scholarly journals A cost-utility analysis of apalutamide for metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ambica Parmar ◽  
Narhari Timilshina ◽  
Urban Emmenegger ◽  
Martin Smoragiewicz ◽  
Beate Sander ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Therapeutic Option ◽  
Lifetime Cost ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Scenario Analyses ◽  
Life Years

Introduction: Earlier application of oral androgen receptor-axis-targeted therapies in patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) has established improvements in overall survival, as compared to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) alone. Recently, the use of apalutamide plus ADT has demonstrated improvement in mCSPC-related mortality, vs. ADT alone, with an acceptable toxicity profile. However, the cost-effectiveness of this therapeutic option remains unknown. Methods: We used a state-transition model with probabilistic analysis to compare apalutamide + ADT, as compared to ADT alone for mCSPC patients over a time horizon of 20 years. Primary outcomes included expected life-years (LY), quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), lifetime cost (2020 Canadian dollars), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Parameter and model uncertainties were assessed through scenario analyses. Health outcomes and cost were discounted at 1.5%, as per Canadian guidelines. Results: For the base-case analysis, expected LY for ADT and apalutamide plus ADT were 4.11 and 5.56, respectively (incremental LY 1.45). Expected QALYs were 3.51 for ADT and 4.84 for apalutamide plus ADT (incremental QALYs 1.33); expected lifetime cost was $36 582 and $255 633, respectively (incremental cost $219,051). ICER for apalutamide plus ADT, as compared to ADT alone, was $164 700/QALY. Through scenario analysis, price reductions >50% were required for apalutamide in combination with ADT to be considered cost-effective, at a cost-effectiveness threshold of $100 000/QALY. Conclusions: Apalutamide plus ADT is unlikely to be cost-effective from the Canadian healthcare perspective unless there are substantial reductions in the price of apalutamide treatment.

Cost-effectiveness of novel antiandrogens (AAs) for treatment of nonmetastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC).

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 5583-5583
Author(s):  
Irbaz Bin Riaz ◽  
Abdulaali Almutairi ◽  
Daenielle K. Lang ◽  
Noureen Asghar ◽  
Anum Riaz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Lifetime Cost ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Health States ◽  
Support Unit ◽  
Medication Costs ◽  
Life Years

5583 Background: FDA has approved three novel AAs [Apalutamide(A), Darolutamide(D) and Enzalutamide(E)] in combination with Androgen deprivation therapy ( ADT) for treatment of (nmCRPC) patients (pts). We report the cost-effectiveness of these drugs from the US perspective to help facilitate the choice of these agents for clinical practice. Methods: A life time Markov state-transition model was constructed with three health states (Metastasis-Free Survival[MFS], Metastatic disease, and Death) to compare cost-effectiveness of AA therapies for treatment of nmCRPC based on US healthcare payer perspective. A network meta-analysis of MFS and OS was conducted due to the lack of head to head trials. An approximation of the original individual-level patient time-to-event data were derived from digitized Kaplan-Meier curves for OS and MFS. Weibull distributions was selected as the best fitted model fitted and extrapolated as per the NICE decision support unit recommendations. Medication costs were based on wholesale acquisition cost. Adverse event (AE) grades 3/4 management costs were incorporated in the model. Discount rate of 3% per year was applied to costs and effects. Life years (LYs) and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) for each treatment as well as the incremental cost effectiveness (ICER) and cost utility (ICUR) ratios were estimated. Base case analyses (BCA) and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were estimated. Results: The table summarizes the results form BCA analyses. A+ADT offers best gain in LYs (8.37yrs) and QALYs (5.30 yrs) but at higher cost. Conclusions: Apalutamide was associated with gains in LYs and QALYs traded off with higher lifetime cost relative to other AA alternatives. ADT was associated with lower gains in LYs and QALYs traded off with lower lifetime cost relative to other alternatives. Based on a $150,000/QALY threshold pay off, A+ADT is likely more cost effective compared to E+ADT or ADT alone; while E+ ADT may be more cost effective compared to D+ ADT. [Table: see text]

scholarly journals Economic evaluation of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy compared to open radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer treatment in Ontario, Canada

