Impact of novel agents on patient-relevant outcomes in patients with previously untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia who are not eligible for fludarabine-based therapy.

BACKGROUND: Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is an orphan disease that primarily affects the elderly. The majority of symptomatic patients eligible for frontline treatment are unfit for fludarabine based chemoimmunotherapy. Historical treatment includes chlorambucil (Chl), bendamustine/rituximab (BR), and chlorambucil/rituximab/ChlR combination. Clinical guidelines now recommend the use of novel agents, such as ibrutinib (Ibr), in both frontline and relapse settings and other novel agents, such as idelalisib (with rituximab), in relapse settings. Despite compelling clinical results for novel agents, follow-up in clinical trials is relatively short and, thus, the comparative long-term benefits are still unknown. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The authors developed a simulation model to generate treatment specific lifetime estimates of Overall Survival (OS) and Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) for treatment with BR, Chl, ChlR, and Ibr. Two potential clinical scenarios were modelled: with and without novel agents for treating CLL. The model was based on health states relating to first- and second-line progression-free survival (PFS), post-progression survival, and death. RESULTS: Where novel agents were assumed unavailable, mean OS ranged from 5.4-8.5 years and QALYs from 3.5-6.1. Where novel agents were available, the mean OS increased to 10.0 years, with a corresponding increase in QALYs to 7.6. Frontline Ibr use followed by Physician's Choice, including novel agents at relapse, resulted in projected increase in OS of between 18% (1.5 years) and 85% (4.6 years), corresponding to a 25-117% increase in QALYs, compared with currently available traditional therapies. LIMITATIONS: The limitations of this analysis include immature OS data and the assumption of equivalent efficacy across all novel agents in terms of their impact on PFS and OS. CONCLUSIONS: The use of novel agents is predicted to yield substantive gains in predicted lifetime OS and QALY improvements compared to traditional therapies in CLL patients who are ineligible for fludarabine-based chemoimmunotherapy.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Obinutuzumab for Previously Untreated Chronic Lymphocytic Leukaemia in Portuguese Patients who are Unsuitable for Full-Dose Fludarabine-Based Therapy.

BACKGROUND: Chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL) mostly affects patients with comorbidities and limited therapeutic options. Obinutuzumab in combination with chlorambucil (GClb) is a new therapeutic option for previously untreated CLL patients who are unsuitable for full-dose fludarabine-based therapy. This combination delays disease progression but incurs additional costs; thus, an assessment of its value for money is relevant. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the incremental cost-utility ratio of GClb in comparison with (i) rituximab in combination with chlorambucil (RClb), and (ii) chlorambucil alone (Clb) from the perspective of the Portuguese National Health Service (NHS). METHODS: A Markov model was used to predict disease progression. Pre-progression clinical data were based on the latest CLL11 trial data, and post-progression clinical data were obtained from CLL5 trial data. Utility values are from Kosmas et al. (Leuk Lymphoma 56:1320-1326, 14). Only direct medical costs were included. The resource consumption was estimated by a panel of Portuguese experts, and the unit costs were obtained from official sources. A discount rate of 5% was applied to costs and consequences. RESULTS: GClb and RClb were associated with an increase of 1.06 and 0.39 quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) at an additional cost of €21,720 and €9836 when compared to Clb, respectively. The cost-utility ratio of GClb versus Clb was €20,397/QALY, while RClb was extendedly dominated. CONCLUSIONS: The use of GClb for previously untreated CLL patients who are unsuitable for full-dose fludarabine-based therapy incurs an incremental cost per QALY that is generally accepted in Portugal. Therefore, although there is some uncertainty, obinutuzumab is probably a cost-effective therapy in the Portuguese setting.

Cost-Effectiveness Model for Chemoimmunotherapy Options in Patients with Previously Untreated Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Unsuitable for Full-Dose Fludarabine-Based Therapy.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of treatment with anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody obinutuzumab plus chlorambucil (GClb) in untreated patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia unsuitable for full-dose fludarabine-based therapy. METHODS: A Markov model was used to assess the cost-effectiveness of GClb versus other chemoimmunotherapy options. The model comprised three mutually exclusive health states: "progression-free survival (with/without therapy)", "progression (refractory/relapsed lines)", and "death". Each state was assigned a health utility value representing patients' quality of life and a specific cost value. Comparisons between GClb and rituximab plus chlorambucil or only chlorambucil were performed using patient-level clinical trial data; other comparisons were performed via a network meta-analysis using information gathered in a systematic literature review. To support the model, a utility elicitation study was conducted from the perspective of the UK National Health Service. RESULTS: There was good agreement between the model-predicted progression-free and overall survival and that from the CLL11 trial. On incorporating data from the indirect treatment comparisons, it was found that GClb was cost-effective with a range of incremental cost-effectiveness ratios below a threshold of £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, and remained so during deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses under various scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: GClb was estimated to increase both quality-adjusted life expectancy and treatment costs compared with several commonly used therapies, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios below commonly referenced UK thresholds. This article offers a real example of how to combine direct and indirect evidence in a cost-effectiveness analysis of oncology drugs.

