Budget impact analysis of pembrolizumab versus the novel PD-1 inhibitor toripalimab in locally advanced or metastatic nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer.

AIM: To estimate the budget impact of adding a toripalimab regimen to the existing treatment mix of pembrolizumab, both with pemetrexed and carboplatin, in patients with locally advanced or metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC within two price inputs (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 annual US nonsquamous NSCLC population treated with a PD-1 inhibitor, a 3-year time horizon, toripalimab market share of 1% in 2024, increasing to 4% (2025) and 5% (2026), and medication use adjustments for discontinuation or progression to estimate fully-treated-patient-equivalents. Cost inputs included drugs, administration, and grade 3/4 adverse event (AE) management. The models were replicated in a 1-million-member plan to estimate costs per-member-per-month (PMPM) and per-member-per-year (PMPY). One-way (OWSA) and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) as well as two scenario analyses were performed. RESULTS: In the "without" scenario, the 3-year WAC costs for the pembrolizumab regimen total $40,750,234,637 ($39,024,548,745 for treatment and $1,725,685,894 for managing AEs). In the "with" scenario, these costs decline to $39,341,379,081. Corresponding "with" costs for toripalimab are $1,186,027,704 (treatment) and $99,454,471 (AE management) for a total of $1,285,482,175. This yields annual net savings of between $10,779,362 (at 1% market share) in 2024 and $64,858,298 (5% market share) in 2026, for 3-year savings of $123,373,381. The associated savings in a 1-million-member plan are $0.030 PMPM and $0.363 PMPY. The ASP model shows similar patterns. Savings were demonstrated in 68% of PSA simulations; OWSAs and scenario analyses reveal how parameter variability impacts results. CONCLUSION: Significant savings are likely achievable from treating between 1% (year 1) to 5% (year 3) of nonsquamous NSCLC patients with the toripalimab regimen. Projected 3-year savings range from $122 million (ASP) to $123 million (WAC); corresponding to savings of $0.030 PMPM and $0.363 PMPY.

Toripalimab is a biological agent of the PD-1 inhibitor class approved in the US for the treatment of nasopharyngeal carcinoma and approved in China, in combination with pemetrexed and platinum, for the treatment of advanced or metastatic nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer. In this simulation analysis, we evaluated how much it would cost a US payer to cover the toripalimab plus pemetrexed and platinum regimen as a treatment alternative to a similar pembrolizumab regimen. Our model adopted a 3-year time horizon; included two US cost inputs (wholesale acquisition cost and average sales price); and assumed a market share of 1% in 2024, increasing to 4% in 2025 and 5% in 2026. Using data from published clinical trials, we adjusted for patients whose cancer progressed or who discontinued treatment to determine the number of fully-treated-patient-equivalents. We found that, by treating 1% of nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer patients in year one and increasing to 4% in year two and 5% in year three, the 3-year savings range from $122 million (using average sales price) to $123 million (using wholesale acquisition cost) for the entire adjusted patient population.

The health economics of cell and gene therapies.

The health economics of cell and gene therapies is complex; due to resource-intensive manufacturing, high prices are required for commercial viability that are challenging for healthcare systems to accommodate. Despite high prices, cell and gene therapies can provide value when they deliver substantial clinical benefits and displace long-term healthcare costs compared with existing treatment options. In this chapter, the cost utility approach of economic evaluation is discussed, focusing on the considerations that occur more commonly in cell and gene therapies compared to conventional medicines, how these considerations create challenges in interpreting the evidence and coming to conclusions on value, and what tools exist for understanding the level of decision uncertainty. A summary of the economic evaluation of onasemnogene abeparvovec for spinal muscular atrophy is provided as a real-world example that features the considerations discussed.

Pharmacoeconomic implications of preference toward reference- versus generic-brand antidepressants in primary care.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of depression is gradually increasing worldwide with an increasing utilization of antidepressants. Nevertheless, despite their lower costs, generic-brand antidepressants were reported to be less prescribed. We aimed to examine the costs of reference- versus generic-brand antidepressant prescriptions in primary care practice. METHODS: This cross-sectional study included electronic prescriptions for adult patients that contained antidepressants (World Health Organization's Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) code: N06A), which were generated by a systematically selected sample of primary care doctors (n = 1431) in Istanbul in 2016. We examined the drug groups preferred, the reference- versus generic-brand status, and pharmacotherapy costs. FINDINGS: The majority of the prescriptions were prescribed for women (71.8%), and the average age of the patients was 53.6 ± 16.2 years. In prescriptions with a depression-related indication (n = 40 497), the mean number and cost of drugs were 1.5 ± 1.0 and 22.7 ± 26.4 United States Dollar ($) per prescription, respectively. In these prescriptions, the mean number and cost of antidepressants per encounter were 1.1 ± 0.2 and $17.0 ± 13.2, respectively. Reference-brand antidepressants were preferred in 58.2% of depression-related prescriptions, where the mean cost per prescription was $18.3 ± 12.4. The mean cost per prescription of the generics, which constituted 41.8% of the antidepressants in prescriptions, was $15.1 ± 11.4. We found that if the generic version with the lowest cost was prescribed instead of the reference-brand, the mean cost per prescription would be $12.9 ± 11.2. CONCLUSIONS: Our study highlighted the substantial pharmacoeconomic impact of generic-brand antidepressant prescribing, whose preference over reference-brands could reduce the cost of antidepressant medication treatment by 17.5% in primary care, which could be approximately doubled if the cheapest generic antidepressant had been prescribed.

Cost-effectiveness of pharmacogenetic screening in the management of major depressive disorder in the Spanish Healthcare System.

BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder (MDD) represents a sizable economic burden in Spain. Pharmacogenetic (PGx) screening to guide the choice of antidepressant medication (ADM) in MDD patients yields higher response and remission rates, which could reduce both healthcare and indirect costs. METHODS: We built a cost-effectiveness probabilistic Markov model with microsimulation using Tree Age Pro 2022, simulating a patient cohort from the SNHS starting ADM for MDD, and comparing PGx screening before starting ADM versus no screening (No PGx). We carried out a probabilistic sensitivity analysis using the Monte Carlo simulation with microsimulation, set for 1000 iterations and 1000 microsimulation trials, both from societal and healthcare provider perspectives, for a time horizon of 3 years. RESULTS: From a societal perspective, the model estimated a mean cost of 3172.85€ and effectiveness of 2.64 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for the No PGx strategy, and a mean cost of 1687.02€ and effectiveness of 2.84 QALYs for the PGx strategy. The mean ICER was -7820.56 €/QALY. From a healthcare provider perspective (no indirect costs considered), the mean cost was 662.62€ for the No PGx strategy, and 446.60€ for the PGx strategy. The mean ICER was -1130.16 €/QALY. LIMITATIONS: The heterogeneity of input data from the literature, the need for assumptions of homogeneous distribution of variables and events across population and time, and the inherent limitations of cost-effectiveness analysis should be considered. The model omits combined therapies (ADMs with mood stabilizers, antipsychotics, cognitive behavioral therapy…). CONCLUSIONS: PGx screening in MDD prior to ADM start is a dominant strategy in the SNHS.

Cost-effectiveness of Azvudine for High-risk Outpatients with Mild-to-moderate Coronavirus Disease 2019 in China.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of Azvudine for the treatment of mild-to-moderate coronavirus disease 2019 in high-risk outpatients using real-world data and relevant references. METHODS: In the decision-tree model, 2 cohorts were organized in a single center to compare the cost-effectiveness between the Azvudine plus symptomatic treatment group and the symptomatic treatment group. We calculated the cost and mortality rate for both groups. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was used to illustrate the cost-effectiveness. To assess the uncertainty of the model parameters, we conducted 1-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. FINDINGS: In total, there were 804 outpatients included in the model. Among these, 317 patients received Azvudine plus symptomatic treatment, whereas the remaining 487 participants were treated with symptomatic treatment alone. The costs in the Azvudine and control groups were 1055.48 yuan and 2466.97 yuan and the survival rates were 100.00% and 98.70%, respectively. After calculation, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was determined to be -108,817.48 yuan per person. In the section of 1-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses, Azvudine was still proven to be cost-effective. IMPLICATIONS: Our results support the usage of Azvudine for the treatment of high-risk outpatients with mild-to-moderate coronavirus disease 2019 from economic perspective.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Pharmacogenomics-Guided Versus Standard Dosing of Warfarin in Patients with Mechanical Prosthetic Heart Valve.

