Obinutuzumab and Chlorambucil Versus Chlorambucil Monotherapy for Treatment of Previously Untreated Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Where Fludarabine-Based Chemotherapy Is Considered Inappropriate: A Canadian Cost-Utility Analysis

Blood ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 124 (21) ◽  
pp. 1288-1288 ◽  
Author(s):  
Heather Cameron ◽  
Melissa Thompson ◽  
John-Paul Marino ◽  
Michael Duong ◽  
Ursula Becker ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Transition Probabilities ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Lymphocytic Leukemia ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Health State ◽  
Utility Analysis ◽  
Health States ◽  
Life Years

Abstract BACKGROUND: In Canada, treatment options are limited for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) where fludarabine-based regimens are considered inappropriate. For these patients, chlorambucil monotherapy is considered a standard treatment option. Obinutuzumab is a novel recombinant humanized and glycoengineered Type II anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody of the IgG1 isotype. Clinical data demonstrate that first line therapy with obinutuzumab + chlorambucil can improve progression-free survival (PFS) compared with chlorambucil alone in CLL patients ineligible for fludarabine-based chemotherapy (29.9 vs. 11.1 months; HR 0.18 (95% CI [0.14; 0.24]), p<0.0001). (Goede et al., 2014; Roche. Data on file; May 2014). Obinutuzumab + chlorambucil also demonstrated an overall survival (OS) benefit versus chlorambucil alone (HR for death, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.29 to 0.76; P=0.0014). (Goede et al., 2014; Roche. Data on file; May 2014). We conducted a cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis of obinutuzumab + chlorambucil versus chlorambucil monotherapy from a Canadian healthcare perspective. METHODS: A Markov model was created to estimate the cost-utility of the treatment with obinutuzumab + chlorambucil versus chlorambucil monotherapy over a ten-year time horizon in previously untreated CLL patients ineligible for fludarabine-based chemotherapy. The model simulated patients moving through three health states: “progression-free”, “progression”, and “death”, with all patients beginning in the progression-free state. The progression-free state was divided into sub health states; progression-free with therapy, and progression-free without therapy. Each health state was associated with a utility value and direct medical costs. (Roche. Data on file; April 2014) Transition probabilities from the progression-free health state to the progression state were determined by PFS collected in the CLL11 trial for obinutuzumab + chlorambucil and chlorambucil monotherapy arms (Roche. Data on file; May 2014). Patients who experienced disease progression transitioned to the progression health state where they received second-line therapy and ongoing supportive care. Transition probabilities from the progression-free health state to death were determined based on the treatment specific death rates observed in CLL11. Due to the lack of mature OS data from CLL11 the transition probabilities from the progressed health state to death were determined based on data from the CLL5 trial (Eichhorst et al., 2009). Resource use and costs were estimated using Canadian sources ($CAD 2014), and both costs and outcomes were discounted at 5% annually. The stability of model results was tested using one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Treatment with obinutuzumab + chlorambucil produced more life years and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) than treatment with chlorambucil alone. The incremental cost was $35,330 for an incremental life years gain (LYG) of 1.038 and an incremental QALY gain of 0.975 (Table 1). These result in an incremental cost per LYG ratio of $34,028 and an incremental cost per QALY gained of $36,246. The results of one-way sensitivity analyses indicated that the model was robust to changes in model inputs, with the most impactful parameters being time horizon, assumptions regarding survival, treatment duration, and exclusion of second-line therapies. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis resulted in a mean ICER of $35,370, with obinutuzumab + chlorambucil having a 94.3% chance of being cost-effective at a willingness to pay threshold of $50,000/QALY, and a 100% chance of being cost-effective at a willingness to pay threshold of $100,000/QALY and $150,000/QALY. Abstract 1288. Table 1. Ten year cost-effectiveness results Treatment Total Costs Total LYs Total QALYs Incremental Costs Incremental LYs Incremental QALYs Cost per LYG Cost per QALY Chlorambucil $22,417 3.971 2.546 Obinutuzumab + Chlorambucil $57,747 5.009 3.521 $35,330 1.038 0.975 $34,028 $36,246 CONCLUSIONS: The results of this analysis demonstrated that improvements in PFS and OS with obinutuzumab + chlorambucil translate into longer term gains in LYs and QALYs. From a Canadian healthcare perspective, first line treatment of CLL patients ineligible for fludarabine based therapies with obinutuzumab + chlorambucil is cost-effective with a cost-utility ratio of $36,246/QALY. Disclosures Cameron: Cornerstone Research Group: Employment. Thompson:Cornerstone Research Group: Employment. Marino:2Hoffmann-La Roche Limited : Employment. Duong:2Hoffmann-La Roche Limited : Employment. Becker:Roche: Employment. Wiesner:4Genentech, Inc. A Member of the Roche Group: Employment.

