Cost-effectiveness of first-line enfortumab vedotin in addition to pembrolizumab for metastatic urothelial carcinoma in the United States.

Background and objective: The EV-302 trial found that the combination of enfortumab vedotin (EV) with pembrolizumab significantly improved survival for patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC). However, given the high cost of the drugs, there is a need to assess its value by considering both efficacy and cost. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of EV plus pembrolizumab as a first-line treatment for patients with mUC from the perspective of U.S. payers. Methods: A Markov model was developed to compare the lifetime costs and effectiveness of EV in combination with pembrolizumab with chemotherapy in the treatment of mUC patients from U.S. payer perspective. Life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), and lifetime costs were estimated. One-way, two-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate model uncertainty. Additionally, subgroup analyses were performed. Results: Compared to chemotherapy, the combination of EV and pembrolizumab provided an additional 2.10 LYs and 1.72 QALYs, at an incremental cost of $962,240.8 per patient. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) is $558,973 per QALY. Subgroup analysis indicated that patients ineligible for cisplatin treatment had a lower ICER compared to those who were eligible for cisplatin. Conclusions: From the perspective of US payers, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per QALY, the combination of EV and pembrolizumab is estimated to not be cost-effective compared to traditional chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of mUC patients.

Budget impact of dostarlimab plus carboplatin-paclitaxel for primary advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer from a third-party US payer perspective.

AIM: Dostarlimab plus carboplatin-paclitaxel (CP) significantly increased progression-free survival in patients with primary advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer (pA/rEC) vs CP alone in the RUBY trial (NCT03981796). This analysis estimated the per-member-per-month (PMPM) costs of introducing dostarlimab + CP as a treatment alternative from a third-party US payer perspective. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A budget impact model was developed to estimate the costs of introducing dostarlimab + CP into commercial and Medicare health plans over a 3-year time horizon (2023-2025). Costs were sourced from relevant literature and US-specific databases and were calculated using epidemiology data, clinical inputs, treatment costs, and market share estimates. Clinical inputs were sourced from primary clinical trials for each respective treatment (i.e. dostarlimab + CP, CP, pembrolizumab, pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib, bevacizumab + CP, and pembrolizumab + CP). Current and future market shares assumed dostarlimab + CP reduced the market share of CP only. Analyses were performed in mismatch repair-deficient/microsatellite instability-high (dMMR/MSI-H) and overall populations using a US 2023 cost year. RESULTS: For a commercial plan, the model estimated (dMMR/MSI-H and overall populations) that 7 and 26 patients would be treated with dostarlimab + CP, respectively; average annual budget impacts per patient treated were $118,257 and $116,094; average budget impacts per patient treated per month (PPPM) were $9,855 and $9,675; average budget impacts PMPM were $0.02 and $0.06. For a Medicare plan, the model estimated that 28 and 93 patients, respectively, would be treated with dostarlimab + CP. Average annual budget impacts per patient treated and PPPM were the same as those for the commercial plan in both populations; average budget impacts PMPM were $0.07 and $0.22, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Introducing dostarlimab + CP as a first-line treatment for patients with pA/rEC results in minimal budget impact PMPM from a US third-party payer's perspective. Together with the efficacy and safety results from RUBY, these results support the use of dostarlimab + CP as a treatment option.

Dostarlimab with carboplatin­paclitaxel is a recently approved treatment for newly diagnosed advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer. This analysis was done to estimate the added costs that US commercial and Medicare health plans would have over 3 years if this treatment was covered. This analysis found that the budget increase for covering dostarlimab with carboplatin­paclitaxel was small ($0.02­$0.06 per commercial plan member per month; $0.07­$0.22 per Medicare plan member per month).

Cost-per-responder analysis of patients with lenalidomide-refractory multiple myeloma receiving ciltacabtagene autoleucel in CARTITUDE-4.

Introduction: Ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel) is a chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy approved for patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). In the phase 3 trial, CARTITUDE-4 (NCT04181827), cilta-cel demonstrated improved efficacy vs. standard of care (SOC; daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone [DPd] or pomalidomide plus bortezomib and dexamethasone [PVd]) with a ≥ complete response (≥CR) rate of 73.1% vs. 21.8%. Methods: A cost-per-responder model was developed to assess the value of cilta-cel and SOC (87% DPd and 13% PVd) based on the CARTITUDE-4 trial data from a US mixed payer perspective (76.7% commercial, 23.3% Medicare). The model was developed using progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and ≥CR endpoints from CARTITUDE-4 over a period of 25.4 months. Inpatient stays, outpatient visits, drug acquisition, administration, and monitoring costs were included. The base-case model assumed an inpatient setting for each cilta-cel infusion; another scenario included 30% outpatient and 70% inpatient infusions. Costs of managing grade 3-4 adverse events (AEs) and grade 1-4 cytokine release syndrome and neurotoxicity were included. Subsequent therapy costs were incurred after disease progression; terminal care costs were considered upon death events. Outcomes included total cost per treated patient, total cost per complete responder, and cost per month in PFS between cilta-cel and SOC. Costs were adjusted to 2024 US dollars. Results: Total cost per treated patient, total cost per complete responder, and total cost per month in PFS were estimated at $704,641, $963,941, and $30,978 for cilta-cel, respectively, and $840,730, $3,856,559, and $42,520 for SOC over the 25.4-month period. Cost drivers included treatment acquisition costs before progression and subsequent treatment costs ($451,318 and $111,637 for cilta-cel; $529,795 and $265,167 for SOC). A scenario analysis in which 30% of patients received an outpatient infusion (assuming the same payer mix) showed a lower cost per complete responder for cilta-cel ($956,523) than those with an infusion in the inpatient setting exclusively. Discussion: This analysis estimated that cost per treated patient, cost per complete responder, and cost per month in PFS for cilta-cel were remarkably lower than for DPd or PVd, highlighting the substantial clinical and economic benefit of cilta-cel for patients with RRMM.

