Detection of genomic alterations in liquid biopsies from patients with non-small cell lung cancer using FoundationOne Liquid CDx: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Liquid biopsy (LB) is a non-invasive technique to detect genetic alterations by next-generation sequencing (NGS) when tissue biopsy is not available. This study aims to estimate in the Spanish setting, the cost-effectiveness of using FoundationOne Liquid CDx (F1L CDx), a novel blood-derived LB test based on NGS, versus non-molecular diagnosis (non-mDx) in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in whom tissue sampling is not feasible. METHODS: A joint model was developed combining a decision-tree with partitioned survival models to calculate the costs and health outcomes over a lifetime horizon, comparing F1L CDx in LB versus non-mDx. Only direct costs (expressed in € of 2023) were included and a 3% discount rate for future costs and effects was considered. Health outcomes were expressed in Life Years (LYs) and Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs). Utilities and treatment efficacy were obtained from the literature. An expert panel of 11 Spanish oncologists determined the treatment allocation and validated all model inputs and assumptions. Several sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robustness of the results. RESULTS: In a hypothetical cohort of 1,000 patients, LB using F1L CDx would detect 386 alterations, so those patients could be treated with targeted therapies or enrolled in clinical trials. Cost-effectiveness results showed that F1L CDx provides greater effectiveness than non-mDx (+383.95 LYs and +305.94 QALYs), with an additional cost of €2,898,308. The incremental cost-utility ratio was €9,473/QALY gained. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of the cost-effectiveness results. LIMITATIONS: Various limitations inherent to cost-effectiveness analyses were described. CONCLUSION: LB with F1L CDx test is a cost-effective strategy in Spain for patients with advanced NSCLC without tissue sample available for molecular diagnosis, improving the personalized treatment of these patients.

Actionable mutational profiling in solid tumors using hybrid-capture-based next-generation sequencing in a real-world setting in Spain.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to describe the performance of a next-generation sequencing (NGS) panel for the detection of precise genomic alterations in cancer in Spanish clinical practice. The impact of tumor characteristics was evaluated on informative NGS and actionable mutation rates. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted at the Fundación Jiménez Díaz University Hospital (May 2021-March 2022) where molecular diagnostic of 537 Formalin-Fixed Paraffin-Embedded (FFPE) tissue samples of diverse solid tumors (lung, colorectal, melanoma, gastrointestinal stromal, among others) was performed using AVENIO Tumor Tissue Targeted Kit. A descriptive analysis of the features of all samples was carried out. Multivariable logistic analysis was conducted to assess the impact of sample characteristics on NGS performance defined by informative results rate (for all tumors and for lung tumors), and on actionable mutations rate (for lung tumors only). RESULTS: AVENIO performance rate was 75.2% in all tumor samples and 75.3% in lung cancer samples, and the multivariable analysis showed that surgical specimens are most likely to provide informative results than diagnostic biopsies. Regarding the mutational findings, 727 pathogenic, likely pathogenic, or variant of unknown significance mutations were found in all tumor samples. Single nucleotide variant was the most common genomic alteration, both for all tumor samples (85.3% and 81.9% for all solid tumors and lung samples, respectively). In lung tumors, multivariable analysis showed that it is more likely to find actionable mutations from non-smokers and patients with adenocarcinoma, large cell, or undifferentiated histologies. CONCLUSION: This is the largest cohort-level study in Spain to profile the analyses of biopsy samples of different tumors using NGS in routine clinical practice. Our findings showed that the use of NGS routinely provides good rates of informative results and can improve tumor characterization and identify a greater number of actionable mutations.

Cost-effectiveness of adjuvant atezolizumab versus best supportive care in the treatment of patients with resectable early-stage non-small cell lung cancer and overexpression of PD-L1.

