Critical Examination of Modeling Approaches Used in Economic Evaluations of First-Line Treatments for Locally Advanced or Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Harboring Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Mutations: A Systematic Literature Review

BACKGROUND

Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is the most common type of lung cancer, with up to 32% of patients with NSCLC harboring an epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation. NSCLC harboring an EGFR mutation has a dedicated treatment pathway, with EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors and platinum-based chemotherapy often being the therapy of choice.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to systemically review and summarize economic models of first-line treatments used for locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC harboring EGFR mutations, as well as to identify areas for improvement for future models.

METHODS

Literature searches were conducted via Ovid in PubMed, MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, Embase, Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews: Health Technology Assessment, Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews: National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database, and EconLit. An initial search was conducted on 19 December 2022 and updated on 11 April 2023. Studies were selected according to predefined criteria using the Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome and Study design (PICOS) framework.

RESULTS

Sixty-seven articles were included in the review, representing 59 unique studies. The majority of included models were cost-utility analyses (n = 52), with the remaining studies being cost-effectiveness analyses (n = 4) and a cost-minimization analysis (n = 1). Two studies incorporated both a cost-utility and cost-minimization analysis. Although the model structure across studies was consistently reported, justification for this choice was often lacking.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the reporting of economic models in NSCLC harboring EGFR mutations is generally good, many of these studies lacked sufficient reporting of justification for structural choices, performing extensive sensitivity analyses and validation in economic evaluations. In resolving such gaps, the validity of future models can be increased to guide healthcare decision making in rare indications.

Budget Impact of Introducing Fixed-Duration Mosunetuzumab for the Treatment of Relapsed or Refractory Follicular Lymphoma After Two or More Lines of Systemic Therapy in the USA

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess the budget impact of introducing fixed-duration mosunetuzumab as a treatment option for adult patients with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma after at least two prior systemic therapies and to estimate the total cumulative costs per patient in the USA.

METHODS

A 3-year budget impact model was developed for a hypothetical 1-million-member cohort enrolled in a mixed commercial/Medicare health plan. Comparators were: axicabtagene ciloleucel, tisagenlecleucel, tazemetostat, rituximab plus lenalidomide, copanlisib, and older therapies (rituximab or obinutuzumab ± chemotherapy). Costs per patient comprised treatment-associated costs including the drug, its administration, adverse events, and routine care. Dosing and safety data were ascertained from respective package inserts and clinical trial data. Drug costs (March 2023) were estimated based on the average wholesale acquisition cost reported in AnalySource®, and all other costs were based on published sources and inflated to 2022 US dollars. Market shares were obtained from Genentech internal projections and expert opinion. Budget impact outcomes were presented on a per-member per-month basis.

RESULTS

Compared with a scenario without mosunetuzumab, its introduction over 3 years resulted in a budget increase of $69,812 (1% increase) and an average per-member per-month budget impact of $0.0019. Among the newer therapies, mosunetuzumab had the second-lowest cumulative per patient cost (mosunetuzumab = $202,039; axicabtagene ciloleucel = $505,845; tisagenlecleucel = $476,293; rituximab plus lenalidomide = $263,520; tazemetostat = $250,665; copanlisib = $127,293) and drug costs, and its introduction only increased total drug costs by 0.1%. By year 3, the cumulative difference in the per patient cost with mosunetuzumab was -$303,805 versus axicabtagene ciloleucel, -$274,254 versus tisagenlecleucel, -$61,481 versus rituximab plus lenalidomide, -$48,625 versus tazemetostat, and $74,747 versus copanlisib. Older therapies were less costly with 3-year cumulative costs that ranged from $36,512 to $147,885.

CONCLUSIONS

Over 3 years, the estimated cumulative per patient cost of mosunetuzumab is lower than most available newer therapies, resulting in a small increase in the budget after its formulary adoption for the treatment of relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma.

The impact of willingness-to-pay threshold on price reduction recommendations for oncology drugs: a review of assessments conducted by the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health

Since late 2020, the Canadian Agency of Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) has been using a threshold of $50,000 (CAD) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) for both oncology and non-oncology drugs. When used for oncology products, this threshold is hypothesized to have a higher impact on the time to access these drugs in Canada. We studied the impact of price reductions on time to engagement and negotiation with the pan-Canadian Pharmaceutical Alliance for oncology drugs reviewed by CADTH between January 2020 and December 2022. Overall, 103 assessments reported data on price reductions recommended by CADTH to meet the cost-effectiveness threshold for reimbursement. Of these assessments, 57% (59/103) recommendations included a price reduction of greater than 70% off the list price. Eight percent (8/103) were not cost-effective even at a 100% price reduction. Of the 47 assessments that had a clear benefit, in 21 (45%) CADTH recommended a price reduction of at least 70%. The median time to price negotiation (not including time to engagement) for assessments that received at least 70% vs >70% price reduction was 2.6 vs 4.8 months. This study showed that there is a divergence between drug sponsor's incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and CADTH revised ICER leading to a price reduction to meet the $50,000/QALY threshold. For the submissions with clear clinical benefit the median length of engagement (2.5 vs 3.3 months) and median length of negotiation (3.1 vs 3.6 months) were slightly shorter compared with the submissions where uncertainties were noted in the clinical benefit according to CADTH. This study shows that using a $50,000 per QALY threshold for oncology products potentially impacts timely access to life saving medications.

Financial impact of integrated specialty pharmacy efforts to avoid oral anticancer medication waste

BACKGROUND

The growing number of oral anticancer medications represents a significant portion of pharmacy spending and can be costly for patients. Patients taking oral anticancer medications may experience frequent treatment changes following necessary safety and effectiveness monitoring, often resulting in medication waste. Strategies to avoid medication waste could alleviate the financial burden of these costly therapies on the payer and the patient.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the impact on waste and cost avoidance of reviewing the amount of medication patients have on hand and the presence of upcoming follow-up (ie, provider visit, laboratory testing, or imaging) before requesting a prescription refill renewal for patients taking oral anticancer medications through an integrated health system specialty pharmacy.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of patients filling oral anticancer medications prescribed by a Vanderbilt University Medical Center provider and dispensed by Vanderbilt Specialty Pharmacy between January 1, 2020, and December 31, 2020. Specialty pharmacists received a system-generated refill renewal request for oral anticancer medications when the final prescription refill was dispensed, prompting the pharmacist to review the patient's medical record for continued therapy appropriateness and to request a new prescription. If the patient had a sufficient supply on hand to last until an upcoming follow-up (ie, provider visit, imaging, or laboratory assessment), the pharmacist postponed the renewal until after the scheduled follow-up. Patients were included in the analysis if the refill renewal request was postponed after review of the amount of medication on hand and the presence of an upcoming follow-up. Medication outcomes (ie, continued, dose changed, held, medication changed to a different oral anticancer medication, or discontinued) resulting from the follow-up were collected. Cost avoidance in US dollars was assigned based on the outcome of follow-up by calculating the price per unit times the number of units that would have been unused or in excess of what was needed if the medication had been dispensed before the scheduled follow-up. The average wholesale price minus 20% (AWP-20%) and wholesale acquisition cost (WAC) were used to report a range of costs avoided over 12 months.

RESULTS

The total cost avoidance over 12 months associated with postponing refill renewal requests in a large academic health system with an integrated specialty pharmacy ranged from $549,187.03 using WAC pricing to $751,994.99 using AWP-20% pricing, with a median cost avoidance per fill of $366.04 (WAC) to $1,931.18 (AWP-20%). Refill renewal requests were postponed in 159 instances for 135 unique patients. After follow-up, medications were continued unchanged in only 2% of postponed renewals, 56% of follow-ups resulted in medication discontinuations, 32% in dose changes, 5% in medication changes, and 5% in medication holds.

CONCLUSIONS

Integrated health system specialty pharmacist postponement of refill requests after review of the amount of medication on hand and upcoming follow-up proved effective in avoiding waste and unnecessary medication costs in patients treated with oral anticancer medications at a large academic health system.

