PharmacoEconomics

Correction to: Ceritinib for Untreated Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase-Positive Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung: An Evidence Review Group Evaluation of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal The title of the article should read:

Correction to: Economic Evaluations Alongside Efficient Study Designs Using Large Observational Datasets: the PLEASANT Trial Case Study The original article can be found online.

Doxycycline Added to Prednisolone in Outpatient-Treated Acute Exacerbations of COPD: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Alongside a Randomised Controlled Trial Abstract Background Most patients with mild to severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) experience exacerbations, which are also associated with increased healthcare costs. Despite limited evidence of antibiotics' benefits for exacerbations in outpatients, antibiotics are frequently prescribed. The aim of this study was to investigate whether doxycycline added to prednisolone is cost-effective compared to placebo plus prednisolone for the treatment of COPD acute exacerbations. Methods An economic evaluation from the societal perspective was performed alongside a 2-year randomised trial in 301 COPD patients in the Netherlands. The primary outcome was cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). The secondary outcome was cost per exacerbation prevented. Healthcare utilisation and loss of productivity were measured using retrospective questionnaires and clinical report forms. Missing data were imputed using multiple imputations by chained equations. Bootstrapping was employed to estimate statistical uncertainty surrounding cost-effectiveness outcomes. A sensitivity analysis from the healthcare perspective was performed. Results On average, costs in the doxycycline group were €898 higher than in the placebo group [95% confidence interval (CI) − 2617 to 4409] for the 2 years of follow-up. QALY values were higher in the doxycycline group (0.03; 95% CI − 0.00 to 0.06), but patients in this group suffered 0.01 more exacerbations than patients in the placebo group (95% CI − 0.14 to 0.11). Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves showed that the probability of doxycycline being cost-effective compared to placebo was 61% and 43% at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €34,000 per QALY and per exacerbation avoided, respectively. The sensitivity analysis showed similar results from the healthcare system perspective. Conclusions In patients with mild to severe COPD treated for exacerbations in an outpatient setting, doxycycline added to prednisolone is not cost-effective compared to prednisolone plus placebo over a 2-year period.

Modeling Covariate-Adjusted Survival for Economic Evaluations in Oncology Abstract Background and Objectives In economic evaluations in oncology, adjusted survival should be generated if imbalances in prognostic/predictive factors across treatment arms are present. To date, no formal guidance has been developed regarding how such adjustments should be made. We compared various covariate-adjusted survival modeling approaches, as applied to the ENDEAVOR trial in multiple myeloma that assessed carfilzomib plus dexamethasone (Cd) versus bortezomib plus dexamethasone (Vd). Methods Overall survival (OS) data and baseline characteristics were used for a subgroup (bortezomib-naïve/one prior therapy). Four adjusted survival modeling approaches were compared: propensity score weighting followed by fitting a Weibull model to the two arms of the balanced data (weighted data approach); fitting a multiple Weibull regression model including prognostic/predictive covariates to the two arms to predict survival using the mean value of each covariate and using the average of patient-specific survival predictions; and applying an adjusted hazard ratio (HR) derived from a Cox proportional hazard model to the baseline risk estimated for Vd. Results The mean OS estimated by the weighted data approach was 6.85 years (95% confidence interval [CI] 4.62–10.70) for Cd, 4.68 years (95% CI 3.46–6.74) for Vd, and 2.17 years (95% CI 0.18–5.06) for the difference. Although other approaches estimated similar differences, using the mean value of covariates appeared to yield skewed survival estimates (mean OS was 7.65 years for Cd and 5.40 years for Vd), using the average of individual predictions had limited external validity (implausible long-term OS predictions with > 10% of the Vd population alive after 30 years), and using the adjusted HR approach overestimated uncertainty (difference in mean OS was 2.03, 95% CI − 0.17 to 6.19). Conclusions Adjusted survival modeling based on weighted or matched data approaches provides a flexible and robust method to correct for covariate imbalances in economic evaluations. The conclusions of our study may be generalizable to other settings. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01568866 (ENDEAVOR trial).

