Cost-effectiveness analysis of FOLFIRINOX vs gemcitabine with nab-paclitaxel as adjuvant treatment for resected pancreatic cancer in the United States based on PRODIGE-24 and APACT trials

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic cancer is associated with low median overall survival. Combination chemotherapy regimens FOLFIRINOX and gemcitabine with nab-paclitaxel (GemNab) are the new adjuvant treatment standards for resectable pancreatic cancer. PRODIGE-24 and APACT trials demonstrated superior clinical outcomes with FOLFIRINOX and GemNab, each vs gemcitabine monotherapy. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of FOLFIRINOX vs GemNab for resectable pancreatic cancer in adults from the U.S. payer perspective, in order to inform decision makers about which of these treatments is optimal. METHODS: A Markov model with 3 disease states (relapse free, progressive disease, and death) was developed. Cycle length was 1 month, and time horizon was 10 years. Transition probabilities were derived from PRODIGE-24 and APACT survival data. All cost and utility input parameters were obtained from published literature. Cost-effectiveness analysis was performed to obtain total costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), life-years (LYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). A 3% annual discount rate was applied to costs and outcomes. The effect of uncertainty on model parameters was assessed with 1-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA). RESULTS: Our analysis estimated that the cost for FOLFIRINOX was $40,831 higher than GemNab ($99,669 vs. $58,837). Despite increased toxicity, FOLFIRINOX was associated with additional 0.18 QALYs and 0.25 LYs compared with GemNab (QALY: 1.65 vs. 1.47; LY: 2.09 vs. 1.84). The ICER for FOLFIRINOX vs GemNab was $226,841 per QALY and $163,325 per LY. FOLFIRINOX was not cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $200,000 per QALY, and this was confirmed by the PSA. CONCLUSIONS: Total monthly cost for FOLFIRINOX was approximately 1.7 times higher than GemNab. If the WTP threshold increases to or above $250,000 per QALY, FOLFIRINOX then becomes a cost-effective treatment option. DISCLOSURES: This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Cost-Effectiveness of Neoadjuvant-Adjuvant Treatment Strategies for Women With ERBB2 (HER2)-Positive Breast Cancer

IMPORTANCE

The neoadjuvant treatment options for ERBB2-positive (also known as HER2-positive) breast cancer are associated with different rates of pathologic complete response (pCR). The KATHERINE trial showed that adjuvant trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) can reduce recurrence in patients with residual disease compared with patients treated with trastuzumab; however, T-DM1 and other ERBB2-targeted agents are costly, and understanding the costs and health consequences of various combinations of neoadjuvant followed by adjuvant treatments in the United States is needed.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the costs and disease outcomes associated with selection of various neoadjuvant followed by adjuvant treatment strategies for patients with ERBB2-positive breast cancer.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

In this economic evaluation, a decision-analytic model was developed to evaluate various neoadjuvant followed by adjuvant treatment strategies for women with ERBB2-positive breast cancer from a health care payer perspective in the United States. The model was informed by the KATHERINE trial, other clinical trials with different regimens from the KATHERINE trial, the Flatiron Health Database, McKesson Corporation data, and other evidence in the published literature. Starting trial median age for KATHERINE patients was 49 years (range, 24-79 years in T-DM1 arm and 23-80 years in trastuzumab arm). The model simulated patients receiving 5 different neoadjuvant followed by adjuvant treatment strategies. Data analyses were performed from March 2019 to August 2020.

EXPOSURE

There were 4 neoadjuvant regimens: (1) HP: trastuzumab (H) plus pertuzumab (P), (2) THP: paclitaxel (T) plus H plus P, (3) DDAC-THP: dose-dense anthracycline/cyclophosphamide (DDAC) plus THP, (4) TCHP: docetaxel (T) plus carboplatin (C) plus HP. All patients with pCR, regardless of neoadjuvant regimen, received adjuvant H. Patients with residual disease received different adjuvant therapies depending on the neoadjuvant regimen according to the 5 following strategies: (1) neoadjuvant DDAC-THP followed by adjuvant H, (2) neoadjuvant DDAC-THP followed by adjuvant T-DM1, (3) neoadjuvant THP followed by adjuvant DDAC plus T-DM1, (4) neoadjuvant HP followed by adjuvant DDAC/THP plus T-DM1, or (5) neoadjuvant TCHP followed by adjuvant T-DM1.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Lifetime costs in 2020 US dollars and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated for each treatment strategy, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were estimated. A strategy was classified as dominated if it was associated with fewer QALYs at higher costs than the alternative.

RESULTS

In the base-case analysis, costs ranged from $415 833 (strategy 3) to $518 859 (strategy 4), and QALYs ranged from 9.67 (strategy 1) to 10.73 (strategy 3). Strategy 3 was associated with the highest health benefits (10.73 QALYs) and lowest costs ($415 833) and dominated all other strategies. Probabilistic analysis confirmed that this strategy had the highest probability of cost-effectiveness (>70% at willingness-to-pay thresholds of $0-200,000/QALY) and was associated with the highest net benefit.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

These results suggest that neoadjuvant THP followed by adjuvant H for patients with pCR or followed by adjuvant DDAC plus T-DM1 for patients with residual disease was associated with the highest health benefits and lowest costs for women with ERBB2-positive breast cancer compared with other treatment strategies considered.

Economic Evaluation of Cisplatin Plus Gemcitabine Versus Paclitaxel Plus Gemcitabine for the Treatment of First-Line Advanced Metastatic Triple-Negative Breast Cancer in China: Using Markov Model and Partitioned Survival Model

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of cisplatin plus gemcitabine vs. paclitaxel plus gemcitabine as a first-line treatment for metastatic triple-negative breast cancer in China.

METHODS

The Markov model and partitioned survival (PS) model were used, and the study included three health states over the period of a lifetime. Transition probabilities and safety data were derived from the CBCSG006 trial (cisplatin plus gemcitabine vs. paclitaxel plus gemcitabine in patients who had acquired metastatic triple-negative breast cancer). Cost and utility values were derived from previous studies, the Chinese Drug Bidding Database, and healthcare documents. Sensitivity analyses were performed to observe model stability.

RESULTS

In the Markov model, compared with paclitaxel plus gemcitabine, cisplatin plus gemcitabine yielded an additional 0.15 QALYs, with an incremental cost of 1976.33 USD. The incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) was 12,826.98 USD/QALY (quality-adjusted life year). In the PS model, cisplatin plus gemcitabine yielded an additional 0.17 QALYs with an incremental cost of 2384.63 USD; the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) was 13,867.7 USD/QALY. In the first scenario analysis, in which the 3-year time horizon was used in both arms, the total QALYs in the cisplatin plus gemcitabine group were larger and the costs were lower, indicating that cisplatin plus gemcitabine was superior to paclitaxel plus gemcitabine. In the second scenario, in which the progression-free (PF) utility (during chemotherapy) was 0.76, the PF utility was 0.96, and the post-progression (PP) utility was 0.55, the result obtained with the Markov model showed that the ICUR was 11,063.68 USD/QALY. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) on the Markov model, the probabilities that cisplatin plus gemcitabine would be cost-effective were 48.94-78.72% if the willingness-to-pay threshold was 9776.8 to 29,330.4 USD/QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of the present analysis suggest that cisplatin plus gemcitabine might be much more cost-effective than paclitaxel plus gemcitabine in patients receiving first-line treatment for metastatic triple-negative breast cancer in China.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of atezolizumab in advanced triple-negative breast cancer

BACKGROUND

The IMpassion130 trial demonstrated that adding atezolizumab to nanoparticle albumin-bound (nab)-paclitaxel improved the survival of patients with untreated, advanced, programmed death ligand 1 (PDL1)-positive triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). In view of the high cost of immunotherapy, it is important to examine its value with respect to both benefits and costs. In this study, the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab/nab-paclitaxel combination therapy relative to nab-paclitaxel monotherapy was evaluated for the first-line treatment of advanced, PDL1-positive TNBC, from a healthcare system perspective.

METHODS

A three-state partitioned-survival model was developed to compare the clinical and economic outcomes of treatment with atezolizumab/nab-paclitaxel combination therapy with nab-paclitaxel monotherapy in patients with advanced TNBC. Clinical data were obtained from the IMpassion130 trial and extrapolated to 5 years. Health state utilities were retrieved from the literature, while direct costs (in Singapore dollars, S$) were sourced from public healthcare institutions in Singapore. The primary outcomes of the model were life years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses and scenario analyses were conducted to explore the impact of specific assumptions and uncertainties.

RESULTS

Adding atezolizumab to nab-paclitaxel resulted in an additional 0.361 QALYs (0.636 LYs) at an ICER of S$324,550 per QALY gained. The ICER remained high at S$67,092 per QALY even when atezolizumab was priced zero. One-way sensitivity analysis showed that the ICER was most sensitive to variations in the cost of atezolizumab and the time horizon. Scenario analyses confirmed that the ICERs remained high even under extremely favourable assumptions.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the exceedingly high ICER, adding atezolizumab to nab-paclitaxel was unlikely to represent good value for money for the treatment of advanced PDL1-positive TNBC. Our findings will be useful in informing funding policy decisions alongside other considerations such as comparative effectiveness, unmet need and budget impact.

Cost-Effectiveness of ramucirumab plus paclitaxel as a second-line therapy for advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal cancer in China

AIM

That clinical trial (RAINBOW) showed that a 7.4 months overall survival benefit with the combination therapy with ramucirumab (RAM) and paclitaxel (PAC) as second-line therapy for patients with recurrent or metastatic gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma, compared with placebo (PLA) plus paclitaxel. We performed an analysis to assess the cost-effectiveness of RAM from a Chinese perspective and recognized the range of drug costs.

METHODS

By building a Markov model to estimate quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), life-years (LYs) and lifetime costs. Transition probabilities, costs and utilities were estimated for the published literature, Chinese health care system and local price setting. We performed threshold analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analyses to evaluate the uncertainty of the model.

RESULTS

Compared with PLA strategy, RAM strategy provided an incremental survival benefit of 1.22 LYs and 0.64 QALYs. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that when RAM costs less than $151 or $753 per 4 weeks, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) approximated the willingness-to-pay threshold (WTP), suggesting that there was 50% likelihood that the ICER for RAM + PAC would be less than $44528.4 per QALY or $48121 per QALY, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma who fail first-line chemotherapy, our results are conducive to the multilateral drug price guidance negotiations of RAM in China.

The Market Reacts Quickly: Changes in Paclitaxel Vascular Device Purchasing Within the Ascension Healthcare System

BACKGROUND

A meta-analysis of trials in endovascular therapy suggested an increased mortality associated with treatment exposure to paclitaxel. Multiple publications and corrections of prior data were performed, and the United States Food and Drug Administration has issued multiple advisories regarding paclitaxel use. We analyzed how this controversy impacted device purchasing and related utilization patterns in the period immediately following publication of the meta-analysis.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Ascension Healthcare System purchase data over a 14-month period were synthesized across centers for both paclitaxel and non-paclitaxel devices. A fixed-effects regression model and a binary regression model with facility-level controls were used to compare purchasing patterns before and after the meta-analysis. Purchase volumes of each paclitaxel device fell. Pooled purchase volumes of all paclitaxel devices decreased from a 14-month peak of 631 devices in October 2018 to a 14-month nadir of 359 devices in February 2019. An F-test comparing the pooled-month specific fixed effects for the months before vs after the publication of the meta-analysis has an F-statistic of 11.64, suggesting that average purchasing levels in the two periods are statistically different (P<.001). Utilization of non-paclitaxel devices did not decline.

CONCLUSIONS

Purchase volumes of paclitaxel devices decreased immediately during the months following publication of the related meta-analysis. Total Ascension-wide paclitaxel device purchase volume in February 2019 demonstrated a 43.1% reduction from peak monthly purchase volume during the assessed period and a 32.5% reduction compared with November 2019, the last month preceding publication of the meta-analysis.

Cost-effectiveness of Atezolizumab Combination Therapy for First-Line Treatment of Metastatic Nonsquamous Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in the United States

IMPORTANCE

Immune checkpoint inhibitor combination therapy has recently become the standard of care for first-line treatment of metastatic nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer. The implications of these first-line treatments are considerable, given the potential population of patients eligible to receive them and their high cost.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of adding atezolizumab to bevacizumab, carboplatin, and paclitaxel as a first-line treatment strategy for patients with metastatic nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer in the United States.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

In this economic evaluation, a primary microsimulation model was developed to assess atezolizumab combination vs bevacizumab, carboplatin, and paclitaxel alone in the first line (base case 1). A secondary model was developed to assess these treatments along with pembrolizumab combination and platinum doublet chemotherapy (base case 2). Treatment strategies and other simulated conditions were based on those from the IMpower150 and KEYNOTE-189 clinical trials. The study perspective was the US health care sector. One million patients with metastatic nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer were simulated for each treatment group. This study was performed from February 2019 through May 2019.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were compared with a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY).

RESULTS

In base case 1, in which 1 million patients were simulated, treating with bevacizumab, carboplatin, and paclitaxel in the first line was associated with a mean cost of $112 551 (95% CI, $112 450-$112 653) and a mean survival of 1.48 QALYs (95% CI, 1.47-1.48 QALYs) per patient. Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, carboplatin, and paclitaxel was associated with a mean cost of $244 166 (95% CI, $243 864-$244 468) and a mean survival of 2.13 QALYs (95% CI, 2.12-2.13 QALYs) per patient, for an estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $201 676 per QALY (95% CI, $198 105-$205 355 per QALY). In base case 2, in which 1 million patients were simulated, pembrolizumab combination therapy was associated with a mean cost of $226 282 (95% CI, $226 007-$226 557) and a mean survival of 2.45 QALYs (95% CI, 2.44-2.46 QALYs) per patient. Pembrolizumab combination dominated atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, carboplatin, and paclitaxel, leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $116 698 per QALY (95% CI, $115 088-$118 342 per QALY) between pembrolizumab combination and bevacizumab, carboplatin, and paclitaxel. Atezolizumab combination was not cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per QALY.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this simulated model economic analysis, atezolizumab combination was not cost-effective compared with bevacizumab, carboplatin, and paclitaxel and provided suboptimal incremental benefit compared with cost vs pembrolizumab combination for first-line treatment. Although atezolizumab combination therapy provides clinical benefits, price reductions may be necessary for this treatment strategy to become cost-effective.

Cost-effectiveness of adjuvant paclitaxel and trastuzumab for early-stage node-negative, HER2-positive breast cancer

OBJECTIVES

Adjuvant paclitaxel and trastuzumab has been shown to be an effective regimen with low risk of cancer recurrence and treatment-related toxicities in early-stage node-negative, HER2-positive breast cancer. We investigated the cost-effectiveness of this regimen.

METHODS

A Markov-based microsimulation model with six health states is used to simulate four adjuvant therapy options for women with early-stage node-negative, HER2-positive breast cancer at different age groups. The four treatment arms are 1) adjuvant paclitaxel and trastuzumab (TH), 2) doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, paclitaxel and trastuzumab (ACTH), 3) docetaxel, carboplatin and trastuzumab (TCH), and 4) no adjuvant trastuzumab (NT). Data from randomized trials were used to estimate treatment efficacy. Societal perspective was used in this cost-effectiveness analysis. Costs were measured in 2016 US dollars (US$) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) was used for health outcomes. Sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the impact of uncertainty in parameter estimation.

RESULTS

We found that 40-year-old women undergoing TH treatment would have an average of 16.17 QALYs for the cost of $178,650 when lifetime horizon is used. Compared to NT, TH has incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranged from $10,584 (ages 40-49) to $84,981 (age 80+) per additional QALYs. The sensitivity analysis showed that TH is cheaper and leads to higher QALYs compared to both ACTH and TCH for all age groups and time horizons.

CONCLUSIONS

TH is cost-effective for all age groups in the base case scenario and in the sensitivity analysis. In order to reduce the parameter uncertainty, clinical trials with longer follow-up times are needed.

Paclitaxel as Albumin-Bound Nanoparticles with Gemcitabine for Untreated Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal

As part of the single technology appraisal (STA) process, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited Celgene Ltd to submit clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence for paclitaxel as albumin-bound nanoparticles (Nab-Pac) in combination with gemcitabine (Nab-Pac + Gem) for patients with untreated metastatic pancreatic cancer. The STA was a review of NICE's 2015 guidance (TA360) in which Nab-Pac + Gem was not recommended for patients with untreated metastatic pancreatic cancer. The review was prompted by a proposed Patient Access Scheme (PAS) discount on the price of Nab-Pac and new evidence that might lead to a change in the guidance. The Liverpool Reviews and Implementation Group at the University of Liverpool was the Evidence Review Group (ERG). This article summarises the ERG's review of the company's evidence submission for Nab-Pac + Gem, and the Appraisal Committee (AC) decision. The final scope issued by NICE listed three comparators: gemcitabine monotherapy (Gem), gemcitabine in combination with capecitabine (Gem + Cap), and a combination of oxaliplatin, irinotecan, leucovorin and fluorouracil (FOLFIRINOX). Clinical evidence for the comparison of Nab-Pac + Gem versus Gem was from the phase III CA046 randomized controlled trial. Analysis of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) showed statistically significant improvement for patients treated with Nab-Pac + Gem versus Gem. Clinical evidence for the comparison of Nab-Pac + Gem versus FOLFIRINOX and versus Gem + Cap was derived from a network meta-analysis (NMA). Results of the NMA did not indicate a statistically significant difference in OS or PFS for the comparison of Nab-Pac + Gem versus either Gem + Cap or FOLFIRINOX. The ERG's main concerns with the clinical effectiveness evidence were difficulties in identifying the patient population for whom treatment with Nab-Pac + Gem is most appropriate, and violation of the proportional hazards (PH) assumption in the CA046 trial. The ERG highlighted methodological issues in the cost-effectiveness analysis pertaining to the modelling of survival outcomes, estimation of drug costs and double counting of adverse-event disutilities. The AC accepted all the ERG's amendments to the company's cost-effectiveness model; however, these did not make important differences to the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). The company's base-case ICER was £46,932 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for the comparison of Nab-Pac + Gem versus Gem. Treatment with Nab-Pac + Gem was dominated both by treatment with Gem + Cap and with FOLFIRINOX in the company's base case. The AC concluded that the most plausible ICER for treatment with Nab-Pac + Gem versus Gem was in the range of £41,000-£46,000 per QALY gained. The AC concluded that Nab-Pac + Gem was not cost effective compared with Gem + Cap or FOLFIRINOX, and accepted that treatment with Nab-Pac + Gem met the end-of-life criteria versus Gem but did not consider Nab-Pac + Gem to meet the end-of-life criteria compared with Gem + Cap or FOLFIRINOX. The AC also concluded that although patients who would receive Nab-Pac + Gem rather than FOLFIRINOX or Gem + Cap were difficult to distinguish, they were identifiable in clinical practice. The AC recommended treatment with Nab-Pac + Gem for patients with untreated metastatic pancreatic cancer for whom other combination chemotherapies were unsuitable and who would otherwise receive Gem.

Cost-effectiveness of Paclitaxel + Ramucirumab Combination Therapy for Advanced Gastric Cancer Progressing After First-line Chemotherapy in Japan

PURPOSE

The combination of paclitaxel + ramucirumab is a standard second-line treatment in patients with advanced gastric cancer. This therapy has been associated with increased median overall survival and progression-free survival compared with those with paclitaxel monotherapy. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of paclitaxel + ramucirumab combination therapy in patients with advanced gastric cancer, from the perspective of health care payers in Japan.

METHODS

We constructed a Markov model to compare, over a time horizon of 3 years, the costs and effectiveness of the combination of paclitaxel + ramucirumab and paclitaxel alone as second-line therapies for advanced gastric cancer in Japan. Health outcomes were measured in life-years (LYs) and quality-adjusted (QA) LYs gained. Costs were calculated using year-2016 Japanese yen (¥1 = US $17.79) according to the social insurance reimbursement schedule and drug tariff of the fee-for-service system in Japan. Model robustness was addressed through 1-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. The costs and QALYs were discounted at a rate of 2% per year. The willingness-to-pay threshold was set at the World Health Organization's criterion of ¥12 million, because no consensus exists regarding the threshold for acceptable cost per QALY ratios in Japan's health policy.

FINDINGS

Paclitaxel + ramucirumab combination therapy was estimated to provide an additional 0.09 QALYs (0.10 LYs) at a cost of ¥3,870,077, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of ¥43,010,248/QALY. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the combination therapy was >¥12 million/QALY in all of the 1-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

IMPLICATIONS

Adding ramucirumab to a regimen of paclitaxel in the second-line treatment of advanced gastric cancer is expected to provide a minimal incremental benefit at a high incremental cost per QALY. Based on our findings, adjustments in the price of ramucirumab, as well as improves in other clinical parameters such as survival time and adverse event in advanced gastric cancer therapy, are needed.

Cost-Effectiveness of Immune Checkpoint Inhibition in BRAF Wild-Type Advanced Melanoma

Purpose Patients who are diagnosed with stage IV metastatic melanoma have an estimated 5-year relative survival rate of only 17%. Randomized controlled trials of recent US Food and Drug Administration-approved immune checkpoint inhibitors-pembrolizumab (PEM), nivolumab (NIVO), and ipilumumab (IPI)-demonstrate improved patient outcomes, but the optimal treatment sequence in patients with BRAF wild-type metastatic melanoma remains unclear. To inform policy makers about the value of these treatments, we developed a Markov model to compare the cost-effectiveness of different strategies for sequencing novel agents for the treatment of advanced melanoma. Materials and Methods We developed Markov models by using a US-payer perspective and lifetime horizon to estimate costs (2016 US$) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for treatment sequences with first-line NIVO, IPI, NIVO + IPI, PEM every 2 weeks, and PEM every 3 weeks. Health states were defined for initial treatment, first and second progression, and death. Rates for drug discontinuation, frequency of adverse events, disease progression, and death obtained from randomized phase III trials were used to determine the likelihood of transition between states. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate model uncertainty. Results PEM every 3 weeks followed by second-line IPI was both more effective and less costly than dacarbazine followed by IPI then NIVO, or IPI followed by NIVO. Compared with the first-line dacarbazine treatment strategy, NIVO followed by IPI produced an incremental cost effectiveness ratio of $90,871/QALY, and first-line NIVO + IPI followed by carboplatin plus paclitaxel chemotherapy produced an incremental cost effectiveness ratio of $198,867/QALY. Conclusion For patients with treatment-naive BRAF wild-type advanced melanoma, first-line PEM every 3 weeks followed by second-line IPI or first-line NIVO followed by second-line IPI are the most cost-effective, immune-based treatment strategies for metastatic melanoma.

Economic evaluation for the US of nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine versus FOLFIRINOX versus gemcitabine in the treatment of metastatic pancreas cancer

BACKGROUND

Nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine (NAB-P + GEM) and FOLFIRINOX have shown superior efficacy over gemcitabine (GEM) in the treatment of metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDA). Although the incremental clinical benefits are modest, both treatments represent significant advances in the treatment of a high-mortality cancer. In this independent economic evaluation for the US, the aim was to estimate the comparative cost-utility and cost-effectiveness of these three regimens from the payer perspective.

METHODS

In the absence of a direct treatment comparison in a single clinical trial, the Bucher indirect comparison method was used to estimate the comparative efficacy of each regimen. A Markov model evaluated life years (LY) and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained with NAB-P + GEM and FOLFIRINOX over GEM, expressed as incremental cost-effectiveness (ICER) and cost-utility ratios (ICUR). All costs and outcomes were discounted at 3%/year. The impact of parameter uncertainty on the model was assessed by probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

NAB-P + GEM was associated with differentials of +0.180 LY and +0.127 QALY gained over GEM at an incremental total cost of $25,965; yielding an ICER of $144,096/LY and ICUR of $204,369/QALY gained. FOLFIRINOX was associated with differentials of +0.368 LY and +0.249 QALY gained over GEM at an incremental total cost of $93,045; yielding an ICER of $253,162/LY and ICUR of $372,813/QALY gained. In indirect comparison, the overall survival hazard ratio (OS HR) for NAB-P + GEM vs FOLFIRINOX was 0.79 (95%CI = 0.59-1.05), indicating no superiority in OS of either regimen. FOLFIRINOX had an ICER of $358,067/LY and an ICUR of $547,480/QALY gained over NAB-P + GEM. Tornado diagrams identified variation in the OS HR, but no other parameters, to impact the NAB-P + GEM and FOLFIRINOX ICURs.

CONCLUSIONS

In the absence of a statistically significant difference in OS between NAB-P + GEM and FOLFIRINOX, this US analysis indicates that the greater economic benefit in terms of cost-savings and incremental cost-effectiveness and cost-utility ratios favors NAB-P + GEM over FOLFIRINOX.

Drug-coated balloons are replacing the need for nitinol stents in the superficial femoral artery

Amassed evidence from several randomized controlled trials and high quality meta-analyses clearly support the primary use of paclitaxel-coated balloons (PCB) in the superficial femoral artery over traditional plain balloon angioplasty or primary bare nitinol stenting with significantly lower vascular restenosis, less need for repeat procedures, improved quality of life and potential cost savings for the healthcare system. Stents may be reserved for bail-out in case of a suboptimal dilatation result, and for selected more complex lesions, or in case of critical limb ischemia in order to eliminate vessel recoil and maximize immediate hemodynamic gain. Debulking atherectomy remains unproven, but holds a lot of promise in particular in combination with PCBs, in order to improve compliance of the vessel wall by plaque removal, allow for a better angioplasty result and optimize drug transfer and bioavailability. The present overview summarizes and discusses current evidence about femoropopliteal PCB angioplasty compared to the historical standard of plain old balloon angioplasty and bare nitinol stents. Available evidence is appraised in the context of clinically meaningful results, relevant unresolved issues are highlighted, and future trends are discussed.

The Cost-Effectiveness of Bevacizumab in Advanced Ovarian Cancer Using Evidence from the ICON7 Trial

BACKGROUND

Bevacizumab is used extensively in the treatment of cancer, including advanced ovarian cancer, for which results of the International Collaborative Ovarian Neoplasm (ICON) 7 trial have been recently reported. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's (NICE's) recent decision not to recommend bevacizumab for advanced ovarian cancer was not based on evidence related to the unlicensed lower dosage (7.5 mg/kg) of the drug despite its use in the English National Health Service (NHS) and the ICON7 trial.

OBJECTIVE

To report on the findings of an analysis that considered whether the lower dose is cost-effective.

METHODS

Cost-effectiveness analysis is assessed from the perspective of the English NHS and health outcomes expressed in terms of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The analysis focuses on a clinically predefined high-risk subgroup of the ICON7 trial. The price at which the lower dose of bevacizumab could be considered cost-effective for the English NHS is presented for a range of scenarios to inform decisions about price negotiations by international health systems.

RESULTS

In the base-case analysis, bevacizumab has an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £48,975 per additional QALY, which is above NICE's standard cost-effectiveness threshold (£20,000-£30,000 per QALY). The official price of bevacizumab in 2013 was between £2.31 and £2.63 per milligram. A price reduction of between 46% and 67%, dependent on the NICE threshold, would be required for the product to be cost-effective in the high-risk subgroup.

CONCLUSIONS

The lower dose of bevacizumab for advanced ovarian cancer is not cost-effective based on the product's list price and using NICE's cost-effectiveness thresholds. Significant price discounts would be needed to make the drug affordable to the NHS.

[Progress on clinical application of bevacizumab for the treatment of refractory cervical cancer]

Bevacizumab is increasingly used in recurrent, persistent or metastatic cervical cancer. The early retrospective case reports found that bevacizumab combined with 5-FU (including capecitabine) or paclitaxel was well tolerated and displayed encouraging anti-tumor activity in recurrent or persistent cervical cancer. Phase Ⅱ clinical trials showed that bevacizumab was well tolerated and active in the second- and third-line treatment of patients with recurrent cervical cancer. Large scale phase Ⅱ and phase Ⅲ clinical trials demonstrated that bevacizumab-containing chemotherapy was effective in the first- and second-line treatment of patients with persistent cervical cancer, prolonged survival time and improved remission rate. The article also reviews the research progress on predictive factors of bevacizumab efficacy, showing the use of imaging and biomarkers in predicting the efficacy of bevacizumab treatment. In addition, this article analyzes the cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab, finding that bevacizumab combined with chemotherapy meets the standard of cost-effectiveness.

Cost description of chemotherapy regimens for the treatment of metastatic pancreas cancer

Multiple chemotherapy regimens are available for the treatment of metastatic pancreas cancer (mPCA). Choice of regimen is based on the patient's performance status and toxicity profile of the regimen. The objective of this study was to analyze the costs of first-line regimens to further aid in decision-making and develop a platform upon which to assess value. We calculated the monthly cost for individual standard regimens (gemcitabine, gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel, gemcitabine/erlotinib and FOLFIRINOX) and the overall treatment cost for a course of therapy based on the median progression-free survival achieved in published studies. In addition to cost of drugs, we included administration costs and costs of toxicities (including growth factor support, blood product transfusion and hospitalization for toxicities). Costs for administration and management of adverse events were based on Medicare reimbursement rates for hospital and physician services. Drug costs were based on Medicare average sale prices (all 2014 US$). The monthly costs for gemcitabine, FOLFIRINOX, gemcitabine/erlotinib and gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel were $1363, $7234, $8007 and $12,221, respectively. The overall treatment costs for a course of the same regimens based on median PFS were $5043, $46,298, $51,004 and $67,216, respectively. The choice of chemotherapy regimen for mPCA should be based on tolerability and efficacy of the regimen individualized to patient's performance status. Healthcare systems have finite resources; thus, there is increasing emphasis on metrics to define value in health care when outcomes of therapy are similar or produce marked differences in value. These data provide useful financial information to incorporate into the decision-making process.

Cost Analyses in the US and Japan: A Cross-Country Comparative Analysis Applied to the PRONOUNCE Trial in Non-Squamous Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

Introduction

Health technology assessment is not required for regulatory submission or approval in either the United States (US) or Japan. This study was designed as a cross-country evaluation of cost analyses conducted in the US and Japan based on the PRONOUNCE phase III lung cancer trial, which compared pemetrexed plus carboplatin followed by pemetrexed (PemC) versus paclitaxel plus carboplatin plus bevacizumab followed by bevacizumab (PCB).

Methods

Two cost analyses were conducted in accordance with International Society For Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research good research practice standards. Costs were obtained based on local pricing structures; outcomes were considered equivalent based on the PRONOUNCE trial results. Other inputs were included from the trial data (e.g., toxicity rates) or from local practice sources (e.g., toxicity management). The models were compared across key input and transferability factors.

Results

Despite differences in local input data, both models demonstrated a similar direction, with the cost of PemC being consistently lower than the cost of PCB. The variation in individual input parameters did affect some of the specific categories, such as toxicity, and impacted sensitivity analyses, with the cost differential between comparators being greater in Japan than in the US.

Conclusion

When economic models are based on clinical trial data, many inputs and outcomes are held consistent. The alterable inputs were not in and of themselves large enough to significantly impact the results between countries, which were directionally consistent with greater variation seen in sensitivity analyses. The factors that vary across jurisdictions, even when minor, can have an impact on trial-based economic analyses.

Funding

Eli Lilly and Company.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s12325-015-0270-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Paclitaxel Drug-Eluting Stents in Peripheral Arterial Disease: A Health Technology Assessment

BACKGROUND

Peripheral arterial disease is a condition in which atherosclerotic plaques partially or completely block blood flow to the legs. Although percutaneous transluminal angioplasty and metallic stenting have high immediate success rates in treating peripheral arterial disease, long-term patency and restenosis rates in long and complex lesions remain unsatisfactory.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this analysis was to evaluate the clinical effectiveness, safety, cost-effectiveness and budget impact of Zilver paclitaxel self-expanding drug-eluting stents for the treatment of de novo or restenotic lesions in above-the-knee peripheral arterial disease.

DATA SOURCES

Literature searches were performed using Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid Embase, EBSCO Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and EBM Reviews. For the economic review, a search filter was applied to limit search results to economics-related literature. Data sources for the budget impact analysis included expert opinion, published literature, and Ontario administrative data.

REVIEW METHODS

Systematic reviews, meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials, and observational studies were included in the clinical effectiveness review, and full economic evaluations were included in the economic literature review. Studies were included if they examined the effect of Zilver paclitaxel drug-eluting stents in de novo or restenotic lesions in above-the-knee arteries. For the budget impact analysis, 3 scenarios were constructed based on different assumptions.

RESULTS

One randomized controlled trial reported a significantly higher patency rate with Zilver paclitaxel drug-eluting stents for lesions ≤ 14 cm than with angioplasty or bare metal stents. One observational study showed no difference in patency rates between Zilver paclitaxel drug-eluting stents and paclitaxel drug-coated balloons. Zilver paclitaxel drug-eluting stents were associated with a significantly higher event-free survival rate than angioplasty, but the event-free survival rate was similar for Zilver paclitaxel drug-eluting stents and paclitaxel drug-coated balloons. No economic evaluations compared Zilver paclitaxel drug-eluting stents with bare metal stents or angioplasty for peripheral arterial disease. A budget impact analysis showed that the cost savings associated with funding of Zilver paclitaxel drug-eluting stents would be $470,000 to $640,000 per year, assuming that the use of the Zilver paclitaxel drug-eluting stent was associated with a lower risk of subsequent revascularization.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on evidence of low to moderate quality, Zilver paclitaxel drug-eluting stents were associated with a higher patency rate than angioplasty or bare metal stents, and with fewer adverse events than angioplasty. The effectiveness and safety of Zilver paclitaxel drug-eluting stents and paclitaxel drug-coated balloons were similar.

A cost-utility analysis of NRG Oncology/Gynecologic Oncology Group Protocol 218: incorporating prospectively collected quality-of-life scores in an economic model of treatment of ovarian cancer

OBJECTIVE

To estimate quality-of-life (QOL)-adjusted cost-utility with addition of bevacizumab (B) to intravenous paclitaxel/carboplatin (PC) for primary treatment of advanced-stage epithelial ovarian cancer.

METHODS

A modified Markov state transition model of 3 regimens evaluated in GOG 218 (PC, PC+concurrent B [PCB], and PCB+maintenance B [PCB+B]) was populated by prospectively collected survival, adverse event, and QOL data from GOG 218. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were modeled using primary event data. Costs of grade 4 hypertension, grade 3-5 bowel events, and growth factor support were incorporated. QOL scores were converted to utilities and incorporated into the model. Monte Carlo probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed to account for uncertainty in estimates.

RESULTS

PC was the least expensive ($4044) and least effective (mean 1.1 quality-adjusted progression-free years [QA-PFY]) regimen. PCB ($43,703 and 1.13 QA-PFY) was dominated by a combination of PC and PCB+B. PCB+B ($122,700 and 1.25 QA-PFY) was the most expensive regimen with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $792,380/QA-PFY compared to PC. In a model not incorporating QOL, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of PCB+B was $632,571/PFY compared to PC.

CONCLUSIONS

In this cost-utility model, incorporation of QOL into an analysis of GOG 218 led to less favorable ICER (by >$150,000/QA-PFY) in regimens containing B compared with those that do not include B. Continued investigation of populations with ovarian cancer in whom the efficacy of treatment with bevacizumab is expected to be increased (or in whom QOL is expected to increase with use) is critical.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of docetaxel versus weekly paclitaxel in adjuvant treatment of regional breast cancer in New Zealand

BACKGROUND

There have been recent important changes to adjuvant regimens and costs of taxanes for the treatment of early breast cancer, requiring a re-evaluation of comparative cost effectiveness. In particular, weekly paclitaxel is now commonly used but has not been subjected to cost-effectiveness analysis.

AIM

Our aim was to estimate the cost effectiveness of adjuvant docetaxel and weekly paclitaxel versus each other, and compared with standard 3-weekly paclitaxel, in women aged ≥25 years diagnosed with regional breast cancer in New Zealand.

METHODS

A macrosimulation Markov model was used, with a lifetime horizon and health system perspective. The model compared 3-weekly docetaxel and weekly paclitaxel versus standard 3-weekly paclitaxel (E1199 regimen) in the hospital setting. Data on overall survival and toxicities (febrile neutropenia and peripheral neuropathy) were derived from relevant published clinical trials. Epidemiological and cost data were derived from New Zealand datasets. Health outcomes were measured with health-adjusted life-years (HALYs), similar to quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Costs included intervention and health system costs in year 2011 values, with 3% per annum discounting on costs and HALYs.

RESULTS

The mean HALY gain per patient compared with standard 3-weekly paclitaxel was 0.51 with weekly paclitaxel and 0.21 with docetaxel, while incremental costs were $NZ 12,284 and $NZ 4,021, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of docetaxel versus 3-weekly paclitaxel was $NZ 19,400 (purchasing power parity [PPP]-adjusted $US 13,100) per HALY gained, and the ICER of weekly paclitaxel versus docetaxel was $NZ 27,100 ($US 18,300) per HALY gained. In terms of net monetary benefit, weekly paclitaxel was the optimal strategy for willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds >$NZ 27,000 per HALY gained. However, the model was highly sensitive to uncertainty around survival differences, while toxicity-related morbidity had little impact. Thus, if it was assumed that weekly paclitaxel and docetaxel had the same efficacy, docetaxel would be favoured over weekly paclitaxel.

CONCLUSION

Both weekly paclitaxel and docetaxel are likely to be cost effective compared with standard 3-weekly paclitaxel. Weekly paclitaxel was the optimal choice for WTP thresholds greater than $NZ27,000 per HALY gained (PPP-adjusted $US 18,000). However, uncertainty remains around relative survival benefits, and weekly paclitaxel becomes cost ineffective versus docetaxel if it is assumed that the two regimens have equal effectiveness. Reduced uncertainty about the relative survival benefits may improve decision making for funding.

Bevacizumab in treatment of high-risk ovarian cancer--a cost-effectiveness analysis

The objective of this study was to evaluate a cost-effectiveness strategy of bevacizumab in a subset of high-risk advanced ovarian cancer patients with survival benefit. Methods. A subset analysis of the International Collaboration on Ovarian Neoplasms 7 trial showed that additions of bevacizumab (B) and maintenance bevacizumab (mB) to paclitaxel (P) and carboplatin (C) improved the overall survival (OS) of high-risk advanced cancer patients. Actual and estimated costs of treatment were determined from Medicare payment. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per life-year saved was established. Results. The estimated cost of PC is $535 per cycle; PCB + mB (7.5 mg/kg) is $3,760 per cycle for the first 6 cycles and then $3,225 per cycle for 12 mB cycles. Of 465 high-risk stage IIIC (>1 cm residual) or stage IV patients, the previously reported OS after PC was 28.8 months versus 36.6 months in those who underwent PCB + mB. With an estimated 8-month improvement in OS, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of B was $167,771 per life-year saved. Conclusion. In this clinically relevant subset of women with high-risk advanced ovarian cancer with overall survival benefit after bevacizumab, our economic model suggests that the incremental cost of bevacizumab was approximately $170,000.

[SICI-GISE position paper on drug-coated balloon use in the coronary district]

Drug-coated balloons are a new tool for the treatment of patients with coronary artery disease. The main feature of this technology is a rapid and homogeneous transfer of an antiproliferative drug (paclitaxel) to the vessel wall just at the time of balloon inflation, when neointimal proliferation, in response to angioplasty, is the highest. Moreover, drug-coated balloons share adjunctive advantages over stents: the absence of permanent scaffold and polymer, the respect of the original coronary anatomy, and limited inflammatory stimuli, thereby allowing for short-term dual antiplatelet therapy. At present, a variety of devices are available in the market, with limited scientific data for the vast majority of them. Thus, the Italian Society of Interventional Cardiology (SICI-GISE) decided to coordinate the efforts of a group of renowned experts in this field, in order to produce a position paper on the correct use of drug-coated balloons in all settings of coronary artery disease, giving a class of indication to each one, based on clinical evidence. This position paper represents a quick reference for operators, investigators and manufacturers to promote the understanding and the correct use of the drug-coated balloon technology in everyday clinical practice.

Cost effectiveness of liposomal doxorubicin vs. paclitaxel for the treatment of advanced AIDS-Kaposi's sarcoma

OBJECTIVE

Epidemic Kaposi's sarcoma (KS) is one of the most common acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) defining malignancies, a disease with stigmatized clinical features that characterizes the diagnosis of AIDS. This study aims to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis between liposomal doxorubicin and paclitaxel in treating AIDS-KS.

METHODS

A 21 week decision tree analysis was created using a hospital perspective to compare treatment patterns with liposomal doxorubicin and paclitaxel. All costs were calculated in 2011 US dollars and obtained from an academic treatment center. Acquisition costs were obtained from public estimates using wholesale acquisition cost (WAC). Effectiveness was estimated based on a Phase 3 study of liposomal doxorubicin and paclitaxel (Von-Roenn et al.). Adverse events (AEs) associated with treatment and not the disease were included in the analysis. One-way sensitivity analysis was performed to test the robustness of the results.

RESULTS

Cost minimization analysis showed that treatment with liposomal doxorubicin was $18,125 whereas paclitaxel costs $12,347. After accounting for response rate, the results showed that liposomal doxorubicin costs $39,403 versus $21,661 for paclitaxel. This study has some limitations. Clinical data were derived from different clinical trials. In addition, many assumptions were made.

CONCLUSION

Paclitaxel is dominant due to its lower acquisition cost and high response rate. Acquisition cost of liposomal doxorubicin and paclitaxel are significantly different. After accounting for all the factors that contribute to cost and response rate, paclitaxel is more cost effective than liposomal doxorubicin.

Rates of guideline adherence among US community oncologists treating NSCLC

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate chemotherapy regimen utilization in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated in US community oncology practices, to examine the relationship between evidence-based guideline adherence and the follow-up monitoring period (FUMP) over 1.5 years, and to understand the relative costs of commonly administered chemotherapy regimens.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective data analysis.

METHODS

Using a large US medical oncology clinical database derived from a proprietary web-based drug dispensing technology, we identified adult patients with NSCLC who started adjuvant therapy for early-stage disease or first-line therapy for advanced and metastatic disease from July 1, 2009, through June 30, 2010. Adjuvant or first-line regimen utilization and the FUMP within 1.5 years were analyzed with respect to national evidence-based guideline adherence. Costs for commonly administered regimens based on 2010 Medicare reimbursement were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 3505 patient treatment regimens were included in this study. Rates of guideline adherence were 75.0% and 61.3% for the first-line and the adjuvant treatment groups, respectively (P < .0001). Treatment with guidelinebased regimens correlated with a significantly longer FUMP in the first-line treatment groupcompared with non-guideline-based regimens (P = .005). Regimen costs for the top 11 regimens in the adjuvant and first-line treatment settings varied greatly. Low-cost regimens were prescribed more commonly.

CONCLUSIONS

Rates of guideline adherence were significantly higher in the first-line than in the adjuvant NSCLC treatment group. First-line treatment with guideline-based regimens correlated with an extended FUMP for advanced NSCLC patients.

Dynamic cost-effectiveness of oncology drugs

OBJECTIVE

To develop a methodology for computing cost-effectiveness measures of a drug throughout its life cycle.

