Pediatric Vaccines and Cost-Effectiveness Thresholds: How Much is Too Much to Pay for Prevention?

Cost-effectiveness evaluations play an important role in recommendations for use of pediatric vaccines that are set forth by the US Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). The fact that these evaluations are undertaken and accorded weight suggests that a critical value for designating pediatric vaccines as cost-effective (or not) must exist. For recommended pediatric vaccines, however, reported incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) have varied greatly, and there does not appear to be an explicit threshold used by the ACIP to define how much is too much to pay for the prevention of communicable diseases in children. Further complicating this issue is the fact that conventional ICER thresholds-expressed in terms of cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained-accord value only to length and quality of life and may not reflect our preferences as individuals or a society. For example, risk, an important attribute of many healthcare decisions, is ignored by the QALY model, as is the distribution of health benefits across different members of society. Are we indeed indifferent about risk and do we really believe that the value of disease prevention in children should be measured by the same "yardstick" as that for older adults? Accordingly, do we really believe that "a QALY is a QALY"? These issues, which are reviewed and discussed in this article, are more than just of theoretical interest; the answers impact how public health policy is determined, which impacts the lives and well-being of entire populations as well as the budgets of payers.

Cost Effectiveness of Blinatumomab Versus Inotuzumab Ozogamicin in Adult Patients with Relapsed or Refractory B-Cell Precursor Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia in the United States.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The TOWER and INO-VATE-ALL trials demonstrated the efficacy and safety of blinatumomab and inotuzumab ozogamicin (inotuzumab), respectively, versus standard-of-care (SOC) chemotherapy in adults with relapsed or refractory (R/R) B-cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). The cost effectiveness of blinatumomab versus inotuzumab has not previously been examined. METHODS: Cost effectiveness of blinatumomab versus inotuzumab in R/R B-cell precursor ALL patients with one or no prior salvage therapy from a United States (US) payer perspective was estimated using a partitioned survival model. Health outcomes were estimated based on published aggregate data from INO-VATE-ALL and individual patient data from TOWER weighted to match patients in INO-VATE-ALL using matching adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC). Analyses were conducted using five approaches relating to use of anchored versus unanchored comparisons of health outcomes and, for the anchored comparisons, the reference treatment to which treatment effects on health outcomes were applied. Estimates from TOWER including the probabilities of complete remission and allogeneic stem-cell transplant (allo-SCT), overall and event-free survival, utilities, duration of therapy, and use of subsequent therapies were MAIC adjusted to match INO-VATE-ALL. Costs of treatment, adverse events, allo-SCT, subsequent therapies, and terminal care were from published sources. A 50-year time horizon and 3% annual discount rate were used. RESULTS: Incremental costs for blinatumomab versus inotuzumab ranged from US$7023 to US$36,244, depending on the approach used for estimating relative effectiveness. Incremental quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) ranged from 0.54 to 1.78. Cost effectiveness for blinatumomab versus inotuzumab ranged from US$4006 to US$20,737 per QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: Blinatumomab is estimated to be cost effective versus inotuzumab in R/R B-cell precursor ALL adults who have received one or no prior salvage therapy from a US payer perspective.

Cost-Effectiveness of Thoracic Radiation Therapy for Extensive-Stage Small Cell Lung Cancer Using Evidence From the Chest Radiotherapy Extensive-Stage Small Cell Lung Cancer Trial (CREST).

