Cost-Effectiveness of Drug Treatments for Advanced Melanoma: A Systematic Literature Review

Effectiveness of pharmacological treatments for COVID-19 due to SARS-CoV-2: a systematic literature review

Aim

Since the first cases of the COVID-19 pandemic, caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, described in 2019, numerous drugs have been proposed for the treatment of the disease. However, studies have given contradictory or inconclusive results, making it difficult to determine which treatments are truly effective. The objective was to carry out a systematic review of the literature analyzing the effectiveness (mortality, hospitalization and clinical improvement) of COVID-19 treatments initially proposed and finally authorized in the European Union.

Methods

PubMed and other electronic databases were systematically searched for meta-analyses published between January 2020 and December 2022, as well as two additional searches: one of individual clinical studies published until October 2023 and another of those drugs that were considered at the beginning and that were discarded early because the clinical results were unfavorable.

Results

In the synthesis, 85 meta-analyses and 19 additional clinical studies were included (base case). All medications indicated in the treatment of COVID-19 have favorable efficacy results (mortality, hospitalization rate, clinical improvement) but these results were not confirmed in all studies carried out, being frequently contradictory (confirming or not confirming the impact of treatment on mortality). According to meta-analysis with the largest sample size, the drugs with the greatest evidence of effectiveness in reducing mortality are remdesivir (HR= 0.79; 95% CI 0.73-0.85) and tocilizumab (OR= 0.73; 95% CI 0.56-0.93). Regarding the composite of Covid-19-related hospitalization or death from any cause, the drugs with the greatest evidence of efficacy are remdesivir, nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and sotrovimab (although, currently the effectiveness of monoclonal antibodies against the new variants of the virus has not been demonstrated).

Conclusion

According to this systematic review, the treatments with the greatest evidence of reducing mortality in patients with COVID-19 are remdesivir and tocilizumab.

Clinical Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Multigene Panel Sequencing in Advanced Melanoma: A Population-Level Real-World Target Trial Emulation

PURPOSE

Targeted therapy and immunotherapy promise improved survival in patients with advanced melanoma, yet the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of multigene panel sequencing compared with single-gene BRAF testing to guide therapeutic decisions is unknown.

METHODS

Our population-based quasi-experimental retrospective target trial emulation used comprehensive patient-level data for 364 British Columbia, Canada, adults with an advanced melanoma diagnosis receiving multigene panel sequencing or single-gene BRAF testing between September 1, 2016, and December 31, 2018. We 1:1 matched multigene panel patients to controls using genetic algorithm-based matching. Outcomes included 3-year overall survival (OS) and health care costs (2021 Canadian dollars [CAD]) with incremental net monetary benefit for life-years gained (LYG). Outcomes were analyzed using inverse probability of censoring weighted linear regression for the intention-to-treat (ITT) effect. The per-protocol (PP) effect estimation also included stabilized inverse probability of treatment weights. We then used Weibull regression and Kaplan-Meier survival analysis.

RESULTS

We matched 147 multigene panel patients to controls, achieving balance for all covariates. After matching, ITT incremental costs were $19,447 CAD (95% CI, -$18,516 to $76,006) and incremental LYG were 0.22 (95% CI, -0.05 to 0.49). We found uncertainty in differences on OS using Kaplan-Meier (P = .11) and Weibull regression (hazard ratio [HR], 0.73 [95% CI, 0.51 to 1.03]) in the ITT. PP incremental costs were $36,367 CAD (95% CI, -$6,653 to $120,216]) and incremental LYG were 0.56 (95% CI, 0.39 to 1.24), with corresponding differences in OS using Kaplan-Meier (P = .02) and Weibull regression (HR, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.36 to 0.87]). The probability of multigene panels being cost-effective at $100,000/LYG CAD was 55% for ITT and 65% for PP.

CONCLUSION

The cost-effectiveness of multigene panels was evenly poised at higher thresholds, even when accounting for treatment initiation. Health systems reimbursing multigene panels and expensive therapies may be confronted with a value tradeoff, in which there may be improved survival albeit with a modest change in cost-effectiveness.

INEAS's Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Vemurafenib: Paving the Way for Value-Based Pricing in Tunisia

The Tunisian Health Technology Assessment (HTA) body, INEAS, conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of vemurafenib in the treatment of locally advanced or metastatic BRAF V600-mutated melanoma. The objective of this analysis was to enable the use of value-based pricing as a new approach to price negotiation. This study was part of a broader HTA report that was prepared in response to a joint request from the regulatory authorities and the CNAM, Tunisia's compulsory insurance scheme. Our analysis was based on a probabilistic Markov cohort model that calculated the costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) associated with vemurafenib compared to the standard of care from a public payer perspective. The CEA indicated that vemurafenib provides a gain of 0.38 life years (1.78 vs. 1.4) for an incremental cost of USD 101,106.62 from the perspective of the main public payer (CNAM). This study revealed an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 163,311.40 USD/QALY and 163,911.46 USD/QALY, respectively, from the CNAM and public health facilities' perspectives. Vemurafenib cannot be considered cost-effective in terms of what has normally been considered a reasonable willingness to pay (WTP) in Tunisia. A significant price reduction would be necessary to bring the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio to an acceptable level.

Changes in Health Care Costs, Survival, and Time Toxicity in the Era of Immunotherapy and Targeted Systemic Therapy for Melanoma

Importance

Melanoma treatment has evolved during the past decade with the adoption of adjuvant and palliative immunotherapy and targeted therapies, with an unclear impact on health care costs and outcomes in routine practice.

Objective

To examine changes in health care costs, overall survival (OS), and time toxicity associated with primary treatment of melanoma.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cohort study assessed a longitudinal, propensity score (PS)-matched, retrospective cohort of residents of Ontario, Canada, aged 20 years or older with stages II to IV cutaneous melanoma identified from the Ontario Cancer Registry from January 1, 2018, to March 31, 2019. A historical comparison cohort was identified from a population-based sample of invasive melanoma cases diagnosed from the Ontario Cancer Registry from January 1, 2007, to December 31, 2012. Data analysis was performed from October 17, 2022, to March 13, 2023.

Exposures

Era of melanoma diagnosis (2007-2012 vs 2018-2019).

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcomes were mean per-capita health care and systemic therapy costs (Canadian dollars) during the first year after melanoma diagnosis, time toxicity (days with physical health care contact) within 1 year of initial treatment, and OS. Standardized differences were used to compare costs and time toxicity. Kaplan-Meier methods and Cox proportional hazards regression were used to compare OS among PS-matched cohorts.

Results

A PS-matched cohort of 731 patients (mean [SD] age, 67.9 [14.8] years; 437 [59.8%] male) with melanoma from 2018 to 2019 and 731 patients (mean [SD] age, 67.9 [14.4] years; 440 [60.2%] male) from 2007 to 2012 were evaluated. The 2018 to 2019 patients had greater mean (SD) health care (including systemic therapy) costs compared with the 2007 to 2012 patients ($47 886 [$55 176] vs $33 347 [$31 576]), specifically for stage III ($67 108 [$57 226] vs $46 511 [$30 622]) and stage IV disease ($117 450 [$79 272] vs $47 739 [$37 652]). Mean (SD) systemic therapy costs were greater among 2018 to 2019 patients: stage II ($40 823 [$40 621] vs $10 309 [$12 176]), III ($55 699 [$41 181] vs $9764 [$12 771]), and IV disease ($79 358 [$50 442] vs $9318 [$14 986]). Overall survival was greater for the 2018 to 2019 cohort compared with the 2007 to 2012 cohort (3-year OS: 74.2% [95% CI, 70.8%-77.2%] vs 65.8% [95% CI, 62.2%-69.1%], hazard ratio, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.61-0.85]; P < .001). Time toxicity was similar between eras. Patients with stage IV disease spent more than 1 day per week (>52 days) with physical contact with the health care system by 2018 to 2019 (mean [SD], 58.7 [43.8] vs 44.2 [26.5] days; standardized difference, 0.40; P = .20).

Conclusions and Relevance

This cohort study found greater health care costs in the treatment of stages II to IV melanoma and substantial time toxicity for patients with stage IV disease, with improvements in OS associated with the adoption of immunotherapy and targeted therapies. These health system-wide data highlight the trade-off with adoption of new therapies, for which there is a greater economic burden to the health care system and time burden to patients but an associated improvement in survival.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of combination therapy versus monotherapy in malignant melanoma

BACKGROUND

Until 2010, stage III or IV malignant melanoma (MM) had a poor prognosis. The discovery of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in 2011 changed the treatment landscape. Promising results in patient survival with a checkpoint inhibitor prompted research into combination therapies. In 2016, the first combination therapy has been approved as first-line therapy for advanced MM.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this work is to investigate to what extent combination therapy is (cost-)effective compared to monotherapy in stage III or IV MM.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed (Web of Science, PubMed, PubPharm, EconLit, and Cochrane Library); searching for publications published over the past decade that examine the cost-effectiveness in terms of cost/QALY and the effectiveness in terms of survival and response of combination therapy in comparison to monotherapy in stage III or IV MM patients.

RESULTS

A total of 11 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and five cost-utility analyses met our inclusion criteria. Nine clinical trials demonstrated superiority of combination therapy over monotherapy. The combination of B-rapidly accelerated fibrosarcoma (BRAF) protein and mitogen-activated kinase (MEK) protein inhibitors is not cost-effective in any country. Three analyses demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of combination therapy with ICI compared to monotherapy.

CONCLUSION

Combination therapy is more effective compared to monotherapy. While combined ICIs are cost-effective compared to monotherapy, this is not the case for the combination of BRAF and MEK inhibitors.

Use of Drugs in Clinical Practice and the Associated Cost of Cancer Treatment in Adult Patients with Solid Tumors: A 10-Year Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Cancer is one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality in the world. Its growing incidence and prevalence, as well as the advances in diagnostic and treatment tools, motivate an open debate about the economic burden it may place on health systems and have raised concerns about access to this technological innovation. There is a lack of information on the detailed costs of pharmacological treatment of cancer in our health setting. In this context, it is necessary to know the use of drugs in cancer treatment in conditions of real clinical practice. A real-word, evidence-based retrospective cohort study was conducted at Vall d'Hebron University Hospital (VHUH), the largest hospital complex in Catalonia, Spain, in order to determine the use of drugs and the associated cost in real clinical practice for the treatment of solid tumors in adult patients attended at this institution over 10 years (2010-2019).

METHODS

This was a single-center retrospective cohort study of adult cancer patients attended in clinical practice at the Medical Oncology Department of VHUH between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2019. Data of prescription, preparation, and cost of antineoplastic treatments were analyzed by pharmacological class (cytotoxic drugs, immunotherapy, targeted therapy, radiopharmaceuticals, and others), by antineoplastic agent, and by type of tumor. The number of patients and the pharmaceutical expenditure corresponding to all these subgroups were recorded. The cost per patient in each tumor location was also calculated.

RESULTS

The study population included 13,209 patients with an overall pharmaceutical antineoplastic expenditure of EUR 120,396,097, increasing from 7.67% in relation to the total HUVH pharmaceutical expenditure in 2010 to 12.82% in 2019. By pharmacological class, the specific weight of the cost of targeted therapy is relevant (75.22% of pharmaceutical antineoplastic expenditure, 21.3% of patients) compared to the group of conventional cytotoxics (17.25% of pharmaceutical antineoplastic expenditure, 76.37% of patients), while immunotherapy has represented the largest relative increase, from 5% in 2014 to 12% in 2019. Eight targeted therapy drugs represented 50% of the costs of the targeted therapy drug class (palbociclib, trastuzumab, pertuzumab, bevacizumab, nivolumab, cetuximab, pembrolizumab, and trastuzumab emtansine). Eleven tumor sites accounted for 90% of the expenditure in 71% of all patients. Breast cancer had the highest expenditure during the study period (EUR 34,332,210) and at each individual year. Melanoma showed the highest increase, with 9.7% of total pharmaceutical antineoplastic expenditure in 2019 (2% of patients), representing a paradigm of the rising costs of cancer treatment due to the incorporation of new high-cost therapies. The average annual cost per patient was highly variable depending on the pathology. There was a growing increase in costs per patient in most tumor locations, particularly in patients with melanoma (from EUR 1922 in 2010 to EUR 37,020 in 2019), prostate cancer (from EUR 2992 in 2010 to EUR 14,118 in 2019), and non-small cell lung cancer (from EUR 3545 in 2010 to EUR 8371 in 2019). The relevance of the difference in monthly cost per patient that has been identified for the different intrinsic subtypes in breast cancer patients during 2019 (HER2+ EUR 2661/month, Luminal EUR 881/month, Triple negative EUR 386/month) makes us consider suggesting differentiated reimbursement rates for certain clinical conditions. Finally, support treatment with antiemetic drugs, erythropoietin stimulating agents, granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF), and bone resorption inhibitors has involved a cost of EUR 5,751,910, which represents 4.6% of the overall pharmacological cost of cancer treatment.

CONCLUSION

This study provides detailed insights on the oncological pharmaceutical expenditure for the treatment for solid tumors in the VHUH, based on real cost information from our hospital practice and for all antineoplastic therapies and types of solid tumors. This type of information on all the different types of cancer can be useful to better understand the economic burden of the disease and can be decisive for allocating public resources and funds for research, especially in those areas where information is scarce and therefore where further studies are needed. The contribution to knowledge of the cost of oncology therapy is of great value due to its realism and scope.

Comparison of the design and methodology of Phase 3 clinical trials of bictegravir/emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide (BIC/FTC/TAF) and dolutegravir-based dual therapy (DTG) in HIV: a systematic review of the literature

INTRODUCTION

Current recommended antiretroviral regimens include a combination of two (dual; DT) or three (triple; TT) antiretroviral drugs. This study aims to determine whether the quality of evidence from clinical trials of dolutegravir (dolutegravir/lamivudine [DTG/3TC] or dolutegravir/rilpivirine [DTG/RPV]) is methodologically comparable to that of clinical trials conducted with bictegravir/emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide (BIC/FTC/TAF).

AREAS COVERED

A systematic review of the medical literature was carried out in PubMed without date or language restrictions, following the PRISMA guidelines. All aspects of the methodological design of phase 3 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of DT and TT, evaluated by the European Medicines Agency (registration trials), were reviewed. The quality of clinical trials was assessed using the Jadad scale.

EXPERT OPINION

The search identified 5, 3 and 2 phase 3 RCTs with BIC/FTC/TAF, DTG/3TC and DTG/RPV, respectively, that met the inclusion criteria. The designs would not be comparable due to differences in pre-randomization losses, blinding, patient recruitment, as well as differences in methodological quality, with the average score of the RCTs conducted with BIC/FTC/TAF, DTG/3TC and DTG/RPV being 4.2 (high quality), 3.0 (medium quality) and 3.0 (medium quality), respectively. Due to methodological differences between the BIC/FTC/TAF, DTG/3TC and DTG/RPV RCTs, the results of these are not comparable.

Research on the Economics of Cancer-Related Health Care: An Overview of the Review Literature

We reviewed current literature reviews regarding economics of cancer-related health care to identify focus areas and gaps. We searched PubMed for systematic and other reviews with the Medical Subject Headings "neoplasms" and "economics" published between January 1, 2010, and April 1, 2020, identifying 164 reviews. Review characteristics were abstracted and described. The majority (70.7%) of reviews focused on cost-effectiveness or cost-utility analyses. Few reviews addressed other types of cancer health economic studies. More than two-thirds of the reviews examined cancer treatments, followed by screening (15.9%) and survivorship or end-of-life (13.4%). The plurality of reviews (28.7%) cut across cancer site, followed by breast (20.7%), colorectal (11.6%), and gynecologic (8.5%) cancers. Specific topics addressed cancer screening modalities, novel therapies, pain management, or exercise interventions during survivorship. The results indicate that reviews do not regularly cover other phases of care or topics including financial hardship, policy, and measurement and methods.

Cost-Effectiveness of the Dabrafenib Schedule in Combination With Trametinib Compared With Other Targeted Therapies, Immunotherapy, and Dacarbazine for the Treatment of Unresectable or Metastatic Melanoma With BRAFV600 Mutation in Colombia

OBJECTIVES

Advanced melanoma accounts for 4% of malignant skin tumors, and approximately 80% of deaths are attributed to it. The most frequent mutation of the RAF gene is BRAFV600, which has been associated with a worse prognosis. The objective of the research was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the combined regimen of dabrafenib plus trametinib (D + T) compared with other targeted therapies, immunotherapy, and dacarbazine for the treatment of unresectable/metastatic melanoma with BRAFV600 mutation from the perspective of the Colombian health system.

METHODS

A partitioned survival model with 3 states (progression-free survival, progression, and death) was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness for a time horizon of 20 years. Owing to the perspective of the analysis, only direct medical costs were taken into account. The efficacy of the evaluated treatment and the comparators were measured in terms of overall survival and progression-free survival. All costs were expressed in Colombian pesos as of 2018, and outcomes and costs were discounted at 5% annually. Two analysis scenarios were considered, one in which only monitoring and follow-up costs were included in the progression phase and another in which costs of acquisition of possible treatment sequences were also included.

RESULTS

In the first scenario (without postprogression medication costs), the combined D + T regimen was a dominant alternative to vemurafenib + cobimetinib but was not a cost-effective option compared with vemurafenib, nivolumab, ipilimumab, nivolumab + ipilimumab, pembrolizumab, and dacarbazine. In the second scenario (with drug costs in postprogression), D + T was dominant compared with vemurafenib + cobimetinib and cost-effective compared with nivolumab and pembrolizumab. Compared with other schemes, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was above the threshold of 3 gross domestic product per capita. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed that a willingness-to-pay threshold of Col$56 484 300 (US$19 108) per quality-adjusted life-year would not be reached at the current price of schema in Colombia.

CONCLUSIONS

The combined scheme could be a cost-effective and even a cost-saving alternative to vemurafenib + cobimetinib, nivolumab, and pembrolizumab if the costs associated with the use of other medications are taken into account after progression to the first line of treatment. Compared with the other comparators, it produces a greater number of quality-adjusted life-years, but the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio is above that of the willingness to pay.

Potential use of kiwifruit extract for treatment of melanoma

Skin cancers are the most common cancers in the world and among the different types of skin cancers, melanoma is the deadliest and incidence is rising. Previous studies have shown promising in vitro and human evidence of kiwifruit exhibiting anti-cancer effects. This study was designed to investigate if kiwifruit extract (KE) has any effect on CRL-11147 melanoma cancer cells and to investigate the possible mechanisms behind the results. The effects of KE on CRL-11147 melanoma cell survival, proliferation, and apoptosis was investigated using clonogenic survival assay, cell proliferation, and caspase-3 activity kits. Potential anti-tumor molecular mechanisms were elucidated using RT-PCR and IHC. Addition of KE decreased CRL-11147 cell colonies percentages indicated by a decreased optical density value of cancer cells when compared to control. Furthermore, treatment with KE increased relative caspase-3 activity in cancer cells, which indicated increased apoptosis of cancer cells. The anti-proliferative effect of KE on cancer cells corresponded with decreased expression of the pro-proliferative molecule Cyclin E and CDK4, while increased expression of the pro-apoptotic molecule TRAILR1 corresponded with the pro-apoptotic effect. KE decreases CRL-11147 melanoma cell growth via downregulation of Cyclin E and CDK4 and upregulation in TRAILR1. Our study suggests a potential use for KE in treatment of melanoma.

Lifetime survival and medical costs of lung cancer: a semi-parametric estimation from South Korea

Background

It is essential to have information on the disease burden of lung cancer at an individual level throughout the life; however, few such results have been reported. Thus, this study aimed to assess the lifetime disease burden in patients with lung cancer by assessing various factors, such as survival, years of life lost (YLL) and medical expenditure in South Korea based on real-world data and extrapolation.

Methods

Newly diagnosed lung cancer patients (n = 2919) in 2004–2010 were selected and observed until the end of 2015 using nationwide reimbursement claim database. The patients were categorised into the Surgery group, Chemo and/or Radiotherapy group (CTx/RTx), and Surgery+CTx/RTx according to their treatment modality. Age- and sex-matched control subjects were selected from among general population using the life table. The survival and cost data after diagnosis were analysed by a semi-parametric method, the Kaplan–Meier analysis for the first 100 months and rolling extrapolation algorithm for 101–300 months. YLL were derived from the difference in survival between patients and controls.

Results

Lifetime estimates (standard error) were 4.5 (0.2) years for patients and 14.5 (0.1) years for controls and the derived YLL duration was 10.0 (0.2) years. Lifetime survival years showed the following trend: Surgery (14.2 years) > Surgery+CTx/RTx (8.5 years) > CTx/RTx group (3.0 years), and YLL were increased as lifetime survival years decreased (2.3, 8.7, 12.2 years, respectively). The mean lifetime medical cost was estimated at 30,857 USD/patient. Patients in the Surgery group paid higher treatment cost in first year after diagnosis, but the overall mean cost per year was lower at 4359 USD compared with 7075USD of Surgery+CTx/RTx or 7626USD of CTx/RTx group.

Conclusions

Lung cancer has resulted in about 10 years of life lost in overall patients. The losses were associated with treatment modality, and the results indicated that diagnosing lung cancer in patients with low stage disease eligible for surgery is beneficial for reducing disease burden in terms of survival and treatment cost per year throughout the life.

Custo-utilidade de terapias-alvo comparadas à dacarbazina para o tratamento de primeira linha do melanoma avançado não-cirúrgico e metastático no Sistema Único de Saúde do Brazil

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) of isolated and combined targeted therapy regimens compared to dacarbazine for first-line treatment of advanced and metastatic melanoma with BRAF V600 mutation.

METHODS

A Markov model with three health states (no progression, progression and death), monthly duration cycle and 10-year time horizon was constructed to compare targeted therapy regimens (vemurafenib, dabrafenib, vemurafenib/cobimetinib and dabrafenib/trametinib) with dacarbazine chemotherapy under the Brazilian public health perspective. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Mean cost was R$5662.50 ($1490.13) for dacarbazine, R$175 937.18 (46 299.26) for vemurafenib, R$167 461.70 ($44 068.87) for dabrafenib, R$425 901 ($112 079.21) for vemurafenib/cobimetinib and R$411 799.81 ($108 368.37) for dabrafenib/trametinib, whereas QALY was 0.91 for dacarbazine, 1.08 for vemurafenib, 1.12 for dabrafenib, 1.64 for vemurafenib/cobimetinib and 1.56 for dabrafenib/trametinib. The ICUR was estimated from R$572 165.76 ($150 569.94) to R$1 012 524.56 ($266 453.83) per patient, and the most impactful parameters were risk of progression and death, and treatment cost.

CONCLUSION

The incorporation of targeted therapies in the Brazilian public health system would produce an additional expenditure of at least 19 times the national GDP per capita to increase in one year the quality-adjusted survival of each patient with advanced/metastatic BRAF-mutant melanoma.

