Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Durvalumab Plus Chemotherapy in the First-Line Treatment of Extensive-Stage Small Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: In the CASPIAN trial, durvalumab + chemotherapy demonstrated significant improvements in overall survival compared with chemotherapy alone in patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (SCLC). We aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of durvalumab in patients with extensive-stage SCLC from the US healthcare system perspective. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A comprehensive Markov model was adapted to evaluate cost and effectiveness of durvalumab combination versus platinum/etoposide alone in the first-line therapy of extensive-stage SCLC based on data from the CASPIAN study. The main endpoints included total costs, life years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-e-ectiveness ratios (ICERs). Model robustness was assessed with sensitivity analysis, and additional subgroup analyses were also performed. RESULTS: Durvalumab + chemotherapy therapy resulted in an additional 0.27 LYs and 0.20 QALYs, resulting in an ICER of $464,711.90 per QALY versus the chemotherapy treatment. The cost of durvalumab has the greatest influence on this model. Subgroup analyses showed that the ICER remained higher than $150,000/QALY (the willingness-to-pay threshold in the United States) across all patient subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Durvalumab in combination with platinum/etoposide is not a cost-effective option in the first-line treatment of patients with extensive-stage SCLC.

First-line pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer: a United States-based cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: The clinical trial of Keynote-604 showed that pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy could generate clinical benefits for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). We aim to assess the efficacy and cost of pembrolizumab combined with chemotherapy in the first-line treatment setting of ES-SCLC from the United States (US) payers' perspective. METHODS: A synthetical Markov model was used to evaluate cost and effectiveness of pembrolizumab plus platinum-etoposide(EP) versus EP in first-line therapy for ES-SCLC from the data of Keynote-604. Lifetime costs life-years(LYs), quality adjusted LYs(QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios(ICERs) were estimated. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. Furthermore, we performed subgroup analysis. RESULTS: Pembrolizumab plus EP resulted in additional 0.18 QALYs(0.32 LYs) and corresponding incremental costs $113,625, resulting an ICER of $647,509 per QALY versus EP. The price of pembrolizumab had a significant impact on ICER. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that pembrolizumab combined chemotherapy may become a cost-effective option with a probability of 0%. Besides, subgroup analysis suggested that all subgroups were not cost-effective. CONCLUSION: From the perspective of the US payer, pembrolizumab plus EP is not a cost-effective option for first-line treatment patients with ES-SCLC at a WTP threshold of $150,000 per QALY.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Encorafenib, Binimetinib, and Cetuximab in BRAF V600E-Mutated Metastatic Colorectal Cancer in the USA.

INTRODUCTION: Recently the phase 3 BEACON trial showed that the combination of encorafenib, cetuximab, and binimetinib versus cetuximab and irinotecan/FOLFIRI improved overall survival in pre-treated patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) with BRAF V600E mutation. However, whether the benefits of these therapies justify their high costs has not been estimated in the USA. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of BEC (binimetinib, encorafenib, and cetuximab), EC (encorafenib and cetuximab), and CI/CF (cetuximab with irinotecan or FOLFIRI) in patients with BRAF V600E-mutated mCRC after first- and second-line therapy. METHODS: A Markov model was constructed to determine the costs and effects of BEC, EC, and CI/CF on the basis of BEACON trial outcomes data. Health outcomes were measured in life years (LYs), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses characterized parameters influencing cost-effectiveness. Subgroup analyses were conducted as well. RESULTS: The QALYs gained in BEC, EC, and CI/CF were 0.62, 0.54, and 0.40, respectively. BEC resulted in ICERs of $883,895.73/QALY and $1,646,846.14/QALY versus CI/CF and EC, respectively. Compared with CI/CF, the ICER was $435,449.88/QALY in EC. The most sensitive parameters in the comparison among the three arms were the utilities of progressive disease and progression-free survival. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed that the probability of BEC and EC being cost-effective was 0%. In subgroup analyses, the ICER remained above the willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per QALY. CONCLUSION: BEC and EC were not cost-effective regimens for patients with pre-treated mCRC with BRAF V600E mutation.