Cost Effectiveness of Nivolumab in Patients with Advanced, Previously Treated Squamous and Non-squamous Non-small-cell Lung Cancer in England.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objective
The 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.Methods
Cost-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.Results
Base-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.Conclusions
Nivolumab 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.
SUBMITTER: Rothwell B
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8160043 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE:The economic assessment of immuno-oncology agents in Chinese patients is limited despite a need for new therapies. Nivolumab is the first immune checkpoint inhibitor approved for the second-line treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in China, and it significantly prolongs overall survival. However, considering the high cost of nivolumab, it is urgent to assess its value in China in terms of both efficacy and cost. The objective of this study was to investigate the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab vs docetaxel in the second-line setting for NSCLC patients from the Chinese healthcare system perspective. METHODS:A Markov model consisting of three health states, was designed to evaluate the lifetime cost and effectiveness of nivolumab vs docetaxel in the second-line treatment of NSCLC patients. Clinical data was derived from the CheckMate 078 phase III clinical trial, which included 504 patients predominantly from China. Parametric survival models to fit and extrapolate survival data were chosen based on clinical rationality, visual fit and statistical goodness-of-fit. Lifetime costs and health outcomes were calculated, and US$28,899 and $63,564 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) were selected as the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold values for general regions and affluent regions, respectively. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were undertaken to explore the robustness of the model. Additional subgroup analyses were performed. RESULTS:In base case analysis, Nivolumab yielded an additional 0.24 QALYs, at a cost of $93,307 per QALY. Sensitivity analyses suggested that the results to be most sensitive to the price of nivolumab per kg (mean $60.00; range $26.00-$60.00) and the mean patient weight (65 kg, range 52-78 kg). Utility values in progression-free survival state (mean 0.804; range 0.643-0.965) and overall survival hazard ratio (0.68; 97.7% CI 0.52-0.90) had moderate impact on the model results. Subgroup analyses indicated that nivolumab was most cost-effective for patients who were 65 years of age or older ($85,171/QALY), followed by female patients ($85,273/QALY) and patients with tumor PD-L1 expression at least 1% ($90,309/QALY). CONCLUSIONS:Nivolumab is unlikely to be cost-effective compared with docetaxel for patients with previously treated advanced NSCLC in China. Ensuring that nivolumab is included in the National Reimbursement Drug List (NRDL) may be a valid mean of meeting extensive treatment demands in China.
| S-EPMC6989620 | 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:ImportanceEvidence regarding real-world effectiveness of therapies for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) whose tumors are resistant to platinum-based chemotherapy is lacking.ObjectiveTo compare the effectiveness of the immune checkpoint inhibitors atezolizumab (programmed cell death ligand 1 inhibitor) and nivolumab (programmed cell death 1 inhibitor) and the chemotherapy drug docetaxel in patients with advanced NSCLC resistant to platinum-based chemotherapy.Design, setting, and participantsThis comparative effectiveness study compared patients aged 18 years or older with advanced NSCLC who initiated atezolizumab, docetaxel, or nivolumab and who had previously been exposed to platinum-based chemotherapy using nationally representative real-world data from more than 280 US cancer clinics. Patients were followed-up from May 2011 to March 2020. Data analysis was performed between April and June 2021. Comparisons of interest were between atezolizumab vs docetaxel and atezolizumab vs nivolumab.ExposuresInitiation of atezolizumab, nivolumab, or docetaxel monotherapy.Main outcome and measuresThe main outcome was overall survival (OS).ResultsA total of 3336 patients (mean [SD] age, 67.1 [9.49] years; 1820 [54.6%] men and 1516 [45.4%] women) were assessed in the main analysis, including 206 patients receiving atezolizumab, 500 receiving docetaxel, and 2630 receiving nivolumab. Patients receiving atezolizumab were older than those treated with docetaxel (mean age [SD], 68.3 [9.4] years vs 65.6 [9.5] years), and were more likely to have been treated in an academic setting (39 patients [18.9%]) than those receiving docetaxel (49 patients [9.8%]) and nivolumab (128 patients [4.9%]). After adjustment for baseline characteristics, atezolizumab was associated with a significantly longer OS compared with docetaxel (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.79; 95% CI, 0.64-0.97). No significant difference in OS was observed between atezolizumab and nivolumab (aHR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.89-1.28). These findings were consistent across all patient subgroups tested, and robust to plausible deviations from random missingness for Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status in real-world data (eg, the tipping point for loss of a significantly beneficial effect for atezolizumab vs docetaxel was achieved if patients in the docetaxel group missing baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status had a mean performance status of 1.43 higher than expected).Conclusions and relevanceIn this comparative effectiveness study, atezolizumab was superior to docetaxel and matched nivolumab in prolonging OS in a real-world cohort of patients with advanced NSCLC who previously received platinum-based chemotherapy.
| S-EPMC8590169 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAntibody-drug conjugates have recently been introduced as a treatment for advanced urothelial carcinoma. The EV-301 study demonstrated that enfortumab vedotin (EV) improved overall survival compared with conventional chemotherapy. To assess the cost-effectiveness of EV for the treatment of advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC) from a payer perspective in middle- and high-income countries.MethodsA decision analysis model was developed to assess the efficacy and economic viability of EV as a subsequent-line treatment following disease progression in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma already treated with PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors. Clinical and utility values were obtained from the published literature and available databases. Cost data were obtained from payer perspectives in the United States, United Kingdom, and China. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were used to measure health outcomes, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) used to evaluate cost-effectiveness in comparison to willingness-to-pay in the United States, United Kingdom, and China. One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed to assess the robustness of the model.ResultsCompared with chemotherapy, EV increased the benefit by 0.16-0.17 QALYs, resulting in ICERs of $2,168,746.71, $2,164,494.38, and $1,775,576.56 per QALY in the United States, United Kingdom, and China, respectively. One-way sensitivity analysis indicated that the largest effect on outcome was the utility value for progression-free survival. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the probability of EV being cost-effective was 0%.ConclusionsEV provides an additional health benefit over chemotherapy for patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma but is not cost-effective from a payer perspective in the United States, United Kingdom, or China.
| S-EPMC8796084 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeLimited data exist on the optimal duration of immunotherapy, including for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We present an exploratory analysis of CheckMate 153, a largely community-based phase IIIb/IV study, to evaluate the impact of 1-year fixed-duration versus continuous therapy on the efficacy and safety of nivolumab.MethodsPatients with previously treated advanced NSCLC received nivolumab monotherapy (3 mg/kg every 2 weeks). Those still receiving treatment at 1 year, including patients perceived to be deriving benefit despite radiographic progression, were randomly assigned to continue nivolumab until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity or to stop nivolumab with the option of on-study retreatment after disease progression (1-year fixed duration).ResultsOf 1,428 patients treated, 252 were randomly assigned to continuous (n = 127) or 1-year fixed-duration (n = 125) treatment (intent-to-treat [ITT] population). Of these, 89 and 85 patients in the continuous and 1-year fixed-duration arms, respectively, had not progressed (progression-free survival [PFS] population). With minimum post-random assignment follow-up of 13.5 months, median PFS was longer with continuous versus 1-year fixed-duration treatment (PFS population: 24.7 months v 9.4 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.56 [95% CI, 0.37 to 0.84]). Median overall survival from random assignment was longer with continuous versus 1-year fixed-duration treatment in the PFS (not reached v 32.5 months; HR, 0.61 [95% CI, 0.37 to 0.99]) and ITT (not reached v 28.8 months; HR, 0.62 [95% CI, 0.42 to 0.92]) populations. Few new-onset treatment-related adverse events occurred. No new safety signals were identified.ConclusionTo our knowledge, these findings from an exploratory analysis represent the first randomized data on continuous versus fixed-duration immunotherapy in previously treated advanced NSCLC and suggest that continuing nivolumab beyond 1 year improves outcomes.
| S-EPMC7676888 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Phase 3 clinical data has shown higher proportions of patients with objective response, longer response duration, and longer overall survival with nivolumab versus docetaxel in patients with previously treated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We aimed to evaluate the long-term benefit of nivolumab and the effect of response and disease control on subsequent survival. METHODS:We pooled data from four clinical studies of nivolumab in patients with previously treated NSCLC (CheckMate 017, 057, 063, and 003) to evaluate survival outcomes. Trials of nivolumab in the second-line or later setting with at least 4 years follow-up were included. Comparisons of nivolumab versus docetaxel included all randomised patients from the phase 3 CheckMate 017 and 057 studies. We did landmark analyses by response status at 6 months to determine post-landmark survival outcomes. We excluded patients who did not have a radiographic tumour assessment at 6 months. Safety analyses included all patients who received at least one dose of nivolumab. FINDINGS:Across all four studies, 4-year overall survival with nivolumab was 14% (95% CI 11-17) for all patients (n=664), 19% (15-24) for those with at least 1% PD-L1 expression, and 11% (7-16) for those with less than 1% PD-L1 expression. In CheckMate 017 and 057, 4-year overall survival was 14% (95% CI 11-18) in patients treated with nivolumab, compared with 5% (3-7) in patients treated with docetaxel. Survival subsequent to response at 6 months on nivolumab or docetaxel was longer than after progressive disease at 6 months, with hazard ratios for overall survival of 0·18 (95% 0·12-0·27) for nivolumab and 0·43 (0·29-0·65) for docetaxel; for stable disease versus progressive disease, hazard ratios were 0·52 (0·37-0·71) for nivolumab and 0·80 (0·61-1·04) for docetaxel. Long-term data did not show any new safety signals. INTERPRETATION:Patients with advanced NSCLC treated with nivolumab achieved a greater duration of response compared with patients treated with docetaxel, which was associated with a long-term survival advantage. FUNDING:Bristol-Myers Squibb.
| S-EPMC7193685 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceTreatment with nivolumab-ipilimumab combination therapy was found to improve overall survival compared with chemotherapy among patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in the CheckMate 227 clinical trial. However, these drugs are substantially more expensive than chemotherapy and, given the high incidence of advanced NSCLC, the incorporation of dual immune checkpoint inhibitors into the standard of care could have substantial economic consequences.ObjectiveTo assess whether nivolumab-ipilimumab combination therapy is a cost-effective first-line treatment for patients with advanced NSCLC.Design, setting, and participantsThis economic evaluation designed a Markov model to compare the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab-ipilimumab combination therapy with platinum-doublet chemotherapy as first-line treatment for patients with advanced NSCLC. The Markov model was created to simulate patients with advanced NSCLC who were receiving either nivolumab-ipilimumab combination therapy or platinum-doublet chemotherapy. Transition probabilities, including disease progression, survival, and treatment toxic effects, were derived using data from the CheckMate 227 clinical trial. Costs and health utilities were obtained from published literature. Data analyses were conducted from November 2019 to September 2020.ExposuresNivolumab-ipilimumab combination therapy.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary study outcomes were quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and cost in 2020 US dollars. Cost-effectiveness was measured using an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), with an ICER less than $100 000 per QALY considered cost-effective. Model uncertainty was assessed with 1-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.ResultsTreatment with nivolumab-ipilimumab combination therapy was associated with an increase in overall cost of $201 900 and improved effectiveness of 0.50 QALYs compared with chemotherapy, yielding an ICER of $401 700 per QALY. The study model was sensitive to the cost and duration of immunotherapy. Treatment with nivolumab-ipilimumab combination therapy became cost-effective when monthly treatment costs were reduced from $26 425 to $5058 (80.9% reduction) or when the maximum duration of immunotherapy was reduced from 24.0 months to 1.4 months. The model was not sensitive to assumptions about survival or programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 status. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per QALY, nivolumab-ipilimumab combination therapy was less cost-effective than chemotherapy 99.9% of the time.Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, first-line treatment with nivolumab-ipilimumab combination therapy was not found to be cost-effective at current prices despite clinical trial data indicating that this regimen increases overall survival among patients with advanced NSCLC.
