Search

Background: The Saudi Food and Drug Authority (SFDA) has approved the subcutaneous (SC) administration of infliximab, presenting a more convenient alternative with reduced outpatient visits and diminished expenses compared to the intravenous (IV) administration. However, the financial implications of this formulation have not been examined from the perspective of Saudi payers., Methods and Materials: A prevalence-based budget impact model was developed to evaluate the financial effects of introducing "environment without" versus "with infliximab SC." The model's time horizon spanned over 2 years (2021-2023), aligning with the biennial national pharmaceutical procurement cycle. The comparison focused on infliximab SC versus all available formulations of infliximab IV in the Saudi market for two inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD): Ulcerative Colitis (UC) and Crohn's Disease (CD). Treatment comparators' comparability and dose escalations were substantiated by published studies, utilizing dosing information from the summary of product characteristics. Drug acquisition costs were derived from SFDA registered prices, with IV formulation administration costs included. Scenario analysis assessed the budget impact of infliximab SC introduction at uptake rates ranging from 0% to 100%., Results: Introducing infliximab SC demonstrated cost-saving potential in the treatment of IBD. At 100% uptake with UC patients for 2 years, infliximab SC resulted in savings of -SAR-31.9 million (-SAR29,145 per patient). Similarly, for CD, introducing infliximab SC at 100% uptake over 2 years yielded savings of -SAR106.2 million (-SAR36,585 per patient)., Conclusion: This study reveals that infliximab SC is associated with cost-saving potential when compared to infliximab IV formulations available in Saudi Arabia. Future research should address uncertainties related to real-world comparative effectiveness, the convenience of administration, patient tolerability, and physician acceptance of the SC formulation of infliximab, alongside comparisons with other TNF-alpha inhibitors., Competing Interests: N Alkhatib holds equity in Pi Pharma Intelligence, LLC, which provides health technology solutions, scientific and consulting services to biopharmaceutical, diagnostics, and medical device companies on a nonexclusivity basis. By the company internal policy, owners, employees, and associates are prohibited from holding equity in client and sponsor organizations or contracting independently with client and sponsor organizations or receiving compensation independently from such organizations. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials., (Copyright: © 2024 Alkhatib et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Background: New interventions are available for the prevention of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) disease in young infants. We aimed to assess the potential impact and cost-effectiveness of using a long-acting monoclonal antibody (RSV mAb) or maternal RSV vaccine in the Argentine context., Methods: We used a static proportionate outcomes model to calculate the costs and consequences of using RSV mAb or maternal RSV vaccine over a ten-year period (2025-2034) in Argentina, assuming both year-round and seasonal administration. We compared each intervention to no pharmaceutical RSV intervention. The primary outcome was the discounted cost per disability-adjusted life year (DALY) averted from a societal perspective. We assumed willingness-to-pay of US$ 12,285 per DALY averted (0.9 times the national gross domestic product per capita). We used population study data on costs and disease burden and the efficacy of clinical trials of both interventions as inputs. We ran deterministic and probabilistic uncertainty analyses., Findings: Either strategy (RSV mAb or maternal RSV vaccine) could prevent >25% of RSV deaths aged <5 years and ∼30% aged <6 months (the age group where most intervention impact occurs). With a dose price of $US 50, both products have a 100% probability of being cost-effective compared to no intervention (US$ 5283 [95%CI $5203-$5363] and US$ 5522 [95%CI $5427 - $5617] per DALY averted for year-round use of RSV mAb and maternal RSV vaccine, respectively). Similar health impact could be achieved by a six-month seasonal strategy, which could improve cost-effectiveness by around 45% (assuming the dose price is unchanged)., Interpretation: Either RSV mAb or maternal RSV vaccine are worth consideration in Argentina when priced at ≤US$ 50 per dose. A seasonal strategy could improve cost-effectiveness., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Mauricio Caballero reports financial support was provided by Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. If there are other authors, they declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Chronic migraine is a disabling condition, affecting 2-4% of adults globally. With the introduction of expensive calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies, it is timely to compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of preventive drugs for chronic migraine., Objective: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of medications used for chronic migraine through systematic reviews and economic modelling., Eligibility Criteria: Randomised controlled trials of drug treatments for efficacy with > 100 participants with chronic migraine per arm; for adverse events > 100 participants with episodic or chronic migraine per arm. Previous economic analyses of preventive drugs for chronic migraine., Data Sources: Eight databases., Reviews Methods: Systematic reviews, network meta-analysis and economic modelling., Outcomes: Monthly headache days, monthly migraine days, headache-related quality of life, cost-effectiveness., Results: We found 51 individual articles, reporting 11 randomised controlled trials, testing 6 drugs (topiramate, Botox, eptinezumab, erenumab, fremanezumab, galcanezumab), versus placebo, on 7352 adults with chronic migraine. Calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies, Botox and topiramate reduced headache/migraine days by 2.0-2.5, just under two, or by less than 1.5 days per month, respectively. In the network meta-analysis, eptinezumab 300 mg and fremanezumab monthly ranked in first place in both monthly headache day and monthly migraine day analyses. The calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies were consistently the best choices for headache/migraine days and headache-related quality of life. Topiramate was very unlikely to be the best choice for headache/migraine days and headache-related quality of life when compared to calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies or Botox. We found no trials of the commonly used drugs, such as propranolol or amitriptyline, to include in the analysis. The adverse events review included 40 randomised controlled trials with 25,891 participants; 3 additional drugs, amitriptyline, atogepant and rimegepant, were included. There were very few serious adverse events - none of which were linked to the use of these medications. Adverse events were common. Most people using some calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies reported injection site issues; and people using topiramate or amitriptyline had nervous system or gastrointestinal issues. The cost-effectiveness review identified 16 studies evaluating chronic migraine medications in adults. The newer, injected drugs are more costly than the oral preventatives, but they were cost-effective. Our economic model showed that topiramate was the least costly option and had the fewest quality-adjusted life-year gains, whereas eptinezumab 300 mg was more costly but generated the most quality-adjusted life-year gains. The cost-effectiveness acceptability frontier showed that topiramate was the most cost-effective medication if the decision maker is willing to pay up to £50,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Our consensus workshop brought together people with chronic migraine and headache experts. Consensus was reached on the top three recommendations for future research on medications to prevent chronic migraine: (1) calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies and Botox versus calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies, (2) candesartan versus placebo and (3) flunarizine versus placebo., Limitations: Topiramate was the only oral drug for which we were able to include data. We did not find sufficient quality evidence to support the use of other oral drugs., Conclusions: We did not find evidence that the calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies are more clinically and cost-effective when compared to topiramate or Botox. We identified directions for future research these drugs might take., Study Registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42021265990, CRD42021265993 and CRD42021265995., Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR132803) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment ; Vol. 28, No. 63. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Recent trials have shown that immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), atezolizumab and durvalumab, in combination with chemotherapy, are effective in treating extensive-disease small-cell lung cancer (ED-SCLC). However, owing to the expensiveness of ICIs, monetary issues arise. The cost-effectiveness of ICI combination treatment with carboplatin plus etoposide (CE) as first-line therapy for patients with ED-SCLC was examined to aid public health policy in Japan., Methods: IMpower 133 and CASPIAN data were used to create a partitioned survival model. Medical expenses and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were considered. The analysis period, discount rate, and threshold were set at 20 years, 2%, and 15 million Japanese yen (JPY) [114,068 US dollars (USD)] per QALY, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated by gathering reasonable parameters from published reports and combining the costs and effects using parametric models. Monte Carlo simulations, scenario analysis, and one-way sensitivity analyses were employed to quantify uncertainty., Results: After comparing atezolizumab plus CE (ACE) and durvalumab plus CE (DCE) with CE, it was found that the ICERs exceeded the threshold at 35,048,299 JPY (266,527 USD) and 36,665,583 JPY (278,826 USD) per QALY, respectively. For one-way sensitivity and scenario assessments, the ICERs exceeded the threshold, even with considerably adjusted parameters. For the probabilistic sensitivity analyses, there was no probability that the ICER of the ICI combination treatment with chemotherapy would fall below the threshold., Conclusion: ACE and DCE were not cost-effective compared with CE as first-line therapy for ED-SCLC in Japan. Both these therapies exhibited high ICERs., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Monoclonal antibodies are widely used anticancer therapies. Increasing demand for ambulatory care necessitates exploration of efficiency measures., Objectives: The primary objective was to evaluate the impacts on chair time and associated cost of priming IV administration sets with a bolus of the prescribed monoclonal antibody drugs. A secondary objective was to assess the associated incidence of hypersensitivity reactions., Methods: A large tertiary hospital in Brisbane, Australia, conducted a randomized controlled trial (N = 128) with a two-arm design. Included monoclonal antibodies were daratumumab, obinutuzumab, pembrolizumab, and nivolumab., Findings: There was a statistically significant reduction in chair time for obinutuzumab, pembrolizumab, and nivolumab compared with the control. Findings suggest that this priming intervention reduces chair time and cost for some monoclonal antibody drugs. Future research could assess this practice in other oncology therapies.

Background and Objective: The EV-302 trial found that the combination of enfortumab vedotin (EV) with pembrolizumab significantly improved survival for patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC). However, given the high cost of the drugs, there is a need to assess its value by considering both efficacy and cost. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of EV plus pembrolizumab as a first-line treatment for patients with mUC from the perspective of U.S. payers., Methods: A Markov model was developed to compare the lifetime costs and effectiveness of EV in combination with pembrolizumab with chemotherapy in the treatment of mUC patients from U.S. payer perspective. Life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), and lifetime costs were estimated. One-way, two-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate model uncertainty. Additionally, subgroup analyses were performed., Results: Compared to chemotherapy, the combination of EV and pembrolizumab provided an additional 2.10 LYs and 1.72 QALYs, at an incremental cost of $962,240.8 per patient. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) is $558,973 per QALY. Subgroup analysis indicated that patients ineligible for cisplatin treatment had a lower ICER compared to those who were eligible for cisplatin., Conclusions: From the perspective of US payers, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per QALY, the combination of EV and pembrolizumab is estimated to not be cost-effective compared to traditional chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of mUC patients., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Li, Wu, Xie, Xiang, Meng, Tan, Wang and Wan.)

Background: Heavily treatment-experienced (HTE) people with HIV (PWH) have limited treatment options owing to multidrug resistance (MDR). Lenacapavir (LEN) is indicated, in combination with other antiretrovirals, for the treatment of adults with MDR HIV-1 experiencing failure of their current antiretroviral regimen because of resistance, intolerance, or safety considerations., Objective: To evaluate the cost-utility of LEN in combination with an optimized background regimen (OBR) vs alternative recently approved treatments for HTE PWH, fostemsavir (FTR)+OBR and ibalizumab (IBA)+OBR, for the treatment of PWH with MDR, from a mixed US health care payer perspective., Methods: A Markov state-transition model with a lifetime time horizon was developed. Transition probabilities between viral load categories were based on individual participant data from the CAPELLA trial for LEN+OBR and on relative efficacy parameters obtained from indirect treatment comparisons for comparators. Health state utilities were sourced from the literature. Costs included drug acquisition costs, drug administration costs, disease management costs, adverse event costs, AIDS-related event costs, and treatment switching costs and were sourced from red book costs, Medicare and Medicaid fees, and the literature. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3% annually. The model was used to estimate total and incremental costs, life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. A deterministic and a probabilistic sensitivity analysis, as well as scenario analyses, were performed to address elements of uncertainty in the model and to explore the robustness of the results., Results: Over a lifetime time horizon, LEN+OBR was associated with the highest absolute QALYs (9.41) and the greatest number of LYs (12.09) compared with FTR+OBR (QALYs: 8.75; LYs: 11.26) and IBA+OBR (QALYs: 8.36; LYs: 10.78). LEN+OBR was also associated with the lowest total lifetime costs of the 3 interventions (LEN+OBR: $1,441,122 [US dollars]; FTR+OBR: $1,504,986; IBA+OBR: $1,524,396) and therefore was dominant over both comparators in the base case. LEN+OBR remained dominant vs FTR+OBR and IBA+OBR across the range of scenarios tested and LEN+OBR had a 99% probability of being cost-effective compared with FTR+OBR and IBA+OBR in the probabilistic sensitivity analysis at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000/QALY., Conclusions: This economic evaluation demonstrated that LEN+OBR provides meaningful increases in QALYs and LYs, and is dominant over a lifetime time horizon, compared with FTR+OBR and IBA+OBR for the treatment of PWH with MDR in the United States.

Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of tisotumab vedotin to treat recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer in second- or third-line from the U.S. payer perspective., Methods: A Markov model with three-state was employed to simulate recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer patients who were administered either tisotumab vedotin or investigator's choice of chemotherapy based on the phase III, open-labeled innovaTV 301 randomized clinical trial. The data on cost and health preferences were collected from the literature., Results: Tisotumab vedotin generated an additional 0.25 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) compared to chemotherapy, but at an additional cost of $206,779. This results in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $839,107.88 per QALY. The results of the univariate sensitivity analysis indicated that cost of tisotumab vedotin, utility of progressive disease and progression-free survival had the greatest impacts on the outcomes. Probability sensitivity analysis showed that tisotumab vedotin had a 0% chance of being considered cost-effective., Conclusion: Tisotumab vedotin was unlikely cost-effective compared to chemotherapy for recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer patients at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000/QALY from the perspective of a U.S. payer. Lowering the prices of tisotumab vedotin could potentially enhance its cost-effectiveness., Competing Interests: No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported., (© 2024. Asian Society of Gynecologic Oncology, Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology, and Japan Society of Gynecologic Oncology.)

Sequential romosozumab-to-alendronate or sequential teriparatide-to-alendronate can be a cost-effective treatment option for postmenopausal women at very high risk of fracture., Purpose: To estimate the 10-year probability of a major osteoporotic fracture (MOF) at which sequential treatment with romosozumab or teriparatide followed by alendronate, compared with alendronate alone, becomes cost-effective in a UK setting., Methods: A microsimulation model with a Markov structure was used to simulate fractures, costs, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), in women receiving sequential treatment with either romosozumab or teriparatide followed by alendronate, compared with alendronate alone. Patients aged 50 to 90 years with a recent MOF, hip or spine fracture were followed from the start of a 5-year treatment until the age of 100 years or death. The analysis had a healthcare perspective. Efficacy of romosozumab, teriparatide and alendronate was derived from phase III randomised controlled trials. Resource use and unit costs were derived from the literature. Cost-effectiveness intervention threshold (CEIT), defined as the 10-year probability of a major osteoporotic fracture at which treatment becomes cost-effective, was compared with clinically appropriate intervention thresholds for bone-forming treatment in women with very high fracture risk as recommended by the UK National Osteoporosis Guideline Group (NOGG)., Results: The base case analysis showed that sequential romosozumab-to-alendronate treatment was cost-effective from a 10-year MOF probability of 18-35% and above depending on age and site of sentinel fracture at a willingness to pay (WTP) of £30,000. For teriparatide-to-alendronate, treatment was cost-effective at a 10-year MOF probability of 27-57%. The results were sensitive to pricing of the drugs but relatively insensitive to treatment duration, romosozumab persistence assumptions, and site of sentinel fracture. The CEITs for romosozumab-to-alendronate treatment were lower than the clinical thresholds from the age of 70 years meaning that treatment could be considered both cost-effective and aligned with the NOGG treatment guidelines. By contrast, for teriparatide-to-alendronate the CEITs were higher than the clinical thresholds irrespective of age. However, cost-effective scenarios were found in the presence of strong clinical risk factors in addition to a recent sentinel fracture., Conclusion: The results of this study indicate that sequential romosozumab-to-alendronate or teriparatide-to-alendronate treatment can be a cost-effective treatment option for postmenopausal women at very high risk of fracture., Competing Interests: Declarations. Conflicts of interest: JAK is a director of Osteoporosis Research Ltd. which develops and maintains FRAX. DW is an employee of UCB Pharma. FB owns stock in Quantify Research, a contract research organisation that have received funding from UCB Pharma and Amgen Inc. for model development. EM reports grants and/or personal fees from Amgen, Fresenius Kabi, ObsEva, Theramex and UCB, all outside the submitted work. HJ declares no conflicts. NH reports personal fees, consultancy, lecture fees and honoraria from Alliance for Better Bone Health, AMGEN, MSD, Eli Lilly, Servier, Shire, UCB, Consilient Healthcare, Kyowa Kirin, Theramex and Internis Pharma, all outside the submitted work. DK was an employee of Quantify Research, a contract research organisation that have received funding from UCB Pharma and Amgen Inc. for model development. ML reports personal fees from Amgen, UCB Pharma, Radius Health, Renapharma, Consilient Health, and Meda/Mylan., (© 2024. International Osteoporosis Foundation and Bone Health and Osteoporosis Foundation.)

