Temporal Trends in Grade 3/4 Adverse Events and Associated Costs of Nivolumab Plus Cabozantinib Versus Sunitinib for Previously Untreated Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Novel immunotherapy-based combination treatments have drastically improved clinical outcomes for previously untreated patients with advanced/metastatic renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). This study aimed to assess the temporal trends in grade 3/4 adverse event (AE) rates and associated costs of nivolumab plus cabozantinib combination therapy versus sunitinib monotherapy in previously untreated patients with aRCC. METHODS: Individual patient data from the CheckMate 9ER trial (nivolumab plus cabozantinib: N = 320; sunitinib: N = 320) were used to calculate the proportion of patients experiencing grade 3/4 AEs. AE unit costs were obtained from the United States (US) 2017 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) and inflated to 2020 US dollars. Per-patient-per-month (PPPM) all-cause and treatment-related grade 3/4 AE costs over 18-months, temporal trends, and top drivers of AE costs were evaluated in both treatment arms. RESULTS: Overall, the proportion of patients experiencing grade 3/4 AEs decreased over time, with the highest rates observed in the first 3 months for the nivolumab plus cabozantinib and sunitinib arms. Compared with sunitinib, nivolumab plus cabozantinib was associated with consistently lower average all-cause AE costs PPPM [month 3: $2021 vs. $3097 (p < 0.05); month 6: $1653 vs. $2418 (p < 0.05); month 12: $1450 vs. $1935 (p > 0.05); month 18: $1337 vs. $1755 (p > 0.05)]. Over 18 months, metabolism and nutrition disorders ($244), laboratory abnormalities ($182), and general disorders and administration site conditions ($122) were the costliest all-cause PPPM AE categories in the nivolumab plus cabozantinib arm, and laboratory abnormalities ($443), blood and lymphatic system disorders ($254), and metabolism and nutrition disorders ($177) were the costliest in the sunitinib arm. Trends of treatment-related AE costs were consistent with all-cause AE costs. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab plus cabozantinib was associated with lower costs of grade 3/4 AE management PPPM than sunitinib, which accumulated over the 18-month study period.

Comparative cost-effectiveness of cabozantinib as second-line therapy for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma in Germany and the United States.

BACKGROUND: Cabozantinib was approved by the European Medicines Agency and the Federal Drug Administration as an option for sorafenib-resistant advanced hepatocellular carcinoma, increasing overall survival and progression-free survival compared with placebo. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of cabozantinib in the second-line setting for patients with an advanced hepatocellular carcinoma from the German statutory health insurance perspective compared with an US scenario using US prices. METHODS: A Markov model was developed to compare the costs and effectiveness of cabozantinib with best supportive care in the second-line treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma over a lifetime horizon. Health outcomes were measured in discounted life years and discounted quality-adjusted life years. Survival probabilities were estimated using parametric survival distributions based on CELESTIAL trial data. Utilities were derived from the literature. Costs contained drugs, monitoring and adverse events measured in US Dollars. Model robustness was addressed in univariable, scenario and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Cabozantinib generated a gain of 0.18 life years (0.15 quality-adjusted life years) compared with best supportive care. The total mean cost per patient was $56,621 for cabozantinib and $2064 for best supportive care in the German model resulting in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for cabozantinib of $306,778/life year and $375,470/quality-adjusted life year. Using US prices generated costs of $177,496 for cabozantinib and $4630 for best supportive care and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $972,049/life year and $1,189,706/quality-adjusted life year. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis established that assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of $163,371/life year (quality-adjusted life year) for the German model and $188,559/life year (quality-adjusted life year) for the US model, cabozantinib is not cost-effective compared with best supportive care. Sensitivity analyses showed that cabozantinib was not cost-effective in almost all our scenarios.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Ombitasvir/Paritaprevir/Ritonavir and Dasabuvir With or Without Ribavirin Regimen for Patients Infected With Chronic Hepatitis C Virus Genotype 1 in Malaysia.

