Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Venetoclax in Combination with Azacitidine Versus Azacitidine Monotherapy in Patients with Acute Myeloid Leukemia Who are Ineligible for Intensive Chemotherapy: From a US Third Party Payer Perspective.
Using individual patient-level data from the phase 3 VIALE-A trial, this study assessed the cost-effectiveness of venetoclax in combination with azacitidine compared with azacitidine monotherapy for patients newly diagnosed with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) who are ineligible for intensive chemotherapy, from a United States (US) third-party payer perspective.
A partitioned survival model with a 28-day cycle and three health states (event-free survival (EFS), progressive/relapsed disease, and death) was developed to estimate costs and effectiveness of venetoclax + azacitidine versus azacitidine over a lifetime (25-year) horizon. Efficacy inputs (overall survival (OS), EFS, and complete remission (CR)/CR with incomplete marrow recovery (CRi) rate) were estimated using VIALE-A data. Best-fit parametric models per Akaike Information Criterion were used to extrapolate OS until reaching EFS and extrapolate EFS until Year 5. Within EFS, the time spent in CR/CRi was estimated by applying the CR/CRi rate to the EFS curve. Past Year 5, patients still in EFS were considered cured and to have the same mortality as the US general population. Mean time on treatment (ToT) for both regimens was based on the time observed in VIALE-A. Costs of drug acquisition, drug administration (initial and subsequent treatments), subsequent stem cell transplant procedures, adverse events (AEs), and healthcare resource utilization (HRU) associated with health states were obtained from the literature/public data and inflated to 2021 US dollars. Health state utilities were estimated using EuroQol-5 dimension-5 level data from VIALE-A; AE disutilities were obtained from the literature. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) per life-year (LY) and quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained were estimated. Deterministic sensitivity analyses (DSA), scenario analyses, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were also performed.
Over a lifetime horizon, venetoclax + azacitidine versus azacitidine led to gains of 1.89 LYs (2.99 vs. 1.10, respectively) and 1.45 QALYs (2.30 vs. 0.84, respectively). Patients receiving venetoclax + azacitidine incurred higher total lifetime costs ($250,486 vs. $110,034 (azacitidine)). The ICERs for venetoclax + azacitidine versus azacitidine were estimated at $74,141 per LY and $96,579 per QALY gained. Results from the DSA and scenario analyses supported the base-case findings, with ICERs ranging from $60,718 to $138,554 per QALY gained. The results were most sensitive to varying the parameters for the venetoclax + azacitidine base-case EFS parametric function (Gompertz), followed by alternative approaches for ToT estimation, treatment costs of venetoclax + azacitidine, standard mortality rate value and ToT estimation, alternative sources to inform HRU, different cure modeling assumptions, and the parameters for the venetoclax + azacitidine base-case OS parametric function (log-normal). Results from the PSA showed that, compared with azacitidine, venetoclax + azacitidine was cost-effective in 99.9% of cases at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per QALY.
This analysis suggests that venetoclax + azacitidine offers a cost-effective strategy in the treatment of patients with newly diagnosed AML who are ineligible for intensive chemotherapy from a US third-party payer perspective.
ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02993523. Date of registration: 15 December 2016.
Pratz KW
，Chai X
，Xie J
，Yin L
，Nie X
，Montez M
，Iantuono E
，Downs L
，Ma E
... -
《-》
Oral Azacitidine for Maintenance Treatment of Acute Myeloid Leukaemia After Induction Therapy: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.
The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer (Celgene) of oral azacitidine (ONUREG), as part of the Single Technology Appraisal (STA) process, to submit evidence for the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of oral azacitidine for maintenance treatment of acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) after induction therapy compared with watch-and-wait plus best supportive care (BSC) and midostaurin. Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd, in collaboration with Maastricht University Medical Centre+, was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). This paper summarises the company submission (CS), presents the ERG's critical review on the clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence in the CS, highlights the key methodological considerations and describes the development of the NICE guidance by the Appraisal Committee. In the QUAZAR AML-001 trial, oral azacitidine significantly improved overall survival (OS) versus placebo: median OS gain of 9.9 months (24.7 months versus 14.8 months; hazard ratio (HR) 0.69 (95% CI 0.55-0.86), p < 0.001). The median time to relapse was also better for oral azacitidine, and the incidences of TEAEs were similar for the two arms. The company excluded two of the comparators listed in the scope, low-dose cytarabine and subcutaneous azacitidine, informed only by clinical expert opinion, leaving only best supportive care (BSC) and midostaurin for the FLT3-ITD and/or FLT3-TKD (FLT3 mutation)-positive subgroup. An ITC comparing oral azacitidine to midostaurin as maintenance therapy in the appropriate subgroup demonstrated that the OS and relapse-free survival (RFS) HRs were favourable for oral azacitidine when compared with midostaurin. However, in the only available trial of midostaurin as maintenance treatment in AML that was used for this ITC, subjects were not randomised at the maintenance phase, but at induction, which posed a substantial risk of bias. The revised and final probabilistic incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) presented by the company, including a commercial arrangement, was £32,480 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained for oral azacitidine versus watch-and-wait plus BSC. Oral azacitidine was dominant versus midostaurin in the FLT-3 subgroup. The ERG's concerns included the approach of modelling haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), the generalisability of the population and the number of cycles of consolidation therapy pre-treatment in the QUAZAR AML-001 trial to UK clinical practice, and uncertainty in the relapse utility. The revised and final ERG base case resulted in a similar probabilistic ICER of £33,830 per QALY gained versus watch-and-wait plus BSC, but with remaining uncertainty. Oral azacitidine remained dominant versus midostaurin in the FLT-3 subgroup. After the second NICE appraisal committee meeting, the NICE Appraisal Committee recommended oral azacitidine (according to the commercial arrangement), within its marketing authorisation, as an option for maintenance treatment for AML in adults who are in complete remission, or complete remission with incomplete blood count recovery, after induction therapy with or without consolidation treatment, and cannot have or do not want HSCT.
Witlox W
，Grimm S
，Howick J
，Armstrong N
，Ahmadu C
，McDermott K
，Otten T
，Noake C
，Wolff R
，Joore M
... -
《-》
ResearchGate
(全网免费下载)
钛学术
(全网免费下载)
