scholarly journals Economic evaluation of brentuximab vedotin for persistent Hodgkin lymphoma

2017 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 6 ◽  
Author(s):  
V. Babashov ◽  
M.A. Begen ◽  
J. Mangel ◽  
G.S. Zaric
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Hodgkin Lymphoma ◽  
Risk Sharing ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Brentuximab Vedotin ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Decision Analytic Model ◽  
Health State ◽  
Life Years

Background We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis of brentuximab vedotin for the treatment of relapsed and refractory Hodgkin lymphoma (hl) in the post–autologous stem-cell transplantation (asct) failure period, from the perspective of the Canadian health care payer.Methods We developed a decision-analytic model to simulate lifetime costs and benefits of brentuximab vedotin compared with best supportive care for the treatment of patients with hl after failure of asct. Administrative data from Ontario were used to set the model parameters.Results In the base case, treatment with brentuximab vedotin resulted in incremental quality-adjusted life-years (qalys) of 0.544 and an incremental cost of $89,366 per patient, corresponding to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (icer) of $164,248 per qaly gained. The icer was sensitive to the cost of brentuximab vedotin, the hazard ratio used to assess the efficacy of brentuximab vedotin treatment, and health state utilities.Conclusions In light of the available information, brentuximab vedotin has an icer exceeding $100,000 per qaly gained, which is a level often classified as having “weak evidence for adoption and appropriate utilization” in Canada. However, it is worth noting that provincial cancer agencies take into account not only the costs and associated icer, but also other factors such as a lack of alternative treatment options and the clinical benefits of expensive cancer drugs. Pricing arrangements should be negotiated, and risk-sharing agreements or patient access schemes should be explored. 

scholarly journals A Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Brentuximab Vedotin in Relapsed or Refractory Systemic Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma

10.36469/9820 ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 188-203
Author(s):  
Margaret Hux ◽  
Denise Zou ◽  
Esprit Ma ◽  
Peter Sajosi ◽  
Andreas Engstrom ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Group Performance ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Brentuximab Vedotin ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Health State ◽  
Conventional Chemotherapy ◽  
Pivotal Phase ◽  
Life Years

Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of brentuximab vedotin in patients with R/R sALCL from a UK NHS perspective. Methods: A partitioned survival model used clinical outcomes for brentuximab vedotin from the pivotal phase-2 single-arm trial of brentuximab vedotin in 58 patients with R/R sALCL (SG035-0004; NCT00866047), over a lifetime (30-year) time horizon. Comparison with conventional chemotherapy was based on data from the Canadian British Columbia Cancer Agency registry from 40 patients starting salvage chemotherapy after front-line treatment between 1980 and 2012. Survival was extrapolated using parametric distributions, with brentuximab vedotin risk after the trial period assumed equal to conventional chemotherapy. Other modelling assumptions were based on a systematic literature review and clinical expert opinion. Results: Based on statistical extrapolation, brentuximab vedotin was associated with 3.1 years longer duration in the progression-free survival health state and an overall survival improvement of 5.4 years, prior to discounting. In addition, brentuximab vedotin was associated with 2.5 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained at a total incremental cost of £88 556, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of approximately £35 400. Sensitivity analyses of alternative model assumptions provided ICERs ranging from approximately £28 100 to £61 900. Comparing only first-line salvage patients reduced the ICER to £26 800 per QALY gained. Conversely, considering only patients with Eastern Corporative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 increased the ICER to approximately £38 200. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of £50 000, the estimated probability that brentuximab vedotin is cost-effective compared with conventional chemotherapy was 86.5%. Conclusion: Compared to conventional chemotherapy, and considering the full survival period, brentuximab vedotin may provide a valuable treatment choice for patients with R/R sALCL, a population with limited therapeutic options.

scholarly journals Sustained acoustic medicine as a non-surgical and non-opioid knee osteoarthritis treatment option: a health economic cost-effectiveness analysis for symptom management

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas M. Best ◽  
Stephanie Petterson ◽  
Kevin Plancher
Keyword(s):  
Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Symptom Management ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Treatment Pathways ◽  
Knee Oa ◽  
Cost Effective Treatment ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Background Patients diagnosed with osteoarthritis (OA) and presenting with symptoms are seeking conservative treatment options to reduce pain, improve function, and avoid surgery. Sustained acoustic medicine (SAM), a multi-hour treatment has demonstrated improved clinical outcomes for patients with knee OA. The purpose of this analysis was to compare the costs and effectiveness of multi-hour SAM treatment versus the standard of care (SOC) over a 6-month timeframe for OA symptom management. Methods A decision tree analysis was used to compare the costs and effectiveness of SAM treatment versus SOC in patients with OA. Probabilities of success for OA treatment and effectiveness were derived from the literature using systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Costs were derived from Medicare payment rates and manufacturer prices. Functional effectiveness was measured as the effect size of a therapy and treatment pathways compared to a SOC treatment pathway. A sensitivity analysis was performed to determine which cost variables had the greatest effect on deciding which option was the least costly. An incremental cost-effectiveness plot comparing SAM treatment vs. SOC was also generated using 1000 iterations of the model. Lastly, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated as the (cost of SAM minus cost of SOC) divided by (functional effectiveness of SAM minus functional effectiveness of SOC). Results Base case demonstrated that over 6 months, the cost and functional effectiveness of SAM was $8641 and 0.52 versus SOC at: $6281 and 0.39, respectively. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that in order for SAM to be the less expensive option, the cost per 15-min session of PT would need to be greater than $88, or SAM would need to be priced at less than or equal to $2276. Incremental cost-effectiveness demonstrated that most of the time (84%) SAM treatment resulted in improved functional effectiveness but at a higher cost than SOC. Conclusion In patients with osteoarthritis, SAM treatment demonstrated improved pain and functional gains compared to SOC but at an increased cost. Based on the SAM treatment ICER score being ≤ $50,000, it appears that SAM is a cost-effective treatment for knee OA.

scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Gilteritinib Versus Salvage Chemotherapy (SC) for the Treatment of Relapsed or Refractory (R/R) FLT3-Mutated (FLT3mut+) Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML)

Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 3859-3859 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amer M. Zeidan ◽  
Cynthia Z. Qi ◽  
Bhavik J. Pandya ◽  
Andy Garnham ◽  
Hongbo Yang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Survival Models ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Health State ◽  
Lifetime Horizon ◽  
Analysis Group

Introduction: FLT3 is a frequently mutated gene in approximately one-third of AML cases and is associated with a poor prognosis. Few effective therapeutic options exist for patients with R/R FLT3mut+ AML. In 2018, gilteritinib was approved in the US as the first targeted therapy indicated for R/R FLT3mut+ AML. The efficacy of gilteritinib was established in the ADMIRAL trial, a phase 3 randomized trial, in comparison with SC (i.e., low-dose cyctarbine [LDAC], azacitidine, mitoxantrone + etoposide + cytarabine [MEC], and fludarabine + cytarabine + granulocyte colony stimulating factor + idarubicin [FLAG-IDA]). The results from the trial indicated that gilteritinib significantly improved overall survival (OS) compared to SC with 1-year survival rates of 37% vs. 17%. To inform the value of gilteritinib, this study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of gilteritinib for the treatment of R/R FLT3mut+ AML from a US third-party payer's perspective. Methods: A cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) model was developed using monthly cycles and a 3% discount rate to assess the incremental cost effectiveness of gilteritinib compared to SC over a lifetime horizon. The model structure comprised a decision tree followed by two three-state partitioned survival models. The decision tree component stratified patients based on whether they received allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) following treatment initiation. The partitioned survival components included three health states: event-free survival (EFS), alive and post-event, and death. The selected model structure was chosen because HSCT is a key clinical event that has a significant impact on treatment outcomes for the target population. The efficacy inputs (OS and EFS) varied by HSCT status. The efficacy inputs for OS and EFS without HSCT were estimated based on the ADMIRAL trial. The efficacy inputs for OS and EFS with HSCT were assumed to be the same for both gilteritinib and SC and were based on available literature (Evers 2018). Parametric survival models or HRs were used to predict probabilities of being in different health states until year 3. Afterwards, all patients who remained alive were considered long-term survivors and their mortality risk was twice that of the general population based on literature. Treatment costs (drug, administration, and hospitalization), adverse event (AE) costs, subsequent HSCT costs, medical costs for each health state, FLT3 mutation testing, post-progression treatment, and terminal care costs were obtained from public databases and literature. For SC, the same regimen composition (i.e., LDAC, azacitidine, MEC, and FLAG-IDA) as the ADMIRAL trial was considered to estimate the treatment costs. All costs were inflated to 2018 US dollar (USD). Utilities for each health state were derived from the ADMIRAL trial and disutilities for AEs were derived from the literature. Total incremental costs, total incremental LYs, and total incremental QALYs were calculated. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), defined as the incremental cost per additional gain in health effect (i.e., LY and QALY), were used to assess the economic value of gilteritinib relative to SC. Deterministic sensitivity analyses (DSA) and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were also performed to test the robustness of the base-case results. Results: Over a lifetime horizon, the base-case model estimated that treatment with gilteritinib led to an increase of 1.55 discounted LYs and an increase of 1.29 discounted QALYs at an additional cost of $141,097 relative to SC; the corresponding incremental cost per LY gained was $90,761, and incremental cost per QALY gained was $109,741. Cost-effectiveness was most sensitive to gilteritinib cost, HSCT rate, and discount rate. In the PSA, the estimated probability that gilteritinib is cost-effective was 93.5% at an acceptable willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000/QALY. Conclusions: Gilteritinib demonstrated greater LY and QALY improvements compared with SC. With an ICER of $109,741/QALY, gilteritinib is a cost-effective strategy from a US third-party payer's perspective, based on the $150,000/QALY threshold recommended by the US Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. Compared to SC, gilteritinib represents a new active treatment option for R/R FLT3mut+ AML patients that provides better health outcomes with a favorable cost-effectiveness profile. Disclosures Zeidan: Trovagene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Medimmune/AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Boehringer-Ingelheim: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Ariad: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Astellas: Honoraria; Daiichi Sankyo: Honoraria; Cardinal Health: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; BeyondSpring: Honoraria; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Acceleron Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Otsuka: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Agios: Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Jazz: Honoraria. Qi:Astellas: Other: I am an employee of Analysis Group, Inc., which provided paid consulting services to Astellas for the conduct of this study; Analysis Group, Inc.: Employment. Pandya:Astellas Pharmaceuticals: Employment. Garnham:Astellas: Employment. Yang:Analysis Group, Inc.: Employment; Astellas: Other: I am an employee of Analysis Group, Inc., which provided paid consulting services to Astellas for the conduct of this study. Shah:Astellas: Employment.

