Incorporating risk preferences of patients in the valuation of immune checkpoint inhibitors for non-small cell lung cancer.

Immunotherapy offers a distinctive mechanism of action compared to traditional treatments, arising from additional value dimensions that may not be captured in standard health technology assessments. Cancer patients may have the expectation that immunotherapy provides durable, long-term survival gains. Moreover, some patients may be willing to take a 'risk' to undergo immunotherapy to achieve better survival outcomes. We reviewed quantitative methods that explored patients' risk preferences in their non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treatment choices, in PubMed (MEDLINE), from January 1, 2015, until July 1, 2022. The consideration of a value dimension ('hope') based on patients' risk-seeking preferences is specifically addressed for the valuation of immune checkpoint inhibitors in NSCLC. We reported that the quantitative methods that aim to measure patients' risk preferences or 'hope' empirically are emerging. Value assessments should not only comprise survival improvements for the mean or median patient but also consider methods that reflect durable, long-term overall survival gains for risk-seeking patients. However, the published evidence for incorporating 'hope' based on patients' stated preferences for uncertain treatment profiles is not strong, and future research could strengthen this evidence base. We encourage further research on the development and validation of quantification methods to incorporate 'hope' and risk preferences of patients treated with immunotherapy for NSCLC and beyond.

Cost-effectiveness of first line nivolumab-ipilimumab combination therapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer: A systematic review and methodological quality assessment.

To assess the methodological quality of cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) of nivolumab in combination with ipilimumab, we conducted a systematic literature review in the first-line treatment of patients with recurrent or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), whose tumors express programmed death ligand-1, with no epidermal growth factor receptor or anaplastic lymphoma kinase genomic tumor aberrations. PubMed, Embase, and the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry were searched, in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed by the Philips checklist and the Consensus Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) checklist. 171 records were identified. Seven studies met the inclusion criteria. Cost-effectiveness analyses differed substantially due to the applied modeling methods, sources of costs, health state utilities, and key assumptions. Quality assessment of the included studies highlighted shortcomings in data identification, uncertainty assessment, and methods transparency. Our systematic review and methodology assessment revealed that the methods of estimation of long-term outcomes, quantification of health state utility values, estimation of drug costs, the accuracy of data sources, and their credibility have important implications on the cost-effectiveness outcomes. None of the included studies fulfilled all of the criteria reported in the Philips and the CHEC checklists. To compound the economic consequences presented in these limited number of CEAs, ipilimumab's drug action as a combination therapy poses significant uncertainty. We encourage further research to address the economic consequences of these combination agents in future CEAs and the clinical uncertainties of ipilimumab for NSCLC in future trials.

Attribution of value for combination immune checkpoint inhibitors in non-small cell lung cancer.

Immunotherapy represents a significant breakthrough in the treatment of cancer, including non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are used in combination with other treatments to provide clinically meaningful outcomes for NSCLC patients. However, there are distinct mechanisms of action that an ICI may provide such clinically meaningful benefits. We focused on the valuation of ICIs when used in combination with existing treatments for NSCLC, by addressing the following questions: (1) do combination ICIs improve clinical outcomes due to independent, rather than synergistic or additive drug action; and (2) how should we attribute value to the constituent parts of combination ICIs? To address these questions, we reviewed the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) drug database and Clinicaltrials.gov from January 1, 2012, until June 1, 2022, to identify approved indications of combination ICIs in NSCLC. For valuation methods, a separate search was conducted in PubMed, health technology assessment databases, and grey literature to identify published value assessment or attribution methods, specifically in the context of combination (cancer) treatments. As of June 1, 2022, the FDA approved eight combination ICI indications for NSCLC. The underlying mechanisms for the improved clinical benefits of these ICI therapies are not well studied. The superiority of combination ICI therapies compared to monotherapy in multiple indications does not indicate whether synergy or additivity is involved, or necessary. Policy statement: We encourage further research on the development of value attribution framework methods for combination therapies to quantify their added health benefits and economic value in the future. Given the valuation challenges of combination ICIs, their mechanism of action poses significant uncertainty and requires further clinical investigation to address whether synergy or additivity is existent.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors for the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer: A comparison of the regulatory approvals in Europe and the United States.

Regulatory authorization of oncology drugs, including immune-checkpoint inhibitors, is often based on enhanced efficacy and acceptable toxicity profiles, investigated in randomized, open-label clinical trials. Regulatory approval decisions of the United States (US) Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) are frequently compared and contrasted, specifically based on review requirements, and time to approval or refusal decisions. We reviewed databases of the US FDA, the EMA and Clinicaltrials.gov, from January 1, 2015 until December 31, 2021, and analyzed regulatory approvals for immune-checkpoint inhibitors in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We specifically focused on time to approval duration of each immune-checkpoint inhibitor, and considerations of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) by each regulatory agency. Despite similarities in the regulatory pathways and methods used for immune-checkpoint inhibitor approvals, NSCLC indications that stood out in terms of outcome divergence were mainly first-line drugs for treatment naïve patients. The US FDA was quicker to reach approval decisions, when compared with the EMA. The US FDA and the EMA both recognize the value of PROs as important patient-centered endpoints. Policy statement: There are several regulatory structures in the US and Europe that aim to leverage the latest clinical trial evidence and speed up the regulatory approval processes. In our study, the preponderance of outcome differences in approvals were not influenced by the expedited drug development and access programs. Increased harmonization and collaboration on the PRO measurement and validation are encouraged among these agencies to improve the efficiency of regulatory decisions in the future.

Analysis of patient reported outcomes included in the registrational clinical trials of nivolumab for advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

In the era of value-based oncology care, stakeholders are increasingly using patient reported outcomes (PROs) to guide clinical and regulatory decisions. PROs are also included in health technology assessments to guide patient access, drug reimbursement and pricing. We reviewed PROs collected in the United States Food and Drug Administration approved indications of nivolumab in advanced NSCLC. We analyzed the PRO data reported in the CheckMate 9LA (NCT03215706), CheckMate 227 (NCT02477826), CheckMate 057 (NCT01673867), and CheckMate 017 (NCT01642004) registrational clinical trials, and concluded that nivolumab alleviated symptom burden and improved health status of patients in this setting. However, inability of the included PRO instruments to measure immune-related adverse events, differences in the timing of PRO evaluation between treatment groups, incomplete patient participation at all time points, limited patient participation in the later time points, and interpretation of the longitudinal data are key challenges that impede accurate analysis and validation of PROs.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of the first-line EGFR-TKIs in patients with non-small cell lung cancer harbouring EGFR mutations.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the cost-effectiveness of first-line gefitinib, erlotinib, afatinib, and osimertinib in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harbouring epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations. METHODS: A systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) were conducted to compare the relative efficacy of gefitinib, erlotinib, afatinib, and osimertinib in EGFR-mutated NSCLC. To assess the cost-effectiveness of these treatments, a Markov model was developed from Dutch societal perspective. The model was based on the clinical studies included in the NMA. Incremental costs per life-year (LY) and per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained were estimated. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were conducted. RESULTS: Total discounted per patient costs for gefitinib, erlotinib, afatinib, and osimertinib were €65,889, €64,035, €69,418, and €131,997, and mean QALYs were 1.36, 1.39, 1.52, and 2.01 per patient, respectively. Erlotinib dominated gefitinib. Afatinib versus erlotinib yielded incremental costs of €27,058/LY and €41,504/QALY gained. Osimertinib resulted in €91,726/LY and €128,343/QALY gained compared to afatinib. PSA showed that gefitinib, erlotinib, afatinib, and osimertinib had 13%, 19%, 43%, and 26% probability to be cost-effective at a threshold of €80,000/QALY. A price reduction of osimertinib of 30% is required for osimertinib to be cost-effective at a threshold of €80,000/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Osimertinib has a better effectiveness compared to all other TKIs. However, at a Dutch threshold of €80,000/QALY, osimertinib appears not to be cost-effective.

Faecal immunochemical tests (FIT) can help to rule out colorectal cancer in patients presenting in primary care with lower abdominal symptoms: a systematic review conducted to inform new NICE DG30 diagnostic guidance.

BACKGROUND: This study has attempted to assess the effectiveness of quantitative faecal immunochemical tests (FIT) for triage of people presenting with lower abdominal symptoms, where a referral to secondary care for investigation of suspected colorectal cancer (CRC) is being considered, particularly when the 2-week criteria are not met. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review following published guidelines for systematic reviews of diagnostic tests. Twenty-one resources were searched up until March 2016. Summary estimates were calculated using a bivariate model or a random-effects logistic regression model. RESULTS: Nine studies are included in this review. One additional study, included in our systematic review, was provided as 'academic in confidence' and cannot be described herein. When FIT was based on a single faecal sample and a cut-off of 10 µg Hb/g faeces, sensitivity estimates indicated that a negative result using either the OC-Sensor or HM-JACKarc may be adequate to rule out nearly all CRC; the summary estimate of sensitivity for the OC-Sensor was 92.1% (95% confidence interval, CI 86.9-95.3%), based on four studies (n = 4091 participants, 176 with CRC), and the only study of HM-JACKarc to assess the 10 µg Hb/g faeces cut-off (n = 507 participants, 11 with CRC) reported a sensitivity of 100% (95% CI 71.5-100%). The corresponding specificity estimates were 85.8% (95% CI 78.3-91.0%) and 76.6% (95% CI 72.6-80.3%), respectively. When the diagnostic criterion was changed to include lower grades of neoplasia, i.e. the target condition included higher risk adenoma (HRA) as well as CRC, the rule-out performance of both FIT assays was reduced. CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence to suggest that triage using FIT at a cut-off around 10 µg Hb/g faeces has the potential to correctly rule out CRC and avoid colonoscopy in 75-80% of symptomatic patients. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO 42016037723.

