Cost-effectiveness of a nurse-led telemonitoring intervention based on peak expiratory flow measurements in asthmatics: results of a randomised controlled trial

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Asthma is a chronic lung disease in which recurrent asthma symptoms create a substantial burden to individuals and their families. At the same time the economic burden associated with asthma is considerable. METHODS: The cost-effectiveness study was part of a single centre prospective randomised controlled trial comparing a nurse-led telemonitoring programme to usual care in a population of asthmatic outpatients. The study included 109 asthmatic outpatients (56 children; 53 adults). The duration of follow-up was 12 months, and measurements were performed at baseline, 4, 8, and 12 months. Patients were asked to transfer their monitor data at least twice daily and by judging the received data and following a stepwise intervention protocol a nurse was able to act as the main caregiver in the intervention group. In both groups the EQ-5D and the SF-6D were used to obtain estimates of health state utilities. One year health care costs, patient and family costs, and productivity losses were calculated. The mean incremental costs were weighted against the mean incremental effect in terms of QALY. RESULTS: The study population generally represented mild to moderate asthmatics. No significant differences were found between the groups with regard to the generic quality of life. Overall, the mean health care costs per patient were higher in the intervention group than in the control group. The intervention costs mainly caused the cost difference between the groups. The intervention costs the society euro 31,035/QALY gained with regard to adults and with regard to children euro 59,071/QALY gained. CONCLUSION: If the outcome is measured by generic quality of life the nurse-led telemonitoring programme is of limited cost-effectiveness in the study population. From the societal perspective the probability of the programme being cost-effective compared to regular care was 85% at a ceiling ratio of euro 80,000/QALY gained among the adults and 68% among the children. A decrease in the price of the asthma monitor will substantial increase the probability of the programme to be cost-effective. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Number: NCT00411436

Cost Effectiveness of Modified Fractionation Radiotherapy versus Conventional Radiotherapy for Unresected Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer Patients

IntroductionModified fractionation radiotherapy (RT), delivering multiple fractions per day or shortening the overall treatment time, improves overall survival for non -small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients compared with conventional fractionation RT (CRT). However, its cost effectiveness is unknown. Therefore, we aimed to examine and compare the cost effectiveness of different modified RT schemes and CRT in the curative treatment of unresected NSCLC patients.MethodsA probabilistic Markov model was developed based on individual patient data from the meta-analysis of radiotherapy in lung cancer (N = 2000). Dutch health care costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and net monetary benefits (NMBs) were compared between two accelerated schemes (very accelerated RT [VART] and moderately accelerated RT [MART]), two hyperfractionated schemes (using an identical (HRTI) or higher (HRTH) total treatment dose than CRT) and CRT.ResultsAll modified fractionations were more effective and costlier than CRT (1.12 QALYs, €24,360). VART and MART were most effective (1.30 and 1.32 QALYs) and cost €25,746 and €26,208, respectively. HRTI and HRTH yielded less QALYs than the accelerated schemes (1.27 and 1.14 QALYs), and cost €26,199 and €29,683, respectively. MART had the highest NMB (€79,322; 95% confidence interval [CI], €35,478-€133,648) and was the most cost-effective treatment followed by VART (€78,347; 95% CI, €64,635-€92,526). CRT had an NMB of €65,125 (95% CI, €54,663-€75,537). MART had the highest probability of being cost effective (43%), followed by VART (31%), HRTI (24%), HRTH (2%), and CRT (0%).ConclusionImplementing accelerated RT is almost certainly more efficient than current practice CRT and should be recommended as standard RT for the curative treatment of unresected NSCLC patients not receiving concurrent chemo-radiotherapy

Exploring the Cost Effectiveness of a Whole-Genome Sequencing-Based Biomarker for Treatment Selection in Patients with Advanced Lung Cancer Ineligible for Targeted Therapy

Objective: We aimed to perform an early cost-effectiveness analysis of using a whole-genome sequencing-based tumor mutation burden (WGS-TMB), instead of programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1), for immunotherapy treatment selection in patients with non-squamous advanced/metastatic non-small cell lung cancer ineligible for targeted therapy, from a Dutch healthcare perspective. Methods: A decision-model simulating individual patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer was used to evaluate diagnostic strategies to select first-line immunotherapy only or the immunotherapy plus chemotherapy combination. Treatment was selected using PD-L1 [A, current practice], WGS-TMB [B], and both PD-L1 and WGS-TMB [C]. Strategies D, E, and F take into account a patient’s disease burden, in addition to PD-L1, WGS-TMB, and both PD-L1 and WGS-TMB, respectively. Disease burden was defined as a fast-growing tumor, a high number of metastases, and/or weight loss. A threshold of 10 mutations per mega-base was used to classify patients into TMB-high and TMB-low groups. Outcomes were discounted quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and healthcare costs measured from the start of first-line treatment to death. Healthcare costs includes drug acquisition, follow-up costs, and molecular diagnostic tests (i.e., standard diagnostic techniques and/or WGS for strategies involving TMB). Results were reported using the net monetary benefit at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €80,000/QALY. Additional scenario and threshold analyses were performed. Results: Strategy B had the lowest QALYs (1.84) and lowest healthcare costs (€120,800). The highest QALYs and healthcare costs were 2.00 and €140,400 in strategy F. In the base-case analysis, strategy A was cost effective with the highest net monetary benefit (€27,300), followed by strategy B (€26,700). Strategy B was cost effective when the cost of WGS testing was decreased by at least 24% or when immunotherapy results in an additional 0.5 year of life gained or more for TMB high compared with TMB low. Strategies C and F, which combined TMB and PD-L1 had the highest net monetary benefit (≥ €76,900) when the cost of WGS testing, immunotherapy, and chemotherapy acquisition were simultaneously reduced by at least 47%, 39%, and 43%, respectively. Furthermore, strategy C resulted in the highest net monetary benefit (≥ €39,900) in a scenario where patients with both PD-L1 low and TMB low were treated with chemotherapy instead of immunotherapy plus chemotherapy. Conclusions: The use of WGS-TMB is not cost effective compared to PD-L1 for immunotherapy treatment selection in non-squamous metastatic non-small cell lung cancer in the Netherlands. WGS-TMB could become cost effective provided there is a reduction in the cost of WGS testing or there is an increase in the predictive value of WGS-TMB for immunotherapy effectiveness. Alternatively, a combination strategy of PD-L1 testing with WGS-TMB would be cost effective if used to support the choice to withhold immunotherapy in patients with a low expected benefit of immunotherapy.</p

Exploring the Cost Effectiveness of a Whole-Genome Sequencing-Based Biomarker for Treatment Selection in Patients with Advanced Lung Cancer Ineligible for Targeted Therapy

Objective: We aimed to perform an early cost-effectiveness analysis of using a whole-genome sequencing-based tumor mutation burden (WGS-TMB), instead of programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1), for immunotherapy treatment selection in patients with non-squamous advanced/metastatic non-small cell lung cancer ineligible for targeted therapy, from a Dutch healthcare perspective. Methods: A decision-model simulating individual patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer was used to evaluate diagnostic strategies to select first-line immunotherapy only or the immunotherapy plus chemotherapy combination. Treatment was selected using PD-L1 [A, current practice], WGS-TMB [B], and both PD-L1 and WGS-TMB [C]. Strategies D, E, and F take into account a patient’s disease burden, in addition to PD-L1, WGS-TMB, and both PD-L1 and WGS-TMB, respectively. Disease burden was defined as a fast-growing tumor, a high number of metastases, and/or weight loss. A threshold of 10 mutations per mega-base was used to classify patients into TMB-high and TMB-low groups. Outcomes were discounted quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and healthcare costs measured from the start of first-line treatment to death. Healthcare costs includes drug acquisition, follow-up costs, and molecular diagnostic tests (i.e., standard diagnostic techniques and/or WGS for strategies involving TMB). Results were reported using the net monetary benefit at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €80,000/QALY. Additional scenario and threshold analyses were performed. Results: Strategy B had the lowest QALYs (1.84) and lowest healthcare costs (€120,800). The highest QALYs and healthcare costs were 2.00 and €140,400 in strategy F. In the base-case analysis, strategy A was cost effective with the highest net monetary benefit (€27,300), followed by strategy B (€26,700). Strategy B was cost effective when the cost of WGS testing was decreased by at least 24% or when immunotherapy results in an additional 0.5 year of life gained or more for TMB high compared with TMB low. Strategies C and F, which combined TMB and PD-L1 had the highest net monetary benefit (≥ €76,900) when the cost of WGS testing, immunotherapy, and chemotherapy acquisition were simultaneously reduced by at least 47%, 39%, and 43%, respectively. Furthermore, strategy C resulted in the highest net monetary benefit (≥ €39,900) in a scenario where patients with both PD-L1 low and TMB low were treated with chemotherapy instead of immunotherapy plus chemotherapy. Conclusions: The use of WGS-TMB is not cost effective compared to PD-L1 for immunotherapy treatment selection in non-squamous metastatic non-small cell lung cancer in the Netherlands. WGS-TMB could become cost effective provided there is a reduction in the cost of WGS testing or there is an increase in the predictive value of WGS-TMB for immunotherapy effectiveness. Alternatively, a combination strategy of PD-L1 testing with WGS-TMB would be cost effective if used to support the choice to withhold immunotherapy in patients with a low expected benefit of immunotherapy.</p

