Cost-effectiveness of second-line atezolizumab in Canada for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)

Evaluation of a risk-sharing agreement for atezolizumab treatment in patients with non-small cell lung cancer: a strategy to improve access in low-income countries

BACKGROUND

Using immune checkpoint inhibitors (IO) is a promising approach to maximize clinical benefits for patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PD-L1 expression serves as a predictive factor for treatment outcomes with IO. However, the high cost of this treatment creates significant barriers to access. Substantial evidence demonstrates the sustained clinical benefits experienced by patients who respond to immunotherapy. While IOs show promise in NSCLC treatment, their high cost poses access barriers.

AIM

This study focused on a prospective cost analysis conducted at a high-specialty health facility to assess the economic implications of implementing a risk-sharing agreement (RSA) for atezolizumab in NSCLC.

METHODS

The study included 30 patients with advanced NSCLC, with the pharmaceutical company funding the initial cycles. If patients responded, a government program covered costs until disease progression.

RESULTS

A median progression-free survival of 4.67 months across populations, rising to 9.4 months for responders. The 2-year overall survival rate for the response group was 64%, significantly higher than for non-response. Without an RSA, a total treatment cost of $881 859.36 ($29 395.31/patient) was reported, compared to $530 467.12 ($17 682.24/patient) with an RSA, representing a 40% cost reduction. In responders, the average cost per year of life per patient dropped by 22%. Risk-sharing, assessed through non-parametric tests, showed a statistically significant difference in pharmacological costs (P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Implementing RSAs can optimize resource allocation, making IO treatment more accessible, especially in low-income countries.

Cost-effectiveness of tumor-treating fields plus standard therapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer progressed after platinum-based therapy in the United States

Background: Tumor treating fields (TTF) was first approved for treatment of glioblastoma. Recently, the LUNAR study demonstrated that TTF + standard therapy (ST) extended survival in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This primary objective of this study is to analyze the cost-effectiveness of this treatment from the United States healthcare payers' perspective. Methods: A 3-health-state Markov model was established to compare the cost-effectiveness of TTF + ST and that of ST alone. Clinical data were extracted from the LUNAR study, supplemented by additional cost and utility data obtained from publications or online sources. One-way sensitivity analysis, probabilistic sensitivity analysis, and scenario analysis were conducted. The willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained was set to $150,000. The main results include total costs, QALYs, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and incremental net monetary benefit (INMB). Subgroup analyses were conducted for two types of ST, including immune checkpoint inhibitor, and docetaxel. Results: During a 10-year time horizon, the costs of TTF + ST and ST alone were $431,207.0 and $128,125.9, and the QALYs were 1.809 and 1.124, respectively. The ICER of TTF + ST compared to ST was $442,732.7 per QALY, and the INMB was -$200,395.7 at the WTP threshold. The cost of TTF per month was the most influential factor in cost-effectiveness, and TTF + ST had a 0% probability of being cost-effective at the WTP threshold compared with ST alone. Conclusion: TTF + ST is not a cost-effective treatment for advanced NSCLC patients who progressed after platinum-based therapy from the perspective of the United States healthcare payers.

Revising the Landscape of Cytokine-Induced Killer Cell Therapy in Lung Cancer: Focus on Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors

Undeniably, immunotherapy has markedly improved the survival rate of cancer patients. The scenario is no different in lung cancer, where multiple treatment options are now available and the inclusion of immunotherapy yields better clinical benefits than previously used chemotherapeutic strategies. Of interest, cytokine-induced killer (CIK) cell immunotherapy has also taken a central role in clinical trials for the treatment of lung cancer. Herein, we describe the relative success of CIK cell therapy (alone and combined with dendritic cells as DC/CIKs) in lung cancer clinical trials and discuss its combination with known immune checkpoint inhibitors (anti-CTLA-4 and anti-PD-1/PD-L1). Additionally, we provide insights into the findings of several preclinical in vitro/in vivo studies linked to lung cancer. In our opinion, CIK cell therapy, which recently completed 30 years and has been approved in many countries, including Germany, offers tremendous potential for lung cancer. Foremost, when it is optimized on a patient-by-patient basis with special attention to the patient-specific genomic signature.

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.

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.

Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness Profile of Second-Line Treatments with Nivolumab, Pembrolizumab and Atezolizumab in Patients with Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

No evidence is available on the head-to-head comparison of clinical outcomes of patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in a real-world setting. We aimed to compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness profile of nivolumab, pembrolizumab and atezolizumab. We used a population-based retrospective cohort study based on the healthcare utilization databases of the Lombardy Region, Italy. The study cohort included all patients with a diagnosis of lung cancer, who started a second-line treatment for advanced NSCLC with nivolumab, pembrolizumab or atezolizumab from 2015 to 30 June 2020. Overall survival and average cumulative healthcare costs were measured from the start of second-line treatment until 31 December 2020. The study cohort included 1607 patients who started a second-line treatment with ICIs, of which there were 1193 with nivolumab, 138 with pembrolizumab and 276 with atezolizumab. No differences were observed between treatment arms in terms of sex, age or comorbidities. Median OS was very similar between groups, being 8.9, 9.4 and 8.7 months, respectively, in patients treated with nivolumab, pembrolizumab and atezolizumab (p = 0.898). The adjusted hazard ratio of death of patients treated with pembrolizumab and atezolizumab, as compared to nivolumab, were 1.01 (95% CI: 0.81 to 1.25) and 1.03 (0.88 to 1.21), respectively. Healthcare cumulative costs measured in the first two years of follow-up were EUR 43,764, 46,233 and 34,116, on average, associated with nivolumab, pembrolizumab and atezolizumab, respectively. In our real-world study, atezolizumab was the ICI associated with the most favorable cost-effectiveness profile.

Cost-effectiveness of immune checkpoint inhibitors in the treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer as a second line in Taiwan

Objectives: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of immune checkpoint inhibitors versus docetaxel in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Methods: A Markov model was constructed to simulate the clinical outcomes and costs of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Clinical outcomes data were derived from randomized clinical trials. Drug acquisition cost and other health resource use were obtained from the claim data of a tertiary hospital and the National Health Insurance. The outcome was an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio expressed as cost per quality-adjusted life year gained. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the uncertainty of the model parameters. Results: In the base case, patients treated with immunotherapies in the second line were associated with higher costs and higher mean survival. The incremental costs per quality-adjusted life year gained for pembrolizumab, nivolumab, or atezolizumab compared to docetaxel were NT$416,102, NT$1,572,912 and NT$1,580,469, respectively. Conclusion: The results showed that pembrolizumab was more cost effective than nivolumab and atezolizumab compared with docetaxel as a second-line regimen for patients with previously treated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer at willingness to pay threshold in Taiwan.

A review of immune checkpoint blockade in breast cancer

In the recent years characterized by the cancer immunotherapy revolution, attention has turned to how to potentially boost and/or generate an efficient anti-tumor immune response in breast cancer (BC). Clinical activity of immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) targeting PD-1 or PD-L1 in BC has been more evident in the triple negative subtype and in earlier lines of the treatment. Remarkably, some responders to single agent ICB have achieved durable responses with metastatic disease, possibly as a result of treatment-induced immunological memory. However, most BC are immunologically quiescent and current research efforts developing ICB combinations are attempting to convert "cold" into "hot" tumors by manipulating the tumor microenvironment, expanding anti-tumor T cells improving efficient antigen presentation, and suppressing pro-tumor inhibitory cells. The aim of this review is to summarize existing data on the efficacy of immune checkpoint blockers as single agents and combination strategies in all BC subtypes, highlighting the BC subgroups that benefit most from ICB.

Cost-effectiveness of Nivolumab-Ipilimumab Combination Therapy for the Treatment of Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

IMPORTANCE

Treatment with nivolumab-ipilimumab combination therapy was found to improve overall survival compared with chemotherapy among patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in the CheckMate 227 clinical trial. However, these drugs are substantially more expensive than chemotherapy and, given the high incidence of advanced NSCLC, the incorporation of dual immune checkpoint inhibitors into the standard of care could have substantial economic consequences.

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether nivolumab-ipilimumab combination therapy is a cost-effective first-line treatment for patients with advanced NSCLC.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This economic evaluation designed a Markov model to compare the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab-ipilimumab combination therapy with platinum-doublet chemotherapy as first-line treatment for patients with advanced NSCLC. The Markov model was created to simulate patients with advanced NSCLC who were receiving either nivolumab-ipilimumab combination therapy or platinum-doublet chemotherapy. Transition probabilities, including disease progression, survival, and treatment toxic effects, were derived using data from the CheckMate 227 clinical trial. Costs and health utilities were obtained from published literature. Data analyses were conducted from November 2019 to September 2020.

