Elicitation of health state utilities in neuroendocrine tumours

Assessment of health state utilities associated with adult and pediatric acid sphingomyelinase deficiency (ASMD)

INTRODUCTION

Acid sphingomyelinase deficiency (ASMD) type B is a rare genetic disorder leading to enlargement of the spleen and liver, pulmonary dysfunction, and other symptoms. Cost-utility analyses are often conducted to quantify the value of new treatments, and these analyses require health state utilities. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to estimate utilities associated with varying levels of severity of adult and pediatric ASMD type B.

METHODS

Seven adult and seven child health state vignettes describing ASMD were developed based on published literature, clinical trial results, and interviews with clinicians, patients with ASMD, and parents of children with ASMD. The health states were valued in time trade-off interviews with adult general population respondents in the UK.

RESULTS

Interviews were completed with 202 participants (50.0% female; mean age = 41.3 years). The health state representing ASMD without impairment had the highest mean utility for both the adult and child health states (0.92/0.94), and severe ASMD had the lowest mean utility (0.33/0.45). Every child health state had a significantly greater utility than the corresponding adult health state. Differences between adult/child paired states ranged from 0.02 to 0.13. Subgroup analyses explored the impact of parenting status on valuation of child health states.

DISCUSSION

Greater severity of ASMD was associated with lower mean utility. Results have implications for valuation of pediatric health states. The resulting utilities may be useful in cost-utility modeling estimating the value of treatment for ASMD.

Economic Evaluation of Three BRAF + MEK Inhibitors for the Treatment of Advanced Unresectable Melanoma With BRAF Mutation From a US Payer Perspective

BACKGROUND

The combinations of BRAF + MEK inhibitors-encorafenib (ENC) + binimetinib (BIN), cobimetinib (COB) + vemurafenib (VEM), and dabrafenib (DAB) + trametinib (TRA)-are recommended for the treatment of BRAF-mutated advanced melanoma.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of ENC + BIN versus COB + VEM versus DAB + TRA from a US payer perspective.

METHODS

A Markov model was constructed to simulate a hypothetical cohort over a time horizon of 10 years. The overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) curves were independently digitized from a randomized controlled trial for ENC + BIN and fitted using R software. Published and indirectly estimated hazard ratios were used to fit OS and PFS curves for COB + VEM and DAB + TRA. Costs, life-year gains, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) associated with the 3 treatment combinations were estimated. A base case analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) were conducted to estimate the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR). A discount rate of 3.5% was applied on cost and outcomes.

RESULTS

The ENC + BIN versus COB + VEM comparison was associated with an ICUR of $656 233 per QALY gained. The ENC + BIN versus DAB + TRA comparison was associated with an ICUR of $3 135 269 per QALY gained. The DAB + TRA combination dominated COB + VEM. The base case analysis estimates were confirmed by the PSA estimates. ENC + BIN was the most cost-effective combination at a high willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $573 000 per QALY and $1.5 million/QALY when compared to COB + VEM and DAB + TRA, respectively.

CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE

Given current prices and acceptable WTP thresholds, our study suggests that DAB + TRA is the optimum treatment. In this study, ENC + BIN was cost-effective only at a very high WTP per QALY threshold.

Health state utility values for metastatic pancreatic cancer using a composite time trade-off based on the vignette-based approach in Japan

BACKGROUNDS

Limited information is available on the utility values of metastatic pancreatic cancer, focusing on different health statuses, selected chemotherapy, and related grades 1/2 and 3/4 adverse events (AEs). We evaluated Japanese societal-based health-related utility values for metastatic pancreatic cancer by considering different grade toxicities commonly associated with chemotherapy using the vignette-based method.

METHODS

We developed health status scenarios for patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer undergoing chemotherapy and conducted utility research using the developed scenarios in four steps: 'literature review,' 'exploratory interview,' 'content validation', and 'utility research'. In the development process, to consider the impact of AEs of chemotherapy for metastatic pancreatic cancer on health state utility values, we selected neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, diarrhea, nausea and vomiting, and neuropathy as representative AEs. Each AE was classified as either grade 1/2 or 3/4. We confirmed our created scenarios through cognitive interviews with the general population and clinical experts to validate the content. Finally, we developed 11 scenarios for using 'utility research,' evaluated in a societal-based valuation study using the face-to-face method. Participants for 'utility research' were the general population, and they evaluated these scenarios in the composite time trade-off (cTTO) and visual analog scale (VAS) of the European quality of life (EuroQol) valuation technology to derive health state utility scores.

RESULTS

Of 220 responders who completed this survey, 201 were adapted into the analysis population. Stable disease with no AEs (reference state) had a mean utility value of 0.653 using cTTO. The lowest mean utility score in the stable state was 0.242 (stable disease + grade 3/4 vomiting). VAS results ranged from 0.189 to 0.468, depending on the various grades of AEs in stable disease. In addition, grade 3/4 AEs and grade 1/2 nausea/vomiting were associated with significantly greater disutility. Utility values were also strongly influenced by the direct impact of AE on physical symptoms, severity and their experience. In addition, 95.9% of the respondents agreed that they understood the questions in the post-response questionnaire.

CONCLUSIONS

We clarified the health state utility values of patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer based on the general population in Japan. The effect on utilities should be considered not only for serious AEs, but also for minor AEs.

Health-related quality of life and treatment effects in patients with well-differentiated gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction

Gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (GEPNENs) are often diagnosed in an advanced stage. As the optimal sequence of therapy remains largely unclear, all treatment‐related outcomes, including health‐related quality of life (HRQoL) prospects, should be assessed according to patients' preferences.

