Payer Perspective Research Articles

Promising first-line immuno-combination therapies for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: A cost-effectiveness analysis.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the leading causes of cancer-related death all over the world, and brings a heavy social economic burden especially in China. Several immuno-combination therapies have shown promising efficacy in the first-line treatment of unresectable HCC and are widely used in clinical practice. Nevertheless, which combination is the most affordable one is unknown. Our study assessed the cost-effectiveness of the immuno-combinations as first-line treatment for patients with unresectable HCC from the perspective of Chinese payers. A Markov model was built according to five multicenter, phase III, open-label, randomized trials (Himalaya, IMbrave150, ORIENT-32, CARES-310, LEAP-002) to investigate the cost-effectiveness of tremelimumab plus durvalumab (STRIDE), atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (A + B), sintilimab plus bevacizumab biosimilar (IBI305) (S + B), camrelizumab plus rivoceranib (C + R), and pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib (P + L). Three disease states were included: progression free survival (PFS), progressive disease (PD) as well as death. Medical costs were searched from West China Hospital, published literatures or the Red Book. Cost-effectiveness ratios (CERs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were evaluated to compare costs among different combinations. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robust of the model. The total cost and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of C + R, S + B, P + L, A + B and STRIDE were $12,109.27 and 0.91, $26,961.60 and 1.12, $55,382.53 and 0.83, $70,985.06 and 0.90, $84,589.01 and 0.73, respectively, resulting in the most cost-effective strategy of C + R with CER of $13,306.89 per QALY followed by S + B with CER of $24,072.86 per QALY. Compared with C + R, the ICER of S + B strategy was $70,725.38 per QALY, which would become the most cost-effective when the willing-to-pay threshold exceeded $73,500/QALY. In the subgroup analysis, with the application of Asia results in Leap-002 trial, the model results were the same as global data. In the sensitivity analysis, with the variation of parameters, the results were robust. As one of the promising immuno-combination therapies in the first-line systemic treatment of HCC, camrelizumab plus rivoceranib demonstrated the potential to be the most cost-effective strategy, which warranted further studies to best inform the real-world clinical practices.

Benefits of dapagliflozin in chronic kidney disease for US commercial payers: A cost-offset analysis.

One in 7 adults have chronic kidney disease (CKD), which is associated with high morbidity and mortality and substantial health care costs, especially in more advanced disease. Our data from a US commercial payer show rising per-member-per-year costs for renal and cardiac complications associated with CKD. To predict the clinical and economic impact of treatment with or without dapagliflozin from the perspective of a US commercial payer using a cost-offset model (COM). The COM used real-world cost and member count data from a US employer-sponsored commercial payer and results of the double-blind, randomized, phase 3 Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in CKD clinical trial (NCT03036150) to predict the incidence of clinical events, including a greater than or equal to 50% decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), end-stage kidney disease, and hospitalization for heart failure, and their associated costs over a 3-year period. The COM compared a hypothetical scenario of the experience with or without dapagliflozin in members with CKD stages 2-4, aged younger than 65 years. In the simulated populations of 130 members, the COM projected 9 events of a greater than or equal to 50% decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate for the experience with dapagliflozin vs 15 events for the experience without dapagliflozin (6 fewer events; number needed to treat [NNT] = 20, amounting to estimated cumulative cost offsets of $0.57 million [M] over a 3-year period). The COM projected similar results for end-stage kidney disease (8 events with dapagliflozin vs 14 events without dapagliflozin; NNT = 24, amounting to $1.92 M in cumulative cost offsets) and for hospitalization for heart failure (13 events with dapagliflozin vs 33 events without dapagliflozin; NNT = 7, amounting to $0.79 M in cumulative cost offsets). These projections translated to total mean, cumulative cost offsets of $3.89 M for all clinical events evaluated over the 3-year period (36.6% reduction with dapagliflozin vs without dapagliflozin), and net mean, cumulative cost offsets of $2.58 M over the 3-year period (24.2% reduction with dapagliflozin vs without dapagliflozin) after factoring in a discounted wholesale acquisition cost for dapagliflozin expenditure ($1.31 M over 3 years). Thus, the net mean, cumulative cost offsets were $19,843 per member over 3 years, representing a 197% return on investment for dapagliflozin expenditure. Results of our COM suggest that dapagliflozin can reduce clinical events and their associated costs over a 3-year period when compared with a scenario without dapagliflozin. Cost offsets increased with each year, indicating that US commercial payers can substantially reduce costs associated with CKD morbidity and mortality.

Evolving oncology care management trends in the United States: A survey among health care decision makers.

