The Additional Costs per Month of Progression-Free Survival and Overall Survival: An Economic Model Comparing Everolimus with Cabozantinib, Nivolumab, and Axitinib for Second-Line Treatment of Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma

Cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab as first-line therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma

OBJECTIVES

Recently, the IMmotion151 trial evaluated the safety and efficacy of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) and found that this combination led to longer progression-free survival. However, no studies have evaluated the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab.

METHODS

We constructed a Markov model to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, using costs and utilities from the published studies. We set the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold at $150,000. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to ensure that our results were robust. We performed a threshold analysis to explore a more appropriate price for atezolizumab.

RESULTS

Our results found that although atezolizumab plus bevacizumab provided more quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), its incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was $1,640,532/QALY, well above the WTP threshold. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis results confirmed the robust of this conclusion. Based on the threshold analysis, for atezolizumab plus bevacizumab to be cost-effective, the price of them would need to be reduced by 46.3% or more.

CONCLUSIONS

From the perspective of US payers, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab is not cost-effective for mRCC patients. To make this combination cost-effective in the future, the price of atezolizumab and bevacizumab needs to be reduced.

First-line therapy for adults with advanced renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Since the approval of tyrosine kinase inhibitors, angiogenesis inhibitors and immune checkpoint inhibitors, the treatment landscape for advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has changed fundamentally. Today, combined therapies from different drug categories have a firm place in a complex first-line therapy. Due to the large number of drugs available, it is necessary to identify the most effective therapies, whilst considering their side effects and impact on quality of life (QoL).

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate and compare the benefits and harms of first-line therapies for adults with advanced RCC, and to produce a clinically relevant ranking of therapies. Secondary objectives were to maintain the currency of the evidence by conducting continuous update searches, using a living systematic review approach, and to incorporate data from clinical study reports (CSRs).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, conference proceedings and relevant trial registries up until 9 February 2022. We searched several data platforms to identify CSRs.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating at least one targeted therapy or immunotherapy for first-line treatment of adults with advanced RCC. We excluded trials evaluating only interleukin-2 versus interferon-alpha as well as trials with an adjuvant treatment setting. We also excluded trials with adults who received prior systemic anticancer therapy if more than 10% of participants were previously treated, or if data for untreated participants were not separately extractable.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

All necessary review steps (i.e. screening and study selection, data extraction, risk of bias and certainty assessments) were conducted independently by at least two review authors. Our outcomes were overall survival (OS), QoL, serious adverse events (SAEs), progression-free survival (PFS), adverse events (AEs), the number of participants who discontinued study treatment due to an AE, and the time to initiation of first subsequent therapy. Where possible, analyses were conducted for the different risk groups (favourable, intermediate, poor) according to the International Metastatic Renal-Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium Score (IMDC) or the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) criteria. Our main comparator was sunitinib (SUN). A hazard ratio (HR) or risk ratio (RR) lower than 1.0 is in favour of the experimental arm.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 36 RCTs and 15,177 participants (11,061 males and 4116 females). Risk of bias was predominantly judged as being 'high' or 'some concerns' across most trials and outcomes. This was mainly due to a lack of information about the randomisation process, the blinding of outcome assessors, and methods for outcome measurements and analyses. Additionally, study protocols and statistical analysis plans were rarely available. Here we present the results for our primary outcomes OS, QoL, and SAEs, and for all risk groups combined for contemporary treatments: pembrolizumab + axitinib (PEM+AXI), avelumab + axitinib (AVE+AXI), nivolumab + cabozantinib (NIV+CAB), lenvatinib + pembrolizumab (LEN+PEM), nivolumab + ipilimumab (NIV+IPI), CAB, and pazopanib (PAZ). Results per risk group and results for our secondary outcomes are reported in the summary of findings tables and in the full text of this review. The evidence on other treatments and comparisons can also be found in the full text. Overall survival (OS) Across risk groups, PEM+AXI (HR 0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50 to 1.07, moderate certainty) and NIV+IPI (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.00, moderate certainty) probably improve OS, compared to SUN, respectively. LEN+PEM may improve OS (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.03, low certainty), compared to SUN. There is probably little or no difference in OS between PAZ and SUN (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.32, moderate certainty), and we are uncertain whether CAB improves OS when compared to SUN (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.64, very low certainty). The median survival is 28 months when treated with SUN. Survival may improve to 43 months with LEN+PEM, and probably improves to: 41 months with NIV+IPI, 39 months with PEM+AXI, and 31 months with PAZ. We are uncertain whether survival improves to 34 months with CAB. Comparison data were not available for AVE+AXI and NIV+CAB. Quality of life (QoL) One RCT measured QoL using FACIT-F (score range 0 to 52; higher scores mean better QoL) and reported that the mean post-score was 9.00 points higher (9.86 lower to 27.86 higher, very low certainty) with PAZ than with SUN. Comparison data were not available for PEM+AXI, AVE+AXI, NIV+CAB, LEN+PEM, NIV+IPI, and CAB. Serious adverse events (SAEs) Across risk groups, PEM+AXI probably increases slightly the risk for SAEs (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.85, moderate certainty) compared to SUN. LEN+PEM (RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.19, moderate certainty) and NIV+IPI (RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.97, moderate certainty) probably increase the risk for SAEs, compared to SUN, respectively. There is probably little or no difference in the risk for SAEs between PAZ and SUN (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.31, moderate certainty). We are uncertain whether CAB reduces or increases the risk for SAEs (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.43, very low certainty) when compared to SUN. People have a mean risk of 40% for experiencing SAEs when treated with SUN. The risk increases probably to: 61% with LEN+PEM, 57% with NIV+IPI, and 52% with PEM+AXI. It probably remains at 40% with PAZ. We are uncertain whether the risk reduces to 37% with CAB. Comparison data were not available for AVE+AXI and NIV+CAB.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Findings concerning the main treatments of interest comes from direct evidence of one trial only, thus results should be interpreted with caution. More trials are needed where these interventions and combinations are compared head-to-head, rather than just to SUN. Moreover, assessing the effect of immunotherapies and targeted therapies on different subgroups is essential and studies should focus on assessing and reporting relevant subgroup data. The evidence in this review mostly applies to advanced clear cell RCC.

