Nivolumab versus nivolumab with ipilimumab versus trifluridine/tipiracil for metastatic microsatellite instability-high colorectal cancer: A modeling decision analysis.

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 829-829
Author(s):  
Jacqueline N. Chu ◽  
Jin G. Choi ◽  
Sassan Ostvar ◽  
James A. Torchia ◽  
Kerry Lynn Reynolds ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Microsatellite Instability ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Checkpoint Blockade ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Third Line ◽  
Line Chemotherapy

829 Background: Microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients who have failed chemotherapy have shown response to checkpoint blockade. We investigate optimal third-line treatment in MSI-H mCRC with regard to overall survival, quality of life years gained (QALYs), and cost-effectiveness. Methods: A Markov Model was created for a base case of a 57 year old man with MSI-H mCRC refractory to two lines of chemotherapy. Treatments compared were nivolumab, nivolumab with ipilimumab, and trifluridine/tipiracil. Patients could remain stable, progress to fourth-line chemotherapy or palliative care, experience drug toxicity, die from age/sex mortality, or die from cancer over their simulated lifetimes. Transitions between health states were based on the CheckMate 142 and RECOURSE trials. Outcomes were survival or unadjusted life years, QALYs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). The willingness to pay threshold was $100,000/QALY. Results: Nivolumab with ipilimumab was the most effective strategy as it yielded more unadjusted life-years (4.24) and QALYs (2.53) compared to nivolumab (3.95 LY, 2.33 QALYs) and trifluridine/tipiracil (0.74 LY, 0.07 QALYs). However, nivolumab with ipilimumab was not cost-effective compared to nivolumab and neither treatment strategy was cost-effective compared to trifluridine/tipiracil. Sensitivity analysis found nivolumab monotherapy could be cost-effective with decrease in drug cost to $2000/dose. Conclusions: Our modeling analysis finds that both single and dual checkpoint blockade yield significantly increased overall survival and QALYs for MSI-H mCRC compared to third-line chemotherapy, but were not cost-effective because of nivolumab cost. Decreases in drug pricing and/or duration of maintenance nivolumab could make nivolumab monotherapy cost-effective. [Table: see text]

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness analysis of fruquintinib for metastatic colorectal cancer third-line treatment in China

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhi Peng ◽  
Xingduo Hou ◽  
Yangmu Huang ◽  
Tong Xie ◽  
Xinyang Hua
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Lifetime Horizon ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Third Line ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Third Line Treatment

Abstract Background: In this study, we analyze the cost-effectiveness of fruquintinib as third-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer in China, especially after a recent price drop suggested by the National Healthcare Security Administration. Methods: A Markov model was developed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of fruquintinib compared to placebo among patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Effectiveness was measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALY). The Chinese healthcare payer’s perspective was considered with a lifetime horizon, including direct medical cost (2019 US dollars [USD]). A willing‐to‐pay threshold was set at USD 27,130/QALY, which is three times the gross domestic product (GDP) per capita. We examined the robustness of the model in one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis.Results: Fruquintinib was associated with better health outcomes than placebo (0.640 vs 0.478 QALYs) with a higher cost (USD 20750.9 vs USD 12042.2), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of USD 53508.7 per QALY. This ICER is 25% lower than the one calculated before the price drop (USD 70952.6 per QALY).Conclusion: After the price negotiation, the drug becomes cheaper and the ICER is lower, but the drug is still not cost effective under the standard of 3 times GDP willing‐to‐pay threshold. For patients with metastatic colorectal cancer in China, fruquintinib is not a cost-effective option under the current circumstances in China.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness analysis of fruquintinib for metastatic colorectal cancer third-line treatment in China

BMC Cancer ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhi Peng ◽  
Xingduo Hou ◽  
Yangmu Huang ◽  
Tong Xie ◽  
Xinyang Hua
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Lifetime Horizon ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Third Line ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Third Line Treatment

Abstract Background In this study, we analyze the cost-effectiveness of fruquintinib as third-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer in China, especially after a recent price drop suggested by the National Healthcare Security Administration. Methods A Markov model was developed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of fruquintinib compared to placebo among patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Effectiveness was measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALY). The Chinese healthcare payer’s perspective was considered with a lifetime horizon, including direct medical cost (2019 US dollars [USD]). A willing-to-pay threshold was set at USD 27,130/QALY, which is three times the gross domestic product (GDP) per capita. We examined the robustness of the model in one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Results Fruquintinib was associated with better health outcomes than placebo (0.640 vs 0.478 QALYs) with a higher cost (USD 20750.9 vs USD 12042.2), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of USD 53508.7 per QALY. This ICER is 25% lower than the one calculated before the price drop (USD 70952.6 per QALY). Conclusion After the price negotiation, the drug becomes cheaper and the ICER is lower, but the drug is still not cost effective under the standard of 3 times GDP willing-to-pay threshold. For patients with metastatic colorectal cancer in China, fruquintinib is not a cost-effective option under the current circumstances in China.

Cost-effectiveness for metastatic colorectal cancer.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e15003-e15003
Author(s):  
Linli Yao ◽  
Jiaqi Han ◽  
Longjiang She ◽  
Dong Ding ◽  
Mengting Liao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
The Third ◽  
Scenario Analyses ◽  
Payer Perspective ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Third Line ◽  
The Cost

e15003 Background: As standard third-line treatments for metastatic colorectal cancer, regorafenib and fruquintinib, compared with placebo, increase median overall survival by 2.5 months and 2.7 months, respectively. Given the incremental clinical benefit, we aim to estimate the cost effectiveness of regorafenib versus fruquintinib in the third-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer from Chinese payer perspective. Methods: A mathematical Markov model was established to project the cost-effectiveness of regorafenib versus fruquintinib from the CONCUR and FRESCO clinical trials. Quality-adjusted-life-years (QALYs) were analyzed with extracted data from the trials. Willingness to pay (WTP) of $26508 was used. Drug costs were estimated from the perspectives of the health care system in the People’s Republic of China. One way sensitivity and scenario analyses were performed by varying potentially modifiable parameters of the model. Results: Fruquintinib, compared with regorafenib, provided an additional 0.028 QALYs (0.274 QALYs versus 0.246 QALYs) at less cost ($33536 versus $35607). Conclusions: Fruquintinib is more cost-effective than regorafenib as the third-line management for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer when WTP is $26508.

Fruquintinib or regorafenib as the third-line treatments for metastatic colorectal cancer based on CONCUR and FRESCO trials: A cost-effectiveness analysis.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e15011-e15011
Author(s):  
Qiu Li ◽  
Mengxi Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Two Phase ◽  
The Third ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Third Line ◽  
The Impact

e15011 Background: Survival benefit of regorafenib and fruquintinib as third-line agents have been respectively demonstrated in patients with treatment-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer. This study tries to explore the cost-effectiveness of the two agents. Methods: A Markov model was performed based on two phase 3 trials, FRESCO and CONCUR. Health outcomes were measured with quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The key outcome was incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Probabilistic sensitivity and one-way sensitivity analysis were performed to estimate the impact of essential variables on the results of the analysis. Results: No statistical differences were observed in the baseline patient characteristics, except that the CONCUR trial enrolled older patients and higher ratios of prior use of VEGF or EGFR antibodies in comparison with the FRESCO trial.Treatment with fruquintinib was estimated to cost $25,550.15 with an effectiveness gain of 0.54 QALYs, whereas regorafenib resulted in 0.53 QALY at a mean cost of $29,681.52, yielding ICER of $-413,137.00 per QALY. By using treble the Chinese Gross Domestic Product per Capita as willingness-to-pay threshold, the probability for fruquintinib being cost-effective was higher than regorafenib in the probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Conclusions: Fruquintinib provides a more cost-effective option for metastatic colorectal patients compared with regorafenib in the third line treatment.[Table: see text]

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness analysis of fruquintinib for metastatic colorectal cancer third-line treatment in China

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhi Peng ◽  
Xingduo Hou ◽  
Yangmu Huang ◽  
Tong Xie ◽  
Xinyang Hua
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Lifetime Horizon ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Third Line ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Third Line Treatment

Abstract Background: In this study, we analyze the cost-effectiveness of fruquintinib as third-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer in China, especially after a recent price drop suggested by the National Healthcare Security Administration. Methods: A Markov model was developed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of fruquintinib compared to placebo among patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Effectiveness was measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALY). The Chinese healthcare payer’s perspective was considered with a lifetime horizon, including direct medical cost (2019 US dollars [USD]). A willing‐to‐pay threshold was set at USD 27,130/QALY, which is three times the gross domestic product (GDP) per capita. We examined the robustness of the model in one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis.Results: Fruquintinib was associated with better health outcomes than placebo (0.640 vs 0.478 QALYs) with a higher cost (USD 20750.9 vs USD 12042.2), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of USD 53508.7 per QALY. This ICER is 25% lower than the one calculated before the price drop (USD 70952.6 per QALY).Conclusion: After the price negotiation, the drug becomes cheaper and the ICER is lower, but the drug is still not cost effective under the standard of 3 times GDP willing‐to‐pay threshold. For patients with metastatic colorectal cancer in China, fruquintinib is not a cost-effective option under the current circumstances in China.

scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Local Ablation and Surgery for Liver Metastases of Oligometastatic Colorectal Cancer

Cancers ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (7) ◽  
pp. 1507
Author(s):  
Matthias F. Froelich ◽  
Moritz L. Schnitzer ◽  
Nils Rathmann ◽  
Fabian Tollens ◽  
Marcus Unterrainer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Liver Metastases ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Comparable Efficacy ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Effective Strategy ◽  
Cost Effective Strategy ◽  
Life Years

Background: Colorectal cancer is among the most prevalent cancer entities worldwide, with every second patient developing liver metastases during their illness. For local treatment of liver metastases, a surgical approach as well as ablative treatment options, such as microwave ablation (MWA) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA), are available. The aim of this study is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of RFA, MWA and surgery in the treatment of liver metastases of oligometastatic colorectal cancer (omCRC) that are amenable for all investigated treatment modalities. Methods: A decision analysis based on a Markov model assessed lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) related to the treatment strategies RFA, MWA and surgical resection. Input parameters were based on the best available and most recent evidence. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were performed with Monte Carlo simulations to evaluate model robustness. The percentage of cost-effective iterations was determined for different willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds. Results: The base-case analysis showed that surgery led to higher long-term costs compared to RFA and MWA (USD 41,848 vs. USD 36,937 vs. USD 35,234), while providing better long-term outcomes than RFA, yet slightly lower than MWA (6.80 vs. 6.30 vs. 6.95 QALYs for surgery, RFA and MWA, respectively). In PSA, MWA was the most cost-effective strategy for all WTP thresholds below USD 80,000 per QALY. Conclusions: In omCRC patients with liver metastases, MWA and surgery are estimated to provide comparable efficacy. MWA was identified as the most cost-effective strategy in intermediate resource settings and should be considered as an alternative to surgery in high resource settings.

scholarly journals Economic evaluation of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy compared to open radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer treatment in Ontario, Canada

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (8) ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Parackal ◽  
Jean-Eric Tarride ◽  
Feng Xie ◽  
Gord Blackhouse ◽  
Jennifer Hoogenes ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Time Horizon ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Robot Assisted ◽  
Open Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Life Years

Introduction: Recent health technology assessments (HTAs) of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) in Ontario and Alberta, Canada, resulted in opposite recommendations, calling into question whether benefits of RARP offset the upfront investment. Therefore, the study objectives were to conduct a cost-utility analysis from a Canadian public payer perspective to determine the cost-effectiveness of RARP. Methods: Using a 10-year time horizon, a five-state Markov model was developed to compare RARP to open radical prostatectomy (ORP). Clinical parameters were derived from Canadian observational studies and a recently published systematic review. Costs, resource utilization, and utility values from recent Canadian sources were used to populate the model. Results were presented in terms of increment costs per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained. A probabilistic analysis was conducted, and uncertainty was represented using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEACs). One-way sensitivity analyses were also conducted. Future costs and QALYs were discounted at 1.5%. Results: Total cost of RARP and ORP were $47 033 and $45 332, respectively. Total estimated QALYs were 7.2047 and 7.1385 for RARP and ORP, respectively. The estimated incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) was $25 704 in the base-case analysis. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50 000 and $100 000 per QALY gained, the probability of RARP being cost-effective was 0.65 and 0.85, respectively. The model was most sensitive to the time horizon. Conclusions: The results of this analysis suggest that RARP is likely to be cost-effective in this Canadian patient population. The results are consistent with Alberta’s HTA recommendation and other economic evaluations, but challenges Ontario’s reimbursement decision.

Cost-effectiveness of mobile health-based integrated care for atrial fibrillation: Model development and data analysis (Preprint)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xueyan Luo ◽  
Wei Xu ◽  
Quan Yuan ◽  
Han Lai ◽  
Chunji Huang
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Integrated Care ◽  
Mobile Health ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Mhealth Technology

