Cost-effectiveness of immune checkpoint inhibitors in the treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer as a second line in Taiwan.

Objectives: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of immune checkpoint inhibitors versus docetaxel in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Methods: A Markov model was constructed to simulate the clinical outcomes and costs of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Clinical outcomes data were derived from randomized clinical trials. Drug acquisition cost and other health resource use were obtained from the claim data of a tertiary hospital and the National Health Insurance. The outcome was an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio expressed as cost per quality-adjusted life year gained. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the uncertainty of the model parameters. Results: In the base case, patients treated with immunotherapies in the second line were associated with higher costs and higher mean survival. The incremental costs per quality-adjusted life year gained for pembrolizumab, nivolumab, or atezolizumab compared to docetaxel were NT$416,102, NT$1,572,912 and NT$1,580,469, respectively. Conclusion: The results showed that pembrolizumab was more cost effective than nivolumab and atezolizumab compared with docetaxel as a second-line regimen for patients with previously treated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer at willingness to pay threshold in Taiwan.

Plain language summary Lung cancer is the first leading cause of cancer death in Taiwan. About 75% of patients have advanced disease at the time of diagnosis (stage III/IV) with a median survival of 13.2 months. Most non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients are usually diagnosed at a late stage. The conventional chemotherapy, surgery or radiation regimens may not be of significant benefits. Fortunately, newer immunotherapies or targeted therapies have improved the 5-year survival rates of advanced NSCLC from 15 to 50% with high cost. This study aimed to assess if the newer targeted therapies are cost effective and provide 'value for money' compared with chemotherapy in NSCLC patients with advanced stage. A cost­effectiveness model was created based on the data from the real-world and published phase III randomized controlled trials. The results showed that pembrolizumab is more cost effective than nivolumab and atezolizumab compared with docetaxel as a second-line regimen for patients with previously treated advanced NSCLC at willingness to pay threshold in Taiwan.

Costs of Definitive Chemoradiation, Surgery, and Adjuvant Radiation Versus De-Escalated Adjuvant Radiation per MC1273 in HPV+ Cancer of the Oropharynx.

PURPOSE: De-escalated treatment for human papillomavirus (HPV)+ oropharynx squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC) has shown promising initial results. Health-care policy is increasingly focusing on high-value care. This analysis compares the cost of care for HPV+ OPSCC treated with definitive chemoradiation (CRT), surgery and adjuvant radiation (RT), and surgery and de-escalated CRT on MC1273. METHODS AND MATERIALS: MC1273 is a prospective, phase 2 study evaluating adjuvant CRT to 30 to 36 Gy plus docetaxel for HPV+ OPSCC after surgery for high-risk patients. Matched standard-of-care control groups were retrospectively identified for patients treated with definitive CRT or adjuvant RT. Standardized costs were evaluated before radiation, during treatment (during RT), and at short-term (6 month) and long-term (7-24 month) follow-up periods. RESULTS: A total of 56 definitive CRT, 101 adjuvant RT, and 66 MC1273 patients were included. The CRT arm had more T3-4 disease (63% vs 17-21%) and higher N2c-N3 disease (52% vs 20-24%) vs both other groups. The total treatment costs in the CRT, adjuvant RT, and MC1273 groups were $47,763 (standard deviation [SD], $19,060], $57,845 (SD, $17,480), and $46,007 (SD, $9019), respectively, and the chemotherapy and/or RT costs were $39,936 (SD, $18,480), $26,603 (SD, $12,542), and $17,864 (SD, $3288), respectively. The per-patient, per-month, average short-term follow-up costs were $3860 (SD, $10,525), $1072 (SD, $996), and $972 (SD, $833), respectively, and the long-term costs were $978 (SD, $2294), $485 (SD, $1156), and $653 (SD, $1107), respectively. After adjustment for age, T-stage, and N-stage, treatment costs remained lower for CRT and MC1273 versus adjuvant RT ($45,450 and $47,114 vs $58,590, respectively; P < .001), whereas the total per-patient, per-month follow-up costs were lower in the MC1273 study group and adjuvant RT versus CRT ($853 and $866 vs $2030, respectively; P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: MC1273 resulted in 10% and 20% reductions in global costs compared with standard-of-care adjuvant RT and definitive CRT treatments. Substantial cost savings may be an added benefit to the already noted low toxicity and maintained quality of life of treatment per MC1273.

