Cost-effectiveness of nivolumab and ipilimumab versus pembrolizumab and axitinib in advanced renal cell carcinoma with intermediate or poor prognostic risk: a Brazilian private healthcare system perspective.

OBJECTIVE: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO + IPI) and pembrolizumab plus axitinib (PEM + AXI) have demonstrated significant clinical benefits as first-line (1 L) treatments for intermediate/poor-risk advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) patients. This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of NIVO + IPI versus PEM + AXI from a Brazilian private healthcare system perspective, utilizing a novel approach to estimate comparative efficacy between the treatments. METHODS: A three-state partitioned survival model (progression-free, progressed, and death) was developed to estimate costs, life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), and the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) over a 40-year time horizon. In the absence of head-to-head comparisons between NIVO + IPI and PEM + AXI, clinical data for NIVO + IPI was obtained from CheckMate 214 (NCT02231749) and for PEM + AXI from KEYNOTE-426 (NCT02853331). A matching-adjusted indirect comparison was conducted to account for the imbalance of treatment effect modifiers between the trials. Patient characteristics, resource use, health state utilities, and costs were based on Brazilian-specific sources. Costs and health outcomes were both discounted by 5% annually in line with Brazilian guidelines. The robustness of the results was evaluated through extensive sensitivity analysis and scenario analyses. RESULTS: When comparing the matched versus unmatched OS, PFS, and TTD curves there was no noteworthy difference. NIVO + IPI was associated with cost savings (R$ 350,232), higher LYs (5.54 vs. 4.61), and QALYs (4.74 vs. 3.76) versus PEM + AXI, resulting in NIVO + IPI dominating PEM + AXI. Key model drivers were the treatment duration for PEM, NIVO, and AXI. NIVO + IPI remained dominant in all scenario analyses, which indicated that model results were robust to alternative modelling inputs or assumptions. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis shows that NIVO + IPI is estimated to be a life-extending and potentially cost-saving 1 L treatment option when compared with PEM + AXI for intermediate/poor-risk a RCC patients in the Brazilian private healthcare system.

Challenges in conducting fractional polynomial and standard parametric network meta-analyses of immune checkpoint inhibitors for first-line advanced renal cell carcinoma.

Aim: Network meta-analyses (NMAs) increasingly feature time-varying hazards to account for non-proportional hazards between different drug classes. This paper outlines an algorithm for selecting clinically plausible fractional polynomial NMA models. Methods: The NMA of four immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) + tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and one TKI therapy for renal cell carcinoma (RCC) served as case study. Overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS) data were reconstructed from the literature, 46 models were fitted. The algorithm entailed a-priori face validity criteria for survival and hazards, based on clinical expert input, and predictive accuracy against trial data. Selected models were compared with statistically best-fitting models. Results: Three valid PFS and two OS models were identified. All models overestimated PFS, the OS model featured crossing ICI + TKI versus TKI curves as per expert opinion. Conventionally selected models showed implausible survival. Conclusion: The selection algorithm considering face validity, predictive accuracy, and expert opinion improved the clinical plausibility of first-line RCC survival models.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of KTE-X19 CAR T therapy versus real-world standard of care in patients with relapsed/refractory mantle cell lymphoma post BTKi in England.

AIMS: The objective of this study is to estimate the cost-effectiveness of KTE-X19 versus standard of care (SoC) in the treatment of patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) post-Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor (BTKi) treatment from a UK healthcare perspective. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A three-state partitioned survival model (pre-progression, post-progression and death) with a cycle length of one month was used to extrapolate progression-free and overall survival over a lifetime horizon. Population inputs along with KTE-X19 (brexucabtagene autoleucel) efficacy and safety data were derived from the single-arm trial ZUMA-2 (NCT02601313). The composition of SoC was informed by a literature-based meta-analysis, SoC efficacy data were obtained from the SCHOLAR-2 real-world study. Survival was modelled using standard parametric curves for SoC and a mixture-cure methodology for KTE-X19. It was assumed that patients whose disease had not progressed after five years experienced long-term remission. Costs, resource use and utility, and adverse event disutility inputs were obtained from published literature and publicly available data sources. An annual discount rate of 3.5% was applied to costs and health outcomes. Modelled outcomes for KTE-X19 and SoC included expected life years (LY), quality-adjusted life years (QALY) and total costs. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses and scenario analyses were performed. RESULTS: Estimated median survival was 5.96 years for KTE-X19 and 1.38 for SoC. Discounted LYs, QALYs and lifetime costs were 8.27, 5.99 and £385,765 for KTE-X19 versus 1.98, 1.48 and £79,742 for SoC, respectively. The KTE-X19 versus SoC cost per QALY was £67,713 and the cost per LY was £48,645. Influential scenario analyses use alternative KTE-X19 survival curves and discount rates, and shorter time horizons. CONCLUSION: Considering the survival and quality of life benefits compared to SoC, KTE-X19 for R/R MCL appears as a cost-effective treatment in the real-world UK setting.

