A Practical Guide for Using Registry Data to Inform Decisions About the Cost Effectiveness of New Cancer Drugs: Lessons Learned from the PHAROS Registry

Decision makers increasingly request evidence on the real-world cost effectiveness of a new treatment. There is, however, a lack of practical guidance on how to conduct an economic evaluation based on registry data and how this evidence can be used in actual decision making. This paper explains the required steps on how to perform a sound economic evaluation using examples from an economic evaluation conducted with real-world data from the Dutch Population based HAematological Registry for Observational Studies. There are three main issues related to using registry data: confounding by indication, missing data, and insufficient numbers of (comparable) patients. If encountered, it is crucial to accurately deal with these issues to maximize the internal validity and generalizability of the outcomes and their value to decision makers. Multivariate regression modeling, propensity score matching, and data synthesis are well-established methods to deal with confounding. Multiple imputation methods should be used in cases where data are missing at random. Furthermore, it is important to base the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of a new treatment compared with its alternative on comparable groups of (matched) patients, even if matching results in a small analytical population. Unmatched real-world data provide insights into the costs and effects of a treatment in a real-world setting. Decision makers should realize that real-world evidence provides extremely valuable and relevant policy information, but needs to be assessed differently compared with evidence derived from a randomized clinical trial

Micro-costing study of rituximab subcutaneous injection versus intravenous infusion in dutch setting

Background: Rituximab for subcutaneous (SC) administration has recently been approved for use in common forms of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). This form of rituximab is supplied in ready-to-use vials that do not require individual dose adjustment. It is expected that SC-injection will shorten the treatment time per administration of rituximab in comparison with currently available intravenous (IV) infusion. Aims: The goal of this study is to identify and compare all direct costs of IV and SC rituximab given to the DLBCL patients in the Netherlands. Methods: Using a prospective, observational, bottom up, micro-costing study we collected primary data on the direct medical costs of the preparation, administration and acquisition of rituximab. Drug costs and spillage, labor costs, material costs and remaining daycare costs were identified using standardized forms, structured using guideline prices and compared for the IV and SC forms of rituximab. Results: Measurements were done on 53 administrations (33 IV and 20 SC). The mean total costs of the IV infusion were €2174, and €1907 for the SC injection. The estimated difference of €267 per administration was mainly due to spillage costs and differences in chair time, related daycare costs and drug costs. Summary and Conclusions: Rituximab administered in the form of SC injection is less costly than its IV form. Taking into account their equal effectiveness, favorable pharmacoeconomic profile of SC rituximab can result in significant savings when transferred to the total DLBCL population in the Netherlands

Ramucirumab for Treating Advanced Gastric Cancer or Gastro-Oesophageal Junction Adenocarcinoma Previously Treated with Chemotherapy

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the company that manufactures ramucirumab (Cyramza®, Eli Lilly and Company) to submit evidence of the clinical and cost effectiveness of the drug administered alone (monotherapy) or with paclitaxel (combination therapy) for treating adults with advanced gastric cancer or gastro-oesophageal junction (GC/GOJ) adenocarcinoma that were previously treated with chemotherapy, as part of the Institute’s single technology appraisal (STA) process. Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd (KSR), in collaboration with Erasmus University Rotterdam, was commissioned to act as the Evidence Review Group (ERG). This paper describes the company’s submission, the ERG review, and NICE’s subsequent decisions. Clinical effectiveness evidence for ramucirumab monotherapy (RAM), compared with best supportive care (BSC), was based on data from the REGARD trial. Clinical effectiveness evidence for ramucirumab combination therapy (RAM + PAC), compared with paclitaxel monotherapy (PAC), was based on data from the RAINBOW trial. In addition, the company undertook a network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare RAM + PAC with BSC and docetaxel. Cost-ef

Lenalidomide for the Treatment of Low- or Intermediate-1-Risk Myelodysplastic Syndromes Associated with Deletion 5q Cytogenetic Abnormality: An Evidence Review of the NICE Submission from Celgene

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of lenalidomide (Celgene) to submit evidence of the clinical and cost effectiveness of the drug for treating adults with myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) associated with deletion 5q cytogenetic abnormality, as part of the Institute’s single technology appraisal (STA) process. Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd (KSR), in collaboration with Erasmus University Rotterdam, was commissioned to act as the Evidence Review Group (ERG). This paper describes the company’s submission, the ERG review, and the NICE’s subsequent decisions. The ERG reviewed the evidence for clinical and cost effectiveness of the technology, as submitted by the manufacturer to the NICE. The ERG searched for relevant additional evidence and validated the manufacturer’s decision analytic model to examine the robustness of the cost-effectiveness results. Clinical effectiveness was obtained from a three-arm, European, randomized, phase III trial among red blood cell (RBC) transfusion-dependent patients with low-/intermediate-1-risk del5q31 MDS. The primary endpoint was RBC independence for ≥26 weeks, and was reached by a higher proportion of patients in the lenalidomide 10 and 5 mg groups compared with placebo (56.1 and 42.6 vs 5.9 %, respectively; both p < 0.001). The option of dose adjustments after 16 weeks due to dose-limiting toxicities or lack of response made long-term effectiveness estimates unreliable, e.g. overall survival (OS). The de novo model of the manufacturer included a Markov state-transition cost-utility model implemented in Microsoft Excel. The base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of the manufacturer was £56,965. The ERG assessment indicated that the modeling structure represented the course of the disease; however, a few errors were identified and some of the input parameters were challenged. In response to the appraisal documentation, the company revised the economic model, which increased the ICER to £68,125 per quality-adjusted life-year. The NICE Appraisal Committee (AC) did not recommend lenalidomide as a cost-effective treatment. Subsequently, the manufacturer submitted a Patient Access Scheme (PAS) that provided lenalidomide free of charge for patients who remained on treatment after 26 cycles. This PAS improved the ICER to £25,300, although the AC considered the proportion of patients who received treatment beyond 26 cycles, and hence the ICER, to be uncertain. Nevertheless, the AC accepted a commitment from the manufacturer to publish, once available, data on the proport