Treatment patterns, healthcare resource utilization, and costs in Medicare patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: a retrospective claims analysis (2015-2020).

AIMS: To understand treatment patterns, healthcare resource utilization (HCRU), and the economic burden of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) in elderly adults in the US. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective database analysis utilized US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Medicare fee-for-service administrative claims data from 2015 to 2020 to describe DLBCL patient characteristics, treatment patterns, HCRU, and costs among patients aged ≥66 years. Patients were indexed at DLBCL diagnosis and required to have continuous enrollment from 12 months pre-index until 3 months post-index. HCRU and costs (USD 2022) are reported as per-patient per-month (PPPM) estimates. RESULTS: A total of 11,893 patients received ≥1-line (L) therapy; 1,633 and 391 received ≥2 L and ≥3 L therapies, respectively. Median (Q1, Q3) age at 1 L, 2 L, and 3 L initiation, respectively, was 76 (71, 81), 77 (72, 82), and 77 (72, 82) years. The most common therapy was R-CHOP (70.9%) for 1 L and bendamustine ± rituximab for 2 L (18.7%) and 3 L (17.4%). CAR T was used by 14.8% of patients in 3 L. Overall, 39.6% (1 L), 42.1% (2 L), and 47.8% (3 L) of patients had all-cause hospitalizations. All-cause mean (median [Q1-Q3]) costs PPPM during each line were $22,060 ($20,121 [$16,676-$24,597]) in 1 L, $30,027 ($20,868 [$13,416-$31,016]) in 2 L, and $47,064 ($25,689 [$15,555-$44,149]) in 3 L, with increasing costs driven primarily by inpatient expenses. Total all-cause 3 L mean (median [Q1-Q3]) costs PPPM for patients with and without CAR T were $153,847 ($100,768 [$26,534-$253,630]) and $28,466 ($23,696 [$15,466-$39,107]), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: No clear standard of care exists in 3 L therapy for older adults with relapsed/refractory DLBCL. The economic burden of DLBCL intensifies with each progressing line of therapy, thus underscoring the need for additional therapeutic options.

Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab for untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis.

Background: Renal cell carcinoma is the most common type of kidney cancer, comprising approximately 85% of all renal malignancies. Patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma are the focus of this National Institute for Health and Care Excellence multiple technology appraisal. A patient's risk of disease progression depends on a number of prognostic risk factors; patients are categorised as having intermediate/poor risk or favourable risk of disease progression. Objectives: The objectives of this multiple technology appraisal were to appraise the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus relevant comparators listed in the final scope issued by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence: sunitinib, pazopanib, tivozanib, cabozantinib and nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Methods: The assessment group carried out clinical and economic systematic reviews and assessed the clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence submitted by Eisai, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, UK (the manufacturer of lenvatinib) and Merck Sharp & Dohme, Whitehouse Station, NJ, USA (the manufacturer of pembrolizumab). The assessment group carried out fixed-effects network meta-analyses using a Bayesian framework to generate evidence for clinical effectiveness. As convergence issues occurred due to sparse data, random-effects network meta-analysis results were unusable. The assessment group did not develop a de novo economic model, but instead modified the partitioned survival model provided by Merck Sharp & Dohme. Results: The assessment group clinical systematic review identified one relevant randomised controlled trial (CLEAR trial). The CLEAR trial is a good-quality, phase III, multicentre, open-label trial that provided evidence for the efficacy and safety of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab compared with sunitinib. The assessment group progression-free survival network meta-analysis results for all three risk groups should not be used to infer any statistically significant difference (or lack of statistically significant difference) for any of the treatment comparisons owing to within-trial proportional hazards violations or uncertainty regarding the validity of the proportional hazards assumption. The assessment group overall survival network meta-analysis results for the intermediate-/poor-risk subgroup suggested that there was a numerical, but not statistically significant, improvement in the overall survival for patients treated with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab compared with patients treated with cabozantinib or nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Because of within-trial proportional hazards violations or uncertainty regarding the validity of the proportional hazards assumption, the assessment group overall survival network meta-analysis results for the favourable-risk subgroup and the all-risk population should not be used to infer any statistically significant difference (or lack of statistically significant difference) for any of the treatment comparisons. Only one cost-effectiveness study was included in the assessment group review of cost-effectiveness evidence. The study was limited to the all-risk population, undertaken from the perspective of the US healthcare system and included comparators that are not recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence for patients with untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma. Therefore, the extent to which resource use and results are generalisable to the NHS is unclear. The assessment group cost-effectiveness results from the modified partitioned survival model focused on the intermediate-/poor-risk and favourable-risk subgroups. The assessment group cost-effectiveness results, generated using list prices for all drugs, showed that, for all comparisons in the favourable-risk subgroup, treatment with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab costs more and generated fewer benefits than all other treatments available to NHS patients. For the intermediate-/poor-risk subgroup, treatment with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab costs more and generated more benefits than treatment with cabozantinib and nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Conclusions: Good-quality clinical effectiveness evidence for the comparison of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab with sunitinib is available from the CLEAR trial. For most of the assessment group Bayesian hazard ratio network meta-analysis comparisons, it is difficult to reach conclusions due to within-trial proportional hazards violations or uncertainty regarding the validity of the proportional hazards assumption. However, the data (clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness) used to populate the economic model are relevant to NHS clinical practice and can be used to inform National Institute for Health and Care Excellence decision-making. The assessment group cost-effectiveness results, generated using list prices for all drugs, show that lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab is less cost-effective than all other treatment options. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD4202128587. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Evidence Synthesis Programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR134985) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 49. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Renal cell carcinoma is the most common type of kidney cancer. Several drug treatment options are available for NHS patients with advanced or metastatic disease, and the choice of treatment varies depending on a patient's risk of disease progression. A new drug combination, lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab, may soon become available to treat NHS patients. This review explored whether treatment with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab offered value for money to the NHS. We reviewed the effectiveness of treatment with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus other NHS treatment options. We also estimated the costs and benefits of treatment with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus current NHS treatments for patients with higher and lower risks of disease progression. Compared with current NHS treatments, treatment with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab may increase the time that people with a higher risk of disease progression (i.e. worsening disease) were alive. However, for patients with a lower risk of disease progression, the available evidence is limited and only shows that treatment with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab may prolong the time that patients have a stable level of disease. For all patients, compared to all current NHS treatments, treatment with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab is very expensive. Compared with current NHS treatments for untreated renal cell carcinoma, using published prices (which do not include any discounts that are offered to the NHS), treatment with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab may not provide good value for money to the NHS.

