Cost-effectiveness of denosumab (D) versus zoledronic acid (Z) for skeletal-related event (SRE) reduction in bone-metastatic prostate cancer (mPC) in the United Kingdom.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e15189-e15189
Author(s):  
Marc Botteman ◽  
John A. Carter ◽  
Peter Fishman ◽  
David Chandiwana ◽  
Manjinder Bains ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
List Price ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Health States ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Payer Perspective ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Lifetime Analysis ◽  
Skeletal Related Event

e15189 Background: D reduced SREs vs Z in a phase III trial, but no significant differences in overall survival, disease progression, or serious adverse events were reported. The cost-effectiveness of D vs Z in mPC was assessed from a UK payer perspective. Methods: A literature-based Markov model estimated quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), number and costs of SREs, and drug/administration costs for mPC pts receiving D or Z for 27 mo (trial timeframe) and 60 mo (extended lifetime analysis). Current list prices/injection (£309.86 for D; £174.14 for Z) were used in the base case. As the model’s analytical horizon starts June 2012 and extends beyond generic Z availability in May 2013, a generic Z price (53% < list price, per data for other now-generic bisphosphonates) was used beyond May 2013 in scenario analysis. In other analyses, discounted prices (–30%) were used for both D and Z to assess the effect of price reductions on cost/QALY. Clinical inputs were selected to reproduce trial outcomes. QALYs were estimated by assigning utility weights to time spent in health states (no SRE; SRE; post-SRE; death). SRE costs were £250 to ≥ £6,000/event. Results: Although D may result in fewer SREs, higher QALYs, and lower SRE-related costs (Table), higher acquisition cost of D results in substantially higher costs and may be cost-ineffective in every pricing scenario. Similar results were found for the 27-mo analysis. Conclusions: The incremental cost/QALY gained with D vs Z ranged from £50,000 to £215,000 (> traditional £30,000 threshold), thus raising important questions about D’s value in mPC. [Table: see text]

scholarly journals Lutetium oxodotreotide (177Lu-Dotatate) for the treatment of unresectable or metastatic progressive gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: a cost-effectiveness analysis for Scotland

BMC Cancer ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Smith-Palmer ◽  
O. R. Leeuwenkamp ◽  
J. Virk ◽  
N. Reed
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Neuroendocrine Tumors ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Gastroenteropancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Payer Perspective ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life

Abstract Background Gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NETs) represent a heterogenous group of tumors. Findings from the phase III NETTER-1 trial showed that treatment of unresectable/metastatic progressive gastrointestinal (GI) NETs with 177Lu-Dotatate resulted in a significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) compared with best supportive care (BSC) with high dose octreotide long-acting repeatable (LAR) 60 mg. A health economic analysis was performed using input data from clinical studies and data derived from an indirect comparison to determine the cost-effectiveness of 177Lu-Dotatate in the treatment of GI-NETs and pancreatic NETs (P-NETs) in Scotland. Methods Cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from the payer perspective using a three-state partitioned survival model. In the base case 177Lu-Dotatate was compared with BSC in gastrointestinal (GI)-NETs using clinical data from the NETTER-1 trial. A secondary analysis comparing 177Lu-Dotatate with BSC, everolimus or sunitinib in patients with P-NETs was also performed using hazard ratios inferred from indirect comparisons. The base case analysis was performed over a 20-year time horizon with an annual discount rate of 3.5% for both costs and clinical outcomes. Results For unresectable/metastatic progressive GI-NETs treatment with 177Lu-Dotatate led to a gain in quality-adjusted life expectancy of 1.33 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) compared with BSC due to extended PFS and OS. Mean total lifetime costs were GBP 35,701 higher with 177Lu-Dotatate, leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of GBP 26,830 per QALY gained. In analyses in patients with P-NETs 177Lu-Dotatate was associated with ICERs below GBP 30,000 per QALY gained in comparisons with BSC, sunitinib and everolimus. Conclusions Cost-effectiveness analyses demonstrated that, in Scotland, from the payer perspective, 177Lu-Dotatate at the set acquisition cost is a cost-effective treatment option for patients with unresectable or metastatic progressive GI-NETs or P-NETs.

