Direct Medical Costs of Advanced Breast Cancer Treatment: A Real-World Study in the Southeast of The Netherlands.

OBJECTIVES: Policy makers increasingly seek to complement data from clinical trials with information from routine care. This study aims to provide a detailed account of the hospital resource use and associated costs of patients with advanced breast cancer in The Netherlands. METHODS: Data from 597 patients with advanced breast cancer, diagnosed between 2010 and 2014, were retrieved from the Southeast Netherlands Advanced Breast Cancer Registry. Database lock for this study was in October 2017. We report the observed hospital costs for different resource categories and the lifetime costs per patient, adjusted for censoring using Lin's method. The relationship between patients' characteristics and costs was studied using multivariable regression. RESULTS: The average (SE) lifetime hospital costs of patients with advanced breast cancer were €52 709 (405). Costs differed considerably between patient subgroups, ranging from €29 803 for patients with a triple-negative subtype to €92 272 for patients with hormone receptor positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 positive cancer. Apart from the cancer subtype, several other factors, including age and survival time, were independently associated with patient lifetime costs. Overall, a large share of costs was attributed to systemic therapies (56%), predominantly to a few expensive agents, such as trastuzumab (15%), everolimus (10%), and bevacizumab (9%), as well as to inpatient hospital days (20%). CONCLUSIONS: This real-world study shows the high degree of variability in hospital resource use and associated costs in advanced breast cancer care. The presented resource use and costs data provide researchers and policy makers with key figures for economic evaluations and budget impact analyses.

Evaluating Partitioned Survival and Markov Decision-Analytic Modeling Approaches for Use in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Estimating and Comparing Survival Outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess long-term survival outcomes for nivolumab and everolimus in renal cell carcinoma predicted by three model structures, a partitioned survival model (PSM) and two variations of a semi-Markov model (SMM), for use in cost-effectiveness analyses. METHODS: Three economic model structures were developed and populated using parametric curves fitted to patient-level data from the CheckMate 025 trial. Models consisted of three health states: progression-free, progressed disease, and death. The PSM estimated state occupancy using an area under-the-curve approach from overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) curves. The SMMs derived transition probabilities to calculate patient flow between health states. One SMM assumed that post-progression survival (PPS) was independent of PFS duration (PPS Markov); the second SMM assumed differences in PPS based on PFS duration (PPS-PFS Markov). RESULTS: All models provide a reasonable fit to the observed OS data at 2 years. For estimating cost effectiveness, however, a more relevant comparison is between estimates of OS over the modeling horizon, because this will likely impact differences in costs and quality-adjusted life-years. Estimates of the incremental mean survival benefit of nivolumab versus everolimus over 20 years were 6.6 months (PSM), 7.6 months (PPS Markov), and 7.4 months (PPS-PFS Markov), reflecting non-trivial differences of + 14% and + 11%, respectively, compared with PSM. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence from this study and previous work highlights the importance of the assumptions underlying any model structure, and the need to validate assumptions regarding survival and the application of treatment effects against what is known about the characteristics of the disease.

Metastatic Renal Cell Cancer: An Analysis of Reimbursement Decisions.

INTRODUCTION: Metastatic renal cell carcinoma is a complex cancer for which several drugs have been developed over the years. More recently, drugs that target the specific cancer cell mutations have been developed for metastatic cell carcinoma. However, even with the recent influx of targeted therapy options, significant unmet needs exist in around half of treated renal cell carcinoma patients following the failure of first-line therapy. The aim of this study was to review the health technology appraisals of renal cell carcinoma treatments in several countries to establish what factors might affect the reimbursement decisions. METHODS: The reimbursement data for 10 drugs in several countries were collated from the health technology assessment bodies for each country. The data included information on clinical trials used in the submission documents for the health technology assessment, the reimbursement decisions and the reasons for those decisions, as well as any specific restrictions for use of any of the included drugs. RESULTS: Of the 10 drugs reviewed, only everolimus received a positive reimbursement decision by all the health technology assessment bodies included in the study. The most common reason for a negative reimbursement decision was lack of demonstration of cost-effectiveness of the drugs. Another frequently cited reason was unproven clinical efficacy and poor impact on overall survival. CONCLUSION: Despite the many treatment guidelines and current treatment options that are available for renal cell carcinoma, there remains an unmet need in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. On the basis of this analysis, the key reason for a drug not obtaining a positive reimbursement decision is due to poor efficacy or uncertainty of the drug's efficacy. FUNDING: Eisai, Inc.

