Dataset Information

First-line treatments for advanced renal-cell carcinoma with immune checkpoint inhibitors: systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis.

ABSTRACT: Background:Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are effective for advanced renal-cell carcinoma (aRCC) but can increase costs. This study compares the efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness of ICIs for newly diagnosed aRCC patients in the first-line setting. Methods:Trials evaluating ICI regimens as first-line treatment for newly diagnosed aRCC were searched and included. A network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted, and a cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from the US payer's perspective. The key outcomes were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) in the NMA, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), costs and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in the cost-effectiveness analysis. Results:Four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 3758 patients receiving first-line ICIs treatment were analyzed. The NMA showed that pembrolizumab plus axitinib was ranked higher than the other three ICI regimens and sunitinib in the overall population. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab and pembrolizumab plus axitinib achieved more health benefits than the other ICI regimens and sunitinib in programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1)-positive and negative tumors, respectively. Among the four ICI regimens, only the ICERs of nivolumab plus ipilimumab over sunitinib were lower than the willingness-to-pay threshold ($150,000/QALY) in the overall and PD-L1-positive populations, and none of four ICI regimens were lower than $150,000/QALY in PD-L1-negative populations. Conclusions:The NMA and cost-effectiveness analysis revealed that nivolumab plus ipilimumab is the most favorable first-line treatment for PD-L1-positive aRCC compared with other ICI regimens and sunitinib. Pembrolizumab plus axitinib is likely to be an alternative for PD-L1-negative aRCC due to its more favorable health advantages.

SUBMITTER: Su Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7436799 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

First-line treatments for advanced renal-cell carcinoma with immune checkpoint inhibitors: systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis.

Su Yingjie Y Fu Jie J Du Jiangyang J Wu Bin B

Therapeutic advances in medical oncology 20200817

<h4>Background</h4>Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are effective for advanced renal-cell carcinoma (aRCC) but can increase costs. This study compares the efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness of ICIs for newly diagnosed aRCC patients in the first-line setting.<h4>Methods</h4>Trials evaluating ICI regimens as first-line treatment for newly diagnosed aRCC were searched and included. A network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted, and a cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from the US payer ...[more]

PMID: 32874210

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundVarious therapeutic strategies are available for the first-line treatment of patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC). But which approach is the most cost-effective remains uncertain.ObjectivesThis study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of first-line strategies in aHCC patients from the perspective of Chinese and US payers.DesignA network meta-analysis (NMA) and cost-effectiveness study.Data sources and methodsA NMA was conducted to collect all first-line strategies with aHCC from 1 October 1 2018 until 1 January 2022. The relevant randomized controlled trial literature in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library for the last 3 years were searched. The abstracts of meetings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, European Society of Medical Oncology, and American Association for Cancer Research were also reviewed. A Markov model that included three states was developed. One-way sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed to investigate the uncertainty of the economic evaluation. Scenario analysis was conducted to explore the economic benefits of treatment strategies in low-income populations.ResultsBase-case analysis in China included 1712 patients showed that atezolizumab combined with bevacizumab, sintilimab combined with bevacizumab, lenvatinib (LEVA), and sorafenib (SORA) added 0.46, 1.25, 0.77, and -1.08 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), respectively, compared with donafenib, resulting in an incremental cost-effective ratio of $85607.88, $12109.27, and $1651.47 per QALY at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) of $11101.70/QALY. In the United States, only the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of SORA was higher that were lower than the WTP threshold ($69375/QALY), and LEVA was the most cost-effective strategy with the ICERs were 25022.13/QALY.ConclusionThe NMA and cost-effectiveness analysis revealed that LEVA is the favorite choice in the first-line treatment of Chinese aHCC patients and US payers' perspective when the WTP was $11101.70/QALY in China and $69375.0/QALY in the United States.RegistrationThis study has been registered on the PROSPERO database with the registration number CRD42021286575.

