Cost-Effectiveness of Brentuximab Vedotin Versus Physician's Choice of Methotrexate or Bexarotene for the Treatment of Cutaneous T-cell Lymphoma in Canada.

INTRODUCTION: Brentuximab vedotin versus physician's choice of methotrexate (MTX) or bexarotene (BEX) significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) (median PFS, 16.7 vs. 3.5 months) and delayed time to subsequent treatment (8.4 vs. 3.7 months), with similar overall survival in patients with CD30-expressing mycosis fungoides (MF) or primary cutaneous anaplastic large cell lymphoma (pcALCL), two types of cutaneous T-cell lymphomas. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of brentuximab vedotin versus MTX or BEX from a Canadian healthcare payer perspective in the indicated population. METHODS: A 5-state partitioned survival model [pre-progression, non-stem cell transplant (SCT) post-progression, SCT, SCT relapse, death] with a weekly cycle length and 45-year lifetime horizon has been developed. Health-state occupancies, utility estimates, and treatment duration were informed by ALCANZA. Other inputs and costs came from the literature or clinician experts. Scenario analyses varied key parameters and tested assumptions. RESULTS: Brentuximab vedotin versus MTX or BEX was cost-effective; the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was CAN$43,790 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Brentuximab vedotin was more effective (incremental life years: 0.15; QALYs: 0.25) and total treatment costs were slightly higher (incremental costs: $11,105) than MTX or BEX. Key model drivers included end-stage care duration, SCT eligibility, and brentuximab vedotin retreatment rates. CONCLUSION: Brentuximab vedotin compared with MTX or BEX was cost-effective for CD30-expressing MF and pcALCL. Brentuximab vedotin's higher drug costs versus MTX or BEX were offset by decreased post-progression and end-stage management costs, and showed a 0.25 QALY gain versus MTX or BEX, and increased the proportion of patients eligible for potentially curative SCT.

Cost-effectiveness of brentuximab vedotin for the treatment of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma.

Aim: To assess the cost-effectiveness of brentuximab vedotin (BV) versus physician's choice (methotrexate or bexarotene) for treating advanced cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. Materials & methods: A partitioned-survival model was developed from the National Health Service perspective in England and Wales. Model inputs were informed by the ALCANZA trial, real-world UK data, published literature or clinical experts. Results: Over the modeled lifetime, BV dominated physician's choice and provided an additional 1.58 life-years and 1.09 higher quality-adjusted life years with a net cost saving of £119,565. The net monetary benefit was £152,326 using a willingness-to-pay threshold of £30,000/quality-adjusted life year. Results were robust in sensitivity and scenario analyses. Conclusion: BV is a highly cost-effective treatment for advanced cutaneous T-cell lymphoma.

Cost Effectiveness of Avelumab for Metastatic Merkel Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma (mMCC) is a rare and aggressive skin cancer. Until recently, there were no licensed treatment options for patients with mMCC, and prognosis was poor. A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted for avelumab, a newly available treatment option for mMCC, versus standard care (SC), from a UK National Health Service perspective. METHODS: A partitioned survival model was developed to assess the lifetime costs and effects of avelumab versus SC. Data from the JAVELIN Merkel 200 trial (NCT02155647) were used to inform estimates of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Unit costs and associated frequencies of use were informed by published literature and clinical expert opinion. Results were presented as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs, i.e. the cost per QALY gained) for treatment-experienced (TE) and treatment-naïve (TN) patients. Uncertainty was explored through a range of sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Discounting costs and QALYs at 3.5% per annum, avelumab was associated with ICERs of £35,274 (TE)/£39,178 (TN) per QALY gained. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis results demonstrated that avelumab was associated with an 88.3% (TE)/69.3% (TN) probability of being cost effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold for end-of-life treatments of £50,000 per QALY gained. Results were most sensitive to alternative survival extrapolations and dosing assumptions. CONCLUSIONS: The analysis results suggest that avelumab is likely to be a cost-effective treatment option for UK mMCC patients. The results for TN patients are subject to some uncertainty, and a confirmatory analysis will be conducted with more mature data.