Cost-effectiveness and drug wastage of bevacizumab biosimilar with or without chemotherapy for platinum-resistant recurrent ovarian cancer.

INTRODUCTION: The cost-effectiveness of adding bevacizumab biosimilar with or without chemotherapy (CT) and drug wastage in treating platinum-resistant recurrent ovarian cancer (PRrOC) was assessed. METHODS: A three-state partitioned-survival model to compare the clinical and economic outcomes in the treatment of patients with PRrOC from a Taiwan healthcare prospective, extrapolated to two years based on data obtained from the JGOG3023 clinical trial. The primary outcomes of the model were incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). RESULTS: In the base-case scenario, using vials of bevacizumab biosimilar (Bevbiol) plus chemotherapy, the ICER was (new Taiwan dollar) NT$ 4,555,878 per QALY gained. The incremental cost savings of an incremental 2.02 QALYs were NT$ 1,605,828 if weight-based Bevbiol plus chemotherapy were used, but the ICER remained high at the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold. If the cost of Bevbiol were reduced to 50% per vial, adding it to CT would be cost-effective at an acceptable WTP threshold of NTD 2,994,200, with an ICER of NT$ 2,975,484. CONCLUSIONS: Bevacizumab biosimilars in mg/kg dosage form with chemotherapy are still not cost-effective in Taiwan, but using weight-based dosing will reduce drug waste and save treatment costs.

Cost-effectiveness of trastuzumab biosimilar combination therapy and drug wastage as first-line treatment for HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: The rising cost of cancer drug therapy threatens the long-term sustainability of Taiwan National Health Insurance. Cost savings can be achieved through various strategies, e.g., using smaller vial sizes, sharing vials, weight-based dosing, or switching to biosimilars. Here we aimed to examine the cost-effectiveness of a trastuzumab biosimilar combined with docetaxel (TDbiol) for treatment-naïve HER2+ metastatic breast cancer (MBC), and the financial impact of drug wastage. METHODS: A Markov model with three health states was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of trastuzumab biosimilars plus docetaxel over a 40-month time horizon in patients with HER2+ MBC. Based on the literature and our expert opinion, we assumed similar efficacy between the trastuzumab biosimilar and its reference product. The primary clinical input for the biosimilar was the same as for the reference product in the Catastrophic Patient Database (HV). Health state utilities were derived from the literature, and direct medical costs were obtained from the National Health Insurance Administration (NHIA). RESULTS: In the base-case scenario, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was NTD 811,050 per QALY gained. One-way sensitivity analyses showed that the model was sensitive to utilities and transition probabilities, but not particularly sensitive to the wastage assumption. In scenario analyses, the ICER was higher when applying the price for trastuzumab reference biologic (branded), than for trastuzumab biosimilar. CONCLUSION: The trastuzumab biosimilar combination regimen is cost-effective and offers significant drug cost savings in Taiwan.

Cost-effectiveness of immune checkpoint inhibitors in the treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer as a second line in Taiwan.

Objectives: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of immune checkpoint inhibitors versus docetaxel in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Methods: A Markov model was constructed to simulate the clinical outcomes and costs of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Clinical outcomes data were derived from randomized clinical trials. Drug acquisition cost and other health resource use were obtained from the claim data of a tertiary hospital and the National Health Insurance. The outcome was an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio expressed as cost per quality-adjusted life year gained. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the uncertainty of the model parameters. Results: In the base case, patients treated with immunotherapies in the second line were associated with higher costs and higher mean survival. The incremental costs per quality-adjusted life year gained for pembrolizumab, nivolumab, or atezolizumab compared to docetaxel were NT$416,102, NT$1,572,912 and NT$1,580,469, respectively. Conclusion: The results showed that pembrolizumab was more cost effective than nivolumab and atezolizumab compared with docetaxel as a second-line regimen for patients with previously treated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer at willingness to pay threshold in Taiwan.

Plain language summary Lung cancer is the first leading cause of cancer death in Taiwan. About 75% of patients have advanced disease at the time of diagnosis (stage III/IV) with a median survival of 13.2 months. Most non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients are usually diagnosed at a late stage. The conventional chemotherapy, surgery or radiation regimens may not be of significant benefits. Fortunately, newer immunotherapies or targeted therapies have improved the 5-year survival rates of advanced NSCLC from 15 to 50% with high cost. This study aimed to assess if the newer targeted therapies are cost effective and provide 'value for money' compared with chemotherapy in NSCLC patients with advanced stage. A cost­effectiveness model was created based on the data from the real-world and published phase III randomized controlled trials. The results showed that pembrolizumab is more cost effective than nivolumab and atezolizumab compared with docetaxel as a second-line regimen for patients with previously treated advanced NSCLC at willingness to pay threshold in Taiwan.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of olaparib and niraparib as maintenance therapy for women with recurrent platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of olaparib and niraparib as maintenance therapy for patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer.Methods: A decision analysis model compared the costs and effectiveness of olaparib and niraparib versus placebo for patients with or without germline BRCA mutations. Resource use and associated costs were estimated from the 2020 National Health Insurance Administration reimbursement price list. Clinical effectiveness was measured in progression-free survival per life-years (PFS-LY) based on the results of clinical trials SOLO2/ENHOT-Ov21 and ENGOT-OV16/NOVA. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was estimated from a single-payer perspective. RESULTS: In the base case, olaparib was the more cost-effective treatment regimen. The ICERs for olaparib and niraparib compared to placebo were NT$1,804,785 and NT$2,340,265 per PFS-LY, respectively. Tornado analysis showed that PFS and the total resource use cost of niraparib regimen for patients without gBRCA were the most sensitive parameters impacting the ICER. The ICERs for both drugs in patients with a gBRCA mutation were lower than in patients without a gBRCA mutation. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that olaparib was more cost-effective than niraparib at the willingness-to-pay threshold of NT$2,602,404 per PFS life-year gained. CONCLUSION: Olaparib was estimated to be less cost and more effective compared to niraparib as maintenance therapy for patients with recurrent platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer.

Cost-utility analysis of stereotactic body radiotherapy plus cetuximab in previously irradiated recurrent squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to estimate the cost-utility of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) plus cetuximab for patients with previously irradiated recurrent squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. METHODS: We constructed a Markov health-state transition model to simulate costs and clinical outcomes of recurrent squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Model parameters were derived from the published literature and the National Health Insurance Administration reimbursement price list. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and the net monetary benefit were calculated from a health payer perspective. The impact of uncertainty was modeled with one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: In the base-case, SBRT plus cetuximab compared to SBRT alone resulted in an ICER of NT$ 840,455 per QALY gained. In the one-way sensitivity analysis, the utility of progression-free state for patients treated with SBRT plus cetuximab or SBRT alone and the cost of progression-free survival for SBRT+Cet were the most sensitive parameters in the model. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that the probability of cost-effectiveness at a willingness-to-pay threshold of NT$ 2,252,340 per QALY was 100% for SBRT plus cetuximab but 0% for SBRT alone. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that SBRT+Cet was cost-effective and benefited patients with previously irradiated rSCCHN.