Olaparib not cost-effective as maintenance therapy for platinum-sensitive, BRCA1/2 germline-mutated metastatic pancreatic cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of olaparib as a maintenance therapy in platinum-responsive, metastatic pancreatic cancer patients harboring a germline BRCA1/2 mutation, using the Swiss context as a model. METHODS: Based on data from the POLO trial, published literature and local cost data, we developed a partitioned survival model of olaparib maintenance including full costs for BRCA1/2 germline testing compared to FOLFIRI maintenance chemotherapy and watch-and-wait. We calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for the base case and several scenario analyses and estimated 5-year budget impact. RESULTS: Comparing olaparib with watch-and wait and maintenance chemotherapy resulted in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of CHF 2,711,716 and CHF 2,217,083 per QALY gained, respectively. The 5-year costs for the olaparib strategy in Switzerland would be CHF 22.4 million, of which CHF 11.4 million would be accounted for by germline BRCA1/2 screening of the potentially eligible population. This would amount to a budget impact of CHF 15.4 million (USD 16.9 million) versus watch-and-wait. CONCLUSIONS: Olaparib is not a cost-effective maintenance treatment option. Companion diagnostics are an equally important cost driver as the drug itself.

The cost-effectiveness of germline BRCA testing-guided olaparib treatment in metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Olaparib targets the DNA repair pathways and has revolutionized the management of metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Treatment with the drug should be guided by genetic testing; however, published economic evaluations did not consider olaparib and genetic testing as codependent technologies. This study aims to assess the cost-effectiveness of BRCA germline testing to inform olaparib treatment in mCRPC. METHODS: We conducted a cost-utility analysis of germline BRCA testing-guided olaparib treatment compared to standard care without testing from an Australian health payer perspective. The analysis applied a decision tree to indicate the germline testing or no testing strategy. A Markov multi-state transition approach was used for patients within each strategy. The model had a time horizon of 5 years. Costs and outcomes were discounted at an annual rate of 5 percent. Decision uncertainty was characterized using probabilistic and scenario analyses. RESULTS: Compared to standard care, BRCA testing-guided olaparib treatment was associated with an incremental cost of AU$7,841 and a gain of 0.06 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was AU$143,613 per QALY. The probability of BRCA testing-guided treatment being cost effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of AU$100,000 per QALY was around 2 percent; however, the likelihood for cost-effectiveness increased to 66 percent if the price of olaparib was reduced by 30 percent. CONCLUSION: This is the first study to evaluate germline genetic testing and olaparib treatment as codependent technologies in mCRPC. Genetic testing-guided olaparib treatment may be cost-effective with significant discounts on olaparib pricing.

Assessment of the treatment effectiveness of men with mild and medium degree of erectile dysfunction.

OBJECTIVE: . Aim: To assess the effectiveness of monotherapy and complex treatment of patients with erectile dysfunction depending on its severity. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Materials and Methods: Men with moderate and mild erectile dysfunction took part in the study, who, in turn, were divided into groups, depending on the treatment, with the evaluation of the results of the International Index of Erectile Function (MIEF-15), the state of cavernous hemodynamics and the function of the vascular endothelium before and after treatment. RESULTS: Results: In patients with an average degree of severity, who received complex treatment including a course of low-energy shock wave therapy, against the background of taking sildenafil and L-arginine, the best results were obtained in the quality of erection and increased cavernous blood flow, which positively affected satisfaction with sexual intercourse and overall satisfaction. It has also been proven that the function of the endothelium was improved in patients receiving L-arginine, due to which there was a probable decrease in endothelin-1. A probable improvement of erectile function was obtained in the group of patients with a mild degree who received L-arginine, and there was no statistical difference from the indicators in the group who received sildenafil, which was confirmed by the data of dopplerography. CONCLUSION: Conclusions: Patients with an average degree of erectile dysfunction require comprehensive treatment. The use of L-arginine can be an alternative to phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors in the treatment of mild erectile dysfunction.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of olaparib maintenance therapy for BRCA mutation ovarian cancer in the public sector in Malaysia.

