Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness of Pembrolizumab Plus Axitinib Vs Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab as First-Line Treatment of Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma in the US.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Checkpoint inhibitor combination therapy represents a major advance in the first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma. Pembrolizumab-axitinib and nivolumab-ipilimumab have become standard of care options after demonstrating clinical efficacy against sunitinib in separate phase 3 trials. The cost-effectiveness of these regimens is unknown.

Objective

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab-axitinib and nivolumab- ipilimumab in the first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma.

Design, setting, and participants

For this economic evaluation, a primary microsimulation model was developed and run between August and December 2019. Separate analyses were conducted for an intermediate- and poor-risk patient population (base case) and a favorable-risk population (exploratory analysis) because prognosis is known to differ between risk groups; 100 000 patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma were simulated in each treatment arm. Survival, treatment regimens, and other relevant conditions were based on data from the phase 3 KEYNOTE-426 and CheckMate214 clinical trials. The study perspective was the US health care sector.

Main outcomes and measures

An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated for each of the 2 analyses and compared with a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY).

Results

Pembrolizumab-axitinib was estimated to add 0.60 QALYs compared with nivolumab-ipilimumab in the base case analysis (3.66 vs 3.05 QALYs) and 0.25 QALYs compared with nivolumab-ipilimumab in the exploratory analysis (4.55 vs 4.30 QALYs), and was more costly (base case analysis: $562 927 vs $458 961; exploratory analysis: $589 035 vs $470 403). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $172 532 per QALY in the base case analysis and $468 682 per QALY in the exploratory analysis. One-way sensitivity analyses revealed that the base case model was most sensitive to first-line drug prices (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio at upper limit of nivolumab price and lower limits of axitinib and pembrolizumab prices: $89 983, $102 287, and $114 943 per QALY, respectively). The exploratory analysis model was most sensitive to overall survival rates (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio at lower limit of pembrolizumab-axitinib rate and upper limit of nivolumab-ipilimumab rate: $278 644 and $285 684 per QALY, respectively).

Conclusions and relevance

The findings suggest that pembrolizumab-axitinib treatment is associated with greater QALYs compared with nivolumab/ipilimumab treatment in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma but may not be cost-effective. Price reductions may make the cost of pembrolizumab-axitinib proportional to its clinical value and less financially burdensome to the US health care system.

SUBMITTER: Watson TR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7557509 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Cost-effectiveness of Pembrolizumab Plus Axitinib Vs Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab as First-Line Treatment of Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma in the US.

Watson Tina R TR Gao Xin X Reynolds Kerry L KL Kong Chung Yin CY

JAMA network open 20201001 10

<h4>Importance</h4>Checkpoint inhibitor combination therapy represents a major advance in the first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma. Pembrolizumab-axitinib and nivolumab-ipilimumab have become standard of care options after demonstrating clinical efficacy against sunitinib in separate phase 3 trials. The cost-effectiveness of these regimens is unknown.<h4>Objective</h4>To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab-axitinib and nivolumab- ipilimumab in the first-line treatme ...[more]

PMID: 33052401

Similar Datasets

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.

Project description:ImportanceTreatment-free survival (TFS) represents an alternative time-to-event end point, accurately characterizing time spent free of systemic therapy, providing a more patient-centric view of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy regimens. There remains a lack of studies evaluating TFS outcomes among patients with advanced melanoma who are receiving immunotherapy, especially outside of the clinical trial setting.ObjectiveTo evaluate TFS outcomes for patients with advanced melanoma receiving first-line ICI therapy outside of a clinical trial setting.Design, setting, and participantsThis multicenter cohort study of patients with advanced melanoma receiving first-line ICI therapy between August 1, 2013, and May 31, 2020, was conducted in Alberta, Canada. Data analysis was performed in August 2022.ExposuresPatients received standard-of-care, first-line ICI therapy treatment regimens including single-agent nivolumab, single-agent pembrolizumab, or ipilimumab-nivolumab.Main outcomes and measuresTreatment-free survival was defined as the difference in the 36-month restricted mean survival time between 2 conventional survival end points: (1) time from treatment initiation to ICI cessation, death, or censoring at last follow-up and (2) time from treatment initiation to subsequent systemic anticancer therapy, death, or censoring at last follow-up.ResultsA total of 316 patients with advanced melanoma receiving first-line nivolumab (n = 51; median age, 66 years [IQR, 56-78 years]; 31 men [60.8%]), pembrolizumab (n = 158; median age, 69 years [IQR, 60-78 years]; 112 men [70.9%]), or combination nivolumab-ipilimumab (n = 107; median age, 53 years [IQR, 42-60 years]; 72 men [67.3%]) were included. Treatment groups were similar with regard to sex, primary tumor location, and presence of metastasis, although patients receiving combination nivolumab-ipilimumab had a lower Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group status, were younger, and were more likely to be BRAF V600E positive than those receiving anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (anti-PD-1) monotherapy. The restricted mean TFS was longer for nivolumab-ipilimumab (12.4 months [95% CI, 8.8-16.0 months]) compared with nivolumab (8.9 months [95% CI, 4.4-13.5 months]) and pembrolizumab (11.1 months [95% CI, 8.5-13.8 months]). During the 36-month follow-up interval, patients treated with nivolumab-ipilimumab spent 34.4% of their time (12.4 of 36 months) not receiving systemic anticancer treatments compared with 30.8% (11.1 of 36 months) and 24.7% (8.9 of 36 months) of the time for the pembrolizumab and nivolumab treatment groups, respectively.Conclusions and relevanceThis cohort study of patients with advanced melanoma receiving first-line ICI therapy suggests that TFS represents a patient-centric, informative end point. Patients treated with combination nivolumab-ipilimumab spent more time alive and free from systemic anticancer therapy than those treated with anti-PD-1 monotherapy alone.

Project description:BackgroundThe data from the phase III clinical trial KEYNOTE-426 indicated that pembrolizumab plus axitinib compared with sunitinib could generate clinical benefits in patients with previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Given the incremental clinical benefits, we examined the potential cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib in the first-line setting for patients with advanced RCC from the U.S. payers' perspective.Materials and methodsCost and health outcomes were estimated at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $100,000 to $150,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed by varying potentially modifiable parameters, and additional subgroup analyses were performed as well.ResultsUpon our analyses, the total treatment costs in the pembrolizumab plus axitinib and sunitinib groups were $522,796 and $348,424 and the QALYs gained 2.90 and 1.72, respectively. In the base-case analysis, compared with receiving sunitinib, patients with advanced RCC receiving pembrolizumab plus axitinib gained 1.18 more QALYs at an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $148,676/QALY. The results of subgroup analyses demonstrated that pembrolizumab plus axitinib was most cost-effective for patients who had one organ with metastasis.ConclusionFirst-line treatment with pembrolizumab plus axitinib, compared with sunitinib, is a cost-effective strategy when the value of WTP is from $100,000 to $150,000 per QALY in patients with advanced RCC. For patients with one-organ metastasis and those in International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium poor risk group, first-line treatment with pembrolizumab plus axitinib is more cost-effective than others.Implications for practiceThis was the first study to examine the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib in advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). This study found that first-line treatment with pembrolizumab plus axitinib is a cost-effective strategy when the value of willingness-to-pay is from $100,000 to $150,000 per quality-adjusted life-year in patients with advanced RCC from the U.S. payers' perspective.

Project description:BackgroundNivolumab plus ipilimumab produced objective responses in patients with advanced renal-cell carcinoma in a pilot study. This phase 3 trial compared nivolumab plus ipilimumab with sunitinib for previously untreated clear-cell advanced renal-cell carcinoma.MethodsWe randomly assigned adults in a 1:1 ratio to receive either nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram of body weight) plus ipilimumab (1 mg per kilogram) intravenously every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram) every 2 weeks, or sunitinib (50 mg) orally once daily for 4 weeks (6-week cycle). The coprimary end points were overall survival (alpha level, 0.04), objective response rate (alpha level, 0.001), and progression-free survival (alpha level, 0.009) among patients with intermediate or poor prognostic risk.ResultsA total of 1096 patients were assigned to receive nivolumab plus ipilimumab (550 patients) or sunitinib (546 patients); 425 and 422, respectively, had intermediate or poor risk. At a median follow-up of 25.2 months in intermediate- and poor-risk patients, the 18-month overall survival rate was 75% (95% confidence interval [CI], 70 to 78) with nivolumab plus ipilimumab and 60% (95% CI, 55 to 65) with sunitinib; the median overall survival was not reached with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus 26.0 months with sunitinib (hazard ratio for death, 0.63; P<0.001). The objective response rate was 42% versus 27% (P<0.001), and the complete response rate was 9% versus 1%. The median progression-free survival was 11.6 months and 8.4 months, respectively (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.82; P=0.03, not significant per the prespecified 0.009 threshold). Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 509 of 547 patients (93%) in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group and 521 of 535 patients (97%) in the sunitinib group; grade 3 or 4 events occurred in 250 patients (46%) and 335 patients (63%), respectively. Treatment-related adverse events leading to discontinuation occurred in 22% and 12% of the patients in the respective groups.ConclusionsOverall survival and objective response rates were significantly higher with nivolumab plus ipilimumab than with sunitinib among intermediate- and poor-risk patients with previously untreated advanced renal-cell carcinoma. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical; CheckMate 214 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02231749 .).

Project description:ImportanceAlthough the combination of nivolumab plus ipilimumab has unquestionable benefit over nivolumab monotherapy in advanced melanoma, currently no summative analyses have compared the combination with nivolumab monotherapy for advanced cancers other than melanoma.ObjectiveTo examine whether the addition of ipilimumab to standard-dose nivolumab safely improves clinical outcomes in patients with advanced cancers other than melanoma.Data sourcesElectronic databases (PubMed, EBSCO Information Services, Embase, and Cochrane Library) were systematically searched for studies of standard-dose nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs nivolumab alone in the treatment of advanced cancers other than melanoma published from database inception to October 31, 2022.Study selectionEight studies (total patients, 1727; nivolumab plus ipilimumab group, 854; nivolumab monotherapy group, 873) met the selection criteria. Patients had squamous cell lung cancer, non-small cell lung cancer with programmed death ligand 1 level of 1% or higher, small cell lung cancer, pleural mesothelioma, urothelial carcinoma, esophagogastric carcinoma, sarcoma, or glioblastoma multiforme.Data extraction and synthesisFor comparison of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) outcomes, estimation of log(hazard ratios [HRs]) and SEs was initially performed for OS and PFS of each included study based on summary statistics extracted from individual Kaplan-Meier curves. Inverse-variance weighting was then used to compute pooled HRs (95% CIs). For comparison of dichotomous data (treatment-related grade 3 to 4 adverse events and discontinuations), odds ratios (ORs) were used, and the Mantel-Haenszel method was used to estimate pooled ORs (95% CIs).ResultsTreatment with nivolumab plus ipilimumab was not associated with improvement in OS over treatment with nivolumab alone (pooled HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.85-1.06; P = .36), with 4 of the 8 studies having numerically lower median OS with the combination. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab combination therapy was associated with marginal, but not clinically meaningful, improvement in PFS over nivolumab alone (pooled HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.79-0.98; P = .02). The combination was associated with substantially higher treatment-related grade 3 to 4 adverse events (pooled OR, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.47-2.31; P < .001) and treatment-related discontinuations (pooled OR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.44-2.65; P < .001). This finding was recapitulated in meta-analyses of individual grade 3 to 4 adverse events of hepatotoxicity, gastrointestinal toxicity, pneumonitis, endocrine dysfunction, dermatitis, fatigue.Conclusions and relevanceIn this meta-analysis of 8 advanced cancers other than melanoma, the differences detected in OS and PFS between nivolumab plus ipilimumab and nivolumab were not clinically meaningful (even though statistical significance was detected in PFS). Treatment-related higher-grade toxicity and discontinuations were substantially higher with the combination therapy. The data indicate that investigations of anti-programmed death 1 (PD1) plus anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) therapies in any nonmelanoma advanced cancer should be conducted along with anti-PD1 monotherapy to ensure that the net effect of the addition of anti-CTLA-4 to anti-PD1 can be clearly established for that cancer and setting and that unnecessary CTLA-4 inhibition with related toxic effects (both clinical and financial) can be avoided.

Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness of Pembrolizumab Plus Axitinib Vs Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab as First-Line Treatment of Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma in the US.

Importance

Objective

Design, setting, and participants

Main outcomes and measures

Results

Conclusions and relevance

Publications

Cost-effectiveness of Pembrolizumab Plus Axitinib Vs Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab as First-Line Treatment of Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma in the US.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets