Pembrolizumab + EP not cost effective vs EP as first-line treatment for SCLC in the USA

2021 ◽  
Vol 893 (1) ◽  
pp. 17-17
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effective ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
First Line ◽  
The Usa ◽  
First Line Treatment

The cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab in first-line for metastatic triple negative breast cancer is heavily linked to PD-L1 level

2021 ◽  
pp. 107815522110194
Author(s):  
Jacopo Giuliani ◽  
Beatrice Mantoan ◽  
Andrea Bonetti
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Triple Negative ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Metastatic Breast ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
First Line ◽  
Pivotal Phase ◽  
First Line Treatment

The present analysis was conducted to assess the pharmacological costs of atezolizumab as first-line treatment in triple negative metastatic breast cancer (mBC). Pivotal phase III randomized controlled trial (RCT) was considered. Nine hundred and two patients were included. Differences in costs between the 2 arms (atezolizumab plus nabpaclitaxel versus placebo plus nab-paclitaxel) was 17 398 €, with a cost of 7564 €per month of OS-gain in the overall population and 2485 €per month of OS-gain in PD-L1-positive (≥1) population. Combining pharmacological costs of drugs with the measure of efficacy represented by the OS, atezolizumab could be considered cost-effective in first-line treatment for triple-negative mBC only in PD-L1-positive population, but a reduction of costs is mandatory.

scholarly journals Immune Checkpoint Inhibition in Oesophago-Gastric Carcinoma

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 151
Author(s):  
Anica Högner ◽  
Peter Thuss-Patience
Keyword(s):  
Cell Death ◽  
Gastric Carcinoma ◽  
Programmed Cell Death ◽  
Immune Checkpoint ◽  
Disease Free Survival ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
The Usa ◽  
First Line Treatment

Immune checkpoint inhibitors enrich the therapeutic landscape in oesophago-gastric carcinoma. With regard to oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), the selective PD-1 (programmed cell death receptor 1)-inhibitor nivolumab improves disease-free survival in the adjuvant therapy setting (CHECKMATE-577). In first-line treatment, ESCC patients (pts) benefit in overall survival (OS) from the PD-1-inhibitor pembrolizumab in combination with chemotherapy (KEYNOTE-590). In the second-line setting, nivolumab (ATTRACTION-03) and pembrolizumab (KEYNOTE-181) demonstrate a benefit in OS compared with chemotherapy. These data resulted in the approval of nivolumab for the second-line treatment of advanced ESCC pts regardless of PD-L1 (programmed cell death ligand 1) status in Europe, Asia, and the USA, and pembrolizumab for pts with PD-L1 CPS (combined positivity score) ≥ 10 in Asia and the USA. Further approvals can be expected. In gastro-oesophageal junction and gastric cancer, the addition of nivolumab to chemotherapy in first-line treatment improves OS in pts with advanced disease with PD-L1 CPS ≥ 5 (CHECKMATE-649). Additionally, pembrolizumab was non-inferior to chemotherapy for OS in PD-L1 CPS ≥ 1 pts (KEYNOTE-062). In third-line treatment, nivolumab shows benefits in OS regardless of PD-L1 expression (ATTRACTION-02) with approval in Asia, and pembrolizumab prolonged the duration of response in PD-L1 positive pts (KEYNOTE-059) with approval in the USA. We discuss the recent results of the completed phase II and III clinical trials.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness analysis of cetuximab combined with chemotherapy as a first-line treatment for patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer based on the TAILOR trial

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. e030738 ◽  
Author(s):  
Huijuan Wang ◽  
Lingfei Huang ◽  
Peng Gao ◽  
Zhengyi Zhu ◽  
Weifeng Ye ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Survival Benefit ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Wild Type ◽  
First Line ◽  
First Line Treatment

ObjectivesCetuximab plus leucovorin, fluorouracil and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX-4) is superior to FOLFOX-4 alone as a first-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer with RAS wild-type (RAS wt mCRC), with significantly improved survival benefit by TAILOR, an open-label, randomised, multicentre, phase III trial. Nevertheless, the cost-effectiveness of these two regimens remains uncertain. The following study aims to determine whether cetuximab combined with FOLFOX-4 is a cost-effective regimen for patients with specific RAS wt mCRC in China.DesignA cost-effectiveness model combined decision tree and Markov model was built to simulate pateints with RAS wt mCRC based on health states of dead, progressive and stable. The health outcomes from the TAILOR trial and utilities from published data were used respectively. Costs were calculated with reference to the Chinese societal perspective. The robustness of the results was evaluated by univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.ParticipantsThe included patients were newly diagnosed Chinese patients with fully RAS wt mCRC.InterventionsFirst-line treatment with either cetuximab plus FOLFOX-4 or FOLFOX-4.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcomes are costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).ResultsBaseline analysis disclosed that the QALYs was increased by 0.383 caused by additional cetuximab, while an increase of US$62 947 was observed in relation to FOLFOX-4 chemotherapy. The ICER was US$164 044 per QALY, which exceeded the willingness-to-pay threshold of US$28 106 per QALY.ConclusionsDespite the survival benefit, cetuximab combined with FOLFOX-4 is not a cost-effective treatment for the first-line regime of patients with RAS wt mCRC in China.Trial registration numberTAILOR trial (NCT01228734); Post-results.

Crizotinib versus chemotherapy: a real-world cost–effectiveness study in China

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 93-102
Author(s):  
Meijuan Huang ◽  
Yuke Tian ◽  
Mingmin He ◽  
Juan Liu ◽  
Li Ren ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Willingness To Pay ◽  
Real World ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Sichuan Province ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
First Line ◽  
Alk Positive ◽  
First Line Treatment

Aim: To assess the cost–effectiveness of crizotinib verses platinum-based doublet chemotherapy as the first-line treatment for anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in the real-world setting. Methods: Data from 163 advanced ALK positive NSCLC patients were collected from West China Hospital, Sichuan University (Chengdu, China). They were categorized into two groups as treated with crizotinib (n = 83) or chemotherapy (n = 80) as a first-line therapy. The progression-free survival (PFS) as the primary clinical outcome, and the direct medical costs were collected from hospital information systems. Incremental cost–effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated with costs, quality-adjusted life-years, as well as the costs discounted at 3% annually. Additionally, two different kinds of medical insurance (MI) for pharma-economic assessment were considered. Results: Crizotinib improved PFS versus chemotherapy in ALK positive patients (median PFS 19.67 m vs 5.47 m; p < 0.001). Moreover, crizotinib obtained an ICER of US$36,285.39 before the end of 2016, when crizotinib, pemetrexed and anti-angiogenesis drugs were not MI covered. This is more than the willingness to pay threshold (three-times of gross domestic product per capita in mainland China or Sichuan Province). However, ICER was US$7321.16, which is less than willingness to pay, when crizotinib and all chemotherapy drugs were covered by MI from the end of 2016. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated a 99.7% probability for crizotinib to be more cost-effective than chemotherapy, when crizotinib and all anticancer drugs were MI covered. One-way sensitivity analysis for the reimbursement ratio of crizotinib indicated that cost-effective tendency for crizotinib increased as reimbursement ratio increased. Conclusion: Crizotinib could be an effective, and cost-effective first-line treatment for ALK positive advanced NSCLC with the MI coverage currently available in Chengdu, Sichuan Province, China.

Cost-effectiveness of rituximab plus CVP for first-line treatment of advanced indolent lymphoma

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6583-6583
Author(s):  
J. Hornberger ◽  
C. Reyes ◽  
E. Verhulst ◽  
D. Lubeck ◽  
N. Valente
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Follicular Lymphoma ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
First Line ◽  
Economic Implications ◽  
The Cost ◽  
First Line Treatment

6583 Background: The addition of rituximab (RTX) to CVP (cyclophosphamide, vincristine, prednisone) in the treatment of advanced follicular lymphoma increases median time to progression by 17 months (15 month v 32 months; p < 0.0001) (Marcus et al, Blood 2005). A societal cost-effectiveness analysis was performed to estimate projected lifetime clinical and economic implications of this treatment. Methods: The cost-effectiveness (CE) of RTX + CVP versus CVP was estimated for a 50 yr old patient. Kaplan-Meier estimates of progression-free and overall survival, up to 4 years, were obtained from the M39021 trial. After 4 years, transition rates from initiation of treatment to progression or death were assumed to be the same in both arms. The clinical and economic implications of relapse and its treatment were included in the model. Incremental costs associated with addition of RTX were estimated using Medicare reimbursement rates and published retail price data. Costs included drug and administration costs, adverse events, treatment of relapses, and end-of-life costs. Utility estimates were derived from the literature and a 3% discount rate was employed. Results: Projected mean overall survival is 1.5 yrs longer for patients assigned to RTX+ CVP versus only CVP (13.7 v 12.2 yrs). The addition of RTX to CVP is estimated to cost an additional $26,439 on average, with an expected gain of 0.85 year of quality-adjusted survival. Over a lifetime, the cost per QALY gained is $31,329. Sensitivity analyses revealed that the variables that most influenced cost-effectiveness were the time horizon (range: $18,800- $31,240) and the unit drug cost of RTX (range: $24,000-$38,000). Conclusion: The model estimates a cost-to-QALY gained ratio that is below that of many treatments used for oncology patients. The use of RTX + CVP for first-line treatment of advanced follicular lymphoma is projected to be cost-effective compared to CVP alone under a range of sensitivity analyses. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of first-line treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in Colombia (ONCOLGroup study)

