Cost-Effectiveness of Axicabtagene Ciloleucel for Adult Patients With Relapsed or Refractory Follicular Lymphoma in the United States.

OBJECTIVES: The results of a recent single-arm trial (ZUMA-5) of axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) for relapsed/refractory (r/r) follicular lymphoma (FL) demonstrated high rates of durable response and tolerable toxicity among treated patients. To quantify the value of axi-cel compared with standard of care (SOC) to manage r/r FL patients who have had at least 2 prior lines of systemic therapy (3L+), a cost-effectiveness model was developed from a US third-party payer perspective. METHODS: A 3-state partitioned-survival cost-effectiveness model was developed with a lifetime horizon. Patient-level analyses of the 36-month ZUMA-5 (axi-cel) and SCHOLAR-5 (SOC) studies were used to extrapolate progression-free and overall survivals. After 5 years of survival, an estimated 40% of the modeled population was assumed to experience long-term remission based on literature. Results include the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) measured as incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. One-way sensitivity analysis, probabilistic sensitivity analysis, and scenario analyses were performed. All outcomes were discounted 3% per year. RESULTS: Axi-cel led to an increase of 4.28 life-years, 3.64 QALYs, and a total cost increase of $321 192 relative to SOC, resulting in an ICER of $88 300 per QALY. Across all parameters varied in the one-way sensitivity analysis, the ICER varied between $133 030 and $67 277. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, axi-cel had a 99% probability of being cost-effective across 5000 iterations using a $150 000 willingness-to-pay threshold. CONCLUSIONS: Given the robustness of the model results and sensitivity analyses, axi-cel is expected to be a cost-effective treatment in 3L+ r/r FL.

Cost-effectiveness analysis 3L of axicabtagene ciloleucel vs tisagenlecleucel and lisocabtagene maraleucel in Japan.

Aim: Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) was performed to compare axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) with tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cel) and lisocabtagene (liso-cel) for treatment of relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma in adult patients after ≥2 lines of therapy in Japan. Materials & methods: Cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted using the partition survival mixture cure model based on the ZUMA-1 trial and adjusted to the JULIET and TRANSCEND trials using matching-adjusted indirect comparisons. Results & conclusion: Axi-cel was associated with greater incremental life years (3.13 and 2.85) and incremental quality-adjusted life-years (2.65 and 2.24), thus generated lower incremental direct medical costs (-$976.29 [-¥137,657] and -$242.00 [-¥34,122]), compared with tisa-cel and liso-cel. Axi-cel was cost-effective option compared with tisa-cel and liso-cel from a Japanese payer's perspective.

[Box: see text].

Clinical and economic impact of school-based nonavalent human papillomavirus vaccine on women in Singapore: a transmission dynamic mathematical model analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the epidemiological and economic impact of a nine-valent (nonavalent) human papillomavirus (HPV) 6/11/16/18/31/33/45/52/58 vaccine programme for young teenagers in Singapore. DESIGN: Mathematical modelling. SETTING: Pharmaco-economic simulation projection. POPULATION: Singapore demography. METHODS: Clinical, epidemiological and financial data from Singapore were used in a validated HPV transmission dynamic mathematical model to analyse the impact of nonavalent HPV vaccination over quadrivalent and bivalent vaccines in a school-based 2-dose vaccination for 11- to 12-year-old girls in the country. The model assumed routine cytology screening in the current rate (50%) and vaccine coverage rate of 80%. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Changes over a 100-year time period in the incidence and mortality rates of cervical cancer, case load of genital warts, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). RESULTS: Compared with bivalent and quadrivalent HPV vaccination programmes, nonavalent HPV universal vaccination resulted in an additional reduction of HPV31/33/45/52/58 related CIN1 of 40.5%, CIN 2/3 of 35.4%, cervical cancer of 23.5%, and cervical cancer mortality of 20.2%. Compared with bivalent HPV vaccination, there was an additional reduction in HPV-6/11 related CIN1 of 75.7%, and genital warts of 78.9% in women and 73.4% in men. Over the 100 years, after applying a discount of 3%, disease management cost will be reduced by 32.5% (versus bivalent) and 7.5% (versus quadrivalent). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per quality-adjusted life-year gained was SGD 929 compared with bivalent vaccination and SGD 9864 compared with quadrivalent vaccination. CONCLUSION: Universal two-dose nonavalent HPV vaccination for 11- to 12-year-old adolescent women is very cost-effective in Singapore. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Nonavalent HPV vaccination of 11- to 12-year-old girls is cost-effective in Singapore.

