The value-based price of transformative gene therapy for sickle cell disease: a modeling analysis.

Sickle cell disease (SCD) is an inherited, progressively debilitating blood disorder. Emerging gene therapies (GTx) may lead to a complete remission, the benefits of such can only be realized if GTx is affordable and accessible in the low-and middle-income countries (LMIC) with the greatest SCD burden. To estimate the health impacts and country-specific value-based prices (VBP) of a future gene therapy for SCD using a cost-utility model framework. We developed a lifetime Markov model to compare the costs and health outcomes of GTx versus standard of care for SCD. We modeled populations in seven LMICs and six high-income countries (HICs) estimating lifetime costs and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) in comparison to estimates of a country's cost-effectiveness threshold. Each country's unique VBP for GTx was calculated via threshold analysis. Relative to SOC treatment alone, we found that hypothetical GTx reduced the number of people symptomatic with SCD over time leading to fewer DALYs. Across countries, VBPs ranged from $3.6 million (US) to $700 (Uganda). Our results indicate a wide range of GTx prices are required if it is to be made widely available and may inform burden and affordability for 'target product profiles' of GTx in SCD.

The long-term impact and value of curative therapy for HIV: a modelling analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Curative therapies (CTx) to achieve durable remission of HIV disease without the need for antiretroviral therapy (ART) are currently being explored. Our objective was to model the long-term health and cost outcomes of HIV in various countries, the impact of future CTx on those outcomes and the country-specific value-based prices (VBPs) of CTx. METHODS: We developed a decision-analytic model to estimate the future health economic impacts of a hypothetical CTx for HIV in countries with pre-existing access to ART (CTx+ART), compared to ART alone. We modelled populations in seven low-and-middle-income countries and five high-income countries, accounting for localized ART and other HIV-related costs, and calibrating variables for HIV epidemiology and ART uptake to reproduce historical HIV outcomes before projecting future outcomes to year 2100. Health was quantified using disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs). Base case, pessimistic and optimistic scenarios were modelled for CTx+ART and ART alone. Based on long-term outcomes and each country's estimated health opportunity cost, we calculated the country-specific VBP of CTx. RESULTS: The introduction of a hypothetical CTx lowered HIV prevalence and prevented future infections over time, which increased life-years, reduced the number of individuals on ART, reduced AIDS-related deaths, and ultimately led to fewer DALYs versus ART-alone. Our base case estimates for the VBP of CTx ranged from $5400 (Kenya) up to $812,300 (United States). Within each country, the VBP was driven to be greater primarily by lower ART coverage, lower HIV incidence and prevalence, and higher CTx cure probability. The VBP estimates were found to be greater in countries where HIV prevalence was higher, ART coverage was lower and the health opportunity cost was greater. CONCLUSIONS: Our results quantify the VBP for future curative CTx that may apply in different countries and under different circumstances. With greater CTx cure probability, durability and scale up, CTx commands a higher VBP, while improvements in ART coverage may mitigate its value. Our framework can be utilized for estimating this cost given a wide range of scenarios related to the attributes of a given CTx as well as various parameters of the HIV epidemic within a given country.

