Cost-effectiveness of avelumab first-line maintenance therapy for adult patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma in France.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of avelumab first-line (1L) maintenance therapy plus best supportive care (BSC) versus BSC alone for adults with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (la/mUC) that had not progressed following platinum-based chemotherapy in France. METHODS: A three-state partitioned survival model was developed to assess the lifetime costs and effects of avelumab plus BSC versus BSC alone. Data from the phase 3 JAVELIN Bladder 100 trial (NCT02603432) were used to inform estimates of clinical and utility values considering a 10-year time horizon and a weekly cycle length. Cost data were estimated from a collective perspective and included treatment acquisition, administration, follow-up, adverse event-related hospitalization, transport, post-progression, and end-of-life costs. Health outcomes were measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and life-years gained. Costs and clinical outcomes were discounted at 2.5% per annum. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were used to compare cost-effectiveness and willingness to pay in France. Uncertainty was assessed using a range of sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Avelumab plus BSC was associated with a gain of 2.49 QALYs and total discounted costs of €136,917; BSC alone was associated with 1.82 QALYs and €39,751. Although avelumab plus BSC was associated with increased acquisition costs compared with BSC alone, offsets of -€20,424 and -€351 were observed for post-progression and end-of-life costs, respectively. The base case analysis ICER was €145,626/QALY. Sensitivity analyses were consistent with the reference case and showed that efficacy parameters (overall survival, time to treatment discontinuation), post-progression time on immunotherapy, and post-progression costs had the largest impact on the ICER. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis demonstrated that avelumab plus BSC is associated with a favorable cost-effectiveness profile for patients with la/mUC who are eligible for 1L maintenance therapy in France.

Cost-effectiveness of Maintenance Therapy Based on Molecular Classification Following Treatment of Primary Epithelial Ovarian Cancer in the United States.

Importance: There are large randomized clinical trials-SOLO-1 (Olaparib Maintenance Monotherapy in Patients With BRCA Mutated Ovarian Cancer Following First Line Platinum Based Chemotherapy [December 2018]), PRIMA (A Study of Niraparib Maintenance Treatment in Patients With Advanced Ovarian Cancer Following Response on Front-Line Platinum-Based Chemotherapy [September 2019]), and PAOLA-1 (Platine, Avastin and Olaparib in 1st Line [December 2019])-reporting positive efficacy results for maintenance regimens for women with primary, advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. The findings resulted in approval by the US Food and Drug Administration of the treatments studied as of May 2020. However, there are pressing economic considerations given the many eligible patients and substantial associated costs. Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of maintenance strategies for patients with (1) a BRCA variant, (2) homologous recombination deficiency without a BRCA variant, or (3) homologous recombination proficiency. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this economic evaluation of the US health care sector using simulated patients with primary epithelial ovarian cancer, 3 decision trees were developed, one for each molecular signature. The maintenance strategies evaluated were olaparib (SOLO-1), olaparib-bevacizumab (PAOLA-1), bevacizumab (PAOLA-1), and niraparib (PRIMA). Base case 1 assessed olaparib, olaparib-bevacizumab, bevacizumab, and niraparib vs observation of a patient with a BRCA variant. Base case 2 assessed olaparib-bevacizumab, bevacizumab, and niraparib vs observation in a patient with homologous recombination deficiency without a BRCA variant. Base case 3 assessed olaparib-bevacizumab, bevacizumab, and niraparib vs observation in a patient with homologous recombination proficiency. The time horizon was 24 months. Costs were estimated from Medicare claims, wholesale acquisition prices, and published sources. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses with microsimulation were then conducted to account for uncertainty and assess model stability. One-way sensitivity analyses were also performed. The study was performed from January through June 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in US dollars per progression-free life-year saved (PF-LYS). Results: Assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000/PF-LYS, none of the drugs could be considered cost-effective compared with observation. In the case of a patient with a BRCA variant, olaparib was the most cost-effective (ICER, $186 777/PF-LYS). The third-party payer price per month of olaparib would need to be reduced from approximately $17 000 to $9000 to be considered cost-effective. Olaparib-bevacizumab was the most cost-effective in the case of a patient with homologous recombination deficiency without a BRCA variant (ICER, $629 347/PF-LYS), and bevacizumab was the most cost-effective in the case of patient with homologous recombination proficiency (ICER, $557 865/PF-LYS). Even at a price of $0 per month, niraparib could not be considered cost-effective as a maintenance strategy for patients with homologous recombination proficiency. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this study suggest that, at current costs, maintenance therapy for primary ovarian cancer is not cost-effective, regardless of molecular signature. For certain therapies, lowering the drug price alone may not make them cost-effective.

