Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in the patients with advanced previously treated endometrial cancer: A cost-effectiveness analysis in the United States and in China.

PURPOSE: To investigate the cost-effectiveness of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab (LP) compared to chemotherapy as a second-line treatment for advanced endometrial cancer (EC) from the United States and Chinese payers' perspective. METHODS: In this economic evaluation, a partitioned survival model was constructed from the perspective of the United States and Chinese payers. The survival data were derived from the clinical trial (309-KEYNOTE-775), while costs and utility values were sourced from databases and published literature. Total costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were estimated. The robustness of the model was evaluated through sensitivity analyses, and price adjustment scenario analyses was also performed. RESULTS: Base-case analysis indicated that LP wouldn't be cost-effective in the United States at the WTP threshold of $200 000, with improved effectiveness of 0.75 QALYs and an additional cost of $398596.81 (ICER $531392.20). While LP was cost-effective in China, with improved effectiveness of 0.75 QALYs and an increased overall cost of $62270.44 (ICER $83016.29). Sensitivity analyses revealed that the above results were stable. The scenario analyses results indicated that LP was cost-effective in the United States when the prices of lenvatinib and pembrolizumab were simultaneously reduced by 61.95% ($26.5361/mg for lenvatinib and $19.1532/mg for pembrolizumab). CONCLUSION: LP isn't cost-effective in the patients with advanced previously treated endometrial cancer in the United States, whereas it is cost-effective in China. The evidence-based pricing strategy provided by this study could benefit decision-makers in making optimal decisions and clinicians in general clinical practice. More evidence about budget impact and affordability for patients is needed.

Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in advanced recurrent endometrial cancer: A cost-effectiveness analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost-effectiveness of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab (LP) in patients with microsatellite stable (MSS), recurrent, pretreated endometrial cancer (EC). METHODS: A decision analysis model was created to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of LP relative to doxorubicin, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD), and bevacizumab in patients with recurrent pretreated MSS EC. Published data was used to estimate quality adjusted life years (QALYs) and drug cost estimates were obtained using average wholesale prices. A health state utility (HSU) penalty of -0.10 was applied to the LP group to account for treatment toxicity. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated to determine cost/QALY. The willingness to pay threshold (WTP) was set at $100,000 per QALY saved. Sensitivity analyses were performed on cost, effectiveness, and HSU penalty for LP. RESULTS: Costs of treatment with doxorubicin, PLD, and bevacizumab are $23.7 million (M), $56.9 M, and $250.8 M respectively. Cost of treatment with LP is $1.8 billion. Relative to doxorubicin, the ICERs for PLD, bevacizumab, and LP are $56,808, $345,824, and $1.6 M respectively. A sensitivity analysis varying the cost of LP shows that if the combined drug cost decreases from over $58,000 to less than $11,000 per cycle, this strategy would be cost-effective. Eliminating the HSU penalty for LP decreased the ICER $1.0 M while increasing the penalty to -0.20 increased the ICER to $3.7 M. CONCLUSIONS: LP is not cost-effective in patients with recurrent pretreated, MSS EC. A dramatic reduction in cost of LP is required for this novel strategy to be cost-effective.

Pembrolizumab and lenvatinib versus carboplatin and paclitaxel as first-line therapy for advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer: A Markov analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost effectiveness of pembrolizumab/lenvatinib (P/L) versus standard-of-care carboplatin/paclitaxel (C/T) as first-line systemic therapy for patients with advanced/recurrent endometrial cancer. METHODS: We designed a Markov model to simulate treatment outcomes for advanced/recurrent endometrial cancer patients whose tumors are either microsatellite stable (MSS) or have high microsatellite instability (MSI-high). We adopted a healthcare sector perspective for the analysis. Model inputs for costs, health utility, and clinical estimates were obtained from the literature including data from GOG0209 and KEYNOTE-146. Primary outcomes included costs of care, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The time-horizon was three years and the discount rate was 3% annually. RESULTS: In a MSS cohort, compared to C/T, first-line treatment with P/L increased treatment costs by $212,670 and decreased QALYs by 0.28 per patient. In a MSI-high cohort, compared to C/T, P/L increased costs by $313,487 and increased QALYs by 0.11 per patient, representing an ICER of $2,849,882 per QALY. Sensitivity analyses found that the price of the new drugs was the most important determinant of the ICER and that the price of the new drugs would need to decrease by 85% to $2817 per cycle to reach a $150,000/QALY threshold. CONCLUSION: In the MSS model, we found that first-line therapy for advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer with P/L increased costs and worsened outcomes compared to C/T. In the MSI-high model, P/L improved survival and QALYs compared to C/T but was not cost-effective at the current cost of the drugs.

CFTR modulators: transformative therapies for cystic fibrosis.

DISCLOSURES: No funding contributed to the writing of this commentary. Both authors are employed by the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation. The Cystic Fibrosis Foundation has entered into therapeutic development award agreements and licensing agreements to assist with the development of CFTR modulators that may result in intellectual property rights, royalties, and other forms of consideration provided to CFF. Some of these agreements are subject to confidentiality restrictions and, thus, CFF cannot comment on them.

The effectiveness and value of novel treatments for cystic fibrosis.

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

Cost-effectiveness of intermittent preventive treatment with dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine for malaria during pregnancy: an analysis using efficacy results from Uganda and Kenya, and pooled data.

BACKGROUND: Prevention of malaria infection during pregnancy in HIV-negative women currently relies on the use of long-lasting insecticidal nets together with intermittent preventive treatment in pregnancy with sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine (IPTp-SP). Increasing sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine resistance in Africa threatens current prevention of malaria during pregnancy. Thus, a replacement for IPTp-SP is urgently needed, especially for locations with high sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine resistance. Dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine is a promising candidate. We aimed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of intermittent preventive treatment in pregnancy with dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine (IPTp-DP) versus IPTp-SP to prevent clinical malaria infection (and its sequelae) during pregnancy. METHODS: We did a cost-effectiveness analysis using meta-analysis and individual trial results from three clinical trials done in Kenya and Uganda. We calculated disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) arising from stillbirths, neonatal death, low birthweight, mild and moderate maternal anaemia, and clinical malaria infection, associated with malaria during pregnancy. Cost estimates were obtained from data collected in observational studies, health-facility costings, and from international drug procurement databases. The cost-effectiveness analyses were done from a health-care provider perspective using a decision tree model with a lifetime horizon. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses using appropriate parameter ranges and distributions were also done. Results are presented as the incremental cost per DALY averted and the likelihood that an intervention is cost-effective for different cost-effectiveness thresholds. FINDINGS: Compared with three doses of sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine, three doses of dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine, delivered to a hypothetical cohort of 1000 pregnant women, averted 892 DALYs (95% credibility interval 274 to 1517) at an incremental cost of US$7051 (2653 to 13 038) generating an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $8 (2 to 29) per DALY averted. Compared with monthly doses of sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine, monthly doses of dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine averted 534 DALYS (-141 to 1233) at a cost of $13 427 (4994 to 22 895), resulting in an ICER of $25 (-151 to 224) per DALY averted. Both results were highly robust to most or all variations in the deterministic sensitivity analysis. INTERPRETATION: Our findings suggest that among HIV-negative pregnant women with high uptake of long-lasting insecticidal nets, IPTp-DP is cost-effective in areas with high malaria transmission and high sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine resistance. These data provide a comprehensive overview of the current evidence on the cost-effectiveness of IPTp-DP. Nevertheless, before a policy change is advocated, we recommend further research into the effectiveness and costs of different regimens of IPTp-DP in settings with different underlying sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine resistance. FUNDING: Malaria in Pregnancy Consortium, which is funded through a grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to the Liverpool School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

Cost-Effectiveness of Lenvatinib Compared with Sorafenib for the First-Line Treatment of Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Australia.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: In the REFLECT trial, lenvatinib showed superior clinical benefits to sorafenib in terms of progression-free survival and was non-inferior for overall survival in the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We assessed the cost-effectiveness of lenvatinib compared with sorafenib for patients with advanced HCC in Australia. METHOD: A partitioned-survival model was built to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing lenvatinib and sorafenib from an Australian health-system perspective. Survival curves were obtained from the REFLECT trial and fitted with parametric survival functions for extrapolation purposes beyond the trial follow-up. Cost and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were accrued over the 10-year time horizon of the model. Deterministic and probability sensitivity analysis (PSA) were carried out to verify the validity of the model. RESULTS: Lenvatinib incurred higher costs (A$96,325) and superior health outcomes (QALYs: 1.205), while sorafenib had lower costs (A$92,394) and inferior health outcomes (QALYs: 1.086). Thus, lenvatinib yielded an incremental cost-utility ratio of A$33,028/QALY gained. Further, the results of the PSA found that the probability of lenvatinib being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of A$50,000/QALY was 64%. CONCLUSION: Our study found that, at current prices, lenvatinib is a cost-effective treatment option compared with sorafenib for the first-line treatment of patients with advanced HCC.

Cost-effectiveness of intermittent preventive treatment with dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine versus single screening and treatment for the control of malaria in pregnancy in Papua, Indonesia: a provider perspective analysis from a cluster-randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Malaria infection during pregnancy is associated with serious adverse maternal and birth outcomes. A randomised controlled trial in Papua, Indonesia, comparing the efficacy of intermittent preventive treatment with dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine with the current strategy of single screening and treatment showed that intermittent preventive treatment is a promising alternative treatment for the reduction of malaria in pregnancy. We aimed to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness of intermittent preventive treatment with dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine compared with single screening and treatment with dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine. METHODS: We did a provider perspective analysis. A decision tree model was analysed from a health provider perspective over a lifetime horizon. Model parameters were used in deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Simulations were run in hypothetical cohorts of 1000 women who received intermittent preventive treatment or single screening and treatment. Disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) for fetal loss or neonatal death, low birthweight, moderate or severe maternal anaemia, and clinical malaria were calculated from trial data and cost estimates in 2016 US dollars from observational studies, health facility costings and public procurement databases. The main outcome measure was the incremental cost per DALY averted. FINDINGS: Relative to single screening and treatment, intermittent preventive treatment resulted in an incremental cost of US$5657 (95% CI 1827 to 9448) and 107·4 incremental DALYs averted (-719·7 to 904·1) per 1000 women; the average incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $53 per DALY averted. INTERPRETATION: Intermittent preventive treatment with dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine offers a cost-effective alternative to single screening and treatment for the prevention of the adverse effects of malaria infection in pregnancy in the context of the moderate malaria transmission setting of Papua. The higher cost of intermittent preventive treatment was driven by monthly administration, as compared with single-administration single screening and treatment. However, acceptability and feasibility considerations will also be needed to inform decision making. FUNDING: Medical Research Council, Department for International Development, and Wellcome Trust.

Cost-Effectiveness of Focal Mass Drug Administration and Mass Drug Administration with Dihydroartemisinin-Piperaquine for Malaria Prevention in Southern Province, Zambia: Results of a Community-Randomized Controlled Trial.

Community-wide administration of antimalarial drugs in therapeutic doses is a potential tool to prevent malaria infection and reduce the malaria parasite reservoir. To measure the effectiveness and cost of using the antimalarial drug combination dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine (DHAp) through different community-wide distribution strategies, Zambia's National Malaria Control Centre conducted a three-armed community-randomized controlled trial. The trial arms were as follows: 1) standard of care (SoC) malaria interventions, 2) SoC plus focal mass drug administration (fMDA), and 3) SoC plus MDA. Mass drug administration consisted of offering all eligible individuals DHAP, irrespective of a rapid diagnostic test (RDT) result. Focal mass drug administration consisted of offering DHAP to all eligible individuals who resided in a household where anyone tested positive by RDT. Results indicate that the costs of fMDA and MDA per person targeted and reached are similar (US$9.01 versus US$8.49 per person, respectively, P = 0.87), but that MDA was superior in all cost-effectiveness measures, including cost per infection averted, cost per case averted, cost per death averted, and cost per disability-adjusted life year averted. Subsequent costing of the MDA intervention in a non-trial, operational setting yielded significantly lower costs per person reached (US$2.90). Mass drug administration with DHAp also met the WHO thresholds for "cost-effective interventions" in the Zambian setting in 90% of simulations conducted using a probabilistic sensitivity analysis based on trial costs, whereas fMDA met these criteria in approximately 50% of simulations. A sensitivity analysis using costs from operational deployment and trial effectiveness yielded improved cost-effectiveness estimates. Mass drug administration may be a cost-effective intervention in the Zambian context and can help reduce the parasite reservoir substantially. Mass drug administration was more cost-effective in relatively higher transmission settings. In all scenarios examined, the cost-effectiveness of MDA was superior to that of fMDA.

Statins for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease prevention in people living with HIV in Thailand: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

INTRODUCTION: People living with HIV (PLHIV) have an elevated risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (CVD) compared to their HIV-negative peers. Expanding statin use may help alleviate this burden. However, the choice of statin in the context of antiretroviral therapy is challenging. Pravastatin and pitavastatin improve cholesterol levels in PLHIV without interacting substantially with antiretroviral therapy. They are also more expensive than most statins. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of pravastatin and pitavastatin for the primary prevention of CVD among PLHIV in Thailand who are not currently using lipid-lowering therapy. METHODS: We developed a discrete-state microsimulation model that randomly selected (with replacement) individuals from the TREAT Asia HIV Observational Database cohort who were aged 40 to 75 years, receiving antiretroviral therapy in Thailand, and not using lipid-lowering therapy. The model simulated each individual's probability of experiencing CVD. We evaluated: (1) treating no one with statins; (2) treating everyone with pravastatin 20mg/day (drug cost 7568 Thai Baht ($US243)/year) and (3) treating everyone with pitavastatin 2 mg/day (drug cost 8182 Baht ($US263)/year). Direct medical costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were assigned in annual cycles over a 20-year time horizon and discounted at 3% per year. We assumed the Thai healthcare sector perspective. RESULTS: Pravastatin was estimated to be less effective and less cost-effective than pitavastatin and was therefore dominated (extended) by pitavastatin. Patients receiving pitavastatin accumulated 0.042 additional QALYs compared with those not using a statin, at an extra cost of 96,442 Baht ($US3095), giving an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 2,300,000 Baht ($US73,812)/QALY gained. These findings were sensitive to statin costs and statin efficacy, pill burden, and targeting of PLHIV based on CVD risk. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of 160,000 Baht ($US5135)/QALY gained, we estimated that pravastatin would become cost-effective at an annual cost of 415 Baht ($US13.30)/year and pitavastatin would become cost-effective at an annual cost of 600 Baht ($US19.30)/year. CONCLUSIONS: Neither pravastatin nor pitavastatin were projected to be cost-effective for the primary prevention of CVD among PLHIV in Thailand who are not currently using lipid-lowering therapy. We do not recommend expanding current use of these drugs among PLHIV in Thailand without substantial price reduction.

Lenvatinib versus sorafenib for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

Aim: To investigate the cost-effectiveness of lenvatinib and sorafenib in the treatment of patients with nonresected hepatocellular carcinoma in China. Materials & methods: Markov model was used to simulate the direct medical cost and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Clinical data were derived from the Phase 3 randomized clinical trial in a Chinese population. Results: Sorafenib treatment resulted in 1.794 QALYs at a cost of $43,780.73. Lenvatinib treatment resulted in 2.916 QALYs for patients weighing <60 and ≥60 kg at a cost of $57,049.43 and $75,900.36, The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio to the sorafenib treatment group was $11,825.94/QALY and $28,627.12/QALY, respectively. Conclusion: According to WHO's triple GDP per capita, the use of lenvatinib by providing drugs is a cost-effective strategy.

Comparative effectiveness of budesonide inhalation suspension and montelukast in children with mild asthma in Korea.

Objective: The comparative effectiveness of low-dose budesonide inhalation suspension (BIS) versus oral montelukast (MON) in managing asthma control among children with mild asthma was assessed in Korea.Methods: Claims from Korea's national health insurance database for children (2-17 years) with mild asthma (GINA 1 or 2) who initiated BIS or MON during 2015 were retrospectively analyzed. Pre- and post-index windows were 1 year each. Adherence, persistency, asthma control, asthma-related health-care resource utilization, and costs were evaluated using unadjusted descriptive statistics and propensity score-matched regression analyses.Results: The number of children identified was 26,052 for unmatched (n = 1,221 BIS; n = 24,831 MON) and 2,290 for matched populations (n = 1,145 per cohort). Medication adherence, measured by proportion of days covered, was low for both cohorts but significantly higher for MON versus BIS (13.8% vs. 4.5%; p < .001). Time to loss of persistency was longer for MON versus BIS (82.3 vs. 78.4 days, respectively; p < .001). Mean number of post-index asthma-related office visits was 6.6 for BIS versus 8.3 for MON (p < .001). However, a greater proportion of patients in the BIS cohort had an asthma exacerbation-related office visit than the MON cohort (78.3% vs. 56.1%; p < .001). Asthma-related total health-care costs were higher with MON versus BIS (₩ 190,185 vs. ₩ 167,432, respectively; p < .001), likely driven by higher pharmaceutical costs associated with MON (₩ 69,113 vs. ₩ 49,225; p < .001).Conclusions: Montelukast patients had better adherence, a longer time to loss of persistency, and were less likely to experience an exacerbation-related office visit in the post-index period than BIS patients.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Adjuvant Neratinib Following Trastuzumab in Early-Stage HER2-Positive Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Disease-free survival (DFS) in early-stage human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive breast cancer is significantly greater with the addition of neratinib after adjuvant trastuzumab versus no additional therapy. However, it remains uncertain whether these survival gains represent good value for the money, given the substantial cost of neratinib. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate clinical and economic implications of adding neratinib after adjuvant trastuzumab based on results from the phase III ExteNET trial. METHODS: A 3-state Markov model was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of neratinib for women with early-stage (I-III) HER2-positive breast cancer. Five-year recurrence rates were derived from the ExteNET trial. Mortality and recurrence rates after 5 years were derived from the HERceptin Adjuvant (HERA) trial. Outcomes included life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and direct medical expenditures. The analysis was performed from a payer perspective over a lifetime horizon. One-way sensitivity and probabilistic analyses were conducted to evaluate uncertainty. RESULTS: Total cost of neratinib following adjuvant trastuzumab was $317,619 versus $152,812 for adjuvant trastuzumab alone. A gain of 0.4 QALYs (15.7 vs. 15.3) and 0.1 years of projected life expectancy (18.3 vs. 18.2) favored neratinib after trastuzumab versus trastuzumab alone. The neratinib cost per QALY gained was $416,106. At standard willingness-to-pay thresholds of $50,000, $100,000, and $200,000 per QALY gained, neratinib has a probability of 2.8%, 16.7%, and 33.9% of cost-effectiveness, respectively. The cost per QALY gained in a scenario analysis only including patients with hormone-receptor positive disease was $275,311. CONCLUSIONS: Based on 5-year data from ExteNET, neratinib following adjuvant trastuzumab is not projected to be cost-effective, even among those patients shown to derive the greatest clinical benefit. Future analyses should reassess the cost-effectiveness associated with neratinib treatment as trial data mature. DISCLOSURES: No outside funding supported this study. Roth reports consulting fees from Genentech. Steuten reports grants from AstraZeneca, EMD Serono, and Genomic Health, along with personal fees from Agendia, unrelated to this study. The other authors have no conflicts of interest in connection with this study.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of lenvatinib treatment for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC) compared with sorafenib in Japan.

BACKGROUND: Lenvatinib demonstrated a treatment effect on overall survival by the statistical confirmation of non-inferiority to sorafenib for the first-line treatment of uHCC. The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of lenvatinib compared with sorafenib for patients with uHCC in Japan. METHODS: A partitioned-survival model was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of lenvatinib versus sorafenib when treating uHCC patients over a lifetime horizon and considering total public healthcare expenditure. Efficacy and safety data were extracted from the REFLECT trial. Utility values were derived from the European Quality-of-Life 5-Dimension Questionnaire, conducted with patients enrolled in the REFLECT trial. Direct medical costs, such as primary drug therapy, outpatient visits, diagnostic tests, hospitalization, post-progression therapy, and adverse-event treatments, were included. Cost parameters unavailable in the clinical trial or publications were obtained based on the consolidated clinical standards from a Delphi panel of four Japanese medical experts. RESULTS: For lenvatinib versus sorafenib, the incremental cost was - 406,307 Japanese Yen (JPY), and the incremental life years and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were 0.27 and 0.23, respectively. Thus, lenvatinib dominated sorafenib, due to the mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratio falling in the fourth quadrant, conferring more benefit at lower costs compared with sorafenib. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that 81.3% of the simulations were favorable to lenvatinib compared with sorafenib, with a payer's willingness-to-pay-per-QALY of 5 million JPY. CONCLUSIONS: Lenvatinib was cost-effective compared with sorafenib for the first-line treatment of uHCC in Japan.

[The patients' cost of the montelukast therapy due to the generic substitution]. / A montelukasztterápia betegterheinek változása a generikus árverseny hatására.

INTRODUCTION AND AIM: The aim of our study was to analyse the public price of the montelukast sodium therapy in Hungary. METHOD: Data derived from the nationwide pharmaceutical database of the Hungarian National Health Insurance Fund Administration. We observed the turnover and price of the medicaments containing the active substance montelukast sodium from 2007 to 2015. Accordingly, our indicators were: consumer price, DCT (daily cost of therapy), co-payment, quasi co-payment, DOT (days of treatment). RESULTS: Due to the increasing DOT, the total amount of the public price paid by the patients increased until 2011, reaching the amount of 1 million USD; then, due to the generic competition and the blind bid methods, it decreased to 490 000 USD. The total amount of the public price of the brand-name Singulair moved to the generics during 3 years (2011-2014). The DCT of the originator Singulair 10 mg tablets decreased from 1.1 USD to 0.34 USD; the DCT of the generic product Montelukast TEVA decreased from 0.67 USD to 0.16 USD in the period under review. CONCLUSION: Due to the generic competition, the patients' access to drugs containing montelukast sodium increased significantly: the DOT increased, the co-payment decreased. Orv Hetil. 2018; 159(17): 682-687.

Ponatinib for Treating Chronic Myeloid Leukaemia: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

As part of its single technology appraisal process, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the company that manufactures ponatinib (Inclusig®; Incyte Corporation) to submit evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness for previously treated chronic myeloid leukaemia (CML) and Philadelphia-chromosome-positive acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (Ph+ ALL). This paper focusses on the three phases of CML: the chronic phase (CP), the accelerated phase (AP) and the blast crisis phase (BP). The School of Health and Related Research Technology Appraisal Group at the University of Sheffield was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). This article presents the critical review of the company's submission by the ERG and the outcome of the NICE guidance. Clinical evidence for ponatinib was derived from a phase II, industry-sponsored, single-arm, open-label, multicentre, non-comparative study. Despite the limited evidence and potential for biases, this study demonstrated that ponatinib was likely to be an effective treatment (in terms of major cytogenetic response and major haematological response) with an acceptable safety profile for patients with CML. Given the absence of any head-to-head studies comparing ponatinib with other relevant comparators, the company undertook a matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) of ponatinib with bosutinib. The approach was only used for patients with CP-CML because comprehensive data were not available for the AP- or BP-CML groups to allow the matching technique to be used. Despite the uncertainty about the MAIC approach, ponatinib was considered likely to offer advantages over bosutinib in the third-line setting, particularly for complete cytogenetic response. The company developed two health economic models to assess the cost effectiveness of ponatinib for the treatment of patients in CP-CML or in advanced CML (AP- or BP-CML, which were modelled separately). The company did not adequately explore the uncertainty in the survivor functions. As a result, the ERG believed the uncertainty in the decision problem was underestimated. Exploratory analyses undertaken by the ERG produced the following results for ponatinib. In CP-CML, from £18,246 to £27,667 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained compared with best supportive care (BSC), from £19,680 to £37,381 per QALY gained compared with bosutinib and from £18,279 per QALY gained to dominated compared with allogeneic stem cell transplant (allo-SCT). In AP-CML, the cost per QALY gained for ponatinib ranged from £7123 to £17,625 compared with BSC, and from dominating to £61,896 per QALY gained compared with allo-SCT. In BP-CML, the cost effectiveness of ponatinib ranged from £5033 per QALY gained to dominated compared with allo-SCT, although it was likely to be at the more favourable end of this range, and dominant in all scenarios compared with BSC. The NICE appraisal committee concluded that ponatinib is a cost-effective use of NHS resources in the considered population, subject to the company providing the agreed discount in the Patient Access Scheme.

