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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

A systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures for advanced skin cancer patients

Many patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have been used to study quality of life (QOL) in the skin cancer population. Advanced melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC) may be associated with increased morbidity, mortality, and treatment side effects; however, it is unclear which PROM is valid and appropriate to use in these populations for both clinical and research purposes. We aimed to identify the PROMs that have been used to measure QOL in advanced skin cancer patients and determine which of these PROMs have been validated to assess QOL outcomes in this population. A PubMed and EMBASE search was conducted from its inception to March 2021 according to PRISMA guidelines with a comprehensive list of search terms under three main topics: (1) PROM; (2) advanced skin cancer; and (3) staging and interventions. We included articles utilizing a PROM measuring QOL and having a patient population with advanced skin cancer defined as melanoma stage > T1a or non-melanoma AJCC stage T3 or greater. Advanced skin cancer patients were also defined as those with metastasis or requiring adjuvant therapy (systemic chemotherapy, radiation, and immunotherapy). Studies were excluded according to the following criteria: mix of low-risk and advanced skin cancer patients in the study population without stratification into low-risk and advanced groups, stage T1a melanoma or mix of stages without stratification, low-risk NMSC, no PROM (i.e., study specific questionnaires), non-English publication, review article or protocol paper, conference abstract, or populations including non-skin cancers. A total of 1,998 articles were identified. 82 met our inclusion criteria resulting in 22 PROMs: five generic health-related (QWB-SA, AQoL-8D, EQ-5D, SF-36, and PRISM), six general cancer (EORTC QLQ-C30, EORTC QLQ-C36, LASA, IOC, Rotterdam Symptom Checklist, and FACT-G), nine disease-focused or specialized (EORTC QLQ-H&N35, EORTC QLQ-MEL38, EORTC QLQ-BR23, Facial Disability Index, FACT-H&N, FACT-BRM, FACT-B, FACT-M, and scqolit), and two general dermatology (Skindex-16 and DLQI) PROMs. All PROMs have been generally validated except for EORTC QLQ-MEL38. Only two PROMs have been validated in the advanced melanoma population: FACT-M and EORTC QLQ-C36. No PROMS have been validated in the advanced NMSC population. The PROMs that were validated in the advanced melanoma population do not include QOL issues unique to advanced skin tumors such as odor, bleeding, itching, wound care burden, and public embarrassment. Breast cancer and head and neck cancer instruments were adapted but not validated for use in the advanced skin cancer population due to the lack of an adequate instrument for this population. This study highlights the need for PROM instrument validation or creation specifically geared toward the advanced skin cancer population. Future studies should aim to develop and validate a PROM to assess QOL in this population.

The Zero-Price Conundrum: Exploration of Scenarios Where a Clinically Effective New Drug Might Not Be Cost-Effective at Zero Price

OBJECTIVES

The zero-price conundrum occurs when a clinically effective drug can justify no greater than a price of zero based on cost-effectiveness criteria from a health system perspective. This is relevant for health systems that require evidence of cost-effectiveness, in addition to safety and efficacy for drug approval and other analyses that may shape drug coverage policies, such as budget impact and comparative effectiveness. This study aimed to clarify and explore the zero-price conundrum to provide a resource in the development of practical and methodological solutions.

METHODS

We specified equations representing previously identified zero-price scenarios and used them to elucidate factors contributing to the zero-price conundrum and explore relationships between them. We present real-world considerations and discuss solutions from the literature.

RESULTS

The analyses demonstrated that a primary cause of the zero-price problem for a new drug that increases quality-adjusted survival pertains to healthcare costs beyond the influence of the new drug, specifically, disease background costs, costs of existing drugs used in a combination regimen, and costs of future health interventions patients may become eligible to receive. Pragmatic solutions have been to exclude such costs from cost-effectiveness analyses. Proposed modifications to cost-effectiveness analysis include assessing each drug in a combination regimen based on its relative contribution to improved health.

