Valuation of Treatments for Rare Diseases: A Systematic Literature Review of Societal Preference Studies.

INTRODUCTION: We sought to synthesize published empirical studies that elicited and characterized societal valuations of orphan drugs and the attributes that may drive different valuations for orphan drugs versus other treatments. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature review (SLR) in MEDLINE and EMBASE databases up to November 2, 2020. Search terms covered societal preferences and attributes of orphan drugs (e.g., disease prevalence, severity, burden, unmet needs, and benefits). RESULTS: We identified 38 eligible publications: 33 societal preference studies and 5 reviews discussing societal valuations and attributes of orphan drugs. Most publications suggested that a majority of respondents favored allocating funds to more prevalent diseases. However, trade-off studies and discrete-choice experiments found that survey participants chose to allocate resources to orphan drugs even when the cost per unit of health benefit was greater than for therapies for more prevalent diseases. Overall, 19 of 27 studies assessing severity in treatment valuation revealed that respondents prioritized patients with severe diseases over those with milder ones for equal health benefits. Members of the general public tended to prefer treatments for diseases with no alternative or when existing alternatives had limited efficacy over diseases with clear therapeutic alternatives. There was evidence that individuals preferred sharing resources, so no patient was left without treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Our SLR indicates the general public typically attaches greater value to orphan drugs than to other treatments for common diseases. This is not because of rarity per se, but primarily because of disease severity and lack of therapeutic alternatives typically associated with rare diseases.

Orphan drugs are drugs serving a substantial public health need by treating life-threatening or chronically debilitating medical conditions affecting a small number of people with very high unmet needs. We reviewed 38 published studies looking at drug characteristics that may cause people to value orphan drugs differently versus treatments for common conditions. Most people surveyed in these publications favored health care funds going to more prevalent diseases. However, some people preferred funding orphan drugs even when the cost versus health benefit was higher compared with treatments for more common diseases. The majority of studies that investigated the impact of disease severity on the valuation of treatments found that people prioritized patients with severe disease over those with milder disease, for the same extent of health benefit. People also preferred funding treatments for diseases that have no alternative treatments, or treatments with limited benefits, over treatments for diseases with many treatments or more effective treatments. We also found evidence of a societal preference for shared resources, meaning that no patient would be left without treatment, including those who receive limited benefits from health care resources, even if this does not lead to the maximization of health benefits across society. In conclusion, our literature review indicated that the general public attaches greater value to orphan drugs versus treatments for more common diseases, not because of rarity per se, but largely because the rare diseases treated by orphan drugs are often severe and have no or few treatment options.

Economic evaluation of encorafenib with cetuximab in patients with BRAF V600E-mutant metastatic colorectal cancer in France: a cost-effectiveness analysis using data from the BEACON CRC randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: The BEACON CRC randomised controlled trial (NCT02928224) in BRAF-mutant metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients showed improved overall survival for the combination treatment of encorafenib (BRAF inhibitor) with cetuximab (EGFR inhibitor) compared with cetuximab with chemotherapy (FOLFIRI (folinic acid, fluorouracil and irinotecan) or irinotecan). We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of encorafenib with cetuximab in adult patients with BRAF-mutant mCRC after prior systemic therapy, from the perspective of the French healthcare system. DESIGN: A partitioned survival analysis model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of encorafenib with cetuximab using data from BEACON CRC (encorafenib with cetuximab and cetuximab with FOLFIRI or irinotecan). For two further comparator treatments (FOLFIRI alone and bevacizumab with FOLFIRI), a systemic literature review identified appropriate clinical trial data for indirect comparison. Piecewise modelling extrapolation was used to fulfil a lifetime horizon in the model. A discount rate of 2.5% was used. Treatment-emergent adverse events ≥grade 3 with an incidence of ≥2% were included, as well as relative dose intensity and utility values. OUTCOME MEASURES: The effectiveness outcomes of the model were expressed in terms of incremental life years gained and incremental quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained. The cost-effectiveness of encorafenib with cetuximab was assessed using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Results were presented probabilistically to account for parametric uncertainty. Deterministic and scenario analyses were conducted. RESULTS: The ICER for encorafenib with cetuximab versus cetuximab with FOLFIRI or irinotecan, FOLFIRI alone and bevacizumab with FOLFIRI was €69 823/QALY, €70 421/QALY and €72 336/QALY, respectively. Encorafenib with cetuximab was considered cost-effective compared with the three comparators at a willingness to pay threshold of €90 000/QALY, with probabilities of being cost-effective of 89.8%, 98.2% and 86.4%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis showed encorafenib with cetuximab to be a cost-effective treatment in mCRC patients with a BRAF V600E mutation.

Public health impact of COVID-19 in French ambulatory patients with at least one risk factor for severe disease.

Background: Quantification of COVID-19 burden may be useful to support the future allocation of resources. Objective: To evaluate the public health impact of COVID-19 in French ambulatory patients with at least one risk factor for severe disease. Study design: A Markov model was used to estimate life years, costs, number of hospitalisations, number of deaths and long/prolonged COVID forms over a time horizon of 2 years. The hospitalisation probabilities were derived from an early access cohort, and the hospitalisation stay characteristics were derived from the French national hospital discharge database. Several scenario analyses were conducted. Results: The number of hospitalisations reached 256 per 1,000 patients over the acute phase (first month of simulation), and 382 per 1,000 patients over 2 years. The number of deaths was 37 per 1,000 patients, and the number of long/prolonged COVID forms reached 407 per 1,000 patients. These translated into a reduction of 0.7 days of life per patient in the first month, with an associated cost of €1,578, and a reduction of 27 days of life over the time horizon, with an associated cost of €4,280. The highest burden was observed for patients over 80 years old, and those not vaccinated. The scenarios with a less severe situation or new treatments available showed a non-negligible burden reduction. Conclusion: This study allowed us to quantify the considerable burden related to COVID-19 in infected patients, with at least one risk factor for severe form. Strategies with the ability to substantially reduce this burden in France are urgently required.

Cost-effectiveness of alectinib compared to crizotinib for the treatment of first-line ALK+ advanced non-small-cell lung cancer in France.

The aim of the study is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of alectinib for first-line treatment of ALK+ advanced non-small-cell lung cancer compared to crizotinib in the French setting. This study used a partitioned survival model, with three discrete health states (progression-free survival, post-progression survival and death). Survival probabilities were derived from a randomised Phase III clinical trial comparing alectinib to crizotinib (ALEX). Beyond the length of the trial (18 months), the efficacy of both treatments was considered equivalent. Occurrence of adverse events or brain metastases were considered as inter-current events. Utilities (and disutilities for intercurrent adverse events) derived from the EQ-5D were applied. Costs were attributed using standard French national public health tariffs. Projected mean overall survival was 4.62 years for alectinib and 4.18 years for crizotinib. Projected mean progression-free survival was 30.30 months for alectinib and 16.13 months for crizotinib. The total number of quality-adjusted life years projected was 3.40 for alectinib and 2.84 for crizotinib. The projected total cost of treatment over the lifetime of the model was € 246,022 for alectinib and € 195,486 for crizotinib. This extra cost was principally attributable to treatment acquisition costs and management before progression. Alectinib was associated with lower costs related to brain metastases and to management post-progression. The incremental cost per life year gained was 115,334 €/year and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was 90,232 €/QALY. First-line treatment of ALK+ NSCLC with alectinib provides superior clinical outcomes to crizotinib and is cost-effective in the French context.