Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Encorafenib, Binimetinib, and Cetuximab in BRAF V600E-Mutated Metastatic Colorectal Cancer in the USA

Cost-effectiveness analysis of tislelizumab in combination with chemotherapy for the first-line treatment of patients with metastatic or recurrent nasopharyngeal carcinoma in China

BACKGROUND

The combination of tislelizumab and gemcitabine plus cisplatin (GP) in the first-line treatment of patients with recurrent or metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma (R/M NPC) has yielded significant results. However, it is not clear whether this treatment option is cost-effective in China. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of tislelizumab plus GP for the first-line treatment of R/M NPC from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system.

METHODS

A partitioned survival model with three discrete health states was constructed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of tislelizumab plus GP versus GP in patients with R/M NPC. The target population enrolled in the RATIONALE-309 trial had previously not treated for R/M NPC. Drug costs were obtained from relevant databases, and the remaining cost and health utility data were collected from the literature. The main outcomes include the expected life years, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), total cost, and incremental cost-benefit ratio (ICER).

RESULTS

The tislelizumab plus GP regimen produced an additional cost ($18392.76) and additional 1.57 QALYs compared with GP used alone. The ICER was $18392.75/QALYs. Sensitivity analysis showed that the analysis was robust and the utility of PD status was most sensitive to the model results. The possibility of tislelizumab plus GP being cost-effective at the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $37 653/QALY was 99.8%. Subgroup analysis showed that high PD-L1 expression had little impact on the ICER of this regimen.

CONCLUSION

In patients with R/M NPC, the regimen of tislelizumab plus GP, as the first-line treatment, is more cost-effective than the GP regimen in China.

Cost-effectiveness of Nivolumab Plus Cabozantinib Versus Cabozantinib as First-Line Treatment of Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma

OBJECTIVES

We first evaluated the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab plus cabozantinib compared with cabozantinib alone as a first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) from a US healthcare payer perspective. In the present study, we found that nivolumab plus cabozantinib was not cost-effective compared with cabozantinib alone for first-line treatment of mRCC.

METHODS

This economic evaluation study used a 3-state partitioned survival model to assess the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab plus cabozantinib versus cabozantinib alone. The observed Kaplan-Meier curves for overall survival and PFS were digitized from the CheckMate 9ER and CABOSUN trials and the long-term survivals (over a lifetime horizon) beyond the end of the trial were extrapolated using the Log-Logistic model. The cost and health preference data were collected from published literature before.

RESULTS

The estimated cost for nivolumab plus cabozantinib group was 654 851.32 USD, which was higher than 312 360.47 USD estimated for cabozantinib alone group, resulting in an incremental cost (IC) of 342 490.85 USD. Compared with cabozantinib alone group, nivolumab plus cabozantinib group gains 1.19 QALYs, resulting the ICER was 288 443.23 USD per QALY. One-way sensitivity analysis suggested the cost of nivolumab, the discount rate, and the cost of cabozantinib had a great impact on the ICER. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curves showed the probability of nivolumab plus cabozantinib being cost-effective was 9.9% at a threshold of 150,000 USD per QALY.

CONCLUSION

The findings of this economic evaluation suggest nivolumab plus cabozantinib is unlikely to be cost-effective compared with cabozantinib alone as first-line treatment for mRCC at WTP thresholds of 150,000 USD per QALY from the perspective of US payers. A substantial price reduction for nivolumab would be needed to achieve favorable cost-effectiveness.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Economic evaluation of encorafenib with cetuximab in patients with BRAF V600E-mutant metastatic colorectal cancer in France: a cost-effectiveness analysis using data from the BEACON CRC randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

The BEACON CRC randomised controlled trial (NCT02928224) in BRAF-mutant metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients showed improved overall survival for the combination treatment of encorafenib (BRAF inhibitor) with cetuximab (EGFR inhibitor) compared with cetuximab with chemotherapy (FOLFIRI (folinic acid, fluorouracil and irinotecan) or irinotecan). We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of encorafenib with cetuximab in adult patients with BRAF-mutant mCRC after prior systemic therapy, from the perspective of the French healthcare system.

DESIGN

A partitioned survival analysis model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of encorafenib with cetuximab using data from BEACON CRC (encorafenib with cetuximab and cetuximab with FOLFIRI or irinotecan). For two further comparator treatments (FOLFIRI alone and bevacizumab with FOLFIRI), a systemic literature review identified appropriate clinical trial data for indirect comparison. Piecewise modelling extrapolation was used to fulfil a lifetime horizon in the model. A discount rate of 2.5% was used. Treatment-emergent adverse events ≥grade 3 with an incidence of ≥2% were included, as well as relative dose intensity and utility values.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The effectiveness outcomes of the model were expressed in terms of incremental life years gained and incremental quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained. The cost-effectiveness of encorafenib with cetuximab was assessed using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Results were presented probabilistically to account for parametric uncertainty. Deterministic and scenario analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

The ICER for encorafenib with cetuximab versus cetuximab with FOLFIRI or irinotecan, FOLFIRI alone and bevacizumab with FOLFIRI was €69 823/QALY, €70 421/QALY and €72 336/QALY, respectively. Encorafenib with cetuximab was considered cost-effective compared with the three comparators at a willingness to pay threshold of €90 000/QALY, with probabilities of being cost-effective of 89.8%, 98.2% and 86.4%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis showed encorafenib with cetuximab to be a cost-effective treatment in mCRC patients with a BRAF V600E mutation.

Practical chemoselective aromatic substitution: the synthesis of N-(4-halo-2-nitrophenyl)benzenesulfonamide through the efficient nitration and halogenation of N-phenylbenzenesulfonamide

A novel route involving the metal-promoted tandem nitration and halogenation of N-phenylbenzenesulfonamide to synthesize N-(4-halo-2-nitrophenyl)benzenesulfonamide derivatives has been developed. The method shows highly practical chemoselective and functional group compatibility. In addition, it employs insensitive and inexpensive Cu(NO3)2·3H2O, Fe(NO3)3·9H2O, and NH4NO3 as the nitration reagents, and it provides a direct approach for the preparation of 4-halo-2-nitroaniline, which is a crucial intermediate for the synthesis of benzimidazoles and quinoxaline derivatives.