Cost-effectiveness analysis of different treatment modalities in BCG-unresponsive NMIBC.

OBJECTIVE: Radical cystectomy (RC) is the standard of care (SOC) in BCG-unresponsive NMIBC and is associated with a significant health-related quality-of-life burden. Recently, promising results have been published on Gemcitabine/Docetaxel, Pembrolizumab, and Hyperthermic Intravesical Chemotherapy (HIVEC) as salvage therapy options trying to increase the rate of bladder preservation. Here, we performed a Cost-Effectiveness-Analysis of those treatment modalities. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We developed a Markov model from a payer's perspective drawing on clinical data of single-arm trials testing intravesical gemcitabine/docetaxel and pembrolizumab in BCG-unresponsive NMIBC, as well as clinical data from patients receiving hyperthermic intravesical chemotherapy HIVEC (n = 29) as intravesical salvage chemotherapy at our uro-oncological centre in Cologne. Costs were simulated utilising a non-commercial diagnosis-related groups grouper, utilities were derived from comparable cost-effectiveness studies. We used a Monte Carlo simulation to identify the optimal treatment, comparing the incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICERs) at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €50 000 (euro)/quality-adjusted life year (QALY). RESULTS: Over a horizon of 10 years, gemcitabine/docetaxel, HIVEC, and pembrolizumab were associated with costs of €48 353, €64 438, and €204 580, as well as a gain of QALYs of 6.16, 6.48, and 6.00, resulting in an ICER of €26 482, €42 567, and €184 533 respectively, in comparison to RC with total costs of €21 871 and a gain of QALYs of 5.01. Monte Carlo simulation identified HIVEC as the treatment of choice under assumption of a WTP of <€50 000. CONCLUSION: Considering a WTP of <€50 000/QALY, gemcitabine/docetaxel and HIVEC are highly cost-effective therapeutic options in BCG-refractory NMIBC, while RC remains the cheapest option. At its current price, pembrolizumab would only be cost-effective assuming a price reduction of at least 70%.

The economic burden of metastatic pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND: Objectives: Pancreatic cancer (PC) is a costly disease with a limited life-expectancy as it generally presents as an advanced, metastatic disease. Though current literature suggests cost varies by first line treatment, there is limited real-world knowledge about the economic burden of pancreatic cancer. This study describes the economic burden of pancreatic cancer patients overall and by observed first line treatments. METHODS: The IBM MarketScan databases were used to identify adult metastatic PC patients from January 1, 2010 through 3/31/2017. Those without other primary cancers, pregnancy, or prior PC treatment, and with 6 months of continuous enrollment prior to PC were included. Treatment patterns and healthcare utilization and expenditures were measured during the variable-length follow-up period. Continuous measures were presented as per patient per month (PPPM). RESULTS: A total of 6,360 patients met all inclusion criteria. Almost half (46.8%) of patients were untreated. Gemcitabine alone (15.6%) and FOLFIRINOX (11.4%) were the most commonly observed first line regimens. Treated patients incurred $17,513 PPPM (Gemcitabine alone) to $27,889 PPPM (FOLFIRINOX) during follow-up. Untreated patients incurred the highest unadjusted ($30,777 PPPM) and adjusted ($20,392 PPPM) cost. CONCLUSIONS: Metastatic PC patients incur a high economic burden driven by high utilization of healthcare resources, which varies by first line treatment. Also, the high proportion of untreated patients is alarming as these patients may be the most expensive of all patients. There is an unmet need in these patients for effective treatments that also reduce their economic burden.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of gemcitabine plus cisplatin versus fluorouracil plus cisplatin in the first-line setting for Chinese patients with metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma.

PURPOSE: A randomized phase III trial demonstrated that gemcitabine plus cisplatin (GP) prolonged progression-free survival and overall survival compared with fluorouracil plus cisplatin (FP) as first-line chemotherapy in patients with metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). The cost-effectiveness analysis was designed to identify the economic option for metastatic NPC from a Chinese societal perspective. METHODS: We established a Markov model that involved three health states representing the stages of disease to simulate therapy. Survival data of clinical outcomes were derived from the trial and adjusted to quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Transition probabilities and health utilities were obtained from the clinical trial and published literatures. The cost-effective strategy was estimated for these treatments using a willing-to-pay (WTP) threshold. A one-way sensitivity analysis was conducted to study the influences of parameters. RESULTS: GP treatment group produced a gain of 0.37 QALYs with an incremental cost of $2520.80, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $6812.97 per QALY, compared with FP treatment ($15,530.96 versus $13,010.16). The ICER was lower than the accepted WTP threshold, which was 3 times gross domestic product per capita of China ($25,749 per QALY). CONCLUSION: GP regimen is more cost-effective compared with FP regimen as the first-line treatment for Chinese patients with metastatic NPC.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of XELOX versus XELOX plus bevacizumab for metastatic colorectal cancer in a public hospital school.

BACKGROUND: Metastatic colorectal cancer imposes a substantial burden on patients and society. Over the last years, progresses in the treatment have been made especially due to the introduction of monoclonal antibodies, such as bevacizumab which, on the other hand, has considerably increased the costs of treatment. We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of bevacizumab plus XELOX in comparison with XELOX alone in metastatic colorectal cancer in first-line therapy, from the perspective of a public hospital school in Brazil. METHODS: This was a cost-effectiveness analysis performed by a decision tree and Markov models. Costs were expressed in local currency and outcomes were expressed in months of life gained. The model was constructed using the TreeAge Pro 2013® software. RESULTS: The incremental difference in years of life gained was 2.25 months, with an extra cost of 47,833.57 BRL, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness of 21,231.43 BRL per month of life gained. CONCLUSIONS: Although the XELOX plus bevacizumab regimen is a more expensive and more effective treatment than XELOX, it does not fit the reimbursement values fixed by the public healthcare system in Brazil.

The Pharmacological Costs of Second-Line Treatments for Recurrent Ovarian Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: In ovarian cancer, it is uncertain which chemotherapy regimen is more clinically effective and cost-effective for the treatment of recurrence; therefore, it might be interesting to make a balance between the cost of the drugs administered and the difference in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). METHODS: The present evaluation was restricted to pivotal phase 3 randomized controlled trials. We calculated the pharmacological costs necessary to get the benefit in PFS and OS. The costs of drugs are at the pharmacy of our hospital and are expressed in Euros (&OV0556;). We have subsequently applied the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale. RESULTS: Our study evaluated 3 phase 3 randomized controlled trials, including 2004 patients. The most relevant increase of costs was associated with the combination chemotherapy including trabectedin, with the highest costs for month of PFS gained (15,836 &OV0556;) and for month of OS gained (7198 &OV0556;), but it substantially differs considering the data of partially platinum-sensitive populations (platinum-free interval of 6-12 months), with 3959 &OV0556; for month of OS gained. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of trabectedin to pegylated liposomal doxorubicin for the treatment of recurrent ovarian cancer can lead to an increase of pharmacological costs. Differently, considering OS in patients with platinum-free interval of 6 to 12 months, there is a halving of pharmacological costs with the addition of trabectedin to pegylated liposomal doxorubicin. These costs are in line with the spending suggested as sustainable (thresholds of <$61,500 per life-year gained).

Time-Series Modeling and Simulation for Comparative Cost-Effective Analysis in Cancer Chemotherapy: An Application to Platinum-Based Regimens for Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer.

The purpose of this study was to propose a time-series modeling and simulation (M&S) strategy for probabilistic cost-effective analysis in cancer chemotherapy using a Monte-Carlo method based on data available from the literature. The simulation included the cost for chemotherapy, for pharmaceutical care for adverse events (AEs) and other medical costs. As an application example, we describe the analysis for the comparison of four regimens, cisplatin plus irinotecan, carboplatin plus paclitaxel, cisplatin plus gemcitabine (GP), and cisplatin plus vinorelbine, for advanced non-small cell lung cancer. The factors, drug efficacy explained by overall survival or time to treatment failure, frequency and severity of AEs, utility value of AEs to determine QOL, the drugs' and other medical costs in Japan, were included in the model. The simulation was performed and quality adjusted life years (QALY) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were calculated. An index, percentage of superiority (%SUP) which is the rate of the increased cost vs. QALY-gained plots within the area of positive QALY-gained and also below some threshold values of the ICER, was calculated as functions of threshold values of the ICER. An M&S process was developed, and for the simulation example, the GP regimen was the most cost-effective, in case of threshold values of the ICER=$70000/year, the %SUP for the GP are more than 50%. We developed an M&S process for probabilistic cost-effective analysis, this method would be useful for decision-making in choosing a cancer chemotherapy regimen in terms of pharmacoeconomic.

