Current Attitudes toward Unfunded Cancer Therapies among Canadian Medical Oncologists.

BACKGROUND: Despite successes in the development of innovative anticancer therapies, the fiscal and capacity restraints of the Canadian public healthcare system result in challenges with drug access. A meaningful proportion of systemic therapies ultimately do not receive public funding despite supporting clinical evidence. In this study, we assessed Canadian medical oncologists' current attitudes toward discussing publicly unfunded cancer treatments with patients and predictors of different practices. METHODS: A web-based survey consisting of multiple choice and case-based scenarios was distributed to medical oncologists identified through the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada directory. RESULTS: A total of 116 responses were received. Almost all respondents reported discussing publicly unfunded treatments, including those who did so for Health Canada (HC) approved treatments (50%) and those who discussed off-label treatments (i.e., not HC approved) as guided by national guidelines (48%). Respondents in practice for over 15 years versus less than 5 years (OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.04-0.50, p = 0.002) and those who worked in a community practice versus comprehensive cancer center (OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.03-0.91, p = 0.04) were significantly less likely to discuss off-label treatment options with their patients. Almost half of respondents (47%) indicated that their institution did not permit the administration of unfunded treatments. CONCLUSIONS: There is variability in medical oncologists' practices when it comes to discussing unfunded therapies. Given the limitations within Canada's publicly funded healthcare system, physicians are faced with the challenge of navigating an increasingly complex balance between patient care and available resources. Engagement of relevant stakeholders and policy makers is crucial in the continued evaluation of Canada's drug funding process.

Effect of clinical pharmacist interventions on cost in an integrated health system specialty pharmacy.

BACKGROUND: Patients who are prescribed specialty medications require close monitoring, including assessment of laboratory parameters, toxicities, and adherence. Specialty pharmacies integrated within a health system are able to access records, assess therapy, and efficiently communicate with prescribers. OBJECTIVE: To analyze interventions made by clinical pharmacists within the Cleveland Clinic Specialty Pharmacy (CCSP) regarding cost avoidance for the health care system and improvements in patient safety. METHODS: This was a retrospective, observational study that analyzed pharmacist interventions regarding specialty hematology/oncology medications. Interventions were measured with pharmacist documentation within the electronic health record (EHR). The primary endpoint was the cost-avoidance effect of clinical pharmacist interventions resulting from pharmacist access to the EHR. Secondary endpoints included pharmacist interventions that led to additional ancillary or supportive care, time taken to perform interventions, total interventions according to new or refill status, and total interventions performed according to insurance subtype. RESULTS: 547 interventions were identified during the study period, with a total cost avoidance of $1,508,131. The intervention with the highest overall cost savings was discontinuation of therapy ($290,091). The highest cost savings, based on intervention type, was lack of follow-up ($30,892). The medication with the highest overall cost savings was abiraterone ($273,160). Gilteritinib was associated with the highest cost saving per intervention ($28,350). The indication with the highest overall cost savings was prostate cancer ($402,601), while cutaneous T-cell lymphoma had the highest cost savings per intervention ($25,424). CONCLUSIONS: CCSP pharmacist interventions led to significant overall cost savings to the health care system. Although not measured in this study, it is reasonable to expect that decreased medication use may also translate into less financial burden for patients, as well as for pharmacy benefit managers. Access to the EHR and integration within the health care system may have facilitated the cost savings. DISCLOSURES: This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Effectiveness and healthcare costs of eribulin versus capecitabine among metastatic breast cancer patients in Taiwan.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the real-world effectiveness and costs of eribulin to those of capecitabine in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) pretreated with anthracyclines and taxanes. METHODS: This study extracted data from the Health and Welfare Database in Taiwan to identify MBC patients, and then eribulin and capecitabine users were matched at a 1:1 ratio by age, residential region, Charlson Comorbidity Index score, and molecular subtype of BC cell. The overall survival (OS) and time-to-treatment discontinuation (TTD) curves were plotted using the Kaplan-Meier method. Healthcare utilization and costs between the two groups were compared. RESULTS: A total of 24,550 MBC patients were identified, and 298 patients were enrolled in each group after matching. The median OS was 11.8 months for eribulin (95%CI: 11.5-13.5 months) and 15.2 months for capecitabine (95%CI: 15.3-17.9 months; HR = 1.7, p < 0.0001). The median TTD was 4.0 months for eribulin and 6.6 months for capecitabine (HR = 1.6; p < 0.0001). No significant difference was found between the two groups in patients with >4 prior chemotherapy agents (OS: HR 1.1, 95%CI 0.8-1.5; TTD: HR 1.2, 95%CI 0.9-1.7). The total healthcare costs per patient during the treatment period were NT$580,523.8 for eribulin versus NT$497,223.8 for capecitabine (p < 0.0001), and total medication costs were NT$438,335.8 and NT$348,438.4 (p < 0.0001), respectively. CONCLUSION: Although eribulin showed an attenuated effect in the real-world setting in Taiwan, it may serve as an alternative for capecitabine in a heavy pretreated population. The total healthcare and medication costs were found to be higher with eribulin treatment.