AIMS: To assess the cost-effectiveness of adjuvant atezolizumab in the treatment of early-stage NSCLC patients (stage II-IIIA) with expression PD-L1 ≥ 50% without mutations in EGFR or ALK rearrangements in Spain. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 5-states Markov model (DFS, locoregional recurrence, 1 L-metastatic recurrence, 2 L-metastatic recurrence, and death states) was adapted to the Spanish setting. Demographic characteristics of the hypothetical cohort, transition probabilities from the DFS state, and safety parameters were obtained from IMpower010 study (GO29527). Transition probabilities from locoregional and metastatic health states were obtained from the literature. The usual clinical practice in Spain (use of health resources, management of the disease, etc.) was obtained from a previous analysis carried out by the authors of this study. A societal perspective was considered so both direct and indirect costs were included (expressed in € of 2021). A lifetime horizon was used, so costs and health outcomes were discounted at 3% per year. Sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate uncertainty. RESULTS: Over a lifetime horizon, treatment with adjuvant atezolizumab provided greater effectiveness (+2.61 life years [LY] and +1.95 quality-adjusted life years [QALY]) and higher cost (€+22,538) than BSC. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and incremental cost-utility ratios (ICUR) of the analysis were €8,625/LY gained and €11,583/QALY gained, respectively. Robustness of these base-case results was confirmed by the sensitivity analyses performed. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, 90% of the simulations performed showed that adjuvant atezolizumab is cost-effective versus BSC, considering a threshold of €30,000/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Our results showed that adjuvant treatment with atezolizumab in patients with early-stage resected NSCLC with overexpression of PD-L1 and without EGFR and ALK mutations is cost-effective versus BSC as the ICERs and ICURs obtained are below the cost-effectiveness thresholds commonly considered in Spain, thus offering a new treatment alternative for these patients.

Cost-Effectiveness of Next-Generation Sequencing Versus Single-Gene Testing for the Molecular Diagnosis of Patients With Metastatic Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer From the Perspective of Spanish Reference Centers.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of using next-generation sequencing (NGS) versus single-gene testing (SgT) for the detection of genetic molecular subtypes and oncogenic markers in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in the setting of Spanish reference centers. METHODS: A joint model combining decision tree with partitioned survival models was developed. A two-round consensus panel was performed to describe clinical practice of Spanish reference centers, providing data on testing rate, prevalence of alterations, turnaround times, and treatment pathways. Treatment efficacy data and utility values were obtained from the literature. Only direct costs (euros, 2022), obtained from Spanish databases, were included. A lifetime horizon was considered, so a 3% discount rate for future costs and outcomes was considered. Both deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess uncertainty. RESULTS: A target population of 9,734 patients with advanced NSCLC was estimated. If NGS was used instead of SgT, 1,873 more alterations would be detected and 82 more patients could potentially be enrolled in clinical trials. In the long term, using NGS would provide 1,188 additional quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) in the target population compared with SgT. On the other hand, the incremental cost of NGS versus SgT in the target population was €21,048,580 euros for a lifetime horizon (€1,333,288 for diagnosis phase only). The obtained incremental cost-utility ratios were €25,895 per QALY gained, below the standard cost-effectiveness thresholds. CONCLUSION: Using NGS in Spanish reference centers for the molecular diagnosis of patients with metastatic NSCLC would be a cost-effective strategy over SgT.

Economic burden of locoregional and metastatic relapses in resectable early-stage non-small cell lung cancer in Spain.

BACKGROUND: There are scarce data of the costs of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) recurrence in Spain. The objective of this study is to assess the economic burden of disease recurrence, for both locoregional and/or metastatic relapses, after appropriate early-stage NSCLC treatment in Spain. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A two-round consensus panel of Spanish oncologists and hospital pharmacists was conducted to collect information on patient's flow, treatments, use of healthcare resources and sick leaves in patients with relapsed NSCLC. A decision-tree model was developed to calculate the economic burden of disease recurrence after appropriate early-stage NSCLC. Both direct and indirect costs were considered. Direct costs included drug acquisition and healthcare resources costs. Indirect costs were estimated using the human-capital approach. Unit costs were obtained from national databases (euros of 2022). A multi-way sensitivity analysis was performed to provide a range to the mean values. RESULTS: Among a cohort of 100 patients with relapsed NSCLC, 45 patients would have locoregional relapse (36.3 would eventually progress to metastasis and 8.7 would be considered in remission) and 55 patients would have metastatic relapse. Over time, 91.3 patients would experience a metastatic relapse (55 as first relapse and 36.6 after previous locoregional relapse). The overall cost incurred by the 100-patients cohort is €10,095,846 (€9,336,782 direct costs, €795,064 indirect costs). The average cost of a locoregional relapse is €25,194 (€19,658 direct costs, €5536 indirect costs), while the average cost a patient with metastasis who receives up to 4 lines of treatment is €127,167 (€117,328 direct, €9839 indirect). CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this is the first study that specifically quantifies the cost of relapse in NSCLC in Spain. Our findings shown that the overall cost of a relapse after appropriate treatment of early-stage NSCLC patients is substantial, and it increases considerably in the metastatic relapse setting, mainly due to the high cost and long duration of first-line treatments.

Cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab versus pembrolizumab as first-line treatment in PD-L1-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer in Spain.

BACKGROUND: Atezolizumab has recently been approved for first-line treatment of high PD-L1 expression metastatic Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) patients with no EGFR or ALK mutations, on the basis of the IMpower110 trial. This study aims to estimate the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab compared with pembrolizumab among these patients in Spanish settings, based on the results of the two cut-offs of the IMpower110 study. METHODS: A three-state partitioned-survival model was adapted to Spanish settings to calculate health outcomes and costs over a lifetime horizon. Clinical data for atezolizumab were collected from the interim and the exploratory results (data cut-off: Sept'18 and Feb'20, respectively) of the IMpower110 trial while a network meta-analysis was used to model pembrolizumab treatment. Utility data were collected from the trial. Direct medical costs were considered based on resources identified by experts. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3% per year. Health outcomes were expressed as cost per Life Year (LY) and cost per Quality-Adjusted Life Year (QALY). Both deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robustness of results. RESULTS: Over a lifetime horizon, the incremental results showed that atezolizumab generated similar health outcomes (LYs and QALYs) to pembrolizumab, with minimal differences depending on the cut-off used (+ 0.70 and + 0.42 LYs and QALYs with Sept'18 cut-off and - 0.80 and - 0.72 LYs and QALYs with Feb'20 cut-off). However, for both cut-offs, atezolizumab produced meaningfully less costs than pembrolizumab (€ - 54,261 with Sept'18 cut-off and € - 81,907 with Feb'20 cut-off). The sensitivity analyses carried out confirmed the robustness of the base-case results. CONCLUSIONS: The cost-effectiveness analysis, comparing the two cut-off of IMpower110, shows that atezolizumab provides similar health gains to pembrolizumab but at a lower cost for the first-line treatment of metastasic NSCLC patients in Spain.

Biomarker testing strategies in non-small cell lung cancer in the real-world setting: analysis of methods in the Prospective Central Lung Cancer Biomarker Registry (LungPath) from the Spanish Society of Pathology (SEAP).

AIMS: The aim of this study is to extend the analysis of the Lung Cancer Biomarker Testing Registry (LungPath), by analysing the techniques used in the determination of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK), c-ros oncogene 1 (ROS1) and programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) for the diagnostic of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: Information of the technique used for the determination of EGFR, ALK, ROS1 and PD-L1 was recorded from March 2018 to January 2019 from 44 centres, but only 34 centres matched with the 38 centres previously analysed, allowing to analyse the techniques used in 8970 matched determinations of EGFR, ALK, ROS1 and PD-L1. Therefore, a by-centre analysis studied the level of implementation of the techniques in the 44 centres, while a by-determination analysis made it possible to assess the overall frequency of the techniques used on the 9134 matched samples. RESULTS: By-centre analysis showed that only 46.5% and 25.6% of the centres used reflex strategies for ALK and ROS1 determination, respectively. By-determination analysis showed that 94.4% of EGFR determinations were performed by PCR, 80.7% of ALK determinations were performed by IHC with clone D5F3, while 55.7% of ROS1 determinations were performed by IHC with clone D4D6. 22C3 were the PD-L1 clone more used (43.5%) followed by SP263 clone (31.1%). CONCLUSIONS: The real-world evidence obtained from LungPath shows the effort of Spanish hospitals in performing biomarker determination in NSCLC with different methodologies despite that next-generation sequencing (NGS) utilisation in the year of the analysis was low. Biomarker determination results could be optimised with the incorporation of sequencing methods such as NGS in pathology departments.

