Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Durvalumab Plus Chemotherapy in the First-Line Treatment of Extensive-Stage Small Cell Lung Cancer

Immune checkpoint inhibitor combinations for patients with advanced endometrial cancer: a network meta-analysis and cost-utility analysis

BACKGROUND

Immune checkpoint inhibitor combinations show significant survival advantages compared with chemotherapy for patients with advanced endometrial cancer.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of different immunotherapy combinations for clinician and patient decision-making.

METHODS

The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science Databases were reviewed from January 1, 2010 to October 30, 2023, for phase III randomized controlled trials of first-line immunotherapy combinations in patients with advanced endometrial cancer. Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed to obtain hazard ratios (HRs) of overall survival and progression-free survival, relative risks (RRs) of adverse events, and corresponding p value. The lifetime Markov model of cost-effectiveness analysis was developed to summarize the cost, life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios at the US$150 000/QALY of willingness-to-pay of six first-line treatment strategies.

RESULTS

Four trials were identified, involving 2577 patients. Dostarlimab plus chemotherapy or durvalumab plus chemotherapy with olaparib was associated with more survival benefits than other immunotherapy regimens and chemotherapy in the mismatch repair-deficient microsatellite instability-high (dMMR/MSI-H) and mismatch repair-proficient microsatellite-stable (pMMR/MSS) population, respectively. Further, pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy increased efficacy (cost) by 3.76 QALYs and US$540 817, which yielded incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of US$143 894/QALY in the dMMR/MSI-H population.

CONCLUSION

First-line durvalumab plus chemotherapy with olaparib, and dostarlimab plus chemotherapy, were more beneficial for survival in the pMMR/MSS and dMMR/MSI-H populations, respectively. Only pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy was cost-effective for patients with dMMR/MSI-H endometrial cancer in the USA.

Cost-effectiveness of dostarlimab plus chemotherapy for primary advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer

Objective

In the double-blind, phase III, placebo-controlled RUBY randomized clinical trial, dostarlimab plus carboplatin-paclitaxel significantly increased survival among patients with primary advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer (EC). We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis of dostarlimab in combination with chemotherapy in these patients stratified by mismatch repair-deficient (dMMR) and mismatch repair-proficient (pMMR) subgroups from the perspective of a United States payer.

Materials and methods

A Markov model with three states was employed to simulate patients who were administered either dostarlimab in combination with chemotherapy or chemotherapy based on the RUBY trial. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), lifetime costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were calculated with a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000 per QALY. Both univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were carried out to explore the robustness of the model.

Results

In dMMR EC, the combination of dostarlimab and chemotherapy achieved an additional 5.48 QALYs at an incremental cost of $330,747 compared to chemotherapy alone, resulting in an ICER of $60,349.30 per QALY. In pMMR EC, there were 1.51 additional QALYs gained at an extra cost of $265,148, yielding an ICER of $175,788.47 per QALY. With a 15.2% discount on dostarlimab, the ICER decreased to $150,000 per QALY in the pMMR EC. The univariate sensitivity analysis revealed that the cost of dostarlimab, utility of progression-free survival (PFS), and progressive disease (PD) had the most significant impacts on the outcomes. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed that dostarlimab had a 100% likelihood of being considered cost-effective for patients at a WTP threshold of $150,000 per QALY for dMMR EC, whereas this likelihood was only 0.5% for pMMR EC.

Conclusion

Dostarlimab in combination with chemotherapy was cost-effective for primary advanced or recurrent dMMR EC from the perspective of a United States payer at a WTP threshold of $150,000 per QALY, but not for pMMR EC. Lowering the prices of dostarlimab could potentially enhance the cost-effectiveness of treatment for pMMR EC.

Immunotherapy plus chemotherapy in patients with advanced endometrial cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis

OBJECTIVE

Pembrolizumab and dostarlimab are immune checkpoint inhibitors that target programmed death receptor 1 (PD-1). Combination anti-PD-1 regimens have been shown to exhibit favorable survival benefits when treating advanced endometrial cancer (EC). Which treatment was preferable will need to be confirmed by a cost-effectiveness comparison between them.

METHODS

Based on patient and clinical parameters from RUBY and NRG-GY018 phase III randomized controlled trials, the Markov model with a 20-year time horizon was established to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of dostarlimab plus chemotherapy (DC), pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy (PC), and chemotherapy alone (C) treatment for patients with mismatch repair-proficient microsatellite-stable (pMMR-MSS) and mismatch repair-deficient microsatellite instability-high (dMMR-MSI-H) advanced EC from the American payers' perspective. The main results include total cost, life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) at a $150,000/QALY of willingness-to-pay.

RESULTS

In the pMMR-MSS population, DC, PC, and C produced costs (QALYs) of $99,205 (3.02), $322,530 (3.25), and $421,923 (4.40), resulting in corresponding ICERs of $974,177/QALY (PC vs. C), $234,527/QALY (DC vs. C), $86,671/QALY (DC vs. PC), respectively; In the dMMR-MSI-H population, DC, PC, and C obtained costs (QALYs) of $120,177 (5.73), $691,399 (8.43), and $708,787 (11.26), yielding ICERs of $266,423/QALY (PC vs. C), $135,165/QALY (DC vs. C), $7,866/QALY (DC vs. PC), respectively.

CONCLUSION

In the US, DC was a more cost-effective treatment than PC for patients with advanced EC irrespective of MMR status. However, compared to C, DC was associated with more cost-effectiveness in the dMMR-MSI-H population.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of durvalumab, tremelimumab, and etoposide-platinum in first-line treatment of extensive-stage small cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND

Durvalumab plus etoposide-platinum (DEP) showed sustained overall survival improvements in patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) compared to etoposide-platinum (EP), but adding tremelimumab to DEP (DTEP) did not significantly improve outcomes. A third-party payer perspective is taken here to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of DTEP, DEP, and EP for ES-SCLC.

