2 results
PP39 Budget Projections And Health Impact Of PD-1/PD-L1 Inhibitors
- Alexander Roediger, Julie van Bavel, James Pellissier, Stefano Lucherini, Neil Davies, Paul Okhuoya, Boris Rachev
-
- Journal:
- International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care / Volume 35 / Issue S1 / 2019
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 31 December 2019, pp. 44-45
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Export citation
-
Introduction
The rapid expansion of immuno-oncology treatment options has led to concerns around their long-term affordability. Evidence on the potential budget and health impact of these new treatment options is required to inform public health policy and ensure adequate allocation of budget for the future.
MethodsThe Health Impact Projection model was developed to compare the economic impact and health outcomes observed with and without PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors using traditional budget impact analysis. Seven types of high-incidence cancers were included: melanoma, first- and second-level non-small cell lung, bladder, head and neck, renal cell carcinoma, and triple negative breast. Inputs were based on publicly available data and literature, and over 10 key experts (oncologists, health economists) were involved in the model development. The model draws on five-year budget impact analysis.
ResultsUsing the experience of Belgium, Slovenia, Switzerland, and Italy, the model estimates budget and health impact of the PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor class. It shows that for 2018-2022, the class will provide additional life years and avoid high-grade adverse events (AEs) with a manageable budget impact per year compared to the standard of care. The model also enables policy-makers to assess the adequacy of their budget for the near future and explore the implications of different policy decisions. Results for Belgium show that over the five-year period the PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors will save 10,635 additional life years, avoid 7,597 AEs and have a budget impact of approximately EUR 260 million. Results for Slovenia show 1,468 additional life years gained and 869 AEs avoided with a budget impact of approximately EUR 116 million; for Switzerland, 6,775 life years gained, 6,953 AEs avoided, and EUR 106 million budget impact; and for Italy, 5,019 life years gained, 2,040 AEs avoided, and EUR 627 million budget impact.
ConclusionsAlthough limitations exist, the model informs planning by helping quantify the potential impact of immune-oncology treatments on health and budget in different scenarios.
OP48 A Contextual Model For Evaluating The Value Of Multi-Indication Drugs
- Elise Wu, James Pellissier, Leana Bellanca, Raphael Normand, Robert Hughes, Aran Ratciffe
-
- Journal:
- International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care / Volume 34 / Issue S1 / 2018
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 03 January 2019, pp. 18-19
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Export citation
-
Introduction:
An increasing number of anti-cancer medications are indicated for multiple tumors. Existing pharmacoeconomic evaluations routinely examine the cost-effectiveness (CE) and budget impact (BI) of such drugs by indication, as and when each indication is reviewed. The impact of indication-specific conclusions on the holistic value of such medications across all indicated patients is not currently evaluated, yet is important to stakeholders including health technology assessment (HTA) agencies, payers and patients. We introduce a holistic framework that considers the value of multiple indications together at a product level. Application of this approach is illustrated via an example across multiple indications for a novel, targeted anti-cancer therapy (pembrolizumab) in Canada.
Methods:Previously-HTA-evaluated indication-specific CE and BI models serve as the foundation for this multi-indication model. Comparing to standard of care (SoC) per indication, the model evaluates the potential BI, clinical outcomes and CE of pembrolizumab among the individual indications along with the overall multi-indication patient population from the perspective of a third-party payer. For the contextual model, incremental costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were weighted using indication populations derived from national incidence rates.
Results:The indication-specific incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) from CE analyses of ipilimumab-treated advanced melanoma, ipilimumab-naïve advanced melanoma, second-line non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), first-line NSCLC and fourth-line classical Hodgkin lymphoma range from USD 52 K to USD 163 K per QALY. Accounting for the relative contributions of the various sizes of indication-specific patient populations results in an overall ICER for pembrolizumab vs. SoC of USD 100 K.
Conclusions:A holistic model can provide stakeholders with a tool to evaluate the overall value of multi-indication drugs. Results enable an understanding of the outcomes and economic consequences of treatment with pembrolizumab versus SoC by both individual indications and across all indications. Insights from this contextual approach will enable data from less-developed clinical trials to be considered when previously they might have gone unevaluated by decision-makers.