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.

A Probabilistic Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Venetoclax and Obinutuzumab as a First-Line Therapy in Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia in Canada.

BACKGROUND: Venetoclax is a first-in-class targeted therapy option that is an inducer of apoptosis in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) cells. The open-label phase III CLL14 clinical trial showed that venetoclax combined with obinutuzumab (VEN+O) is superior to obinutuzumab combined with chlorambucil in newly diagnosed patients with CLL. The aim of this study was to assess the health economic value of VEN+O for the frontline treatment of CLL in Canada from a publicly funded healthcare system perspective. METHODS: A partitioned survival analyses model was developed including three health states: progression free, progressed, and death. A cycle length of 28 days and a time horizon of 10 years was assumed. VEN+O treatment for a fixed duration of 12 months was compared to obinutuzumab combined with chlorambucil, fludarabine plus cyclophosphamide plus rituximab, bendamustine plus rituximab, chlorambucil plus rituximab, ibrutinib, and acalabrutinib. The population in the model included both unfit and overall frontline CLL patients, two subgroups were also assessed (patients with del17p/TP53 mutations and patients without del17p/TP53 mutations). Survival data extrapolated from the CLL14 trial were used to populate the model. Uncertainty was assessed via one-way sensitivity analyses, probabilistic analyses, and scenario analyses. RESULTS: Based on the probabilistic analyses, unfit frontline CLL patients receiving VEN+O were estimated to incur costs of Canadian dollars ($) 217,727 [confidence interval (CI) $170,725, $300,761] (del17p/TP53: $209,102 [CI $159,698, $386,190], non-del17p/TP53: $217,732 [CI $171,232, $299,063]) and accrue 4.96 [CI 4.04, 5.82] quality-adjusted life-years (del17p/TP53: 3.11 [CI 2.00, 4.20], non-del17p/TP53: 5.04 [CI 4.05, 5.92]). Obinutuzumab combined with chlorambucil, bendamustine plus rituximab, chlorambucil plus rituximab, and ibrutinib accrued lower quality-adjusted life-years and higher costs and as such, VEN+O was the dominant treatment option. The full incremental analysis showed that acalabrutinib was more expensive and more efficacious compared with VEN+O with an incremental-cost-effectiveness-ratio of $2,139,180/quality-adjusted life-year versus VEN+O and not a cost-effective option in Canada. Probabilistic analyses show that at a willingness to pay of $50,000/quality-adjusted life-year gained, VEN+O has the greatest probability of being cost effective. CONCLUSIONS: VEN+O is a cost-effective treatment option for unfit frontline CLL patients and provides value for money to healthcare payers.

Modification of treatment-sequence model with a customizable number of treatments to better reflect contemporary and future clinical practice in moderate to severe psoriasis.

AIMS: Existing treatment-sequence models for psoriasis are limited by lines of treatments included. We sought to more accurately capture the patient experience with an increasing number of treatments while maintaining the complexity and transparency of current models. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We adapted a standard treatment-sequence model for psoriasis with two lines of active treatments followed by best supportive care (BSC). The first line was used to model the targeted treatments for comparison (Biologic A or B). The second line was used potentially to model all treatments (excluding the first-line treatment) before BSC, termed the basket of biologics (BoB). First-line treatment and the BoB were modeled with an induction and maintenance phase. The BoB efficacy was assumed to be the average of all treatments included and the BoB annual discontinuation rate was based on the number of treatments included and their individual annual discontinuation rate. A varying number of treatments in the BoB were tested (1, 5, 10). Model inputs were from published literature. RESULTS: In our example, when the number of treatments in the BoB increased from 1 to 10, the annual discontinuation rate of the BoB dropped from 16.5% to 1.2%. Time on BoB increased from 4.16 to 19.16 years and the time on BSC decreased from 28.28 to 13.29 years. Total costs and quality-adjusted life years increased with an increasing number of treatments in the BoB. LIMITATIONS: The properties of the BoB were simplified in order to maintain the transparency of the model. Results may differ if individual treatments in the BoB are modeled line by line. CONCLUSIONS: Modification with the BoB allows a greater number of treatments within the model, providing a closer reflection of clinical reality, and has implications for evaluation of the long-term cost-effectiveness of psoriasis treatments.

