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

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 lorlatinib and crizotinib in the first-line treatment of anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive non-small cell lung cancer

OBJECTIVES

To assess the economic value of lorlatinib and crizotinib in the first-line treatment of anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive non-small cell lung cancer at medical insurance negotiation prices from the viewpoint of China's health system.

METHODS

Based on data from the phase III clinical trial, a three-state partitioned survival model was established. In combination with parameters such as treatment costs, utility values, incidence of adverse reactions, and discount rates, the total incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was simulated.

RESULTS

The results of the fundamental analysis indicated that the patients in the lorlatinib group expended 709,671 yuan more than did the patients in the crizotinib group did but gained 3.09 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The ICER value was 229,782.6 yuan/QALY, which was lower than three times the per capita gross domestic product (GDP) of China.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with crizotinib, lorlatinib may be a cost-effective first-line treatment choice for advanced ALK-positive NSCLC in China.

Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in the patients with advanced previously treated endometrial cancer: A cost-effectiveness analysis in the United States and in China

PURPOSE

To investigate the cost-effectiveness of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab (LP) compared to chemotherapy as a second-line treatment for advanced endometrial cancer (EC) from the United States and Chinese payers' perspective.

METHODS

In this economic evaluation, a partitioned survival model was constructed from the perspective of the United States and Chinese payers. The survival data were derived from the clinical trial (309-KEYNOTE-775), while costs and utility values were sourced from databases and published literature. Total costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were estimated. The robustness of the model was evaluated through sensitivity analyses, and price adjustment scenario analyses was also performed.

RESULTS

Base-case analysis indicated that LP wouldn't be cost-effective in the United States at the WTP threshold of $200 000, with improved effectiveness of 0.75 QALYs and an additional cost of $398596.81 (ICER $531392.20). While LP was cost-effective in China, with improved effectiveness of 0.75 QALYs and an increased overall cost of $62270.44 (ICER $83016.29). Sensitivity analyses revealed that the above results were stable. The scenario analyses results indicated that LP was cost-effective in the United States when the prices of lenvatinib and pembrolizumab were simultaneously reduced by 61.95% ($26.5361/mg for lenvatinib and $19.1532/mg for pembrolizumab).

CONCLUSION

LP isn't cost-effective in the patients with advanced previously treated endometrial cancer in the United States, whereas it is cost-effective in 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 budget impact and affordability for patients is needed.

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.

Cost-Effectiveness of Treatment Optimisation with Biomarkers for Immunotherapy in Solid Tumours: A Systematic Review

This study investigated the health economic evaluations of predictive biomarker testing in solid tumours treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Searching PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science from June 2010 to February 2022, 58 relevant articles were reviewed out of the 730 screened. The focus was predominantly on non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) (65%) and other solid tumours (40%). Among the NSCLC studies, 21 out of 35 demonstrated cost-effectiveness, notably for pembrolizumab as first-line treatment when preceded by PD-L1 assessment, cost-effective at a threshold of $100,000/QALY compared to the standard of care. However, for bladder, cervical, and triple-negative breast cancers (TNBCs), no economic evaluations met the affordability threshold of $100,000/QALY. Overall, the review highlights a certain degree of uncertainty about the cost-effectiveness of ICI. In particular, we found PD-L1 expression associated with ICI treatment to be a cost-effective strategy, particularly in NSCLC, urothelial, and renal cell carcinoma. The findings suggest the potential value of predictive biomarker testing, specifically with pembrolizumab in NSCLC, while indicating challenges in achieving cost-effectiveness for certain other solid tumours.

Cost-effectiveness of first-line immunotherapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer with different PD-L1 expression levels: A comprehensive overview

BACKGROUND

Immunotherapies can substantially improve treatment efficacy, despite their high cost. A comprehensive overview of the cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in patients with non-small cell lung cancer based on different tumor proportion scores (TPSs) was conducted.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Health Technology Assessment Database, and NHS Economic Evaluation databases were searched from their inception until August 24, 2022. Data relevant to the CEA results were recorded, and quality assessments conducted based on the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) process.

FINDINGS

Fifty-one original studies from seven countries were included. The mean QHES score was 77.0 (range: 53-95). Twenty-seven studies were classified as high-quality, and the rest as fair quality. Pembrolizumab, nivolumab, ipilimumab, atezolizumab, camrelizumab, cemiplimab, sintilimab, tislelizumab, and durvalumab were identified using three TPS categories. While nivolumab plus ipilimumab and pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy were unlikely to be cost-effective in China, the results for the US were uncertain. Atezolizumab combinations were not cost-effective in China or the US, and tislelizumab and sintilimab were cost-effective in China. For TPSs ≥ 50%, the pembrolizumab monotherapy could be cost-effective in some developed countries. Cemiplimab was more cost-effective than chemotherapy, pembrolizumab, and atezolizumab in the US. For TPSs ≥ 1%, the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab was controversial due to the different willingness-to-pay thresholds.

CONCLUSIONS

None of the atezolizumab combination regimens were found to be cost-effective in any perspective of evaluations. Camrelizumab, tislelizumab, and sintilimab have lower ICERs compared to atezolizumab, pembrolizumab, and nivolumab in China. Cemiplimab may be a more affordable alternative to pembrolizumab or atezolizumab. However, it remains unclear which ICIs are the best choices for each country. Future CEAs are required to select comprehensive regimens alongside randomized trials and real-world studies to help verify the economics of ICIs in specific decision-making settings.

Cost-effectiveness of first-line immunotherapies for advanced non-small cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND

Researchers have not simultaneously compared the cost-effectiveness of six immunotherapies with chemotherapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness across different programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) levels.

METHODS

A Markov model with lifetime horizon was created for seven regimens: pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy (pembro-chemo), nivolumab plus ipilimumab (nivo-ipi), nivolumab, ipilimumab plus chemotherapy (nivo-ipi-chemo), atezolizumab plus chemotherapy (atezo-chemo), atezolizumab, bevacizumab plus chemotherapy (atezo-beva-chemo), single-agent pembrolizumab, and chemotherapy alone. Input parameters were derived from trial data, a network meta-analysis, and other literature. We conducted the analysis from the perspective of US health care sector.

RESULTS

For all patients without considering PD-L1 expression, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of pembro-chemo versus chemotherapy was $183,299 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). The preferred regimens based on ICERs differed by PD-L1 levels. For patients with PD-L1 ≥50%, pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy and pembro-chemo versus pembrolizumab resulted in ICERs of $96,189 and $198,913 per QALY, respectively. The other strategies were dominated. For patients with PD-L1 of 1%-49%, the ICER of pembro-chemo comparing to chemotherapy was $218,159 per QALY. The other regimens were dominated by pembro-chemo. For patients with PD-L1 <1%, nivo-ipi versus chemotherapy and nivo-ipi-chemo versus nivo-ipi resulted in ICERs of $161,277 and $881,975 per QALY, and the other regimens were dominated strategies. At the willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per QALY, pembrolizumab had 87% and pembro-chemo had 1% probabilities being cost-effective in patients with PD-L1 ≥50% and 1%-49%, respectively. Nivo-ipi had a 34% probability being cost-effective in patients with PD-L1 <1%.

CONCLUSIONS

The PD-L1 level should be incorporated into treatment decision-making. Our findings suggest that first-line pembrolizumab, pembro-chemo, and nivo-ipi are the preferred strategies for patients with PD-L1 ≥50%, 1%-49%, and <1%, respectively.

Cost-effectiveness of first line nivolumab-ipilimumab combination therapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer: A systematic review and methodological quality assessment

To assess the methodological quality of cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) of nivolumab in combination with ipilimumab, we conducted a systematic literature review in the first-line treatment of patients with recurrent or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), whose tumors express programmed death ligand-1, with no epidermal growth factor receptor or anaplastic lymphoma kinase genomic tumor aberrations. PubMed, Embase, and the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry were searched, in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed by the Philips checklist and the Consensus Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) checklist. 171 records were identified. Seven studies met the inclusion criteria. Cost-effectiveness analyses differed substantially due to the applied modeling methods, sources of costs, health state utilities, and key assumptions. Quality assessment of the included studies highlighted shortcomings in data identification, uncertainty assessment, and methods transparency. Our systematic review and methodology assessment revealed that the methods of estimation of long-term outcomes, quantification of health state utility values, estimation of drug costs, the accuracy of data sources, and their credibility have important implications on the cost-effectiveness outcomes. None of the included studies fulfilled all of the criteria reported in the Philips and the CHEC checklists. To compound the economic consequences presented in these limited number of CEAs, ipilimumab's drug action as a combination therapy poses significant uncertainty. We encourage further research to address the economic consequences of these combination agents in future CEAs and the clinical uncertainties of ipilimumab for NSCLC in future trials.

Attribution of value for combination immune checkpoint inhibitors in non-small cell lung cancer

Immunotherapy represents a significant breakthrough in the treatment of cancer, including non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are used in combination with other treatments to provide clinically meaningful outcomes for NSCLC patients. However, there are distinct mechanisms of action that an ICI may provide such clinically meaningful benefits. We focused on the valuation of ICIs when used in combination with existing treatments for NSCLC, by addressing the following questions: (1) do combination ICIs improve clinical outcomes due to independent, rather than synergistic or additive drug action; and (2) how should we attribute value to the constituent parts of combination ICIs? To address these questions, we reviewed the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) drug database and Clinicaltrials.gov from January 1, 2012, until June 1, 2022, to identify approved indications of combination ICIs in NSCLC. For valuation methods, a separate search was conducted in PubMed, health technology assessment databases, and grey literature to identify published value assessment or attribution methods, specifically in the context of combination (cancer) treatments. As of June 1, 2022, the FDA approved eight combination ICI indications for NSCLC. The underlying mechanisms for the improved clinical benefits of these ICI therapies are not well studied. The superiority of combination ICI therapies compared to monotherapy in multiple indications does not indicate whether synergy or additivity is involved, or necessary. Policy statement: We encourage further research on the development of value attribution framework methods for combination therapies to quantify their added health benefits and economic value in the future. Given the valuation challenges of combination ICIs, their mechanism of action poses significant uncertainty and requires further clinical investigation to address whether synergy or additivity is existent.

Cost-effectiveness of nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy as first-line therapy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer

OBJECTIVES

First-line treatment with nivolumab plus ipilimumab has been shown to improve overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The current study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy in advanced NSCLC from the perspective of Chinese healthcare system.

METHODS

A three state-transition Markov model was employed to evaluate the cost and effectiveness of nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of advanced NSCLC. Key clinical data in the model were derived from Part 1 of the phase 3 CheckMate 227 trial (NCT02477826). Costs and utilities were obtained from published literatures. The main endpoints of the model were costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the model uncertainty.

RESULTS

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab was associated with an increase in overall cost of $95,867.82 and improved effectiveness of 0.98 QALYs compared with chemotherapy, yielding an ICER of $97,676.24 per QALY. In one-way sensitivity analysis, the variables that had the greatest influence on the ICER were hazard ratio for OS and body weight. In probabilistic analysis, nivolumab plus ipilimumab had a 0% probability of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $37,663.26/QALY in China. However, the combination therapy would become cost-effective when the cost of nivolumab and ipilimumab were discounted by 65%.

CONCLUSION

First-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab treatment for advanced NSCLC was found to be not cost-effective compared with chemotherapy at a WTP threshold of $37,663.26/QALY in China.

Proceedings From the ASCO/College of American Pathologists Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Predictive Biomarker Summit

PURPOSE

Immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) therapy represents one of the great advances in the field of oncology, highlighted by the Nobel Prize in 2018. Multiple predictive biomarkers for ICI benefit have been proposed. These include assessment of programmed death ligand-1 expression by immunohistochemistry, and determination of mutational genotype (microsatellite instability or mismatch repair deficiency or tumor mutational burden) as a reflection of neoantigen expression. However, deployment of these assays has been challenging for oncologists and pathologists alike.

METHODS

To address these issues, ASCO and the College of American Pathologists convened a virtual Predictive Factor Summit from September 14 to 15, 2021. Representatives from the academic community, US Food and Drug Administration, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, National Institutes of Health, health insurance organizations, pharmaceutical companies, in vitro diagnostics manufacturers, and patient advocate organizations presented state-of-the-art predictive factors for ICI, associated problems, and possible solutions.

RESULTS

The Summit provided an overview of the challenges and opportunities for improvement in assay execution, interpretation, and clinical applications of programmed death ligand-1, microsatellite instability-high or mismatch repair deficient, and tumor mutational burden-high for ICI therapies, as well as issues related to regulation, reimbursement, and next-generation ICI biomarker development.

CONCLUSION

The Summit concluded with a plan to generate a joint ASCO/College of American Pathologists strategy for consideration of future research in each of these areas to improve tumor biomarker tests for ICI therapy.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of personalised versus standard dosimetry for selective internal radiation therapy with TheraSphere in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma

Aims

To perform a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) comparing personalised dosimetry with standard dosimetry in the context of selective internal radiation therapy (SIRT) with TheraSphere for the management of adult patients with locally advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) from the Italian Healthcare Service perspective.

Materials and methods

A partition survival model was developed to project costs and the quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) over a lifetime horizon. Clinical inputs were retrieved from a published randomised controlled trial. Health resource utilisation inputs were extracted from the questionnaires administered to clinicians in three oncology centres in Italy, respectively. Cost parameters were based on Italian official tariffs.

Results

Over a lifetime horizon, the model estimated the average QALYs of 1.292 and 0.578, respectively, for patients undergoing personalised and standard dosimetry approaches. The estimated mean costs per patient were €23,487 and €19,877, respectively. The incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) of personalised versus standard dosimetry approaches was €5,056/QALY.

Conclusions

Personalised dosimetry may be considered a cost-effective option compared to standard dosimetry for patients undergoing SIRT for HCC in Italy. These findings provide evidence for clinicians and payers on the value of personalised dosimetry as a treatment option for patients with HCC.

Cost-Effectiveness of First-Line Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab Combination Therapy in Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer in Japan

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

In Japan, indications for nivolumab have been expanded to include the combination therapy with ipilimumab in various cancers. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of combination therapy of nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIV + IPI) for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), comparing it with platinum-doublet chemotherapy in Japanese settings.

METHODS

A partitioned survival model was developed to predict costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) in a NIV + IPI arm and a chemotherapy arm. Data on overall survival and progression-free survival were derived from the CheckMate 227 trial. Cost estimates were based on a Japanese healthcare system perspective using real-world data from the JMDC claims database. Utilities were derived from published sources outside Japan. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of NIV + IPI therapy compared with chemotherapy was estimated. A scenario analysis on the level of programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression was conducted. In addition, sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the uncertainty in parameter settings.

RESULTS

Compared with chemotherapy, NIV + IPI therapy incurred an additional cost of USD102,623 and conferred an additional 1.007 QALY, which resulted in an ICER of USD101,950/QALY gained. Contrary to prior expectations, the ICER of patients with a PD-L1 expression level ≥ 1% was higher than that of patients with a PD-L1 expression level < 1% (USD145,868/QALY and USD127,737/QALY, respectively). Sensitivity analyses showed a relatively robust result with the ICERs remaining higher than a Japanese price adjustment threshold of USD75,000/QALY with a few exceptions.

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of NIV + IPI as first-line therapy would not be cost effective under a willingness-to-pay threshold of USD75,000/QALY from the perspective of the Japanese healthcare system.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of nivolumab plus ipilimumab plus two cycles of platinum-doublet chemotherapy versus platinum-doublet chemotherapy alone for first-line treatment of stage IV or recurrent non-small cell lung cancer in the United States

AIM

This economic analysis evaluated the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab (NIVO) plus ipilimumab (IPI) plus two cycles of platinum-doublet chemotherapy (PDC) compared with four cycles of PDC as first-line treatment for patients with advanced NSCLC in the United States (US).

METHODS

A partitioned survival model was constructed with three mutually exclusive health states: progression free, progressed disease, and death. The analysis was conducted from a US healthcare payer perspective, using a time horizon of 25 years. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3% annually. Survival outcomes from CheckMate 9LA were extrapolated with longer follow-up data from CheckMate 227 Part 1 (NIVO + IPI) and validated against data from other relevant clinical trials and real-world registries. Health-related quality of life utility values were derived from EQ-5D-3L data collected in CheckMate 9LA. US-specific costs (2020 dollars) were used for disease management; drug acquisition, administration, and monitoring; end-of-life care; adverse events; and subsequent treatments. Model outcomes included life years (LYs) gained, quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs) gained, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for NIVO + IPI + PDC versus PDC. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

NIVO + IPI + PDC was associated with higher projected health benefits than PDC, including gains in LYs (3.71 vs 1.89) and QALYs (2.86 vs 1.37), and higher costs ($317,581 vs $119,909). The ICER was $132,960/QALY gained. NIVO + IPI + PDC had a 78-100% probability of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000-$250,000/QALY. Sensitivity and scenario analyses indicated that the results were robust to changes in key parameters.

LIMITATIONS

The inherent limitation in extrapolating clinical trial data was mitigated using data from the more mature CheckMate 227 Part 1 trial and validating the outcomes against data from other relevant trials and real-world registries.

CONCLUSION

NIVO + IPI + PDC (two cycles) provides a new first-line treatment option for patients with advanced NSCLC that is cost-effective within a range considered acceptable in the US.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus platinum-doublet chemotherapy for first-line treatment of stage IV or recurrent non-small cell lung cancer in the United States

AIM

We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab in combination with ipilimumab (NIVO + IPI) versus platinum-doublet chemotherapy (PDC) for the first-line treatment of stage IV or recurrent non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) from a third-party payer perspective in the United States (US).

METHODS

A partitioned survival model was developed using efficacy, safety, and utility inputs derived from Part 1 of the phase 3 CheckMate 227 trial (NCT02477826) with 37.7-month minimum follow-up for overall survival (OS). OS and progression-free (PF) survival were extrapolated over a 20-year time-horizon using parametric spline-based models selected based on goodness of fit and validated with data from external sources. Duration of treatment Kaplan-Meier curves were used for treatment cost calculations. US-specific costs (2021 dollars) for drug acquisition, administration, and monitoring; disease management (PF and progressed disease health states); end-of-life care; adverse events; and subsequent treatments were derived from publicly available sources. Time-to-death utilities were applied in the base case, whereas treatment-specific progression-based utilities were tested in a scenario analysis. Main outcomes included incremental cost per life-year gained (LYG) and quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Model uncertainty was assessed through deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

NIVO + IPI resulted in 1.53 additional life-years, 1.33 additional QALYs, and $142 088 in additional costs compared with PDC. The incremental cost per LYG was $92 651, whereas incremental cost per QALY gained was $106 553. The application of treatment-specific progression-based utilities yielded an incremental cost per QALY gained of $117 076. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed a 98% probability that NIVO + IPI was cost-effective versus PDC at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000 per QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

NIVO + IPI was estimated to be cost-effective as a first-line treatment for stage IV or recurrent NSCLC in the US, with increased survival and higher cost compared with PDC.

Cost-Effectiveness of Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab With and Without Chemotherapy for Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

Background

First-line treatment with nivolumab plus ipilimumab (N+I) or nivolumab plus ipilimumab with two cycles of chemotherapy (N+I+chemotherapy) improve overall survival and progression-free survival for patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), yet researchers have not concomitantly compared the cost-effectiveness of N+I and N+I+chemotherapy with chemotherapy alone.

Materials and methods

Using outcomes data from the CheckMate 227 and CheckMate 9LA phase 3 randomized trials, we developed a Markov model with lifetime horizon to compare the costs and effectiveness of N+I and N+I+chemotherapy versus chemotherapy from the U.S. health care sector perspective. Subgroup analysis by programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression levels (≥1% and <1%) and probabilistic analysis were performed.

Results

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of N+I versus chemotherapy was $239,072 per QALY, and $838,198 per QALY for N+I+chemotherapy versus N+I. The ICER of N+I versus chemotherapy was $246,584 per QALY for patients with PD-L1 ≥ 1% and $185,620 per QALY for those with PD-L1 < 1%. In probabilistic analysis, N+I had a 2.6% probability of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per QALY. The probability was 0.4% for patients with PD-L1 ≥ 1% and 10.6% for patients with PD-L1 < 1%.