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e16150-e16150
Author(s):  
J. Godoy ◽  
A. F. Cardona ◽  
H. Cáceres ◽  
J. M. Otero ◽  
M. Lujan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Average Total Cost ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
First Line ◽  
Total Cost ◽  
The Cost ◽  
First Line Treatment

e16150 Background: Renal cell carcinoma has increased its incidence by 126% since 1950. A local study developed a complete economic evaluation of sunitinib versus IFN in first-line treatment of mRCC in Colombia, finding that sunitinib was more cost-useful and cost-effective. Methods: A Markov model was developed using 6-week cycles for evaluating the cost-effectiveness of four interventions (IFN, sunitinib, bevacizumab+IFN, sorafenib) approved as first-line treatment for mRCC in Colombia. The model used the third-party payer perspective and a 5-year time-line; it also presumed that all the patients (pts) continued with active treatment until progression when it became acceptable to continue with a second-line treatment or BSC. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) curves of IFN were used as reference framework; they were obtained form a published clinical trial. The hazard ratios (HR) for PFS and OS were estimated for comparing new generation medicaments with IFN. The information about frequency of use and health service cost units consumed in Colombia was taken from a series of 24 pts treated in Manizales, Pereira, Medellín and Bogotá. Service costs were requested from an external consultant and corresponded to the average value billed by the EPSs, calculated from 33 sources of information which were representative of the country's market. The cost of the medicaments was obtained from LCLC. The costs and benefits were discounted annually at 3%. (all cost are presented in Colombian pesos Col$ 2008 with an exchange rate 1 USD = 1836.20 Col$). Results: Incremental analysis indicated a difference of 41.1 million Col$ in the average total cost of treatment when Sunitinib was compared to IFN; in contrast, comparing sorafenib and Bevacizumab+INF to sunitinib demonstrated that the average total cost was less for the sunitinib by 8.3 and 104.2 million Col$, respectively. Additionally, the ratios of incremental cost-effectiveness by life years (LY) gained demonstrated sunitinib's simple dominance over sorafenib and the combination of bevacizumab+IFN, and an average by LY gained of 100.5 million Col$ compared to IFN. Conclusions: Sunitinib is the most cost-effective option as first-line treatment for mRCC pts in Colombia. [Table: see text]

scholarly journals Cost Effectiveness of First-Line Treatment with Doxorubicin/Ifosfamide Compared to Trabectedin Monotherapy in the Management of Advanced Soft Tissue Sarcoma in Italy, Spain, and Sweden

Sarcoma ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 2013 ◽  
pp. 1-19 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julian F. Guest ◽  
Monica Panca ◽  
Erikas Sladkevicius ◽  
Nicholas Gough ◽  
Mark Linch
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Soft Tissue ◽  
Soft Tissue Sarcoma ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
First Line ◽  
Advanced Soft Tissue Sarcoma ◽  
Effective Use ◽  
The Cost ◽  
First Line Treatment

Background. Doxorubicin/ifosfamide is a first-line systemic chemotherapy for the majority of advanced soft tissue sarcoma (ASTS) subtypes. Trabectedin is indicated for the treatment of ASTS after failure of anthracyclines and/or ifosfamide; however it is being increasingly used off-label as a first-line treatment. This study estimated the cost effectiveness of these two treatments in the first-line management of ASTS in Italy, Spain, and Sweden.Methods. A Markov model was constructed to estimate the cost effectiveness of doxorubicin/ifosfamide compared to trabectedin monotherapy, defined as the cost per QALY gained, in each country.Results. First-line treatment with doxorubicin/ifosfamide resulted in lower two-year healthcare costs and more QALYs than first-line treatment with trabectedin monotherapy in all three countries. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that at a cost per QALY threshold of €35,000, >90% of a cohort would be cost effectively treated with doxorubicin/ifosfamide compared to trabectedin monotherapy in all three countries.Conclusion. Within the model’s limitations, first-line treatment of patients with ASTS with doxorubicin/ifosfamide instead of trabectedin monotherapy affords a cost-effective use of publicly funded healthcare resources in Italy, Spain, and Sweden and is therefore the preferred treatment in all three countries. These findings support the recommendation that trabectedin should remain a second-line treatment.

scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Atezolizumab Versus Chemotherapy as First-Line Treatment for Metastatic Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer With Different PD-L1 Expression Status

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guoqiang Liu ◽  
Shuo Kang ◽  
Xinchen Wang ◽  
Fangjian Shang
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Wild Type ◽  
First Line ◽  
Metastatic Nsclc ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Expression Status ◽  
First Line Treatment

BackgroundAtezolizumab could significantly improve clinical outcomes and was associated with less toxicity compared with chemotherapy as the first-line treatment of PD-L1-selected patients with EGFR and ALK wild-type metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, the economic outcomes remain unclear yet in China. This study aimed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab versus chemotherapy as first-line therapy for metastatic NSCLC with different PD-L1 expression status from the Chinese health sector perspective.MethodsA decision-analytic model was conducted to evaluate the economic outcomes for the first-line treatment of EGFR and ALK wild-type metastatic NSCLC with atezolizumab and chemotherapy in high PD-L1 expression, high or intermediate PD-L1 expression and any PD-L1 expression populations, respectively. The efficacy and safety data were obtained from the IMpower110 trial. Cost and utility values were gathered from the local charges and published literatures. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was estimated. A scenario analysis for a patient assistance program (PAP) was conducted. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to explore the robustness of the model results.ResultsAtezolizumab yielded additional 0.91 QALYs, 0.57 QALYs, 0.42 QALYs in comparison with chemotherapy, and the ICERs were $123,778.60/QALY, $142,827.19/QALY, $168,902.66/QALY in the high PD-L1 expression, high or intermediate PD-L1 expression, and any PD-L1 expression populations, respectively. When PAP was available, the ICERs were $52,414.63/QALY, $52,329.73/QALY, $61,189.66/QALY in the three categories of PD-L1 expression status populations, respectively. The ICERs were exceed the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $30,828/QALY (three times of per capita gross domestic product of China in 2019) in China. One-way sensitivity analyses suggested that the cost of atezolizumab played a vital role in the model outcomes, and the probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed atezolizumab was unlikely to be cost-effective at the WTP threshold regardless of PD-L1 expression status and whether the PAP was available or not.ConclusionsAtezolizumab as first-line treatment for PD-L1-selected metastatic NSCLC patients without EGFR mutations or ALK translocations is unlikely to be cost-effective compared with chemotherapy regardless of PD-L1 expression status in the Chinese context.

Is erlotinib for first-line use in EGFR+ non-small-cell lung cancer cost-effective?

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e19001-e19001 ◽  
Author(s):  
David L Veenstra ◽  
Preeti S. Bajaj ◽  
Josh John Carlson ◽  
Hans-Peter Goertz
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Small Cell ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Small Cell Lung ◽  
First Line ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Line Chemotherapy ◽  
First Line Treatment

e19001 Background: A recent phase III clinical trial, EURTAC, demonstrated that first-line treatment with erlotinib significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared with standard chemotherapy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients whose tumors harbored epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations (Rosell 2012). We sought to estimate the cost-utility of treatment with erlotinib in this patient population from the US payer perspective. Methods: We developed a Markov model with three health states: PFS, progression, and death. Patients received treatment until progression, unacceptable toxicity or death; patients randomized to chemotherapy received a maximum of 4 treatment cycles. Transition probabilities were extrapolated from the trial. Median PFS was 9.7 months in patients receiving erlotinib and 5.2 months in patients receiving chemotherapy (p<0.0001). Cost and utility data were obtained from the literature. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was performed to assess uncertainty. We evaluated two scenarios: 1) first-line erlotinib vs. first-line chemotherapy, and 2) first-line erlotinib and mixed second-line treatments vs. first-line chemotherapy and second-line erlotinib. Results: First-line treatment with erlotinib vs. chemotherapy resulted in an increase of 0.60 life-years or 0.44 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Mean total costs were $59,300 in the erlotinib arm and $17,800 in the chemotherapy arm, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $98,338 with a 53% probability of being cost-effective at a willingness to pay (WTP) of $100,000/QALY. In the second scenario, the ICER was $50,002/QALY, with a 66% probability of being cost-effective. The main cost drivers in the model were the time spent in the PFS health state and drug costs. Conclusions: Treatment with erlotinib in first-line EGFR-positive NSCLC results in increased costs but also substantial increases in QALYs, demonstrating that this personalized approached to treatment may be cost-effective.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document