Project description:ObjectivesRecent studies showed prolonged survival for advanced epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutant non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients treated with both monotherapies and combined therapies. However, high costs limit clinical applications. Thus, we conducted this cost-effectiveness analysis to explore an optimal first-line treatment for advanced EGFR-mutant NSCLC patients.Materials and methodsSurvival data were extracted from six clinical trials, including ARCHER1050 (dacomitinib vs. gefitinib); FLAURA (osimertinib vs. gefitinib/erlotinib); JO25567 and NEJ026 (bevacizumab +erlotinib vs. erlotinib); NEJ009 (gefitinib +chemotherapy vs. gefitinib); and NCT02148380 (gefitinib +chemotherapy vs. gefitinib vs. chemotherapy) trials. Cost-related data were obtained from hospitals and published literature. The effect parameter (quality-adjusted life year [QALY]) was the reflection of both survival and utility. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), average cost-effectiveness ratio (ACER), and net benefit were calculated, and the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was set at $30828/QALY from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Sensitivity analysis was performed to explore the stability of results.ResultsWe compared treatment groups with control groups in each trial. ICERs were $1897750.74/QALY (ARCHER1050), $416560.02/QALY (FLAURA), -$477607.48/QALY (JO25567), -$464326.66/QALY (NEJ026), -$277121.22/QALY (NEJ009), -$399360.94/QALY (gefitinib as comparison, NCT02148380), and -$170733.05/QALY (chemotherapy as comparison, NCT02148380). Moreover, ACER and net benefit showed that the combination of EGFR-TKI with chemotherapy and osimertinib was of more economic benefit following first-generation EGFR-TKIs. Sensitivity analyses showed that the impact of utilities and monotherapy could be cost-effective with a 50% cost reduction.ConclusionFirst-generation EGFR-TKI therapy remained the most cost-effective treatment option for advanced EGFR-mutant NSCLC patients. Our results could serve as both a reference for both clinical practice and the formulation of medical insurance reimbursement.

Project description:BackgroundLung cancer is imposing significant pressure on the national health insurance system worldwide, especially under the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the cost-effectiveness of all available first-line treatments for patients with advanced epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is still uncertain. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of 12 first-line treatments for patients with advanced EGFR mutated NSCLC from the perspective of the United Kingdom (UK) National Health Service and Chinese health care system.MethodsWe used a Markov model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of 12 treatments, including 6 EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors, 4 combination treatments and 2 chemotherapies. The key clinical efficacy and safety data were from a network meta-analysis. The cost and health preference were mainly collected from the literature. The most cost-effective treatment was inferred through a sequential analysis. Uncertainty was tested with one-way sensitivity analyses, scenario analyses, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), direct medical costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were estimated, at willingness-to-pay thresholds of £20000 to £50000 and £8000 to £24000 per QALY in the UK and China respectively.ResultsFor clinical effectiveness, osimertinib and gefitinib plus pemetrexed based chemotherapy (PbCT) yielded the highest QALYs, while two chemotherapy treatments gained the lowest QALYs. For costs, gefitinib treatment was the cheapest option in both countries (£24529 in the UK and £12961 in China). For cost-effectiveness, 4 treatments including gefitinib, gefitinib plus pemetrexed, gefitinib plus PbCT, and osimertinib formed the cost-effectiveness frontier in both countries. Gefitinib alone (70.7% and 80.0% under the threshold of £20000 and £8000 per QALY in the UK and China, respectively) and gefitinib plus PbCT (62.3% and 71.2% under the threshold of £50000 and £24000 per QALY in the UK and China, respectively) were most likely to be cost-effective compared with other first-line treatments.ConclusionsGefitinib and gefitinib plus PbCT were likely to be cost-effective for patients with advanced EGFR mutated NSCLC in both countries.

Project description:Objective: Nivolumab improves overall survival (OS) and is associated with fewer adverse events than sorafenib for the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC). However, the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab compared with sorafenib treatment for aHCC remains unclear. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab and sorafenib in the treatment of aHCC. Materials and methods: A partitioned survival model that included three mutually exclusive health states was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab and sorafenib for treating aHCC. The clinical characteristics and outcomes of the patients in the model were obtained from the CheckMate 459. We performed deterministic one-way sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analyses to evaluate the robustness of the model. Subgroup analyses were also performed. Costs, life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), incremental net health benefits (INHB), and incremental net monetary benefits (INMB) were measured. Results: The base case analysis showed that compared with sorafenib, treatment with nivolumab was associated with an increment of 0.50 (2.45 vs. 1.95) life-years and an increment of 0.32 (1.59 vs. 1.27) QALYs, as well as a $69,762 increase in cost per patient. The ICER was $220,864/QALY. The INHB and INMB were -0.15 QALYs and -$22,362 at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000/QALY, respectively. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the probability of nivolumab being cost-effective was only 10.38% at a WTP threshold of $150,000/QALY. The model was most sensitive to the costs of sorafenib and nivolumab according to the one-way sensitivity analysis. When the price of sorafenib exceeded $0.93/mg or nivolumab was less than $24.23/mg, nivolumab was more cost-effective. The subgroup analysis illustrated that the probability of cost-effectiveness was >50% in the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer Stage B subgroups for nivolumab at a WTP threshold of $150,000/QALY. This study also showed that the probability of cost-effectiveness was <50% in most subgroups. Conclusion: Nivolumab was not cost-effective, although it was associated with better clinical benefit and a favorable safety profile for the treatment of aHCC compared with sorafenib from the third-party payer perspective in the United States. If the price of nivolumab is substantially reduced, favorable cost-effectiveness can be achieved among patients with aHCC.

