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

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

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

Cost-effectiveness of treating patients with advanced progressive pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor with everolimus versus sunitinib in the United States.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 226-226
Author(s):  
Roman Casciano ◽  
Maruit Chulikavit ◽  
Allison Perrin ◽  
Zhimei Liu ◽  
Xufang Wang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Stable Disease ◽  
Indirect Comparison ◽  
The United States ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Physician Visits ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Cost

226 Background: Everolimus and sunitinib were recently approved to treat patients with advanced, progressive pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (pNETs). This analysis examines the projected cost-effectiveness of everolimus versus sunitinib in this setting from a US payer perspective. Methods: A lifetime Markov model was developed to simulate a cohort of advanced, progressive pNET patients and to estimate the cost per incremental life-years gained (LYG) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained when treating with everolimus as compared to sunitinib. Absent head-to-head trials, efficacy data were based on a weight-adjusted indirect comparison of the two agents using the respective phase 3 trial data. Disease or health states considered in the model included: stable disease without adverse events, stable disease with adverse events, disease progression, and death. Costs of anti-tumor therapies, symptomatic care drugs, and post-progression therapy were based on wholesale acquisition cost. Other costs including physician visits, tests, infusions, hospitalizations, adverse event costs, and end-of-life care costs were obtained from literature and/or standard sources such as the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project and Medicare reimbursement rates. Utility inputs were based on a UK time trade-off study. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the model’s robustness. Results: In the base case analysis, the estimated gain of everolimus over sunitinib was 0.448 LYs (0.304 QALYs) at an incremental cost of $12,673, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $28,281/LYG ($41,702/QALY gained), which fell within the cost per QALY range for many other widely used oncology drugs. The analysis was sensitive to the uncertainty of the sunitinib trial results; however, a probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed the results were consistent across simulations. Conclusions: While the analysis is limited by its reliance on an indirect comparison of two phase 3 studies rather than a single head-to-head trial, everolimus is expected to be cost-effective relative to sunitinib in advanced pNET.

A phase I/II study of Pexa-Vec oncolytic virus in combination with immune checkpoint inhibition in refractory colorectal cancer.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 117-117
Author(s):  
M. Cecilia Monge B. ◽  
Changqing Xie ◽  
Seth M. Steinberg ◽  
Suzanne Fioraventi ◽  
Melissa Walker ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Combination Therapy ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Immune Checkpoint ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Response Analysis ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibition ◽  
Immune Checkpoint Inhibition

117 Background: The benefit of immune checkpoint inhibition is limited to the small percentage of advanced colorectal cancer (CRC) patients whose tumors present mismatch repair (MMR) gene abnormalities; immunotherapy has not shown benefit in patients with MMR proficient CRC. Oncolytic immunotherapy represents a unique therapeutic platform. This phase I trial tests the safety of the combination of pexastimogene devacirepvec (Pexa-Vec) plus durvalumab (durva) in patients with locally advanced or metastatic CRC. Methods: Eligible patients with advanced proficient mixed match repair (pMMR) CRC received intravenous infusion of Pexa-Vec at dose level 3 x 108 plaque forming units (pfu) (DL1) or at 109 pfu (DL2) every 2 weeks for 4 doses and durva 1500 mg every 28 days. Response was assessed with CT every 8 weeks. Adverse events were recorded and managed. The primary endpoint included safety, tolerability and feasibility of this combination therapy. Samples of tumor and peripheral blood were collected for assessment of immune parameters. Results: Sixteen patients (6 males and 10 females) enrolled with a median age of 52.1 years (range 39-69) from Dec, 2017 to Oct, 2018. Four patients were treated with Pexa-Vec at DL1 and durva;twelve patients were treated with Pexa-Vec at DL2 and durva.The most common treatment related adverse events (TRAE) included fever 15/16 (94 %), hypotension 12/16 (75 %), chills 12/16 (75%), fatigue 8/16 (50%), sinus tachycardia 7/16 (44%) and rash 6/16 (38%). Grade 3/4 TRAEs were reported in 8/16 (50%)patients; the most common were fever 7/16 (44 %), lymphopenia 2/16 (13%), neutropenia 1/16 (6%) and anemia 1/16 (6%). 14 patients were evaluable for response analysis; one patient 1/14 (7 %) achieved a confirmed partial response (lasting 7.1 months) and continues to receive treatment, while 13 patients had progressive disease. The median progression free survival (PFS) was 2.2 months (95% CI: 2.2-2.3 months) and the median overall survival (OS) was 7.5 months (CI: 4.9-10.1 months). Conclusions: Combination therapy of Pexa-Vec with durva ICI issafe, well tolerated and demonstrates possible activity in patients with advanced pMMR CRC. Clinical trial information: NCT03206073.