Methods

A targeted search was performed in PubMed and EMBASE to identify studies on treatment effect and HRQoL, measured using the EORTC QLQ‐C30 tool, in patients with advanced, well‐differentiated GEPNENs. Study quality was assessed, and meta‐analyses were performed for global health status/QOL and tumour response.

Results

The search yielded 1,322 records, and 20 studies were included, examining somatostatin analogues (SSA), peptide receptor radionuclide therapies (PRRT), chemotherapy, SSA‐based combination therapies, and targeted therapies. Global HRQoL was stable, and rates for disease stabilisation were moderate to high across all treatments. Meta‐analyses for global health status/QOL after SSA treatment were not significant (mean difference: –0.3 [95% CI: −1.3 to 0.7]). The highest pooled overall tumour response rate was 33% (95% CI: 24–45%) for PRRT. The highest pooled clinical benefit rate was 94% (95% CI: 65–99%) for chemotherapy.

Conclusion

All treatments appeared beneficial for disease stabilisation while maintaining stable global health status/QOL. High‐quality HRQoL reporting was lacking. HRQoL should be a central outcome next to well‐established outcomes.

Economic evaluation of orphan drug Lutetium-Octreotate vs. Octreotide long-acting release for patients with an advanced midgut neuroendocrine tumour in the Netherlands

OBJECTIVES

Multiple studies showed positive effects of Lutetium-Octreotate (LO) treatment in neuroendocrine tumours. LO has been used in the Netherlands since the 1980s and recently received the orphan status shortly after the acquisition by Novartis. Since then, the official list price has increased sixfold. From a value-based pricing perspective, we analysed the impact of the increase in price on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of LO treatment compared to optimal best supportive care, a high dose of Octreotide long-acting release (O-LAR), using the clinical data of the NETTER-1 trial.

METHODS

A Markov model was developed to evaluate the costs per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) for LO treatment compared to O-LAR from the healthcare perspective. A scenario analysis was conducted to compare the cost-effectiveness with the initial and increased price level of the LO-treatment.

RESULTS

At the increased price level, the cost-effectiveness analysis rendered a deterministic ICER of €53,500 per QALY, while at the initial pricing, the ICER was €19,000 per QALY. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) showed that LO had a high probability of being cost-effective at both the increased and initial price level, considering a cost-effectiveness threshold of €80,000.

CONCLUSIONS

Even at the increased price level, LO treatment can still be considered cost-effective using the applicable Dutch willingness-to-pay threshold of 80,000 euro per QALY. Considering the public scrutiny in relation to this price increase, these outcomes raise the question whether traditional cost-effectiveness methods are sufficient in fully capturing the societal acceptance of prices of new medicines.

Investigating health-related quality of life in rare diseases: a case study in utility value determination for patients with CLN2 disease (neuronal ceroid lipofuscinosis type 2)

Background

Utility studies enable preference-based quantification of a disease’s impact on patients’ health-related quality of life (HRQoL). It is often difficult to obtain utility values for rare, neurodegenerative conditions due to cognitive burden of direct elicitation methods, and the limited size of patient/caregiver populations. CLN2 disease (neuronal ceroid lipofuscinosis type 2) is an ultra-rare, progressive condition, for which there are no published utility data fully capturing all disease stages. This case study demonstrates how utility values can be estimated for ultra-rare paediatric diseases by asking clinicians to complete EQ-5D-5L questionnaires based on vignettes describing the stages of CLN2 disease.

Methods

An indirect elicitation method using proxy-reporting by clinical experts was adopted. Eighteen vignettes were developed, describing nine progressive disease stages as defined by motor and language domain scores of the CLN2 Clinical Rating Scale, in individuals treated with cerliponase alfa or standard care. Eight clinical experts with experience of treating CLN2 disease with cerliponase alfa and current standard care completed the proxy version 2 EQ-5D-5L online after reading these vignettes. Resulting scores were converted to EQ-5D-5L utility values for each disease stage, using UK, German and Spanish value sets.

Results

Utility values, which are typically anchored by 0 (equivalent to death) and 1 (full health), decreased with CLN2 disease progression (results spanned the maximum range of the utility scale). Assigned utility values were consistently higher for patients receiving cerliponase alfa than standard care; differences were statistically significant for the 6 most severe disease stages (p < 0.05). Analysis of the individual dimensions of the EQ-5D-5L showed that greatest differences between patients treated with cerliponase alfa and standard care occurred in the pain dimension (differences in mean scores ranged between no difference and 1.8), with notable differences also observed in the anxiety/depression dimension (differences in mean scores ranged between 0.1 and 1.0).

Conclusions

This study demonstrates a feasible methodology for eliciting utility values in CLN2 disease, indicating HRQoL declines with disease progression. Vignettes describing patients receiving cerliponase alfa were consistently assigned higher utility values for the same disease state, suggesting this treatment improves HRQoL compared with standard care.

Trial registration NCT01907087, NCT02485899.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13023-021-01829-x.

Lutetium oxodotreotide (177Lu-Dotatate) for the treatment of unresectable or metastatic progressive gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: a cost-effectiveness analysis for Scotland

Background

Gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NETs) represent a heterogenous group of tumors. Findings from the phase III NETTER-1 trial showed that treatment of unresectable/metastatic progressive gastrointestinal (GI) NETs with ¹⁷⁷Lu-Dotatate resulted in a significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) compared with best supportive care (BSC) with high dose octreotide long-acting repeatable (LAR) 60 mg. A health economic analysis was performed using input data from clinical studies and data derived from an indirect comparison to determine the cost-effectiveness of ¹⁷⁷Lu-Dotatate in the treatment of GI-NETs and pancreatic NETs (P-NETs) in Scotland.