Cost-effectiveness of Osimertinib vs Docetaxel-bevacizumab in Third-line Treatment in EGFR T790M Resistance Mutation Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in China.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of osimertinib vs docetaxel and bevacizumab in third-line treatment in EGFR T790M resistance mutation advanced non-small cell lung cancer in China from the perspective of the health care system. METHODS: To explore modeling uncertainty, 2 different model methods (a Markov model and a partitioned survival [PS] model) were developed to simulate costs and health outcomes during a lifetime. Both models consisted of 3 health states: progression-free survival, postprogression survival, and death. Efficacy and safety data of osimertinib vs docetaxel and bevacizumab in patients who had acquired EGFR T790M resistance mutation were derived from a key head-to-head clinical trial. Cost and utility values were derived from local charges, the literature, the China Drug Bidding Database, and patients' health care documents. Two scenario analyses and sensitivity analyses were performed to explore the robustness of the results. FINDINGS: In the Markov model, compared with docetaxel and bevacizumab, osimertinib yielded 0.69 additional quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) at an additional cost (in US dollars) of $17,311 for an incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) of $25,463 per QALY. In the PS model, osimertinib yielded an additional 0.69 QALYs with an incremental cost of $17,827 for an ICUR of $25,951 per QALY. From the Markov model, the ICUR was $29,416 per QALY in scenario 1 and $25,543 per QALY in scenario 2. From the PS model, the ICUR was $30,264 per QALY and $25,947 per QALY for scenarios 1 and 2, respectively. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, osimertinib treatment had a 21%-63% probability of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $9777 to $29,330 per QALY (1-3 times the gross domestic product per capita). IMPLICATIONS: The findings from the present analysis suggest that osimertinib could be cost-effective vs docetaxel and bevacizumab in third-line treatment in EGFR T790M resistance mutation advanced non-small cell lung cancer in China.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of gemcitabine plus cisplatin versus docetaxel, cisplatin and fluorouracil for induction chemotherapy of locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Recently, patients who received induction chemotherapy plus concurrent chemoradiotherapy for locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma were found to have survival advantages compared with those receiving concurrent chemoradiotherapy alone in two large randomized trials. Based on these two trials, we present a cost-effectiveness analysis to compare gemcitabine and cisplatin (GP) versus cisplatin, fluorouracil, and docetaxel (TPF) for induction chemotherapy to treat locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma. METHODS: We constructed a Markov model to compare the cost and effectiveness of GP versus TPF. Clinical data including the frequency of adverse events, recurrence and death obtained from two randomized phase III trials were used to calculate transition probabilities and costs. Health utilities were estimated from the literature. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, expressed as dollars per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), were calculated, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios less than $27,534.25/QALY (3 × the per capita GDP of China, 2018) were considered cost-effective. One-way sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analyses explored the robustness of the model. RESULTS: Our base case model found that the total cost was $53,082.68 in the GP group and $45,482.66 in the TPF group. The QALYs were 6.82 and 4.11, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio favoured the GP regimen, at an incremental cost of $2,804.44 per QALY. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis found that treatment with the GP regimen was cost-effective 100% of the time at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $27,534.25‬/QALY. CONCLUSION: In this model, GP was estimated to be cost-effective compared with cisplatin, fluorouracil, and docetaxel for patients with locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma from the payer's perspectives in the China.

Metastatic Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer: A Review of the Current Treatment Landscape.

PURPOSE: In recent years, the treatment options for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) have expanded significantly. In addition to androgen deprivation therapy, the systemic treatments now include docetaxel, abiraterone, enzalutamide, and apalutamide. Radiation to the primary is also an option for select low-volume patients. METHODS: We conducted a review of the pivotal trials that have changed the practice of mHSPC. RESULTS: We describe an overview of the trials that investigated docetaxel (CHAARTED and STAMPEDE-Docetaxel), abiraterone (LATTITUDE and STAMPEDE-Abiraterone), enzalutamide (ARCHES, ENZAMET), apalutamide (TITAN), and radiation to the primary (STAMPEDE-Radiation). DISCUSSION: The treatment of mHSPC is a complex topic, and treatment choice should be individualized. Patient preferences, cost, volume of disease, and side effect profiles are important in determining which option is the best for an individual patient.

Cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab versus docetaxel and nivolumab in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer as a second line in France.

