A global economic model to assess the cost-effectiveness of new treatments for advanced breast cancer in Canada

Clinical and economic outcomes of adding [18F]FES PET/CT in estrogen receptor status identification in metastatic and recurrent breast cancer in the US

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Correct identification of estrogen receptor (ER) status in breast cancer (BC) is crucial to optimize treatment; however, standard of care, involving biopsy and immunohistochemistry (IHC), and other diagnostic tools such as 2-deoxy-2-[18F]fluoro-D-glucose or 2-[18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose ([18F]FDG), can yield inconclusive results. 16α-[18F]fluoro-17β-fluoroestradiol ([18F]FES) can be a powerful tool, providing high diagnostic accuracy of ER-positive disease. The aim of this study was to estimate the budget impact and cost-effectiveness of adding [18F]FES PET/CT to biopsy/IHC in the determination of ER-positive status in metastatic (mBC) and recurrent breast cancer (rBC) in the United States (US).

METHODS

An Excel-based decision tree, combined with a Markov model, was developed to estimate the economic consequences of adding [18F]FES PET/CT to biopsy/IHC for determining ER-positive status in mBC and rBC over 5 years. Scenario A, where the determination of ER-positive status is carried out solely through biopsy/IHC, was compared to scenario B, where [18F]FES PET/CT is used in addition to biopsy/IHC.

RESULTS

The proportion of true positive and true negative test results increased by 0.2 to 8.0 percent points in scenario B compared to scenario A, while re-biopsies were reduced by 94% to 100%. Scenario B resulted in cost savings up to 142 million dollars.

CONCLUSIONS

Adding [18F]FES PET/CT to biopsy/IHC may increase the diagnostic accuracy of the ER status, especially when a tumor sample cannot be obtained, or the risk of a biopsy-related complication is high. Therefore, adding [18F]FES PET/CT to biopsy/IHC would have a positive impact on US clinical and economic outcomes.

Cost-effectiveness of extended DPYD testing before fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer in the UK

The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ToxNav©, a multivariant genetic test, to screen for DPYD followed by personalized chemotherapy dosing for metastatic breast cancer in the UK compared with no testing followed by standard dose, standard of care. In the main analysis, ToxNav was dominant over standard of care, producing 0.19 additional quality-adjusted life years and savings of £78,000 per patient over a lifetime. The mean additional quality-adjusted life years per person from 1000 simulations was 0.23 savings (95% CI: 0.22-0.24) at £99,000 (95% CI: £95-102,000). Varying input parameters independently by range of 20% was unlikely to change the results in the main analysis. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed ~97% probability of the ToxNav strategy to be dominant.

Cost Effectiveness of CDK4/6 Inhibitors in the First-Line Treatment of HR+/HER2- Metastatic Breast Cancer in Postmenopausal Women in the USA

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 (CDK4/6) inhibitors improve progression-free survival when combined with endocrine therapies in patients with hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative metastatic breast cancer. However, the comparative cost effectiveness of utilizing three US Food and Drug Administration-approved CDK4/6 inhibitors is unknown. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the cost effectiveness of individual CDK4/6 inhibitors (palbociclib, ribociclib, abemaciclib) with letrozole versus letrozole monotherapy in the first-line treatment of hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative metastatic breast cancer in the USA.

METHODS

We constructed a Markov-based decision-analytic model to evaluate the cost effectiveness of CDK4/6 inhibitors plus endocrine therapies over a 40-year lifetime from a third-party payer perspective. The model incorporated health states (progression-free disease, progressive disease, and death), major adverse events (neutropenia), and cancer-specific and all-cause mortality. Using clinical efficacy and quality-of-life scores (utility) data from clinical trials, we estimated quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios using Medicare charges reported in US dollars per 2022 valuation and a discount rate of 3% applied to costs and outcomes. We performed deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses to evaluate parametric and decision uncertainty.

RESULTS

Compared to letrozole, the model estimated an increase of 5.72, 5.87, and 6.39 in QALYs and costs of $799,178, $788,168, and $741,102 in combining palbociclib, ribociclib, and abemaciclib plus letrozole, respectively. Palbociclib or ribociclib plus letrozole were dominated by abemaciclib plus letrozole. Compared with letrozole, abemaciclib plus letrozole resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $457,538 per QALY with an incremental cost of $553,621 and an incremental QALY gain of 1.21. The results were sensitive to the cost of abemaciclib, disease progression utility, and patients' age.