Psoriasis is a chronic skin disease with no cure that causes itchy and painful plaques and scales, most commonly found on the scalp, trunk, elbows, and knees. A variety of treatments are available that can improve the signs and symptoms of psoriasis. Healthcare payers are interested in the costs, benefits, and risks of treatments for all diseases, including those for psoriasis. These payers often use mathematical models to better understand and compare the value of various treatments. With psoriasis, these models usually assume three lines of active therapy and then a final supportive therapy over a patient's lifetime. However, the average number of therapies patients with psoriasis receive is often greater than three, resulting in them spending most of their time on, and switching among, treatments rather than on best supportive care. Therefore, instead of modeling each line of treatment individually, the researchers proposed a modification to the existing model framework, whereby all subsequent treatments are combined into a single basket. This modification allowed for many treatments to be considered over the lifetime of patients with psoriasis and also maintained the model's complexity. The researchers found that as the amount of time on active therapy increased, the amount of time on supportive therapy decreased, treatment costs increased, and patients spent more time with better quality-of-life. The researchers concluded that the proposed model modification more closely resembles clinical practice than the previous model and would be very useful to healthcare payers in better estimating the value of psoriasis treatments.

Cost-effectiveness of a 12-month fixed-duration venetoclax treatment in combination with obinutuzumab in first-line, unfit chronic lymphocytic leukemia in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is a significant health and economic burden in the United States. Treatments include chemoimmunotherapy, such as obinutuzumab (G) plus chlorambucil (Clb) or bendamustine plus rituximab (BR), and chemotherapy-free regimens incorporating oral targeted therapies such as ibrutinib (Ibr), acalabrutinib (Acala), or venetoclax (Ven). Most chemotherapy-free regimens require continuous treatment to progression, while Ven plus G (VenG) is given for a fixed duration of 12 months, based on the CLL14 trial that led to its approval. Fixed-duration VenG has the potential for cost savings compared with treat-to-progression chemotherapy-free regimens. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of 12 months fixed-duration VenG in first-line treatment of unfit patients with CLL from a US health care payer perspective compared with GClb, BR, Ibr, Ibr + G, Ibr + R, Acala, and Acala + G. METHODS: A partitioned survival model was developed with 3 health states: progression-free survival (PFS), postprogression survival, and dead. The patient population, as based on the CLL14 trial, comprised previously untreated unfit patients with CLL (mean age 71.1 years, 33.1% female). The distribution of patients in each health state over time was estimated using extrapolated PFS and overall survival (OS) curves for VenG and GClb, based on CLL14 data 2 or more years after treatment cessation. PFS and OS for the other comparators were estimated using hazard ratios vs VenG, based on a network metaanalysis. Adverse events, utility values, and costs were obtained from published literature. The model estimated life-years gained, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained, and costs. The time horizon was 20 years, with a cycle time of 28 days. Outcomes and costs were discounted at 3.0% per year, and costs were estimated from a US health care payer perspective. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: In this cross-trial analysis of unfit CLL patients, in the base case, VenG had lower projected total costs than all comparators investigated. VenG also had larger projected health benefits (more QALYs gained) than GClb, BR, Ibr, and Ibr + R. VenG was therefore more effective and less costly than these comparators (dominant). Ibr + G, Acala, and Acala + G showed higher QALYs gained vs VenG (0.022, 0.672, and 0.961, respectively), and substantially higher projected costs vs VenG ($1,488,400, $1,579,737, and $1,656,154, respectively). Thus, Ibr + G, Acala, and Acala + G would cost more than $1,000,000 per QALY gained vs VenG. At the commonly used willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per QALY gained, Ibr + G, Acala, and Acala + G were not cost-effective compared with VenG. CONCLUSIONS: Fixed-duration VenG for 12 months is a cost-effective first-line treatment option for unfit CLL patients compared with other available options and provides value for money to US health care payers at a threshold of $150,000 per QALY gained. Future studies with longer trial follow-up and more mature survival data may help to confirm longer-term cost benefits of VenG. DISCLOSURES: Genentech Inc. and AbbVie provided financial support for this study. Genentech Inc., AbbVie, and Pharmerit - An OPEN Health Company participated in the design, study conduct, analysis, and interpretation of data, as well as the writing, review, and approval of the manuscript. Venetoclax is being developed in a collaboration between Genentech Inc. and AbbVie. Ravelo and Shapouri are employed by Genentech Inc. and have ownership interests. Manzoor and Sail are employed by AbbVie and have ownership interests. Chatterjee, van de Wetering, and Qendri, employees of Pharmerit - An OPEN Health Company, received consultancy fees from AbbVie. Davids has received consultancy fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Genentech Inc., Janssen, MEI Pharma, Novartis, Pharmacyclics, and Verastem; research funding from Ascentage Pharma, Genentech Inc., MEI Pharma, Pharmacyclics, Surface Oncology, TG Therapeutics, and Verastem; and has served on board of directors or advisory committees for AbbVie, Adaptive Biotechnologies, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Eli Lilly, Genentech Inc., Janssen, Pharmacyclics, TG Therapeutics, and Verastem. This study was presented as a poster at ASH 61st Annual Meeting and Exposition; December 7-10, 2019; Orlando, FL.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of anti-IL-5 therapies of severe eosinophilic asthma in Spain.