Economic evaluation of crizotinib, alectinib, ceritinib, and brigatinib in treatment naïve anaplastic lymphoma kinase positive (ALK+) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e21102-e21102
Author(s):  
Briana Choi ◽  
Nimer S. Alkhatib ◽  
Hala Halawah ◽  
Matthias Calamia ◽  
Dexter Gulick ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Base Case ◽  
First Line ◽  
Lifetime Horizon ◽  
Reference Drug ◽  
Anaplastic Lymphoma ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Cost Effective Treatment

e21102 Background: Crizotinib was approved by the FDA (2011) as the first ALK inhibitor for ALK+ NSCLC as the first line drug. This was followed by the approval as second line treatment of ceritinib (2014), alectinib (2015) and brigatinib (2017); and, following more data, now also as first line therapies in ALK+ NSCLC. With varying costs and clinical benefits for progression free survival (PFS), cost effectiveness/utility analyses were conducted. Methods: A 3 state Markov model was built including progression free, progression and death. PFS and overall survival curves were digitized and exponential functions were fit the curves for extrapolation beyond trial follow up. A lifetime horizon, US payer perspective, and a discount rate of 3% were applied. Drug costs were based on Redbook Wholesale Acquisition Cost while costs of adverse events, monitoring, disease progression were from literatures (US$ 2020). Adverse events reported at > 5% were included. Crizotinib was used as reference treatment. PFS life years (PFSLY), quality adjusted life years (PFSQALY), incremental cost-effectiveness and utility ratios (ICER/ICUR) of PFSLY and PFSQALY gained (PFSLYG, PFSQALYG) were estimated in base case (BCA) and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA). Results: Crizotinib was the reference drug in the following estimations. For alectinib, at incremental cost of $7,789 (PSA $7,719), the incremental PFSLY of 1.10 (1.10) and PFSQALY 1.07 (1.07) yielded an ICER of $7,109 ($7,030) / PFSLYG and an ICUR of $7,278 ($7.197) / PFSQALYG. For ceritinib, at incremental cost of $88,688 ($88,450), the incremental PFSLY of 1.02 (1.02) and PFSQALY of 1.01 (1.01) resulted in an ICER of $86,970 ($86,729) / PFSLYG and an ICUR of $87,472 / PFSQALYG. For brigatinib, at incremental cost of $84,680 ($83,986), the incremental PFSLY of 1.01 (1.01) and PFSQALY of 1.02 yielded an ICER of $83,774 ($83,073) / PFSLYG and an ICUR of $82,666 ($81,976) / PFSQALYG. Conclusions: Ceritinib had the highest lifetime cost and comparable PFSLY and PFSQALY to brigatinib. However, alectinib reported the highest PFSLY and PFSQALY gained while having lower costs than ceritinib and brigatinib, therefore being the most cost-effective treatment for naïve ALK+ NSCLC.[Table: see text]

