Partitioned Survival and State Transition Models for Healthcare Decision Making in Oncology: Where Are We Now?

Cost-effectiveness analysis of regorafenib dose optimization for refractory metastatic colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

New regimens have emerged as third-line or later therapies for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), including regorafenib dose optimization (ReDO), trifluridine/tipiracil and bevacizumab (TAS-BEV) combination therapy, and fruquintinib. We evaluated relative cost-effectiveness of these therapies in patients with mCRC from a US payer's perspective.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A partitioned survival model (PSM) was constructed to estimate total costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Clinical parameters were obtained from pivotal trials of the respective therapies and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated to assess relative cost-effectiveness of these treatments. Model robustness was assessed using deterministic (DSA) and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA). Three scenario analyses were conducted: (1) assuming equal efficacy across treatments, (2) with prior exposure to anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) therapy, and (3) alternative clinical inputs for fruquintinib from a different clinical trial.

RESULTS

Under the conventional willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold in US ($150,000 per QALY gained), ReDO was cost-effective when compared with TAS-BEV and was dominant over fruquintinib. TAS-BEV was associated with an incremental QALY of 0.197 over ReDO, resulting in an ICER at $554,567 per QALY gained. The base case results were robust in DSA and PSA. Most influential parameters were treatment cost and effectiveness. In patients with prior anti-VEGF therapy, ReDO remained cost-effective compared to TAS-BEV and fruquintinib under the conventional WTP threshold.

LIMITATION

Differences in trial populations may affect the comparability of the outcomes. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were conducted to address these limitations.

CONCLUSION

ReDO was cost-effective compared with TAS-BEV from the US payer's perspective despite a higher QALY gain associated with TAS-BEV. ReDO was dominant over fruquintinib, consistently having a higher QALY gain and lower cost.

Cost-effectiveness of trastuzumab deruxtecan as a second-line treatment for HER2-mutant advanced non-small cell lung cancer

The study of DESTINY-Lung01 and DESTINY-Lung02 demonstrated the favorable efficacy and optimal dosage of trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) in managing the human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-mutant non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients who had received previous treatment. The study sought to assess the cost-effectiveness of T-DXd in both the United States (US) and Chinese healthcare systems. Markov models were developed to evaluate the overall cost, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and life years (LYs) of treatment with T-DXd compared with docetaxel, nivolumab, and pyrotinib for patients in the US and China. The level of willingness-to-pay (WTP) in the US and China is 150,000/QALYs and 32,517/QALYs, respectively. Sensitivity analyses were carried out to ensure the precision of the model. T-DXd yielded additional QALYs of 0.63 and 0.06 with an ICER of $338997.84 and $1437258.33 per QALY, respectively, in the US compared to the docetaxel and nivolumab regimens. And T-DXd yielded additional QALYs of 0.63, 0.06, and 0.13 with an ICER of $137959.45, $623805.93, and $515447.12 per QALY, respectively, in China compared to the docetaxel, nivolumab, and pyrotinib regimens. Sensitivity analysis showed that the cost of drugs is the most influential factor. T-DXd provides substantial therapeutic benefit for NSCLC patients with HER2 mutations who have had previous treatment but is not deemed cost-effective in either the US or China when compared to docetaxel, nivolumab, and pyrotinib. Price reduction is perhaps the main way to make T-DXd cost-effective.

Cost-utility analysis of 177Lu-PSMA-617 radioligand therapy in second-line and third-line treatment for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) in Germany

PURPOSE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of 177Lu-PSMA-617 radioligand therapy (PRLT) in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) in Germany by comparing (I) PRLT plus standard-of-care (SoC) versus SoC alone as third-line treatment and (II) PRLT versus second-line cabazitaxel chemotherapy.

METHODS

Cohort state-transition models were developed with (I) four health states (treatment, stable after treatment, progression, death) and (II) six health states (treatment, stable after treatment, third-line treatment after progression, stable after third-line treatment, next progression, death). Transition probabilities were derived from the VISION and TheraP trials, and quality-of-life data from the VISION and CARD trials. Costs were derived from statutory health insurance claims data (2019-2022). Models simulated a five-year horizon with one-month cycles, applying within-cycle correction and a 3% discount rate. Sensitivity analyses addressed uncertainty.

RESULTS

For Model I, PRLT plus SoC compared to SoC incurred incremental costs of €27,200 per patient, with a gain of 0.39 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €69,418 per QALY gained. In Model II, PRLT plus SoC compared to cabazitaxel achieved incremental savings of €1,460 per patient and a QALY gain of 0.11, making it the dominant option.

CONCLUSION

Although Germany lacks an explicit willingness-to-pay threshold for interpreting the ICER of Model I, it falls within the range of other reimbursed cancer therapies. This suggests PRLT is cost-effective as second- or third-line treatment for mCRPC. Between 2019 and 2022, hospitals mainly used self-produced 177Lu-PSMA-617, which was less costly than the product now commercially available, limiting the generalizability of our findings.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Pembrolizumab Plus Chemotherapy Compared with Chemotherapy as First-Line Treatment for Advanced PD-L1-Positive Triple-Negative Breast Cancer from a Japanese Healthcare Perspective

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Pembrolizumab has been approved for the immunotherapy of programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1)-positive triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) based on the KEYNOTE-355 trial. However, cost-effectiveness evidence is limited. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy compared with chemotherapy alone for patients with PD-L1-positive inoperable or metastatic TNBC from a Japanese healthcare perspective.

METHODS

The cost-effectiveness analysis was performed for pembrolizumab, of which the drug price was determined at 214,498 Japanese yen (JPY), or 1631 US dollars (USD) (1 USD = 131.5 JPY) for KEYTRUDA® (100 mg), using a partition survival model based on the KEYNOTE-355 trial subgroup analysis in Japan. The comparison was made using quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). One-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA), which evaluate the impact of parameter uncertainty, were performed to assess the robustness and calculate the acceptable probability, defined as the probability of the ICER being below the willingness-to-pay (WTP).

RESULTS

Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy provided an additional 0.676 QALYs at an incremental cost of 8,503,072 JPY. The ICER for pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy compared with conventional chemotherapy was 12,577,178 JPY (95,644 USD) per QALY. The ICER per QALY was below the willingness-to-pay threshold of 15,000,000 JPY. PSAs revealed that the acceptable probability was 83.9% at 15,000,000 JPY.

CONCLUSIONS

The pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy is likely to be a cost-effective option compared with conventional chemotherapy for patients with PD-L1-positive inoperable or metastatic TNBC in a Japanese medical environment from a healthcare system.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of SOX Plus Bevacizumab Versus SOX Plus Cetuximab for First-Line Treatment of KRAS Wild-Type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer in Japan

PURPOSE

In this study, we aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of S-1 and oxaliplatin (SOX) plus bevacizumab (Bmab group) compared with SOX plus cetuximab (Cmab group) as a first-line treatment for patients with Kirsten rat sarcoma virus (KRAS) wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in Japan from the perspective of healthcare payers.

METHODS

A partitioned survival model was developed using data from the randomized phase II Osaka Multicenter Study Group on Colorectal Cancer-1107 study, which included overall survival, progression-free survival, and treatment regimens for the Bmab and Cmab groups. Treatment costs were estimated from the Japanese medical claims database and the National Health Insurance drug price list. The utilities were derived from the literature. Outcomes were reported as incremental cost, incremental quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was set at 7.5 million JPY per QALY. The time horizon of the model was set to 20 years. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the uncertainty of the model for various parameters.

FINDINGS

Compared with the Cmab group, the Bmab group had an incremental cost of 911,373 JPY (6,528 USD), an incremental effectiveness of 0.79 QALY, and an ICER of 1,146,745 JPY (8,215 USD) per QALY. One-way sensitivity analysis showed that the cost of progressive disease treatment in the Bmab group had the greatest impact on the ICER. According to the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the Bmab group had a 94.9% probability of being cost-effective compared with the Cmab group.

IMPLICATIONS

Considering a WTP threshold of 7.5 million JPY (approximately 53,700 USD) per QALY, Bmab might be a cost-effective treatment option for patients with KRAS wild-type mCRC in Japan. Further studies on economic evaluations based on personalized drugs and patient selection based on clinical and genetic information are warranted.

Cost-effectiveness of CDK4/6 inhibitors for second-line HR+/HER2- advanced or metastatic breast cancer in China

Hormone receptor HR-positive/HER2-negative (HR+/HER2-) breast cancer is the most common subtype in China, representing 60-70% of cases, with a rising incidence due to aging demographics and lifestyle changes. CDK4/6 inhibitors such as palbociclib, ribociclib and abemaciclib have been proven effective in treating HR+/HER2 - advanced or metastatic breast cancer (ABC/MBC), though they may increase healthcare costs. This study aims to compare the efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness of CDK4/6 inhibitors for the second-line treatment of HR+/HER2 - ABC/MBC from the Chinese healthcare perspective. A cohort-based partitioned survival model was utilized, drawing on the survival data published from PALOMA-3, MONALEESA-3 and MONARCH-2 trials. Costs, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were used to calculate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) over a 15-year time horizon. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robustness of the model results. In the base-case analysis, the model estimated health benefits to be 2.10 QALYs for palbociclib plus fulvestrant (PAL + FUL), 2.55 QALYs for ribociclib plus fulvestrant (RIB + FUL), and 2.60 QALYs for abemaciclib plus fulvestrant (ABE + FUL), with corresponding costs of $34,423, $41,119, and $48,019. Compared with PAL + FUL, the ICERs were $27,161 per QALY for ABE + FUL and $15,073 per QALY for RIB + FUL. The robustness of these findings was confirmed through uncertainty analyses. Among the three strategies, the most cost-effective probabilities of PAL + FUL, RIB + FUL and ABE + FUL were 0%, 99.8%, and 0.2% under the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of 3 times per-capita gross domestic product ($37,738) in China. This study indicated that both RIB + FUL and ABE + FUL are cost-effective at the WTP threshold compared with PAL + FUL. Notably, RIB + FUL offers the greatest cost-effective advantage for the second-line treatment of HR+/HER2 - ABC/MBC among these three CDK4/6 inhibitors.