Purpose: The clinical effectiveness of triple chemotherapy consisting of gemcitabine, cisplatin plus either S-1 (GCS), durvalumab (DGC), or pembrolizumab (PGC) as first-line treatment for advanced biliary tract cancer (BTC) has been reported. However, their comparative cost-effectiveness is unclear. We conducted a model-based cost-effectiveness analysis from the perspective of Japanese healthcare payer., Methods: A 10-year partitioned survival model was constructed by comparing the time-dependent hazards of the KHBO1401-MITSUBA, TOPAZ-1, and KEYNOTE-966 trials. The cost and utility came from previously published reports. Quality-adjusted life years (QALY) were used to measure the effects on health. Costs for direct medical care were taken into account. There was a one-way analysis and a probability sensitivity analysis. A willingness-to-pay threshold of 7.5 million yen (57,034 USD) per QALY was defined., Results: The incremental costs per QALY for GCS, DGC, and PGC in the base case study were 3,779,374 JPY (28,740 USD), 86,058,056 JPY (65,4434 USD), and 28,982,059 JPY (220,396 USD), respectively. No parameter had an influence beyond the threshold in a one-way sensitivity analysis. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed that the probability of GCS, DGC, and PGC being cost-effective at the threshold was 85.6%, 0%, and 0%, respectively., Conclusion: Given the current circumstances, it is probable that triple therapy utilizing GCS will emerge as a plausible and efficient primary chemotherapy strategy for patients with advanced BTC in the Japanese healthcare system, as opposed to DGC and PGC., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of durvalumab as a treatment option for patients with inoperable stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) from healthcare and partial societal perspectives in Vietnam., Method: A lifetime partitioned survival model was used to evaluate the costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) associated with consolidation durvalumab in comparison with the standard of care alone. Local costs and utilities were incorporated into the model. In the base-case analysis, no discount was applied to the acquisition cost of durvalumab. Scenario-based, one-way and probabilistic-sensitivity analyses were conducted., Results: The base-case analysis revealed that the intervention resulted in an increase of 1.38 life years or 1.08 QALYs for patients, but the intervention was not deemed cost-effective from either perspective in the base-case analysis. However, with a 70% reduction in the durvalumab acquisition cost, the intervention was observed to be cost-effective when evaluated from a healthcare perspective and when examining the undiscounted results from a partial societal standpoint., Conclusion: This study provides evidence regarding the cost-effectiveness of durvalumab for the treatment of inoperable stage III NSCLC in Vietnam for various scenarios. The intervention was not cost-effective at full acquisition cost, but it is important to acknowledge that cost-effectiveness arguments alone cannot solely guide decision-makers in Vietnam; other criteria, such as budget impact and ethical concerns, are crucial factors to consider in decision-making processes., Competing Interests: Competing interests: The lead author (VQM) was a member of an advisory team for AstraZeneca Vietnam on a project that performed a health technology assessment of durvalumab for inoperable stage III non-small cell lung cancer in 2020. However, the present study was separate from that advisory project. In the present study, we performed the economic evaluations using the latest published inputs, including five-year survival data and local data on patient cost and utility. The present study was funded by the Erling-Persson Foundation, Umeå University and Hanoi University of Public Health; financial support was provided to the lead author in the form of a doctoral study. Copyright on the model used and content of this article belong to the authors. The authors have indicated that they have no other conflicts of interest regarding the content of this article. Patients or the public were not involved in the design, conduct, reporting or dissemination plans of our research., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel) is a chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy approved for patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). In the phase 3 trial, CARTITUDE-4 (NCT04181827), cilta-cel demonstrated improved efficacy vs. standard of care (SOC; daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone [DPd] or pomalidomide plus bortezomib and dexamethasone [PVd]) with a ≥ complete response (≥CR) rate of 73.1% vs. 21.8%., Methods: A cost-per-responder model was developed to assess the value of cilta-cel and SOC (87% DPd and 13% PVd) based on the CARTITUDE-4 trial data from a US mixed payer perspective (76.7% commercial, 23.3% Medicare). The model was developed using progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and ≥CR endpoints from CARTITUDE-4 over a period of 25.4 months. Inpatient stays, outpatient visits, drug acquisition, administration, and monitoring costs were included. The base-case model assumed an inpatient setting for each cilta-cel infusion; another scenario included 30% outpatient and 70% inpatient infusions. Costs of managing grade 3-4 adverse events (AEs) and grade 1-4 cytokine release syndrome and neurotoxicity were included. Subsequent therapy costs were incurred after disease progression; terminal care costs were considered upon death events. Outcomes included total cost per treated patient, total cost per complete responder, and cost per month in PFS between cilta-cel and SOC. Costs were adjusted to 2024 US dollars., Results: Total cost per treated patient, total cost per complete responder, and total cost per month in PFS were estimated at $704,641, $963,941, and $30,978 for cilta-cel, respectively, and $840,730, $3,856,559, and $42,520 for SOC over the 25.4-month period. Cost drivers included treatment acquisition costs before progression and subsequent treatment costs ($451,318 and $111,637 for cilta-cel; $529,795 and $265,167 for SOC). A scenario analysis in which 30% of patients received an outpatient infusion (assuming the same payer mix) showed a lower cost per complete responder for cilta-cel ($956,523) than those with an infusion in the inpatient setting exclusively., Discussion: This analysis estimated that cost per treated patient, cost per complete responder, and cost per month in PFS for cilta-cel were remarkably lower than for DPd or PVd, highlighting the substantial clinical and economic benefit of cilta-cel for patients with RRMM., Competing Interests: DH has consulted for BMS, Janssen, Legend Biotech, Pfizer, Kite, and Karyopharm; has received research funding from BMS, Karyopharm, and the Pentecost Family Myeloma Research Center. OP has served on a speaker’s bureau for Adaptive Biotechnologies. SS and EZ are employed by Evidera and were contracted by Janssen to work on this project. SU has served in a consulting or advisory role for AbbVie, Amgen, BMS/Celgene, Celgene, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, GSK, Janssen, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Merck, and Takeda; and has received research funding from Amgen, Array BioPharma, BMS, Celgene, GSK, Merck, Pharmacyclics, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, and SkylineDx. SJ has served in a consulting or advisory role for BMS, Janssen, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Legend Biotech USA Inc., Regeneron, Sanofi, and Takeda; and has received travel, accommodations, and expenses from BMS and Janssen. XL, YZ, and ZQ are currently employed at Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, and own Johnson & Johnson stock. SH is currently employed at Janssen Global Services, LLC, and owns Johnson & Johnson stock. This study was funded by Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, a Johnson & Johnson company and Legend Biotech USA Inc. The sponsors were involved in study design, collection, analysis, interpretation of data, the writing of this article, and the decision to submit it for publication., (Copyright © 2024 Hansen, Lu, Puglianini, Sorensen, Usmani, Zhang, Huo, Zhang, Qureshi and Jagannath.)