AIM: To analyse the cost-effectiveness of MEP with standard of care (SoC) versus other anti-IL-5 therapies approved for the treatment of severe eosinophilic asthma (SEA) patients, within the Spanish National Health System (NHS) perspective. METHODS: A Markov model with a 4-week cycle length was used to compare MEP with BEN and RES as therapies added to SoC in the management of SEA, in terms of cost per QALY gained and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Costs (€2019) were obtained from public sources, while utilities and transition probabilities were retrieved from literature, e.g. network meta-analysis. Continuation criteria for biological treatment and reduction of oral corticosteroids (OCS) was set at 50% minimum reduction of exacerbation rate. Adverse events related to chronic OCS use included diabetes, osteoporosis, cataracts, acute myocardial infarct, and peptic ulcer. The analysis was performed over a 5-year time horizon from the National Healthcare System (NHCS) perspective, with a yearly discount rate of 3% applied to both costs and QALYs. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis and univariate deterministic sensitivity analysis were performed to address uncertainty around the cost-effectiveness results. RESULTS: On top of SoC, the model indicates that MEP is dominant (lower cost, higher benefit) compared to BEN and RES: For BEN and RES, respectively, treatment with MEP had a point estimate of 0.076 and 0.075 additional QALYs, and savings of €3,173.47 and €7,772.95 per patient. The findings were robust to variation as estimated using sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSIONS: MEP is a cost-effective treatment in comparison with BEN and RES added to SoC for patients with SEA in the Spanish setting.

Cost-effectiveness on a local level: whether and when to adopt a new technology.

Cost-effectiveness analysis has become a widely accepted tool for decision making in health care. The standard textbook cost-effectiveness analysis focuses on whether to make the switch from an old or common practice technology to an innovative technology, and in doing so, it takes a global perspective. In this article, we are interested in a local perspective, and we look at the questions of whether and when the switch from old to new should be made. A new approach to cost-effectiveness from a local (e.g., a hospital) perspective, by means of a mathematical model for cost-effectiveness that explicitly incorporates time, is proposed. A decision rule is derived for establishing whether a new technology should be adopted, as well as a general rule for establishing when it pays to postpone adoption by 1 more period, and a set of decision rules that can be used to determine the optimal timing of adoption. Finally, a simple example is presented to illustrate our model and how it leads to optimal decision making in a number of cases.

Understanding and anticipating lag-time bias in cost-effectiveness studies: the role of time in cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Timely provision of information on the cost-effectiveness of innovations in health care becomes more and more important, resulting in increasing pressure on researchers to provide proof of cost-effectiveness in a short time frame. However, most of these innovations require considerable time and effort to optimally implement leading to a biased "steady state" cost-effectiveness outcome. As decision makers in health care predominantly have a short-term focus, the discrepancy between short-term study outcomes and long-term cost-effectiveness may very well lead to misguided decisions about the adoption of innovations in health care. METHODS: Factors such as learning effects, capacity constraints, and delayed time to benefit are all related to a short-run timeframe and result in inefficiencies during the implementation of an innovation. These factors and the mechanisms by which they influence the cost-effectiveness outcome are explained for three different types of healthcare innovations. RESULTS: As standard cost-effectiveness analysis assumes costs and effects to behave constant and representative for an innovation's entire economic lifetime, resulting cost-effectiveness outcomes might give a biased, and often overly pessimistic, reflection of the actual cost-effectiveness of an innovation. This is further amplified by the fact that short-run inefficiencies are most prevalent and impactful during an innovation's earliest stage of operation. CONCLUSIONS: This study advocates to carefully take into account the different factors contributing to lag-time bias in the design and analysis of cost-effectiveness studies, and to communicate potential biases due to short-run inefficiencies to all stakeholders involved in the decision making process.

A systematic and critical review of the evolving methods and applications of value of information in academia and practice.

OBJECTIVE: This article provides a systematic and critical review of the evolving methods and applications of value of information (VOI) in academia and practice and discusses where future research needs to be directed. METHODS: Published VOI studies were identified by conducting a computerized search on Scopus and ISI Web of Science from 1980 until December 2011 using pre-specified search terms. Only full-text papers that outlined and discussed VOI methods for medical decision making, and studies that applied VOI and explicitly discussed the results with a view to informing healthcare decision makers, were included. The included papers were divided into methodological and applied papers, based on the aim of the study. RESULTS: A total of 118 papers were included of which 50 % (n = 59) are methodological. A rapidly accumulating literature base on VOI from 1999 onwards for methodological papers and from 2005 onwards for applied papers is observed. Expected value of sample information (EVSI) is the preferred method of VOI to inform decision making regarding specific future studies, but real-life applications of EVSI remain scarce. Methodological challenges to VOI are numerous and include the high computational demands, dealing with non-linear models and interdependency between parameters, estimations of effective time horizons and patient populations, and structural uncertainties. CONCLUSION: VOI analysis receives increasing attention in both the methodological and the applied literature bases, but challenges to applying VOI in real-life decision making remain. For many technical and methodological challenges to VOI analytic solutions have been proposed in the literature, including leaner methods for VOI. Further research should also focus on the needs of decision makers regarding VOI.

