Cost-effectiveness of a 12-month fixed-duration venetoclax treatment in combination with obinutuzumab in first-line, unfit chronic lymphocytic leukemia in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is a significant health and economic burden in the United States. Treatments include chemoimmunotherapy, such as obinutuzumab (G) plus chlorambucil (Clb) or bendamustine plus rituximab (BR), and chemotherapy-free regimens incorporating oral targeted therapies such as ibrutinib (Ibr), acalabrutinib (Acala), or venetoclax (Ven). Most chemotherapy-free regimens require continuous treatment to progression, while Ven plus G (VenG) is given for a fixed duration of 12 months, based on the CLL14 trial that led to its approval. Fixed-duration VenG has the potential for cost savings compared with treat-to-progression chemotherapy-free regimens. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of 12 months fixed-duration VenG in first-line treatment of unfit patients with CLL from a US health care payer perspective compared with GClb, BR, Ibr, Ibr + G, Ibr + R, Acala, and Acala + G. METHODS: A partitioned survival model was developed with 3 health states: progression-free survival (PFS), postprogression survival, and dead. The patient population, as based on the CLL14 trial, comprised previously untreated unfit patients with CLL (mean age 71.1 years, 33.1% female). The distribution of patients in each health state over time was estimated using extrapolated PFS and overall survival (OS) curves for VenG and GClb, based on CLL14 data 2 or more years after treatment cessation. PFS and OS for the other comparators were estimated using hazard ratios vs VenG, based on a network metaanalysis. Adverse events, utility values, and costs were obtained from published literature. The model estimated life-years gained, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained, and costs. The time horizon was 20 years, with a cycle time of 28 days. Outcomes and costs were discounted at 3.0% per year, and costs were estimated from a US health care payer perspective. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: In this cross-trial analysis of unfit CLL patients, in the base case, VenG had lower projected total costs than all comparators investigated. VenG also had larger projected health benefits (more QALYs gained) than GClb, BR, Ibr, and Ibr + R. VenG was therefore more effective and less costly than these comparators (dominant). Ibr + G, Acala, and Acala + G showed higher QALYs gained vs VenG (0.022, 0.672, and 0.961, respectively), and substantially higher projected costs vs VenG ($1,488,400, $1,579,737, and $1,656,154, respectively). Thus, Ibr + G, Acala, and Acala + G would cost more than $1,000,000 per QALY gained vs VenG. At the commonly used willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per QALY gained, Ibr + G, Acala, and Acala + G were not cost-effective compared with VenG. CONCLUSIONS: Fixed-duration VenG for 12 months is a cost-effective first-line treatment option for unfit CLL patients compared with other available options and provides value for money to US health care payers at a threshold of $150,000 per QALY gained. Future studies with longer trial follow-up and more mature survival data may help to confirm longer-term cost benefits of VenG. DISCLOSURES: Genentech Inc. and AbbVie provided financial support for this study. Genentech Inc., AbbVie, and Pharmerit - An OPEN Health Company participated in the design, study conduct, analysis, and interpretation of data, as well as the writing, review, and approval of the manuscript. Venetoclax is being developed in a collaboration between Genentech Inc. and AbbVie. Ravelo and Shapouri are employed by Genentech Inc. and have ownership interests. Manzoor and Sail are employed by AbbVie and have ownership interests. Chatterjee, van de Wetering, and Qendri, employees of Pharmerit - An OPEN Health Company, received consultancy fees from AbbVie. Davids has received consultancy fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Genentech Inc., Janssen, MEI Pharma, Novartis, Pharmacyclics, and Verastem; research funding from Ascentage Pharma, Genentech Inc., MEI Pharma, Pharmacyclics, Surface Oncology, TG Therapeutics, and Verastem; and has served on board of directors or advisory committees for AbbVie, Adaptive Biotechnologies, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Eli Lilly, Genentech Inc., Janssen, Pharmacyclics, TG Therapeutics, and Verastem. This study was presented as a poster at ASH 61st Annual Meeting and Exposition; December 7-10, 2019; Orlando, FL.

Financial Implications of Avapritinib for Treatment of Unresectable Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors in Patients With a PDGFRA Exon 18 Variant or After 3 Previous Therapies in a Hypothetical US Health Plan.

Importance: With the approval of avapritinib for adults with unresectable or metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) harboring a platelet-derived growth factor receptor alpha (PDGFRA) exon 18 variant, including PDGFRA D842V variants, and National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline recommendations as an option for patients with GIST after third-line treatment, it is important to estimate the potential financial implications of avapritinib on a payer's budget. Objective: To estimate the budget impact associated with the introduction of avapritinib to a formulary for metastatic or unresectable GISTs in patients with a PDGFRA exon 18 variant or after 3 or more previous treatments from the perspective of a US health plan. Design, Setting, and Participants: For this economic evaluation, a 3-year budget impact model was developed in March 2020, incorporating costs for drug acquisition, testing, monitoring, adverse events, and postprogression treatment. The model assumed that avapritinib introduction would be associated with increased PDGFRA testing rates from the current 49% to 69%. The health plan population was assumed to be mixed 69% commercial, 22% Medicare, and 9% Medicaid. Base case assumptions included a GIST incidence rate of 9.6 diagnoses per million people, a metastatic PDGFRA exon 18 mutation rate of 1.9%, and progression rate from first-line to fourth-line treatment of 17%. Exposures: The model compared scenarios with and without avapritinib in a formulary. Main Outcomes and Measures: Annual, total, and per member per month (PMPM) budget impact. Results: In a hypothetical 1-million member plan, fewer than 0.1 new patients with a PDGFRA exon 18 variant per year and 1.2 patients receiving fourth-line therapy per year were eligible for treatment. With avapritinib available, the total increase in costs in year 3 for all eligible adult patients with a PDGFRA exon 18 variant was $46 875, or $0.004 PMPM. For patients undergoing fourth-line treatment, the total increase in costs in year 3 was $69 182, or $0.006 PMPM. The combined total budget impact in year 3 was $115 604, or $0.010 PMPM, including an offset of $3607 in postprogression costs avoided or delayed. The higher rates of molecular testing resulted in a minimal incremental testing cost of $453 in year 3. Conclusions and Relevance: These results suggest that adoption of avapritinib as a treatment option would have a minimal budget impact to a hypothetical US health plan. This would be primarily attributable to the small eligible patient population and cost offsets from reduced or delayed postprogression costs.

A modeling framework for the economic evaluation of baricitinib in moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis.

Objectives: The approval in more than 50 countries of baricitinib, an oral Janus Kinase inhibitor for the treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA), warrants a framework for corresponding economic evaluations. To develop a comprehensive economic model assessing the cost-effectiveness of baricitinib for the treatment of moderately-to-severely active RA patients in comparison to other relevant treatments, considering the natural history of the disease, real world treatment patterns, and clinical evidence from the baricitinib trials.Methods: A systematic literature review of previously developed models in RA was conducted to inform the model structure, key modeling assumptions and data inputs. Consultations with rheumatologists were undertaken to validate the modeling approach and underlying assumptions.Results: A discrete event simulation model was developed to international best practices with flexibility to assess the cost-effectiveness of baricitinib over a lifetime in a variety of markets. The model incorporates treatment sequencing to adequately reflect treatment pathways in clinical practice. Outcomes assessed include cost and quality-adjusted life years, allowing for a full incremental analysis of cost-effectiveness of competing treatments and treatment sequences.Conclusion: The economic model developed provides a robust framework for future analyses assessing the cost-effectiveness of baricitinib for the treatment of RA in specific country settings.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Ombitasvir/Paritaprevir/Ritonavir and Dasabuvir With or Without Ribavirin Regimen for Patients Infected With Chronic Hepatitis C Virus Genotype 1 in Malaysia.

OBJECTIVES: The combination of pegylated-interferon and ribavirin (PegIFN+RBV) is currently the gold standard in treating chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) patients in Malaysia and is reimbursed by the Malaysian authorities. This analysis evaluated the cost-effectiveness (CE) of the ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir and dasabuvir with or without ribavirin (OBT/PTV/r+DSB±RBV) regimen as compared with the PegIFN+RBV or no treatment in chronic HCV Genotype 1 (GT1) treatment-naïve and treatment-experienced cirrhotic and noncirrhotic patients in Malaysia. METHODS: A Markov model based on previously published CE models of HCV was adapted for the Malaysian public healthcare payer perspective, based on good modeling practices. Treatment attributes included efficacy, regimen duration, and EQ-5D treatment-related health utility. Transitional probabilities and health state health utilities were derived from previous studies. Costs were derived from Malaysian data sources. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3.0% per year. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the impact of uncertainties around key variables. RESULTS: Based on the analysis, patients treated with the OBT/PTV/r+DSB±RBV showed less frequent progression to compensated cirrhosis, decompensated cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma, and liver-related deaths when compared with standard care (ie, PegIFN+RBV or no treatment). At a price of MYR 1846/day, the OBT/PTV/r+DSB±RBV regimen is cost-effective over PegIFN+RBV and yields better outcomes in terms of life-years (LYs) gained and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) at a higher cost, which is still well below the implied willingness to pay threshold of MYR 384 503/QALY. CONCLUSION: The OBT/PTV/r+DSB±RBV regimen is cost-effective for treatment naïve, treatment experienced, cirrhotic, and noncirrhotic GT1 chronic HCV patients in Malaysia.

A Budget Impact and Cost Per Additional Responder Analysis for Baricitinib for the Treatment of Moderate-to-Severe Rheumatoid Arthritis in Patients with an Inadequate Response to Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors in the USA.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Baricitinib is a selective and reversible Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor indicated for the treatment of adult patients with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who have had an inadequate response to one or more tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis) and has been shown to improve multiple clinical and patient-reported outcomes. However, it is unclear what the budgetary impact would be for US commercial payers to add baricitinib to their formulary and how the efficacy of baricitinib compares to other disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) with a similar indication. METHODS: A budget impact model (BIM) was developed for a hypothetical population of 1 million plan members that compared a world without and with baricitinib. A retrospective observational study was carried out to estimate market utilization of advanced therapies. Number needed to treat (NNT) and cost per additional responder were calculated for American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20%/50%/70% improvement criteria (ACR20/50/70) response outcomes combining cost estimates from the BIM and efficacy values from a network meta-analysis (NMA). The model included costs related to drug acquisition and monitoring costs. RESULTS: Adding baricitinib would save a commercial payer $US169,742 for second-line therapy and $US135,471 for third-line therapy over a 2-year time horizon (all costs correspond to 2019 US dollars). Cost savings were driven by baricitinib drawing market share away from more expensive comparators. The NMA, based on nine studies, found no statistically significant differences in the median treatment difference between baricitinib and comparators except for versus a conventional synthetic DMARD (csDMARD), and thus NNT versus a csDMARD was similar. The cost per additional responder for baricitinib in patients with inadequate response to a TNFi was substantially lower than all other treatments for all three ACR response criteria at 12 weeks (ACR20: $US129,672; ACR50: $US237,732; ACR70: $US475,464), and among the lowest at 24 weeks (ACR20: $US167,811; ACR50: $US259,344; ACR70: $US570,557). CONCLUSIONS: Baricitinib, compared to other DMARDs, was a less expensive option (- $US0.01 incremental cost per member per month in second- and third-line therapy over a 2-year time horizon) with comparable efficacy in patients with inadequate response to TNFi. Adding baricitinib to formulary would likely be cost saving for US payers and expands treatment options for these patients.

A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Glecaprevir/Pibrentasvir Versus Existing Direct-Acting Antivirals to Treat Chronic Hepatitis C in Japan.

INTRODUCTION: The objective of the study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of glecaprevir/pibrentasvir versus other direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) for treating chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infections in Japan. METHODS: We developed a health state transition model to capture the natural history of HCV. A cost-effectiveness analysis of DAAs from the perspective of a public healthcare payer in Japan with a lifetime horizon over annual cycles was performed. Treatment attributes, baseline demographics, transition probabilities, health-state utilities, and costs data were extracted from publications. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 2% per annum. In the base case we focused on genotype 1 (GT1) treatment-naïve patients without cirrhosis. The scenario analysis examined a pan-genotype treatment in GT1-3 (i.e., portfolio), treatment-naïve, and treatment-experienced patients. The portfolio cost-effectiveness of DAAs was derived by calculating a weighted average of patient segments defined by treatment history, cirrhosis status, and genotype. RESULTS: The base case results indicated that glecaprevir/pibrentasvir was dominant (i.e., generating higher quality-adjusted life years [QALYs] and lower lifetime costs) compared to all other DAAs. The predicted lifetime risk of hepatocellular carcinoma was 3.66% for glecaprevir/pibrentasvir and sofosbuvir/ledipasvir, 4.99% for elbasvir/grazoprevir, and 5.27% for daclatasvir/asunaprevir/beclabuvir. In scenario analysis the glecaprevir/pibrentasvir (GLE/PIB) portfolio dominated the sofosbuvir (SOF)-based portfolio (namely sofosbuvir/ledipasvir in GT1-2 and sofosbuvir + ribavirin in GT3). The base case probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) showed that glecaprevir/pibrentasvir was cost-effective in 93.4% of the simulations for a willingness-to-pay/QALY range of Japanese yen (JPY) 1.6-20 million. The PSA for the portfolio scenario indicated that the GLE/PIB portfolio was cost-effective in 100% of simulations until the willingness-to-pay/QALY reached JPY 5.2 million; this proportion decreased to 69.4% at a willingness-to-pay/QALY of JPY 20 million. Results were also robust in deterministic sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: In GT1 treatment-naïve non-cirrhotic patients GLE/PIB was a cost-effective strategy compared to other DAAs. When a pan-genotypic framework was used, the GLE/PIB portfolio dominated the SOF-based portfolio.

Cost-utility analysis of a 'vonoprazan-first' strategy versus 'esomeprazole- or rabeprazole-first' strategy in GERD.