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of conventional care (CC) and seven first-line targeted therapies marketed in China for the treatment of patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS)-namely secukinumab, ixekizumab, infliximab, etanercept, adalimumab and golimumab and tofacitinib-from the perspective of the Chinese health care system., Methods: The York model was structured as a 12-week decision tree leading into two Markov models. This study set 1 year as a recurring cycle and a lifetime timeframe for the model. Primary model outcomes included the costs in Chinese yuan (CNY), health outcomes in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) under a willingness-to-pay threshold of ¥89,358 (equal to the per capita gross domestic product in China in 2023) per QALY. Parameters in the York model were captured from network meta-analyses and literature including treatment response, short-term disease progression, patient functioning and long-term structural disease progression. Utilities are dependent on indicators such as the BASDAI score, the BASFI score, gender and age. Drug prices were analysed using the median price of the Chinese market from YAOZH net in the basic analysis. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 5.0%. We performed deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses to investigate the robustness of the results. The prices of original drugs and generic drugs were used in the scenario analysis., Results: Compared with CC, the ICER of golimumab was ¥104,217.4/QALY, which is between 1 and 3 times the GDP per capita, while the ICERs of the other six targeted therapies were less than ¥89,358/QALY. The specific economic rank of the targeted therapy was as follows: secukinumab > ixekizumab > tofacitinib > infliximab > etanercept > adalimumab > golimumab. Treatment response rates such as the BASDAI50, changes in the BASDAI/BASFI scores and the discounting rate were key model drivers. According to the scenario analysis, IL-17 inhibitors were still the most economical intervention when original drugs and generic drugs were used., Conclusion: Targeted therapies are cost-effective treatments for AS. Overall, IL-17 inhibitors were the dominant treatment. The choice of the brand-new prices or generic drug prices can greatly affect economics., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Biologics has been known to be effective for patients with psoriasis. However, optimal treatment pathways and their cost-effectiveness are limited in a resource-limited country. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of different sequential biologics for moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis., Method: A hybrid model from a societal perspective was used. Model inputs were derived from network meta-analysis, clinical trials, and published literature. Three different sequential biologic treatments were assessed; Sequence 1; 1st Interleukin-17 (IL-17) inhibitor (secukinumab) followed by 2nd IL-17 inhibitors (ixekizumab or brodalumab), then 3rd IL-23 inhibitor (guselkumab), Sequence 2; ixekizumab followed by secukinumab or brodalumab, then guselkumab, and Sequence 3; brodalumab followed by ixekizumab or secukinumab, then guselkumab. Methotrexate or ciclosporin was used as standard of care (SoC)., Results: All three different sequential biologic therapies could gain total quality-adjusted life year (QALY), but they had higher cost than SoC. Sequence 1 had the lowest incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) compared to SoC at 621,373 THB/QALY (19,449 $/QALY). ICER for Sequence 2 was 957,258 THB/QALY (29,962 $/QALY), while that for Sequence 3 was 1,332,262 THB/QALY (41,700 $/QALY). Fully incremental analysis indicated that Sequence 3 was dominated by Sequence 1 and Sequence 2. ICER for Sequence 2 was 7,206,104 THB/QALY (225,551 $/QALY) when compared to Sequence 1., Conclusion: At the current willingness-to-pay of 160,000 THB/QALY, no sequential IL-17 inhibitor was cost-effective compared to SoC. Secukinumab followed by ixekizumab or brodalumab then guselkumab (Sequence 1) may be the most appropriate option compared with other treatments., Competing Interests: Piyameth Dilokthornsakul receives research grants from Novartis (Thailand) Limited, Pfizer (Thailand) Limited. He also receives honorariums from GSK (Thailand) Limited, and Boehringer Ingelheim (Thailand) Limited. Other authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright: © 2024 Dilokthornsakul et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Objectives: Calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies (CGRP mAbs) are novel high-cost treatments for the prevention of migraine. This study presents data on utilization, expenditure, and treatment patterns with CGRP mAbs available under a managed access protocol in Ireland, to a cohort of treatment refractory patients (failed 3 or more previous treatments) with chronic migraine., Methods: Data were extracted from the Primary Care Reimbursement Service High Tech claims database and special drug request online system and analyzed using Microsoft Excel and SAS. Treatment persistence was evaluated by refill patterns, and adherence was evaluated using the proportion of days covered method. Expenditure data were extracted directly from the database., Results: Between September 1, 2021 and April 30, 2023, 1517 applications for reimbursement approval for a CGRP mAb were received; 1458 (96.1%) were approved for reimbursement. Total expenditure on CGRP mAbs in year 1 (September 1, 2021 to August 31, 2022) was €3.2 million. The majority of patients initiated treatment with fremanezumab (60.8%) or erenumab (37.1%). Almost 90% of patients were considered adherent, and treatment persistence was high, with more than 75% of patients receiving more than 12 months of treatment in our 18-month study time frame., Conclusions: This study demonstrates the importance of active health technology management, after reimbursement, in enabling cost-effective use of high-cost treatments while providing budget certainty for the healthcare payer. High levels of adherence and persistence suggest that treatment is successfully targeted in situations which unmet clinical need is greatest., Competing Interests: Author Disclosures Author disclosure forms can be accessed below in the Supplemental Material section., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Durvalumab, used as consolidation immunotherapy, has shown to improve survival in patients with stage III non-small cell lung cancer who respond to chemoradiotherapy, based on the most recent follow-up of PACIFIC. The Chilean healthcare system provides access to certain immunotherapies for this condition. The present study sought to estimate the budget impact of durvalumab versus standard of care in the context of the Chilean healthcare system., Research Design and Methods: A partitioned survival model was adapted to compare two strategies: durvalumab as consolidation therapy and standard of care for treating stage III NSCLC. The number of patients eligible for treatment was estimated using published incidence data and modeled for a 5-year time horizon. Model inputs were based on published literature, and the duration of treatment was estimated using survival curves obtained from PACIFIC. Costs were estimated in Chilean pesos (CLP) and converted to USD dollars using an exchange rate of USD 1  =  CLP 827. Scenario analyses were performed to assess different subsequent therapy splits, variations in the target population and dosage of durvalumab., Results: Durvalumab uptake projected total costs ranging from USD 1.27 in Year 1 to 8.5 million in Year 5 from the public perspective. From the private perspective, the budget impact for the first year is USD 1.3 million to USD 3 million for 2028. This difference relies mostly on the lower number of patients treated. Both perspectives anticipated cost savings over the time horizon through reduced monitoring, adverse events, and end-of-life expenses., Conclusions: This study demonstrates that the inclusion of Durvalumab for NSCLC in Chile represents an investment in the Chilean health system. The incremental costs align with clinical benefits and potential savings in healthcare resource utilization. However, a comprehensive cost-effectiveness analysis is needed to evaluate its economic value thoroughly., Competing Interests: Manuel Espinoza has been compensated by Merck, Grunenthal, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, MSD, Abbvie, and Roche for training activities and presentations. Nicolás Armijo has received fees from Roche and Sandoz for educational services and presentations. I have previously received fees from Novartis and Novo Nordisk for educational services. Manuel, Nicolás, and I also are members of Epsilon Research, a health economics consultancy. However, our commercial affiliation does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials., (Copyright: © 2024 Armijo et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of sequential treatment with romosozumab-to-alendronate compared to alendronate monotherapy and teriparatide-to-alendronate, in postmenopausal osteoporotic women from a Belgian healthcare perspective. Romosozumab-to-alendronate was found to be cost-effective compared to alendronate monotherapy and dominant compared to teriparatide-to-alendronate for osteoporotic women at high risk of fracture in Belgium., Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of sequential treatment with romosozumab followed by alendronate compared to alendronate monotherapy and teriparatide followed by alendronate, in postmenopausal osteoporotic women at high risk of fracture, from a Belgian healthcare perspective. Romosozumab is reimbursed in Belgium since December 2021., Methods: A Markov microsimulation model was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of romosozumab-to-alendronate compared to alendronate monotherapy and to teriparatide-to-alendronate over a lifetime horizon. Patients transition between five different health states every 6 months based on fracture risks or death. The model was populated with Belgium-specific epidemiological and cost data, where available. The fracture risk reduction of romosozumab treatment was collated from the ARCH study, and from a published network meta-analysis. Costs were included from a healthcare perspective (NIHDI). Cost-effectiveness was reported in terms of costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY), reported in Euro (€) 2022. Deterministic (DSA) and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were performed., Results: Romosozumab-to-alendronate was associated with 0.12 additional QALYs at an additional cost of €2314 compared to alendronate monotherapy, resulting in an ICER of €19,978. Compared to teriparatide-to-alendronate, romosozumab-to-alendronate was found to be dominant, with higher QALYs and lower costs. The base-case results were robust to uncertainty in the input parameters when conducting the sensitivity analysis., Conclusion: Sequential treatment with romosozumab followed by alendronate was found to be cost-effective compared to alendronate monotherapy and dominant compared to teriparatide followed by alendronate for postmenopausal women with osteoporosis at high risk of fracture in Belgium., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background and Objectives: Fremanezumab is an effective treatment for episodic (EM) and chronic migraine (CM) patients in Japan, but its cost effectiveness remains unknown. The objective of this study was to determine the cost effectiveness of fremanezumab compared with standard of care (SOC) in previously treated EM and CM patients from a Japanese healthcare perspective., Methods: Estimated regression models were implemented in a probabilistic Markov model to inform effectiveness and health-related quality-of-life data for fremanezumab and SOC. The model was further populated with data from the literature. The adjusted Japanese healthcare perspective included productivity losses. The main model outcomes were quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs (2022 Japanese Yen [¥]), and incremental outcomes including the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Analyses were performed separately for the EM and CM patients and combined. Costs and effects were discounted at an annual rate of 2.0%., Results: The mean QALYs over a 25-year time horizon for the EM and CM populations combined were 13.03 for SOC and 13.15 for fremanezumab. The associated costs were ¥27,550,292 for SOC and ¥28,371,048 for fremanezumab. QALYs were higher and costs lower for EM patients compared with CM patients for both fremanezumab and SOC. The deterministic ICERs of fremanezumab versus SOC were ¥6,334,861 for EM, ¥7,393,824 for CM, and ¥6,530,398 for EM and CM combined. Indirect costs and choice of mean migraine days model distribution had a substantial impact on the ICER., Conclusion: Using fremanezumab in a heterogeneous mixture of Japanese EM and CM patients resulted in a reduction of monthly migraine days and thus more QALYs compared with SOC. The cost effectiveness of fremanezumab versus SOC in EM and CM patients resulted in an ICER of ¥6,530,398, from an adjusted Japanese public healthcare perspective., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Tralokinumab is the first selective interleukin 13 inhibitor approved for moderate to severe atopic dermatitis. This article reports the findings of a comprehensive literature review and extensive economic analysis to assess tralokinumab's safety, effectiveness, and cost. Evidence synthesis involved evaluating comparative effectiveness and conducting economic sensitivity analyses. This review was prepared by the University of Connecticut School of Pharmacy Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy (AMCP) Student Chapter. The student author group won the AMCP National Pharmacy and Therapeutics competition for their tralokinumab product review in March 2023.

Background: Chronic migraine (CM) is the most severe and burdensome subtype of migraine. Fremanezumab is a monoclonal antibody that targets the calcitonin gene-related peptide pathway as a migraine preventive therapy. This study aimed to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis of fremanezumab from a societal perspective in the Netherlands, using a Markov cohort simulation model., Methods: The base-case cost-effectiveness analysis adhered to the Netherlands Authority guidelines. Fremanezumab was compared with best supportive care (BSC; acute migraine treatment only) in patients with CM and an inadequate response to topiramate or valproate and onabotulinumtoxinA (Dutch patient group [DPG]). A supportive analysis was conducted in the broader group of CM patients with prior inadequate response to 2-4 different classes of migraine preventive treatments. One-way sensitivity, probabilistic sensitivity, and scenario analyses were conducted., Results: Over a lifetime horizon, fremanezumab is cost saving compared with BSC in the DPG (saving of €2514 per patient) and led to an increase of 1.45 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). In the broader supportive analysis, fremanezumab was cost effective compared with BSC, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €2547/QALY gained. Fremanezumab remained cost effective in all sensitivity and scenario analyses., Conclusion: In comparison to BSC, fremanezumab is cost saving in the DPG and cost effective in the broader population., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: While biologic drugs have demonstrated efficacy across a range of indications, patient access to these drugs is constrained due to their high cost. Biosimilars provide a means to increase patient access while reducing the financial burden., Aims: The primary objective was to determine the current usage of biosimilar and reference trastuzumab and rituximab in four Irish hospitals. A secondary objective involved determining barriers to biosimilar usage., Methods: This project involved a retrospective chart review to analyse the usage of reference and biosimilar versions of trastuzumab and rituximab. Additionally, a prospective cross-sectional study identified barriers to the usage of biosimilars via the distribution of a novel questionnaire to patients, pharmacists, doctors and students., Results: The utilisation of biosimilar intravenous trastuzumab and rituximab ranged from 39 to 100%, and 0 to 89%, respectively. A total of n = 479 questionnaire responses were included. Biosimilar awareness was significantly lower among 'Doctors and Medical Students' (45.3%; 95% [CI, 33.8-57.3%]) compared to 'Pharmacists and Pharmacy Students' (97.1%; 95% [CI, 94-98.8%; comparison p < 0.001]). A significant majority of healthcare professionals agreed biosimilars should have consistent nomenclature (p < 0.001). A significant majority of patients (87.3%, 95% [CI, 81.3-92%; p < 0.001]) indicated that they would agree to commence using a biosimilar medicine., Conclusion: Biosimilar versions of trastuzumab and rituximab were in use to a variable extent. There remains a considerable opportunity to further increase the usage to maximise their potential benefits. A series of challenges were identified including reduced awareness among the medical profession and lack of clear nomenclature., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Royal Academy of Medicine in Ireland.)

Importance: Standard of care for unresectable locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) involves definitive chemoradiotherapy followed by maintenance therapy with durvalumab. However, the cost of durvalumab has been cited as a barrier to its use in various health systems., Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of durvalumab vs placebo as maintenance therapy in patients with unresectable stage III NSCLC from 4 international payer perspectives (US, Brazil, Singapore, and Spain)., Design, Setting, and Participants: In this economic evaluation, a Markov model was designed to compare the lifetime cost-effectiveness of maintenance durvalumab for unresectable stage III NSCLC with that of placebo, using 5-year outcomes data from the PACIFIC randomized placebo-controlled trial. Individual patient data were extracted from the PACIFIC, KEYNOTE-189, ADAURA, ALEX, and REVEL randomized clinical trials to develop a decision-analytic model to determine the cost-effectiveness of durvalumab compared with placebo maintenance therapy over a 10-year time horizon. Direct costs, adverse events, and patient characteristics were based on country-specific payer perspectives and demographic characteristics. The study was conducted from June 1, 2022, through December 27, 2023., Main Outcomes and Measures: Life-years, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), lifetime costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated at country-specific willingness-to-pay thresholds ([data reported in US$] US: $150 000 per QALY; Brazil: $22 251 per QALY; Singapore: $55 288 per QALY, and Spain: $107 069 per QALY). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to account for parameters of uncertainty. A cost-threshold analysis was also performed., Results: The US base-case model found that treatment with durvalumab was associated with an increased cost of $114 394 and improved effectiveness of 0.50 QALYs compared with placebo, leading to an ICER of $228 788 per QALY. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, according to base-case models, were $141 146 for Brazil, $153 461 for Singapore, and $125 193 for Spain. Durvalumab price adjustments to the PACIFIC data improved cost-effectiveness in Singapore, with an ICER of $45 164. The model was most sensitive to the utility of durvalumab., Conclusions and Relevance: In this cost-effectiveness analysis of durvalumab as maintenance therapy for unresectable stage III NSCLC, the therapy was found to be cost-prohibitive from the perspective of various international payers according to country-specific willingness-to-pay thresholds per QALY. The findings of the study suggest that discounted durvalumab acquisition costs, as possible in Singapore, might improve cost-effectiveness globally.

Background: Monoclonal antibody drugs are widely used, highly marketed, expensive compounds. Relationships between these drug manufacturers and physicians may increase the potential for bias in relevant studies., Objective: The aim of this study is to determine the rate of disclosures among physicians receiving compensations for monoclonal antibody drugs (MAbDs)., Design: This is a retrospective, population-based, cross-sectional study., Participants: The 50 physicians who received the highest financial compensation for selected MAbDs from 2016 to 2020 were included., Main Measures: Payment data were obtained from the Open Payments Database, bibliometric data were obtained from SCOPUS, and disclosure data were obtained from relevant publications found in PubMed. The primary outcome was rate of disclosure concordance between self-declared conflict-of-interest and industry-reported payments documented in the Open Payments Database., Key Results: Of the 50 physicians examined, 74% (N = 37) had publications examined. A cumulative 6170 payments totaling $18,484,228 were analyzed. A total of 418 relevant papers were reviewed. The rate of full disclosure (all relevant financial relationships disclosed) was 39.5%, partial disclosure (some but not all financial relationships disclosed) was 28.0%, and no disclosure was 26.3%. 6.2% did not require disclosure. Publications authored by dermatologists had the highest rate of full disclosure at 49.3%. There was no association between h-index and disclosure rate. Practice guidelines had the highest rate of full disclosure at 69.2% while basic science papers had the lowest (0%). Lastly, substantial variations in specific journal disclosure policies were found., Conclusions: Substantial inconsistencies were found between self-reported disclosures and the Open Payments Database among physicians receiving high compensation for MAbDs. A policy of full disclosure for all publications should be adopted., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Society of General Internal Medicine.)

Introduction: Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) remains a global health challenge. Bezlotoxumab (BEZ) is a monoclonal antibody against C. difficile toxin B. Two randomized controlled trials (RCTs), MODIFY I and II, confirmed BEZ efficacy in preventing recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection (rCDI). However, there are safety concerns about its use in patients with a history of congestive heart failure. Observational studies have since been conducted, and it is important to explore the consistency of BEZ efficacy, cost-effectiveness, and its safety utilizing these real-world data., Methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to pool the rate of rCDI in patients receiving BEZ and explore its efficacy and safety in preventing rCDI compared with control. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar from inception through April 2023 for relevant RCTs or observational studies assessing BEZ in preventing rCDI. Single-arm studies describing experience with BEZ in preventing rCDI were also included for proportion meta-analysis. A proportion meta-analysis with a random-effects model was used to pool the rCDI rate with its corresponding 95% CI. In a meta-analysis of efficacy, we generated the relative risk (RR) to compare BEZ versus control in preventing rCDI., Results: Thirteen studies including 2 RCTs and 11 observational studies totaling 2337 patients, of which 1472 received BEZ, were included in the analysis. Of the constituent studies, 5 (1734 patients) compared BEZ versus standard-of-care (SOC). Pooled rate of rCDI in patients receiving BEZ was 15.8% (95% CI: 14%-17.8%), and was 28.9% (95% CI: 24%-34.4%) in the SOC. BEZ significantly reduced rCDI risk compared with SOC [RR=0.57 (95% CI: 0.45-0.72, I2 =16%)]. There was no difference in the overall mortality or heart failure risk. Of the 9 included cost-effectiveness analyses, 8 demonstrated BEZ+SOC cost-effectiveness compared with SOC alone., Discussion: Our meta-analysis comprising real-world data revealed lower rCDI in patients receiving BEZ and supported its efficacy and safety when added to SOC therapy. The results were consistent across various subgroups. Available cost-effectiveness analyses mostly support BEZ+SOC cost-effectiveness compared with SOC alone., Competing Interests: C.R.K. was a site investigator for clinical trials of SER109 (Seres Health) and CP101 (Finch Therapeutics). She also has consulted for Sebela Pharmaceuticals. Otherwise, the authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of significant commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. The remaining authors declare that they have nothing to disclose., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aims: Evaluate existing oncology value frameworks in terms of their methodology, structure, characteristics, and functionality using the example of enfortumab vedotin, an approved therapy for urothelial carcinoma., Methods: A search of PubMed, grey literature, and official websites of relevant international organizations was performed from January 2022 to March 2023., Results: Six frameworks were identified and analyzed, including the American Society of Clinical Oncology's assessment framework, European Society for Medical Oncology's Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network's Evidence Blocks, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center's DrugAbacus, Institute for Clinical and Economic Review's assessment framework, and the Drug Assessment Framework. Comparisons across frameworks were challenging, owing to differing approaches, objectives, perspectives, methodology, and criteria. Based on the results of the EV-301 study (NCT03474107), the European Society for Medical Oncology's Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale assigned a score of 4 out of 5 to enfortumab vedotin administered after chemotherapy and immunotherapy. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network's Evidence Blocks enabled assessment of enfortumab vedotin compared with other treatments for locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, resulting in the positioning of enfortumab vedotin as a preferred regimen after chemotherapy and immunotherapy., Conclusions: Application of value frameworks in oncology can contribute to informed value-based decision-making. However, comparisons across frameworks should be made with caution and limited to the same lines of treatment. Enfortumab vedotin may contribute to optimizing outcomes in patients previously treated with chemotherapy and immunotherapy for locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma.

Aim: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of zolbetuximab plus capecitabine/oxaliplatin (CAPOX) in CLDN18.2-positive, HER2- negative, mG/GEJ adenocarcinoma from the perspective of Chinese payers. Materials & methods: A partitioned survival model was developed to assess the costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) of zolbetuximab plus CAPOX versus placebo plus CAPOX. Sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of model. Results: Zolbetuximab plus CAPOX gained an additional cost of $91,551 and an extra health benefit of 0.24 QALY over placebo plus CAPOX, producing an ICER of $388,186/QALY, which exceeded the willingness-to-pay threshold of $38,223/QALY. Sensitivity analysis shows that the model was generally robust. Conclusion: Zolbetuximab plus CAPOX would not be a cost-effective first-line treatment regimen in CLDN18.2-positive, HER2 -negative, mG/GEJ adenocarcinoma in China.

