Cost-effectiveness of ceritinib in patients previously treated with crizotinib in anaplastic lymphoma kinase positive (ALK+) non-small cell lung cancer in Canada

Background: To assess the cost-effectiveness of ceritinib vs alternatives in patients who discontinue treatment with crizotinib in anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive (ALK+) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) from a Canadian public healthcare perspective.

Methods: A partitioned survival model with three health states (stable, progressive, and death) was developed. Comparators were chosen based on reported utilization from a retrospective Canadian chart study; comparators were pemetrexed, best supportive care (BSC), and historical control (HC). HC comprised of all treatment alternatives reported. Progression-free survival and overall survival for ceritinib were estimated using data reported from single-arm clinical trials (ASCEND-1 [NCT01283516] and ASCEND-2 [NCT01685060]). Survival data for comparators were obtained from published clinical trials in a NSCLC population and from a Canadian retrospective chart study. Parametric models were used to extrapolate outcomes beyond the trial period. Drug acquisition, administration, resource use, and adverse event (AE) costs were obtained from databases. Utilities for health states and disutilities for AEs based on EQ-5D were derived from literature. Incremental costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained were estimated. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

Results: Over 4 years, ceritinib was associated with 0.86 QALYs and total direct costs of $89,740 for the post-ALK population. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was $149,117 comparing ceritinib vs BSC, $80,100 vs pemetrexed, and $104,436 vs HC. Additional scenarios included comparison to docetaxel with an ICER of $149,780 and using utility scores reported from PROFILE 1007, with a reported ICER ranging from $67,311 vs pemetrexed to $119,926 vs BSC. Due to limitations in clinical efficacy input, extensive sensitivity analyses were carried out whereby results remained consistent with the base-case findings.

Conclusion: Based on the willingness-to-pay threshold for end-of-life cancer drugs, ceritinib may be considered as a cost-effective option compared with other alternatives in patients who have progressed or are intolerant to crizotinib in Canada.     

Cost-effectiveness analysis of first-line pembrolizumab treatment for PD-L1 positive,non-small cell lung cancer in China

Purpose: Pembrolizumab was recently approved in several countries as a first-line treatment for patients with PD-L1 positive, non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, it is expensive. This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab in treating advanced NSCLC patients with PD-L1 positive cancer in China.

Methods: A Markov model was developed to compare the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab with chemotherapy for patients with PD-L1 expression on at least 50% of NSCLC tumor cells. Model inputs for transition probabilities and toxicity were derived from published clinical trial data, while health utilities were estimated from a literature review. Costs for drugs were updated to standard fee data from West China Hospital in 2017. Health outcomes were measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and cost-effectiveness was measured as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the robustness of the model.

Results: Pembrolizumab gained 0.45 QALYs at an incremental cost of $46,362 compared to chemotherapy for an ICER of $103,128 per QALY gained. In most scenarios, the ICER exceeded three times the Chinese Gross Domestic Product per capita. Two-way sensitivity analysis showed that, when the utility of the progression-free status increased to the maximal value of 0.845 and the 1?mg dose price decreased to $10.50, the ICER reduced to $25,216/QALY.

Conclusions: Pembrolizumab is not likely to be cost-effective in the treatment of PD-L1 positive, NSCLC for Chinese patients. Less aggressive pricing may increase accessibility for patients in China.     

The cost-effectiveness of alectinib in anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive (ALK+) advanced NSCLC previously treated with crizotinib

Introduction Anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) targeting drugs provide an important option for advanced non-small cell lung cancer patients with this distinct tumor type; however, there is considerable uncertainty as to which drug provides the optimal value after crizotinib treatment. This study estimated the cost-utility of alectinib vs ceritinib from a US payer perspective.

Methods A cost-utility model was developed using partition survival methods and three health states: progression-free (PF), post-progression (PP), and death. Survival data were derived from the key clinical trials (alectinib: NP28761 &; NP28673, ceritinib: ASCEND I and II). Costs included drugs, adverse events, and supportive care. Utilities were based on trial data and the literature. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were performed to assess parameter uncertainty.