PURPOSE: The Chest Radiotherapy Extensive-Stage Small Cell Lung Cancer Trial (CREST) showed that adding thoracic radiation therapy (TRT) to the standard treatment (ST) paradigm of chemotherapy and prophylactic cranial irradiation improves overall survival and progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of adding TRT to ST in ES-SCLC patients. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A cost-utility analysis was performed comparing TRT plus ST versus ST alone. The base-case time horizon was 24 months, consistent with the maximum PFS reported in the CREST. Overall survival was partitioned into 2 health states: PFS and postprogression survival. The proportion of patients in each health state over time was estimated by fitting parametric probability distributions to the CREST survival data. Costs were from a US health care payer perspective, and utilities were derived from the literature. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) using a 3% discount rate. Sensitivity analyses addressed uncertainty in key variables. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, adding TRT to ST was both cost saving and more effective, thereby strongly dominating ST alone. At willingness-to-pay thresholds of $50,000/QALY, $100,000/QALY, and $200,000/QALY, TRT was preferred 68%, 81%, and 96% of the time, respectively. In the lifetime scenario analysis, the TRT ICER increased to $194,726/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: By use of the actual follow-up interval reported in the CREST, adding TRT to ST strongly dominates a strategy of ST alone in ES-SCLC patients. Since the long-term survival benefit of TRT is small relative to ongoing costs of progressive metastatic disease, we estimate less favorable ICERs for TRT over a lifetime horizon.

Cost-effectiveness of pazopanib versus sunitinib for metastatic renal cell carcinoma in the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND: Sunitinib and pazopanib are the only two targeted therapies for the first-line treatment of locally advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) recommended by the United Kingdom's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Pazopanib demonstrated non-inferior efficacy and a differentiated safety profile versus sunitinib in the phase III COMPARZ trial. The current analysis provides a direct comparison of the cost-effectiveness of pazopanib versus sunitinib from the perspective of the United Kingdom's National Health Service based on data from COMPARZ and other sources. METHODS: A partitioned-survival analysis model with three health states (alive with no progression, alive with progression, or dead) was used to estimate the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for pazopanib versus sunitinib over five years (duration of follow-up for final survival analysis in COMPARZ). The proportion of patients in each health state over time was based on Kaplan-Meier distributions for progression-free and overall survival from COMPARZ. Utility values were based on EQ-5D data from the pivotal study of pazopanib versus placebo. Costs were based on medical resource utilisation data from COMPARZ and unit costs from secondary sources. Probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess uncertainty of model results. RESULTS: In the base case, pazopanib was estimated to provide more QALYs (0.0565, 95% credible interval [CrI]: -0.0920 to 0.2126) at a lower cost (-£1,061, 95% CrI: -£4,328 to £2,067) versus sunitinib. The probability that pazopanib yields more QALYs than sunitinib was estimated to be 76%. For a threshold value of £30,000 per QALY gained, the probability that pazopanib is cost-effective versus sunitinib was estimated to be 95%. Pazopanib was dominant in most scenarios examined in deterministic sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Pazopanib is likely to be a cost-effective treatment option compared with sunitinib as first-line treatment of mRCC in the United Kingdom.

Cost-effectiveness of blinatumomab versus salvage chemotherapy in relapsed or refractory Philadelphia-chromosome-negative B-precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia from a US payer perspective.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of blinatumomab (Blincyto) vs standard of care (SOC) chemotherapy in adults with relapsed or refractory (R/R) Philadelphia-chromosome-negative (Ph-) B-precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) based on the results of the phase 3 TOWER study from a US healthcare payer perspective. METHODS: The Blincyto Global Economic Model (B-GEM), a partitioned survival model, was used to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of blinatumomab vs SOC. Response rates, event-free survival (EFS), overall survival (OS), numbers of cycles of blinatumomab and SOC, and transplant rates were estimated from TOWER. EFS and OS were estimated by fitting parametric survival distributions to failure-time data from TOWER. Utility values were based on EORTC-8D derived from EORTC QLQ-C30 assessments in TOWER. A 50-year lifetime horizon and US payer perspective were employed. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3% per year. RESULTS: The B-GEM projected blinatumomab to yield 1.92 additional life years and 1.64 additional quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) compared with SOC at an incremental cost of $180,642. The ICER for blinatumomab vs SOC was estimated to be $110,108/QALY gained in the base case. Cost-effectiveness was sensitive to the number and cost of inpatient days for administration of blinatumomab and SOC, and was more favorable in the sub-group of patients who had received no prior salvage therapy. At an ICER threshold of $150,000/QALY gained, the probability that blinatumomab is cost-effective was estimated to be 74%. LIMITATIONS: The study does not explicitly consider the impact of adverse events of the treatment; no adjustments for long-term transplant rates were made. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with SOC, blinatumomab is a cost-effective treatment option for adults with R/R Ph - B-precursor ALL from the US healthcare perspective at an ICER threshold of $150,000 per QALY gained. The value of blinatumomab is derived from its incremental survival and health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) benefit over SOC.