Cost-effectiveness of Atezolizumab Plus Bevacizumab vs Sorafenib as First-Line Treatment of Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

Importance: Treatment with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab may prolong overall survival among patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. However, to our knowledge, the cost-effectiveness of using this high-priced therapy for this indication is currently unknown. Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab to treat unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma from the US payer perspective. Design, Setting, and Participants: This economic evaluation used a partitioned survival model consisting of 3 discrete health states to assess the cost-effectiveness of treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab vs sorafenib. The characteristics of patients in the model were similar to patients in a phase 3, open-label randomized clinical trial (IMbrave150) who had unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma and had not previously received systemic treatment. Key clinical data were generated from the IMbrave150 trial conducted between March 15, 2018, and January 30, 2019, and cost and health preference data were collected from the literature. Main Outcomes and Measures: Costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost-utility ratios, incremental net health benefits, and incremental net monetary benefits were calculated for the 2 treatment strategies. Subgroup, 1-way sensitivity, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. Results: Treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab added 0.530 QALYs and resulted in an incremental cost of $89 807 compared with sorafenib therapy, which had an incremental cost-utility ratio of $169 223 per QALY gained. The incremental net health benefit was -0.068 QALYs, and the incremental net monetary benefit was -$10 202 at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000/QALY. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that treatment with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab achieved a 35% probability of cost-effectiveness at a threshold of $150 000/QALY. One-way sensitivity analysis revealed that the results were most sensitive to the hazard ratio of overall survival. The subgroup analysis found that treatment with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab was associated with preferred incremental net health benefits in several subgroups, including patients with hepatitis B and C. Conclusions and Relevance: Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab treatment is unlikely to be a cost-effective option compared with sorafenib for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. Reducing the prices of atezolizumab and bevacizumab may improve cost-effectiveness. The economic outcomes also may be improved by tailoring treatments based on individual patient factors.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors in Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor: A Systematic Review.

Background: The introduction of tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) therapy has dramatically improved the clinical effectiveness of patients with locally advanced and/or metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST), and this systematic review was conducted aiming at the cost-effectiveness analysis of TKIs in GIST. Methods: A thorough literature search of online databases was performed, using appropriate terms such as "gastrointestinal stromal tumor or GIST," "cost-effectiveness," and "economic evaluation." Data extraction was conducted independently by two authors, and completeness of reporting and quality of the evaluation were assessed. The systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA statement. Results: Published between 2005 and 2020, 15 articles were incorporated into the systematic review. For advanced GIST, imatinib followed by sunitinib was considered cost-effective, and regorafenib was cost-effective compared with imatinib re-challenge therapy in the third-line treatment. For resectable GIST, 3-year adjuvant imatinib therapy represented a cost-effective treatment option. The precision medicine-assisted imatinib treatment was cost-effective compared with empirical treatment. Conclusion: Although identified studies varied in predicted costs and quality-adjusted life years, there was general agreement in study conclusions. More cost-effectiveness analysis should be conducted regarding more TKIs that have been approved for the treatment of GIST. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/, PROSPERO: CRD42021225253.

