Preferences and willingness to pay for personalized nutrition interventions:Discrete choice experiments in Europe and the United States

This study gives insight into what intervention-related factors are crucial for using personalized nutrition (PN) interventions, as well as what the general population is willing to pay for PN. This was done by focusing on two different types of PN (i.e., PN advice and personalized meals) in two discrete choice experiments (DCEs). The DCEs were conducted in four European countries and the United States, including at least 500 respondents per country aged 18–65 years. Panel mixed multinomial logit models were used to evaluate the preferences. Results show that for both types of PN in all countries, the total expenditure on nutrition was the most crucial factor when choosing a PN intervention. The participation rate for specific hypothetical scenario's varied but was considered high overall (maximum 81 % for ‘PN advice’ and 87 % for ‘personalized meals’ in Spain). Moreover, highest willingness to pay estimates were found for six kilograms of weight loss. For example, Polish respondents were willing to spend an extra 25.78 euros per week for ‘personalized meals’ for a 4-month period to lose six kilograms. Our models showed preference heterogeneity between, but also within, the different countries. In conclusion, this study showed that people seem willing to pay for and participate in PN interventions. Since PN interventions may improve health outcomes, policymakers should consider subsidizing some of the costs, financially incentivizing PN interventions or introducing commitment lotteries to encourage uptake. More research is needed to study heterogeneity in preferences.</p

The cost-effectiveness of dapagliflozin compared to DPP-4 inhibitors in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus in the Netherlands

Aim: When glycaemic control for people with type 2 diabetes is not achieved with metformin and sulfonylurea alone, adding another oral anti-diabetes drug, such as a sodium–glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) or dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor, is an alternative to starting insulin. The aim of this study is to determine the cost-effectiveness of dapagliflozin (an SGLT2 inhibitor) compared with DPP-4 inhibitors when added to metformin and sulfonylurea in people with type 2 diabetes in the Netherlands. Methods: A cost–utility analysis is performed using the Cardiff diabetes model, a fixed-time increment stochastic simulation model informed by ‘United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study 68’ risk equations. The base-case analysis uses a 40-year time horizon, a Dutch societal perspective and differential discounting (4% for costs, 1.5% for effects). Inputs are obtained from the literature and Dutch price lists. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analysis are performed. Results: Dapagliflozin is dominant compared with DPP-4 inhibitors, resulting in a €990 cost saving and a 0.28 quality-adjusted life year gain over 40 years. Cost savings are associated mainly with treatment costs and a reduced incidence of micro- and macrovascular complications, among others nephropathy, myocardial infarction and stroke. Results are robust to changes in input parameters. Conclusions: Dapagliflozin is a cost-saving alternative to DPP-4 inhibitors when added to metformin and sulfonylurea. The incidence of micro- and macrovascular complications is lower for people treated with dapagliflozin. Uncertainty around this outcome is low

PCN1 COST ANALYSIS OF HLA-IDENTICAL SIBLING AND VOLUNTARY UNRELATED ALLOGENEIC BONE MARROW AND PERIPHERAL BLOOD STEM CELL TRANSPLANTATION IN ADULTS WITH ACUTE MYELOCYTIC LEUKAEMIA OR ACUTE LYMPHOBLASTIC LEUKAEMIA

Item does not contain fulltextAllogeneic stem cell transplantation (SCT) is one of the most expensive medical procedures. However, only a few studies to date have addressed the costs of HLA-identical sibling transplantation and only one study has reported costs of unrelated transplantation. No recent cost analysis with a proper follow-up period and donor identification expenses is available on related or voluntary matched unrelated donor (MUD) SCT for adult AML or ALL. Therefore, we calculated direct medical (hospital) costs based on 97 adults who underwent HLA-identical sibling bone marrow transplantation (BMT) or peripheral blood stem cell transplantation (PBSCT), and patients who received a graft from a MUD between 1994 and 1999. The average costs per transplanted patient were Euro 98,334 (BMT), Euro 151,754 (MUD), and Euro 98,977 (PBSCT), including donor identification expenses, 2 years follow-up and costs of patients who were not transplanted after they had been planned to receive an allograft. The majority of these costs was generated during the hospitalisation for graft infusion. For MUD transplants, nearly one-third of these costs was spent on the search for a suitable donor. For patients who were alive after 2 years, cumulative expenses were calculated to be Euro 103,509 (BMT), Euro 173,587 (MUD), and Euro 105,906 (PBSCT)

