The costs of treating vaginal and vulval cancer in England (2009-2015).

BACKGROUND: Human papillomavirus (HPV) infection is a pre-requisite for cervical cancer, which represents the third most common cancer among women worldwide. A causal relationship also exists between HPV and cancer in other areas of the female reproductive system including the vagina and vulva. Whilst the incidence of vaginal cancer in the UK has remained relatively stable over the past 25 years, vulval cancer rates are increasing. A body of literature exists on the epidemiology and aetiology of vaginal and vulval cancer, but little is known about the economic burden. The objective of this study was to quantify the costs of treating these cancers on the National Health Service (NHS) in England. METHODS: Inpatient and outpatient episodes were derived from Hospital Episode Statistics (HES). Health Resource Group (HRG) tariffs and National Reference Costs were used to estimate the cost of treating pre-cancerous and invasive vaginal and vulval lesions in England. RESULTS: The study showed that for the 5 years from 2009/2010 to 2014/2015 the total cost associated with pre-cancerous and invasive vaginal and vulval lesions was over £14 million per year on average (95% of which was attributed to inpatient costs). Vulval cancer accounted for the largest proportion; an estimated 60% of the total cost (£8.82 million). On average 4316 patients per year in England were admitted to hospital and 912 patients attended outpatient settings for pre-cancerous and invasive disease of the vagina and vulva. CONCLUSION: The results indicate that vaginal and vulval cancer cost the English health care system over £14 million per year. Given the causal role of HPV in a proportion of these cancers, preventative measures such as the national HPV immunisation programme have the potential to reduce the economic burden. To ensure optimal use of NHS resources, it is important that future economic evaluations of such preventative measures consider the full burden of HPV related disease.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of abemaciclib with endocrine therapy (ET) versus ET alone for HR+, HER2-, node-positive, high-risk early breast cancer in Italy.

Background: Abemaciclib was recently approved by the European Medicines Agency in combination with adjuvant endocrine therapy (ET) for adult patients with hormone receptor positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative (HER2-), node-positive early breast cancer (EBC) at high risk of recurrence. Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of abemaciclib plus ET vs. ET alone in patients with HR+, HER2-, node-positive EBC at high risk of disease recurrence, from the Italian healthcare system perspective. Methods: A cohort state transition model was developed with five states: invasive disease-free survival (IDFS), nonmetastatic recurrence, remission, metastatic recurrence, and death. The analysis had a time horizon of 30 years. Individual patient-level data from the monarchE trial (NCT03155997) were used to generate IDFS estimates. Resource use included drug acquisition/administration, best supportive care, terminal care, adverse events, hospitalization, post-progression therapy, and associated resource use in the metastatic disease health state. Health state utilities were derived from monarchE patient-level data and other sources, applying Italian tariffs where feasible. Results: The estimated total discounted costs (€39,249 vs. €16,806; difference: €22,443) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) (11.49 vs. 10.50; difference: 0.99) were higher for abemaciclib plus ET compared with ET alone. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was €22,651 per QALY gained. The likelihood of abemaciclib plus ET being cost-effective vs. ET alone was 99% at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €30,000 per QALY gained. Conclusion: Abemaciclib plus ET is a cost-effective treatment option vs. ET alone for those with HR+, HER2- node-positive EBC at high risk of recurrence in Italy.

A Probabilistic Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Venetoclax and Obinutuzumab as a First-Line Therapy in Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia in Canada.

BACKGROUND: Venetoclax is a first-in-class targeted therapy option that is an inducer of apoptosis in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) cells. The open-label phase III CLL14 clinical trial showed that venetoclax combined with obinutuzumab (VEN+O) is superior to obinutuzumab combined with chlorambucil in newly diagnosed patients with CLL. The aim of this study was to assess the health economic value of VEN+O for the frontline treatment of CLL in Canada from a publicly funded healthcare system perspective. METHODS: A partitioned survival analyses model was developed including three health states: progression free, progressed, and death. A cycle length of 28 days and a time horizon of 10 years was assumed. VEN+O treatment for a fixed duration of 12 months was compared to obinutuzumab combined with chlorambucil, fludarabine plus cyclophosphamide plus rituximab, bendamustine plus rituximab, chlorambucil plus rituximab, ibrutinib, and acalabrutinib. The population in the model included both unfit and overall frontline CLL patients, two subgroups were also assessed (patients with del17p/TP53 mutations and patients without del17p/TP53 mutations). Survival data extrapolated from the CLL14 trial were used to populate the model. Uncertainty was assessed via one-way sensitivity analyses, probabilistic analyses, and scenario analyses. RESULTS: Based on the probabilistic analyses, unfit frontline CLL patients receiving VEN+O were estimated to incur costs of Canadian dollars ($) 217,727 [confidence interval (CI) $170,725, $300,761] (del17p/TP53: $209,102 [CI $159,698, $386,190], non-del17p/TP53: $217,732 [CI $171,232, $299,063]) and accrue 4.96 [CI 4.04, 5.82] quality-adjusted life-years (del17p/TP53: 3.11 [CI 2.00, 4.20], non-del17p/TP53: 5.04 [CI 4.05, 5.92]). Obinutuzumab combined with chlorambucil, bendamustine plus rituximab, chlorambucil plus rituximab, and ibrutinib accrued lower quality-adjusted life-years and higher costs and as such, VEN+O was the dominant treatment option. The full incremental analysis showed that acalabrutinib was more expensive and more efficacious compared with VEN+O with an incremental-cost-effectiveness-ratio of $2,139,180/quality-adjusted life-year versus VEN+O and not a cost-effective option in Canada. Probabilistic analyses show that at a willingness to pay of $50,000/quality-adjusted life-year gained, VEN+O has the greatest probability of being cost effective. CONCLUSIONS: VEN+O is a cost-effective treatment option for unfit frontline CLL patients and provides value for money to healthcare payers.

Cost-effectiveness of a 12-month fixed-duration venetoclax treatment in combination with obinutuzumab in first-line, unfit chronic lymphocytic leukemia in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is a significant health and economic burden in the United States. Treatments include chemoimmunotherapy, such as obinutuzumab (G) plus chlorambucil (Clb) or bendamustine plus rituximab (BR), and chemotherapy-free regimens incorporating oral targeted therapies such as ibrutinib (Ibr), acalabrutinib (Acala), or venetoclax (Ven). Most chemotherapy-free regimens require continuous treatment to progression, while Ven plus G (VenG) is given for a fixed duration of 12 months, based on the CLL14 trial that led to its approval. Fixed-duration VenG has the potential for cost savings compared with treat-to-progression chemotherapy-free regimens. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of 12 months fixed-duration VenG in first-line treatment of unfit patients with CLL from a US health care payer perspective compared with GClb, BR, Ibr, Ibr + G, Ibr + R, Acala, and Acala + G. METHODS: A partitioned survival model was developed with 3 health states: progression-free survival (PFS), postprogression survival, and dead. The patient population, as based on the CLL14 trial, comprised previously untreated unfit patients with CLL (mean age 71.1 years, 33.1% female). The distribution of patients in each health state over time was estimated using extrapolated PFS and overall survival (OS) curves for VenG and GClb, based on CLL14 data 2 or more years after treatment cessation. PFS and OS for the other comparators were estimated using hazard ratios vs VenG, based on a network metaanalysis. Adverse events, utility values, and costs were obtained from published literature. The model estimated life-years gained, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained, and costs. The time horizon was 20 years, with a cycle time of 28 days. Outcomes and costs were discounted at 3.0% per year, and costs were estimated from a US health care payer perspective. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: In this cross-trial analysis of unfit CLL patients, in the base case, VenG had lower projected total costs than all comparators investigated. VenG also had larger projected health benefits (more QALYs gained) than GClb, BR, Ibr, and Ibr + R. VenG was therefore more effective and less costly than these comparators (dominant). Ibr + G, Acala, and Acala + G showed higher QALYs gained vs VenG (0.022, 0.672, and 0.961, respectively), and substantially higher projected costs vs VenG ($1,488,400, $1,579,737, and $1,656,154, respectively). Thus, Ibr + G, Acala, and Acala + G would cost more than $1,000,000 per QALY gained vs VenG. At the commonly used willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per QALY gained, Ibr + G, Acala, and Acala + G were not cost-effective compared with VenG. CONCLUSIONS: Fixed-duration VenG for 12 months is a cost-effective first-line treatment option for unfit CLL patients compared with other available options and provides value for money to US health care payers at a threshold of $150,000 per QALY gained. Future studies with longer trial follow-up and more mature survival data may help to confirm longer-term cost benefits of VenG. DISCLOSURES: Genentech Inc. and AbbVie provided financial support for this study. Genentech Inc., AbbVie, and Pharmerit - An OPEN Health Company participated in the design, study conduct, analysis, and interpretation of data, as well as the writing, review, and approval of the manuscript. Venetoclax is being developed in a collaboration between Genentech Inc. and AbbVie. Ravelo and Shapouri are employed by Genentech Inc. and have ownership interests. Manzoor and Sail are employed by AbbVie and have ownership interests. Chatterjee, van de Wetering, and Qendri, employees of Pharmerit - An OPEN Health Company, received consultancy fees from AbbVie. Davids has received consultancy fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Genentech Inc., Janssen, MEI Pharma, Novartis, Pharmacyclics, and Verastem; research funding from Ascentage Pharma, Genentech Inc., MEI Pharma, Pharmacyclics, Surface Oncology, TG Therapeutics, and Verastem; and has served on board of directors or advisory committees for AbbVie, Adaptive Biotechnologies, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Eli Lilly, Genentech Inc., Janssen, Pharmacyclics, TG Therapeutics, and Verastem. This study was presented as a poster at ASH 61st Annual Meeting and Exposition; December 7-10, 2019; Orlando, FL.

Estimating the burden of antimicrobial resistance: a systematic literature review.

Background: Accurate estimates of the burden of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) are needed to establish the magnitude of this global threat in terms of both health and cost, and to paramaterise cost-effectiveness evaluations of interventions aiming to tackle the problem. This review aimed to establish the alternative methodologies used in estimating AMR burden in order to appraise the current evidence base. Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, EconLit, PubMed and grey literature were searched. English language studies evaluating the impact of AMR (from any microbe) on patient, payer/provider and economic burden published between January 2013 and December 2015 were included. Independent screening of title/abstracts followed by full texts was performed using pre-specified criteria. A study quality score (from zero to one) was derived using Newcastle-Ottawa and Philips checklists. Extracted study data were used to compare study method and resulting burden estimate, according to perspective. Monetary costs were converted into 2013 USD. Results: Out of 5187 unique retrievals, 214 studies were included. One hundred eighty-seven studies estimated patient health, 75 studies estimated payer/provider and 11 studies estimated economic burden. 64% of included studies were single centre. The majority of studies estimating patient or provider/payer burden used regression techniques. 48% of studies estimating mortality burden found a significant impact from resistance, excess healthcare system costs ranged from non-significance to $1 billion per year, whilst economic burden ranged from $21,832 per case to over $3 trillion in GDP loss. Median quality scores (interquartile range) for patient, payer/provider and economic burden studies were 0.67 (0.56-0.67), 0.56 (0.46-0.67) and 0.53 (0.44-0.60) respectively. Conclusions: This study highlights what methodological assumptions and biases can occur dependent on chosen outcome and perspective. Currently, there is considerable variability in burden estimates, which can lead in-turn to inaccurate intervention evaluations and poor policy/investment decisions. Future research should utilise the recommendations presented in this review. Trial registration: This systematic review is registered with PROSPERO (PROSPERO CRD42016037510).

Quantifying drivers of antibiotic resistance in humans: a systematic review.

Mitigating the risks of antibiotic resistance requires a horizon scan linking the quality with the quantity of data reported on drivers of antibiotic resistance in humans, arising from the human, animal, and environmental reservoirs. We did a systematic review using a One Health approach to survey the key drivers of antibiotic resistance in humans. Two sets of reviewers selected 565 studies from a total of 2819 titles and abstracts identified in Embase, MEDLINE, and Scopus (2005-18), and the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and WHO (One Health data). Study quality was assessed in accordance with Cochrane recommendations. Previous antibiotic exposure, underlying disease, and invasive procedures were the risk factors with most supporting evidence identified from the 88 risk factors retrieved. The odds ratios of antibiotic resistance were primarily reported to be between 2 and 4 for these risk factors when compared with their respective controls or baseline risk groups. Food-related transmission from the animal reservoir and water-related transmission from the environmental reservoir were frequently quantified. Uniformly quantifying relationships between risk factors will help researchers to better understand the process by which antibiotic resistance arises in human infections.

Investigating the burden of antibiotic resistance in ethnic minority groups in high-income countries: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Antibiotic resistance (ABR) is an urgent problem globally, with overuse and misuse of antibiotics being one of the main drivers of antibiotic-resistant infections. There is increasing evidence that the burden of community-acquired infections such as urinary tract infections and bloodstream infections (both susceptible and resistant) may differ by ethnicity, although the reasons behind this relationship are not well defined. It has been demonstrated that socioeconomic status and ethnicity are often highly correlated with each other; however, it is not yet known whether accounting for deprivation completely explains any discrepancy seen in infection risk. There have currently been no systematic reviews summarising the evidence for the relationship between ethnicity and antibiotic resistance or prescribing. METHODS: This protocol will outline how we will conduct this systematic literature review and meta-analysis investigating whether there is an association between patient ethnicity and (1) risk of antibiotic-resistant infections or (2) levels of antibiotic prescribing in high-income countries. We will search PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Global Health, Scopus and CINAHL using MESH terms where applicable. Two reviewers will conduct title/abstract screening, data extraction and quality assessment independently. The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklist will be used for cohort and case-control studies, and the Cochrane collaboration's risk of bias tool will be used for randomised control trials, if they are included. Meta-analyses will be performed by calculating the minority ethnic group to majority ethnic group odds ratios or risk ratios for each study and presenting an overall pooled odds ratio for the two outcomes. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessments, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach will be used to assess the overall quality of the body of evidence. DISCUSSION: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we will aim to collate the available evidence of whether there is a difference in rates of AMR and/or antibiotic prescribing in minority vs. majority ethnic groups in high-income countries. Additionally, this review will highlight areas where more research needs to be conducted and may provide insight into what may cause differences in this relationship, should they be seen. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO ( CRD42016051533 ).