Cost-Effectiveness of Cemiplimab Versus Standard of Care in the United States for First-Line Treatment of Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer With Programmed Death-Ligand 1 Expression ≥50.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness, from a US commercial payer perspective, of cemiplimab versus other first-line treatments for advanced non-small cell lung cancer with programmed death-ligand 1 expression ≥50%. METHODS: A 30-year "partitioned survival" model was constructed. Overall survival and progression-free survival were estimated by applying time-varying hazard ratios from a network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Overall survival and progression-free survival were estimated from EMPOWER-Lung 1 (cemiplimab monotherapy vs chemotherapy) and KEYNOTE-024 and KEYNOTE-042 (pembrolizumab monotherapy vs chemotherapy). Drug acquisition costs were based on published 2020 US list prices. A 3% discount rate was applied to life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and costs. A deterministic analysis was performed on the base case; 1-way sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analyses assessed model and parameter uncertainties. RESULTS: Cemiplimab was associated with increased time in the "preprogression" (13.08 vs 7.90 and 6.08 months) and "postprogression" (47.30 vs 29.49 and 14.78 months) health states versus pembrolizumab and chemotherapy, respectively. Compared with pembrolizumab and chemotherapy, cemiplimab generated 1.00 (95% CI -0.266 to 2.440) and 1.78 (95% CI 0.607-3.20) incremental QALYs, respectively, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $68 254 and $89 219 per QALY for cemiplimab versus pembrolizumab and cemiplimab versus chemotherapy, respectively. The probability of cemiplimab being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 to $150 000 per QALY was 62% to 76% versus pembrolizumab and 56% to 84% versus chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that cemiplimab, versus pembrolizumab or versus chemotherapy, is a cost-effective first-line treatment option for advanced non-small cell lung cancer with programmed death-ligand 1 expression ≥50%.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of cemiplimab vs pembrolizumab for treatment of advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Most cutaneous squamous cell carcinomas (CSCCs) can be treated with surgical excision or radiation; however, approximately 1% of patients develop advanced disease. In 2018, the FDA approved cemiplimab-rwlc as the first programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) monoclonal antibody for the treatment of patients with metastatic CSCC or locally advanced CSCC who are not candidates for curative surgery or curative radiation. In June 2020, pembrolizumab, another PD-1 monoclonal antibody, was approved for the treatment of patients with recurrent or metastatic CSCC who are not candidates for curative surgery or radiation. We previously reported on the cost-effectiveness of cemiplimab vs historical standard of care for the treatment of advanced CSCC from a US perspective. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of cemiplimab vs pembrolizumab for patients with advanced CSCC in the United States. METHODS: A "partitioned survival" framework was used to assess the cost-effectiveness of cemiplimab vs pembrolizumab. Clinical inputs were based on the most recent data cut of the phase 2 trials for cemiplimab (EMPOWER-CSCC-1; NCT02760498) and pembrolizumab (KEYNOTE-629). Progression-free survival and overall survival were extrapolated using parametric models until all patients had progressed or died. Health state utilities were derived from data collected in the EMPOWER-CSCC-1 trial. Costs included drug acquisition, drug administration, disease management, terminal care, and adverse events and were based on published 2020 US list prices. To assess model uncertainty, 1-way sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were conducted, alongside scenario analyses evaluating key modeling assumptions. RESULTS: In the base case, cemiplimab resulted in an incremental gain of 3.44 life-years (discounted) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $130,329 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) vs pembrolizumab. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000/QALY, PSA indicated a 71% probability that cemiplimab is cost-effective when compared with pembrolizumab. Scenario analysis resulted in ICERs ranging from $115,909 to $187,374. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that cemiplimab is a cost-effective treatment for patients with advanced CSCC, compared with pembrolizumab. These results should be interpreted cautiously in the absence of head-to-head trials; however, in the absence of such data, these results can be used to inform health care decisions over resource allocation. DISCLOSURES: This study was supported by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Sanofi. Paul, Cope, Keeping, Mojebi, and Ayers are employees of PRECISIONheor, which received funding to produce this work. Chen, Kuznik, and Xu are employees and stockholders of Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Sasane is an employee and stockholder of Sanofi, Inc. Konidaris, Atsou, and Guyot are employees of Sanofi, Inc. The authors were responsible for all content and editorial decisions and received no honoraria related to the development of this publication.

Assessing the Value of Cemiplimab for Adults With Advanced Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of cemiplimab in patients with advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC) from a payer perspective in the United States. METHODS: A partitioned survival model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of cemiplimab versus historical standard of care (SOC). All inputs were identified based on a systematic literature review, supplemented by expert opinion where necessary. Clinical inputs for cemiplimab were based on individual patient data from a cemiplimab phase 2 single-arm trial (NCT27060498). For SOC, analysis was based on a pooled analysis of single-arm clinical trials and retrospective studies evaluating chemotherapy and epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors (cetuximab, erlotinib, and gefitinib) identified via a systematic literature review (6 of the 27 included studies). Overall survival and progression-free survival were extrapolated over a lifetime horizon. Costs were included for drug acquisition, drug administration, management of adverse events, subsequent therapy, disease management, and terminal care. Unit costs were based on published 2019 US list prices. RESULTS: In the base case, cemiplimab versus SOC resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $99 447 per quality adjusted-life year (QALY), where incremental costs and QALYs were $372 108 and 3.74, respectively. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000/QALY, the probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggests a 90% probability that cemiplimab is cost-effective compared to SOC. Scenario analyses resulted in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranging from $90 590 to $148 738. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with historical SOC, cemiplimab is a cost-effective use of US payer resources for the treatment of advanced CSCC and is expected to provide value for money.