Results Treatment with alectinib vs ceritinib resulted in increases of 2.55 months in the PF state, 0.44 quality adjusted life-years (QALYs), and $13,868, yielding a mean cost/QALY of $31,180. In the PSA, alectinib had a 96% probability of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay of $100,000/QALY. Drivers of model results were drug costs and utilities in the PF health state. The ICER ranged from $10,600–$65,000 per QALY in scenario analyses, including a sub-group analysis limited to patients with prior chemotherapy and crizotinib treatment.

Conclusions Treatment with alectinib in ALK?+?crizotinib-treated patients increased time progression-free and QALYs vs ceritinib. The marginal cost increase was driven by longer treatment durations with alectinib. This model demonstrates that alectinib may be considered a cost-effective treatment after progression on crizotinib.     

Economic burden in patients with ALK + non-small cell lung cancer,with or without brain metastases,receiving second-line anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibitors

Abstract

Aims: To describe the real-world economic burden of patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive (ALK+) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with post-crizotinib, second-line ALK inhibitor therapy.

Materials and methods: Retrospective analysis using data from US Optum: Clinformatics Data Mart administrative claims database. Adult patients with ALK?+?NSCLC treated with ceritinib or alectinib as second-line ALK inhibitors between 1 January 2011 and 30 September 2017 were included. Healthcare costs and resource utilization for up to 1?year of therapy were calculated on a per-patient-per-month (PPPM) basis and stratified by presence or absence of brain metastases (BM). Multivariate regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with costs. Top ten cost drivers of non-inpatient procedure costs were recorded.

Results: One hundred and twelve patients received second-line ALK inhibitors. Total mean PPPM healthcare costs were $23,984 for all patients receiving up to 1?year of post-crizotinib, second-line ALK inhibitor therapy. Total mean PPPM costs for patients with BM on or prior to post-crizotinib, second-line ALK inhibitor therapy were 1.37-times as high as those for patients without BM (p?=?0.0406). Mean PPPM outpatient visits and inpatient hospitalization stays were higher for patients with BM versus no BM. The main cost drivers for non-inpatient procedures were radiation therapy, medications, and diagnostic radiology.

Limitations: Analyses did not include newer ALK-directed therapies. BM development after the index date (defined as the date of the first claim for a second-line ALK inhibitor) may have been misclassified as non-BM. Findings may not be generalizable to patients with no health insurance coverage.

Conclusions: Treatment of patients with ALK?+?NSCLC with ceritinib or alectinib as post-crizotinib, second-line ALK inhibitor therapy represents a high economic burden. Healthcare costs and resource utilization were significantly higher for patients with ALK?+?NSCLC with BM versus no BM.     

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 of second-line atezolizumab in Canada for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)

Aim: To assess the cost-effectiveness in Canada of atezolizumab compared with docetaxel or nivolumab for the treatment of advanced NSCLC after first-line platinum-doublet chemotherapy.

Materials and methods: A three-state partitioned-survival model was developed. Clinical inputs were obtained from the phase III OAK trial comparing atezolizumab with docetaxel in patients with advanced NSCLC who progressed after first-line platinum-doublet chemotherapy. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were extrapolated beyond the trial period using parametric models. A cure model assuming a 1% cure fraction was fitted to the OS data for atezolizumab. Outcomes for nivolumab were informed by a network meta-analysis (NMA) vs atezolizumab. Resource use and costs were informed by clinical expert opinion and published Canadian sources. Utility values were obtained from the OAK trial. The perspective of the analysis was that of the Canadian publicly-funded healthcare system. The base case time horizon was 10?years, and the discount rate was 1.5% annually for both costs and effects. Scenario analyses were performed to test the robustness of the results and all analyses were performed probabilistically.

Results: Atezolizumab demonstrated a quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gain of 0.60 compared with docetaxel at an incremental cost of $85,073, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $142,074/QALY. Atezolizumab dominated nivolumab (regardless of dosing regimen), based on modest differences in both QALYs and costs. Docetaxel was most likely to be cost effective at willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds below $125,000/QALY gained, while atezolizumab was most likely to be cost effective beyond this WTP threshold. In most scenario analyses, the results remained robust to changes in parameters. A reduced time horizon and alternative approaches to the NMA had the greatest impact on cost-effectiveness results.

