Pediatric Vaccines and Cost-Effectiveness Thresholds: How Much is Too Much to Pay for Prevention?

Cost-effectiveness evaluations play an important role in recommendations for use of pediatric vaccines that are set forth by the US Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). The fact that these evaluations are undertaken and accorded weight suggests that a critical value for designating pediatric vaccines as cost-effective (or not) must exist. For recommended pediatric vaccines, however, reported incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) have varied greatly, and there does not appear to be an explicit threshold used by the ACIP to define how much is too much to pay for the prevention of communicable diseases in children. Further complicating this issue is the fact that conventional ICER thresholds—expressed in terms of cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained—accord value only to length and quality of life and may not reflect our preferences as individuals or a society. For example, risk, an important attribute of many healthcare decisions, is ignored by the QALY model, as is the distribution of health benefits across different members of society. Are we indeed indifferent about risk and do we really believe that the value of disease prevention in children should be measured by the same “yardstick” as that for older adults? Accordingly, do we really believe that “a QALY is a QALY”? These issues, which are reviewed and discussed in this article, are more than just of theoretical interest; the answers impact how public health policy is determined, which impacts the lives and well-being of entire populations as well as the budgets of payers.

Cost Effectiveness of Blinatumomab Versus Inotuzumab Ozogamicin in Adult Patients with Relapsed or Refractory B-Cell Precursor Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia in the United States

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The TOWER and INO-VATE-ALL trials demonstrated the efficacy and safety of blinatumomab and inotuzumab ozogamicin (inotuzumab), respectively, versus standard-of-care (SOC) chemotherapy in adults with relapsed or refractory (R/R) B-cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). The cost effectiveness of blinatumomab versus inotuzumab has not previously been examined.

METHODS

Cost effectiveness of blinatumomab versus inotuzumab in R/R B-cell precursor ALL patients with one or no prior salvage therapy from a United States (US) payer perspective was estimated using a partitioned survival model. Health outcomes were estimated based on published aggregate data from INO-VATE-ALL and individual patient data from TOWER weighted to match patients in INO-VATE-ALL using matching adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC). Analyses were conducted using five approaches relating to use of anchored versus unanchored comparisons of health outcomes and, for the anchored comparisons, the reference treatment to which treatment effects on health outcomes were applied. Estimates from TOWER including the probabilities of complete remission and allogeneic stem-cell transplant (allo-SCT), overall and event-free survival, utilities, duration of therapy, and use of subsequent therapies were MAIC adjusted to match INO-VATE-ALL. Costs of treatment, adverse events, allo-SCT, subsequent therapies, and terminal care were from published sources. A 50-year time horizon and 3% annual discount rate were used.

RESULTS

Incremental costs for blinatumomab versus inotuzumab ranged from US$7023 to US$36,244, depending on the approach used for estimating relative effectiveness. Incremental quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) ranged from 0.54 to 1.78. Cost effectiveness for blinatumomab versus inotuzumab ranged from US$4006 to US$20,737 per QALY gained.

CONCLUSIONS

Blinatumomab is estimated to be cost effective versus inotuzumab in R/R B-cell precursor ALL adults who have received one or no prior salvage therapy from a US payer perspective.

Cost effectiveness (CE) of blinatumomab (BLIN) versus inotuzumab ozogamicin (INO) in adult patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) with no more than one prior salvage therapy (S0/S1) from a United Kingdom health care perspective

e18359

Background: To estimate Incremental CE Ratio (ICER) of BLIN vs INO in adults with R/R S0/S1 ALL based on matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) of TOWER and INO-VATE trials from a UK healthcare perspective. Methods: CE was estimated by a partitioned-survival model with outcomes based on published aggregate data from INO-VATE (cutoff: 01/05/2017) and individual patient data from TOWER weighted to match patients in INO-VATE using MAIC. Five analyses were conducted based on alternative approach for the MAIC (anchored through Standard of Care [SOC] vs unanchored), proportional hazard (PH) assumptions, and reference overall survival (OS) distributions. Rates of complete remission and HSCT, utilities, duration of therapy, and use of subsequent therapies also were MAIC adjusted. Due to inconsistent definitions of event-free survival (EFS) between the trials, EFS was assumed to be equal for BLIN and INO complete responders. Costs were estimated from published sources and included those of medicine and administration, key adverse events, HSCT, salvage therapy, and terminal care. Utilities were based on EORTC-8D values derived from EORTC QLQ-C30 assessments in TOWER. A 50-year time horizon was used. Results: In all analyses, BLIN was more costly and more effective than INO. The ICER for BLIN vs INO ranged from £4,014 to £13,371 per QALY. Conclusions: For various approaches for conducting MAIC of BLIN vs INO, BLIN was highly cost effective vs INO in R/R ALL adults with S0/S1 from a UK healthcare perspective. [Table: see text]