INTRODUCTION: Ovarian cancer is one of the most common cancer among women in Malaysia. Patients with ovarian cancer are often diagnosed at an advanced stage. Despite initial response to surgery and chemotherapy, most patients will experience a relapse. Olaparib has been reported have promising effects among BRCA mutated ovarian cancer patients. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of olaparib as a maintenance therapy for BRCA ovarian cancer in Malaysia. METHODS: We developed a four-state partitioned survival model which compared treatment with olaparib versus routine surveillance (RS) from a Malaysian healthcare perspective. Mature overall survival (OS) data from the SOLO-1 study were used and extrapolated using parametric models. Medication costs and healthcare resource usage costs were derived from local inputs and publications. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were performed to explore uncertainties. RESULTS: In Malaysia, treating patients with olaparib was found to be more costly compared to RS, with an incremental cost of RM149,858 (USD 33,213). Patients treated with olaparib increased life years by 3.05 years and increased quality adjusted life years (QALY) by 2.76 (9.45 years vs 6.40 years; 7.62 vs 4.86 QALY). This translated to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of RM 49,159 (USD10,895) per life year gained and RM54,357 (USD 12,047) per QALY gained, respectively. ICERs were most sensitive to time horizon of treatment, discount rate for outcomes, cost of treatment and health state costs, but was above the RM53,770/QALY threshold. CONCLUSION: The use of olaparib is currently not a cost-effective strategy compared to routine surveillance based upon the current price in Malaysia for people with ovarian cancer with BRCA mutation, despite the improvement in overall survival.

Olaparib plus bevacizumab as a first-line maintenance treatment for patients with advanced ovarian cancer by molecular status: an updated PAOLA-1 based cost-effectiveness analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The PAOLA-1 trial (NCT02477644) reported final survival benefit associated with olaparib plus bevacizumab maintenance treatment of patients with advanced ovarian cancer (AOC) based on molecular status. Our aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of olaparib plus bevacizumab for overall patients, patients with a breast cancer susceptibility genes (BRCA) mutation, homologous recombination deficiency (HRD), or HRD without BRCA mutations AOC from the context of the American healthcare system. METHODS: Analysis of health outcomes in life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in various molecular status-based AOC patient at a $150,000/QALY of willingness-to-pay was performed using a state-transitioned Markov model with a 20-year time horizon. Meanwhile, sensitivity analyses assessments were also used to gauge the model's stability. RESULTS: The ICERs of olaparib plus bevacizumab versus bevacizumab alone were $487,428 ($374,758), $249,579 ($191,649), $258,859 ($198,739), and $270,736 ($206,640) per QALY (LY) in the overall patients, patients with BRCA mutations, patients with HRD, and patients with HRD without BRCA mutations AOC, respectively, which indicated that The ICERs was higher than $150,000/QALY in the US. Progression-free survival (PFS) value and olaparib cost emerged as the primary influencing factors of these findings in the sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSION: At current cost levels, olaparib plus bevacizumab treatment is not a cost-effective treatment for patients with AOC regardless of their molecular status in the US. However, this maintenance treatment may be more favorable health advantages for patients with BRAC mutations AOC.

Analysis of data from the PALOMA-3 trial confirms the efficacy of palbociclib and offers alternatives for novel assessment of clinical trials.

