Economic Evaluation of Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab Combination as First-Line Treatment for Patients with Advanced Melanoma in Canada

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of combination therapy versus monotherapy in malignant melanoma

BACKGROUND

Until 2010, stage III or IV malignant melanoma (MM) had a poor prognosis. The discovery of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in 2011 changed the treatment landscape. Promising results in patient survival with a checkpoint inhibitor prompted research into combination therapies. In 2016, the first combination therapy has been approved as first-line therapy for advanced MM.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this work is to investigate to what extent combination therapy is (cost-)effective compared to monotherapy in stage III or IV MM.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed (Web of Science, PubMed, PubPharm, EconLit, and Cochrane Library); searching for publications published over the past decade that examine the cost-effectiveness in terms of cost/QALY and the effectiveness in terms of survival and response of combination therapy in comparison to monotherapy in stage III or IV MM patients.

RESULTS

A total of 11 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and five cost-utility analyses met our inclusion criteria. Nine clinical trials demonstrated superiority of combination therapy over monotherapy. The combination of B-rapidly accelerated fibrosarcoma (BRAF) protein and mitogen-activated kinase (MEK) protein inhibitors is not cost-effective in any country. Three analyses demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of combination therapy with ICI compared to monotherapy.

CONCLUSION

Combination therapy is more effective compared to monotherapy. While combined ICIs are cost-effective compared to monotherapy, this is not the case for the combination of BRAF and MEK inhibitors.

Outcome of Elective Checkpoint Inhibitor Discontinuation in Patients with Metastatic Melanoma Who Achieved a Complete Remission: Real-World Data

Checkpoint inhibitor therapy for metastatic melanoma has dramatically improved outcomes. Currently, 20 to 40% of treated patients achieve lengthy remissions. It is not clear whether patients in remission require ongoing therapy or if treatment can be safely discontinued. A retrospective chart review was performed of patients who underwent elective treatment discontinuation after two negative scans three months apart. Of 132 checkpoint inhibitor-treated patients, 46 achieved a complete response (34.8%) and electively discontinued therapy. The progression-free survival was 97.5% at 1 year and 94.7% at 3 years following treatment discontinuation. The median duration of follow-up was 26 months. In total, 4 of 46 individuals (8.7%) eventually relapsed (median time to relapse: 27 months). The median disease-specific survival of the entire cohort was not reached and was 100% at 4 years from the start of therapy. Two patients eventually died, one from melanoma and the other from an unrelated illness. We have identified an elective treatment discontinuation strategy that is generalizable to a variety of checkpoint inhibitor ± targeted therapy regimens. We found that most complete remissions remained durable after elective treatment discontinuation. We hypothesize that this approach could decrease potential drug toxicities, reduce the treatment-related financial burden, and improve patients’ quality of life.

Heterogeneity in Survival with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors and Its Implications for Survival Extrapolations: A Case Study in Advanced Melanoma

Background

Survival heterogeneity and limited trial follow-up present challenges for estimating lifetime benefits of oncology therapies. This study used CheckMate 067 (NCT01844505) extended follow-up data to assess the predictive accuracy of standard parametric and flexible models in estimating the long-term overall survival benefit of nivolumab plus ipilimumab (an immune checkpoint inhibitor combination) in advanced melanoma.

Methods

Six sets of survival models (standard parametric, piecewise, cubic spline, mixture cure, parametric mixture, and landmark response models) were independently fitted to overall survival data for treatments in CheckMate 067 (nivolumab plus ipilimumab, nivolumab, and ipilimumab) using successive data cuts (28, 40, 52, and 60 mo). Standard parametric models allow survival extrapolation in the absence of a complex hazard. Piecewise and cubic spline models allow additional flexibility in fitting the hazard function. Mixture cure, parametric mixture, and landmark response models provide flexibility by explicitly incorporating survival heterogeneity. Sixty-month follow-up data, external ipilimumab data, and clinical expert opinion were used to evaluate model estimation accuracy. Lifetime survival projections were compared using a 5% discount rate.

Results

Standard parametric, piecewise, and cubic spline models underestimated overall survival at 60 mo for the 28-mo data cut. Compared with other models, mixture cure, parametric mixture, and landmark response models provided more accurate long-term overall survival estimates versus external data, higher mean survival benefit over 20 y for the 28-mo data cut, and more consistent 20-y mean overall survival estimates across data cuts.