The cost-effectiveness of as-needed budesonide/formoterol versus low-dose inhaled corticosteroid maintenance therapy in patients with mild asthma in the UK.

BACKGROUND: As-needed budesonide/formoterol is effective in patients with mild asthma for whom low-dose inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) maintenance therapy is appropriate. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of this regimen versus maintenance low-dose ICS plus as-needed short-acting ß2-agonist (SABA). METHODS: A probabilistic Markov cohort model was developed that simulated time within/outside severe asthma exacerbations, conducted from a UK NHS perspective with a 70-year time horizon. Clinical efficacy inputs were derived from the SYGMA 2 trial. Patients with mild asthma eligible for low-dose maintenance ICS therapy received as-needed budesonide/formoterol 200/6 µg or twice-daily budesonide 200 µg maintenance therapy plus as-needed terbutaline 0.5 mg. A severe exacerbation was defined as worsening asthma requiring systemic corticosteroid use alone/in combination with an emergency department visit, or hospitalisation for acute asthma. Utility values were derived from SYGMA 2 EQ-5D-5L data, and all-cause- and asthma-related mortality, reduction in utility of an exacerbation, and costs were based on published data. The base-case analysis discount rate was 3.5%. Model robustness was evaluated with one-way sensitivity, probabilistic sensitivity, and two scenario analyses. RESULTS: On average, as-needed budesonide/formoterol was associated with a £292.99 cost saving and quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gains of 0.001 versus ICS + SABA. At a willingness-to-pay of £20,000/QALY, as-needed budesonide/formoterol had >85% probability of being cost-effective versus ICS + SABA. Key drivers were budesonide/formoterol and budesonide maintenance annual exacerbation rates, mean daily budesonide/formoterol inhalations, and costs and outcomes discount rates. CONCLUSIONS: From a UK healthcare payer perspective, as-needed budesonide/formoterol is a cost-effective option for the treatment of mild asthma versus regular ICS.

Cost-effectiveness of olaparib as a maintenance treatment for women with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer and BRCA1/2 mutations in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of olaparib monotherapy in the first-line maintenance setting vs. surveillance in women with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer and a BRCA1/2 mutation from a US third-party payer perspective. METHODS: A three-state (progression free, progressed disease, and death) partitioned survival model over a 50-year lifetime horizon was developed. Piecewise models were applied to data from the phase III trial SOLO1 to extrapolate survival outcomes. Health state utilities and adverse event disutilities were obtained from literature and SOLO1. Treatment costs, adverse event costs, and medical costs associated with health states were obtained from publicly available databases, SOLO1, and real-world data. Time on treatment was estimated using the data from SOLO1. Incremental costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and life year (LY) gained were estimated. One-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Over a lifetime horizon, olaparib was associated with an additional 3.63 LYs and 2.93 QALYs, and an incremental total cost of $152,545 vs. surveillance. Incremental cost per LY gained and per QALY gained for olaparib were $42,032 and $51,986, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios remained below $100,000 across a range of inputs and scenarios. In the PSA, the probability of olaparib being cost-effective at a $100,000 per QALY threshold was 99%. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to surveillance, olaparib increases both the LYs and QALYs of women with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer and with a germline or somatic BRCA mutation. Olaparib offers a cost-effective maintenance option for these women from a US third-party payer perspective.

Cost-effectiveness analysis comparing "PARP inhibitors-for-all" to the biomarker-directed use of PARP inhibitor maintenance therapy for newly diagnosed advanced stage ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Clinical trials evaluating universal PARP inhibitor (PARPi) frontline maintenance therapy for advanced stage ovarian cancer have reported progression-free survival (PFS) benefit. It is unclear whether PARPi maintenance therapy will universally enhance value (clinical benefits relative to cost of delivery). We compared a "PARPi-for-all" to a biomarker-directed frontline maintenance therapy approach as a value-based care strategy. METHODS: The cost of two frontline PARPi maintenance strategies, PARPi-for-all and biomarker-directed maintenance, was compared using modified Markov decision models simulating the study designs of the PRIMA, VELIA, and, PAOLA-1 trials. Outcomes of interest included overall costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) reported in US dollars per quality adjusted progression-free life-year (QA-PFY) gained. RESULTS: PARPi-for-all was more costly and provided greater PFS benefit than a biomarker-directed strategy for each trial. The mean cost per patient for the PARPi-for-all strategy was $166,269, $286,715, and $366,506 for the PRIMA, VELIA, and PAOLA-1 models, respectively. For the biomarker-directed strategy, the mean cost per patient was $98,188, $167,334, and $260,671 for the PRIMA, VELIA, and PAOLA-1 models. ICERs of PARPi-for-all compared to biomarker-directed maintenance were: $593,250/QA-PFY (PRIMA), $1,512,495/QA-PFY (VELIA), and $3,347,915/QA-PFY (PAOLA-1). At current drug pricing, there is no PFS improvement in a biomarker negative cohort that would make PARPi-for-all cost-effective compared to biomarker-directed maintenance. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the high costs of universal PARPi maintenance treatment, compared with a biomarker-directed PARPi strategy. Maintenance therapy in the front-line setting should be reserved for those with germline or somatic HRD mutations until the cost of therapy is significantly reduced.

Cost-Effectiveness of Rifaximin Treatment in Patients with Hepatic Encephalopathy.

BACKGROUND: Hepatic encephalopathy (HE) is a complication of cirrhosis of the liver causing neuropsychiatric abnormalities. Clinical manifestations of overt HE result in increased health care resource utilization and effects on patient quality of life. While lactulose has historically been the mainstay of treatment for acute HE and maintenance of remission, there is an unmet need for additional therapeutic options with a favorable adverse event profile. Compared with lactulose alone, rifaximin has demonstrated proven efficacy in complete reversal of HE and reduction in the incidence of HE recurrence, mortality, and hospitalizations. Evidence suggests the benefit of long-term prophylactic therapy with rifaximin; however, there is a need to assess the economic impact of rifaximin treatment in patients with HE. OBJECTIVE: To assess the incremental cost-effectiveness of rifaximin ± lactulose versus lactulose monotherapy in patients with overt HE. METHODS: A Markov model was developed in Excel with 4 health states (remission, overt HE, liver transplantation, and death) to predict costs and outcomes of patients with HE after initiation of maintenance therapy with rifaximin ± lactulose to avoid recurrent HE episodes. Cost-effectiveness of rifaximin was evaluated through estimation of incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) or life-year (LY) gained. Analyses were conducted over a lifetime horizon. One-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess uncertainty in results. RESULTS: The rifaximin ± lactulose regimen provided added health benefits despite an additional cost versus lactulose monotherapy. Model results showed an incremental benefit of $29,161 per QALY gained and $27,762 per LY gained with rifaximin ± lactulose versus lactulose monotherapy. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the rifaximin ± lactulose regimen was cost-effective ~99% of the time at a threshold of $50,000 per QALY/LY gained, which falls within the commonly accepted threshold for incremental cost-effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical benefit of rifaximin, combined with an acceptable economic profile, demonstrates the advantages of rifaximin maintenance therapy as an important option to consider for patients at risk of recurrent HE. DISCLOSURES: This analysis was funded by Salix Pharmaceuticals, a division of Bausch Health US. Salix and Xcenda collaborated on the methods, and Salix, Xcenda, Jesudian, and Ahmad collaborated on the writing of the manuscript and interpretation of results. Bozkaya and Migliaccio-Walle are employees of Xcenda. Ahmad reports speaker fees from Salix Pharmaceuticals, unrelated to this study. Jesudian reports consulting and speaker fees from Salix Pharmaceuticals, unrelated to this study. The results from this model were presented at AASLD: The Liver Meeting 2014; November 7-11; Boston, MA.

Lenalidomide maintenance post-transplantation in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: real-world outcomes and costs.

Aim: To compare real-world outcomes and costs among patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma receiving lenalidomide-only maintenance (Len-Mt) versus no maintenance after autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Patients & methods: Time to next treatment (TTNT) was evaluated; costs were calculated for 0-12, 12-24 and 24-36 months postindex date. Results: Len-Mt cohort had longer TTNT (HR: 0.43; p < 0.0001). Per-patient per-month costs during months 0-12 were higher among patients, receiving Len-Mt (USD 13,095 vs USD 8910; p < 0.0001), due to higher pharmacy costs - outpatient costs were lower. During months 12-24 and 24-36, outpatient costs were similar in both cohorts; total and pharmacy costs remained elevated for patients receiving Len-Mt. Conclusion: Len-Mt improved TTNT, initially reduced outpatient costs, but resulted in higher overall and pharmacy costs.

