Adverse event costs of systemic therapies for metastatic colorectal cancer previously treated with fluoropyrimidine-, oxaliplatin- and irinotecan-based chemotherapy and biologics in the US.

Aim: The objective of this study was to compare adverse event (AE) management costs for fruquintinib, regorafenib, trifluridine/tipiracil (T/T) and trifluridine/tipiracil+bevacizumab (T/T+bev) for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) previously treated with at least two prior lines of therapy from the US commercial and Medicare payer perspectives. Materials & methods: A cost-consequence model was developed to calculate the per-patient and per-patient-per-month (PPPM) AE costs using rates of grade 3/4 AEs with incidence ≥5% in clinical trials, event-specific management costs and duration treatment. Anchored comparisons of AE costs were calculated using a difference-in-differences approach with best supportive care (BSC) as a common reference. AE rates and treatment duration were obtained from clinical trials: FRESCO and FRESCO-2 (fruquintinib), RECOURSE (T/T), CORRECT (regorafenib) and SUNLIGHT (T/T, T/T+bev). AE management costs for the commercial and Medicare perspectives were obtained from publicly available sources. Results: From the commercial perspective, the AE costs (presented as per-patient, PPPM) were: $4015, $1091 for fruquintinib (FRESCO); $4253, $1390 for fruquintinib (FRESCO-2); $17,110, $11,104 for T/T (RECOURSE); $9851, $4691 for T/T (SUNLIGHT); $8199, $4823 for regorafenib; and $11,620, $2324 for T/T+bev. These results were consistent in anchored comparisons: the difference-in-difference for fruquintinib based on FRESCO was -$1929 versus regorafenib and -$11,427 versus T/T; for fruquintinib based on FRESCO-2 was -$2257 versus regorafenib and -$11,756 versus T/T. Across all analyses, results were consistent from the Medicare perspective. Conclusion: Fruquintinib was associated with lower AE management costs compared with regorafenib, T/T and T/T+bev for patients with previously treated mCRC. This evidence has direct implications for treatment, formulary and pathways decision-making in this patient population.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of bevacizumab combined with lomustine in the treatment of progressive glioblastoma using a Markov model simulation analysis.

Background: Progressive glioblastoma (GBM) is a malignancy with extremely poor prognosis. Chemotherapy is one of the approved systemic treatment modalities. The aim of this study is to assess the cost-effectiveness of using bevacizumab (BEV) in combination with lomustine (LOM) regimen for the treatment of progressive glioblastoma in China. Methods: The estimation results are derived from a multicenter randomized phase III trial, which demonstrated improved survival in GBM patients receiving BEV+LOM combination therapy. To calculate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) from the perspective of Chinese society, a Markov model was established. Univariate deterministic analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were employed to address the uncertainties within the model. Results: Compared to LOM monotherapy, the total treatment cost for BEV+LOM combination therapy increased from $2,646.70 to $23,650.98. The health-adjusted life years (QALYs) for BEV+LOM combination therapy increased from 0.26 QALYs to 0.51 QALYs, representing an increment of 0.25 QALYs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was $84,071.12. The cost-effectiveness curve indicates that within the willingness-to-pay (WTP) range of $35,906 per QALY, BEV+LOM combination therapy is not a cost-effective treatment option for unresectable malignant pleural mesothelioma patients. Conclusions: Taken as a whole, the findings of this study suggest that, from the perspective of payers in China, BEV+LOM combination therapy as a first-line treatment for GBM is not a cost-effective option. However, considering the survival advantages this regimen may offer for this rare disease, it may still be one of the clinical treatment options for this patient population.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab compared with sorafenib as first-line treatment in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma in Singapore.

OBJECTIVES: This study aims to explore the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab against sorafenib for first-line treatment of locally advanced or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in Singapore. METHODS: A partitioned survival model was developed from a healthcare system perspective, with a 10-year lifetime horizon. Clinical inputs and utilities were obtained from the IMbrave150 trial. Healthcare resource use costs were obtained from published local sources; drug costs reflected the most recent public hospital selling prices. Outcomes included life years, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the model's robustness. RESULTS: Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab offered an additional 1.42 life years and 1.09 QALYs, with an additional cost of S$111,847; the ICER was S$102,988/QALY. The World Health Organization considers interventions with ICERs <1 gross domestic product (GDP)/capita to be highly cost-effective. At a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of S$114,165/QALY (Singapore's 2022 GDP/capita), atezolizumab plus bevacizumab is cost-effective compared with sorafenib. The ICER was most sensitive to variations in utilities, but all parameter variations had no significant impact on the model outcomes. CONCLUSION: At a WTP threshold of Singapore's GDP/capita, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab is cost-effective compared with sorafenib.

Cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab therapy in the care of patients with hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia.

ABSTRACT: No US Food and Drug Administration- or European Medicines Agency-approved therapies exist for bleeding due to hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia (HHT), the second-most common inherited bleeding disorder worldwide. The current standard of care (SOC) includes iron and red cell supplementation, alongside the necessary hemostatic procedures, none of which target underlying disease pathogenesis. Recent evidence has demonstrated that bleeding pathophysiology is amenable to systemic antiangiogenic therapy with the anti-vascular endothelial growth factor bevacizumab. Despite its high cost, the addition of longitudinal bevacizumab to the current SOC may reduce overall health care resource use and improve patient quality of life. We conducted, to our knowledge, the first cost-effectiveness analysis of IV bevacizumab in patients with HHT with the moderate-to-severe phenotype, comparing bevacizumab added to SOC vs SOC alone. The primary outcome was the incremental net monetary benefit (iNMB) reported over a lifetime time horizon and across accepted willingness-to-pay thresholds, in US dollar per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Bevacizumab therapy accrued 9.3 QALYs while generating $428 000 in costs, compared with 8.3 QALYs and $699 000 in costs accrued in the SOC strategy. The iNMB of bevacizumab therapy vs the SOC was $433 000. No parameter variation and no scenario analysis, including choice of iron supplementation product, changed the outcome of bevacizumab being a cost-saving strategy. Bevacizumab therapy also saved patients an average of 133 hours spent receiving HHT-specific care per year of life. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, bevacizumab was favored in 100% of all 10 000 Monte Carlo iterations across base-case and all scenario analyses. Bevacizumab should be considered for more favorable formulary placement in the care of patients with moderate-to-severe HHT.

Atezolizumab and Bevacizumab Targeted-Therapy in Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Systematic Review of Cost-effectiveness Analyses.

BACKGROUND: Atezolizumab (ATZ) plus bevacizumab (BVC) co-administration is one of the newest systemic interventions in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (AHCC). This treatment approach is more costly and effective than other therapeutic interventions, significantly improving AHCC survival and health-related quality of life. AIM: This economic study aimed to systematically review all cost-effectiveness analyses of ATZ/BVC combination in AHCC. METHOD: A comprehensive search in scientific databases was performed using a highly sensitive syntax to find all related economic evaluations. The target population was AHCC patients. The intervention was ATZ/BVC, which was compared with sorafenib, nivolumab, and other anticancer strategies. We included studies that reported quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and/or life-years, costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), and finally, the characteristics of included studies were categorized. RESULTS: Out of 315 identified records, 12 cost-effectiveness analyses were eligible for inclusion in the systematic review. Treatment costs were significantly higher with ATZ/BVC in all studies (from 61,397 to 253,687 USD/patient compared to sorafenib and nivolumab, respectively). Incremental QALYs/patient varied from 0.35 to 0.86 compared to sintilimab/BVC and sorafenib. Although ICERs for drugs varied widely, all were united in the lack of cost-effectiveness of the ATZ/BVC. The willingness-to-pay threshold in all studies was lower than the ICER, which indicated a reluctance to pay for this treatment strategy by the health systems. CONCLUSION: The ATZ/BVC combination is an expensive targeted immunotherapy in AHCC. Significant discounts in ATZ and BVC prices are essential for this novel approach to be cost-effective and extensively used.

