Cost-effectiveness analysis for avelumab first-line maintenance treatment of advanced urothelial carcinoma in Scotland.

Aim: The cost-effectiveness of avelumab first-line maintenance treatment for locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma in Scotland was assessed. Materials & methods: A partitioned survival model was developed comparing avelumab plus best supportive care (BSC) versus BSC alone, incorporating JAVELIN Bladder 100 trial data, costs from national databases and published literature and clinical expert validation of assumptions. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was estimated using lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALY). Results: Avelumab plus BSC had incremental costs of £9446 and a QALY gain of 0.63, leading to a base-case (deterministic) ICER of £15,046 per QALY gained, supported by robust sensitivity analyses. Conclusion: Avelumab first-line maintenance is likely to be a cost-effective treatment for locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma in Scotland.

What is this article about? This study looked at the costs of avelumab when given as maintenance treatment for people in Scotland with advanced urothelial carcinoma, compared with the longer survival and other benefits that it provides. How was this done? Researchers estimated the costs and treatment benefits expected with avelumab using data from a clinical trial called JAVELIN Bladder 100, national databases, data from previously published studies and expert opinions. What were the results? Costs associated with using avelumab maintenance treatment for people with advanced urothelial carcinoma in Scotland were considered to be acceptable based on the benefits it provides. What do the results of the study mean? These results support the use of avelumab first-line maintenance as a standard treatment for people with advanced urothelial carcinoma in Scotland.

Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison of Crisaborole Ointment 2% vs. Topical Calcineurin Inhibitors in the Treatment of Patients with Mild-to-Moderate Atopic Dermatitis.

INTRODUCTION: Crisaborole topical ointment, 2%, is a nonsteroidal, topical anti-inflammatory phosphodiesterase-4 (PDE4) inhibitor that is approved for the treatment of mild-to-moderate atopic dermatitis (AD). The objective of the current analysis was to compare the efficacy of crisaborole 2% relative to pimecrolimus 1%, tacrolimus 0.03% and tacrolimus 0.1% in patients aged ≥ 2 years with mild-to-moderate AD by comparing improvement in Investigator's Static Global Assessment scores ( (ISGA scores of 0/1 indicating "clear or almost clear"). ISGA was selected as the primary efficacy outcome given the US Food and Drug Administration's recommendations on the use of ISGA for assessment of global severity in AD and to align with efficacy measurements in the crisaborole registration trials. Safety endpoints could not be analyzed due to differences in outcome definitions across studies. METHODS: Efficacy of crisaborole was evaluated using individual patient data (IPD) from two pivotal phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and efficacy of comparators was evaluated using published RCTs included in a previous network meta-analysis. Vehicle controls were not comparable due to differences in ingredients and population imbalance and, therefore, an unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) was used, which reweighted IPD for crisaborole to estimate absolute response in comparator populations. RESULTS: The odds of achieving an improvement in ISGA score was higher with crisaborole 2% versus pimecrolimus 1% (odds ratio [OR] 2.03; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.45-2.85; effective sample size = 627, reduced from 1021; p value < 0.001) and for crisaborole 2% versus tacrolimus 0.03% (OR 1.50; 95% CI 1.09-2.05; effective sample size = 311, reduced from 1021; p = 0.012). CONCLUSION: The unanchored MAIC suggests that the odds of achieving an improvement in ISGA score is greater with crisaborole 2% than with pimecrolimus 1% or tacrolimus 0.03% in patients aged ≥ 2 years with mild-to-moderate AD. These results are consistent with findings from the previously published network meta-analysis, which used a different methodology for performing indirect treatment comparisons.

Canadian cost-effectiveness model of BRCA-driven surgical prevention of breast/ovarian cancers compared to treatment if cancer develops.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the cost effectiveness from a Canadian perspective of index patient germline BRCA testing and then, if positive, family members with subsequent risk-reducing surgery (RRS) in as yet unaffected mutation carriers compared with no testing and treatment of cancer when it develops. METHODS: A patient level simulation was developed comparing outcomes between two groups using Canadian data. Group 1: no mutation testing with treatment if cancer developed. Group 2: cascade testing (index patient BRCA tested and first-/second-degree relatives tested if index patient/first-degree relative is positive) with RRS in carriers. End points were the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and budget impact. RESULTS: There were 29,102 index patients: 2,786 ovarian cancer and 26,316 breast cancer (BC). Using the base-case assumption of 44 percent and 21 percent of women with a BRCA mutation receiving risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy and risk-reducing mastectomy, respectively, testing was cost effective versus no testing and treatment on cancer development, with an ICER of CAD 14,942 (USD 10,555) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), 127 and 104 fewer cases of ovarian and BC, respectively, and twenty-one fewer all-cause deaths. Testing remained cost effective versus no testing at the commonly accepted North American threshold of approximately CAD 100,000 (or USD 100,000) per QALY gained in all scenario analyses, and cost effectiveness improved as RRS uptake rates increased. CONCLUSIONS: Prevention via testing and RRS is cost effective at current RRS uptake rates; however, optimization of uptake rates and RRS will increase cost effectiveness and can provide cost savings.

Evaluation of Cancer-Based Criteria for Use in Mainstream BRCA1 and BRCA2 Genetic Testing in Patients With Breast Cancer.

Importance: Increasing BRCA1 and BRCA2 (collectively termed herein as BRCA) gene testing is required to improve cancer management and prevent BRCA-related cancers. Objective: To evaluate mainstream genetic testing using cancer-based criteria in patients with cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: A quality improvement study and cost-effectiveness analysis of different BRCA testing selection criteria and access procedures to evaluate feasibility, acceptability, and mutation detection performance was conducted at the Royal Marsden National Health Service Foundation Trust as part of the Mainstreaming Cancer Genetics (MCG) Programme. Participants included 1184 patients with cancer who were undergoing genetic testing between September 1, 2013, and February 28, 2017. Main Outcomes and Measures: Mutation rates, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were the primary outcomes. Results: Of the 1184 patients (1158 women [97.8%]) meeting simple cancer-based criteria, 117 had a BRCA mutation (9.9%). The mutation rate was similar in retrospective United Kingdom (10.2% [235 of 2294]) and prospective Malaysian (9.7% [103 of 1061]) breast cancer studies. If traditional family history criteria had been used, more than 50% of the mutation-positive individuals would have been missed. Of the 117 mutation-positive individuals, 115 people (98.3%) attended their genetics appointment and cascade to relatives is underway in all appropriate families (85 of 85). Combining with the equivalent ovarian cancer study provides 5 simple cancer-based criteria for BRCA testing with a 10% mutation rate: (1) ovarian cancer; (2) breast cancer diagnosed when patients are 45 years or younger; (3) 2 primary breast cancers, both diagnosed when patients are 60 years or younger; (4) triple-negative breast cancer; and (5) male breast cancer. A sixth criterion-breast cancer plus a parent, sibling, or child with any of the other criteria-can be added to address family history. Criteria 1 through 5 are considered the MCG criteria, and criteria 1 through 6 are considered the MCGplus criteria. Testing using MCG or MCGplus criteria is cost-effective with cost-effectiveness ratios of $1330 per discounted QALYs and $1225 per discounted QALYs, respectively, and appears to lead to cancer and mortality reductions (MCG: 804 cancers, 161 deaths; MCGplus: 1020 cancers, 204 deaths per year over 50 years). Use of MCG or MCGplus criteria might allow detection of all BRCA mutations in patients with breast cancer in the United Kingdom through testing one-third of patients. Feedback questionnaires from 259 patients and 23 cancer team members (12 oncologists, 8 surgeons, and 3 nurse specialists) showed acceptability of the process with 100% of patients pleased they had genetic testing and 100% of cancer team members confident to approve patients for genetic testing. Use of MCGplus criteria also appeared to be time and resource efficient, requiring 95% fewer genetic consultations than the traditional process. Conclusions and Relevance: This study suggests that mainstream testing using simple, cancer-based criteria might be able to efficiently deliver consistent, cost-effective, patient-centered BRCA testing.

Targeted surgical prevention of epithelial ovarian cancer is cost effective and saves money in BRCA mutation carrying family members of women with epithelial ovarian cancer. A Canadian model.

OBJECTIVE: Survival but not cure rates have improved for epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC), demonstrating the need for effective prevention. Targeted prevention in BRCA carriers by risk reducing surgery (RRS) prevents 80% of cases but incurs additional up-front costs, compensated for by the potential for long term savings from treatment avoidance. Does prevention represent value for money? In the absence of long-term data from prospective trials, determining the cost effectiveness of a prevention strategy requires economic modelling. METHODS: A patient level simulation was developed comparing outcomes between two groups, using Canadian data. Group 1: no mutation testing with treatment if EOC developed. Group 2: cascade testing (index patient BRCA tested and the first and second-degree relatives tested if index patient or first-degree relative respectively were positive) with RRS in carriers. End points were Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) and budget impact. RESULTS: 2786 women with EOC (1 year incidence) had 766 first and 207 second-degree female relatives. BRCA mutations were present in 390 index cases, 366 first and 49 second-degree relatives. With 100% RRS uptake, 59 EOC were prevented and testing dominated no testing (more effective and less costly; ICER -$8919). The total cost saving over 50 years was $2,904,486 (cost saving of $9,660,381 in treatment costs versus increased cost from cascade testing/RRS of $6,755,895). At a threshold of $100,000 per QALY, prevention was cost effective in all modelled scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: Targeted prevention in BRCA mutation carriers not only prevents EOC but is cost-effective compared to treating EOC if it develops.

A Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation of Germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 Testing in UK Women with Ovarian Cancer.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 (collectively termed "BRCA") testing in women with epithelial ovarian cancer, and testing for the relevant mutation in first- and second-degree relatives of BRCA mutation-positive individuals, compared with no testing. Female BRCA mutation-positive relatives of patients with ovarian cancer could undergo risk-reducing mastectomy and/or bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness model was developed that included the risks of breast and ovarian cancer; the costs, utilities, and effects of risk-reducing surgery on cancer rates; and the costs, utilities, and mortality rates associated with cancer. RESULTS: BRCA testing of all women with epithelial ovarian cancer each year is cost-effective at a UK willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) compared with no testing, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £4,339/QALY. The result was primarily driven by fewer cases of breast cancer (142) and ovarian cancer (141) and associated reductions in mortality (77 fewer deaths) in relatives over the subsequent 50 years. Sensitivity analyses showed that the results were robust to variations in the input parameters. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that the probability of germline BRCA mutation testing being cost-effective at a threshold of £20,000/QALY was 99.9%. CONCLUSIONS: Implementing germline BRCA testing in all patients with ovarian cancer would be cost-effective in the United Kingdom. The consequent reduction in future cases of breast and ovarian cancer in relatives of mutation-positive individuals would ease the burden of cancer treatments in subsequent years and result in significantly better outcomes and reduced mortality rates for these individuals.