[The care pathway of patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma described through Italian administrative healthcare data.] / Il percorso di cura dei pazienti con linfoma diffuso a grandi cellule B descritto attraverso i dati amministrativi.

INTRODUCTION: The diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (Dlbcl) is the most common non-Hodgkin lymphoma and at highest incidence among the elderly. Despite the improved outcomes of patients treated with the first-line (1L) standard of care until the end of 2022, composed by rituximab and polychemotherapy (R-Chop), during the last 20 years, the rate of relapsed and refractory Dlbcl (rrDlbcl) remains elevated. This study has identified and analyzed patients newly diagnosed with Dlbcl and treated with 1L, from the perspective of the Italian National Health Service (Ssn). METHODS: From the administrative database of Fondazione Ricerca e Salute (ReS) including ~5.5 million inhabitants/year in Italy, adults with a new in-hospital Dlbcl diagnosis (index date) and treated with 1L in 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021 were identified and characterized in terms of demographics and comorbidities during a period (from 4 to 8 years) preceding index date. From 1 to 4 years following index date (follow-up), overall survival (Kaplan-Meier curves), percentage distribution of patients by line of therapy including dispensation/administration of chemo-immunotherapy, hemopoietic stem cell transplantation (Hsct), and direct healthcare costs charge to the Ssn, were evaluated. RESULTS: Overall, from the ReS database, 206 patients newly diagnosed with Dlbcl and treated with 1L from 2018 to 2021 in Italy (incidence from 0.9 to 1.7 x100,000 adult inhabitants) were identified. They were mainly older (median age 68 [56; 75] years), males (56%) and affected by ≥2 comorbidities (52%), mostly cardiometabolic. During 4 years of follow-up, 56% of cases in 2018 survived. During the first follow-up year: 73%, 80%, 100% and 35% of cases in 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021, respectively, received a 2L; 42% and 64% of cases in 2018 and 2020, respectively, received a 3L. At least one Hsct was found as a 2L among cases in 2018, 2020 and 2021. On average, each patient newly diagnosed with Dlbcl and treated with 1L from 2018 to 2021 caused a total expenditure directly charged to the Ssn ranging from € 20,000 to € 30,000 during the first follow-up year (chemo-immunotherapy accounted for 40-53%), which reduced with time in favor of other drugs and Hsct. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis confirms the high rate of rrDlbcl and the high economic impact charged to the SSN to support first the chemo-immunotherapy, then the chronic care and the absence of standardized further lines of therapy for patients with rrDlbcl.

Cost of Pegfilgrastim for the Prophylaxis of Chemotherapy-induced Febrile Neutropenia in Patients with Breast Cancer Receiving Perioperative Chemotherapy in Daily Practice in Japan: A Posthoc Analysis in a Single-center Retrospective Study.

