A trial-based assessment of the cost-utility of bevacizumab and chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for advanced non-small cell lung cancer

Adverse Event Costs and Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Anticancer Drugs: A Systematic Review

Importance

Accurately quantifying adverse event (AE) costs is essential for cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) of anticancer drugs. Misestimates in AE costs may significantly affect cost-effectiveness conclusions.

Objective

To assess whether AE cost quantification in anticancer drug CEAs accurately reflects the true cost of AEs and to evaluate whether replacing AE costs with actual values affects cost-effectiveness conclusions.

Evidence Review

A systematic search of PubMed, Web of Science, and Tufts CEA databases was conducted from October 24 to December 1, 2023, with an additional search from November 4 to 10, 2024, for English-language CEAs and claims-based studies examining AE costs for anticancer drugs published between January 2003 and December 2023. Claims-based AE costs were considered to represent actual values. AE costs were compared in absolute terms and as a proportion of total medical costs. Impact of replacing CEA AE cost estimates with actual values for incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) was examined at thresholds of $100 000 and $150 000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). AE cost differences between CEA estimates and actual values and their impact on ICERs were the main outcomes.

Findings

The sample included 11 claims-based US studies with 34 022 patients and 102 US payer-perspective CEAs. AE cost estimates in CEAs were consistently lower than actual values, with a median difference of 9.73% (IQR, 5.15%-27.22%; P = .002) in proportion of total medical costs and of $17 201 (IQR, $13 365-$48 970; P = .03) in absolute costs. Adjusting AE costs led to an ICER change of $42 656 per QALY, altering cost-effectiveness conclusions in 8 of 17 cases (47.1%). Among the 102 CEAs, 41 (40.2%) did not report AE types; of the remaining 61 (59.8%), 48 (78.7%) focused on treatment-related AEs instead of all-cause AEs. Of all CEAs, 79 (77.5%) considered grade 3 or higher AEs, ignoring grades 1 and 2. Only 13 studies (12.7%) accounted for AE-related dose reductions or interruptions, 87 (85.3%) did not consider postprogression AE costs, and 77 (82.8%) assumed AEs occurred only in the first treatment cycle. Substantial variability was observed in both drug AE and unit AE costs across studies.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this systematic review of AE costs in oncology CEAs, AE costs were frequently underestimated, potentially altering cost-effectiveness conclusions. Key problems included incomplete AE inclusion, inaccurate AE cost estimates, overlooked long-term AEs, and unaccounted dose modifications. Best practices and standardized guidelines should be established to improve AE cost quantification in oncology CEAs.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of tislelizumab plus chemotherapy versus standard chemotherapy in first-line treatment for extensive-stage small cell lung cancer: perspectives from the United States and China

BACKGROUND

Tislelizumab combined with chemotherapy has shown significant clinical benefits in improving overall survival compared to chemotherapy alone for patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC).

AIM

This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of tislelizumab plus chemotherapy versus standard chemotherapy as a first-line treatment for ES-SCLC from the US payer perspective and the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system.

METHOD

We conducted an economic evaluation using a Markov state-transition model, reflecting the US payer perspective and the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Baseline patient characteristics and essential clinical data were obtained from the RATIONALE-312 trial. The costs and utilities were derived from open-access databases and published literature. The primary outcomes measured included quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), incremental net health benefit (INHB), and incremental net monetary benefit (INMB). Uncertainties in the model were addressed by probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) and one-way sensitivity analysis (OWSA).

RESULTS

In the base-case analysis, the addition of tislelizumab to chemotherapy provided an incremental gain of 0.16 QALYs at an additional cost of $7430.73, resulting in an ICER of $46,132.33 per QALY. Although above the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of China of $38,042.49 per QALY, the cost-effectiveness was marginal, with an INHB of - 0.03 QALYs and an INMB of $- 1303.06. In the US, despite a slightly higher effectiveness gain of 0.28 QALYs, the increased cost of $45,157.35 resulted in an unfavorable ICER of $163,885.06 per QALY, exceeding the US WTP threshold of $150,000.00. PSA showed probabilities of cost-effectiveness of tislelizumab plus chemotherapy at 17.18% in China and 40.41% in the US.

CONCLUSION

Tislelizumab combined with chemotherapy was not a cost-effective first-line treatment option for ES-SCLC in China or the US; however, the margin of cost-effectiveness was narrow.

Long-term progression-free survival in non-small cell lung cancer patients: a spotlight on bevacizumab and its biosimilars

INTRODUCTION

In the era of immunotherapy, bevacizumab seems to be losing its place in NSCLC treatment algorithms. The aim of this work is to try to define the advantages and disadvantages of NSCLC treatment with bevacizumab in combination regimens.

AREAS COVERED

We conducted a literature search in PubMed and Google Scholar to review the most important topics regarding bevacizumab treatment in NSCLC, with or without driver mutations, including trials with checkpoint inhibitors. Special emphasis was placed on the analysis of data on the treatment of patients with CNS metastases.

EXPERT OPINION

Bevacizumab is an antiangiogenic compound whose addition to chemotherapy made the first major breakthrough in the treatment of NSCLC. However, for the last 10 years or so, the use of combination immunotherapy regimens has suppressed the use and acquisition of new knowledge about bevacizumab. Newer data are primarily related to the treatment of EGFR-positive NSCLC patients with bevacizumab, with only a few larger studies investigating the use of a combination of bevacizumab and checkpoint inhibitors. The basic task remains to define the place of bevacizumab in treatment algorithms.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of osimertinib plus chemotherapy for patients with EGFR-mutated advanced non-small cell lung cancer

INTRODUCTION

First-line osimertinib plus chemotherapy significantly prolonged progression-free survival of patients with EGFR-mutated advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) compared to osimertinib, according to the FLAURA2 trial.

METHODS

We established a Markov model to compare the cost-effectiveness of osimertinib plus chemotherapy with that of osimertinib alone. Clinical data were obtained from the FLAURA and FLAURA2 trials, and additional data were extracted from online resources and publications. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate the robustness of the findings. We used A willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained. The main outcomes were QALYs, overall costs, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), incremental net monetary benefit, and incremental net health benefit. Subgroup analyses were conducted according to patients' mutation type and central nervous system (CNS) metastatic status.

RESULTS

In a 20-year time horizon, the ICER of osimertinib plus chemotherapy versus osimertinib alone was $223,727.1 per QALY gained. The sensitivity analyses identified the cost of osimertinib and the hazard ratio for overall survival as the top 2 influential factors and a 1.9% probability of osimertinib plus chemotherapy to be cost-effective. The subgroup analyses revealed ICERs of $132,614.1, $224,449.8, $201,464.1, and $130,159.7 per QALY gained for L858R mutations, exon 19 deletions, CNS metastases, and no CNS metastases subgroups, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

From the perspective of the United States health care system, osimertinib plus chemotherapy is not cost-effective compared to osimertinib alone for treatment-naïve patients with EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC, but more favorable cost-effectiveness occurs in patients with L858R mutations and patients without baseline CNS metastases.

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.

First-line tremelimumab plus durvalumab and chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for metastatic non-small cell lung cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis in the United States

Importance: In the open-label phase III POSEIDON randomized clinical trial (RCT), a limited course of tremelimumab plus durvalumab and chemotherapy (T + D + CT) indicated in the first-line treatment of metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC), progression-free survival, and overall survival (OS) were substantially improved without significant additional tolerance burden compared to chemotherapy (CT). However, given the high cost of T + D + CT, its value needs to be evaluated in terms of both potency and cost. Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of T + D + CT versus CT in individuals with previously untreated mNSCLC from a U.S. payer perspective. Design, setting, and participants: A three-state Markov model was adopted to weigh the lifetime costs and effectiveness of T + D + CT versus CT for the treatment of first-line mNSCLC, according to the results of the POSEIDON phase III RCT involving 675 individuals with mNSCLC. Individuals were simulated to undergo either T + D + CT for up to four 21-day cycles, followed by durvalumab once every 4 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxic effects and one additional tremelimumab dose, or CT for up to six 21-day cycles (with or without pemetrexed maintenance; all groups) in the analysis. Main outcomes and measures: Lifetime costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were evaluated with a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $ 100,000 to $ 150,000 per QALY. The uncertainty of the model was investigated using univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Results: T + D + CT produced additional 0.36 QALYs with additional costs of $ 217,694, compared to CT, giving rise to ICERs of $ 608,667.86/QALY. The univariate sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the outcomes were most sensitive to the cost of durvalumab. Other variables with a large or moderate influence were the utility of progression-free survival state, utility of progressive disease state, and cost of tremelimumab. Probability sensitivity analysis revealed that T + D + CT had a 0% probability of cost-effectiveness in individuals with mNSCLC at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $ 100,000 to $ 150,000 per QALY. Conclusion and relevance: In this model, T + D + CT was estimated to be less cost-effective than CT for patients with mNSCLC at a WTP threshold of $ 100,000 to $ 150,000 per QALY in the United States. When new combination therapies with remarkable effect become pivotal in the first-line treatment, the price reduction of durvalumab and tremelimumab may be necessary to achieve cost-effectiveness in future possible context.

