Osimertinib in Patients With Treatment-Naive EGFR-Mutant Non-small Cell Lung Cancer: Overall Survival, Post-progression Management and Budget Impact Analysis in Real-World.

INTRODUCTION: The observational multicenter prospective FLOWER study (NCT04965701) confirmed effectiveness and safety of osimertinib in the real-world (RW) management of untreated EGFR-mutant advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) patients. METHODS: Herein, we report updated survival data, post-progression management, cost/effectiveness and budget impact (BI) of osimertinib compared with a RW population receiving gefitinib or erlotinib. RESULTS: Overall, 189 Caucasian patients receiving first-line osimertinib were included. After a follow-up of 20.7 months, 74(39.2%) patients discontinued osimertinib, median time-to-treatment discontinuation (mTTD) was 27.9 months, overall survival 36.8 months. At progression, tissue biopsy was performed in 29 (56.9%), liquid biopsy in 15 (29.4%) and both in 7 (13.7%) cases. The most frequent resistant mechanism was MET amplification (N = 14, 29.8%). At data cutoff, 13 (6.9%) patients were continuing osimertinib beyond progression; 52 (67.5%) received second-line treatment; no further treatments were administered in 25 (32.5%) cases. Thirty-three (63.4%) patients received chemotherapy, 12(23.1%) TKIs combination. Cost-effectiveness analysis showed a total cost per patient based on RW mTTD of 98,957.34€, 21,726.28€ and 19,637.83€ for osimertinib, erlotinib and gefitinib, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER)/month for osimertinib was 359,806.0€/life-year-gained (LYG) and 197,789.77€/LYG compared to erlotinib and gefitinib. For osimertinib, the BI-gap between RW-TTD and theoretical-TTD was 16,501.0€ per patient. CONCLUSIONS: This updated analysis confirms the effectiveness of osimertinib in RW. Although the ICER of osimertinib seems not cost-effective, additional costs for the management of disease progression to old generation TKIs were not considered in this study. The BI-gap suggests RW mTTD as a more reliable measure for expense estimation.

A comparison of clinical efficacy and economic value in Basalin- and Lantus-treated patients with type 2 diabetes using continuous glucose monitoring system.

AIM: To determine the clinical non-inferiority of recombinant glargine-Basalin vs glargine-Lantus, in treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) using continuous glucose monitoring system (CGMS). METHODS: One hundred patients with T2DM were recruited. They were either regularly taking Basalin (Basalin group) or Lantus (Lantus group) (n = 50 each). CGMS was employed to real-time monitor blood glucose profile for 4 days (from day 1 to day 5). To exclude the effect of patient background, the study design was to have a blinded crossover from glargine-Basalin to glargine-Lantus on day 3, and vice versa. 24-hour mean blood glucose (24hMBG), 24-hour standard deviation of blood glucose (24hSDBG), 24-hour mean amplitude of glycemic excursion (24hMAGE), and number of glycemic excursion (NGE) every 24 h (24hNGE) were calculated for each glargine from 100 patients. RESULTS: No significant difference of 24hMBG, 24hSDBG, 24hMAGE, and 24hNGE (p > 0.05 for all) was found between Basalin and Lantus treatments. The glucose area under the curve and time when blood glucose was below 3.9 mmol/L, between 3.9 and 10.0 mmol/L, or above 10.0 mmol/L were similar between Basalin and Lantus treatment. The frequency of hypoglycemic episodes was also similar. However, the mean cost of Basalin was only 72% of Lantus's in one treatment course. CONCLUSION: Glargine-Basalin is non-inferior in clinical efficacy compared to glargine-Lantus. In view of the large difference in the cost of glargine-Basalin, it would be much more cost-effective for our patients.

18F PET with flutemetamol for the early diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease dementia and other dementias in people with mild cognitive impairment (MCI).