Faecal immunochemical tests to triage patients with lower abdominal symptoms for suspected colorectal cancer referrals in primary care: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer in the UK. Presenting symptoms that can be associated with CRC usually have another explanation. Faecal immunochemical tests (FITs) detect blood that is not visible to the naked eye and may help to select patients who are likely to benefit from further investigation. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of FITs [OC-Sensor (Eiken Chemical Co./MAST Diagnostics, Tokyo, Japan), HM-JACKarc (Kyowa Medex/Alpha Laboratories Ltd, Tokyo, Japan), FOB Gold (Sentinel/Sysmex, Sentinel Diagnostics, Milan, Italy), RIDASCREEN Hb or RIDASCREEN Hb/Hp complex (R-Biopharm, Darmstadt, Germany)] for primary care triage of people with low-risk symptoms. METHODS: Twenty-four resources were searched to March 2016. Review methods followed published guidelines. Summary estimates were calculated using a bivariate model or a random-effects logistic regression model. The cost-effectiveness analysis considered long-term costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) that were associated with different faecal occult blood tests and direct colonoscopy referral. Modelling comprised a diagnostic decision model, a Markov model for long-term costs and QALYs that were associated with CRC treatment and progression, and a Markov model for QALYs that were associated with no CRC. RESULTS: We included 10 studies. Using a single sample and 10 µg Hb/g faeces threshold, sensitivity estimates for OC-Sensor [92.1%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 86.9% to 95.3%] and HM-JACKarc (100%, 95% CI 71.5% to 100%) indicated that both may be useful to rule out CRC. Specificity estimates were 85.8% (95% CI 78.3% to 91.0%) and 76.6% (95% CI 72.6% to 80.3%). Triage using FITs could rule out CRC and avoid colonoscopy in approximately 75% of symptomatic patients. Data from our systematic review suggest that 22.5-93% of patients with a positive FIT and no CRC have other significant bowel pathologies. The results of the base-case analysis suggested minimal difference in QALYs between all of the strategies; no triage (referral straight to colonoscopy) is the most expensive. Faecal immunochemical testing was cost-effective (cheaper and more, or only slightly less, effective) compared with no triage. Faecal immunochemical testing was more effective and costly than guaiac faecal occult blood testing, but remained cost-effective at a threshold incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £30,000. The results of scenario analyses did not differ substantively from the base-case. Results were better for faecal immunochemical testing when accuracy of the guaiac faecal occult blood test (gFOBT) was based on studies that were more representative of the correct population. LIMITATIONS: Only one included study evaluated faecal immunochemical testing in primary care; however, all of the other studies evaluated faecal immunochemical testing at the point of referral. Further, validation data for the Faecal haemoglobin, Age and Sex Test (FAST) score, which includes faecal immunochemical testing, showed no significant difference in performance between primary and secondary care. There were insufficient data to adequately assess FOB Gold, RIDASCREEN Hb or RIDASCREEN Hb/Hp complex. No study compared FIT assays, or FIT assays versus gFOBT; all of the data included in this assessment refer to the clinical effectiveness of individual FIT methods and not their comparative effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Faecal immunochemical testing is likely to be a clinically effective and cost-effective strategy for triaging people who are presenting, in primary care settings, with lower abdominal symptoms and who are at low risk for CRC. Further research is required to confirm the effectiveness of faecal immunochemical testing in primary care practice and to compare the performance of different FIT assays. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016037723. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Real-world medical costs of antiviral therapy among patients with chronic HCV infection and advanced hepatic fibrosis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Very potent direct acting antivirals for the treatment of chronic hepatitis C virus infection were recently introduced into daily clinical practice. Currently, treatment uptake is hampered by their high costs, eliciting prioritization of treatment. We aimed to evaluate the direct medical costs during interferon (IFN)-based antiviral treatment and the costs per sustained virological response (SVR) among patients with advanced hepatic fibrosis. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included all consecutive patients with chronic hepatitis C virus infection and biopsy-proven bridging fibrosis or cirrhosis (Ishak 4-6) treated with IFN-based regimens in five hepatology units of tertiary care centers in Europe and Canada. Direct medical costs, expressed in 2013 Euros, during therapy were assessed. The components of care were quantified by three distinct categories: treatment, safety/ monitoring, and complications. Cost per SVR was calculated by dividing the mean cost by the SVR rate. RESULTS: In total, 672 interferon-based treatments administered to 455 patients were included. Total medical costs per patient were averaged to €14 559 (95% confidence interval [CI], €13 323-€15 836). The mean cost per SVR was €38 514 (95% CI, €35 244-€41 892). The costs per SVR were €26 105 (95% CI, €23 068-€29 296) for patients with a normal platelet count and €50 907 (95% CI, €44 151-€59 612) for patients with thrombocytopenia, with the costs per SVR of €74 961 (95% CI, €55 463-€103 541) among those patients with a platelet count below 100 * 109 /L. CONCLUSIONS: Because of the lower SVR rates, the cost per SVR of IFN-based treatment increased when patients with more advanced liver disease were treated. Additional costs of IFN-free therapy could be limited among these patients.