Cost-effectiveness of sacituzumab govitecan versus chemotherapy in patients with relapsed or refractory metastatic triple-negative breast cancer

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness of sacituzumab govitecan for metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) has been reported in recent research, however, the value of the effectiveness and cost of sacituzumab govitecan is still unclear.

METHODS

A microsimulation model was developed using data from the ASCENT trial to assess the cost-effectiveness of sacituzumab govitecan for patients with relapsed or refractory metastatic TNBC over a lifetime. Model inputs, including clinical data, patient characteristics, and direct medical costs, were based on the ASCENT trial, public databases, and published literature. The primary outcomes of the model were the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) and multiple scenario analyses were performed to address the uncertainty of the model.

RESULTS

Our results revealed that sacituzumab govitecan versus chemotherapy costs $293,037 and yielded an additional 0.2340 of QALYs in the whole population with metastatic TNBC, leading to an ICER of $1,252,295 gained. And in the population with metastatic TNBC without brain metastasis, the sacituzumab govitecan versus chemotherapy costs $309,949 and obtained an extra 0.2633 of QALYs, which resulted in an ICER of $1,177,171/QALYs. Univariate analyses indicated that the model outcomes were most sensitive to the drug cost of sacituzumab govitecan, the utility of progression-free disease, and the utility of progressed disease.

CONCLUSION

From the US payer perspective, sacituzumab govitecan is unlikely to be a cost-effective option for patients with relapsed or refractory metastatic TNBC compared with chemotherapy. Based on the value standpoint, a price decrease of sacituzumab govitecan is expected to increase the cost-effectiveness of sacituzumab govitecan in patients with metastatic TNBC.

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.

Toripalimab plus chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: A cost-effectiveness analysis

Background: The potency and safety of toripalimab combination with chemotherapy (TC) as the first-line therapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have been demonstrated in the CHOICE-01 study. Our research explored whether TC was cost-effective compared to chemotherapy alone from the Chinese payer perspective. Materials and methods: Clinical parameters were obtained from a randomized, multicenter, registrational, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase III trial. Standard fee databases and previously published literature were used to determine costs and utilities. A Markov model with three mutually exclusive health statuses (progression-free survival (PFS), disease progression, and death) was used to predict the disease course. The costs and utilities were discounted at 5% per annum. The main endpoints of the model included cost, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to investigate the uncertainty. Subgroup analyses were performed to verify the cost-effectiveness of TC in patients with squamous and non-squamous cancer. Results: TC combination therapy yielded an incremental 0.54 QALYs with an incremental cost of $11,777, compared to chemotherapy, giving rise to ICERs of $21,811.76/QALY. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed that TC was not favorable at 1 time GDP per capita. With a prespecified willingness-to-pay threshold (WTP) of three times the GDP per capita, combined treatment had a 100% probability of being cost-effective and had substantial cost-effectiveness in advanced NSCLC. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed that TC was more likely to be accepted with a WTP threshold higher than $22,195 in NSCLC. Univariate sensitivity analysis showed that the utility of PFS state, crossover proportions of the chemotherapy arm, cost per cycle of pemetrexed treatment, and discount rate were the dominant influencing factors. Subgroup analyses found that in patients with squamous NSCLC, the ICER was $14,966.09/QALY. In the non-squamous NSCLC, ICER raised to $23,836.27/QALY. ICERs were sensitive to the variance of the PFS state utility. TC was more likely to be accepted when WTP increases exceeded $14,908 in the squamous NSCLC subgroup and $23,409 in the non-squamous NSCLC subgroup. Conclusion: From the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system, TC may be cost-effective in individuals with previously untreated advanced NSCLC at the prespecified WTP threshold compared to chemotherapy, and more significant in individuals with squamous NSCLC, which will provide evidence for clinicians to make the best decisions in general clinical practice.

Role of antiangiogenic agents in first-line treatment for advanced NSCLC in the era of immunotherapy

BACKGROUND & OBJECTIVE

"Anti-angiogenetic drugs plus chemotherapy" (anti-angio-chemo) and "immune checkpoint inhibitors plus chemotherapy" (ICI-chemo) are superior to traditional chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, in the absence of a direct comparison of ICI-chemo with anti-angio-chemo, the superior one between them has not been decided, and the benefit of adding anti-angiogenetic agents to ICI-chemo remains controversial. This study aimed to investigate the role of antiangiogenic agents for advanced NSCLC in the era of immunotherapy.

METHODS

Eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing chemotherapy versus therapeutic regimens involving ICIs or anti-angiogenetic drugs were included. Outcomes included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), and rate of grade 3-4 toxicity assessment. R-4.3.1 was utilized to perform the analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 54 studies with a sample size of 25,046 were finally enrolled. "Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab + Chemotherapy" significantly improved the ORR compared with "Atezolizumab + Chemotherapy" (Odds ratio (OR) = 2.73, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.27-5.87). The trend also favored "Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab + Chemotherapy" in PFS and OS (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.39-1.31; HR = 0.94, 95% CI: 0.77-1.16, respectively). In addition, "Pembrolizumab + Chemotherapy" and "Camrelizumab + Chemotherapy" significantly prolonged the PFS compared to "Bevacizumab + Chemotherapy" (HR = 0.65, 95% CI: 0.46-0.92; HR = 0.63, 95% CI: 0.41-0.97; respectively). Meanwhile, "Pembrolizumab + Chemotherapy" and "Sintilimab + Chemotherapy" yielded more OS benefits than "Bevacizumab + Chemotherapy" (HR = 0.69, 95% CI: 0.56-0.83; HR = 0.64, 95%CI: 0.46-0.91; respectively). Scheme between "Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab + Chemotherapy" and "Atezolizumab + Chemotherapy" made no significant difference (OR = 1.18, 95%CI: 0.56-2.42) concerning the rate of grade 3-4 toxicity. It seemed that ICI-chemo yielded more improvement in quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) than "Bevacizumab + Chemotherapy" in cost-effectiveness analysis.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that ICI-chemo is associated with potentially longer survival, better cost-effectiveness outcomes, and comparable safety profiles than anti-angio-chemo. Also, adding bevacizumab to ICI-chemo seemed to provide additional therapeutic benefits without adding treatment burden. Our findings would supplement the current standard of care and help the design of future clinical trials for the first-line treatment of patients with advanced NSCLC.

Cost-effectiveness of immune checkpoint inhibition and targeted treatment in combination as adjuvant treatment of patient with BRAF-mutant advanced melanoma

BACKGROUND

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and targeted treatments have improved the health outcomes of patients with advanced melanoma. However, due to the high cost of novel therapies, it is crucial to evaluate their value by considering both effectiveness and cost. To compare the cost-effectiveness of these novel agents (atezolizumab-vemurafenib-cobimetinib, vemurafenib-plus-cobimetinib, dabrafenib-plus-trametinib, and encorafenib-plus-binimetinib) for first-line treatment of metastatic melanoma with the BRAF^V600 mutation.

METHODS

A patient-level model was developed to project the health outcomes of 4 strategies for patients with advanced melanoma. We estimated transition probabilities from the IMspire150 (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02908672), COMBI-AD (NCT01682083), and COLUMBUS (NCT01909453) trials using a parametric survival model. All health outcomes, including direct cost, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), were estimated from the US payer perspective. Lifetime cost, QALYs, life-years (LYs), and ICERs were calculated. Univariable and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to test model robustness, along with multiple scenario analyses.

RESULTS

Of the 4 competing strategies, atezolizumab-vemurafenib-cobimetinib produced the best health outcomes, and the vemurafenib-cobimetinib strategy was the least expensive option. Atezolizumab-vemurafenib-cobimetinib, dabrafenib-plus-trametinib, and vemurafenib-cobimetinib formed the cost-effective frontier, indicating that the ordered ICERs were $325,113/QALYs for dabrafenib-plus-trametinib vs. vemurafenib-cobimetinib strategies and $2,247,500/QALYs for atezolizumab-vemurafenib-cobimetinib vs. dabrafenib-plus-trametinib strategies. Encorafenib-plus-binimetinib was dominated by the other 3 competing strategies. The drug price and first-line utility significantly influenced the model utcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

For BRAF-mutant advanced melanoma, the vemurafenib-cobimetinib strategy could be considered the most cost-effective treatment at the willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000.

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.

Osimertinib versus platinum-pemetrexed in patients with previously treated EGFR T790M advanced non-small cell lung cancer: An updated AURA3 trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis

Background

A recently overall survival (OS) analysis from the AURA3 trial indicated that osimertinib improves median OS versus platinum-pemetrexed for patients with previously treated epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) T790M advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Here, we assessed the cost-effectiveness of second-line osimertinib versus platinum-pemetrexed, from the perspectives of the United States payer and the Chinese health care system.

Methods

A Markov model was constructed to compare the costs and health outcomes of osimertinib versus platinum-pemetrexed in second-line treatment of EGFR T790M advanced NSCLC. Life years (LYs), quality adjusted life years (QALYs), costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses assessed the robustness of the model. Cost-effectiveness was examined in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population and central nervous system (CNS) metastases population.

Results

In the United States, compared with platinum-pemetrexed, osimertinib yielded additional effectiveness of 0.43 QALYs and -0.12 QALYs, with incremental costs of $67,588 and $16,465 in the ITT population and CNS metastases population, respectively. The ICERs of osimertinib over platinum-pemetrexed were $159,126/QALY and $-130,830/QALY, respectively. The probability of osimertinib being cost-effective was 37% and 5.76%, respectively, at the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000/QALY. In China, osimertinib showed incremental effectiveness of 0.34 QALYs and -0.14 QALYs, with incremental costs of $1,663 and $-505, resulting in ICERs of $4,950/QALY and $3,754/QALY in the ITT population and CNS metastases population, respectively. At the WTP threshold of $37,489/QALY, there was a 100% and 26% likelihood that osimertinib was cost-effective in the ITT population and CNS metastases population.

Conclusion

In the United States, second-line osimertinib treatment for EGFR T790M advanced NSCLC is not cost-effective compared to platinum-pemetrexed under the current WTP threshold. When the osimertinib price reduces, the economic outcome may become favorable. In China, assuming a WTP threshold of $37,489/QALY, osimertinib is the dominant treatment strategy compared with platinum-pemetrexed in the ITT population and provides cost savings for CNS metastases patients.

Candidate Bevacizumab Biosimilar CT-P16 versus European Union Reference Bevacizumab in Patients with Metastatic or Recurrent Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

CT-P16 is a candidate bevacizumab biosimilar.

OBJECTIVE

This double-blind, multicenter, parallel-group, phase III study aimed to establish equivalent efficacy between CT-P16 and European Union-approved reference bevacizumab (EU-bevacizumab) in patients with metastatic or recurrent non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (nsNSCLC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with stage IV or recurrent nsNSCLC were randomized (1:1) to receive CT-P16 or EU-bevacizumab (15 mg/kg every 3 weeks; ≤ 6 cycles) with paclitaxel (200 mg/m²) and carboplatin (area under the curve 6.0; both for 4-6 cycles), as induction therapy. Patients with controlled disease after induction therapy continued with CT-P16 or EU-bevacizumab maintenance therapy. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) during the induction period. Time-to-event analyses, pharmacokinetics, safety, and immunogenicity were also evaluated. Results obtained after 1 year of follow-up are presented.

RESULTS

Overall, 689 patients were randomized (CT-P16, N = 342; EU-bevacizumab, N = 347). ORR was 42.40% (95% confidence interval [CI] 37.16-47.64) and 42.07% (95% CI 36.88-47.27) for CT-P16 and EU-bevacizumab, respectively. The risk difference (0.40 [95% CI - 7.02 to 7.83]) and risk ratio (1.0136 [90% CI 0.8767-1.1719]) for ORR fell within predefined equivalence margins (- 12.5 to + 12.5%, and 0.7368 to 1.3572, respectively), demonstrating equivalence between CT-P16 and EU-bevacizumab. Median response duration, time to progression, progression-free survival, and overall survival were comparable between treatment groups. Safety profiles were similar: 96.2% (CT-P16) and 93.0% (EU-bevacizumab) of patients experienced treatment-emergent adverse events. Pharmacokinetics and immunogenicity were comparable between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Equivalent efficacy and similar pharmacokinetics, safety, and immunogenicity support bioequivalence of CT-P16 and EU-bevacizumab in patients with nsNSCLC.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03676192.

First-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab or chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for advanced esophageal cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab plus chemotherapy (NC) or ipilimumab versus chemotherapy as a first-line treatment for advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) in the United States and China.

METHODS

A partitioned survival model was constructed from the perspective of the US third-party payers and Chinese healthcare system. Health states and transition probabilities were modeled based on the survival data from the CheckMate-648 clinical trial (NCT03143153). The time horizon for the model was 10 years. Only direct medical costs were considered. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the results.

RESULTS

In the United States, nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NI) led to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $155,159.82/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and $104,297.07/QALY gained in the overall population and in patients with tumor cell programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression of ⩾1% (subgroup), respectively. The ICER for the subgroup was between the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold values of $100,000/QALY and $150,000/QALY, and the other case was higher than $150,000/QALY. NC led to an ICER of $518,062.85/QALY and $193,169.49/QALY gained in the overall population and the subgroup, respectively. Both ICERs were significantly higher than the WTP threshold of $150,000/QALY. In China, the ICERs for patients treated with the addition of nivolumab were >$90,000/QALY in all cases, significantly exceeding the WTP threshold of $37,654/QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

NI is more cost-effective than NC or chemotherapy alone for treating advanced ESCC with PD-L1 expression ⩾1% in the United States. Chemotherapy alone is the only cost-effective option in China.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of camrelizumab plus chemotherapy as first-line treatment for advanced squamous NSCLC in China

Objective

Results of CameL-sq has revealed the clinical benefits to patients with advanced squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (sq-NSCLC). This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of camrelizumab plus chemotherapy to treat sq-NSCLC from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system.

Methods

We used a partitioned survival model with a lifetime horizon to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of camrelizumab plus chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy in treating sq-NSCLC. Baseline characteristics of patients and key clinical data were extracted from CameL-sq. Costs and utilities were collected from the open-access database and published literature. Costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), life-years gained, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were chosen as economic outcome indicators. We also performed a sensitivity analysis, subgroup analysis, and scenario analysis to verify the stability of the basic analysis results and explore the results under different scenarios.

Results

Combination therapy added 0.47 QALYS and 0.91 life-years with an incremental cost of $6,347.81 compared with chemotherapy, which had an ICER of $13,572 per QALY. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that camrelizumab plus chemotherapy had a 37.8% probability of cost-effectiveness at a willingness-to-pay threshold (WTP) of 1 time GDP per capital. When WTP was set as 3 times GDP per capital, combination therapy had significant cost-effectiveness. Deterministic sensitivity analysis showed that cost of the best supportive care was the factor with the greatest influence. The subgroup analysis found that combination therapy was associated with cost-effectiveness in several subgroups, namely, patients with disease stage IIIB/IIIC and with PD-L1 tumor proportion score ≤ 1%. Scenario analysis showed that ICER was positively correlated with the price of camrelizumab.

