The Cost-Effectiveness of Lorlatinib Versus Chemotherapy as a Second- or Third-Line Treatment in Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase (ALK)-Positive Non-small-cell Lung Cancer in Sweden.

BACKGROUND: Lorlatinib is a third-generation anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)/c-ros oncogene 1 (ROS1) tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) with efficacy in patients with ALK-rearranged non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) previously treated with a second-generation ALK inhibitor or with first- and second-generation ALK inhibitors. We examined the cost-effectiveness of second- or third-line+ (2L+ or 3L+) lorlatinib in Sweden, versus chemotherapy. METHODS: A partitioned survival model with three health states (progression free, progressed, or death) was used. Lorlatinib relative efficacy versus chemotherapy was derived using unanchored matching adjusted indirect treatment comparisons from a phase 2 clinical trial. Utility data were derived from the same trial and published studies. Costs (year 2019) were obtained from Swedish national data. Costs and benefits were discounted at 3% per annum using a societal perspective (base case). Model robustness was evaluated with deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: For 2L+, the average discounted total quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gain was 1.29 years. Total incremental costs were Swedish krona (SEK) 731,791, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of SEK 566,278 per QALY gained. Non-discounted survival gain amounted to 1.94 years. For 3L+, the average discounted total QALY gain was 1.25 years. Total incremental costs were SEK 754,801, resulting in an ICER of SEK 603,934 per QALY gained. Non-discounted survival gain was 1.88 years. Sensitivity analyses were consistent. CONCLUSIONS: ICERs ranged from SEK 421,000 to SEK 384,066 less than the boundary for a cost-effective treatment for a high-severity disease in Sweden (SEK 988,000), suggesting 2L+ or 3L+ lorlatinib is a cost-effective treatment for ALK-positive NSCLC versus chemotherapy.

Intravitreal Ranibizumab for the Treatment of Visual Impairment Due to Choroidal Neovascularization Associated with Rare Diseases: Cost-Effectiveness in the UK.

INTRODUCTION: This study sought to determine the cost-effectiveness of intravitreal ranibizumab compared with best supportive care (BSC; considered to be no active treatment) for the treatment of visual impairment due to choroidal neovascularization (CNV) associated with causes other than neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) and pathologic myopia (PM) in a UK setting. METHODS: An individual patient-level simulation model was developed to estimate the lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of ranibizumab vs. BSC. Regression analyses, performed on patient-level data collected within the pivotal phase III MINERVA trial, modelled visual acuity (VA) progression while patients remained on treatment. Patient utilities were modelled as a function of VA in both eyes and resource use estimates were based on trial data or the literature. Costs were evaluated from the perspective of the UK National Health Service and personal social services, with future costs and health outcomes discounted at 3.5% per annum. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were conducted. RESULTS: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for intravitreal ranibizumab was £1363 per QALY compared to BSC and was associated with an incremental benefit of 1.06 QALYs and an incremental cost of £1444 per patient. Drug and administration costs of intravitreal ranibizumab were offset by the prevention of the development of blindness and its associated costs, while the increase in benefits was driven by a reduction in mortality risk and an improved health-related quality of life attributed to an improvement in VA. The findings were robust to a range of sensitivity analyses and ranibizumab consistently remained cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000-30,000 per QALY gained for all sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: Intravitreal ranibizumab is a highly cost-effective intervention for the treatment of CNV due to causes other than nAMD and PM as it delivers substantial QALY gains to patients while making cost savings vs. BSC. FUNDING: Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd.

Cost-effectiveness of ustekinumab in moderate to severe Crohn's disease in Sweden.

BACKGROUND: Human monoclonal antibody ustekinumab is a novel Crohn's disease (CD) treatment blocking pro-inflammatory cytokines interleukin-12 and 23. The study's objective was to assess cost-effectiveness of ustekinumab in moderate to severely active CD in Sweden. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness model with an induction phase decision-tree structure and a maintenance phase Markov cohort structure was constructed. CD was represented by five health-states: remission, mild, moderate-severe, surgery and death. Ustekinumab was compared to adalimumab in patients who had failed conventional care, some of which had tried TNF-alpha-inhibitor(s) without experiencing treatment failure or side effects ("conventional care failure population") and to vedolizumab in patients previously failing TNF-alpha-inhibitor treatment. Discontinuation probabilities, utilities and ustekinumab induction efficacy were sourced from phase-III trials. Maintenance and comparator efficacy came from network-meta and treatment-sequence analyses. Resource use and unit costs were derived from literature and validated by clinical experts. The analysis had a societal perspective, a life-time time-horizon, and 2-year treatment duration. The results robustness was tested in univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Cost-effectiveness was estimated using quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). RESULTS: Ustekinumab dominated adalimumab in conventional care failure population (costs: - €6984, QALYs: + 0.232). In TNF-alpha-inhibitor failure population ustekinumab accrued 0.133 more QALYs than vedolizumab, yielding a €30,282 incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Results were sensitive to decreasing the time horizon and increased treatment duration. At Swedish reference willingness-to-pay of €63,000 (SEK 600,000), ustekinumab had 94% probability of being cost-effective versus adalimumab, and 72% versus vedolizumab. CONCLUSIONS: Results indicate ustekinumab dominates adalimumab in conventional care failure population, and is cost-effective versus vedolizumab in TNF-alpha-inhibitor failure population.