Economic Evaluations of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors for Patients with Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review.
PD-L1 positive
economic analyses
immune checkpoint inhibitors
non-small cell lung cancer
systematic review
Journal
Cancer management and research
ISSN: 1179-1322
Titre abrégé: Cancer Manag Res
Pays: New Zealand
ID NLM: 101512700
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
received:
01
02
2020
accepted:
09
05
2020
entrez:
2
7
2020
pubmed:
2
7
2020
medline:
2
7
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
This review aimed to assess the quality of available evidence on the economic evaluations of immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and provide evidence to improve the efficiency of healthcare resources. Literature search was performed using some electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials). Final search was performed in December 2019. Study characteristics and results were recorded and compared. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklists. We did not elaborate the restrictions on the target population. We included patients with squamous or non-squamous NSCLC and metastatic or advanced cancer. Of 98 papers considered, 21 were chosen for this review. Most of them are cost-effectiveness analysis. Comparative regimens consisted of either immune checkpoint inhibitor monotherapy, immune checkpoint inhibitor plus chemotherapy, or chemotherapy alone. Fourteen, four, and three studies were about pembrolizumab, nivolumab, and atezolizumab, respectively. The methods mostly used in these studies were modeling and sensitivity analysis. All studies used quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and life years (LY) as outcomes. Most studies were conducted in high-income countries. Based on the willingness to pay threshold, atezolizumab, and pembrolizumab were found to be cost-effective in one and 10 studies, respectively. None of the studies concluded that nivolumab was cost-effective. For quality assessment, all studies fulfilled more than 50% of the CHEERS checklist. The included studies indicated that pembrolizumab regimens are cost-effective as first-line treatment for patients with NSCLC in developed countries. Nivolumab and atezolizumab are likely to be cost-effective as second-line treatment but not as first-line treatment.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32606944
doi: 10.2147/CMAR.S248020
pii: 248020
pmc: PMC7297344
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Pagination
4503-4518Informations de copyright
© 2020 Li et al.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
Références
Lung Cancer. 2018 Oct;124:248-254
pubmed: 30268469
N Engl J Med. 2018 Nov 22;379(21):2040-2051
pubmed: 30280635
J Med Econ. 2018 Dec;21(12):1191-1205
pubmed: 30188231
N Engl J Med. 2016 Nov 10;375(19):1823-1833
pubmed: 27718847
Pharmacoeconomics. 2017 Aug;35(8):831-844
pubmed: 28620848
J Med Econ. 2019 Apr;22(4):344-349
pubmed: 30646794
BMJ Open. 2019 Dec 11;9(12):e031019
pubmed: 31831534
Mayo Clin Proc. 2008 May;83(5):584-94
pubmed: 18452692
N Engl J Med. 2015 Jul 9;373(2):123-35
pubmed: 26028407
Lung Cancer. 2019 Dec;138:88-94
pubmed: 31655368
Pharmacoecon Open. 2020 Jun;4(2):235-247
pubmed: 31531842
N Engl J Med. 2018 Jun 14;378(24):2288-2301
pubmed: 29863955
Lung Cancer. 2019 Jan;127:44-52
pubmed: 30642550
Lancet. 2016 Apr 9;387(10027):1540-1550
pubmed: 26712084
Lung Cancer. 2018 Sep;123:166-171
pubmed: 30089590
Semin Cancer Biol. 2018 Oct;52(Pt 1):103-109
pubmed: 29183778
J Med Econ. 2017 Feb;20(2):140-150
pubmed: 27571538
Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2019 Jun;17(3):371-380
pubmed: 30535675
N Engl J Med. 2015 Oct 22;373(17):1627-39
pubmed: 26412456
Lancet. 2019 Nov 23;394(10212):1880
pubmed: 31777378
Cancer. 2019 Oct 15;125(20):3526-3534
pubmed: 31287562
Immune Netw. 2017 Dec;17(6):378-391
pubmed: 29302251
Curr Med Res Opin. 2019 Jul;35(7):1241-1256
pubmed: 30649973
J Man Manip Ther. 2012 Aug;20(3):130-4
pubmed: 23904751
Lung Cancer. 2019 Oct;136:98-101
pubmed: 31476529
Clin Drug Investig. 2020 Feb;40(2):129-137
pubmed: 31679121
J Med Econ. 2019 Jul;22(7):625-637
pubmed: 30836031
J Med Econ. 2016 Jun;19(6):630-44
pubmed: 26850122
N Engl J Med. 2018 May 31;378(22):2078-2092
pubmed: 29658856
Onco Targets Ther. 2018 Sep 19;11:5973-5989
pubmed: 30275703
J Thorac Oncol. 2019 May;14(5):867-875
pubmed: 30659987
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2013 Apr;29(2):117-22
pubmed: 23587340
Nat Rev Cancer. 2012 Mar 22;12(4):252-64
pubmed: 22437870
JAMA Netw Open. 2019 Sep 4;2(9):e1911952
pubmed: 31553470
Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2014 Aug;11(8):473-81
pubmed: 24981256
J Thorac Oncol. 2016 Nov;11(11):1846-1855
pubmed: 27311996
Lancet. 2019 May 4;393(10183):1819-1830
pubmed: 30955977
Oncol Res. 2020 Mar 27;28(2):117-125
pubmed: 31610828
Lung Cancer. 2019 Feb;128:105-112
pubmed: 30642441
Immunotherapy. 2019 Dec;11(17):1463-1478
pubmed: 31738117