Conclusion

First-line N+I or N+I+chemotherapy for metastatic NSCLC was not cost-effective regardless of PD-L1 expression levels from the U.S. health care sector perspective.

Cost-Minimization Analysis of Pembrolizumab Monotherapy Versus Nivolumab in Combination with Ipilimumab as First-Line Treatment for Metastatic PD-L1-Positive Non-small Cell Lung Cancer: A US Payer Perspective

BACKGROUND

Pembrolizumab monotherapy and nivolumab in combination with ipilimumab are US FDA-approved first-line (1L) regimens for patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) without epidermal growth factor receptor or anaplastic lymphoma kinase genomic aberrations and with a programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) tumor proportion score (TPS) of ≥ 1%. A published matching-adjusted indirect comparison found the two regimens yield comparable overall and progression-free survival outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare direct medical costs of pembrolizumab and nivolumab plus ipilimumab for PD-L1-positive metastatic NSCLC treatment within the first 3 years following treatment initiation from a US payer perspective.

METHODS

A cost-minimization model was built to estimate and compare treatment, disease management, and adverse event costs based on KEYNOTE-024 and -042, and CheckMate 227 Part 1a trial survival and adverse event data.

RESULTS

1L pembrolizumab generates $54,343, $75,744, and $76,259 per patient cost savings compared with 1L nivolumab plus ipilimumab for patients with NSCLC with PD-L1 TPS ≥ 1% within 1, 2, and 3 years of treatment initiation, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Pembrolizumab is cost saving as 1L treatment for PD-L1-positive metastatic NSCLC in comparison with nivolumab plus ipilimumab, at least for the short term.

Cost-effectiveness of Nivolumab-Ipilimumab Combination Therapy for the Treatment of Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

IMPORTANCE

Treatment with nivolumab-ipilimumab combination therapy was found to improve overall survival compared with chemotherapy among patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in the CheckMate 227 clinical trial. However, these drugs are substantially more expensive than chemotherapy and, given the high incidence of advanced NSCLC, the incorporation of dual immune checkpoint inhibitors into the standard of care could have substantial economic consequences.

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether nivolumab-ipilimumab combination therapy is a cost-effective first-line treatment for patients with advanced NSCLC.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This economic evaluation designed a Markov model to compare the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab-ipilimumab combination therapy with platinum-doublet chemotherapy as first-line treatment for patients with advanced NSCLC. The Markov model was created to simulate patients with advanced NSCLC who were receiving either nivolumab-ipilimumab combination therapy or platinum-doublet chemotherapy. Transition probabilities, including disease progression, survival, and treatment toxic effects, were derived using data from the CheckMate 227 clinical trial. Costs and health utilities were obtained from published literature. Data analyses were conducted from November 2019 to September 2020.

EXPOSURES

Nivolumab-ipilimumab combination therapy.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary study outcomes were quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and cost in 2020 US dollars. Cost-effectiveness was measured using an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), with an ICER less than $100 000 per QALY considered cost-effective. Model uncertainty was assessed with 1-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

Treatment with nivolumab-ipilimumab combination therapy was associated with an increase in overall cost of $201 900 and improved effectiveness of 0.50 QALYs compared with chemotherapy, yielding an ICER of $401 700 per QALY. The study model was sensitive to the cost and duration of immunotherapy. Treatment with nivolumab-ipilimumab combination therapy became cost-effective when monthly treatment costs were reduced from $26 425 to $5058 (80.9% reduction) or when the maximum duration of immunotherapy was reduced from 24.0 months to 1.4 months. The model was not sensitive to assumptions about survival or programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 status. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per QALY, nivolumab-ipilimumab combination therapy was less cost-effective than chemotherapy 99.9% of the time.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this study, first-line treatment with nivolumab-ipilimumab combination therapy was not found to be cost-effective at current prices despite clinical trial data indicating that this regimen increases overall survival among patients with advanced NSCLC.