Survival extrapolation of trial outcomes is required for health economic evaluation. Generally, all-cause mortality (ACM) is modeled using standard parametric distributions, often without distinguishing disease-specific/excess mortality and general population background mortality (GPM). Recent National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance (Technical Support Document 21) recommends adding GPM hazards to disease-specific/excess mortality hazards in the log-likelihood function ("internal additive hazards"). This article compares alternative extrapolation approaches with and without GPM adjustment.Methods: Survival extrapolations using the internal additive hazards approach (1) are compared to no GPM adjustment (2), applying GPM hazards once ACM hazards drop below GPM hazards (3), adding GPM hazards to ACM hazards (4), and proportional hazards for ACM versus GPM hazards (5). The fit, face validity, mean predicted life-years, and corresponding uncertainty measures are assessed for the active versus control arms of immature and mature (30-and 75-month followup) multiple myeloma data and mature (64-month follow-up) breast cancer data. Results:The 5 approaches yielded considerably different outcomes. Incremental mean predicted life-years vary most in the immature multiple myeloma data set. The lognormal distribution (best statistical fit for approaches 1-4) produces survival increments of 3.5 (95% credible interval: 1.4-5.3), 8.5 (3.1-13.0), 3.5 (1.3-5.4), 2.9 (1.1-4.5), and 1.6 (0.4-2.8) years for approaches 1 to 5, respectively. Approach 1 had the highest face validity for all data sets. Uncertainty over parametric distributions was comparable for GPM-adjusted approaches 1, 3, and 4, and much larger for approach 2. Conclusion:This study highlights the importance of GPM adjustment, and particularly of incorporating GPM hazards in the log-likelihood function of standard parametric distributions.
Aims: This analysis evaluates the cost-effectiveness of first-line treatment with FOLFIRI þ cetuximab vs FOLFIRI þ bevacizumab for patients with RAS wild-type (wt) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in Germany based on the randomized phase 3 FIRE-3 trial. For patients with RAS wt mCRC, FOLFIRI þ cetuximab yielded statistically significant median overall survival gains over FOLFIRI þ bevacizumab. Materials and methods: A standard 3-state partitioned survival cost-utility model was developed to compare the health benefits and costs of treatment from a German social health insurance perspective using individual patient-level trial data. Health outcomes were reported in life-years (LYs) and qualityadjusted life-years (QALYs) gained. Survival was estimated based on Kaplan-Meier (KM) curves supplemented with best-fitting parametric survival model extrapolations. Subgroup analyses of patients with a left-sided primary tumor location or patients with metastases confined to the liver were performed. Results: In the modified intention-to-treat analysis, FOLFIRI þ cetuximab, providing 0.68 additional LYs (0.53 QALYs), yielded incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of e36,360/LY and e47,250/QALY. In subgroup analyses, patients experienced improved survival gains without a corresponding increase in costs, resulting in lower ICERs. Our model was most sensitive to changes in treatment duration across all lines of therapy, utility of progressive disease, as well as patients' weight and body surface area. Limitations: This cost-effectiveness analysis was based on patient-level data from the FIRE-3 trial. Trial outcomes may not adequately reflect those in the real-world setting. Additionally, resource use and costs were obtained from tariff lists, which do not account for differences in treatment practice. These considerations limit generalizability of outcomes to other countries, or within the German healthcare setting. Conclusions: Based on our analyses, FOLFIRI þ cetuximab is cost-effective compared with FOLFIRI þ bevacizumab in patients with RAS wt mCRC, with ICERs well below willingness-to-pay thresholds for diseases with a high burden.
e18500 Background: InO, an anti-CD22 antibody-calicheamicin conjugate, with its once a week, 1-hour infusion schedule, has demonstrated lower hospital utilization in association with superior clinical activity, favorable patient-reported outcomes (PROs), and a generally manageable safety profile versus SOC (intensive chemotherapy) for R/R ALL in the phase 3 INO-VATE trial. Here, regional-specific hospitalizations in the trial are presented. Methods: Patients receiving study treatment and recruited from the US and the EU were included in the analyses. The total number of days hospitalized for each patient was calculated. Hospital days prior to randomization and those after the end of study treatment were excluded. Due to different treatment durations for InO and SOC (median 1 vs 3 cycles), calculations were reported for cycle 1 treatment period (randomization to end of cycle 1) and for the entire treatment period (all cycles - randomization to end of treatment). Results: A total of 281 patients were available for the analyses. 154 were from the US and 127 from 11 of the EU countries. The median and mean hospitalization days were shorter for patients in the InO arm compared to the SOC arm across both regions (Table). The difference between the two treatment arms appear to be greater in the US compared to the EU. Hospitalizations in the US appear to be shorter than in the EU, particularly for patients receiving InO. Conclusions: InO treatment in R/R ALL is associated with less hospitalization across both the US and EU compared to SOC, consistent with InO’s better efficacy, tolerability, PRO and dosing schedule. The finding that US has lower hospitalization than the EU might be explained by different patient care practices in the two regions. Given that hospitalization is the biggest cost driver in cancer care, the discrepancy may lead to greater cost-savings in healthcare systems where hospitalizations are strictly managed. Clinical trial information: NCT01564784. [Table: see text]
Background Inotuzumab Ozogamicin (INO), has demonstrated an improvement in overall survival, high rate of complete remission, favorable patient‐reported outcomes, and manageable safety profile vs standard of care (SoC; intensive chemotherapy) for relapsed/refractory (R/R) acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) in the phase 3 INO‐VATE trial. With a one‐hour weekly dosing schedule, INO might be associated with lower healthcare system burden. This study analyses hospitalizations for INO vs SoC. Methods All patients receiving study treatment in the INO‐VATE trial were included. The days hospitalized during study treatment was calculated. Due to different treatment durations for INO and SoC (median of 3 vs 1 cycles), number of hospital days was mainly reported per observed patient month. Hospital days per patient month were analyzed for different treatment cycles, subgroups, and main reasons for hospitalization. Differences between treatments were analyzed by the incidence rate ratio (IRR). Results Overall, 82.9% and 94.4% INO and SoC patients experienced at least one hospitalization. The mean hospitalization days per patient month was 7.6 and 18.4 days for INO and SoC (IRR = 0.413, P < .001), which corresponds to patients spending 25.0% and 60.5% of their treatment time in a hospital. Main hospitalization reasons were R/R ALL treatment (5.2 (INO) vs 14.0 (SoC) days, IRR = 0.368, P < .001), treatment toxicities (1.4 vs 2.8 days, IRR = 0.516, P < .001) or other reasons (1.0 vs 1.6 days, IRR 0.629, P < .001). Conclusions Inotuzumab Ozogamicin treatment in R/R ALL is associated with a lower hospitalization burden compared with SoC. It is likely this lower burden has a favorable impact on healthcare budgets and cost‐effectiveness considerations.
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.