Cost-effectiveness and budget impact of pembrolizumab+axitinib versus sunitinib in patients with advanced clear-cell renal cell carcinoma in the Netherlands

BackgroundThe phase 3 clinical trial KEYNOTE-426 suggested a higher efficacy regarding overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) of pembrolizumab+axitinib compared to sunitinib as a first-line treatment for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. In this analysis, the potential cost-effectiveness of this combination treatment versus sunitinib for patients with advanced clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (accRCC) was examined from the societal perspective in the Netherlands.MethodsFor this analysis, a partitioned survival model was constructed. Clinical data were obtained from the published KEYNOTE-426 trial reports; data on costs and (dis-)utilities were derived from published literature. Costs outside of the healthcare sector included treatment-related travel, informal care and productivity loss. Next to a probabilistic scenario analysis, various scenario analyses were performed that aimed at survival extrapolation, different utility values, treatment duration and drug pricing, as well as restricting the cohort to patients with an intermediate or poor prognosis. Further, a budget impact analysis over three years was conducted, in which a sensitivity analysis concerning ranges in costs and the number of patients was applied. Moreover, a scenario concerning increasing market penetration of pembrolizumab+axitinib up to a market share of 80% in the third year was analyzed.ResultsThe incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of pembrolizumab+axitinib was estimated at €368,396/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained, with an incremental QALY gain of 0.55 over sunitinib. The probability of cost-effectiveness at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €80,000/QALY was estimated at 0%, a 50% probability was estimated at €340,000/QALY. Cost-effectiveness was not achieved in any of the applied scenarios. The budget impact over three years amounted to €417.3 million upon instantaneous and full replacement of sunitinib, and to €214.9 million with increasing market penetration.ConclusionPembrolizumab+axitinib was not estimated to be cost-effective compared to sunitinib as a first-line treatment for patients with accRCC in the Netherlands from a societal perspective. In none of the analyzed scenarios, cost-effectiveness was achieved. However, price reductions and shorter treatment durations might lead to a more favorable ICER

Adjuvant Trastuzumab Therapy for Early HER2-Positive Breast Cancer in Iran: A Cost-Effectiveness and Scenario Analysis for an Optimal Treatment Strategy

Introduction: Clinical guidelines have recommended a 1-year trastuzumab regimen as standard care for early human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive breast cancer; however, th

Cost-effectiveness and budget impact of pembrolizumab+axitinib versus sunitinib in patients with advanced clear-cell renal cell carcinoma in the Netherlands

Background: The phase 3 clinical trial KEYNOTE-426 suggested a higher efficacy regarding overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) of pembrolizumab+axitinib compared to sunitinib as a first-line treatment for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. In this analysis, the potential cost-effectiveness of this combination treatment versus sunitinib for patients with advanced clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (accRCC) was examined from the societal perspective in the Netherlands. Methods: For this analysis, a partitioned survival model was constructed. Clinical data were obtained from the published KEYNOTE-426 trial reports; data on costs and (dis-)utilities were derived from published literature. Costs outside of the healthcare sector included treatment-related travel, informal care and productivity loss. Next to a probabilistic scenario analysis, various scenario analyses were performed that aimed at survival extrapolation, different utility values, treatment duration and drug pricing, as well as restricting the cohort to patients with an intermediate or poor prognosis. Further, a budget impact analysis over three years was conducted, in which a sensitivity analysis concerning ranges in costs and the number of patients was applied. Moreover, a scenario concerning increasing market penetration of pembrolizumab+axitinib up to a market share of 80% in the third year was analyzed. Results: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of pembrolizumab+axitinib was estimated at €368,396/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained, with an incremental QALY gain of 0.55 over sunitinib. The probability of cost-effectiveness at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €80,000/QALY was estimated at 0%, a 50% probability was estimated at €340,000/QALY. Cost-effectiveness was not achieved in any of the applied scenarios. The budget impact over three years amounted to €417.3 million upon instantaneous and full replacement of sunitinib, and to €214.9 million with increasing market penetration. Conclusion: Pembrolizumab+axitinib was not estimated to be cost-effective compared to sunitinib as a first-line treatment for patients with accRCC in the Netherlands from a societal perspective. In none of the analyzed scenarios, cost-effectiveness was achieved. However, price reductions and shorter treatment durations might lead to a more favorable ICER.</p

The Drug Reimbursement Decision-Making System in Iran

Background: &nbsp;Previous studies of health policies in Iran have not focused exclusively on the drug reimbursement process. Objective: The aim of this study was to describe the entire drug reimbursement process and the stakeholders, and discuss issues faced by policymakers. Methods: Review of documents describing the administrative rules and directives of stakeholders, supplemented by published statistics and interviews with experts and policymakers. Results: Iran has a systematic process for the assessment, appraisal, and judgment of drug reimbursements. The two most important organizations in this process are the Food and Drug Organization, which considers clinical effectiveness, safety, and economic issues, and the Supreme Council of Health Insurance, which considers various criteria, including budget impact and cost-effectiveness. Ultimately, the Iranian Cabinet approves a drug and recommends its use to all health insurance organizations. Reimbursed drugs account for about 53.5% of all available drugs and 77.3% of drug expenditures. Despite its strengths, the system faces various issues, including conflicting stakeholder aims, lengthy decision-making duration, limited access to decision-making details, and rigidity in the assessment process. Conclusions: The Iranian drug reimbursement system uses decision-making criteria and a structured approach similar to those in other countries. Important shortcomings in the system include out-of-pocket contributions due to lengthy decision making, lack of transparency, and conflicting interests among stakeholders. Iranian policymakers should consider a number of ways to remedy these problems, such as case studies of individual drugs and closer examination of experiences in other countries