Health Economic Evaluation of an Ultrathin, Bioresorbable-Polymer Sirolimus-Eluting Coronary Stent Compared to a Thin, Durable-Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stent.

OBJECTIVES: The study estimated the health economic impact of a latest generation coronary stent with ultrathin struts and bioresorbable polymer coating. BACKGROUND: The recent BIOFLOW V trial, an international FDA approval trial (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02389946), has shown that an ultrathin, bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent had a significantly lower rate of target lesion failure and target vessel-related myocardial infarction than a thin, durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent at 12 months, driven by a lower rate of peri-procedural myocardial infarction (ppMI). METHODS: We used a Markov model to project mortality and cost outcomes of that lower ppMI rate from a U.S. health system perspective over a 12-month horizon. Model parameters were derived from BIOFLOW V trial data, a systematic literature review and expert interviews. RESULTS: Use of the bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent compared to durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent is associated with net reductions in medical cost of $124 (Interquartile Range (IQR) $97-154) per patient in 2018 US$, of which $115 (IQR $76-124) accrues to the initial admission and $10 (IQR $7-72) to cost of follow-up. The lower rate of ppMI translates into a gain of 0.000017 (IQR 0.000011-0.000022) quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) per patient. CONCLUSIONS: Lower ppMI rates of bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent translate into reductions in direct medical cost, while improving patient outcomes. Most of the cost reduction is attributed to the initial admission with moderate savings up to 12 months post-discharge.

Cost-effectiveness and safety of palbociclib and everolimus for treating advanced and recurrent breast cancer.

This retrospective study compares the economic superiority of palbociclib versus everolimus for advanced and recurrent breast cancer. Furthermore, we investigated the safety and treatment continuity of palbociclib and everolimus regimens. Expected costs were calculated based on data from patients with advanced and recurrent breast cancer who were treated with palbociclib and everolimus. The progression-free survival (PFS) from the PALOMA-3 clinical trial and BOLERO-2 clinical trial was used to evaluate the therapeutic efficacy of the regimens. The cost-effectiveness ratio of each chemotherapy agent was calculated by dividing the expected cost by the progression-free survival (PFS). The cost-effectiveness ratio per month was JPY 391,551.3/PFS for palbociclib and JPY 488,690.5/PFS for everolimus (p=0.627). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per month of everolimus to palbociclib was JPY 100,133.7/PFS. For patients receiving everolimus, adverse drug reactions included stomatitis (77.3%), rash (59.1%) and leukopenia (59.1%). For patients receiving palbociclib, neutropenia (69.2%), leukopenia (69.2%) and anemia (30.8%) occurred. In terms of discontinuation owing to adverse events (AEs), pneumonitis, thrombocytopenia, edema, fatigue, and neutropenia were experienced in the everolimus group. The cost-effectiveness of everolimus and palbociclib are equivalent, but since the prevalence of AEs is high in patients receiving everolimus, its AE management is important.

Cost-Effectiveness of Second-Line Treatments for Metastatic Renal-Cell Carcinoma.

PURPOSE: To assess the pharmacologic costs of second-line treatments for metastatic renal-cell cancer (mRCC). METHODS: The present evaluation was restricted to pivotal phase 3 randomized controlled trials in second-line for mRCC. We calculated the pharmacologic costs necessary to get the benefit in progression-free survival and overall survival (OS) for each trial. The costs of drugs are at the pharmacy of our hospital and are expressed in euros. RESULTS: Our analysis evaluated 5 phase 3 randomized controlled trials including 3112 patients. The lowest cost per month of progression-free survival and OS gained was associated with the use of cabozantinib (€2006 and €1473, respectively), while everolimus had the highest cost per month of OS gained (€28,590). CONCLUSION: Combining pharmacologic costs of drugs with the measure of efficacy represented by OS, cabozantinib is a cost-effective second-line treatments for patients with mRCC.

