Cost-effectiveness analysis of second-line tyrosine kinase inhibitor treatment for chronic myelogenous leukemia

Aim:

A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed for sequential treatments of chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) after failure of 1st line imatinib, from a commercial payer perspective in the US.

Methods:

A Markov model was developed to simulate lifetime treatment costs and health outcomes for TKI sequences for treatment of patients resistant or intolerant to 1st-line imatinib. Five health states were included, chronic phase 2nd-line TKI, chronic phase 3rd-line TKI, chronic phase post-TKI, advanced phases, and death. Efficacy (response achievement, loss of response, transformation, death) and safety (adverse events incidence, discontinuation) data are based on clinical trials. Resource utilization, costs, and utilities were based on product labels and publically available data. Uncertainty analyses were conducted for key inputs.

Results:

In patients failing imatinib, dasatinib-initiating treatment sequences provide the most survival (ΔLYs?=?0.2–2.0), QALYs (ΔQALYs?=?0.2–1.9), and accrue highest CML-related costs (ΔCosts?=?$64,000–$222,000). The average ICER per QALY for dasatinib- vs imatinib-initiating sequences is $100,000 for an imatinib-resistant population. The average ICER per QALY for dasatinib- vs nilotinib-initiating sequences is $170,000 for an imatinib-resistant population, and $160,000 for an imatinib-intolerant population.

Conclusions:

This analysis suggests that dasatinib is associated with increased survival and quality of life compared to high dose imatinib and to a smaller extent with nilotinib, among patients resistant or intolerant to 1st-line imatinib, primarily based on higher cytogenetic response rates observed in clinical studies of dasatinib. Head-to-head studies of sequential use of dasatinib and nilotinib are needed to validate the model findings of improved survival (LYs) with better quality-of-life (QALYs) for patients initiating dasatinib in 2nd-line. However, the model findings (in light of higher cytogenetic response rates with dasatinib) are supported by other studies showing improved quality-of-life for responders, and improved survival for patients achieving cytogenetic response.     

Cost-effectiveness of lenalidomide plus dexamethasone vs bortezomib plus melphalan and prednisone in transplant-ineligible US patients with newly-diagnosed multiple myeloma

Objective:

To conduct a cost-effectiveness assessment of lenalidomide plus dexamethasone (Rd) vs bortezomib plus melphalan and prednisone (VMP) as initial treatment for transplant-ineligible patients with newly-diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM), from a US payer perspective.

Methods:

A partitioned survival model was developed to estimate expected life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), direct costs and incremental costs per QALY and LY gained associated with use of Rd vs VMP over a patient’s lifetime. Information on the efficacy and safety of Rd and VMP was based on data from multinational phase III clinical trials and a network meta-analysis. Pre-progression direct costs included the costs of Rd and VMP, treatment of adverse events (including prophylaxis) and routine care and monitoring associated with MM. Post-progression direct costs included costs of subsequent treatment(s) and routine care and monitoring for progressive disease, all obtained from published literature and estimated from a US payer perspective. Utilities were obtained from the aforementioned trials. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3% annually.

Results:

Relative to VMP, use of Rd was expected to result in an additional 2.22 LYs and 1.47 QALYs (discounted). Patients initiated with Rd were expected to incur an additional $78,977 in mean lifetime direct costs (discounted) vs those initiated with VMP. The incremental costs per QALY and per LY gained with Rd vs VMP were $53,826 and $35,552, respectively. In sensitivity analyses, results were found to be most sensitive to differences in survival associated with Rd vs VMP, the cost of lenalidomide and the discount rate applied to effectiveness outcomes.

Conclusions:

Rd was expected to result in greater LYs and QALYs compared with VMP, with similar overall costs per LY for each regimen. Results of this analysis indicated that Rd may be a cost-effective alternative to VMP as initial treatment for transplant-ineligible patients with MM, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio well within the levels for recent advancements in oncology.     

Cost-effectiveness of axicabtagene ciloleucel for adult patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma in the United States

Abstract

Purpose: Axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) was recently approved for treatment of relapsed or refractory (R/R) large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) following two or more prior therapies. As the first CAR T-cell therapy available for adults in the US, there are important questions about clinical and economic value. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of axi-cel compared to salvage chemotherapy using a decision model and a US payer perspective.

Materials and methods: A decision model was developed to estimate life years (LYs), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and lifetime cost for adult patients with R/R LBCL treated with axi-cel vs salvage chemotherapy (R-DHAP). Patient-level analyses of the ZUMA-1 and SCHOLAR-1 studies were used to inform the model and to estimate the proportion achieving long-term survival. Drug and procedure costs were derived from US average sales prices and Medicare reimbursement schedules. Future healthcare costs in long-term remission was derived from per capita Medicare spending. Utility values were derived from patient-level data from ZUMA-1 and external literature. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses evaluated uncertainty. Outcomes were calculated over a lifetime horizon and were discounted at 3% per year.

Results: In the base case, LYs, QALYs, and lifetime costs were 9.5, 7.7, and $552,921 for axi-cel vs 2.6, 1.1, and $172,737 for salvage chemotherapy, respectively. The axi-cel cost per QALY gained was $58,146. Cost-effectiveness was most sensitive to the fraction achieving long-term remission, discount rate, and axi-cel price. The likelihood that axi-cel is cost-effective was 95% at a willingness to pay of $100,000 per QALY.

Conclusion: Axi-cel is a potentially cost-effective alternative to salvage chemotherapy for adults with R/R LBCL. Long-term follow-up is necessary to reduce uncertainties about health outcomes.     

Cost-effectiveness model of abiraterone plus prednisone,cabazitaxel plus prednisone and enzalutamide for visceral metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer therapy after docetaxel therapy resistance

Abstract

Aims: Among patients diagnosed with prostate cancer, 10–20% will develop castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) within 5?years; for 70%, CRPC will metastasize, mostly to the lungs and/or liver. We performed a cost-effectiveness model comparing abiraterone plus prednisone (ABI?+?PRD), cabazitaxel plus prednisone (CAB?+?PRD) and enzalutamide (ENZ) for visceral metastatic CRPC post-docetaxel therapy resistance.

Methods: A three-state (Progression-Free, Progression, Death) lifetime Markov model was constructed to compare ABI?+?PRD, CAB?+?PRD, and ENZ from a United States healthcare payer perspective (2019?US$; discount rate 3%/yr.). Effectiveness was measured in life-years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Inputs included treatment costs, grade III/IV adverse events with incidence ≥5%, physician follow-up, lab and imaging tests. Phase III trial Kaplan-Meier curves were extrapolated to estimate overall survival and Progression-Free transition probabilities. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and utility ratios (ICURs), probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSAs) and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves at willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds were estimated.

Results: Models estimated 3-year overall survival rates of 1.3% for patients treated with ABI?+?PRD, 16.2% for CAB?+?PRD, and 13.2% for ENZ. Estimated Progression-Free rates at 1.5?years were 0.51% for ABI?+?PRD, 0.27% for CAB?+?PRD, and 14.47% for ENZ. LYs and QALYs were 1.20 and 0.58 respectively for ABI?+?PRD, 1.48 and 0.56 for CAB?+?PRD, and 1.58 and 0.79 for ENZ. Total treatment costs were: $115,433 for ABI?+?PRD, $85,337 for CAB?+?PRD and $109,213 for ENZ. CAB?+?PRD and ENZ dominated ABI?+?PRD due to higher LYs gained. Incremental QALYs for ENZ vs. CAB?+?PRD were larger than incremental LYs. The ICUR for ENZ was $103,674/QALY compared to CAB?+?PRD.

Conclusions: This analysis found ENZ provided greater LYs and QALYs than both ABI?+?PRD and CAB?+?PRD, at a lower cost than ABI?+?PRD, but at a higher cost compared to CAB?+?PRD. For patients with visceral mCRPC after docetaxel therapy resistance, ENZ was cost-effective 92% of the time with a WTP threshold of $100,000/QALY.     

Cost-effectiveness of continuous subcutaneous apomorphine in the treatment of Parkinson’s disease in the UK and Germany

Abstract

Background:

Parkinson’s disease (PD) is the second most common neurodegenerative disease, affecting ～5.2 million people worldwide. Continuous subcutaneous apomorphine (CSAI) represents an alternative treatment option for advanced PD with motor fluctuation. The purpose of this analysis was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of CSAI compared with Levodopa/carbidopa intestinal gel (LCIG), Deep-Brain-Stimulation (DBS) and Standard-of-care (SOC).

Methods:

A multi-country Markov-Model to simulate the long-term consequences, disease progression (Hoehn & Yahr stages 3–5, percentage of waking-time in the OFF-state), complications, and adverse events was developed. Monte-Carlo simulation accounted for uncertainty. Probabilities were derived from RCT and open-label studies. Costs were estimated from the UK and German healthcare provider’s perspective. QALYs, life-years (LYs), and costs were projected over a life-time horizon.

Results:

UK lifetime costs associated with CSAI amounts to £78,251.49 and generates 2.85 QALYs and 6.28 LYs (€104,500.08, 2.92 QALYs and 6.49 LYs for Germany). Costs associated with LCIG are £130,011.34, achieves 3.06 QALYs and 6.93 LYs (€175,004.43, 3.18 QALYs and 7.18 LYs for Germany). The incremental-cost per QALY gained (ICER) was £244,684.69 (€272,914.58). Costs for DBS are £87,730.22, associated with 2.75 QALYs and 6.38 LYs (€105,737.08, 2.85 QALYs and 6.61 LYs for Germany). CSAI dominates DBS. SOC associated UK costs are £76,793.49; 2.62 QALYs and 5.76 LYs were reached (€90,011.91, 2.73 QALYs and 6 LYs for Germany).

Conclusions:

From a health economic perspective, CSAI is a cost-effective therapy and could be seen as an alternative treatment to LCIG or DBS for patients with advanced PD.     

Treatment patterns and healthcare costs among newly-diagnosed patients with chronic myeloid leukemia receiving dasatinib or nilotinib as first-line therapy in the United States

Objective: To compare treatment patterns and economic outcomes of dasatinib and nilotinib as 1st-line therapies for chronic myeloid leukemia (CML).

Methods: Adult CML patients initiated on first-line dasatinib or nilotinib in 2010–2014 were identified from two large US administrative claims databases. Treatment patterns, tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) adherence and healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs were measured from the 1st-line TKI initiation (index date) to the end of follow-up.

Results: A total of 604 and 418 patients were included in the dasatinib and nilotinib cohorts (mean ages = 50.9 and 52.5 years, 46.4% and 45.7% female), respectively. Among the dasatinib patients, 91% started with 100?mg/day, 3% with <100?mg/day, and 6% with >100?mg/day. Among the nilotinib patients, 76% started with 600?mg/day, 16% with >600?mg/day, and 8% <600?mg/day. The dasatinib cohort had a higher hazard of dose decrease (hazard ratio [HR]?=?1.66; p?=?.002) and of switching to another TKI (HR =1.62; p?=?.019) compared to the nilotinib cohort. The hazard of dose increase (HR =0.76; p?=?.423) and treatment discontinuation (HR =1.10; p?=?.372) were not significantly different between cohorts. There was also no significant difference in TKI adherence levels (mean proportion of days covered [PDC] difference over first 6 months = ?0.0003, p?=?.981; mean PDC difference over first 12 months = ?0.0022, p?=?.880) and HRU (inpatient day incidence rate ratio [IRR]?=?1.03, p?=?.930; emergency room IRR =1.26, p?=?.197; and days with outpatient services IRR = 1.01, p?=?.842). The dasatinib cohort incurred higher healthcare costs by $749 per patient per month (p?=?.044) compared to the nilotinib cohort.

Limitation: Information on CML phase and Sokal score was not available.

Conclusions: Dasatinib was associated with an increased hazard of dose decrease and switching to another TKI and higher healthcare costs, vs nilotinib.     

Economic evaluation of sevelamer for the treatment of hyperphosphatemia in chronic kidney disease patients not on dialysis in the United Kingdom

Abstract

Objectives:

To determine the cost effectiveness of sevelamer vs calcium carbonate in patients with chronic kidney disease and not on dialysis (CKD-ND) from the perspective of the National Health Service (NHS) in the UK.

Methods:

A Markov decision analytic model was developed to estimate (1) total life years (LYs), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and costs for patients treated with sevelamer or calcium carbonate; and (2) incremental costs per LY gained (LYG) and per QALY gained for sevelamer vs calcium carbonate. Data informing probability transitions to all-cause death and dialysis inception in CKD-ND patients were taken directly from the INDEPENDENT-CKD study and were extrapolated beyond the 3-year clinical trial using Weibull regression analysis. Estimates of health utility and costs (in £2011) were derived from the published literature.

Results:

Over a lifetime horizon, sevelamer treatment resulted in a gain of 2.05 LYs and 1.56 QALYs per patient, an increase of £37,282 in total costs per patient vs calcium carbonate (3.5% discount), and a per-patient cost of £18,193/LYG and £23,878/QALY gained. Results were robust to alternative assumptions in key parameters; results were most sensitive to alternative assumptions regarding the mean daily dose of sevelamer, impact of sevelamer on dialysis initiation, cost of dialysis, and health utility estimates. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that sevelamer was cost-effective vs calcium carbonate in 93% of simulations at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £30,000/QALY gained.

Limitations:

While the model simulated a real-world clinical setting, this analysis was subject to limitations common to all decision analytic models, in that it used a mix of data sources and relied on several assumptions. Not all variables that impact real-world outcomes and costs were included in this model.

Conclusions:

Sevelamer is a cost-effective option compared to calcium carbonate for the first-line treatment of hyperphosphatemia in CKD-ND patients in the UK.     

Societal implications of medical insurance coverage for imatinib as first-line treatment of chronic myeloid leukemia in China: a cost-effectiveness analysis

Objectives: Imatinib (Glivec) and nilotinib (Tasigna) have been covered by critical disease insurance in Jiangsu province of China since 2013, which changed local treatment patterns and outcomes of patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML). This study evaluated the long-term cost-effectiveness of insurance coverage with imatinib as the first-line treatment for patients with CML in China from a societal perspective.

Methods: A decision-analytic model based on previously published and real-world evidence was applied to simulate and evaluate the lifetime clinical and economic outcomes associated with CML treatments before and after imatinib was covered by medical insurance. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated with both costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) discounted at 3% annually. Different assumptions of treatment benefits and costs were taken to address uncertainties and were tested with sensitivity analyses.

Results: In base case analysis, both cost and effectiveness of CML treatments increased after imatinib was covered by the medical insurance; on average, the incremental QALY and cost were 5.5 and ¥277,030 per patient in lifetime, respectively. The ICER of insurance coverage with imatinib was ¥50,641, which is less than the GDP per capita of China. Monte Carlo simulation resulted in the estimate of 100% probability that the insurance coverage of imatinib is cost-effective. Total cost was substantially saved at 5 years after patients initiated imatinib treatment with insurance coverage compared to no insurance coverage, the saved cost at 5 years was ¥99,565, which included the cost savings from both direct (e.g. cost of bone marrow or stem cell transplant) and indirect costs (e.g. productivity loss of patients and care-givers).

Conclusions: The insurance coverage of imatinib is very cost-effective in China, according to the local cost and clinical data in Jiangsu province. More importantly, the insurance coverage of imatinib and nilotinib have changed the treatment patterns of CML patients, thus dramatically increasing life expectancy and quality-of-life (QoL) saving on productivity losses for both CML patients and their caregivers.     

Cost utility of allogeneic stem cell transplantation with matched unrelated donor versus treatment with imatinib for adult patients with newly diagnosed chronic myeloid leukaemia

Objective: To estimate, from the perspective of the German statutory health insurance, the cost utility of allogeneic stem cell transplantation with matched unrelated donor (MUD-SCT) in newly diagnosed, chronic-phase chronic myeloid leukaemia (CML) patients aged 40 years or younger, relative to the treatment with imatinib.

Methods: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of the additional cost of imatinib versus MUD-SCT per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained was chosen as a target assessment. ICER was quantified using a Markov cohort modelling approach. The evaluation encompassed 5 years of treatment with either approach, and only direct medical costs (in €, year 2005) were considered.

Results: There were incremental costs of €77,410 for imatinib therapy per QALY gained versus MUD-SCT. No strategy was clearly dominant; on average, during 5 years, cost savings of €63,433 were obtained and 0.82 QALY lost by SCT compared to treatment with imatinib. QALYs gained in CML patients with either treatment resulted in considerable cost to the third-party payer in Germany. The results were particularly sensitive to the price of imatinib.

Conclusions: The analysis finds that imatinib is more costly but more effective (as measured in QALYs) over a 5-year time horizon. The resulting ICER of €77,410 per QALY is higher than commonly cited thresholds. The cost utility of MUD-SCT to treat CML in patients with a European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation score ≤ to 2 compares with that of the imatinib strategy.     

Economic evaluation of nivolumab for the treatment of second-line advanced squamous NSCLC in Canada: a comparison of modeling approaches to estimate and extrapolate survival outcomes

Background Lung cancer is the most common type of cancer in the world and is associated with significant mortality. Nivolumab demonstrated statistically significant improvements in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for patients with advanced squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who were previously treated. The cost-effectiveness of nivolumab has not been assessed in Canada. A contentious component of projecting long-term cost and outcomes in cancer relates to the modeling approach adopted, with the two most common approaches being partitioned survival (PS) and Markov models. The objectives of this analysis were to estimate the cost-utility of nivolumab and to compare the results using these alternative modeling approaches.

Methods Both PS and Markov models were developed using docetaxel and erlotinib as comparators. A three-health state model was used consisting of progression-free, progressed disease, and death. Disease progression and time to progression were estimated by identifying best-fitting survival curves from the clinical trial data for PFS and OS. Expected costs and health outcomes were calculated by combining health-state occupancy with medical resource use and quality-of-life assigned to each of the three health states. The health outcomes included in the model were survival and quality-adjusted-life-years (QALYs).

Results Nivolumab was found to have the highest expected per-patient cost, but also improved per-patient life years (LYs) and QALYs. Nivolumab cost an additional $151,560 and $140,601 per QALY gained compared to docetaxel and erlotinib, respectively, using a PS model approach. The cost-utility estimates using a Markov model were very similar ($152,229 and $141,838, respectively, per QALY gained).

Conclusions Nivolumab was found to involve a trade-off between improved patient survival and QALYs, and increased cost. It was found that the use of a PS or Markov model produced very similar estimates of expected cost, outcomes, and incremental cost-utility.     

A cost-effectiveness analysis of using azacitidine vs. decitabine in treating patients with myelodysplastic syndromes

Abstract

Objective:

Azacitidine and decitabine are used to treat patients with myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) in the United States (US). This study sought to assess their relative cost-effectiveness.

Design and methods:

The authors developed a cost-effectiveness Markov model (1-month cycles) tracking hypothetical cohorts of MDS patients treated with azacitidine or decitabine over 2 years. The model used a US payer perspective and 2009 costs. Health states modeled included MDS with Transfusion Dependence, MDS with Transfusion Independence, Progression to Acute Myelogenous Leukemia (AML), and Death. Incremental cost-effectiveness outcomes included cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY), cost per life year (LY), cost per patient-month of transfusion independence, and cost per case of AML progression avoided. One-way sensitivity analyses were performed on key model parameters.

Results:

Compared to decitabine, azacitidine was associated with better survival (1.512 LYs vs 1.292), more QALYs gained (1.041 vs 0.870), more patient-months with transfusion independence (8.328 vs 6.224), and a greater proportion of patients avoiding progression to AML (50.9% vs 28.5%). Total per-patient costs over 2 years for azacitidine were lower than for decitabine ($150,322 vs $166, 212).

Limitations:

To inform and update the model over time, it will be important that randomized or observational clinical studies be conducted to directly compare azacitidine and decitabine, provide new information on how these medicines are used, and on their relative clinical effectiveness.

Conclusion:

Results demonstrate that azacitidine provides greater clinical benefit and costs less than decitabine across all key outcomes. These results accentuate the positive role of azacitidine in providing cost-effective care for MDS.     

Cost-effectiveness of hydrophilic-coated intermittent catheters compared with uncoated catheters in Canada: a public payer perspective

Study design: A Markov model was used to analyze cost-effectiveness over a lifetime horizon.

Objective: To investigate the cost-effectiveness of hydrophilic-coated intermittent catheters (HCICs) compared with uncoated catheters (UCs) among individuals with neurogenic bladder dysfunction (NB) due to spinal cord injury (SCI).

Setting: A Canadian public payer perspective based on data from Ontario; including a scenario analysis from the societal perspective.

Methods: A previously published Markov decision model was modified to compare the lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for the two interventions. Three renal function and three urinary tract infection (UTI) health states as well as other catheter-related events were included. Scenario analyses, including utility gain from compact catheter and phthalate free catheter use, were performed. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate the robustness of the model.

Results: The model predicted that a 50-year-old patient with SCI would gain an additional 0.72 QALYs if HCICs were used instead of UCs at an incremental cost of $48,016, leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $66,634/QALY. Moreover, using HCICs could reduce the lifetime number of UTI events by 11%. From the societal perspective, HCICs cost less than UCs, while providing superior outcomes in terms of QALYs, life years gained (LYG), and UTIs. The cost per QALY further decreased when health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) gains associated with compact HCICs or catheters not containing phthalates were included.

Conclusion: In general, ICERs in the range of CAD$50–100,000 could be considered cost-effective. The ICERs for the base case and sensitivity analyses suggest that HCICs could be cost-effective. From the societal perspective, HCICs were associated with potential cost savings in our model. The results suggest that reimbursement of HCICs should be considered in these settings.     

Cost-effectiveness of ceritinib in previously untreated anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive metastatic non-small cell lung cancer in the United States

Aims: To assess the cost-effectiveness of first-line ceritinib vs crizotinib and platinum doublet chemotherapy for anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) from a US third-party payer’s perspective.

Materials and methods: A partitioned survival model with three health states (stable disease, progressive disease, death) was developed over a 20-year time horizon. Ceritinib’s efficacy inputs (progression-free and overall survival) were estimated from ASCEND-4; parametric survival models extrapolated data beyond the trial period. The relative efficacy of ceritinib vs chemotherapy was obtained from ASCEND-4, the relative efficacy of ceritinib vs crizotinib was estimated using a matching-adjusted indirect comparison based on ASCEND-4 and PROFILE 1014. Drug acquisition, treatment administration, adverse event management, and medical costs were obtained from publicly available databases and the literature, and inflated to 2016?US dollars. Treatment-specific stable-state utilities were derived from trials and progressive-state utility from the literature. Incremental costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) were estimated for ceritinib vs each comparator. Cost-effectiveness was assessed based on US willingness-to-pay thresholds. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to test model robustness.

