Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness of Maintenance Therapy Based on Molecular Classification Following Treatment of Primary Epithelial Ovarian Cancer in the United States.

ABSTRACT: Importance: There are large randomized clinical trials-SOLO-1 (Olaparib Maintenance Monotherapy in Patients With BRCA Mutated Ovarian Cancer Following First Line Platinum Based Chemotherapy [December 2018]), PRIMA (A Study of Niraparib Maintenance Treatment in Patients With Advanced Ovarian Cancer Following Response on Front-Line Platinum-Based Chemotherapy [September 2019]), and PAOLA-1 (Platine, Avastin and Olaparib in 1st Line [December 2019])-reporting positive efficacy results for maintenance regimens for women with primary, advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. The findings resulted in approval by the US Food and Drug Administration of the treatments studied as of May 2020. However, there are pressing economic considerations given the many eligible patients and substantial associated costs.

Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of maintenance strategies for patients with (1) a BRCA variant, (2) homologous recombination deficiency without a BRCA variant, or (3) homologous recombination proficiency.

Design, setting, and participants: In this economic evaluation of the US health care sector using simulated patients with primary epithelial ovarian cancer, 3 decision trees were developed, one for each molecular signature. The maintenance strategies evaluated were olaparib (SOLO-1), olaparib-bevacizumab (PAOLA-1), bevacizumab (PAOLA-1), and niraparib (PRIMA). Base case 1 assessed olaparib, olaparib-bevacizumab, bevacizumab, and niraparib vs observation of a patient with a BRCA variant. Base case 2 assessed olaparib-bevacizumab, bevacizumab, and niraparib vs observation in a patient with homologous recombination deficiency without a BRCA variant. Base case 3 assessed olaparib-bevacizumab, bevacizumab, and niraparib vs observation in a patient with homologous recombination proficiency. The time horizon was 24 months. Costs were estimated from Medicare claims, wholesale acquisition prices, and published sources. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses with microsimulation were then conducted to account for uncertainty and assess model stability. One-way sensitivity analyses were also performed. The study was performed from January through June 2020.

Main outcomes and measures: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in US dollars per progression-free life-year saved (PF-LYS).

Results: Assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100?000/PF-LYS, none of the drugs could be considered cost-effective compared with observation. In the case of a patient with a BRCA variant, olaparib was the most cost-effective (ICER, $186?777/PF-LYS). The third-party payer price per month of olaparib would need to be reduced from approximately $17?000 to $9000 to be considered cost-effective. Olaparib-bevacizumab was the most cost-effective in the case of a patient with homologous recombination deficiency without a BRCA variant (ICER, $629?347/PF-LYS), and bevacizumab was the most cost-effective in the case of patient with homologous recombination proficiency (ICER, $557?865/PF-LYS). Even at a price of $0 per month, niraparib could not be considered cost-effective as a maintenance strategy for patients with homologous recombination proficiency.

Conclusions and relevance: The findings of this study suggest that, at current costs, maintenance therapy for primary ovarian cancer is not cost-effective, regardless of molecular signature. For certain therapies, lowering the drug price alone may not make them cost-effective.

SUBMITTER: Penn CA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7726632 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Cost-effectiveness of Maintenance Therapy Based on Molecular Classification Following Treatment of Primary Epithelial Ovarian Cancer in the United States.

Penn Courtney A CA Wong Melissa S MS Walsh Christine S CS

JAMA network open 20201201 12

<h4>Importance</h4>There are large randomized clinical trials-SOLO-1 (Olaparib Maintenance Monotherapy in Patients With BRCA Mutated Ovarian Cancer Following First Line Platinum Based Chemotherapy [December 2018]), PRIMA (A Study of Niraparib Maintenance Treatment in Patients With Advanced Ovarian Cancer Following Response on Front-Line Platinum-Based Chemotherapy [September 2019]), and PAOLA-1 (Platine, Avastin and Olaparib in 1st Line [December 2019])-reporting positive efficacy results for ma ...[more]

PMID: 33295974

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceGenomic screening for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) in unselected women offers an opportunity to prevent cancer morbidity and mortality, but the potential clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of such screening have not been well studied.ObjectiveTo estimate the lifetime incremental incidence of HBOC and the quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs, and cost-effectiveness of HBOC genomic screening in an unselected population vs family history-based testing.Design, setting, and participantsIn this study conducted from October 27, 2017, to May 3, 2020, a decision analytic Markov model was developed that included health states for precancer, for risk-reducing mastectomy (RRM) and risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO), for earlier- and later-stage HBOC, after cancer, and for death. A complimentary cascade testing module was also developed to estimate outcomes in first-degree relatives. Age-specific RRM and RRSO uptake probabilities were estimated from the Geisinger MyCode Community Health Initiative and published sources. Parameters including RRM and RRSO effectiveness, variant-specific cancer risk, costs, and utilities were derived from published sources. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were conducted to evaluate model assumptions and uncertainty.Main outcomes and measuresLifetime cancer incidence, QALYs, life-years, and direct medical costs for genomic screening in an unselected population vs family history-based testing only were calculated. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated as the difference in cost between strategies divided by the difference in QALYs between strategies. Earlier-stage and later-stage cancer cases prevented and total cancer cases prevented were also calculated.ResultsThe model found that population screening of 30-year-old women was associated with 75 (95% credible range [CR], 60-90) fewer overall cancer cases and 288 QALYs (95% CR, 212-373 QALYs) gained per 100 000 women screened, at an incremental cost of $25 million (95% CR, $21 millon to $30 million) vs family history-based testing; the ICER was $87 700 (78% probability of being cost-effective at a threshold of $100 000 per QALY). In contrast, population screening of 45-year-old women was associated with 24 (95% CR, 18-29) fewer cancer cases and 97 QALYs (95% CR, 66-130 QALYs) gained per 100 000 women screened, at an incremental cost of $26 million (95% CR, $22 million to $30 million); the ICER was $268 200 (0% probability of being cost-effective at a threshold of $100 000 per QALY). A scenario analysis without cascade testing increased the ICER to $92 600 for 30-year-old women and $354 500 for 45-year-old women. A scenario analysis assuming a 5% absolute decrease in mammography screening in women without a variant was associated with the potential for net harm (-90 QALYs per 100 000 women screened; 95% CR, -180 to 10 QALYs).Conclusions and relevanceThe results of this study suggest that population HBOC screening may be cost-effective among younger women but not among older women. Cascade testing of first-degree relatives added a modest improvement in clinical and economic value. The potential for harm conferred by inappropriate reduction in mammography among noncarriers should be quantified.