This study aimed to estimate the medical costs associated with febrile neutropenia (FN) prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim and evaluate its impact on survival outcomes in daily practice in Japan. In this single-center retrospective study, we obtained data from 296 Japanese patients with breast cancer receiving fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide (FEC)-100 chemotherapy; the patients were divided into the pegfilgrastim and non-pegfilgrastim groups. We analyzed the median costs of chemotherapy, drugs for all adverse events (AEs) and FN, and hospitalization due to FN. We also assessed the survival outcomes. The pegfilgrastim group showed a significantly higher median total cost (JPY 872320.0 vs. JPY 466715.0, p<0.001). This difference was associated with the prophylactic use of pegfilgrastim. The median costs of the drugs for all AE treatments were JPY 9030.4 and JPY 24690.6, with the non-pegfilgrastim group showing a significantly higher cost (p<0.001). In 11 patients hospitalized for FN management, no significant difference in hospitalization cost was observed between the pegfilgrastim and non-pegfilgrastim groups (JPY 512390.0 vs. JPY 307555.0, p=0.102). No significant difference in the 3-year overall survival was observed between the pegfilgrastim and non-pegfilgrastim groups (79.9% vs. 88.3%, p=0.672). In this study, although the total medical cost in daily practice increased because of primary prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim, the 3-year overall survival was not impacted by the use of pegfilgrastim. Our study data suggested that the primary prophylaxis pegfilgrastim should be used during FEC-100 chemotherapy based on the patient-related FN risk factors, instead of routine use.

Cost-effectiveness of adjuvant icotinib versus chemotherapy for patients with stage II-IIIA EGFR-mutated non-small cell lung cancer in China.

OBJECTIVE: Icotinib has been approved for adjuvant treatment of stage II-IIIA non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with activating epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations in China, yet the long-term costs and outcomes of this strategy are unknown. Thus, we examined the cost effectiveness of adjuvant icotinib, compared with adjuvant chemotherapy, for the treatment of resected stage II-IIIA EGFR-mutated NSCLC. DESIGN: We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system, comparing 2-year adjuvant icotinib with four cycles of adjuvant chemotherapy. Costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated using a Markov model. Model inputs were obtained from local data and literature. The influence of model parameters and assumptions was explored in sensitivity analyses. All costs are expressed in 2022 US dollars, and costs and QALYs were discounted at a rate of 5% per year. The willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was set at three times the per capita gross domestic product. SETTING: The Chinese healthcare system perspective. PARTICIPANTS: A hypothetical Chinese cohort of patients with resected stage II-IIIA EGFR-mutated NSCLC. INTERVENTIONS: Icotinib versus chemotherapy. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: Costs, QALYs, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. RESULTS: The incremental cost per QALY gained with the use of 2-year icotinib, from the Chinese healthcare system perspective, was $3440.66 compared with adjuvant chemotherapy. At a WTP threshold of $40 500, adjuvant icotinib was the optimal treatment in over 99% of replications. The interpretation of the results was insensitive to model and input assumptions. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with adjuvant chemotherapy, adjuvant icotinib may be a cost-effective treatment for resected stage II-IIIA EGFR-mutated NSCLC as the WTP threshold is set at $40 500 per QALY.

Promising first-line immuno-combination therapies for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: A cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the leading causes of cancer-related death all over the world, and brings a heavy social economic burden especially in China. Several immuno-combination therapies have shown promising efficacy in the first-line treatment of unresectable HCC and are widely used in clinical practice. Nevertheless, which combination is the most affordable one is unknown. Our study assessed the cost-effectiveness of the immuno-combinations as first-line treatment for patients with unresectable HCC from the perspective of Chinese payers. METHODS: A Markov model was built according to five multicenter, phase III, open-label, randomized trials (Himalaya, IMbrave150, ORIENT-32, CARES-310, LEAP-002) to investigate the cost-effectiveness of tremelimumab plus durvalumab (STRIDE), atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (A + B), sintilimab plus bevacizumab biosimilar (IBI305) (S + B), camrelizumab plus rivoceranib (C + R), and pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib (P + L). Three disease states were included: progression free survival (PFS), progressive disease (PD) as well as death. Medical costs were searched from West China Hospital, published literatures or the Red Book. Cost-effectiveness ratios (CERs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were evaluated to compare costs among different combinations. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robust of the model. RESULTS: The total cost and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of C + R, S + B, P + L, A + B and STRIDE were $12,109.27 and 0.91, $26,961.60 and 1.12, $55,382.53 and 0.83, $70,985.06 and 0.90, $84,589.01 and 0.73, respectively, resulting in the most cost-effective strategy of C + R with CER of $13,306.89 per QALY followed by S + B with CER of $24,072.86 per QALY. Compared with C + R, the ICER of S + B strategy was $70,725.38 per QALY, which would become the most cost-effective when the willing-to-pay threshold exceeded $73,500/QALY. In the subgroup analysis, with the application of Asia results in Leap-002 trial, the model results were the same as global data. In the sensitivity analysis, with the variation of parameters, the results were robust. CONCLUSION: As one of the promising immuno-combination therapies in the first-line systemic treatment of HCC, camrelizumab plus rivoceranib demonstrated the potential to be the most cost-effective strategy, which warranted further studies to best inform the real-world clinical practices.

Budget impact analysis of introducing fruquintinib for metastatic colorectal cancer previously treated with fluoropyrimidine-, oxaliplatin-, and irinotecan-based chemotherapy and biologics in the United States from the payer perspective.

AIMS: Fruquintinib is a selective small molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR)-1, -2, and -3 recently approved in the United States (US) for the treatment of adult patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) who have previously been treated with fluoropyrimidine-, oxaliplatin-, and irinotecan-based chemotherapy, an anti-VEGF biological therapy, and if RAS wild-type and medically appropriate, anti-epidermal growth factor receptor therapy. This study aimed to estimate the 5-year budget impact of fruquintinib from a US payer perspective (commercial and Medicare). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A budget impact model was developed to compare two scenarios: a reference scenario in which patients received regorafenib, trifluridine/tipiracil, or trifluridine/tipiracil with bevacizumab and an alternative scenario in which patients received reference scenario treatments or fruquintinib. Market shares were evenly divided across available options. A 5-year time horizon and a hypothetical health plan of 1 million members was assumed. The model included epidemiological inputs to estimate the eligible population; clinical inputs for treatment duration, progression-free survival, overall survival, and adverse event (AE) frequency; and cost inputs for treatment, AEs, disease management, subsequent therapy, and terminal care costs. Budget impact was reported as total, per member per year (PMPY), and per member per month (PMPM). RESULTS: The model estimated an eligible population of 194 patients (39 per year) over 5 years. In the base case, the estimated 5-year budget impact of fruquintinib was $4,077,073 ($0.82 PMPY and 0.07 PMPM) for a commercial health plan. During the first year, the estimated budget impact was $627,570 ($0.63 PMPY and 0.05 PMPM). Results were robust across sensitivity analyses. PMPM costs from the Medicare perspective were greater than the base-case (commercial) ($0.17 vs. $0.07) due to higher incidence of CRC in that population. CONCLUSIONS: Fruquintinib is associated with a low budget impact for payers based on proposed thresholds in the US.

Fruquintinib is a treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer that has progressed after or not responded to multiple guideline-recommended therapies. This budget impact analysis was conducted to estimate the added costs a health plan would incur over a 5-year period if it chose to cover this therapy. The analysis found that the per plan member per month cost of covering fruquintinib was $0.07 for a United States commercial health plan and $0.17 for Medicare.

Toripalimab plus chemotherapy in the treatment of metastatic triple-negative breast cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

Objective: This study focuses on assessing the cost-effectiveness of incorporating toripalimab alongside chemotherapy for the treatment of patients diagnosed with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Methods: A partitioned survival model was constructed to simulate the costs and health outcomes over the lifetime of patients with mTNBC. Clinical data regarding overall survival, progression-free survival, and treatment-related adverse events were derived from the TORCHLIGHT clinical trials. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were calculated based on the gains in quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). The willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was defined as $39,855.79 per QALY. Additionally, sensitivity analyses were conducted to examine the robustness of the model. Results: The total cost incurred by the group receiving toripalimab was $38,040.62, while the placebo plus chemotherapy was $26,102.07. The utilization of the toripalimab regimen resulted in an increase of 0.74 QALYs and an incremental cost of $11,938.55 compared to the placebo plus chemotherapy group. The ICER was $16,133.18/QALY, indicating that toripalimab plus chemotherapy is a cost-effective strategy according to the WTP threshold. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the results. Conclusion: This study suggests that the addition of toripalimab to chemotherapy for the treatment of mTNBC is a cost-effective strategy. The findings provide valuable evidence to guide decision-making regarding treatment selection for patients with mTNBC in China.

Cost-effectiveness of early vs delayed use of abemaciclib combination therapy for patients with high-risk hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative early breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Abemaciclib was newly approved for hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) high-risk early breast cancer (EBC). Clinical guidelines recommended abemaciclib as the first-line treatment for HR+/ HER2- EBC (early use) or HR+/ HER2- metastatic breast cancer (MBC) (delayed use). OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost-effectiveness of early vs delayed use of abemaciclib for treatment of HR+/HER2- high-risk EBC. Early use was defined as combined abemaciclib and endocrine therapy as first-line therapy for EBC, followed by treatment with fulvestrant for MBC. Delayed use was defined as endocrine therapy for EBC, followed by combined abemaciclib and fulvestrant therapy for MBC. METHODS: A 5-state model was developed to estimate lifetime costs, life-years (LYs), and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of hypothetical patients with HR+/ HER2- EBC from a third-party US payer's perspective. Key clinical and safety data were derived from the monarchE and MONARCH 2 clinical trials. Costs, utilities, and disutility values of adverse events were obtained from the literature. We calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of early vs delayed abemaciclib use and compared it with a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $100,000 per LY or QALY. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSAs) were performed to test the robustness of the base-case model. RESULTS: Base-case analysis showed early use yielded 21.08 LYs and 17.93 QALYs for $586,213 and delayed use yielded 11.14 LYs and 9.38 QALYs for $157,576. The ICER of early vs delayed use was $43,136/LY and $50,104/QALY, which was cost-effective at the WTP threshold of $100,000. The PSA result indicated that a 94.6% likelihood of early use (vs delayed use) was cost-effective at the WTP threshold of $100,000 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that giving abemaciclib in the early stage rather than waiting until patients develop metastatic disease (current standard of care in MBC) is a cost-effective strategy.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of osimertinib plus chemotherapy for patients with EGFR-mutated advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: First-line osimertinib plus chemotherapy significantly prolonged progression-free survival of patients with EGFR-mutated advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) compared to osimertinib, according to the FLAURA2 trial. METHODS: We established a Markov model to compare the cost-effectiveness of osimertinib plus chemotherapy with that of osimertinib alone. Clinical data were obtained from the FLAURA and FLAURA2 trials, and additional data were extracted from online resources and publications. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate the robustness of the findings. We used A willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained. The main outcomes were QALYs, overall costs, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), incremental net monetary benefit, and incremental net health benefit. Subgroup analyses were conducted according to patients' mutation type and central nervous system (CNS) metastatic status. RESULTS: In a 20-year time horizon, the ICER of osimertinib plus chemotherapy versus osimertinib alone was $223,727.1 per QALY gained. The sensitivity analyses identified the cost of osimertinib and the hazard ratio for overall survival as the top 2 influential factors and a 1.9% probability of osimertinib plus chemotherapy to be cost-effective. The subgroup analyses revealed ICERs of $132,614.1, $224,449.8, $201,464.1, and $130,159.7 per QALY gained for L858R mutations, exon 19 deletions, CNS metastases, and no CNS metastases subgroups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: From the perspective of the United States health care system, osimertinib plus chemotherapy is not cost-effective compared to osimertinib alone for treatment-naïve patients with EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC, but more favorable cost-effectiveness occurs in patients with L858R mutations and patients without baseline CNS metastases.