OBJECTIVES: The combination of pegylated-interferon and ribavirin (PegIFN+RBV) is currently the gold standard in treating chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) patients in Malaysia and is reimbursed by the Malaysian authorities. This analysis evaluated the cost-effectiveness (CE) of the ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir and dasabuvir with or without ribavirin (OBT/PTV/r+DSB±RBV) regimen as compared with the PegIFN+RBV or no treatment in chronic HCV Genotype 1 (GT1) treatment-naïve and treatment-experienced cirrhotic and noncirrhotic patients in Malaysia. METHODS: A Markov model based on previously published CE models of HCV was adapted for the Malaysian public healthcare payer perspective, based on good modeling practices. Treatment attributes included efficacy, regimen duration, and EQ-5D treatment-related health utility. Transitional probabilities and health state health utilities were derived from previous studies. Costs were derived from Malaysian data sources. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3.0% per year. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the impact of uncertainties around key variables. RESULTS: Based on the analysis, patients treated with the OBT/PTV/r+DSB±RBV showed less frequent progression to compensated cirrhosis, decompensated cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma, and liver-related deaths when compared with standard care (ie, PegIFN+RBV or no treatment). At a price of MYR 1846/day, the OBT/PTV/r+DSB±RBV regimen is cost-effective over PegIFN+RBV and yields better outcomes in terms of life-years (LYs) gained and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) at a higher cost, which is still well below the implied willingness to pay threshold of MYR 384 503/QALY. CONCLUSION: The OBT/PTV/r+DSB±RBV regimen is cost-effective for treatment naïve, treatment experienced, cirrhotic, and noncirrhotic GT1 chronic HCV patients in Malaysia.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of cabozantinib as second-line therapy in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: In the CELESTIAL trial for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), cabozantinib showed improved survival compared with placebo but comes at a price. We aimed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of cabozantinib for sorafenib-resistant HCC from the payer's perspective of the USA, UK and China. METHODS: We developed Markov models to simulate the patients pre-treated with first-line sorafenib following the CELESTIAL trial. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were calculated for the treatment with cabozantinib or best supportive care. The list price for drugs was acquired from the Red Book, the British National Formulary, West China hospital and reported literature. Adverse events, utilities weights, and transition likelihood between states were sourced from the published randomized phase III trial. A willing-to-pay threshold was set $150 000/QALY in the USA, $70 671/QALY (£50 000/QALY) in the UK and $26 481/QALY (3x GDP per capita) in China. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were developed to test the models' uncertainty. RESULTS: In the base case, treatment with cabozantinib increased effectiveness by 0.13 QALYs, resulting in an ICER vs best supportive care of $833 497/QALY in the USA, $304 177/QALY in the UK and $156 437/QALY in China. The models were most sensitive to assumptions about transitions to progression with both cabozantinib and best supportive care, the utility associated with being progression free. These results were robust across a range of scenarios and sensitivity analyses, including deterministic and probabilistic analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Cabozantinib at its current cost would not be a cost-effective treatment option for patients with sorafenib-resistant HCC from the payer's perspective in the USA, UK or China. Substantial discounts are necessary to meet conventional cost-effectiveness thresholds.

Cost-Effectiveness of Cabozantinib in the Second-Line Treatment of Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Treatment options are limited for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) that progresses after treatment with sorafenib. Cabozantinib, an oral small molecule inhibitor of multiple tyrosine kinase receptors, recently showed improved overall survival (OS) compared with placebo in sorafenib-pretreated patients with advanced HCC in the CELESTIAL trial. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of cabozantinib for second-line treatment of patients with advanced HCC from a US healthcare system perspective. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Cost and utility data were extracted from the CELESTIAL trial and used to determine the cost-effectiveness of cabozantinib compared with placebo plus best supportive care. The main outcome of this study was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), expressed as cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained by using cabozantinib compared with placebo plus best supportive care in sorafenib-pretreated HCC. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis using data from the CELESTIAL trial, the incremental QALY and ICER were 0.067 and $1,040,675 for cabozantinib compared with placebo and best supportive care. OS reported in the CELESTIAL trial (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.63-0.92) had the strongest association with the ICER. In one-way sensitivity analyses, there were no scenarios in which cabozantinib was cost-effective. In a cost-threshold analysis, cabozantinib would have to be priced at least $50 per pill to be cost-effective considering a willingness to pay of $100,000 per QALY. Although the CELESTIAL trial demonstrated that cabozantinib improves OS compared with placebo in patients with HCC that progresses after treatment with sorafenib, our analysis shows that cabozantinib is not a cost-effective therapy in this scenario. CONCLUSIONS: At current costs, cabozantinib is not cost-effective for second-line therapy of HCC in the United States.