Immunotherapy and targeted therapies in older patients with advanced melanoma; Young International Society of Geriatric Oncology review paper

Malignant melanoma is an aggressive cancer associated with a poor prognosis in patients with metastatic disease. As in many other cancers, the incidence of melanoma rises with age; and combined with the longer life expectancy, this led to an increasing prevalence of melanoma in the older population. Recently, immune checkpoint inhibitors significantly improved the treatment of melanoma given their efficacy and tolerability profile. Two major classes of agents include the anti-cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) inhibitors, such as ipilimumab, and the anti-programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-1) inhibitors, such as nivolumab and pembrolizumab. Treatment of metastatic disease with immune checkpoint inhibitors demonstrated improved efficacy and better safety profiles compared to cytotoxic drugs and appears to be an attractive treatment option. Nevertheless, there is a need for tools designed to better predict which older patients will benefit from its use and who will experience toxicities related to the treatment. Current data do not show a major increase in toxicity rates in older patients. However, patients above 75 are often under-represented and those who are included are not representative of the general population of older patients, thereby also stressing the need for real-life data. Ongoing research is aiming at maximizing the potential treatment efficacy and developing novel immune-targeting modalities. Future studies should include older patients and assess geriatric domains in these older patients to better guide decision-making. This review discusses published clinical trials and where known, the efficacy and toxicity in older patients. Moreover, the clinical implications and future perspectives are discussed, with current recommendations for older patients, management of toxicities, and a proposal for an initial approach to the treatment of older patients with metastatic melanoma.

Can We Accurately Predict Cost Effectiveness Without Access to Overall Survival Data? The Case Study of Nivolumab in Combination with Ipilimumab for the Treatment of Patients with Advanced Melanoma in England

BACKGROUND

Nivolumab with ipilimumab (the Regimen) is the first immuno-oncology combination treatment to demonstrate long-term clinical benefit for advanced melanoma patients. We evaluated the cost effectiveness of the Regimen in this population, with and without the availability of overall survival (OS) data.

METHODS

A partitioned survival model and a Markov state-transition model were developed to estimate the lifetime costs and benefits of the Regimen versus ipilimumab. These models were built with and without the availability of OS data, as only progression-free survival data were available from the head-to-head, phase III trial against ipilimumab at the time of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) submission. Patient utilities and resource use data were sourced from trial data or the literature.

RESULTS

Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and absolute costs were similar between the models with and without OS data, but the model with OS data generated more than 1 additional quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) across both treatment arms. In both models, based on list prices, the Regimen was the most cost-effective treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

The analyses show that the Regimen is a cost-effective treatment for advanced melanoma patients in England, and methods to overcome the lack of OS can give reasonable estimates of QALYs gained and ICERs.

Using Real-World Data in Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Practice: A Comparative Study of Five HTA Agencies

BACKGROUND

Reimbursement decisions are conventionally based on evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs), which often have high internal validity but low external validity. Real-world data (RWD) may provide complimentary evidence for relative effectiveness assessments (REAs) and cost-effectiveness assessments (CEAs). This study examines whether RWD is incorporated in health technology assessment (HTA) of melanoma drugs by European HTA agencies, as well as differences in RWD use between agencies and across time.

METHODS

HTA reports published between 1 January 2011 and 31 December 2016 were retrieved from websites of agencies representing five jurisdictions: England [National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE)], Scotland [Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC)], France [Haute Autorité de santé (HAS)], Germany [Institute for Quality and Efficacy in Healthcare (IQWiG)] and The Netherlands [Zorginstituut Nederland (ZIN)]. A standardized data extraction form was used to extract information on RWD inclusion for both REAs and CEAs.

RESULTS

Overall, 52 reports were retrieved, all of which contained REAs; CEAs were present in 25 of the reports. RWD was included in 28 of the 52 REAs (54%), mainly to estimate melanoma prevalence, and in 22 of the 25 (88%) CEAs, mainly to extrapolate long-term effectiveness and/or identify drug-related costs. Differences emerged between agencies regarding RWD use in REAs; the ZIN and IQWiG cited RWD for evidence on prevalence, whereas the NICE, SMC and HAS additionally cited RWD use for drug effectiveness. No visible trend for RWD use in REAs and CEAs over time was observed.

CONCLUSION

In general, RWD inclusion was higher in CEAs than REAs, and was mostly used to estimate melanoma prevalence in REAs or to predict long-term effectiveness in CEAs. Differences emerged between agencies' use of RWD; however, no visible trends for RWD use over time were observed.