Cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab versus docetaxel and nivolumab in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer as a second line in France

Cost-Effectiveness of Plasma Microbial Cell-Free DNA Sequencing When Added to Usual Care Diagnostic Testing for Immunocompromised Host Pneumonia

INTRODUCTION

Immunocompromised host pneumonia (ICHP) is an important cause of morbidity and mortality, yet usual care (UC) diagnostic tests often fail to identify an infectious etiology. A US-based, multicenter study (PICKUP) among ICHP patients with hematological malignancies, including hematological cell transplant recipients, showed that plasma microbial cell-free DNA (mcfDNA) sequencing provided significant additive diagnostic value.

AIM

The objective of this study was to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of adding mcfDNA sequencing to UC diagnostic testing for hospitalized ICHP patients.

METHODS

A semi-Markov model was utilized from the US third-party payer's perspective such that only direct costs were included, using a lifetime time horizon with discount rates of 3% for costs and benefits. Three comparators were considered: (1) All UC, which included non-invasive (NI) and invasive testing and early bronchoscopy; (2) All UC & mcfDNA; and (3) NI UC & mcfDNA & conditional UC Bronch (later bronchoscopy if the initial tests are negative). The model considered whether a probable causative infectious etiology was identified and if the patient received appropriate antimicrobial treatment through expert adjudication, and if the patient died in-hospital. The primary endpoints were total costs, life-years (LYs), equal value life-years (evLYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per QALY. Extensive scenario and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were conducted.

RESULTS

At a price of $2000 (2023 USD) for the plasma mcfDNA, All UC & mcfDNA was more costly ($165,247 vs $153,642) but more effective (13.39 vs 12.47 LYs gained; 10.20 vs 9.42 evLYs gained; 10.11 vs 9.42 QALYs gained) compared to All UC alone, giving a cost/QALY of $16,761. NI UC & mcfDNA & conditional UC Bronch was also more costly ($162,655 vs $153,642) and more effective (13.19 vs 12.47 LYs gained; 9.96 vs 9.42 evLYs gained; 9.96 vs 9.42 QALYs gained) compared to All UC alone, with a cost/QALY of $16,729. The PSA showed that above a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000/QALY, All UC & mcfDNA was the preferred scenario on cost-effectiveness grounds (as it provides the most QALYs gained). Further scenario analyses found that All UC & mcfDNA always improved patient outcomes but was not cost saving, even when the price of mcfDNA was set to $0.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the evidence available at the time of this analysis, this CEA suggests that mcfDNA may be cost-effective when added to All UC, as well as in a scenario using conditional bronchoscopy when NI testing fails to identify a probable infectious etiology for ICHP. Adding mcfDNA testing to UC diagnostic testing should allow more patients to receive appropriate therapy earlier and improve patient outcomes.

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.

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.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of ribociclib plus fulvestrant for hormone receptor-positive/human EGF receptor 2-negative breast cancer

Aim: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ribociclib plus fulvestrant versus fulvestrant in hormone receptor-positive/human EGF receptor 2-negative advanced breast cancer. Materials & methods: A three-state Markov model was developed to evaluate the costs and effectiveness over 10 years. Direct costs and utility values were obtained from previously published studies. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio to evaluate the cost-effectiveness at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per additional quality-adjusted life year. Results: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $1,073,526 per quality-adjusted life year of ribociclib plus fulvestrant versus fulvestrant. Conclusions: Ribociclib plus fulvestrant is not cost-effective versus fulvestrant in the treatment of advanced hormone receptor-positive/human EGF receptor 2-negative breast cancer. When ribociclib is at 10% of the full price, ribociclib plus fulvestrant could be cost-effective.

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.

The progress and challenge of anti-PD-1/PD-L1 immunotherapy in treating non-small cell lung cancer

The use of programmed cell-death protein 1 (PD-1)/programmed cell-death ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitors is the standard therapy for the first-line or second-line treatment of patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In contrast to current traditional treatments such as chemotherapy or radiotherapy, anti-PD-1 and anti-PD-L1 treatments can directly attenuate tumour-mediated exhaustion and effectively modulate the host anti-tumour immune response in vivo. In addition, compared with traditional therapy, PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor monotherapy can significantly prolong survival without obvious side effects in the treatment of advanced NSCLC. Ideally, several biomarkers could be used to monitor the safety and effectiveness of anti-PD-1 and anti-PD-L1 treatments; however, the current lack of optimal prognostic markers remains a widespread limitation and challenge for further clinical applications, as does the possibility of immune-related adverse events and drug resistance. In this review, we aimed to summarise the latest progress in anti-PD-1/anti-PD-L1 treatment of advanced NSCLC, worldwide, including in China. An exploration of underlying biomarker identification and future challenges will be discussed in this article to facilitate translational studies in cancer immunotherapy.

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.

Economic burden of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer receiving nivolumab versus chemotherapy in China

Aim: As new treatment patterns are gradually being used in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer, it is necessary to have a better understanding of real-world data on clinical practices and their potential impact on healthcare resource utilization (HCRU). Patients & methods: A retrospective observational study was conducted with electronic medical records from Shanghai Chest Hospital. Hospitalized patients treated with nivolumab or second-line chemotherapy were included. Results: A total of 296 patients were included in this study, of whom 187 were treated with nivolumab. About 74.33% received nivolumab monotherapy at different doses. The mean cost of nivolumab was $3334.14 (±86.69). Nivolumab decreased inpatient days to 1.9545 days with a more stable cost and HCRU per cycle. Conclusion: Nivolumab is expensive but it reduces other HCRU.