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.

Nivolumab vs Pembrolizumab for Treatment of US Patients With Platinum-Refractory Recurrent or Metastatic Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Network Meta-analysis and Cost-effectiveness Analysis

Importance

Nivolumab and pembrolizumab are approved for treating platinum-refractory recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (R/M HNSCC). Physicians and patients are uncertain which drug is preferable, rendering a cost-effectiveness comparison between them necessary.

Objective

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab vs pembrolizumab in treating platinum-refractory R/M HNSCC.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Both the network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis included patients from the CheckMate 141 and the KEYNOTE 040 phase 3 randomized clinical trials. The Checkmate 141 trial started on May 1, 2014, with the present analysis based on a September 2017 data cutoff. The KEYNOTE 040 trial started on November 17, 2014, with the present analysis based on a May 15, 2017, data cutoff. A bayesian network meta-analysis that included 856 patients was carried out, and a cost-effectiveness analysis that included 487 patients was conducted by developing a partitioned survival model, both between February and November 2020. The robustness of the model was assessed via 1-way, 2-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses; subgroup analyses were included; and scenario analyses were conducted to investigate the associations of dosage adjustment of nivolumab with cost-effectiveness.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), overall costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were measured.

Results

In the cost-effectiveness analysis that included 487 patients, for US health care payers, when nivolumab was administered based on patient weight (3 mg/kg biweekly), at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $100 000 per QALY, the probability of nivolumab being cost-effective compared with pembrolizumab was 56%; at a WTP threshold of $150 000 per QALY, the probability was 62%. When nivolumab was administered at a fixed dose of 240 mg biweekly or 480 mg monthly, at a WTP threshold of $100 000 per QALY, the probability of nivolumab being cost-effective was 42% to 45%; at a WTP threshold of $150 000 per QALY, the probability was 52% to 55%.

Conclusions and Relevance

Findings from this network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis suggest considering both WTP threshold and patient body weight when choosing between nivolumab and pembrolizumab for the treatment of patients with platinum-refractory R/M HNSCC. When the WTP threshold was $100 000 per QALY, for patients weighing less than 72 kg, nivolumab (3 mg/kg, biweekly) was considered cost-effective; otherwise, pembrolizumab was preferable. When the WTP threshold was $150 000 per QALY, nivolumab (3 mg/kg biweekly) was considered cost-effective for patients weighing less than 75 kg; otherwise, fixed-dose nivolumab (240 mg biweekly or 480 mg monthly) provided more cost savings.

