Economic Evaluation of Three BRAF + MEK Inhibitors for the Treatment of Advanced Unresectable Melanoma With BRAF Mutation From a US Payer Perspective.

BACKGROUND: The combinations of BRAF + MEK inhibitors-encorafenib (ENC) + binimetinib (BIN), cobimetinib (COB) + vemurafenib (VEM), and dabrafenib (DAB) + trametinib (TRA)-are recommended for the treatment of BRAF-mutated advanced melanoma. OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of ENC + BIN versus COB + VEM versus DAB + TRA from a US payer perspective. METHODS: A Markov model was constructed to simulate a hypothetical cohort over a time horizon of 10 years. The overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) curves were independently digitized from a randomized controlled trial for ENC + BIN and fitted using R software. Published and indirectly estimated hazard ratios were used to fit OS and PFS curves for COB + VEM and DAB + TRA. Costs, life-year gains, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) associated with the 3 treatment combinations were estimated. A base case analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) were conducted to estimate the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR). A discount rate of 3.5% was applied on cost and outcomes. RESULTS: The ENC + BIN versus COB + VEM comparison was associated with an ICUR of $656 233 per QALY gained. The ENC + BIN versus DAB + TRA comparison was associated with an ICUR of $3 135 269 per QALY gained. The DAB + TRA combination dominated COB + VEM. The base case analysis estimates were confirmed by the PSA estimates. ENC + BIN was the most cost-effective combination at a high willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $573 000 per QALY and $1.5 million/QALY when compared to COB + VEM and DAB + TRA, respectively. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: Given current prices and acceptable WTP thresholds, our study suggests that DAB + TRA is the optimum treatment. In this study, ENC + BIN was cost-effective only at a very high WTP per QALY threshold.

Cost-efficiency analysis and expanded treatment access modeling of conversion to rituximab biosimilars from reference rituximab in Jordan.

AIM: To assess the cost-efficiency and expanded access of three rituximab biosimilars versus the reference rituximab from the perspective of the Jordanian national health payer. METHODS: A 1-year cost-efficiency and expanded access model of conversion from reference rituximab (Mabthera) to the approved biosimilars (Truxima, Rixathon, and Tromax) to assess five metrics: total annual cost to treat a hypothetical patient; head-to-head cost comparison; changes in patients' access to rituximab; number-needed-to-convert (NNC) to provide an additional 10 patients access to a rituximab treatment; and relative amount of Jordanian Dinar (JOD) spent on rituximab options. The model included rituximab doses at 100 mg/10 ml and 500 mg/50 ml and considered both cost-saving and cost-wastage scenarios. Costs of treatments were based on the fiscal year 2022 tender prices received by the Joint Procurement Department (JPD). RESULTS: Rixathon was associated with the lowest average annual cost per patient (JOD2,860) across all six indications among all rituximab comparators, followed by Truxima (JOD4,240), Tromax (JOD4,365) and reference Mabthera (JOD11,431). The highest percentage of patient access to rituximab treatment (321%) was achieved when switching patients from Mabthera to Rixathon in the RA and PV indications. At four patients, Rixathon was associated with the lowest NNC to provide an additional 10 patients access to rituximab treatment. For each JOD1 spent on Rixathon, an additional JOD3.21 must be spent on Mabthera, an additional JOD0.55 on Tromax, and an additional JOD0.53 on Truxima. CONCLUSION: Rituximab biosimilars were associated with cost savings in all approved indications in Jordan compared to reference rituximab. Rixathon was associated with the lowest annual cost, the highest percentage of expanded patient access for all six indications, and the lowest NNC providing 10 additional patients with access.

Comparing jurisdiction-specific pharmaco-economic evaluations using medical purchasing power parities.

OBJECTIVES: To demonstrate how medical purchasing power parities (mPPP) may harmonize economic evaluations from different jurisdictions and enable comparisons across jurisdictions. METHODS: We describe the use of mPPPs and illustrate this with an example of economic evaluations of nab-paclitaxel with gemcitabine (Nab-P + Gem) versus gemcitabine monotherapy in the setting of metastatic pancreatic cancer. Following a literature search, we extracted data from cost-effectiveness studies on these treatments performed in various countries. mPPPs from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development were used to convert reported costs in the jurisdiction of origins to US dollars for the most current year using two possible pathways: (1) reported costs first adjusted by mPPP then adjusted by exchange index; and (2) reported costs first adjusted by exchange index then adjusted by mPPP. RESULTS: Despite many of the pharmaco-economic evaluations sharing similar assumptions and inputs, even after mPPP conversion, residual heterogeneity was attributable to perspectives, discount rate, outcomes, and costs, among others; including in studies conducted in the same jurisdiction. CONCLUSION: Despite the methodological challenges and heterogeneity within and across jurisdictions, we demonstrated that mPPP offers a way to compare economic evaluations across jurisdictions.