Cost-Utility Of Bortezomib In Induction Treatment Prior To Autologous Stem-Cell Transplantation (ASCT) In Previously Untreated Multiple Myeloma Patients In Canada

Blood ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 122 (21) ◽  
pp. 1735-1735 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tom Kouroukis ◽  
Darrell White ◽  
Morgan Kruse ◽  
Donna Lawrence ◽  
Cristina Trambitas ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Transition Probabilities ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Induction Treatment ◽  
Health State ◽  
Health States ◽  
Induction Regimen ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Introduction The effectiveness of bortezomib for induction treatment prior to ASCT in multiple myeloma (MM) patients has been demonstrated in a number of randomized, open-label phase III trials, including the IFM 2005-01 trial (Harousseau et al., J Clin Oncol 2010;28(30):4621-9). This trial showed that the addition of bortezomib as part of an induction treatment prior to ASCT resulted in statistically significant improvements in post-induction response rates and longer progression-free survival (PFS) compared to a non-bortezomib containing regimen (NBCR). The objective of this study was to assess the cost-utility of a bortezomib-containing regimen (BCR) vs. a NBCR for induction treatment in previously untreated MM patients prior to ASCT from a Canadian public payer perspective, based on the results of the IFM 2005-01 study. Methods A Markov model was developed to estimate the cost-utility over a lifetime horizon (50 years) in previously untreated MM patients undergoing induction and ASCT. The model simulated disease progression of patients with previously untreated MM through three health states: “progression-free”, “progression” and “death”, with all patients beginning in the progression-free state. The PFS and overall survival (OS) curves from the IFM 2005-01 trial were extrapolated beyond the study follow-up period to estimate the timeframe spent in each health state. Each health state was associated with a utility value and direct medical costs. Utilities for the progression-free and progression health states were derived from a previous cost-utility analysis for bortezomib and were 0.81 and 0.645, respectively (Hornberger et al., Eur J Haematol 2010;85(6):484-91). Transition probabilities between health states were estimated by calibrating the model to the PFS and OS curves from the IFM 2005-01 trial. In the base case, transition probabilities beyond the trial follow-up period were conservatively assumed to be equal for both treatment groups. Medical resource utilization was estimated using the IFM 2005-01 trial, and supplemented by published literature and clinical advisors. Clinical advisors also provided input on management of adverse events (> grade 3) and treatment of patients who progressed after induction and ASCT. Resource costs were estimated using Canadian sources ($CAN 2012) and costs and outcomes were discounted at 5% annually. Because patients in each group incurred similar costs (i.e. cost of an ASCT), only incremental costs between the two arms were included in the analysis. One-way sensitivity analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the model. Results The mean total MM-related cost over the lifetime analysis in the model was $68,800 per patient treated with a BCR and $47,000 per patient treated with a NBCR. Addition of bortezomib to the induction regimen increased costs by $21,700 (see table). Over the model lifetime, a delay in progression with a BCR led to 0.25 years of additional survival compared to a NBCR and a quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gain of 0.22 years. The incremental cost-utility ratio for induction using a BCR compared to a NBCR approach was $99,200/QALY. Sensitivity analyses identified the major factors impacting the cost-utility ratio as: transition probabilities beyond the trial follow-up period, discounting, utilities and bortezomib costs. The probability of a BCR being cost-effective compared to a NBCR was 43.9% at a threshold of $100,000/QALY. Conclusions A number of phase 3 trials have demonstrated the effectiveness of bortezomib as part of an induction regimen prior to ASCT. This analysis indicates that, from a Canadian perspective, induction treatment with a BCR in previously untreated MM patients prior to ASCT can be cost-effective at conventional decision thresholds with a cost-utility ratio of $99,200/QALY. Disclosures: Kouroukis: Janssen Inc.: Honoraria. White:Janssen Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria. Kruse:OptumInsight: Employment. Lawrence:OptumInsight: Employment. Trambitas:Janssen Inc.: Employment.

Economic evaluation of Avonex® (interferon beta-1a) in patients following a single demyelinating event

2005 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. 542-551 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Iskedjian ◽  
John H Walker ◽  
Trevor Gray ◽  
Colin Vicente ◽  
Thomas R Einarson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Time Horizon ◽  
Interferon Beta ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Current Treatment ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Analytical Time

Background: Interferon beta-1a (Avonex®)30 mg, intramuscular (i.m.), once weekly is efficacious in delaying clinically definite multiple sclerosis (CDMS) following a single demyelinating event (SDE). This study determined the cost effectiveness of Avonex® compared to current treatment in delaying the onset of CDMS. Methods: A cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) and cost-utility analysis (CUA) were performed from Ministry of Health (MoH) and societal perspectives. For CEA, the outcome of interest was time spent in the pre-CDMS state, termed monosymptomatic life years (MLY) gained. For CUA, the outcome was quality-adjusted monosymptomatic life years (QAMLY) gained. A Markov model was developed with transitional probabilities and utilities derived from the literature. Costs were reported in 2002 Canadian dollars. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 5%. The time horizon was 12 years for the CEA, and 15 years for the CUA. All uncertainties were tested via univariate and multivariate sensitivity analyses. Results: In the CEA, the incremental cost of Avonex® per MLY gained was $53 110 and $44 789 from MoH and societal perspectives, respectively. In the CUA, the incremental cost of Avonex® per QAMLY gained was $227 586 and $189 286 from MoH and societal perspectives, respectively. Both models were sensitive to the probability of progressing to CDMS and the analytical time horizon. The CUA was sensitive to the utilities value. Conclusion: Avonex® may be considered as a reasonably cost-effective approach to treatment of patients experiencing an SDE. In addition, the overall incremental cost-effectiveness profile of Avonex® improves if treatment is initiated in pre-CDMS rather than waiting until CDMS.

scholarly journals A Telemonitoring Programme in Patients with Heart Failure in France: A Cost-Utility Analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mégane Caillon ◽  
Rémi Sabatier ◽  
Damien Legallois ◽  
Laurène Courouve ◽  
Valérie Donio ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Standard Care ◽  
Care Setting ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Cost Utility Analysis ◽  
Utility Analysis ◽  
Life Years

Abstract Background Certain telemedicine programmes for heart failure (HF) have been shown to reduce all-cause mortality and heart failure-related hospitalisations, but their cost-effectiveness remains controversial. The SCAD programme is a home-based interactive telemonitoring service for HF, which is one of the longest-running and largest telemonitoring programmes for HF in France. The objective of this cost-utility analysis was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the SCAD programme with respect to standard hospital-based care in patients with HF. Methods A Markov model simulating hospitalisations and mortality in patients with HF was constructed to estimate outcomes and costs. The model included six distinct health states (three ‘not hospitalised’ states, two ‘hospitalisation for heart failure’ states, both depending on the number of previous hospitalisations, and one death state. The model lifetime in the base case was ten years. Model inputs were based on published literature. Outputs (costs and QALYs) were compared between SCAD participants and standard care. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess uncertainty in the input parameters of the model. Results The number of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) was 3.75 in the standard care setting and 4.41 in the SCAD setting. This corresponds to a gain in QALYs provided by the SCAD programme of 0.65 over the ten-year lifetime of the model. The estimated total cost was €30,932 in the standard care setting and €35,177 in the SCAD setting, with an incremental cost of €4,245. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the SCAD programme over standard care was estimated at €4,579/QALY. In the deterministic sensitivity analysis, the variables that had the most impact on the ICER were HF management costs. The likelihood of the SCAD programme being considered cost-effective was 90% at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €11,800. Conclusions Enrolment of patients into the SCAD programme is highly cost-effective. Extension of the programme to other hospitals and more patients would have a limited budget impact but provide important clinical benefits. This finding should also be taken into account in new public health policies aimed at encouraging a shift from inpatient to ambulatory care.

Cost-utility of a cardiovascular prevention program in highly educated adults: Intermediate results of a randomized controlled trial

2010 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 11-19 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nele Jacobs ◽  
Silvia Evers ◽  
Andre Ament ◽  
Neree Claes
Keyword(s):  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Prevention Program ◽  
Cardiovascular Prevention ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Highly Educated ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Intermediate Results

Objectives: Little is known about the costs and the effects of cardiovascular prevention programs targeted at medical and behavioral risk factors. The aim was to evaluate the cost-utility of a cardiovascular prevention program in a general sample of highly educated adults after 1 year of intervention.Methods: The participants were randomly assigned to intervention (n = 208) and usual care conditions (n = 106). The intervention consisted of medical interventions and optional behavior-change interventions (e.g., a tailored Web site). Cost data were registered from a healthcare perspective, and questionnaires were used to determine effectiveness (e.g., quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs]). A cost-utility analysis and sensitivity analyses using bootstrapping were performed on the intermediate results.Results: When adjusting for baseline utility differences, the incremental cost was €433 and the incremental effectiveness was 0.016 QALYs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was €26,910 per QALY.Conclusions: The intervention was cost-effective compared with usual care in this sample of highly educated adults after 1 year of intervention. Increased participation would make this intervention highly cost-effective.

Use of the Ring Wound Protector in Open Appendectomy: A Model-Based Cost-Utility Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 104 (12) ◽  
pp. 1971-1976
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Decision Tree ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Open Appendectomy ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Cost Utility Analysis ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Utility Analysis ◽  
Wound Protector

Objective: To evaluate cost-effectiveness of ring wound protector (RWP) used in open appendectomy. Materials and Methods: The present study was a decision-tree-based analysis. Model inputs, including costs, utilities, and probabilities of surgical site infection (SSI), were retrieved from the previous studies. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) represented the cost of one additional quality-adjusted life day (QALD). This ratio was calculated by dividing the incremental cost [Thai Baht (THB)] by the incremental QALD. One-way sensitivity analyses were performed by varying each input parameter to see how ICER change. Monte-Carlo simulation with 5,000 replications was used to estimate probabilistic ICER and construct the acceptability curve, demonstrating how the probability of being cost-effective changed when the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was shifted. Results: The deterministic ICER of 64,630.78 THB/QALD did not favor RWP use compared with the WTP threshold of 10,000 THB/QALD. However, if the threshold was shifted to 100,000 THB/QALD, it would yield approximately 75% probability of being cost-effective from RWP. Threshold analysis indicated that RWP should cost 281, 301, and 661 THB to be cost-effective at the threshold of 500, 1,000, and 10,000 THB/QALD, respectively. Conclusion: Routine RWP use might not be cost-effective when QALD is the outcome of interest. Based on the results from the present study, policy-makers could be informed that the adoption of this health technology might not be suitable. Keywords: Ring wound protector; Appendectomy; Cost-utility analysis; Decision tree model

scholarly journals Hemodialysis or Transplantation for Ethiopia: A Cost Utility Analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Tariku Shimels
Keyword(s):  
Kidney Transplantation ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Addis Ababa ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Cost Utility Analysis ◽  
Utility Analysis ◽  
Medline Search ◽  
Life Years ◽  
End Stage

Background: The burden of end stage kidney disease (ESKD) characterized with a requirement with lifesaving dialysis or kidney transplantation is estimated to be more than 1.4 million whereas the annual incidence exceeds 8% worldwide. In Ethiopia, there is no renal transplant practice whereas hemodialysis is characterized with very limited number of dialysis centers in the capital; Addis Ababa. The objective of this analysis was to evaluate the cost-utility of hemodialysis and renal transplantation in Ethiopia. Method: A cost utility evaluation (CUA) was produced to estimate if kidney transplantation would be a cost-effective alternative to hemodialysis. The decision model was developed as a decision tree that allows for comparisons of costutility evaluation between the two alternatives. While a patient perspective was used in the study, The Probabilities cost of transplant and effects included in this study were derived from the literature following a formal MEDLINE search for studies published in English language. Results: Transplantation resulted in an incremental cost of $42,623.74 and incremental utility of 3.18 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) compared with conventional hemodialysis presented with an incremental cost of $25,902.08 but very less QALY of 0.36 over a five years’ time horizon. Given its higher incremental costs, transplantation remained more cost effective than hemodialysis (ICUR of 13414.67 vs. 71860.00 $/QALY). The one way ANOVA sensitivity analysis has also confirmed that the result of the CUA is not sensitive to any plausible parameter changes. Conclusion: Our cost utility analysis result demonstrated that the incremental cost utility ratio of a patient’s five year therapy by hemodialysis at end-stage renal disease is significantly higher than by performing therapy of kidney transplantation, by more than a factor of five times.

Cost-effectiveness of FOLFIRI + cetuximab vs FOLFIRI + bevacizumab in the first-line (1L) treatment of RAS wild-type (wt) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in Germany: Data from the FIRE-3 (AIO KRK-0306) study.

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 800-800 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sebastian Stintzing ◽  
Ilse van Oostrum ◽  
Chris Pescott ◽  
Alma Katharina Steinbach-Buechert ◽  
Bart Heeg ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Health State ◽  
Primary Tumors ◽  
Payer Perspective ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Cost

800 Background: The randomized, phase 3 FIRE-3 trial evaluated 1L FOLFIRI + cetuximab or bevacizumab in patients with RAS wt mCRC; overall survival favored FOLFIRI + cetuximab by > 8 months. The purpose of this analysis was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of FOLFIRI + cetuximab vs that of FOLFIRI + bevacizumab as 1L treatment for patients in Germany with RAS wt mCRC (including the patient subgroup with RAS wt, left-sided [LS] primary tumors, as LS is a predictive factor). Methods: A standard oncology 3–health-state partitioned survival cost-utility model was developed to analyze the costs and health benefits of FOLFIRI + cetuximab vs those of FOLFIRI + bevacizumab from a German payer perspective based on data from FIRE-3 and the literature. Health outcomes were reported in life-years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained. A 3.5% discounting rate was applied to the modeled costs and outcomes. Results: Discounted costs, health gains, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for patients with RAS wt (base case) and patients with RAS wt, LS (subgroup) mCRC are summarized in the Table. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed that at relevant European willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds of €55,000 and €80,000, FOLFIRI + cetuximab had a 64.0% and 81.6% (base case) and 80.5% and 92.4% (subgroup) probability of being cost-effective vs FOLFIRI + bevacizumab, respectively. Clinical trial information: NCT00433927. Conclusions: Based on our analyses, FOLFIRI + cetuximab is cost-effective compared with FOLFIRI + bevacizumab in patients in Germany with RAS wt mCRC at official WTP thresholds applied by relevant European health technology assessment agencies. The cost-effectiveness of FOLFIRI + cetuximab is more pronounced in the subgroup of patients with RAS wt, LS tumors.[Table: see text]

Cost-effectiveness of novel antiandrogens (AAs) for treatment of nonmetastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC).

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 5583-5583
Author(s):  
Irbaz Bin Riaz ◽  
Abdulaali Almutairi ◽  
Daenielle K. Lang ◽  
Noureen Asghar ◽  
Anum Riaz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Lifetime Cost ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Health States ◽  
Support Unit ◽  
Medication Costs ◽  
Life Years

5583 Background: FDA has approved three novel AAs [Apalutamide(A), Darolutamide(D) and Enzalutamide(E)] in combination with Androgen deprivation therapy ( ADT) for treatment of (nmCRPC) patients (pts). We report the cost-effectiveness of these drugs from the US perspective to help facilitate the choice of these agents for clinical practice. Methods: A life time Markov state-transition model was constructed with three health states (Metastasis-Free Survival[MFS], Metastatic disease, and Death) to compare cost-effectiveness of AA therapies for treatment of nmCRPC based on US healthcare payer perspective. A network meta-analysis of MFS and OS was conducted due to the lack of head to head trials. An approximation of the original individual-level patient time-to-event data were derived from digitized Kaplan-Meier curves for OS and MFS. Weibull distributions was selected as the best fitted model fitted and extrapolated as per the NICE decision support unit recommendations. Medication costs were based on wholesale acquisition cost. Adverse event (AE) grades 3/4 management costs were incorporated in the model. Discount rate of 3% per year was applied to costs and effects. Life years (LYs) and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) for each treatment as well as the incremental cost effectiveness (ICER) and cost utility (ICUR) ratios were estimated. Base case analyses (BCA) and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were estimated. Results: The table summarizes the results form BCA analyses. A+ADT offers best gain in LYs (8.37yrs) and QALYs (5.30 yrs) but at higher cost. Conclusions: Apalutamide was associated with gains in LYs and QALYs traded off with higher lifetime cost relative to other AA alternatives. ADT was associated with lower gains in LYs and QALYs traded off with lower lifetime cost relative to other alternatives. Based on a $150,000/QALY threshold pay off, A+ADT is likely more cost effective compared to E+ADT or ADT alone; while E+ ADT may be more cost effective compared to D+ ADT. [Table: see text]

Economic evaluation of six and 12 month (m) treatment with isatuximab and carfilzomib and dexamethasone (IKd) versus daratumumab and carfilzomib and dexamethasone (DKd) in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM).

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e20010-e20010
Author(s):  
Neda AlRawashdh ◽  
Briana Choi ◽  
Mavis Obeng-Kusi ◽  
Matthias Calamia ◽  
Ali McBride ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Transition Probabilities ◽  
Cost Savings ◽  
Medication Administration ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Treatment Comparison ◽  
Life Years

e20010 Background: Isatuximab and daratumumab target the CD38 transmembrane glycoprotein on MM cells. IKd and DKd regimens have shown reductions of HR=0.53 (95%CI 0.32-0.89) and HR=0.63 (95%CI 0.46-0.85) resp. in progression or death risk compared to Kd in RRMM. In the absence of a direct IKd vs DKd trial, we performed an indirect treatment comparison on progression free survival (PFS) to enable cost-effectiveness analyses. Methods: A 3-state (pre-progression, progression, death) partitioned survival model was specified. NMA-adjusted transition probabilities were estimated from fitted exponential functions (time horizon of 6 and 12 m; cycle length 28 days). Inputs included the Wholesale Acquisition Cost of IKd, DKd, and premedications; cost of medication administration; and cost of adverse event management. Utility inputs for pre-progression (0.65) and progression (0.61) were per literature. Costs and utilities were discounted at 3.5%/y. A payer perspective was adopted. Life years (LY), quality adjusted LY (QALY), and incremental cost-effectiveness (ICER) and cost-utility ratios (ICUR) were estimated in base case (BCA) and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA). Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEAC) were generated. Results: As detailed in the Table, 6m of IKd treatment was associated with incremental gains of 0.01 (PSA 0.01) LYs but no gains in QALYs at cost savings of $24,188 ($23,762), yielding a dominant ICER of $ -2,418,800 ($-2,376,200) per LYg (ICUR not estimable). Further, 12m of IKd treatment was associated with incremental gains of 0.04 (PSA 0.04) LYs (or 0.48m) and 0.02 (0.03) QALYs at incremental cost of $1,585 ($2,239), yielding ICER of $39,625 ($55,975) per LYg and ICUR of $79,250 ($74,633) per QALYg. Per CEAC, IKd is the dominated strategy in the 6m model and had probability of 50% of being cost-effective at WTP of $100,000 in the 12m model. Conclusions: Clinically, compared to DKd, IKd is associated with slight incremental gains in LYs of 0.12m over 6m and 0.48m over 1y. The 6m clinical gain comes with cost savings of approximately $24,000 or about 15% of IKd therapy, while the 12m gain requires a minimal cost commitment of around $2,000 or 0.6% of DKd treatment. These findings imply a clinico-economic benefit of isatuximab compared to daratumumab containing regimens in RRMM. [Table: see text]

scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Dabrafenib Plus Trametinib and Vemurafenib as First-Line Treatment in Patients with BRAF V600 Mutation-Positive Unresectable or Metastatic Melanoma in China

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (12) ◽  
pp. 6194
Author(s):  
Tianfu Gao ◽  
Jia Liu ◽  
Jing Wu
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
First Line ◽  
Health States ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Braf V600 Mutation

Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of dabrafenib plus trametinib combination therapy versus vemurafenib as first-line treatment in patients with BRAF V600 mutation-positive unresectable or metastatic melanoma from a healthcare system perspective in China. Methods: This study employed a partitioned survival model with three health states (progression-free survival, post-progression survival and dead) to parameterize the data derived from Combi-v trial and extrapolated to 30 years. Health states’ utilities were measured by EQ-5D-3L, also sourced from the Combi-v trial. Costs including drug acquisition costs, disease management costs and adverse event costs were based on the Chinese Drug Bidding Database and physician survey in China. The primary outcomes of the model were lifetime costs, life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted, respectively. Result: Dabrafenib plus trametinib is projected to increase a patient’s life expectancy by 0.95 life-years over vemurafenib (3.03 vs. 2.08) and 1.09 QALY gains (2.48 vs. 1.39) with an incremental cost of $3833. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was $3511 per QALY. In the probabilistic sensitivity analyses, at a threshold of $33,357 per QALY (three times the gross domestic product (GDP) per capita in China in 2020), the probability of dabrafenib plus trametinib being cost-effective was 90%. In the deterministic sensitivity analyses, the results were most sensitive to the dabrafenib plus trametinib drug costs, vemurafenib drug costs and discount rate of cost. Conclusion: Dabrafenib plus trametinib therapy yields more clinical benefits than vemurafenib. Using a threshold of $33,357 per QALY, dabrafenib plus trametinib is very cost-effective as compared with vemurafenib in China.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document