Cost-Effectiveness of Thoracic Radiation Therapy for Extensive-Stage Small Cell Lung Cancer Using Evidence From the Chest Radiotherapy Extensive-Stage Small Cell Lung Cancer Trial (CREST)

PURPOSE

The Chest Radiotherapy Extensive-Stage Small Cell Lung Cancer Trial (CREST) showed that adding thoracic radiation therapy (TRT) to the standard treatment (ST) paradigm of chemotherapy and prophylactic cranial irradiation improves overall survival and progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of adding TRT to ST in ES-SCLC patients.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A cost-utility analysis was performed comparing TRT plus ST versus ST alone. The base-case time horizon was 24 months, consistent with the maximum PFS reported in the CREST. Overall survival was partitioned into 2 health states: PFS and postprogression survival. The proportion of patients in each health state over time was estimated by fitting parametric probability distributions to the CREST survival data. Costs were from a US health care payer perspective, and utilities were derived from the literature. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) using a 3% discount rate. Sensitivity analyses addressed uncertainty in key variables.

RESULTS

In the base-case analysis, adding TRT to ST was both cost saving and more effective, thereby strongly dominating ST alone. At willingness-to-pay thresholds of $50,000/QALY, $100,000/QALY, and $200,000/QALY, TRT was preferred 68%, 81%, and 96% of the time, respectively. In the lifetime scenario analysis, the TRT ICER increased to $194,726/QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

By use of the actual follow-up interval reported in the CREST, adding TRT to ST strongly dominates a strategy of ST alone in ES-SCLC patients. Since the long-term survival benefit of TRT is small relative to ongoing costs of progressive metastatic disease, we estimate less favorable ICERs for TRT over a lifetime horizon.

Cost-effectiveness of blinatumomab versus salvage chemotherapy in relapsed or refractory Philadelphia-chromosome-negative B-precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia from a US payer perspective

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of blinatumomab (Blincyto) vs standard of care (SOC) chemotherapy in adults with relapsed or refractory (R/R) Philadelphia-chromosome-negative (Ph-) B-precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) based on the results of the phase 3 TOWER study from a US healthcare payer perspective.

METHODS

The Blincyto Global Economic Model (B-GEM), a partitioned survival model, was used to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of blinatumomab vs SOC. Response rates, event-free survival (EFS), overall survival (OS), numbers of cycles of blinatumomab and SOC, and transplant rates were estimated from TOWER. EFS and OS were estimated by fitting parametric survival distributions to failure-time data from TOWER. Utility values were based on EORTC-8D derived from EORTC QLQ-C30 assessments in TOWER. A 50-year lifetime horizon and US payer perspective were employed. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3% per year.

RESULTS

The B-GEM projected blinatumomab to yield 1.92 additional life years and 1.64 additional quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) compared with SOC at an incremental cost of $180,642. The ICER for blinatumomab vs SOC was estimated to be $110,108/QALY gained in the base case. Cost-effectiveness was sensitive to the number and cost of inpatient days for administration of blinatumomab and SOC, and was more favorable in the sub-group of patients who had received no prior salvage therapy. At an ICER threshold of $150,000/QALY gained, the probability that blinatumomab is cost-effective was estimated to be 74%.

LIMITATIONS

The study does not explicitly consider the impact of adverse events of the treatment; no adjustments for long-term transplant rates were made.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with SOC, blinatumomab is a cost-effective treatment option for adults with R/R Ph - B-precursor ALL from the US healthcare perspective at an ICER threshold of $150,000 per QALY gained. The value of blinatumomab is derived from its incremental survival and health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) benefit over SOC.

