Cost-Effectiveness of Novel Agent Regimens for Transplant-Eligible Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma Patients in India.

BACKGROUND: Survival outcomes for multiple myeloma have improved dramatically since the introduction of novel therapeutic agents. While these drugs are highly effective in improving survival outcomes and quality of life in patients with multiple myeloma, they come at a significant cost. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of bortezomib-based triplet or quadruplet drug regimens in isolation and followed by autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (AHSCT) for the treatment of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) in the Indian context. METHODS: A Markov model was developed to assess the health and economic outcomes of novel drug regimens with and without AHSCT for the treatment of NDMM in India. We estimated the lifetime quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and costs in each scenario. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were computed and compared against the current willingness-to-pay threshold of a one-time per capita gross domestic product of ₹146,890 (US$1,927.70) for India. Parameter uncertainty was assessed through Monte Carlo probabilistic sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: Among seven treatment sequences, the VCd (bortezomib, cyclophosphamide, dexamethasone) alone arm has the lowest cost and health benefits as compared to four treatment sequences, namely VTd (bortezomib, thalidomide, dexamethasone) alone, VRd (bortezomib, lenalidomide, dexamethasone) alone, VRd plus AHSCT and DVRd (Daratumumab, bortezomib, lenalidomide, dexamethasone) plus AHSCT. It was found that VTd plus AHSCT and VCd plus AHSCT arms were extendedly dominated (ED) by combination of two alternative treatments. Among the five non-dominated strategies, VRd has a lowest incremental cost of ₹ 2,20,093 (US$2,888) per QALY gained compared to VTd alone followed by VRd plus AHSCT [₹3,14,530 (US$4,128) per QALY gained] in comparison to VRd alone. None of the novel treatment sequences were found to be cost-effective at the current WTP threshold of ₹1,46,890 (US$1,927.7). CONCLUSION: At the current WTP threshold of one-time per capita GDP (₹ 146,890) of India, VRd alone and VRd plus AHSCT has 38.1% and 6.9% probability to be cost-effective, respectively. Reduction in current reimbursement rates of novel drugs, namely VRd, lenalidomide, and pomalidomide plus dexamethasone under national insurance program and societal cost of transplant by 50%, would make VRd plus AHSCT and VTd plus AHSCT cost-effective at an incremental cost of ₹40,671 (US$34) and ₹97,639 (US$1,281) per QALY gained, respectively.

Remdesivir and dexamethasone as tools to relieve hospital care systems stressed by COVID-19: A modelling study on bed resources and budget impact.

Remdesivir and dexamethasone are the only drugs providing reductions in the lengths of hospital stays for COVID-19 patients. We assessed the impacts of remdesivir on hospital-bed resources and budgets affected by the COVID-19 outbreak. A stochastic agent-based model was combined with epidemiological data available on the COVID-19 outbreak in France and data from two randomized control trials. Strategies involving treating with remdesivir only patients with low-flow oxygen and patients with low-flow and high-flow oxygen were examined. Treating all eligible low-flow oxygen patients during the entirety of the second wave would have decreased hospital-bed occupancy in conventional wards by 4% [2%; 7%] and intensive care unit (ICU)-bed occupancy by 9% [6%; 13%]. Extending remdesivir use to high-flow-oxygen patients would have amplified reductions in ICU-bed occupancy by up to 14% [18%; 11%]. A minimum remdesivir uptake of 20% was required to observe decreases in bed occupancy. Dexamethasone had effects of similar amplitude. Depending on the treatment strategy, using remdesivir would, in most cases, generate savings (up to 722€) or at least be cost neutral (an extra cost of 34€). Treating eligible patients could significantly limit the saturation of hospital capacities, particularly in ICUs. The generated savings would exceed the costs of medications.

Treatment of moderate to severe respiratory COVID-19: a cost-utility analysis.