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (8) ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Parackal ◽  
Jean-Eric Tarride ◽  
Feng Xie ◽  
Gord Blackhouse ◽  
Jennifer Hoogenes ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Time Horizon ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Robot Assisted ◽  
Open Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Life Years

Introduction: Recent health technology assessments (HTAs) of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) in Ontario and Alberta, Canada, resulted in opposite recommendations, calling into question whether benefits of RARP offset the upfront investment. Therefore, the study objectives were to conduct a cost-utility analysis from a Canadian public payer perspective to determine the cost-effectiveness of RARP. Methods: Using a 10-year time horizon, a five-state Markov model was developed to compare RARP to open radical prostatectomy (ORP). Clinical parameters were derived from Canadian observational studies and a recently published systematic review. Costs, resource utilization, and utility values from recent Canadian sources were used to populate the model. Results were presented in terms of increment costs per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained. A probabilistic analysis was conducted, and uncertainty was represented using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEACs). One-way sensitivity analyses were also conducted. Future costs and QALYs were discounted at 1.5%. Results: Total cost of RARP and ORP were $47 033 and $45 332, respectively. Total estimated QALYs were 7.2047 and 7.1385 for RARP and ORP, respectively. The estimated incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) was $25 704 in the base-case analysis. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50 000 and $100 000 per QALY gained, the probability of RARP being cost-effective was 0.65 and 0.85, respectively. The model was most sensitive to the time horizon. Conclusions: The results of this analysis suggest that RARP is likely to be cost-effective in this Canadian patient population. The results are consistent with Alberta’s HTA recommendation and other economic evaluations, but challenges Ontario’s reimbursement decision.

CyberKnife for prostate cancer: Is it cost-effective?

2011 ◽  
Vol 29 (7_suppl) ◽  
pp. 87-87 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Parthan ◽  
N. Pruttivarasin ◽  
D. Taylor ◽  
D. Davies ◽  
G. Yang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Radiation Therapy ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Societal Perspective ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Lifetime Costs

87 Background: The study assessed the cost-effectiveness of CyberKnife (CK) compared to surgery and radiation therapy for the treatment of prostate cancer (PC) from a third-party and societal perspective. Methods: For patients > 65 yrs with localized PC, a Markov model compared treatment with CK, intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), surgery or proton therapy (PT). Following treatment, patients were at risk of long-term toxicity: genitourinary (GU); gastrointestinal (GI); and sexual dysfunction (SD). Long-term toxicity was defined as adverse events >grade 2 on Radiation Therapy Oncology Group scale occurring at least 12 months following treatment. Markov states included all possible combinations of GI, GU, and SD long-term toxicities, no toxicity, and death. During each year patients remained in the same Markov state or died. Costs and utilities were assigned using published sources. Toxicity probabilities were derived using meta-analytical techniques to pool results from multiple studies. It was assumed that long-term disease control would not differ across treatments. The model projected expected lifetime costs and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) for each treatment and incremental cost-effectiveness of CK vs comparators as cost per QALY gained. Costs from societal perspective included lost productivity. Extensive sensitivity analyses were conducted. Results: Surgery was the least expensive treatment option followed by CK. CK patients had higher expected QALYs (8.11) than other treatment options (7.72- 8.06). From a payer perspective, total lifetime costs were $25,904, $22,295, $38,915, and $58,100 for CK, surgery, IMRT and PT, respectively. Incremental cost per QALY gained for CK versus Surgery was $9,200/QALY. Compared to IMRT and PT, CK was less costly and resulted in higher QALYs (dominance). At a threshold of $50,000/QALY, CK was cost effective in 86%, 79%, and 91% of simulations compared to surgery, IMRT, and PT, respectively. From a societal perspective, CK costs $4,200/QALY compared to surgery and remained dominant vs IMRT and PT. Results were most sensitive to costs of surgery and CK. Conclusions: Initial CK costs are higher than surgery, but CK patients have better quality of life. CK patients have lower lifetime costs and higher QALYs than IMRT and PT patients. [Table: see text]