Conclusion: Atezolizumab represents a cost-effective therapeutic option in Canada for the treatment of patients with advanced NSCLC who progress after first-line platinum doublet chemotherapy.     

Cost-effectiveness analysis of treatment regimens with obinutuzumab plus chemotherapy in Japan for untreated follicular lymphoma patients

Abstract

Aims

Obinutuzumab (GA101; G) is a new treatment for follicular lymphoma (FL) that is anticipated to have greater efficacy than the current treatment, rituximab (R). The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of G plus chemotherapy (G?+?Chemo) against that of R plus chemotherapy (R?+?Chemo) for patients in Japan with previously untreated FL.     

Current and projected patient and insurer costs for the care of patients with non-small cell lung cancer in the United States through 2040

Aims: The objective of this study was to quantify the current and to project future patient and insurer costs for the care of patients with non-small cell lung cancer in the US.

Materials and methods: An analysis of administrative claims data among patients diagnosed with non-small cell lung cancer from 2007–2015 was conducted. Future costs were projected through 2040 based on these data using autoregressive models.

Results: Analysis of claims data found the average total cost of care during first- and second-line therapy was $1,161.70 and $561.80 for patients, and $45,175.70 and $26,201.40 for insurers, respectively. By 2040, the average total patient out-of-pocket costs are projected to reach $3,047.67 for first-line and $2,211.33 for second-line therapy, and insurance will pay an average of $131,262.39 for first-line and $75,062.23 for second-line therapy.

Limitations: Claims data are not collected for research purposes; therefore, there may be errors in entry and coding. Additionally, claims data do not contain important clinical factors, such as stage of disease at diagnosis, tumor histology, or data on disease progression, which may have important implications on the cost of care.

Conclusions: The trajectory of the cost of lung cancer care is growing. This study estimates that the cost of care may double by 2040, with the greatest proportion of increase in patient out-of-pocket costs. Despite the average cost projections, these results suggest that a small sub-set of patients with very high costs could be at even greater risk in the future.     

Budget impact of erlotinib for maintenance therapy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer

Abstract

Objective:

Assess the budgetary impact of adding erlotinib for maintenance therapy (MTx) in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) from a US health plan perspective.

Methods:

A budget impact model was developed to analyze the costs (drug, administration, adverse events) associated with adding erlotinib MTx to a hypothetical 500,000 member US health plan. Treatment durations and dosing were derived from randomized controlled trials, FDA labeling, and National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. Treatment patterns and assumptions were based on market research data, the SEER registry, and published literature. Cost data were obtained from Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services payment rates and a drug pricing database. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess uncertainty.

Results:

Overall health plan expenditures increased by $0.010 per member per month (PMPM). The main driver of additional cost was the erlotinib drug cost (～$66,000) with the administration ($464) and side-effect ($47) costs being relatively modest. One-way sensitivity analyses showed that the results were most sensitive to the proportion of members receiving MTx; however, the PMPM did not exceed $0.013.

Conclusions:

The overall budget impact to a health plan of expanding the use of erlotinib from the 2nd/3rd-line advanced NSCLC setting to include the maintenance setting was relatively small. This was primarily due to the proportion of patients who would receive erlotinib MTx, the low cost of side-effects and minimal cost of drug administration. Additional research may be warranted to estimate the relative clinical and economic impacts of erlotinib MTx versus alternative MTx treatments.     

Cost-effectiveness analysis of utidelone plus capecitabine for metastatic breast cancer in China

Abstract

Objective: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of utidelone plus capecitabine therapy compared to capecitabine alone in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) resistant to anthracyclines and taxanes treatment in the Chinese context and provide a reference for the marketing of utidelone in China.

Methods: A Markov model was developed based on the NCT02253459 clinical trial to simulate the clinical course of patients with metastatic breast cancer who had received taxanes and anthracycline therapy. The quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) were then analyzed to evaluate the benefits. Two-parametric Weibull distribution was conducted to fit PFS and OS curves by using R. Sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the stability of the model designed.

