Dataset Information

A systematic review of the cost and cost-effectiveness studies of immune checkpoint inhibitors.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Escalating healthcare costs are necessitating the practice of value-based oncology. It is crucial to critically evaluate the economic impact of influential but expensive therapies such as immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). To date, no systematic assessment of the cost-effectiveness (CE) of ICIs has been performed. METHODS:PRISMA-guided systematic searches of the PubMed database were conducted. Studies of head/neck (n?=?3), lung (n?=?5), genitourinary (n?=?4), and melanoma (n?=?8) malignancies treated with ICIs were evaluated. The reference willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was $100,000/QALY. RESULTS:Nivolumab was not cost-effective over chemotherapy for recurrent/metastatic head/neck cancers (HNCs). For non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), nivolumab was not cost-effective for a general cohort, but increased PD-L1 cutoffs resulted in CE. Pembrolizumab was cost-effective for both previously treated and newly-diagnosed metastatic NSCLC. For genitourinary cancers (GUCs, renal cell and bladder cancers), nivolumab and pembrolizumab were not cost-effective options. Regarding metastatic/unresected melanoma, ipilimumab monotherapy is less cost-effective than nivolumab, nivolumab/ipilimumab, and pembrolizumab. The addition of ipilimumab to nivolumab monotherapy was not adequately cost-effective. Pembrolizumab or nivolumab monotherapy offered comparable CE profiles. CONCLUSIONS:With limited data and from the reference WTP, nivolumab was not cost-effective for HNCs. Pembrolizumab was cost-effective for NSCLC; although not the case for nivolumab, applying PD-L1 cutoffs resulted in adequate CE. Most data for nivolumab and pembrolizumab in GUCs did not point towards adequate CE. Contrary to ipilimumab, either nivolumab or pembrolizumab is cost-effective for melanoma. Despite these conclusions, it cannot be overstated that careful patient selection is critical for CE. Future publication of CE investigations and clinical trials (along with longer follow-up of existing data) could substantially alter conclusions from this analysis.

SUBMITTER: Verma V

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6251215 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A systematic review of the cost and cost-effectiveness studies of immune checkpoint inhibitors.

Verma Vivek V Sprave Tanja T Haque Waqar W Simone Charles B CB Chang Joe Y JY Welsh James W JW Thomas Charles R CR

Journal for immunotherapy of cancer 20181123 1

<h4>Background</h4>Escalating healthcare costs are necessitating the practice of value-based oncology. It is crucial to critically evaluate the economic impact of influential but expensive therapies such as immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). To date, no systematic assessment of the cost-effectiveness (CE) of ICIs has been performed.<h4>Methods</h4>PRISMA-guided systematic searches of the PubMed database were conducted. Studies of head/neck (n = 3), lung (n = 5), genitourinary (n = 4), and mela ...[more]

PMID: 30470252

Similar Datasets

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.

Project description:IntroductionCalculating the cost per disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) averted associated with interventions is an increasing popular means of assessing the cost-effectiveness of strategies to improve population health. However, there has been no systematic attempt to characterize the literature and its evolution.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review of cost-effectiveness studies reporting cost-per-DALY averted from 2000 through 2015. We developed the Global Health Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (GHCEA) Registry, a repository of English-language cost-per-DALY averted studies indexed in PubMed. To identify candidate studies, we searched PubMed for articles with titles or abstracts containing the phrases "disability-adjusted" or "DALY". Two reviewers with training in health economics independently reviewed each article selected in our abstract review, gathering information using a standardized data collection form. We summarized descriptive characteristics on study methodology: e.g., intervention type, country of study, study funder, study perspective, along with methodological and reporting practices over two time periods: 2000-2009 and 2010-2015. We analyzed the types of costs included in analyses, the study quality on a scale from 1 (low) to 7 (high), and examined the correlation between diseases researched and the burden of disease in different world regions.ResultsWe identified 479 cost-per-DALY averted studies published from 2000 through 2015. Studies from Sub-Saharan Africa comprised the largest portion of published studies. The disease areas most commonly studied were communicable, maternal, neonatal, and nutritional disorders (67%), followed by non-communicable diseases (28%). A high proportion of studies evaluated primary prevention strategies (59%). Pharmaceutical interventions were commonly assessed (32%) followed by immunizations (28%). Adherence to good practices for conducting and reporting cost-effectiveness analysis varied considerably. Studies mainly included formal healthcare sector costs. A large number of the studies in Sub-Saharan Africa addressed high-burden conditions such as HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, neglected tropical diseases and malaria, and diarrhea, lower respiratory infections, meningitis, and other common infectious diseases.ConclusionThe Global Health Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry reveals a growing and diverse field of cost-per-DALY averted studies. However, study methods and reporting practices have varied substantially.

