Cost-effectiveness of Atezolizumab Combination Therapy for First-Line Treatment of Metastatic Nonsquamous Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in the United States

Cost-effectiveness analysis of selpercatinib versus chemotherapy and pembrolizumab in the first-line treatment of rearranged during transfection fusion-positive non-small cell lung cancer in the United States

BACKGROUND

Although selpercatinib has shown clinical benefits for rearranged during transfection (RET) fusion-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), its cost-effectiveness requires further evaluation.

AIM

This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of selpercatinib versus chemotherapy and pembrolizumab in the first-line treatment of RET fusion-positive NSCLC from the perspective of the United States (US) payer.

METHOD

A partitioned survival model was developed based on data from the LIBRETTO-431 trial. Cost and utility values for the health state were obtained from database data or published literature. The measured outcomes included quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were conducted to assess the uncertainty of the model.

RESULTS

Selpercatinib increased QALYs in patients with RET fusion-positive NSCLC by 0.90 compared to chemotherapy plus pembrolizumab, with an additional cost of $542,517.45, resulting in an ICER of $603,286.49/QALY, which exceeded the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold ($150,000) in the US. One-way sensitivity analysis suggested that the utility of progressed disease, the utility of progression-free survival, the price of selpercatinib, the discount, the price of pemetrexed, and the price of pembrolizumab had the greatest influence on the cost- effectiveness analysis process. In the PSA, 99.9% of the scatter points were distributed above the US WTP threshold of $150,000.

CONCLUSION

From the perspective of the US payer, selpercatinib is not cost-effective compared to chemotherapy and pembrolizumab for first-line treatment in patients with RET fusion-positive NSCLC.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of amivantamab plus chemotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer patients with epidermal growth factor receptor exon 20 insertions in the United States

BACKGROUND

Although amivantamab has shown clinical benefits for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) exon 20 insertions, its cost-effectiveness requires further investigation.

AIM

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of amivantamab plus chemotherapy for the treatment of NSCLC patients with EGFR exon 20 insertions from the United States payer perspective.

METHOD

A partitioned survival model was developed based on the data from the PAPILLON trial. Costs were derived from the pricing files of Medicare and Medicaid Services and published literature, and utility values were derived from previous studies. A 3% annual discount rate was applied to both costs and outcomes. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). One-way sensitivity analysis, probabilistic sensitivity analysis and scenario analysis, were conducted to test the model stability.

RESULTS

Amivantamab plus chemotherapy yielded an additional 1.12 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) while increasing costs by $483,769.50 relative to the chemotherapy regimen, leading to an ICER of $432,401.16/QALY. The combination of amivantamab with chemotherapy was not cost effective at a threshold of $150,000/QALY. In the scenario analysis, the results showed that the ICERs were $263,680.69/QALY and $418,416.35/QALY when different utility values and 10-year time horizons were adopted, respectively. For PSA, the probability that amivantamab plus chemotherapy would be cost-effective was 0% if the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was $150,000/QALY.

CONCLUSION

Amivantamab plus chemotherapy is unlikely to be a cost-effective option for NSCLC patients with EGFR exon 20 insertions. Reducing the cost of amivantamab may produce favorable economic outcomes.

Cost-effectiveness of durvalumab plus tremelimumab in combination with chemotherapy for the treatment of metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer from the US healthcare sector's and societal perspectives

Purpose

Metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) has a high incidence rate, and economic burdens to patients, healthcare systems, and societies. Durvalumab plus tremelimumab and chemotherapy (T+D+CT) is a novel therapeutic strategy for mNSCLC, which demonstrated promising efficacy in a phase-3 randomized clinical trial, but its economic value remains unclear.

Methods

This economic evaluation used a hypothetical cohort of patients with mNSCLC, with characteristics mirroring those of the participants in the POSEIDON trial. Several partitioned survival models were constructed to estimate 15-year costs and health outcomes associated with the T+D+CT, durvalumab plus chemotherapy (D+CT) and chemotherapy alone (CT) strategies, discounting costs and effectiveness at 3% annually. Costs were in 2023 US dollars. Data were derived from the POSEIDON trial and published literature. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the uncertainty of input parameters and study generalizability. The analysis was designed and conducted from September 2022 to March 2023. To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of T+D+CT, compared with CT and D+CT, for mNSCLC from the perspectives of the US healthcare sector and society.

Findings

From the healthcare sector's perspective, the T+D+CT yielded an additional 0.09 QALYs at an increased cost of $7,108 compared with CT, which resulted in an ICER of $82,501/QALY. The T+D+CT strategy yielded an additional 0.02 QALYs at an increased cost of $27,779 compared with the D+CT, which resulted in an ICER of $1,243,868/QALY. The economic results of T+D+CT vs. CT were most sensitive to the annual discount rate, subsequent immunotherapy cost, tremelimumab cost, palliative care and death cost, pemetrexed cost, and durvalumab cost. The T+D+CT strategy was considered cost-effective relative to CT in 59%-82% of model iterations against willingness-to-pay. thresholds of $100,000/QALY gained to $150,000/QALY gained. From the societal perspective, the T+D+CT can be considered as cost-effective as compared with CT or D+CT, independent of histology.

Implications

In this cost-effectiveness analysis, the T+D+CT strategy represented good value compared with CT for patients with mNSCLC from the perspectives of the healthcare sector and the society. This treatment strategy may be prioritized for mNSCLC patients at high risks of disease progression.

First-line treatments for advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer with immune checkpoint inhibitors plus chemotherapy: a systematic review, network meta-analysis, and cost-effectiveness analysis

Introduction

The combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and chemotherapy is a promising first-line therapy for patients with advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The cost-effectiveness of combinations with different ICIs is yet to be compared.

Methods

We utilized Bayesian network meta-analyses for the comparisons of overall survival, progression-free survival, and incidence of adverse events of the included treatments in the total population and subgroups with different programmed death-ligand 1 tumor proportional scores (TPS). The cost-effectiveness of the treatments from the perspectives of the US and Chinese healthcare systems was assessed using Markov models.

Results

Three combinations, including pembrolizumab + chemotherapy (PembroC), nivolumab + ipilimumab + chemotherapy (NivoIpiC), and atezolizumab + chemotherapy (AteC), were included in our study. In terms of efficacy, PembroC was most likely to be ranked first for extending progression-free survival (PFS) (93.16%) and overall survival (OS) (90.73%). Nevertheless, from the US perspective, NivoIpiC and PembroC showed incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of $68,963.1/quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) and $179,355.6/QALY, respectively, compared with AteC. The one-way sensitivity analysis revealed that the results were primarily sensitive to the hazard ratios for OS or the cost of immunotherapy agents. At a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000/QALY, NivoIpiC had the highest probability of being cost-effective (63%). As for the Chinese perspective, NivoIpiC and PembroC had ICERs of $145,983.4/QALY and $195,863.3/QALY versus AteC, respectively. The results were primarily sensitive to the HRs for OS. At a WTP threshold of $38,017/QALY, AteC had the highest probability of cost-effectiveness (94%).

Conclusion

Although PembroC has the optimal efficacy, NivoIpiC and AteC were the most favorable treatments in terms of cost-effectiveness for patients with advanced non-squamous NSCLC from the US and Chinese perspectives, respectively.

The cost-effectiveness of zolbetuximab in CLDN18.2-positive gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma

Aim: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of zolbetuximab plus capecitabine/oxaliplatin (CAPOX) in CLDN18.2-positive, HER2-negative, mG/GEJ adenocarcinoma from the perspective of Chinese payers.Materials & methods: A partitioned survival model was developed to assess the costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) of zolbetuximab plus CAPOX versus placebo plus CAPOX. Sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of model.Results: Zolbetuximab plus CAPOX gained an additional cost of $91,551 and an extra health benefit of 0.24 QALY over placebo plus CAPOX, producing an ICER of $388,186/QALY, which exceeded the willingness-to-pay threshold of $38,223/QALY. Sensitivity analysis shows that the model was generally robust.Conclusion: Zolbetuximab plus CAPOX would not be a cost-effective first-line treatment regimen in CLDN18.2-positive, HER2-negative, mG/GEJ adenocarcinoma in China.

Cost-effectiveness of immunotherapies for advanced squamous non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

There are differences in the pharmacoeconomics of Immune checkpoint blocking (ICB) therapies for the treatment of lung squamous cell carcinoma (LSCC). However, no corresponding review studies have fully discussed the cost-effectiveness of ICBs in treating LSCC. The aim of this paper is to systematically review and evaluate all available pharmacoeconomic studies of ICBs for LSCC.

METHOD

The inclusion criteria were based on the population, intervention, comparator, outcomes, and study designs. An electronic search was conducted by June 2023, and the following databases were used: PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. Search keywords included 'Carcinoma', Non-Small-Cell Lung', 'Immunotherapy', and 'Economics, Medical'. The primary outcome was the cost-effectiveness analysis of ICB therapy in LSCC patients. Drummond Checklist was used to assess quality problems and possible bias in the study design of included pharmacoeconomic studies.

RESULTS

This review searched 15 articles on the economic evaluation of ICB treatment for LSCC. After a qualitative review of 15 studies, we concluded that nivolumab is more cost-effective as a monotherapy than chemotherapy alone. In the combination regimen, pembrolizumab combined with chemotherapy appears to be the most cost-effective option at present, but for Chinese payers with LSCC, locally developed treatments such as sintilimab or toripalimab in combination with chemotherapy are more cost-effective.

DISCUSSION

The inclusion of economic evaluation has heterogeneity in research design and outcomes, which can only support qualitative synthesis. Therefore, The results of this paper need to be treated with caution. For the Chinese market, instead of imported drugs, the possible cost-effectiveness of locally developed ICB therapies should be the focus of future research.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors therapy as the game-changing approach for pediatric lymphoma: A brief landscape

Lymphoma is known as the third most common malignancy in children, and its prevalence and mortality are increasing. Common treatments, including chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and also surgery, despite their efficacy, have many side effects and, have a high chance of disease relapse. Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors (ICIs) offer a promising alternative with potentially fewer risks of relapse and toxicity. This review article aims to investigate the efficacy and safety of ICIs, either as monotherapy or in combination, for pediatric lymphoma patients. ICIs have revolutionized cancer treatment in recent years and have shown remarkable results in several adult cancers. However, their efficacy in treating pediatrics requires further investigation. Nevertheless, some ICIs, including nivolumab, pembrolizumab, and ipilimumab, have demonstrated encouraging outcomes. ICIs therapy is not without risks and can cause side effects, including rash, itching, vitiligo, abdominal pain, diarrhea, dysphagia, epigastric pain, nausea, vomiting, thyroid, and pituitary dysfunction. Overall, this review article highlights the potential benefits and risks of ICIs in treating pediatric lymphoma.

Cost-effectiveness of first-line immunotherapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer with different PD-L1 expression levels: A comprehensive overview

BACKGROUND

Immunotherapies can substantially improve treatment efficacy, despite their high cost. A comprehensive overview of the cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in patients with non-small cell lung cancer based on different tumor proportion scores (TPSs) was conducted.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Health Technology Assessment Database, and NHS Economic Evaluation databases were searched from their inception until August 24, 2022. Data relevant to the CEA results were recorded, and quality assessments conducted based on the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) process.

FINDINGS

Fifty-one original studies from seven countries were included. The mean QHES score was 77.0 (range: 53-95). Twenty-seven studies were classified as high-quality, and the rest as fair quality. Pembrolizumab, nivolumab, ipilimumab, atezolizumab, camrelizumab, cemiplimab, sintilimab, tislelizumab, and durvalumab were identified using three TPS categories. While nivolumab plus ipilimumab and pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy were unlikely to be cost-effective in China, the results for the US were uncertain. Atezolizumab combinations were not cost-effective in China or the US, and tislelizumab and sintilimab were cost-effective in China. For TPSs ≥ 50%, the pembrolizumab monotherapy could be cost-effective in some developed countries. Cemiplimab was more cost-effective than chemotherapy, pembrolizumab, and atezolizumab in the US. For TPSs ≥ 1%, the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab was controversial due to the different willingness-to-pay thresholds.

CONCLUSIONS

None of the atezolizumab combination regimens were found to be cost-effective in any perspective of evaluations. Camrelizumab, tislelizumab, and sintilimab have lower ICERs compared to atezolizumab, pembrolizumab, and nivolumab in China. Cemiplimab may be a more affordable alternative to pembrolizumab or atezolizumab. However, it remains unclear which ICIs are the best choices for each country. Future CEAs are required to select comprehensive regimens alongside randomized trials and real-world studies to help verify the economics of ICIs in specific decision-making settings.

Research advances in mechanism of antiangiogenic therapy combined with immune checkpoint inhibitors for treatment of non-small cell lung cancer

Immunotherapy has changed the treatment strategy of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in recent years, among which anti-PD-1/PD-L1 antibodies are the most used. However, the majority of patients with NSCLC do not derive benefit from immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Vascular abnormalities are a hallmark of most solid tumors and facilitate immune evasion. Thus, combining antiangiogenic therapies might increase the effectiveness of anti-PD-1/PD-L1 antibodies. In this paper, the mechanisms of anti-angiogenic agents combined with anti-PD-1/PD-L1 antibodies are illustrated, moreover, relevant clinical studies and predictive immunotherapeutic biomarkers are summarized and analyzed, in order to provide more treatment options for NSCLC patients.

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.

Cost-effectiveness of first-line immunotherapy combinations with or without chemotherapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a modelling approach

BACKGROUND

Many studies have explored the cost-effectiveness of immunotherapy versus chemotherapy alone. However, there is paucity of evidence on direct pharmacoeconomic studies related to immunotherapy combinations. Thus, we aimed at assessing the economic outcomes of first-line immunotherapy combinations in the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) from the Chinese health care perspective.

METHODS

The mutual hazard ratios (HRs) of ten immunotherapy combinations and one chemotherapy regimen for the overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were obtained from a network meta-analysis. Based on proportional hazard (PH) assumption, adjusted OS and PFS curves were established to make the effects comparable. With the parameters of cost and utility, and of scale and shape from the fit of adjusted OS and PFS curves obtained from previous studies, a partitioned survival model was designed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of immunotherapy combinations versus chemotherapy alone. Parameter uncertainty in model inputs was assessed using one-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

The incremental cost of camrelizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone was $13,180.65, the lowest among all the other immunotherapy combinations. Furthermore, sintilimab plus chemotherapy (sint-chemo) provided the highest quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) benefit versus chemotherapy alone (incremental QALYs = 0.45). Sint-chemo yielded the best incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) versus chemotherapy alone (ICER = $34,912.09/QALY), at the current price. The cost-effectiveness probabilities were 32.01% and 93.91% for pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy, and atezolizumab plus bevacizumab plus chemotherapy, respectively (if the original price of the pembrolizumab, atezolizumab, and bevacizumab were decreased by 90%).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the fact that there is fierce competition in the PD-1/PD-L1 market, pharmaceutical enterprises should strive for greater efficacy, and optimal pricing strategy for therapies.

Clinical efficacy and safety of pemetrexed with or without either Bevacizumab or Pembrolizumab in patients with metastatic nonsquamous non-small cell carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Pemetrexed was approved by United States Food and Drug Administration (US FDA) in combination with platinum for the treatment of advanced nonsquamous non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) and malignant mesothelioma. Bevacizumab and pembrolizumab can be added to chemotherapy for patients with nonsquamous NSCLC with benefits but there has not been any dedicated head-to-head comparison between pembrolizumab-pemetrexed-platinum (PAC) and bevacizumab-pemetrexed-platinum (BAC) on their efficacy and safety.

METHODS

This was a retrospective single-center cohort study conducted in Queen Mary Hospital in Hong Kong. The study included 451 patients with advanced stage nonsquamous NSCLC that received first-line pemetrexed and platinum with or without bevacizumab or pembrolizumab. Patients who received pemetrexed-platinum (AC) were compared with those who received PAC and BAC. The primary endpoint was the progression-free survival (PFS).

RESULTS

The median PFS for patients that received PAC was significantly longer than those who received BAC and AC (9 months vs. 6.8 months vs. 4.8 months, p < 0.05 among all three groups), with OR of 0.578 (95% CI, 0.343-0.976; p = 0.040) and 0.430 (95% CI, 0.273-0.675; p < 0.001) when compared to BAC and AC, respectively. Patients who received PAC also had a higher disease control rate and higher likelihood to receive continuation maintenance therapy than those on AC. There is no statistically significant difference in the grade 3 to 4 toxicity among the three treatment groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Although both regimens are superior to pemetrexed-platinum alone, data from this retrospective single center study suggested a better PFS in  advanced stage nonsquamous NSCLC patient treated with first-line pembrolizumab-pemetrexed-platinum than bevacizumab-pemetrexed-platinum without an obvious increase in significant toxicity.

Cost-effectiveness of first-line immunotherapies for advanced non-small cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND

Researchers have not simultaneously compared the cost-effectiveness of six immunotherapies with chemotherapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness across different programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) levels.

METHODS

A Markov model with lifetime horizon was created for seven regimens: pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy (pembro-chemo), nivolumab plus ipilimumab (nivo-ipi), nivolumab, ipilimumab plus chemotherapy (nivo-ipi-chemo), atezolizumab plus chemotherapy (atezo-chemo), atezolizumab, bevacizumab plus chemotherapy (atezo-beva-chemo), single-agent pembrolizumab, and chemotherapy alone. Input parameters were derived from trial data, a network meta-analysis, and other literature. We conducted the analysis from the perspective of US health care sector.