BACKGROUND: Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) can be treated using a vonoprazan-first strategy (first-line treatment with vonoprazan), or esomeprazole-first/rabeprazole-first strategies (first-line treatment with proton-pump inhibitors [PPIs], esomeprazole/rabeprazole, followed by a switch to vonoprazan). This cost-utility analysis used long-term simulation modeling to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a vonoprazan-first strategy compared with the esomeprazole-first and rabeprazole-first strategies. METHODS: A Markov simulation model was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of vonoprazan-first, esomeprazole-first, and rabeprazole-first strategies, comprising healing and maintenance therapies, over 5 years (4-week cycles). Healing therapy began with the administration of a normal dose of drug per real-world practice. If patients were not healed endoscopically, either a longer duration of healing therapy was provided (vonoprazan), the dose was increased (rabeprazole), or patients were switched to vonoprazan (immediately for esomeprazole, and after dose-escalation for rabeprazole, respectively). Healed patients received maintenance (lower/same dose as healing therapy). Recurrence resulted in re-challenge with healing therapy. Transition probabilities were derived from the results of indirect comparisons (network meta-analysis) and costs calculated from the Japanese payer perspective. Outcomes were defined as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), with utilities based on published values. RESULTS: Expected costs of the vonoprazan-, esomeprazole-, and rabeprazole-first strategies were ¥36,194, ¥76,719, and ¥41,105, respectively, over 5 years. QALY gains for vonoprazan-first strategy versus the esomeprazole- and rabeprazole-first strategies were 0.014 and 0.003, respectively. Both estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were dominant and robust to two sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Vonoprazan-first strategy increased QALYs and appeared to be cost-effective for GERD patients compared with the esomeprazole- or rabeprazole-first strategies.

[Cost-effectiveness between pazopanib and sunitinib for metastatic renal cancer from the perspective of the Brazilian Unified National Health System]. / Custo-efetividade do pazopanibe comparado ao sunitinibe para câncer renal metastático na perspectiva de um hospital do Sistema Único de Saúde.

Renal cancer is the 13th most frequent neoplasm in the world. From 2010 to 2014, renal cancer accounted for 1.43% of cancer deaths in Brazil. The treatment of choice for metastatic renal cancer is tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) sunitinib and pazopanib. This article assesses cost-effectiveness between pazopanib and sunitinib in the treatment of metastatic renal cancer. A cost-effectiveness study was performed from the perspective of a federal hospital under the Brazilian Unified National Health System (SUS). TKI effectiveness and safety outcomes were applied to the decision tree model. Clinical data were extracted from patient charts, and direct costs were consulted from official Ministry of Health sources. The cost of 10 months of treatment, including the costs of the TKI, procedures and management of adverse events, was BRL 98,677.19 for pazopanib and BRL 155,227.11 for sunitinib. The drugs displayed statistically equivalent effectiveness and statistically different safety outcomes, with pazopanib displaying better results. In this setting, pazopanib is the dominant technology when the treatment costs are analyzed together with the costs of managing adverse events.

O câncer renal é a 13ª neoplasia mais frequente no mundo. Entre 2012 e 2016, representou 1,48% das mortes por câncer no Brasil. A terapia de escolha para o tratamento de câncer renal metastático são os inibidores de tirosina quinase (ITK), sunitinibe e pazopanibe. Este artigo avalia o custo-efetividade do pazopanibe comparado ao sunitinibe no tratamento de câncer renal metastático. Foi realizada uma análise de custo-efetividade sob a perspectiva de um hospital federal do Sistema Único de Saúde. No modelo de árvore de decisão foram aplicados os desfechos de efetividade e segurança dos ITK. Os dados clínicos foram extraídos de prontuários e os custos diretos consultados em fontes oficiais do Ministério da Saúde. O custo de 10 meses de tratamento, englobando o valor dos ITK, procedimentos e manejo de eventos adversos, foi de R$ 98.677,19 para o pazopanibe e R$ 155.227,11 para o sunitinibe. Os medicamentos apresentaram efetividade estatisticamente equivalente e diferença estatisticamente significativa para o desfecho de segurança, no qual o pazopanibe obteve o melhor resultado. O pazopanibe, nesse contexto, é a tecnologia dominante quando os custos de tratamento são associados aos de manejo de eventos adversos.

El cáncer renal es la 13ª neoplasia más frecuente en el mundo. Entre 2010 y 2014, representó un 1,43% de las muertes por cáncer en Brasil. La terapia de elección para el tratamiento de cáncer renal metastásico son los inhibidores de tirosina quinasa (ITK), sunitinib y pazopanib. Este artículo evalúa el costo-efectividad entre pazopanib y sunitinib en el tratamiento de cáncer renal metastásico. Se realizó un análisis de costo-efectividad desde la perspectiva de un hospital federal del Sistema Único de Salud. En el modelo de árbol de decisión se aplicaron los desenlaces de efectividad y seguridad de los ITK. Los datos clínicos se extrajeron de registros médicos, y los costos directos consultados en fuentes oficiales del Ministerio de Salud. El costo de 10 meses de tratamiento, englobando el valor de los ITK, procedimientos y gestión de eventos adversos, fue de BRL 98.677,19 con el pazopanib y BRL 155.227,11 con el sunitinib. Los medicamentos presentaron efectividad estadísticamente equivalente y diferencia estadísticamente significativa para el desenlace de seguridad, en el que el pazopanib obtuvo el mejor resultado. El pazopanib, en este contexto, es la tecnología dominante cuando los costes de tratamiento están asociados a los de la gestión de eventos adversos.

