"Stay at Home, Protect the National Health Service, Save Lives": A cost benefit analysis of the lockdown in the United Kingdom.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic has transformed lives across the world. In the UK, a public health driven policy of population "lockdown" has had enormous personal and economic impact. METHODS: We compare UK response and outcomes with European countries of similar income and healthcare resources. We calibrate estimates of the economic costs as different % loss in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) against possible benefits of avoiding life years lost, for different scenarios where current COVID-19 mortality and comorbidity rates were used to calculate the loss in life expectancy and adjusted for their levels of poor health and quality of life. We then apply a quality-adjusted life years (QALY) value of £30,000 (maximum under national guidelines). RESULTS: There was a rapid spread of cases and significant variation both in severity and timing of both implementation and subsequent reductions in social restrictions. There was less variation in the trajectory of mortality rates and excess deaths, which have fallen across all countries during May/June 2020. The average age at death and life expectancy loss for non-COVID-19 was 79.1 and 11.4 years, respectively, while COVID-19 were 80.4 and 10.1 years; including adjustments for life-shortening comorbidities and quality of life plausibly reduces this to around 5 QALY lost for each COVID-19 death. The lowest estimate for lockdown costs incurred was 40% higher than highest benefits from avoiding the worst mortality case scenario at full life expectancy tariff and in more realistic estimations they were over 5 times higher. Future scenarios showed in the best case a QALY value of £220k (7xNICE guideline) and in the worst-case £3.7m (125xNICE guideline) was needed to justify the continuation of lockdown. CONCLUSION: This suggests that the costs of continuing severe restrictions are so great relative to likely benefits in lives saved that a rapid easing in restrictions is now warranted.

Six versus 12 months' adjuvant trastuzumab in patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer: the PERSEPHONE non-inferiority RCT.

BACKGROUND: The addition of adjuvant trastuzumab to chemotherapy has significantly improved outcomes for people with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive, early, potentially curable breast cancer. Twelve months' trastuzumab, tested in registration trials, was adopted as standard adjuvant treatment in 2006. Subsequently, similar outcomes were demonstrated using 9 weeks of trastuzumab. Shorter durations were therefore tested for non-inferiority. OBJECTIVES: To establish whether or not 6 months' adjuvant trastuzumab is non-inferior to 12 months' in the treatment of HER2-positive early breast cancer using a primary end point of 4-year disease-free survival. DESIGN: This was a Phase III randomised controlled non-inferiority trial. SETTING: The setting was 152 NHS hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 4088 patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer who it was planned would receive both chemotherapy and trastuzumab took part. INTERVENTION: Randomisation (1 : 1) to 6 months' or 12 months' trastuzumab treatment. MAIN OUTCOMES: The primary end point was disease-free survival. The secondary end points were overall survival, cost-effectiveness and cardiac function during treatment with trastuzumab. Assuming a 4-year disease-free survival rate of 80% with 12 months' trastuzumab, 4000 patients were required to demonstrate non-inferiority of 6 months' trastuzumab (5% one-sided significance, 85% power), defining the non-inferiority limit as no worse than 3% below the standard arm. Costs and quality-adjusted life-years were estimated using a within-trial analysis and a lifetime decision-analytic model. RESULTS: Between 4 October 2007 and 31 July 2015, 2045 patients were randomised to 12 months' trastuzumab and 2043 were randomised to 6 months' trastuzumab. Sixty-nine per cent of patients had ER-positive disease; 90% received anthracyclines (49% with taxanes; 41% without taxanes); 10% received taxanes without anthracyclines; 54% received trastuzumab sequentially after chemotherapy; and 85% received adjuvant chemotherapy (58% were node negative). At 6.1 years' median follow-up, with 389 (10%) deaths and 566 (14%) disease-free survival events, the 4-year disease-free survival rates for the 4088 patients were 89.5% (95% confidence interval 88.1% to 90.8%) in the 6-month group and 90.3% (95% confidence interval 88.9% to 91.5%) in the 12-month group (hazard ratio 1.10, 90% confidence interval 0.96 to 1.26; non-inferiority p = 0.01), demonstrating non-inferiority of 6 months' trastuzumab. Congruent results were found for overall survival (non-inferiority p = 0.0003) and landmark analyses 6 months from starting trastuzumab [non-inferiority p = 0.03 (disease-free-survival) and p = 0.006 (overall survival)]. Six months' trastuzumab resulted in fewer patients reporting adverse events of severe grade [365/1929 (19%) vs. 460/1935 (24%) for 12-month patients; p = 0.0003] or stopping early because of cardiotoxicity [61/1977 (3%) vs. 146/1941 (8%) for 12-month patients; p < 0.0001]. Health economic analysis showed that 6 months' trastuzumab resulted in significantly lower lifetime costs than and similar lifetime quality-adjusted life-years to 12 months' trastuzumab, and thus there is a high probability that 6 months' trastuzumab is cost-effective compared with 12 months' trastuzumab. Patient-reported experiences in the trial highlighted fatigue and aches and pains most frequently. LIMITATIONS: The type of chemotherapy and timing of trastuzumab changed during the recruitment phase of the study as standard practice altered. CONCLUSIONS: PERSEPHONE demonstrated that, in the treatment of HER2-positive early breast cancer, 6 months' adjuvant trastuzumab is non-inferior to 12 months'. Six months' treatment resulted in significantly less cardiac toxicity and fewer severe adverse events. FUTURE WORK: Ongoing translational work investigates patient and tumour genetic determinants of toxicity, and trastuzumab efficacy. An individual patient data meta-analysis with PHARE and other trastuzumab duration trials is planned. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN52968807, EudraCT 2006-007018-39 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00712140. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 40. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

