The Zero-Price Conundrum: Exploration of Scenarios Where a Clinically Effective New Drug Might Not Be Cost-Effective at Zero Price.

OBJECTIVES: The zero-price conundrum occurs when a clinically effective drug can justify no greater than a price of zero based on cost-effectiveness criteria from a health system perspective. This is relevant for health systems that require evidence of cost-effectiveness, in addition to safety and efficacy for drug approval and other analyses that may shape drug coverage policies, such as budget impact and comparative effectiveness. This study aimed to clarify and explore the zero-price conundrum to provide a resource in the development of practical and methodological solutions. METHODS: We specified equations representing previously identified zero-price scenarios and used them to elucidate factors contributing to the zero-price conundrum and explore relationships between them. We present real-world considerations and discuss solutions from the literature. RESULTS: The analyses demonstrated that a primary cause of the zero-price problem for a new drug that increases quality-adjusted survival pertains to healthcare costs beyond the influence of the new drug, specifically, disease background costs, costs of existing drugs used in a combination regimen, and costs of future health interventions patients may become eligible to receive. Pragmatic solutions have been to exclude such costs from cost-effectiveness analyses. Proposed modifications to cost-effectiveness analysis include assessing each drug in a combination regimen based on its relative contribution to improved health. CONCLUSIONS: The zero-price dilemma may arise more frequently as the number of drugs in high-cost disease areas continues to grow. As cost-effectiveness methods evolve, there is the opportunity to develop robust solutions that can be applied consistently.

A disease progression model estimating the benefit of tolvaptan on time to end-stage renal disease for patients with rapidly progressing autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease.

BACKGROUND: Tolvaptan was approved in the United States in 2018 for patients with autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD) at risk of rapid progression as assessed in a 3-year phase 3 clinical trial (TEMPO 3:4). An extension study (TEMPO 4:4) showed continued delay in progression at 2 years, and a trial in patients with later-stage disease (REPRISE) provided confirmatory evidence of efficacy. Given the relatively shorter-term duration of the clinical trials, estimating the longer-term benefit associated with tolvaptan via extrapolation of the treatment effect is an important undertaking. METHODS: A model was developed to simulate a cohort of patients with ADPKD at risk of rapid progression and predict their long-term outcomes using an algorithm organized around the Mayo Risk Classification system, which has five subclasses (1A through 1E) based on estimated kidney growth rates. The model base-case population represents 1280 patients enrolled in TEMPO 3:4 beginning in chronic kidney disease (CKD) stages G1, G2, and G3 across Mayo subclasses 1C, 1D, and 1E. The algorithm was used to predict longer-term natural history health outcomes. The estimated treatment effect of tolvaptan from TEMPO 3:4 was applied to the natural history to predict the longer-term treatment benefit of tolvaptan. For the cohort, analyzed once reflecting natural history and once assuming treatment with tolvaptan, the model estimated lifetime progression through CKD stages, end-stage renal disease (ESRD), and death. RESULTS: When treated with tolvaptan, the model cohort was predicted to experience a 3.1-year delay of ESRD (95% confidence interval: 1.8 to 4.4), approximately a 23% improvement over the estimated 13.7 years for patients not receiving tolvaptan. Patients beginning tolvaptan treatment in CKD stages G1, G2, and G3 were predicted to experience estimated delays of ESRD, compared with patients not receiving tolvaptan, of 3.8 years (21% improvement), 3.0 years (24% improvement), and 2.1 years (28% improvement), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The model estimated that patients treated with tolvaptan versus no treatment spent more time in earlier CKD stages and had later onset of ESRD. Findings highlight the potential long-term value of early intervention with tolvaptan in patients at risk of rapid ADPKD progression.

The evolution of ICER's review process for new medical interventions and a critical review of economic evaluations (2018-2019): how stakeholders can collaborate with ICER to improve the quality of evidence in ICER's reports.

