Cost Effectiveness of PD-L1-Based Test-and-Treat Strategy with Pembrolizumab as the First-Line Treatment for Metastatic NSCLC in Hong Kong

BACKGROUND

Pembrolizumab, a monoclonal antibody against programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1), is approved by several regulatory agencies for first-line treatment of metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with a PD-L1 tumor proportion score (TPS) ≥ 50% and no epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) or anaplastic lymphoma kinase genomic tumor aberrations. This study was conducted from the perspective of the Hospital Authority in Hong Kong and aimed to evaluate the cost effectiveness of a biomarker (PD-L1) test-and-treat strategy (BTS), in which patients with a TPS ≥ 50% received pembrolizumab and other patients received platinum doublet chemotherapy versus all patients receiving platinum doublet chemotherapy.

METHODS

The model used a partitioned survival approach to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) expressed as the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. The clinical efficacy, utility and safety data were derived from the KN024 trial. Costs and health outcomes were projected over a 10-year time horizon and discounted at 3% per year. Costs for drug acquisition, PD-L1 testing, drug administration and disease management were used. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate the robustness of results.

RESULTS

The BTS approach led to an increase of 0.29 QALYs at an additional cost of Hong Kong dollars (HK$) 249,077 (US$31,933) compared with platinum doublet chemotherapy, resulting in an ICER of HK$865,189 (US$110,922) per QALY gained. This is lower than the World Health Organization cost-effectiveness threshold of three times the 2016 gross domestic product (GDP) per capita for Hong Kong of HK$1017,819 (US$130,490). Probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed a 59.4% chance that the ICER would be below this threshold.

CONCLUSION

First-line treatment with pembrolizumab in a BTS to identify patients with NSCLC with PD-L1 TPS ≥ 50% can be considered cost effective in Hong Kong compared with platinum doublet chemotherapy based on a three-times GDP per capita threshold. However, local data on clinical efficacy and safety were not available to estimate overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) specific to patients with NSCLC in Hong Kong. Further, uncertainty is inherent in the survival projections/extrapolation of PFS and OS beyond the trial period, and future research may help to further inform these parameters.

Economic impact and cost-effectiveness of fracture liaison services: a systematic review of the literature

Fracture liaison services (FLS), implemented in different ways and countries, are reported to be a cost-effective or even a cost-saving secondary fracture prevention strategy. This presumed favorable cost-benefit relationship is encouraging and lends support to expanded implementation of FLS per International Osteoporosis Foundation Best Practice Standards. This study summarizes the economic impact and cost-effectiveness of FLS implemented to reduce subsequent fractures in individuals with osteoporosis. This systematic review identified studies reporting economic outcomes for FLS in osteoporotic patients aged 50 and older through a comprehensive search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central, and PubMed of studies published January, 2000 to December, 2016. Grey literature (e.g., Google scholar, conference abstracts/posters) were also hand searched through February 2017. Two independent reviewers screened titles and abstracts and conducted full-text review on qualified articles. All disagreements were resolved by discussion between reviewers to reach consensus or by a third reviewer. In total, 23 qualified studies that evaluated the economic aspects of FLS were included: 16 cost-effectiveness studies, 2 cost-benefit analyses, and 5 studies of cost savings. Patient populations varied (prior fragility fracture, non-vertebral fracture, hip fracture, wrist fracture), and FLS strategies ranged from mail-based interventions to comprehensive nurse/physician-coordinated programs. Cost-effectiveness studies were conducted in Canada, Australia, USA, UK, Japan, Taiwan, and Sweden. FLS was cost-effective in comparisons with usual care or no treatment, regardless of the program intensity or the country in which the FLS was implemented (cost/QALY from $3023-$28,800 US dollars (USD) in Japan to $14,513-$112,877 USD in USA. Several studies documented cost savings. FLS, implemented in different ways and countries, are reported to be cost-effective or even cost-saving. This presumed favorable cost-benefit relationship is encouraging and lends support to expanded implementation of FLS per International Osteoporosis Foundation Best Practice Standards.