Cost-Effectiveness of the CNIC-Polypill Strategy Compared With Separate Monocomponents in Secondary Prevention of Cardiovascular and Cerebrovascular Disease in Portugal: The MERCURY Study.

Background: Cardiovascular (CV) diseases remain a leading and costly cause of death globally. Patients with previous CV events are at high risk of recurrence. Secondary prevention therapies improve CV risk factor control and reduce disease costs. Objectives: To assess the cost-effectiveness of a CV polypill strategy (CNIC-Polypill) compared with the loose combination of monocomponents to improve the control of CV risk factors in patients with previous coronary heart disease or stroke. Methods: A Markov model cost-utility analysis was developed using 4 health states, SMART risk equation, and 3-month cycles for year 1 and annual cycles thereafter, over a lifetime horizon from the perspective of the National Health System in Portugal (base case). The NEPTUNO study, Portuguese registries, mortality tables, official reports, and the literature were consulted to define effectiveness, epidemiological costs, and utility data. Outcomes were costs (estimated in 2020 euros) per life-year (LY) and quality-adjusted LY (QALY) gained. A 4% discount rate was applied. Alternative scenarios and one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses tested the consistency and robustness of results. Results: The CNIC-Polypill strategy in secondary prevention provides more LY and QALY, at a higher cost, than monocomponents. The incremental cost-utility ratio is €1557/QALY gained. Assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of €30 000/QALY gained, there is a 79.7% and a 44.4% probability of the CNIC-Polypill being cost-effective and cost-saving, respectively, compared with the loose combination of monocomponents. Results remain consistent in the alternative scenarios and robust in the sensitivity analyses. Discussion: The model reflects increments in the number of years patients would live and in quality of life with the CNIC-Polypill. The clinical effectiveness of the CNIC-Polypill strategy initially demonstrated in the NEPTUNO study has been recently corroborated in the SECURE trial. The incremental cost of the CNIC-Polypill strategy emerges slightly above the comparator, but willingness-to-pay estimates and sensitivity analyses indicate that the CNIC-Polypill strategy is consistently cost-effective compared with monocomponents and remains within acceptable affordability margins. Conclusion: The CNIC-Polypill is a cost-effective secondary prevention strategy. In patients with histories of coronary heart disease or stroke, the CNIC-Polypill more effectively controls CV risk factors compared with monocomponents.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of molecular diagnosis by next-generation sequencing versus sequential single testing in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer patients from a south Spanish hospital perspective.

BACKGROUND: To assess the cost-effectiveness of using next-generation sequencing (NGS) compared to sequential single-testing (SST) for molecular diagnostic and treatment of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) from a Spanish single-center perspective, the Hospital Universitario Virgen del Rocio (HUVR). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A decision-tree model was developed to assess the alterations detection alterations and diagnostic cost in patients with advanced NSCLC, comparing NGS versus SST. Model inputs such as testing, positivity rates, or treatment allocation were obtained from the literature and the clinical practice of HUVR experts through consultation. Several sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the model. RESULTS: Using NGS for molecular diagnosis of a 100-patients hypothetical cohort, 30 more alterations could be detected and 3 more patients could be enrolled in clinical-trials than using SST. On the other hand, diagnostic costs were increased up to €20,072 using NGS instead of SST. Using NGS time-to-results would be reduced from 16.7 to 9 days. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of NGS at HUVR for the diagnostic of patients with advanced NSCLC provides significant clinical benefits compared to SST in terms of alterations detected, treatment with targeted-therapies and clinical-trial enrollment, and could be considered a cost-effective strategy.

Clinical and economic impact of 'ROS1-testing' strategy compared to a 'no-ROS1-testing' strategy in advanced NSCLC in Spain.

BACKGROUND: Detection of the ROS1 rearrangement is mandatory in patients with advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) to allow targeted therapy with specific inhibitors. However, in Spanish clinical practice ROS1 determination is not yet fully widespread. The aim of this study is to determine the clinical and economic impact of sequentially testing ROS1 in addition to EGFR and ALK in Spain. METHODS: A joint model (decision-tree and Markov model) was developed to determine the cost-effectiveness of testing ROS1 strategy versus a no-ROS1 testing strategy in Spain. Distribution of ROS1 techniques, rates of testing, positivity, and invalidity of biomarkers included in the analysis (EGFR, ALK, ROS1 and PD-L1) were based on expert opinion and Lungpath real-world database. Treatment allocation depending on the molecular testing results was defined by expert opinion. For each treatment, a 3-states Markov model was developed, where progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) curves were parameterized using exponential extrapolations to model transition of patients among health states. Only medical direct costs were included (€ 2021). A lifetime horizon was considered and a discount rate of 3% was applied for both costs and effects. Both deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to address uncertainty. RESULTS: A target population of 8755 patients with advanced NSCLC (non-squamous or never smokers squamous) entered the model. Over a lifetime horizon, the ROS1 testing scenario produced additional 157.5 life years and 121.3 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) compared with no-ROS1 testing scenario. Total direct costs were increased up to € 2,244,737 for ROS1 testing scenario. The incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) was 18,514 €/QALY. Robustness of the base-case results were confirmed by the sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that ROS1 testing in addition to EGFR and ALK is a cost-effective strategy compared to no-ROS1 testing, and it generates more than 120 QALYs in Spain over a lifetime horizon. Despite the low prevalence of ROS1 rearrangements in NSCLC patients, the clinical and economic consequences of ROS1 testing should encourage centers to test all advanced or metastatic NSCLC (non-squamous and never-smoker squamous) patients.

Real-world biomarker testing rate and positivity rate in NSCLC in Spain: Prospective Central Lung Cancer Biomarker Testing Registry (LungPath) from the Spanish Society of Pathology (SEAP).

AIM: The aim of this study was to describe the testing rate and frequency of molecular alterations observed in the Lung Cancer Biomarker Testing Registry (LungPath). METHODS: A descriptive study of NSCLC biomarker determinations collected from March 2018 to January 2019, from 38 Spanish hospitals, was carried out. Only adenocarcinoma and not otherwise specified histologies were included for epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK), c-ros oncogene 1 (ROS1) and programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) expression. The testing rate and the positivity rate were calculated. Multivariate logistic regression was used to explore the joint relationship between independent explanatory factors and both testing and positivity rates. Two models were adjusted: one with sample type and histology as independent factors, and the other adding the testing rate or the positivity rate of the other biomarkers. RESULTS: 3226 patient samples were analysed, where EGFR, ALK, ROS1 and PD-L1 information was collected (a total of 12 904 determinations). Overall, 9118 (71.4%) determinations were finally assessed. EGFR (91.4%) and ALK (80.1%) were the mainly tested biomarkers. Positivity rates for EGFR, ALK, ROS1 and PD-L1 were 13.6%, 3.4%, 2.0% and 49.2%, respectively. Multivariate models showed a lower testing rate for ALK in surgical pieces, fine-needle aspiration or other types of samples versus biopsies. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the high testing rate in EGFR and ALK in NSCLC, the real-world evidence obtained from the LungPath demonstrates that ROS1 and PD-L1 were not determined in a significant portion of patients. LungPath provides crucial information to improve the coverage in molecular testing in lung cancer, to monitor the positivity rate and the introduction of new biomarker testing in clinical practice.

Clinical and economic impact of current ALK rearrangement testing in Spain compared with a hypothetical no-testing scenario.

