Cost Effectiveness and Budget Impact of Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab Versus Platinum Plus Pemetrexed (with and Without Bevacizumab) in Patients with Unresectable Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma in Switzerland.

BACKGROUND: Malignant pleural mesotheliomas (MPMs) are aggressive and often unresectable. In the past, chemotherapy was the standard for palliative treatment. However, immunotherapy with nivolumab+ipilimumab has recently received marketing approval. OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the cost effectiveness of nivolumab+ipilimumab versus pemetrexed+platinum (with/without bevacizumab) for Swiss patients with unresectable MPM, overall and by histological subtype. METHODS: We developed a three-state Markov cohort model with a cycle length of 1 month, a 30-year time horizon, and a discount rate of 3% per year for costs and benefits. The model included the updated survival and treatment-dependent utility results from the Checkmate-743 and MAPS registration trials. A Swiss statutory health insurance perspective was considered with unit costs for 2022 from publicly available and real-world sources. We assumed a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of CHF100,000/QALY. Model robustness was explored in sensitivity and scenario analyses. RESULTS: Compared with chemotherapy, nivolumab+ipilimumab incurred additional costs of CHF109,115 and 0.57 additional quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of CHF192,585/QALY (i.e. USD201,829/QALY) gained. Relative to their 2022 list price, nivolumab+ipilimumab may be cost effective if priced at 48% across all histologies. Assuming cisplatin-based instead of carboplatin-based chemotherapy reduced the ICER to CHF158,911/QALY (i.e. USD166,539/QALY). For the non-epithelioid subtype, nivolumab+ipilimumab was cost effective compared with chemotherapy (ICER of CHF97,894/QALY, i.e. USD102,593/QALY). Chemotherapy+bevacizumab was often a dominated strategy or would require a bevacizumab cost reduction to 28%. CONCLUSIONS: Our model projected nivolumab+ipilimumab to be cost effective for the non-epithelioid subtype but not for all histologies. Substantial discounts for nivolumab+ipilimumab would be necessary to achieve cost effectiveness for all histologies.

Survival modelling and cost-effectiveness analysis of treatments for newly diagnosed metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: In metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) treatment, survival benefits have been shown by adding docetaxel or recent androgen receptor axis-targeted therapies (ARATs) abiraterone, apalutamide, or enzalutamide to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). However, the optimal treatment strategy in terms of costs and effects is unclear, not least due to high ARAT costs. METHODS: To assess treatment cost-effectiveness, we developed a Markov cohort model with health states of progression-free disease, progressive disease and death for men with newly diagnosed mHSPC, with a 30-year time horizon. Survival data, adverse events and utilities were informed by randomized controlled trial results, our meta-analysis of re-created individual patient survival data, and publicly available sources of unit costs. We applied a Swiss healthcare payer perspective and discounted costs and effects by 3%. RESULTS: We found a significant overall survival benefit for ADT+abiraterone versus ADT+docetaxel. The corresponding incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was predicted to be EUR 39,814 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. ADT+apalutamide and ADT+enzalutamide incurred higher costs and lower QALYs compared to ADT+abiraterone. For all ARATs, drug costs constituted the most substantial cost component. Results were stable except for a large univariable reduction in the pre-progression utility under ADT+abiraterone and very large variations in drug prices. CONCLUSIONS: Our model projected ADT+abiraterone to be cost-effective compared to ADT+docetaxel at a willingness-to-pay threshold of EUR 70,400/QALY (CHF 100,000 applying purchasing power parities). Given lower estimated QALYs for ADT+apalutamide and ADT+enzalutamide compared to ADT+abiraterone, the former only became cost-effective (the preferred) treatment option(s) at substantial 75-80% (80-90%) price reductions.

Treatments for Metastatic Hormone-sensitive Prostate Cancer: Systematic Review, Network Meta-analysis, and Benefit-harm assessment.