There is limited knowledge of how US managed care professionals view and prioritize quality metrics/performance measures, care models, alternative payment models, and clinical pathways in oncology settings. To characterize payor perspectives on, and the use of, oncology clinical pathways and performance measures in their reimbursement/access decision-making process. A survey was implemented via SurveyMonkey software and distributed electronically to a national sample of the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy (AMCP) Market Insights Panel members from July 11 through August 5, 2022. The survey was created by a steering committee based on literature reviews of the current and future oncology care landscapes. The survey consisted of 47 questions, including those to establish respondents' position, responsibilities, and demographics. The results are presented as descriptive statistics for 7 key questions that covered the perceptions and use of quality metrics/performance measures, alternative payment models, and oncology care pathways as prioritized by the steering committee. Among the 695 AMCP panel members who were sent the survey, 73 responded (response rate 10.5%), 54 were eligible to continue, and 31 completed the entire questionnaire; the low response rate may limit generalizability of the survey results. Specific oncology clinical and economic measures of performance were currently used (70%-88%) but generally received less endorsement for future use (39%-49%) except for chemotherapy during end of life, which was considered for future use by 80% of respondents but was only currently used by 31%. Benchmarking was the primary reason for the use of performance measures; only 27% used these to inform value-based agreements. Real-world data tracked by respondents' institutions primarily focused on managed care and pharmacy utilization (39%-85%), with patient-reported and clinical outcomes tracked by only 17%-34%. Almost one-third (31%) did not use clinical oncology pathways, and among those who did, fewer than half (48%) reported that their organization tracks whether treatment decisions agree with the oncology care pathways, and only 26% reported feedback to oncology providers on how often their treatment decisions agree with the pathways. When considering alternative payment models, patient-related components received lower rankings in importance than clinical relevance, actionability, and costs. Variation among payors regarding current trends in oncology care management, including on the importance of patient-centric outcomes and the use of oncology clinical pathways, suggests the need to focus on value-based health care and greater uptake of oncology clinical pathways.

First-Line Treatment With Atezolizumab Plus Bevacizumab and Chemotherapy for US Patients With Metastatic, Persistent, or Recurrent Cervical Cancer: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

ObjectivesThe BETAcc clinical trial demonstrated that chemotherapy combined with bevacizumab plus atezolizumab (CBA) significantly prolonged progression-free survival and overall survival in patients with metastatic, persistent, or recurrent cervical cancer. However, to the best of our knowledge, the economic value of using this new therapy for this indication is currently unknown. Therefore, our study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of CBA for the first-line treatment of metastatic, persistent, or recurrent cervical cancer from the United States healthcare payers perspective. MethodsA state-transition Markov model over a 10-year lifetime horizon was developed to compare the cost and effectiveness of CBA with that of chemotherapy plus bevacizumab (CB). The primary outcomes of our study included costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed to assess the robustness of the results. ResultsCBA was associated with an additional 0.58 QALY at an extra cost of $172 495.90 compared with CB. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $295 972.43/QALY, significantly higher than the willingness-to-pay threshold value of $150 000/QALY. One-way sensitivity analyses revealed that results were most sensitive to the progression-free disease utility, the unit cost of atezolizumab, and progressed disease utility. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that CBA achieved a 4.3% probability of cost-effectiveness at a $150 000/QALY threshold. To achieve cost-effectiveness, the unit price of atezolizumab must be reduced by approximately 56.6%. ConclusionsCBA treatment is unlikely to be a cost-effective option compared with CB for patients with persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer in the United States.

Economic evaluation of the “paramedics and palliative care: bringing vital services to Canadians” program compared to the status quo

ObjectiveBased on programs implemented in 2011–2013 in three Canadian provinces to improve the support paramedics provide to people receiving palliative care, the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer and Healthcare Excellence Canada provided support and funding from 2018 to 2022 to spread this approach in Canada. The study objectives were to conduct an economic evaluation of “the Program” compared to the status quo.MethodsA probabilistic decision analytic model was used to compare the expected costs, the quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and the return on investment associated with the Program compared to the status quo from a publicly funded healthcare payer perspective. Effectiveness data and Program costs, expressed in 2022 Canadian dollars, from each jurisdiction were supplemented with literature data. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses varying key model assumptions were conducted.ResultsAnalyses of 5416 9-1-1 calls from five jurisdictions where paramedics provided support to people with palliative care needs between April 1, 2020 and March 31, 2022 indicated that 60% of the 9-1-1 calls under the Program enabled people to avoid transport to the emergency department and receive palliative care at home. Treating people at home saved paramedics an average of 31 min (range from 15 to 67). The Program was associated with cost savings of $2773 (95% confidence interval [CI] $1539–$4352) and an additional 0.00069 QALYs (95% CI 0.00024–0.00137) per 9-1-1 palliative care call. The Program return on investment was $4.6 for every $1 invested. Threshold analyses indicated that in order to be cost saving, 33% of 9-1-1 calls should be treated at home under the Program, the Program should generate a minimum of 97 calls per year with each call costing no more than $2773.ConclusionThe Program was cost-effective in the majority of the scenarios examined. These results support the implementation of paramedic-based palliative care at home programs in Canada.

Adverse drug events in cost-effectiveness models of pharmacological interventions for diabetes, diabetic retinopathy, and diabetic macular edema: a scoping review.

The objective of this review was to examine the role of adverse drug events (ADEs) caused by pharmacological interventions in cost-effectiveness models for diabetes mellitus, diabetic retinopathy, and diabetic macular edema. Guidelines for economic evaluation recognize the importance of including ADEs in the analysis, but in practice, consideration of ADEs in cost-effectiveness models seem to be vague. Inadequate inclusion of these harmful outcomes affects the reliability of the results, and the information provided by economic evaluation could be misleading. Reviewing whether and how ADEs are incorporated in cost-effectiveness models is necessary to understand the current practices of economic evaluation. Studies included were published between 2011-2022 in English, representing cost-effectiveness analyses using modeling framework for pharmacological interventions in the treatment of diabetes mellitus, diabetic retinopathy, or diabetic macular edema. Other types of analyses and other types of conditions were excluded. The databases searched included MEDLINE (PubMed), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Scopus, Web of Science Core Collection, and NHS Economic Evaluation Database. Gray literature was searched via the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, European Network for Health Technology Assessment, the National Institute for Health and Care Research, and the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment. The search was conducted on January 1, 2023. Titles and abstracts were screened for inclusion by 2 independent reviewers. Full-text review was conducted by 3 independent reviewers. A data extraction form was used to extract and analyze the data. Results were presented in tabular format with a narrative summary, and discussed in the context of existing literature and guidelines. A total of 242 reports were extracted and analyzed in this scoping review. For the included analyses, type 2 diabetes was the most common disease (86%) followed by type 1 diabetes (10%), diabetic macular edema (9%), and diabetic retinopathy (0.4%). The majority of the included analyses used a health care payer perspective (88%) and had a time horizon of 30 years or more (75%). The most common model type was a simulation model (57%), followed by a Markov simulation model (18%). Of the included cost-effectiveness analyses, 26% included ADEs in the modeling, and 13% of the analyses excluded them. Most of the analyses (61%) partly considered ADEs; that is, only 1 or 2 ADEs were included. No difference in overall inclusion of ADEs between the different conditions existed, but the models for diabetic retinopathy and diabetic macular edema more often omitted the ADE-related impact on quality of life compared with the models for diabetes mellitus. Most analyses included ADEs in the models as probabilities (55%) or as a submodel (40%), and the most common source for ADE incidences were clinical trials (65%). The inclusion of ADEs in cost-effectiveness models is suboptimal. The ADE-related costs were better captured than the ADE-related impact on quality of life, which was most pronounced in the models for diabetic retinopathy and diabetic macular edema. Future research should investigate the potential impact of ADEs on the results, and identify the criteria and policies for practical inclusion of ADEs in economic evaluation.

Budget impact analysis of including biosimilar adalimumab on formulary: A United States payer perspective.

The biosimilar market is growing rapidly, as evidenced by 41 approvals and 37 launches to date. As adalimumab biosimilars launch in the United States, competition among biosimilar and reference adalimumab will likely increase across multiple reference indications, including rheumatology, dermatology, and gastrointestinal diseases, which may lead to decreased payer costs. To evaluate the costs of adding biosimilar adalimumab to a US commercial plan by exploring various utilization and price differential scenarios. A 3-year budget impact model for a US commercial plan of 1 million people was developed to assess switching from reference adalimumab or any self-injectable reference tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor to biosimilar adalimumab. Pharmacy and medical costs were analyzed through high- and low-conversion scenarios from reference adalimumab and the TNF inhibitor class. Price reductions of 5% to 60% relative to reference adalimumab based on previous biosimilar launches were also explored. Short-term medical costs were evaluated as additional simple and complex office visits, with scenarios of half of switch patients having 1 visit up to all switch patients having 10 visits. In a target population of 1,863 patients, switching from reference adalimumab to biosimilar adalimumab had cumulative cost savings of $5,756,073 with slow conversion (10%-20% over 3 years) and $28,780,365 with fast conversion (50%-100% over 3 years). Similar results were seen when switching from any other self-injectable reference TNF inhibitor. Cost savings more than $1 million were seen with a 10% conversion from reference adalimumab and a 15% price reduction from reference adalimumab. Additional office visit scenarios had a negligible impact on budget, with no changes in per-member-per-month costs until all switch patients had 10 additional complex visits, in which per-member-per-month costs increased by $0.02. In a hypothetical plan of 1 million lives, use of biosimilar adalimumab in commercial plans can lead to significant cost savings for payers because of increased competition. Greater and faster biosimilar conversion rates from reference adalimumab and other reference TNF inhibitors resulted in decreased costs. Additionally, even with short-term medical expenditures, cost savings were still realized when switching to biosimilar adalimumab.

Health-Related Quality of Life and Economic Analysis of Olanzapine Versus Aprepitant in Preventing Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Patients Receiving Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy in Malaysia

ObjectivesOlanzapine has been shown to be effective in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) after highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC); however, there is limited work on the impact of CINV on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and the comparative cost-effectiveness of CINV prophylaxis in the Malaysian context. Therefore, this study was conducted to determine the HRQoL using EQ-5D-5L and the cost-effectiveness of olanzapine compared with aprepitant for CINV prophylaxis in Malaysia using data from a local study. MethodsFifty-nine chemo-naive patients receiving either olanzapine or aprepitant were randomly recruited and completed the EQ-5D-5L before and day 5 after HEC. HRQoL utility scores were analyzed according to the Malaysian valuation set. The economic evaluation was conducted from a healthcare payer perspective with a 5-day time horizon. Quality-adjusted life days (QALD) and the rate of successfully treated patients were used to measure health effects. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio is assessed as the mean difference between groups’ costs per mean difference in health effects. A one-way sensitivity analysis was performed to assess variations that might affect outcomes. ResultsAprepitant and olanzapine arms’ patients had comparable baseline mean HRQoL utility scores of 0.920 (SD = 0.097) and 0.930 (SD = 0.117), respectively; however, on day 5, a significant difference (P value = .006) was observed with mean score of 0.778 (SD = 0.168) for aprepitant and 0.889 (SD = 0.133) for olanzapine. The cost per successfully treated patient in the aprepitant arm was 60 times greater than in the olanzapine arm (Malaysian Ringgit [MYR] 927 vs MYR 14.83). Likewise, the cost per QALD gain in the aprepitant arm was 36 times higher than in the olanzapine arm (MYR 57.05 vs MYR 1.57). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of MYR −937.00 (USD −200.98) per successfully treated patient and MYR −391.84 (USD −85.43) per QALD gained for olanzapine compared with the aprepitant-based regimen. ConclusionsAn olanzapine-based regimen is a cost-effective therapeutic substitution in patients receiving HEC in Malaysia.

Connecting Female Entertainment Workers in Cambodia to Health Care Services Using mHealth: Economic Evaluation of Mobile Link.

Mobile Link is a mobile phone-based intervention to increase access to, and use of, health care services among female entertainment workers in Cambodia who face higher risks for specific diseases and gender-based violence. A multisite randomized controlled trial showed that Mobile Link connected female entertainment workers with outreach workers for information and escorted referrals after 6 months but did not lead to statistically significant improvements in HIV and sexually transmitted infection testing, contraceptive use, and condom use. This study aims to conduct a 3-part economic evaluation of Mobile Link to understand its costs, value, and affordability. We conducted cost, cost-effectiveness, and budget impact analyses of Mobile Link using cost and outcomes data from the Mobile Link trial and other sources. For the cost analysis, we estimated the total, per-person, and incremental costs of Mobile Link compared with usual care. Using probabilistic decision-analytic models, we estimated the 1-year cost-effectiveness of Mobile Link from payer and combined payer and patient perspectives by converting selected primary and secondary outcomes from the trial to disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) averted. Finally, we estimated the financial costs of scaling up Mobile Link's messaging and outreach services to 70% of female entertainment workers in 5 years. The incremental costs of Mobile Link were US $199 from a payer perspective and US $195 per person from a combined payer and patient perspective. With an average of 0.018 (95% predicted interval -0.088 to 0.126) DALYs averted, Mobile Link's cost-effectiveness was US $10,955 per DALY from a payer perspective (US $10,755 per DALY averted from a payer and patient perspective). The costs of Mobile Link would have to decrease by 85%, or its effectiveness would have to be 5.56 times higher, for the intervention to meet the upper limit of recommended cost-effectiveness thresholds in Cambodia (US $1671 per DALY averted). The 5-year cost of scaling Mobile Link to 34,790 female entertainment workers was estimated at US $1.64 million or US $46 per person per year. This study provided a comprehensive economic evaluation of Mobile Link. We found that Mobile Link is not likely to be cost-effective unless its costs decrease or its effectiveness increases. Scaling up Mobile Link to more female entertainment workers is estimated to cost less than the costs of the trial. Given the importance of linking female entertainment workers to essential services, future research should focus on enhancing the effectiveness of Mobile Link or developing new mobile health interventions for this population. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03117842; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03117842.