scholarly journals Managing toxic thyroid adenoma: a cost-effectiveness analysis

2002 ◽  
Vol 146 (3) ◽  
pp. 283-294 ◽  
Author(s):  
GM Vidal-Trecan ◽  
JE Stahl ◽  
I Durand-Zaleski
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Antithyroid Drugs ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Decision Analytic Model ◽  
Surgical Mortality ◽  
Thyroid Adenoma ◽  
System Perspective ◽  
Thyroid Lobectomy ◽  
Life Years

OBJECTIVE: To examine the cost-effectiveness of therapeutic strategies for patients with toxic thyroid adenoma. DESIGN: A decision analytic model was used to examine strategies, including thyroid lobectomy after a 3-month course of antithyroid drugs (ATDs), radioactive iodine (RAI), and lifelong ATDs followed by either RAI (ATD-RAI) or surgery (ATD-surgery) in patients suffering severe drug reactions. METHODS: Outcomes were measured in quality-adjusted life years. Data on the prevalence of co-incident thyroid cancer, complications and treatment efficacies were derived from a systematic review of the literature (1966-2000). Costs were examined from the health care system perspective. Costs and effectiveness were examined at their present values. Discounting (3% per year), variations of major cost components, and every variable for which disagreements exist among studies or expert opinion were examined by sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: For a 40-year-old woman, surgery was both the most effective and the least costly strategy (Euro 1391),while ATD-RAI cost the most (Euro 5760). RAI was more effective than surgery if surgical mortality exceeded 0.6% (base-case 0.001%). RAI become less costly for women of more than 72 years (more than 66 in discounted analyses). For women of 85, ATD-RAI may be more effective than RAI and have an inexpensive marginal cost-effectiveness ratio (Euro 4975) if lifelong follow-up results in no decrement in quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: Age, surgical mortality, therapeutic costs and patient preference must all be considered in choosing an appropriate therapy.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness and value of information analysis of multiple frequency bioimpedance devices for fluid management in people with chronic kidney disease having dialysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Elisabet Jacobsen ◽  
Moira Cruickshank ◽  
David Cooper ◽  
Angharad Marks ◽  
Miriam Brazzelli ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Chronic Kidney Disease ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Kidney Disease ◽  
Value Of Information ◽  
Relative Effectiveness ◽  
Fluid Management ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Health State ◽  
Multiple Frequency ◽  
Life Years

Abstract Background Among people with chronic kidney disease (CKD) on dialysis, sub-optimal fluid management has been linked with hospitalisation, cardiovascular complications and death. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness using multiple-frequency bioimpedance guided fluid management versus standard fluid management based on clinical judgment. Methods A Markov model was developed to compare expected costs, outcomes and quality adjusted life years of the alternative management strategies. The relative effectiveness of the bioimpedance guided approach was informed by a systematic review of clinical trials, and focussed reviews were conducted to identify baseline event rates, costs and health state utility values for application in the model. The model was analysed probabilistically and a value of information (VOI) analysis was conducted to inform the value of conducting further research to reduce current uncertainties in the evidence base. Results For the base-case analysis, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for bioimpedance guided fluid management versus standard management was £16,536 per QALY gained. There was a 59% chance of the ICER being below £20,000 per QALY. Form the VOI analysis, the theoretical upper bound on the value of further research was £53 million. The value of further research was highest for parameters relating to the relative effectiveness of bioimpedance guided management on final health outcomes. Conclusions Multiple frequency bioimpedance testing may offer a cost-effective approach to improve fluid management in patients with CKD on dialysis, but further research would be of value to reduce the current uncertainties.