Results: The addition of utidelone increased the cost and QALYs by $13,370.25 and 0.1961, respectively, resulting in an increased ICER of $68,180.78 per QALY. The most sensitive influential parameter on ICER was the price of utidelone. At the threshold of willingness-to-pay (WTP) of $24,380 (3 per capita GDP of China), the cost of utidelone per 30?mg of less than $18.5, $33.7, and greater than $48.8 resulted in a 100%, 50%, and 0% possibility of cost-effectiveness, respectively. The addition of utidelone was not cost-effective when it was $115.4 per 30?mg—the price of its analog paclitaxel. In consideration of varied economics levels across China, cost-effectiveness could be achieved with the price of utidelone ranging from $5.2 to $35.9.

Limitations: The survival curves extended beyond the follow-up time horizon, of which data were generated not from the real analyses but from our established two-parameter Weibull survival model.

Conclusion: It is recommended that the price of utidelone would be less than $18.5 per 30?mg in order to obtain cost-effectiveness for metastatic breast cancer patients resistant to anthracyclines and taxanes treatment in China.     

Targeted erlotinib for first-line treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a budget impact analysis

Objectives:

A recent phase III trial showed that patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) whose tumors harbor specific EGFR mutations significantly benefit from first-line treatment with erlotinib compared to chemotherapy. This study sought to estimate the budget impact if coverage for EGFR testing and erlotinib as first-line therapy were provided in a hypothetical 500,000-member managed care plan.

Methods:

The budget impact model was developed from a US health plan perspective to evaluate administration of the EGFR test and treatment with erlotinib for EGFR-positive patients, compared to non-targeted treatment with chemotherapy. The eligible patient population was estimated from age-stratified SEER incidence data. Clinical data were derived from key randomized controlled trials. Costs related to drug, administration, and adverse events were included. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess uncertainty.

Results:

In a plan of 500,000 members, it was estimated there would be 91 newly diagnosed advanced NSCLC patients annually; 11 are expected to be EGFR-positive. Based on the testing and treatment assumptions, it was estimated that 3 patients in Scenario 1 and 6 patients in Scenario 2 receive erlotinib. Overall health plan expenditures would increase by $0.013 per member per month (PMPM). This increase is largely attributable to erlotinib drug costs, in part due to lengthened progression-free survival and treatment periods experienced in erlotinib-treated patients. EGFR testing contributes slightly, whereas adverse event costs mitigate the budget impact. The budget impact did not exceed $0.019 PMPM in sensitivity analyses.

Conclusions:

Coverage for targeted first-line erlotinib therapy in NSCLC likely results in a small budget impact for US health plans. The estimated impact may vary by plan, or if second-line or maintenance therapy, dose changes/interruptions, or impact on patients’ quality-of-life were included.     

Regression analysis of indicating multiple incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for non-small cell lung cancer treatment

Objectives:

The value of a health technology can be measured in terms of cost and benefit on two-dimensional co-ordinates. This study is to quantitatively analyze the correlation and to conduct a regression on the X-Y plane constituted by cost and QALYs (quality-adjusted life years) associated with the first line treatment, the maintenance treatment, and the second line treatment for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Methods:

The cost-effectiveness data of the cost and QALYs were extracted, with respect to the three categories of the NSCLC treatment, from the CEA Registry at Tufts Medical Center, regarding the literature published from 2000–2011. As a result, 44 QALY-cost ratios were identified.

Results:

Based on those extracted data, the correlation and regression analyses were performed by mathematical model using log and square-root functions. The plotted ratios stratified by the three stages for the NSCLC treatment were visually grouped into three clusters. There were statistically significant differences among the correlation coefficients of the cluster. In regression, the log model was found to be better fitted than the square-root model; formulating QALY?=??1.12?+?0.16 log(Cost), ?1.99?+?0.28 log(Cost), and ?0.69?+?0.10 log(Cost) for the first line, the maintenance, and the second line treatment, respectively. Monetary units were standardized to 2008 US dollars.

