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.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of cabozantinib compared with everolimus, axitinib, and nivolumab in subsequent line advanced renal cell carcinoma in Japan.

AIMS: The treatment landscape of renal cell carcinoma has changed with the introduction of targeted therapies. While the clinical benefit of cabozantinib is well-established for Japanese patients who have received prior treatment, the economic benefit remains unclear. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of cabozantinib compared with everolimus, axitinib, and nivolumab in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma who have failed at least one prior therapy in Japan. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness model was developed using a partitioned survival approach and a public healthcare payer's perspective. Over a lifetime horizon, clinical and economic implications were estimated according to a three-health-state structure: progression-free, post-progression, and death. Key clinical inputs and utilities were derived from the METEOR trial, and a de novo network meta-analysis and cost data were obtained from publicly available Japanese data sources. Costs, quality-adjusted life-years, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were estimated. Costs and health benefits were discounted annually at 2%. RESULTS: Cabozantinib was more costly and effective compared with everolimus and axitinib, with deterministic incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of ¥5,375,559 and ¥2,223,138, respectively. Compared to nivolumab, cabozantinib was predicted to be less costly and more effective. Sensitivity and scenario analyses demonstrated that the key drivers of cost-effectiveness results were the estimation of overall survival and treatment duration, relative efficacy, drug costs, and subsequent treatment costs. LIMITATIONS: METEOR was an international trial but did not enroll any patients from Japan. Efficacy and safety data from METEOR were used as a proxy for the Japanese population following validation by clinical experts, and alternative assumptions specific to clinical practice in Japan were evaluated in scenario analyses. CONCLUSIONS: In Japan, cabozantinib is a cost-effective alternative to everolimus, axitinib, and nivolumab for the treatment of patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma who have received at least one prior line of therapy.

Cost Effectiveness of Treatment Sequences in Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The treatment landscape for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) has significantly evolved in recent years. Without direct comparator trials, factors such as cost effectiveness (CE) are important to guide decision-making. OBJECTIVE: To assess the CE of guideline-recommended approved first- and second-line treatment regimens. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A comprehensive Markov model was developed to analyze the CE of the five current National Comprehensive Cancer Network-recommended first-line therapies with appropriate second-line therapy for patient cohorts with International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium favorable and intermediate/poor risk. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Life years, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and total accumulated costs were estimated using a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000 per QALY. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: In patients with favorable risk, pembrolizumab + lenvatinib followed by cabozantinib added $32 935 in costs and yielded 0.28 QALYs, resulting in an incremental CE ratio (ICER) of $117 625 per QALY in comparison to pembrolizumab + axitinib followed by cabozantinib. In patients with intermediate/poor risk, nivolumab + ipilimumab followed by cabozantinib added $2252 in costs and yielded 0.60 QALYs compared to cabozantinib followed by nivolumab, yielding an ICER of $4184. Limitations include differences in median follow-up duration between treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Pembrolizumab + lenvatinib followed by cabozantinib, and pembrolizumab + axitinib followed by cabozantinib were cost-effective treatment sequences for patients with favorable-risk mRCC. Nivolumab +ipilimumab followed by cabozantinib was the most cost-effective treatment sequence for patients with intermediate-/poor-risk mRCC, dominating all preferred treatments. PATIENT SUMMARY: Because new treatments for kidney cancer have not been compared head to head, comparison of their cost and efficacy can help in making decisions about the best treatments to use first. Our model showed that patients with a favorable risk profile are most likely to benefit from pembrolizumab and lenvatinib or axitinib followed by cabozantinib, while patients with an intermediate or poor risk profile will probably benefit most from nivolumab and ipilimumab followed by cabozantinib.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Six Immunotherapy-Based Regimens and Sunitinib in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Public Payer Perspective.

