Preventive drug treatments for adults with chronic migraine: a systematic review with economic modelling.

Background: Chronic migraine is a disabling condition, affecting 2-4% of adults globally. With the introduction of expensive calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies, it is timely to compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of preventive drugs for chronic migraine. Objective: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of medications used for chronic migraine through systematic reviews and economic modelling. Eligibility criteria: Randomised controlled trials of drug treatments for efficacy with > 100 participants with chronic migraine per arm; for adverse events > 100 participants with episodic or chronic migraine per arm. Previous economic analyses of preventive drugs for chronic migraine. Data sources: Eight databases. Reviews methods: Systematic reviews, network meta-analysis and economic modelling. Outcomes: Monthly headache days, monthly migraine days, headache-related quality of life, cost-effectiveness. Results: We found 51 individual articles, reporting 11 randomised controlled trials, testing 6 drugs (topiramate, Botox, eptinezumab, erenumab, fremanezumab, galcanezumab), versus placebo, on 7352 adults with chronic migraine. Calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies, Botox and topiramate reduced headache/migraine days by 2.0-2.5, just under two, or by less than 1.5 days per month, respectively. In the network meta-analysis, eptinezumab 300 mg and fremanezumab monthly ranked in first place in both monthly headache day and monthly migraine day analyses. The calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies were consistently the best choices for headache/migraine days and headache-related quality of life. Topiramate was very unlikely to be the best choice for headache/migraine days and headache-related quality of life when compared to calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies or Botox. We found no trials of the commonly used drugs, such as propranolol or amitriptyline, to include in the analysis. The adverse events review included 40 randomised controlled trials with 25,891 participants; 3 additional drugs, amitriptyline, atogepant and rimegepant, were included. There were very few serious adverse events - none of which were linked to the use of these medications. Adverse events were common. Most people using some calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies reported injection site issues; and people using topiramate or amitriptyline had nervous system or gastrointestinal issues. The cost-effectiveness review identified 16 studies evaluating chronic migraine medications in adults. The newer, injected drugs are more costly than the oral preventatives, but they were cost-effective. Our economic model showed that topiramate was the least costly option and had the fewest quality-adjusted life-year gains, whereas eptinezumab 300 mg was more costly but generated the most quality-adjusted life-year gains. The cost-effectiveness acceptability frontier showed that topiramate was the most cost-effective medication if the decision maker is willing to pay up to £50,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Our consensus workshop brought together people with chronic migraine and headache experts. Consensus was reached on the top three recommendations for future research on medications to prevent chronic migraine: (1) calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies and Botox versus calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies, (2) candesartan versus placebo and (3) flunarizine versus placebo. Limitations: Topiramate was the only oral drug for which we were able to include data. We did not find sufficient quality evidence to support the use of other oral drugs. Conclusions: We did not find evidence that the calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies are more clinically and cost-effective when compared to topiramate or Botox. We identified directions for future research these drugs might take. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42021265990, CRD42021265993 and CRD42021265995. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR132803) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 63. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Chronic migraine is a disabling condition that can destroy work and family life. Treatments include cheap tablets (e.g. amitriptyline, propranolol and topiramate), Botox and expensive new drugs (the calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies). It is not known which of these drugs is the best choice. We wanted to find out which of these drugs works best. We wanted to know if they reduced the number of headache/migraine days and improved headache-related quality of life, how many side effects people experienced, and if they provided good value for the National Health Service. We first looked for research comparing these drugs to placebo (fake) drugs, and to each other. We then worked out which provide best value for money. Calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies reduced headache/migraine days by 2.0­2.5 days per month; Botox reduced headache/migraine days per month by around 1.9; and topiramate reduced headache/migraine days by 1.1­1.5 days per month. Many people taking topiramate or amitriptyline have nervous system and/or stomach/bowel side effects. Some people using calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies reported side effects associated with injections. Some calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies and Botox provide worthwhile benefits on headache-related quality of life. We were not able to identify any studies of sufficient quality to assess the effectiveness of other oral drugs. The best value drug was topiramate which gave better health outcomes at a lower cost than the placebos. After sharing the results with a panel of people with chronic migraine and headache experts, we identified a need for new studies comparing commonly used cheap oral drugs with placebo, Botox and calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies.

