First-line pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer: a United States-based cost-effectiveness analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
The clinical trial of Keynote-604 showed that pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy could generate clinical benefits for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). We aim to assess the efficacy and cost of pembrolizumab combined with chemotherapy in the first-line treatment setting of ES-SCLC from the United States (US) payers' perspective.Methods
A synthetical Markov model was used to evaluate cost and effectiveness of pembrolizumab plus platinum-etoposide(EP) versus EP in first-line therapy for ES-SCLC from the data of Keynote-604. Lifetime costs life-years(LYs), quality adjusted LYs(QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios(ICERs) were estimated. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. Furthermore, we performed subgroup analysis.Results
Pembrolizumab plus EP resulted in additional 0.18 QALYs(0.32 LYs) and corresponding incremental costs $113,625, resulting an ICER of $647,509 per QALY versus EP. The price of pembrolizumab had a significant impact on ICER. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that pembrolizumab combined chemotherapy may become a cost-effective option with a probability of 0%. Besides, subgroup analysis suggested that all subgroups were not cost-effective.Conclusion
From the perspective of the US payer, pembrolizumab plus EP is not a cost-effective option for first-line treatment patients with ES-SCLC at a WTP threshold of $150,000 per QALY.
SUBMITTER: Zhu Y
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8642846 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Background The phase III KEYNOTE-604 study confirmed the benefit of pembrolizumab combined with chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). Taken into account the clinical benefits of pembrolizumab and its high cost, this study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of adding pembrolizumab to standard first-line etoposide-platinum (EP) for patients with ES-SCLC from the US payer perspective. Methods A Markov model was developed to compare the cost and quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) of pembrolizumab plus EP and placebo plus EP over a 10-year time horizon. Clinical efficacy and safety data were pooled from the KEYNOTE-604 trial. Utilities were obtained from published resources. Costs were mainly collected from Medicare in 2020. Sensitivity analyses were performed to examine the robustness of our model. Results Adding pembrolizumab to standard first-line EP resulted in the better effectiveness than EP chemotherapy alone for ES-SCLC by 0.22 QALYs. Pembrolizumab plus EP was dominated economically by placebo plus EP, leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $334,373/ QALY. Deterministic sensitivity analyses indicated that the uncertainty in model parameters exerted no substantial effect on our results. Probability sensitivity analysis indicated that probabilities for pembrolizumab plus EP being cost-effective within a wide range of willingness to pay were modest. Conclusion From the US payer perspective, the first-line treatment for ES-SCLC with pembrolizumab plus EP was not cost-effective compared with placebo plus EP. Although pembrolizumab combination chemotherapy was beneficial to the survival of ES-SCLC, price reduction may be the necessary to improve its cost-effectiveness.
| S-EPMC8592441 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionPerioperative (neoadjuvant and adjuvant) pembrolizumab has shown favorable efficacy in patients with early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of this treatment from the perspective of the United States healthcare payers.MethodsWe established a Markov model to compare the cost-effectiveness of perioperative pembrolizumab with that of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in 21-day cycles, utilizing data from the phase 3 KEYNOTE-671 trial. Additional data were extracted from other publications or online sources. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate the robustness of the findings. A willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained was established. The main outcomes of this study were the measurement of QALYs, overall costs, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), and net monetary benefit (NMB).ResultsDuring a 10-year time horizon, the total costs of perioperative pembrolizumab and the control treatment were $224,779.1 and $110,026.3, respectively. The QALYs were 4.19 and 2.97 for the two treatments, respectively, which led to an ICER of $94,222.29 per QALY gained. The NMB at the WTP threshold at $150,000 per QALY gained was $67,931.3. One-way sensitivity analysis identified the cost of pembrolizumab as the primary factor influencing cost-effectiveness. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated a 97.7% probability of perioperative pembrolizumab being cost-effective at the WTP threshold.ConclusionsFrom the perspective of the United States healthcare payers, perioperative pembrolizumab is a cost-effective treatment for patients with early-stage NSCLC.