Project description:Background: Sintilimab + a bevacizumab biosimilar (IBI305) (SB) and atezolizumab + bevacizumab (AB) have been approved for the treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). At present, oncologists and their patients remain indecisive on their preferred treatment regime. Therefore, assessing their efficacy via a network meta-analysis and determining their comparative cost-effectiveness is necessary. Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of SB and AB compared with sorafenib alone for the treatment of unresectable HCC. Materials and Methods: The data used in our analysis were obtained from patients in ORIENT-32 and IMbrave150 phase III randomized clinical trials. A Bayesian network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis that included 1,072 patients were performed in this study. A partitioned survival model was applied to the patients with unresectable HCC. The model was designed with a 15-year time horizon, 1-month cycle, and 5% discount rate for costs and outcomes. In China, an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) value of less than $33,500 (three times the GDP per capita in 2020) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) is considered cost-effective. The influence of parameter uncertainty on the results was verified by one-way deterministic sensitivity analysis and probability sensitivity analysis. Furthermore, scenario analyses of the patient assistance program (PAP) were conducted to explore the cost-effectiveness of SB and AB. Results: For the model of 1,072 patients, treatment with SB produced an additional 0.617 QALYs compared with sorafenib, resulting in an ICER of $39,766.86/QALY. Similarly, treatment with AB produced an additional 0.596 QALYs compared with sorafenib, resulting in an ICER of $103,037.66/QALY. The probability sensitivity analysis showed that when the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was $33,500/QALY, the cost-effectiveness of SB and AB was 15.4 and 0.4%, respectively. However, in the scenario analyses, the probability of SB and AB regimens being cost-effective was 65.4 and 15.8%, respectively, at a WTP of $33,500/QALY. Conclusion: The findings from our study showed that sintilimab + a bevacizumab biosimilar is a cost-effective regimen compared with sorafenib as the first-line therapy for unresectable HCC in China at a $33,500 WTP threshold if sintilimab PAP is considered. However, the atezolizumab + bevacizumab regimen is not cost-effective whether atezolizumab PAP is considered or not.

Project description:ImportanceRecently, new drugs have been approved for the first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Nivolumab plus ipilimumab significantly increases overall survival for intermediate- and poor-risk patients with mRCC. However, considering the high cost of nivolumab plus ipilimumab, there is a need to assess its value by considering both efficacy and cost.ObjectiveTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs sunitinib in the first-line setting for intermediate- and poor-risk patients with mRCC from the US payer perspective.Design, setting, and participantsA Markov model was developed to compare the lifetime cost and effectiveness of nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs sunitinib in the first-line treatment of mRCC using outcomes data from the CheckMate 214 phase 3 randomized clinical trial, which included 1096 patients with mRCC (median age, 62 years) and compared nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs sunitinib as first-line treatment of mRCC. In the analysis, patients were modeled to receive sunitinib or nivolumab plus ipilimumab for 4 doses followed by nivolumab monotherapy.Main outcomes and measuresLife-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and lifetime costs were estimated, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 to $150 000 per QALY. Univariable, 2-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the model uncertainty. Additional subgroup analyses were performed.ResultsNivolumab plus ipilimumab provided an additional 0.96 QALYs, at a cost of $108 363 per QALY. Sensitivity analyses found the results to be most sensitive to overall survival hazard ratio (0.63; 95% CI, 0.44-0.89) and mean patient weight (70 kg, range, 40-200 kg). Other variables, such as the cost of nivolumab plus ipilimumab (mean, $32 213.44; range, $25 770.75-$38 656.13), utility values for nivolumab plus ipilimumab (mean, 0.82; range, 0.65-0.98), and proportion receiving nivolumab in sunitinib arm (mean, 0.27; range, 0.22-0.32), had a moderate or minor influence on model results. Subgroup analyses demonstrated that nivolumab plus ipilimumab was most cost-effective for patients with programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 expression of at least 1% ($86 390 per QALY).Conclusions and relevanceIn this model, nivolumab plus ipilimumab was estimated to be cost-effective compared with sunitinib for intermediate- and poor-risk patients with mRCC at a willingness-to-pay threshold from $100 000 to $150 000 per QALY.

Dataset Information

First-line treatments for advanced renal-cell carcinoma with immune checkpoint inhibitors: systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis.

Publications

First-line treatments for advanced renal-cell carcinoma with immune checkpoint inhibitors: systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets