budgetary impact on the medical burden. The PD-L1 expression level has the potential to be a predictor for the economics of ICIs.

Cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab for second-line treatment of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma patients with a combined positive score of 10 or more

Aim: This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab compared with that of chemotherapy in the second-line treatment of locally advanced or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) patients with a combined positive score ≥10. Methods: A Markov model was established to compare the lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of different treatment options. Sensitivity analysis was performed to test the stability of the model. Results: The increased utility and cost of pembrolizumab were 0.442 QALYs and US$11,826.79 compared with those of chemotherapy. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was US$26,757.45/QALY, which was less than the threshold of three-times the GDP per capita. The prices of paclitaxel and pembrolizumab were the most important influencing factors. Conclusion: Pembrolizumab is a cost-effective second-line treatment of ESCC.

Regulatory T cells: Their role in triple-negative breast cancer progression and metastasis

Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is an aggressive and immunogenic subtype of breast cancer. This tumorigenicity is independent of hormonal or HER2 pathways because of a lack of respective receptor expression. TNBC is extremely prone to drug resistance and early recurrence because of T-regulatory cell (Treg) infiltration into the tumor microenvironment (TME) in addition to other mechanisms like genomic instability. Tumor-infiltrating Tregs interact with both tumor and stromal cells as well as extracellular matrix components in the TME and induce an immune-suppressive phenotype. Hence, treatment of TNBC with conventional therapies remains challenging. Understanding the protective mechanism of Tregs in shielding TNBC from antitumor immune responses in the TME will pave the way for developing novel, immune-based therapeutics. The current review focuses on the role of tumor-infiltrating Tregs in tumor progression and metabolic reprogramming of the TME. The authors have extended their focus to oncotargeting Treg-mediated immune suppression in breast cancer. Because of its potential role in the TME, modulating Treg activity may provide a novel strategic intervention to combat TNBC. Both under laboratory conditions and in clinical trials, currently available anticancer drugs and natural therapeutics as potential agents for targeting Tregs are explored.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of pembrolizumab for treatment of US patients with persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer

OBJECTIVE

The effectiveness of pembrolizumab for persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer has been demonstrated. We aimed to evaluate its cost-effectiveness from the United States (US) healthcare payers perspective.

METHODS

A partitioned survival model over a 30-year lifetime horizon was developed to compare the cost and effectiveness of pembrolizumab versus placebo based on clinical data from the KEYNOTE-826 phase 3 randomized trial. Costs and health state utilities were obtained from literature and publicly available databases. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was measured. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

For the Intention-to-Treat patients, pembrolizumab was associated with an additional 0.74 quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) at an additional cost of $182,271 when compared with placebo. The ICER was $247,663/QALY. For patients with a programmed death-ligand 1 combined positive score ≥ 1 and 10, the ICER was $253,322/QALY and $214,212/QALY, respectively. One-way sensitivity analyses showed that pembrolizumab had the greatest impact on the ICER. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed that the probability of pembrolizumab being cost-effective was zero at the current willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000/QALY. The price of pembrolizumab had to reduce at least to $28.336 (55.8% of the current price) for it to be cost-effective in a 50% of chance.

CONCLUSION

The addition of pembrolizumab to chemotherapy is costly and might not be cost-effective for persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer at the current price in the US.

Cost-Effectiveness of Avelumab Maintenance Therapy for Advanced or Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma in the United States

INTRODUCTION

The JAVELIN Bladder 100 trial showed that maintenance avelumab therapy after chemotherapy improved the survival of patients with advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma. We analyzed the cost-effectiveness of maintenance therapy with avelumab plus best supportive care (BSC) in patients with advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma after receiving first-line platinum-based chemotherapy from the US payer perspective.

METHODS

A Markov model was used to analyze the economic outcomes of maintenance avelumab plus BSC (avelumab strategy) in the treatment of urothelial carcinoma. The clinical data were derived from the JAVELIN Bladder 100 trial. All cost information was obtained from Medicare and published literature. The total cost, total life years (LYs), total quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), and incremental net health benefit (INHB) were calculated. One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were also performed.

RESULTS

Our results showed that avelumab strategy versus BSC strategy cost US $176,352 and $238,661 and yielded an additional 0.465 and 1.007 QALY in all patients with unknown programmed-death ligand 1 (PD-L1) status and the PD-L1-positive subpopulation, respectively, which led to an ICER of $102,365/QALY and $106,253/QALY gained. In all patients with unknown PD-L1 status, maintenance avelumab plus BSC therapy guiding by PD-L1 expression testing (PD-L1-guided strategy) compared with the avelumab strategy and BSC strategy resulted in ICER of $105,360/QALY and $122,653/QALY, respectively. The probabilities of the avelumab strategy and the PD-L1-guided strategy being cost-effective in the simultaneous competition of the three strategies were 38.49% and 48.82%. In patients with PD-L1-positive status, the avelumab strategy had an 87.51% probability of cost-effectiveness. The most influential parameter for the model was the cost of avelumab and pembrolizumab.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis demonstrated that maintenance therapy with avelumab plus BSC may be a cost-effective option for patients with advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000/QALY, especially for patients with PD-L1-positive status.

Atezolizumab Plus Chemotherapy vs. Chemotherapy in Advanced or Metastatic Triple-Negative Breast Cancer: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Purpose: The IMpassion130 trial demonstrated the efficacy of adding atezolizumab to paclitaxel for advanced or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). The current study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of adding atezolizumab to nab-paclitaxel for TNBC from the perspective of Chinese health sector.

Methods: A partitioned survival model was implemented for patients with TNBC. The survival data were derived from IMpassion130 trial. Direct costs and utility values were collected from the Chinese Drug Bidding Database and published literatures. The primary analysis outcomes were quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Sensitivity analyses were performed to observe model stability.

Results: In the base-case analysis, the ICER of atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel vs. nab-paclitaxel is respectively, $176,056/QALY, $118,146/QALY, and $323,077/QALY in the ITT, PD-L1(+) and PD-L1(–) group.

Conclusion: Adding atezolizumab to nab-paclitaxel could improve survival time significantly in the PD-L1-positive group, but it is not a cost-effective strategy compared to nab-paclitaxel monotherapy for Chinese patients with advanced or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer in the current economic context of China.

Economic Evaluation of Sacituzumab Govitecan for the Treatment of Metastatic Triple-Negative Breast Cancer in China and the US

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness of Sacituzumab Govitecan (SG) for metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC) has been demonstrated. We aimed to evaluate its cost-effectiveness on mTNBC from the Chinese and United States (US) perspective.

METHODS

A partitioned survival model was developed to compare the cost and effectiveness of SG versus single-agent chemotherapy based on clinical data from the ASCENT phase 3 randomized trial. Cost and utility data were obtained from the literature. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was measured, and one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were performed to observe model stability. A Markov model was constructed to validate the results.

RESULTS

In China, SG yielded an additional 0.35 quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) at an additional cost of Chinese Renminbi ¥2257842. The ICER was ¥6375856 ($924037)/QALY. In the US, SG yielded the same additional QALY at an extra cost of $175393 and the ICER was $494479/QALY. Similar results were obtained from the Markov model. One-way sensitivity analyses showed that SG price had the greatest impact on the ICER. PSA showed the probability of SG to be cost-effective when compared with chemotherapy was zero at the current willing-to-pay threshold of ¥217341/QALY and $150000/QALY in China and the US, respectively. The probability of cost-effectiveness of SG would approximate 50% if its price was reduced to ¥10.44/mg in China and $3.65/mg in the US.

CONCLUSION

SG is unlikely to be a cost-effective treatment of mTNBC at the current price both in China and the US.

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.

Vitamin D supplementation to the older adult population in Germany has the cost-saving potential of preventing almost 30 000 cancer deaths per year

Recent meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have demonstrated significant reduction in cancer mortality by vitamin D supplementation. We estimated costs and savings for preventing cancer deaths by vitamin D supplementation of the population aged 50+ years in Germany. Our analysis is based on national data on cancer mortality in 2016. The number of preventable cancer deaths was estimated by multiplying cancer deaths above age 50 with the estimated proportionate reduction in cancer mortality derived by vitamin D supplementation according to meta-analyses of RCTs (13%). Saved costs were estimated by multiplying this number by estimated end-of-life cancer care costs (€40 000). Annual costs of vitamin D supplementation were estimated at 25€ per person above age 50. Comprehensive sensitivity analyses were conducted. In the main analysis, vitamin D supplementation was estimated to prevent almost 30 000 cancer deaths per year at approximate costs of €900 million and savings of €1.154 billion, suggesting net savings of €254 million. Our results support promotion of supplementation of vitamin D among older adults as a cost-saving approach to substantially reduce cancer mortality.

Cost-Effectiveness of Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab Combined with Two Cycles of Chemotherapy as First-Line Treatment in Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

INTRODUCTION

The effectiveness of nivolumab plus ipilimumab with two cycles of chemotherapy (NIC) for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has been demonstrated. We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of NIC for advanced NSCLC from the US payer perspective.

METHODS

A Markov model has been established to predict the disease course of previously untreated advanced NSCLC. The clinical data were derived from the CheckMate 9LA trial. Cost and utility were obtained from the literature. Model outputs included the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), incremental monetary benefit (INMB), and incremental net-health benefit (INHB). A series of sensitivity analyses were performed to analyze the uncertainty of the model.