Population Genomic Screening for Three Common Hereditary Conditions : A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The cost-effectiveness of screening the U.S. population for Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Tier 1 genomic conditions is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of simultaneous genomic screening for Lynch syndrome (LS), hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome (HBOC), and familial hypercholesterolemia (FH). DESIGN: Decision analytic Markov model. DATA SOURCES: Published literature. TARGET POPULATION: Separate age-based cohorts (ages 20 to 60 years at time of screening) of racially and ethnically representative U.S. adults. TIME HORIZON: Lifetime. PERSPECTIVE: U.S. health care payer. INTERVENTION: Population genomic screening using clinical sequencing with a restricted panel of high-evidence genes, cascade testing of first-degree relatives, and recommended preventive interventions for identified probands. OUTCOME MEASURES: Incident breast, ovarian, and colorectal cancer cases; incident cardiovascular events; quality-adjusted survival; and costs. RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS: Screening 100 000 unselected 30-year-olds resulted in 101 (95% uncertainty interval [UI], 77 to 127) fewer overall cancer cases and 15 (95% UI, 4 to 28) fewer cardiovascular events and an increase of 495 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (95% UI, 401 to 757) at an incremental cost of $33.9 million (95% UI, $27.0 million to $41.1 million). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $68 600 per QALY gained (95% UI, $41 800 to $88 900). RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: Screening 30-, 40-, and 50-year-old cohorts was cost-effective in 99%, 88%, and 19% of probabilistic simulations, respectively, at a $100 000-per-QALY threshold. The test costs at which screening 30-, 40-, and 50-year-olds reached the $100 000-per-QALY threshold were $413, $290, and $166, respectively. Variant prevalence and adherence to preventive interventions were also highly influential parameters. LIMITATIONS: Population averages for model inputs, which were derived predominantly from European populations, vary across ancestries and health care environments. CONCLUSION: Population genomic screening with a restricted panel of high-evidence genes associated with 3 CDC Tier 1 conditions is likely to be cost-effective in U.S. adults younger than 40 years if the testing cost is relatively low and probands have access to preventive interventions. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Human Genome Research Institute.

Cost-effectiveness of population-wide genomic screening for familial hypercholesterolemia in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Population genomic screening for familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) in unselected individuals can prevent premature cardiovascular disease. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the clinical and economic outcomes of population-wide FH genomic screening versus no genomic screening. METHODS: We developed a decision tree plus 10-state Markov model evaluating the identification of patients with an FH variant, statin treatment status, LDL-C levels, MI, and stroke to compare the costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness of population-wide FH genomic screening. FH variant prevalence (0.4%) was estimated from the Geisinger MyCode Community Health Initiative (MyCode). Genomic test costs were assumed to be $200. Age and sex-based estimates of MI, recurrent MI, stroke, and recurrent stroke were obtained from Framingham risk equations. Additional outcomes independently associated with FH variants were derived from a retrospective analysis of 26,025 participants screened for FH. Sensitivity and threshold analyses were conducted to evaluate model assumptions and uncertainty. RESULTS: FH screening was most effective at younger ages; screening unselected 20-year-olds lead to 111 QALYs gained per 100,000 individuals screened at an incremental cost of $20 M. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for 20-year-olds was $181,000 per QALY, and there was a 38% probability of cost-effectiveness at a $100,000 per QALY willingness-to-pay threshold. If genomic testing cost falls to $100, the ICER would be $91,000 per QALY. CONCLUSION: Population FH screening is not cost-effective at current willingness to pay thresholds. However, reducing test costs, testing at younger ages, or including FH within broader multiplex screening panels may improve clinical and economic value.

Cost-effectiveness of population-wide genomic screening for Lynch syndrome in the United States.

PURPOSE: Genomic screening for Lynch syndrome (LS) could prevent colorectal cancer (CRC) by identifying high-risk patients and instituting intensive CRC screening. We estimated the cost-effectiveness of a population-wide LS genomic screening vs family history-based screening alone in an unselected US population. METHODS: We developed a decision-analytic Markov model including health states for precancer, stage-specific CRC, and death and assumed an inexpensive test cost of $200. We conducted sensitivity and threshold analyses to evaluate model uncertainty. RESULTS: Screening unselected 30-year-olds for LS variants resulted in 48 (95% credible range [CR] = 35-63) fewer overall CRC cases per 100,000 screened individuals, leading to 187 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs; 95% CR = 123-260) gained at an incremental cost of $24.6 million (95% CR = $20.3 million-$29.1 million). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $132,200, with an 8% and 71% probability of being cost-effective at $100,000 and $150,000 per QALY willingness-to-pay thresholds, respectively. CONCLUSION: Population LS screening may be cost-effective in younger patient populations under a $150,000 willingness-to-pay per QALY threshold and with a relatively inexpensive test cost. Further reductions in testing costs and/or the inclusion of LS testing within a broader multiplex screening panel are needed for screening to become highly cost-effective.

Budget impact analysis of the DiviTum TKa assay in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor positive metastatic breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: DiviTum TKa, a blood-based biomarker assay developed to monitor and predict treatment response in hormone receptor positive metastatic breast cancer (HR + mBC), may decrease traditional disease monitoring assessments and avoid prolongation of futile treatments. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the diagnostic and treatment budget impact of the assay on a postmenopausal HR + HER2- mBC population in a one-million-member U.S. health plan. METHODS: We developed a budget impact model comparing inclusion and exclusion of DiviTum TKa to standard care under which DiviTum TKa (1) reduces the frequency of traditional mBC monitoring tools, and (2) predicts treatment futility in advance of radiological disease progression. Traditional disease monitoring assessment schedules were based on guidelines and expert opinions. DiviTum TKa's impact on therapy utilization was based on published literature and expert opinion. Modeled costs included DiviTum TKa, NCCN-recommended treatments, imaging, biomarker testing, and adverse events. We calculated total and per-member per-month (PMPM) costs with a 3-year time horizon. RESULTS: The inclusion of 416 DiviTum TKa assays ($166,400) was largely offset by 193 fewer CT scans, 88 fewer bone scans, and 55 fewer biomarker tests over 3 years, a savings of -$128,400, resulting in a PMPM of $0.001. In scenario analyses, adding DiviTum TKa resulted in additional treatment-related cost-savings (-$465,600), resulting in a PMPM cost-savings of -$0.013, or an average savings of -$7,400 per each patient initiating first-line cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor plus aromatase inhibitor therapy. Expected savings approached 3× the spend on the new test. Results were most sensitive to DiviTum TKa cost, population parameters, and treatment costs. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical use of the DiviTum TKa assay is expected to decrease traditional imaging and monitoring and may reduce the overall cost of managing mBC if it leads to clinical decisions to avoid futile therapy. Post-coverage, real-world monitoring of palliative therapies among post-menopausal mBC populations is needed to better categorize cost savings over time.

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARYWhat is already known about this subject Current monitoring of therapy for hormone receptor positive metastatic breast cancer involves a combination of tumor marker testing, imaging, and other tools. Monitoring is variable in practice, and therefore relatively insensitive to evidence of tumor progression.What this study adds DiviTum TKa is a novel biomarker that may offer a more convenient and sensitive alternative to traditional monitoring of metastatic breast cancer. Factoring in cost offsets due to reduced monitoring and earlier discontinuation of futile therapies may be cost-saving to health plans that cover this technology.