First-line Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab vs Sunitinib for Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Cost-effectiveness Analysis

Importance

Recently, new drugs have been approved for the first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Nivolumab plus ipilimumab significantly increases overall survival for intermediate- and poor-risk patients with mRCC. However, considering the high cost of nivolumab plus ipilimumab, there is a need to assess its value by considering both efficacy and cost.

Objective

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs sunitinib in the first-line setting for intermediate- and poor-risk patients with mRCC from the US payer perspective.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A Markov model was developed to compare the lifetime cost and effectiveness of nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs sunitinib in the first-line treatment of mRCC using outcomes data from the CheckMate 214 phase 3 randomized clinical trial, which included 1096 patients with mRCC (median age, 62 years) and compared nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs sunitinib as first-line treatment of mRCC. In the analysis, patients were modeled to receive sunitinib or nivolumab plus ipilimumab for 4 doses followed by nivolumab monotherapy.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and lifetime costs were estimated, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 to $150 000 per QALY. Univariable, 2-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the model uncertainty. Additional subgroup analyses were performed.

Results

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab provided an additional 0.96 QALYs, at a cost of $108 363 per QALY. Sensitivity analyses found the results to be most sensitive to overall survival hazard ratio (0.63; 95% CI, 0.44-0.89) and mean patient weight (70 kg, range, 40-200 kg). Other variables, such as the cost of nivolumab plus ipilimumab (mean, $32 213.44; range, $25 770.75-$38 656.13), utility values for nivolumab plus ipilimumab (mean, 0.82; range, 0.65-0.98), and proportion receiving nivolumab in sunitinib arm (mean, 0.27; range, 0.22-0.32), had a moderate or minor influence on model results. Subgroup analyses demonstrated that nivolumab plus ipilimumab was most cost-effective for patients with programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 expression of at least 1% ($86 390 per QALY).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this model, nivolumab plus ipilimumab was estimated to be cost-effective compared with sunitinib for intermediate- and poor-risk patients with mRCC at a willingness-to-pay threshold from $100 000 to $150 000 per QALY.

Real-world cost-effectiveness of targeted therapy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma in Sweden: a population-based retrospective analysis

OBJECTIVE

To explore cost-effectiveness of targeted therapies (TTs) in the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in a real-world context using a nationwide population-based approach.

METHODS

Data on patients diagnosed with mRCC between 2002 and 2012 were extracted from Swedish national health data registers. To facilitate comparisons of patients diagnosed before and after TT introduction to the market, three cohorts were derived: pre-TT introduction (preTT), patients diagnosed 2002-2005; early TT introduction (TTi), patients diagnosed 2006-2008; and late TT introduction (TTii), which was limited to patients diagnosed 2009-2010 to ensure availability of total health care resource utilization (HCRU) data. Patients were followed until end of 2012. The value of TTs across cohorts was estimated using mean HCRU costs per life-year (LY) gained. Data on HCRU were obtained through national health registers for dispensed medication and inpatient and outpatient care, and the associated costs were estimated using the Lin method to account for censoring. LYs gained were defined as the difference in mean survival over the study period.

RESULTS

The preTT, TTi, and TTii cohorts consisted of 1,366, 1,158, and 806 patients, respectively. Mean survival in years from mRCC diagnosis was 1.45 in the preTT cohort, 1.62 in the TTi cohort, and 1.83 in the TTii cohort. The respective mean total HCRU cost per patient over the study period was US$16,894, US$29,922, and US$30,037. The cost per LY gained per cohort was US$78,656 for TTi vs preTT, US$34,132 for TTii vs preTT, and US$523 for TTii vs TTi.

CONCLUSION

Given common willingness-to-pay per LY gained thresholds, this study in a real-world population suggests the use of TTs in the Swedish mRCC population is increasingly cost-effective over time.

Cabozantinib for the Management of Metastatic Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma

Cabozantinib is a multi-tyrosine kinase inhibitor used for the treatment of various solid-organ tumours. It was recently approved as a first- and second-line therapeutic for the management of advanced/metastatic renal cell carcinoma based on the results of two randomised controlled trials. The phase III METEOR trial compared cabozantinib against everolimus as a second- or greater line therapy and found benefits in progression-free and overall survival, and the phase II CABOSUN trial compared cabozantinib against sunitinib as a first-line therapeutic and found benefits in terms of progression-free survival. This review briefly summarises how cabozantinib fits into current treatment paradigms for the management of advanced renal cell carcinoma.