Achieving dynamic efficiency in pharmaceutical innovation: Identifying the optimal share of value and payments required.

It has been argued that cost-effectiveness analysis of branded pharmaceuticals only considers static efficiency, neglects dynamic effects and undermines incentives for socially valuable innovation. We present a framework for designing pharmaceutical pricing policy to achieve dynamic efficiency. We develop a coherent framework that identifies the long-term static and dynamic benefits and costs of offering manufacturers different levels of reward. The share of value that would maximise long-term population health depends on how the quantity and quality of innovation responds to payment. Using evidence of the response of innovation to payment, the optimal share of value of new pharmaceuticals to offer to manufacturers is roughly 20% (range: 6%-51%). Reanalysis of a sample of NICE technology appraisals suggests that, in most cases, the share of value offered to manufacturers and the price premium paid by the English NHS were too high. In the UK, application of optimal shares would offer considerable benefits under both a public health objective and a broader view of social welfare. We illustrate how an optimal share of value can be delivered through a range of payment mechanisms including indirect price regulation via the use of different approval norms by an HTA body.

How does cholesterol burden change the case for investing in familial hypercholesterolaemia? A cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: This study aimed to ascertain how the long-term benefits and costs of diagnosis and treatment of familial hypercholesterolaemia (FH) vary by prognostic factors and 'cholesterol burden', which is the effect of long-term exposure to low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) on cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. METHODS: A new cost-effectiveness model was developed from the perspective of the UK National Health Service (NHS), informed by routine data from individuals with FH. The primary outcome was net health gain (i.e., health benefits net of the losses due to costs), expressed in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) at the £15,000/QALY threshold. Prognostic factors included pre-treatment LDL-C, age, gender, and CVD history. RESULTS: If cholesterol burden is considered, diagnosis resulted in positive net health gain (i.e., it is cost-effective) in all individuals with pre-treatment LDL-C ≥ 4 mmol/L, and in those with pre-treatment LDL-C ≥ 2 mmol/L aged ≥50 years or who have CVD history. If cholesterol burden is not considered, diagnosis resulted in lower net health gain, but still positive in children aged 10 years with pre-treatment LDL-C ≥ 6 mmol/L and adults aged 30 years with pre-treatment LDL-C ≥ 4 mmol/L. CONCLUSIONS: Diagnosis and treatment of most people with FH results in large net health gains, particularly in those with higher pre-treatment LDL-C. Economic evaluations of FH interventions should consider the sensitivity of the study conclusions to cholesterol burden, particularly where interventions target younger patients, and explicitly consider prognostic factors such as pre-treatment LDL-C, age, and CVD history.

Concomitant health benefits package design and research prioritisation: development of a new approach and an application to Malawi.

Health benefits packages (HBPs) are increasingly used in many countries to guide spending priorities on the path towards universal health coverage. Their design is, however, informed by an uncertain evidence base but research funds available to address this are limited. This gives rise to the question of which piece of research relating to the cost-effectiveness of interventions would most contribute to improving resource allocation. We propose to incorporate research prioritisation as an integral part of HBP design. We have, therefore, developed a framework and a freely available companion stand-alone tool, to quantify in terms of net disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) averted, the value of research for the interventions considered for inclusion in a package. Using the tool, the framework can be implemented using sensitivity analysis results typically reported in cost-effectiveness studies. To illustrate the framework, we applied the tool to the evidence base that informed the Malawi Health Sector Strategic Plan 2017-2022. Out of 21 interventions considered, 8 investment decisions were found to be uncertain and three showed strong potential for research to generate large health gains: 'male circumcision', 'community-management of acute malnutrition in children' and 'isoniazid preventive therapy in HIV +individuals', with a potential to avert up to 65 762, 36 438 and 20 132 net DALYs, respectively. Our work can help set research priorities in resource-constrained settings so that research funds are invested where they have the largest potential to impact on the population health generated via HBPs.

Antimicrobial Resistance: Is Health Technology Assessment Part of the Solution or Part of the Problem?

