Cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab with axitinib as first-line treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma

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.

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 Six Immunotherapy-Based Regimens and Sunitinib in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Public Payer Perspective

PURPOSE

Several new treatment combinations have been approved in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). To determine the optimal therapy on the basis of cost and health outcomes, we performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of approved immunotherapy-tyrosine kinase inhibitor/immunotherapy drug combinations and sunitinib using public payer acquisition costs in the United States.

METHODS

We constructed a decision model with a 10-year time horizon. The seven treatment drug strategies included atezolizumab + bevacizumab, avelumab + axitinib, pembrolizumab + axitinib, nivolumab + ipilimumab (NI), nivolumab + cabozantinib, lenvatinib + pembrolizumab, and sunitinib. The effectiveness outcome in our model was quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) with utility values on the basis of the published literature. Costs included drug acquisition costs and costs for management of grade 3-4 drug-related adverse events. We used a partitioned survival model in which patients with mRCC transitioned between three health states (progression-free, progressive disease, and death) at monthly intervals on the basis of parametric survival function estimated from published survival curves. To determine cost-effectiveness, we constructed incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) by dividing the difference in cost by the difference in effectiveness between nondominated treatments.

RESULTS

The least expensive treatment was sunitinib ($357,948 US dollars [USD]-$656,100 USD), whereas the most expensive was either lenvatinib + pembrolizumab or pembrolizumab + axitinib ($959,302 USD-$1,403,671 USD). NI yielded the most QALYs (3.6), whereas avelumab + axitinib yielded the least (2.5). NI had an incremental ICER of $297,465 USD-$348,516 USD compared with sunitinib. In sensitivity analyses, this ICER fell below $150,000 USD/QALY if the initial 4-month cost of NI decreased by 22%-38%.

CONCLUSION

NI was the most effective combination for mRCC, but at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 USD/QALY, sunitinib was the most cost-effective approach.

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.

Cost-Effectiveness of the First Line Treatment Options For Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma in India

PURPOSE

Tyrosine kinase inhibitors such as sunitinib and pazopanib are the mainstay of treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in India. However, pembrolizumab and nivolumab have shown significant improvement in the median progression-free survival and overall survival among patients with mRCC. In this study, we aimed to determine the cost-effectiveness of the first-line treatment options for the patients with mRCC in India.

METHODS

A Markov state-transition model was used to measure the lifetime costs and health outcomes associated with sunitinib, pazopanib, pembrolizumab/lenvatinib, and nivolumab/ipilimumab among patients with first-line mRCC. Incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained with a given treatment option was compared against the next best alternative and assessed for cost-effectiveness using a willingness to pay threshold of one-time per capita gross-domestic product of India. The parameter uncertainty was analyzed using the probabilistic sensitivity analysis.

RESULTS

We estimated the total lifetime cost per patient of ₹ 0.27 million ($3,706 US dollars [USD]), ₹ 0.35 million ($4,716 USD), ₹ 9.7 million ($131,858 USD), and ₹ 6.7 million ($90,481 USD) for the sunitinib, pazopanib, pembrolizumab/lenvatinib, and nivolumab/ipilimumab arms, respectively. Similarly, the mean QALYs lived per patient were 1.91, 1.86, 2.75, and 1.97, respectively. Sunitinib incurs an average cost of ₹ 143,269 ($1,939 USD) per QALY lived. Therefore, sunitinib at current reimbursement rates (₹ 10,000 per cycle) has a 94.6% probability of being cost-effective at a willingness to pay threshold of 1-time per capita gross-domestic product (₹ 168,300) in the Indian context.

CONCLUSION

Our findings support the current inclusion of sunitinib under India's publicly financed health insurance scheme.

Grade 3/4 Adverse Event Costs of Immuno-oncology Combination Therapies for Previously Untreated Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Despite 4 approved combination regimens in the first-line setting for advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC), adverse event (AE) costs data are lacking.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A descriptive analysis on 2 AE cost comparisons was conducted using patient-level data for the nivolumab-based therapies and published data for the pembrolizumab-based therapies. First, grade 3/4 AE costs were compared between nivolumab + ipilimumab vs. nivolumab + cabozantinib vs. pembrolizumab + axitinib using data from the CheckMate 214 (median follow-up [mFU]: 13.1 months), CheckMate 9ER (mFU: 12.8 months), and KEYNOTE-426 (mFU: 12.8 months) trials, respectively. Second, grade 3/4 AE costs were compared between nivolumab + ipilimumab vs. nivolumab + cabozantinib vs. pembrolizumab + lenvatinib using data from the CheckMate 214 (mFU: 26.7 months), CheckMate 9ER (mFU: 23.5 months), and KEYNOTE-581 (mFU: 26.6 months) trials, respectively. Per-patient costs for all-cause and treatment-related grade 3/4 AEs with corresponding any-grade AE rates ≥ 20% were calculated based on the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project database and inflated to 2020 US dollars.

RESULTS

Per-patient all-cause grade 3/4 AE costs for nivolumab + ipilimumab vs. nivolumab + cabozantinib vs. pembrolizumab + axitinib were $2703 vs. $4508 vs. $5772, and treatment-related grade 3/4 AE costs were $741 vs. $2722 vs. $4440 over ~12.8 months of FU. For nivolumab + ipilimumab vs. nivolumab + cabozantinib vs. pembrolizumab + lenvatinib, per-patient all-cause grade 3/4 AE costs were $3120 vs. $5800 vs. $9285, while treatment-related grade 3/4 AE costs were $863 vs. $3162 vs. $5030 over ~26.6 months of FU.

CONCLUSION

Patients with aRCC treated with first-line nivolumab-based therapies had lower grade 3/4 all-cause and treatment-related AE costs than pembrolizumab-based therapies, suggesting a more favorable cost-benefit profile.

Cost-effectiveness of nivolumab and ipilimumab versus pembrolizumab and axitinib in advanced renal cell carcinoma with intermediate or poor prognostic risk: a Brazilian private healthcare system perspective

OBJECTIVE

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO + IPI) and pembrolizumab plus axitinib (PEM + AXI) have demonstrated significant clinical benefits as first-line (1 L) treatments for intermediate/poor-risk advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) patients. This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of NIVO + IPI versus PEM + AXI from a Brazilian private healthcare system perspective, utilizing a novel approach to estimate comparative efficacy between the treatments.

METHODS

A three-state partitioned survival model (progression-free, progressed, and death) was developed to estimate costs, life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), and the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) over a 40-year time horizon. In the absence of head-to-head comparisons between NIVO + IPI and PEM + AXI, clinical data for NIVO + IPI was obtained from CheckMate 214 (NCT02231749) and for PEM + AXI from KEYNOTE-426 (NCT02853331). A matching-adjusted indirect comparison was conducted to account for the imbalance of treatment effect modifiers between the trials. Patient characteristics, resource use, health state utilities, and costs were based on Brazilian-specific sources. Costs and health outcomes were both discounted by 5% annually in line with Brazilian guidelines. The robustness of the results was evaluated through extensive sensitivity analysis and scenario analyses.

RESULTS

When comparing the matched versus unmatched OS, PFS, and TTD curves there was no noteworthy difference. NIVO + IPI was associated with cost savings (R$ 350,232), higher LYs (5.54 vs. 4.61), and QALYs (4.74 vs. 3.76) versus PEM + AXI, resulting in NIVO + IPI dominating PEM + AXI. Key model drivers were the treatment duration for PEM, NIVO, and AXI. NIVO + IPI remained dominant in all scenario analyses, which indicated that model results were robust to alternative modelling inputs or assumptions.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis shows that NIVO + IPI is estimated to be a life-extending and potentially cost-saving 1 L treatment option when compared with PEM + AXI for intermediate/poor-risk a RCC patients in the Brazilian private healthcare system.

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 Frontline Treatment for Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma in the Era of Immunotherapies

Background: Recent randomized controlled trials have demonstrated that immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) improve patient outcomes, but whether these novel agents are cost-effective for untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) remains unclear.

Materials and Methods: A microsimulation model was created to project the healthcare costs and outcomes of six strategies (lenvatinib-plus-pembrolizumab, nivolumab-plus-cabozantinib, nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab, pembrolizumab-plus-axitinib, avelumab-plus-axitinib, and sunitinib monotherapy) for patients with aRCC. Transition probability of patients was estimated from CLEAR, CheckMate 9ER, CheckMate 214, KEYNOTE-426, JAVELIN Renal 101, and other data sets by using parametric survival modeling. Lifetime direct medical costs, life years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated from a United States payer perspective. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed, along with multiple scenario analyses, to evaluate model uncertainty.

Results: Of the six competing strategies, nivolumab-plus-cabozantinib yielded the most significant health outcomes, and the sunitinib strategy was the least expensive option. The cost-effective frontier consisted of the nivolumab-plus-cabozantinib, pembrolizumab-plus-axitinib, and sunitinib strategies, which displayed the ordered ICERs of $81282/QALY for pembrolizumab-plus-axitinib vs sunitinib and $453391/QALY for nivolumab-plus-cabozantinib vs pembrolizumab-plus-axitinib. The rest of the strategies, such as lenvatinib-plus-pembrolizumab, nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab, and avelumab-plus-axitinib, were dominated. The cost of sunitinib drove the model most influentially.

Conclusions: For aRCC, the pembrolizumab-plus-axitinib strategy is likely to be the most cost-effective alternative at the willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000.

A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab Versus Pembrolizumab Plus Axitinib and Versus Avelumab Plus Axitinib in First-Line Treatment of Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma

BACKGROUND

There now exist several viable first-line treatment options for metastatic renal cell carcinoma, making the choice of initial therapy difficult. Considering metrics other than patient factors may be necessary to select the most appropriate therapy. We aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of the three combination therapies currently approved in treatment-naïve advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma-nivolumab + ipilimumab (NI), pembrolizumab + axitinib (PA), and avelumab + axitinib (AA)-from a US payer perspective.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Our analysis was performed based on previously obtained data derived from progression-free survival and overall survival curves from CheckMate 214, KEYNOTE 426, and JAVELIN Renal 101.

RESULTS

The total costs of each treatment were found to be $437,556.12 for NI, $450,597.15 for PA, and $542,882.34 for AA, with quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) values of 4.04, 3.77, and 2.95 for each combination, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of NI versus PA was ($47,504.73/QALY); for NI versus AA, it was ($96,533.11/QALY); for PA versus AA, it was ($113,015.87/QALY). Net health benefit scaled against a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per QALY was positive for NI versus PA at 0.36 and versus AA at 1.79, and this index was also positive for PA versus AA at 1.43, indicating that the additional value of these therapies versus their alternatives is greater than the extra cost.

CONCLUSION

NI was found to be the most cost-effective treatment option compared with the other considered therapies. PA was found to be cost effective compared to AA. When patient factors such as social issues and pre-existing conditions do not dictate their first-line therapy, clinicians may use this additional information to make financially conscious choices.