Real-world healthcare resource utilization and costs of weekly versus every-2-week cetuximab in metastatic colorectal cancer.

Aim: To compare healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and healthcare costs (HC) for every-2-week (Q2W) versus weekly (Q1W) cetuximab in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Patients & methods: Patients with mCRC receiving cetuximab plus chemotherapy in a line-agnostic setting. Cohort study of patients with mCRC treated with cetuximab and chemotherapy in IBM MarketScan. Analyses were weighted by inverse probability of treatment based on propensity score. Results: HRU was numerically lower with the Q2W versus Q1W regimen (weighted mean, 8.1 vs 9.5 encounters per-patient-per-month). The weighted average of HC was $17,653 and $16,469 per-patient-per-month for the Q2W and Q1W regimens, respectively; the difference between regimens decreased when restricting to CRC-related claims. Conclusion: HRU was lower and HC were similar between the Q2W and Q1W regimens.

Comparative effectiveness of weekly versus every-2-weeks cetuximab in metastatic colorectal cancer in a US-insured population.

Aim: To test the noninferiority of cetuximab administered every 2 weeks (Q2W) versus once weekly (Q1W) in treating metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) with regard to overall survival (OS). Patients: Patients receiving cetuximab plus chemotherapy for mCRC in a line-agnostic setting. Methods: This cohort study in IBM MarketScan followed patients from initiation of cetuximab for mCRC until the end of the data availability period, proxy-based death or loss of insurance coverage for >30 days. Results: The hazard ratio for OS was 0.94 (0.85-1.03), and the inferiority hypothesis was rejected at p < 0.001. No significant differences were noted in rates of safety events between Q2W and Q1W. Conclusion: Our real-world study confirmed the noninferiority of cetuximab administered Q2W versus Q1W for OS.

Cost-effectiveness of FOLFIRI + cetuximab vs FOLFIRI + bevacizumab in the first-line treatment of RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer in Germany: data from the FIRE-3 (AIO KRK-0306) study.

Aims: This analysis evaluates the cost-effectiveness of first-line treatment with FOLFIRI + cetuximab vs FOLFIRI + bevacizumab for patients with RAS wild-type (wt) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in Germany based on the randomized phase 3 FIRE-3 trial. For patients with RAS wt mCRC, FOLFIRI + cetuximab yielded statistically significant median overall survival gains over FOLFIRI + bevacizumab.Materials and methods: A standard 3-state partitioned survival cost-utility model was developed to compare the health benefits and costs of treatment from a German social health insurance perspective using individual patient-level trial data. Health outcomes were reported in life-years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained. Survival was estimated based on Kaplan-Meier (KM) curves supplemented with best-fitting parametric survival model extrapolations. Subgroup analyses of patients with a left-sided primary tumor location or patients with metastases confined to the liver were performed.Results: In the modified intention-to-treat analysis, FOLFIRI + cetuximab, providing 0.68 additional LYs (0.53 QALYs), yielded incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of €36,360/LY and €47,250/QALY. In subgroup analyses, patients experienced improved survival gains without a corresponding increase in costs, resulting in lower ICERs. Our model was most sensitive to changes in treatment duration across all lines of therapy, utility of progressive disease, as well as patients' weight and body surface area.Limitations: This cost-effectiveness analysis was based on patient-level data from the FIRE-3 trial. Trial outcomes may not adequately reflect those in the real-world setting. Additionally, resource use and costs were obtained from tariff lists, which do not account for differences in treatment practice. These considerations limit generalizability of outcomes to other countries, or within the German healthcare setting.Conclusions: Based on our analyses, FOLFIRI + cetuximab is cost-effective compared with FOLFIRI + bevacizumab in patients with RAS wt mCRC, with ICERs well below willingness-to-pay thresholds for diseases with a high burden.

Real-world cost-effectiveness of cetuximab in the third-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer based on patient chart review in the Netherlands.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost effectiveness of cetuximab in third-line treatment of patients with KRAS wild-type (wt) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in routine clinical practice compared with best supportive care (BSC). METHODS: Patients (n = 287) with KRAS wt mCRC treated with cetuximab or BSC in eight hospitals in the Netherlands between 2009 and 2012 were included in our real-world study. Outcome measures were costs per life-year (LY) and costs per quality-adjusted LY (QALY) gained. A Markov model was developed, and a time horizon of four years was applied. Outcomes were calculated from Kaplan-Meier survival curves from patient-level data and literature. Direct medical costs were estimated in all centers (2013 values), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated. Results were discounted, and a probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed. RESULTS: Administration of cetuximab in third-line treatment of mCRC resulted in a gain of 0.29 LYs and 0.25 QALYs compared with BSC. In the four-year study period, average discounted healthcare costs were €36,637 in the cetuximab group vs. €3648 in the BSC group. The discounted ICERs of cetuximab vs. BSC in the real-world setting were €114,907and €133,527 per LY and QALY gained, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Results of this cost-effectiveness analysis showed that third-line treatment with cetuximab for patients with KRAS (exon 2) wt mCRC offered clinical benefits at additional cost. The real-world ICERs were in line with those of previously published cetuximab and panitumumab cost-utility models.

