Cost-Effectiveness of Lenvatinib Plus Pembrolizumab or Everolimus as First-Line Treatment of Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
In this study, compared to sunitinib as one of the available treatment options, we aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab or everolimus as first-line treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) patients in a Chinese health system setting.Methods
A partitioned survival model was developed to simulate patient disease and death. Transition probabilities and adverse reaction data were obtained from the CLEAR trial. The utility value was derived from literature. Costs were based on the Chinese drug database and local charges. Sensitivity analyses and were performed to assess the robustness of the model. Outcomes were measured as quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), cumulative cost (COST), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).Results
The model predicted that the expected mean result in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group (2.60 QALYs) was superior to that in the sunitinib group (2.13 QALYs) to obtain 0.47 QALYs, but the corresponding cost was 1,253,130 yuan greater, resulting in an ICER of 2,657,025 RMB/QALYs. Compared with the sunitinib group, the lenvatinib plus everolimus group (2.17 QALYs) gained 0.04 QALYs, with an additional cost of 32,851 yuan, resulting in an ICER of 77,6202 RMB/QALYs.Conclusions
Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab or everolimus has no economic advantage over sunitinib in treating advanced RCC in the Chinese healthcare system.
SUBMITTER: Wang Y
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9254865 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
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:ImportanceCheckpoint 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.ObjectiveTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab-axitinib and nivolumab- ipilimumab in the first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma.Design, setting, and participantsFor 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 measuresAn 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).ResultsPembrolizumab-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 relevanceThe 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.
| S-EPMC7557509 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC7873332 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThere now exist several viable first-line treatment options for metastatic renal cell carcinoma, making the choice of initial therapy difficult. Considering metrics other than patient factors may be necessary to select the most appropriate therapy. We aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of the three combination therapies currently approved in treatment-naïve advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma-nivolumab + ipilimumab (NI), pembrolizumab + axitinib (PA), and avelumab + axitinib (AA)-from a US payer perspective.Patients and methodsOur analysis was performed based on previously obtained data derived from progression-free survival and overall survival curves from CheckMate 214, KEYNOTE 426, and JAVELIN Renal 101.ResultsThe total costs of each treatment were found to be $437,556.12 for NI, $450,597.15 for PA, and $542,882.34 for AA, with quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) values of 4.04, 3.77, and 2.95 for each combination, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of NI versus PA was ($47,504.73/QALY); for NI versus AA, it was ($96,533.11/QALY); for PA versus AA, it was ($113,015.87/QALY). Net health benefit scaled against a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per QALY was positive for NI versus PA at 0.36 and versus AA at 1.79, and this index was also positive for PA versus AA at 1.43, indicating that the additional value of these therapies versus their alternatives is greater than the extra cost.ConclusionNI was found to be the most cost-effective treatment option compared with the other considered therapies. PA was found to be cost effective compared to AA. When patient factors such as social issues and pre-existing conditions do not dictate their first-line therapy, clinicians may use this additional information to make financially conscious choices.
| S-EPMC9643032 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn the international, randomized, open-label, phase 3 study 309-KEYNOTE-775 trial, lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab (LP) showed improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) compared with chemotherapy in pretreated patients with advanced endometrial cancer. This study aimed to investigate whether LP is cost-effective compared with chemotherapy.Materials and methodsThe clinical data for this model was derived from the 309-KEYNOTE-775 trial. Costs and utilities were either derived from the standard fee database or extracted from previously published literature. A three-state Markov model was developed to simulate the disease process of patients with advanced endometrial cancer. One-way sensitivity analyses were conducted to investigate the impact of variables in the analysis model. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed based on 10,000 Monte-Carlo simulations. A subgroup analysis was performed to test whether LP is cost-effective in patients with mismatch repair-proficient (pMMR) disease.ResultsLenvatinib plus pembrolizumab provided an incremental 0.64 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) with an incremental cost of $241,278.18, compared with chemotherapy, resulting in the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $378,251.44/QALY, which exceeded the willingness to pay (WTP) threshold. While in the pMMR subgroup, the ICER increased to $413,256.68/QALY. The variance of the utility of PFS state, the cost of LP, and the utility of the progressive disease state were the most influential factors in the sensitivity analysis.ConclusionUnder the current WTP threshold, LP is not cost-effective compared with chemotherapy in pretreated patients with advanced endometrial cancer.
| S-EPMC9127138 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Nivolumab plus ipilimumab improves overall survival and is associated with less toxicity compared with sunitinib in the first-line setting of advanced renal-cell carcinoma (RCC). The current study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab plus ipilimumab for first-line treatment of advanced RCC from the payer perspectives high- and middle-income regions. METHODS:A decision-analytic model was constructed to evaluate the health and economic outcomes of first-line sunitinib and nivolumab plus ipilimumab treatment associated with advanced RCC. The clinical and utility data were obtained from published reports. The cost data were acquired for the payer perspectives of the United States (US), United Kingdom (UK), and China. Sensitivity analyses were performed to test the uncertainties of the results. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were used. RESULTS:Nivolumab plus ipilimumab gained 0.70-0.76 QALYs compared with sunitinib. Our analysis determined the following ICERs for nivolumab plus ipilimumab over sunitinib in first-line advanced RCC treatment: US $ 85,506 /QALY; UK $ 126,499/QALY; and China $ 4682/QALY. Sensitivity analyses found the model outputs to be most affected for body weight and for the prices of nivolumab, sunitinib and ipilimumab. CONCLUSIONS:Nivolumab plus ipilimumab as first-line treatment could gain more health benefits for advanced RCC in comparison with standard sunitinib, which is considered to be cost-effective in the US and China but not in the UK.
| S-EPMC6247499 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background:Compared with the standard of care with sunitinib, avelumab plus axitinib can increase progression-free survival in the first-line of advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC), but the economic effect of the treatment is unknown. The purpose of the research was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the avelumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib in first-line treatment for advanced RCC from the US payer perspective. Methods:A Markov model was developed to evaluate the economic and health outcomes of avelumab plus axitinib vs sunitinib in the first-line setting for advanced RCC. The clinical data were obtained from the JAVELIN Renal 101 Clinical Trials. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess uncertainty in the model. Health outcomes were measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Results:The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of avelumab plus axitinib compared with sunitinib was $565,232 per QALY, the costs were $884,626 and $669,838, QALYs were 3.67 and 3.29, respectively. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that differences in utilities in PFS and after progression were the most influential factors within the model. When avelumab was at 30% of the full price or axitinib was at 40% of the full price, avelumab and axitinib were approved to be cost-effective if the WTP threshold was $150,000 per QALY. The subgroup analysis showed the ICER of avelumab plus axitinib compared with sunitinib for the patients with PD-L1-positive tumors was $588,105. Conclusion:Avelumab plus axitinib in the first-line treatment was not cost-effective in comparison with sunitinib when the threshold of willingness to pay (WTP) was $150,000 per QALY.
| S-EPMC7225300 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAnaplastic thyroid cancer (ATC) is a rare and aggressive neoplasm. We still lack effective treatment options, so survival rates remain very low. Here, we aimed to evaluate the activity of the combination of lenvatinib and pembrolizumab as systemic first-line therapy in ATC.MethodsIn a retrospective analysis, we investigated the activity and tolerability of combined lenvatinib (starting dose 14 to 24 mg daily) and pembrolizumab (200 mg every three weeks) as first-line therapy in an institutional cohort of ATC patients.ResultsFive patients with metastatic ATC received lenvatinib and pembrolizumab as systemic first-line therapy. The median progression-free survival was 4.7 (range 0.8-5.9) months, and the median overall survival was 6.3 (range 0.8-not reached) months. At the first follow-up, one patient had partial response, three patients had stable disease, and one patient was formally not evaluable due to interference of assessment by concomitant acute infectious thyroiditis. This patient was then stable for more than one year and was still on therapy at the data cutoff without disease progression. Further analyses revealed deficient DNA mismatch repair, high CD8+ lymphocyte infiltration, and low macrophage infiltration in this patient. Of the other patients, two had progressive disease after adverse drug reactions and therapy de-escalation, and two died after the first staging. For all patients, the PD-L1 combined positive score ranged from 12 to 100%.ConclusionsThe combination of lenvatinib and pembrolizumab was effective and moderately tolerated in treatment-naïve ATC patients with occasional long-lasting response. However, we could not confirm the exceptional responses for this combination therapy reported before in pretreated patients.
| S-EPMC10882904 | 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:BACKGROUND:In the absence of clinical trials providing direct efficacy results, this study compares different methods of indirect treatment comparison (ITC), and their respective impacts on efficacy estimates for lenvatinib (LEN) plus everolimus (EVE) combination therapy compared to other second-line treatments for advanced/metastatic renal cell carcinoma (a/mRCC). METHODS:Using EVE alone as the common comparator, the Bucher method for ITC compared LEN + EVE with cabozantinib (CAB), nivolumab (NIV), placebo (PBO) and axitinib (AXI). Hazard ratios (HR) for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) estimated the impact of applying three versions of the LEN+EVE trial data in separate ITCs. Last, to overcome exchangeability bias and potential violations to the proportional hazards assumption, a network meta-analysis using fractional polynomials was performed. RESULTS:Bucher ITCs demonstrated LEN + EVE superiority over EVE for PFS, indirect superiority to NIV, AXI, and PBO, and no difference to CAB. For OS, LEN + EVE was superior to EVE and indirectly superior to PBO, applying original HOPE 205 data. Using European Medicines Agency data, LEN + EVE was directly superior to EVE for OS. Fractional polynomial HRs for PFS and OS substantially overlapped with Bucher estimates, demonstrating LEN+EVE superiority over EVE, alone, NIV, and CAB. However, there were no statistically significant results as the credible intervals for HR crossed 1.0. CONCLUSIONS:Comparing three Bucher ITCs, LEN + EVE demonstrated superior PFS when indirectly compared to NIV, AXI, and PBO, and mixed results for OS. While fractional polynomial modelling for PFS and OS failed to find statistically significant differences in LEN + EVE efficacy, the overall HR trends were comparable.
| S-EPMC6400440 | biostudies-literature