Dataset Information

First-Line Chemo-Immunotherapy for Extensive-Stage Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A United States-Based Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of two recently approved first-line chemo-immunotherapies [atezolizumab combined with etoposide and platinum (AEP) and durvalumab combined with etoposide and platinum (DEP)] for patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) in the United States.

Material and methods

A Markov model was built to compare the cost and effectiveness of AEP, DEP, and etoposide plus platinum (EP) over a 10-year time horizon. Clinical efficacy and safety data were extracted from the IMpower 133 and CASPIAN trials. Health state utilities were obtained from published literature. Costs were collected from an US payer perspective. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to explore the uncertainty bound to model parameters.

Results

For the model cohort of adult patients with treatment-naive ES-SCLC, AEP was associated with marginal improved quality adjusted life years (QALYs) by 0.016 and reduced costs by $5,737 compared with DEP. When comparing the two chemo-immunotherapies with EP chemotherapy, AEP and DEP increased the QALYs by 0.162 QALYs and 0.146, respectively. However, both chemo-immunotherapies were associated with substantially health costs than EP, resulting in ICERs of $382,469 per QALY and $464,593 per QALY, respectively.

Conclusion

In this cost-effectiveness study, first-line AEP represented a dominant treatment strategy compared with DEP. Despite neither first-line AEP nor first-line DEP was cost-effective compared with EP chemotherapy, AEP was able to provide a more efficient balance between incremental cost and QALY than DEP. When new combination therapies with remarkable effect become pivotal in the first-line treatment, the price reduction of these drugs may be essential to achieving cost-effectiveness.

SUBMITTER: Liu Q

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8276096 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionMany randomized controlled trials have indicated that immuno-chemotherapy could generate clinical benefits, though the cost of immuno-chemotherapy was so prohibitive and the options were varied. This investigation aimed at evaluating effectiveness, safety, and cost-effectiveness for immuno-chemotherapy as a first-line therapeutic option for ES-SCLC patients.MethodsMultiple scientific literature repositories were searched for clinical studies where immuno-chemotherapy was regarded as the first-line treatment for ES-SCLC, which were published in English between Jan 1, 2000, and Nov 30, 2021. This study conducted a network meta-analysis (NMA) and cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) based upon US-resident payer perspectives. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and adverse events (AEs) were evaluated through NMA. In addition, costings, life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-benefit ratio (ICER) were estimated by CEA.ResultsWe identified 200 relevant search records, of which four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (2,793 patients) were included. NMA demonstrated that the effect of atezolizumab plus chemotherapy was ranked at a more elevated position in comparison to other immuno-chemotherapy options and chemotherapy alone, within the general population. The influence of atezolizumab plus chemotherapy and durvalumab plus chemotherapy was ranked higher within populations experiencing non-brain metastases (NBMs) andbrain metastases (BMs), respectively. The CEA revealed that the ICERs of immuno-chemotherapy over chemotherapyalone were higher than the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000/QALY in any population. However, treatment with atezolizumab plus chemotherapy and durvalumab plus chemotherapy were more favorable health advantages than other immuno-chemotherapy regimens and chemotherapy alone, and the results were 1.02 QALYs and 0.89 QALYs within overall populations and populations with BMs, respectively.ConclusionThe NMA and cost-effectiveness investigation demonstrated that atezolizumab plus chemotherapy could be an optimal first-line therapeutic option for ES-SCLC when compared with other immuno-chemotherapy regimens. Durvalumab plus chemotherapy is likely to be the most favorable first-line therapeutic option for ES-SCLC with BMs.

Project description:BackgroundOur goal was to organize the data from randomized controlled trials that evaluated first-line chemotherapy for chemo-naïve extensive disease small-cell lung cancer (ED-SCLC).MethodsThe protocol following PRISMA methodology was submitted as PROSPERO 154049. We included individually randomized trials comparing two or more chemotherapy regimens as the first-line treatment for chemo-naïve ED-SCLC regardless of the age, sex, performance status, co-morbidities, and organ functions written in the English language since 2000. Molecular targeted agents and immune checkpoint inhibitors were considered chemotherapy along with cytotoxic medications. We pooled the logarithm of hazard ratio (HR) and its standard error using the frequentist weighted least squares approach random-model network meta-analysis.ResultsA total of 46 eligible trials that involved 11,987 patients were included. The primary endpoint, HR of overall survival (OS, HRos) of the selected comparisons was as follows: carboplatin+amrubicin (HRos 0.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.33-0.96), carboplatin+etoposide+atezolizumab (HRos 0.70, 95% CI 0.53-0.92), and carboplatin+irinotecan (HRos 0.73, 95% CI 0.58-0.91) were compared with carboplatin+etoposide. The carboplatin+etoposide+atezolizumab regimen was compared with carboplatin+irinotecan (HRos 0.97, 95% CI 0.68-1.37) and cisplatin+irinotecan regimen (HRos 0.87, 95% CI 0.58-1.31). "Selective carboplatin or cisplatin (CBDCA/CDDP)"+etoposide+durvalumab was compared with CBDCA/CDDP+etoposide (HRos 0.73, 95% CI 0.59-0.91). Platinum+etoposide+durvalumab was compared with platinum+irinotecan (HRos 0.88, 95% CI 0.67-1.15). Cumulative meta-analysis suggested that platinum+irinotecan was associated with better OS than platinum+etoposide as of 2010 through 40 out of 46 trials in our review that used platinum+etoposide as a reference regimen.ConclusionPatients treated with carboplatin+amrubicin, carboplatin+etoposide+atezolizumab, CBDCA/CDDP+etoposide+durvalumab, and platinum+irinotecan showed better HRos than those treated with platinum+etoposide, one of the standard regimens.