Conclusion

In this economic evaluation, camrelizumab plus chemotherapy was unlikely to be cost-effective compared with chemotherapy in the first line therapy of sq-NSCLC from a perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Reducing the price of camrelizumab and tailoring treatments based on individual patient factors might improve the cost-effectiveness. Our findings may provide evidence for clinicians in making optimal decisions in general clinical practice.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy as the first-line treatment for unresectable malignant pleural mesothelioma

Introduction:

This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NI) versus pemetrexed plus cisplatin/carboplatin (C) as the first-line treatment for unresectable malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) from the perspective of US payers.

Methods:

A 10-year partitioned survival model was constructed using survival and safety data from the CheckMate 743 clinical trial. The output metrics of the model included the patient’s lifetime quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), lifetime costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Only direct medical costs were considered. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the results.

Results:

Among all randomized patients, group NI had an ICER of $475,677/QALY relative to group C. Among patients with epithelioid histology, group NI had an ICER of $760,955/QALY. Among patients with non-epithelioid histology, group NI had an ICER of $418,348/QALY. The ICERs of all three populations exceeded the willingness-to-pay threshold ($150,000). The results of one-way sensitivity analysis revealed that the cost of nivolumab had a great influence on the results. The results of probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the possibility of NI being more economical in all randomized patients and in patients with non-epidemiology histology was 0. In patients with epithelioid histology, the probability that NI had an economic advantage was 0.6%.

Conclusions:

From the perspective of US payers, in patients with unresectable MPM, NI has no economic advantage over C.

CDX2 Biomarker Testing and Adjuvant Therapy for Stage II Colon Cancer: An Exploratory Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

OBJECTIVES

Adjuvant chemotherapy is not recommended for patients with average-risk stage II (T3N0) colon cancer. Nevertheless, a subgroup of these patients who are CDX2-negative might benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of testing for the absence of CDX2 expression followed by adjuvant chemotherapy (fluorouracil combined with oxaliplatin [FOLFOX]) for patients with stage II colon cancer.

METHODS

We developed a decision model to simulate a hypothetical cohort of 65-year-old patients with average-risk stage II colon cancer with 7.2% of these patients being CDX2-negative under 2 different interventions: (1) test for the absence of CDX2 expression followed by adjuvant chemotherapy for CDX2-negative patients and (2) no CDX2 testing and no adjuvant chemotherapy for any patient. We derived disease progression parameters, adjuvant chemotherapy effectiveness and utilities from published analyses, and cancer care costs from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare data. Sensitivity analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

Testing for CDX2 followed by FOLFOX for CDX2-negative patients had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $5500/quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) compared with no CDX2 testing and no FOLFOX (6.874 vs 6.838 discounted QALYs and $89 991 vs $89 797 discounted US dollar lifetime costs). In sensitivity analyses, considering a cost-effectiveness threshold of $100 000/QALY, testing for CDX2 followed by FOLFOX on CDX2-negative patients remains cost-effective for hazard ratios of <0.975 of the effectiveness of FOLFOX in CDX2-negative patients in reducing the rate of developing a metastatic recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

Testing tumors of patients with stage II colon cancer for CDX2 and administration of adjuvant treatment to the subgroup found CDX2-negative is a cost-effective and high-value management strategy across a broad range of plausible assumptions.

Cost-Effectiveness of Nivolumab Plus Cabozantinib Versus Sunitinib as a First-Line Treatment for Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma in the United States

Background: In a recent randomized, phase 3 trial (CheckMate 9ER), nivolumab combined with cabozantinib significantly improved patient outcomes compared with sunitinib. However, the cost-effectiveness of these novel agents for untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) remains unknown.

Materials and Methods: We constructed a microsimulation decision-analytic model to measure the healthcare costs and outcomes of nivolumab plus cabozantinib compared with those of sunitinib for patients with aRCC. The transition probability of patients was calculated from CheckMate 9ER using parametric survival modeling. Lifetime direct medical costs, life years (LYs), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated for nivolumab-plus-cabozantinib treatment compared with sunitinib from a US payer perspective. We conducted one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses and a series of scenario analyses to evaluate model uncertainty.

Results: Nivolumab plus cabozantinib was associated with an improvement of 0.59 LYs and 0.56 QALYs compared with sunitinib. However, incorporating nivolumab plus cabozantinib into first-line treatment was associated with significantly higher lifetime costs ($483,352.70 vs. $198,320.10), causing the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for nivolumab plus cabozantinib to be $508,987/QALY. The patients’ age of treatment, first-line utility, and cost of nivolumab had the greatest influence on the model. The outcomes were robust when tested in sensitivity and scenario analyses.

Conclusion: For aRCC, substituting nivolumab plus cabozantinib in the first-line setting is unlikely to be cost-effective under the current willingness-to-pay threshold ($150,000/QALY). Significant price decreases for nivolumab used in first-line therapy would be needed to drop ICERs to a more diffusely acceptable value.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Fourth- or Further-Line Ripretinib in Advanced Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors

Background

The INVICTUS trial assessed the efficacy and safety of ripretinib compared with placebo in the management of advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumors.

Method

We used a Markov model with three health states: progression-free disease, progression disease and death. We parameterized the model from time-to-event data (progression-free survival, overall survival) of ripretinib and placebo arms in the INVICTUS trial and extrapolated to a patient’s lifetime horizon. Estimates of health state utilities and costs were based on clinical trial data and the published literature. The outcomes of this model were measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Uncertainty was tested via univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

Results

The base-case model projected improved outcomes (by 0.29 QALYs) and additional costs (by $70,251) and yielded an ICER of $244,010/QALY gained for ripretinib versus placebo. The results were most sensitive to progression rates, the price of ripretinib, and health state utilities. The ICER was most sensitive to overall survival. When overall survival in the placebo group was lower, the ICER dropped to $127,399/QALY. The ICER dropped to $150,000/QALY when the monthly cost of ripretinib decreased to $14,057. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses revealed that ripretinib was the cost-effective therapy in 41.1% of simulations at the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000.

Conclusion

As the fourth- or further-line therapy in advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumors, ripretinib is not cost-effective in the US. Ripretinib would achieve its cost-effectiveness with a price discount of 56% given the present effectiveness.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of First-Line Nivolumab Plus Cabozantinib for Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma in the United States

INTRODUCTION

Nivolumab plus cabozantinib improved progression-free survival and overall survival compared with sunitinib in the first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) according to CheckMate 9ER study.

METHODS

A Markov model was developed to compare the costs and effectiveness of nivolumab plus cabozantinib with those of sunitinib in the first-line treatment of advanced RCC. Primary outcomes were costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Model uncertainty was assessed in univariable and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

The total cost per patient was $681,425 for nivolumab plus cabozantinib and $256,302 for sunitinib. The incremental QALY for nivolumab plus cabozantinib was 0.49 compared with sunitinib. The ICER for nivolumab plus cabozantinib was $863,720 per QALY gained versus sunitinib. The results remained robust in univariable and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

On the basis of a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000, nivolumab plus cabozantinib was not cost-effective under current drug pricing in the first-line treatment of advanced RCC from a US payer's perspective.

Atezolizumab compared to chemotherapy for first-line treatment in non-small cell lung cancer with high PD-L1 expression: a cost-effectiveness analysis from US and Chinese perspectives

Background

The IMpower110 trial revealed that atezolizumab treatment had significantly longer overall survival (OS) than chemotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with high-programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression. The purpose of the present study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab versus platinum-based chemotherapy for first-line treatment in metastatic NSCLC with high PD-L1 expression, from the perspective of US and Chinese payers.

Methods

A partitioned survival model was constructed based on information from the IMpower110 clinical trial to estimate cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab versus chemotherapy as first-line treatment of metastatic NSCLC. Costs were estimated from US and Chinese payer perspectives. The impact of uncertainty was explored by performing one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

Results

In the United States, treatment with atezolizumab was estimated to increase 0.87 quality adjusted life years (QALYs) at a cost of $123,424/QALY. In China, the use of atezolizumab cost an additional $68,489 compared with chemotherapy, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $78,936/QALY. Sensitivity analysis indicated that the cost of atezolizumab was the most influential factor in both countries.

Conclusions

In the United States, which had a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $100,000 to $150,000 per QALY, atezolizumab was a cost-effective strategy for first-line treatment in metastatic NSCLC patients with high PD-L1 expression when compared to chemotherapy. For China, with a WTP threshold of $33,210 per QALY, atezolizumab was not considered good-value treatment for NSCLC, and a price reduction of 52% appeared to be justified.