CONCLUSIONS

The zero-price dilemma may arise more frequently as the number of drugs in high-cost disease areas continues to grow. As cost-effectiveness methods evolve, there is the opportunity to develop robust solutions that can be applied consistently.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Sequential Treatment Strategies for Advanced Melanoma in Real Life in France

Nine drugs have been marketed for 10 years for the treatment of advanced melanoma (AM). With half of patients reaching a second line, the optimal sequence of treatments remains unclear. To inform policy-makers about their efficiency, we performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of sequential strategies in clinical practice in France, for BRAF-mutated and wild-type patients. A multistate model was developed to describe treatment sequences, associated costs, and health outcomes over 10 years. Sequences, clinical outcomes, utility scores, and economic data were extracted from the prospective Melbase cohort, collecting individual data in 1518 patients since 2013, from their AM diagnosis until their death. To adjust the differences in patients' characteristics among sequences, weighting by inverse probability was used. In the BRAF-mutated population, the MONO-targeted therapies (TT)-anti-PD1 sequence was the less expensive, whereas the anti-PD1-BI-TT sequence had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 180,441 EUR/QALY. Regarding the BRAF wild-type population, the three sequences constituted the cost-effective frontier, with ICERs ranging from 116 to 806,000 EUR/QALY. For BRAF-mutated patients, the sequence anti-PD1-BI-TT appeared to be the most efficient one in BRAF-mutated AM patients until 2018. Regarding the BRAF wild-type population until 2018, the sequence starting with IPI+NIVO appeared inefficient compared to anti-PD1, considering the extra cost for the QALY gained.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Dabrafenib Plus Trametinib and Vemurafenib as First-Line Treatment in Patients with BRAF V600 Mutation-Positive Unresectable or Metastatic Melanoma in China

Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of dabrafenib plus trametinib combination therapy versus vemurafenib as first-line treatment in patients with BRAF V600 mutation-positive unresectable or metastatic melanoma from a healthcare system perspective in China. Methods: This study employed a partitioned survival model with three health states (progression-free survival, post-progression survival and dead) to parameterize the data derived from Combi-v trial and extrapolated to 30 years. Health states’ utilities were measured by EQ-5D-3L, also sourced from the Combi-v trial. Costs including drug acquisition costs, disease management costs and adverse event costs were based on the Chinese Drug Bidding Database and physician survey in China. The primary outcomes of the model were lifetime costs, life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted, respectively. Result: Dabrafenib plus trametinib is projected to increase a patient’s life expectancy by 0.95 life-years over vemurafenib (3.03 vs. 2.08) and 1.09 QALY gains (2.48 vs. 1.39) with an incremental cost of $3833. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was $3511 per QALY. In the probabilistic sensitivity analyses, at a threshold of $33,357 per QALY (three times the gross domestic product (GDP) per capita in China in 2020), the probability of dabrafenib plus trametinib being cost-effective was 90%. In the deterministic sensitivity analyses, the results were most sensitive to the dabrafenib plus trametinib drug costs, vemurafenib drug costs and discount rate of cost. Conclusion: Dabrafenib plus trametinib therapy yields more clinical benefits than vemurafenib. Using a threshold of $33,357 per QALY, dabrafenib plus trametinib is very cost-effective as compared with vemurafenib in China.

Transferability of Economic Evaluations of Treatments for Advanced Melanoma

BACKGROUND

Differing methodological requirements and decision-making criteria are recognised as barriers to transferability of cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) across jurisdictions.

OBJECTIVE

We assessed the generic and specific transferability of published CEAs of systemic treatments for advanced melanoma to the Irish setting.

METHODS

CEAs of treatments for melanoma were identified by systematic review. Transferability to the Irish setting was assessed using the EUnetHTA transferability tool for Economic Evaluation. We present a narrative discussion comparing the differences in key parameter inputs and the likely impact of these differences on the model outcomes and the reimbursement recommendation. Transferability is considered within the context of the Irish cost-effectiveness threshold, using the net monetary benefit (NMB) framework.

RESULTS

No published CEAs (n = 15) aligned with the Irish reference case for CEA. Changes to key parameters were unlikely to change the conclusions of the CEA when the cost-effectiveness threshold was considered. Ten studies (19 pairwise comparisons) were compared with findings by the National Centre for Pharmacoeconomics (NCPE) using NMB. Without accounting for differences in the cost-effectiveness threshold, there was alignment between the study conclusions and NCPE recommendations in 73.7% cases. When the Irish cost-effectiveness threshold was applied in the estimation of NMB, there was agreement in 89.5% of cases.

CONCLUSIONS

Alignment in methodological requirements for CEA is important to facilitate joint health technology assessment (HTA) by regional collaborations in Europe. When parameter inputs are not exactly aligned, conclusions may still be comparable across jurisdictions. For international joint procurement initiatives, determining and implementing joint decision rules may be more important than trying to align rules regarding methodological and parameter inputs.

Economic Evaluation of Systemic Treatments for Advanced Melanoma: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Many high cost treatments for advanced melanoma have become available in recent years. National health technology assessment agencies have raised concerns regarding uncertainty in their clinical and cost-effectiveness.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this systematic review is to identify economic evaluations of treatments for advanced melanoma and review model assumptions, outcomes, and quality as preparation for a health technology assessment.

METHODS

A search of Embase, MEDLINE, EconLit, and the Cochrane Database was conducted. Only studies using decision-analytic models were included. Two authors independently completed full-text review and data extraction.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies were identified. There were major differences in the structural assumptions underpinning the models. There was general agreement in study conclusions, although the predicted costs and quality-adjusted life years for each treatment varied. BRAF monotherapy (vemurafenib, dabrafenib) or BRAF/MEK combination therapy (BRAF monotherapy with cobimetinib or trametinib) has not been shown to be cost-effective in any jurisdiction. PD-1 inhibitors (pembrolizumab, nivolumab) are consistently found to be cost-effective compared with ipilimumab, although their cost-effectiveness compared with chemotherapy is not established. Combination therapy with nivolumab and ipilimumab is unlikely to be cost-effective in any setting. One study including all agents found that none of the new treatments were cost-effective relative to chemotherapy. Publication of the study in a health economics journal is associated with better reporting of and higher-quality assessment than those published in clinical journals.

CONCLUSION

Despite differences in model structures and assumptions, the conclusions of most included studies were consistent. Health technology assessment has a key role in maximizing value from high-cost innovative treatments. Consideration should be given to divestment from BRAF/MEK inhibitors and ipilimumab in favor of reimbursement of PD-1 inhibitors.

Cost-of-illness of melanoma in Europe - a modelling approach

BACKGROUND

Malignant melanoma is accounting for the vast majority of skin cancer death. The treatment and productivity loss due to morbidity or premature mortality are associated with costs for society. There are few cost-of-illness (COI) studies on malignant melanoma in European countries from societal perspective and currently there is no publication analysing the COI in all European countries.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of the present study was to comparatively estimate COI of malignant melanoma in the European countries based on an identical approach.

METHODS

Cost information was obtained from results of a systematic literature research. For countries with no available cost information, a model for imputation of cost data was developed. Country-specific costs were modelled on the national gross domestic product, health expenditures, gross national income and epidemiological data. The adjustment for purchasing power parity allowed a comparison across countries.

RESULTS

Crude national costs of malignant melanoma ranged between € 1.1 million in Iceland and € 543.8 million in Germany and resulted in € 2.7 billion for all EU/EFTA states. Estimated crude costs per patient were lowest in Bulgaria (€ 6422) and highest in Luxembourg (€ 50 734). The share of direct costs varied from 3% to 26% across countries. After adjustment for the purchasing power parity costs per patient ranged between € 14 420 in Bulgaria and € 50 961 in Cyprus. Treatment expenses and morbidity costs were markedly lower for countries that entered the EU since 2004. By contrast, mortality costs were lower in countries with a high gross domestic product per capita.

CONCLUSION

In this first estimation, malignant melanoma induces relevant COI in Europe. There was large variation in the costs per patient due to different health care systems and expenses. Beyond decreasing patient burden, early intervention and prevention of melanoma could have a relevant potential to save costs across Europe.