Cost-effectiveness of First-line Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Treatments When Full-dose Fludarabine Is Unsuitable.

PURPOSE: The cost-effectiveness of first-line chronic lymphocytic leukemia treatments was assessed among patients unsuitable for full doses of fludarabine. METHODS: The study's key outcome was the life-time incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) (euro/quality-adjusted life-year [QALY] gained) with an annual 3% discounting. A probabilistic Markov model with 3 health states (progression-free, progression, and death) was developed. Survival time was modeled based on age-matched clinical data by using appropriate survival distributions. Each health state was assigned an EuroQoL-5D-3L quality-of-life estimate and Finnish payer costs according to treatment received, and Binet stage of disease; severe adverse events and treatment inconvenience were also included. Six approaches considered the risk and value of key outcomes: cost-effectiveness efficiency frontiers; Bayesian treatment ranking (BTR) rated the lowest ICERs and best QALY gains; the cost-effectiveness acceptability frontier demonstrated optimal treatment; expected value of perfect information; and the cost-benefit assessment (CBA), a type of clinical value analysis, increased the clinical interpretation and appeal of modeled outcomes by including both relative and absolute (impact investment [benefit obtained with a fixed limited budget]) benefit assessments. FINDINGS: The ICERs compared with chlorambucil varied from €29,334 with obinutuzumab + chlorambucil to €82,159 with ofatumumab + chlorambucil. Based on the BTR of ICERs versus chlorambucil, obinutuzumab + chlorambucil was the most cost-effective with 93% probability; rituximab + chlorambucil was the second most cost-effective (73%); and rituximab + bendamustine was the third most cost-effective (65%). The ICERs of obinutuzumab + chlorambucil were €20,038, €11,556, and €15,586 compared with rituximab + chlorambucil, rituximab + bendamustine, and ofatumumab + chlorambucil. Obinutuzumab + chlorambucil was the most cost-effective treatment, with 54% and 99% probability at €30,000 and €50,000/QALY gained, respectively. The corresponding expected values of perfect information were €1438 and €44 per patient. Based on the BTR of QALYs gained, obinutuzumab + chlorambucil was the most effective, with 100% probability; rituximab + chlorambucil was the second most effective (56%); and rituximab + bendamustine was the third most effective treatment (81%). Results were robust in sensitivity analyses. For obinutuzumab + chlorambucil, the CBA demonstrated the best clinical value-to-cost-effectiveness relation and the longest time progression-free with a limited budget. IMPLICATIONS: The mean results were sensitive to large changes in time horizon, indirect comparison hazard ratios, survival distributions, and discounting; however, obinutuzumab + chlorambucil provided considerable effectiveness and best value for money among chronic lymphocytic leukemia patients unsuitable to receive full doses of fludarabine. In this case, CBA concurred with the key outcome of the study. However, the CBA cannot fully substitute the key outcome, and further cost-effectiveness studies with different cancer types are needed to assess the validity of a limited CBA.

Cost Effectiveness of Ofatumumab Plus Chlorambucil in First-Line Chronic Lymphocytic Leukaemia in Canada.

OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to estimate the cost effectiveness of ofatumumab plus chlorambucil (OChl) versus chlorambucil in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia for whom fludarabine-based therapies are considered inappropriate from the perspective of the publicly funded healthcare system in Canada. METHODS: A semi-Markov model (3-month cycle length) used survival curves to govern progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Efficacy and safety data and health-state utility values were estimated from the COMPLEMENT-1 trial. Post-progression treatment patterns were based on clinical guidelines, Canadian treatment practices and published literature. Total and incremental expected lifetime costs (in Canadian dollars [$Can], year 2013 values), life-years and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were computed. Uncertainty was assessed via deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: The discounted lifetime health and economic outcomes estimated by the model showed that, compared with chlorambucil, first-line treatment with OChl led to an increase in QALYs (0.41) and total costs ($Can27,866) and to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $Can68,647 per QALY gained. In deterministic sensitivity analyses, the ICER was most sensitive to the modelling time horizon and to the extrapolation of OS treatment effects beyond the trial duration. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the probability of cost effectiveness at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $Can100,000 per QALY gained was 59 %. CONCLUSIONS: Base-case results indicated that improved overall response and PFS for OChl compared with chlorambucil translated to improved quality-adjusted life expectancy. Sensitivity analysis suggested that OChl is likely to be cost effective subject to uncertainty associated with the presence of any long-term OS benefit and the model time horizon.