EXPOSURES

Nivolumab-ipilimumab combination therapy.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary study outcomes were quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and cost in 2020 US dollars. Cost-effectiveness was measured using an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), with an ICER less than $100 000 per QALY considered cost-effective. Model uncertainty was assessed with 1-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

Treatment with nivolumab-ipilimumab combination therapy was associated with an increase in overall cost of $201 900 and improved effectiveness of 0.50 QALYs compared with chemotherapy, yielding an ICER of $401 700 per QALY. The study model was sensitive to the cost and duration of immunotherapy. Treatment with nivolumab-ipilimumab combination therapy became cost-effective when monthly treatment costs were reduced from $26 425 to $5058 (80.9% reduction) or when the maximum duration of immunotherapy was reduced from 24.0 months to 1.4 months. The model was not sensitive to assumptions about survival or programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 status. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per QALY, nivolumab-ipilimumab combination therapy was less cost-effective than chemotherapy 99.9% of the time.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this study, first-line treatment with nivolumab-ipilimumab combination therapy was not found to be cost-effective at current prices despite clinical trial data indicating that this regimen increases overall survival among patients with advanced NSCLC.

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.

Economic Evaluation of First-Line Atezolizumab for Extensive-Stage Small-Cell Lung Cancer in the US

Introduction: This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab + chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy as first-line treatment for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) in the United States (US).

Methods: The three health states partitioned survival (PS) model was used over the lifetime. Effectiveness and safety data were derived from the IMpower133 trial. The parametric survival model and mixture cure model were used for the atezolizumab + chemotherapy group to explore the long-term uncertainty of the effect of immunotherapy, and the parametric survival model was used for the chemotherapy group. Costs were derived from the pricing files of Medicare and Medicaid Services, and utility values were derived from previous studies. Sensitivity analyses were performed to observe model stability.

Results: If the mixture cure model was considered for the intervention group, compared with chemotherapy alone, atezolizumab + chemotherapy yielded an additional 0.11 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), with an incremental cost of US$84,257. The incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) was US$785,848/QALY. If the parametric survival model was considered for the intervention group, atezolizumab + chemotherapy yielded an additional 0.10 QALYs, with an incremental cost of US$84,257; the ICUR was US$827,610/QALY. In the one-way sensitivity analysis, progression-free (PF) and postprogression (PP) utilities were the main drivers. In the scenario analysis (PF utility = 0.673, PP utility = 0.473), the results showed that the ICUR was US$910,557/QALY and US$965,607/QALY when the mixture cure model and parametric survival model was considered for the intervention group, respectively. In the PSA, the probabilities that atezolizumab + chemotherapy would not be cost-effective were 100% if the willingness-to-pay threshold was US$100,000/QALY.

Conclusions: The findings of the present analysis suggest that atezolizumab + chemotherapy is not cost-effective in patients receiving first-line treatment for extensive-stage SCLC in the US.

First-line atezolizumab plus chemotherapy in advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis from China

Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab in combination with carboplatin plus nab-paclitaxel-based chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for first-line treatment of advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) from the Chinese healthcare system perspective.Methods: A Markov model was developed based on the IMpower130 clinical trial. Drug costs and health state utility were obtained from the literature. Outcomes included life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), lifetime costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the model uncertainty.Results: When compared to chemotherapy alone, atezolizumab plus chemotherapy provides an additional 0.34 LY and 0.19 QALY, and has an ICER of $180,560.15 per additional LY gained and that of $325,328.71 per QALY gained. Sensitivity analysis revealed that the results were most sensitive to changes in atezolizumab cost. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that there was a 0% probability that atezolizumab plus chemotherapy was cost-effective at willingness-to-pay values of $30,828 per QALY. If the WTP threshold increased to $325,000 per QALY, atezolizumab plus chemotherapy has a 50% chance to be cost-effective.Conclusions: From the Chinese healthcare system perspective, atezolizumab combination is not cost-effective for first-line therapy of advanced non-squamous NSCLC.

