Cost-effectiveness of nivolumab in squamous and non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer in Canada and Sweden: an update with 5-year data

Real-world data on efficacy/safety and economic impact of nivolumab administered every 2 and 4 weeks among Japanese patients

AIM

A new treatment interval for nivolumab administration at 480 mg every 4 weeks, in addition to 240 mg every 2 weeks, was approved in Japan in 2020. Using model-based evaluation, it was speculated that the effects or safety of nivolumab do not differ between the two treatment intervals; however, real-world data on nivolumab efficacy, safety, and economic impact are lacking. Accordingly, we aimed to examine the effects of nivolumab treatment intervals (2 weeks vs. 4 weeks) in terms of efficacy, safety, and economic impact in Japanese patients with cancer.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 126 patients treated with nivolumab. The patients were divided into two groups depending on whether they received nivolumab at 240 mg every 2 weeks (2-week group) or 480 mg every 4 weeks (4-week group).

RESULTS

Efficacy results found no significant difference between the 4- and 2-week groups considering median overall survival (p = 0.70) and median progression-free survival (p = 0.57). The incidence of any grade and ≥  grade 3 immune-related adverse events did not differ between the 4-week and 2-week groups (any grade, p = 0.13; ≥  grade 3, p = 0.36). Excluding drug costs, the 4-week group had significantly lower medical costs than the 2-week group (2-week vs. 4-week: mean, 94,659 JPY [679.0 USD] vs. 58,737 JPY [421.3 USD]; p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Collectively, our findings suggest that nivolumab 480 mg every 4 weeks may be more effective than nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks in terms of economic impact.

Cost-effectiveness of immunotherapies for advanced squamous non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

There are differences in the pharmacoeconomics of Immune checkpoint blocking (ICB) therapies for the treatment of lung squamous cell carcinoma (LSCC). However, no corresponding review studies have fully discussed the cost-effectiveness of ICBs in treating LSCC. The aim of this paper is to systematically review and evaluate all available pharmacoeconomic studies of ICBs for LSCC.

METHOD

The inclusion criteria were based on the population, intervention, comparator, outcomes, and study designs. An electronic search was conducted by June 2023, and the following databases were used: PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. Search keywords included 'Carcinoma', Non-Small-Cell Lung', 'Immunotherapy', and 'Economics, Medical'. The primary outcome was the cost-effectiveness analysis of ICB therapy in LSCC patients. Drummond Checklist was used to assess quality problems and possible bias in the study design of included pharmacoeconomic studies.

RESULTS

This review searched 15 articles on the economic evaluation of ICB treatment for LSCC. After a qualitative review of 15 studies, we concluded that nivolumab is more cost-effective as a monotherapy than chemotherapy alone. In the combination regimen, pembrolizumab combined with chemotherapy appears to be the most cost-effective option at present, but for Chinese payers with LSCC, locally developed treatments such as sintilimab or toripalimab in combination with chemotherapy are more cost-effective.

DISCUSSION

The inclusion of economic evaluation has heterogeneity in research design and outcomes, which can only support qualitative synthesis. Therefore, The results of this paper need to be treated with caution. For the Chinese market, instead of imported drugs, the possible cost-effectiveness of locally developed ICB therapies should be the focus of future research.

Whether and How Disutilities of Adverse Events were Used in the Economic Evaluation of Drug Therapy for Cancer Treatment

BACKGROUND

The disutilities of adverse events (AEs) are important inputs for cost-utility analysis (CUA), reflecting the impacts of AEs on health outcomes. Health technology assessment institutions and scholars have proposed recommendations for applying disutility values in economic evaluations.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to identify the current use of disutilities of AEs as model parameters in the CUA of cancer drug therapy and to compare the discrepancies between the use of disutilities and published recommendations.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted on the PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases, as well as the official websites of the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG), the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH), and the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) for CUAs of drug therapy for cancer published in English from January 2019 to April 2022. Information about the use of disutilities of AEs (whether and how disutilities were used, or why they were not used) in selected studies was extracted and compared with published recommendations. Descriptive analyses were used to summarize the results.