Cost-of-illness of melanoma in Europe - a systematic review of the published literature

Malignant melanoma accounts for the vast majority of skin cancer deaths. Primary prevention is used to increase knowledge about skin cancer and set incentives for a change in behaviour, which leads to a decrease in cases. Primary prevention may be cost-effective or even cost saving. Cost-of-illness (COI) studies provide information on such potential savings. The purpose of this study is to give an overview on COI studies in European countries and to compare the COI in total and by cost categories. The results can be used to model potential cost savings from prevention. We conducted a systematic literature research in PubMed using the PRISMA checklist. All costs were converted into Euro and adjusted for the reference year 2012. For the ranking of countries according to their COI, all costs were adjusted for the purchasing power parity. All studies focusing on stage III-IV melanoma include information on hospital, hospice, and outpatient treatment. Costs for the treatment of advanced melanoma range between € 2972 in Italy and € 17 408 in Sweden after adjusting for purchasing power parity. Most studies on stage I-IV melanoma include costs of hospitalization, outpatient treatment and general practitioner consultation. Direct costs range from € 923 in Sweden to € 9829 in Denmark. Three articles also include information on indirect costs. Mortality costs vary between € 3511 in Sweden and € 20 408 in England, morbidity costs between € 103 in Sweden and € 4550 in England. We showed that costs for the treatment of skin cancer are moderately high in the included countries. Since after publication of the articles new costly drugs were approved in Europe, treatment costs of melanoma in Europe may be expected to have risen in the last few years, which means that there is a high expectable potential for prevention programmes to become cost-effective or even cost saving.

Update of survival and cost of metastatic melanoma with new drugs: Estimations from the MelBase cohort

PURPOSE

Since 2011, significant progress was observed in metastatic melanoma (MM), with the commercialisation of seven immunotherapies or targeted therapies, which showed significant improvement in survival. In France, in 2004, the cost of MM was estimated at €1634 per patient; this cost has not been re-estimated since. This study provided an update on survival and cost in real-life clinical practice.

METHODS

Clinical and economic data (treatments, hospitalisations, radiotherapy sessions, visits, imaging and biological exams) were extracted from the prospective MelBase cohort, collecting individual data in 955 patients in 26 hospitals, from diagnosis of metastatic disease until death. Survival was estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. Costs were calculated from the health insurance perspective using French tariffs. For live patients, survival and costs were extrapolated using a multistate model, describing the 5-year course of the disease according to patient prognostic factors and number of treatment lines.

RESULTS

Since the availability of new drugs, the mean survival time of MM patients has increased to 23.6 months (_95%confidence interval [CI] :21.2;26.6), with 58% of patients receiving a second line of treatment. Mean management costs increased to €269,682 (_95%CI:244,196;304,916) per patient. Drugs accounted for 80% of the total cost.

CONCLUSION

This study is the first that evaluated the impact of immunotherapies and targeted therapies both on survival and cost in real-life conditions. Alongside the introduction of breakthrough therapies in the first and subsequent lines, MM has been associated with a significant increase in survival but also in costs, raising the question of financial sustainability.

Research Techniques Made Simple: Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is a research method used to determine the clinical benefit-to-cost ratio of a given intervention. CEA offers a standardized means of comparing cost-effectiveness among interventions. Changes in quality-adjusted life-years, disability-adjusted life-years, or survival and mortality are some of the common clinical benefit measures incorporated into CEA. Because accounting for all associated costs and benefits of an intervention is complex and potentially introduces uncertainty into the analysis, sensitivity analyses can be performed to test the analytic model under varying conditions. CEA informs the identification of high-value clinical practices and can be used to evaluate preventative, diagnostic, and therapeutic interventions in dermatology.

Cost-Effectiveness of Drug Treatments for Advanced Melanoma: A Systematic Literature Review

BACKGROUND

Until recently, advanced melanoma (unresectable and metastatic) has had a poor prognosis and has been treated with chemotherapy. The introduction of new treatments (BRAF and MEK inhibitors and immunotherapy) has improved overall survival and progression-free survival of some patients.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to review the published evidence on the cost-effectiveness of pharmacological treatments for advanced melanoma.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted, without date or language restrictions, in PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence databases and the Health Technology Assessment journal. Internet searches were also made to identify possible grey literature. Main study characteristics, methods and outcomes were extracted and critically assessed. The quality of health economic studies was assessed by the Quality Assessment of Economic Evaluation in Health Care checklist.

