BackgroundRibociclib (RIBO) and palbociclib (PALBO), combined with letrozole (LET), have been evaluated as treatments for hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative advanced breast cancer in separate Phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs), but not head-to-head. Population differences can lead to biased results by classical indirect treatment comparison (ITC). Matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) aims to correct these differences. We compared RIBO and PALBO in hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative advanced breast cancer using MAIC.MethodsPatient-level data were available for RIBO (MONALEESA-2), while only published summary data were available for PALBO (PALOMA-2). Weights were assigned to MONALEESA-2 patient data such that mean baseline characteristics matched those reported for PALOMA-2; the resulting matched cohort was used in comparisons. Limited by the results reported in PALOMA-2, progression-free survival (PFS) was the primary comparison. Cox regression models were used to calculate adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for PFS, before indirect treatment comparison (ITC) was performed with 95% confidence intervals. An exploratory analysis was performed similarly for overall survival using earlier PALBO data (PALOMA-1). Grade 3/4 adverse events were also compared.ResultsRacial characteristics, prior chemotherapy setting, and the extent of metastasis were the most imbalanced baseline characteristics. The unadjusted PFS HRs were 0.556 (0.429, 0.721) for RIBO+LET versus LET alone and 0.580 (0.460, 0.720) for PALBO+LET versus LET alone. MAIC adjustment resulted in an HR of 0.524 (0.406, 0.676) for RIBO+LET versus LET. PFS ITC using unadjusted trial data produced an HR of 0.959 (0.681, 1.350) for RIBO versus PALBO, or 0.904 (0.644, 1.268) with MAIC. Unadjusted overall survival HR of RIBO versus PALBO was 0.918 (0.492, 1.710); while exploratory MAIC was 0.839 (0.440, 1.598). ITC of grade 3/4 adverse events yielded a risk ratio of 0.806 (0.604, 1.076).ConclusionMAIC was performed for RIBO and PALBO in the absence of a head-to-head trial: though not statistically significant, the results favored RIBO.

BackgroundImmune thrombocytopenia (ITP) is an auto-immune disorder characterized by enhanced platelet destruction and, subsequently, the potential for increased bleeding. Thrombopoietin receptor (TPO-R) agonists have recently emerged as promising therapies for ITP patients who are refractory to other treatments. While eltrombopag (EPAG) is the only TPO-R agonist US Food and Drug Administration approved for use in pediatric patients, romiplostin (ROMI) has been used in Phase III clinical studies.MethodsA cost-consequence model (CCM) was developed to evaluate the costs of EPAG, ROMI, and watch-and-rescue (W&R) in relation to their respective treatment outcomes in previously-treated pediatric chronic ITP (cITP) over a 26-week time horizon. The costs of drugs, administration, routine care, rescue medications, adverse events, and mortality were included. Data on platelet count response rate, bleeding events, and adverse events were derived from all relevant identified Phase III-registered clinical trials, health outcomes were compared via indirect treatment comparison.ResultsThe overall estimated cost of EPAG per patient was US$66,550, compared to US$101,056 for ROMI and US$32,720 for W&R. EPAG’s lower cost compared to ROMI was largely due to lower drug costs (US$62,202 vs US$84,396), administration costs (US$0 vs US$1,955), and significantly lower costs due to severe bleeding (US$354 vs US$10,191). When assessing cost per severe bleeding event avoided, EPAG was dominant over ROMI (less expensive and more effective). EPAG was again dominant over ROMI when assessing the cost per responder and per bleeding event (any grade). Sensitivity analysis was consistent with the base case findings.ConclusionEPAG was the preferred TPO-R agonist to treat cITP when indirectly compared to ROMI, largely driven by its favorable severe bleeding outcomes and lower drug and administration costs.

BackgroundCost-utility analyses for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) require health state utility values (HSUVs) in order to calculate quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for each health state.AimThis study reviewed AML-related HSUVs that could be used in economic evaluation studies.Materials and methodsEMBASE, MEDLINE, and Cochrane databases were searched from January 2000 to November 2016 for relevant studies that reported quality of life (QoL) and HSUVs in AML. Identified relevant European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 values were mapped to HSUVs. HSUVs for each health state in the AML treatment pathway were then collated.ResultsTen relevant studies were identified. Six were cost-effectiveness analyses utilizing HSUVs for calculation of QALYs, one was an effectiveness analysis (incremental QALY), and two were QoL studies reporting AML-specific utilities. An additional study reported QoL for patients undergoing stem cell transplantation (SCT). Since no study reported HSUVs for relapse, values from a study of secondary AML patients who failed prior treatment for myelodysplastic syndrome were used. Where multiple HSUVs were available, collected values were given priority over assumed values. AML treatment (induction, consolidation, or SCT) was associated with decreased HSUV, while post-treatment complete remission led to increased HSUV.ConclusionThere are some methodologically robust HSUVs that can be directly used in economic evaluations for AML. Careful interpretation is advised considering significant differences in methodologies and patient population (inclusion, size). We need to develop HSUVs with larger-sized studies, making greater use of condition-specific data.