BACKGROUND Mobile health (mhealth) technology is increasingly used in disease management. Using mhealth tools to integrate and streamline care was found to improve atrial fibrillation (AF) patients’ clinical outcomes. OBJECTIVE This study aimed to investigate the potential clinical and health economic outcomes of mhealth-based integrated care for AF from the perspective of a public healthcare provider in China. METHODS A Markov model was designed to compare outcomes of mhealth-based care and usual care in a hypothetical cohort of AF patients in China. The time horizon was 30 years with monthly cycles. Model outcomes measured were direct medical cost, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Sensitivity analyses were conducted to examine the robustness of base-case results. RESULTS In the base-case analysis, mhealth-based care gained higher QALYs of 0.0818 with an incurred cost of USD1,778. Using USD33,438 per QALY (three times gross domestic product) as the willingness-to-pay threshold, mhealth-based care was cost-effective, with an ICER of USD21,739 per QALY. The one-way sensitivity analysis found compliance to mhealth-based care had the greatest impact on the ICER. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, mhealth-based care was accepted as cost-effective in 80.91% of 10,000 iterations. CONCLUSIONS This study suggested that the use of mhealth technology in streamlining and integrating care for AF patients was cost-effective in China.

scholarly journals Milk Powder Fortified with Potassium and Phytosterols to Decrease the Risk of Cardiovascular Events among the Adult Population in Malaysia: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Nutrients ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. 1235
Author(s):  
Anita E. Gandola ◽  
Livia Dainelli ◽  
Diane Zimmermann ◽  
Maznah Dahlui ◽  
Patrick Detzel
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Adult Population ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Milk Powder ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Discounted Cost ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Impact

This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of the consumption of a milk powder product fortified with potassium (+1050.28 mg/day) and phytosterols (+1200 mg/day) to lower systolic blood pressure and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, respectively, and, therefore, the risk of myocardial infarction (MI) and stroke among the 35–75-year-old population in Malaysia. A Markov model was created against a do-nothing option, from a governmental perspective, and with a time horizon of 40 years. Different data sources, encompassing clinical studies, practice guidelines, grey literature, and statistical yearbooks, were used. Sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the impact of uncertainty on the base case estimates. With an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio equal to international dollars (int$) 22,518.03 per quality-adjusted life-years gained, the intervention can be classified as very cost-effective. If adopted nationwide, it would help prevent at least 13,400 MIs, 30,500 strokes, and more than 10,600 and 17,100 MI- and stroke-related deaths. The discounted cost savings generated for the health care system by those who consume the fortified milk powder would amount to int$8.1 per person, corresponding to 0.7% of the total yearly health expenditure per capita. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the results. Together with other preventive interventions, the consumption of milk powder fortified with potassium and phytosterols represents a cost-effective strategy to attenuate the rapid increase in cardiovascular burden in Malaysia.

scholarly journals P14.12 The cost-effectiveness of tumor-treating fields in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma

2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (Supplement_3) ◽  
pp. iii68-iii69
Author(s):  
X Armoiry ◽  
P Auguste ◽  
C Dussart ◽  
J Guyotat ◽  
M Connock
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Survival Model ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Tumor Treating Fields ◽  
Kaplan Meier ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Secondary Analyses ◽  
The Cost

Abstract BACKGROUND The addition of novel therapy “Tumor-Treating fields” (TTF) to standard radio-chemotherapy with Temozolomide (TMZ) has recently shown superiority over conventional TMZ regimen in patients with glioblastoma. Despite the clinical benefit of TTF, there is a strong concern regarding the cost of this new treatment. A first cost-effectiveness analysis, which was published in 2016, was based on effectiveness outcomes from an interim analysis of the pivotal trial and used a “standard” Markov model. Here, we aimed to update the cost-effectiveness evaluation using a partitioned survival model design and using the latest effectiveness data. MATERIAL AND METHODS A partitioned survival model was developed with three mutually exclusive health states: stable disease, progressive disease, and dead. Parametric models were fitted to the Kaplan-Meier data for overall and progression-free survival. These generated clinically plausible extrapolations beyond the observed data. The perspective of the French national health insurance was adopted and the time horizon was 20 years. Base case results were expressed as cost/life-years (LY) gained (LYG). Secondary analyses were undertaken, with the results presented as cost/per quality adjusted life years (QALY) gained. Last, we undertook deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS After applying 4% annual discounting of benefits and costs, the base case model generated incremental benefit of 0.507 LY at a incremental cost of €258,695 yielding an incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €510,273 / LYG. Secondary analyses yielded an ICER of €667,173/QALY. Sensitivity analyses and bootstrapping methods showed the model was relatively robust. The model was sensitive to TTF device costs and the parametric model fitted to the Kaplan-Meier data for overall survival. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve showed TTF has 0% of being cost-effective under conventional thresholds. CONCLUSION Using a partitioned survival model, uprated costs and more mature survival outcomes, TTF when compared to standard radio-chemotherapy with TMZ is not likely to be cost-effective. This has major implications in terms of access of newly eligible patients

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document