First-Line ICI Monotherapies for Advanced Non-small-cell Lung Cancer Patients With PD-L1 of at Least 50%: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Objective: Three immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), pembrolizumab, atezolizumab and cemiplimab, have been successively approved as first-line treatments for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with programmed cell death ligand 1(PD-L1) expression of at least 50%. This study was designed to compare the cost-effectiveness of these three novel therapies in this patient population.Material and Methods: Using Markov model and network meta-analysis, we conducted separate cost-effectiveness analyses for cemiplimab, pembrolizumab and atezolizumab among advanced NSCLC patients with PD-L1 of at least 50% from the United States health care sector perspective. Health states included progression-free survival, progressive disease, end-stage disease, and death. Clinical efficacy and safety data were derived from phase III clinical trials and health state utilities and costs data were collected from published resources. Two scenario analyses were conducted to assess the impact of varying subsequent anticancer therapies on the cost-effectiveness of these 3 ICIs and cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab combined with chemotherapy versus these 3 first-line ICI monotherapies.Results: In base case analysis, cemiplimab compared with pembrolizumab was associated with a gain of 0.44 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and an increased cost of $23,084, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $52,998/QALY; cemiplimab compared with atezolizumab was associated with a gain of 0.13 QALYs and a decreased cost of $104,642, resulting in its dominance of atezolizumab. The first scenario analysis yielded similar results as our base case analysis. The second scenario analysis founded the ICERs for pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy were $393,359/QALY, $190,994/QALY and $33,230/QALY, respectively, compared with cemiplimab, pembrolizumab and atezolizumab.Conclusion: For advanced NSCLC patients with PD-L1 of at least 50%, cemiplimab was a cost-effective option compared with pembrolizumab and a dominant alternative against atezolizumab. Our scenario analysis results supported the cemiplimab plus chemotherapy as a second-line therapy and suggested an extended QALY but overwhelming cost linking to pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy.

The Cost-Effectiveness of 13-Valent Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccine in Seven Chinese Cities

Objective: This study estimates the cost-effectiveness of vaccination with the 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13) among infants in Beijing, Shanghai, Shenzhen, Chengdu, Karamay, Qingdao, and Suzhou. Methods: A previously published cost-effectiveness model comparing vaccination with PCV13 to no vaccination was localized to the included Chinese cities. A systematic literature review was undertaken to identify age-specific incidence rates for pneumococcal bacteremia, pneumococcal meningitis, pneumonia, and otitis media (AOM). Age-specific direct medical costs of treating the included pneumococcal diseases were taken from the Chinese Health Insurance Association database. The base case analysis evaluated vaccine efficacy using direct effect and indirect effects (DE+ IDE). A subsequent scenario analysis evaluated the model outcomes if only DE was considered. A vaccination rate of 70% was used. The model reported outcomes over a one-year period after it was assumed the vaccine effects had reached a steady state (5–7 years after vaccine introduction) to include the direct and indirect effects of vaccination. Health outcomes were discounted at 5% during the steady-state period. Results: Vaccination with PCV13 was cost-effective in the base case analysis for all included cities with the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) ranging from 1145 CNY(Shenzhen) to 15,422 CNY (Qingdao) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. PCV13 was the dominant strategy in Shanghai with lower incremental costs and higher incremental QALYs. PCV13 remained cost-effective in the DE-only analysis with all ICERs falling below a cost-effectiveness threshold of three times GDP per capita in each city. Conclusions: Vaccination with PCV13 was a cost-effective strategy in the analyzed cities for both the DE-only and DE + IDE analyses. PCV13 became very cost-effective when a vaccination rate was reached where IDE is observed.

The cost-effectiveness of as-needed budesonide-formoterol versus low-dose inhaled corticosteroid maintenance therapy in patients with mild asthma in Canada

Background The Global Initiative for Asthma recommends the use of as-needed low-dose inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)-formoterol as a preferred controller therapy for patients with mild asthma. These recommendations were based, in part, on evidence from the SYGMA 1 and 2 studies of as-needed budesonide-formoterol. This analysis aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of as-needed budesonide-formoterol to low-dose maintenance ICS plus as-needed short-acting β2-agonist (SABA) in patients with mild asthma. Methods A Markov cohort model was designed that included three possible health states (non-exacerbation, severe exacerbation, and death) to compare as-needed budesonide-formoterol 200–6 μg to twice-daily budesonide 200 μg maintenance therapy (low-dose ICS) plus as-needed terbutaline 0.5 mg (SABA). The deterministic base-case analysis used severe exacerbation, adverse event (AE), and healthcare resource use data from SYGMA 2, and was conducted from a Canadian public payer perspective with a 50-year time horizon, and a discount rate of 1.5% per annum. Moderate exacerbation was modelled on data from SYGMA 1 in sensitivity analyses. Utility values were derived from SYGMA 2 quality of life data. All-cause- and asthma-related mortality rates and costs (reported in 2019 Canadian dollars) were based on published data, using Canada-specific values where available. One-way deterministic sensitivity, probabilistic sensitivity, and eight scenario analyses were conducted to examine the robustness of the results. Results As-needed budesonide-formoterol was the dominant treatment option in the base-case analysis, providing incremental cost savings of $9882 per patient and quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gains of 0.002 versus low-dose maintenance ICS plus as-needed SABA over a 50-year time horizon. Using a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000/QALY ($100,000/QALY), as-needed budesonide-formoterol had a 94% (95%) probability of being cost-effective compared with maintenance ICS plus as-needed SABA. Cost-saving was mostly driven by lower overall medication and AE-related costs. As-needed budesonide-formoterol remained the dominant treatment in sensitivity and scenario analyses. Conclusions As-needed budesonide-formoterol is a cost-saving option for the treatment of mild asthma from the perspective of the Canadian public payer compared with low-dose maintenance ICS plus as-needed SABA.

Efficacy and Safety of Rivaroxaban Compared with Other Therapies Used in Patients with Peripheral Artery Disease Undergoing Peripheral Revascularization: A Systematic Literature Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Background. The guidelines on antithrombotic treatment in patients with symptomatic peripheral artery disease (PAD) undergoing peripheral revascularization of the lower extremities were developed based on heterogeneous trials, assessing various dose regimens and recruiting patients who were subjected to different revascularization procedures. Objective. To compare efficacy and safety of treatments used in patients with PAD undergoing peripheral revascularization accounting for between-trial heterogeneity and large dispersion of the quality of evidence. Methods. A systematic literature review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) recruiting adult patients with PAD receiving antithrombotics was conducted until January 2020. Hazard ratios (HR) were pooled using Bayesian network meta-analysis. The estimated between-treatment effects were presented as HR together with 95% credible intervals. The base case analysis included studies recruiting patients following recent peripheral revascularization, who received treatment regimens administered within the recommended therapeutic window, while a sensitivity scenario included all identified trials. Results. Thirteen RCTs were identified (8 RCTs enrolled patients following peripheral revascularization and 5 RCTs regardless of the previous revascularization). Five trials, recruiting an overall of 8349 patients, were considered for the base case analysis. Of those, 6564 patients were recruited in the VOYAGER PAD trial comparing rivaroxaban plus aspirin (RIV plus ASA) versus ASA. RIV plus ASA was associated with a lower risk of repeated peripheral revascularization versus ASA monotherapy ( HR = 0.88 [0.79, 0.99]), however having a trend towards an increased rate of major bleeding ( HR = 1.43 [0.98, 2.11]). There was no evidence for differences between RIV plus ASA and dual antiplatelet therapy and vitamin K antagonists plus ASA. Similar results were observed in sensitivity analyses. Conclusions. RIV plus ASA is associated with reduced risk of revascularization compared with ASA monotherapy, but the evidence for other comparators, in particular antiplatelet regimens, was insufficient to guide treatment decisions and highlights the challenge in establishing the magnitude of comparative efficacy using existing RCTs.

