Cost-Effectiveness of Cemiplimab Versus Standard of Care in the United States for First-Line Treatment of Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer With Programmed Death-Ligand 1 Expression ≥50.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness, from a US commercial payer perspective, of cemiplimab versus other first-line treatments for advanced non-small cell lung cancer with programmed death-ligand 1 expression ≥50%. METHODS: A 30-year "partitioned survival" model was constructed. Overall survival and progression-free survival were estimated by applying time-varying hazard ratios from a network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Overall survival and progression-free survival were estimated from EMPOWER-Lung 1 (cemiplimab monotherapy vs chemotherapy) and KEYNOTE-024 and KEYNOTE-042 (pembrolizumab monotherapy vs chemotherapy). Drug acquisition costs were based on published 2020 US list prices. A 3% discount rate was applied to life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and costs. A deterministic analysis was performed on the base case; 1-way sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analyses assessed model and parameter uncertainties. RESULTS: Cemiplimab was associated with increased time in the "preprogression" (13.08 vs 7.90 and 6.08 months) and "postprogression" (47.30 vs 29.49 and 14.78 months) health states versus pembrolizumab and chemotherapy, respectively. Compared with pembrolizumab and chemotherapy, cemiplimab generated 1.00 (95% CI -0.266 to 2.440) and 1.78 (95% CI 0.607-3.20) incremental QALYs, respectively, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $68 254 and $89 219 per QALY for cemiplimab versus pembrolizumab and cemiplimab versus chemotherapy, respectively. The probability of cemiplimab being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 to $150 000 per QALY was 62% to 76% versus pembrolizumab and 56% to 84% versus chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that cemiplimab, versus pembrolizumab or versus chemotherapy, is a cost-effective first-line treatment option for advanced non-small cell lung cancer with programmed death-ligand 1 expression ≥50%.

Cost-effectiveness of nivolumab monotherapy in the third-line treatment of small cell lung cancer.

AIMS: Present cost-effectiveness analysis of nivolumab monotherapy vs. commonly prescribed third-line (3 L+) treatment in small cell lung cancer (SCLC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A three health states partitioned survival model (progression-free, progressed disease, and death; US payer perspective) was developed. The systematic literature review identified no randomized controlled or single-arm trials with separate outcomes for 3 L + SCLC patients. Topotecan was chosen as a comparator because it is frequently prescribed in real-world practice for 3 L SCLC. Clinical inputs for topotecan were derived from the Flatiron database with inclusion/exclusion criteria matched to patients treated with 3 L + nivolumab in CheckMate 032. Intravenous (IV) and oral topotecan clinical efficacy were assumed equivalent. Base-case analysis used a 20-year lifetime horizon. An annual discount rate of 3.0% for costs and outcomes was applied. Uncertainty was assessed using sensitivity analyses adjusted for key parameters. RESULTS: Incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained with nivolumab was US$153,312 vs. IV topotecan and US$123,003 vs. oral topotecan, respectively. When results were disaggregated, nivolumab-related costs were mainly driven by drug acquisition costs, and topotecan-related costs were primarily due to adverse event treatment. Mean overall survival (OS) was 21.69 months with nivolumab and 5.80 months with IV or oral topotecan. More favorable outcomes were found by the landmark response analyses. Deterministic sensitivity analyses showed that changes to the discount rate for costs and outcomes and body weight had the greatest impacts on results. LIMITATIONS: Included use of real-world data for OS outcomes associated with 3 L topotecan, use of second-line topotecan data for progression-free survival, and no indirect costs. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the literature on willingness-to-pay for a QALY in metastatic cancer, nivolumab monotherapy might represent a cost-effective option for 3 L + treatment of SCLC compared with IV and oral topotecan. Sensitivity analysis using response-based methods yielded further favorable cost-effectiveness estimates.

Cost-effectiveness of nivolumab in patients with NSCLC in the United States.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the lifetime cost-effectiveness of nivolumab vs docetaxel in advanced squamous and nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) following platinum-based chemotherapy from a US payer perspective. STUDY DESIGN: Trial- and cohort-based cost-effectiveness analyses. METHODS: The analyses used partitioned survival models with 3 mutually exclusive health states: progression free, progressed disease, and death. The mean starting age was 61 years. Clinical parameters were derived from the 2 registrational, randomized, phase 3 trials with a minimum follow-up of 5 years. Costs were derived from published literature. The primary outcomes were quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), life-years gained (LYG), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3% per annum. Uncertainty was examined using univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: In patients with squamous NSCLC, the use of nivolumab improved life-years (LYs) and QALYs by 1.23 and 0.99, respectively, compared with docetaxel. Costs were increased by $99,677, resulting in ICERs of $100,776 per QALY and $81,294 per LYG. In patients with nonsquamous NSCLC, nivolumab increased LYs and QALYs by 0.99 and 0.80, respectively. Costs were increased by $94,174, resulting in ICERs of $117,739 per QALY and $94,849 per LYG. ICERs were most sensitive to the discount rates applied to costs and outcomes. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000, nivolumab had probabilities of 91% and 99% of being cost-effective in patients with squamous and nonsquamous NSCLC, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab is likely to be cost-effective for the treatment of patients with advanced NSCLC following platinum-based chemotherapy in the United States.