Sipuleucel-T (Provenge(®))-Autopsy of an Innovative Paradigm Change in Cancer Treatment: Why a Single-Product Biotech Company Failed to Capitalize on its Breakthrough Invention.

Approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2010, sipuleucel-T (Provenge(®)) was the first 'personalized' cancer vaccine for the treatment of prostate cancer in a metastatic, non-symptomatic population of 30,000 men in the USA. Sipuleucel-T is prepared individually for each patient and infused in three sessions over a period of 1 month. However, in 2015, Dendreon, the owner of sipuleucel-T, filed for bankruptcy. This opinion paper reviews the probable reasons this innovative product failed to achieve commercial success. PubMed and internet searches were performed focused on pricing, reimbursement, and market access. We found that sipuleucel-T's FDA approval was delayed by 3 years, reportedly because of the vaccine's new mechanism of action. Sipuleucel-T was cleared by the European Medicines Agency 2 years later, but other national agencies were not approached. It was priced at $US93,000 for a course of treatment, and this high price combined with the company's late securement of reimbursement for the vaccine by the US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) resulted in another year's delay in accessing the market. Despite a positive recommendation by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, sipuleucel-T's complex administration, high price, and uncertainty about the reimbursement status deterred doctors from prescribing the product. Furthermore, the vaccine's supply was limited during the first year of launch due to limited manufacturing capacity. In addition, two oral metastatic prostate cancer drugs with similar survival benefits reached the US market 1 and 2 years after sipuleucel-T. Also, even though Dendreon's market capitalization topped $US7.5 billion following the FDA's approval of sipuleucel-T, this value degraded gradually until the firm's bankruptcy 5 years later. We conclude that the bankruptcy of Dendreon was largely due to the delay in securing FDA approval and CMS coverage, as well as the high cost that had to be incurred by providers up-front. Licensing sipuleucel-T to a pharmaceutical company more experienced in the market access pathway may have saved the company and the product.

Sipuleucel-T for the Treatment of Metastatic Hormone-Relapsed Prostate Cancer: A NICE Single Technology Appraisal; An Evidence Review Group Perspective.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited Dendreon, the company manufacturing sipuleucel-T, to submit evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of sipuleucel-T for asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic, metastatic, non-visceral hormone-relapsed prostate cancer patients in whom chemotherapy is not yet clinically indicated, as part of NICE's single technology appraisal process. The comparator was abiraterone acetate (AA) or best supportive care (BSC). The School of Health and Related Research at the University of Sheffield was commissioned to act as the Evidence Review Group (ERG). This paper describes the company submission (CS), ERG review, and subsequent decision of the NICE Appraisal Committee (AC). The ERG produced a critical review of the clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence of sipuleucel-T based upon the CS. Clinical-effectiveness data relevant to the decision problem were taken from three randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of sipuleucel-T and a placebo (PBO) comparator of antigen-presenting cells (APC) being re-infused (APC-PBO) (D9901, D9902A and D9902B), and one RCT (COU-AA-302) of AA plus prednisone vs. PBO plus prednisone. Two trials reported a significant advantage for sipuleucel-T in median overall survival compared with APC-PBO: for trial D9901, an adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.47; (95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.29, 0.76) p < 0.002; for D9902B, adjusted HR 0.78 (95 % CI 0.61, 0.98) p = 0.03. There was no significant difference between groups in D9902A, unadjusted HR 0.79 (95 % CI 0.48, 1.28) p = 0.331. Sipuleucel-T and APC-PBO groups did not differ significantly in time to disease progression, in any of the three RCTs. Most adverse events developed within 1 day of the infusion, and resolved within 2 days. The CS included an indirect comparison of sipuleucel-T (D9902B) and AA plus prednisone (COU-AA-302). As trials differed in prior use of chemotherapy, an analysis of only chemotherapy-naïve patients was included, in which the overall survival for sipuleucel-T and AA was not significantly different, HR 0.94 (95 % CI 0.69, 1.28) p = 0.699. The ERG had several concerns regarding the data and assumptions incorporated within the company's cost-effectiveness analyses and conducted exploratory analyses to quantify the impact of making alternative assumptions or using alternative data inputs. The deterministic incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for sipuleucel-T vs. BSC when using the ERG's preferred data and assumptions was £ 108,585 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) in the whole licensed population and £ 61,204/QALY in the subgroup with low prostate-specific antigen at baseline. The ERG also conducted an incremental analysis comparing sipuleucel-T with both AA and BSC in the chemotherapy-naïve subgroup. Sipuleucel-T had a deterministic ICER of £ 111,682/QALY in this subgroup, when using the ERG's preferred assumptions, and AA was extendedly dominated. The ERG also concluded that estimates of costs and benefits for AA should be interpreted with caution given the limitations of the indirect comparison. The AC noted that the ICER for sipuleucel-T was well above the range usually considered cost effective, and did not recommend sipuleucel-T for the treatment of asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic, metastatic, non-visceral hormone-relapsed prostate cancer.

Anti-cancer vaccines - a one-hit wonder?

Immunization against common bacterial and viral diseases has helped prevent millions of deaths worldwide. More recently, the concept of vaccination has been developed into a potentially novel strategy to treat and prevent cancer formation, progression, and spread. Over the past few years, a handful of anti-cancer vaccines have been licensed and approved for use in clinical practice, thus providing a breakthrough in the field. However, the path has not always been easy, with many hurdles that have had to be overcome in order to reach this point. Nevertheless, with more anti-cancer vaccines currently in development, there is still hope that they can eventually become routine tools used in the treatment and prevention of cancer in the future. This review will discuss in detail both types of anti-cancer vaccine presently used in clinical practice - therapeutic and preventive - before considering some of the more promising anti-cancer vaccines that are currently in development. Finally, the issue of side effects and the debate surrounding the overall cost-effectiveness of anti-cancer vaccines will be examined.

Economic evaluation of therapeutic cancer vaccines and immunotherapy: a systematic review.

Cancer immunotherapy is a rapidly growing field in oncology. One attractive feature of cancer immunotherapy is the purported combination of minimal toxicity and durable responses. However such treatments are often very expensive. Given the wide-spread concern over rising health care costs, it is important for all stakeholders to be well-informed on the cost and cost-effectiveness of cancer immunotherapies. We performed a comprehensive literature review of cost and cost-effectiveness research on therapeutic cancer vaccines and monoclonal antibodies, to better understand the economic impacts of these treatments. We summarized our literature searches into three tables by types of papers: systematic review of economic studies of a specific agent, cost and cost-effectiveness analysis. Our review showed that out of the sixteen immunotherapy agents approved, nine had relevant published economic studies. Five out of the nine studied immunotherapy agents had been covered in systematic reviews. Among those, only one (rituximab for non-Hodgkin lymphoma) was found to be cost-effective. Of the four immunotherapy drugs not covered in systematic reviews (alemtuzumab, ipilimumab, sipuleucel-T, ofatumumab), high incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was reported for each. Many immunotherapies have not had economic evaluations, and those that have been studied show high ICERs or frank lack of cost-effectiveness. One major hurdle in improving the cost-effectiveness of cancer immunotherapies is to identify predictive biomarkers for selecting appropriate patients as recipients of these expensive therapies. We discuss the implications surrounding the economic factors involved in cancer immunotherapies and suggest that further research on cost and cost-effectiveness of newer cancer vaccines and immunotherapies are warranted as this is a rapidly growing field with many new drugs on the horizon.

Use of human papillomavirus vaccine in HIV-infected men for the prevention of anal dysplasia and cancer.

There are two commercially available vaccines licensed worldwide for the prevention of cervical cancer and other human papillomavirus-associated cancers such as anal cancer. However, only two countries have implemented healthcare programs that include human papillomavirus vaccination for boys and men. Although most of the human papillomavirus-related cancers in the world are attributable to cervical cancer, in developed countries anal cancer accounts for a larger proportion of human papillomavirus-related cancers. Most cases of anal cancer occur in HIV-infected men who have sex with men. In this review, we discuss the burden of human papillomavirus-related cancers in men, the most plausible immune mechanism associated with the high efficacy of the human papillomavirus vaccine, and address key issues of vaccination for HIV-infected men. Finally, we review cost-effectiveness considerations for the use of the vaccine in boys and recent guidelines for vaccination in boys, with attention to HIV-infected men.

Potential cost-effectiveness of the nonavalent human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine.

