Cost-Effectiveness of Adjuvant Abemaciclib and Ribociclib in High-Risk Hormone Receptor-Positive Early Breast Cancer: An Indian Perspective.

PURPOSE: Incorporating adjuvant cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) 4/6 inhibitors abemaciclib and ribociclib along with endocrine therapy has been shown to improve invasive disease-free survival (iDFS) for hormone receptor-positive (HR+) human epidermal receptor 2-negative (HER2-) early breast cancer (EBC). This study assesses the cost-effectiveness of this strategy, along with adjuvant aromatase inhibitors from an Indian perspective. METHODS: A Markov chain model evaluated the cost-effectiveness of abemaciclib and ribociclib with letrozole compared with letrozole alone for HR+/HER2- EBC from a payer perspective in India. Key measures included lifetime quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), life-years (LY), and total costs. This study explores two scenarios for effectiveness: a best-case (BC) scenario, where the benefit of CDK4/6 inhibitors in improving iDFS lasts a lifetime, and a worst-case (WC) scenario, where benefits disappear after 5 years. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were used to account for simulation uncertainty. RESULTS: In the BC scenario, abemaciclib added 2.17 QALY and 4.96 LY, incurring ₹2,317,957.7 ($27,756.65 in US dollars [USD]) in additional costs. However, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for abemaciclib exceeded India's willingness-to-pay threshold in the BC and WC scenarios. In the BC scenario, ribociclib added 0.98 QALY and 2.58 LY with added costs of ₹1,711,504.32 ($20,494.6 USD). The ICER for ribociclib also surpassed India's threshold in both scenarios. PSA showed that neither drug was cost-effective at the current market prices in either BC/WC scenario. The cost of abemaciclib and ribociclib needs to be reduced by at least 78.61% and 87.19%, respectively, to be cost-effective in the BC scenario. CONCLUSION: The combination of adjuvant abemaciclib or ribociclib with letrozole is not cost-effective for HR+/HER2- EBC in India in either the BC or WC scenario.

Clinical and economic burden of medicare beneficiaries with multiple myeloma and renal impairment: An observational study.

Evidence on real-world clinical and economic outcomes in patients with multiple myeloma (MM) and renal impairment (RI) is limited in the United States. This retrospective study aimed to generate an updated comprehensive assessment of the clinical and economic outcomes of MM patients with RI using the Medicare research identifiable files data with Part D linkage, which might assist in assessing the total clinical and socioeconomic burden of these high-risk and challenging-to-treat patients. Treatment patterns and clinical and economic outcomes in first line (1L) to fourth line (4L) therapy were described in Medicare beneficiaries (2012 to 2018) for MM patients with RI (RI MM cohort). For reference purposes, information on a general cohort of MM patients was generated and reported to highlight the clinical and economic burden of RI. Since the goal was to describe the burden of these patients, this study was not designed as a comparison between the 2 cohorts. Compared with the general MM cohort (n = 13,573), RI MM patients (24.9%) presented high MM-associated comorbidities. In the RI MM cohort, bortezomib-dexamethasone (45.7%), bortezomib-lenalidomide (18.6%), lenalidomide (12.3%), and bortezomib-cyclophosphamide (12.1%) were the most prevalent regimens in 1L; carfilzomib and pomalidomide were mostly received in 3L to 4L; and daratumumab in 4L. Across 1L to 4L, the RI MM cohort presented shorter median real-world progression-free survival (1L: 12.9 and 16.4 months) and overall survival (1L: 31.1 and 46.8 months) and higher all-cause healthcare resource utilization (1L incidence rate of inpatient days: 12.1 and 7.8 per person per year) than the general MM cohort. In the RI MM cohort, the mean all-cause total cost increased from 1L to 4L ($14,549-$18,667 per person per month) and was higher than that of the general MM cohort. RI MM patients presented higher clinical and economic burdens across 1L to 4L than the general MM patients in real-world clinical practice.

First-line serplulimab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy in PD-L1-positive esophageal squamous-cell carcinoma: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

Patients with PD-L1-positive esophageal squamous-cell carcinoma (ESCC) were significantly more likely to survive when treated with serplulimab plus cisplatin plus 5-fluorouracil (serplulimab-CF). At this point, it is unknown whether this expensive therapy is cost-effective. From the Chinese healthcare system's perspective, we aimed to evaluate serplulimab-CF versus CF alone for cost-effectiveness. A partitioned survival model was constructed based on the ASTRUM-007 trial. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were calculated. A further analysis of subgroups and scenarios was conducted. The willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of $38,258/QALY or $84,866/QALY is defined as three times the per capita gross domestic product value of the general region or affluent region. Compared with CF alone, in the overall (scenario 1), patients with PD-L1 expression level of 1 ≤ CPS < 10 (scenario 2), and patients with PD-L1 CPS ≥ 10 (scenario 3) populations, the ICERs were $69,025/QALY, $82,533/QALY, and $75,436/QALY for serplulimab-CF. Nevertheless, the probability of serplulimab-CF becoming cost-effective based on scenarios 1, 2, and 3 is only 2.71%, 0.94%, and 2.84%, respectively, at a WTP threshold of $38,258/QALY. When serplulimab costs < $4.84/mg, serplulimab-CF may be cost-effective at the WTP threshold of $38,258/QALY; otherwise, CF was preferred. Similar results were obtained from sensitivity analyses, suggesting the robustness of these findings. There was no cost-effectiveness in general regions of China for serplulimab-CF in PD-L1-positive ESCC compared to CF, although it is probably considered cost-effective in affluent regions. Serplulimab-CF may achieve favorable cost-effectiveness by lowering the price of serplulimab.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of bevacizumab combined with lomustine in the treatment of progressive glioblastoma using a Markov model simulation analysis.

Background: Progressive glioblastoma (GBM) is a malignancy with extremely poor prognosis. Chemotherapy is one of the approved systemic treatment modalities. The aim of this study is to assess the cost-effectiveness of using bevacizumab (BEV) in combination with lomustine (LOM) regimen for the treatment of progressive glioblastoma in China. Methods: The estimation results are derived from a multicenter randomized phase III trial, which demonstrated improved survival in GBM patients receiving BEV+LOM combination therapy. To calculate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) from the perspective of Chinese society, a Markov model was established. Univariate deterministic analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were employed to address the uncertainties within the model. Results: Compared to LOM monotherapy, the total treatment cost for BEV+LOM combination therapy increased from $2,646.70 to $23,650.98. The health-adjusted life years (QALYs) for BEV+LOM combination therapy increased from 0.26 QALYs to 0.51 QALYs, representing an increment of 0.25 QALYs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was $84,071.12. The cost-effectiveness curve indicates that within the willingness-to-pay (WTP) range of $35,906 per QALY, BEV+LOM combination therapy is not a cost-effective treatment option for unresectable malignant pleural mesothelioma patients. Conclusions: Taken as a whole, the findings of this study suggest that, from the perspective of payers in China, BEV+LOM combination therapy as a first-line treatment for GBM is not a cost-effective option. However, considering the survival advantages this regimen may offer for this rare disease, it may still be one of the clinical treatment options for this patient population.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of FOLFIRI-Based First-Line Regimens for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Using Clinical Decision Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Metastatic colorectal cancer with KRAS wild type is treated using a range of drug regimens, including fluorouracil, irinotecan, and Leucovorin(FOLFIRI)plus bevacizumab(Bmab), cetuximab(Cmab), or panitumumab(Pmab). The present study aimed to identify the optimal regimen using a decision analysis method, in combination with clinical and economic evidence. METHOD: A simple Markov model with a monthly cycle time was constructed. Probabilistic variables for input into the model were derived from randomized controlled trials. Direct costs for the drugs, laboratory analyses, and medical staff were calculated and used in the model. RESULTS: The expected survival times and costs of FOLFIRI alone and combination therapies were 20.9 months and 2,299,198 yen for FOLFIRI, 29.9 months and 8,929,888 yen for Bmab, 27.8 months and 11,811,849 yen for Cmab, and 22.6 months and 8,795,622 yen for Pmab. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios to FOLFIRI were 736,743 yen/month for Bmab, 1,378,645 yen/month for Cmab, and 3,821,426 yen/month for Pmab. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggested that these regimens were not sufficiently cost-effective, although they have excellent therapeutic efficacy. From the economic point of view, these combination regimens were inferior to FOLFIRI alone.

