Economic Evaluation of Single versus Combination Immuno-Oncology Therapies: Application of a Novel Modelling Approach in Metastatic Melanoma

Modeling Challenges in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of First-Line Immuno-Oncology Therapies in Non-small Cell Lung Cancer: A Systematic Literature Review

INTRODUCTION

The introduction of immuno-oncology (IO) therapies has changed the treatment landscape of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Numerous cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) and technology appraisals (TAs) evaluating IO therapies have been recently published.

OBJECTIVE

We reviewed economic models of first-line (1L) IO therapies for previously untreated advanced or metastatic NSCLC to identify methodological challenges associated with modeling cost effectiveness from published literature and TAs and to make recommendations for future CEAs in this disease area.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted following Cochrane and PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, EconLit (January 2009-January 2020), and select conferences (since 2016) for CEAs of 1L IO treatments in patients with recurrent or metastatic, epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)/anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) mutation-negative NSCLC, published in English. TAs from England, Scotland, Canada, Australia, Germany, and France were also examined. Two reviewers screened the results and extracted the data. The quality of the CEAs was described using the Drummond checklist.

RESULTS

In total, 46 records reporting on 38 unique models met protocol-defined criteria and were included. Five models adjusted for treatment switching or crossover in base-case analyses, and the remainder considered treatment switching or crossover to represent clinical practice and made no adjustment. Seven models used external real-world data for survival modeling or extrapolation validation. Six models that assumed long-term treatment benefit stopped at 3 or 5 years after initiation. Seven models used the observed time-on-treatment distribution from the trial, and eight used progression-free survival for treatment duration. All models compared one or more IO monotherapies or combination therapies with chemotherapy. Only one study directly compared different IO agents but did not consider the concordance issue across programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) testing methods. Utilities were modeled by health state in 12 models, four applied a time-to-death approach, and ten explored both. None applied cure models.

CONCLUSION

Variations in methodological challenges were seen across studies. Previous models took approaches that were followed in subsequent models, such as a 2-year stopping rule of IO duration or treatment-effect waning. Challenges such as heterogeneity in PD-L1 testing and survival extrapolation and validation using real-world data should be further considered for future models in advanced or metastatic NSCLC.

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

AIMS

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

LIMITATIONS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Sentinel Node Status is the Most Important Prognostic Information for Clinical Stage IIB and IIC Melanoma Patients

BACKGROUND

Sentinel node biopsy (SNB) for melanoma patients has been questioned. We aimed to study high-risk stage II melanoma patients who underwent SNB to determine what the prognostic factors regarding recurrence and mortality were, and evaluate how relevant SNB status is in this scenario.

METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis of clinical stage IIB/IIC melanoma patients who underwent SNB from 2000 to 2015 in a single institution. Prognostic factors related to distant recurrence-free survival (DRFS) and melanoma-specific survival (MSS) were assessed from multiple Cox regression. Relevant variables were used to create risk predictor nomograms for DRFS and MSS.

RESULTS

From 1213 SNB, 259 were performed for clinical stage IIB/IIC melanoma patients. SNB status was the most important variable for both endpoints. Patients with positive SNB presented median DRFS of 35.73 months (95% CI 21.38-50.08, SE 7.32) and median MSS of 66.4 months (95% CI 29.76-103.03, SE 18.69), meanwhile both median DRFS and MSS were not achieved for those with negative SNB (logrank < 0.0001). Both nomograms have been internally validated and presented adequate calibration (C-index was 0.734 for DRFS and 0.718 for MSS).

CONCLUSIONS

SNB status was the most important risk factor in our cohort of clinical stage IIB and IIC patients and, in conjunction with well-established primary tumor characteristics, should not be abandoned. Their use in prognosis for these patients remains extremely useful for daily practice.