Utilization, Expenditure, and Treatment Patterns Associated With Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide Monoclonal Antibodies Reimbursed Subject to a Managed Access Protocol in Ireland.

OBJECTIVES: Calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies (CGRP mAbs) are novel high-cost treatments for the prevention of migraine. This study presents data on utilization, expenditure, and treatment patterns with CGRP mAbs available under a managed access protocol in Ireland, to a cohort of treatment refractory patients (failed 3 or more previous treatments) with chronic migraine. METHODS: Data were extracted from the Primary Care Reimbursement Service High Tech claims database and special drug request online system and analyzed using Microsoft Excel and SAS. Treatment persistence was evaluated by refill patterns, and adherence was evaluated using the proportion of days covered method. Expenditure data were extracted directly from the database. RESULTS: Between September 1, 2021 and April 30, 2023, 1517 applications for reimbursement approval for a CGRP mAb were received; 1458 (96.1%) were approved for reimbursement. Total expenditure on CGRP mAbs in year 1 (September 1, 2021 to August 31, 2022) was €3.2 million. The majority of patients initiated treatment with fremanezumab (60.8%) or erenumab (37.1%). Almost 90% of patients were considered adherent, and treatment persistence was high, with more than 75% of patients receiving more than 12 months of treatment in our 18-month study time frame. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the importance of active health technology management, after reimbursement, in enabling cost-effective use of high-cost treatments while providing budget certainty for the healthcare payer. High levels of adherence and persistence suggest that treatment is successfully targeted in situations which unmet clinical need is greatest.

Neoadjuvant treatment for stage III and IV cutaneous melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Cutaneous melanoma is amongst the most aggressive of all skin cancers. Neoadjuvant treatment is a form of induction therapy, given to shrink a cancerous tumour prior to the main treatment (usually surgery). The purpose is to improve survival and surgical outcomes. This review systematically appraises the literature investigating the use of neoadjuvant treatment for stage III and IV cutaneous melanoma. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of neoadjuvant treatment in adults with stage III or stage IV melanoma according to the seventh edition American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging system. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases up to 10 August 2021 inclusive: Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS and four trials registers, together with reference checking and contact with study authors to identify additional studies. We also handsearched proceedings from specific conferences from 2016 to 2020 inclusive. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of people with stage III and IV melanoma, comparing neoadjuvant treatment strategies (using targeted treatments, immunotherapies, radiotherapy, topical treatments or chemotherapy) with any of these agents or current standard of care (SOC), were eligible for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and adverse effects (AEs). Secondary outcomes included time to recurrence (TTR), quality of life (QOL), and overall response rate (ORR). We used GRADE to evaluate the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included eight RCTs involving 402 participants. Studies enrolled adults, mostly with stage III melanoma, investigated immunotherapies, chemotherapy, or targeted treatments, and compared these with surgical excision with or without adjuvant treatment. Duration of follow-up and therapeutic regimens varied, which, combined with heterogeneity in the population and definitions of the endpoints, precluded meta-analysis of all identified studies. We performed a meta-analysis including three studies. We are very uncertain if neoadjuvant treatment increases OS when compared to no neoadjuvant treatment (hazard ratio (HR) 0.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15 to 1.21; 2 studies, 171 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Neoadjuvant treatment may increase the rate of AEs, but the evidence is very uncertain (26% versus 16%, risk ratio (RR) 1.58, 95% CI 0.97 to 2.55; 2 studies, 162 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain if neoadjuvant treatment increases TTR (HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.17; 2 studies, 171 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Studies did not report ORR as a comparative outcome or measure QOL data. We are very uncertain whether neoadjuvant targeted treatment with dabrafenib and trametinib increases OS (HR 0.28, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.25; 1 study, 21 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or TTR (HR 0.02, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.22; 1 study, 21 participants; very low-certainty evidence) when compared to surgery. The study did not report comparative rates of AEs and overall response, and did not measure QOL. We are very uncertain if neoadjuvant immunotherapy with talimogene laherparepvec increases OS when compared to no neoadjuvant treatment (HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.64; 1 study, 150 participants, very low-certainty evidence). It may have a higher rate of AEs, but the evidence is very uncertain (16.5% versus 5.8%, RR 2.84, 95% CI 0.96 to 8.37; 1 study, 142 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain if it increases TTR (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.79; 1 study, 150 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The study did not report comparative ORRs or measure QOL. OS was not reported for neoadjuvant immunotherapy (combined ipilimumab and nivolumab) when compared to the combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab as adjuvant treatment. There may be little or no difference in the rate of AEs between these treatments (9%, RR 1.0, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.34; 1 study, 20 participants; low-certainty evidence). The study did not report comparative ORRs or measure TTR and QOL. Neoadjuvant immunotherapy (combined ipilimumab and nivolumab) likely results in little to no difference in OS when compared to neoadjuvant nivolumab monotherapy (P = 0.18; 1 study, 23 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). It may increase the rate of AEs, but the certainty of this evidence is very low (72.8% versus 8.3%, RR 8.73, 95% CI 1.29 to 59; 1 study, 23 participants); this trial was halted early due to observation of disease progression preventing surgical resection in the monotherapy arm and the high rate of treatment-related AEs in the combination arm. Neoadjuvant combination treatment may lead to higher ORR, but the evidence is very uncertain (72.8% versus 25%, RR 2.91, 95% CI 1.02 to 8.27; 1 study, 23 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It likely results in little to no difference in TTR (P = 0.19; 1 study, 23 participants; low-certainty evidence). The study did not measure QOL. OS was not reported for neoadjuvant immunotherapy (combined ipilimumab and nivolumab) when compared to neoadjuvant sequential immunotherapy (ipilimumab then nivolumab). Only Grade 3 to 4 immune-related AEs were reported; fewer were reported with combination treatment, and the sequential treatment arm closed early due to a high incidence of severe AEs. The neoadjuvant combination likely results in a higher ORR compared to sequential neoadjuvant treatment (60.1% versus 42.3%, RR 1.42, 95% CI 0.87 to 2.32; 1 study, 86 participants; low-certainty evidence). The study did not measure TTR and QOL. No data were reported on OS, AEs, TTR, or QOL for the comparison of neoadjuvant interferon (HDI) plus chemotherapy versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Neoadjuvant HDI plus chemotherapy may have little to no effect on ORR, but the evidence is very uncertain (33% versus 22%, RR 1.75, 95% CI 0.62 to 4.95; 1 study, 36 participants; very low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are uncertain if neoadjuvant treatment increases OS or TTR compared with no neoadjuvant treatment, and it may be associated with a slightly higher rate of AEs. There is insufficient evidence to support the use of neoadjuvant treatment in clinical practice. Priorities for research include the development of a core outcome set for neoadjuvant trials that are adequately powered, with validation of pathological and radiological responses as intermediate endpoints, to investigate the relative benefits of neoadjuvant treatment compared with adjuvant treatment with immunotherapies or targeted therapies.

Cost-Effectiveness of First-Line Pembrolizumab Monotherapy Versus Chemotherapy in High Programmed Death-Ligand 1 Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in the Irish Healthcare Setting.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab monotherapy in the first-line treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in adults whose tumors expressed programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) with a tumor proportion score (TPS) ≥ 50% in the Irish healthcare setting. METHODS: Effectiveness inputs were derived from the 5-year analysis of KEYNOTE-024 phase III clinical trial. The intervention was pembrolizumab monotherapy; the comparator was a weighted average of the 5 chemotherapy regimens from the trial. The population included those with previously untreated advanced PD-L1 TPS ≥ 50% NSCLC. A de novo partitioned survival model was developed. Survival modeling was done using Bayesian model averaging on fitted parametric functions. Costs included drug acquisition, treatment initiation, administration and monitoring, adverse events, subsequent treatments, and terminal care. Costs and health state utilities were sourced from the literature and Irish sources. The model had a 20-year time horizon. The perspective taken was the Health Service Executive. A 4% discount rate was applied. Outcomes were expressed as an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), measured in terms of incremental costs per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis and 1-way sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: The model estimated a base case ICER of €54 237 per QALY. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis estimated an average ICER of €54 568 per QALY and a 11% probability of cost-effectiveness at the Irish cost-effectiveness threshold of €45 000 per QALY. CONCLUSION: At the current list price, first-line pembrolizumab monotherapy is not considered cost-effective for the treatment of advanced PD-L1 TPS ≥ 50% NSCLC in the Irish healthcare setting.

Modern oncological and operative outcomes in oesophageal cancer: the St. James's hospital experience.

BACKGROUND: Oesophageal cancer has a reputation for poor survival, and a relatively high risk of major postoperative morbidity and mortality. Encouragingly, a recent international cancer registry study reports a doubling of survival outcomes in Ireland over the last 20 years. This study focused on both oncologic and operative outcomes in patients treated with curative intent requiring surgery at a high-volume center. METHODS: All patients undergoing surgery or multimodal therapy with curative intent from 2009 to 2018 were studied. All data was recorded prospectively and maintained internally. The period 2009-2013 was compared with 2014-2018 to monitor any change in trends. RESULTS: Four hundred and seventy-five patients (adenocarcinoma 77%, mean age 65; 76% male; 64% neoadjuvant therapy) underwent open surgical resection, 54% via en bloc 2-stage, 19.8% en bloc 3-stage, and 26.5% by a transhiatal approach. New onset atrial fibrillation was the commonest index complication, in 108 (22.7%), 80 (18%) developed suspected pneumonia/respiratory tract infection, 20 (4.2%) an anastomotic leak, and 25 (5.2%) a chyle leak. The 90-day mortality rate was 1.2% and 0.8% at 30 days. The median survival was 77.17 months, with a 5-year survival of 56%. CONCLUSION: Consistent with registry data on population survival for oesophageal cancer, this study highlights markedly improved survival outcomes in patients treated curatively, reflecting international trends, as well as low mortality rates; however, cardiorespiratory complications remain significant.

Economic Evaluation of Systemic Treatments for Advanced Melanoma: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Many high cost treatments for advanced melanoma have become available in recent years. National health technology assessment agencies have raised concerns regarding uncertainty in their clinical and cost-effectiveness. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review is to identify economic evaluations of treatments for advanced melanoma and review model assumptions, outcomes, and quality as preparation for a health technology assessment. METHODS: A search of Embase, MEDLINE, EconLit, and the Cochrane Database was conducted. Only studies using decision-analytic models were included. Two authors independently completed full-text review and data extraction. RESULTS: Fifteen studies were identified. There were major differences in the structural assumptions underpinning the models. There was general agreement in study conclusions, although the predicted costs and quality-adjusted life years for each treatment varied. BRAF monotherapy (vemurafenib, dabrafenib) or BRAF/MEK combination therapy (BRAF monotherapy with cobimetinib or trametinib) has not been shown to be cost-effective in any jurisdiction. PD-1 inhibitors (pembrolizumab, nivolumab) are consistently found to be cost-effective compared with ipilimumab, although their cost-effectiveness compared with chemotherapy is not established. Combination therapy with nivolumab and ipilimumab is unlikely to be cost-effective in any setting. One study including all agents found that none of the new treatments were cost-effective relative to chemotherapy. Publication of the study in a health economics journal is associated with better reporting of and higher-quality assessment than those published in clinical journals. CONCLUSION: Despite differences in model structures and assumptions, the conclusions of most included studies were consistent. Health technology assessment has a key role in maximizing value from high-cost innovative treatments. Consideration should be given to divestment from BRAF/MEK inhibitors and ipilimumab in favor of reimbursement of PD-1 inhibitors.

Transferability of Economic Evaluations of Treatments for Advanced Melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Differing methodological requirements and decision-making criteria are recognised as barriers to transferability of cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) across jurisdictions. OBJECTIVE: We assessed the generic and specific transferability of published CEAs of systemic treatments for advanced melanoma to the Irish setting. METHODS: CEAs of treatments for melanoma were identified by systematic review. Transferability to the Irish setting was assessed using the EUnetHTA transferability tool for Economic Evaluation. We present a narrative discussion comparing the differences in key parameter inputs and the likely impact of these differences on the model outcomes and the reimbursement recommendation. Transferability is considered within the context of the Irish cost-effectiveness threshold, using the net monetary benefit (NMB) framework. RESULTS: No published CEAs (n = 15) aligned with the Irish reference case for CEA. Changes to key parameters were unlikely to change the conclusions of the CEA when the cost-effectiveness threshold was considered. Ten studies (19 pairwise comparisons) were compared with findings by the National Centre for Pharmacoeconomics (NCPE) using NMB. Without accounting for differences in the cost-effectiveness threshold, there was alignment between the study conclusions and NCPE recommendations in 73.7% cases. When the Irish cost-effectiveness threshold was applied in the estimation of NMB, there was agreement in 89.5% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: Alignment in methodological requirements for CEA is important to facilitate joint health technology assessment (HTA) by regional collaborations in Europe. When parameter inputs are not exactly aligned, conclusions may still be comparable across jurisdictions. For international joint procurement initiatives, determining and implementing joint decision rules may be more important than trying to align rules regarding methodological and parameter inputs.