Budget impact of erlotinib for maintenance therapy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer

The budget impact of introducing mobocertinib for the postplatinum treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer harboring epidermal growth factor receptor exon 20 insertion mutations

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer is a leading cause of cancer morbidity and death in the United States. Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) accounts for 85% of lung cancer cases, and oncogenic mutations in the gene encoding the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) are among its most common genetic causes. Although NSCLC tumors harboring more common oncogenic EGFR mutations can be effectively treated with EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), those harboring EGFR exon 20 insertion mutations respond poorly to treatment with therapies approved for advanced NSCLC, including TKIs. Mobocertinib, a first-in-class potent, oral, irreversible TKI, is effective in this population. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the budget impact, for a US health plan with 10 million members, of introducing mobocertinib for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC harboring EGFR exon 20 insertion mutations who have been previously treated with platinum-based chemotherapy. METHODS: A budget impact model was developed to compare 2 scenarios: a reference scenario in which 50% of patients received amivantamab and 50% received physician's choice/usual care therapy and an alternative scenario in which mobocertinib replaced the physician's choice/usual care option. The model had a 5-year time horizon in the base case. The model included epidemiologic inputs to estimate the size of the treatment-eligible population; clinical inputs to estimate treatment duration and efficacy, as well as adverse event frequency; and cost inputs for treatment acquisition and administration, management of adverse events, monitoring, and terminal care. The duration and cost of subsequent therapies were also considered. Budget impact was reported as a total cost, as per-member per-year costs, and as per-member per-month (PMPM) costs. To assess the robustness of model estimates and identify cost drivers, one-way sensitivity analyses and a range of scenario analyses were conducted. RESULTS: The model estimated an eligible treatment population of 55 patients (11 per year) over a 5-year time horizon. In the base case, the estimated budget impact of introducing mobocertinib was $5,615,808, or $0.01 PMPM. Model findings were robust to one-way sensitivity analyses and a range of sensitivity analyses; none of these analyses led to a PMPM budget impact of more than $0.06. Cost drivers included the percentage of eligible patients, the median duration of physician's choice/usual care therapy, patient weight, and the percentage of patients who undergo molecular testing. CONCLUSIONS: The estimated budget impact of mobocertinib is low, primarily because NSCLC harboring EGFR exon 20 insertion mutations is rare. DISCLOSURES: Dr Hernandez is an employee of Takeda Pharmaceuticals America, Inc. Dr Young was an employee of Takeda Pharmaceuticals America, Inc., at the time this study was conducted. This study and the editorial assistance were funded by Takeda Pharmaceuticals America, Inc.

A systematic review of the budget impact analyses for antitumor drugs of lung cancer

BACKGROUND

Budget impact analyses (BIAs) are used for reimbursement decisions and drug access medical insurance, as a supplement to cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs).

OBJECTIVES

We systematically reviewed BIAs for antitumor drugs of lung cancer to provide reference for high-value drug budget impact analyses and decision making.

METHODS

We conducted a literature search on PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure and Wanfang Data Knowledge Service Platform from 2010 to 2019. The methodological indicators and result information of the budget impact analyses were extracted and evaluated for quality.

RESULTS

A total of 14 studies on the budget impact for antitumor drugs of lung cancer were included, and the overall quality was good. Half of studies were from developed countries. Nine of the studies were designed using the BIA cost calculation model, and two were simulated using the Markov model Monte Carlo model. From all studies, only 14.3% reported model validation. The budget impact results of the same drug in different countries were inconsistent.

CONCLUSIONS

Included studies evaluating budget impact analyses for anti-tumor drugs of lung cancer showed variability in the methodological framework for BIAs. The budget impact analyses of high-value drugs need to be more stringent to ensure the accuracy of the parameters, and should provide reliable results based on real data to decision-making departments, which should carefully consider access to lung cancer drugs.

Budget Impact of Dabrafenib and Trametinib in Combination as Adjuvant Treatment of BRAF V600E/K Mutation-Positive Melanoma from a U.S. Commercial Payer Perspective

BACKGROUND

Before the approval of dabrafenib and trametinib in combination, there were no approved therapies in the adjuvant setting that target the RAS/RAF/MEK/ERK pathway.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the budget impact of dabrafenib and trametinib in combination for adjuvant treatment of patients with BRAF V600 mutation-positive resected Stage IIIA, IIIB, or IIIC melanoma from a U.S. commercial payer perspective using data from the COMBI-AD trial, as well as other sources.