A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Shortened Direct-Acting Antiviral Treatment in Genotype 1 Noncirrhotic Treatment-Naive Patients With Chronic Hepatitis C Virus.

BACKGROUND: Direct-acting antivirals are successful in curing hepatitis C virus infection in more than 95% of patients treated for 12 weeks, but they are expensive. Shortened treatment durations, which may have lower cure rates, have been proposed to reduce costs. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the lifetime cost-effectiveness of different shortened treatment durations for genotype 1 noncirrhotic treatment-naive patients. METHODS: Assuming a UK National Health Service perspective, we used a probabilistic decision tree and Markov model to compare 3 unstratified shortened treatment durations (8, 6, and 4 weeks) against a standard 12-week treatment duration. Patients failing shortened first-line treatment were re-treated with a 12-week treatment regimen. Parameter inputs were taken from published studies. RESULTS: The 8-week treatment duration had an expected incremental net monetary benefit of £7737 (95% confidence interval £3242-£11 819) versus the standard 12-week treatment, per 1000 patients. The 6-week treatment had a positive incremental net monetary benefit, although some uncertainty was observed. The probability that the 8- and 6-week treatments were the most cost-effective was 56% and 25%, respectively, whereas that for the 4-week treatment was 17%. Results were generally robust to sensitivity analyses, including a threshold analysis that showed that the 8-week treatment was the most cost-effective at all drug prices lower than £40 000 per 12-week course. CONCLUSIONS: Shortening treatments licensed for 12 weeks to 8 weeks is cost-effective in genotype 1 noncirrhotic treatment-naive patients. There was considerable uncertainty in the estimates for 6- and 4-week treatments, with some indication that the 6-week treatment may be cost-effective.

Vonoprazan versus Lansoprazole for the Initial Treatment of Reflux Esophagitis: A Cost-effectiveness Analysis in Japan.

Objective Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a highly prevalent disorder that negatively affects patients' quality of life and reduces their work productivity. The medical expenses associated with the treatment of GERD are the highest among all digestive diseases. Current guidelines recommend the administration of a standard dose of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) for eight weeks as an initial GERD treatment. However, there is growing concern regarding the safety of PPI treatment. Recently, a novel potassium-competitive acid blocker (P-CAB), vonoprazan (VPZ), was approved for the treatment of reflux esophagitis in Japan and may provide clinical benefits in GERD treatment. This study was conducted to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a P-CAB, VPZ vs. a PPI, lansoprazole (LPZ), for the acute medical treatment of reflux esophagitis. Methods A clinical decision analysis was performed using a Markov chain approach to compare VPZ to LPZ in the acute treatment of reflux esophagitis in Japan. Results The P-CAB strategy was superior to the PPI strategy in terms of cost-effectiveness (direct cost per patient to achieve clinical success) and the number of days for which medication was required. Sensitivity analyses revealed that this superiority was robust within the plausible range of probabilities. This remained true even when the healing rates in cases of mild esophagitis were applied. Conclusion The P-CAB strategy was consistently superior to the conventional PPI strategy using the original LPZ in terms of cost-effectiveness and the number of days for which medication was required. Thus, VPZ appears to be the drug of choice for the acute medical treatment of reflux esophagitis.

Pazopanib has equivalent anti-tumor effectiveness and lower Total costs than Sunitinib for treating metastatic or advanced renal cell carcinoma: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Sunitinib and pazopanib are extensively used as first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). We performed this meta-analysis to assess the anti-tumor effectiveness, toxicity, and total costs of the two drugs among patients with mRCC/advanced RCC (aRCC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: PubMed, ScienceDirect, Scopus, Web of Science, Ovid MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, Embase, and Google Scholar were searched to obtain eligible articles. The endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), adverse effects (AEs), and per-patient-per-month (PPPM) costs. RESULTS: We included 14 medium- to high-quality studies. Both drugs were valid for mRCC/aRCC, with equivalent PFS (hazard ratio (HR) =1.06, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.98-1.15, P = 0.13), OS (HR = 0.92, 95% CI: 0.79-1.07, P = 0.29), objective response rate (ORR, risk ratio (RR) =1.03, 95% CI: 0.93-1.13, p = 0.58), and disease control rate (DCR, RR = 1.03, 95% CI: 0.94-1.22, P = 0.54). Sunitinib had more dosage reductions and higher PPPM (weighted mean difference = - 1.50 thousand US dollars, 95% CI: - 2.27 to - 0.72, P = 0.0002). Furthermore, more incidences of severe fatigue, thrombocytopenia, and neutropenia were recorded for sunitinib, but pazopanib had more liver toxicity. In subgroup analysis, studies from the US reported longer OS (HR = 0.86, 95% CI: 0.77-0.95, P = 0.004) and higher ORR (RR = 1.24, 95% CI: 1.03-1.51, P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Pazopanib provides equivalent anti-tumor effectiveness and lower PPPM as compared with sunitinib for mRCC/aRCC. Great care should be given to pazopanib-treated patients with abnormal liver function. Nevertheless, more large-scale, high-quality studies are required.

