Cost-Effectiveness of Axicabtagene Ciloleucel for Adult Patients With Relapsed or Refractory Follicular Lymphoma in the United States.

OBJECTIVES: The results of a recent single-arm trial (ZUMA-5) of axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) for relapsed/refractory (r/r) follicular lymphoma (FL) demonstrated high rates of durable response and tolerable toxicity among treated patients. To quantify the value of axi-cel compared with standard of care (SOC) to manage r/r FL patients who have had at least 2 prior lines of systemic therapy (3L+), a cost-effectiveness model was developed from a US third-party payer perspective. METHODS: A 3-state partitioned-survival cost-effectiveness model was developed with a lifetime horizon. Patient-level analyses of the 36-month ZUMA-5 (axi-cel) and SCHOLAR-5 (SOC) studies were used to extrapolate progression-free and overall survivals. After 5 years of survival, an estimated 40% of the modeled population was assumed to experience long-term remission based on literature. Results include the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) measured as incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. One-way sensitivity analysis, probabilistic sensitivity analysis, and scenario analyses were performed. All outcomes were discounted 3% per year. RESULTS: Axi-cel led to an increase of 4.28 life-years, 3.64 QALYs, and a total cost increase of $321 192 relative to SOC, resulting in an ICER of $88 300 per QALY. Across all parameters varied in the one-way sensitivity analysis, the ICER varied between $133 030 and $67 277. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, axi-cel had a 99% probability of being cost-effective across 5000 iterations using a $150 000 willingness-to-pay threshold. CONCLUSIONS: Given the robustness of the model results and sensitivity analyses, axi-cel is expected to be a cost-effective treatment in 3L+ r/r FL.

Cost-effectiveness analysis 3L of axicabtagene ciloleucel vs tisagenlecleucel and lisocabtagene maraleucel in Japan.

Aim: Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) was performed to compare axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) with tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cel) and lisocabtagene (liso-cel) for treatment of relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma in adult patients after ≥2 lines of therapy in Japan. Materials & methods: Cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted using the partition survival mixture cure model based on the ZUMA-1 trial and adjusted to the JULIET and TRANSCEND trials using matching-adjusted indirect comparisons. Results & conclusion: Axi-cel was associated with greater incremental life years (3.13 and 2.85) and incremental quality-adjusted life-years (2.65 and 2.24), thus generated lower incremental direct medical costs (-$976.29 [-¥137,657] and -$242.00 [-¥34,122]), compared with tisa-cel and liso-cel. Axi-cel was cost-effective option compared with tisa-cel and liso-cel from a Japanese payer's perspective.

[Box: see text].

Clinical and economic impact of school-based nonavalent human papillomavirus vaccine on women in Singapore: a transmission dynamic mathematical model analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the epidemiological and economic impact of a nine-valent (nonavalent) human papillomavirus (HPV) 6/11/16/18/31/33/45/52/58 vaccine programme for young teenagers in Singapore. DESIGN: Mathematical modelling. SETTING: Pharmaco-economic simulation projection. POPULATION: Singapore demography. METHODS: Clinical, epidemiological and financial data from Singapore were used in a validated HPV transmission dynamic mathematical model to analyse the impact of nonavalent HPV vaccination over quadrivalent and bivalent vaccines in a school-based 2-dose vaccination for 11- to 12-year-old girls in the country. The model assumed routine cytology screening in the current rate (50%) and vaccine coverage rate of 80%. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Changes over a 100-year time period in the incidence and mortality rates of cervical cancer, case load of genital warts, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). RESULTS: Compared with bivalent and quadrivalent HPV vaccination programmes, nonavalent HPV universal vaccination resulted in an additional reduction of HPV31/33/45/52/58 related CIN1 of 40.5%, CIN 2/3 of 35.4%, cervical cancer of 23.5%, and cervical cancer mortality of 20.2%. Compared with bivalent HPV vaccination, there was an additional reduction in HPV-6/11 related CIN1 of 75.7%, and genital warts of 78.9% in women and 73.4% in men. Over the 100 years, after applying a discount of 3%, disease management cost will be reduced by 32.5% (versus bivalent) and 7.5% (versus quadrivalent). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per quality-adjusted life-year gained was SGD 929 compared with bivalent vaccination and SGD 9864 compared with quadrivalent vaccination. CONCLUSION: Universal two-dose nonavalent HPV vaccination for 11- to 12-year-old adolescent women is very cost-effective in Singapore. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Nonavalent HPV vaccination of 11- to 12-year-old girls is cost-effective in Singapore.

Potential cost-effectiveness of the nonavalent human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine.

Randomized clinical trials are currently examining the efficacy of a nonavalent human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, including HPV-types 6/11/16/18/31/33/45/52/58. Evidence on the cost-effectiveness of the nonavalent is required for timely policy-decisions. We compared the potential cost-effectiveness of the nonavalent and quadrivalent HPV vaccines. We used a multi-type individual-based transmission-dynamic model of HPV infection and diseases, 70-year time-horizon, 3% discount rate and healthcare payer perspective. We calibrated the model to Canadian sexual behavior and epidemiologic data, and estimated Quality-Adjusted Life-Years (QALYs) lost and costs ($CAN 2010) from the literature. Under base-case assumptions (vaccinating 10-year-old girls, 80% coverage, 95$/dose, vaccine-type efficacy = 95%, cross-protection for the quadrivalent vaccine, duration of vaccine-type protection (cross-protection) = 20 (10) years), using the quadrivalent and nonavalent vaccines is estimated to cost $15,528 [12,056; 19,140] and $12,203 [9,331; 17,292] per QALY-gained, respectively. At equal price, the nonavalent vaccine is more cost-effective than the quadrivalent vaccine, even when assuming both shorter duration of protection (nonavalent = 20 years vs. quadrivalent = lifelong) and lower vaccine-type efficacy (nonavalent = 85% vs. quadrivalent = 95%). However, the additional cost per dose of the nonavalent vaccine should not exceed $11 to remain more cost-effective than the quadrivalent vaccine, and $24 to represent a cost-effective alternative to the quadrivalent vaccine (using a $40,000/QALY-gained threshold). The nonavalent vaccine can be a cost-effective alternative to the quadrivalent vaccine, even in scenarios where nonavalent vaccine efficacy is 85%. However, because most cervical cancers are caused by HPV-16/18, it is unlikely that the nonavalent would be used if its efficacy against these types is lower than current HPV vaccines.

Anti-cancer vaccines - a one-hit wonder?

Immunization against common bacterial and viral diseases has helped prevent millions of deaths worldwide. More recently, the concept of vaccination has been developed into a potentially novel strategy to treat and prevent cancer formation, progression, and spread. Over the past few years, a handful of anti-cancer vaccines have been licensed and approved for use in clinical practice, thus providing a breakthrough in the field. However, the path has not always been easy, with many hurdles that have had to be overcome in order to reach this point. Nevertheless, with more anti-cancer vaccines currently in development, there is still hope that they can eventually become routine tools used in the treatment and prevention of cancer in the future. This review will discuss in detail both types of anti-cancer vaccine presently used in clinical practice - therapeutic and preventive - before considering some of the more promising anti-cancer vaccines that are currently in development. Finally, the issue of side effects and the debate surrounding the overall cost-effectiveness of anti-cancer vaccines will be examined.

Sipuleucel-T (Provenge®) for castration-resistant prostate cancer.

UNLABELLED: Sipuleucel-T is known to be very well tolerated and to prolong overall survival, but not progression-free survival, measured according to prostate-specific antigen variations and radiographic progression. Its exact mechanism is unknown. Although the article does not present new data, a new way of assessing immunotherapy efficacy is proposed. This involves measuring 'consecutive' times to progression, in an attempt to capture the delayed effects of immunotherapy. OBJECTIVE: To propose a new way of assessing immunotherapy efficacy. Since 2010, the therapeutic armamentarium for prostate cancer has expanded to include the potent taxane agent cabazitaxel, the CYP17A1 inhibitor abiraterone and the novel immunotherapy agent sipuleucel-T (Provenge®. Demdreon, Seattle, WA, USA). Sipuleucel-T is an antigen-specific active immunotherapy agent, which is not designed to be directly toxic to tumour cells, but to help the immune system to selectively attack cancerous cells. We aimed to provide a comprehensive review of available safety and efficacy data about Sipuleucel-T. METHODS: A systematic analysis of the literature was conducted using the terms 'Sipuleucel-T' and 'Provenge'. PUBMED was the main search engine, but abstracts published by the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the European Society of Medical Oncology, as well as press releases and product monographs, were also considered for inclusion. Reference lists of key articles were searched for further leads. Articles providing safety and efficacy data were included in this review. RESULTS: Sipuleucel-T is based on autologous dendritic cells, which are collected by leukapheresis of peripheral blood, co-cultured with a modified PAP protein, and then re-injected intravenously. It is the first agent of its kind to obtain Food and Drug Administration approval for any kind of malignant tumour. Its approval was determined by the results of a placebocontrolled, randomized trial (the IMPACT trial), conducted in 512 asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic mean with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Although no difference in time to progression or PSA response rate was reported, a statistically meaningful 4.1-month improvement in median survival was achieved in the active arm with respect to the placebo arm (25.8 months vs 21.7 months). After Food and Drug Administration approval in April 2010, in view of the high economic cost of sipuleucel-T and the not completely flawless study design of the IMPACT trial, a national coverage analysis of sipuleucel-T was conducted by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Such analysis has recently concluded that sipuleucel-T is a 'necessary and reasonable' treatment. CONCLUSION: Sipuleucel-T is an effective treatment for prostate cancer, although its widespread use is uncertain for complex social and economic reasons.

Provenge: revolutionary technology or ethical bust?

Sipuleucel-T (known by the trade name, "Provenge") is the first prostate cancer vaccine approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and represents a new type of cancer therapy termed, Autologous Cellular Immunotherapy (ACT). This therapy has been described as a revolution in technology by clinicians and researchers alike. However, policy-makers and health economists question the efficacy of such treatment given its costs, while mainstream media often bemoan Provenge as yet another example of a healthcare system gone awry. This paper examines the debate for and against Provenge, and discusses why Medicare adoption of payment protocols for the vaccine may violate the egalitarian and feminist principles of distributive justice theory. The paper also acknowledges the larger context of the Provenge debate within the bioethical community; that is, how much should society be willing to invest to prevent death? The paper concludes by arguing for a more thorough ethical review of such new technologies by policy-makers prior to the adoption of funding protocols.

Quadrivalent human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine: a review of safety, efficacy, and pharmacoeconomics.

WHAT IS KNOWN AND BACKGROUND: The introduction of vaccines has lead to a significant reduction in morbidity and mortality from diseases such as measles, rubella and poliomyelitis, as well as the eradication of smallpox (Ertl HC, Xiang Z (1996) The Journal of Immunology, 156, 3579-3582). A recent vaccine approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is the recombinant quadrivalent human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine (Merck, Gardasil®). Concerns raised with this preventive measure include safety and efficacy issues as well as the financial implications. Furthermore, the use of the vaccine in women outside the currently approved age ranges and in adolescent boys and men has also been a source of debate. OBJECTIVE: A review of two licensed HPV vaccines (Gardasil, Merck and Cervarix, GalxoSmithKline) in the light of these issues. METHODS: Literature searches were conducted using the MEDLINE (1966-December 2008) and PubMed databases in addition to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website. Bibliographies of selected references were also evaluated for relevant articles. Published guidelines and press releases were utilized as were the manufacturer's package inserts. The collection of information for this review was limited to the most recently available human data. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: The HPV quadrivalent vaccine has been effective in the management of HPV by preventing vaccine subtype-related persistent infection and precancerous lesions as evidenced by numerous clinical trials. It is also regarded as a generally safe and well-tolerated vaccine, based on an assessment of reported adverse events submitted through governmental databases and analyzed by independent researchers. The majority of adverse events were non-serious and the vaccine has not been conclusively implicated with serious events. The FDA continues to focus on routine post-marketing surveillance monitoring of reported adverse events. The bivalent vaccine has also been shown to be effective in reported trials. Its adverse effect profile also appears acceptable. WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: The HPV vaccines appear safe and effective. Additional clinical research on the vaccines on women outside the currently approved age ranges and in males is necessary. Studies on longer-term outcomes, including cervical cancer and the emergence of new viral genotypes are also necessary.

Sipuleucel-T: a vaccine for metastatic, asymptomatic, androgen-independent prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To review the design, efficacy, safety, dosing, therapeutic, and pharmacoeconomic considerations of sipuleucel-T, an investigational, autologous, dendritic, cell-based prostate cancer vaccine. DATA SOURCES: English-language literature searches of MEDLINE (1966-September 2007) and the Cochrane Database (2007, Issue 3) were performed using the terms sipuleucel-T, APC8015, and prostate cancer vaccine. Other data sources were identified from bibliographies of selected articles and from press releases. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: All published articles or abstracts on human studies of sipuleucel-T for androgen-independent prostate cancer (AIPC) were reviewed for inclusion. Manufacturer Web sites, Food and Drug Administration (FDA) documents, and the clinical trials registry were used to obtain information regarding ongoing clinical trials. DATA SYNTHESIS: AIPC is an incurable disease with a median survival rate of 18-20 months. Docetaxel-based chemotherapy is currently the only FDA-approved treatment for AIPC with a survival benefit (2.4 mo). Sipuleucel-T is a novel active cellular immunotherapy under investigation for the treatment of metastatic, asymptomatic AIPC. In clinical trials, the primary endpoint of time to disease progression was not met; however, an underpowered analysis of data suggests that sipuleucel-T prolongs survival by a median of 4.5 months compared with placebo. Sipuleucel-T has been relatively well tolerated, although a possible increased risk of cerebrovascular events may exist. In May 2007, the FDA did not approve the biologics license application for sipuleucel-T since the primary endpoint of the Phase 3 trials was not met. However, its approval will be reconsidered by the FDA once interim survival results from an ongoing Phase 3 trial, IMPACT, are determined. These data are anticipated to be released in the fourth quarter of 2008. CONCLUSIONS: Metastatic AIPC is an incurable disease that currently has limited treatment options. Approval of sipuleucel-T hinges on results from the IMPACT trial. If improved survival is shown, sipuleucel-T may become the first approved active cellular immunotherapy for treating metastatic, asymptomatic AIPC.