Immune checkpoint inhibitors as the second-line treatment for advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a cost-effectiveness analysis based on network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have demonstrated superior clinical efficacy in prolonging overall survival (OS) as the second-line treatment for advanced or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), and were recommended by the guidelines. However, it remains uncertain which ICI is the most cost-effective. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of ICIs as the second-line treatment for ESCC based on the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. METHODS: A network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed to obtain the Hazard ratios (HRs) for indirect comparisons. A three-state Markov model with a 10-year time horizon was conducted to assess the cost-effectiveness. The state transition probabilities were calculated with Kaplan-Meier (KM) curves data from clinical trial and HRs from the NMA. Utilities and costs were derived from local charges or previously published studies. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were performed to examine model robustness. The results were assessed based on the total costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). RESULTS: Five clinical trials (ATTRACTION-3, ESCORT, KEYNOTE-181, ORIENT-2, RATIONALE-302) with a total of 1797 patients were included in the NMA. The NMA showed that both camrelizumab and tislelizumab received relatively high rankings for progression-free survival (PFS) and OS. Compared with sintilimab, treatment with tislelizumab and camrelizumab gained 0.018 and 0.034 additional QALYs, resulting in incremental ICERs of $75,472.65/QALY and $175,681.9/QALY, respectively. Nivolumab and pembrolizumab produced lower QALYs and greater costs, suggesting that both were dominated in comparison to sintilimab. HRs and health state utilities were the most influential parameters in most univariate sensitivity analyses of paired comparisons. PSA results suggested that sintilimab had an 84.4% chance of being the most cost-effective treatment regimen at the WTP threshold of $38,223.34/QALY. In the scenario analysis, sintilimab would no longer be cost-effective, if the price of camrelizumab was assumed to decrease by 64.6% or the price of tislelizumab was assumed to decrease by 16.9%. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among the five potential competing ICIs, sintilimab was likely to be the most cost-effective regimen as the second-line treatment for locally advanced or metastatic ESCC in China.

Temporal trends of adverse events and costs of nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in advanced renal cell carcinoma.

Aims: To assess grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) and costs of first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Methods: Individual patient data from the all treated population in the CheckMate 214 trial (nivolumab plus ipilimumab, n = 547; sunitinib, n = 535) were used to calculate the number of AEs. AE unit costs were obtained from US 2017 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project and inflated to 2020 values. Results: The proportion of patients experiencing grade 3/4 AEs decreased over time. Patients who received nivolumab plus ipilimumab had lower average per-patient all-cause grade 3/4 AE costs versus sunitinib (12-month: US$15,170 vs US$20,342; 42-month: US$19,096 vs US$27,473). Conclusion: Treatment with nivolumab plus ipilimumab was associated with lower grade 3/4 AE costs than sunitinib.

Immunotherapy combinations are now accepted as safe and effective first-line treatment options for advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma. This study used patient data from the CheckMate 214 clinical trial to evaluate the temporal trends and costs related to grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) among patients treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib. We found that the proportion of patients experiencing grade 3/4 AEs decreased over time and that patients treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab had lower AE costs compared with those treated with sunitinib (at 42 months: US$19,096 vs US$27,473 per patient). As such, nivolumab plus ipilimumab may represent a treatment option that may reduce both the clinical and economic burden among patients with advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors of the PD-1/PD-L1-axis in non-small cell lung cancer: promise, controversies and ambiguities in the novel treatment paradigm.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have received much attention not least for melanoma since the award of the Nobel prize in 2018. Here, we review the current state of knowledge about the use of these monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). These drugs have generally been conditionally approved on limited early data and there are few long-term follow-up data from randomized clinical trials. The effect observed for NSCLC thus far is, on average, moderately better than that obtained with chemotherapy. Severe side-effects are more common than might have been expected. The drugs themselves are expensive and are associated with time-consuming histopathologic testing even though the predictive value of these tests can be discussed. In addition, monitoring for side-effects involves increased workload and budgetary expense for clinical chemistry laboratories. Here, we review and summarize the current knowledge, controversies and ambiguities of ICIs for the treatment of NSCLC.

Cost-effectiveness of immune checkpoint inhibitors for microsatellite instability-high/mismatch repair-deficient metastatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Patients with microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H)/mismatch repair-deficient (dMMR) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) show a significant response to checkpoint inhibitor therapies, but the economic impact of these therapies is unknown. A decision analytic model was used to explore the effectiveness and cost burden of MSI-H/dMMR mCRC treatment. METHODS: The treatment of hypothetical patients with MSI-H/dMMR mCRC was simulated in 2 treatment scenarios: a third-line treatment and an exploratory first-line treatment. The treatments compared were nivolumab, ipilimumab and nivolumab, trifluridine and tipiracil (third-line treatment), and mFOLFOX6 and cetuximab (first-line treatment). Disease progression, drug toxicity, and survival rates were based on the CheckMate 142, study of TAS-102 in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer refractory to standard chemotherapies (RECOURSE), and Cancer and Leukemia Group B/Southwest Oncology Group 80405 trials. The analyzed outcomes included survival (life-years), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). RESULTS: Ipilimumab with nivolumab was the most effective strategy (10.69 life-years and 9.25 QALYs for the third line; 10.69 life-years and 9.44 QALYs for the first line) in comparison with nivolumab (8.21 life-years and 6.76 QALYs for the third line; 8.21 life-years and 7.00 QALYs for the first line), trifluridine and tipiracil (0.74 life-years and 0.07 QALYs), and mFOLFOX6 and cetuximab (2.72 life-years and 1.63 QALYs). However, neither checkpoint inhibitor therapy was cost-effective in comparison with trifluridine and tipiracil (nivolumab ICER, $153,000; ipilimumab and nivolumab ICER, $162,700) or mFOLFOX6 and cetuximab (nivolumab ICER, $150,700; ipilimumab and nivolumab ICER, $158,700). CONCLUSIONS: This modeling analysis found that both single and dual checkpoint blockade could be significantly more effective for MSI-H/dMMR mCRC than chemotherapy, but they were not cost-effective, largely because of drug costs. Decreases in drug pricing and/or the duration of maintenance nivolumab could make ipilimumab and nivolumab cost-effective. Prospective clinical trials should be performed to explore the optimal duration of maintenance nivolumab.

A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Nivolumab and Ipilimumab Versus Sunitinib in First-Line Intermediate- to Poor-Risk Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The treatment paradigm of advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has changed rapidly in recent years. In first-line treatment of intermediate- to poor-risk patients, the CheckMate 214 study demonstrated a significant survival advantage for nivolumab and ipilimumab versus sunitinib. The high cost of combined immune-modulating agents warrants an understanding of the combination's value by considering both efficacy and cost. The objective of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab and ipilimumab compared with sunitinib for first-line treatment of intermediate- to poor-risk advanced RCC from the U.S. payer perspective. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A Markov model was developed to compare the costs and effectiveness of nivolumab and ipilimumab with those of sunitinib in the first-line treatment of intermediate- to poor-risk advanced RCC. Health outcomes were measured in life-years and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Drug costs were based on Medicare reimbursement rates in 2017. We extrapolated survival beyond the trial closure using Weibull distribution. Model robustness was addressed in univariable and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: The total mean cost per-patient of nivolumab and ipilimumab versus sunitinib was $292,308 and $169,287, respectfully. Nivolumab and ipilimumab generated a gain of 0.978 QALYs over sunitinib. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for nivolumab and ipilimumab was $125,739/QALY versus sunitinib. CONCLUSION: Our analysis established that the base case ICER in the model for nivolumab and ipilimumab versus sunitinib is below what some would consider the upper limit of the theoretical willingness-to-pay threshold in the U.S. ($150,000/QALY) and is thus estimated to be cost-effective. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This article assessed the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab and ipilimumab versus sunitinib for treatment of patients with intermediate- to poor-risk metastatic kidney cancer, from the U.S. payer perspective. It would cost $125,739 to gain 1 quality-adjusted life-year with nivolumab and ipilimumab versus sunitinib in these patients.