CONCLUSIONS

At a willingness to pay of $100,000/QALY gained, our model predicts that combining CDK4/6 inhibitors plus letrozole is not cost effective with a marginal increase in QALYs at a high cost. Lowering the cost of these drugs or identifying patients who can receive maximal benefit from CDK4/6 inhibitors would improve the value of this regimen in patients.

Cost-Effectiveness of Pharmacologic Treatment Options for Women With Endocrine-Refractory or Triple-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer

PURPOSE

Treatments for endocrine-refractory or triple-negative metastatic breast cancer (mBC) are modestly effective at prolonging life and improving quality of life but can be extremely expensive. Given these tradeoffs in quality of life and cost, the optimal choice of treatment sequencing is unclear. Cost-effectiveness analysis can explicitly quantify such tradeoffs, enabling more informed decision making. Our objective was to estimate the societal cost-effectiveness of different therapeutic alternatives in the first- to third-line sequences of single-agent chemotherapy regimens among patients with endocrine-refractory or triple-negative mBC.

METHODS

Using three dynamic microsimulation models of 10,000 patients each, three cohorts were simulated, based upon prior chemotherapy exposure: (1) unexposed to either taxane or anthracycline, (2) taxane- and anthracycline-exposed, and (3) taxane-exposed/anthracycline-naive. We focused on the following single-agent chemotherapy regimens as reasonable and commonly used options in the first three lines of therapy for each cohort, based upon feedback from oncologists treating endocrine-refractory or triple-negative mBC: (1) for taxane- and anthracycline-unexposed patients, paclitaxel, capecitabine (CAPE), or pegylated liposomal doxorubicin; (2) for taxane- and anthracycline-exposed patients, Eribulin, CAPE, or carboplatin; and (3) for taxane-exposed/anthracycline-naive patients, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin, CAPE, or Eribulin.

RESULTS

In each cohort, accumulated quality-adjusted life-years were similar between regimens, but total societal costs varied considerably. Sequences beginning first-line treatment with paclitaxel, carboplatin, and CAPE, respectively, for cohorts 1, 2, and 3, had lower costs and similar or slightly better outcomes compared with alternative options.

CONCLUSION

In this setting where multiple single-agent chemotherapy options are recommended by clinical guidelines and share similar survival and adverse event trajectories, treatment sequencing approaches that minimize costs early may improve the value of care.

Trastuzumab biosimilar HLX02 versus reference trastuzumab in patients with recurrent or metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer: a model-based economic evaluation for China

BACKGROUND

HLX02 is a newly marketed trastuzumab biosimilar in China, but whether its price reflects a potential benefit in terms of its value remains unclear. In addition, the development of biosimilars in China is just beginning, and the state encourages health economic evaluation of newly marketed biosimilars.

METHODS

Based on the previously published randomized controlled trial data, a Markov model was used to perform health economic evaluation of HLX02 and trastuzumab in the treatment of HER2-positive recurrent or metastatic breast cancer, calculate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), and evaluate the robustness of the model with sensitivity analysis.

RESULTS

The model results showed that the 5-year mortality rate was 84.4% in the HLX02 group, while the mortality rate was 91.2% in the trastuzumab group. When without accounting for the cost of second-line treatment, patients treated with HLX02 had an increased life expectancy of 0.138 QALYs and a $421.11 lower cost compared with patients in the trastuzumab group, with an ICER value of -$3,051.52/QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

At the willingness-to-pay threshold of $37,653/QALY in China, HLX02 is more cost-effective than trastuzumab. However, the relevant systems for the regulation of biosimilars still need to be improved.

Cost Effectiveness of Ribociclib in Combination with Fulvestrant for the Treatment of Postmenopausal Women with HR+/HER2- Advanced Breast Cancer Who Have Received No or Only One Prior Line of Endocrine Therapy: A Canadian Healthcare Perspective

BACKGROUND

The MONALEESA-3 trial demonstrated the efficacy and safety of ribociclib plus fulvestrant versus placebo plus fulvestrant for patients with hormone receptor-positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HR+/HER2-) advanced breast cancer (ABC). This analysis evaluated the cost effectiveness of ribociclib plus fulvestrant versus fulvestrant in patients with HR+/HER2- ABC from a Canadian healthcare payer perspective.

METHODS

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), expressed as incremental costs per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for ribociclib plus fulvestrant versus fulvestrant, was estimated using a semi-Markov cohort model developed in Microsoft Excel, with states for progression-free, post-progression, and dead. A 15-year time horizon was used. Survival distributions for progression-free survival (PFS), post-progression survival (PPS), and time to discontinuation (TTD) were based on parametric survival distributions fit to data from MONALEESA-3. Health-state utilities were estimated using EQ-5D index values collected in MONALEESA-3. Direct costs of ABC treatment (medication and administration costs, follow-up and monitoring, adverse events, subsequent treatments) were based on Canadian-specific values from published sources. Costs (2019 CAN$) and QALYs were discounted at 1.5% annually.