BACKGROUND: 18F-flutemetamol uptake by brain tissue, measured by positron emission tomography (PET), is accepted by regulatory agencies like the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicine Agencies (EMA) for assessing amyloid load in people with dementia. Its added value is mainly demonstrated by excluding Alzheimer's pathology in an established dementia diagnosis. However, the National Institute on Aging and Alzheimer's Association (NIA-AA) revised the diagnostic criteria for Alzheimer's disease and the confidence in the diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) due to Alzheimer's disease may be increased when using some amyloid biomarkers tests like 18F-flutemetamol. These tests, added to the MCI core clinical criteria, might increase the diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) of a testing strategy. However, the DTA of 18F-flutemetamol to predict the progression from MCI to Alzheimer's disease dementia (ADD) or other dementias has not yet been systematically evaluated. OBJECTIVES: To determine the DTA of the 18F-flutemetamol PET scan for detecting people with MCI at time of performing the test who will clinically progress to ADD, other forms of dementia (non-ADD) or any form of dementia at follow-up. SEARCH METHODS: The most recent search for this review was performed in May 2017. We searched MEDLINE (OvidSP), Embase (OvidSP), PsycINFO (OvidSP), BIOSIS Citation Index (Thomson Reuters Web of Science), Web of Science Core Collection, including the Science Citation Index (Thomson Reuters Web of Science) and the Conference Proceedings Citation Index (Thomson Reuters Web of Science), LILACS (BIREME), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), ClinicalTrials.gov (https://clinicaltrials.gov), and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) (http://www.who.int/ictrp/search/en/). We also searched ALOIS, the Cochrane Dementia & Cognitive Improvement Group's specialised register of dementia studies (http://www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/alois/). We checked the reference lists of any relevant studies and systematic reviews, and performed citation tracking using the Science Citation Index to identify any additional relevant studies. No language or date restrictions were applied to the electronic searches. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies that had prospectively defined cohorts with any accepted definition of MCI at time of performing the test and the use of 18F-flutemetamol scan to evaluate the DTA of the progression from MCI to ADD or other forms of dementia. In addition, we only selected studies that applied a reference standard for Alzheimer's dementia diagnosis, for example, National Institute of Neurological and Communicative Disorders and Stroke and the Alzheimer's Disease and Related Disorders Association (NINCDS-ADRDA) or Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-IV (DSM-IV) criteria. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We screened all titles and abstracts identified in electronic-database searches. Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion and extracted data to create two-by-two tables, showing the binary test results cross-classified with the binary reference standard. We used these data to calculate sensitivities, specificities, and their 95% confidence intervals. Two independent assessors performed quality assessment using the QUADAS-2 tool plus some additional items to assess the methodological quality of the included studies. MAIN RESULTS: Progression from MCI to ADD was evaluated in 243 participants from two studies. The studies reported data on 19 participants with two years of follow-up and on 224 participants with three years of follow-up. Nine (47.4%) participants converted at two years follow-up and 81 (36.2%) converted at three years of follow-up.There were concerns about participant selection and sampling in both studies. The index test domain in one study was considered unclear and in the second study it was considered at low risk of bias. For the reference standard domain, one study was considered at low risk and the second study was considered to have an unclear risk of bias. Regarding the domains of flow and timing, both studies were considered at high risk of bias. MCI to ADD;Progression from MCI to ADD at two years of follow-up had a sensitivity of 89% (95% CI 52 to 100) and a specificity of 80% (95% CI 44 to 97) by quantitative assessment by SUVR (n = 19, 1 study).Progression from MCI to ADD at three years of follow-up had a sensitivity of 64% (95% CI 53 to 75) and a specificity of 69% (95% CI 60 to 76) by visual assessment (n = 224, 1 study).There was no information regarding the other two objectives in this systematic review (SR): progression from MCI to other forms of dementia and progression to any form of dementia at follow-up. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Due to the varying sensitivity and specificity for predicting the progression from MCI to ADD and the limited data available, we cannot recommend routine use of 18F-flutemetamol in clinical practice. 18F-flutemetamol has high financial costs; therefore, clearly demonstrating its DTA and standardising the process of the 18F-flutemetamol modality is important prior to its wider use.

Cost-Effectiveness of Florbetapir-PET in Alzheimer's Disease: A Spanish Societal Perspective.

BACKGROUND: The rising prevalence of Alzheimer's disease (AD), and other diseases associated with dementia, imposes significant burden to various stakeholders who care for the elderly. Management of AD is complicated by multiple factors including disease-specific features which make it difficult to diagnose accurately during milder stages. Florbetapir F18 positron emission tomography (florbetapir-PET) is an approved imaging tool used to capture beta-amyloid neuritic plaque density in brains of cognitively impaired adults undergoing evaluation for AD and other causes of cognitive impairment. It has the potential to help improve healthcare outcomes as it may help clinicians identify patients with AD early so that treatments are initiated when most effective. AIMS OF THE STUDY: Evaluate the potential long-term clinical and economic outcomes of adopting florbetapir-PET--adjunctive to standard clinical evaluation (SCE)--versus SCE alone in the diagnostic assessment of cognitively impaired patients with suspected AD. METHODS: A decision analysis with a ten-year time horizon was developed in compliance with Good Research Practices and CHEERS guidelines. The target population was comprised of Spanish patients who were undergoing initial assessment for cognitive impairment (Mini-Mental State Examination [MMSE] score=20). Diagnostic accuracy, rate of cognitive decline, effect of drugs on cognition and dwelling status, economic burden (direct and indirect costs), and quality of life (QoL) were based on relevant clinical studies and published literature. Scenario analysis was applied to explore outcomes under different conditions, which included: (i) use of florbetapir-PET earlier in disease progression (MMSE score=22); and (ii) the addition of fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)-PET to SCE. RESULTS: Adjunctive florbetapir-PET increased quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) by 0.008 years and increased costs by 36 compared to SCE alone (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER], 4,769). Use of florbetapir-PET was dominant in alternate scenarios. Sensitivity analyses indicated rates of institutionalization (by MMSE) and MMSE score upon initiation of acetylcholinesterase inhibitor (AChEI) treatment most influenced the primary outcome (ICER) in the base case scenario. Over 82% of probabilistic simulations were cost-effective using the Spanish threshold (30,000/QALY). DISCUSSION: The addition of florbetapir-PET to SCE is expected to improve the accuracy of AD diagnoses for patients experiencing cognitive impairment; it is cost-effective due to decreased healthcare costs and caregiver burden. Prospective studies of the clinical utility of florbetapir-PET are necessary to evaluate the long-term implications of adopting florbetapir-PET on clinical outcomes and costs in real-world settings. IMPLICATIONS FOR HEALTH CARE PROVISION AND USE: Florbetapir-PET is expected to improve decision-making regarding appropriate and sufficient care for cognitively impaired patients with suspected AD, while cost-effective. IMPLICATIONS FOR HEALTH POLICIES: Earlier and more accurate diagnosis of AD may help to improve patient's health status and reduce treatment costs by effectively allocating healthcare resources and maximizing the benefit of treatments and supportive services. IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH: Use of florbetapir-PET may help accurately identify patients with AD. The development of novel therapeutics for use with companion diagnostics may provide additional benefits by slowing or halting progressive cognitive decline with AD, increase QoL and prolong survival.

