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.

Healthcare resource utilization and costs associated with patients prescribed afatinib or erlotinib as first-line therapy for EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC in the United States.

Aims: To assess healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and costs in patients with non-small cell lung cancer treated with the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors afatinib or erlotinib as first-line treatment.Materials and methods: This retrospective analysis used data from three large administrative claims databases in the US: Truven MarketScan, IMS PharMetrics Plus, and Optum Clinformatics Data Mart. Patients with diagnosis codes of lung cancer treated with afatinib or erlotinib were included in the sample. Treatment cohorts were matched on baseline characteristics using propensity scores to account for potential selection bias. HCRU and healthcare costs were compared between the matched afatinib and erlotinib cohorts.Results: In total, 3,152 patients met the study inclusion criteria; propensity score matching of the afatinib and erlotinib patients yielded 525 matched pairs with well-balanced baseline characteristics. The afatinib cohort had significantly fewer patients with ≥1 inpatient visits (40.4% vs 52.2%, p = 0.0001) and outpatient emergency room (ER) visits (45.7% vs 54.1%, p = 0.0066). Per patient per month (PPPM) visits were significantly different between afatinib compared to erlotinib for inpatient visits (0.1 vs 0.2, p = 0.0152), other outpatient visits PPPM (2.6 vs 3.0, p = 0.022) and outpatient office visits (2.0 vs 1.7, p = 0.0059). Although costs of outpatient office ($1,624 vs $1,070; p = 0.0086) and pharmacy ($6,709 vs $5,932; p < 0.0001) visits were higher for afatinib vs erlotinib, total costs did not differ significantly between cohorts ($14,972 vs $14,412; p = 0.4415).Limitations: Retrospective claims data can be subject to coding errors or data omissions; patients were required to have continuous health plan enrolment; EGFR mutation status was not confirmed.Conclusions: Patients treated with afatinib as first-line monotherapy experienced fewer inpatient stays and ER visits compared with erlotinib. Total costs were not significantly different between the two treatment cohorts.

The humanistic burden of head and neck cancer: a systematic literature review.

BACKGROUND: Head and neck cancer (HNC) and its treatment can affect communication, nutrition, and physical appearance, and the global impact of this disease on patients' quality of life may be substantial. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic literature review was to describe the impact of HNC and its treatment on the physical, emotional, and social well-being of patients over time, by examining longitudinal studies of patient-reported outcomes (PRO) evaluating these domains. METHODS: Databases (MEDLINE and Embase) were searched to identify studies published in English between January 2004 and January 2014 analyzing the humanistic aspects of HNC in adult patients. Additional relevant publications were identified through manual searches of abstracts from recent conference proceedings. RESULTS: Of 1,566 studies initially identified, 130 met the inclusion criteria and were evaluated in the assessment. Investigations using a variety of PRO instruments in heterogeneous patient populations consistently reported that PRO scores decrease significantly from diagnosis through the treatment period, but generally recover to baseline in the first year post-treatment. This trend was observed for many functional domains, although some side effects, such as xerostomia, persisted well beyond 1 year. In addition, considerable evidence exists that baseline PRO scores can predict clinical endpoints such as overall and progression-free survival. CONCLUSIONS: Many aspects of HNC, both disease and treatment specific, profoundly affect patients' quality of life. Improved knowledge of these effects on PRO may allow for more informed treatment decisions and can help physicians to better prepare patients for changes they may experience during therapy. Furthermore, the predictive value of baseline PRO data may enable healthcare providers to identify at-risk patients in need of more intensive intervention.

Patient-reported outcome labeling claims and measurement approach for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer treatments in the United States and European Union.

BACKGROUND: Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) and its treatment significantly affect health-related quality of life (HRQOL). Our objectives were to evaluate and compare patient-reported outcome (PRO) claims granted by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) for 5 recently approved mCRPC treatments and to examine key characteristics, development, and measurement properties of the PRO measures supporting these claims against current regulatory standards. METHODS: Five products approved for treatment of mCRPC by the FDA and the EMA (2010-2013) were examined: enzalutamide, abiraterone, sipuleucel-T, cabazitaxel, and radium Ra 223 dichloride. United States (US) drug approval packages and European Public Assessment Reports were reviewed. PRO claims in the US labels and European Summaries of Product Characteristics and supporting measures were identified. For PRO measures supporting claims, a targeted literature review was conducted to identify information on key characteristics and measurement properties; this information was compared against FDA PRO guidance criteria. RESULTS: Nine PRO "claims" were granted across 4 of 5 products reviewed. The EMA granted more claims (7 claims-4 for pain, 3 for HRQOL) than the FDA (2 claims, both for pain). The Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form (BPI-SF) worst pain item supported most pain claims and was the only measure supporting US claims. EMA pain claims were supported by BPI-SF worst pain (n = 2) and average pain (n = 1) items and the McGill Pain Questionnaire Present Pain Intensity component (n = 1). EMA HRQOL claims were supported by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate Module (n = 2) and the EuroQol 5 Dimensions with visual analogue scale (n = 1). Pain and prostate cancer-specific HRQOL measures supporting claims met US regulatory standards for construct validity, reliability, and responsiveness; these properties were strongest for the BPI-SF worst pain item. Only the BPI-SF worst pain item has documented content validity in mCRPC. CONCLUSIONS: PRO label claims were commonly granted across the mCRPC products reviewed. Among the measures reviewed, only the BPI-SF worst pain item supported US label claims. The BPI-SF worst pain item is recommended for pain assessment for the evaluation of new mCRPC treatments.

Model-based cost-effectiveness analyses for the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukaemia: a review of methods to model disease outcomes and estimate utility.

Assessing the economic value of treatments for chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL) is necessary to support healthcare decision makers; however, it poses a number of challenges. This paper reviews economic models of CLL treatment to learn the lessons from this experience and support ongoing model efforts. A search of databases and submissions to key health technology assessment agencies identified nine models. The modelling approaches adopted across these studies were fairly similar, with most models adopting a cohort Markov structure, though one example of a discrete event simulation was identified. While the cohort Markov approach has been acceptable to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, the review identifies a number of key uncertainties with these models, including the extrapolation of survival outcomes beyond the period observed by the trial, the effectiveness of second-line therapies, and estimates of health state utility. Further work is required to overcome these uncertainties, including comprehensive sensitivity analysis, systematic review of the evidence on the natural progression of CLL, and the collection of longer-term trial and registry data.

Model-based cost-effectiveness analyses for the treatment of chronic myeloid leukaemia: a review and summary of challenges.

Assessing the economic value of treatments for chronic myeloid leukaemia (CML) is important but poses a number of challenges. This paper reviews economic models of CML treatment to learn lessons from this experience and support ongoing efforts to model CML. A search of databases and submissions to key health technology assessment agencies identified 12 studies that reported 22 models. Common practice included the use of cohort Markov models-most models used health states organised around the key stages in CML: chronic phase, accelerated phase and blast phase-and the use of utility estimates in the literature that correspond with the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence reference case. Two key areas of uncertainty were the extrapolation of survival outcomes beyond the period observed by the trial; and the effectiveness of second-line therapies. Further work is required to overcome these uncertainties in existing models, such as longer-term trial data collection, including trials of second-line therapies; validation of health-related quality-of-life instruments; and the testing of alternative modelling approaches. In the meantime, it is important that the impact of uncertainties is tested through the use of sensitivity and scenario analysis.

The economic burden of head and neck cancer: a systematic literature review.

BACKGROUND: This systematic literature review aimed to evaluate and summarize the existing evidence on resource use and costs associated with the diagnosis and treatment of head and neck cancer (HNC) in adult patients, to better understand the currently available data. The costs associated with HNC are complex, as the disease involves multiple sites, and treatment may require a multidisciplinary medical team and different treatment modalities. METHODS: Databases (MEDLINE and Embase) were searched to identify studies published in English between October 2003 and October 2013 analyzing the economics of HNC in adult patients. Additional relevant publications were identified through manual searches of abstracts from recent conference proceedings. RESULTS: Of 606 studies initially identified, 77 met the inclusion criteria and were evaluated in the assessment. Most included studies were conducted in the USA. The vast majority of studies assessed direct costs of HNC, such as those associated with diagnosis and screening, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, surgery, side effects of treatment, and follow-up care. The costs of treatment far exceeded those for other aspects of care. There was considerable heterogeneity in the reporting of economic outcomes in the included studies; truly comparable cost data were sparse in the literature. Based on these limited data, in the US costs associated with systemic therapy were greater than costs for surgery or radiotherapy. However, this trend was not seen in Europe, where surgery incurred a higher cost than radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Most studies investigating the direct healthcare costs of HNC have utilized US databases of claims to public and private payers. Data from these studies suggested that costs generally are higher for HNC patients with recurrent and/or metastatic disease, for patients undergoing surgery, and for those patients insured by private payers. Further work is needed, particularly in Europe and other regions outside the USA; prospective studies assessing the cost associated with HNC would allow for more systematic comparison of costs, and would provide valuable economic information to payers, providers, and patients.