Cost-Effectiveness of Frontline Treatment for Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma in the Era of Immunotherapies

Background: Recent randomized controlled trials have demonstrated that immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) improve patient outcomes, but whether these novel agents are cost-effective for untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) remains unclear.

Materials and Methods: A microsimulation model was created to project the healthcare costs and outcomes of six strategies (lenvatinib-plus-pembrolizumab, nivolumab-plus-cabozantinib, nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab, pembrolizumab-plus-axitinib, avelumab-plus-axitinib, and sunitinib monotherapy) for patients with aRCC. Transition probability of patients was estimated from CLEAR, CheckMate 9ER, CheckMate 214, KEYNOTE-426, JAVELIN Renal 101, and other data sets by using parametric survival modeling. Lifetime direct medical costs, life years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated from a United States payer perspective. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed, along with multiple scenario analyses, to evaluate model uncertainty.

Results: Of the six competing strategies, nivolumab-plus-cabozantinib yielded the most significant health outcomes, and the sunitinib strategy was the least expensive option. The cost-effective frontier consisted of the nivolumab-plus-cabozantinib, pembrolizumab-plus-axitinib, and sunitinib strategies, which displayed the ordered ICERs of $81282/QALY for pembrolizumab-plus-axitinib vs sunitinib and $453391/QALY for nivolumab-plus-cabozantinib vs pembrolizumab-plus-axitinib. The rest of the strategies, such as lenvatinib-plus-pembrolizumab, nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab, and avelumab-plus-axitinib, were dominated. The cost of sunitinib drove the model most influentially.

Conclusions: For aRCC, the pembrolizumab-plus-axitinib strategy is likely to be the most cost-effective alternative at the willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000.

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.

Bevacizumab biosimilar LY01008 compared with bevacizumab (Avastin) as first-line treatment for Chinese patients with unresectable, metastatic, or recurrent non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer: A multicenter, randomized, double-blinded, phase III trial

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have demonstrated the preclinical pharmacological and toxicological consistency, and clinical pharmacokinetic equivalence of bevacizumab biosimilar LY01008 with reference bevacizumab (Avastin). This randomized controlled trial aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of LY01008 with Avastin in first-line treatment of Chinese patients with advanced or recurrent non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

METHODS

Stage IIIB-IV NSCLC patients with evaluable lesions, good physical status, and adequate organ functions from 67 centers across China were randomized in a ratio of 1:1 to receive LY01008 or Avastin 15 mg/kg intravenously in combination with paclitaxel/carboplatin (combined treatment) for 4-6 cycles, followed by maintenance monotherapy with LY01008 until disease progression, intolerable toxicity, or death. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) in accordance with Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1 confirmed by independent radiological review committees (IRRC). Secondary endpoints included disease control rate (DCR), duration of response (DoR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety. This study was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03533127).

RESULTS

Between December 15th , 2017, and May 15th , 2019, a total of 649 patients were randomized to the LY01008 (n = 324) or Avastin (n = 325) group. As of September 25th , 2019 for primary endpoint analysis, 589 patients received ORR evaluation, with a median number of combined treatment cycles of 5 (range 1-6) and median duration of treatment of 3.0 (range 0.0-5.1) months. ORR of response-evaluable patients in the LY01008 and Avastin groups were 48.5% and 53.0%, respectively. The stratified ORR ratio was 0.91 (90% CI 0.80-1.04, within the prespecified equivalence margin of 0.75-1.33). Up to May 15th , 2020, with a median follow-up of 13.6 (range 0.8-28.4) months, no notable differences in DCR, median DoR, median PFS, median OS, and 1-year OS rate were observed between the LY01008 and Avastin groups. There were no clinically meaningful differences in safety and immunogenicity across treatment groups.

CONCLUSIONS

LY01008 demonstrated similarity to Avastin in terms of efficacy and safety in Chinese patients with advanced or recurrent non-squamous NSCLC. LY01008 combined with paclitaxel/carboplatin is expected to become a new treatment option for unresectable, metastatic, or recurrent non-squamous NSCLC patients in the first-line setting.

The cost of chemotherapy administration: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Cancer treatment is a significant driver of healthcare costs worldwide, however, the economic impact of treating patients with anti-neoplastic agents is poorly elucidated. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the direct costs associated with administering intravenous chemotherapy in an outpatient setting.

METHODS

We systematically searched four databases from 2010 to present and extracted hourly administration costs and the respective components of each estimate. Separate analyses were conducted of Canadian and United States (US) studies, respectively, to address a priori hypotheses regarding heterogeneity amongst estimates. The Drummond checklist was used to assess risk-of-bias. Data were summarized using medians with interquartile ranges and five outliers were identified; costs were presented in 2019 USD.

RESULTS

Forty-four studies were analyzed, including sub-analyses of 19 US and seven Canadian studies. 26/44 studies were of moderate-high quality. When components of administration cost were evaluated, physician costs were reported most frequently (24 studies), followed by lab tests (13) and overhead costs (9). The median estimate (excluding outliers) was $142/hour (IQR = $103-166). The median administration cost in the US was $149/hour (IQR = $118-158), and was $128/hour (IQR = $102-137) in Canada.

CONCLUSIONS

There is currently a paucity of literature addressing the costs of chemotherapy administration, and existing studies utilize a patchwork of reporting methodologies which renders direct comparison challenging. Our results demonstrate that the cost of administering chemotherapy is approximately $125-150/hour, globally. This value is dependent upon the region of analysis, inclusiveness of cost subcomponents as well as the methodology used to estimate unit prices, as described here.

Cost-effectiveness analyses of targeted therapy and immunotherapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer in the United States: a systematic review

Introduction: Mutation-targeting and immuno-oncology drugs are revolutionizing the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) of these drugs have been conducted using various analytical methods and cost-effectiveness thresholds. This systematic review provides a comprehensive summary of the available evidence.Area covered: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were used to select for CEA of targeted therapies for NSCLC in the United States published between 2008 and 2020. Among the 28 included studies, a majority were published from 2017 to 2020 (n = 18) and more than half targeted non-squamous NSCLC (n = 15). The most frequently evaluated therapy was pembrolizumab (n = 11), followed by bevacizumab (n = 8) and erlotinib (n = 4). After 2009, all included studies applied $100,000 or more thresholds. Thresholds of studies supported by industry (median = $150,000) were more distributed than those of studies supported by nonprofits (median = $100,000).Expert commentary: Medications of interest have changed and are individualized to particular mutations. The cost-effectiveness thresholds varied among sponsors but generally trended to increase over time. This review provides an overview of the available cost-effectiveness findings for stakeholders and contributes to evidence-based practice.

First-Line Durvalumab Plus Platinum-Etoposide Versus Platinum-Etoposide for Extensive-Stage Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Background

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide versus platinum-etoposide as first-line treatments for small-cell lung cancer from the perspective of the US payer.

Methods

This study established a partition survival model for three health states, metastasis probability, and safety data based on the CASPIAN clinical trial. The health utility value was mainly derived from the published literature. Only direct medical costs were considered. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY).

Results

Durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide increased QALY by 0.220 compared to that observed with platinum-etoposide only. The cost increased by $78,198.75 and the incremental cost per QALY increased by $355,448.86. One-way and probability sensitivity analyses indicated that the model parameters varied within a limited range and had no significant effect on the results.

Conclusions

Although durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide can improve quality of life, it also substantially increases the cost of medical treatment. Under a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000, durvalumab does not have a cost-effective comparative advantage.

Cost-Effectiveness of the Addition of Bevacizumab to First-Line Chemotherapy With Carboplatin and Paclitaxel in Patients With Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of the addition of bevacizumab to first-line chemotherapy with carboplatin and paclitaxel in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) from the perspective of the Colombian health system.

METHODS

A Markov model was employed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab + carboplatin + paclitaxel (BCP) compared with carboplatin + paclitaxel (CP) in the treatment of NSCLS during a 4-year period. The health outcome was the number of life-years gained (LYG) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) obtained from the survival curves reported in a clinical study. Costs were estimated using national tariff and reported in US dollars at a date in 2019. Costs and effectiveness outcomes were discounted at a rate of 3.5% per year. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed on important parameters with a Monte Carlo simulation.

RESULTS

The costs of BCP and CP were $30 341 and $11 735, respectively. The LYG for BCP and CP were 0.34 and 0.29, respectively. The QALY for BCP and CP were 0.27 and 0.23. The ICER of BCP versus CP was $ 465 150 QALY. The results of the Monte Carlo simulation showed that CP was cost-effective in 100% of the iterations compared with BCP.

CONCLUSION

The addition of bevacizumab to the scheme carboplatin + paclitaxel compared to carboplatin + paclitaxel for NSCLC is not cost-effective from the point of view of the Colombian health system.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy as first-line treatment in advanced NSCLC

Aim: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NI) in the first-line treatment of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer from a US-payer perspective. Materials & methods: We developed a Markov model to evaluate the cost and effectiveness of NI versus chemotherapy as first-line treatment of NSCLC. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated. Results: NI provided an additional 0.715 QALYs compared with chemotherapy in all population. The corresponding ICER of NI was $180,307 per QALY gained. However, the ICER decreased to $143,434 per QALY in the programmed death ligand 1 expression level <1% population. Conclusion: From a US-payer perspective, NI is estimated to be cost-effective in the first-line setting for advanced NSCLC patients with programmed death ligand 1 expression level <1%.

Comparative Effectiveness of Carboplatin/Pemetrexed With Versus Without Bevacizumab for Advanced Nonsquamous Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

BACKGROUND

Despite recent advances in targeted therapy and immunotherapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), carboplatin/pemetrexed/bevacizumab remains a commonly used first-line regimen. However, it is unknown whether the addition of bevacizumab to carboplatin/pemetrexed improves overall survival (OS).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using nationally representative curated electronic health record data from Flatiron Health, we performed a retrospective cohort study of patients diagnosed with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC who received ≥1 cycle of carboplatin/pemetrexed ± bevacizumab as initial systemic therapy for stage IV or metastatic/recurrent disease. The OS impact of adding bevacizumab to carboplatin/pemetrexed was assessed using a Cox proportional hazards model to adjust for age, sex, race, original tumor stage, time between diagnosis of metastatic disease and start of chemotherapy, and performance status. In a secondary analysis of patients at a single academic institution, we also adjusted for the presence of brain metastases, hemoptysis, and anticoagulation.

RESULTS

A total of 4,724 patients were included, of which 2,759 patients (58%) received carboplatin/pemetrexed and 1,965 (42%) received carboplatin/pemetrexed/bevacizumab. Median OS was 12.1 months (95% CI, 11.2-12.9 months) in the carboplatin/pemetrexed/bevacizumab group compared with 8.6 months (95% CI, 8.1-9.1 months) in the carboplatin/pemetrexed group (P<.001). Bevacizumab use remained associated with improved OS in a multivariate model (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.75-0.86; P<.001). In the secondary, institutional analysis (N=539), the effect of bevacizumab was unchanged (hazard ratio, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.59-0.96; P=.02).

CONCLUSIONS

In this large, real-world dataset, the addition of bevacizumab to first-line carboplatin/pemetrexed for metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC was associated with improved OS.

Assessing Care Value for Older Patients Receiving Radiotherapy With or Without Cisplatin or Cetuximab for Locoregionally Advanced Head and Neck Cancer

Importance

Clinicians frequently use radiotherapy with cetuximab over radiotherapy only or radiotherapy with cisplatin because of a perceived survival and tolerability advantage, but scant data are available to support this perception.

Objective

To measure the 3 aspects of value (quality, outcomes, and cost) in older patients receiving radiotherapy only, radiotherapy with cisplatin, or radiotherapy with cetuximab for locoregionally advanced head and neck cancer.

Design, Setting, and Participants

For this cohort study, patient records were obtained from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program (SEER)-Medicare outcomes and claims database from January 1, 2004, to December 31, 2014. Participants were 65 years or older; received a diagnosis between 2006 and 2013 of stages III to IVB head and neck cancer; had only 1 cancer on record; and did not undergo surgical intervention. Data analysis was conducted from February 5, 2018, to March 27, 2019.

Exposures

Patients were divided into exposure arms on the basis of their first-line therapy or identified chemoradiotherapy and radiotherapy regimen.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Overall survival was analyzed by propensity score matching Cox proportional hazards regression models, quality by measuring 90-day emergency department (ED) visit and inpatient admission rates, and costs by assessing 90-day total Medicare spending.

Results

The overall cohort included 1091 patients, of whom 815 (74.7%) were male; the mean (SD) age was 73.9 (6.6) years. Patients receiving radiotherapy with cisplatin had higher overall survival compared with those receiving radiotherapy only (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.64; 95% CI, 0.47-0.87). This finding was not seen in patients receiving radiotherapy with cetuximab (adjusted HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.75-1.20), compared with the radiotherapy only group, and it persisted after stratifying patients by age. The ED visit (adjusted incidence rate ratio [IRR], 1.72; 95% CI, 1.30-2.30) and inpatient admission (adjusted IRR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.12-1.98) rates in the 90 days after treatment start were higher in patients receiving radiotherapy with cisplatin compared with those treated with radiotherapy only. Patients receiving radiotherapy with cetuximab had a higher rate of ED visits (adjusted IRR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.05-1.82) compared with those in the radiotherapy only group. The 90-day after-treatment spending for patients receiving radiotherapy with cetuximab was $48 620 (95% CI, $46 466-$50 775) compared with $33 009 (95% CI, $31 499-$34 519) for radiotherapy with cisplatin and $27 622 (95% CI, $25 118-$30 126) for radiotherapy only.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cohort study, no survival difference, a higher rate of ED visits but not of inpatient admissions, and higher spending were observed in patients receiving radiotherapy with cetuximab compared with patients receiving radiotherapy only. The findings suggest that radiotherapy alone should be maintained as a treatment arm in evaluation of novel therapeutics for locoregionally advanced head and neck cancer in older and sicker patients.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of the addition of bevacizumab to temozolomide therapy for the treatment of unresected glioblastoma

Glioblastoma, a cancer that originates from astrocytes, is the most prevalent malignant glioma in the adult population. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab (BEV) as a supplement to standard temozolomide (TMZ) treatment for unresected glioblastoma. The analyzed data were from a phase II trial that showed a survival benefit following combination therapy, when compared with TMZ monotherapy. According to the clinical symptoms and disease progression, a Markov model was constructed to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) from a Chinese societal perspective. Health outcomes were retrieved from the GENOM 009 trial, and utility parameters were obtained from published literature. Uncertainties within the model were addressed through one-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. The addition of BEV to TMZ therapy increased overall costs by $30,894.99, with a gain of 0.18 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), resulting in an ICER of $171,638.83/QALY. Both one-way sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analyses confirmed that BEV/TMZ co-treatment was not cost-effective in the context of a $26,508.00/QALY willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold. The utility of the progression-free survival state had the most noticeable impact on the ICER. In summary, the combination of BEV and TMZ should not be considered a cost-effective neoadjuvant treatment option for patients with unresected glioblastoma in China, from a societal perspective. However, in view of the survival benefits conferred, an appropriate price discount or the use of medical insurance could make BEV affordable for this patient population.

Cabozantinib for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The multi-kinase inhibitor sorafenib is a first-line drug for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Treatment options for patients whose disease has progressed on sorafenib are limited. In a recent randomized controlled trial (CELESTIAL trial), patients with advanced HCC who had failed prior systemic therapy had moderate progression-free survival and overall survival advantages when treated with the multi-kinase inhibitor cabozantinib. However, since this treatment is costly and is accompanied by significant adverse events in a large proportion of patients, its cost-effectiveness in these patients should be determined.

METHODS

We developed a Markov model incorporating health outcomes, measured by life-years and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of cabozantinib compared with placebo in patients who have failed prior systemic therapy.

RESULTS

Treatment with cabozantinib results in a mean gain of 11.6 weeks of life (0.22 life-years) as compared with placebo. When quality of life was incorporated, treatment with cabozantinib produced a gain of 0.16 QALYs. The total mean incremental cost of cabozantinib was US$76,406 per patient. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for cabozantinib compared with best supportive care was US$469,374/QALY using the recommended dose of 60 mg cabozantinib daily.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that the use of cabozantinib in patients with advanced HCC who have progressed on prior treatment, results in a modest incremental benefit with high incremental costs, suggesting that it is not cost-effective at conventional willingness to pay thresholds.