Antimicrobial resistance is a serious challenge to the success and sustainability of our healthcare systems. There has been increasing policy attention given to antimicrobial resistance in the last few years, and increased amounts of funding have been channeled into funding for research and development of antimicrobial agents. Nevertheless, manufacturers doubt whether there will be a market for new antimicrobial technologies sufficient to enable them to recoup their investment. Health technology assessment (HTA) has a critical role in creating confidence that if valuable technologies can be developed they will be reimbursed at a level that captures their true value. We identify 3 deficiencies of current HTA processes for appraising antimicrobial agents: a methods-centric approach rather than problem-centric approach for dealing with new challenges, a lack of tools for thinking about changing patterns of infection, and the absence of an approach to epidemiological risks. We argue that, to play their role more effectively, HTA agencies need to broaden their methodological tool kit, design and communicate their analysis to a wider set of users, and incorporate long-term policy goals, such as containing resistance, as part of their evaluation criteria alongside immediate health gains.

Estimating the shares of the value of branded pharmaceuticals accruing to manufacturers and to patients served by health systems.

Previous studies have estimated that patients served by health systems accrue 59-98% of the value generated by new pharmaceuticals. This has led to questions about whether sufficient returns accrue to manufacturers to incentivize socially optimal levels of R&D. These studies have not, however, fully reflected the health opportunity costs imposed by payments for branded pharmaceuticals. We present a framework for estimating how the value generated by new branded pharmaceuticals is shared. We quantify value in net health effects and account for benefits and health opportunity costs in the patent period and post-patent period when generic/biosimilar products become available. We apply the framework to 12 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence appraisals and show that realized net health effects range from losses of 160%, to gains of 94%, of the potential net health benefits available. In many cases, even in the long run, the benefits of new medicines are not sufficient to offset the opportunity costs of payments to manufacturers, and approval is expected to reduce population health. This cannot be dynamically efficient as it incentivizes future innovation at prices which will also reduce population health. Further work should consider how to reflect these findings in reimbursement policies.

Classifying information-sharing methods.

BACKGROUND: Sparse relative effectiveness evidence is a frequent problem in Health Technology Assessment (HTA). Where evidence directly pertaining to the decision problem is sparse, it may be feasible to expand the evidence-base to include studies that relate to the decision problem only indirectly: for instance, when there is no evidence on a comparator, evidence on other treatments of the same molecular class could be used; similarly, a decision on children may borrow-strength from evidence on adults. Usually, in HTA, such indirect evidence is either included by ignoring any differences ('lumping') or not included at all ('splitting'). However, a range of more sophisticated methods exists, primarily in the biostatistics literature. The objective of this study is to identify and classify the breadth of the available information-sharing methods. METHODS: Forwards and backwards citation-mining techniques were used on a set of seminal papers on the topic of information-sharing. Papers were included if they specified (network) meta-analytic methods for combining information from distinct populations, interventions, outcomes or study-designs. RESULTS: Overall, 89 papers were included. A plethora of evidence synthesis methods have been used for information-sharing. Most papers (n=79) described methods that shared information on relative treatment effects. Amongst these, there was a strong emphasis on methods for information-sharing across multiple outcomes (n=42) and treatments (n=25), with fewer papers focusing on study-designs (n=23) or populations (n=8). We categorise and discuss the methods under four 'core' relationships of information-sharing: functional, exchangeability-based, prior-based and multivariate relationships, and explain the assumptions made within each of these core approaches. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the range of information-sharing methods available. These methods often impose more moderate assumptions than lumping or splitting. Hence, the degree of information-sharing that they impose could potentially be considered more appropriate. Our identification of four 'core' methods of information-sharing allows for an improved understanding of the assumptions underpinning the different methods. Further research is required to understand how the methods differ in terms of the strength of sharing they impose and the implications of this for health care decisions.

Partitioned Survival and State Transition Models for Healthcare Decision Making in Oncology: Where Are We Now?

OBJECTIVES: Partitioned survival models (PSMs) are routinely used to inform reimbursement decisions for oncology drugs. We discuss the appropriateness of PSMs compared to the most common alternative, state transition models (STMs). METHODS: In 2017, we published a National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Technical Support Document (TSD 19) describing and critically reviewing PSMs. This article summarizes findings from TSD 19, reviews new evidence comparing PSMs and STMs, and reviews recent NICE appraisals to understand current practice. RESULTS: PSMs evaluate state membership differently from STMs and do not include a structural link between intermediate clinical endpoints (eg, disease progression) and survival. PSMs directly consider clinical trial endpoints and can be developed without access to individual patient data, but limit the scope for sensitivity analyses to explore clinical uncertainties in the extrapolation period. STMs facilitate these sensitivity analyses but require development of robust survival models for individual health-state transitions. Recent work has shown PSMs and STMs can produce substantively different survival extrapolations and that extrapolations from STMs are heavily influenced by specification of the underlying survival models. Recent NICE appraisals have not generally included both model types, reviewed individual clinical event data, or scrutinized life-years accrued in individual health states. CONCLUSIONS: The credibility of survival predictions from PSMs and STMs, including life-years accrued in individual health states, should be assessed using trial data on individual clinical events, external data, and expert opinion. STMs should be used alongside PSMs to support assessment of clinical uncertainties in the extrapolation period, such as uncertainty in post-progression survival.

Practical metrics for establishing the health benefits of research to support research prioritisation.

INTRODUCTION: We present practical metrics for estimating the expected health benefits of specific research proposals. These can be used by research funders, researchers and healthcare decision-makers within low-income and middle-income countries to support evidence-based research prioritisation. METHODS: The methods require three key assessments: (1) the current level of uncertainty around the endpoints the proposed study will measure; (2) how uncertainty impacts on the health benefits and costs of healthcare programmes and (3) the health opportunity costs imposed by programme costs. Research is valuable because it can improve health by informing the choice of which programmes should be implemented. We provide a Microsoft Excel tool to allow readers to generate estimates of the health benefits of research studies based on these three assessments. The tool can be populated using existing studies, existing cost-effectiveness models and expert opinion. Where such evidence is not available, the tool can quantify the value of research under different assumptions. Estimates of the health benefits of research can be considered alongside research costs, and the consequences of delaying implementation until research reports, to determine whether research is worthwhile. We illustrate the method using a case study of research on HIV self-testing programmes in Malawi. This analysis combines data from the literature with outputs from the HIV synthesis model. RESULTS: For this case study, we found a costing study that could be completed and inform decision making within 1 year offered the highest health benefits (67 000 disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) averted). Research on outcomes improved population health to a lesser extent (12 000 DALYs averted) and only if carried out alongside programme implementation. CONCLUSION: Our work provides a method for estimating the health benefits of research in a practical and timely fashion. This can be used to support accountable use of research funds.

Simulation Modeling and Metamodeling to Inform National and International HIV Policies for Children and Adolescents.

OBJECTIVE AND APPROACH: Computer-based simulation models serve an important purpose in informing HIV care for children and adolescents. We review current model-based approaches to informing pediatric and adolescent HIV estimates and guidelines. FINDINGS: Clinical disease simulation models and epidemiologic models are used to inform global and regional estimates of numbers of children and adolescents living with HIV and in need of antiretroviral therapy, to develop normative guidelines addressing strategies for diagnosis and treatment of HIV in children, and to forecast future need for pediatric and adolescent antiretroviral therapy formulations and commodities. To improve current model-generated estimates and policy recommendations, better country-level and regional-level data are needed about children living with HIV, as are improved data about survival and treatment outcomes for children with perinatal HIV infection as they age into adolescence and adulthood. In addition, novel metamodeling and value of information methods are being developed to improve the transparency of model methods and results, as well as to allow users to more easily tailor model-based analyses to their own settings. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial progress has been made in using models to estimate the size of the pediatric and adolescent HIV epidemic, to inform the development of guidelines for children and adolescents affected by HIV, and to support targeted implementation of policy recommendations to maximize impact. Ongoing work will address key limitations and further improve these model-based projections.

Addition of Docetaxel to First-line Long-term Hormone Therapy in Prostate Cancer (STAMPEDE): Modelling to Estimate Long-term Survival, Quality-adjusted Survival, and Cost-effectiveness.

BACKGROUND: Results from large randomised controlled trials have shown that adding docetaxel to the standard of care (SOC) for men initiating hormone therapy for prostate cancer (PC) prolongs survival for those with metastatic disease and prolongs failure-free survival for those without. To date there has been no formal assessment of whether funding docetaxel in this setting represents an appropriate use of UK National Health Service (NHS) resources. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether administering docetaxel to men with PC starting long-term hormone therapy is cost-effective in a UK setting. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We modelled health outcomes and costs in the UK NHS using data collected within the STAMPEDE trial, which enrolled men with high-risk, locally advanced metastatic or recurrent PC starting first-line hormone therapy. INTERVENTION: SOC was hormone therapy for ≥2 yr and radiotherapy in some patients. Docetaxel (75mg/m2) was administered alongside SOC for six three-weekly cycles. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The model generated lifetime predictions of costs, changes in survival duration, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The model predicted that docetaxel would extend survival (discounted quality-adjusted survival) by 0.89 yr (0.51) for metastatic PC and 0.78 yr (0.39) for nonmetastatic PC, and would be cost-effective in metastatic PC (ICER £5514/QALY vs SOC) and nonmetastatic PC (higher QALYs, lower costs vs SOC). Docetaxel remained cost-effective in nonmetastatic PC when the assumption of no survival advantage was modelled. CONCLUSIONS: Docetaxel is cost-effective among patients with nonmetastatic and metastatic PC in a UK setting. Clinicians should consider whether the evidence is now sufficiently compelling to support docetaxel use in patients with nonmetastatic PC, as the opportunity to offer docetaxel at hormone therapy initiation will be missed for some patients by the time more mature survival data are available. PATIENT SUMMARY: Starting docetaxel chemotherapy alongside hormone therapy represents a good use of UK National Health Service resources for patients with prostate cancer that is high risk or has spread to other parts of the body.

Cost-effectiveness of adjunct non-pharmacological interventions for osteoarthritis of the knee.

BACKGROUND: There is limited information on the costs and benefits of alternative adjunct non-pharmacological treatments for knee osteoarthritis and little guidance on which should be prioritised for commissioning within the NHS. This study estimates the costs and benefits of acupuncture, braces, heat treatment, insoles, interferential therapy, laser/light therapy, manual therapy, neuromuscular electrical stimulation, pulsed electrical stimulation, pulsed electromagnetic fields, static magnets and transcutaneous electrical nerve Stimulation (TENS), based on all relevant data, to facilitate a more complete assessment of value. METHODS: Data from 88 randomised controlled trials including 7,507 patients were obtained from a systematic review. The studies reported a wide range of outcomes. These were converted into EQ-5D index values using prediction models, and synthesised using network meta-analysis. Analyses were conducted including firstly all trials and secondly only trials with low risk of selection bias. Resource use was estimated from trials, expert opinion and the literature. A decision analytic model synthesised all evidence to assess interventions over a typical treatment period (constant benefit over eight weeks or linear increase in effect over weeks zero to eight and dissipation over weeks eight to 16). RESULTS: When all trials are considered, TENS is cost-effective at thresholds of £20-30,000 per QALY with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £2,690 per QALY vs. usual care. When trials with a low risk of selection bias are considered, acupuncture is cost-effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £13,502 per QALY vs. TENS. The results of the analysis were sensitive to varying the intensity, with which interventions were delivered, and the magnitude and duration of intervention effects on EQ-5D. CONCLUSIONS: Using the £20,000 per QALY NICE threshold results in TENS being cost-effective if all trials are considered. If only higher quality trials are considered, acupuncture is cost-effective at this threshold, and thresholds down to £14,000 per QALY.

