A Comparison of Different Analysis Methods for Reconstructed Survival Data to Inform Cost‑Effectiveness Analysis

First-line treatment with durvalumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer in the USA: a cost-effectiveness analysis

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of durvalumab in combination with chemotherapy compared with chemotherapy alone as first-line therapy for metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) from the perspective of the US payer.

METHODS

Based on the POSEIDON clinical trial, a partition survival model was developed to compare the cost-effectiveness of durvalumab in combination with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for the first-line treatment of metastatic NSCLC. The model's primary outcomes were costs, life years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The analysis only considered direct medical costs, and health utility value was determined using published literature. The robustness of the model was tested by probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

The combination therapy of durvalumab and chemotherapy improved survival by 0.713 QALYs at an incremental cost of $64 104.638 compared with chemotherapy alone, resulting in an ICER of $89 908.328 per QALY gained from the US payer perspective. The combination therapy had a 92.3% probability of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000 per QALY based on incremental net health benefits. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the model's consistency, and none of the parameters significantly influenced the findings.

CONCLUSION

Durvalumab in combination with chemotherapy represents a more cost-effective strategy for first-line therapy in patients with metastatic NSCLC in the USA compared with chemotherapy alone.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of serplulimab as first-line treatment for advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma

Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of serplulimab as first-line treatment for patients with advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Materials & methods: A partitioned survival model was created to evaluate costs and health outcomes. The model's robustness was evaluated using one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Results: Serplulimab demonstrated an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $104,537.375/quality-adjusted life-year in the overall population group. Subgroup analysis showed that serplulimab had incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $261,750.496/quality-adjusted life-year and $68,107.997/quality-adjusted life-year in the populations with PD-L1 1 ≤ combined positive score <10 and PD-L1 combined positive score ≥10, respectively. Conclusion: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of serplulimab therapy were found to exceed the willingness-to-pay threshold of $37,304.34. Thus, serplulimab is not cost-effective compared with chemotherapy as a first-line treatment for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma patients.

Impact of Extrapolation Model Choices on the Structural Uncertainty in Economic Evaluations for Cancer Immunotherapy: A Case Study of Checkmate 067

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare the performance of different extrapolation modeling techniques and analyze their impact on structural uncertainties in the economic evaluations of cancer immunotherapy.

METHODS

The individual patient data was reconstructed through published Checkmate 067 Kaplan Meier curves. Standard parametric models and six flexible techniques were tested, including fractional polynomial, restricted cubic splines, Royston-Parmar models, generalized additive models, parametric mixture models, and mixture cure models. Mean square errors (MSE) and bias from raw survival plots were used to test the model fitness and extrapolation performance. Variability of estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) from different models was used to inform the structural uncertainty in economic evaluations. All indicators were analyzed and compared under cut-offs of 3 years and 6.5 years, respectively, to further discuss model impact under different data maturity. R Codes for reproducing this study can be found on GitHub.

RESULTS

The flexible techniques in general performed better than standard parametric models with smaller MSE irrespective of the data maturity. Survival outcomes projected by long-term extrapolation using immature data differed from those with mature data. Although a best-performing model was not found because several models had very similar MSE in this case, the variability of modeled ICERs significantly increased when prolonging simulation cycles.

CONCLUSIONS

Flexible techniques show better performance in the case of Checkmate 067, regardless of data maturity. Model choices affect ICERs of cancer immunotherapy, especially when dealing with immature survival data. When researchers lack evidence to identify the 'right' model, we recommend identifying and revealing the model impacts on structural uncertainty.

A cost-effectiveness analysis of first-line toripalimab plus chemotherapy in advanced nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer in China

BACKGROUND

This study compares first-line toripalimab with chemotherapy for advanced nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

A three-state Markov model was established to compare the quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of first-line toripalimab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy. Clinical outcomes data were acquired from the CHOICE-01 clinical trials. Costs and utilities were gathered from regional databases or published publications. One-way sensitivity and probability sensitivity analyses were used to investigate the stability of the model parameters.

RESULTS

First-line toripalimab treatment for advanced nonsquamous NSCLC resulted in an incremental cost of $16,214.03 and added 0.77 QALYs compared to chemotherapy, which had an ICER of $21,057.18 per QALY gained. The ICER was substantially lower than the willingness to pay (WTP) threshold in China, which was $37,663.26 per QALY. The toripalimab cycle used was shown to have the greatest impact on the ICERs, according to sensitivity analysis, although none of the factors significantly affected the model's outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Toripalimab plus chemotherapy is likely to be a cost-effective option compared with chemotherapy alone for patients with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of sintilimab vs. placebo in combination with chemotherapy as first-line therapy for local advanced or metastatic oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma

Objective

Results of Orient 15 indicated the health benefits to patients with local advanced or metastatic oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC). This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of sintilimab plus chemotherapy in treating OSCC from the perspective of Chinese healthcare system.