Health Technology Assessment Challenges in Oncology: 20 Years of Value in Health

BACKGROUND

Oncology treatments have changed from chemotherapies to targeted therapies and more recently immuno-oncology. This has posed special challenges in the field of health technology assessment (HTA): capturing quality of life (QOL) associated with toxicity due to chemotherapy, crossover upon progression in targeted therapy trials, and survival extrapolation for immuno-oncology drugs.

OBJECTIVES

To showcase 20 years of Value in Health (ViH) publications in oncology.

METHODS

A review was undertaken of oncology articles published in ViH from May 1998 to August 2018. Full-length articles published in ViH with the keywords "oncology," "cancer," "h(a)ematology," and "malignancy" were included for review. Conference abstracts were excluded.

RESULTS

Four major themes were identified: (1) QOL and the development of multiple functional assessment of cancer therapy tools and mapping instruments; (2) analysis of clinical evidence using indirect comparisons, network analyses, and adjustment for crossovers; (3) modeling, Markov models, partitioned survival models, and extrapolation methods; and (4) financial implications and how to deal with uncertainty, introduction of conditional reimbursement, managed entry, and risk share agreements.

DISCUSSION

This review article highlights the important role ViH has played in disseminating HTA research in oncology. A few key issues loom on the horizon: precision medicine, further development and practical application of new QOL measures, methods for translating clinical evidence, and exploration of modeling techniques. For a better understanding of the complex interplay between access and financial risk management, ViH will no doubt continue to promote pioneering research in HTA and oncology.

A Trial-Based Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Bevacizumab and Chemotherapy Versus Chemotherapy Alone for Advanced Nonsquamous Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer in China

BACKGROUND

The first-line bevacizumab plus chemotherapy resulted in a clinical efficacy for Chinese patients with advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Some economic analyses have carried out various methods to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab as the first-line treatment for NSCLC in other countries. Our objective was to assess the cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab plus chemotherapy compared with chemotherapy alone for the first-line treatment of advanced nonsquamous NSCLC.

METHODS

A Markov model was applied from the perspective of the Chinese health care system to assess cost-effectiveness. It was based on the clinical trial BEYOND that compared bevacizumab plus carboplatin/paclitaxel (B+CP) with placebo plus carboplatin and paclitaxel (PI+CP) for advanced nonsquamous NSCLC. Ten-year quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated. One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were performed.

RESULTS

QALYs were 1.17 years in the B+CP group and 0.83 years in the PI+CP group, resulting in a difference of 0.34 years. The ICER was $130,937.09/QALY, which was far beyond the willing-to-pay threshold of $24,314/QALY. At a threshold of $130,584/QALY, addition of bevacizumab had a 50% probability of being cost-effective.

CONCLUSIONS

Bevacizumab is not cost-effective when combined with chemotherapy for patients with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC based on the Chinese health care system, resulting in a less demand in the Chinese market.

Cost-effectiveness of ALK testing and first-line crizotinib therapy for non-small-cell lung cancer in China

INTRODUCTION

Anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) rearrangement gene testing is used increasingly to identify patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who are most likely to benefit from crizotinib. This study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the ALK tests followed by crizotinib compared to the standard chemotherapy in advanced NSCLC from the Chinese healthcare system perspective.

METHODS

A 10-year Markov model was constructed to compare the costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of crizotinib with standard chemotherapy, guided by the ALK rearrangement tests: next-generation sequencing (NGS) panel tests and multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing. The health states included progression-free survival (PFS), progressed survival, and death. The costs examined included cost of drugs (pemetrexed, standard chemotherapy, salvage chemotherapy, and crizotinib), follow-up, palliative care, supportive care, severe adverse events, and ALK rearrangement testing.

RESULTS

Under Patient Assistance Program (PAP), the model demonstrated that the patients using NGS panel tests spent US $31,388 and gained 0.780 QALYs, whereas patients using multiplex PCR spent US $31,362 and gained 0.780 QALYs, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of crizotinib with PAP compared to the control strategy were projected at $14,384 (NGS) and $13,740 (multiplex PCR) per QALY gained, respectively. Sensitivity analyses showed the utility of PFS and the costs of crizotinib and pemetrexed were the most impactful factors on the model outcomes. The results were robust to changes in all parameters.

CONCLUSION

ALK-rearrangement test positive followed by crizotinib may be cost-effective compared to standard chemotherapy from the Chinese healthcare system perspective when PAP was available.

Do current approaches to assessing therapy related adverse events align with the needs of long-term cancer patients and survivors?

The increasing efficacy of cancer therapeutics means that the timespan of cancer therapy administration is undergoing a transition to increasingly long-term settings. Unfortunately, chronic therapy-related adverse health events are an unintended, but not infrequent, outcome of these life-saving therapies. Historically, the cardio-oncology field has evolved as retrospective effort to understand the scope, mechanisms, and impact of treatment-related toxicities that were already impacting patients. This review explores whether current systemic approaches to detecting, reporting, tracking, and communicating AEs are better positioned to provide more proactive or concurrent information to mitigate the impact of AE's on patient health and quality of life. Because the existing tools and frameworks for capturing these effects are not specific to cardiology, this study looks broadly at the landscape of approaches and assumptions. This review finds evidence of increasing focus on the provision of actionable information to support long-term health and quality of life for survivors and those on chronic therapy. However, the current means to assess and support the impact of this burden on patients and the healthcare system are often of limited relevance for an increasingly long-lived survivor and patient population.

Economic Considerations in the Use of Novel Targeted Therapies for Lung Cancer: Review of Current Literature

Lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer-related death and economic burden worldwide. Despite the heavy toll of lung cancer, multiple new advances have improved patient outcomes, largely through precision medicine and targeted therapy. The associated rising economic burden however may impact the uptake of novel therapeutic agents in lung cancer, thereby limiting patient access. This article identifies and reviews economic evaluations of targeted agents in lung cancer in the era of precision medicine. Articles evaluating biomarker-directed test-and-treat strategies are also reviewed to evaluate the cost impact of novel therapeutic agents at a population level. The Quality of Health Economic Studies instrument is applied to assess the quality of included studies. Forty-six studies are reviewed and encompass studies of epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors and monoclonal antibodies, anaplastic lymphoma kinase inhibitors, vascular endothelial growth factor and vascular endothelial growth factor receptor inhibitors and immunotherapy (programmed death-1 inhibitors). Key factors influencing results of economic analyses include comparators chosen, perspective used, magnitude of clinical benefit, utility weighting of outcomes and drug acquisition costs. Biomarker-driven decision making should be integrated into cost evaluations given the important role of molecular testing for individualising treatment for non-small-cell lung cancer. We conclude that despite major clinical advances in lung cancer therapeutics, cost remains an important consideration in the adoption of novel therapies.

Cost Effectiveness of Nivolumab in Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma

BACKGROUND

In recent years, new drugs have been introduced for second-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Nivolumab increases overall survival and is associated with less toxicity compared to everolimus in this setting according to the CheckMate 025 study. However, because of the high cost of nivolumab, there is a need to define its value by considering both efficacy and cost.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the cost effectiveness of nivolumab for second-line treatment of advanced RCC from the US payer perspective.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A Markov model was developed to compare the costs and effectiveness of nivolumab with those of everolimus and placebo in second-line treatment of advanced RCC. Health outcomes were measured in life-years (LYs) and quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs). Drug costs were based on 2016 Medicare reimbursement rates.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Model robustness was assessed in univariable and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. We addressed the issue of the extensive duration of immunotherapy treatment among long-term survivors, which may or may not be approved by payers.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

The total mean cost per patient was $101 070 for nivolumab and $50 935 for everolimus. Nivolumab generated a gain of 0.24 LYs (0.34 QALYs) compared to everolimus. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for nivolumab was $146 532/QALY versus everolimus and $226 197/QALY versus placebo. Limiting the maximal treatment duration of nivolumab to 2 yr reduced the ICER to $121 788/QALY versus everolimus. The analysis is limited by data availability and our assumptions.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis established that with a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 to $150 000 per QALY, nivolumab is estimated to be cost-effective versus everolimus, but not cost-effective versus placebo.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We assessed the cost effectiveness of nivolumab in previously treated metastatic kidney cancer. In the USA, it would cost $146 532 to gain one quality-adjusted life-year with nivolumab versus everolimus, or $226 197 versus placebo. Nivolumab is considered cost-effective versus everolimus, but not versus placebo.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of the addition of bevacizumab to chemotherapy as induction and maintenance therapy for metastatic non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND

The BEYOND trial found that the addition of bevacizumab (B) to paclitaxel-carboplatin (PC) chemotherapy provided a significant clinical benefit to Chinese patients with metastatic non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of adding B to first-line PC induction and continuation maintenance therapy from a Chinese perspective.

