Stefan Walzer

Cost-effectiveness analysis of bevacizumab versus pemetrexed for advanced non-squamous NSCLC in Italy

INTRODUCTIONnThe new targeted agent bevacizumab in combination with cisplatin and gemcitabine (BCG), and a third-generation chemotherapy pemetrexed in combination with cisplatin (PC), are approved as first-line treatment for patients with advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).nnnMETHODSnAn indirect comparison between BCG and PC showed that the bevacizumab triplet achieved a favourable hazard ratio in terms of progression-free survival among patients with advanced NSCLC. This analysis aimed to compare the detailed costs and benefits of these treatments for advanced non-squamous NSCLC in Italy.nnnRESULTSnThe monthly cost of single-agent bevacizumab, including administration and supportive care costs, and costs for adverse events as a single agent was 4,007 euro/patient less than pemetrexed over the patients lifetime. BCG also achieved a mean gain of 0.12 life-years compared with PC over this period. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of BCG relative to PC was calculated to be 34,919 euro per additional life-year gained suggesting that BCG is cost-effective compared with PC as first-line treatment for advanced NSCLC in Italy.nnnCONCLUSIONSnIn conclusion, bevacizumab-based therapy can be considered as a cost-effective option when compared to chemotherapy treatments such as pemetrexed for the treatment for advanced non-squamous NSCLC.

Cross-market cost-effectiveness analysis of erlotinib as first-line maintenance treatment for patients with stable non-small cell lung cancer

Background Platinum-doublet, first-line treatment of locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is limited to 4–6 cycles. An alternative strategy used to prolong the duration of first-line treatment and extend survival in metastatic NSCLC is first-line maintenance therapy. Erlotinib was approved for first-line maintenance in a stable disease population following results from a randomized, controlled Phase III trial comparing erlotinib with best supportive care. We aimed to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness of erlotinib 150 mg/day versus best supportive care when used as first-line maintenance therapy for patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC and stable disease. Methods An economic decision model was developed using patient-level data for progression-free survival and overall survival from the SATURN (SequentiAl Tarceva in UnResectable NSCLC) study. An area under the curve model was developed; all patients entered the model in the progression-free survival health state and, after each month, moved to progression or death. A time horizon of 5 years was used. The model was conducted from the perspective of national health care payers in France, Germany, and Italy. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. Results Treatment with erlotinib in first-line maintenance resulted in a mean life expectancy of 1.39 years in all countries, compared with a mean 1.11 years with best supportive care, which represents 0.28 life-years (3.4 life-months) gained with erlotinib versus best supportive care. In the base-case analysis, the cost per life-year gained was €39,783, €46,931, and €27,885 in France, Germany, and Italy, respectively. Conclusion Erlotinib is a cost-effective treatment option when used as first-line maintenance therapy for locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC.

Comparison of treatment costs of grade 3/4 adverse events associated with erlotinib or pemetrexed maintenance therapy for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in Germany, France, Italy, and Spain

Objective of this indirect economic comparison was to estimate and compare management costs of grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) reported for first-line erlotinib or pemetrexed maintenance therapy in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The economic analysis was performed for Germany, France, Italy and Spain. Types and incidences of reported grade 3/4 AEs observed with erlotinib or pemetrexed maintenance therapy were retrieved from two recently published placebo-controlled trials. Country-specific estimates on standard treatment algorithms and incremental medical resource utilization associated with each of the reported grade 3/4 AEs have been obtained from clinical oncologists practicing in the four countries and co-authoring this article. The resource use items were subsequently assigned country-specific tariffs to estimate total per-patients costs associated with the AE profiles of the two compared maintenance regimens. For the economic analysis a customized economic spreadsheet model was employed. Our comparison shows lower total average per-patient AE management costs for erlotinib than for pemetrexed maintenance therapy in all four studied countries. Total estimated cost savings per patient in favour of erlotinib amount to € 121, € 237, € 106, and € 119 for Germany, France, Italy and Spain, respectively. These AE cost savings for erlotinib when compared to pemetrexed represent a decrease by 80%, 71%, 94%, and 82%, respectively. The study also discovered considerable differences in AE management costs across countries which are primarily due to differences in clinicians estimates of hospitalization referral rates. Erlotinib maintenance therapy in patients with advanced NSCLC causes lower AE management costs than pemetrexed maintenance therapy indicating a potentially superior tolerability profile.