Comparative cost-effectiveness analysis of CDK4/6 inhibitors in the first-line treatment of HR-positive and HER2-negative advanced breast cancer: a Markov's model-based evaluation.

CDK4/6 inhibitors are the first-line treatment for HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer. Despite their clinical benefit, they can increase healthcare expenditure. To date, there is no thorough comparison among the three approved CDK4/6 inhibitors in terms of their cost-effectiveness. To investigate and compare the cost-effectiveness of CDK4/6 inhibitors in combination with letrozole as a first-line treatment for advanced breast cancer with hormonal-receptor-positivity and HER-2-negativity versus one another and versus letrozole monotherapy. A 10-year within-cycle-corrected Markov's model was employed from the healthcare payer perspective. Costs were obtained from the National Center for Cancer Care and Research (NCCCR) in Qatar. Utilities and transition probabilities were calculated from published landmark trials of PALOMA-2, MONALEESA-2, MONARCH-3, PO25, and other relevant literature. Costs, measured in Qatari Riyal (QAR), and effectiveness, measured in quality-adjusted-life-years (QALYs), were incremented and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was compared to a willingness-to-pay threshold (WTP) of 1.5 Qatari GDP (448,758 QAR). A deterministic sensitivity analysis was implemented to account for uncertainties. Ribociclib was the most effective option, generating 4.420 QALYs, followed by palbociclib (4.406 QALYs), abemaciclib (4.220 QALYs), then letrozole monotherapy (2.093 QALYs). As for cost-effectiveness, ribociclib dominated palbociclib. However, it was not cost-effective compared to abemaciclib (ICER=1,588,545 QAR/QALY). Ribociclib remained dominant over palbociclib with all uncertainties. The base-case conclusion of ribociclib versus abemaciclib remained robust over all uncertainties. From the healthcare payer perspective in Qatar, ribociclib is the most effective CDK4/6 inhibitor. It was dominant over palbociclib in terms of cost-effectiveness; however, it was not cost-effective compared to abemaciclib at current prices.

Shall We Screen Lung Cancer with Volume Computed Tomography in Austria? A Cost-Effectiveness Modelling Study.

This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of a lung cancer screening (LCS) program using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) in Austria. An existing decision tree with an integrated Markov model was used to analyze the cost-effectiveness of LCS versus no screening from a healthcare payer perspective over a lifetime horizon. A simulation was conducted to model annual LCS for an asymptomatic high-risk population cohort aged 50-74 with a smoking history using the Dutch-Belgian Lung Cancer Screening Study (NEderlands-Leuvens Longkanker ScreeningsONderzoek, NELSON) screening outcomes. The principal measure utilized to assess cost-effectiveness was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Sensitivity and scenario analyses were employed to determine uncertainties surrounding the key model inputs. At an uptake rate of 50%, 300,277 eligible individuals would participate in the LCS program, yielding 56,122 incremental quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and 84,049 life years gained compared to no screening, with an ICER of EUR 24,627 per QALY gained or EUR 16,444 per life-year saved. Additionally, LCS led to the detection of 25,893 additional early-stage lung cancers and averted 11,906 premature lung cancer deaths. It was estimated that LCS would incur EUR 945 million additional screening costs and EUR 386 million additional treatment costs. These estimates were robust in sensitivity analyses. Implementation of annual LCS with LDCT for a high-risk population, using the NELSON screening outcomes, is cost-effective in Austria, at a threshold of EUR 50,000 per QALY.

Implications of treatment duration and frequency for value and cost-effective price of Alzheimer treatments.

Disease-modifying Alzheimer treatments are becoming available. The value of the treatments will be attenuated by their complexity of delivery and monitoring, creating additional medical cost and caregiver burden. To estimate net treatment value using different assumptions for treatment duration and intensity. We estimated the lifetime value of hypothetical treatments that reduce disease progression by 30% from a payer perspective, which considers cost offsets, i.e., reduced medical and formal social care costs, and quality-adjusted life-year gains, and a societal perspective, which adds reduction in caregiver burden. Estimates for gross value of the treatment were based on a prior publication, medical cost on Medicare payment rates, and caregiver time use on a survey of 21 clinics. We analyzed 5 hypothetical treatment scenarios: treatment until progression to moderate dementia with (1) biweekly and (2) 4-weekly infusions, and time-limited infusions every 4 weeks for (3) 72, (4) 52, and (5) 24 weeks. Treatment until progression to moderate dementia would take 5.7 years and generate gross value of $20,734 in direct cost offsets, $83,761 from a payer and $87,749 from a societal perspective, respectively. Added medical cost and caregiver burden for the 5 scenarios would be $44,179, $24,875, $21,632, $20,416, and $14,350, respectively. The maximum value-based price per year would be $7,687, $11,088, $47,708, $67,273, and $158,954. Assuming identical efficacy and safety, the net value generation of time-limited treatment is projected to be larger than that of chronic treatment. Such determination of net lifetime value can be useful to determine value-based prices for different treatment types.

Cost-effectiveness of Pembrolizumab in Combination with Chemotherapy as Neoadjuvant Treatment and Continued as a Single Agent Adjuvant Treatment for High-Risk Early-Stage Triple-Negative Breast Cancer in Hong Kong.

The phaseIII randomized KEYNOTE-522 trial demonstrated that pembrolizumab in combination with chemotherapy as neoadjuvant treatment followed by adjuvant pembrolizumab (pembrolizumab + chemotherapy) provided significant improvements in event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) for patients with high-risk early-stage triple-negative breast cancer (eTNBC). The objective was to assess the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab + chemotherapy compared to neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone (chemotherapy) in patients with high-risk eTNBC from a Hong Kong third-party payer perspective. A multistate transition model with four health states (event-free), locoregional recurrence, distant metastases, and death) was developed to assess the lifetime medical costs and health outcomes (3% annual discount), along with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) using efficacy and safety data from the KEYNOTE-522 trial. The health state utilities were derived from KEYNOTE-522 Euro-QoL-five-dimension five-level questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) data. Costs were expressed in 2022 Hong Kong dollars (HKD).Scenario and sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robustness of results. Over a 32-year time horizon, base case results showed that pembrolizumab + chemotherapy was associated with a 3.42year longer EFS and expected gains of 3.05 lifeyears (LYs) and 2.45 quality-adjusted lifeyears (QALYs) compared to chemotherapy. The resultant ICERs were HKD135,200 per QALY gained and HKD108,463 per LY gained, which were lower than the World Health Organization (WHO) cost-effectiveness threshold of three times gross domestic product (GDP) per capita for Hong Kong of HKD1,171,308 per QALY. The one-way sensitivity analyses (OWSA) and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) showed the results were robust across various inputs and alternative scenarios. On the basis of the analysis conducted for a 56-year-old cohort with high-risk eTNBC and assumptions in the model, pembrolizumab + chemotherapy represents a cost-effective proposition (as the ICER is approximately 35% of the GDP per capita in Hong Kong) for patients with high-risk eTNBC in Hong Kong.

Cost analysis of patiromer vs sodium zirconium cyclosilicate for the treatment of hyperkalemia in Spain and the UK

Background Hyperkalemia is an electrolyte abnormality with potentially life-threatening consequences. Published data have shown that potassium-binding polymer patiromer (Veltassa) is associated with reduced rates of severe edema and hospitalization for heart failure compared with sodium zirconium cyclosilicate (SZC, Lokelma) when treating hyperkalemia. The aim of this study was to evaluate the possible costs associated with these interventions in the Spanish and UK settings. Methods A cost-analysis model was developed in Microsoft Excel to compare the costs associated with patiromer and SZC for the management of hyperkalemia. Clinical event rates were taken from a published real-world comparative study, with the base case capturing the statistically significant reduction in severe edema with patiromer vs SZC and a sensitivity analysis also including the non-statistically significant reduction in hospitalization for heart failure. Country-specific costs, expressed in 2022 Euros (EUR) and British pounds sterling (GBP), were evaluated from a healthcare payer perspective and included pharmacy costs and costs of clinical events. Results Patiromer may be associated with cost savings of EUR 107 and GBP 630 per patient-year of treatment vs SZC in Spain and the UK, respectively. The majority of cost savings were due to the possible lower daily cost of patiromer compared with SZC. Including the difference in heart failure hospitalization rates in a sensitivity analysis led to greater cost savings with patiromer over SZC, increasing to EUR 460 and GBP 902 in Spain and the UK, respectively. Extrapolation of patient-level economic outcomes to a population level found that patiromer was associated with annual cost savings of EUR 30.6 million in Spain, and GBP 801.7 million in the UK vs SZC. Conclusions Patiromer has the potential to be cost saving vs SZC for the treatment of hyperkalemia in Spain and the UK based on the results of a real-world evidence analysis.

Cost-Effectiveness of Dupilumab and Oral Janus Kinase Inhibitors for the Treatment of Moderate-to-Severe Atopic Dermatitis in Singapore.