Randomized clinical trials are currently examining the efficacy of a nonavalent human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, including HPV-types 6/11/16/18/31/33/45/52/58. Evidence on the cost-effectiveness of the nonavalent is required for timely policy-decisions. We compared the potential cost-effectiveness of the nonavalent and quadrivalent HPV vaccines. We used a multi-type individual-based transmission-dynamic model of HPV infection and diseases, 70-year time-horizon, 3% discount rate and healthcare payer perspective. We calibrated the model to Canadian sexual behavior and epidemiologic data, and estimated Quality-Adjusted Life-Years (QALYs) lost and costs ($CAN 2010) from the literature. Under base-case assumptions (vaccinating 10-year-old girls, 80% coverage, 95$/dose, vaccine-type efficacy = 95%, cross-protection for the quadrivalent vaccine, duration of vaccine-type protection (cross-protection) = 20 (10) years), using the quadrivalent and nonavalent vaccines is estimated to cost $15,528 [12,056; 19,140] and $12,203 [9,331; 17,292] per QALY-gained, respectively. At equal price, the nonavalent vaccine is more cost-effective than the quadrivalent vaccine, even when assuming both shorter duration of protection (nonavalent = 20 years vs. quadrivalent = lifelong) and lower vaccine-type efficacy (nonavalent = 85% vs. quadrivalent = 95%). However, the additional cost per dose of the nonavalent vaccine should not exceed $11 to remain more cost-effective than the quadrivalent vaccine, and $24 to represent a cost-effective alternative to the quadrivalent vaccine (using a $40,000/QALY-gained threshold). The nonavalent vaccine can be a cost-effective alternative to the quadrivalent vaccine, even in scenarios where nonavalent vaccine efficacy is 85%. However, because most cervical cancers are caused by HPV-16/18, it is unlikely that the nonavalent would be used if its efficacy against these types is lower than current HPV vaccines.

Economic evaluation of sipuleucel-T immunotherapy in castration-resistant prostate cancer.

The objective is to examine the cost-utility of sipuleucel-T immunotherapy in asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients. The addition of sipuleucel-T immunotherapy to standard treatment led to a gain of 0.37 quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) at an additional cost of US$104,536. The incremental cost-utility ratio was US$283,000 per QALY saved. Threshold sensitivity analyses indicated that a price reduction of at least 53%, or application in a group of patients resulting in the relative reduction in the mortality rate of at least 39%, ought to augment the economic value of this regimen. Sipuleucel-T immunotherapy treatment at the current price with 96.5% certainty is not cost-effective. The specific group of patients who will benefit more from the treatment should be revealed and treated, or the cost of the vaccine should be lowered significantly to increase its economic value. Accounting for crossover treatment in control patients improves sipuleucel-T's value (US$132,000 per QALY saved) although further investigation is necessary.

Phacilitate Immunotherapy Leaders' Forum: How to tap into dilutive and non-dilutive funding sources for immunotherapy projects--Barcelona, May 9-11, 2012.

How to tap into dilutive and non-dilutive funding sources for immunotherapy projects.

Business models and opportunities for cancer vaccine developers.

Despite of growing oncology pipeline, cancer vaccines contribute only to a minor share of total oncology-attributed revenues. This is mainly because of a limited number of approved products and limited sales from products approved under compassionate or via early access entry in smaller and less developed markets. However revenue contribution from these products is extremely limited and it remains to be established whether developers are breaking even or achieving profitability with existing sales. Cancer vaccine field is well recognized for high development costs and risks, low historical rates of investment return and high probability of failures arising in ventures, partnerships and alliances. The cost of reimbursement for new oncology agents is not universally acceptable to payers limiting the potential for a global expansion, market access and reducing probability of commercial success. In addition, the innovation in cancer immunotherapy is currently focused in small and mid-size biotech companies and academic institutions struggling for investment. Existing R&D innovation models are deemed unsustainable in current "value-for-money" oriented healthcare environment. New business models should be much more open to collaborative, networked and federated styles, which could help to outreach global, markets and increase cost-efficiencies across an entire value chain. Lessons learned from some developing countries and especially from South Korea illustrate that further growth of cancer vaccine industry will depends not only on new business models but also will heavily rely on regional support and initiatives from different bodies, such as governments, payers and regulatory bodies.

Reimbursement challenges with cancer immunotherapeutics.

Today the task of cancer vaccine developers is not only to excel in cancer immunology and art of conducting immunotherapy trials but also in the analysis and forecasting the cost-effectiveness of the final product. This article reviews methodology used by EU health-technology bodies in the appraisal of new therapies based on economic and clinical values and different budgetary uncertainties. Increasingly, new oncology treatments were able to access EU market only under provision of risk-sharing agreements with payers and examples of such agreements are given here. Cancer vaccine developers should consider early collection of patient reported outcomes in order to project additional clinical and economic value with immunotherapy. Furthermore, early interaction with different stakeholders including patient organizations, physicians and payer bodies can facilitate market access.