A cross-market cost comparison of erlotinib versus pemetrexed for first-line maintenance treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer

Erlotinib and pemetrexed were approved by the European Medicines Agency for first-line maintenance treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) to prolong overall survival after first-line therapy. An adjusted, matched, indirect comparison of erlotinib and pemetrexed suggested that survival benefits were not statistically significantly different between treatments. We conducted a cost-comparison analysis of erlotinib versus pemetrexed in first-line maintenance treatment of locally advanced or metastatic, non-squamous NSCLC in France, Germany, Italy and Spain, performed from the perspective of national health-care decision-makers or purchasers. The analysis was limited to direct costs and comprised drug-acquisition costs, administration costs and costs of treating adverse events (AEs). A one-way sensitivity analysis on administration, acquisition and AE costs was also performed. Total monthly per-patient treatment costs for erlotinib in France, Germany, Italy and Spain were €2140, €2732, €1518 and €2048, respectively, and for pemetrexed €3453, €5534, €2921 and €3164, respectively. AE cost was greater for pemetrexed in all countries, as was administration cost. As an oral treatment, erlotinib is not associated with any administration costs, except in Germany, where the cost is lower than for pemetrexed. The sensitivity analysis showed acquisition costs to be the main driver of total monthly per-patient costs. Erlotinib appears to be a cost-saving treatment alternative to pemetrexed, producing comparable survival benefits, based on an indirect comparison, at a lower cost.

Effectiveness of bevacizumab- and pemetrexed-cisplatin treatment for patients with advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer

The new targeted agent bevacizumab in combination with cisplatin and gemcitabine, and a third generation chemotherapy, pemetrexed, combined with cisplatin, are approved as first-line treatment for patients with advanced nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). As no head-to-head comparison of these treatments exists, this study aimed to compare the effectiveness of the two treatments using an indirect treatment comparison approach. An indirect comparison on progression-free survival (PFS) was performed for two relevant randomised controlled trials using a well-accepted adjusted indirect comparison method. The results were used in a statistical disease model (Markov model) to extrapolate the long-term effectiveness of the two treatments. A hazard ratio of 0.83 for PFS for bevacizumab plus cisplatin and gemcitabine, was calculated suggesting that this treatment is associated with a 17% lower risk of disease progression and death compared with pemetrexed plus cisplatin treatment. The Markov model predicted that bevacizumab plus cisplatin and gemcitabine resulted in 2.5 months additional PFS and overall survival compared with pemetrexed plus cisplatin. Based on this analysis bevacizumab plus cisplatin and gemcitabine is more effective than pemetrexed plus cisplatin for patients with advanced non-squamous NSCLC and should be considered as one of the preferred targeted treatments of choice for these patients.

Health economics evidence for medical nutrition: are these interventions value for money in integrated care?

Background Health care decision-makers have begun to realize that medical nutrition plays an important role in the delivery of care, and it needs to be seen as a sole category within the overall health care reimbursement system to establish the value for money. Indeed, improving health through improving patients’ nutrition may contribute to the cost-effectiveness and financial sustainability of health care systems. Medical nutrition is regulated by a specific bill either in Europe or in the United States, which offers specific legislations and guidelines (as provided to patients with special nutritional needs) and indications for nutritional support. Given that the efficacy of medical nutrition has been proven, one can wonder whether the heterogeneous nature of its coverage/reimbursement across countries might be due to the lack of health-related economic evidence or value-for-money of nutritional interventions. This paper aims to address this knowledge gap by performing a systematic literature review on health economics evidence regarding medical nutrition, and by summarizing the results of these publications related to the value for money of medical nutrition interventions. Methods A systematic literature search was initiated and executed based on a predefined search protocol following the population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes (PICO) criteria. Following the systematic literature search of recently published literature on health economics evidence regarding medical nutrition, this study aims to summarize the results of those publications that are related to the value for money of medical nutrition interventions. The evaluations were conducted by analyzing different medical nutrition according to their indications, the economic methodology or perspective adopted, the cost source and utility measures, selected efficiency measures, as well as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Results A total of 225 abstracts were identified for the detailed review, and the data were entered into a data extraction sheet. For the abstracts that finally met the predefined inclusion criteria (n=53), full-text publications were obtained via PubMed, subito, or directly via each journal’s Webpage for further assessment. After a detailed review of the full text articles, 34 publications have been qualified for a thorough data extraction procedure. When differentiating the resulting articles in terms of their settings, 20 studies covered inpatients, whereas 14 articles covered outpatients, including patients in community centers. When reviewing the value-for-money evaluations, the indications showed that the different results were mostly impacted by the different perspectives adopted and the comparisons that were made. In order to draw comprehensive conclusions, the results were split according to the main indications and diseases. Discussion The systematic literature search has shown that there is not only an interest in health economics and its application in medical nutrition, but that there is a lot of ongoing research in this area. Based on the underlying systematic analysis, it has been shown that medical nutrition interventions offer value for money in the different health care settings, particularly for the specific disease areas that have been pointed out. Conclusion Based on the systematic literature search that was performed, it was shown that medical nutrition interventions offer value for money in the different health care settings. Although medical nutrition has been the topic of some health economic analyses, the usual willingness to pay threshold used in health care rarely was applied. Often, these products are either directly part of a lump sum in the financing system (for example, diagnosis-related groups), or they are covered as out-of-pocket payments by patients directly. More research would be necessary to better understand how medical nutrition interventions can be optimally funded by the health care system, given the clinical value they bring to patients in their recovery process.