Ceritinib for Untreated Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase-Positive Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: An Evidence Review Group Evaluation of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal Abstract The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the company that manufactures ceritinib (Zykadia®, Novartis) to submit evidence on the clinical and cost effectiveness of the drug, as a first-line treatment for adults with anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive (+) advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), as part of the Institute's single technology appraisal (STA) process. The CRD (Centre for Reviews and Dissemination) and CHE (Centre for Health Economics) Technology Assessment Group at the University of York was commissioned to act as the Evidence Review Group (ERG). This paper describes the Company's submission (CS), the ERG review and NICE's subsequent decisions. The evidence submitted in support of ceritinib, as the first-line treatment in ALK+ advanced NSCLC, was a phase III, international, multicentre, open-label randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing ceritinib with pemetrexed/cisplatin plus pemetrexed maintenance therapy (chemotherapy [CT] group). The results indicated that ceritinib prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) compared with CT. The only comparator considered in the CS was crizotinib. The evidence selected in support of crizotinib was PROFILE 1014, an open-label RCT of crizotinib, compared with pemetrexed/cisplatin CT (without maintenance therapy), in previously untreated advanced or metastatic ALK+ NSCLC. The design and population of PROFILE 1014 was similar to that of ASCEND-4, though there were some differences between the trials. The Company considered it not possible to perform an 'anchor-based' analysis of first-line ceritinib and crizotinib, and presented a Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison (MAIC) of ceritinib and crizotinib using only the ALK inhibitor arm of ASCEND-4 and PROFILE 1014. The indirect comparison suggests that ceritinib may be more effective in prolonging PFS than crizotinib. The ERG agreed that an indirect comparison using only the ALK inhibitor arm of the trials was the only option available in the present assessment; however, a number of limitations and potential bias were identified in this analysis. The Company's model estimated that ceritinib was cost effective when compared with crizotinib. However, the ERG highlighted several concerns with the Company's analysis; the ERG's preferred base case estimated an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £69,255 per quality-adjusted life-year (no patient access scheme [PAS] included). The ERG considered the economic analysis to be sensitive to changes in assumption used, partly due to the due to the immaturity of the overall survival data from trials, which leads to uncertainty around the extrapolation used. The NICE Appraisal Committee concluded that ceritinib is recommended, within its marketing authorisation, as an option for untreated ALK+ advanced NSCLC in adults, if the Company provides it with the discount agreed in the PAS.

Cost-Effectiveness of Betrixaban Compared with Enoxaparin for Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis in Nonsurgical Patients with Acute Medical Illness in the United States Abstract Background Studies show that the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) continues post-discharge in nonsurgical patients with acute medical illness. Betrixaban is the first anticoagulant approved in the United States (US) for VTE prophylaxis extending beyond hospitalization. Objective The aim was to establish whether betrixaban for VTE prophylaxis in nonsurgical patients with acute medical illness at risk of VTE in the US is cost-effective compared with enoxaparin. Methods A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted, estimating the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained with betrixaban (35–42 days) compared with enoxaparin (6–14 days) from a US payer perspective over a lifetime horizon. A decision tree (DT) estimated primary VTE events, thrombotic events, and treatment complications in the first 3 months based on data from the phase III Acute Medically Ill VTE Prevention with Extended Duration Betrixaban study. A Markov model estimated recurrent events and long-term complication risks from published literature. EuroQoL-5 Dimensions utility data and costs inflated to 2017 US dollars (US$) were from published literature. Results were discounted at 3.0% per annum. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses explored uncertainty. Results Betrixaban dominated enoxaparin, with savings of US$784 and increased QALYs of 0.017 per patient. In addition, betrixaban dominated enoxaparin across all sensitivity analyses, but was most sensitive to utilities and DT probabilities. Furthermore, probabilistic sensitivity analysis found that betrixaban was more cost-effective than enoxaparin at all willingness-to-pay thresholds. Conclusion Betrixaban can be considered cost-effective for nonsurgical patients with acute medical illness at risk of VTE, requiring longer VTE prophylaxis from hospitalization through post-discharge.

Nivolumab for Treating Metastatic or Unresectable Urothelial Cancer: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal Abstract As part of its single technology appraisal (STA) process, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer (Bristol-Myers Squibb) of nivolumab (Opdivo®) to submit evidence of its clinical and cost effectiveness for metastatic or unresectable urothelial cancer. Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd, in collaboration with Maastricht University Medical Centre+, was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG), which produced a detailed review of the evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of the technology, based on the company's submission to NICE. Nivolumab was compared with docetaxel, paclitaxel, best supportive care and retreatment with platinum-based chemotherapy (cisplatin plus gemcitabine, but only for patients whose disease has had an adequate response in first-line treatment). Two ongoing, phase I/II, single-arm studies for nivolumab were identified, but no studies directly compared nivolumab with any specified comparator. Evidence from directly examining the single arms of the trial data indicated little difference between the outcomes measured from the nivolumab and comparator studies. A simulated treatment comparison (STC) analysis was used in an attempt to reduce the bias induced by naïve comparison, but there was no clear evidence that risk of bias was reduced. Multiple limitations in the STC were identified and remained. The effect of an analysis based on different combinations of covariates in the prediction model remains unknown. The ERG's concerns regarding the economic analysis included the use of a non-established response-based survival analysis method, which introduced additional uncertainty. The use of time-dependent hazard ratios produced overfitting and was not represented in the probabilistic sensitivity analysis. The use of a treatment stopping rule to cap treatment cost left treatment effectiveness unaltered. A relevant comparator was excluded from the base-case analysis. The revised ERG deterministic base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratios based on the company's Appraisal Consultation Document response were £58,791, £78,869 and £62,352 per quality-adjusted life-year gained versus paclitaxel, docetaxel and best supportive care, respectively. Nivolumab was dominated by cisplatin plus gemcitabine in the ERG base case. Substantial uncertainties about the relative treatment effectiveness comparing nivolumab against all comparators remained. NICE did not recommend nivolumab, within its marketing authorisation, as an option for treating locally advanced, unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma in adults who have had platinum-containing therapy, and considered that nivolumab was not suitable for use within the Cancer Drugs Fund.

