Cost-effectiveness of Triple Therapy vs. Biologic Treatment Sequence as First-line Therapy for Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients after Methotrexate Failure

Objective To compare the cost-effectiveness of the combination of pembrolizumab and chemotherapy (Pembro+Chemo) versus pembrolizumab monotherapy (Pembro) as the first-line treatment for metastatic non-squamous and squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with PD-L1expression ≥50%, respectively, from a US health care perspective.Material and Methods A comprehensive Makrov model were designed to compare the health costs and outcomes associated with first-line Pembro+Chemo and first-line Pembro over a 20-years time horizon. Health states consisted of three main states: progression-free survival (PFS), progressive disease (PD) and death, among which the PFS health state was divided into two substates: PFS while receiving first-line therapy and PFS with discontinued first-line therapy. Two scenario analyses were performed to explore satisfactory long-term survival modeling.Results In base case analysis, for non-squamous NSCLC patients, Pembro+Chemo was associated with a significantly longer life expectancy [3.24 vs 2.16 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs)] and a substantially greater healthcare cost ($341,237 vs $159,055) compared with Pembro, resulting in an ICER of $169,335/QALY; for squamous NSCLC patients, Pembro+Chemo was associated with a slightly extended life expectancy of 0.22 QALYs and a marginal incremental cost of $3,449 compared with Pembro, resulting in an ICER of $15,613/QALY. Our results were particularly sensitive to parameters that determine QALYs. The first scenario analysis yielded lower ICERs than our base case results. The second scenario analysis founded Pembro+Chemo was dominated by Pembro.Conclusion For metastatic non-squamous NSCLC patients with PD-L1 expression ≥50%, first-line Pembro+Chemo was not cost-effective when compared with first-line Pembro. In contrast, for the squamous NSCLC patient population, our results supported the first-line Pembro+Chemo as a cost-effective treatment. Although there are multiple approaches that are used for extrapolating long-term survival, the optimal method has yet to be determined.

Download Full-text

Impact of Treatment Sequencing on Outcomes and Costs in Relapsed Follicular or Other Low Grade B-Cell Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma - Results of an Evidence-Based Budget Impact Model

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2020-141748 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽

pp. 14-15

Author(s):

Ali McBride ◽

Daniel O. Persky

Keyword(s):

Follicular Lymphoma ◽

Low Grade ◽

Second Line ◽

Treatment Sequence ◽

First Line ◽

Second Line Therapy ◽

First Line Therapy ◽

Line Therapy ◽

Duration Of Response ◽

Budget Impact Model

Introduction: The choice of initial therapy in follicular lymphoma can be a key determinant in future therapy, as irreversible toxicities with first line regimens can impact the patient's ability to tolerate future treatment. Minimizing drug exposure will result in less frequent occurrence of significant adverse events and associated treatment costs. In the era of COVID-19 pandemic, there is additional benefit to minimizing the number of patient visits and hospital admissions. Limited information exists related to the outcomes and associated costs of existing treatment sequences. Additionally, treatment administration at different types of clinical sites results in varied reimbursement models, making informed evaluation of clinical and financial evidence challenging. Methods: The current study applies a budget impact model methodology in order to describe the associated impact of treatment selection and sequencing on outcomes and costs in the treatment of relapsed or refractory low-grade follicular lymphoma in first line therapy followed by Consolidation and also in first line therapy to second line therapy. Key model inputs included: Number of treatment cycles, number of days a treatment was received, duration of response (DOR), rate of side effects and associated costs, and total treatment costs, including drugs, medical treatment, laboratory testing and adverse event costs. Treatment outcomes were based on the published literature that summarized the overall response rate, median DOR, and toxicity. Treatment regimen costs were evaluated based on payer pricing, Wholesale Acquisition Cost (WAC), Average Selling Price (ASP) and Average Wholesale Price (AWP) and modified to adjust for weight-based dosing and negotiate payer reimbursement rates. Associated medical costs for medical treatment and supportive care were estimated using current Medicare fee schedule rates. Included were seven options for first line therapy of follicular lymphoma from 2020 NCCN Guidelines - (Bendamustine + rituximab (BR); Bendamustine + Obinutuzumab (OB); CHOP rituximab (RCHOP); CHOP + Obinutuzumab (OCHOP); CVP+ rituximab (RCVP); CVP + Obinutuzumab (OCVP); Lenalidomide + rituximab (R2)), followed by three for Consolidation (Rituximab maintenance (RM); Obinutuzumab maintenance (O); Radioimmunotherapy (RIT with 90 Y-ibritumomab tiuxetan (Y90-IT, Zevalin)) and three Second Line therapy options (RIT; Lenalidomide only; Lenalidomide + Obinutuzumab (LO)). Results: The treatment sequence of first line BR followed by Consolidation with RIT Y90 (Zevalin) had the longest predicted DOR (2586 days). The associated treatment sequence costs were $212,485 for BR followed by Y90-IT, compared with $233, 388 for BR followed by rituximab maintenance, which had a predicted DOR of 2478 days. The predicted DOR for treatment sequences starting with OCHOP, OCVP and RCHOP and followed by RIT with Y90-IT was approximately 1000 days less than BR followed by Y90-IT for a cost difference of $4,421, $12,914 and $25,826, respectively. The treatment sequence of first line BR followed by Second Line RIT Y90-IT had the second longest predicted DOR of 2586 days at costs of $212,485, compared to 2778 days for BR followed by LO, at a total sequence costs of $796,695. Conclusion: The use of Y90-IT in Consolidation or Second Line treatment demonstrated desired patient outcomes at one of the lowest cost profiles. Additionally, Y90-IT administration can be completed in only two clinic visits, reducing patient travel and contact, improving safety in an era of COVID-19 precautionary measures and reducing cost. Figure 1. Duration of Response and Total Sequence Costs for Twelve First Line to Consolidation and First Line to Second Line Treatment Regimens. Disclosures McBride: Merck: Speakers Bureau; Coherus BioSciences: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; MorphoSys: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy.

Download Full-text

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

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.2021.39.15_suppl.e21104 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽

pp. e21104-e21104

Author(s):

Nimer S. Alkhatib ◽

Briana Choi ◽

Hala Halawah ◽

Matthias Calamia ◽

Dexter Gulick ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Cost Effectiveness ◽

Adverse Events ◽

Incremental Cost ◽

Line Treatment ◽

Second Line ◽

First Line ◽

Reference Drug ◽

First Line Therapy ◽

Line Therapy ◽

Life Years

e21104 Background: Crizotinib, alectinib, ceritinib, and brigatinib are approved as second line treatment for ALK+ NSCLC. Crizotinib was the first ALK inhibitor for first line therapy approved by Food and Drug Administration (2011) then ceritinib (2014), alectinib (2015), and brigatinib (2017) were approved as second line drugs. Following more data, these agents were approved as the first line therapy (2017 for ceritinib and alectinib; 2020 for brigatinib). These remain as a treatment option in patients who fail the first line therapy. Cost-effectiveness/utility analyses were conducted to assess clinical efficacy with varying costs of the agents. Methods: A three state Markov model were assumed (progression free, progression and death). Progression free survival (PFS) curves were digitized and fitted with exponential function. US payer perspective, a lifetime horizon, and discount rate of 3% were applied. Drug costs were Redbook wholesale acquisition cost. Other costs included were monitoring, adverse events and disease progression from published data (US$ 2020). Adverse events reported >5% in patients were included. Measured outcomes were PFS life years (PFSLY) and quality adjusted life years (PFSQALY). Crizotinib was the reference drug. Incremental cost-effectiveness and utility ratios (ICER/ICUR) of PFSLY and PFSQALY gained (PFSLYG, PFSQALYG) and lost were estimated. Base case (BCA) and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were conducted. Results: Crizotinib was the reference drug for the following outcomes. For alectinib, with the decremental cost of -$14,653 (-$14,712), the incremental PFSLY of 0.16 (0.16) and PFSQALY of 0.05 (0.05) resulted in an ICER / PFSLYG of -$89,337 (-$88,604) and an ICUR / PFSQALYG of -$269,835 (-$266,510). For brigatinib, with the decremental cost of -$14,975 (-$14,954), the incremental PFSLY of 0.01 (0.01) and PFSQALY of ̃0.01 (0.02) yielded an ICER / PFSLYG of -$1,982,962 (-$1,431,631) and an ICUR / PFSQALYG of -$2,140,534 (-$570,538). For ceritinib, with the incremental cost of $7,590 ($7,514), there were decremental PFSLY of -0.01 (-0.01) and PFSQALY of -0.03 (-0.03). Conclusions: As second line treatment, crizotinib, ceritinib, and brigatinib had comparable PFSLYs and PFSQALYs while alectinib had the most PFSLY and PFSQALY and the lowest cost. Therefore, alectinib is the most cost-effective treatment for treating ALK+ NSCLC as the second line therapy.[Table: see text]

Download Full-text