Value of a QALY for France: A New Approach to Propose Acceptable Reference Values.

OBJECTIVE: France has included health economic assessment (HEA) as an official criterion for innovative drug pricing since 2013. Until now, no cost-effectiveness threshold (CET) has been officially proposed to qualify incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Although the French health authorities have publicly expressed the need for such reference values, previous initiatives to determine these have failed. The study aims to propose a locally adapted method for estimating a preference-based value for a quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) based on a rational approach to public policy choices in France. METHODS: We used the official French value of statistical life (VSL) of €3 million (USD 3.25 million), proposed in 2013 by the French General Commission on Strategy and Prediction. We first estimated the value of life-year (VoLY) by age category according to life expectancy and official discounts recommended for HEA in France. We then estimated a value of statistical QALY (VSQ) by weighting VoLYs with demographic data and French EQ-5D-3L tariffs. RESULTS: The estimated average VoLYs and VSQs were €120 185 (USD 130 000) and €147 093 (USD 159 022), respectively, assuming a discount rate of 2.5% and €166 205 (USD 179 681) and €201 398 (USD 217 728), respectively, assuming a discount rate of 4.5%. CONCLUSION: Assuming that, as in other public domains, equity in access to healthcare across all disease areas and between all users is desirable, we propose an estimate of VSQ that is consistent with this goal. Our estimates of €147 093 (USD 179,681) to €201 398 (USD 217 728) should be perceived as breakeven costs for a QALY rather than a market access threshold. Such VSQs could be used as reference values for ICERs in HEA in France.

Cost-effectiveness of alectinib compared to crizotinib for the treatment of first-line ALK+ advanced non-small-cell lung cancer in France.

The aim of the study is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of alectinib for first-line treatment of ALK+ advanced non-small-cell lung cancer compared to crizotinib in the French setting. This study used a partitioned survival model, with three discrete health states (progression-free survival, post-progression survival and death). Survival probabilities were derived from a randomised Phase III clinical trial comparing alectinib to crizotinib (ALEX). Beyond the length of the trial (18 months), the efficacy of both treatments was considered equivalent. Occurrence of adverse events or brain metastases were considered as inter-current events. Utilities (and disutilities for intercurrent adverse events) derived from the EQ-5D were applied. Costs were attributed using standard French national public health tariffs. Projected mean overall survival was 4.62 years for alectinib and 4.18 years for crizotinib. Projected mean progression-free survival was 30.30 months for alectinib and 16.13 months for crizotinib. The total number of quality-adjusted life years projected was 3.40 for alectinib and 2.84 for crizotinib. The projected total cost of treatment over the lifetime of the model was € 246,022 for alectinib and € 195,486 for crizotinib. This extra cost was principally attributable to treatment acquisition costs and management before progression. Alectinib was associated with lower costs related to brain metastases and to management post-progression. The incremental cost per life year gained was 115,334 €/year and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was 90,232 €/QALY. First-line treatment of ALK+ NSCLC with alectinib provides superior clinical outcomes to crizotinib and is cost-effective in the French context.

Cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab plus paclitaxel versus paclitaxel for the first-line treatment of HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer in specialist oncology centers in France.

BACKGROUND: Evidence from clinical trials suggests that the addition of bevacizumab to chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer improves progression-free survival (PFS) but not overall survival (OS). However, a retrospective analysis of real-world data from the French Comprehensive Cancer Centers (FCCC) through the Epidemiological Strategy and Medical Economics (ESME) Research Program, suggested that in this setting, the addition of bevacizumab may confer a significant benefit in terms of both PFS and OS. A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed to determine the cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab plus paclitaxel versus paclitaxel alone in the first-line treatment of HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer at specialist oncology centers in France. METHODS: The analysis was performed using a three-state Markov model and clinical input data from N = 3426 HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer patients treated with bevacizumab plus paclitaxel or paclitaxel alone. The analysis was performed from a third party payer perspective over a 10-year time horizon; future costs and clinical outcomes were discounted at 4% per annum. RESULTS: In the overall population, the addition of bevacizumab to paclitaxel led to incremental gain of 0.72 life years and 0.48 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) relative to paclitaxel alone. The incremental lifetime cost of the addition of bevacizumab was EUR 27,390, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of EUR 56,721 per QALY gained for bevacizumab plus paclitaxel versus paclitaxel alone. In a subgroup of triple negative patients the ICER was EUR 66,874 per QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: The analysis indicated that the combination of bevacizumab plus paclitaxel is likely to be cost-effective compared with paclitaxel alone for the first-line treatment of HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer in specialized oncology centers in France.

Extra cost of brain metastases (BM) in patients with non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): a French national hospital database analysis.

PURPOSE: To assess the incremental cost associated with the management of patients with primary non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with brain metastases at the time of diagnosis. METHODS: Data were extracted from the French Hospital medical information database (Programme de Médicalisation des Systèmes d'Information (PMSI)). Patients with non-squamous NSCLC were identified through a diagnosis of lung cancer and a prescription of bevacizumab or pemetrexed. All such patients hospitalised with lung cancer for the first time in 2013 and with metastases identified at the first hospitalisation were eligible. Two cohorts were identified, one with brain metastases (group B: n=971) and one with metastases at other sites (group A: n=1529). For each patient, total in-hospital medical resource consumption associated with the initial hospitalisation in 2013 and with any follow-up stays in the following 24 months was documented. Costs were attributed from official French national tariffs and expressed in 2017 euros. RESULTS: The mean number of hospitalisations per patient in the 24-moth follow-up period was 17 in group A and 21 in group B. >99% of patients in both groups received chemotherapy. 58% of patients in group B and 13% in group A were managed by radiotherapy. 37% in group B and 24% in group A received palliative care. The associated cost was €2979 per patient-month for patients in group B and €2426 for patients in group A, representing a differential cost of €553 per month. Radiotherapy (+€164/month) and palliative care (+€130/month) were the principal drivers of the incremental cost. CONCLUSIONS: The presence of brain metastases at the time of diagnosis of non-squamous NSCLC carries a significant burden, and ways of lowering this burden are needed.

