Search

Background: The combinations of BRAF + MEK inhibitors—encorafenib (ENC) + binimetinib (BIN), cobimetinib (COB) + vemurafenib (VEM), and dabrafenib (DAB) + trametinib (TRA)—are recommended for the treatment of BRAF-mutated advanced melanoma.Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of ENC + BIN versus COB + VEM versus DAB + TRA from a US payer perspective.Methods: A Markov model was constructed to simulate a hypothetical cohort over a time horizon of 10 years. The overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) curves were independently digitized from a randomized controlled trial for ENC + BIN and fitted using R software. Published and indirectly estimated hazard ratios were used to fit OS and PFS curves for COB + VEM and DAB + TRA. Costs, life-year gains, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) associated with the 3 treatment combinations were estimated. A base case analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) were conducted to estimate the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR). A discount rate of 3.5% was applied on cost and outcomes.Results: The ENC + BIN versus COB + VEM comparison was associated with an ICUR of $656 233 per QALY gained. The ENC + BIN versus DAB + TRA comparison was associated with an ICUR of $3 135 269 per QALY gained. The DAB + TRA combination dominated COB + VEM. The base case analysis estimates were confirmed by the PSA estimates. ENC + BIN was the most cost-effective combination at a high willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $573 000 per QALY and $1.5 million/QALY when compared to COB + VEM and DAB + TRA, respectively.Conclusion and Relevance: Given current prices and acceptable WTP thresholds, our study suggests that DAB + TRA is the optimum treatment. In this study, ENC + BIN was cost-effective only at a very high WTP per QALY threshold.

ABSTRACTIntroductionLittle is known about the status and the future potential of biosimilars in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region.Areas coveredThis perspective provides insights into the current regulatory landscape of some MENA countries, currently available biosimilars, the potential of biosimilars in the next decade, and challenges to overcome.Expert opinionGiven the economic and demographic heterogeneity across the MENA countries, biosimilars could reduce significant economic unmet needs in these countries. In the next decade, biosimilars may witness higher approval rates and market share over their originators in the MENA countries. We argue that the regulatory bodies in the MENA countries should adopt the new policies of the FDA, the EMA, and the WHO, that aim to ease the biosimilar approval process. These policies are to adopt technology in the process of approval; engage health technology assessment bodies in price assessment; provide educational materials to increase awareness among providers, patients, and payers. Further, MENA countries should upgrade the external-reference pricing systems to more sophisticated ones that consider the heterogeneity in economics and needs.

AbstractAimsSix Delta is a six-dimensional independent platform for outcome-based pricing/contracting. The six dimensions have been described separately: (δ1) cost-effectiveness analysis and cost-utility analysis-based pricing; (δ2) willingness-to-pay-based pricing; (δ3) reference-based pricing; (δ4) safety-based pricing; (δ5) risk of efficacy failure-based pricing; and (δ6) adherence-based pricing. The final step is to integrate the various dimension-specific pricing estimates into a composite estimate termed the All-Dimensional Price (ADP). We describe the methodology for this integration and present a proof-of-concept application to the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with EGFR mutation with osimertinib.Materials and methodsFor better accuracy in estimating the ADP, we used the prices generated from the six dimensions at scenario levels, not at the dimension-specific price (DSP) level. We pooled the price estimates and performed Monte Carlo Simulations (MCS) for the price scenarios generated by the six dimensions. We used the results of the proof-of-concept exercise involving osimertinib in NSCLC with EGFR mutation to estimate the ADP in two hypothetical contracts: 1-year (2019–2020) and 2-year contract (2019–2021).ResultsThe average of the 30-day prescription estimates from the six dimensions averaged $10,819 (SD=$8,486) for the 1-year contract and $10,730 (SD=$8,500) for the 2-year contract. MCS yielded for the 1-year contract an ADP of $10,959 (or −25.02% the 2018 WAC price) and an ADP for the 2-year contract was $10,788 (or −26.19% the 2018 WAC price).ConclusionsWe demonstrated that the integration of the prices from the six dimensions of the Six Delta platform and market conditions is feasible and yields multidimensional prices estimates to support outcome-based pricing/contracting.

AbstractAimsSix Delta is a six-dimensional independent platform for outcome-based pricing/contracting. The sixth dimension (δ6) estimates prices on the basis of adherence to the prescribed regimen, whereby manufacturers provide payers with adherence-enhancing programs and whereby payers implement these programs and provide adherence data to the manufacturer. We describe this dimension’s methodology and present a proof-of-concept application to the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with EGFR mutation with osimertinib.Materials and methodsWe propose two paybacks based on adherence: in-advance (based on clinical trial data) and in-arrear (based on real-world data). The risk of efficacy failure pricing dimension utilizes a 7-step method: 1) defining efficacy endpoints; 2) extracting data; 3) predicting models; 4) estimating in-advance and in-arrear paybacks; 5) suggesting ranges for in-advance and in-arrear paybacks; 6) adjusting for medical inflation; and 7) performing Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS) to estimate the DSPAdherence. A proof-of-concept exercise with osimertinib in NSCLC was performed for two hypothetical outcome-based contracts: 1-year (2019–2020) and 2-year (2019–2021). The 2018 wholesale acquisition cost (WAC) for a 30-day prescription was used and inflated as needed. Herein, the DSPAdherenceis estimated exclusively in terms of in-advance payback because real-world data about osimertinib are not yet available and thus the in-arrear payback cannot yet be estimated.ResultsFor the 1-year contract, the average price for osimertinib was $13,798 (SD=$1,265) and the DSPAdherencewas $13,785 (or −5.69% of the 2018 WAC) for a 30-day prescription. For the 2-year contract, the average price was $12,555 (SD=$2,847) and the DSPAdherencewas $12,582 (or −13.92% of the 2018 WAC).ConclusionsWe demonstrated that adherence-based pricing methods can be integrated into our proposed Six Delta platform for outcome-based pricing/contracting. The proof-of-concept exercise needs to be expanded with the in-arrear pricing method based on real world data to be secured.

AbstractAimsSix Delta is a six-dimensional independent platform for outcome-based pricing/contracting. The fifth dimension (δ5) estimates prices on the basis of the risk of efficacy failure of a drug. We describe this dimension’s methodology and present a proof-of-concept application to the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with EGFR mutation with osimertinib.Materials and methodsThe risk of efficacy failure pricing dimension utilizes a seven-step method: (1) defining risk; (2) extracting data; (3) predicting models; (4) performing Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS) to estimate risk of efficacy failure; 5) estimating ranges for a payback; (6) adjusting for medical inflation; and (7) performing Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS) to estimate the DSPRisk of efficacy failure. A proof-of-concept exercise with osimertinib in NSCLC was performed for two hypothetical outcome-based contracts: 1-year (2019–2020) and 2-year (2019–2021). We estimated the risk of efficacy failure for osimertinib in terms of overall and progression-free survival versus standard of care. We used the estimated risk to estimate the price reduction on the wholesale acquisition cost (WAC) for the two hypothetical contracts: a 1-year (2019–2020) and 2-year contract (2019–2021). From this we estimated the DSPRisk of efficacy failure.ResultsBased on the risk of OS and PFS efficacy failure for osimertinib in OS and PFS, in the 1-year contract, the DSPRisk of efficacy failurewas estimated at $12,652 (or −13.44% the 2018 WAC) for a 30-day prescription. For the 2-year contract (2019–2021), the DSPRisk of efficacy failurewas estimated at $13,019 (or −10.93% the 2018 WAC).ConclusionsWe demonstrated that pricing methods based on risk of efficacy failure methods can be integrated into our proposed Six Delta platform for outcome-based pricing/contracting.

AbstractAimsSix Delta is a six-dimensional independent platform for outcome-based pricing/contracting. The second dimension (δ2) estimates prices on the basis of four willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds. We describe this dimension’s methodology and present a proof-of-concept application to the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with EGFR mutation with osimertinib.Materials and methodsEight WTP scenarios based on four levels of real gross domestic product per capita (<1GDP/capita, 1 × GDP/capita, 3 × GDP/capita, and >3 × GDP/capita) and two market conditions (monopolistic versus competitive) were assumed. The incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) was applied to differently to both markets. In the monopolistic market, assuming no competitors, the cost/QALY ratio for a drug was used; whereas in the competitive market, assuming competitors, the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) was applied. One-way sensitivity analyses were performed and predictive equations were specified to estimate the prices of treatment for the resulting eight WTP scenarios; for which subsequently the average and standard deviation were calculated. A gamma distribution was specified and Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS) was applied to estimate the dimension-specific price based on WTP (DSPWTP). A proof-of-concept exercise with osimertinib in NSCLC was performed for two hypothetical outcome-based contracts: 1-year (2019–2020) and 2-year (2019–2021). The 2018 wholesale acquisition cost (WAC) of $14,616 (30-day prescription) was used to estimate the DSPWTPfor each contract.ResultsThe 1-year estimates averaged $4,654 (SD=$6,462) and the MCS yielded a DSPWTPof $4,547 or −68.89% of the 2018 WAC for a 30-day prescription. The 2-year estimates averaged $4,7667 (SD=$6,480) with the MCS generating a DSPWTPof $4,704 or −67.82% of the WAC.ConclusionsWe demonstrated that WTP-based methods that include various WTP thresholds and market conditions generate price estimates across these thresholds and market conditions that can be integrated into our proposed Six Delta platform for outcome-based pricing/contracting.

