Assessing the cost-effectiveness of mepolizumab as add-on therapy to standard of care for severe eosinophilic asthma in Singapore.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of mepolizumab added to standard of care (SOC) compared with SOC alone among patients with severe uncontrolled eosinophilic asthma in the Singapore setting. METHODS: A Markov model with three health states (asthma on mepolizumab and SOC, asthma on SOC alone, and death) was developed from a healthcare system perspective over a lifetime horizon. During each 4-week cycle, patients in the non-death health states could experience asthma exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroid burst, emergency department visit, or hospitalization. Asthma-related mortality following an exacerbation or all-cause mortality could also occur at each cycle. The model was populated using local costs while utilities were derived from international literature. Transition probabilities were obtained from a mixture of Singapore-specific and internationally published data. RESULTS: The base-case analysis comparing mepolizumab plus SOC with SOC alone resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of SGD335 486 (USD238 195) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the ICER was most sensitive to the price of mepolizumab, followed by the proportion of exacerbations which required hospital intensive care. Despite restricting mepolizumab use to patients with a higher baseline exacerbation rate (3 in the past year) in a scenario analysis, the ICER remained high at SGD238 876 (USD 169 602) per QALY gained. CONCLUSION: At its current price, mepolizumab is not considered a cost-effective use of healthcare resources in Singapore. Substantial price reductions for mepolizumab are required to improve its cost-effectiveness to an acceptable range. These results will be useful to inform national funding decisions.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of pembrolizumab monotherapy versus chemotherapy for previously untreated advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab monotherapy compared with standard chemotherapy for the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in previously untreated adults who have a high programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) tumor proportion score of 50% or greater in Singapore.Materials and methods: A partitioned-survival analysis model was developed from a healthcare system's perspective that extrapolated clinical and economic outcomes of first-line pembrolizumab (maximum treatment duration of 2 years) versus platinum doublet chemotherapy over a 10-year time horizon for patients with advanced NSCLC. The model consisted of three health states: alive with no progression, alive with progression, and dead. Key clinical inputs were based on Kaplan-Meier survival curves from the interim (median follow-up = 11.2 months) and updated analysis (median follow-up = 25.2 months) of the KEYNOTE-024 randomized controlled trial. Local cost data were applied. Utilities were derived from published international estimates. Both one-way and multivariate probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were conducted to identify key drivers of the results.Results: Using the results from the updated analysis of KEYNOTE-024, patients treated with pembrolizumab experienced more quality adjusted life-years (QALYs), but incurred higher costs compared to chemotherapy over a 10-year time horizon (pembrolizumab: 1.9983 QALYs, SGD215,761; chemotherapy: 1.1317 QALYs, SGD70,444). The base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was SGD167,692 per QALY gained. One-way sensitivity analysis showed the ICER was most sensitive to the cost of pembrolizumab, followed by the time horizon. Multivariate PSA indicated that pembrolizumab had 0% probability of being cost-effective at a hypothetical willingness-to-pay threshold of SGD100,000 per QALY gained.Conclusion: While pembrolizumab is superior to standard chemotherapy in improving overall survival and progression-free survival, results suggest that it is unlikely to be cost-effective at its current price in Singapore. Factors including clinical effectiveness, safety, and budget impact should also be considered when making national funding decisions.