Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Pembrolizumab Plus Axitinib Versus Sunitinib in First-line Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma in China

Economic value of toripalimab plus axitinib as first-line treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma in China: a model-based cost-effectiveness analysis

OBJECTIVE

The current analysis aimed to evaluate the economic benefit of toripalimab plus axitinib for previously untreated RCC patients from the Chinese healthcare system perspective.

METHODS

The partitioned survival model was developed to simulate 3-week patients' transition in 20-year time horizon to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of toripalimab plus axitinib compared with sunitinib for advanced RCC. Survival data were gathered from the RENOTORCH trial, and cost and utility inputs were obtained from the database and published literature. Total cost, life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were the model outputs. Subgroup analyses and sensitivity analyses were conducted to increase the comprehensiveness and estimate the robustness of the model results.

RESULTS

In the base-case analysis, compared with sunitinib, toripalimab plus axitinib could bring additional 1.19 LYs and 0.65 QALYs, with the marginal cost of $41,499.23, resulting in the ICER of $64,337.49/QALY, which is higher than the WTP threshold. And ICERs were always beyond the WTP threshold of all subgroups. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated the model results were robust.

CONCLUSIONS

Toripalimab plus axitinib was unlikely to be the cost-effective first-line therapy for patients with previously untreated advanced RCC compared with sunitinib from the Chinese healthcare system perspective.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of toripalimab plus chemotherapy for patients with advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma in China

BACKGROUND

The aim of the current analysis was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of toripalimab plus chemotherapy compared with chemotherapy alone as the first-line option for patients with advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) from the perspective of Chinese health-care system.

METHODS

A partitioned survival model was conducted to track 3-week patients' transition and evaluate the health and economic outcomes in 10-year horizon of the two competing first-line treatment among toripalimab plus chemotherapy and chemotherapy alone. The survival data were gathered from the JUPITER-06 trial, and cost and utility values were obtained from the local charges and published studies. Total costs, life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were the model outcomes. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

Treatment with toripalimab plus chemotherapy yields marginal cost of $8,639.74 and additional 0.65 QALYs, resulting in an ICER of $13,280.97 per additional QALY gained, which was lower than the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $38,224 in China. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses confirmed the robustness of the model outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Toripalimab plus chemotherapy was likely to be the cost-effective first-line option for patients with advanced ESCC compared with chemotherapy alone with the WTP threshold of $38,224 per additional QALY gained from the perspective of the Chinese health-care system.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Cost-effectiveness and budget impact of pembrolizumab+axitinib versus sunitinib in patients with advanced clear-cell renal cell carcinoma in the Netherlands

Background

The phase 3 clinical trial KEYNOTE-426 suggested a higher efficacy regarding overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) of pembrolizumab+axitinib compared to sunitinib as a first-line treatment for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. In this analysis, the potential cost-effectiveness of this combination treatment versus sunitinib for patients with advanced clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (accRCC) was examined from the societal perspective in the Netherlands.

Methods

For this analysis, a partitioned survival model was constructed. Clinical data were obtained from the published KEYNOTE-426 trial reports; data on costs and (dis-)utilities were derived from published literature. Costs outside of the healthcare sector included treatment-related travel, informal care and productivity loss. Next to a probabilistic scenario analysis, various scenario analyses were performed that aimed at survival extrapolation, different utility values, treatment duration and drug pricing, as well as restricting the cohort to patients with an intermediate or poor prognosis. Further, a budget impact analysis over three years was conducted, in which a sensitivity analysis concerning ranges in costs and the number of patients was applied. Moreover, a scenario concerning increasing market penetration of pembrolizumab+axitinib up to a market share of 80% in the third year was analyzed.

Results

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of pembrolizumab+axitinib was estimated at €368,396/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained, with an incremental QALY gain of 0.55 over sunitinib. The probability of cost-effectiveness at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €80,000/QALY was estimated at 0%, a 50% probability was estimated at €340,000/QALY. Cost-effectiveness was not achieved in any of the applied scenarios. The budget impact over three years amounted to €417.3 million upon instantaneous and full replacement of sunitinib, and to €214.9 million with increasing market penetration.