RESULTS

Our results showed that NIC versus chemotherapy alone cost $264,278 and yielded an additional 0.80 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), which led to an ICER of $202,275/QALY gained. The INHB was - 0.28 QALY, and the INMB was - $41,865 at the threshold of $150,000/QALY. The results of one-way sensitivity analysis showed that the hazard ratio of overall survival was the most sensitive parameter.

CONCLUSION

NIC was unlikely to be cost-effective as a first-line treatment for patients with advanced NSCLC.

Evaluation of Tucatinib in HER2-Positive Breast Cancer Patients With Brain Metastases: A United States-Based Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

PURPOSE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of tucatinib in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive breast cancer (BC) patients with brain metastases (BMs) and the subgroup of active BMs from the United States (US) payer perspective.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A 3-state Markov model was developed to compare the cost-effectiveness of 2 regimens in HER2-positive BC patients with BMs: (1) tucatinib, trastuzumab, and capecitabine (TTC); (2) placebo, trastuzumab, and capecitabine (PTC). And subgroup analysis of active BMs was also performed. Lifetime costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and incremental net-health benefit (INHB) were estimated. The willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was $200,000/QALY. The robustness of the model was tested by sensitivity analyses. Additional scenario analysis was also performed.

RESULTS

Compared with PTC, the ICER yielded by TTC was $418,007.01/QALY and the INHB was -1.08 QALYs in patients with BMs. In the subgroup of active BMs, the ICER and the INHB were $324,465.03/QALY and -0.71 QALY, respectively. The results were most sensitive to the cost of tucatinib. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses suggested that the cost-effective probability of TTC was low at the current WTP threshold in the patients with BMs and the subgroup of active BMs.

CONCLUSION

Tucatinib is unlikely to be cost-effective in HER2-positive BC patients with BMs from the US payer perspective but shows better economics in patients with active BMs. Selecting a favorable population, reducing the price of tucatinib or offering appropriate drug assistance policies might be considerable options to optimize the cost-effectiveness of tucatinib.

First-Line Atezolizumab for Metastatic NSCLC with High PD-L1 Expression: A United States-Based Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

INTRODUCTION

The IMpower110 trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of atezolizumab in previously untreated patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Due to the high cost of immunity inhibitors, it is necessary to evaluate their value based on their efficacy and cost. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab as the first-line treatment for NSCLC with high programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression from the US payer perspective.

METHODS

A Markov model with three health states was developed to estimate the cost and outcome of atezolizumab versus platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with previously untreated metastatic NSCLC with high PD-L1 expression. Model outputs included the life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), total cost, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed for all parameters.

RESULTS

Atezolizumab produced an additional 1.32 QALYs (2.08 LYs) compared with platinum-based chemotherapy. The accompanying incremental cost was US$224,590. The results of one-way sensitivity analysis found that the ICER was most sensitive to the HR of OS. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that the probability of atezolizumab being cost-effective compared with platinum-based chemotherapy was 10.28% and 37.71% at the willing-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $100,000/QALY and $150,000/QALY, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Atezolizumab was estimated not to be cost-effective compared with platinum-based chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of patients with NSCLC with high PD-L1 expression.

Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Atezolizumab Plus Nab-Paclitaxel for Advanced PD-L1 Positive Triple-Negative Breast Cancer in Japan

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Atezolizumab is an anti-programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) antibody that shows good safety and efficacy for patients with PD-L1-positive triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). The cost of atezolizumab therapy is expensive, and its economic burden is an important problem. In this study, we evaluated the cost effectiveness of atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel therapy (AnP) compared with nab-paclitaxel monotherapy (nP) for PD-L1-positive TNBC under Japanese medical conditions and environments using a Markov model.

METHODS

The medical information was collected from data published by the IMpassion130 trial. A Markov model was established to simulate the number of patients in each disease state after AnP or nP therapy during each time period. As indices for cost effectiveness, total cost, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were calculated. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was used to assess the uncertainty of the model using 10,000 Monte Carlo simulations with difference parameters.

RESULTS

The QALYs for AnP treatment were longer than for nP treatment (1.12 vs 0.82 QALYs), but the total cost of AnP treatment was more expensive than that of nP treatment (¥11,070,143 vs ¥2,056,164). The ICER values comparing AnP treatment with nP treatment were ¥30,208,143/QALY. The ICER/QALY was more expensive than the willingness-to-pay (WTP) of ¥15,000,000 per QALY. To achieve a 50% cost-effective probability with a WTP threshold, the price of the atezolizumab should be reduced by 55.1%.

CONCLUSIONS

AnP was not cost effective compared to nP for PD-L1-positive inoperable TNBC under the Japanese condition.