THE BACKGROUND: There are several different types of breast cancer and some are called 'HER2 positive'. These cancers can often be cured by treatment with chemotherapy and a drug called trastuzumab (also known as Herceptin®; Roche, Basel, Switzerland). Although the first trials of trastuzumab used 12 months treatment, we did not know if less treatment could work as well. A small trial in Finland showed that giving trastuzumab for just 9 weeks was also effective. We know that trastuzumab can have some side effects, including heart problems, so it was important to see if we could reduce the length of treatment time, which is usually 12 months. WHAT DID WE DO?: We wanted to find out if we could treat patients safely with 6 months rather than 12 months of trastuzumab. We carried out a clinical trial called PERSEPHONE, in which over 4000 patients with this type of early breast cancer took part. Half of the patients were given 12 months of trastuzumab and half were given 6 months of trastuzumab. WHAT DID WE FIND?: We found that the two groups of patients had very similar benefit from treatment. At 4 years after diagnosis 90.3% of those who had received 12 months of trastuzumab were alive and free of any breast cancer recurrence, compared with 89.5% of those who had received 6 months. In other words, 125 patients would need to be treated with 12 months' trastuzumab rather than 6 months' trastuzumab for one more person to be alive and cancer-free 4 years from diagnosis. THE SIDE EFFECTS?: Severe side effects of trastuzumab were seen on at least one occasion in 24% of 12-month patients compared with 19% of 6-month patients. More patients receiving 12 months of trastuzumab had to stop trastuzumab early because of heart problems (8% of 12-month patients compared with 3% of 6-month patients). WHAT DOES THIS ALL MEAN?: We have shown that 6 months of trastuzumab has similar outcomes to 12 months in treating patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer but with fewer severe side effects, including heart problems, fewer visits to hospital for patients and significant cost savings for the NHS.