Impact of Early Access Reform on Oncology Innovation in France: Approvals, Patients, and Costs

BACKGROUND

An ambitious reform of the early access (EA) process was set up in July 2021 in France, aiming to simplify procedures and accelerate access to innovative drugs.

OBJECTIVE

This study analyzes the characteristics of oncology drug approvals through the EA process and its impact on real-life data for oncology patients.

METHODS

The number and characteristics of EA demands concerning oncology drugs submitted to the National Health Authority (HAS, Haute Autorité de Santé) were reviewed until 31 December 2022. A longitudinal retrospective study on patients treated with an EA oncology drug between 1 January 2019 and 31 December 2022 was also performed using the French nationwide claims database (Systeme National des Données de Santé [SNDS]) to assess the impact of the reform on the number of indications and patients, and the costs.

RESULTS

Among 110 published decisions, the HAS granted 88 (80%) EA indications within 70 days of assessment on average, including 46 (52%) in oncology (67% in solid tumors and 33% in hematological malignancies). Approved indications were mostly supported by randomized phase III trials (67%), whereas refused EA relied more on non-randomized (57%) trials. Overall survival was the primary endpoint of 28% of EA approvals versus none of denied EAs. In the SNDS data, the annual number of patients with cancer treated with an EA drug increased from 3137 patients in 2019 to 18,341 in 2022 (+ 484%), whereas the number of indications rose from 12 to 62, mainly in oncohematology (n = 17), lung (n = 12), digestive (n = 9) and breast cancer (n = 9). Reimbursement costs for EA treatments surged from €42 to €526 million (+ 1159%).

CONCLUSION

The French EA reform contributed to enabling rapid access to innovations in a wide range of indications for oncology patients. However, the findings highlight ongoing challenges in financial sustainability, warranting continued evaluation and adjustments.

Access to innovative anticancer medicines in China: a national survey on availability, price and affordability

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to investigate the availability, price, and affordability of nationally negotiated innovative anticancer medicines in China.

DESIGN

Retrospective observational study based on data from a nationwide medical database.

DATA SOURCES/SETTING

Quarterly data about the use of innovative anticancer medicines from 2020 to 2022 were collected from the Chinese Medicine Economic Information Network. This study covered 895 public general hospitals in 30 provincial administrative regions in China. Of the total hospitals, 299 (33.41%) were secondary and 596 (66.59%) were tertiary.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The adjusted WHO and Health Action International methodology was used to calculate the availability and affordability of 33 nationally negotiated innovative anticancer medicines in the investigated hospitals. Price is expressed as the defined daily dose cost.

RESULTS

On average, the total availability of 33 innovative anticancer medicines increased annually from 2020 to 2022. The median availability of all investigated medicines in tertiary hospitals from 2020 to 2022 was 24.04%, 33.60% and 37.61%, respectively, while the indicators in secondary hospitals were 4.90%, 12.54% and 16.48%, respectively. The adjusted prices of the medicines newly put in Medicare (in March 2021) decreased noticeably, with the decline rate ranging from 39.98% to 82.45% in 2021 compared with those in 2020. Most generic brands were priced much lower than the originator brands. The affordability of anticancer medicines has improved year by year from 2020 to 2022. In comparison, rural residents had lower affordability than urban residents.

CONCLUSIONS

The overall accessibility of 33 nationally negotiated innovative anticancer medicines improved from 2020 to 2022. However, the overall availability of most anticancer medicines in China remained at a low level (less than 50%). Further efforts should be made to sufficiently and equally benefit patients with cancer.

Quantifying chemotherapy wastage in an ambulatory cancer centre in Singapore

INTRODUCTION

To ensure the efficient use of chemotherapy drugs, chemotherapy wastage is an area that can be investigated. This study aims to quantify current parenteral chemotherapy wastage and estimate parenteral chemotherapy wastage when dose banding is executed, using a chemotherapy wastage calculator in an ambulatory cancer centre. The study also examines the variables that significantly predict the total cost of chemotherapy wastage, investigates the reasons for wastage, and explores opportunities to reduce wastage.

METHODS

Data were collected from the pharmacy in National Cancer Centre Singapore over 9 months retrospectively. Chemotherapy wastage is the sum of wastage in the preparation phase and potential wastage in the administration phase. The calculator was created using Microsoft Excel and generated chemotherapy wastage in terms of cost and amount (mg) and analysed the reasons for potential wastage.

RESULTS

The calculator reported a total of 2.22 million mg of chemotherapy wastage generated over 9 months, amounting to $2.05 million (Singapore Dollars, SGD). Regression analysis found that the cost of drug was the only independent variable that significantly predicted the total cost of chemotherapy wastage (P = 0.004). The study also identified low blood count (625 [29.06%]) as the top reason for potential wastage and no-show ($128,715.94 [15.97%]) as the reason that incurred the highest cost of potential wastage.

CONCLUSION

The pharmacy has generated a considerable amount of chemotherapy wastage over 9 months. Interventions in both the preparation and administration phases are required to reduce chemotherapy wastage. The use of the chemotherapy wastage calculator in pharmacy operations could guide efforts to reduce chemotherapy wastage.

Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: A practical application

INTRODUCTION

Increasing use of expensive oral anticancer medicines comes with the downside of a financial and environmental burden, partially caused by unused medication. Returned oral anticancer medicine to the pharmacy could be considered for redispensing providing guaranteed quality. This study aimed to identify and implement quality aspects and criteria for redispensing oral anticancer medicine in daily pharmacy practice.

METHODS

A systematic analysis was conducted to determine the eligibility of oral anticancer medicine for redispensing. Over a one-year period, the number of returned oral anticancer medicine accepted for redispensing was quantified, and the reduction in financial waste and environmental burden calculated based on this assessment.

RESULTS

Four categories of quality aspects were identified for determining the eligibility of oral anticancer medicine for redispensing: Product presentation suitability (stability characteristics, storage requirements), physical condition (unopened or opened secondary or primary packaging, visual appearance), authentication (Falsified Medicines Directive, confirmation of initial dispense, recall), and additional aspects (remaining shelf life, period of storage in uncontrolled conditions). A standardized procedure for redispensing was implemented in daily pharmacy practice. During the study period, 10,415 oral anticancer medicine dose units out of 13,210 returns (79%) were accepted for redispensing. The total value of oral anticancer medicine accepted for redispensing was €483,301, accounting for 0.9% of the total value dispensed during this period. Furthermore, the potential reduction in environmental burden was estimated at 1132.1 g of potent active pharmaceutical ingredient.

CONCLUSIONS

By implementing strict procedures considering all relevant quality aspects, redispensing of oral anticancer medicine can be successfully implemented into daily pharmacy practice, resulting in a significant reduction in financial waste and environmental burden.

Budget impact analysis of venetoclax for the management of acute myeloid leukemia from the perspective of the social security and the private sector in Argentina

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to estimate the budget impact of the incorporation of venetoclax for the treatment of patients with Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) over 75 years of age or those with comorbidities and contraindications for the use of intensive chemotherapy, from the perspective of the social security and the private third-party payers in Argentina.

METHODS

A budget impact model was adapted to estimate the cost difference between the current scenario (azacitidine, decitabine and low doses of cytarabine) and the new scenario (incorporation of venetoclax) for a third-party payer over a time horizon of three years. Input parameters were obtained from a literature review, validated or complemented by expert opinion using a modified Panel Delphi approach. All direct medical costs were estimated by the micro-costing approach and were expressed in US dollars (USD) as of September 2020 (1 USD = 76.18 Argentine pesos).

RESULTS

For a third-party payer with a cohort of 1,000,000 individuals covered, incorporating venetoclax was associated with an average budget impact per-member per-month (PMPM) of $0.11 USD for the social security sector and $0.07 USD for the private sector. The duration of treatment with venetoclax was the most influential parameter in the budget impact results.

CONCLUSION

The introduction of venetoclax was associated with a positive and slight budget impact. These findings are informative to support policy decisions aimed to expand the current treatment landscape of AML.