BACKGROUND: Since its inception in 2006, the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) has rapidly gained influence on drug pricing and reimbursement decisions despite historical resistance to the use of cost-effectiveness thresholds in the US health care system. Although patient groups, physicians, and pharmaceutical manufacturers voiced their concerns about the potential negative effects of increased use of ICER's assessments on patient access to innovative medications, there is little guidance and consensus on how the stakeholders should collaborate with ICER to ensure that its reviews reflect the best clinical and economic evidence. OBJECTIVES: To (1) summarize the evolution of ICER's evaluation procedure, scope, and topics; (2) evaluate the effectiveness of stakeholder engagement approaches; and (3) inform stakeholders of their potential role in collaborating with ICER in estimating the cost-effectiveness of new interventions. METHODS: Publicly available ICER evaluations from 2008 to 2019 were systematically reviewed. Changes in evaluation procedures, scope, and topics were summarized. For evaluations that occurred in 2018 (n = 12) and 2019 (n = 8), key characteristics were extracted from 172 letters documenting interactions between ICER and all stakeholders who provided comments to draft reports. Stakeholder suggestions were analyzed in terms of their effectiveness indicated by ICER's reconsideration of its original cost-effectiveness analysis approach. RESULTS: The number of ICER evaluations increased consistently from 2 to 12 per year between 2008 and 2018 but declined to 8 in 2019. Stakeholder opportunity to engage with ICER increased from 1 to 3 per evaluation between 2008 and 2015. ICER initially focused on reviewing general treatment strategies but shifted its focus to specific pharmaceuticals and medical devices in 2014. In 2018 and 2019, 30% of 172 stakeholder letters resulted in a revision in the base-case analysis (49 comments in 2018, 23 in 2019); nearly half of comments in these letters included specific alternative data or a published article to rationalize recommendations. Other common types of suggestions that resulted in ICER's base-case analysis revisions included comments relating to inconsistent methods used to derive model inputs across different treatments (12/49 in 2018, 5/23 in 2019); clinical justifications (12/49 in 2018, 0/23 in 2019); and justifications based on patient perspectives (1/49 in 2018, 5/23 in 2019). These revisions rarely affected ICER's conclusions on the cost-effectiveness of evaluated interventions. Among the 20 assessments that involved 172 stakeholder engagements in 2018 and 2019, only 2% (n = 3) of the engagements (all from 2018) were associated with a change in the cost-effectiveness conclusion. CONCLUSIONS: Between 2018 and 2019, stakeholders leveraged ICER evaluations as opportunities to promote dialogue for better understanding of the value of technologies. Actionable, evidence-based recommendations were accepted more often than other recommendations. DISCLOSURES: No outside funding supported this study. The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose. Findings from this study were presented as a poster at Virtual ISPOR, May 17-20, 2021.

Value of clinical trial narrative data to estimate the costs of adverse event management: a feasibility study.

Aims: The objective of this feasibility study was to determine the extent to which data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) may serve as a useful source for collecting health care resource use (HCRU) for the purposes of estimating costs of managing adverse events (AEs), specifically, grade 3-4 nausea and thrombocytopenia, which may be experienced during chemotherapy treatment.Materials and Methods: The feasibility study was conducted in four steps: (1) HCRU data were extracted from patient narratives in four phase 3 RCTs in non-small cell lung cancer; (2) missing HCRU data were imputed; (3) unit costs were applied to the resulting HCRU data set and costs of managing AEs were estimated; and (4) the overall utility of using RCT data as a source for estimating costs of AEs was evaluated.Results: 33 nausea and 68 thrombocytopenia AEs met eligibility criteria and were evaluated in this study. Medication usage was recorded as a treatment in 76% of nausea AEs, although only 14% of the instances of medication usage included the minimum data elements required for costing. Platelet transfusions were provided in 24% of thrombocytopenia AEs; however, in only one instance were the minimum data elements recorded. Of nausea and thrombocytopenia AEs, 18% and 72%, respectively, required no missing data assumptions or imputation.Limitations: Only two AEs were considered, and they may not be representative of all AEs in terms of suitability for use in estimating HCRU and costs of managing AEs. Not all grade 3-4 AEs met the criteria for requiring a patient narrative. HCRU data in the narratives were incomplete.Conclusions: The usefulness of RCTs for estimating the costs of AEs may be improved by using a standardized form to collect HCRU data for key AEs, including an appropriate level of detail required to estimate costs of managing the AEs.

18F-Choline PET/mpMRI for Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: Part 2. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of 18F-choline PET/multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) versus mpMRI alone for the detection of primary prostate cancer with a Gleason score of greater than or equal to 3 + 4 in men with elevated prostate-specific antigen levels. Methods: A Markov model of prostate cancer onset and progression was used to estimate the health and economic consequences of 18F-choline PET/mpMRI for the detection of primary prostate cancer with a Gleason score of greater than or equal to 3 + 4 in men with elevated prostate-specific antigen levels. Multiple simultaneous hybrid 18F-choline PET/mpMRI strategies were evaluated using Likert or Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADSv2) scoring; the first was biopsy for Likert 5 mpMRI lesions or Likert 3-4 lesions with 18F-choline target-to-background ratios of greater than or equal to 1.58, and the second was biopsy for PI-RADSv2 5 mpMRI lesions or PI-RADSv2 3-4 mpMRI lesions with 18F-choline target-to-background ratios of greater than or equal to 1.58. These strategies were compared with universal standard biopsy, mpMRI alone with biopsy only for PI-RADSv2 3-5 lesions, and mpMRI alone with biopsy only for Likert 4-5 lesions. For each mpMRI strategy, either no biopsy or standard biopsy could be performed after negative mpMRI results were obtained. Deaths averted, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), cost, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were estimated for each strategy. Results: When the results of 18F-choline PET/mpMRI were negative, performing a standard biopsy was more expensive and had lower QALYs than performing no biopsy. The best screening strategy among those considered in this study performed hybrid 18F-choline PET/mpMRI with Likert scoring on men with elevated PSA, performed combined biopsy (targeted biopsy and standard 12-core biopsy) for men with positive imaging results, and no biopsy for men with negative imaging results ($22,706/QALY gained relative to mpMRI alone); this strategy reduced the number of biopsies by 35% in comparison to mpMRI alone. When the same policies were compared using PI-RADSv2 instead of Likert scoring, hybrid 18F-choline PET/mpMRI cost $46,867/QALY gained relative to mpMRI alone. In a threshold analysis, the best strategy among those considered remained cost-effective when the sensitivity and specificity of PET/mpMRI and combined biopsy (targeted biopsy and standard 12-core biopsy) were simultaneously reduced by 20 percentage points. Conclusion:18F-choline PET/mpMRI for the detection of primary prostate cancer with a Gleason score of greater than or equal to 3 + 4 is cost-effective and can reduce the number of unneeded biopsies in comparison to mpMRI alone.