Asciminib for third-line treatment of chronic myeloid leukemia: Cost-effectiveness analysis based on treatment-free remission approach.

INTRODUCTION: The first targeted therapy in oncology, imatinib, revolutionized chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) treatment and spurred research in targeted therapies for various cancers. CML results from a chromosomal translocation, forming the BCR-ABL1 fusion gene. Asciminib has been recently approved for third-line refractory or intolerant patients. Treatment-free remission (TFR) is attainable with sustained deep molecular response (DMR) and this approach could be incorporated into pharmacoeconomic models. AIMS: To establish a cost-effectiveness model comparing asciminib to approved third-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) (bosutinib and ponatinib) with a focus on achieving TFR. Additionally, the budgetary impact of incorporating asciminib as a therapeutic alternative is assessed. METHODS: This model is based on a Markov chain with 7 states. The condition for achieving TFR is to remain for 5 years in DMR state. Efficacy of the model was measured in QALYs, and the costs included in the base case analysis are based in Spain. A probabilistic (PSA) and deterministic analysis (DSA) were carried out to assess the variability of the model. There were achieved 2 independent models comparing asciminib vs bosutinib and asciminib vs ponatinib. RESULTS: Asciminib, when compared with ponatinib, is a cost-saving alternative, as efficacy is similar between alternatives, and asciminib have a lower cost of 30,275€. Asciminib showed 4.33 more QALYs and a higher cost (203,591€) than bosutinib, resulting in an ICER of €47,010.49 per QALY. PSA shows that the parameters with higher influence in the variability of the model were the probability of transitioning to BP and probabilities of achieving MMR and DMR. A one-way analysis reports that the drug cost has a higher influence on both models, and the discount rate significantly affects the asciminib vs bosutinib model. CONCLUSION: Asciminib broadens therapeutic choices for patient's refractory or intolerant to 2 prior lines of treatment in a cost-effectiveness manner. The costs of drugs significantly impact the overall cost of the disease, emphasizing the importance of the selected discount rates for each drug. Given the relatively low incidence of CML, the introduction of asciminib has a limited budgetary impact, warranting individualized decisions based on patient`s clinical characteristics.

Asciminib for third-line treatment of chronic myeloid leukemia: Cost-effectiveness analysis based on treatment-free remission approach. / [Artículo traducido] Asciminib para el tratamiento de la leucemia mieloide crónica en tercera línea: análisis coste-efectividad basado en el enfoque de remisión libre de tratamiento.