Induction chemotherapy regimes in first-line treatment for locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma: A network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of various induction chemotherapy (IC) regimens as first-line treatment for Locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma (LA-NPC), aiming to provide clinicians and patients with informed insights to aid in treatment decision-making. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a network meta-analysis (NMA) and cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) based on data from 10 clinical trials investigating IC regimens for the treatment of LA-NPC. A Bayesian NMA was performed, with the primary outcomes being hazard ratios (HRs) for disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). To model the disease progression of LA-NPC, we developed a dynamic partitioned survival model consisting of three disease states: progression-free survival (PFS), progression disease (PD), and death. The model was run on a 3-week cycle for a research period of 10 years, with quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) serving as outcome measures. RESULTS: According to the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) estimates derived from the NMA, TPC and TP, as IC regimens, appear to exhibit superior efficacy compared to other treatment modalities. In terms of CEA, concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT), TPF + CCRT, and GP + CCRT were found to be dominated (more costs and less QALYs). Comparatively, TPC + CCRT emerged as a cost-effective option with an ICER of $1260.57/QALY when compared to PF + CCRT. However, TP + CCRT demonstrated even greater cost-effectiveness than TPC + CCRT, with an associated increase in costs of $3300.83 and an increment of 0.1578 QALYs per patient compared to TPC + CCRT, resulting in an ICER of $20917.62/QALY. CONCLUSION: Based on considerations of efficacy and cost-effectiveness, the TP + CCRT treatment regimen may emerge as the most favorable first-line therapeutic approach for patients with LA-NPC.

Cost-effectiveness of tislelizumab plus chemotherapy vs chemotherapy as first-line treatment of PD-L1 positive advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma from a Chinese perspective.

BACKGROUND: This work was designed to assess the cost-effectiveness of front-line tislelizumab plus chemotherapy (TIS+Chemo) in advanced gastric cancer (GC) or gastroesophageal junction cancer (GEJC) with positive expression of programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) from the perspective of Chinese healthcare system. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A 10-year partitioned survival model was undertaken utilizing clinical data from RATIONALE 305. Costs and utilities were both discounted at an annual rate of 5%. The primary outcome was incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and calculated as the cost per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was set as $18,625/QALY. Only direct medical costs were considered. Sensitivity analyses and subgroup analyses were performed to evaluate the robustness of the model. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, the incremental cost and effectiveness associated with TIS+Chemo vs Chemo was 7,361 and 0.38 QALYs, respectively, leading to an ICER of 19,371/QALY. At the WTP threshold of $18,625/QALY, the TIS+Chemo was not a cost-effective first-line treatment option. The model outcomes were robust. CONCLUSIONS: TIS+Chemo did not provide a cost-effective approach for PD-L1 positive advanced GC/GEJC in China setting. However, TIS+Chemo might be cost-effective in provinces with higher WTP threshold. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: RATIONALE 305, www.clinicaltrials.gov, identifier is NCT03777657.

BeEAM vs. BEAM: evaluating conditioning regimens for autologous stem cell transplantation in patients with relapsed or refractory DLBCL.