Aim: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab compared with docetaxel and nivolumab for the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), as a second-line treatment, in a French setting.Materials and methods: A three-state partitioned-survival model was developed (progression-free survival, post-progression survival, death) based on the phase IIIOAK trial on a 10-year time horizon. The comparison between nivolumab and atezolizumab came from a network meta-analysis. Utilities were estimated from the OAK trial EQ-5D applying the French utility tariffs. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and treatment duration were estimated using parametric models selected using Akaike and Bayesian information criterion. Extrapolation beyond the trial duration followed NICE DSU TSD 14. Economic perspective was the one of all payers, discount rate fixed at 4% on benefits and costs. This analysis was aligned with French Haute Autorité de Santé recommendations. Results were expressed in total cost (2019) and €/QALY (Quality Adjusted Life Year). Model robustness was checked through sensitivity analyses, and a probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted.Results: In comparison to docetaxel, atezolizumab costs 49,429€ more and increased life expectancy by 8 months, generating 0.47 QALY. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was estimated at 104,835€/QALY. When comparing nivolumab to atezolizumab, a cost minimization analysis was conducted since no clear evidence supporting a difference in terms of survival benefit was reported. Using list price, and the Market Access Authorization regimens, atezolizumab saved approximately 6,000€, 9.5% of its total costs. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of our findings.Conclusion: Atezolizumab is more efficient and more costly than docetaxel in the second-line treatment of NSCLC of stage IIIB or IV, in France, with results consistent to previous French authorities' evaluation of immunotherapies in similar indication. Lastly, atezolizumab is a cost saving alternative to nivolumab, based on list price.

Nivolumab Versus Docetaxel for Previously Treated Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in China: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The economic assessment of immuno-oncology agents in Chinese patients is limited despite a need for new therapies. Nivolumab is the first immune checkpoint inhibitor approved for the second-line treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in China, and it significantly prolongs overall survival. However, considering the high cost of nivolumab, it is urgent to assess its value in China in terms of both efficacy and cost. The objective of this study was to investigate the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab vs docetaxel in the second-line setting for NSCLC patients from the Chinese healthcare system perspective. METHODS: A Markov model consisting of three health states, was designed to evaluate the lifetime cost and effectiveness of nivolumab vs docetaxel in the second-line treatment of NSCLC patients. Clinical data was derived from the CheckMate 078 phase III clinical trial, which included 504 patients predominantly from China. Parametric survival models to fit and extrapolate survival data were chosen based on clinical rationality, visual fit and statistical goodness-of-fit. Lifetime costs and health outcomes were calculated, and US$28,899 and $63,564 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) were selected as the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold values for general regions and affluent regions, respectively. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were undertaken to explore the robustness of the model. Additional subgroup analyses were performed. RESULTS: In base case analysis, Nivolumab yielded an additional 0.24 QALYs, at a cost of $93,307 per QALY. Sensitivity analyses suggested that the results to be most sensitive to the price of nivolumab per kg (mean $60.00; range $26.00-$60.00) and the mean patient weight (65 kg, range 52-78 kg). Utility values in progression-free survival state (mean 0.804; range 0.643-0.965) and overall survival hazard ratio (0.68; 97.7% CI 0.52-0.90) had moderate impact on the model results. Subgroup analyses indicated that nivolumab was most cost-effective for patients who were 65 years of age or older ($85,171/QALY), followed by female patients ($85,273/QALY) and patients with tumor PD-L1 expression at least 1% ($90,309/QALY). CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab is unlikely to be cost-effective compared with docetaxel for patients with previously treated advanced NSCLC in China. Ensuring that nivolumab is included in the National Reimbursement Drug List (NRDL) may be a valid mean of meeting extensive treatment demands in China.

A cost-effectiveness analysis of trastuzumab-containing treatment sequences for HER-2 positive metastatic breast cancer patients in Taiwan.

OBJECTIVE: Treatment options for HER-2-positive metastatic breast cancer (mBC) patients have expanded markedly since trastuzumab approval in 1998. Several other regimens are now available, including pertuzumab plus trastuzumab plus docetaxel, T-DM1, capecitabine plus lapatinib, and trastuzumab plus lapatinib. This study assesses the cost-effectiveness of four treatment sequences for HER-2-positive mBC according to the Taiwanese National Health Insurance Administration (TNHIA). METHODS: Costs (U.S. Dollars) and effectiveness (quality-adjusted life years) of four treatment sequences for HER-2-positive mBC patients were examined using a Markov model over a lifetime horizon. Transition probabilities, disease progression, and probability of adverse events and survival were derived from clinical trial data. Costs and health utilities were estimated from TNHIA, Taipei Medical University Hospital, and the literature. Deterministic, probabilistic sensitivity analyses and a scenario analysis examined parameter uncertainty and accounted for drug wastage in dosage and cost calculations. RESULTS: Sequence 3 (1st line: trastuzumab plus docetaxel; 2nd line: T-DM1; 3rd line: trastuzumab plus lapatinib) was the most cost-effective sequence followed by sequence 1 (1st line: pertuzumab plus trastuzumab plus docetaxel; 2nd line: T-DM1; 3rd line: capecitabine plus lapatinib), and sequence 4 (1st line: trastuzumab plus docetaxel; 2nd line: trastuzumab plus lapatinib; 3rd line: trastuzumab plus capecitabine), respectively. The model was sensitive to costs and transition probabilities, but not particularly sensitive to the wastage assumption. CONCLUSIONS: From the perspective of the TNHIA, trastuzumab plus docetaxel as 1st line followed by T-DM1 and trastuzumab plus lapatinib as 2nd and 3rd line represents the most cost-effective strategy among the four sequences considered for treating HER-2-positive mBC patients.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of Abiraterone Acetate versus Docetaxel in the management of metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer: Hong Kong's perspective.

BACKGROUND: Several randomized control trials (RCTs) have showed that adding either abiraterone acetate (AA) or docetaxel (D) to androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) improves survival of metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer patients (mCSPC). Yet, the cost-effectiveness of these treatment options has not been fully compared under Hong Kong's setting. This cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) serves as the first study in Hong Kong to compare the economic value of these two combinations ADT + AA vs. ADT + D. METHODS: A deterministic Markov model is used to project cost-effectiveness of each treatment until death. Survival curves for progression/death were extracted and digitized from the five RCTs (CHAARTED, LATITUDE, two STAMPEDE (2016/2017), and GETUG-AFU15). Clinically significant adverse events (AEs) were modeled; utility values were obtained from the literature. Primary outcomes were the quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). We used the societal perspective from Hong Kong and considered three times of local gross domestic product per capita (GDPpc) as the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold (i.e., US$138,649). We estimated the break-even cost of AA in case ADT + AA is not a cost-effective strategy under this WTP threshold. While considering the standard AA dosage (1000 mg) as the main analysis, we also examined the potential impact of the low-dose AA (250 mg) strategy. RESULTS: Integrating simulations with probabilistic sensitivity analysis, ADT + D returns 0.79 (median; 95% credible interval 0.56-0.97) QALY with an ICER of US$14,397/QALY ($7824-22,632) compared to ADT-alone. A head-to-head comparison indicates that ADT + AA further gains 0.79 (0.45-1.17) QALY but with an ICER of $361,439/QALY ($260,615-599,683) when compared to ADT + D. Considering three times of GDPpc as WTP threshold, ADT + D is more cost-effective in all simulations; while ADT + AA is more cost-effective than ADT + D only if the cost of AA is reduced by at least 63%. The low-dose AA (250 mg) strategy is potentially cost-effective when it generates equivalent efficacy as the standard dosage (1000 mg). CONCLUSIONS: ADT + D is therefore shown to be a more cost-effective strategy than ADT + AA in metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer patients in developed economies. Addition of AA substantially improved QALY compared to D but at a significant cost.

Cost-effectiveness of Osimertinib as a Second-line Treatment in Patients With EGFR-mutated Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in China.

PURPOSE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of osimertinib used as a second-line treatment after failure of epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in China. METHODS: From the perspective of China's health care system, a Markov model was used for estimating the costs and health outcomes of osimertinib and 4 platinum-based chemotherapies, including pemetrexed + platinum (PP), gemcitabine + platinum (GP), docetaxel + platinum (DP), and paclitaxel + platinum (TP). Two scenarios were considered, one in all confirmed patients with T790M-positive disease (scenario 1) and the other in all patients whose disease progressed after epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy, which consisted of patients with T790M-positive or T790M-negative NSCLC (scenario 2). Clinical data for transition probabilities and treatment effects were obtained from published clinical trials. Health care resource utilization and costs were derived from local administrative databases and published literature. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the uncertainty of the results. FINDINGS: In the base-case analysis, compared with the 4 platinum-based chemotherapies, osimertinib yielded an additional 0.671 to 0.846 quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), with incremental costs of 15,943 to 20,299 USD in scenario 1, and an additional 0.376 to 0.808 QALY with incremental costs of 9710 to 15,407 USD in scenario 2. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the probabilities that osimertinib would be cost-effective were 57.7% in scenario 1 and 58.4% in scenario 2 if the willingness-to-pay threshold were 30,000 USD/QALY, and probabilities would be more than 75 % in both scenarios if the willingness-to-pay threshold were 50,000 USD/QALY. IMPLICATIONS: Osimertinib is likely to be cost-effective when used as a second-line treatment of advanced NSCLC in China based on the latest reimbursement price of osimertinib through National Reimbursement Drug List negotiation.

Comparative clinical effects and cost-effectiveness of maximum androgen blockade, docetaxel with androgen deprivation therapy and ADT alone for the treatment of mHSPC in China.

Aim: To compare the clinical effects and cost-effectiveness of maximum androgen blockade (MAB), docetaxel to androgen deprivation therapy (Doc-ADT) and ADT alone for the treatment of patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer in China. Methods: A network meta-analysis and a Markov model were adopted for effectiveness and economic evaluation. Results: The hazard ratios of overall survival and progression-free survival were 0.782 and 0.628 for Doc-ADT versus ADT alone; 0.897 and 0.824 for MAB versus ADT alone. Doc-ADT was cost-effective compared with MAB and ADT alone, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of CNY 96,848 and CNY 67,758 per quality-adjusted life year, respectively. MAB was cost-effective compared with ADT alone, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of CNY 137,487 per quality-adjusted life year. Conclusion: Doc-ADT is likely the optimal option from the perspective of both clinical outcomes and economic considerations.

Cost-effectiveness of abiraterone versus docetaxel in the treatment of metastatic hormone naïve prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: Prostate cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death in men in the US. Since 2015, landmark studies have demonstrated improved survival outcomes with the use of docetaxel (DCT) or abiraterone (AA) in addition to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in the metastatic hormone-naïve setting. These treatment strategies have not been prospectively compared but have similar overall survival benefits despite differing mechanisms of action, toxicity, and cost. We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis to provide insight into the value of AA vs. DCT in the first-line treatment of metastatic prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We developed Markov models by using a US-payer perspective and a 3-year time horizon to estimate costs (2018 US$) and progression-free quality-adjusted life years (PF-QALYs) for ADT alone, DCT, and AA. Health states were defined as initial state, treatment states according to experience of an adverse event, and progressed disease/death. State transition probabilities were derived from rates for drug discontinuation, frequency of adverse events, disease progression, and death from the randomized phase III trials ChemoHormonal Therapy Versus Androgen Ablation Randomized Trial for Extensive Disease in Prostate Cancer (CHAARTED) and LATITUDE. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate model uncertainty. RESULTS: DCT resulted in an increase of 0.32 PF-QALYs and $16,100 in cost and AA resulted in an increase of 0.52 PF-QALYs and $215,800 in cost compared to ADT alone. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for DCT vs. ADT was $50,500/PF-QALY and for AA vs. DCT was $1,010,000/PF-QALY. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000/PF-QALY AA was highly unlikely to be cost-effective. CONCLUSION: DCT is substantially more cost-effective than AA in the treatment of metastatic hormone naïve prostate cancer.

Cost-effectiveness of second-line atezolizumab in Canada for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Aim: To assess the cost-effectiveness in Canada of atezolizumab compared with docetaxel or nivolumab for the treatment of advanced NSCLC after first-line platinum-doublet chemotherapy. Materials and methods: A three-state partitioned-survival model was developed. Clinical inputs were obtained from the phase III OAK trial comparing atezolizumab with docetaxel in patients with advanced NSCLC who progressed after first-line platinum-doublet chemotherapy. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were extrapolated beyond the trial period using parametric models. A cure model assuming a 1% cure fraction was fitted to the OS data for atezolizumab. Outcomes for nivolumab were informed by a network meta-analysis (NMA) vs atezolizumab. Resource use and costs were informed by clinical expert opinion and published Canadian sources. Utility values were obtained from the OAK trial. The perspective of the analysis was that of the Canadian publicly-funded healthcare system. The base case time horizon was 10 years, and the discount rate was 1.5% annually for both costs and effects. Scenario analyses were performed to test the robustness of the results and all analyses were performed probabilistically. Results: Atezolizumab demonstrated a quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gain of 0.60 compared with docetaxel at an incremental cost of $85,073, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $142,074/QALY. Atezolizumab dominated nivolumab (regardless of dosing regimen), based on modest differences in both QALYs and costs. Docetaxel was most likely to be cost effective at willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds below $125,000/QALY gained, while atezolizumab was most likely to be cost effective beyond this WTP threshold. In most scenario analyses, the results remained robust to changes in parameters. A reduced time horizon and alternative approaches to the NMA had the greatest impact on cost-effectiveness results. Conclusion: Atezolizumab represents a cost-effective therapeutic option in Canada for the treatment of patients with advanced NSCLC who progress after first-line platinum doublet chemotherapy.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of abiraterone, docetaxel or placebo plus androgen deprivation therapy for hormone-sensitive advanced prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the addition of chemotherapy or abiraterone to androgen deprivation. METHODS: We developed an analytical model to determine the cost-effectiveness of the addition of docetaxel or abiraterone versus androgen deprivation therapy alone. Direct and indirect costs were included in the model. The effects were expressed in Quality-Adjusted Life Years adjusted for side effects. RESULTS: Compared to androgen deprivation therapy alone, the addition of chemotherapy and of abiraterone generated 0.492 and 0.999, respectively, in Quality-Adjusted Life Years. Abiraterone led to a Quality-Adjusted Life Years gain of 0.506 compared to docetaxel. The incremental costs per Quality-Adjusted Life Years were R$ 133.649,22 for docetaxel, R$ 330.828,70 for abiraterone and R$ 571.379,42 for abiraterone compared to docetaxel, respectively. CONCLUSION: The addition of chemotherapy to androgen deprivation therapy is more cost-effective than the addition of abiraterone to androgen deprivation therapy. However, discounts on abiraterone cost might improve cost-effectiveness.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of abiraterone, docetaxel or placebo plus androgen deprivation therapy for hormone-sensitive advanced prostate cancer / Análise de custo-efetividade da adição de abiraterona ou quimioterapia ao tratamento do câncer de próstata metastático hormônio-sensível

ABSTRACT Objective To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the addition of chemotherapy or abiraterone to androgen deprivation. Methods We developed an analytical model to determine the cost-effectiveness of the addition of docetaxel or abiraterone versus androgen deprivation therapy alone. Direct and indirect costs were included in the model. The effects were expressed in Quality-Adjusted Life Years adjusted for side effects. Results Compared to androgen deprivation therapy alone, the addition of chemotherapy and of abiraterone generated 0.492 and 0.999, respectively, in Quality-Adjusted Life Years. Abiraterone led to a Quality-Adjusted Life Years gain of 0.506 compared to docetaxel. The incremental costs per Quality-Adjusted Life Years were R$ 133.649,22 for docetaxel, R$ 330.828,70 for abiraterone and R$ 571.379,42 for abiraterone compared to docetaxel, respectively. Conclusion The addition of chemotherapy to androgen deprivation therapy is more cost-effective than the addition of abiraterone to androgen deprivation therapy. However, discounts on abiraterone cost might improve cost-effectiveness.

RESUMO Objetivo Avaliar a relação custo-efetividade da adição de quimioterapia ou abiraterona à terapia de privação hormonal. Métodos Um modelo analítico foi desenvolvido para determinar a relação custo-efetividade da adição de docetaxel ou abiraterona comparada à terapia de privação hormonal isolada. Custos diretos e indiretos foram incluídos no modelo. Os efeitos foram expressos em Anos de Vida Ajustados para Qualidade corrigidos pelos efeitos colaterais de cada terapia. Resultados A adição de quimioterapia e de abiraterona à terapia de privação hormonal aumentou os Anos de Vida Ajustados para Qualidade em 0,492 e 0,999, respectivamente, em comparação à terapia de privação hormonal isolada. A abiraterona promoveu ganho de Anos de Vida Ajustados para Qualidade de 0,506 em relação ao docetaxel. O custo incremental por Anos de Vida Ajustados para Qualidade foi R$ 133.649,22 para o docetaxel, R$ 330.828,70 para a abiraterona e R$ 571.379,42 para a abiraterona comparada ao docetaxel. Conclusão A adição de quimioterapia à terapia de privação hormonal é mais custo-efetiva que a adição de abiraterona à terapia de privação hormonal. Contudo, descontos no custo da abiraterona poderiam tornar esse tratamento mais custo-efetivo.