Lengthy and Variable Delays in Oncology Drug Coverage Determination

This cohort study examines the variability in time to pharmacy and therapeutics committees’ determinations of coverage of approved oncology drugs across multiple payers.

Biogenic Silver Nanoparticles for Targeted Cancer Therapy and Enhancing Photodynamic Therapy

Different conventional therapeutic procedures are utilized globally to manage cancer cases, yet the mortality rate in patients with cancer remains considerably high. Developments in the field of nanotechnology have included novel therapeutic strategies to deal with cancer. Biogenic (green) metallic silver nanoparticles (AgNPs) obtained using plant-mediated protocols are attractive to researchers exploring cancer treatment. Biogenic AgNPs present advantages, since they are cost-effective, easy to obtain, energy efficient, and less toxic compared to chemically and physically obtained AgNPs. Also, they present excellent anticancer abilities thanks to their unique sizes, shapes, and optical properties. This review provides recent advancements in exploring biogenic AgNPs as a drug or agent for cancer treatment. Thus, great attention was paid to the anticancer efficacy of biogenic AgNPs, their anticancer mechanisms, their efficacy in cancer photodynamic therapy (PDT), their efficacy in targeted cancer therapy, and their toxicity.

Financial Burden of Drugs Prescribed for Cancer-Associated Symptoms

PURPOSE

The financial toxicity of anticancer drugs is well-documented, but little is known about the costs of drugs used to manage cancer-associated symptoms.

METHODS

We reviewed relevant guidelines and compiled drugs used to manage seven cancer-associated symptoms (anorexia and cachexia, chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy, constipation, diarrhea, exocrine pancreatic insufficiency, cancer-associated fatigue, and chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting). Using GoodRx website, we identified the retail price (cash price at retail pharmacies) and lowest price (discounted, best-case scenario of out-of-pocket costs) for patients without insurance for each drug or formulation for a typical fill. We describe lowest prices here.

RESULTS

For anorexia and cachexia, costs ranged from $5 US dollars (USD; generic olanzapine or mirtazapine tablets) to $1,156 USD (brand-name dronabinol solution) and varied widely by formulation of the same drug or dosage: for olanzapine 5 mg, $5 USD (generic tablet) to $239 USD (brand-name orally disintegrating tablet). For chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy, costs of duloxetine varied from $12 USD (generic) to $529 USD (brand-name). For constipation, the cost of sennosides or polyethylene glycol was <$15 USD, whereas newer agents such as methylnaltrexone were expensive ($1,001 USD). For diarrhea, the cost of generic loperamide or diphenoxylate-atropine tablets was <$15 USD. For exocrine pancreatic insufficiency, only brand-name formulations were available, range of cost, $1,072 USD-$1,514 USD. For cancer-associated fatigue, the cost of generic dexamethasone or dexmethylphenidate was <$15 USD, whereas brand-name modafinil was more costly ($1,284 USD). For a 4-drug nausea and vomiting prophylaxis regimen, costs ranged from $181 USD to $1,430 USD.

CONCLUSION

We highlight the high costs of many symptom control drugs and the wide variation in the costs of these drugs. These findings can guide patient-clinician discussions about cost-effectively managing symptoms, while promoting the use of less expensive formulations when possible.

Comparison of Prices and Affordability of Cancer Medicines in 16 Countries in Europe and Latin America

BACKGROUND

There are concerns that high prices of cancer medicines may limit patient access. Since information on prices for cancer medicines and their impact on affordability is lacking for several countries, particularly for lower income countries, this study surveys prices of originator cancer medicines in Europe and Latin America and assesses their affordability.

METHODS

For 19 cancer medicines, public procurement and ex-factory prices, as of 2017, were surveyed in five Latin American (LATAM) countries (Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, and Peru) and 11 European countries (Austria, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, and the UK). Price data (public procurement prices in LATAM and ex-factory prices in Europe) in US dollar purchasing power parities (PPP) were analyzed per defined daily dose. Affordability was measured by setting medicines prices in relation to national minimum wages.

RESULTS

The prices of cancer medicines varied considerably between countries. In European countries with higher levels of income, PPP-adjusted prices tended to be lower than in European countries of lower income and LATAM countries. Except for one medicine, all surveyed medicines were considered unaffordable in most countries. In European countries of lower income and LATAM countries, more than 15 days' worth of minimum wages would be required by a worker to purchase one defined daily dose of several of the studied medicines.

CONCLUSIONS

The high prices and large unaffordability of cancer medicines call for strengthening pricing policies with the aim of ensuring affordable treatment in cancer care.

Real-world Use of and Spending on New Oral Targeted Cancer Drugs in the US, 2011-2018

Importance

Launch prices of new cancer drugs in the US have substantially increased in recent years despite growing concerns about the quantity and quality of evidence supporting their approval by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Objective

To assess the use of and spending on new oral targeted cancer drugs among US residents with employer-sponsored insurance between 2011 and 2018, stratified by the strength of available evidence of benefit.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this cross-sectional study, dispensing claims for oral targeted cancer drugs first approved by the FDA between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2018, were analyzed. The number of patients with drugs dispensed and the total payment for all claims were aggregated by calendar year, and these outcomes were arrayed according to evidence underlying FDA approvals, including pivotal study design (availability of randomized clinical trials) and overall survival (OS) benefit, as documented in drug labels. This study was conducted from July 17, 2019, to July 23, 2021.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Annual and cumulative numbers of patients who had dispensing events, and annual and cumulative sums of payment for eligible drugs.

Results

Of 37 348 patients who had at least 1 of the 44 new oral targeted drugs dispensed between 2011 and 2018, 21 324 were men (57.1%); mean (SD) age was 64.1 (13.1) years. Most individuals (36 246 [97.0%]) received drugs for which evidence from randomized clinical trials existed; however, a growing share of patients received drugs without documented OS benefit during the study period: from 12.7% in 2011 to 58.8% in 2018. Cumulative spending on all sample drugs totaled $3.5 billion by the end of 2018, of which 96.8% was spent on drugs that were approved based on a pivotal randomized clinical trial. Cumulative spending on drugs without documented OS benefit ($1.8 billion [51.6%]) surpassed that on drugs with documented OS benefit ($1.7 billion [48.4%]) by the end of 2018.

Conclusions and Relevance

The findings of this cross-sectional study suggest that drugs used for treatment of cancer without documented OS benefits are adopted in the health system and account for substantial spending.

Current Attitudes toward Unfunded Cancer Therapies among Canadian Medical Oncologists

Background: Despite successes in the development of innovative anticancer therapies, the fiscal and capacity restraints of the Canadian public healthcare system result in challenges with drug access. A meaningful proportion of systemic therapies ultimately do not receive public funding despite supporting clinical evidence. In this study, we assessed Canadian medical oncologists’ current attitudes toward discussing publicly unfunded cancer treatments with patients and predictors of different practices. Methods: A web-based survey consisting of multiple choice and case-based scenarios was distributed to medical oncologists identified through the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada directory. Results: A total of 116 responses were received. Almost all respondents reported discussing publicly unfunded treatments, including those who did so for Health Canada (HC) approved treatments (50%) and those who discussed off-label treatments (i.e., not HC approved) as guided by national guidelines (48%). Respondents in practice for over 15 years versus less than 5 years (OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.04–0.50, p = 0.002) and those who worked in a community practice versus comprehensive cancer center (OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.03–0.91, p = 0.04) were significantly less likely to discuss off-label treatment options with their patients. Almost half of respondents (47%) indicated that their institution did not permit the administration of unfunded treatments. Conclusions: There is variability in medical oncologists’ practices when it comes to discussing unfunded therapies. Given the limitations within Canada’s publicly funded healthcare system, physicians are faced with the challenge of navigating an increasingly complex balance between patient care and available resources. Engagement of relevant stakeholders and policy makers is crucial in the continued evaluation of Canada’s drug funding process.