Exploring the Feasibility of Comprehensive Uncertainty Assessment in Health Economic Modeling: A Case Study.

OBJECTIVES: Decision makers adopt health technologies based on health economic models that are subject to uncertainty. In an ideal world, these models parameterize all uncertainties and reflect them in the cost-effectiveness probability and risk associated with the adoption. In practice, uncertainty assessment is often incomplete, potentially leading to suboptimal reimbursement recommendations and risk management. This study examines the feasibility of comprehensive uncertainty assessment in health economic models. METHODS: A state transition model on peripheral arterial disease treatment was used as a case study. Uncertainties were identified and added to the probabilistic sensitivity analysis if possible. Parameter distributions were obtained by expert elicitation, and structural uncertainties were either parameterized or explored in scenario analyses, which were model averaged. RESULTS: A truly comprehensive uncertainty assessment, parameterizing all uncertainty, could not be achieved. Expert elicitation informed 8 effectiveness, utility, and cost parameters. Uncertainties were parameterized or explored in scenario analyses and with model averaging. Barriers included time and resource constraints, also of clinical experts, and lacking guidance regarding some aspects of expert elicitation, evidence aggregation, and handling of structural uncertainty. The team's multidisciplinary expertise and existing literature and tools were facilitators. CONCLUSIONS: While comprehensive uncertainty assessment may not be attainable, improvements in uncertainty assessment in general are no doubt desirable. This requires the development of detailed guidance and hands-on tutorials for methods of uncertainty assessment, in particular aspects of expert elicitation, evidence aggregation, and handling of structural uncertainty. The issue of benefits of uncertainty assessment versus time and resources needed remains unclear.

Exploring the Cost Effectiveness of Shared Decision Making for Choosing between Disease-Modifying Drugs for Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis in the Netherlands: A State Transition Model.

BACKGROUND: Up to 31% of patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) discontinue treatment with disease-modifying drug (DMD) within the first year, and of the patients who do continue, about 40% are nonadherent. Shared decision making may decrease nonadherence and discontinuation rates, but evidence in the context of RRMS is limited. Shared decision making may, however, come at additional costs. This study aimed to explore the potential cost-effectiveness of shared decision making for RRMS in comparison with usual care, from a (limited) societal perspective over a lifetime. METHODS: An exploratory economic evaluation was conducted by adapting a previously developed state transition model that evaluates the cost-effectiveness of a range of DMDs for RRMS in comparison with the best supportive care. Three potential effects of shared decision making were explored: 1) a change in the initial DMD chosen, 2) a decrease in the patient's discontinuation in using the DMD, and 3) an increase in adherence to the DMD. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses of a scenario that combined the 3 effects were conducted. RESULTS: Each effect separately and the 3 effects combined resulted in higher quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs due to the increased utilization of DMD. A decrease in discontinuation of DMDs influenced the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) most. The combined scenario resulted in an ICER of €17,875 per QALY gained. The ICER was sensitive to changes in several parameters. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that shared decision making for DMDs could potentially be cost-effective, especially if shared decision making would help to decrease treatment discontinuation. Our results, however, may depend on the assumed effects on treatment choice, persistence, and adherence, which are actually largely unknown.

Rivaroxaban plus aspirin for the prevention of ischaemic events in patients with cardiovascular disease: a cost-effectiveness study.