Cost-Effectiveness of Second-Line Treatments for Metastatic Renal-Cell Carcinoma.

PURPOSE: To assess the pharmacologic costs of second-line treatments for metastatic renal-cell cancer (mRCC). METHODS: The present evaluation was restricted to pivotal phase 3 randomized controlled trials in second-line for mRCC. We calculated the pharmacologic costs necessary to get the benefit in progression-free survival and overall survival (OS) for each trial. The costs of drugs are at the pharmacy of our hospital and are expressed in euros. RESULTS: Our analysis evaluated 5 phase 3 randomized controlled trials including 3112 patients. The lowest cost per month of progression-free survival and OS gained was associated with the use of cabozantinib (€2006 and €1473, respectively), while everolimus had the highest cost per month of OS gained (€28,590). CONCLUSION: Combining pharmacologic costs of drugs with the measure of efficacy represented by OS, cabozantinib is a cost-effective second-line treatments for patients with mRCC.

The Additional Costs per Month of Progression-Free Survival and Overall Survival: An Economic Model Comparing Everolimus with Cabozantinib, Nivolumab, and Axitinib for Second-Line Treatment of Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: When considering optimal second-line treatments for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), clinicians and payers seek to understand the relative clinical benefits and costs of treatment. OBJECTIVE: To use an economic model to compare the additional cost per month of overall survival (OS) and of progression-free survival (PFS) for cabozantinib, nivolumab, and axitinib with everolimus for the second-line treatment of mRCC from a third-party U.S. payer perspective. METHODS: The model evaluated mean OS and PFS and costs associated with drug acquisition/administration; adverse event (AE) treatment; monitoring; and postprogression (third-line treatment, monitoring, and end-of-life costs) over 1- and 2-year horizons. Efficacy, safety, and treatment duration inputs were estimated from regimens' pivotal clinical trials; for everolimus, results were weighted across trials. Mean 1- and 2-year OS and mean 1-year PFS were estimated using regimens' reported OS and PFS Kaplan-Meier curves. Dosing and administration inputs were consistent with approved prescribing information and the clinical trials used to estimate efficacy and safety inputs. Cost inputs came from published literature and public data. Additional cost per additional month of OS or PFS was calculated using the ratio of the cost difference per treated patient and the corresponding difference in mean OS or PFS between everolimus and each comparator. One-way sensitivity analyses were conducted by varying efficacy and cost inputs. RESULTS: Compared with everolimus, cabozantinib, nivolumab, and axitinib were associated with 1.6, 0.3, and 0.5 additional months of PFS, respectively, over 1 year. Cabozantinib and nivolumab were associated with additional months of OS compared with everolimus (1 year: 0.7 and 0.8 months; 2 years: 1.6 and 2.3 months; respectively); axitinib was associated with fewer months (1 year: -0.2 months; 2 years: -0.7 months). The additional costs of treatment with cabozantinib, nivolumab, or axitinib versus everolimus over 1 year were $34,141, $19,371, and $17,506 higher, respectively. Everolimus had similar OS and lower costs compared with axitinib. The additional cost per month of OS was $48,773 for cabozantinib and $24,214 for nivolumab versus everolimus. The additional treatment cost with cabozantinib, nivolumab, or axitinib versus everolimus for each additional month of PFS was estimated at $21,338, $64,570, and $35,012, respectively. Over 2 years, the additional costs per additional month of OS for nivolumab and axitinib versus everolimus were similar to the 1-year analysis; for cabozantinib, the cost was lower. Results were sensitive to changes in mean OS, mean PFS, therapy duration, and drug costs estimates. CONCLUSIONS: Everolimus for second-line mRCC was associated with similar OS and lower costs compared with axitinib over 1- and 2-year horizons. The additional cost per additional month of OS and PFS associated with cabozantinib or nivolumab versus everolimus creates a metric for evaluating the cost of second-line therapies in relation to their respective treatment effects. DISCLOSURES: Funding for this research was provided by Novartis, which was involved in all stages of study research and manuscript preparation. Ghate and Perez are employees of Novartis and own stock/stock options. Swallow, Messali, McDonald, and Duchesneau are employees of Analysis Group, which has received consultancy fees from Novartis. Study concept and design were contributed by Swallow, Messali, Ghate, and Perez, along with McDonald and Duchesneau. Swallow, Messali, McDonald, and Duchesneau collected the data, and all authors participated in data interpretation. The manuscript was written by Swallow, Messali, and Ghate, along with the other authors, and revised by Swallow, Messali, Ghate, and Perez. A synopsis of the current research was presented in poster format at the 15th International Kidney Cancer Symposium on November 4-5, 2016, in Miami, Florida.

Cost-effectiveness of direct-acting antiviral regimen ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir in treatment-naïve and treatment-experienced patients infected with chronic hepatitis C virus genotype 1b in Japan.

OBJECTIVE: This study compared the cost-effectiveness of chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 1b (GT1b) therapy ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir (OBV/PTV/r) vs daclatasvir + asunaprevir (DCV/ASV) and no treatment in patients without cirrhosis. Cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) that compared OBV/PTV/r against DCV/ASV and sofosbuvir/ledipasvir (SOF/LDV) in Y93H mutation-negative, GT1b patients with and without cirrhosis were also included. METHODS: A health state transition model was developed to capture the natural history of HCV. A CEA over a lifetime horizon was performed from the perspective of the public healthcare payer in Japan. Costs, health utilities, and rates of disease progression were derived from published studies. Sustained virologic response (SVR) rates of OBV/PTV/r and DCV/ASV were extracted from Japanese clinical trials. Analyses were performed for treatment-naïve and -experienced patients. Alternative scenarios and input parameter uncertainty on the results were tested. RESULTS: OBV/PTV/r exhibited superior clinical outcomes vs comparators. For OBV/PTV/r, DCV/ASV, and no treatment, the lifetime risk of decompensated cirrhosis in treatment-naïve patients without cirrhosis was 0.4%, 1.4%, and 9.2%, and hepatocellular carcinoma was 6.5%, 11.4%, and 49.9%, respectively. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were higher in treatment-naïve and -experienced patients without cirrhosis treated with OBV/PTV/r (16.41 and 16.22) vs DCV/ASV (15.83 and 15.66) or no treatment (11.34 and 11.23). In treatment-naïve and -experienced patients without cirrhosis, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of OBV/PTV/r vs DCV/ASV were JPY 1,684,751/QALY and JPY 1,836,596/QALY, respectively; OBV/PTV/r was dominant compared with no treatment. In scenario analysis, including GT1b patients with and without cirrhosis who were Y93H mutation-negative, the ICER of OBV/PTV/r vs DCV/ASV was below the Japanese willingness-to-pay threshold of JPY 5 million/QALY, while the ICER of SOF/LDV vs OBV/PTV/r was above this threshold; thus, OBV/PTV/r was cost-effective. CONCLUSION: OBV/PTV/r appears to be a cost-effective treatment for chronic HCV GT1b infection against DCV/ASV. OBV/PTV/r dominates no treatment in patients without cirrhosis.

Economic and Public Health Impacts of Policies Restricting Access to Hepatitis C Treatment for Medicaid Patients.