Network Meta-analysis of Progression-Free Survival and Overall Survival in First-Line Treatment of BRAF Mutation-Positive Metastatic Melanoma.

INTRODUCTION: The present study aimed to inform an economic evaluation of dabrafenib and trametinib combination as first-line treatment of metastatic melanoma in a Canadian setting. A network meta-analysis was conducted to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) for progression-free survival (PFS)and overall survival (OS) of dabrafenib plus trametinib versus other first-line treatments of BRAF mutation-positive metastatic melanoma including dabrafenib, trametinib, vemurafenib, ipilimumab, and dacarbazine (DTIC). METHODS: HRs for PFS and OS were from randomized controlled trials identified from systematic literature reviews. HRs for PFS and OS (adjusted for crossover as appropriate) were analyzed using multivariate and univariate Bayesian network meta-analysis. RESULTS: In multivariate network-meta analyses (HRs for PFS and OS estimated simultaneously to account for the correlation of treatment effects on PFS and OS), HRs (95% credible interval) for PFS and OS favored dabrafenib plus trametinib [PFS: 0.23 (0.18-0.29) versus DTIC, 0.32 (0.24-0.42) versus ipilimumab plus DTIC, 0.52 (0.32-0.83) versus trametinib, 0.57 (0.48-0.69) versus vemurafenib, and 0.59 (0.50-0.71) versus dabrafenib]; OS [0.41 (0.29-0.56) versus DTIC, 0.52 (0.38-0.71) versus ipilimumab plus DTIC, 0.68 (0.47-0.95) versus trametinib, 0.69 (0.57-0.84) versus vemurafenib, and 0.72 (0.60-0.85) versus dabrafenib]. The beneficial effects on OS of dabrafenib plus trametinib versus ipilimumab plus DTIC and versus trametinib were attenuated when HRs were estimated using univariate network meta-analysis (HRs for PFS and OS estimated separately). CONCLUSION: This analysis demonstrates improved PFS and OS with dabrafenib + trametinib versus dabrafenib, trametinib, vemurafenib, ipilimumab plus DTIC, and DTIC as first-line treatment for patients with BRAF mutation-positive metastatic melanoma. FUNDING: Novartis Pharmaceuticals.

Cost-effectiveness of pazopanib versus sunitinib for renal cancer in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Current first-line treatments for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) include the multityrosine kinase inhibitors pazopanib and sunitinib. Both agents had similar progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in the COMPARZ trial (Comparing the Efficacy, Safety and Tolerability of Pazopanib versus Sunitinib); however, the adverse event profiles of the 2 agents are different. In the PISCES trial (Patient Preference Study of Pazopanib versus Sunitinib in Advanced or Metastatic Kidney Cancer), patients and physicians preferred pazopanib primarily because it offered better health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and caused less fatigue. OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost-effectiveness of pazopanib versus sunitinib from a U.S. health care system perspective in the first-line treatment of patients with mRCC. METHODS: A partitioned-survival analysis model with 3 health states (preprogression, postprogression, and dead), data from 2 randomized controlled trials of pazopanib versus sunitinib (COMPARZ and PISCES), and secondary sources were used to calculate the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for pazopanib versus sunitinib. A time horizon of 37.5 months was used in the base case, consistent with the duration of follow-up used in the COMPARZ trial. The proportion of patients in each health state over time was based on Kaplan-Meier survival distributions for PFS and OS from the COMPARZ trial. Utility values were obtained from the PISCES trial. Costs were based on medical resource utilization data from the COMPARZ trial and unit costs from secondary sources. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses and deterministic sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: In the base case, pazopanib was estimated to provide more QALYs at a lower cost compared with sunitinib (pazopanib dominant). In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, pazopanib was projected to be dominant in 69% of the simulations. The probability that pazopanib was more cost-effective than sunitinib was ≥ 90% for threshold values of cost-effectiveness between the range of $10,000-$160,000 per QALY gained. In deterministic sensitivity analyses, pazopanib was dominant in all scenarios examined. CONCLUSION: Results of this study suggest that pazopanib is cost-effective compared with sunitinib as the first-line treatment of patients with mRCC in the United States.