An eye on equity: faricimab-driven health equity improvements in diabetic macular oedema using a distributional cost-effectiveness analysis from a UK societal perspective.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Diabetic macular oedema (DMO) is a leading cause of blindness in developed countries, with significant disease burden associated with socio-economic deprivation. Distributional cost-effectiveness analysis (DCEA) allows evaluation of health equity impacts of interventions, estimation of how health outcomes and costs are distributed in the population, and assessments of potential trade-offs between health maximisation and equity. We conducted an aggregate DCEA to determine the equity impact of faricimab. METHODS: Data on health outcomes and costs were derived from a cost-effectiveness model of faricimab compared with ranibizumab, aflibercept and off-label bevacizumab using a societal perspective in the base case and a healthcare payer perspective in scenario analysis. Health gains and health opportunity costs were distributed across socio-economic subgroups. Health and equity impacts, measured using the Atkinson inequality index, were assessed visually on an equity-efficiency impact plane and combined into a measure of societal welfare. RESULTS: At an opportunity cost threshold of £20,000/quality-adjusted life year (QALY), faricimab displayed an increase in net health benefits against all comparators and was found to improve equity. The equity impact increased the greater the concerns for reducing health inequalities over maximising population health. Using a healthcare payer perspective, faricimab was equity improving in most scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: Long-acting therapies with fewer injections, such as faricimab, may reduce costs, improve health outcomes and increase health equity. Extended economic evaluation frameworks capturing additional value elements, such as DCEA, enable a more comprehensive valuation of interventions, which is of relevance to decision-makers, healthcare professionals and patients.

The Impact of International Pricing Index Models on Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor (VEGF) Drug Costs in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of three international pricing index models on Medicare Part B spending for intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) drugs Design: Cost analysis Methods: U.S. and international sales data from the Multinational Integrated Data Analysis (MIDAS) database was used with data from the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to calculate Medicare Part B spending on anti-VEGF drugs Main Outcome: Medicare Part B expenditures of anti-VEGF drugs under various international pricing index models Results: Total Medicare Part B savings was greatest (75%) under the "most favored nation" proposal to peg the U.S. price to the lowest international price. Under the "most favored nation" proposal, prices of aflibercept are reduced from $1825.80 to $507.17, bevacizumab from $74.39 to $27.55, and ranibizumab (3 units or 0.3mg) from $1057.08 to $99.72. CONCLUSION: International pricing index models are one of many pricing strategies that could lead to savings in Medicare Part B costs.

Bevacizumab in recurrent ovarian cancer.

PURPOSE: The cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab has been the subject of debate, and we aimed to present our own retrospective data on its effect on survival in recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer. METHODS: Patients with recurrent ovarian, tubal and primary peritoneal cancer between October 2007 and June 2018 were grouped according to the platinum-free interval. The progression-free and overall survivals of the patients who had received chemotherapy only and chemotherapy with bevacizumab were calculated. RESULTS: Eighty patients had received chemotherapy (CT) only, and 65 had received CT+BV. In platinum-sensitive recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer (PSREOC) patients, the median progression-free survival (PFS) months was 7 months (95% CI; 5.5-8.4) in the group who had received CT only and 13 months (95% CI; 5.8-20.1) in the group who had received CT+BV (p=0.001) and for CT+BV HR (Hazard Ratio):0.39 (95% CI; 0.24-0.64) (p=0.001). The median PFS of platinum-resistant recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer (PRREOC) patients who had received CT only was determined as 2 (95% CI; 1.4-2.5) and as 10 (95% CI; 6.8-13.1) months for patients who had received CT+BV (p=0.001), for patients who had received CT+BV HR: 0.31 (95% CI; 0.17-0.58) (p=0.001). In both PSREOC and PRREOC patients, there was no difference between CT + BV and CT group in terms of overall survival (p=0.978 and p=0.738, respectively). CONCLUSION: A significant effect of bevacizumab on the progression-free survival of both platinum-sensitive and platinum resistant recurrent ovarian cancers has been demonstrated; however, this effect failed to impact overall survival. Therefore, it could be recommended to use bevacizumab, considering the cost-effectiveness in undeveloped and developing countries.

Clinical and economic burden of neovascular age-related macular degeneration by disease status: a US claims-based analysis.

