Cost-effectiveness of rimegepant oral lyophilisate compared to best supportive care for the acute treatment of migraine in the UK.

AIMS: Migraine is the most common disabling headache disorder and is characterized by recurrent throbbing head pain and symptoms of photophobia, phonophobia, nausea, and vomiting. Rimegepant 75 mg, an oral lyophilisate calcitonin gene-related peptide antagonist, is the first treatment approved for both the acute and preventative treatment of migraine, and the first acute therapy approved in over 20-years. The objective was to assess the cost-utility of rimegepant compared with best supportive care (BSC) in the UK, for the acute treatment of migraine in the adults with inadequate symptom relief after taking at least 2 triptans, or for whom triptans are contraindicated or not tolerated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A de novo model was developed to estimate incremental costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), structured as a decision tree followed by Markov model. Patients received rimegepant or BSC for a migraine attack and were assessed for response (pain relief at 2-h). Responders and non-responders followed different pain trajectories over 48-h cycles. Non-responders discontinued treatment while responders continued treatment for subsequent attacks, with a proportion discontinuing over time. Data sources included a post-hoc pooled analysis of the phase 3 acute rimegepant trials (NCT03235479, NCT03237845, NCT03461757), and a long-term safety study (NCT03266588). The analysis was conducted from the perspective of the UK National Health Service and Personal Social Services over a 20-year time horizon. RESULTS: Rimegepant resulted in an incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) of £10,309 per QALY gained vs BSC, which is cost-effectiveness at a willingness to pay threshold of £30,000/QALY. Rimegepant generated +0.44 incremental QALYs and higher incremental lifetime costs (£4,492). Improved QALYs for rimegepant were a result of less time spent with severe and moderate headache pain. CONCLUSION: This study highlights the economic value of rimegepant which was found to be cost-effective for the acute treatment of migraine in adults unsuitable for triptans.

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.

Evaluation of Tucatinib in HER2-Positive Breast Cancer Patients With Brain Metastases: A United States-Based Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of tucatinib in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive breast cancer (BC) patients with brain metastases (BMs) and the subgroup of active BMs from the United States (US) payer perspective. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 3-state Markov model was developed to compare the cost-effectiveness of 2 regimens in HER2-positive BC patients with BMs: (1) tucatinib, trastuzumab, and capecitabine (TTC); (2) placebo, trastuzumab, and capecitabine (PTC). And subgroup analysis of active BMs was also performed. Lifetime costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and incremental net-health benefit (INHB) were estimated. The willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was $200,000/QALY. The robustness of the model was tested by sensitivity analyses. Additional scenario analysis was also performed. RESULTS: Compared with PTC, the ICER yielded by TTC was $418,007.01/QALY and the INHB was -1.08 QALYs in patients with BMs. In the subgroup of active BMs, the ICER and the INHB were $324,465.03/QALY and -0.71 QALY, respectively. The results were most sensitive to the cost of tucatinib. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses suggested that the cost-effective probability of TTC was low at the current WTP threshold in the patients with BMs and the subgroup of active BMs. CONCLUSION: Tucatinib is unlikely to be cost-effective in HER2-positive BC patients with BMs from the US payer perspective but shows better economics in patients with active BMs. Selecting a favorable population, reducing the price of tucatinib or offering appropriate drug assistance policies might be considerable options to optimize the cost-effectiveness of tucatinib.