Everolimus, lutetium-177 DOTATATE and sunitinib for advanced, unresectable or metastatic neuroendocrine tumours with disease progression: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Neuroendocrine tumours (NETs) are a group of heterogeneous cancers that develop in cells in the diffuse neuroendocrine system. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the clinical effectiveness of three interventions [everolimus (Afinitor®; Novartis International AG, Basel, Switzerland), lutetium-177 DOTATATE (177Lu-DOTATATE) (Lutathera®; Imaging Equipment Ltd, Radstock, UK) and sunitinib (Sutent®; Pfizer Inc., New York, NY, USA)] for treating unresectable or metastatic NETs with disease progression and establish the cost-effectiveness of these interventions. DATA SOURCES: The following databases were searched from inception to May 2016: MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, MEDLINE Daily, Epub Ahead of Print, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Web of Science. REVIEW METHODS: We systematically reviewed the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness literature on everolimus, 177Lu-DOTATATE and sunitinib for treating advanced, unresectable or metastatic progressive NETs. The following NET locations were considered separately: pancreas, gastrointestinal (GI) tract and lung, and GI tract (midgut only). We wrote a survival partition cohort-based economic evaluation in Microsoft Excel® 2013 (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, USA) from the UK NHS and Personal Social Services perspective. This comprised three health states: (1) progression-free survival (PFS), (2) progressed disease and (3) death. RESULTS: Three randomised controlled trials (RCTs), RADIANT-3 [RAD001 in Advanced Neuroendocrine Tumors, Third Trial; pancreatic NETs (pNETs): everolimus vs. best supportive care (BSC)], A6181111 (pNETs: sunitinib vs. BSC) and RADIANT-4 (RAD001 in Advanced Neuroendocrine Tumors, Fourth Trial; GI and lung NETs: everolimus vs. BSC), met the inclusion criteria for the clinical effectiveness systematic review. The risk of bias was low. Although the NETTER-1 (Neuroendocrine Tumors Therapy) RCT, of 177Lu-DOTATATE plus 30 mg of octreotide (Sandostatin®, Novartis) compared with 60 mg of octreotide, was excluded from the review, we nonetheless present the results of this trial, as it informs our estimate of the cost-effectiveness of 177Lu-DOTATATE. The pNETs trials consistently found that the interventions improved PFS and overall survival (OS) compared with BSC. Our indirect comparison found no significant difference in PFS between everolimus and sunitinib. Estimates of OS gain were confounded because of high rates of treatment switching. After adjustment, our indirect comparison suggested a lower, but non-significant, hazard of death for sunitinib compared with everolimus. In GI and lung NETs, everolimus significantly improved PFS compared with BSC and showed a non-significant trend towards improved OS compared with BSC. Adverse events were more commonly reported following treatment with targeted interventions than after treatment with BSC. In the base case for pNETs, assuming list prices, we estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for everolimus compared with BSC of £45,493 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and for sunitinib compared with BSC of £20,717 per QALY. These ICERs increased substantially without the adjustment for treatment switching. For GI and lung NETs, we estimated an ICER for everolimus compared with BSC of £44,557 per QALY. For GI (midgut) NETs, the ICERs were £199,233 per QALY for everolimus compared with BSC and £62,158 per QALY for a scenario analysis comparing 177Lu-DOTATATE with BSC. We judge that no treatment meets the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's (NICE) end-of-life criteria, although we cannot rule out that sunitinib in the A6181111 trial does. LIMITATIONS: A RCT with included comparators was not identified for 177Lu-DOTATATE. The indirect treatment comparison that our economic analysis was based on was of a simple Bucher type, unadjusted for any differences in the baseline characteristics across the two trials. CONCLUSIONS: Given NICE's current stated range of £20,000-30,000 per QALY for the cost-effectiveness threshold, based on list prices, only sunitinib might be considered good value for money in England and Wales. FUTURE WORK: Further analysis of individual patient data from RADIANT-3 would allow assessment of the robustness of our findings. The data were not made available to us by the company sponsoring the trial. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016041303. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Cost analysis for different sequential treatment regimens for metastatic renal cell carcinoma in China.

