Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Adjuvant Olaparib Versus Watch and Wait in the Treatment of Germline BRCA1/2-Mutated, High-Risk, HER2-Negative Early Breast Cancer in Sweden.

INTRODUCTION: This study evaluated the cost effectiveness of adjuvant olaparib versus watch and wait (WaW) in patients with germline breast cancer susceptibility gene 1/2 (gBRCA1/2)-mutated, high-risk, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative early breast cancer (eBC), previously treated with neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy, from a Swedish healthcare perspective. METHODS: A five-state (invasive disease-free survival [IDFS], non-metastatic breast cancer [non-mBC], early-onset mBC, late-onset mBC, death) semi-Markov state transition model with a lifetime horizon was developed. Transition probabilities were informed by data from the Phase III OlympiA trial, supplemented with data from additional studies in BRCA-mutated, HER2-negative mBC. Health state utilities were derived via mapping of OlympiA data and supplemented by literature estimates. Treatment, adverse events and other medical costs were extracted from publicly available Swedish sources. Incremental cost per life-year (LY) and quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained were estimated. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3% annually. One-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were conducted. RESULTS: Over a lifetime horizon, adjuvant olaparib was associated with an additional 1.50 LYs and 1.22 QALYs, and incremental cost of 471,156 Swedish krona (SEK) versus WaW (discounted). The resulting ICER was 385,183SEK per QALY gained for olaparib versus WaW. ICERs remained below 1,000,000SEK across a range of scenarios, and were consistent across subgroups (hormone receptor [HR]-positive/HER2-negative and triple-negative breast cancer [TNBC]). In PSA, the probability of olaparib being cost effective at 1,000,000SEK per QALY was 99.8%. CONCLUSIONS: At list price, adjuvant olaparib is a cost-effective alternative to WaW in patients with gBRCA1/2-mutated, high-risk, HER2-negative eBC in Sweden.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Fulvestrant 500 mg in Endocrine Therapy-Naïve Postmenopausal Women with Hormone Receptor-Positive Advanced Breast Cancer in the UK.

INTRODUCTION: The selective estrogen receptor degrader fulvestrant is approved for the first-line treatment of postmenopausal patients with hormone receptor-positive (HR+), locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer who have not received prior endocrine therapy. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of fulvestrant versus comparator treatments in endocrine therapy-naïve patients with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer. METHODS: A three-health-state (progression free, progressed disease, and death) partitioned survival model from the UK National Health Service and Personal Social Services perspective was developed to extrapolate study data for the cumulative probability of progression-free survival and overall survival to a lifetime (30-year) horizon. Relative comparator data were derived from a systematic literature review-informed network meta-analysis. Sensitivity analyses were applied to assess the impact of uncertainty in the parameter input values on the results. RESULTS: Over a lifetime horizon (30 years), the incremental cost (British pounds sterling) per patient associated with fulvestrant treatment was £18,867 versus anastrozole, £23,097 versus letrozole, and £17,131 versus tamoxifen, with incremental quality-adjusted life-years of 0.55, 0.77, and 0.76, respectively, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of £34,109, £29,827, and £22,532, respectively. The largest difference in costs between fulvestrant and the comparators was related to treatment costs. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that fulvestrant could potentially be a cost-effective option compared with other endocrine monotherapies (anastrozole, letrozole, and tamoxifen) for treating endocrine therapy-naïve, postmenopausal women with HR+, locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer.

Cost-effectiveness of osimertinib in the UK for advanced EGFR-T790M non-small cell lung cancer.

AIM: This study presents the cost-utility analysis that was developed to inform the NICE health technology assessment of osimertinib vs platinum-based doublet chemotherapy (PDC) in patients with EGFR-T790M mutation-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who have progressed on epidermal growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitor (EGFR-TKI) therapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A partitioned survival model with three health states (progression-free, progressed disease, and death) from a UK payer perspective and over lifetime (15 years) was developed. Direct costs included disease management, treatment-related (acquisition, administration, monitoring, adverse events), and T790M testing costs. Efficacy and safety data were taken from clinical trials AURA extension and AURA2 for osimertinib and IMPRESS for PDC. An adjusted indirect treatment comparison was applied to reduce the potential bias in the non-randomized comparison. Parametric functions were utilized to extrapolate survival beyond the observed period. Health state utility values were calculated from EQ-5D data collected in the trials and valued using UK tariffs. Resource use and costs were based on published sources. RESULTS: Osimertinib was associated with a gain of 1.541 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) at an incremental cost of £64,283 vs PDC (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER]: £41,705/QALY gained). Scenario analyses showed that none of the plausible scenarios produced an ICER above £44,000 per QALY gained, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses demonstrated a 63.4% probability that osimertinib will be cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £50,000. LIMITATIONS: The analysis is subject to some level of uncertainty inherent to phase 2 single-arm data and the immaturity of the currently available survival data for osimertinib. CONCLUSIONS: Osimertinib may be considered a cost-effective treatment option compared with PDC in the second-line setting in patients with EGFR-T790M mutation-positive NSCLC from a UK payer perspective. Further data from the ongoing AURA clinical trial program will reduce the inherent uncertainty in the analysis.