PURPOSE: Several new treatment combinations have been approved in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). To determine the optimal therapy on the basis of cost and health outcomes, we performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of approved immunotherapy-tyrosine kinase inhibitor/immunotherapy drug combinations and sunitinib using public payer acquisition costs in the United States. METHODS: We constructed a decision model with a 10-year time horizon. The seven treatment drug strategies included atezolizumab + bevacizumab, avelumab + axitinib, pembrolizumab + axitinib, nivolumab + ipilimumab (NI), nivolumab + cabozantinib, lenvatinib + pembrolizumab, and sunitinib. The effectiveness outcome in our model was quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) with utility values on the basis of the published literature. Costs included drug acquisition costs and costs for management of grade 3-4 drug-related adverse events. We used a partitioned survival model in which patients with mRCC transitioned between three health states (progression-free, progressive disease, and death) at monthly intervals on the basis of parametric survival function estimated from published survival curves. To determine cost-effectiveness, we constructed incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) by dividing the difference in cost by the difference in effectiveness between nondominated treatments. RESULTS: The least expensive treatment was sunitinib ($357,948 US dollars [USD]-$656,100 USD), whereas the most expensive was either lenvatinib + pembrolizumab or pembrolizumab + axitinib ($959,302 USD-$1,403,671 USD). NI yielded the most QALYs (3.6), whereas avelumab + axitinib yielded the least (2.5). NI had an incremental ICER of $297,465 USD-$348,516 USD compared with sunitinib. In sensitivity analyses, this ICER fell below $150,000 USD/QALY if the initial 4-month cost of NI decreased by 22%-38%. CONCLUSION: NI was the most effective combination for mRCC, but at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 USD/QALY, sunitinib was the most cost-effective approach.

Grade 3/4 Adverse Event Costs of Immuno-oncology Combination Therapies for Previously Untreated Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Despite 4 approved combination regimens in the first-line setting for advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC), adverse event (AE) costs data are lacking. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A descriptive analysis on 2 AE cost comparisons was conducted using patient-level data for the nivolumab-based therapies and published data for the pembrolizumab-based therapies. First, grade 3/4 AE costs were compared between nivolumab + ipilimumab vs. nivolumab + cabozantinib vs. pembrolizumab + axitinib using data from the CheckMate 214 (median follow-up [mFU]: 13.1 months), CheckMate 9ER (mFU: 12.8 months), and KEYNOTE-426 (mFU: 12.8 months) trials, respectively. Second, grade 3/4 AE costs were compared between nivolumab + ipilimumab vs. nivolumab + cabozantinib vs. pembrolizumab + lenvatinib using data from the CheckMate 214 (mFU: 26.7 months), CheckMate 9ER (mFU: 23.5 months), and KEYNOTE-581 (mFU: 26.6 months) trials, respectively. Per-patient costs for all-cause and treatment-related grade 3/4 AEs with corresponding any-grade AE rates ≥ 20% were calculated based on the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project database and inflated to 2020 US dollars. RESULTS: Per-patient all-cause grade 3/4 AE costs for nivolumab + ipilimumab vs. nivolumab + cabozantinib vs. pembrolizumab + axitinib were $2703 vs. $4508 vs. $5772, and treatment-related grade 3/4 AE costs were $741 vs. $2722 vs. $4440 over ~12.8 months of FU. For nivolumab + ipilimumab vs. nivolumab + cabozantinib vs. pembrolizumab + lenvatinib, per-patient all-cause grade 3/4 AE costs were $3120 vs. $5800 vs. $9285, while treatment-related grade 3/4 AE costs were $863 vs. $3162 vs. $5030 over ~26.6 months of FU. CONCLUSION: Patients with aRCC treated with first-line nivolumab-based therapies had lower grade 3/4 all-cause and treatment-related AE costs than pembrolizumab-based therapies, suggesting a more favorable cost-benefit profile.

A Cost-effectiveness Analysis Comparing Pembrolizumab-Axitinib, Nivolumab-Ipilimumab, and Sunitinib for Treatment of Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma.