Project description:IntroductionAcral melanoma (AM) has different biological characteristics from cutaneous melanoma. Although systemic therapeutic strategies for advanced AM resemble those for advanced cutaneous melanoma, the evidence of the clinical use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) for AM is still inadequate. We aimed to systematically analyze the therapeutic effects and safety profile of ICI treatments in advanced AM.MethodsThis systematic review was conducted in line with a previously registered protocol. Three electronic databases, conference abstracts, clinical trial registers, and reference lists of included articles were searched for eligible studies. The primary outcomes were therapeutic effects, and the secondary outcomes were the safety profiles.ResultsThis systematic review included six studies investigating anti-CTLA-4 immunotherapy, 12 studies investigating anti-PD-1 immunotherapy, one study investigating the combination therapy of anti-CTLA-4 and anti-PD-1, and one study investigating anti-PD-1 immunotherapy in combination with radiotherapy. In most studies investigating ipilimumab, the anti-CTLA-4 antibody, the objective response rate ranged from 11.4 to 25%, the median progression-free survival ranged from 2.1 to 6.7 months, and the median overall survival was more than 7.16 months. For studies discussing anti-PD-1 immunotherapy with nivolumab, pembrolizumab, or JS001, the objective response rate ranged from 14 to 42.9%, the median progression-free survival ranged from 3.2 to 9.2 months, and the median overall survival was more than 14 months. The combination therapy of anti-CTLA-4 and anti-PD-1 immunotherapy showed better efficacy with an objective response rate of 42.9% than single-agent therapy. The retrospective study investigating the combination therapy of anti-PD-1 immunotherapy and radiation showed no overall response. Few outcomes regarding safety were reported in the included studies.ConclusionsICIs, especially anti-CTLA-4 monoclonal antibodies combined with anti-PD-1 antibodies, are effective systematic treatments in advanced AM. However, there remains a lack of high-level evidence to verify their efficacy and safety and support their clinical application.

Project description:Background: A large proportion of patients eventually experience disease progression despite treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), but subsequent treatment options are limited for this population. Retreatment with the same or different types of ICIs is a possible strategy, but the clinical efficacy and safety data are limited. This systematic review aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ICIs retreatment in patients with solid tumors after disease progression to previous ICIs.Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and major meeting libraries for prospective studies. The primary outcomes included the objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), median overall survival (mOS), and the incidence of grade ?3 immune-related adverse events (irAEs).Results: We identified 22 prospective studies including 1865 patients. For disease progression after CTLA-4 inhibitors, three studies evaluated anti-CTLA-4 retreatment. The ORR was 12-23%, the DCR was 48.4-67.7%, and the mOS was 12?months. The incidence of grade ?3 irAEs was 5.9-25%. Four studies evaluated anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) retreatment. The ORR was 22-36%, the DCR was 40-64%, and the mOS was 13.4-20.6?months. The incidence of grade ?3 irAEs was <10%. For disease progression after PD-(L)1 inhibitors, 13 studies evaluated anti-PD-(L)1 retreatment. The ORR was 5-53%, the DCR was 38-83%, and the mOS was 13.9?months. The incidence of grade ?3 irAEs was 0-15% for patients retreated with single anti-PD-(L)1 agent, but was higher (0-64%) for those retreated with ICIs combined with other agents. Two studies evaluated anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) retreatment. The ORR was 0-22.4%, the DCR was 50-72%, and the mOS was 4-21?months. The incidence of grade ?3 irAEs was 26-61%.Conclusion: Retreatment with ICIs is feasible for cancer patients considering its encouraging efficacy and tolerable safety. Further prospective trials are needed to explore more promising strategies and identify suitable populations for retreatment.

Project description:BackgroundConventional cytotoxic chemotherapy offers minor benefit to patients with mucosal melanoma (MM). Although immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have become the preferred approach in patients with advanced or metastatic cutaneous melanoma, the evidence of their clinical use for MM is still limited. This systematic review aims to summarize the efficacy and safety of ICIs in advanced or metastatic MM.MethodsWe searched electronic databases, conference abstracts, clinical trial registers and reference lists for relevant studies. The primary outcomes included the overall response rate (ORR), median progression-free survival (PFS), median overall survival (OS), one-year PFS rate, and one-year OS rate.ResultsThis review identified 13 studies assessing anti-CTLA-4 monotherapy, 22 studies assessing anti-PD-1 monotherapy, two studies assessing anti-CTLA-4 and anti-PD-1 combination therapy, one study assessing anti-PD-1 antibodies combined with axitinib, and three studies assessing anti-PD-1 antibodies combined with radiotherapy. For most patients who received ipilimumab monotherapy, the ORR ranged from 0% to 17%, the median PFS was less than 5 months, and the median OS was less than 10 months. For patients who received nivolumab or pembrolizumab monotherapy, most studies showed an ORR of more than 15% and a median OS of more than 11 months. The combined administration of anti-CTLA-4 and anti-PD-1 agents showed benefits over single-agent therapy with an ORR of more than 33.3%. In a phase Ib trial of toripalimab in combination with axitinib, approximately half of patients had complete or partial responses. Three retrospective studies that investigated anti-PD-1 antibodies combined with radiotherapy showed an ORR of more than 50%, which was higher than each single modality treatment.ConclusionsImmune checkpoint inhibitors, especially anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibodies alone and in combination with anti-CTLA-4 monoclonal antibodies or other modalities, are promising treatment options for advanced or metastatic MM. However, high-level evidence is still needed to support the clinical application.

Dataset Information

A systematic review of the cost and cost-effectiveness studies of immune checkpoint inhibitors.

Publications

A systematic review of the cost and cost-effectiveness studies of immune checkpoint inhibitors.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets