Objective : To update the health economic evaluation of pirfenidone in the treatment of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) compared to all available alternatives strategies (Best supportive care – BSC and nintedanib), based on a cost-utility model previously validated by the CEESP’s (French Committee for Economic Evaluation) in 2014. Methods : A standard Markov cohort model, adapted to French methodology guidelines, was used to simulate the therapeutic management and the course of IPF patients (including potential adverse events) using the collective perspective. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated regarding life years (LY); quality-adjusted life-years (QALY); average cumulative costs; the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) expressed in cost per QALY gained. Data were retrieved from trials, meta-analysis, literature, health insurance and hospitalisation databases, and national tariffs. Results : Over 15 years, total costs accumulated in the pirfenidone strategy were estimated at €99,477 per patient, €104,610 in nintedanib, and €14,177 in Best Supportive Care (BSC). The total number of QALYs accumulated equalled 5.20 (6.91 LYs), 4.52 (5.98 LYs), and 3.79 (4.98 LYs), respectively. Pirfenidone was estimated to be dominant over nintedanib with incremental costs of -€5,133 and 0.67 more QALYs accumulated. Incremental cost versus BSC was €85,300 and 1,404 QALY gained. The cost-effectiveness ratio was estimated at 60,738€/QALY when compared to BSC. Conclusion : Pirfenidone is likely to be a cost–effective strategy compared to BSC and seems more efficient and less costly compared to nintedanib for the treatment of patients with IPF in France.

Background and aims The IMbrave150 clinical trial assessed the efficacy and safety of atezolizumab in combination with bevacizumab (ATZ+BVA) versus sorafenib in adults with advanced/unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma, who have not received prior systemic treatment. Our aim was to assess the cost-effectiveness of ATZ+BVA versus sorafenib in France based on an updated prices and considering French National real-world data, to confirm the initial recommendations from the Heath Technology Assessment submission published in 2021, and provide additional visibility to decision-makers reflecting current clinical practice. Methods A partition survival model was developed to project clinical outcomes, quality of life, and costs of patients with HCC treated with ATZ+BVA versus sorafenib over a lifetime horizon. Survival outcomes were extrapolated via parametric functions for both treatment strategies. Quality of life (EQ-5D-5L, French tariffs) were sourced from IMbrave150. The Guyot method was considered as a scenario analysis by integrating retrospective real-world data extracted from the French Health Insurance Database to refine long term survival extrapolations. Results In the reference case, ATZ+BVA was associated with 0.61 additional Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) compared to sorafenib (1.95 vs 1.35), and an incremental cost of €92,704. The incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) was 152,974 €/QALY gained. Adjusting the survival curves with French external evidence led to a 14% ICUR reduction (131,163 €/QALY). Conclusions ATZ+BVA is a cost-effective strategy based on the range recently published for the value of a QALY in France and offers better chances of survival to patients.

No abstract

Aim: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab compared with docetaxel and nivolumab for the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), as a second-line treatment, in a French setting. Materials and methods: A three-state partitioned-survival model was developed (progression-free survival, post-progression survival, death) based on the phase IIIOAK trial on a 10-year time horizon. The comparison between nivolumab and atezolizumab came from a network meta-analysis. Utilities were estimated from the OAK trial EQ-5D applying the French utility tariffs. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and treatment duration were estimated using parametric models selected using Akaike and Bayesian information criterion. Extrapolation beyond the trial duration followed NICE DSU TSD 14. Economic perspective was the one of all payers, discount rate fixed at 4% on benefits and costs. This analysis was aligned with French Haute Autorit e de Sant e recommendations. Results were expressed in total cost (2019) and e/QALY (Quality Adjusted Life Year). Model robustness was checked through sensitivity analyses, and a probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted. Results: In comparison to docetaxel, atezolizumab costs 49,429e more and increased life expectancy by 8 months, generating 0.47 QALY. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was estimated at 104,835e/ QALY. When comparing nivolumab to atezolizumab, a cost minimization analysis was conducted since no clear evidence supporting a difference in terms of survival benefit was reported. Using list price, and the Market Access Authorization regimens, atezolizumab saved approximately 6,000e, 9.5% of its total costs. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of our findings. Conclusion: Atezolizumab is more efficient and more costly than docetaxel in the second-line treatment of NSCLC of stage IIIB or IV, in France, with results consistent to previous French authorities' evaluation of immunotherapies in similar indication. Lastly, atezolizumab is a cost saving alternative to nivolumab, based on list price. ARTICLE HISTORY

No abstract