INTRODUCTION: The first targeted therapy in oncology, imatinib, revolutionized chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) treatment and spurred research in targeted therapies for various cancers. CML results from a chromosomal translocation, forming the BCR-ABL1 fusion gene. Asciminib has been recently approved for 3rd-line refractory or intolerant patients. Treatment-free remission (TFR) is attainable with sustained deep molecular response (DMR) and this approach could be incorporated into pharmacoeconomic models. AIMS: To establish a cost-effectiveness model comparing asciminib to approved third-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) (bosutinib and ponatinib) with a focus on achieving TFR. Additionally, the budgetary impact of incorporating asciminib as a therapeutic alternative is assessed. METHODS: This model is based on a Markov chain with seven states. The condition for achieving TFR is to remain for 5 years in DMR state. Efficacy of the model was measured in QALYs, and the costs included in the base case analysis are based in Spain. A probabilistic (PSA) and deterministic analysis (DSA) were carried out to assess the variability of the model. There were achieved two independent models comparing asciminib vs. bosutinib and asciminib vs. ponatinib. RESULTS: Asciminib, when compared with ponatinib, is a cost-saving alternative, as efficacy is similar between alternatives, and asciminib has a lower cost of 30,275 €. Asciminib showed 4.33 more QALYs and a higher cost (203,591 €) than bosutinib, resulting in an ICER of €47,010.49 per QALY. PSA shows that the parameters with higher influence in the variability of the model were the probability of transitioning to BP and probabilities of achieving MMR and DMR. A one-way analysis reports that the drug cost has a higher influence on both models, and the discount rate significantly affects the asciminib vs. bosutinib model. CONCLUSION: Asciminib broadens therapeutic choices for patient's refractory or intolerant to two prior lines of treatment in a cost-effective manner. The costs of drugs significantly impact the overall cost of the disease, emphasizing the importance of the selected discount rates for each drug. Given the relatively low incidence of CML, the introduction of asciminib has a limited budgetary impact, warranting individualized decisions based on patient`s clinical characteristics.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of osimertinib plus chemotherapy for patients with EGFR-mutated advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: First-line osimertinib plus chemotherapy significantly prolonged progression-free survival of patients with EGFR-mutated advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) compared to osimertinib, according to the FLAURA2 trial. METHODS: We established a Markov model to compare the cost-effectiveness of osimertinib plus chemotherapy with that of osimertinib alone. Clinical data were obtained from the FLAURA and FLAURA2 trials, and additional data were extracted from online resources and publications. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate the robustness of the findings. We used A willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained. The main outcomes were QALYs, overall costs, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), incremental net monetary benefit, and incremental net health benefit. Subgroup analyses were conducted according to patients' mutation type and central nervous system (CNS) metastatic status. RESULTS: In a 20-year time horizon, the ICER of osimertinib plus chemotherapy versus osimertinib alone was $223,727.1 per QALY gained. The sensitivity analyses identified the cost of osimertinib and the hazard ratio for overall survival as the top 2 influential factors and a 1.9% probability of osimertinib plus chemotherapy to be cost-effective. The subgroup analyses revealed ICERs of $132,614.1, $224,449.8, $201,464.1, and $130,159.7 per QALY gained for L858R mutations, exon 19 deletions, CNS metastases, and no CNS metastases subgroups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: From the perspective of the United States health care system, osimertinib plus chemotherapy is not cost-effective compared to osimertinib alone for treatment-naïve patients with EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC, but more favorable cost-effectiveness occurs in patients with L858R mutations and patients without baseline CNS metastases.

Cost-effectiveness of gilteritinib for relapsed/refractory FLT3mut+ acute myeloid leukemia.

BACKGROUND: Patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and confirmed feline McDonough sarcoma (FMS)-like tyrosine kinase 3 gene mutations (FLT3mut+) have a poor prognosis and limited effective treatment options. Gilteritinib is the first targeted therapy approved in the United States and Europe for R/R FLT3mut+ AML with significantly improved efficacy compared with existing treatments. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate gilteritinib against salvage chemotherapy (SC) and best supportive care (BSC) over a lifetime horizon among adult patients with R/R FLT3mut+ AML from a US third-party payer's perspective. METHODS: The model structure of this cost-effectiveness analysis included a decision tree to stratify patients based on their hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) status, followed by 2 separate 3-state partitioned survival models to predict the long-term health status conditional on HSCT status. The ADMIRAL trial data and literature were used to predict probabilities of patients being in different health states until a conservative cure point at year 3. Afterwards, living patients followed the survival outcomes of long-term survivors with AML. Model inputs for utilities, medical resource use, and costs were based on the ADMIRAL trial, published literature, and public sources. All costs were inflated to 2019 US dollars (USD). Total incremental costs (in 2019 USD), life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated. Deterministic sensitivity analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Over a lifetime horizon with a 3.0% annual discount rate, the base-case model estimated that gilteritinib led to an increase of 1.29 discounted QALYs at an additional cost of $148,106 vs SC, corresponding to an ICER of $115,192 per QALY; for BSC, results were an increase of 2.32 discounted QALYs, $249,674, and $107,435, respectively. The base-case findings were robust in sensitivity analyses. The estimated probabilities of gilteritinib being cost-effective vs SC and BSC were 90.5% and 99.8%, respectively, in the probabilistic sensitivity analyses, based on a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Gilteritinib is a cost-effective novel treatment for patients with R/R FLT3mut+ AML in the United States. DISCLOSURES: This work was supported by Astellas Pharma, Inc., which was involved in all stages of the research and manuscript development. Garnham, Pandya, and Shah are employees of Astellas and hold stock/stock options. Zeidan consulted and received personal fees/honoraria and research funding from Astellas. Zeidan also has received research funding from Celgene/BMS, Abbvie, Astex, Pfizer, Medimmune/AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Trovagene/Cardiff Oncology, Incyte, Takeda, Novartis, Amgen, Aprea, and ADC Therapeutics; has participated in advisory boards; has consulted with and/or received honoraria from AbbVie, Otsuka, Pfizer, Celgene/BMS, Jazz, Incyte, Agios, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Novartis, Acceleron, Daiichi Sankyo, Taiho, Seattle Genetics, BeyondSpring, Cardiff Oncology, Takeda, Ionis, Amgen, Janssen, Syndax, Gilead, Kura, Aprea, Lox Oncology, Genentech, Servier, Jasper, Tyme, and Epizyme; has served on clinical trial committees for Novartis, Abbvie, Geron, Gilead, Kura, Lox Oncology, BioCryst, and Celgene/BMS; and has received travel support for meetings from Pfizer, Novartis, and Cardiff Oncology. Qi and Yang are employees of Analysis Group, Inc., which received consulting fees from Astellas for work on this study. Part of this material was presented at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) Annual Meeting; December 7-10, 2019; Orlando, FL.

