RESUMEN
Introduction: Ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel) is a chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy approved for patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). In the phase 3 trial, CARTITUDE-4 (NCT04181827), cilta-cel demonstrated improved efficacy vs. standard of care (SOC; daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone [DPd] or pomalidomide plus bortezomib and dexamethasone [PVd]) with a ≥ complete response (≥CR) rate of 73.1% vs. 21.8%. Methods: A cost-per-responder model was developed to assess the value of cilta-cel and SOC (87% DPd and 13% PVd) based on the CARTITUDE-4 trial data from a US mixed payer perspective (76.7% commercial, 23.3% Medicare). The model was developed using progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and ≥CR endpoints from CARTITUDE-4 over a period of 25.4 months. Inpatient stays, outpatient visits, drug acquisition, administration, and monitoring costs were included. The base-case model assumed an inpatient setting for each cilta-cel infusion; another scenario included 30% outpatient and 70% inpatient infusions. Costs of managing grade 3-4 adverse events (AEs) and grade 1-4 cytokine release syndrome and neurotoxicity were included. Subsequent therapy costs were incurred after disease progression; terminal care costs were considered upon death events. Outcomes included total cost per treated patient, total cost per complete responder, and cost per month in PFS between cilta-cel and SOC. Costs were adjusted to 2024 US dollars. Results: Total cost per treated patient, total cost per complete responder, and total cost per month in PFS were estimated at $704,641, $963,941, and $30,978 for cilta-cel, respectively, and $840,730, $3,856,559, and $42,520 for SOC over the 25.4-month period. Cost drivers included treatment acquisition costs before progression and subsequent treatment costs ($451,318 and $111,637 for cilta-cel; $529,795 and $265,167 for SOC). A scenario analysis in which 30% of patients received an outpatient infusion (assuming the same payer mix) showed a lower cost per complete responder for cilta-cel ($956,523) than those with an infusion in the inpatient setting exclusively. Discussion: This analysis estimated that cost per treated patient, cost per complete responder, and cost per month in PFS for cilta-cel were remarkably lower than for DPd or PVd, highlighting the substantial clinical and economic benefit of cilta-cel for patients with RRMM.
Asunto(s)
Análisis Costo-Beneficio , Inmunoterapia Adoptiva , Lenalidomida , Mieloma Múltiple , Talidomida , Humanos , Mieloma Múltiple/terapia , Mieloma Múltiple/mortalidad , Mieloma Múltiple/tratamiento farmacológico , Lenalidomida/uso terapéutico , Lenalidomida/administración & dosificación , Inmunoterapia Adoptiva/economía , Inmunoterapia Adoptiva/efectos adversos , Inmunoterapia Adoptiva/métodos , Talidomida/análogos & derivados , Talidomida/uso terapéutico , Talidomida/economía , Talidomida/administración & dosificación , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/uso terapéutico , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/economía , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/efectos adversos , Dexametasona/uso terapéutico , Dexametasona/administración & dosificación , Receptores Quiméricos de Antígenos/uso terapéutico , Receptores Quiméricos de Antígenos/inmunología , Masculino , Femenino , Bortezomib/uso terapéutico , Bortezomib/administración & dosificación , Persona de Mediana Edad , Supervivencia sin Progresión , Resultado del Tratamiento , Anciano , Resistencia a Antineoplásicos , Anticuerpos Monoclonales/uso terapéutico , Anticuerpos Monoclonales/economíaRESUMEN
Background: Renal cell carcinoma is the most common type of kidney cancer, comprising approximately 85% of all renal malignancies. Patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma are the focus of this National Institute for Health and Care Excellence multiple technology appraisal. A patient's risk of disease progression depends on a number of prognostic risk factors; patients are categorised as having intermediate/poor risk or favourable risk of disease progression. Objectives: The objectives of this multiple technology appraisal were to appraise the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus relevant comparators listed in the final scope issued by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence: sunitinib, pazopanib, tivozanib, cabozantinib and nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Methods: The assessment group carried out clinical and economic systematic reviews and assessed the clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence submitted by Eisai, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, UK (the manufacturer of lenvatinib) and Merck Sharp & Dohme, Whitehouse Station, NJ, USA (the manufacturer of pembrolizumab). The assessment group carried out fixed-effects network meta-analyses using a Bayesian framework to generate evidence for clinical effectiveness. As convergence issues occurred due to sparse data, random-effects network meta-analysis results were unusable. The assessment group did not develop a de novo economic model, but instead modified the partitioned survival model provided by Merck Sharp & Dohme. Results: The assessment group clinical systematic review identified one relevant randomised controlled trial (CLEAR trial). The CLEAR trial is a good-quality, phase III, multicentre, open-label trial that provided evidence for the efficacy and safety of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab compared with sunitinib. The assessment group progression-free survival network meta-analysis results for all three risk groups should not be used to infer any statistically significant difference (or lack of statistically significant difference) for any of the treatment comparisons owing to within-trial proportional hazards violations or uncertainty regarding the validity of the proportional hazards assumption. The assessment group overall survival network meta-analysis results for the intermediate-/poor-risk subgroup suggested that there was a numerical, but not statistically significant, improvement in the overall survival for patients treated with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab compared with patients treated with cabozantinib or nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Because of within-trial proportional hazards violations or uncertainty regarding the validity of the proportional hazards assumption, the assessment group overall survival network meta-analysis results for the favourable-risk subgroup and the all-risk population should not be used to infer any statistically significant difference (or lack of statistically significant difference) for any of the treatment comparisons. Only one cost-effectiveness study was included in the assessment group review of cost-effectiveness evidence. The study was limited to the all-risk population, undertaken from the perspective of the US healthcare system and included comparators that are not recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence for patients with untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma. Therefore, the extent to which resource use and results are generalisable to the NHS is unclear. The assessment group cost-effectiveness results from the modified partitioned survival model focused on the intermediate-/poor-risk and favourable-risk subgroups. The assessment group cost-effectiveness results, generated using list prices for all drugs, showed that, for all comparisons in the favourable-risk subgroup, treatment with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab costs more and generated fewer benefits than all other treatments available to NHS patients. For the intermediate-/poor-risk subgroup, treatment with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab costs more and generated more benefits than treatment with cabozantinib and nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Conclusions: Good-quality clinical effectiveness evidence for the comparison of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab with sunitinib is available from the CLEAR trial. For most of the assessment group Bayesian hazard ratio network meta-analysis comparisons, it is difficult to reach conclusions due to within-trial proportional hazards violations or uncertainty regarding the validity of the proportional hazards assumption. However, the data (clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness) used to populate the economic model are relevant to NHS clinical practice and can be used to inform National Institute for Health and Care Excellence decision-making. The assessment group cost-effectiveness results, generated using list prices for all drugs, show that lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab is less cost-effective than all other treatment options. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD4202128587. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Evidence Synthesis Programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR134985) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 49. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.