PURPOSE: To evaluate whether BeEAM is an alternative to BEAM for autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) in patients with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). METHODS: Data of 60 patients with relapsed or refractory DLBCL who underwent ASCT from January 2018 to June 2023 in our center, including 30 patients in the BeEAM group and 30 patients in the BEAM group, were retrospectively analyzed. The time to hematopoietic reconstitution, treatment-related adverse events, number of hospitalization days, hospitalization cost, and survival benefit were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: The clinical characteristics of the patients did not significantly differ between the two groups. The median number of reinfused CD34 + cells was 5.06 × 106/kg and 5.17 × 106/kg in the BeEAM and BEAM groups, respectively, which did not significantly different (p = 0.8829). In the BeEAM and BEAM groups, the median time to neutrophil implantation was 10.2 and 10.27 days, respectively (p = 0.8253), and the median time to platelet implantation was 13.23 and 12.87 days, respectively (p = 0.7671). In the BeEAM and BEAM groups, the median hospitalization duration was 30.37 and 30.57 days, respectively (p = 0.9060), and the median hospitalization cost was RMB 83,425 and RMB 96,235, respectively (p = 0.0560). The hospitalization cost was lower in the BeEAM group. The most common hematologic adverse events were grade ≥ 3 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia, whose incidences were similar in the two groups. The most common non-hematologic adverse events were ≤ grade 2 and the incidences of these events did not significantly differ between the two groups. Median overall survival was not reached in either group, with predicted 5-year overall survival of 72.5% and 60% in the BeEAM and BEAM groups, respectively (p = 0.5872). Five-year progression-free survival was 25% and 20% in the BeEAM and BEAM groups, respectively (p = 0.6804). CONCLUSION: As a conditioning regimen for relapsed or refractory DLBCL, BeEAM has a desirable safety profile and is well tolerated, and its hematopoietic reconstitution time, number of hospitalization days, and survival benefit are not inferior to those of BEAM. BeEAM has a lower hospitalization cost and is an alternative to BEAM.

Prevention of treatment abandonment remains an important challenge to increase survival of Wilms tumor in sub-Saharan Africa: A report from Wilms Africa-CANCaRe Africa.

BACKGROUND: The Wilms Africa studies implemented an adapted Wilm's tumor (WT) treatment protocol in sub-Saharan Africa in two phases. Phase I began with four sites and provided out-of-pocket costs. Phase II expanded the number of sites, but lost funding provision. Objective is to describe the outcomes of Phase II and compare with Phase I. METHODS: Wilms Africa Phase I (n = 4 sites; 2014-2018) and Phase II (n = 8 sites; 2021-2022) used adapted treatment protocols. Funding for families' out-of-pocket costs was provided during Phase I but not Phase II. Eligibility criteria were age less than 16 years and newly diagnosed unilateral WT. We documented patients' outcome at the end of planned first-line treatment categorized as treatment abandonment, death during treatment, and disease-related events (death before treatment, persistent disease, relapse, or progressive disease). Sensitivity analysis compared outcomes in the same four sites. RESULTS: We included 431 patients in Phase I (n = 201) and Phase II (n = 230). The proportion alive without evidence of disease decreased from 69% in Phase I to 54% in Phase II at all sites (p = .002) and 58% at the original four sites (p = .04). Treatment abandonment increased overall from 12% to 26% (p < .001), and was 20% (p = .04) at the original four sites. Disease-related events (5% vs. 6% vs. 6%) and deaths during treatment (14% vs. 14% vs. 17%) were similar. CONCLUSION: Provision of out-of-pocket costs was important to improve patient outcomes at the end of planned first-line treatment in WT. Prevention of treatment abandonment remains an important challenge.

Treatment patterns and clinical outcomes in patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer: a large-scale data analysis using the Japanese claims database.

PURPOSE: This study evaluated treatment patterns and clinical outcomes among patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC) in real-world clinical settings in Japan. METHODS: The treatment patterns, time to next treatment or death (TTNTD), time to treatment discontinuation, adverse events of interest, and medical costs of treating patients with mTNBC in first-, second-, and third-line settings were investigated using data of patients meeting the inclusion criteria between January 2017 and March 2022 in a Japanese medical claims database. The treatment regimens for mTNBC were defined according to the Japanese Breast Cancer Society Clinical Practice Guidelines. RESULTS: In this study, 2236 patients with mTNBC (median age 66.0 years; 99.8% female) were included in the first-line cohort. Of these, 46.6% and 20.8% were included in the second- and third-line cohorts, respectively. The two most frequently used treatments were capecitabine (19.1%) and S-1 (tegafur-gimeracil-oteracil) (14.5%) in the first-line cohort, eribulin (18.3%) and bevacizumab/paclitaxel (14.4%) in the second-line cohort, and eribulin (19.4%) and bevacizumab/paclitaxel (17.5%) in the third-line cohort. The TTNTD shortened as the line of therapy progressed (median 8.0, 6.5, and 5.2 months for the first-, second-, and third-line treatments, respectively). Nausea/vomiting and neutropenia/leukopenia occurred in 62.8% and 18.3% of all patients, respectively. The medical total costs per day were 6.7, 10.2, and 12.9 thousand yen during the first-/second-/third-line treatments, respectively. CONCLUSION: This study provides insight into current treatment patterns for mTNBC in Japan. The cost-benefit balance worsens with later-line treatment and a high unmet need for mTNBC drug treatment remains.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of mosunetuzumab for treatment of relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma after two or more lines of systemic therapy in the United States.