Conclusion

This case study demonstrates that survival models explicitly incorporating survival heterogeneity showed greater accuracy for early data cuts than standard parametric models did, consistent with similar immune checkpoint inhibitor survival validation studies in advanced melanoma. Research is required to assess generalizability to other tumors and disease stages.

Highlights

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab for Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer

Objective: This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs. chemotherapy in the first-line setting for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) from the US payer perspective.

Materials and methods: A Markov model wasdeveloped to evaluate the cost and effectiveness of nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs. chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of advanced NSCLC. The survival benefits of nivolumab plus ipilimumab were based on the results of the CheckMate 227 trial. The main endpoints of the model were cost, life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Univariable and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess model uncertainty. Additonal subgroup analyses were also performed.

Results: nivolumab plus ipilimumab produced a gain of 0.62 QALYs, at a cost of $104238 per QALY. The variables that had the greatest influence on the ICER were body weight and overall survival (OS) hazard ratio (HR). The probability of nivolumab plus ipilimumab being cost-effectiveness compared to chemotherapy is 50.7 and 66.2% when the willingness-to-pay (WTP) value is $ 100,000 and $ 150,000 per QALY. The results of subgroup analyses showed the ICER remained below $150,000/QALY regardless of the PD-L1 expression level.

Conclusions: nivolumab plus ipilimumab was estimated to be cost-effective compared with chemotherapy for patients with advanced NSCLC at a WTP threshold from 100,000/QALY to 150,000/QALY.

Economic evaluation of nivolumab combined with ipilimumab in the first-line treatment of advanced melanoma in Japan

AIMS

The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab in combination with ipilimumab (nivo + ipi) compared to current therapeutic alternatives in first-line treatment of patients with advanced melanoma from the Japanese national healthcare payer perspective using 48-month survival data from the CheckMate 067 Phase III trial.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A three-state partitioned survival model was developed from projections of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) to estimate accrued quality-adjusted survival and costs over a 30-year time horizon. The analysis included nivo + ipi, nivolumab, and ipilimumab monotherapies (the three treatments included in CheckMate 067). Drug acquisition, administration, disease management, subsequent therapy, and adverse event (AE) costs were obtained via published sources and expert input (solicited via Delphi panel). AE frequencies were collected from the Checkmate 067 trial. Utility weights were estimated from the Checkmate 067 trial, based on Japanese tariffs. Results were presented as incremental cost-utility ratios (ICURs, cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY)).

RESULTS

Nivo + ipi had the greatest estimated survival among the three competing treatments, followed by nivolumab monotherapy accruing the second greatest survival. The incremental cost-effectiveness of nivo + ipi was ¥778,000 per QALY vs. nivolumab and ¥1,584,000 per QALY vs. ipilimumab. The results indicate that nivo + ipi is cost-effective in Japan when compared to a threshold of ¥7,500,000 per QALY. This finding was found to be generally robust to sensitivity and scenario analyses.

LIMITATIONS

Limitations include uncertainty in long-term survival extrapolations and lack of Japan-specific clinical data.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis indicates that adding ipilimumab to nivolumab therapy represents a cost-effective new treatment option for patients with unresectable malignant melanoma in Japan.

Cost-effectiveness of nivolumab in advanced melanoma: a drug review

Introduction: The immune checkpoint inhibitors, including nivolumab, and targeted agents have dramatically improved the outcome for patients with unresectable advanced melanoma. Areas covered: This is a narrative review of the published evidence on nivolumab in metastatic melanoma. Expert opinion: In ipilimumab pre-treated patients (CheckMate 037), nivolumab was associated with a higher response rate and a longer duration of response when compared to chemotherapy. In previously untreated patients, nivolumab improves survival when compared to chemotherapy (CheckMate 066) or to ipilimumab (CheckMate 067). The combination of nivolumab and ipilimumab also improves survival when compared to ipilimumab (CheckMate 067). CheckMate 067 was not designed to compare the nivolumab-ipilimumab combination to nivolumab alone. A modified regimen using a lower dose of ipilimumab in combination with standard dose nivolumab is better tolerated than nivolumab in combination with standard dose ipilimumab (CheckMate 511). In patients with previously untreated metastatic melanoma, the anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibodies nivolumab and pembrolizumab improve survival when compared to ipilimumab. Nivolumab is equally active in BRAF mutated and BRAF wild type melanoma. The optimal sequence of checkpoint inhibitors and BRAF/MEK inhibitors in BRAF mutated patients has not been established.