Cost-Utility Analysis of Nivolumab in Adjuvant Treatment of Melanoma in France.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of the current study is to estimate the cost-effectiveness of adjuvant treatment with nivolumab relative to clinically relevant comparators in adult patients with melanoma with lymph node involvement or metastatic disease who have undergone complete resection from a French societal perspective. METHODS: The comparators were observation, low-dose interferon and pembrolizumab. A subgroup analysis was carried out in patients with BRAF mutation, adding dabrafenib plus trametinib. A three-state partitioned survival model was developed to project costs and health benefits over a 20-year time horizon. Extrapolation for recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) was carried out using spline-based models. Because of the immaturity of OS data in pivotal trials for nivolumab and pembrolizumab, a predictive model of OS treatment effect based on RFS effect was developed using a correlation equation. Health state utilities and adverse events disutilities were derived from the CheckMate 238 trial and literature. Costs were estimated in 2019 euros. The model's primary outcome was efficiency frontier. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of results. RESULTS: Observation, low-dose interferon and nivolumab were on the efficiency frontier. The incremental cost-utility ratio of nivolumab versus low-dose interferon (closest therapy on the efficiency frontier) was €37,886/quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis reported an 80% probability of nivolumab being a cost-effective strategy for a willingness-to-pay threshold of €52,000/QALY. In the subgroup with BRAF mutation, the efficiency frontier was not changed by the addition of dabrafenib plus trametinib. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab is a cost-effective strategy as adjuvant treatment in adult patients with surgically resected melanoma in France.

Hospitalisation costs of metastatic melanoma in France; the MELISSA study (MELanoma In hoSpital coSts Assessment).

BACKGROUND: Management of metastatic melanoma is changing rapidly following the introduction of innovative effective therapies, with consequences for the allocation of healthcare resources. The objective of this study was to assess hospitalisation costs of metastatic melanoma in France from 2011 to 2013 from the perspective of the government payer. METHODS: The population studied corresponded to all adults with metastatic melanoma hospitalised in France between 1st January 2011 and 31st December 2013 who required chemotherapy, immunotherapy or radiotherapy due to tumour progression and unresectable Stage III or Stage IV melanoma. Metastatic melanoma was identified by ICD-10 codes documented in the hospital patient discharge records. For each patient, hospital stays were stratified into a pre- or post- progression health state using proxy variables for the RECIST criteria. All healthcare expenditure documented in the French national hospital claims system database and incurred between the index hospitalisation (or change of progression state) and the end of follow-up were analysed. For the principal analysis, valuation of healthcare resource consumption was performed using official national hospitalisation tariffs. Any expensive therapy administered during the stay was documented from a linked database of expensive drugs (FICHCOMP). RESULTS: Seventy-eight thousand seven hundred fifty hospital stays by 10,337 patients with metastatic melanoma were identified over the three-year study period. Annual per capita costs of hospitalisation were € 5046 in the pre-progression stage and € 19,006 in the post-progression stage. Hospitalisations attributed to adverse drug reactions to chemotherapy or immunotherapy were observed in 27% of patients. Annual per capita costs of these hospitalisations related to adverse drug reactions were € 3762 in the pre-progression stage and € 5523 in the post-progression stage. CONCLUSIONS: Hospitalisation costs related to metastatic melanoma rise substantially as the disease progresses. Treatment strategies which slow down disease progression would be expected to reduce costs of hospitalisation for metastatic melanoma, although they may also entail significant acquisition costs. This will entail organisational changes of resource allocation for the treatment of metastatic melanoma in hospitals.

Direct cost-modeling of rheumatoid arthritis according to disease activity categories in France.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this cost-of-illness study was to assess the use of direct medical resources, excluding drug costs, by patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in France, and to construct cost estimates according to level of disease activity. METHODS: Three categories of RA disease activity were defined according to Disease Activity Score 28-joint count (DAS28) thresholds: remission (DAS28 < 2.6), low disease activity state (LDAS; i.e., DAS28 ≤ 3.2), and moderate to high disease activity (MHDAS; i.e., DAS28 > 3.2). Eight resource utilization items were defined: medical visits, laboratory tests, hospitalization, imaging, physiotherapy, nursing, adaptive aids, and transportation. Resource utilization and unit costs from the national-payer perspective were estimated through expert opinion and simulated using distribution ranges for each item. Cost distributions were computed by Monte-Carlo simulations estimating overall costs per 6 months over a 2-year period. RESULTS: For patients achieving remission, costs were estimated at a mean of €771 (SD 199) for the first 6 months and at €511 (SD 162) for each subsequent 6-month period. For patients achieving LDAS, costs were estimated at €905 (SD 263) for the first 6 months and €696 (SD 240) for each subsequent 6-month period. For patients in MHDAS, costs were estimated at €1215 per 6 months (SD 405). CONCLUSION: This cost-of-illness assessment provided current estimates of direct medical costs for RA according to disease activity in France. The findings suggest that achieving remission or LDAS is associated with substantially lower medical costs for RA versus being in MHDAS.

Cost-effectiveness modelling of biological treatment sequences in moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis in France.