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-effectiveness analysis of immune checkpoint inhibitors as first-line therapy in advanced biliary tract cancer.

Aim: To assess the cost-effectiveness of immune checkpoint inhibitors as first-line treatments for advanced biliary tract cancer (BTC).Methods: This pharmacoeconomic evaluation employed the fractional polynomial network meta-analysis and partitioned survival model. Costs and utilities were collected from the literature and databases. Sensitivity analyses were used to examine uncertainties.Results: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of first-line treatment strategies were $761,371.37 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) or $206,222.53/QALY in the US and $354,678.79 /QALY or $213,874.22/QALY in China, respectively. The sensitivity analysis results were largely consistent with the base case.Conclusion: From the US and Chinese payer perspectives, adding durvalumab or pembrolizumab to chemotherapy is unlikely to be cost effective in the first-line setting for advanced BTC.

[Box: see text].

Cost-effectiveness analysis of biologic sequential treatments for moderate-to-severe psoriasis: A Malaysian healthcare system perspective.

OBJECTIVE: In Malaysia, there is now a dearth of recommendations pertaining to the priority of biologic treatments for the effective management of psoriasis, given the multitude of available therapeutic alternatives. Present analysis reports results of a cost-effectiveness model that determines the most optimal arrangement of biologic treatments, with a particular focus of adding biosimilars to the existing treatment pathway for psoriasis in Malaysia. METHODS: A Markov model was developed to compare the cost effectiveness of various biologic sequential treatments in a hypothetical cohort of moderate to severe psoriasis patient in Malaysia over a lifetime horizon. The model simulated the progression of patients through three lines of active biologic therapy, before transitioning to best supportive care. Costs and effects were discounted annually at a rate of 3%. RESULTS: First line secukinumab has produced lowest incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICERs) when compared to first line systemic [ICERs value; US$152,474 (first set analysis) and US$110,572 (second set analysis)] and first line phototherapy [ICERs value; US$147,057 (first set analysis) and US$107,616 (second set analysis)]. However, these values were slightly higher than the Malaysian based threshold of three times gross domestic product per capita, US$104,337. A 40% reduction in the unit costs of reference biologics renders most of the evaluated treatment sequences cost-effective. CONCLUSION: Adding biosimilar to the current treatment sequence could achieve cost savings ranging from 4.3% to 10.8% without significant loss of effectiveness. Given the significant impact of comorbidities and the resulting decline in quality of life among individuals with psoriasis, it may be justifiable to establish a threshold of up to US$184,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) for the provision of therapies in the context of Malaysia.

Modelling the potential clinical and economic impact of universal immunisation with nirsevimab versus standard of practice for protecting all neonates and infants in their first respiratory syncytial virus season in Spain.

BACKGROUND: Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is associated with substantial morbidity among infants. This study modelled the potential public health and economic impact of nirsevimab, a long-acting monoclonal antibody, as an immunoprophylactic strategy for all infants in Spain in their first RSV season. METHODS: A static decision-analytic model of the Spanish birth cohort during its first RSV season was developed to estimate the impact of nirsevimab on RSV-related health events and costs versus the standard of practice (SoP). Spain-specific costs and epidemiological data were used as model inputs. Modelled outcomes included RSV-related outpatient visits, emerging room (ER) visits, hospitalisations - including pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) admission, mechanical ventilation, and inpatient mortality. RESULTS: Under the current SoP, RSV caused 151,741 primary care visits, 38,798 ER visits, 12,889 hospitalisations, 1,412 PICU admissions, and 16 deaths over a single season, representing a cost of €71.8 million from a healthcare payer perspective. Universal immunisation of all infants with nirsevimab was expected to prevent 97,157 primary care visits (64.0% reduction), 24,789 ER visits (63.9%), 8,185 hospitalisations (63.5%), 869 PICU admissions (61.5%), and 9 inpatient deaths (52.6%), saving €47.8 million (62.4%) in healthcare costs. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that immunisation with nirsevimab of all infants experiencing their first RSV season in Spain is likely to prevent thousands of RSV-related health events and save considerable costs versus the current SoP.