scholarly journals A cost-utility analysis of apalutamide for metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ambica Parmar ◽  
Narhari Timilshina ◽  
Urban Emmenegger ◽  
Martin Smoragiewicz ◽  
Beate Sander ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Therapeutic Option ◽  
Lifetime Cost ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Scenario Analyses ◽  
Life Years

Introduction: Earlier application of oral androgen receptor-axis-targeted therapies in patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) has established improvements in overall survival, as compared to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) alone. Recently, the use of apalutamide plus ADT has demonstrated improvement in mCSPC-related mortality, vs. ADT alone, with an acceptable toxicity profile. However, the cost-effectiveness of this therapeutic option remains unknown. Methods: We used a state-transition model with probabilistic analysis to compare apalutamide + ADT, as compared to ADT alone for mCSPC patients over a time horizon of 20 years. Primary outcomes included expected life-years (LY), quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), lifetime cost (2020 Canadian dollars), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Parameter and model uncertainties were assessed through scenario analyses. Health outcomes and cost were discounted at 1.5%, as per Canadian guidelines. Results: For the base-case analysis, expected LY for ADT and apalutamide plus ADT were 4.11 and 5.56, respectively (incremental LY 1.45). Expected QALYs were 3.51 for ADT and 4.84 for apalutamide plus ADT (incremental QALYs 1.33); expected lifetime cost was $36 582 and $255 633, respectively (incremental cost $219,051). ICER for apalutamide plus ADT, as compared to ADT alone, was $164 700/QALY. Through scenario analysis, price reductions >50% were required for apalutamide in combination with ADT to be considered cost-effective, at a cost-effectiveness threshold of $100 000/QALY. Conclusions: Apalutamide plus ADT is unlikely to be cost-effective from the Canadian healthcare perspective unless there are substantial reductions in the price of apalutamide treatment.

Cost-effectiveness of zoledronic acid vs. pamidronate in the management of hormone refractory prostate cancer (HRPC) patients with bone metastases

2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 14660-14660 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Botteman ◽  
V. Barghout ◽  
K. El Ouagari
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Zoledronic Acid ◽  
Bone Metastases ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Bisphosphonate Therapy ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Decision Analytic Model ◽  
Cumulative Number ◽  
Life Years

14660 Background: Canadian guidelines recommend zoledronic acid (ZA) (4 mg every 3 weeks) in patients with hormone HRPC and asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic bone metastases to reduce skeletal-related events (SRE). However, IV pamidronate (90 mg every 3 weeks) (PA) is also routinely used in this setting in spite of no significant improvement in occurrence of SRE or pain compared to NT. Objectives: To assess the cost effectiveness of ZA, PA, or no bisphosphonate therapy (NT) in the management of prostate cancer patients with bone metastases in Canada. Methods: A literature-based decision analytic model was developed to estimate the incremental cost and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) associated with the 3 treatment options. The model included assumptions about SREs, mortality, drug and administration costs, cost of SREs, reduced quality of life due to SRE and bone pain, and therapy duration. Sensitivity analyses considered several scenarios in which various assumptions were used regarding treatment efficacy and QALY gains due to pain relief and SRE prevention. All costs were expressed in Canadian dollars (2004). Results: The cumulative number of SREs over a patient’s remaining lifetime (1.9 years) was estimated at 2.69 for PA and NT patients and 1.76 for ZA. Total discounted costs were $11,918 for NT, $17,593 for PA, and $19,312 for ZA. Compared with patients receiving NT or PA, quality-adjusted survival increased by 0.094 (range depending on scenario considered: 0.072 to 0.106) QALY per patient for those on ZA compared to PA or NT. Compared to NT, ZA resulted in a cost per QALY gained of $78,366 (range: $50,717 to $101,831). Compared to PA, ZA resulted in a cost per QALY gained of $18,343 (range: $2917 to $23,835) per QALY gained. PA was more expensive than NT but did not improve patient-related outcomes. Conclusions: For HRPC patients with bone metastasis, zoledronic acid appears to be the only clinically valuable and economically acceptable option in Canada with a cost effectiveness likely better than previously reported. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