Methods

Cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from the payer perspective using a three-state partitioned survival model. In the base case ¹⁷⁷Lu-Dotatate was compared with BSC in gastrointestinal (GI)-NETs using clinical data from the NETTER-1 trial. A secondary analysis comparing ¹⁷⁷Lu-Dotatate with BSC, everolimus or sunitinib in patients with P-NETs was also performed using hazard ratios inferred from indirect comparisons. The base case analysis was performed over a 20-year time horizon with an annual discount rate of 3.5% for both costs and clinical outcomes.

Results

For unresectable/metastatic progressive GI-NETs treatment with ¹⁷⁷Lu-Dotatate led to a gain in quality-adjusted life expectancy of 1.33 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) compared with BSC due to extended PFS and OS. Mean total lifetime costs were GBP 35,701 higher with ¹⁷⁷Lu-Dotatate, leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of GBP 26,830 per QALY gained.

In analyses in patients with P-NETs ¹⁷⁷Lu-Dotatate was associated with ICERs below GBP 30,000 per QALY gained in comparisons with BSC, sunitinib and everolimus.

Conclusions

Cost-effectiveness analyses demonstrated that, in Scotland, from the payer perspective, ¹⁷⁷Lu-Dotatate at the set acquisition cost is a cost-effective treatment option for patients with unresectable or metastatic progressive GI-NETs or P-NETs.

Cost-effectiveness of Lutetium [177Lu] oxodotreotide versus best supportive care with octreotide in patients with midgut neuroendocrine tumors in France

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

In France, there are approximately 2,400 new cases of neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) annually. Peptide receptor radionuclide therapy with ¹⁷⁷Lu-Dotatate plus long-acting repeatable [LAR] octreotide 30 mg has been shown to significantly improve progression-free survival and overall survival relative to high-dose octreotide LAR 60 mg in patients with unresectable or metastatic progressive midgut NETs. A long-term cost-effectiveness analysis was performed to assess whether ¹⁷⁷Lu-Dotatate is a cost-effective option versus octreotide 60 mg for patients with unresectable/metastatic progressive midgut NETs from the perspective of French healthcare payer.

METHODS

The analysis was performed using a three-state partitioned survival model. In the base case analysis ¹⁷⁷Lu-Dotatate plus octreotide LAR 30 mg was compared with high-dose octreotide LAR 60 mg in patients with midgut NETs. Survival data were obtained from the phase III NETTER-1 trial in patients with metastatic midgut NETs. Future costs and clinical outcomes were discounted at 4% per annum. One-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

In the base case analysis, for patients with midgut NETs, ¹⁷⁷Lu-Dotatate treatment improved quality-adjusted life expectancy by 1.21 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) relative to octreotide LAR 60 mg and the lifetime treatment costs were EUR 50,784 higher with ¹⁷⁷Lu-Dotatate resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of EUR 42,106 per QALY gained versus octreotide LAR 60 mg. When compared with everolimus, ¹⁷⁷Lu-Dotatate was associated with an ICER of EUR 59,769 per QALY gained. Sensitivity analyses showed that the results were sensitive to methods used to extrapolate survival data.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with advanced progressive midgut NETs ¹⁷⁷Lu-Dotatate is likely to be considered a cost-effective option versus octreotide 60 mg from the perspective of the French healthcare payer.

Cost-effectiveness of lutetium (177Lu) oxodotreotide vs everolimus in gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors in Norway and Sweden

BACKGROUND

Gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NETs) represent a relatively rare and heterogenous group of tumors. Currently available treatment options for patients with progressive GEP-NETs include lutetium (¹⁷⁷Lu) oxodotreotide (¹⁷⁷Lu-Dotatate) and everolimus [as well as sunitinib for patients with pancreatic NETs (P-NETs)].

AIM

To perform a health economic analysis to determine the cost-effectiveness of ¹⁷⁷Lu-Dotatate compared with everolimus in patients with unresectable or metastatic midgut-NETs or P-NETs in both Sweden and Norway.

METHODS

Simulations were performed using a three-state partitioned survival model and analyses were performed separately for patients with midgut-NETs and P-NETs. Clinical input data were sourced from an indirect comparison that utilized survival data from clinical trials of ¹⁷⁷Lu-Dotatate and everolimus. The analyses were performed from the healthcare payer perspective over a time horizon of 20 years. For Sweden, future costs and clinical outcomes were discounted at 3% per annum. For Norway, a discount rate of 4% per annum was applied.

RESULTS

For Sweden, improved survival outcomes and higher lifetime costs with ¹⁷⁷Lu-Dotatate resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of SEK 391194 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained for midgut NETs and SEK 16764 per QALY gained for P-NETs for ¹⁷⁷Lu-Dotatate compared with everolimus. For Norway, the corresponding ICERs were NOK 244444 per QALY gained and NOK 106451 per QALY gained, respectively. One-way sensitivity analyses revealed that the results were most sensitive to changes in drug acquisition costs and health state utility values.

CONCLUSION

In both Sweden and Norway, from a healthcare provider perspective, ¹⁷⁷Lu-Dotatate is likely to be considered cost-effective relative to everolimus for the treatment of patients with unresectable or metastatic, progressive midgut-NETs or P-NETs. 