Atopic dermatitis (AD) affects both adults and children, impacting their quality of life and productivity; however, traditional systemic treatments such as cyclosporine have limitations. Emerging novel systemic interventions, including monoclonal antibodies and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, have been shown to improve patient outcomes. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of novel systemic interventions for moderate-to-severe AD in adults compared with the best supportive care (BSC) in Singapore. The economic evaluation used a hybrid model consisting of a decision tree and Markov model. Treatment responses at 16 weeks were based on a network meta-analysis that was developed specifically for this study. Long-term response, discontinuation rates, episodes of flares and treatment-emergent adverse events were obtained from key dupilumab, abrocitinib, baricitinib and upadacitinib trials. The study had a 5-year time horizon and considered the healthcare payer's perspective. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were performed as well. Baricitinib 4mg and 2mg have the lowest incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, at Singapore dollars (S$)60,730/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and S$66,842/QALY, respectively. Upadacitinib 30mg offers the highest incremental QALY gain, while baricitinib 2mg offers the least. The cost of the intervention drugs accounted for the highest proportion of the overall expenses (68-93%) for those in the maintenance state. Other influential factors within the model included (1) the incremental utility derived from intervention response; (2) the probability of achieving Eczema Area and Severity Index 75 (EASI-75) with BSC; and (3) the relative risk of achieving EASI-75 with the interventions. In a scenario where the cost of all drugs is matched to the lowest-priced drug, the top three cost-effectiveness interventions are dupilumab, upadacitinib 30mg and abrocitinib 200mg, respectively. The interventions are not found to be cost-effective at their existing prices when compared with BSC. Ideally, a composite score of treatment success and quality-of-life scores ought to be included, but such data were unavailable. Future research should consider conditional discontinuation data and long-term outcomes when such data become accessible.

Quality of life assessment and cost‑utility analysis of initial chemotherapy for patients with non‑Hodgkin's lymphoma: A prospective analysis.

Chemotherapy has helped prolong survival in patients with malignant lymphoma, enhancing their quality of life (QOL). Despite the eventual decline in the QOL of patients, the impact of initial chemotherapy remains poorly understood. A prospective patient-reported QOL survey among patients with malignant lymphoma receiving initial chemotherapy was conducted, targeting those treated at Gifu Municipal Hospital (Gifu, Japan) between January 2021 and December 2022. Surveys were conducted pre- and post-chemotherapy based on the EuroQol 5 dimensions. Drug costs were calculated using official prices and analyzed from the cost payer's perspective via cost-utility analysis. Among the 60 patients included in the present study, 28 had diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisolone ± rituximab therapy was the most common treatment (38 patients) and demonstrated superior cost-effectiveness due to its lowest cost and change in utility value. Initial chemotherapy for patients with malignant lymphoma generally improved the QOL. Clinical trial registration: UMIN000042868 (registered on December 28, 2020).

U.S. payer budget impact of using an AI-augmented cancer risk discrimination digital histopathology platform to identify high-risk of recurrence in women with early-stage invasive breast cancer

Aims Use of gene expression signatures to predict adjuvant chemotherapy benefit in women with early-stage breast cancer is increasing. However, high cost, limited access, and eligibility for these tests results in the adoption of less precise assessment approaches. This study evaluates the cost impact of PreciseDx Breast (PDxBr), an AI-augmented histopathology platform that assesses the 6-year risk of recurrence in early-stage invasive breast cancer patients to help improve informed use of adjuvant chemotherapy. Materials and methods A decision-tree Markov model was developed to compare the costs of treatment guided by standard of care (SOC) risk assessment (i.e. clinical diagnostic workup with or without Oncotype DX) versus PDxBr with SOC in a hypothetical cohort of U.S. women with early-stage invasive breast cancer. A commercial payer perspective compares costs of testing, adjuvant therapy, recurrence, adverse events, surveillance, and end-of-life care. Results PDxBr use in prognostic evaluation resulted in savings of $4 million (M) in year one compared to current SOC in 1 M females members. Over 6-years, savings increased to $12.5 M. The per-treated patient costs in year one amounted to $19.5 thousand (K) for SOC and $16.9K for PDxBr. Limitations For simplicity, recurrence was not specified. We performed scenario analyses to account for variations in rates for local, regional, and distant recurrence. Second, a recurrent patient incurs the total cost of treated recurrence in the first year and goes back to remission or death. Third, CDK4/6i treatment is only incorporated in the recurrence costs but not in the first line of treatment for early-stage breast cancer due to limited data. Conclusions Sensitivity analyses demonstrated robust overall savings to changes in all variables in the model. The use of PDxBr to assess breast cancer recurrence risk has the potential to fill gaps in care and reduce costs when gene expression signatures are not available.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of amivantamab plus chemotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer patients with epidermal growth factor receptor exon 20 insertions in the UnitedStates.