Cost-effectiveness of oral semaglutide added to current antihyperglycemic treatment for type 2 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Oral semaglutide is the first oral formulation of a glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist to be approved in the United States for glycemic control in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). While oral semaglutide is not indicated for reduction of cardiovascular event risk, its label does include evidence of no increase in cardiovascular risk in people who received oral semaglutide. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the incremental value of oral semaglutide added to existing antihyperglycemic treatment for people with T2DM with additional risk for cardiovascular disease. METHODS: We estimated the lifetime cost-effectiveness of oral semaglutide added to current antihyperglycemic treatment for T2DM using a microsimulation model based primarily on the UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Outcomes Model 2 (OM2) equations. Oral semaglutide added to current antihyperglycemic treatment was separately compared with (a) ongoing background antihyperglycemic treatment, (b) sitagliptin, (c) empagliflozin, and (d) liraglutide. Comparators sitagliptin, empagliflozin, and liraglutide were added to ongoing antihyperglycemic treatment. We applied hazard ratios derived from a network meta-analysis for cardiovascular and renal outcomes to the UKPDS OM2 estimated baseline rates. Health state utilities and costs were derived from the published literature. We estimated total costs, life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), clinical events, and cost per major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) avoided, over a lifetime time horizon using discount rates of 3% for costs and outcomes. RESULTS: The lifetime total cost for people treated with oral semaglutide was $311,300, with costs for the other comparators ranging from $262,800 (background treatment alone) to $287,800 (liraglutide). Oral semaglutide resulted in the fewest MACE, including the fewest cardiovascular deaths. Among the 5 modeled treatment strategies, oral semaglutide had the highest LYs gained (8.43 vs. 7.76 [background treatment alone] to 8.29 [empagliflozin and liraglutide]) and the highest QALYs gained (4.11 vs. 3.70 [background treatment alone] to 4.03 [empagliflozin]). Oral semaglutide would likely be considered cost-effective compared with liraglutide (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER] = $40,100), and moderately cost-effective versus background treatment alone ([ICER] = $117,500/QALY) and sitagliptin (ICER = $145,200/QALY). The ICER for oral semaglutide compared with empagliflozin was approximately $458,400 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: As modeled, oral semaglutide as an add-on therapy to background antihyperglycemic treatment produced incremental benefits in MACE avoided, along with greater QALYs compared with background antihyperglycemic treatment alone. Oral semaglutide use resulted in better outcomes than background treatment alone or sitagliptin, and similar outcomes to liraglutide or empagliflozin with overlapping 95% confidence ranges for QALYs. Oral semaglutide was estimated to be cost-effective compared with liraglutide and to have incremental cost-effectiveness ratios between $100,000 and $150,000 per QALY versus sitagliptin and background therapy alone, but it did not meet these thresholds compared with empagliflozin. DISCLOSURES: Funding for this study was provided by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, an independent organization that evaluates the evidence on the value of health care interventions. ICER reports grants from Laura and John Arnold Foundation, California Health Care Foundation, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, and Kaiser Foundation Health Plan. ICER's annual policy summit is supported by dues from AbbVie, Aetna, America's Health Insurance Plans, Anthem, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Blue Shield of CA, Cambia Health Services, CVS, Editas, Evolve Pharmacy, Express Scripts, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Harvard Pilgrim, Health Care Service Corporation, Health Partners, Humana, Johnson & Johnson (Janssen), Kaiser Permanente, LEO Pharma, Mallinckrodt, Merck, Novartis, National Pharmaceutical Council, Premera, Prime Therapeutics, Regeneron, Sanofi, Spark Therapeutics, uniQure, and United Healthcare. Rind, Fazioli, Chapman, and Pearson are employed by ICER. Guzauskas and Hansen have nothing to disclose. Study results were presented at the New England Comparative Effectiveness Public Advisory Council (New England CEPAC), November 14, 2019, at Brown University, Providence, RI.

Cost-effectiveness of obinutuzumab versus rituximab biosimilars for previously untreated follicular lymphoma.

BACKGROUND: In the randomized phase 3 GALLIUM trial, first-line treatment with obinutuzumab (GA101; G) plus chemotherapy (G + chemo) resulted in superior progression-free survival (PFS) compared with rituximab plus chemotherapy (R + chemo) for patients with follicular lymphoma (FL). G + chemo was found to be cost-effective when compared with R + chemo (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER] of approximately $2,300 per quality-adjusted life-year [QALY] gained). Two rituximab biosimilars, rituximab-abbs (Ra) and rituximab-pvvr (Rp), have been approved by the FDA for use in this setting. However, the cost-effectiveness of G + chemo versus Ra + chemo and Rp + chemo has not yet been estimated. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of G + chemo versus Ra + chemo and Rp + chemo in the first-line treatment of FL. METHODS: We adapted an existing Markov model that compared G + chemo with R + chemo, using investigator-assessed PFS and postprogression survival data from the GALLIUM trial to model overall survival. All patients in the study received induction chemoimmunotherapy with either G + chemo or R + chemo, with responders then receiving obinutuzumab or rituximab maintenance therapy for 2 years or until disease progression. We assumed that the efficacy and safety of the rituximab biosimilars plus chemotherapy were the same as the R + chemo arm of the GALLIUM study. Drug utilization and treatment duration were also derived from GALLIUM. Health care costs were based on Medicare reimbursements, and drug costs were average sale prices for intravenous therapies or wholesale acquisition costs for oral therapies used after progression. Utility estimates were based on the GALLIUM trial data and published literature. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the key drivers of the model and uncertainty in the results. Results: Treatment with G + chemo led to an increase of 0.93 QALYs relative to rituximab biosimilars plus chemotherapy (95% credible range [CR] = 0.36-1.46). The total cost of G + chemo was $191,317, whereas the total costs of Ra + chemo and Rp + chemo were $164,340 (Δ14.1%) and $169,755 (Δ11.3%), respectively, with G + chemo resulting in incremental costs of $26,978 (95% CR = $19,781-$33,119) and $21,562 (95% CR = $14,473-$28,389), respectively. The incremental total drug and administration costs were $32,678 (Δ25.4%) and $27,263 (Δ21.2%) for G + chemo versus Ra + chemo and G + chemo versus Rp + chemo, respectively. There were cost savings of $7,050 (Δ-12.4%) related to disease progression for G + chemo ($56,727) compared with Ra + chemo and Rp + chemo ($63,777). ICERs were $28,879 and $23,082 per QALY gained for G + chemo versus Ra + chemo and Rp + chemo, respectively. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, G + chemo was cost-effective at the $50,000 and $100,000 per QALY thresholds versus both Ra + chemo (88% and 98% probabilities of cost-effectiveness, respectively) and Rp + chemo (93% and 98%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: G + chemo is projected to be cost-effective versus rituximab biosimilars plus chemotherapy in the United States as first-line treatment for FL, driven by increased QALYs for G + chemo and cost savings from delayed disease progression. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Genentech, a member of the Roche Group. The study sponsor was involved in study design, data interpretation, and writing of the report. All authors approved the decision to submit the report for publication. Spencer and Guzauskas report fees from Genentech during the conduct of the study. Felizzi was employed by F. Hoffmann-La Roche at the time this study was conducted; Launonen is an employees of F. Hoffmann-La Roche. Felizzi and Launonen previously had share ownership in Novartis. Dawson and Masaquel are employees of Genentech, and they have stock options in F. Hoffmann-La Roche. Veenstra reports fees from Genentech, during the conduct of this study and outside of the submitted work. This work was presented, in part, at the AACR Virtual Meeting Advances in Malignant Lymphoma meeting (virtual; August 17-19, 2020) and the SOHO annual meeting (virtual; September 9-12, 2020).

Cost-effectiveness of Population-Wide Genomic Screening for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer in the United States.

Importance: Genomic screening for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) in unselected women offers an opportunity to prevent cancer morbidity and mortality, but the potential clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of such screening have not been well studied. Objective: To estimate the lifetime incremental incidence of HBOC and the quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs, and cost-effectiveness of HBOC genomic screening in an unselected population vs family history-based testing. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this study conducted from October 27, 2017, to May 3, 2020, a decision analytic Markov model was developed that included health states for precancer, for risk-reducing mastectomy (RRM) and risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO), for earlier- and later-stage HBOC, after cancer, and for death. A complimentary cascade testing module was also developed to estimate outcomes in first-degree relatives. Age-specific RRM and RRSO uptake probabilities were estimated from the Geisinger MyCode Community Health Initiative and published sources. Parameters including RRM and RRSO effectiveness, variant-specific cancer risk, costs, and utilities were derived from published sources. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were conducted to evaluate model assumptions and uncertainty. Main Outcomes and Measures: Lifetime cancer incidence, QALYs, life-years, and direct medical costs for genomic screening in an unselected population vs family history-based testing only were calculated. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated as the difference in cost between strategies divided by the difference in QALYs between strategies. Earlier-stage and later-stage cancer cases prevented and total cancer cases prevented were also calculated. Results: The model found that population screening of 30-year-old women was associated with 75 (95% credible range [CR], 60-90) fewer overall cancer cases and 288 QALYs (95% CR, 212-373 QALYs) gained per 100 000 women screened, at an incremental cost of $25 million (95% CR, $21 millon to $30 million) vs family history-based testing; the ICER was $87 700 (78% probability of being cost-effective at a threshold of $100 000 per QALY). In contrast, population screening of 45-year-old women was associated with 24 (95% CR, 18-29) fewer cancer cases and 97 QALYs (95% CR, 66-130 QALYs) gained per 100 000 women screened, at an incremental cost of $26 million (95% CR, $22 million to $30 million); the ICER was $268 200 (0% probability of being cost-effective at a threshold of $100 000 per QALY). A scenario analysis without cascade testing increased the ICER to $92 600 for 30-year-old women and $354 500 for 45-year-old women. A scenario analysis assuming a 5% absolute decrease in mammography screening in women without a variant was associated with the potential for net harm (-90 QALYs per 100 000 women screened; 95% CR, -180 to 10 QALYs). Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this study suggest that population HBOC screening may be cost-effective among younger women but not among older women. Cascade testing of first-degree relatives added a modest improvement in clinical and economic value. The potential for harm conferred by inappropriate reduction in mammography among noncarriers should be quantified.

