Cost-effectiveness of first-line immunotherapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer with different PD-L1 expression levels: A comprehensive overview.

BACKGROUND: Immunotherapies can substantially improve treatment efficacy, despite their high cost. A comprehensive overview of the cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in patients with non-small cell lung cancer based on different tumor proportion scores (TPSs) was conducted. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Health Technology Assessment Database, and NHS Economic Evaluation databases were searched from their inception until August 24, 2022. Data relevant to the CEA results were recorded, and quality assessments conducted based on the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) process. FINDINGS: Fifty-one original studies from seven countries were included. The mean QHES score was 77.0 (range: 53-95). Twenty-seven studies were classified as high-quality, and the rest as fair quality. Pembrolizumab, nivolumab, ipilimumab, atezolizumab, camrelizumab, cemiplimab, sintilimab, tislelizumab, and durvalumab were identified using three TPS categories. While nivolumab plus ipilimumab and pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy were unlikely to be cost-effective in China, the results for the US were uncertain. Atezolizumab combinations were not cost-effective in China or the US, and tislelizumab and sintilimab were cost-effective in China. For TPSs ≥ 50%, the pembrolizumab monotherapy could be cost-effective in some developed countries. Cemiplimab was more cost-effective than chemotherapy, pembrolizumab, and atezolizumab in the US. For TPSs ≥ 1%, the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab was controversial due to the different willingness-to-pay thresholds. CONCLUSIONS: None of the atezolizumab combination regimens were found to be cost-effective in any perspective of evaluations. Camrelizumab, tislelizumab, and sintilimab have lower ICERs compared to atezolizumab, pembrolizumab, and nivolumab in China. Cemiplimab may be a more affordable alternative to pembrolizumab or atezolizumab. However, it remains unclear which ICIs are the best choices for each country. Future CEAs are required to select comprehensive regimens alongside randomized trials and real-world studies to help verify the economics of ICIs in specific decision-making settings.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy as first-line treatment for mismatch-repair-deficient (dMMR) or microsatellite-instability-high (MSI-H) advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer from the perspective of the Chinese health-care system.

BACKGROUND: Pembrolizumab is superior to chemotherapy as a first-line treatment for patients with mismatch-repair-deficient (dMMR) or microsatellite-instability-high (MSI-H) advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC), with a significant long-term survival benefit according to the KEYNOTE-177 trial. The current study aimed to determine whether pembrolizumab is a cost-effective treatment for patients with dMMR/MSI-H advanced or metastatic CRC in China. METHODS: A partitioned survival model (PSM) was developed to simulate patients with dMMR/MSI-H advanced or metastatic CRC based on progression-free survival (PFS), progressive disease (PD) and death. The model was designed using a lifetime horizon, a 6-week cycle, and a 5% discount rate. The patients in the model had metastatic dMMR/MSI-H CRC and had not previously received treatment; these characteristics were similar to those of patients in KEYNOTE-177, a phase 3, open-label randomized clinical trial. The health outcomes and utilities were based on the KEYNOTE-177 trial and published data, respectively. Costs were calculated based on local charges (2022) and published literature. A treatment was deemed cost-effective in China if the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) value was less than U.S.$38,142.56 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). The robustness of the results was assessed via one-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Baseline analysis revealed that pembrolizumab provided an additional 2.58 QALYs (3.00 life-year) at an incremental cost of U.S.$78,286.04, resulting in an ICER of U.S.$30,330.15 per QALY, which was below the willingness-to-pay threshold of U.S.$38,142.56 per QALY. When the patient assistance program (PAP) was considered, the ICER became U.S.$1,730.67 per QALY, manifesting absolute cost-effectiveness. The results of sensitivity analyses demonstrated that pembrolizumab was cost-effective in most cases. CONCLUSIONS: Pembrolizumab is a cost-effective first-line treatment for dMMR/MSI-H advanced or metastatic CRC patients in China, especially considering the PAP.

