Abiraterone vs. docetaxel for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer: A microsimulation model

Introduction: Our aim was to determine whether androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) with abiraterone acetate (AA) or ADT with docetaxel chemotherapy (DC) resulted in improved quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) among men with de novo metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) and the cost-effectiveness of the preferred strategy using decision analytic techniques. Methods: A microsimulation model with a lifetime time horizon was constructed. Our primary outcome was QALYs. Secondary outcomes included cost, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), unadjusted overall survival (OS), rates of second- and third-line therapy, and adverse events. A systematic literature review was used to generate probabilities and utilities to populate the model. The base case was a 65-year-old patient with de novo mCSPC. Results: A total of 100 000 microsimulations were generated. Initial AA resulted in a gain of 0.45 QALYs compared to DC (3.36 vs. 2.91 QALYs) with an ICER of $276 251.84 per QALY gained with initial AA therapy. Median crude OS was 51 months with AA and 48 months with DC. Overall, 46.6% and 42.6% of patients received second-line therapy and 8.7% and 7.9% patients received third-line therapy in the AA and DC groups, respectively. Grade 3/4 adverse events were experienced in 17.6% of patients receiving initial AA and 22.3% of patients receiving initial DC. Conclusions: Although ADT with AA results in a gain in QALYs and crude OS compared to DC, AA therapy is not a cost-effective treatment strategy to apply uniformly to all patients. The availability of AA as a generic medication may help to close this gap. The ultimate choice should be based on patient and tumor factors.

Download Full-text

The Cost-effectiveness of Celecoxib versus Non-steroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs plus Proton-pump Inhibitors for Treating Osteoarthritis in Algeria

Journal of Health Economics and Outcomes Research ◽

10.36469/9865 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 1 (2) ◽

pp. 184-199 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Nadir Hammoumraoui ◽

Sid Ahmed Kherraf ◽

Joaquin Mould-Quevedo ◽

Tarek A. Ismail

Keyword(s):

Cost Effectiveness ◽

Adverse Events ◽

Proton Pump ◽

Cost Effective ◽

Private Clinic ◽

Effective Treatment Option ◽

Life Years ◽

Cost Effective Treatment ◽

Inflammatory Drugs ◽

Anti Inflammatory

Background: Cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors such as celecoxib are as effective as non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (ns-NSAIDs) in the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA), have fewer gastrointestinal side effects, but are more expensive. Objective: To evaluate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of celecoxib versus ns-NSAIDs, with/without proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) co-therapy, for treating OA in Algeria. Methods: The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) health economic model from UK, updated with relative risks of adverse events using CONDOR trial data, was adapted for costeffectiveness analysis in OA patients aged ≥65 years. Patients could initiate treatment with celecoxib or ns-NSAIDs with/without omeprazole. Conditional probabilities were obtained from published clinical trials; effectiveness measure was quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained/patient. The analysis was conducted from a healthcare payer’s perspective. The average daily treatment costs and frequencies of resource use for adverse events were based on data collected in August 2011 from a private clinic located in Cheraga, Algiers, Algeria. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was performed to construct cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEACs). Results: QALYs gained/patient over a 6-month horizon were higher with celecoxib (0.368) and celecoxib+PPI (0.40) versus comparators. The lowest expected cost/patient was associated with ibuprofen (US$134.76 versus US$175.67 with celecoxib+PPI, and US$177.57 with celecoxib). Celecoxib+PPI was the most cost-effective drug treatment, with an ICER of US$584.43, versus ibuprofen. Treatment with celecoxib alone showed an ICER of US$1,530.56 versus diclofenac+PPI. These ICERs are <1 gross domestic product per capita in Algeria (US$7,500). Over 1-year, 3-year and 5-year horizons, celecoxib with/without PPI co-therapy showed higher QALYs/patient versus comparators, and decreasing ICERs. The ICER of celecoxib+PPI was lower than that of comparators over all time horizons. These findings were confirmed with CEACs generated via PSA. Conclusion: Using data from a single private clinic in Cheraga, Algiers, Algeria, and after considering new adverse event risks, we showed that celecoxib with/without PPI co therapy is more cost-effective than ns-NSAID+PPI for treating OA patients aged ≥65 years. Celecoxib+PPI remains dominant over a 5-year horizon, making it the most cost-effective treatment option for medium- and long-term use.

Download Full-text

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

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.2021.39.15_suppl.e21104 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽

pp. e21104-e21104

Author(s):

Nimer S. Alkhatib ◽

Briana Choi ◽

Hala Halawah ◽

Matthias Calamia ◽

Dexter Gulick ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Cost Effectiveness ◽

Adverse Events ◽

Incremental Cost ◽

Line Treatment ◽

Second Line ◽

First Line ◽

Reference Drug ◽

First Line Therapy ◽

Line Therapy ◽

Life Years

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

Download Full-text

PCN145 COST EFFECTIVENESS OF FRUQUINTINIB VERSUS REGORAFENIB AS THE THIRD-LINE THERAPY FOR PATIENTS WITH METASTATIC COLORECTAL CANCER IN CHINA

Value in Health ◽

10.1016/j.jval.2019.04.269 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 22 ◽

pp. S83

Author(s):

G. Xin ◽

H.C. Li ◽

C. Peng ◽

N. Wang ◽

X. Ma ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Colorectal Cancer ◽

Cost Effectiveness ◽

Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽

The Third ◽

Line Therapy ◽

Third Line Therapy ◽

Third Line

Download Full-text

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

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.2021.39.15_suppl.e21102 ◽

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]

Download Full-text