OBJECTIVES: The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved nivolumab-ipilimumab and pembrolizumab-axitinib as first-line treatments for metastatic, clear-cell, renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) based on results from CheckMate 214 and KEYNOTE-426. Our objective was to compare the adjusted, lifetime cost-effectiveness between nivolumab-ipilimumab, pembrolizumab-axitinib, and sunitinib for patients with mRCC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 3-state Markov model was developed comparing nivolumab-ipilimumab and pembrolizumab-axitinib to each other and sunitinib, over a 20-year lifetime horizon from a US medical center perspective. The clinical outcomes of nivolumab-ipilimumab and pembrolizumab-axitinib were compared using matching-adjusted indirect comparison. Costs of drug treatment, adverse events, and utilities associated with different health states and adverse events were determined using national sources and published literature. Our outcome was incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) using quality-adjusted life years (QALY). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Nivolumab-ipilimumab was the most cost-effective option in the base case analysis with an ICER of $34,190/QALY compared with sunitinib, while the pembrolizumab-axitinib ICER was dominated by nivolumab-ipilimumab and was not cost-effective (ICER=$12,630,828/QALY) compared with sunitinib. The mean total costs per patient for the nivolumab-ipilimumab and pembrolizumab-axitinib arms were $284,683 and $457,769, respectively, compared with sunitinib at $241,656. QALY was longer for nivolumab-ipilimumab (3.23 QALY) than for adjusted pembrolizumab-axitinib (1.99 QALY), which was longer than sunitinib's (1.98 QALY). These results were most sensitive to treatment cost in both groups, but plausible changes did not alter the conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: The base case scenario indicated that nivolumab-ipilimumab was the most cost-effective treatment option for mRCC compared with pembrolizumab-axitinib and sunitinib.

Pembrolizumabe, axitinibe, ipilimumabe e nivolumabe para tratamento de primeira linha de câncer de células renais / Pembrolizumab, axitinib, ipilimumab and nivolumab for first-line treatment of kidney cell cancer

INTRODUÇÃO: Os carcinomas de células renais representam 2-3% de todos os cânceres, com maior incidência em países ocidentais, são o sétimo mais comum em homens e o nono mais comum em mulheres e vêm apresentando uma tendência de aumento em sua prevalência. De acordo com os dados do GLOBOCAN (Agência Internacional de Pesquisa sobre o Câncer) de 2018, número estimado de novos casos de CCR no Brasil foi de 10.688 com uma taxa geral padronizada por idade (ASR) de 4,3 por 100.000 habitantes e um número de mortes estimadas em 2018 de 4.084. A nefrectomia radical é o tratamento de escolha para os doentes com câncer renal e as taxas de cura podem ser muito altas para tumores de estádio 1 (>90%). O sunitinibe e pazopanibe foram recomendados pela Conitec para tratamento de CCR. Assim, o objetivo deste relatório é avaliar a eficácia e segurança, bem como custo-efetividade e impacto orçamentário das associações ipilimumabe/nivolumabe e pembrolizumabe/axitinibe visando a incorporação como primeira linha de tratamento de pacientes adultos com CCRm. TECNOLOGIA: Ipilimumabe (Yervoy ®), nivolumabe(Opdivo®), pembrolizumabe (Keytruda®) e axitinibe (Inlyta®). PERGUNTA: As associações ipilimumabe/nivolumabe ou pembrolizumabe/axitinibe são eficazes, seguras e cust

Pembrolizumabe, axitinibe, ipilimumabe e nivolumabe para tratamento de primeira linha de câncer de células renais / Pembrolizumab, axitinib, ipilimumab and nivolumab for first-line treatment of kidney cell cancer

INTRODUÇÃO: Os carcinomas de células renais representam 2-3% de todos os cânceres, com maior incidência em países ocidentais, são o sétimo mais comum em homens e o nono mais comum em mulheres e vêm apresentando uma tendência de aumento em sua prevalência. De acordo com os dados do GLOBOCAN (Agência Internacional de Pesquisa sobre o Câncer) de 2018, número estimado de novos casos de CCR no Brasil foi de 10.688 com uma taxa geral padronizada por idade (ASR) de 4,3 por 100.000 habitantes e um número de mortes estimadas em 2018 de 4.084. A nefrectomia radical é o tratamento de escolha para os doentes com câncer renal e as taxas de cura podem ser muito altas para tumores de estádio 1 (>90%). O sunitinibe e pazopanibe foram recomendados pela Conitec para tratamento de CCR. Assim, o objetivo deste relatório é avaliar a eficácia e segurança, bem como custo-efetividade e impacto orçamentário das associações ipilimumabe/nivolumabe e pembrolizumabe/axitinibe visando a incorporação como primeira linha de tratamento de pacientes adultos com CCRm. TECNOLOGIA: Ipilimumabe (Yervoy ®), nivolumabe(Opdivo®), pembrolizumabe (Keytruda®) e axitinibe (Inlyta®). PERGUNTA: As associações ipilimumabe/nivolumabe ou pembrolizumabe/axitinibe são eficazes, seguras e cust

A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab Versus Pembrolizumab Plus Axitinib and Versus Avelumab Plus Axitinib in First-Line Treatment of Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: There now exist several viable first-line treatment options for metastatic renal cell carcinoma, making the choice of initial therapy difficult. Considering metrics other than patient factors may be necessary to select the most appropriate therapy. We aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of the three combination therapies currently approved in treatment-naïve advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma-nivolumab + ipilimumab (NI), pembrolizumab + axitinib (PA), and avelumab + axitinib (AA)-from a US payer perspective. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Our analysis was performed based on previously obtained data derived from progression-free survival and overall survival curves from CheckMate 214, KEYNOTE 426, and JAVELIN Renal 101. RESULTS: The total costs of each treatment were found to be $437,556.12 for NI, $450,597.15 for PA, and $542,882.34 for AA, with quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) values of 4.04, 3.77, and 2.95 for each combination, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of NI versus PA was ($47,504.73/QALY); for NI versus AA, it was ($96,533.11/QALY); for PA versus AA, it was ($113,015.87/QALY). Net health benefit scaled against a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per QALY was positive for NI versus PA at 0.36 and versus AA at 1.79, and this index was also positive for PA versus AA at 1.43, indicating that the additional value of these therapies versus their alternatives is greater than the extra cost. CONCLUSION: NI was found to be the most cost-effective treatment option compared with the other considered therapies. PA was found to be cost effective compared to AA. When patient factors such as social issues and pre-existing conditions do not dictate their first-line therapy, clinicians may use this additional information to make financially conscious choices.

Pembrolizumab plus axitinib and nivolumab plus ipilimumab as first-line treatments of advanced intermediate- or poor-risk renal-cell carcinoma: a number needed to treat analysis from the Brazilian private perspective.

BACKGROUND: Considering clinical benefits of new combination therapies for metastatic renal-cell carcinoma (mRCC), this study aims to calculate the number needed to treat (NTT) and the cost of preventing an event (COPE) for pembrolizumab plus axitinib (P + A), and nivolumab plus ipilimumab (N + I) as first-line treatments, from the Brazilian private perspective. METHODS: Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) data for intermediate- and poor-risk groups were obtained from KEYNOTE-426 and CHECKMATE-214 trials for P + A and N + I, respectively, versus sunitinib as mRCC first-line treatment. RESULTS: Considering a 12-month time horizon, 6 patients should be treated with P + A to prevent one death with sunitinib use, resulting in a COPE of 3,773,865 BRL. Using N + I, NNT for 12-month OS rate was 13 compared to sunitinib, with a COPE of 6,357,965 BRL. Regarding PFS data, NNT was also 6 when comparing P + A versus sunitinib, with an estimated COPE of 3,773,865 BRL. Estimated NNT was 20 comparing N + I and sunitinib, resulting in a COPE of 10,172,744 BRL. Cost differences between two treatment options, reached more than 6 million BRL for PFS, and 2 million BRL for OS. CONCLUSION: At the 12-month landmark, P + A suggests better economic scenario versus N + I as first-line mRCC treatment option for intermediate- and poor-risk groups, through an indirect comparison using sunitinib as a common comparator.

Cost-Effectiveness of Pembrolizumab plus Axitinib Versus Sunitinib as First-Line Therapy in Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma in the U.S.

BACKGROUND: The data from the phase III clinical trial KEYNOTE-426 indicated that pembrolizumab plus axitinib compared with sunitinib could generate clinical benefits in patients with previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Given the incremental clinical benefits, we examined the potential cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib in the first-line setting for patients with advanced RCC from the U.S. payers' perspective. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cost and health outcomes were estimated at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $100,000 to $150,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed by varying potentially modifiable parameters, and additional subgroup analyses were performed as well. RESULTS: Upon our analyses, the total treatment costs in the pembrolizumab plus axitinib and sunitinib groups were $522,796 and $348,424 and the QALYs gained 2.90 and 1.72, respectively. In the base-case analysis, compared with receiving sunitinib, patients with advanced RCC receiving pembrolizumab plus axitinib gained 1.18 more QALYs at an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $148,676/QALY. The results of subgroup analyses demonstrated that pembrolizumab plus axitinib was most cost-effective for patients who had one organ with metastasis. CONCLUSION: First-line treatment with pembrolizumab plus axitinib, compared with sunitinib, is a cost-effective strategy when the value of WTP is from $100,000 to $150,000 per QALY in patients with advanced RCC. For patients with one-organ metastasis and those in International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium poor risk group, first-line treatment with pembrolizumab plus axitinib is more cost-effective than others. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This was the first study to examine the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib in advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). This study found that first-line treatment with pembrolizumab plus axitinib is a cost-effective strategy when the value of willingness-to-pay is from $100,000 to $150,000 per quality-adjusted life-year in patients with advanced RCC from the U.S. payers' perspective.

Immunotherapy-based first-line treatment of intermediate- and poor-risk advanced renal cell carcinoma: number needed to treat and cost of preventing an event from the perspective of the Brazilian private healthcare system / Tratamento baseado em imunoterapia para primeira linha do carcinoma renal avançado com risco intermediário ou alto: número necessário a tratar e custo para prevenir um evento na perspectiva do sistema privado de saúde brasileiro

Objective: To perform an analysis over time of the number needed to treat (NNT) and the cost of preventing an event (COPE) for nivolumab + ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) and pembrolizumab + axitinib (PEMBRO+AXI) as first-line treatments for advanced renal cell carcinoma patients with intermediate or poor-risk, under the Brazilian private healthcare system perspective. Methods: The NNT for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) from 12-month to maximum available follow-up from CheckMate 214 and KEYNOTE-426 studies were used to estimate the COPE. Treatment costs were estimated considering the labeled dosing and median PFS as a proxy for treatment duration. Results: The OS NNT for NIVO+IPI decreased from 12 to 8 and for PEMBRO+AXI increased slightly from 7 to 8 at 12 and 42 months, respectively. For PFS, NNT for NIVO+IPI decreased from 15 to 6, and for PEMBRO+AXI increased from 7 to 10 at 12 and 30 months. The estimated treatment cost is R$ 638,620 for an estimated median of 11.2 months of NIVO+IPI treatment and R$ 966,818 for 13.8 months of PEMBRO+AXI treatment. COPE for OS at 12 and 42 months was R$ 7,663,440 and R$ 5,108,960 with NIVO+IPI and R$ 6,047,417 and R$ 7,734,547 with PEMBRO+AXI. For PFS, COPE at 12 and 30 months was R$ 9,579,300 and R$ 3,831,720 with NIVO+IPI and R$ 6,047,417 and R$ 9,668,184 with PEMBRO+AXI. Conclusions: Treatment with NIVO+IPI results in lower COPE than PEMBRO+AXI from month 18 onwards, driven by lower treatment costs and improved NNT over time with NIVO+IPI

Objetivo: Analisar ao longo do tempo o número necessário a tratar (NNT) e o custo para prevenir um evento (COPE) para nivolumabe + ipilimumabe (NIVO+IPI) e pembrolizumabe + axitinibe (PEMBRO+AXI) na primeira linha de tratamento do carcinoma de células renais avançado com risco intermediário ou alto na perspectiva do sistema suplementar de saúde brasileiro. Métodos: O NNT para sobrevida global (SG) e sobrevida livre de progressão (SLP) para 12 meses até o máximo de tempo de seguimento disponível dos estudos CheckMate 214 e KEYNOTE-426 foi usado para estimar o COPE. Custos de tratamento foram estimados considerando a dosagem em bula e a mediana de SLP como aproximação para duração de tratamento. Resultados: O NNT de SG para NIVO+IPI reduziu de 12 para 8 e para PEMBRO+AXI subiu de 7 para 8 em 12 e 42 meses, respectivamente. Para SLP, NIVO+IPI teve redução de 15 para 6 e para PEMBRO+AXI aumentou de 7 para 10 em 12 e 30 meses. O custo estimado é de R$ 638.620 para mediana de 11,2 meses de tratamento com NIVO+IPI e de R$ 966.818 para 13,8 meses com PEMBRO+AXI. O COPE para SG foi de R$ 7.663.440 e R$ 5.108.960 com NIVO+IPI e de R$ 6.047.417 e R$ 7.734.547 com PEMBRO+AXI para 12 e 42 meses. Para SLP, foi de R$ 9.579.300 e R$ 3.831.720 com NIVO+IPI e de R$ 6.047.417 e R$ 9.668.184 com PEMBRO+AXI em 12 e 30 meses. Conclusões: O tratamento com NIVO+IPI resulta em menor COPE, em comparação com PEMBRO+AXI, a partir de 18 meses de seguimento, justificado por menor custo de tratamento e melhora do NNT ao longo do tempo com NIVO+IPI

Exposure assessment of pharmaceutical powders based on an environmental monitoring method: a pilot study.

BACKGROUND: About 8 million healthcare workers in the USA are potentially exposed to hazardous drugs or their toxic metabolites over a long period of time despite the fact that both the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the European Parliament recommend the monitoring of exposure among workers dealing with substances which have carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic effects on the reproductive system. The objective of this study is to determine exposure to active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) among pharmaceutical industry workers, and to develop a methodology which promotes the accurate monitoring, evaluation and control of exposure to active pharmaceutical ingredients, also in compliance with good manufacturing practice. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The pilot study was designed in accordance with "Sterile Drug Products Produced by Aseptic Processing - Current Good Manufacturing Practice," issued by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The samples were collected with the swab technique which was recommended in the "Validation of Cleaning Processes (7/93)" guideline. The minimum numbers of locations (NL = 9) and sampling points (NL(T) = 63) were determined according to ISO 14644-1:2015 "Cleanrooms and Associated Controlled Environments" issued by the International Organization for Standardization. The samples were analyzed using an ultra performance liquid chromatography system, with an analytical method which was developed and validated according to "Q7A, Good Manufacturing Practice Guide for Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients" issued by the International Council for Harmonization of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use. The low limit of quantification of the employed method (17 ng/ml) enables the determination of exposure at low concentrations. RESULTS: While contamination was detected in 43 (68.3%) of the 63 samples collected, 20 (31.7%) could not be detected. The environmental monitoring results ranged 0-15 000 ng/cm2 and the potential risk of exposure to API was considered to be >2 g. CONCLUSIONS: The results clearly prove and reveal the magnitude of the hazard, both objectively and scientifically, when compared to the research which suggests that 10 ng/cm2 should be considered the prohibitory risk level in quantitative terms. Med Pr. 2020;71(6):649-63.

Cost-effectiveness of Pembrolizumab Plus Axitinib Vs Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab as First-Line Treatment of Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma in the US.

Importance: Checkpoint inhibitor combination therapy represents a major advance in the first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma. Pembrolizumab-axitinib and nivolumab-ipilimumab have become standard of care options after demonstrating clinical efficacy against sunitinib in separate phase 3 trials. The cost-effectiveness of these regimens is unknown. Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab-axitinib and nivolumab- ipilimumab in the first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma. Design, Setting, and Participants: For this economic evaluation, a primary microsimulation model was developed and run between August and December 2019. Separate analyses were conducted for an intermediate- and poor-risk patient population (base case) and a favorable-risk population (exploratory analysis) because prognosis is known to differ between risk groups; 100 000 patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma were simulated in each treatment arm. Survival, treatment regimens, and other relevant conditions were based on data from the phase 3 KEYNOTE-426 and CheckMate214 clinical trials. The study perspective was the US health care sector. Main Outcomes and Measures: An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated for each of the 2 analyses and compared with a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Results: Pembrolizumab-axitinib was estimated to add 0.60 QALYs compared with nivolumab-ipilimumab in the base case analysis (3.66 vs 3.05 QALYs) and 0.25 QALYs compared with nivolumab-ipilimumab in the exploratory analysis (4.55 vs 4.30 QALYs), and was more costly (base case analysis: $562 927 vs $458 961; exploratory analysis: $589 035 vs $470 403). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $172 532 per QALY in the base case analysis and $468 682 per QALY in the exploratory analysis. One-way sensitivity analyses revealed that the base case model was most sensitive to first-line drug prices (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio at upper limit of nivolumab price and lower limits of axitinib and pembrolizumab prices: $89 983, $102 287, and $114 943 per QALY, respectively). The exploratory analysis model was most sensitive to overall survival rates (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio at lower limit of pembrolizumab-axitinib rate and upper limit of nivolumab-ipilimumab rate: $278 644 and $285 684 per QALY, respectively). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings suggest that pembrolizumab-axitinib treatment is associated with greater QALYs compared with nivolumab/ipilimumab treatment in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma but may not be cost-effective. Price reductions may make the cost of pembrolizumab-axitinib proportional to its clinical value and less financially burdensome to the US health care system.

Cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab plus axitinib as first-line therapy for advanced renal cell carcinoma.

Aim: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of first-line treatments for advanced renal cell carcinoma with pembrolizumab plus axitinib compared with sunitinib from the US payer perspective. Patients & methods: A Markov model was developed for this purpose. The clinical data were obtained from the KEYNOTE-426 trial. Utility values and direct costs related to the treatments were gathered from the published studies. Results: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of pembrolizumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib was $249,704 per quality-adjusted life year, which was higher than a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per quality-adjusted life year. Conclusion: Pembrolizumab plus axitinib was not considered to be cost-effective versus sunitinib as a first-line treatment for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma from the US payer perspective.

Cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab with axitinib as first-line treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma.

OBJECTIVE: Pembrolizumab/axitinib significantly prolonged overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), and increased objective response rate versus sunitinib in the phase III trial KEYNOTE-426 among previously untreated patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab/axitinib versus other first-line treatments of advanced RCC from a US public healthcare payer perspective. METHODS: A partitioned survival model with three states (progression-free, progressed, death) evaluated lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for pembrolizumab/axitinib and other first-line regimens: sunitinib, pazopanib and avelumab/axitinib in the overall population; and sunitinib, cabozantinib and nivolumab/ipilimumab in the subgroup with intermediate/poor prognostic risk. Costs of treatments, adverse events and medical resources were estimated. OS, PFS and treatment duration were extrapolated using parametric models fitted to KEYNOTE-426 data and hazard ratios from network meta-analyses. Utilities were derived through mixed-effects regressions of KEYNOTE-426 EuroQol-5 Dimensions-3 Levels data. RESULTS: In the overall population, pembrolizumab/axitinib was associated with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of $95,725/QALY versus sunitinib and $128,210/QALY versus pazopanib, and was dominant (lower cost, higher effectiveness) versus avelumab/axitinib, with incremental QALY gains of 2.73, 2.40 and 1.80 versus these therapies, respectively. In the intermediate/poor-risk subgroup, base-case ICERs for pembrolizumab/axitinib were $101,030/QALY versus sunitinib, $6989/QALY versus cabozantinib, and $130,934/QALY versus nivolumab/ipilimumab, with incremental QALY gains of 2.62, 1.78 and 1.06 versus these therapies. CONCLUSIONS: In this economic evaluation, pembrolizumab/axitinib was associated with higher life expectancy and QALYs and, based on typical willingness-to-pay thresholds of $150,000-$180,000/QALY, was found cost-effective versus other first-line treatments for advanced RCC in the US.

Preclinical assessment of the VEGFR inhibitor axitinib as a therapeutic agent for epithelial ovarian cancer.

Axitinib, small molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitor, demonstrates anti-cancer activity for various solid tumors. We investigated anti-cancer effect of axitinib in epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). We treated EOC cells (A2780, HeyA8, RMG1, and HeyA8-MDR) with axitinib to evaluate its effects on cell viabilty, apoptosis and migration. Western blots were performed to assess VEGFR2, ERK, and AKT levels, and ELISA and FACS to evaluate apoptosis according to axitinib treatment. In addition, in vivo experiments in xenografts using A2780, RMG1, and HeyA8-MDR cell lines were performed. We repeated the experiment with patient-derived xenograft models (PDX) of EOC. Axitinib significantly inhibited cell survival and migration, and increased apoptosis in EOC cells. The expression of VEGFR2 and phosphorylation of AKT and ERK in A2780, RMG1, and HeyA8 were decreased with axitinib treatment in dose-dependent manner, but not in HeyA8-MDR. In in vivo experiments, axitinib significantly decreased tumor weight in xenograft models of drug-sensitive (A2780), and clear cell carcinoma (RMG1) and PDX models for platinum sensitive EOC compared to control, but was not effective in drug-resistant cell line (HeyA8-MDR) or heavily pretreated refractory PDX model. Axitinib showed significant anti-cancer effects in drug-sensitive or clear cell EOC cells via inhibition of VEGFR signals associated with cell proliferation, apoptosis and migration, but not in drug-resistant cells.

Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Pembrolizumab Plus Axitinib Versus Sunitinib in First-line Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma in China.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: In first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC), the KEYNOTE-426 study demonstrated a significant progression-free survival and overall survival for pembrolizumab plus axitinib in comparison with sunitinib. The objective of the current study was to evaluate the cost effectiveness of pembrolizumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib for previously untreated patients with aRCC in China. METHODS: A Markov model was used to estimate the costs and health outcomes of treatment of aRCC with sunitinib or pembrolizumab plus axitinib. Univariable and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to determine the robustness of the model outcomes. Additional subgroup analyses were also performed. The primary outputs of the model included the total cost, life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). RESULTS: Pembrolizumab plus axitinib provided an additional 2.461 LYs (1.650 QALYs). The total cost per patient was US$178,725 for pembrolizumab plus axitinib and US$87,693 for sunitinib. The ICER for pembrolizumab plus axitinib was US$55,185/QALY versus sunitinib. Sensitivity analyses found the results to be most sensitive to pembrolizumab cost and overall hazard ratio. The results of subgroup analyses showed that the ICER remained greater than US$32,000/QALY across the all patient subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Pembrolizumab plus axitinib is not likely to be cost effective versus sunitinib for patients with previously untreated aRCC at a threshold value of US$29,306/QALY.

Financial impact of oral chemotherapy wastage on society and the patient.

BACKGROUND: Targeted oral agents are now increasingly being utilized in cancer treatment, but are expensive. Changing the dose of these medications due to toxicity or discontinuation secondary to disease progression or death causes waste from unused medication. Limiting waste is an important goal, as waste has a substantial financial impact on patients and insurance companies. METHODS: Patients started on oral targeted agents' sunitinib, everolimus, axitinib, or vemurafenib between January 2012 and February 2015 who obtained their medications at Holden Comprehensive Cancer Center specialty pharmacy were included in the analysis. We acquired dispensing data retrospectively for each of the agents and reviewed patient charts. Wasted tablets/capsules were calculated from their last fill to the dates of stoppage or dose adjustment. The amount associated with the wastage was calculated using the average wholesale price. Repository drug usage data during the same time period was obtained. RESULTS: Eighty-eight patients had their prescriptions filled at Holden Comprehensive Cancer Center during the study time period. Waste occurred in 41% of all patients with primary reasons attributed to cancer progression in 25 patients, death in five patients, toxicity in five patients and increase in dosage of targeted therapy in two patients. A total of 1179 tablets or capsules were wasted from all causes, priced at a total of $248,595.69. CONCLUSION: Oral chemotherapy medications are associated with wastage, which is a significant financial burden to society. Progression of disease emerged as the single most important factor accounting for wastage. Novel ideas are needed to prevent wastage, thereby reducing healthcare costs.