Cost-effectiveness analysis of nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus platinum-doublet chemotherapy for first-line treatment of stage IV or recurrent non-small cell lung cancer in the United States.

AIM: We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab in combination with ipilimumab (NIVO + IPI) versus platinum-doublet chemotherapy (PDC) for the first-line treatment of stage IV or recurrent non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) from a third-party payer perspective in the United States (US). METHODS: A partitioned survival model was developed using efficacy, safety, and utility inputs derived from Part 1 of the phase 3 CheckMate 227 trial (NCT02477826) with 37.7-month minimum follow-up for overall survival (OS). OS and progression-free (PF) survival were extrapolated over a 20-year time-horizon using parametric spline-based models selected based on goodness of fit and validated with data from external sources. Duration of treatment Kaplan-Meier curves were used for treatment cost calculations. US-specific costs (2021 dollars) for drug acquisition, administration, and monitoring; disease management (PF and progressed disease health states); end-of-life care; adverse events; and subsequent treatments were derived from publicly available sources. Time-to-death utilities were applied in the base case, whereas treatment-specific progression-based utilities were tested in a scenario analysis. Main outcomes included incremental cost per life-year gained (LYG) and quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Model uncertainty was assessed through deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: NIVO + IPI resulted in 1.53 additional life-years, 1.33 additional QALYs, and $142 088 in additional costs compared with PDC. The incremental cost per LYG was $92 651, whereas incremental cost per QALY gained was $106 553. The application of treatment-specific progression-based utilities yielded an incremental cost per QALY gained of $117 076. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed a 98% probability that NIVO + IPI was cost-effective versus PDC at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: NIVO + IPI was estimated to be cost-effective as a first-line treatment for stage IV or recurrent NSCLC in the US, with increased survival and higher cost compared with PDC.

Clinical and economic impact of mirabegron compared with antimuscarinics for the treatment of overactive bladder in Canada.

BACKGROUND: The ß3-adrenoceptor agonist, mirabegron, and antimuscarinic agents provide similar efficacy for the treatment of overactive bladder (OAB), but mirabegron appears to be associated with better persistence, perhaps due to an absence of anticholinergic side-effects. This study estimated the expected costs associated with the management of OAB in Canada from a societal perspective by utilizing real-world evidence. METHODS: An economic model with monthly cycles and a 1-year time horizon was developed to depict a treatment pathway for a hypothetical cohort of 100 patients with OAB. At model entry, patients receive mirabegron or an antimuscarinic. Patients who do not persist may switch treatment, undergo a minimally invasive procedure, or remain symptomatic (uncontrolled). The model includes direct costs (e.g. physician visits) and indirect costs (e.g. lost productivity). A one-way univariate sensitivity analysis assessed a ±20% variation in each of the key model inputs. RESULTS: At 1 year, a greater proportion of patients persisted on treatment with mirabegron compared with antimuscarinics (33% vs 15-23%), and a smaller proportion switched treatment (17% vs 20-22%). The number of healthcare visits (292 vs 299-304), pads used (74,098 vs 77,878-81,669), and work hours lost (4,497 vs 5,372-6,249) were all lower for mirabegron vs antimuscarinics. The estimated total annual cost of treatment per patient with mirabegron was $2,127.46 Canadian dollars (CAD) ($5.82 CAD/day) compared with $2,150.20-$2,496.69 CAD ($5.89-$6.84 CAD/day) for antimuscarinics. The one-way sensitivity analysis indicated the results are robust. CONCLUSIONS: Improved persistence observed in routine clinical practice with mirabegron appears to translate into benefits of reduced healthcare resource use, and lower direct and indirect costs of treatment compared with antimuscarinics. Overall, these data suggest that mirabegron may offer clinical and economic benefits for the management of patients with OAB in Canada.

Economic Impact of Mirabegron Versus Antimuscarinics for the Treatment of Overactive Bladder in the UK.

PURPOSE: Our objective was to estimate the economic outcomes of using mirabegron versus antimuscarinics in the treatment of patients with overactive bladder (OAB) from a societal perspective in the UK. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A Markov model was developed using Microsoft Excel®. The time horizon and cycle length are 12 and 1 months, respectively; and the hypothetical cohort size 100 patients. Antimuscarinic comparators are fesoterodine, oxybutynin extended release (ER) and immediate release (IR), solifenacin, tolterodine ER/IR, trospium ER/IR, darifenacin and flavoxate. Model inputs included real-world treatment patterns data, healthcare resource use (e.g. clinic visits) and direct and indirect costs (e.g. drug acquisition and productivity loss). Model outputs included patient disposition, healthcare resource use, drug acquisition costs and other treatment-related costs over a 1-year time horizon. A one-way sensitivity analysis was performed to determine the key drivers of the model. RESULTS: In a hypothetical cohort of 100 patients, total annual costs per patient were lower with mirabegron than with all antimuscarinics (£1270.84 vs. 1321.71-1607.48). Healthcare resource use was lower with mirabegron than with all antimuscarinics (115 vs. 119-123 general practitioner visits; 173 vs. 178-185 specialist visits and 0.0042 vs. 0.0050-0.0060 surgical operations) and fewer work hours were lost (4017 vs. 5114-6990 [all per 100 patients]). Sensitivity analysis showed the model was sensitive to persistence and switching rates, although the impact on the overall results was minimal. CONCLUSIONS: In the UK, using mirabegron to treat OAB may improve persistence and lead to reductions in switching treatment, healthcare resource utilization, productivity costs, and overall treatment costs versus antimuscarinics.