PURPOSE: Targeted therapies, including sunitinib, sorafenib, axitinib, and everolimus, have recently become the mainstay for the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). The objective of this study was to estimate the costs of sequential treatment regimens for mRCC and associated adverse events (AEs) from the Chinese payers' perspective. METHODS: Key inputs included in the calculation were patient population, dosing information, incidence rates and associated costs of Grade 3/4 AEs, treatment costs (including drug discount programs), and patients' progression-free survival (PFS) as a proxy for length of treatment. To calculate PFS, this study identified pivotal clinical trials and generated a reconstructed individual patient data set from the published Kaplan-Meier survival curves. The median PFS from the pooled estimates were used in the calculation. In the base-case scenario, sunitinib was used as first line and the other three therapies were used as second line. Sensitivity analyses were conducted where (1) sorafenib was used as first line, or (2) a third-line therapy was added to the base-case scenario. RESULTS: In the base case, the cost per patient per treatment month (PPPM) cost was the lowest for sunitinib + axitinib among all sequential regimens (¥14,898) and was the highest for sunitinib + sorafenib (¥20,103). If sorafenib is used as first line, everolimus had lower per patient per months (PPPM) cost than axitinib (¥17,046 vs ¥23,337), but also had shorter PFS (13.5 months vs 15 months). Second sensitivity analysis with an additional third-line therapy showed consistent results with the base-case scenario; axitinib as second line was the least costly. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that, for mRCC sequential treatment, sunitinib followed by axitinib generates the highest cost savings from the Chinese payers' perspective. Future studies are warranted to examine the cost-effectiveness of various mRCC treatment regimens in Chinese populations.

Cost-Effectiveness of Second-Line Endocrine Therapies in Postmenopausal Women with Hormone Receptor-positive and Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-negative Metastatic Breast Cancer in Japan.

BACKGROUND: Exemestane (EXE), exemestane + everolimus (EXE + EVE), toremifene (TOR), and fulvestrant (FUL) are second-line endocrine therapies for postmenopausal hormone receptor-positive (HR +)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2 -) metastatic breast cancer (mBC) in Japan. Although the efficacy of these therapies has been shown in recent studies, cost-effectiveness has not yet been determined in Japan. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to examine the cost-effectiveness of second-line endocrine therapies for the treatment of postmenopausal women with HR + and HER2 - mBC. METHODS: A Markov model was developed to analyze the cost-effectiveness of the therapies over a 15-year time horizon from a public healthcare payer's perspective. The efficacy and utility parameters were determined via a systematic search of the literature. Direct medical care costs were used. A discount rate of 2% was applied for costs and outcomes. Subgroup analysis was performed for non-visceral metastasis. A series of sensitivity analyses, including probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) and threshold analysis were performed. RESULTS: Base-case analyses estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of 3 million and 6 million Japanese yen (JPY)/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained for TOR and FUL 500 mg relative to EXE, respectively. FUL 250 mg and EXE + EVE were dominated. The overall survival (OS) highly influenced the ICER. With a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of 5 million JPY/QALY, the probability of TOR being cost-effective was the highest. Subgroup analysis in non-visceral metastasis revealed 0.4 and 10% reduction in ICER from the base-case results of FUL5 500 mg versus EXE and TOR versus EXE, respectively, while threshold analysis indicated EVE and FUL prices should be reduced 73 and 30%, respectively. CONCLUSION: As a second-line therapy for postmenopausal women with HR +/HER2 - mBC, TOR may be cost-effective relative to other alternatives and seems to be the most favorable choice, based on a WTP threshold of 5 million JPY/QALY. FUL 250 mg is expected to be as costly and effective as EXE. The cost-effectiveness of EXE + EVE and FUL 500 mg could be improved by a large price reduction. However, the results are highly sensitive to the hazard ratio of OS. Policy makers should carefully interpret and utilize these findings.

