Search

Background: The Dutch Committee for the Evaluation of Oncological Agents (cieBOM) assesses the clinical benefit of systemic anti-cancer treatments (SACTs). For SACTs tested in non-randomized trials (NRTs), cieBOM primarily utilizes response-related thresholds as assessment criteria. As sufficiency of NRT-based evidence for benefit assessments is questionable, this study investigated whether and how NRTs can be used to assess the clinical benefit of new SACTs initially appraised by cieBOM based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Methods: Using the RCTs underpinning cieBOM recommendations issued between 2015 and 2017, we searched for matching NRTs and applied the NRT-related assessment criteria by cieBOM to them. We then compared the assessment outcomes to the respective RCT-based cieBOM recommendations. Further, we investigated how the assessments would change when applying different response-related thresholds and adding a progression-free survival (PFS) threshold. Results: For 13 of the 37 eligible recommendations, a matching NRT was found. Two treatments were assessed positively and six negatively; five treatments were non-assessable. Two positive recommendations matched a positive NRT-based assessment; one matching negative assessment was found, and one treatment could not be assessed based on either trial results. Adding a > 6 months PFS threshold decreased the number of non-assessable NRTs (five to two). Conclusions: Limited publications and inconsistent data reporting hampered the viability of NRTs for clinical benefit assessments of SACTs beyond the scope of rare indications. Further, response-related assessment criteria alone might not fully grasp the clinical benefit of novel SACTs. NRT-based assessments should be considered with caution due to uncertainty of the trial results.

This study gives insight into what intervention-related factors are crucial for using personalized nutrition (PN) interventions, as well as what the general population is willing to pay for PN. This was done by focusing on two different types of PN (i.e., PN advice and personalized meals) in two discrete choice experiments (DCEs). The DCEs were conducted in four European countries and the United States, including at least 500 respondents per country aged 18–65 years. Panel mixed multinomial logit models were used to evaluate the preferences. Results show that for both types of PN in all countries, the total expenditure on nutrition was the most crucial factor when choosing a PN intervention. The participation rate for specific hypothetical scenario's varied but was considered high overall (maximum 81 % for ‘PN advice’ and 87 % for ‘personalized meals’ in Spain). Moreover, highest willingness to pay estimates were found for six kilograms of weight loss. For example, Polish respondents were willing to spend an extra 25.78 euros per week for ‘personalized meals’ for a 4-month period to lose six kilograms. Our models showed preference heterogeneity between, but also within, the different countries. In conclusion, this study showed that people seem willing to pay for and participate in PN interventions. Since PN interventions may improve health outcomes, policymakers should consider subsidizing some of the costs, financially incentivizing PN interventions or introducing commitment lotteries to encourage uptake. More research is needed to study heterogeneity in preferences.

BACKGROUND: Expanding the indication of already approved immuno-oncology drugs presents treatment opportunities for patients but also strains healthcare systems. Cost-based pricing models are discussed as a possibility for cost containment. This study focuses on two drugs, pembrolizumab (Keytruda) and daratumumab (Darzalex), to explore the potential effect of indication broadening on the estimated price when using the cost-based pricing (CBP) model proposed by Uyl-de Groot and Löwenberg (2018). METHODS: The model was used to calculate cumulative yearly prices, cumulative prices per indication, and non-cumulative indication-based prices using inputs such as research and development (R&D) costs, manufacturing costs, eligible patient population, and a profit margin. A deterministic stepwise analysis and scenario analysis were conducted to examine how sensitive the estimated price is to the different input assumptions. RESULTS: The yearly cumulative cost-based prices (CBPs) ranged from €52 to €885 for pembrolizumab per vial and €823 to €31,941 for daratumumab per vial. Prices were higher in initial years or indications due to smaller patient populations, decreased over time or after additional indications. Sensitivity analysis showed that the number of eligible patients had the most significant impact on the estimated price. In the scenario analysis the profit margin contributed most to a higher CBPs for both drugs. Lower estimates resulted from assumed lower R&D costs. DISCUSSION: The estimated CBPs are consistently lower than Dutch list prices for pembrolizumab (€2,861), mainly resulting from larger patient populations in registered indications. However, daratumumab's list prices fall within the range of modeled CBPs depending on the year or indication (€4,766). Both CBPs decrease over time or with additional indications. The number of eligible patients and initial R&D costs have the most significant influence on the CBPs. These findings contribute to t

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to evaluate trends in survival and health care costs in metastatic melanoma in the era of targeted and immunotherapeutic drugs.MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data on survival and health care resource use were retrieved from the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate overall survival. Health care costs and budget impact were computed by applying unit costs to individual patient resource use. All outcomes were stratified by year of diagnosis.RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were balanced across cohort years. The percentage of patients receiving systemic treatment increased from 73% in 2013 to 90% in 2018. Patients received on average 1.85 [standard deviation (SD): 1.14] lines of treatment and 41% of patients received at least two lines of treatment. Median survival increased from 11.8 months in 2013 [95% confidence interval (CI): 10.7-13.7 months] to 21.1 months in 2018 (95% CI: 18.2 months-not reached). Total mean costs were €100 330 (SD: €103 699); systemic treatments accounted for 84% of the total costs. Costs for patients who received systemic treatment [€118 905 (SD: €104 166)] remained reasonably stable over the years even after the introduction of additional (combination of) novel drugs. From mid-2013 to 2018, the total budget impact for all patients was €452.79 million.CONCLUSION: Our study shows a gain in survival in the era of novel targeted and immunotherapeutic drugs. These novel drugs came, however, along with substantial health care costs. Further insights into the cost-effectiveness of the novel drugs are crucial for ensuring value for money in the treatment of patients with metastatic melanoma.

