Search

Background: This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of avelumab first-line (1L) maintenance therapy plus best supportive care (BSC) versus BSC alone for adults with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (la/mUC) that had not progressed following platinum-based chemotherapy in France., Methods: A three-state partitioned survival model was developed to assess the lifetime costs and effects of avelumab plus BSC versus BSC alone. Data from the phase 3 JAVELIN Bladder 100 trial (NCT02603432) were used to inform estimates of clinical and utility values considering a 10-year time horizon and a weekly cycle length. Cost data were estimated from a collective perspective and included treatment acquisition, administration, follow-up, adverse event-related hospitalization, transport, post-progression, and end-of-life costs. Health outcomes were measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and life-years gained. Costs and clinical outcomes were discounted at 2.5% per annum. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were used to compare cost-effectiveness and willingness to pay in France. Uncertainty was assessed using a range of sensitivity analyses., Results: Avelumab plus BSC was associated with a gain of 2.49 QALYs and total discounted costs of €136,917; BSC alone was associated with 1.82 QALYs and €39,751. Although avelumab plus BSC was associated with increased acquisition costs compared with BSC alone, offsets of -€20,424 and -€351 were observed for post-progression and end-of-life costs, respectively. The base case analysis ICER was €145,626/QALY. Sensitivity analyses were consistent with the reference case and showed that efficacy parameters (overall survival, time to treatment discontinuation), post-progression time on immunotherapy, and post-progression costs had the largest impact on the ICER., Conclusions: This analysis demonstrated that avelumab plus BSC is associated with a favorable cost-effectiveness profile for patients with la/mUC who are eligible for 1L maintenance therapy in France., Competing Interests: F. Porte is an employee of Merck Santé S.A.S., Lyon, France, an affiliate of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany at the time of the project. A. Granghaud was an employee of Pfizer S.A.S., Paris, France at the time of the study. J. Chang is an employee of Pfizer and holds stock and other ownership interest with Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Pfizer. M. Kearney is an employee of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany, and holds stock in Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany, Novartis and UCB. A. Morel is an employee of Pfizer S.A.S., Paris, France. I. Plessala was an employee of Amaris Consulting, Paris, France at the time of the study. H. Cawston is an employee of Amaris Consulting, Paris, France. J. Roiz is an employee of and reposts stocks and other ownership interest with Evidera. Y. Xiao is an employee of Evidera. M.-N. Solbes is an employee of Merck Santé S.A.S., Lyon, France, an affiliate of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany. P. Lambert is an employee of Pfizer S.A.S., Paris, France. A. Ravaud has received grants or contracts from Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany, and Pfizer; has received travel and accommodation expenses from Ipsen Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany, Merck & Co., Kenilworth, NJ, and Pfizer; and has participated in advisory boards for Esai, Ipsen, Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany, and Pfizer. Y. Loriot has served in consulting or advisory roles for Astellas Pharma, Bristol Myers Squibb, Immunomedics, Janssen, Loxo/Lilly, Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany, Merck & Co., Kenilworth, NJ, Pfizer, Roche, Seattle Genetics, and Taiho Pharmaceutical; has received travel and accommodations expenses from Astellas Pharma, Janssen Oncology, Merck & Co., Kenilworth, NJ, Roche, and Seattle Genetics; and has received institutional research funding from Astellas Pharma, Basilea, Bristol Myers Squibb, Exelixis, Gilead Sciences, Incyte, Janssen Oncology, Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany, Merck & Co., Kenilworth, NJ, Nektar, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, and Taiho Pharmaceutical. A. Thiery-Vuillemin has participated in advisory boards for Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Janssen, Merck & Co., Kenilworth, NJ, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech and Sanofi; reports employment by Bristol Myers Squibb; has served on steering committees for AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Novartis; has received institutional research funding from Bayer, Ipsen and Pfizer; has served as principal investigator for Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Excelixis, Incyte, Ipsen, Johnson & Johnson, Merck & Co., Kenilworth, NJ, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and UNICANCER/GETUG; has received travel and accommodation expenses from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Johnson & Johnson, Merck & Co., Kenilworth, NJ, Pfizer and Roche; and is a member of ASCO and GETUG. P. Lévy has served in consulting or advisory role and had received honoraria from Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials, (Copyright: © 2024 Porte et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Background and Aims: The IMbrave150 clinical trial assessed the efficacy and safety of atezolizumab in combination with bevacizumab (ATZ+BVA) versus sorafenib in adults with advanced/unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma, who have not received prior systemic treatment. Our aim was to assess the cost-effectiveness of ATZ+BVA versus sorafenib in France based on an updated prices and considering French National real-world data, to confirm the initial recommendations from the Heath Technology Assessment submission published in 2021, and provide additional visibility to decision-makers reflecting current clinical practice., Methods: A partition survival model was developed to project clinical outcomes, quality of life, and costs of patients with HCC treated with ATZ+BVA versus sorafenib over a lifetime horizon. Survival outcomes were extrapolated via parametric functions for both treatment strategies. Quality of life (EQ-5D-5L, French tariffs) were sourced from IMbrave150. The Guyot method was considered as a scenario analysis by integrating retrospective real-world data extracted from the French Health Insurance Database to refine long term survival extrapolations., Results: In the reference case, ATZ+BVA was associated with 0.61 additional Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) compared to sorafenib (1.95 vs 1.35), and an incremental cost of €92,704. The incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) was 152,974 €/QALY gained. Adjusting the survival curves with French external evidence led to a 14% ICUR reduction (131,163 €/QALY)., Conclusions: ATZ+BVA is a cost-effective strategy based on the range recently published for the value of a QALY in France and offers better chances of survival to patients., Competing Interests: Clément Le Dissez, Benjamin Mazaleyrat and Javier Sanchez Alvares are employees of ROCHE, and Hélène Cawston, Loïg Gaugain and Coline Dubois de Gennes are employees of Amaris Consulting and consultants for ROCHE SAS France. Pr Nahon participated in the validation of methods and results. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials., (Copyright: © 2023 Gaugain et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Objectives: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a new generation integrase inhibitor (INI), dolutegravir (DTG), in France, in treatment-experienced (TE) and INI-naïve HIV-infected adults with at least two classes resistance compared to raltegravir (RAL), by adapting previously published Anti-Retroviral Analysis by Monte Carlo Individual Simulation (ARAMIS) model., Methods: ARAMIS is a microsimulation Markov model with a lifetime time horizon and a monthly cycle length. Health states are defined as with or without opportunistic infection and death. In the initial cohort, efficacy and safety data were derived from a phase III study comparing DTG to RAL. Antiretroviral treatment algorithms, accounting for patient history, were based on French guidelines and experts opinion. Costs are mainly including treatment costs, routine HIV and opportunistic infection care, and death. Utilities depend on CD4+ cell count and the occurrence of opportunistic infections., Results: The ARAMIS model indicates in the TE population that DTG compared to RAL over a life time is associated with 0.35 additional quality-adjusted life years (QALY; 10.75 versus 10.41) and additional costs of €7,266 (€390,001 versus €382,735). DTG increased costs are mainly related to a 9.1-month increase in life expectancy for DTG compared with RAL, and consequently a longer time spent on ART. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for DTG compared with RAL is €21,048 per QALY gained. About 83% and 14% of total lifetime costs are associated with antiretroviral therapy and routine HIV care respectively. Univariate deterministic sensitivity analyses demonstrate the robustness of the model., Conclusion: DTG is cost-effective in the management of TE INI naive patients in France, from a collective perspective. These results could be explained by the superior efficacy of DTG in this population and its higher genetic barrier to resistance compared to RAL. These data need to be confirmed with longer-term real life data.