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.

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.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of the tislelizumab versus docetaxel for advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer in China.

Background: Tislelizumab is the first PD-1 inhibitor in China to demonstrate superior efficacy in second-line or third-line treatment of patients with advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of tislelizumab compared to docetaxel from a Chinese healthcare system perspective. Methods: A dynamic Markov model was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of tislelizumab in comparison to docetaxel in second or third-line treatment. The efficacy data utilized in the model were derived from the RATIONALE-303 clinical trial, while cost and utility values were obtained from the drug data service platform and published studies. The primary outcomes of the model encompassed quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were conducted to validate the robustness of the base case analysis results. Results: The tislelizumab group demonstrated a cost increase of CNY 117,473 and a gain of 0.58 QALYs compared to the docetaxel group, resulting in an ICER value of CNY 202,927 per QALY gained. Conclusion: The administration of tislelizumab in patients with advanced or metastatic NSCLC not only extends the progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Moreover, this treatment demonstrates a favorable cost-effectiveness profile across the Chinese population.

Health care resource utilization and direct costs incurred over 24 months after initiating galcanezumab or standard-of-care preventive migraine treatments in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Health care resource utilization (HCRU) and direct costs incurred over 12 months following initiation of galcanezumab (GMB) or standard-of-care (SOC) preventive migraine treatments have been evaluated. However, a gap in knowledge exists in understanding longer-term HCRU and direct costs. OBJECTIVE: To compare all-cause and migraine-related HCRU and direct costs in patients with migraine initiating GMB or SOC preventive migraine treatments over a 24-month follow-up. METHODS: This retrospective study used Optum deidentified Market Clarity Data. The study included adults diagnosed with migraine, with at least 1 claim for GMB or SOC preventive migraine therapy (September 2018 to March 2020), with continuous enrollment for 12 months before and 24 months after (follow-up) the index date (date of first GMB or SOC claim). Propensity score (PS) matching (1:1) was used to balance cohorts. All-cause and migraine-related HCRU and direct costs for GMB vs SOC cohorts were reported as mean (SD) per patient per year (PPPY) over a 24-month follow-up and compared using a Z-test. Costs were inflated to 2022 US$. RESULTS: After PS matching, 2,307 patient pairs (mean age: 44.4 years; female sex: 87.3%) were identified. Compared with the SOC cohort, the GMB cohort had lower mean (SD) PPPY all-cause office visits (17.9 [17.7] vs 19.1 [18.7]; P = 0.023) and migraine-related office visits (2.6 [3.3] vs 3.0 [4.7]; P = 0.002) at follow-up. No significant differences were observed between cohorts in other all-cause and migraine-related events assessed including outpatient visits, emergency department (ED) visits, inpatient stays, and other medical visits. The mean (SD) costs PPPY were lower in the GMB cohort compared with the SOC cohort for all-cause office visits ($4,321 [7,518] vs $5,033 [7,211]; P < 0.001) at follow-up. However, the GMB cohort had higher mean (SD) PPPY all-cause total costs ($24,704 [30,705] vs $21,902 [28,213]; P = 0.001) and pharmacy costs ($9,507 [12,659] vs $5,623 [12,605]; P < 0.001) compared with the SOC cohort. Mean (SD) costs PPPY were lower in the GMB cohort for migraine-related office visits ($806 [1,690] vs $1,353 [2,805]; P < 0.001) compared with the SOC cohort. However, the GMB cohort had higher mean (SD) PPPY migraine-related total costs ($8,248 [11,486] vs $5,047 [9,749]; P < 0.001) and migraine-related pharmacy costs ($5,394 [3,986] vs $1,761 [4,133]; P < 0.001) compared with the SOC cohort. There were no significant differences between cohorts in all-cause and migraine-related costs for outpatient visits, ED visits, inpatient stays, and other medical visits. CONCLUSIONS: Although total costs were greater for GMB vs SOC following initiation, changes in a few categories of all-cause and migraine-related HCRU and direct costs were lower for GMB over a 24-month follow-up. Additional analysis evaluating indirect health care costs may offer insights into further cost savings incurred with preventive migraine treatment.