BACKGROUND: The introduction of adjuvant systemic treatment has significantly improved recurrence-free survival in patients with resectable high-risk melanoma. Adjuvant treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapy, however, substantially impacts health care budgets, while the number of patients with melanoma who are treated in the adjuvant setting is still increasing. To evaluate the socioeconomic impact of the three adjuvant treatments, a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) was carried out.MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were obtained from the three pivotal registration phase III clinical trials on the adjuvant treatment of patients with resected high-risk stage III in melanoma (KEYNOTE-054, CheckMate 238, and COMBI-AD). For this CEA, a Markov model with three health states (no evidence of disease, recurrent/progressive disease, and death) was applied. From a societal perspective, different adjuvant strategies were compared according to total costs, life years (LYs), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. To evaluate model uncertainty, sensitivity analyses (deterministic and probabilistic) were carried out.RESULTS: In the adjuvant setting, total costs (per patient) were €168 826 for nivolumab, €194 529 for pembrolizumab, and €211 110 for dabrafenib-trametinib. These costs were mainly determined by drug acquisition costs, whereas routine surveillance costs varied from €126 096 to €134 945. Compared with routine surveillance, LYs improved by approximately 1.41 for all therapies and QALYs improved by 2.02 for immune checkpoint inhibitors and 2.03 for targeted therapy. This resulted in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of €21 153 (nivolumab), €33 878 (pembrolizumab), and €37 520 (dabrafenib-trametinib) per QALY gained.CONCLUSIONS: This CEA compared the three EMA-approved adjuvant systemic therapies for resected stage III melanoma. Adjuvant treatment with nivolumab was the most cost-effec

Background: Persons with multiple sclerosis (MS) take their treatment via pills, injections or infusions. A novel mode of disease-modifying treatment administration, an implantable device, is under development. This study determined MS patient preferences for three modes of first-line treatment administration (implant, pills, injectables), and trade-offs regarding treatment characteristics. Methods: A survey including a discrete choice experiment was conducted among MS patients in the Netherlands, France, and the United Kingdom. Respondents had to repeatedly choose between various treatment scenarios with four treatment characteristics: risk of relapse, reduction of disease progression, risk of side effects and mode of administration. Data was analysed using a panel latent class logit model. Results: Based on the preferences of 753 MS patients (response rate 7%: 753/11202), two latent classes were identified (class probability of 74% vs 26%). Persons with relapsing-remitting MS and who administered medication via injections generally preferred any treatment over no treatment. Patients who could walk without an aid were more likely to prefer no treatment. Reducing disease progression was the most important treatment characteristic class 1. Mode of administration was the most important characteristic in class 2. Patients were willing to accept an increase in risk of relapse and disease progression to get their treatment via an implant rather than injections. Predicted uptake was the highest for the implant, followed by pills, injections, and no treatment. Conclusion: We found that a drug-delivery implant could be a potential addition to the MS treatment landscape: MS patients are willing to trade-off risk of relapse and disease progression for an implant, and predicted uptake for an implant is relatively high.

Background: Considering the multiple treatments approved for multiple sclerosis (MS) by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA), determining a treatment strategy for patients with clinically isolated syndrome (CIS) and relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS) can be challenging. To date, an overview of the needs and preferences of patients at each treatment decision-making moment is lacking. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review is to examine the existing literature about the needs and preferences of patients with CIS and RRMS when making treatment decisions. Methods: A systematic search was done using Embase, Medline, PsychINFO, Web of Science and Google Scholar. Eligibility criteria included whether the article described a study of adults with CIS/RRMS and reported patient needs or preferences regarding first-line disease modifying treatment (DMT) decisions. Publications were categorized by treatment decision: initiation of first DMT (D1), DMT adherence/discontinuation (D2a/D2b), and switch to a second DMT (D3). A separate category was created for stated preference studies such as discrete choice experiment methods to examine the relative importance of different treatment attributes. Publications were compared to identify key factors. Results: The search yielded 2789 articles after removal of duplicates and 434 full-text publications were reviewed for eligibility. Twenty-four articles fulfilled all criteria: n = 5 (D1), n = 12 (D2a), n = 13 (D2b), and n = 3 (D3); six articles studied more than one treatment decision. The need for social support is important during D1. The most commonly reported reasons for adherence/discontinuation/switch included forgetfulness, side-effects, and injection-related reasons. Eight articles described preference studies; the most important DMT attributes were efficacy, mode and frequency of administration, and side-effect profile. Conclusions: Understanding the needs and preferences of CIS/RRMS patients