Cost-effectiveness of a paclitaxel-eluting stent (Eluvia) compared to Zilver PTX for endovascular femoropopliteal intervention.

OBJECTIVES: Antiproliferative therapies based on paclitaxel have been developed to extend the durability of endovascular interventions for lower-extremity atherosclerotic peripheral artery disease, resulting in improved primary vessel patency and fewer target lesion revascularizations. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of the sustained-release, paclitaxel-eluting Eluvia stent (Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA) versus the paclitaxel-coated Zilver PTX stent (Cook Medical, Bloomington, IN) for endovascular intervention in the superficial femoral or proximal popliteal artery. DESIGN: A microsimulation model was constructed from a United States Medicare perspective with a 24-month time horizon. Patients entering the model were assigned to initial endovascular intervention with either Eluvia or Zilver PTX. Each month patients were exposed to the risks of primary vessel patency loss, target lesion revascularization, amputation, and death. Clinical input parameters were taken from a randomized trial (IMPERIAL) comparing the two interventions at 24-months follow-up. Cost parameters were obtained from analyses of Medicare administrative and claims data. Cost-effectiveness analysis entailed sampling a complete set of clinical and cost parameters from their respective distributions, and then running cohorts of 10,000 patients through each intervention arm of the model. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: In the base case microsimulation, at 24 months, the modeled target lesion revascularization was 11.6% for Eluvia and 19.0% for Zilver PTX, and the mean total direct costs were $20,010 and $21,356, respectively (Eluvia average savings=$1,346). In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, Eluvia was cost-effective in 87.8% of all simulations at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $10,000 per target lesion revascularization prevented. Eluvia was more effective and less costly (dominant) than Zilver PTX in 73.6% of simulations. CONCLUSIONS: In this comparison of a paclitaxel-eluting to a paclitaxel-coated stent for endovascular femoropopliteal intervention, Eluvia was more effective and less costly (dominant) than Zilver PTX from a US Medicare perspective. These findings should be considered when formulating reimbursement policy and clinical practice guidelines.

Paclitaxel is a drug used in the treatment of peripheral artery disease (PAD) to help maintain primary vessel patency and reduce the need for revascularization procedures. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of the paclitaxel-eluting Eluvia stent (Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA) versus the paclitaxel-coated Zilver PTX stent (Cook Medical, Bloomington, IN) in Medicare patients with PAD. Cost-effectiveness is defined as the degree to which a particular treatment option is effective relative to its costs. Therefore, this study compared both the effectiveness, in terms of target lesion revascularization rates, and the costs of Eluvia versus Zilver PTX over 24 months.A microsimulation model was developed from a United States Medicare perspective with a 24-month time horizon. Simulated patients entered the model and were assigned to receive either Eluvia or Zilver PTX. Monthly, patients were exposed to the risks of primary vessel patency loss, target lesion revascularization (TLR), amputation, and death. These risks were taken from a randomized controlled trial that compared Eluvia and Zilver PTX over 24 months. Patients also accrued costs over time. The costs used in the model were obtained from Medicare administrative and claims data analyses.In health economics, a treatment is considered to be the dominant treatment option if it is both more effective and less costly than the alternative treatment. In this case, Eluvia was found to be dominant over Zilver PTX because it was associated with lower TLR rates and lower costs. These findings should be considered when formulating reimbursement policy and clinical practice guidelines.

Cost Effectiveness of Durvalumab in Unresectable Stage III NSCLC: 4-Year Survival Update and Model Validation from a UK Healthcare Perspective.

BACKGROUND: In the phase III PACIFIC study, durvalumab improved survival versus placebo in patients with unresectable stage III non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) whose disease had not progressed after platinum-based concurrent chemoradiotherapy. The appraisal by the UK's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) included a cost-effectiveness analysis based on an early data readout from PACIFIC [March 2018 data cut-off (DCO); median follow-up duration 25.2 months; range 0.2-43.1]. Uncertainties regarding long-term survival outcomes with durvalumab led to some challenges in estimating the cost effectiveness of this therapy. OBJECTIVE: Here, we validate the survival extrapolations used in the original company base-case analysis by benchmarking them against updated survival data from the 4-year follow-up analysis of PACIFIC (i.e. approximately 4 years after the last patient was randomised; March 2020 DCO; median follow-up duration 34.2 months; range 0.2-64.9). Moreover, we update the original analysis with these more mature survival data to examine the consistency of key economic outputs with the original analysis. METHODS: The original analysis used a semi-Markov (state-transition) approach and was based on patients whose tumours expressed programmed cell death-ligand 1 on ≥ 1% of cells (to reflect the European licence for durvalumab). We benchmarked the survival extrapolations used in the original company base-case analysis against survival data from the 4-year follow-up of PACIFIC and updated the cost-effectiveness analysis with these more mature survival data. Early deaths avoided by the adoption of durvalumab into the UK Cancer Drugs Fund (CDF) in March 2019 were estimated using the 4-year follow-up survival data and an assumed uptake of 125 patients/year (lower estimate) and 367 patients/year (higher estimate). RESULTS: The original company base-case analysis had a good visual fit with the observed overall survival (OS) distribution for the durvalumab arm and accurately predicted the 48-month OS rate (predicted 55%; observed 55%); by comparison, the fit was less precise for the placebo arm, for which the analysis underestimated the 48-month OS rate (predicted 32%; observed 38%). In the updated company base-case analysis, durvalumab yielded 2.51 incremental quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (- 0.43 vs. the original company base-case analysis), corresponding to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £22,665/QALY (+£3298 vs. the original analysis), which falls within the upper bound of NICE's willingness-to-pay threshold (£30,000/QALY gained). We estimate that between 31 and 91 early patient deaths may have been avoided by the adoption of durvalumab into the CDF. CONCLUSIONS: These findings reinforce the patient benefit observed with durvalumab in unresectable stage III NSCLC, support the routine use and cost effectiveness of this therapy, and demonstrate how appropriate modelling can inform the early adoption of therapies by payers to achieve patient benefit.

Based on the results of a clinical trial, the European Medicines Agency approved durvalumab for the treatment of adults with a specific type of advanced lung cancer whose tumours cannot be removed surgically and whose disease has not progressed after chemotherapy and radiotherapy. The UK's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invites companies to submit cost-effectiveness analyses to help with decision making about adopting new therapies. The company included an analysis based on early trial data that suggested durvalumab was cost effective compared with other previous treatments. As patients in the study at the time of the initial submission to NICE were only followed for approximately 2 years, the long-term survival benefit that could be achieved with durvalumab was uncertain. Therefore, NICE recommended durvalumab for use within the Cancer Drugs Fund (CDF) to allow patients to access the drug while more data were being collected. Here, we demonstrate that the original cost-effectiveness model accurately predicted the rates of long-term survival for patients receiving durvalumab and that durvalumab remains a cost-effective use of healthcare resources based on recently published data from the trial (which added approximately 2 further years of follow-up). Moreover, we estimate that adopting durvalumab into the CDF may have avoided 31­91 early patient deaths from lung cancer. These findings support NICE's early decision to make durvalumab available within the CDF and the adoption of durvalumab for routine use within the UK national health service.