AbstractAimsSix Delta is a six-dimensional independent platform for outcome-based pricing/contracting. The fourth dimension (δ4) estimates prices on the basis of assessments of the safety of the drug using an ex anteanalysis based on clinical trial data. We describe this dimension’s methodology and present a proof-of-concept application to the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with EGFR mutation with osimertinib.Materials and methodsThe safety-based pricing dimension utilizes a four-step method: 1) pooling adverse events (AE), standardizing, estimating 95%Cis, and adjusting for time; 2) estimating correction factors and corrected probabilities of AEs; 3) estimating the probability of at least one adverse event (AE) occurring and leading to treatment discontinuation; and 4) estimating ranges for payback percentages and performing Monte Carlo Simulation to estimate a DSPSafety. A proof-of-concept exercise with osimertinib in NSCLC was performed for two hypothetical outcome-based contracts: 1-year (2019–2020) and 2-year (2019–2021). We estimated the DSPSafetybased on the grade 3/4 AEs observed for osimertinib and standard of care. The 2018 wholesale acquisition cost (WAC) of osimertinib at $14,616 for a 30-day prescription was used.ResultsAEs3/4 were retrieved from the FLAURA trial. In the 1-year contract, the DSPSafetyof osimertinib was estimated at $14,627 (or +0.08% the 2018 WAC) for a 30-day prescription. In the 2-year contract, the DSPSafetyof osimertinib was estimated at $14,516 (or −0.68% the 2018 WAC) for a 30-day prescription.ConclusionsWe demonstrated that ex antepricing methods-based paybacks for safety issues leading to treatment discontinuation can be integrated into our proposed Six Delta platform for outcome-based pricing/contracting.

AbstractAimsSix Delta is a six-dimensional independent platform for outcome-based pricing/contracting. The third dimension (δ3) estimates prices on the basis of international drug price referencing methods. We describe this dimension’s methodology and present a proof-of-concept application to the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with EGFR mutation with osimertinib.Materials and methodsThe reference-based pricing dimension utilizes a six-step method: (1) selecting foreign countries based on a set of four criteria (drug is available in the foreign country, price information is available in the foreign country, foreign countries are members within the organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, pricing methods in the foreign countries involve value assessment); (2) adjusting for exchange rates; (3) generating reference price (RP) scenarios; (4) adjusting with the medical inflation rate; (5) pooling all generated RP scenarios and calculating average and standard deviation (SD); (6) and Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS) to estimate the dimension-specific DSPReference. A proof-of-concept exercise with osimertinib in NSCLC was performed for two hypothetical outcome-based contracts: 1-year (2019–2020) and 2-year (2019–2021).ResultsThe United Kingdom and Canada met the four criteria. For the osimertinib 1-year contract price, the average of eight RP scenarios, adjusted for inflation by 0.44%, was $8,892 (SD = $2,606) for a 30-day prescription. MCS yielded a DSPReferenceestimate of $9,395 or −35.72% of the wholesale acquisition cost (WAC) of $14,616. For the 2-year contract, the average, adjusted for inflation by 0.72%, was $8,928 (SD = $2,610). MCS yielded a DSPReferenceestimate of $9,442 or −35.40% of the WAC of $14,616.ConclusionsWe demonstrated that international price referencing methods can be integrated into our proposed Six Delta platform for outcome-based pricing/contracting.

