Cost-Effectiveness of Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab as First-Line Therapy in Advanced Non-small-cell Lung Cancer

Time-dependent efficacy analysis of first-line immunotherapies for advanced non-small cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND

Many randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and network meta-analyses have demonstrated that the progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients can be improved through combination immunotherapy or monotherapies. However, time-dependent analysis of the treatment effect is currently lacking. Thus, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy of first-line immunotherapy, and establish a hazard ratio function to reflect the time-varying progression or mortality risk of patients with NSCLC.

METHODS

Seventeen clinical trials were selected based on search strategy. Baseline characteristics, including the age, sex, smoking status, geographical region, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of patients, were balanced, resulting in ten immunotherapies from nine appropriate clinical trials to conduct treatment effect comparison.

RESULTS

We found that nivolumab plus ipilimumab (nivo + ipi) improved the PFS and OS over time. The hazard ratio of nivo + ipi, relative to that of pembrolizumab, decreased from 1.11 to 0.36 for PFS, and from 0.93 to 0.49 for OS over a 10-year period. In terms of the response to immunotherapy in patients with different PD-L1 expression levels, patients with PD-L1 > = 50% experienced lower rates of progression and a reduced mortality risk over time. The hazard ratio of patients with PD-L1 > = 50% relative to all of the patients decreased from 0.73 to 0.69 for PFS, and from 0.78 to 0.67 for OS.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the fact that time-dependent progression and mortality risk existed during the treatment duration, physicians should select a suitable treatment regimen for patients based on the hazard ratio.

Cost-effectiveness of first-line immunotherapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer with different PD-L1 expression levels: A comprehensive overview

BACKGROUND

Immunotherapies can substantially improve treatment efficacy, despite their high cost. A comprehensive overview of the cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in patients with non-small cell lung cancer based on different tumor proportion scores (TPSs) was conducted.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Health Technology Assessment Database, and NHS Economic Evaluation databases were searched from their inception until August 24, 2022. Data relevant to the CEA results were recorded, and quality assessments conducted based on the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) process.

FINDINGS

Fifty-one original studies from seven countries were included. The mean QHES score was 77.0 (range: 53-95). Twenty-seven studies were classified as high-quality, and the rest as fair quality. Pembrolizumab, nivolumab, ipilimumab, atezolizumab, camrelizumab, cemiplimab, sintilimab, tislelizumab, and durvalumab were identified using three TPS categories. While nivolumab plus ipilimumab and pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy were unlikely to be cost-effective in China, the results for the US were uncertain. Atezolizumab combinations were not cost-effective in China or the US, and tislelizumab and sintilimab were cost-effective in China. For TPSs ≥ 50%, the pembrolizumab monotherapy could be cost-effective in some developed countries. Cemiplimab was more cost-effective than chemotherapy, pembrolizumab, and atezolizumab in the US. For TPSs ≥ 1%, the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab was controversial due to the different willingness-to-pay thresholds.

CONCLUSIONS

None of the atezolizumab combination regimens were found to be cost-effective in any perspective of evaluations. Camrelizumab, tislelizumab, and sintilimab have lower ICERs compared to atezolizumab, pembrolizumab, and nivolumab in China. Cemiplimab may be a more affordable alternative to pembrolizumab or atezolizumab. However, it remains unclear which ICIs are the best choices for each country. Future CEAs are required to select comprehensive regimens alongside randomized trials and real-world studies to help verify the economics of ICIs in specific decision-making settings.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of toripalimab plus chemotherapy as the first-line treatment in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) without EGFR or ALK driver mutations from the Chinese perspective