RESULTS

In the base case, ribociclib plus fulvestrant was estimated to result in gains of 1.19 life-years and 0.96 QALYs versus fulvestrant, at an incremental cost of $151,371. The ICER of ribociclib plus fulvestrant versus fulvestrant was $157,343 per QALY gained based on the mean of probabilistic analyses. Results were sensitive to parametric distributions used for projecting long-term TTD, PFS, and PPS.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with HR+/HER2- ABC, ribociclib plus fulvestrant is projected to result in substantial gains in QALYs compared with fulvestrant. At its current list price, ribociclib used in combination with fulvestrant is likely to be cost effective in these patients at a threshold ICER of $157,343. These results may be useful in deliberations regarding reimbursement and access to this treatment.

Cost Effectiveness of Ribociclib Plus a Nonsteroidal Aromatase Inhibitor in Pre-/Perimenopausal, HR+ and HER2- Advanced Breast Cancer: A Canadian Healthcare Perspective

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The MONALEESA-7 trial demonstrated the efficacy and safety of ribociclib plus a nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor (NSAI) [with goserelin] for pre-/perimenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative advanced breast cancer. This analysis evaluated the cost effectiveness of ribociclib plus NSAI vs NSAI monotherapy and tamoxifen monotherapy from the perspective of the Canadian healthcare system.

METHODS

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio expressed as incremental costs per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for ribociclib plus an NSAI vs an NSAI and vs tamoxifen was estimated using a semi-Markov cohort model developed in Microsoft Excel with a 15-year time horizon and states for progression-free survival, post-progression survival, and dead. Survival distributions for progression-free survival, post-progression survival, and time to discontinuation as well as health-state utilities were estimated using data from MONALEESA-7. Direct costs of advanced breast cancer treatment were based on Canadian-specific values from published sources. Costs ($CAN 2019) and QALYs were discounted at 1.5% annually.

RESULTS

Ribociclib plus an NSAI was estimated to yield gains of 1.42 life-years and 1.17 QALYs vs an NSAI, and 2.61 life-years and 2.12 QALYs vs tamoxifen, at incremental costs of $209,701 and $220,836, respectively. In probabilistic analyses, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for ribociclib plus an NSAI was estimated to be $178,872 per QALY gained vs an NSAI and $104,400 per QALY gained vs tamoxifen. Results of deterministic analyses were similar (incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $177,245 and $103,316 vs NSAI and tamoxifen, respectively). Results were sensitive to parametric distributions used for projecting progression-free survival and the time horizon.

CONCLUSIONS

At its current list price, ribociclib used in combination with NSAI is likely to be co-effective relative to an NSAI alone or tamoxifen alone if the willingness-to-pay threshold is less than approximately $178,000 per QALY. These results have informed deliberations regarding reimbursement and access to this treatment in Canada and may be useful for decision makers in other settings.

Health related quality of life among postmenopausal woman with hormone responsive HER2- breast cancer in Indonesia

OBJECTIVES

Breast cancer (BC) in women could decrease health-related quality of life (HRQoL). HRQoL becomes important to be assessed to design a relevant treatment that could improve patient outcomes. Furthermore, assessing HRQoL by measuring health state utilities becomes pivotal for health economic evaluation. This study aimed to describe the HRQoL of postmenopausal women with hormone responsive (HR+) HER2- BC using the EQ5D5L instrument in Indonesia.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was conducted among 126 patients in Dr. Sardjito Hospital in Indonesia. The HRQoL was assessed by interviewing BC patients using the EQ5D5L questionnaire, and the utility index was calculated using the Indonesian value set. Information regarding clinical characteristic and socio-demographic were gained from patient medical records. One-way ANOVA and post-hoc Scheffe's test was performed to compare the utility score within the health state.

RESULTS

Of the 126 patients, a mean ± SD for the age of 59.2 ± 6.1 years. The major problems of patients were pain/discomfort (75.4%) followed by anxiety/depression (54.8%). The mean (SD) of EQ5D VAS was 76.64 (14.91). Mean (SD) of utility score was 0.87 (0.10), 0.77 (0.19) and 0.58 (0.44) for free metastasis (FM), locoregional metastasis (LM) and distant metastasis (DM), respectively. Poor QoL was observed at DM health state (p<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

HRQoL of postmenopausal women with HR+ HER2- BC was low. The major reported problems were pain/discomfort and anxiety/depression.

