Cost-effectiveness of dabrafenib and trametinib in combination as adjuvant treatment of BRAF V600E/K mutation-positive melanoma from a US healthcare payer perspective

Whether and How Disutilities of Adverse Events were Used in the Economic Evaluation of Drug Therapy for Cancer Treatment

BACKGROUND

The disutilities of adverse events (AEs) are important inputs for cost-utility analysis (CUA), reflecting the impacts of AEs on health outcomes. Health technology assessment institutions and scholars have proposed recommendations for applying disutility values in economic evaluations.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to identify the current use of disutilities of AEs as model parameters in the CUA of cancer drug therapy and to compare the discrepancies between the use of disutilities and published recommendations.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted on the PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases, as well as the official websites of the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG), the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH), and the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) for CUAs of drug therapy for cancer published in English from January 2019 to April 2022. Information about the use of disutilities of AEs (whether and how disutilities were used, or why they were not used) in selected studies was extracted and compared with published recommendations. Descriptive analyses were used to summarize the results.

RESULTS

A total of 467 CUAs were included, 54% (254/467) of which included disutilities of AEs in their model. The proportion that included these disutilities increased from 2019 to 2021, ranging from 47% (51/107) to 61% (116/190). Only 6% (15/254) of the CUAs using disutilities of AEs considered all five recommendations about the justification for inclusion and exclusion, description of values and sources, grades of AEs, calculation, and uncertainty analyses. Only 15% (72/467) provided a clear justification for inclusion and exclusion of disutilities of AEs, and 7% (17/254) did not provide values or sources. In total, 69% (175/254) of the analyses focused on AEs of grade 3 or greater, and 11% (28/254) applied utility decrements for grades 1 and 2. Disutilities of AEs were generally calculated using the incidence rates, which were clearly stated in 49% (65/132) of the analyses. Uncertainty analyses were conducted in 84% (214/254) of the CUAs.

CONCLUSIONS

The current use of disutilities of AEs in CUAs shows some discrepancies with recommendations proposed in the literature. One is that detailed information about the use of disutilities of AEs was not reported and the other is that essential methods to analyze the impact of AEs on quality-adjusted life-years were not thoroughly conducted. Therefore, it is suggested that researchers should attach importance to the impact of AEs on health-related quality of life. Furthermore, an application process was developed for the disutilities of AEs to remind and guide researchers to correctly use the disutilities of AEs as parameters in the decision-analytic model.

Trametinib for patients with recurrent low-grade serous ovarian cancer: A cost-effectiveness analysis

OBJECTIVE

The GOG 281/LOGS trial found that trametinib prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with recurrent low-grade serous ovarian cancer (LGSOC), compared with standard of care (SOC). The current study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of trametinib versus standard of care for recurrent LGSOC from the US payer perspective.

METHODS

A Markov model was adopted to compare the cost and effectiveness of trametinib and standard of care group in patients with recurrent LGSOC. Life years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), lifetime costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated. One-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to explore the model robustness.

RESULT

Trametinib group provided an additional 0.58 QALYs (1.14 LYs) and an incremental cost of $248,214 compared with the SOC group. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $424,097 per QALY. The results of one-way sensitivity analyses suggested that our model was sensitive to the hazard ratio of OS and PFS between trametinib and SOC group, utility of PFS and the cycle cost of trametinib. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses revealed that there was 6% probability of the trametinib group being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000 per QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

From the US payer perspective, trametinib is not cost-effective for patients with recurrent LGSOC at the assumed WTP threshold of $150,000 per QALY. Based on the value standpoint, price reduction of trametinib is expected to improve the cost-effectiveness of trametinib in patients with recurrent LGSOC.

Treat Now or Treat Later: Comparative Effectiveness of Adjuvant Therapy in Resected Stage IIIA Melanoma

BACKGROUND

Adjuvant therapy for most sentinel-node-positive (stage IIIA) melanoma may have limited clinical benefit for older patients given the competing risk of non-cancer death. The objective of this study is to model the clinical effect and cost of adjuvant therapy in stage IIIA melanoma across age groups.