Renal cell carcinoma is the most common type of kidney cancer. Several drug treatment options are available for NHS patients with advanced or metastatic disease, and the choice of treatment varies depending on a patient's risk of disease progression. A new drug combination, lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab, may soon become available to treat NHS patients. This review explored whether treatment with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab offered value for money to the NHS. We reviewed the effectiveness of treatment with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus other NHS treatment options. We also estimated the costs and benefits of treatment with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus current NHS treatments for patients with higher and lower risks of disease progression. Compared with current NHS treatments, treatment with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab may increase the time that people with a higher risk of disease progression (i.e. worsening disease) were alive. However, for patients with a lower risk of disease progression, the available evidence is limited and only shows that treatment with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab may prolong the time that patients have a stable level of disease. For all patients, compared to all current NHS treatments, treatment with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab is very expensive. Compared with current NHS treatments for untreated renal cell carcinoma, using published prices (which do not include any discounts that are offered to the NHS), treatment with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab may not provide good value for money to the NHS.
Asunto(s)
Anticuerpos Monoclonales Humanizados , Carcinoma de Células Renales , Análisis Costo-Beneficio , Neoplasias Renales , Compuestos de Fenilurea , Quinolinas , Humanos , Quinolinas/uso terapéutico , Quinolinas/economía , Carcinoma de Células Renales/tratamiento farmacológico , Anticuerpos Monoclonales Humanizados/uso terapéutico , Anticuerpos Monoclonales Humanizados/economía , Compuestos de Fenilurea/uso terapéutico , Compuestos de Fenilurea/economía , Neoplasias Renales/tratamiento farmacológico , Neoplasias Renales/patología , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/uso terapéutico , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/economía , Años de Vida Ajustados por Calidad de Vida , Evaluación de la Tecnología Biomédica , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , Análisis de Costo-EfectividadRESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: The diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (Dlbcl) is the most common non-Hodgkin lymphoma and at highest incidence among the elderly. Despite the improved outcomes of patients treated with the first-line (1L) standard of care until the end of 2022, composed by rituximab and polychemotherapy (R-Chop), during the last 20 years, the rate of relapsed and refractory Dlbcl (rrDlbcl) remains elevated. This study has identified and analyzed patients newly diagnosed with Dlbcl and treated with 1L, from the perspective of the Italian National Health Service (Ssn). METHODS: From the administrative database of Fondazione Ricerca e Salute (ReS) including ~5.5 million inhabitants/year in Italy, adults with a new in-hospital Dlbcl diagnosis (index date) and treated with 1L in 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021 were identified and characterized in terms of demographics and comorbidities during a period (from 4 to 8 years) preceding index date. From 1 to 4 years following index date (follow-up), overall survival (Kaplan-Meier curves), percentage distribution of patients by line of therapy including dispensation/administration of chemo-immunotherapy, hemopoietic stem cell transplantation (Hsct), and direct healthcare costs charge to the Ssn, were evaluated. RESULTS: Overall, from the ReS database, 206 patients newly diagnosed with Dlbcl and treated with 1L from 2018 to 2021 in Italy (incidence from 0.9 to 1.7 x100,000 adult inhabitants) were identified. They were mainly older (median age 68 [56; 75] years), males (56%) and affected by ≥2 comorbidities (52%), mostly cardiometabolic. During 4 years of follow-up, 56% of cases in 2018 survived. During the first follow-up year: 73%, 80%, 100% and 35% of cases in 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021, respectively, received a 2L; 42% and 64% of cases in 2018 and 2020, respectively, received a 3L. At least one Hsct was found as a 2L among cases in 2018, 2020 and 2021. On average, each patient newly diagnosed with Dlbcl and treated with 1L from 2018 to 2021 caused a total expenditure directly charged to the Ssn ranging from 20,000 to 30,000 during the first follow-up year (chemo-immunotherapy accounted for 40-53%), which reduced with time in favor of other drugs and Hsct. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis confirms the high rate of rrDlbcl and the high economic impact charged to the SSN to support first the chemo-immunotherapy, then the chronic care and the absence of standardized further lines of therapy for patients with rrDlbcl.
Asunto(s)
Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica , Bases de Datos Factuales , Linfoma de Células B Grandes Difuso , Humanos , Linfoma de Células B Grandes Difuso/tratamiento farmacológico , Linfoma de Células B Grandes Difuso/terapia , Linfoma de Células B Grandes Difuso/epidemiología , Italia , Masculino , Anciano , Femenino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/uso terapéutico , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/economía , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Adulto , Rituximab/administración & dosificación , Estimación de Kaplan-Meier , Trasplante de Células Madre Hematopoyéticas , Costos de la Atención en Salud/estadística & datos numéricos , Vincristina/administración & dosificación , Estudios de Seguimiento , Ciclofosfamida/administración & dosificación , Ciclofosfamida/uso terapéutico , Doxorrubicina/administración & dosificación , Prednisona/administración & dosificación , Prednisona/uso terapéuticoRESUMEN
This study aimed to estimate the medical costs associated with febrile neutropenia (FN) prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim and evaluate its impact on survival outcomes in daily practice in Japan. In this single-center retrospective study, we obtained data from 296 Japanese patients with breast cancer receiving fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide (FEC)-100 chemotherapy; the patients were divided into the pegfilgrastim and non-pegfilgrastim groups. We analyzed the median costs of chemotherapy, drugs for all adverse events (AEs) and FN, and hospitalization due to FN. We also assessed the survival outcomes. The pegfilgrastim group showed a significantly higher median total cost (JPY 872320.0 vs. JPY 466715.0, p<0.001). This difference was associated with the prophylactic use of pegfilgrastim. The median costs of the drugs for all AE treatments were JPY 9030.4 and JPY 24690.6, with the non-pegfilgrastim group showing a significantly higher cost (p<0.001). In 11 patients hospitalized for FN management, no significant difference in hospitalization cost was observed between the pegfilgrastim and non-pegfilgrastim groups (JPY 512390.0 vs. JPY 307555.0, p=0.102). No significant difference in the 3-year overall survival was observed between the pegfilgrastim and non-pegfilgrastim groups (79.9% vs. 88.3%, p=0.672). In this study, although the total medical cost in daily practice increased because of primary prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim, the 3-year overall survival was not impacted by the use of pegfilgrastim. Our study data suggested that the primary prophylaxis pegfilgrastim should be used during FEC-100 chemotherapy based on the patient-related FN risk factors, instead of routine use.