RESULTS

For all patients without considering PD-L1 expression, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of pembro-chemo versus chemotherapy was $183,299 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). The preferred regimens based on ICERs differed by PD-L1 levels. For patients with PD-L1 ≥50%, pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy and pembro-chemo versus pembrolizumab resulted in ICERs of $96,189 and $198,913 per QALY, respectively. The other strategies were dominated. For patients with PD-L1 of 1%-49%, the ICER of pembro-chemo comparing to chemotherapy was $218,159 per QALY. The other regimens were dominated by pembro-chemo. For patients with PD-L1 <1%, nivo-ipi versus chemotherapy and nivo-ipi-chemo versus nivo-ipi resulted in ICERs of $161,277 and $881,975 per QALY, and the other regimens were dominated strategies. At the willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per QALY, pembrolizumab had 87% and pembro-chemo had 1% probabilities being cost-effective in patients with PD-L1 ≥50% and 1%-49%, respectively. Nivo-ipi had a 34% probability being cost-effective in patients with PD-L1 <1%.

CONCLUSIONS

The PD-L1 level should be incorporated into treatment decision-making. Our findings suggest that first-line pembrolizumab, pembro-chemo, and nivo-ipi are the preferred strategies for patients with PD-L1 ≥50%, 1%-49%, and <1%, respectively.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness analysis of 11 treatment paths, seven first-line and three second-line treatments for Chinese patients with advanced wild-type squamous non-small cell lung cancer: A sequential model

Background

A total of 11 treatment sequences for advanced wild-type squamous non-small cell lung cancer are recommended by Chinese Society of Clinical Oncology Guidelines, consisting of seven first-line and three second-line treatments. Five of these treatments were newly approved in China between 2021 and 2022. We evaluated the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of these strategies from the Chinese healthcare system perspective.

Methods

Network meta-analysis with non-proportional hazards was used to calculate the relative efficacy between interventions. A sequential model was developed to estimate costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) for treatment sequences with first-line platinum- and paclitaxel-based chemotherapy (SC) with or without nedaplatin, tislelizumab, camrelizumab, sintilimab, sugemalimab or pembrolizumab, followed by second-line docetaxel, tislelizumab or nivolumab. SC and docetaxel were used as comparators for first-line and second-line treatments, respectively. QALY and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were used to evaluate effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, respectively. Cost-effective threshold was set as USD 19,091. Subgroup analysis was conducted to determine the best first-line and second-line therapy.

Results

Pembrolizumab + SC, followed by docetaxel (PED) was the most effective treatment sequence. QALYs for patients received SC, nedaplatin + SC, tislelizumab + SC, sintilimab + SC, camrelizumab + SC, sugemalimab + SC, pembrolizumab + SC followed by docetaxel were 0.866, 0.906, 1.179, 1.266, 1.179, 1.266, 1.603, 1.721, 1.807; QALYs for SC, nedaplatin + SC followed by tislelizumab were 1.283, 1.301; QALYs for SC, nedaplatin + SC followed by nivolumab were 1.353, 1.389. Camrelizumab + SC, followed by docetaxel (CAD) was the most cost-effective. Compared to SC with or without nedaplatin, tislelizumab, or sintilimab followed by docetaxel, ICERs of CAD were USD 12,276, 13,210, 6,974, 9,421/QALY, respectively. Compared with nedaplatin or SC followed by tislelizumab, the ICERs of CAD were USD 4,183, 2,804/QALY; CAD was dominant compared with nedaplatin or SC followed by nivolumab; The ICER of sugemalimab + SC followed by docetaxel and PED were USD 522,023, 481,639/QALY compared with CAD. Pembrolizumab + SC and camrelizumab + SC were the most effective and cost-effective first-line options, respectively; tislelizumab was the most effective and cost-effective second-line therapy. Tislelizumab used in second-line was more effective than first-line, no significant differences between their cost-effectiveness. Sensitivity and scenario analysis confirmed robustness of the results.

Conclusions

PED and CAD are the most effective and cost-effective treatment sequence, respectively; pembrolizumab + SC and camrelizumab + SC are the most effective and cost-effective first-line choice, respectively; tislelizumab is the most effective and cost-effective second-line choice.

The benefits and harms of adjuvant chemotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer in patients with major comorbidities: A simulation study

BACKGROUND

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have demonstrated a survival benefit for adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy after resection of locoregional non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The relative benefits and harms and optimal approach to treatment for NSCLC patients who have major comorbidities (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [COPD], coronary artery disease [CAD], and congestive heart failure [CHF]) are unclear, however.

METHODS

We used a simulation model to run in-silico comparative trials of adjuvant chemotherapy versus observation in locoregional NSCLC in patients with comorbidities. The model estimated quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained by each treatment strategy stratified by age, comorbidity, and stage. The model was parameterized using outcomes and quality-of-life data from RCTs and primary analyses from large cancer databases.

RESULTS

Adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with clinically significant QALY gains for all patient age/stage combinations with COPD except for patients >80 years old with Stage IB and IIA cancers. For patients with CHF and Stage IB and IIA disease, adjuvant chemotherapy was not advantageous; in contrast, it was associated with QALY gains for more advanced stages for younger patients with CHF. For stages IIB and IIIA NSCLC, most patient groups benefited from adjuvant chemotherapy. However, In general, patients with multiple comorbidities benefited less from adjuvant chemotherapy than those with single comorbidities and women with comorbidities in older age categories benefited more from adjuvant chemotherapy than their male counterparts.

CONCLUSIONS

Older, multimorbid patients may derive QALY gains from adjuvant chemotherapy after NSCLC surgery. These results help extend existing clinical trial data to specific unstudied, high-risk populations and may reduce the uncertainty regarding adjuvant chemotherapy use in these patients.

Atezolizumab with chemotherapy in first-line treatment for metastatic urothelial cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis

Purpose: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab plus chemotherapy as first-line treatment for metastatic urothelial cancer (mUC). Materials & methods: A Markov model was established for the analysis. Parametric survival models were used to fit to progression-free survival and overall survival data in the IMvigor130 study. A series of one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the model. Results: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for atezolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone were US$475,633.17 and $207,488.17 per quality-adjusted life-year in the USA and China, respectively. Utility for the progression-free survival and progressive disease states, the cost of atezolizumab had the most significant impact on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Conclusion: Atezolizumab plus chemotherapy is not a cost-effective treatment option as a first-line treatment for metastatic urothelial cancer.

The Cost-Effectiveness of Tislelizumab Plus Chemotherapy for Locally Advanced or Metastatic Nonsquamous Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

Objective: To investigate the cost-effectiveness of adding Chinese-developed anti-PD-1 antibody tislelizumab to first-line pemetrexed-platinum chemotherapy in (1) a study population of patients with locally advanced or metastatic nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer (nsqNSCLC) and without known sensitizing EGFR mutations or ALK rearrangements and (2) its subgroups from the perspective of Chinese healthcare system.

Material and Methods: Separate Markov models were constructed for the entire study population and its subgroups; 10,000 patients with locally advanced or metastatic nsqNSCLC and without driver gene mutations were simulated in the first-line tislelizumab plus pemetrexed-platinum (TPP) arm and first-line pemetrexed-platinum (PP) arm, respectively. Transition probabilities were extracted from the RATIONALE 304 trial. Public health state utilities and costs were obtained from published literature, public national databases, and local general hospitals. The main outputs were incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). The ICERs were compared to a willingness-to-pay threshold of $35,663 per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) to determine the cost-effective treatment. Sensitivity analyses were employed to assess the uncertainty in the model.

Results: For the entire patient population, first-line TPP versus PP use increased the effectiveness by 0.99 QALYs and healthcare costs by $28,749, resulting in an ICER of $28,749/QALY that was lower than the prespecified WTP threshold. For patient subgroups, first-line TPP conferred the greatest survival benefit in patients with PD-L1 expression ≥50%, followed by patients with liver metastasis and those who are current or former smokers. Overall, the ICERs for the first-line TPP versus PP ranged from $27,018/QALYs to $33,074/QALYs, which were consistently below the WTP threshold.

Conclusion: For Chinese patients with locally advanced or metastatic nsqNSCLC who had no known sensitizing EGFR mutations or ALK rearrangements, adding the Chinese-developed anti-PD-1 antibody tislelizumab to the first-line pemetrexed-platinum chemotherapy was cost-effective regardless of their baseline characteristics.