The Additional Costs per Month of Progression-Free Survival and Overall Survival: An Economic Model Comparing Everolimus with Cabozantinib, Nivolumab, and Axitinib for Second-Line Treatment of Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: When considering optimal second-line treatments for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), clinicians and payers seek to understand the relative clinical benefits and costs of treatment. OBJECTIVE: To use an economic model to compare the additional cost per month of overall survival (OS) and of progression-free survival (PFS) for cabozantinib, nivolumab, and axitinib with everolimus for the second-line treatment of mRCC from a third-party U.S. payer perspective. METHODS: The model evaluated mean OS and PFS and costs associated with drug acquisition/administration; adverse event (AE) treatment; monitoring; and postprogression (third-line treatment, monitoring, and end-of-life costs) over 1- and 2-year horizons. Efficacy, safety, and treatment duration inputs were estimated from regimens' pivotal clinical trials; for everolimus, results were weighted across trials. Mean 1- and 2-year OS and mean 1-year PFS were estimated using regimens' reported OS and PFS Kaplan-Meier curves. Dosing and administration inputs were consistent with approved prescribing information and the clinical trials used to estimate efficacy and safety inputs. Cost inputs came from published literature and public data. Additional cost per additional month of OS or PFS was calculated using the ratio of the cost difference per treated patient and the corresponding difference in mean OS or PFS between everolimus and each comparator. One-way sensitivity analyses were conducted by varying efficacy and cost inputs. RESULTS: Compared with everolimus, cabozantinib, nivolumab, and axitinib were associated with 1.6, 0.3, and 0.5 additional months of PFS, respectively, over 1 year. Cabozantinib and nivolumab were associated with additional months of OS compared with everolimus (1 year: 0.7 and 0.8 months; 2 years: 1.6 and 2.3 months; respectively); axitinib was associated with fewer months (1 year: -0.2 months; 2 years: -0.7 months). The additional costs of treatment with cabozantinib, nivolumab, or axitinib versus everolimus over 1 year were $34,141, $19,371, and $17,506 higher, respectively. Everolimus had similar OS and lower costs compared with axitinib. The additional cost per month of OS was $48,773 for cabozantinib and $24,214 for nivolumab versus everolimus. The additional treatment cost with cabozantinib, nivolumab, or axitinib versus everolimus for each additional month of PFS was estimated at $21,338, $64,570, and $35,012, respectively. Over 2 years, the additional costs per additional month of OS for nivolumab and axitinib versus everolimus were similar to the 1-year analysis; for cabozantinib, the cost was lower. Results were sensitive to changes in mean OS, mean PFS, therapy duration, and drug costs estimates. CONCLUSIONS: Everolimus for second-line mRCC was associated with similar OS and lower costs compared with axitinib over 1- and 2-year horizons. The additional cost per additional month of OS and PFS associated with cabozantinib or nivolumab versus everolimus creates a metric for evaluating the cost of second-line therapies in relation to their respective treatment effects. DISCLOSURES: Funding for this research was provided by Novartis, which was involved in all stages of study research and manuscript preparation. Ghate and Perez are employees of Novartis and own stock/stock options. Swallow, Messali, McDonald, and Duchesneau are employees of Analysis Group, which has received consultancy fees from Novartis. Study concept and design were contributed by Swallow, Messali, Ghate, and Perez, along with McDonald and Duchesneau. Swallow, Messali, McDonald, and Duchesneau collected the data, and all authors participated in data interpretation. The manuscript was written by Swallow, Messali, and Ghate, along with the other authors, and revised by Swallow, Messali, Ghate, and Perez. A synopsis of the current research was presented in poster format at the 15th International Kidney Cancer Symposium on November 4-5, 2016, in Miami, Florida.

Cost Effectiveness of Nivolumab in Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, new drugs have been introduced for second-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Nivolumab increases overall survival and is associated with less toxicity compared to everolimus in this setting according to the CheckMate 025 study. However, because of the high cost of nivolumab, there is a need to define its value by considering both efficacy and cost. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost effectiveness of nivolumab for second-line treatment of advanced RCC from the US payer perspective. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A Markov model was developed to compare the costs and effectiveness of nivolumab with those of everolimus and placebo in second-line treatment of advanced RCC. Health outcomes were measured in life-years (LYs) and quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs). Drug costs were based on 2016 Medicare reimbursement rates. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Model robustness was assessed in univariable and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. We addressed the issue of the extensive duration of immunotherapy treatment among long-term survivors, which may or may not be approved by payers. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The total mean cost per patient was $101 070 for nivolumab and $50 935 for everolimus. Nivolumab generated a gain of 0.24 LYs (0.34 QALYs) compared to everolimus. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for nivolumab was $146 532/QALY versus everolimus and $226 197/QALY versus placebo. Limiting the maximal treatment duration of nivolumab to 2 yr reduced the ICER to $121 788/QALY versus everolimus. The analysis is limited by data availability and our assumptions. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis established that with a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 to $150 000 per QALY, nivolumab is estimated to be cost-effective versus everolimus, but not cost-effective versus placebo. PATIENT SUMMARY: We assessed the cost effectiveness of nivolumab in previously treated metastatic kidney cancer. In the USA, it would cost $146 532 to gain one quality-adjusted life-year with nivolumab versus everolimus, or $226 197 versus placebo. Nivolumab is considered cost-effective versus everolimus, but not versus placebo.