Cost-effectiveness of lenalidomide maintenance in patients with multiple myeloma who have undergone autologous transplant of hematopoietic progenitor cells.

The objective of this article is to analyze the ratio of cost-effectiveness and budgetary impact of lenalidomide treatment in patients with multiple myeloma who have undergone autologous transplant in Spain. The analyses were based on clinical trials CALGB 100104 and IFM 2005-02, from the perspective of the National Health System. The alternatives compared were the treatment with lenalidomide against maintenance without treatment (MwT). Efficiency measures used were years of life gained (YGs) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). According to the CALGB 100104 trial data, the average health costs of patients who were treated with lenalidomide for 120 months was €836,534.31 and without treatment was €528,963.63. The effectiveness of the lenalidomide group was 7.59YGs (5.72 QALY) against 6.58 of MwT (4.61 QALY). The incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) was €277,456.72/QALY and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was €303,191.05/YGs. From the analysis, the IFM2005-02 trial obtained 5.13 QALY in the lenalidomide group against the 4.98 QALY in the MwT group, with an ICUR of €1,502,780.55/QALY. In terms of budgetary impact, a range between 799 and 1452 patients susceptible to receive treatment with lenalidomide was assumed in Spain. In conclusion, the results show a high ICUR and budgetary impact, which adds uncertainty about the maximum prudent duration of the treatment.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration-Approved Poly (ADP-Ribose) Polymerase Inhibitor Maintenance Therapy for Recurrent Ovarian Cancer: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine whether use of a poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor is cost effective for maintenance treatment of platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer. METHODS: A decision analysis model compared four maintenance strategies: 1) observation, 2) BRCA germline mutation testing and selective treatment of carriers (gBRCA only), 3) BRCA germline and tumor homologous recombination deficiency testing and selective treatment of either BRCA carriers or those with tumor HRD (gBRCA and HRD only), and 4) treat all with niraparib to progression (treat all). Costs were estimated in 2016 U.S. dollars. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were in dollars per progression-free quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). One-way sensitivity analyses tested multiple assumptions. RESULTS: Maintenance poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor was costlier and more effective than observation. Mean costs and progression-free QALYs were $827 and 3.4 months for observation, $46,157 and 5.7 for a BRCA-only strategy, $109,368 and 8.5 for a gBRCA and homologous recombination deficiency-only strategy, and $169,127 and 8.8 for a treat-all strategy. gBRCA-only had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $243,092/progression-free QALY compared with observation; other strategies did not approach cost effectiveness. Using the current U.S. Food and Drug Administration label for maintenance poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor regardless of biomarker status, the third-party payer cost per month (28-day supply) would need to be reduced from approximately $14,700 to $3,600 to be considered cost effective compared with observation using a willingness to pay threshold of $100,000/progression-free QALY. CONCLUSION: Maintenance poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor therapy for platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer is not cost effective. Treatment of patients with BRCA mutation alone or with homologous recombination deficiency-positive tumors are preferred strategies compared with a treat-all strategy. Lowering the cost may make selective niraparib maintenance therapy cost effective compared with observation.

Cost-effectiveness of Maintenance Capecitabine and Bevacizumab for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