Lifetime cost-effectiveness of denosumab versus zoledronic for prevention of skeletal-related events (SREs) in patients (pts) with castrate-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) and bone metastases (BM): United States managed care perspective.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e15172-e15172
Author(s):  
Michael E. Rader ◽  
Mark Danese ◽  
Ze Cong ◽  
Marc Halperin ◽  
Yi Qian ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Managed Care ◽  
Lifetime Cost ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Drug Discontinuation ◽  
Claims Database ◽  
Scenario Analyses ◽  
Cost Effective Treatment

e15172 Background: Denosumab (Dmab) is superior to zoledronic acid (ZA) for prevention of SREs in pts with CRPC and BM. As Dmab is not cleared renally, it can be used in pts regardless of renal status or concomitant use of nephrotoxic drugs. Previous economic analyses were limited as the analyses were based on short duration-trial based perspectives and/or did not account for disutility associated with IV vs SC administration of ZA and Dmab, respectively. These analyses assess the lifetime cost-effectiveness of Dmab vs ZA in pts with CRPC and BM from a US managed care perspective, with extensive scenario and sensitivity analyses. Methods: A lifetime Markov model was developed, with efficacy of Dmab vs ZA in SRE prevention from a head-to-head phase 3 trial; clinical practice SRE rate in ZA pts from a large commercial claims database analysis; SRE and mode of administration (IV vs SC) quality adjusted life-year (QALY) decrements estimated using the time trade-off method; and SRE costs estimated from a nationally representative commercial claims database. Drug, drug administration, and renal monitoring costs were also included. Costs and QALYs were discounted at 3% per year. Scenario analyses (including adverse events, drug discontinuation, etc), one-way and multivariate probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. Results: Dmab reduced the number of SREs and increased pts’ QALY vs ZA. In the base case and the scenario analyses, cost per QALY gained was below $50,000, which is commonly considered good value. Cost per SRE avoided was below $9,000. In one-way sensitivity analyses, drug costs and SRE rate were the most influential variables. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed the probabilities of Dmab being cost-effective vs ZA were 0.83, 0.94, and 0.98 with willingness-to-pay of $100,000, $150,000 and $200,000 per QALY gained, respectively. Conclusions: Dmab is a cost-effective treatment option in preventing SREs in pts with CRPC and BM compared with ZA from a US managed care perspective. The overall value of Denosumab is based on superior efficacy and more efficient administration.

OP535 Cost-Effectiveness Of Internet-Based HIV Screening In Men Who Have Sex With Men in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

2020 ◽  
Vol 36 (S1) ◽  
pp. 13-14
Author(s):  
Wei Zhang ◽  
José de Anda ◽  
Michael Irvine ◽  
Hsiu-Ju Chang ◽  
Mark Gilbert
Keyword(s):  
British Columbia ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Time Horizon ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Sexual History ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Hiv Screening ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Sex With Men

IntroductionIn Canada, individuals test for HIV commonly through clinic-based screening services (CBSS). However, gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men (GBMSM) may face barriers accessing such services due to, for example, feeling discomfort disclosing their sexual history or fearing judgment from healthcare providers. To reduce barriers and increase uptake and frequency of screening for sexually-transmitted infections (STIs) including HIV, the British Columbia Centre for Disease Control implemented an internet-based screening service, GetCheckedOnline.com (GCO), in September 2014 in Vancouver, Canada. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of GCO at different uptake scenarios compared to CBSS in Vancouver GBMSM.MethodsCost-utility analyses were conducted from a healthcare payer's perspective using an established dynamic GBMSM HIV compartmental model. The model estimated the probability of becoming infected with HIV, progressing through diagnosis, disease stages, and treatment over a 30-year time horizon. The base case assumed 4.7 percent uptake of GCO, and 74 percent of high-risk and 44 percent of low-risk infrequent testers becoming regular testers in five years. Scenario analyses tested GCO 10 and 15 percent uptakes.ResultsCompared with the conventional CBSS alone, a 4.7 percent GCO uptake increased the costs by CAD90,059 (USD75,680; 95% confidence interval (CI): -CAD420,836, CAD273,987) and gained 3 (95% CI: 0, 6) quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) in a 30-year time horizon. There was a 71 percent probability that GCO was cost-effective at a cost-effectiveness threshold of CAD50,000 (USD42,000) per QALY. The results were consistent in other two uptake scenarios.ConclusionsExpanding HIV screening for GBMSM through increasing uptake of GCO is a cost-effective alternative to expanding the conventional CBSS. We noted that difference in total costs might be smaller if a battery of STI tests is considered, which in turn may affect our cost-effectiveness estimate. For the next phase of cost-utility analysis, we will expand our model to include testing for other STIs.