Cost-effectiveness of pazopanib versus sunitinib for metastatic renal cell carcinoma in the United Kingdom

Background

Sunitinib and pazopanib are the only two targeted therapies for the first-line treatment of locally advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) recommended by the United Kingdom’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Pazopanib demonstrated non-inferior efficacy and a differentiated safety profile versus sunitinib in the phase III COMPARZ trial. The current analysis provides a direct comparison of the cost-effectiveness of pazopanib versus sunitinib from the perspective of the United Kingdom’s National Health Service based on data from COMPARZ and other sources.

Methods

A partitioned-survival analysis model with three health states (alive with no progression, alive with progression, or dead) was used to estimate the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for pazopanib versus sunitinib over five years (duration of follow-up for final survival analysis in COMPARZ). The proportion of patients in each health state over time was based on Kaplan–Meier distributions for progression-free and overall survival from COMPARZ. Utility values were based on EQ-5D data from the pivotal study of pazopanib versus placebo. Costs were based on medical resource utilisation data from COMPARZ and unit costs from secondary sources. Probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess uncertainty of model results.

Results

In the base case, pazopanib was estimated to provide more QALYs (0.0565, 95% credible interval [CrI]: −0.0920 to 0.2126) at a lower cost (−£1,061, 95% CrI: −£4,328 to £2,067) versus sunitinib. The probability that pazopanib yields more QALYs than sunitinib was estimated to be 76%. For a threshold value of £30,000 per QALY gained, the probability that pazopanib is cost-effective versus sunitinib was estimated to be 95%. Pazopanib was dominant in most scenarios examined in deterministic sensitivity analyses.

Conclusions

Pazopanib is likely to be a cost-effective treatment option compared with sunitinib as first-line treatment of mRCC in the United Kingdom.

Network Meta-analysis of Progression-Free Survival and Overall Survival in First-Line Treatment of BRAF Mutation-Positive Metastatic Melanoma

INTRODUCTION

The present study aimed to inform an economic evaluation of dabrafenib and trametinib combination as first-line treatment of metastatic melanoma in a Canadian setting. A network meta-analysis was conducted to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) for progression-free survival (PFS)and overall survival (OS) of dabrafenib plus trametinib versus other first-line treatments of BRAF mutation-positive metastatic melanoma including dabrafenib, trametinib, vemurafenib, ipilimumab, and dacarbazine (DTIC).

METHODS

HRs for PFS and OS were from randomized controlled trials identified from systematic literature reviews. HRs for PFS and OS (adjusted for crossover as appropriate) were analyzed using multivariate and univariate Bayesian network meta-analysis.

RESULTS

In multivariate network-meta analyses (HRs for PFS and OS estimated simultaneously to account for the correlation of treatment effects on PFS and OS), HRs (95% credible interval) for PFS and OS favored dabrafenib plus trametinib [PFS: 0.23 (0.18-0.29) versus DTIC, 0.32 (0.24-0.42) versus ipilimumab plus DTIC, 0.52 (0.32-0.83) versus trametinib, 0.57 (0.48-0.69) versus vemurafenib, and 0.59 (0.50-0.71) versus dabrafenib]; OS [0.41 (0.29-0.56) versus DTIC, 0.52 (0.38-0.71) versus ipilimumab plus DTIC, 0.68 (0.47-0.95) versus trametinib, 0.69 (0.57-0.84) versus vemurafenib, and 0.72 (0.60-0.85) versus dabrafenib]. The beneficial effects on OS of dabrafenib plus trametinib versus ipilimumab plus DTIC and versus trametinib were attenuated when HRs were estimated using univariate network meta-analysis (HRs for PFS and OS estimated separately).

CONCLUSION

This analysis demonstrates improved PFS and OS with dabrafenib + trametinib versus dabrafenib, trametinib, vemurafenib, ipilimumab plus DTIC, and DTIC as first-line treatment for patients with BRAF mutation-positive metastatic melanoma.

FUNDING

Novartis Pharmaceuticals.

Cost-effectiveness of pazopanib compared with sunitinib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma in Canada

BACKGROUND

In Canada and elsewhere, pazopanib and sunitinib-tyrosine kinase inhibitors targeting the vascular endothelial growth factor receptors-are recommended as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mrcc). A large randomized noninferiority trial of pazopanib versus sunitinib (comparz) demonstrated that the two drugs have similar efficacy; however, patients randomized to pazopanib experienced better health-related quality of life (hrqol) and nominally lower rates of non-study medical resource utilization.

