Search

Aims: To assess from a US payer perspective the cost-effectiveness of the chimeric antigen receptor T (CAR T)-cell therapies axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) and tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cel) to treat relapsed or refractory (r/r) large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) following ≥2 systemic therapy lines., Methods: A three-state (i.e. pre-progression, post-progression, and death) partitioned survival model was used to estimate the quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and costs for patients on each treatment over a lifetime horizon. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were based on a matching-adjusted indirect treatment comparison (MAIC) that accounted for differences in trial population baseline characteristics. Mixture cure models (MCMs) were used to account for long-term survivors. Costs included drug acquisition and administration for the CAR T-cell therapies and conditioning chemotherapy, apheresis, CAR T-specific monitoring, transplant, hospitalization, adverse events, routine care, and terminal care. Health state utilities were derived from trial and published data. Sensitivity analyses included probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSAs) and an analysis of extremes that assessed the results across a vast array of combinations of parametric OS and PFS curves across the two therapies., Results: Compared to tisa-cel, axi-cel resulted in 2.31 QALYs gained and a cost reduction of $1,407 in the base case. In the PSA, the cost per QALY gained was ≤$31,500 in 95% of the 1,000 simulations. In the analysis of extremes, the cost per QALY gained was ≤$7,500 in 99% of the 1,296 combinations of MCMs and ≤$40,000 in 95% of the 1,296 combinations of standard models., Limitations: In absence of head-to-head comparative data, we relied on a MAIC, which cannot account for all possible confounders. Moreover, some outcomes (i.e. transplantations, hospitalizations, adverse events (AEs)) were not adjusted in the MAIC., Conclusions: In this simulation, axi-cel was a superior treatment option as it is predicted to achieve better outcomes at lower or minimal incremental costs versus tisa-cel.

Aims: To assess the cost-effectiveness of corneal collagen cross-linking (CXL) versus no CXL for keratoconus in the United States (US)., Methods: A discrete-event microsimulation was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of corneal cross-linking (CXL, Photrexa + KXL combination product) versus no CXL for patients with keratoconus. The lifetime model was conducted from a US payor perspective. The source for CXL efficacy and safety data was a 12-month randomized, open-label, sham-controlled, multi-center, pivotal trial comparing CXL versus no CXL. Other inputs were sourced from the literature. The primary outcome was the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained. Costs (2019 USD) and effects were discounted 3% annually. The impacts of underlying uncertainty were evaluated by scenario, univariate, and probabilistic analyses., Results: Starting at a mean baseline age of 31 years and considering a mixed population consisting of 80% slow-progressors and 20% fast-progressors, the CXL group was 25.9% less likely to undergo penetrating keratoplasty (PK) and spent 27.9 fewer years in advanced disease stages. CXL was dominant with lower total direct medical costs (-$8,677; $30,994 versus $39,671) and more QALYs (1.88; 21.80 versus 19.93) compared to no CXL. Considering the impact of reduced productivity loss in an exploratory scenario, CXL was associated with a lifetime cost-savings of $43,759 per patient. CXL was cost-effective within 2 years and cost-saving within 4.5 years., Limitations: Limitations include those that are common to similar pharmacoeconomic models that rely on disparate sources for inputs and extrapolation on short-term outcomes to a long-term analytical horizon., Conclusions: Keratoconus is a progressive and life-altering disease with substantial clinical, economic, and humanistic consequences. The economic value of cross-linking is maximized when applied earlier in the disease process and/or younger age, and extends to improved work productivity, out-of-pocket costs, and quality of life.

Aims: Medicare patients with metastatic or surgically unresectable urothelial carcinoma (mUC) often receive platinum-based chemotherapy as first line of therapy (LOT), but invariably progress, requiring additional LOTs and healthcare resource use (HCRU). To better understand the evolving mUC treatment landscape, the economic burden of chemotherapy-based mUC treatments among US Medicare patients was estimated. Methods: Newly diagnosed Medicare patients with mUC were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database. Patients were followed from diagnosis to death, disenrollment, or end of study to characterize LOTs (first [LOT1], second [LOT2], and third or greater [LOT3+]). Kaplan-Meier methods were used to estimate overall survival (OS) by LOT. HCRU and mean costs were reported over the follow-up period, LOT duration, and maximum LOT received. Results: Among 1,873 eligible patients with mUC (median age = 77 years; median follow-up = 7.5 months), 1,035 (55%) received no chemotherapy. Among chemotherapy-treated patients, 61% had LOT1 only, 25% had LOT1 and LOT2 only, and 14% had LOT3+. Median OS was 8.1 months, range was 4.3 (untreated) to 29.8 (LOT3+) months. HCRU frequency increased with additional LOTs. Mean cumulative per-patient cost was $82,912 for all patients, increasing with additional LOTs (untreated = $57,207; LOT1 = $99,213; LOT2 = $125,190; LOT3+ = $163,884). Mean per patient per month cost was $18,827 for all patients, decreasing with increasing number of LOTs received (untreated = $27,211; LOT1 = $9,601; LOT2 = $7,325; LOT3+ = $6,017). Limitations: Potential for treatment misclassification when using the algorithm defining LOTs and non-generalizability of results to younger patients. Conclusions: Over 50% of Medicare patients with mUC received no chemotherapy. Among chemotherapy-treated patients, most received only one LOT. Additional LOTs led to higher mean costs and HCRU, but as patients were followed longer, monthly costs decreased. As treatments evolve to include immuno-oncology agents, these findings provide a clinically relevant economic benchmark for mUC treatment across different traditional LOTs.

Introduction: The Quality-Adjusted Time Without Symptoms or Toxicity (Q-TWiST) has been used to evaluate the clinical benefits and risks of oncology treatments. However, limited information is available to interpret and contextualize Q-TWiST results., Areas Covered: A systematic review of Q-TWiST literature was conducted to provide contextualizing benchmarks for future studies. 51 articles with 81 unique Q-TWiST comparisons were identified. The mean (95% CI) and median absolute Q-TWiST gains for treatment versus control arms were 2.78 (1.82-3.73) months and 2.20 months across all cancers, respectively. The mean (median) relative Q-TWiST gains were 7.8% (7.2%) across all cancers. Most (88%) studies reported positive gains. The percentage of studies with relative Q-TWiST gains ≥10% (ie, clinically important difference) and ≥15% (ie, clearly clinically important difference) were 40.0% and 22.7%, respectively, Expert Commentary: The relevance of Q-TWiST in assessing net clinical benefits of cancer therapy has not diminished, despite an arguably low number of published studies. The interest in such assessment is highlighted by the recent emergence of oncology value frameworks. The Q-TWiST should be compelling to clinicians as it integrates clinical information (ie, toxicity, relapse/progression, and survival) and patient preferences for each of these states into a single meaningful index.

Despite effective skeletal-related event (SRE)-limiting therapies such as zoledronic acid and denosumab, SREs continue to place a meaningful burden on patients, providers and payers. However, studies of SRE-related effects on clinical (i.e., survival), economic (i.e., cost per event) and humanistic (i.e., quality of life) outcomes often report results in a composite manner and frequently do not differentiate the effects by SRE-type (i.e., bone radiation, bone surgery, hypercalcemia, pathological fracture and spinal cord compression). Nevertheless, understanding the differential burdens of individual SRE types, which vary in severity and duration of effect, is an important consideration - particularly in pharmacoeconomic evaluations of SRE-limiting therapies. In this review of the clinical, economic and humanistic SRE burden, it was found that SRE types can be differentiated by these outcomes, although economic outcomes are far more frequently reported than clinical or humanistic.

Objective: Denosumab has been approved in the US for skeletal-related event (SRE) prevention in bone-metastatic prostate cancer on the basis of a phase III clinical trial in which denosumab reduced SREs relative to zoledronic acid. Overall survival, disease progression, and serious adverse events did not differ significantly between groups. This analysis assessed the cost-effectiveness of denosumab vs zoledronic acid in bone-metastatic prostate cancer from a US payer perspective., Methods: A literature-based Markov model, wherein inputs were selected to reproduce clinical trial outcomes, was developed to estimate the survival, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), number and costs of SREs, and drug and administration costs for patients receiving denosumab or zoledronic acid over 27 months. QALYs were estimated by assigning health-state utilities. SRE-related costs and utilities were literature-based. Outcomes were discounted 3% per annum, and model robustness was tested via scenario, univariate, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses., Results: Denosumab resulted in fewer estimated SREs (-0.241; 1.036 vs 1.277), more QALYs (0.0074; 0.9306 vs 0.9232), and lower SRE-related costs (-$2340; $8824 vs $11,164), but higher drug-related costs ($10,181; $23,144 vs $12,963) and total costs ($7841; $31,968 vs $24,127) vs zoledronic acid. The base case estimated cost per QALY-gained was $1,058,741., Conclusion: This analysis was limited by the restricted availability of clinical data and the need to use projection methods beyond the trial time frame. However, a wide range of scenarios predicted denosumab to have an incremental cost/QALY gained above what may be considered acceptable value for money in the US. This raises important questions regarding the pharmacoeconomic value of denosumab in bone-metastatic prostate cancer.

Zoledronic acid is the only bisphosphonate approved for the prevention or delay of skeletal-related events in patients with bone metastases secondary to prostate cancer. Recently, the US FDA and the EMA approved denosumab (a fully human monoclonal antibody) to treat skeletal-related events in bone-metastatic prostate cancer. This article summarizes the cost-effectiveness literature pertaining to these two agents when used in the prevention of skeletal-related events secondary to malignancy. Zoledronic acid (and denosumab in comparison with zoledronic acid) have been found to be cost effective and cost ineffective depending on the analytical perspective and model parameters.