Cost-effectiveness of targeted therapy with cetuximab in patients with K-ras wild-type colorectal cancer presenting with initially unresectable metastases limited to the liver in a German setting.

BACKGROUND: In patients with metastases limited to the liver (liver-limited disease [LLD]), effective therapies such as monoclonal antibodies combined with chemotherapy may facilitate metastasis resection and improve long-term survival. OBJECTIVE: This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab and cetuximab in the treatment of patients with colorectal cancer presenting with initially unresectable liver metastases of the Kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene homolog (K-ras) wild type, from the perspective of German statutory health insurance. METHODS: The health-economic modeling approach presented here made indirect comparisons between available data on bevacizumab and cetuximab treatment outcomes using evidence synthesis techniques, extrapolating from the follow-up duration of identified clinical trials to a longer time horizon of up to 10 years and inferring costs and health outcomes based on modeled patient pathways. Expert opinion and Delphi panel methods were used for some assumptions, when evidence was missing. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses and different scenario analyses were applied to test for uncertainty around input parameters and assumptions. RESULTS: For the metastatic colorectal cancer LLD population with K-ras wild-type genotype, mean overall survival estimates were 37.7 months for first-line treatment with cetuximab plus FOLFIRI (irinotecan, leucovorin, fluorouracil) and 30.4 months for bevacizumab plus FOLFOX (oxaliplatin, leucovorin, fluorouracil). Corresponding discounted survival estimates were 2.88 life-years with cetuximab plus FOLFIRI versus 2.38 life-years with bevacizumab plus FOLFOX, an average gain of 0.50 discounted life-years. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of cetuximab plus FOLFIRI versus bevacizumab plus FOLFOX was €15,020 (year 2010 €) per life-year gained in the base case (with a 95% CI from the probabilistic sensitivity analysis of €3806-€24,660). Results were robust in different scenario analyses as well as in the probabilistic sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSIONS: First-line treatment with cetuximab plus FOLFIRI offers a cost-effective treatment option versus bevacizumab plus FOLFOX for the metastatic colorectal cancer LLD population with K-ras wild-type genotype in Germany. K-ras testing should be performed on all presenting cases of metastatic colorectal cancer to ensure access to this treatment option.

An economic evaluation of cetuximab combined with radiotherapy for patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer in Belgium, France, Italy, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom.

OBJECTIVES: A phase III randomized trial that compared the combination of cetuximab and radiotherapy to radiotherapy alone in patients with locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck provided a platform for a comprehensive economic evaluation. The study was conducted to estimate the cost-effectiveness of cetuximab in combination with radiotherapy compared to radiotherapy alone, for the treatment of locally advanced head and neck cancer in patients for whom chemoradiotherapy is inappropriate or intolerable. METHODS: Separate economic analyses were conducted for Belgium, France, Italy, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. The economic model was based on individual patient data extracted from an international phase III trial. Country-specific costs of care from official sources were applied in each analysis. Clinical expert panels supplemented resource use estimates from the phase III trial and validated assumptions used to extrapolate costs and health outcomes beyond the follow-up of the phase III trial. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year for patients receiving radiotherapy in combination with cetuximab compared to radiotherapy alone among all countries was in the range of 7538 euros to 10,836 euros. Sensitivity analysis showed the results to be robust. CONCLUSION: This cost-effectiveness analysis indicated that the addition of cetuximab to high-dose radiotherapy offers a good value-for-money alternative to radiotherapy alone in the treatment of locally advanced head and neck cancer in five European countries.

Comparing the clinical and economic effects of clinical examination, pulse oximetry, and echocardiography in newborn screening for congenital heart defects: a probabilistic cost-effectiveness model and value of information analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Congenital heart defects (CHD) are an important cause of death and morbidity in early childhood, but the effectiveness of alternative newborn screening strategies in preventing the collapse or death--before diagnosis--of infants with treatable but life-threatening defects is uncertain. We assessed their effectiveness and efficiency to inform policy and research priorities. METHODS: We compared the effectiveness of clinical examination alone and clinical examination with either pulse oximetry or screening echocardiography in making a timely diagnosis of life-threatening CHD or in diagnosing clinically significant CHD. We contrasted their cost-effectiveness, using a decision-analytic model based on 100,000 live births, and assessed future research priorities using value of information analysis. RESULTS: Clinical examination alone, pulse oximetry, and screening echocardiography achieved 34.0, 70.6, and 71.3 timely diagnoses per 100,000 live births, respectively. This finding represents an additional cost per additional timely diagnosis of 4,894 pounds and 4,496,666 pounds for pulse oximetry and for screening echocardiography. The equivalent costs for clinically significant CHD are 1,489 pounds and 36,013 pounds, respectively. Key determinants of cost-effectiveness are detection rates and screening test costs. The false-positive rate is very high with screening echocardiography (5.4 percent), but lower with pulse oximetry (1.3 percent) or clinical examination alone (.5 percent). CONCLUSIONS: Adding pulse oximetry to clinical examination is likely to be a cost-effective newborn screening strategy for CHD, but further research is required before this policy can be recommended. Screening echocardiography is unlikely to be cost-effective, unless the detection of all clinically significant CHD is considered beneficial and a 5 percent false-positive rate acceptable.

Quality-adjusted life-years lack quality in pediatric care: a critical review of published cost-utility studies in child health.

OBJECTIVES: Cost-utility analysis in which health benefits are quantified in terms of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) has now become the standard type of cost-effectiveness analysis. These studies are potentially influential in determining the extent of funding for particular pediatric interventions, and so their methodologic quality is extremely important. The objective of this study was twofold: first, to critically appraise published cost-utility analyses of interventions in child and adolescent health care in terms of the methods used to derive QALYs and, second, to discuss unresolved methodologic issues that are pertinent to the measurement of QALYs in pediatric populations. METHODS: A comprehensive search using computerized databases (including Medline, Embase, Econlit, and databases specific to economic evaluation), Web searches, and citation tracking was undertaken to identify cost-utility studies of interventions that were aimed at those who were younger than 16 years and published before April 2004. The methods of individual studies were compared with the recognized published guidelines of the US Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine and the National Institute for Clinical Excellence in England and Wales, which recommend the use of a generic health state classification system (eg, Health Utility Index, EuroQol-5D), a choice-based valuation method (eg, standard gamble or time trade-off) and preferences of the general public in estimating QALYs. Studies therefore were categorized and evaluated according to the methods used to describe the health state, the valuation technique, and source of preferences. RESULTS: Fifty-four studies were reviewed, 34 (63%) of which were published in the past 5 years. A generic health status classification instrument was used in 22 (35%) cases; the remainder developed study-specific health state descriptions or elicited preferences directly from patients or proxies. In 3 (5%) cases, sources were unclear. Preference weights were elicited using choice-based techniques in 28 (42%) cases, either as tariffs for health status classification instruments (17 cases) or by directly valuing health state descriptions or patient health (11 cases). Preferences of the general public were used in only 23 (37%) cases. Four studies aggregated QALYs for mother/child or parents/child pairs without giving any theoretical justification. Although there was an increasing tendency for studies to use generic health status classification instruments, choice-based methods, and preferences of the general public, the majority of studies still did not adhere to these standard recommendations even in the period between January 2000 and March 2004. Despite increasing standardization in the methods advocated for economic evaluation over the past 10 years, there remains extensive variation in the actual methods used by researchers to calculate QALYs for children and adolescents. It is unclear whether these results suggest poor practice or a set of positive (or reactive) choices made by analysts in a methodologically uncertain area in which specific guidance is lacking regarding how to address the complexities of pediatric outcomes within the QALY framework. Many aspects of QALY measurement in children are not yet fully developed. In particular, there is (1) a lack of appropriate health state classification instruments that take account of the dynamics of child development, (2) a lack of health state classification instruments for use in children and infants who are younger than 5 years, and (3) the need to understand fully the role of proxies for measuring and valuing child health. Additional research efforts are also required to develop methods that account for the health benefits of parents or caregivers of the child and to consider the implications of combining different forms of utility measurement in childhood and adulthood. CONCLUSIONS: Although variations from standard recommendations may be attributable to poor practice among researchers who are either unaware of these recommendations or choose not to follow them, they could equally be the result of attempts to make research more rigorous and more defensible than it might be if the standard recommendations were followed. There are 4 potential approaches to conducting cost-utility analysis in pediatric populations: (1) the explicit development of a generic instrument designed to be applicable across both child and adult populations (likely to be difficult in practice), (2) insistence on use of a generic instrument developed for adults, (3) the use of generic instruments specifically developed for children without being concerned about comparability with interventions aimed at adults, and (4) abandoning attempts to use single outcome measures that combine mortality with quality weights. In the absence of a clear way forward, it is suggested that an expert panel be convened to debate and further consider these potential solutions and recommendations for best practice and future research. In the interim, comparisons of the relative cost-effectiveness reported as cost per QALY gained across interventions for different diseases and populations should be treated with extreme caution.