Assessment of Treatment Strategies for Stage I Non-small Cell Lung Cancer in Patients with Comorbidities

INTRODUCTION

Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients frequently have major comorbidities but there is scarce data regarding the impact of these conditions on management strategies. We used simulation modeling to compare different treatments for stage I NSCLC for patients with common major comorbidities.

METHODS

We used data on NSCLC patinet outcomes and quality of life from: (1) the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database linked to Medicare claims; (2) Kaiser Permanente Southern California electronic health records; and (3) SEER-Medical Health Outcomes Survey to parameterize a novel simulation model of management and outcomes for stage I NSCLC. Relative efficacy of treatment modalities (lobectomy, segmentectomy, wedge resection and stereotactic body radiotherapy [SBRT]) was collected from existing literature and combined using evidence synthesis methods. We then simulated multiple randomized trials comparing these treatments in a variety of scenarios, estimating quality adjusted life expectancy (QALE) according to age, tumor size, histologic subtype, and comorbidity status.

RESULTS

Lobectomy and segmentectomy yielded the greatest QALE gains among all simulated age, tumor size and comorbidity groups. Optimal treatment strategies differed by patient sex and age; wedge resection was among the optimal strategies for women aged 80-84 with tumors 0-2 cm in size. SBRT was included in some optimal strategies for patients aged 80-84 with multimorbidity.

CONCLUSIONS

In simulated comparative trials of four common treatments for stage I NSCLC, aggressive surgical management was typically associated with the greatest projected QALE gains despite the presence of comorbidities, although less aggressive strategies were predicted to be non-inferior in some older comorbid patient groups.

The Predictive Value of PD-L1 Expression Level in Evaluating the Cost-Effectiveness of Atezolizumab/Pembrolizumab

Objective

Recently, the significant improvement of atezolizumab and pembrolizumab over chemotherapy for treatment-naïve stage IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has been demonstrated, but the cost-effectiveness of these regimens remains unknown.

Methods

A Markov model was adapted from the US healthcare perspective to assess the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab, pembrolizumab, and chemotherapy in treatment-naïve NSCLC. Pseudo-individual patient data were generated from digitized Kaplan–Meier curves. Direct medical costs and utility values were sourced from the database and literature. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), total costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were computed. Sensitivity analyses and budgetary impact analyses were calculated.

Results

In any and high programmed cell death 1-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression populations, with chemotherapy, atezolizumab provided ICERs of $234,990 and $130,804 per QALY, while pembrolizumab yielded ICERs of $424,797 and $140,873 per QALY. The ICER of atezolizumab vs. pembrolizumab was $56,635 and $115,511.82 in any and high PD-L1 expression population, respectively. The critical drivers of ICERs included the cost of atezolizumab and pembrolizumab. The accumulated incremental budgetary impact of atezolizumab vs. chemotherapy increased to approximately $39.1 million in high PD-L1 expression patients over 5 years.

Conclusions

In the high PD-L1 expression population, both atezolizumab and pembrolizumab were cost-effective for stage IV NSCLC compared to chemotherapy, which is contrary to that in any PD-L1 expression population. Atezolizumab shows a higher acceptability in both populations. Treating with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) has a substantial budgetary impact on the medical burden. The PD-L1 expression level has the potential to be a predictor for the economics of ICIs.

Modeling Challenges in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of First-Line Immuno-Oncology Therapies in Non-small Cell Lung Cancer: A Systematic Literature Review

INTRODUCTION

The introduction of immuno-oncology (IO) therapies has changed the treatment landscape of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Numerous cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) and technology appraisals (TAs) evaluating IO therapies have been recently published.

OBJECTIVE

We reviewed economic models of first-line (1L) IO therapies for previously untreated advanced or metastatic NSCLC to identify methodological challenges associated with modeling cost effectiveness from published literature and TAs and to make recommendations for future CEAs in this disease area.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted following Cochrane and PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, EconLit (January 2009-January 2020), and select conferences (since 2016) for CEAs of 1L IO treatments in patients with recurrent or metastatic, epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)/anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) mutation-negative NSCLC, published in English. TAs from England, Scotland, Canada, Australia, Germany, and France were also examined. Two reviewers screened the results and extracted the data. The quality of the CEAs was described using the Drummond checklist.

RESULTS

In total, 46 records reporting on 38 unique models met protocol-defined criteria and were included. Five models adjusted for treatment switching or crossover in base-case analyses, and the remainder considered treatment switching or crossover to represent clinical practice and made no adjustment. Seven models used external real-world data for survival modeling or extrapolation validation. Six models that assumed long-term treatment benefit stopped at 3 or 5 years after initiation. Seven models used the observed time-on-treatment distribution from the trial, and eight used progression-free survival for treatment duration. All models compared one or more IO monotherapies or combination therapies with chemotherapy. Only one study directly compared different IO agents but did not consider the concordance issue across programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) testing methods. Utilities were modeled by health state in 12 models, four applied a time-to-death approach, and ten explored both. None applied cure models.

CONCLUSION

Variations in methodological challenges were seen across studies. Previous models took approaches that were followed in subsequent models, such as a 2-year stopping rule of IO duration or treatment-effect waning. Challenges such as heterogeneity in PD-L1 testing and survival extrapolation and validation using real-world data should be further considered for future models in advanced or metastatic NSCLC.

Cost-Effectiveness of Pembrolizumab Plus Chemotherapy Versus Pembrolizumab Monotherapy in Metastatic Non-Squamous and Squamous NSCLC Patients With PD-L1 Expression ≥ 50

Objective To compare the cost-effectiveness of the combination of pembrolizumab and chemotherapy (Pembro+Chemo) versus pembrolizumab monotherapy (Pembro) as the first-line treatment for metastatic non-squamous and squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with PD-L1expression ≥50%, respectively, from a US health care perspective. Material and Methods A comprehensive Makrov model were designed to compare the health costs and outcomes associated with first-line Pembro+Chemo and first-line Pembro over a 20-years time horizon. Health states consisted of three main states: progression-free survival (PFS), progressive disease (PD) and death, among which the PFS health state was divided into two substates: PFS while receiving first-line therapy and PFS with discontinued first-line therapy. Two scenario analyses were performed to explore satisfactory long-term survival modeling. Results In base case analysis, for non-squamous NSCLC patients, Pembro+Chemo was associated with a significantly longer life expectancy [3.24 vs 2.16 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs)] and a substantially greater healthcare cost ($341,237 vs $159,055) compared with Pembro, resulting in an ICER of $169,335/QALY; for squamous NSCLC patients, Pembro+Chemo was associated with a slightly extended life expectancy of 0.22 QALYs and a marginal incremental cost of $3,449 compared with Pembro, resulting in an ICER of $15,613/QALY. Our results were particularly sensitive to parameters that determine QALYs. The first scenario analysis yielded lower ICERs than our base case results. The second scenario analysis founded Pembro+Chemo was dominated by Pembro. Conclusion For metastatic non-squamous NSCLC patients with PD-L1 expression ≥50%, first-line Pembro+Chemo was not cost-effective when compared with first-line Pembro. In contrast, for the squamous NSCLC patient population, our results supported the first-line Pembro+Chemo as a cost-effective treatment. Although there are multiple approaches that are used for extrapolating long-term survival, the optimal method has yet to be determined.

First-Line ICI Monotherapies for Advanced Non-small-cell Lung Cancer Patients With PD-L1 of at Least 50%: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Objective: Three immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), pembrolizumab, atezolizumab and cemiplimab, have been successively approved as first-line treatments for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with programmed cell death ligand 1(PD-L1) expression of at least 50%. This study was designed to compare the cost-effectiveness of these three novel therapies in this patient population.

Material and Methods: Using Markov model and network meta-analysis, we conducted separate cost-effectiveness analyses for cemiplimab, pembrolizumab and atezolizumab among advanced NSCLC patients with PD-L1 of at least 50% from the United States health care sector perspective. Health states included progression-free survival, progressive disease, end-stage disease, and death. Clinical efficacy and safety data were derived from phase III clinical trials and health state utilities and costs data were collected from published resources. Two scenario analyses were conducted to assess the impact of varying subsequent anticancer therapies on the cost-effectiveness of these 3 ICIs and cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab combined with chemotherapy versus these 3 first-line ICI monotherapies.

Results: In base case analysis, cemiplimab compared with pembrolizumab was associated with a gain of 0.44 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and an increased cost of $23,084, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $52,998/QALY; cemiplimab compared with atezolizumab was associated with a gain of 0.13 QALYs and a decreased cost of $104,642, resulting in its dominance of atezolizumab. The first scenario analysis yielded similar results as our base case analysis. The second scenario analysis founded the ICERs for pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy were $393,359/QALY, $190,994/QALY and $33,230/QALY, respectively, compared with cemiplimab, pembrolizumab and atezolizumab.

Conclusion: For advanced NSCLC patients with PD-L1 of at least 50%, cemiplimab was a cost-effective option compared with pembrolizumab and a dominant alternative against atezolizumab. Our scenario analysis results supported the cemiplimab plus chemotherapy as a second-line therapy and suggested an extended QALY but overwhelming cost linking to pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus platinum-doublet chemotherapy for first-line treatment of stage IV or recurrent non-small cell lung cancer in the United States

AIM

We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab in combination with ipilimumab (NIVO + IPI) versus platinum-doublet chemotherapy (PDC) for the first-line treatment of stage IV or recurrent non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) from a third-party payer perspective in the United States (US).

METHODS

A partitioned survival model was developed using efficacy, safety, and utility inputs derived from Part 1 of the phase 3 CheckMate 227 trial (NCT02477826) with 37.7-month minimum follow-up for overall survival (OS). OS and progression-free (PF) survival were extrapolated over a 20-year time-horizon using parametric spline-based models selected based on goodness of fit and validated with data from external sources. Duration of treatment Kaplan-Meier curves were used for treatment cost calculations. US-specific costs (2021 dollars) for drug acquisition, administration, and monitoring; disease management (PF and progressed disease health states); end-of-life care; adverse events; and subsequent treatments were derived from publicly available sources. Time-to-death utilities were applied in the base case, whereas treatment-specific progression-based utilities were tested in a scenario analysis. Main outcomes included incremental cost per life-year gained (LYG) and quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Model uncertainty was assessed through deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

NIVO + IPI resulted in 1.53 additional life-years, 1.33 additional QALYs, and $142 088 in additional costs compared with PDC. The incremental cost per LYG was $92 651, whereas incremental cost per QALY gained was $106 553. The application of treatment-specific progression-based utilities yielded an incremental cost per QALY gained of $117 076. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed a 98% probability that NIVO + IPI was cost-effective versus PDC at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000 per QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

NIVO + IPI was estimated to be cost-effective as a first-line treatment for stage IV or recurrent NSCLC in the US, with increased survival and higher cost compared with PDC.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy as first-line therapy for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND

The phase III KEYNOTE-604 study confirmed the benefit of pembrolizumab combined with chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). Taken into account the clinical benefits of pembrolizumab and its high cost, this study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of adding pembrolizumab to standard first-line etoposide-platinum (EP) for patients with ES-SCLC from the US payer perspective.

METHODS

A Markov model was developed to compare the cost and quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) of pembrolizumab plus EP and placebo plus EP over a 10-year time horizon. Clinical efficacy and safety data were pooled from the KEYNOTE-604 trial. Utilities were obtained from published resources. Costs were mainly collected from Medicare in 2020. Sensitivity analyses were performed to examine the robustness of our model.

RESULTS

Adding pembrolizumab to standard first-line EP resulted in the better effectiveness than EP chemotherapy alone for ES-SCLC by 0.22 QALYs. Pembrolizumab plus EP was dominated economically by placebo plus EP, leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $334,373/ QALY. Deterministic sensitivity analyses indicated that the uncertainty in model parameters exerted no substantial effect on our results. Probability sensitivity analysis indicated that probabilities for pembrolizumab plus EP being cost-effective within a wide range of willingness to pay were modest.

CONCLUSION

From the US payer perspective, the first-line treatment for ES-SCLC with pembrolizumab plus EP was not cost-effective compared with placebo plus EP. Although pembrolizumab combination chemotherapy was beneficial to the survival of ES-SCLC, price reduction may be the necessary to improve its cost-effectiveness.

Atezolizumab compared to chemotherapy for first-line treatment in non-small cell lung cancer with high PD-L1 expression: a cost-effectiveness analysis from US and Chinese perspectives

Background

The IMpower110 trial revealed that atezolizumab treatment had significantly longer overall survival (OS) than chemotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with high-programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression. The purpose of the present study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab versus platinum-based chemotherapy for first-line treatment in metastatic NSCLC with high PD-L1 expression, from the perspective of US and Chinese payers.

Methods

A partitioned survival model was constructed based on information from the IMpower110 clinical trial to estimate cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab versus chemotherapy as first-line treatment of metastatic NSCLC. Costs were estimated from US and Chinese payer perspectives. The impact of uncertainty was explored by performing one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

Results

In the United States, treatment with atezolizumab was estimated to increase 0.87 quality adjusted life years (QALYs) at a cost of $123,424/QALY. In China, the use of atezolizumab cost an additional $68,489 compared with chemotherapy, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $78,936/QALY. Sensitivity analysis indicated that the cost of atezolizumab was the most influential factor in both countries.

Conclusions

In the United States, which had a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $100,000 to $150,000 per QALY, atezolizumab was a cost-effective strategy for first-line treatment in metastatic NSCLC patients with high PD-L1 expression when compared to chemotherapy. For China, with a WTP threshold of $33,210 per QALY, atezolizumab was not considered good-value treatment for NSCLC, and a price reduction of 52% appeared to be justified.

Estimated Cost-effectiveness of Atezolizumab Plus Cobimetinib and Vemurafenib for Treatment of BRAF V600 Variation Metastatic Melanoma

IMPORTANCE

In the IMspire150 trial, triplet treatment with atezolizumab and vemurafenib plus cobimetinib significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared with vemurafenib plus cobimetinib alone for treatment of BRAF V600 variation metastatic melanoma. However, considering high cost of this combination, it is unclear if the incremental cost is worth the additional survival benefit.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab and vemurafenib plus cobimetinib vs vemurafenib plus cobimetinib alone in patients with newly diagnosed unresectable BRAF V600 variation metastatic melanoma from the US health care perspective.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This economic evaluation study used a 3-state partitioned survival model to assess the cost-effectiveness of the combination of atezolizumab with vemurafenib plus cobimetinib vs vemurafenib plus cobimetinib alone. The observed Kaplan-Meier curves for overall survival and PFS were digitized from the IMspire150 trial (January 2017-April 2018) and the long-term survivals (over a lifetime horizon) beyond the end of the trial were extrapolated using 7 different survival models. The cost and health preference data were collected from a literature review. This study was performed from March 2021 through June 2021.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The outcomes of interest were expected life-years (LYs) gained and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), expressed as cost per LYs and per QALYs saved.

RESULTS

Adding atezolizumab to vemurafenib and cobimetinib provided an additional 3.267 QALYs compared with the doublet regimen of vemurafenib plus cobimetinib, at an ICER of $271 669 per QALY, which is not considered cost-effective at the willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000 per QALY. However, the scenario analyses found that atezolizumab combined with vemurafenib plus cobimetinib could be cost-effective at 20-year (ICER, $121 432 per QALY) and 30-year ($98 092 per QALY) time horizons when both strategies were stopped after 2 years of treatments, and over a lifetime horizon ($122 220 per QALY) when only immunotherapy with atezolizumab was stopped after 2 years of treatment.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

These findings suggest that the atezolizumab and vemurafenib plus cobimetinib regimen provides significant survival benefits over vemurafenib plus cobimetinib alone, and a price reduction would be encouraged to maximize the value of its survival gain.

A Review of Cost-Effectiveness Studies of Pembrolizumab Regimens for the Treatment of Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer

Pembrolizumab monotherapy or combination therapy is an approved treatment for various advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) indications. We review published cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) of pembrolizumab as treatment for NSCLC and provide in-depth assessment of their methodologies. Fourteen studies were selected through searches of the PubMed database. Modeling approaches, survival and cost estimation, and utility analyses were compared and evaluated. These publications covered regulatory-approved pembrolizumab NSCLC indications based on the following randomized clinical trials: KEYNOTE-010 (one publication), KEYNOTE-024 (six), KEYNOTE-042 (four), KEYNOTE-189 (two), and KEYNOTE-407 (one). Differences were observed in health states (progression free, progressed disease, and death vs stable disease, progressed disease, death, and treatment discontinuation), modeling approaches (partitioned survival vs Markov), survival extrapolation/transition probability estimation, inclusion of additional costs to drug, disease management and adverse event costs (e.g., programmed death-ligand 1 [PD-L1] testing, subsequent treatment, terminal care), treatment duration approaches (trial-based time on treatment vs treat to progression), utility sources (trial data vs literature), and utility analyses (time to death vs progression status). Certain aspects of variability across models were problematic, including deviation from observed treatment utilization within trials and predicted long-term mortality risks for pembrolizumab higher than historical real-world NSCLC mortality data prior to the availability of pembrolizumab. Consequently, results differed even among studies examining the same population and comparator within similar time intervals. Differences in methodology across CEAs may lead to distinct results and conclusions. Payers and policy makers should carefully examine study designs and assumptions and choose CEAs with greater validity and accuracy for evidence-based decision-making.