Asunto(s)
Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica , Neoplasias de la Mama , Neutropenia Febril Inducida por Quimioterapia , Filgrastim , Polietilenglicoles , Humanos , Filgrastim/economía , Filgrastim/administración & dosificación , Neoplasias de la Mama/tratamiento farmacológico , Estudios Retrospectivos , Polietilenglicoles/economía , Polietilenglicoles/administración & dosificación , Japón/epidemiología , Femenino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/efectos adversos , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/economía , Anciano , Neutropenia Febril Inducida por Quimioterapia/etiología , Neutropenia Febril Inducida por Quimioterapia/prevención & control , Neutropenia Febril Inducida por Quimioterapia/economía , Fluorouracilo/efectos adversos , Fluorouracilo/administración & dosificación , Adulto , Ciclofosfamida/efectos adversos , Ciclofosfamida/administración & dosificación , Ciclofosfamida/economía , Epirrubicina/efectos adversos , Epirrubicina/administración & dosificación , Hospitalización/economía , Costos de los Medicamentos , Atención Perioperativa/economía , Neutropenia Febril/prevención & control , Neutropenia Febril/inducido químicamenteRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Abemaciclib was newly approved for hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) high-risk early breast cancer (EBC). Clinical guidelines recommended abemaciclib as the first-line treatment for HR+/ HER2- EBC (early use) or HR+/ HER2- metastatic breast cancer (MBC) (delayed use). OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost-effectiveness of early vs delayed use of abemaciclib for treatment of HR+/HER2- high-risk EBC. Early use was defined as combined abemaciclib and endocrine therapy as first-line therapy for EBC, followed by treatment with fulvestrant for MBC. Delayed use was defined as endocrine therapy for EBC, followed by combined abemaciclib and fulvestrant therapy for MBC. METHODS: A 5-state model was developed to estimate lifetime costs, life-years (LYs), and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of hypothetical patients with HR+/ HER2- EBC from a third-party US payer's perspective. Key clinical and safety data were derived from the monarchE and MONARCH 2 clinical trials. Costs, utilities, and disutility values of adverse events were obtained from the literature. We calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of early vs delayed abemaciclib use and compared it with a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $100,000 per LY or QALY. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSAs) were performed to test the robustness of the base-case model. RESULTS: Base-case analysis showed early use yielded 21.08 LYs and 17.93 QALYs for $586,213 and delayed use yielded 11.14 LYs and 9.38 QALYs for $157,576. The ICER of early vs delayed use was $43,136/LY and $50,104/QALY, which was cost-effective at the WTP threshold of $100,000. The PSA result indicated that a 94.6% likelihood of early use (vs delayed use) was cost-effective at the WTP threshold of $100,000 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that giving abemaciclib in the early stage rather than waiting until patients develop metastatic disease (current standard of care in MBC) is a cost-effective strategy.
Asunto(s)
Aminopiridinas , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica , Bencimidazoles , Neoplasias de la Mama , Análisis Costo-Beneficio , Años de Vida Ajustados por Calidad de Vida , Receptor ErbB-2 , Humanos , Bencimidazoles/economía , Bencimidazoles/uso terapéutico , Bencimidazoles/administración & dosificación , Aminopiridinas/economía , Aminopiridinas/uso terapéutico , Aminopiridinas/administración & dosificación , Neoplasias de la Mama/tratamiento farmacológico , Neoplasias de la Mama/patología , Femenino , Receptor ErbB-2/metabolismo , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/economía , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/uso terapéutico , Receptores de Estrógenos/metabolismo , Receptores de Progesterona/metabolismoRESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: First-line osimertinib plus chemotherapy significantly prolonged progression-free survival of patients with EGFR-mutated advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) compared to osimertinib, according to the FLAURA2 trial. METHODS: We established a Markov model to compare the cost-effectiveness of osimertinib plus chemotherapy with that of osimertinib alone. Clinical data were obtained from the FLAURA and FLAURA2 trials, and additional data were extracted from online resources and publications. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate the robustness of the findings. We used A willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained. The main outcomes were QALYs, overall costs, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), incremental net monetary benefit, and incremental net health benefit. Subgroup analyses were conducted according to patients' mutation type and central nervous system (CNS) metastatic status. RESULTS: In a 20-year time horizon, the ICER of osimertinib plus chemotherapy versus osimertinib alone was $223,727.1 per QALY gained. The sensitivity analyses identified the cost of osimertinib and the hazard ratio for overall survival as the top 2 influential factors and a 1.9% probability of osimertinib plus chemotherapy to be cost-effective. The subgroup analyses revealed ICERs of $132,614.1, $224,449.8, $201,464.1, and $130,159.7 per QALY gained for L858R mutations, exon 19 deletions, CNS metastases, and no CNS metastases subgroups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: From the perspective of the United States health care system, osimertinib plus chemotherapy is not cost-effective compared to osimertinib alone for treatment-naïve patients with EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC, but more favorable cost-effectiveness occurs in patients with L858R mutations and patients without baseline CNS metastases.
Asunto(s)
Acrilamidas , Compuestos de Anilina , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica , Carcinoma de Pulmón de Células no Pequeñas , Análisis Costo-Beneficio , Receptores ErbB , Neoplasias Pulmonares , Mutación , Años de Vida Ajustados por Calidad de Vida , Humanos , Carcinoma de Pulmón de Células no Pequeñas/tratamiento farmacológico , Carcinoma de Pulmón de Células no Pequeñas/genética , Carcinoma de Pulmón de Células no Pequeñas/economía , Carcinoma de Pulmón de Células no Pequeñas/mortalidad , Compuestos de Anilina/uso terapéutico , Compuestos de Anilina/economía , Acrilamidas/uso terapéutico , Acrilamidas/economía , Neoplasias Pulmonares/tratamiento farmacológico , Neoplasias Pulmonares/genética , Neoplasias Pulmonares/economía , Receptores ErbB/genética , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/uso terapéutico , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/economía , Cadenas de Markov , Femenino , Masculino , Supervivencia sin Progresión , Análisis de Costo-Efectividad , Indoles , PirimidinasRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: Icotinib has been approved for adjuvant treatment of stage II-IIIA non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with activating epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations in China, yet the long-term costs and outcomes of this strategy are unknown. Thus, we examined the cost effectiveness of adjuvant icotinib, compared with adjuvant chemotherapy, for the treatment of resected stage II-IIIA EGFR-mutated NSCLC. DESIGN: We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system, comparing 2-year adjuvant icotinib with four cycles of adjuvant chemotherapy. Costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated using a Markov model. Model inputs were obtained from local data and literature. The influence of model parameters and assumptions was explored in sensitivity analyses. All costs are expressed in 2022 US dollars, and costs and QALYs were discounted at a rate of 5% per year. The willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was set at three times the per capita gross domestic product. SETTING: The Chinese healthcare system perspective. PARTICIPANTS: A hypothetical Chinese cohort of patients with resected stage II-IIIA EGFR-mutated NSCLC. INTERVENTIONS: Icotinib versus chemotherapy. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: Costs, QALYs, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. RESULTS: The incremental cost per QALY gained with the use of 2-year icotinib, from the Chinese healthcare system perspective, was $3440.66 compared with adjuvant chemotherapy. At a WTP threshold of $40 500, adjuvant icotinib was the optimal treatment in over 99% of replications. The interpretation of the results was insensitive to model and input assumptions. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with adjuvant chemotherapy, adjuvant icotinib may be a cost-effective treatment for resected stage II-IIIA EGFR-mutated NSCLC as the WTP threshold is set at $40 500 per QALY.
Asunto(s)
Carcinoma de Pulmón de Células no Pequeñas , Análisis Costo-Beneficio , Éteres Corona , Receptores ErbB , Neoplasias Pulmonares , Mutación , Años de Vida Ajustados por Calidad de Vida , Quinazolinas , Humanos , Carcinoma de Pulmón de Células no Pequeñas/tratamiento farmacológico , Carcinoma de Pulmón de Células no Pequeñas/genética , Carcinoma de Pulmón de Células no Pequeñas/economía , Carcinoma de Pulmón de Células no Pequeñas/patología , Neoplasias Pulmonares/tratamiento farmacológico , Neoplasias Pulmonares/genética , Neoplasias Pulmonares/economía , Neoplasias Pulmonares/patología , Éteres Corona/uso terapéutico , Éteres Corona/economía , Quimioterapia Adyuvante/economía , Receptores ErbB/genética , Quinazolinas/uso terapéutico , Quinazolinas/economía , China , Estadificación de Neoplasias , Cadenas de Markov , Antineoplásicos/uso terapéutico , Antineoplásicos/economía , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/uso terapéutico , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/economía , Femenino , MasculinoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the leading causes of cancer-related death all over the world, and brings a heavy social economic burden especially in China. Several immuno-combination therapies have shown promising efficacy in the first-line treatment of unresectable HCC and are widely used in clinical practice. Nevertheless, which combination is the most affordable one is unknown. Our study assessed the cost-effectiveness of the immuno-combinations as first-line treatment for patients with unresectable HCC from the perspective of Chinese payers. METHODS: A Markov model was built according to five multicenter, phase III, open-label, randomized trials (Himalaya, IMbrave150, ORIENT-32, CARES-310, LEAP-002) to investigate the cost-effectiveness of tremelimumab plus durvalumab (STRIDE), atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (A + B), sintilimab plus bevacizumab biosimilar (IBI305) (S + B), camrelizumab plus rivoceranib (C + R), and pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib (P + L). Three disease states were included: progression free survival (PFS), progressive disease (PD) as well as death. Medical costs were searched from West China Hospital, published literatures or the Red Book. Cost-effectiveness ratios (CERs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were evaluated to compare costs among different combinations. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robust of the model. RESULTS: The total cost and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of C + R, S + B, P + L, A + B and STRIDE were $12,109.27 and 0.91, $26,961.60 and 1.12, $55,382.53 and 0.83, $70,985.06 and 0.90, $84,589.01 and 0.73, respectively, resulting in the most cost-effective strategy of C + R with CER of $13,306.89 per QALY followed by S + B with CER of $24,072.86 per QALY. Compared with C + R, the ICER of S + B strategy was $70,725.38 per QALY, which would become the most cost-effective when the willing-to-pay threshold exceeded $73,500/QALY. In the subgroup analysis, with the application of Asia results in Leap-002 trial, the model results were the same as global data. In the sensitivity analysis, with the variation of parameters, the results were robust. CONCLUSION: As one of the promising immuno-combination therapies in the first-line systemic treatment of HCC, camrelizumab plus rivoceranib demonstrated the potential to be the most cost-effective strategy, which warranted further studies to best inform the real-world clinical practices.
Asunto(s)
Anticuerpos Monoclonales Humanizados , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica , Carcinoma Hepatocelular , Análisis de Costo-Efectividad , Inhibidores de Puntos de Control Inmunológico , Neoplasias Hepáticas , Humanos , Anticuerpos Monoclonales Humanizados/economía , Anticuerpos Monoclonales Humanizados/uso terapéutico , Anticuerpos Monoclonales Humanizados/administración & dosificación , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/uso terapéutico , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/economía , Bevacizumab/economía , Bevacizumab/uso terapéutico , Bevacizumab/administración & dosificación , Carcinoma Hepatocelular/tratamiento farmacológico , Carcinoma Hepatocelular/economía , Carcinoma Hepatocelular/mortalidad , Carcinoma Hepatocelular/terapia , China/epidemiología , Ensayos Clínicos Fase III como Asunto , Inhibidores de Puntos de Control Inmunológico/uso terapéutico , Inhibidores de Puntos de Control Inmunológico/economía , Neoplasias Hepáticas/tratamiento farmacológico , Neoplasias Hepáticas/economía , Neoplasias Hepáticas/mortalidad , Neoplasias Hepáticas/terapia , Cadenas de Markov , Compuestos de Fenilurea/uso terapéutico , Compuestos de Fenilurea/economía , Supervivencia sin Progresión , Años de Vida Ajustados por Calidad de Vida , Quinolinas/uso terapéutico , Quinolinas/economía , Quinolinas/administración & dosificación , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como AsuntoRESUMEN
AIMS: Fruquintinib is a selective small molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR)-1, -2, and -3 recently approved in the United States (US) for the treatment of adult patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) who have previously been treated with fluoropyrimidine-, oxaliplatin-, and irinotecan-based chemotherapy, an anti-VEGF biological therapy, and if RAS wild-type and medically appropriate, anti-epidermal growth factor receptor therapy. This study aimed to estimate the 5-year budget impact of fruquintinib from a US payer perspective (commercial and Medicare). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A budget impact model was developed to compare two scenarios: a reference scenario in which patients received regorafenib, trifluridine/tipiracil, or trifluridine/tipiracil with bevacizumab and an alternative scenario in which patients received reference scenario treatments or fruquintinib. Market shares were evenly divided across available options. A 5-year time horizon and a hypothetical health plan of 1 million members was assumed. The model included epidemiological inputs to estimate the eligible population; clinical inputs for treatment duration, progression-free survival, overall survival, and adverse event (AE) frequency; and cost inputs for treatment, AEs, disease management, subsequent therapy, and terminal care costs. Budget impact was reported as total, per member per year (PMPY), and per member per month (PMPM). RESULTS: The model estimated an eligible population of 194 patients (39 per year) over 5 years. In the base case, the estimated 5-year budget impact of fruquintinib was $4,077,073 ($0.82 PMPY and 0.07 PMPM) for a commercial health plan. During the first year, the estimated budget impact was $627,570 ($0.63 PMPY and 0.05 PMPM). Results were robust across sensitivity analyses. PMPM costs from the Medicare perspective were greater than the base-case (commercial) ($0.17 vs. $0.07) due to higher incidence of CRC in that population. CONCLUSIONS: Fruquintinib is associated with a low budget impact for payers based on proposed thresholds in the US.
Fruquintinib is a treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer that has progressed after or not responded to multiple guideline-recommended therapies. This budget impact analysis was conducted to estimate the added costs a health plan would incur over a 5-year period if it chose to cover this therapy. The analysis found that the per plan member per month cost of covering fruquintinib was $0.07 for a United States commercial health plan and $0.17 for Medicare.