The budget impact of adding pralsetinib to a US health plan formulary for treatment of non-small cell lung cancer and thyroid cancer with RET alterations.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in the United States. Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) accounts for 80% to 85% of all lung cancers. Thyroid cancer, while generally not as lethal as lung cancer, has a large prevalent population and a rapidly increasing incidence in the United States. Pralsetinib is a highly potent, selective rearranged during transfection (RET) inhibitor indicated for the treatment of RET-positive NSCLC and thyroid cancer tumors. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the budget impact of adding pralsetinib to a 1 million-member US health plan formulary for the treatment of patients with metastatic RET fusion-positive NSCLC, advanced or metastatic RET-mutant medullary thyroid cancer (MTC), or advanced or metastatic RET fusion-positive thyroid cancer (non-MTC). METHODS: A budget impact model with a 3-year time horizon was developed in Microsoft Excel to estimate the number of eligible RET-positive NSCLC and thyroid cancer patients in a plan and quantify associated treatment costs (2020 USD). Comparators in the analyses included pralsetinib, selpercatinib, and cabozantinib, as well as indication-specific use of pembrolizumab, pemetrexed/carboplatin combination, vandetanib, lenvatinib, and sorafenib. Drug acquisition, molecular testing, treatment monitoring, and adverse event management costs were included to estimate total annual costs and per-member per-month (PMPM) costs in current (without pralsetinib) and potential future market scenarios, where pralsetinib is assumed to split the projected RET inhibitor market share with selpercatinib. The number of treated patients was based on age- and sex-adjusted incidence of disease, the proportion of patients diagnosed with advanced or metastatic disease, and projected RET testing rates. Treatment duration was based on progression-free survival or duration of response data from clinical trials. Medical resources were monetized using standardized sources such as Medicare reimbursement and wholesale acquisition cost (WAC). RESULTS: The model estimated that there would be approximately 6 new treatment-eligible patients in a 1 million-member plan annually. Monthly WAC is $19,243 for pralsetinib and $20,600 for selpercatinib at the recommended starting dose. Adoption of pralsetinib, with corresponding increases in pralsetinib market share, would be slightly cost saving to a payer, decreasing the overall budget impact to the health plan by $49,985 in year 3 (-$0.0042 PMPM; -$0.0030, -$0.0006, and -$0.0005 for NSCLC, MTC, and thyroid cancer [non-MTC], respectively). In year 3, drug costs were the key driver of total costs (~80%-98%) and cost savings. All other medical resource categories were cost-neutral or nominally cost saving or additive in the budget impact analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Quantifying the budget impact associated with the adoption of new targeted precision therapies is an important consideration for payers. For eligible NSCLC and thyroid cancer patients, our analysis suggests that adoption of pralsetinib is expected to result in modest cost savings for US payers. DISCLOSURES: Support for this study was provided by Blueprint Medicines Corporation. This study was conducted by Veritas Health Economics Consulting, Inc., in collaboration with Blueprint Medicines, which was involved in the design of the study; collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data; writing of the report; and the decision to submit the report for publication. Duff is an employee of Veritas Health Economics Consulting, which received research funding from Blueprint Medicines to develop the budget impact model. Norregaard and Sullivan are employees of Blueprint Medicines. Bargiacchi and Brener were employees of Blueprint Medicines at the time of the research study. This study was presented as a poster at the AMCP Virtual Learning Event, April 2021.

Budget impact of lasmiditan for the acute treatment of migraine in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Three novel acute treatments for migraine-lasmiditan, ubrogepant, and rimegepant-were approved by the FDA in 2019 and 2020 for adults with migraine with and without aura. American Headache Society guidance recommends that these novel acute treatments be considered for patients who are contraindicated to or fail to respond or tolerate oral triptans, the current standard of acute care. OBJECTIVE: To estimate, from a US commercial plan perspective, the budget impact of adding lasmiditan as an option to a formulary that already includes ubrogepant and rimegepant. METHODS: Epidemiologic data were drawn from US Census data, the American Migraine Prevalence and Preventive study, and the first wave of the OVERCOME US survey, a web-based survey that included 21,000 patients with migraine. A model with a 3-year time horizon was built assuming that demand for the novel acute treatments would not vary based on whether lasmiditan is included in the formulary. The model examined a variety of populations, in particular beneficiaries with previous use of 1 or more oral triptans or contraindicated to triptans and beneficiaries with previous use of 2 or more oral triptans or contraindicated to triptans. Primary outcomes were the incremental differences in total cost and average cost per member per month (PMPM) between scenarios with and without lasmiditan. One-way sensitivity analyses with model parameters that were varied by plus or minus 15% were conducted to assess the effect of key parameters on the incremental total cost over 3 years. RESULTS: The addition of lasmiditan to a formulary that already includes ubrogepant and rimegepant resulted in a total savings of -$927,657 (-1.5% compared with the scenario without lasmiditan) over a 3-year time horizon in the population with previous history of using 1 or more oral triptans or contraindicated to a triptan. In the population with previous history of using 2 or more oral triptans or contraindicated, the addition of lasmiditan resulted in a total budget impact of -$466,518 (-1.3%) over a 3-year time horizon. Most of the cost savings was attributable to reductions in drug acquisition cost. Savings in total costs resulted in average incremental cost per PMPM of -0.03 and -$0.01, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of lasmiditan to the formulary as a novel acute treatment option for migraine alongside ubrogepant and rimegepant resulted in lower budget impact on a 3-year time horizon from a US commercial payer's perspective. This result is important to US commercial payers as they seek to incorporate the emerging novel acute treatments for migraine into their benefit designs. DISCLOSURES: This work was funded by Eli Lilly and Company. Milev and Sun are employed by Evidera, which received funding from Eli Lilly and Company for work on this project. Pohl, Mason, Njuguna, and Loo are employees and stockholders of Eli Lilly and Company.