Conclusion

Pembrolizumab+axitinib was not estimated to be cost-effective compared to sunitinib as a first-line treatment for patients with accRCC in the Netherlands from a societal perspective. In none of the analyzed scenarios, cost-effectiveness was achieved. However, price reductions and shorter treatment durations might lead to a more favorable ICER.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of atezolizumab plus chemotherapy as first-line treatment for patients with advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer in China

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of adding atezolizumab to first-line chemotherapy for advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) from Chinese healthcare system.

METHODS

A partitioned survival model (PSM) was established to simulate 3-week patients transition in a 20-year time horizon to estimate the health and economic outcomes of adding atezolizumab to first-line chemotherapy for advanced nonsquamous NSCLC. Costs and utility values were obtained from the local charges and published studies. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to confirm the robustness of the model results.

RESULTS

Atezolizumab plus chemotherapy yielded additional 0.36 life years (LYs) and 0.23 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and the marginal cost was $60,154.48, resulting in an ICER of atezolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy was $267,264.85/QALY. One-way sensitivity analyses revealed that the cost of atezolizumab was the main driver of the model outcomes, and the probabilistic sensitivity analyses suggested that atezolizumab plus chemotherapy had 0% probability of being cost-effective first-line option at the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $37,652/QALY in China.

CONCLUSIONS

Atezolizumab plus chemotherapy could not be considered cost-effective compared with chemotherapy alone as the first-line strategy for patients with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC in China. And appropriately reduce the price of atezolizumab is necessary.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Cost-effectiveness analysis of anlotinib versus sunitinib as first-line treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma in China

BACKGROUND

Sunitinib was approved several years ago as a first-line drug for treating metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC); however, its high price and broad side effects when administered at the standard dose have limited its clinical use. A clinical trial (NCT02072031) confirmed that anlotinib could be used as the first-line treatment for mRCC. This study was conducted to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of anlotinib as a first-line treatment for mRCC compared to that of sunitinib in China.

METHODS

A Markov model was established to compare the cost-effectiveness of anlotinib with that of sunitinib. Clinical data were obtained from a multi-center phase II trial (clinical trial information: NCT02072031). Utility values were obtained from the literature. Total costs were calculated from a Chinese societal perspective. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to assess the model uncertainty. The life-year (LY), quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio were calculated.

RESULTS

The base-case analysis over a lifetime horizon of 10 years showed that the anlotinib group had 2.196 LYs and 1.487 QALYs at a total cost of $68,597.84. The sunitinib group had 2.194 LYs and 1.432 QALYs at a total cost of $88,060.02. This resulted in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) of anlotinib versus sunitinib of $-9,210,858.93 per LYs and $-354,117.07 per QALYs, suggesting that anlotinib is a more effective and less costly strategy than sunitinib.

CONCLUSION

Anlotinib may be a more cost-effective first-line treatment strategy for mRCC than sunitinib in China.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of capecitabine maintenance therapy plus best supportive care vs. best supportive care alone as first-line treatment of newly diagnosed metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma

Objectives

Maintenance therapy with capecitabine after induction chemotherapy for patients with newly diagnosed metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma (mNPC) has been confirmed to be effective. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of capecitabine as maintenance therapy for patients with mNPC from the Chinese payers' perspective.

Methods

Markov model was conducted to simulate the disease progress and evaluated the economic and health outcomes of capecitabine maintenance plus best-supported care (CBSC) or best-supported care (BSC) alone for patients with mNPC. Survival data were derived from the NCT02460419 clinical trial. Costs and utilities were obtained from the standard fee database and published literature. Measured outcomes were total costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), life-years (LYs), incremental cost-utility ratios (ICURs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), incremental net monetary benefit (INMB), and incremental net-health benefit (INHB). Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess model robustness. Additional subgroup cost-effectiveness analyses were accomplished.

Results

Throughout the course of the disease, the CBSC group provide an incremental cost of $9 734 and additional 1.16 QALYs (1.56 LYs) compared with the BSC group, resulting in an ICUR of $8 391/QALY and ICER of $6 240/LY. Moreover, the INHB was 0.89 QALYs, and the INMB was $32 034 at the willingness-to-pay threshold of $36 007/QALY. Subgroup analyses revealed that CBSC presented a positive trend of gaining an INHB in all subgroups compared with the BSC group. The results of sensitivity analyses supported the robustness of our model.

Conclusion

Compared with BSC, after induction chemotherapy, CBSC as a first-line treatment was cost-effective for newly diagnosed mNPC. These results suggest capecitabine maintenance therapy after induction chemotherapy as a new option for patients with newly diagnosed mNPC.

Economic evaluation of first-line nivolumab plus cabozantinib for advanced renal cell carcinoma in China

Background

In the Checkmate9ER trial, first-line treatment with nivolumab combined with cabozantinib (NI + CA) has shown efficacy for advanced renal cell carcinoma. This study aims to evaluate the impact of the health and economic outcomes of NI + CA in China.

Methods

Clinical efficacy data were derived from pivotal phase III CheckMate 9ER trial. A three-state partitioned survival model was established based on disease progression. Progression-free survival and overall survival of NI + CA vs. sunitinib were fitted with log-logistic and log-normal distributions, respectively. Mixture cure, non-mixture cure, and Royston/Parmar spline models were used to evaluate model robustness. The results derived the computational cost from the Chinese healthcare system perspective. The primary outcomes were quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), total cost in US dollars, as well as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) at the willingness-to-pay threshold in China. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were also used to assess the robustness of the model.

Results

In the base-case analysis result, 0.86 additional QALYs could be obtained in the NI+CA (3.84 QALYs) versus the sunitinib strategy (2.97 QALYs). The ICER of NI+CA compared with the sunitinib strategy was US$292,945 per QALY. The ICER value in the NI+CA strategy was higher than the Chinese willingness-to-pay threshold of US$38,024 per QALY. Although NI+CA can improve long-term patient survival significantly over sunitinib in the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma, it is unlikely to be cost-effective due to high cost. The results of the one-way sensitivity analysis showed that drug cost, health utility value at the stage of disease progression, and subsequent treatment proportion had a greater impact on the stability of ICER values.

Conclusions

Nivolumab combined with cabozantinib can prolong the life of patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma and improve their quality of life, but there is a corresponding increase in medical cost. The NI + CA strategy is unlikely to be considered cost-effective in the treatment of advanced RCC from the perspective of Chinese healthcare system.

Cost-Effectiveness of Lenvatinib Plus Pembrolizumab or Everolimus as First-Line Treatment of Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma

Background

In this study, compared to sunitinib as one of the available treatment options, we aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab or everolimus as first-line treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) patients in a Chinese health system setting.

Methods

A partitioned survival model was developed to simulate patient disease and death. Transition probabilities and adverse reaction data were obtained from the CLEAR trial. The utility value was derived from literature. Costs were based on the Chinese drug database and local charges. Sensitivity analyses and were performed to assess the robustness of the model. Outcomes were measured as quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), cumulative cost (COST), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).

Results

The model predicted that the expected mean result in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group (2.60 QALYs) was superior to that in the sunitinib group (2.13 QALYs) to obtain 0.47 QALYs, but the corresponding cost was 1,253,130 yuan greater, resulting in an ICER of 2,657,025 RMB/QALYs. Compared with the sunitinib group, the lenvatinib plus everolimus group (2.17 QALYs) gained 0.04 QALYs, with an additional cost of 32,851 yuan, resulting in an ICER of 77,6202 RMB/QALYs.

Conclusions

Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab or everolimus has no economic advantage over sunitinib in treating advanced RCC in the Chinese healthcare system.

Systematic review and cost-effectiveness of pharmacokinetically guided sunitinib individualized treatment for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma

Background:

Sunitinib has a narrow therapeutic window, with considerable differences between patients. Dosing based on pharmacokinetics (PK) may help overcome some of those issues. This study aims to evaluate and compare the cost-effectiveness of PK-guided individualized treatment of sunitinib with its standard dose in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC).

Methods:

A comprehensive literature search was performed, and relevant values were used to provide information for the decision analysis model. Utility data were derived from published studies, and costs were obtained from the perspective of payers in China and the United States. A Markov model was established to evaluate the associated costs and health outcomes for patients. The primary outputs of the model included lifetime costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). One-way and probability sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate the potential uncertainties of parameters.

Results:

Cost-effective analysis showed that the QALY of the PK-guided group increased by 0.83 compared with that in the standard dose group. From the perspective of both countries’ health systems, the cost of PK-guided dose was lower than that of standard dose. Hence, PK-guided treatment was the dominant strategy. One-way and probability sensitivity analyses confirmed the reliability of these results.

Conclusion:

On the basis of currently available data, PK-guided sunitinib treatment may be a safe, effective, and economical intervention for patients with mRCC.

A Cost-effectiveness Analysis Comparing Pembrolizumab-Axitinib, Nivolumab-Ipilimumab, and Sunitinib for Treatment of Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma

OBJECTIVES

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved nivolumab-ipilimumab and pembrolizumab-axitinib as first-line treatments for metastatic, clear-cell, renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) based on results from CheckMate 214 and KEYNOTE-426. Our objective was to compare the adjusted, lifetime cost-effectiveness between nivolumab-ipilimumab, pembrolizumab-axitinib, and sunitinib for patients with mRCC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A 3-state Markov model was developed comparing nivolumab-ipilimumab and pembrolizumab-axitinib to each other and sunitinib, over a 20-year lifetime horizon from a US medical center perspective. The clinical outcomes of nivolumab-ipilimumab and pembrolizumab-axitinib were compared using matching-adjusted indirect comparison. Costs of drug treatment, adverse events, and utilities associated with different health states and adverse events were determined using national sources and published literature. Our outcome was incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) using quality-adjusted life years (QALY). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

Nivolumab-ipilimumab was the most cost-effective option in the base case analysis with an ICER of $34,190/QALY compared with sunitinib, while the pembrolizumab-axitinib ICER was dominated by nivolumab-ipilimumab and was not cost-effective (ICER=$12,630,828/QALY) compared with sunitinib. The mean total costs per patient for the nivolumab-ipilimumab and pembrolizumab-axitinib arms were $284,683 and $457,769, respectively, compared with sunitinib at $241,656. QALY was longer for nivolumab-ipilimumab (3.23 QALY) than for adjusted pembrolizumab-axitinib (1.99 QALY), which was longer than sunitinib's (1.98 QALY). These results were most sensitive to treatment cost in both groups, but plausible changes did not alter the conclusions.

CONCLUSIONS

The base case scenario indicated that nivolumab-ipilimumab was the most cost-effective treatment option for mRCC compared with pembrolizumab-axitinib and sunitinib.

Active Surveillance in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: Results From the Canadian Kidney Cancer Information System

BACKGROUND

Active surveillance (AS) is a commonly used strategy in patients with slow-growing disease. We aimed to assess the outcomes and safety of AS in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We used the Canadian Kidney Cancer information system (CKCis) to identify patients with mRCC diagnosed between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2016. The AS strategy was defined as (1) the start of systemic therapy ≥ 6 months after diagnosis of mRCC, or (2) never receiving systemic therapy for mRCC with an overall survival (OS) of ≥1 year. Patients starting systemic treatment <6 months after diagnosis of mRCC were defined as receiving immediate systemic treatment. OS and time until first-line treatment failure (TTF) were compared between the two cohorts.

RESULTS

A total of 853 patients met the criteria for AS (cohort A). Of these, 364 started treatment >6 months after their initial diagnosis (cohort A1) and 489 never started systemic therapy (cohort A2); 827 patients received immediate systemic treatment (cohort B). The 5-year OS probability was significantly greater for cohort A than for cohort B (70% vs. 33.6%; P < .0001). After adjusting for International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium risk criteria and age, both OS (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.47-0.70; P < .0001) and TTF (HR = 0.72; 95% CI, 0.60-0.85; P = .0002) were greater in cohort A1 compared with B. For cohort A1, the median time on AS was 14.2 months (range, 6-71).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the largest analysis of AS in mRCC to date, our data suggest that a subset of patients may be safely observed without immediate initiation of systemic therapy.

Pazopanib together with 6-8 cycles of sintilimab followed by single use of pazopanib in the second-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma

Background

The aim of the study was to investigate the temporary combination of anti-PD-1 plus targeted therapy followed by single targeted therapy in advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) as second-line therapy.

Methods

A total of 17 patients from Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center (FUSCC) with advanced clear cell RCC were enrolled. They were treated with sunitinib (50 mg/day; 2 weeks on and 1 weeks off) as first-line therapy. After progression of the disease, sintilimab (200 mg iv/q3w) in combination with pazopanib (800 mg/day) were used. After 6–8 cycles of immunotherapy, patients were treated with pazopanib only. Cox proportional hazards models was used to evaluate the risk factors.

Results

Three patients reached partial response (PR) after second-line treatment, while 12 patients remained stable. Two patients had progressive disease and 1 of them died due to disease progression. The median progression-free survival (PFS) for second-line therapy was 12.2 months. Cox analysis revealed that IMDC score (HR: 0.041, P=0.01) was the only factor that was correlated with progression free survival.

Conclusions

Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), together with 6–8 cycles of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) agents followed by the single use of a TKI, are a feasible way to treat metastatic clear cell RCC (ccRCC) patients as second-line treatment.

Cost-Effectiveness of Immunotherapy Treatments for Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND: Kidney cancer exerts significant disease burden in the United States and possesses a rapidly evolving treatment landscape. The expansion of novel systemic treatment approaches and the use of immunotherapy has been accompanied by increased costs over time. However, the cost-effectiveness of immunotherapy in renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has not been fully assessed. The current study presents a systematic review of cost-effectiveness studies of immunotherapy-based treatment in the context of RCC. METHODS: A literature search utilizing PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library was undertaken to find articles related to the cost-effectiveness of immunotherapy treatment in renal cell carcinoma (RCC). The inclusion criteria for articles were as follows: English, published between 1983 and 2020 and evaluated cost-effectiveness in any of the currently approved immunotherapies for RCC. Exclusion criteria included being a review article, commentary or editorial, as well as possessing no specific cost-effectiveness evaluation or analysis relevant to the current review. RESULTS: The current review identified 23 studies, published between 2008 and 2020, across 9 different countries. The studies identified tended to focus on patients with locally advanced or metastatic RCC and examined the cost-effectiveness of immunotherapy across various lines of treatment (first-line treatment (n = 13), second-line treatment (n = 8), and first-line and beyond (n = 2). Eight studies examined the use of interferon-alpha (IFN-alpha), with some reports supporting the cost-effectiveness of these agents and an equal number of studies demonstrating the opposite, with sunitinib often demonstrating superior cost bases. The majority, fourteen studies, included the use of novel immune checkpoint inhibitors (nivolumab, ipilimumab, pembrolizumab), half of which found that checkpoint inhibitors were more cost-effective when compared to oral systemic therapies (sunitinib, everolimus, axitinib, pazopanib, and cabozantinib). DISCUSSION: Novel immune checkpoint inhibitors constituted the most frequently examined agents and were likely to be deemed cost-effective as compared to other treatments; although this often required higher willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds or healthcare systems that possessed more cost-constraints. These observations have clinical and health system applicability, with the ability to potentially reduce the cost of treatment for locally advanced or metastatic RCC.

Economic Evaluation of Rituximab + Recombinant Human Thrombopoietin vs. Rituximab for the Treatment of Second-Line Idiopathic Thrombocytopenic Purpura in China

Objective: This study aimed to compare the economic evaluation of recombinant human thrombopoietin+rituximab (rhTPO + RTX) vs. RTX as second-line treatment for adult patients with immunologic thrombocytopenic purpura in China. Methods: The Markov model was used in our research. The response rate and relapse rate data were derived from two clinical trials and one retrospective study. Cost and utility values were derived from published literature, a third-party database, and healthcare documents. In addition, one-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed to observe the stability of the model and data source. Results: In the Markov model, compared with RTX, rhTPO+RTX yielded an additional 0.04 QALYs, with an incremental cost of 2,802 USD. The ICER was 69,097 USD/QALY. According to the results from the one-way sensitivity analysis, complete response of rhTPO+RTX, utility of complete response and response of RTX were the main drivers in the model. The results from the probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that there was a 100% probability that rhTPO+RTX was not cost-effective vs. RTX alone at a threshold of $10,805/QALY and an 84% probability at a threshold of $32,415/QALY. Conclusion: RTX+rhTPO was not more cost-effective than RTX alone as second-line treatment for adult patients with immunologic thrombocytopenic purpura in China.

Pazopanib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a single-center, real-world, retrospective Chinese study

Background

The efficacy and safety of pazopanib in patients diagnosed with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) have been demonstrated by a Chinese subgroup analysis of the COMPARZ (Pazopanib Versus Sunitinib in the Treatment of Locally Advanced and/or Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma) trial. However, the real-world data are still unknown. This single-center, retrospective study was designed to verify the real-world effects of pazopanib in Chinese patients with mRCC.

Methods

Patients with mRCC and a clinical decision to initiate pazopanib as first-line therapy were eligible. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), with overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), and safety being evaluated as secondary endpoints. The effectiveness according to the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk model, number of risk factors in the intermediate risk group, age, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS), and the number and site of organ metastasis were also assessed.

Results

A total of 32 patients were enrolled, including 23 (71.9%) males and 9 (28.1%) females. The median age was 57 years (range 29-75 years). With a median follow-up time of 23.8 months, a median PFS of 18.3 months, and an ORR of 37.5%. Median OS was not reached, and the 1-, 2-, and 3-year overall survival rates were 90.6%, 78.1, and 65.6%, respectively. According to IMDC risk model, 37.5% were placed in the favorable risk (FR) subgroup, 56.2% (the majority) were placed in the intermediate risk (IR) subgroup, and 6.3% were placed in the poor risk (PR) subgroup. Compared with the IR and PR groups, the FR group achieved the best ORR (58.3%) and median PFS (22.1 months). Having 1 risk factor, ECOG PS <2, 1 organ metastasis site, and only lung metastasis associated with a higher ORR and better median PFS. The IMDC risk model and number of metastases were associated with PFS. The most common adverse events were change in hair color (69.0%), diarrhea (63%), and hypertension (50%).

Conclusions

Pazopanib showed efficacy and safety in real-world Chinese mRCC patients.

Treatment of Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma: Immunotherapies Have Demonstrated Overall Survival Benefits While Targeted Therapies Have Not

Context

Current guidelines suggest several targeted therapies (TTs) and immunotherapies (ITs) in the treatment of advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Ideal sequencing of these treatments is unclear.

Objective

The primary objective was to evaluate the overall survival (OS) data of the treatments approved for mRCC. Secondary objectives included evaluating other signs of efficacy and adverse events.

Evidence acquisition

We reviewed the current Food and Drug Administration-approved treatments for mRCC. Trials associated with approval were reviewed. We also included pre- and postapproval publications when appropriate.

Evidence synthesis

There is minimal evidence supporting OS benefit for the nine approved TTs. They result in adverse events and are a considerable economic burden. For these reasons, their future role in mRCC treatment should be re-evaluated, given the emergence of IT that have demonstrated OS benefits. Accumulating long-term survival data with high-dose interleukin-2 treatment suggests that this older treatment could still be considered for eligible patients. Checkpoint inhibitors have shown promising OS and durable responses; as such, the high cost of treatment might be justified. However, the available evidence does not suggest that adding TT to IT would increase efficacy over IT alone, but would add toxicity.

Conclusions

Trial data supporting OS benefit are much stronger for ITs than for TTs. Combining checkpoint inhibitors with TTs has not been shown to produce better OS than checkpoint inhibitors alone, while more adverse events are present. Granting drug approvals based on efficacy without demonstrated OS benefit should be revisited.

Patient summary

Approved treatments for metastatic kidney cancer include targeted and immune-based therapies. The former commonly produces temporary tumour shrinkage, but survival benefits are unclear. All approved immunotherapies have increased survival, and a proportion of patients appear cured.

Cost-Effectiveness of Pembrolizumab plus Axitinib Versus Sunitinib as First-Line Therapy in Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma in the U.S

BACKGROUND

The data from the phase III clinical trial KEYNOTE-426 indicated that pembrolizumab plus axitinib compared with sunitinib could generate clinical benefits in patients with previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Given the incremental clinical benefits, we examined the potential cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib in the first-line setting for patients with advanced RCC from the U.S. payers' perspective.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Cost and health outcomes were estimated at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $100,000 to $150,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed by varying potentially modifiable parameters, and additional subgroup analyses were performed as well.

RESULTS

Upon our analyses, the total treatment costs in the pembrolizumab plus axitinib and sunitinib groups were $522,796 and $348,424 and the QALYs gained 2.90 and 1.72, respectively. In the base-case analysis, compared with receiving sunitinib, patients with advanced RCC receiving pembrolizumab plus axitinib gained 1.18 more QALYs at an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $148,676/QALY. The results of subgroup analyses demonstrated that pembrolizumab plus axitinib was most cost-effective for patients who had one organ with metastasis.

CONCLUSION

First-line treatment with pembrolizumab plus axitinib, compared with sunitinib, is a cost-effective strategy when the value of WTP is from $100,000 to $150,000 per QALY in patients with advanced RCC. For patients with one-organ metastasis and those in International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium poor risk group, first-line treatment with pembrolizumab plus axitinib is more cost-effective than others.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

This was the first study to examine the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib in advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). This study found that first-line treatment with pembrolizumab plus axitinib is a cost-effective strategy when the value of willingness-to-pay is from $100,000 to $150,000 per quality-adjusted life-year in patients with advanced RCC from the U.S. payers' perspective.

Cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab plus axitinib as first-line therapy for advanced renal cell carcinoma

Aim: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of first-line treatments for advanced renal cell carcinoma with pembrolizumab plus axitinib compared with sunitinib from the US payer perspective. Patients & methods: A Markov model was developed for this purpose. The clinical data were obtained from the KEYNOTE-426 trial. Utility values and direct costs related to the treatments were gathered from the published studies. Results: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of pembrolizumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib was $249,704 per quality-adjusted life year, which was higher than a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per quality-adjusted life year. Conclusion: Pembrolizumab plus axitinib was not considered to be cost-effective versus sunitinib as a first-line treatment for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma from the US payer perspective.

Pembrolizumab alone or with chemotherapy for squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: A cost-effectiveness analysis from Chinese perspective

OBJECTIVES

The KEYNOTE-048 trial indicated pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy is an appropriate first-line treatment for recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC), while pembrolizumab monotherapy is optimal for PD-L1 positive patient. This study was powered to determine the most cost-effective strategy for patient with different combined positive score (CPS).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A Markov model was developed to predict progression-free survival, disease progression, or death in patients with recurrent or metastatic HNSCC based on data from the KEYNOTE-048 trial. Cost was obtained from West China Hospital, while utilities were referred to published studies. By using Monte Carlo simulations, acceptability curves were depicted to address the uncertainty of model inputs.

RESULTS

Compared with cetuximab plus chemotherapy, pembrolizumab monotherapy resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $14,995 per quality adjusted life year (QALY) in total population and $22,779 per QALY in patients with CPS ≥ 1. Comparing pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy with standard therapy led to an ICER of $43,230 per QALY in total population and $26,157 per QALY in patients with CPS ≥ 1. For patients with CPS ≥ 20, ICERs yield by immunotherapy with or without chemotherapy exceeded the threshold of willingness to pay we set, when compared with standard therapy. Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy was dominated by pembrolizumab alone in this patient population.

CONCLUSION

For HNSCC patients with different CPS, pembrolizumab alone was the optimal choice for total population and patients with CPS ≥ 1. Among patients with high CPS, immunotherapy with or without chemotherapy was not preferred over the standard therapy.

A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: First-Line Avelumab Plus Axitinib Versus Sunitinib for Advanced Renal-Cell Carcinoma

Background

Compared with the standard of care with sunitinib, avelumab plus axitinib can increase progression-free survival in the first-line of advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC), but the economic effect of the treatment is unknown. The purpose of the research was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the avelumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib in first-line treatment for advanced RCC from the US payer perspective.

Methods

A Markov model was developed to evaluate the economic and health outcomes of avelumab plus axitinib vs sunitinib in the first-line setting for advanced RCC. The clinical data were obtained from the JAVELIN Renal 101 Clinical Trials. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess uncertainty in the model. Health outcomes were measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs).

Results

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of avelumab plus axitinib compared with sunitinib was $565,232 per QALY, the costs were $884,626 and $669,838, QALYs were 3.67 and 3.29, respectively. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that differences in utilities in PFS and after progression were the most influential factors within the model. When avelumab was at 30% of the full price or axitinib was at 40% of the full price, avelumab and axitinib were approved to be cost-effective if the WTP threshold was $150,000 per QALY. The subgroup analysis showed the ICER of avelumab plus axitinib compared with sunitinib for the patients with PD-L1–positive tumors was $588,105.

Conclusion

Avelumab plus axitinib in the first-line treatment was not cost-effective in comparison with sunitinib when the threshold of willingness to pay (WTP) was $150,000 per QALY.

Anti-angiogenesis therapy overcomes the innate resistance to PD-1/PD-L1 blockade in VEGFA-overexpressed mouse tumor models

The effectual clinical benefits of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) are hampered by a high rate of innate resistance, and VEGFA may contribute to ICI treatment resistance. In this study, we endeavored to assess the tumor microenvironment (TME) in VEGFA-overexpressed human tumors and mouse tumor models, and to explore whether anti-angiogenesis therapy can overcome the innate resistance to ICI in hyperangiogenesis mouse tumor models and the underlying mechanism. Effect of VEGFA on clinical prognosis and TME was analyzed using TCGA data. The VEGFA-overexpressed mouse breast and colon subcutaneous models were established. PD-1 mAb or apatinib alone and combination therapy were used. Immunohistochemistry and immunofluorescence were used to assess angiogenesis and hypoxia. Flow cytometry, RNA sequencing and MCP-counter were applied to detect tumor immunomicroenvironment. High level of VEGFA mRNA in human tumors is related to poor prognosis and hypoxic, angiogenic and immunosuppressive TME. Upregulation of VEGFA increased the degree of malignancy of tumor cells in vitro and in vivo. VEGFA-overexpressed models were characterized by hypoxic, hyperangiogenic and immunosuppressive TME and indicated innate resistance to ICI. In tumor-bearing mice without VEGFA overexpression, the combination therapy had no synergistic anti-tumor effect compared to monotherapy. However, apatinib alleviated hyperangiogenesis and hypoxia in TME and converted the immunosuppressive TME into an immunostimulatory one in VEGFA-overexpressed tumors. Thus, anti-angiogenesis therapy could improve the efficiency of ICI in VEGFA-overexpressed tumors. Revealing whether there is hypervascularization in tumor tissues may help to clarify the adoption of anti-angiogenesis and ICI combination therapy or ICI monotherapy in cancer treatment.

Outcomes Associated with First-Line anti-PD-1/ PD-L1 agents vs. Sunitinib in Patients with Sarcomatoid Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Immunotherapy based on anti PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors has proven to be more effective than sunitinib in the first-line setting of advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). RCC patients with sarcomatoid histology (sRCC) have a poor prognosis and limited therapeutic options. We performed a systematic review and a meta-analysis of randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) of first-line anti PD-1/PDL-1 agents vs. sunitinib, presenting efficacy data in the sub-group of sRCC patients. The systematic research was conducted on Google Scholar, Cochrane Library, PubMed and Embase and updated until 31th January, 2020. Abstracts from ESMO and ASCO (2010–2019) were also reviewed. Full texts and abstracts reporting about RCTs testing first-line anti-PD-1/ PD-L1 agents vs. sunitinib in RCC were included if sRCC sub-group analyses of either PFS (progression-free survival), OS (overall survival) or radiological response rate were available. Pooled data from 3814 RCC patients in the ITT (intention-to-treat) population and from 512 sRCC patients were included in the quantitative synthesis. In the sRCC sub-group vs. the ITT population, pooled estimates of the PFS-HRs were 0.57 (95%: 0.45–0.74) vs. 0.79 (95% CI: 0.70–0.89), respectively, with a statistically meaningful interaction favoring the sRCC sub-group (pooled ratio of the PFS-HRs = 0.64; 95% CI: 0.50–0.82; p < 0.001). Pooled estimates of the difference in CR-R (complete response-rate) achieved with anti-PD-1/PDL-1 agents vs. sunitinib were + 0.10 (95% CI: 0.04–0.16) vs. + 0.04 (95% CI: 0.00–0.07) in the sRCC vs. the non-sRCC sub groups, with a statistically meaningful difference of + 0.06 (95% CI: 0.02–0.10; p = 0.007) favoring the sRCC sub-group. Sarcomatoid histology may be associated with improved efficacy of anti PD-1/PDL-1 agents vs. sunitinib in terms of PFS and CR-R.