Background: Atopic dermatitis is a chronic relapsing inflammatory skin condition. One of the most common skin disorders in children, atopic dermatitis typically manifests before the age of 5 years, but it can develop at any age. Atopic dermatitis is characterised by dry, inflamed skin accompanied by intense itchiness (pruritus)., Objectives: To appraise the clinical and cost effectiveness of abrocitinib, tralokinumab and upadacitinib within their marketing authorisations as alternative therapies for treating moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis compared to systemic immunosuppressants (first-line ciclosporin A or second-line dupilumab and baricitinib)., Data Sources: Studies were identified from an existing systematic review (search date 2019) and update searches of electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL) to November 2021, from bibliographies of retrieved studies, clinical trial registers and evidence provided by the sponsoring companies of the treatments under review., Methods: A systematic review of the clinical effectiveness literature was carried out and a network meta-analysis undertaken for adults and adolescents at different steps of the treatment pathway. The primary outcome of interest was a combined response of Eczema Area and Severity Index 50 + Dermatology Life Quality Index ≥ 4; where this was consistently unavailable for a step in the pathway, an analysis of Eczema Area and Severity Index 75 was conducted. A de novo economic model was developed to assess cost effectiveness from the perspective of the National Health Service in England. The model structure was informed through systematic review of the economic literature and by consulting clinical experts. Effectiveness data were obtained from the network meta-analysis. Costs and utilities were obtained from the evidence provided by sponsoring companies and standard UK sources., Results: Network meta-analyses indicate that abrocitinib 200 mg and upadacitinib 30 mg may be more effective, and tralokinumab may be less effective than dupilumab and baricitinib as second-line systemic therapies. Abrocitinib 100 mg and upadacitinib 15 mg have a more similar effectiveness to dupilumab. Upadacitinib 30 and 15 mg are likely to be more effective than ciclosporin A as a first-line therapy. Upadacitinib 15 mg, abrocitinib 200 and 100 mg may be more effective than dupilumab in adolescents. The cost effectiveness of abrocitinib and upadacitinib for both doses is dependent on the subgroup of interest. Tralokinumab can be considered cost-effective as a second-line systemic therapy owing to greater cost savings per quality-adjusted life-year lost., Conclusions: The primary strength of the analysis of the three new drugs compared with current practice for each of the subpopulations is the consistent approach to the assessment of clinical and cost effectiveness. However, the conclusions are limited by the high uncertainty around the clinical effectiveness and lack of data for the primary outcome for comparisons with baricitinib and for the adolescent and adult first-line populations., Future Work and Limitations: The most significant limitation that Eczema Area and Severity Index 50 + Dermatology Life Quality Index ≥ 4 could not be obtained for the adolescent and adult first-line systemic treatment populations is due to a paucity of data for dupilumab and ciclosporin A. A comparison of the new drugs against one another in addition to current practice would be beneficial to provide a robust view on which treatments are the most cost-effective., Study Registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42021266219., Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Evidence Synthesis programme (NIHR award ref: 135138) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment ; Vol. 28, No. 4. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Background: New prevention strategies for respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) are emerging, but it is unclear if they will be cost-effective in low- and middle-income countries. We evaluated the potential impact and cost-effectiveness of two strategies to prevent RSV disease in young children in Vietnam., Methods: We used a static cohort model with a finely disaggregated age structure (weeks of age <5 years) to calculate the RSV disease burden in Vietnam, with and without a single dose of maternal vaccine (RSVpreF, Pfizer) or of monoclonal antibody (Nirsevimab, Sanofi, Astra Zeneca). Each strategy was compared to no pharmaceutical intervention, and to each other. We assumed both strategies would be administered year round over a ten-year period. The primary outcome measure was the cost per disability-adjusted life year (DALY) averted, from a societal perspective. We ran probabilistic and deterministic uncertainty analyses., Results: With central input assumptions for RSVpreF vaccine ($25/dose, 69 % efficacy, 6 months protection) and Nirsevimab ($25/dose, 77 % efficacy, 5 months protection), both options had similar cost-effectiveness ($3442 versus $3367 per DALY averted) when compared separately to no pharmaceutical intervention. RSVpreF vaccine had a lower net cost than Nirsevimab (net discounted cost of $213 m versus $264 m) but prevented fewer RSV deaths (24 % versus 31 %). Our results were very sensitive to assumptions about the dose price, efficacy, and duration of protection. At $5/dose and a willingness-to-pay threshold of 0.5 times the national GDP per capita, both prevention strategies have the potential to be cost-effective., Conclusions: RSVpreF vaccine and Nirsevimab may be cost-effective in Vietnam if appropriately priced., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Lien Anh Ha Do reports financial support was provided by Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Prof. Kim Mulholland is currently member of WHO SAGE, he was a member of DSMB for Novavax COVID-19 vaccine without payment., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The aim of this study is to assess the budget impact of daratumumab for light-chain amyloidosis in Cyprus., Methods: A budget impact model assessed the cost prior and after the introduction of daratumumab for light-chain amyloidosis. All related costs were set from the perspective of Cyprus NHS. Clinical data were extracted from the published trials. One-way sensitivity analysis was conducted. We reported incremental budget impact, per member per month, per year, and per treated member per month., Results: The introduction of D-VCd led to a net budget impact of €254,264 in the first year, which escalated to €497,007 by fifth year. The PMPY was estimated at €0.2893 in the first year, reaching €0.5246 at fifth year, the PMPM were at €0.0241 at the first year escalating to €0.0437 at the fifth year, and the PTMPM costs were €2,379 at the first year and gauged to €4,435 by fifth year. Our results were sensitive to incidence of the disease, percentage of patients without cardiac involvement and daratumumab cost., Conclusions: The introduction of daratumumab for AL amyloidosis, with a 90% annual uptake over 5 years, leads to a substantial budget impact. Managed entry agreement schemes can be considered in order to mitigate the impact.

Migraine is a neurological disease with a high frequency of incidence. The new monoclonal antibodies anti the calcitonin gene-related peptide ligand (anti-Cgrp mAbs) have demonstrated a good effectiveness in the prevention of migraine. This review was carried out with the aim of collecting evidence of anti-Cgrp mAbs efficacy assessing the cost-effectiveness between these medicines distributed in the Italian market. The literature review was performed on the PubMed database; the cost of the unitary dose of anti-Cgrp mAbs has been extracted consulting two Italian national databases. Our study confirms efficacy and good tolerability of anti-Cgrp mAbs, determining a difference in the purchase price. With equal efficacy and safety, anti-Cgrp mAbs should be prescribed also regard to the cost established at the negotiation, making sure to guarantee the best treatment to the patients, but at the same time impacting as little as possible to the national healthcare service resources. Therefore, Ssn pharmacist's role can be crucial to the proper management of pharmaceutical expenditure governance in support of treatment effectiveness and economic sustainability.

Introduction: Results from the CASPIAN trial (Durvalumab ± Tremelimumab in Combination With Platinum Based Chemotherapy in Untreated Extensive-Stage Small Cell Lung Cancer) trial demonstrated the clinical benefit of durvalumab plus etoposide-platinum (EP) chemotherapy as first-line treatment for patients with extensive stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). However, considering the high price of durvalumab, it is unclear whether addition of durvalumab to EP chemotherapy has economic value compared with EP alone. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of durvalumab plus EP chemotherapy as a first-line treatment for patients with ES-SCLC., Methods: A Markov model comprising three health states (stable, progressive, and dead) was developed to simulate the process of small-cell lung cancer. Utility and costs were obtained from published resources. Health outcomes were derived from the CASPIAN trial. Costs were calculated based on the standard medical fees in Zhejiang Province from Chinese patients' perspective. Utility values were obtained from published data. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were applied to verify model robustness., Results: The addition of durvalumab to EP chemotherapy costs more than $32,220, with a gain of 0.14 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) compared with EP alone. The incremental cost-effective ratio was $230,142.9 per QALY, which exceeds the willingness to pay threshold of $28,527 per QALY. In the sensitivity analysis, the utility values for the progressive state, costs of durvalumab and EP chemotherapy, and costs for the progressive state were considered to be the three most sensitive factors in the model., Conclusion: The addition of durvalumab to EP chemotherapy is not a cost-effective strategy in the first-line therapy of ES-SCLC from the Chinese payers' perspective.

DISCLOSURES: No funding contributed to the writing of this commentary. Smith Begolka, Butler, and Guadalupe are salaried employees of the National Eczema Association, which has received grants and sponsorship awards from a variety of industry partners, including AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Incyte, LEO Pharma, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi. Smith Begolka has received grant funding from Pfizer and advisory board honoraria from Pfizer and Incyte. Butler and Guadalupe have received advisory board honoraria from Incyte.

Objectives: Durvalumab plus chemotherapy could significantly improve overall survival compared with chemotherapy alone in the first-line treatment of extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). However, its long-term economic outcomes remain unclear yet. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of adding durvalumab to first-line chemotherapy for extensive-stage SCLC from the perspective of the Chinese health-care system., Methods: A decision-analytic model with 10-year horizon was developed to estimate the health and economic outcomes of adding durvalumab to first-line treatment for extensive-stage SCLC. The primary outcomes included total costs, life years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Costs and utility values were obtained from the published literature. A scenario analysis for a patient assistance program (PAP) was conducted. Sensitivity analyses were performed to explore the robustness of the model outcomes., Results: Durvalumab plus chemotherapy yielded additional 0.25 QALYs, with incremental costs of 76,354 USD, resulting in an ICER of 302,051 USD/QALY compared with chemotherapy alone, when PAP was available, the ICER was 192,591 USD/QALY. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of model outcomes., Conclusion: Adding durvalumab to first-line chemotherapy for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer is unlikely to be cost-effectiveness in China.