Elicitation of Health Utilities in Oncology in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

PURPOSE

Health utilities (HUs) are quantitative measures of quality of life that are used to derive outcomes such as quality-adjusted life years in cost-effectiveness analyses. In the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, there are no HUs for cancer. This study aimed to generate HU estimates for various health states associated with cancer in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

METHODS

Adult citizens of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, patients with cancer, and patients without cancer were recruited to participate in an online version of the Time Trade-Off (TTO) survey, a direct method that asks participants to indicate the amount of time they are willing to trade off in return for full health. The time horizon was 10 years. Patients were surveyed on their own health state; patients without cancer were presented with a scenario describing stage III colon cancer and were asked to act as proxies.

RESULTS

Mean HU score was 0.398 (n = 398), 0.315 for patients with cancer (n = 199), and 0.482 for patients without cancer (n = 199). Among patients, the largest subgroup with colorectal cancer (n = 105), had a mean HU of 0.296; the subgroup with the lowest mean HU was patients with hepatocellular cancer (n = 3; 0.047), and the subgroup with the highest mean HU was patients with cholangiocarcinoma (n = 5; 0.508). Overall, the initial stage I subgroup (n = 7) had a mean HU of 0.456; initial stage II (n = 25), 0.240; stage II (n = 67), 0.319; and initial stage IV (n = 77), 0.320.

CONCLUSION

To our knowledge, this is the first study of this size to elicit HU scores for cancer in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Patients may have had clinically worse disease than the patients in the scenario that was presented to patients without cancer. Further analyses are warranted for specific types of cancer. These HUs can in turn be applied in cost-utility analyses.

Cost-Effectiveness of Initial Versus Delayed Lanreotide for Treatment of Metastatic Enteropancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors

Background: The Controlled Study of Lanreotide Antiproliferative Response in Neuroendocrine Tumors (CLARINET) trial showed prolonged progression-free survival in patients initially treated with lanreotide versus placebo. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of upfront lanreotide versus active surveillance with lanreotide administered after progression in patients with metastatic enteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (NETs), both of which are treatment options recommended in NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology for Neuroendocrine and Adrenal Tumors. Methods: We developed a Markov model calibrated to the CLARINET trial and its extension. We based the active surveillance strategy on the CLARINET placebo arm. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in dollars per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). We modeled lanreotide’s cost at $7,638 per 120 mg (average sales price plus 6%), used published utilities (stable disease, 0.77; progressed disease, 0.61), adopted a healthcare sector perspective and lifetime time horizon, and discounted costs and benefits at 3% annually. We examined sensitivity to survival extrapolation and modeled octreotide long-acting release (LAR) ($6,183 per 30 mg). We conducted one-way, multiway, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Results: Upfront lanreotide led to 5.21 QALYs and a cost of $804,600. Active surveillance followed by lanreotide after progression led to 4.84 QALYs and a cost of $590,200, giving an ICER of $578,500/QALY gained. Reducing lanreotide’s price by 95% (to $370) or 85% (to $1,128) per 120 mg would allow upfront lanreotide to reach ICERs of $100,000/QALY or $150,000/QALY. Across a range of survival curve extrapolation scenarios, pricing lanreotide at $370 to $4,000 or $1,130 to $5,600 per 120 mg would reach ICERs of $100,000/QALY or $150,000/QALY, respectively. Our findings were robust to extensive sensitivity analyses. The ICER modeling octreotide LAR is $482,700/QALY gained. Conclusions: At its current price, lanreotide is not cost-effective as initial therapy for patients with metastatic enteropancreatic NETs and should be reserved for postprogression treatment. To be cost-effective as initial therapy, the price of lanreotide would need to be lowered by 48% to 95% or 27% to 86% to reach ICERs of $100,000/QALY or $150,00/QALY, respectively.

Everolimus, lutetium-177 DOTATATE and sunitinib for advanced, unresectable or metastatic neuroendocrine tumours with disease progression: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

Neuroendocrine tumours (NETs) are a group of heterogeneous cancers that develop in cells in the diffuse neuroendocrine system.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the clinical effectiveness of three interventions [everolimus (Afinitor^®; Novartis International AG, Basel, Switzerland), lutetium-177 DOTATATE (177Lu-DOTATATE) (Lutathera^®; Imaging Equipment Ltd, Radstock, UK) and sunitinib (Sutent^®; Pfizer Inc., New York, NY, USA)] for treating unresectable or metastatic NETs with disease progression and establish the cost-effectiveness of these interventions.

DATA SOURCES

The following databases were searched from inception to May 2016: MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, MEDLINE Daily, Epub Ahead of Print, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Web of Science.

REVIEW METHODS

We systematically reviewed the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness literature on everolimus, 177Lu-DOTATATE and sunitinib for treating advanced, unresectable or metastatic progressive NETs. The following NET locations were considered separately: pancreas, gastrointestinal (GI) tract and lung, and GI tract (midgut only). We wrote a survival partition cohort-based economic evaluation in Microsoft Excel^® 2013 (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, USA) from the UK NHS and Personal Social Services perspective. This comprised three health states: (1) progression-free survival (PFS), (2) progressed disease and (3) death.