Despite COVID-19's significant morbidity and mortality, considering cost-effectiveness of pharmacologic treatment strategies for hospitalized patients remains critical to support healthcare resource decisions within budgetary constraints. As such, we calculated the cost-effectiveness of using remdesivir and dexamethasone for moderate to severe COVID-19 respiratory infections using the United States health care system as a representative model. A decision analytic model modelled a base case scenario of a 60-year-old patient admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Patients requiring oxygen were considered moderate severity, and patients with severe COVID-19 required intubation with intensive care. Strategies modelled included giving remdesivir to all patients, remdesivir in only moderate and only severe infections, dexamethasone to all patients, dexamethasone in severe infections, remdesivir in moderate/dexamethasone in severe infections, and best supportive care. Data for the model came from the published literature. The time horizon was 1 year; no discounting was performed due to the short duration. The perspective was of the payer in the United States health care system. Supportive care for moderate/severe COVID-19 cost $11,112.98 with 0.7155 quality adjusted life-year (QALY) obtained. Using dexamethasone for all patients was the most-cost effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $980.84/QALY; all remdesivir strategies were more costly and less effective. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed dexamethasone for all patients was most cost-effective in 98.3% of scenarios. Dexamethasone for moderate-severe COVID-19 infections was the most cost-effective strategy and would have minimal budget impact. Based on current data, remdesivir is unlikely to be a cost-effective treatment for COVID-19.

A descriptive cost-analysis of MYX.1/MCRN003, a phase 2 clinical trial evaluating high-dose weekly carfilzomib, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone in relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of multiple myeloma is increasing and there is a need to evaluate escalating therapy costs (Canadian Cancer Statistics A, 2020). The MYX.1 phase II trial showed that high-dose weekly carfilzomib, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone (wKCD) is efficacious in relapsed and refractory disease. We conducted a descriptive cost analysis, from the perspective of the Canadian public healthcare system, using trial data. METHODS: The primary outcome was the mean total cost per patient. Resource utilization data were collected from all 75 trial patients over a trial time horizon. Costs are presented in Canadian dollars (2020). RESULTS: The cost of treatment was calculated from the time of patient (pt) enrollment until the second data lock. The mean total cost was $203 336.08/pt (range $17 891.27-$505 583.55) Canadian dollars (CAD, where 1 CAD = 0.67 Euro (EUR)) and $14 081.45/pt per cycle. The median number of cycles was 15. The predominant cost driver was the cost of chemotherapy accounting for an average of $179 332.78/pt or $12 419.17/pt per cycle. Carfilzomib acquisition accounted for the majority of chemotherapy costs - $162 471.65/pt or $11 251.50/pt per cycle. Fifty-six percent (56%) of patients had at least one hospitalization during the trial period with an average cost of $12 657.86 per hospitalization. Three patients developed thrombotic microangiopathy (TMA) with an average cost of $18 863.32/pt including the cost of hospitalizations and therapeutic plasma exchange. CONCLUSIONS: High-dose wKCD is an active triplet regimen for relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) associated with reduced total cost compared with twice-weekly carfilzomib-based regimens.

Lessons Learned Treating Patients with Multiple Myeloma in Resource-Constrained Settings.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Based on personal experiences, recommendations for physicians treating patients with multiple myeloma (MM) in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are proposed. RECOMMENDATIONS: (1) Implement strategies to keep the patient in the best possible condition for the longest time, in addition to focusing on ways to avoid financial toxicity; (2) if lenalidomide is unavailable, start treatment with thalidomide and dexamethasone, include, if possible, bortezomib; (3) conduct an outpatient-based autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) in all eligible patients; (4) use thalidomide as post-ASCT maintenance treatment if lenalidomide is unavailable for the standard risk patients; (5) monitor monoclonal proteins with serum protein electrophoresis and free light chain measurements; (6) employ novel drugs in cases of relapsed or refractory disease; and (7) do not forget supportive therapy. The therapeutic recommendations to treat patients with MM are somewhat different for physicians working in LMICs, compared with those treating patients in high-income countries. These are relevant since more than 50% of the inhabitants of the world live in LMICs, thus indicating that the vast majority of patients with MM are being treated in resource-constrained settings. As time goes by, physicians may acquire the ability to analyze and express their feelings and experiences about topics in the practice of medicine in which they could have learned lessons (1). Since 1980, we have been treating patients with multiple myeloma (MM); to date, we have been personally involved in the study and treatment of more than 300 patients with this disease (2). Having gained experience dealing with MM patients in underprivileged circumstances, such as those prevailing in our country: México, having explored different ideas, treatments, and methods, and being aware of the financial implications which may impact our selection of therapeutic strategies and recommendations, we felt that it was appropriate to share in this article some of these ideas with practitioners around the world who are involved in the treatment of patients with MM in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).

