Lenvatinib in the treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review of economic evaluations.

PURPOSE: This aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review of economic evaluations comparing lenvatinib to other vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitors and other treatment options in the management of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC). METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted using highly sensitive search syntax. The titles and abstracts of all records were studied and screened to identify eligible economic evaluations. To enable comparison across different countries, the results of economic evaluations make it possible to compare, the costs and ICER of all studies were converted into 2022 US dollars, and a 3% annual increase for inflation was applied. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist. This study is conducted and reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. RESULTS: Lenvatinib was found to be cost-effective (ICER = dominant) compared to most drugs in the included studies, except in studies where it was compared with donafenib or when the price of sorafenib was significantly discounted (e.g., with a 90% discount, the value of ICER was + 104,669 USD). CONCLUSION: Lenvatinib was generally cost-effective in most studies, but not compared to donafenib or sorafenib (if the price sorafenib was significantly discounted).

Budget impact analysis of breast cancer medications: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer (BC) is the most common cancer globally among women, with 2,261,419 new cases in 2020; systemic treatment may be neo-adjuvant, adjuvant, or both. BC subtype guides the standard systemic therapy administered, which consists of endocrine therapy for all HR + tumors, trastuzumab-based HER2-directed antibody therapy plus chemotherapy for all HER2 + tumors (with endocrine therapy given in addition, if concurrent HR positivity), and chemotherapy alone for the triple-negative subtype. This study aimed to identify, evaluate, and systematically review all budget impact analyses (BIAs) of BC medications worldwide. METHODS: PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science Core Collection databases were thoroughly searched up to 26th March 2022 to identify original published studies which evaluate BIA of BC medications. ISPOR Task Force guidelines were used to assess the quality of included studies. This study was conducted and reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. RESULTS: In total, 17 BIAs were included in the study. About half of the studies were conducted in Europe. The results of the BIAs showed that most of the included BIAs are conducted from the payer's perspective; they have different methodological frameworks for recommended chemotherapy, targeted therapy, and immunotherapy agents to treat BC. For the same medications, the results of budgetary effects are not consistent in diverse countries. Nine out of the 17 studies were focused on trastuzumab, in which the biosimilar form reduced costs, but the brand form increased costs, especially in a 52-week treatment period. CONCLUSION: Researchers should conduct the budget impact analysis of high-value medications such as anti-tumor drugs more objectively, and the accuracy of parameters needs to be more strictly guaranteed. Furthermore, it is worthy of declaring that the budgetary impact of the same drug is not always consistent over time, so the researchers should measure access to medication in the long run.