Characteristics of Cost-effectiveness Studies for Oncology Drugs Approved in the United States From 2015-2020

IMPORTANCE

Increasingly, cost-effectiveness analyses are being done to determine the value of rapidly increasing oncology drugs; however, this assumes that these analyses are unbiased.

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the characteristics of cost-effectiveness studies and to determine characteristics associated with whether an oncology drug is found to be cost-effective.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This retrospective cross-sectional study included 254 cost-effectiveness analyses for 116 oncology drugs that were approved by the US Food and Drug Administration from 2015 to 2020.

EXPOSURES

Each drug was analyzed for the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life year, the funding of the study, the authors' conflict of interest, the threshold of willingness-to-pay, from what country's perspective the analysis was done, and whether a National Institute for Health and Care Excellence cost-effectiveness analysis had been done.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The main outcome was the odds of a study concluding that a drug was cost-effective.

RESULTS

There were 116 drug approvals with 254 studies and country perspectives. Of the country perspectives, 132 (52%) were from the US. Forty-seven of 78 drugs with cost-effective studies had been shown to improve overall survival, whereas 15 of 38 of drugs without a cost-effectiveness study had been shown to improve overall survival. Having a study funded by a pharmaceutical company was associated with higher odds of a study concluding that a drug was cost-effective than studies without funding (odds ratio, 41.36; 95% CI, 11.86-262.23).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this cross-sectional study, pharmaceutical funding was associated with greater odds that an oncology drug would be found to be cost-effective. These findings suggest that simply disclosing potential conflict of interest is inadequate. We encourage cost-effectiveness analyses by independent groups.

Estimated Cost-effectiveness of Atezolizumab Plus Cobimetinib and Vemurafenib for Treatment of BRAF V600 Variation Metastatic Melanoma

IMPORTANCE

In the IMspire150 trial, triplet treatment with atezolizumab and vemurafenib plus cobimetinib significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared with vemurafenib plus cobimetinib alone for treatment of BRAF V600 variation metastatic melanoma. However, considering high cost of this combination, it is unclear if the incremental cost is worth the additional survival benefit.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab and vemurafenib plus cobimetinib vs vemurafenib plus cobimetinib alone in patients with newly diagnosed unresectable BRAF V600 variation metastatic melanoma from the US health care perspective.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This economic evaluation study used a 3-state partitioned survival model to assess the cost-effectiveness of the combination of atezolizumab with vemurafenib plus cobimetinib vs vemurafenib plus cobimetinib alone. The observed Kaplan-Meier curves for overall survival and PFS were digitized from the IMspire150 trial (January 2017-April 2018) and the long-term survivals (over a lifetime horizon) beyond the end of the trial were extrapolated using 7 different survival models. The cost and health preference data were collected from a literature review. This study was performed from March 2021 through June 2021.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The outcomes of interest were expected life-years (LYs) gained and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), expressed as cost per LYs and per QALYs saved.

RESULTS

Adding atezolizumab to vemurafenib and cobimetinib provided an additional 3.267 QALYs compared with the doublet regimen of vemurafenib plus cobimetinib, at an ICER of $271 669 per QALY, which is not considered cost-effective at the willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000 per QALY. However, the scenario analyses found that atezolizumab combined with vemurafenib plus cobimetinib could be cost-effective at 20-year (ICER, $121 432 per QALY) and 30-year ($98 092 per QALY) time horizons when both strategies were stopped after 2 years of treatments, and over a lifetime horizon ($122 220 per QALY) when only immunotherapy with atezolizumab was stopped after 2 years of treatment.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

These findings suggest that the atezolizumab and vemurafenib plus cobimetinib regimen provides significant survival benefits over vemurafenib plus cobimetinib alone, and a price reduction would be encouraged to maximize the value of its survival gain.

An evaluation of the healthcare costs of metastatic breast cancer: A retrospective matched cohort study

To determine the economic burden of metastatic breast cancer (MBC) in Taiwan, we conducted a national retrospective claim database analysis to evaluate the incremental healthcare costs and utilization of MBC patients as compared to their breast cancer (BC) and breast cancer free (BCF) counterparts.Data were obtained from the National Health Insurance Claim Database and the Taiwan Cancer Registry database between 2012 and 2015. All healthcare utilization and costs were calculated on a per-patient-per-month (PPPM) basis and were compared among groups using the generalized linear model adjusting for age group, residential area, and Charlson comorbidity index group.A total of 1,606 MBC patients were matched to 6,424 BC patients and 6,424 BCF patients. The majority of overall MBC healthcare costs were attributed to outpatient costs (75.1%), followed by inpatient (23.2%) and emergency room costs (1.7%). The PPPM total healthcare costs of the MBC, BC, and BCF groups were TWD 7,422, 14,425, and 2,114, respectively. The adjusted PPPM total healthcare cost ratio of MBC to BCF was 4.1. Compared to BCF patients, the patients receiving both human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-targeted therapy and endocrine therapy incurred 28.1 times PPPM total costs. The adjusted PPPM total healthcare cost ratio of recurrent MBC to BCF was 2.3, while the ratio was 12.2 in the de novo MBC group.Patients with MBC are associated with substantial economic burden, particularly in outpatient costs. The study findings could be useful for MBC-related economic evaluations and health resource allocation.

Access to cancer medicines deemed essential by oncologists in 82 countries: an international, cross-sectional survey

BACKGROUND

The WHO Essential Medicines List (EML) identifies priority medicines that are most important to public health. Over time, the EML has included an increasing number of cancer medicines. We aimed to investigate whether the cancer medicines in the EML are aligned with the priority medicines of frontline oncologists worldwide, and the extent to which these medicines are accessible in routine clinical practice.

METHODS

This international, cross-sectional survey was developed by investigators from a range of clinical practice settings across low-income to high-income countries, including members of the WHO Essential Medicines Cancer Working Group. A 28-question electronic survey was developed and disseminated to a global network of oncologists in 89 countries and regions by use of a hierarchical snowball method; each primary contact distributed the survey through their national and regional oncology associations or personal networks. The survey was open from Oct 15 to Dec 7, 2020. Fully qualified physicians who prescribe systemic anticancer therapy to adults were eligible to participate in the survey. The primary question asked respondents to select the ten cancer medicines that would provide the greatest public health benefit to their country; subsequent questions explored availability and cost of cancer medicines. Descriptive statistics were used to compare access to medicines between low-income and lower-middle-income countries, upper-middle-income countries, and high-income countries.

FINDINGS

87 country-level contacts and two regional networks were invited to participate in the survey; 46 (52%) accepted the invitation and distributed the survey. 1697 respondents opened the survey link; 423 were excluded as they did not answer the primary study question and 326 were excluded because of ineligibility. 948 eligible oncologists from 82 countries completed the survey (165 [17%] in low-income and lower-middle-income countries, 165 [17%] in upper-middle-income countries, and 618 [65%] in high-income countries). The most commonly selected medicines were doxorubicin (by 499 [53%] of 948 respondents), cisplatin (by 470 [50%]), paclitaxel (by 423 [45%]), pembrolizumab (by 414 [44%]), trastuzumab (by 402 [42%]), carboplatin (by 390 [41%]), and 5-fluorouracil (by 386 [41%]). Of the 20 most frequently selected high-priority cancer medicines, 19 (95%) are currently on the WHO EML; 12 (60%) were cytotoxic agents and 13 (65%) were granted US Food and Drug Administration regulatory approval before 2000. The proportion of respondents indicating universal availability of each top 20 medication was 9-54% in low-income and lower-middle-income countries, 13-90% in upper-middle-income countries, and 68-94% in high-income countries. The risk of catastrophic expenditure (spending >40% of total consumption net of spending on food) was more common in low-income and lower-middle-income countries, with 13-68% of respondents indicating a substantial risk of catastrophic expenditures for each of the top 20 medications in lower-middle-income countries versus 2-41% of respondents in upper-middle-income countries and 0-9% in high-income countries.

INTERPRETATION

These data demonstrate major barriers in access to core cancer medicines worldwide. These findings challenge the feasibility of adding additional expensive cancer medicines to the EML. There is an urgent need for global and country-level policy action to ensure patients with cancer globally have access to high priority medicines.