AIMS: Mosunetuzumab has received accelerated approval by the US Food and Drug Administration for adult patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) follicular lymphoma (FL) after two or more lines of systemic therapy. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of mosunetuzumab for the treatment of R/R FL from a US private payer perspective. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A partitioned survival model simulated lifetime costs and outcomes of mosunetuzumab against seven comparators: axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel), tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cel), tazemetostat (taz, EZH2 wild-type only), rituximab plus lenalidomide (R-Len) or bendamustine (R-Benda), obinutuzumab plus bendamustine (O-Benda), and a retrospective real-world cohort (RW) based on current patterns of care derived from US electronic health records (Flatiron Health). Efficacy data for mosunetuzumab were from the pivotal Phase II GO29781 trial (NCT02500407). Relative treatment efficacy was estimated from indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs). Costs included were related to treatment, adverse events, routine care, and terminal care. Except for drug costs (March 2023), all costs were inflated to 2022 US dollars. Costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were used to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Net monetary benefit (NMB) was calculated using a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000/QALY. RESULTS: Mosunetuzumab dominated taz, tisa-cel, and axi-cel with greater QALYs and lower costs. Mosunetuzumab was projected to be cost-effective against R-Benda, O-Benda, and RW with ICERs of $78,607, $42,731, and $21,434, respectively. Mosunetuzumab incurred lower costs but lower QALYs vs. R-Len. NMBs showed that mosunetuzumab was cost-effective against comparators except R-Len. LIMITATIONS: Without head-to-head comparative data, the model had to rely on ITCs, some of which were affected by residual bias. Model inputs were obtained from multiple sources. Extensive sensitivity analyses assessed the importance of these uncertainties. CONCLUSION: Mosunetuzumab is estimated to be cost-effective compared with approved regimens except R-Len for the treatment of adults with R/R FL.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab compared with sorafenib as first-line treatment in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma in Singapore.

OBJECTIVES: This study aims to explore the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab against sorafenib for first-line treatment of locally advanced or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in Singapore. METHODS: A partitioned survival model was developed from a healthcare system perspective, with a 10-year lifetime horizon. Clinical inputs and utilities were obtained from the IMbrave150 trial. Healthcare resource use costs were obtained from published local sources; drug costs reflected the most recent public hospital selling prices. Outcomes included life years, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the model's robustness. RESULTS: Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab offered an additional 1.42 life years and 1.09 QALYs, with an additional cost of S$111,847; the ICER was S$102,988/QALY. The World Health Organization considers interventions with ICERs <1 gross domestic product (GDP)/capita to be highly cost-effective. At a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of S$114,165/QALY (Singapore's 2022 GDP/capita), atezolizumab plus bevacizumab is cost-effective compared with sorafenib. The ICER was most sensitive to variations in utilities, but all parameter variations had no significant impact on the model outcomes. CONCLUSION: At a WTP threshold of Singapore's GDP/capita, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab is cost-effective compared with sorafenib.

