[177Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE versus standard of care in adult patients with gastro-enteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours (GEP-NETs): a cost-consequence analysis from an Italian hospital perspective

Purpose: To assess and compare clinical outcomes and costs, to the Italian healthcare system, of three therapeutic options approved in the management of adult patients with gastro-enteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours (GEP-NETs). Methods: We compared the efficacy, safety, and costs of [177Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE, everolimus (both originator and generic products), and sunitinib in patients with advanced GEP-NETs (NET G1 and G2) that had progressed following treatment with somatostatin analogs (SSAs). A cost-consequence model was developed and validated by a panel of clinical experts from three NET reference centres in Italy. The clinical outcomes included in the model were median progression-free survival and the incidence of grade 3 or 4 adverse events (AEs), as reported in pivotal clinical trials. The costs for acquisition and administration of each treatment, and of managing AEs, were calculated from the perspective of the Italian national health service. Treatment costs per progression-free month were calculated separately for patients with NETs of pancreatic (PanNETs; all three treatments) and gastrointestinal (GI-NETs; [177Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE and everolimus only) origin. Results: In patients with PanNETs, total costs per progression-free month were €2989 for [177Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE, €4975 for originator everolimus, €3472 for generic everolimus, and €5337 for sunitinib. In patients with GI-NETs, total costs per progression-free month were €3189 for [177Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE, €4990 for originator everolimus, and €3483 for generic everolimus. Conclusions: [177Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE was associated with lower costs per progression-free month versus relevant treatment options in patients with GI-NETs or PanNETs (NET G1–G2; progressed following SSA treatment), although acquisition and administration costs are higher. These findings provide further economic arguments in the overall context of treatment decision-making

The Costs of Implementing Vaccination With the RTS,S Malaria Vaccine in Five Sub-Saharan African Countries.

Background. The World Health Organization has recommended pilot implementation of a candidate vaccine against malaria (RTS,S/AS01) in selected sub-Saharan African countries. This exploratory study aimed to estimate the costs of implementing RTS,S in Burkina Faso, Ghana, Kenya, Mozambique, and Tanzania. Methods. Key informants of the expanded program on immunization at all levels in each country were interviewed on the resources required for implementing RTS,S for routine vaccination. Unit prices were derived from the same sources or from international price lists. Incremental costs in 2015 US dollars were aggregated per fully vaccinated child (FVC). It was assumed the four vaccine doses were either all delivered at health facilities or the fourth dose was delivered in an outreach setting. Results. The costs per FVC ranged from US$25 (Burkina Faso) to US$37 (Kenya) assuming a vaccine price of US$5 per dose. Across countries, recurrent costs represented the largest share dominated by vaccines (including wastage) and supply costs. Non-recurrent costs varied substantially across countries, mainly because of differences in needs for hiring personnel, in wages, in cold-room space, and equipment. Recent vaccine introductions in the countries may have had an impact on resource availability for a new vaccine implementation. Delivering the fourth dose in outreach settings raised the costs, mostly fuel, per FVC by less than US$1 regardless of the country. Conclusions. This study provides relevant information for donors and decision makers about the cost of implementing RTS,S. Variations within and across countries are important and the unknown future price per dose and wastage rate for this candidate vaccine adds substantially to the uncertainty about the actual costs of implementation