Cost-effectiveness analysis and effectiveness of pharmacist-managed outpatient clinics in Helicobacter pylori eradication therapy.

BACKGROUND: Helicobacter pylori is involved in many upper gastrointestinal diseases such as peptic ulcers and gastric cancers. In this study, we compared the cost-effectiveness of lansoprazole and vonoprazan in H. pylori eradication therapy and examined the effectiveness of pharmacist-managed outpatient clinics. METHODS: We investigated the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of pharmacist-managed outpatient clinics in H. pylori eradication therapy at our hospital from January 2015 to December 2017. The subjects were classified into three groups: lansoprazole group; vonoprazan group; and the medication instruction group, which received instructions at the pharmacist-managed outpatient clinics (intervention group). We examined the eradication rate and cost-effectiveness ratio of each group. RESULTS: The eradication rate of primary eradication therapy was 75.2% in the lansoprazole group, 87.8% in the vonoprazan group and 91.4% in the intervention group. When mental component summary was used as quality of life score, cost-effectiveness ratio was 224.7 yen in lansoprazole group, 223.9 yen in vonoprazan group and 222.2 yen in intervention group. Setting up pharmacist-managed outpatient clinics increases the pharmacist labour cost necessary for eradication therapy. However, if the medication instructions provided by the pharmacist can lead to improved disinfection efficiency, improvement in cost efficiency can be expected. CONCLUSION: Although medication instructions provided at the pharmacist-managed outpatient clinics incur additional labour costs, they improve patient quality of life as well as disinfection rate in H. pylori eradication therapy. Therefore, pharmacist-managed outpatient clinics are useful from the viewpoint of pharmacoeconomics.

Economic evaluation of sunitinib versus pazopanib and best supportive care for the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma in Chile: cost-effectiveness analysis and a mixed treatment comparison.

Background: Sunitinib and Pazopanib are two metastatic renal cell carcinoma (MRCC) treatment alternatives, however the health system in Chile does not consider coverage for any. The cost-effectiveness versus relevant comparator was assessed to support evidence-based decision making. Methods: A four health states Markov model was built: first, second line treatments, BSC and death. Benefits were measured in QALYs, and efficacy estimates were obtained from an indirect treatment comparison. A 10-year time horizon and a 3% undifferentiated discount rate were considered. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. Results: The costs of treating MRCC with Sunitinib were higher than Pazopanib and BSC. When comparing Sunitinib versus Pazopanib, the incremental benefit is small favoring Sunitinib (0.03 QALYs). The base case scenario shows an average ICER of PA versus BSC of US$62,327.11/QALY and of US$85,885/QALY for Sunitinib versus Pazopanib. The ICER was most sensitive to the OS relative to BSC, where evidence was associated to important bias. Conclusions: Sunitinib or Pazopanib can be considered cost-effective if a 3 GDP per-capita threshold is assumed. The decision between SU or PA is highly sensitive to the price of the drugs, rather than the outcomes. Therefore, the decision might be made based on cost-minimization exercise.

Economic Burden of Renal Cell Carcinoma-Part I: An Updated Review.

BACKGROUND: The economic burden of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) had been reported to be significant in a previous review published in 2011. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to perform an updated review by synthesizing economic studies related to the treatment of RCC that have been published since the previous review. METHODS: We performed a literature search in PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library, covering English-language studies published between June 2010 and August 2018. We categorized these articles by type of analyses [cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), cost analysis, and cost of illness (COI)] and treatment setting (cancer status and treatment), discussed findings from these articles, and synthesized information from each article in summary tables. RESULTS: We identified 52 studies from 2317 abstracts/titles deemed relevant from the initial search, including 21 CEA, 23 cost analysis, and 8 COI studies. For localized RCC, costs were found to be positively associated with the aggressiveness of the local treatment. For metastatic RCC (mRCC), pazopanib was reported to be cost effective in the first-line setting. We also found that the economic burden of RCC has increased over time. CONCLUSION: RCC continues to impose a substantial economic burden to the healthcare system. Despite the large number of treatment alternatives now available for advanced RCC, the cost effectiveness and budgetary impact of many new agents remain unknown and warrant greater attention in future research.

Patterns of practice and pharmacoeconomic analysis of the management of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in Greece--the CRISIS study. A retrospective analysis by the Hellenic Genitourinary Cancer Group (HGUCG).