Economic evaluation of trastuzumab in HER2-positive early breast cancer in Indonesia: A cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Trastuzumab has significantly enhanced the survival and prognosis of individuals diagnosed with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive early breast cancer. Considering its relatively high costs, we aimed to examine the cost-effectiveness of trastuzumab plus chemotherapy compared with chemotherapy alone in HER2-positive early breast cancer from an Indonesian healthcare payer's perspective. METHODS: A Markov model was developed to project the lifetime health benefits and costs associated with trastuzumab treatment for a cohort of women with HER2-positive early breast cancer. Efficacy data and baseline characteristics in the base-case analysis were primarily derived from the 11-year results of the HERA trial. Costs were based on verified reimbursement data from Indonesia's Health and Social Security Agency (BPJS Kesehatan) of the year 2020. A scenario analysis was conducted with efficacy data based on the joint analysis from the NSABP B-31 and NCCTG N9831 trials, allowing for subgroup analysis by age at diagnosis. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the influence of parameter uncertainty. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, the results indicated that the lifetime costs for trastuzumab plus chemotherapy and chemotherapy alone were US$33,744 and US$22,720, respectively, resulting in substantial incremental savings of US$11,024 per patient for the former. Trastuzumab plus chemotherapy also led to higher total quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and life years gained (LYG), resulting in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of US$6,842 per QALY and US$5,510 per LYG. In scenario analysis, the subgroup with an age at diagnosis <40 years old reflected the most cost-effective subgroup. Both the base-case and scenario analyses demonstrated cost-effectiveness with a willingness-to-pay threshold of three-times Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the findings and conclusions. CONCLUSION: In Indonesia, trastuzumab plus chemotherapy can be considered cost-effective compared to chemotherapy alone at a willingness-to-pay threshold of three times GDP, and it is likely most cost-effective in women <40 years of age.

Cost-effectiveness of additional serplulimab to chemotherapy in metastatic squamous non-small cell lung cancer patients.

Objective: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of adding serplulimab to chemotherapy for metastatic squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients in a first-line setting from a Chinese perspective. Methods: A three-health state partitioned survival model was constructed to simulate disease development. The clinical data used in the model were derived from the ASTRUM-004 clinical trial. Only direct medical costs were included, and the utilities were derived from published literature. The quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were employed to evaluate health outcomes. Additionally, a sensitivity analysis was performed to verify the robustness of the results. Results: Compared with chemotherapy alone, the addition of serplulimab resulted in an increase of 0.63 QALYs with an incremental cost of $5,372.73, leading to an ICER of $8,528.14 per QALY. This ICER was significantly lower than 3 times China's per capita GDP. The one-way sensitivity analysis suggested that the utility of PFS was the most sensitive factor on ICERs, followed by the price of serplulimab. Conclusion: The combination of serplulimab and chemotherapy has been shown to be a cost-effective initial treatment option for patients with metastatic squamous NSCLC with the commonly accepted willingness-to-pay threshold of 3 times the GDP per capita per QALY in China.

Cost-effectiveness of ivosidenib versus chemotherapy for previously treated IDH1-mutant advanced intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma in Taiwan.

BACKGROUND: International guidelines recommend ivosidenib followed by modified FOLFOX (mFOLFOX) for advanced intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) with isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 (IDH1) mutations. Taiwan National Health Insurance covers only fluorouracil/leucovorin (5-FU/LV) chemotherapy for this ICC group, and there has been no prior economic evaluation of ivosidenib. Therefore, we aimed to assess ivosidenib's cost-effectiveness in previously treated, advanced ICC-presenting IDH1 mutations compared with mFOLFOX or 5-FU/LV. METHODS: A 3-state partitioned survival model was employed to assess ivosidenib's cost-effectiveness over a 10-year horizon with a 3% discount rate, setting the willingness-to-pay threshold at 3 times the 2022 GDP per capita. Efficacy data for Ivosidenib, mFOLFOX, and 5-FU/LV were sourced from the ClarIDHy, ABC06, and NIFTY trials, respectively. Ivosidenib's cost was assumed to be NT$10,402/500 mg. Primary outcomes included incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and net monetary benefit. Deterministic sensitivity analyses (DSA) and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were employed to evaluate uncertainty and explore price reduction scenarios. RESULTS: Ivosidenib exhibited ICERs of NT$6,268,528 and NT$5,670,555 compared with mFOLFOX and 5-FU/LV, respectively, both exceeding the established threshold. PSA revealed that ivosidenib was unlikely to be cost-effective, except when it was reduced to NT$4,161 and NT$5,201/500 mg when compared with mFOLFOX and 5-FU/LV, respectively. DSA underscored the significant influence of ivosidenib's cost and utility values on estimate uncertainty. CONCLUSIONS: At NT$10,402/500 mg, ivosidenib was not cost-effective for IDH1-mutant ICC patients compared with mFOLFOX or 5-FU/LV, indicating that a 50-60% price reduction is necessary for ivosidenib to be cost-effective in this patient group.