Cost-effectiveness of nivolumab in squamous and non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer in Canada and Sweden: an update with 5-year data.

AIMS: Nivolumab has been approved for advanced squamous and non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) following platinum-based chemotherapy in both Canada and Sweden. We aimed to determine the value-for-money of nivolumab versus docetaxel in a Canadian and Swedish setting based on 5-year data. METHODS: These cost effectiveness analyses used partitioned survival models with three mutually exclusive health states: progression-free, progressed disease, and death. All clinical parameters were derived from two registration phase 3 randomized trials, CheckMate 017 and CheckMate 057, with a minimum follow-up of 5 years. Treatment duration was based on time-on-treatment data from the clinical trials. Costs were derived from published sources. The primary outcomes of the analyses were quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), life-years gained, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). The model input parameters for each analysis were chosen in line with guidance from the respective HTA authorities. RESULTS: From a Canadian payer perspective, the ICERs were CAN$140,753 per QALY in the squamous population, and CAN$173,804 per QALY in the non-squamous population, assuming a 10-year time horizon and a 5% discount rate for both costs and outcomes. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that changes to the discount rates for outcomes had the highest impact on the ICERs. In the Swedish analysis, the ICERs were SEK568,895 per QALY in the squamous population and SEK662,991 per QALY in the non-squamous population, assuming a 15-year time horizon, a 3% discount rate, and a 2-year maximum treatment duration for nivolumab. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the ICERs were most sensitive to changes in the discount rate for outcomes. CONCLUSION: These updated analyses, based on more mature trial data with a minimum follow-up of 5 years, generate more favorable ICERs versus the previously submitted HTA assessments that resulted in approval of nivolumab for patients with previously treated NSCLC in Canada and Sweden.

The cost-effectiveness of as-needed budesonide/formoterol versus low-dose inhaled corticosteroid maintenance therapy in patients with mild asthma in the UK.

BACKGROUND: As-needed budesonide/formoterol is effective in patients with mild asthma for whom low-dose inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) maintenance therapy is appropriate. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of this regimen versus maintenance low-dose ICS plus as-needed short-acting ß2-agonist (SABA). METHODS: A probabilistic Markov cohort model was developed that simulated time within/outside severe asthma exacerbations, conducted from a UK NHS perspective with a 70-year time horizon. Clinical efficacy inputs were derived from the SYGMA 2 trial. Patients with mild asthma eligible for low-dose maintenance ICS therapy received as-needed budesonide/formoterol 200/6 µg or twice-daily budesonide 200 µg maintenance therapy plus as-needed terbutaline 0.5 mg. A severe exacerbation was defined as worsening asthma requiring systemic corticosteroid use alone/in combination with an emergency department visit, or hospitalisation for acute asthma. Utility values were derived from SYGMA 2 EQ-5D-5L data, and all-cause- and asthma-related mortality, reduction in utility of an exacerbation, and costs were based on published data. The base-case analysis discount rate was 3.5%. Model robustness was evaluated with one-way sensitivity, probabilistic sensitivity, and two scenario analyses. RESULTS: On average, as-needed budesonide/formoterol was associated with a £292.99 cost saving and quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gains of 0.001 versus ICS + SABA. At a willingness-to-pay of £20,000/QALY, as-needed budesonide/formoterol had >85% probability of being cost-effective versus ICS + SABA. Key drivers were budesonide/formoterol and budesonide maintenance annual exacerbation rates, mean daily budesonide/formoterol inhalations, and costs and outcomes discount rates. CONCLUSIONS: From a UK healthcare payer perspective, as-needed budesonide/formoterol is a cost-effective option for the treatment of mild asthma versus regular ICS.

Evaluating Partitioned Survival and Markov Decision-Analytic Modeling Approaches for Use in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Estimating and Comparing Survival Outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess long-term survival outcomes for nivolumab and everolimus in renal cell carcinoma predicted by three model structures, a partitioned survival model (PSM) and two variations of a semi-Markov model (SMM), for use in cost-effectiveness analyses. METHODS: Three economic model structures were developed and populated using parametric curves fitted to patient-level data from the CheckMate 025 trial. Models consisted of three health states: progression-free, progressed disease, and death. The PSM estimated state occupancy using an area under-the-curve approach from overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) curves. The SMMs derived transition probabilities to calculate patient flow between health states. One SMM assumed that post-progression survival (PPS) was independent of PFS duration (PPS Markov); the second SMM assumed differences in PPS based on PFS duration (PPS-PFS Markov). RESULTS: All models provide a reasonable fit to the observed OS data at 2 years. For estimating cost effectiveness, however, a more relevant comparison is between estimates of OS over the modeling horizon, because this will likely impact differences in costs and quality-adjusted life-years. Estimates of the incremental mean survival benefit of nivolumab versus everolimus over 20 years were 6.6 months (PSM), 7.6 months (PPS Markov), and 7.4 months (PPS-PFS Markov), reflecting non-trivial differences of + 14% and + 11%, respectively, compared with PSM. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence from this study and previous work highlights the importance of the assumptions underlying any model structure, and the need to validate assumptions regarding survival and the application of treatment effects against what is known about the characteristics of the disease.

Health outcomes of bedaquiline in the treatment of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis in selected high burden countries.

BACKGROUND: Less than one-third of patients who are estimated to be infected with multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) receive MDR-TB treatment regimens, and only 48% of those who received treatment have successful outcomes. Despite current regimens, newer, more effective and cost-effective approaches to treatment are needed. The aim of the study was to project health outcomes and impact on healthcare resources of adding bedaquiline to the treatment regimen of MDR-TB in selected high burden countries: Estonia, Russia, South Africa, Peru, China, the Philippines, and India. METHODS: This study adapted an existing Markov model to estimate the health outcomes and impact on total healthcare costs of adding bedaquiline to current MDR-TB treatment regimens. A price threshold analysis was conducted to determine the price range at which bedaquiline would be cost-effective. RESULTS: Adding bedaquiline to the background regimen (BR) resulted in increased disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) averted, and reduced total healthcare costs (excluding treatment acquisition costs) compared with BR alone in all countries analyzed. Addition of bedaquiline to BR resulted in savings to healthcare costs compared with BR alone in all countries analyzed, with the highest impact expected in Russia (US$194 million) and South Africa (US$43 million). The price per regimen at which bedaquiline would be cost-effective ranged between US$23,904-US$203,492 in Estonia, Russia, Peru, South Africa, and China (high and upper middle-income countries) and between US$6,996-US$20,323 in the Philippines and India (lower middle-income countries); however, these cost-effective prices do not necessarily address concerns about affordability. CONCLUSIONS: Adding bedaquiline to BR provides improvements in health outcomes and reductions in healthcare costs in high MDR-TB burden countries. The range of prices per regimen for which bedaquiline would be cost-effective varied between countries.

Cost-benefits of incorporating levosimendan into cardiac surgery practice: German base case.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-benefit of using levosimendan compared with dobutamine, in the perioperative treatment of patients undergoing cardiac surgery who require inotropic support. METHODS: A two-part Markov model was designed to simulate health-state transitions of patients undergoing cardiac surgery, and estimate the short- and long-term health benefits of treatment. Hospital length of stay (LOS), mortality, medication, and adverse events were key clinical- and cost-inputs. Cost-benefits were evaluated in terms of costs and bed stays within the German healthcare system. Drug prices were calculated from the German Drug Directory (€/2014) and published literature, with a 3% annual discount rate applied. The base case analysis was for a 1-year time horizon. RESULTS: The use of levosimendan vs dobutamine was associated with cost savings of €4787 per patient from the German hospital perspective due to reduced adverse events and shorter hospital LOS, leading to increased bed capacity and hospital revenue. LIMITATIONS: A pharmacoeconomic calculation for the specific situation of the German healthcare system that is based on international clinical trial carries a substantial risk of disregarding potentially relevant but unknown confounding factors (i.e., ICU-staffing, co-medications, standard-ICU care vs fast-tracking, etc.) that may either attenuate or increase the outcome pharmacoeconomic effects of a drug; however, since these conditions would also apply for patients treated with comparators, their net effects may not necessarily influence the conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: The use of levosimendan in patients undergoing cardiac surgery who require inotropic support appears to be cost-saving. The results of the analysis provide a strong rationale to run local clinical studies with pharmacoeconomic end-points which would allow a much more precise computation of the benefits of levosimendan.