CONTEXT: Multiple treatments for metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) are available, but their effects on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and benefit-harm balance remain unclear. OBJECTIVE: To assess clinical effectiveness regarding survival and HRQoL, safety, and benefit-harm balance of mHSPC treatments. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov until March 1, 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing docetaxel, abiraterone, enzalutamide, apalutamide, darolutamide, and radiotherapy combined with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) mutually or with ADT alone were eligible. Three reviewers independently performed screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment in duplicate. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Across ten RCTs, we found relevant survival benefits for ADT + docetaxel (high certainty according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation [GRADE]), ADT + abiraterone (moderate certainty), ADT + enzalutamide (low certainty), ADT + apalutamide (high certainty), and ADT + docetaxel + darolutamide (high certainty) compared with ADT alone. ADT + radiotherapy appeared effective only in low-volume de novo mHSPC. We found a short-term HRQoL decrease lasting 3-6 mo for ADT + docetaxel (moderate certainty) and a potential HRQoL benefit for ADT + abiraterone up to 24 mo of follow-up (moderate certainty) compared with ADT alone. There was no difference in HRQoL for ADT + enzalutamide, ADT + apalutamide, or ADT + radiotherapy over ADT alone (low-high certainty). Grade 3-5 adverse effect rates were increased with all systemic combination treatments. A benefit-harm assessment showed high probabilities (>60%) for a net clinical benefit with ADT + abiraterone, ADT + enzalutamide, and ADT + apalutamide, while ADT + docetaxel and ADT + docetaxel + darolutamide appeared unlikely (<40%) to be beneficial. CONCLUSIONS: Despite substantial survival benefits, no systemic combination treatment showed a clear HRQoL improvement compared with ADT alone. We found evidence for a short-term HRQoL decline with ADT + docetaxel and a higher net clinical benefit with ADT + abiraterone, ADT + apalutamide and ADT + enzalutamide. While individualized decision-making remains important and economic factors need to be considered, the evidence may support a general preference for the combination of ADT with androgen receptor axis-targeted therapies over docetaxel-containing strategies. PATIENT SUMMARY: We assessed different combination treatments for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. While survival was better with all systemic combination treatments, there was no clear improvement in health-related quality of life compared with androgen deprivation therapy alone. Novel hormonal combination treatments had a more favorable benefit-harm balance than combination treatments that include chemotherapy.

Colorectal cancer surveillance by colonoscopy in a prospective, population-based long-term Swiss screening study - outcomes, adherence, and costs.

BACKGROUND: The success of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening depends mainly on screening quality, patient adherence to surveillance, and costs. Consequently, it is essential to assess the performance over time. METHODS: In 2000, a closed cohort study on CRC screening in individuals aged 50 to 80 was initiated in Uri, Switzerland. Participants who chose to undergo colonoscopy were followed over 18 years. We investigated the adherence to recommended surveillance and collected baseline characteristics and colonoscopy data. Risk factors at screening for the development of advanced adenomas were analyzed. Costs for screening and follow-up were evaluated retrospectively. RESULTS: 1278 subjects with a screening colonoscopy were included, of which 272 (21.3%; 69.5% men) had adenomas, and 83 (6.5%) had advanced adenomas. Only 59.8% participated in a follow-up colonoscopy, half of them within the recommended time interval. Individuals with advanced adenomas at screening had nearly five times the risk of developing advanced adenomas compared to individuals without adenomas (24.3% vs. 5.0%, OR 4.79 CI 2.30-9.95). Individuals without adenomas developed advanced adenomas in 4.9%, including four cases of CRC; three of them without control colonoscopy. The villous component in adenomas smaller than 10 mm was not an independent risk factor. Costs for screening and follow-up added up to CHF 1'934'521 per 1'000 persons screened, almost half of them for follow-up examinations; 60% of these costs accounted for low-risk individuals. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that follow-up of screening colonoscopy should be reconsidered in Switzerland; in particular, long-term adherence is critical. Costs for follow-up could be substantially reduced by adopting less expensive long-term screening methods for low-risk individuals.

Cost-effectiveness and budget impact of venetoclax in combination with rituximab in relapsed/refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia in Switzerland.

INTRODUCTION: Venetoclax in combination with rituximab (VEN + R) demonstrated prolonged overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) for patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) in comparison to standard chemoimmunotherapy [bendamustine + rituximab (BR)]. We conducted a cost-effectiveness and budget impact analysis comparing VEN + R versus six comparators from the Swiss healthcare payer perspective. METHODS: A three-state partitioned survival model, developed in accordance with NICE and ISPOR decision modelling guidelines, was adapted to Switzerland. Model inputs were informed by the MURANO trial (survival data, patient characteristics), publicly available Swiss sources (drug prices, inpatient and outpatient costs), Swiss National Institute of Cancer Epidemiology and Registration data (incidence and prevalence values), and Swiss medical expert feedback. We used published (dis-)utility values and adverse event probabilities. RESULTS: Over a lifetime, VEN + R resulted in an expected gain of 2.60 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) per patient and incremental costs of Swiss Francs (CHF) 147,851 compared to BR, leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of CHF 56,881/QALY gained. Other treatment strategies (for example ibrutinib versus VEN + R) resulted in higher costs and lower QALYs. Results were not different for subgroups of patients with/without deletion of chromosome 17p/tumour protein 53 mutation. In scenario analysis, changes in post-progression treatment costs demonstrated a high impact on results. We estimated an expected value of perfect information of CHF 3,318/patient. A moderate VEN + R uptake was estimated to save CHF 12.3 million during 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: Using a threshold of CHF 100,000 per QALY, VEN + R was projected to be cost-effective vs BR.