P1225Cost-effectiveness of evolocumab in patients with high atherosclerotic cardiovascular risk in Sweden

2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
P Lindgren ◽  
E Hagstrom ◽  
B Van Hout ◽  
G Villa ◽  
M Urbich ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Screening Program ◽  
Patient Characteristics ◽  
Lipid Lowering ◽  
List Price ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease ◽  
Lifetime Horizon ◽  
Life Years

Abstract Background/Introduction Elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is one of the most important modifiable risk factors for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). Evolocumab, a proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitor, is indicated for the reduction of CV risk by lowering LDL-C. Purpose Assess the cost-effectiveness of evolocumab added to standard of care (SoC), maximally tolerated lipid-lowering treatment, in two patient populations for which evolocumab is reimbursed in Sweden: (1) patients with ASCVD with LDL-C ≥2.5 mmol/L on SoC, and (2) heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HeFH) patients without ASCVD with LDL-C ≥3.0 mmol/L on SoC. Methods A previously published Markov model was adapted to the Swedish context. The model incorporated real-world CV event (CVE) rates (myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke and CV death). In patients with ASCVD, a CVE rate of 6.3/100 patient-years was obtained from Swedish national registries. In HeFH patients without ASCVD, a CVE rate of 4.5/100 patient-years was obtained from a national screening program in the Netherlands. ASCVD patient characteristics were obtained from Swedish national registries. HeFH patient characteristics were obtained from the RUTHERFORD-2 clinical trial. The model used an evolocumab LDL-C reduction of 59%, as observed in the FOURIER CV outcomes clinical trial, and the relationship between LDL-C lowering and CVE reduction from the Cholesterol Treatment Trialists' Collaboration (CTTC) 2010 meta-analysis (base case) or FOURIER (scenario). An annual evolocumab list price (before discount) of SEK 48,759 [€ 4,632] (1 SEK = € 0.095) was considered. Costs and health outcomes were evaluated over a lifetime horizon from a societal perspective. Results In the base case, for patients with ASCVD with LDL-C ≥2.5 mmol/L on SoC, the addition of evolocumab was associated with: a 0.30 reduction in the lifetime per-patient CVE rate, increased costs of SEK 413,835 and increased quality-adjusted life years (QALY) of 0.67, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of SEK 615,393 [€ 58,462] per QALY gained. In the base case, for HeFH patients without ASCVD with LDL-C ≥3.0 mmol/L on SoC, the addition of evolocumab was associated with: a 0.57 reduction in the lifetime per-patient CVE rate, increased costs of SEK 701,200 and increased QALY of 1.39, yielding an ICER of SEK 503,710 [€ 47,852] per QALY gained. In the scenario analysis, ICER were SEK 539,846 [€ 51,285] and SEK 462,961 [€ 43,981] per QALY, respectively. Conclusions These results indicate the addition of evolocumab to SoC may be considered cost-effective in Sweden. Indeed, based on these data, the Swedish Dental and Pharmaceutical Benefits Agency (TLV) recently granted expanded reimbursement for evolocumab (submission 2138/2018), which led to a positive national recommendation in the patient populations described above. Acknowledgement/Funding This study was sponsored by Amgen.

Is neratinib following trastuzumab in early-stage HER2-positive breast cancer cost-effective?

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6625-6625
Author(s):  
Naomi RM Schwartz ◽  
Meghan Rose Flanagan ◽  
Joseph B Babigumira ◽  
Lotte Maria Gertruda Steuten ◽  
Joshua A. Roth
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Clinical Benefit ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Recurrence Rates ◽  
Adjuvant Trastuzumab ◽  
Her2 Breast Cancer ◽  
Life Years

6625 Background: Neratinib after adjuvant trastuzumab significantly improves disease-free survival (DFS) in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-postiive (HER2+) breast cancer, but the median absolute DFS gain is only 1.3 months. There has been much controversy in the clinical and lay media as to whether the substantial cost of neratinib is justified by its effects, including a prominent ASCO Post article from Dr. Vogl about a year ago. We performed a cost-utility analysis to formally assess the value of adding neratinib based on Phase III ExteNET trial results. Methods: We developed a Markov state-transition model to assess the value of neratinib in Stage I-III HER2+ breast cancer. Five-year recurrence rates were derived from ExteNet. Mortality and recurrence rates after 5 years were derived from the HERceptin Adjuvant (HERA) trial. Costs were derived from wholesale acquisition costs and peer-reviewed literature. Health state utilities were derived from ExteNET and prior publications. Outcomes included life years (LY), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), direct medical expenditures, and cost per QALY gained. The analysis took a payer perspective over a lifetime horizon and results were discounted at 3% per year. One-way and probabilistic analyses were conducted to evaluate uncertainty. As neratinib conferred more clinical benefit in hormone receptor-positive (HR+) disease, we also assessed value in that specific subgroup. Results: Base case results are presented in Table. At typical U.S. willingness to pay thresholds of $100,000 and $150,000 per QALY gained, neratinib had 16.7% and 27.2%, probabilities of cost-effectiveness, respectively. In the HR+ subgroup, neratinib had a cost of $275,311 per QALY gained (19.9% & 31.2% probability of cost-effectiveness at $100,000 & $150,000 per QALY). Conclusions: In the first independent assessment of the value of neratinib after adjuvant trastuzumab, neratinib is not projected to be cost-effective, even among patients who derived the most clinical benefit. Future analyses should reassess the cost-effectiveness of neratinib treatment as trial data mature. Base case results. [Table: see text]

