Endovascular thrombectomy is cost-saving in patients with acute ischemic stroke with large infarct.

Objective: Endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) is the standard of care for acute large vessel occlusion stroke. Recently, the ANGEL-ASPECT and SELECT 2 trials showed improved outcomes in patients with acute ischemic Stroke presenting with large infarcts. The cost-effectiveness of EVT for this subpopulation of stroke patients has only been calculated using data from the previously published RESCUE-Japan LIMIT trial. It is, therefore, limited in its generalizability to an international population. With this study we primarily simulated patient-level costs to analyze the economic potential of EVT for patients with large ischemic stroke from a public health payer perspective based on the recently published data and secondarily identified determinants of cost-effectiveness. Methods: Costs and outcome of patients treated with EVT or only with the best medical care based on the recent prospective clinical trials ANGEL-ASPECT, SELECT2 and RESCUE-Japan LIMIT. A A Markov model was developed using treamtment outcomes derived from the most recent available literature. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses addressed uncertainty. Results: Endovascular treatment resulted in an incremental gain of 1.32 QALYs per procedure with cost savings of $17,318 per patient. Lifetime costs resulted to be most sensitive to the costs of the endovascular procedure. Conclusion: EVT is a cost-saving (i.e., dominant) strategy for patients presenting with large ischemic cores defined by inclusion criteria of the recently published ANGEL-ASPECT, SELECT2, and RESCUE-Japan LIMIT trials in comparison to best medical care in our simulation. Prospective data of individual patients need to be collected to validate these results.

Cost-effectiveness of endovascular treatment versus best medical management in basilar artery occlusion stroke: A U.S. healthcare perspective.

INTRODUCTION: Two recent studies showed clinical benefit for endovascular treatment (EVT) in basilar artery occlusion (BAO) stroke up to 12 h (ATTENTION) and between 6 and 24 h from onset (BAOCHE). Our aim was to investigate the cost-effectiveness of EVT from a U.S. healthcare perspective. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Clinical input data were available for both trials, which were analyzed separately. A decision model was built consisting of a short-run model to analyze costs and functional outcomes within 90 days after the index stroke and a long-run Markov state transition model (cycle length of 12 months) to estimate expected lifetime costs and outcomes from a healthcare and a societal perspective. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were calculated, deterministic (DSA) and probabilistic (PSA) sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: EVT in addition to best medical management (BMM) resulted in additional lifetime costs of $32,063 in the ATTENTION trial and lifetime cost savings of $7690 in the BAOCHE trial (societal perspective). From a healthcare perspective, EVT led to incremental costs and effectiveness of $37,389 and 2.0 QALYs (ATTENTION) as well as $3516 and 1.9 QALYs (BAOCHE), compared to BMM alone. The ICER values were $-4052/QALY (BAOCHE) and $15,867/QALY (ATTENTION) from a societal perspective. In each trial, PSA showed EVT to be cost-effective in most calculations (99.9%) for a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY. Cost of EVT and age at stroke represented the greatest impact on the ICER. DISCUSSION: From an economic standpoint with a lifetime horizon, EVT in addition to BMM is estimated to be highly effective and cost-effective in BAO stroke.

Is PSMA PET/CT cost-effective for the primary staging in prostate cancer? First results for European countries and the USA based on the proPSMA trial.

