Modelled Economic Analysis for Dacomitinib–A Cost Effectiveness Analysis in Treating Patients With EGFR-Mutation-Positive Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in China

ObjectivesTo establish the cost-effectiveness of dacomitinib compared to gefitinib from the Chinese healthcare system perspective.PatientsAdvanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harbouring epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations.MethodsPartitioned survival analysis was undertaken to examine the cost-effectiveness of dacomitinib utilising individual patient data (IPD) from the pivotal randomised controlled trial (RCT) (ARCHER 1050). The three health states modelled were progression-free, post-progression, and death. Parametric survival distributions were fitted to IPD against the Kaplan-Meier survival curves corresponding to progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) outcomes by randomised groups. Costs included drug acquisition and administration, outpatient management (outpatient consultation and examinations), and best supportive care costs. Utility weights were sourced from the pivotal trial and other published literature. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated with costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) discounted at an annual rate of 5%. Both deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were undertaken.ResultsIn the base case, dacomitinib (CNY 265,512 and 1.95 QALY) was associated with higher costs and QALY gains compared to gefitinib (CNY 247,048 and 1.61 QALYs), resulting in an ICER of CNY 58,947/QALY. Using the empirical WTP/QALY threshold, dacomitinib is a cost-effective treatment strategy for patients with EGFR-mutation-positive advanced NSCLC. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggested that dacomitinib had a 97% probability of being cost-effective.ConclusionsDacomitinib is a cost-effective treatment strategy in treating patients with EGFR-mutation-positive NSCLC from the Chinese healthcare system perspective. The uncertainty around the cost-effectiveness of dacomitinib could be reduced if long-term survival data become available. Clinical Trial RegistrationNCT01024413

Cost-effectiveness of MRI targeted biopsy strategies for diagnosing prostate cancer in Singapore

Background To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of six diagnostic strategies involving magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) targeted biopsy for diagnosing prostate cancer in initial and repeat biopsy settings from the Singapore healthcare system perspective. Methods A combined decision tree and Markov model was developed. The starting model population was men with mean age of 65 years referred for a first prostate biopsy due to clinical suspicion of prostate cancer. The six diagnostic strategies were selected for their relevance to local clinical practice. They comprised MRI targeted biopsy following a positive pre-biopsy multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) [Prostate Imaging – Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) score ≥ 3], systematic biopsy, or saturation biopsy employed in different testing combinations and sequences. Deterministic base case analyses with sensitivity analyses were performed using costs from the healthcare system perspective and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained as the outcome measure to yield incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Results Deterministic base case analyses showed that Strategy 1 (MRI targeted biopsy alone), Strategy 2 (MRI targeted biopsy ➔ systematic biopsy), and Strategy 4 (MRI targeted biopsy ➔ systematic biopsy ➔ saturation biopsy) were cost-effective options at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of US$20,000, with ICERs ranging from US$18,975 to US$19,458. Strategies involving MRI targeted biopsy in the repeat biopsy setting were dominated. Sensitivity analyses found the ICERs were affected mostly by changes to the annual discounting rate and prevalence of prostate cancer in men referred for first biopsy, ranging between US$15,755 to US$23,022. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses confirmed Strategy 1 to be the least costly, and Strategies 2 and 4 being the preferred strategies when WTP thresholds were US$20,000 and US$30,000, respectively. Limitations and conclusions This study found MRI targeted biopsy to be cost-effective in diagnosing prostate cancer in the biopsy-naïve setting in Singapore.

Determining The Age Priority in Universal Vaccination Using Economic Evidence: Case From US Based On Dynamic Transmission Model

Background: Currently, increasing regions have realized that universal vaccination are necessary to prevent COVID-19. However many of them are facing problems associated with insufficient supply or chaotic allocation of vaccines. This study selected the United States population as an example and explored prioritization strategies of COVID-19 vaccination for different age groups to achieve the highest economic efficiency.Methods: We built a dynamic transmission model to predict the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infections under the prioritization strategies of vaccination for different ages within a 180-day simulation period. Quality-adjusted life year (QALY) was selected as the outcome. Medical costs included direct medical cost and vaccine cost based on a healthcare system perspective. Data on SARS-CoV-2 epidemiology, vaccine efficacy, and medical costs were derived from publicly available databases and previously published literature. Different COVID-19 vaccines were included in scenario analysis. The robustness of the study results was evaluated by one-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis.Results: COVID-19 vaccination is economical compared with no vaccination. Priority vaccination for adults aged 25–59 years saves $31,664.2 million and that for adults over 60 years old saves $30,082.9 million in medical costs compared with no vaccine intervention. Additionally, priority vaccination for adults aged 25–59 years vs. over 60 years old saves $1,581.3 million. In contrast, priority vaccination for adults aged over 60 years vs. 25–59 years old gains 0.001 QALYs and costs $4.7 per capita, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $4,829.3/QALY, and it is economical when taking gross domestic product per capita of the United States in 2020 as the willingness-to-pay threshold. The results of sensitivity analysis indicate that the base-case results are robust.Conclusions: From a healthcare system perspective, it is most economical to prioritize adults aged over 60 years for COVID-19 vaccination in the United States, thereby achieving effective resource allocation and saving the government costs.

PP329 An Australian Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Of The EluviaTM Drug-Eluting Stent For Treatment Of Symptomatic Lower-Limb Peripheral Artery Disease

IntroductionDespite advances in endovascular interventions, including the introduction of drug-eluting stents (DES), high target lesion revascularization (TLR) rates still burden the treatment of symptomatic lower-limb peripheral arterial disease (PAD). EluviaTM, a novel, sustained-release, paclitaxel-eluting DES, was shown to further reduce TLRs when compared with the paclitaxel-coated Zilver® PTX® stent, in the IMPERIAL randomized controlled trial. This evaluation estimated the cost-effectiveness of Eluvia when compared with Zilver PTX in Australia, based on 12-month clinical outcomes from the IMPERIAL trial.MethodsA state-transition, decision-analytic model with a 12-month time horizon was developed from an Australian public healthcare system perspective. Cost parameters were obtained from the Australian National Hospital Cost Data Collection Cost Report (2016–17). All costs were captured in Australian dollars (AUD), where AUD 1 = USD 0.69 (June 2020). Complete sets of clinical parameters (primary patency loss, TLR, amputation, and death) and cost parameters from their respective distributions were bootstrapped in samples of 1,000 patients, for each intervention arm of the model. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.ResultsAt 12 months, modeled TLR rates were 4.5 percent for Eluvia and 8.9 percent for Zilver PTX, and mean total direct costs were AUD 6,537 [USD 4,511] and AUD 6,908 [USD 4,767], respectively (Eluvia average per patient savings; overall cohort=AUD 371 [USD 256]; diabetic cohort=AUD 625 [USD 431]). In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, Eluvia was cost-effective relative to Zilver PTX in 92.0 percent of all simulations at a threshold of $10,000 per TLR avoided. Eluvia was more effective and less costly (dominant) than Zilver PTX in 76.0 percent of simulations.ConclusionsIn the first year after the intervention, Eluvia was more effective and less costly than Zilver PTX, making Eluvia the dominant treatment strategy for treatment of symptomatic lower-limb PAD, from an Australian public healthcare system perspective. These findings should be considered when formulating policy and practice guidelines in the context of priority setting and making evidence-based resource allocation decisions for treatment of PAD in Australia.