Search

Thitima Kongnakorn,1 Murtuza Bharmal,2 Mairead Kearney,3 Hemant Phatak,4 Agnes Benedict,5 Abhijeet Bhanegaonkar,4 Matthew Galsky6 1Evidence Synthesis, Modeling and Communication, Evidera, London, UK; 2Global Evidence and Value Development, EMD Serono, Inc. (A business of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany), Rockland, MA, USA; 3Global Evidence and Value Development, Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany; 4US Health Economics and Outcomes Research, EMD Serono, Inc. (A business of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany), Rockland, MA, USA; 5Evidence Synthesis, Modeling and Communication, Evidera, Budapest, Hungary; 6Tisch Cancer Institute, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USACorrespondence: Murtuza BharmalGlobal Evidence and Value Development, EMD Serono, Inc. (A business of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany), Rockland, MA, USAEmail murtuza.bharmal@emdserono.comObjective: To estimate the budget impact of introducing avelumab as a second-line (2L) treatment option for patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer (mUC) from the perspective of a US third-party payer (commercial and Medicare).Methods: A budget impact model (BIM) with a three-year time horizon was developed for avelumab. Efficacy and safety data were sourced from published literature and US package inserts. The analysis was conducted in collaboration with a specialist oncologist who validated clinical assumptions. Costs were based on the number of eligible patients, time-to-treatment failure, overall survival, adverse events (AEs), and projected market shares of various treatments.Results: In a hypothetical commercial health plan of 30,000,000 members, 884 patients were estimated to be eligible for 2L treatment over a three-year time period. Without avelumab, the total cost for treating patients with mUC was estimated to be US$70,268,035. The introduction of avelumab increased total costs by $73,438 (0.10% increase). In a hypothetical Medicare health plan of 30,000,000 beneficiaries, a tot

Background: In the ‘Arimidex’, Tamoxifen Alone or in Combination (ATAC) trial, the aromatase inhibitor (AI) anastrozole had a ignificantly better efficacy and safety profile than tamoxifen as initial adjuvant therapy for hormone receptor-positive (HR+) early breast cancer (EBC) in postmenopausal patients. To compare the combined long-term clinical and economic benefits, we carried out a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of anastrozole versus tamoxifen based on the data of the 100- month analysis of the ATAC trial from the perspective of the German public health insurance. Patients and Methods: A Markov model with a 25-year time horizon was developed using the 100-month analysis of the ATAC trial as well as data obtained from published literature and expert opinion. Results: Adjuvant treatment of EBC with anastrozole achieved an additional 0.32 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained per patient compared with tamoxifen, at an additional cost of D 6819 per patient. Thus, the incremental cost effectiveness of anastrozole versus tamoxifen at 25 years was D 21,069 ($ 30,717) per QALY gained. Conclusions: This is the first CEA of an AI that is based on extended follow-up data, taking into account the carryover effect of anastrozole, which maintains the efficacy benefits beyond therapy completion after 5 years. Adjuvant treatment with anastrozole for postmenopausal women with HR+ EBC is a cost-effective alternative to tamoxifen., Hintergrund: Bei der adjuvanten Therapie von postmenopausalen Patientinnen mit Hormonrezeptor-positivem (HR+) Mammakarzinom belegen die ATAC-100-Monatsdaten (ATAC-Studie: ‘Arimidex’, Tamoxifen Alone or in Combination) einen signifikanten Vorteil von Anastrozol gegenüber Tamoxifen in Bezug auf Rezidivrisiko und Verträglichkeit. Es wurde eine Kosten-Nutzwert-Analyse von Anastrozol im Vergleich zu Tamoxifen aus der Sicht des deutschen Gesundheitssystems durchgeführt. Material und Methoden: Als Berechnungsbasis wurde ein Markov- Modell zur Abschätzung der Kosteneffektivität entwickelt. Der Modellierungszeitraum umfasste 25 Jahre. Die Daten wurden anhand der ATAC-100-Monatsdaten, vorliegender Literatur und durch ein interdisziplinäres Expertenteam ermittelt. Ergebnisse: Eine adjuvante Therapie mit Anastrozol erzielte 0,32 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) pro Patientin mehr, verglichen mit einer adjuvanten Tamoxifentherapie. Die zusätzlichen Kosten der Therapie mit Anastrozol lagen bei 6819 D pro Patientin. Im Vergleich mit Tamoxifen erzielte Anastrozol einen ICER (Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio) von 21 069 D (30 717 $)/QALY über den gesamten Modellierungszeitraum. Schlussfolgerung: Diese Kosten- Nutzwert-Analyse eines Aromatasehemmers basiert erstmals auf einer Datenanalyse, die auch das Follow-Up und den sogenannten Carryover- Effekt nach einer abgeschlossenen 5-Jahres-Therapie beinhaltet. Anastrozol ist auch nach dieser Analyse aus der Sicht des deutschen Gesundheitssystems eine kosteneffektive Therapieoption für postmenopausale Patientinnen mit einem HR+ frühen Mammakarzinom., Dieser Beitrag ist mit Zustimmung des Rechteinhabers aufgrund einer (DFG-geförderten) Allianz- bzw. Nationallizenz frei zugänglich.

Henry J Henk,1 Connie Chen,2 Agnes Benedict,3 Jane Sullivan,1 April Teitelbaum1 1Optum, Eden Prairie, MN, USA; 2Pfizer Inc, New York, NY, USA; 3United BioSource Corporation, London, UK Introduction: Survival and best supportive care (BSC) costs for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), after stopping therapy, are poorly characterized yet an important aspect of patient care. This study examined survival and costs associated with BSC after one or two lines of therapy (LOTs) for mRCC. Methods: A retrospective cohort analysis used claims data from commercially insured or Medicare Advantage Prescription Drug (MAPD) plan enrollees of a large United States health plan with an index RCC diagnosis (ICD-9-CM 189.0) between January 1, 2007 and June 30, 2010; initiating any of the following therapies 30 days pre-index date through disenrollment from plan: sunitinib, temsirolimus, sorafenib, bevacizumab, everolimus, pazopanib, cytokines. LOT was identified using prescription fill and administration dates. Health care costs represent health plan- plus patient-paid amounts. Results: The cohort (n = 274) was 73% male, with a mean age of 63.3 years (SD 11.1), with 80% commercially insured (20% MAPD), and 68% starting BSC following one LOT. Mean BSC duration was longer following one than two LOTs (223 [SD 260], 176 [SD 163] days). Median survival from the start of BSC was similar following one and two LOTs (126 and 118 days). Total BSC costs following one and two LOTs averaged US$50,188 (SD $96,984) and $37,295 (SD $51,102). Monthly costs for BSC following one and two LOTs ($10,151 and $10,566) were not substantially lower than costs while on treatment ($14,621 and $16,957). Inpatient hospital costs represented 47% and 49% following one and two LOTs, with ambulatory costs of approximately 36% following each LOT. Conclusion: Our study found similar survival and monthly costs for BSC following either one or two LOTs, with almost half of the cost reflecting inpatient car