Evaluation of Metronomic Therapy as a Low-Cost, Sustainable, Standard-of-Care Option in Desmoid Fibromatosis: Real-World Data From a Tertiary Care Center in India.

PURPOSE: Desmoid fibromatosis (DF) is a locally aggressive tumor with low mortality but significant morbidity. There is a lack of standard of care, and existing therapies are associated with significant barriers including access, cost, and toxicities. This study aimed to explore the efficacy and safety of the metronomic therapy (MT) in DF in a large, homogenous cohort from India. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This study involved histologically confirmed DF cases treated with MT comprising vinblastine (6 mg) and methotrexate (15 mg) both once a week, and tamoxifen (40 mg/m2) in two divided doses once daily between 2002 and 2018. RESULTS: There were 315 patients with a median age of 27 years; the commonest site was extremity (142 of 315; 45.0%). There were 159 (50.1%) male patients. Of the 123 (39.0%) prior treated patients, 119 had surgery. Of 315 patients, 263 (83.5%) received treatment at our institute (MT-151, 77-local treatment, 9-tyrosine kinase inhibitor, and 26 were observed). Among the MT cohort (n = 163, 61.2%), at a median follow-up of 36 (0.5-186) months, the 3-year progression-free and overall survival were 81.1% (95% CI, 74.3 to 88.4) and 99.2% (95% CI, 97.6 to 100), respectively. There were 35% partial responses. Ninety-two patients (56.4%) completed 1-year therapy, which was an independent prognosticator (P < .0001; hazard ratio, 0.177 [95% CI, 0.083 to 0.377]). MT was well tolerated. Predominant grade ≥3 toxicities were febrile neutropenia, 12 (7.4%) without any chemotoxicity-related death. The annual cost of MT was $130 US dollars. CONCLUSION: The novel, low-cost MT qualifies as one of the effective, less toxic, sustainable, standard-of-care options for the treatment of DF with global reach and merits wide recognition.

Toripalimab plus chemotherapy in American patients with recurrent or metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma: A cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Toripalimab, combined with gemcitabine and cisplatin, has been approved as the first-line treatment for recurrent or metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma (RM-NPC), representing a significant milestone as the first FDA-approved innovative therapy for this condition. Despite this achievement, there's a lack of data on the cost-effectiveness of toripalimab for RM-NPC patients in the American context. METHODS: To assess the cost-effectiveness of toripalimab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone, a 3-state partitioned survival model was constructed. The study involved participants with characteristics matching those in the JUPITER-02 trial. Cost and utility inputs were collected from literature. Main outcomes measured were quality-adjusted life year (QALY), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses, subgroup analyses, and scenario analyses were conducted to verify the robustness of results. RESULTS: The study found that the toripalimab regimen resulted in 4.390 QALYs at a cost of $361,813, while the chemotherapy-only regimen yielded 1.685 QALYs at a cost of $161,632. This translates to an ICER of $74,004/QALY, below the willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000/QALY. Sensitivity analyses indicated that utility values, discount rate, and the price of toripalimab significantly impact INMB. With an 87.10% probability of being cost-effective at a $150,000/QALY threshold, the probabilistic sensitivity analysis supports toripalimab plus chemotherapy as a viable option. Scenario analysis showed that toripalimab remains cost-effective unless its price increases by 125%. Additionally, a simulated 15-year study period increases the ICER to $88,026/QALY. Subgroup analysis revealed ICERs of $76,538/QALY for PD-L1 positive and $70,158/QALY for PD-L1 negative groups. CONCLUSIONS: Toripalimab in combination with chemotherapy is likely to be a cost-effective alternative to standard chemotherapy for American patients with RM-NPC. This evidence can guide clinical and reimbursement decision-making in treating RM-NPC patients.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of tislelizumab plus chemotherapy as the first-line treatment for advanced or metastatic oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma in China.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of tislelizumab plus chemotherapy compared to chemotherapy alone as a first-line treatment for advanced or metastatic oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC). METHODS: A partitioned survival model was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of tislelizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in patients with advanced or metastatic OSCC over a 10-year lifetime horizon from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Costs and utilities were derived from the drug procurement platform and published literature. The model outcomes comprised of costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to address uncertainty and ensure the robustness of the model. RESULTS: Tislelizumab plus chemotherapy yielded an additional 0.337 QALYs and incremental costs of $7,117.007 compared with placebo plus chemotherapy, generating an ICER of $21,116.75 per QALY, which was between 1 time ($12,674.89/QALY) and 3 times GDP ($38,024.67/QALY) per capita. In one-way sensitivity analysis, the ICER is most affected by the cost of oxaliplatin, paclitaxel and tislelizumab. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, when the willingness-to-pay threshold was set as 1 or 3 times GDP per capita, the probability of tislelizumab plus chemotherapy being cost-effective was 1% and 100%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Tislelizumab plus chemotherapy was probably cost-effective compared with chemotherapy alone as the first-line treatment for advanced or metastatic OSCC in China.

Cost-utility of sintilimab plus chemotherapy vs chemotherapy as first-line treatment of advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction cancer in China.

OBJECTIVES: ORIENT-16, a phase III clinical trial conducted at 62 hospitals in China, reported that add-on sintilimab (Sin) to chemotherapy (Chemo) had favorable efficacy (p < 0.05) for patients with advanced HER2-negative gastric or gastroesophageal junction cancer (GC/GEJC). This study aimed to evaluate the cost-utility of the Sin+Chemo based on results of ORIENT-16 from the perspective of Chinese healthcare payers. METHODS: A three-state partitioned survival model was developed to simulate the 10-year life expectancy and total healthcare costs for patients with advanced HER2-negative GC/GEJC. Primary measure outcomes were: cost, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-utility ratios (ICURs). Sensitivity/scenario analyses were conducted to assess the model robustness. RESULTS: In all patients, Sin+Chemo vs Chemo increased costs by $6,472, additionally providing 0.61 QALYs, resulting in an ICUR of $10,610/QALY. While, in PD-L1 combined positive score ≥ 5 cohort, the ICUR was $9,738/QALYs. The ICUR was most sensitive to the utility of progression-free survival. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that add-on Sin had a 100% probability of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $18,625/QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: Sin+Chemo is a cost-effective first-line treatment option for advanced HER2-negative GC/GEJC in China. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ORIENT-16, www.clinicaltrials.gov, identifier is NCT03745170.

Real-world total cost of care by line of therapy in relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.

AIMS: There are multiple recently approved treatments and a lack of clear standard-of-care therapies for relapsed/refractory (R/R) diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). While total cost of care (TCC) by the number of lines of therapy (LoTs) has been evaluated, more recent cost estimates using real-world data are needed. This analysis assessed real-world TCC of R/R DLBCL therapies by LoT using the IQVIA PharMetrics Plus database (1 January 2015-31 December 2021), in US patients aged ≥18 years treated with rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP) or an R-CHOP-like regimen as first-line therapy. METHODS: Treatment costs and resources in the R/R setting were assessed by LoT. A sensitivity analysis identified any potential confounding of the results caused by the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare utilization and costs. Overall, 310 patients receiving a second- or later-line treatment were included; baseline characteristics were similar across LoTs. Inpatient costs represented the highest percentage of total costs, followed by outpatient and pharmacy costs. RESULTS: Mean TCC per-patient-per-month generally increased by LoT ($40,604, $48,630, and $59,499 for second-, third- and fourth-line treatments, respectively). Costs were highest for fourth-line treatment for all healthcare resource utilization categories. Sensitivity analysis findings were consistent with the overall analysis, indicating results were not confounded by the COVID-19 pandemic. LIMITATIONS: There was potential misclassification of LoT; claims data were processed through an algorithm, possibly introducing errors. A low number of patients met the inclusion criteria. Patients who switched insurance plans, had insurance terminated, or whose enrollment period met the end of data availability may have had truncated follow-up, potentially resulting in underestimated costs. CONCLUSION: Total healthcare costs increased with each additional LoT in the R/R DLBCL setting. Further improvements of first-line treatments that reduce the need for subsequent LoTs would potentially lessen the economic burden of DLBCL.