STUDY DESIGN

We developed a set of models that measure the long-term cost-effectiveness of 2 oncology drugs, paclitaxel and docetaxel, throughout their life cycles.

METHODS

The study combined pricing history of the drugs, US Food and Drug Administration approval dates, drug utilization from Medicare claims, and clinical effectiveness information from phase III studies reported in the scientific literature. These data were used to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) at the time of market entry and by year thereafter. The study population included patients with cancer who were treated with paclitaxel or docetaxel.

RESULTS

The prices of paclitaxel and docetaxel dropped substantially due to patent expirations, while the number of users increased several fold because of subsequent empirical evidence and approval of new indications that resulted in greater efficacy. The ICER over a 10-year period was approximately 60% of the ICER at product launch for both drugs, and was further decreased when a longer-term perspective was taken.

CONCLUSIONS

We demonstrated that the ICER of a drug can decrease substantially over its life cycle. Thus, cost-effectiveness at drug launch might be a poor indicator of the longterm value of the drug. The results of this study are based on the analysis of 2 prominent oncology drugs, paclitaxel and docetaxel. The results may not be generalizable to other drug classes or other oncology drugs for which new indications are less common.

Cost effectiveness of personalized therapy for first-line treatment of stage IV and recurrent incurable adenocarcinoma of the lung

PURPOSE

Patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation-positive stage IV adenocarcinoma have improved survival with tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) treatments, but the cost effectiveness of personalized first-line therapy using EGFR mutation testing is unknown.

METHODS

We created a decision analytic model comparing the costs and effects of platinum combination chemotherapy with personalized therapy in which patients with EGFR mutation-positive tumors were treated with erlotinib. We used two testing strategies: testing only those with tissue available and performing a repeat biopsy if tissue was not available versus three nontargeted chemotherapy regimens (ie, carboplatin and paclitaxel; carboplatin and pemetrexed; and carboplatin, pemetrexed, and bevacizumab).

RESULTS

Compared with a carboplatin plus paclitaxel regimen, targeted therapy based on testing available tissue yielded an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $110,644 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY), and the rebiopsy strategy yielded an ICER of $122,219 per QALY. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed substantial uncertainty around these point estimates. With a willingness to pay of $100,000 per QALY, the testing strategy was cost effective 58% of the time, and the rebiopsy strategy was cost effective 54% of the time. Personalized therapy with an EGFR TKI was more favorable when the nontargeted chemotherapy regimen was more expensive. Compared with carboplatin, pemetrexed, and bevacizumab, ICERs were $25,547 per QALY for the testing strategy and $44,036 per QALY for the rebiopsy strategy.

CONCLUSION

Although specific clinical circumstances should guide therapy, our cost-effectiveness analysis supports the strategy of testing for EGFR mutations in patients with stage IV or recurrent adenocarcinoma of the lung, rebiopsying patients if insufficient tissue is available for testing, and treating patients with EGFR mutations with erlotinib as first-line therapy.

Economic impact of paclitaxel shortage in patients with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer

OBJECTIVE

To determine the potential economic impact of a paclitaxel drug shortage in patients with newly diagnosed, untreated ovarian cancer.

METHODS

A modified Markov state transition model with a 6 cycle time horizon compared two scenarios: (1) Standard treatment (STD): paclitaxel 175 mg/m2/carboplatin AUC 5 × 6 cycles; (2) Paclitaxel drug shortage (DS): docetaxel 75 mg/m2/carboplatin AUC 5 × 6 cycles. Adverse events, quality of life, and costs of chemotherapy, neuropathy, febrile neutropenia, and anemia were incorporated. Key assumptions: (1) Costs and consequences were assigned only to grade 2+ neuropathy, febrile neutropenia, and grade 3-4 anemia; (2) Grade 2+ neuropathy prompted a switch from paclitaxel/carboplatin to docetaxel/carboplatin or from docetaxel/carboplatin to carboplatin alone; (3) Febrile neutropenia resulted in inpatient hospitalization followed by G-CSF prophylaxis.

RESULTS

The mean cost of 6 cycles of chemotherapy was $4939 in the STD and $16,107 in the DS scenario, for a cost difference of $11,168 per patient over 6 cycles of treatment. STD was the dominant strategy (less expensive and more effective than the drug shortage scenario). In sensitivity analysis, DS was more costly over a wide range of clinical estimates in each arm. A drug shortage that affects approximately 50% of women initiating chemotherapy is expected to impact 779 women and cost third party payers an additional $8,699,872 monthly.

CONCLUSIONS

Our model indicates that chemotherapy drug shortages can have a significant negative impact on the average cost of primary treatment for ovarian cancer and have the potential to negatively impact health system costs.

Consolidation paclitaxel is more cost-effective than bevacizumab following upfront treatment of advanced epithelial ovarian cancer

INTRODUCTION

Randomized trials have demonstrated significant improvements in progression-free survival (PFS) with consolidation paclitaxel (P) and bevacizumab (B) following cytoreduction and adjuvant carboplatin/paclitaxel (CP) for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). We sought to evaluate the cost-effectiveness (C/E) of these consolidation strategies.

METHODS

A decision model was developed based on Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG) protocols #178 and #218. Arm 1 is 6 cycles of CP. Arm 2 is 6 cycles of CP followed by 12 cycles of P (CP+P). Arm 3 is 1 cycle of CP, 5 cycles of CPB, and 16 cycles of B (CPB+B). Parameters include PFS, overall survival (OS), cost, complications (neuropathy for P and bowel perforation for B), and quality-of-life utility values. Sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for CT+T is $13,402/quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained compared to CP. For CPB+B compared to CP, the ICER is $326,530/QALY. When compared simultaneously, CPB+B is dominated, i.e. is more costly and less effective than CP+P. Results were robust to parameter variation. At a willingness to pay threshold of $100,000/QALY, CP+P was the preferred option throughout most of the decision space. Sensitivity analyses suggest that CPB+B would become the preferred option if it were to improve OS by 6.1 years over CP+P.

CONCLUSIONS

In this model, B consolidation for advanced EOC was associated with a modest improvement in effectiveness that is less than that with P consolidation and more costly. A statistically significant improvement in survival may improve the value of B consolidation.

Cost-effectiveness of the Taxus paclitaxel-eluting stent in the Swedish healthcare system

OBJECTIVE

To analyse the cost-effectiveness of Taxus compared to a bare-metal stent in patients with coronary artery disease in the Swedish healthcare setting.

DESIGN

A decision-analytic model combining clinical data on revascularization rates with Swedish unit costs for medical resources and utility data from the literature.

RESULTS

For patients of moderate risk, the average cost per patient at 12 months is 72,200 SEK for Taxus and 66,900 SEK for a bare-metal stent, while the average cost for high risk patients is nearly equivalent (73,000 vs. 71,700 SEK). The cost per revascularization avoided is generally favourable, while the incremental cost per QALY gained varies depending on the assumptions made; from 2,351,000 SEK for patients of moderate risk at 12-months to cost saving at 24 months for high risk patients. Budget impact scenarios at 12 months are cost-neutral.

CONCLUSION

The Taxus stent is cost-effective in high risk patients, particularly at 24 months. Although it may be less cost-effective for the general population, there is still a substantial offset of initial procedure costs through lower rate of repeat revascularizations.

An economic evaluation of docetaxel and paclitaxel regimens in metastatic breast cancer in the UK

Paclitaxel and docetaxel have been available for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer (MBC) since the 1990s. However, until very recently, comparisons between these two drugs have been difficult due to lack of direct comparative clinical evidence and differences in trial patient populations. To conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing docetaxel with paclitaxel regimens in the treatment of MBC previously treated with an anthracycline from the perspective of the UK NHS. A cost-utility analysis was performed using a Markov model to compare taxanes in MBC patients who had progressed after treatment with an anthracycline-containing chemotherapy regimen: docetaxel 100 mg/m2 1-hour intravenous (IV) infusion every 21 days versus paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 3-hour IV infusion every 21 days (Pac3w). In parallel, additional analyses were performed versus paclitaxel administered in 1-weekly cycles (Pac1w), and a nano albumin-bound form of paclitaxel (Nab-P) given every 3 weeks. Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and adverse events used in the model were derived from a randomized trial directly comparing docetaxel with Pac3w; the comparisons of docetaxel versus the other two paclitaxel regimens were indirect, using patient-level data from a trial comparing Pac3w with Pac1w, and from the published literature comparing Pac3w with Nab-P. Utility values for response, progression and adverse events were derived from the literature. Direct treatment costs related to progression, best supportive care and adverse events were estimated using clinical trials data, published literature, NHS reference costs and published drug prices. The estimated costs of growth colony-stimulating factors and blood transfusion were also included in the model. The model was used to predict the expected total costs ( pound, year 2005-6 values), QALYs gained, incremental cost/life-year gained (LY) and cost/QALY over a 10-year time period. In the base-case analysis, docetaxel improved QALYs by 0.33, 0.29 and 0.22 compared with Pac3w, Pac1w and Nab-P, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for docetaxel were pound 12 032/QALY versus Pac3w, pound 4583/QALY versus Pac1w and pound 14 ,694/QALY versus Nab-P. The ICER was sensitive to the hazard ratios for PFS and OS between the comparators, the drug cost of initial treatment and the treatment costs after progression. Taking into account parameter uncertainty, and comparing all four treatments simultaneously, at a willingness to pay of pound 20,000 per QALY gained, the probability of docetaxel being the most cost-effective treatment was around 70%. In the base-case scenario, docetaxel compared with Pac3w is estimated to have a cost-effectiveness ratio that falls within the acceptable threshold in the UK. The study also suggests that docetaxel may be cost effective versus Pac1w and Nab-P, although there is more uncertainty around these findings.

Taxanes for the adjuvant treatment of early breast cancer: systematic review and economic evaluation

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of docetaxel and paclitaxel compared with non-taxane, anthracycline-containing chemotherapy regimens, for the adjuvant treatment of women with early-stage breast cancer.

DATA SOURCES

Major electronic databases were searched between October 2005 and February 2006.

REVIEW METHODS

A systematic review of the literature on adjuvant taxane versus anthracycline non-taxane chemotherapy for women with early breast cancer was undertaken. A mathematical model was developed to synthesise the available data on costs, disease-free survival and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of patients receiving taxane-containing chemotherapy versus non-taxane-containing chemotherapy.