Project description:IntroductionIn 2012, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) revised recommendations for adult pneumococcal vaccination to include a sequential regimen of 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13) followed by 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23) for certain high-risk adults with immunocompromising conditions. This study, from a payer perspective, examined: (1) the cost-effectiveness of the new 2012 ACIP vaccine policy recommendation relative to the 1997 ACIP recommendation; (2) the cost-effectiveness of potential future pneumococcal vaccination policies; and (3) key assumptions that influence study results.MethodsA static cohort model that incorporated costs, health outcomes, and quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) losses associated with invasive pneumococcal disease and non-bacteremic pneumococcal pneumonia (NBPP) was developed to evaluate seven pneumococcal vaccination strategies for a 50-year-old adult cohort over a 50-year period using incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).ResultsFor objective 1, the 2012 ACIP recommendation is the more economically efficient strategy (ICER was $25,841 per QALY gained vs. no vaccination). For objective 2, the most efficient vaccination policy would be to maintain the 2012 recommendation for PPSV23 for healthy and immunocompetent adults with comorbidities, and to modify the recommendation for adults with immunocompromising conditions by replacing PPSV23 with a sequential regimen of PCV13 and PPSV23 at age 65 (ICER was $23,416 per QALY gained vs. no vaccination). For objective 3, cost-effectiveness ratios for alternative pneumococcal vaccine policies were highly influenced by assumptions used for vaccine effectiveness against NBPP and accounting for the herd protection effects of pediatric PCV13 vaccination on adult pneumococcal disease.ConclusionModifying the 2012 recommendation to include an additional dose of PCV13 at age 65, followed by PPSV23, for adults with immunocompromising conditions appears to be a cost-effective vaccine policy. Given the uncertainty in the available data and the absence of key influential data, comprehensive sensitivity analyses should be conducted by policy-makers when evaluating new adult pneumococcal vaccine strategies.

Project description:Background:In the United States, the routine age for human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination is 11 to 12 years, with catch-up vaccination through age 26 years for women and 21 years for men. U.S. vaccination policy on use of the 9-valent HPV vaccine in adult women and men is being reviewed. Objective:To evaluate the added population-level effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of extending the current U.S. HPV vaccination program to women aged 27 to 45 years and men aged 22 to 45 years. Design:The analysis used HPV-ADVISE (Agent-based Dynamic model for VaccInation and Screening Evaluation), an individual-based transmission dynamic model of HPV infection and associated diseases, calibrated to age-specific U.S. data. Data Sources:Published data. Target Population:Women aged 27 to 45 years and men aged 22 to 45 years in the United States. Time Horizon:100 years. Perspective:Health care sector. Intervention:9-valent HPV vaccination. Outcome Measures:HPV-associated outcomes prevented and cost-effectiveness ratios. Results of Base-Case Analysis:The model predicts that the current U.S. HPV vaccination program will reduce the number of diagnoses of anogenital warts and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia of grade 2 or 3 and cases of cervical cancer and noncervical HPV-associated cancer by 82%, 80%, 59%, and 39%, respectively, over 100 years and is cost saving (vs. no vaccination). In contrast, extending vaccination to women and men aged 45 years is predicted to reduce these outcomes by an additional 0.4, 0.4, 0.2, and 0.2 percentage points, respectively. Vaccinating women and men up to age 30, 40, and 45 years is predicted to cost $830 000, $1 843 000, and $1 471 000, respectively, per quality-adjusted life-year gained (vs. current vaccination). Results of Sensitivity Analysis:Results were most sensitive to assumptions about natural immunity and progression rates after infection, historical vaccination coverage, and vaccine efficacy. Limitation:Uncertainty about the proportion of HPV-associated disease due to infections after age 26 years and about the level of herd effects from the current HPV vaccination program. Conclusion:The current HPV vaccination program is predicted to be cost saving. Extending vaccination to older ages is predicted to produce small additional health benefits and result in substantially higher incremental cost-effectiveness ratios than the current recommendation. Primary Funding Source:Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness of Maintenance Therapy Based on Molecular Classification Following Treatment of Primary Epithelial Ovarian Cancer in the United States.

Publications

Cost-effectiveness of Maintenance Therapy Based on Molecular Classification Following Treatment of Primary Epithelial Ovarian Cancer in the United States.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets