First‐line atezolizumab in addition to bevacizumab plus chemotherapy for metastatic, nonsquamous non–small cell lung cancer: A United States–based cost‐effectiveness analysis

Cost-effectiveness of sotorasib as a second-line treatment for non-small cell lung cancer with KRASG12C mutation in China and the United States

Purpose

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of sotorasib versus docetaxel in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with KRASG12C mutation from the China and United States'social perspective.

Materials and Methods

A Markov model that included three states (progression-free survival, post-progression survival, and death) was developed. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), and incremental QALY were calculated for the two treatment strategies. One-way sensitivity analysis was used to investigate the factors that had a greater impact on the model results, and tornado diagrams were used to present the results. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed with 1,000 Monte Carlo simulations. Assume distributions based on parameter types and randomly sample all parameter distributions each time., The results were presented as cost-effectiveness acceptable curves.

Results

This economic evaluation of data from the CodeBreak 200 randomized clinical trial. In China, sotorasib generated 0.44 QAYL with a total cost of $84372.59. Compared with docetaxel, the ICER value of sotorasib was $102701.84/QALY, which was higher than willingness to pay (WTP), so sotorasib had no economic advantage. In the US, sotorasib obtained 0.35 QALY more than docetaxel, ICER was $15,976.50/QALY, which was more than 1 WTP but less than 3 WTP, indicating that the increased cost of sotorasib was acceptable. One-way sensitivity analysis showed that the probability of sotorasib having economic benefits gradually increased when the cost of follow-up examination was reduced in China. And there was no influence on the conclusions within the range of changes in China. When the willingness to pay (WTP) exceeds $102,500, the probability of sotorasib having cost effect increases from 0% to 49%.

Conclusion

Sotorasib had a cost effect from the perspective in the United States. However, sotorasib had no cost effect from the perspective in China, and only when the WTP exceeds $102,500, the probability of sotorasib having cost effect increases from 0% to 49%.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of bevacizumab for cerebral radiation necrosis treatment based on real-world utility value in China

BACKGROUND

Bevacizumab shows superior efficacy in cerebral radiation necrosis (CRN) therapy, but its economic burden remains heavy due to the high drug price. This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab for CRN treatment from the Chinese payers' perspective.

METHODS

A decision tree model was developed to compare the costs and health outcomes of bevacizumab and corticosteroids for CRN therapy. Efficacy and safety data were derived from the NCT01621880 trial, which compared the effectiveness and safety of bevacizumab monotherapy with corticosteroids for CRN in nasopharyngeal cancer patients, and demonstrated that bevacizumab invoked a significantly higher response than corticosteroids (65.5% vs. 31.5%, P < 0.001) with no significant differences in adverse events between two groups. The utility value of the "non-recurrence" status was derived from real-world data. Costs and other utility values were collected from an authoritative Chinese network database and published literature. The primary outcomes were total costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The uncertainty of the model was evaluated via one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

Bevacizumab treatment added 0.12 (0.48 vs. 0.36) QALYs compared to corticosteroid therapy, along with incremental costs of $ 2010 ($ 4260 vs. $ 2160). The resultant ICER was $ 16,866/QALY, which was lower than the willingness-to-pay threshold of $ 38,223/QALY in China. The price of bevacizumab, body weight, and the utility value of recurrence status were the key influential parameters for ICER. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed that the probability of bevacizumab being cost-effectiveness was 84.9%.

CONCLUSION

Compared with corticosteroids, bevacizumab is an economical option for CRN treatment in China.

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.

Cost-effectiveness of additional serplulimab to chemotherapy in metastatic squamous non-small cell lung cancer patients

Objective

To estimate the cost-effectiveness of adding serplulimab to chemotherapy for metastatic squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients in a first-line setting from a Chinese perspective.

Methods

A three-health state partitioned survival model was constructed to simulate disease development. The clinical data used in the model were derived from the ASTRUM-004 clinical trial. Only direct medical costs were included, and the utilities were derived from published literature. The quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were employed to evaluate health outcomes. Additionally, a sensitivity analysis was performed to verify the robustness of the results.

Results

Compared with chemotherapy alone, the addition of serplulimab resulted in an increase of 0.63 QALYs with an incremental cost of $5,372.73, leading to an ICER of $8,528.14 per QALY. This ICER was significantly lower than 3 times China's per capita GDP. The one-way sensitivity analysis suggested that the utility of PFS was the most sensitive factor on ICERs, followed by the price of serplulimab.

Conclusion

The combination of serplulimab and chemotherapy has been shown to be a cost-effective initial treatment option for patients with metastatic squamous NSCLC with the commonly accepted willingness-to-pay threshold of 3 times the GDP per capita per QALY in China.

Is circulating tumor cell count-driven cost-effective for first-line therapy choice in HR+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer in the United States?

BACKGROUND

Circulating tumor cell (CTC) counting may be a useful non-invasive biomarker that helps patients choose first-line treatment options. Nevertheless, the cost of CTC inspection may impose an economic burden on patients, necessitating the simultaneous consideration of both its clinical effectiveness and cost. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of CTC count-guided chemotherapy and endocrine therapy as first-line therapy for HR+/HER2-metastatic breast cancer (MBC) from the perspective of US payers.

METHODS

Based on the STIC CTC trial, a Markov model was constructed for three health states, and health outcomes were measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robustness of the incremental cost per QALY.

RESULTS

The base-case analysis revealed that CTC count-driven treatment was associated with improved effectiveness by 0.07 QALYs and increased the overall cost by $9187.05 compared with clinician-driven first-line treatment choices, leading to an ICER of $138 354.15 per QALY. One-way sensitivity analysis indicated that the model was most sensitive to the cost of treatment for neutropenia and the utility for PFS; probability sensitivity analysis indicated that CTC count-driven treatment choices would be considered the cost-effective option at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000 per QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this cost-effectiveness analysis suggest that, at the current price of CTC enumeration, choosing first-line treatment options based on CTC count is a cost-effectiveness approach for treating patients with HR+/HER2- MBC in the US.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Sintilimab Plus Chemotherapy in Advanced Non-Squamous Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Societal Perspective

INTRODUCTION

The updated ORIENT-11 study demonstrated that sintilimab, when combined with chemotherapy, had promising survival advantage compared to standard chemotherapy alone in the first-line treatment for previously untreated, locally advanced or metastatic non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (nsNSCLC). This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of sintilimab plus chemotherapy for advanced nsNSCLC from a Chinese societal perspective.

METHODS

A partitioned survival model with a embedded decision tree was developed to assess the economic value of sintilimab plus chemotherapy over a lifetime horizon. Clinical data was captured from the updated ORIENT-11 study, while costs, health productivity losses, and utility values were collected from a nationwide cross-sectional survey in tertiary hospitals across multiple provinces in China. The primary outcomes were measured using the metrics of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER). Costs and health outcomes were discounted at an annual rate of 5% per annum. Sensitivity analyses, including one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses, subgroup analyses, and scenario analyses, were performed.

RESULTS

Compared to standard chemotherapy, treatment with sintilimab plus chemotherapy incurred a mean total cost of $23,979 and gained 0.98 QALYs over the lifetime horizon, resulting in an ICER of $24,568 per QALY gained. The use of sintilimab accumulated direct non-medical costs of $9262 and indirect costs of $6780 over 16 years. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed an 84.2% probability of sintilimab plus chemotherapy being cost-effective at a threshold of three times China's per capita gross domestic product in 2022 ($38,201). The model was most sensitive to the discount rate of QALYs and costs, as well as the costs of pemetrexed, sintilimab, and subsequent therapy in progressive disease state. Subgroup analyses indicated favorable incremental net monetary benefits in all subgroups.