Economic evaluation of Avonex® (interferon beta-1a) in patients following a single demyelinating event

2005 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. 542-551 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Iskedjian ◽  
John H Walker ◽  
Trevor Gray ◽  
Colin Vicente ◽  
Thomas R Einarson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Time Horizon ◽  
Interferon Beta ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Current Treatment ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Analytical Time

Background: Interferon beta-1a (Avonex®)30 mg, intramuscular (i.m.), once weekly is efficacious in delaying clinically definite multiple sclerosis (CDMS) following a single demyelinating event (SDE). This study determined the cost effectiveness of Avonex® compared to current treatment in delaying the onset of CDMS. Methods: A cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) and cost-utility analysis (CUA) were performed from Ministry of Health (MoH) and societal perspectives. For CEA, the outcome of interest was time spent in the pre-CDMS state, termed monosymptomatic life years (MLY) gained. For CUA, the outcome was quality-adjusted monosymptomatic life years (QAMLY) gained. A Markov model was developed with transitional probabilities and utilities derived from the literature. Costs were reported in 2002 Canadian dollars. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 5%. The time horizon was 12 years for the CEA, and 15 years for the CUA. All uncertainties were tested via univariate and multivariate sensitivity analyses. Results: In the CEA, the incremental cost of Avonex® per MLY gained was $53 110 and $44 789 from MoH and societal perspectives, respectively. In the CUA, the incremental cost of Avonex® per QAMLY gained was $227 586 and $189 286 from MoH and societal perspectives, respectively. Both models were sensitive to the probability of progressing to CDMS and the analytical time horizon. The CUA was sensitive to the utilities value. Conclusion: Avonex® may be considered as a reasonably cost-effective approach to treatment of patients experiencing an SDE. In addition, the overall incremental cost-effectiveness profile of Avonex® improves if treatment is initiated in pre-CDMS rather than waiting until CDMS.

scholarly journals A Telemonitoring Programme in Patients with Heart Failure in France: A Cost-Utility Analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mégane Caillon ◽  
Rémi Sabatier ◽  
Damien Legallois ◽  
Laurène Courouve ◽  
Valérie Donio ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Standard Care ◽  
Care Setting ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Cost Utility Analysis ◽  
Utility Analysis ◽  
Life Years

Abstract Background Certain telemedicine programmes for heart failure (HF) have been shown to reduce all-cause mortality and heart failure-related hospitalisations, but their cost-effectiveness remains controversial. The SCAD programme is a home-based interactive telemonitoring service for HF, which is one of the longest-running and largest telemonitoring programmes for HF in France. The objective of this cost-utility analysis was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the SCAD programme with respect to standard hospital-based care in patients with HF. Methods A Markov model simulating hospitalisations and mortality in patients with HF was constructed to estimate outcomes and costs. The model included six distinct health states (three ‘not hospitalised’ states, two ‘hospitalisation for heart failure’ states, both depending on the number of previous hospitalisations, and one death state. The model lifetime in the base case was ten years. Model inputs were based on published literature. Outputs (costs and QALYs) were compared between SCAD participants and standard care. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess uncertainty in the input parameters of the model. Results The number of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) was 3.75 in the standard care setting and 4.41 in the SCAD setting. This corresponds to a gain in QALYs provided by the SCAD programme of 0.65 over the ten-year lifetime of the model. The estimated total cost was €30,932 in the standard care setting and €35,177 in the SCAD setting, with an incremental cost of €4,245. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the SCAD programme over standard care was estimated at €4,579/QALY. In the deterministic sensitivity analysis, the variables that had the most impact on the ICER were HF management costs. The likelihood of the SCAD programme being considered cost-effective was 90% at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €11,800. Conclusions Enrolment of patients into the SCAD programme is highly cost-effective. Extension of the programme to other hospitals and more patients would have a limited budget impact but provide important clinical benefits. This finding should also be taken into account in new public health policies aimed at encouraging a shift from inpatient to ambulatory care.