Brentuximab vedotin in relapsed/refractory Hodgkin lymphoma post-autologous stem cell transplant: a cost-effectiveness analysis in Scotland.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate cost-effectiveness of brentuximab vedotin in patients with relapsed/refractory Hodgkin lymphoma who have received autologous stem cell transplantation, from a Scottish healthcare payer perspective. METHODS: A Microsoft Excel-based partitioned survival model comprising three health states (progression-free survival [PFS], post-progression survival, and death) was developed. Relevant comparators were chemotherapy with or without radiotherapy (C/R) and C/R with intent to allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (alloSCT). Data were obtained from the pivotal phase II single-arm trial in 102 patients (SG035-0003; NCT00848926), a systematic literature review and clinical expert opinions (where empirical evidence was unavailable). PFS and overall survival for brentuximab vedotin were estimated using 5-year follow-up data from SG035-0003, and extrapolated using event rates observed for comparator treatments from published survival data. Resource use included drug acquisition and administration; alloSCT; treatment of adverse events; and long-term follow-up. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate the impact of uncertainty. RESULTS: In the base case, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for brentuximab vedotin was £38,769 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) vs C/R, whereas C/R with intent to alloSCT was dominated by brentuximab vedotin. ICERs for brentuximab vedotin generated by the deterministic sensitivity analysis ranged between £32,000-£54,000 per QALY. Including productivity benefits reduced the ICER to £28,881 per QALY. LIMITATIONS: Limitations include lack of comparative data from this single arm study and the heterogeneous population. Inconsistent baseline characteristic reporting across studies prevented complete assessment of heterogeneity and the extent of potential bias in clinical and cost-effectiveness estimates. CONCLUSIONS: Although the base case ICER is above the threshold usually applied in Scotland, it is relatively low compared with other orphan drugs, and lower than the ICER generated using a previous data cut of SG035-0003 that informed a positive recommendation from the Scottish Medicines Consortium, under its decision-making framework for assessment of ultra-orphan medicines.

Country-Level Cost-Effectiveness Thresholds: Initial Estimates and the Need for Further Research.

BACKGROUND: Cost-effectiveness analysis can guide policymakers in resource allocation decisions. It assesses whether the health gains offered by an intervention are large enough relative to any additional costs to warrant adoption. When there are constraints on the health care system's budget or ability to increase expenditures, additional costs imposed by interventions have an "opportunity cost" in terms of the health foregone because other interventions cannot be provided. Cost-effectiveness thresholds (CETs) are typically used to assess whether an intervention is worthwhile and should reflect health opportunity cost. Nevertheless, CETs used by some decision makers-such as the World Health Organization that suggested CETs of 1 to 3 times the gross domestic product (GDP) per capita-do not. OBJECTIVES: To estimate CETs based on opportunity cost for a wide range of countries. METHODS: We estimated CETs based on recent empirical estimates of opportunity cost (from the English National Health Service), estimates of the relationship between country GDP per capita and the value of a statistical life, and a series of explicit assumptions. RESULTS: CETs for Malawi (the country with the lowest income in the world), Cambodia (with borderline low/low-middle income), El Salvador (with borderline low-middle/upper-middle income), and Kazakhstan (with borderline high-middle/high income) were estimated to be $3 to $116 (1%-51% GDP per capita), $44 to $518 (4%-51%), $422 to $1967 (11%-51%), and $4485 to $8018 (32%-59%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: To date, opportunity-cost-based CETs for low-/middle-income countries have not been available. Although uncertainty exists in the underlying assumptions, these estimates can provide a useful input to inform resource allocation decisions and suggest that routinely used CETs have been too high.

Cost-effectiveness of implantable cardiac devices in patients with systolic heart failure.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs), cardiac resynchronisation therapy pacemakers (CRT-Ps) and combination therapy (CRT-D) in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction based on a range of clinical characteristics. METHODS: Individual patient data from 13 randomised trials were used to inform a decision analytical model. A series of regression equations were used to predict baseline all-cause mortality, hospitalisation rates and health-related quality of life and device-related treatment effects. Clinical variables used in these equations were age, QRS duration, New York Heart Association (NYHA) class, ischaemic aetiology and left bundle branch block (LBBB). A UK National Health Service perspective and a lifetime time horizon were used. Benefits were expressed as quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Results were reported for 24 subgroups based on LBBB status, QRS duration and NYHA class. RESULTS: At a threshold of £30 000 per QALY gained, CRT-D was cost-effective in 10 of the 24 subgroups including all LBBB morphology patients with NYHA I/II/III. ICD is cost-effective for all non-NYHA IV patients with QRS duration <120 ms and for NYHA I/II non-LBBB morphology patients with QRS duration between 120 ms and 149 ms. CRT-P was also cost-effective in all NYHA III/IV patients with QRS duration >120 ms. Device therapy is cost-effective in most patient groups with LBBB at a threshold of £20 000 per QALY gained. Results were robust to altering key model parameters. CONCLUSIONS: At a threshold of £30 000 per QALY gained, CRT-D is cost-effective in a far wider group than previously recommended in the UK. In some subgroups ICD and CRT-P remain the cost-effective choice.

Daclatasvir for the Treatment of Chronic Hepatitis C: A Critique of the Clinical and Economic Evidence.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of daclatasvir (Bristol-Myers Squibb) to submit clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence for daclatasvir in combination with other medicinal products within its licensed indication for the treatment of chronic hepatitis C, as part of the Institute's single technology appraisal process. The Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and Centre for Health Economics at the University of York were commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). This article presents the ERG's critical review of the evidence presented in the company submission in the context of a description of the company submission, and the resulting NICE guidance. The main clinical effectiveness data for daclatasvir in combination with sofosbuvir (daclatasvir + sofosbuvir) were derived from two uncontrolled open-label trials. Among patients with genotype 1 infection, 98-100 % of patients had a sustained virologic response at week 12 (SVR12), overall. Among genotype 3 patients, between 85 and 100 % had SVR12 across patient populations and regimens. The main evidence for daclatasvir + pegylated interferon-α and ribavirin (PR) came from one randomised controlled trial comparing daclatasvir + PR with PR in patients with genotype 4. This found an SVR12 rate of 82 % in previously untreated patients. Serious adverse event rates associated with daclatasvir were low. The lack of comparative trial evidence for daclatasvir + sofosbuvir and many of the comparators defined in the NICE scope meant that established methods for comparing interventions either directly via head-to-head trial comparisons or via adjusted indirect comparisons were not feasible. Comparisons of SVR rates were therefore largely based on unadjusted estimates drawn from individual trial arms and subgroups of individual trial arms. The ERG concluded that, despite limited evidence, daclatasvir in combination with other treatments appeared to be associated with a high SVR rate. Daclatasvir + sofosbuvir was unlikely to be inferior to comparator treatments in genotype 1 patients; but, due to limited evidence, the relative efficacy of daclatasvir and other treatments in genotype 3 and 4 patients or patients with compensated cirrhosis was uncertain. The economic evaluation compared daclatasvir + sofosbuvir and daclatasvir + PR with a wide range of NICE-approved treatments for hepatitis C. The company submission focused on a series of subgroups defined by disease severity (METAVIR fibrosis stage F3, compensated cirrhosis), genotype and treatment history. In the cost-effectiveness analysis, daclatasvir-containing regimens were cost effective at a £20,000-£30,000 per QALY threshold in the following F3 populations: genotype 1 treatment naïve (Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER] = £19,739/QALY) and treatment experienced (£15,687/QALY) and genotypes 1, 3 and 4 interferon ineligible or intolerant (£5906-£9607/QALY depending on subgroup). In patients with cirrhosis, daclatasvir-containing regimens were not cost effective. The ERG found the company's economic analyses to be highly uncertain and in places biased. However, the ERG found that daclatasvir-containing regimens were cost effective in certain populations with significant fibrosis, and following new analyses by the company after a price reduction, in certain populations with cirrhosis, including patients who were not eligible for or who were intolerant to interferon therapy. The NICE Appraisal Committee's preliminary recommendation was that daclatasvir + sofosbuvir should be available as an option in genotype 1 and 4 patients with significant fibrosis but without cirrhosis, who had either been treated previously or were ineligible or intolerant to interferon. In response to the preliminary recommendation, the manufacturer submitted additional information including comparator SVR rates and a revised confidential price. Following this, the Committee expanded its original recommendation in its Final Appraisal Determination. The recommendation was expanded to include daclatasvir + sofosbuvir as an option for patients with significant fibrosis but without cirrhosis (in previously untreated patients with genotype 1, and genotype 3 patients ineligible or intolerant to interferon) and genotype 1, 3 and 4 cirrhotic patients who were ineligible or intolerant to interferon. Daclatasvir + PR was also recommended as an option for genotype 4 patients who had significant fibrosis or compensated cirrhosis.