Cost effectiveness of dabrafenib as a first-line treatment in patients with BRAF V600 mutation-positive unresectable or metastatic melanoma in Canada.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost effectiveness of dabrafenib versus dacarbazine and vemurafenib as first-line treatments in patients with BRAF V600 mutation-positive unresectable or metastatic melanoma from a Canadian healthcare system perspective. METHODS: A partitioned-survival analysis model with three mutually exclusive health states (pre-progression, post-progression, and dead) was used. The proportion of patients in each state was calculated using survival distributions for progression-free and overall survival derived from pivotal trials of dabrafenib and vemurafenib. For each treatment, expected progression-free, post-progression, overall, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and costs were calculated. Costs were based on list prices, a clinician survey, and published sources. A 5-year time horizon was used in the base case. Costs (in 2012 Canadian dollars [CA$]) and QALYs were discounted at 5% annually. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Dabrafenib was estimated to yield 0.2055 more QALYs at higher cost than dacarbazine. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was CA$363,136/QALY. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, at a threshold of CA$200,000/QALY, there was an 8.2% probability that dabrafenib is cost effective versus dacarbazine. In deterministic sensitivity analyses, cost effectiveness was sensitive to survival distributions, utilities, and time horizon, with the hazard ratio for overall survival for dabrafenib versus dacarbazine being the most sensitive parameter. Assuming a class effect for efficacy of BRAF inhibitors, dabrafenib was dominant versus vemurafenib (less costly, equally effective), reflecting its assumed lower daily cost. Assuming no class effect, dabrafenib yielded 0.0486 more QALYs than vemurafenib. CONCLUSIONS: At a threshold of CA$200,000/QALY, dabrafenib is unlikely to be cost effective compared with dacarbazine. It is not possible to make reliable conclusions regarding the relative cost effectiveness of dabrafenib versus vemurafenib based on available information.

Cost-effectiveness of pazopanib in advanced soft tissue sarcoma in the United kingdom.

In the phase III PALETTE trial, pazopanib improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared with placebo in patients with advanced/metastatic soft tissue sarcomas (mSTS) who had received prior chemotherapy. We used a multistate model to estimate expected PFS, overall survival (OS), lifetime STS treatment costs, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for patients receiving pazopanib, placebo, trabectedin, ifosfamide, or gemcitabine plus docetaxel as second-line mSTS therapies. The cost-effectiveness of pazopanib was expressed as the incremental costs per QALY gained. Estimates of PFS/OS, adverse events, and utilities for pazopanib and placebo were from the PALETTE trial. Estimates of relative effectiveness of the other comparators were from an unadjusted indirect comparison versus pazopanib. Costs were from published sources. Pazopanib is estimated to increase QALYs by 0.128 and costs by £7,976 versus placebo; cost per QALY gained with pazopanib versus placebo is estimated to be £62,000. Compared with the other chemotherapies, pazopanib provides similar QALYs at a lower cost. Pazopanib may not be cost-effective versus placebo but may be cost-effective versus the most commonly used active treatments, although this conclusion is uncertain. Given the unmet need for effective treatments for mSTS, pazopanib may be an appropriate alternative to some currently used medications in the United Kingdom.