Importance: Unregulated drug prices increase cancer therapy costs. After induction chemotherapy, patients with metastatic colon cancer can receive maintenance capecitabine and bevacizumab therapy based on improved progression-free survival, but whether this treatment's cost justifies its benefits has not been evaluated in the United States. Objective: This study sought to determine the influence of capecitabine and bevacizumab drug prices on cost-effectiveness from a Medicare payer's perspective. Design, Setting, and Participants: The incremental cost-effectiveness of capecitabine and bevacizumab maintenance therapy was determined with a Markov model using a quality-of-life penalty based on outcomes data from the CAIRO phase 3 randomized clinical trial (RCT), which included 558 adults in the Netherlands with unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer who had stable disease or better following induction chemotherapy. The outcomes were modeled using Markov chains to account for patients who had treatment complications or cancer progression. Transition probabilities between patient states were determined, and each state's costs were determined using US Medicare data on payments for capecitabine and bevacizumab treatment. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses identified factors affecting cost-effectiveness. Main Outcomes and Measures: Life-years gained were adjusted using CAIRO3 RCT quality-of-life data to determine quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The primary end point was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, representing incremental costs per QALY gained using a capecitabine and bevacizumab maintenance regimen compared with observation alone. Results: Markov model estimated survival and complication outcomes closely matched those reported in the CAIRO3 RCT, which included 558 adults (n = 197 women, n = 361 men; median age, 64 and 63 years for patients in the observation and maintenance therapy groups, respectively) in the Netherlands with unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer who had stable disease or better following induction chemotherapy. Incremental costs for a 3-week maintenance chemotherapy cycle were $6601 per patient. After 29 model iterations corresponding to 60 months of follow-up, mean per-patient costs were $105 239 for maintenance therapy and $21.10 for observation. Mean QALYs accrued were 1.34 for maintenance therapy and 1.20 for observation. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio favored maintenance treatment, at an incremental cost of $725 601 per QALY. The unadjusted ratio was $438 394 per life-year. Sensitivity analyses revealed that cost-effectiveness varied with changes in drug costs. To achieve an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of less than $59 039 (median US household income) per unadjusted life-year would require capecitabine and bevacizumab drug costs to be reduced from $6173 (current cost) to $452 per 3-week chemotherapy cycle. Conclusions and Relevance: Antineoplastic therapy is expensive for payers and society. The price of capecitabine and bevacizumab maintenance therapy would need to be reduced by 93% to make it cost-effective, a finding useful for policy decision making and payment negotiations.

A cost-effectiveness analysis of consolidative local therapy in oligometastatic non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

BACKGROUND: Novel systemic therapies have improved the prognosis of metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but costs of some of these drugs are a matter of ongoing debate. More recently, local therapies (LT) such as radiotherapy and surgery have been suggested as additional treatment in oligometastatic NSCLC demonstrating an improved progression-free survival (PFS) in a phase II trial compared to maintenance chemotherapy (MC) alone. The aim of this analysis was to assess the cost-effectiveness of local therapies in oligometastatic NSCLC. METHODS: We constructed a Markov model comparing the cost-effectiveness of LT versus MC for oligometastatic NSCLC from the Swiss healthcare payer's perspective. Treatment specifications and PFS were based on the phase II trial (NCT01725165). Overall survival (OS) was inferred from a recent phase III trial. Utilities were taken from published data. Primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness-ratio (ICER, costs in Swiss Francs (CHF) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained). RESULTS: PFS in the model was 3.8 months for MC and 11.4 months for LT (compared to 3.9 months and 11.9 months in the trial). OS in the model was 15.5 months in both arms. LT was cost-effective with a gain of 0.24 QALYs at an additional cost of CHF 9641, resulting in an ICER of CHF 40,972/QALY gained. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses demonstrated that LT was dominant or cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of CHF 100,000 per QALY in 61.7% of the simulations. CONCLUSIONS: LT may be cost-effective for selected patients with oligometastatic NSCLC responding to first-line systemic therapy.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of the addition of bevacizumab to chemotherapy as induction and maintenance therapy for metastatic non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: The BEYOND trial found that the addition of bevacizumab (B) to paclitaxel-carboplatin (PC) chemotherapy provided a significant clinical benefit to Chinese patients with metastatic non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of adding B to first-line PC induction and continuation maintenance therapy from a Chinese perspective. METHODS: A Markov model was developed to estimate the cost and effectiveness of B + PC in the induction and maintenance therapy of patients with metastatic non-squamous NSCLC. Costs were calculated in the Chinese setting, and health outcomes derived from the BEYOND trial were measured as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). A one-way sensitivity analysis was conducted to explore the impact of various parameters in the study. RESULTS: The B + PC treatment was more costly ($112,943.40 versus $32,171.43) and more effective (1.07 QALYs versus 0.80 QALYs) compared with the PC treatment. Adding B to the PC regimen for non-squamous NSCLC results in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $299,155.44 per QALY, which exceeded the accepted societal willingness-to-pay threshold ($23,970.00) for China. In the sensitivity analysis, the duration of progression-free survival (PFS) for the B + PC group, the cost of the PFS state for B + PC group and the price of B were considered the most sensitive factors in the model. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of B to first-line PC induction and maintenance therapy was not determined to be a cost-effective strategy for metastatic non-squamous NSCLC in China, even when an assistance program was provided.