Asunto(s)
Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica , Benzofuranos , Bevacizumab , Neoplasias Colorrectales , Piridinas , Timina , Humanos , Neoplasias Colorrectales/tratamiento farmacológico , Benzofuranos/uso terapéutico , Benzofuranos/economía , Estados Unidos , Bevacizumab/uso terapéutico , Bevacizumab/economía , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/uso terapéutico , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/economía , Piridinas/uso terapéutico , Piridinas/economía , Trifluridina/uso terapéutico , Trifluridina/economía , Presupuestos , Quinazolinas/uso terapéutico , Quinazolinas/economía , Compuestos de Fenilurea/uso terapéutico , Compuestos de Fenilurea/economía , Uracilo/análogos & derivados , Uracilo/uso terapéutico , Uracilo/economía , Compuestos Organoplatinos/uso terapéutico , Compuestos Organoplatinos/economía , Análisis Costo-Beneficio , Camptotecina/análogos & derivados , Camptotecina/uso terapéutico , Camptotecina/economía , Antineoplásicos/economía , Antineoplásicos/uso terapéutico , Irinotecán/uso terapéutico , Irinotecán/economía , Medicare , Fluorouracilo/uso terapéutico , Fluorouracilo/economía , Oxaliplatino/uso terapéutico , Oxaliplatino/economía , Receptores de Factores de Crecimiento Endotelial Vascular , Modelos Económicos , Combinación de Medicamentos , PirrolidinasRESUMEN
Objective: This study focuses on assessing the cost-effectiveness of incorporating toripalimab alongside chemotherapy for the treatment of patients diagnosed with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Methods: A partitioned survival model was constructed to simulate the costs and health outcomes over the lifetime of patients with mTNBC. Clinical data regarding overall survival, progression-free survival, and treatment-related adverse events were derived from the TORCHLIGHT clinical trials. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were calculated based on the gains in quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). The willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was defined as $39,855.79 per QALY. Additionally, sensitivity analyses were conducted to examine the robustness of the model. Results: The total cost incurred by the group receiving toripalimab was $38,040.62, while the placebo plus chemotherapy was $26,102.07. The utilization of the toripalimab regimen resulted in an increase of 0.74 QALYs and an incremental cost of $11,938.55 compared to the placebo plus chemotherapy group. The ICER was $16,133.18/QALY, indicating that toripalimab plus chemotherapy is a cost-effective strategy according to the WTP threshold. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the results. Conclusion: This study suggests that the addition of toripalimab to chemotherapy for the treatment of mTNBC is a cost-effective strategy. The findings provide valuable evidence to guide decision-making regarding treatment selection for patients with mTNBC in China.
Asunto(s)
Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica , Análisis Costo-Beneficio , Años de Vida Ajustados por Calidad de Vida , Neoplasias de la Mama Triple Negativas , Humanos , Neoplasias de la Mama Triple Negativas/tratamiento farmacológico , Femenino , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/uso terapéutico , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/economía , Anticuerpos Monoclonales Humanizados/uso terapéutico , Anticuerpos Monoclonales Humanizados/economía , Persona de Mediana Edad , China , Adulto , Análisis de Costo-EfectividadRESUMEN
AIM: To estimate the budget impact of adding a toripalimab regimen as a treatment option to the existing pembrolizumab regimen, both including gemcitabine and cisplatin, in untreated recurrent/metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma (R/M NPC) using the published wholesale acquisition cost (WAC) and average sales price (ASP). METHODS: Budget impact analysis comparing a treatment mix "without" versus "with" the toripalimab regimen in the US eligible annual incident R/M NPC population, a 3-year time horizon, toripalimab/pembrolizumab market splits of 60/40 (Y1) and 80/20 (Y2/3), and medication adjustments for discontinuation or progression. Cost inputs included drugs, administration, and adverse event (AE) management. The models were replicated for a hypothetical 1-million-member health plan in which costs per-member-per-month (PMPM) and per-member-per-year (PMPY) were estimated. One-way (OWSA) and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) as well as scenario analyses were performed. RESULTS: In the "without" scenario, the 3-year WAC-based costs for the pembrolizumab regimen total $1,449,695,333 ($1,305,632,448 for treatment and $144,062,885 for managing AEs). In the "with" scenario, total 3-year costs for pembrolizumab decline to $380,012,135 with toripalimab adding $885,505,900 ($779,206,567 for treatment and $106,299,333 for AE management). Annual net savings range from $46,526,152 in 2024 to $71,194,214 in 2026, for 3-year savings of $184,177,298. Associated net savings in a 1-million-member health plan are $543,068 over 3 years with savings of $0.045 PMPM and $0.543 PMPY. The ASP-based model shows similar patterns with 3-year net savings of $174,235,983 in the US incident population and savings of $0.043 PMPM and $0.514 PMPY in a 1-million-member health plan. The PSA support base case findings; OWSA and scenario analyses reveal how parameter variability impacts results. CONCLUSION: Savings between $174 million and $184 million can be achieved from treating 60% of R/M NPC patients in year 1 and 80% in years 2 and 3 with the toripalimab regimen over a similar pembrolizumab regimen.
Toripalimab, a human monoclonal anti-body that targets PD-1, was recently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the first-line treatment of adults with metastatic or recurrent, locally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC), in combination with gemcitabine and cisplatin. We evaluated how much it would cost a payor to cover the FDA-approved toripalimab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin regimen (the toripalimab regimen) to a non-FDA-approved pembrolizumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin regimen (the pembrolizumab regimen). With no trial data available for such pembrolizumab regimen, we assumed that it would be comparable to the toripalimab regimen in efficacy and safety. Our model adopted a 3-year time horizon and assumed a 60/40 market share split in year 1 and an 80/20 market split in years 2 and 3. It included two US cost inputs: the wholesale acquisition cost (WAC) or "list price" at market entry and, as no average sales price (ASP) will be available for toripalimab for several quarters, a toripalimab price point of 80% of the pembrolizumab ASP. We adjusted for patients whose cancer progressed or who discontinued treatment to determine the number of fully-treated-patient-equivalents. We found that treating 60% of NPC patients in year 1 and 80% in years 2 and 3 with the toripalimab regimen instead of the pembrolizumab regimen generates, for the entire adjusted patient population, savings ranging from $174 million when using ASP to $184 million when using WAC.