Incremental cost-effectiveness analysis of tyrosine kinase inhibitors in advanced non-small cell lung cancer with mutations of the epidermal growth factor receptor in Colombia.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of sequences starting with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI), afatinib and osimertinib, for the treatment of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation-positive (Exon 19 deletion or L858R) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), stages IIIB - IV in Colombia. METHODS: A partitioned survival model was designed, using information from global and progression-free survival curves. For first and second-generation TKI, second line treatment was assumed according to the presence of T790M mutation to define the use of osimertinib or chemotherapy. The cost of the states without progression and post-progression was estimated using the base case approach, identified through consultation with clinical experts. RESULTS: The cost of treatment starting with afatinib in the first line was of 222,247 USD (1 USD = 3171.99 COP) and produced 1.36 QALYs. The strategy with afatinib was dominant with respect to that of first line TKI (227,289 USD and 1.34 QALY). The strategy with osimertinib resulted in more QALYs and higher costs, with ICERs of 35,062 USD, exceeding the current willingness to pay threshold for Colombia. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment starting with afatinib in the first line is dominant with respect to the strategy with first line TKI. The ICER of osimertinib sequence exceeds the threshold when compared with afatinib one.

Cost-effectiveness of osimertinib versus standard EGFR-TKI as first-line treatment for locally advanced or metastatic EGFR mutation-positive non-small cell lung cancer in Australia.

Objectives: To assess the cost-effectiveness of osimertinib versus standard epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs), gefitinib or erlotinib, as first-line treatment for patients with locally advanced or metastatic EGFR mutation-positive non-small cell lung cancer in Australia from a healthcare system perspective.Methods: A partitioned survival model comprising three mutually exclusive health states with a five-year time horizon was developed. Model inputs were sourced from the pivotal trial (FLAURA) and published literature. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), in terms of cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained and cost per life-year (LY) gained, were calculated. Uncertainty of the results was assessed using deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.Results: Compared with standard EGFR-TKIs, osimertinib was associated with a higher incremental cost of A$118,502, and an incremental benefit of 0.274 QALYs and 0.313 LYs. The ICER was estimated to be A$432,197/QALY gained and A$378,157/LY gained. The base-case ICER was most sensitive to changes in cost of first-line osimertinib, time horizon, and choice of overall survival data (interim versus final analysis).Conclusions: At a willingness-to-pay threshold of A$50,000/QALY, first-line osimertinib is not cost-effective compared with standard EGFR-TKIs in Australia based on the current published price. To achieve acceptable cost-effectiveness, the cost of first-line osimertinib needs to be reduced by at least 68.4%.

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.

Pricing methods in outcome-based contracting: integration analysis of the six dimensions (6 δs).

AIMS: Six Delta is a six-dimensional independent platform for outcome-based pricing/contracting. The six dimensions have been described separately: (δ1) cost-effectiveness analysis and cost-utility analysis-based pricing; (δ2) willingness-to-pay-based pricing; (δ3) reference-based pricing; (δ4) safety-based pricing; (δ5) risk of efficacy failure-based pricing; and (δ6) adherence-based pricing. The final step is to integrate the various dimension-specific pricing estimates into a composite estimate termed the All-Dimensional Price (ADP). We describe the methodology for this integration and present a proof-of-concept application to the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with EGFR mutation with osimertinib. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For better accuracy in estimating the ADP, we used the prices generated from the six dimensions at scenario levels, not at the dimension-specific price (DSP) level. We pooled the price estimates and performed Monte Carlo Simulations (MCS) for the price scenarios generated by the six dimensions. We used the results of the proof-of-concept exercise involving osimertinib in NSCLC with EGFR mutation to estimate the ADP in two hypothetical contracts: 1-year (2019-2020) and 2-year contract (2019-2021). RESULTS: The average of the 30-day prescription estimates from the six dimensions averaged $10,819 (SD=$8,486) for the 1-year contract and $10,730 (SD=$8,500) for the 2-year contract. MCS yielded for the 1-year contract an ADP of $10,959 (or -25.02% the 2018 WAC price) and an ADP for the 2-year contract was $10,788 (or -26.19% the 2018 WAC price). CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated that the integration of the prices from the six dimensions of the Six Delta platform and market conditions is feasible and yields multidimensional prices estimates to support outcome-based pricing/contracting.

Pricing methods in outcome-based contracting: δ3: reference-based pricing.

AIMS: Six Delta is a six-dimensional independent platform for outcome-based pricing/contracting. The third dimension (δ3) estimates prices on the basis of international drug price referencing methods. We describe this dimension's methodology and present a proof-of-concept application to the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with EGFR mutation with osimertinib. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The reference-based pricing dimension utilizes a six-step method: (1) selecting foreign countries based on a set of four criteria (drug is available in the foreign country, price information is available in the foreign country, foreign countries are members within the organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, pricing methods in the foreign countries involve value assessment); (2) adjusting for exchange rates; (3) generating reference price (RP) scenarios; (4) adjusting with the medical inflation rate; (5) pooling all generated RP scenarios and calculating average and standard deviation (SD); (6) and Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS) to estimate the dimension-specific DSPReference. A proof-of-concept exercise with osimertinib in NSCLC was performed for two hypothetical outcome-based contracts: 1-year (2019-2020) and 2-year (2019-2021). RESULTS: The United Kingdom and Canada met the four criteria. For the osimertinib 1-year contract price, the average of eight RP scenarios, adjusted for inflation by 0.44%, was $8,892 (SD = $2,606) for a 30-day prescription. MCS yielded a DSPReference estimate of $9,395 or -35.72% of the wholesale acquisition cost (WAC) of $14,616. For the 2-year contract, the average, adjusted for inflation by 0.72%, was $8,928 (SD = $2,610). MCS yielded a DSPReference estimate of $9,442 or -35.40% of the WAC of $14,616. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated that international price referencing methods can be integrated into our proposed Six Delta platform for outcome-based pricing/contracting.

Pricing methods in outcome-based contracting: δ2: willingness-to-pay-based pricing.

AIMS: Six Delta is a six-dimensional independent platform for outcome-based pricing/contracting. The second dimension (δ2) estimates prices on the basis of four willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds. We describe this dimension's methodology and present a proof-of-concept application to the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with EGFR mutation with osimertinib. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eight WTP scenarios based on four levels of real gross domestic product per capita (<1GDP/capita, 1 × GDP/capita, 3 × GDP/capita, and >3 × GDP/capita) and two market conditions (monopolistic versus competitive) were assumed. The incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) was applied to differently to both markets. In the monopolistic market, assuming no competitors, the cost/QALY ratio for a drug was used; whereas in the competitive market, assuming competitors, the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) was applied. One-way sensitivity analyses were performed and predictive equations were specified to estimate the prices of treatment for the resulting eight WTP scenarios; for which subsequently the average and standard deviation were calculated. A gamma distribution was specified and Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS) was applied to estimate the dimension-specific price based on WTP (DSPWTP). A proof-of-concept exercise with osimertinib in NSCLC was performed for two hypothetical outcome-based contracts: 1-year (2019-2020) and 2-year (2019-2021). The 2018 wholesale acquisition cost (WAC) of $14,616 (30-day prescription) was used to estimate the DSPWTP for each contract. RESULTS: The 1-year estimates averaged $4,654 (SD=$6,462) and the MCS yielded a DSPWTP of $4,547 or -68.89% of the 2018 WAC for a 30-day prescription. The 2-year estimates averaged $4,7667 (SD=$6,480) with the MCS generating a DSPWTP of $4,704 or -67.82% of the WAC. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated that WTP-based methods that include various WTP thresholds and market conditions generate price estimates across these thresholds and market conditions that can be integrated into our proposed Six Delta platform for outcome-based pricing/contracting.

Pricing methods in outcome-based contracting: δ4: safety-based pricing.

AIMS: Six Delta is a six-dimensional independent platform for outcome-based pricing/contracting. The fourth dimension (δ4) estimates prices on the basis of assessments of the safety of the drug using an ex ante analysis based on clinical trial data. We describe this dimension's methodology and present a proof-of-concept application to the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with EGFR mutation with osimertinib. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The safety-based pricing dimension utilizes a four-step method: 1) pooling adverse events (AE), standardizing, estimating 95%Cis, and adjusting for time; 2) estimating correction factors and corrected probabilities of AEs; 3) estimating the probability of at least one adverse event (AE) occurring and leading to treatment discontinuation; and 4) estimating ranges for payback percentages and performing Monte Carlo Simulation to estimate a DSPSafety. A proof-of-concept exercise with osimertinib in NSCLC was performed for two hypothetical outcome-based contracts: 1-year (2019-2020) and 2-year (2019-2021). We estimated the DSPSafety based on the grade 3/4 AEs observed for osimertinib and standard of care. The 2018 wholesale acquisition cost (WAC) of osimertinib at $14,616 for a 30-day prescription was used. RESULTS: AEs3/4 were retrieved from the FLAURA trial. In the 1-year contract, the DSPSafety of osimertinib was estimated at $14,627 (or +0.08% the 2018 WAC) for a 30-day prescription. In the 2-year contract, the DSPSafety of osimertinib was estimated at $14,516 (or -0.68% the 2018 WAC) for a 30-day prescription. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated that ex ante pricing methods-based paybacks for safety issues leading to treatment discontinuation can be integrated into our proposed Six Delta platform for outcome-based pricing/contracting.

Pricing methods in outcome-based contracting: δ5: risk of efficacy failure-based pricing.

AIMS: Six Delta is a six-dimensional independent platform for outcome-based pricing/contracting. The fifth dimension (δ5) estimates prices on the basis of the risk of efficacy failure of a drug. We describe this dimension's methodology and present a proof-of-concept application to the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with EGFR mutation with osimertinib. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The risk of efficacy failure pricing dimension utilizes a seven-step method: (1) defining risk; (2) extracting data; (3) predicting models; (4) performing Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS) to estimate risk of efficacy failure; 5) estimating ranges for a payback; (6) adjusting for medical inflation; and (7) performing Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS) to estimate the DSPRisk of efficacy failure. A proof-of-concept exercise with osimertinib in NSCLC was performed for two hypothetical outcome-based contracts: 1-year (2019-2020) and 2-year (2019-2021). We estimated the risk of efficacy failure for osimertinib in terms of overall and progression-free survival versus standard of care. We used the estimated risk to estimate the price reduction on the wholesale acquisition cost (WAC) for the two hypothetical contracts: a 1-year (2019-2020) and 2-year contract (2019-2021). From this we estimated the DSPRisk of efficacy failure. RESULTS: Based on the risk of OS and PFS efficacy failure for osimertinib in OS and PFS, in the 1-year contract, the DSPRisk of efficacy failure was estimated at $12,652 (or -13.44% the 2018 WAC) for a 30-day prescription. For the 2-year contract (2019-2021), the DSPRisk of efficacy failure was estimated at $13,019 (or -10.93% the 2018 WAC). CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated that pricing methods based on risk of efficacy failure methods can be integrated into our proposed Six Delta platform for outcome-based pricing/contracting.

Pricing methods in outcome-based contracting: δ6: adherence-based pricing.

AIMS: Six Delta is a six-dimensional independent platform for outcome-based pricing/contracting. The sixth dimension (δ6) estimates prices on the basis of adherence to the prescribed regimen, whereby manufacturers provide payers with adherence-enhancing programs and whereby payers implement these programs and provide adherence data to the manufacturer. We describe this dimension's methodology and present a proof-of-concept application to the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with EGFR mutation with osimertinib. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We propose two paybacks based on adherence: in-advance (based on clinical trial data) and in-arrear (based on real-world data). The risk of efficacy failure pricing dimension utilizes a 7-step method: 1) defining efficacy endpoints; 2) extracting data; 3) predicting models; 4) estimating in-advance and in-arrear paybacks; 5) suggesting ranges for in-advance and in-arrear paybacks; 6) adjusting for medical inflation; and 7) performing Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS) to estimate the DSPAdherence. A proof-of-concept exercise with osimertinib in NSCLC was performed for two hypothetical outcome-based contracts: 1-year (2019-2020) and 2-year (2019-2021). The 2018 wholesale acquisition cost (WAC) for a 30-day prescription was used and inflated as needed. Herein, the DSPAdherence is estimated exclusively in terms of in-advance payback because real-world data about osimertinib are not yet available and thus the in-arrear payback cannot yet be estimated. RESULTS: For the 1-year contract, the average price for osimertinib was $13,798 (SD=$1,265) and the DSPAdherence was $13,785 (or -5.69% of the 2018 WAC) for a 30-day prescription. For the 2-year contract, the average price was $12,555 (SD=$2,847) and the DSPAdherence was $12,582 (or -13.92% of the 2018 WAC). CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated that adherence-based pricing methods can be integrated into our proposed Six Delta platform for outcome-based pricing/contracting. The proof-of-concept exercise needs to be expanded with the in-arrear pricing method based on real world data to be secured.

Pricing methods in outcome-based contracting: δ1: cost effectiveness analysis and cost-utility analysis-based pricing.