| S-EPMC10562534 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objective: Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy is recommended as the first-line treatment for advanced oesophageal cancer. The objective of this study is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy as first-line therapy for advanced oesophageal cancer from the healthcare system perspective in China. Methods: Based on the KEYNOTE-590 trial, a Markov model was constructed to estimate the cost and effectiveness of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy and placebo plus chemotherapy, respectively. Total costs, life years (LYs), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated. One-way, probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA), and subgroup analyses were adapted to test the model robustness. Result: Compared with the placebo group, pembrolizumab group obtained an additional 1.05 QALY, but the cost was also increased by $121,478.76. The ICER was $115,391.84 per QALY gained, which was higher than the willingness-to-pay (WTP) of $31,304.31. The results of One-way sensitivity analyses showed that the ICER was sensitive to the hazard ratio of PFS and per cycle cost of pembrolizumab. At a WTP threshold of $31,304.31, the probability of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy being cost-effective was 0%. Conclusion: From the perspective of China healthcare system, pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy as first-line treatment is not cost-effective for patients with advanced oesophageal cancer compared with placebo plus chemotherapy.
| S-EPMC9197184 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThis 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 methodsA 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.ResultsFor 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.ConclusionIn 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.
| S-EPMC8276096 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPembrolizumab (Pembro) in combination with chemotherapy has been approved for the treatment of pretreated advanced NSCLC in the United States and China for its significant efficacy. However, the cost-effectiveness is unknown considering Pembro's high price. The impact of programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) test on the cost-effectiveness is also unknown. The current study assessed the cost-effectiveness of combination therapy for nonsquamous NSCLC from the United States and China public payers' perspective.Materials and methodsA literature-based Markov model was conducted using KEYNOTE-189 trial data to compare cost and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of three treatment strategies for nonsquamous NSCLC: Pembro-chemotherapy combination and chemotherapy strategy without PD-L1 test, and treatment strategy according to their PD-L1 status.ResultsIn base case analysis, the combination strategy generated an additional 0.78 QALYs and 0.59 QALYs over chemotherapy in the United States and China respectively, resulting in an ICER of $132 392/QALY in the United States and $92 533/QALY in China. In the PD-L1 ≥1% base case, the ICERs were $77 754/QALY and $56 768/QALY respectively in the United States and China for PD-L1 test strategy. In the PD-L1 ≥50% base case, the ICERs were $44 731/QALY and $34 388/QALY respectively in the United States and China for PD-L1 test strategy. Lowering Pembro price can also partly decrease the ICERs.ConclusionCompared with chemotherapy, the combination strategy is not cost-effective for the treatment of NSCLC in the American and Chinese health care system at WTP threshold of $100 000/QALY for the United States and $27 351/QALY for China. Using PD-L1 test for patient selection and price reduction could improve the cost-effective probabilities of immunotherapy for nonsquamous NSCLC.
| S-EPMC7050096 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThe CAPSTONE-1 trial demonstrated that adebrelimab-based immunotherapy yielded a favourable survival benefit compared with chemotherapy for patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of this immunotherapy in the treatment of ES-SCLC from a healthcare system perspective in China.DesignThe TreeAge Pro software was used to establish a three-state partitioned survival model. Survival data came from the CAPSTONE-1 trial (NCT03711305), and only direct medical costs were included. Utility values were obtained from the published literature. Sensitivity analysis was performed to explore the robustness of the model. The cost-effectiveness of immunotherapy was investigated through scenario and exploratory analyses in various settings.Outcome measuresTotal costs, incremental costs, life years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental QALYs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).ResultsThe basic analysis revealed that the adebrelimab group achieved a total of 1.1 QALYs at a cost of US$65 385, while the placebo group attained 0.78 QALYs at a cost of US$12 741. ICER was US$163 893/QALY. Sensitivity analysis confirmed that the model was robust. Results from scenario and exploratory analyses indicated that the combination of adebrelimab and chemotherapy did not demonstrate cost-effectiveness in any scenario.ConclusionsFrom the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system, adebrelimab in combination with chemotherapy for the treatment of ES-SCLC was not economical compared with chemotherapy.
| S-EPMC11002354 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Pembrolizumab is a potentially valuable treatment. However, patients, doctors, and healthcare decision-makers are uncertain about its cost-effectiveness and an appropriate pricing for this new therapy. This study aims to appraise the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab as a first-line treatment for advanced biliary tract cancer (BTC) patients in China and the United States (US). Methods: A Markov model was constructed from the perspectives of healthcare systems in both China and the US for pharmacoeconomic evaluation. Patient baseline characteristics and key clinical data were sourced from the KEYNOTE-966 trial (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04003636). Costs and utilities were collected from drug cost websites and published literature. Cumulative costs (in USD), life years (LYs), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were measured and compared. Price simulations were conducted under given willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds to provide pricing scheme references. The model's robustness was analyzed through one-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Results: Basic data analysis illustrates that pembrolizumab ($2662.41/100 mg) in combination with chemotherapy regimen was not cost-effective relative to chemotherapy regimens at the WTP threshold of $38,201.19 in China, and the additional cost relative to chemotherapy regimens was $77,114.94 (ICER $556,689.47/QALY) while increasing 0.14 QALYs. Pembrolizumab ($54.71/1 mg) also increased efficacy by 0.14 QALYs in the US, but remained also not cost-effective at the US WTP threshold of $229,044, and the total cost increased by $160,425.24 (ICER $1,109,462.92/QALY). Conclusion: Compared with chemotherapy, pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy reduces the disease of burden. However, at its current price, it may not be a cost-effective treatment for advanced BTC in both China and the US. This study can aid decision-makers in making optimal choices.
| S-EPMC11349542 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimThis study assessed the cost-effectiveness of neoadjuvant pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy followed by adjuvant pembrolizumab versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus placebo followed by adjuvant placebo for patients with high-risk, early-stage, triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) from a Swiss third-party payer perspective over a lifetime horizon (51 years).Materials and methodsA transition model with four health states (event-free, locoregional recurrence, distant metastasis, and death) was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for the treatment of high-risk, early-stage TNBC. Data were utilized from the KEYNOTE-522 randomized controlled trial (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03036488). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated, which was reported as cost per life year or quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. A one-way deterministic sensitivity analysis, a probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) and scenario analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the model results.ResultsBase-case results estimated an ICER of 14,114 Swiss francs (CHF)/QALY for pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone. Results were most sensitive to changes in the extrapolation of event-free survival (EFS). All sensitivity and scenario analyses generated ICERs below the willingness-to-pay threshold of CHF100,000/QALY, and the PSA showed a 98.8% probability that the ICER would be below this threshold.LimitationsDue to the limited follow-up period in the KEYNOTE-522 trial, EFS data were extrapolated over the lifetime horizon to inform transition probabilities. Extensive validation and scenario analyses ensured the results were robust.ConclusionThe model demonstrated that neoadjuvant pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy followed by adjuvant pembrolizumab was cost-effective versus chemotherapy alone in patients with high-risk, early-stage TNBC in Switzerland.
| S-EPMC10781656 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIMpower 133 trial first confirmed the efficacy and safety of adding atezolizumab or placebo to first-line treatment with chemotherapy in patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). While, overprice limited its broad use in clinical. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab plus chemotherapy in treatment of extensive SCLC as first line in China.MethodsA Markov model was established by extracting data from the IMpower 133 trial with untreated extensive SCLC patients. Utility values were obtained from published studies, and the costs were acquired from real world and literature. Additionally, sensitivity analyses based on a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold were performed to identify the uncertain parameters of Markov model.ResultsTotal costs of atezolizumab group were $48,129, while cost of chemotherapy alone was just $12,920 in placebo group. The quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) in atezolizumab group was just 0.072 higher than that in placebo group (0.858 QALYs vs. 0.786 QALYs). The cost-effectiveness ratio between atezolizumab combination with chemotherapy and chemotherapy alone was $489,013/QALY in China. The net benefit of placebo group was significantly higher than atezolizumab group. One-way sensitivity analyses highlighted that utilities of the progression-free survival (PFS) and progression disease state in placebo group were the most influential parameter.ConclusionsAtezolizumab combination therapy was not more cost-effective than chemotherapy alone at a WTP threshold of $25,929/QALY in China.
| S-EPMC6940079 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC10061061 | biostudies-literature