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

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Atezolizumab versus Platinum-Based Chemotherapy as First-Line Treatment for Patients with Unresectable Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer with PD-L1 Expression Status in Japan

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Atezolizumab has demonstrated safety and efficacy in patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in the IMpower110 trial. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab as the first-line treatment for patients with unresectable advanced NSCLC, including programmed cell death ligand-1 (PD-L1)-positive probability testing, from the perspective of healthcare costs in Japan.

METHODS

A cost-effectiveness analysis model for atezolizumab, including PD-L1-positive probability testing, was used to construct a partitioned survival model with three health states. To assess the robustness, a probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was conducted. The acceptable probability was defined as the probability of willingness-to-pay (WTP) over the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Multiple repetitions at WTP thresholds were calculated by continuously reducing the atezolizumab price.

RESULTS

The ICER per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) for atezolizumab therapy only for patients with high PD-L1 expression compared to platinum-based chemotherapy for all patients was 31,975,792 yen per QALY. This is higher than the WTP threshold of 15,000,000 yen. If the cost of atezolizumab were reduced to 54% of the original cost (563,917 yen), the strategy of using atezolizumab for patients with high PD-L1 could become more cost-effective.

CONCLUSIONS

The results indicated that atezolizumab was not cost-effective compared to platinum-based chemotherapy as a first-line treatment for patients with unresectable advanced NSCLC. However, we suggest that the price of atezolizumab should be reduced to 54% of the original cost to meet the WTP threshold of 15,000,000 yen per QALY.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy as first-line treatment in PD-L1-positive metastatic triple-negative breast cancer

Objective: This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab/chemotherapy combinations for previously untreated metastatic triple-negative breast cancer patients in the USA with PD-L1 combined positive score ≥10. Methods: A partitioned-survival model was developed to project health outcomes and direct medical costs over a 20-year time horizon. Efficacy and safety data were from randomized clinical trials. Comparative effectiveness of indirect comparators was assessed using network meta-analyses. A series of sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the results. Results: Pembrolizumab/chemotherapy resulted in total quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gains of 0.70 years and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of US$182,732/QALY compared with chemotherapy alone. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for pembrolizumab/nab-paclitaxel versus atezolizumab/nab-paclitaxel was US$44,157/QALY. Sensitivity analyses showed the results were robust over plausible values of model inputs. Conclusion: Pembrolizumab/chemotherapy is cost effective compared with chemotherapy as well as atezolizumab/nab-paclitaxel as first-line treatment for PD-L1-positive metastatic triple-negative breast cancer from a US payer perspective.

Regulatory T cells: Their role in triple-negative breast cancer progression and metastasis

Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is an aggressive and immunogenic subtype of breast cancer. This tumorigenicity is independent of hormonal or HER2 pathways because of a lack of respective receptor expression. TNBC is extremely prone to drug resistance and early recurrence because of T-regulatory cell (Treg) infiltration into the tumor microenvironment (TME) in addition to other mechanisms like genomic instability. Tumor-infiltrating Tregs interact with both tumor and stromal cells as well as extracellular matrix components in the TME and induce an immune-suppressive phenotype. Hence, treatment of TNBC with conventional therapies remains challenging. Understanding the protective mechanism of Tregs in shielding TNBC from antitumor immune responses in the TME will pave the way for developing novel, immune-based therapeutics. The current review focuses on the role of tumor-infiltrating Tregs in tumor progression and metabolic reprogramming of the TME. The authors have extended their focus to oncotargeting Treg-mediated immune suppression in breast cancer. Because of its potential role in the TME, modulating Treg activity may provide a novel strategic intervention to combat TNBC. Both under laboratory conditions and in clinical trials, currently available anticancer drugs and natural therapeutics as potential agents for targeting Tregs are explored.