Maintenance erlotinib in advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer: cost-effectiveness in EGFR wild-type across Europe

Background First-line maintenance erlotinib in patients with locally advanced or metastatic nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has demonstrated significant overall survival and progression-free survival benefits compared with best supportive care plus placebo, irrespective of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) status (SATURN trial). The cost-effectiveness of first-line maintenance erlotinib in the overall SATURN population has been assessed and published recently, but analyses according to EGFR mutation status have not been performed yet, which was the rationale for assessing the cost-effectiveness of first-line maintenance erlotinib specifically in EGFR wild-type metastatic NSCLC. Methods The incremental cost per life-year gained of first-line maintenance erlotinib compared with best supportive care in patients with EGFR wild-type stable metastatic NSCLC was assessed for five European countries (the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Spain, and Italy) with an area-under-the-curve model consisting of three health states (progression-free survival, progressive disease, death). Log-logistic survival functions were fitted to Phase III patient-level data (SATURN) to model progression-free survival and overall survival. The first-line maintenance erlotinib therapy cost (modeled for time to treatment cessation), medication cost in later lines, and cost for the treatment of adverse events were included. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses using Monte Carlo simulation (1000 iterations) were performed. Results According to the model simulations, first-line maintenance erlotinib compared with best supportive care in EGFR wild-type stable metastatic NSCLC resulted in 4.57 months of life gained (17.82 months for erlotinib versus 13.24 months for best supportive care) and 1.14 months of life without progression gained (erlotinib 4.29 versus best supportive care 3.15), and incremental total costs of erlotinib from €7897 (UK) to €9580 (Germany). The corresponding mean incremental cost per life-year gained of erlotinib ranged between €20,711 (UK) and €25,124 (Germany). Sensitivity analyses confirmed these results. Conclusion First-line erlotinib maintenance treatment is cost-effective compared with best supportive care in EGFR wild-type stable metastatic NSCLC, irrespective of the country setting.

Costs of bevacizumab and pemetrexed for advanced non-squamous NSCLC in Italy and Germany

The new targeted agent bevacizumab in combination with cisplatin and gemcitabine, and a third-generation chemotherapy pemetrexed in combination with cisplatin, have been approved as first-line treatment for patients with advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). An indirect comparison between bevacizumab plus cisplatin and gemcitabine and pemetrexed plus cisplatin showed that bevacizumab (plus cisplatin and gemcitabine) achieved a favourable hazard ratio in terms of progression-free survival among patients with advanced NSCLC. This analysis aimed to compare the monthly cost of these treatments for advanced non-squamous NSCLC in Italy and Germany. The comparison used country specific cost data and adopted the payer perspective in Italy and Germany. The monthly cost of bevacizumab, including administration cost, as a single agent was 1,509 euro and 2,564 euro less than pemetrexed in Italy and Germany, respectively. The monthly treatment cost of bevacizumab plus cisplatin and gemcitabine was 1,001 euro and 446 euro less than pemetrexed plus gemcitabine in Italy and Germany, respectively. Results indicate that clinical benefits with bevacizumab plus cisplatin and gemcitabine therapy are achieved at a lower monthly cost than pemetrexed plus gemcitabine doublet therapy. Therefore, from a budget perspective, bevacizumab should be considered as a preferred targeted treatment of choice for advanced non-squamous NSCLC.

Cost‐effectiveness of bevacizumab‐based therapy versus cisplatin plus pemetrexed for the first‐line treatment of advanced non‐squamous NSCLC in Korea and Taiwan

Aims:u2003 The aim of this analysis is to investigate the mean incremental costs and life expectancy associated with two first‐line treatments for advanced non‐squamous non‐small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in Korea and Taiwan; bevacizumab plus cisplatin and gemcitabine (BevCG) and cisplatin plus pemetrexed (CP).

Societal cost savings through bevacizumab-based treatment in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Bevacizumab in combination with platinum-based chemotherapy is associated with increased survival outcomes compared to chemotherapy alone in patients with non-squamous metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC). The objective of this study was to estimate potential economic benefits from a societal perspective in patients returning to work when treated with bevacizumab-based combination therapy. These economic benefits were assessed with respect to reduced productivity losses and described in terms of per patient cost savings. The analysis was conducted for France, Germany, Italy and Spain. Clinical outcomes in terms of progression-free survival (PFS) were based on two phase III clinical trials (E4599 and AVAiL) comparing bevacizumab + chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy alone. Potential cost savings due to reduction in productivity losses were assessed in progression-free patients who return back to work (human capital approach). It was assumed that 20% of all progression-free patients with performance status 0 or 1 and below 55 years of age would return back to work after the induction therapy maintaining their prior employment status (60% part-time, 40% full-time). Savings were calculated over 1 and 1.5 year time horizons. Mean savings, per progression-free patient ranged from 12,401 euro in Spain at year 1 to 39,001 euro in France at year 1.5. Respective findings proved to be fairly sensitive to the change of employment patterns and labour costs. This analysis shows that bevacizumab-based treatment can result in substantial cost savings in progression-free patients with mNSCLC.