Real-World Outcomes of Latinx Versus Non-Latinx Patients Treated With First-Line Immunotherapy for Metastatic Renal-Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: There are limited data regarding the impact of ethnicity among patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors. We evaluated real-world outcomes between Latinx and non-Latinx patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma (mRCC) treated with first-line nivolumab/ipilimumab within 2 different healthcare settings. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of patients with mRCC who received nivolumab/ipilimumab within the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services (LAC-DHS), a safety-net healthcare system, and the City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center (COH), a tertiary oncology center, between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2021. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were determined using the Kaplan-Meier method and covariates were adjusted using multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression. RESULTS: Of 94 patients, 40 patients (43%) were Latinx while the remainder were non-Latinx (44 pts [46%] White, 7 pts [7%] Asian, and 3 pts [3%] Other). Fifty (53%) and 44 (47%) patients received their care at COH and LAC-DHS, respectively. Most Latinx patients (95%) were treated at LAC-DHS, and most non-Latinx patients (89%) were treated at COH. Pooled analysis by ethnicity demonstrated significantly shorter PFS in Latinx versus non-Latinx patients (10.1 vs. 25.2 months, hazard ratios [HR] 3.61, 95% CI 1.96-6.66, P ≤ .01). Multivariate analysis revealed a HR of 3.41 (95% CI 1.31-8.84; P = .01). At a median follow-up of 11.0 months, the median OS was not reached in either arm at the time of data cutoff. CONCLUSION: Latinx patients with mRCC had a shorter PFS treated with frontline nivolumab/ipilimumab compared to their non-Latinx counterparts. No difference was observed in OS although these data were immature. Larger studies are needed to further interrogate the social and economic determinants of ethnicity on clinical outcomes in mRCC.

Assessment of Tumor Mutational Burden and Outcomes in Patients With Diverse Advanced Cancers Treated With Immunotherapy.

Importance: There are few studies assessing the association of tumor mutational burden (TMB) and clinical outcomes in a large cohort of patients with diverse advanced cancers. Objective: To clinically validate a TMB biomarker from a next-generation sequencing targeted gene panel assay. Design, Setting, and Participants: A prespecified cohort study using the deidentified clinicogenomic Tempus database of patients sequenced between 2018 and 2022, which contained retrospective, observational data originating from 300 cancer sites including 199 community sites and 101 academic sites. Patients with advanced solid tumors across 8 cancer types and more than 20 histologies, sequenced with Tempus xT who were treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in the first-line or second-line setting were included. Data were analyzed from September 2018 to August 2022. Exposure: Treatment with US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved antiprogrammed cell death-1/programmed cell death-ligand 1 (PD-1/PD-L1) ICI and/or in combination with a cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein-4 ICI. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the association of tumor mutational burden (TMB) binary category (high [≥10 mut/mb] vs low) with overall survival (OS) in patients treated with ICIs. Secondary outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS), and time to progression (TTP). Results: In the evaluable cohort of 674 patients, the median (IQR) age was 69.4 (28.6-89.8) years, 271 patients (40.2%) were female, and 435 patients (64.5%) were White. The most common advanced cancers were non-small cell lung cancer (330 patients [49.0%]), followed by bladder cancer (148 patients [22.0%]), and head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (96 patients [14.8%]). Median (IQR) follow-up was 7.2 (3.2-14.1) months. High TMB (TMB-H) cancers (206 patients [30.6%]) were significantly associated with longer OS than low TMB (TMB-L) cancers (hazard ratio [HR], 0.72; upper confidence bound [UCB], 0.91; P = .01). In a prospective subset of 403 patients treated with ICIs after TMB testing, TMB-H cancers (135 patients [33.5%]) were significantly associated with longer OS (HR, 0.61; UCB, 0.84; P = .005), PFS (HR, 0.62; UCB, 0.82; P = .003), and TTP (HR, 0.67; UCB, 0.92; P = .02) than TMB-L cancers. An overall survival benefit was seen regardless of the type of ICI used (pembrolizumab, 339 patients; HR, 0.67; UCB, 0.94; P = .03), other ICIs (64 patients; HR, 0.37; UCB, 0.85; P = .03), and after adjusting for PD-L1 and microsatellite stability status (403 patients; HR = 0.67; UCB, 0.92; P = .02). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of patients with advanced solid tumors treated with ICIs in diverse clinics, TMB-H cancers were significantly associated with improved clinical outcomes compared with TMB-L cancers.

Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors-Associated Thrombosis: Incidence, Risk Factors and Management.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) target programmed cell death (PD) 1 receptor and its ligand PD-L1, and have become an integral part of treatment regimens in many cancers including lung cancer, renal cell carcinoma, melanoma, and more. Cancer is associated with a significantly increased risk of venous thromboembolism compared to non-cancer patients, and the risks increase further with anticancer therapies including ICIs. Cancer-associated thrombosis can lead to hospitalizations, delayed cancer treatment, and mortality. While thrombosis was not reported as a major complication in initial clinical trials leading to the approval of ICIs, emerging evidence from post-marketing studies revealed concerning risks of thrombosis in patients receiving ICIs. However, results remained heterogenous given differences in study designs and populations. Recent studies also showed that C-reactive protein dynamics might be an easily accessible biomarker for thrombosis and disease response in this population. In addition, early findings indicated that a commonly used anticoagulant for cancer-associated thrombosis, factor Xa inhibitors, might have potential synergistic antitumor effects when combined with ICIs. Herein we will review the current literature on the incidence, risk factors, and management of thrombosis in patients with cancer receiving ICIs. We aim to provide valuable information for clinicians in managing these patients.