The Effectiveness and Value of Oral Semaglutide for Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.

DISCLOSURES: Funding for this summary was contributed by Arnold Ventures, California Health Care Foundation, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, and Kaiser Foundation Health Plan to the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), an independent organization that evaluates the evidence on the value of health care interventions. ICER's annual policy summit is supported by dues from Aetna, America's Health Insurance Plans, Anthem, Allergan, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Blue Shield of CA, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Cambia Health Services, CVS, Editas, Express Scripts, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Harvard Pilgrim, Health Care Service Corporation, HealthFirst, Health Partners, Johnson & Johnson (Janssen), Kaiser Permanente, LEO Pharma, Mallinckrodt, Merck, Novartis, National Pharmaceutical Council, Pfizer, Premera, Prime Therapeutics, Regeneron, Sanofi, Spark Therapeutics, and United Healthcare. Fazioli, Rind, and Pearson are employed by ICER. Gazauskas and Hansen have nothing to disclose.

The Effectiveness and Value of Oral Immunotherapy and Viaskin Peanut for Peanut Allergy.

DISCLOSURES: Funding for this summary was contributed by Arnold Ventures, Commonwealth Fund, California Health Care Foundation, National Institute for Health Care Management (NIHCM), New England States Consortium Systems Organization, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, and Partners HealthCare to the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), an independent organization that evaluates the evidence on the value of health care interventions. ICER's annual policy summit is supported by dues from Aetna, America's Health Insurance Plans, Anthem, Allergan, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Blue Shield of CA, Cambia Health Services, CVS, Editas, Express Scripts, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Harvard Pilgrim, Health Care Service Corporation, Health Partners, Johnson & Johnson (Janssen), Kaiser Permanente, LEO Pharma, Mallinckrodt, Merck, Novartis, National Pharmaceutical Council, Premera, Prime Therapeutics, Regeneron, Sanofi, Spark Therapeutics, and United Healthcare. Herron-Smith and Pearson are employed by ICER, which has a contract with the University of California, San Francisco, to perform work for these analyses. Segal was employed by ICER at the time of this review. Tice and Walsh are employed by the University of California, San Francisco. Gazauskas and Hansen have nothing to disclose.

Influence of Modeling Choices on Value of Information Analysis: An Empirical Analysis from a Real-World Experiment.