scholarly journals Economic Evaluation of Daratumumab and Pomalidomide and Dexamethasone Versus Isatuximab and Pomalidomide and Dexamethasone for Patients with Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma

Blood ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 19-20
Author(s):  
Neda Alrawashdh ◽  
Abdulaali Almutairi ◽  
Ali McBride ◽  
Ivo Abraham
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Time Horizon ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Health States ◽  
Time Horizons ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Cost

Background. Although several new treatments are available for patients with multiple myeloma (MM), most patients eventually relapse at a median time of 8.0 months (95%CI: 6.3-8.9). Patients with relapsed and refractory MM (R/R MM) who have had several lines of previous therapy or who are refractory to lenalidomide and proteasome inhibitors require alternative options. Daratumumab and isatuximab are monoclonal antibodies that bind to the human CD38 receptor. Phase II/III clinical trials showed that isatuximab (ISA) or daratumumab (DARA) in combination with pomalidomide (POM-d) and low-dose dexamethasone (DEXA) significantly improve progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with R/R MM. No studies have assessed the comparative efficacy and cost-effectiveness of both regimens in management of R/R MM. We performed an indirect comparison of both regimens in terms of PFS and overall survival (OS) and evaluated the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of DARA+POM-d+DEXA and ISA+POM-d+DEXA from a US payer's perspective. Methods. A partitioned survival model was developed to create three health states (pre-progression, progression, and death). The model was run three times with different time horizons (one, three and five years). To simulate health outcomes for each treatment regimen, transition probabilities between the three health states were derived from parametric exponential and lognormal distributions fitted to Kaplan-Meier (KM) curves of PFS and OS of the phase Ib clinical trial (Chari et al.; Blood 2017) for DARA+POM-d+DEXA and the phase III clinical trial (Attal et al.; Lancet 2019) for ISA+POM-d+DEXA. Wholesale acquisition costs (WAC) were obtained from RedBook for each regimen. Pre-progression costs included costs of regimens; premedication (50 mg diphenhydramine, 650 mg acetaminophen, 50 mg ranitidine); managing side effects; routine care and monitoring; and medication administration. Costs were inflated based on the medical consumer price index to the second quarter of 2020. Utilities were obtained from literature and assumed the same for both interventions. Annual discount rate of 3.5% was applied for costs and outcomes beyond the first year. The life years (LY) and quality adjusted LY (QALY) for each treatment, and the incremental cost-effectiveness (ICER) and cost-utility ratios (ICUR) were estimated in both base and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA:10,000 simulations). The cost-effectiveness plane (CEP) and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEAC) were plotted. Results. In the naïve patient simulation, median PFS and OS were estimated to be 9.5 months and 18 months for DARA+POM-d+DEXA, and 14.5 months and 26 months for ISA+POM-d +DEXA. As shown in the table below, ISA+POM-d+DEXA is associated with greater LY and QALY gains at one-, three- and five-year time horizons. The costs of ISA+POM-d+DEXA at one- and three- year time horizons are less than that of DARA+POM-d+DEXA, which resulted in saving (decremental) ICERs. At 5 years' time horizon, ISA+POM-d+DEXA was associated with incremental benefits (0.57 LY, 0.35 QALY) and incremental costs of $88,271 when compared with DARA+POM-d+DEXA. Per the CEAC plot, the probability that ISA+POM-d+DEXA is cost-effective was 100%, 65% and 23% at a willingness to pay threshold (WTP) of $100,000 per QALY in one-, three- and five-year time horizons. Conclusions. Clinically, ISA+POM-d+DEXA is associated with incremental survival gains of ~1 month and quality-adjusted survival gains of 0.5 month than DARA+POM-d+DEXA when patients are treated for one year. The benefits increase with treatment duration to reach ~7 months life year gains and 4 months quality-adjusted life year gains if patients treated for 5 years. Due to its lower total costs, Isatuximab based-regimen yielded saving ICERs at one and three years. However, ISA+POM-d+DEXA cost exceeded DARA+POM-d+DEXA at 5 years' time horizon to yield an ICER above the WTP. Disclosures McBride: Merck: Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; MorphoSys: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Coherus BioSciences: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Abraham:Celgene: Consultancy; Terumo: Consultancy; Rockwell Medical: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Mylan: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; Coherus BioSciences: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; MorphoSys: Consultancy.