A health technology assessment of personalized nutrition interventions using the EUnetHTA HTA Core Model

Objectives Poor nutrition links to chronic diseases, emphasizing the need for optimized diets. The EU-funded project PREVENTOMICS, introduced personalized nutrition to address this. This study aims to perform a health technology assessment (HTA) comparing personalized nutrition interventions developed through this project, with non-personalized nutrition interventions (control) for people with normal weight, overweight, or obesity. The goal is to support decisions about further development and implementation of personalized nutrition. Methods The PREVENTOMICS interventions were evaluated using the European Network for HTA Core Model, which includes a methodological framework that encompasses different domains for value assessment. Information was gathered via [1] different statistical analyses and modeling studies, [2] questions asked of project partners and, [3] other (un)published materials. Results Clinical trials of PREVENTOMICS interventions demonstrated different body mass index changes compared to control; differences ranged from -0.80 to 0.20 kg/m2. Long-term outcome predictions showed generally improved health outcomes for the interventions; some appeared cost-effective (e.g., interventions in UK). Ethical concerns around health inequality and the lack of specific legal regulations for personalized nutrition interventions were identified. Choice modeling studies indicated openness to personalized nutrition interventions; decisions were primarily affected by intervention's price. Conclusions PREVENTOMICS clinical trials have shown promising effectiveness with no major safety concerns, although uncertainties about effectiveness exist due to small samples (n=60-264) and short follow-ups (10-16 weeks). Larger, longer trials are needed for robust evidence before implementation could be considered. Among other considerations, developers should explore financing options and collaborate with policymakers to prevent exclusion of specific groups due to information shortages.</p

A health technology assessment of personalized nutrition interventions using the EUnetHTA HTA Core Model

Objectives Poor nutrition links to chronic diseases, emphasizing the need for optimized diets. The EU-funded project PREVENTOMICS, introduced personalized nutrition to address this. This study aims to perform a health technology assessment (HTA) comparing personalized nutrition interventions developed through this project, with non-personalized nutrition interventions (control) for people with normal weight, overweight, or obesity. The goal is to support decisions about further development and implementation of personalized nutrition. Methods The PREVENTOMICS interventions were evaluated using the European Network for HTA Core Model, which includes a methodological framework that encompasses different domains for value assessment. Information was gathered via [1] different statistical analyses and modeling studies, [2] questions asked of project partners and, [3] other (un)published materials. Results Clinical trials of PREVENTOMICS interventions demonstrated different body mass index changes compared to control; differences ranged from -0.80 to 0.20 kg/m2. Long-term outcome predictions showed generally improved health outcomes for the interventions; some appeared cost-effective (e.g., interventions in UK). Ethical concerns around health inequality and the lack of specific legal regulations for personalized nutrition interventions were identified. Choice modeling studies indicated openness to personalized nutrition interventions; decisions were primarily affected by intervention's price. Conclusions PREVENTOMICS clinical trials have shown promising effectiveness with no major safety concerns, although uncertainties about effectiveness exist due to small samples (n=60-264) and short follow-ups (10-16 weeks). Larger, longer trials are needed for robust evidence before implementation could be considered. Among other considerations, developers should explore financing options and collaborate with policymakers to prevent exclusion of specific groups due to information shortages.</p

Applying a cost-based pricing model for innovative cancer treatments subject to indication expansion:A case study for pembrolizumab and daratumumab

BACKGROUND: Expanding the indication of already approved immuno-oncology drugs presents treatment opportunities for patients but also strains healthcare systems. Cost-based pricing models are discussed as a possibility for cost containment. This study focuses on two drugs, pembrolizumab (Keytruda) and daratumumab (Darzalex), to explore the potential effect of indication broadening on the estimated price when using the cost-based pricing (CBP) model proposed by Uyl-de Groot and Löwenberg (2018). METHODS: The model was used to calculate cumulative yearly prices, cumulative prices per indication, and non-cumulative indication-based prices using inputs such as research and development (R&amp;D) costs, manufacturing costs, eligible patient population, and a profit margin. A deterministic stepwise analysis and scenario analysis were conducted to examine how sensitive the estimated price is to the different input assumptions. RESULTS: The yearly cumulative cost-based prices (CBPs) ranged from €52 to €885 for pembrolizumab per vial and €823 to €31,941 for daratumumab per vial. Prices were higher in initial years or indications due to smaller patient populations, decreased over time or after additional indications. Sensitivity analysis showed that the number of eligible patients had the most significant impact on the estimated price. In the scenario analysis the profit margin contributed most to a higher CBPs for both drugs. Lower estimates resulted from assumed lower R&amp;D costs. DISCUSSION: The estimated CBPs are consistently lower than Dutch list prices for pembrolizumab (€2,861), mainly resulting from larger patient populations in registered indications. However, daratumumab's list prices fall within the range of modeled CBPs depending on the year or indication (€4,766). Both CBPs decrease over time or with additional indications. The number of eligible patients and initial R&amp;D costs have the most significant influence on the CBPs. These findings contribute to the ongoing discussions on pharmaceutical pricing, especially concerning cancer drugs with expanding indications.</p

Second-line treatment for acute graft-versus-host disease with mesenchymal stromal cells. a decision model

Objective: No standard second-line treatment exists for acute graft-versus-host disease steroid-refractory (SR-aGvHD), and long-term outcomes remain poor. Mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) have been evaluated as treatment, but no disease model (DM) exists that integrates and extrapolates currently available evidence. The aim of this study was to develop such a DM to describe the natural history of SR-aGvHD and to predict long-term outcomes. Method: The DM was developed in collaboration with experts in haematology-oncology. Subsequently, a model simulation was run. Input parameters for transition and survival estimates were informed by published data of clinical trials on MSC treatment for SR-aGvHD. Parametric distributions were used to estimate long-term survival rates after MSCs. Results: The newly developed DM is a cohort model that consists of eight health states. For the model simulation, we obtained data on 327 patients from 14 published phase II trials. Due to limited evidence, DM structure was simplified and several assumptions had to be made. Median overall survival was 3.2 years for complete response and 0.5 years for no complete response. Conclusion: The DM provides a comprehensive overview on the second-line treatment pathway for aGvHD and enables long-term predictions that can be used to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing any treatment for SR-aGvHD

The effects of new life-prolonging drugs for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients in a real-world population

Item does not contain fulltextBACKGROUND: In 2004 docetaxel was the first life-prolonging drug (LPD) registered for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients. Between 2011 and 2014 new LPDs for mCRPC (cabazitaxel, abiraterone, enzalutamide, and radium-223) were introduced in the Netherlands. The objective of this study is to assess the impact of the introduction of new LPDs on treatment patterns and overall survival (OS) over time. PATIENTS AND METHODS: CRPC patients diagnosed in the years 2010-2016 in the observational, retrospective CAPRI registry (20 hospitals) were included and followed up to 2018. Two subgroups were analyzed: treatment-naïve patients (subgroup 1, n = 3600) and post-docetaxel patients (subgroup 2, n = 1355). RESULTS: In both subgroups, the use of any LPD increased: from 57% (2010-2011) to 69% (2014-2015) in subgroup 1 and from 65% (2011-2012) to 79% (2015-2016) in subgroup 2. Chemotherapy as first mCRPC-treatment (i.e., docetaxel) and first post-docetaxel treatment (i.e., cabazitaxel or docetaxel rechallenge) decreased (46-29% and 20-9% in subgroup 1 and 2, respectively), while the use of androgen-receptor targeting treatments (ART) increased from 11% to 39% and 46% to 64% in subgroup 1 and 2, respectively. In subgroup 1, median OS (mOS) from diagnosis CRPC increased from 28.5 months to 31.0 months (p = 0.196). In subgroup 2, mOS from progression on docetaxel increased from 7.9 months to 12.5 months (p < 0.001). After multiple imputations of missing values, in multivariable cox-regression analysis with known prognostic parameters, the treatment period was independent significant for OS in subgroup 1 (2014-2015 vs. 2010-2011 with HR 0.749, p < 0.001) and subgroup 2 (2015-2016 vs. 2011-2012 with HR 0.811, p = 0.037). CONCLUSION: Since 2010, a larger proportion of mCRPC patients was treated with LPDs, which was related to an increased mOS