Background: Warfarin is the only approved anticoagulant for antithrombotic treatment in patients with mechanical prosthetic heart valves (MPHV). However, dosing warfarin is challenging due to its narrow therapeutic window and highly variable clinical outcomes. Both low and high doses of warfarin can lead to thrombotic and bleeding events, respectively, with these complications being more severe in individuals with sensitive genetic polymorphisms. Incorporating genetic testing could enhance the accuracy of warfarin dosing and minimize its adverse events. Objectives: This study aims to evaluate the utilities and cost-effectiveness of pharmacogenomics-guided versus standard dosing of warfarin in patients with MPHV in Iran. Methods: In this economic evaluation study, a cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted to compare pharmacogenomics-guided versus standard warfarin dosing. Data related to quality of life (QoL) were collected through a cross-sectional study involving 105 randomly selected MPHV patients using the EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) Questionnaire. Costs were calculated with input from clinical experts and a review of relevant guidelines. Additional clinical data were extracted from published literature. The pharmacoeconomic threshold set for medical interventions within Iran's healthcare system was $1,500. A decision tree model was designed from the perspective of Iran's healthcare system with a one-year study horizon. Sensitivity analyses were also performed to assess the uncertainty of input parameters. Results: The utility scores derived from the questionnaire for standard and pharmacogenomics-guided warfarin treatments were 0.68 and 0.76, respectively. Genotype-guided dosing of warfarin was more costly compared to the standard dosing ($246 vs $69), and the calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was $2474 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. One-way sensitivity analyses showed that our model is sensitive to the percentage of time in the therapeutic range (PTTR), the cost of genetic tests, and the utility of both pharmacogenomics-guided and standard dosing arms. However, the probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrates the robustness of our model. Conclusions: Warfarin dosing with pharmacogenomics testing is currently not cost-effective. However, if the cost of genotyping tests decreases to $118, the ICER would become cost-effective.

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.

Adverse event costs of systemic therapies for metastatic colorectal cancer previously treated with fluoropyrimidine-, oxaliplatin- and irinotecan-based chemotherapy and biologics in the US.

Aim: The objective of this study was to compare adverse event (AE) management costs for fruquintinib, regorafenib, trifluridine/tipiracil (T/T) and trifluridine/tipiracil+bevacizumab (T/T+bev) for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) previously treated with at least two prior lines of therapy from the US commercial and Medicare payer perspectives. Materials & methods: A cost-consequence model was developed to calculate the per-patient and per-patient-per-month (PPPM) AE costs using rates of grade 3/4 AEs with incidence ≥5% in clinical trials, event-specific management costs and duration treatment. Anchored comparisons of AE costs were calculated using a difference-in-differences approach with best supportive care (BSC) as a common reference. AE rates and treatment duration were obtained from clinical trials: FRESCO and FRESCO-2 (fruquintinib), RECOURSE (T/T), CORRECT (regorafenib) and SUNLIGHT (T/T, T/T+bev). AE management costs for the commercial and Medicare perspectives were obtained from publicly available sources. Results: From the commercial perspective, the AE costs (presented as per-patient, PPPM) were: $4015, $1091 for fruquintinib (FRESCO); $4253, $1390 for fruquintinib (FRESCO-2); $17,110, $11,104 for T/T (RECOURSE); $9851, $4691 for T/T (SUNLIGHT); $8199, $4823 for regorafenib; and $11,620, $2324 for T/T+bev. These results were consistent in anchored comparisons: the difference-in-difference for fruquintinib based on FRESCO was -$1929 versus regorafenib and -$11,427 versus T/T; for fruquintinib based on FRESCO-2 was -$2257 versus regorafenib and -$11,756 versus T/T. Across all analyses, results were consistent from the Medicare perspective. Conclusion: Fruquintinib was associated with lower AE management costs compared with regorafenib, T/T and T/T+bev for patients with previously treated mCRC. This evidence has direct implications for treatment, formulary and pathways decision-making in this patient population.