Quantifying short run cost-effectiveness during a gradual implementation process.

This paper examines the short run inefficiencies that arise during gradual implementation of a new cost-effective technology in healthcare. These inefficiencies arise when health gains associated with the new technology cannot be obtained immediately because the new technology does not yet supply all patients, and when there is overcapacity for the old technology in the short run because the supply of care is divided among two mutually exclusive technologies. Such efficiency losses are not taken into account in standard textbook cost-effectiveness analysis in which a steady state is presented where costs and effects are assumed to be unchanging over time. A model is constructed to quantify such short run inefficiencies as well as to inform the decision maker about the optimal implementation pattern for the new technology. The model operates by integrating the incremental net benefit equations for both the period of co-existence of mutually exclusive technologies and the period after complete substitution of the old technology. It takes into account the rate of implementation of the new technology, depreciation of capital of the old technology as well as the demand curves for both technologies. The model is applied to the real world case of converting from screen film to digital mammography in the Netherlands.

The CareWell-primary care program: design of a cluster controlled trial and process evaluation of a complex intervention targeting community-dwelling frail elderly.

BACKGROUND: With increasing age and longevity, the rising number of frail elders with complex and numerous health-related needs demands a coordinated health care delivery system integrating cure, care and welfare. Studies on the effectiveness of such comprehensive chronic care models targeting frail elders show inconclusive results. The CareWell-primary care program is a complex intervention targeting community-dwelling frail elderly people, that aims to prevent functional decline, improve quality of life, and reduce or postpone hospital and nursing home admissions of community dwelling frail elderly. METHODS/DESIGN: The CareWell-primary care study includes a (cost-) effectiveness study and a comprehensive process evaluation. In a one-year pragmatic, cluster controlled trial, six general practices are non-randomly recruited to adopt the CareWell-primary care program and six control practices will deliver 'care as usual'. Each practice includes a random sample of fifty frail elders aged 70 years or above in the cost-effectiveness study. A sample of patients and informal caregivers and all health care professionals participating in the CareWell-primary care program are included in the process evaluation. In the cost-effectiveness study, the primary outcome is the level of functional abilities as measured with the Katz-15 index. Hierarchical mixed-effects regression models/multilevel modeling approach will be used, since the study participants are nested within the general practices. Furthermore, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios will be calculated as costs per QALY gained and as costs weighed against functional abilities. In the process evaluation, mixed methods will be used to provide insight in the implementation degree of the program, patients' and professionals' approval of the program, and the barriers and facilitators to implementation. DISCUSSION: The CareWell-primary care study will provide new insights into the (cost-) effectiveness, feasibility, and barriers and facilitators for implementation of this complex intervention in primary care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The CareWell-primary care study is registered in the ClinicalTrials.gov Protocol Registration System: NCT01499797.

Time to incorporate time in cost-effectiveness analysis.

Cost-effectiveness analysis as a means to evaluate medical innovations has become well accepted in the UK and several other Western countries. An important assumption underlying this method is that costs and effects are constant over time. In reality, however, and especially in the short run, variations in costs and effects are likely to occur. These variations can lead to considerable deviations from the outcome of a conventional economic evaluation, which in turn may lead to serious implementation problems at a local level. Taking time into account explicitly in economic evaluations in health care may enhance their utility for both societal and local decision making, and may ultimately smooth the adoption of new and basically cost-effective health care technologies.

A model to correct for short-run inefficiencies in economic evaluations in healthcare.

Important assumptions that underlie cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) are that production technologies are convex and that production processes always perform at constant returns to scale. However, in the short run these assumptions are likely to be violated. Therefore, CEAs might overestimate cost-effectiveness in the short run. To come up with a more precise cost-effectiveness outcome, we present a model that is able to correct the long-run incremental net benefit (INB) for short-run inefficiencies. This provides decision makers with a more realistic view of the expected efficiency gains. This model starts by determining the initial efficiency losses inflicted by inflexible resources. Then the model is made dynamic in order to adjust the efficiency losses by allowing for refilling and writing off freed capacity. Finally, the model calculates the length of the short-run time frame in which such efficiency losses exist, and a correction term with which the usual long-run INB should be adjusted to account for short-run inefficiencies. The model is applied to two cases: dialysis and digitizing a radiography department. The dialysis case shows moderate short-run efficiency losses while in the radiography case short-run efficiency losses are sufficiently large to cause a switch in cost-effectiveness from favorable to inefficient in the short run.