CONCLUSION

Sintilimab plus chemotherapy is a cost-effective first-line treatment therapy for advanced nsNSCLC in China when compared to standard chemotherapy. These findings, along with the improved progression-free survival and overall survival (OS) observed in ORIENT-11, support the use of this regimen in eligible candidates for advanced nsNSCLC.

Cost-Effectiveness of Treatment Optimisation with Biomarkers for Immunotherapy in Solid Tumours: A Systematic Review

This study investigated the health economic evaluations of predictive biomarker testing in solid tumours treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Searching PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science from June 2010 to February 2022, 58 relevant articles were reviewed out of the 730 screened. The focus was predominantly on non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) (65%) and other solid tumours (40%). Among the NSCLC studies, 21 out of 35 demonstrated cost-effectiveness, notably for pembrolizumab as first-line treatment when preceded by PD-L1 assessment, cost-effective at a threshold of $100,000/QALY compared to the standard of care. However, for bladder, cervical, and triple-negative breast cancers (TNBCs), no economic evaluations met the affordability threshold of $100,000/QALY. Overall, the review highlights a certain degree of uncertainty about the cost-effectiveness of ICI. In particular, we found PD-L1 expression associated with ICI treatment to be a cost-effective strategy, particularly in NSCLC, urothelial, and renal cell carcinoma. The findings suggest the potential value of predictive biomarker testing, specifically with pembrolizumab in NSCLC, while indicating challenges in achieving cost-effectiveness for certain other solid tumours.

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.

First-line treatment with durvalumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer in the USA: a cost-effectiveness analysis

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of durvalumab in combination with chemotherapy compared with chemotherapy alone as first-line therapy for metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) from the perspective of the US payer.

METHODS

Based on the POSEIDON clinical trial, a partition survival model was developed to compare the cost-effectiveness of durvalumab in combination with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for the first-line treatment of metastatic NSCLC. The model's primary outcomes were costs, life years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The analysis only considered direct medical costs, and health utility value was determined using published literature. The robustness of the model was tested by probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

The combination therapy of durvalumab and chemotherapy improved survival by 0.713 QALYs at an incremental cost of $64 104.638 compared with chemotherapy alone, resulting in an ICER of $89 908.328 per QALY gained from the US payer perspective. The combination therapy had a 92.3% probability of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000 per QALY based on incremental net health benefits. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the model's consistency, and none of the parameters significantly influenced the findings.

CONCLUSION

Durvalumab in combination with chemotherapy represents a more cost-effective strategy for first-line therapy in patients with metastatic NSCLC in the USA compared with chemotherapy alone.

Cemiplimab combined with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: an updated EMPOWER-Lung 3 trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis

Objective

Cemiplimab combined with chemotherapy has emerged as a promising treatment option for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Accordingly, this study has been conducted to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of this combination therapy in comparison to chemotherapy alone from the perspective of the United States healthcare system.

Methods

The present study is based on a partitioned survival model developed from clinical data obtained during the 2-year follow-up of the phase III EMPOWER-Lung 3 part 2 trial. The purpose of this investigation is to estimate the 10-year life expectancy and total healthcare costs of patients with advanced NSCLC by leveraging primary outcomes that evaluated costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).To establish the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold for the analysis, a value of $150,000/QALY was adopted. Sensitivity analysis was performed to determine the impact of varying levels of uncertainty on the results of this study.

Results

When compared to chemotherapy alone, the addition of cemiplimab to chemotherapy has been demonstrated to result in an incremental gain of 1.593 QALY at an additional cost of $109351.298. This equates to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $68644.883/QALY. One-way sensitivity analyses were conducted on the model, which acknowledged the influence of several parameters, such as subsequent costs, the utility of progressive disease, the cost of best supportive care, the cost of cemiplimab per mg, and the utility of progression-free survival on the outcomes. Nonetheless, none of these parameters yielded an ICER lower than the WTP threshold.

Conclusions

From the perspective of the United States healthcare system, the utilization of cemiplimab in combination with chemotherapy as a first-line treatment option for NSCLC appears to be a cost-effective approach as compared to using chemotherapy as a standalone therapy.

Cost-effectiveness of neoadjuvant pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy with adjuvant pembrolizumab for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer in the United States

Introduction

Perioperative (neoadjuvant and adjuvant) pembrolizumab has shown favorable efficacy in patients with early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of this treatment from the perspective of the United States healthcare payers.

Methods

We established a Markov model to compare the cost-effectiveness of perioperative pembrolizumab with that of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in 21-day cycles, utilizing data from the phase 3 KEYNOTE-671 trial. Additional data were extracted from other publications or online sources. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate the robustness of the findings. A willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained was established. The main outcomes of this study were the measurement of QALYs, overall costs, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), and net monetary benefit (NMB).

Results

During a 10-year time horizon, the total costs of perioperative pembrolizumab and the control treatment were $224,779.1 and $110,026.3, respectively. The QALYs were 4.19 and 2.97 for the two treatments, respectively, which led to an ICER of $94,222.29 per QALY gained. The NMB at the WTP threshold at $150,000 per QALY gained was $67,931.3. One-way sensitivity analysis identified the cost of pembrolizumab as the primary factor influencing cost-effectiveness. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated a 97.7% probability of perioperative pembrolizumab being cost-effective at the WTP threshold.

Conclusions

From the perspective of the United States healthcare payers, perioperative pembrolizumab is a cost-effective treatment for patients with early-stage NSCLC.

Perfusion Change of Hepatocellular Carcinoma During Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab Treatment: A Pilot Study

PURPOSE

To investigate whether the early perfusion change in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) predicts the long-term therapeutic response to atezolizumab plus bevacizumab.

METHODS

We retrospectively selected 19 subjects (median age: 62 years, 4 females, and 15 males) having advanced HCC and treated with atezolizumab alone (n = 3) or in combination with bevacizumab (n = 16). The 4-phased CT or MRI imaging was performed for each subject before and at 9 ± 2 and 21 ± 5 weeks after therapy initiation. The tumor-to-liver signal ratio in the arterial phase was used to estimate the tumor perfusion. The change in tumor perfusion from the baseline to the 1st follow-up exam was correlated with the tumor response evaluated using mRECIST at the 2nd follow-up exam. The difference between favorably responding and non-responding groups was statistically analyzed using one-way ANOVA.

RESULTS

The mean tumor long axis in the baseline image was 59 ± 47 mm. The HCC perfusion changes were -26 ± 18% for complete (or partial) response (CR/PR, n = 8), -24 ± 12% for stable disease (SD, n = 8), and 9 ± 13% for progressive disease (PD, n = 3). The HCC perfusion change of the CR/PR groups was significantly lower than that of the PD group (p = 0.0040). The HCC perfusion changes between the SD and PD groups were also significantly different (p = 0.0135). The sensitivity and specificity of the early perfusion change to predict the long-term progression of the disease were 100 and 94%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The early change in HCC perfusion may predict the long-term therapeutic response to atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, promoting personalized treatment for HCC patients.

