Budget Impact Of Including Avelumab As A Second-Line Treatment For Locally Advanced Or Metastatic Urothelial Cancer In The United States: Commercial And Medicare Payer Perspectives

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.

Targeted Molecular Therapeutics for Bladder Cancer-A New Option beyond the Mixed Fortunes of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors?

The fact that there are now five immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) monoclonal antibodies approved since 2016 that target programmed cell death protein 1 or programmed death ligand-1 for the treatment of metastatic and refractory bladder cancer is an outstanding achievement. Although patients can display pronounced responses that extend survival when treated with ICIs, the main benefit of these drugs compared to traditional chemotherapy is that they are better tolerated and result in reduced adverse events (AEs). Unfortunately, response rates to ICI treatment are relatively low and, these drugs are expensive and have a high economic burden. As a result, their clinical efficacy/cost-value relationship is debated. Long sought after targeted molecular therapeutics have now emerged and are boasting impressive response rates in heavily pre-treated, including ICI treated, patients with metastatic bladder cancer. The antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) enfortumab vedotin (EV) and sacituzumab govitecan (SG) have demonstrated the ability to provide objective response rates (ORRs) of 44% and 31% in patients with bladder tumor cells that express Nectin-4 and Trop-2, respectively. As a result, EV was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of patients with advanced or metastatic bladder cancer who have previously received ICI and platinum-containing chemotherapy. SG has been granted fast track designation. The small molecule Erdafitinib was recently approved for the treatment of patients with advanced or metastatic bladder cancer with genetic alterations in fibroblast growth factor receptors that have previously been treated with a platinum-containing chemotherapy. Erdafitinib achieved an ORR of 40% in patients including a proportion who had previously received ICI therapy. In addition, these targeted drugs are sufficiently tolerated or AEs can be appropriately managed. Hence, the early performance in clinical effectiveness of these targeted drugs are substantially increased relative to ICIs. In this article, the most up to date follow-ups on treatment efficacy and AEs of the ICIs and targeted therapeutics are described. In addition, drug price and cost-effectiveness are described. For best overall value taking into account clinical effectiveness, price and cost-effectiveness, results favor avelumab and atezolizumab for ICIs. Although therapeutically promising, it is too early to determine if the described targeted therapeutics provide the best overall value as cost-effectiveness analyses have yet to be performed and long-term follow-ups are needed. Nonetheless, with the arrival of targeted molecular therapeutics and their increased effectiveness relative to ICIs, creates a potential novel paradigm based on 'targeting' for affecting clinical practice for metastatic bladder cancer treatment.