Methods

A partitioned survival model was constructed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of sintilimab plus chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy in treating OSCC. Baseline characteristics of patients and key clinical data were extracted from Orient 15. Costs and utilities were collected from published studies and open-access databases. Costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), life-years gained, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were chosen as economic outcome indicators. We also performed sensitivity analyses and subgroup analyses to verify the stability of results.

Results

Combination therapy provided additional 0.84 QALYs and 1.46 life-years with an incremental cost of $25,565.48 than chemotherapy, which had an ICER of $30,409.44 per QALY. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that combination therapy had a 98.8% probability of cost-effectiveness at the willingness-to-pay threshold (WTP) of $38,184 per QALY. Deterministic sensitivity analysis showed that model outcomes were sensitive to the utilities of progression-free survival and progression disease. The subgroup analysis revealed that combination therapy was cost-effective in patients with high expression of PD-L1 and several specific subgroups.

Conclusion

In this economic evaluation, sintilimab plus chemotherapy was likely to be cost-effective compared with chemotherapy in the first-line therapy of advanced OSCC from the perspective of Chinese healthcare system. Our findings may provide evidence for clinicians to make optimal decisions in clinical practice and for decision-makers to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of sintilimab.

Cost-effectiveness of camrelizumab versus chemotherapy for the treatment of advanced or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of camrelizumab versus chemotherapy for patients with advanced or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) from the perspective of health system and to provide a basis for health decisions in China.

METHODS

A Markov model of 3 health states throughout the lifetime was established based on data from the ESCORT trial. Life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and lifetime costs were estimated. The time horizon of lifetime was 5 years and each model cycle represented 2 months. The cost and utility value adopted a 5% discount rate per year. One-way sensitivity analysis and probability sensitivity analysis were used to test the robustness of the results.

RESULTS

The results of the cost-effectiveness analysis revealed that the camrelizumab group produced a gain of 2.93 QALY, at a cost of $37,809.12 USD, and the chemotherapy group gained 2.85 QALY, at a cost of $3,7071.52 USD. Camrelizumab was more cost-effective than chemotherapy for patients with advanced or metastatic ESCC. The results of one-way sensitivity analyses showed that the cost of camrelizumab, cost of chemotherapy and utility of progression-free survival (PFS) state were the top three parameters influencing the model. The probability sensitivity analysis results showed that the results of the basic case analysis were stable.

CONCLUSIONS

Under the willingness to pay threshold of three times per capita GDP of China, camrelizumab as second-line treatment could provide more health benefits for advanced or metastatic ESCC in China.

Determining the optimal PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors for the first-line treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer with high-level PD-L1 expression in China

Background and Objective

The programmed death 1 and ligand (PD‐1/PD‐L1) inhibitors have significantly altered therapeutic perspectives on non‐small‐cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, their efficacy and safety are unknown since direct clinical trials have not yet been performed on them. It is also necessary to determine the economics of PD‐1/PD‐L1 inhibitors due to their high cost. The aim was to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and cost‐effectiveness of PD‐1/PD‐L1 inhibitor monotherapy for advanced NSCLC patients in China with high PD‐L1 expression as first‐line treatment.

Methods

From the PubMed, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases, we retrieved survival, progression, and safety data on PD‐1/PD‐L1 inhibitor monotherapy for advanced NSCLC patients. A network meta‐analysis (NMA) was performed to consider PD‐1/PD‐L1 inhibitors in efficacy and safety. A Markov model with a full‐lifetime horizon was adopted. Clinical and utility data were collected through the trial. The cost per quality‐adjusted life year (QALY) was as incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio (ICER). Sensitivity analyses were performed.

Results

This study included five phase III clinical trials using four drugs: nivolumab, pembrolizumab, atezolizumab, and durvalumab. The NMA demonstrated that the four drugs had similar efficacy and safety, while pembrolizumab and atezolizumab were better for than for nivolumab (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.66, 95% confidence intervals (CIs): 0.46–0.95 and HR = 0.59, 95%CI: 0.37–0.94) in progression‐free survival (PFS), and the risk of a severe adverse event was higher for atezolizumab than for nivolumab and pembrolizumab. Compared with nivolumab, durvalumab, pembrolizumab, and atezolizumab had QALY of 0.19, 0.38, and 0.53, respectively, which induced ICERs of $ 197,028.8/QALY, $ 111,859.0/QALY, and $ 76,182.3/QALY, respectively.

Conclusion

The efficacy and safety are similar among types of PD‐1/PD‐L1‐inhibitor monotherapy. The cost‐effectiveness of nivolumab appears optimal, but the other PD‐1/PD‐L1 inhibitors are not as cost‐effective for the first‐line treatment of advanced NSCLC in China.