Cost-effectiveness and Value-based Pricing of Trastuzumab Deruxtecan in Metastatic Breast Cancer With Low HER2 Expression

BACKGROUND

Recently, the DESTINY-Breast04 trial revealed that trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) significantly prolonged overall survival in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-low metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Considering the extraexpensive price of the new drug, a cost-effectiveness analysis of T-DXd is necessary to perform in the United States. In addition, because T-DXd has not been marketed in China, the pricing is a very important driver for the cost-effectiveness of T-DXd. The range of drug costs for which T-DXd could be considered cost-effective from a Chinese healthcare system perspective was explored.

METHODS

We developed a Markov model to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of T-DXd versus physician's choice of chemotherapy (PCC). The simulation time horizon for this model was the life-time of patients. Transition probabilities were based on data from the DESTINY-Breast04 trial. Health utility data were derived from published studies. Outcome measures were costs (in 2022 US$), life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses assessed the uncertainty of key model parameters and their joint impact on the base-case results.

RESULTS

The model predicted that T-DXd provided an improvement of 0.84 LYs and 0.58 QALYs compared to PCC, with an ICER of $259,452.05 per QALY in the United States and $87,646.40 per QALY in China. The one-way sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the price of T-DXd had the greatest impact on ICERs. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis predicted that the probabilities of T-DXd being cost-effective compared to PCC were 7.2% and 0% at a willingness-to-pay of $150,000 per QALY in the United States and $36,475 per QALY (3 times the per capita gross domestic product) in China, respectively. Subgroup analyses showed that T-DXd was more effective for patients without visceral disease at baseline, followed by patients with Asian ethnic, patients without prior CDK 4/6 inhibitors therapy, and patients with HER2-1+ (IHC detection) status.

CONCLUSION

T-DXd was unlikely to offer a reasonable value for the money spent compared to PCC for patients with HER2-low MBC in the United States. A value-based price for T-DXd was reduced by 51% in the United States and less than $1950 per cycle in China.

Economic evaluation of five first-line PD-(L)1 inhibitors for treating non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer in China: A cost-effectiveness analysis based on network meta-analysis

Background and objective: Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is one of the most malignant cancer types that causes substantial economic burden in China. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of five first-line anti-PD-(L)1 treatments, including sintilimab, camrelizumab, atezolizumab, pembrolizumab and sugemalimab with each combined with chemotherapy, for treating advanced non-squamous NSCLC (nsq-NSCLC) from Chinese healthcare system perspective.

Methods: Clinical data were obtained from the following clinical trials, namely, ORIENT-11, CameL, IMpower132, KEYNOTE-189 and GEMSTONE-302. A network meta-analysis was performed based on fractional polynomial models. We constructed a partitioned survival model with a three-week cycle length and a lifetime horizon to derive the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). We performed one-way sensitivity analysis and probablistic sensitivity analysis to test the robustness. Additionally, two scenario analyses were undertaken to investigate the impact of Patient Assistant Program on the economic conclusion and to explore potential uncertainty associated with population representativeness of the global trial.

Results: Compared with camrelizumab + chemotherapy, sugemalimab + chemotherapy and atezolizumab + chemotherapy were dominated, and the ICERs generated from sintilimab + chemotherapy and pembrolizumab + chemotherapy were $15,280.83/QALY and $159,784.76/QALY, respectively. Deterministic sensitivity analysis showed that uncertainty around ICERs was mainly driven by HR related parameters derived from NMA and drug price. The probablistic sensitivity analysis suggested that camrelizumab treatment was cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of 1-time GDP per capita. When the threshold was set as 3-time GDP per capita, sintilimab strategy demonstrated the excellent cost-effective advantage. Sensitivity analysis proved the reliability of base-case results. Results from two scenario analyses indicated that the primary finding was robust.

Conclusion: In current context of Chinese healthcare system, sintilimab + chemotherapy appeared to be cost-effective for the treatment of nsq-NSCLC compared with sugemalimab, camrelizumab, pembrolizumab as well as atezolizumab combined with chemotherapy.

First-line Immuno-chemotherapy for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer: A network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis

Introduction

Many randomized controlled trials have indicated that immuno-chemotherapy could generate clinical benefits, though the cost of immuno-chemotherapy was so prohibitive and the options were varied. This investigation aimed at evaluating effectiveness, safety, and cost-effectiveness for immuno-chemotherapy as a first-line therapeutic option for ES-SCLC patients.

Methods

Multiple scientific literature repositories were searched for clinical studies where immuno-chemotherapy was regarded as the first-line treatment for ES-SCLC, which were published in English between Jan 1, 2000, and Nov 30, 2021. This study conducted a network meta-analysis (NMA) and cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) based upon US-resident payer perspectives. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and adverse events (AEs) were evaluated through NMA. In addition, costings, life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost–benefit ratio (ICER) were estimated by CEA.

Results

We identified 200 relevant search records, of which four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (2,793 patients) were included. NMA demonstrated that the effect of atezolizumab plus chemotherapy was ranked at a more elevated position in comparison to other immuno-chemotherapy options and chemotherapy alone, within the general population. The influence of atezolizumab plus chemotherapy and durvalumab plus chemotherapy was ranked higher within populations experiencing non-brain metastases (NBMs) andbrain metastases (BMs), respectively. The CEA revealed that the ICERs of immuno-chemotherapy over chemotherapyalone were higher than the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000/QALY in any population. However, treatment with atezolizumab plus chemotherapy and durvalumab plus chemotherapy were more favorable health advantages than other immuno-chemotherapy regimens and chemotherapy alone, and the results were 1.02 QALYs and 0.89 QALYs within overall populations and populations with BMs, respectively.

Conclusion

The NMA and cost-effectiveness investigation demonstrated that atezolizumab plus chemotherapy could be an optimal first-line therapeutic option for ES-SCLC when compared with other immuno-chemotherapy regimens. Durvalumab plus chemotherapy is likely to be the most favorable first-line therapeutic option for ES-SCLC with BMs.

Toripalimab plus chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: A cost-effectiveness analysis

Background: The potency and safety of toripalimab combination with chemotherapy (TC) as the first-line therapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have been demonstrated in the CHOICE-01 study. Our research explored whether TC was cost-effective compared to chemotherapy alone from the Chinese payer perspective. Materials and methods: Clinical parameters were obtained from a randomized, multicenter, registrational, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase III trial. Standard fee databases and previously published literature were used to determine costs and utilities. A Markov model with three mutually exclusive health statuses (progression-free survival (PFS), disease progression, and death) was used to predict the disease course. The costs and utilities were discounted at 5% per annum. The main endpoints of the model included cost, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to investigate the uncertainty. Subgroup analyses were performed to verify the cost-effectiveness of TC in patients with squamous and non-squamous cancer. Results: TC combination therapy yielded an incremental 0.54 QALYs with an incremental cost of $11,777, compared to chemotherapy, giving rise to ICERs of $21,811.76/QALY. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed that TC was not favorable at 1 time GDP per capita. With a prespecified willingness-to-pay threshold (WTP) of three times the GDP per capita, combined treatment had a 100% probability of being cost-effective and had substantial cost-effectiveness in advanced NSCLC. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed that TC was more likely to be accepted with a WTP threshold higher than $22,195 in NSCLC. Univariate sensitivity analysis showed that the utility of PFS state, crossover proportions of the chemotherapy arm, cost per cycle of pemetrexed treatment, and discount rate were the dominant influencing factors. Subgroup analyses found that in patients with squamous NSCLC, the ICER was $14,966.09/QALY. In the non-squamous NSCLC, ICER raised to $23,836.27/QALY. ICERs were sensitive to the variance of the PFS state utility. TC was more likely to be accepted when WTP increases exceeded $14,908 in the squamous NSCLC subgroup and $23,409 in the non-squamous NSCLC subgroup. Conclusion: From the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system, TC may be cost-effective in individuals with previously untreated advanced NSCLC at the prespecified WTP threshold compared to chemotherapy, and more significant in individuals with squamous NSCLC, which will provide evidence for clinicians to make the best decisions in general clinical practice.