BACKGROUND: Currently biomarkers play an essential role in diagnosis, treatment, and management of cancer. In non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) determination of biomarkers such as ALK, EGFR, ROS1 or PD-L1 is mandatory for an adequate treatment decision. The aim of this study is to determine the clinical and economic impact of current anaplastic lymphoma kinase testing scenario in Spain. METHODS: A joint model, composed by decision-tree and Markov models, was developed to estimate the long-term health outcomes and costs of NSCLC patients, by comparing the current testing scenario for ALK in Spain vs a hypothetical no-testing. The current distribution of testing strategies for ALK determination and their sensitivity and specificity data were obtained from the literature. Treatment allocation based on the molecular testing result were defined by a panel of Spanish experts. To assess long-term effects of each treatment, 3-states Markov models were developed, where progression-free survival and overall survival curves were extrapolated using exponential models. Medical direct costs (expressed in €, 2019) were included. A lifetime horizon was used and a discount rate of 3% was applied for both costs and health effects. Several sensitivity analyses, both deterministic and probabilistic, were performed in order test the robustness of the analysis. RESULTS: We estimated a target population of 7628 NSCLC patients, including those with non-squamous histology and those with squamous carcinomas who were never smokers. Over the lifetime horizon, the current ALK testing scenario produced additional 5060 and 3906 life-years and quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), respectively, compared with the no-testing scenario. Total direct costs were increased up to € 51,319,053 for testing scenario. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was 10,142 €/QALY. The sensitivity analyses carried out confirmed the robustness of the base-case results, being the treatment allocation and the test accuracy (sensitivity and specificity data) the key drivers of the model. CONCLUSIONS: ALK testing in advanced NSCLC patients, non-squamous and never-smoker squamous, provides more than 3000 QALYs in Spain over a lifetime horizon. Comparing this gain in health outcomes with the incremental costs, the resulting incremental cost-effectiveness ratio reinforces that testing non-squamous and never-smoker squamous NSCLC is a cost-effective strategy in Spain.

Contribution of trastuzumab to the prognostic improvement of HER2-positive early breast cancer in Spain: an estimation of life years and disease-free life years gained since its approval.

INTRODUCTION: Trastuzumab has become the standard treatment for both HER2-positive early and metastatic breast cancer (HER2+ eBC or mBC) since its approval. The objective of the study is to estimate the benefit of adjuvant trastuzumab in the treatment of patients with HER2+ eBC in terms of life years gained (LYG) and disease-free life years gained (DFLYG) since its approval in Spain in 2006. RESULTS: 35,851 women make up the cohorts from 2006 to 2017. In the T (trastuzumab)+CT (chemotherapy) scenario, the sum of life years was 605,358 (525,964 disease-free) versus 564,137 (489,916 disease-free) in the CT scenario, resulting in 41,221 LYG (36,048 disease-free) due to trastuzumab. The general population for the same age range would have generated 704,331 LY. The estimated incremental cost was 880.43 million€ (€24,558.13 per patient) from 2006 to 2035. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios obtained were €20,644 and €23,960 per LYG and DFLYG, respectively. METHODS: An epidemiological model was developed with a time horizon until 2035 and a 3% discount rate. The model compared two scenarios, with and without trastuzumab as adjuvant therapy. The effectiveness data to model the survival curves were obtained from BCIRG 006 study and direct costs were included. CONCLUSIONS: Adjuvant trastuzumab has substantially improved the survival of patients with HER2+ eBC, contributing over 41,000 LYG to Spanish society (over 36,000 DFLYG) in a cost-effective manner. However, the sum of LYG with trastuzumab is still far from the LY estimated for the general population, supporting the need of further advances in HER2+ eBC.

Economic impact of olaparib on maintenance treatment of patients with BRCA-mutation positive, platinum-sensitive relapsing high-grade serous epithelial ovarian cancer in Spain.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the economic impact of the introduction of olaparib in  the Spanish National Health System as maintenance monotherapy in patients  with BRCA-mutation positive high-grade serous ovarian cancer. METHOD: A budget impact model was developed from the Spanish NHS perspective and a time horizon of 5 years for four treatment lines. The model included prevalent and incident patients estimated according to Spanish epidemiological data. Patients moved between treatment lines according to the progression-free survival and overall survival curves  obtained from the respective clinical trials. Only direct costs (€ 2017) were considered: pharmacological, administration, adverse effects and genetic tests. The robustness of the model was verified by a univariate  sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: The use of olaparib meant that, after 5 years, 6% fewer patients progressed to later lines compared to scenario without olaparib,  remaining longer in the second line and delaying the initiation of subsequent lines. The total estimated budgetary impact ranged between € 1.6  and € 5.4 million (1-5 years). The economic impact associated to the  introduction of olaparib is partially offset by the lower cost of chemotherapy, related adverse events, and palliative care in patients with  olaparib than in patients without it. CONCLUSIONS: Olaparib as maintenance treatment in patients with BRCA-mutation positive high-grade serous ovarian cancer increases progression-free  survival and delays the use of subsequent chemotherapy, with an budgetary  impact for the Spanish National Health System of 5.4 million euros after 5 years.

Objetivo: Estimar el impacto económico de la introducción de olaparib en el  Sistema Nacional de Salud como monoterapia de mantenimiento en pacientes  con cáncer de ovario seroso de alto grado y mutación BRCA.Método: Se desarrolló un modelo de impacto presupuestario desde la  perspectiva del Sistema Nacional de Salud y un horizonte temporal de cinco años a lo largo de cuatro líneas de tratamiento. El modelo incluye pacientes  prevalentes e incidentes estimadas a partir de datos epidemiológicos españoles.  Las pacientes se mueven entre las líneas de tratamiento en función de las curvas de supervivencia libre de progresión y supervivencia global obtenidas de los  respectivos ensayos clínicos. Solo se consideraron costes directos (€ 2017):  farmacológicos, de administración, efectos adversos y test genéticos. La  robustez del modelo se ha comprobado a través de un análisis de sensibilidad  univariante.Resultados: El uso de olaparib conllevó que, tras cinco años, un 6% menos de  pacientes progresaran a líneas posteriores, en comparación al escenario sin  olaparib, permaneciendo más tiempo en segunda línea y retrasando el inicio de  líneas subsiguientes. El impacto presupuestario total estimado osciló entre 1,6 y  5,4 millones de euros (1-5 años). Este impacto económico se ve parcialmente  compensado por los costes de la quimioterapia, el manejo de sus efectos  adversos y los cuidados paliativos, los cuales producen ahorros para el Sistema  Nacional de Salud.Conclusiones: Olaparib como tratamiento de mantenimiento en pacientes con  cáncer de ovario seroso de alto grado y mutación del gen BRCA aumenta la  supervivencia libre de progresión y retrasa la utilización de quimioterapia  posteriores, con un impacto presupuestario para el Sistema Nacional de Salud de  5,4 millones de euros tras 5 año.

Cost-effectiveness of combination therapy umeclidinium/vilanterol versus tiotropium in symptomatic COPD Spanish patients.

PURPOSE: Umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) is a novel fixed dose combination of a long-acting muscarinic receptor antagonist (LAMA) and a long-acting beta 2 receptor antagonist (LABA) agent. This analysis evaluated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of UMEC/VI compared with tiotropium (TIO), from the Spanish National Health System (NHS) perspective. METHODS: A previously published linked equations cohort model based on the epidemiological longitudinal study ECLIPSE (Evaluation of COPD Longitudinally to Identify Predictive Surrogate End-points) was used. Patients included were COPD patients with a post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) ≤70% and the presence of respiratory symptoms measured with the modified Medical Research Council dyspnea scale (modified Medical Research Council ≥2). Treatment effect, expressed as change in FEV1 from baseline, was estimated from a 24-week head-to-head phase III clinical trial comparing once-daily UMEC/VI with once-daily TIO and was assumed to last 52 weeks following treatment initiation (maximum duration of UMEC/VI clinical trials). Spanish utility values were derived from a published local observational study. Unitary health care costs (€2015) were obtained from local sources. A 3-year time horizon was selected, and 3% discount was applied to effects and costs. Results were expressed as cost/quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was performed. RESULTS: UMEC/VI produced additional 0.03 QALY and €590 vs TIO, leading to an ICER of €21,475/QALY. According to PSA, the probability of UMEC/VI being cost-effective was 80.3% at a willingness-to-pay of €30,000/QALY. CONCLUSION: UMEC/VI could be considered as a cost-effective treatment alternative compared with TIO in symptomatic COPD patients from the Spanish NHS perspective.