METHODS

The cost-effectiveness of pazopanib compared with sunitinib for first-line treatment of mrcc from a Canadian health care system perspective was evaluated using a partitioned-survival model that incorporated data from comparz and other secondary sources. The time horizon of 5 years was based on the maximum duration of follow-up in the final analysis of overall survival from the comparz trial. Analyses were conducted first using list prices for pazopanib and sunitinib and then by assuming that the prices of sunitinib and pazopanib would be equivalent.

RESULTS

Based on list prices, expected costs were CA$10,293 less with pazopanib than with sunitinib. Pazopanib was estimated to yield 0.059 more quality-adjusted life-years (qalys). Pazopanib was therefore dominant (more qalys and lower costs) compared with sunitinib in the base case. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, pazopanib was dominant in 79% of simulations and was cost-effective in 90%-100% of simulations at a threshold cost-effectiveness ratio of CA$100,000. Assuming equivalent pricing, pazopanib yielded CA$917 in savings in the base case, was dominant in 36% of probabilistic sensitivity analysis simulations, and was cost-effective in 89% of simulations at a threshold cost-effectiveness ratio of CA$100,000.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with sunitinib, pazopanib is likely to be a cost-effective option for first-line treatment of mrcc from a Canadian health care perspective.

Cost effectiveness of dabrafenib as a first-line treatment in patients with BRAF V600 mutation-positive unresectable or metastatic melanoma in Canada

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost effectiveness of dabrafenib versus dacarbazine and vemurafenib as first-line treatments in patients with BRAF V600 mutation-positive unresectable or metastatic melanoma from a Canadian healthcare system perspective.

METHODS

A partitioned-survival analysis model with three mutually exclusive health states (pre-progression, post-progression, and dead) was used. The proportion of patients in each state was calculated using survival distributions for progression-free and overall survival derived from pivotal trials of dabrafenib and vemurafenib. For each treatment, expected progression-free, post-progression, overall, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and costs were calculated. Costs were based on list prices, a clinician survey, and published sources. A 5-year time horizon was used in the base case. Costs (in 2012 Canadian dollars [CA$]) and QALYs were discounted at 5% annually. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

Dabrafenib was estimated to yield 0.2055 more QALYs at higher cost than dacarbazine. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was CA$363,136/QALY. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, at a threshold of CA$200,000/QALY, there was an 8.2% probability that dabrafenib is cost effective versus dacarbazine. In deterministic sensitivity analyses, cost effectiveness was sensitive to survival distributions, utilities, and time horizon, with the hazard ratio for overall survival for dabrafenib versus dacarbazine being the most sensitive parameter. Assuming a class effect for efficacy of BRAF inhibitors, dabrafenib was dominant versus vemurafenib (less costly, equally effective), reflecting its assumed lower daily cost. Assuming no class effect, dabrafenib yielded 0.0486 more QALYs than vemurafenib.

CONCLUSIONS

At a threshold of CA$200,000/QALY, dabrafenib is unlikely to be cost effective compared with dacarbazine. It is not possible to make reliable conclusions regarding the relative cost effectiveness of dabrafenib versus vemurafenib based on available information.

Cost-effectiveness of pazopanib versus sunitinib for renal cancer in the United States

BACKGROUND

Current first-line treatments for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) include the multityrosine kinase inhibitors pazopanib and sunitinib. Both agents had similar progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in the COMPARZ trial (Comparing the Efficacy, Safety and Tolerability of Pazopanib versus Sunitinib); however, the adverse event profiles of the 2 agents are different. In the PISCES trial (Patient Preference Study of Pazopanib versus Sunitinib in Advanced or Metastatic Kidney Cancer), patients and physicians preferred pazopanib primarily because it offered better health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and caused less fatigue.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the cost-effectiveness of pazopanib versus sunitinib from a U.S. health care system perspective in the first-line treatment of patients with mRCC.

METHODS

A partitioned-survival analysis model with 3 health states (preprogression, postprogression, and dead), data from 2 randomized controlled trials of pazopanib versus sunitinib (COMPARZ and PISCES), and secondary sources were used to calculate the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for pazopanib versus sunitinib. A time horizon of 37.5 months was used in the base case, consistent with the duration of follow-up used in the COMPARZ trial. The proportion of patients in each health state over time was based on Kaplan-Meier survival distributions for PFS and OS from the COMPARZ trial. Utility values were obtained from the PISCES trial. Costs were based on medical resource utilization data from the COMPARZ trial and unit costs from secondary sources. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses and deterministic sensitivity analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

In the base case, pazopanib was estimated to provide more QALYs at a lower cost compared with sunitinib (pazopanib dominant). In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, pazopanib was projected to be dominant in 69% of the simulations. The probability that pazopanib was more cost-effective than sunitinib was ≥ 90% for threshold values of cost-effectiveness between the range of $10,000-$160,000 per QALY gained. In deterministic sensitivity analyses, pazopanib was dominant in all scenarios examined.

CONCLUSION

Results of this study suggest that pazopanib is cost-effective compared with sunitinib as the first-line treatment of patients with mRCC in the United States.

Cost-effectiveness of pazopanib in advanced soft-tissue sarcoma in Canada

BACKGROUND

In the phase iii palette trial of pazopanib compared with placebo in patients with advanced or metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma (sts) who had received prior chemotherapy, pazopanib treatment was associated with improved progression-free survival (pfs). We used an economic model and data from palette and other sources to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of pazopanib in patients with advanced sts who had already received chemotherapy.

METHODS

We developed a multistate model to estimate expected pfs, overall survival (os), lifetime sts treatment costs, and quality-adjusted life-years (qalys) for patients receiving pazopanib or placebo as second-line therapy for advanced sts. Cost-effectiveness was calculated alternatively from the health care system and societal perspectives for the province of Quebec. Estimated pfs, os, incidence of adverse events, and utilities values for pazopanib and placebo were derived from the palette trial. Costs were obtained from published sources.

RESULTS

Compared with placebo, pazopanib is estimated to increase qalys by 0.128. The incremental cost of pazopanib compared with placebo is CA$20,840 from the health care system perspective and CA$15,821 from the societal perspective. The cost per qaly gained with pazopanib in that comparison is CA$163,336 from the health care system perspective and CA$124,001 from the societal perspective.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with placebo, pazopanib might be cost-effective from the Canadian health care system and societal perspectives depending on the threshold value used by reimbursement authorities to assess novel cancer therapies. Given the unmet need for effective treatments for advanced sts, pazopanib might nevertheless be an appropriate alternative to currently used treatments.

Cost-effectiveness of lapatinib plus letrozole in her2-positive, hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer in Canada

BACKGROUND

The cost-effectiveness of first-line treatment with lapatinib plus letrozole for postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive (hr+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (her2+) metastatic breast cancer (mbc) has not been assessed from the Canadian health care system and societal perspectives.

METHODS

A partitioned survival analysis model with 3 health states (alive, pre-progression; alive, post-progression; dead) was developed to estimate direct and indirect costs and quality-adjusted life years (qalys) with lapatinib-letrozole, letrozole, anastrozole, or trastuzumab-anastrozole as first-line treatment. Clinical inputs for lapatinib-letrozole and letrozole were taken from the EGF30008 trial (NCT00073528). Clinical inputs for anastrozole and trastuzumab-anastrozole were taken from a network meta-analysis of published studies. Drug costs were obtained from the manufacturer's price list, the Quebec list of medications, and imsBrogan. Other costs were taken from the Ontario Health Insurance Plan's Schedule of Benefits and Fees and published studies. A 10-year time horizon was used. Costs and qalys were discounted at 5% annually. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the effects of changes in model parameters.

RESULTS

Quality-adjusted life years gained with lapatinib-letrozole were 0.236 compared with trastuzumab-anastrozole, 0.440 compared with letrozole, and 0.568 compared with anastrozole. Assuming a health care system perspective, incremental costs were $5,805, $67,029, and $67,472 respectively. Given a cost per qaly threshold of $100,000, the probability that lapatinib-letrozole is preferred was 21% compared with letrozole, 36% compared with anastrozole, and 68% compared with trastuzumab-anastrozole. Results from the societal perspective were similar.

CONCLUSIONS

In postmenopausal women with hr+/her2+ mbc receiving first-line treatment, lapatinib-letrozole may not be cost-effective compared with letrozole or anastrozole, but may be cost-effective compared with trastuzumab-anastrozole.