Impact of national drug price negotiation policy on the accessibility and utilization of PCSK9 inhibitors in China: an interrupted time series analysis.

BACKGROUND: PCSK9 inhibitors are a novel class of lipid-lowering drugs that have demonstrated favorable efficacy and safety. Evolocumab and alirocumab have been added to China's National Reimbursement Drug List through the National Drug Price Negotiation (NDPN) policy. This study aims to evaluate the impact of the NDPN policy on the utilization and accessibility of these two PCSK9 inhibitors. METHODS: The procurement data of evolocumab and alirocumab were collected from 1,519 hospitals between January 2021 and December 2022. We determined the monthly availability, utilization, cost per daily defined dose (DDDc), and affordability of the two medicines. Single-group interrupted time series (ITS) analysis was performed to assess the impact of the NDPN policy on each drug, and multiple-group ITS analysis was performed to compare the differences between them. RESULTS: The NDPN policy led to a significant and sudden increase in the availability and utilization of PCSK9 inhibitors, along with a decrease in their DDDc. In the year following the policy implementation, there was an increase in the availability, utilization, and spending, and the DDDc remained stable. The affordability of PCSK9 inhibitors in China have been significantly improved, with a 92.97% reduction in out-of-pocket costs. The availability of both PCSK9 inhibitors was similar, and the DDDc of alirocumab was only $0.23 higher after the intervention. The market share of evolocumab consistently exceeded that of alirocumab. Regional disparities in utilization were observed, with higher utilization in the eastern region and a correlation with per capita disposable income. CONCLUSIONS: The NDPN policy has successfully improved the accessibility and utilization of PCSK9 inhibitors in China. However, regional disparities in utilization indicate the need for further interventions to ensure equitable medicine access.

Cost-effectiveness of eculizumab and efgartigimod for the treatment of anti-acetylcholine receptor antibody-positive generalized myasthenia gravis.

BACKGROUND: Eculizumab and efgartigimod were approved to treat anti-acetylcholine receptor antibody-positive generalized myasthenia gravis (anti-AChR Ab-positive gMG). These relatively new biological treatments provide a more rapid onset of action and improved efficacy compared with conventional immunosuppressive treatments, but at a higher cost. OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of eculizumab and, separately, efgartigimod, each added to conventional therapy vs conventional therapy alone, among patients with refractory anti-AChR Ab-positive gMG and those with anti-AChR Ab-positive gMG, respectively. METHODS: A Markov model with 4 health states was developed, evaluating costs and utility with a 4-week cycle length and lifetime time horizon from a health care system perspective and a modified societal perspective including productivity losses from patients and caregiver burden. Model inputs were informed by key clinical trials and relevant publications identified from targeted literature reviews, and drug costs were identified from Micromedex Red Book. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3% per year. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs; cost per quality-adjusted life-year [QALY] gained) were calculated for each comparison. RESULTS: Among the corresponding populations, lifetime costs and QALYs, respectively, for eculizumab were $5,515,000 and 11.85, and for conventional therapy, $308,000 and 10.29, resulting in an ICER of $3,338,000/QALY gained. For efgartigimod, lifetime costs and QALYs, respectively, were $6,773,000 and 13.22, and for conventional therapy, $322,000 and 9.98, yielding an ICER of $1,987,000/QALY gained. After applying indirect costs in a modified societal perspective, the ICERs were reduced to $3,310,000/QALY gained for eculizumab and $1,959,000/QALY gained for efgartigimod. CONCLUSIONS: Eculizumab and efgartigimod are rapidly acting and effective treatments for myasthenia gravis. However, at their current price, both therapies greatly exceeded common cost-effectiveness thresholds, likely limiting patient access to these therapies.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab compared with sorafenib as first-line treatment in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma in Singapore.

OBJECTIVES: This study aims to explore the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab against sorafenib for first-line treatment of locally advanced or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in Singapore. METHODS: A partitioned survival model was developed from a healthcare system perspective, with a 10-year lifetime horizon. Clinical inputs and utilities were obtained from the IMbrave150 trial. Healthcare resource use costs were obtained from published local sources; drug costs reflected the most recent public hospital selling prices. Outcomes included life years, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the model's robustness. RESULTS: Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab offered an additional 1.42 life years and 1.09 QALYs, with an additional cost of S$111,847; the ICER was S$102,988/QALY. The World Health Organization considers interventions with ICERs <1 gross domestic product (GDP)/capita to be highly cost-effective. At a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of S$114,165/QALY (Singapore's 2022 GDP/capita), atezolizumab plus bevacizumab is cost-effective compared with sorafenib. The ICER was most sensitive to variations in utilities, but all parameter variations had no significant impact on the model outcomes. CONCLUSION: At a WTP threshold of Singapore's GDP/capita, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab is cost-effective compared with sorafenib.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors as the second-line treatment for advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a cost-effectiveness analysis based on network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have demonstrated superior clinical efficacy in prolonging overall survival (OS) as the second-line treatment for advanced or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), and were recommended by the guidelines. However, it remains uncertain which ICI is the most cost-effective. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of ICIs as the second-line treatment for ESCC based on the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. METHODS: A network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed to obtain the Hazard ratios (HRs) for indirect comparisons. A three-state Markov model with a 10-year time horizon was conducted to assess the cost-effectiveness. The state transition probabilities were calculated with Kaplan-Meier (KM) curves data from clinical trial and HRs from the NMA. Utilities and costs were derived from local charges or previously published studies. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were performed to examine model robustness. The results were assessed based on the total costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). RESULTS: Five clinical trials (ATTRACTION-3, ESCORT, KEYNOTE-181, ORIENT-2, RATIONALE-302) with a total of 1797 patients were included in the NMA. The NMA showed that both camrelizumab and tislelizumab received relatively high rankings for progression-free survival (PFS) and OS. Compared with sintilimab, treatment with tislelizumab and camrelizumab gained 0.018 and 0.034 additional QALYs, resulting in incremental ICERs of $75,472.65/QALY and $175,681.9/QALY, respectively. Nivolumab and pembrolizumab produced lower QALYs and greater costs, suggesting that both were dominated in comparison to sintilimab. HRs and health state utilities were the most influential parameters in most univariate sensitivity analyses of paired comparisons. PSA results suggested that sintilimab had an 84.4% chance of being the most cost-effective treatment regimen at the WTP threshold of $38,223.34/QALY. In the scenario analysis, sintilimab would no longer be cost-effective, if the price of camrelizumab was assumed to decrease by 64.6% or the price of tislelizumab was assumed to decrease by 16.9%. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among the five potential competing ICIs, sintilimab was likely to be the most cost-effective regimen as the second-line treatment for locally advanced or metastatic ESCC in China.

Assessment of effectiveness and impact of universal prophylaxis with nirsevimab for prevention of hospitalizations due to respiratory syncytial virus in infants. The NIRSE-GAL study protocol.

Nirsevimab has been recently licensed for universal RSV prophylaxis in infants. NIRSE-GAL is a three-year population-based study initiated in Galicia in September 2023. It aims to evaluate nirsevimab effectiveness against RSV-related hospitalizations lower respiratory tract infections (LRTI), severe RSV, all-cause LRTI, and all-cause hospitalization. NIRSE-GAL also aims to estimate nirsevimab impact on primary healthcare use in the short and mid-term, children's wheezing and asthma, and medical prescriptions for RSV. The immunization campaigns will be scheduled based on the expected start week for the RSV season and will last the whole season. Immunization will be offered to: i) infants born during the campaign (seasonal), ii) infants < 6 months at the start of the campaign (catch-up), and iii) infants with high-risk factors, aged 6-24 months at the start of the campaign (high-risk). The follow-up period will start: i) the immunization date for all immunized infants, ii) the start of the campaign, for the non-immunized catch-up or high-risk groups, or iii) the birthdate for the non-immunized seasonal group. Infants will be followed up until outcome occurrence, death, or end of study. Nirsevimab effectiveness will be estimated using Poisson and Cox regression models. Sensitivity and stratified analyses will be undertaken. The number of averted cases and the number needed to immunize will be estimated. Immunization failure and nirsevimab safety will be monitored. NIRSE-GAL was approved by the ethics committee of Galicia (CEIC 2023-377) and registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (ID: NCT06180993). Findings will be mainly shared via peer-reviewed publications and scientific conferences.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of tislelizumab vs. camrelizumab for the treatment of second-line locally advanced or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Esophageal carcinoma is a type of cancer that occurs in the esophagus. For patients with locally advanced or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma who have either experienced disease progression following first-line standard chemotherapy or are intolerant to it, the prognosis is typically poor. Additionally, these patients often bear a substantial economic burden during the course of their treatment. Tislelizumab is a selective PD-1 inhibitor with efficacy proven in locally advanced or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. The study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of tislelizumab versus camrelizumab as the second-line treatment in locally advanced or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) patients in China. METHODS: From the perspective of China's healthcare system, the partitioned survival model with three health states was established in a 3-week cycle and a lifetime horizon. Anchored matching adjusted indirect comparison was used for survival analyses based on individual patient data from RATIONALE 302 trial and the published ESCORT study due to the lack of head-to-head clinical trials. Only direct medical costs were included. Costs and utility values were derived from local charges, the published literature, and related databases. Sensitivity analyses and a scenario analysis were also performed to verify the robustness of the model results. RESULTS: Compared with camrelizumab monotherapy, tislelizumab monotherapy incurred a lower lifetime cost ($8,346 vs. $8,851) and yielded higher quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (0.87 vs. 0.63), which resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of -$2,051/QALY. Tislelizumab monotherapy is a dominant option over camrelizumab monotherapy in China. The three primary parameters upon which this result was most sensitive were the unit cost of camrelizumab, the unit cost of tislelizumab, and the duration of reactive cutaneous capillary endothelial proliferation (RCCEP). According to the probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA), tislelizumab monotherapy was 100% cost-effective when the WTP was 1-3 times GDP per capita in China($11,207/QALY∼$33,621/QALY). Scenario analysis showed that the result was consistent. CONCLUSION: Tislelizumab monotherapy is a dominant option compared with camrelizumab monotherapy as the second-line treatment for locally advanced or metastatic ESCC in China.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of mosunetuzumab for treatment of relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma after two or more lines of systemic therapy in the United States.

AIMS: Mosunetuzumab has received accelerated approval by the US Food and Drug Administration for adult patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) follicular lymphoma (FL) after two or more lines of systemic therapy. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of mosunetuzumab for the treatment of R/R FL from a US private payer perspective. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A partitioned survival model simulated lifetime costs and outcomes of mosunetuzumab against seven comparators: axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel), tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cel), tazemetostat (taz, EZH2 wild-type only), rituximab plus lenalidomide (R-Len) or bendamustine (R-Benda), obinutuzumab plus bendamustine (O-Benda), and a retrospective real-world cohort (RW) based on current patterns of care derived from US electronic health records (Flatiron Health). Efficacy data for mosunetuzumab were from the pivotal Phase II GO29781 trial (NCT02500407). Relative treatment efficacy was estimated from indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs). Costs included were related to treatment, adverse events, routine care, and terminal care. Except for drug costs (March 2023), all costs were inflated to 2022 US dollars. Costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were used to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Net monetary benefit (NMB) was calculated using a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000/QALY. RESULTS: Mosunetuzumab dominated taz, tisa-cel, and axi-cel with greater QALYs and lower costs. Mosunetuzumab was projected to be cost-effective against R-Benda, O-Benda, and RW with ICERs of $78,607, $42,731, and $21,434, respectively. Mosunetuzumab incurred lower costs but lower QALYs vs. R-Len. NMBs showed that mosunetuzumab was cost-effective against comparators except R-Len. LIMITATIONS: Without head-to-head comparative data, the model had to rely on ITCs, some of which were affected by residual bias. Model inputs were obtained from multiple sources. Extensive sensitivity analyses assessed the importance of these uncertainties. CONCLUSION: Mosunetuzumab is estimated to be cost-effective compared with approved regimens except R-Len for the treatment of adults with R/R FL.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of tislelizumab plus chemotherapy as the first-line treatment for advanced or metastatic oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma in China.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of tislelizumab plus chemotherapy compared to chemotherapy alone as a first-line treatment for advanced or metastatic oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC). METHODS: A partitioned survival model was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of tislelizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in patients with advanced or metastatic OSCC over a 10-year lifetime horizon from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Costs and utilities were derived from the drug procurement platform and published literature. The model outcomes comprised of costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to address uncertainty and ensure the robustness of the model. RESULTS: Tislelizumab plus chemotherapy yielded an additional 0.337 QALYs and incremental costs of $7,117.007 compared with placebo plus chemotherapy, generating an ICER of $21,116.75 per QALY, which was between 1 time ($12,674.89/QALY) and 3 times GDP ($38,024.67/QALY) per capita. In one-way sensitivity analysis, the ICER is most affected by the cost of oxaliplatin, paclitaxel and tislelizumab. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, when the willingness-to-pay threshold was set as 1 or 3 times GDP per capita, the probability of tislelizumab plus chemotherapy being cost-effective was 1% and 100%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Tislelizumab plus chemotherapy was probably cost-effective compared with chemotherapy alone as the first-line treatment for advanced or metastatic OSCC in China.