Penile cancer treatment costs in England.

BACKGROUND: Penile cancer is a rare malignancy in Western countries, with an incidence rate of around 1 per 100,000. Due to its rarity, most treatment recommendations are based on small trials and case series reports. Furthermore, data on the resource implications are scarce. The objective of this study was to estimate the annual economic burden of treating penile cancer in England between 2006 and 2011 and the cost of treating a single case based on a modified version of the European Association of Urology penile cancer treatment guidelines. METHODS: A retrospective (non-comparative) case series was performed using data extracted from Hospital Episode Statistics. Patient admission data for invasive penile cancer or carcinoma in situ of the penis was extracted by ICD-10 code and matched to data from the 2010/11 National Tariff to calculate the mean number of patients and associated annual cost. A mathematical model was simultaneously developed to estimate mean treatment costs per patient based on interventions and their associated outcomes, advised under a modified version of the European Association of Urologists Treatment Guidelines. RESULTS: Approximately 640 patients per year received some form of inpatient care between 2006 and 2011, amounting to an average of 1,292 spells of care; with an average of 48 patients being treated in an outpatient setting. Mean annual costs per invasive penile cancer inpatient and outpatient were £3,737 and £1,051 respectively, with total mean annual costs amounting to £2,442,020 (excluding high cost drugs). The mean cost per case, including follow-up, was estimated to be £7,421 to £8,063. Results were sensitive to the setting in which care was delivered. CONCLUSIONS: The treatment of penile cancer consumes similar levels of resource to other urological cancers. This should be factored in to decisions concerning new treatment modalities as well as choices around resource allocation in specialist treatment centres and the value of preventative measures.

The cost of anal cancer in England: retrospective hospital data analysis and Markov model.

BACKGROUND: Anal cancer requires a multidisciplinary approach to treatment with often complex interventions. Little is known regarding the associated costs and resource use. METHODS: Patient records were extracted from a national hospital database to estimate the number of patients treated for anal cancer in England. Identified resource use was linked to published UK cost estimates to quantify the reimbursement of treatment through the Payment by Results system. A mathematical model was developed simultaneously to validate findings and to calculate the average 10-year cost of treating a squamous cell anal carcinoma case from diagnosis. The model utilised data from the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland's anal cancer position statement. RESULTS: On average, 1,564 patients were admitted to hospital and 389 attended an outpatient facility per year. The average annual cost per inpatient and outpatient ranged from £4,562-£5,230 and £1,146-£1,335, respectively. Based on the model estimates, the inflated cost per case was between £16,470-£16,652. Results were most sensitive to the mode of admission for primary treatment and the costs of staging/diagnosis (inflated range: £14,309-£23,264). CONCLUSIONS: Despite limitations in the available data, these results indicate that the cost of treating anal cancer is significant. Further observational work is required in order to verify these findings.

Cost-effectiveness of vaccinating the elderly and at-risk adults with the 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine or 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine in the UK.

OBJECTIVE: The introduction of routine childhood vaccination with pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCVs) has led to a decrease in the overall incidence of pneumococcal disease in all ages and a change in the serotype distribution of the remaining disease. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of vaccinating ≥65 years and at risk adults with either the 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPV23) or the 13-valent conjugate vaccine (PCV13) in the UK, accounting for epidemiological changes. METHODS: A population-based Markov model was used to track one UK-based cohort of individuals assuming PPV23, PCV13 or no vaccination until death. RESULTS: The ICER was estimated at £8413 when PPV23 was compared to no vaccination. PPV23 dominated PCV13. CONCLUSION: This model suggests that vaccinating with PPV23 is cost-effective when compared to both PCV13 and no vaccination. As PPV23 covers 80-90% in the UK of all serotypes causing invasive pneumococcal diseases, it remains cost-effective despite recent reductions in invasive pneumococcal diseases incidence in adults.

A public health and budget impact analysis of vaccinating the elderly and at-risk adults with the 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine or 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine in the UK.

OBJECTIVE: Since the introduction of the routine childhood immunization, a change in epidemiology of pneumococcal disease has been seen in both children and adults. This study aimed to quantify the public health and budget impact of pneumococcal vaccination of the elderly and those in at risk groups in the UK. METHODS: The model was adapted from a previous population-based Markov model. At-risk adults and the elderly were assumed to receive PPV23 or PCV13 vaccination or no vaccination. RESULTS: Over the study period (2012-2016), PPV23 vaccination led to a reduction in the number of invasive pneumococcal disease cases in most scenarios. The net budget impact ranged between £15 and £39 million (vs no vaccination) or between -£116 and -£93 million (vs PCV13). CONCLUSION: PPV23 vaccination program remains the optimal strategy from public health and budgetary perspectives despite epidemiological changes. PCV13 is likely to impose a significant budget with limited health benefits.