Budget Impact of Dabrafenib and Trametinib in Combination as Adjuvant Treatment of BRAF V600E/K Mutation-Positive Melanoma from a U.S. Commercial Payer Perspective

Is the Scope of Costs Considered in Budget Impact Analyses for Anticancer Drugs Rational? A Systematic Review and Comparative Study

Background: With the increasing disease burden of cancer worldwide, more and more anticancer drugs have been approved in many countries, and the results of budget impact analyses (BIAs) have become important evidence for related reimbursement decisions.

Objectives: We systematically reviewed whether BIAs for anticancer drugs consider the scope of costs rationally and compared the results of different cost scopes to provide suggestions for future analyses and decision-making.

Methods: Eligible BIAs published in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library from 2016 to 2021 were identified based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We extracted 15 terms from the included studies and analyzed how they considered the scope of costs. In addition, a budget impact model was developed for the introduction of geptanolimab to China's National Reimbursement Drug List to enable a comparison of two cost-scope scenarios.

Results: A total of 29 studies were included in the systematic review. All 29 studies considered the costs of anticancer drugs, and 25 (86%) also considered condition-related costs, but only 11 (38%) considered subsequent treatment costs. In the comparative study, the predicted budget impacts from 2022 to 2024 were significantly impacted by subsequent treatment costs, with annual differences between the two cost-scope scenarios of $39,546,664, $65,866,161, and $86,577,386, respectively.

Conclusions: The scope of costs considered in some existing BIAs for anticancer drugs are not rational. The variations between different cost scopes in terms of budget impact were significant. Thus, BIAs for anticancer drugs should consider a rational scope of costs that adheres to BIA guidelines. Researchers and decision-makers should pay more attention to the scope of costs to achieve better-quality BIAs for anticancer drugs and enhance reimbursement decision-making.

Estimated Cost-effectiveness of Atezolizumab Plus Cobimetinib and Vemurafenib for Treatment of BRAF V600 Variation Metastatic Melanoma

IMPORTANCE

In the IMspire150 trial, triplet treatment with atezolizumab and vemurafenib plus cobimetinib significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared with vemurafenib plus cobimetinib alone for treatment of BRAF V600 variation metastatic melanoma. However, considering high cost of this combination, it is unclear if the incremental cost is worth the additional survival benefit.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab and vemurafenib plus cobimetinib vs vemurafenib plus cobimetinib alone in patients with newly diagnosed unresectable BRAF V600 variation metastatic melanoma from the US health care perspective.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This economic evaluation study used a 3-state partitioned survival model to assess the cost-effectiveness of the combination of atezolizumab with vemurafenib plus cobimetinib vs vemurafenib plus cobimetinib alone. The observed Kaplan-Meier curves for overall survival and PFS were digitized from the IMspire150 trial (January 2017-April 2018) and the long-term survivals (over a lifetime horizon) beyond the end of the trial were extrapolated using 7 different survival models. The cost and health preference data were collected from a literature review. This study was performed from March 2021 through June 2021.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The outcomes of interest were expected life-years (LYs) gained and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), expressed as cost per LYs and per QALYs saved.

RESULTS

Adding atezolizumab to vemurafenib and cobimetinib provided an additional 3.267 QALYs compared with the doublet regimen of vemurafenib plus cobimetinib, at an ICER of $271 669 per QALY, which is not considered cost-effective at the willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000 per QALY. However, the scenario analyses found that atezolizumab combined with vemurafenib plus cobimetinib could be cost-effective at 20-year (ICER, $121 432 per QALY) and 30-year ($98 092 per QALY) time horizons when both strategies were stopped after 2 years of treatments, and over a lifetime horizon ($122 220 per QALY) when only immunotherapy with atezolizumab was stopped after 2 years of treatment.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

These findings suggest that the atezolizumab and vemurafenib plus cobimetinib regimen provides significant survival benefits over vemurafenib plus cobimetinib alone, and a price reduction would be encouraged to maximize the value of its survival gain.

Methodological Quality Assessment of Budget Impact Analyses for Orphan Drugs: A Systematic Review

Objectives: This research aims to evaluate the methodological quality of budget impact analyses for orphan drugs and to provide suggestions for future analyses. Methods: Conference abstracts and peer-reviewed literature on budget impact analyses were collected through searches of Pubmed and Embase. ISPOR good practice guidelines were used as a methodological standard for budget impact analyses. Examined parameters encompassed: perspective, target population, data sources, intervention and comparator(s), time horizon, scope of costs, discounting, validation, assumptions and sensitivity analysis. Results: Seventy studies on individual orphan drugs and 21 studies on a combination of orphan drugs analyzing budget impact were identified. Overall, analyses considered a third-party payer perspective, reported periodic budget impacts over a one-to-five-year time horizon, and did not apply discounting. A dynamically fluctuating population and costs beyond drug costs were accounted for in 18.7% and 51.7% of studies, respectively. Input data were retrieved from published literature, clinical trials, registries, claims databases, expert opinions, historical data and market research. Assumptions were mostly made about population size and intervention/comparator(s) market uptake, but these assumptions were rarely justified and their impact was insufficiently explored through sensitivity analyses. Budget impact results were rarely validated. Conclusion: Existing budget impact analyses for orphan drugs are concise, vary greatly and are of substandard methodological quality. To eliminate possible bias in future budget impact analyses, future studies should adhere to national or ISPOR good practice guidelines on budget impact analysis.

A budget impact analysis of gilteritinib for the treatment of relapsed or refractory FLT3 mut+ acute myeloid leukemia in a US health plan

AIMS

To estimate the economic impact of the introduction of gilteritinib for the treatment of relapsed/refractory (R/R) FLT3 mutation-positive (FLT3 ^mut+) acute myeloid leukemia (AML) from a US payer's perspective.

METHODS

A budget impact model (BIM) was developed to evaluate the 3-year total budgetary impact of treating adults with R/R FLT3 ^mut+ AML eligible for gilteritinib in a hypothetical US health plan. Total costs (drugs/administration, hospitalization, monitoring, adverse events, transfusions, subsequent hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, post-progression, and FLT3 testing) were estimated before and after gilteritinib entry. The budget impact was the total cost difference between the two scenarios. The target population size and cost inputs were based on public data or published literature, drug market share was informed by market research data, and the model included recommended treatments for R/R FLT3 ^mut+ AML per clinical guidelines. Deterministic sensitivity analyses (DSAs) and scenario analyses varying key model inputs and assumptions were conducted to test for robustness.

RESULTS

In a hypothetical health plan with 1 million members, 20.9 adults with R/R FLT3 ^mut+ AML were estimated to be eligible for gilteritinib. Of these, it was assumed 30.0% would be treated with gilteritinib in Year 1 following gilteritinib entry, increasing the total plan budget by $663,795 and the per-member-per-month (PMPM) cost by $0.055. In Years 2-3, the market share of gilteritinib increased to 45.0%, increasing the total plan budget impact by $1,078,371 and $1,087,230, and the PMPM cost by $0.090 and $0.091, respectively. The model results remained robust in DSAs and scenario analyses, with the largest impact observed when the projected uptake of gilteritinib was changed.

LIMITATIONS

The results of this BIM are contingent upon the model's assumptions and inputs.

CONCLUSIONS

Adding gilteritinib to the formulary for the treatment of adults with R/R FLT3 ^mut+ AML had a minimal budget impact from a US payer's perspective.

Economic evaluation of adverse events of dabrafenib plus trametinib versus nivolumab in patients with advanced BRAF-mutant cutaneous melanoma for adjuvant therapy in Germany

Background: Adjuvant treatment options have become the standard therapy for stage III and IV resectable cutaneous melanoma. Two recent studies led to the registration of dabrafenib and trametinib as targeted therapies for BRAF-mutated melanoma, and of immunotherapy with nivolumab irrespective of BRAF-mutation status. Both therapies have different spectrums of adverse events. Objective: To estimate the financial impact of side effects from the perspective of the German statutory sick funds to compare both therapeutic options and to relate the burden to the overall costs of the treatment.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Thirty-six adverse event categories for the combination of dabrafenib and trametinib ('combi treatment') and for nivolumab were extracted from the original publications of the studies named COMBI-AD and CheckMate 238.

PATIENTS AND INTERVENTION

For all event categories a diagnosis and therapy recommendation were determined according to current national or international guidelines or from leading German textbooks.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

The resulting diagnostic steps, treatments, and therapies were evaluated with unit costs based on the German fee schedule for ambulatory physicians, the German G-DRG scheme, and the German drug price list.

RESULTS

The number of events with nivolumab per one hundred treatments amounted to 3.8 mandatory hospitalizations, 3.5 emergency care events and 0.8 life-threatening events. For the combi treatment, the respective number of events per one hundred treatments was 2.7, 1.8, and 0.5. The overall cost burden was calculated as €899 for nivolumab and €861 for combi-treatment.

CONCLUSION

The treatment of adverse events resulting from adjuvant melanoma therapy showed comparable costs for both therapies.