Cost-effectiveness analysis of osimertinib for first-line treatment of locally advanced or metastatic EGFR mutation positive non-small cell lung cancer in Singapore

OBJECTIVE

Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) accounts for 80-90% of all lung cancer cases and is usually associated with a poor prognosis. However, targeted therapy with first and second generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) has so far improved progression-free survival of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutant NSCLC patients. Osimertinib, a third generation EGFR TKI has recently shown improved overall survival of 6.8 months in previously untreated EGFR mutant NSCLC patients. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of osimertinib versus standard EGFR TKIs (gefitinib or erlotinib) as first-line treatment for advanced or metastatic EGFR mutant NSCLC patients in Singapore.

METHODS

A partitioned survival model with three health states (progression-free, progressive disease, and death) was developed from the Singapore healthcare payer perspective. Survival curves based on the overall trial population from the FLAURA trial were extrapolated beyond trial period over a 10-year time horizon to estimate the underlying progression-free survival and overall survival parametric distributions. Health state utilities were derived from the literature and direct costs were sourced from public healthcare institutions in Singapore. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore the impact of uncertainties and assumptions on cost-effectiveness results.

RESULTS

Compared with first or second generation TKI, osimertinib had a base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of SG$418,839 (US$304,277) per quality-adjusted life year gained. One-way sensitivity analysis showed the ICER was most sensitive to time horizon and variations in progression-free utility values. Scenario analyses showed that a 50% reduction in the cost of osimertinib was still associated with a high ICER that was unlikely to be deemed cost effective.

CONCLUSIONS

Osimertinib is not cost effective as a first-line treatment compared to standard EGFR TKIs in advanced EGFR mutant NSCLC patients in Singapore. The findings from our evaluation, alongside other considerations including the lack of survival benefit in the Asian subgroup of the FLAURA trial, will be useful to inform policy makers on funding decisions for NSCLC treatments in Singapore.

Pricing methods in outcome-based contracting: δ4: safety-based pricing

AIMS

Six Delta is a six-dimensional independent platform for outcome-based pricing/contracting. The fourth dimension (δ4) estimates prices on the basis of assessments of the safety of the drug using an ex ante analysis based on clinical trial data. We describe this dimension's methodology and present a proof-of-concept application to the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with EGFR mutation with osimertinib.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The safety-based pricing dimension utilizes a four-step method: 1) pooling adverse events (AE), standardizing, estimating 95%Cis, and adjusting for time; 2) estimating correction factors and corrected probabilities of AEs; 3) estimating the probability of at least one adverse event (AE) occurring and leading to treatment discontinuation; and 4) estimating ranges for payback percentages and performing Monte Carlo Simulation to estimate a DSP_Safety. A proof-of-concept exercise with osimertinib in NSCLC was performed for two hypothetical outcome-based contracts: 1-year (2019-2020) and 2-year (2019-2021). We estimated the DSP_Safety based on the grade 3/4 AEs observed for osimertinib and standard of care. The 2018 wholesale acquisition cost (WAC) of osimertinib at $14,616 for a 30-day prescription was used.

RESULTS

AEs3/4 were retrieved from the FLAURA trial. In the 1-year contract, the DSP_Safety of osimertinib was estimated at $14,627 (or +0.08% the 2018 WAC) for a 30-day prescription. In the 2-year contract, the DSP_Safety of osimertinib was estimated at $14,516 (or -0.68% the 2018 WAC) for a 30-day prescription.

CONCLUSIONS

We demonstrated that ex ante pricing methods-based paybacks for safety issues leading to treatment discontinuation can be integrated into our proposed Six Delta platform for outcome-based pricing/contracting.