First-Line Durvalumab in Addition to Etoposide and Platinum for Extensive-Stage Small Cell Lung Cancer: A U.S.-Based Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

BACKGROUND

The latest published CASPIAN trial demonstrated that adding durvalumab to etoposide and platinum (EP) improved survival dramatically for patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). Considering the high cost of durvalumab, this study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of durvalumab plus EP (DEP) in the first-line setting for treatment-naïve patients with ES-SCLC from the U.S. payer perspective.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We developed a three-state Markov model to simulate the disease course and source consumption of ES-SCLC over a lifetime horizon. Pseudo-individual patient-level data were generated from digitized Kaplan-Meier curves. Direct medical costs, including drug and administration costs, disease management and adverse events treatment fees, best supportive care and terminal care costs were obtained from sources including the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project, and relevant literature. Health state utility values were derived from published literature. Main outcomes considered were total costs, life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). All costs were adjusted for inflation to reflect 2019 U.S. dollars. The willingness-to-pay threshold was set as $150,000/QALY. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to explore the uncertainty of model assumptions.

RESULTS

Compared with EP, DEP was projected to increase life expectancy by 0.86 LYs (1.73 vs. 0.87) and 0.44 QALYs (0.93 vs. 0.49). The incremental treatment cost was $95,907, and the corresponding ICER was $216,953/QALY. The result was most sensitive to the variation of durvalumab acquisition cost. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed that the probability of DEP over EP regimen to be cost-effective was 9.4% at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000/QALY. In the case of reducing the price of durvalumab by 30.7%, DEP was more cost-effective than EP.

CONCLUSION

From the perspective of the U.S. payer, adding durvalumab to EP is estimated to be not cost-effective compared with EP alone for patients with untreated ES-SCLC.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

The information provided by this analysis serves as a reference for decision makers. Lowering the price of durvalumab would be a potential measure to improve the economics of durvalumab plus etoposide and platinum (DEP), and the inclusion of durvalumab in the Medicare pharmacopeia could make DEP more economically available. These results may also guide physicians and patients to choose the most economically feasible treatment.

First-Line Chemo-Immunotherapy for Extensive-Stage Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A United States-Based Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Objective

This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of two recently approved first-line chemo-immunotherapies [atezolizumab combined with etoposide and platinum (AEP) and durvalumab combined with etoposide and platinum (DEP)] for patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) in the United States.

Material and Methods

A Markov model was built to compare the cost and effectiveness of AEP, DEP, and etoposide plus platinum (EP) over a 10-year time horizon. Clinical efficacy and safety data were extracted from the IMpower 133 and CASPIAN trials. Health state utilities were obtained from published literature. Costs were collected from an US payer perspective. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to explore the uncertainty bound to model parameters.

Results

For the model cohort of adult patients with treatment-naive ES-SCLC, AEP was associated with marginal improved quality adjusted life years (QALYs) by 0.016 and reduced costs by $5,737 compared with DEP. When comparing the two chemo-immunotherapies with EP chemotherapy, AEP and DEP increased the QALYs by 0.162 QALYs and 0.146, respectively. However, both chemo-immunotherapies were associated with substantially health costs than EP, resulting in ICERs of $382,469 per QALY and $464,593 per QALY, respectively.

Conclusion

In this cost-effectiveness study, first-line AEP represented a dominant treatment strategy compared with DEP. Despite neither first-line AEP nor first-line DEP was cost-effective compared with EP chemotherapy, AEP was able to provide a more efficient balance between incremental cost and QALY than DEP. When new combination therapies with remarkable effect become pivotal in the first-line treatment, the price reduction of these drugs may be essential to achieving cost-effectiveness.

Medical costs of lung cancer care in Japan during the first one or two years after initial diagnosis

OBJECTIVES

Japan's healthcare expenditures, especially on oncology, are rapidly growing; however, there are scant data on actual costs and cost-effectiveness in the real world. The aim was to assess the medical costs and outcomes of patients with advanced lung cancer.

METHODS

We retrospectively investigated all patients who were diagnosed with advanced lung cancer at the Japanese Red Cross Medical Center between 1 January 2008 and 31 December 2018. Patients were classified into three cohorts according to the year of diagnosis-Cohort 1: 2008-2010, Cohort 2: 2011-2014 and Cohort 3: 2015-2018-and assessed for medical costs and outcome. Medical costs were divided into outpatient and inpatient costs and were calculated on a monthly basis.

RESULTS

Ninety-five patients with small cell lung cancer (SCLC) and 330 with nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) were included. There was a trend toward increased costs during the first two years after diagnosis in NSCLC patients, without changes in monthly costs, reflecting improved survival. Compared to Cohort 1, Cohort 3 patients with NSCLC had longer survival (median: 24 versus 12 months, P < 0.001), with a median incremental cost of Japanese Yen 6 million during the initial two years. The proportion of outpatient costs increased over time, especially for NSCLC patients (P < 0.001). No changes in costs or survival were observed in SCLC patients.

CONCLUSIONS

In NSCLC patients, medical costs increased with prolonged survival during the last decade. The costs on a monthly basis did not change. The proportion of outpatient costs increased.

First-Line Atezolizumab for Metastatic NSCLC with High PD-L1 Expression: A United States-Based Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

INTRODUCTION

The IMpower110 trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of atezolizumab in previously untreated patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Due to the high cost of immunity inhibitors, it is necessary to evaluate their value based on their efficacy and cost. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab as the first-line treatment for NSCLC with high programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression from the US payer perspective.

METHODS

A Markov model with three health states was developed to estimate the cost and outcome of atezolizumab versus platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with previously untreated metastatic NSCLC with high PD-L1 expression. Model outputs included the life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), total cost, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed for all parameters.

RESULTS

Atezolizumab produced an additional 1.32 QALYs (2.08 LYs) compared with platinum-based chemotherapy. The accompanying incremental cost was US$224,590. The results of one-way sensitivity analysis found that the ICER was most sensitive to the HR of OS. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that the probability of atezolizumab being cost-effective compared with platinum-based chemotherapy was 10.28% and 37.71% at the willing-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $100,000/QALY and $150,000/QALY, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Atezolizumab was estimated not to be cost-effective compared with platinum-based chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of patients with NSCLC with high PD-L1 expression.

Economic Evaluation of First-Line Atezolizumab for Extensive-Stage Small-Cell Lung Cancer in the US

Introduction: This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab + chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy as first-line treatment for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) in the United States (US).

Methods: The three health states partitioned survival (PS) model was used over the lifetime. Effectiveness and safety data were derived from the IMpower133 trial. The parametric survival model and mixture cure model were used for the atezolizumab + chemotherapy group to explore the long-term uncertainty of the effect of immunotherapy, and the parametric survival model was used for the chemotherapy group. Costs were derived from the pricing files of Medicare and Medicaid Services, and utility values were derived from previous studies. Sensitivity analyses were performed to observe model stability.

Results: If the mixture cure model was considered for the intervention group, compared with chemotherapy alone, atezolizumab + chemotherapy yielded an additional 0.11 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), with an incremental cost of US$84,257. The incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) was US$785,848/QALY. If the parametric survival model was considered for the intervention group, atezolizumab + chemotherapy yielded an additional 0.10 QALYs, with an incremental cost of US$84,257; the ICUR was US$827,610/QALY. In the one-way sensitivity analysis, progression-free (PF) and postprogression (PP) utilities were the main drivers. In the scenario analysis (PF utility = 0.673, PP utility = 0.473), the results showed that the ICUR was US$910,557/QALY and US$965,607/QALY when the mixture cure model and parametric survival model was considered for the intervention group, respectively. In the PSA, the probabilities that atezolizumab + chemotherapy would not be cost-effective were 100% if the willingness-to-pay threshold was US$100,000/QALY.

Conclusions: The findings of the present analysis suggest that atezolizumab + chemotherapy is not cost-effective in patients receiving first-line treatment for extensive-stage SCLC in the US.

First-line atezolizumab plus chemotherapy in advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis from China

Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab in combination with carboplatin plus nab-paclitaxel-based chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for first-line treatment of advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) from the Chinese healthcare system perspective.Methods: A Markov model was developed based on the IMpower130 clinical trial. Drug costs and health state utility were obtained from the literature. Outcomes included life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), lifetime costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the model uncertainty.Results: When compared to chemotherapy alone, atezolizumab plus chemotherapy provides an additional 0.34 LY and 0.19 QALY, and has an ICER of $180,560.15 per additional LY gained and that of $325,328.71 per QALY gained. Sensitivity analysis revealed that the results were most sensitive to changes in atezolizumab cost. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that there was a 0% probability that atezolizumab plus chemotherapy was cost-effective at willingness-to-pay values of $30,828 per QALY. If the WTP threshold increased to $325,000 per QALY, atezolizumab plus chemotherapy has a 50% chance to be cost-effective.Conclusions: From the Chinese healthcare system perspective, atezolizumab combination is not cost-effective for first-line therapy of advanced non-squamous NSCLC.

Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Atezolizumab Plus Nab-Paclitaxel for Advanced PD-L1 Positive Triple-Negative Breast Cancer in Japan

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Atezolizumab is an anti-programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) antibody that shows good safety and efficacy for patients with PD-L1-positive triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). The cost of atezolizumab therapy is expensive, and its economic burden is an important problem. In this study, we evaluated the cost effectiveness of atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel therapy (AnP) compared with nab-paclitaxel monotherapy (nP) for PD-L1-positive TNBC under Japanese medical conditions and environments using a Markov model.

METHODS

The medical information was collected from data published by the IMpassion130 trial. A Markov model was established to simulate the number of patients in each disease state after AnP or nP therapy during each time period. As indices for cost effectiveness, total cost, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were calculated. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was used to assess the uncertainty of the model using 10,000 Monte Carlo simulations with difference parameters.

RESULTS

The QALYs for AnP treatment were longer than for nP treatment (1.12 vs 0.82 QALYs), but the total cost of AnP treatment was more expensive than that of nP treatment (¥11,070,143 vs ¥2,056,164). The ICER values comparing AnP treatment with nP treatment were ¥30,208,143/QALY. The ICER/QALY was more expensive than the willingness-to-pay (WTP) of ¥15,000,000 per QALY. To achieve a 50% cost-effective probability with a WTP threshold, the price of the atezolizumab should be reduced by 55.1%.

CONCLUSIONS

AnP was not cost effective compared to nP for PD-L1-positive inoperable TNBC under the Japanese condition.

First-Line Atezolizumab Plus Bevacizumab versus Sorafenib in Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Simple Summary

There is a growing body of literature demonstrating high cancer drug costs relative to the benefits provided to patients treated on a large scale. We examined the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab–bevacizumab for the first-line treatment of patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma, based on the results of the pivotal phase 3 trial IMbrave 150. Our model was most sensitive to the overall survival hazard ratio and body weight. We found that atezolizumab–bevacizumab was cost-effective if we assumed all patients at the end of the IMbrave 150 trial were cured of hepatocellular carcinoma. Otherwise, atezolizumab–bevacizumab was not cost-effective. We concluded that price reduction, duration of therapy capped to ≤12 months, or dosage of bevacizumab reduced to ≤10 mg/kg would favorably influence cost-effectiveness, even if long-term clinical benefits were modest. The long-term effectiveness of atezolizumab–bevacizumab is a critical factor of its cost-effectiveness. Further studies to optimize the duration and dosage of therapy are warranted.

Abstract

Background: The IMbrave 150 trial revealed that atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (atezo–bev) improves survival in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) (1 year survival rate: 67.2% vs. 54.6%). We assessed the cost-effectiveness of atezo–bev vs. sorafenib as first-line therapy in patients with unresectable HCC from the US payer perspective. Methods: Using data from the IMbrave 150, we developed a Markov model to compare the lifetime cost and efficacy of atezo–bev as first-line systemic therapy in HCC with those of sorafenib. The main outcomes were life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), lifetime costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Results: Atezo–bev demonstrated a gain of 0.44 QALYs, with an additional cost of USD 79,074. The ICER of atezo–bev was USD 179,729 per QALY when compared with sorafenib. The model was most sensitive to the overall survival hazard ratio and body weight. If we assumed that all patients at the end of the IMbrave 150 trial were cured of HCC, atezo–bev was cost-effective (ICER USD 53,854 per QALY). However, if all patients followed the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data, the ICER of atezo–bev was USD 385,857 per QALY. Reducing the price of atezo–bev by 20% and 29% would satisfy the USD 150,000/QALY and 100,000/QALY willingness-to-pay threshold. Moreover, capping the duration of therapy to ≤12 months or reducing the dosage of bev to ≤10 mg/kg would render atezo–bev cost-effective. Conclusions: The long-term effectiveness of atezo–bev is a critical but uncertain determinant of its cost-effectiveness. Price reduction would favorably influence cost-effectiveness, even if long-term clinical outcomes were modest. Further studies to optimize the duration and dosage of therapy are warranted.

Cost-effectiveness analyses of targeted therapy and immunotherapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer in the United States: a systematic review

Introduction: Mutation-targeting and immuno-oncology drugs are revolutionizing the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) of these drugs have been conducted using various analytical methods and cost-effectiveness thresholds. This systematic review provides a comprehensive summary of the available evidence.Area covered: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were used to select for CEA of targeted therapies for NSCLC in the United States published between 2008 and 2020. Among the 28 included studies, a majority were published from 2017 to 2020 (n = 18) and more than half targeted non-squamous NSCLC (n = 15). The most frequently evaluated therapy was pembrolizumab (n = 11), followed by bevacizumab (n = 8) and erlotinib (n = 4). After 2009, all included studies applied $100,000 or more thresholds. Thresholds of studies supported by industry (median = $150,000) were more distributed than those of studies supported by nonprofits (median = $100,000).Expert commentary: Medications of interest have changed and are individualized to particular mutations. The cost-effectiveness thresholds varied among sponsors but generally trended to increase over time. This review provides an overview of the available cost-effectiveness findings for stakeholders and contributes to evidence-based practice.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of cabazitaxel for metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer after docetaxel and androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor resistance

Background

The aim of our study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of cabazitaxel versus abiraterone or enzalutamide in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) previously treated with docetaxel who had progression within 12 months while receiving an alternative inhibitor (abiraterone or enzalutamide) from a US payer’s perspective.

Methods

To conduct the cost-effectiveness analysis, a Markov decision model was established. Three health states (progression-free survival (PFS), progressive disease (PD) and death) were included, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was regarded as the primary endpoint. The willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was set at $100,000.00/quality-adjusted life year (QALY), and discounted rates were set at 3% annually. Efficacy data were derived from the CARD trial and Weibull distribution curves were modeled to fit the survival curves. The robustness of the analysis was tested with a series of one-way sensitivity analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

Results

Overall, the incremental effectiveness and cost of cabazitaxel versus androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitors (ASTIs) were 0.16 QALYs and $49,487.03, respectively, which yielded an ICER of $309,293.94/QALY. Our model was mostly sensitive to the duration of PFS in the cabazitaxel group, cost of cabazitaxel and utility of the PFS state. At a WTP threshold of $100,000.00/QALY, cabazitaxel was the dominant strategy in 0% of the simulations.

Conclusions

Cabazitaxel is unlikely to be a cost-effective treatment option compared with ASTIs in patients with mCRPC previously treated with docetaxel who had progression within 12 months while receiving ASTIs.

Cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab + chemotherapy versus chemotherapy and pembrolizumab monotherapy in first line treatment of NSCLC in the US - updated analyses with additional trial follow-up

OBJECTIVE

Pembrolizumab + chemotherapy substantially extends life expectancy for metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. Its cost-effectiveness (CE) was previously evaluated based on interim trial analyses (follow-up ∼1 year). The present analysis describes CE incorporating additional follow-up based on protocol-specified final trial analyses (1-1.5 years additional follow-up), from a US healthcare payer perspective.

METHODS

A partitioned survival model is used to compare pembrolizumab + chemotherapy vs chemotherapy using data from the KN189 (non-squamous patients) and KN407 (squamous patients) clinical trials. An indirect treatment comparison vs pembrolizumab monotherapy is made for patient subgroups with PD-L1 TPS ≥50% and 1-49% based on data from the KN024 and KN042 trials. Efficacy, treatment utilization, health utility, and safety data are derived from trials and projected over 20 years. Costs for drugs, non-drug disease management, and adverse events are also incorporated.

RESULTS

Overall, versus chemotherapy alone, pembrolizumab + chemotherapy is projected to increase life expectancy by 1.12 years (3.35 vs 2.23) and 0.67 years (3.17 vs 2.50) in non-squamous and squamous patients, respectively. Resultant ICERs ($158,030/QALY and $178,387/QALY) are below a US 3-times GDP per capita threshold ($195,000/QALY). ICERs vs chemotherapy also generally fall below the threshold within PD-L1 sub-groups (except in squamous PD-L1 < 1%, which may have differed due to small sample size) while ICERs vs pembrolizumab monotherapy in PD-L1 ≥ 50% and 1-49% sub-groups generally exceed it (except in squamous PD-L1 1-49%); largely a result of the higher drug acquisition cost of pembrolizumab + chemotherapy relative to differences in life expectancy.

CONCLUSIONS

Taken together, with longer-term trial follow-up and in the context of prior literature, in the US, one of the two options for pembrolizumab use (either pembrolizumab + chemotherapy or pembrolizumab monotherapy), represents a cost-effective treatment in virtually all non-squamous and squamous metastatic NSCLC patient populations and PD-L1 sub-groups evaluated.