Objective: To assess concomitant extra-articular manifestation (EAM) rates in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) treated with anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) agents and examine the economic burden of uveitis and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) in French and German AS patients., Methods: Previous analyses of uveitis and IBD in AS patients treated with infliximab, etanercept or adalimumab were identified in PubMed/Medline (January 2000 to August 2011). A supplemental analysis incorporated more recent adalimumab clinical trial data (ATLAS [NCT00085644] and RHAPSODY [NCT00478660]). For resource utilization/costs associated with EAMs, the search was expanded to general spondyloarthritis (SpA) conditions (i.e., AS, reactive or psoriatic arthritis, psoriatic spondylitis, IBD and undifferentiated SpA). Direct and indirect yearly costs associated with AS-associated uveitis and IBD were estimated based on interviews with French and German clinicians and literature review., Results: The pooled average rate of anterior uveitis (AU) flares for patients treated with anti-TNF therapy in two meta-analyses and supplemental adalimumab clinical trials was 4.9/100-patient-years (PYs). AU rates (per 100-PYs) were 3.4, 3.7 and 5.7 for infliximab (p=0.26 vs etanercept; p=0.86 vs adalimumab), adalimumab (p=0.033 vs etanercept) and etanercept, respectively. IBD flares (per 100-PYs) were 0.2 for infliximab (p<0.001 vs etanercept; p=0.18 vs adalimumab), 0.63 for adalimumab (p=0.009 vs etanercept) and 2.2 for etanercept. No studies assessing EAM-associated resource utilization or costs in AS patients were found. Direct medical costs associated with IBD treatment ranged from €483 (Germany) to €6443 (France). Clinician-estimated AS-related uveitis direct medical costs were €1410 (Germany) and €1812 (France)., Conclusions: Clinical data synthesis demonstrated significantly lower AU flare rates with adalimumab vs etanercept and significantly lower IBD rates with both adalimumab and infliximab vs etanercept. Economic analysis indicated substantial costs associated with AU and IBD flares secondary to AS in France and Germany. Future economic evaluations of anti-TNF agents should incorporate EAMs and subsequent treatment costs. Limitations include restricted availability of randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial data, inclusion of data from open-label studies, lack of real-world (i.e., non-trial-based) EAM rates and a lack of EAM-specific direct and indirect costs with which to compare the results presented herein.

Objective: A 12-week clinical trial (TIMES) demonstrated that therapy with tolterodine extended release (TOL) + tamsulosin (TAM) provides clinical benefits vs TOL or TAM monotherapy or placebo (PBO) in men with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) including overactive bladder (OAB). The present analysis estimated the costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) associated with these therapies from the perspective of the UK healthcare system., Methods: TIMES cohorts receiving TOL, TAM, TOL + TAM, or PBO were followed from therapy initiation to 12 weeks. A decision-tree model was used to extrapolate the 12-week results to 1 year (including need for surgery owing to treatment failure at 12 weeks) and to track patients' outcomes (symptoms, utility, and costs). Because TIMES did not include costs and QALYs, data from the EpiLUTS epidemiologic survey (12,796 males) were used to model a mathematical relationship between LUTS (daytime and nocturnal frequency, urgency episodes, urgency urinary incontinence episodes, and International Prostate Symptom Score [IPSS]), quality-of-life, and utility. This was used to convert improvements in TIMES patients' LUTS into utility scores and QALYs. The model included drug and surgery procedure costs and hospital length of stay., Results: Incremental QALYs of TOL + TAM vs PBO, TAM, and TOL were 0.042, 0.021, and 0.013, and corresponding incremental costs were £189, £223, and -£70, respectively, resulting in cost-utility ratios for TOL + TAM of £4508/QALY gained compared with PBO and £10,381/QALY gained compared with TAM. TOL + TAM combination therapy was both more effective and cost-saving compared with TOL. Univariate sensitivity analyses showed that patient utility was most responsive to changes in drug efficacy on IPSS and urgency episodes. Changing the percentage of patients undergoing surgery did not substantially affect model outcomes. The main limitation of the study was that the relation between LUTS and patient utility was based on an indirect association., Conclusions: TOL + TAM combination therapy appears to be cost-effective compared with TOL or TAM monotherapy or PBO in male patients with LUTS.

Given the recent advances in the treatment of hematologic malignancies and the many other treatments on the horizon, physicians and payers will be faced with the critical decisions of when to use new treatments in the clinical pathway and how to allocate healthcare resources. This review will provide an overall context for the clinical, economic and quality of life burden of leukemia, as well as provide cross-analysis among the four major types of leukemia: acute lymphocytic leukemia, chronic lymphocytic leukemia, acute myeloid leukemia and chronic myeloid leukemia.