PURPOSE: The proPSMA trial at ten Australian centers demonstrated increased sensitivity and specificity for PSMA PET/CT compared to conventional imaging regarding metastatic status in primary high-risk prostate cancer patients. A cost-effectiveness analysis showed benefits of PSMA PET/CT over conventional imaging for the Australian setting. However, comparable data for other countries are lacking. Therefore, we aimed to verify the cost-effectiveness of PSMA PET/CT in several European countries as well as the USA. METHODS: Clinical data on diagnostic accuracy were derived from the proPSMA trial. Costs for PSMA PET/CT and conventional imaging were taken from reimbursements of national health systems and individual billing information of selected centers in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and the USA. For comparability, scan duration and the decision tree of the analysis were adopted from the Australian cost-effectiveness study. RESULTS: In contrast to the Australian setting, PSMA PET/CT was primarily associated with increased costs in the studied centers in Europe and the USA. Mainly, the scan duration had an impact on the cost-effectiveness. However, costs for an accurate diagnosis using PSMA PET/CT seemed reasonably low compared to the potential consequential costs of an inaccurate diagnosis. CONCLUSION: We assume that the use of PSMA PET/CT is appropriate from a health economic perspective, but this will need to be verified by a prospective evaluation of patients at initial diagnosis.

Endovascular thrombectomy is cost-effective in acute basilar artery occlusion stroke.

Objective: Endovascular thrombectomy is a long-established therapy for acute basilar artery occlusion (aBAO). Unlike for anterior circulation stroke, cost-effectiveness of endovascular treatment has not been evaluated and is urgently needed to calculate expected health benefits and financial rewards. The aim of this study was therefore to simulate patient-level costs, analyze the economic potential of endovascular thrombectomy in patients with acute basilar artery occlusion (aBAO), and identify major determinants of cost-effectiveness. Methods: A Markov model was developed to compare outcome and cost parameters between patients treated by endovascular thrombectomy and patients treated by best medical care, based on four recent prospective clinical trials (ATTENTION, BAOCHE, BASICS, and BEST). Treatment outcomes were derived from the most recent literature. Uncertainty was addressed by deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Willingness to pay per QALY thresholds were set at 1x gross domestic product per capita, as recommended by the World Health Organization. Results: Endovascular treatment of acute aBAO stroke yielded an incremental gain of 1.71 quality-adjusted life-years per procedure with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $7,596 per QALY. This was substantially lower than the Willingness to pay of $63,593 per QALY. Lifetime costs were most sensitive to costs of the endovascular procedure. Conclusion: Endovascular treatment is cost-effective in patients with aBAO stroke.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of 177Lu-PSMA-617 Radioligand Therapy in Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer poses a therapeutic challenge with poor prognosis. The VISION trial showed prolonged progression-free and overall survival in patients treated with lutetium Lu 177 vipivotide tetraxetan (177Lu-PSMA-617) radioligand therapy compared with using the standard of care (SoC) alone. The objective of this study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of 177Lu-PSMA-617 treatment compared with SoC therapy. METHODS: A partitioned survival model was developed using data from the VISION trial, which included overall and progression-free survival and treatment regimens for 177Lu-PSMA-617 and SoC. Treatment costs, utilities for health states, and adverse events were derived from public databases and the literature. Because 177Lu-PSMA-617 was only recently approved, costs for treatment were extrapolated from 177Lu-DOTATATE. Outcome measurements included the incremental cost, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness ratio. The analysis was performed in a US setting from a healthcare system perspective over the lifetime horizon of 60 months. The willingness-to-pay threshold was set to $50,000, $100,000, and $200,000 per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). RESULTS: The 177Lu-PSMA-617 group was estimated to gain 0.42 incremental QALYs. Treatment using 177Lu-PSMA-617 led to an increase in costs compared with SoC ($169,110 vs $85,398). The incremental cost, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness ratio for 177Lu-PSMA-617 therapy was $200,708/QALYs. Sensitivity analysis showed robustness of the model regarding various parameters, which remained cost-effective at all lower and upper parameter bounds. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis using Monte Carlo simulation with 10,000 iterations, therapy using 177Lu-PSMA-617 was determined as the cost-effective strategy in 37.14% of all iterations at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $200,000/QALYs. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment using 177Lu-PSMA-617 was estimated to add a notable clinical benefit over SoC alone. Based on the model results, radioligand therapy represents a treatment strategy for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer with cost-effectiveness in certain scenarios.

Cost-effectiveness of Response-Adapted De-escalation of Immunotherapy in Advanced Melanoma.

Importance: Combination immunotherapy with nivolumab and ipilimumab has markedly improved outcomes for patients with advanced melanoma. However, these therapies pose a considerable financial burden to both patients and the health care system. The ADAPT-IT trial demonstrated comparable progression-free and overall survival for patients with response-adapted ipilimumab discontinuation compared with standard of care (SOC). Objective: To determine the cost-effectiveness of ipilimumab discontinuation for patients with interim imaging-confirmed tumor response in the treatment of advanced melanoma. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cost-effectiveness analysis was performed using data from the ADAPT-IT (follow-up of 33 months) and CheckMate 067 (follow-up of 6.5 years) trials, as well as published literature over the ADAPT-IT trial duration of 33 months. The analysis was performed in a US setting from a US-payer perspective, and the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was set at $100 000/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). A total of 355 patients with previously untreated melanoma (unresectable stage III or IV metastatic melanoma) were included. Exposure: Response-adapted ipilimumab discontinuation compared with SOC therapy. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes of the CheckMate trial were overall survival and progression-free survival, while that of ADAPT-IT was objective response. This informed a decision model to estimate lifetime costs and QALYs associated with both strategies. Incremental cost, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness ratio were assessed. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were performed to account for variability in trials and input parameters. Results: Of the 355 patients included in the analysis, 41 patients were from the ADAPT-IT trial (median age, 65 years; 28 [68%] male) and 314 patients from the CheckMate 067 trial (median age, 61 years; 206 [66%] male). Response-adapted treatment was the cost-effective option in 94.0% of scenarios based on Monte Carlo simulations, with a dominant incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and an incremental net monetary benefit of $28 849 compared with SOC therapy. Cost savings were estimated at $19 891 per patient compared with SOC. In scenario analyses, current SOC was only considered as a cost-effective option under best survival assumptions and if the willingness-to-pay threshold exceeded $630 000/QALY. Conclusions and Relevance: This economic evaluation demonstrated that response-adapted treatment de-escalation in patients with advanced melanoma may lead to considerable savings in health care costs and could represent the most cost-effective strategy across various resource settings. Future trials should aim to provide further evidence on noninferiority.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Local Treatment in Oligometastatic Disease.

BACKGROUND: In certain malignancies, patients with oligometastatic disease benefit from radical ablative or surgical treatment. The SABR-COMET trial demonstrated a survival benefit for oligometastatic patients randomized to local stereotactic ablative radiation (SABR) compared to patients receiving standard care (SC) alone. Our aim was to determine the cost-effectiveness of SABR. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A decision model based on partitioned survival simulations estimated costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) associated with both strategies in a United States setting from a health care perspective. Analyses were performed over the trial duration of six years as well as a long-term horizon of 16 years. Model input parameters were based on the SABR-COMET trial data as well as best available and most recent data provided in the published literature. An annual discount of 3% for costs was implemented in the analysis. All costs were adjusted to 2019 US Dollars according to the United States Consumer Price Index. SABR costs were reported with an average of $11,700 per treatment. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. Incremental costs, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were calculated. The willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was set to $100,000/QALY. RESULTS: Based on increased overall and progression-free survival, the SABR group showed 0.78 incremental QALYs over the trial duration and 1.34 incremental QALYs over the long-term analysis. Treatment with SABR led to a marginal increase in costs compared to SC alone (SABR: $304,656; SC: $303,523 for 6 years; ICER $1,446/QALY and SABR: $402,888; SC: $350,708 for long-term analysis; ICER $38,874/QALY). Therapy with SABR remained cost-effective until treatment costs of $88,969 over the trial duration (i.e. 7.6 times the average cost). Sensitivity analysis identified a strong model impact for ongoing annual costs of oligo- and polymetastatic disease states. CONCLUSION: Our analysis suggests that local treatment with SABR adds QALYs for patients with certain oligometastatic cancers and represents an intermediate- and long-term cost-effective treatment strategy.