Cost effectiveness of immune checkpoint inhibitors for treatment of non-small cell lung cancer: A systematic review

Background

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) for treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have been rapidly evolving. ICIs are likely to be more effective but also lead to escalating healthcare costs.

Objectives

The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost effectiveness of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) for treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Methods

We searched the PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library for studies comparing the cost effectiveness of ICIs for NSCLC. Potential studies identified were independently checked for eligibility by two authors, with disagreement resolved by a third reviewer. Quality of the included studies was evaluated using Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklists.

Results

A total of 22 economic studies were included. Overall reporting of the identified studies largely met CHEERS recommendations. In the first-line setting, for advanced or metastatic NSCLC patients with PD-L1 ≥ 50%, pembrolizumab appeared cost-effective compared with platinum-based chemotherapy in the US and Hong Kong (China), but not in the UK and China. The cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy for first-line treatment of NSCLC in PD-L1 ≥ 1% patients remained obscure. Regardless of PD-L1 expression status, pembrolizumab in combination with chemotherapy could be a cost-effective first-line therapy in the US. On the contrary, addition of atezolizumab to the combination of bevacizumab and chemotherapy was not cost-effective for patients with metastatic non-squamous NSCLC from the US payer perspective. In the second-line setting compared with docetaxel, pembrolizumab was cost-effective; though nivolumab was not cost-effective in the base case, it could be by increased PD-L1 threshold. Results of the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab second-line treatment remained inconsistent. In addition, the adoption of durvalumab consolidation therapy after chemoradiotherapy could be cost-effective versus no consolidation therapy for patients with stage III NSCLC.

Conclusions

Immunotherapy can be a cost-effective option for treatment of NSCLC in several scenarios. A discount of the agents or the use of PD-L1 expression as a biomarker improves the cost-effectiveness of immunotherapy.

NCAPH is negatively associated with Mcl‑1 in non‑small cell lung cancer

Lung cancer has a high mortality rate worldwide. Non‑SMC condensin I complex subunit H (NCAPH) has been identified to be one of the regulatory subunits of the condensin I complex, which is essential for the correct packaging and segregation of chromosomes in eukaryotes. NCAPH is abnormally overexpressed in various types of cancer. A pro‑survival member of the Bcl‑2 family, myeloid cell leukemia sequence 1 (Mcl‑1) is also frequently overexpressed in multiple cancers and is associated with poorer clinical outcomes for patients. The association of NCAPH and Mcl‑1 proteins with the clinical and pathological features of non‑small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) remains to be elucidated. In the current study, the positive percentage of NCAPH in the non‑cancerous lung tissues was revealed to be higher compared with that in NSCLC. However, the positive percentage of Mcl‑1 in the non‑cancerous lung tissues was lower compared with NSCLC. In addition, NCAPH high‑expression patients had a higher overall survival rate compared with patients exhibiting low expression, whereas the Mcl‑1 high‑expression group had a lower survival rate. Pairwise association in 260 cases of NSCLC revealed that overexpression of the NCAPH protein was negatively associated with Mcl‑1 expression and vice versa. The results of multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression analysis also indicated that NCAPH and Mcl‑1 demonstrated potential as distinct prognostic factors that may be used in NSCLC. The expression of NCAPH and Mcl‑1 may be associated with, and act as distinct molecular marks for the prediction of a poor prognosis in patients with NSCLC.

Atezolizumab First-Line Combination Therapy: A Review in Metastatic Nonsquamous NSCLC

Atezolizumab (Tecentriq^®), a humanized, anti-programmed cell death ligand-1 (PD-L1) monoclonal antibody, in combination with bevacizumab, carboplatin and paclitaxel (ABCP) or with carboplatin and nab-paclitaxel (ACnP) has been approved as first-line treatment for metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC, based on results from the randomized IMpower150 and IMpower130 studies in chemotherapy-naïve patients with nonsquamous metastatic NSCLC. In IMpower150, ABCP prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) relative to BCP, regardless of EGFR or ALK status, liver metastases at baseline or PD-L1 expression levels. In IMpower130, ACnP prolonged PFS and OS relative to CnP in patients without EGFR or ALK genetic aberrations. ABCP and ACnP had manageable tolerability profiles, which were consistent with the profile of the individual components of the regimen. Immune-related adverse events with ABCP and ACnP were largely mild or moderate in severity, and most were reversible with interruption of atezolizumab and initiation of appropriate treatment. Current evidence indicates that ABCP and ACnP are valuable emerging first-line treatment options for metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC.

Economic Evaluations of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors for Patients with Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review

Objective

This review aimed to assess the quality of available evidence on the economic evaluations of immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and provide evidence to improve the efficiency of healthcare resources.

Materials and Methods

Literature search was performed using some electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials). Final search was performed in December 2019. Study characteristics and results were recorded and compared. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklists. We did not elaborate the restrictions on the target population. We included patients with squamous or non-squamous NSCLC and metastatic or advanced cancer.

Results

Of 98 papers considered, 21 were chosen for this review. Most of them are cost-effectiveness analysis. Comparative regimens consisted of either immune checkpoint inhibitor monotherapy, immune checkpoint inhibitor plus chemotherapy, or chemotherapy alone. Fourteen, four, and three studies were about pembrolizumab, nivolumab, and atezolizumab, respectively. The methods mostly used in these studies were modeling and sensitivity analysis. All studies used quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and life years (LY) as outcomes. Most studies were conducted in high-income countries. Based on the willingness to pay threshold, atezolizumab, and pembrolizumab were found to be cost-effective in one and 10 studies, respectively. None of the studies concluded that nivolumab was cost-effective. For quality assessment, all studies fulfilled more than 50% of the CHEERS checklist.

Conclusion

The included studies indicated that pembrolizumab regimens are cost-effective as first-line treatment for patients with NSCLC in developed countries. Nivolumab and atezolizumab are likely to be cost-effective as second-line treatment but not as first-line treatment.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Atezolizumab Plus Chemotherapy in the First-Line Treatment of Metastatic Non-Squamous Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab plus chemotherapy in patients with metastatic non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) from the United States (US) payers' perspective in the first-line treatment.

METHODS

A mathematical Markov model was developed to estimate cost and effectiveness of atezolizumab combination therapy versus carboplatin plus nab-paclitaxel alone in the first-line therapy of metastatic non-squamous NSCLC from the data of IMpower130. Costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were analyzed, and model robustness was assessed by sensitivity analysis. Additional subgroup analyses were performed as well.

RESULTS

Compared to chemotherapy, treatment with atezolizumab plus chemotherapy yields an increase of 0.16 QALYs with an increase in cost of $109,809.13, resulting in an ICER of $670,309.66 per QALY. The most influential factor in this model was the cost of atezolizumab. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that there was 0% probability that atezolizumab plus chemotherapy was cost-effective at willingness-to-pay (WTP) values of $150,000 per QALY. The results of subgroup analyses showed that the ICER remained greater than $150,000/QALY across the all patient subgroups.

CONCLUSION

First-line treatment with atezolizumab in combination with carboplatin plus nab-paclitaxel is not a cost-effective option in patients with metastatic non-squamous NSCLC.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors of the PD-1/PD-L1-axis in non-small cell lung cancer: promise, controversies and ambiguities in the novel treatment paradigm

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have received much attention not least for melanoma since the award of the Nobel prize in 2018. Here, we review the current state of knowledge about the use of these monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). These drugs have generally been conditionally approved on limited early data and there are few long-term follow-up data from randomized clinical trials. The effect observed for NSCLC thus far is, on average, moderately better than that obtained with chemotherapy. Severe side-effects are more common than might have been expected. The drugs themselves are expensive and are associated with time-consuming histopathologic testing even though the predictive value of these tests can be discussed. In addition, monitoring for side-effects involves increased workload and budgetary expense for clinical chemistry laboratories. Here, we review and summarize the current knowledge, controversies and ambiguities of ICIs for the treatment of NSCLC.

Possibilities of Improving the Clinical Value of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapies in Cancer Care by Optimizing Patient Selection

Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapies have become the most important medical therapies in many malignancies, such as melanoma, non-small-cell lung cancer, and urogenital cancers. However, due to generally low response rates of PD-(L)1 monotherapy, both PD-(L)1 combination therapies and novel therapeutics are under large-scale clinical evaluation. Thus far, clinical trials have rather suboptimally defined the patient population most likely to benefit from ICI therapy, and there is an unmet need for negative predictive markers aiming to reduce the number of non-responding patients in clinical practice. Furthermore, there is a strong need for basic tumor immunology research and innovative clinical trials to fully unleash the potential of ICI combinations for the benefit of patients.