Bevacizumab Continuation Versus Treatment Holidays After First-Line Chemotherapy With Bevacizumab in Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Health Economic Analysis of a Randomized Phase 3 Trial (SAKK 41/06).

BACKGROUND: Bevacizumab (BEV)-containing therapies are costly. We performed a health economic analysis of a randomized phase 3 study (SAKK 41/06) that compared BEV continuation as a single agent (BEV) with treatment holidays (no BEV) after completing 4 to 6 cycles of first-line chemotherapy plus BEV in metastatic colorectal cancer patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Costs for first-line chemotherapy with BEV, BEV continuation therapy, hospitalizations (length of stay), control visits, diagnostic tests, and second-line and later rounds of chemotherapy were collected. Mean costs per patient per treatment arm and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio were calculated. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed to account for uncertainty in the input parameters. RESULTS: The total incurred mean costs per patient were 126,631 Swiss francs (CHF) [95% confidence interval (CI), 116,521-136,740] for BEV versus CHF100,146 (95% CI, 92,811-107,481) for no BEV. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio was CHF108,991 per life-year gained (LYG; 95% CI from probabilistic sensitivity analysis, 62,890-248,515). Compared to a willingness-to-pay threshold of CHF100,000/LYG, there was 42% probability that BEV continuation was cost effective, which decreased to 20% at a threshold of CHF75,000/LYG. Economic equality was reached in only 0.07% of cases. CONCLUSION: The clinical conclusion that BEV continuation as a single agent after completion of first-line chemotherapy is of low therapeutic value is supported by this health economic analysis. Costs increase without significant clinical benefit in this setting.

Dose Escalation and Healthcare Resource Use among Ulcerative Colitis Patients Treated with Adalimumab in English Hospitals: An Analysis of Real-World Data.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the real-world use of adalimumab for maintenance treatment of ulcerative colitis (UC) and associated healthcare costs in English hospitals. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Analysis of NHS Hospital Episode Statistics linked with pharmacy dispensing data in English hospitals. PATIENTS: Adult UC patients receiving ≥240mg during adalimumab treatment induction, subsequently maintained on adalimumab. OUTCOMES: Frequency and pattern of adalimumab use and dose escalation during maintenance treatment and associated healthcare costs (prescriptions and hospital visits). RESULTS: 191 UC patients completed adalimumab treatment induction. 83 (43.46%) dose escalated during maintenance treatment by ≥100% (equivalent to weekly dosing) (median time to dose escalation: 139 days). 56 patients (67.47%) subsequently de-escalated by ≥50% (median time to dose de-escalation: 21 days). Mean all-cause healthcare costs for all patients ≤12 months of index were £13,892. Dose escalators incurred greater mean healthcare costs than non-escalators ≤12 months of index (£14,596 vs. £13,351). Prescriptions accounted for 96.49% of UC-related healthcare costs (£11,090 of £11,494 in all patients). CONCLUSIONS: Within the cohort, 43.46% of UC patients escalated their adalimumab dose by ≥100% and incurred greater costs than non-escalators. The apparent underestimation of adalimumab dose escalation in previous studies may have resulted in underestimated costs in healthcare systems.

A tailored approach to reduce dose of anti-TNF drugs may be equally effective, but substantially less costly than standard dosing in patients with ankylosing spondylitis over 1 year: a propensity score-matched cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness, safety and costs of standard versus individually tailored reduced doses of anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) drugs in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) after achieving low-disease activity. METHODS: This was a single-centre prospective observational study performed within the ATTRA registry. The anti-TNF dose tapering strategy was chosen by treating physicians, without prespecified protocol. We used propensity score (PS) methodology to identify two cohorts of patients matched for relevant baseline characteristics who were treated with either reduced (n=53) or standard (n=83) doses of TNF inhibitors. One-year outcomes and costs of anti-TNF drugs were compared between both PS-matched cohorts. RESULTS: In the reduced dosing group, the median dose of TNF inhibitor corresponded to 0.67 and 0.5 of the standard dose initially and at 12 months respectively, and 21% of patients required return to standard dosing regimen. The mean change per year in Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Activity Index, C-reactive protein , Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index and Bath AS functional index, as well as quality-adjusted life-year area under the curve were no different between both groups. The HR (95% CI) of reduced versus standard dosing group for relapse and any adverse event was 1.46 (0.66 to 3.19) and 0.56 (0.22 to 1.44), respectively. Mean difference (95% CI) in cost of anti-TNF drugs was €-4214 (-4707 to -3701) per year of treatment in favour of reduced dosing strategy. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with AS after reaching low-disease activity, a tailored approach to reduce doses of anti-TNF drugs produced similar clinical outcomes at 1 year, but was substantially less costly.

