First-line Cemiplimab versus Standard Chemotherapy in Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer Patients with at Least 50% Programmed Cell Death Receptor Ligand-1 Positivity: Analysis of Cost-effectiveness

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.

Cemiplimab combined with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: an updated EMPOWER-Lung 3 trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis

Objective

Cemiplimab combined with chemotherapy has emerged as a promising treatment option for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Accordingly, this study has been conducted to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of this combination therapy in comparison to chemotherapy alone from the perspective of the United States healthcare system.

Methods

The present study is based on a partitioned survival model developed from clinical data obtained during the 2-year follow-up of the phase III EMPOWER-Lung 3 part 2 trial. The purpose of this investigation is to estimate the 10-year life expectancy and total healthcare costs of patients with advanced NSCLC by leveraging primary outcomes that evaluated costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).To establish the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold for the analysis, a value of $150,000/QALY was adopted. Sensitivity analysis was performed to determine the impact of varying levels of uncertainty on the results of this study.

Results

When compared to chemotherapy alone, the addition of cemiplimab to chemotherapy has been demonstrated to result in an incremental gain of 1.593 QALY at an additional cost of $109351.298. This equates to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $68644.883/QALY. One-way sensitivity analyses were conducted on the model, which acknowledged the influence of several parameters, such as subsequent costs, the utility of progressive disease, the cost of best supportive care, the cost of cemiplimab per mg, and the utility of progression-free survival on the outcomes. Nonetheless, none of these parameters yielded an ICER lower than the WTP threshold.

Conclusions

From the perspective of the United States healthcare system, the utilization of cemiplimab in combination with chemotherapy as a first-line treatment option for NSCLC appears to be a cost-effective approach as compared to using chemotherapy as a standalone therapy.

Duration of Immunotherapy in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Survivors: A Lifelong Commitment?

Lung cancer is one of the most common human malignancies and the leading cause of cancer-related death worldwide. Novel therapeutic approaches, like targeted therapies against specific molecular alterations and immunotherapy, have revolutionized in the last decade the oncological outcomes in patients affected by non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The advent of immunotherapy for the treatment of NSCLC has significantly improved overall and progression-free survival, as well as the patient's quality of life in comparison to traditional chemotherapy. Currently, it is estimated that long-term survival can be achieved in more than 15% of NSCLC patients treated with immunotherapy. Therefore, the optimal duration of immunotherapy in long survivors needs to be established to avoid overtreatment, side effects, and high costs and at the same time, protect them from potential disease relapse or progression. We performed a narrative review to discuss all the aspects related to the optimal duration of immunotherapy in long survivors with NSCLC. Data regarding the duration of immunotherapy in the most impacting clinical trials were collected, along with data regarding the impact of toxicities, side effects, and costs for healthcare providers. In addition, the two-year immunotherapy scheme in patients who benefit from first-line or subsequent treatment lines are examined, and the need for biomarkers that can predict outcomes during and after immunotherapy cessation in patients affected by NSCLC are discussed.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of sugemalimab vs. chemotherapy as first-line treatment of metastatic nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer

Objective: Sugemalimab is approved in China as a first-line treatment in combination with chemotherapy for metastatic nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of first-line additional sugemalimab in combination with chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Materials and methods: A three-state Markov model was designed to evaluate the costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of first-line sugemalimab combination with chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy over a 10-year period. Data on clinical outcomes were obtained from GEMSTONE-302 clinical trials. Costs and health utilities were collected from local databases and published literature. The uncertainty of the model parameters was explored through sensitivity analysis. Results: Compared to chemotherapy, sugemalimab treatment for NSCLC resulted in an extra 0.50 QALYs at an additional cost of $73627.99, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 148354.07/QALY at the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $37663.26/QALY. One-way sensitivity analysis indicated that the primary motivator in this model was the cost of sugemalimab. However, none of the parameters significantly affected the model's results. Conclusion: Sugemalimab combination therapy is not economically advantageous for the first-line management of metastatic non-squamous NSCLC, according to the Chinese healthcare system.