First-Line Alectinib, Brigatinib, and Lorlatinib for Advanced Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase-Positive Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of alectinib, brigatinib, and lorlatinib as first-line therapies for anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive advanced non-small cell lung cancer from a US healthcare sector perspective.

METHODS

We developed a 4-state partitioned survival model using progression-free survival, intracranial progression-free survival, and overall survival data from the ALEX, ALTA-1L, and CROWN clinical trials and published network meta-analyses. This model simulated patient transitions through progression-free, central-nervous-system-related progressed disease, non- central nervous system progressed disease, and death states over a 5-year horizon. Costs (2024 USD) included drug acquisition based on median of Department of Veteran Affairs and wholesale acquisition cost prices, healthcare utilization, and adverse events, all sourced from published literature. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were derived using health utilities bootstrapped from these trials and adjusted for adverse events. We performed sensitivity and scenario analyses to evaluate uncertainty and explore various pricing and efficacy specifications.

RESULTS

Over a 5-year horizon, alectinib cost $1 105 814 for 2.85 QALYs gained, brigatinib cost $1 059 283 for 2.66 QALYs gained, and lorlatinib cost $1 163 519 for 2.88 QALYs gained. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for alectinib and lorlatinib versus brigatinib were $245 536/QALY and $481 386/QALY, respectively. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000 per QALY, brigatinib had a 54% chance of being the cost-effective option, with alectinib at 36% and lorlatinib at 10%.

CONCLUSIONS

Although our model slightly favors brigatinib at a $150 000/QALY willingness-to-pay threshold, substantial uncertainty precludes definitive cost-effectiveness conclusions among the 3 first-line therapies.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of penpulimab combined with paclitaxel and carboplatin as first-line treatment for advanced squamous non-small cell lung cancer

Background

Advanced or metastatic squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) represents a significant clinical and economic burden globally. In China, the introduction of innovative immunotherapy agents, such as penpulimab, has the potential to improve patient outcomes, but their high cost raises questions about affordability and cost-effectiveness.

Objective

This study evaluates the economic viability of penpulimab combined with paclitaxel and carboplatin as a first-line treatment for this patient population.

Methods

Data were obtained from the published randomized controlled trial AK105-302. A three-state partitioned survival model was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of the two treatments. One-way deterministic sensitivity analysis, probabilistic sensitivity analysis, and scenario analyses were performed to assess the robustness of the results and explore variations in key parameters.

Results

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for the penpulimab group compared to the placebo group was $16,105.90 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY), which falls below the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $37,709.46 per QALY. Deterministic sensitivity analysis identified the three most influential factors affecting model outcomes: discount rate, costs associated with progressive disease, and utility value for progression-free survival. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that at a WTP threshold of $37,709.46 per QALY, the probability of penpulimab being cost-effective reached 99%. Scenario analyses demonstrated that, while the base-case results were generally robust, the cost-effectiveness of penpulimab remained sensitive to the limited maturity of overall survival (OS) data in the penpulimab group. The immaturity of the OS data increased the extrapolation uncertainty, which could potentially alter the economic conclusions.

Conclusion

Penpulimab, in combination with paclitaxel and carboplatin, demonstrates a cost-effectiveness advantage over placebo as a first-line treatment for advanced or metastatic squamous NSCLC in China, provided that long-term survival benefits align with extrapolations from the base case model. These findings support its prioritization in clinical practice within the current WTP thresholds. However, the economic conclusions remain contingent on resolving the uncertainties associated with immature OS data and validating extrapolation assumptions through extended follow-up studies.

A Spline-Based Approach to Smoothly Constrain Hazard Ratios With a View to Apply Treatment Effect Waning

OBJECTIVES

To describe and assess, via simulation, a constraint-based spline approach to implement smooth hazard ratio (HR) waning in time-to-event analyses.

METHODS

A common consideration when extrapolating survival functions to evaluate the long-term performance of a novel intervention is scenarios where the beneficial effect of an intervention eventually disappears (treatment effect waning). One approach to relaxing the proportional hazards assumption for a treatment effect is to model it as a function of the timescale, with a spline function offering a flexible approach. We consider the constraint of coefficients of spline variables to 0 during estimation, leading to log-treatment effects that are constrained to 0 (HR = 1) from a given time-point: enforcing treatment efficacy waning. An example is reported. Datasets were simulated under a variety of scenarios and analyzed with treatment effect waning assumptions under various modeling choices. Bias in mean survival time difference, given fully observed waning or fully censored waning, was assessed and constrained HR estimates were visualized.

RESULTS

Given full waning, biases were small unless constraints directly contradicted truths. When waning was extrapolated, akin to real-life practice, biases over observed periods were minimized through the inclusion of a knot at the 95th percentile. The rate at which the HR waned slowed as the upper boundary knot/constraint was placed later, inducing less conservative treatment effect waning assumptions.

CONCLUSION

An alternative approach to modeling smooth treatment efficacy waning is demonstrated, enabling HR conditioning and marginal RMST calculation in a single framework, along with applications of the method beyond this use.

Cost-Effectiveness of Pembrolizumab as First-Line Treatment in Patients with Persistent, Recurrent, or Metastatic Cervical Cancer in the United States

INTRODUCTION

First-line treatment of persistent, recurrent, or metastatic (advanced) cervical cancer in patients who have a combined positive score (CPS) ≥ 1 with pembrolizumab + chemotherapy versus standard-of-care chemotherapy provides meaningful improvements in overall survival. We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis from a US payer perspective. A societal perspective scenario was also considered, including productivity gains.

METHODS

The cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab + chemotherapy versus chemotherapy was assessed using a state-transition model comprising the health states "pre-progression," "post-progression," and "death," with a 1-week cycle length and 50-year time horizon. Patient-level KEYNOTE-826 data informed the efficacy, safety, and health-related quality of life of pembrolizumab + chemotherapy versus chemotherapy at first-line and subsequent treatments. Real-world data were sought to cost subsequent treatments according to US clinical practice. Transition probabilities were derived from parametric survival models fit to time-to-progression, progression-free survival, and post-progression survival patient-level KEYNOTE-826 data. Sensitivity analyses explored the impact on outcomes from variables such as bevacizumab use.

RESULTS

According to the state-transition model, pembrolizumab + chemotherapy extended mean life expectancy versus chemotherapy from 1.8 to 6.7 life-years. The mean gain of 4.9 life-years/patient was mostly caused by pembrolizumab delaying progression. Total discounted quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) were 5.0 and 1.3 per patient for pembrolizumab + chemotherapy and chemotherapy, respectively (mean gain: 3.7 QALY/patient). Pembrolizumab + chemotherapy had comparable safety outcomes to chemotherapy alone. Total costs incurred were US $320,247 (pembrolizumab + chemotherapy) versus US $105,446 (chemotherapy; mean incremental costs: US $214,801/patient). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of pembrolizumab + chemotherapy versus chemotherapy was US $58,446/QALY. Sensitivity analyses showed results were insensitive to bevacizumab use. Including productivity gains led to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of US $58,385 per QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

Our model-based analysis suggests that first-line treatment of pembrolizumab + chemotherapy in advanced cervical cancer with a CPS ≥ 1 offers a substantial clinical benefit over standard-of-care chemotherapy alone and is cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of US $150,000. The approximate doubling of life-years and QALYs associated with pembrolizumab + chemotherapy represents a step improvement in the treatment of advanced cervical cancer.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identification Number: NCT03635567.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of a first-line treatment with cadonilimab plus platinum-based chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab for persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer in China: COMPASSION-16 trial

Background

The addition of cadonilimab to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer. However, the economic value of using this novel therapy for this indication is currently unknown. The aim of this study is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the addition of cadonilimab to first-line standard chemotherapy for patients with persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer from the perspective of Chinese healthcare system.

Methods

A partitioned survival model was constructed to compare the cost-effectiveness of cadonilimab versus placebo in patients enrolled in the COMPASSION-16 trial. Cost, life-year, quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), incremental net health benefit (INHB), and incremental net monetary benefit (INMB) were calculated for 2 treatment strategies. Sensitivity, scenario, and subgroup analyses, and value of information analysis (EVPI) were performed.

Results

Cadonilimab provided an additional 1.18 QALYs and $89,528.64 compared with placebo, which resulted in an ICER of $75,944.56/QALY. At the willingness-to-pay threshold of $38,042.49/QALY, INHB was estimated to be -1.17 QALYs, while INMB amounted to -$44,681.55 and EVPI was calculated as $71.40/person. Sensitivity analyses revealed that the model was most sensitive to hazard ratio (HR) for OS and PFS, and the probability of cadonilimab being cost-effective was 0.70%. To achieve cost-effectiveness, the price of cadonilimab must be reduced by approximately 50%. Subgroup analysis found that all subgroups unfavored cadonilimab by varying the HR for OS and PFS. Scenario analyses showed using life-year as effectiveness, altering time horizon and selection of survival analysis did not reverse results.

Conclusions

Although the use of cadonilimab resulted in clinical benefit, it was not deemed cost-effective as a first-line therapy for persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer in China. Lowering the price of cadonilimab may enhance its cost-effectiveness.

Estimating the Cost-Effectiveness of Tumor Treating Fields (TTFields) Therapy with an Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor or Docetaxel in Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

Purpose

Lung cancer remains a leading cause of cancer-related mortality. Tumor Treating Fields (TTFields) therapy extended survival in patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) on or after platinum-based therapy. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of TTFields therapy concomitant with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) or docetaxel.

Methods

A model-based health economic evaluation estimated lifetime costs, clinical benefits, and humanistic outcomes of TTFields therapy plus ICI or docetaxel versus ICI or docetaxel alone in metastatic NSCLC. The model used clinical data from the LUNAR study, US healthcare cost data, and quality-adjusted life year (QALY) measures.

Results

The addition of TTFields therapy to an ICI or docetaxel resulted in a mean life-year gain of 0.92 and a QALY gain of 0.66, with an incremental cost-effective ratio (ICER) of $89,808 per QALY gained. TTFields therapy plus an ICI had 1.67 additional life years and 1.21 additional QALYs compared to an ICI alone, with an ICER of $58,764 per QALY gained. For TTFields therapy plus docetaxel, the life-year gain was 0.23 and the QALY gain was 0.17, with an ICER of $306,029 per QALY gained. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of these findings.

Conclusion

The addition of TTFields therapy to an ICI or docetaxel in metastatic NSCLC demonstrates comparable cost-effectiveness to other approved treatments. ICERs fall within the accepted range for US cost-effectiveness thresholds, supporting their use in clinical practice. TTFields therapy extended mean lifetime survival, offering a clinically meaningful and economically justifiable option for patients progressing after platinum-based chemotherapy.

A Systematic Literature Review of Modelling Approaches to Evaluate the Cost Effectiveness of PET/CT for Therapy Response Monitoring in Oncology

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

This systematic literature review addresses model-based cost-effectiveness studies for therapy response monitoring with positron emission tomography (PET) generally combined with low-dose computed tomography (CT) for various cancer types. Given the known heterogeneity in therapy response events, studies should consider patient-level modelling rather than cohort-based modelling because of its flexibility in handling these events and the time to events. This review aims to identify the modelling methods used and includes a systematic assessment of the assumptions made in the current literature.

METHODS

This study was conducted and reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 statement. Information sources included electronic bibliographic databases, reference lists of review articles and contact with experts in the fields of nuclear medicine, health technology assessment and health economics. Eligibility criteria included peer-reviewed scientific publications and published grey literature. Literature searches, screening and critical appraisal were conducted by two reviewers independently. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) were used to assess the methodological quality. The Bias in Economic Evaluation (ECOBIAS) checklist was used to determine the risk of bias in the included publications.

RESULTS

The search results included 2959 publications. The number of publications included for data extraction and synthesis was ten, representing eight unique studies. These studies addressed patients with lymphoma, advanced head and neck cancers, brain tumours, non-small cell lung cancer and cervical cancer. All studies addressed response to chemotherapy. No study evaluated response to immunotherapy. Most studies positioned PET/CT as an add-on modality and one study positioned PET/CT as a replacement for conventional imaging (X-ray and contrast-enhanced CT). Three studies reported decision-tree structures, four studies reported cohort-level state-transition models and one study reported a partitioned survival model. No patient-level models were reported. The simulation horizons adopted ranged from 1 year to lifetime. Most studies reported a probabilistic analysis, whereas two studies reported a deterministic analysis only. Two studies conducted a value of information analysis. Multiple studies did not adequately discuss model-specific aspects of bias. Most importantly and regularly observed were a high risk of structural assumptions bias, limited simulation horizon bias and wrong model bias.

CONCLUSIONS

Model-based cost-effectiveness analysis for therapy response monitoring with PET/CT was based on cohorts of patients instead of individual patients in the current literature. Therefore, the heterogeneity in therapy response events was commonly not addressed appropriately. Further research should include more advanced and patient-level modelling approaches to accurately represent the complex context of clinical practice and, therefore, to be meaningful to support decision making.

REGISTRATION

This review is registered in PROSPERO, the international prospective register of systematic reviews funded by the National Institute for Health Research, with CRD42023402581.

Cost-effectiveness of camrelizumab plus rivoceranib versus sorafenib as first-line treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma

Background

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the third leading cause of cancer-related mortality globally. Recent advancements in targeted therapies have improved outcomes for advanced HCC, yet therapeutic options remain limited. The CARES-310 trial demonstrated that camrelizumab plus rivoceranib significantly improves survival compared to sorafenib for advanced HCC.

Objectives

This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of camrelizumab plus rivoceranib as a first-line treatment for unresectable HCC from the Chinese health system perspective.

Design

The cost-effectiveness analysis.

Methods

A partitioned survival model was constructed to estimate clinical and economic outcomes for patients with unresectable or metastatic HCC. The model included three health states: progression-free, progression disease, and death. The hypothetical cohort consisted of patients aged ⩾18 with HCC who had not received systemic therapy, reflecting the CARES-310 trial. Clinical data were derived from the CARES-310 trial and extrapolated using standard parameter distributions. Direct medical costs and utilities were sourced from the CARES-310 trial and published literature.

Results

The 10-year cost of camrelizumab plus rivoceranib was higher than sorafenib (USD 28,148.01 vs USD 20,997.86). Camrelizumab plus rivoceranib yielded an additional 0.26 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) with an incremental cost of USD 7150.15, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of USD 27,633.75/QALY. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the base-case results.

Conclusion

Camrelizumab plus rivoceranib is likely a cost-effective first-line treatment for unresectable HCC from a Chinese health system perspective. This study highlights the need for additional real-world data to validate these findings and guide clinical decision-making for HCC.

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.

Cost-Effectiveness of PARP Inhibitors for Patients with BRCA1/2-Positive Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer-The Canadian Perspective

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

Through phase III clinical trials, PARP inhibitors have demonstrated outcome improvements in mCRPC patients with alterations in BRCA1/2 genes who have progressed on a second-generation androgen receptor pathway inhibitor (ARPI). While improving outcomes, PARP inhibitors contribute to the ever-growing economic burden of PCa. The objective of this project is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of PARP inhibitors (olaparib, rucaparib, or talazoparib) versus the SOC (docetaxel or androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPI)) for previously progressed mCRPC patients with BRCA1/2 mutations from the Canadian healthcare system perspective.

METHODS

Partitioned survival models were created to represent mCRPC disease after progression until death. Survival inputs for BRCA1/2-mutated patients were extracted from the PROfound, TRITON3, and TALAPRO-1 clinical trials, while Canadian-specific costs are presented in 2023 dollars. Upon progression, patients were treated with chemotherapy. The considered time horizon was 5 years and outcomes were discounted at 1.5% per year.

RESULTS

PARP inhibitors provide an additional survival of 0.19 quality-adjusted life years (QALY) when compared to the current standard of care, with additional costs of CAD 101,679 resulting in an incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) of CAD 565,383/QALY. The results were most sensitive to PARP inhibitors' acquisition costs and health-state utilities. PARP inhibitors required price reductions of up to 83% to meet the CAD 50,000/QALY willingness-to-pay threshold (WTP).

CONCLUSIONS

While providing survival benefits to previously progressed mCRPC patients presenting deleterious BRCA1/2 gene mutations, PARP inhibitors are not cost-effective and require major price reductions to reach local WTP thresholds.

Cost-effectiveness of first-line systemic therapies for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma

AIMS

To examine the cost-effectiveness of first-line systemic therapies recommended by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma (uHCC) from the US social and payer's perspective.

METHODS

A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted using a three-state partitioned survival model to assess the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, tremelimumab plus durvalumab, durvalumab, lenvatinib and sorafenib as first-line treatments for uHCC. Clinical efficacy was derived from a published network meta-analysis. Cost and utility inputs were collected from literature. Main outcomes measured were quality-adjusted life year (QALY), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses, as well as scenario analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Over a 10-year time horizon, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab yielded the highest QALYs. Compared to sorafenib, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, tremelimumab plus durvalumab and lenvatinib had ICERs of $196 704/QALY, $800 755/QALY and $2 032 756/QALY, respectively. Sorafenib was dominated by durvalumab due to lower QALYs and higher costs. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000/QALY, probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed that durvalumab had a 99.96% probability of providing the highest net monetary benefit.

CONCLUSIONS

At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000/QALY, durvalumab is likely the most cost-effective first-line systemic therapy for uHCC compared to sorafenib. Although atezolizumab plus bevacizumab yielded the highest QALYs, their ICERs exceeded the commonly accepted cost-effectiveness threshold ($150 000$ per QALY gained). These findings can inform clinical decision-making, resource allocation and future research priorities in managing uHCC.

Different Models, Same Results: Considerations When Choosing Between Approaches to Model Cost Effectiveness of Chimeric-Antigen Receptor T-Cell Therapy Versus Standard of Care

OBJECTIVE

Chimeric antigen-receptor T-cell therapy (CAR-T) is characterised by early phase data at the time of registration, high upfront cost and a complex manufacturing and administration process compared with standard therapies. Our objective was to compare the performance of different models to assess the cost effectiveness of CAR-T using a state-transition model (STM), partitioned survival model (PSM) and discrete event simulation (DES).

METHODS

Individual data for tisagenlecleucel for the treatment of young patients with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL) were used to populate the models. Costs and benefits were measured over a lifetime to generate a cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Model performance was compared quantitatively on the outcomes generated and a checklist developed summarising the components captured by each model type relevant to assessing cost effectiveness of CAR-T.

RESULTS

Models generated similar results with base-case analyses ranging from an incremental cost per QALY of $96,074-$99,625. DES was the only model to specifically capture CAR-T wait time, demonstrating a substantial loss of benefit of CAR-T with increased wait time.

CONCLUSION

Although model type did not meaningfully impact base-case results, the ability to incorporate an outcome-based payment arrangement (OBA) and wait time are important elements to consider when selecting a model for CAR-T. DES provided greater flexibility compared with STM and PSM approaches to deal with the complex manufacturing and administration process that can lead to extended wait times and substantially reduce the benefit of CAR-T. This is an important consideration when selecting a model type for CAR-T, so major drivers of uncertainty are considered in funding decisions.

