Cost-effectiveness of the addition of CDK4/6 inhibitors to standard endocrine therapy in first-line treatment of women with advanced HR+/HER2− breast cancer in Mexico

Purpose To estimate the cost-effectiveness of adding a CDK4/6 inhibitor to standard endocrine therapy in the first-line setting for advanced HR+/HER2− breast cancer in postmenopausal and premenopausal women, from the perspective of the Mexican public healthcare system. Methods We used a partitioned survival model to simulate relevant health outcomes in a synthetic cohort of patients with breast cancer derived from the PALOMA-2, MONALEESA-2, MONARCH-3 trials for postmenopausal patients, and from the MONALEESA-7 study for premenopausal patients. Effectiveness was measured in life years gained. Cost-effectiveness is reported through incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER). Results In postmenopausal patients, palbociclib led to an increase of 1.51 life years, ribociclib of 1.58 years, and abemaciclib of 1.75 years, compared to letrozole alone. The ICER was 36,648 USD, 32,422 USD, and 26,888 USD, respectively. In premenopausal patients, ribociclib led to an increase of 1.82 life years when added to goserelin and endocrine therapy, with an ICER of 44,579 USD. In the cost minimization analysis, for postmenopausal patients, ribociclib was the treatment with the highest costs due to follow-up requirements. Conclusion Palbociclib, ribociclib, and abemaciclib demonstrated a significant increase in effectiveness in postmenopausal patients, and ribociclib in premenopausal patients, when added to standard endocrine therapy for patients with advanced HR+/HER2− breast cancer. At the national stablished willingness to pay, only the addition of abemaciclib to standard endocrine therapy in postmenopausal women would be considered cost-effective. However, differences on results between therapies for postmenopausal patients were not statistically significant (AU)

Economic evaluation of toripalimab combined with chemotherapy in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer.

Background and objective: The CHOICE-01 trial showed that toripalimab plus chemotherapy achieved satisfactory outcomes compared with chemotherapy in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who were negative for driver genes, but the economics of this regimen is unclear. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of toripalimab in combination with chemotherapy in advanced NSCLC with negative driver genes from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Materials and methods: A three-state partitioned survival model was developed to simulate the costs and outcomes associated with adding toripalimab to first-line chemotherapy. The clinical data in the model came from the CHOICE-01 trial, only direct medical costs were included, and utility values were referred to the literature. Four models were applied to explore the differences in the results of fitting and extrapolating K-M curves from different models, and cost-effectiveness subgroup analysis was performed. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was used as the main outcome measure. Sensitivity analysis was performed to assess the impact of parameter uncertainty on the model. Results: The baseline analysis showed that toripalimab coupled with chemotherapy cost $21,052 more than chemotherapy ($43,197 vs. $22,145) and also gained 0.71 QALYs more (1.75 QALYs vs. 1.03 QALYs), with an ICER of $29,478/QALYs. At the current willingness-to-pay threshold ($35,108/QALY), the extra cost was well worth it. The results of fitting and extrapolating the survival curves using other models were consistent with the results of the standard parametric model. Subgroup analysis demonstrated that the addition of toripalimab to chemotherapy was economical. Sensitivity analysis showed that the utility values of PD and PFS stages had the greatest impact on the model. Conclusion: From the viewpoint of the Chinese healthcare system, toripalimab combined with chemotherapy in the treatment of advanced NSCLC with negative driver genes was likely to be cost-effective compared with chemotherapy.

A comparative assessment of neutropenia events, healthcare resource use, and costs among cancer patients treated with lipegfilgrastim compared with pegfilgrastim in Germany.