Cost-Effectiveness of Ivermectin 1% Cream in Adults with Papulopustular Rosacea in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Papulopustular rosacea is a chronic skin disease involving central facial erythema in combination with papules and pustules. Papulopustular rosacea is treated with topical, systemic, or a combination of topical and systemic therapies. Currently approved topical therapies include azelaic acid gel/cream/foam twice daily (BID) and metronidazole cream/gel/lotion BID. Ivermectin 1% cream once daily (QD) is a new topical agent for the treatment of papulopustular rosacea that has been approved for the management of inflammatory lesions of rosacea and offers an alternative to current treatments. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ivermectin 1% cream QD compared with current topical treatments in order to understand the cost of adding ivermectin as a treatment option that would bring additional clinical benefit for adults with papulopustular rosacea in the United States. METHODS: The cost-effectiveness of ivermectin 1% cream QD was compared with metronidazole 0.75% cream BID and azelaic acid 15% gel BID for adults in the United States with moderate-to-severe papulopustular rosacea using a Markov cohort state transition structure with 2 mutually exclusive health states (rosacea and no rosacea) and 5 phases. Patients could succeed or fail to respond to treatment and experience a relapse after treatment success. The model took a health care payer perspective (direct medical costs of topical and/or systemic therapy plus health care costs for physician and specialist visits) and used a 3-year time horizon. The model was run for a cohort of 1,000 patients. Costs (2014 U.S. dollars) and benefits (disease-free days and quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs]) were discounted at a rate of 3% per annum. Cost-effectiveness was determined by the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and measured in terms of incremental cost per QALY gained (estimated from health state utilities for patients with and without rosacea). Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were conducted to assess the robustness of model outcomes. RESULTS: Compared with metronidazole 0.75% cream BID, ivermectin 1% cream QD was associated with higher costs but provided greater clinical benefit, with an ICER of $13,211 per QALY gained. For a cohort of 1,000 patients, ivermectin 1% cream QD provided an additional 72,922 disease-free days (200 years) over a 3-year period compared with metronidazole 0.75% cream BID, leading to a lower cost per disease-free day for ivermectin 1% cream QD ($4.54) compared with metronidazole 0.75% cream BID ($4.85). Ivermectin 1% cream QD was associated with lower total costs and greater clinical benefit compared with azelaic acid 15% gel BID at year 3 and dominated this treatment. After 3 years, ivermectin 1% cream QD was associated with the lowest health care costs ($62,767 compared with $73,284 for metronidazole 0.75% cream BID and $77,208 for azelaic acid 15% gel BID), reflecting a 15% reduction in physician visit costs, when compared with metronidazole 0.75% cream BID, and almost a 20% reduction, when compared with azelaic acid 15% gel BID. The univariate sensitivity analyses indicated that the results are sensitive to the time horizon selected: the longer the time horizon, the more beneficial the results for ivermectin 1% cream QD relative to the comparators, although even at 1 year, ivermectin 1% cream QD dominated azelaic acid 15% gel BID. The PSA suggested that ivermectin 1% cream QD was the most likely treatment to be cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $15,000 and above. CONCLUSIONS: Ivermectin 1% cream QD had favorable incremental cost-effectiveness when compared with metronidazole 0.75% cream BID and dominated azelaic acid 15% gel BID in the treatment of papulopustular rosacea in the United States. Therefore, ivermectin 1% cream QD may be a good first-line treatment for papulopustular rosacea, providing additional clinical benefit at no or low additional cost. DISCLOSURES: This study was sponsored by Galderma Laboratories. The sponsor was involved in the design of the model structure but not in the collection of the data used to populate the model. Manuscript preparation was also funded by Galderma. Taieb is an investigator and advisor for Galderma. Gold is an investigator for Galderma. Feldman is a consultant and speaker for Galderma and has received grants from Galderma. Dansk and Bertranou received a research grant from Galderma to conduct this study. Dansk and Bertranou contributed to the design of the model structure, the sourcing and inputting of the data, and the interpretation of the results. Taieb, Feldman, and Gold contributed to the interpretation of the results. All authors reviewed draft versions of the manuscript and gave permission for the submission of the final version.