Switching from salvage chemotherapy to immunotherapy in adult B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia.

About one-half of adults with acute B-cell lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL) who do not achieve molecular complete remission or who subsequently relapse are not cured by current chemo- or targeted therapies. Previously, the sole therapeutic option for such persons was a hematopoietic stem cell transplant. Recently, several immune therapies including monoclonal antibodies, bispecific T-cell engagers (BiTEs), antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs), and chimeric antigen receptor T-cells (CARs) have been shown safe and effective in this setting. In this manuscript, we summarize data on US FDA-approved immune therapies of advanced adult B-ALL including rituximab, blinatumomab, inotuzumab ozogamicin, tisagenlecleucel and brexucabtagene autoleucel. We consider the results of clinical trials focusing on efficacy, safety, and quality of life (QoL). Real-world evidence is presented as well. We also briefly discuss pharmacodynamics, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacoeconomics followed by risk-benefit analyses. Lastly, we present future directions of immune therapies for advanced B-ALL in adults.

Budget Impact Analysis of Idecabtagene Vicleucel for the Treatment of Adult Patients with Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma in the US.

BACKGROUND: Gene therapy is known to be unaffordable to those who need it the most; however, evidence on the financial impact is limited. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to estimate the budget impact and affordability of the gene therapy idecabtagene vicleucel for the treatment of adult patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (rrMM) in the US over a 3-year period from the payer healthcare perspective. METHOD: A budget impact model was developed to estimate the budget impact to the US healthcare plan compared with bortezomib-based maintenance therapy. The target population size was based on a hypothetical 1-million-member plan over a 3-year time horizon with and without idecabtagene vicleucel adoption. The cost of drug acquisition, drug administration, and grade 3-4 adverse events (AEs) were calculated for both scenarios. The budget impact of idecabtagene vicleucel was calculated as the difference in costs for these two scenarios. Costs were extracted from IBM-Micromedex Red Book, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and the literature. A one-way sensitivity analysis was performed to ensure robustness. RESULTS: An estimated 22 patients with rrMM each year would be eligible for idecabtagene vicleucel. The model projected the annual cost per patient in the first year as $19,449 and $517,528.13 for bortezomib and idecabtagene vicleucel, respectively. Introducing idecabtagene vicleucel was predicted to increase the total budget by $13.4, $13.6, and $14 million in the first, second, and third years. There would be an additional $1.1128, $1.1252, and $1.1486 per member per month (PMPM) when using idecabtagene vicleucel over bortezomib. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that the high cost of the gene therapy idecabtagene vicleucel is justifiable due to the low number of rrMM patients.

Cost-effectiveness of nivolumab plus ipilimumab as first-line treatment for American patients with unresectable malignant pleural mesothelioma.

Background: The treatment paradigm of unresectable malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) has changed in recent years. Checkmate 743 demonstrate that nivolumab plus ipilimumab showed good clinical benefits compared with chemotherapy in the treatment of MPM. The study is aim to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of Nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs. platinum plus chemotherapy for the first-line treatment of unresectable MPM. Methods: A Markov model was developed to compare the cost and quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) of nivolumab plus ipilimumab and chemotherapy over a 10-year time horizon. Clinical efficacy and safety data were extracted from the CheckMate 743 trials. Health state utilities were obtained from published literature. Costs were collected from an US payer perspective. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore the impact of uncertainties on the cost-effectiveness's results. Results: In the base case analysis, the incremental healthcare costs and QALYs for Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab vs. chemotherapy are $196,604.22 and 0.53, respectively, resulting an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $372,414.28/QALYs for the model cohort of patients with locally advanced or metastatic MPM. However, Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that there was no probability that Nivolumab plus ipilimumab was cost-effective within the fluctuation range of other model parameters in first-line in unresectable MPM. The results of one-way sensitivity analysis showed that the cost of Nivolumab was the most sensitive parameter. Conclusions: The ICER of Nivolumab plus ipilimumab is above the theoretical willingness-to-pay threshold in the U.S, which suggests that first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab for unresectable MPM may be not a cost-effective choice.

Lenvatinib Plus Pembrolizumab vs. Chemotherapy in Pretreated Patients With Advanced Endometrial Cancer: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

Background: In 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 Methods: The 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. Results: Lenvatinib 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. Conclusion: Under the current WTP threshold, LP is not cost-effective compared with chemotherapy in pretreated patients with advanced endometrial cancer.

