Cost-effectiveness of immunotherapies for advanced squamous non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Cheng M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC10916025 | biostudies-literature | 2024 Jan
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundResearchers 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.MethodsA 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.ResultsFor 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%.ConclusionsThe 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.
| S-EPMC10134257 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to investigate the cost effectiveness of nivolumab versus docetaxel in previously treated, advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in England and assess how conditional reimbursement within the Cancer Drugs Fund (CDF) can be used to ensure timely patient access to effective treatments.MethodsCost-effectiveness models developed for the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) TA483 (squamous) and TA484 (non-squamous) technology appraisals were supplemented with updated overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and time-to-treatment discontinuation data collected as part of the CDF data collection agreement. Both models were developed by using a partitioned-survival approach based on PFS and OS predictions from CheckMate 017 and CheckMate 057 to estimate the projected proportion of patients in each health state (progression free, progression, death) throughout the model's time horizon. The primary outcomes were estimated costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and the resulting incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) expressed as cost/QALY gained.ResultsBase-case ICERs for treating patients with nivolumab versus docetaxel were £35,657/QALY and £38,703/QALY for squamous and non-squamous NSCLC patients, respectively, which are substantially lower than those obtained from what were deemed to be the most appropriate analyses for decision making in the original submissions when run with the same patient access scheme discount: £68,576/QALY and £73,189/QALY gained for squamous and non-squamous NSCLC, respectively.ConclusionsNivolumab versus docetaxel is cost effective for treating locally advanced/metastatic NSCLC after prior chemotherapy in adults, regardless of tumour histology or programmed death-ligand 1 expression status.
| S-EPMC8160043 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionPembrolizumab, an immune checkpoint inhibitor for treating non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), can impose a high financial burden. Several studies have explored the cost-effectiveness of this expensive agent. We conducted a systematic review and pooled analysis to evaluate the quality of the existing pharmacoeconomic studies on pembrolizumab strategies for NSCLC treatment as well as to conclude the cost-effectiveness of such strategies.MethodsEnglish and Chinese databases were searched to collect health economic studies on pembrolizumab therapies (monotherapy or a combination with chemotherapy) compared with chemotherapy for the treatment of NSCLC patients. The reporting quality, modeling methods, and results of incremental cost-effectiveness analysis of the included literature were descriptively analyzed.ResultsA total of 24 studies, 3 in Chinese and 21 in English, were selected. All reports satisfy a median of 31 out of 40 reporting quality assessment items based on a quality checklist for pharmacoeconomic evaluations. 12 studies used the Markov model and 11 used the partitioned survival model. A common problem identified in the modeling methods was the insufficient justification of the choices of model structure and data inputs. Pembrolizumab was found to be cost-effective in the United States and Switzerland, but not in China, France, the UK, or Singapore.ConclusionThe current cost-effectiveness studies on pembrolizumab for the treatment of NSCLC are of moderate quality, and the relevant decision-analytic modeling methods have much scope for improvement. The cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab strategies for NSCLC varies across countries, warranting the need to pay more attention to the methodologies of pharmacoeconomic research in order to produce correct outcomes in terms of cost-effectiveness for different countries.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42021250480.
| S-EPMC9469648 | biostudies-literature
Project description: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.
| S-EPMC10012633 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objective: This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs. chemotherapy in the first-line setting for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) from the US payer perspective. Materials and methods: A Markov model wasdeveloped to evaluate the cost and effectiveness of nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs. chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of advanced NSCLC. The survival benefits of nivolumab plus ipilimumab were based on the results of the CheckMate 227 trial. The main endpoints of the model were cost, life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Univariable and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess model uncertainty. Additonal subgroup analyses were also performed. Results: nivolumab plus ipilimumab produced a gain of 0.62 QALYs, at a cost of $104238 per QALY. The variables that had the greatest influence on the ICER were body weight and overall survival (OS) hazard ratio (HR). The probability of nivolumab plus ipilimumab being cost-effectiveness compared to chemotherapy is 50.7 and 66.2% when the willingness-to-pay (WTP) value is $ 100,000 and $ 150,000 per QALY. The results of subgroup analyses showed the ICER remained below $150,000/QALY regardless of the PD-L1 expression level. Conclusions: nivolumab plus ipilimumab was estimated to be cost-effective compared with chemotherapy for patients with advanced NSCLC at a WTP threshold from 100,000/QALY to 150,000/QALY.