Asunto(s)
Anticuerpos Monoclonales Humanizados , Carcinoma Nasofaríngeo , Neoplasias Nasofaríngeas , Anticuerpos Monoclonales Humanizados/uso terapéutico , Anticuerpos Monoclonales Humanizados/economía , Humanos , Carcinoma Nasofaríngeo/tratamiento farmacológico , Carcinoma Nasofaríngeo/economía , Neoplasias Nasofaríngeas/tratamiento farmacológico , Neoplasias Nasofaríngeas/economía , Neoplasias Nasofaríngeas/patología , Recurrencia Local de Neoplasia/tratamiento farmacológico , Análisis Costo-Beneficio , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/economía , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/uso terapéutico , Antineoplásicos Inmunológicos/economía , Antineoplásicos Inmunológicos/uso terapéutico , Inhibidores de Puntos de Control Inmunológico/uso terapéutico , Inhibidores de Puntos de Control Inmunológico/economía , Desoxicitidina/análogos & derivados , Desoxicitidina/uso terapéutico , Desoxicitidina/economía , Modelos Econométricos , Presupuestos , Gemcitabina , Metástasis de la Neoplasia , Estados Unidos , Gastos en Salud/estadística & datos numéricosRESUMEN
The RATIONALE-306 study revealed that patients with advanced or metastatic oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) could benefit from treatment with tislelizumab plus chemotherapy. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of tislelizumab plus chemotherapy for treating OSCC from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Partitioned survival model estimated the cost-effectiveness of tislelizumab plus chemotherapy compared with chemotherapy alone for treating OSCC using RATIONALE-306 data. Costs and utilities were obtained from local databases and published studies. Costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), life-years, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER), incremental net health benefits (INHB), and incremental net monetary benefits (INMB) were outcomes. Price simulation were conducted at the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were performed to assess model robustness. Compared with chemotherapy alone, tislelizumab plus chemotherapy yielded an ICER of USD 27,896/QALY, gained an additional 0.414 QALYs and 0.751 life-years, and increased the cost by USD 11,560. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed that tislelizumab plus chemotherapy was cost-effective at the WTP of USD 38,258/QALY with probability of 94.43%. When the price in China was less than USD 3.714 per mg, the price simulation results indicated that tislelizumab plus chemotherapy was cost-effective at a WTP threshold of USD 38,258. Tislelizumab plus chemotherapy yielded an INHB of 0.112 QALYs and an INMB of USD 4,279 compared with chemotherapy alone at a WTP threshold of USD 38,258. Based on the sensitivity analyses, the above results were stable. A general trend was observed for subgroups with better survival benefits related to a higher probability of cost-effectiveness. From the Chinese healthcare perspective, tislelizumab plus chemotherapy is more cost-effective than chemotherapy alone as a first-line therapy for OSCC. These findings can help clinicians make optimal clinical decisions and assist decision-makers in evaluating the cost-effectiveness of tislelizumab in clinical practice.
Asunto(s)
Anticuerpos Monoclonales Humanizados , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica , Análisis Costo-Beneficio , Neoplasias Esofágicas , Carcinoma de Células Escamosas de Esófago , Años de Vida Ajustados por Calidad de Vida , Humanos , Anticuerpos Monoclonales Humanizados/economía , Anticuerpos Monoclonales Humanizados/uso terapéutico , Anticuerpos Monoclonales Humanizados/administración & dosificación , Carcinoma de Células Escamosas de Esófago/tratamiento farmacológico , Carcinoma de Células Escamosas de Esófago/economía , Carcinoma de Células Escamosas de Esófago/patología , Neoplasias Esofágicas/tratamiento farmacológico , Neoplasias Esofágicas/patología , Neoplasias Esofágicas/economía , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/uso terapéutico , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/economía , China , Masculino , Femenino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Análisis de Costo-EfectividadRESUMEN
This study aimed to assess the cost-utility and budget impact of dual to single HER2 targeted neoadjuvant therapy for HER2-positive breast cancer in Sri Lanka. A five-health state Markov model with lifetime horizon was used to assess the cost-utility of neoadjuvant trastuzumab (T) plus pertuzumab (P) or lapatinib (L) compared to single therapy of T with chemotherapy (C), in public healthcare system and societal perspectives. Input parameters were estimated using local data, network meta-analysis, published reports and literature. Costs were adjusted to year 2021 (1USD = LKR194.78). Five-year budget impact for public healthcare system was assessed. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios in societal perspective for neoadjuvantLTC plus adjuvantT (strategy 3), neoadjuvantPTC plus adjuvantT (strategy 2), neoadjuvantLTC plus adjuvantLT (strategy 5), and neoadjuvantPTC plus adjuvantPT (strategy 4) compared to neoadjuvantTC plus adjuvantT (strategy 1) were USD2716, USD5600, USD6878, and USD12127 per QALY gained, respectively. One GDP per-capita (USD3815) was considered as the cost-effectiveness threshold for the analysis. Even though only the ICER for strategy 3 was cost-effective, uncertainty of efficacy parameter was revealed. For strategy 2 neoadjuvant PTC plus adjuvant T, a 25% reduction of neoadjuvant regimen cost was required to be cost effective for use in early HER2 positive breast cancer.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias de la Mama , Análisis Costo-Beneficio , Lapatinib , Terapia Neoadyuvante , Receptor ErbB-2 , Trastuzumab , Humanos , Neoplasias de la Mama/tratamiento farmacológico , Neoplasias de la Mama/economía , Neoplasias de la Mama/metabolismo , Femenino , Receptor ErbB-2/metabolismo , Terapia Neoadyuvante/economía , Trastuzumab/uso terapéutico , Trastuzumab/economía , Sri Lanka , Lapatinib/uso terapéutico , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/uso terapéutico , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/economía , Cadenas de Markov , Anticuerpos Monoclonales Humanizados/uso terapéutico , Anticuerpos Monoclonales Humanizados/economía , Años de Vida Ajustados por Calidad de Vida , Presupuestos , Persona de Mediana EdadRESUMEN
Importance: Immuno-oncology agents have changed the treatment paradigm for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Such therapies improve survival but can impose considerable health care resource use (HCRU) and associated costs, necessitating their examination. Objective: To compare HCRU, costs, and clinical outcomes among patients receiving first-line pembrolizumab plus axitinib (P+A) or ipilimumab plus nivolumab (I+N). Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study used data from an administrative claims database on patients with mRCC receiving first-line P+A or I+N that was initiated between January 2018 and May 2020. Data were analyzed from February 2021 to July 2022. Exposure: First-line P+A or I+N. Main Outcome and Measures: HCRU and costs during the first 90 days, full first-line treatment, and full follow-up periods were assessed. Using Kaplan-Meier analysis, time on treatment, overall survival, time to first emergency department (ED) visit, and time to first inpatient stay were compared. Results: Among 507 patients, there were 126 patients receiving P+A (91 male [72.2%]; mean [SD] age, 67.93 [9.66] y) and 381 patients receiving I+N (271 male [71.1%]; mean [SD] age, 66.52 [9.94] years). The median time on treatment was longer for the P+A compared with I+N group (12.4 months [95% CI, 8.40 months to not estimable] vs 4.1 months [95% CI, 3.07 to 5.30 months]; P < .001). The median time to first ED visit was longer for the P+A than I+N group (7.2 months [95% CI 3.9 to 11.1 months ] vs 3.3 months [95% CI, 2.6 to 3.9 months]; P = .005), as was time to first inpatient stay (9.0 months [95% CI 6.5 months to not estimable] vs 5.6 months [95% CI, 3.9 to 7.9 months]; P = .02). During the first 90 days, a lower proportion of the P+A than N+I group had ED visits (43 patients [34.1%] vs 182 patients [47.8%] and inpatient stays (24 patients [19.1%) vs144 patients [37.8%]; P < .001). During full follow-up, mean total adjusted costs were similar for P+A and I+N groups, but adjusted 12-month estimated total costs were higher for P+A than I+N groups ($325â¯574 vs $ 263â¯803; P = .03). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, treatment with P+A was associated with longer time on treatment, time to first ED visit, and inpatient stay, while 12-month estimated costs were higher for the P+A group. This is among the first clinical studies to evaluate economic burden associated with modern treatments for mRCC.
Asunto(s)
Carcinoma de Células Renales , Neoplasias Renales , Nivolumab , Humanos , Carcinoma de Células Renales/tratamiento farmacológico , Carcinoma de Células Renales/mortalidad , Masculino , Femenino , Neoplasias Renales/tratamiento farmacológico , Neoplasias Renales/patología , Neoplasias Renales/mortalidad , Estudios Retrospectivos , Persona de Mediana Edad , Anciano , Nivolumab/uso terapéutico , Nivolumab/economía , Anticuerpos Monoclonales Humanizados/uso terapéutico , Anticuerpos Monoclonales Humanizados/economía , Axitinib/uso terapéutico , Ipilimumab/uso terapéutico , Recursos en Salud/estadística & datos numéricos , Recursos en Salud/economía , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/uso terapéutico , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/economía , Aceptación de la Atención de Salud/estadística & datos numéricos , Costos de la Atención en Salud/estadística & datos numéricosRESUMEN
Objective: To determine the cost-effectiveness of imported immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) such as atezolizumab and durvalumab, and domestic ICIs like serplulimab and adebrelimab, in combination with chemotherapy for extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) in China. Methods: Using a 21-day cycle length and a 20-year time horizon, a Markov model was established to compare the clinical and economic outcomes of five first-line ICIs plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone, as well as against each other, from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Transition probabilities were estimated by combining the results of the CAPSTONE-1 trial and a published network meta-analysis. Cost and health state utilities were collected from multiple sources. Both cost and effectiveness outcomes were discounted at a rate of 5% annually. The primary model output was incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). A series of sensitivity analyses were preformed to assess the robustness of the model. Results: In the base-case analysis, the addition of first-line ICIs to chemotherapy resulted in the ICERs ranged from $80,425.31/QALY to $812,415.46/QALY, which exceeded the willing-to-pay threshold set for the model. When comparing these first-line immunochemotherapy strategies, serplulimab plus chemotherapy had the highest QALYs of 1.51286 and the second lowest costs of $60,519.52, making it is the most cost-effective strategy. Our subgroup-level analysis yielded results that are consistent with the base-case analysis. The sensitivity analysis results confirmed the validity and reliability of the model. Conclusion: In China, the combination of fist-line ICIs plus chemotherapy were not considered cost-effective when compared to chemotherapy alone. However, when these fist-line immunochemotherapy strategies were compared with each other, first-line serplulimab plus chemotherapy consistently demonstrated superiority in terms of cost-effectiveness. Reducing the cost of serplulimab per 4.5 mg/kg would be a realistic step towards making first-line serplulimab plus chemotherapy more accessible and cost-effective.
Asunto(s)
Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica , Análisis Costo-Beneficio , Inhibidores de Puntos de Control Inmunológico , Neoplasias Pulmonares , Carcinoma Pulmonar de Células Pequeñas , Humanos , Inhibidores de Puntos de Control Inmunológico/uso terapéutico , Inhibidores de Puntos de Control Inmunológico/economía , Neoplasias Pulmonares/tratamiento farmacológico , Neoplasias Pulmonares/economía , China , Carcinoma Pulmonar de Células Pequeñas/tratamiento farmacológico , Carcinoma Pulmonar de Células Pequeñas/economía , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/uso terapéutico , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/economía , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/efectos adversos , Años de Vida Ajustados por Calidad de Vida , Estadificación de Neoplasias , Cadenas de Markov , Análisis de Costo-EfectividadAsunto(s)
Carcinoma de Pulmón de Células no Pequeñas , Análisis Costo-Beneficio , Inmunoterapia , Neoplasias Pulmonares , Humanos , Carcinoma de Pulmón de Células no Pequeñas/tratamiento farmacológico , Carcinoma de Pulmón de Células no Pequeñas/economía , Neoplasias Pulmonares/tratamiento farmacológico , Neoplasias Pulmonares/economía , Inmunoterapia/economía , Inmunoterapia/métodos , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/uso terapéutico , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/economía , Años de Vida Ajustados por Calidad de Vida , Inhibidores de Puntos de Control Inmunológico/uso terapéutico , Inhibidores de Puntos de Control Inmunológico/economíaRESUMEN
In this article, we read with great attention the correspondence by Bullement et al., regarding our published study on cost-effectiveness of first-line immunotherapy combinations with or without chemotherapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer. We referred to a few the most important comments from Bullement et al. in our opinion, including proportional hazard (PH) assumption, accelerated failure time (AFT) model, and health utility, and made some explanations.
Asunto(s)
Carcinoma de Pulmón de Células no Pequeñas , Análisis Costo-Beneficio , Inmunoterapia , Neoplasias Pulmonares , Humanos , Carcinoma de Pulmón de Células no Pequeñas/tratamiento farmacológico , Carcinoma de Pulmón de Células no Pequeñas/economía , Neoplasias Pulmonares/tratamiento farmacológico , Neoplasias Pulmonares/economía , Inmunoterapia/economía , Inmunoterapia/métodos , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/uso terapéutico , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/economíaRESUMEN
AIMS: To estimate in a panel of patients with locally advanced/metastatic nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with a programmed death receptor-1 inhibitor in the US in 2024 (1) the cost-efficiency of toripalimab regimens compared to pembrolizumab regimens; and (2) the budget-neutral expanded access to additional toripalimab cycles and regimens from accrued savings. METHODS: Simulation modeling of toripalimab + pemetrexed + carboplatin in nonsquamous NSCLC to a similar pembrolizumab regimen in a panel of 49,647 patients; utilizing two cost inputs (wholesale acquisition cost (WAC) at market entry and an estimated ex ante toripalimab price point of 80% of pembrolizumab average sales price (ASP)) plus administration costs over one and two years of treatment with treatment rates from 1%-10%. Scenario analyses with treatment durations equivalent to toripalimab and pembrolizumab trials' median PFS were also conducted. RESULTS: In the WAC-based models, toripalimab saves $2,223 per patient per cycle and $40,014 over 1 year of treatment ($77,805 over 2 years). Extrapolated to the 49,647-patient panel, estimated 1-year savings range from $19,865,840 (1% treatment rate) to $198,658,399 (10% rate). Reallocating these savings permits budget-neutral expanded access to an additional 1,753 (1% rate) to 17,533 (10% rate) toripalimab maintenance cycles or to an additional 97 (1% rate) to 972 (10%) full 1-year toripalimab regimens with all agents. Two-year savings range from $38,628,022 (1% rate) to $386,280,221 (10%). Reallocating these efficiencies provides expanded access ranging from 3,409 (1% rate) to 34,093 (10%) additional toripalimab cycles or to 97 to 973 full 2-year regimens. The ex ante ASP model showed similar results as did the scenario analyses but at a lower magnitude than the base case. CONCLUSION: Toripalimab generates significant savings that enable budget-neutral funding for up to 17,533 [34,093] additional maintenance cycles over one year [two years] with toripalimab + pemetrexed in nonsquamous NSCLC, or 972 [973] full one-year [two-year] regimens.