The long-term effects of dapagliflozin in chronic kidney disease: a time-to-event analysis

BACKGROUND

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) presents a significant clinical and economic burden to healthcare systems worldwide, which increases considerably with progression towards kidney failure. The Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Chronic Kidney Disease (DAPA-CKD) trial demonstrated that patients with or without type 2 diabetes who were treated with dapagliflozin experienced slower progression of CKD versus those receiving placebo. Understanding the effect of long-term treatment with dapagliflozin on the timing of kidney failure beyond trial follow-up can assist informed decision-making by healthcare providers and patients. The study objective was therefore to extrapolate the outcome-based clinical benefits of treatment with dapagliflozin in patients with CKD via a time-to-event analysis using trial data.

METHODS

Patient-level data from the DAPA-CKD trial were used to parameterize a closed cohort-level partitioned survival model that predicted time-to-event for key trial endpoints (kidney failure, all-cause mortality, sustained decline in kidney function and hospitalization for heart failure). Data were pooled with a subpopulation of the Dapagliflozin Effect on Cardiovascular Events - Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 58 (DECLARE-TIMI 58) trial to create a combined CKD population spanning a range of CKD stages; a parallel survival analysis was conducted in this population.

RESULTS

In the DAPA-CKD and pooled CKD populations, treatment with dapagliflozin delayed time to first event for kidney failure, all-cause mortality, sustained decline in kidney function and hospitalization for heart failure. Attenuation of CKD progression was predicted to slow the time to kidney failure by 6.6 years [dapagliflozin: 25.2, 95% confidence interval (CI) 19.0-31.5; standard therapy: 18.5, 95% CI 14.7-23.4] in the DAPA-CKD population. A similar result was observed in the pooled CKD population with an estimated delay of 6.3 years (dapagliflozin: 36.0, 95% CI 31.9-38.3; standard therapy: 29.6, 95% CI 25.5-34.7).

CONCLUSION

Treatment with dapagliflozin over a lifetime time horizon may considerably delay the mean time to adverse clinical outcomes for patients who would go on to experience them, including those at modest risk of progression.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and chemotherapy for the treatment of metastatic, persistent, or recurrent cervical cancer (BEATcc)

BACKGROUND

The addition of atezolizumab to bevacizumab plus platinum regimen has demonstrated notable improvements in treating metastatic, persistent, or recurrent cervical cancer, but its cost-effectiveness requires further investigation. From a US payer perspective, we aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and chemotherapy vs. standard chemotherapy as a first-line treatment for metastatic, persistent, or recurrent cervical cancer.

METHODS

A partitioned survival model based on the data from the BEATcc trial was used to calculate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), using cost and health utility information obtained from literature and publicly accessible databases. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the model's responsiveness to variations in parameters.

RESULTS

The addition of atezolizumab resulted in an additional 0.839 quality-adjusted life years (QALY) at an additional cost of $458,237, leading to an ICER of $545,943/QALY. One-way sensitivity analysis indicated that the cost of atezolizumab had the greatest impact on the ICER, followed by the utility value of progression-free survival (PFS) and follow-up costs. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed a 0% cost-effectiveness probability at the current willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000 per QALY.

CONCLUSION

Adding atezolizumab to chemotherapy is cost-prohibitive in the US and may not be cost-effective for patients.

Cost-effectiveness of blinatumomab for the treatment of B‑precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia pediatric patients with high‑risk first‑relapse in Mexico

BACKGROUND

Blinatumomab is a CD3/CD19-directed bispecific T-cell engager molecule that engages T cells to lyse CD19-expressing B cells. Based on a multicenter, open-label, phase 3, randomized clinical trial (Clinical Trials ID: NCT02393859), we aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness (CE) of blinatumomab compared to standard consolidation chemotherapy (SC) for the treatment of pediatric patients with high-risk first-relapsed Philadelphia chromosome-negative B-cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL) from a Mexico healthcare payer perspective.

METHODS

A decision-analytic model, a partitioned survival model, was used to estimate the life-years (LYs) and costs over a lifetime horizon. We assumed that patients who remained alive beyond a 5-year period were cured. To account for the lingering impacts of cancer treatment, an excess mortality rate was incorporated into the model. Event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated by fitting mixture-cure and standard parametric survival distributions to the time-to-event data from the phase 3 trial. The model accounted for treatment costs, adverse event costs, follow-up costs, subsequent allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (alloHSCT) costs, and subsequent treatment costs.

RESULTS

Blinatumomab was associated with a lifetime gained of 5.11 years at an incremental cost of $621,111 MXN, relative to SC. The ICER for blinatumomab vs Standard of care was estimated to be $121,526 MXN/LY gained in the base case. Cost-effectiveness was sensitive to varying the time horizon. Blinatumomab had a probability of 99 % of being cost-effective, relative to SC, at the willingness to pay threshold defined in Mexico.

LIMITATIONS

Health-related quality of life values were not included in the analysis and therefore we did not estimate the quality-adjusted life-years gained.

CONCLUSIONS

Blinatumomab was associated with greater benefit in terms of OS and EFS relative to SC. Probabilistic, deterministic, and scenario analyses indicate that blinatumomab represents the best value for money. Therefore, blinatumomab administered as part of consolidation therapy in B-ALL pediatric patients with high-risk first relapse is a cost-effective option.

Calculating the Expected Net Benefit of Sampling for Survival Data: A Tutorial and Case Study

HIGHLIGHTS

The net value of reducing decision uncertainty by collecting additional data is quantified by the expected net benefit of sampling (ENBS). This tutorial presents a general-purpose algorithm for computing the ENBS for collecting survival data along with a step-by-step implementation in R.The algorithm is based on recently published methods for simulating survival data and computing expected value of sample information that do not rely on the survival data to follow any particular parametric distribution and that can take into account any arbitrary censoring process.We demonstrate in a case study based on a previous cancer technology appraisal that ENBS calculations are useful not only for designing new studies but also for optimizing reimbursement decisions for new health technologies based on immature evidence from ongoing trials.

The Economic Impact of Treatment Sequencing in Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia in Canada Using Venetoclax plus Obinutuzumab

BACKGROUND

Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors (BTKis) represent an advancement in chronic lymphocytic leukemia; however, these agents are administered continuously until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, raising concerns about their affordability. Venetoclax in combination with obinutuzumab (VO) is a fixed-duration (12-month) treatment, approved in Canada in 2020. This study estimated the total cumulative cost of different treatment sequences and evaluated the economic impact of introducing treatment sequences with/without VO, from a Canadian health care system perspective.

METHODS

A 10-year partitioned survival model was developed, considering key clinical parameters and direct medical costs. Results were stratified by TP53 aberration.

RESULTS

Treatment sequences starting with first-line (1L) VO resulted in lower 10-year cumulative costs compared to sequences starting with BTKis administered until disease progression, across both TP53 aberration subgroups. With a maximum of three lines of treatment over a 10-year period, cumulative costs were largely determined by the first two lines of treatment. When comparing sequences with the same 1L treatment, sequences with BTKis in second-line incurred greater costs compared to fixed-duration regimens.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the economic impact of treating all patients with VO led to 10-year cumulative savings of CAD 169,341 and CAD 293,731 per patient, without and with TP53 aberration, respectively. These savings are mainly due to reductions in treatment costs associated with fixed treatment duration.

A Systematic Review of Modeling Approaches to Evaluate Treatments for Relapsed Refractory Multiple Myeloma: Critical Review and Considerations for Future Health Economic Models

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Multiple myeloma is a rare incurable hematological cancer in which most patients relapse or become refractory to treatment. This systematic literature review aimed to critically review the existing economic models used in economic evaluations of systemic treatments for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma and to summarize how the models addressed differences in the line of therapy and exposure to prior treatment.

METHODS

Following a pre-approved protocol, literature searches were conducted on 17 February, 2023, in relevant databases for models published since 2014. Additionally, key health technology assessment agency websites were manually searched for models published as part of submission dossiers since 2018. Reported information related to model conceptualization, structure, uncertainty, validation, and transparency were extracted into a pre-defined extraction sheet.

RESULTS

In total, 49 models assessing a wide range of interventions across multiple lines of therapy were included. Only five models specific to heavily pre-treated patients and/or those who were refractory to multiple treatment classes were identified. Most models followed a conventional simple methodology, such as partitioned survival (n = 28) or Markov models (n = 9). All included models evaluated specific interventions rather than the whole treatment sequence. Where subsequent therapies were included in the model, these were generally only considered from a cost and resource use perspective. The models generally used overall and progression-free survival as model inputs, although data were often immature. Sensitivity analyses were frequently reported (n = 41) whereas validation was only considered in less than half (n = 19) of the models.

CONCLUSIONS

Published economic models in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma rarely followed an individual patient approach, mainly owing to the higher need for complex data assumptions compared with simpler modeling approaches. As many patients experience disease progression on multiple treatment lines, there is a growing need for modeling complex treatment strategies, leading to more sophisticated approaches in the future. Maintaining transparency, high reporting standards, and thorough analyses of uncertainty are crucial to support these advancements.

Modeling First-Line Daratumumab Use for Newly Diagnosed, Transplant-Ineligible, Multiple Myeloma: A Cost-Effectiveness and Risk Analysis for Healthcare Payers

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of two regimens regarded as the standard of care for the treatment of newly diagnosed, transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma in Singapore: (1) daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone and (2) bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone. Additionally, it aimed to explore potential strategies to manage decision uncertainty and mitigate financial risk.

METHODS

A cost-effectiveness analysis from the healthcare system perspective was conducted using a partitioned survival model to estimate lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) associated with daratumumab-based treatment and the bortezomib-based regimen. The analysis used data from the MAIA and SWOG S0777 trials and incorporated local real-world data where available. Sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the robustness of the findings, and a risk analysis was conducted to analyze various payer strategies in terms of their payer strategy and uncertainty burden (P-SUB), which account for the decision uncertainty and the additional cost of choosing a suboptimal intervention.

RESULTS

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (DRd) compared with bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (VRd) was US $90,364 per QALY gained. The results were sensitive to variations in survival for DRd, postprogression treatment costs, cost of hospice care, and hazard ratio for progression-free survival. The scenarios explored indicated that structural assumptions, such as the time horizon of the analysis, significantly influenced the results due to uncertainties arising from immature trial data and treatment efficacy over time. Among the various payer strategies compared, an upfront price discount for daratumumab emerged as the best approach with the lowest P-SUB at US $14,708.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, this study finds that daratumumab as a first-line treatment for myeloma exceeds the cost-effectiveness threshold considered in this evaluation. An upfront price reduction is the recommended strategy to manage uncertainties and mitigate financial risks. These findings highlight the importance of targeted payer strategies to address specific types and sources of uncertainty.

Informing Structural Assumptions for Three State Oncology Cost-Effectiveness Models through Model Efficiency and Fit

The characteristics and relative strengths and weaknesses of partitioned survival models (PSMs) and state transition models (STMs) for three state oncology cost-effectiveness models have previously been studied. Despite clear and longstanding economic modeling guidelines, more than one structure is rarely presented, and the choice of structure appears correlated more with audience or precedent than disease, decision problem, or available data. One reason may be a lack of guidance and tools available to readily compare measures of internal validity such as the model fit and efficiency of different structures, or sensitivity of results to those choices. To address this gap, methods are presented to evaluate the fit and efficiency of three structures, with an accompanying R software package, psm3mkv. The methods are illustrated by analyzing interim and final analysis datasets of the KEYNOTE-826 randomized controlled trial. At both interim and final analyses, the STM Clock Reset structure provided the best and most efficient fit. Structural uncertainties had been reduced from interim to final analysis. Beyond measures of internal validity, guidelines highlight the importance of reflecting all available data, avoiding model selection purely on the basis of goodness of fit and strongly considering external validity. The method and software allow modelers to more easily evaluate and report model fit and efficiency, examine implicit assumptions, and reveal sensitivities to structural choices.

Treatment Effect Waning Assumptions: A Review of National Institute of Health and Care Excellence Technology Appraisals

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to review the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) technology assessments to gain insights into the implementation of treatment effect (TE) waning, whereby the hazard or survival in an assessed technology converges to that of the comparator. This analysis aims to contribute to inform future guidance in this area.

METHODS

Technology appraisals published October 20, 2021 to September 20, 2023 were reviewed and data extracted on TE waning circumstances, methods, and rationale to compile a database based on 3 research questions: When are TE waning assumptions used? What methods are used? Why have the company/Evidence Assessment Group/committee preferred these methods?

RESULTS

Both the evidence assessment group/company and the committee included TE waning assumptions in 28 appraisals. There was no pattern of waning assumptions between shorter (<20 years) and longer (>20 years) time horizons. The most prominent time point for applying waning assumptions was at 5 years, with 30 out of 59 (50.8%) of the methods applied used 5 years. Stopping rules were used in 21 out of 30 (70.1%) of the appraisals for which the committee included waning, and waning assumptions were used more in oncology. The most common reason given for including TE waning assumptions was precedent from prior appraisals.

CONCLUSIONS

Considerable heterogeneity existed in both the methods used and justifications given for TE waning assumptions. This variability poses a risk of inconsistent decision making. Reliance on past appraisals emphasizes the necessity to advocate for evidence-driven approaches and underscores the demand for guidance on suitable methods for incorporating assumptions.

Economic Evaluations of Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-Cell Therapies for Hematologic and Solid Malignancies: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to systematically review evidence on the cost-effectiveness of chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapies for patients with cancer.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched in October 2022 and updated in September 2023. Systematic reviews, health technology assessments, and economic evaluations that compared costs and effects of CAR-T therapy in patients with cancer were included. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, synthesized results, and critically appraised studies using the Philips checklist. Cost data were presented in 2022 US dollars.

RESULTS

Our search yielded 1809 records, 47 of which were included. Most of included studies were cost-utility analysis, published between 2018 and 2023, and conducted in the United States. Tisagenlecleucel, axicabtagene ciloleucel, idecabtagene vicleucel, ciltacabtagene autoleucel, lisocabtagene maraleucel, brexucabtagene autoleucel, and relmacabtagene autoleucel were compared with various standard of care chemotherapies. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for CAR-T therapies ranged from $9424 to $4 124 105 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) in adults and from $20 784 to $243 177 per QALY in pediatric patients. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were found to improve over longer time horizons or when an earlier cure point was assumed. Most studies failed to meet the Philips checklist due to a lack of head-to-head comparisons and uncertainty surrounding CAR-T costs and curative effects.

CONCLUSIONS

CAR-T therapies were more expensive and generated more QALYs than comparators, but their cost-effectiveness was uncertain and dependent on patient population, cancer type, and model assumptions. This highlights the need for more nuanced economic evaluations and continued research to better understand the value of CAR-T therapies in diverse patient populations.

Cost‑effectiveness analysis of tislelizumab plus chemotherapy in Chinese patients with advanced or metastatic oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma

The RATIONALE-306 study revealed that patients with advanced or metastatic oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) could benefit from treatment with tislelizumab plus chemotherapy. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of tislelizumab plus chemotherapy for treating OSCC from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Partitioned survival model estimated the cost-effectiveness of tislelizumab plus chemotherapy compared with chemotherapy alone for treating OSCC using RATIONALE-306 data. Costs and utilities were obtained from local databases and published studies. Costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), life-years, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER), incremental net health benefits (INHB), and incremental net monetary benefits (INMB) were outcomes. Price simulation were conducted at the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were performed to assess model robustness. Compared with chemotherapy alone, tislelizumab plus chemotherapy yielded an ICER of USD 27,896/QALY, gained an additional 0.414 QALYs and 0.751 life-years, and increased the cost by USD 11,560. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed that tislelizumab plus chemotherapy was cost-effective at the WTP of USD 38,258/QALY with probability of 94.43%. When the price in China was less than USD 3.714 per mg, the price simulation results indicated that tislelizumab plus chemotherapy was cost-effective at a WTP threshold of USD 38,258. Tislelizumab plus chemotherapy yielded an INHB of 0.112 QALYs and an INMB of USD 4,279 compared with chemotherapy alone at a WTP threshold of USD 38,258. Based on the sensitivity analyses, the above results were stable. A general trend was observed for subgroups with better survival benefits related to a higher probability of cost-effectiveness. From the Chinese healthcare perspective, tislelizumab plus chemotherapy is more cost-effective than chemotherapy alone as a first-line therapy for OSCC. These findings can help clinicians make optimal clinical decisions and assist decision-makers in evaluating the cost-effectiveness of tislelizumab in clinical practice.

Cost-Effectiveness and Budget Impact Analyses of Selective Internal Radiation Therapy versus Atezolizumab Plus Bevacizumab from a German Statutory Health Insurance Perspective

Purpose

To compare personalized dosimetry with yttrium-90 (90Y)-loaded glass microspheres (SIRT) vs atezolizumab and bevacizumab (A+B) in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treatment in terms of cost-effectiveness and budget impact from a German statutory health insurance (SHI) perspective.

Patients and Methods

Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) and budget impact analysis (BIA) models were developed in MS Excel. The available key studies (IMbrave150 and DOSISPHERE-01) suggest that both strategies are comparable in terms of progression-free survival and overall survival in HCC, but a difference in severe adverse events (SAE) in favor of SIRT was observed. Accordingly, the CEA model investigates the endpoints "cost per SAE avoided" and "cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained", whereas the BIA simulates the impact of a stepwise re-allocation of current market share to the option which emerges as more cost-effective from the CEA.

Results

The model suite estimated a mean annual total per-patient costs of € 29,984 for SIRT, compared to € 75,725 for A+B. SIRT was associated with a lower number of SAE and a higher number of QALYs compared to A+B. Switching additionally 25% of the eligible patients (≈500) from systemic therapy to SIRT could generate annual savings of approximately € 22.6 million Euros to the SHI.

Conclusion

SIRT was identified as dominant treatment strategy. SIRT use not only saves SHI expenditure compared to systemic immunotherapy but also yields extra QALYs. This positions SIRT as the dominant and more cost-effective treatment strategy for patients with HCC. The savings to the SHI system, derived from the BIA conducted, become increasingly significant with rising adoption rates of SIRT.

Cost-effectiveness of ivosidenib versus chemotherapy for previously treated IDH1-mutant advanced intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma in Taiwan

BACKGROUND

International guidelines recommend ivosidenib followed by modified FOLFOX (mFOLFOX) for advanced intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) with isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 (IDH1) mutations. Taiwan National Health Insurance covers only fluorouracil/leucovorin (5-FU/LV) chemotherapy for this ICC group, and there has been no prior economic evaluation of ivosidenib. Therefore, we aimed to assess ivosidenib's cost-effectiveness in previously treated, advanced ICC-presenting IDH1 mutations compared with mFOLFOX or 5-FU/LV.

METHODS

A 3-state partitioned survival model was employed to assess ivosidenib's cost-effectiveness over a 10-year horizon with a 3% discount rate, setting the willingness-to-pay threshold at 3 times the 2022 GDP per capita. Efficacy data for Ivosidenib, mFOLFOX, and 5-FU/LV were sourced from the ClarIDHy, ABC06, and NIFTY trials, respectively. Ivosidenib's cost was assumed to be NT$10,402/500 mg. Primary outcomes included incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and net monetary benefit. Deterministic sensitivity analyses (DSA) and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were employed to evaluate uncertainty and explore price reduction scenarios.

RESULTS

Ivosidenib exhibited ICERs of NT$6,268,528 and NT$5,670,555 compared with mFOLFOX and 5-FU/LV, respectively, both exceeding the established threshold. PSA revealed that ivosidenib was unlikely to be cost-effective, except when it was reduced to NT$4,161 and NT$5,201/500 mg when compared with mFOLFOX and 5-FU/LV, respectively. DSA underscored the significant influence of ivosidenib's cost and utility values on estimate uncertainty.