U.S. budget impact (BI) model for selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (XVd) for the treatment of patients with previously treated multiple myeloma (MM).

e18839 Background: Despite advances in the treatment of MM, prognosis remains poor for most patients due to its refractory nature. In a phase 3 study, a once-per-week regimen of XVd showed a novel, effective, and convenient option for patients with previously treated MM. This study was conducted to estimate the projected budget impact (BI) of XVd in patients with previously treated MM from the perspective of a third-party payer and Medicare in the US. Methods: The introduction of XVd as a treatment option for patients with previously treated MM compared to the status quo (i.e. without the introduction of XVd) was considered from a private third-party US payer and a Medicare perspective in one-year increments for the first 3 years. The model assumed market uptake of 5.9%, 7.2%, and 7.7% at years 1, 2 and 3, respectively. Total annual treatment costs (2020 US dollars [USD]) were calculated as the sum of drug costs, the costs of treating serious treatment emergent adverse events (grade ≥3), ongoing best supportive care costs, and mortality costs. Results: In the base-case analysis for a private third-party payer plan (1,000,000 members), 3 to 4 patients were projected to receive XVd out of 47 to 49 eligible patients each year. The absolute BI (Millions, USD) of including XVd from a private third-party payer plan perspective was $0.06, $0.07, $0.08 and $0.22 for years 1, 2, 3, and overall, respectively. The relative BI of including XVd was 0.33%, 0.40%, 0.43%, and 0.38% for years 1, 2, 3, and overall, respectively. This translated to a per member per month (PMPM) budget impact of $0.005, $0.006, $0.007, and $0.006 (USD), for years 1, 2, 3, and overall, respectively. In the base-case analysis from the Medicare perspective (59,499,015 members), 1,361 to 1,808 patients were projected to receive XVd out of 22,892 to 23,425 eligible patients each year. From a Medicare perspective, the absolute BI (Millions, USD) of including XVd was $29.68, $36.62, $39.42 and $105.72 for years 1, 2, 3, and overall, respectively. The relative BI of including XVd was 0.33%, 0.40%, 0.43%, and 0.38% percent for years 1, 2, 3, and overall, respectively. This translated to a PMPM budget impact of $0.041, $0.051, $0.054, and $0.049 (USD), for years 1, 2, 3, and overall, respectively. One-way sensitivity analyses showed general consistency with the base-case findings. Conclusions: Understanding the potential BI of new therapies in MM is vital for decision makers to manage spending and assess the value of treatments. The introduction of XVd presents a small and manageable BI for a third-party US payer and Medicare.

Cost-effectiveness of home versus hospital management of children at onset of type 1 diabetes: the DECIDE randomised controlled trial

ObjectiveThe aim of this economic evaluation was to assess whether home management could represent a cost-effective strategy in the patient pathway of type 1 diabetes (T1D). This is based on the Delivering Early Care In Diabetes Evaluation trial (ISRCTN78114042), which compared home versus hospital management from diagnosis in childhood diabetes and found no statistically significant difference in glycaemic control at 24 months.DesignCost-effectiveness analysis alongside a randomised controlled trial.SettingEight paediatric diabetes centres in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.Participants203 clinically well children aged under 17 years, with newly diagnosed T1D and their carers.Outcome measuresThe base-case analysis adopted n National Health Service (NHS) perspective. A scenario analysis assessed costs from a broader societal perspective. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), expressed as cost per mmol/mol reduction in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), was based on the mean difference in costs between the home and hospital groups, divided by mean differences in effectiveness (HbA1c). Uncertainty was considered in terms of the probability of cost-effectiveness.ResultsAt 24 months postintervention, the base-case analysis showed a difference in costs between home and hospital, in favour of home management (mean difference −£2,217; 95% CI −£2825 to −£1,609; p<0.001). Home care dominated, with an ICER of £7434 (saved) per mmol/mol reduction of HbA1c. The results of the scenario analysis also favoured home management. The greatest driver of cost differences was hospitalisation during the initiation period.ConclusionsHome management from diagnosis of children with T1D who are medically stable represents a less costly approach for the NHS in the UK, without impacting clinical effectiveness.Trial registration numberISRCTN78114042.

Cost-utility of two minimally-invasive surgical techniques for operable oropharyngeal cancer: Transoral robotic surgery versus transoral laser microsurgery

ImportanceTransoral robotic surgery (TORS) and transoral laser micro-surgery (TLM) are two different but competing minimally invasive techniques to surgically remove operable oropharyngeal squamous cell cancers (OPSCC). As of now, no comparative analysis as to the cost-utility of these techniques exists.ObjectiveRecent population-level data suggest for TORS and TLM equivalent tumor control, but different total costs, need for adjuvant chemoradiation, and learning curves. Therefore, the objective of this study was to compare TORS and TLM from the cost-utility (C/U) point of view using a decision-analytical model from a Swiss hospital perspective.DesignOur decision-analytical model combines decision trees and a Markov model to compare TORS and TLM strategies. Model parameters were quantified using available literature, original cost data from two Swiss university tertiary referral centers, and utilities elicited directly from a Swiss population sample using standard gamble. C/U and sensitivity analyses were used to generate results and gauge model robustness.SettingSwiss hospital perspectiveInterventionCost-utility analysisMain outcome measureComparative cost-utility data from TLM and TORSResultsIn the base case analysis TLM dominates TORS. This advantage remains robust, even if the costs for TORS would reduce by up to 25%. TORS begins to dominate TLM, if less than 59,7% patients require adjuvant treatment (pTorsAlone>0.407), whereby in an interval between 55%-62% (pTorsAlone 0.38-0.45) cost effectiveness of TORS is sensitive to the prescription of adjuvant CRT. Also, exceeding 29% of TLM patients requiring a re-operation for inadequate margins renders TORS more cost-effective.ConclusionTLM is more cost-effective than TORS. However, this advantage is sensitive to various parameters i.e. the number of re-operations and adjuvant treatment.Key pointsQuestionCompare cost-utility of TORS versus TLMFindingsIn the base case analysis TLM dominates TORS, even if the costs for TORS would reduce by up to 25%. TORS begins to dominate TLM, if less than 59,7% patients require adjuvant treatment, whereby in an interval between 55%-62% cost effectiveness of TORS is sensitive to the prescription of adjuvant CRT. Exceeding 29% of TLM patients requiring a re-operation for inadequate margins renders TORS more cost-effective.MeaningTLM is more cost-effective than TORS. However, this advantage is sensitive to the number of re-operations and adjuvant treatment

Cost-effectiveness analysis of magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound ablation for palliation of refractory painful bone metastases

Objective The aim of this study was to determine if magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound (MRgFUS) is cost-effective compared with medication, for refractory pain from bone metastases in the United States. Methods We constructed a Markov state transition model using TreeAge Pro software (TreeAge Software, Inc., Williamstown, MA, USA) to model costs, outcomes, and the cost-effectiveness of a treatment strategy using MRgFUS for palliative treatment of painful bone metastases compared with a Medication Only strategy (Figure 1). Model transition state probabilities, costs (in 2018 US$), and effectiveness data (quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs]) were derived from available literature, local expert opinion, and reimbursement patterns at two U.S. tertiary academic medical centers actively performing MRgFUS. Costs and QALYs, discounted at three percent per year, were accumulated each month over a 24-month time horizon. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. Results In the base-case analysis, the MRgFUS treatment strategy costs an additional $11,863 over the 2-year time horizon to accumulate additional 0.22 QALYs, equal to a $54,160/QALY ICER, thus making MRgFUS the preferred strategy. One-way sensitivity analyses demonstrate that for the base-case analysis, the crossover point at which Medication Only would instead become the preferred strategy is $23,341 per treatment. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses demonstrate that 67 percent of model iterations supported the conclusion of the base case. Conclusions Our model demonstrates that MRgFUS is cost-effective compared with Medication Only for palliation of painful bone metastases for patients with medically refractory metastatic bone pain across a range of sensitivity analyses.

The Value and Sustainability of Ocrelizumab in Relapsing Multiple Sclerosis: A Cost-Effectiveness and Budget Impact Analysis

INTRODUCTION: The availability of ocrelizumab for the relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis (MS) in the Italian markets raised some questions about its economic impact and value compared to the alternative treatment options available.AIM: To assess the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of ocrelizumab compared to the most used second line disease modifying therapies (DMTs) in Italy.METHODS: The study was divided in two phases: Phase 1 – based on the development of a decision analytical Markov model to assess the cost-effectiveness of ocrelizumab compared to natalizumab and fingolimod, and Phase 2 – based on the development of a budget impact model to assess the economic impact of ocrelizumab in Italy. Both models used the National Health System perspective; a lifetime horizon was applied in the cost-effectiveness analysis and a 3-year time horizon in the budget impact. The cost-effectiveness analysis results were reported as incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) expressed as € per Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY) gained, the budget impact analysis results were reported as difference in the overall budget (€) between a scenario with and without ocrelizumab.RESULTS: The two analyses reported ocrelizumab as a cost-effective option compared to natalizumab and fingolimod with a positive impact on the overall NHS budget. In the base-case analysis, the ICER was € 2,023 for ocrelizumab compared to fingolimod; while ocrelizumab resulted cost-saving compared to natalizumab. The sensitivity analysis confirmed the base-case analysis results. Further, the use of ocrelizumab was associated to a budget decrease of € 21 million (-2.6%) in a 3-year time horizon.CONCLUSION: The results of our cost-effectiveness and budget impact models reported ocrelizumab as an effective and efficient treatment in patients with relapsing forms of MS who failed a first line DMTs from the Italian NHS perspective.

The Economics of Rapid Multiplication of Hybrid Poplar Biomass Varieties

Background: Poplar (Populus spp.) hybridization is key to advancing biomass yields and conversion efficiency. Once superior varieties are selected, there is a lag in commercial use while they are multiplied to scale. Objective: The purpose of this study was to assess the influence of gains in biomass yield and quality on investment in rapid propagation techniques that speed the time to commercial deployment. Material and Methods: A factorial experiment of propagation method and hybrid variety was conducted to quantify the scale-up rate of in vitro and greenhouse clonal multiplication. These data were used in modeling the internal rate of return (IRR) on investment into rapid propagation as a function of genetic gains in biomass yield and quality and compared to a base case that assumed the standard method of supplying operational varieties in commercial quantities from nurseries as hardwood cuttings, capable of yields of 16.5 Mg ha−1 year−1. Results: Analysis of variance in macro-cutting yield showed that propagation method and varietal effects as well as their interaction were highly significant, with hedge propagation exceeding serial propagation in macro-cutting productivity by a factor of nearly 1.8. The Populus deltoides × P. maximowiczii and the Populus trichocarpa × P. maximowiczii varieties greatly exceeded the multiplication rate of the P. × generosa varieties due to their exceptional response to repeated hedging required to initiate multiple tracks of serial propagation. Analyses of investment into rapid propagation to introduce new material into plantation establishment followed by a 20-year rotation of six coppice harvests showed that gains in biomass yield and quality are warranted for a commitment to rapid propagation systems. The base case analysis was generally favored at yields up to 18 Mg−1 year−1 dependent on pricing. The rapid multiplication analysis proved superior to the base case analysis at the two highest yield levels (27.0 and 31.5 Mg ha−1 year−1,) at all price levels and at yields of 22.5 Mg−1 year−1, dependent on price and farm location. Conclusion: Rapid multiplication is a reliable method to move improved plant material directly into operations when valued appropriately in the marketplace.