Evaluation of Tucatinib in HER2-Positive Breast Cancer Patients With Brain Metastases: A United States-Based Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

PURPOSE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of tucatinib in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive breast cancer (BC) patients with brain metastases (BMs) and the subgroup of active BMs from the United States (US) payer perspective.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A 3-state Markov model was developed to compare the cost-effectiveness of 2 regimens in HER2-positive BC patients with BMs: (1) tucatinib, trastuzumab, and capecitabine (TTC); (2) placebo, trastuzumab, and capecitabine (PTC). And subgroup analysis of active BMs was also performed. Lifetime costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and incremental net-health benefit (INHB) were estimated. The willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was $200,000/QALY. The robustness of the model was tested by sensitivity analyses. Additional scenario analysis was also performed.

RESULTS

Compared with PTC, the ICER yielded by TTC was $418,007.01/QALY and the INHB was -1.08 QALYs in patients with BMs. In the subgroup of active BMs, the ICER and the INHB were $324,465.03/QALY and -0.71 QALY, respectively. The results were most sensitive to the cost of tucatinib. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses suggested that the cost-effective probability of TTC was low at the current WTP threshold in the patients with BMs and the subgroup of active BMs.

CONCLUSION

Tucatinib is unlikely to be cost-effective in HER2-positive BC patients with BMs from the US payer perspective but shows better economics in patients with active BMs. Selecting a favorable population, reducing the price of tucatinib or offering appropriate drug assistance policies might be considerable options to optimize the cost-effectiveness of tucatinib.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Abemaciclib Plus Fulvestrant in the Second-Line Treatment of Women With HR+/HER2- Advanced or Metastatic Breast Cancer: A US Payer Perspective

Introduction: This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of abemaciclib plus fulvestrant (ABE + FUL) vs. palbociclib plus fulvestrant (PAL + FUL), ribociclib plus fulvestrant (RIB + FUL) and fulvestrant monotherapy (FUL) as second-line treatment for hormone receptor-positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2- negative advanced or metastatic breast cancer in the US.

Methods: The 3 health states partitioned survival (PS) model was used over the lifetime. Effectiveness and safety data were derived from the MONARCH 2 trial, MONALEESA-3 trial, and PALOMA-3 trial. Parametric survival models were used for four treatments to explore the long-term effect. Costs were derived from the pricing files of Medicare and Medicaid Services, and utility values were derived from published studies. Sensitivity analyses including one-way sensitivity analysis, probabilistic sensitivity analysis and scenario analysis were performed to observe model stability.

Results: In the PS model, compared with PAL + FUL, ABE + FUL yielded 0.44 additional QALYs at an additional cost of $100,696 for an incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) of $229,039/QALY. Compared with RIB + FUL, ABE + FUL yielded 0.03 additional QALYs at an additional cost of $518 for an ICUR of $19,314/QALY. Compared with FUL, ABE + FUL yielded 0.68 additional QALYs at an additional cost of $260,584 for ICUR of $381,450/QALY. From the PS model, the ICUR was $270,576 /QALY (ABE + FUL vs. PAL + FUL), dominated (ABE + FUL vs. RIB + FUL) and $404,493/QALY (ABE + FUL vs. FUL) in scenario analysis. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the probabilities that ABE + FUL was cost-effective vs. PAL + FUL, RIB + FUL and FUL at thresholds of $50,000, $100,000, and $200,000 per QALY gained were 0% and the probabilities that ABE + FUL was cost-effective vs. PAL + FUL and RIB + FUL at thresholds of $50,000, $100,000, and $200,000 per QALY gained were 0.2, 0.6, and 7.3%.

Conclusions: The findings from the present analysis suggest that ABE + FUL might be cost-effective compared with RIB + FUL and not cost-effective compared with PAL + FUL and FUL for second-line treatment of patients with HR+/HER2– advanced or metastatic breast cancer in the US.