BACKGROUND: Dual pathway inhibition with 2.5 mg rivaroxaban twice daily plus 100 mg aspirin once daily may be a promising alternative to 100 mg aspirin antiplatelet therapy for the prevention of cardiovascular events in patients with coronary artery disease and/or peripheral arterial disease. However, treatment costs and bleeding risks are higher, and there is another treatment option for peripheral arterial disease, 75 mg clopidogrel. A comprehensive assessment of benefits, risks and costs of dual pathway inhibition versus standard of care is needed. METHODS: We used a state transition model including cardiovascular, ischaemic limb and bleeding events to compare dual pathway inhibition to aspirin antiplatelet therapy in coronary artery disease, and additionally to clopidogrel antiplatelet therapy in peripheral arterial disease patients. We calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio from costs and quality-adjusted life-years of lifelong treatment, and the cost-effectiveness probability at a €50,000/quality-adjusted life-year threshold. RESULTS: Quality-adjusted life-years and costs of dual pathway inhibition were highest, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios versus aspirin were €32,109 in coronary artery disease and €26,381 in peripheral arterial disease patients, with 92% and 56% cost-effectiveness probability, respectively (clopidogrel was extendedly dominated). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were below €20,000 in comorbid peripheral arterial disease patients and coronary artery disease patients younger than 65 years, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were above €50,000 in carotid artery disease patients and coronary artery disease patients older than 75 years. CONCLUSION: Lifelong preventive treatment of coronary artery disease and peripheral arterial disease patients at risk of cardiovascular events with dual pathway inhibition improves health outcomes and seems overall cost-effective relative to aspirin antiplatelet therapy and also to clopidogrel antiplatelet therapy for peripheral arterial disease, particularly in comorbid patients, but not in older patients and in carotid artery disease patients. These findings may warrant a targeted approach.

Fluocinolone Acetonide Intravitreal Implant for Treating Recurrent Non-infectious Uveitis: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited Alimera Sciences, the company manufacturing fluocinolone acetonide intravitreal implant (FAc) 0.19 mg (tradename ILUVIEN®), to submit evidence on the clinical and cost-effectiveness of FAc for treating recurrent non-infectious uveitis. Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd, in collaboration with Maastricht University Medical Centre + , was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). This paper contains a summary of the clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence submitted by the company, the ERG's critique on the submitted evidence, and the guidance issued by the NICE Appraisal Committee (AC). The company submission (CS) was mainly informed by the PSV-FAI-001 trial in which FAc was compared with (limited) current practice [(L)CP], which was not considered to be representative of UK clinical practice by the ERG. There was no comparison of FAc to any treatment listed in the final scope, and especially to the dexamethasone intravitreal implant (dexamethasone), which was considered to be a relevant comparator by the AC. The primary outcome of the PSV-FAI-001 was recurrence of uveitis in the treated eye. Most of the events for the primary outcome were imputed during the PSV-FAI-001 trial, which probably led to an overestimation of the number of recurrences of disease, and a biased estimate of the relative effectiveness of FAc versus (L)CP. Finally, the place of FAc in the treatment pathway was not clearly defined by the company. Substantial uncertainty surrounded the cost-effectiveness results due to the shortcomings of the clinical evidence. Additionally, the quality of life of patients was not measured during the PSV-FAI-001 trial and long-term effectiveness data of FAc were lacking. The ERG adjusted several issues identified in the CS and added dexamethasone as a comparator in the decision analytic model. The ERG presented multiple analyses as base-cases because several elements of the assessment remained uncertain. The fully incremental ERG results ranged from dexamethasone (extendedly) dominating FAc (when assuming a hazard ratio of 1 or 0.7 for dexamethasone versus FAc) to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £30,153 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for FAc versus (L)CP [when assuming a hazard ratio of 0.456 for dexamethasone versus (L)CP]. The ICER of FAc versus (L)CP ranged from £12,325 to £30,153 per QALY gained. After a second AC meeting where alternative company scenarios comparing FAc with dexamethasone were considered by the AC, the AC concluded that "the results of the company's analyses ranged from the fluocinolone acetonide implant being dominant (that is, it was more effective and costs less), to an ICER of £29,461 per QALY gained, and most of the ICERs were below £20,000 per QALY gained". Therefore, the AC recommended FAc as a cost-effective use of National Health Service (NHS) resources for treating recurrent non-infectious uveitis affecting the posterior segment of the eye in the final TA590 guidance (published July 2019).