An estimated 49,647 patients with advanced or metastatic nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) will be treated with a PD-1 inhibitor in the US in 2024. Toripalimab, a PD-1 inhibitor recently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of nasopharyngeal carcinoma, has also been found to be beneficial in patients with nonsquamous NSCLC when used in combination with chemotherapy. We conducted an economic simulation of the costs of toripalimab + pemetrexed + carboplatin versus the costs of a similar regimen with the PD-1 inhibitor pembrolizumab in the treatment of patients with nonsquamous NSCLC. Our simulation models used two US cost inputs for toripalimab: the wholesale acquisition cost or "list price" at market entry and, as no average sales price (ASP) will be available for toripalimab for several quarters, a hypothetical toripalimab price point of 80% of the pembrolizumab ASP. We compared the savings in each scenario when between 1% and 10% of the 49,647 nonsquamous NSCLC patients are treated with the toripalimab regimen. We then evaluated how these savings could be re-allocated, without requiring extra funding, to provide more patients with access to toripalimab treatment on a budget-neutral basis. We found that, if 1% of new cases of advanced/metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC were treated with toripalimab for 1 year, these savings are enough to purchase up to 1,753 additional toripalimab maintenance cycles; or these savings could provide up to an additional 97 patients with full one-year regimens with all agents (toripalimab + chemotherapy). If 10% of new cases were treated with toripalimab for 1 year, the savings are enough to purchase up to 17,533 additional toripalimab maintenance cycles; or these savings could provide up to an additional 972 patients with full one-year regimens with all agents.
Asunto(s)
Anticuerpos Monoclonales Humanizados , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica , Carcinoma de Pulmón de Células no Pequeñas , Análisis Costo-Beneficio , Neoplasias Pulmonares , Pemetrexed , Anticuerpos Monoclonales Humanizados/uso terapéutico , Anticuerpos Monoclonales Humanizados/economía , Humanos , Carcinoma de Pulmón de Células no Pequeñas/tratamiento farmacológico , Carcinoma de Pulmón de Células no Pequeñas/patología , Neoplasias Pulmonares/tratamiento farmacológico , Neoplasias Pulmonares/patología , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/uso terapéutico , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/economía , Pemetrexed/uso terapéutico , Pemetrexed/economía , Carboplatino/uso terapéutico , Carboplatino/economía , Carboplatino/administración & dosificación , Inhibidores de Puntos de Control Inmunológico/uso terapéutico , Inhibidores de Puntos de Control Inmunológico/economía , Presupuestos , Modelos Econométricos , FemeninoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND The FOHAIC-1 trial showed hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy with infusional fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (HAIC-FO) improved survival, compared with sorafenib, in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The aim of this study was to conduct a cost-effectiveness comparison between HAIC-FO and sorafenib from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. MATERIAL AND METHODS The economic evaluation was conducted between July 2023 and February 2024, spanning a 10-year investment horizon. A Markov model was developed to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of HAIC-FO vs sorafenib. Health states incorporated in the model comprised progression-free disease, progressed disease, and death. Transition probabilities were derived from data obtained from the FOHAIC-1 trial. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated to evaluate cost-effectiveness. Additionally, one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses assessed the model's robustness. RESULTS The HAIC-FO group accrued a total cost of $22,781, whereas the sorafenib group totaled $18,795. In terms of effectiveness, the HAIC-FO group achieved 1.06 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), whereas the sorafenib group attained 0.65 QALYs. Compared with sorafenib, HAIC-FO yielded an additional 0.41 QALYs at a cost of additional $3,985, resulting in an incremental cost of $9,720 per QALY gained. The one-way sensitivity analysis revealed the final ICER remained below the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $30,492 per QALY, when considering parameter fluctuations. Additionally, probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated a 99.8% probability that the ICER for HAIC-FO compared with sorafenib would fall below the WTP threshold. CONCLUSIONS Compared with sorafenib, HAIC-FO emerged as a cost-effective first-line treatment option for patients facing advanced HCC in China.
Asunto(s)
Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica , Carcinoma Hepatocelular , Análisis Costo-Beneficio , Neoplasias Hepáticas , Oxaliplatino , Años de Vida Ajustados por Calidad de Vida , Sorafenib , Humanos , Sorafenib/uso terapéutico , Sorafenib/economía , Sorafenib/administración & dosificación , Carcinoma Hepatocelular/tratamiento farmacológico , Carcinoma Hepatocelular/economía , Neoplasias Hepáticas/tratamiento farmacológico , Neoplasias Hepáticas/economía , China , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/economía , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/uso terapéutico , Oxaliplatino/uso terapéutico , Oxaliplatino/economía , Oxaliplatino/administración & dosificación , Fluorouracilo/economía , Fluorouracilo/uso terapéutico , Fluorouracilo/administración & dosificación , Cadenas de Markov , Leucovorina/economía , Leucovorina/uso terapéutico , Arteria Hepática , Infusiones Intraarteriales/economía , Masculino , Antineoplásicos/economía , Antineoplásicos/uso terapéutico , Femenino , Análisis de Costo-EfectividadRESUMEN
Aim: The objective of this study was to compare adverse event (AE) management costs for fruquintinib, regorafenib, trifluridine/tipiracil (T/T) and trifluridine/tipiracil+bevacizumab (T/T+bev) for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) previously treated with at least two prior lines of therapy from the US commercial and Medicare payer perspectives. Materials & methods: A cost-consequence model was developed to calculate the per-patient and per-patient-per-month (PPPM) AE costs using rates of grade 3/4 AEs with incidence ≥5% in clinical trials, event-specific management costs and duration treatment. Anchored comparisons of AE costs were calculated using a difference-in-differences approach with best supportive care (BSC) as a common reference. AE rates and treatment duration were obtained from clinical trials: FRESCO and FRESCO-2 (fruquintinib), RECOURSE (T/T), CORRECT (regorafenib) and SUNLIGHT (T/T, T/T+bev). AE management costs for the commercial and Medicare perspectives were obtained from publicly available sources. Results: From the commercial perspective, the AE costs (presented as per-patient, PPPM) were: $4015, $1091 for fruquintinib (FRESCO); $4253, $1390 for fruquintinib (FRESCO-2); $17,110, $11,104 for T/T (RECOURSE); $9851, $4691 for T/T (SUNLIGHT); $8199, $4823 for regorafenib; and $11,620, $2324 for T/T+bev. These results were consistent in anchored comparisons: the difference-in-difference for fruquintinib based on FRESCO was -$1929 versus regorafenib and -$11,427 versus T/T; for fruquintinib based on FRESCO-2 was -$2257 versus regorafenib and -$11,756 versus T/T. Across all analyses, results were consistent from the Medicare perspective. Conclusion: Fruquintinib was associated with lower AE management costs compared with regorafenib, T/T and T/T+bev for patients with previously treated mCRC. This evidence has direct implications for treatment, formulary and pathways decision-making in this patient population.