Cost Effectiveness of Lenvatinib, Sorafenib and Placebo in Treatment of Radioiodine-Refractory Differentiated Thyroid Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Lenvatinib (Lenvima®) and sorafenib (Nexavar®) are the two most recently Food and Drug Administration-approved drugs for treating radioiodine-refractory differentiated thyroid cancer (RR-DTC). Both demonstrated superior progression-free survival over placebo in their respective Phase III clinical trials. This study compared the cost-effectiveness of the two treatments with placebo from a limited societal perspective. METHODS: A Markov model was developed to estimate the costs and health benefits for treatment of RR-DTC. The probabilities and survival rates were obtained from two Phase III trials: the SELECT trial comparing lenvatinib to placebo, and the DECISION trial comparing sorafenib to placebo. A bimonthly cycle length and half-cycle correction were used for a lifetime time horizon. Medical costs and utility data were obtained from RedBook, Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project, and the published literature. All costs were adjusted to US$2015, discounted at 3% annually. Then second-order Monte Carlo simulation with distributions was conducted to obtain the acceptability curve to address the uncertainty around model inputs. RESULTS: In the base case, lenvatinib was the most cost-effective treatment compared to sorafenib (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER] = $25,275/quality-adjusted life year [QALY]) and placebo (ICER = $40,869). Sorafenib is also cost-effective compared to placebo (ICER = $64,067/QALY). The treatment decisions were found to be sensitive to the treatment costs and the health utility associated with lenvatinib and its side effects. The acceptability curve showed lenvatinib optimal 80% of time at WTP of $100,000/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that lenvatinib is the optimally cost-effective treatment for RR-DTC, although both lenvatinib and sorafenib are cost-effective compared to placebo.

Treatment-seeking behaviour and associated costs for malaria in Papua, Indonesia.

BACKGROUND: Malaria remains a significant public health issue in Eastern Indonesia, where multidrug resistant Plasmodium falciparum and Plasmodium vivax are highly prevalent. The objective of this study was to describe treatment-seeking behaviour and household costs prior to a change to a unified treatment policy of dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine in Mimika district, Papua province in 2006. METHODS: In 2005 a randomized cross-sectional household survey was conducted to collect data on demographics, socio-economic status (SES), treatment-seeking, case management, and household costs. Information on the cost of illness was also collected from patients exiting health facilities, in order to compare the cost of episodes diagnosed as P. vivax compared with those diagnosed as P. falciparum. RESULTS: 825 households were included in the survey. Of the 764 individuals who sought treatment for fever outside the home in the last month, 46% (349/764) went to a public health facility. Of the 894 reported visits to healthcare providers, 48% (433) resulted in a blood test, of which 78% (337) were reportedly positive. Only 10% (17/177) of individuals who reported testing positive for P. falciparum or mixed infection received the first-line treatment of chloroquine with SP, and 38% (61/159) of those with a diagnosis of P. vivax reportedly received the first-line treatment of chloroquine and primaquine. Overall, public facilities were more likely to prescribe the correct prevailing first-line drug combinations than private providers (OR = 3.77 [95% CI 2.31-6.14], p < 0.001). The mean cost to the household of an episode of P. vivax was similar to the cost of P. falciparum [US$44.50 (SD: 46.23) vs US$48.58 (SD: 64.65)]. CONCLUSIONS: Private providers were a popular source of treatment for malaria, but adherence to the national guidelines was low and the economic burden of malaria for both P. falciparum and P. vivax infections was substantial. Engagement with the private sector is needed to ensure that patients have access to affordable good quality, effective diagnostics and anti-malarials for both P. falciparum and P. vivax.