Potential health and economic impacts of dexamethasone treatment for patients with COVID-19.

Dexamethasone can reduce mortality in hospitalised COVID-19 patients needing oxygen and ventilation by 18% and 36%, respectively. Here, we estimate the potential number of lives saved and life years gained if this treatment were to be rolled out in the UK and globally, as well as the cost-effectiveness of implementing this intervention. Assuming SARS-CoV-2 exposure levels of 5% to 15%, we estimate that, for the UK, approximately 12,000 (4,250 - 27,000) lives could be saved between July and December 2020. Assuming that dexamethasone has a similar effect size in settings where access to oxygen therapies is limited, this would translate into approximately 650,000 (240,000 - 1,400,000) lives saved globally over the same time period. If dexamethasone acts differently in these settings, the impact could be less than half of this value. To estimate the full potential of dexamethasone in the global fight against COVID-19, it is essential to perform clinical research in settings with limited access to oxygen and/or ventilators, for example in low- and middle-income countries.

Cost-effectiveness of dexamethasone and triamcinolone for the treatment of diabetic macular oedema in Finland: A Markov-model.

PURPOSE: Diabetic macular oedema (DMO), a complication of diabetes, causes vision loss and blindness. Corticosteroids are usually used as a second-line treatment. The aim of this study was to analyse the cost-effectiveness of dexamethasone implants compared to cheaper and more frequently applied triamcinolone injections. METHODS: Markov-modelling, which incorporated both eyes, was used for economic evaluation. The model consisted of five health states based on visual acuity, illustrating the progression of DMO. A cycle length of five months was chosen for dexamethasone and four months for triamcinolone. Time horizons of two and five years were applied. Transition probabilities and health state utilities were sourced from previous studies. The perspective used in this analysis was the hospital perspective. The health care costs were acquired from Kuopio University Hospital in Finland. RESULTS: In this cost-effectiveness analysis, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio ICER with 3% discount rate was €56 591/QALY for a two-year follow-up and -€1 110 942/QALY for a five-year follow-up. In order to consider dexamethasone as cost-effective over a 2-year time horizon, the WTP needs to be around €55 000/QALY. Over the five-year follow-up, triamcinolone is clearly a dominant treatment. Sensitivity analyses support the cost-effectiveness of dexamethasone over a 2-year time horizon. CONCLUSIONS: Since the sensitivity analyses support the results, dexamethasone would be a cost-effective treatment during the first two years with WTP threshold around €55 000/QALY, and triamcinolone would be a convenient treatment after that. This recommendation is in line with the guidelines of EURETINA.

Two drugs facing key patent expirations and potential generic entry from July to August 2020.

A challenge in anticipating generic entry is elucidating which patents and regulatory protections constrain generic entry.