Monoclonal Antibodies in the Treatment of Relapsing Multiple Sclerosis: an Overview with Emphasis on Pregnancy, Vaccination, and Risk Management.

Monoclonal antibodies have become a mainstay in the treatment of patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis (RMS) and provide some benefit to patients with primary progressive MS. They are highly precise by specifically targeting molecules displayed on cells involved in distinct immune mechanisms of MS pathophysiology. They not only differ in the target antigen they recognize but also by the mode of action that generates their therapeutic effect. Natalizumab, an [Formula: see text]4[Formula: see text]1 integrin antagonist, works via binding to cell surface receptors, blocking the interaction with their ligands and, in that way, preventing the migration of leukocytes across the blood-brain barrier. On the other hand, the anti-CD52 monoclonal antibody alemtuzumab and the anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies rituximab, ocrelizumab, ofatumumab, and ublituximab work via eliminating selected pathogenic cell populations. However, potential adverse effects may be serious and can necessitate treatment discontinuation. Most importantly, those are the risk for (opportunistic) infections, but also secondary autoimmune diseases or malignancies. Monoclonal antibodies also carry the risk of infusion/injection-related reactions, primarily in early phases of treatment. By careful patient selection and monitoring during therapy, the occurrence of these potentially serious adverse effects can be minimized. Monoclonal antibodies are characterized by a relatively long pharmacologic half-life and pharmacodynamic effects, which provides advantages such as permitting infrequent dosing, but also creates disadvantages regarding vaccination and family planning. This review presents an overview of currently available monoclonal antibodies for the treatment of RMS, including their mechanism of action, efficacy and safety profile. Furthermore, we provide practical recommendations for risk management, vaccination, and family planning.

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%.

[Administrative delays of temporary recommendation for use: Impact on access to innovation in melanoma]. / Délais administratifs des RTU, effet sur l'accès à l'innovation dans le mélanome.

INTRODUCTION: Melanoma has benefited in recent years from therapeutic innovations, which have improved overall survival of patients. France has developed a regulatory arsenal allowing faster access to innovative drugs before marketing authorization: temporary authorization for use (ATU) and temporary recommendation for use (RTU). METHOD: We describe here the decision-making processes that led to the non-publication of the decree on the funding of three RTU in adjuvant melanoma therapy: nivolumab, pembrolizumab and the combination of dabrafenib and trametinib, and we analyse the fate of these drugs in order to quantify the potential loss of chance. RESULTS: On 03AUG2018, the French National Agency for Medicines and Health Product Safety (ANSM) published 3 RTU in order to give rapid access to major innovations in adjuvant melanoma therapy: nivolumab, pembrolizumab and the combination of dabrafenib and trametinib. These drugs have respectively demonstrated reductions in the risk of recurrence by 35 %, 43% and 55% for target populations of 2200, 1900 and 650 patients per year. Despite a favourable opinion on reimbursement from the French National Authority for Health (HAS), the decrees on reimbursement will never be published, prohibiting the use of these products before the marketing authorisation, and depriving many patients of a potential cure. CONCLUSION: Despite a favourable opinion from scientists and health agencies for the rapid availability of a drug, the French public health code does not systematically imply access to a therapeutic innovation. The reform of access to innovation implemented on 01JUL2021 may help tackle this issue.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of trastuzumab for early breast cancer in Brazil.

BACKGROUND: Adjuvant chemotherapy with trastuzumab for HER2 positive breast cancers has brought considerable benefits to disease-free survival and overall survival. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis of the treatment of patients with early and locally advanced HER2 positive breast cancer, within the scope of the Brazilian public health system, comparing adjuvant chemotherapy with and without trastuzumab, for 1 year of treatment. METHODS: A 4-state Markov model was developed to estimate strategy costs and outcomes. RESULTS: Based on the proposed model, we verified an incremental benefit of trastuzumab therapy compared to treatment without trastuzumab with 0.84 quality-adjusted life years (QALY) and 1.16 life years gained (LYG). The use of adjuvant chemotherapy with trastuzumab has an ICER of US$19,599.26 for each quality-adjusted life year and US$14,180.68 for each life year gained in relation to chemotherapy without trastuzumab. CONCLUSION: In Brazil, adjuvant chemotherapy with trastuzumab may be considered cost-effective only if a cost-effectiveness threshold is stipulated with the value starting at three times the Brazilian GDP per capita for QALY or two times the Brazilian GDP per capita for LYG, from health system perspective.