Economic Outcomes of Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffolds Versus Everolimus-Eluting Stents in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: 1-Year Results From the ABSORB III Trial.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the economic impact of the Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold compared with the Xience everolimus-eluting stent in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. BACKGROUND: The ABSORB III trial (Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Scaffolds for Coronary Artery Disease) demonstrated that the Absorb scaffold was noninferior to the Xience stent with respect to target lesion failure at 1 year. Whether health care costs differ between the Absorb scaffold and the Xience stent is unknown. METHODS: We performed a prospective health economic study alongside the ABSORB III trial, in which patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for stable or unstable angina were randomized to receive the Absorb scaffold (n = 1,322) or Xience stent (n = 686). Resource use data were collected through 1 year of follow-up. Costs were assessed using resource-based accounting (for procedures), MedPAR data (for other index hospitalization costs), and Medicare reimbursements (for follow-up costs and physician fees). RESULTS: Initial procedural costs were higher with the Absorb scaffold than the Xience stent ($6,316 ± 1,892 vs. $6,103 ± 1,895; p = 0.02), driven mainly by greater balloon catheter use and the higher cost of the scaffold in the Absorb group. Nonetheless, index hospitalization costs ($15,035 ± 2,992 for Absorb vs. $14,903 ± 3,449 for Xience; p = 0.37) and total 1-year costs ($17,848 ± 6,110 for Absorb vs. $17,498 ± 7,411 for Xience; p = 0.29) were similar between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: Although initial procedural costs were higher with the Absorb scaffold, there were no differences in total 1-year health care costs between the 2 cohorts. Longer term follow-up is needed to determine whether meaningful cost savings emerge after scaffold resorption. (A Clinical Evaluation of Absorb™ BVS, the Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold in the Treatment of Subjects With de Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions; NCT01751906).

Economic evaluation of nivolumab as a second-line treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma from US and Chinese perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab is a new standard of care for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) and provides an overall survival benefit of 5.40 months in comparison with everolimus. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab for the second-line treatment of mRCC from the perspective of US payers and identified the range of drug costs for which the addition of nivolumab to standard therapy could be considered cost-effective from a Chinese perspective. METHODS: A partitioned survival model was constructed to estimate lifetime costs, life-years, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Costs were estimated for the US and Chinese health care systems. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Nivolumab provided an additional 0.29 QALYs at a cost of $151,676/QALY in the United States. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY, at the current cost of nivolumab, the chance of nivolumab being cost-effective was 3.10%. For China, when nivolumab cost less than $7.90 or $9.70/mg, there was a nearly 90% likelihood that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for nivolumab would be less than $22,785 or $48,838/QALY, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: For the United States, nivolumab is unlikely to be a high-value treatment for mRCC at the current price, and a price reduction appears to be justified. In China, value-based prices for nivolumab are $7.90 and $9.70/mg for the country and Beijing City, respectively. This study could and should inform the multilateral drug-price negotiations in China that may be upcoming for nivolumab. Cancer 2017;123:2634-41. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Estimated generic prices of cancer medicines deemed cost-ineffective in England: a cost estimation analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to estimate lowest possible treatment costs for four novel cancer drugs, hypothesising that generic manufacturing could significantly reduce treatment costs. SETTING: This research was carried out in a non-clinical research setting using secondary data. PARTICIPANTS: There were no human participants in the study. Four drugs were selected for the study: bortezomib, dasatinib, everolimus and gefitinib. These medications were selected according to their clinical importance, novel pharmaceutical actions and the availability of generic price data. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Target costs for treatment were to be generated for each indication for each treatment. The primary outcome measure was the target cost according to a production cost calculation algorithm. The secondary outcome measure was the target cost as the lowest available generic price; this was necessary where export data were not available to generate an estimate from our cost calculation algorithm. Other outcomes included patent expiry dates and total eligible treatment populations. RESULTS: Target prices were £411 per cycle for bortezomib, £9 per month for dasatinib, £852 per month for everolimus and £10 per month for gefitinib. Compared with current list prices in England, these target prices would represent reductions of 74-99.6%. Patent expiry dates were bortezomib 2014-22, dasatinib 2020-26, everolimus 2019-25 and gefitinib 2017. The total global eligible treatment population in 1 year is 769 736. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrate that affordable drug treatment costs are possible for novel cancer drugs, suggesting that new therapeutic options can be made available to patients and doctors worldwide. Assessing treatment cost estimations alongside cost-effectiveness evaluations is an important area of future research.

Budget impact of everolimus for the treatment of progressive, well-differentiated, non-functional neuroendocrine tumors of gastrointestinal or lung origin that are advanced or metastatic.

BACKGROUND: Advanced neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) are a rare malignancy with considerable need for effective therapies. Everolimus is a mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) in 2016 for treatment of adults with progressive, well-differentiated, non-functional NETs of gastrointestinal (GI) or lung origin that are unresectable, locally advanced, or metastatic. OBJECTIVE: To assess the 3-year budget impact for a typical US health plan following availability of everolimus for treatment of GI and lung NETs. Methods An economic model was developed that considered two perspectives: an entire health plan and a pharmacy budget. The total budget impact included costs of drug therapies, administration, hospitalizations, physician visits, monitoring, and adverse events (AEs). The pharmacy model only considered drug costs. RESULTS: In a US health plan with 1 million members, the model estimated 66 patients with well-differentiated, non-functional, and advanced or metastatic GI NETs and 20 with lung NETs undergoing treatment each year. Total budget impact in the first through third year after FDA approval ranged from $0.0568-$0.1443 per member per month (PMPM) for GI NETs and from $0.0181-$0.0355 PMPM for lung NETs. The total budget impact was lower than the pharmacy budget impact because it included cost offsets from administration and AE management for everolimus compared with alternative therapies (e.g. chemotherapies). LIMITATIONS: Because GI and lung NETs are rare diseases with limited published data, several assumptions were made that may influence interpretation of results. CONCLUSIONS: The budget impact for everolimus was minimal in this rare disease area with a high unmet need, largely due to low disease prevalence. These results should be considered in the context of significant clinical benefits potentially provided by everolimus, including significantly longer progression-free survival (PFS) for advanced GI and lung NET patients.

Cost-effectiveness of percutaneous coronary intervention with cobalt-chromium everolimus eluting stents versus bare metal stents: Results from a patient level meta-analysis of randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: Second-generation drug eluting stents (DES) may reduce costs and improve clinical outcomes compared to first-generation DES with improved cost-effectiveness when compared to bare metal stents (BMS). We aimed to conduct an economic evaluation of a cobalt-chromium everolimus eluting stent (Co-Cr EES) compared with BMS in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). OBJECTIVE: To conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of a cobalt-chromium everolimus eluting stent (Co-Cr EES) versus BMS in PCI. METHODS: A Markov state transition model with a 2-year time horizon was applied from a US Medicare setting with patients undergoing PCI with Co-Cr EES or BMS. Baseline characteristics, treatment effects, and safety measures were taken from a patient level meta-analysis of 5 RCTs (n = 4,896). The base-case analysis evaluated stent-related outcomes; a secondary analysis considered the broader set of outcomes reported in the meta-analysis. RESULTS: The base-case and secondary analyses reported an additional 0.018 and 0.013 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and cost savings of $236 and $288, respectively with Co-Cr EES versus BMS. Results were robust to sensitivity analyses and were most sensitive to the price of clopidogrel. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, Co-Cr EES was associated with a greater than 99% chance of being cost saving or cost effective (at a cost per QALY threshold of $50,000) versus BMS. CONCLUSIONS: Using data from a recent patient level meta-analysis and contemporary cost data, this analysis found that PCI with Co-Cr EES is more effective and less costly than PCI with BMS. © 2016 The Authors. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Immunosuppressive therapy for kidney transplantation in adults: a systematic review and economic model.