The costs of peripheral blood progenitor cell reinfusion mobilised by granulocyte colony-stimulating factor following high dose melphalan as compared with conventional therapy in multiple myeloma

In a retrospective study, we calculated the treatment costs of 26 patients, who received either high dose melphalan combined with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF; filgrastim)(n=7) or without G-CSF (n=11) or alternatively, peripheral blood progenitor cell reinfusion (PBPC) mobilised by G-CSF following high dose melphalan. In comparison with the control group, a shortening of the pancytopenic period and platelet recovery was noticed in the PBPC group. This resulted in a reduction in hospital costs, diagnostics, laboratory services, total parenteral nutrition and transfusions. The average costs per treatment in the PBPC group amounted to about US$179 08 as compared to US$ 32 223 in the control group, implying a cost reduction of 44% when changing to PBPC reinfusion

Cost-effectiveness analysis of the first-line EGFR-TKIs in patients with non-small cell lung cancer harbouring EGFR mutations

Objectives: To compare the cost-effectiveness of first-line gefitinib, erlotinib, afatinib, and osimertinib in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harbouring epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations. Methods: A systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) were conducted to compare the relative efficacy of gefitinib, erlotinib, afatinib, and osimertinib in EGFR-mutated NSCLC. To assess the cost-effectiveness of these treatments, a Markov model was developed from Dutch societal perspective. The model was based on the clinical studies included in the NMA. Incremental costs per life-year (LY) and per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained were estimated. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were conducted. Results: Total discounted per patient costs for gefitinib, erlotinib, afatinib, and osimertinib were €65,889, €64,035, €69,418, and €131,997, and mean QALYs were 1.36, 1.39, 1.52, and 2.01 per patient, respectively. Erlotinib dominated gefitinib. Afatinib versus erlotinib yielded incremental costs of €27,058/LY and €41,504/QALY gained. Osimertinib resulted in €91,726/LY and €128,343/QALY gained compared to afatinib. PSA showed that gefitinib, erlotinib, afatinib, and osimertinib had 13%, 19%, 43%, and 26% probability to be cost-effective at a threshold of €80,000/QALY. A price reduction of osimertinib of 30% is required for osimertinib to be cost-effective at a threshold of €80,000/QALY. Conclusions: Osimertinib has a better effectiveness compared to all other TKIs. However, at a Dutch threshold of €80,000/QALY, osimertinib appears not to be cost-effective

Treatment costs and quality of life with granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor in patients with antineoplastic therapy-related febrile neutropenia:Results of a randomised placebo-controlled trial

This study examined the costs of treatment of, and quality of life in, patients with antineoplastic therapy-induced neutropenic fever who were treated with antibacterials, with or without granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF). Patients with haematological malignancies (n = 47) or solid tumours (n = 87) who had severe neutropenia (neutrophil count &lt;0.5 x 109/L) and fever (&gt;38.5°C once, or &gt;38°C twice, in a 12-hour observation period) were randomised to receive subcutaneous GM-CSF 5 μg/kg/day (n = 65) or placebo (n = 69) in conjunction with broad-spectrum antibacterials. GM-CSF enhanced neutrophil recovery compared with placebo. Median neutrophil counts at day 4 were 2.9 (range 0 to 25) x 109/L in the GM-CSF arm and 1.3 (range 0 to 9) x 109/L in the placebo group (p &lt; 0.001). No significant difference was observed with regard to median days with neutrophil count ≤1.0 x 109/L or in time to resolution of fever. Quality-of-life scores in 90 patients demonstrated significant differences in favour of the placebo group. The results for the oncology and haematology patients were similar to the results for the total group. patients in the GM-CSF and placebo groups had a mean hospital stay of 7.25 and 8.33 days, respectively. Hospital costs were higher for the GM-CSF-treated patients when GM-CSF was included in the price [mean costs: GM-CSF arm $US5177 vs placebo arm$US4178 (p &lt; 0.05; 1992 values)l. The haematology patients stayed longer in hospital than the oncology patients, resulting in higher total costs for the former group. These results indicate that GM-CSF does not affect the number of days required for resolution of fever or the hospitalisation period for this patient group, and does not provide a cost-effective contribution to the treatment of these patients. Sensitivity analyses indicate that GM-CSF would produce savings if the duration of hospitalisation with GM-CSF was ≤76.5% of that in the placebo group.</p