BACKGROUND: Value of information (VOI) analysis often requires modeling to characterize and propagate uncertainty. In collaboration with a cancer clinical trial group, we integrated a VOI approach to assessing trial proposals. OBJECTIVE: This paper aims to explore the impact of modeling choices on VOI results and to share lessons learned from the experience. METHODS: After selecting two proposals (A: phase III, breast cancer; B: phase II, pancreatic cancer) for in-depth evaluations, we categorized key modeling choices relevant to trial decision makers (characterizing uncertainty of efficacy, evidence thresholds to change clinical practice, and sample size) and modelers (cycle length, survival distribution, simulation runs, and other choices). Using a $150,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) threshold, we calculated the patient-level expected value of sample information (EVSI) for each proposal and examined whether each modeling choice led to relative change of more than 10% from the averaged base-case estimate. We separately analyzed the impact of the effective time horizon. RESULTS: The base-case EVSI was $118,300 for Proposal A and $22,200 for Proposal B per patient. Characterizing uncertainty of efficacy was the most important choice in both proposals (e.g. Proposal A: $118,300 using historical data vs. $348,300 using expert survey), followed by the sample size and the choice of survival distribution. The assumed effective time horizon also had a substantial impact on the population-level EVSI. CONCLUSIONS: Modeling choices can have a substantial impact on VOI. Therefore, it is important for groups working to incorporate VOI into research prioritization to adhere to best practices, be clear in their reporting and justification for modeling choices, and to work closely with the relevant decision makers, with particular attention to modeling choices.

Are There Different Evidence Thresholds for Genomic Versus Clinical Precision Medicine? A Value of Information-Based Framework Applied to Antiplatelet Drug Therapy.

BACKGROUND: The threshold of sufficient evidence for adoption of clinically- and genomically-guided precision medicine (PM) has been unclear. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate evidence thresholds for clinically guided PM versus genomically guided PM. METHODS: We develop an "evidence threshold criterion" (ETC), which is the time-weighted difference between expected value of perfect information and incremental net health benefit minus the cost of research, and use it as a measure of evidence threshold that is proportional to the upper bound of disutility to a risk-averse decision maker for adopting a new intervention under decision uncertainty. A larger (more negative) ETC value indicates that only decision makers with low risk aversion would adopt new intervention. We evaluated the ETC plus cost of research (ETCc), assuming the same cost of research for both interventions, over time for a pharmacogenomic (PGx) testing intervention and avoidance of a drug-drug interaction (aDDI) intervention for acute coronary syndrome patients indicated for antiplatelet therapy. We then examined how the ETC may explain incongruous decision making across different national decision-making bodies. RESULTS: The ETCc for PGx increased over time, whereas the ETCc for aDDI decreased to a negative value over time, indicating that decision makers with even low risk aversion will have doubts in adopting PGx, whereas decision makers who are highly risk-averse will continue to have doubts about adopting aDDI. National recommendation bodies appear to be consistent over time within their own decision making, but had different levels of risk aversion. CONCLUSION: The ETC may be a useful metric for assessing policy makers' risk preferences and, in particular, understanding differences in policy recommendations for genomic versus clinical PM.

Tumor treating fields and maintenance temozolomide for newly-diagnosed glioblastoma: a cost-effectiveness study.

Purpose: The EF-14 trial demonstrated that adding tumor treating fields (TTFields) to maintenance temozolomide (TMZ) significantly extends progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for newly-diagnosed glioblastoma (GBM) patients. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of TTFields and TMZ for newly-diagnosed GBM from the US healthcare system perspective. Methods and materials: Outcomes for newly-diagnosed GBM patients were estimated over a lifetime horizon using an area under the curve model with three states: stable disease, progressive disease, or death. The survival model integrated the 5-year EF-14 trial results with long-term GBM epidemiology data and US background mortality rates. Adverse event rates were derived from the EF-14 trial data. Utility values to determine quality-adjusted life-years, adverse event costs, and supportive care costs were obtained from published literature. A 3% discount rate was applied to future costs and outcomes. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess result uncertainty due to parameter variability. Results: Treatment with TTFields and TMZ was estimated to result in a mean increase in survival of 1.25 life years (95% credible range [CR] = 0.89-1.67) and 0.96 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) (95% CR = 0.67-1.30) compared to treatment with TMZ alone. The incremental total cost was $188,637 (95% CR = $145,324-$225,330). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was $150,452 per life year gained and $197,336 per QALY gained. The model was most sensitive to changes in the cost of TTFields treatment. Conclusions: Adding TTFields to maintenance TMZ resulted in a substantial increase in the estimated mean lifetime survival and quality-adjusted survival for newly-diagnosed GBM patients. Treatment with TTFields can be considered cost-effective within the reported range of willingness-to-pay thresholds in the US.