Objectives: The results of a CHOICE-1 study demonstrated the superior efficacy of toripalimab (anti-PD-1 antibody) plus chemotherapy for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), with a manageable safety profile. This study was performed to evaluate the economic value of this treatment for this patient population from the Chinese payer's perspective. Materials and methods: Basic data were derived from the CHOICE-1 study. Markov models were developed to simulate the process of advanced NSCLC, including the progression-free survival (PFS), progressive disease (PD), and death in intention-to-treat (ITT) populations, as well as patients with squamous or non-squamous NSCLC. The cost was obtained from the local institution, and the value of utilities referred to previous studies. Monte Carlo simulations were performed to depict the probabilistic scatter plots of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and acceptability curves, aiming to address the uncertainty of model inputs. Results: Compared with standard chemotherapy, toripalimab plus chemotherapy yields an ICER of $21,563 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) in the ITT population. For patients with squamous NSCLC, comparing the combined therapy with chemotherapy led to an ICER of $18,369 per QALY, while the ICER was $24,754 per QALY in patients with non-squamous NSCLC. With the threshold of willingness to pay we set ($37,653 per QALY), toripalimab plus chemotherapy was cost-effective in these patient populations. Conclusion: For patients with advanced NSCLC, toripalimab plus chemotherapy was an optimal choice as first-line treatment, regardless of histology.

Cost-effectiveness of first-line immunotherapy combinations with or without chemotherapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a modelling approach

BACKGROUND

Many studies have explored the cost-effectiveness of immunotherapy versus chemotherapy alone. However, there is paucity of evidence on direct pharmacoeconomic studies related to immunotherapy combinations. Thus, we aimed at assessing the economic outcomes of first-line immunotherapy combinations in the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) from the Chinese health care perspective.

METHODS

The mutual hazard ratios (HRs) of ten immunotherapy combinations and one chemotherapy regimen for the overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were obtained from a network meta-analysis. Based on proportional hazard (PH) assumption, adjusted OS and PFS curves were established to make the effects comparable. With the parameters of cost and utility, and of scale and shape from the fit of adjusted OS and PFS curves obtained from previous studies, a partitioned survival model was designed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of immunotherapy combinations versus chemotherapy alone. Parameter uncertainty in model inputs was assessed using one-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

The incremental cost of camrelizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone was $13,180.65, the lowest among all the other immunotherapy combinations. Furthermore, sintilimab plus chemotherapy (sint-chemo) provided the highest quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) benefit versus chemotherapy alone (incremental QALYs = 0.45). Sint-chemo yielded the best incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) versus chemotherapy alone (ICER = $34,912.09/QALY), at the current price. The cost-effectiveness probabilities were 32.01% and 93.91% for pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy, and atezolizumab plus bevacizumab plus chemotherapy, respectively (if the original price of the pembrolizumab, atezolizumab, and bevacizumab were decreased by 90%).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the fact that there is fierce competition in the PD-1/PD-L1 market, pharmaceutical enterprises should strive for greater efficacy, and optimal pricing strategy for therapies.

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab combination therapy in cancer: Current evidence to date

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have revolutionized cancer immunotherapy, yielding significant antitumor responses across multiple cancer types. Combination ICI therapy with anti-CTLA-4 and anti-PD-1 antibodies outperforms either antibody alone in terms of clinical efficacy. As a consequence, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved ipilimumab (anti-CTLA-4) plus nivolumab (anti-PD-1) as the first-ever approved therapies for combined ICI in patients with metastatic melanoma. Despite the success of ICIs, treatment with checkpoint inhibitor combinations poses significant clinical challenges, such as increased rates of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) and drug resistance. Thus, identifying optimal prognostic biomarkers could help to monitor the safety and efficacy of ICIs and identify patients who may benefit the most from these treatments. In this review, we will first go over the fundamentals of the CTLA-4 and PD-1 pathways, as well as the mechanisms of ICI resistance. The results of clinical findings that evaluated the combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab are then summarized to support future research in the field of combination therapy. Finally, the irAEs associated with combined ICI therapy, as well as the underlying biomarkers involved in their management, are discussed.

Cost-effectiveness of first line nivolumab-ipilimumab combination therapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer: A systematic review and methodological quality assessment

To assess the methodological quality of cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) of nivolumab in combination with ipilimumab, we conducted a systematic literature review in the first-line treatment of patients with recurrent or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), whose tumors express programmed death ligand-1, with no epidermal growth factor receptor or anaplastic lymphoma kinase genomic tumor aberrations. PubMed, Embase, and the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry were searched, in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed by the Philips checklist and the Consensus Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) checklist. 171 records were identified. Seven studies met the inclusion criteria. Cost-effectiveness analyses differed substantially due to the applied modeling methods, sources of costs, health state utilities, and key assumptions. Quality assessment of the included studies highlighted shortcomings in data identification, uncertainty assessment, and methods transparency. Our systematic review and methodology assessment revealed that the methods of estimation of long-term outcomes, quantification of health state utility values, estimation of drug costs, the accuracy of data sources, and their credibility have important implications on the cost-effectiveness outcomes. None of the included studies fulfilled all of the criteria reported in the Philips and the CHEC checklists. To compound the economic consequences presented in these limited number of CEAs, ipilimumab's drug action as a combination therapy poses significant uncertainty. We encourage further research to address the economic consequences of these combination agents in future CEAs and the clinical uncertainties of ipilimumab for NSCLC in future trials.

Attribution of value for combination immune checkpoint inhibitors in non-small cell lung cancer

Immunotherapy represents a significant breakthrough in the treatment of cancer, including non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are used in combination with other treatments to provide clinically meaningful outcomes for NSCLC patients. However, there are distinct mechanisms of action that an ICI may provide such clinically meaningful benefits. We focused on the valuation of ICIs when used in combination with existing treatments for NSCLC, by addressing the following questions: (1) do combination ICIs improve clinical outcomes due to independent, rather than synergistic or additive drug action; and (2) how should we attribute value to the constituent parts of combination ICIs? To address these questions, we reviewed the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) drug database and Clinicaltrials.gov from January 1, 2012, until June 1, 2022, to identify approved indications of combination ICIs in NSCLC. For valuation methods, a separate search was conducted in PubMed, health technology assessment databases, and grey literature to identify published value assessment or attribution methods, specifically in the context of combination (cancer) treatments. As of June 1, 2022, the FDA approved eight combination ICI indications for NSCLC. The underlying mechanisms for the improved clinical benefits of these ICI therapies are not well studied. The superiority of combination ICI therapies compared to monotherapy in multiple indications does not indicate whether synergy or additivity is involved, or necessary. Policy statement: We encourage further research on the development of value attribution framework methods for combination therapies to quantify their added health benefits and economic value in the future. Given the valuation challenges of combination ICIs, their mechanism of action poses significant uncertainty and requires further clinical investigation to address whether synergy or additivity is existent.

Cost-effectiveness of nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy as first-line therapy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer

OBJECTIVES

First-line treatment with nivolumab plus ipilimumab has been shown to improve overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The current study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy in advanced NSCLC from the perspective of Chinese healthcare system.

METHODS

A three state-transition Markov model was employed to evaluate the cost and effectiveness of nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of advanced NSCLC. Key clinical data in the model were derived from Part 1 of the phase 3 CheckMate 227 trial (NCT02477826). Costs and utilities were obtained from published literatures. The main endpoints of the model were costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the model uncertainty.

RESULTS

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab was associated with an increase in overall cost of $95,867.82 and improved effectiveness of 0.98 QALYs compared with chemotherapy, yielding an ICER of $97,676.24 per QALY. In one-way sensitivity analysis, the variables that had the greatest influence on the ICER were hazard ratio for OS and body weight. In probabilistic analysis, nivolumab plus ipilimumab had a 0% probability of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $37,663.26/QALY in China. However, the combination therapy would become cost-effective when the cost of nivolumab and ipilimumab were discounted by 65%.

CONCLUSION

First-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab treatment for advanced NSCLC was found to be not cost-effective compared with chemotherapy at a WTP threshold of $37,663.26/QALY in China.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness analysis of 11 treatment paths, seven first-line and three second-line treatments for Chinese patients with advanced wild-type squamous non-small cell lung cancer: A sequential model

Background

A total of 11 treatment sequences for advanced wild-type squamous non-small cell lung cancer are recommended by Chinese Society of Clinical Oncology Guidelines, consisting of seven first-line and three second-line treatments. Five of these treatments were newly approved in China between 2021 and 2022. We evaluated the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of these strategies from the Chinese healthcare system perspective.

Methods

Network meta-analysis with non-proportional hazards was used to calculate the relative efficacy between interventions. A sequential model was developed to estimate costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) for treatment sequences with first-line platinum- and paclitaxel-based chemotherapy (SC) with or without nedaplatin, tislelizumab, camrelizumab, sintilimab, sugemalimab or pembrolizumab, followed by second-line docetaxel, tislelizumab or nivolumab. SC and docetaxel were used as comparators for first-line and second-line treatments, respectively. QALY and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were used to evaluate effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, respectively. Cost-effective threshold was set as USD 19,091. Subgroup analysis was conducted to determine the best first-line and second-line therapy.

Results

Pembrolizumab + SC, followed by docetaxel (PED) was the most effective treatment sequence. QALYs for patients received SC, nedaplatin + SC, tislelizumab + SC, sintilimab + SC, camrelizumab + SC, sugemalimab + SC, pembrolizumab + SC followed by docetaxel were 0.866, 0.906, 1.179, 1.266, 1.179, 1.266, 1.603, 1.721, 1.807; QALYs for SC, nedaplatin + SC followed by tislelizumab were 1.283, 1.301; QALYs for SC, nedaplatin + SC followed by nivolumab were 1.353, 1.389. Camrelizumab + SC, followed by docetaxel (CAD) was the most cost-effective. Compared to SC with or without nedaplatin, tislelizumab, or sintilimab followed by docetaxel, ICERs of CAD were USD 12,276, 13,210, 6,974, 9,421/QALY, respectively. Compared with nedaplatin or SC followed by tislelizumab, the ICERs of CAD were USD 4,183, 2,804/QALY; CAD was dominant compared with nedaplatin or SC followed by nivolumab; The ICER of sugemalimab + SC followed by docetaxel and PED were USD 522,023, 481,639/QALY compared with CAD. Pembrolizumab + SC and camrelizumab + SC were the most effective and cost-effective first-line options, respectively; tislelizumab was the most effective and cost-effective second-line therapy. Tislelizumab used in second-line was more effective than first-line, no significant differences between their cost-effectiveness. Sensitivity and scenario analysis confirmed robustness of the results.

Conclusions

PED and CAD are the most effective and cost-effective treatment sequence, respectively; pembrolizumab + SC and camrelizumab + SC are the most effective and cost-effective first-line choice, respectively; tislelizumab is the most effective and cost-effective second-line choice.

The cost-effectiveness of brigatinib in adult patients with ALK inhibitor–naive ALK-positive non–small cell lung cancer from a US perspective

BACKGROUND: The discovery of specific oncogenic drivers in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has led to the development of highly targeted anaplastic lymphoma kinase tyrosine kinase inhibitors (ALKis). Brigatinib is a next-generation ALKi associated with prolonged progression-free survival in patients with ALKi-naive ALK+ NSCLC. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of brigatinib compared with crizotinib and alectinib in patients with ALKi-naive ALK+ NSCLC, from a US payer perspective. METHODS: A lifetime area under the curve-partitioned survival model with 4 health states was used to evaluate the relative cost-effectiveness of brigatinib in the ALKi-naive ALK+ NSCLC setting. Brigatinib was compared with crizotinib within a cost-effectiveness framework and compared with alectinib in a cost-comparison framework, where all efficacy outcomes were assumed equal. The efficacy of brigatinib and crizotinib was informed by the ALTA-1L trial, and an indirect treatment comparison was performed to inform the efficacy of brigatinib vs alectinib owing to a lack of head-to-head data. Costs were derived from public sources. The main outcomes of the model were total costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), life-years, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses, in addition to multiple scenario analyses, were conducted to assess the robustness of the model outcomes. RESULTS: The improved outcomes observed in ALTA-1L translated into QALY gains (+0.97) in the comparison of brigatinib vs crizotinib. The superior efficacy profile was associated with increased time on treatment with brigatinib, which drove the increase in costs vs crizotinib (+$210,519). The resulting base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $217,607/QALY gained. Compared with alectinib, brigatinib was associated with a cost difference of -$8,546. Sensitivity analysis suggested that extrapolation of overall survival, the assumptions relating to time on treatment, and subsequent therapy costs were the most influential determinants of results. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggested brigatinib had the highest probability of being cost-effective beyond willingness-to-pay thresholds of $236,000 per QALY vs crizotinib and alectinib. CONCLUSIONS: At list prices and under base-case assumptions in the current analysis, brigatinib was associated with cost-savings vs alectinib, and QALY gains but at higher costs vs crizotinib. Additional research into the real-world efficacy of ALKis is warranted to further understand the comparative cost-effectiveness of these therapies. DISCLOSURES: Ms Cranmer and Ms Kearns are employees of Takeda UK Ltd. Dr Young is a former employee of Takeda Pharmaceuticals America, Inc. Dr Humphries is an employee of Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. Mr Trueman is an employee of Source Health Economics, the consultancy company that provided health economic and writing services. This work was funded by ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited. Work by Source Health Economics was funded by ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Professional medical writing assistance was provided by Phillipa White, of Source Health Economics, and funded by ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Cost-Effectiveness of First-Line Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab Combination Therapy in Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer in Japan