PURPOSE: We assessed the occurrence of neutropenia and febrile neutropenia (FN) and the associated healthcare resource in cancer patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy in combination with pegfilgrastim versus lipegfilgrastim. METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis using a German health insurance claims database. Adults receiving chemotherapy with a prescription code for pegfilgrastim (n = 734) or lipegfilgrastim (n = 346) were observed over a 1-year follow-up period. Patient subgroups were analyzed according to cancer type and FN risk. FN risk was based on the chemotherapy regimen and any additional neutropenia risk factors. Outcomes were adjusted via regression analysis. RESULTS: Most patients were classified as high FN risk (70.0% pegfilgrastim; 65.6% lipegfilgrastim cohort). The mean age was 58.2 years in the pegfilgrastim cohort and 58.0 years in the lipegfilgrastim cohort, with more female patients than male patients (77.3% vs 79.8%, respectively), and the majority had breast cancer (64.9% and 68.8%, respectively). Overall, 10.0% and 10.4% of patients receiving pegfilgrastim or lipegfilgrastim experienced a neutropenia event (p = 0.82), with 4.4% and 3.5% of patients experiencing a FN event (p = 0.49). The mean neutropenia event-related healthcare costs were €604 and €441 for the pegfilgrastim and lipegfilgrastim cohorts; among patients with lymphoma, these costs were significantly greater (p = 0.03) with pegfilgrastim (€1,612) versus lipegfilgrastim (€382). The mean all-cause hospitalizations were significantly (p < 0.01) higher for lymphoma patients receiving pegfilgrastim (2.76) versus lipegfilgrastim (1.60). CONCLUSION: Overall, patients treated with pegfilgrastim and lipegfilgrastim were comparable in terms of neutropenia occurrences in the 1-year follow-up. In patients with lymphoma, neutropenia event-related healthcare costs and all-cause hospitalizations were significantly higher with pegfilgrastim compared with lipegfilgrastim in this study; however, this should be interpreted with caution in light of the limited sample size and the absence of clinical information.

Temporal Trends in Grade 3/4 Adverse Events and Associated Costs of Nivolumab Plus Cabozantinib Versus Sunitinib for Previously Untreated Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Novel immunotherapy-based combination treatments have drastically improved clinical outcomes for previously untreated patients with advanced/metastatic renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). This study aimed to assess the temporal trends in grade 3/4 adverse event (AE) rates and associated costs of nivolumab plus cabozantinib combination therapy versus sunitinib monotherapy in previously untreated patients with aRCC. METHODS: Individual patient data from the CheckMate 9ER trial (nivolumab plus cabozantinib: N = 320; sunitinib: N = 320) were used to calculate the proportion of patients experiencing grade 3/4 AEs. AE unit costs were obtained from the United States (US) 2017 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) and inflated to 2020 US dollars. Per-patient-per-month (PPPM) all-cause and treatment-related grade 3/4 AE costs over 18-months, temporal trends, and top drivers of AE costs were evaluated in both treatment arms. RESULTS: Overall, the proportion of patients experiencing grade 3/4 AEs decreased over time, with the highest rates observed in the first 3 months for the nivolumab plus cabozantinib and sunitinib arms. Compared with sunitinib, nivolumab plus cabozantinib was associated with consistently lower average all-cause AE costs PPPM [month 3: $2021 vs. $3097 (p < 0.05); month 6: $1653 vs. $2418 (p < 0.05); month 12: $1450 vs. $1935 (p > 0.05); month 18: $1337 vs. $1755 (p > 0.05)]. Over 18 months, metabolism and nutrition disorders ($244), laboratory abnormalities ($182), and general disorders and administration site conditions ($122) were the costliest all-cause PPPM AE categories in the nivolumab plus cabozantinib arm, and laboratory abnormalities ($443), blood and lymphatic system disorders ($254), and metabolism and nutrition disorders ($177) were the costliest in the sunitinib arm. Trends of treatment-related AE costs were consistent with all-cause AE costs. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab plus cabozantinib was associated with lower costs of grade 3/4 AE management PPPM than sunitinib, which accumulated over the 18-month study period.

CDX2 Biomarker Testing and Adjuvant Therapy for Stage II Colon Cancer: An Exploratory Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Adjuvant chemotherapy is not recommended for patients with average-risk stage II (T3N0) colon cancer. Nevertheless, a subgroup of these patients who are CDX2-negative might benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of testing for the absence of CDX2 expression followed by adjuvant chemotherapy (fluorouracil combined with oxaliplatin [FOLFOX]) for patients with stage II colon cancer. METHODS: We developed a decision model to simulate a hypothetical cohort of 65-year-old patients with average-risk stage II colon cancer with 7.2% of these patients being CDX2-negative under 2 different interventions: (1) test for the absence of CDX2 expression followed by adjuvant chemotherapy for CDX2-negative patients and (2) no CDX2 testing and no adjuvant chemotherapy for any patient. We derived disease progression parameters, adjuvant chemotherapy effectiveness and utilities from published analyses, and cancer care costs from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare data. Sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Testing for CDX2 followed by FOLFOX for CDX2-negative patients had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $5500/quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) compared with no CDX2 testing and no FOLFOX (6.874 vs 6.838 discounted QALYs and $89 991 vs $89 797 discounted US dollar lifetime costs). In sensitivity analyses, considering a cost-effectiveness threshold of $100 000/QALY, testing for CDX2 followed by FOLFOX on CDX2-negative patients remains cost-effective for hazard ratios of <0.975 of the effectiveness of FOLFOX in CDX2-negative patients in reducing the rate of developing a metastatic recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: Testing tumors of patients with stage II colon cancer for CDX2 and administration of adjuvant treatment to the subgroup found CDX2-negative is a cost-effective and high-value management strategy across a broad range of plausible assumptions.

Cost-effectiveness of brentuximab vedotin plus chemotherapy for previously untreated CD30-positive peripheral T-cell lymphoma in Canada.

AIMS: To support reimbursement requests in Canada, we evaluated the cost-effectiveness of brentuximab vedotin (Adcetris) in combination with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and prednisone (A + CHP) compared with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (CHOP) as frontline treatment for CD30-expressing peripheral T-cell lymphomas (PTCLs) using results from the ECHELON-2 clinical trial. The PTCL subtypes included were systemic anaplastic large cell lymphoma (sALCL), PTCL-not otherwise specified (PTCL-NOS), and angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma (AITL). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A partitioned survival model consisting of three health states (progression-free survival [PFS], post-progression survival [PPS], and death) was constructed from the perspective of the Canadian publicly funded healthcare system over a lifetime horizon. Efficacy, safety, and health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) data were obtained from ECHELON-2. Medical resource use and costs were derived from Canadian literature and standard sources. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) per life-years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained were calculated. Sensitivity analyses were performed to account for uncertainty in key parameters. All costs are reported in Canadian dollars. RESULTS: A + CHP, when compared with CHOP, was associated with an estimated mean gain of 2.90 LYs and 2.38 QALYs and a mean incremental cost of $76,491. The ICER for A + CHP compared with CHOP was estimated at $26,340 per LY gained and $32,177 per QALY gained. In sensitivity analyses, the ICERs remained below $60,000 per QALY gained. Time horizon, patient starting age, and discount rate affected the results, as the ICER was driven by long-term survival gains observed with A + CHP compared with CHOP. LIMITATIONS: Real-world downstream treatments (such as stem cell transplantation) may differ from the treatment protocol followed in the ECHELON-2 trial. CONCLUSIONS: A + CHP compared with CHOP provides a cost-effective treatment option with improved clinical outcomes that are clinically relevant and a comparable safety profile for adults with previously untreated CD30-expressing sALCL, PTCL-NOS, or AITL in Canada.

Cost-effectiveness of Total Neoadjuvant Therapy With Short-Course Radiotherapy for Resectable Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer.

Importance: Short-course radiotherapy and total neoadjuvant therapy (SCRT-TNT) followed by total mesorectal excision (TME) has emerged as a new treatment paradigm for patients with locally advanced rectal adenocarcinoma. However, the economic implication of this treatment strategy has not been compared with that of conventional long-course chemoradiotherapy (LCCRT) followed by TME with adjuvant chemotherapy. Objective: To perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of SCRT-TNT vs LCCRT in conjunction with TME for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: A decision analytical model with a 5-year time horizon was constructed for patients with biopsy-proven, newly diagnosed, primary locally advanced rectal adenocarcinoma treated with SCRT-TNT or LCCRT. Markov modeling was used to model disease progression and patient survival after treatment in 3-month cycles. Data on probabilities and utilities were extracted from the literature. Costs were evaluated from the Medicare payer's perspective in 2020 US dollars. Sensitivity analyses were performed for key variables. Data were collected from October 3, 2020, to January 20, 2021, and analyzed from November 15, 2020, to April 25, 2021. Exposures: Two treatment strategies, SCRT-TNT vs LCCRT with adjuvant chemotherapy, were compared. Main Outcomes and Measures: Cost-effectiveness was evaluated using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and net monetary benefits. Effectiveness was defined as quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Both costs and QALYs were discounted at 3% annually. Willingness-to-pay threshold was set at $50 000/QALY. Results: During the 5-year horizon, the total cost was $41 355 and QALYs were 2.21 for SCRT-TNT; for LCCRT, the total cost was $54 827 and QALYs were 2.12, resulting in a negative incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (-$141 256.77). The net monetary benefit was $69 300 for SCRT-TNT and $51 060 for LCCRT. Sensitivity analyses using willingness to pay at $100 000/QALY and $150 000/QALY demonstrated the same conclusion. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that SCRT-TNT followed by TME incurs lower cost and improved QALYs compared with conventional LCCRT followed by TME and adjuvant chemotherapy. These data offer further rationale to support SCRT-TNT as a novel cost-saving treatment paradigm in the management of locally advanced rectal cancer.

A Cost-effectiveness Analysis Comparing Pembrolizumab-Axitinib, Nivolumab-Ipilimumab, and Sunitinib for Treatment of Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma.

OBJECTIVES: The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved nivolumab-ipilimumab and pembrolizumab-axitinib as first-line treatments for metastatic, clear-cell, renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) based on results from CheckMate 214 and KEYNOTE-426. Our objective was to compare the adjusted, lifetime cost-effectiveness between nivolumab-ipilimumab, pembrolizumab-axitinib, and sunitinib for patients with mRCC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 3-state Markov model was developed comparing nivolumab-ipilimumab and pembrolizumab-axitinib to each other and sunitinib, over a 20-year lifetime horizon from a US medical center perspective. The clinical outcomes of nivolumab-ipilimumab and pembrolizumab-axitinib were compared using matching-adjusted indirect comparison. Costs of drug treatment, adverse events, and utilities associated with different health states and adverse events were determined using national sources and published literature. Our outcome was incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) using quality-adjusted life years (QALY). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Nivolumab-ipilimumab was the most cost-effective option in the base case analysis with an ICER of $34,190/QALY compared with sunitinib, while the pembrolizumab-axitinib ICER was dominated by nivolumab-ipilimumab and was not cost-effective (ICER=$12,630,828/QALY) compared with sunitinib. The mean total costs per patient for the nivolumab-ipilimumab and pembrolizumab-axitinib arms were $284,683 and $457,769, respectively, compared with sunitinib at $241,656. QALY was longer for nivolumab-ipilimumab (3.23 QALY) than for adjusted pembrolizumab-axitinib (1.99 QALY), which was longer than sunitinib's (1.98 QALY). These results were most sensitive to treatment cost in both groups, but plausible changes did not alter the conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: The base case scenario indicated that nivolumab-ipilimumab was the most cost-effective treatment option for mRCC compared with pembrolizumab-axitinib and sunitinib.

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%.

The epidemiology, treatment patterns, healthcare utilizations and costs of Acute Myeloid Leukaemia (AML) in Taiwan.

BACKGROUNDS: An increasing incidence of Acute Myeloid Leukaemia (AML) has been reported in several Western countries. However, the epidemiology of AML in Asia is very limited. According to the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guideline of AML, a range of conventional therapy options is available to AML patients. Nevertheless, different treatment strategies may result in diverse healthcare utilization and costs. Understanding the treatment patterns, healthcare utilization and costs of AML would thus be essential for clinicians and policymakers to optimize the treatment strategies of AML. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to investigate the incidence, treatment patterns, healthcare utilization and costs of AML in Taiwan using a nationwide population database. METHODS: We retrospectively identified AML patients diagnosed from 2006 to 2015 from the Taiwan Cancer Registry Database (TCRD) and estimated the epidemiology of AML in Taiwan. The TCRD was linked to National Health Insurance Research Database (NHIRD) to collect the treatment patterns and health care utilization. Patients diagnosed with AML from 2011 to 2015 were further identified to analyze treatment patterns, healthcare utilization and costs. RESULTS: The crude annual incidence of AML increased from 2.78 to 3.21 cases per 100,000 individuals from 2006 to 2015. However, the age-standardized rate (ASRs) of AML slightly declined from 2.47 to 2.41 cases per 100,000 individuals in the same period. Among 2,179 AML patients who received induction therapy (median age: 56 years), most of them (n = 1744; 80.04%) received standard-dose cytarabine (SDAC) regimen. The remaining 162 patients received high dose cytarabine (HDAC) and 273 patients received non-standard dose cytarabine (N-SDAC) regimen as the induction therapy. The median medical costs in our study for patients treated with chemotherapy alone was $42,271 for HDAC, $36,199 for SDAC and $36,250 for N-SDAC. For those who received hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) after induction therapy, their median medical costs were $78,876 for HDAC, $78,593 for SDAC and $79,776 for N-SDAC. CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first population-based study conducted in Asia to provide updated and comprehensive information on epidemiology, treatment patterns and healthcare resource utilization and costs of AML.

Temporal trends of adverse events and costs of nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in advanced renal cell carcinoma.

Aims: To assess grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) and costs of first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Methods: Individual patient data from the all treated population in the CheckMate 214 trial (nivolumab plus ipilimumab, n = 547; sunitinib, n = 535) were used to calculate the number of AEs. AE unit costs were obtained from US 2017 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project and inflated to 2020 values. Results: The proportion of patients experiencing grade 3/4 AEs decreased over time. Patients who received nivolumab plus ipilimumab had lower average per-patient all-cause grade 3/4 AE costs versus sunitinib (12-month: US$15,170 vs US$20,342; 42-month: US$19,096 vs US$27,473). Conclusion: Treatment with nivolumab plus ipilimumab was associated with lower grade 3/4 AE costs than sunitinib.

Immunotherapy combinations are now accepted as safe and effective first-line treatment options for advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma. This study used patient data from the CheckMate 214 clinical trial to evaluate the temporal trends and costs related to grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) among patients treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib. We found that the proportion of patients experiencing grade 3/4 AEs decreased over time and that patients treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab had lower AE costs compared with those treated with sunitinib (at 42 months: US$19,096 vs US$27,473 per patient). As such, nivolumab plus ipilimumab may represent a treatment option that may reduce both the clinical and economic burden among patients with advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

The clinical and economic burden of peripheral T-cell lymphoma: a systematic literature review.

Aim: To understand the burden of treatment-naive peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL). Methods: A systematic literature review was conducted in November 2020 following best practice methodology. Results: Fifty-five clinical studies were included, mostly investigating cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisone (CHOP) or 'CHOP-like' regimens, with combination regimens showing similar effectiveness to CHOP alone. Aside from the combination of brentuximab vedotin + cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin and prednisone (A+CHP), other available treatments showed no statistically significant benefit over CHOP in terms of overall or progression-free survival in overall PTCL patients. The mean monthly cost per patient in the USA ranged from 6328 to US$9356 based on six studies. One economic evaluation demonstrated A+CHP to be a more cost-effective treatment option than CHOP. Conclusion: Further research is needed to understand the humanistic and cost impact of frontline treatment for PTCL and its specific subtypes.

Plain language summary Peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL) is an aggressive cancer that develops from white blood cells called T cells, which are an important part of the immune system. There is limited knowledge on the impact PTCL has on patients and their families. This systematic review of 55 clinical studies was conducted to further understand how safe and effective current treatments are for patients with newly diagnosed PTCL, how these treatments and disease impact their quality of life, and the economic impact of treatment and disease. Chemotherapy (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisone [CHOP]) was the most commonly studied regimen, but had limited effectiveness and a notable side effect profile. A newer treatment option, brentuximab vedotin + cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin and prednisone (A+CHP) was the only treatment to show a significant added benefit over CHOP for patients, with side effects that were comparable to those of CHOP. Six studies assessed the economic impact of PTCL, the majority of which were focused on the USA, and found the mean monthly cost per patient to be 6328­US$9356. No studies were identified that assessed the impact of PTCL or its treatment on quality of life. Further research is needed to understand the impact of frontline PTCL treatment on patients and their families.

Cost-effectiveness of adding durvalumab to first-line chemotherapy for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer in China.

OBJECTIVES: Durvalumab plus chemotherapy could significantly improve overall survival compared with chemotherapy alone in the first-line treatment of extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). However, its long-term economic outcomes remain unclear yet. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of adding durvalumab to first-line chemotherapy for extensive-stage SCLC from the perspective of the Chinese health-care system. METHODS: A decision-analytic model with 10-year horizon was developed to estimate the health and economic outcomes of adding durvalumab to first-line treatment for extensive-stage SCLC. The primary outcomes included total costs, life years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Costs and utility values were obtained from the published literature. A scenario analysis for a patient assistance program (PAP) was conducted. Sensitivity analyses were performed to explore the robustness of the model outcomes. RESULTS: Durvalumab plus chemotherapy yielded additional 0.25 QALYs, with incremental costs of 76,354 USD, resulting in an ICER of 302,051 USD/QALY compared with chemotherapy alone, when PAP was available, the ICER was 192,591 USD/QALY. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of model outcomes. CONCLUSION: Adding durvalumab to first-line chemotherapy for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer is unlikely to be cost-effectiveness in China.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of durvalumab plus etoposide: platinum in the first-line therapy of extensive stage small-cell lung cancer from the Chinese payers' perspective.

INTRODUCTION: Results from the CASPIAN trial (Durvalumab ± Tremelimumab in Combination With Platinum Based Chemotherapy in Untreated Extensive-Stage Small Cell Lung Cancer) trial demonstrated the clinical benefit of durvalumab plus etoposide-platinum (EP) chemotherapy as first-line treatment for patients with extensive stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). However, considering the high price of durvalumab, it is unclear whether addition of durvalumab to EP chemotherapy has economic value compared with EP alone. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of durvalumab plus EP chemotherapy as a first-line treatment for patients with ES-SCLC. METHODS: A Markov model comprising three health states (stable, progressive, and dead) was developed to simulate the process of small-cell lung cancer. Utility and costs were obtained from published resources. Health outcomes were derived from the CASPIAN trial. Costs were calculated based on the standard medical fees in Zhejiang Province from Chinese patients' perspective. Utility values were obtained from published data. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were applied to verify model robustness. RESULTS: The addition of durvalumab to EP chemotherapy costs more than $32,220, with a gain of 0.14 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) compared with EP alone. The incremental cost-effective ratio was $230,142.9 per QALY, which exceeds the willingness to pay threshold of $28,527 per QALY. In the sensitivity analysis, the utility values for the progressive state, costs of durvalumab and EP chemotherapy, and costs for the progressive state were considered to be the three most sensitive factors in the model. CONCLUSION: The addition of durvalumab to EP chemotherapy is not a cost-effective strategy in the first-line therapy of ES-SCLC from the Chinese payers' perspective.

Evaluation of Tucatinib in HER2-Positive Breast Cancer Patients With Brain Metastases: A United States-Based Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of tucatinib in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive breast cancer (BC) patients with brain metastases (BMs) and the subgroup of active BMs from the United States (US) payer perspective. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 3-state Markov model was developed to compare the cost-effectiveness of 2 regimens in HER2-positive BC patients with BMs: (1) tucatinib, trastuzumab, and capecitabine (TTC); (2) placebo, trastuzumab, and capecitabine (PTC). And subgroup analysis of active BMs was also performed. Lifetime costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and incremental net-health benefit (INHB) were estimated. The willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was $200,000/QALY. The robustness of the model was tested by sensitivity analyses. Additional scenario analysis was also performed. RESULTS: Compared with PTC, the ICER yielded by TTC was $418,007.01/QALY and the INHB was -1.08 QALYs in patients with BMs. In the subgroup of active BMs, the ICER and the INHB were $324,465.03/QALY and -0.71 QALY, respectively. The results were most sensitive to the cost of tucatinib. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses suggested that the cost-effective probability of TTC was low at the current WTP threshold in the patients with BMs and the subgroup of active BMs. CONCLUSION: Tucatinib is unlikely to be cost-effective in HER2-positive BC patients with BMs from the US payer perspective but shows better economics in patients with active BMs. Selecting a favorable population, reducing the price of tucatinib or offering appropriate drug assistance policies might be considerable options to optimize the cost-effectiveness of tucatinib.

Rising drug cost impacts on cost-effectiveness of 2 chemotherapy regimens for intermediate-risk rhabdomyosarcoma: A report from the Children's Oncology Group.

BACKGROUND: The Children's Oncology Group clinical trial for intermediate risk rhabdomyosarcoma randomized participants to a combination of vincristine, dactinomycin, and cyclophosphamide (VAC) alone or VAC alternating with vincristine plus irinotecan (VAC/VI). Clinical outcomes were similar, but toxicity profiles differed. This study estimates the cost differences between arms from the health care system's perspective. METHODS: A decision-analytic model was used to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of VAC versus VAC/VI. Protocol-required or recommended medications and laboratory studies were included. Costs were obtained from national databases or supporting literature and inflated to 2019 US dollars. Demographic and outcome data were obtained from the clinical trial and directed chart reviews. Life-years (LY) were estimated from life-expectancy tables and discounted by 3% annually. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses and alternative clinical scenarios identified factors driving costs. RESULTS: Mean direct medical costs of VAC and VAC/VI were $164,757 and $102,303, respectively. VAC was associated with an additional 0.97 LY and an ICER of $64,386/LY compared with VAC/VI. The ICER was sensitive to survival estimations and to alternative clinical scenarios including outpatient cyclophosphamide delivery (ICER $49,037/LY) or substitution of alternative hematopoietic growth factor schedules (ICER $73,191-$91,579/LY). Applying drug prices from 2012 decreased the total costs of VAC by 20% and VAC/VI by 15% because of changes in dactinomycin and pegfilgrastim prices. CONCLUSIONS: Neither arm was clearly more cost-effective. Pharmaceutical pricing and location of treatment drove costs and may inform future treatment decisions. Rising pharmaceutical costs added $30,000 per patient, a finding important for future drug-pricing policy decisions. LAY SUMMARY: Two chemotherapy regimens recently tested side-by-side for rhabdomyosarcoma had similar tumor outcomes, but different side effects. The health care costs of each regimen were compared; neither was clearly more cost-effective. However, the costs of each treatment changed dramatically with choices of supportive medicines and location of treatment. Costs of treatment rose by 15% to 20% because of rising US drug costs not associated with the clinical trial.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy as first-line therapy for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: The phase III KEYNOTE-604 study confirmed the benefit of pembrolizumab combined with chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). Taken into account the clinical benefits of pembrolizumab and its high cost, this study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of adding pembrolizumab to standard first-line etoposide-platinum (EP) for patients with ES-SCLC from the US payer perspective. METHODS: A Markov model was developed to compare the cost and quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) of pembrolizumab plus EP and placebo plus EP over a 10-year time horizon. Clinical efficacy and safety data were pooled from the KEYNOTE-604 trial. Utilities were obtained from published resources. Costs were mainly collected from Medicare in 2020. Sensitivity analyses were performed to examine the robustness of our model. RESULTS: Adding pembrolizumab to standard first-line EP resulted in the better effectiveness than EP chemotherapy alone for ES-SCLC by 0.22 QALYs. Pembrolizumab plus EP was dominated economically by placebo plus EP, leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $334,373/ QALY. Deterministic sensitivity analyses indicated that the uncertainty in model parameters exerted no substantial effect on our results. Probability sensitivity analysis indicated that probabilities for pembrolizumab plus EP being cost-effective within a wide range of willingness to pay were modest. CONCLUSION: From the US payer perspective, the first-line treatment for ES-SCLC with pembrolizumab plus EP was not cost-effective compared with placebo plus EP. Although pembrolizumab combination chemotherapy was beneficial to the survival of ES-SCLC, price reduction may be the necessary to improve its cost-effectiveness.

The Association of Drug-Funding Reimbursement With Survival Outcomes and Use of New Systemic Therapies Among Patients With Advanced Pancreatic Cancer.

Importance: Gemcitabine-nab-paclitaxel (GEMNAB) and fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX) both improve survival of patients with advanced pancreatic cancer when compared with single-agent gemcitabine in clinical trials. Objective: To describe changes in the survival of patients with advanced pancreatic cancer associated with sequential drug-funding approvals and to determine if there exist distinct patient populations for whom GEMNAB and FOLFIRINOX are associated with survival benefit. Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based, retrospective cohort study examined all incident cases of advanced pancreatic cancer treated with first-line chemotherapy in Ontario, Canada (2008-2018) that were identified from the Cancer Care Ontario (Ontario Health) New Drug Funding Program database. Statistical analysis was performed from October 2020 to January 2021. Exposures: First-line chemotherapy for advanced pancreatic cancer. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were the proportion of patients treated with each chemotherapy regimen over time and overall survival for each regimen. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to compare overall survival between treatment regimens after adjustment for confounding variables, inverse probability of treatment weighting, and matching. Results: From 2008 to 2018, 5465 patients with advanced pancreatic cancer were treated with first-line chemotherapy in Ontario, Canada. The median (range) age of patients was 66.9 (27.8-93.4) years; 2447 (45%) were female; 878 (16%) had prior pancreatic resection, and 328 (6%) had prior adjuvant gemcitabine. During the time period when only gemcitabine and FOLFIRINOX were funded (2011-2015), 49% (929 of 1887) received FOLFIRINOX. When GEMNAB was subsequently funded (2015-2018), 9% (206 of 2347) received gemcitabine, 44% (1034 of 2347) received FOLFIRINOX, and 47% (1107 of 2347) received GEMNAB. The median overall survival increased from 5.6 months (95% CI, 5.1-6.0 months) in 2008 to 2011 to 6.9 months (95% CI, 6.5-7.4 months) in 2011 to 2015 to 7.6 months (95% CI, 7.1-8.0 months) in 2015 to 2018. Patients receiving FOLFIRINOX were younger and healthier than patients receiving GEMNAB. After adjustment and weighting, FOLFIRINOX was associated with better overall survival than GEMNAB (hazard ratio [HR], 0.75 [95% CI, 0.69-0.81]). In analyses comparing patients treated with GEMNAB and gemcitabine, GEMNAB was associated with better overall survival (HR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.78-0.94]). Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study of patients with advanced pancreatic cancer receiving first-line palliative chemotherapy within a universal health care system found that drug funding decisions were associated with increased uptake of new treatment options over time and improved survival. Both FOLFIRINOX and GEMNAB were associated with survival benefits in distinct patient populations.

Estimated Cost-effectiveness of Atezolizumab Plus Cobimetinib and Vemurafenib for Treatment of BRAF V600 Variation Metastatic Melanoma.

Importance: In the IMspire150 trial, triplet treatment with atezolizumab and vemurafenib plus cobimetinib significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared with vemurafenib plus cobimetinib alone for treatment of BRAF V600 variation metastatic melanoma. However, considering high cost of this combination, it is unclear if the incremental cost is worth the additional survival benefit. Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab and vemurafenib plus cobimetinib vs vemurafenib plus cobimetinib alone in patients with newly diagnosed unresectable BRAF V600 variation metastatic melanoma from the US health care perspective. Design, Setting, and Participants: This economic evaluation study used a 3-state partitioned survival model to assess the cost-effectiveness of the combination of atezolizumab with vemurafenib plus cobimetinib vs vemurafenib plus cobimetinib alone. The observed Kaplan-Meier curves for overall survival and PFS were digitized from the IMspire150 trial (January 2017-April 2018) and the long-term survivals (over a lifetime horizon) beyond the end of the trial were extrapolated using 7 different survival models. The cost and health preference data were collected from a literature review. This study was performed from March 2021 through June 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures: The outcomes of interest were expected life-years (LYs) gained and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), expressed as cost per LYs and per QALYs saved. Results: Adding atezolizumab to vemurafenib and cobimetinib provided an additional 3.267 QALYs compared with the doublet regimen of vemurafenib plus cobimetinib, at an ICER of $271 669 per QALY, which is not considered cost-effective at the willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000 per QALY. However, the scenario analyses found that atezolizumab combined with vemurafenib plus cobimetinib could be cost-effective at 20-year (ICER, $121 432 per QALY) and 30-year ($98 092 per QALY) time horizons when both strategies were stopped after 2 years of treatments, and over a lifetime horizon ($122 220 per QALY) when only immunotherapy with atezolizumab was stopped after 2 years of treatment. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that the atezolizumab and vemurafenib plus cobimetinib regimen provides significant survival benefits over vemurafenib plus cobimetinib alone, and a price reduction would be encouraged to maximize the value of its survival gain.