Budget impact analysis of the novel PD-1 inhibitor toripalimab versus pembrolizumab in recurrent or metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma.

AIM: To estimate the budget impact of adding a toripalimab regimen as a treatment option to the existing pembrolizumab regimen, both including gemcitabine and cisplatin, in untreated recurrent/metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma (R/M NPC) using the published wholesale acquisition cost (WAC) and average sales price (ASP). METHODS: Budget impact analysis comparing a treatment mix "without" versus "with" the toripalimab regimen in the US eligible annual incident R/M NPC population, a 3-year time horizon, toripalimab/pembrolizumab market splits of 60/40 (Y1) and 80/20 (Y2/3), and medication adjustments for discontinuation or progression. Cost inputs included drugs, administration, and adverse event (AE) management. The models were replicated for a hypothetical 1-million-member health plan in which costs per-member-per-month (PMPM) and per-member-per-year (PMPY) were estimated. One-way (OWSA) and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) as well as scenario analyses were performed. RESULTS: In the "without" scenario, the 3-year WAC-based costs for the pembrolizumab regimen total $1,449,695,333 ($1,305,632,448 for treatment and $144,062,885 for managing AEs). In the "with" scenario, total 3-year costs for pembrolizumab decline to $380,012,135 with toripalimab adding $885,505,900 ($779,206,567 for treatment and $106,299,333 for AE management). Annual net savings range from $46,526,152 in 2024 to $71,194,214 in 2026, for 3-year savings of $184,177,298. Associated net savings in a 1-million-member health plan are $543,068 over 3 years with savings of $0.045 PMPM and $0.543 PMPY. The ASP-based model shows similar patterns with 3-year net savings of $174,235,983 in the US incident population and savings of $0.043 PMPM and $0.514 PMPY in a 1-million-member health plan. The PSA support base case findings; OWSA and scenario analyses reveal how parameter variability impacts results. CONCLUSION: Savings between $174 million and $184 million can be achieved from treating 60% of R/M NPC patients in year 1 and 80% in years 2 and 3 with the toripalimab regimen over a similar pembrolizumab regimen.

Toripalimab, a human monoclonal anti-body that targets PD-1, was recently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the first-line treatment of adults with metastatic or recurrent, locally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC), in combination with gemcitabine and cisplatin. We evaluated how much it would cost a payor to cover the FDA-approved toripalimab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin regimen (the toripalimab regimen) to a non-FDA-approved pembrolizumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin regimen (the pembrolizumab regimen). With no trial data available for such pembrolizumab regimen, we assumed that it would be comparable to the toripalimab regimen in efficacy and safety. Our model adopted a 3-year time horizon and assumed a 60/40 market share split in year 1 and an 80/20 market split in years 2 and 3. It included two US cost inputs: the wholesale acquisition cost (WAC) or "list price" at market entry and, as no average sales price (ASP) will be available for toripalimab for several quarters, a toripalimab price point of 80% of the pembrolizumab ASP. We adjusted for patients whose cancer progressed or who discontinued treatment to determine the number of fully-treated-patient-equivalents. We found that treating 60% of NPC patients in year 1 and 80% in years 2 and 3 with the toripalimab regimen instead of the pembrolizumab regimen generates, for the entire adjusted patient population, savings ranging from $174 million when using ASP to $184 million when using WAC.

Health Care Resource Use for Modern First-Line Treatments in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma.