BACKGROUND: New treatment alternatives have revolutionized the management of nAMD. However, there is limited evidence on the clinical and economic burden of nAMD in commercially insured US patients. OBJECTIVES: To examine the clinical and economic burden in patients with nAMD by disease status in the commercially insured US patient population and to identify drivers of nAMD-related costs. METHODS: Patients with at least 1 International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) diagnosis for nAMD were identified from the IQVIA PharMetrics Plus database between April 2016 and August 2017 (index period). Patients had continuous enrollment for at least 6 months before and at least 12 months after the index date. Eye-level disease status was reported, along with intravitreal anti-VEGF treatment patterns. Health care resource utilization (HRU) (all-cause and nAMD-related) and direct health care costs were estimated over the 12 month follow-up period. Outcomes associated with falls and fractures were also assessed. Multivariate analysis identified drivers of annual nAMD-related outpatient costs among patients with anti-VEGF therapy. Incident patients (defined as those without an nAMD diagnosis 6 months prior to the index date) with at least 18 months of continuous enrollment after the index date were identified for a subset analysis to evaluate documented changes in disease status. RESULTS: A total of 6,076 patients with nAMD were identified for the prevalent cohort; 60.1%, 17.2%, and 5.9% had active CNV, inactive CNV, and inactive scar disease stage at index, respectively. The nAMD-related outpatient visit costs were roughly 4 and roughly 7 times higher, respectively, for the active CNV group ($8,658 [SD = $11,612]) compared with the inactive CNV ($2,406 [SD = $5,510]) and inactive scar ($1,198 [SD = $3,035]) groups (P < 0.0001). About 10% of prevalent patients had a fall/fracture claim over 12 months of follow-up. A total of 3,623 prevalent patients (59.6%) were eligible for the anti-VEGF treatment patterns analysis (mean [SD] duration of therapy = 7.7 [4.5] months; mean [SD] number of injections = 6.0 [3.7]). Qualified incident cases comprised 17.8% (n = 1,081) of the prevalent cohort. Approximately 20% of incident eyes with active CNV at baseline transitioned to inactive CNV. A total of 427 incident patients (39.5%) qualified for anti-VEGF treatment patterns analysis (mean [SD] duration of therapy = 6.2 [4.7] months, mean [SD] number of injections = 5.2 [3.5]). Significant drivers of total nAMD-related costs were the initial anti-VEGF agent and anti-VEGF injection frequency (P < 0.0001) in both prevalent and incident cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical and economic burden of nAMD treatment is substantial to the US healthcare system, where economic burden is higher among those with active CNV. Appropriate treatment may increase the duration of inactive disease periods and preserve visual acuity while lowering costs. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Allergan, an AbbVie Company. Allergan employees were involved in the study design, interpretation of data, writing of the manuscript, and the decision to submit for publication. Keyloun and Campbell are employees of Allergan. Multani, McGuiness, and Chen are employees of IQVIA, which received funding from Allergan for conducting the analysis. Almony and Shah-Manek have nothing to disclose.

Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in advanced recurrent endometrial cancer: A cost-effectiveness analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost-effectiveness of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab (LP) in patients with microsatellite stable (MSS), recurrent, pretreated endometrial cancer (EC). METHODS: A decision analysis model was created to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of LP relative to doxorubicin, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD), and bevacizumab in patients with recurrent pretreated MSS EC. Published data was used to estimate quality adjusted life years (QALYs) and drug cost estimates were obtained using average wholesale prices. A health state utility (HSU) penalty of -0.10 was applied to the LP group to account for treatment toxicity. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated to determine cost/QALY. The willingness to pay threshold (WTP) was set at $100,000 per QALY saved. Sensitivity analyses were performed on cost, effectiveness, and HSU penalty for LP. RESULTS: Costs of treatment with doxorubicin, PLD, and bevacizumab are $23.7 million (M), $56.9 M, and $250.8 M respectively. Cost of treatment with LP is $1.8 billion. Relative to doxorubicin, the ICERs for PLD, bevacizumab, and LP are $56,808, $345,824, and $1.6 M respectively. A sensitivity analysis varying the cost of LP shows that if the combined drug cost decreases from over $58,000 to less than $11,000 per cycle, this strategy would be cost-effective. Eliminating the HSU penalty for LP decreased the ICER $1.0 M while increasing the penalty to -0.20 increased the ICER to $3.7 M. CONCLUSIONS: LP is not cost-effective in patients with recurrent pretreated, MSS EC. A dramatic reduction in cost of LP is required for this novel strategy to be cost-effective.

Economic Evaluation of Adding Bevacizumab to Chemotherapy for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer (mCRC) Patients in Indonesia.

OBJECTIVE: Since 2016, bevacizumab has been widely used to treat metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in Indonesia. Nevertheless, the high cost of bevacizumab has raised the question of whether the therapy is considered cost-effective and should be included in the national health insurance system. This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for the treatment of mCRC patients. METHODS: A Markov model was applied using the perspective of the Indonesian healthcare system to assess cost-effectiveness. The health outcomes were expressed in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALY) using the validated EuroQoL-5D-5L instrument. Data for medical costs were collected from hospital billings in four hospitals located in three different cities in Indonesia. Meanwhile, data for utility were obtained from interviewing 90 patients who came to the hospital. We compared those mCRC patients who received chemotherapy alone either with FOLFOX or FOLFIRI, versus patients who received the addition of bevacizumab. RESULTS: With the perspective of societal, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of adding bevacizumab was USD 49,312 per QALY gained using secondary data and USD 28,446 per QALY using real world data. CONCLUSION: Using either a healthcare or societal perspective, the addition of bevacizumab for mCRC treatment was considered not cost-effective.