METHODS

The budget impact of dabrafenib and trametinib in combination for patients with BRAF V600E/K mutation-positive, resected Stage IIIA, IIIB, or IIIC melanoma was evaluated from the perspective of a hypothetical population of 1 million members with demographic characteristics consistent with those of a commercially insured U.S. insurance plan (i.e., adults aged less than 65 years) using an economic model developed in Microsoft Excel. The model compared melanoma-related health care costs over a 3-year projection period under 2 scenarios: (1) a reference scenario in which dabrafenib and trametinib are assumed to be unavailable for adjuvant therapy and (2) a new scenario in which the combination is assumed to be available. Treatments potentially displaced by dabrafenib and trametinib were assumed to include observation, high-dose interferon alpha-2b, ipilimumab, and nivolumab. Costs considered in the model include those of adjuvant therapies and treatment of locoregional and distant recurrences. The numbers of patients eligible for treatment with dabrafenib and trametinib were based on data from cancer registries, published sources, and assumptions. Treatment mixes under the reference and new scenarios were based on market research data, clinical expert opinion, and assumptions. Probabilities of recurrence and death were based on data from the COMBI-AD trial and an indirect treatment comparison. Medication costs were based on wholesale acquisition cost prices. Costs of distant recurrence were from a health insurance claims study.

RESULTS

In a hypothetical population of 1 million commercially insured members, 48 patients were estimated to become eligible for treatment with dabrafenib and trametinib in combination over the 3-year projection period; in the new scenario, 10 patients were projected to receive such treatment. Cumulative costs of melanoma-related care were estimated to be $6.3 million in the reference scenario and $6.9 million in the new scenario. The budget impact of dabrafenib and trametinib in combination was an increase of $549 thousand overall and 1.5 cents per member per month.

CONCLUSIONS

For a hypothetical U.S. commercial health plan of 1 million members, the budget impact of dabrafenib and trametinib in combination as adjuvant treatment for melanoma is likely to be relatively modest and within the range of published estimates for oncology therapies. These results may assist payers in making coverage decisions regarding the use of adjuvant dabrafenib and trametinib in melanoma.

DISCLOSURES

Funding for this research was provided to Policy Analysis Inc. (PAI) by Novartis Pharmaceuticals. Stellato, Moynahan, and Delea are employed by PAI. Ndife, Koruth, Mishra, and Gunda are employed by Novartis. Ghate was employed by Novartis at the time of this study and is shareholder in Novartis, Provectus Biopharmaceuticals, and Mannkind Corporation. Gerbasi was employed by PAI at the time of this study and is currently an employee, and stockholder, of Sage Therapeutics. Delea reports grant funding from Merck and research funding from Amgen, Novartis, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Takeda, Jazz, EMD Serono, and 21st Century Oncology, unrelated to this work.

A Methodological Review of US Budget-Impact Models for New Drugs

A budget-impact analysis is required by many jurisdictions when adding a new drug to the formulary. However, previous reviews have indicated that adherence to methodological guidelines is variable. In this methodological review, we assess the extent to which US budget-impact analyses for new drugs use recommended practices. We describe recommended practice for seven key elements in the design of a budget-impact analysis. Targeted literature searches for US studies reporting estimates of the budget impact of a new drug were performed and we prepared a summary of how each study addressed the seven key elements. The primary finding from this review is that recommended practice is not followed in many budget-impact analyses. For example, we found that growth in the treated population size and/or changes in disease-related costs expected during the model time horizon for more effective treatments was not included in several analyses for chronic conditions. In addition, all drug-related costs were not captured in the majority of the models. Finally, for most studies, one-way sensitivity and scenario analyses were very limited, and the ranges used in one-way sensitivity analyses were frequently arbitrary percentages rather than being data driven. The conclusions from our review are that changes in population size, disease severity mix, and/or disease-related costs should be properly accounted for to avoid over- or underestimating the budget impact. Since each budget holder might have different perspectives and different values for many of the input parameters, it is also critical for published budget-impact analyses to include extensive sensitivity and scenario analyses based on realistic input values.