Reimbursement of innovative pharmaceuticals in English and Spanish hospitals-The example of isavuconazole.

BACKGROUND: Kron et al (Mycoses, 64, 2021, 86) found cost savings for the use of the innovative pharmaceutical isavuconazole in the inpatient setting in Germany (Bismarck-based healthcare system). Little is known about the reimbursement of innovative pharmaceuticals in the inpatient setting of Beveridge-based healthcare systems. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the market access process and reimbursement of isavuconazole, exemplary for innovative pharmaceuticals, in England and Spain. PATIENTS/METHODS: Market access processes of both countries were described. Focussing on typical patient clusters for isavuconazole treatment, reimbursement data regarding inpatients with (i) allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplantation or (ii) acute myeloid leukaemia was considered. Data were publicly available and of high topicality (England 2020/2021, Spain 2018). Discounting and a currency conversion to Euro were applied. RESULTS: This study showed that market access processes of both countries are broadly similar. Further, full reimbursement of isavuconazole as an innovative pharmaceutical may lead to reduction in resource utilisation. Without medication costs, isavuconazole can thus result in cost savings for both patient clusters due to a reduction in length of stay. CONCLUSIONS: Expenses for innovative pharmaceuticals may be balanced or even lead to cost savings due to a reduction in length of stay. The latter contributes to a greater patient benefit. For both healthcare system, the analyses highlighted drugs' cost-effectiveness and assessing its added value into reimbursement decisions is highly relevant.

Dose-escalation strategy in refractory metastatic colorectal cancer: A change in terms of cost-effectiveness.

The analysis was conducted to assess the pharmacological costs of regorafenib and trifluridine/tipiracil in the treatment of refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Pivotal phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of regorafenib and trifluridine/tipiracil in the treatment of refractory mCRC were considered. We have also considered the ReDOS trial, in order to verify if the dose-escalation strategy (practice changing for regorafenib) could influences the results. Differences in OS (expressed in months) between the different arms were calculated and compared with the pharmacological costs (at the Pharmacy of our Hospital and expressed in euros (€)) needed to get one month of OS. Trifluridine/tipiracil resulted the less expensive, with 1167.50 €per month OS-gained. The ReDOS trial further reduce costs with 510.41 €per month OS-gained in favour of regorafenib with the escalation-dose strategy. Both regorafenib and trifluridine/tipiracil can be considered economically sustainable treatments for refractory mCRC, apparently with a lower cost of trifluridine/tipiracil. The adoption of a dose-escalation strategy (ReDOS trial) could reverse the situation making regorafenib more cost-effective than trifluridine/tipiracil.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of fruquintinib versus regorafenib as the third-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer in China.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to assess the cost-effectiveness of fruquintinib compared to regorafenib as third-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in China. METHODS: A three-state Markov model with monthly cycle was constructed to estimate lifetime incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of fruquintinib versus regorafenib as third-line treatment for patients with mCRC from Chinese health care perspective. Survival analysis was applied to calculate transition probabilities using the data from the clinical trials FRESCO and CONCUR, which were also the data sources accessing probabilities of adverse events. Background mortality rate and drug costs were derived from government published data. Costs for medical services were obtained from real-world data and published literatures. Utilities applied to calculate the quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were obtained from literature review. One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were adopted to verify the robustness of the results. RESULTS: Fruquintinib provided 0.74 QALYs at a cost of CNY 151,058 (USD 22,888), whereas regorafenib provided 0.79 QALYs at a cost of CNY 226,657 (USD 32,224). Compared to fruquintinib, the ICER of regorafenib was CNY 1,529,197/QALY (USD 231,697/QALY) from Chinese health care perspective, which was above the triple GDP per capita of China in 2019 (CNY 212,676) (USD 32,224) as the threshold to define the cost-effectiveness. One-way sensitivity analysis showed the results were generally robust. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves derived from probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated the probability that fruquintinib was more cost-effective was 100% when the threshold was the triple GDP per capita of China. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to regorafenib, fruquintinib, which leads to forego about 0.05 QALYs and save about CNY 75,599 (USD 11,454), is a cost-effective choice as the third-line treatment for patients with mCRC in China.

CFTR modulators: transformative therapies for cystic fibrosis.