Pharmacological Acromegaly Treatment: Cost-Utility and Value of Information Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To conduct a cost-utility analysis comparing drug strategies involving octreotide, lanreotide, pasireotide, and pegvisomant for the treatment of patients with acromegaly who have failed surgery, from a Brazilian public payer perspective. METHODS: A probabilistic cohort Markov model was developed. One-year cycles were employed. The patients started at 45 years of age and were followed lifelong. Costs, efficacy, and quality of life parameters were retrieved from the literature. A discount rate (5%) was applied to both costs and efficacy. The results were reported as costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated when applicable. Scenario analyses considered alternative dosages, discount rate, tax exemption, and continued use of treatment despite lack of response. Value of information (VOI) analysis was conducted to explore uncertainty and to estimate the costs to be spent in future research. RESULTS: Only lanreotide showed an ICER reasonable for having its use considered in clinical practice (R$ 112,138/US$ 28,389 per QALY compared to no treatment). Scenario analyses corroborated the base-case result. VOI analysis showed that much uncertainty surrounds the parameters, and future clinical research should cost less than R$ 43,230,000/US$ 10,944,304 per year. VOI also showed that almost all uncertainty that precludes an optimal strategy choice involves quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: With current information, the only strategy that can be considered cost-effective in Brazil is lanreotide treatment. No second-line treatment is recommended. Significant uncertainty of parameters impairs optimal decision-making, and this conclusion can be generalized to other countries. Future research should focus on acquiring utility data.

The current state of patient access to new drugs in South Korea under the positive list system: evaluation of the changes since the new review pathways.

Objective: This study aims to provide an up-to-date analysis of the current state of patient access to new drugs in South Korea, focusing on the effect of new review pathways for reimbursement. Methods: We analyzed patients' access to new drugs, listing rate and lead time until listing from marketing authorization. New pathways were defined as 'price negotiation waiver,' 'risk-sharing agreements,' and 'pharmacoeconomic evaluation exemption.' Results: The listing rate for drugs increased after the introduction of the new pathways (93.7% vs. 77.9%, p < 0.001). Before the new pathways, the median lead time for listing was 21.0 months (95% CI: 16.9-25.0), while afterward it was shortened to 10.9 months (95% CI: 10.2-11.7) (p < 0.001). Conclusion: Although it has strengthened national health insurance coverage by positively impacting the rate and lead time, the lead time for the oncology and orphan drugs is substantially longer as compared to other drugs. Expanding the eligibility criteria to include non-life-threatening but rare or intractable diseases, and resolving the system's operational issues are still necessary.

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 Lenvatinib Compared with Sorafenib for the First-Line Treatment of Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Australia.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: In the REFLECT trial, lenvatinib showed superior clinical benefits to sorafenib in terms of progression-free survival and was non-inferior for overall survival in the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We assessed the cost-effectiveness of lenvatinib compared with sorafenib for patients with advanced HCC in Australia. METHOD: A partitioned-survival model was built to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing lenvatinib and sorafenib from an Australian health-system perspective. Survival curves were obtained from the REFLECT trial and fitted with parametric survival functions for extrapolation purposes beyond the trial follow-up. Cost and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were accrued over the 10-year time horizon of the model. Deterministic and probability sensitivity analysis (PSA) were carried out to verify the validity of the model. RESULTS: Lenvatinib incurred higher costs (A$96,325) and superior health outcomes (QALYs: 1.205), while sorafenib had lower costs (A$92,394) and inferior health outcomes (QALYs: 1.086). Thus, lenvatinib yielded an incremental cost-utility ratio of A$33,028/QALY gained. Further, the results of the PSA found that the probability of lenvatinib being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of A$50,000/QALY was 64%. CONCLUSION: Our study found that, at current prices, lenvatinib is a cost-effective treatment option compared with sorafenib for the first-line treatment of patients with advanced HCC.

Treatment patterns and direct medical costs among patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.

AIMS: This study assessed the real-world United States (US) treatment patterns and the associated economic burden in patients diagnosed with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). METHODS: The MarketScan database was used to identify patients newly diagnosed with HCC who received systemic therapy between 2011 and 2018 and continuously enrolled for ≥6 months (baseline period) prior and ≥1 month following HCC diagnosis. Treatment patterns (systemic and locoregional therapy), healthcare resource utilization, and costs were reported during follow-up. RESULTS: The final sample included 1580 patients (median age, 61; 78% male; median follow up, 8.7 months). The most common first line of therapy (LOT) was sorafenib (78%). The median time from HCC diagnosis to start of sorafenib was 43 days, and the median duration of sorafenib therapy was 60 days. Only 17% of patients received second LOT, and non-sorafenib treatment use increased to 66% (mostly chemotherapy combination). Transarterial chemoembolization was the most commonly observed locoregional therapy prior to the first LOT. The multivariable-adjusted average all-cause total cost among sorafenib treated patients was $17,642 (95% CI: $16,711-$18,558) per-patient per-month), of which $11,393 were HCC-specific. CONCLUSIONS: In patients who received first-line therapy for HCC, the duration of therapy was short (potentially due to progression or tolerability). Most patients did not continue to second-line therapy. Despite the short duration of therapy, HCC patients still incur a high economic burden, and there is a need for more effective and tolerable treatments.

Clinical benefit and cost of breakthrough cancer drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration.

BACKGROUND: The clinical benefit and pricing of breakthrough-designated cancer drugs are uncertain. This study compares the magnitude of the clinical benefit and monthly price of new and supplemental breakthrough-designated and non-breakthrough-designated cancer drug approvals. METHODS: A cross-sectional cohort comprised approvals of cancer drugs for solid tumors from July 2012 to December 2017. For each indication, the clinical benefit from the pivotal trials was scored via validated frameworks: the American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework (ASCO-VF), the American Society of Clinical Oncology Cancer Research Committee (ASCO-CRC), the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS), and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Evidence Blocks. A high clinical benefit was defined as scores ≥ 45 for the ASCO-VF, overall survival gains ≥ 2.5 months or progression-free survival gains ≥ 3 months for all cancer types for the ASCO-CRC criteria, a grade of A or B for trials of curative intent and a grade of 4 or 5 for trials of noncurative intent for the ESMO-MCBS, and scores of 4 and 5 and a combined score ≥ 16 for the NCCN Evidence Blocks. Monthly Medicare drug prices were calculated with Medicare prices and DrugAbacus. RESULTS: This study identified 106 trials supporting approval of 52 drugs for 96 indications. Forty percent of these indications received the breakthrough designation. Among the included trials, 33 (43%), 46 (73%), 35 (34%), and 67 (69%) met the thresholds established by the ASCO-VF, ASCO-CRC, ESMO-MCBS, and NCCN, respectively. In the metastatic setting, there were higher odds of clinically meaningful grades in trials supporting breakthrough drugs with the ASCO-VF (odds ratio [OR], 3.69; P = .022) and the NCCN Evidence Blocks (OR, 5.80; P = .003) but not with the ASCO-CRC (OR, 3.54; P = .11) or version 1.1 (v1.1) of the ESMO-MCBS (OR, 1.22; P = .70). The median costs of breakthrough therapy drugs were significantly higher than those of nonbreakthrough therapies (P = .001). CONCLUSIONS: In advanced solid cancers, drugs that received the breakthrough therapy designation were more likely than nonbreakthrough therapy drugs to be scored as providing a high clinical benefit with the ASCO-VF and the NCCN Evidence Blocks but not with the ESMO-MCBS v1.1 or the ASCO-CRC scale.

Cost-effectiveness of real-world administration of chemotherapy and add-on Viscum album L. therapy compared to chemotherapy in the treatment of stage IV NSCLC patients.