Cost-effectiveness of rituximab maintenance therapy for patients with follicular lymphoma: The Spanish perspective

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 8092-8092
Author(s):  
J. Gómez Codina ◽  
M. Provencio ◽  
A. Rueda ◽  
F. Capote ◽  
F. Carbonell ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Maintenance Therapy ◽  
Follicular Lymphoma ◽  
Maintenance Treatment ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Health States ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Rituximab Maintenance ◽  
Life Years

8092 Background: In patients with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma (FL) who attain a response with either cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (CHOP) alone or Rituximab + CHOP, maintenance treatment with Rituximab has shown to significantly improve overall survival (OS) (85% at 3 years vs. 77%, p=0.011) and progression free survival (PFS) (51,5 vs. 14.9 months, p<0.001) as compared to observation alone (OA). We analyzed the cost-effectiveness, from a Spanish perspective, of Rituximab maintenance therapy (375mg/m2 every 3 months until progression or for 2 years) versus OA according to the population and data described for the European Organization for Research Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) 20981 study (van Oers MHJ Blood 2006). Methods: Incremental cost-effectiveness was assessed through a deterministic, three health states model (disease-free, progression and death) transition model. Base case model: PFS and OS were extrapolated from EORTC 20981 data using a Weibull distribution, Rituximab maintenance benefit was assumed to last 5 years, 10 years time horizon, 3.5% discount rate on costs and benefits, and Spanish National Health Service perspective (direct costs only). Resource use was estimated from a Spanish expert panel and EORTC 20981 study. Unit costs were obtained from local databases (May 2006 €). Health states utility values were derived from an ad hoc study. Sensitivity analyses were performed for all mentioned variables. Results: For the base case, more quality-adjusted life years (QALY), life-years (LY) and progression-free survival years per patient on maintenance therapy were obtained versus OA (incremental values of 0.85, 0.94 and 1.46, respectively). Total cost per patient was higher with Rituximab than with OA (+8,026€). Incremental cost per QALY gained was 9,358€, with a cost per LY gained of 8.493€ and a cost per PFS year gained of 5,485€. In the sensitivity analysis, values ranged between 7.263€ and 22.160€ per QALY gained. Conclusions: This study confirms that in patients with relapsed /refractory FL who attain a response with further therapy, maintenance treatment with Rituximab compared to observation alone is cost-effective. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Cost effectiveness of carfilzomib (CAR), ixazomib (IXA), elotuzumab (ELO), or daratumumab (DAR) with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (LEN+DEX) vs LEN+DEX in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (R/R MM).

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 8030-8030 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nimer Alsaid ◽  
Ali McBride ◽  
Amit Balkrishna Agarwal ◽  
Abdulaali Mutairi ◽  
Faiz Anwer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Indirect Comparison ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Health States ◽  
Chemotherapy Administration ◽  
Life Years

8030 Background: CAR, IXA, ELO, and DAR in triplet combination with LEN+DEX have shown superior efficacy over LEN+DEX in R/R MM, but their comparative efficacy and cost effectiveness has not been estimated. Methods: Network meta-analysis [NMA] and Bücher method were used to indirectly estimate comparative progression-free survival (PFS) efficacy. A 2-state Markov model (progression-free, progressed or death) was specified. Inputs included: cost of chemotherapy, administration, adverse events (AE) management, disease monitoring; utilities for health states; and disutilities for AEs. Incremental cost effectiveness (ICER) and cost utility ratios (ICUR) were calculated for resp. PFS life years (PFS LY) and quality adjusted life years (PFS QALY) gained in base case and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA). Results: NMA and Bücher indirect comparison methods yielded similar PFS hazard ratios (HR), revealing superiority of DAR+LEN+DEX over other triplets in terms of PFS (Table). Using the exponential distribution to fit PFS data, our cost effectiveness analysis indicated that all 4 triplet regimens were associated with additional PFS LY and QALY gained over LEN+DEX at additional cost. DAR+LEN+DEX was associated with the greatest PFS LY and QALY gained at the lowest relative cost, yielding superior ICER and ICUR estimates compared to other triplet regimens. Conclusions: The superior PFS efficacy of DAR+LEN+DEX is associated with positive cost effectiveness and cost utility in the setting of R/R MM. [Table: see text]

PP08 Health Technology Assessment Of Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation

2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (S1) ◽  
pp. 69-69
Author(s):  
Hema Mistry ◽  
Martin Connock ◽  
Pamela Royle ◽  
Norman Waugh
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
List Price ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Failure Data ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Chondrocyte Implantation ◽  
Repair Attempts ◽  
Autologous Chondrocyte

Introduction:Microfracture (MF) has been the main intervention in symptomatic articular cartilage knee defects. Autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI) has looked promising, but was not recommended by the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in 2015 due to the short-term follow-up data from trials.Methods:Most long-term data comes from observational studies. We provided new unpublished analyses to NICE based on survival data of these studies, with appropriate caveats. They included: a large ACI study by Nawaz with useful subgroup data by osteoarthritis Kellgren-Lawrence stage and previous repair attempts; a very large MF study by Layton, and a small RCT by Knutsen indicating MF was as ‘good’ as ACI. A Markov model explored the cost-effectiveness of ACI vs. MF. Different scenarios were explored: ACI or MF as a first procedure, followed by ACI or MF in those needing a second repair. A NHS England perspective was adopted. Health outcomes were expressed as quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs).Results:The revised base-case analysis, used a list price of £16,000 (EUR 17,380 in 2013 prices) for cells, used ACI failure data from Nawaz with no previous procedures for ACI, and pooled MF failure data from two studies-Saris and Knutsen. ACI was more expensive but provided more QALYs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio comparing ACI then MF with MF then ACI was £8,000 (EUR 8,690) per QALY. Various sensitivity analyses were conducted assuming a threshold of £20,000 (EUR 21,730) per QALY: previous repair attempts reduced success of ACI (£22,000 (EUR 23,900) per QALY); reducing cell costs, ACI improved its cost-effectiveness; and limiting intervention to patients with higher Kellgren-Lawrence score did not appear cost-effectiveness.Conclusions:The final NICE guidance published in October 2017 approved the use of ACI for patients who had no previous knee repairs, for people with minimal osteoarthritic damage to the knee, and for people with articular defects of over 2cm2.

scholarly journals P424 Economic evaluation of vedolizumab SC for the treatment of moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis in Canada

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S387-S387
Author(s):  
A FISCHER ◽  
M Oppe ◽  
S Stypa ◽  
V Lukyanov ◽  
I Petrakis
Keyword(s):  
Ulcerative Colitis ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Public Healthcare ◽  
Payer Perspective ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Public Payer

Abstract Background Vedolizumab intravenous (IV), a gut selective humanised monoclonal antibody, is indicated for the management of moderately to severely active Ulcerative Colitis (UC) and has been shown in the only head-to-head clinical trial within UC to be superior to adalimumab (NCT02497469). Furthermore, the novel vedolizumab subcutaneous (SC) has recently been proven to be an effective treatment of UC (NCT02611830). The objective of this study is to estimate the comparative cost-effectiveness of vedolizumab IV with updated efficacy data, and vedolizumab SC for the first time. Both vedolizumab IV and SC have been compared with other publicly reimbursed biologics for the treatment of patients with moderate-to-severe UC from a Canadian public healthcare payer perspective. Methods A hybrid decision tree/Markov model was developed to simulate the clinical course of UC, translating the disease course into costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Comparative efficacy of vedolizumab SC, vedolizumab IV, adalimumab, infliximab IV, and golimumab were sourced from a network meta-analysis. Drug and disease management costs (2019 $CAD) were sourced from Ontario public payer schedules of benefits. Utilities were sourced from the literature. Clinical and economic outcomes were projected over a lifetime and discounted at 1.5% annually. Results Within a mixed bio-naïve/experienced population, vedolizumab SC resulted in slightly more QALYs than vedolizumab IV and dominated adalimumab (Table 1); vedolizumab SC yielded an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $CAD 6,727 per QALY and $CAD 52,673 per QALY relative to golimumab and to infliximab (for which the price of a biosimilar was used), respectively. Further scenario analysis within bio-naïve populations supported the robustness of the base-case results, demonstrating that vedolizumab SC or vedolizumab IV were either dominant or cost-effective across all scenarios. Conclusion Our analysis suggests that vedolizumab SC and vedolizumab IV are a cost-effective therapeutic alternative relative to other biologics for moderate-to-severe UC in Canada. Future research will expand the analysis across all biologic comparators as they are used in the real world.