Results: In the base case, first-line ceritinib was associated with total direct costs of $299,777 and 3.28 QALYs (from 4.61 life years gained [LYG]) over 20 years. First-line crizotinib and chemotherapy were associated with 2.73 and 2.41 QALYs, 3.92 and 3.53 LYG, and $263,172 and $228,184 total direct costs, respectively. The incremental cost per QALY gained was $66,064 for ceritinib vs crizotinib and $81,645 for ceritinib vs chemotherapy. In the first 2 years following treatment initiation, ceritinib dominated crizotinib by conferring greater health benefits at reduced total costs. Results were robust to deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

Limitations: In the absence of head-to-head trials, an indirect comparison method was used.

Conclusions: Ceritinib is cost-effective compared to crizotinib and chemotherapy in the treatment of previously untreated ALK-positive metastatic NCSLC in the US.     

Cost effectiveness of atazanavir-ritonavir versus lopinavir-ritonavir in treatment-naïve human immunodeficiency virus-infected patients in the United States

Abstract

Objective:

To evaluate lifetime cost effectiveness of atazanavir-ritonavir (ATV?+?r) versus lopinavir-ritonavir (LPV/r), both with tenofovir-emtricitabine, in US HIV-infected patients initiating first-line antiretroviral therapy.

Methods:

A Markov microsimulation model was developed to calculate quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) based on CD4 and HIV RNA levels, coronary heart disease (CHD), AIDS, opportunistic infections (OIs), diarrhea, and hyperbilirubinemia. A million-member cohort of HIV-1-infected, treatment-naïve adults progressed at 3-month intervals through eight health states. Baseline characteristics, virologic suppression, cholesterol changes, and diarrhea and hyperbilirubinemia rates were based on 96-week CASTLE trial results. HIV mortality, OI rates, adherence, costs, utilities, and CHD risk were from literature and experts.

Limitations:

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) may be overestimated because the ATV?+?r treatment effect was based on an intention-to-treat analysis. The QALY weights used for diarrhea, hyperbilirubinemia, and CHD events are uncertain; however, the ICER remained <$50,000/QALY when these values were varied in sensitivity analyses.

Results:

ATV?+?r patients received first-line therapy longer than LPV/r patients (97.3 vs. 70.7 months), had longer quality-adjusted survival (11.02 vs. 10.76 years), similar overall survival (18.52 vs. 18.51 years), and higher costs ($275,986 vs. 269,160). ATR?+?r patients had lower rates of AIDS (19.08 vs. 20.05 cases/1,000 patient-years), OIs (0.44 vs. 0.52), diarrhea (1.27 vs. 6.26), and CHD events (5.44 vs. 5.51), but higher hyperbilirubinemia rates (6.99 vs. 0.25). ATV?+?r added 0.26 QALYs at a cost of $6826, for $26,421/QALY.

Conclusions:

By more effectively reducing viral load with less gastrointestinal toxicity and a better lipid profile, ATV?+?r lowered rates of AIDS and CHD, increased quality-adjusted survival, and was cost effective (<$50,000/QALY) compared with LPV/r.     

Cost-effectiveness of denosumab vs zoledronic acid for prevention of skeletal-related events in patients with solid tumors and bone metastases in the United States

Abstract

Objective:

With increasing healthcare resource constraints, it has become important to understand the incremental cost-effectiveness of new medicines. Subcutaneous denosumab is superior to intravenous zoledronic acid (ZA) for the prevention of skeletal-related events (SREs) in patients with advanced solid tumors and bone metastases. This study sought to determine the lifetime cost-effectiveness of denosumab vs ZA in this setting, from a US managed-care perspective.

Methods:

A lifetime Markov model was developed, with relative rate reductions in SREs for denosumab vs ZA derived from three pivotal Phase 3 trials involving patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC), breast cancer, and non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and bone metastases. The real-world SRE rates in ZA-treated patients were derived from a large commercial database. SRE and treatment administration quality-adjusted life year (QALY) decrements were estimated with time-trade-off studies. SRE costs were estimated from a nationally representative commercial claims database. Drug, drug administration, and renal monitoring costs were included. Costs and QALYs were discounted at 3% annually. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted.

Results:

Across tumor types, denosumab was associated with a reduced number of SREs, increased QALYs, and increased lifetime total costs vs ZA. The costs per QALY gained for denosumab vs ZA in CRPC, breast cancer, and NSCLC were $49,405, $78,915, and $67,931, respectively, commonly considered good value in the US. Costs per SRE avoided were $8567, $13,557, and $10,513, respectively. Results were sensitive to drug costs and SRE rates.

Limitations:

Differences in pain severity and analgesic use favoring denosumab over ZA were not captured. Mortality was extrapolated from fitted generalized gamma function beyond the trial duration.

Conclusion:

Denosumab is a cost-effective treatment option for the prevention of SREs in patients with advanced solid tumors and bone metastases compared to ZA. The overall value of denosumab is based on superior efficacy, favorable safety, and more efficient administration.     

Cost-effectiveness of novel relapsed-refractory multiple myeloma therapies in Norway: lenalidomide plus dexamethasone vs bortezomib

Abstract

Objective:

To estimate the cost-effectiveness (cost per additional life-year [LY] and quality-adjusted life-year [QALY] gained) of lenalidomide plus dexamethasone (LEN/DEX) compared with bortezomib for the treatment of relapsed-refractory multiple myeloma (rrMM) in Norway.

Methods:

A discrete-event simulation model was developed to predict patients’ disease course using patient data, best response, and efficacy levels obtained from LEN/DEX MM-009/-010 trials and the bortezomib (APEX) published clinical trial. Predictive equations for time-to-progression (TTP) and post-progression survival (PPS) were developed by identifying the best fitting parametric survival distributions and selecting the most significant predictors. Disease and adverse event management was obtained via survey from Norwegian experts. Costs, derived from official Norwegian pricing data bases, included drug, administration, monitoring, and adverse event management costs.

Results:

Complete or partial responders were 65% for LEN/DEX compared to 43% for bortezomib. Derived median TTP was 11.45 months for LEN/DEX compared to 5.15 months for bortezomib. LYs and QALYs were higher for LEN/DEX (4.06 and 2.95, respectively) than for bortezomib (3.11 and 2.19, respectively). The incremental costs per QALY and LY gained from LEN/DEX were NOK 247,978 and NOK 198,714, respectively, compared to bortezomib. Multiple sensitivity analyses indicated the findings were stable. The parameters with the greatest impact were 4-year time horizon (NOK 441,457/QALY) and higher bound confidence intervals for PPS (NOK 118,392).

Limitations:

The model analyzed two therapies not compared in head-to-head trials, and predicted results using an equation incorporating patient-level characteristics. It is a limited estimation of the costs and outcomes in a Norwegian setting.

Conclusions:

The simulation model showed that treatment with LEN/DEX leads to greater LYs and QALYs when compared to bortezomib in the treatment of rrMM patients. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio indicated treatment with LEN/DEX to be cost-effective and was the basis of the reimbursement approval of LEN/DEX in Norway.     

Tumor treating fields and maintenance temozolomide for newly-diagnosed glioblastoma: a cost-effectiveness study

Abstract

Purpose: The EF-14 trial demonstrated that adding tumor treating fields (TTFields) to maintenance temozolomide (TMZ) significantly extends progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for newly-diagnosed glioblastoma (GBM) patients. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of TTFields and TMZ for newly-diagnosed GBM from the US healthcare system perspective.

Methods and materials: Outcomes for newly-diagnosed GBM patients were estimated over a lifetime horizon using an area under the curve model with three states: stable disease, progressive disease, or death. The survival model integrated the 5-year EF-14 trial results with long-term GBM epidemiology data and US background mortality rates. Adverse event rates were derived from the EF-14 trial data. Utility values to determine quality-adjusted life-years, adverse event costs, and supportive care costs were obtained from published literature. A 3% discount rate was applied to future costs and outcomes. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess result uncertainty due to parameter variability.

Results: Treatment with TTFields and TMZ was estimated to result in a mean increase in survival of 1.25 life years (95% credible range [CR]?=?0.89–1.67) and 0.96 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) (95% CR = 0.67–1.30) compared to treatment with TMZ alone. The incremental total cost was $188,637 (95% CR = $145,324–$225,330). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was $150,452 per life year gained and $197,336 per QALY gained. The model was most sensitive to changes in the cost of TTFields treatment.

Conclusions: Adding TTFields to maintenance TMZ resulted in a substantial increase in the estimated mean lifetime survival and quality-adjusted survival for newly-diagnosed GBM patients. Treatment with TTFields can be considered cost-effective within the reported range of willingness-to-pay thresholds in the US.     

Economic modeling to evaluate the impact of chronic myeloid leukemia therapy management on the oncology care model in the US

Abstract

Objective: To develop an economic model to evaluate changes in healthcare costs driven by restricting usage of branded tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) through substitution with generic imatinib among chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) patients in a typical Oncology Care Model (OCM) practice, and examine the impact on Performance-Based Payment (PBP) eligibility.

Methods: An Excel-based economic model of an OCM practice with 1,000 cancer patients during a 6-month episode of care was developed. Cancer types and proportions of patients treated in the practice were estimated from an OCM report. All-cause healthcare costs were obtained from published literature. It was assumed that if a practice restricts usage of branded TKIs for newly-diagnosed CML patients, 80% of the market share of branded imatinib and 50% of the market shares of 2^nd-gen TKIs would shift to generic imatinib. Among established TKI-treated patients, it was assumed that 80% of the market share of branded imatinib and no patients treated with 2^nd-gen TKIs would shift to the generic.