BACKGROUND: For stage IV lung cancer patients receiving add-on Viscum album L. (VA) treatment an improved overall survival was detected. Information regarding cost-effectiveness (CE) for comparisons between chemotherapy (CTx) and CTx plus additive VA in stage IV lung cancer treatment is limited. The present study assessed the costs and cost-effectiveness of CTx plus VA (V) compared to CTx alone (C) for stage IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients treatment in a hospital in Germany. METHODS: In the observational real-world data study, data from the Network Oncology clinical registry were utilized. Enrolled stage IV lung cancer patients received the respective therapy (C or V) in a certified German Cancer Center. Cost and cost-effectiveness analyses from the hospital's perspective were investigated on the basis of overall survival (OS) and routine financial controlling data. In addition, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated. The primary result of the analysis was tested for robustness in a bootstrap-based sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: 118 patients (C: n = 86, V: n = 32) were included in the analysis, mean age 63.8 years, the proportion of male patients was 55.1%. Adjusted hospital's total mean costs for patients from the C and V group were €16,289, 95%CI: 13,834€-18,744€ (over an adjusted mean OS time of 13.4 months) and €17,992, 95%CI: 13,658-22,326 (over an adjusted mean OS time of 19.1 months), respectively. The costs per additional OS year gained (ICER) with the V-therapy compared to C therapy were €3,586. CONCLUSION: The findings of the present study suggest that the combined use of chemotherapy and VA was clinically effective and comparably cost-effective to chemotherapy alone in our analysed patient sample from the hospital's perspective. Further randomized and prospective cost-effectiveness studies are necessary to complement our findings.

New insights on sorafenib resistance in liver cancer with correlation of individualized therapy.

Liver cancer is highly malignant and insensitive to cytotoxic chemotherapy and is associated with very poor patient prognosis. In 2007, the small-molecule targeted drug sorafenib was approved for the treatment of advanced liver cancer. In the subsequent ten years, sorafenib has been the only first-line therapeutic targeted drug for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, a number of clinical studies show that a considerable percentage of patients with liver cancer are insensitive to sorafenib. The number of patients who actually benefit significantly from sorafenib treatment is very limited, and the overall efficacy of sorafenib is far from satisfactory, which has attracted the attention of researchers. Based on previous studies and reports, this article reviews the potential mechanisms of sorafenib resistance (SR) and summarizes the biomarkers and clinicopathological indicators that might be used for predicting sorafenib response and developing personalized therapy.

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.

Cost-Effectiveness and Net Monetary Benefit of Olaparib Maintenance Therapy Versus No Maintenance Therapy After First-line Platinum-based Chemotherapy in Newly Diagnosed Advanced BRCA1/2-mutated Ovarian Cancer in the Italian National Health Service.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness and net monetary benefit of olaparib maintenance therapy compared with no maintenance therapy after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy in newly diagnosed advanced BRCA1/2-mutated ovarian cancer from the Italian National Health Service (NHS) perspective. METHODS: We developed a lifetime Markov model in which a cohort of patients with newly diagnosed advanced BRCA1/2-mutated ovarian cancer was assigned to receive either olaparib maintenance therapy or active surveillance (Italian standard of care) after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy to compare cost-effectiveness and net monetary benefit of the 2 strategies. Data on clinical outcomes were obtained from related clinical trial literature and extrapolated using parametric survival analyses. Data on costs were derived from Italian official sources and relevant real-world studies. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR), and incremental net monetary benefit (INMB) were computed and compared against an incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained of €16,372 willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold. We used deterministic sensitivity analysis (DSA) and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) to assess how uncertainty affects results; we also performed scenario analyses to compare results under different pricing settings. FINDINGS: In the base-case scenario, during a 50-year time horizon, the total costs for patients treated with olaparib therapy and active surveillance were €124,359 and €97,043, respectively, and QALYs gained were 7.29 and 4.88, respectively, with an ICER of €9,515 per life-year gained, an ICUR of €11,345 per QALY gained, and an INMB of €12,104. In scenario analyses, considering maximum selling prices for all other drugs, ICUR decreased to €11,311 per QALY and €7,498 per QALY when a 10% and 20% discount, respectively, was applied to the olaparib official price, and the INMB increased to €12,186 and €21,366, respectively. DSA found that the model results were most sensitive to the proportion of patients with relapsing disease in response to platinum-based chemotherapy, time receiving olaparib first-line maintenance treatment, and subsequent treatments price. According to PSAresults, olaparib was associated with a probability of being cost-effective at a €16,372 per QALY WTP threshold ranging from 70% to 100% in the scenarios examined. IMPLICATIONS: Our analysis indicates that olaparib maintenance therapy may deliver a significant health benefit with a contained upfront cost during a 50-year time horizon, from the Italian NHS perspective, providing value in a setting with curative intent.