The value of decreasing the duration of the infectious period of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection

Finding medications or vaccines that may decrease the infectious period of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) could potentially reduce transmission in the broader population. We developed a computational model of the U.S. simulating the spread of SARS-CoV-2 and the potential clinical and economic impact of reducing the infectious period duration. Simulation experiments found that reducing the average infectious period duration could avert a median of 442,852 [treating 25% of symptomatic cases, reducing by 0.5 days, reproductive number (R₀) 3.5, and starting treatment when 15% of the population has been exposed] to 44.4 million SARS-CoV-2 cases (treating 75% of all infected cases, reducing by 3.5 days, R₀ 2.0). With R₀ 2.5, reducing the average infectious period duration by 0.5 days for 25% of symptomatic cases averted 1.4 million cases and 99,398 hospitalizations; increasing to 75% of symptomatic cases averted 2.8 million cases. At $500/person, treating 25% of symptomatic cases saved $209.5 billion (societal perspective). Further reducing the average infectious period duration by 3.5 days averted 7.4 million cases (treating 25% of symptomatic cases). Expanding treatment to 75% of all infected cases, including asymptomatic infections (R₀ 2.5), averted 35.9 million cases and 4 million hospitalizations, saving $48.8 billion (societal perspective and starting treatment after 5% of the population has been exposed). Our study quantifies the potential effects of reducing the SARS-CoV-2 infectious period duration.

Finding medications or vaccines that may decrease the infectious period of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) could potentially reduce transmission in the broader population. We developed a computational model of the U.S. simulating the spread of SARS-CoV-2 and the potential clinical and economic impact of reducing the infectious period duration. Our simulation experiments found that reducing the average infectious period duration could avert a median of 442,852 to 44.4 million SARS-CoV-2 cases, varying the proportion of cases treated, average duration of the infectious period, and the reproductive rate. At $500/person, treating 25% of symptomatic cases saved $209.5 billion (societal perspective, R₀ 2.5). Further reducing the average infectious period duration by 3.5 days averted 7.4 million cases (treating 25% of symptomatic cases). Expanding treatment to 75% of all infected cases, including asymptomatic infections (R₀ 2.5), averted 35.9 million cases and 4 million hospitalizations, saving $48.8 billion (societal perspective and starting treatment after 5% of the population has been exposed). Our study suggests that finding ways to reduce the infectious period of SARS-CoV-2 could help decrease its spread and impact.

Cost-effectiveness of treatments for HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer and associated metastases: an overview of systematic reviews

Introduction: Treatment of human epithelial growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive breast cancer has rapidly evolved over the past decades with the addition of trastuzumab, lapatinib, pertuzumab, and trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1). These treatments have dramatically impacted the survival of HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer (mBC) patients. Nonetheless, these agents are associated with high price tags, begging the question, 'Are treatments for HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer and associated metastases cost-effective'?Areas covered: We examine evidence on the cost-effectiveness of treatments for HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer and associated metastases through a review of systematic reviews on the topic. Additionally, we discuss the implications of our findings and provide recommendations for future directions in the assessment of the cost-effectiveness of targeted directed agents for HER2-positive mBC.Expert opinion: Heterogeneous evidence from cost-effectiveness studies on the use of targeted directed agents for HER2-positive mBC across the world caution against cross-country comparisons of the value of such treatments. It also militates in favor of the production and use of cost-effectiveness analyses for local rather than global decision-making, thus ensuring that economic evaluations reflect the needs of local decision-makers and populations for which they are devised.

Economic Evaluation of Cisplatin Plus Gemcitabine Versus Paclitaxel Plus Gemcitabine for the Treatment of First-Line Advanced Metastatic Triple-Negative Breast Cancer in China: Using Markov Model and Partitioned Survival Model

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of cisplatin plus gemcitabine vs. paclitaxel plus gemcitabine as a first-line treatment for metastatic triple-negative breast cancer in China.

METHODS

The Markov model and partitioned survival (PS) model were used, and the study included three health states over the period of a lifetime. Transition probabilities and safety data were derived from the CBCSG006 trial (cisplatin plus gemcitabine vs. paclitaxel plus gemcitabine in patients who had acquired metastatic triple-negative breast cancer). Cost and utility values were derived from previous studies, the Chinese Drug Bidding Database, and healthcare documents. Sensitivity analyses were performed to observe model stability.