Unraveling elements of value-based pricing from a pharmaceutical industry's perspective: a scoping review.

Health authorities use value-based pricing models to determine the value of innovative drugs and to establish a price. Pharmaceutical companies prefer value-based pricing over cost-based pricing. It is ambiguous whether value-based pricing has the same meaning to these stakeholders. We aimed to identify the elements that attribute to value-based pricing of innovative drugs from a pharmaceutical industry's perspective and as possible starting point for (value-based) contracting of drugs. We performed a scoping review of publications available in scientific databases with terms such as 'value-based pricing', 'pharmacoeconomics', 'drug cost', 'innovative drug' and 'drug therapy'. We included 31 publications, covering value elements of innovative drugs from a pharmaceutical industry's perspective. Overall, all found elements of value-based pricing were congruent with the elements of value-based pricing from a health authority's perspective. However, the emphasis placed on the elements differed. The most frequently mentioned elements in our review were economic considerations and cost aspects. Least mentioned were elements regarding cost-effectiveness, disease characteristics and patient characteristics. Although all elements in the drug value framework were present which indicate congruity, there seems controversy on the importance of cost-effectiveness as an element of value. Consequently, establishing a coherent and to all stakeholders' acceptable framework to value and price innovative drugs seems complicated. Mutual understanding can be found in the value elements societal considerations and healthcare process benefits. Our results supported the importance of economic and cost aspects regarding determination of prices of innovative drugs. Further research is required to quantify the weights of all relevant elements in the drug value framework, observe their possible interlinkages, and to weigh them over time.

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.

Asciminib for third-line treatment of chronic myeloid leukemia: Cost-effectiveness analysis based on treatment-free remission approach. / [Artículo traducido] Asciminib para el tratamiento de la leucemia mieloide crónica en tercera línea: análisis coste-efectividad basado en el enfoque de remisión libre de tratamiento.

INTRODUCTION: The first targeted therapy in oncology, imatinib, revolutionized chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) treatment and spurred research in targeted therapies for various cancers. CML results from a chromosomal translocation, forming the BCR-ABL1 fusion gene. Asciminib has been recently approved for 3rd-line refractory or intolerant patients. Treatment-free remission (TFR) is attainable with sustained deep molecular response (DMR) and this approach could be incorporated into pharmacoeconomic models. AIMS: To establish a cost-effectiveness model comparing asciminib to approved third-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) (bosutinib and ponatinib) with a focus on achieving TFR. Additionally, the budgetary impact of incorporating asciminib as a therapeutic alternative is assessed. METHODS: This model is based on a Markov chain with seven states. The condition for achieving TFR is to remain for 5 years in DMR state. Efficacy of the model was measured in QALYs, and the costs included in the base case analysis are based in Spain. A probabilistic (PSA) and deterministic analysis (DSA) were carried out to assess the variability of the model. There were achieved two independent models comparing asciminib vs. bosutinib and asciminib vs. ponatinib. RESULTS: Asciminib, when compared with ponatinib, is a cost-saving alternative, as efficacy is similar between alternatives, and asciminib has a lower cost of 30,275 €. Asciminib showed 4.33 more QALYs and a higher cost (203,591 €) than bosutinib, resulting in an ICER of €47,010.49 per QALY. PSA shows that the parameters with higher influence in the variability of the model were the probability of transitioning to BP and probabilities of achieving MMR and DMR. A one-way analysis reports that the drug cost has a higher influence on both models, and the discount rate significantly affects the asciminib vs. bosutinib model. CONCLUSION: Asciminib broadens therapeutic choices for patient's refractory or intolerant to two prior lines of treatment in a cost-effective manner. The costs of drugs significantly impact the overall cost of the disease, emphasizing the importance of the selected discount rates for each drug. Given the relatively low incidence of CML, the introduction of asciminib has a limited budgetary impact, warranting individualized decisions based on patient`s clinical characteristics.

Cost-efficiency and budget-neutral expanded access modeling of pembrolizumab versus the novel PD-1 inhibitor toripalimab in locally advanced or metastatic nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer.

AIMS: To estimate in a panel of patients with locally advanced/metastatic nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with a programmed death receptor-1 inhibitor in the US in 2024 (1) the cost-efficiency of toripalimab regimens compared to pembrolizumab regimens; and (2) the budget-neutral expanded access to additional toripalimab cycles and regimens from accrued savings. METHODS: Simulation modeling of toripalimab + pemetrexed + carboplatin in nonsquamous NSCLC to a similar pembrolizumab regimen in a panel of 49,647 patients; utilizing two cost inputs (wholesale acquisition cost (WAC) at market entry and an estimated ex ante toripalimab price point of 80% of pembrolizumab average sales price (ASP)) plus administration costs over one and two years of treatment with treatment rates from 1%-10%. Scenario analyses with treatment durations equivalent to toripalimab and pembrolizumab trials' median PFS were also conducted. RESULTS: In the WAC-based models, toripalimab saves $2,223 per patient per cycle and $40,014 over 1 year of treatment ($77,805 over 2 years). Extrapolated to the 49,647-patient panel, estimated 1-year savings range from $19,865,840 (1% treatment rate) to $198,658,399 (10% rate). Reallocating these savings permits budget-neutral expanded access to an additional 1,753 (1% rate) to 17,533 (10% rate) toripalimab maintenance cycles or to an additional 97 (1% rate) to 972 (10%) full 1-year toripalimab regimens with all agents. Two-year savings range from $38,628,022 (1% rate) to $386,280,221 (10%). Reallocating these efficiencies provides expanded access ranging from 3,409 (1% rate) to 34,093 (10%) additional toripalimab cycles or to 97 to 973 full 2-year regimens. The ex ante ASP model showed similar results as did the scenario analyses but at a lower magnitude than the base case. CONCLUSION: Toripalimab generates significant savings that enable budget-neutral funding for up to 17,533 [34,093] additional maintenance cycles over one year [two years] with toripalimab + pemetrexed in nonsquamous NSCLC, or 972 [973] full one-year [two-year] regimens.

An estimated 49,647 patients with advanced or metastatic nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) will be treated with a PD-1 inhibitor in the US in 2024. Toripalimab, a PD-1 inhibitor recently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of nasopharyngeal carcinoma, has also been found to be beneficial in patients with nonsquamous NSCLC when used in combination with chemotherapy. We conducted an economic simulation of the costs of toripalimab + pemetrexed + carboplatin versus the costs of a similar regimen with the PD-1 inhibitor pembrolizumab in the treatment of patients with nonsquamous NSCLC. Our simulation models used two US cost inputs for toripalimab: the wholesale acquisition cost or "list price" at market entry and, as no average sales price (ASP) will be available for toripalimab for several quarters, a hypothetical toripalimab price point of 80% of the pembrolizumab ASP. We compared the savings in each scenario when between 1% and 10% of the 49,647 nonsquamous NSCLC patients are treated with the toripalimab regimen. We then evaluated how these savings could be re-allocated, without requiring extra funding, to provide more patients with access to toripalimab treatment on a budget-neutral basis. We found that, if 1% of new cases of advanced/metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC were treated with toripalimab for 1 year, these savings are enough to purchase up to 1,753 additional toripalimab maintenance cycles; or these savings could provide up to an additional 97 patients with full one-year regimens with all agents (toripalimab + chemotherapy). If 10% of new cases were treated with toripalimab for 1 year, the savings are enough to purchase up to 17,533 additional toripalimab maintenance cycles; or these savings could provide up to an additional 972 patients with full one-year regimens with all agents.

Tumor-Homing Peptides as Crucial Component of Magnetic-Based Delivery Systems: Recent Developments and Pharmacoeconomical Perspective.

According to data from the World Health Organization (WHO), cancer is considered to be one of the leading causes of death worldwide, and new therapeutic approaches, especially improved novel cancer treatment regimens, are in high demand. Considering that many chemotherapeutic drugs tend to have poor pharmacokinetic profiles, including rapid clearance and limited on-site accumulation, a combined approach with tumor-homing peptide (THP)-functionalized magnetic nanoparticles could lead to remarkable improvements. This is confirmed by an increasing number of papers in this field, showing that the on-target peptide functionalization of magnetic nanoparticles improves their penetration properties and ensures tumor-specific binding, which results in an increased clinical response. This review aims to highlight the potential applications of THPs in combination with magnetic carriers across various fields, including a pharmacoeconomic perspective.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of bevacizumab for cerebral radiation necrosis treatment based on real-world utility value in China.

BACKGROUND: Bevacizumab shows superior efficacy in cerebral radiation necrosis (CRN) therapy, but its economic burden remains heavy due to the high drug price. This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab for CRN treatment from the Chinese payers' perspective. METHODS: A decision tree model was developed to compare the costs and health outcomes of bevacizumab and corticosteroids for CRN therapy. Efficacy and safety data were derived from the NCT01621880 trial, which compared the effectiveness and safety of bevacizumab monotherapy with corticosteroids for CRN in nasopharyngeal cancer patients, and demonstrated that bevacizumab invoked a significantly higher response than corticosteroids (65.5% vs. 31.5%, P < 0.001) with no significant differences in adverse events between two groups. The utility value of the "non-recurrence" status was derived from real-world data. Costs and other utility values were collected from an authoritative Chinese network database and published literature. The primary outcomes were total costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The uncertainty of the model was evaluated via one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Bevacizumab treatment added 0.12 (0.48 vs. 0.36) QALYs compared to corticosteroid therapy, along with incremental costs of $ 2010 ($ 4260 vs. $ 2160). The resultant ICER was $ 16,866/QALY, which was lower than the willingness-to-pay threshold of $ 38,223/QALY in China. The price of bevacizumab, body weight, and the utility value of recurrence status were the key influential parameters for ICER. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed that the probability of bevacizumab being cost-effectiveness was 84.9%. CONCLUSION: Compared with corticosteroids, bevacizumab is an economical option for CRN treatment in China.

Impact of the genomic signature of 70-genes for breast cancer in the public system and in supplementary health care in a country of medium socioeconomic development.

INTRODUCTION: The financial impact of breast cancer has been discussed due to its high incidence and the increased costs of systemic therapy and is even more relevant in countries with low and medium socioeconomic development. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the financial viability of using the MammaPrint™ (MP) genetic signature in a public and private system in a country with a medium socioeconomic development index. MATERIAL AND METHOD: A pharmacoeconomic trial with a cost-benefit analysis evaluating the reduction in costs of chemotherapy, support drugs, and materials used during chemotherapy infusion in high-risk hormone receptor-positive (HR+) breast cancer patients submitted to analysis using the MammaPrint™ genetic signature. RESULTS: The value of using MammaPrint™ in the Unified Health System (SUS) would bring an additional cost of US$ 1,334.56 per patient in the over-50 age group. In private medicine, the use of MammaPrint™ in the same population would result in cost savings ranging from US$ 2,422.53 to US$ 9,989.95 per patient. CONCLUSION: The use of MP in RH + breast cancer patients with high clinical risk and low genomic risk in Brazil leads to significant savings in resources when applied to supplementary healthcare. In the SUS, reducing the costs of MP for large-scale use could make its application viable. These values need to be re-evaluated in each institution, using the methodology applied in the trial, adjusting according to costs, to obtain a result that reflects its reality.

Economic cost-benefit analysis of person-centred medicines reviews by general practice pharmacists.