RESULTS

A total of 467 CUAs were included, 54% (254/467) of which included disutilities of AEs in their model. The proportion that included these disutilities increased from 2019 to 2021, ranging from 47% (51/107) to 61% (116/190). Only 6% (15/254) of the CUAs using disutilities of AEs considered all five recommendations about the justification for inclusion and exclusion, description of values and sources, grades of AEs, calculation, and uncertainty analyses. Only 15% (72/467) provided a clear justification for inclusion and exclusion of disutilities of AEs, and 7% (17/254) did not provide values or sources. In total, 69% (175/254) of the analyses focused on AEs of grade 3 or greater, and 11% (28/254) applied utility decrements for grades 1 and 2. Disutilities of AEs were generally calculated using the incidence rates, which were clearly stated in 49% (65/132) of the analyses. Uncertainty analyses were conducted in 84% (214/254) of the CUAs.

CONCLUSIONS

The current use of disutilities of AEs in CUAs shows some discrepancies with recommendations proposed in the literature. One is that detailed information about the use of disutilities of AEs was not reported and the other is that essential methods to analyze the impact of AEs on quality-adjusted life-years were not thoroughly conducted. Therefore, it is suggested that researchers should attach importance to the impact of AEs on health-related quality of life. Furthermore, an application process was developed for the disutilities of AEs to remind and guide researchers to correctly use the disutilities of AEs as parameters in the decision-analytic model.

Economic Evaluation of Nivolumab Versus Docetaxel for the Treatment of Advanced Squamous and Non-squamous Non-small Cell Lung Cancer After Prior Chemotherapy in China

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the economic value of nivolumab versus docetaxel for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) treatment after platinum-based chemotherapy in adults without epidermal growth factor receptor/anaplastic lymphoma kinase aberrations in China.

METHODS

Partitioned survival models evaluated lifetime costs and benefits of nivolumab versus docetaxel by squamous and non-squamous histologies from a Chinese healthcare payer perspective. Progression-free disease, progressed disease, and death health states were considered over a 20-year time horizon. Clinical data were derived from the CheckMate pivotal Phase III trials (ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT01642004, NCT01673867, NCT02613507); patient-level survival data were extrapolated using parametric functions. China-specific health state utilities, healthcare resource utilisation, and unit costs were applied. Sensitivity analyses explored uncertainty.

RESULTS

Nivolumab resulted in extended survival (1.489 and 1.228 life-years [1.226 and 0.995 discounted]) and quality-adjusted survival benefits (1.034 and 0.833 quality-adjusted life-years) at additional costs of ¥214,353 (US$31,829) and ¥158,993 (US$23,608) versus docetaxel in squamous and non-squamous aNSCLC, respectively. Nivolumab was associated with higher acquisition costs, lower subsequent treatment costs, and lower adverse event management costs than docetaxel in both histologies. Drug acquisition costs, discount rate for outcomes, and average body weight were key model drivers. Stochastic results aligned with the deterministic results.

CONCLUSIONS

Nivolumab yielded survival and quality-adjusted survival benefits at incremental cost versus docetaxel in aNSCLC. As a traditional healthcare payer perspective was applied, the true economic benefit of nivolumab may be underestimated as not all treatment benefits and costs of relevance to society were considered.

Use of Advanced Flexible Modeling Approaches for Survival Extrapolation from Early Follow-up Data in two Nivolumab Trials in Advanced NSCLC with Extended Follow-up

OBJECTIVES

Immuno-oncology (IO) therapies are often associated with delayed responses that are deep and durable, manifesting as long-term survival benefits in patients with metastatic cancer. Complex hazard functions arising from IO treatments may limit the accuracy of extrapolations from standard parametric models (SPMs). We evaluated the ability of flexible parametric models (FPMs) to improve survival extrapolations using data from 2 trials involving patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

METHODS

Our analyses used consecutive database locks (DBLs) at 2-, 3-, and 5-y minimum follow-up from trials evaluating nivolumab versus docetaxel in patients with pretreated metastatic squamous (CheckMate-017) and nonsquamous (CheckMate-057) NSCLC. For each DBL, SPMs, as well as 3 FPMs-landmark response models (LRMs), mixture cure models (MCMs), and Bayesian multiparameter evidence synthesis (B-MPES)-were estimated on nivolumab overall survival (OS). The performance of each parametric model was assessed by comparing milestone restricted mean survival times (RMSTs) and survival probabilities with results obtained from externally validated SPMs.

RESULTS

For the 2- and 3-y DBLs of both trials, all models tended to underestimate 5-y OS. Predictions from nonvalidated SPMs fitted to the 2-y DBLs were highly unreliable, whereas extrapolations from FPMs were much more consistent between models fitted to successive DBLs. For CheckMate-017, in which an apparent survival plateau emerges in the 3-y DBL, MCMs fitted to this DBL estimated 5-y OS most accurately (11.6% v. 12.3% observed), and long-term predictions were similar to those from the 5-y validated SPM (20-y RMST: 30.2 v. 30.5 mo). For CheckMate-057, where there is no clear evidence of a survival plateau in the early DBLs, only B-MPES was able to accurately predict 5-y OS (14.1% v. 14.0% observed [3-y DBL]).

CONCLUSIONS

We demonstrate that the use of FPMs for modeling OS in NSCLC patients from early follow-up data can yield accurate estimates for RMST observed with longer follow-up and provide similar long-term extrapolations to externally validated SPMs based on later data cuts. B-MPES generated reasonable predictions even when fitted to the 2-y DBLs of the studies, whereas MCMs were more reliant on longer-term data to estimate a plateau and therefore performed better from 3 y. Generally, LRM extrapolations were less reliable than those from alternative FPMs and validated SPMs but remained superior to nonvalidated SPMs. Our work demonstrates the potential benefits of using advanced parametric models that incorporate external data sources, such as B-MPES and MCMs, to allow for accurate evaluation of treatment clinical and cost-effectiveness from trial data with limited follow-up.

HIGHLIGHTS

Flexible advanced parametric modeling methods can provide improved survival extrapolations for immuno-oncology cost-effectiveness in health technology assessments from early clinical trial data that better anticipate extended follow-up.Advantages include leveraging additional observable trial data, the systematic integration of external data, and more detailed modeling of underlying processes.Bayesian multiparameter evidence synthesis performed particularly well, with well-matched external data.Mixture cure models also performed well but may require relatively longer follow-up to identify an emergent plateau, depending on the specific setting.Landmark response models offered marginal benefits in this scenario and may require greater numbers in each response group and/or increased follow-up to support improved extrapolation within each subgroup.

PD-L1 Test-Based Strategy With Nivolumab as the Second-Line Treatment in Advanced NSCLC： A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in China

OBJECTIVE

Our previous economic assessment found that nivolumab was not cost-effective for Chinese patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and without EGFR mutations or ALK translocations, when compared with the standard second-line drug docetaxel. However, a greater survival benefit with nivolumab was observed for patients with 1% or greater tumor programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression. In view of this, we designed the present analysis to explore whether it is cost-effective to use the PD-L1 test to guide second-line nivolumab treatment in China.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A Markov model was established to project the lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of three second-line treatment strategies: nivolumab and docetaxel (strategies without a PD-L1 test) and PD-L1 test-based strategy. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to examine the robustness of our results. Additional price reduction and willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold scenario analyses were performed to explore the impact of economic and health policies with Chinese characteristics on our results.

RESULTS

The PD-L1 test-based strategy costs approximately CNY 194,607 (USD 28,210) or more and yielded an additional 0.27 QALYs compared to the docetaxel strategy without a PD-L1 test, equating an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of CNY 731,089 (USD 105,978)/QALY. Deterministic sensitivity analyses showed that the price of nivolumab was the strongest source of variation in the ICERs. Probability sensitivity analysis showed that the probability for the PD-L1 test-based strategy being cost-effective increases with the increase of WTP thresholds.

CONCLUSION

From the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system, using a PD-L1 test to guide second-line nivolumab treatment was not cost-effective. The National Healthcare Security Administration negotiation on the price reduction of nivolumab was found to be the most effective action to improve its cost-effectiveness in China.