Project description:BackgroundThe latest published CASPIAN trial demonstrated that adding durvalumab to etoposide and platinum (EP) improved survival dramatically for patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). Considering the high cost of durvalumab, this study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of durvalumab plus EP (DEP) in the first-line setting for treatment-naïve patients with ES-SCLC from the U.S. payer perspective.Materials and methodsWe developed a three-state Markov model to simulate the disease course and source consumption of ES-SCLC over a lifetime horizon. Pseudo-individual patient-level data were generated from digitized Kaplan-Meier curves. Direct medical costs, including drug and administration costs, disease management and adverse events treatment fees, best supportive care and terminal care costs were obtained from sources including the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project, and relevant literature. Health state utility values were derived from published literature. Main outcomes considered were total costs, life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). All costs were adjusted for inflation to reflect 2019 U.S. dollars. The willingness-to-pay threshold was set as $150,000/QALY. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to explore the uncertainty of model assumptions.ResultsCompared with EP, DEP was projected to increase life expectancy by 0.86 LYs (1.73 vs. 0.87) and 0.44 QALYs (0.93 vs. 0.49). The incremental treatment cost was $95,907, and the corresponding ICER was $216,953/QALY. The result was most sensitive to the variation of durvalumab acquisition cost. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed that the probability of DEP over EP regimen to be cost-effective was 9.4% at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000/QALY. In the case of reducing the price of durvalumab by 30.7%, DEP was more cost-effective than EP.ConclusionFrom the perspective of the U.S. payer, adding durvalumab to EP is estimated to be not cost-effective compared with EP alone for patients with untreated ES-SCLC.Implications for practiceThe information provided by this analysis serves as a reference for decision makers. Lowering the price of durvalumab would be a potential measure to improve the economics of durvalumab plus etoposide and platinum (DEP), and the inclusion of durvalumab in the Medicare pharmacopeia could make DEP more economically available. These results may also guide physicians and patients to choose the most economically feasible treatment.

Project description:The approval of new immunotherapies has dramatically changed the treatment landscape of metastatic melanoma. These survival gains come with trade-offs in side effects and costs, as well as important considerations for third-party payer systems, physicians, and patients.To develop a Markov model to determine the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab, ipilimumab, and nivolumab-ipilimumab combination as firstline therapy in metastatic melanoma, while accounting for differential effectiveness in programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) positive and negative patients.A 3-state Markov model (PD-L1 positive stable disease, PD-L1 negative stable disease, and progression and/or death) was developed using a U.S. societal perspective with a lifetime time horizon of 14.5 years. Transition probabilities were calculated from progression-free (PF) survival data reported in the CheckMate-067 trial. Costs were expressed in 2015 U.S. dollars and were determined using national sources. Adverse event (AE) management was determined using immune-related AE (irAE) data from CheckMate-067, irAE management guides for nivolumab and ipilimumab, and treatment guidelines. Utilities were obtained from published literature, using melanoma-specific studies when available, and were weighted based on incidence and duration of irAEs. Base case, one-way sensitivity, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted.Nivolumab-ipilimumab combination therapy was not the cost-effective choice ($454,092 per PF quality-adjusted life-year [QALY]) compared with nivolumab monotherapy in a base case analysis at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per PFQALY. Combination therapy and nivolumab monotherapy were cost-effective choices compared with ipilimumab monotherapy. PD-L1 positive status, utility of nivolumab and combination therapy, and medication costs contributed the most uncertainty to the model. In a population of 100% PD-L1 negative patients, nivolumab was still the optimal treatment, but combination therapy had an improved incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $295,903 per PFQALY. Combination therapy became dominated by nivolumab, when 68% of the sample was PD-L1 positive. In addition, the cost of ipilimumab would have to decrease to < $21,555 per dose for combination therapy to have an ICER < $100,000 per PFQALY and to < $19,151 (a 42% reduction) to be more cost-effective than nivolumab monotherapy.Nivolumab-ipilimumab combination therapy was not cost-effective compared with nivolumab monotherapy, which was the most cost-effective option. Professionals in managed care settings should consider the pharmacoeconomic implications of these new immunotherapies as they make value-based formulary decisions, and future cost-effectiveness studies are completed.No funding supported this study. Merino was a contractor with EMD Serono at the time of this study but does not have any conflicts of interest and did not receive any funding related to this study. All other authors have no financial disclosures and no conflicts of interest. All the authors contributed to the study concept and design. Tran, McDowell, and Barcelon took the lead in data collection, along with Oh, Keyvani, and Merino. All authors except Merino contributed to data interpretation. The manuscript was written by Oh, Tran, McDowell, and Wilson and revised by Oh, Tran, McDowell, Wilson, and Keyvani. This analysis was presented at Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy Managed Care & Specialty Pharmacy Annual Meeting 2016, April 19-22, 2016, in San Francisco, California, and at the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research Annual International Meeting, May 21-25, 2016, in Washington DC.