RESULTS

Three randomised controlled trials (RCTs), RADIANT-3 [RAD001 in Advanced Neuroendocrine Tumors, Third Trial; pancreatic NETs (pNETs): everolimus vs. best supportive care (BSC)], A6181111 (pNETs: sunitinib vs. BSC) and RADIANT-4 (RAD001 in Advanced Neuroendocrine Tumors, Fourth Trial; GI and lung NETs: everolimus vs. BSC), met the inclusion criteria for the clinical effectiveness systematic review. The risk of bias was low. Although the NETTER-1 (Neuroendocrine Tumors Therapy) RCT, of 177Lu-DOTATATE plus 30 mg of octreotide (Sandostatin^®, Novartis) compared with 60 mg of octreotide, was excluded from the review, we nonetheless present the results of this trial, as it informs our estimate of the cost-effectiveness of 177Lu-DOTATATE. The pNETs trials consistently found that the interventions improved PFS and overall survival (OS) compared with BSC. Our indirect comparison found no significant difference in PFS between everolimus and sunitinib. Estimates of OS gain were confounded because of high rates of treatment switching. After adjustment, our indirect comparison suggested a lower, but non-significant, hazard of death for sunitinib compared with everolimus. In GI and lung NETs, everolimus significantly improved PFS compared with BSC and showed a non-significant trend towards improved OS compared with BSC. Adverse events were more commonly reported following treatment with targeted interventions than after treatment with BSC. In the base case for pNETs, assuming list prices, we estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for everolimus compared with BSC of £45,493 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and for sunitinib compared with BSC of £20,717 per QALY. These ICERs increased substantially without the adjustment for treatment switching. For GI and lung NETs, we estimated an ICER for everolimus compared with BSC of £44,557 per QALY. For GI (midgut) NETs, the ICERs were £199,233 per QALY for everolimus compared with BSC and £62,158 per QALY for a scenario analysis comparing 177Lu-DOTATATE with BSC. We judge that no treatment meets the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's (NICE) end-of-life criteria, although we cannot rule out that sunitinib in the A6181111 trial does.

LIMITATIONS

A RCT with included comparators was not identified for 177Lu-DOTATATE. The indirect treatment comparison that our economic analysis was based on was of a simple Bucher type, unadjusted for any differences in the baseline characteristics across the two trials.

CONCLUSIONS

Given NICE's current stated range of £20,000-30,000 per QALY for the cost-effectiveness threshold, based on list prices, only sunitinib might be considered good value for money in England and Wales.

FUTURE WORK

Further analysis of individual patient data from RADIANT-3 would allow assessment of the robustness of our findings. The data were not made available to us by the company sponsoring the trial.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016041303.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Observational Study to Assess Quality of Life in Patients with Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors Receiving Treatment with Everolimus: The OBLIQUE Study (UK Phase IV Trial)

BACKGROUND/AIMS

To assess health-related quality of life (HRQoL), treatment patterns, and clinical outcomes of adult (≥18 years) patients with advanced (unresectable or metastatic) pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (PanNENs) treated with everolimus in routine clinical practice.

METHODS

In a prospective, non-interventional, multi-center study patients administered at least one 10 mg dose of everolimus were evaluated for change in HRQoL (EORTC QLQ-C30 Global Health Status scale) from baseline after 6 months treatment (primary endpoint). Secondary endpoints included disease-specific HRQoL measures (EORTC QLQ-G.I.NET21), clinical outcomes, everolimus treatment patterns, and safety.

RESULTS

Forty-eight patients were recruited (between August 2013 and March 2015); the median treatment duration was 27.8 months. EORTC QLQ-C30 Global Health score was not significantly different from baseline after 6 months of treatment (mean difference -1.9 points, p = 0.660, n = 30). In pairwise analyses, the only significant changes in HRQoL from baseline were for EORTC QLQ-C30 physical functioning score at month 3 (adjusted mean difference -8.8 points, p = 0.002, n = 36) and the EORTC QLQ-G.I.NET21 disease-related worries scores at months 1 and 2 (adjusted mean differences: -11.5 points [p = 0.001, n = 44] and -8.8 points [p = 0.017, n = 43], respectively). Disease progression or death was recorded in 44.4% (n = 20/45) patients during follow-up; median progression-free survival was 25.1 months and the cumulative survival rate at 3 years was 71%. No new safety signals were detected.

CONCLUSIONS

The OBLIQUE study demonstrates that HRQoL is maintained in patients with PanNENs during treatment with everolimus in a UK real-world setting. This study adds to the limited HRQoL data available in this patient group.

Applying Reflective Multicriteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) to Patient-Clinician Shared Decision-Making on the Management of Gastroenteropancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors (GEP-NET) in the Spanish Context

Introduction

Unresectable, well-differentiated nonfunctioning gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NETs) can be monitored (watchful waiting, WW) or treated with systemic therapy such as somatostatin analogues (SSAs) to delay progression. We applied a reflective multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) shared-decision framework (previously developed for the USA) to explore what matters to Spanish patients and clinicians considering GEP-NET treatment options.

Methods

The EVIDEM-derived framework was updated and adapted to the Spanish context. During a Chatham House session, five patients and six physicians assigned criteria weights using hierarchical point allocation and direct rating scale (alternative analysis). Informed by synthesized evidence embedded in the framework, participants scored how each criterion favored SSA treatment (reference case lanreotide) or WW and shared insights and knowledge. Weights and scores were combined into value contributions (norm. weight × score/5), which were added across criteria to derive the relative benefit–risk balance (RBRB, scale − 1 to + 1). Exploratory comparisons to US study findings were performed.

Results

Focusing on intervention outcomes (effectiveness, patient-reported, and safety), the mean RBRB favored treatment over WW (+ 0.32 ± 0.24), with the largest contributions from progression-free survival (+ 0.11 ± SD 0.07), fatal adverse events (+ 0.06 ± SD 0.08), and impact on HRQoL (+ 0.04 ± SD 0.04). Consideration of modulating criteria (type of benefit, need, costs, evidence, and feasibility) increased the RBRB to + 0.50 ± 0.14, with type of therapeutic benefit (+ 0.10 ± SD 0.08) and quality of evidence (+ 0.08 ± SD 0.06) contributing most towards treatment. Alternative weighting yielded similar results. Results were broadly comparable to those derived from the US study.

Conclusion

The multicriteria framework helped Spanish patients and clinicians identify and express what matters to them. The approach is transferable across decision-making contexts.

