NorthWest Biotherapeutics Inc (NWBO)

[Lykiri]

Longfellow95,

Thank you for bringing the subject to our attention!

“Bernard-Arnoux 2016 is a cost effectiveness study comparing standard chemotherapy and radiotherapy with the addition of tumour treating field therapy compared to standard chemotherapy and radiotherapy alone in patients with grade IV astrocytoma. The study took a French health insurance perspective and reported outcomes in terms of cost per life year gained. Effectiveness data were taken from EF-14 trial (Stupp 2015) discussed in detail in the accompanying clinical evidence review.”

https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng99/evidence/a-investigation-management-and-followup-of-glioma-pdf-4903134734

The cost-effectiveness of tumor-treating fields therapy in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma.
F. Bernard-Arnoux.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4933490/
Comment in:

• Living in a material world: tumor-treating fields at the top of the charts. [Neuro Oncol. 2016]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4933493/

Living in a material world: tumor-treating fields at the top of the charts.

Quote:
“In this issue of Neuro-Oncology, Bernard-Amoux and colleagues report on the results of a cost-effectiveness analysis evaluating the incremental benefit of TTFields for glioblastoma in the context of the French health care system. Their principal finding is that the use of TTFields in conjunction with standard of care chemoradiation is not within the realm of what is considered “cost-effective” by most regulatory bodies that have established explicit thresholds. While France does not use explicit thresholds, Commonwealth countries with national health systems, such as the UK, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada, generally consider treatment interventions that have ratios of $50 000–$100 000 per life-year gained to be cost-effective.5 In the US, regulatory authorities are prohibited from considering cost in making decisions about coverage, but informally, similar thresholds are used to label treatments as cost-effective.6
Cost-effectiveness analyses such as Bernard-Amoux et al's are determined on the basis of comparing 2 alternative strategies. In this case, the comparison is between chemoradiation plus TTFields versus standard chemoradiation. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) computes the cost of chemoradiation/TTFields versus that of chemoradiation while also assessing the benefits (expressed in terms of survival time) for these treatments. The ICER is the ratio of these differences.”

Quote:
“The ICER per life-year gained with TTFields in the Bernard-Amoux study, at €550 000, exceeds these figures by a factor of 5–10. As such, the onus is on the device manufacturer either to provide data justifying the price of TTFields or to bring the cost in line with other approved therapies providing comparable clinical benefit.”