Economic evaluation of the TAX 324 trial comparing docetaxel plus cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil (TPF) versus standard treatment with cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil (PF) as induction chemotherapy followed by concurrent chemoradiation therapy in locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN)

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6079-6079
Author(s):  
A. Parthan ◽  
M. R. Posner ◽  
C. Brammer ◽  
P. Beltran ◽  
J. Jansen
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Induction Chemotherapy ◽  
Transition Probabilities ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Life Questionnaire ◽  
Health States ◽  
Life Years

6079 Background: The TAX 324 phase III trial showed that induction chemotherapy with TPF followed by chemoradiotherapy improves survival and time to progression in patients with locally advanced SCCHN compared with PF [Posner MR, et al. ASCO 2006]. A Markov state-transition model was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of TPF. Methods: The Markov model includes four health states (based on WHO criteria for measuring objective response): stable, responsive, progressive disease, and death. TAX 324 efficacy data were used to derive transition probabilities between health states. Adverse event rates were also derived from TAX 324. Data for resource utilization and costs from a UK perspective were derived from the literature and clinician inputs from an advisory board. The global score of the Health Related Quality of Life Questionnaire Core-30 (QLQ-C30) was mapped to the EQ-5D in order to derive utilities and quality adjusted life years (QALYs). Results: A patient in the TPF arm survived longer versus PF (5.4 vs. 2.7 years). Comparison of TPF vs. PF resulted in an incremental gain of 2.7 life years and 2.1 QALYs. The incremental discounted costs/QALY gained for TPF vs. PF was £1,988/QALY, which is below the £20,000 cost-effectiveness threshold suggested by NICE as a guide to the acceptability of a technology. At this threshold, there is a 96.1% probability that TPF is cost-effective compared with PF. Conclusion: Docetaxel, when given as induction chemotherapy followed by concurrent chemoradiotherapy in combination with cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil (TPF), leads to a substantial increase in life expectancy, and is cost-effective compared with PF for locally advanced SCCHN. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of First-Line FOLFIRI Combined With Cetuximab or Bevacizumab in Patients With RAS Wild-Type Left-Sided Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

2020 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 107327482090227
Author(s):  
Jiaqi Han ◽  
Desheng Xiao ◽  
Chongqing Tan ◽  
Xiaohui Zeng ◽  
Huabin Hu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Wild Type ◽  
Lifetime Horizon ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Cost

Background: The FIRE-3 phase III clinical trial demonstrated the marked advantage of prolonging the median overall survival of patients with final RAS wild-type (WT) left-sided metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) by 38.3 months after treatment with irinotecan, fluorouracil, and leucovorin (FOLFIRI) plus cetuximab and by 28.0 months after treatment with FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab. However, the substantial cost increase and economic impact of using cetuximab imposes a considerable burden on patients and society. Methods: A Markov model based on the data collected in the FIRE-3 trial was developed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of treating patients with FOLFIRI plus either cetuximab or bevacizumab from the perspective of the Chinese health-care system. Costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated over a lifetime horizon. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed by varying potentially modifiable parameters. Results: In our analysis, the total treatment costs in the bevacizumab and cetuximab groups were $92 549.31 and $94 987.31, respectively, and the QALYs gained were 1.58 and 2.05. In the base-case analysis, compared with bevacizumab, left-sided RAS WT patients receiving cetuximab gained 0.47 more QALYs at an ICER of $5187.23/QALY ($3166.23/LY). The 1-way sensitivity analysis showed that the most influential parameter was the cost of cetuximab. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that the cost-effective probability of cetuximab group was 92.8% under the willingness-to-pay threshold of $24 081. Conclusions: Treatment with FOLFIRI plus cetuximab in Chinese patients with left-sided RAS WT mCRC may improve health outcomes and use financial resources more efficiently than FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document