Funding

IPSEN Pharma.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s12325-018-0745-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Cost-Effectiveness of Nivolumab-Ipilimumab Combination Therapy Compared with Monotherapy for First-Line Treatment of Metastatic Melanoma in the United States

BACKGROUND

The approval of new immunotherapies has dramatically changed the treatment landscape of metastatic melanoma. These survival gains come with trade-offs in side effects and costs, as well as important considerations for third-party payer systems, physicians, and patients.

OBJECTIVE

To develop a Markov model to determine the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab, ipilimumab, and nivolumab-ipilimumab combination as firstline therapy in metastatic melanoma, while accounting for differential effectiveness in programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) positive and negative patients.

METHODS

A 3-state Markov model (PD-L1 positive stable disease, PD-L1 negative stable disease, and progression and/or death) was developed using a U.S. societal perspective with a lifetime time horizon of 14.5 years. Transition probabilities were calculated from progression-free (PF) survival data reported in the CheckMate-067 trial. Costs were expressed in 2015 U.S. dollars and were determined using national sources. Adverse event (AE) management was determined using immune-related AE (irAE) data from CheckMate-067, irAE management guides for nivolumab and ipilimumab, and treatment guidelines. Utilities were obtained from published literature, using melanoma-specific studies when available, and were weighted based on incidence and duration of irAEs. Base case, one-way sensitivity, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

Nivolumab-ipilimumab combination therapy was not the cost-effective choice ($454,092 per PF quality-adjusted life-year [QALY]) compared with nivolumab monotherapy in a base case analysis at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per PFQALY. Combination therapy and nivolumab monotherapy were cost-effective choices compared with ipilimumab monotherapy. PD-L1 positive status, utility of nivolumab and combination therapy, and medication costs contributed the most uncertainty to the model. In a population of 100% PD-L1 negative patients, nivolumab was still the optimal treatment, but combination therapy had an improved incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $295,903 per PFQALY. Combination therapy became dominated by nivolumab, when 68% of the sample was PD-L1 positive. In addition, the cost of ipilimumab would have to decrease to < $21,555 per dose for combination therapy to have an ICER < $100,000 per PFQALY and to < $19,151 (a 42% reduction) to be more cost-effective than nivolumab monotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Nivolumab-ipilimumab combination therapy was not cost-effective compared with nivolumab monotherapy, which was the most cost-effective option. Professionals in managed care settings should consider the pharmacoeconomic implications of these new immunotherapies as they make value-based formulary decisions, and future cost-effectiveness studies are completed.

DISCLOSURES

No funding supported this study. Merino was a contractor with EMD Serono at the time of this study but does not have any conflicts of interest and did not receive any funding related to this study. All other authors have no financial disclosures and no conflicts of interest. All the authors contributed to the study concept and design. Tran, McDowell, and Barcelon took the lead in data collection, along with Oh, Keyvani, and Merino. All authors except Merino contributed to data interpretation. The manuscript was written by Oh, Tran, McDowell, and Wilson and revised by Oh, Tran, McDowell, Wilson, and Keyvani. This analysis was presented at Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy Managed Care & Specialty Pharmacy Annual Meeting 2016, April 19-22, 2016, in San Francisco, California, and at the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research Annual International Meeting, May 21-25, 2016, in Washington DC.

Development of a Framework Based on Reflective MCDA to Support Patient-Clinician Shared Decision-Making: The Case of the Management of Gastroenteropancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors (GEP-NET) in the United States

Introduction

Well- or moderately differentiated gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NETs) are often slow-growing, and some patients with unresectable, asymptomatic, non-functioning tumors may face the choice between watchful waiting (WW), or somatostatin analogues (SSA) to delay progression. We developed a comprehensive multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) framework to help patients and physicians clarify their values and preferences, consider each decision criterion, and support communication and shared decision-making.

Methods

The framework was adapted from a generic MCDA framework (EVIDEM) with patient and clinician input. During a workshop, patients and clinicians expressed their individual values and preferences (criteria weights) and, on the basis of two scenarios (treatment vs WW; SSA-1 [lanreotide] vs SSA-2 [octreotide]) with evidence from a literature review, expressed how consideration of each criterion would impact their decision in favor of either option (score), and shared their knowledge and insights verbally and in writing.

Results

The framework included benefit-risk criteria and modulating factors, such as disease severity, quality of evidence, costs, and constraints. Overall and progression-free survival being most important, criteria weights ranged widely, highlighting variations in individual values and the need to share them. Scoring and considering each criterion prompted a rich exchange of perspectives and uncovered individual assumptions and interpretations. At the group level, type of benefit, disease severity, effectiveness, and quality of evidence favored treatment; cost aspects favored WW (scenario 1). For scenario 2, most criteria did not favor either option.

Conclusions

Patients and clinicians consider many aspects in decision-making. The MCDA framework provided a common interpretive frame to structure this complexity, support individual reflection, and share perspectives.

Funding

Ipsen Pharma.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s12325-017-0653-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Exploring patient and family involvement in the lifecycle of an orphan drug: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Patients and their families have become more active in healthcare systems and research. The value of patient involvement is particularly relevant in the area of rare diseases, where patients face delayed diagnoses and limited access to effective therapies due to the high level of uncertainty in market approval and reimbursement decisions. It has been suggested that patient involvement may help to reduce some of these uncertainties. This review explored existing and proposed roles for patients, families, and patient organizations at each stage of the lifecycle of therapies for rare diseases (i.e., orphan drug lifecycle).