An Educational Review About Using Cost Data for the Purpose of Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Abstract This paper provides an educational review covering the consideration of costs for cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), summarising relevant methods and research from the published literature. Cost data are typically generated by applying appropriate unit costs to healthcare resource-use data for patients. Trial-based evaluations and decision analytic modelling represent the two main vehicles for CEA. The costs to consider will depend on the perspective taken, with conflicting recommendations ranging from focusing solely on healthcare to the broader 'societal' perspective. Alternative sources of resource-use are available, including medical records and forms completed by researchers or patients. Different methods are available for the statistical analysis of cost data, although consideration needs to be given to the appropriate methods, given cost data are typically non-normal with a mass point at zero and a long right-hand tail. The choice of covariates for inclusion in econometric models also needs careful consideration, focusing on those that are influential and that will improve balance and precision. Where data are missing, it is important to consider the type of missingness and then apply appropriate analytical methods, such as imputation. Uncertainty around costs should also be reflected to allow for consideration on the impacts of the CEA results on decision uncertainty. Costs should be discounted to account for differential timing, and are typically inflated to a common cost year. The choice of methods and sources of information used when accounting for cost information within CEA will have an effect on the subsequent cost-effectiveness results and how information is presented to decision makers. It is important that the most appropriate methods are used as overlooking the complicated nature of cost data could lead to inaccurate information being given to decision makers.

Cost-Effectiveness of Treatment Options for Neuropathic Pain: a Systematic Review Abstract Background Neuropathic pain significantly reduces an individual's quality of life and places a significant economic burden on society. As such, many cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) have been published for treatments available for neuropathic pain. Objectives The primary objective of this systematic review was to provide a detailed summary of the estimates of cost-effectiveness from published CEAs comparing available treatments for neuropathic pain. The secondary objectives were to identify the key drivers of cost-effectiveness and to assess the quality of published CEAs in neuropathic pain. Methods We searched Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL and seven other databases to identify CEAs reporting the costs, health benefits (e.g., quality-adjusted life-years or disability-adjusted life-years) and summary statistics, such as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, of treatments for neuropathic pain. We excluded studies reporting diseases other than neuropathic pain, those for which the full text was not available (e.g., conference abstracts), studies not written in English or not published in peer-reviewed journals, and narrative reviews, editorials and opinion papers. Titles and abstract reviews, full-text reviews, and data extraction were all performed by two independent reviewers, with disagreement resolved by a third reviewer. Mean costs, health benefits, and summary statistics were reported and qualitatively compared across studies, stratified by time horizon. Drivers of cost-effectiveness were assessed using reported one-way sensitivity analyses. The quality of all included studies was evaluated using the Tufts CEA Registry Quality Score and study reporting using the CHEERS (Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards) checklist. Results A total of 22 studies were identified and included in this systematic review. Included studies were heterogeneous in the treatments compared, methodology and design, perspectives, and time horizons considered, making cross-study comparisons difficult. No single treatment was consistently the most cost-effective across all studies, but tricyclic antidepressants were the preferred treatment at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $US50,000 per quality-adjusted life-year in several studies with a short time horizon and a US payer perspective. Among the 14 studies reporting one-way sensitivity analyses, drivers of cost-effectiveness included utility values for health states and the likelihood of pain relief with treatment. The quality of the identified CEAs was moderate to high, and overall reporting largely met CHEERS recommendations. Limitations To assess drivers of cost-effectiveness and quality, we only included studies with the full text available and thus excluded some CEAs that reported cost-effectiveness results. The heterogeneity of the included studies meant that the study results could not be synthesized and comparison across studies was limited. Conclusions Though many pulished studies have evaluated the cost-effectiveness of treatments for neuropathic pain, significant heterogeneity between CEAs prevented synthesis of the results. Standardized methodology and improved reporting would allow for more reliable comparisons across studies.

Beneluxa: What are the Prospects for Collective Bargaining on Pharmaceutical Prices Given Diverse Health Technology Assessment Processes?