Toripalimab plus chemotherapy in American patients with recurrent or metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma: A cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Toripalimab, combined with gemcitabine and cisplatin, has been approved as the first-line treatment for recurrent or metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma (RM-NPC), representing a significant milestone as the first FDA-approved innovative therapy for this condition. Despite this achievement, there's a lack of data on the cost-effectiveness of toripalimab for RM-NPC patients in the American context. METHODS: To assess the cost-effectiveness of toripalimab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone, a 3-state partitioned survival model was constructed. The study involved participants with characteristics matching those in the JUPITER-02 trial. Cost and utility inputs were collected from literature. Main outcomes measured were quality-adjusted life year (QALY), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses, subgroup analyses, and scenario analyses were conducted to verify the robustness of results. RESULTS: The study found that the toripalimab regimen resulted in 4.390 QALYs at a cost of $361,813, while the chemotherapy-only regimen yielded 1.685 QALYs at a cost of $161,632. This translates to an ICER of $74,004/QALY, below the willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000/QALY. Sensitivity analyses indicated that utility values, discount rate, and the price of toripalimab significantly impact INMB. With an 87.10% probability of being cost-effective at a $150,000/QALY threshold, the probabilistic sensitivity analysis supports toripalimab plus chemotherapy as a viable option. Scenario analysis showed that toripalimab remains cost-effective unless its price increases by 125%. Additionally, a simulated 15-year study period increases the ICER to $88,026/QALY. Subgroup analysis revealed ICERs of $76,538/QALY for PD-L1 positive and $70,158/QALY for PD-L1 negative groups. CONCLUSIONS: Toripalimab in combination with chemotherapy is likely to be a cost-effective alternative to standard chemotherapy for American patients with RM-NPC. This evidence can guide clinical and reimbursement decision-making in treating RM-NPC patients.

Assessment of safety and efficacy of transarterial chemoembolization combined with camrelizumab and donafenib in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma at BCLC stage C: A study of 20 cases.

Camrelizumab, donafenib, and transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) are recommended for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), but their combined efficacy remains unclear. From July 2021 to January 2023, 20 Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage C HCC patients were prospectively enrolled. Inclusion criteria were Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, Child-Pugh Score ≤ 7, and Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer B or C. Surgical candidates were excluded. The treatment included TACE, camrelizumab, and donafenib. Endpoints were median overall survival, progression-free survival, and adverse events (AEs) related to donafenib. Among 20 patients, 85% experienced AEs from targeted therapy and programmed cell death protein-1, with 40% having grade 3 AEs. No grade 4 or 5 AEs occurred. Median follow-up was 9 months, with 15% achieving complete response, 65% partial response, and 15% stable disease. Disease control rate was 90%. Median progression-free survival and overall survival were 9 and 14 months, respectively. TACE, camrelizumab, and donafenib combination therapy in Chinese advanced HCC patients show effectiveness in extending survival with low severe AEs incidence.

Cost-effectiveness of additional serplulimab to chemotherapy in metastatic squamous non-small cell lung cancer patients.

Objective: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of adding serplulimab to chemotherapy for metastatic squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients in a first-line setting from a Chinese perspective. Methods: A three-health state partitioned survival model was constructed to simulate disease development. The clinical data used in the model were derived from the ASTRUM-004 clinical trial. Only direct medical costs were included, and the utilities were derived from published literature. The quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were employed to evaluate health outcomes. Additionally, a sensitivity analysis was performed to verify the robustness of the results. Results: Compared with chemotherapy alone, the addition of serplulimab resulted in an increase of 0.63 QALYs with an incremental cost of $5,372.73, leading to an ICER of $8,528.14 per QALY. This ICER was significantly lower than 3 times China's per capita GDP. The one-way sensitivity analysis suggested that the utility of PFS was the most sensitive factor on ICERs, followed by the price of serplulimab. Conclusion: The combination of serplulimab and chemotherapy has been shown to be a cost-effective initial treatment option for patients with metastatic squamous NSCLC with the commonly accepted willingness-to-pay threshold of 3 times the GDP per capita per QALY in China.

Cost-effectiveness of avelumab first-line maintenance therapy for adult patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma in France.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of avelumab first-line (1L) maintenance therapy plus best supportive care (BSC) versus BSC alone for adults with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (la/mUC) that had not progressed following platinum-based chemotherapy in France. METHODS: A three-state partitioned survival model was developed to assess the lifetime costs and effects of avelumab plus BSC versus BSC alone. Data from the phase 3 JAVELIN Bladder 100 trial (NCT02603432) were used to inform estimates of clinical and utility values considering a 10-year time horizon and a weekly cycle length. Cost data were estimated from a collective perspective and included treatment acquisition, administration, follow-up, adverse event-related hospitalization, transport, post-progression, and end-of-life costs. Health outcomes were measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and life-years gained. Costs and clinical outcomes were discounted at 2.5% per annum. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were used to compare cost-effectiveness and willingness to pay in France. Uncertainty was assessed using a range of sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Avelumab plus BSC was associated with a gain of 2.49 QALYs and total discounted costs of €136,917; BSC alone was associated with 1.82 QALYs and €39,751. Although avelumab plus BSC was associated with increased acquisition costs compared with BSC alone, offsets of -€20,424 and -€351 were observed for post-progression and end-of-life costs, respectively. The base case analysis ICER was €145,626/QALY. Sensitivity analyses were consistent with the reference case and showed that efficacy parameters (overall survival, time to treatment discontinuation), post-progression time on immunotherapy, and post-progression costs had the largest impact on the ICER. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis demonstrated that avelumab plus BSC is associated with a favorable cost-effectiveness profile for patients with la/mUC who are eligible for 1L maintenance therapy in France.

The cost-effectiveness of a bimekizumab versus IL-17A inhibitors treatment-pathway in patients with active axial spondyloarthritis in Scotland.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of a treatment-pathway initiated with bimekizumab, a monoclonal IgG1 antibody that selectively inhibits interleukin (IL)-17F and IL-17A, in patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) compared with IL-17Ai's, ixekizumab, and secukinumab, from the NHS Scotland perspective. METHODS: The axSpA treatment-pathway was modeled using a decision tree followed by a lifetime Markov model. The pathway included first- and second-line biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD), followed by best supportive care (bDMARD, nonbiologic). Bimekizumab followed by any bDMARD ("BKZ") was compared with IL-17Ai's: secukinumab 150 mg followed by a blend ("SEC") of dose up-titration to secukinumab 300 mg and any bDMARD, or ixekizumab followed by any bDMARD ("IXE"). Transition to the next therapy was triggered by Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index-50% (BASDAI50) non-response or any-cause discontinuation. A published network meta-analysis provided efficacy data. EuroQoL-5-dimensions utilities were derived by mapping from Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score. Costs included disease management (linked to functional limitations), biologics acquisition (list prices), administration and monitoring (NHS 2021/22). Discounting was 3.5%/year. Probabilistic results from patients with non-radiographic axSpA and ankylosing spondylitis were averaged to reflect the axSpA disease spectrum. Scenario and sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of BKZ was £24,801/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) vs. SEC (95% credible interval £24,163-£25,895). BKZ had similar costs (Δ -£385 [-£15,239-£14,468]) and QALYs (Δ 0.039 [-0.748-0.825]) to IXE, with £1,523 (£862-£2,222) net monetary benefit. Conclusions remained unchanged in most scenarios. Results' drivers included BASDAI50 response rate and disease management cost. LIMITATIONS: Results were based on list prices. Data concerning up-titration to secukinumab 300 mg was scarce. CONCLUSIONS: The bimekizumab treatment-pathway represents a cost-effective option across the axSpA disease spectrum in Scotland. Bimekizumab is cost-effective compared to a secukinumab-pathway that includes dose up-titration, and has similar costs and QALYs to an ixekizumab-pathway.

Cost-utility of sintilimab plus chemotherapy vs chemotherapy as first-line treatment of advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction cancer in China.

OBJECTIVES: ORIENT-16, a phase III clinical trial conducted at 62 hospitals in China, reported that add-on sintilimab (Sin) to chemotherapy (Chemo) had favorable efficacy (p < 0.05) for patients with advanced HER2-negative gastric or gastroesophageal junction cancer (GC/GEJC). This study aimed to evaluate the cost-utility of the Sin+Chemo based on results of ORIENT-16 from the perspective of Chinese healthcare payers. METHODS: A three-state partitioned survival model was developed to simulate the 10-year life expectancy and total healthcare costs for patients with advanced HER2-negative GC/GEJC. Primary measure outcomes were: cost, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-utility ratios (ICURs). Sensitivity/scenario analyses were conducted to assess the model robustness. RESULTS: In all patients, Sin+Chemo vs Chemo increased costs by $6,472, additionally providing 0.61 QALYs, resulting in an ICUR of $10,610/QALY. While, in PD-L1 combined positive score ≥ 5 cohort, the ICUR was $9,738/QALYs. The ICUR was most sensitive to the utility of progression-free survival. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that add-on Sin had a 100% probability of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $18,625/QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: Sin+Chemo is a cost-effective first-line treatment option for advanced HER2-negative GC/GEJC in China. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ORIENT-16, www.clinicaltrials.gov, identifier is NCT03745170.

Real-world clinical outcomes and healthcare costs in patients with Crohn's disease treated with vedolizumab versus ustekinumab in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To compare real-world treatment persistence, dose escalation, rates of opportunistic or serious infections, and healthcare costs in patients with Crohn's disease (CD) receiving vedolizumab (VDZ) vs ustekinumab (UST) in the United States. METHODS: A retrospective observational study in adults with CD initiated on VDZ or UST on/after 26 September 2016, was performed using the IBM Truven Health MarketScan databases (1 January 2009-30 September 2018). Rates of treatment persistence, dose escalation, opportunistic or serious infection-related encounters, and healthcare costs per patient per month (PPPM) were evaluated. Entropy balancing was used to balance patient characteristics between cohorts. Event rates were assessed using weighted Kaplan-Meier analyses and compared between cohorts using log-rank tests. Healthcare costs were compared between cohorts using weighted 2-part models. RESULTS: 589 VDZ and 599 UST patients were included (172 [29.2%] and 117 [19.5%] were bio-naïve, respectively). After weighting, baseline characteristics were comparable between cohorts. No significant difference in rates of treatment persistence (12-month: VDZ, 76.5%; UST, 82.1%; p = .17), dose escalation (12-month: VDZ, 29.3%; UST, 32.7%; p = .97), or opportunistic or serious infection-related encounters were observed between VDZ and UST. Total mean healthcare costs were significantly lower for patients treated with VDZ vs UST (mean cost difference = -$5051 PPPM; p < .01). Findings were consistent in bio-naïve patients. CONCLUSIONS: In this real-world study, similar treatment persistence, dose escalation, and rates of opportunistic or serious infections were observed with VDZ- and UST-treated patients with CD. However, VDZ was associated with a significantly lower cost outlay for healthcare systems.