FUNDING

None.

A framework for economic evaluation of therapeutic drug monitoring-guided dosing in oncology

The standard approach for dose individualization of chemotherapy in the oncology setting has long been based on body surface area (BSA) as a measure of body size. However, for many anticancer drugs, administration of dosages based on BSA may result in some patients receiving supratherapeutic or subtherapeutic concentrations due to substantial interindividual pharmacokinetic variability. Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM)-guided dosing aims to ensure that the patient's serum drug concentration is in a target range which has been shown to produce optimal clinical outcomes. The management of several malignancies is now moving away from using traditional intravenous chemotherapy to longer-term treatment with targeted molecular therapies. These targeted anticancer drugs are currently dosed based on a fixed dose for all patients. The pharmacokinetic characteristics of most of these drugs (e.g., tyrosine-kinase inhibitors) support implementation of individualized dosing via TDM. However, prior to adopting TDM-guided dosing in oncology settings, the economic efficiency and value for money of introducing TDM interventions should be critically and systematically examined along with the impacts on patient care and outcomes. Yet, current evidence in this area is limited, and more generally, there is lack of methodological guidance on how to identify, estimate and value clinical and cost information necessary to conduct economic evaluations of TDM interventions. In this paper, we propose a coherent framework for conducting economic evaluation of TDM interventions in oncology settings and discuss some practical challenges of conducting economic evaluations of TDM.

Drug Prices and Value of Oncology Drugs in Italy

OBJECTIVE

The main objective of this study was to evaluate the potential role of efficacy data and other information available at the time of price and reimbursement (P&R) decision-making process within the definition of oncology treatment costs in Italy.

METHODS

The study included all P&R dossiers submitted to the Italian Medicines Agency between July 2015 and December 2017. It prospectively collected the data of the P&R process starting from dossier submission up to the Italian Health Service reimbursement decision. The cost of treatment per patient was estimated using both the list price ("gross cost") and the confidential net price ("net cost") of drug packages and applied to the median duration of treatment. A 2-sample stage Heckman decomposition model was used to evaluate the potential role of efficacy data and other information available at the time of P&R decision making on the gross and net cost.

RESULTS

A total of 37 oncology drugs related to 58 therapeutic indications were analyzed. The multivariate model showed that the variation of progression-free survival is the only variable predictor statistically associated with treatment cost, but this effect was observed only when confidential net prices were used (P=.026).

CONCLUSIONS

Considering the perspective of a developed country having a public healthcare service with a central reimbursement negotiation is determined a relevant reduction in the treatment cost purchased by public payers. This is a useful approach to guarantee the affordability of innovative oncology drugs and to contain public expenditures on healthcare. Furthermore, the negotiation of confidential discounts and agreement clauses in managed entry agreements seemed to reward oncology drugs displaying an added therapeutic benefit.

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.

Direct Medical Costs of Advanced Breast Cancer Treatment: A Real-World Study in the Southeast of The Netherlands

OBJECTIVES

Policy makers increasingly seek to complement data from clinical trials with information from routine care. This study aims to provide a detailed account of the hospital resource use and associated costs of patients with advanced breast cancer in The Netherlands.

METHODS

Data from 597 patients with advanced breast cancer, diagnosed between 2010 and 2014, were retrieved from the Southeast Netherlands Advanced Breast Cancer Registry. Database lock for this study was in October 2017. We report the observed hospital costs for different resource categories and the lifetime costs per patient, adjusted for censoring using Lin's method. The relationship between patients' characteristics and costs was studied using multivariable regression.

RESULTS

The average (SE) lifetime hospital costs of patients with advanced breast cancer were €52 709 (405). Costs differed considerably between patient subgroups, ranging from €29 803 for patients with a triple-negative subtype to €92 272 for patients with hormone receptor positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 positive cancer. Apart from the cancer subtype, several other factors, including age and survival time, were independently associated with patient lifetime costs. Overall, a large share of costs was attributed to systemic therapies (56%), predominantly to a few expensive agents, such as trastuzumab (15%), everolimus (10%), and bevacizumab (9%), as well as to inpatient hospital days (20%).

CONCLUSIONS

This real-world study shows the high degree of variability in hospital resource use and associated costs in advanced breast cancer care. The presented resource use and costs data provide researchers and policy makers with key figures for economic evaluations and budget impact analyses.

Prevalence of Immature Survival Data for Anti-Cancer Drugs Presented to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and Impact on Decision Making

OBJECTIVES

This research aims to explore how often the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) uses immature overall survival data to inform reimbursement decisions on cancer treatments, and the implications of this for resource allocation decisions.

METHODS

NICE cancer technology appraisals published between 2015 and 2017 were reviewed to determine the prevalence of using immature survival data. A case study was used to demonstrate the potential impact of basing decisions on immature data. The economic model submitted by the company was reconstructed and was populated first using survival data available at the time of the appraisal, and then using data from an updated data cut published after the appraisal concluded. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) obtained using the different data cuts were compared. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was undertaken and expected value of perfect information estimated.

RESULTS

Forty-one percent of NICE cancer technology appraisals used immature data to inform reimbursement decisions. In the case study, NICE gave a positive recommendation for a limited patient subgroup, with ICERs too high in the complete patient population. ICERs were dramatically lower when the final data cut was used, irrespective of the parametric model used to model survival. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis and expected value of perfect information may not have fully characterized uncertainty, because as they did not account for structural uncertainty.

CONCLUSION

Analyses of cancer treatments using immature survival data may result in incorrect estimates of survival benefit and cost-effectiveness, potentially leading to inappropriate funding decisions. This research highlights the importance of revisiting past decisions when updated data cuts become available.

Association of Supporting Trial Evidence and Reimbursement for Off-Label Use of Cancer Drugs

IMPORTANCE

In many health systems, access to off-label drug use is controlled through reimbursement restrictions by health insurers, especially for expensive cancer drugs.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether evidence from randomized clinical trials is associated with reimbursement decisions for requested off-label use of anticancer drugs in the Swiss health system.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cross-sectional study used reimbursement requests from routinely collected health records of 5809 patients with drug treatment for cancer between January 2015 and July 2018 in 3 major cancer centers, covering cancer care of approximately 5% of the Swiss population, to identify off-label drug use. For each off-label use indication with 3 or more requests, randomized clinical trial evidence on treatment benefits was systematically identified for overall survival (OS) or progression-free survival (PFS). Data were analyzed from August 2018 to December 2020.

EXPOSURES

Available randomized clinical trial evidence on benefits for OS or PFS for requested off-label use indications.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The main outcome was the association between evidence for treatment benefit (expressed as improved OS or PFS) and reimbursement in multivariable regression models.

RESULTS

Among 3046 patients with cancer, 695 off-label use reimbursement requests in 303 different indications were made for 598 patients (median [interquartile range] age, 64 [53-73] years; 420 [60%] men). Off-label use was intended as first-line treatment in 311 requests (45%). Reimbursement was accepted in 446 requests (64%). For 71 indications, including 431 requests for 376 patients, there were 3 or more requests. Of these, 246 requests (57%) had no supporting evidence for OS or PFS benefit. Reimbursement was granted in 162 of 246 requests without supporting evidence (66%). Of 117 requests supported by OS benefit, 79 (67%) were reimbursed, and of 68 requests supported by PFS benefit alone, 54 (79%) were reimbursed. Evidence of OS benefit from randomized clinical trials was not associated with a higher chance of reimbursement (odds ratio, 0.76, 95% CI, 0.45-1.27).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

These findings suggest that in a health care system enabling access to off-label use, it was frequently intended as a first-line treatment in cancer care. Availability of randomized clinical trial evidence showing survival benefit was not associated with reimbursement decisions for off-label anticancer drug treatment in Switzerland. A transparent process with criteria considering clinical evidence is needed for evidence-based reimbursement decisions to ensure fair access to cancer treatments.

Cost-effectiveness of Novel Treatment Sequences for Transplant-Ineligible Patients With Multiple Myeloma

IMPORTANCE

Although the number of treatments for elderly patients with non-transplant-eligible (NTE) multiple myeloma (MM) has increased substantially, evidence is lacking on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of novel treatment sequences.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the optimal sequence of treatment for patients with NTE MM from the perspective of the patient, physician, and society.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Using data from a Dutch observational registry, this economic evaluation combined evidence from network meta-analyses in a patient-level simulation model and modeled time-to-event and types of events from a hospital perspective with a lifetime horizon. Data analysis was performed from June 2019 to September 2020.

INTERVENTIONS

Thirty treatment sequences, including up to 3 lines of therapy, were compared with bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone (VMP)-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (LenDex)-pomalidomide-dexamethasone (PomDex).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcomes of the model were overall survival (OS), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs, and cost-effectiveness.

RESULTS

Sequences starting with daratumumab-VMP (second line: carfilzomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone or elotuzumab-lenalidomide-dexamethasone) or bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone-thalidomide-maintenance bortezomib-thalidomide (VMPT-VT) (second line: daratumumab-lenalidomide-dexamethasone) had the largest expected OS (7.5 years), which is 3.5 additional life-years compared with VMP-LenDex-PomDex. Total costs per patient for these sequences ranged between $786 024 and $1 085 794. The sequence VMPT-VT-carfilzomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone-panobinostat-bortezomib-dexamethasone had the most favorable cost-effectiveness ratio ($98 585 per life-year gained and $132 707 per QALY gained vs VMP-LenDex-PomDex).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

These findings suggest that sequences including novel treatments were highly effective, but the cost-effectiveness ratios were above currently accepted willingness-to-pay thresholds. Treating MM with novel agents necessitates either a large increase in budget or a substantial reduction of drug costs by price negotiations, and these findings can support these reimbursement decisions and price negotiations.

Clinician Perspectives of COVID-19-Related Cancer Drug Funding Measures in Ontario

The COVID-19 pandemic has a significant impact on cancer patients and the delivery of cancer care. To allow clinicians to adapt treatment plans for patients, Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario) issued a series of interim funding measures for the province’s New Drug Funding Program (NDFP), which covers the cost of most hospital-delivered cancer drugs. To assess the utility of the measures and the need for their continuation, we conducted an online survey of Ontario oncology clinicians. The survey was open 3–25 September 2020 and generated 105 responses. Between April and June 2020, 46% of respondents changed treatment plans for more than 25% of their cancer patients due to the pandemic. Clinicians report broad use of interim funding measures. The most frequently reported strategies used were treatment breaks for stable patients (62%), extending dosing intervals (59%), and deferring routine imaging (56%). Most clinicians anticipate continuing to use these interim funding measures in the coming months. The survey showed that adapting cancer drug funding policies has supported clinical care in Ontario during the pandemic.

Effectiveness and healthcare costs of eribulin versus capecitabine among metastatic breast cancer patients in Taiwan

OBJECTIVE

To compare the real-world effectiveness and costs of eribulin to those of capecitabine in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) pretreated with anthracyclines and taxanes.

METHODS

This study extracted data from the Health and Welfare Database in Taiwan to identify MBC patients, and then eribulin and capecitabine users were matched at a 1:1 ratio by age, residential region, Charlson Comorbidity Index score, and molecular subtype of BC cell. The overall survival (OS) and time-to-treatment discontinuation (TTD) curves were plotted using the Kaplan-Meier method. Healthcare utilization and costs between the two groups were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 24,550 MBC patients were identified, and 298 patients were enrolled in each group after matching. The median OS was 11.8 months for eribulin (95%CI: 11.5-13.5 months) and 15.2 months for capecitabine (95%CI: 15.3-17.9 months; HR = 1.7, p < 0.0001). The median TTD was 4.0 months for eribulin and 6.6 months for capecitabine (HR = 1.6; p < 0.0001). No significant difference was found between the two groups in patients with >4 prior chemotherapy agents (OS: HR 1.1, 95%CI 0.8-1.5; TTD: HR 1.2, 95%CI 0.9-1.7). The total healthcare costs per patient during the treatment period were NT$580,523.8 for eribulin versus NT$497,223.8 for capecitabine (p < 0.0001), and total medication costs were NT$438,335.8 and NT$348,438.4 (p < 0.0001), respectively.

CONCLUSION

Although eribulin showed an attenuated effect in the real-world setting in Taiwan, it may serve as an alternative for capecitabine in a heavy pretreated population. The total healthcare and medication costs were found to be higher with eribulin treatment.

Economic burden of disease progression among multiple myeloma patients who have received transplant and at least one line of therapy in the US

Effects of disease progression on healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs among multiple myeloma (MM) patients with ≥1 line of therapy (LOT) who received their first stem cell transplant (SCT) within 1 year of initial MM diagnosis were estimated using a large US claims database. Disease progression was defined as advancement to the next LOT, bone metastasis, hypercalcemia, soft tissue plasmacytoma, skeletal related events, acute kidney disease, or death within 12 months of LOT initiation. Annual HRU and costs in the first three LOTs (L1-L3) were compared for patients with versus without disease progression using inverse probability of treatment weighting to adjust for differences between groups in baseline characteristics. In all LOTs, mean annual hospitalizations and healthcare costs were greater for patients with versus without progression. Total incremental annual costs among patients with versus without progression in L1-L3 were $18,359, $87,055, and $71,917, respectively, among LOTs initiated between 2006 and 2018. In LOTs initiated between 2013 and 2018, the figures were $46,024, $100,329, and $101,942 in L1-L3, respectively. The economic burden of disease progression is substantial in this population of MM patients who underwent SCT and received systemic anti-myeloma therapy.

A MEA is a MEA is a MEA? Sequential decision making and the impact of different managed entry agreements at the manufacturer and payer level, using a case study for an oncology drug in England

BACKGROUND

In a typical single-payer setting that uses an explicit cost-effectiveness (CE) threshold in its decision-making, the payer aims to maximize the net-monetary-benefit (NMB) given the CE threshold, whilst the manufacturer aims to maximize the expected discounted-cash-flow (DCF) resulting from the sales of that technology. Managed entry agreements (MEAs) are tools that are used to improve access to expensive technologies that would otherwise not be deemed to be cost-effective to payers. While simple discount on the list price is the most commonly applied MEA type, there are different forms, each having a different impact on the cost-effectiveness of the technology, on the lifetime DCF-per-patient and on the decision uncertainty. We aim to analyze the sequential decision-making (SDM) of different MEAs (i.e. simple discount, free treatment initiation, lifetime treatment acquisition cost-capping [LTTACC], performance-based money-back guarantee [MBG]) at the manufacturer and at the payer level, respectively.

METHODS

We first model the SDM of the manufacturer and the payer as a sequential game and explain the challenges to find an equilibrium analytically. Then we propose a heuristic computational method to follow for each of the MEA types, based on practice. To demonstrate this SDM on a case study, a UK-based cost-utility analysis using a three-state, partitioned-survival-model was constructed to determine the cost-effectiveness of regorafenib versus best-supportive-care for the second-line treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. The optimal agreement terms that would maximise the lifetime DCF-per-patient for each MEA, whilst remaining below the CE-threshold (£50,000/QALY gained) were obtained in the deterministic base-case. Robustness for each optimized MEA was then assessed using probabilistic sensitivity and scenario analyses, the value of information (VoI), and HTA-risk analyses.