METHODS

A scoping review was conducted using methods outlined by Arksey and O'Malley. To validate the findings from the literature and identify any additional opportunities that were missed, a consultative webinar was conducted with members of the Patient and Caregiver Liaison Group of a Canadian research network.

RESULTS

Existing and proposed opportunities for involving patients, families, and patient organizations were reported throughout the orphan drug lifecycle and fell into 12 themes: research outside of clinical trials; clinical trials; patient reported outcomes measures; patient registries and biorepositories; education; advocacy and awareness; conferences and workshops; patient care and support; patient organization development; regulatory decision-making; and reimbursement decision-making. Existing opportunities were not described in sufficient detail to allow for the level of involvement to be assessed. Additionally, no information on the impact of involvement within specific opportunities was found. Based on feedback from patients and families, documentation of existing opportunities within Canada is poor.

CONCLUSIONS

Opportunities for patient, family, and patient organization involvement exist throughout the orphan drug lifecycle. However, based on the information found, it is not possible to determine which opportunities would be most effective at each stage.

Safety and QOL in Patients with Advanced NET in a Phase 3b Expanded Access Study of Everolimus

BACKGROUND/AIMS

An open-label, multi-center, expanded access study was conducted in patients with advanced neuroendocrine tumors (NET) treated with everolimus (10 mg/day) to assess safety and health-related quality of life (HRQOL).

METHODS

Of the 246 patients enrolled, 126 have pancreatic NET (pNET) and 120 have non-pNET. Patients continued treatment until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, death, until commercial availability of everolimus, or May 2012, whichever came first. Adverse events (AEs) were analyzed according to Common Terminology Criteria version 4.0. HRQOL was assessed at baseline, for three 28-day cycles, and then at every three cycles until end of treatment (EOT) with EQ-5D, EORTC QLQ-C30, and EORTC QLQ-GINET21 instruments.

RESULTS

The most common grade 3 or 4 AEs included hyperglycemia, infections, stomatitis, fatigue, and abdominal pain. In patients with pNET, mean (± SD) EQ VAS score remained stable at EOT (baseline, 68.8 ± 19.9 vs. EOT, 66.5 ± 20.6) without clinically significant change in QLQ-C30 global health status (change from baseline, - 3.9; n = 86). For patients with non-pNET, a reduction in EQ VAS score (63.9 ± 19.0 vs. 55.3 ± 23.0) with clinically significant changes in QLQ-C30 global health status (-13.0; n = 69) was seen by EOT. EQ-5D utility scores remained stable in patients with pNET and a moderate decrease was reported by patients with non-pNET.

CONCLUSIONS

The safety profile of everolimus was consistent with the previous studies without adversely affecting HRQOL in pNET. Lower baseline HRQOL scores and more frequent comorbidities might have contributed to the worse outcomes in non-pNET.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

EudraCT no. 2010-023032-17.

Patient-reported health state utilities in metastatic gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours - an analysis based on the CLARINET study

Background

Gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours (GEP-NETs) are rare cancers most often found in the gastrointestinal system or the pancreas. However, patient-reported health state utilities based on clinical trials have not been previously reported in this disease area.

Methods

The CLARINET study collected EORTC QLQ-C30 data from patients in both stable and progressive disease states, although data for the latter were only available during the early stage of progression due to trial design. Using published algorithms, data were mapped to EQ-5D utility values. Random-effects generalised least squares models were used to investigate the impacts of progression status, tumour site and other patient characteristics on mapped utility values.

Results

In total, 1053 observations from 204 patients were mapped to EQ-5D utilities using the McKenzie mapping algorithm. The final random-effects model included age, gender, baseline utility and progression status as covariates; it was not feasible to investigate time-to-death utility due to a limit number of deaths in the CLARINET study. Tumour location (midgut vs pancreas) does not seem to affect utility. However, the difference in utilities based on progression status is statistically significant (p < 0.05) in the base case analysis, and the estimated utilities for stable and progressive disease are 0.776 and 0.726, respectively. Furthermore, scenario analyses showed that utility for progressive disease is numerically lower than for stable disease, but this may not be statistically significant in scenarios where alternative Longworth mapping algorithm was used.

Conclusions

Patients with GEP-NETs experience worse utility values in the progressive disease state compared to the stable disease state, based on patient-reported health-related quality of life (HRQL) data from the CLARINET study. The decline of utility in the progressive disease state may be underestimated because progressive HRQL data were only collected shortly after the progression event in the trial. The estimated trial-based utilities can be used in future economic evaluations for GEP-NET treatments and to provide more insights to physicians on patient-reported quality of life outcomes in GEP-NETs.

Trial registration

CLARINET EU Clinical Trials Register Number, 2005–004904-35.

Cost-effectiveness of pazopanib compared with sunitinib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma in Canada

BACKGROUND

In Canada and elsewhere, pazopanib and sunitinib-tyrosine kinase inhibitors targeting the vascular endothelial growth factor receptors-are recommended as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mrcc). A large randomized noninferiority trial of pazopanib versus sunitinib (comparz) demonstrated that the two drugs have similar efficacy; however, patients randomized to pazopanib experienced better health-related quality of life (hrqol) and nominally lower rates of non-study medical resource utilization.

METHODS

The cost-effectiveness of pazopanib compared with sunitinib for first-line treatment of mrcc from a Canadian health care system perspective was evaluated using a partitioned-survival model that incorporated data from comparz and other secondary sources. The time horizon of 5 years was based on the maximum duration of follow-up in the final analysis of overall survival from the comparz trial. Analyses were conducted first using list prices for pazopanib and sunitinib and then by assuming that the prices of sunitinib and pazopanib would be equivalent.