Importance: Immuno-oncology agents have changed the treatment paradigm for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Such therapies improve survival but can impose considerable health care resource use (HCRU) and associated costs, necessitating their examination. Objective: To compare HCRU, costs, and clinical outcomes among patients receiving first-line pembrolizumab plus axitinib (P+A) or ipilimumab plus nivolumab (I+N). Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study used data from an administrative claims database on patients with mRCC receiving first-line P+A or I+N that was initiated between January 2018 and May 2020. Data were analyzed from February 2021 to July 2022. Exposure: First-line P+A or I+N. Main Outcome and Measures: HCRU and costs during the first 90 days, full first-line treatment, and full follow-up periods were assessed. Using Kaplan-Meier analysis, time on treatment, overall survival, time to first emergency department (ED) visit, and time to first inpatient stay were compared. Results: Among 507 patients, there were 126 patients receiving P+A (91 male [72.2%]; mean [SD] age, 67.93 [9.66] y) and 381 patients receiving I+N (271 male [71.1%]; mean [SD] age, 66.52 [9.94] years). The median time on treatment was longer for the P+A compared with I+N group (12.4 months [95% CI, 8.40 months to not estimable] vs 4.1 months [95% CI, 3.07 to 5.30 months]; P < .001). The median time to first ED visit was longer for the P+A than I+N group (7.2 months [95% CI 3.9 to 11.1 months ] vs 3.3 months [95% CI, 2.6 to 3.9 months]; P = .005), as was time to first inpatient stay (9.0 months [95% CI 6.5 months to not estimable] vs 5.6 months [95% CI, 3.9 to 7.9 months]; P = .02). During the first 90 days, a lower proportion of the P+A than N+I group had ED visits (43 patients [34.1%] vs 182 patients [47.8%] and inpatient stays (24 patients [19.1%) vs144 patients [37.8%]; P < .001). During full follow-up, mean total adjusted costs were similar for P+A and I+N groups, but adjusted 12-month estimated total costs were higher for P+A than I+N groups ($325 574 vs $ 263 803; P = .03). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, treatment with P+A was associated with longer time on treatment, time to first ED visit, and inpatient stay, while 12-month estimated costs were higher for the P+A group. This is among the first clinical studies to evaluate economic burden associated with modern treatments for mRCC.

Real-world comparison of health care costs of venetoclax-obinutuzumab vs Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitor use among US Medicare beneficiaries with chronic lymphocytic leukemia in the frontline setting.

BACKGROUND: Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitors (BTKis) and the BCL-2 inhibitor venetoclax in combination with obinutuzumab (VEN-O) are both recommended as frontline therapy in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). However, VEN-O is a 12-month fixed-duration therapy generating durable remissions whereas BTKis are continuous treat-to-progression treatments. OBJECTIVE: To examine costs before and after the fixed-duration treatment period for VEN-O relative to that observed for BTKis in a national sample of older US adults with CLL in the frontline setting. METHODS: This retrospective analysis used Medicare Parts A, B, and D claims from 2016 to 2021. Fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries aged 66 years or older initiating frontline CLL treatment with VEN-O or a BTKi treatment between June 1, 2019, and June 30, 2020 (index date = first prescription fill date), were included in the sample. Mean cost measures were captured for both groups over 2 fixed time periods calculated from the index date: Month 0 to 12 (proxy for VEN-O on-treatment period) and Month 13 to 18 (proxy for VEN-O off-treatment period). A difference-in-difference approach was used. Multivariate generalized linear models estimated changes in adjusted mean monthly costs during Month 0 to 12 vs Month 13 to 18, for the VEN-O group relative to the BTKi group. RESULTS: The final sample contained 193 beneficiaries treated with VEN-O and 1,577 beneficiaries treated with BTKis. Risk-adjusted all-cause monthly total costs were similar for VEN-O patients ($13,887) and BTKi patients ($14,492) between Month 0 and 12. Moreover, during Month 13 to 18, the mean monthly all-cause total costs declined by 67% for VEN-O ($13,887 to $4,462) but only by 10% for BTKi ($14,492 to $13,051). Hence, the relative reduction in costs across the 2 periods was significantly larger for VEN-O (-$9,425) vs BTKi (-$1,441) patients (ie, difference in difference = -$7,984; P < 0.001). Similar patterns were observed for CLL-related costs, with the substantially larger reductions in CLL-related total monthly costs (-$9,880 VEN-O vs -$1,753 BTKi; P < 0.001) for the VEN-O group primarily driven by the larger reduction in CLL-related monthly prescription costs (-$9,437 VEN-O vs -$2,020 BTKi; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This real-world study of older adults with CLL found a large reduction in monthly Medicare costs in the 6 months after completion of the fixed-duration treatment period of VEN-O, largely driven by the reduction in CLL-related prescription drug costs. A similar decline in costs was not observed among those treated with BTKis. Our study highlights the substantial economic benefits of fixed-duration VEN-O relative to treat-to-progression therapies like BTKis in the first-line CLL setting.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus placebo plus chemotherapy for HER2-negative advanced gastric/gastroesophageal junction cancer in the Chinese healthcare system.