A budget impact analysis of lenalidomide in multiple myeloma Egyptian patients.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to estimate the budget impact of lenalidomide and dexamethasone (RD) versus bortezomib, cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone (VCD) in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) and relapsed refractory (RR) MM patients, from the perspective of the Egyptian Ministry of health (MoH). METHODS: Two budget impact dynamic models were conducted to assess the budget impact of RD entry over a 3-year period. The clinical data for the modeled cohorts were based on published articles. Total annual medical costs associated with non-progression and progression disease states included the sum of estimated costs for adverse effects management, concomitant treatments, hospitalization and the follow up were measured. Deterministic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: The target population in a given year was estimated to include 245 patients with RRMM and 291 patients with NDMM receiving RD versus VCD. In RRMM, the annual budget savings of lenalidomide entry were estimated at EGP -1,103,969, -3,362,793 and -5,949,228 at year 1, year 2 and year 3, respectively. In NDMM, the annual budget savings of lenalidomide entry were estimated at EGP869,415, -1,779,776 and -2,139,311 at year 1, year 2 and year 3, respectively, to the payer after lenalidomide entry. The model results in RRMM were most sensitive to variations in patients eligible to transplantation in RRMM. In NDMM, the model results were most sensitive to the market share of VCD in the first year. CONCLUSION: The results of our BI models suggest that not only does RD treatment have an effect on the budget, but also has major cost savings in other areas which are very important while considering the total costs of MM treatment. This study results provided evidence-based information to the MoH that will help in decision making of whether to implement RD as a treatment intervention or not.

Cost-effectiveness of newer regimens for the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: review of the literature and real-world data.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To investigate the cost of netupitant and palonosetron (NEPA) in the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in adults receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) for cancer treatment in real life. RECENT FINDINGS: A retrospective analysis of all consecutives patients with advanced lung cancer treated in platinum-based (carboplatin or cisplatin) chemotherapy and with breast cancer treated with anthracycline and cyclophosphamide -based chemotherapy at our Medical Oncology Unit during 4 years was performed. The costs of drugs are at the Pharmacy of our Hospital (&OV0556;). SUMMARY: We evaluated 110 patients with lung cancer and 55 patients with breast cancer. Concerning lung cancer, we have obtained an advantage of 133 &OV0556; in monthly medical costs of NEPA and dexamethasone (DEX) vs. the combination of palonosetron (PALO) and DEX for each patient. Concerning breast cancer, we have obtained an advantage of 78 &OV0556; in monthly medical costs of NEPA and DEX vs. the combination of PALO and DEX for each patient. Combining the medical costs of antiemetic therapy with the measure of efficacy represented by the complete response, the combination of NEPA and DEX is cost-effective for preventing CINV in HEC and MEC cancer treatment.

Dexamethasone or prednisolone for asthma exacerbations in children: A cost-effectiveness analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Although a short course (ie, 3 to 5 days) of orally administered prednisolone is a common and widely accepted practice among clinicians for administering systemic corticosteroids in pediatric acute asthma, oral dexamethasone for 1 to 2 days is an attractive alternative to prednisolone due to its better palatability and compliance. However, a cost-effectiveness analysis regarding the use of dexamethasone compared to prednisolone is not sufficient, especially in lower- and middle-income countries. The objective of this study was to analyze the cost-effectiveness of prednisolone vs oral dexamethasone for treating pediatric asthma exacerbations. METHODS: Using a decision-analysis model, we analyzed the cost-effectiveness of prednisolone vs oral dexamethasone for treating acute pediatric asthma. Effectiveness parameters were derived from a systematic review of the published literature. Data for costs were acquired from hospital accounts and from an official national database, the national manual of drug prices in Colombia. The study was carried out from a Colombian third-party payer perspective. The principal outcome of the model was the avoidance of hospitalization. RESULTS: The base-case analysis showed that compared to dexamethasone, administering prednisolone was associated with lower overall treatment costs (US$93.97 vs US$104.91 mean cost per patient) without a significant difference in the probability of hospitalization avoided (.9108 vs .9108). CONCLUSIONS: The present study shows that in Colombia, a middle-income country, compared with oral dexamethasone, the use of prednisolone for treating acute pediatric asthma is cost-effective, yielding a similar probability of hospitalization at lesser overall costs.