| S-EPMC8094011 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Purpose: The effectiveness of nivolumab plus ipilimumab for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has been demonstrated. Decisions have to be made about allocating healthcare resources. Economic evidence could support policy decisions to fund expensive interventions. The current analysis evaluated the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in advanced NSCLC harboring no EGFR or ALK mutations. It is set in the context of the US and China, representing developed and resource-constrained settings, respectively. Patients and Methods: A Markov model consisting of three discrete health states was used to assess the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs. chemotherapy. The key clinical data were derived from the CheckMate-227 trial, and the cost and health preference data were derived from the literature. Costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and incremental net health benefits (INHBs) were calculated for the two strategies. Subgroup, one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. Results: In the United States, nivolumab plus ipilimumab increased by 1.260 QALYs with an additional cost of $95,617 compared with the features of chemotherapy, which led to an ICER of $75,871 per QALY gained. INHB indicated that nivolumab plus ipilimumab treatment had a 99% probability of being cost-effective at the ICER threshold of $100,000/QALY in all subgroups. The results of sensitivity analyses revealed that the model outcomes were robust. In China, the ICER of nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs. chemotherapy was $59,773/QALY, and the INHB was -1.972 QALY at the threshold of $27,351/QALY. Conclusion: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab treatment is a cost-effective option compared with chemotherapy for patients with advanced NSCLC harboring no EGFR or ALK mutations in the United States. However, nivolumab plus ipilimumab is not a preferred option in China.
| S-EPMC8287729 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundFirst-line treatment with nivolumab plus ipilimumab (N+I) or nivolumab plus ipilimumab with two cycles of chemotherapy (N+I+chemotherapy) improve overall survival and progression-free survival for patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), yet researchers have not concomitantly compared the cost-effectiveness of N+I and N+I+chemotherapy with chemotherapy alone.Materials and methodsUsing outcomes data from the CheckMate 227 and CheckMate 9LA phase 3 randomized trials, we developed a Markov model with lifetime horizon to compare the costs and effectiveness of N+I and N+I+chemotherapy versus chemotherapy from the U.S. health care sector perspective. Subgroup analysis by programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression levels (≥1% and <1%) and probabilistic analysis were performed.ResultsThe incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of N+I versus chemotherapy was $239,072 per QALY, and $838,198 per QALY for N+I+chemotherapy versus N+I. The ICER of N+I versus chemotherapy was $246,584 per QALY for patients with PD-L1 ≥ 1% and $185,620 per QALY for those with PD-L1 < 1%. In probabilistic analysis, N+I had a 2.6% probability of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per QALY. The probability was 0.4% for patients with PD-L1 ≥ 1% and 10.6% for patients with PD-L1 < 1%.ConclusionFirst-line N+I or N+I+chemotherapy for metastatic NSCLC was not cost-effective regardless of PD-L1 expression levels from the U.S. health care sector perspective.
| S-EPMC8695441 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundBavituximab is a monoclonal antibody that targets phosphatidylserine in the presence of β2 glycoprotein 1 (β2GP1) to exert an antitumor immune response. This phase III trial determined the efficacy of bavituximab combined with docetaxel in patients with previously treated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).Patients and methodsKey eligibility criteria included advanced non-squamous NSCLC with disease progression after treatment with platinum-based doublet chemotherapy, evidence of disease control after at least two cycles of first-line therapy, presence of measurable disease, ECOG performance status 0 or 1, adequate bone marrow and organ function, and no recent history of clinically significant bleeding. Eligible patients were randomized 1 : 1 to receive up to six 21-day cycles of docetaxel plus either weekly bavituximab 3 mg/kg or placebo until progression or toxicity. The primary end point was overall survival (OS).ResultsA total of 597 patients were enrolled. Median OS was 10.5 months in the docetaxel + bavituximab arm and was 10.9 months in the docetaxel + placebo arm (HR 1.06; 95% CI 0.88-1.29; P = 0.533). There was no difference in progression-free survival (HR 1.00; 95% CI 0.82-1.22; P = 0.990). Toxicities were manageable and similar between arms. In subset analysis, among patients with high baseline serum β2GP1 levels ≥200 µg/ml, a nonsignificant OS trend favored the bavituximab arm (HR 0.82; 95% CI 0.63-1.06; P = 0.134). Among patients who received post-study immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy, OS favored the bavituximab arm (HR 0.46; 95% CI 0.26-0.81; P = 0.006).ConclusionsThe combination of bavituximab plus docetaxel is not superior to docetaxel in patients with previously treated advanced NSCLC. The addition of bavituximab to docetaxel does not meaningfully increase toxicity. The potential benefit of bavituximab observed in patients with high β2GP1 levels and in patients subsequently treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors requires further investigation.Clinical trial numberNCT01999673.
| S-EPMC6887726 | biostudies-literature