Assessing the Value of New Treatments for Hepatitis C: Are International Decision Makers Getting this Right?

Health systems worldwide are facing difficult choices about the use of a series of highly effective but costly new treatments for hepatitis C. In this paper we discuss how the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence in England and Wales, the Common Drug Review in Canada and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) in Australia have approached the appraisal of these drugs. We argue that with the exception of the PBAC, assessments of the new drugs have not adequately accounted for their large financial burden. Given the potential health system impact of reimbursing these drugs, the use of lower cost-effectiveness thresholds should be considered. None of the decision-making processes included a comparison of the full range of treatment pathways. In particular, comparisons of using the new drugs as first- versus second-line drugs were omitted from all appraisals, as were comparisons with delayed treatment strategies whereby treatment is withheld until more severe disease stages. Omission of comparators leads to inaccurate estimates of cost effectiveness and potentially sub-optimal decision making. Lessons learned from these appraisals should be considered in future appraisals, particularly the upcoming assessments of the 'blockbuster' PCSK9 inhibitors for hypercholesterolaemia.

Cost-effectiveness of first-line induction and maintenance treatment sequences in non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in the U.S.

OBJECTIVES: Due to the lack of direct head-to-head trials, there are limited data regarding the comparative effectiveness of induction-maintenance sequences. The objective of this study was to develop a cost-effectiveness model to compare induction-maintenance sequences in the US for the treatment of advanced non-squamous NSCLC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Decision analytic modelling was used to synthesize the treatment effect and baseline risk estimates for nine induction and maintenance treatment sequences, reflecting treatments used in the US. The model was structured using an area-under-the-curve approach and sensitivity analyses were conducted. Model validation was conducted by an independent third party. RESULTS: All active maintenance therapy-containing regimens, with the exception of gemcitabine+cisplatin (first-line)→erlotinib (maintenance), were more costly than induction-only regimens. Concerning treatments that may be cost effective, the incremental costs per life-year gained were $121,425, $148,994, and $191,270 for gemcitabine+cisplatin→erlotinib versus gemcitabine+cisplatin→best supportive care (BSC), pemetrexed+cisplatin→BSC versus gemcitabine+cisplatin→erlotinib, and for pemetrexed+cisplatin→pemetrexed versus pemetrexed+cisplatin→BSC, respectively. All other regimens were found to be dominated (carboplatin+paclitaxel→BSC; carboplatin+paclitaxel→erlotinib; carboplatin+paclitaxel→pemetrexed; bevacizumab+carboplatin+paclitaxel→bevacizumab) or extendedly dominated (cisplatin+gemcitabine→pemetrexed). Sensitivity analyses demonstrated stability. CONCLUSIONS: Depending on the specific cost-effectiveness threshold used by a decision maker, the most cost-effective treatment sequence may include the referent comparator gemcitabine+cisplatin and the studied regimens of gemcitabine+cisplatin→erlotinib, pemetrexed+cisplatin→BSC, or pemetrexed+cisplatin→pemetrexed.