BackgroundThrombopoietin-receptor agonists eltrombopag (EPAG) and romiplostim (ROMI) are treatment options for adults with chronic immune thrombocytopenia (cITP) who have had an insufficient response to corticosteroids or immunoglobulins.MethodsA cost-consequence model was developed to evaluate the costs relative to treatment success of EPAG, ROMI, and watch and rescue (W&R) in previously treated patients. The primary endpoint assessed was severe bleeding, derived from all identified phase III registered clinical trials. Health outcomes were compared via indirect treatment comparison. Costs incorporated in the model included drug and administration, routine care, rescue medications, bleeding-related adverse events, other adverse events, and mortality costs. A trial (26-week) time horizon was used, as certain endpoints used in the model were bound to within-trial results.ResultsIn the intent-to-treat (ITT) population, the overall estimated cost per patient for EPAG was US$66,560 compared to US$91,039 for ROMI and US$30,099 for W&R. Compared to the ITT population, the difference in cost between EPAG and ROMI was slightly greater in splenectomized patients (US$65,998 for EPAG compared to US$91,485 for ROMI) and slightly less in non-splenectomized patients (US$67,151 for EPAG compared to US$91,455 for ROMI), though the overall trend remained the same. When assessing cost per severe bleeding event avoided in the ITT population, EPAG dominated (less expensive, more effective) ROMI. Sensitivity analyses confirmed these results.ConclusionEPAG was preferred over ROMI in the treatment of cITP, largely driven by the reduction in severe bleeding events associated with its use.

No abstract

AimsMidostaurin (MIDO) has been proposed for the treatment of newly-diagnosed adult patients with FMS-like tyrosine kinase 3 mutation-positive (FLT3+) acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in combination with standard chemotherapy. The cost-effectiveness of MIDO and standard of care (SOC) followed by MIDO monotherapy was compared to SOC alone for newly-diagnosed FLT3+ AML in the UK.MethodsA partitioned survival model was developed from a UK public healthcare system perspective to compare the cost-effectiveness of MIDO plus SOC and SOC over a lifetime horizon. The model included the following health states/partitions: induction, consolidation, monotherapy, complete remission (CR), relapse, stem cell transplantation (SCT), SCT recovery, and post-SCT recovery. Data on CR, overall survival, and adverse events were obtained from a Phase III clinical trial. Overall survival was extrapolated beyond the trial horizon using a ‘cure model’ approach and data from the Office for National Statistics. Utilities were identified via a systematic review. Routine care utilization was obtained from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence single technology appraisal for azacitidine in AML (TA399). The costs of drugs and administration, adverse events, hospitalizations, physician visits, and end-of-life care were incorporated.ResultsIncremental life years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained by patients on MIDO and SOC versus SOC were 1.67 and 1.47, respectively. At an incremental cost of £54,072 over a lifetime horizon, the ICER was £32,465 per LY and £36,826 per QALY. Sensitivity analyses were generally consistent with the base case findings.ConclusionsWith limited treatments in FLT3+ AML, MIDO represents a clinically significant advance in the management of newly-diagnosed AML. Using a threshold of £50,000 per QALY for end-of-life treatment, MIDO was shown to be a cost-effective option for newly-diagnosed FLT3+ AML.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12962-018-0153-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Purpose To estimate the budget impact of selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (XVd) in patients with previously treated multiple myeloma (MM) from the perspective of a private third-party payer and Medicare in the US. Methods The introduction of XVd as an option for patients with previously treated MM compared to no introduction of XVd was considered from a private third-party US payer (with 1,000,000 members) and a Medicare perspective in one-year increments for 3 years. Total annual treatment costs were calculated as the sum of drug costs, costs of treating serious treatment emergent adverse events (grade ≥3), ongoing best supportive care costs, and mortality costs. Results The absolute budget impact (Millions, USD) of including XVd from a private third-party payer plan perspective was $0.06, $0.07, $0.08 and $0.22 for years 1, 2, 3, and overall, respectively. The relative budget impact of including XVd was 0.33%, 0.40%, 0.43%, and 0.38% for years 1, 2, 3, and overall, respectively. This translated to a per member per month (PMPM) budget impact of $0.005, $0.006, $0.007, and $0.006 (USD), for years 1, 2, 3, and overall, respectively. From a Medicare perspective, the absolute budget impact (Millions, USD) of including XVd was $29.68, $36.62, $39.42 and $105.72 for years 1, 2, 3, and overall, respectively. The relative budget impact of including XVd was 0.33%, 0.40%, 0.43%, and 0.38% percent for years 1, 2, 3, and overall, respectively. This translated to a PMPM budget impact of $0.041, $0.051, $0.054, and $0.049 (USD), for years 1, 2, 3, and overall, respectively. Sensitivity analyses showed general consistency with the base-case findings. Conclusion Understanding the potential budget impact of new therapies in MM is vital for payers to manage spending and assess treatment value. The introduction of XVd presents a manageable budget impact for a third-party US payer and Medicare.

This framework facilitates decision-making in the management of chronic immune thrombocytopenia with eltrombopag and romiplostim.