Background:Metastatic RCC (mRCC) treatment has been revolutionized with 11 approved targeted agents. We report patterns of practice, outcomes and pharmacoeconomic analyses after the introduction of targeted therapy. Patients and methods: CRISIS was a retrospective multicenter study of mRCCpatients who received targeted therapy . Results were related to the start of 1st-line therapy, with a cut off at 1 January 2011 in order to depict the impact of increased availability of effective options. Results: 164 patients, were included. 70.1% and 44.5% received 2nd and 3rd-line therapy, respectively. More patients were treated in 2nd-line after 1 January 2011. After a median follow-up of 55.1 months, median progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 10.7 (95% confidence intervals [CI]: 8.3-13.7), 7.3 (95% CI: 5.1-8.6), 5.8 (95% CI: 3.8-7.8) and 34 (95% CI: 28.5-39.8), 22.4 (95% CI: 16-32.1), 18.3 (95% CI: 12.4-26.4) months for first, second and third line, respectively. Efficacy of sunitinib and pazopanib in 1st-line were similar. The mean total cost/patient was 35,012.2 Euros (standard deviation [SD]: 28,971.5). Conclusions: Our study confirms previous real-world data suggesting that continuing advances in the treatment of mRCC produce favorable outcomes in everyday practice. Pharmacoeconomic analyses are important for cost-effective utilization of emerging novel therapies.

Custo-efetividade do pazopanibe comparado ao sunitinibe para câncer renal metastático na perspectiva de um hospital do Sistema Único de Saúde / Cost-effectiveness between pazopanib and sunitinib for metastatic renal cancer from the perspective of the Brazilian Unified National Health System / Costo-efectividad entre el pazopanib y el sunitinib para el cáncer renal metastásico desde la perspectiva del Sistema Único de Salud

Resumo: O câncer renal é a 13ª neoplasia mais frequente no mundo. Entre 2012 e 2016, representou 1,48% das mortes por câncer no Brasil. A terapia de escolha para o tratamento de câncer renal metastático são os inibidores de tirosina quinase (ITK), sunitinibe e pazopanibe. Este artigo avalia o custo-efetividade do pazopanibe comparado ao sunitinibe no tratamento de câncer renal metastático. Foi realizada uma análise de custo-efetividade sob a perspectiva de um hospital federal do Sistema Único de Saúde. No modelo de árvore de decisão foram aplicados os desfechos de efetividade e segurança dos ITK. Os dados clínicos foram extraídos de prontuários e os custos diretos consultados em fontes oficiais do Ministério da Saúde. O custo de 10 meses de tratamento, englobando o valor dos ITK, procedimentos e manejo de eventos adversos, foi de R$ 98.677,19 para o pazopanibe e R$ 155.227,11 para o sunitinibe. Os medicamentos apresentaram efetividade estatisticamente equivalente e diferença estatisticamente significativa para o desfecho de segurança, no qual o pazopanibe obteve o melhor resultado. O pazopanibe, nesse contexto, é a tecnologia dominante quando os custos de tratamento são associados aos de manejo de eventos adversos.

Abstract: Renal cancer is the 13th most frequent neoplasm in the world. From 2010 to 2014, renal cancer accounted for 1.43% of cancer deaths in Brazil. The treatment of choice for metastatic renal cancer is tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) sunitinib and pazopanib. This article assesses cost-effectiveness between pazopanib and sunitinib in the treatment of metastatic renal cancer. A cost-effectiveness study was performed from the perspective of a federal hospital under the Brazilian Unified National Health System (SUS). TKI effectiveness and safety outcomes were applied to the decision tree model. Clinical data were extracted from patient charts, and direct costs were consulted from official Ministry of Health sources. The cost of 10 months of treatment, including the costs of the TKI, procedures and management of adverse events, was BRL 98,677.19 for pazopanib and BRL 155,227.11 for sunitinib. The drugs displayed statistically equivalent effectiveness and statistically different safety outcomes, with pazopanib displaying better results. In this setting, pazopanib is the dominant technology when the treatment costs are analyzed together with the costs of managing adverse events.

Resumen: El cáncer renal es la 13ª neoplasia más frecuente en el mundo. Entre 2010 y 2014, representó un 1,43% de las muertes por cáncer en Brasil. La terapia de elección para el tratamiento de cáncer renal metastásico son los inhibidores de tirosina quinasa (ITK), sunitinib y pazopanib. Este artículo evalúa el costo-efectividad entre pazopanib y sunitinib en el tratamiento de cáncer renal metastásico. Se realizó un análisis de costo-efectividad desde la perspectiva de un hospital federal del Sistema Único de Salud. En el modelo de árbol de decisión se aplicaron los desenlaces de efectividad y seguridad de los ITK. Los datos clínicos se extrajeron de registros médicos, y los costos directos consultados en fuentes oficiales del Ministerio de Salud. El costo de 10 meses de tratamiento, englobando el valor de los ITK, procedimientos y gestión de eventos adversos, fue de BRL 98.677,19 con el pazopanib y BRL 155.227,11 con el sunitinib. Los medicamentos presentaron efectividad estadísticamente equivalente y diferencia estadísticamente significativa para el desenlace de seguridad, en el que el pazopanib obtuvo el mejor resultado. El pazopanib, en este contexto, es la tecnología dominante cuando los costes de tratamiento están asociados a los de la gestión de eventos adversos.