Conclusion:

A good methodological potential was confirmed so as to assess the Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) variations, considering stratification by multiple factors such as disease and treatment categories. This study has certain limitations, such as the small number of included articles and the stratification, not reflecting a factor of new genetic findings.     

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.     

Budget impact analysis of comprehensive genomic profiling in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer

Aims: Broad molecular profiling of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is strongly advised to optimize genomic matching with available targeted treatment options or investigational agents. Unlike conventional molecular diagnostic testing, or smaller hotspot panels, comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) identifies genomic alterations across hundreds of clinically relevant cancer genes from a single tissue specimen. The present study sought to estimate the budget impact of increased use of CGP using a 324-gene panel (FoundationOne) vs non-CGP (represented by a mix of conventional molecular diagnostic testing and smaller NGS hotspot panels) and the number needed to test with CGP to gain 1 life year.

Materials and methods: A decision analytic model was developed to assess the budget impact of increased CGP in advanced NSCLC from a US private payer perspective. Model inputs were based on published literature (epidemiology and treatment outcomes), real-world data (testing and rates, medical service costs), list prices for CGP and anti-cancer drugs, and assumptions for clinical trial participation.

Results: Among 2 million covered lives, 532 had advanced NSCLC; 266 underwent molecular diagnostic testing. An increase in CGP among those tested, from 2% to 10%, was associated with $0.02 per member per month budget impact, of which $0.013 was attributable to costs of prolonged drug treatment and survival and $0.005 to testing cost. Approximately 12 patients would need to be tested with CGP to add 1 life year.

Limitations: The model incorporated certain assumptions to account for inputs with a limited evidence profile and simplify the possible post-CGP treatments.

Conclusions: An increase in CGP utilization from 2% to 10% among patients with advanced NSCLC undergoing molecular diagnostic testing was associated with a modest budget impact, most of which was attributable to increased use of more effective treatments and prolonged survival.     

Cost-effectiveness of osimertinib in the UK for advanced EGFR-T790M non-small cell lung cancer

Aim: This study presents the cost-utility analysis that was developed to inform the NICE health technology assessment of osimertinib vs platinum-based doublet chemotherapy (PDC) in patients with EGFR-T790M mutation-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who have progressed on epidermal growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitor (EGFR-TKI) therapy.

Methods and materials: A partitioned survival model with three health states (progression-free, progressed disease, and death) from a UK payer perspective and over lifetime (15 years) was developed. Direct costs included disease management, treatment-related (acquisition, administration, monitoring, adverse events), and T790M testing costs. Efficacy and safety data were taken from clinical trials AURA extension and AURA2 for osimertinib and IMPRESS for PDC. An adjusted indirect treatment comparison was applied to reduce the potential bias in the non-randomized comparison. Parametric functions were utilized to extrapolate survival beyond the observed period. Health state utility values were calculated from EQ-5D data collected in the trials and valued using UK tariffs. Resource use and costs were based on published sources.

Results: Osimertinib was associated with a gain of 1.541 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) at an incremental cost of £64,283 vs PDC (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER]: £41,705/QALY gained). Scenario analyses showed that none of the plausible scenarios produced an ICER above £44,000 per QALY gained, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses demonstrated a 63.4% probability that osimertinib will be cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £50,000.

Limitations: The analysis is subject to some level of uncertainty inherent to phase 2 single-arm data and the immaturity of the currently available survival data for osimertinib.

Conclusions: Osimertinib may be considered a cost-effective treatment option compared with PDC in the second-line setting in patients with EGFR-T790M mutation-positive NSCLC from a UK payer perspective. Further data from the ongoing AURA clinical trial program will reduce the inherent uncertainty in the analysis.     

Drug wastage and costs to the healthcare system in the care of patients with non-small cell lung cancer in the United States

Background: Lung cancer is one of the most prevalent cancers in the US. This study was designed to evaluate the actual drug wastage and cost to the healthcare system using patient-level retrospective observational electronic medical record (EMR) data from a cohort of lung cancer patients in the US.