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.

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.

Budget Impact of Disease-Modifying Treatments and a CRISPR Gene-Edited Therapy for Sickle Cell Disease.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Treatment of sickle cell disease (SCD) has traditionally focused on symptomatic and preventative care. Recent advances in novel therapeutic developments, likely to be orphan-designated, are anticipated to carry a substantial price tag. This study assesses the potential budget impact of adopting disease-modifying treatments, crizanlizumab and voxelotor, and pioneering CRISPR gene-edited therapy, CTX001, in the Belgian healthcare system. METHODS: The perspective of the Belgian healthcare payer (RIZIV-INAMI including patient copayments), a 5-year horizon with a 2-10% uptake of disease-modifying interventions, and a 2% uptake of CTX001 were considered. Data, encompassing target population, current (chronic and acute management, curative hematopoietic stem cell transplantation) and new (crizanlizumab, voxelotor, and CTX001) interventions, clinical effectiveness, adverse events, healthcare resource utilization, and associated costs, were gathered through a comprehensive literature review (first phase) and two Delphi panels involving hematologists (second phase). The cost difference between a "world with and without crizanlizumab, voxelotor, and CTX001" was calculated to obtain the budget impact. Three scenario analyses were conducted: a 5-13% and 4% uptake analysis, a 10-18% and 8% uptake analysis, respectively for disease-modifying treatments (crizanlizumab and voxelotor) and CTX001, and a 0% crizanlizumab uptake and managed entry agreements analysis . A ± 20% univariate sensitivity analysis was performed to test the robustness of the analysis. RESULTS: The total five-year cumulative budget impact was estimated at €30,024,968, with 91% attributed to drug acquisition costs. The largest budget impact share was for CTX001 (€25,575,150), while crizanlizumab (€2,301,095) and voxelotor (€2,148,723) was relatively small. In scenarios one and three, a two-fold increase of the cumulative budget impact to €60,731,772 and a four-fold increase to €120,846,256 from the base case was observed. In scenario three, this budget impact decreased by 63% to €11,212,766. Patient population size, number of treated patients, and drug costs influenced the analysis the most, while discontinuation, acute crisis, and adverse event rates had comparatively minimal impact. CONCLUSIONS: Belgian decision-makers may consider alternative financing models, such as outcome-based risk-sharing agreements or annuities, to ensure sustainable coverage of these treatments. This study adheres to recommended practices for assessing budget impact of orphan drugs, distinguishing it from earlier studies with potentially weaker methodologies.

Health and Economic Outcomes of Pembrolizumab in the Treatment of Metastatic Non-small Cell Lung Cancer (mNSCLC) and Melanoma in Italy.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: In Italy, the management of metastatic non-small cell lung cancer and melanoma leads to significant healthcare challenges, necessitating cost-effective treatment strategies and offering valuable insights for healthcare policymakers and stakeholders. This study was designed to assess the costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) associated with the health and economic outcomes of (1) pembrolizumab-combined chemotherapy administered as a first-line treatment for metastatic non-squamous and squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) where the tumour presents with a programmed death-ligand 1 expression level < 50% and of (2) adjuvant pembrolizumab treatment for stage III melanoma. METHODS: Three cost-effectiveness models developed by MSD were investigated for each treatment indication. A unique model was built to assess the overall effect of pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy or watchful waiting in patients with lung cancer or melanoma, respectively. Theoretical cohorts of patients with metastatic squamous and non-squamous NSCLC were followed over time using a partitioned survival model with weekly cycles. A weekly cycle Markov model was employed for melanoma. The analysis was conducted from the Italian National Health Service perspective, considering a time horizon of 40 years (lifetime). A single closed cohort of treatable patients was followed over time for each indication (4000, 7000 and 900 for NSCLC squamous, non-squamous and melanoma, respectively). The costs evaluated included those for adverse drug events, non-drug disease management, subsequent treatment and terminal care. Drug acquisition and administration costs were excluded. RESULTS: For each treatment indication assessed, pembrolizumab produced downstream direct cost offsets (- €122,498,568, - €133,369,076 and - €32,993,242 for NSCLC squamous, non-squamous and melanoma indications, respectively), increased quality of life (+2088, +5317 and +2307 QALYs for NSCLC squamous, non-squamous and melanoma indications, respectively) and reduced disability (- 2658, - 7202 and - 3029 DALYs for NSCLC squamous, non-squamous and melanoma indications, respectively). Across indications, the total cost offsets of pembrolizumab were - €288,860,885, with 9712 QALYs gained and 12,889 DALYs avoided. CONCLUSIONS: The analysis demonstrated that, compared with chemotherapy, pembrolizumab is more cost effective in Italy as a first-line treatment in patients with metastatic squamous or non-squamous NSCLC and, if compared with watchful waiting, as adjuvant treatment in patients with stage III melanoma. The present analysis suggested that pembrolizumab use could lead to important health benefits for patients while offsetting a portion of cancer care costs.