Economic rationale on the use of m-Health in uncontrolled hypertensive outpatients: from three months and beyond

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (Supplement_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
M Ionov ◽  
O.V Zhukova ◽  
N.E Zvartau ◽  
A.O Konradi
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Scientific Data ◽  
Funding Source ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Cardiovascular Morbidity And Mortality

Abstract Background/Introduction Current scientific data show that blood pressure (BP) telemonitoring with/without additional counseling is rather effective in hypertension (HTN) management. However, cost-effectiveness and long-term social sequelae are lacking. This is because of diverse technologies and economic climate which make results highly heterogeneous across countries. Purpose To construct predictive model of long-term outcomes and to conduct the cost-effectiveness analysis of BP telemonitoring and remote counseling (BPTM) using m-Health in Russian population of outpatients with HTN. Methods Total of 240 patients were randomized (2:1) to either BPTM (n=160, mean age 47 y.o.) and to usual care (UC, n=80, mean age 49 y.o.) with baseline, three-month follow-up clinic visits combined with ambulatory BP measurement (ABPM). BPTM consisted of m-Health tool for patients, desktop module for clinicians. It enables BP data transfer and analysis, secure web chatting to support and counsel. Main outcomes were change in office, ambulatory systolic (S) BP and rate of BP control. A Markov cohort-based (1000 patients per study arm) model was developed and adopted a 10-year time horizon with 12-month time cycles. All patients started at a non-complicated HTN “well” state with a certain possibility of disease progression in a number of health states over a discrete time period. BPTM was compared with usual care in terms of 10-year healthcare costs, quality adjusted life years (QALY) using a Ministry of Health of Russian Federation perspective. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) represented economic analysis. Results BPTM was associated with steeper decrease in office, ambulatory SBP (−16,8 mm Hg and −8,9 mm Hg, respectively; p<0,05) with the same treatment intensity (2,4 drugs per patient). There were 102 (64%) and 11 (14%) patients with fully controlled HTN in BPTM and UC groups, respectively (OR 11,03 95% CI [5,4–22,5]). An ICER of BPTM resulted in additional 11,1 EUR/1 mm Hg/year. It is expected that BPTM will be at least 76% cost-effective as per relevant Russian willingness-to-pay threshold. In a modelled 10-year period BPTM was life-saving (9,71 vs 9,6 life years gained) and cheap (cost of illness 1,5 mln vs 2,1 mln EUR). BPTM was also more valuable (8,31 versus 7,82 QALYs gained) so the ICUR was 3601,47 EUR/QALY gained. Cost-effectiveness was further confirmed by one-way deterministic sensitivity analysis. Conclusion BPTM seems to be clinically and economically effective when implemented into clinical practice. It provides greater BP reduction, improves BP control short-term. In a long-term it is likely to reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in a cost-effective way. Larger randomized studies are needed to confirm these pilot results. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curve Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: Foundation. Main funding source(s): The Russian Scientific Foundation

scholarly journals The economics of precision health: preventing air pollution-induced exacerbation in asthma

2021 ◽  
pp. 00790-2020
Author(s):  
Tima Mohammadi ◽  
Mohsen Sadatsafavi ◽  
Chris Carlsten
Keyword(s):  
Air Pollution ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Precision Medicine ◽  
Preventive Intervention ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Decision Analytic Model ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Precision Health