Cost-effectiveness of once weekly carfilzomib 70 mg/m2 plus dexamethasone in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma in the United States.

BACKGROUND: In the US, carfilzomib 70 mg/m2 once-weekly plus dexamethasone (Kd70 QW) was recently indicated for relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma. In current US clinical practice, most patients treated with Kd receive carfilzomib at a previously approved dose of 27 mg/m2 twice-weekly (Kd27 BIW). This analysis assessed the cost-effectiveness (CE) of Kd70 QW vs Kd27 BIW regimens which were compared in the randomized phase 3 ARROW trial. METHODS: Based on clinical outcomes (overall survival and utilities) from ARROW, a partitioned survival model was developed to estimate life years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Long-term survival was extrapolated using SEER registry data matched to ARROW patients. Costs were estimated using a US healthcare payer perspective. RESULTS: The analysis estimated that treatment with Kd70 QW vs Kd27 BIW resulted in an increase of 1.10 LYs, 0.91 QALYs, and additional lifetime costs of $74,858, yielding an incremental CE ratio (ratio of incremental costs to QALYs) of $82,257 per QALY gained. Results were robust to sensitivity and subgroup analyses. CONCLUSIONS: When compared with Kd27 BIW, Kd70 QW is the optimal dose that represents a cost-effective utilization of health care budget with incremental CE ratios well below the accepted willingness-to-pay thresholds in the US.

Association of adverse events and associated cost with efficacy for approved relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma regimens: A Bayesian network meta-analysis of phase 3 randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Several new treatment options have been approved for relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). In this systematic review, associations of the efficacy of each approved regimen with adverse events (AEs) and the total cost per cycle were compared with a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) of phase 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: Scopus, Cochrane, PubMed Publisher, and Web of Science were searched from January 1999 to July 2018 for phase 3 RCTs of regimens (approved by the US Food and Drug Administration) used in RRMM. The relative ranking of agents was assessed with surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) probabilities. The primary efficacy, safety, and cost outcomes were progression-free survival with the regimen, grade 3 to 4 AEs, and the total cost per cycle (regimen cost plus average cost of managing AEs). RESULTS: Fifteen studies including 7718 patients and evaluating 14 different regimens were identified. Daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone were ranked highest for reducing progression (hazard ratio, 0.13; 95% credible interval, 0.09-0.19; SUCRA, 1) but carried the highest probability of total cost per cycle ($41,420; 95% Credible Interval [CrCl], $58,665-$78,041; SUCRA, 0.02). Panobinostat, bortezomib, and dexamethasone were the least effective and least safe (SUCRA, 0.24), whereas bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone emerged as least effective with the highest total cost per cycle (SUCRA, 0.33). Carfilzomib and dexamethasone emerged as the winner when this regimen was considered in terms of efficacy and safety (SUCRA, 0.61) and efficacy and total cost per cycle (SUCRA, 0.60). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this NMA can provide additional guidance for the decision-making process when one is choosing the most appropriate regimen for RRMM.