Methods: Data from the Flatiron Health advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) cohort was used for this study. Drug administered amount (in mg) was used to determine an optimal set of available vial sizes to minimize waste. Drug wastage was defined as the difference between the drug amount in the optimal set of vials and the administered amount. Wholesale acquisition costs were used to value the cost of drugs, with and without vial sharing assumptions. The amount and cost of waste were quantified over the 2-year study period (January 2015–December 2016).

Results: There were 8,467 eligible patients included in this study, providing data from 103,826 unique drug administrations across multiple lines of therapy. Overall wastage was 4.37% of the total medication used to care for patients. While costs per administration were low, the total cost of wastage for the study population represented $16,630,112 across the 2-year study period. Assuming that vial sharing occurred at the site level slightly reduced waste to 3.74% (reducing costs to $15,953,212 over 2 years).

Conclusions: Drug wastage is an important concern and has implications on healthcare costs in NSCLC. Evaluation of these real-world data suggest that pharmacists and physicians are able to reduce drug wastage by optimizing vial combinations and sharing vials among patients. Even small amounts of reduction in wastage could be useful in reducing healthcare costs in the US; however, caution is needed with drug rounding efforts to ensure patients do not receive a sub-optimal dose of medication.     

Cost-effectiveness analysis in the Spanish setting of the PEAK trial of panitumumab plus mFOLFOX6 compared with bevacizumab plus mFOLFOX6 for first-line treatment of patients with wild-type RAS metastatic colorectal cancer

Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness of panitumumab in combination with mFOLFOX6 (oxaliplatin, 5-fluorouracil, and leucovorin) vs bevacizumab in combination with mFOLFOX6 as first-line treatment of patients with wild-type RAS metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in Spain.

Methods: A semi-Markov model was developed including the following health states: Progression free; Progressive disease: Treat with best supportive care; Progressive disease: Treat with subsequent active therapy; Attempted resection of metastases; Disease free after metastases resection; Progressive disease: after resection and relapse; and Death. Parametric survival analyses of patient-level progression free survival and overall survival data from the PEAK Phase II clinical trial were used to estimate health state transitions. Additional data from the PEAK trial were considered for the dose and duration of therapy, the use of subsequent therapy, the occurrence of adverse events, and the incidence and probability of time to metastasis resection. Utility weightings were calculated from patient-level data from panitumumab trials evaluating first-, second-, and third-line treatments. The study was performed from the Spanish National Health System (NHS) perspective including only direct costs. A life-time horizon was applied. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses and scenario sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robustness of the model.

Results: Based on the PEAK trial, which demonstrated greater efficacy of panitumumab vs bevacizumab, both in combination with mFOLFOX6 first-line in wild-type RAS mCRC patients, the estimated incremental cost per life-year gained was €16,567 and the estimated incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained was €22,794. The sensitivity analyses showed the model was robust to alternative parameters and assumptions.

Limitations: The analysis was based on a simulation model and, therefore, the results should be interpreted cautiously.

Conclusions: Based on the PEAK Phase II clinical trial and taking into account Spanish costs, the results of the analysis showed that first-line treatment of mCRC with panitumumab?+?mFOLFOX6 could be considered a cost-effective option compared with bevacizumab?+?mFOLFOX6 for the Spanish NHS.     

Cost-effectiveness implications of increased survival with anastrozole in the treatment of advanced breast cancer

Summary

Anastrozole (Arimidex*) has a survival benefit compared with megestrol acetate in postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer who have failed on tamoxifen. It was felt appropriate that such a clinical finding should be subjected to economic evaluation.

A cost-effectiveness analysis was undertaken from the viewpoint of a third-party payer, of the data from a combined analysis of two clinical studies. The outcome measures were duration of drug treatment and life years gained. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) of anastrozole was £1,608 per life year gained based on UK NHS drug prices in April 1998. Sensitivity analysis showed that the ICER could vary between £5 and £1,643, depending on relative drug costs in a number of countries, between £1,056 and £1,761, depending on the method used to calculate duration of treatment and survival, and could increase to £3,730, based on treatment provided during the extra period of survival.

