Cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab plus axitinib as first-line therapy 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.

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 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.

Clinical potential of PD-1/PD-L1 blockade therapy for renal cell carcinoma (RCC): a rapidly evolving strategy

Programmed death-1 (PD-1)/programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) blockade therapy has become a game-changing therapeutic approach revolutionizing the treatment setting of human malignancies, such as renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Despite the remarkable clinical activity of anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1 monoclonal antibodies, only a small portion of patients exhibit a positive response to PD-1/PD-L1 blockade therapy, and the primary or acquired resistance might ultimately favor cancer development in patients with clinical responses. In light of this, recent reports have signified that the addition of other therapeutic modalities to PD-1/PD-L1 blockade therapy might improve clinical responses in advanced RCC patients. Until, combination therapy with PD-1/PD-L1 blockade therapy plus cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen 4 (CTLA-4) inhibitor (ipilimumab) or various vascular endothelial growth factor receptors (VEGFRs) inhibitors axitinib, such as axitinib and cabozantinib, has been approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as first-line treatment for metastatic RCC. In the present review, we have focused on the therapeutic benefits of the PD-1/PD-L1 blockade therapy as a single agent or in combination with other conventional or innovative targeted therapies in RCC patients. We also offer a glimpse into the well-determined prognostic factor associated with the clinical response of RCC patients to PD-1/PD-L1 blockade therapy.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of nivolumab plus cabozantinib versus sunitinib as first-line therapy in advanced renal cell carcinoma

Aim: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of first-line treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma with nivolumab plus cabozantinib versus sunitinib from a US payer perspective. Methods: Economic outcomes were estimated with Markov and partitioned survival models. Efficacy, safety and other data were taken from the CheckMate 9ER trial. Costs and utilities were gathered from published sources. Sensitivity analyses addressed model uncertainties. Results: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of nivolumab plus cabozantinib versus sunitinib was $555,663 and $531,748 per quality-adjusted life-year in the Markov and partitioned survival models, respectively, exceeding the willingness-to-pay threshold ($150,000 per quality-adjusted life-year). Sensitivity analyses showed robust outcomes. Conclusion: From a US payer perspective, first-line nivolumab plus cabozantinib for advanced renal cell carcinoma is not cost-effective.

Pazopanib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a single-center, real-world, retrospective Chinese study

Background

The efficacy and safety of pazopanib in patients diagnosed with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) have been demonstrated by a Chinese subgroup analysis of the COMPARZ (Pazopanib Versus Sunitinib in the Treatment of Locally Advanced and/or Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma) trial. However, the real-world data are still unknown. This single-center, retrospective study was designed to verify the real-world effects of pazopanib in Chinese patients with mRCC.

Methods

Patients with mRCC and a clinical decision to initiate pazopanib as first-line therapy were eligible. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), with overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), and safety being evaluated as secondary endpoints. The effectiveness according to the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk model, number of risk factors in the intermediate risk group, age, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS), and the number and site of organ metastasis were also assessed.

Results

A total of 32 patients were enrolled, including 23 (71.9%) males and 9 (28.1%) females. The median age was 57 years (range 29-75 years). With a median follow-up time of 23.8 months, a median PFS of 18.3 months, and an ORR of 37.5%. Median OS was not reached, and the 1-, 2-, and 3-year overall survival rates were 90.6%, 78.1, and 65.6%, respectively. According to IMDC risk model, 37.5% were placed in the favorable risk (FR) subgroup, 56.2% (the majority) were placed in the intermediate risk (IR) subgroup, and 6.3% were placed in the poor risk (PR) subgroup. Compared with the IR and PR groups, the FR group achieved the best ORR (58.3%) and median PFS (22.1 months). Having 1 risk factor, ECOG PS <2, 1 organ metastasis site, and only lung metastasis associated with a higher ORR and better median PFS. The IMDC risk model and number of metastases were associated with PFS. The most common adverse events were change in hair color (69.0%), diarrhea (63%), and hypertension (50%).

Conclusions

Pazopanib showed efficacy and safety in real-world Chinese mRCC patients.