Economic evaluation of first-line nivolumab plus cabozantinib for advanced renal cell carcinoma in China

Economic value of toripalimab plus axitinib as first-line treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma in China: a model-based cost-effectiveness analysis

OBJECTIVE

The current analysis aimed to evaluate the economic benefit of toripalimab plus axitinib for previously untreated RCC patients from the Chinese healthcare system perspective.

METHODS

The partitioned survival model was developed to simulate 3-week patients' transition in 20-year time horizon to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of toripalimab plus axitinib compared with sunitinib for advanced RCC. Survival data were gathered from the RENOTORCH trial, and cost and utility inputs were obtained from the database and published literature. Total cost, life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were the model outputs. Subgroup analyses and sensitivity analyses were conducted to increase the comprehensiveness and estimate the robustness of the model results.

RESULTS

In the base-case analysis, compared with sunitinib, toripalimab plus axitinib could bring additional 1.19 LYs and 0.65 QALYs, with the marginal cost of $41,499.23, resulting in the ICER of $64,337.49/QALY, which is higher than the WTP threshold. And ICERs were always beyond the WTP threshold of all subgroups. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated the model results were robust.

CONCLUSIONS

Toripalimab plus axitinib was unlikely to be the cost-effective first-line therapy for patients with previously untreated advanced RCC compared with sunitinib from the Chinese healthcare system perspective.

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.