Although amivantamab has shown clinical benefits for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) exon 20 insertions, its cost-effectiveness requires further investigation. To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of amivantamab plus chemotherapy for the treatment of NSCLC patients with EGFR exon 20 insertions from the UnitedStates payer perspective. A partitioned survival model was developed based on the data from the PAPILLON trial. Costs were derived from the pricing files of Medicare and Medicaid Services and published literature, and utility values were derived from previous studies. A 3% annual discount rate was applied to both costs and outcomes. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). One-way sensitivity analysis, probabilistic sensitivity analysis and scenario analysis, were conducted to test the model stability. Amivantamab plus chemotherapy yielded an additional 1.12 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) while increasing costs by $483,769.50 relative to the chemotherapy regimen, leading to an ICER of $432,401.16/QALY. The combination of amivantamab with chemotherapy was not cost effective at a threshold of $150,000/QALY. In the scenario analysis, the results showed that the ICERs were $263,680.69/QALY and $418,416.35/QALY when different utility values and 10-year time horizons were adopted, respectively. For PSA, the probability that amivantamab plus chemotherapy would be cost-effective was 0% if the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was $150,000/QALY. Amivantamab plus chemotherapy is unlikely to be a cost-effective option for NSCLC patients with EGFR exon 20 insertions. Reducing the cost of amivantamab may produce favorable economic outcomes.

The cost of delivering COVID-19 vaccines in Vietnam

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic affected hundreds of millions of people and lives, and vaccination was the safest and most effective strategy to prevent and mitigate the burden of this disease. The implementation of COVID-19 vaccination in Vietnam in 2021 was unprecedentedly challenging in scale and complexity, yet economic evidence on the cost of delivery vaccines thought the program was lacking.MethodsThis retrospective costing study utilized a bottom-up, ingredient-based approach to estimate the cost of delivering COVID-19 vaccines in Vietnam in 2021, from a payer perspective. The study included 38 study sites across all administrative and implementation level, including three geographic areas and two delivery strategies, in two provinces, Hanoi and Dak Lak. The study findings were complemented with qualitative interviews with health staff and stakeholders.ResultsThe economic cost to deliver one COVID-19 vaccine dose was $1.73, mostly comprised of opportunity costs ($1.14 per dose) which were driven by labor costs ($1.12 per dose). The delivery cost in urban areas was the highest ($2.02), followed by peri-urban areas ($1.45) and remote areas ($1.37). Delivery costs were higher at temporary sites ($1.78) when compared to facility-based delivery ($1.63). Comparing low-volume and high-volume periods showed that the delivery cost decreased significantly as volume increased, from $5.24 per dose to $1.65 per dose.ConclusionsThe study estimates the cost of delivering COVID-19 vaccines in Vietnam in 2021. Enabling factors and challenges during the implementation of the program were explored. Study limitations may lead to underestimation of results and reduce generalizability.

Adverse event costs of systemic therapies for metastatic colorectal cancer previously treated with fluoropyrimidine-, oxaliplatin- and irinotecan-based chemotherapy and biologics in the US.

Aim: The objective of this study was to compare adverse event (AE) management costs for fruquintinib, regorafenib, trifluridine/tipiracil (T/T) and trifluridine/tipiracil+bevacizumab (T/T+bev) for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) previously treated with at least two prior lines of therapy from the US commercial and Medicare payer perspectives. Materials & methods: A cost-consequence model was developed to calculate the per-patient and per-patient-per-month (PPPM) AE costs using rates of grade 3/4 AEs with incidence ≥5% in clinical trials, event-specific management costs and duration treatment. Anchored comparisons of AE costs were calculated using a difference-in-differences approach with best supportive care (BSC) as a common reference. AE rates and treatment duration were obtained from clinical trials: FRESCO and FRESCO-2 (fruquintinib), RECOURSE (T/T), CORRECT (regorafenib) and SUNLIGHT (T/T, T/T+bev). AE management costs for the commercial and Medicare perspectives were obtained from publicly available sources. Results: From the commercial perspective, the AE costs (presented as per-patient, PPPM) were: $4015, $1091 for fruquintinib (FRESCO); $4253, $1390 for fruquintinib (FRESCO-2); $17,110, $11,104 for T/T (RECOURSE); $9851, $4691 for T/T (SUNLIGHT); $8199, $4823 for regorafenib; and $11,620, $2324 for T/T+bev. These results were consistent in anchored comparisons: the difference-in-difference for fruquintinib based on FRESCO was -$1929 versus regorafenib and -$11,427 versus T/T; for fruquintinib based on FRESCO-2 was -$2257 versus regorafenib and -$11,756 versus T/T. Across all analyses, results were consistent from the Medicare perspective. Conclusion: Fruquintinib was associated with lower AE management costs compared with regorafenib, T/T and T/T+bev for patients with previously treated mCRC. This evidence has direct implications for treatment, formulary and pathways decision-making in this patient population.