BACKGROUND: Interferon-free hepatitis C treatment regimens are effective but very costly. The cost-effectiveness, budget, and public health impacts of current Medicaid treatment policies restricting treatment to patients with advanced disease remain unknown. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of current Medicaid policies restricting hepatitis C treatment to patients with advanced disease compared with a strategy providing unrestricted access to hepatitis C treatment, assess the budget and public health impact of each strategy, and estimate the feasibility and long-term effects of increased access to treatment for patients with hepatitis C. METHODS: Using a Markov model, we compared two strategies for 45- to 55-year-old Medicaid beneficiaries: 1) Current Practice-only advanced disease is treated before Medicare eligibility and 2) Full Access-both early-stage and advanced disease are treated before Medicare eligibility. Patients could develop progressive fibrosis, cirrhosis, or hepatocellular carcinoma, undergo transplantation, or die each year. Morbidity was reduced after successful treatment. We calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and compared the costs and public health effects of each strategy from the perspective of Medicare alone as well as the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services perspective. We varied model inputs in one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Full Access was less costly and more effective than Current Practice for all cohorts and perspectives, with differences in cost ranging from $5,369 to $11,960 and in effectiveness from 0.82 to 3.01 quality-adjusted life-years. In a probabilistic sensitivity analysis, Full Access was cost saving in 93% of model iterations. Compared with Current Practice, Full Access averted 5,994 hepatocellular carcinoma cases and 121 liver transplants per 100,000 patients. CONCLUSIONS: Current Medicaid policies restricting hepatitis C treatment to patients with advanced disease are more costly and less effective than unrestricted, full-access strategies. Collaboration between state and federal payers may be needed to realize the full public health impact of recent innovations in hepatitis C treatment.

Cost-Effectiveness of Genotype 1 Chronic Hepatitis C Virus Treatments in Patients Coinfected with Human Immunodeficiency Virus in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: New treatments for chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) are highly effective in patients coinfected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). This study estimated the cost-effectiveness of treatments for genotype 1 (GT1) HCV in HIV-coinfected patients. METHODS: A Markov model based on HCV natural history was used. The base-case analysis included both treatment-naïve and -experienced patients. Alternatives were ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir, dasabuvir with or without ribavirin (3D ± R) for 12 or 24 weeks, sofosbuvir plus peginterferon and R (SOF + PR) for 12 weeks, SOF + R for 24 weeks, and no treatment (NT). A subgroup analysis restricted to treatment-naïve, non-cirrhotic patients compared 3D ± R for 12 weeks to SOF plus ledipasvir (LDV) for 12 weeks and NT. Transition probabilities, utilities, and costs were obtained from the published literature. Outcomes were measured over a lifetime horizon and included rates of compensated cirrhosis, decompensated cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma and liver-related death, total costs, life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). RESULTS: In the base-case, SOF + R was dominated by both SOF + PR and 3D ± R. Compared to SOF + PR, 3D ± R had an ICER of $45,581. The lifetime rates of liver morbidity and mortality were lower among those treated with 3D ± R compared to SOF + PR, SOF + R, or NT. In the subgroup analysis, 3D ± R was cost-effective compared to NT at a threshold of $50,000 per QALY (ICER $27,496). SOF/LDV had an ICER of $104,489 per QALY gained compared to 3D ± R. CONCLUSION: In the GT1 HCV population coinfected with HIV, 3D ± R was cost-effective compared to NT, SOF + R, and SOF + PR. In the treatment-naïve sub-population, 3D ± R was cost-effective compared to NT and SOF/LDV.

