Frontline BRAF Testing-Guided Treatment for Advanced Melanoma in the Era of Immunotherapies: A Cost-Utility Analysis Based on Long-term Survival Data

Cost-effectiveness analysis of an orphan drug tebentafusp in patients with metastatic uveal melanoma and a call for value-based pricing

The normative regimens recommendations for treating metastatic uveal melanoma (mUM) are absent in the US. Recently, a phase III randomized clinical trial revealed that tebentafusp yielded a conspicuously longer overall survival than the control group. Based on the prominent efficacy, this study aimed to assess whether tebentafusp is cost-effective compared to the control group in patients with untreated mUM. A three-state partitioned survival model was developed to assess the costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) from the perspective of US payers. Scenario analyses and sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore the conclusion uncertainty. Compared with control group, tebentafusp therapy yielded an additional 0.47 QALYs (1.19 vs. 0.72 QALYs) and an incremental cost of $444 280 ($633 822 vs. $189 542). The resultant ICER of $953 230/QALY far outweighed the willingness-to-pay threshold of $200 000/QALY. The ICER was always more than $750 000/QALY in all the univariable and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Scenario analyses indicated that reducing the unit price of tebentafusp to $33.768/µg was associated with a favorable result of tebentafusp being cost-effective. For treatment-naive patients with mUM, the cost of tebentafusp therapy was not worth the improvement in survival benefits at the current price compared to the investigator's choice of therapy. The cost-effectiveness of tebentafusp could be promoted using value-based pricing.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of combination therapy versus monotherapy in malignant melanoma

BACKGROUND

Until 2010, stage III or IV malignant melanoma (MM) had a poor prognosis. The discovery of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in 2011 changed the treatment landscape. Promising results in patient survival with a checkpoint inhibitor prompted research into combination therapies. In 2016, the first combination therapy has been approved as first-line therapy for advanced MM.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this work is to investigate to what extent combination therapy is (cost-)effective compared to monotherapy in stage III or IV MM.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed (Web of Science, PubMed, PubPharm, EconLit, and Cochrane Library); searching for publications published over the past decade that examine the cost-effectiveness in terms of cost/QALY and the effectiveness in terms of survival and response of combination therapy in comparison to monotherapy in stage III or IV MM patients.

RESULTS

A total of 11 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and five cost-utility analyses met our inclusion criteria. Nine clinical trials demonstrated superiority of combination therapy over monotherapy. The combination of B-rapidly accelerated fibrosarcoma (BRAF) protein and mitogen-activated kinase (MEK) protein inhibitors is not cost-effective in any country. Three analyses demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of combination therapy with ICI compared to monotherapy.

CONCLUSION

Combination therapy is more effective compared to monotherapy. While combined ICIs are cost-effective compared to monotherapy, this is not the case for the combination of BRAF and MEK inhibitors.

Sensitivity Analysis in Economic Evaluations of Immuno-Oncology Drugs: A Systematic Literature Review

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to review, assess, and report the characteristics and strategies of sensitivity analyses (SAs) that were performed in the context of published economic evaluations of immuno-oncology drugs.

METHODS

The systematic literature search was conducted in Scopus and MEDLINE for articles published from 2005 to 2021. Study selection, based on a predefined set of criteria, was performed by 2 reviewers independently. We included economic evaluations of Food and Drug Administration-approved immuno-oncology drugs that were published in English and assessed the accompanying SAs on a set of items, including the range justification of the baseline parameters within the deterministic SA, the provisions for the correlation/overlay between parameters, and the justification of the chosen parameter distribution for the probabilistic SA, among others.

RESULTS

A total of 98 of 295 publications met the inclusion criteria. A total of 90 studies included a one-way and probabilistic SA and 16 of 98 studies had one-way and scenario analysis, alone or together with probabilistic analysis. Most studies provide explicit references as to the choice of parameters and values; nevertheless, there is a lack of a reference of correlation/overlay between parameters in most of the evaluations. In 26 of 98 studies, the most influential parameter for the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was the under-evaluation drug cost.

CONCLUSIONS

Most of included articles contained an SA that was implemented according to commonly accepted published guidance. The under-evaluation drug cost, the estimates of progression-free survival, the hazard ratio for overall survival, and the time horizon of the analysis seem to play an important part in the robustness of the outcomes.

Whether and How Disutilities of Adverse Events were Used in the Economic Evaluation of Drug Therapy for Cancer Treatment

BACKGROUND

The disutilities of adverse events (AEs) are important inputs for cost-utility analysis (CUA), reflecting the impacts of AEs on health outcomes. Health technology assessment institutions and scholars have proposed recommendations for applying disutility values in economic evaluations.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to identify the current use of disutilities of AEs as model parameters in the CUA of cancer drug therapy and to compare the discrepancies between the use of disutilities and published recommendations.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted on the PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases, as well as the official websites of the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG), the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH), and the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) for CUAs of drug therapy for cancer published in English from January 2019 to April 2022. Information about the use of disutilities of AEs (whether and how disutilities were used, or why they were not used) in selected studies was extracted and compared with published recommendations. Descriptive analyses were used to summarize the results.

RESULTS

A total of 467 CUAs were included, 54% (254/467) of which included disutilities of AEs in their model. The proportion that included these disutilities increased from 2019 to 2021, ranging from 47% (51/107) to 61% (116/190). Only 6% (15/254) of the CUAs using disutilities of AEs considered all five recommendations about the justification for inclusion and exclusion, description of values and sources, grades of AEs, calculation, and uncertainty analyses. Only 15% (72/467) provided a clear justification for inclusion and exclusion of disutilities of AEs, and 7% (17/254) did not provide values or sources. In total, 69% (175/254) of the analyses focused on AEs of grade 3 or greater, and 11% (28/254) applied utility decrements for grades 1 and 2. Disutilities of AEs were generally calculated using the incidence rates, which were clearly stated in 49% (65/132) of the analyses. Uncertainty analyses were conducted in 84% (214/254) of the CUAs.

CONCLUSIONS

The current use of disutilities of AEs in CUAs shows some discrepancies with recommendations proposed in the literature. One is that detailed information about the use of disutilities of AEs was not reported and the other is that essential methods to analyze the impact of AEs on quality-adjusted life-years were not thoroughly conducted. Therefore, it is suggested that researchers should attach importance to the impact of AEs on health-related quality of life. Furthermore, an application process was developed for the disutilities of AEs to remind and guide researchers to correctly use the disutilities of AEs as parameters in the decision-analytic model.

Cost-effectiveness of immune checkpoint inhibition and targeted treatment in combination as adjuvant treatment of patient with BRAF-mutant advanced melanoma

BACKGROUND

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and targeted treatments have improved the health outcomes of patients with advanced melanoma. However, due to the high cost of novel therapies, it is crucial to evaluate their value by considering both effectiveness and cost. To compare the cost-effectiveness of these novel agents (atezolizumab-vemurafenib-cobimetinib, vemurafenib-plus-cobimetinib, dabrafenib-plus-trametinib, and encorafenib-plus-binimetinib) for first-line treatment of metastatic melanoma with the BRAF^V600 mutation.

METHODS

A patient-level model was developed to project the health outcomes of 4 strategies for patients with advanced melanoma. We estimated transition probabilities from the IMspire150 (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02908672), COMBI-AD (NCT01682083), and COLUMBUS (NCT01909453) trials using a parametric survival model. All health outcomes, including direct cost, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), were estimated from the US payer perspective. Lifetime cost, QALYs, life-years (LYs), and ICERs were calculated. Univariable and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to test model robustness, along with multiple scenario analyses.

RESULTS

Of the 4 competing strategies, atezolizumab-vemurafenib-cobimetinib produced the best health outcomes, and the vemurafenib-cobimetinib strategy was the least expensive option. Atezolizumab-vemurafenib-cobimetinib, dabrafenib-plus-trametinib, and vemurafenib-cobimetinib formed the cost-effective frontier, indicating that the ordered ICERs were $325,113/QALYs for dabrafenib-plus-trametinib vs. vemurafenib-cobimetinib strategies and $2,247,500/QALYs for atezolizumab-vemurafenib-cobimetinib vs. dabrafenib-plus-trametinib strategies. Encorafenib-plus-binimetinib was dominated by the other 3 competing strategies. The drug price and first-line utility significantly influenced the model utcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

For BRAF-mutant advanced melanoma, the vemurafenib-cobimetinib strategy could be considered the most cost-effective treatment at the willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Sequential Treatment Strategies for Advanced Melanoma in Real Life in France

Nine drugs have been marketed for 10 years for the treatment of advanced melanoma (AM). With half of patients reaching a second line, the optimal sequence of treatments remains unclear. To inform policy-makers about their efficiency, we performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of sequential strategies in clinical practice in France, for BRAF-mutated and wild-type patients. A multistate model was developed to describe treatment sequences, associated costs, and health outcomes over 10 years. Sequences, clinical outcomes, utility scores, and economic data were extracted from the prospective Melbase cohort, collecting individual data in 1518 patients since 2013, from their AM diagnosis until their death. To adjust the differences in patients' characteristics among sequences, weighting by inverse probability was used. In the BRAF-mutated population, the MONO-targeted therapies (TT)-anti-PD1 sequence was the less expensive, whereas the anti-PD1-BI-TT sequence had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 180,441 EUR/QALY. Regarding the BRAF wild-type population, the three sequences constituted the cost-effective frontier, with ICERs ranging from 116 to 806,000 EUR/QALY. For BRAF-mutated patients, the sequence anti-PD1-BI-TT appeared to be the most efficient one in BRAF-mutated AM patients until 2018. Regarding the BRAF wild-type population until 2018, the sequence starting with IPI+NIVO appeared inefficient compared to anti-PD1, considering the extra cost for the QALY gained.

Cost-Effectiveness of Donafenib as First-Line Treatment of Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma in China

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of donafenib compared to sorafenib and lenvatinib as first-line treatments for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in China.

METHODS

A partitioned survival model was developed to estimate the clinical and economic outcomes of donafenib, sorafenib, and lenvatinib for advanced HCC. The key clinical data of these targeted therapies were assessed through a network meta-analysis. The cost and health utilities were mainly collected from the literature. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were the primary outcomes. Model uncertainty was tested with one-way sensitivity analyses, scenario analyses, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA).

RESULTS

For health outcomes, donafenib gained the highest QALYs among the three treatments, followed by lenvatinib and sorafenib (1.106, 0.999, and 0.915 QALYs, respectively). For cost, donafenib was the cheapest option, followed by sorafenib and lenvatinib ($42,116, $43,193, and $44,261). The PSA indicated that the probability of being cost-effective for donafenib was 86.98% and 93.56% when the willingness-to-pay thresholds were one and three times the gross domestic product per capita in China, respectively. The one-way sensitivity analyses and scenario analyses also found the results to be robust.

CONCLUSION

Compared to sorafenib and lenvatinib, donafenib was likely to be a cost-effective treatment with the highest QALYs and the lowest cost for patients with advanced HCC in China.

Cost-Effectiveness of 12 First-Line Treatments for Patients With Advanced EGFR Mutated NSCLC in the United Kingdom and China

Background

Lung cancer is imposing significant pressure on the national health insurance system worldwide, especially under the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the cost-effectiveness of all available first-line treatments for patients with advanced epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is still uncertain. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of 12 first-line treatments for patients with advanced EGFR mutated NSCLC from the perspective of the United Kingdom (UK) National Health Service and Chinese health care system.

Methods

We used a Markov model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of 12 treatments, including 6 EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors, 4 combination treatments and 2 chemotherapies. The key clinical efficacy and safety data were from a network meta-analysis. The cost and health preference were mainly collected from the literature. The most cost-effective treatment was inferred through a sequential analysis. Uncertainty was tested with one-way sensitivity analyses, scenario analyses, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), direct medical costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were estimated, at willingness-to-pay thresholds of £20000 to £50000 and £8000 to £24000 per QALY in the UK and China respectively.

Results

For clinical effectiveness, osimertinib and gefitinib plus pemetrexed based chemotherapy (PbCT) yielded the highest QALYs, while two chemotherapy treatments gained the lowest QALYs. For costs, gefitinib treatment was the cheapest option in both countries (£24529 in the UK and £12961 in China). For cost-effectiveness, 4 treatments including gefitinib, gefitinib plus pemetrexed, gefitinib plus PbCT, and osimertinib formed the cost-effectiveness frontier in both countries. Gefitinib alone (70.7% and 80.0% under the threshold of £20000 and £8000 per QALY in the UK and China, respectively) and gefitinib plus PbCT (62.3% and 71.2% under the threshold of £50000 and £24000 per QALY in the UK and China, respectively) were most likely to be cost-effective compared with other first-line treatments.

Conclusions

Gefitinib and gefitinib plus PbCT were likely to be cost-effective for patients with advanced EGFR mutated NSCLC in both countries.

Cost-Effectiveness of Nivolumab Plus Cabozantinib Versus Sunitinib as a First-Line Treatment for Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma in the United States

Background: In a recent randomized, phase 3 trial (CheckMate 9ER), nivolumab combined with cabozantinib significantly improved patient outcomes compared with sunitinib. However, the cost-effectiveness of these novel agents for untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) remains unknown.

Materials and Methods: We constructed a microsimulation decision-analytic model to measure the healthcare costs and outcomes of nivolumab plus cabozantinib compared with those of sunitinib for patients with aRCC. The transition probability of patients was calculated from CheckMate 9ER using parametric survival modeling. Lifetime direct medical costs, life years (LYs), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated for nivolumab-plus-cabozantinib treatment compared with sunitinib from a US payer perspective. We conducted one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses and a series of scenario analyses to evaluate model uncertainty.

Results: Nivolumab plus cabozantinib was associated with an improvement of 0.59 LYs and 0.56 QALYs compared with sunitinib. However, incorporating nivolumab plus cabozantinib into first-line treatment was associated with significantly higher lifetime costs ($483,352.70 vs. $198,320.10), causing the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for nivolumab plus cabozantinib to be $508,987/QALY. The patients’ age of treatment, first-line utility, and cost of nivolumab had the greatest influence on the model. The outcomes were robust when tested in sensitivity and scenario analyses.

Conclusion: For aRCC, substituting nivolumab plus cabozantinib in the first-line setting is unlikely to be cost-effective under the current willingness-to-pay threshold ($150,000/QALY). Significant price decreases for nivolumab used in first-line therapy would be needed to drop ICERs to a more diffusely acceptable value.

Cost-Effectiveness of Ipilimumab Plus Anti-PD-1 Therapy Versus Ipilimumab Alone in Patients With Metastatic Melanoma Resistant to Anti-PD-(L)1 Monotherapy

Objective

The use of ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 has recently been shown to significantly improve the survival of patients with metastatic melanoma resistant to anti-PD-(L)1 monotherapy. The study assessed the cost-effectiveness of ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 therapy in this population from the US payer perspective.

Materials and Methods

A Markov model was created based on a retrospective analysis of patients with metastatic melanoma who were resistant to anti-PD-(L)1. Cost information was obtained from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and literature-based costs. The utility value was derived from the published literature. The results of the model was the total cost, quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The uncertainty of the model was addressed through sensitivity analysis. In addition, we also conducted subgroup analysis.

Results

Ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 provided an improvement of 1.39 QALYs and 2.48 LYs, at a ICER of $73,163 per QALY. The HR of OS was the variable that had the greatest impact on ICER. Compared to ipilimumab, the probability of ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 being cost-effective was 94% at the WTP of $150,000/QALY. The results of the subgroup analysis showed that the ICER in the majority of the subgroups was less than $150,000/QALY.

Conclusions

Ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 was likely to be cost-effective compared to ipilimumab for patients with metastatic melanoma who are resistant to anti-PD-(L)1 at a WTP threshold of 150,000/QALY.

Structural Protein Analysis of Driver Gene Mutations in Conjunctival Melanoma

In recent years, there has been tremendous enthusiasm with respect to detailing the genetic basis of many neoplasms, including conjunctival melanoma (CM). We aim to analyze five proteins associated with CM, namely BRAF, NRAS, c-KIT, NF1, and PTEN. We evaluated each protein for its intrinsically disordered protein regions (IDPRs) and its protein-protein interactions (PPI) with the Predictor of Natural Disordered Protein Regions (PONDR^®) and the Search Tool for the Retrieval of Interacting Genes (STRING^®). Our PONDR^® analysis found high levels of IDPRs in all five proteins with mutations linked to CM. The highest levels of IDPRs were in BRAF (45.95%), followed by PTEN (31.76%), NF1 (22.19%), c-KIT (21.82%), and NRAS (14.81%). Our STRING analysis found that each of these five proteins had more predicted interactions then expected (p-value < 1.0 × 10⁻¹⁶). Our analysis demonstrates that the mutations linked to CM likely affected IDPRs and possibly altered their highly complex PPIs. Quantifying IDPRs in BRAF, NRAS, c-KIT, NF1, and PTEN and understanding these protein regions are important processes as IDPRs can be possible drug targets for novel targeted therapies for treating CM.

Cost-Effectiveness of Frontline Treatment for Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma in the Era of Immunotherapies

Background: Recent randomized controlled trials have demonstrated that immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) improve patient outcomes, but whether these novel agents are cost-effective for untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) remains unclear.

Materials and Methods: A microsimulation model was created to project the healthcare costs and outcomes of six strategies (lenvatinib-plus-pembrolizumab, nivolumab-plus-cabozantinib, nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab, pembrolizumab-plus-axitinib, avelumab-plus-axitinib, and sunitinib monotherapy) for patients with aRCC. Transition probability of patients was estimated from CLEAR, CheckMate 9ER, CheckMate 214, KEYNOTE-426, JAVELIN Renal 101, and other data sets by using parametric survival modeling. Lifetime direct medical costs, life years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated from a United States payer perspective. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed, along with multiple scenario analyses, to evaluate model uncertainty.

Results: Of the six competing strategies, nivolumab-plus-cabozantinib yielded the most significant health outcomes, and the sunitinib strategy was the least expensive option. The cost-effective frontier consisted of the nivolumab-plus-cabozantinib, pembrolizumab-plus-axitinib, and sunitinib strategies, which displayed the ordered ICERs of $81282/QALY for pembrolizumab-plus-axitinib vs sunitinib and $453391/QALY for nivolumab-plus-cabozantinib vs pembrolizumab-plus-axitinib. The rest of the strategies, such as lenvatinib-plus-pembrolizumab, nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab, and avelumab-plus-axitinib, were dominated. The cost of sunitinib drove the model most influentially.

Conclusions: For aRCC, the pembrolizumab-plus-axitinib strategy is likely to be the most cost-effective alternative at the willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000.

Cost-Effectiveness of Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab as First-Line Therapy in Advanced Non-small-cell Lung Cancer

Purpose: The effectiveness of nivolumab plus ipilimumab for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has been demonstrated. Decisions have to be made about allocating healthcare resources. Economic evidence could support policy decisions to fund expensive interventions. The current analysis evaluated the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in advanced NSCLC harboring no EGFR or ALK mutations. It is set in the context of the US and China, representing developed and resource-constrained settings, respectively.

Patients and Methods: A Markov model consisting of three discrete health states was used to assess the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs. chemotherapy. The key clinical data were derived from the CheckMate-227 trial, and the cost and health preference data were derived from the literature. Costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and incremental net health benefits (INHBs) were calculated for the two strategies. Subgroup, one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

Results: In the United States, nivolumab plus ipilimumab increased by 1.260 QALYs with an additional cost of $95,617 compared with the features of chemotherapy, which led to an ICER of $75,871 per QALY gained. INHB indicated that nivolumab plus ipilimumab treatment had a 99% probability of being cost-effective at the ICER threshold of $100,000/QALY in all subgroups. The results of sensitivity analyses revealed that the model outcomes were robust. In China, the ICER of nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs. chemotherapy was $59,773/QALY, and the INHB was -1.972 QALY at the threshold of $27,351/QALY.

Conclusion: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab treatment is a cost-effective option compared with chemotherapy for patients with advanced NSCLC harboring no EGFR or ALK mutations in the United States. However, nivolumab plus ipilimumab is not a preferred option in China.