6 versus 12 months of adjuvant trastuzumab for HER2-positive early breast cancer (PERSEPHONE): 4-year disease-free survival results of a randomised phase 3 non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Adjuvant trastuzumab significantly improves outcomes for patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer. The standard treatment duration is 12 months but shorter treatment could provide similar efficacy while reducing toxicities and cost. We aimed to investigate whether 6-month adjuvant trastuzumab treatment is non-inferior to the standard 12-month treatment regarding disease-free survival. METHODS: This study is an open-label, randomised phase 3 non-inferiority trial. Patients were recruited from 152 centres in the UK. We randomly assigned patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer, aged 18 years or older, and with a clear indication for chemotherapy, by a computerised minimisation process (1:1), to receive either 6-month or 12-month trastuzumab delivered every 3 weeks intravenously (loading dose of 8 mg/kg followed by maintenance doses of 6 mg/kg) or subcutaneously (600 mg), given in combination with chemotherapy (concurrently or sequentially). The primary endpoint was disease-free survival, analysed by intention to treat, with a non-inferiority margin of 3% for 4-year disease-free survival. Safety was analysed in all patients who received trastuzumab. This trial is registered with EudraCT (number 2006-007018-39), ISRCTN (number 52968807), and ClinicalTrials.gov (number NCT00712140). FINDINGS: Between Oct 4, 2007, and July 31, 2015, 2045 patients were assigned to 12-month trastuzumab treatment and 2044 to 6-month treatment (one patient was excluded because they were double randomised). Median follow-up was 5·4 years (IQR 3·6-6·7) for both treatment groups, during which a disease-free survival event occurred in 265 (13%) of 2043 patients in the 6-month group and 247 (12%) of 2045 patients in the 12-month group. 4-year disease-free survival was 89·4% (95% CI 87·9-90·7) in the 6-month group and 89·8% (88·3-91·1) in the 12-month group (hazard ratio 1·07 [90% CI 0·93-1·24], non-inferiority p=0·011), showing non-inferiority of the 6-month treatment. 6-month trastuzumab treatment resulted in fewer patients reporting severe adverse events (373 [19%] of 1939 patients vs 459 [24%] of 1894 patients, p=0·0002) or stopping early because of cardiotoxicity (61 [3%] of 1939 patients vs 146 [8%] of 1894 patients, p<0·0001). INTERPRETATION: We have shown that 6-month trastuzumab treatment is non-inferior to 12-month treatment in patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer, with less cardiotoxicity and fewer severe adverse events. These results support consideration of reduced duration trastuzumab for women at similar risk of recurrence as to those included in the trial. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research, Health Technology Assessment Programme.

Capecitabine plus docetaxel combination therapy.

BACKGROUND: For patients with anthracycline-pretreated metastatic breast carcinoma, capecitabine plus docetaxel significantly increased overall survival compared with docetaxel alone. The current study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of the capecitabine/docetaxel combination versus docetaxel monotherapy, comparing the gain in quality-adjusted survival with associated health care costs. METHODS: Patients were randomized to receive 21-day cycles of oral capecitabine 1250 mg/m2 twice daily, on Days 1-14, plus docetaxel 75 mg/m2 Day 1 (n = 255), or docetaxel 100 mg/m2 on Day 1 (n = 256). Health and cost outcomes in the two arms were compared, and cost-effectiveness was estimated. Data on survival time and medical care resource use were prospectively collected in the trial. Costs associated with medical care resource use and quality-of-life adjustments were obtained from the published literature. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated as the cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. RESULTS: Capecitabine/docetaxel increased the median overall survival by 3 months compared with docetaxel alone (14.5 vs. 11.5 months). The mean quality-adjusted survival was increased by 1.8 months in the capecitabine/docetaxel group. The total medical-resource utilization cost per patient was 8.9% higher with the combination: 24,475 dollars for combination therapy versus 22,477 dollars for single-agent docetaxel. The mean cost per QALY gained with combination therapy was 13,558 dollars (standard deviation, 6742 dollars). Cost savings due to reduced docetaxel dose and hospital use were the major cost offsets with the combination. Sensitivity analyses showed that varying the mean hospital cost per day from the 5th to the 95th percentile resulted in cost-utility ratios ranging from 20,326 dollars to as low as 6360 dollars. CONCLUSIONS: Capecitabine/docetaxel was a cost-effective treatment in patients with anthracycline-pretreated advanced breast carcinoma, and had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio that compares very favorably with that of many other oncology therapies.