Cost-effectiveness of routine varicella vaccination using the measles, mumps, rubella and varicella vaccine in France: an economic analysis based on a dynamic transmission model for varicella and herpes zoster.

PURPOSE: Each year in France, varicella and zoster affect large numbers of children and adults, resulting in medical visits, hospitalizations for varicella- and zoster-related complications, and societal costs. Disease prevention by varicella vaccination is feasible, wherein a plausible option involves replacing the combined measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine with the combined MMR and varicella (MMRV) vaccine. This study aimed to: (1) assess the cost-effectiveness of adding routine varicella vaccination through MMRV, using different vaccination strategies in France; and (2) address key uncertainties, such as the economic consequences of breakthrough varicella cases, the waning of vaccine-conferred protection, vaccination coverage, and indirect costs. METHODS: Based on the outputs of a dynamic transmission model that used data on epidemiology and costs from France, a cost-effectiveness model was built. A conservative approach was taken regarding the impact of varicella vaccination on zoster incidence by assuming the validity of the hypothesis of an age-specific boosting of immunity against varicella. FINDINGS: The model determined that routine MMRV vaccination is expected to be a cost-effective option, considering a cost-effectiveness threshold of €20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year saved; routine vaccination was cost-saving from the societal perspective. Results were driven by a large decrease in varicella incidence despite a temporary initial increase in the number of zoster cases due to the assumption of exogenous boosting. In the scenario analyses, despite moderate changes in assumptions about incidence and costs, varicella vaccination remained a cost-effective option for France. IMPLICATIONS: Routine vaccination with MMRV was associated with high gains in quality-adjusted life-years, substantial reduction in the occurrences of varicella- and zoster-related complications, and few deaths due to varicella. Routine MMRV vaccination is also expected to provide reductions in costs related to hospitalizations, medication use, and general-practitioner visits, as well as indirect costs, and it is expected to be a cost-effective intervention in France (GSK study identifier: HO-12-6924).

A generally applicable cost-effectiveness model for the evaluation of vaccines against cervical cancer.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed at evaluating the cost-effectiveness of human papillomavirus virus (HPV) vaccination in France, using a generally applicable succinct cohort model. METHODS: A lifetime Markov cohort model, adapted to the French setting, simulate the natural history of oncogenic HPV infection towards cervical cancer (CC). Additional modules account for the effects of screening and vaccination. The girls' cohort is vaccinated at age 12 and follows current screening. Costs and outcomes (discounted at 3 and 1.5%, respectively) were compared with a cohort receiving screening alone. RESULTS: The model results agreed well with real-life data. Vaccination in addition to screening would substantially reduce the incidence of and mortality from CC, compared with screening alone, at an estimated cost-effectiveness of 9,706 per quality-adjusted-life-year. Sensitivity analysis showed that the discount rate and the parameters related to the disease history have the largest impact on the results. CONCLUSION: This succinct cohort model indicated that HPV vaccination would be a cost-effective policy option in France. It uses readily available data and should be generally applicable to the evaluation of HPV vaccination in a variety of countries and settings.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of vaccination against rotavirus with RIX4414 in France.

BACKGROUND: It is estimated that annually 300 000 cases of rotavirus-induced gastroenteritis (RVGE) occur in children aged up to 5 years in France. A two-dose vaccine against rotavirus infection (RIX4414; Rotarix, GlaxoSmithKline), has been shown to be highly effective against severe RVGE. OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the cost effectiveness of general vaccination against rotavirus using RIX4414 in France. METHODS: A Markov model simulated RVGE events and the associated outcomes and costs relating to general vaccination of infants against rotavirus infection using RIX4414 (Rotarix) in a birth cohort of children aged up to 5 years in France with a combined adjustment for age distribution with the seasonality of the infection. Costs and outcomes were estimated from a limited societal perspective, including direct medical costs paid out of pocket or by third-party payers, as well as the proportion of direct medical costs reimbursed by the health authorities. Indirect costs were not included in the base-case analysis. The primary outcome measure was the incremental cost per QALY. RESULTS: Vaccination with RIX4414 incurred an incremental cost of 44 583 Euro per QALY at a public price of 57 Euro per vaccine dose. Univariate sensitivity analyses showed that the parameters with the largest influence on the results were the transition probabilities of severe diarrhoea, seeking medical advice and emergency visits, utility scores of diarrhoea (mild) in children and infants, and the discount rate for benefits. Probabilistic multivariate sensitivity analysis confirmed these results. The acceptability curve indicated that 94% of the results were under an informal threshold of 50 000 Euro per QALY. Comparing our results with those of a recently published study using pooled data for two rotavirus vaccine products in France, the main differences are explained by differences in model structure and in data input values. They include a different age distribution of the infection, shorter duration of the at-risk period (3 years instead of 5 years), different vaccine efficacy, different unit cost data, different disease duration, and different disutility values for the health states in the model. There is a need for agreed standards to improve comparability of results from different studies. CONCLUSIONS: The results demonstrate that a generalized vaccination strategy with RIX4414 would be cost effective in France from a limited societal perspective, depending on the baseline assumptions for disease progression and on utility scores selected.