DISCLOSURES: Funding for this summary was contributed by Arnold Ventures, The Donaghue Foundation, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, and Kaiser Foundation Health Plan to the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), an independent organization that evaluates the evidence on the value of health care interventions. ICER's annual policy summit is supported by dues from AbbVie, America's Health Insurance Plans, Anthem, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Blue Shield of CA, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Cambia Health Services, CVS, Editas, Evolve Pharmacy, Express Scripts, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Harvard Pilgrim, Health Care Service Corporation, HealthFirst, Health Partners, Humana, Johnson & Johnson (Janssen), Kaiser Permanente, LEO Pharma, Mallinckrodt, Merck, Novartis, National Pharmaceutical Council, Pfizer, Premera, Prime Therapeutics, Regeneron, Sanofi, Sun Life Financial, uniQure, and United Healthcare. Agboola, Herron-Smith, Nhan, Rind, and Pearson are employed by ICER. Through their affiliated institutions, Atlas, Brouwer, Carlson, and Hansen received funding from ICER for the work described in this summary.

Background: The introduction of daratumumab into the treatment of multiple myeloma has improved outcomes in patients; however, community oncologists often dose more frequently than the US FDA-approved label. Materials and methods: Integra analyzed its database to elucidate daratumumab treatment patterns and the impact of increased utilization on the cost of care for multiple myeloma. Results: Following week 24, 671 (65%) of 1037 patients remained on daratumumab-containing regimens, with 330 patients continuing more frequent treatments than the expected once-every-4-weeks dosing described in the standard dosing schedule. Patients received an average of 14% more daratumumab doses than the FDA-approved label indicates, increasing the 1-year daratumumab costs by an estimated US$31,353. Conclusion:  Daratumumab is utilized more frequently than the FDA-recommended dosing, leading to higher multiple myeloma treatment costs.

BACKGROUND: Multiple myeloma survival rates are steadily increasing due to availability of new drug classes used in combination with corticosteroids and chemotherapy. The latest treatments are daratumumab or bortezomib in combination therapy with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd). Daratumumab, a CD38-targeted, human IgG1k monoclonal antibody, and bortezomib, a proteasome inhibitor, are both approved as regimens for transplant-ineligible relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). There have been cost-effectiveness analyses for daratumumab and bortezomib use in RRMM, but there are limited data regarding cost-effectiveness for daratumumab or bortezomib use in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients who are ineligible for stem cell transplantation. OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost-effectiveness of 3 separate regimens-(1) daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone triple therapy (DRd); (2) bortezomib and lenalidomide plus dexamethasone triple therapy (VRd); and (3) lenalidomide plus dexamethasone (Rd)-in patients with multiple myeloma ineligible for autologous stem cell transplant. METHODS: A 2-state Markov model was developed using a US health system perspective and lifetime time horizon. Transition probabilities were calculated from the latest progression-free survival data reported in two phase 3 randomized controlled trials-MAIA and SWOG S0777-and extrapolated using a Weibull distribution based on the Hoyle Henley method. National data sources were used to obtain costs in 2019 US dollars, discounted by 3%. Health state utilities from available literature were applied to each health state. Utility decrements for adverse events were individualized in each choice branch with utility decrement weighted by the percentage of patients who experienced the adverse event in the MAIA and SWOG S0777 trials. We assumed a treatment would be cost-effective at a willingness to pay (WTP) of $150,000 per progression-free quality-adjusted life-year ($/PFQALY). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Rd standard therapy had the lowest overall cost at $329,867, followed by VRd at $385,434 and DRd with the highest overall total cost at $626,900. Rd was estimated to result in the least amount (1.24) of PFQALYs, followed by VRd at 1.35 PFQALYs and DRd at 1.52 PFQALYs. With a WTP threshold of $150,000 per PFQALY, VRd was not cost-effective compared with Rd standard therapy, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $530,256 per PFQALY. DRd was not cost-effective compared with VRd (ICER = $1,396,318 per PFQALY), nor as compared with Rd standard therapy (ICER = $1060,832). One-way sensitivity analysis showed that our model was sensitive to cost of DRd, VRd, and Rd drugs. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that only at a WTP threshold of $550,000 was VRd cost-effective for 40% of iterations. There were no reasonable WTP thresholds, up to $800,00, where DRd became more cost-effective than VRd. CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first analysis to directly compare the cost-effectiveness of 3 acceptable chemotherapy treatment regimens for patients with multiple myeloma ineligible for autologous stem cell transplant. Neither DRd nor VRd triple therapy were found to be cost-effective vs Rd. Further cost-effectiveness analyses that include overall survival data for daratumumab and bortezomib triple therapies are needed to demonstrate an ICER in QALYs. DISCLOSURES : No funding was received for this study. At the time of this study, Narsipur was a UCSF-Actelion Clinical Research and Medical Communications Fellow, unrelated to this study. The other authors have nothing to disclose.

BACKGROUND: Most cutaneous squamous cell carcinomas (CSCCs) can be treated with surgical excision or radiation; however, approximately 1% of patients develop advanced disease. In 2018, the FDA approved cemiplimab-rwlc as the first programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) monoclonal antibody for the treatment of patients with metastatic CSCC or locally advanced CSCC who are not candidates for curative surgery or curative radiation. In June 2020, pembrolizumab, another PD-1 monoclonal antibody, was approved for the treatment of patients with recurrent or metastatic CSCC who are not candidates for curative surgery or radiation. We previously reported on the cost-effectiveness of cemiplimab vs historical standard of care for the treatment of advanced CSCC from a US perspective. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of cemiplimab vs pembrolizumab for patients with advanced CSCC in the United States. METHODS: A "partitioned survival" framework was used to assess the cost-effectiveness of cemiplimab vs pembrolizumab. Clinical inputs were based on the most recent data cut of the phase 2 trials for cemiplimab (EMPOWER-CSCC-1; NCT02760498) and pembrolizumab (KEYNOTE-629). Progression-free survival and overall survival were extrapolated using parametric models until all patients had progressed or died. Health state utilities were derived from data collected in the EMPOWER-CSCC-1 trial. Costs included drug acquisition, drug administration, disease management, terminal care, and adverse events and were based on published 2020 US list prices. To assess model uncertainty, 1-way sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were conducted, alongside scenario analyses evaluating key modeling assumptions. RESULTS: In the base case, cemiplimab resulted in an incremental gain of 3.44 life-years (discounted) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $130,329 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) vs pembrolizumab. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000/QALY, PSA indicated a 71% probability that cemiplimab is cost-effective when compared with pembrolizumab. Scenario analysis resulted in ICERs ranging from $115,909 to $187,374. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that cemiplimab is a cost-effective treatment for patients with advanced CSCC, compared with pembrolizumab. These results should be interpreted cautiously in the absence of head-to-head trials; however, in the absence of such data, these results can be used to inform health care decisions over resource allocation. DISCLOSURES: This study was supported by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Sanofi. Paul, Cope, Keeping, Mojebi, and Ayers are employees of PRECISIONheor, which received funding to produce this work. Chen, Kuznik, and Xu are employees and stockholders of Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Sasane is an employee and stockholder of Sanofi, Inc. Konidaris, Atsou, and Guyot are employees of Sanofi, Inc. The authors were responsible for all content and editorial decisions and received no honoraria related to the development of this publication.

Background: Spending on drugs provided by the Brazilian Public Health System (BPHS) for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) increased substantially with the beginning of the supply of biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARD). This study aims to perform a cost-utility analysis of the most used biological drugs for the treatment of RA in Brazil., Methods: a Markov model was used to carry out the cost-utility analysis. The data were obtained from a prospective cohort of RA patients using adalimumab, etanercept, and golimumab in Brazil. The BPHS perspective was adopted and the time horizon was five years. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the uncertainty., Results: golimumab was the most cost-effective drug. Etanercept was dominated by golimumab. Adalimumab presented an incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) of $95,095.37 compared to golimumab in five years of follow-up. These results were confirmed by sensitivity analyses., Conclusion: the utility among adalimumab, etanercept, and golimumab was similar and the cost was the component that most impacted the economic model. Therefore, depending on the agreed price with the drug manufacturers, the incremental cost-utility ratio may vary among them.