Sequential interleukin-17 inhibitors for moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis who have an IL-17 inhibitors failure in a resource limited country: An economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Biologics has been known to be effective for patients with psoriasis. However, optimal treatment pathways and their cost-effectiveness are limited in a resource-limited country. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of different sequential biologics for moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis. METHOD: A hybrid model from a societal perspective was used. Model inputs were derived from network meta-analysis, clinical trials, and published literature. Three different sequential biologic treatments were assessed; Sequence 1; 1st Interleukin-17 (IL-17) inhibitor (secukinumab) followed by 2nd IL-17 inhibitors (ixekizumab or brodalumab), then 3rd IL-23 inhibitor (guselkumab), Sequence 2; ixekizumab followed by secukinumab or brodalumab, then guselkumab, and Sequence 3; brodalumab followed by ixekizumab or secukinumab, then guselkumab. Methotrexate or ciclosporin was used as standard of care (SoC). RESULTS: All three different sequential biologic therapies could gain total quality-adjusted life year (QALY), but they had higher cost than SoC. Sequence 1 had the lowest incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) compared to SoC at 621,373 THB/QALY (19,449 $/QALY). ICER for Sequence 2 was 957,258 THB/QALY (29,962 $/QALY), while that for Sequence 3 was 1,332,262 THB/QALY (41,700 $/QALY). Fully incremental analysis indicated that Sequence 3 was dominated by Sequence 1 and Sequence 2. ICER for Sequence 2 was 7,206,104 THB/QALY (225,551 $/QALY) when compared to Sequence 1. CONCLUSION: At the current willingness-to-pay of 160,000 THB/QALY, no sequential IL-17 inhibitor was cost-effective compared to SoC. Secukinumab followed by ixekizumab or brodalumab then guselkumab (Sequence 1) may be the most appropriate option compared with other treatments.

Geographic and economic influences on benralizumab prescribing for severe asthma in Japan.

Benralizumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting IL-5 receptors, reduces exacerbations and oral corticosteroid requirements for severe, uncontrolled eosinophilic asthma. In Japan, geographic disparities in asthma outcomes suggest differential prescribing and access. This study aimed to quantify regional prescribing variations for benralizumab nationwide. Using Japan's National Database (NDB) of insurance claims (2009-2019), benralizumab standardized claim ratios (SCRs) were calculated for 47 prefectures. Correlations between SCRs and other biologics' SCRs, economic variables like average income, and physician densities were evaluated through univariate analysis and multivariate regressions. Income-related barriers to optimal prescribing were examined. Wide variation emerged in benralizumab SCRs, from 40.1 to 184.2 across prefectures. SCRs strongly correlated with omalizumab (r = 0.61, p < 0.00001) and mepolizumab (r = 0.43, p = 0.0024). Average monthly income also positively correlated with benralizumab SCRs (r = 0.45, p = 0.0016), whereas lifestyle factors were insignificant. Respiratory specialist density modestly correlated with SCRs (r = 0.29, p = 0.047). In multivariate regressions, average income remained the most robust predictor (B = 0.74, p = 0.022). Benralizumab SCRs strongly associate with income metrics more than healthcare infrastructure/population factors. Many regions show low SCRs, constituting apparent prescribing gaps. Access barriers for advanced asthma therapies remain inequitable among Japan's income strata. Addressing affordability alongside specialist allocation can achieve better prescribing quality and asthma outcomes.

Modelling the opportunity for cost-savings or patient access with biosimilar adalimumab and tocilizumab: a European perspective.

OBJECTIVES: Biosimilars improve patient access by providing cost-effective treatment options. This study assessed the potential for savings and expanded patient access with increased use of two biosimilar disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs): (a) approved adalimumab biosimilars and (b) the first tocilizumab biosimilar, representing an established biosimilar field and a recent biosimilar entrant in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom (UK). METHODS: Separate ex-ante analyses were conducted for each country, parameterized using country-specific list prices, unit volumes annually, and market shares for each therapy. Discounting scenarios of 10%, 20%, and 30% were tested for tocilizumab. Outputs included direct cost-savings associated with drug acquisition or the incremental number of patients that could be treated if savings were redirected. Two biosimilar conversion scenarios were tested. RESULTS: Savings associated with a 100% conversion to adalimumab biosimilar ranged from €10.5 to €187 million (UK and Germany, respectively), or an additional 1,096 to 19,454 patients that could be treated using the cost-savings. Introduction of a tocilizumab biosimilar provided savings up to €29.3 million in the most conservative scenario. Exclusive use of tocilizumab biosimilars (at a 30% discount) could increase savings to €28.8 to €113 million or expand access to an additional 43% of existing tocilizumab users across countries. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates the benefits that can be realized through increased biosimilar adoption, not only in an untapped tocilizumab market, but also through incremental increases in well-established markets such as adalimumab. As healthcare budgets continue to face downwards pressure globally, strategies to increase biosimilar market share could prove useful to help manage financial constraints.

Italian healthcare resource consumptions and direct costs of adults with atopic dermatitis before and after dupilumab treatment.

BACKGROUND: Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a heterogeneous disease, associated with comorbidities, and high healthcare consumptions and costs. This study assessed the burden before and after treatment with dupilumab in adults with severe AD from 2018 to 2020, from the perspective of the Italian National Health Service (SSN). METHODS: From Fondazione Ricerca e Salute's administrative healthcare database (~5 million inhabitants/year), adults treated with dupilumab from 09/01/2018 to 31/12/2020 (index date) and a five-year lookback were identified. Age, sex and comorbidities at baseline, concomitant drugs, overnight hospitalizations, outpatient specialist services and direct costs charged to the SSN one year before/after index date were assessed. RESULTS: Of 337 adults treated with dupilumab (5.8x100,000 adult inhabitants/2019; 8.0x100,000/2020; 55% males; mean age 43±19), 68% (228/337) had ≥12-month follow-up available. Asthma was a common comorbidity (23% patients). Rates of patients treated with nearly all concomitant AD-related therapies reduced from 12 months before to 12 months after dupilumab treatment: antibacterials (from 59% to 50%), systemic corticosteroids (55% to 29%), antihistamines (54% to 38%) and cyclosporine (52% to 7%). A similar trend was observed among patients with asthma as comorbidity. Within 12 months before/after dupilumab, patients hospitalized halved from 14% to 7%, and patients receiving outpatient specialist care reduced from 72% to 65%. Annual mean direct total costs per patient treated with dupilumab charged to the SSN, net of dupilumab cost, were €1384 and €773, before and after dupilumab dispensation, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Before dupilumab, observed patients had higher healthcare resource consumptions and direct SSN costs than after dupilumab.

Tocilizumab use in giant cell arteritis: comparing Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme eligible and ineligible cases in South Australia.

Tocilizumab (TCZ) is increasingly used as a steroid-sparing agent in giant cell arteritis (GCA), but there are strict Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) restrictions for its use in Australia. Patients who do not meet the PBS criteria can obtain TCZ through public hospital individual patient use (IPU) schemes which may not be universally accessible. We compared patients receiving IPU-approved TCZ with patients receiving PBS-subsidised TCZ and found IPU approvals were granted mainly for visual loss, a serious complication of GCA, in patients who otherwise failed to meet PBS criteria. Further studies demonstrating that TCZ is comparatively more effective than prednisolone monotherapy, as well as cost-effective, are needed to substantiate the rationale for expanding PBS approval criteria.