Pembrolizumab for Treating Relapsed or Refractory Classical Hodgkin Lymphoma: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

As part of its Single Technology Appraisal (STA) process, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer (Merck Sharp & Dohme; MSD) of pembrolizumab (Keytruda®) to submit evidence of its clinical and cost effectiveness for the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory classical Hodgkin lymphoma (RRcHL) who did not respond to treatment with brentuximab vedotin. Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd, in collaboration with Maastricht University Medical Centre+, was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). The ERG produced a detailed review of the evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of the technology, based on the company's submission to NICE. According to the NICE scope, pembrolizumab was compared with single or combination chemotherapy. Comparisons were undertaken in two populations: patients who did and did not receive prior autologous stem cell transplant (autoSCT; populations 1 and 2, respectively). Despite it having been recommended by NICE in population 1 at the time the ERG received the company submission, nivolumab was not included as a comparator. No studies directly comparing pembrolizumab and its comparators were identified. One ongoing, single-arm study of the efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab (KEYNOTE-087) and one comparative observational study (Cheah et al., 2016) were used to inform the comparative effectiveness of pembrolizumab and standard of care (SoC), using indirect comparisons in both populations. Almost all analyses showed significant PFS and overall response rate benefits for pembrolizumab versus SoC, but due to being based on indirect comparison, were likely to contain systematic error. The economic evaluation therefore suffered from substantial uncertainty in any estimates of cost effectiveness. Furthermore, there was a lack of evidence on the uptake and timing of allogeneic stem cell transplant, and alternative assumptions had a significant impact on cost effectiveness. Immature survival data from KEYNOTE-087 exacerbated this issue and necessitated the use of alternative data sources for longer-term extrapolation of survival. Some issues identified in the company's analyses were amended by the ERG. The revised ERG deterministic base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratios based on the company's second Appraisal Consultation Document response for pembrolizumab versus SoC (with a commercial access agreement) for populations 1 and 2 were £54,325 and £62,527 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, respectively. There was substantial uncertainty around these ICERs, especially in population 2. NICE did not recommend pembrolizumab as an option for treating RRcHL in population 1, but recommended pembrolizumab for use within the Cancer Drugs Fund in population 2.

Nivolumab for Treating Metastatic or Unresectable Urothelial Cancer: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

As part of its single technology appraisal (STA) process, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer (Bristol-Myers Squibb) of nivolumab (Opdivo®) to submit evidence of its clinical and cost effectiveness for metastatic or unresectable urothelial cancer. Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd, in collaboration with Maastricht University Medical Centre+, was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG), which produced a detailed review of the evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of the technology, based on the company's submission to NICE. Nivolumab was compared with docetaxel, paclitaxel, best supportive care and retreatment with platinum-based chemotherapy (cisplatin plus gemcitabine, but only for patients whose disease has had an adequate response in first-line treatment). Two ongoing, phase I/II, single-arm studies for nivolumab were identified, but no studies directly compared nivolumab with any specified comparator. Evidence from directly examining the single arms of the trial data indicated little difference between the outcomes measured from the nivolumab and comparator studies. A simulated treatment comparison (STC) analysis was used in an attempt to reduce the bias induced by naïve comparison, but there was no clear evidence that risk of bias was reduced. Multiple limitations in the STC were identified and remained. The effect of an analysis based on different combinations of covariates in the prediction model remains unknown. The ERG's concerns regarding the economic analysis included the use of a non-established response-based survival analysis method, which introduced additional uncertainty. The use of time-dependent hazard ratios produced overfitting and was not represented in the probabilistic sensitivity analysis. The use of a treatment stopping rule to cap treatment cost left treatment effectiveness unaltered. A relevant comparator was excluded from the base-case analysis. The revised ERG deterministic base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratios based on the company's Appraisal Consultation Document response were £58,791, £78,869 and £62,352 per quality-adjusted life-year gained versus paclitaxel, docetaxel and best supportive care, respectively. Nivolumab was dominated by cisplatin plus gemcitabine in the ERG base case. Substantial uncertainties about the relative treatment effectiveness comparing nivolumab against all comparators remained. NICE did not recommend nivolumab, within its marketing authorisation, as an option for treating locally advanced, unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma in adults who have had platinum-containing therapy, and considered that nivolumab was not suitable for use within the Cancer Drugs Fund.