BACKGROUND: Medicines reviews by general practice pharmacists improve patient outcomes, but little is known about the associated economic outcomes, particularly in patients at higher risk of medicines-related harm. AIM: To conduct an economic cost-benefit analysis of pharmacists providing person-centred medicines reviews to patients with hyperpolypharmacy (prescribed ≥ 10 regular medicines) and/or at high risk of medicines-related harm across multiple general practice settings. METHOD: Service delivery costs were calculated based on the pharmacist's salary, recorded timings, and a general practitioner fee. Direct cost savings were calculated from the cost change of patients' medicines post review, projected over 1 year. Indirect savings were calculated using two models, a population-based model for avoidance of hospital admissions due to adverse drug reactions and an intervention-based model applying a probability of adverse drug reaction avoidance. Sensitivity analyses were performed using varying workday scenarios. RESULTS: Based on 1471 patients (88.4% with hyperpolypharmacy), the cost of service delivery was €153 per review. Using the population-based model, net cost savings ranging from €198 to €288 per patient review and from €73,317 to €177,696 per annum per pharmacist were calculated. Using the intervention-based model, net cost savings of €651-€741 per review, with corresponding annual savings of €240,870-€457,197 per annum per pharmacist, were calculated. Savings ratios ranged from 181 to 584% across all models and inputs. CONCLUSION: Person-centred medicines reviews by general practice pharmacists for patients at high risk of medicines-related harm result in substantial cost savings. Wider investment in general practice pharmacists will be beneficial to minimise both patient harm and healthcare system expenditure.

Informing evidence-based medicine for opioid use disorder using pharmacoeconomic studies.

INTRODUCTION: The health and economic consequences of inadequately treated opioid use disorder (OUD) are substantial. Healthcare systems in the United States (US) and other countries are facing a growing healthcare crisis due to opioids. Although effective medications for OUD exist, relying solely on clinical information is insufficient for addressing the opioid crisis. AREAS COVERED: In this review, the role of pharmacoeconomic studies in informing evidence-based medication treatment for OUD is discussed, with a particular emphasis on the US healthcare system, where the economic burden is significantly higher than the global average. The scope/objective of pharmacoeconomics as a distinct scientific research program is briefly defined, followed by a discussion of existing evidence informed by data from systematic reviews, in addition to a convenience sample of recently published pharmacoeconomic studies and protocols. The review also explores the need for methodological advancements in the field. EXPERT OPINION: Despite the potential of pharmacoeconomic research in shaping evidence-based medicine for OUD, significant challenges limiting its real-world application remain. How to address these challenges are explored, including how to combine cost-effectiveness and budget impact analyses to address the needs of the healthcare system as a whole and specific stakeholders interested in adopting new OUD treatment strategies.

Optimising oncology drug expenditure in Ireland.

A combination of improvements in patient survival, increasing treatment duration, and the development of more expensive agents has led to a doubling of per-capita spending on cancer medicines in Ireland (2008-2018). Despite this, access to new drugs is poor in comparison to other EU countries. We examine methods to optimise oncology drug spending to facilitate access to newer anticancer agents. Key targets for spending optimisation (biosimilar use, clinical trials and expanded access programs, waste reduction, avoidance of futile treatment, and altered drug scheduling) were identified through an exploratory analysis. A structured literature search was performed, with a focus on articles relevant to the Irish Healthcare system, supplemented by reports from statutory bodies. At the present time, EMA-approved agents are available once approved by the NCPE. Optimising drug costs occurs through guideline-based practice and biosimilar integration, the latter provides €80 million in cost savings annually. Access to novel therapies can occur via over 50 clinical trials and 28 currently available expanded access programmes. Additional strategies include reversion to weight-based immunotherapy dosing, potentially saving €400,000 per year in our centre alone, vial sharing, and optimisation of treatment schedules. A variety of techniques are being employed by oncologists to optimise costs and increase access to innovation for patients. Use of biosimilars, drug wastage, and prescribing at end of life should be audited as key performance indicators, which may lead to reflective practice on treatment planning. Such measures could further optimise oncology drug expenditure nationally facilitating approval of new agents.