BACKGROUND The approval of new immunotherapies has dramatically changed the treatment landscape of metastatic melanoma. These survival gains come with trade-offs in side effects and costs, as well as important considerations to third-party payer systems, physicians, and patients. OBJECTIVE Develop a Markov model to determine the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab, ipilimumab, and nivolumab-ipilimumab combination as first-line therapy in metastatic melanoma while accounting for differential effectiveness in PD-L1 positive and negative patients. METHODS A three-state Markov model (‘PD-L1 positive stable disease’, ‘PD-L1 negative stable disease’, and ‘Progression and/or Death’) was developed using a US societal perspective with a lifetime time horizon of 14.5 years. Transition probabilities were calculated from progression-free survival data reported in the CheckMate-067 trial. Costs were expressed in 2015 US dollars and were determined using national sources. Adverse event (AE) management was determined using immune-related AE (irAE) data from CheckMate-067, irAE management guides for nivolumab and ipilimumab, and treatment guidelines. Utilities were obtained from published literature, using melanoma-specific studies when available, and were weighted based on incidence and duration of irAEs. Base case, one-way sensitivity, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS Nivolumab-ipilimumab combination therapy is not the cost effective choice ($454,092 per progression-free quality-adjusted-life-year [PFQALY]) compared to nivolumab monotherapy in our base case analysis at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/PFQALY. Both combination therapy and nivolumab monotherapy were cost-effective choices compared to ipilimumab monotherapy. PD-L1 positive status, utility of nivolumab and combination therapy, and medication costs contributed the most uncertainty to the model. In a population of 100% PD-L1 negative patients, nivolumab was still the optimal treatment but combination therapy had an improved ICER of $295,903/PFQALY. Combination therapy became dominated by nivolumab when 68% of the sample was PD-L1 positive. In addition, the cost of ipilimumab would have to decrease to <$21,555 per dose for combination therapy to have an ICER <$100,000/PFQALY, and to <$19,151 (a 42% reduction) to be more cost-effective than nivolumab monotherapy. CONCLUSIONS Nivolumab-ipilimumab combination therapy is not cost-effective compared to nivolumab monotherapy, which is the most cost-effective option. Professionals in managed care settings should consider the pharmacoeconomic implications of these new immunotherapies as they make value-based formulary decisions and future cost-effectiveness studies are completed.
In these 2 cases, 25 U/kg PCC3, with none to one unit FFP, ceased apixaban-associated intracranial bleeding without apparent thrombogenic complications.
IntroductionCalifornia’s Workers’ Compensation System (CAWCS) Department of Industrial Relations questioned the adequacy of the current Medi-Cal fee-schedule pricing and requested analysis of alternatives that maximize price availability and maintain budget neutrality.ObjectivesTo compare CAWCS pharmacy-dispensed (PD) drug prices under alternative fee schedules, and identify combinations of alternative benchmarks that have prices available for the largest percentage of PD drugs and that best reach budget neutrality.MethodsClaims transaction-level data (2011–2013) from CAWCS were used to estimate total annual PD pharmaceutical payments. Medi-Cal pricing data was from the Workman’s Compensation Insurance System (WCIS). Average Wholesale Prices (AWP), Wholesale Acquisition Costs (WAC), Direct Prices (DP), Federal Upper Limit (FUL) prices, and National Average Drug Acquisition Costs (NADAC) were from Medi-Span. We matched National Drug Codes (NDCs), pricing dates, and drug quantity for comparisons. We report pharmacy-dispensed (PD) claims frequency, reimbursement matching rate, and paid costs by CAWCS as the reference price against all alternative price benchmarks.ResultsOf 12,529,977 CAWCS claims for pharmaceutical products 11.6% (1,462,814) were for PD drugs. Prescription drug cost for CAWCS was over $152M; $63.9M, $47.9M, and $40.6M in 2011–2013. Ninety seven percent of these CAWCS PD claims had a Medi-Cal price. Alternative mechanisms provided a price for fewer claims; NADAC 94.23%, AWP 90.94%, FUL 73.11%, WAC 66.98%, and DP 14.33%. Among CAWCS drugs with no Medi-Cal price in PD claims, AWP, WAC, NADAC, DP, and FUL provided prices for 96.7%, 63.14%, 24.82%, 20.83%, and 15.08% of claims. Overall CAWCS paid 100.52% of Medi-Cal, 60% of AWP, 97% of WAC, 309.53% of FUL, 103.83% of DP, and 136.27% of NADAC.ConclusionsCAWCS current Medi-Cal fee-schedule price list for PD drugs is more complete than all alternative fee-schedules. However, all reimbursement approaches would require combinations of pricing benchmarks. We suggest keeping primary reimbursement at 100% of Medi-Cal and for drugs without a primary Medi-Cal price calculating the maximum fee as 60% of AWP and then 97% of WAC. Alternatively, we suggest using NADAC as a primary fee-schedule followed by either 60% AWP and 97% WAC or AWP-40% for drugs with no NADAC price. Fee-schedules may not offer the best price and a formulary approach may provide more flexibility.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.