Budget impact analysis of medicines: updated systematic review and implications

This evaluation determines whether published studies to date meet the key characteristics identified for budget impact analyses (BIA) for medicines, accomplished through a systematic review and assessment against identified key characteristics. Studies from 2001-2015 on 'budget impact analysis' with 'drug' interventions were assessed, selected based on their titles/abstracts and full texts, and their characteristics checked according to key criteria. Out of 1,984 studies, 92 were subsequently identified for review. Of these, 95% were published in Europe and the USA. 2012 saw the largest number of publications (16%) with a decline thereafter. 48% met up to 7 out of the 9 key characteristics. Only 22% stated no conflict of interest. The results indicate low adherence to the key characteristics that should be considered for BIAs and strong conflict of interest. This is an issue since BIAs can be of fundamental importance in managing the entry of new medicines including reimbursement decisions.

Cost-Effectiveness of Surgery, Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy, and Systemic Therapy for Pulmonary Oligometastases

INTRODUCTION

Pulmonary oligometastases have conventionally been managed with surgery and/or systemic therapy. However, given concerns about the high cost of systemic therapy and improvements in local treatment of metastatic cancer, the optimal cost-effective management of these patients is unclear. Therefore, we sought to assess the cost-effectiveness of initial management strategies for pulmonary oligometastases.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A cost-effectiveness analysis using a Markov modeling approach was used to compare average cumulative costs, quality adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) among 3 initial disease management strategies: video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) wedge resection, stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), and systemic therapy among 5 different cohorts of patient disease: (1) melanoma; (2) non-small cell lung cancer adenocarcinoma without an EGFR mutation (NSCLC AC); (3) NSCLC with an EGFR mutation (NSCLC EGFRm AC); (4) NSCLC squamous cell carcinoma (NSCLC SCC); and (5) colon cancer. One-way sensitivity analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to analyze uncertainty with regard to model parameters.

RESULTS

In the base case, SBRT was cost effective for melanoma, with costs/net QALYs of $467,787/0.85. In patients with NSCLC, the most cost-effective strategies were SBRT for AC ($156,725/0.80), paclitaxel/carboplatin for SCC ($123,799/0.48), and erlotinib for EGFRm AC ($147,091/1.90). Stereotactic body radiation therapy was marginally cost-effective for EGFRm AC compared to erlotinib with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $126,303/QALY. For colon cancer, VATS wedge resection ($147,730/2.14) was the most cost-effective strategy. Variables with the greatest influence in the model were erlotinib-associated progression-free survival (EGFRm AC), toxicity (EGFRm AC), cost of SBRT (NSCLC SCC), and patient utilities (all histologies).

CONCLUSIONS

Video-assisted thoracic surgery wedge resection or SBRT can be cost-effective in select patients with pulmonary oligometastases, depending on histology, efficacy, and tolerability of treatment and patient preferences.

A review of economic impact of targeted oral anticancer medications

There has been a rapid increase in the use of targeted oral anticancer medications (OAMs) in the past decade. As OAMs are often expensive, economic consideration play a significant role in the decision to prescribe, receive or cover them. This paper performs a systematic review of costs or budgetary impact of targeted OAMs to better understand their economic impact on the healthcare system, patients as well as payers. We present our review in a summary table that describes the method and main findings, take into account multiple factors, such as country, analytical approach, cost type, study perspective, timeframe, data sources, study population and care setting when we interpret the results from different papers, and discuss the policy and clinical implications. Our review raises a concern regarding the role of sponsorship on findings of economic analyses as the vast majority of pharmaceutical company-sponsored studies reported cost advantages toward the sponsor's drugs.

Maintenance Therapy for NSCLC: Consensus and Controversy

Nowadays, advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is still an incurable disease. However, recent researches on maintenance therapy have led to considerable progress. Recently, pemetrexed and erlotinib have been approved for maintenance chemotherapy by both the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency. However, there are not adequate data to support the maintenance therapy as the standard treatment for advanced NSCLC and there has been no conclusive predictor of who will get benefit from maintenance chemotherapy and what type of maintenance, continuation or switch, is preferred. This article reviews the main studies on maintenance therapy of advanced NSCLC and discusses the results available to date.