Objectives: Treatment of Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) has undergone significant change in recent years with the introduction of fidaxomicin and bezlotoxumab. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of fidaxomicin and bezlotoxumab for initial CDI compared with standard therapy with oral vancomycin., Methods: A Markov model with eight health states was built based on transition probabilities, costs and health utilities derived from literature to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of standard fidaxomicin, bezlotoxumab plus vancomycin, and extended-pulsed fidaxomicin versus standard oral vancomycin over a lifetime horizon from the US societal perspective., Results: For overall CDI treatment, oral vancomycin had a cost of $39 178 and was associated with a gain of 11.64 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Extended-pulsed fidaxomicin had a higher QALY gain of 11.65 at a lower cost of $37 613, and therefore was dominant over vancomycin. Standard fidaxomicin had a QALY gain of 11.94 versus vancomycin at an incremental cost of $495 per QALY. Bezlotoxumab plus vancomycin led to a QALY gain of 11.77 at an incremental cost of $17 746 per QALY. At the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150 000 per QALY, extended-pulsed fidaxomicin, bezlotoxumab plus vancomycin and standard fidaxomicin were more cost-effective compared with vancomycin alone, yielding incremental net monetary benefits of $3248, $17 011 and $44 308, respectively. One-way sensitivity analysis suggested that the probabilities of sustained cure from the initial episode were the most sensitive inputs, and results were overall not particularly sensitive to any drug costs., Conclusions: Based on a WTP threshold of $150 000, standard fidaxomicin was estimated to be the most cost-effective treatment. Standard-of-care vancomycin was dominated by extended-pulsed fidaxomicin for treating an episode of CDI and preventing further recurrence, and the addition of bezlotoxumab to vancomycin was dominated by standard fidaxomicin., (Copyright © 2021 European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases. All rights reserved.)

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in a substantial global public healthcare crisis, leading to the urgent need for effective therapeutic strategies. Neutralizing antibodies (nAbs) are a potential treatment for COVID-19. This article provides a brief overview of the targets and development of nAbs against COVID-19, and it examines the efficacy of nAbs as part of both outpatient and inpatient treatments based on emerging clinical trial data. Assessment of several promising candidates in clinical trials highlights the potential of nAbs to be an effective therapeutic to treat COVID-19 in outpatient settings. Nevertheless, the efficacy of nAbs treatment for hospitalized patients varies. In addition, this review identifies challenges to ending the COVID-19 pandemic, including concerns over nAbs development and clinical use. Resistant variants significantly threaten the availability of nAb-based therapeutics. This review also discusses other approaches that may improve the clinical benefit of neutralizing mAbs.

Introduction: Biological medicines have increased the cost of cancer treatments, which also raises concerns about sustainability. In Brazil, three monoclonal antibodies (mAbs)-bevacizumab, cetuximab, and panitumumab-are indicated for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) but not currently funded by the Unified Health System (SUS). However, successful litigation has led to funding in some cases., Objective: Our objective was to evaluate the budgetary impact of including the mAbs bevacizumab, cetuximab, and panitumumab in standard chemotherapy for the treatment of mCRC within the SUS of Minas Gerais (MG), Brazil., Method: A budget impact analysis of incorporating mAbs as first-line treatment of mCRC in MG was explored. The perspective taken was that of the Brazilian SUS, and a 5-year time horizon was applied. Data were collected from lawsuits undertaken between January 2009 and December 2016, and the model was populated with data from national databases and published sources. Costs are expressed in $US., Results: In total, 351 lawsuits resulted in funding for first-line treatment with mAbs for mCRC. The three alternative scenarios analyzed resulted in cost increases of 348-395% compared with the reference scenario. The use of panitumumab had a budgetary impact of $US103,360,980 compared with the reference scenario over a 5-year time horizon, and bevacizumab and cetuximab had budgetary impacts of $US111,334,890 and 113,772,870, respectively. The use of the anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mAbs (cetuximab and panitumumab) is restricted to the approximately 41% of patients with KRAS mutations, so the best cost alternative for incorporation would be the combination of panitumumab and bevacizumab, with a cost of approximately $US106 million., Conclusion: These results highlight the appreciable costs for incorporating bevacizumab, cetuximab, and panitumumab into the SUS. Appreciable discounts are likely to be necessary before incorporation of these mAbs is approved., (© 2021. Springer Nature Switzerland AG.)

Background and Aims: Anti-tumour necrosis factor alpha [anti-TNF] treatment accounts for 31% of health care expenditures associated with ulcerative colitis [UC]. Withdrawal of anti-TNF in patients with UC in remission may decrease side effects and infections, while promoting cost containment. Approximately 36% of patients relapse within 12-24 months of anti-TNF withdrawal, but reintroduction of treatment is successful in 80% of patients. We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of continuation versus withdrawal of anti-TNF in patients with UC in remission., Methods: We developed a Markov model comparing cost-effectiveness of anti-TNF continuation versus withdrawal, from a health care provider perspective. Transition probabilities were calculated from literature, or estimated by an expert panel of 11 gastroenterologists. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to account for assumptions and uncertainty. The cost-effectiveness threshold was set at an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €80,000 per quality-adjusted life-year [QALY]., Results: At 5 years, anti-TNF withdrawal was less costly [-€10,781 per patient], but also slightly less effective [-0.04 QALY per patient] than continued treatment. Continuation of anti-TNF compared with withdrawal costs €300,390/QALY, exceeding the cost-effectiveness threshold. Continued therapy would become cost-effective if the relapse rate following anti-TNF withdrawal was ≥43% higher, or if adalimumab or infliximab [biosimilar] prices fell below €87/40 mg and €66/100 mg, respectively., Conclusions: Continuation of anti-TNF in UC patients in remission is not cost-effective compared with withdrawal. A stop-and-reintroduction strategy is cost-saving but is slightly less effective than continued therapy. This strategy could be improved by identifying patients at increased risk of relapse., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Objective : To compare the cost of adverse events (AEs) associated with preventive treatment of migraine with fremanezumab, versus erenumab, galcanezumab, and onabotulinumtoxinA. Methods : A probabilistic modeling analysis was performed, using second-order Monte Carlo simulations, with 1,000 simulations, in patients with at least 4 days of migraine per month, from the perspective of the National Health System and a time horizon of 12 weeks. The frequency of AEs described in the clinical trials was analyzed with 12 weeks of treatment. Unit costs (€) of management of AEs were obtained from public health prices, expert panels, and published Spanish studies. Results : Fremanezumab would generate average savings of -€469 (95% CI -€303; -€674) versus erenumab, -€268 (95% CI -€171; -€391) versus galcanezumab, -€1,100 (95% CI -€704; -€1,608) or -€1,295 (95% CI -€835; -€1,893) versus onabotulinumtoxinA using real-life or clinical trial data, respectively. Conclusions : The different safety profile of treatment with fremanezumab, compared to erenumab, galcanezumab, and onabotulinumtoxinA, would generate savings in health-care resources in all the scenarios considered.

Background: Whether social determinants of health are associated with survival in the context of pediatric oncology-targeted immunotherapy trials is not known. We examined the association between poverty and event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) for children with high-risk neuroblastoma treated in targeted immunotherapy trials., Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 371 children with high-risk neuroblastoma treated with GD2-targeted immunotherapy in the Children's Oncology Group trial ANBL0032 or ANBL0931 at a Pediatric Health Information System center from 2005 to 2014. Neighborhood poverty exposure was characterized a priori as living in a zip code with a median household income within the lowest quartile for the cohort. Household poverty exposure was characterized a priori as sole coverage by public insurance. Post hoc analyses examined the joint effect of neighborhood and household poverty using a common reference. All statistical tests were 2-sided., Results: In multivariable Cox regressions adjusted for disease and treatment factors, household poverty-exposed children experienced statistically significantly inferior EFS (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.90, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.28 to 2.82, P = .001) and OS (HR = 2.79, 95% CI = 1.63 to 4.79, P < .001) compared with unexposed children. Neighborhood poverty was not independently associated with EFS or OS. In post hoc analyses exploring the joint effect of neighborhood and household poverty, children with dual-poverty exposure (neighborhood poverty and household poverty) experienced statistically significantly inferior EFS (HR = 2.21, 95% CI = 1.48 to 3.30, P < .001) and OS (HR = 3.70, 95% CI = 2.08 to 6.59, P < .001) compared with the unexposed group., Conclusions: Poverty is independently associated with increased risk of relapse and death among neuroblastoma patients treated with targeted immunotherapy. Incorporation of social and environmental factors in future trials as health-care delivery intervention targets may increase the benefit of targeted therapies., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Continuous processing offers a promising approach to revolutionize biotherapeutics manufacturing as reflected in recent years. The current study offers a comparative economic assessment of batch and continuous processing for the production of biotherapeutic products. Granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (GCSF), a protein expressed in E. coli, and an IgG1 monoclonal antibody, were chosen as representatives of microbial and mammalian derived products for this assessment. Economic indicators-cost of goods (COGs), net present value (NPV), and payback time have been estimated for the assessment. For the case of GCSF, conversion from batch to integrated continuous manufacturing induced a $COGs/g reduction of 83% and 73% at clinical and commercial scales, respectively. For the case of mAb therapeutic, a 68% and 35% reduction in $COGs/g on translation from batch to continuous process was projected for clinical and commercial scales, respectively. Upstream mAb titer was also found to have a significant impact on the process economics. With increasing mAb titer, the $COG/g decreases in both operating modes. With titer increasing from 2 to 8 g/L, the $COG/g of batch process was reduced by 53%, and that of the continuous process was reduced by 63%. Cost savings in both the cases were attributed to increased productivity, efficient equipment and facility utilization, smaller facility footprint, and reduction in utilization of consumables like resin media and buffers actualized by the continuous processing platform. The current study quantifies the economic benefits associated with continuous processing and highlights its potential in reducing the manufacturing cost of biotherapeutics., (© 2020 American Institute of Chemical Engineers.)