Explore the vast range of titles available.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the leading causes of cancer related deaths. Patients with advanced HCC are treated with sorafenib. A recent randomized controlled trial demonstrated a survival benefit for regorafenib treatment in patients with advanced HCC who had progressed on sorafenib. We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of this approach. To evaluate the cost effectiveness of regorafenib, we used a Markov model that incorporates health outcomes, measured by life-years and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Drug costs were based on 2017 discounted prices. Model robustness was validated by probabilistic sensitivity analyses using Monte Carlo simulations. The use of regorafenib results in a gain of 19.76 weeks of life (0.38 Life Years) as compared to placebo. When adjusted for quality of life, using regorafenib produced a gain of 0.25 quality adjusted life years (QALYs). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for regorafenib compared with best supportive care was between $201,797 and $268,506 per QALY. The modest incremental benefit at a relatively high incremental cost of regorafenib treatment suggests that it is not cost-effective at commonly accepted willingness to pay thresholds.

Opportunities to decrease the toxicity and cost of approved treatment regimens with lower dose, less frequent, or shorter duration alternative regimens have been limited by the perception that alternatives must be non-inferior to approved regimens. Non-inferiority trials are large and expensive to do, because they must show statistically that the alternative and approved therapies differ in a single outcome, by a margin far smaller than that required to demonstrate superiority. Non-inferiority's flaws are manifest: it ignores variability expected to occur with repeated evaluation of the approved therapy, fails to recognise that a trial of similar design will be labelled as superiority or non-inferiority depending on whether it is done prior to or after initial registration of the approved treatment, and relegates endpoints such as toxicity and cost. For example, while a less toxic and less costly regimen of 3 months duration would typically be required to demonstrate efficacy that is non-inferior to that of a standard regimen of 6 months to displace it, the longer duration therapy has no such obligation to prove its superiority. This situation is the tyranny of the non-inferiority trial: its statistics perpetuate less cost-effective regimens, which are not patient-centred, even when less intensive therapies confer survival benefits nearly identical to those of the standard, by placing a disproportionately large burden of proof on the alternative. This approach is illogical. We propose that the designation of trials as superiority or non-inferiority be abandoned, and that randomised, controlled trials should henceforth be described simply as “comparative”.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are approved for the treatment of a variety of cancer types. The doses of these drugs, though approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), have never been optimised, likely leading to significantly higher doses than required for optimal efficacy. Dose optimisation would hypothetically decrease the risk, severity, and duration of immune-related adverse events, as well as provide an opportunity to reduce costs through interventional pharmacoeconomic strategies such as off-label dose reductions or less frequent dosing. We summarise existing evidence for ICI dose optimisation to advocate for the role of interventional pharmacoeconomics.

Background Colonoscopy as a common screening practice to prevent colorectal cancer lacks strong evidence. NordICC, the first randomized trial of colonoscopy screening, reported no clear clinical benefit for colonoscopy in the intention-to-screen population with suggested benefit in the risk of colorectal incidence and cancer-specific mortality in the per-protocol analyses. However, although the study was designed to perform survival analysis, no survival outcomes were reported since the underlying assumption for hazard ratio was not valid. We aimed to assess whether colonoscopy screening is associated with improved survival outcomes compared with usual care. Methods We reconstructed patient-level data from the Kaplan-Meier estimator of the primary endpoints reported in NordICC for the intention-to-screen and adjusted per-protocol populations. The restricted-mean survival time difference (RMST-D) and restricted-mean time loss ratio (RMTL-R), which are robust alternatives to the hazard ratio without specific model assumptions, were calculated for colorectal cancer incidence and death. Results In this study, no significant difference in colorectal cancer incidence over 10 years was found in the intention-to-screen population (RMST-D: -0.68 days, 95% CI -3.9–2.6; RMTL-R: 1.04, 95% CI 0.88–1.22) or in the per-protocol analysis population (RMST-D: -2.9 days, 95% CI -6.5–0.67; RMTL-R: 1.15, 95% CI 0.97–1.35). In the intention-to-screen population, inviting individuals to colonoscopy did not improve colorectal-cancer death (RMST-D: -0.29 days, 95% CI -1.6–1.0; RMTL-R: 1.07, 95% CI 0.78–1.48). Over 10 years, in the per-protocol analysis, individuals who underwent colonoscopy survived an average of 1.1 more days free of colorectal cancer, but this difference was not statistically significant (RMST-D: 95% CI -0.13–2.3; RMTL-R: 0.72, 95% CI 0.49–1.07). Conclusions In this reanalysis of the NordICC data, no evidence of improvement in survival outcomes for participants invited to undergo colonoscopy compared to usual care was identified, even when assuming that all invited participants did undergo colonoscopy. Thus, our results do not support the use of colonoscopy as a population-wide screening test as a mean to decrease colorectal cancer incidence or death. Registry Not applicable.

Background Breast cancer is the second most common cancer worldwide, the most common among women, and the most frequent cause of death among women in less developed regions. Trastuzumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody that downregulates the extracellular domain of the HER2 protein. Using trastuzumab to treat women with localized HER2 -positive breast cancer has been shown to improve survival. The objective of this study is to explore the cost-effectiveness of adjuvant trastuzumab, from a societal perspective, in 11 African countries. In addition, we aimed to establish value-based prices for trastuzumab based on the gross domestic product per capita in each country. Methods We developed a Markov model in order to assess the costs and benefits associated with trastuzumab treatment over a lifetime horizon. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed in order to estimate the impact of uncertainty of parameter-values on the results. Efficacy inputs were derived using clinical trial data from non-African countries. Results In the base case analysis, trastuzumab yielded a gain ranging from 0.92 LYs in Nigeria to 1.07 LYs in South Africa, and 0.9 QALYs in Nigeria to 1.02 QALYs in South Africa. The incremental cost ranged from 19,561 USD in Nigeria to 19,997 USD in Congo, and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio ranging from 19,534 USD/QALY in South Africa to 21,697 USD/QALY in Nigeria. Using willingness to pay estimates based on World Health Organization recommendations, trastuzumab appear to not be cost-effective in all countries analyzed. Cost-effectiveness estimates were most sensitive to the discount rate, trastuzumab cost, and the hazard ratio. Conclusions Trastuzumab does not appear to be cost effective in the African countries analyzed. In order for trastuzumab to be cost-effective, the costs of treatment would require significant discounts.

The financial impact of an extensive duration of adjuvant immunotherapy is severe. The clinical and biological rationale for this extensive duration is unclear. This study aims to understand the biologic and clinical rationale for the duration of treatment in designing adjuvant trials and to assess the economic impact of different treatment durations in adjuvant therapy. We searched http://www.clinicaltrials.gov for adjuvant immunotherapy clinical trials. Based on our inclusion and exclusion criteria, we identified 47 trials targeting PD-1, PD-L1, and CTLA-4. We examined the duration of these trials and performed a US based budget impact analysis of three representative trials based on various data sources. Most current adjuvant immunotherapy trials provide treatment for 1 year. Our budget impact analyses estimate that the cost per patient of 1 year treatment with nivolumab for melanoma is $165,000 while the cost of 3 years treatment with ipilimumab for melanoma is more than $1,850,000 assuming full duration of treatment. The annual cost for adjuvant treatment with nivolumab for melanoma is approximately $1.15 billion for the entire target population in the United States assuming full uptake. The necessary duration of adjuvant immunotherapy is unknown. The rationale for duration in current trials is not clear and may be longer than necessary. Non-inferiority trials testing shorter duration of therapies should be conducted. Appropriate mechanisms to fund such trials should be sought out by healthcare payers.

Purpose: Various solutions have been put forward for prescribing and reimbursing treatments outside their registered indications within universal healthcare systems. However, most off-label oncology prescriptions are not reimbursed by health funds. This study characterized the financing sources of off-label oncology use and the predictors of the decision to forego treatment. Materials and Methods: All 708 off-label oncology requests submitted for approval in a large tertiary cancer center in Israel between 2016 and 2018 were examined for disease and patient sociodemographic characteristics, costs and financing sources, and the factors predicting actual off-label drug administration using multivariate logistic regression analysis. Results: The mean monthly cost of a planned off-label treatment was ILS54,703 (SD = ILS61,487, median = ILS39,928) (approximately US$ 15,500). The main sources of funding were private health insurance (25%) and expanded access pharma company plans (30%). Approximately one third (31%) of the requests did not have a financing source at the time of approval. Of the 708 requests, 583 (or 82%) were filled and treatment was initiated. Predictors for forgoing treatment were the impossibility of out-of-pocket payments or the lack of a financing solution (OR = 0.407; p = 0.005 and OR = 0.400; p < 0.0005). Conclusion: Although off-label recommendations are widespread and institutional approval is often granted, a large proportion of these prescriptions are not filled. In a universal healthcare system, the financing sources for off-label treatments are likely to influence access.

Background and aims: The multi-kinase inhibitor sorafenib is a first-line drug for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Treatment options for patients whose disease has progressed on sorafenib are limited. In a recent randomized controlled trial (CELESTIAL trial), patients with advanced HCC who had failed prior systemic therapy had moderate progression-free survival and overall survival advantages when treated with the multi-kinase inhibitor cabozantinib. However, since this treatment is costly and is accompanied by significant adverse events in a large proportion of patients, its cost-effectiveness in these patients should be determined. Methods: We developed a Markov model incorporating health outcomes, measured by life-years and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of cabozantinib compared with placebo in patients who have failed prior systemic therapy. Results: Treatment with cabozantinib results in a mean gain of 11.6 weeks of life (0.22 life-years) as compared with placebo. When quality of life was incorporated, treatment with cabozantinib produced a gain of 0.16 QALYs. The total mean incremental cost of cabozantinib was US$76,406 per patient. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for cabozantinib compared with best supportive care was US$469,374/QALY using the recommended dose of 60 mg cabozantinib daily. Conclusion: Our results suggest that the use of cabozantinib in patients with advanced HCC who have progressed on prior treatment, results in a modest incremental benefit with high incremental costs, suggesting that it is not cost-effective at conventional willingness to pay thresholds.