OBJECTIVES: Modern treatment of RA includes the use of biologics. Their cost is high and comparison between different treatment strategies is needed. METHOD: Direct medical costs of RA in France were evaluated based on expert opinion. Then, simulation-decision analytical models were developed to assess four biologic treatment sequences over 2 years in patients failing to respond to at least one anti-TNF agent. Effectiveness was expressed in theoretical expected number of days (TEND) in remission or low disease activity [low disease activity score (LDAS)] based on DAS-28 scores. RESULTS: Direct medical costs of RA in France (excluding the cost of biologics) were estimated at euro 905 (s.d. 263) for 6 months and euro 696 (s.d. 240) for each subsequent 6 months (P < 0.001) for patients achieving LDAS and euro 1215 for 6 months (s.d. 405) for patients not achieving LDAS. Based on LDAS criteria, using abatacept after an inadequate response to the first anti-TNF agent (etanercept) appeared significantly (P < 0.01) more efficacious over a 2-year period (102 TEND) compared with using rituximab at a 6-month re-treatment interval (82 TEND). Mean cost-effectiveness ratios showed significantly lower costs (P < 0.01) per TEND with abatacept as second biologic agent (euro 278) compared with rituximab (euro 303). After an inadequate response to two anti-TNF agents, using abatacept also appeared significantly more efficacious than an anti-TNF agent (P < 0.01). All comparisons were confirmed when using remission criteria instead of LDAS. CONCLUSION: Advanced simulation models based on clinical evidence and medical practice appear to be a promising approach for comparing cost-effectiveness of biologic strategies in RA.

Management of chronic myeloid leukaemia in clinical practice in France: results of the French subset of patients from the UNIC study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess real-life treatment practices with imatinib for chronic-phase chronic myeloid leukaemia (CP-CML) in France. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In the observational 'Unmet Needs in CML' (UNIC) study of CML management in Europe, case report forms were completed retrospectively for eligible patients (> or =18 years of age, currently treated for CML) during enrolment (September 2006-March 2007). Results from the subset of patients from France are presented. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary objectives were to estimate from the collected data the proportions of patients ever treated with imatinib and those experiencing imatinib resistance and/or intolerance as determined by physicians' diagnoses of resistance/intolerance leading to a change in imatinib use. Collected data were analysed descriptively. Secondary descriptive measures included imatinib dose modifications and methods for treatment response monitoring. RESULTS: Of the 654 French CP-CML patients, 95.9% had received imatinib. Of these, 15% were judged by physicians as imatinib-resistant and 31% as imatinib-intolerant (not mutually exclusive) during treatment, 44% required dose modification and 23% discontinued imatinib. In the 12 months preceding the last observation, 65% had a cytogenetic features analysis and 93% had a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assessment of molecular response. Importantly, and contrasting with European recommendations, 46% of imatinib-resistant patients had never been assessed for BCR-ABL mutations. LIMITATIONS: The observational study design limits data collection and interpretation. The findings are specific to the French healthcare system and may not apply to other countries. CONCLUSION: This observational study of CP-CML management in France confirmed that most patients are treated with imatinib, a treatment widely recognised as efficacious. The study highlights opportunities for optimising CML management, as a proportion of patients may require alternative treatment strategies due to imatinib resistance/intolerance. Response monitoring rates differ from recommendations, representing another opportunity for improving care for CP-CML patients through early identification of patients failing current therapy.

A health economic analysis of screening and optimal treatment of nephropathy in patients with type 2 diabetes and hypertension in the USA.

BACKGROUND: Nephropathy is an indicator of end-organ damage and is a strong predictor of an increased risk of cardiovascular disease and death in patients with diabetes. Screening can lead to early identification and treatment, both of which incur costs. However, identification and treatment may slow or prevent progression to a more expensive stage of the disease and thus may save money. We assessed the health economic impact of screening for nephropathy (microalbuminuria and overt nephropathy) followed by optimal renoprotective-based antihypertensive therapy in a US setting. METHODS: A Markov model simulated the lifetime impact of screening with semi-quantitative urine dipsticks in a primary care setting of hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes and subsequent treatment with irbesartan 300 mg in patients identified as having nephropathy. Progression from no nephropathy to end-stage renal disease (ESRD) was simulated. Probabilities, utilities, medication and ESRD treatment costs came from published sources. Clinical outcomes and direct medical costs were projected. Second order Monte Carlo simulation was used to account for uncertainty in multiple parameters. Annual discount rates of 3% were used where appropriate. RESULTS: Screening, followed by optimized treatment, led to a 44% reduction in the cumulative incidence of ESRD and improvements in non-discounted life expectancy of 0.25 +/- 0.22 years/patient (mean +/- SD). Quality-adjusted life expectancy was improved by 0.18 +/- 0.15 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs)/patient and direct costs increased by $244 +/- 3499/patient. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $20 011 per QALY gained for screening and optimized treatment versus no screening. There was a 77% probability that screening and optimized therapy would be considered cost effective with a willingness to pay a threshold of $50 000. CONCLUSION: In patients with type 2 diabetes and hypertension, screening for nephropathy and treatment with a renoprotective-based antihypertensive agent was projected to improve patient outcomes and represent excellent value in a US setting.