Avelumab Maintenance Treatment After First-line Chemotherapy in Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma-A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

BACKGROUND

Recently, a clinical trial (NCT02603432) showed that avelumab maintenance treatment, post first-line chemotherapy, can significantly prolong the overall survival of patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC), however, the treatment was very expensive. This study aimed to determine the cost-effectiveness of avelumab maintenance therapy in advanced or metastatic UC from the US taxpayer perspective.

METHODS

Based on the data of the JAVELIN Bladder 100 clinical trial (NCT02603432), a Markov multi-state model was constructed to investigate the costs and clinical outcomes of avelumab maintenance after platinum-based chemotherapy versus best supportive care (BSC) for advanced or metastatic UC. Parameters of the model came from the 2020 Average Sales Price Drug Pricing Files and published literature. The main outputs were costs, life years (LYs), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Robustness was tested by deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. The analysis was stratified to include both the overall population and a subset of programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1)-positive patients.

RESULTS

Avelumab maintenance therapy was estimated to generate an additional 0.26 QALYs (1.46 vs. 1.20 QALYs) and costs $183,271 ($278,323 vs. $95,052) more compared to BSC alone in the overall population, yielding an ICER of $699,065/QALY. For the PD-L1-positive population, avelumab produced a 0.42 increase in QALYs (1.74 vs. 1.32 QALYs) and raised costs to $223,238 ($320,355 vs. $97,117), resulting in an ICER of $521,850/QALY for this population. Both ICERs were above the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $200,000/QALY. Sensitivity analyses manifested that the model was robust.

CONCLUSION

From the perspective of the US taxpayer, avelumab maintenance therapy is considered cost-ineffective for patients with advanced or metastatic UC at a WTP threshold of $200,000/QALY in the overall population as well as in PD-L1-positive population.

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.

The correlation between the costs and clinical benefits of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in malignant tumors: An evaluation based on ASCO and ESMO frameworks

Background: Life expectancy for patients with malignant tumors has been significantly improved since the presence of the programmed cell death protein-1/programmed cell death protein ligand-1 (PD-1/PD-L1) inhibitors in 2014, but they impose heavy financial burdens for patients, the healthcare system and the nations. The objective of this study was to determine the survival benefits, toxicities, and monetary of programmed cell death protein-1/programmed cell death protein ligand-1 inhibitors and quantify their values. Methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors for malignant tumors were identified and clinical benefits were quantified by American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework (ASCO-VF) and European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS). The drug price in Micromedex REDBOOK was used to estimate monthly incremental drug costs (IDCs) and the correlation between clinical benefits and incremental drug costs of experimental and control groups in each randomized controlled trial, and the agreement between two frameworks were calculated. Results: Up to December 2022, 52 randomized controlled trials were included in the quantitative synthesis. All the randomized controlled trials were evaluated by American society of clinical oncology value framework, and 26 (50%) met the American society of clinical oncology value framework "clinical meaningful value." 49 of 52 randomized controlled trials were graded by European society for medical oncology magnitude of clinical benefit scale, and 30 (61.2%) randomized controlled trials achieved European Society for Medical Oncology criteria of meaningful value. p-values of Spearman correlation analyses between monthly incremental drug costs and American society of clinical oncology value framework/European society for medical oncology magnitude of clinical benefit scale scores were 0.9695 and 0.3013, respectively. In addition, agreement between two framework thresholds was fair (κ = 0.417, p = 0.00354). Conclusion: This study suggests that there might be no correlation between the cost and clinical benefit of programmed cell death protein-1/programmed cell death protein ligand-1 inhibitors in malignancy, and the same results were observed in subgroups stratified by drug or indication. The results should be a wake-up call for oncologists, pharmaceutical enterprises and policymakers, and meanwhile advocate the refining of American Society of Clinical Oncology and European Society for Medical Oncology frameworks.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of sintilimab vs. placebo in combination with chemotherapy as first-line therapy for local advanced or metastatic oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma

Objective

Results of Orient 15 indicated the health benefits to patients with local advanced or metastatic oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC). This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of sintilimab plus chemotherapy in treating OSCC from the perspective of Chinese healthcare system.

Methods

A partitioned survival model was constructed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of sintilimab plus chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy in treating OSCC. Baseline characteristics of patients and key clinical data were extracted from Orient 15. Costs and utilities were collected from published studies and open-access databases. Costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), life-years gained, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were chosen as economic outcome indicators. We also performed sensitivity analyses and subgroup analyses to verify the stability of results.

Results

Combination therapy provided additional 0.84 QALYs and 1.46 life-years with an incremental cost of $25,565.48 than chemotherapy, which had an ICER of $30,409.44 per QALY. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that combination therapy had a 98.8% probability of cost-effectiveness at the willingness-to-pay threshold (WTP) of $38,184 per QALY. Deterministic sensitivity analysis showed that model outcomes were sensitive to the utilities of progression-free survival and progression disease. The subgroup analysis revealed that combination therapy was cost-effective in patients with high expression of PD-L1 and several specific subgroups.

Conclusion

In this economic evaluation, sintilimab plus chemotherapy was likely to be cost-effective compared with chemotherapy in the first-line therapy of advanced OSCC from the perspective of Chinese healthcare system. Our findings may provide evidence for clinicians to make optimal decisions in clinical practice and for decision-makers to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of sintilimab.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of metronomic capecitabine as adjuvant chemotherapy in locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma

Background

Adding metronomic capecitabine to concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) brings failure-free survival (FFS) benefits to patients with locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). This study assesses the cost-effectiveness of metronomic capecitabine in locoregionally advanced NPC.

Methods

We created a Markov model to calculate the expense and health outcomes of metronomic capecitabine compared to those observed in locoregionally advanced NPC. Related costs, like life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effective ratios (ICERs) were measured at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $33,585 per QALY. A combination of different sensitivity analyses was used to test for model robustness. Additionally, a subgroup analysis was also performed.

Results

In contrast to what is observed in the locoregionally advanced NPC, adding the metronomic adjuvant capecitabine yielded an additional 1.11 QALYs with an incremental cost of $10,741.59, which obtained an ICER of $9,669.99 per QALY. The result of one-way sensitive analysis indicated that the utility of FFS, progression disease (PD), and the cost of follow-up were the most significant factors. The probability of metronomic capecitabine being cost-effective was 97.1% at a WTP of $33,585 per QALY.

Conclusion

Metronomic capecitabine as adjuvant chemotherapy is a cost-effective strategy for locoregionally advanced NPC patients.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of camrelizumab plus chemotherapy as first-line treatment for advanced squamous NSCLC in China

Objective

Results of CameL-sq has revealed the clinical benefits to patients with advanced squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (sq-NSCLC). This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of camrelizumab plus chemotherapy to treat sq-NSCLC from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system.