Pricing methods in outcome-based contracting: δ6: adherence-based pricing

AIMS

Six Delta is a six-dimensional independent platform for outcome-based pricing/contracting. The sixth dimension (δ6) estimates prices on the basis of adherence to the prescribed regimen, whereby manufacturers provide payers with adherence-enhancing programs and whereby payers implement these programs and provide adherence data to the manufacturer. We describe this dimension's methodology and present a proof-of-concept application to the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with EGFR mutation with osimertinib.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We propose two paybacks based on adherence: in-advance (based on clinical trial data) and in-arrear (based on real-world data). The risk of efficacy failure pricing dimension utilizes a 7-step method: 1) defining efficacy endpoints; 2) extracting data; 3) predicting models; 4) estimating in-advance and in-arrear paybacks; 5) suggesting ranges for in-advance and in-arrear paybacks; 6) adjusting for medical inflation; and 7) performing Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS) to estimate the DSP_Adherence. A proof-of-concept exercise with osimertinib in NSCLC was performed for two hypothetical outcome-based contracts: 1-year (2019-2020) and 2-year (2019-2021). The 2018 wholesale acquisition cost (WAC) for a 30-day prescription was used and inflated as needed. Herein, the DSP_Adherence is estimated exclusively in terms of in-advance payback because real-world data about osimertinib are not yet available and thus the in-arrear payback cannot yet be estimated.

RESULTS

For the 1-year contract, the average price for osimertinib was $13,798 (SD=$1,265) and the DSP_Adherence was $13,785 (or -5.69% of the 2018 WAC) for a 30-day prescription. For the 2-year contract, the average price was $12,555 (SD=$2,847) and the DSP_Adherence was $12,582 (or -13.92% of the 2018 WAC).

CONCLUSIONS

We demonstrated that adherence-based pricing methods can be integrated into our proposed Six Delta platform for outcome-based pricing/contracting. The proof-of-concept exercise needs to be expanded with the in-arrear pricing method based on real world data to be secured.

Pricing methods in outcome-based contracting: δ3: reference-based pricing

AIMS

Six Delta is a six-dimensional independent platform for outcome-based pricing/contracting. The third dimension (δ3) estimates prices on the basis of international drug price referencing methods. We describe this dimension's methodology and present a proof-of-concept application to the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with EGFR mutation with osimertinib.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The reference-based pricing dimension utilizes a six-step method: (1) selecting foreign countries based on a set of four criteria (drug is available in the foreign country, price information is available in the foreign country, foreign countries are members within the organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, pricing methods in the foreign countries involve value assessment); (2) adjusting for exchange rates; (3) generating reference price (RP) scenarios; (4) adjusting with the medical inflation rate; (5) pooling all generated RP scenarios and calculating average and standard deviation (SD); (6) and Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS) to estimate the dimension-specific DSP_Reference. A proof-of-concept exercise with osimertinib in NSCLC was performed for two hypothetical outcome-based contracts: 1-year (2019-2020) and 2-year (2019-2021).

RESULTS

The United Kingdom and Canada met the four criteria. For the osimertinib 1-year contract price, the average of eight RP scenarios, adjusted for inflation by 0.44%, was $8,892 (SD = $2,606) for a 30-day prescription. MCS yielded a DSP_Reference estimate of $9,395 or -35.72% of the wholesale acquisition cost (WAC) of $14,616. For the 2-year contract, the average, adjusted for inflation by 0.72%, was $8,928 (SD = $2,610). MCS yielded a DSP_Reference estimate of $9,442 or -35.40% of the WAC of $14,616.

CONCLUSIONS

We demonstrated that international price referencing methods can be integrated into our proposed Six Delta platform for outcome-based pricing/contracting.

Pricing methods in outcome-based contracting: integration analysis of the six dimensions (6 δs)

AIMS

Six Delta is a six-dimensional independent platform for outcome-based pricing/contracting. The six dimensions have been described separately: (δ1) cost-effectiveness analysis and cost-utility analysis-based pricing; (δ2) willingness-to-pay-based pricing; (δ3) reference-based pricing; (δ4) safety-based pricing; (δ5) risk of efficacy failure-based pricing; and (δ6) adherence-based pricing. The final step is to integrate the various dimension-specific pricing estimates into a composite estimate termed the All-Dimensional Price (ADP). We describe the methodology for this integration and present a proof-of-concept application to the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with EGFR mutation with osimertinib.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

For better accuracy in estimating the ADP, we used the prices generated from the six dimensions at scenario levels, not at the dimension-specific price (DSP) level. We pooled the price estimates and performed Monte Carlo Simulations (MCS) for the price scenarios generated by the six dimensions. We used the results of the proof-of-concept exercise involving osimertinib in NSCLC with EGFR mutation to estimate the ADP in two hypothetical contracts: 1-year (2019-2020) and 2-year contract (2019-2021).