RESULTS

As expected, the introduction of all MEAs improved the probabilistic ICER and NMB values to (almost) acceptable levels, compared to the "no-MEA" case (ICER ~ £78,000/QALY-gained). The expected DCFs across the explored MEAs were all similar, whilst the payer strategy & uncertainty burden (PSUB) for regorafenib decreased in all MEAs explored. VoI analyses revealed that regorafenib mean-dose-intensity and time-on-treatment (ToT) parameters attributed most to the decision uncertainty. LTTACC provided the smallest PSUB and the most robust NMB estimates under parametric uncertainty. For scenarios assuming increased regorafenib ToT or mean-dose-intensity, LTACC again provided acceptable cost-effectiveness outcomes, whereas for scenarios assuming decreased regorafenib progression-free/overall survival effectiveness, only MBG resulted in plausible ICER values. In scenarios, where the source of uncertainty was not targeted by MEA parameters (e.g. the scenario assuming higher progressed disease resource utilization), all investigated MEA types resulted in unacceptable cost-effectiveness outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Each MEA type has a different implication. The impact of different MEAs on the NMB is more noteworthy than on the DCF, in relative terms, hence payers will benefit from the early participation of the MEA design rather than leaving this up to the prerogative of the manufacturer. While simple discount might be practical for implementation purposes, other MEAs can provide additional benefits to the payer in terms of increased NMB, reduced decision risk and reduced uncertainty. MEA performance should be investigated not only under parametric uncertainty, but also under-identified structural uncertainty, and the barriers of implementation should be considered thoroughly before choosing the most appropriate MEA type.

Potential Cost Implications for All US Food and Drug Administration Oncology Drug Approvals in 2018

Importance

The growth of cancer drug spending in the US has outpaced spending in nearly all other sectors, and an increasing proportion of the drug development pipeline is devoted to oncology. In 2018, there was a record number of drugs entering the US market.

Objective

To estimate the number of patients with cancer who are eligible for the newly approved drug-indication pairs, and project potential spending and use of the approvals in the US.

Design, Setting, Participants

This is a retrospective review of 2018 US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) oncology drug approvals with estimation of the eligible population. The cost of new therapy was estimated, and savings from displaced therapies were subtracted. Two-way sensitivity analysis explored uncertainty in pricing and market diffusion. Data were collected between March 1, 2019, and September 30, 2019.

Exposures

Data related to the cancer drug approval (ie, indications, approval pathway, basis for approval), cancer incidence, and drug price were extracted from publicly available sources, including the FDA, National Cancer Institute, and American Cancer Society websites, as well as the RED BOOK database.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was the projected net expenditure in the US associated with the new therapies. The secondary outcome described how variable market diffusion and pricing permit expected levels of spending.

Results

A total of 46 oncology approvals were included in the analysis, with 17 novel drugs and 29 new indications. The average price per patient per treatment course was $150 384. From a national perspective and with 100% market diffusion, the projected net expenditure for newly approved drugs was $39.5 billion per year. To maintain the recent trend of cancer drug spending, the 2018 cancer drug approvals need to be used in fewer than 20% of eligible patients.

Conclusions and Relevance

New cancer drugs approved by the FDA in 2018 would drastically increase cancer drug spending in the US if used widely. Alternatively, only low-level use of the new drugs is consistent with market forecasting.

Cost-effectiveness of Atezolizumab Plus Bevacizumab vs Sorafenib as First-Line Treatment of Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma

IMPORTANCE

Treatment with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab may prolong overall survival among patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. However, to our knowledge, the cost-effectiveness of using this high-priced therapy for this indication is currently unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab to treat unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma from the US payer perspective.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This economic evaluation used a partitioned survival model consisting of 3 discrete health states to assess the cost-effectiveness of treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab vs sorafenib. The characteristics of patients in the model were similar to patients in a phase 3, open-label randomized clinical trial (IMbrave150) who had unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma and had not previously received systemic treatment. Key clinical data were generated from the IMbrave150 trial conducted between March 15, 2018, and January 30, 2019, and cost and health preference data were collected from the literature.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost-utility ratios, incremental net health benefits, and incremental net monetary benefits were calculated for the 2 treatment strategies. Subgroup, 1-way sensitivity, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab added 0.530 QALYs and resulted in an incremental cost of $89 807 compared with sorafenib therapy, which had an incremental cost-utility ratio of $169 223 per QALY gained. The incremental net health benefit was -0.068 QALYs, and the incremental net monetary benefit was -$10 202 at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000/QALY. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that treatment with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab achieved a 35% probability of cost-effectiveness at a threshold of $150 000/QALY. One-way sensitivity analysis revealed that the results were most sensitive to the hazard ratio of overall survival. The subgroup analysis found that treatment with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab was associated with preferred incremental net health benefits in several subgroups, including patients with hepatitis B and C.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab treatment is unlikely to be a cost-effective option compared with sorafenib for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. Reducing the prices of atezolizumab and bevacizumab may improve cost-effectiveness. The economic outcomes also may be improved by tailoring treatments based on individual patient factors.

Cost-Effectiveness Assessment of Monitoring Abiraterone Levels in Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer Patients

OBJECTIVES

Abiraterone acetate is registered for the treatment of metastatic castration-sensitive and resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Treatment outcome is associated with plasma trough concentrations (C_min) of abiraterone. Patients with a plasma C_min below the target of 8.4 ng/mL may benefit from treatment optimization by dose increase or concomitant intake with food. This study aims to investigate the cost-effectiveness of monitoring abiraterone C_min in patients with mCRPC.

METHODS

A Markov model was built with health states progression-free survival, progressed disease, and death. The benefits of monitoring abiraterone C_min followed by a dose increase or food intervention were modeled via a difference in the percentage of patients achieving adequate C_min taking a healthcare payer perspective. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess uncertainties and their impac to the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).

RESULTS

Monitoring abiraterone followed by a dose increase resulted in 0.149 incremental quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) with €22 145 incremental costs and an ICER of €177 821/QALY. The food intervention assumed equal effects and estimated incremental costs of €7599, resulting in an ICER of €61 019/QALY. The likelihoods of therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) with a dose increase or food intervention being cost-effective were 8.04%and 81.9%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Monitoring abiraterone followed by a dose increase is not cost-effective in patients with mCRPC from a healthcare payer perspective. Monitoring in combination with a food intervention is likely to be cost-effective. This cost-effectiveness assessment may assist decision making in future integration of abiraterone TDM followed by a food intervention into standard abiraterone acetate treatment practices of mCRPC patients.

Pharmacological Acromegaly Treatment: Cost-Utility and Value of Information Analysis

OBJECTIVES

To conduct a cost-utility analysis comparing drug strategies involving octreotide, lanreotide, pasireotide, and pegvisomant for the treatment of patients with acromegaly who have failed surgery, from a Brazilian public payer perspective.

METHODS

A probabilistic cohort Markov model was developed. One-year cycles were employed. The patients started at 45 years of age and were followed lifelong. Costs, efficacy, and quality of life parameters were retrieved from the literature. A discount rate (5%) was applied to both costs and efficacy. The results were reported as costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated when applicable. Scenario analyses considered alternative dosages, discount rate, tax exemption, and continued use of treatment despite lack of response. Value of information (VOI) analysis was conducted to explore uncertainty and to estimate the costs to be spent in future research.

RESULTS

Only lanreotide showed an ICER reasonable for having its use considered in clinical practice (R$ 112,138/US$ 28,389 per QALY compared to no treatment). Scenario analyses corroborated the base-case result. VOI analysis showed that much uncertainty surrounds the parameters, and future clinical research should cost less than R$ 43,230,000/US$ 10,944,304 per year. VOI also showed that almost all uncertainty that precludes an optimal strategy choice involves quality of life.

CONCLUSIONS

With current information, the only strategy that can be considered cost-effective in Brazil is lanreotide treatment. No second-line treatment is recommended. Significant uncertainty of parameters impairs optimal decision-making, and this conclusion can be generalized to other countries. Future research should focus on acquiring utility data.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of fruquintinib versus regorafenib as the third-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer in China

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study is to assess the cost-effectiveness of fruquintinib compared to regorafenib as third-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in China.

METHODS

A three-state Markov model with monthly cycle was constructed to estimate lifetime incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of fruquintinib versus regorafenib as third-line treatment for patients with mCRC from Chinese health care perspective. Survival analysis was applied to calculate transition probabilities using the data from the clinical trials FRESCO and CONCUR, which were also the data sources accessing probabilities of adverse events. Background mortality rate and drug costs were derived from government published data. Costs for medical services were obtained from real-world data and published literatures. Utilities applied to calculate the quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were obtained from literature review. One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were adopted to verify the robustness of the results.

RESULTS

Fruquintinib provided 0.74 QALYs at a cost of CNY 151,058 (USD 22,888), whereas regorafenib provided 0.79 QALYs at a cost of CNY 226,657 (USD 32,224). Compared to fruquintinib, the ICER of regorafenib was CNY 1,529,197/QALY (USD 231,697/QALY) from Chinese health care perspective, which was above the triple GDP per capita of China in 2019 (CNY 212,676) (USD 32,224) as the threshold to define the cost-effectiveness. One-way sensitivity analysis showed the results were generally robust. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves derived from probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated the probability that fruquintinib was more cost-effective was 100% when the threshold was the triple GDP per capita of China.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to regorafenib, fruquintinib, which leads to forego about 0.05 QALYs and save about CNY 75,599 (USD 11,454), is a cost-effective choice as the third-line treatment for patients with mCRC in China.

Budget impact analysis of the use of oral and intravenous therapy regimens for the treatment of relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma in Germany

BACKGROUND

In Germany, several triplet therapies for treating relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (rrMM) patients have recently been approved. While most of them are administered intravenously, ixazomib-based combination is the only orally bioavailable regimen.

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a 1-year and 3-year budget impact analysis (BIA) of different novel triplets to treat patients with rrMM in second or subsequent therapy lines accounting for costs covered by German statutory health insurance (SHI).

METHODS

A 3-state partitioned survival model (PSM) was developed to evaluate the budget impact of the following regimens: carfilzomib plus lenalidomide plus dexamethasone (KRd), elotuzumab plus lenalidomide plus dexamethasone (ERd), daratumumab plus lenalidomide plus dexamethasone (DRd), and ixazomib plus lenalidomide plus dexamethasone (IRd). The analysis included direct medical costs such as drug acquisition, comedication and preparation for parenteral solutions, drug administration and other 1-time costs, adverse event management costs and direct non-medical costs, such as transportation costs.

RESULTS

Based on current drug market shares in German healthcare market, the estimated costs after 1 year of treatment was €551 million (KRd), €163 million (ERd), €584 million (DRd), and €95 million (IRd). The total budget impact of €1393 million is mainly driven by drug acquisition and subsequent therapy costs.

CONCLUSION

Among the regimens of interest, the oral-based therapy regimens offered cost advantages over intravenous-based therapy regimens. The higher overall costs of intravenous therapy regimens were attributed primarily to higher drug acquisition costs.

Partitioned Survival and State Transition Models for Healthcare Decision Making in Oncology: Where Are We Now?

OBJECTIVES

Partitioned survival models (PSMs) are routinely used to inform reimbursement decisions for oncology drugs. We discuss the appropriateness of PSMs compared to the most common alternative, state transition models (STMs).

METHODS

In 2017, we published a National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Technical Support Document (TSD 19) describing and critically reviewing PSMs. This article summarizes findings from TSD 19, reviews new evidence comparing PSMs and STMs, and reviews recent NICE appraisals to understand current practice.

RESULTS

PSMs evaluate state membership differently from STMs and do not include a structural link between intermediate clinical endpoints (eg, disease progression) and survival. PSMs directly consider clinical trial endpoints and can be developed without access to individual patient data, but limit the scope for sensitivity analyses to explore clinical uncertainties in the extrapolation period. STMs facilitate these sensitivity analyses but require development of robust survival models for individual health-state transitions. Recent work has shown PSMs and STMs can produce substantively different survival extrapolations and that extrapolations from STMs are heavily influenced by specification of the underlying survival models. Recent NICE appraisals have not generally included both model types, reviewed individual clinical event data, or scrutinized life-years accrued in individual health states.

CONCLUSIONS

The credibility of survival predictions from PSMs and STMs, including life-years accrued in individual health states, should be assessed using trial data on individual clinical events, external data, and expert opinion. STMs should be used alongside PSMs to support assessment of clinical uncertainties in the extrapolation period, such as uncertainty in post-progression survival.

Financial Implications of Avapritinib for Treatment of Unresectable Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors in Patients With a PDGFRA Exon 18 Variant or After 3 Previous Therapies in a Hypothetical US Health Plan

IMPORTANCE

With the approval of avapritinib for adults with unresectable or metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) harboring a platelet-derived growth factor receptor alpha (PDGFRA) exon 18 variant, including PDGFRA D842V variants, and National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline recommendations as an option for patients with GIST after third-line treatment, it is important to estimate the potential financial implications of avapritinib on a payer's budget.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the budget impact associated with the introduction of avapritinib to a formulary for metastatic or unresectable GISTs in patients with a PDGFRA exon 18 variant or after 3 or more previous treatments from the perspective of a US health plan.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

For this economic evaluation, a 3-year budget impact model was developed in March 2020, incorporating costs for drug acquisition, testing, monitoring, adverse events, and postprogression treatment. The model assumed that avapritinib introduction would be associated with increased PDGFRA testing rates from the current 49% to 69%. The health plan population was assumed to be mixed 69% commercial, 22% Medicare, and 9% Medicaid. Base case assumptions included a GIST incidence rate of 9.6 diagnoses per million people, a metastatic PDGFRA exon 18 mutation rate of 1.9%, and progression rate from first-line to fourth-line treatment of 17%.

EXPOSURES

The model compared scenarios with and without avapritinib in a formulary.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Annual, total, and per member per month (PMPM) budget impact.

RESULTS

In a hypothetical 1-million member plan, fewer than 0.1 new patients with a PDGFRA exon 18 variant per year and 1.2 patients receiving fourth-line therapy per year were eligible for treatment. With avapritinib available, the total increase in costs in year 3 for all eligible adult patients with a PDGFRA exon 18 variant was $46 875, or $0.004 PMPM. For patients undergoing fourth-line treatment, the total increase in costs in year 3 was $69 182, or $0.006 PMPM. The combined total budget impact in year 3 was $115 604, or $0.010 PMPM, including an offset of $3607 in postprogression costs avoided or delayed. The higher rates of molecular testing resulted in a minimal incremental testing cost of $453 in year 3.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

These results suggest that adoption of avapritinib as a treatment option would have a minimal budget impact to a hypothetical US health plan. This would be primarily attributable to the small eligible patient population and cost offsets from reduced or delayed postprogression costs.

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.

The economic impact of disease progression and death in hormone receptor positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative (HER2-) advanced breast cancer patients: using Korean nationwide health insurance claims data

OBJECTIVES

Recognizing the value of anticancer treatments based on progression-free survival and overall survival may help decision making in healthcare policy. We aimed to measure and compare the impact of disease progression and terminal state prior to death on healthcare costs in HR+, HER2- ABC patients.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study using Korean nationwide health insurance claims database between 1 September 2012 and 31 August 2017. The impact of disease progression was estimated by measuring the average incremental monthly cost per patient during 1 year after progression compared to 1 year before progression. Death-related costs per patient per month (PPPM) were measured for those who died within 1 year after progression. Generalized estimating equation (GEE) was used to estimate the variations in PPPM costs by progression and death with adjustment for clinical factors.

RESULTS

After progression, 1,636 patients expensed $2,892 per month more on average than before progression ($3762 vs. $870). The GEE analysis with adjustment for baseline characteristics showed that PPPM costs increased by 3.46 folds (95% CI = 3.06-3.93) after progression. Also, PPPM costs were 1.74 (95%CI = 1.43-2.12) times higher in patients who died within 1 year after progression relative to survived patients. When considering the interaction between progression and death, deceased patients showed higher increased ratio of PPPM costs after progression (4.91; p=value<.0001) than survived patients (2.95; 95% CI = 2.61-3.34).

CONCLUSIONS

From the payer's perspective, more healthcare costs incurred during the progression state than terminal state in HR+, HER2- ABC patients. The impact of disease progression emphasizes the importance of effectively treating HR+, HER2- ABC patients.

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.