STUDY DESIGN

A Markov decision analysis model simulated the overall survival of patients with resected stage IIIA melanoma treated with adjuvant therapy vs observation. In the adjuvant approach, patients are modeled to receive adjuvant pembrolizumab (BRAF wild type) or dabrafenib/trametinib (BRAF mutant). In the observation approach, treatment is deferred until recurrence. Transition variables were derived from landmark randomized trials in adjuvant and salvage therapy. The model was analyzed for age groups spanning 40 to 89 years. The primary outcome was the number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent one melanoma-related death at 10 years. Cost per mortality avoided was estimated using Medicare reimbursement rates.

RESULTS

Projections for NNT among BRAF wild type patients increased by age from 14.71 (age 40 to 44) to 142.86 (age 85 to 89), with patients in cohorts over the age of 75 having an NNT over 25. The cost per mortality avoided ranged from $2.75 million (M) (age 40 to 44) to $27.57M (age 85 to 89). Corresponding values for BRAF mutant patients were as follows: NNT 18.18 to 333.33; cost per mortality avoided ranged from $2.75M to $54.70M.

CONCLUSION

Universal adjuvant therapy for stage IIIA melanoma is costly and provides limited clinical benefit in patients older than 75 years.

Adjuvant treatment of high-risk melanoma - cost-effectiveness analysis of treatment options for BRAF 600 mutated tumors

INTRODUCTION

Until recently, adjuvant treatment options for higher stage resectable cutaneous melanoma were limited. Two studies with a similar set-up, published 2017, led to registration of targeted therapy for BRAF-mutated melanoma with dabrafenib and trametinib as well as of the immunotherapy with nivolumab irrespective of BRAF-mutation status. Both options have been positively assessed in Germany since 2019 for the adjuvant treatment of BRAF-V600 mutated melanoma. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of both treatment alternatives (dabrafenib/trametinib and nivolumab) against observation as a comparative therapy from the perspective of German statutory health funds.

METHODS

Partitioned survival analysis based on published survival curves for the investigated treatment options was used for a cohort model for the health states relapse free survival, progression, and death. The partitioned survival analysis approach was based on the survival curves published for the key studies Combi AD and Checkmate-238. The modelling was performed for the remaining lifetime for a cohort with starting age of 50 years. For extrapolation of the survival curves, convergence to general population mortality rates was assumed in the long term. Within the progression state, a Markov model uses three levels of progressions (locoregional, distant metastases with 1st and 2nd line treatment). Lifetime treatment costs were calculated using the German statutory health fund reimbursement scheme. Quality adjusted life years (QALYs) associated to the health states were adopted from previously published utilities based on the Combi AD study.

RESULTS

The treatment with dabrafenib/trametinib yielded an increase in quality adjusted life years of 2.28 QALY at an incremental lifetime cost of 86.1 T€. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio of dabrafenib/trametinib and nivolumab was comparable with 37.8 T€/QALY and 30.0 T€/QALY, respectively. Several sensitivity analyses proved the result to be insensitive. General model parameters like discount rate and length of the time horizon had stronger influence. For nivolumab, the model showed lower discounted lifetime costs (118.1 T€) compared to dabrafenib/trametinib [155.1 T€], associated with a lower gain in QALYs (1.64 years) compared to observation.

CONCLUSION

Both dabrafenib/trametinib and nivolumab turned out to be cost effective within internationally accepted Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) thresholds with comparable cost effectiveness ratios.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Adjuvant Therapy for BRAF-Mutant Resected Stage III Melanoma in Medicare Patients

BACKGROUND

Adjuvant therapy for stage III melanoma improves several measures of patient survival. However, decisions regarding inclusion of adjuvant therapies in the formularies of public payers necessarily consider the cost-effectiveness of those treatments. The objective of this study is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of four recently approved adjuvant therapies for BRAF-mutant stage III melanoma in the Medicare patient population.

METHODS

In this cost-effectiveness analysis, a Markov microsimulation model was used to simulate the healthcare trajectory of patients randomized to receive either first-line targeted therapy (dabrafenib-trametinib) or immunotherapy (ipilimumab, nivolumab, or pembrolizumab). The base case was a 65-year-old Medicare patient with BRAF V600E-mutant resected stage III melanoma. Possible health states included recurrence-free survival, adverse events, local recurrence, distant metastases, and death. Transition probabilities were determined from published clinical trials. Costs were estimated from reimbursement rates reported by CMS and the Red Book drug price database. Primary outcomes were costs (US$), life years, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Model robustness was evaluated using one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

Dabrafenib-trametinib provided 1.83 QALYs over no treatment and 0.23 QALYs over the most effective immunotherapy, pembrolizumab. Dabrafenib-trametinib was associated with an ICER of $95,758/QALY over no treatment and $285,863/QALY over pembrolizumab. Pembrolizumab yielded an ICER of $68,396/QALY over no treatment and dominated other immunotherapies.

CONCLUSIONS

Pembrolizumab is cost-effective at a conventional willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold, but dabrafenib-trametinib is not. Though dabrafenib-trametinib offers incremental QALYs, optimization of drug pricing is necessary to ensure dabrafenib-trametinib is accessible at an acceptable WTP threshold.

Frontline BRAF Testing-Guided Treatment for Advanced Melanoma in the Era of Immunotherapies: A Cost-Utility Analysis Based on Long-term Survival Data

Importance

The effectiveness of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and BRAF and MEK inhibitors has improved advanced melanoma recovery. However, it is unknown whether these novel therapies are cost-effective for newly diagnosed advanced melanoma with unknown BRAF status.

Objective

To compare the cost-utility of these novel agents and their combinations with or without BRAF gene testing guidance for treating newly diagnosed advanced melanoma with unknown BRAF status.

Design and Setting

A decision-analytic model was adopted to project the outcomes of 8 strategies containing different ICIs and BRAF and MEK inhibitors for newly diagnosed advanced melanoma with unknown BRAF pathogenic variant status. The key clinical data were derived from the CheckMate 067, KEYNOTE-006, COMBI-d, and COMBI-v trials, and the cost and health preference data were derived from the literature. Costs were estimated from the US payer perspective.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR), and incremental net health benefits were calculated. Subgroup, 1-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

Results

Of the 8 competing strategies, nivolumab plus ipilimumab without patient selection based on BRAF pathogenic variant testing yielded the most significant health outcome, and the nivolumab strategy was the cheapest option. The nivolumab, pembrolizumab, and nivolumab plus ipilimumab strategies formed the cost-effective frontier, which showed the ordered ICURs were $8593 (SD, $592 995)/QALY for pembrolizumab vs nivolumab and $125 593 (SD, $5 751 223)/QALY for nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs pembrolizumab. Other strategies, including the BRAF testing-guided strategies (BRAF pathogenic variant testing followed by corresponding regimens for BRAF wild and pathogenic variant tumors), were dominated or extended dominated. The most influential parameters were the treatment efficacy of these new regimens.

Conclusions and Relevance

For newly diagnosed advanced melanoma with unknown BRAF pathogenic variant status, nivolumab plus ipilimumab and pembrolizumab strategies are likely to be the most cost-effective options. BRAF and MEK inhibitors might be productively placed in a second-line setting after BRAF pathogenic variant is confirmed.

Cost-Benefit Implication of Gene Expression Profiling and Adjuvant Therapy in Stage IIIA Melanoma

BACKGROUND

Indiscriminate use of adjuvant therapy in stage IIIA melanoma is controversial. We sought to model the clinical impact and cost of implementing a gene expression profile (GEP) test to guide adjuvant therapy.

STUDY DESIGN

A Markov decision-analysis model was created to represent resected stage IIIA melanoma with 3 treatment options: observation (OBS), adjuvant pembrolizumab for all patients (ALL), and selective adjuvant therapy (SEL). In the SEL option, only high-risk patients based on GEP stratification were treated with pembrolizumab. Cost of adjuvant therapy was normalized to reflect Medicare reimbursement schedules. The primary outcome was cost per mortality avoided at 10 years.

RESULTS

Model projections for 10-year overall survival were 68% for OBS, 73% for SEL, and 76% for ALL. The estimated incremental cost-per-mortality-avoided (compared to OBS) was $2.1 million for SEL and $2.4 million for ALL. These translate to costs of $583.0K and $697.1K per life-year for the SEL and ALL strategies, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Routine adjuvant pembrolizumab for stage IIIA melanoma is costly, and risk-stratification by GEP only marginally improves the value of therapy.