Methods

We used a partitioned survival model with a lifetime horizon to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of camrelizumab plus chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy in treating sq-NSCLC. Baseline characteristics of patients and key clinical data were extracted from CameL-sq. Costs and utilities were collected from the open-access database and published literature. Costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), life-years gained, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were chosen as economic outcome indicators. We also performed a sensitivity analysis, subgroup analysis, and scenario analysis to verify the stability of the basic analysis results and explore the results under different scenarios.

Results

Combination therapy added 0.47 QALYS and 0.91 life-years with an incremental cost of $6,347.81 compared with chemotherapy, which had an ICER of $13,572 per QALY. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that camrelizumab plus chemotherapy had a 37.8% probability of cost-effectiveness at a willingness-to-pay threshold (WTP) of 1 time GDP per capital. When WTP was set as 3 times GDP per capital, combination therapy had significant cost-effectiveness. Deterministic sensitivity analysis showed that cost of the best supportive care was the factor with the greatest influence. The subgroup analysis found that combination therapy was associated with cost-effectiveness in several subgroups, namely, patients with disease stage IIIB/IIIC and with PD-L1 tumor proportion score ≤ 1%. Scenario analysis showed that ICER was positively correlated with the price of camrelizumab.

Conclusion

In this economic evaluation, camrelizumab plus chemotherapy was unlikely to be cost-effective compared with chemotherapy in the first line therapy of sq-NSCLC from a perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Reducing the price of camrelizumab and tailoring treatments based on individual patient factors might improve the cost-effectiveness. Our findings may provide evidence for clinicians in making optimal decisions in general clinical practice.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy as the first-line treatment for unresectable malignant pleural mesothelioma

Introduction:

This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NI) versus pemetrexed plus cisplatin/carboplatin (C) as the first-line treatment for unresectable malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) from the perspective of US payers.

Methods:

A 10-year partitioned survival model was constructed using survival and safety data from the CheckMate 743 clinical trial. The output metrics of the model included the patient’s lifetime quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), lifetime costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Only direct medical costs were considered. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the results.

Results:

Among all randomized patients, group NI had an ICER of $475,677/QALY relative to group C. Among patients with epithelioid histology, group NI had an ICER of $760,955/QALY. Among patients with non-epithelioid histology, group NI had an ICER of $418,348/QALY. The ICERs of all three populations exceeded the willingness-to-pay threshold ($150,000). The results of one-way sensitivity analysis revealed that the cost of nivolumab had a great influence on the results. The results of probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the possibility of NI being more economical in all randomized patients and in patients with non-epidemiology histology was 0. In patients with epithelioid histology, the probability that NI had an economic advantage was 0.6%.

Conclusions:

From the perspective of US payers, in patients with unresectable MPM, NI has no economic advantage over C.

Economic evaluation of sintilimab plus chemotherapy vs. pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy for the treatment of first-line advanced or metastatic squamous NSCLC

Background and objective

Sintilimab has superior efficacy and safety in patients with advanced or metastatic squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but its cost-effectiveness in China is unclear. This study is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of sintilimab plus chemotherapy vs. pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy for locally advanced or metastatic squamous NSCLC in China.

Methods

From the perspective of the Chinese health system, the partitioned survival model with three health states was established in a 3-week cycle and a lifetime time horizon. The two-stage method was used to estimate the overall survival hazard ratios to avoid the bias by crossover design in ORIENT-12 and KEYNOTE-407 studies. The anchored matching adjusted indirect comparison method (MAIC) was used for indirect comparison based on the individual patient data from ORIENT-12 and the publicly published KEYNOTE-407 study due to the lack of head-to-head clinical trials. Only direct medical costs were included, and utilities were derived from the published literature in the base case analysis. Sensitivity analysis was also performed to verify the robustness of the model results. In addition, the scenario analysis where the utilities were derived from the Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (QLQ-C30) scale in the ORIENT-12 by mapping to the EuroQol-5-dimension 5-level (EQ-5D-5L) was carried out to explore the uncertainty of the results.

Results

Compared with pembrolizumab + chemotherapy, sintilimab + chemotherapy incurred a lower lifetime cost ($12,321 vs. 36,371) and yielded fewer quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (0.9902 vs. 1.0085), which resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $1,314,208/QALY. A sintilimab strategy is a cost-effectiveness option under the WTP of 1-3 times the GDP per capita in China ($11,250/QALY~$33,749/QALY). The utility value of the post-progression, the unit cost of albumin paclitaxel, and the utility value of the progression-free state were the main drivers in the deterministic sensitivity analysis (DSA). According to the probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA), sintilimab + chemotherapy was 100% cost-effective when the WTP was 1-3 times China's per capita GDP. The results of the scenario analysis showed that sintilimab + chemotherapy obtained more QALYs (1.2319 vs. 1.1815) and lower costs ($12,321 vs. 36,371), which implied that sintilimab + chemotherapy may dominate the pembrolizumab + chemotherapy.

Conclusion

Compared with pembrolizumab + chemotherapy, sintilimab + chemotherapy is more cost-effective for first-line treatment in Chinese patients with locally advanced or metastatic squamous NSCLC.

Camrelizumab in patients with advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer: a cost-effective analysis in China

OBJECTIVE

Camrelizumab is a selective, humanised, high-affinity IgG₄ kappa monoclonal antibody against programmed cell death 1 that shows effective antitumour activity with acceptable toxicity in multiple tumour types. The CameL trial demonstrated that camrelizumab plus chemotherapy (CC) significantly prolonged the median progression-free survival and median overall survival versus chemotherapy alone (CA) in patients with advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Our study was conducted to investigate the cost-effectiveness of the two strategies in chemotherapy-naive patients with advanced non-squamous NSCLC.

DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

A Markov simulation model was generated based on the CameL trial. The two simulated treatments included CC and CA.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Utility was derived from published literature, and costs were calculated based on those at our hospital in Chengdu, China. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated to compare the cost-effectiveness of the two treatment arms.

RESULTS

In the overall population, the total costs were $27 223.40 and $13 740.10 for CC and CA treatment, respectively. The CC treatment produced 1.37 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and the CA treatment produced 1.17 QALYs. Hence, patients who were in the CC group spent an additional $13 483.30 and generated an increase of 0.20 QALYs, resulting in an ICER of $67 416.50 per QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

For chemotherapy-naive patients with advanced non-squamous NSCLC, CC is not considered a cost-effective treatment versus CA in China when considering a willingness-to-pay threshold of $31 500 per QALY.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03134872.

Pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib as first-line therapy for patients with mismatch repair-proficient advanced endometrial cancer: A United States-based cost-effectiveness analysis

OBJECTIVE

In 2022, the KEYNOTE-775 (NCT03517449) study showed that pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib (PL) has more benefits than traditional chemotherapy as a first-line regimen to treat patients with mismatch repair-proficient (pMMR) advanced endometrial cancer (aEC). However, given the high cost of immuno-targeted therapy, the widespread use among patients remains uncertain. Therefore, we conducted a cost-effectiveness comparison between PL and chemotherapy.

METHODS

We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of PL versus chemotherapy over 7 years by developing a comprehensive Markov model, included 697 patients, that calculated total cost, life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000 per QALY. The robustness of the model was evaluated by one-way, two-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. In addition, we also performed subgroup analyses.

RESULTS

Chemotherapy yielded a mean survival of 0.705 QALYs (0.901 LYs) per patient and was associated with a mean cost of $163,777. PL was associated with an incremental cost of $38,582 and an additional 0.349 QALYs, leading to an ICER of $110,401 per QALY as compared to chemotherapy. The cost of pembrolizumab had a significant impact on ICER. At the assumed WTP threshold of $150,000 per QALY, approximately 79.2% of simulations show cost-effectiveness occurs in PL. Results of the subgroup analysis showed that PL was the most cost-effective regimen for patients who had previously received 1-line of therapy.