Cost-utility of Sunitinib Versus Pazopanib in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma in Canada using Real-world Evidence.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The development of new targeted therapies in kidney cancer has shaped disease management in the metastatic phase. Our study aims to conduct a cost-utility analysis of sunitinib versus pazopanib in first-line setting in Canada for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients using real-world data. METHODS: A Markov model with Monte-Carlo microsimulations was developed to estimate the clinical and economic outcomes of patients treated in first-line with sunitinib versus pazopanib. Transition probabilities were estimated using observational data from a Canadian database where real-life clinical practice was captured. The costs of therapies, disease progression, and management of adverse events were included in the model in Canadian dollars ($Can). Utility and disutility values were included for each health state. Incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were calculated for a time horizon of 5 years, from the Canadian Healthcare System perspective. RESULTS: The cost difference was $36,303 and the difference in quality-adjusted life year (QALY) was 0.54 in favour of sunitinib with an ICUR of $67,227/QALY for sunitinib versus pazopanib. The major cost component (56%) is related to best supportive care (BSC) where patients tend to stay for a longer period of time compared to other states. The difference in life years gained (LYG) between sunitinib and pazopanib was 1.21 LYG (33.51 vs 19.03 months) and the ICER was $30,002/LYG. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated the robustness of the model with a high probability of sunitinib being a cost-effective option when compared to pazopanib. CONCLUSION: When using real-world evidence, sunitinib is found to be a cost-effective treatment compared to pazopanib in mRCC patients in Canada.

[Cost-effectiveness model of a fixed dose combination of solifenacin and tamsulosin for the treatment of LUTS associated with BPH with inadequate response to monotherapy.] / Modelo de coste­efectividad de la combinación a dosis fijas de solifenacina y tamsulosina en el tratamiento de los STUI asociados a HBP con respuesta inadecuada a la monoterapia.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost-effectiveness of fixed dose combination of solifenacin 6 mg and tamsulosin 0.4 mg in a controlled absorption system (TOCAS) with free dose combination of tolterodine plus tamsulosin, when used for the treatment of patients with moderate to severe lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) who do not respond adequately to monotherapy. The analysis was conducted from the perspective of the Spanish National Health System. METHODS: A Markov model was developed in Excel, with 1-year time horizon. The transition probabilities of the model were obtained from the NEPTUNE clinical trial and published literature. Unit costs were obtained from Spanish sources. The use of healthcare resources was validated by Spanish clinical experts. Both deterministic and probabilistic analyses were performed to determine the key drivers of the model. RESULTS: Treatment with fixed dose combination of solifenacin plus TOCAS was found to be dominant, as it resulted in lower annual costs (€ 1,349 vs. € 1,619) and greater quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained per patient (0.8406 vs. 0.8386) when compared with free dose combination of tolterodine plus tamsulosin. According to the probabilistic analyses, the probability of the fixed dose combination treatment being cost-effective at a willingness to pay threshold of € 20,000 or 30,000 would be 100%. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis suggests that fixed dose combination of solifenacin plus TOCAS represents a cost-effective choice for the treatment of patients with moderate to severe LUTS/BHP, compared to free dose combination of tolterodine plus tamsulosin.

Cost-Effectiveness of Elbasvir/Grazoprevir Versus Daclatasvir Plus Asunaprevir in Patients with Chronic Hepatitis C Virus Genotype 1b Infection in China.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: New direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) have high efficacy and tolerability in the treatment of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of elbasvir/grazoprevir (EBR/GZR) versus daclatasvir plus asunaprevir (DCV + ASV) in Chinese patients with chronic HCV genotype (GT) 1b infection stratified by cirrhosis status and treatment history. METHODS: A cohort state-transition model was constructed to simulate the course of chronic HCV infection in patients stratified by cirrhosis status and treatment history. The model projected lifetime outcomes and costs in terms of HCV treatment, laboratory tests, clinical procedures, and hospitalizations. Mean age of the study cohort at baseline was 45 years, based on published sources. Sustained virologic response (SVR) rates were derived from clinical trials. Healthcare resource utilization and health utilities were extracted or estimated from published studies in Chinese populations. The stability of the base-case analysis was validated by deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: In each subpopulation of Chinese patients, treatment with EBR/GZR dominated treatment with DCV + ASV, with lower costs and higher quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that EBR/GZR was the cost-effective option compared to DCV + ASV in 77.4-97.4% or 94.1-100% of model simulations in Chinese treatment-naïve or treatment-experienced patients, respectively, as the cost-effectiveness threshold changed from zero to US$24,150/QALY (three times GDP per capita in China). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with EBR/GZR was the cost-effective option for patients with chronic HCV GT1b infection in China, regardless of cirrhosis status or treatment history.