Economic evaluation of ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir and dasabuvir for the treatment of chronic genotype 1 hepatitis c virus infection.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness of ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir and dasabuvir ± ribavirin (OMB/PTV/r + DSV ± RBV) compared with treatment regimens including pegylated interferon (PegIFN) for patients with chronic genotype 1 hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. METHODS: An Excel spreadsheet Markov model tracking progression through stages of liver disease was developed. Costs and patient utilities for liver disease stages were taken from published studies. Rates of disease progression were based on studies of untreated HCV infection and long-term follow-up of those achieving sustained virologic response (SVR) after drug treatment. Impact of OMB/PTV/r + DSV ± RBV and other drug regimens on progression was estimated through SVR rates from clinical trials. Analyses were performed for treatment-naive and treatment-experienced patients. Impact of alternative scenarios and input parameter uncertainty on the results were tested. RESULTS: For genotype 1 treatment-naive HCV patients, for OMB/PTV/r + DSV ± RBV, PegIFN + ribavirin (PegIFN/RBV), sofosbuvir + PegIFN/RBV, telaprevir + PegIFN/RBV, boceprevir + PegIFN/RBV, lifetime risk of decompensated liver disease was 5.6%, 18.9%, 7.4%, 11.7%, and 14.9%; hepatocellular carcinoma was 5.4%, 9.2%, 5.7%, 7.0%, and 7.4%; and death from liver disease was 8.7%, 22.2%, 10.4%, 14.8%, and 17.6%, respectively. Estimates of the cost-effectiveness of OMB/PTV/r + DSV ± RBV for treatment-naive and treatment-experienced patients indicated that it dominated all other regimens except PegIFN/RBV. Compared with PegIFN/RBV, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were £13,864 and £10,258 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) for treatment-naive and treatment-experienced patients, respectively. The results were similar for alternative scenarios and uncertainty analyses. LIMITATIONS: A mixed-treatment comparison for SVR rates for the different treatment regimens was not feasible, because many regimens did not have comparator arms; instead SVR rates were based on those from recent trials. CONCLUSIONS: OMB/PTV/r + DSV ± RBV is a cost-effective oral treatment regimen for chronic genotype 1 HCV infection compared with standard treatment regimens and is estimated to reduce the lifetime risks of advanced liver disease.

Cost-effectiveness of currently recommended direct-acting antiviral treatments in patients infected with genotypes 1 or 4 hepatitis C virus in the US.

OBJECTIVE: This study compared the cost-effectiveness of direct-acting antiviral therapies currently recommended for treating genotypes (GT) 1 and 4 chronic hepatitis C (CHC) patients in the US. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis of treatments for CHC from a US payer's perspective over a lifelong time horizon was performed. A Markov model based on the natural history of CHC was used for a population that included treatment-naïve and -experienced patients. Treatment alternatives considered for GT1 included ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir + dasabuvir ± ribavirin (3D ± R), sofosbuvir + ledipasvir (SOF/LDV), sofosbuvir + simeprevir (SOF + SMV), simeprevir + pegylated interferon/ribavirin (SMV + PR) and no treatment (NT). For GT4 treatments, ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir + ribavirin (2D + R), SOF/LDV and NT were compared. Transition probabilities, utilities and costs were obtained from published literature. Outcomes included rates of compensated cirrhosis (CC), decompensated cirrhosis (DCC), hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and liver-related death (LrD), total costs, life-years and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Costs and QALYs were used to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. RESULTS: In GT1 patients, 3D ± R and SOF-containing regimens have similar long-term outcomes; 3D ± R had the lowest lifetime risks of all liver disease outcomes: CC = 30.2%, DCC = 5.0 %, HCC = 6.8%, LT = 1.9% and LrD = 9.2%. In GT1 patients, 3D ± R had the lowest cost and the highest QALYs. As a result, 3D ± R dominated these treatment options. In GT4 patients, 2D + R had lower rates of liver morbidity and mortality, lower cost and more QALYs than SOF/LDV and NT. LIMITATIONS: While the results are based on input values, which were obtained from a variety of heterogeneous sources-including clinical trials, the findings were robust across a plausible range of input values, as demonstrated in probabilistic sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Among currently recommended treatments for GT1 and GT4 in the US, 3D ± R (for GT1) and 2D + R (for GT4) have a favorable cost-effectiveness profile.

Cost-effectiveness of Ombitasvir/Paritaprevir/Ritonavir, Dasabuvir+Ribavirin for US Post-Liver Transplant Recurrent Genotype 1 HCV.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Orthotopic liver transplant patients with recurrent hepatitis C (HCV) historically have had limited treatment options. Ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir, dasabuvir and ribavirin (3D+R) was approved by the FDA in December 2014 for liver transplant recipients with recurrent genotype 1 HCV, in whom it is effective and well-tolerated. METHODS: Using a two-phase Markov model, we analysed the cost-effectiveness of 3D+R in liver transplant recipients, the only HCV treatment with FDA approval in this population. As a sensitivity analysis, we also considered the cost-effectiveness of pegylated interferon plus ribavirin, the only other therapy with data from Phase III trials in this population. Patients were given one of three options: 3D+R for 24 weeks, pegylated interferon and ribavirin for 48 weeks (PR48) or no treatment (NT). Patients were then followed through subsequent disease progression until death. Outcome measures analysed were: lifetime risks of liver morbidity and mortality, treatment costs, non-treatment medical expenditures, and quality-adjusted life years. RESULTS: Treatment with 3D+R was associated with a significantly lower lifetime risk of liver-related morbidity and mortality than treatment with PR48 or NT. 3D+R also was associated with a higher gain in quality-adjusted life years (11.3 compared to 8.25 with NT) and lower discounted overall costs ($423,585 compared to $724,757 with NT). CONCLUSIONS: The use of 3D+R for liver transplant recipients with recurrent HCV is an outcome-improving and cost-effective regimen for this population with limited treatment options and large unmet need.

Vismodegib for the treatment of basal cell skin cancer.

PURPOSE: The pharmacology, clinical efficacy, adverse effects, cost, and place in therapy of vismodegib are reviewed. SUMMARY: Vismodegib, the first oral treatment for basal cell carcinoma (BCC), was recently approved for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic BCC whose cancer is refractory to standard treatments or who are not candidates for surgery or radiation. Vismodegib is a small molecule that potently inhibits signal transduction in the hedgehog signaling pathway, demonstrates nonlinear pharmacokinetics, and has a half-life of 13 days. Agents that increase gastrointestinal pH may reduce the solubility and bioavailability of vismodegib. It is effective in both locally advanced and metastatic BCCs, with response rates ranging from 30% to 60% in two clinical trials. Vismodegib is available as a 150-mg capsule, and the approved dosage is 150 mg orally once daily. The most common adverse effects of vismodegib include mild-to-moderate hair loss, muscle cramps, taste disturbance, and weight loss. The estimated cost of one month of treatment with vismodegib is $7500. CONCLUSION: Vismodegib was recently approved for the treatment of locally advanced or metastatic BCC that is refractory to standard treatments or if patients are not candidates for surgery or radiation. Vismodegib may have little effect on the treatment of BCC, given its high cost, the high cure rates achieved with standard therapies, and its unacceptable toxicity profile in patients with a non-life-threatening disease. However, vismodegib's novel mechanism of action, oral dosage form, preliminary efficacy, and tolerability compared with cytotoxic chemotherapy may make it an attractive candidate for the treatment of other cancers.

Eliciting patient preferences for hormonal therapy options in the treatment of metastatic prostate cancer.

Treatment choices for metastatic prostate cancer are complex and can involve men balancing survival versus quality of life. The present study aims to elicit patient preferences with respect to the attributes of treatments for metastatic prostate cancer through a discrete choice experiment (DCE) questionnaire. Men with recently diagnosed localized prostate cancer were asked to envisage that they had metastatic disease when completing a survey. As expected, men with prostate cancer placed considerable importance on gains in survival; however, avoiding side effects of treatment was also clearly important. Survival gains should be considered alongside side effects when discussing treatment options in metastatic disease.

Is combined androgen blockade with bicalutamide cost-effective compared with combined androgen blockade with flutamide?