Economic analyses of immune-checkpoint inhibitors to treat lung cancer

Introduction: Total lung-cancer-management costs are increasing dramatically. The widespread use of immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) explains this rise in large part and financially impacts healthcare systems. Economic assessment has been adapted to this new challenge.Areas covered: This review provides an overview of the economic literature on the use of ICIs to treat lung cancer. Numerous papers have been published over the last few years. Cancers analyzed were non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), squamous NSCLC, locally advanced NSCLC, or small-cell lung cancer.Expert commentary: For the majority of patients, ICIs are cost-effective for lung cancer management. However, these results are influenced by the threshold chosen by each of the different countries. Patient selection, treatment duration, and factors predictive of efficacy are mandatory to decrease costs.

Cost effectiveness of immune checkpoint inhibitors for treatment of non-small cell lung cancer: A systematic review

Background

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) for treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have been rapidly evolving. ICIs are likely to be more effective but also lead to escalating healthcare costs.

Objectives

The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost effectiveness of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) for treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Methods

We searched the PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library for studies comparing the cost effectiveness of ICIs for NSCLC. Potential studies identified were independently checked for eligibility by two authors, with disagreement resolved by a third reviewer. Quality of the included studies was evaluated using Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklists.

Results

A total of 22 economic studies were included. Overall reporting of the identified studies largely met CHEERS recommendations. In the first-line setting, for advanced or metastatic NSCLC patients with PD-L1 ≥ 50%, pembrolizumab appeared cost-effective compared with platinum-based chemotherapy in the US and Hong Kong (China), but not in the UK and China. The cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy for first-line treatment of NSCLC in PD-L1 ≥ 1% patients remained obscure. Regardless of PD-L1 expression status, pembrolizumab in combination with chemotherapy could be a cost-effective first-line therapy in the US. On the contrary, addition of atezolizumab to the combination of bevacizumab and chemotherapy was not cost-effective for patients with metastatic non-squamous NSCLC from the US payer perspective. In the second-line setting compared with docetaxel, pembrolizumab was cost-effective; though nivolumab was not cost-effective in the base case, it could be by increased PD-L1 threshold. Results of the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab second-line treatment remained inconsistent. In addition, the adoption of durvalumab consolidation therapy after chemoradiotherapy could be cost-effective versus no consolidation therapy for patients with stage III NSCLC.

Conclusions

Immunotherapy can be a cost-effective option for treatment of NSCLC in several scenarios. A discount of the agents or the use of PD-L1 expression as a biomarker improves the cost-effectiveness of immunotherapy.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of atezolizumab in advanced triple-negative breast cancer

BACKGROUND

The IMpassion130 trial demonstrated that adding atezolizumab to nanoparticle albumin-bound (nab)-paclitaxel improved the survival of patients with untreated, advanced, programmed death ligand 1 (PDL1)-positive triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). In view of the high cost of immunotherapy, it is important to examine its value with respect to both benefits and costs. In this study, the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab/nab-paclitaxel combination therapy relative to nab-paclitaxel monotherapy was evaluated for the first-line treatment of advanced, PDL1-positive TNBC, from a healthcare system perspective.

METHODS

A three-state partitioned-survival model was developed to compare the clinical and economic outcomes of treatment with atezolizumab/nab-paclitaxel combination therapy with nab-paclitaxel monotherapy in patients with advanced TNBC. Clinical data were obtained from the IMpassion130 trial and extrapolated to 5 years. Health state utilities were retrieved from the literature, while direct costs (in Singapore dollars, S$) were sourced from public healthcare institutions in Singapore. The primary outcomes of the model were life years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses and scenario analyses were conducted to explore the impact of specific assumptions and uncertainties.

RESULTS

Adding atezolizumab to nab-paclitaxel resulted in an additional 0.361 QALYs (0.636 LYs) at an ICER of S$324,550 per QALY gained. The ICER remained high at S$67,092 per QALY even when atezolizumab was priced zero. One-way sensitivity analysis showed that the ICER was most sensitive to variations in the cost of atezolizumab and the time horizon. Scenario analyses confirmed that the ICERs remained high even under extremely favourable assumptions.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the exceedingly high ICER, adding atezolizumab to nab-paclitaxel was unlikely to represent good value for money for the treatment of advanced PDL1-positive TNBC. Our findings will be useful in informing funding policy decisions alongside other considerations such as comparative effectiveness, unmet need and budget impact.

Economic Evaluations of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors for Patients with Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review

Objective

This review aimed to assess the quality of available evidence on the economic evaluations of immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and provide evidence to improve the efficiency of healthcare resources.

Materials and Methods

Literature search was performed using some electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials). Final search was performed in December 2019. Study characteristics and results were recorded and compared. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklists. We did not elaborate the restrictions on the target population. We included patients with squamous or non-squamous NSCLC and metastatic or advanced cancer.

Results

Of 98 papers considered, 21 were chosen for this review. Most of them are cost-effectiveness analysis. Comparative regimens consisted of either immune checkpoint inhibitor monotherapy, immune checkpoint inhibitor plus chemotherapy, or chemotherapy alone. Fourteen, four, and three studies were about pembrolizumab, nivolumab, and atezolizumab, respectively. The methods mostly used in these studies were modeling and sensitivity analysis. All studies used quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and life years (LY) as outcomes. Most studies were conducted in high-income countries. Based on the willingness to pay threshold, atezolizumab, and pembrolizumab were found to be cost-effective in one and 10 studies, respectively. None of the studies concluded that nivolumab was cost-effective. For quality assessment, all studies fulfilled more than 50% of the CHEERS checklist.

Conclusion

The included studies indicated that pembrolizumab regimens are cost-effective as first-line treatment for patients with NSCLC in developed countries. Nivolumab and atezolizumab are likely to be cost-effective as second-line treatment but not as first-line treatment.

Immunotherapy: From Advanced NSCLC to Early Stages, an Evolving Concept

Immunotherapy in lung cancer treatment is a long history paved with failures and some successes. During the last decade, the discovery of checkpoints inhibitors led to major advances in treating advanced and metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Impressive data from early phase I-II studies were subsequently confirmed in large prospective randomized trials and meta-analyses (High-level of evidence). Three anti- programmed death-1 (PD1) (pembrolizumab, nivolumab) or antiPD-ligand(L)1 (atezolizumab) antibodies showed clinically significant improved survival compared to second-line docetaxel. Then, first-line pembrolizumab monotherapy demonstrated its superiority over platinum-doublet in high PD-L1 NSCLC. The addition of pembrolizumab or atezolizumab to chemotherapy derived the same results regardless of the PD-L1 status. On the opposite, antiCTLA4 (Cytotoxic T-Lymphocyte Associated 4) results are currently disappointing in unselected patients while recent development suggest that the combination of antiPD1 and antiCTLA4 (nivolumab-ipilimumab) positively impact on overall survival. Some secondary analyses also showed that immunotherapy has a positive impact on quality of life and that the clinical improvement can be done at an acceptable incremental cost per QALY. A lot of questions remain unresolved: which is the best treatment duration and is it the same for all patients, how to choose the patients that will have the highest benefit of immunotherapy, how to identify the patients who will have rapid progression, how to improve the current data (new targets, new combinations)….

A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations Assessing the Cost-Effectiveness of Licensed Drugs Used for Previously Treated Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR) and Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase (ALK) Negative Advanced/Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

BACKGROUND

Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is one of the most commonly diagnosed cancers. There are many published studies of cost-effectiveness analyses of licensed treatments, but no study has compared these studies or their approaches simultaneously.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the methodology used in published economic analyses of licensed interventions for previously treated advanced/metastatic NSCLC in patients without anaplastic lymphoma kinase or epidermal growth factor receptor expression.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed, including a systematic search of key databases (e.g. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Knowledge, Cost-effectiveness Registry) limited to the period from 01 January 2001 to 26 July 2019. Two reviewers independently screened, extracted data and quality appraised identified studies. The reporting quality of the studies was assessed by using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards and the Philips' checklists.

RESULTS

Thirty-one published records met the inclusion criteria, which corresponded to 30 individual cost-effectiveness analyses. Analytical approaches included partitioned survival models (n = 14), state-transition models (n = 7) and retrospective analyses of new or published data (n = 8). Model structure was generally consistent, with pre-progression, post-progression and death health states used most commonly. Other characteristics varied more widely, including the perspective of analysis, discounting, time horizon, usually to align with the country that the analysis was set in.

CONCLUSIONS

There are a wide range of approaches in the modelling of treatments for advanced NSCLC; however, the model structures are consistent. There is variation in the exploration of sensitivity analyses, with considerable uncertainty remaining in most evaluations. Improved reporting is necessary to ensure transparency in future analyses.