PURPOSE: There remains a need for novel therapies for patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC). We explore the use of a novel biomarker of survival that could potentially expedite the testing of novel therapies. METHODS: We applied a tumor regression-growth model to radiographic measurement data from 393 women with MBC enrolled in PALOMA-3 examining efficacy of palbociclib in disease that had progressed on previous endocrine therapy. 261 and 132 women were randomized to fulvestrant plus palbociclib or placebo, respectively. We estimated rates of regression (d) and growth (g) of the sensitive and resistant fractions of tumors, respectively. We compared the median g of both arms. We examined the relationship between g and progression-free and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: As in other tumors, g is a biomarker of OS. In PALOMA-3, we found significant differences in g among patients with tumors sensitive to endocrine therapy but not amongst resistant tumors, emulating clinical trial results. Subgroup analysis found favorable g values in visceral metastases treated with palbociclib. Palbociclib efficacy demonstrated by slower g values was evident early in the trial, twelve weeks after the first 28 patients had been enrolled. CONCLUSION: Values of g, estimated using data collected while a patient is enrolled in a clinical trial is an excellent biomarker of OS. Our results correlate with the survival outcomes of PALOMA-3 and argue strongly for using g as a clinical trial endpoint to help inform go/no-go decisions, improve trial efficiency, and deliver novel therapies to patients sooner.

Model-Based Dose Selection of Fostemsavir for Pediatric Populations With Multidrug-Resistant HIV-1 and Relative Bioavailability Assessment in Healthy Adults.

Fostemsavir, a prodrug of the first-in-class HIV-1 attachment inhibitor temsavir, is approved for the treatment of multidrug-resistant HIV-1 in adults; its use in pediatric populations is currently being studied. Population pharmacokinetic modeling across pediatric weight bands was used to guide pediatric fostemsavir dose selection. Dosing simulations demonstrated that twice-daily fostemsavir 600-mg (adult dose) and 400-mg doses met safety and efficacy criteria for 35 kg or greater and 20 or greater to less than 35 kg pediatric weight bands, respectively. Temsavir relative bioavailability of 2 low-dose fostemsavir extended-release formulations (3 × 200 mg; formulations A and B) and reference formulation (600 mg extended release) was assessed in a 2-part, open-label, randomized, crossover study in healthy adults. Part 1 (N = 32) compared single-dose temsavir relative bioavailability, and Part 2 (N = 16) evaluated the impact of fed versus fasted conditions using the selected low-dose formulation. Temsavir geometric mean ratios for the area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time zero to infinity and maximum concentration for formulation B were bioequivalent to the reference formulation. Temsavir maximum concentration for formulation B was similar in fed and fasted states, but area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time zero to infinity geometric mean ratio was increased under fed conditions, consistent with previous results in adults. These analyses demonstrated efficient pediatric dose selection using a model-based approach.

Cost-effectiveness of ensartinib, crizotinib, ceritinib, alectinib, brigatinib and lorlatinib in patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive non-small cell lung cancer in China.

Objective: Six anaplastic lymphoma kinase-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (ALK-TKIs), including one domestic (ensartinib) and five imported ALK-TKIs (crizotinib, ceritinib, alectinib, brigatinib, and lorlatinib), have been recommended as first-line treatments for advanced ALK-positive NSCLC in China. This study sought to examine the cost-effectiveness of these six novel therapies in Chinese patients. Material and methods: We constructed a Markov model to compare the cost-effectiveness of the six ALK-TKIs as a first-line treatment for patients with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Transition probabilities were estimated by synthesizing data from the PROFILE 1,029 trial and a network meta-analysis. Health state utilities and costs were sourced from published literature, publicly available national databases, and local general hospitals. The robustness of model was assessed via deterministic sensitivity analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Results: Compared with crizotinib, ensartinib achieved additional 0.12 quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) with marginal costs of $3,249, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $27,553/ QALY. When compared with ceritinib and brigatinib, ensartinib achieved additional 0.06 and 0.03 QALYs with substantially reduced costs. When compared with lorlatinib and alectinib, ensartinib was associated with a lower QALY and decreased total costs; the ICERs for lorlatinib and alectinib were $934,101/ QALY and $164,888/ QALY, respectively. Conclusion: For Chinese patients with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC, ensartinib was a cost-effective option compared with crizotinib, and was a dominant alternative to ceritinib and brigatinib. Although lorlatinib and alectinib were associated with prolonged survival compared with ensartinib, they were less cost-effective than ensartinib due to the overwhelming total costs.

Cost-effectiveness of ensartinib for patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive non-small-cell lung cancer in China.