The economic assessment of eribulin compared to treatment of physician's choice (TPC) in Australia.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e17552-e17552 ◽  
Author(s):  
Trefor Jones ◽  
W. Robert Simons
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Group Versus ◽  
Metastatic Breast ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Logistic Function ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Health State ◽  
Life Years

e17552 Background: The Eisai Metastatic Breast Cancer Study Assessing Physician’s Choice Versus E7389 (EMBRACE) established clinical benefits. This study evaluates its translation into comparative economic value. Methods: Because of superior survival benefits and a non-inferior safety profile, we use a cost-effectiveness analysis. Costs include medication and administration costs, cost of toxicity management, and indirect cost. The primary endpoint is the ratio of incremental means of costs and quality adjusted life years (QALY) yielding an incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER). Partitioned survival analyses were evaluated using a log-logistic function for overall survival, progression free survival, response duration, and toxicity time. Health state utilities or quality weights are applied to each component and aggregated. Sensitivity analyses assessed the influence of variability in a number of parameters. Results: Overall survival based on the log-logistic extrapolation was 686 days in the eribulin group compared to 550 days in the TPC group for a difference of 136 days. Mean time without progressive disease was 214 days and 160 days, respectively, for a difference of 59 days. Time spent with Grade 3 and 4 toxicity were 3.62 and 2.25 days in the eribulin group versus 2.25 and 0.98 days in the TPC group. Response times were 15.62 and 9.64 days, 5.98 days longer in the eribulin group. After weight components of overall survival with corresponding utilities and converting to years, the QALY were 1.166 in the eribulin group compared to 0.926 in the TPC group for a mean incremental improvement of 0.24 years. Mean treatment costs were $14,302.80 AUD and $1,672.02 AUD for a difference of $12,630.78 AUD. Total incremental cost is $13,794.35 AUD. The ICER with and without discounting is $48,134.29 AUD and $45,770.97 AUD, respectively. Survival time and drug cost were the most influential variables on the ICER. Conclusions: At a threshold of $50,000 AUD per QALY, eribulin is good value at $48,134 AUD per QALY. Clinical trial information: NCT00388726.

Cost-effectiveness of immune checkpoint inhibition in metastatic gastric and esophageal tumors.

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 56-56 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sassan Ostvar ◽  
Jin G. Choi ◽  
Jacqueline N. Chu ◽  
Michael Lawrence Dougan ◽  
Justin F. Gainor ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Combination Therapy ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Immune Checkpoint ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibition ◽  
Immune Checkpoint Inhibition ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Cost

56 Background: Immune checkpoint inhibition has shown early promising results in patients with chemotherapy-refractory metastatic or advanced tumors of the esophagus, gastroesophageal junction, and stomach. We explore the cost-effectiveness of checkpoint inhibitors as second-line treatment agents for this group of patients using a decision analytic approach. Methods: A Markov model was developed to simulate the course of a virtual cohort of patients treated by (i) nivolumab 3 mg/kg, (ii) combination of ipilimumab 3 mg/kg and nivolumab 1 mg/kg, and (iii) best supportive care (BSC). Patients in the hypothetical cohort were 55-year-olds in an advanced/metastatic stage who had received at least one prior line of chemotherapy. Patients who remained stable in treatment were monitored for adverse events until death. Rates of cancer-specific mortality, disease progression, and drug-related adverse events were estimated using results from the CheckMate 032 clinical trial. The primary endpoints were survival, measured in life-years (LY), quality adjusted life years (QALY), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER). Cost-effectiveness of each strategy was evaluated from a US-payer perspective considering costs of drugs, treatment, and management of immune-related adverse events. Cost-effectiveness was defined with a willingness to pay threshold of $100,000/QALY. Results: Combination therapy with nivolumab and ipilimumab yielded the highest effectiveness (QALYs = 0.47, LYs = 1.09) in our base case modeling results, compared with nivolumab (QALYs = 0.43, LYs = 1.03), and BSC (QALYs = 0.19, LYs = 0.42). Nivolumab had an incremental cost of $84,555/QALY compared with BSC, while nivolumab with ipilimumab resulted in an incremental cost of $1.1M/QALY compared with nivolumab alone. The cost gap between the two was associated with the higher price of ipilimumab, and costs of managing increased toxicity. Conclusions: Our modeling analysis finds that combination therapy of ipilimumab and nivolumab is the most effective, but from a cost-effectiveness perspective, it is expensive, making nivolumab monotherapy the cost-effective option. Additional clinical data are needed to confirm our modeling results.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document