RESULTS

The search identified nine full-text pharmacoeconomic analyses of advanced melanoma treatments. According to the economic analyses published in the articles, the new treatments have been shown to be more effective (with more life-years and quality-adjusted life-years) than chemotherapy, although generally the cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained was above the commonly accepted threshold. Because of the variability of the available analyses comparing the new treatments, we cannot determine which treatment is the most cost-effective.

CONCLUSIONS

From the available data, it cannot be concluded that the new drugs (BRAF and MEK inhibitors and immunotherapy) are cost effective compared with chemotherapy or which is the most cost-effective new treatment.

Cobimetinib and vemurafenib for the treatment of melanoma

INTRODUCTION

Cobimetinib combined with vemurafenib is a new approved MEK inhibitor for first line treatment of metastatic melanoma patients with BRAF V600 mutations. It improves tumor response rates and progression free survival compared to vemurafenib alone, while decreasing toxicities due to the paradoxical activation of the MAPK signaling pathway.

AREAS COVERED

This review covers the pharmacology, efficacy, and toxicity data derived from clinical and preclinical studies on cobimetinib. It also reports ongoing trials evaluating cobimetinib to better understand future developments for this drug.

EXPERT OPINION

The combination of cobimetinib and vemurafenib seems to be more toxic than the combination therapy dabrafenib and trametinib even if these four drugs have never been compared in a randomized trial. The future of this combination depends on its capacity to be combined simultaneously or sequentially with immune based therapies to improve the durability of responses.

A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Nivolumab versus Docetaxel for Advanced Nonsquamous NSCLC Including PD-L1 Testing

INTRODUCTION

Nivolumab (NIV) was recently approved in several countries for patients with pretreated advanced NSCLC. NIV is not cost-effective compared with docetaxel (DOC) for the treatment of squamous NSCLC. However, its cost-effectiveness for nonsquamous NSCLC and the consequences of programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) testing are unknown.

METHODS

This literature-based health economic study used CheckMate-057 trial data to model the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of NIV versus DOC in the Swiss health care setting. The effect of PD-L1 positivity for patient selection was assessed.

RESULTS

In the base case model, NIV (mean cost CHF66,208; mean effect 0.69 quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs]) compared with DOC (mean cost CHF37,618; mean effect 0.53 QALYs) resulted in an ICER of CHF177,478/QALY gained. Treating only patients with PD-L1-positive tumors (threshold ≥10%) with NIV compared with treating all patients with DOC produced a base case ICER of CHF124,891/QALY gained. Reduced drug price, dose, or treatment duration decreased the ICER partly below a willingness-to-pay threshold of CHF100,000/QALY. Health state utilities strongly influenced cost-effectiveness.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with DOC, NIV is not cost-effective for the treatment of nonsquamous NSCLC at current prices in the Swiss health care setting. Price reduction or PD-L1 testing and selection of patients for NIV on the basis of test positivity improves cost-effectiveness compared with DOC.

Palbociclib as a first-line treatment in oestrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative, advanced breast cancer not cost-effective with current pricing: a health economic analysis of the Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research (SAKK)

Endocrine therapy continues to be the optimal systemic treatment for metastatic ER(+)HER2(-) breast cancer. The CDK4/6 inhibitor palbociclib combined with letrozole has recently been shown to significantly improve progression-free survival. Here we examined the cost-effectiveness of this regimen for the Swiss healthcare system. A Markov cohort simulation based on the PALOMA-1 trial (Finn et al. in Lancet Oncol 16:25-35, 2015) was used as the clinical course. Input parameters were based on summary trial data. Costs were assessed from the Swiss healthcare system perspective. Adding palbociclib to letrozole (PALLET) compared to letrozole monotherapy was estimated to cost an additional CHF342,440 and gain 1.14 quality-adjusted life years, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of CHF301,227/QALY gained. In univariate sensitivity analyses, no tested variation in key parameters resulted in an ICER below a willingness-to-pay threshold of CHF100,000/QALY. PALLET had a 0 % probability of being cost-effective in probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Lowering PALLET's price by 75 % resulted in an ICER of CHF73,995/QALY and a 73 % probability of being cost-effective. At current prices, PALLET would cost the Swiss healthcare system an additional CHF155 million/year. Palbociclib plus letrozole cannot be considered cost-effective for the first-line treatment of patients with metastatic breast cancer in the Swiss healthcare system.