Cost-Effectiveness of Nivolumab in Recurrent Metastatic Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Treatment options for patients with platinum-refractory, recurrent, metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (r/m HNSCC) are limited and prognosis is poor. The recent CheckMate 141 clinical trial demonstrated that nivolumab, an anti-programmed cell death protein 1 monoclonal antibody, was efficacious in extending the median overall survival (OS) in this patient population compared with standard therapies. We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis to determine whether nivolumab is a cost-effective treatment in this patient population and examined various subgroups to determine for which, if any, the treatment is more cost-effective. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We implemented a state transition model for HNSCC with a patient cohort who had tumor progression 6 months after the last dose of platinum-containing chemotherapy and compared the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab with docetaxel. Treatment effect estimates and adverse event rates were obtained from CheckMate 141. Costs, utilities, and other model inputs were gathered from published sources. We used a Canadian perspective, a 5-year time horizon, and a 1.5% discount rate for the analysis. RESULTS: Nivolumab extended mean OS by 4 months compared with docetaxel and resulted in fewer treatment-related adverse events, producing an incremental effectiveness of 0.13 quality-adjusted life years (QALY). The incremental cost of treatment with nivolumab was $18,823. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY, nivolumab was not a cost-effective treatment option for r/m HNSCC, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $144,744/QALY. Nivolumab would be cost-effective if its price was reduced by 20%. Our subgroup analysis seemed to indicate that nivolumab might be cost-effective for tumors with expression of programmed death-ligand 1 >5%. CONCLUSION: We conclude that although nivolumab offers clinical benefit for the treatment of r/m HNSCC over current regimens, it is not cost-effective based on its list price. We have also established a value-based price estimate for nivolumab to be cost-effective in this patient population. Further study is required to draw a definitive conclusion on biomarkers for cost-effectiveness. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: In health care settings in which cost considerations are a constraint on choice of therapy, patient selection should be carefully considered to maintain efficiency in the system. Until a biomarker for response to therapy is identified for nivolumab, this medication is unlikely to be cost-effective for most patients with recurrent, metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma.

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.

Efficacy of a Flat Low Dose of Nivolumab in Advanced Cancer: A Retrospective Case Series.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Immunotherapy with PD-1/PDL1 blocking monoclonal antibodies has improved survival compared to the standard-of-care chemotherapy for several malignancies at different stages of these malignancies. Due to several reasons, many cancer patients in medical need have no access to these drugs. In this study, we aimed to investigate whether a low dose of nivolumab could also lead to a therapeutic response. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with advanced cancer were treated with a flat low dose of 10 mg of nivolumab IV every two weeks at no drug cost. RESULTS: Disease control was noted in nine of the 18 patients. Two patients achieved complete remission, two had prolonged partial remission, and five had stable disease, of these only two experienced adverse events. CONCLUSION: A flat low dose of nivolumab may have clinical activity and is a cheap therapeutic option in patients in medical need for whom standard-dose immune checkpoint inhibitors are not accessible for any reason.

Temporal Trends in Grade 3/4 Adverse Events and Associated Costs of Nivolumab Plus Cabozantinib Versus Sunitinib for Previously Untreated Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Novel immunotherapy-based combination treatments have drastically improved clinical outcomes for previously untreated patients with advanced/metastatic renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). This study aimed to assess the temporal trends in grade 3/4 adverse event (AE) rates and associated costs of nivolumab plus cabozantinib combination therapy versus sunitinib monotherapy in previously untreated patients with aRCC. METHODS: Individual patient data from the CheckMate 9ER trial (nivolumab plus cabozantinib: N = 320; sunitinib: N = 320) were used to calculate the proportion of patients experiencing grade 3/4 AEs. AE unit costs were obtained from the United States (US) 2017 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) and inflated to 2020 US dollars. Per-patient-per-month (PPPM) all-cause and treatment-related grade 3/4 AE costs over 18-months, temporal trends, and top drivers of AE costs were evaluated in both treatment arms. RESULTS: Overall, the proportion of patients experiencing grade 3/4 AEs decreased over time, with the highest rates observed in the first 3 months for the nivolumab plus cabozantinib and sunitinib arms. Compared with sunitinib, nivolumab plus cabozantinib was associated with consistently lower average all-cause AE costs PPPM [month 3: $2021 vs. $3097 (p < 0.05); month 6: $1653 vs. $2418 (p < 0.05); month 12: $1450 vs. $1935 (p > 0.05); month 18: $1337 vs. $1755 (p > 0.05)]. Over 18 months, metabolism and nutrition disorders ($244), laboratory abnormalities ($182), and general disorders and administration site conditions ($122) were the costliest all-cause PPPM AE categories in the nivolumab plus cabozantinib arm, and laboratory abnormalities ($443), blood and lymphatic system disorders ($254), and metabolism and nutrition disorders ($177) were the costliest in the sunitinib arm. Trends of treatment-related AE costs were consistent with all-cause AE costs. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab plus cabozantinib was associated with lower costs of grade 3/4 AE management PPPM than sunitinib, which accumulated over the 18-month study period.

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.

[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.

Reassessing the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab for the treatment of renal cell carcinoma based on mature survival data, updated safety and lower comparator price.