Economic evaluation for the UK of nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine in the treatment of metastatic pancreas cancer.

BACKGROUND: The combination of nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine (NAB-P+GEM) has shown superior efficacy over GEM monotherapy in metastatic pancreas cancer (MPC). Independent cost-effectiveness/utility analyses of NAB-P+GEM from the payer perspective have not been conducted for the UK. METHODS: A Markov model simulating the health outcomes and total costs was developed to estimate the life years gained (LYG) and quality-adjusted life years gained (QALY) and incremental cost-effectiveness (ICER) and cost-utility ratios (ICUR) for patients with MPC in a base case and in a probabilistic (PSA) sensitivity analysis. Total cost included the cost of supportive care medications, administration, chemotherapy, disease monitoring, and adverse reactions; and was discounted at 3.5% per year. A full lifetime horizon and third party payer perspective was chosen. RESULTS: The total cost of NAB-P+GEM was £5466 higher than the cost for GEM. Respectively, LYGs were 0.97 vs 0.79 and QALYs were 0.52 vs 0.45, with ICER of £30 367/LYG and ICUR of £78 086/QALY, confirmed by PSA. CONCLUSIONS: The superior survival efficacy of NAB-P+GEM over GEM in the management of MPC is associated with positive cost-effectiveness and cost-utility.

HIV-serodiscordant couples desiring a child: 'treatment as prevention,' preexposure prophylaxis, or medically assisted procreation?

OBJECTIVE: We sought to assess the residual risk of HIV transmission, cost, and cost-effectiveness of various strategies that can help fertile HIV-uninfected female/HIV-1-infected male on combination antiretroviral therapy with plasma HIV RNA <50 copies/mL couples to have a child: (1) unprotected sexual intercourse (treatment as prevention); (2) treatment as prevention limited to fertile days (targeting fertile days); (3) treatment as prevention with preexposure prophylaxis (tenofovir/emtricitabine); (4) treatment as prevention and preexposure prophylaxis limited to fertile days; or (5) medically assisted procreation (MAP). STUDY DESIGN: This was a model-based, cost-effectiveness analysis performed from a French societal perspective. Input parameters derived from international literature included: 85% probability of live births in different strategies, 0.0083%/mo HIV transmission risk with unprotected vaginal intercourse, 1% HIV mother-to-child transmission rate, and 4.4% birth defect risk related to combination antiretroviral therapy when the mother is infected at conception. Targeting fertile days and preexposure prophylaxis were estimated to decrease the risk of HIV transmission by 80% and 67%, respectively, and by 93.4% for preexposure prophylaxis limited to fertile days (the relative risk of transmission considering the combination of both strategies assuming to be (1-80%)*(1-67%) = 16.6% in basecase). Tenofovir/emtricitabine monthly cost was set at €540. RESULTS: The HIV transmission risk was highest with treatment as prevention and lowest for MAP (5.4 and 0.0 HIV-infected women/10,000 pregnancies, respectively). Targeting fertile days was more effective than preexposure prophylaxis (0.9 vs 1.8) and associated with lowest costs. Preexposure prophylaxis limited to fertile days was more effective than targeting fertile days (0.3 vs 0.9) with a cost-effectiveness ratio of €1,130,000/life year saved; MAP cost-effectiveness ratio when compared with preexposure prophylaxis limited to fertile days was €3,600,000/life year saved. Results were robust to multiple sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: Targeting fertile days is associated with a low risk of HIV transmission in fertile HIV-uninfected female/male with controlled HIV-1 infection couples. The risk is lower with preexposure prophylaxis limited to fertile days, or MAP, but these strategies are associated with unfavorable cost-effectiveness ratios under their current costs.