Cost-analysis of treatment of childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia with asparaginase preparations: the impact of expensive chemotherapy

__Abstract__ \n \nAsparaginase is an expensive drug, but important in childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia. In order to compare costs of PEGasparaginase, Erwinia asparaginase and native E. coli asparaginase, we performed a cost-analysis in the Dutch Childhood Oncology Group ALL-10 medium-risk group intensification protocol. Treatment costs were calculated based on patient level data of 84 subjects, and were related to the occurrence of allergy to PEGasparaginase. Simultaneously, decision tree and sensitivity analyses were conducted. The total costs of the intensification course of 30 weeks were $57,893 in patients without PEGasparaginase allergy (n=64). The costs were significantly higher ($113,558) in case of allergy (n=20) necessitating a switch to Erwinia asparaginase. Simulated scenarios (decision tree analysis) using native E. coli asparaginase in intensification showed that the costs of PEGasparaginase were equal to those of native E. coli asparaginase. Also after sensitivity analyses, the costs for PEGasparaginase were equal to those of native E. coli asparaginase. Intensification treatment with native E. coli asparaginase, followed by a switch to PEGasparaginase, and subsequently to Erwinia asparaginase in case of allergy had similar overall costs compared to the treatment with PEGasparaginase as the first-line drug (followed by Erwinia asparaginase in the case of allergy). PEGasparaginase is preferred over native E. coli asparaginase, because it is administered less frequently, with less day care visits. PEGasparaginase is less immunogenic than native E. coli asparaginase and is not more expensive. Asparaginase costs are mainly determined by the percentage of patients who are allergic and require a switch to Erwinia asparaginase

Selecting the optimal position of CDK4/6 inhibitors in hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer - the SONIA study: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Combining cyclin-dependent kinases 4 and 6 (CDK4/6) inhibitors with endocrine therapy is an effective strategy to improve progression-free survival in hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative advanced breast cancer. There is a lack of comparative data to help clinicians decide if CDK4/6 inhibitors can best be added to first- or second-line endocrine therapy. Improvement in median progression-free survival in first-line studies is larger than in second-line studies, but CDK4/6 inhibitors have not consistently shown to improve overall survival or quality of life. They do come with added toxicity and costs, and many patients have lasting disease remission on endocrine therapy alone. No subgroup has been identified to select patients who are most likely to benefit from the addition of CDK4/6 inhibition in any line of treatment. Altogether, these factors make that the optimal strategy for using CDK4/6 inhibitors in clinical practice is unknown. METHODS: The SONIA study is an investigator-initiated, multicenter, randomized phase III study in patients with HR+/HER2-negative advanced breast cancer. Patients are randomly assigned to receive either strategy A (first-line treatment with a non-steroidal aromatase inhibitor combined with CDK4/6 inhibition, followed on progression by fulvestrant) or strategy B (first-line treatment with a non-steroidal aromatase inhibitor, followed on progression by fulvestrant combined with CDK4/6 inhibition). The primary objective is to test whether strategy A is more effective than strategy B. The primary endpoint is time from randomization to second objective progression (PFS2). Secondary endpoints include overall survival, safety, quality of life, and cost-effectiveness. Five-hundred seventy-four events yield 89% power to show that strategy A has statistically significant, clinically meaningful superior PFS2 (according to ESMO-MCBS) in a log-rank test at the two-sided 95% confidence level. Given an accrual period of 42 months and an additional 18 months follow-up, inclusion of 1050 evaluable patients is required. DISCUSSION: This study design represents daily clinical practice, and the results will aid clinicians in deciding when adding CDK4/6 inhibitors to endocrine therapy will benefit their patients most. Additional biomarker analyses may help to optimize patient selection. TRIAL REGISTRATION: http://clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03425838 (8 February 2018). EudraCT-number: 2017-002334-23 (29 September 2017)