METHODS

A Markov model was developed to estimate the cost and effectiveness of B + PC in the induction and maintenance therapy of patients with metastatic non-squamous NSCLC. Costs were calculated in the Chinese setting, and health outcomes derived from the BEYOND trial were measured as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). A one-way sensitivity analysis was conducted to explore the impact of various parameters in the study.

RESULTS

The B + PC treatment was more costly ($112,943.40 versus $32,171.43) and more effective (1.07 QALYs versus 0.80 QALYs) compared with the PC treatment. Adding B to the PC regimen for non-squamous NSCLC results in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $299,155.44 per QALY, which exceeded the accepted societal willingness-to-pay threshold ($23,970.00) for China. In the sensitivity analysis, the duration of progression-free survival (PFS) for the B + PC group, the cost of the PFS state for B + PC group and the price of B were considered the most sensitive factors in the model.

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of B to first-line PC induction and maintenance therapy was not determined to be a cost-effective strategy for metastatic non-squamous NSCLC in China, even when an assistance program was provided.

Cost-Effectiveness of Immune Checkpoint Inhibition in BRAF Wild-Type Advanced Melanoma

Purpose Patients who are diagnosed with stage IV metastatic melanoma have an estimated 5-year relative survival rate of only 17%. Randomized controlled trials of recent US Food and Drug Administration-approved immune checkpoint inhibitors-pembrolizumab (PEM), nivolumab (NIVO), and ipilumumab (IPI)-demonstrate improved patient outcomes, but the optimal treatment sequence in patients with BRAF wild-type metastatic melanoma remains unclear. To inform policy makers about the value of these treatments, we developed a Markov model to compare the cost-effectiveness of different strategies for sequencing novel agents for the treatment of advanced melanoma. Materials and Methods We developed Markov models by using a US-payer perspective and lifetime horizon to estimate costs (2016 US$) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for treatment sequences with first-line NIVO, IPI, NIVO + IPI, PEM every 2 weeks, and PEM every 3 weeks. Health states were defined for initial treatment, first and second progression, and death. Rates for drug discontinuation, frequency of adverse events, disease progression, and death obtained from randomized phase III trials were used to determine the likelihood of transition between states. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate model uncertainty. Results PEM every 3 weeks followed by second-line IPI was both more effective and less costly than dacarbazine followed by IPI then NIVO, or IPI followed by NIVO. Compared with the first-line dacarbazine treatment strategy, NIVO followed by IPI produced an incremental cost effectiveness ratio of $90,871/QALY, and first-line NIVO + IPI followed by carboplatin plus paclitaxel chemotherapy produced an incremental cost effectiveness ratio of $198,867/QALY. Conclusion For patients with treatment-naive BRAF wild-type advanced melanoma, first-line PEM every 3 weeks followed by second-line IPI or first-line NIVO followed by second-line IPI are the most cost-effective, immune-based treatment strategies for metastatic melanoma.

Antineoplastic Treatment of Advanced-Stage Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Treatment, Survival, and Spending (2000 to 2011)

Purpose Multiple agents for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have been approved in the past decade, but little is known about their use and associated spending and survival. Methods We used SEER-Medicare data for elderly patients with a new diagnosis of advanced-stage NSCLC and were treated with antineoplastic agents between 2000 and 2011 (N = 22,163). We estimated the adjusted percentage of patients who received each agent, days while on treatment, survival, and spending in the 12 months after diagnosis. Results During the 12-year study period, a marked shift in treatment occurred along with a rapid adoption of pemetrexed (39.2%), erlotinib (20.3%), and bevacizumab (18.9%) and a decline in paclitaxel (38.7%), gemcitabine (17.0%), and vinorelbine (5.7%; all P < .05). The average total days on therapy increased by 5 days (from 103 to 108 days). Patients who received bevacizumab, erlotinib, or pemetrexed had the longest treatment durations on average (approximately 146 days v 75 days for those who did not receive these agents). Approximately 44% of patients received antineoplastic agents in the last 30 days of life throughout the study period. Acute inpatient spending declined (from $29,376 to $23,731), whereas outpatient spending increased 23% (from $37,931 to $46,642). Median survival gains of 1.5 months were observed. Conclusion Considerable shifts in the treatment of advanced-stage NSCLC occurred along with modest gains in survival and total Medicare spending. More precise outcome information is needed to inform value-based treatment decisions for advanced-stage NSCLC.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Second-Line Chemotherapy Agents for Advanced Gastric Cancer

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Gastric cancer is the fifth most common malignancy and second leading cause of cancer-related mortality. Chemotherapy options for patients who fail first-line treatment are limited. Thus the objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of second-line treatment options for patients with advanced or metastatic gastric cancer.

DESIGN

Cost-effectiveness analysis using a Markov model to compare the cost-effectiveness of six possible second-line treatment options for patients with advanced gastric cancer who have failed previous chemotherapy: irinotecan, docetaxel, paclitaxel, ramucirumab, paclitaxel plus ramucirumab, and palliative care.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The model was performed from a third-party payer's perspective to compare lifetime costs and health benefits associated with studied second-line therapies. Costs included only relevant direct medical costs. The model assumed chemotherapy cycle lengths of 30 days and a maximum number of 24 cycles. Systematic review of literature was performed to identify clinical data sources and utility and cost data. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated. The primary outcome measure for this analysis was the ICER between different therapies, where the incremental cost was divided by the number of QALYs saved. The ICER was compared with a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold that was set at $50,000/QALY gained, and an exploratory analysis using $160,000/QALY gained was also used. The model's robustness was tested by using 1-way sensitivity analyses and a 10,000 Monte Carlo simulation probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA). Irinotecan had the lowest lifetime cost and was associated with a QALY gain of 0.35 year. Docetaxel, ramucirumab alone, and palliative care were dominated strategies. Paclitaxel and the combination of paclitaxel plus ramucirumab led to higher QALYs gained, at an incremental cost of $86,815 and $1,056,125 per QALY gained, respectively. Based on our prespecified WTP threshold, our base case analysis demonstrated that irinotecan alone is the most cost-effective regimen, and both paclitaxel alone and the combination of paclitaxel and ramucirumab were not cost-effective (ICER more than $50,000). Both 1-way sensitivity analyses and PSA demonstrated the model's robustness. PSA illustrated that paclitaxel plus ramucirumab was extremely unlikely to be cost-effective at a WTP threshold less than $400,000/QALY gained.

CONCLUSION

Irinotecan alone appears to be the most cost-effective second-line regimen for patients with gastric cancer. Paclitaxel may be cost-effective if the WTP threshold was set at $160,000/QALY gained.

First-line treatment of nonsquamous NSCLC using gemcitabine: a retrospective study of real-life practice

We present results of retrospective real-life data of nonsquamous lung cancer patients treated in first-line (platinum-based chemotherapy with gemcitabine without bevacizumab). 56 patients with satisfactory performance status for cytotoxic chemotherapy were treated in 2010-2014. Median progression-free survival was 6.48 months (95% CI: 4.44-9.48), time to progression was 10.19 months (95% CI: 7.59-12.19). Median overall survival was 10.8 months (95% CI: 6.72-14.52). Although our group of patients had higher proportion of elderly patients with somewhat limited performance status, progression-free survival rate was comparable to large registration studies. Overall survival, despite intervening comorbidities and subsequent limited use of second-line treatment was analogous to large gemcitabine/platinum Phase III studies in nonsquamous population. We believe our data represent real-life survival rates of unselected patients with advanced NSCLC of nonsquamous type from mostly rural catchment area.