Background: Crizotinib and ensartinib improved survival in patients with ALK arrangement non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC); however, the economic outcomes of using ensartinib versus crizotinib are still unclear. Aim: The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of ensartinib versus crizotinib for ALK-positive NSCLC patients from the perspective of China's healthcare system. Methods: A partitioned survival model with three health states (stable, progressive and death) was developed. Survival data were obtained from published eXalt3 clinical trials of ensartinib verses crizotinib for patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive non-small-cell lung cancer. Parametric models were used to extrapolate outcomes beyond the trial period. The drug cost comes from the local drug procurement platform. Other costs and utility values were obtained from published literature, and one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were carried out to determine the robustness of the model outcomes. Results: In the whole life cycle, the average annual cost of ensatinib was US$77,636.63, and utility value was 5.5 quality adjusted life years (QALYs). Patients receiving crizotinib had 3.315QALYs and US$32,935.88 costs over the same time horizon. The incremental cost utility ratio is US$19,810.55/QALYs. In 2021, the per capita GDP of China is US$12,721.33, and the incremental cost utility is lower than the threshold of willingness to pay US$38,163.99. Conclusion: Compared with crizotinib, ensatinib is economical in the treatment of ALK-positive NSCLC and should be promoted.

Cost Effectiveness of Ribociclib and Palbociclib in the Second-Line Treatment of Hormone Receptor-Positive, HER2-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer in Post-Menopausal Indian Women.

BACKGROUND: In this study, we evaluate the cost and outcomes of cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i) plus fulvestrant, fulvestrant alone, and conventional chemotherapy as the second-line therapy for hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) metastatic breast cancer (MBC) in India. METHODS: Using a Markov model, the clinical effectiveness of managing HR+, HER2- MBC in postmenopausal women with either a CDK4/6i (either ribociclib or palbociclib) and fulvestrant, fulvestrant alone, and chemotherapy (single-agent paclitaxel or capecitabine) was measured in terms of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The costs were estimated from two different points of view: scenario I, as per the prevailing market prices of the drugs; and scenario II, as per the reimbursement rates set up by the publicly financed national health insurance scheme. Incremental cost per QALY gained with a given treatment option was compared against the next best alternative and was assessed for cost effectiveness using a threshold of 1-time the per capita gross domestic product (GDP) in India from a societal perspective. RESULTS: In scenario I, an MBC patient was found to incur a lifetime cost of Indian Rupees (₹) 2.54 million ($34,644), ₹2.53 million ($34,496), ₹512,598 ($6,984), ₹326,026 ($4,442) and ₹237,115 ($3,230) for the ribociclib and palbociclib combination arms, fulvestrant monotherapy, single-agent paclitaxel and the single-agent capecitabine treatment arms, respectively. The lifetime cost for CDK4/6i (ribociclib and palbociclib) combination therapy, fulvestrant monotherapy, paclitaxel, and capecitabine arms was estimated to be ₹1.94 million ($26,459), ₹1.92 million ($26,220), ₹315,387 ($4,296), ₹187,392 ($2,553) and ₹153,263 ($2,088), respectively, in scenario II. The mean QALYs lived per MBC patient with CDK4/6i (either ribociclib or palbociclib) combination therapy, fulvestrant, paclitaxel and capecitabine were estimated to be 1.4, 1.0, 0.9 and 0.7, respectively. None of the treatment arms are cost effective at current prices and reimbursement rates at a threshold of 1-time the per capita GDP of India. However, a 78% reduction in the current market price or a 72% reduction in the reimbursement rate of fulvestrant in the government-funded insurance program will make it a cost-effective treatment option for HR+, HER2- MBC patients in India. CONCLUSION: CDK4/6i (ribociclib and palbociclib) therapy is not a cost-effective treatment option for MBC patients. A 72% reduction in the reimbursement rate for fulvestrant monotherapy will make it a cost-effective treatment option in the Indian context.

Pfizer and Palbociclib in China: Analyzing an Oncology Pay-for-Performance Plan.