RESULTS

Based on list prices, expected costs were CA$10,293 less with pazopanib than with sunitinib. Pazopanib was estimated to yield 0.059 more quality-adjusted life-years (qalys). Pazopanib was therefore dominant (more qalys and lower costs) compared with sunitinib in the base case. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, pazopanib was dominant in 79% of simulations and was cost-effective in 90%-100% of simulations at a threshold cost-effectiveness ratio of CA$100,000. Assuming equivalent pricing, pazopanib yielded CA$917 in savings in the base case, was dominant in 36% of probabilistic sensitivity analysis simulations, and was cost-effective in 89% of simulations at a threshold cost-effectiveness ratio of CA$100,000.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with sunitinib, pazopanib is likely to be a cost-effective option for first-line treatment of mrcc from a Canadian health care perspective.

Fluorouracil plasma monitoring: systematic review and economic evaluation of the My5-FU assay for guiding dose adjustment in patients receiving fluorouracil chemotherapy by continuous infusion

BACKGROUND

5-Fluorouracil (5-FU) is a chemotherapy used in colorectal, head and neck (H&N) and other cancers. Dose adjustment is based on body surface area (BSA) but wide variations occur. Pharmacokinetic (PK) dosing is suggested to bring plasma levels into the therapeutic range to promote fewer side effects and better patient outcomes. We investigated the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the My5-FU assay for PK dose adjustment to 5-FU therapy.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review the evidence on the accuracy of the My5-FU assay compared with gold standard methods [high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) and liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS)]; the effectiveness of My5-FU PK dosing compared with BSA; the effectiveness of HPLC and/or LC-MS compared with BSA; the generalisability of published My5-FU and PK studies; costs of using My5-FU; to develop a cost-effectiveness model.

DATA SOURCES

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index and other databases between January and April 2014.

METHODS

Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts with arbitration and consensus agreement. We undertook quality assessment. We reconstructed Kaplan-Meier plots for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for comparison of BSA and PK dosing. We developed a Markov model to compare My5-FU with BSA dosing which modelled PFS, OS and adverse events, using a 2-week cycle over a 20 year time horizon with a 3.5% discount rate. Health impacts were evaluated from the patient perspective, while costs were evaluated from the NHS and Personal Social Services perspective.

RESULTS

A total of 8341 records were identified through electronic searches and 35 and 54 studies were included in the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness reviews respectively. There was a high apparent correlation between My5-FU, HPLC and LC-MS/mass spectrometer but upper and lower limits of agreement were -18% to 30%. Median OS were estimated as 19.6 [95% confidence interval (CI) 17.0 to 21.0] months for PK versus 14.6 (95% CI 14.1 to 15.3) months for BSA for 5-FU+folinic acid (FA); and 27.4 (95% CI 23.2 to 38.8) months for PK versus 20.6 (95% CI 18.4 to 22.9) months for BSA for FOLFOX6 in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). PK versus BSA studies were generalisable to the relevant populations. We developed cost-effectiveness models for mCRC and H&N cancer. The base case assumed a cost per My5-FU assay of £ 61.03. For mCRC for 12 cycles of a oxaliplatin in combination with 5-fluorouracil and FA (FOLFOX) regimen, there was a quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gain of 0.599 with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £ 4148 per QALY. Probabilistic and scenario analyses gave similar results. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve showed My5-FU to be 100% cost-effective at a threshold of £ 20,000 per QALY. For H&N cancer, again, given caveats about the poor evidence base, we also estimated that My5-FU is likely to be cost-effective at a threshold of £ 20,000 per QALY.

LIMITATIONS

Quality and quantity of evidence were very weak for PK versus BSA dosing for all cancers with no randomised controlled trials (RCTs) using current regimens. For H&N cancer, two studies of regimens no longer in use were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Using a linked evidence approach, My5-FU appears to be cost-effective at a willingness to pay of £ 20,000 per QALY for both mCRC and H&N cancer. Considerable uncertainties remain about evidence quality and practical implementation. RCTs are needed of PK versus BSA dosing in relevant cancers.

Economic evaluation of arsenic trioxide compared to all-trans retinoic acid + conventional chemotherapy for treatment of relapsed acute promyelocytic leukemia in Canada

OBJECTIVES

Acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) is an uncommon type of acute leukemia characterized by high early mortality. Current first-line treatments include all-trans retinoic acid (ATRA), anthracyclines, and other conventional chemotherapies (CTs). Although APL is generally associated with a good prognosis, about 20% of patients who achieve remission subsequently relapse and are resistant to the previously administrated treatment. The objective of this study was to assess, from a Canadian perspective, the economic impact of arsenic trioxide (ATO) compared to ATRA+CT for treatment of patients with relapsed/refractory APL.

METHODS

The cost-effectiveness of ATO compared to ATRA+CT for treating patients with relapsed/refractory APL was assessed over a lifetime horizon using a Markov model. The model considers five health states: induction, second remission, treatment failure or relapse, postfailure, and death. Markov cycle length was 1 month for the first 24 months and 1 yr thereafter. The model also takes into account the incidence of grade 3-4 adverse events reported in clinical trials. Analyses were conducted from a Canadian Ministry of Health (MoH) and a societal perspective.

RESULTS

Compared to ATRA+CT, ATO was associated with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $ 20,551/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) from a MoH perspective and $ 22,219/QALY from a societal perspective. Results of the probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that ATO is a cost-effective strategy in 99.27% and 98.98% of the simulations from a MoH and a societal perspective, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This economic evaluation demonstrates that ATO is a cost-effective strategy compared to ATRA+CT for treatment of patients with relapsed/refractory APL in Canada.