A cost-effectiveness analysis of pembrolizumab with or without chemotherapy for the treatment of patients with metastatic, non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer and high PD-L1 expression in Switzerland.

INTRODUCTION: Pembrolizumab monotherapy or in combination with chemotherapy are two new treatment options for patients with metastatic non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and high (≥ 50%) programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression. We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis for Switzerland comparing these two options but also pembrolizumab to chemotherapy. METHODS: We constructed a 3-state Markov model with a time horizon of 10 years. Parametric functions were fitted to Kaplan-Meier overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) using 2-year follow-up data from the KN-024 and KN-189 registration trials. We included estimated costs for further treatment lines and costs for best supportive care. Costs were assessed from the Swiss healthcare payer perspective. We used published utility values. RESULTS: Combination therapy resulted in an expected gain of 0.17 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) per patient and incremental costs of Swiss Francs (CHF) 81,085 as compared to pembrolizumab. These estimates led to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of CHF 475,299/QALY. Pembrolizumab in comparison to chemotherapy was estimated to generate mean incremental QALYs of 0.83 and incremental costs of CHF 56,585, resulting in an ICER of CHF 68,580/QALY. Results were most sensitive to changes in costs of 1L pembrolizumab and combination therapy, together with changes in PFS. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, we estimated combination therapy was cost-effective in 4.9% of the simulations and pembrolizumab monotherapy in 82.9%, assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of CHF 100,000 per QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: Pembrolizumab is likely to be cost-effective from the Swiss healthcare payer perspective, whereas pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy is not.

Efficacy of the combination of amlodipine and valsartan in patients with hypertension uncontrolled with previous monotherapy: the Exforge in Failure after Single Therapy (EX-FAST) study.

In this randomized, double-blind, multicenter study, patients whose blood pressure (BP) was uncontrolled by monotherapy were switched directly to amlodipine/valsartan 5/160 mg (n=443) or 10/160 mg (n=451). After 16 weeks, BP control (levels <140/90 mm Hg or <130/80 mm Hg for diabetics) was achieved in 72.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 68.6-76.9) of patients receiving amlodipine/valsartan 5/160 mg and in 74.8% (95% CI, 70.8-78.9) receiving amlodipine/valsartan 10/160 mg. Incremental reductions from baseline in mean sitting systolic and diastolic BP were significantly greater with the higher dose (20.0+/-0.7 vs 17.5+/-0.7 mm Hg; P=.0003 and 11.6+/-0.4 vs 10.4+/-0.4 mm Hg; P=.0046). Incremental BP reductions were also achieved with both regimens irrespective of previous monotherapy, hypertension severity, diabetic status, body mass index, and age. Peripheral edema was the most frequent adverse event. These results provide support for the BP-lowering benefits of complementary antihypertensive therapy with amlodipine and valsartan in patients with hypertension uncontrolled by previous monotherapy.

Efficacy and safety of single therapeutic and supratherapeutic doses of indacaterol versus salmeterol and salbutamol in patients with asthma.

OBJECTIVE: This study compared the bronchodilator efficacy and safety of indacaterol with placebo, salbutamol and salmeterol, in patients with persistent asthma, at single therapeutic and supratherapeutic doses. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This was a randomised, open-label crossover study in adult subjects with asthma (forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV(1)] > or = 60% predicted). In part A, patients (n = 20) received single doses of indacaterol 200 microg, salbutamol 200 microg, salmeterol 50 microg and placebo. In part B, patients (n = 19) received single doses of indacaterol 1000 microg, salbutamol 1000 microg, salmeterol 250 microg and placebo. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES; RESULTS: For the primary endpoint, FEV(1) area under the effect curve during 0-24 h, indacaterol 200 microg was statistically superior to placebo and salbutamol. Indacaterol 200 microg FEV(1) was higher than placebo (5 min to 24 h), salbutamol 200 microg (4-24 h), and salmeterol 50 microg (5 and 15 min and 22 and 24 h). Few adverse events were reported; all were mild or moderate in severity. Initial changes were observed in glucose, potassium, heart rate and QTc interval, but all values remained within normal ranges. Values matched placebo levels after a shorter time for indacaterol 1000 microg than for salmeterol 250 microg. CONCLUSIONS: In this single-dose, open-label study, indacaterol 200 microg provided effective 24-h bronchodilation, with a longer duration than salmeterol 50 microg and a good overall safety profile. The sustained bronchodilation of indacaterol 1000 microg was not associated with sustained systemic adverse effects.