CONCLUSION

For patients with pMMR aEC, the PL strategy may be the most cost-effective strategy at a WTP of $150,000 from the economic perspective of the United States.

Cost-Effectiveness of Bevacizumab Biosimilar LY01008 Combined With Chemotherapy as First-Line Treatment for Chinese Patients With Advanced or Recurrent Nonsquamous Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

Objective: To investigate whether LY01008, a locally developed bevacizumab biosimilar agent, is appropriate for widespread use among Chinese advanced or recurrent nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients, our current study was designed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of first-line LY01008 combined with platinum-doublet chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Material and Methods: This economic evaluation designed a Markov model to compare the healthcare cost and quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) of first-line LY01008 combined with chemotherapy versus first-line chemotherapy. Transition probabilities, including disease progression, survival, and adverse event (AE)-related discontinuation of first-line treatment, were estimated using data from the clinical trials. Costs and health utilities were derived from local databases, hospitals, and published literature. Our base case analysis and scenario analysis focused on the cost-effectiveness of chemotherapy combined with a clinical trial dosage (15 mg/kg every 3-week cycle) and a real-world dosage (7.5 mg/kg every 3-week cycle) of LY01008, respectively. Results: In the base case analysis, first-line LY01008 combined with chemotherapy was associated with an increase of 0.48 QALYs in effectiveness and an increase of CNY 189,988 (US$ 26,240) in healthcare costs compared with first-line chemotherapy, resulting an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of CNY 375,425 (US$ 54,430)/QALY. In the scenario analysis, first-line LY01008 combined with chemotherapy was associated with a mean healthcare cost of CNY 265,060 (US$ 38,429), resulting an ICER of CNY 221,579 (US$ 32,125/QALY) between first-line LY01008 combined with chemotherapy versus first-line chemotherapy. The parameters that determine the cost of LY01008 have the greatest impact on the cost-effectiveness results. Conclusion: From the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system, first-line LY01008 at a real-world dosage combined with chemotherapy is likely to represent a cost-effective strategy compared with first-line chemotherapy alone for Chinese advanced or recurrent nonsquamous NSCLC patients.

Pembrolizumab with or without chemotherapy versus cetuximab plus chemotherapy to treat recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: An updated KEYNOTE-048 based cost-effectiveness analysis

OBJECTIVES

Recently, updated data from KEYNOTE-048 revealed that pembrolizumab with or without chemotherapy could improve progression-free survival (PFS)2 compared with cetuximab plus chemotherapy in recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A Markov structure was conducted to evaluate the cost and effectiveness of pembrolizumab monotherapy or pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy vs. cetuximab plus chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of recurrent or metastatic HNSCC from the United States payer's perspective. Total cost, health outcomes, and incremental cost-effective ratios (ICERs) were estimated. Additional analyses were conducted in the total population and in two different programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 (PD-L1) combined positive scores (CPSs) (≥1 and ≥ 20) population. Sensitivity analysis were used to test the stability of the model.

RESULTS

When compared with cetuximab plus chemotherapy, the pembrolizumab monotherapy strategy was dominated by lower cost and better efficacy in all three populations. The incremental costs and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) yielded by pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy compared with cetuximab plus chemotherapy were $16016.88 and 0.11 in the total population, and $24467.47 and 0.18 and $30448.46 and 0.20 in the populations with a PD-L1 CPS ≥ 1 and CPS ≥ 20, respectively, leading to ICERs of $147876.14, $134237.84, and $153660.78 per QALY, respectively.

CONCLUSION

First-line treatment with pembrolizumab or pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy are cost-effective strategies compared with cetuximab plus chemotherapy when the value of willingness-to-pay (WTP) was $150000 per QALY for the total and PD-L1 CPS ≥ 1 populations with recurrent or metastatic HNSCC.

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.

Navigate Towards the Immunotherapy Era: Value of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Patients With Brain Metastases

Brain metastases (BMs) in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients are associated with significant morbidity and poor prognosis. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have resulted in a paradigm shift in the management of advanced NSCLC. However, the value of ICIs in NSCLC patients with BMs remains unclear because patients with BMs are routinely excluded in numerous prospective trials on ICIs. Here, starting from the mechanisms of ICIs for BMs, we will reveal the value of ICIs by reviewing the efficacy and adverse effects of ICIs monotherapy as well as promising combination strategies, such as combinations with chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and anti-angiogenic drugs, etc. In addition, the methods of patient selection and response assessment will be summarized to assist clinical practice and further studies.

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 analysis of sintilimab + chemotherapy versus camrelizumab + chemotherapy for the treatment of first-line locally advanced or metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC in China

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Sintilimab is a selective PD-1 inhibitor with efficacy in advanced or metastatic nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of sintilimab + chemotherapy versus camrelizumab + chemotherapy as the first-line treatment for locally advanced or metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC in Chinese patients. In addition, this study aimed to reveal the impact of the reference treatment choice on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) results.

METHODS

A partitioned survival model (PSM) with three health states was constructed in a 3-week cycle with a lifetime horizon from the Chinese healthcare system perspective. Anchored matching adjusted indirect comparison was used for survival analyses based on individual patient data from Orient-11. Sintilimab + chemotherapy was chosen as the reference treatments in scenarios 1 and 2, while the camrelizumab + chemotherapy was chosen as the reference treatments in scenario 3. The utility values of different health states were derived from the patient-level European Organization for Research and Treatment Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) scores by mapping to the EQ-5D-5L, and QALYs were calculated as the health outcomes. One-way deterministic sensitivity analysis (DSA) and probability sensitivity analysis (PSA) were performed to explore model uncertainty.

RESULTS

Compared to camrelizumab + chemotherapy, sintilimab + chemotherapy was associated with higher effectiveness (incremental QALYs ranged from 0.13-0.62) and lower total costs (incremental costs ranged from $1,099-$5,201), resulting in an ICER ranging from $6,440-$8,454/QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

Sintilimab + chemotherapy is a cost-effective option compared with camrelizumab + chemotherapy as the first-line treatment for locally advanced or metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC in China.

Cost-Effectiveness of Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab With and Without Chemotherapy for Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

Background

First-line treatment with nivolumab plus ipilimumab (N+I) or nivolumab plus ipilimumab with two cycles of chemotherapy (N+I+chemotherapy) improve overall survival and progression-free survival for patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), yet researchers have not concomitantly compared the cost-effectiveness of N+I and N+I+chemotherapy with chemotherapy alone.

Materials and methods

Using outcomes data from the CheckMate 227 and CheckMate 9LA phase 3 randomized trials, we developed a Markov model with lifetime horizon to compare the costs and effectiveness of N+I and N+I+chemotherapy versus chemotherapy from the U.S. health care sector perspective. Subgroup analysis by programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression levels (≥1% and <1%) and probabilistic analysis were performed.

Results

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of N+I versus chemotherapy was $239,072 per QALY, and $838,198 per QALY for N+I+chemotherapy versus N+I. The ICER of N+I versus chemotherapy was $246,584 per QALY for patients with PD-L1 ≥ 1% and $185,620 per QALY for those with PD-L1 < 1%. In probabilistic analysis, N+I had a 2.6% probability of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per QALY. The probability was 0.4% for patients with PD-L1 ≥ 1% and 10.6% for patients with PD-L1 < 1%.

Conclusion

First-line N+I or N+I+chemotherapy for metastatic NSCLC was not cost-effective regardless of PD-L1 expression levels from the U.S. health care sector perspective.

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.

Evaluation of osimertinib for advanced non-small cell lung cancer with leptomeningeal metastases: a cost-effectiveness and budget impact analysis

Background Few regimens for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with leptomeningeal metastases (LM) patients exist up to date, most with low efficacy. A retrospective analysis showed that osimertinib significantly improved the overall survival of LM patients by 11.5 months (17.0 vs. 5.5) as compared to no osimertinib treatment. Until now, no pharmacoeconomic evaluation of osimertinib has been performed to determine its feasibility for widespread use in LM patients. Aim This study analyzed the cost-effectiveness of osimertinib in LM of NSCLC from the perspective of the Chinese health care system. Methods Based on a retrospective analysis from the Samsung Medical Center, a Markov model was constructed to estimate the lifetime benefits and costs for LM patients who were treated with osimertinib. The main outcomes were cost, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Sensitivity analyses were performed to verify the robustness of model. A budget impact analysis was conducted to estimate the annual incremental cost of osimertinib treatment. Results Compared with patients who were not treated with osimertinib, the survival time of patients treated with osimertinib was higher by 0.69 (1.24 vs. 0.55) QALYs. The incremental cost was $11,877 ($29,232 vs. $17,355) and the ICER was $17,214/QALY, which was below the willingness-to-pay threshold of $30,867/QALY. Osimertinib treatment will increase national cancer spending by $220 million in the first year and increase to $474 million in the fifth year. Conclusions Osimertinib treatment is deemed to be cost-effective for NSCLC with LM patients, however, its use would significantly increase annual cancer spending.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab for Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer

Objective: This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs. chemotherapy in the first-line setting for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) from the US payer perspective.

Materials and methods: A Markov model wasdeveloped to evaluate the cost and effectiveness of nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs. chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of advanced NSCLC. The survival benefits of nivolumab plus ipilimumab were based on the results of the CheckMate 227 trial. The main endpoints of the model were cost, life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Univariable and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess model uncertainty. Additonal subgroup analyses were also performed.

Results: nivolumab plus ipilimumab produced a gain of 0.62 QALYs, at a cost of $104238 per QALY. The variables that had the greatest influence on the ICER were body weight and overall survival (OS) hazard ratio (HR). The probability of nivolumab plus ipilimumab being cost-effectiveness compared to chemotherapy is 50.7 and 66.2% when the willingness-to-pay (WTP) value is $ 100,000 and $ 150,000 per QALY. The results of subgroup analyses showed the ICER remained below $150,000/QALY regardless of the PD-L1 expression level.

Conclusions: nivolumab plus ipilimumab was estimated to be cost-effective compared with chemotherapy for patients with advanced NSCLC at a WTP threshold from 100,000/QALY to 150,000/QALY.

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.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Durvalumab Plus Chemotherapy in the First-Line Treatment of Extensive-Stage Small Cell Lung Cancer

BACKGROUND

In the CASPIAN trial, durvalumab + chemotherapy demonstrated significant improvements in overall survival compared with chemotherapy alone in patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (SCLC). We aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of durvalumab in patients with extensive-stage SCLC from the US healthcare system perspective.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A comprehensive Markov model was adapted to evaluate cost and effectiveness of durvalumab combination versus platinum/etoposide alone in the first-line therapy of extensive-stage SCLC based on data from the CASPIAN study. The main endpoints included total costs, life years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-e-ectiveness ratios (ICERs). Model robustness was assessed with sensitivity analysis, and additional subgroup analyses were also performed.

RESULTS

Durvalumab + chemotherapy therapy resulted in an additional 0.27 LYs and 0.20 QALYs, resulting in an ICER of $464,711.90 per QALY versus the chemotherapy treatment. The cost of durvalumab has the greatest influence on this model. Subgroup analyses showed that the ICER remained higher than $150,000/QALY (the willingness-to-pay threshold in the United States) across all patient subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

Durvalumab in combination with platinum/etoposide is not a cost-effective option in the first-line treatment of patients with extensive-stage SCLC.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Cemiplimab Versus Chemotherapy as First-Line Treatment in Advanced NSCLC with PD-L1 Expression Levels of at Least 50

INTRODUCTION

Cemiplimab may significantly increase overall survival in the first-line treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with a PD-L1 level of at least 50%. Therefore, there is a need to consider the cost-effectiveness of using this therapy for this indication.

METHODS

This Markov model was built to estimate the cost and effectiveness of cemiplimab vs. chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of advanced NSCLC based on the data from the EMPOWER-Lung 1 trial. Life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs) and lifetime costs were estimated. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the model uncertainty. Additional subgroup analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Treatment of advanced NSCLC with cemiplimab added 0.546 QALYs (1.492 LYs) and resulted in an incremental cost of $22,069.804 compared with chemotherapy, which was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $40,390.412 per QALY gained. The results of one-way sensitivity analysis found that the cost of cemiplimab was the most sensitive factor in our study. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that the probability of cemiplimab being cost-effective was 100%. The subgroup analysis demonstrated that high PD-L1 expression (≥ 90%, > 60 to < 90% and ≥ 50 to ≤ 60%) also kept the incremental cost-effectiveness stable at $63,415.2450 per QALY, $61,896.446 per QALY and $-71,921.259 per QALY.

CONCLUSION

From the perspective of US payers, cemiplimab is cost-effective in the first-line treatment of advanced NSCLC at the willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per QALY.

Considerations for Clinical Trials Testing Radiotherapy Combined With Immunotherapy for Metastatic Disease

Metastatic cancer is inherently heterogeneous, and patients with metastatic disease can experience vastly different oncologic outcomes depending on several patient- and disease-specific characteristics. Designing trials for such a diverse population is challenging yet necessary to improve treatment outcomes for metastatic-previously thought to be incurable-disease. Here we review core considerations for designing and conducting clinical trials involving radiation therapy and immunotherapy for patients with metastatic cancer.

Cost-Effectiveness of Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab Combined with Two Cycles of Chemotherapy as First-Line Treatment in Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

INTRODUCTION

The effectiveness of nivolumab plus ipilimumab with two cycles of chemotherapy (NIC) for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has been demonstrated. We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of NIC for advanced NSCLC from the US payer perspective.

METHODS

A Markov model has been established to predict the disease course of previously untreated advanced NSCLC. The clinical data were derived from the CheckMate 9LA trial. Cost and utility were obtained from the literature. Model outputs included the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), incremental monetary benefit (INMB), and incremental net-health benefit (INHB). A series of sensitivity analyses were performed to analyze the uncertainty of the model.

RESULTS

Our results showed that NIC versus chemotherapy alone cost $264,278 and yielded an additional 0.80 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), which led to an ICER of $202,275/QALY gained. The INHB was - 0.28 QALY, and the INMB was - $41,865 at the threshold of $150,000/QALY. The results of one-way sensitivity analysis showed that the hazard ratio of overall survival was the most sensitive parameter.

CONCLUSION

NIC was unlikely to be cost-effective as a first-line treatment for patients with advanced NSCLC.

Cost-Effectiveness of Atezolizumab Plus Chemotherapy as First-Line Therapy for Metastatic Urothelial Cancer

INTRODUCTION

The IMvigor130 trial found that atezolizumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy (atezolizumab group) as first-line therapy prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with metastatic urothelial cancer (mUC), compared with placebo plus platinum-based chemotherapy (placebo group). The current study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy as first-line therapy for mUC from the US payer perspective.

METHODS

A Markov model was adopted to compare the cost and effectiveness of atezolizumab and placebo group in the first-line setting of patients with mUC. Life years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), lifetime costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated. Subgroup, one-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to explore the model robustness.

RESULTS

Atezolizumab group provided an additional 0.39 QALYs (0.52 LYs) and an incremental cost of $170,759 per QALY compared with the placebo group. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $434,317 per QALY. Subgroup analysis indicated that PD-L1 expression of at least 5% on immune cells had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $325,236 per QALY. The results of one-way sensitivity analyses suggested that our model was sensitive to the cycle cost of atezolizumab and the hazard ratio of PFS. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses revealed that there was 0% probability of the atezolizumab group being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000 per QALY. The extrapolations need to be validated by real-world data.

CONCLUSIONS

From the US payer perspective, atezolizumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy is not cost-effective in the first-line therapy for patients with mUC on the basis of a WTP threshold of $150,000 per QALY. On the basis of the value standpoint, price reduction of atezolizumab is expected to improve the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab in patients with mUC.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Dacomitinib versus Gefitinib in the First-Line Treatment of EGFR-Positive Advanced or Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

Background

The objective of the study was to evaluate the economics of dacomitinib and gefitinib in the first-line treatments for EGFR-positive advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) from a US payer perspective.

Methods

We developed the partition survival model to compare the lifetime cost and health outcomes of dacomitinib versus gefitinib. Transition probabilities were collected from the ARCHER 1050 trial. The model only considered the direct medical costs. Utility values were taken from published research.

Results

Compared to gefitinib, dacomitinib increased 0.706 QALY and the cost increased $232,359.32. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was $329,120.85 per QALY in the base case. One-way sensitivity analysis showed that the cost of drugs and the utility had more influence on the results than other parameters. Probability sensitivity analysis reflected that the parameters had little effect on the results.

Conclusion

Dacomitinib could improve the health benefits and increase the overall costs. In this simulation, dacomitinib is not likely to be economical for first-line therapy of EGFR-mutated NSCLC.

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.

Nivolumab vs Pembrolizumab for Treatment of US Patients With Platinum-Refractory Recurrent or Metastatic Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Network Meta-analysis and Cost-effectiveness Analysis

Importance

Nivolumab and pembrolizumab are approved for treating platinum-refractory recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (R/M HNSCC). Physicians and patients are uncertain which drug is preferable, rendering a cost-effectiveness comparison between them necessary.

Objective

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab vs pembrolizumab in treating platinum-refractory R/M HNSCC.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Both the network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis included patients from the CheckMate 141 and the KEYNOTE 040 phase 3 randomized clinical trials. The Checkmate 141 trial started on May 1, 2014, with the present analysis based on a September 2017 data cutoff. The KEYNOTE 040 trial started on November 17, 2014, with the present analysis based on a May 15, 2017, data cutoff. A bayesian network meta-analysis that included 856 patients was carried out, and a cost-effectiveness analysis that included 487 patients was conducted by developing a partitioned survival model, both between February and November 2020. The robustness of the model was assessed via 1-way, 2-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses; subgroup analyses were included; and scenario analyses were conducted to investigate the associations of dosage adjustment of nivolumab with cost-effectiveness.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), overall costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were measured.

Results

In the cost-effectiveness analysis that included 487 patients, for US health care payers, when nivolumab was administered based on patient weight (3 mg/kg biweekly), at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $100 000 per QALY, the probability of nivolumab being cost-effective compared with pembrolizumab was 56%; at a WTP threshold of $150 000 per QALY, the probability was 62%. When nivolumab was administered at a fixed dose of 240 mg biweekly or 480 mg monthly, at a WTP threshold of $100 000 per QALY, the probability of nivolumab being cost-effective was 42% to 45%; at a WTP threshold of $150 000 per QALY, the probability was 52% to 55%.

Conclusions and Relevance

Findings from this network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis suggest considering both WTP threshold and patient body weight when choosing between nivolumab and pembrolizumab for the treatment of patients with platinum-refractory R/M HNSCC. When the WTP threshold was $100 000 per QALY, for patients weighing less than 72 kg, nivolumab (3 mg/kg, biweekly) was considered cost-effective; otherwise, pembrolizumab was preferable. When the WTP threshold was $150 000 per QALY, nivolumab (3 mg/kg biweekly) was considered cost-effective for patients weighing less than 75 kg; otherwise, fixed-dose nivolumab (240 mg biweekly or 480 mg monthly) provided more cost savings.

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.

Atezolizumab and bevacizumab combination compared with sorafenib as the first-line systemic treatment for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: A cost-effectiveness analysis in China and the United states

BACKGROUND & AIMS

In patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), the combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival compared with sorafenib in the IMbrave150 trial. However, whether the price of the combination could be affordable is unknown. The current study assessed the cost-effectiveness of the combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab as first-line systemic therapy for patients with unresectable HCC from the Chinese and American payers' perspective.

METHODS

A Markov model was built based on a global, multicentre, open-label, phase III randomized trial (IMbrave150, NCT03434379) that included three states of the patient's health: stable disease (SD), progressive disease (PD) and death. Data for all medical costs were acquired from the Red Book, published literature and West China Hospital. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were the primary outcomes. Sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the model uncertainty.

RESULTS

The treatment consisting of a combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab yielded an additional 0.53 QALYs compared with sorafenib alone, leading to an ICER of $145,546.21 per QALY in China and $168,030.21 per QALY in the USA, both beyond the willing-to-pay threshold ($28,527.00/QALY in China and $150,000.00 /QALY in the USA). The utility of the PD state was the most influential factor in the Chinese model, and the American model was the most sensitive to the price of sorafenib. The results of the models were robust across sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSION

The combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab was not a cost-effective strategy for the first-line systemic treatment of unresectable HCC from the Chinese and American payers' perspective.

Proportion of T follicular helper cells in peripheral blood of rheumatoid arthritis patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction:Alterations in the levels and activity of Tfh may lead to impaired immune tolerance and autoimmune diseases. The aim of this study was to investigate the proportion and types of Tfh cells in the peripheral blood (PB) of RA patients.Areas covered:Comprehensive databases were searched for studies evaluating the proportion of Tfh cells in the PB of patients with RA compared to healthy control (HCs).The proportion of Tfh cells in RA patients was significantly higher than in HCs (SMD 0.699, [0.513, 0.884], p < 0.0001). Furthermore, Tfh cells proportion in untreated-RA and early-RA patients was markedly greater than HCs, when comparisons done without considering the definition markers, and also when Tfh cells were defined by the specified definition markers. While the proportion of Tfh cells by all definitions was higher in active-RA compared to HCs, analysis of two definitions, CD4⁺CXCR5⁺ and CD4⁺CXCR5⁺ICOS⁺, didn't show significant differences. Furthermore, higher proportion of Tfh cells defined by all definitions and a specified definition (CD4⁺CXCR5⁺PD-1^high) was observed when S⁺RA compared to S^-RA patients.Expert opinion:The results demonstrate that circulating Tfh are highly elevated in RA patients highlights its potential use as a biomarker and a target for RA therapy.