Results: Four CML patients were estimated for a 1,000-cancer patient OCM practice with a total baseline healthcare cost of $51,345,812 during a 6-month episode. If the practice restricts usage of branded TKIs, the shift from 2^nd-gen TKIs to generic imatinib would reduce costs by $12,970, while shifting from branded to generic imatinib lowers costs by $25,250 during a 6-month episode. Minimum reductions of $3,013,832 in a one-sided risk model and $2,372,010 in a two-sided risk model are required for PBP eligibility; the shift from 2^nd-gen TKIs to generic imatinib would account for 0.4% and 0.5% of the savings required for a PBP, respectively.

Conclusions: This analysis indicates that the potential cost reduction associated with restricting branded TKI usage among CML patients in an OCM setting will represent only a small proportion of the cost reduction needed for PBP eligibility.     

Cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab for the adjuvant treatment of resected high-risk stage III melanoma in the United States

Abstract

Aims: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of adjuvant pembrolizumab relative to observation alone following complete resection of high-risk stage III melanoma with lymph node involvement, from a US health system perspective.

Materials and methods: A Markov cohort model with four health states (recurrence-free, locoregional recurrence, distant metastases, and death) was developed to estimate costs, life-years, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) associated with pembrolizumab vs observation over a lifetime (46-year) horizon. Using a parametric multi-state modeling approach, transition probabilities starting from recurrence-free were estimated based on patient-level data from KEYNOTE-054 (NCT02362594), a direct head-to-head phase 3 trial. Post-recurrence transition probabilities were informed by real-world retrospective data and clinical trials in advanced melanoma. Health state utilities and adverse event-related disutility were derived from KEYNOTE-054 trial data and published literature. Costs of drug acquisition and administration, adverse events, disease management, and terminal care were estimated in 2018?US dollars. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess robustness.

Results: Over a lifetime horizon, adjuvant pembrolizumab and observation were associated with total QALYs of 9.24 and 5.95, total life-years of 10.54 and 7.15, and total costs of $489,820 and $440,431, respectively. The resulting incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for pembrolizumab vs observation were $15,009/QALY and $14,550/life-year. Across the range of input values and assumptions tested in deterministic sensitivity analyses, pembrolizumab ranged from being a dominant strategy to having an ICER of $57,449/QALY vs observation. The ICER was below a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY in 90.2% of probabilistic simulations.

Limitations: Long-term extrapolation of outcomes was based on interim results from KEYNOTE-054, with a median follow-up of 15?months.

Conclusions: Based on common willingness-to-pay benchmarks, pembrolizumab is highly cost-effective compared with observation alone for the adjuvant treatment of completely resected stage III melanoma in the US.     

Cost effectiveness of rosuvastatin in patients at risk of cardiovascular disease based on findings from the JUPITER trial

Abstract

Objective:

This study assessed the long-term cost effectiveness of rosuvastatin therapy compared with placebo in reducing the incidence of major cardiovascular (CVD) events and mortality.

Methods:

A probabilistic Monte Carlo simulation model estimated long-term cost effectiveness of rosuvastatin therapy (20?mg daily) for the prevention of CVD mortality and morbidity. The model included three stages: (1) CVD prevention simulating the 4 years of the JUPITER trial, (2) initial CVD prevention beyond the trial, and (3) subsequent CVD event prevention. A US payer perspective was assessed reflecting direct medical costs, and up to a lifetime horizon. Sensitivity analyses tested the robustness of the model estimates.

Results:

For a hypothetical cohort of 100,000 patients at moderate and high risk of CVD events based on Framingham risk of ≥10%, estimated quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained with rosuvastatin therapy compared with placebo was 33,480 over a lifetime horizon, and 25,380 and 9916 over 20-year and 10-year horizons, respectively. Approximately 12,073 events were avoided over the lifetime; 6,146 non-fatal MIs, 2905 non-fatal strokes, and 4030 CVD deaths avoided. Estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for cost per QALY was $7062 (lifetime), $10,743 (20-year horizon), and $44,466 (10-year horizon). For a hypothetical cohort similar to the overall JUPITER population, the cost per QALY ICER was $11,025 for the lifetime and $60,112 for a 10-year horizon.

Limitations:

The cost-effectiveness comparison of rosuvastatin 20?mg was against no active treatment (as opposed to an alternative statin) due to lack of comparative cardiovascular morbidity and mortality risk reduction data for other statins in a population similar to the JUPITER trial population. The analysis was conducted from the payer perspective and lack of inclusion of indirect costs limit interpretability of results from a societal perspective.

Conclusions:

Treatment with rosuvastatin 20?mg daily, is a cost-effective treatment alternative to no treatment in patients at a higher risk (Framingham risk ≥10%) of CVD.