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

In Japan, indications for nivolumab have been expanded to include the combination therapy with ipilimumab in various cancers. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of combination therapy of nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIV + IPI) for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), comparing it with platinum-doublet chemotherapy in Japanese settings.

METHODS

A partitioned survival model was developed to predict costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) in a NIV + IPI arm and a chemotherapy arm. Data on overall survival and progression-free survival were derived from the CheckMate 227 trial. Cost estimates were based on a Japanese healthcare system perspective using real-world data from the JMDC claims database. Utilities were derived from published sources outside Japan. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of NIV + IPI therapy compared with chemotherapy was estimated. A scenario analysis on the level of programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression was conducted. In addition, sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the uncertainty in parameter settings.

RESULTS

Compared with chemotherapy, NIV + IPI therapy incurred an additional cost of USD102,623 and conferred an additional 1.007 QALY, which resulted in an ICER of USD101,950/QALY gained. Contrary to prior expectations, the ICER of patients with a PD-L1 expression level ≥ 1% was higher than that of patients with a PD-L1 expression level < 1% (USD145,868/QALY and USD127,737/QALY, respectively). Sensitivity analyses showed a relatively robust result with the ICERs remaining higher than a Japanese price adjustment threshold of USD75,000/QALY with a few exceptions.

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of NIV + IPI as first-line therapy would not be cost effective under a willingness-to-pay threshold of USD75,000/QALY from the perspective of the Japanese healthcare system.

First-Line Treatments for Extensive-Stage Small-Cell Lung Cancer With Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors Plus Chemotherapy: A Network Meta-Analysis and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Background

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) plus chemotherapy were unlikely to be considered cost-effective compared with chemotherapy as the first-line treatment of patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) in China due to its high costs. However, the cost-effectiveness of the comparison between the regimens of ICIs plus chemotherapy were remained unclear yet. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of ICIs plus chemotherapy as the first-line treatment for ES-SCLC from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system.

Methods

A network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted to indirect compare the clinical benefits between the ICIs plus chemotherapy regimens. A decision-analytic model was established to evaluate the cost-effectiveness from the Chinese healthcare system, the clinical efficacy and safety data were obtained from the clinical trials and the results of NMA. Cost and utility values were gathered from the local charges and previously studies. Key outputs of the NMA were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to explore the robustness of the model outcomes.

Results

Five clinical trials (IMpower133, CASPIAN, KEYNOTE-604, CA184-156, and EA5161) of 1,255 patients received first-line ICIs plus chemotherapy strategies were analyzed in the NMA. NMA showed that nivolumab plus chemotherapy was ranked higher than other strategies. The cost-effectiveness analysis showed that atezolizumab plus chemotherapy achieved relatively higher health benefits and lower costs. One-way sensitivity analyses revealed that the cost of ICIs had the substantial impact on model outcomes. The probabilistic sensitivity analyses suggested that the probability of atezolizumab plus chemotherapy could be considered cost-effective was more than 50% at the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $31,313/QALY in China. In scenario analyses, when the price of nivolumab reduced 80%, the probability of nivolumab plus chemotherapy being cost-effective was more than 50%.

Conclusions

The NMA and cost-effectiveness revealed that atezolizumab plus chemotherapy is the most favorable first-line treatment for previously untreated ES-SCLC patients compared other ICIs plus chemotherapy regimens in China. The price reduction of nivolumab would make nivolumab plus chemotherapy be the most cost-effective option in future possible context.