AIMS: Six Delta is a six-dimensional independent platform for outcome-based pricing/contracting. The first dimension (δ1) estimates prices on the basis of cost-effectiveness (CEA) and cost-utility analysis (CUA). We describe this dimension's methodology and present a proof-of-concept application to the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with EGFR mutation with osimertinib. MATERIALS AND METHODS: CEA and CUA were performed using established methods. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were performed to generate cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEAC), specifically the PSA incremental cost-effectiveness (PSA ICER) and incremental cost-utility ratio generated CEACs (PSA ICUR). Price of treatment was estimated at three certainty levels (0%, turning point%, 100%). The marketed drug price at turning point was used to estimate prices at 0% and 100% certainty levels, as per PSA ICER and PSA ICUR-generated CEACs. The resulting prices were pooled, inflated, and simulated by Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS) methods to estimate the dimension-specific price based on CEA and CUA (DSPCEA/CUA). A proof-of-concept exercise with osimertinib in NSCLC was performed for two hypothetical outcome-based contracts: 1-year (2019-2020) and 2-years (2019-2021). RESULTS: Turning points were estimated at the 50% certainty level in both PSA ICER and ICUR-generated CEACS. At these points, the wholesale acquisition cost for osimertinib was $14,616 (30-day prescription); inflated by 0.44% for 1-year and by 0.72% for 2-year contracts. Additional prices at 0% and 100% certainty levels were quantified based on the PSA ICER and ICUR-generated CEACs. The MCS yielded a DSPCEA/CUA of $16,391 for the 1-year contract and a DSPCEA/CUA at $16,677 for the 2-year contract for a 30-day prescription. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated that conventional CEA and CUA methods generate price estimates at varying levels of certainty that can be integrated into our proposed Six Delta platform for outcome-based pricing/contracting.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of osimertinib for first-line treatment of locally advanced or metastatic EGFR mutation positive non-small cell lung cancer in Singapore.

OBJECTIVE: Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) accounts for 80-90% of all lung cancer cases and is usually associated with a poor prognosis. However, targeted therapy with first and second generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) has so far improved progression-free survival of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutant NSCLC patients. Osimertinib, a third generation EGFR TKI has recently shown improved overall survival of 6.8 months in previously untreated EGFR mutant NSCLC patients. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of osimertinib versus standard EGFR TKIs (gefitinib or erlotinib) as first-line treatment for advanced or metastatic EGFR mutant NSCLC patients in Singapore. METHODS: A partitioned survival model with three health states (progression-free, progressive disease, and death) was developed from the Singapore healthcare payer perspective. Survival curves based on the overall trial population from the FLAURA trial were extrapolated beyond trial period over a 10-year time horizon to estimate the underlying progression-free survival and overall survival parametric distributions. Health state utilities were derived from the literature and direct costs were sourced from public healthcare institutions in Singapore. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore the impact of uncertainties and assumptions on cost-effectiveness results. RESULTS: Compared with first or second generation TKI, osimertinib had a base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of SG$418,839 (US$304,277) per quality-adjusted life year gained. One-way sensitivity analysis showed the ICER was most sensitive to time horizon and variations in progression-free utility values. Scenario analyses showed that a 50% reduction in the cost of osimertinib was still associated with a high ICER that was unlikely to be deemed cost effective. CONCLUSIONS: Osimertinib is not cost effective as a first-line treatment compared to standard EGFR TKIs in advanced EGFR mutant NSCLC patients in Singapore. The findings from our evaluation, alongside other considerations including the lack of survival benefit in the Asian subgroup of the FLAURA trial, will be useful to inform policy makers on funding decisions for NSCLC treatments in Singapore.

Budget impact of sequential treatment with first-line afatinib versus first-line osimertinib in non-small-cell lung cancer patients with common EGFR mutations.

BACKGROUND: The therapeutic landscape for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients that have common epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations has changed radically in the last decade. The availability of these treatment options has an economic impact, therefore a budget impact analysis was performed. METHODS: A budget impact analysis was conducted from a Dutch healthcare perspective over a 5-year time horizon in EGFR-mutant NSCLC patients receiving first-line afatinib (Gilotrif®) versus first-line osimertinib (Tagrisso®), followed by subsequent treatments. A decision analysis model was constructed in Excel. Scenario analyses and one-way sensitivity analysis were used to test the models' robustness. RESULTS: Sequential treatment with afatinib versus first-line treatment with osimertinib showed mean total time on treatment (ToT) of 29.1 months versus 24.7 months, quality-adjusted life months (QALMs) of 20.2 versus 17.4 with mean cost of €108,166 per patient versus €143,251 per patient, respectively. The 5-year total budget impact was €110.4 million for the afatinib sequence versus €158.6 million for the osimertinib sequence, leading to total incremental cost savings of €48.15 million. CONCLUSIONS: First-line afatinib treatment in patients with EGFR-mutant NSCLC had a lower financial impact on the Dutch healthcare budget with a higher mean ToT and QALM compared to osimertinib sequential treatment.