DISCLOSURES: No funding contributed to the writing of this commentary. Both authors are employed by the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation. The Cystic Fibrosis Foundation has entered into therapeutic development award agreements and licensing agreements to assist with the development of CFTR modulators that may result in intellectual property rights, royalties, and other forms of consideration provided to CFF. Some of these agreements are subject to confidentiality restrictions and, thus, CFF cannot comment on them.

The effectiveness and value of novel treatments for cystic fibrosis.

DISCLOSURES: Funding for this summary was contributed by Arnold Ventures, California Health Care Foundation, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, and Kaiser Foundation Health Plan to the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), an independent organization that evaluates the evidence on the value of health care interventions. ICER's annual policy summit is supported by dues from Aetna, America's Health Insurance Plans, Anthem, Allergan, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Blue Shield of CA, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Cambia Health Services, CVS, Editas, Express Scripts, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Harvard Pilgrim, Health Care Service Corporation, HealthFirst, Health Partners, Johnson & Johnson (Janssen), Kaiser Permanente, LEO Pharma, Mallinckrodt, Merck, Novartis, National Pharmaceutical Council, Pfizer, Premera, Prime Therapeutics, Regeneron, Sanofi, Spark Therapeutics, and United Healthcare. Seidner, Rind, and Pearson are employed by ICER. Tice reports contracts to his institution, University of California, San Francisco, from ICER during the conduct of this study. Wherry has nothing to disclose.

Principal-agent theory-based cost and reimbursement structures of isavuconazole treatment in German hospitals.

BACKGROUND: Isavuconazole (ISA) is a frequently used antifungal agent for the treatment of invasive fungal diseases (IFDs). However, hospital reimbursement data for ISA is limited. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this study was to analyse the different perspectives of relevant stakeholders and the (dis)incentives for the administration of ISA in Germany. To that aim, the health economic effects of using ISA from a hospital management perspective were analysed. PATIENTS/METHODS: Based on principal-agent theory (PAT), the perspectives of (a) the patient (principal) as well as (b) physicians, (c) pharmacists and iv. hospital managers (all agents) were analysed. For the evaluation of the cost-containment and reimbursement strategies of ISA, the German diagnosis-related group (G-DRG) system was used. RESULTS: Hospitals individually negotiating additional payments for innovative treatment procedures (zusatzentgelte [ZE]) within the G-DRG system is a key element of hospital management for the reduction of total healthcare expenditure. Our analysis demonstrated the beneficial role of ISA in healthcare resource utilisation, primarily due to a shortened overall length of hospital stay. Depending on underlying disease, coded G-DRG and ISA formulation, large differences in total reimbursement and the amount of ZE was shown. The PAT demonstrated disincentives for hospital managers to use innovative drugs. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the PAT, beneficial, detrimental and indifferent perspectives of different stakeholders regarding the usage of ISA were shown. A reduction of bureaucratic hurdles is needed in Germany for the extension of effective and innovative antifungal treatment strategies with ISA.

Non-warfarin oral anticoagulant copayments and adherence in atrial fibrillation: A population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: In patients with atrial fibrillation, incomplete adherence to anticoagulants increases risk of stroke. Non-warfarin oral anticoagulants (NOACs) are expensive; we evaluated whether higher copayments are associated with lower NOAC adherence. METHODS: Using a national claims database of commercially-insured patients, we performed a cohort study of patients with atrial fibrillation who newly initiated a NOAC from 2012 to 2018. Patients were stratified into low (<$35), medium ($35-$59), or high (≥$60) copayments and propensity-score weighted based on demographics, insurance characteristics, comorbidities, prior health care utilization, calendar year, and the NOAC received. Follow-up was 1 year, with censoring for switching to a different anticoagulant, undergoing an ablation procedure, disenrolling from the insurance plan, or death. The primary outcome was adherence, measured by proportion of days covered (PDC). Secondary outcomes included NOAC discontinuation (no refill for 30 days after the end of NOAC supply) and switching anticoagulants. We compared PDC using a Kruskal-Wallis test and rates of discontinuation and switching using Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: After weighting patients across the 3 copayment groups, the effective sample size was 17,558 patients, with balance across 50 clinical and demographic covariates (standardized differences <0.1). Mean age was 62 years, 29% of patients were female, and apixaban (43%), and rivaroxaban (38%) were the most common NOACs. Higher copayments were associated with lower adherence (P < .001), with a PDC of 0.82 (Interquartile range [IQR] 0.36-0.98) among those with high copayments, 0.85 (IQR 0.41-0.98) among those with medium copayments, and 0.88 (IQR 0.41-0.99) among those with low copayments. Compared to patients with low copayments, patients with high copayments had higher rates of discontinuation (hazard ratio [HR] 1.13, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.08-1.19; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Among atrial fibrillation patients newly initiating NOACs, higher copayments in commercial insurance were associated with lower adherence and higher rates of discontinuation in the first year. Policies to lower or limit cost-sharing of important medications may lead to improved adherence and better outcomes among patients receiving NOACs.

Financial Implications of Avapritinib for Treatment of Unresectable Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors in Patients With a PDGFRA Exon 18 Variant or After 3 Previous Therapies in a Hypothetical US Health Plan.

Importance: With the approval of avapritinib for adults with unresectable or metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) harboring a platelet-derived growth factor receptor alpha (PDGFRA) exon 18 variant, including PDGFRA D842V variants, and National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline recommendations as an option for patients with GIST after third-line treatment, it is important to estimate the potential financial implications of avapritinib on a payer's budget. Objective: To estimate the budget impact associated with the introduction of avapritinib to a formulary for metastatic or unresectable GISTs in patients with a PDGFRA exon 18 variant or after 3 or more previous treatments from the perspective of a US health plan. Design, Setting, and Participants: For this economic evaluation, a 3-year budget impact model was developed in March 2020, incorporating costs for drug acquisition, testing, monitoring, adverse events, and postprogression treatment. The model assumed that avapritinib introduction would be associated with increased PDGFRA testing rates from the current 49% to 69%. The health plan population was assumed to be mixed 69% commercial, 22% Medicare, and 9% Medicaid. Base case assumptions included a GIST incidence rate of 9.6 diagnoses per million people, a metastatic PDGFRA exon 18 mutation rate of 1.9%, and progression rate from first-line to fourth-line treatment of 17%. Exposures: The model compared scenarios with and without avapritinib in a formulary. Main Outcomes and Measures: Annual, total, and per member per month (PMPM) budget impact. Results: In a hypothetical 1-million member plan, fewer than 0.1 new patients with a PDGFRA exon 18 variant per year and 1.2 patients receiving fourth-line therapy per year were eligible for treatment. With avapritinib available, the total increase in costs in year 3 for all eligible adult patients with a PDGFRA exon 18 variant was $46 875, or $0.004 PMPM. For patients undergoing fourth-line treatment, the total increase in costs in year 3 was $69 182, or $0.006 PMPM. The combined total budget impact in year 3 was $115 604, or $0.010 PMPM, including an offset of $3607 in postprogression costs avoided or delayed. The higher rates of molecular testing resulted in a minimal incremental testing cost of $453 in year 3. Conclusions and Relevance: These results suggest that adoption of avapritinib as a treatment option would have a minimal budget impact to a hypothetical US health plan. This would be primarily attributable to the small eligible patient population and cost offsets from reduced or delayed postprogression costs.

Cost-effectiveness of antithrombotic agents for atrial fibrillation in older adults at risk for falls: a mathematical modelling study.

BACKGROUND: Antithrombotic drugs decrease stroke risk in patients with atrial fibrillation, but they increase bleeding risk, particularly in older adults at high risk for falls. We aimed to determine the most cost-effective antithrombotic therapy in older adults with atrial fibrillation who are at high risk for falls. METHODS: We conducted a mathematical modelling study from July 2019 to March 2020 based on the Ontario, Canada, health care system. We derived the base-case age, sex and fall risk distribution from a published cohort of older adults at risk for falls, and the bleeding and stroke risk parameters from an atrial fibrillation trial population. Using a probabilistic microsimulation Markov decision model, we calculated quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), total cost and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for each of acetylsalicylic acid (ASA), warfarin, apixaban, dabigatran, rivaroxaban and edoxaban. Cost data were adjusted for inflation to 2018 values. The analysis used the Ontario public payer perspective with a lifetime horizon. RESULTS: In our model, the most cost-effective antithrombotic therapy for atrial fibrillation in older patients at risk for falls was apixaban, with an ICER of $8517 per QALY gained (5.86 QALYs at $92 056) over ASA. It was a dominant strategy over warfarin and the other antithrombotic agents. There was moderate uncertainty in cost-effectiveness ranking, with apixaban as the preferred choice in 66% of model iterations (given willingness to pay of $50 000 per QALY gained); edoxaban, 30 mg, was preferred in 31% of iterations. Sensitivity analysis across ranges of age, bleeding risk and fall risk still favoured apixaban over the other medications. INTERPRETATION: From a public payer perspective, apixaban is the most cost-effective antithrombotic agent in older adults at high risk for falls. Health care funders should implement strategies to encourage use of the most cost-effective medication in this population.