Anastrozole is a highly cost-effective alternative to megestrol acetate for postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer.     

Cost-effectiveness of obinutuzumab plus bendamustine followed by obinutuzumab monotherapy for the treatment of follicular lymphoma patients who relapse after or are refractory to a rituximab-containing regimen in the US

Aims: Obinutuzumab (GA101, G) was approved in February 2016 by the US Food and Drug Administration to treat follicular lymphoma (FL) patients who relapsed after, or are refractory to (R/R), a rituximab-containing regimen (R/R-rituximab). In the GADOLIN trial, R/R-rituximab patients who received G plus bendamustine (B) followed by G-monotherapy (G?+?B) for up to 2 years had significantly improved progression-free survival and overall survival compared to patients receiving B-monotherapy. This study estimated the cost-effectiveness of G?+?B vs B-monotherapy for R/R-rituximab FL patients from a US payer perspective.

Materials and methods: Patient outcomes were simulated using a 3-state area under the curve model including progression-free survival, progressive disease, and death. This study used R/R-rituximab data from the National LymphoCare Study to extrapolate the GADOLIN trial’s refractory FL progression-free and overall survival data to a R/R-rituximab FL population. Drug utilization and adverse events were based on trial data, and costs were based on Medicare reimbursements and drug wholesale acquisition costs in 2016. Utility estimates were derived from published literature. Post-progression treatment costs were based on observed post-progression therapies in GADOLIN. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess model uncertainty.

Results: G?+?B resulted in an increase in quality-adjusted life years relative to B-monotherapy of 1.24 (95% CR?=?0.61–1.87); the incremental total cost was $58,100 (95% CR?=?$54,500–$61,500). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $47,000 per QALY gained, and, based on probabilistic simulations, there was a 98% probability that G?+?B was cost-effective at the $100,000 per QALY threshold.

Limitations and conclusions: This US-based analysis suggests that treatment with G?+?B compared to B-monotherapy is likely cost-effective in R/R-rituximab FL patients. Modeling a R/R-rituximab population based on a synthesis of GADOLIN and the National LymphoCare Study data introduces uncertainty in the analysis. However, the findings were robust to sensitivity analyses.     

The economic burden of brain metastasis among lung cancer patients in the United States

Objective:

Brain metastases among lung cancer patients can impair cognitive and functional ability, complicate care, and reduce survival. This study focuses on the economic burden of brain metastasis in lung cancer—direct healthcare costs to payers and indirect costs to patients, payers, and employers—in the US.

Methods:

Retrospective study using claims data from over 60 self-insured Fortune 500 companies across all US census regions (January 1999–March 2013). Adult, non-elderly lung cancer patients with brain metastasis were evaluated over two study periods: (1) pre-diagnosis (≤30 days prior to first observed lung cancer diagnosis to ≤30 days prior to first-observed brain metastasis diagnosis) and (2) post-diagnosis (≤30 days prior to first observed brain metastasis diagnosis to end of continuous eligibility or observation).

Outcome measures:

Healthcare costs to payers and resource utilization, salary loss to patients, disability payouts for payers, and productivity loss to employers.

Results:

A total of 132 patients were followed for a median of 8.4 and 6.6 months in the pre- and post-diagnosis periods, respectively. At diagnosis of brain metastasis, 21.2% of patients were on leave of absence and 6.1% on long-term disability leave. Substantial differences were observed in the pre- vs post-diagnosis periods. Specifically, patients incurred much greater healthcare utilization in the post-diagnosis period, resulting in $25,579 higher medical costs per-patient-per-6-months (PPP6M). During this period, patients missed significantly more work days, generating an incremental burden of $2853 PPP6M in salary loss for patients, $2557 PPP6M in disability payments for payers, and $4570 PPP6M in productivity loss for employers.

Limitations:

Type of primary lung cancer and extent of brain metastasis could not be assessed in the data. The analysis was also limited to patients with comprehensive disability coverage.

Conclusions:

Development of brain metastasis among lung cancer patients is associated with a substantial economic burden to payers, patients, and employers.