| S-EPMC8430394 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundImmune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) for treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have been rapidly evolving. ICIs are likely to be more effective but also lead to escalating healthcare costs.ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to evaluate the cost effectiveness of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) for treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).MethodsWe searched the PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library for studies comparing the cost effectiveness of ICIs for NSCLC. Potential studies identified were independently checked for eligibility by two authors, with disagreement resolved by a third reviewer. Quality of the included studies was evaluated using Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklists.ResultsA total of 22 economic studies were included. Overall reporting of the identified studies largely met CHEERS recommendations. In the first-line setting, for advanced or metastatic NSCLC patients with PD-L1 ≥ 50%, pembrolizumab appeared cost-effective compared with platinum-based chemotherapy in the US and Hong Kong (China), but not in the UK and China. The cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy for first-line treatment of NSCLC in PD-L1 ≥ 1% patients remained obscure. Regardless of PD-L1 expression status, pembrolizumab in combination with chemotherapy could be a cost-effective first-line therapy in the US. On the contrary, addition of atezolizumab to the combination of bevacizumab and chemotherapy was not cost-effective for patients with metastatic non-squamous NSCLC from the US payer perspective. In the second-line setting compared with docetaxel, pembrolizumab was cost-effective; though nivolumab was not cost-effective in the base case, it could be by increased PD-L1 threshold. Results of the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab second-line treatment remained inconsistent. In addition, the adoption of durvalumab consolidation therapy after chemoradiotherapy could be cost-effective versus no consolidation therapy for patients with stage III NSCLC.ConclusionsImmunotherapy can be a cost-effective option for treatment of NSCLC in several scenarios. A discount of the agents or the use of PD-L1 expression as a biomarker improves the cost-effectiveness of immunotherapy.
| S-EPMC7467260 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveCamrelizumab is a selective, humanised, high-affinity IgG4 kappa monoclonal antibody against programmed cell death 1 that shows effective antitumour activity with acceptable toxicity in multiple tumour types. The CameL trial demonstrated that camrelizumab plus chemotherapy (CC) significantly prolonged the median progression-free survival and median overall survival versus chemotherapy alone (CA) in patients with advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Our study was conducted to investigate the cost-effectiveness of the two strategies in chemotherapy-naive patients with advanced non-squamous NSCLC.Design, setting and participantsA Markov simulation model was generated based on the CameL trial. The two simulated treatments included CC and CA.Primary and secondary outcome measuresUtility was derived from published literature, and costs were calculated based on those at our hospital in Chengdu, China. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated to compare the cost-effectiveness of the two treatment arms.ResultsIn the overall population, the total costs were $27 223.40 and $13 740.10 for CC and CA treatment, respectively. The CC treatment produced 1.37 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and the CA treatment produced 1.17 QALYs. Hence, patients who were in the CC group spent an additional $13 483.30 and generated an increase of 0.20 QALYs, resulting in an ICER of $67 416.50 per QALY.ConclusionsFor chemotherapy-naive patients with advanced non-squamous NSCLC, CC is not considered a cost-effective treatment versus CA in China when considering a willingness-to-pay threshold of $31 500 per QALY.Trial registration numberNCT03134872.
| S-EPMC9362787 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundNon-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) imposes a substantial burden on patients, health care systems and society due to increasing incidence and poor survival rates. In recent years, advances in the treatment of metastatic NSCLC have resulted from the introduction of targeted therapies. However, the application of these new agents increases treatment costs considerably. The objective of this article is to review the economic evidence of targeted therapies in metastatic NSCLC.MethodsA systematic literature review was conducted to identify cost-effectiveness (CE) as well as cost-utility studies. Medline, Embase, SciSearch, Cochrane, and 9 other databases were searched from 2000 through April 2013 (including update) for full-text publications. The quality of the studies was assessed via the validated Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument.ResultsNineteen studies (including update) involving the MoAb bevacizumab and the Tyrosine-kinase inhibitors erlotinib and gefitinib met all inclusion criteria. The majority of studies analyzed the CE of first-line maintenance and second-line treatment with erlotinib. Five studies dealt with bevacizumab in first-line regimes. Gefitinib and pharmacogenomic profiling were each covered by only two studies. Furthermore, the available evidence was of only fair quality.ConclusionFirst-line maintenance treatment with erlotinib compared to Best Supportive Care (BSC) can be considered cost-effective. In comparison to docetaxel, erlotinib is likely to be cost-effective in subsequent treatment regimens as well. The insights for bevacizumab are miscellaneous. There are findings that gefitinib is cost-effective in first- and second-line treatment, however, based on only two studies. The role of pharmacogenomic testing needs to be evaluated. Therefore, future research should improve the available evidence and consider pharmacogenomic profiling as specified by the European Medicines Agency. Upcoming agents like crizotinib and afatinib need to be analyzed as well.
| S-EPMC4269853 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeThe five-year update data from the KEYNOTE-407 study have unveiled noteworthy improvements in survival outcomes achieved with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy (Pembro+Chemo) compared to placebo plus chemotherapy (Placebo+Chemo) for patients with previously untreated metastatic squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Building upon this finding, our study sought to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of Pembro+Chemo, utilizing the latest available data, from the perspective of the Chinese health care system.Patients and methodsA Markov model was employed to compare the quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), life-year (LY), total cost, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) between Pembro+Chemo and Placebo+Chemo. The clinical and safety data were derived from the five-year update date of the KEYNOTE-407 study. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the uncertainty of the model, and additional subgroup analyses were performed to explore specific subpopulations.ResultsFor patients with previously untreated metastatic squamous NSCLC, the utilization of Pembro+Chemo resulted in a improvement of 0.61 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) along with a cost reduction of $17,491.52 when compared to Placebo+Chemo. Notably, across various subgroups with different tumor proportion scores (TPS), Pembro+Chemo demonstrated enhanced QALYs and lower total costs.ConclusionFrom the perspective of the Chinese health care system, first-line Pembro+Chemo emerges as a dominant treatment option over Placebo+Chemo for the treatment of metastatic squamous NSCLC.
| S-EPMC10505025 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesWhile previous cost-effectiveness studies on pembrolizumab in stage IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have found these regimens to be cost-effective, their reliance on randomized controlled trial (RCT) data with strict inclusion criteria limits generalizability to patients with comorbidities. We estimated the cost-effectiveness of first-line pembrolizumab for patients with various comorbidities.Materials and methodsIn our base case analysis, we studied pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy (pembrolizumab combination therapy) versus chemotherapy alone. In a secondary analysis, we considered only patients with PD-L1 expression of at least 50% (PD-L1-high) and evaluated pembrolizumab monotherapy, pembrolizumab combination therapy, and chemotherapy alone. Microsimulation models were developed for the base case and the PD-L1-high analyses. To estimate outcomes of patients with differing comorbidities, we combined survival data from patients with few or no comorbidities from the RCTs with estimates from the general population obtained from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database. Comorbidity burden level was divided into three groups based on the Charlson score (equal to 0, 1, or 2+); patients with various other specific comorbidities were also analyzed. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were compared to a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $100,000/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY).ResultsIn the Charlson 0, Charlson 1, and Charlson 2+ patient populations, estimated ICERs for pembrolizumab combination therapy in the base case model were $173,919/QALY, $175,165/QALY, and $181,777/QALY, respectively, compared to chemotherapy. In the PD-L1-high model, the Charlson 0, Charlson 1, and Charlson 2+ patients had ICERs of $147,406/QALY, $149,026/QALY, and $154,521/QALY with pembrolizumab combination therapy versus chemotherapy. Pembrolizumab monotherapy was weakly dominated for each comorbidity group in the PD-L1-high model.ConclusionFor patients with stage IV NSCLC and varying comorbidity burden, first-line treatment with pembrolizumab does not represent a cost-effective strategy compared to chemotherapy. Resources should be focused on collecting immunotherapy survival data for more representative NSCLC patient populations.
| S-EPMC6988966 | biostudies-literature