Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations

Cost-effectiveness of large-panel next-generation sequencing in guiding first-line treatment decisions for patients with nonsquamous advanced non-small cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND

Clinical practice guidelines recommend broad-panel genomic profiling to identify actionable genomic alterations for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC).

OBJECTIVE

To assess the cost-effectiveness of large-panel next-generation sequencing (LP-NGS) compared with current empirical single-gene test (SGT) patterns to inform first-line treatment decisions for patients with aNSCLC from a US commercial payer perspective, accounting for the effect of testing turnaround time and time to treatment initiation.

METHODS

We developed a discrete-event simulation model to estimate the impact of LP-NGS vs SGT for patients with nonsquamous aNSCLC. Discrete events and timing included testing patterns, receipt of the initial test result, treatment initiation (targeted vs nontargeted therapies), switching, retesting, rebiopsies, clinical trial participation, progression on therapy, and death. LP-NGS and SGT cohorts each comprised 100,000 adults with aNSCLC simulated over a 5-year postdiagnosis period, assumed to have the same distribution of genomic alterations. The model predicted the proportion of patients receiving appropriate first-line therapy according to clinical practice guidelines. Economic outcomes included expected life-years gained, quality-adjusted life-years, and the total costs of care over 5 years. Sensitivity and scenario analyses explored the robustness of the base-case model results.

RESULTS

In the base-case model, LP-NGS was likely to identify more alterations than SGT. Total 5-year costs per patient were $539,658 for LP-NGS and $544,550 for SGT (net difference, $4,892 lower costs per patient for LP-NGS), which is likely to be cost-effective 95.1% of the time. The most influential model parameters on the 5-year total costs of care were preprogression nondrug medical costs on nontargeted therapy, NGS turnaround time, and clinical trial participation.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that LP-NGS to guide first-line treatment decisions is clinically more appropriate (more likely to identify alterations and subsequently allocate patients to clinically appropriate therapy) and provides a dominant cost-effectiveness treatment strategy over 5 years for patients with newly diagnosed aNSCLC in the United States.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Is circulating tumor cell count-driven cost-effective for first-line therapy choice in HR+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer in the United States?

BACKGROUND

Circulating tumor cell (CTC) counting may be a useful non-invasive biomarker that helps patients choose first-line treatment options. Nevertheless, the cost of CTC inspection may impose an economic burden on patients, necessitating the simultaneous consideration of both its clinical effectiveness and cost. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of CTC count-guided chemotherapy and endocrine therapy as first-line therapy for HR+/HER2-metastatic breast cancer (MBC) from the perspective of US payers.

METHODS

Based on the STIC CTC trial, a Markov model was constructed for three health states, and health outcomes were measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robustness of the incremental cost per QALY.

RESULTS

The base-case analysis revealed that CTC count-driven treatment was associated with improved effectiveness by 0.07 QALYs and increased the overall cost by $9187.05 compared with clinician-driven first-line treatment choices, leading to an ICER of $138 354.15 per QALY. One-way sensitivity analysis indicated that the model was most sensitive to the cost of treatment for neutropenia and the utility for PFS; probability sensitivity analysis indicated that CTC count-driven treatment choices would be considered the cost-effective option at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000 per QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this cost-effectiveness analysis suggest that, at the current price of CTC enumeration, choosing first-line treatment options based on CTC count is a cost-effectiveness approach for treating patients with HR+/HER2- MBC in the US.

Economic Evaluation of Telerehabilitation: Systematic Literature Review of Cost-Utility Studies

BACKGROUND

Telerehabilitation could benefit a large population by increasing adherence to rehabilitation protocols.

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to review and discuss the use of cost-utility approaches in economic evaluations of telerehabilitation interventions.

METHODS

A review of the literature on PubMed, Scopus, Centres for Review and Dissemination databases (including the HTA database, the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database), Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov (last search on February 8, 2021) was conducted in accordance with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. The inclusion criteria were defined in accordance with the PICOS (population, intervention, comparison, outcomes, and study design) system: the included studies had to evaluate patients in rehabilitation therapy for all diseases and disorders (population) through exercise-based telerehabilitation (intervention) and had to have a control group that received face-to-face rehabilitation (comparison), and these studies had to evaluate effectiveness through gain in quality of life (outcome) and used the design of randomized and controlled clinical studies (study).

RESULTS

We included 11 economic evaluations, of which 6 concerned cardiovascular diseases. Several types of interventions were assessed as telerehabilitation, consisting in monitoring of rehabilitation at home (monitored by physicians) or a rehabilitation program with exercise and an educational intervention at home alone. All studies were based on randomized clinical trials and used a validated health-related quality of life instrument to describe patients' health states. Four evaluations used the EQ-5D, 1 used the EQ-5D-5L, 2 used the EQ-5D-3L, 3 used the Short-Form Six-Dimension questionnaire, and 1 used the 36-item Short Form survey. The mean quality-adjusted life years gained using telerehabilitation services varied from -0.09 to 0.89. These results were reported in terms of the probability that the intervention was cost-effective at different thresholds for willingness-to-pay values. Most studies showed results about telerehabilitation as dominant (ie, more effective and less costly) together with superiority or noninferiority in outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

There is evidence to support telerehabilitation as a cost-effective intervention for a large population among different disease areas. There is a need for conducting cost-effectiveness studies in countries because the available evidence has limited generalizability in such countries.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42021248785; https://tinyurl.com/4xurdvwf.