Population preference values for treatment outcomes in chronic lymphocytic leukaemia: a cross-sectional utility study

Examination of Methods to Estimate Productivity Losses in an Economic Evaluation: Using Foodborne Illness as a Case Study

BACKGROUND

Cost-utility analyses commonly use two primary methods to value productivity: the human capital approach (HCA) and the friction cost approach (FCA). Another less frequently used method is the willingness-to-pay (WTP) approach, which estimates the monetary value individuals assign to avoiding an illness. In the context of foodborne illnesses (FBI), productivity loss represents one of the most significant economic impacts, particularly in developed nations. These losses arise from factors such as missed workdays, reduced workplace efficiency due to illness, and long-term health complications that can limit an individual's ability to work. As a result, accurately quantifying productivity loss is critical in understanding the broader economic burden of FBI.

AIM

Our aim was to compare the impact of valuation methods used to measure productivity loss in an economic evaluation, using a hypothetical intervention for FBI caused by campylobacter as a case study. Cost effectiveness from three perspectives is examined: health care system, employee, and employer.

METHOD

A Markov model with a 10-year time horizon was developed to evaluate the morbidity and productivity impacts of FBI caused by campylobacter. The model included four health states: 'healthy', 'acute gastroenteritis', 'irritable bowel syndrome and being unable to work some of the time', and 'irritable bowel syndrome and unable to work'. Five approaches to valuing productivity loss were compared: model 1 (cost-utility analysis), model 2 (HCA), model 3 (FCA), model 4 (FCA+WTP to avoid illness with paid sick leave), and model 5 (WTP to avoid illness without paid sick leave). Health outcomes and costs were discounted using a 5% discount rate. Costs were reported in 2024 Australian dollars ($AUD).

RESULTS

Model 1, which did not include productivity losses, yielded the highest incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) at $56,467 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. The inclusion of productivity costs (models 2-5) significantly increased the total costs in both arms of the models but led to a marked reduction in the ICERs. For example, model 2 (HCA) resulted in an ICER of $11,174/QALY gained, whereas model 3 (FCA) resulted in $21,136/QALY gained. Models 4 and 5, which included WTP approaches, had ICERs of $19,661/QALY gained and $24,773/QALY gained, respectively.

CONCLUSION

These findings underscore the significant impact of different modelling approaches to productivity loss on ICER estimates and consequently the decision to adopt a new policy or intervention. The choice of perspective in the analysis is critical, as it determines how the short-term and long-term productivity losses are accounted for and valued. This highlights the importance of carefully selecting and justifying the perspective and valuation methods used in economic evaluations to ensure informed and balanced policy decisions.

Cost-effectiveness of acalabrutinib monotherapy or with obinutuzumab versus chemoimmunotherapy for untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia in China

Background

Acalabrutinib is a highly selective, latest generation Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitors for the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). The ELEVATE-TN trial (NCT02475681) found significant benefits achieved by the acalabrutinib regimen compared to the chemoimmunotherapy regimen chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab in treatment-naïve CLL. The objective of this study was to explore the cost-effectiveness of acalabrutinib in the first-line treatment of CLL in the light of Chinese healthcare system.

Methods

We constructed a 4-week partitioned survival model and a 20-year lifetime horizon to estimate the cost and utility associated with CLL treatment. The survival data, direct medical costs, and utilities came from the ELEVATE-TN trial, YAOZHI database, and published literatures. The outputs of the model including total costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated. One-way, probabilistic sensitivity, and scenario analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the model.

Results

Over a 20-year lifetime horizon, treatment with acalabrutinib + obinutuzumab provided an additional 2.51 QALYs versus treatment with chlorambucil and obinutuzumab, while incurring incremental costs of $940,543 and an ICER of $374,449/QALY. Acalabrutinib had an incremental cost of $683,640 and provided an additional 2.24 QALYs, resulted an ICER of $305,562/QALY. One-way sensitivity analyses suggested that the model was most sensitive to utility of progression-free survival, progression disease, and the cost of acalabrutinib. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed that at the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold, the probabilities of the acalabrutinib regimens were at an absolute disadvantage. The scenario analyses showed altering the lifetime horizon or price of acalabrutinib did not reverse results of our model.

Conclusion

Acalabrutinib with or without obinutuzumab might not be a cost-effective option in recent China, when compared with chemoimmunotherapy for first-line patients with CLL at the commonly WTP threshold. It is therefore necessary to reduce the price of acalabrutinib.

A Markov model-based cost-effectiveness analysis comparing zanubrutinib to ibrutinib for treating relapsed and refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia

OBJECTIVE

This article examined the cost-effectiveness of zanubrutinib and ibrutinib for managing relapsed and refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia from the viewpoint of payers in China and the US.

METHODS

Markov models were employed to conduct comparisons. Baseline characteristics and clinical data were extracted from the ALPINE study. The cost-effectiveness outcome indicators encompassed cost, quality-adjusted life years, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.

RESULTS

The Markov model analysis revealed that the zanubrutinib group incurred an incremental cost per patient of $-24,586.53 compared to the ibrutinib group. The zanubrutinib group exhibited an incremental utility per capita of 0.28 quality-adjusted life years, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $-88,068.16 per quality-adjusted life year, which is lower than the payment threshold in China. The willingness-to-pay value in China for 2022 was three times the country's gross domestic product per capita. In the US, patients in the zanubrutinib group experienced per capita incremental costs of $-79,421.56, per capita incremental utility of 0.28 quality-adjusted life years, and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $-284,485.45 per quality-adjusted life year.

CONCLUSION

For Chinese payers, zanubrutinib exhibited superior cost-effectiveness compared to ibrutinib. Zanubrutinib proved to be a more affordable option for US payers when considering the payment threshold.

Estimating the value of new antibiotic treatment strategies in Zhejiang province, China: cost-effectiveness analysis based on a validated dynamic model

OBJECTIVES

This analysis aims to better reflect the value of new antibiotic treatment strategies, thereby informing clinical antibiotic use, antimicrobial reimbursement and/or hospital formulary decision-making in China.

DESIGN

We adapted a published and validated dynamic disease transmission and cost-effectiveness model to evaluate the clinical and economic outcomes of introducing a new antibiotic, ceftazidime/avibactam (CAZ-AVI) for treating resistant infections in Zhejiang province, China. Outcomes were assessed over a 10-year infectious period and an annual discount rate of 5%. Costs were extracted from the hospital's Health Information System (HIS) and obtained after data cleaning, aggregation and discounting.

SETTING

The Chinese healthcare system perspective.

PARTICIPANTS

10 905 patients in a Chinese tier-3 hospital from 2018 to 2021 with any of the three common infections (complicated intra-abdominal infection (cIAI), hospital-acquired/ventilator-associated pneumonia (HAP/VAP) and infections with limited treatment options (LTO)) caused by three common resistant pathogens (Escherichia coli, Klebsiella spp. and Pseudomonas aeruginosa).

INTERVENTIONS

(1) Current treatment strategy (piperacillin-tazobactam (pip/taz) and meropenem); (2) CAZ-AVI at the third line; (3) CAZ-AVI at the second line; (4) CAZ-AVI at the first line; (5) CAZ/AVI first line, two lines diversified (i.e., equal pip/taz and CAZ-AVI at the first line; meropenem at the last line) and (6) CAZ/AVI first line, all-lines diversified.

PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) lost, hospitalisation costs and incremental net monetary benefit (INMB) were used to assess cost-effectiveness.

RESULTS

Over 10 years, the introduction of CAZ-AVI to the current treatment strategy led to lower hospitalisation costs and more QALYs across all five treatment strategies, with between 68 284 and 78 571 QALYs gained whilst saving up to US$236.37 for each additional QALY gained. The INMB of introducing CAZ-AVI is estimated up to US$3 550 811 878.

CONCLUSIONS

Introducing CAZ-AVI had a positive impact on clinical and economic outcomes for treating antimicrobial resistance, and diversifying the antibiotics use early in the treatment might yield the best benefits.

Cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy as first-line treatment for advanced biliary tract cancer in China and the US

Background: Pembrolizumab is a potentially valuable treatment. However, patients, doctors, and healthcare decision-makers are uncertain about its cost-effectiveness and an appropriate pricing for this new therapy. This study aims to appraise the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab as a first-line treatment for advanced biliary tract cancer (BTC) patients in China and the United States (US). Methods: A Markov model was constructed from the perspectives of healthcare systems in both China and the US for pharmacoeconomic evaluation. Patient baseline characteristics and key clinical data were sourced from the KEYNOTE-966 trial (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04003636). Costs and utilities were collected from drug cost websites and published literature. Cumulative costs (in USD), life years (LYs), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were measured and compared. Price simulations were conducted under given willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds to provide pricing scheme references. The model's robustness was analyzed through one-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Results: Basic data analysis illustrates that pembrolizumab ($2662.41/100 mg) in combination with chemotherapy regimen was not cost-effective relative to chemotherapy regimens at the WTP threshold of $38,201.19 in China, and the additional cost relative to chemotherapy regimens was $77,114.94 (ICER $556,689.47/QALY) while increasing 0.14 QALYs. Pembrolizumab ($54.71/1 mg) also increased efficacy by 0.14 QALYs in the US, but remained also not cost-effective at the US WTP threshold of $229,044, and the total cost increased by $160,425.24 (ICER $1,109,462.92/QALY). Conclusion: Compared with chemotherapy, pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy reduces the disease of burden. However, at its current price, it may not be a cost-effective treatment for advanced BTC in both China and the US. This study can aid decision-makers in making optimal choices.

Assay-guided treatment sequencing in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL): a cost-effectiveness analysis

Costly targeted cancer treatments challenge publicly-funded healthcare systems seeking to align expected benefit with value for money. In 2021, The Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) published a provisional funding algorithm for risk-based treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). We estimate the cost-effectiveness of this algorithm against current standard of care. We constructed a probabilistic Markov model comparing next generation sequencing (NGS) assay-guided front-line treatment of acalabrutinib versus venetoclax with obinutuzumab to a comparator wherein patients initiate acalabrutinib. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Analyses were conducted from the British Columbia healthcare system perspective, with outcomes discounted at 1.5%. Assay informed treatment for patients with CLL resulted in an incremental cost effectiveness ratio of $18,040 (95% CI $16,491-$19,501) per quality adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. The probability of the NGS guided treatment algorithm being cost effective was 80% at a willingness to pay threshold of $50,000 and a corresponding ICER of $18,040. Assay-guided treatment sequencing adds additional costs to healthcare but may be a cost-effective intervention for adult patients with CLL. Integration of real-world evidence would improve the validity and reliability of model estimated for decision-makers.

Cost-effectiveness of avelumab first-line maintenance therapy for adult patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma in France

BACKGROUND

This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of avelumab first-line (1L) maintenance therapy plus best supportive care (BSC) versus BSC alone for adults with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (la/mUC) that had not progressed following platinum-based chemotherapy in France.

METHODS

A three-state partitioned survival model was developed to assess the lifetime costs and effects of avelumab plus BSC versus BSC alone. Data from the phase 3 JAVELIN Bladder 100 trial (NCT02603432) were used to inform estimates of clinical and utility values considering a 10-year time horizon and a weekly cycle length. Cost data were estimated from a collective perspective and included treatment acquisition, administration, follow-up, adverse event-related hospitalization, transport, post-progression, and end-of-life costs. Health outcomes were measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and life-years gained. Costs and clinical outcomes were discounted at 2.5% per annum. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were used to compare cost-effectiveness and willingness to pay in France. Uncertainty was assessed using a range of sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

Avelumab plus BSC was associated with a gain of 2.49 QALYs and total discounted costs of €136,917; BSC alone was associated with 1.82 QALYs and €39,751. Although avelumab plus BSC was associated with increased acquisition costs compared with BSC alone, offsets of -€20,424 and -€351 were observed for post-progression and end-of-life costs, respectively. The base case analysis ICER was €145,626/QALY. Sensitivity analyses were consistent with the reference case and showed that efficacy parameters (overall survival, time to treatment discontinuation), post-progression time on immunotherapy, and post-progression costs had the largest impact on the ICER.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis demonstrated that avelumab plus BSC is associated with a favorable cost-effectiveness profile for patients with la/mUC who are eligible for 1L maintenance therapy in France.

Cost-effectiveness analysis for avelumab first-line maintenance treatment of advanced urothelial carcinoma in Scotland

Aim: The cost-effectiveness of avelumab first-line maintenance treatment for locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma in Scotland was assessed. Materials & methods: A partitioned survival model was developed comparing avelumab plus best supportive care (BSC) versus BSC alone, incorporating JAVELIN Bladder 100 trial data, costs from national databases and published literature and clinical expert validation of assumptions. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was estimated using lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALY). Results: Avelumab plus BSC had incremental costs of £9446 and a QALY gain of 0.63, leading to a base-case (deterministic) ICER of £15,046 per QALY gained, supported by robust sensitivity analyses. Conclusion: Avelumab first-line maintenance is likely to be a cost-effective treatment for locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma in Scotland.

Capturing Value Attributes in the Economic Evaluation of Ceftazidime with Avibactam for Treating Severe Aerobic Gram-Negative Bacterial Infections in the United Kingdom

INTRODUCTION

Antimicrobial resistance remains a serious and growing threat to public health, both globally and in the UK, leading to diminishing effectiveness of antimicrobials. Despite a clear need for new antimicrobials, the clinical pipeline is insufficient, driven by high research and development costs and limited expected returns on investment. To counteract this, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and National Health Service (NHS) England have launched a reimbursement mechanism, de-linked from volume of sales, that aims to reduce economic risk by recognising the broader population-level value of antimicrobials. The objective of this study was to quantify the value of ceftazidime-avibactam for treating gram-negative infections in the UK considering some of these broader value elements unique to antimicrobials.

METHODS

A previously developed dynamic disease transmission and cost-effectiveness model was applied to assess the value of introducing ceftazidime-avibactam to UK treatment practice in the management of gram-negative hospital-acquired infections in line with the licenced indications for ceftazidime-avibactam. Model inputs were parameterised using sources aligned to the UK perspective.

RESULTS

The introduction of ceftazidime-avibactam into a two-line treatment sequence saved over 2300 lives, leading to a gain of 27,600 life years and 22,000 quality-adjusted life years (QALY) at an additional cost of £17 million, over a ten-year transmission period. Ceftazidime-avibactam was associated with a net monetary benefit of £642 million at willingness to pay threshold of £30,000 per QALY; even at a lower threshold of £20,000 per QALY, the net monetary benefit is £422 million.

DISCUSSION

Increasing the diversity of antimicrobial treatments through the introduction of an additional antimicrobial, in this instance ceftazidime-avibactam, was associated with substantial clinical and economic benefits, when considering broader population-level value. Despite revealing considerable benefits, the value of ceftazidime-avibactam is only partially reflected in this analysis. Further efforts are required to fully operationalise the spectrum, transmission, enablement, diversity and insurance (STEDI) value framework and accurately reflect the population-level value of antimicrobials.

Second-Line Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-Cell Therapy in Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma : A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

BACKGROUND

First-line treatment of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) achieves durable remission in approximately 60% of patients. In relapsed or refractory disease, only about 20% achieve durable remission with salvage chemoimmunotherapy and consolidative autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). The ZUMA-7 (axicabtagene ciloleucel [axi-cel]) and TRANSFORM (lisocabtagene maraleucel [liso-cel]) trials demonstrated superior event-free survival (and, in ZUMA-7, overall survival) in primary-refractory or early-relapsed (high-risk) DLBCL with chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy (CAR-T) compared with salvage chemoimmunotherapy and consolidative ASCT; however, list prices for CAR-T exceed $400 000 per infusion.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the cost-effectiveness of second-line CAR-T versus salvage chemoimmunotherapy and consolidative ASCT.

DESIGN

State-transition microsimulation model.

DATA SOURCES

ZUMA-7, TRANSFORM, other trials, and observational data.

TARGET POPULATION

"High-risk" patients with DLBCL.

TIME HORIZON

Lifetime.

PERSPECTIVE

Health care sector.

INTERVENTION

Axi-cel or liso-cel versus ASCT.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and incremental net monetary benefit (iNMB) in 2022 U.S. dollars per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) for a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $200 000 per QALY.

RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS

The increase in median overall survival was 4 months for axi-cel and 1 month for liso-cel. For axi-cel, the ICER was $684 225 per QALY and the iNMB was -$107 642. For liso-cel, the ICER was $1 171 909 per QALY and the iNMB was -$102 477.

RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

To be cost-effective with a WTP of $200 000, the cost of CAR-T would have to be reduced to $321 123 for axi-cel and $313 730 for liso-cel. Implementation in high-risk patients would increase U.S. health care spending by approximately $6.8 billion over a 5-year period.

LIMITATION

Differences in preinfusion bridging therapies precluded cross-trial comparisons.

CONCLUSION

Neither second-line axi-cel nor liso-cel was cost-effective at a WTP of $200 000 per QALY. Clinical outcomes improved incrementally, but costs of CAR-T must be lowered substantially to enable cost-effectiveness.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

No research-specific funding.

Cost-Effectiveness of Ibrutinib as First-line Treatment for Older Patients With Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia in Iran

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ibrutinib versus chemoimmunotherapy for frontline treatment of elderly patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia in Iran.

METHODS

We developed a partitioned survival model with 3 health states (progression-free survival, post-progression survival, and death) and a lifetime horizon. State memberships were determined by parametric survival analysis of the ALLIANCE (A041202) randomized controlled trial's results, comparing first-line ibrutinib with bendamustine plus rituximab. Direct medical costs were calculated from an Iranian health system perspective. Utility values were extracted from the literature to calculate the incremental costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) associated with each strategy. To address parameter uncertainties, deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were also performed.

RESULTS

In the base-case analysis, ibrutinib and bendamustine plus rituximab were associated with $3739.72 and $3991.20 costs per patient as the first-line treatment strategy, respectively. They resulted in an average of 2.86 and 2.66 QALYs per patient. Thus, first-line ibrutinib was associated with 0.20 incremental QALY and $251.48 cost-saving per patient and was therefore the "dominant" strategy. In deterministic sensitivity analysis, drug prices were the key drivers of model outputs. However, none of the resulting incremental cost-effectiveness ratios exceeded the currently accepted threshold by the Iranian Food and Drug Administration ($1550 per QALY). In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, 63.3% of iterations were cost-saving and 77.4% were cost-effective.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that ibrutinib as a first-line treatment appears to be the dominant strategy, compared with the standard of care, for unselected older adults with chronic lymphocytic leukemia in Iran.

The estimation of health state utility values in rare diseases: do the approaches in submissions for NICE technology appraisals reflect the existing literature? A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Rare diseases negatively impact patients' quality of life, but the estimation of health state utility values (HSUVs) in research studies and cost-utility models for health technology assessment is challenging.

OBJECTIVES

This study compared the methods for estimating the HSUVs included in manufacturers' submissions of orphan drugs to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) with those of published studies addressing the same rare diseases to understand whether manufacturers fully exploited the existing literature in developing their economic models.

METHODS

All NICE Technology Appraisal (TA) and Highly Specialized Technologies (HST) guidance documents of non-cancer European Medicines Agency (EMA) orphan medicinal products were reviewed and compared with any published primary studies, retrieved via PubMed until November 2020, and estimating HSUVs for the same conditions addressed in manufacturers' submissions.

RESULTS

We identified 22 NICE TA/HST appraisal reports addressing 19 different rare diseases. Sixteen reports presented original HSUVs estimated using EQ-5D or Health Utility Index (n = 12), direct methods (n = 2) or mapping (n = 2), while the other six included values obtained from the literature only. In parallel, we identified 111 published studies: 86.6% used preference-based measures (mainly EQ-5D, 60.7%), 12.5% direct techniques, and 2.7% mapping. The collection of values from non-patient populations (using 'vignettes') was more frequent in manufacturers' submissions than in the literature (22.7% vs. 8.0%).

CONCLUSIONS

The agreement on methodological choices between manufacturers' submissions and published literature was only partial. More efforts should be made by manufacturers to accurately reflect the academic literature and its methodological recommendations in orphan drugs submissions.

Cost-effectiveness of targeted treatment vs chemoimmunotherapy in treatment-naive unfit CLL without TP53 aberrations

Several targeted treatments, such as venetoclax + obinutuzumab (VenO) and ibrutinib, have been developed to treat patients with treatment-naive chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and have been shown to improve progression-free survival compared with chlorambucil + obinutuzumab (ClbO). However, novel targeted agents are associated with a significant cost investment. The objective of this study was to investigate the cost-effectiveness of VenO compared with ClbO and ibrutinib in treatment-naive CLL without del17p/TP53 mutation in Denmark. We used a decision-analytic modeling approach to simulate hypothetical cohorts of patients with CLL from the initiation of first-line treatment to death, including the full treatment pathway and second-line therapy. VenO, ClbO, or ibrutinib was included as first-line therapy followed by either Ven + rituximab or ibrutinib. Model outcomes were expected quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), life years (LYs), and cost per patient, which were used to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) with a willingness to pay from €23 600 to €35 600 per QALY. Compared with ClbO, VenO was associated with a QALY gain of 1.30 (1.42 LYs) over a lifetime. The incremental cost was €12 360, resulting in an ICER of €9491 per QALY gained, indicating that VenO is cost-effective. Compared with VenO, ibrutinib was associated with a QALY gain of 0.82 (1.74 LYs) but at a substantially increased incremental cost of €247 488 over a lifetime horizon. The ICER was €302 156 per QALY, indicating that ibrutinib in first-line treatment would not be considered cost-effective in Danish health care, compared with VenO. Future analyses in fit patients with CLL are needed to determine the cost-effectiveness of VenO.

Cost-Effectiveness of Venetoclax Plus Obinutuzumab Versus Chlorambucil Plus Obinutuzumab for the First-Line Treatment of Adult Patients With Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia: An Extended Societal View

OBJECTIVES

Efficacy of venetoclax plus obinutuzumab (VenO) compared with chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab (ClbO) for treatment-naïve adult patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) with coexisting medical conditions was investigated in CLL14 (NCT02242942). Our aim was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of VenO versus ClbO for these patients from a Dutch societal perspective.

METHODS

A 3-state partitioned survival model was constructed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of VenO. The outcome of the analysis was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) with effectiveness measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained. Uncertainty was explored through deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses, scenario analyses, and value of information analysis (VOI).

RESULTS

The base case resulted in a discounted ICER -49 928 EUR/QALY gained (with incremental negative costs and positive effects). None of the ICERs resulted from deterministic sensitivity and scenario analyses exceeded the chosen willingness-to-pay threshold of 20 000 EUR/QALY, and > 99% of the iterations in the probabilistic sensitivity analysis were cost-effective. VOI analyses showed a maximum expected value of eliminating all model parameter uncertainty of 183 591 EUR.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study demonstrated VenO being dominant over ClbO in treatment-naïve adult patients with CLL assuming a Dutch societal perspective. We concluded that our results are robust as tested through sensitivity and scenario analyses. Additionally, the VOI analyses confirmed that our current evidence base is strong enough to generate reliable results for our study. Nevertheless, further research based on real-world data or longer follow-up period could further contribute to the robustness of the current study's conclusions.

A Probabilistic Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Venetoclax and Obinutuzumab as a First-Line Therapy in Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia in Canada

BACKGROUND

Venetoclax is a first-in-class targeted therapy option that is an inducer of apoptosis in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) cells. The open-label phase III CLL14 clinical trial showed that venetoclax combined with obinutuzumab (VEN+O) is superior to obinutuzumab combined with chlorambucil in newly diagnosed patients with CLL. The aim of this study was to assess the health economic value of VEN+O for the frontline treatment of CLL in Canada from a publicly funded healthcare system perspective.

METHODS

A partitioned survival analyses model was developed including three health states: progression free, progressed, and death. A cycle length of 28 days and a time horizon of 10 years was assumed. VEN+O treatment for a fixed duration of 12 months was compared to obinutuzumab combined with chlorambucil, fludarabine plus cyclophosphamide plus rituximab, bendamustine plus rituximab, chlorambucil plus rituximab, ibrutinib, and acalabrutinib. The population in the model included both unfit and overall frontline CLL patients, two subgroups were also assessed (patients with del17p/TP53 mutations and patients without del17p/TP53 mutations). Survival data extrapolated from the CLL14 trial were used to populate the model. Uncertainty was assessed via one-way sensitivity analyses, probabilistic analyses, and scenario analyses.

RESULTS

Based on the probabilistic analyses, unfit frontline CLL patients receiving VEN+O were estimated to incur costs of Canadian dollars ($) 217,727 [confidence interval (CI) $170,725, $300,761] (del17p/TP53: $209,102 [CI $159,698, $386,190], non-del17p/TP53: $217,732 [CI $171,232, $299,063]) and accrue 4.96 [CI 4.04, 5.82] quality-adjusted life-years (del17p/TP53: 3.11 [CI 2.00, 4.20], non-del17p/TP53: 5.04 [CI 4.05, 5.92]). Obinutuzumab combined with chlorambucil, bendamustine plus rituximab, chlorambucil plus rituximab, and ibrutinib accrued lower quality-adjusted life-years and higher costs and as such, VEN+O was the dominant treatment option. The full incremental analysis showed that acalabrutinib was more expensive and more efficacious compared with VEN+O with an incremental-cost-effectiveness-ratio of $2,139,180/quality-adjusted life-year versus VEN+O and not a cost-effective option in Canada. Probabilistic analyses show that at a willingness to pay of $50,000/quality-adjusted life-year gained, VEN+O has the greatest probability of being cost effective.

CONCLUSIONS

VEN+O is a cost-effective treatment option for unfit frontline CLL patients and provides value for money to healthcare payers.

Estimating the Economic and Clinical Value of Introducing Ceftazidime/Avibactam into Antimicrobial Practice in Japan: A Dynamic Modelling Study

BACKGROUND

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is one of the most serious public health challenges worldwide, including in Japan. Globally, research and development of new antimicrobials has stalled due to unfavorable market conditions, which undervalue antimicrobials. Furthermore, Japan faces the additional challenge of delayed commercialization for a number of recently approved treatments.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to examine the impact on AMR of introducing a new anti-infective treatment, ceftazidime/avibactam, into current treatment strategies. It reports the resulting clinical and economic outcomes from the perspective of healthcare payers in Japan.

METHODS

A previously published and validated dynamic disease transmission model was adapted to the Japanese setting. The model estimated health economic outcomes for treating three Gram-negative hospital-acquired infections, under different treatment strategies, from a healthcare payers' perspective. Outcomes were assessed over a 10-year time horizon with a willingness-to-pay threshold of ¥5,000,000 (US$45,556) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained and an annual discount rate of 2% applied to costs and benefits.

RESULTS

Introducing ceftazidime/avibactam in the framework of a diversification strategy with piperacillin/tazobactam is associated with reducing 798,640 bed days, equating to ¥21.0 billion (US$190.9 million) savings in hospitalization costs, and a gain of 363,034 life-years, or 308,641 QALYs. This translates into a monetary benefit of ¥1.56 trillion (US$14.3 billion) to Japanese healthcare payers.

DISCUSSION

Introducing a new antimicrobial agent into clinical practice is associated with considerable clinical and economic benefits. This analysis demonstrates that the approach taken to incorporate a new antimicrobial agent into clinical practice impacts on the scale of these clinical and economic benefits; greater benefits are associated with earlier use of antimicrobials as part of an antimicrobial stewardship program.

CONCLUSION

This analysis shows that changing the way in which a new antimicrobial is used within a treatment strategy has the potential for additional significant clinical and economic value.

Osimertinib versus platinum-pemetrexed in patients with previously treated EGFR T790M advanced non-small cell lung cancer: An updated AURA3 trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis

Background

A recently overall survival (OS) analysis from the AURA3 trial indicated that osimertinib improves median OS versus platinum-pemetrexed for patients with previously treated epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) T790M advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Here, we assessed the cost-effectiveness of second-line osimertinib versus platinum-pemetrexed, from the perspectives of the United States payer and the Chinese health care system.

Methods

A Markov model was constructed to compare the costs and health outcomes of osimertinib versus platinum-pemetrexed in second-line treatment of EGFR T790M advanced NSCLC. Life years (LYs), quality adjusted life years (QALYs), costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses assessed the robustness of the model. Cost-effectiveness was examined in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population and central nervous system (CNS) metastases population.

Results

In the United States, compared with platinum-pemetrexed, osimertinib yielded additional effectiveness of 0.43 QALYs and -0.12 QALYs, with incremental costs of $67,588 and $16,465 in the ITT population and CNS metastases population, respectively. The ICERs of osimertinib over platinum-pemetrexed were $159,126/QALY and $-130,830/QALY, respectively. The probability of osimertinib being cost-effective was 37% and 5.76%, respectively, at the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000/QALY. In China, osimertinib showed incremental effectiveness of 0.34 QALYs and -0.14 QALYs, with incremental costs of $1,663 and $-505, resulting in ICERs of $4,950/QALY and $3,754/QALY in the ITT population and CNS metastases population, respectively. At the WTP threshold of $37,489/QALY, there was a 100% and 26% likelihood that osimertinib was cost-effective in the ITT population and CNS metastases population.

Conclusion

In the United States, second-line osimertinib treatment for EGFR T790M advanced NSCLC is not cost-effective compared to platinum-pemetrexed under the current WTP threshold. When the osimertinib price reduces, the economic outcome may become favorable. In China, assuming a WTP threshold of $37,489/QALY, osimertinib is the dominant treatment strategy compared with platinum-pemetrexed in the ITT population and provides cost savings for CNS metastases patients.

Cost-Effectiveness and Economic Burden Analyses on All First-Line Treatments of Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia

OBJECTIVES

Several chemoimmunotherapy and targeted treatment regimens are approved as front-line therapies in chronic lymphocytic leukemia. We estimated for the 10-year cost-effectiveness of these treatment regimens and the economic burden of following the estimated risk-stratified 21 040 patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia diagnosed in 2020 for 10 years.

METHODS

A Markov model with 7 exclusive health states was specified over a 10-year time horizon. Treatment effectiveness inputs were obtained from a novel network meta-analysis on the progression-free survival, overall survival curves, and time to next treatment. Costs and utilities inputs were included for each health state for each treatment and discounted at 3.0%/year. Life-years (LYs) and quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs) for each treatment were determined. Using the lowest cost regimen as reference, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) were estimated. The 10-year per-patient cost was determined by risk status and by initial treatment.

RESULTS

Venetoclax-plus-obinutuzumab was the lowest cost regimen, hence the reference. Superior in effectiveness to all chemoimmunotherapies, it was cost saving. With the highest effectiveness gains at 6.26 LYs and 5.01 QALYs and despite being the most expensive regimen ($1 298 638 per patient), acalabrutinib-plus-obinutuzumab yielded the best ICER ($409 343/LY gained) and ICUR ($501 236/QALY gained). The remaining ICERs of targeted therapies ranged from $512 101/LY gained to $793 236/LY gained and the ICURs from $579 737/QALY gained to $869 300/QALY gained. The 10-year postdiagnosis low/high (venetoclax-plus-obinutuzumab/acalabrutinib-plus-obinutuzumab) economic burden ranges were $42 690 to $98 665 for low-risk, $141 339 to $326 660 for intermediate-risk, and $273 650 to $632 453 for high-risk patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with venetoclax-plus-obinutuzumab, chemoimmunotherapies are associated with less health benefits at higher cost. The targeted therapies achieve greater benefits at higher cost.

Economic Evaluation of a Tumour-Agnostic Therapy: Dutch Economic Value of Larotrectinib in TRK Fusion-Positive Cancers

BACKGROUND

Larotrectinib is the first tumour-agnostic therapy that has been approved by the European Medicines Agency. Tumour-agnostic therapies are indicated for a multitude of tumour types. The economic models supporting reimbursement submissions of tumour-agnostic therapies are complex because of the multitude of indications per model.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this paper was to evaluate the cost effectiveness of larotrectinib compared with standard of care in patients with cancer with tropomyosin receptor kinase fusion-positive tumour types in the Netherlands.

METHODS

A previously constructed cost-effectiveness model with a partitioned survival approach was adapted to the Dutch setting, simulating costs and effects of treatment in patients with tropomyosin receptor kinase fusion-positive cancer. The cost-effectiveness model conducts a naïve comparison of larotrectinib to a weighted comparator standard-of-care arm. Dutch specific resource use and costs were implemented and inflated to reflect 2019 euros. The analysis includes a lifetime horizon and a societal perspective.

RESULTS

Larotrectinib versus Dutch standard of care resulted in 5.61 incremental (QALYs) and €232,260 incremental costs, leading to an incremental cost-effectivenes ratio of €41,424/QALY. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis reveals a 88% chance of larotrectinib being cost effective compared with the pooled comparator standard-of-care arm at the applicable €80,000/QALY willingness-to-pay threshold in the Netherlands.

CONCLUSIONS

The incremental cost-effectivenes ratio was well below the applicable threshold for diseases with a high burden of disease in the Netherlands (€80,000). At this threshold, larotrectinib was estimated to be a cost-effective treatment for patients with tropomyosin receptor kinase fusion-positive cancer compared with current standard of care in the Netherlands.

Cost-effectiveness of nivolumab plus ipilimumab as first-line treatment for American patients with unresectable malignant pleural mesothelioma

Background

The treatment paradigm of unresectable malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) has changed in recent years. Checkmate 743 demonstrate that nivolumab plus ipilimumab showed good clinical benefits compared with chemotherapy in the treatment of MPM. The study is aim to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of Nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs. platinum plus chemotherapy for the first-line treatment of unresectable MPM.

Methods

A Markov model was developed to compare the cost and quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) of nivolumab plus ipilimumab and chemotherapy over a 10-year time horizon. Clinical efficacy and safety data were extracted from the CheckMate 743 trials. Health state utilities were obtained from published literature. Costs were collected from an US payer perspective. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore the impact of uncertainties on the cost-effectiveness's results.

Results

In the base case analysis, the incremental healthcare costs and QALYs for Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab vs. chemotherapy are $196,604.22 and 0.53, respectively, resulting an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $372,414.28/QALYs for the model cohort of patients with locally advanced or metastatic MPM. However, Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that there was no probability that Nivolumab plus ipilimumab was cost-effective within the fluctuation range of other model parameters in first-line in unresectable MPM. The results of one-way sensitivity analysis showed that the cost of Nivolumab was the most sensitive parameter.

Conclusions

The ICER of Nivolumab plus ipilimumab is above the theoretical willingness-to-pay threshold in the U.S, which suggests that first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab for unresectable MPM may be not a cost-effective choice.

Cost-effectiveness of daratumumab in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone for relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma

OBJECTIVE

This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of daratumumab (D) in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd) for treatment of relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma in patients who have received at least one prior therapy in Singapore.

METHODS

A 3-state partitioned survival model was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of lenalidomide and dexamethasone with or without daratumumab from a healthcare system perspective over 10 years. Clinical inputs were obtained from the POLLUX trial. Health state utilities were derived from the literature and direct medical costs obtained from public healthcare institutions. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were conducted to explore uncertainties.

RESULTS

DRd was associated with a high base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of US$576,247 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained, compared with Rd. According to one-way sensitivity analysis, ICER was most heavily influenced by time horizon, discount rate for outcomes, progression-free utility and cost of daratumumab. Regardless of the variation, DRd remained not cost-effective. Even when the cost of both daratumumab and lenalidomide dropped by 20% and 80%, the ICERs remained high at US$470,400 and US$152,860 per QALY gained.

CONCLUSIONS

At current prices, the addition of daratumumab to lenalidomide and dexamethasone does not represent cost-effective use of healthcare resources in Singapore.

Cost-effectiveness of a 12-month fixed-duration venetoclax treatment in combination with obinutuzumab in first-line, unfit chronic lymphocytic leukemia in the United States

BACKGROUND: Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is a significant health and economic burden in the United States. Treatments include chemoimmunotherapy, such as obinutuzumab (G) plus chlorambucil (Clb) or bendamustine plus rituximab (BR), and chemotherapy-free regimens incorporating oral targeted therapies such as ibrutinib (Ibr), acalabrutinib (Acala), or venetoclax (Ven). Most chemotherapy-free regimens require continuous treatment to progression, while Ven plus G (VenG) is given for a fixed duration of 12 months, based on the CLL14 trial that led to its approval. Fixed-duration VenG has the potential for cost savings compared with treat-to-progression chemotherapy-free regimens. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of 12 months fixed-duration VenG in first-line treatment of unfit patients with CLL from a US health care payer perspective compared with GClb, BR, Ibr, Ibr + G, Ibr + R, Acala, and Acala + G. METHODS: A partitioned survival model was developed with 3 health states: progression-free survival (PFS), postprogression survival, and dead. The patient population, as based on the CLL14 trial, comprised previously untreated unfit patients with CLL (mean age 71.1 years, 33.1% female). The distribution of patients in each health state over time was estimated using extrapolated PFS and overall survival (OS) curves for VenG and GClb, based on CLL14 data 2 or more years after treatment cessation. PFS and OS for the other comparators were estimated using hazard ratios vs VenG, based on a network metaanalysis. Adverse events, utility values, and costs were obtained from published literature. The model estimated life-years gained, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained, and costs. The time horizon was 20 years, with a cycle time of 28 days. Outcomes and costs were discounted at 3.0% per year, and costs were estimated from a US health care payer perspective. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: In this cross-trial analysis of unfit CLL patients, in the base case, VenG had lower projected total costs than all comparators investigated. VenG also had larger projected health benefits (more QALYs gained) than GClb, BR, Ibr, and Ibr + R. VenG was therefore more effective and less costly than these comparators (dominant). Ibr + G, Acala, and Acala + G showed higher QALYs gained vs VenG (0.022, 0.672, and 0.961, respectively), and substantially higher projected costs vs VenG ($1,488,400, $1,579,737, and $1,656,154, respectively). Thus, Ibr + G, Acala, and Acala + G would cost more than $1,000,000 per QALY gained vs VenG. At the commonly used willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per QALY gained, Ibr + G, Acala, and Acala + G were not cost-effective compared with VenG. CONCLUSIONS: Fixed-duration VenG for 12 months is a cost-effective first-line treatment option for unfit CLL patients compared with other available options and provides value for money to US health care payers at a threshold of $150,000 per QALY gained. Future studies with longer trial follow-up and more mature survival data may help to confirm longer-term cost benefits of VenG. DISCLOSURES: Genentech Inc. and AbbVie provided financial support for this study. Genentech Inc., AbbVie, and Pharmerit - An OPEN Health Company participated in the design, study conduct, analysis, and interpretation of data, as well as the writing, review, and approval of the manuscript. Venetoclax is being developed in a collaboration between Genentech Inc. and AbbVie. Ravelo and Shapouri are employed by Genentech Inc. and have ownership interests. Manzoor and Sail are employed by AbbVie and have ownership interests. Chatterjee, van de Wetering, and Qendri, employees of Pharmerit - An OPEN Health Company, received consultancy fees from AbbVie. Davids has received consultancy fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Genentech Inc., Janssen, MEI Pharma, Novartis, Pharmacyclics, and Verastem; research funding from Ascentage Pharma, Genentech Inc., MEI Pharma, Pharmacyclics, Surface Oncology, TG Therapeutics, and Verastem; and has served on board of directors or advisory committees for AbbVie, Adaptive Biotechnologies, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Eli Lilly, Genentech Inc., Janssen, Pharmacyclics, TG Therapeutics, and Verastem. This study was presented as a poster at ASH 61st Annual Meeting and Exposition; December 7-10, 2019; Orlando, FL.

Estimating the Economic and Clinical Value of Reducing Antimicrobial Resistance to Three Gram-negative Pathogens in Japan

Background: Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) represents a significant global public health crisis. Despite ample availability of Gram-positive antibiotics, there is a distinct lack of agents against Gram-negative pathogens, including carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales, which remains a real threat in Japan. The AMR Action Plans aim to mitigate the growing public health concern posed by AMR. Objective: This study aims to estimate the clinical and economic outcomes of drug-resistant Gram-negative pathogens forecasts for Japan to guide resource allocation defined within the upcoming National AMR Action Plan. Methods: A previously published and validated dynamic health economic model was adapted to the Japanese setting. The model used a 10-year time horizon with a willingness-to-pay threshold of ¥5 000 000 (US $46 827) and discounting was applied at a rate of 2% to costs and benefits. Clinical and economic outcomes were assessed as a function of varying AMR levels of three Gram-negative pathogens in Japan by up to 100% of the current level. Results: Reducing drug-resistant Gram-negative pathogens in Japan has the potential to save 4 249 096 life years, corresponding to 3 602 311 quality-adjusted life years. The associated maximum clinical and economic gains were estimated at up to 4 422 284 bed days saved, up to 3 645 480 defined daily doses of antibiotics avoided, up to ¥117.6 billion (US $1.1 billion) saved in hospitalization costs, and a net monetary benefit of up to ¥18.1 trillion (US $169.8 billion). Discussion: Learnings from this study can be used by the Japanese government to help inform decision-making on the strategies that may be included in the upcoming National AMR Action Plan and facilitate allocation of the required budget. Conclusions: This analysis demonstrated the considerable economic and clinical value of reducing AMR levels of three Gram-negative pathogens in Japan and could be utilized to support the valuation of antimicrobial treatment and resistance in Japan and more broadly.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Vedolizumab Compared With Infliximab in Anti-TNF-α-Naïve Patients With Moderate-to-Severe Ulcerative Colitis in China

Objective: To evaluate the cost effectiveness of vedolizumab vs. infliximab in the treatment of anti-tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α)-naïve patients with moderate-to-severe active ulcerative colitis (UC) in China. Methods: The costs and effectiveness of vedolizumab and infliximab in the treatment of anti-TNF-α naïve patients with moderate-to-severe active UC were compared using a hybrid decision tree model and a Markov model. From the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system, this study simulated the lifetime health benefits [quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs)] and costs (USD) for patients with UC from the induction phase to the maintenance phase, with an annual discount rate of 5%. The clinical efficacy and transition probability data were based on a previously published network meta-analysis. The health utility, surgical risk, biologic drug discontinuation rate, and mortality were derived from previous literature and the Chinese statistical yearbook. The cost data were based on China's drug purchase and biding platform and the results of a survey sent to clinicians in 18 tertiary hospitals. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSAs) were performed to validate the robustness of the models' assumptions and specific parameter estimates. Results: The results of the base-case analyses showed that compared with infliximab, vedolizumab led to a gain of 0.25 QALYs (9.56 vs. 9.31 QALYs) and was less expensive by $7,349 ($180,138 vs. 187,487), indicating that the use of vedolizumab was a dominant strategy. The results of one-way sensitivity analyses suggested that the annual discount rate and health-state costs had the greatest impact, but the results were otherwise consistent with those of the base-case analyses. The PSAs suggested that vedolizumab had a 98.6% probability of being effective at a threshold of 3 times the gross domestic product (GDP) per capita in China in 2020. Conclusion: Compared with infliximab, vedolizumab appears to be a more cost-effective option in the treatment of anti-TNF-α naïve adult patients with moderate-to-severe, active UC in China.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) in patients with gastric cancer and peritoneal metastasis

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy with low-dose cisplatin and doxorubicin (PIPAC C/D) for the treatment of advanced gastric cancer.

METHODS

A Partitioned Survival Model followed by state transition Markov model was developed to estimate the costs and effectiveness of the use of PIPAC C/D versus palliative chemotherapy in the UK. The intervention was assessed at two different levels of care, including upfront therapy (PIPAC C/D plus Oxaliplatin in combination with Capecitabine (XELOX) chemotherapy versus first-line chemotherapy alone) and second-line therapy (PIPAC C/D alone versus second-line chemotherapy (ramucirumab monotherapy)). Data from multiple sources, including published literature and UK-based databases, were used to inform the economic model.

RESULTS

For the upfront therapy analysis, the estimated total costs in the intervention and comparator arms were £32,606 (SD: £3877) and £17,844 (SD: £920), respectively. PIPAC C/D plus XELOX led to an increase of 0.46 in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained. The incremental cost per QALY gained was £31,868. For the second-line therapy analysis, the use of PIPAC C/D led to an increase of 0.19 in QALYs and a £21,474 reduction in costs, meaning the intervention was a dominant strategy.

CONCLUSIONS

The cost-effectiveness results for the upfront therapy analysis indicate that PIPAC C/D plus chemotherapy is a cost-effective strategy. Additionally, PIPAC C/D alone as a second-line therapy has the potential to reduce costs and improve clinical outcomes for patients with advanced gastric cancer with peritoneal metastasis.

Cost-Effectiveness of Vedolizumab in the Treatment of Moderate-to-Severe Crohn's Disease in China

INTRODUCTION

To compare the cost-effectiveness of vedolizumab with that of conventional therapy in patients with moderate-to-severe active Crohn's disease (CD) in China.

METHODS

A decision tree and Markov model were built to predict the lifetime cost and health outcomes in the induction phase and maintenance phase of vedolizumab treatment and conventional therapy (a combination of corticosteroids, immunosuppressants, and aminosalicylates) in adult patients with moderate-to-severe active CD from the perspective of China's healthcare system. Clinical efficacy and health utility were derived from the GEMINI 2 and GEMINI 3 trials and published literature. Costs were mainly obtained from clinical physician surveys in China and are presented in 2020 US dollars. Health outcomes (quality-adjusted life years, QALYs) and costs were discounted at an annual rate of 5%. The incremental cost per QALY gained was used to compare the cost-effectiveness of the two treatments. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSAs) were performed to test the robustness of the model.

RESULTS

The model predicted more QALYs (9.92 vs 9.00 QALYs) and lower incurred costs ($288,284 vs $309,680) in vedolizumab than in conventional therapy in a mixed population (anti-TNF-naïve and anti-TNF-failure populations) over a lifetime horizon in the base-case analysis. Similar results were observed in the anti-TNF-naïve and anti-TNF-failure subgroups of patients with CD. One-way sensitivity analysis results suggested that health state cost was the most influential factor in the model. The PSA results supported the dominance of vedolizumab in the base-case analysis.

CONCLUSION

Vedolizumab appears to be a cost-effective strategy option in the treatment of adult patients with moderate-to-severe active CD in China in both anti-TNF-naïve and anti-TNF-failure populations.

Cost-effectiveness of once-weekly selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma

The BOSTON trial showed that use of once-weekly selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (SVd) prolonged progression-free survival compared to twice-weekly bortezomib and dexamethasone (Vd) in patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) multiple myeloma (MM). In this study, we constructed a Markov model to assess the cost-effectiveness of SVd versus Vd in R/R MM. We calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of each treatment strategy from a US payer perspective, using a lifetime horizon and a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Use of SVd was associated with an incremental cost of $170,002 compared to Vd alone ($1,015,120 vs. $845,118, respectively), an incremental effectiveness of 0.35 QALYs (3.43 vs. 3.08 QALYs, respectively), and an ICER of $487,361/QALY. These data suggest that use of once-weekly SVd for R/R M/M is unlikely to be cost-effective compared to twice-weekly Vd.

Nivolumab vs Pembrolizumab for Treatment of US Patients With Platinum-Refractory Recurrent or Metastatic Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Network Meta-analysis and Cost-effectiveness Analysis

Importance

Nivolumab and pembrolizumab are approved for treating platinum-refractory recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (R/M HNSCC). Physicians and patients are uncertain which drug is preferable, rendering a cost-effectiveness comparison between them necessary.

Objective

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab vs pembrolizumab in treating platinum-refractory R/M HNSCC.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Both the network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis included patients from the CheckMate 141 and the KEYNOTE 040 phase 3 randomized clinical trials. The Checkmate 141 trial started on May 1, 2014, with the present analysis based on a September 2017 data cutoff. The KEYNOTE 040 trial started on November 17, 2014, with the present analysis based on a May 15, 2017, data cutoff. A bayesian network meta-analysis that included 856 patients was carried out, and a cost-effectiveness analysis that included 487 patients was conducted by developing a partitioned survival model, both between February and November 2020. The robustness of the model was assessed via 1-way, 2-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses; subgroup analyses were included; and scenario analyses were conducted to investigate the associations of dosage adjustment of nivolumab with cost-effectiveness.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), overall costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were measured.

Results

In the cost-effectiveness analysis that included 487 patients, for US health care payers, when nivolumab was administered based on patient weight (3 mg/kg biweekly), at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $100 000 per QALY, the probability of nivolumab being cost-effective compared with pembrolizumab was 56%; at a WTP threshold of $150 000 per QALY, the probability was 62%. When nivolumab was administered at a fixed dose of 240 mg biweekly or 480 mg monthly, at a WTP threshold of $100 000 per QALY, the probability of nivolumab being cost-effective was 42% to 45%; at a WTP threshold of $150 000 per QALY, the probability was 52% to 55%.

Conclusions and Relevance

Findings from this network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis suggest considering both WTP threshold and patient body weight when choosing between nivolumab and pembrolizumab for the treatment of patients with platinum-refractory R/M HNSCC. When the WTP threshold was $100 000 per QALY, for patients weighing less than 72 kg, nivolumab (3 mg/kg, biweekly) was considered cost-effective; otherwise, pembrolizumab was preferable. When the WTP threshold was $150 000 per QALY, nivolumab (3 mg/kg biweekly) was considered cost-effective for patients weighing less than 75 kg; otherwise, fixed-dose nivolumab (240 mg biweekly or 480 mg monthly) provided more cost savings.

Cost-effectiveness of first-line vs third-line ibrutinib in patients with untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia

The ALLIANCE A041202 trial found that continuously administered ibrutinib in the first-line setting significantly prolonged progression-free survival compared with a fixed-duration treatment of rituximab and bendamustine in older adults with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). In this study, we created a Markov model to assess the cost-effectiveness of ibrutinib in the first-line setting, compared with a strategy of using ibrutinib in the third-line after failure of time-limited bendamustine and venetoclax-based regimens. We estimated transition probabilities from randomized trials using parametric survival modeling. Lifetime direct health care costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated from a US payer perspective. First-line ibrutinib was associated with an improvement of 0.26 QALYs and 0.40 life-years compared with using ibrutinib in the third-line setting. However, using ibrutinib in the first-line led to significantly higher health care costs (incremental cost of $612 700), resulting in an ICER of $2 350 041 per QALY. The monthly cost of ibrutinib would need to be decreased by 72% for first-line ibrutinib therapy to be cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000 per QALY. In a scenario analysis where ibrutinib was used in the second-line in the delayed ibrutinib arm, first-line ibrutinib had an incremental cost of $478 823, an incremental effectiveness of 0.05 QALYs, and an ICER of $9 810 360 per QALY when compared with second-line use. These data suggest that first-line ibrutinib for unselected older adults with CLL is unlikely to be cost-effective under current pricing. Delaying ibrutinib for most patients with CLL until later lines of therapy may be a reasonable strategy to limit health care costs without compromising clinical outcomes.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of treatment regimens with obinutuzumab plus chemotherapy in Japan for untreated follicular lymphoma patients

AIMS

Obinutuzumab (GA101; G) is a new treatment for follicular lymphoma (FL) that is anticipated to have greater efficacy than the current treatment, rituximab (R). The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of G plus chemotherapy (G + Chemo) against that of R plus chemotherapy (R + Chemo) for patients in Japan with previously untreated FL.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We localized a previously reported cost-effectiveness model using the Japanese cost data. For estimating costs adapted in the model, FL patients treated with R were identified from Japanese hospital-based claims database and classified into three treatment regimen groups according to chemotherapies used with R: CHOP, CVP, and bendamustine (B). Based on services per patient and cost items, parameters determining the cost amounts were derived using a multivariate generalized linear mixed model to estimate the direct medical costs for each treatment regimen group for G and R. For the utility, same values in the previous model were used. Lifetime cost and quality-adjusted life year (QALY) were estimated under the payer's perspective.

RESULTS

The calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in million JPY per QALY for G-CHOP vs. R-CHOP, G-CVP vs. R-CVP, and G-B vs. R-B were 5.4, 4.3, and 4.8, respectively. ICERs were lower than 7.5 million JPY per QALY, which is the cost-effectiveness threshold for cancer treatments, and showed that G + Chemo is a cost-effective treatment regimen for Japanese patients with previously untreated FL. Lifetime direct medical costs were lowest in the R-B group because hospitalization costs that accounted for most of the total cost were lowest in this group. Limitations and conclusions: The cost-effectiveness of G + Chemo is acceptable in Japan. Differences in the direct medical costs among treatment regimen groups were mostly due to hospitalization costs. This is probably because many Japanese hematologists choose inpatient treatments over outpatient treatments in CHOP-based induction therapy.

Economic analysis of Electrical Muscle Stimulator with Multipath technology for the treatment of stress urinary incontinence: a UK-based cost-utility analysis

Background: Stress urinary incontinence (SUI) is a debilitating and highly prevalent condition in the UK. The condition is associated with a significant economic burden for affected patients and society. Current treatment options for SUI include minimally invasive therapies, medication and surgical intervention for the most serious cases. Electrical Muscle Stimulator with Multipath technology is a recently developed device for the treatment of SUI that relies on neuromuscular external electrical stimulation (NEES) technology. The clinical efficacy of the device has been proven in previous studies, but existing evidence surrounding its economic viability is limited.Objectives: To assess the cost-utility of the Electrical Muscle Stimulator with Multipath technology Therapy device for the treatment of SUI amongst women in a UK setting.Methods: An economic model was developed to consider the cost-utility (cost per quality-adjusted life-year [QALY] gained) of Electrical Muscle Stimulator with Multipath technology compared with current practice. A Markov model was developed, with costs and health effects estimated over the lifetime of the patient in the base-case analysis. The model was developed to reflect the treatment pathways typically followed by patients with SUI in the UK. Parameter uncertainty was explored in deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.Results: Base-case results indicate that Electrical Muscle Stimulator with Multipath technology results in cost savings and QALY gains over the patient's lifetime. In the "cure" analysis, the intervention is £250 less costly and leads to a 0.03 QALY gain per patient, while in the "improvement analysis", the intervention is £327 less costly and leads to a 0.13 QALY gain per patient. Results from the probabilistic sensitivity analyses show that the likelihood of Electrical Muscle Stimulator with Multipath technology being cost-effective is greater than 74% across all willingness-to-pay thresholds in the two analyses presented.Conclusions: Electrical Muscle Stimulator with Multipath technology is a potentially cost-effective treatment option for patients with SUI who have failed first-line treatment. It could reduce costs to the health care service and improve quality-of-life for selected patients over their lifetime.

Cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab versus docetaxel and nivolumab in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer as a second line in France

Aim: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab compared with docetaxel and nivolumab for the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), as a second-line treatment, in a French setting.Materials and methods: A three-state partitioned-survival model was developed (progression-free survival, post-progression survival, death) based on the phase IIIOAK trial on a 10-year time horizon. The comparison between nivolumab and atezolizumab came from a network meta-analysis. Utilities were estimated from the OAK trial EQ-5D applying the French utility tariffs. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and treatment duration were estimated using parametric models selected using Akaike and Bayesian information criterion. Extrapolation beyond the trial duration followed NICE DSU TSD 14. Economic perspective was the one of all payers, discount rate fixed at 4% on benefits and costs. This analysis was aligned with French Haute Autorité de Santé recommendations. Results were expressed in total cost (2019) and €/QALY (Quality Adjusted Life Year). Model robustness was checked through sensitivity analyses, and a probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted.Results: In comparison to docetaxel, atezolizumab costs 49,429€ more and increased life expectancy by 8 months, generating 0.47 QALY. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was estimated at 104,835€/QALY. When comparing nivolumab to atezolizumab, a cost minimization analysis was conducted since no clear evidence supporting a difference in terms of survival benefit was reported. Using list price, and the Market Access Authorization regimens, atezolizumab saved approximately 6,000€, 9.5% of its total costs. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of our findings.Conclusion: Atezolizumab is more efficient and more costly than docetaxel in the second-line treatment of NSCLC of stage IIIB or IV, in France, with results consistent to previous French authorities' evaluation of immunotherapies in similar indication. Lastly, atezolizumab is a cost saving alternative to nivolumab, based on list price.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of rituximab with methotrexate, cytarabine and thiotepa for the treatment of patients with primary central nervous system lymphoma

The International Extranodal Lymphoma Study Group-32 (IELSG32) randomized patients with primary central nervous system lymphoma (PCNSL) for induction treatment with methotrexate-cytarabine, methotrexate-cytarabine-rituximab, or methotrexate-cytarabine-thiotepa-rituximab (MATRix) and reported significantly improved complete remission with the MATRix regimen. This study assessed cost-effectiveness among these three induction strategies for PCNSL. A Markov model was developed based on the IELSG32 trial over a 20 year time horizon from the Canadian health care system perspective. Costs for induction, consolidation, inpatient treatment administration, follow-up, adverse events, relapsed disease, and palliative care were included. Methotrexate-cytarabine-rituximab was subject to extended dominance by the other two strategies. The MATRix regimen compared to methotrexate-cytarabine produced 3.05 quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gains at added costs of $75,513, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $24,758/QALY gained. The MATRix regimen was the optimal strategy in the majority of simulations (98% probability at willingness-to-pay of $50,000/QALY gained) and results appeared robust across sensitivity analyses.

Phase I/II Clinical Trial-Based Early Economic Evaluation of Acalabrutinib for Relapsed Chronic Lymphocytic Leukaemia

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to construct an early economic evaluation for acalabrutinib for relapsed chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL) to assist early reimbursement decision making. Scenarios were assessed to find the relative impact of critical parameters on incremental costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs).

METHODS

A partitioned survival model was constructed comparing acalabrutinib and ibrutinib from a UK national health service perspective. This model included states for progression-free survival (PFS), post-progression survival (PPS) and death. PFS and overall survival (OS) were parametrically extrapolated from ibrutinib publications and a preliminary hazard ratio based on phase I/II data was applied for acalabrutinib. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed, and 1296 scenarios were assessed.

RESULTS

The base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was £61,941/QALY, with 3.44 incremental QALYs and incremental costs of £213,339. Deterministic sensitivity analysis indicated that survival estimates, utilities and treatment costs of ibrutinib and acalabrutinib and resource use during PFS have the greatest influence on the ICER. Probabilistic results under different development scenarios indicated that greater efficacy of acalabrutinib would decrease the likelihood of cost effectiveness (from 63% at no effect to 2% at maximum efficacy). Scenario analyses showed that a reduction in PFS did not lead to great QALY differences (- 8 to - 14% incremental QALYs) although it did greatly affect costs (- 47 to - 122% incremental pounds). For OS, the opposite was true (- 89 to - 93% QALYs and - 7 to - 39% pounds).

CONCLUSIONS

Acalabrutinib is not likely to be cost effective compared with ibrutinib under current development scenarios. The conflicting effects of OS, PFS, drug costs and utility during PFS show that determining the cost effectiveness of acalabrutinib without insight into all parameters complicates health technology assessment decision making. Early assessment of the cost effectiveness of new products can support development choices and reimbursement processes through effective early dialogues between stakeholders.

Health Utility Book (HUB)-Cancer: Protocol for a Systematic Literature Review of Health State Utility Values in Cancer

Background. Treatment options in oncology are rapidly advancing, and public payer systems are increasingly under pressure to adopt new but expensive cancer treatments. Cost-utility analyses (CUAs) are used to estimate the relative costs and effects of competing interventions, where health outcomes are measured using quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Health state utility values (HSUVs) are used to reflect health-related quality of life or health status in the calculation of QALYs. To support reimbursement agencies in the appraisal of oncology drug submissions, which typically include a CUA component, we have proposed a systematic literature review of published HSUV estimates in the field of oncology. Methods. The following databases will be searched: MEDLINE, EMBASE, EconLit, and CINAHL. A team of reviewers, working independently and in duplicate, will evaluate abstracts and full-text publications for eligibility against broad inclusion criteria. Studies using a direct, indirect, or combination approach to eliciting preferences related to cancer or cancer treatments are eligible. Data extraction will capture details of study methodology, participants, health states, and corresponding HSUVs. We will summarize our findings with descriptive analyses at this stage. A pilot review in thyroid cancer is presented to illustrate the proposed methods. Discussion. This systematic review will generate a comprehensive summary of the oncology HSUV literature. As a component of the Health Utility Book (HUB) project, we anticipate that this work will assist both health economic modelers as well as critical reviewers in the development and appraisal of CUAs in oncology.

Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Nivolumab for Treatment of Platinum-Resistant Recurrent or Metastatic Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Head and Neck

Background

The CheckMate 141 trial found that nivolumab improved survival for patients with recurrent or metastatic head and neck cancer (HNC). Despite the improved survival, nivolumab is much more expensive than standard therapies. This study assesses the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab for the treatment of HNC.

Methods

We constructed a Markov model to simulate treatment with nivolumab or standard single-agent therapy for patients with recurrent or metastatic platinum-refractory HNC. Transition probabilities, including disease progression, survival, and probability of toxicity, were derived from clinical trial data, while costs (in 2017 US dollars) and health utilities were estimated from the literature. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), expressed as dollar per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), were calculated, with values of less than $100 000/QALY considered cost-effective from a health care payer perspective. We conducted one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses to assess model uncertainty.

Results

Our base case model found that treatment with nivolumab increased overall cost by $117 800 and improved effectiveness by 0.400 QALYs compared with standard therapy, leading to an ICER of $294 400/QALY. The model was most sensitive to the cost of nivolumab, though nivolumab only became cost-effective if the cost per cycle decreased from $13 432 to $3931. The model was not particularly sensitive to assumptions about survival. If one assumed that all patients alive at the end of the CheckMate 141 trial were cured of their disease, nivolumab was still not cost-effective (ICER $244 600/QALY).

Conclusion

While nivolumab improves overall survival, at its current cost it would not be considered a cost-effective treatment option for patients with HNC.

Quality of life and utility decrement associated with Clostridium difficile infection in a French hospital setting

Background

Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) is associated with a substantial Quality of life impact on patients that has not been so far measured with a generic validated instrument.

Methods

A prospective study was performed in 7 French acute-care settings in patients presenting with a bacteriologically-confirmed CDI. The EQ-5D-3 L was filled in by patients at 7 ± 2 days after CDI diagnosis to describe their state of health at that date as well as their state of health immediately before the CDI episode (baseline). Individual utility decrement was obtained by subtracting the corresponding utilities. The Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY) loss was calculated by multiplying the days spent from baseline to the date of the interview, by the decrement of utility. A multivariate analysis of variance of the utility decrement according to CDI and patients characteristics was performed.

Results

Eighty patients were enrolled (mean age: 69.4 years, 55% females). The utility scores dropped from a mean 0.542 (SD: 0.391) at baseline to 0.050 (SD: 0.404) during the CDI episode with a mean adjusted utility decrement of 0.492 (SD: 0.398) point. This decrement increased significantly with CDI severity (Zar score ≥ 3) (p = 0.001), in patients with a positive baseline utility (p = 0.032), in women as compared to men (p = 0.041) and in patients aged more than 65 years (p = 0.041). No association with the Charlson index was found. The associated QALY loss not integrating the excess mortality was 0.028 (SD: 0.053).

Conclusions

The impact on quality of life of CDI episodes is major and translates in a substantial QALY loss despite their short duration.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12955-019-1081-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Evidence-based sizing of non-inferiority trials using decision models

Background

There are significant challenges to the successful conduct of non-inferiority trials because they require large numbers to demonstrate that an alternative intervention is “not too much worse” than the standard. In this paper, we present a novel strategy for designing non-inferiority trials using an approach for determining the appropriate non-inferiority margin (δ), which explicitly balances the benefits of interventions in the two arms of the study (e.g. lower recurrence rate or better survival) with the burden of interventions (e.g. toxicity, pain), and early and late-term morbidity.

Methods

We use a decision analytic approach to simulate a trial using a fixed value for the trial outcome of interest (e.g. cancer incidence or recurrence) under the standard intervention (p_S) and systematically varying the incidence of the outcome in the alternative intervention (p_A). The non-inferiority margin, p_A – p_S = δ, is reached when the lower event rate of the standard therapy counterbalances the higher event rate but improved morbidity burden of the alternative. We consider the appropriate non-inferiority margin as the tipping point at which the quality-adjusted life-years saved in the two arms are equal.

Results

Using the European Polyp Surveillance non-inferiority trial as an example, our decision analytic approach suggests an appropriate non-inferiority margin, defined here as the difference between the two study arms in the 10-year risk of being diagnosed with colorectal cancer, of 0.42% rather than the 0.50% used to design the trial. The size of the non-inferiority margin was smaller for higher assumed burden of colonoscopies.

Conclusions

The example demonstrates that applying our proposed method appears feasible in real-world settings and offers the benefits of more explicit and rigorous quantification of the various considerations relevant for determining a non-inferiority margin and associated trial sample size.

Ibrutinib for Treating Waldenström's Macroglobulinaemia: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal

As part of its Single Technology Appraisal (STA) process, the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of ibrutinib (Janssen) to submit evidence on the clinical and cost effectiveness of ibrutinib for treating Waldenström's macroglobulinaemia (WM). The School of Health and Related Research Technology Assessment Group at the University of Sheffield was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). The ERG produced a critical review of the evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of ibrutinib based on the company's submission to NICE. The clinical evidence was derived from one phase II, single-arm, open-label study of ibrutinib in adult patients with WM who had received at least one prior therapy (Study 1118E) and an indirect comparison using a matched cohort from a retrospective European chart review of patients receiving various treatments for WM. The indirect comparison suggested a hazard ratio for progression-free survival (PFS) of 0.25 (95% confidence interval 0.11-0.57). The ERG had concerns regarding the high risk of bias in Study 1118E, the limited generalisability of the study, and the absence of randomised controlled trial evidence. The company's Markov model assessed the cost effectiveness of ibrutinib versus rituximab/chemotherapy for patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) WM from the perspective of the National Health Service (NHS) and Personal Social Services (PSS) over a lifetime horizon. Based on the company's original Patient Access Scheme (PAS), the company's probabilistic model generated an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for ibrutinib versus rituximab/chemotherapy of £58,905 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Following a critique of the model, the ERG's preferred analysis, which corrected cost errors and used the observed mortality rate from Study 1118E, generated a probabilistic ICER of £61,219 per QALY gained. Based on this amended model, additional exploratory analyses produced ICERs for ibrutinib that were > £60,000 per QALY gained. Subsequently, the company offered to provide ibrutinib at a price that resulted in ibrutinib being cost effective within the Cancer Drugs Fund (CDF). The Committee recommended ibrutinib for use in the CDF as an option for treating WM in adults who have had at least one prior therapy, only if the conditions in the managed access agreement for ibrutinib are followed.

Cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab versus brentuximab vedotin for patients with relapsed or refractory classical Hodgkin's lymphoma: a United States payer perspective

AIMS

Patients with classical Hodgkin's lymphoma (cHL) who have relapsed after or are ineligible for autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) have limited treatment options and generally a poor prognosis. Pembrolizumab was recently approved in the US for the treatment of such patients having demonstrated clinical benefit and tolerability in relapsed/refractory cHL; however, the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab in this population is currently unknown.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A three-state Markov model (progression-free [PF], progressed disease, and death) was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab (200 mg) vs brentuximab vedotin (BV; 1.8 mg/kg) in patients with relapsed/refractory cHL after ASCT who have not received BV post-ASCT over a 20-year time horizon from a US payer perspective. PF survival was modeled using a naïve indirect treatment comparison of data from KEYNOTE-087 and the SG035-003 trial. Post-progression survival was modeled using data from published literature. Costs (drug acquisition and administration, disease management, subsequent treatment, and adverse events) and outcomes were discounted at an annual rate of 3.0%. Uncertainty surrounding cost-effectiveness was assessed via probabilistic, deterministic, and scenario analyses.

RESULTS

In the base case, pembrolizumab was predicted to yield an additional 0.574 life-years (LYs) and 0.500 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) vs BV and cost savings of $63,278. Drug acquisition costs were the biggest driver of incremental costs between strategies. Pembrolizumab had a 99.6% probability of being cost-effective compared with BV at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $20,000/QALY and dominated BV in all scenarios tested.

LIMITATIONS

The analysis was subject to potential bias due to the use of a naïve indirect treatment comparison and, given the current immaturity of OS in KEYNOTE-087, PPS was assumed equivalent across both treatments.

CONCLUSION

Pembrolizumab is a cost-effective alternative to BV for patients with relapsed/refractory cHL after ASCT.

Assessing utility values for treatment-related health states of acute myeloid leukemia in the United States

Background

Preference valuations of health status are essential in health technology and economic appraisal. This study estimated utilities for treatment-related health states of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and disutilities of severe adverse events (SAEs) using a representative sample of adults from the general population in the United States (US).

Methods

Treatment-related AML health states, defined based on literature and interviews with clinicians, included complete remission (CR), no CR, relapse, stem cell transplant (SCT), and post SCT short-term recovery. Six attributes with varying levels, including fever, lack of energy, problems with daily function, anxiety/depression, blood transfusions, and hospitalization, were used to define health states. An online survey using discrete choice experiment methodology was designed to capture preferences for health status scenarios including the identified attributes and key grade 3/4 chemotherapy-related SAEs. Health state utilities and SAE disutilities were generated from a conditional logistic regression with generalized estimating equations.

Results

Of the 300 survey participants, the demographic distributions were within a 3% margin of those in the 2010 US Census. CR had the highest utility value (0.875), followed by post-SCT short-term recovery (0.398), relapse (0.355), no CR (0.262), and SCT (0.158). Of the SAEs, serious infection had the highest decline in utility (0.218), followed by severe diarrhea (0.176), abnormally low blood cell counts (0.100), and severe redness/skin peeling (0.060).

Conclusions

AML and treatments can result in reduced quality of life and impaired ability to perform daily activities. Findings of this study underline the value that society places on treatment-related AML health states and SAEs.

Cost-effectiveness of ibrutinib as first-line therapy for chronic lymphocytic leukemia in older adults without deletion 17p

Ibrutinib is a novel oral therapy that has shown significant efficacy as initial treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). It is a high-cost continuous therapy differing from other regimens that are given for much shorter courses. Our objective was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ibrutinib for first-line treatment of CLL in patients older than age 65 years without a 17p deletion. We developed a semi-Markov model to analyze the cost-effectiveness of ibrutinib vs a comparator therapy from a US Medicare perspective. No direct comparison between ibrutinib and the best available treatment alternative, obinutuzumab plus chlorambucil (chemoimmunotherapy), exists. Therefore, we compared ibrutinib to a theoretical treatment alternative, which was modeled to confer the effectiveness of an inferior treatment (chlorambucil alone) and the costs and adverse events of chemoimmunotherapy, which would provide ibrutinib with the best chance of being cost-effective. Even so, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of ibrutinib vs the modeled comparator was $189 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. To reach a willingness-to-pay threshold (WTP) of $150 000 per QALY, the monthly cost of ibrutinib would have to be at most $6800, $1700 less than the modeled cost of $8500 per month (a reduction of $20 400 per year). When the comparator efficacy is increased to more closely match that seen in trials evaluating chemoimmunotherapy, ibrutinib costs more than $262 000 per QALY gained, and the monthly cost of ibrutinib would need to be lowered to less than $5000 per month to be cost-effective. Ibrutinib is not cost-effective as initial therapy at a WTP threshold of $150 000 per QALY gained.

Cost-effectiveness of ustekinumab in moderate to severe Crohn's disease in Sweden

BACKGROUND

Human monoclonal antibody ustekinumab is a novel Crohn's disease (CD) treatment blocking pro-inflammatory cytokines interleukin-12 and 23. The study's objective was to assess cost-effectiveness of ustekinumab in moderate to severely active CD in Sweden.

METHODS

A cost-effectiveness model with an induction phase decision-tree structure and a maintenance phase Markov cohort structure was constructed. CD was represented by five health-states: remission, mild, moderate-severe, surgery and death. Ustekinumab was compared to adalimumab in patients who had failed conventional care, some of which had tried TNF-alpha-inhibitor(s) without experiencing treatment failure or side effects ("conventional care failure population") and to vedolizumab in patients previously failing TNF-alpha-inhibitor treatment. Discontinuation probabilities, utilities and ustekinumab induction efficacy were sourced from phase-III trials. Maintenance and comparator efficacy came from network-meta and treatment-sequence analyses. Resource use and unit costs were derived from literature and validated by clinical experts. The analysis had a societal perspective, a life-time time-horizon, and 2-year treatment duration. The results robustness was tested in univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Cost-effectiveness was estimated using quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs).

RESULTS

Ustekinumab dominated adalimumab in conventional care failure population (costs: - €6984, QALYs: + 0.232). In TNF-alpha-inhibitor failure population ustekinumab accrued 0.133 more QALYs than vedolizumab, yielding a €30,282 incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Results were sensitive to decreasing the time horizon and increased treatment duration. At Swedish reference willingness-to-pay of €63,000 (SEK 600,000), ustekinumab had 94% probability of being cost-effective versus adalimumab, and 72% versus vedolizumab.

CONCLUSIONS

Results indicate ustekinumab dominates adalimumab in conventional care failure population, and is cost-effective versus vedolizumab in TNF-alpha-inhibitor failure population.

Cost-effectiveness of vedolizumab compared with infliximab, adalimumab, and golimumab in patients with ulcerative colitis in the United Kingdom

OBJECTIVE

To examine the clinical and economic impact of vedolizumab compared with infliximab, adalimumab, and golimumab in the treatment of moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (UC) in the United Kingdom (UK).

METHODS

A decision analytic model in Microsoft Excel was used to compare vedolizumab with other biologic treatments (infliximab, adalimumab, and golimumab) for the treatment of biologic-naïve patients with UC in the UK. Efficacy data were obtained from a network meta-analysis using placebo as the common comparator. Other inputs (e.g., unit costs, adverse-event disutilities, probability of surgery, mortality) were obtained from published literature. Costs were presented in 2012/2013 British pounds. Outcomes included quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Costs and outcomes were discounted by 3.5% per year. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were presented for vedolizumab compared with other biologics. Univariate and multivariate probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess model robustness to parameter uncertainty.

RESULTS

The model predicted that anti-tumour necrosis factor-naïve patients on vedolizumab would accrue more QALY than patients on other biologics. The incremental results suggest that vedolizumab is a cost-effective treatment compared with adalimumab (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £22,735/QALY) and dominant compared with infliximab and golimumab. Sensitivity analyses suggest that results are most sensitive to treatment response and transition probabilities. However, vedolizumab is cost-effective irrespective of variation in any of the input parameters.

CONCLUSIONS

Our model predicted that treatment with vedolizumab improves QALY, increases time in remission and response, and is a cost-effective treatment option compared with all other biologics for biologic-naïve patients with moderately to severely active UC.

Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness results from the randomised, Phase IIB trial in previously untreated patients with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia to compare fludarabine, cyclophosphamide and rituximab with fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, mitoxantrone and low-dose rituximab: the Attenuated dose Rituximab with ChemoTherapy In Chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (ARCTIC) trial

BACKGROUND

The conventional frontline therapy for fit patients with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL) is fludarabine, cyclophosphamide and rituximab (FCR). Rituximab (Mabthera^®, Roche Products Ltd) targets the CD20 antigen, which is expressed at low levels in CLL. The standard dose of rituximab in CLL (375 mg/m² in cycle 1 and 500 mg/m² in cycles 2-6) was selected based on toxicity data only. Small doses of rituximab (as low as 20 mg) have biological activity in CLL, with an immediate reduction in circulating CLL cells and down-regulation of CD20. Phase II trials had suggested improved efficacy with the addition of mitoxantrone to FCR. The key assumption for the Attenuated dose Rituximab with ChemoTherapy In CLL (ARCTIC) trial was that the addition of mitoxantrone to fludarabine, cyclophosphamide and low-dose rituximab would be more effective than conventional FCR.

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, mitoxantrone and low-dose rituximab (FCM-miniR) (100 mg of rituximab per cycle) was non-inferior to FCR in frontline CLL. Complete response (CR) rate was the primary end point, with the secondary end points being progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), overall response rate, eradication of minimal residual disease (MRD), safety and cost-effectiveness.

DESIGN

ARCTIC was a UK multicentre, randomised, controlled, open, Phase IIB non-inferiority trial in previously untreated CLL. A total of 206 patients with previously untreated CLL who required treatment, according to the International Workshop on Chronic Lymphocytic Leukaemia criteria, were to be randomised to FCR or FCM-miniR. There was an independent Data Monitoring and Ethics Committee (DMEC) with a pre-planned interim efficacy assessment on 103 participants.

RESULTS

The DMEC's interim analysis led to early trial closure. Although the response rates in both arms were higher than anticipated, FCM-miniR had a lower CR rate than FCR. This was partly attributable to the higher toxicity associated with mitoxantrone. A total of 100 participants completed FCR, 79 completed FCM-miniR and 21 commenced FCM-miniR but switched to FCR following DMEC recommendations. The CR rate for participants receiving FCR was 76%, compared with 55% for FCM-miniR (adjusted odds ratio 0.37; 95% confidence interval 0.19 to 0.73). Key secondary end points also showed that FCR was superior, with more participants achieving MRD negativity (57% for FCR vs. 46% for FCM-miniR). More participants experienced a serious adverse reaction with FCM-miniR compared with FCR (50% vs. 41%). At a median of 37.3 months' follow-up, the PFS and OS rates are good compared with previous studies, with no significant difference between the treatment arms. The economic analysis indicates that because FCM-miniR is less effective than FCR, FCM-miniR is not expected to be cost-effective over a lifetime horizon, producing a mean cost-saving of -£7723, a quality-adjusted life-year loss of -0.73 and a resulting incremental net monetary loss of -£6780.

CONCLUSIONS

FCM-miniR is less well tolerated, with poorer response rates, than FCR, partly owing to the additional toxicity associated with mitoxantrone. In view of this, FCM-miniR will not be taken forward into a larger definitive Phase III trial. The trial demonstrated that oral FCR yields extremely high response rates compared with historical series with intravenous chemotherapy.

FUTURE WORK

We shall compare the results of ARCTIC with those of the ADMIRE (Does the ADdition of Mitoxantrone Improve Response to FCR chemotherapy in patients with CLL?) trial, which compared FCR with FCM-R to assess the efficacy of low- versus standard-dose rituximab, allowing for the toxicity associated with mitoxantrone.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN16544962.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 28. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Pharmacoeconomic analysis for pemetrexed as a maintenance therapy for NSCLC patients with patient assistance program in China

OBJECTIVE

This study is to evaluate the costs, clinical efficacy, and social benefits of a patient assistance program (PAP) implemented by the China Primary Healthcare Foundation for the use of pemetrexed as a first-line non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) maintenance therapy in China.

METHODS

A survival analysis was conducted on the clinical data of 1,366 patients who participated in the PAP. The progression-free survival (PFS) and median maintenance treatment cycle of pemetrexed were analyzed. A 36-month Markov model from a payer's perspective was constructed to analyze the cost and effectiveness associated with the PAP for pemetrexed. The inputs of the model were sourced from the PAP clinical database and published literature. The study estimated the incremental quality adjusted life-years (QALYs) (pemetrexed plus best supportive care [BSC] vs BSC only), the cost saving of the PAP, the impact on the percentage of catastrophic health expenditures (CHE), and poverty headcount ratio (HCR).

RESULTS

The median of PFS and maintenance treatment cycles were 187 days and five cycles (total nine cycles, which included four cycles of induction therapy), respectively. The pemetrexed plus BSC treatment with PAP resulted in an additional 0.12 QALYs over BSC only. The total cost was $48,034.46 and $96,191.57 for the patients who had or had not joined the PAP in 3 years, respectively. Compared to the patients without PAP, the percentage of CHE and HCR with PAP was reduced from 98.39% to 19.91% and 66.98% to 4.89%, respectively, indicating that the PAP substantially decreased the number of patients who had CHE and fallen into poverty.

CONCLUSION

The study concluded that the pemetrexed PAP generated noticeable clinical and economic benefits to society and to patients. The program also increased patients' compliance with chemotherapy by allowing patients, for whom the pemetrexed treatment was unaffordable, to continue to receive it.