BACKGROUND: This study compares first-line pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy with chemotherapy alone for patients with HER2-negative advanced gastric cancer (GC) and gastroesophageal junction cancer (GEJC) in China. METHODS: A Markov state-transition model was developed based on the phase 3 randomized KEYNOTE-859 clinical trial data. The health state utility values and direct medical costs were derived from the KEYNOTE-859 clinical trial, the relevant literature, and local charges. The measured outcomes included quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Probabilistic and one-way sensitivity analyses (OWSA) were performed to assess the uncertainty of the model. RESULTS: In the base analysis, the incremental effectiveness and cost of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone were 0.22 QALYs and $16,627.31, respectively, resulting in an ICER of $76,936.60/QALY, which is higher than the willingness-to-pay threshold in China ($35,864.61/QALY). Subgroup analyses revealed that the ICERs of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone were $72,762.68 and $34,813.70 in the populations with PD-L1 CPS of 1 or higher (CPS ≥ 1) and PD-L1 CPS ≥ 10 (CPS ≥ 10), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: As first-line therapy for patients with locally advanced or metastatic HER2-negative GC/GEJC in China, pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy is less cost-effective than chemotherapy alone, however, in the CPS ≥ 10 subgroup is more.

Pembrolizumab combined with chemotherapy versus placebo combined with chemotherapy for HER2-negative advanced gastric cancer in China: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis of pembrolizumab in combination with chemotherapy for HER2-negative advanced gastric cancer in China. METHODS: A partitioned survival approach model was constructed to simulate the progression of HER2-negative advanced gastric cancer and evaluate the outcomes of different treatment strategies. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) to assess the cost associated with each quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed to assess robustness and reliability. RESULTS: The analysis conducted in the base case demonstrated that the ICER associated with pembrolizumab was $177405.83/QALY gained in all population. In the subgroup analysis, it was found that individuals with a PD-L1 CPS ≥ 1 and those with a PD-L1 CPS ≥ 10 had ICERs of $152397.06/QALY and $109534.13/QALY, respectively. All ICER values for both the all population groups and the subgroups exceeded the WTP threshold in China. Our analysis shows the robustness of these results, as they remained consistent when input parameters were varied within a ± 25% range. CONCLUSION: The findings of this cost-effectiveness analysis suggest that pembrolizumab in combination with chemotherapy is not a cost-effective treatment option for HER2-negative advanced gastric cancer in China.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of first-line serplulimab plus chemotherapy for advanced squamous non-small-cell lung cancer in China: based on the ASTRUM-004 trial.

OBJECTIVE: In the ASTRUM-004 trial, serplulimab plus chemotherapy demonstrated significantly improved survival and controllable safety. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of serplulimab plus chemotherapy in advanced squamous non-small cell lung cancer (sqNSCLC), considering the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. METHODS: A decision tree and a Markov model were constructed to simulate the treatment. The interesting results included total cost, life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Scenario, one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to examine model instability. RESULTS: Compared with placebo plus chemotherapy, serplulimab plus chemotherapy had an ICER of $55,539.46/QALY ($47,278.84/LY). The ICERs were estimated to be $58,706.03/QALY, $48,978.34/QALY and $59,709.54/QALY inpatients with programmed death-ligand 1 expression level of tumor proportion score (TPS) < 1%, 1% ≤ TPS < 50%, and TPS ≥ 50%. The cost-effective prices of serplulimab were $168.276/100 mg, $349.157/100 mg, and $530.039/100 mg at the willingness-to-pay threshold of $12,574.30/QALY, $25,148.60/QALY, and $37,722.90/QALY. Patient weight and price of serplulimab created the most significant impact. Presently, the probability of serplulimab plus chemotherapy being cost-effective was 14.15%. CONCLUSION: Compared with placebo plus chemotherapy, serplulimab plus chemotherapy might not be cost-effective in the first-line treatment for advanced sqNSCLC.

First-line treatments for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer with immune checkpoint inhibitors plus chemotherapy: a China-based cost-effectiveness analysis.

Objective: To determine the cost-effectiveness of imported immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) such as atezolizumab and durvalumab, and domestic ICIs like serplulimab and adebrelimab, in combination with chemotherapy for extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) in China. Methods: Using a 21-day cycle length and a 20-year time horizon, a Markov model was established to compare the clinical and economic outcomes of five first-line ICIs plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone, as well as against each other, from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Transition probabilities were estimated by combining the results of the CAPSTONE-1 trial and a published network meta-analysis. Cost and health state utilities were collected from multiple sources. Both cost and effectiveness outcomes were discounted at a rate of 5% annually. The primary model output was incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). A series of sensitivity analyses were preformed to assess the robustness of the model. Results: In the base-case analysis, the addition of first-line ICIs to chemotherapy resulted in the ICERs ranged from $80,425.31/QALY to $812,415.46/QALY, which exceeded the willing-to-pay threshold set for the model. When comparing these first-line immunochemotherapy strategies, serplulimab plus chemotherapy had the highest QALYs of 1.51286 and the second lowest costs of $60,519.52, making it is the most cost-effective strategy. Our subgroup-level analysis yielded results that are consistent with the base-case analysis. The sensitivity analysis results confirmed the validity and reliability of the model. Conclusion: In China, the combination of fist-line ICIs plus chemotherapy were not considered cost-effective when compared to chemotherapy alone. However, when these fist-line immunochemotherapy strategies were compared with each other, first-line serplulimab plus chemotherapy consistently demonstrated superiority in terms of cost-effectiveness. Reducing the cost of serplulimab per 4.5 mg/kg would be a realistic step towards making first-line serplulimab plus chemotherapy more accessible and cost-effective.