Cost estimate of platelet transfusion in the United States for patients with chronic liver disease and associated thrombocytopenia undergoing elective procedures.

AIMS: This study aimed to estimate the cost of platelet transfusion in patients with chronic liver disease (CLD)-associated thrombocytopenia undergoing an elective procedure in the United States. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was conducted in two parts: development of a conceptual framework identifying direct, indirect and intangible costs of platelet transfusion, followed by the estimation of the total cost of platelet transfusion in patients with CLD-associated thrombocytopenia before an elective procedure in the United States using the conceptual framework and cost data obtained from a literature search. The cost of the entire care required to raise a patient's platelet count before the procedure was considered. RESULTS: The final conceptual framework included the costs of generating the supply of platelets, the platelet transfusion itself, adverse events associated with platelet transfusion and refractoriness to platelet transfusion. When costs were accounted for in all the framework cost categories, the total direct cost of a platelet transfusion in a patient with CLD and associated thrombocytopenia was estimated to be in the range of $5258 to $13,117 (2017 US dollars) in the United States. The largest portion of costs was incurred by the transfusion event itself ($3723 to $4436) and the cost of refractoriness ($874 to $7578), which included the opportunity cost of a delayed procedure and subsequent platelet transfusions with human leukocyte antigen-matched platelets. LIMITATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS: Although we were unable to include all cost components identified in the conceptual framework in our total cost estimate, thus likely underestimating the true total cost, and despite the data gaps and challenges limiting our estimate of the full cost of a platelet transfusion in patients with CLD-associated thrombocytopenia undergoing an elective procedure in the United States, this study outlines a comprehensive conceptual framework for estimating the cost elements of a platelet transfusion in these patients.

Cost-effectiveness of magnetic resonance imaging and targeted fusion biopsy for early detection of prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To determine how best to use magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and targeted MRI/ultrasonography fusion biopsy for early detection of prostate cancer (PCa) in men with elevated prostate-specific antigen (PSA) concentrations and whether it can be cost-effective. METHODS: A Markov model of PCa onset and progression was developed to estimate the health and economic consequences of PCa screening with MRI. Patients underwent PSA screening from ages 55 to 69 years. Patients with elevated PSA concentrations (>4 ng/mL) underwent MRI, followed by targeted fusion or combined (standard + targeted fusion) biopsy on positive MRI, and standard or no biopsy on negative MRI. Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) score on MRI was used to determine biopsy decisions. Deaths averted, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), cost and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were estimated for each strategy. RESULTS: With a negative MRI, standard biopsy was more expensive and had lower QALYs than performing no biopsy. The optimum screening strategy (ICER $23 483/QALY) recommended combined biopsy for patients with PI-RADS score ≥3 and no biopsy for patients with PI-RADS score <3, and reduced the number of screening biopsies by 15%. Threshold analysis suggests MRI continues to be cost-effective when the sensitivity and specificity of MRI and combined biopsy are simultaneously reduced by 19 percentage points. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis suggests MRI followed by targeted MRI/ultrasonography fusion biopsy can be a cost-effective approach to the early detection of PCa.

Optimizing active surveillance strategies to balance the competing goals of early detection of grade progression and minimizing harm from biopsies.

BACKGROUND: Active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer includes follow-up with serial prostate biopsies. The optimal biopsy frequency during follow-up has not been determined. The goal of this investigation was to use longitudinal AS biopsy data to assess whether the frequency of biopsy could be reduced without substantially prolonging the time to the detection of disease with a Gleason score ≥ 7. METHODS: With data from 1375 men with low-risk prostate cancer enrolled in AS at Johns Hopkins, a hidden Markov model was developed to estimate the probability of undersampling at diagnosis, the annual probability of grade progression, and the 10-year cumulative probability of reclassification or progression to Gleason score ≥ 7. It simulated 1024 potential AS biopsy strategies for the 10 years after diagnosis. For each of these strategies, the model predicted the mean delay in the detection of disease with a Gleason score ≥ 7. RESULTS: The model estimated the 10-year cumulative probability of reclassification from a Gleason score of 6 to a Gleason score ≥ 7 to be 40.0%. The probability of undersampling at diagnosis was 9.8%, and the annual progression probability for men with a Gleason score of 6 was 4.0%. On the basis of these estimates, a simulation of an annual biopsy strategy estimated the mean time to the detection of disease with a Gleason score ≥ 7 to be 14.1 months; however, several strategies eliminated biopsies with only small delays (<12 months) in detecting grade progression. CONCLUSIONS: Although annual biopsy for low-risk men on AS is associated with the shortest time to the detection of disease with a Gleason score ≥ 7, several alternative strategies may allow less frequent biopsying without sizable delays in detecting grade progression. Cancer 2018;124:698-705. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Two-Stage Biomarker Protocols for Improving the Precision of Early Detection of Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: New cancer biomarkers are being discovered at a rapid pace; however, these tests vary in their predictive performance characteristics, and it is unclear how best to use them. METHODS: We investigated 2-stage biomarker-based screening strategies in the context of prostate cancer using a partially observable Markov model to simulate patients' progression through prostate cancer states to mortality from prostate cancer or other causes. Patients were screened every 2 years from ages 55 to 69. If the patient's serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) was over a specified threshold in the first stage, a second stage biomarker test was administered. We evaluated design characteristics for these 2-stage strategies using 7 newly discovered biomarkers as examples. Monte Carlo simulation was used to estimate the number of screening biopsies, prostate cancer deaths, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) per 1000 men. RESULTS: The all-cancer biomarkers significantly underperformed the high-grade cancer biomarkers in terms of QALYs. The screening strategy that used a PSA threshold of 2 ng/mL and a second biomarker test with high-grade sensitivity and specificity of 0.86 and 0.62, respectively, maximized QALYs. This strategy resulted in a prostate cancer death rate within 1% of using PSA alone with a threshold of 2 ng/mL, while reducing the number of biopsies by 20%. Sensitivity analysis suggests that the results are robust with respect to variation in model parameters. CONCLUSIONS: Two-stage biomarker screening strategies using new biomarkers with risk thresholds optimized for high-grade cancer detection may increase quality-adjusted survival and reduce unnecessary biopsies.

Assessment of long-term outcomes associated with urinary prostate cancer antigen 3 and TMPRSS2:ERG gene fusion at repeat biopsy.

BACKGROUND: In men with clinically localized prostate cancer who have undergone at least 1 previous negative biopsy and have elevated serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, long-term health outcomes associated with the assessment of urinary prostate cancer antigen 3 (PCA3) and the transmembrane protease, serine 2 (TMPRSS2):v-ets erythroblastosis virus E26 oncogene homolog (avian) (ERG) gene fusion (T2:ERG) have not been investigated previously in relation to the decision to recommend a repeat biopsy. METHODS: The authors performed a decision analysis using a decision tree for men with elevated PSA levels. The probability of cancer was estimated using the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial Risk Calculator (version 2.0). The use of PSA alone was compared with the use of PCA3 and T2:ERG scores, with each evaluated independently, in combination with PSA to trigger a repeat biopsy. When PCA3 and T2:ERG score evaluations were used, predefined thresholds were established to determine whether the patient should undergo a repeat biopsy. Biopsy outcomes were defined as either positive (with a Gleason score of <7, 7, or >7) or negative. Probabilities and estimates of 10-year overall survival and 15-year cancer-specific survival were derived from previous studies and a literature review. Outcomes were defined as age-dependent and Gleason score-dependent 10-year overall and 15-year cancer-specific survival rates and the percentage of biopsies avoided. RESULTS: Incorporating the PCA3 score (biopsy threshold, 25; generated based on the urine PCA3 level normalized to the amount of PSA messenger RNA) or the T2:ERG score (biopsy threshold, 10; based on the urine T2:ERG level normalized to the amount of PSA messenger RNA) into the decision to recommend repeat biopsy would have avoided 55.4% or 64.7% of repeat biopsies for the base-case patient, respectively, and changes in the 10-year survival rate were only 0.93% or 1.41%, respectively. Multi-way sensitivity analyses suggested that these results were robust with respect to the model parameters. CONCLUSIONS: The use of PCA3 or T2:ERG testing for repeat biopsy decisions can substantially reduce the number of biopsies without significantly affecting 10-year survival.