Nuke-Sparing Regimens for the Long-Term Care of HIV Infection.

With the efficacy of antiretroviral therapy already guaranteed for all practical purposes, the main objective in the management of HIV-positive patients has moved to reduce and prevent potential long-term toxicities. Nucleos(t)ide-sparing regimens could enable the best to address this issue, with a wide range of current options that may allow adaptation to distinct patient populations. Monotherapy with boosted darunavir and lopinavir has been safely prescribed as maintenance therapy to stable patients on stable antiretroviral therapy without nadir CD4 count < 200/mm³, low-level baseline viremia, prolonged viral suppression, and without prior virologic failure. In the presence of all these requirements, dual therapy with lamivudine plus boosted lopinavir or atazanavir has been shown to be equivalent to standard triple therapy. Other nucleoside-sparing dual therapies, especially using raltegravir combined with boosted darunavir or lopinavir and etravirine or rilpivirine in combination with boosted darunavir, have performed well as simplification strategies or rescue interventions in a wide spectrum of patients as long as drug resistance was absent. With current economical constrains, nuke-sparing regimens have attained a degree of maturity that makes it possible to anticipate that they will play an important role in the optimization of antiretroviral therapy in the near future.

Reduced medical costs and hospital days when using oral arsenic plus ATRA as the first-line treatment of acute promyelocytic leukemia.

We have demonstrated that oral arsenic (Realgar-Indigo naturalis formula, RIF) plus all-trans retinoic acid (ATRA) is not inferior to intravenous arsenic trioxide (ATO) plus ATRA as the first-line treatment of acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL). To compare the cost-effectiveness of oral and intravenous arsenic, we analyzed the results of 30 patients in each group involved in a randomized controlled trial at our center. The median total medical costs were $13,183.49 in the RIF group compared with $24136.98 in the ATO group (p<0.0001). This difference primarily resulted from the different costs of induction therapy (p=0.016) and maintenance treatment (p<0.0001). The length of hospitalization for the RIF group was significantly lower than that for the ATO group (24 vs. 31 days, p<0.0001) during induction therapy. During maintenance treatment, the estimated medical costs were $2047.14 for each patient in the RIF group treated at home compared with $11273.81 for each patient in the ATO group treated in an outpatient setting (p<0.0001). We conclude that oral RIF plus ATRA significantly reduced the medical costs and length of hospital stay during induction and remission therapy compared with ATO plus ATRA in APL patients.

PARP inhibitor maintenance therapy for patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

PURPOSE: To determine the cost-effectiveness of olaparib, a PARP inhibitor, as maintenance therapy for platinum-sensitive (PS) recurrent ovarian cancer. METHODS: Two separate decision analysis models compared the cost of observation versus olaparib maintenance therapy in patients with PS recurrent ovarian cancer, one for patients with a germline BRCA1/2 mutation and one for patients with wild-type BRCA1/2. Patients received six cycles of paclitaxel and carboplatin. Drug costs were estimated using 2014-2015 wholesale acquisition costs. The cost of olaparib was estimated at $13,440 per month. Rate of germline BRCA1/2 mutation was estimated at 20%. Progression-free survival was determined from published data. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) per progression-free life-year saved (PF-LYS) were calculated. A sensitivity analysis estimated the cost at which olaparib would be cost-effective. RESULTS: We estimated that there were 5549 patients diagnosed with PS recurrent ovarian cancer in the United States annually. The cost of observation in 1110 patients with a BRCA1/2 mutation was $5.5 million (M) versus $169.2M for maintenance therapy with olaparib. The ICER for olaparib maintenance therapy in patients with a BRCA mutation was $258,864 per PF-LYS. If the cost of olaparib was decreased to $2500 per month, the ICER was $49,584. For the 4439 patients with wild-type BRCA, the cost of maintenance therapy was $444.2M; the ICER was $600,552 per PF-LYS. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with a germline BRCA1/2 mutation, maintenance therapy with olaparib is not cost-effective with an ICER of $258,864 per PF-LYS. To achieve an ICER of less than $50,000, the cost of olaparib should be $2500 or less per month. For wild-type BRCA1/2 patients, maintenance therapy with olaparib is not cost-effective.