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.

Cost-effectiveness of Atezolizumab Plus Bevacizumab vs Sorafenib for Patients With Unresectable or Metastatic Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

Importance: Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab as a first-line therapy for patients with unresectable or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma has been shown to improve overall and progression-free survival compared with standard sorafenib treatment. However, because of the high cost of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, assessment of its value by considering both efficacy and cost is needed. Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab vs sorafenib for patients with unresectable or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma from a US payer perspective. Design, Setting, and Participants: This economic evaluation was performed from June through September 2020, with a 6-year investment time period. Hypothetical patients were male and female adults 18 years or older who had a diagnosis of locally advanced metastatic or unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma confirmed by histologic or clinical features. Main Outcomes and Measures: Health care costs (adjusted to 2020 US dollars), life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab vs sorafenib were examined using a partitioned survival model. One-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to examine model uncertainty. The model was also used to estimate price reductions of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab that would achieve more favorable cost-effectiveness. Results: In the base case analysis of a hypothetical sample of 424 patients, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab was associated with an increase of 0.623 life-years (1.840 vs 1.218 life-years) and 0.484 QALYs (1.412 vs 0.928 QALYs) and with an incremental cost of $156 210 per patient compared with sorafenib. The ICER was $322 500 per QALY (5th to 95th percentile, $149 364-$683 744 per QALY), with 0.6% and 5.1% chance of being cost-effective at willingness-to-pay thresholds of $100 000 and $150 000 per QALY, respectively. The ICER never decreased below $150 000 per QALY in the 1-way sensitivity analyses. To achieve more favorable cost-effectiveness under the thresholds of $150 000 to $100 000 per QALY, the prices of atezolizumab and bevacizumab would need to be reduced by 37% to 47%. Conclusions and Relevance: In this economic evaluation, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab was associated with clinical benefit but was not cost-effective compared with sorafenib for first-line treatment of unresectable or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma from a US payer perspective. A substantial reduction in price for atezolizumab plus bevacizumab would be needed to achieve favorable cost-effectiveness for this new therapy.

Factors Associated With a Patient's Decision to Select a Cost-effective vs the Most Effective Therapy for Their Own Eye Disease.

Importance: Ten percent of the Medicare Part B budget is spent on aflibercept, used to treat a myriad of ocular neovascular diseases. A substantial portion of these costs can be attributed to a few hundred ophthalmologists, raising concerns regarding the influence of pharmaceutical companies on the choice of medication by a relatively small group of clinicians. One approach to protect patients' health care interests is to include them in deliberations on the choice of therapy for their eye disease. Objective: To examine factors associated with patients' choice between an effective and less expensive off-label drug or a more effective, but also more expensive, US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved drug. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort analysis used data from the satellite office of a tertiary referral center from August 2, 2013, to April 9, 2018. Insured patients initiating treatment with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor were included in the analysis. Data were analyzed from March 26, 2018, to June 10, 2020. Interventions: Patients were asked to choose between bevacizumab (approximately $100 per dose), a chemotherapy that is effective, but not FDA approved, for the treatment of ocular vascular disease, or aflibercept (approximately $2000 per dose), an FDA-approved drug for ocular vascular disease that may be more effective than bevacizumab in some patients. Independent of this choice, patients were separately asked by a study coordinator to participate in an invasive clinical study for which they would not be compensated, there was a small risk for an adverse event, and they would not personally benefit from participating (a surrogate marker for altruism). Main Outcomes and Measures: Factors associated with patients' choice of medication, including age, sex, ocular disease, race, and participation in an invasive clinical study. Results: A total of 189 patients were included in the analysis (106 women [56%]; mean [SEM] age, 74.6 [0.8] years). Despite being told that it may not be as effective as aflibercept, 100 patients (53%) selected bevacizumab for their own eye care. An act of altruism (ie, participation in an invasive clinical study) when the patient was making a choice between the 2 drugs was associated with a patient's choice of bevacizumab (odds ratio [OR], 7.03; 95% CI, 2.27-21.80; P < .001); the OR for selecting bevacizumab for patients who never agreed to participate in the clinical study was 0.45 (95% CI, 0.25-0.83; P = .001). Age (OR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.97-1.03; P = .86), race (OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.41-1.22; P = .21), sex (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.39-1.35; P = .31), presence of diabetes (OR, 1.52; 95% CI, 0.59-3.93; P = .39), and type of eye disease (OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.30-1.04; P = .07) were not associated with choice of therapy. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that clinicians must consider the ethical implications of the influence of altruism when patients participate in the decision between cost-effective vs the most effective medicines for their own health care.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of first-line treatments for advanced epidermal growth factor receptor-mutant non-small cell lung cancer patients.

OBJECTIVES: Recent studies showed prolonged survival for advanced epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutant non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients treated with both monotherapies and combined therapies. However, high costs limit clinical applications. Thus, we conducted this cost-effectiveness analysis to explore an optimal first-line treatment for advanced EGFR-mutant NSCLC patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Survival data were extracted from six clinical trials, including ARCHER1050 (dacomitinib vs. gefitinib); FLAURA (osimertinib vs. gefitinib/erlotinib); JO25567 and NEJ026 (bevacizumab +erlotinib vs. erlotinib); NEJ009 (gefitinib +chemotherapy vs. gefitinib); and NCT02148380 (gefitinib +chemotherapy vs. gefitinib vs. chemotherapy) trials. Cost-related data were obtained from hospitals and published literature. The effect parameter (quality-adjusted life year [QALY]) was the reflection of both survival and utility. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), average cost-effectiveness ratio (ACER), and net benefit were calculated, and the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was set at $30828/QALY from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Sensitivity analysis was performed to explore the stability of results. RESULTS: We compared treatment groups with control groups in each trial. ICERs were $1897750.74/QALY (ARCHER1050), $416560.02/QALY (FLAURA), -$477607.48/QALY (JO25567), -$464326.66/QALY (NEJ026), -$277121.22/QALY (NEJ009), -$399360.94/QALY (gefitinib as comparison, NCT02148380), and -$170733.05/QALY (chemotherapy as comparison, NCT02148380). Moreover, ACER and net benefit showed that the combination of EGFR-TKI with chemotherapy and osimertinib was of more economic benefit following first-generation EGFR-TKIs. Sensitivity analyses showed that the impact of utilities and monotherapy could be cost-effective with a 50% cost reduction. CONCLUSION: First-generation EGFR-TKI therapy remained the most cost-effective treatment option for advanced EGFR-mutant NSCLC patients. Our results could serve as both a reference for both clinical practice and the formulation of medical insurance reimbursement.

Cost-effectiveness of Maintenance Therapy Based on Molecular Classification Following Treatment of Primary Epithelial Ovarian Cancer in the United States.

Importance: There are large randomized clinical trials-SOLO-1 (Olaparib Maintenance Monotherapy in Patients With BRCA Mutated Ovarian Cancer Following First Line Platinum Based Chemotherapy [December 2018]), PRIMA (A Study of Niraparib Maintenance Treatment in Patients With Advanced Ovarian Cancer Following Response on Front-Line Platinum-Based Chemotherapy [September 2019]), and PAOLA-1 (Platine, Avastin and Olaparib in 1st Line [December 2019])-reporting positive efficacy results for maintenance regimens for women with primary, advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. The findings resulted in approval by the US Food and Drug Administration of the treatments studied as of May 2020. However, there are pressing economic considerations given the many eligible patients and substantial associated costs. Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of maintenance strategies for patients with (1) a BRCA variant, (2) homologous recombination deficiency without a BRCA variant, or (3) homologous recombination proficiency. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this economic evaluation of the US health care sector using simulated patients with primary epithelial ovarian cancer, 3 decision trees were developed, one for each molecular signature. The maintenance strategies evaluated were olaparib (SOLO-1), olaparib-bevacizumab (PAOLA-1), bevacizumab (PAOLA-1), and niraparib (PRIMA). Base case 1 assessed olaparib, olaparib-bevacizumab, bevacizumab, and niraparib vs observation of a patient with a BRCA variant. Base case 2 assessed olaparib-bevacizumab, bevacizumab, and niraparib vs observation in a patient with homologous recombination deficiency without a BRCA variant. Base case 3 assessed olaparib-bevacizumab, bevacizumab, and niraparib vs observation in a patient with homologous recombination proficiency. The time horizon was 24 months. Costs were estimated from Medicare claims, wholesale acquisition prices, and published sources. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses with microsimulation were then conducted to account for uncertainty and assess model stability. One-way sensitivity analyses were also performed. The study was performed from January through June 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in US dollars per progression-free life-year saved (PF-LYS). Results: Assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000/PF-LYS, none of the drugs could be considered cost-effective compared with observation. In the case of a patient with a BRCA variant, olaparib was the most cost-effective (ICER, $186 777/PF-LYS). The third-party payer price per month of olaparib would need to be reduced from approximately $17 000 to $9000 to be considered cost-effective. Olaparib-bevacizumab was the most cost-effective in the case of a patient with homologous recombination deficiency without a BRCA variant (ICER, $629 347/PF-LYS), and bevacizumab was the most cost-effective in the case of patient with homologous recombination proficiency (ICER, $557 865/PF-LYS). Even at a price of $0 per month, niraparib could not be considered cost-effective as a maintenance strategy for patients with homologous recombination proficiency. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this study suggest that, at current costs, maintenance therapy for primary ovarian cancer is not cost-effective, regardless of molecular signature. For certain therapies, lowering the drug price alone may not make them cost-effective.

Cost-Effectiveness of the Addition of Bevacizumab to First-Line Chemotherapy With Carboplatin and Paclitaxel in Patients With Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of the addition of bevacizumab to first-line chemotherapy with carboplatin and paclitaxel in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) from the perspective of the Colombian health system. METHODS: A Markov model was employed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab + carboplatin + paclitaxel (BCP) compared with carboplatin + paclitaxel (CP) in the treatment of NSCLS during a 4-year period. The health outcome was the number of life-years gained (LYG) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) obtained from the survival curves reported in a clinical study. Costs were estimated using national tariff and reported in US dollars at a date in 2019. Costs and effectiveness outcomes were discounted at a rate of 3.5% per year. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed on important parameters with a Monte Carlo simulation. RESULTS: The costs of BCP and CP were $30 341 and $11 735, respectively. The LYG for BCP and CP were 0.34 and 0.29, respectively. The QALY for BCP and CP were 0.27 and 0.23. The ICER of BCP versus CP was $ 465 150 QALY. The results of the Monte Carlo simulation showed that CP was cost-effective in 100% of the iterations compared with BCP. CONCLUSION: The addition of bevacizumab to the scheme carboplatin + paclitaxel compared to carboplatin + paclitaxel for NSCLC is not cost-effective from the point of view of the Colombian health system.

Eliminating Visual Acuity and Dilated Fundus Examinations Improves Cost Efficiency of Performing Optical Coherence Tomogrpahy-Guided Intravitreal Injections.

PURPOSE: The clinic efficiency and cost savings achieved by eliminating formal visual acuity (VA) and dilated fundus examinations (DFEs) were assessed for established patients receiving optical coherence tomography (OCT)-guided intravitreal injections. DESIGN: Comparative cost analysis. METHODS: Two different treatment models were evaluated. The first model included patients undergoing routine VA assessment, DFEs, OCT imaging, and intravitreal injections. The second model eliminated the routine VA assessment and DFE while using OCT imaging through an undilated pupil followed by the intravitreal injection. The 2 models incorporated both bevacizumab and aflibercept. The number of patients per clinic day, the cost per visit, and the daily revenues were compared between the 2 models. RESULTS: Optimized schedules with and without VA assessments and DFEs allowed for 48 and 96 patients to be injected per day, respectively. Excluding drug costs, the cost per encounter for the visits with and without a DFE were $39.33 and $22.63, respectively. Including the drug costs, the costs per encounter for the visits with and without a DFE were $85.55 and $68.85 for bevacizumab and $1787.58 and $17770.88 for aflibercept, respectively. Once the reimbursements for each visit type were included, the clinics that eliminated the VA and DFEs were more cost efficient. CONCLUSION: Eliminating both VA assessments and DFEs for patients undergoing OCT-guided retreatment with intravitreal injections resulted in decreased exposure times between patients and clinic staff, decreased cost per encounter, and increased patient volumes per clinic day, resulting in improved clinic efficiency and safety while seeing more patients in a clinic day.