RESULTS

In the Markov model, compared with paclitaxel plus gemcitabine, cisplatin plus gemcitabine yielded an additional 0.15 QALYs, with an incremental cost of 1976.33 USD. The incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) was 12,826.98 USD/QALY (quality-adjusted life year). In the PS model, cisplatin plus gemcitabine yielded an additional 0.17 QALYs with an incremental cost of 2384.63 USD; the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) was 13,867.7 USD/QALY. In the first scenario analysis, in which the 3-year time horizon was used in both arms, the total QALYs in the cisplatin plus gemcitabine group were larger and the costs were lower, indicating that cisplatin plus gemcitabine was superior to paclitaxel plus gemcitabine. In the second scenario, in which the progression-free (PF) utility (during chemotherapy) was 0.76, the PF utility was 0.96, and the post-progression (PP) utility was 0.55, the result obtained with the Markov model showed that the ICUR was 11,063.68 USD/QALY. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) on the Markov model, the probabilities that cisplatin plus gemcitabine would be cost-effective were 48.94-78.72% if the willingness-to-pay threshold was 9776.8 to 29,330.4 USD/QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of the present analysis suggest that cisplatin plus gemcitabine might be much more cost-effective than paclitaxel plus gemcitabine in patients receiving first-line treatment for metastatic triple-negative breast cancer in China.

How Efficacious Must a COVID-19 Coronavirus Vaccine be to Prevent or Stop an Epidemic by Itself

BACKGROUND

Given the continuing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and much of the U.S. implementing social distancing due to the lack of alternatives, there has been a push to develop a vaccine to eliminate the need for social distancing.

METHODS

In 2020, we developed a computational model of the U.S. simulating the spread of COVID-19 coronavirus and vaccination.

RESULTS

Simulation experiments revealed that when vaccine efficacy exceeded 70%, coverage exceeded 60%, and vaccination occurred on day 1, the attack rate dropped to 22% with daily cases not exceeding 3.2 million (reproductive rate, R0, 2.5). When R0 was 3.5, the attack rate dropped to 41% with daily cases not exceeding 14.4 million. Increasing coverage to 75% when vaccination occurred by day 90 resulted in 5% attack rate and daily cases not exceeding 258,029when R0 was 2.5 and a 26% attack rate and maximum daily cases of 22.6 million when R0 was 3.5. When vaccination did not occur until day 180, coverage (i.e., those vaccinated plus those otherwise immune) had to reach 100%. A vaccine with an efficacy between 40% and 70% could still obviate the need for other measures under certain circumstances such as much higher, and in some cases, potentially unachievable, vaccination coverages.

CONCLUSION

Our study found that to either prevent or largely extinguish an epidemic without any other measures (e.g., social distancing), the vaccine has to have an efficacy of at least 70%.

Model-Based Biomarker Selection for Dose Individualization of Tyrosine-Kinase Inhibitors

Tyrosine-kinase inhibitors (TKIs) demonstrate high inter-individual variability with respect to safety and efficacy and would therefore benefit from dose or schedule adjustments. This study investigated the efficacy, safety, and economical aspects of alternative dosing options for sunitinib in gastro-intestinal stromal tumors (GIST) and axitinib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Dose individualization based on drug concentration, adverse effects, and sVEGFR-3 was explored using a modeling framework connecting pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic models, as well as overall survival. Model-based simulations were performed to investigate four different scenarios: (I) the predicted value of high-dose pulsatile schedules to improve clinical outcomes as compared to regular daily dosing, (II) the potential of biomarkers for dose individualizations, such as drug concentrations, toxicity measurements, and the biomarker sVEGFR-3, (III) the cost-effectiveness of biomarker-guided dose-individualizations, and (IV) model-based dosing approaches versus standard sample-based methods to guide dose adjustments in clinical practice. Simulations from the axitinib and sunitinib frameworks suggest that weekly or once every two weeks high-dosing result in lower overall survival in patients with mRCC and GIST, compared to continuous daily dosing. Moreover, sVEGFR-3 appears a safe and cost-effective biomarker to guide dose adjustments and improve overall survival (€36 784.- per QALY). Model-based estimations were for biomarkers in general found to correctly predict dose adjustments similar to or more accurately than single clinical measurements and might therefore guide dose adjustments. A simulation framework represents a rapid and resource saving method to explore various propositions for dose and schedule adjustments of TKIs, while accounting for complicating factors such as circulating biomarker dynamics and inter-or intra-individual variability.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Of EGFR Mutation Testing And Afatinib Versus Gemcitabine-Cisplatin As First-Line Therapy For Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer In China

Objective

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the combined use of afatinib and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) testing versus gemcitabine-cisplatin as the first-line treatment for patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in China.

Methods

A decision-analytic model, based on clinical phase III trials, was developed to simulate patient transitions. Direct costs were estimated from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were calculated over a 5-year lifetime horizon. Model robustness was conducted in sensitivity analyses.

Results

For the base case, EGFR mutation testing followed by afatinib treatment for advanced NSCLC increased 0.15 QALYs compared with standard chemotherapy at an additional cost of $5069.12. The ICER for afatinib maintenance was $33,416.39 per QALY gained. The utility of PFS and the cost of afatinib had the most important impact on the ICER. Scenario analyses suggested that when a patient assistance program (PAP) was available, ICER decreased to $22,972.52/QALY lower than the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of China ($26,508/QALY).