Comparison of two techniques used in routine care for the treatment of inflammatory macular oedema, subconjunctival triamcinolone injection and intravitreal dexamethasone implant: medical and economic importance of this randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Whether they are injected peri- or intraocularly, corticosteroids are still essential tools in the therapeutic arsenal for treating inflammatory macular oedema. A few years ago, however, only triamcinolone acetonide was available to ophthalmologists. While this compound was initially developed for rheumatological or dermatological use, it has been increasingly deployed in ophthalmology, despite still being off-label. In 2011, the system for delivery of dexamethasone from a biodegradable, injectable implant into the vitreous cavity obtained approval for use in inflammatory macular oedema. While the efficacy and safety of triamcinolone in macular oedema, including inflammatory oedema, have already been studied, there are currently no publications on subconjunctival triamcinolone injections, which are simple, effective and well tolerated. To date, the dexamethasone 700 µg implant has been authorized for the treatment of noninfectious intermediate and posterior uveitis, but there have been no studies to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the different peri- and intraocular strategies, including the treatment of inflammatory macular oedema. METHODS: This protocol is therefore designed to compare the efficacy and safety of peri- and intraocular corticosteroid injections in the treatment of inflammatory macular oedema. In this ongoing study, 142 patients will be included, and the oedematous eye will be randomised to treatment with either subconjunctival triamcinolone injection or an intravitreal implant containing 700 µg dexamethasone. Follow-up is planned for 6 months with monthly visits. Each visit will include visual acuity measurement, a slit lamp examination, fundoscopy, intraocular pressure measurement, laser flare measurement (if available) and spectral domain optical coherence tomography. DISCUSSION: The results of this trial will have a real impact on public health if it is shown that a Kenacort retard® (i.e. triamcinolone) injection costing just €2.84 and performed in the physician's office (with no additional overhead costs) is at least as effective as the dexamethasone 700 µg implant (Ozurdex®; costing approximately €960 with the injection performed in a dedicated room), with no increased side effects. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02556424. Registered on 22 September 2015.

Economic Evaluation of Adding Daratumumab to a Regimen of Bortezomib + Dexamethasone in Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma: Based on the Latest Updated Analysis of CASTOR.

PURPOSE: Adding daratumumab to a regimen of bortezomib + dexamethasone (Vd) has been reported to provide a benefit of longer progression-free survival in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). However, it is still unclear whether the addition of daratumumab is cost-effective in RRMM. Based on the latest updated analysis of data from the CASTOR trial, this study performed an economic evaluation of the addition of daratumumab to Vd in patients with RRMM. METHODS: A Markov decision model was used for estimating the long-term costs and efficacy of Vd with or without daratumumab in patients with RRMM. Data on efficacy were taken from the CASTOR trial to compare Vd + daratumumab with Vd. Costs were taken from the US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and from the literature. A series of sensitivity analyses were performed to address the robustness of the model. Variations in the price of daratumumab and subgroup analyses were conducted. FINDINGS: The base-case analysis showed that adding daratumumab to Vd provided an additional 1.256 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) or 1.645 life-years (LYs), with incremental 213,164 USD (163,184 USD) per QALY (LY) gained. Univariate sensitivity analyses suggested that the subsequent treatment cost of DVd and the price of daratumumab had the greatest effect on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. According to the variations analysis of the price of daratumumab, the addition of daratumumab would be cost-effective when daratumumab was priced at 70% (30%) of the current price at a willingness-to-pay threshold of 200,000 USD/QALY (150,000 USD/QALY). Subgroup analysis indicated that adding daratumumab to Vd was most cost-effective in patients with 1 prior line of therapy. IMPLICATIONS: From a US-payer perspective, daratumumab added to Vd in RRMM is likely to exceed the common accepted values of cost-effectiveness.

Netupitant plus palonosetron is a cost-effective treatment for the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in highly and moderately emetogenic cancer treatment.

Introduction: The analysis was conducted to assess a cost-efficacy analysis of new antiemetic drugs (netupitant plus palonosetron (NEPA)) for the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in highly and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy for cancer treatment. Areas covered:The present evaluation was restricted to pivotal phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of NEPA versus (vs.) palonosetron for the prophylaxis of CINV. We calculated the pharmacological costs necessary to get the benefit in complete response (CR), for each trial. Our analysis evaluated 2 RCTs, including 1720 patients. Referring to both highly and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, NEPA plus DEX was economic superior to palonosetron (PALO) plus DEX, with 13 312 € and 7885 € gain in medical costs every 100 patients treated, respectively. The cost-effectiveness ratios (CERs) (€/CR) in highly emetoge nic risk were 1.24 and 13.23 for the NEPA and PALO group, respectively and 1.49 and 15.20 for the same groups in moderately emetogenic risk. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) between the groups was 1016.18 €/CR and 1024.03 €/CR in highly and moderately emetogenic risk, respectively. Expert opinion:The combination of NEPA plus DEX is cost-effective for preventing CINV in highly and moderately (AC-based) emetogenic cancer treatment.

The economic impact of the transition from branded to generic oncology drugs.

Background: Economic evaluations are an integral component of many clinical trials. Costs used in those analyses are based on the prices of branded drugs when they first enter the market. The effect of genericization on the cost-effectiveness (ce) or cost-utility (cu) of an intervention is unknown because economic analyses are rarely updated using the costs of generic drugs. Methods: We re-examined the ce or cu of regimens previously evaluated in Canadian Cancer Trials Group (cctg) studies that included prospective economic evaluations and where genericization has occurred or is anticipated in Canada. We incorporated the new costs of generic drugs to characterize changes in ce or cu. We also determined acceptable cost levels of generic drugs that would make regimens reimbursable in a publicly funded health care system. Results: The four randomized controlled trials included (representing 1979 patients) were cctg br.10 (early lung cancer, adjuvant vinorelbine-cisplatin vs. observation, n = 172), cctg br.21 (metastatic lung cancer, erlotinib vs. placebo, n = 731), cctg co.17 (metastatic colon cancer, cetuximab vs. best supportive care, n = 557), and cctg ly.12 (relapsed or refractory lymphoma, gemcitabine-dexamethasone-cisplatin vs. cytarabine-dexamethasone-cisplatin, n = 619). Since the initial publication of those trials, the genericization of vinorelbine, erlotinib, cetuximab, and cisplatin has taken place or is expected in Canada. Costs of generics improved the ces and cus of treatment significantly. For example, genericization of erlotinib ($1460.25 per 30 days) resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (icer) of $45,746 per life-year gained compared with $94,638 for branded erlotinib. Likewise, genericization of cetuximab ($275.80 per 100 mg) produced an icer of $261,126 per quality-adjusted life-year (qaly) gained compared with $299,613 for branded cetuximab. Decreases in the cost of generic cetuximab to $129.39 and $63.51 would further improve the icer to $150,000 and $100,000 per QALY respectively. Conclusions: Genericization of a costly oncology drug can modify the ce and cu of a regimen significantly. Failure to revisit economic analyses with the costs of generics could be a missed opportunity for funding bodies to optimize value-based allocation of health care resources. At current levels, the costs of generics might not be sufficiently low to sustain publicly funded health care systems.

Healthcare utilization and costs among relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma patients on carfilzomib or pomalidomide as monotherapy or in combination with dexamethasone.

Aim: To compare monthly healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs among adult patients with multiple myeloma (MM) receiving second or subsequent line of treatment (LOT) with carfilzomib or pomalidomide as monotherapy or in combination with dexamethasone. Methods and materials: Adult MM patients who received carfilzomib or pomalidomide as second/subsequent LOT between 2006 and 2014 were selected from the MarketScan databases. LOT was determined using Medical/pharmacy claims using a published algorithm. For each patient, first LOT with carfilzomib or pomalidomide was defined as index LOT. Patients with first LOT as index LOT, who received other chemotherapy in combination with carfilzomib or pomalidomide, or who underwent stem cell transplant (STC) during index LOT were excluded. Monthly HRU and costs during index LOT were compared using inverse probability of treatment weights (IPTW) based on propensity scores for receipt of carfilzomib estimated by logistic regression with LOT, patient demographics, Charlson index, comorbidities, pre-index healthcare cost, and receipt of prior SCT as covariates. Results: After weighting, baseline characteristics were well balanced among 114 carfilzomib and 144 pomalidomide patients. Mean (95% CI) numbers of outpatient visits per month were 7.1 (5.2-8.0) with carfilzomib and 4.7 (3.9-6.1) with pomalidomide (p = 0.006). Otherwise, there were no statistically significant differences between the groups in mean monthly HRU and costs or median time to therapy discontinuation. Mean (95% CI) monthly total healthcare costs were $19,776 (15,322-27,748) with pomalidomide and $17,321 (12,412-21,874) with carfilzomib (p = 0.522). Limitations: Comparison of carfilzomib vs pomalidomide may be biased if there are unobserved factors not balanced by IPTW. The relatively small sample size limits the power of analyses to detect potential differences between treatment groups. Conclusions: Monthly HRU and costs are similar among patients with relapse or refractory MM patients receiving carfilzomib or pomalidomide as monotherapy or in combination with dexamethasone.