METHODS

The cost-effectiveness was evaluated by partitioning survival models into 3 mutually exclusive health states. In this model, clinical characteristics and outcomes were obtained from the CASPIAN. Model robustness was evaluated through 1-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Outcome measurements included costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, life-years, incremental net health benefit, and incremental net monetary benefit. The analysis was conducted with a 10-year lifetime horizon in a United States setting.

RESULTS

Compared with EP, DEP, and DTEP were associated with an increment of 0.480 and 0.313 life-years, and an increment of 0.247 and 0.165 QALYs, as well as a $139,788 and $170,331 increase in cost per patient. The corresponding ICERs were $565,807/QALY and $1033,456/QALY, respectively. The incremental net health benefit and incremental net monetary benefit of DEP or DTEP were -0.685 QALYs and -$102,729, or -0.971 QALYs and -$145,608 at a willingness to pay threshold of $150,000/QALY, respectively. Compared with DTEP, DEP was dominated. DTEP and DEP were 100% unlikely to be cost-effective if the willingness to pay threshold was $150,000/QALY. DEP was cost-effective compared to EP when durvalumab was priced below $0.994/mg. Compared with EP, DEP, and DTEP were unlikely to be considered cost-effective across all subgroups.

CONCLUSION

DEP and DTEP were not cost-effective options in the first-line treatment for ES-SCLC compared with EP, from the third-party payer perspective in the United States. Compared with DTEP, DEP was dominated.

Cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy for advanced endometrial cancer

OBJECTIVE

To assess the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab in combination with chemotherapy compared to chemotherapy alone, based on the results of the NRG-GY018 trial, in patients with advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer (EC), stratified by mismatch repair-deficient (dMMR) and mismatch repair-proficient (pMMR) subgroups.

METHODS

A Markov model was used to simulate patients receiving either pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy or chemotherapy alone. Lifetime costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were calculated using a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000/QALY. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of our findings.

RESULTS

The addition of pembrolizumab to chemotherapy led to an incremental gain of 4.05 QALYs at an additional cost of $167,224, resulting in an ICER of $41,305.09/QALY compared to chemotherapy alone in dMMR EC. Additionally, there were 0.93 additional QALYs at an additional cost of $83,661, which resulted in an ICER of $90,284.80/QALY in pMMR EC. Sensitivity analyses indicated that the cost of pembrolizumab, utility of progressed disease, and utility of progression-free survival had the greatest impact on the results. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that pembrolizumab was considered cost-effective at a 100% probability at a WTP threshold of $150,000 per QALY.

CONCLUSION

Pembrolizumab, when combined with chemotherapy, was found to be cost-effective compared to chemotherapy alone both for patients with advanced or recurrent dMMR and pMMR EC from the perspective of a payer in the United States.

Updated cost-effectiveness analysis of adebrelimab plus chemotherapy for extensive-stage small cell lung cancer in China

OBJECTIVE

The CAPSTONE-1 trial demonstrated that adebrelimab-based immunotherapy yielded a favourable survival benefit compared with chemotherapy for patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of this immunotherapy in the treatment of ES-SCLC from a healthcare system perspective in China.

DESIGN

The TreeAge Pro software was used to establish a three-state partitioned survival model. Survival data came from the CAPSTONE-1 trial (NCT03711305), and only direct medical costs were included. Utility values were obtained from the published literature. Sensitivity analysis was performed to explore the robustness of the model. The cost-effectiveness of immunotherapy was investigated through scenario and exploratory analyses in various settings.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Total costs, incremental costs, life years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental QALYs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).

RESULTS

The basic analysis revealed that the adebrelimab group achieved a total of 1.1 QALYs at a cost of US$65 385, while the placebo group attained 0.78 QALYs at a cost of US$12 741. ICER was US$163 893/QALY. Sensitivity analysis confirmed that the model was robust. Results from scenario and exploratory analyses indicated that the combination of adebrelimab and chemotherapy did not demonstrate cost-effectiveness in any scenario.

CONCLUSIONS

From the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system, adebrelimab in combination with chemotherapy for the treatment of ES-SCLC was not economical compared with chemotherapy.

Cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab plus chemotherapy for advanced/recurrent endometrial cancer

OBJECTIVE

This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab in combination with chemotherapy for patients with advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer (EC) from the U.S. payer's perspective.

METHODS

A cost-effectiveness study was conducted using a Markov model based on ENGOT-en7/MaNGO/AtTEnd clinical trials. The population consisted of patients with EC, stratified by mismatch repair-deficient (dMMR) and mismatch repair-proficient (pMMR) subgroups. The model simulated patients receiving either atezolizumab plus chemotherapy or chemotherapy alone. Cost, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were calculated using a Willingness-to-Pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000/QALY. Sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Adding atezolizumab to chemotherapy in dMMR EC resulted in an incremental gain of 3.31 QALYs but at an additional cost of $855,042, leading to an ICER of $258,391.07/QALY compared to chemotherapy alone. In pMMR EC, there was a gain of 0.50 QALYs with an additional cost of $140,502, resulting in an ICER of $279,239.72/QALY. The overall ICER for EC was $216,459.34/QALY. Scenario analysis indicated that administering atezolizumab for a maximum of 2 years improved cost-effectiveness in dMMR EC, with an ICER of $70,695.96/QALY falling within the predetermined WTP threshold.

CONCLUSION

For patients with advanced or recurrent EC, the combination of atezolizumab and chemotherapy may not prove cost-effective. However, administering atezolizumab for a limited period of maximum 2 years could improve cost-effectiveness in dMMR EC.

Osimertinib in the treatment of resected EGFR-mutated non-small cell lung cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis in the United States

Background: In the double-blind phase III ADAURA randomized clinical trial, adjuvant osimertinib showed a substantial overall survival benefit in patients with stage IB to IIIA, EGFR-mutated, completely resected non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing the use of adjuvant osimertinib to placebo in patients with stage IB to IIIA, EGFR-mutated, resected NSCLC. Methods: Based on the results obtained from the ADAURA trial, a Markov model with three-state was employed to simulate patients who were administered either osimertinib or placebo until disease recurrence or completion of the study period (3 years). Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), lifetime costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were calculated with a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000 per QALY. Both univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were carried out to explore the robustness of the model. Results: Osimertinib produced additional 1.59 QALYs with additional costs of $492,710 compared to placebo, giving rise to ICERs of $309,962.66/QALY. The results of the univariate sensitivity analysis indicated that the utility of disease-free survival (DFS), cost of osimertinib, and discount rate had the greatest impact on the outcomes. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that osimertinib exhibited a 0% chance of being considered cost-effective for patients using a WTP threshold $150,000/QALY. Conclusion: In our model, osimertinib was unlikely to be cost-effective compared to placebo for stage IB to IIIA, EGFR-mutated, completely resected NSCLC patients from the perspective of a U.S. payer at a WTP threshold of $150,000 per QALY.

Mirvetuximab soravtansine in platinum-resistant recurrent ovarian cancer with high folate receptor-alpha expression: a cost-effectiveness analysis

OBJECTIVE

Mirvetuximab soravtansine (MIRV), a new antibody-drug conjugate, versus the investigator's choice of chemotherapy (IC) was the first treatment to demonstrate benefits for progression-free and overall survival in platinum-resistant recurrent ovarian cancer (PROC) with high folate receptor-alpha (high-FRα) expression. Efficacy, safety, and economic effectiveness make MIRV the new standard of care for these patients.

METHODS

Based on patients and clinical parameters from MIRASOL (GOG 3045/ENGOT-ov55) phase III randomized controlled trials, the Markov model with a 20-year time horizon was established to evaluate the cost and efficacy of MIRV and IC for PROC with high-FRα expression, considering the bevacizumab-pretreated situation from the American healthcare system. Total cost, life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), and incremental net health benefits were the main outcome indicators and compared with willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

Compared with the IC, MIRV was associated with incremental costs of $538,251, $575,674, and $188,248 with the corresponding QALYs (LYs) increased by 0.90 (1.55), 1.09 (1.88), and 0.53 (0.79), leading to ICERs of $596,189/QALY ($347,995/LY), $530,061/QALY ($306,894/LY), and $1,011,310/QALY ($680,025/LY) in the overall, bevacizumab-naïve, and bevacizumab-pretreated patients, respectively. When MIRV is reduced by more than 75%, it may be a cost-effective treatment.

CONCLUSION

At the current price, MIRV for PROC with high-FRα expression is not the cost-effective strategy in the US. However, its treatment has higher health benefits in bevacizumab-naïve patients, which is likely to be an alternative.

Combination tumor-treating fields treatment for patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer: A cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

Tumor-treating field (TTFields) was a novel antitumor therapy that provided significant survival for previously treated metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC). The consistency of the cost of the new treatment regimen with its efficacy was the main objective of the study.

METHODS

The primary parameters, derived from the Phase 3 LUNAR study, were collected to evaluate the cost and efficacy of TTFields plus standard-of-care (SOC) (immune checkpoint inhibitors [ICIs] and docetaxel [DTX]) or SOC in patients with mNSCLC by establishing a three-state Markov model over a 15-year time horizon. Primary outcome measures for this study included costs, life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

The total costs of TTFields plus SOC, TTFields plus ICI, and TTFields plus DTX were $319,358, $338,688, and $298,477, generating 1.23 QALYs, 1.58 QALYs, and 0.89 QALYs, respectively. The ICERs of TTFields plus SOC versus SOC, TTFields plus ICI versus ICI, and TTFields plus DTX versus DTX were $613,379/QALY, $387,542/QALY, and $1,359,559/QALY, respectively. At willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds of $150,000/QALY, the probability of combination TTFields being cost-effective was 0%. In addition, TTFields plus SOC exhibited similar efficacy (1.12 QALYs and 1.14 QALYs) and costs ($309,822 and $312,531) in the treatment of squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) and non-squamous cell carcinoma (NSCC) populations.

CONCLUSIONS

In the United States, TTFields plus SOC as second-line treatment was not a more cost-effective strategy for patients with mNSCLC. Of the analyzed regimens, TTFields plus ICI was associated with most significant health benefits.

Cost-effectiveness of tisotumab vedotin as a second- or third-line therapy for cervical cancer

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of tisotumab vedotin to treat recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer in second- or third-line from the U.S. payer perspective.

METHODS

A Markov model with three-state was employed to simulate recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer patients who were administered either tisotumab vedotin or investigator's choice of chemotherapy based on the phase II, open-labeled innovaTV 301 randomized clinical trial. The data on cost and health preferences were collected from the literature.

RESULTS

Tisotumab vedotin generated an additional 0.25 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) compared to chemotherapy, but at an additional cost of $206,779. This results in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of 839,107.88 per QALY. The results of the univariate sensitivity analysis indicated that cost of tisotumab vedotin, utility of progressive disease and progression-free survival had the greatest impacts on the outcomes. Probability sensitivity analysis showed that tisotumab vedotin had a 0% chance of being considered cost-effective.

CONCLUSION

Tisotumab vedotin was unlikely cost-effective compared to chemotherapy for recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer patients at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000/QALY from the perspective of a U.S. payer. Lowering the prices of tisotumab vedotin could potentially enhance its cost-effectiveness.

Cost-effectiveness of adding serplulimab to first-line chemotherapy for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer in China

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the current study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of serplulimab plus chemotherapy compared chemotherapy alone as first-line strategy for patients with ES-SCLC in China.

METHODS

A decision-analytic model that based on the Chinese health-care system perspective was conducted to evaluate the economic benefits for the two competing first-line treatment. The clinical survival and safety data were obtained from the ASTRUM-005 trial, cost and utility values were gathered from the local charges and previously published study. Both cost and utility values were discounted at an annual rate of 5%. Sensitivity analyses and subgroup analyses were performed to examine the robustness of the model results.

RESULTS

Serplulimab plus chemotherapy could bring additional 0.25 QALYs with the marginal cost of $37,569.32, resulting in an ICER of $147,908.74 per additional QALY gained. Sensitivity analyses confirmed that model results were robust. Subgroup analyses revealed that adding serplulimab to first-line chemotherapy were unlikely to be the cost-effective option for all subgroup patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Serplulimab plus chemotherapy was unlikely to be the cost-effective first-line strategy compared with chemotherapy alone for patients with ES-SCLC in China. Reduced the price of serplulimab could increase its cost-effective.

Immune checkpoint inhibitor for patients with advanced biliary tract cancer: A cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The increasingly widespread of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in the field of antitumors has brought a new dawn for patients with advanced biliary tract cancer (aBTC). However, the choice of treatment needs to be supported by economic evaluation. Therefore, the cost-effectiveness comparison of first-line durvalumab or pembrolizumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin (GemCis) treatment of aBTC was explored from the perspective of American and Chinese healthcare systems.

METHODS

Ground on the TOPAZ-1 and KEYNOTE-966 trials, the Markov model with a 15-year horizon including three health states to imitate cost and effective outcomes was established. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) at willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds of $100 000/QALY and $37 408/ALY in the USA and China was used as the most important indicator. Other endpoint indexes included total cost, life years (LYs), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental net-health benefit (INHB). To verify the robustness, sensitivity and subgroup analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Durvalumab plus GemCis ($322 211 [2.94 QALYs] and $35 695 [2.76 QALYs]) increased cost (effectiveness) by $63 777 (.22 QALYs) and $5234 (.20 QALYs) than pembrolizumab plus GemCis ($258 434 [2.72 QALYs] and $30 461 [2.56 QALYs]) in the USA and China, respectively. The corresponding ICER was $288 725/QALY and $26 401/QALY, with INHB of -.42 and .06 QALYs, respectively. The cost of ICIs was the most important factor influencing results.

CONCLUSIONS

In China, first-line durvalumab plus GemCis versus pembrolizumab plus GemCis was a cost-effective option for patients with aBTC, but not in the USA.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of serplulimab combined with chemotherapy in the treatment of extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer from the perspective of the healthcare system in China

OBJECTIVE

The ASTRUM-005 trial showed that serplulimab plus chemotherapy (SEP) significantly extended survival time compared with chemotherapy in the treatment of small cell lung cancer. But the survival benefits of SEP came at high costs, and its economy is not clear. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of SEP from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system.

DESIGN

A partition survival model was built to simulate the outcomes. The clinical data came from the ASTRUM-005 trial, and only direct medical costs were included in the model. The utility values referred to the published literature. Scenario analyses 1 and 2 explored outcomes in the presence of a patient assistance plan (PAP) and different simulation periods, respectively. Scenario analysis 3 compared the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab plus chemotherapy (AEP) with SEP by network meta-analysis. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the results.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Total costs, incremental costs, life years, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), incremental QALYs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).

RESULTS

Compared with chemotherapy, SEP achieved an additional 0.34 QALYs at incremental costs of US$41 682.63, with an ICER of US$122 378.86/QALY. When PAP was available, ICER was US$58 316.46/QALY. In the simulation time of 5 years and 20 years, the ICER was US$132 637.97/QALY and US$118 054.59/QALY, respectively. When compared with AEP, SEP not only reduced the costs by US$47 244.87 but also gained 0.07 QALYs more. Sensitivity analyses showed that the price of serplulimab and the utility value of the progression-free survival stage were the main influencing parameters, and the results were stable.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with chemotherapy, SEP was not cost-effective from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. However, SEP was absolutely dominant in comparison with AEP.

Cost-effectiveness of the combination of immunotherapy and chemotherapy for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The combination of immunotherapy and chemotherapy for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) was primarily carried out with a combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and platinum-etoposide (EP). It is likely to be more effective in treating ES-SCLC than EP alone, but could result in high healthcare costs. The study aimed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of this combination therapy for ES-SCLC.

METHODS

We searched literature from the following databases: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science for studies on cost-effectiveness of immunotherapy combined with chemotherapy for ES-SCLC. The literature search period was up to April 20, 2023. The quality of the studies was evaluated using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool and Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist.

RESULTS

A total of 16 eligible studies were included in the review. All studies met CHEERS recommendations, and all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in these studies were rated as having low risk of bias using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool. The treatment regimens compared were ICIs plus EP or EP alone. All studies mainly used incremental quality-adjusted life year and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio as outcomes. Most ICIs plus EP treatment regimens were not cost-effective based on corresponding willingness-to-pay thresholds.

CONCLUSIONS

Adebrelimab plus EP and serplulimab plus EP were probably cost-effective for ES-SCLC in China, and serplulimab plus EP was probably cost-effective for ES-SCLC in the U.S. Lowering the price of ICIs and selecting ES-SCLC patients who were sensitive to ICIs could improve the cost-effectiveness of the ICIs-combined treatment.

Cemiplimab as Second-Line Therapy for Patients with Recurrent Cervical Cancer: A United States-based Cost-effectiveness Analysis

INTRODUCTION

The efficacy of cemiplimab in recurrent cervical cancer has been demonstrated in the clinical trial EMPOWER-Cervical 1. However, its high price makes patients and clinicians hesitate to use it. Therefore, we designed a study to evaluate its cost-effectiveness.

METHODS

We developed a Markov model based on phase III clinical trials to calculate the cost, life years (LYs), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) over 20 years with a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000/QALY. The economic data included were obtained from official US government websites and published literature. Sensitivity analysis was used to determine the uncertainties associated with the model, and a subgroup analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Compared with chemotherapy, cemiplimab produced an additional 0.597 QALYs (0.751 LYs), resulting in an ICER of $111,211.471/QALY in the United States. The cost of cemiplimab is the most influential factor in the model. The results of these models were robust in all sensitivity analyses. From the American public payers' perspective, subgroup analysis showed cemiplimab was a cost-effective regimen in patients with squamous cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma, or programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) ≥ 1%.

CONCLUSION

From the American public payers' perspective, cemiplimab is a cost-effective treatment option for second-line treatment of recurrent cervical cancer. Meanwhile, cemiplimab was a cost-effective treatment for patients with PD-L1 ≥ 1 and all histological types.

First-line Immuno-chemotherapy for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer: A network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis

Introduction

Many randomized controlled trials have indicated that immuno-chemotherapy could generate clinical benefits, though the cost of immuno-chemotherapy was so prohibitive and the options were varied. This investigation aimed at evaluating effectiveness, safety, and cost-effectiveness for immuno-chemotherapy as a first-line therapeutic option for ES-SCLC patients.

Methods

Multiple scientific literature repositories were searched for clinical studies where immuno-chemotherapy was regarded as the first-line treatment for ES-SCLC, which were published in English between Jan 1, 2000, and Nov 30, 2021. This study conducted a network meta-analysis (NMA) and cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) based upon US-resident payer perspectives. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and adverse events (AEs) were evaluated through NMA. In addition, costings, life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost–benefit ratio (ICER) were estimated by CEA.

Results

We identified 200 relevant search records, of which four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (2,793 patients) were included. NMA demonstrated that the effect of atezolizumab plus chemotherapy was ranked at a more elevated position in comparison to other immuno-chemotherapy options and chemotherapy alone, within the general population. The influence of atezolizumab plus chemotherapy and durvalumab plus chemotherapy was ranked higher within populations experiencing non-brain metastases (NBMs) andbrain metastases (BMs), respectively. The CEA revealed that the ICERs of immuno-chemotherapy over chemotherapyalone were higher than the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000/QALY in any population. However, treatment with atezolizumab plus chemotherapy and durvalumab plus chemotherapy were more favorable health advantages than other immuno-chemotherapy regimens and chemotherapy alone, and the results were 1.02 QALYs and 0.89 QALYs within overall populations and populations with BMs, respectively.

Conclusion

The NMA and cost-effectiveness investigation demonstrated that atezolizumab plus chemotherapy could be an optimal first-line therapeutic option for ES-SCLC when compared with other immuno-chemotherapy regimens. Durvalumab plus chemotherapy is likely to be the most favorable first-line therapeutic option for ES-SCLC with BMs.

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.

Serplulimab Plus Chemotherapy vs Chemotherapy for Treatment of US and Chinese Patients with Extensive-Stage Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis to Inform Drug Pricing

BACKGROUND

Serplulimab is a potential valuable therapy, while patients, physicians, and decision-makers are uncertain about the cost-effectiveness of this novel drug and its corresponding reasonable price. This study aimed to simulate the price at which serplulimab was cost-effective as first-line therapy for United States (US) and Chinese extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) patients.

METHODS

In this economic evaluation, a partitioned survival model was constructed from the perspective of US and Chinese payers. Baseline characteristics of patients and critical clinical data were obtained from ASTRUM-005. Costs and utilities were collected from open-access databases and published literature. Cumulative costs (in US dollars), life years, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were measured and compared. Price simulation was conducted to inform the pricing strategy at the given willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold. The robustness of the model was assessed via sensitivity analyses and scenario analyses; subgroup analyses were also included.

RESULTS

Base-case analysis indicated that serplulimab ($818.16/100 mg) would be cost-effective in the US at the WTP threshold of $150,000, with improved effectiveness of 0.61 QALYs and an additional cost of $64,918 (ICER $106,757). Serplulimab ($818.16/100 mg, patient assistance program considered) was cost-effective in China, with improved effectiveness of 0.58 QALYs and an increased overall cost of $19,369 (ICER $33,392). The price simulation results indicated that serplulimab was favored in the US when the price was less than $762.11/100 mg and $1261.57/100 mg at the WTP threshold of $100,000 and $150,000, respectively; it was cost-effective at the WTP threshold of $38,184 when the price was less than $373.37/100 mg in China. Sensitivity analyses revealed that the above results were stable. Subgroup analysis results indicated an overall trend for subgroups with better survival advantages to have a higher probability of cost-effectiveness, despite serplulimab not being cost-effective in some subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

Serplulimab might be a valuable and cost-effective therapy in both the US and China. The evidence-based pricing strategy provided by this study could benefit decision-makers in making optimal decisions and clinicians in general clinical practice. More evidence about the budget impact and affordability for patients is needed.

Serplulimab plus chemotherapy as first-line treatment for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer: A cost-effectiveness analysis

Introduction

The ASTRUM-005 trial (NCT04063163) revealed that combination serplulimab plus chemotherapy (etoposide and carboplatin [EC]) treatment was associated with survival advantages relative to chemotherapy alone in patients diagnosed with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). As these immuno-chemotherapeutic regimens are extremely expensive, however, it is critical that the relative cost-effectiveness of combination serplulimab and chemotherapy treatment as a first-line treatment for ES-SCLC patients be examined in detail.

Methods

The cost-effectiveness of combined serplulimab plus chemotherapeutic treatment was examined using a comprehensive Markov model with a 10-year boundary, enabling the calculation of overall cost, life years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Model instability was interrogated through one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

Results

Serplulimab plus chemotherapy or chemotherapy alone respectively yielded 1.217 QALYs (2.243 LYs) and 0.885 QALYs (1.661 LYs) with corresponding total costs of $11,202 and $7,194, with an ICER of $12,077 per QALY ($6,883 per LY). This model was most strongly influenced by the utility of progression-free survival. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that serplulimab plus chemotherapy had a 91.6% probability of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) of $37,653 per QALY (3 × capita gross domestic product of China in 2021). In subgroup analyses, this combination treatment regimen was found to be most cost-effective in patients who were former smokers, had an ECOG performance status of 0, and were diagnosed with brain metastases.

Conclusion

From a payer perspective in China, combination serplulimab plus chemotherapy treatment represents a cost-effective first-line intervention for ES-SCLC patients.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Sintilimab Combined with Chemotherapy Versus Chemotherapy Alone as the First-Line Treatment for Advanced Esophageal Cancer

Background: Esophageal cancer has a poor prognosis and currently ranks sixth in global cancer mortality rates. The ORIENT-15 trial showed sintilimab plus chemotherapy significantly improved survival when compared to chemotherapy alone. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of sintilimab, a programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitor, plus chemotherapy in treating patients with esophageal cancer compared with chemotherapy alone. Methods: A Markov model with a 10-year horizon was developed based on the perspective of the Chinese healthcare payers. We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis for sintilimab combined with chemotherapy based on a questionnaire. Patients were grouped into the sintilimab group based on a positive score of 10 or more (combined positive score (CPS) ≥ 10 groups), and those with any other PD-L1 expression were randomized into patient groups. We estimated the cost and the effectiveness of sintilimab on the quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was computed. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore the impact of uncertainties on the cost-effectiveness results. Results: In the base-case analysis, compared with chemotherapy alone, the ICER of sintilimab plus chemotherapy for all patients was $21024.05 per QALY, and in the CPS≥10 group, it was $20974.23 per QALY. This was lower than $37653 per QALY. One-way sensitivity analysis demonstrated that ICERs were most sensitive to the price of sintilimab. Conclusion: The study demonstrated that sintilimab plus chemotherapy for advanced esophageal cancer as its first-line treatment would be more cost-effective than chemotherapy alone in Chinese patients.

Trastuzumab deruxtecan versus chemotherapy for patients with HER2-low advanced breast cancer: A US-based cost-effectiveness analysis

Background: In recent years, the rise of antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) has changed the treatment paradigm for patients with HER2-low advanced breast cancer (ABC). DESTINY-Breast04 (NCT03734029) has demonstrated the antitumor activity of trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd). However, the balance between the efficacy and cost of T-DXd remains undefined. Consequently, there is a great need to assess the cost-effectiveness of T-DXd for patients with HER2-low ABC when compared with chemotherapy. Methods: A Markov decision-analytic model with a time horizon of 15 years was employed to estimate the costs and clinical efficacy of trials with the administration of T-DXd in contrast to chemotherapy alone as a later-line therapy in a group of patients with hormone receptor-positive (HR+) or negative (HR-) HER2-low ABC. The US payer perspective was taken into account when factors such as medical lifetime expenditure, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were calculated. Sensitivity analyses were used to determine the model's stability. A subgroup analysis was also conducted on the HR+/HER2-low cohort. Results: T-DXd was associated with an improvement of 0.543, 0.558, and 0.789 QALYs when compared with treatment with chemotherapy for overall, HR+, and HR- HER2-low patients, respectively. However, incorporating T-DXd into later-line therapy led to increased costs ($161,406, $177,907, and $155,757), which causes the ICER for T-DXd to be $296,873, $318,944, and $197,355 per QALY. The cost of T-DXd and the patient's weight were the most influential factors for ICER. T-DXd being the dominant strategy is about 1.5%, 0.5%, and 28.0% in overall, HR+, and HR- HER2-low ABC patients, respectively. In addition, the T-DXd regimen was not cost-effective in all subgroups. Conclusion: Compared with chemotherapy, T-DXd was not cost-effective for patients with HER2-low ABC in the United States. However, it can provide more health benefits to patients with HR+/HER2-low ABC.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of adebrelimab combined with chemotherapy for extensive-stage small cell lung cancer

Background: The findings of the CAPSTONE-1 trial showed that adebrelimab in combination with chemotherapy (etoposide-carboplatin) (ADCHM) is clinically beneficial as a first-line treatment for patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC), compared with placebo plus chemotherapy (PLCHM, etoposide-carboplatin). However, owing to the higher cost of adebrelimab, it is unclear whether ADCHM is cost-effective compared with PLCHM. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ADCHM as a first-line treatment for patients with ES-SCLC from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system.

Methods: A Markov model with three health states was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of ADCHM as a first-line treatment option with ES-SCLC. Clinical data were obtained from the CAPSTONE-1 trial. Costs of the drug were calculated at national tender prices, and other costs and utility values were obtained from published literature. The outcomes included life years (LYs), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were used to validate the robustness of the model.

Results: The ADCHM group achieved 1.21 QALYs (2.47 LYs) for $25,312, whereas the PLCHM group achieved 0.81 QALYs (1.59 LYs) for $14,846. The ICER for ADCHM versus PLCHM was $25914 per QALY gained. The variables with the greatest impact on the model results were the utility value of progressive disease, the utility value of progression-free survival, and the price of adebrelimab (100 mg). At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $37,653/QALY, ADCHM had an 89.1% probability of being cost-effective compared with PLCHM.

Conclusion: ADCHM may be a cost-effective first-line treatment strategy for ES-SCLC from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of adjuvant therapy with atezolizumab in Chinese patients with stage IB-IIIA resectable NSCLC after adjuvant chemotherapy

Background

Atezolizumab was first shown to significantly improve progression-free survival (PFS) after platinum-based chemotherapy in early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in the IMpower010 Phase 3 trial. However, the cost-effectiveness and potential economic impact of atezolizumab treatment in Chinese patients are unknown.

Methods

Markov models were constructed based on follow-up data from the IMpower010 trial and assessed separately in the programmed cell death receptor ligand-1 (PD-L1) tumor cells (TC) ≥ 1% stage II – IIIA group, all stage II – IIIA groups, and the intention-to-treat (ITT) group (stage IB–IIIA). Efficacy and safety data were obtained from the IMpower010 trial, and costs and utility values were derived from the literature and local surveys to estimate their incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) compared with willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds in scenarios implementing patient assistance programs (PAP) or drug price negotiations. Univariate sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) were performed to investigate the stability of the model results.

Results

Compared with best supportive care (BSC), atezolizumab produced an additional 0.45 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), 0.04 QALYs, and -0.0028 QALYs in the PD-L1 TC ≥ 1% stage II – IIIA group, all stage II – IIIA groups, and the ITT group, and the ICERs were 108,825.37/QALY, 1,028,538.22/QALY, and -14,381,171.55/QALY, respectively. The ICERs all exceeded the WTP threshold of $27,354 per QALY (three times the per capita gross domestic product of China in 2022), and univariate sensitivity analysis showed that the price of atezolizumab played a crucial role in the model results. PSA showed that the probability of cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab in the PD-L1 TC ≥ 1% stage II – IIIA group, all stage II – IIIA groups, and the ITT group increased with the increasing WTP threshold.

Conclusion

From the perspective of China’s health care system, in the PD-L1 TC ≥ 1% stage II – IIIA group, all stage II – IIIA groups, and the ITT group, the use of atezolizumab in the adjuvant treatment of patients with early-stage NSCLC after platinum-based chemotherapy is unlikely to be cost-effective. The implementation of PAP or price reduction negotiations for atezolizumab might be among the most effective measures to improve its cost-effectiveness.

Pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib as first-line therapy for patients with mismatch repair-proficient advanced endometrial cancer: A United States-based cost-effectiveness analysis

OBJECTIVE

In 2022, the KEYNOTE-775 (NCT03517449) study showed that pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib (PL) has more benefits than traditional chemotherapy as a first-line regimen to treat patients with mismatch repair-proficient (pMMR) advanced endometrial cancer (aEC). However, given the high cost of immuno-targeted therapy, the widespread use among patients remains uncertain. Therefore, we conducted a cost-effectiveness comparison between PL and chemotherapy.

METHODS

We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of PL versus chemotherapy over 7 years by developing a comprehensive Markov model, included 697 patients, that calculated total cost, life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000 per QALY. The robustness of the model was evaluated by one-way, two-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. In addition, we also performed subgroup analyses.

RESULTS

Chemotherapy yielded a mean survival of 0.705 QALYs (0.901 LYs) per patient and was associated with a mean cost of $163,777. PL was associated with an incremental cost of $38,582 and an additional 0.349 QALYs, leading to an ICER of $110,401 per QALY as compared to chemotherapy. The cost of pembrolizumab had a significant impact on ICER. At the assumed WTP threshold of $150,000 per QALY, approximately 79.2% of simulations show cost-effectiveness occurs in PL. Results of the subgroup analysis showed that PL was the most cost-effective regimen for patients who had previously received 1-line of therapy.

CONCLUSION

For patients with pMMR aEC, the PL strategy may be the most cost-effective strategy at a WTP of $150,000 from the economic perspective of the United States.

Pembrolizumab Plus Chemotherapy as First-Line Treatment for Advanced Esophageal Cancer: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

INTRODUCTION

In 2021, KEYNOTE-590 (NCT03189719) showed that pembrolizumab plus 5-fluorouracil and cisplatin (PPF) has more benefits than 5-fluorouracil and cisplatin (PF) as a first-line regimen to treat individuals with advanced esophageal cancer. However, given that it is expensive, controversies over the value of using this compared to competitive strategies remain. Hence, we conducted a cost-effectiveness evaluation of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy.

METHODS

A Markov model was applied in evaluating the efficacy and cost of PPF and PF over a 7-year horizon and measured the health outcomes in life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The economic data included were relevant to patients in the USA and China. We also performed one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses to determine the uncertainties relevant to the model. Willingness to pay thresholds (WTP) of $150,000/QALY (USA) and $35,673/QALY (China) were used to calculate a probability for the cost-effectiveness of PPF.

RESULTS

PPF yielded 0.386-0.607 QALYs (0.781-1.195 LYs) compared with PF. In our analysis, compared with receiving PF, patients with advanced esophageal cancer receiving PPF had an ICER of $577,461/QALY in the USA and $258,261/QALY in China, those for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma were $550,211/QALY in the USA and $244,580/QALY in China, and a programmed cell death ligand 1 combined positive score (PD-L1 CPS) ≥ 10 was associated with a cost of $479,119/QALY in the USA and $201,355/QALY in China. Sensitivity analysis found the price of pembrolizumab to be the biggest influence.

CONCLUSION

From the economic perspectives of the USA and China, a first-line regimen of PPF for esophageal cancer therapy may not be as cost-effective as PF. However, patients with esophageal cancer and PD-L1 CPS ≥ 10 may gain the most LYs from initial PPF treatment.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Atezolizumab Versus Durvalumab as First-Line Treatment of Extensive-Stage Small-Cell Lung Cancer in the USA

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Durvalumab and atezolizumab are approved as first-line therapy in extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer. Although cost-effectiveness analyses compared these immunotherapy drugs with standard chemotherapy-alone regimens, no head-to-head cost-effectiveness comparisons for these treatments exist. The aim of the present analysis is to determine the cost-effectiveness of durvalumab and atezolizumab as first-line therapy for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer from the US payers' perspective.

METHODS

This study is based on two placebo-controlled, phase 3 clinical trials: CASPIAN and IMpower133. A Markov model was developed to simulate the three health states: progression-free survival, progressed disease, and death in patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer. Transition probabilities were estimated from the clinical trial survival curves and extended with life-time modelling. Health utilities and direct costs of adverse event treatment were included. Main outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) using quality-adjusted life-years saved (QALYS). Sensitivity analysis was performed to assess the impact of variables on the ICER.

RESULTS

Durvalumab group has a cost of $187,503 with an effectiveness of 1.08 while atezolizumab has a cost of $160,219 and an effectiveness of 0.932. Durvalumab is not cost-effective compared to atezolizumab with an ICER of $165,182 QALYS, which is over the willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000. The model was most sensitive to durvalumab cost and the cost of treating durvalumab adverse effects.

CONCLUSIONS

With the ICER of durvalumab treatment group being very close to $150,000, setting a higher willingness-to-pay threshold or decreasing the drug cost through contract pricing can increase the cost-effectiveness of durvalumab compared to atezolizumab.

Chemo-Immunotherapy Regimes for Recurrent or Metastatic Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: A Network Meta-Analysis and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Introduction: In 2021, two phase III clinical trials confirmed that toripalimab or camrelizumab combined with gemcitabine and cisplatin (TGP or CGP) provide more benefits in the first-line treatment of R/M NPC than GP. Fortunately, TGP and CGP were recently approved as first-line treatments for cases experiencing R/M NPC by the China National Medical Products Administration in 2021. However, due to the high cost and variety of treatment options, the promotion of chemo-immunotherapeutics in the treatment of R/M NPC remains controversial. Therefore, we performed a cost-effectiveness assessment of the two newly approved treatment strategies to assess which treatments provide the greatest clinical benefits at a reasonable cost.

Methods: A cost-effectiveness analysis and network meta-analysis network meta-analysis was conducted based on the JUPITER-02 and CAPTAIN-first Phase 3 randomized clinical trials. A Markov model was expanded for the evaluation of the effectiveness and cost of TGP, CGP, and GP chemotherapy with a 10-years horizon and measured the health achievements in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), and life-years (LYs). We constructed a treatment strategy and other parameters based on two clinical trials and performed one-way and probabilistic sensitivity experiments for the evaluation of the uncertainty in the model.

Results: For the model of patients with treatment-R/M NPC, TGP was associated with a total cost of $48,525 and 2.778 QALYs (4.991 LYs), leading to an ICER of $15,103 per QALY ($10,321 per LY) compared to CGP. On comparing the GP chemotherapy, we found TGP and CGP incurred substantial health costs, resulting in ICERs of $19,726 per QALY and $20,438 per QALY, respectively. The risk of adverse events (AEs) and the price of the drugs had significant impacts on the ICER. At the assumed willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $35,673 per QALY, there were approximately 75.8 and 68.5% simulations in which cost-effectiveness was achieved for TGP and CGP, respectively.

Conclusion: From the Chinese payer’s perspective, TGP is more possible to be a cost-effective regimen compared with CGP and GP for first-line treatment of patients with R/M NPC at a WTP threshold of $35,673 per QALY.

Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Receptor Inhibitors in Chinese Patients With Advanced Radioactive Iodine-Refractory Differentiated Thyroid Cancer: A Network Meta-Analysis and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Two targeted drugs (apatinib and lenvatinib) show clinical efficacy in first-line treatment of Chinese patients with radioactive advanced iodine-refractory differentiated thyroid cancer (RAIR-DTC) and are recommended by the Chinese Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines. Considering the high clinical cost of long-term vascular endothelial growth factor receptor inhibitor administration and to determine which of the two targeted drugs is preferable, we opted to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) and network meta-analysis (NMA).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The results of NMA and CEA included in the two phase III randomized clinical trials REALITY (NCT03048877) and Study-308 (NCT02966093), in which Bayesian NMA and CEA were performed on 243 and 149 Chinese patients, respectively, were retrieved. Overall survival and progression-free survival (PFS) for apatinib versus lenvatinib were determined by NMA. CEA involved the development of a 20-year Markov model to obtain the total cost and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and this was followed by sensitivity and subgroup analyses.

RESULTS

Compared with lenvatinib, apatinib therapy provided a 0.837 improvement in QALY and $6,975 reduction in costs. The hazard ratio of apatinib versus lenvatinib and the cost of the targeted drugs had a significant impact on the model. According to the sensitivity analysis, apatinib was more cost-effective and had no correlation with willingness-to-pay in China. Subgroup analysis showed that apatinib maintained PFS more economically.

CONCLUSION

NMA and CEA demonstrated that apatinib was more cost-effective compared to lenvatinib in the first-line treatment of Chinese RAIR-DTC patients.

First-line pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer: a United States-based cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

The clinical trial of Keynote-604 showed that pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy could generate clinical benefits for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). We aim to assess the efficacy and cost of pembrolizumab combined with chemotherapy in the first-line treatment setting of ES-SCLC from the United States (US) payers' perspective.

METHODS

A synthetical Markov model was used to evaluate cost and effectiveness of pembrolizumab plus platinum-etoposide(EP) versus EP in first-line therapy for ES-SCLC from the data of Keynote-604. Lifetime costs life-years(LYs), quality adjusted LYs(QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios(ICERs) were estimated. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. Furthermore, we performed subgroup analysis.

RESULTS

Pembrolizumab plus EP resulted in additional 0.18 QALYs(0.32 LYs) and corresponding incremental costs $113,625, resulting an ICER of $647,509 per QALY versus EP. The price of pembrolizumab had a significant impact on ICER. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that pembrolizumab combined chemotherapy may become a cost-effective option with a probability of 0%. Besides, subgroup analysis suggested that all subgroups were not cost-effective.

CONCLUSION

From the perspective of the US payer, pembrolizumab plus EP is not a cost-effective option for first-line treatment patients with ES-SCLC at a WTP threshold of $150,000 per QALY.

Topoisomerase 2 inhibitor etoposide promotes interleukin-10 production in LPS-induced macrophages via upregulating transcription factor Maf and activating PI3K/Akt pathway

Topoisomerase (TOP) inhibitors were commonly used as chemotherapeutic agents in the treatment of cancers. In our present study, we found that etoposide (ETO), a topoisomerase 2 (TOP2) inhibitor, upregulated the production of Interleukin 10 (IL-10) in lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-stimulated macrophages. Besides, other TOP2 inhibitors including doxorubicin hydrochloride (DOX) and teniposide (TEN) were also able to augment IL-10 production. Meanwhile, the expression levels of pro-inflammatory factors, for example IL-6 and TNF-α, were also decreased accordingly by the treatment of the TOP2 inhibitors. Of note, ETO facilitated IL-10 secretion, which might be regulated by transcription factor Maf via PI3K/AKT pathway, as pharmaceutic blockage of kinase PI3K or AKT attenuated ETO-induced Maf and IL-10 expression. Further, in LPS-induced mice sepsis model, the enhanced generation of IL-10 was observed in ETO-treated mice, whereas pro-inflammatory cytokines were decreased, which significantly reduced the mortality of mice from LPS-induced lethal cytokine storm. Taken together, these results indicated that ETO may exhibit an anti-inflammatory role by upregulating the alteration of transcription factor Maf and promoting subsequential IL-10 secretion via PI3K/Akt pathway in LPS-induced macrophages. Therefore, ETO may serve as a potential anti-inflammatory agent and employed to severe pro-inflammatory diseases including COVID-19.