RESULTS

The average of the 30-day prescription estimates from the six dimensions averaged $10,819 (SD=$8,486) for the 1-year contract and $10,730 (SD=$8,500) for the 2-year contract. MCS yielded for the 1-year contract an ADP of $10,959 (or -25.02% the 2018 WAC price) and an ADP for the 2-year contract was $10,788 (or -26.19% the 2018 WAC price).

CONCLUSIONS

We demonstrated that the integration of the prices from the six dimensions of the Six Delta platform and market conditions is feasible and yields multidimensional prices estimates to support outcome-based pricing/contracting.

Pricing methods in outcome-based contracting: δ1: cost effectiveness analysis and cost-utility analysis-based pricing

AIMS

Six Delta is a six-dimensional independent platform for outcome-based pricing/contracting. The first dimension (δ1) estimates prices on the basis of cost-effectiveness (CEA) and cost-utility analysis (CUA). We describe this dimension's methodology and present a proof-of-concept application to the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with EGFR mutation with osimertinib.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

CEA and CUA were performed using established methods. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were performed to generate cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEAC), specifically the PSA incremental cost-effectiveness (PSA ICER) and incremental cost-utility ratio generated CEACs (PSA ICUR). Price of treatment was estimated at three certainty levels (0%, turning point%, 100%). The marketed drug price at turning point was used to estimate prices at 0% and 100% certainty levels, as per PSA ICER and PSA ICUR-generated CEACs. The resulting prices were pooled, inflated, and simulated by Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS) methods to estimate the dimension-specific price based on CEA and CUA (DSP_CEA/CUA). A proof-of-concept exercise with osimertinib in NSCLC was performed for two hypothetical outcome-based contracts: 1-year (2019-2020) and 2-years (2019-2021).

RESULTS

Turning points were estimated at the 50% certainty level in both PSA ICER and ICUR-generated CEACS. At these points, the wholesale acquisition cost for osimertinib was $14,616 (30-day prescription); inflated by 0.44% for 1-year and by 0.72% for 2-year contracts. Additional prices at 0% and 100% certainty levels were quantified based on the PSA ICER and ICUR-generated CEACs. The MCS yielded a DSP_CEA/CUA of $16,391 for the 1-year contract and a DSP_CEA/CUA at $16,677 for the 2-year contract for a 30-day prescription.

CONCLUSIONS

We demonstrated that conventional CEA and CUA methods generate price estimates at varying levels of certainty that can be integrated into our proposed Six Delta platform for outcome-based pricing/contracting.

Pricing methods in outcome-based contracting: δ5: risk of efficacy failure-based pricing

AIMS

Six Delta is a six-dimensional independent platform for outcome-based pricing/contracting. The fifth dimension (δ5) estimates prices on the basis of the risk of efficacy failure of a drug. We describe this dimension's methodology and present a proof-of-concept application to the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with EGFR mutation with osimertinib.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The risk of efficacy failure pricing dimension utilizes a seven-step method: (1) defining risk; (2) extracting data; (3) predicting models; (4) performing Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS) to estimate risk of efficacy failure; 5) estimating ranges for a payback; (6) adjusting for medical inflation; and (7) performing Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS) to estimate the DSP_{Risk of efficacy failure}. A proof-of-concept exercise with osimertinib in NSCLC was performed for two hypothetical outcome-based contracts: 1-year (2019-2020) and 2-year (2019-2021). We estimated the risk of efficacy failure for osimertinib in terms of overall and progression-free survival versus standard of care. We used the estimated risk to estimate the price reduction on the wholesale acquisition cost (WAC) for the two hypothetical contracts: a 1-year (2019-2020) and 2-year contract (2019-2021). From this we estimated the DSP_{Risk of efficacy failure}.

RESULTS

Based on the risk of OS and PFS efficacy failure for osimertinib in OS and PFS, in the 1-year contract, the DSP_{Risk of efficacy failure} was estimated at $12,652 (or -13.44% the 2018 WAC) for a 30-day prescription. For the 2-year contract (2019-2021), the DSP_{Risk of efficacy failure} was estimated at $13,019 (or -10.93% the 2018 WAC).

CONCLUSIONS

We demonstrated that pricing methods based on risk of efficacy failure methods can be integrated into our proposed Six Delta platform for outcome-based pricing/contracting.

Pricing methods in outcome-based contracting: δ2: willingness-to-pay-based pricing

AIMS

Six Delta is a six-dimensional independent platform for outcome-based pricing/contracting. The second dimension (δ2) estimates prices on the basis of four willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds. We describe this dimension's methodology and present a proof-of-concept application to the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with EGFR mutation with osimertinib.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Eight WTP scenarios based on four levels of real gross domestic product per capita (<1GDP/capita, 1 × GDP/capita, 3 × GDP/capita, and >3 × GDP/capita) and two market conditions (monopolistic versus competitive) were assumed. The incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) was applied to differently to both markets. In the monopolistic market, assuming no competitors, the cost/QALY ratio for a drug was used; whereas in the competitive market, assuming competitors, the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) was applied. One-way sensitivity analyses were performed and predictive equations were specified to estimate the prices of treatment for the resulting eight WTP scenarios; for which subsequently the average and standard deviation were calculated. A gamma distribution was specified and Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS) was applied to estimate the dimension-specific price based on WTP (DSP_WTP). A proof-of-concept exercise with osimertinib in NSCLC was performed for two hypothetical outcome-based contracts: 1-year (2019-2020) and 2-year (2019-2021). The 2018 wholesale acquisition cost (WAC) of $14,616 (30-day prescription) was used to estimate the DSP_WTP for each contract.

RESULTS

The 1-year estimates averaged $4,654 (SD=$6,462) and the MCS yielded a DSP_WTP of $4,547 or -68.89% of the 2018 WAC for a 30-day prescription. The 2-year estimates averaged $4,7667 (SD=$6,480) with the MCS generating a DSP_WTP of $4,704 or -67.82% of the WAC.

CONCLUSIONS

We demonstrated that WTP-based methods that include various WTP thresholds and market conditions generate price estimates across these thresholds and market conditions that can be integrated into our proposed Six Delta platform for outcome-based pricing/contracting.

Budget impact of sequential treatment with first-line afatinib versus first-line osimertinib in non-small-cell lung cancer patients with common EGFR mutations

BACKGROUND

The therapeutic landscape for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients that have common epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations has changed radically in the last decade. The availability of these treatment options has an economic impact, therefore a budget impact analysis was performed.

METHODS

A budget impact analysis was conducted from a Dutch healthcare perspective over a 5-year time horizon in EGFR-mutant NSCLC patients receiving first-line afatinib (Gilotrif^®) versus first-line osimertinib (Tagrisso^®), followed by subsequent treatments. A decision analysis model was constructed in Excel. Scenario analyses and one-way sensitivity analysis were used to test the models' robustness.

RESULTS

Sequential treatment with afatinib versus first-line treatment with osimertinib showed mean total time on treatment (ToT) of 29.1 months versus 24.7 months, quality-adjusted life months (QALMs) of 20.2 versus 17.4 with mean cost of €108,166 per patient versus €143,251 per patient, respectively. The 5-year total budget impact was €110.4 million for the afatinib sequence versus €158.6 million for the osimertinib sequence, leading to total incremental cost savings of €48.15 million.

CONCLUSIONS

First-line afatinib treatment in patients with EGFR-mutant NSCLC had a lower financial impact on the Dutch healthcare budget with a higher mean ToT and QALM compared to osimertinib sequential treatment.

Ponatinib for Treating Chronic Myeloid Leukaemia: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal

As part of its single technology appraisal process, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the company that manufactures ponatinib (Inclusig^®; Incyte Corporation) to submit evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness for previously treated chronic myeloid leukaemia (CML) and Philadelphia-chromosome-positive acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (Ph+ ALL). This paper focusses on the three phases of CML: the chronic phase (CP), the accelerated phase (AP) and the blast crisis phase (BP). The School of Health and Related Research Technology Appraisal Group at the University of Sheffield was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). This article presents the critical review of the company's submission by the ERG and the outcome of the NICE guidance. Clinical evidence for ponatinib was derived from a phase II, industry-sponsored, single-arm, open-label, multicentre, non-comparative study. Despite the limited evidence and potential for biases, this study demonstrated that ponatinib was likely to be an effective treatment (in terms of major cytogenetic response and major haematological response) with an acceptable safety profile for patients with CML. Given the absence of any head-to-head studies comparing ponatinib with other relevant comparators, the company undertook a matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) of ponatinib with bosutinib. The approach was only used for patients with CP-CML because comprehensive data were not available for the AP- or BP-CML groups to allow the matching technique to be used. Despite the uncertainty about the MAIC approach, ponatinib was considered likely to offer advantages over bosutinib in the third-line setting, particularly for complete cytogenetic response. The company developed two health economic models to assess the cost effectiveness of ponatinib for the treatment of patients in CP-CML or in advanced CML (AP- or BP-CML, which were modelled separately). The company did not adequately explore the uncertainty in the survivor functions. As a result, the ERG believed the uncertainty in the decision problem was underestimated. Exploratory analyses undertaken by the ERG produced the following results for ponatinib. In CP-CML, from £18,246 to £27,667 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained compared with best supportive care (BSC), from £19,680 to £37,381 per QALY gained compared with bosutinib and from £18,279 per QALY gained to dominated compared with allogeneic stem cell transplant (allo-SCT). In AP-CML, the cost per QALY gained for ponatinib ranged from £7123 to £17,625 compared with BSC, and from dominating to £61,896 per QALY gained compared with allo-SCT. In BP-CML, the cost effectiveness of ponatinib ranged from £5033 per QALY gained to dominated compared with allo-SCT, although it was likely to be at the more favourable end of this range, and dominant in all scenarios compared with BSC. The NICE appraisal committee concluded that ponatinib is a cost-effective use of NHS resources in the considered population, subject to the company providing the agreed discount in the Patient Access Scheme.

A comparison of clinical efficacy and economic value in Basalin- and Lantus-treated patients with type 2 diabetes using continuous glucose monitoring system

AIM

To determine the clinical non-inferiority of recombinant glargine-Basalin vs glargine-Lantus, in treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) using continuous glucose monitoring system (CGMS).

METHODS

One hundred patients with T2DM were recruited. They were either regularly taking Basalin (Basalin group) or Lantus (Lantus group) (n = 50 each). CGMS was employed to real-time monitor blood glucose profile for 4 days (from day 1 to day 5). To exclude the effect of patient background, the study design was to have a blinded crossover from glargine-Basalin to glargine-Lantus on day 3, and vice versa. 24-hour mean blood glucose (24hMBG), 24-hour standard deviation of blood glucose (24hSDBG), 24-hour mean amplitude of glycemic excursion (24hMAGE), and number of glycemic excursion (NGE) every 24 h (24hNGE) were calculated for each glargine from 100 patients.

RESULTS

No significant difference of 24hMBG, 24hSDBG, 24hMAGE, and 24hNGE (p > 0.05 for all) was found between Basalin and Lantus treatments. The glucose area under the curve and time when blood glucose was below 3.9 mmol/L, between 3.9 and 10.0 mmol/L, or above 10.0 mmol/L were similar between Basalin and Lantus treatment. The frequency of hypoglycemic episodes was also similar. However, the mean cost of Basalin was only 72% of Lantus's in one treatment course.

CONCLUSION

Glargine-Basalin is non-inferior in clinical efficacy compared to glargine-Lantus. In view of the large difference in the cost of glargine-Basalin, it would be much more cost-effective for our patients.

18F PET with flutemetamol for the early diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease dementia and other dementias in people with mild cognitive impairment (MCI)

BACKGROUND

¹⁸F-flutemetamol uptake by brain tissue, measured by positron emission tomography (PET), is accepted by regulatory agencies like the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicine Agencies (EMA) for assessing amyloid load in people with dementia. Its added value is mainly demonstrated by excluding Alzheimer's pathology in an established dementia diagnosis. However, the National Institute on Aging and Alzheimer's Association (NIA-AA) revised the diagnostic criteria for Alzheimer's disease and the confidence in the diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) due to Alzheimer's disease may be increased when using some amyloid biomarkers tests like ¹⁸F-flutemetamol. These tests, added to the MCI core clinical criteria, might increase the diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) of a testing strategy. However, the DTA of ¹⁸F-flutemetamol to predict the progression from MCI to Alzheimer's disease dementia (ADD) or other dementias has not yet been systematically evaluated.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the DTA of the ¹⁸F-flutemetamol PET scan for detecting people with MCI at time of performing the test who will clinically progress to ADD, other forms of dementia (non-ADD) or any form of dementia at follow-up.

SEARCH METHODS

The most recent search for this review was performed in May 2017. We searched MEDLINE (OvidSP), Embase (OvidSP), PsycINFO (OvidSP), BIOSIS Citation Index (Thomson Reuters Web of Science), Web of Science Core Collection, including the Science Citation Index (Thomson Reuters Web of Science) and the Conference Proceedings Citation Index (Thomson Reuters Web of Science), LILACS (BIREME), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), ClinicalTrials.gov (https://clinicaltrials.gov), and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) (http://www.who.int/ictrp/search/en/). We also searched ALOIS, the Cochrane Dementia & Cognitive Improvement Group's specialised register of dementia studies (http://www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/alois/). We checked the reference lists of any relevant studies and systematic reviews, and performed citation tracking using the Science Citation Index to identify any additional relevant studies. No language or date restrictions were applied to the electronic searches.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies that had prospectively defined cohorts with any accepted definition of MCI at time of performing the test and the use of ¹⁸F-flutemetamol scan to evaluate the DTA of the progression from MCI to ADD or other forms of dementia. In addition, we only selected studies that applied a reference standard for Alzheimer's dementia diagnosis, for example, National Institute of Neurological and Communicative Disorders and Stroke and the Alzheimer's Disease and Related Disorders Association (NINCDS-ADRDA) or Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-IV (DSM-IV) criteria.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We screened all titles and abstracts identified in electronic-database searches. Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion and extracted data to create two-by-two tables, showing the binary test results cross-classified with the binary reference standard. We used these data to calculate sensitivities, specificities, and their 95% confidence intervals. Two independent assessors performed quality assessment using the QUADAS-2 tool plus some additional items to assess the methodological quality of the included studies.

MAIN RESULTS

Progression from MCI to ADD was evaluated in 243 participants from two studies. The studies reported data on 19 participants with two years of follow-up and on 224 participants with three years of follow-up. Nine (47.4%) participants converted at two years follow-up and 81 (36.2%) converted at three years of follow-up.There were concerns about participant selection and sampling in both studies. The index test domain in one study was considered unclear and in the second study it was considered at low risk of bias. For the reference standard domain, one study was considered at low risk and the second study was considered to have an unclear risk of bias. Regarding the domains of flow and timing, both studies were considered at high risk of bias. MCI to ADD;Progression from MCI to ADD at two years of follow-up had a sensitivity of 89% (95% CI 52 to 100) and a specificity of 80% (95% CI 44 to 97) by quantitative assessment by SUVR (n = 19, 1 study).Progression from MCI to ADD at three years of follow-up had a sensitivity of 64% (95% CI 53 to 75) and a specificity of 69% (95% CI 60 to 76) by visual assessment (n = 224, 1 study).There was no information regarding the other two objectives in this systematic review (SR): progression from MCI to other forms of dementia and progression to any form of dementia at follow-up.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Due to the varying sensitivity and specificity for predicting the progression from MCI to ADD and the limited data available, we cannot recommend routine use of ¹⁸F-flutemetamol in clinical practice. ¹⁸F-flutemetamol has high financial costs; therefore, clearly demonstrating its DTA and standardising the process of the ¹⁸F-flutemetamol modality is important prior to its wider use.

Cost-Effectiveness of Florbetapir-PET in Alzheimer's Disease: A Spanish Societal Perspective

BACKGROUND

The rising prevalence of Alzheimer's disease (AD), and other diseases associated with dementia, imposes significant burden to various stakeholders who care for the elderly. Management of AD is complicated by multiple factors including disease-specific features which make it difficult to diagnose accurately during milder stages. Florbetapir F18 positron emission tomography (florbetapir-PET) is an approved imaging tool used to capture beta-amyloid neuritic plaque density in brains of cognitively impaired adults undergoing evaluation for AD and other causes of cognitive impairment. It has the potential to help improve healthcare outcomes as it may help clinicians identify patients with AD early so that treatments are initiated when most effective.

AIMS OF THE STUDY

Evaluate the potential long-term clinical and economic outcomes of adopting florbetapir-PET--adjunctive to standard clinical evaluation (SCE)--versus SCE alone in the diagnostic assessment of cognitively impaired patients with suspected AD.

METHODS

A decision analysis with a ten-year time horizon was developed in compliance with Good Research Practices and CHEERS guidelines. The target population was comprised of Spanish patients who were undergoing initial assessment for cognitive impairment (Mini-Mental State Examination [MMSE] score=20). Diagnostic accuracy, rate of cognitive decline, effect of drugs on cognition and dwelling status, economic burden (direct and indirect costs), and quality of life (QoL) were based on relevant clinical studies and published literature. Scenario analysis was applied to explore outcomes under different conditions, which included: (i) use of florbetapir-PET earlier in disease progression (MMSE score=22); and (ii) the addition of fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)-PET to SCE.

RESULTS

Adjunctive florbetapir-PET increased quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) by 0.008 years and increased costs by 36 compared to SCE alone (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER], 4,769). Use of florbetapir-PET was dominant in alternate scenarios. Sensitivity analyses indicated rates of institutionalization (by MMSE) and MMSE score upon initiation of acetylcholinesterase inhibitor (AChEI) treatment most influenced the primary outcome (ICER) in the base case scenario. Over 82% of probabilistic simulations were cost-effective using the Spanish threshold (30,000/QALY).

DISCUSSION

The addition of florbetapir-PET to SCE is expected to improve the accuracy of AD diagnoses for patients experiencing cognitive impairment; it is cost-effective due to decreased healthcare costs and caregiver burden. Prospective studies of the clinical utility of florbetapir-PET are necessary to evaluate the long-term implications of adopting florbetapir-PET on clinical outcomes and costs in real-world settings.

IMPLICATIONS FOR HEALTH CARE PROVISION AND USE

Florbetapir-PET is expected to improve decision-making regarding appropriate and sufficient care for cognitively impaired patients with suspected AD, while cost-effective.

IMPLICATIONS FOR HEALTH POLICIES

Earlier and more accurate diagnosis of AD may help to improve patient's health status and reduce treatment costs by effectively allocating healthcare resources and maximizing the benefit of treatments and supportive services.

IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

Use of florbetapir-PET may help accurately identify patients with AD. The development of novel therapeutics for use with companion diagnostics may provide additional benefits by slowing or halting progressive cognitive decline with AD, increase QoL and prolong survival.