Cost Offsets in the Treatment Journeys of Patients With Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma.

PURPOSE: Multiple new regimens are available for the treatment of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). In this context, it is increasingly important to understand the differential costs of regimens used to treat RRMM. METHODS: A treatment journey for RRMM during a 12-month period of therapy was developed to reflect real-world clinical practice based on current treatment guidelines and input from hematologists/oncologists. The journey incorporated prescreening visits, laboratory tests, regimen-specific premedication, treatment-related costs, medical costs, and indirect costs. A cost model was constructed from the standard RRMM treatment pathway to compare overall, direct, and indirect costs across therapies over a 12-month period from initiation of second-line therapy and to determine cost offsets (incremental costs) associated with use of ixazomib-based therapy versus comparator regimens. According to the clinical input, the standard pathway was modified for patients with high unmet need to determine specific cost offsets in these subgroups. FINDINGS: Total costs ranged from $93,683 for bortezomib-cyclophosphamide-dexamethasone to $315,296 for daratumumab-bortezomib-dexamethasone. Drug cost comprised the highest proportion (83%-98%) of total costs of second-line therapy across regimens, which were generally highest for regimens based on recently approved agents. Indirect costs were higher for regimens that required more frequent or longer durations of drug administration, and lower for all-oral regimens. Costs were reduced among frail patients because of the use of adjusted dosing, whereas indirect costs were increased for regimens that required a greater number of clinic visits among patients with barriers to physician access. IMPLICATIONS: Cost model analyses highlight the differential direct and indirect costs associated with multiple regimens for the treatment of RRMM, including many recent new regimens. The results indicate the lower treatment burden and indirect costs associated with administering all-oral regimens compared with regimens that require frequent and/or lengthy subcutaneous or intravenous infusions. Understanding comparative costs associated with the treatment journeys of different patients with RRMM may help inform payer and patient therapeutic choices.

Dexamethasone implant for non-infectious uveitis: is it cost-effective?

BACKGROUND: Uveitis is inflammation inside the eye. The objective of this study is to assess the cost-effectiveness of a dexamethasone implant plus current practice (immunosuppressants and systemic corticosteroids) compared with current practice alone, in patients with non-infectious intermediate, posterior or pan-uveitis and to identify areas for future research. METHODS: A Markov model was built to estimate the costs and benefits of dexamethasone. Systematic reviews were performed to identify available relevant evidence. Quality of life data from the key randomised-controlled trial (HURON) was used to estimate the interventions' effectiveness compared with the trial's comparator arm (placebo plus limited current practice (LCP)). The analysis took a National Health Service and Personal Social Services perspective. Costs were calculated based on standard UK sources. RESULTS: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of one dexamethasone implant compared with LCP is estimated as £19 509 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. The factors with the largest impact on the results were rate of blindness and relative proportion of blindness cases avoided by dexamethasone. Using plausible alternative assumptions, dexamethasone could be cost saving or it may be associated with an ICER of £56 329 per QALY gained compared with LCP. CONCLUSIONS: Dexamethasone is estimated to be cost-effective using generally accepted UK thresholds. However, there is substantial uncertainty around these results due to scarcity of evidence. Future research on the following would help provide more reliable estimates: effectiveness of dexamethasone versus current practice (instead of LCP), with subgroup analyses for unilateral and bilateral uveitis, incidence of long-term blindness and effectiveness of dexamethasone in avoiding blindness.