Budget Impact of Dabrafenib and Trametinib in Combination as Adjuvant Treatment of BRAF V600E/K Mutation-Positive Melanoma from a U.S. Commercial Payer Perspective

Stellato, Daniel; Gerbasi, Margaret E.; Ndife, Briana; Ghate, Sameer; Moynahan, Aaron; Mishra, Dinesh Kumar; Gunda, P; Koruth, Roy; Delea, Thomas E.

doi:10.18553/jmcp.2019.25.11.1227

Cited by 6 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…payer's perspective reported PMPMs ranging from $0.015 to $0.528. Comparatively, the findings from the present study are at the lower end of the previous estimates [54,55,56,57,58,59,60].…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 70%

A budget impact analysis of gilteritinib for the treatment of relapsed or refractoryFLT3^mut+acute myeloid leukemia in a US health plan

Pandya

Yang

Schmeichel

et al. 2020

Journal of Medical Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…payer's perspective reported PMPMs ranging from $0.015 to $0.528. Comparatively, the findings from the present study are at the lower end of the previous estimates [54,55,56,57,58,59,60].…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 70%

A budget impact analysis of gilteritinib for the treatment of relapsed or refractoryFLT3^mut+acute myeloid leukemia in a US health plan

Pandya

Yang

Schmeichel

et al. 2020

Journal of Medical Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Cost of treating progression-free and progressed disease and utility inputs were obtained from the published literature (eTable 3 and eTable 4 in the Supplement). [20][21][22][23][24][25] Each oval shape represents a health-state. Patients can remain in progression-free or progressed disease health state, move from progression-free to progressed disease health state, or move from either state to the death state.…”

Section: Cost and Utility Inputsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Estimated Cost-effectiveness of Atezolizumab Plus Cobimetinib and Vemurafenib for Treatment ofBRAF V600Variation Metastatic Melanoma

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IMPORTANCEIn the IMspire150 trial, triplet treatment with atezolizumab and vemurafenib plus cobimetinib significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared with vemurafenib plus cobimetinib alone for treatment of BRAF V600 variation metastatic melanoma. However, considering high cost of this combination, it is unclear if the incremental cost is worth the additional survival benefit. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab and vemurafenib plus cobimetinib vs vemurafenib plus cobimetinib alone in patients with newly diagnosed unresectable BRAF V600 variation metastatic melanoma from the US health care perspective. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSThis economic evaluation study used a 3-state partitioned survival model to assess the cost-effectiveness of the combination of atezolizumab with vemurafenib plus cobimetinib vs vemurafenib plus cobimetinib alone. The observed Kaplan-Meier curves for overall survival and PFS were digitized from the IMspire150 trial (January 2017-April 2018) and the long-term survivals (over a lifetime horizon) beyond the end of the trial were extrapolated using 7 different survival models. The cost and health preference data were collected from a literature review. This study was performed from March 2021 through June 2021. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe outcomes of interest were expected life-years (LYs) gained and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), expressed as cost per LYs and per QALYs saved.

show abstract

“…In 10 studies (34%), they assumed a treatment duration based on actual patient treatment durations including days spent receiving therapy, treatment in clinical trials, and prescribed treatment durations (44, 46, 51, 54, 58-60, 64, 68, 70). In six studies (21%), the treatment duration was based on either the drug administration instructions or clinical guidelines (42,47,52,61,65,67). Only one study (3%) based the treatment duration on hospital data (66).…”

Section: Systematic Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is the Scope of Costs Considered in Budget Impact Analyses for Anticancer Drugs Rational? A Systematic Review and Comparative Study

et al. 2021

Front. Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: With the increasing disease burden of cancer worldwide, more and more anticancer drugs have been approved in many countries, and the results of budget impact analyses (BIAs) have become important evidence for related reimbursement decisions.Objectives: We systematically reviewed whether BIAs for anticancer drugs consider the scope of costs rationally and compared the results of different cost scopes to provide suggestions for future analyses and decision-making.Methods: Eligible BIAs published in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library from 2016 to 2021 were identified based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We extracted 15 terms from the included studies and analyzed how they considered the scope of costs. In addition, a budget impact model was developed for the introduction of geptanolimab to China's National Reimbursement Drug List to enable a comparison of two cost-scope scenarios.Results: A total of 29 studies were included in the systematic review. All 29 studies considered the costs of anticancer drugs, and 25 (86%) also considered condition-related costs, but only 11 (38%) considered subsequent treatment costs. In the comparative study, the predicted budget impacts from 2022 to 2024 were significantly impacted by subsequent treatment costs, with annual differences between the two cost-scope scenarios of $39,546,664, $65,866,161, and $86,577,386, respectively.Conclusions: The scope of costs considered in some existing BIAs for anticancer drugs are not rational. The variations between different cost scopes in terms of budget impact were significant. Thus, BIAs for anticancer drugs should consider a rational scope of costs that adheres to BIA guidelines. Researchers and decision-makers should pay more attention to the scope of costs to achieve better-quality BIAs for anticancer drugs and enhance reimbursement decision-making.

show abstract

Budget Impact of Dabrafenib and Trametinib in Combination as Adjuvant Treatment of BRAF V600E/K Mutation-Positive Melanoma from a U.S. Commercial Payer Perspective

Cited by 6 publications

References 39 publications

A budget impact analysis of gilteritinib for the treatment of relapsed or refractoryFLT3^mut+acute myeloid leukemia in a US health plan

A budget impact analysis of gilteritinib for the treatment of relapsed or refractoryFLT3^mut+acute myeloid leukemia in a US health plan

Estimated Cost-effectiveness of Atezolizumab Plus Cobimetinib and Vemurafenib for Treatment ofBRAF V600Variation Metastatic Melanoma

Is the Scope of Costs Considered in Budget Impact Analyses for Anticancer Drugs Rational? A Systematic Review and Comparative Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Budget Impact of Dabrafenib and Trametinib in Combination as Adjuvant Treatment of BRAF V600E/K Mutation-Positive Melanoma from a U.S. Commercial Payer Perspective

Cited by 6 publications

References 39 publications

A budget impact analysis of gilteritinib for the treatment of relapsed or refractoryFLT3mut+acute myeloid leukemia in a US health plan

A budget impact analysis of gilteritinib for the treatment of relapsed or refractoryFLT3mut+acute myeloid leukemia in a US health plan

Estimated Cost-effectiveness of Atezolizumab Plus Cobimetinib and Vemurafenib for Treatment ofBRAF V600Variation Metastatic Melanoma

Is the Scope of Costs Considered in Budget Impact Analyses for Anticancer Drugs Rational? A Systematic Review and Comparative Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

A budget impact analysis of gilteritinib for the treatment of relapsed or refractoryFLT3^mut+acute myeloid leukemia in a US health plan

A budget impact analysis of gilteritinib for the treatment of relapsed or refractoryFLT3^mut+acute myeloid leukemia in a US health plan