The impact of PD-L1 on survival and value of the immune check point inhibitors in non-small-cell lung cancer; proposal, policies and perspective.

BACKGROUND: The impact of programmed death receptor-ligand1 (PD-L1) on costs and value of the immune check point inhibitors (ICPI) has received minimal attention. OBJECTIVES: 1- Design a sliding scale to grade survival in 2nd-line non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). 2- Compare costs and value of Nivolumab (Nivo), Atezolizumab (Atezo) and Pembrolizumab (Pembro) vs. Docetaxel (Doc). METHODS: Previously reported median overall survival (OS) and prices posted by parent company were utilized. The OS gains over controls in days were graded (gr) from A+ to D. Docetaxel costs were calculated for 6-12 cycles and the ICPI for 1 year. Adverse events treatment costs (AEsTC) were reported separately. The cost/life-year gain (C/LYG) was computed as drug yearly-cost/OS gain over control in days × 360 days. The relative value of the ICPI were expressed as $100,000/C/LYG. RESULTS: Costs of Doc 6 cycles were $23,868, OS/gr 87/C, AEs gr ¾ > 20%, AEsTC $1978 and 6- 12 cycle C/LYG $98,764 -$197,528. Nivo, Atezo and Pembro gr ¾ were < 20% at average costs of $1480. In non-squamous NSCLC, Nivo demonstrated OS/g 84/C and C/LYG $558,326 as compared with 264/A and $177,645 in PD-L1 > 10%. Atezolizumab OS/g were 87/B and C/LYG $551,407 improving in enriched PD-L1 to 162/A and $332,020 respectively. Pembrolizumab in PD-L1 > 1.0% demonstrated OS/g 57/C and C/LYG $659,059 improving in > 50% PD-L1 to 201/A and $186,897. PD-L1 enrichment increased RV of Nivo from 0.18 to 0.56, Atezo from 0.16 to 0.66 and Pembro from 0.15 to 0.53. CONCLUSIONS: Simplified methodology to grade OS and weigh value of anticancer drugs was proposed. In 2nd-line non-squamous NSCLC, value of Doc, Nivo, Atezo and Pembro regardless of PDL-1 expression were limited and modest. Enrichment of PD-L1 resulted in unprecedented OS, improved grades and enhanced value at seemingly justifiable costs.

Addition of Docetaxel to First-line Long-term Hormone Therapy in Prostate Cancer (STAMPEDE): Modelling to Estimate Long-term Survival, Quality-adjusted Survival, and Cost-effectiveness.

BACKGROUND: Results from large randomised controlled trials have shown that adding docetaxel to the standard of care (SOC) for men initiating hormone therapy for prostate cancer (PC) prolongs survival for those with metastatic disease and prolongs failure-free survival for those without. To date there has been no formal assessment of whether funding docetaxel in this setting represents an appropriate use of UK National Health Service (NHS) resources. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether administering docetaxel to men with PC starting long-term hormone therapy is cost-effective in a UK setting. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We modelled health outcomes and costs in the UK NHS using data collected within the STAMPEDE trial, which enrolled men with high-risk, locally advanced metastatic or recurrent PC starting first-line hormone therapy. INTERVENTION: SOC was hormone therapy for ≥2 yr and radiotherapy in some patients. Docetaxel (75mg/m2) was administered alongside SOC for six three-weekly cycles. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The model generated lifetime predictions of costs, changes in survival duration, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The model predicted that docetaxel would extend survival (discounted quality-adjusted survival) by 0.89 yr (0.51) for metastatic PC and 0.78 yr (0.39) for nonmetastatic PC, and would be cost-effective in metastatic PC (ICER £5514/QALY vs SOC) and nonmetastatic PC (higher QALYs, lower costs vs SOC). Docetaxel remained cost-effective in nonmetastatic PC when the assumption of no survival advantage was modelled. CONCLUSIONS: Docetaxel is cost-effective among patients with nonmetastatic and metastatic PC in a UK setting. Clinicians should consider whether the evidence is now sufficiently compelling to support docetaxel use in patients with nonmetastatic PC, as the opportunity to offer docetaxel at hormone therapy initiation will be missed for some patients by the time more mature survival data are available. PATIENT SUMMARY: Starting docetaxel chemotherapy alongside hormone therapy represents a good use of UK National Health Service resources for patients with prostate cancer that is high risk or has spread to other parts of the body.