Bendamustine-rituximab: a cost-utility analysis in first-line treatment of indolent non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in England and Wales.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of bendamustine-rituximab (B-R) compared with CHOP-R (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone, rituximab) and CVP-R (cyclophosphamide, vincristine, prednisone, rituximab) as first-line treatment for patients with advanced indolent non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL). METHODS: A patient-level simulation was adapted from the model used by the University of Sheffield School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR) in a health technology appraisal of rituximab for first-line treatment of follicular lymphoma. This approach allowed modelling of the complex treatment pathways in indolent NHL. Data from a Phase 3 randomized, open-label trial were used to compare B-R with CHOP-R. The relative efficacy of CHOP-R and CVP-R was estimated using an indirect treatment comparison similar to the original ScHARR approach. The analysis was conducted from the perspective of the National Health Service in England and Wales, using a lifetime time horizon. A number of one-way sensitivity and scenario analyses were conducted, including one using recently published data comparing CVP-R with CHOP-R. RESULTS: The deterministic incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was £5249 per quality adjusted life year (QALY) for B-R vs CHOP-R, and £8092 per QALY for B-R vs CVP-R. The alternative scenario using direct data comparing CVP-R with CHOP-R approximately halved the ICER for B-R vs CVP-R to £4733. Owing to its better toxicity profile, B-R reduced the cost of treating adverse events by over £1000 per patient vs CHOP-R. LIMITATIONS: The main limitations were: immaturity of overall survival data from the Phase 3 trial; reliance on quality-of-life data from previous health technology appraisals (as this was not collected in the trial); and a lack of direct evidence or a network of connected evidence comparing B-R with CVP-R. CONCLUSIONS: The ICERs for B-R vs CHOP-R and CVP-R were considerably below the thresholds normally regarded as cost-effective in England and Wales (£20,000-30,000 per QALY).

Bendamustine versus chlorambucil for the first-line treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia in England and Wales: a cost-utility analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of bendamustine compared with chlorambucil as first-line treatment for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia who would be considered unsuitable for treatment with fludarabine combination chemotherapy regimens. METHODS: A semi-Markov approach was used to estimate time in each health state. The model was parameterized primarily by using data from a phase III randomized, open-label trial comparing bendamustine with chlorambucil. It captured the increased progression-free survival and improved response rates with bendamustine, and the cost and quality of life impacts of postprogression treatments. The analysis was conducted from the perspective of the National Health Service in England and Wales. A lifetime (35-year) time horizon was used. Deterministic sensitivity analyses, probabilistic sensitivity analyses, and subgroup analyses in older patients and patients with poor performance status were carried out. RESULTS: The estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £ 11,960 per quality-adjusted life-year. None of the deterministic sensitivity analyses increased the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio by more than £ 2000. Subgroup analyses showed that bendamustine remained cost-effective across different patient groups. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that at the £ 20,000 threshold, bendamustine has a 90% probability of being cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: Bendamustine represents good value for first-line treatment of patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia who are unsuitable for treatment with fludarabine combination chemotherapy. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio is below the thresholds commonly applied in England and Wales (£ 20,000-£ 30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year).

Raltitrexed plus cisplatin is cost-effective compared with pemetrexed plus cisplatin in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma.

INTRODUCTION: The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) has previously recommended pemetrexed plus cisplatin for the treatment of patients with advanced malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) and WHO performance status 0-1. Subsequent to this appraisal, randomised controlled trial (RCT) data for raltitrexed plus cisplatin and comparing chemotherapy to active symptom control (ASC) has become available, allowing a more complete analysis of the comparative efficacy and cost-effectiveness of first-line chemotherapy in MPM. METHODS: An adjusted indirect comparison is used to estimate the relative efficacy of raltitrexed plus cisplatin and pemetrexed plus cisplatin. A cost-effectiveness model is used to assess the lifetime costs and health outcomes associated with these comparators and ASC. Patient level data from the EORTC 08983 trial are used to estimate baseline progression and survival rates. Relative treatment effects are taken from RCTs; cost and utility data from the literature. RESULTS: Raltitrexed plus cisplatin and pemetrexed plus cisplatin were not found to be statistically significantly different with respect to overall response, progression free survival or overall survival. The cost-effectiveness analysis found raltitrexed plus cisplatin to be cost-effective at a cost per quality adjusted life year of £13,454 compared to cisplatin and £27,360 compared to ASC. Pemetrexed plus cisplatin is dominated by raltitrexed plus cisplatin as the raltitrexed combination offers marginally higher quality adjusted life years (QALYs) and life years (LYs) at a substantially lower total cost. CONCLUSION: Raltitrexed plus cisplatin is a cost-effective first-line treatment for MPM. This conclusion was maintained across a number of sensitivity analyses.