Economic Evaluation of Three Frequently Used Gonadotrophins in Assisted Reproduction Techniques in the Management of Infertility in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Subfertility represents a multidimensional problem associated with significant distress and impaired social well-being. In the Netherlands, an estimated 50,000 couples visit their general practitioner and 30,000 couples seek medical specialist care for subfertility. We conducted an economic evaluation comparing recombinant human follicle-stimulating hormone (follitropin alfa, r-hFSH, Gonal-F®) with two classes of urinary gonadotrophins-highly purified human menopausal gonadotrophin (hp-HMG, Menopur®) and urinary follicle-stimulating hormone (uFSH, Fostimon®)-for ovarian stimulation in women undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment in the Netherlands. METHODS: A pharmacoeconomic model was developed, simulating each step in the IVF protocol from the start of therapy until either a live birth, a new IVF treatment cycle or cessation of IVF, following a long down-regulation protocol. A decision tree combined with a Markov model details progress through each health state, including ovum pickup, fresh embryo transfer, up to two subsequent cryo-preserved embryo transfers, and (ongoing) pregnancy or miscarriage. A health insurer perspective was chosen, and the time horizon was set at a maximum of three consecutive treatment cycles, in accordance with Dutch reimbursement policy. Transition probabilities and costing data were derived from a real-world observational outcomes database (from Germany) and official tariff lists (from the Netherlands). Adverse events were considered equal among the comparators and were therefore excluded from the economic analysis. A Monte Carlo simulation of 5000 iterations was undertaken for each strategy to explore uncertainty and to construct uncertainty intervals (UIs). All cost data were valued in 2013 Euros. The model's structure, parameters and assumptions were assessed and confirmed by an external clinician with experience in health economics modelling, to inform on the appropriateness of the outcomes and the applicability of the model in the chosen setting. RESULTS: The mean total treatment costs were estimated as €5664 for follitropin alfa (95 % UI €5167-6151), €5990 for hp-HMG (95 % UI €5498-6488) and €5760 for uFSH (95 % UI €5256-6246). The probability of a live birth was estimated at 36.1 % (95 % UI 27.4-44.3 %), 33.9 % (95 % UI 26.2-41.5 %) and 34.1 % (95 % UI 25.9-41.8 %) for follitropin alfa, hp-HMG and uFSH, respectively. The costs per live birth estimates were €15,674 for follitropin alfa, €17,636 for hp-HMG and €16,878 for uFSH. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated a probability of 72.5 % that follitropin alfa is cost effective at a willingness to pay of €20,000 per live birth. The probabilistic results remained constant under several analyses. CONCLUSION: The present analysis shows that follitropin alfa may represent a cost-effective option in comparison with uFSH and hp-HMG for IVF treatment in the Netherlands healthcare system.

Treatments and costs for recurrent and/or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck in the Netherlands.

For patients with recurrent and/or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (R/M SCCHN), chemotherapy can prolong life and alleviate symptoms. However, expected gains may be small, not necessarily outweighing considerable toxicity and high costs. Treatment choice is to a large extent dependent on preferences of doctors and patients and data on these choices are scarce. The purpose of this study is to obtain real-world information on palliative systemic treatment and costs of R/M SCCHN in the Netherlands. In six Dutch head and neck treatment centers, data were collected on patient and tumor characteristics, treatment patterns, disease progression, survival, adverse events, and resource use for R/M SCCHN, between 2006 and 2013. 125 (14 %) out of 893 R/M SCCHN patients received palliative, non-trial first-line systemic treatment, mainly platinum + 5FU + cetuximab (32 %), other platinum-based combination therapy (13 %), methotrexate monotherapy (27 %) and capecitabine monotherapy (14 %). Median progression-free survival and overall survival were 3.4 and 6.0 months, respectively. 34 (27 %) patients experienced severe adverse events. Mean total hospital costs ranged from € 10,075 (± € 9,891) (methotrexate monotherapy) to € 39,459 (± € 21,149) (platinum + 5FU + cetuximab). Primary cost drivers were hospital stays and anticancer drug treatments. Major health care utilization and costs are involved in systemically treating R/M SCCHN patients with a limited survival.