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

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

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

Cost-effectiveness of first-line pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy for metastatic squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e20703-e20703
Author(s):  
Ashley Kim ◽  
Beth Devine ◽  
Joshua A. Roth
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Combination Therapy ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Base Case ◽  
First Line ◽  
Lifetime Horizon ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Tumor Expression ◽  
The Cost

e20703 Background: Trial results from KEYNOTE-407 have recently led to the FDA approval for pembrolizumab + carboplatin + paclitaxel/nab-paclitaxel (pembrolizumab+chemo) in previously untreated metastatic squamous NSCLC. This is the only first-line indication for squamous NSCLC regardless of tumor expression status. Our objective was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab combination therapy in this setting from the US payer perspective. Methods: Using data from KEYNOTE-407, we developed a partitioned survival decision model to estimate the lifetime costs and effectiveness of pembrolizumab+chemo vs. chemo alone in the first-line treatment of metastatic squamous NSCLC. The base case used a Weibull curve selected based on minimum AIC/BIC and best graphical fit to extrapolate in-trial survival to a lifetime horizon. First- and second-line therapy resource use and adverse event (AE) rates were derived from KEYNOTE-407. Utility data and AE management were obtained from published literature and national sources. Direct medical costs were adjusted to 2018 US dollars, and future costs and outcomes were discounted at 3% per year. We estimated life years (LY), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and costs over a lifetime horizon. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were also conducted. Results: In the base case, pembrolizumab+chemo resulted in 0.51 more LYs, 0.36 more QALYs, and $233,246 in healthcare costs vs. chemo alone. Costs per LY and QALY gained were $216,180 and $309,004, respectively. One-way sensitivity analyses indicated that the results were most sensitive to survival and pre-progression utility inputs. In a threshold analysis, we found that the cost of pembrolizumab+chemo would need to be reduced by 24% per course of therapy ($176,175) in order to be cost-effective at $150,000/QALY. Conclusions: Based on current available data, our analysis suggests first-line pembrolizumab-based combination therapy in metastatic squamous NSCLC is unlikely to be cost-effective relative to implied willingness to pay in cancer in the U.S. (ie < $150,000 per QALY). Future studies should reassess cost-effectiveness as trial data mature.

Abstract 15981: Cost-effectiveness of Dapagliflozin in Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction

Circulation ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 142 (Suppl_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicolas Isaza ◽  
Paola Calvachi ◽  
Inbar Raber ◽  
Changyu Shen ◽  
Michael C Gavin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Healthcare Sector ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Reduced Ejection Fraction ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Cost

Introduction: In May 2020, the US FDA approved the use of dapagliflozin, an SGLT2 inhibitor, for the reduction of cardiovascular death and heart failure hospitalization in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). We examined the cost-effectiveness of adding dapagliflozin to guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) in patients with or without diabetes. Methods: We developed a state-transition Markov model with inputs from the DAPA-HF trial, FDA review documents, published literature, and nationally representative datasets (Panel A). The model was calibrated to event rates observed in DAPA-HF; survival was extrapolated using non-parametric approaches. The main outcomes were quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) of dapagliflozin + GDMT compared with GDMT alone, from a healthcare sector perspective and a lifetime analytic horizon. We applied a discount rate of 3% per year for future costs and benefits, and assumed a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per QALY gained. In sensitivity analyses, we examined subgroups with or without diabetes, and varied the cost of dapagliflozin (base case = $6,188 per year). This analysis was independent of the trial sponsor. Results: Compared with GDMT alone, adding dapagliflozin produced 0.57 additional QALYs at an incremental cost of $56,650, producing an ICER of $98,700 per QALY gained (Panel B). In subgroup analyses, dapagliflozin produced 0.71 additional QALYs in patients with diabetes at an ICER of $89,100 per QALY gained, and 0.48 additional QALYs in patients without diabetes at an ICER of $108,800 per QALY (Panels C and D). A 9% price reduction (to $5,613 per year) would make dapagliflozin cost-effective in patients without diabetes. Conclusions: Adding dapagliflozin to GDMT in patients with HFrEF is cost-effective and has the potential to improve long-term outcomes. Scalable strategies to improve access and uptake are urgently required.

The cost-effectiveness of one-time opportunistic screening for atrial fibrillation in different age cohorts of inhabitants in Denmark aged 65 years and above: a Markov modelled analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lucca Katrine Sciera ◽  
Lars Frost ◽  
Lars Dybro ◽  
Peter Bo Poulsen
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
General Practice ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Population Data ◽  
National Registry ◽  
Opportunistic Screening ◽  
Age Cohorts ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Aims The objective was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of one-time opportunistic screening for atrial fibrillation (AF) in general practice in citizens aged ≥65 years in Denmark compared to a no-screening alternative following current Danish practice. Methods and results A decision tree and a Markov model were designed to simulate costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) in a hypothetical cohort of citizens aged ≥65 years equivalent to the Danish population (1 M citizens) over the course of 19 years, using a healthcare and societal perspective. Share of detected AF patients following opportunistic screening was retrieved from a recent Danish screening study, whereas the risk stroke and bleedings in AF patients were based on population data from national registries and their associated costs was obtained from published national registry studies. The present study showed that one-time opportunistic screening for AF was more costly, but also more effective compared to a no-screening alternative. The analysis predicts that one-time opportunistic screening of all Danes aged ≥65 years potentially can identify an additional 10 300 AF patients and prevent 856 strokes in the period considered. The incremental cost of such a screening programme is €56.4 M, with a total gain of 6000 QALYs, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €9400 per QALY gained. Conclusion Opportunistic screening in general practice in citizens aged ≥65 years in Denmark is cost-effective compared to a willingness-to-pay threshold of €22 000. The study and its findings support a potential implementation of opportunistic screening for AF at the general practitioner level in Denmark.

COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS OF IVABRADINE IN TREATMENT OF PATIENTS WITH HEART FAILURE IN IRAN

2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (6) ◽  
pp. 576-583 ◽  
Author(s):  
Saeed Taheri ◽  
Elham Heidari ◽  
Mohammad Ali Aivazi ◽  
Mehran Shams-Beyranvand ◽  
Mehdi Varmaghani
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Transition Probabilities ◽  
Drug Acquisition ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Baseline Heart Rate ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Cost

Objectives:This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of ivabradine plus standard of care (SoC) in comparison with current SoC alone from the Iranian payer perspective.Methods:A cohort-based Markov model was developed to assess the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) over a 10-year time horizon in a cohort of 1,000 patients. The baseline transition probabilities between New York Heart Association (NYHA), mortality rate, and hospitalization rate were extracted from the literature. The effect of ivabradine on mortality, hospitalization, and NYHA improvement or worsening were retrieved from the SHIFT study. The effectiveness was measured as quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) using the utility values derived from Iranian Heart Failure Quality of Life study. Direct medical costs were obtained from hospital records and national tariffs. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to show the robustness of the model.Results:Ivabradine therapy was associated with an incremental cost per QALY of USD $5,437 (incremental cost of USD $2,207 and QALYs gained 0.41) versus SoC. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that ivabradine is expected to have a 60 percent chance of being cost-effective accepting a threshold of USD $6,550 per QALY. Furthermore, deterministic sensitivity analysis indicated that the model is sensitive to the ivabradine drug acquisition cost.Conclusions:The cost-effectiveness model suggested that the addition of ivabradine to SoC therapy was associated with improved clinical outcomes along with increased costs. The analysis indicates that the clinical benefit of ivabradine can be achieved at a reasonable cost in eligible heart failure patients with sinus rhythm and a baseline heart rate ≥ 75 beats per minute (bpm).