Conclusion

Our results suggest that gene-guided maintenance therapy with afatinib with the PAP might be a cost-effective treatment option compared with gemcitabine – cisplatin in China.

Cost-Effectiveness of Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-Cell Therapy in Pediatric Relapsed/Refractory B-Cell Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia

BACKGROUND

Chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy is a promising new class of cancer therapy but has a high up-front cost. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of CAR-T therapy among pediatric patients with relapsed/refractory B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL).

METHODS

We built a microsimulation model for pediatric patients with relapsed/refractory B-ALL receiving either CAR-T therapy or standard of care. Outcomes included costs, quality of life (health utility), complications, and survival. We measured cost-effectiveness with the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), with ICERs under $100 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) considered cost effective. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to test model uncertainty.

RESULTS

Compared to standard of care, CAR-T therapy increased overall cost by $528 200 and improved effectiveness by 8.18 QALYs, resulting in an ICER of $64 600/QALY. The model was sensitive to assumptions about long-term CAR-T survival, the complete remission rate of CAR-T patients, and the health utility of long-term survivors. The base model assumed a 76.0% one-year survival with CAR-T, although if this decreased to 57.8%, then CAR-T was no longer cost effective. If the complete remission rate of CAR-T recipients decreased from 81% to 56.2%, or if the health utility of disease-free survivors decreased from 0.94 to 0.66, then CAR-T was no longer cost effective. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis found that CAR-T was cost effective in 94.8% of iterations at a willingness to pay of $100 000/QALY.

CONCLUSION

CAR-T therapy may represent a cost-effective option for pediatric relapsed/refractory B-ALL, although longer follow-up of CAR-T survivors is required to confirm validity of these findings.

Cost-utility of Sunitinib Versus Pazopanib in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma in Canada using Real-world Evidence

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The development of new targeted therapies in kidney cancer has shaped disease management in the metastatic phase. Our study aims to conduct a cost-utility analysis of sunitinib versus pazopanib in first-line setting in Canada for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients using real-world data.

METHODS

A Markov model with Monte-Carlo microsimulations was developed to estimate the clinical and economic outcomes of patients treated in first-line with sunitinib versus pazopanib. Transition probabilities were estimated using observational data from a Canadian database where real-life clinical practice was captured. The costs of therapies, disease progression, and management of adverse events were included in the model in Canadian dollars ($Can). Utility and disutility values were included for each health state. Incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were calculated for a time horizon of 5 years, from the Canadian Healthcare System perspective.

RESULTS

The cost difference was $36,303 and the difference in quality-adjusted life year (QALY) was 0.54 in favour of sunitinib with an ICUR of $67,227/QALY for sunitinib versus pazopanib. The major cost component (56%) is related to best supportive care (BSC) where patients tend to stay for a longer period of time compared to other states. The difference in life years gained (LYG) between sunitinib and pazopanib was 1.21 LYG (33.51 vs 19.03 months) and the ICER was $30,002/LYG. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated the robustness of the model with a high probability of sunitinib being a cost-effective option when compared to pazopanib.

CONCLUSION

When using real-world evidence, sunitinib is found to be a cost-effective treatment compared to pazopanib in mRCC patients in Canada.

An updated systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of therapies for metastatic breast cancer

PURPOSE

The goal of this systematic review is to provide an update to the review by Pouwels et al. by conducting a systematic review and an assessment of the reporting quality of the economic analyses conducted since 2014.

METHODS

This systematic review identified published articles focused on metastatic breast cancer treatment using the Medline/PubMed and Scopus databases and the following search criteria: (((cost effectiveness[MeSH Terms]) OR (cost effectiveness) OR (cost-effectiveness) OR (cost utility) OR (cost-utility) OR (economic evaluation)) AND (("metastatic breast cancer") OR ("advanced breast cancer"))). The reporting quality of the included articles was evaluated using the International Society of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist.

RESULTS

Of the 256 identified articles, 67 of the articles were published after October 2014 when the prior systematic review stopped its assessment (Pouwels et al. in Breast Cancer Res Treat 165:485-498, 2017). From the 67 articles, we narrowed down to include 17 original health economic analyses specific to metastatic or advanced breast cancer. These articles were diverse with respect to methods employed and interventions included.

CONCLUSION

Although each of the articles contributed their own analytic strengths and limitations, the overall quality of the studies was moderate. The review demonstrated that the vast majority of the reported incremental cost-effectiveness ratios exceeded the typically employed willingness to pay thresholds used in each country of analysis. Only three of the reviewed articles studied chemotherapies rather than treatments targeting either HER2 or hormone receptors, demonstrating a gap in the literature.

Reviewing the quality, health benefit and value for money of chemotherapy and targeted therapy for metastatic breast cancer

Purpose

To provide an overview of model characteristics and outcomes of model-based economic evaluations concerning chemotherapy and targeted therapy (TT) for metastatic breast cancer (MBC); to assess the quality of the studies; to analyse the association between model characteristics and study quality and outcomes.

Methods

PubMED and NHS EED were systematically searched. Inclusion criteria were as follows: English or Dutch language, model-based economic evaluation, chemotherapy or TT as intervention, population diagnosed with MBC, published between 2000 and 2014, reporting life years (LY) or quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. General characteristics, model characteristics and outcomes of the studies were extracted. Quality of the studies was assessed through a checklist.

Results

24 studies were included, considering 50 comparisons (20 concerning chemotherapy and 30 TT). Seven comparisons were represented in multiple studies. A health state-transition model including the following health states: stable/progression-free disease, progression and death was used in 18 studies. Studies fulfilled on average 14 out of the 26 items of the quality checklist, mostly due to a lack of transparency in reporting. Thirty-one per cent of the incremental net monetary benefit was positive. TT led to higher iQALY gained, and industry-sponsored studies reported more favourable cost-effectiveness outcomes.

Conclusions

The development of a disease-specific reference model would improve the transparency and quality of model-based cost-effectiveness assessments for MBC treatments. Incremental health benefits increased over time, but were outweighed by the increased treatment costs. Consequently, increased health benefits led to lower value for money.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s10549-017-4374-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of fulvestrant versus anastrozole as first-line treatment for hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer

Although recent studies demonstrated that fulvestrant is superior to anastrozole as first-line treatment for hormone receptor (HR)-positive advanced breast cancer, the cost-effectiveness of fulvestrant versus anastrozole remained uncertain. Thus, the current study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of fulvestrant compared with anastrozole in the first-line setting. A Markov model consisting of three health states (stable, progressive and dead) was constructed to simulate a hypothetical cohort of patients with HR-positive advanced breast cancer. Costs were calculated from a Chinese societal perspective. Health outcomes were measured in quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was expressed as incremental cost per QALY gained. Model results suggested that fulvestrant provides an additional effectiveness gain of 0.11 QALYs at an incremental cost of $32,654 compared with anastrozole, resulting in an ICER of $296,855/QALY exceeding the willingness-to-pay threshold of $23,700/QALY. Hence, fulvestrant is not a cost-effective strategy compared with anastrozole as first-line treatment for HR-positive advanced breast cancer.

The Clinical and Economic Impact of Inaccurate EGFR Mutation Tests in the Treatment of Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

Advances in personalized medicine are supported by companion diagnostic molecular tests. Testing accuracy is critical for selecting patients for optimal therapy and reducing treatment-related toxicity. We assessed the clinical and economic impact of inaccurate test results between laboratory developed tests (LDTs) and a US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved test for detection of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations. Using a hypothetical US cohort of newly diagnosed metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients and EURTAC (erlotinib versus standard chemotherapy as first-line treatment for European patients with advanced EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer) clinical trial data, we developed a decision analytic model to estimate the probability of misclassification with LDTs compared to a FDA-approved test. We estimated the clinical and economic impact of inaccurate test results by quantifying progression-free and quality-adjusted progression-free life years (PFLYs, QAPFLYs) lost, and costs due to incorrect treatment. The base-case analysis estimated 2.3% (n = 1422) of 60,502 newly diagnosed metastatic NSCLC patients would be misclassified with LDTs compared to 1% (n = 577) with a FDA-approved test. An average of 477 and 194 PFLYs were lost among the misclassified patients tested with LDTs compared to the FDA-approved test, respectively. Aggregate treatment costs for patients tested with LDTs were approximately $7.3 million more than with the FDA-approved test, due to higher drug and adverse event costs among patients incorrectly treated with targeted therapy or chemotherapy, respectively. Invalid tests contributed to greater probability of patient misclassification and incorrect therapy. In conclusion, risks associated with inaccurate EGFR mutation tests pose marked clinical and economic consequences to society. Utilization of molecular diagnostic tests with demonstrated accuracy could help to maximize the potential of personalized medicine.