CAR T-cells in acute lymphoblastic leukemia: Current results.

The marketing authorization of tisagenlecleucel, a 2nd generation of CD19-directed CAR T-cells, containing the 4-1 BB co-stimulatory domain, in 2017 in USA and in 2018 in EU, has revolutionized the therapeutic strategy in advanced B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL) in children, adolescents and young adults (AYAs) with relapsed or refractory disease. This innovative treatment, based on a "living drug", has shown very impressive short-term responses. However, safety profile and complex logistics require high expertise centers and tight collaborations between addressing and treating centers. Current research is exploring the possibility to move to first line ALL with high-risk features and/or first high-risk relapse. More efficient CAR T-cells products, are still lacking to counteract the escape mechanisms already described. Moreover, to define the bridge-to-CAR time for each patient remains a challenge to obtain optimal disease burden allowing expansion and persistence of CAR T-cells. Also difficult is to identify patients who will benefit from further therapy after infusion, such as allogeneic HSCT or may be immuno-modulatory treatment. Finally, CAR T-cells directed against T-ALL are only in their beginning but require more complex engineering process to avoid T- cell immune-deficiency or fratricide.

Modeling the Ex Post Real Option Value in Metastatic Melanoma Using Real-World Data.

OBJECTIVES: Real option value (ROV) is created when a drug enables a patient to live long enough to benefit from a future innovation. Few studies have quantified ROV in the real world. We aimed to estimate the ex post ROV for ipilimumab in metastatic melanoma using real-world data (RWD). METHODS: We developed a framework for calculating ROV using RWD, accounting for the health gain in the standard therapy arm and the uptake of future innovations. A Markov model was developed to estimate the quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained with ipilimumab compared with chemotherapy for patients with or without subsequent cancer immunotherapy (CIT). A nationwide electronic health record-derived, deidentified database was used to estimate survival and uptake of CIT. RESULTS: The incremental QALYs gained for ipilimumab compared with chemotherapy without subsequent CIT were 1.74. With subsequent CIT, the incremental QALYs compared with chemotherapy increased by 0.92, 0.60, 0.33, 0.18, 0.10, and 0.02 when CIT became available 0, 3, 6, 9, 12, and 24 months after the initiation of first-line treatment, respectively. The results were most sensitive to the survival benefit of ipilimumab, the survival benefit of subsequent CIT, and the uptake of CIT. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to estimate ex post ROV using RWD. The ex post ROV was between 1% and 54% of conventional value for patients who received a diagnosis within 2 years before CIT availability. Further studies are needed to understand ROV in other disease areas, particularly those with longer survival times.

Economic Evaluation of Monoclonal Antibodies in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review.

INTRODUCTION: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the major causes of mortality and morbidity worldwide. The median overall survival (OS) of patients with metastatic CRC (mCRC) has doubled over the last 20 years partly due to the introduction of advanced biologic therapies. However, these treatment modalities bear significant costs on healthcare systems globally, and may jeopardize their fiscal sustainability. The aim of this systematic review was to critically appraise the economic evaluations of monoclonal antibodies in mCRC. METHODOLOGY: A literature search was performed in the electronic databases of: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, EMBASE, EMBASE Alert, PUBMED, NHS Economic Evaluation and Health Technology Assessment Database for full articles published from 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2020. RESULTS: Twenty economic analyses were identified in the literature that fulfilled the inclusion criteria and evaluated the cost-effectiveness of (a) bevacizumab as first-line treatment for mCRC and as maintenance treatment, (b) cetuximab as first-line treatment, (c) panitumumab versus bevacizumab and cetuximab versus bevacizumab as first-line treatment, (d) aflibercept and ramucirumab as second-line treatment, (e) cetuximab and panitumumab as third-line treatment, (f) cetuximab versus panitumumab as later lines of treatment, and (g) RAS testing prior to anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Bevacizumab in combination with chemotherapy is cost-effective as neither first-line treatment nor maintenance treatment. Sequential treatment with bevacizumab in first-line and second-line treatment was also not cost-effective. Testing for KRAS and extended RAS mutations is cost-effective and should be performed prior to anti-EGFR treatment. In the RAS wild-type subgroup of mCRCs the use of anti-EGFR (panitumumab or cetuximab) in first-line treatment leads to a more favorable cost-effectiveness profile than the corresponding anti-VEGF (bevacizumab). Cetuximab is not cost-effective as a first-line treatment. Anti-EGFR administration is not a cost-effective strategy in third-line treatment, even for RAS wild-type mCRCs, compared to best supportive care. Aflibercept was superior to ramucirumab and costed less, but neither were cost-effective compared to standard care.