RESULTS

Eight of the 11 selected trials (six docetaxel and five paclitaxel) reported a significant improvement in disease-free survival (DFS) or time to recurrence (TTR) for taxanes over comparator regimens. Docetaxel was associated with more adverse events than paclitaxel, most notably febrile neutropenia. Taxanes produced cardiotoxicity, although this was not reported to be greater than for anthracycline comparator arms in all trials. Treatment-related deaths were uncommon. Where reported, all chemotherapy regimens caused HRQoL to deteriorate during treatment. Following treatment, there were no clinically significant differences between taxane and comparator treatment groups. There were few data available comparing licensed regimens of taxanes with chemotherapy regimens commonly used in the UK. The three trials selected as the basis for the economic analysis were those that used the taxanes in accordance with current UK marketing authorisation and had also reported in full. The estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for docetaxel compared to FAC6, based on the BCIRG 001 study, is 12,000 pounds (7000-39,000 pounds) and for paclitaxel compared with Adriamycin/cyclophosphamide, based on the NSABP B28 and CALGB 9344 studies, is 43,000 pounds (16,000 pounds-dominated) and 39,000 pounds (12,000 pounds-dominated), respectively. However, the comparators used in these trials restrict the generalisability of the results, as they do not conform to current standard care in the UK, typically FEC6 and E4-CMF4. An exploratory indirect comparison shows that the benefits of taxane containing regimens compared to regimens in current use in the UK is subject to large uncertainty due to the lack of direct trial comparisons between these interventions. Assumptions regarding the benefits in the taxane arm after the trial follow-up period and the annual rate of recurrence in this period have the most significant influence on the ICER.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a large degree of heterogeneity in the evidence base for the effectiveness of taxane- compared with non-taxane-containing regimens in terms of the interventions, comparators and populations. Eight of the 11 trials providing effectiveness data reported a significant improvement in DFS or TTR for taxanes over comparator regimens. The remaining three trials found no significant differences between the groups in DFS/TTR. The cost-effectiveness results suggest that the cost per quality-adjusted life-year for taxane- compared with non-taxane-containing chemotherapy varies between 12,000 pounds and 43,000 pounds, depending on the taxane under consideration and the specific trial used as the basis of the analysis. However, the comparators used in these trials do not conform to current standard care in the UK. More research is needed, comparing taxanes used in line with their current UK marketing authorisation and with anthracycline-containing regimens commonly used in the UK. The on-going TACT trial is expected to provide useful data. There are currently few data on the effectiveness of taxanes for the over-70s. Further research is required into the long-term outcomes of taxane therapy, such as whether there are any long-term adverse events that significantly impact on overall survival or quality of life and whether the increases in DFS will translate into increases in overall survival.

Topotecan, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin hydrochloride and paclitaxel for second-line or subsequent treatment of advanced ovarian cancer: a systematic review and economic evaluation

OBJECTIVES

To examine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of intravenous formulations of topotecan monotherapy, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin hydorocholoride (PLDH) monotherapy and paclitaxel used alone or in combination with a platinum-based compound for the second-line or subsequent treatment of advanced ovarian cancer.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic databases covering publication years 2000-4. Company submissions.

REVIEW METHODS

Seventeen databases were searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews for the clinical effectiveness of PLDH, topotecan and paclitaxel and economic evaluations of the cost-effectiveness of PLDH, topotecan and paclitaxel. Selected studies were quality assessed and data extracted, as were the three company submissions. A new model was developed to assess the costs of the alternative treatments, the differential mean survival duration and the impact of health-related quality of life. Monte-Carlo simulation was used to reflect uncertainty in the cost-effectiveness results.

RESULTS

Nine RCTs were identified. In five of these trials, both the comparators were used within their licensed indications. Of these five, three included participants with both platinum-resistant and platinum-sensitive advanced ovarian cancer, and a further two only included participants with platinum-sensitive disease. The comparators that were assessed in the three trials that included both subtypes of participants were PLDH versus topotecan, topotecan versus paclitaxel and PLDH versus paclitaxel. In the further two trials that included participants with the subtype of platinum-sensitive disease, the comparators that were assessed were single-agent paclitaxel versus a combination of cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin and cisplatin (CAP) and paclitaxel plus platinum-based chemotherapy versus conventional platinum-based therapy alone. A further four trials were identified and included in the review in which one of the comparators in the trial was used outside its licensed indication. The comparators assessed in these trials were oxaliplatin versus paclitaxel, paclitaxel given weekly versus every 3 weeks, paclitaxel at two different dose levels and oral versus intravenous topotecan. Four studies met the inclusion criteria for the cost-effectiveness review. The review of the economic evidence from the literature and industry submissions identified a number of significant limitations in existing studies assessing the cost-effectiveness of PLDH, topotecan and paclitaxel. Analysis 1 assessed the cost-effectiveness of PLDH, topotecan and paclitaxel administered as monotherapies. Sensitivity analysis was undertaken to explore the impact of patient heterogeneity (e.g. platinum-sensitive and platinum-resistant/refractory patients), the inclusion of additional trial data and alternative assumptions regarding treatment and monitoring costs. In the base-case results for Analysis 1, paclitaxel monotherapy emerged as the cheapest treatment. When the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated, topotecan was dominated by PLDH. Hence the options considered in the estimation of the ICERs were paclitaxel and PLDH. The ICER for PLDH compared with paclitaxel was pound 7033 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) in the overall patient population (comprising platinum-sensitive, -refractory and -resistant patients). The ICER was more favourable in the platinum-sensitive group ( pound 5777 per QALY) and less favourable in the platinum-refractory/resistant group ( pound 9555 per QALY). The cost-effectiveness results for the base-case analysis were sensitive to the inclusion of additional trial data. Incorporating the results of the additional trial data resulted in less favourable estimates for the ICER for PLDH versus paclitaxel compared with the base-case results. The ICER of PLDH compared with paclitaxel was pound 20,620 per QALY in the overall patient population, pound 16,183 per QALY in the platinum-sensitive population and pound 26,867 per QALY in the platinum-resistant and -refractory population. The results from Analysis 2 explored the cost-effectiveness of the full range of treatment comparators for platinum-sensitive patients. The treatment options considered in this model comprised PLDH, topotecan, paclitaxel-monotherapy, CAP, paclitaxel/platinum combination therapy and platinum monotherapy. Owing to the less robust approaches that were employed to synthesise the available evidence and the heterogeneity between the different trials, the reliability of these results should be interpreted with some caution. Topotecan, paclitaxel monotherapy and PLDH were all dominated by platinum monotherapy (i.e. higher costs and lower QALYs). After excluding these alternatives, the treatments that remained under consideration were platinum monotherapy, CAP and paclitaxel-platinum combination therapy. Of these three alternatives, platinum monotherapy was the least costly and least effective. The ICER for CAP compared with platinum monotherapy was pound 16,421 per QALY. The ICER for paclitaxel-platinum combination therapy compared with CAP was pound 20,950 per QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

For participants with platinum-resistant disease there was a low probability of response to treatment with PLDH, topotecan or paclitaxel. Furthermore, there was little difference between the three comparators in relation to overall survival. The comparators did, however, differ considerably in their toxicity profiles. Given the low survival times and response rates, it appears that the maintenance of quality of life and the control of symptoms and toxicity are paramount in this patient group. As the three comparators differed significantly in terms of their toxicity profiles, patient and physician choice is also an important element that should be addressed when decisions are made regarding second-line therapy. It can also be suggested that this group of patients may benefit from being included in further clinical trials of new drugs. For participants with platinum-sensitive disease there was a considerable range of median survival times observed across the trials. The most favourable survival times and response rates were observed for paclitaxel and platinum combination therapy. This suggests that treatment with combination therapy may be more beneficial than treatment with a single-agent chemotherapeutic regimen. In terms of single-agent compounds, the evidence suggests that PLDH is more effective than topotecan. Evidence from a further trial that compared PLDH and paclitaxel suggests that there is no significant difference between these two comparators in this trial. The three comparators did, however, differ significantly in terms of their toxicity profiles across the trials. Although treatment with PLDH may therefore be more beneficial than that with topotecan, patient and physician choice as to the potential toxicities associated with each of the comparators and the patient's ability and willingness to tolerate these are of importance. Assuming the NHS is willing to pay up to pound 20,000-40,000 per additional QALY, PLDH appears to be cost-effective compared with topotecan and paclitaxel monotherapy, in terms of the overall patient population and the main subgroups considered. The cost-effectiveness results for the base-case analysis were sensitive to the inclusion of additional trial data. Incorporating the results of additional trial data gave less favourable estimates for the ICER for PLDH versus paclitaxel monotherapy, compared with the base-case results. Although the ICER of PLDH compared with paclitaxel monotherapy was less favourable, PLDH was still cost-effective compared with topotecan and paclitaxel monotherapy. For platinum-sensitive patients, the combination of paclitaxel and platinum appears to be cost-effective. On the strength of the evidence reviewed here, it can be suggested that participants with platinum-resistant disease may benefit from being included in further clinical trials of new drugs. To assess the effectiveness of combination therapy against a single-agent non-platinum-based compound, it can be suggested that a trial that compared paclitaxel in combination with a platinum-based therapy versus single-agent PLDH would be a reasonable option.

Cost-effectiveness of drug-eluting stents in patients at high or low risk of major cardiac events in the Basel Stent KostenEffektivitäts Trial (BASKET): an 18-month analysis

BACKGROUND

Our aim was to determine whether drug-eluting stents are good value for money in long-term, everyday practice.

METHODS

We did an 18-month cost-effectiveness analysis of the Basel Stent KostenEffektivitäts Trial (BASKET), which randomised 826 patients 2:1 to drug-eluting stents (n=545) or to bare-metal stents (281). We used non-parametric bootstrap techniques to determine incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of drug-eluting versus bare-metal stents, to compare low-risk (> or =3.0 mm stents in native vessels; n=558, 68%) and high-risk patients (<3.0 mm stents/bypass graft stenting; n=268, 32%), and to do sensitivity analyses by altering costs and event rates in the whole study sample and in predefined subgroups. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were assessed by EQ-5D questionnaire (available in 703/826 patients).

FINDINGS

Overall costs were higher for patients with drug-eluting stents than in those with bare-metal stents (11,808 euros [SD 400] per patient with drug-eluting stents and 10,450 euros [592] per patient with bare-metal stents, mean difference 1358 euros [717], p<0.0001), due to higher stent costs. We calculated an ICER of 64,732 euros to prevent one major adverse cardiac event, and of 40,467 euros per QALY gained. Stent costs, number of events, and QALYs affected ICERs most, but unrealistic alterations would have been required to achieve acceptable cost-effectiveness. In low-risk patients, the probability of drug-eluting stents achieving an arbitrary ICER of 10,000 euros or less to prevent one major adverse cardiac event was 0.016; by contrast, it was 0.874 in high-risk patients.

INTERPRETATION

If used in all patients, drug-eluting stents are not good value for money, even if prices were substantially reduced. Drug-eluting stents are cost effective in patients needing small vessel or bypass graft stenting, but not in those who require large native vessel stenting.

Management of platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis

OBJECTIVE

We wished to compare the cost-effectiveness of three chemotherapy regimens for treatment of recurrent platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer.

METHODS

A Markov decision tree was constructed comparing three chemotherapy regimens: (1) carboplatin alone (C); (2) paclitaxel/carboplatin (PC); (3) gemcitabine/carboplatin (GC). Progression-free survival (PFS) and adverse event rates were estimated from published randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Costs of treatment and adverse events were obtained using Medicare reimbursement data.

RESULTS

Estimated mean and median progression-free survival were 8.0 and 6.0 months for C, 10.1 and 7.8 months for PC, 10.5 and 8.4 months for GC, respectively. C was the least expensive strategy, costing $501 per progression-free month (PFM). PC had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $1297 per additional PFM ($15,564 per additional progression-free year (PFY)) compared to C. GC had an ICER of $23,199 per additional PFM ($278,388 per additional PFY) compared to PC. Results were insensitive to variation in the rates and costs of toxicities over clinically reasonable ranges. The model was sensitive to changes in PFS estimates. When the PFS of GC was assumed to be equivalent to that of PC, GC was strongly dominated (more expensive and no more effective) by PC due to the additional costs. Adjustment for neurotoxicity-associated quality of life (QoL) did not change rankings of strategies.

CONCLUSIONS

PC appears to be relatively cost-effective compared to C for the treatment of recurrent platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer. GC appears to be less cost-effective compared to PC, with an ICER ten times higher.

Intraperitoneal cisplatin and paclitaxel versus intravenous carboplatin and paclitaxel chemotherapy for Stage III ovarian cancer: A cost-effectiveness analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of intraperitoneal cisplatin and paclitaxel chemotherapy as front-line treatment for patients with Stage III epithelial ovarian cancer following optimal primary cytoreductive surgery.

METHODS

Based on Gynecologic Oncology Group protocols #172 and #158, a decision analysis model was created to compare two treatment strategies for patients with optimal residual disease Stage III ovarian cancer: (1) inpatient intravenous paclitaxel (24 h) and intraperitoneal cisplatin plus outpatient intraperitoneal paclitaxel chemotherapy (IP/IV), and (2) outpatient intravenous paclitaxel (3 h) and carboplatin chemotherapy (IV/IV). The cost-effectiveness of each strategy was evaluated from the perspective of society.

RESULTS

Cost-effectiveness analysis revealed that the strategy of IP/IV chemotherapy had an overall cost per patient of $39,861 and effectiveness of 5.16 QALYs compared to $18,822 and 4.59 QALYs for IV/IV chemotherapy. The IP/IV chemotherapy strategy was associated with an additional 0.56 QALYs at an incremental cost of $21,039. The incremental C/E ratio for IP/IV chemotherapy was $37,454/QALY. Inpatient treatment accounted for 43.2% of the cost of IP/IV chemotherapy. Sensitivity analysis testing confirmed the robustness of the model.

CONCLUSIONS

In this model, IP/IV chemotherapy was associated with a modest extension in quality-adjusted survival time but was also more costly than IV/IV chemotherapy. On balance, the IP/IV strategy can be considered a good healthcare value. However, these data also suggest that efforts to reduce the cost of IP/IV chemotherapy, such as through development of an ambulatory regimen with equivalent therapeutic efficacy but an improved toxicity profile, would improve the overall value of this adjuvant treatment program.

Economic analysis of the use of drug-eluting stents from the perspective of Belgian health care

OBJECTIVE

Recent evidence shows that drug-eluting stent devices (DES) substantially reduce the risk of in-stent restenosis compared with classic bare metal stent devices (BMS). In Belgium, however, the use of BMS is still standard procedure due to the higher prices of the newer DES. Although the use of DES is more expensive in the short term it might be beneficial in the long term due to the avoidance of revascularization costs. The primary objective of this study is to compare the net cost of DES and BMS from the perspective of Belgian health care.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Cost differences between DES and BMS are determined by the difference in stent price and the difference in the rate of re-intervention. The cost of revascularization of patients with in-stent restenosis was estimated based on data gathered at the Antwerp University hospital (UZA). Data on effectiveness were obtained from a literature meta-analysis. Because of some important study limitations, a sensitivity analysis was included in this study. In general, the use of DES was cost saving as compared with BMS, with savings amounting to E 165 for Cypher stent devices and Euro 128 for Taxus stent devices in the base case scenario. For patients with a high risk of restenosis net savings persist in almost all sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSION

The use of DES in patients with a high in-stent restenosis risk is cost saving. Price evolutions in the stent device market predict that the use of DES, if not yet cost saving, will become cost saving in the near future for all types of patients. Recent evidence, however, casts some doubt on the long-term effectiveness of DES.

Markov-modeling for the administration of platinum analogues and paclitaxel as first-line chemotherapy as well as topotecan and liposomal doxorubicin as second-line chemotherapy with epithelial ovarian carcinoma

PURPOSE

So far there is no analysis available on the cost effectiveness of the paclitaxel/platinum-analogue combination versus carboplatin monotherapy with ovarian cancer. Up-to-now only a cost-utility analysis on ovarian carcinoma has been published (Ortega et al. in Gynecol Oncol 66(3):454-463, 1997), which in addition to the first-line chemotherapy included second-line chemotherapy with effectiveness and cost data in the analysis. Therefore, within the scope of our study the cost effectiveness of platinum analogues and paclitaxel as first-line chemotherapy as well as topotecan and liposomal doxorubicin as second-lie chemotherapy was to be determined with epithelial ovarian carcinoma.

METHODS

For this purpose a decision-making Markov model was developed which represents the medical and economic consequences of the administration of paclitaxel and platinum derivatives in first-line chemotherapy and the administration of topotecan and liposomal doxorubicin in second-line chemotherapy in the treatment of epithelial ovarian carcinoma by means of data from the literature. Patients were treated either in the early (FIGO stage I-IIa) or advanced stage (FIGO stage IIb-IV).

RESULTS

The therapeutic strategy caboplatin followed by topotecan costs 20,123.91 euros, the therapeutic strategy carboplatin followed by liposomal doxorubicin 22,336.57 euros, the therapeutic strategy carboplatin/pactlitaxel followed by liposomal topotecan 29,820.64 euros and the therapeutic strategy carboplatin/paclitaxel followed by liposomal doxorubicin 31,560.47 euros from the time of diagnosis until death or survival within 5 years. With lives saved, accordingly of 2.55, 2.70, 2.60 and 2.65 years' costs amounted to 7,891 euros, 8,270.35 euros, and 11,453.62 euros per year of life saved.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the threshold value of social willingness to pay 45,500 euros per year of life saved, the therapeutic strategy carboplatin followed by topotecan, the therapeutic strategy carboplatin followed by liposomal doxorubicin, the therapeutic strategy carboplatin/paclitaxel followed by topotcan and the therapeutic strategy carboplatin/paclitaxel followed by liposomal doxorubicin can be evaluated to be cost effective.

[Pharmacoeconomic assessment of taxanes as first-line therapy for advanced or metastatic non-microcytic lung cancer]

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this study was to determine the effectiveness of taxane-containing regimens versus non-taxane-containing regimens using a metanalysis and its subsequent pharmacoeconomic assessment to define the role of taxanes as first-line therapy for non micro-cytic lung cancer.

METHOD

A search of the MEDLINE database from 2000 to June 2005 was performed. The search was restricted to phase-III clinical trials, and 29 papers were selected. Effectivity measures considered included: objective response, 1- and 2-year survival. Maentel-Haenszel combined odds ratio (OR) was estimated in the metanalysis. The statistical analysis of effectiveness across categories was performed using a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Differences were statistically considered for p values = 0.01. All results obtained were weighted according to number of patients.

RESULTS

OR estimates for the various effectiveness variables showed statistically significant differences when 2-year survival was considered both for taxanes in general and docetaxel specifically versus non-taxane regimens. These same results are seen when the effectiveness analysis is performed using ANOVA. For the pharmacoeconomic analysis taxane-free regimens were considered as reference, this being of choice for comparisons versus paclitaxel-containing regimens whereas the selection of docetaxel-containing schemes represents additional costs per extra effectiveness unit that oscillate between 26,559 and 96,527 (2-year survival and objective response, respectively) versus taxane-free regimens. The sensitivity analysis ultimately confirmed our study s results.

CONCLUSIONS

To conclude, taxane-containing schemes are valid therapeutic options, but at a very high cost.

[Economic impact of the taxus coronary stent: implications for the Spanish healthcare system]

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

This article examines the cost impact associated with the utilization of the Taxus drug eluting stent versus a conventional bare-metal stent for percutaneous coronary interventions in a Spanish hospital setting.

METHODS

A decision analysis model has been developed to compare the intervention and re-hospitalization costs at 12 and 24 months post-intervention. The analysis considers the general patient population and a high-risk subpopulation (diabetes, small vessel, long lesion). The analysis simulates the results of the TAXUS-IV clinical trial, in a population with similar risks, with appropriate costs, and including budget impact analyses with alternative utilization scenarios.

RESULTS

The expected average per patient hospital cost at 12 months was 6934 euros with Taxus and 6756 euros with bare-metal stent (and increase of 2.6%). At 24 months, per patient hospital cost was 6,991 euros for Taxus and 6887 euros for bare-metal stent (an increase of 1.5%). In the high-risk subpopulation, Taxus was overall cost saving as compared to bare-metal stent both at 12 months (decrease of 3.0%) and 24 months (decrease of 4.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

Use of Taxus in the overall population slightly raises treatment costs, while in patients with greater risk of restenosis the treatment cost is reduced. Given the decrease in the number of repeat revascularizations with this stent, the cost-effectiveness relationship could be acceptable in the general patient population and is dominant in the high-risk subpopulation.

Paclitaxel and gemcitabine vs. paclitaxel and pegylated liposomal doxorubicin in advanced non–nasopharyngeal head and neck cancer. An efficacy and cost analysis randomized study conducted by the Hellenic Cooperative Oncology Group

BACKGROUND

The prognosis of patients with recurrent and/or metastatic head and neck cancer (HNC) is poor. Median survival of these patients following chemotherapy is in the range of 6 to 9 months. In the present randomized phase III trial we compared two new combinations containing new drugs with proven activity in phase II studies with patients with HNC.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From November 1999 until November 2004, 166 eligible patients with HNC were enrolled in the study. They were treated with paclitaxel 175 mg/m(2) on day 1 and gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks (group A, 85 patients) or with paclitaxel, as in group A, and pegylated liposomal doxorubicin 40 mg/m(2) on day 1 every 4 weeks (group B, 81 patients).

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in response rate (20% versus 29%, P = 0.21), time to disease progression (median; 4.4 months versus 6.0 months, P = 0.09) and survival (median; 8.6 months versus 11.05 months, P = 0.25). Both regimens were generally well tolerated. The most frequently reported side effect, apart from alopecia, was neutropenia. Overall, there was no significant difference in severe toxicity between the two treatment arms.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study could not demonstrate a survival benefit with either regimen. Both treatments were well tolerated. Randomized studies comparing each of the two regimens with standard chemotherapy are warranted.

[Analysis of antineoplastic drugs used in Cancer Center, Sun Yat-sen University, during the period of 1996-2005]

BACKGROUND & OBJECTIVE

Lately, the prevention, treatment and research of cancer have developed rapidly. Antineoplastic drugs have become one of the major measures for cancer therapy. Many new antineoplastic drugs have been discovered and prepared, and used to treat tumors. Cancer Center of Sun Yat-sen University is one of the biggest cancer hospitals in South China. The use of antineoplastic drugs of this center can reflect changes in this area. This study was to analyze and evaluate the situation and trend of antineoplastic drugs used in Cancer Center, Sun Yat-sen University from 1996 and 2005, in order to provide references for the rational use of drugs in clinical application.

