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.

Comparison of costs and outcomes of dapagliflozin with other glucose-lowering therapy classes added to metformin using a short-term cost-effectiveness model in the US setting.

OBJECTIVE: To compare 1-year costs and benefits of dapagliflozin (DAPA), a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitor, with those of other treatments for type 2 diabetes (T2D), such as glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs), sulfonylureas (SUs), thiazolidinediones (TZDs), and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i), all combined with metformin. METHODS: A short-term decision-analytic model with a 1-year time horizon was developed from a payer's perspective in the United States setting. Costs and benefits associated with four clinical end-points (glycated hemoglobin [A1C], body weight, systolic blood pressure [SBP], and risk of hypoglycemia) were evaluated in the analysis. The impact of DAPA and other glucose-lowering therapy classes on these clinical end-points was estimated from a network meta-analysis (NMA). Data for costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) associated with a per-unit change in these clinical end-points were taken from published literature. Drug prices were taken from an annual wholesale price list. All costs were inflation-adjusted to December 2016 costs using the medical care component of the consumer price index. Total costs (both medical and drug costs), total QALYs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated. Sensitivity analyses (SA) were performed to explore uncertainty in the inputs. To assess face validity, results from the short-term model were compared with long-term models published for these drugs. RESULTS: The total annual medical cost for DAPA was less than that for GLP-1RA ($186 less), DPP-4i ($1,142 less), SU ($2,474 less), and TZD ($1,640 less). Treatment with DAPA resulted in an average QALY gain of 0.0107, 0.0587, 0.1137, and 0.0715 per treated patient when compared with GLP-1RA, DPP-4i, SU, and TZD, respectively. ICERs for DAPA vs SU and TZD were $19,005 and $25,835, respectively. DAPA was a cost-saving option when compared with GLP-1RAs and DPP-4is. Among all four clinical end-points, change in weight had the greatest impact on total annual costs and ICERS. Sensitivity analysis showed that results were robust, and results from the short-term model were found to be similar to those of published long-term models. CONCLUSION: This analysis showed that DAPA was cost-saving compared with GLP-1RA and DPP-4i, and cost-effective compared with SU and TZD in the US setting over 1 year. Furthermore, the results suggest that, among the four composite clinical end-points, change in weight and SBP had an impact on cost-effectiveness results.