BACKGROUND: End-stage renal disease is a long-term irreversible decline in kidney function requiring renal replacement therapy: kidney transplantation, haemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis. The preferred option is kidney transplantation, followed by immunosuppressive therapy (induction and maintenance therapy) to reduce the risk of kidney rejection and prolong graft survival. OBJECTIVES: To review and update the evidence for the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of basiliximab (BAS) (Simulect(®), Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd) and rabbit anti-human thymocyte immunoglobulin (rATG) (Thymoglobulin(®), Sanofi) as induction therapy, and immediate-release tacrolimus (TAC) (Adoport(®), Sandoz; Capexion(®), Mylan; Modigraf(®), Astellas Pharma; Perixis(®), Accord Healthcare; Prograf(®), Astellas Pharma; Tacni(®), Teva; Vivadex(®), Dexcel Pharma), prolonged-release tacrolimus (Advagraf(®) Astellas Pharma), belatacept (BEL) (Nulojix(®), Bristol-Myers Squibb), mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) (Arzip(®), Zentiva; CellCept(®), Roche Products; Myfenax(®), Teva), mycophenolate sodium (MPS) (Myfortic(®), Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd), sirolimus (SRL) (Rapamune(®), Pfizer) and everolimus (EVL) (Certican(®), Novartis) as maintenance therapy in adult renal transplantation. METHODS: Clinical effectiveness searches were conducted until 18 November 2014 in MEDLINE (via Ovid), EMBASE (via Ovid), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (via Wiley Online Library) and Web of Science (via ISI), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects and Health Technology Assessment (The Cochrane Library via Wiley Online Library) and Health Management Information Consortium (via Ovid). Cost-effectiveness searches were conducted until 18 November 2014 using a costs or economic literature search filter in MEDLINE (via Ovid), EMBASE (via Ovid), NHS Economic Evaluation Database (via Wiley Online Library), Web of Science (via ISI), Health Economic Evaluations Database (via Wiley Online Library) and the American Economic Association's electronic bibliography (via EconLit, EBSCOhost). Included studies were selected according to predefined methods and criteria. A random-effects model was used to analyse clinical effectiveness data (odds ratios for binary data and mean differences for continuous data). Network meta-analyses were undertaken within a Bayesian framework. A new discrete time-state transition economic model (semi-Markov) was developed, with acute rejection, graft function (GRF) and new-onset diabetes mellitus used to extrapolate graft survival. Recipients were assumed to be in one of three health states: functioning graft, graft loss or death. RESULTS: Eighty-nine randomised controlled trials (RCTs), of variable quality, were included. For induction therapy, no treatment appeared more effective than another in reducing graft loss or mortality. Compared with placebo/no induction, rATG and BAS appeared more effective in reducing biopsy-proven acute rejection (BPAR) and BAS appeared more effective at improving GRF. For maintenance therapy, no treatment was better for all outcomes and no treatment appeared most effective at reducing graft loss. BEL + MMF appeared more effective than TAC + MMF and SRL + MMF at reducing mortality. MMF + CSA (ciclosporin), TAC + MMF, SRL + TAC, TAC + AZA (azathioprine) and EVL + CSA appeared more effective than CSA + AZA and EVL + MPS at reducing BPAR. SRL + AZA, TAC + AZA, TAC + MMF and BEL + MMF appeared to improve GRF compared with CSA + AZA and MMF + CSA. In the base-case deterministic and probabilistic analyses, BAS, MMF and TAC were predicted to be cost-effective at £20,000 and £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). When comparing all regimens, only BAS + TAC + MMF was cost-effective at £20,000 and £30,000 per QALY. LIMITATIONS: For included trials, there was substantial methodological heterogeneity, few trials reported follow-up beyond 1 year, and there were insufficient data to perform subgroup analysis. Treatment discontinuation and switching were not modelled. FUTURE WORK: High-quality, better-reported, longer-term RCTs are needed. Ideally, these would be sufficiently powered for subgroup analysis and include health-related quality of life as an outcome. CONCLUSION: Only a regimen of BAS induction followed by maintenance with TAC and MMF is likely to be cost-effective at £20,000-30,000 per QALY. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42014013189. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.