Obinutuzumab plus chemotherapy followed by obinutuzumab monotherapy is cost-effective vs. rituximab plus chemotherapy followed by rituximab monotherapy for previously untreated follicular lymphoma patients in the United States.

The GALLIUM trial compared obinutuzumab (GA101, G)-based chemotherapy followed by G monotherapy (G + chemo) for up to two years to rituximab (R)-based chemotherapy followed by R monotherapy (R + chemo) for up to two years in previously untreated follicular lymphoma (FL) patients. We estimated the cost-effectiveness of G + chemo versus R + chemo utilizing GALLIUM trial data and published literature. G + chemo had increased drug costs (undiscounted: $135,200 versus $127,700 for R + chemo), representing a relative increase of 5.9%. However, this was offset by a $6,400 lower cost for disease progression. G + chemo led to increased quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) relative to R + chemo of 0.81 (95% credible range, [CR]: 0.22-1.37), and the overall discounted incremental cost was $1,900 (95% CR: -$7,400 to $8,900). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was ∼$2,300 per QALY gained, and the results were highly robust to sensitivity analyses. Treatment with G + chemo compared to R + chemo is cost-effective in previously untreated FL patients in the US.

Estimated lifetime survival benefit of tumor treating fields and temozolomide for newly diagnosed glioblastoma patients.

AIM: To estimate the mean lifetime survival benefit, an essential component of health economic evaluations in oncology, of adding tumor treating fields (TTFields) to maintenance temozolomide (TMZ) for newly diagnosed glioblastoma patients. METHODS: We integrated EF-14 trial data with glioblastoma epidemiology data. The model provided for an evidence-based approach to estimate lifetime survival for the material number of EF-14 trial patients still alive at 5 years. RESULTS & CONCLUSION: Patients treated with TTFields and TMZ had an incremental mean lifetime survival of 1.8 years (TTFields/TMZ: 4.2 vs TMZ alone: 2.4). Patients alive at year 2 after starting TTFields had a 20.7% probability of surviving to year 10. The results presented here provide the required incremental survival benefit necessary for a future assessment of the incremental cost-effectiveness of TTFields.

Integrating value of research into NCI Clinical Trials Cooperative Group research review and prioritization: A pilot study.

BACKGROUND: The Institute of Medicine has called for approaches to help maximize the return on investments (ROI) in cancer clinical trials. Value of Research (VOR) is a health economics technique that estimates ROI and can inform research prioritization. Our objective was to evaluate the impact of using VOR analyses on the clinical trial proposal review process within the SWOG cancer clinical trials consortium. METHODS: We used a previously developed minimal modeling approach to calculate VOR estimates for 9 phase II/III SWOG proposals between February 2015 and December 2016. Estimates were presented to executive committee (EC) members (N = 12) who determine which studies are sent to the National Cancer Institute for funding consideration. EC members scored proposals from 1 (best) to 5 based on scientific merit and potential impact before and after receiving VOR estimates. EC members were surveyed to assess research priorities, proposal evaluation process satisfaction, and the VOR process. RESULTS: Value of Research estimates ranged from -$2.1B to $16.46B per proposal. Following review of VOR results, the EC changed their score for eight of nine proposals. Proposal rankings were different in pre- vs postscores (P value: 0.03). Respondents had mixed views of the ultimate utility of VOR for their decisions with most supporting (42%) or neutral (41%) to the idea of adding VOR to the evaluation process. CONCLUSIONS: The findings from this pilot study indicate use of VOR analyses may be a useful adjunct to inform proposal reviews within NCI Cooperative Clinical Trials groups.