CONCLUSIONS

At NT$10,402/500 mg, ivosidenib was not cost-effective for IDH1-mutant ICC patients compared with mFOLFOX or 5-FU/LV, indicating that a 50-60% price reduction is necessary for ivosidenib to be cost-effective in this patient group.

Challenges and Opportunities in Interdisciplinary Research and Real-World Data for Treatment Sequences in Health Technology Assessments

With an ever-increasing number of treatment options, the assessment of treatment sequences has become crucial in health technology assessment (HTA). This review systematically explores the multifaceted challenges inherent in evaluating sequences, delving into their interplay and nuances that go beyond economic model structures. We synthesised a 'roadmap' of literature from key methodological studies, highlighting the evolution of recent advances and emerging research themes. These insights were compared against HTA guidelines to identify potential avenues for future research. Our findings reveal a spectrum of challenges in sequence evaluation, encompassing selecting appropriate decision-analytic modelling approaches and comparators, deriving appropriate clinical effectiveness evidence in the face of data scarcity, scrutinising effectiveness assumptions and statistical adjustments, considering treatment displacement, and optimising model computations. Integrating methodologies from diverse disciplines-statistics, epidemiology, causal inference, operational research and computer science-has demonstrated promise in addressing these challenges. An updated review of application studies is warranted to provide detailed insights into the extent and manner in which these methodologies have been implemented. Data scarcity on the effectiveness of treatment sequences emerged as a dominant concern, especially because treatment sequences are rarely compared in clinical trials. Real-world data (RWD) provide an alternative means for capturing evidence on effectiveness and future research should prioritise harnessing causal inference methods, particularly Target Trial Emulation, to evaluate treatment sequence effectiveness using RWD. This approach is also adaptable for analysing trials harbouring sequencing information and adjusting indirect comparisons when collating evidence from heterogeneous sources. Such investigative efforts could lend support to reviews of HTA recommendations and contribute to synthesising external control arms involving treatment sequences.

Toripalimab plus chemotherapy in American patients with recurrent or metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma: A cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

Toripalimab, combined with gemcitabine and cisplatin, has been approved as the first-line treatment for recurrent or metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma (RM-NPC), representing a significant milestone as the first FDA-approved innovative therapy for this condition. Despite this achievement, there's a lack of data on the cost-effectiveness of toripalimab for RM-NPC patients in the American context.

METHODS

To assess the cost-effectiveness of toripalimab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone, a 3-state partitioned survival model was constructed. The study involved participants with characteristics matching those in the JUPITER-02 trial. Cost and utility inputs were collected from literature. Main outcomes measured were quality-adjusted life year (QALY), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses, subgroup analyses, and scenario analyses were conducted to verify the robustness of results.

RESULTS

The study found that the toripalimab regimen resulted in 4.390 QALYs at a cost of $361,813, while the chemotherapy-only regimen yielded 1.685 QALYs at a cost of $161,632. This translates to an ICER of $74,004/QALY, below the willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000/QALY. Sensitivity analyses indicated that utility values, discount rate, and the price of toripalimab significantly impact INMB. With an 87.10% probability of being cost-effective at a $150,000/QALY threshold, the probabilistic sensitivity analysis supports toripalimab plus chemotherapy as a viable option. Scenario analysis showed that toripalimab remains cost-effective unless its price increases by 125%. Additionally, a simulated 15-year study period increases the ICER to $88,026/QALY. Subgroup analysis revealed ICERs of $76,538/QALY for PD-L1 positive and $70,158/QALY for PD-L1 negative groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Toripalimab in combination with chemotherapy is likely to be a cost-effective alternative to standard chemotherapy for American patients with RM-NPC. This evidence can guide clinical and reimbursement decision-making in treating RM-NPC patients.

Cost-effectiveness of sacituzumab govitecan versus single-agent chemotherapy for metastatic triple-negative breast cancer: a trial-based analysis

BACKGROUND

Sacituzumab govitecan (SG) has recently been approved in China for the post-line treatment of metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC). SG substantially improves progression-free survival and overall survival compared with single-agent chemotherapy for pretreated mTNBC. However, in view of the high price of SG, it is necessary to consider its value in terms of costs and outcomes. This study aimed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of SG versus single-agent treatment of physician's choice (TPC) in the post-line setting for patients with mTNBC from a Chinese healthcare system perspective.

METHODS

The cohort characteristics were sourced from the ASCENT randomized clinical trial, which enrolled 468 heavily pretreated patients with mTNBC between November 2017 and September 2019. A partitioned survival model was constructed to assess the long-term costs and effectiveness of SG versus TPC in the post-line treatment of mTNBC. Quality-adjusted life-months (QALMs) and total costs in 2022 US dollars were used to derive incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER). QALMs and costs were discounted at 5% annually. The willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was defined as $3188 per QALM, three times China's average monthly per capita gross domestic product in 2022. One-way sensitivity analysis, probabilistic sensitivity analysis, and scenario analyses were performed to estimate the robustness of the results.

RESULTS

Treatment with SG yielded an incremental 5.17 QALMs at a cost of $44,792 per QALM, much above the WTP threshold of $3188/QALM in China. One-way sensitivity analysis showed that SG price was a crucial factor in the ICER. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed that the cost-effective acceptability of SG was 0% in the current setting. Scenario analyses indicated that the result was robust in all subgroups in ASCENT or under different time horizons. Furthermore, SG must reduce the price to enter the Chinese mainland market. When the monthly cost of SG reduce to $2298, SG has about 50% probability to be a preferred choice than TPC.

CONCLUSIONS

SG was estimated to be not cost-effective compared with TPC for post-line treatment for mTNBC in China by the current price in HK under a WTP threshold of $3188 per QALM. A drastic price reduction is necessary to improve its cost-effectiveness.

The cost-effectiveness of germline BRCA testing-guided olaparib treatment in metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Olaparib targets the DNA repair pathways and has revolutionized the management of metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Treatment with the drug should be guided by genetic testing; however, published economic evaluations did not consider olaparib and genetic testing as codependent technologies. This study aims to assess the cost-effectiveness of BRCA germline testing to inform olaparib treatment in mCRPC.

METHODS

We conducted a cost-utility analysis of germline BRCA testing-guided olaparib treatment compared to standard care without testing from an Australian health payer perspective. The analysis applied a decision tree to indicate the germline testing or no testing strategy. A Markov multi-state transition approach was used for patients within each strategy. The model had a time horizon of 5 years. Costs and outcomes were discounted at an annual rate of 5 percent. Decision uncertainty was characterized using probabilistic and scenario analyses.

RESULTS

Compared to standard care, BRCA testing-guided olaparib treatment was associated with an incremental cost of AU$7,841 and a gain of 0.06 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was AU$143,613 per QALY. The probability of BRCA testing-guided treatment being cost effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of AU$100,000 per QALY was around 2 percent; however, the likelihood for cost-effectiveness increased to 66 percent if the price of olaparib was reduced by 30 percent.

CONCLUSION

This is the first study to evaluate germline genetic testing and olaparib treatment as codependent technologies in mCRPC. Genetic testing-guided olaparib treatment may be cost-effective with significant discounts on olaparib pricing.

Dynamic nature of BRAF or KRAS p.G12C mutations in second-line therapy for advanced colorectal cancer patients: do early and late effects exist?

INTRODUCTION

The mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) signalling network aberrations in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) generate intrinsic dynamic effects and temporal variations that are crucial but often overlooked in clinical trial populations. Here, we investigate the time-varying impact of MAPK pathway mutation genotype on each treatment line's contribution to the overall clinical course.

METHODS

The PROMETEO study focused on mCRC patients undergoing second-line treatment at 20 hospitals. We evaluated genotypes and employed flexible models to analyse the dynamic effect of each mutation.

RESULTS

We examined data derived from 1160 patients. The effects of KRAS G12C or G12V, and BRAF V600E are clearly time-varying, with unexpected consequences such as the deleterious effect of BRAF V600E vs other genotypes dissipating over time when subjects receive antiangiogenics, or KRAS G12V and G12C showing increasing aggressiveness over time. Thus, contrary to expectations, the 12-month survival rate from the second line for those who survived >6 months was 49.9% (95% CI, 32.7-67.3) for KRAS G12C and 59% (95% CI, 38.5-80.6) for BRAF V600E.

CONCLUSIONS

The dynamic perspective is essential for understanding the behaviour of tumours with specific genotypes, especially from the second line onward. This may be relevant in patient monitoring and treatment decision-making, particularly in cases with distinct mutations.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors versus chemotherapy as second-line therapy for advanced oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a systematic review and economic evaluation

Background

Recently, several novel programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) inhibitors have been approved for second-line treating advanced or metastatic oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC), including camrelizumab, nivolumab, pembrolizumab, sintilimab and tislelizumab. However, the optimal treatment regimen remained ambiguous.

Objectives

The purpose of this study was to investigate the efficacy, safety and economy of available PD-1 inhibitors to determine the optimal treatment from the Chinese healthcare system perspective.

Design

A systematic review and economic evaluation.

Data sources and methods

A systematic review was undertaken utilizing PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase and Scopus databases to identify eligible studies until 31 August 2023. Primary outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and adverse events (AEs). We also developed a partitioned survival model at 3-week intervals based on five clinical trials to predict long-term costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for various treatment options. Direct medical costs and utility values were obtained from public drug bidding databases, clinical trials or published literature. The parameter uncertainties within the model were determined via one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

Results

Five randomized controlled trials involving 2837 patients were included in the analysis. Compared with other treatments examined, camrelizumab provided the best PFS benefits [hazard ratio (HR): 0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.56-0.86], and pembrolizumab provided the best OS benefits (HR: 0.55, 95% CI: 0.37-0.82). Nivolumab caused a relatively lower incidence of treatment-related AEs (HR: 0.10, 95% CI: 0.05-0.20) and grade 3-5 AEs (HR: 0.13, 95% CI: 0.08-0.21) than other immunotherapy regimens. In the economic evaluation, average 10-year costs ranged from $5,433.86 (chemotherapy) to $50,617.95 (nivolumab) and mean QALYs ranged from 0.55 (chemotherapy) to 0.82 (camrelizumab). Pembrolizumab was eliminated because of dominance. Of the remaining strategies, when the willingness-to-pay thresholds were 1, 2 and 3 times GDP per capita in 2022, sintilimab, tislelizumab and camrelizumab were the most cost-effective treatment options, respectively.

Conclusion

Sintilimab might be the optimal treatment alternative for second-line therapy of advanced OSCC in China, followed by tislelizumab and camrelizumab.

Trial registration

This study has been registered on the PROSPERO database with the registration number CRD42023495204.

Comparison of partitioned survival modeling with state transition modeling approaches with or without consideration of brain metastasis: a case study of Osimertinib versus pemetrexed-platinum

BACKGROUND

The partitioned survival model (PSM) and the state transition model (STM) are widely used in cost-effectiveness analyses of anticancer drugs. Using different modeling approaches with or without consideration of brain metastasis, we compared the quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) estimates of Osimertinib and pemetrexed-platinum in advanced non-small cell lung cancer with epidermal growth factor receptor mutations.

METHODS

We constructed three economic models using parametric curves fitted to patient-level data from the National Health Insurance Review and Assessment claims database from 2009 to 2020. PSM and 3-health state transition model (3-STM) consist of three health states: progression-free, post-progression, and death. The 5-health state transition model (5-STM) has two additional health states (brain metastasis with continuing initial therapy, and with subsequent therapy). Time-dependent transition probabilities were calculated in the state transition models. The incremental life-year (LY) and QALY between the Osimertinib and pemetrexed-platinum cohorts for each modeling approach were estimated over seven years.

RESULTS

The PSM and 3-STM produced similar incremental LY (0.889 and 0.899, respectively) and QALY (0.827 and 0.840, respectively). However, 5-STM, which considered brain metastasis as separate health states, yielded a slightly higher incremental LY (0.910) but lower incremental QALY (0.695) than PSM and 3-STM.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings indicate that incorporating additional health states such as brain metastases into economic models can have a considerable impact on incremental QALY estimates. To ensure appropriate health technology assessment decisions, comparison and justification of different modeling approaches are recommended in the economic evaluation of anticancer drugs.

The Health Inequality Impact of a New Cancer Therapy Given Treatment and Disease Characteristics

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to perform a simulation study to quantify the health inequality impact of a cancer therapy given cancer and treatment characteristics using the distributional cost-effectiveness framework.

METHODS

The following factors were varied in 10 000 simulations: lifetime risk of the disease, median overall survival (OS) with standard of care (SOC), difference in OS between non-Hispanic (NH)-Black and NH-White patients (prognostic effect), treatment effect of the new therapy relative to SOC, whether the treatment effect differs between NH-Black and NH-White patients (effect modification), health utility, drug costs, and preprogression and postprogression costs. Based on these characteristics, the incremental population net health benefits were calculated for the new therapy and applied to a US distribution of quality-adjusted life expectancy at birth. The health inequality impact was quantified as the difference in the degree of inequality in the "post-new therapy" versus "pre-new therapy" quality-adjusted life expectancy distributions.

RESULTS

For cancer types characterized by relatively large lifetime risk, large median OS with SOC, large treatment effect, and large effect modification, the direction of the impact of the new therapy on inequality is easy to predict. When effect modification is minor or absent, which is a realistic scenario, the direction of the inequality impact is difficult to predict. Larger incremental drug costs have a worsening effect on health inequality.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings provide a guide to help decision makers and other stakeholders make an initial assessment whether a new therapy with known treatment effects for a specific tumor type can have a positive or negative health inequality impact.

Cost-utility analysis of Pembrolizumab compared to other alternative immunotherapy and chemotherapy treatments for patients with advanced melanoma in Iran

OBJECTIVES

Immunotherapy drugs like Pembrolizumab have shown significant improvements in treatment outcomes of advanced melanoma. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-utility of Pembrolizumab compared to other immunotherapy and chemotherapy drugs in the first-line treatment of advanced melanoma in Iran.

METHODS

A partitioned-survival model, based on data from a recent randomized phase 3 study (KEYNOTE-006) and recent meta-analysis, was used to divide Overall survival (OS) time into Progression-free survival (PFS) and post-progression survival for Pembrolizumab, Nivolumab, Ipilimumab, Dacarbazine, Temozolomide, Carboplatin, and Paclitaxel combination. Quality Life Years (QALY) and Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) were considered as the final outcome.

RESULTS

The ICER of Ipilimumab, Nivolumab, Nivolumab & Ipilimumab, and Pembrolizumab compared to Temozolomide was calculated as $40,365.53, $19,591.13, $24,578, and $47,324.2 per QALY, respectively. Scenario analysis demonstrated if the price of one vial of Nivolumab 100 is $90.51, each vial of Pembrolizumab is $119.20, and each vial of Ipilimumab is $101.54, they will be cost-effective in Iran.

CONCLUSION

None of the immunotherapy drugs studied were found to be cost-effective when considering the cost-effectiveness threshold of $3,532. Therefore, a cost reduction of more than 90% in the prices of immunotherapy drugs would be necessary for them to be considered cost-effective in Iran.

Cost-effectiveness of intravenous resuscitation fluids in sepsis patients: a patient-level data analysis in Jordan

AIM

Albumin role as fluid resuscitation in sepsis remains understudied in low- and middle-income countries. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of intravenous (IV) Albumin compared to Crystalloids in sepsis patients using patient-level data in Jordan.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of sepsis patients aged 18 or older admitted to intensive care units (ICU) at two major tertiary hospitals during the period 2018-2019. Patients information, type of IV fluid, and clinical outcomes were retrieved from medical records, and charges were retrieved from the billing system. A 90-day partitioned survival model with two health states (alive and dead) was constructed to estimate the survival of sepsis patients receiving either Albumin or Crystalloids as IV fluids for resuscitation. Overall survival was predicted by fitting a Weibull model on the patient-level data from the current study. To further validate the results, and to support the assessment of uncertainty, time-dependent transition probabilities of death at each cycle were estimated and used to construct a state-transition patient-level simulation model with 10,000 microsimulation trials. Adopting the healthcare system perspective, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios(ICERs) of Albumin versus Crystalloids were calculated in terms of the probability to be discharged alive from the ICU. Uncertainty was explored using probabilistic sensitivity analysis.

RESULTS

In the partitioned survival model, Albumin was associated with an incremental cost of $1,007 per incremental1% in the probability of being discharged alive from the ICU. In the state-transition patient-level simulation model, ICER was $1,268 per incremental 1% in the probability of being discharged alive. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that Albumin was favored at thresholds >$800 per incremental 1%in the probability of being discharged alive from the ICU.

CONCLUSION

IV Albumin use in sepsis patients might not be cost-effective from the healthcare perspective of Jordan. This has important implications for policymakers to readdress Albumin prescribing practice in sepsis patients.

Improved estimation of overall survival and progression-free survival for state transition modeling

Aim: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance (Technical Support Document 19) highlights a key challenge of state transition models (STMs) being their difficulty in achieving a satisfactory fit to the observed within-trial endpoints. Fitting poorly to data over the trial period can then have implications for long-term extrapolations. A novel estimation approach is defined in which the predicted overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) extrapolations from an STM are optimized to provide closer estimates of the within-trial endpoints. Materials & methods: An STM was fitted to the SQUIRE trial data in non-small-cell lung cancer (obtained from Project Data Sphere). Two methods were used: a standard approach whereby the maximum likelihood was utilized for the individual transitions and the best-fitting parametric model selected based on AIC/BIC, and a novel approach in which parameters were optimized by minimizing the area between the STM-predicted OS and PFS curves and the corresponding OS and PFS Kaplan-Meier curves. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess uncertainty. Results: The novel approach resulted in closer estimations to the OS and PFS Kaplan-Meier for all combinations of parametric distributions analyzed compared with the standard approach. Though the uncertainty associated with the novel approach was slightly larger, it provided better estimates to the restricted mean survival time in 10 of the 12 parametric distributions analyzed. Conclusion: A novel approach is defined which provides an alternative STM estimation method enabling improved fits to modeled endpoints, which can easily be extended to more complex model structures.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of tislelizumab in combination with chemotherapy for the first-line treatment of patients with metastatic or recurrent nasopharyngeal carcinoma in China

BACKGROUND

The combination of tislelizumab and gemcitabine plus cisplatin (GP) in the first-line treatment of patients with recurrent or metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma (R/M NPC) has yielded significant results. However, it is not clear whether this treatment option is cost-effective in China. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of tislelizumab plus GP for the first-line treatment of R/M NPC from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system.

METHODS

A partitioned survival model with three discrete health states was constructed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of tislelizumab plus GP versus GP in patients with R/M NPC. The target population enrolled in the RATIONALE-309 trial had previously not treated for R/M NPC. Drug costs were obtained from relevant databases, and the remaining cost and health utility data were collected from the literature. The main outcomes include the expected life years, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), total cost, and incremental cost-benefit ratio (ICER).

RESULTS

The tislelizumab plus GP regimen produced an additional cost ($18392.76) and additional 1.57 QALYs compared with GP used alone. The ICER was $18392.75/QALYs. Sensitivity analysis showed that the analysis was robust and the utility of PD status was most sensitive to the model results. The possibility of tislelizumab plus GP being cost-effective at the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $37 653/QALY was 99.8%. Subgroup analysis showed that high PD-L1 expression had little impact on the ICER of this regimen.

CONCLUSION

In patients with R/M NPC, the regimen of tislelizumab plus GP, as the first-line treatment, is more cost-effective than the GP regimen in China.

Cost Effectiveness of Molecular Diagnostic Testing Algorithms for the Treatment Selection of Frontline Ibrutinib for Patients with Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia in Australia

BACKGROUND

Clinical indications for ibrutinib reimbursement in Australia should consider the inclusion of patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) harboring prognostically unfavorable TP53/IGHV genomic aberrations. This study assessed the cost effectiveness of five first-line treatment strategies in CLL for young (aged ≤ 65 years), fit patients without significant comorbidities: (1) no testing (fludarabine, cyclophosphamide and rituximab [FCR] for all), (2) test for del(17p) only, (3) test for TP53 gene mutation status, (4) test for TP53 and IGHV gene mutation status and (5) no testing (ibrutinib for all).

METHOD

A decision analytic model (decision tree and partitioned survival model) was developed from the Australian healthcare system perspective with a lifetime horizon. Comparative treatment effects were estimated from indirect treatment comparisons and survival analysis using several studies. Costs, utility and adverse events were derived from public literature sources. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses explored the impact of modeling uncertainties on outcomes.

RESULTS

Strategy 1 was associated with 5.69 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and cost 458,836 Australian dollars (AUD). All other strategies had greater effectiveness but were more expensive than Strategy 1. At the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of 100,000 AUD per QALY gained, Strategy 1 was most cost effective with an estimated probability of 68.8%. Strategy 4 was cost effective between thresholds 155,000-432,300 AUD per QALY gained, and Strategy 5 >432,300 AUD per QALY gained.

CONCLUSION

Population targeting using mutation testing for TP53 and IGHV when performed with del(17p) testing specifically in the context of frontline ibrutinib choice does not make a cost-ineffective treatment into a cost-effective treatment.

Economic evaluation of adjuvant therapy with osimertinib in patients with early-stage non-small cell lung cancer and mutated EGFR

PURPOSE

The ADAURA trial demonstrated the superiority of osimertinib over a placebo with regard to disease-free survival, showing it to be indicated as an adjuvant therapy for treatment of non-small cell lung cancer with mutated epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR). The aim of the present study was to conduct a cost-utility analysis and an analysis of the budgetary impact of adjuvant therapy with osimertinib in patients with non-small cell lung cancer with mutated EGFR who had undergone resection surgery with curative intent.

METHODS

Analyses were based on the outcomes of the ADAURA clinical trial and were conducted through a Spanish National Health Service perspective. The outcome measures used were quality-adjusted life years (QALY).

RESULTS

The average overall cost of adjuvant treatment with osimertinib over a period of 100 months in the overall sample of trial patients (stages IB-IIIA) was 220,961 €, compared with 197,849 € in the placebo group. Effectiveness, estimated according to QALY, was 6.26 years in the osimertinib group and 5.96 years in the placebo group, with the incremental cost-utility ratio being 77,040 €/QALY. With regard to the budgetary impact, it was estimated that, in 2021, approximately 1130 patients would be subsidiaries to receive osimertinib. This pertains to a difference of 17,375,330 € over 100 months to fund this treatment relative to no treatment.

CONCLUSION

Taking into account a Spanish threshold of 24,000 €/QALY, the reduction in the acquisition cost of osimertinib will have to be greater than 10%, to obtain a cost-effective alternative.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of elacestrant versus standard endocrine therapy for second-/third-line treatment of patients with HR+/HER2- advanced or metastatic breast cancer: a US payer perspective

Background

This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of elacestrant (ELA) and standard-of-care (SOC) as second-/third-line treatment for pretreated estrogen receptor (ER)- positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative advanced or metastatic breast cancer (A/MBC) in the US.

Methods

The 3 health states partitioned survival model (PSM) was conducted from the perspective of the US third-party payers. The time horizon for the model lasted 10 years. Effectiveness and safety data were derived from the EMERALD trial (NCT03778931). Costs were derived from the pricing files of Medicare and Medicaid Services, and utility values were derived from published studies. One-way sensitivity analysis as well as probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed to observe model stability.

Result

ELA led to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $8,672,360/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained compared with SOC in the overall population and $2,900,560/QALY gained compared with fulvestrant (FUL) in the ESR1(estrogen receptor 1) mutation subgroup. The two ICERs of ELA were significantly higher than the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold values of $150,000/QALY.

Conclusions

ELA was not cost-effective for the second-/third-line treatment of patients with ER+/HER2-A/MBC compared with SOC in the US.

Cost-utility analysis of trastuzumab deruxtecan versus trastuzumab emtansine in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer in Chinese setting

PURPOSE

Trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) expressed substantial improvement in the progression-free survival and overall survival contrasted with trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer (mBC), becoming the second-line standard of care, promisingly. We aim to estimate the cost-utility of T-DXd versus T-DM1 in HER2-positive mBC from the Chinese healthcare perspective.

METHODS

A partitioned survival model was applied to examine the cost-utility of T-DXd versus T-DM1. Clinical patients and outcome data were sourced from the DESTINY-Breast 03 trial. Costs and utilities were sourced in Chinese setting. Total costs, quality-adjusted life months (QALMs), and an incremental cost-utility ratios (ICUR) were calculated for cost-utility analysis. The willingness-to-pay threshold was set at $3188/QALM. Univariate, scenario, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

T-DXd group gained ∆QALM of 7.09 months and ∆Cost of $304,503 compared with T-DM1 therapy, which caused an ICUR of $42,936/QALM. The results of sensitivity analyses confirmed the base-case findings. Furthermore, T-DXd must reduce the price to enter the Chinese mainland market. At least when the cycle cost of T-DXd is reduced to $2975, T-DXd has an 83.3% chance of becoming a better choice.

CONCLUSIONS

T-DXd appears to be not cost effective compared with T-DM1 for HER2-positive mBC patients previously treated with trastuzumab and a taxane.

Cost-utility analysis of Palbociclib + letrozole and ribociclib + letrozole versus Letrozole monotherapy in the first-line treatment of metastatic breast cancer in Iran using partitioned survival model

BACKGROUND

Palbociclib and Ribociclib are cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 oral molecular inhibitors that have the potential to improve overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and quality of life in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC). The objective of this study was to analyze the cost-utility of Palbociclib and Ribociclib in comparison with Letrozole monotherapy as the first-line treatment for hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) MBC patients in Iran.

METHODS

A Cost-Utility Analysis (CUA) was conducted using a partitioned survival model (PSM) from the perspective of the Iranian healthcare system. The comparative strategies considered were Palbociclib + Letrozole, Ribociclib + Letrozole, and Letrozole monotherapy. The model was structured with a 1-month cycle length and a 15-year time horizon. Clinical safety, efficacy, and survival data in terms of PFS and OS for Palbociclib + Letrozole and Ribociclib + Letrozole were obtained from the latest updates of the PALOMA-1, 2, and MONALEESA-2 studies, respectively. Direct medical costs, including drug costs, visits, hospitalization, CT scans, bone x-rays, monitoring and laboratory testing, as well as medication side effects, were considered. Uncertainty evaluations were performed through deterministic sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Excel 2016 and TreeAge 2020 were used for all stages of the evaluation.

RESULTS

The base case results indicated that, despite its lower effectiveness, Letrozole monotherapy was the most cost-effective strategy, while Palbociclib + Letrozole and Ribociclib + Letrozole were not cost-effective. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for Palbociclib + Letrozole and Ribociclib + Letrozole compared to Letrozole monotherapy were estimated at $137,302 and $120,478 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), respectively, which exceeded the target threshold of $4565. Deterministic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the CUA results were not sensitive to changes in the values of uncertain variables. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis also indicated that Palbociclib + Letrozole and Ribociclib + Letrozole had no chance of being cost-effective based on changes in various parameters and simulations.

CONCLUSIONS

Palbociclib and Ribociclib showed significant efficacy in combination with Letrozole, as evidenced by improvements in PFS. However, in the first-line treatment of MBC in Iran, these strategies were not cost-effective compared to Letrozole monotherapy.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of 7 treatments in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer: a public-payer perspective

BACKGROUND

Recently, several new treatment regimens have been approved for treating metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, building on androgen deprivation therapy alone. These include docetaxel androgen deprivation therapy, abiraterone acetate-prednisone androgen deprivation therapy, apalutamide androgen deprivation therapy, enzalutamide androgen deprivation therapy, darolutamide-docetaxel androgen deprivation therapy, and abiraterone-prednisone androgen deprivation therapy with docetaxel. There are no validated predictive biomarkers for choosing a specific regimen. The goal of this study was to conduct a health economic outcome evaluation to determine the optimal treatment from the US public sector (Veterans Affairs).

METHODS

We developed a partitioned survival model in which metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer patients transitioned between 3 health states (progression free, progressive disease to castrate resistance state, and death) at monthly intervals based on Weibull survival model estimated from published Kaplan-Meier curves using a Bayesian network meta-analysis of 7 clinical trials (7208 patients). The effectiveness outcome in our model was quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Cost input parameters included initial and subsequent treatment costs and costs for terminal care and for managing grade 3 or higher drug-related adverse events and were obtained from the Federal Supply Schedule and published literature.

RESULTS

Average 10-year costs ranged from $34 349 (androgen deprivation therapy) to $658 928 (darolutamide-docetaxel androgen deprivation therapy) and mean QALYs ranged from 3.25 (androgen deprivation therapy) to 4.57 (enzalutamide androgen deprivation therapy). Treatment strategies docetaxel androgen deprivation therapy, enzalutamide androgen deprivation therapy docetaxel, apalutamide androgen deprivation therapy, and darolutamide-docetaxel androgen deprivation therapy were eliminated because of dominance (ie, they were more costly and less effective than other strategies). Of the remaining strategies, abiraterone acetate-prednisone androgen deprivation therapy was the most cost-effective strategy at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000/QALY (incremental cost-effectiveness ratios = $21 247/QALY).

CONCLUSIONS

Our simulation model found abiraterone acetate-prednisone androgen deprivation therapy to be an optimal first-line treatment for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer from a public (Veterans Affairs) payer perspective.