Integrating evidence on patient preferences in healthcare policy decisions

Background: Despite a strong movement towards active patient involvement in healthcare policy decisions, systematic and explicit consideration of evidence of this research on patient preferences seems limited. Furthermore, little is known about the opinions of several stakeholders towards consideration of research evidence on patient preferences in healthcare policy decisions. This paper describes the protocol for an explorative study on the integration of research on patient preferences in healthcare policy decisions. The study questions: to what extent research evidence on patient preferences is considered in current procedures for healthcare policy decisions; opinions of stakeholders regarding the integration of this type of evidence in healthcare policy decisions; and what could be a decision framework for the integration of such research evidence in healthcare policy decisions. Methods/design: The study is divided in three sub-studies, predominantly using qualitative methods. The first sub-study is a scoping review in five European countries to investigate whether and how results of research on patient preferences are considered in current procedures for coverage decisions and clinical practice guideline development. The second sub-study is a qualitative study to explore the opinions of stakeholders with regard to the possibilities for integrating evidence on patient preferences in the process of healthcare decision-making in the Netherlands. The third sub-study is the development of a decision framework for research on patient preferences. The framework will consist of: a process description regarding the place of evidence on patient preferences in the decision-making process; and a taxonomy describing different terminologies and conceptualisations of ‘preferences’ and an overview of existing methodologies for investigating preferences. The concept framework will be presented to and discussed with experts. Discussion: This study will create awareness regarding the existence and potential value of research evidence on patient preferences for healthcare policy decision-making and provides insight in the methods for investigating patient preferences and the barriers and facilitators for integration of such research in healthcare policy decisions. Results of the study will be useful for researchers, clinical practice guideline developers, healthcare policy makers, and patient representatives

Durvalumab for the Treatment of Locally Advanced, Unresectable, Stage III Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer:An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal

As part of the Single Technology Appraisal (STA) process, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer (AstraZeneca) of durvalumab (IMFINZI(TM)) to submit evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of durvalumab for the treatment of patients with locally advanced, unresectable, stage III non-small cell lung cancer whose tumours express programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) on >= 1% of tumour cells and whose disease has not progressed after platinum-based chemoradiation therapy. Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd, in collaboration with Maastricht University Medical Centre, was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). This paper summarises the company submission (CS), presents the ERG's critical review on the clinical- and cost-effectiveness evidence in the CS, highlights the key methodological considerations, and describes the development of the NICE guidance by the Appraisal Committee. The CS included a systematic review that identified one randomised controlled trial, comparing durvalumab with SoC. Participants with tumours expressing PD-L1 on >= 1% of tumour cells accounted for approximately 40% of the total participants. In this subgroup, a benefit in progression-free survival (PFS) [hazard ratio (HR) 0.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.31-0.63] and overall survival (HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.35-0.81) was reported. Adverse events were comparable between both treatments, but more serious adverse events were reported for durvalumab (64/213 [30%] vs. 18/90 [20%]). The ERG's concerns regarding the economic analysis included a likely overestimation of PFS for the durvalumab arm, the choice of timepoint for treatment waning, as well as the way treatment waning was incorporated in the model, and potential overestimation of utility values without applying an age- or treatment-related decrement. The revised ERG base-case resulted in a deterministic incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 50,238 pound per quality-adjusted life-year gained, with substantial remaining uncertainty. NICE recommended durvalumab as an option for use within the Cancer Drugs Fund only in a subpopulation (concurrent platinum-based chemoradiation therapy) with a commercially managed access agreement in place