Challenges in generating costs and utilisation rates associated with castration-resistant prostate cancer

Cost-utility and value of information analysis of tisagenlecleucel for relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma in the Irish healthcare setting

BACKGROUND

The evidence base of tisagenlecleucel is uncertain.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of tisagenlecleucel. To conduct expected value of perfect information (EVPI) and partial EVPI (EVPPI) analyses.

STUDY DESIGN

A three-state partitioned survival model. A short-term decision tree partitioned patients in the tisagenlecleucel arm according to infusion status. Survival was extrapolated to 5 years; general population mortality with a standardised mortality ratio was then applied. EVPI and EVPPI were scaled up to population according to the incidence of the decision.

SETTING

Irish healthcare payer.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (R/R DLBCL).

INTERVENTIONS

Tisagenlecleucel versus Salvage Chemotherapy (with or without haematopoietic stem cell transplant).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Population EVPI and EVPPI.

RESULTS

At list prices, the ICER was €119,509 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) (incremental costs €218,092; incremental QALYs 1.82). Probability of cost-effectiveness, at a €45,000 per QALY threshold, was 0%. Population EVPI was €0.00. Population EVPI, at the price of tisagenlecleucel that reduced the ICER to €45,000 per QALY, was €3,989,438. Here, survival analysis had the highest population EVPPI (€1,128,053).

CONCLUSION

Tisagenlecleucel is not cost-effective, versus salvage chemotherapy (with or without haematopoietic stem cell transplant), for R/R DLBCL in Ireland. At list prices, further research to decrease decision uncertainty may not be of value.

Cost-effectiveness analyses and cost analyses in castration-resistant prostate cancer: A systematic review

Background

Treatment of metastatic prostate cancer is associated with high personal and economic burden. Recently, new treatment options for castration-resistant prostate cancer became available with promising survival advantages. However, cost-effectiveness of those new treatment options is sometimes ambiguous or given only under certain circumstances. The aim of this study was to systematically review studies on the cost-effectiveness of treatments and costs of castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) and metastasizing castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) on their methodological quality and the risk of bias.

Methods

A systematic literature search was performed in the databases PubMed, CINAHL Complete, the Cochrane Library and Web of Science Core Collection for costs-effectiveness analyses, model-based economic evaluations, cost-of-illness analyses and budget impact analyses. Reported costs were inflated to 2015 US$ purchasing power parities. Quality assessment and risk of bias assessment was performed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist and the Bias in Economic Evaluations checklist, respectively.

Results

In total, 38 articles were identified by the systematic literature search. The methodological quality of the included studies varied widely, and there was considerable risk of bias. The cost-effectiveness treatments for CRPC and mCRPC was assessed with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranging from dominance for mitoxantrone to $562,328 per quality-adjusted life year gained for sipuleucel-T compared with prednisone alone. Annual costs for the treatment of castration-resistant prostate cancer ranged from $3,067 to $77,725.

Conclusion

The cost-effectiveness of treatments of CRPC strongly depended on the willingness to pay per quality-adjusted life year gained/life-year saved throughout all included costs-effectiveness analyses and model-based economic evaluations. High-quality cost-effectiveness analyses based on randomized controlled trials are needed in order to make informed decisions on the management of castration-resistant prostate cancer and the resulting financial impact on the healthcare system.