Low-dose RATG with or without basiliximab in renal transplantation: a matched-cohort observational study.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: In renal transplantation, peri-operative low-dose rabbit-antithymocyte-globulin (RATG) plus basiliximab induction prevented acute allograft rejection more effectively than post-operative RATG plus basiliximab induction. We investigated the specific antirejection contribution of basiliximab in this context. METHODS: This single-center, observational, matched-cohort study evaluated allograft rejections (primary outcome), steroid exposure and side effects, GFR (iohexol plasma clearance) and treatment costs in 16 deceased-donor renal transplant recipients induced with RATG (0.5 mg/kg/day) and 32 age-, gender- and treatment-matched reference-patients given RATG plus basiliximab (20 mg on days 0 and 4). RESULTS: Induction was well tolerated. At 18 months, 8 patients (50%) vs. 3 reference-patients (9.4%) rejected the graft [HR (95% CI): 6.53 (1.73-24.70), p = 0.006]. Difference was significant (p < 0.01) even after adjusting for recipient/donor age and gender, cold ischemia time and HLA mismatches. There were 1 antibody-mediated rejection and 2 moderate cellular rejections in patients vs. none in reference-patients (p = 0.032). The median (interquartile range) prednisone cumulative dose was remarkably higher in patients than reference-patients [4.78 (1.12-6.10) vs. 0.19 (0.18-3.81) grams, p = 0.002]. Three patients vs. 24 reference-patients were off-steroid at study end (p < 0.001). Three patients vs. no reference-patient developed new-onset diabetes (p = 0.003). Both inductions similarly depleted B-cells. Outcomes of AZA- vs. MMF-treated participants were similar. GFR was similar in all groups. Compared to MMF, AZA therapy saved ≈ EUR 2,500/year and by month 14.3 post-transplant compensated basiliximab costs. CONCLUSION: In renal transplantation, basiliximab plus peri-operative low-dose RATG more efficiently prevented allograft rejection than RATG monotherapy, and minimized steroid exposure and toxicity. AZA- vs MMF-based maintenance immunosuppression largely compensated the extra costs of basiliximab.

Reduced darunavir dose is as effective in maintaining HIV suppression as the standard dose in virologically suppressed HIV-infected patients: a randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: Maximizing ART efficiency is of growing interest. This study assessed the efficacy, safety, pharmacokinetics and economics of a darunavir dose-reduction strategy. METHODS: This was a multicentre, randomized, open-label clinical trial in HIV-infected patients with plasma HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/mL while receiving triple ART including 800 mg of darunavir once daily. Participants were randomized to continue 800 mg of darunavir (DRV800) or to 600 mg of darunavir (DRV600), both once daily. Treatment failure was defined as two consecutive HIV-1 RNA determinations >50 copies/mL or discontinuation of study treatment by week 48. The study was registered at https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu (trial number 2011-006272-39). RESULTS: Fifty participants were allocated to each arm. The mean (SD) CD4+ T cell count at baseline was 562 (303) cells/mm(3) and HIV-1 RNA had been <50 copies/mL for a median (IQR) of 106.9 (43.4-227.9) weeks before enrolment. At week 48 no treatment failure had occurred in 45/50 (90%) DRV600 patients and in 47/50 (94%) DRV800 patients (difference -4%; 95% CI lower limit, -12.9%). When only patients with virological data were considered, that endpoint was met by 45/48 (94%) in the DRV600 arm and 47/49 (96%) in the DRV800 arm (difference -2.2%; 95% CI lower limit, -9.6%). Darunavir exposure was similar in the two arms. The average reduction in annual cost per successfully treated DRV600-arm patient was US$7273. CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy of a darunavir daily dose of 600 mg seemed to be similar to the efficacy of the standard 800 mg dose in virologically suppressed HIV-infected patients on triple ART. This strategy can potentially translate to substantial savings in the cost of care of HIV-infected patients.