IMPORTANCE: A phase 2 trial comparing talimogene laherparepvec plus ipilimumab vs ipilimumab monotherapy in patients with advanced unresectable melanoma found no differential benefit in progression-free survival (PFS) but noted objective response rates (ORRs) of 38.8% (38 of 98 patients) vs 18.0% (18 of 100 patients), respectively. OBJECTIVE: To perform an economic evaluation of talimogene laherparepvec plus ipilimumab combination therapy vs ipilimumab monotherapy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: For PFS, cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses using a 2-state Markov model (PFS vs progression or death) was performed. For ORRs, cost-effectiveness analysis of the incremental cost of 1 additional patient achieving objective response was performed. In this setting based on a US payer perspective (2017 US dollars), participants were patients with advanced unresectable melanoma. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The PFS life-years and PFS quality-adjusted life-years were determined, and the associated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and incremental cost-utility ratios (ICURs) were estimated. Also estimated was the ICER per 1 additional patient (out of 100 treated patients) achieving objective response. Base-case analyses were validated by sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: In PFS analyses, the cost of talimogene laherparepvec plus ipilimumab ($494 983) exceeded the cost of ipilimumab monotherapy ($132 950) by $362 033. The ICER was $2 129 606 per PFS life-years, and the ICUR was $2 262 706 per PFS quality-adjusted life-year gained. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses yielded an ICER of $1 481 208 per PFS life-year gained and an ICUR of $1 683 191 per PFS quality-adjusted life-year gained. In 1-way sensitivity analyses, the PFS hazard ratio and the utility of response were the most influential parameters. Talimogene laherparepvec plus ipilimumab has a 50% likelihood of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $1 683 191 per PFS quality-adjusted life-year gained. In ORR analyses, talimogene laherparepvec plus ipilimumab ($474 904) vs ipilimumab alone ($132 810), a $342 094 difference, yielded an ICER of $1 629 019 per additional patient achieving objective response. In subgroup analyses by disease stage and BRAFV600E mutation status, ICERs ranged from $1 069 044 to $17 104 700 per 1 additional patient achieving objective response. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The cost to gain 1 additional progression-free quality-adjusted life-year, 1 additional progression-free life-year, or to have 1 additional patient attain objective response is about $1.6 million. This amount may be beyond what payers typically are willing to pay. Combination therapy of talimogene laherparepvec plus ipilimumab does not offer an economically beneficial treatment option relative to ipilimumab monotherapy at the population level. This should not preclude treatment for individual patients for whom this regimen may be indicated.

AbstractAims:Hypertension is the strongest modifiable risk factor for cardiovascular disease, affecting 80 million individuals in the US and responsible for ∼360,000 deaths, at total annual costs of $93.5 billion. Antihypertension therapies guided by single genotypes are clinically more effective and may avert more adverse events than the standard of care of layering anti-hypertensive drug therapies, thus potentially decreasing costs. This study aimed to determine the economic benefits of the implementation of multi-gene panel guided therapies for hypertension from the payer perspective within a 3-year time horizon.Materials and methods:A simulation analysis was conducted for a panel of 10 million insured patients categorized clinically as untreated, treated but uncontrolled, and treated and controlled over a 3-year treatment period. Inputs included research data; empirical data from a 11-gene panel with known functional, heart, blood vessel, and kidney genotypes; and therapy efficacy and safety estimates from literature. Cost estimates were categorized as related to genetic testing, evaluation and management, medication, or adverse events.Results:Multi-gene panel guided therapy yielding savings of $6,256,607,500 for evaluation and management, $908,160,000 for medications, and $37,467,508,716 for adverse events, after accounting for incremental genetic testing costs of $2,355,540,000. This represents total 3-year savings of $42,276,736,216, or a 47% reduction, and 3-year savings of $4,228 and annual savings of $1,409 per covered patient.Conclusions:A precision medicine approach to genetically guided therapy for hypertension patients using a multi-gene panel reduced total 3-year costs by 47%, yielding savings exceeding $42.3 billion in an insured panel of 10 million patients. Importantly, 89% of these savings are generated by averting specific adverse events and, thus, optimizing choice of therapy in function of both safety and efficacy.

Persky: Genentech: Honoraria; Spectrum: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Morphosys (IDMC): Consultancy. Abraham:Sandoz: Consultancy.

Introduction.Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is a rare subtype of Non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) with a poor prognosis. Ibrutinib is an oral Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitor (BTKi) approved in the US in 2013 for, among other indications, MCL patients with at least one prior therapy (i.e., relapsed/refractory [R/R] MCL). The BTKi acalabrutinib was approved in late 2017 specifically for this same indication. No studies have assessed the comparative efficacy and cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of both agents in the management of R/R MCL. We performed an indirect comparison of both agents in terms of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) to subsequently evaluate the relative cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of both treatment options of R/R MCL from a USA payer perspective.