Cost-effectiveness of nivolumab and ipilimumab versus pembrolizumab and axitinib in advanced renal cell carcinoma with intermediate or poor prognostic risk: a Brazilian private healthcare system perspective.

OBJECTIVE: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO + IPI) and pembrolizumab plus axitinib (PEM + AXI) have demonstrated significant clinical benefits as first-line (1 L) treatments for intermediate/poor-risk advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) patients. This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of NIVO + IPI versus PEM + AXI from a Brazilian private healthcare system perspective, utilizing a novel approach to estimate comparative efficacy between the treatments. METHODS: A three-state partitioned survival model (progression-free, progressed, and death) was developed to estimate costs, life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), and the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) over a 40-year time horizon. In the absence of head-to-head comparisons between NIVO + IPI and PEM + AXI, clinical data for NIVO + IPI was obtained from CheckMate 214 (NCT02231749) and for PEM + AXI from KEYNOTE-426 (NCT02853331). A matching-adjusted indirect comparison was conducted to account for the imbalance of treatment effect modifiers between the trials. Patient characteristics, resource use, health state utilities, and costs were based on Brazilian-specific sources. Costs and health outcomes were both discounted by 5% annually in line with Brazilian guidelines. The robustness of the results was evaluated through extensive sensitivity analysis and scenario analyses. RESULTS: When comparing the matched versus unmatched OS, PFS, and TTD curves there was no noteworthy difference. NIVO + IPI was associated with cost savings (R$ 350,232), higher LYs (5.54 vs. 4.61), and QALYs (4.74 vs. 3.76) versus PEM + AXI, resulting in NIVO + IPI dominating PEM + AXI. Key model drivers were the treatment duration for PEM, NIVO, and AXI. NIVO + IPI remained dominant in all scenario analyses, which indicated that model results were robust to alternative modelling inputs or assumptions. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis shows that NIVO + IPI is estimated to be a life-extending and potentially cost-saving 1 L treatment option when compared with PEM + AXI for intermediate/poor-risk a RCC patients in the Brazilian private healthcare system.

Estimating an exchange-rate between care-related and health-related quality of life outcomes for economic evaluation: An application of the wellbeing valuation method.

Quality of life outcomes for family carers and patients may be measured in different ways within the same economic evaluation. We used the wellbeing valuation method to calculate "exchange rates" between care-related outcomes (the Carer Experience Scale and CarerQoL-7D) and health-related (the EQ-5D-5L) outcomes. Data on quality of life outcomes were collected through a postal quality of life survey in the UK. A random effects model was used to estimate carers' wellbeing as a function of their EQ-5D-5L, Carer Experience Scale (or CarerQoL-7D) and a set of control variables. When life satisfaction was used as the measure of wellbeing, a one-point gain in the Carer Experience Scale (0-100 scale) was equivalent (in wellbeing terms) to a 0.014 gain in EQ-5D-5L value; and a one point gain in the CarerQoL-7D (0-100 scale) was equivalent to a 0.033 gain in EQ-5D-5L. The exchange rate values were reduced when capability was used as the measure of wellbeing. The exchange rates estimated in this study offer a means to place carer and patient outcomes, measured via different quality of life instruments, on a common scale, although there are important issues to consider in operationalising the technique.

Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in Health Economics Methodology Research: Reflections and Recommendations.

Patient and public involvement (PPI) can be used in methods research, as well as applied research, in health economics. However, methods research goals may seem quite abstract when compared to the lived experiences of lay participants. This article draws on 4 years of PPI in a research project to develop methods for including family carer outcomes in economic evaluation. Key challenges in using PPI for health economics methods research relate to (1) training and preparation, (2) maintaining involvement, and (3) selecting suitable tasks. We suggest three criteria for selecting a research task for PPI input based on task importance, professional researcher skills gap, and potential PPI contribution.