Comparative Cost-utility Analysis of Regorafenib and Trifluridine/Tipiracil in The Treatment of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer in Japan.

PURPOSE: This study evaluated the cost utility of regorafenib and trifluridine/tipiracil (T/T) compared with that of best supportive care (BSC) in the treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer previously treated with, or not considered candidates for, available therapies, including fluoropyrimidine-, oxaliplatin-, and irinotecan-based chemotherapies; anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents; and anti-epidermal growth factor receptor agents, in Japan. METHODS: Efficacy data, utility values, and costs were extracted from published studies. The cost and effectiveness of regorafenib and of T/T were compared with those of BSC and examined between the 2 agents over a 5-year time horizon using a partitioned survival analysis. The health outcomes were life-years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained. The costs were year-2018 revisions to the drug prices and medical fees. The uncertainty and robustness of the model were verified by 1-way sensitivity analysis, probability sensitivity analysis, and scenario analysis compared with different clinical studies. A 2% per-annum discount was applied to expenses and QALYs. The willingness-to-pay threshold used was 5 million Japanese yen (JPY). FINDINGS: Regorafenib and T/T had incremental costs of 11,898,982 JPY (107,781 US dollars [USD]) and 5,000,141 JPY (45,291 USD), incremental effects of 0.249 QALYs (0.280 LYs) and 0.344 QALYs (0.421 LYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of 47,773,791 JPY (432,734 USD) and 14,550,577 JPY (131,799 USD) per QALY, respectively. Results of sensitivity analyses all exceeded the willingness-to-pay threshold of 15 million JPY. In the comparison of the 2 agents, T/T was a dominant alternative over regorafenib. IMPLICATIONS: As a third-line or later treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer in Japan, T/T is cost-effective compared with BSC, whereas regorafenib is not. It is necessary to adjust the price of regorafenib based on the results of this analysis, with the improvement of clinical parameters such as survival time and adverse events.

Cost-effectiveness of newer regimens for the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: review of the literature and real-world data.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To investigate the cost of netupitant and palonosetron (NEPA) in the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in adults receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) for cancer treatment in real life. RECENT FINDINGS: A retrospective analysis of all consecutives patients with advanced lung cancer treated in platinum-based (carboplatin or cisplatin) chemotherapy and with breast cancer treated with anthracycline and cyclophosphamide -based chemotherapy at our Medical Oncology Unit during 4 years was performed. The costs of drugs are at the Pharmacy of our Hospital (&OV0556;). SUMMARY: We evaluated 110 patients with lung cancer and 55 patients with breast cancer. Concerning lung cancer, we have obtained an advantage of 133 &OV0556; in monthly medical costs of NEPA and dexamethasone (DEX) vs. the combination of palonosetron (PALO) and DEX for each patient. Concerning breast cancer, we have obtained an advantage of 78 &OV0556; in monthly medical costs of NEPA and DEX vs. the combination of PALO and DEX for each patient. Combining the medical costs of antiemetic therapy with the measure of efficacy represented by the complete response, the combination of NEPA and DEX is cost-effective for preventing CINV in HEC and MEC cancer treatment.

Real-World Clinical and Economic Outcomes Associated with Palbociclib for HR-Positive/HER2 Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer: A Commentary.

Despite the achieved advancement in pharmacological cancer treatments, the majority of postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer (mBC) will experience disease progression. Research into alternative therapies with improved efficacy and reduced side effects has led to the development of a new class of oral anticancer medications, the cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) 4/6 inhibitors, which include palbociclib, ribociclib, and abemaciclib. Nonetheless, there is growing evidence that the effectiveness of oral anticancer medications is sub-optimal, being influenced by low adherence, sociodemographic factors, and adverse effect profiles. In addition, there is a disconnect between the high price tags of CDK 4/6 inhibitors and their observed effectiveness, raising questions about their value. Currently, the existing knowledge base on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of newer oral anticancer medications in understudied populations with possible health disparities is scant. This commentary discusses what is known about palbociclib's clinical effectiveness, safety, and adherence and suggests the need for further studies of real-world effectiveness and cost-effectiveness to help establish the value of newer oncologic drugs, such as palbociclib. DISCLOSURES: No funding supported the writing of this article. The authors have nothing to disclose.

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.