Aims: The aim of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab versus everolimus for second-line treatment of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) based on mature data, updated safety and decreased everolimus price.Materials and methods: A 3-state (pre-progression/progression-free disease, progressive disease and death) Markov model was developed from the perspective of the Australian health care system. Two scenarios were tested. Scenario 1 used 30-months clinical data and scenario 2 used updated 80-months clinical data with updated everolimus price. Inputs for quality-of-life and costs were informed by the literature and government sources. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per quality adjusted life years (QALY) gained was reported and an ICER threshold of AU$75,000 was assumed. Threshold analysis was performed, and uncertainty was explored using one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.Results: In scenario 1, the model estimated 1.73 QALYs at a cost of AU$105,000 for nivolumab and 1.48 QALYs at AU$38,000 for everolimus with an ICER = AU$266,871/QALY gained. A rebate of 54.4% was needed for nivolumab to reach the ICER threshold. For scenario 2, 1.93 QALYs at AU$111,418 was estimated for nivolumab and 1.60 QALYs at AU$31,942 for everolimus with an ICER of AU$213,320/QALY gained. The rebate needed to reach the ICER threshold was 54.9%. One-way sensitivity analyses for both scenarios showed that the cost of nivolumab, time horizon and utilities were main drivers. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curves highlighted the differences in cost-effectiveness of the two scenarios, as well as significant uncertainty in the results.Conclusions: A 54% rebate of the published price is needed for nivolumab to be cost-effective in Australia for the treatment of RCC. At that rebate, nivolumab remains cost-effective despite severe price erosion of everolimus because of improved longer term follow-up data. We recommend that generic price erosion should be accounted for when performing cost-effectiveness analysis.

Cost-effectiveness of nivolumab in advanced melanoma: a drug review.

Introduction: The immune checkpoint inhibitors, including nivolumab, and targeted agents have dramatically improved the outcome for patients with unresectable advanced melanoma. Areas covered: This is a narrative review of the published evidence on nivolumab in metastatic melanoma. Expert opinion: In ipilimumab pre-treated patients (CheckMate 037), nivolumab was associated with a higher response rate and a longer duration of response when compared to chemotherapy. In previously untreated patients, nivolumab improves survival when compared to chemotherapy (CheckMate 066) or to ipilimumab (CheckMate 067). The combination of nivolumab and ipilimumab also improves survival when compared to ipilimumab (CheckMate 067). CheckMate 067 was not designed to compare the nivolumab-ipilimumab combination to nivolumab alone. A modified regimen using a lower dose of ipilimumab in combination with standard dose nivolumab is better tolerated than nivolumab in combination with standard dose ipilimumab (CheckMate 511). In patients with previously untreated metastatic melanoma, the anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibodies nivolumab and pembrolizumab improve survival when compared to ipilimumab. Nivolumab is equally active in BRAF mutated and BRAF wild type melanoma. The optimal sequence of checkpoint inhibitors and BRAF/MEK inhibitors in BRAF mutated patients has not been established.

Nivolumab vs Pembrolizumab for Treatment of US Patients With Platinum-Refractory Recurrent or Metastatic Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Network Meta-analysis and Cost-effectiveness Analysis.

Importance: Nivolumab and pembrolizumab are approved for treating platinum-refractory recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (R/M HNSCC). Physicians and patients are uncertain which drug is preferable, rendering a cost-effectiveness comparison between them necessary. Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab vs pembrolizumab in treating platinum-refractory R/M HNSCC. Design, Setting, and Participants: Both the network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis included patients from the CheckMate 141 and the KEYNOTE 040 phase 3 randomized clinical trials. The Checkmate 141 trial started on May 1, 2014, with the present analysis based on a September 2017 data cutoff. The KEYNOTE 040 trial started on November 17, 2014, with the present analysis based on a May 15, 2017, data cutoff. A bayesian network meta-analysis that included 856 patients was carried out, and a cost-effectiveness analysis that included 487 patients was conducted by developing a partitioned survival model, both between February and November 2020. The robustness of the model was assessed via 1-way, 2-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses; subgroup analyses were included; and scenario analyses were conducted to investigate the associations of dosage adjustment of nivolumab with cost-effectiveness. Main Outcomes and Measures: Life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), overall costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were measured. Results: In the cost-effectiveness analysis that included 487 patients, for US health care payers, when nivolumab was administered based on patient weight (3 mg/kg biweekly), at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $100 000 per QALY, the probability of nivolumab being cost-effective compared with pembrolizumab was 56%; at a WTP threshold of $150 000 per QALY, the probability was 62%. When nivolumab was administered at a fixed dose of 240 mg biweekly or 480 mg monthly, at a WTP threshold of $100 000 per QALY, the probability of nivolumab being cost-effective was 42% to 45%; at a WTP threshold of $150 000 per QALY, the probability was 52% to 55%. Conclusions and Relevance: Findings from this network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis suggest considering both WTP threshold and patient body weight when choosing between nivolumab and pembrolizumab for the treatment of patients with platinum-refractory R/M HNSCC. When the WTP threshold was $100 000 per QALY, for patients weighing less than 72 kg, nivolumab (3 mg/kg, biweekly) was considered cost-effective; otherwise, pembrolizumab was preferable. When the WTP threshold was $150 000 per QALY, nivolumab (3 mg/kg biweekly) was considered cost-effective for patients weighing less than 75 kg; otherwise, fixed-dose nivolumab (240 mg biweekly or 480 mg monthly) provided more cost savings.

Cost-effectiveness of Nivolumab-Ipilimumab Combination Therapy for the Treatment of Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

Importance: Treatment with nivolumab-ipilimumab combination therapy was found to improve overall survival compared with chemotherapy among patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in the CheckMate 227 clinical trial. However, these drugs are substantially more expensive than chemotherapy and, given the high incidence of advanced NSCLC, the incorporation of dual immune checkpoint inhibitors into the standard of care could have substantial economic consequences. Objective: To assess whether nivolumab-ipilimumab combination therapy is a cost-effective first-line treatment for patients with advanced NSCLC. Design, Setting, and Participants: This economic evaluation designed a Markov model to compare the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab-ipilimumab combination therapy with platinum-doublet chemotherapy as first-line treatment for patients with advanced NSCLC. The Markov model was created to simulate patients with advanced NSCLC who were receiving either nivolumab-ipilimumab combination therapy or platinum-doublet chemotherapy. Transition probabilities, including disease progression, survival, and treatment toxic effects, were derived using data from the CheckMate 227 clinical trial. Costs and health utilities were obtained from published literature. Data analyses were conducted from November 2019 to September 2020. Exposures: Nivolumab-ipilimumab combination therapy. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary study outcomes were quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and cost in 2020 US dollars. Cost-effectiveness was measured using an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), with an ICER less than $100 000 per QALY considered cost-effective. Model uncertainty was assessed with 1-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Results: Treatment with nivolumab-ipilimumab combination therapy was associated with an increase in overall cost of $201 900 and improved effectiveness of 0.50 QALYs compared with chemotherapy, yielding an ICER of $401 700 per QALY. The study model was sensitive to the cost and duration of immunotherapy. Treatment with nivolumab-ipilimumab combination therapy became cost-effective when monthly treatment costs were reduced from $26 425 to $5058 (80.9% reduction) or when the maximum duration of immunotherapy was reduced from 24.0 months to 1.4 months. The model was not sensitive to assumptions about survival or programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 status. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per QALY, nivolumab-ipilimumab combination therapy was less cost-effective than chemotherapy 99.9% of the time. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, first-line treatment with nivolumab-ipilimumab combination therapy was not found to be cost-effective at current prices despite clinical trial data indicating that this regimen increases overall survival among patients with advanced NSCLC.

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.

Real-World Nivolumab Wastage and Leftover Drug Stability Assessment to Facilitate Drug Vial Optimization for Cost Savings.

PURPOSE: Nivolumab dosage was initially selected on the basis of body weight, often resulting in leftover drug after sterile compounding. This study sought to investigate the real-world wastage of nivolumab and assess the long-term stability of leftover nivolumab within vials to facilitate drug vial optimization (DVO). METHODS: We collected all discarded vials after preparation from 17 regional hospitals in Japan over a 6-month period preceding the adoption of a fixed dose of 240 mg per administration. The actual amount of waste was measured for each preparation. Stability assessment was performed under different storage conditions. RESULTS: A total of 2,789 100-mg vials and 4,069 20-mg vials were collected. Overall, the drug cost associated with the expenditure of nivolumab alone was $12.1 million, whereas the total cost due to drug wastage was $0.735 million (rate of wastage, 6.1%). Furthermore, the immunoglobulin G concentrations of nivolumab remaining within vials, as well as binding activity to programmed death-1 protein, did not change significantly over 4 weeks of storage at either 4°C or room temperature. CONCLUSION: Significant drug wastage occurs during sterile preparation of nivolumab according to body weight-based dosing. Although nivolumab dosing has been changed to a fixed dose in Japan, body weight-based dosing is still applied in some other countries, as well as in combination therapy with ipilimumab. Our findings regarding the long-term stability of leftover nivolumab within the vials should motivate hospitals to implement DVO for cost savings.