OBJECTIVES: China is poised to become the world's second-largest oncology drug market. Its ability to continue broadening health coverage is in question. Institutional innovations such as performance-based risk-sharing agreements (PBRSAs) have been developed to promote access to novel therapeutics beyond that provided by public health insurance and central procurement systems. We examine in depth the financial implications of a PBRSA developed in China for the breast cancer drug palbociclib. METHODS: We generated a 2-state Markov model from PBRSA information made publicly available. Model inputs included breast cancer outcomes data from the published literature. The primary analysis estimates the percentage reduction in overall drug expenditures due to the PBRSA. Sensitivity analyses explored the financial impact of varied computed tomography scan utilization, rebate rate, and rebate duration. RESULTS: Estimated palbociclib expenditures for the PBRSA cohort totaled $36 278 000. Based on the publicly available information for the PBRSA, an effective discount of 1.3% was estimated. The effective discount was insensitive to changes in computed tomography scan utilization. CONCLUSIONS: The palbociclib PBRSA likely had negligible impact on patient access to therapy and limited downstream financial impact to patients and payers. The short duration of the rebate window, small rebate, and disease indolence contributed to the low expected rebate percentage.

Assessment of cytochrome P450 3A4-mediated drug-drug interactions for ipatasertib using a fit-for-purpose physiologically based pharmacokinetic model.

PURPOSE: Ipatasertib, a potent and highly selective small-molecule inhibitor of AKT, is currently under investigation for treatment of cancer. Ipatasertib is a substrate and a time-dependent inhibitor of CYP3A4. It exhibits non-linear pharmacokinetics at subclinical doses in the clinical dose escalation study. To assess the DDI risk of ipatasertib at the intended clinical dose of 400 mg with CYP3A4 inhibitors, inducers, and substrates, a fit-for-purpose physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) model of ipatasertib was developed. METHODS: The PBPK model was constructed in Simcyp using in silico, in vitro, and clinical data and was optimized and verified using clinical data. RESULTS: The PBPK model described non-linear pharmacokinetics of ipatasertib and captured the magnitude of the observed clinical DDIs. Following repeated doses of 400 mg ipatasertib once daily (QD), the PBPK model predicted a 3.3-fold increase of ipatasertib exposure with itraconazole; a 2-2.5-fold increase with moderate CYP3A4 inhibitors, erythromycin and diltiazem; and no change with a weak CYP3A4 inhibitor, fluvoxamine. Additionally, in the presence of strong or moderate CYP3A4 inducers, rifampicin and efavirenz, ipatasertib exposures were predicted to decrease by 86% and 74%, respectively. As a perpetrator, the model predicted that ipatasertib (400 mg) caused a 1.7-fold increase in midazolam exposure. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates the value of using a fit-for-purpose PBPK model to assess the clinical DDIs for ipatasertib and to provide dosing strategies for the concurrent use of other CYP3A4 perpetrators or victims.

Assessment of the intracavernosal injection platelet-rich plasma in addition to daily oral tadalafil intake in diabetic patients with erectile dysfunction non-responding to on-demand oral PDE5 inhibitors.

This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of ICI of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) in addition to daily oral tadalafil intake in diabetic erectile dysfunction (ED) patients non-responding to PDE5 inhibitors. Overall, 48 patients complaining of ED non-responding to on-demand PDE5 inhibitors were allocated into 2 equal groups, diabetics and non-diabetics that were given a daily dose of 5 mg tadalafil plus vardenafil 20 mg on demand during the study besides being subjected to 3 doses of ICI of PRP, 4 weeks apart. Responses to on-demand PDE5 inhibitors, International index of erectile function-5 (IIEF-5) score, erection hardness scores (EHS) and pharmaco-dynamic duplex studies were assessed. After PRP injections, 33% and 50% of cases were satisfied with on-demand PDE5 inhibitors, respectively, whereas 41% and 66% of them showed improved EHS response. Compared with baseline scores, the mean IIEF-5 scores were significantly improved after PRP therapy in the diabetic ED group (12.1 vs. 8.04, p = 0.003) as well as in the non-diabetic ED group (14.8 vs. 10.2, p = 0.001) linked to pharmaco-penile duplex readings. Both good and fair diabetic control exhibited significant responses to ICI therapy of PRP compared with bad controlled cases. The significant improvement included; the IIEF-5 score increase (86.7%, 126% vs. 16.1%), improved EHS as well as penile duplex readings. Baseline HbA1C demonstrated a significant negative correlation with IIEF-5 score before (p = 0.019) and after PRP therapy (p = 0.002) respectively. It could be concluded that ICI of PRP could be an effective therapy for treating ED patients non-responding to on-demand oral PDE5 treatment.

Assessment In Vitro of the Antimalarial and Transmission-Blocking Activities of Cipargamin and Ganaplacide in Artemisinin-Resistant Plasmodium falciparum.

Artemisinin resistance in Plasmodium falciparum has emerged and spread widely in the Greater Mekong Subregion, threatening current first-line artemisinin combination treatments. New antimalarial drugs are needed urgently. Cipargamin (KAE609) and ganaplacide (KAF156) are promising novel antimalarial compounds in advanced stages of development. Both compounds have potent asexual blood stage activities, inhibit P. falciparum gametocytogenesis, and reduce oocyst development in anopheline mosquitoes. In this study, we compared the asexual and sexual stage activities of cipargamin, ganaplacide, and artesunate in artemisinin-resistant P. falciparum isolates (n = 6; K13 mutations C580Y, G449A, and R539T) from Thailand and Cambodia. Asexual blood stage antimalarial activity was evaluated in a SYBR-green I-based 72-h in vitro assay, and the effects on male and female mature stage V gametocytes were assessed in the P. falciparum dual gamete formation assay. Ganaplacide had higher activities than cipargamin and artesunate, with mean (standard deviation [SD]) 50% inhibitory concentrations (IC50s) against asexual stages of 5.6 (1.2) nM and 6.9 (3.8) nM for male gametocytes and 47.5 (54.7) nM for female gametocytes. Cipargamin had a similar potency against male and female gametocytes, with mean (SD) IC50s of 115.6 (66.9) nM for male gametocytes, 104.9 (84.3) nM for female gametocytes, and 2.4 (0.7) nM for asexual stages. Both cipargamin and ganaplacide showed significant transmission-blocking activities against artemisinin-resistant P. falciparum in vitro.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of olaparib and niraparib as maintenance therapy for women with recurrent platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of olaparib and niraparib as maintenance therapy for patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer.Methods: A decision analysis model compared the costs and effectiveness of olaparib and niraparib versus placebo for patients with or without germline BRCA mutations. Resource use and associated costs were estimated from the 2020 National Health Insurance Administration reimbursement price list. Clinical effectiveness was measured in progression-free survival per life-years (PFS-LY) based on the results of clinical trials SOLO2/ENHOT-Ov21 and ENGOT-OV16/NOVA. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was estimated from a single-payer perspective. RESULTS: In the base case, olaparib was the more cost-effective treatment regimen. The ICERs for olaparib and niraparib compared to placebo were NT$1,804,785 and NT$2,340,265 per PFS-LY, respectively. Tornado analysis showed that PFS and the total resource use cost of niraparib regimen for patients without gBRCA were the most sensitive parameters impacting the ICER. The ICERs for both drugs in patients with a gBRCA mutation were lower than in patients without a gBRCA mutation. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that olaparib was more cost-effective than niraparib at the willingness-to-pay threshold of NT$2,602,404 per PFS life-year gained. CONCLUSION: Olaparib was estimated to be less cost and more effective compared to niraparib as maintenance therapy for patients with recurrent platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer.

Olaparib as first line in BRCA-mutated advanced ovarian carcinoma: Is it cost-effective in Spain?

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of olaparib after being funded by the Spanish National Health Service (SNHS) as first-line monotherapy maintenance treatment in patients with advanced high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma (HGSOC) and BRCA mutations in Spain. METHODS: A semi-Markov model with one-month cycles was adapted to the Spanish healthcare setting, using the perspective of the SNHS, and a time horizon of 50 years. Two scenarios were compared: receiving olaparib vs. no maintenance treatment. The model comprised four health states and included the clinical results of the SOLO1 study, along with the direct healthcare costs associated with the use of first-line and subsequent treatment resources (2020 €). A discount rate of 3% was applied for future cost and quality-of-life outcomes. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was also carried out and a cost-effectiveness threshold of €25,000 per quality adjusted life year (QALY) was considered. RESULTS: The introduction of olaparib as a first-line maintenance treatment for advanced HGSOC patients with BRCA mutations implied a cost of €131,614.98 compared to €102,369.54 without olaparib (difference: €29,245.44), with an improvement of 2.00 QALYs (5.56 and 3.57, respectively). Therefore, olaparib is cost-effective for advanced HGSOC patients with BRCA mutations, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €14,653.2/QALY. The results from the PSA showed that 92.1% of the simulations fell below the €25,000/QALY threshold. The model showed that olaparib could improve the overall survival by 2 years, vs. no maintenance treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Olaparib as first-line maintenance treatment is cost-effective in advanced HGSOC patients with BRCA mutations in Spain.

Cost and cost-effectiveness of dolutegravir-based antiretroviral regimens: an economic evaluation of a clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: HIV programmes world-wide currently make decisions regarding new antiretroviral therapy (ART) regimens with less side-effects and higher resistance barriers, which may improve adherence and viral suppression. Economic evaluation helps inform these decisions. METHODS: We conducted an economic evaluation of three ART regimens included in the ADVANCE trial from the provider's perspective: tenofovir alafenamide (TAF)/emtricitabine (FTC)+dolutegravir (DTG) and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF)/FTC+DTG, compared with TDF/FTC/efavirenz (EFV). We used top-down and bottom-up cost analysis with resource utilization based on trial data and adjusted to emulate routine care. We estimated the cost-effectiveness of each regimen as cost per person virally suppressed or retained and per life-year saved, at 48 and 96 weeks. RESULTS: Though the DTG-based trial arms were 2% more costly than TDF/FTC/EFV, both had slightly lower cost-per-outcome ($9783 and $9929/patient virally suppressed for TDF/FTC+DTG and TAF/FTC+DTG, respectively) than TDF/FTC/EFV ($10 365). The trial cost per additional virally suppressed patient, compared with TDF/FTC/EFV, was lower in the TDF/FTC+DTG arm ($2967) compared with TAF/FTC+DTG ($3430). In routine care, cost per virally suppressed patient was estimated as similar between TDF/FTC+DTG ($426) and TDF/FTC/EFV ($424) but more costly under TAF/FTC+DTG. Similar results were seen in the cost per additional person retained across scenarios. When modelled over 20 years, TDF/FTC+DTG was more cost-effective than TAF/FTC+DTG ($10 341 vs $41 958/life-year saved). CONCLUSION: TDF/FTC+DTG had similar costs per outcome as TDF/FTC/EFV in the routine care scenario but TDF/FTC+DTG was more cost-effective when modelled over 20 years.

Is olaparib cost effective in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients with at least one favorable gene mutation in BRCA1, BRCA2 or ATM?

Aim: To compare the cost-effectiveness of olaparib versus control treatment in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients with at least one gene mutation in BRCA1, BRCA2 or ATM from the US payer perspective. Methods: A Markov model was constructed to assess the quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Sensitivity analyses and scenario analyses were conducted to explore the impact of uncertainties. Results: The base-case result indicated that, for patients with specific gene mutations, olaparib gained 1.26 QALYs and USD$157,732 total cost. Compared with control treatment, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of olaparib was USD$248,248/QALY. The price of olaparib was the most influential parameter. Conclusion: Olaparib is not cost effective in comparison with control treatment in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients with specific gene mutations.