Lenvatinib versus sorafenib for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

Aim: To investigate the cost-effectiveness of lenvatinib and sorafenib in the treatment of patients with nonresected hepatocellular carcinoma in China. Materials & methods: Markov model was used to simulate the direct medical cost and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Clinical data were derived from the Phase 3 randomized clinical trial in a Chinese population. Results: Sorafenib treatment resulted in 1.794 QALYs at a cost of $43,780.73. Lenvatinib treatment resulted in 2.916 QALYs for patients weighing <60 and ≥60 kg at a cost of $57,049.43 and $75,900.36, The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio to the sorafenib treatment group was $11,825.94/QALY and $28,627.12/QALY, respectively. Conclusion: According to WHO's triple GDP per capita, the use of lenvatinib by providing drugs is a cost-effective strategy.

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

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

Cost Effective Use of a Thiosulfinate-Enriched Allium sativum Extract in Combination with Chemotherapy in Colon Cancer.

In this work, we sought to investigate the effects of a thiosulfinate-enriched garlic extract, co-administered with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) or oxaliplatin chemotherapy, on the viability of colon cancer cells (Caco-2 and HT-29). We also addressed the economic feasibility of a new combined treatment of this thiosulfinate-enriched garlic extract, with oxaliplatin that could reduce the dosage and costs of a monotherapy. The thiosulfinate-enriched garlic extract not only enhanced the impact of 5-FU and oxaliplatin (500 µM) in decreasing Caco-2 and HT-29 viability, but also showed a higher effect than standard 5-FU and oxaliplatin chemotherapy as anti-cancer agents. These results provided evidences for the combination of lyophilized garlic extract and 5-FU or oxaliplatin as a novel chemotherapy regimen in colon cancer cells that may also reduce the clinical therapy costs.

Economic Implications of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Surveillance and Treatment: A Guide for Clinicians.

The incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is increasing worldwide, with significant morbidity and associated costs. Treatment allocation depends on the stage of diagnosis; however, resource utilization can be significant across all stages. We aimed to summarize the available data on the cost effectiveness of surveillance of and treatments for HCC in the context of current treatment guidelines. We performed a focused review of studies investigating the economic burden and cost effectiveness of HCC surveillance treatment modalities published between January 2000 and January 2019. The overall economic burden of HCC is increasing in the USA and in several countries worldwide due to its rising incidence and the proliferation of therapies. Liver transplantation is a cost-effective strategy for early-stage HCC treatment in selected patients. In settings where liver transplantation is not available or in patients awaiting transplant, ablative or locoregional therapies are cost effective with increases in quality-adjusted life-years. First-line therapy with sorafenib for advanced stage HCC is cost effective in the treatment of compensated cirrhosis. The cost effectiveness of recently approved systemic therapies for advanced HCC require further investigation. Existing studies have shown that guideline-recommended surveillance techniques and several available therapies for the treatment of HCC are cost effective; however, there are limitations in the literature, including reliance on suboptimal modeling with incomplete/simplified model structure or inadequate inputs. With increasing therapeutic options in patients with HCC, understanding their relative value is critical in designing HCC treatment algorithms.

Holistic cost-effectiveness analysis of anticancer drug regimens in Japan.

Japan officially introduced cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) in 2019, whereas some countries, such as England, Sweden, Canada, and Australia, have experience with health technology assessment (HTA). Therefore, there are few reports that comprehensively examine the situation of health economic evaluation in Japan. In this paper, we review the health economic evaluation systems among those countries. We also conducted a case study that investigated the time-trend of cost, effectiveness, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for anticancer drug regimens in Japan. We found a time-trend ICER for breast cancer (BC). Additionally, molecular targeting drugs for BC had a positive effect on the ICER, and both small molecular-targeting drugs and monoclonal antibodies (mAb) had a higher ICER for BC compared with conventional drugs. Finally, we discuss a possible way to implement a health economic evaluation system in Japan.