Bendamustine versus chlorambucil for the first-line treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia in England and Wales: a cost-utility analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of bendamustine compared with chlorambucil as first-line treatment for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia who would be considered unsuitable for treatment with fludarabine combination chemotherapy regimens. METHODS: A semi-Markov approach was used to estimate time in each health state. The model was parameterized primarily by using data from a phase III randomized, open-label trial comparing bendamustine with chlorambucil. It captured the increased progression-free survival and improved response rates with bendamustine, and the cost and quality of life impacts of postprogression treatments. The analysis was conducted from the perspective of the National Health Service in England and Wales. A lifetime (35-year) time horizon was used. Deterministic sensitivity analyses, probabilistic sensitivity analyses, and subgroup analyses in older patients and patients with poor performance status were carried out. RESULTS: The estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £ 11,960 per quality-adjusted life-year. None of the deterministic sensitivity analyses increased the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio by more than £ 2000. Subgroup analyses showed that bendamustine remained cost-effective across different patient groups. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that at the £ 20,000 threshold, bendamustine has a 90% probability of being cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: Bendamustine represents good value for first-line treatment of patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia who are unsuitable for treatment with fludarabine combination chemotherapy. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio is below the thresholds commonly applied in England and Wales (£ 20,000-£ 30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year).

Economic assessment on the management of chronic lymphocytic leukaemia.

In the last decade, several new promising treatments for chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL) have been developed. Healthcare costs are increasing and new treatments tend to be very expensive; therefore, information about the cost effectiveness in treatments for CLL is urgently needed. The authors performed a literature review on the currently available economic evaluations on CLL treatments. A total of 65 articles were found, of which 11 could be included. These articles were evaluated on the basis of six methodological requirements for economic evaluations, enabling readers to judge the value of the studies. Only a small amount of information was available on the costs of CLL treatments. Future economic evaluations should be performed according to the methodological requirements for these studies, which should also be properly documented.

Treatment of 72 newly diagnosed Waldenstrom macroglobulinemia cases with oral melphalan, cyclophosphamide, and prednisone: results and cost analysis.

BACKGROUND: Current treatment regimens for Waldenstrom macroglobulinemia (WM) are based on the use of oral alkylating agents. Recently, however, other more costly agents have been proposed for the treatment of WM. In the current study, the authors report on results obtained using oral melphalan, cyclophosphamide, and prednisone (MCP) to treat 72 patients with WM, and they compare these results (and the associated costs) with those observed using more aggressive protocols. METHODS: Between July 1973 and April 2002, the authors documented overexpression of the immunoglobulin M paraprotein in 317 consecutive patients. Of these, 100 had newly diagnosed WM, and the 72 who were symptomatic were treated using the MCP protocol. Response rate, overall survival (OS), response duration, freedom from progression (FFP), event-free survival (EFS) duration, toxicity, and cost per course in Euro and U.S. dollars were evaluated for patients receiving this regimen. RESULTS: Seventy-one of 72 patients (99%) were evaluable. Of these patients, 55 (77%) achieved a response; 7 others (10%) experienced disease stabilization, and the remaining 9 (13%) experienced disease progression. After a median follow-up of 72 months (range, 3-195 months), the median durations of EFS, FFP, response, and OS were 47, 55, 64, and 66 months, respectively. No World Health Organization Grade III or IV toxicities were observed, and side effects were limited to transient nausea, emesis, and mild neutropenia. The cost per course of the MCP regimen was $16, similar to that of standard protocols involving chlorambucil and much less than that of more aggressive protocols (price range, $91-11091) proposed for the treatment of WM. CONCLUSIONS: Like chlorambucil-based protocols, the MCP regimen is a cost-effective and safe option for the treatment of patients with WM. Furthermore, the results obtained do not appear to be inferior to those yielded by more expensive, aggressive, and toxic intravenous protocols.