BackgroundThe demonstrable value of precision medicine, in the context of common environmental exposures, has scarcely been explored. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of a preventive personalised intervention to reduce the adverse effect of air pollution in the context of asthma.MethodsA decision-analytic model was used to conduct a cost-utility analysis of prevention interventions in case of acute exposure to air pollution in mild asthma. Three different strategies, as follows, were compared: no preventive intervention, precision health strategy based on information from genotype testing – followed with treating high-risk patients, and prescribing additional medication to all mild asthmatics as a preventive intervention. The costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) in the base case and alternative scenarios were obtained through probabilistic analysis.ResultsThe results showed that the precision prevention intervention (anticipatory intervention for asthmatics, guided by relevant genetic abnormality, in the face of acute air pollution) is a cost-effective strategy compared to no such intervention, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $49 555 per QALY. Furthermore, this strategy is a dominant strategy compared to an intervention that prescribes medication indiscriminately to all asthmatics.ConclusionThe incorporation of genomic testing, to stratify risk of asthmatics to pollution-driven exacerbations, and then tailoring a preventive intervention accordingly, may be cost-effective relative to untailored methods. These results lend plausibility to the use of precision medicine for limiting asthma exacerbation in the context of air pollution and, potentially, other exposures.

Polatuzumab vedotin-bendamustine-rituximab (PBR) versus tafasitamab-lenalidomide (TafaL) in ASCT-transplant ineligible relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (R/R DLBCL): Economic evaluation including novel metrics.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e19535-e19535
Author(s):  
Matthias Calamia ◽  
Ali McBride ◽  
Ivo Abraham
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
B Cell Lymphoma ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Survival Outcomes ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Life Years

e19535 Background: PBR and TafaL are two recently regulatory approved regimens that offer treatment options for R/R DLBCL patients who are ASCT ineligible or choose not to undergo ASCT. PBR is administered over 6 cycles, whereas TafaL is sustained until disease progression or death. We report here on an independent, naïve comparative, pharmacoeconomic evaluation of both regimens. Methods: Cost effectiveness and cost utility analyses were performed using a Markov model with 3 health states (progression free survival (PFS), post progression survival (PPS), death) parametrically extrapolated over a 5-year (y) time horizon (US payer perspective; 2020 USD). Cost inputs included main treatment, premedication, drug administration, adverse event management, and physician and laboratory fees. Incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICER) and cost-utility ratios (ICUR) estimated the incremental costs to gain 1 unadjusted (LY) or quality adjusted life years (QALY), respectively. A novel metric of the incremental cost per 1% gain in probability of achieving objective response (OR), PFS and overall survival (OS) at trial follow up (̃2y) and PFS and OS at 5y with TafaL over PBR were estimated. Deterministic (DSA) and probabilistic (PSA) sensitivity analyses complemented base case analyses (BCA). Willingness to pay (WTP) thresholds were estimated. Results: At trial follow up (̃2y), PFS and OS rates were 38% and 63% for TafaL vs rates of 18% and 27.5% for PBR. The corresponding 5y PFS and OS rates were 13% and 32.7% for TafaL vs 5.2% and 11.3% for PBR. In BCAs, 5y TafaL costs ($470,949) exceeded PBR’s ($251,615) by $219,334 for incremental gains of 0.71 LY and 0.32 QALY. This yielded BCA ICER of $307,840/LYg and ICUR of $689,314/QALYg attenuated in PSA estimates of ICER of $280,042/LYg and ICUR of $589,215/QALYg. In DSAs, TafaL PFS utility value and PBR treatment costs were the most influential parameters. In PSAs, TafaL had a 50% probability of being cost effective at WTPs of $278,050/LYg and $560,360/QALYg. The incremental cost per 1% gain in probability to achieve OR, PFS and OS at follow up were $7,714, $5,785 and $3,259; and $28,120 and $10,249 for PFS and OS at 5 years. Conclusions: Considering that economic evaluations are intended to inform (but not set) policy, this independent analysis demonstrated that sustained TafaL treatment is associated with better survival outcomes than PBR though at greater cost. The incremental costs to gain a 1% improvement in 2y and 5y survival outcomes with TafaL over PBR were modest, underscoring the longer-term benefit of TafaL over PBR in pts ineligible for or opting out of ASCT.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document