Cost-benefits of incorporating levosimendan into cardiac surgery practice: German base case.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-benefit of using levosimendan compared with dobutamine, in the perioperative treatment of patients undergoing cardiac surgery who require inotropic support. METHODS: A two-part Markov model was designed to simulate health-state transitions of patients undergoing cardiac surgery, and estimate the short- and long-term health benefits of treatment. Hospital length of stay (LOS), mortality, medication, and adverse events were key clinical- and cost-inputs. Cost-benefits were evaluated in terms of costs and bed stays within the German healthcare system. Drug prices were calculated from the German Drug Directory (€/2014) and published literature, with a 3% annual discount rate applied. The base case analysis was for a 1-year time horizon. RESULTS: The use of levosimendan vs dobutamine was associated with cost savings of €4787 per patient from the German hospital perspective due to reduced adverse events and shorter hospital LOS, leading to increased bed capacity and hospital revenue. LIMITATIONS: A pharmacoeconomic calculation for the specific situation of the German healthcare system that is based on international clinical trial carries a substantial risk of disregarding potentially relevant but unknown confounding factors (i.e., ICU-staffing, co-medications, standard-ICU care vs fast-tracking, etc.) that may either attenuate or increase the outcome pharmacoeconomic effects of a drug; however, since these conditions would also apply for patients treated with comparators, their net effects may not necessarily influence the conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: The use of levosimendan in patients undergoing cardiac surgery who require inotropic support appears to be cost-saving. The results of the analysis provide a strong rationale to run local clinical studies with pharmacoeconomic end-points which would allow a much more precise computation of the benefits of levosimendan.

Issues in the incorporation of economic perspectives and evidence into Cochrane reviews.

BACKGROUND: Methods for systematic reviews of the effects of health interventions have focused mainly on addressing the question of 'What works?' or 'Is this intervention effective in achieving one or more specific outcomes?' Addressing the question 'Is it worth it given the resources available?' has received less attention. This latter question can be addressed by applying an economic lens to the systematic review process.This paper reflects on the value and desire for the consideration by end users for coverage of an economic perspective in a Cochrane review and outlines two potential approaches and future directions. METHODS: Two frameworks to guide review authors who are seeking to include an economic perspective are outlined. The first involves conducting a full systematic review of economic evaluations that is integrated into a review of intervention effects. The second involves developing a brief economic commentary. The two approaches share a set of common stages but allow the tailoring of the economic component of the Cochrane review to the skills and resources available to the review team. RESULTS: The number of studies using the methods outlined in the paper is limited, and further examples are needed both to explore the value of these approaches and to further develop them. The rate of progress will hinge on the organisational leadership, capacity and resources available to the CCEMG, author teams and other Cochrane entities. Particular methodological challenges to overcome relate to understanding the key economic trade-offs and casual relationships for a given decision problem and informing the development of evaluations designed to support local decision-makers. CONCLUSIONS: Methods for incorporating economic perspectives and evidence into Cochrane intervention reviews are established. Their role is not to provide a precise estimate of 'cost-effectiveness' but rather to help end-users of Cochrane reviews to determine the implications of the economic components of reviews for their own specific decisions.

Estimating cost-effectiveness in public health: a summary of modelling and valuation methods.

It is acknowledged that economic evaluation methods as they have been developed for Health Technology Assessment do not capture all the costs and benefits relevant to the assessment of public health interventions. This paper reviews methods that could be employed to measure and value the broader set of benefits generated by public health interventions. It is proposed that two key developments are required if this vision is to be achieved. First, there is a trend to modelling approaches that better capture the effects of public health interventions. This trend needs to continue, and economists need to consider a broader range of modelling techniques than are currently employed to assess public health interventions. The selection and implementation of alternative modelling techniques should be facilitated by the production of better data on the behavioural outcomes generated by public health interventions. Second, economists are currently exploring a number of valuation paradigms that hold the promise of more appropriate valuation of public health interventions outcomes. These include the capabilities approach and the subjective well-being approach, both of which offer the possibility of broader measures of value than the approaches currently employed by health economists. These developments should not, however, be made by economists alone. These questions, in particular what method should be used to value public health outcomes, require social value judgements that are beyond the capacity of economists. This choice will require consultation with policy makers, and perhaps even the general public. Such collaboration would have the benefit of ensuring that the methods developed are useful for decision makers.

Exploring the role of economics in prioritization in public health: what do stakeholders think?

BACKGROUND: Debates surrounding the use of conventional approaches in public health and the existence of perceived barriers to using the results of economic evaluations have led to questions posed as to how to establish priorities within public health schemes. The aims of this study were therefore to explore the feasibility and validity of economic evaluation techniques in developing priorities within public health programmes and consider the extent to which different presentational approaches are likely to be incorporated into decision-making, from perspectives of relevant stakeholders. METHODS: An advisory board, representative of potential users of economic evaluations, was set up to identify preferences for how findings from economic evaluations might be presented to decision makers and to test the impact of different approaches, different outputs and different presentational styles. The board was divided into two groups, each of which was given three hypothetical 'scenarios' to consider. The scenarios comprised descriptions of methods and outputs, with costs, effects, target population and context of intervention constant across all scenarios. RESULTS: The perceived validity of estimates of effectiveness was vitally important, along with sufficient information to gauge whether designs were appropriate and to assess implementation practicalities. Cost-benefit analysis and cost-utility analysis were the preferred approaches despite their complexity, although participants required benchmarks to place net-benefit estimates from cost-benefit analyses into context. CONCLUSION: Further research is required to substantiate and build on these preliminary findings and collaborations between economists and policy makers are needed to develop clear, rigorous and standard guidance relating to economic evaluation, recognizing the diversity of public health strategies.