OBJECTIVES: To determine the cost-effectiveness of combined androgen blockade (CAB) with bicalutamide versus CAB with flutamide in men with Stage D2 prostate cancer. Both bicalutamide and flutamide are commonly used in CAB for prostate cancer. Although the cost of bicalutamide is more than that of flutamide, it is important that the efficacy, quality of life, and side effects are also considered when determining whether CAB with bicalutamide is a cost-effective option. METHODS: A decision model was created to compare treatment strategies. Survival and side-effect information was based on a randomized trial that directly compared bicalutamide and flutamide. The costs and quality-of-life effects related to therapy were determined from published sources. RESULTS: The incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained for bicalutamide versus flutamide was 22,000 dollars and 16,000 dollars at 5 and 10 years, respectively. If a quality adjustment was not included, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for CAB with bicalutamide compared with CAB with flutamide was even more favorable (20,000 dollars/life year gained at 5 years). One-way sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the cost-effectiveness estimates were most sensitive to drug costs and survival (baseline survival was not significantly different between therapies). Multi-way uncertainty analysis revealed that the median value of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio at 5 years was 13,637 dollars/quality-adjusted life year when all the parameters were varied over a clinically reasonable range. CONCLUSIONS: Bicalutamide is cost-effective compared with flutamide when used for androgen blockade as part of CAB for men with advanced prostate cancer.

The cost-effectiveness of combined androgen blockade with bicalutamide and luteinizing hormone releasing hormone agonist in men with metastatic prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: Combined androgen blockade therapy (CAB) has been shown to have a small survival advantage over luteinizing hormone releasing hormone LH-RH agonists (LH-RHa) alone in men with metastatic prostate cancer. The goal of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of CAB with bicalutamide and LH-RH agonist therapy to LH-RH agonist therapy alone. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A macro-simulation model was developed to compare the cost-effectiveness of 2 interventions for stage D2 prostate cancer, 1) CAB with bicalutamide 50 mg per day and monthly dosing of an LH-RHa or 2) monthly LH-RH agonist therapy. Cost and outcomes are tabulated in 5 and 10-year time horizons. Model assumptions were taken from the published literature. Appropriate 1-way and multi-way sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: At 5 years, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for CAB, when compared with LH-RHa monotherapy, was US dollars 33,677 per quality-adjusted life-year. In other words, for every additional quality-adjusted life year that a patient lived because he received CAB, it cost US dollars 33,677. At 10 years the ICER for CAB was US dollars 20,053 (well within the accepted cost-effectiveness threshold). If quality adjustment was not included, the ICER for CAB was even more favorable (US dollars 20,489 at 5 years and US dollars 13,313 at 10 years). The model was most sensitive to the estimates of effectiveness (survival) of LH-RHa therapy alone and CAB therapy. The model was also fairly sensitive to the quality of life effect of having late stage prostate cancer and the cost of bicalutamide. CONCLUSIONS: CAB with bicalutamide is cost-effective when compared with LH-RH monotherapy in men with stage D2 prostate cancer.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of bicalutamide (Casodex) for adjuvant treatment of early prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the cost-effectiveness of bicalutamide (Casodex) as adjuvant treatment in early prostate cancer (EPC). METHODS: A Markov state transition model was developed, using disease progression rates from a large (N = 8113) clinical trial program comparing bicalutamide in addition to standard care with standard care alone. Utility scores for different disease stages were obtained from published reports. Costs of disease progression were obtained from a retrospective patient chart analysis in six Belgian centers (n = 60). The time horizon was 15 years and the analysis was conducted from the public payer perspective. RESULTS: The model showed good validity in predicting clinical outcomes. At a time horizon of 15 years, an incremental cost-effectiveness of 27,059 euros/QALY was obtained. The main factors influencing conclusions included the time horizon, the duration of bicalutamide treatment, which was set at a maximum (5 years) in the base case, and possible differences in prognosis of metastatic cancer between comparators. Also the discounting of health effects significantly altered cost-effectiveness ratios. Many of these influences are inherently associated with any cost-effectiveness analysis related to treatment of early, slowly progressing malignancies because such an analysis requires a sufficient time horizon to include not only the treatment costs but its benefits as well. CONCLUSION: Based on the current data, bicalutamide appears to be a cost-effective option for adjuvant treatment of EPC.