Crohn's disease (CD) causes inflammation in the digestive system. Vedolizumab (VDZ) and ustekinumab (UST) are therapies for patients with CD. Little is known about the clinical outcomes and healthcare costs of VDZ versus UST in the real world in the United States. We used health claims data and found that VDZ and UST had comparable real-world clinical outcomes. After 12 months of treatment, the proportions of patients with CD who stayed on treatment and those who needed to increase therapy dose were similar with VDZ and UST. The rate of infection was also similar between the two groups of patients. However, the monthly healthcare costs were $5051 less for patients treated with VDZ than with UST. This was mainly due to the lower cost of VDZ, which was almost half of that of UST. The lower treatment costs with VDZ may provide substantial savings for the healthcare system and patients specifically. Future cost-effectiveness studies on VDZ and UST are needed to aid treatment selection for patients with CD.

An economic evaluation of eptinezumab for the preventive treatment of migraine in the UK, with consideration for natural history and work productivity.

BACKGROUND: Migraine is a highly prevalent neurological disease with a substantial societal burden due to lost productivity. From a societal perspective, we assessed the cost-effectiveness of eptinezumab for the preventive treatment of migraine. METHODS: An individual patient simulation of discrete competing events was developed to evaluate eptinezumab cost-effectiveness compared to best supportive care for adults in the United Kingdom with ≥ 4 migraine days per month and prior failure of ≥ 3 preventive migraine treatments. Individuals with sampled baseline characteristics were created to represent this population, which comprised dedicated episodic and chronic migraine subpopulations. Clinical efficacy, utility, and work productivity inputs were based on results from the DELIVER randomised controlled trial (NCT04418765). Timing of natural history events and treatment holidays-informed by the literature-were simulated to unmask any natural improvement of the disease unrelated to treatment. The primary outcomes were monthly migraine days, migraine-associated costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, and net monetary benefit, each evaluated over a 5-year time horizon from 2020. Secondary analyses explored a lifetime horizon and an alternative treatment stopping rule. RESULTS: Treatment with eptinezumab resulted in an average of 0.231 QALYs gained at a saving of £4,894 over 5 years, making eptinezumab dominant over best supportive care (i.e., better health outcomes and less costly). This result was confirmed by the probabilistic analysis and all alternative assumption scenarios under the same societal perspective. Univariate testing of inputs showed net monetary benefit was most sensitive to the number of days of productivity loss, and monthly salary. CONCLUSIONS: This economic evaluation shows that from a societal perspective, eptinezumab is a cost-effective treatment in patients with ≥ 4 migraine days per month and for whom ≥ 3 other preventive migraine treatments have failed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: N/A.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of durvalumab, tremelimumab, and etoposide-platinum in first-line treatment of extensive-stage small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Durvalumab plus etoposide-platinum (DEP) showed sustained overall survival improvements in patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) compared to etoposide-platinum (EP), but adding tremelimumab to DEP (DTEP) did not significantly improve outcomes. A third-party payer perspective is taken here to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of DTEP, DEP, and EP for ES-SCLC. METHODS: The cost-effectiveness was evaluated by partitioning survival models into 3 mutually exclusive health states. In this model, clinical characteristics and outcomes were obtained from the CASPIAN. Model robustness was evaluated through 1-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Outcome measurements included costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, life-years, incremental net health benefit, and incremental net monetary benefit. The analysis was conducted with a 10-year lifetime horizon in a United States setting. RESULTS: Compared with EP, DEP, and DTEP were associated with an increment of 0.480 and 0.313 life-years, and an increment of 0.247 and 0.165 QALYs, as well as a $139,788 and $170,331 increase in cost per patient. The corresponding ICERs were $565,807/QALY and $1033,456/QALY, respectively. The incremental net health benefit and incremental net monetary benefit of DEP or DTEP were -0.685 QALYs and -$102,729, or -0.971 QALYs and -$145,608 at a willingness to pay threshold of $150,000/QALY, respectively. Compared with DTEP, DEP was dominated. DTEP and DEP were 100% unlikely to be cost-effective if the willingness to pay threshold was $150,000/QALY. DEP was cost-effective compared to EP when durvalumab was priced below $0.994/mg. Compared with EP, DEP, and DTEP were unlikely to be considered cost-effective across all subgroups. CONCLUSION: DEP and DTEP were not cost-effective options in the first-line treatment for ES-SCLC compared with EP, from the third-party payer perspective in the United States. Compared with DTEP, DEP was dominated.