Time and productivity loss associated with immunotherapy infusions for the treatment of melanoma in the United States: a survey of health care professionals and patients.

INTRODUCTION: A new dosing schedule for the oncology immunotherapy pembrolizumab, every 6 weeks (Q6W), has been approved by the U.S. FDA, reducing the frequency of visits to infusion centers. We quantified the time spent by oncologists, nurses, patients, and caregivers per melanoma-related immunotherapy infusion visit to evaluate its potential impact. METHODS: Surveys were self-completed by 100 oncologists, 101 oncology nurses, and 100 patients with melanoma across the U.S. to quantify the time spent per infusion visit with pembrolizumab (Q3W or Q6W), nivolumab (Q2W or Q4W), or nivolumab+ipilimumab (nivolumab in combination: Q3W; nivolumab maintenance: Q2W or Q4W). Time measures included traveling, waiting, consultation, infusion, post-treatment observation, and caregiving. Respondents were also surveyed regarding the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on infusion treatments. RESULTS: Responses deemed valid were provided by 89 oncologists, 93 nurses, and 100 patients. For each new [returning] patient treated with pembrolizumab, nivolumab or nivolumab+ipilimumab, oncologists reported to spend an average of 90 [64], 87 [60] and 101 [69] minutes per infusion visit (p-value for between-group difference = 0.300 [0.627]). For first [subsequent] treatment cycles, nurses reported spending 160 [145] average minutes per visit for nivolumab+ipilimumab, versus roughly 120 [110] for the single agents (p-value for between-group difference = 0.018 [0.022]). Patients reported to spend an average of 263, 382, and 224 minutes per visit at the center for pembrolizumab (N = 47), nivolumab (n = 34), and nivolumab+ipilimumab (n = 15) respectively (p-value for between-group difference = 0.0002). Patients also reported that their unpaid (N = 20) and paid caregivers (N = 41) spent with them an average of 966 and 333 minutes, respectively, from the day before to the day after the infusion visit. CONCLUSION: Less frequent immunotherapy infusion visits may result in substantial time savings for oncologists, nurses, patients, and caregivers.

Cost-effectiveness of Pembrolizumab in Combination with Chemotherapy as Neoadjuvant Treatment and Continued as a Single Agent Adjuvant Treatment for High-Risk Early-Stage Triple-Negative Breast Cancer in Hong Kong.

INTRODUCTION: The phase III randomized KEYNOTE-522 trial demonstrated that pembrolizumab in combination with chemotherapy as neoadjuvant treatment followed by adjuvant pembrolizumab (pembrolizumab + chemotherapy) provided significant improvements in event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) for patients with high-risk early-stage triple-negative breast cancer (eTNBC). The objective was to assess the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab + chemotherapy compared to neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone (chemotherapy) in patients with high-risk eTNBC from a Hong Kong third-party payer perspective. METHODS: A multistate transition model with four health states (event-free), locoregional recurrence, distant metastases, and death) was developed to assess the lifetime medical costs and health outcomes (3% annual discount), along with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) using efficacy and safety data from the KEYNOTE-522 trial. The health state utilities were derived from KEYNOTE-522 Euro-QoL-five-dimension five-level questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) data. Costs were expressed in 2022 Hong Kong dollars (HKD). Scenario and sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robustness of results. RESULTS: Over a 32-year time horizon, base case results showed that pembrolizumab + chemotherapy was associated with a 3.42 year longer EFS and expected gains of 3.05 life years (LYs) and 2.45 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) compared to chemotherapy. The resultant ICERs were HKD 135,200 per QALY gained and HKD 108,463 per LY gained, which were lower than the World Health Organization (WHO) cost-effectiveness threshold of three times gross domestic product (GDP) per capita for Hong Kong of HKD 1,171,308 per QALY. The one-way sensitivity analyses (OWSA) and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) showed the results were robust across various inputs and alternative scenarios. CONCLUSION: On the basis of the analysis conducted for a 56-year-old cohort with high-risk eTNBC and assumptions in the model, pembrolizumab + chemotherapy represents a cost-effective proposition (as the ICER is approximately 35% of the GDP per capita in Hong Kong) for patients with high-risk eTNBC in Hong Kong.

The manuscript outlines the methods and results of a health economic model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab + chemotherapy compared to neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone (chemotherapy) in patients with high-risk early-stage triple-negative breast cancer in the Hong Kong setting. The results of the manuscript show that the combination of pembrolizumab and chemotherapy provides an additional 3.05 life years and 2.45 quality-adjusted life years. Despite the potential drawbacks of employing gross domestic product (GDP) as a proxy for cost-effectiveness thresholds, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was less than three times GDP per capita in Hong Kong. Therefore, the new intervention was cost-effective. However, like any similar study, the results rely substantially on extrapolation of trial outcomes and thus sensitivity analysis has also been performed to handle the uncertainty associated with results. The one-way sensitivity analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed the results were robust. The manuscript provides economic evidence of the new intervention and provides new clinical insights.