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of Triple Therapy with Telaprevir for Chronic Hepatitis C Virus Patients in Germany

10.36469/9870 ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 239-253 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jona T. Stahmeyer ◽  
Svenja Schauer ◽  
Siegbert Rossol ◽  
Hans Heinrich Wedemeyer ◽  
Daniel Wirth ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Hepatitis C ◽  
Triple Therapy ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Healthcare Sector ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Previously Treated Patients ◽  
Previously Treated ◽  
The Cost

Background: About 400,000-500,000 people are infected with hepatitis C in Germany. Long-term consequences are the development of liver cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma. The introduction of first generation protease inhibitors has significantly improved the treatment of hepatitis C genotype 1 patients. The aim of the study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of triple therapy with telaprevir in Germany. Methods: We used a Markov model on disease progression and natural history to assess the cost-effectiveness of triple therapy with telaprevir compared to standard treatment with pegylated interferon and ribavirin. Model structure and inputs were discussed with clinical experts. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to verify the robustness of results. Results: The base-case analyses shows that triple therapy results in higher costs (untreated patients: €48,446 vs. €30,691; previously treated patients: €63,228 vs. €48,603) and better outcomes (untreated patients: 16.85 qualily of life years [QALYs] vs. 15.97 QALYs; previously treated patients: 14.16 QALYs vs. 12.89 QALYs). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was €20,131 per QALY and €30,567 per life year gained (LYG) for previously untreated patients. ICER in treatment experienced patients was €7,664 per QALY for relapse patients, €12,506 per QALY for partial responders and €28,429 per QALY for null responders. Results were robust in sensitivity analyses. Conclusion: Although triple therapy with telaprevir leads to additional costs, there is a high probability of being cost-effective for different thresholds. This health economic analysis makes an important contribution to current debates on cost savings and efficient resource allocation in the German healthcare sector.

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

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]

scholarly journals Comparing the Cost-Effectiveness of Innovative Colorectal Cancer Screening Tests

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elisabeth F P Peterse ◽  
Reinier G S Meester ◽  
Lucie de Jonge ◽  
Amir-Houshang Omidvari ◽  
Fernando Alarid-Escudero ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Screening Tests ◽  
Computed Tomographic Colonography ◽  
Computed Tomographic ◽  
Colonoscopy Screening ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Stool Dna ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Background Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening with colonoscopy and the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) is underused. Innovative tests could increase screening acceptance. This study determined which of the available alternatives is most promising from a cost-effectiveness perspective. Methods The previously validated Microsimulation Screening Analysis-Colon model was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of screening with capsule endoscopy every 5 or 10 years, computed tomographic colonography every 5 years, the multi-target stool DNA test every 1 or 3 years, and the methylated SEPT9 DNA plasma assay (mSEPT9) every 1 or 2 years. We also compared these strategies with annual FIT screening and colonoscopy screening every 10 years. Quality-adjusted life-years gained (QALYG), number of colonoscopies, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were projected. We assumed a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per QALYG. Results Among the alternative tests, computed tomographic colonography every 5 years, annual mSEPT9, and annual multi-target stool DNA screening had incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $1092, $63 253, and $214 974 per QALYG, respectively. Other screening strategies were more costly and less effective than (a combination of) these 3. Under the assumption of perfect adherence, annual mSEPT9 screening resulted in more QALYG, CRC cases averted, and CRC deaths averted than annual FIT screening but led to a high rate of colonoscopy referral (51% after 3 years, 69% after 5 years). The alternative tests were not cost-effective compared with FIT and colonoscopy. Conclusions This study suggests that for individuals not willing to participate in FIT or colonoscopy screening, mSEPT9 is the test of choice if the high colonoscopy referral rate is acceptable to them.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document