Health-related quality of life and cost comparison of adjuvant capecitabine versus 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin in stage III colorectal cancer patients.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and costs associated with 2 adjuvant chemotherapy regimens [capecitabine-based therapy versus 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin (5-FU/LV)-based therapy] in stage III colorectal cancer patients. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, open-label, observational, multicenter study from July 2008 to July 2011. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 and QLQ-CR38 questionnaires was used to assess HRQoL before, during, and after treatment. The direct and indirect costs of adjuvant treatment were estimated from a specially prepared questionnaire, the National Health Insurance Research Database, and other published sources. We used propensity scoring to match samples between groups and performed multivariate analyses to adjust for differences in patient demographics and clinical characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 497 patients were enrolled, and 356 completed the surveys. Following propensity score matching, 239 patients were included in the analysis (122 in the capecitabine-based group, 117 in the 5-FU/LV-based group). Global HRQoL scores did not differ significantly between the two groups. However, compared to patients in the 5-FU/LV-based group, patients in the capecitabine-based group had less nausea and vomiting (mid-term, P = 0.024; final, P = 0.013), appetite loss (mid-term, P < 0.0001; final, P = 0.001), and fewer side effects from chemotherapy (mid-term, P = 0.017). In addition, the monthly cost of capecitabine-based therapy was lower than those of 5-FU/LV-based therapy [NT$31,895.46 (US$1063.18) vs. NT$79,159.24 (US$2638.64) per patient]. CONCLUSIONS: Capecitabine is a reasonable alternative and cost-effective treatment option under current conditions for patients with stage III colorectal cancer.

Investigation of adverse-event-related costs for patients with metastatic breast cancer in a real-world setting.

BACKGROUND: Existing treatments for metastatic breast cancer (mBC) are often effective but can cause adverse events (AEs). This study aimed to identify AEs associated with chemotherapies commonly used in mBC treatment (phase 1) and to quantify the economic impact of these AEs (phase 2). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients in phase 1 had at least one claim for therapy for mBC, with at least one episode with single or multiple agents. The most common chemotherapy-related complications were identified using medical and pharmacy claims data. In phase 2, patients meeting study criteria were divided into four treatment cohorts by the line of treatment and chemotherapy received: first-line taxane-treated patients, second-line taxane-treated patients, first-line capecitabine-treated patients, and second-line capecitabine-treated patients. Average monthly AE-related health care costs per cohort were stratified by cost component. Total monthly costs per number of AEs were also calculated. RESULTS: On average, patients in phase 1 (n = 1,551) had 2 episodes of treatment, with a mean duration of 131 days. The most frequently noted complications were anemia (50.7% of mBC treatment episodes), bilirubin elevation (26.4%), and leukopenia (24.8%). In phase 2, costs related to AEs were primarily driven by incremental inpatient, outpatient, and pharmacy costs. Increases in average monthly costs ranged from $854 (9.0%) to $5,320 (69.5%), according to cohort. Overall costs increased with increasing numbers of AEs. CONCLUSION: Chemotherapy-related AEs in patients with mBC are associated with a substantial economic burden that increases with the number of AEs reported.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of adjuvant chemotherapies in patients presenting with gastric cancer after D2 gastrectomy.

BACKGROUND: To analyze and compare the economic outcomes of adjuvant chemotherapy with capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (referred to as the XELOX strategy) and of S-1 (the S-1 strategy) for gastric cancer patients after D2 gastrectomy. METHODS: A Markov model was developed to simulate the lifetime disease course associated with stage II or III gastric cancer after D2 gastrectomy. The lifetime quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), associated costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated. The clinical data were derived from the results of pilot studies. Direct costs were estimated from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system, and the utility data were measured from end-point observations of Chinese patients. Sensitivity analyses were used to explore the impact of uncertainty on the model's outcomes. RESULTS: The combined adjuvant chemotherapy strategy with XELOX yielded the greatest increase in QALYs over the course of the disease (8.1 QALYs compared with 7.8 QALYs for the S-1 strategy and 6.2 for surgery alone). The incremental cost per QALY gained using the XELOX strategy was significantly lower than that for the S-1 strategy ($3,502 vs. $6,837, respectively). The results were sensitive to the costs of oxaliplatin and the hazard ratio of relapse-free survival. CONCLUSION: The observations reported herein suggest that adjuvant therapy with capecitabine plus oxaliplatin is a highly cost-effective strategy and more favorable treatment option than the S-1 strategy in patients with stage II or III gastric cancer who have undergone D2 gastrectomy.

Cost-utility analysis of maintenance therapy with gemcitabine or erlotinib vs observation with predefined second-line treatment after cisplatin-gemcitabine induction chemotherapy for advanced NSCLC: IFCT-GFPC 0502-Eco phase III study.

BACKGROUND: The IFCT-GFPC 0502 phase III study reported prolongation of progression-free survival with gemcitabine or erlotinib maintenance vs. observation after cisplatin-gemcitabine induction chemotherapy for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This analysis was undertaken to assess the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of these strategies for the global population and pre-specified subgroups. METHODS: A cost-utility analysis evaluated the ICER of gemcitabine or erlotinib maintenance therapy vs. observation, from randomization until the end of follow-up. Direct medical costs (including drugs, hospitalization, follow-up examinations, second-line treatments and palliative care) were prospectively collected per patient during the trial, until death, from the primary health-insurance provider's perspective. Utility data were extracted from literature. Sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: The ICERs for gemcitabine or erlotinib maintenance therapy were respectively 76,625 and 184,733 euros per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Gemcitabine continuation maintenance therapy had a favourable ICER in patients with PS = 0 (52,213 €/QALY), in responders to induction chemotherapy (64,296 €/QALY), regardless of histology (adenocarcinoma, 62,292 €/QALY, non adenocarcinoma, 83,291 €/QALY). Erlotinib maintenance showed a favourable ICER in patients with PS = 0 (94,908 €/QALY), in patients with adenocarcinoma (97,160 €/QALY) and in patient with objective response to induction (101,186 €/QALY), but it is not cost-effective in patients with PS =1, in patients with non-adenocarcinoma or with stable disease after induction chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: Gemcitabine- or erlotinib-maintenance therapy had ICERs that varied as a function of histology, PS and response to first-line chemotherapy.

Pre-exposure prophylaxis accessibility research and evaluation (PrEPARE Study).

Tenofovir-emtricitabine (TDF-FTC) has demonstrated effectiveness as HIV preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP), but it is not commonly prescribed. Our study was designed to determine the barriers preventing utilization of PrEP among men who have sex with men (MSM), the group at greatest risk for HIV infection in the United States. A population-based sample of MSM presenting for HIV testing at 'Early Test' HIV testing and counseling sites in San Diego, California were offered PrEP and education about potential efficacy. Eligible individuals reported having unprotected sex within the past 12 months and who tested negative for HIV were offered study participation. Despite offering procedures for evaluation and prescription for PrEP to 416 eligible subjects, less than 0.5 % of participants received the drug. Surveys collected from 54 of those who declined study participation revealed multiple barriers to PrEP among MSM including cost, low perceived risk of infection and concerns about taking a daily medication and potential long-term side effects. Efforts should be made to address these barriers, especially lowering the cost of TDF-FTC, education about PrEP side effects and awareness of HIV risks.

Systemic preexposure prophylaxis for HIV: translating clinical data to clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the real-world implications of oral tenofovir-emtricitabine (TDF-FTC) for HIV preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) in clinical practice and highlight important considerations for its implementation. DATA SOURCES: A search of PubMed (January 1996 through June 2013) was conducted using the terms HIV preexposure prophylaxis, HIV prevention, tenofovir, and emtricitabine. Abstracts from 2012-2013 HIV/AIDS conferences were also reviewed. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: All pertinent original studies and review articles published in English were evaluated for inclusion. Reference citations from identified articles were examined for additional content. DATA SYNTHESIS: Although antiretroviral therapy has been highly successful in reducing AIDS outcomes and death in HIV-infected patients worldwide, transmission of HIV remains a major global health problem. The recent approval of oral TDF-FTC for HIV PrEP represents the latest biomedical intervention to help control this epidemic. Four published randomized studies evaluated the efficacy and safety of this combination to prevent HIV transmission in several at-risk populations, including men who have sex with men, serodiscordant couples, and heterosexuals residing in endemic regions. Overall, these studies demonstrated significant risk reductions in the incidence of new HIV infections with good short-term tolerability. Despite promising results from clinical studies, several limitations may hinder the utility of PrEP in clinical practice. Most importantly, PrEP was studied in the context of a comprehensive prevention program, including intensive counseling on adherence, high-risk behaviors, and traditional preventative measures. If PrEP is implemented without these adjunct measures, concerns about failure and increased resistance may eventually be realized. CONCLUSION: The greatest impact of PrEP, both clinically and financially, will likely arise from judicious application in select high-risk populations. If used appropriately, PrEP has the potential to augment reductions in the current incidence of new HIV infections, and pharmacists will have an important role in the careful selection and counseling of these targeted populations.

Economic savings versus health losses: the cost-effectiveness of generic antiretroviral therapy in the United States.

BACKGROUND: U.S. HIV treatment guidelines recommend branded once-daily, 1-pill efavirenz-emtricitabine-tenofovir as first-line antiretroviral therapy (ART). With the anticipated approval of generic efavirenz in the United States, a once-daily, 3-pill alternative (generic efavirenz, generic lamivudine, and tenofovir) will decrease cost but may reduce adherence and virologic suppression. OBJECTIVE: To assess the clinical effect, costs, and cost-effectiveness of a 3-pill, generic-based regimen compared with a branded, coformulated regimen and to project the potential national savings in the first year of a switch to generic-based ART. DESIGN: Mathematical simulation of HIV disease. SETTING: United States. PATIENTS: HIV-infected persons. INTERVENTION: No ART (for comparison); 3-pill, generic-based ART; and branded ART. MEASUREMENTS: Quality-adjusted life expectancy, costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in dollars per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). RESULTS: Compared with no ART, generic-based ART has an ICER of $21,100/QALY. Compared with generic-based ART, branded ART increases lifetime costs by $42,500 and per-person survival gains by 0.37 QALYs for an ICER of $114,800/QALY. Estimated first-year savings, if all eligible U.S. patients start or switch to generic-based ART, are $920 million. Most plausible assumptions about generic-based ART efficacy and costs lead to branded ART ICERs greater than $100,000/QALY. LIMITATION: The efficacy and price reduction associated with generic drugs are unknown, and estimates are intended to be conservative. CONCLUSION: Compared with a slightly less effective generic-based regimen, the cost-effectiveness of first-line branded ART exceeds $100,000/QALY. Generic-based ART in the United States could yield substantial budgetary savings to HIV programs. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Toripalimab plus chemotherapy in American patients with recurrent or metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma: A cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Toripalimab, combined with gemcitabine and cisplatin, has been approved as the first-line treatment for recurrent or metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma (RM-NPC), representing a significant milestone as the first FDA-approved innovative therapy for this condition. Despite this achievement, there's a lack of data on the cost-effectiveness of toripalimab for RM-NPC patients in the American context. METHODS: To assess the cost-effectiveness of toripalimab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone, a 3-state partitioned survival model was constructed. The study involved participants with characteristics matching those in the JUPITER-02 trial. Cost and utility inputs were collected from literature. Main outcomes measured were quality-adjusted life year (QALY), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses, subgroup analyses, and scenario analyses were conducted to verify the robustness of results. RESULTS: The study found that the toripalimab regimen resulted in 4.390 QALYs at a cost of $361,813, while the chemotherapy-only regimen yielded 1.685 QALYs at a cost of $161,632. This translates to an ICER of $74,004/QALY, below the willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000/QALY. Sensitivity analyses indicated that utility values, discount rate, and the price of toripalimab significantly impact INMB. With an 87.10% probability of being cost-effective at a $150,000/QALY threshold, the probabilistic sensitivity analysis supports toripalimab plus chemotherapy as a viable option. Scenario analysis showed that toripalimab remains cost-effective unless its price increases by 125%. Additionally, a simulated 15-year study period increases the ICER to $88,026/QALY. Subgroup analysis revealed ICERs of $76,538/QALY for PD-L1 positive and $70,158/QALY for PD-L1 negative groups. CONCLUSIONS: Toripalimab in combination with chemotherapy is likely to be a cost-effective alternative to standard chemotherapy for American patients with RM-NPC. This evidence can guide clinical and reimbursement decision-making in treating RM-NPC patients.

Cost-effectiveness of nivolumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin as first-line treatment for advanced urothelial carcinoma in China and the United States.

Objective: Nivolumab, recently proven in a phase 3 clinical trial (CheckMate 901) to enhance survival when combined with gemcitabine-cisplatin for advanced urothelial carcinoma. This study aimed to assess its cost-effectiveness against gemcitabine-cisplatin alone, from US and Chinese payers' perspectives. Methods: A partitioned survival model was established to assess the life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), lifetime costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of nivolumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin versus gemcitabine-cisplatin alone as first-line treatment for advanced urothelial carcinoma. Univariate, two-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the model's robustness. Additionally, subgroup analyses were performed. Results: Nivolumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin and gemcitabine-cisplatin achieved survival benefits of 4.238 life-years and 2.979 life-years for patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma, respectively. Compared with gemcitabine-cisplatin, nivolumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin resulted in ICERs of $116,856/QALY in the US and $51,997/QALY in China. The probabilities of achieving cost-effectiveness at the current willingness-to-pay thresholds were 77.5% in the US and 16.5% in China. Cost-effectiveness could be reached if the price of nivolumab were reduced to $920.87/100mg in China. Subgroup analyses indicated that the combination had the highest probability of cost-effectiveness in patients under 65 or with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance-status score of 0 in the US and China. Conclusion: Nivolumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin first-line treatment for advanced urothelial carcinoma results in longer life expectancy than gemcitabine-cisplatin, but is not cost-effective in China at current price. However, cost-effectiveness is likely to be achieved in most patient subgroups in the US.

Comparative Cost-Effectiveness of Gemcitabine and Cisplatin in Combination with S-1, Durvalumab, or Pembrolizumab as First-Line Triple Treatment for Advanced Biliary Tract Cancer.

PURPOSE: The clinical effectiveness of triple chemotherapy consisting of gemcitabine, cisplatin plus either S-1 (GCS), durvalumab (DGC), or pembrolizumab (PGC) as first-line treatment for advanced biliary tract cancer (BTC) has been reported. However, their comparative cost-effectiveness is unclear. We conducted a model-based cost-effectiveness analysis from the perspective of Japanese healthcare payer. METHODS: A 10-year partitioned survival model was constructed by comparing the time-dependent hazards of the KHBO1401-MITSUBA, TOPAZ-1, and KEYNOTE-966 trials. The cost and utility came from previously published reports. Quality-adjusted life years (QALY) were used to measure the effects on health. Costs for direct medical care were taken into account. There was a one-way analysis and a probability sensitivity analysis. A willingness-to-pay threshold of 7.5 million yen (57,034 USD) per QALY was defined. RESULTS: The incremental costs per QALY for GCS, DGC, and PGC in the base case study were 3,779,374 JPY (28,740 USD), 86,058,056 JPY (65,4434 USD), and 28,982,059 JPY (220,396 USD), respectively. No parameter had an influence beyond the threshold in a one-way sensitivity analysis. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed that the probability of GCS, DGC, and PGC being cost-effective at the threshold was 85.6%, 0%, and 0%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Given the current circumstances, it is probable that triple therapy utilizing GCS will emerge as a plausible and efficient primary chemotherapy strategy for patients with advanced BTC in the Japanese healthcare system, as opposed to DGC and PGC.

Budget impact analysis of the novel PD-1 inhibitor toripalimab versus pembrolizumab in recurrent or metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma.

AIM: To estimate the budget impact of adding a toripalimab regimen as a treatment option to the existing pembrolizumab regimen, both including gemcitabine and cisplatin, in untreated recurrent/metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma (R/M NPC) using the published wholesale acquisition cost (WAC) and average sales price (ASP). METHODS: Budget impact analysis comparing a treatment mix "without" versus "with" the toripalimab regimen in the US eligible annual incident R/M NPC population, a 3-year time horizon, toripalimab/pembrolizumab market splits of 60/40 (Y1) and 80/20 (Y2/3), and medication adjustments for discontinuation or progression. Cost inputs included drugs, administration, and adverse event (AE) management. The models were replicated for a hypothetical 1-million-member health plan in which costs per-member-per-month (PMPM) and per-member-per-year (PMPY) were estimated. One-way (OWSA) and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) as well as scenario analyses were performed. RESULTS: In the "without" scenario, the 3-year WAC-based costs for the pembrolizumab regimen total $1,449,695,333 ($1,305,632,448 for treatment and $144,062,885 for managing AEs). In the "with" scenario, total 3-year costs for pembrolizumab decline to $380,012,135 with toripalimab adding $885,505,900 ($779,206,567 for treatment and $106,299,333 for AE management). Annual net savings range from $46,526,152 in 2024 to $71,194,214 in 2026, for 3-year savings of $184,177,298. Associated net savings in a 1-million-member health plan are $543,068 over 3 years with savings of $0.045 PMPM and $0.543 PMPY. The ASP-based model shows similar patterns with 3-year net savings of $174,235,983 in the US incident population and savings of $0.043 PMPM and $0.514 PMPY in a 1-million-member health plan. The PSA support base case findings; OWSA and scenario analyses reveal how parameter variability impacts results. CONCLUSION: Savings between $174 million and $184 million can be achieved from treating 60% of R/M NPC patients in year 1 and 80% in years 2 and 3 with the toripalimab regimen over a similar pembrolizumab regimen.

Toripalimab, a human monoclonal anti-body that targets PD-1, was recently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the first-line treatment of adults with metastatic or recurrent, locally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC), in combination with gemcitabine and cisplatin. We evaluated how much it would cost a payor to cover the FDA-approved toripalimab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin regimen (the toripalimab regimen) to a non-FDA-approved pembrolizumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin regimen (the pembrolizumab regimen). With no trial data available for such pembrolizumab regimen, we assumed that it would be comparable to the toripalimab regimen in efficacy and safety. Our model adopted a 3-year time horizon and assumed a 60/40 market share split in year 1 and an 80/20 market split in years 2 and 3. It included two US cost inputs: the wholesale acquisition cost (WAC) or "list price" at market entry and, as no average sales price (ASP) will be available for toripalimab for several quarters, a toripalimab price point of 80% of the pembrolizumab ASP. We adjusted for patients whose cancer progressed or who discontinued treatment to determine the number of fully-treated-patient-equivalents. We found that treating 60% of NPC patients in year 1 and 80% in years 2 and 3 with the toripalimab regimen instead of the pembrolizumab regimen generates, for the entire adjusted patient population, savings ranging from $174 million when using ASP to $184 million when using WAC.

Cost comparison and economic implications of commonly used originator and generic chemotherapy drugs in India.

Cancer treatments have improved outcomes but access to medications is an issue around the world and especially so in low- and middle-income countries, such as India. Generic substitution may lead to significant cost savings. The author aimed to compare the cost and estimate potential cost savings per cycle, per patient, and for the country as a whole with generic substitution of frequently used chemotherapy drugs in the treatment of common cancers in India. Generic paclitaxel (Taxol), docetaxel (Taxotere), gemcitabine, oxaliplatin and irinotecan cost from 8.9% to 36% of their equivalent branded originator drug, resulting in cost savings of ~ Indian Rupees (INR) 11,000 to >INR 90,000 (USD 200-1600, Euro 160-1300) per cycle; and ~INR 50,000 to >INR 240,000 (USD 900-4300, Euro 700-3400) per patient. Overall, potential yearly savings for health systems in India were nearly INR 47 billion (~USD 843 million, Euro 670 million). In conclusion, generic substitution for frequently used chemotherapy drugs in the treatment of common cancers has an enormous potential to generate significant cost savings and increase access to cancer treatments in India and other low- and middle-income countries.