Efficacy of first-line treatments for multiple myeloma patients not eligible for stem cell transplantation

Decision making for not transplant eligible patients with multiple myeloma is complicated by lacking head-to-head comparisons of standards of care, increasing treatment modalities and rapidly evolving promising results of studies with novel regimens. To support evidence-based decision making, we performed a network meta-analysis for not transplant-eligible multiple myeloma patients that synthesizes direct and indirect evidence and enable a comparison of all treatments. Relevant randomized clinical trials were identified by a systematic literature review in EMBASE®, MEDLINE®, MEDLINE®-in-Process and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for January-1999 to March-2016. Efficacy outcomes (i.e. the hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval for progression-free survival) were extracted and synthesized in a random effects network-meta analysis. In total 24 studies were identified including 21 treatments. According to the network-meta analysis, the hazard ratio for progression-free survival was favorable for all not transplant-eligible myeloma treatments compared to dexamethasone (hazard ratios between 0.19-0.90). Daratumumabbortezomib-melphalan-prednisone and bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone-thalidomide with bortezomib-thalidomide maintenance were identified as the most effective treatments (hazard ratio: 0.19 (95% confidence interval 0.08-0.45) and 0.22 (95% confidence interval 0.10-0.51), respectively). The hazard ratios and 95% confidence interval for currently recommended treatments, bortezomiblenalidomide-dexamethasone, bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone, and lenalidomide-dexamethasone compared to dexamethasone, were 0.31 (0.16-0.59), 0.39 (0.20-0.75) and 0.44 (0.29-0.65), respectively. In addition to identifying the most effective treatment options, we illustrate the additional value and evidence of network meta-analysis in clinical practice. In the current treatment landscape, the results of network meta-analysis may support evidence based decisions and ultimately help to optimize treatment and outcomes of not transplant eligible multiple myeloma patients

Long-term Outcomes in Patients With Multiple Myeloma

Registry data are important for monitoring the impact of new therapies on treatment algorithms and outcomes, and for guiding clinical decision making in multiple myeloma (MM). This observational study analyzed real-world data from patients in the Population-based HAematological Registry for Observational Studies who were treated for symptomatic MM from 2008 to 2013 in the Netherlands. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) from initiation of first-line treatment. Secondary endpoints included OS and progression-free survival per treatment line, treatment patterns, and treatment response. Between 2008 and 2013, 917, 583, 283, and 139 patients had initiated first, second, third, and fourth treatment lines, respectively. Thalidomide-based regimens were the most frequently used first-line treatment (66%); bortezomib- and lenalidomide-based regimens were most often used in the second line (41% and 27%, respectively). The median OS (95% confidence interval) ranged from 37.5 months (34.8–41.8 months) in the first line to 9.2 months (6.2–12.3 months) in the fourth line. Univariate analyses showed that survival benefits were most apparent in younger patients (65 vs >65 years). These analyses provide important real-world information on treatment patterns and outcomes in patients with MM

Cost of health care for paediatric patients with sickle cell disease: An analysis of resource use and costs in a European country

Background: While multiple studies have examined the cost of health care for one aspect of sickle cell disease care, few have focussed on the overall cost of comprehensive care for sickle cell disease. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of children with sickle cell disease treated in a comprehensive care centre from 1 January 2015 to 31 December 2016. Health care utilisation of included patients was based upon data from two main sources. The clinical practice guideline was used to determine the expected resource use of routine comprehensive care (planned elective care), and the financial claims database was used to estimate real-world resource use associated with acute and inpatient care (additional care). Results: A total of 125 children with sickle cell disease were analysed. Expenditures for these patients averaged €5049 [standard deviation (SD) €1634] per child per year. Total yearly costs per patient varied considerably, ranging from €669 to €84 010, and less than 15% of patients were responsible for 50% of the health care costs. The majority (37%) of costs was associated with inpatient hospital care, which increased by age group, 27% with diagnostics, 19% with treatment, 11% with outpatients’ visits and 6% with emergency care. Conclusion: We have described real-world resource use and expenditures for children with sickle cell disease in a European comprehensive care centre. It seems that costs of a comprehensive approach with effective management in the outpatient setting is favourable when compared to episodic health care