METHODS

Consumption of antineoplastic drugs was analyzed by sum and defined daily dose (DDDs) ranking.

RESULTS

The costs of antineoplastic drugs occupied 31.0%-48.8% of all drugs from 1996 to 2005; and the average increasing ratio is 21.5%. The cost rate of anti-cancer vegetable drugs and other genus increased the quickest, while the total costs of alkylate increased the slowest during the ten years. Some new monoantibodies and gene drugs were continuously applied in clinical use.

CONCLUSION

The direction of the research and development of antineoplastic drugs is towards high efficiency, low toxicity and individualized use.

Cost Analysis From Two Randomized Trials of Sirolimus-Eluting Stents Versus Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents in High-Risk Patients With Coronary Artery Disease

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to analyze the cost of percutaneous coronary interventions with use of sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) or paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) in patients at high risk of restenosis.

BACKGROUND

Recent studies have shown different clinical efficacy with these drug-eluting stents. Whether this difference extends on cost estimates between the 2 stents is not known.

METHODS

We included 450 patients with diabetes mellitus and in-stent restenosis from 2 randomized studies comparing SES with PES. Assigned costs for the economic evaluation were the initial hospitalization and all subsequent cardiac-related inpatient/outpatient health resources during 9 to 12 months of clinical follow-up. The economic evaluation was performed from the health insurance system's perspective.

RESULTS

There were no differences between the 2 study groups regarding mortality (p = 0.78) and myocardial infarction rates (p = 0.76). Target lesion revascularization was performed in 16 patients (7.1%) in the SES group and in 34 patients (15.1%) in the PES group (p = 0.01). Initial hospital costs were not significantly different between the 2 stents (p = 0.53). The follow-up costs were, however, different: 2,684 +/- 2,072 euros per patient treated with SES and 4,527 +/- 6,466 euros per patient treated with PES (p < 0.001). Total costs also differed at the end of the follow-up: 8,924 +/- 3,077 euros per patient treated with SES and 10,903 +/- 7,205 euros per patient treated with PES (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients at high risk of restenosis, use of SES is associated with lower costs compared with PES. The cost savings are mainly due to the reduced need of repeat revascularization procedures with SES.

Cost-minimization analysis for Portugal of five doublet chemotherapy regimens from two phase III trials in the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer

OBJECTIVES

Economic evaluations of chemotherapy regimens for stage IIIB or IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have been conducted for many European countries, but not for Portugal. This study evaluates the total health care costs of five commonly used doublet regimens with similar efficacy results.

METHODS

Using the methodology reported by Schiller [Schiller JH, Tilden D, Aristides M, Lees M, Kielhorn A, Maniadakis N, et al. Restropective cost analysis of gemcitabine in combination with cisplatin in non-small cell lung cancer compared to other combination therapies in Europe. Lung Cancer 2004;43:101-12], we conducted a cost-minimization analysis to compare vinorelbine-cisplatin (Vin/Cis), gemcitabine-cisplatin (Gem/Cis), paclitaxel-carboplatin (Pac/Carb), docetaxel-cisplatin (Doc/Cis), and paclitaxel-cisplatin (Pac/Cis). The perspective was that of the Portuguese National Health Service and included only direct medical costs (reimbursed costs plus co-payments): chemotherapy acquisition, chemotherapy administration, hospitalizations due to adverse events, and other medical resources. Unit costs were drawn from official sources (Diagnosis Related Groups and retail/hospital costs) (2003 value [Diagnosis Related Groups (DRG) published at Diário da República; 2003]). Resource use was estimated from two multicenter randomized phase III trials [Comella P, Frasci G, Panza N, Manzione L, De Cataldis G, Cioffi R, et al. Randomized trial comparing cisplatin, gemcitabine, and vinorelbine with either cisplatin and gemcitabine or cisplatin and vinorelbine in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: interim analysis of a phase III trial of the Southern Italy Cooperative Oncology Group. J Clin Oncol 2000;18:1451-7; Schiller JH, Harrington D, Belani CP, Langer C, Sandler A, Krook J, et al. Comparison of four chemotherapy regimens for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med 2002;346:92-8]. A time horizon of a full course of therapy was adopted. One-way sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

The least and the most costly chemotherapy regimens were Gem/Cis and Pac/Carb, respectively. Total mean cost per patient was estimated at euro7083 for Gem/Cis and euro10,008 for Pac/Carb, a mean cost savings of euro2925 per patient for Gem/Cis. The differences were mainly due to the higher chemotherapy acquisition costs of Pac/Carb than for Gem/Cis. Gem/Cis was less costly in all sensitivity analyses except when 100% inpatient chemotherapy administration was assumed.

CONCLUSION

Gem/Cis should be considered as a cost-saving alternative to the other four regimens in treating NSCLC patients in Portugal.

The Paclitaxel-Eluting Stent in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Part II

The paclitaxel- and sirolimus-eluting stents are currently the only drug-eluting stents approved for use in the United States. These 2 stents differ in terms of mechanism of drug action, the construct of the stent itself, and the drug delivery polymer. Clinical trials have demonstrated superiority of both paclitaxel- and sirolimus-eluting stents when compared with bare-metal stents in terms of reducing restenosis and the need for target vessel revascularization. Recently published head-to-head trials have not conclusively shown 1 drug-eluting stent to be superior to the other, but have demonstrated more favorable angiographic results with the sirolimus-eluting stent compared with the paclitaxel-eluting stent; however, no significant difference has been demonstrated in clinical outcomes such as myocardial infarction or death. In terms of economics, the paclitaxel-eluting stent is substantially more expensive than the bare-metal stent. However, by significantly reducing the risk of restenosis and need for repeat revascularization, the higher direct cost of the paclitaxel-eluting stent may in theory be offset by lower overall healthcare costs, although economic analyses have yet to definitively establish that the paclitaxel-eluting stent is truly cost-effective. There is still much to be discovered regarding the paclitaxel-eluting stent, specifically the optimal stent design and drug release mechanism, the relative safety and efficacy of the paclitaxel-eluting stent compared with other drug-eluting stents, the long-term effects of the paclitaxel-eluting stent, the ideal antiplatelet regimen to use in patients with a paclitaxel-eluting stent, the safety and efficacy of the paclitaxel-eluting stent in various high-risk patient groups, and the ultimate cost-effectiveness of this device.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of sequential paclitaxel adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with node positive primary breast cancer

An economic evaluation of paclitaxel added subsequently to doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide (AC) adjuvant therapy for early breast cancer with lymph nodes positive is presented. Health care cost associated with AC alone vs. AC with paclitaxel was compared under Thai health care context. Based on CALGB9344, paclitaxel increased the disease-free survival (DFS) by 17%. Based on Markov simulation for 15 years, paclitaxel prolonged the patient's life by 0.30 quality-adjusted life years (QALY). Such an increased effectiveness was offset by the adjuvant cost net of recurrence, follow-up, and terminal care by 221,433 Baht. This means an additional year of perfect health gained by paclitaxel is achieved through an incremental cost of 738,111 Baht. Such an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) is beyond the threshold recommended by World Health Organization. In women with negative estrogen receptor that DFS was improved to 28%, the ICER of paclitaxel was reduced to 393,984 Baht per QALY.

Paclitaxel-eluting stents in coronary artery disease

PURPOSE

Clinical information regarding paclitaxel-eluting coronary artery stents is reviewed.

SUMMARY

Restenosis is a significant complication of percutaneous coronary intervention. Coronary artery stenting has reduced restenosis compared with traditional balloon angioplasty, although restenosis still occurs with bare-metal coronary artery stents. The pathogenesis of in-stent restenosis is believed to involve smooth-muscle-cell proliferation and migration in response to vessel injury. A neointimal layer of extracellular matrix and collagen forms, which may impinge on the vessel lumen. Paclitaxel inhibits vascular smooth-muscle-cell proliferation and reduces neointimal mass. Local delivery of paclitaxel through a coronary stent has been shown to reduce restenosis rates and percent diameter stenosis and to produce other angiographic benefits compared with bare-metal stents. Fewer major adverse coronary events are seen with paclitaxel-eluting stents, predominantly because of a reduction in the need for target-vessel revascularization with minimal impact on rates of mortality and myocardial infarction (MI). The Taxus Express(2) stent, the only approved paclitaxel-eluting stent in the United States, costs about three times as much as a bare-metal stent. Cost-effectiveness analyses are needed to determine if the Taxus stent is cost-effective in clinical practice.

CONCLUSION

Paclitaxel-eluting stents reduce the rates of restenosis and target-vessel revascularization compared with bare-metal stents and have comparable effects on mortality and MI rates.

A systematic review and economic analysis of drug-eluting coronary stents available in Australia

OBJECTIVES

To compare the safety, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of drug-eluting coronary stents used in Australia with bare-metal stents and determine whether the benefits are greater for high-risk subgroups.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, Pre-Medline, EMBASE, Current Contents, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library database were searched to identify eligible randomised controlled trials and systematic reviews published in English between January 1966 and June 2004.

STUDY SELECTION

Seven randomised controlled trials that assessed polymer-based paclitaxel- or sirolimus-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents in patients with coronary atherosclerosis and reported on stent thrombosis, mortality, myocardial infarction, coronary artery bypass grafting or target lesion revascularisation.

DATA EXTRACTION

Two independent reviewers appraised eligible studies and extracted data. Relative risks (RRs) were calculated for each outcome and pooled using the Mantel-Haenszel method.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Rates of stent thrombosis, mortality, myocardial infarction and bypass grafts did not differ by stent type. Drug-eluting stents (DESs) resulted in a 71%-80% lower risk of revascularisation at 12 months (RR 0.29 [95% CI, 0.20-0.43] for paclitaxel-eluting stents [n = 1593 patients]; RR 0.20 [95% CI, 0.13-0.29] for sirolimus-eluting stents [n = 1296 patients]). Similar benefits were seen in several high-risk subgroups of patients: those with diabetes, lesion length > 20 mm and target-vessel diameter < or = 2.5 mm. The benefits of DESs in these high-risk groups over lower-risk groups were inconclusive because of low numbers. The cost per revascularisation avoided by using DESs was 3,750-6,100 Australian dollars, with an estimated cost per quality-adjusted-life-year (QALY) gained of 46,829-76,467 Australian dollars. In sensitivity analyses, estimates varied from DESs being cost-saving to costing an additional 314,385 Australian dollars per QALY gained.

CONCLUSIONS

DESs are effective in reducing revascularisation. Estimates of cost-effectiveness are very sensitive to changes in estimates of their true effects in clinical practice, market price and the number of stents used per patient. Decisions to limit DESs to only patients at the highest risk of restenosis may improve their cost-effectiveness but will need to be reassessed when evidence is available to compare absolute benefits between patient groups.