Cost-effectiveness of adjuvant systemic therapies for patients with high-risk melanoma in Europe: a model-based economic evaluation.


Journal

ESMO open
ISSN: 2059-7029
Titre abrégé: ESMO Open
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101690685

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
12 2021
Historique:
received: 08 09 2021
revised: 12 10 2021
accepted: 19 10 2021
pubmed: 16 11 2021
medline: 25 3 2022
entrez: 15 11 2021
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

The introduction of adjuvant systemic treatment has significantly improved recurrence-free survival in patients with resectable high-risk melanoma. Adjuvant treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapy, however, substantially impacts health care budgets, while the number of patients with melanoma who are treated in the adjuvant setting is still increasing. To evaluate the socioeconomic impact of the three adjuvant treatments, a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) was carried out. Data were obtained from the three pivotal registration phase III clinical trials on the adjuvant treatment of patients with resected high-risk stage III in melanoma (KEYNOTE-054, CheckMate 238, and COMBI-AD). For this CEA, a Markov model with three health states (no evidence of disease, recurrent/progressive disease, and death) was applied. From a societal perspective, different adjuvant strategies were compared according to total costs, life years (LYs), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. To evaluate model uncertainty, sensitivity analyses (deterministic and probabilistic) were carried out. In the adjuvant setting, total costs (per patient) were €168 826 for nivolumab, €194 529 for pembrolizumab, and €211 110 for dabrafenib-trametinib. These costs were mainly determined by drug acquisition costs, whereas routine surveillance costs varied from €126 096 to €134 945. Compared with routine surveillance, LYs improved by approximately 1.41 for all therapies and QALYs improved by 2.02 for immune checkpoint inhibitors and 2.03 for targeted therapy. This resulted in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of €21 153 (nivolumab), €33 878 (pembrolizumab), and €37 520 (dabrafenib-trametinib) per QALY gained. This CEA compared the three EMA-approved adjuvant systemic therapies for resected stage III melanoma. Adjuvant treatment with nivolumab was the most cost-effective, followed by pembrolizumab. Combination therapy with dabrafenib-trametinib was the least cost-effective. With the increasing number of patients with high-risk melanoma who will be treated with adjuvant treatment, there is an urgent need to reduce drug costs while developing better prognostic and predictive tools to identify patients who will benefit from adjuvant treatment.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
The introduction of adjuvant systemic treatment has significantly improved recurrence-free survival in patients with resectable high-risk melanoma. Adjuvant treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapy, however, substantially impacts health care budgets, while the number of patients with melanoma who are treated in the adjuvant setting is still increasing. To evaluate the socioeconomic impact of the three adjuvant treatments, a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) was carried out.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Data were obtained from the three pivotal registration phase III clinical trials on the adjuvant treatment of patients with resected high-risk stage III in melanoma (KEYNOTE-054, CheckMate 238, and COMBI-AD). For this CEA, a Markov model with three health states (no evidence of disease, recurrent/progressive disease, and death) was applied. From a societal perspective, different adjuvant strategies were compared according to total costs, life years (LYs), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. To evaluate model uncertainty, sensitivity analyses (deterministic and probabilistic) were carried out.
RESULTS
In the adjuvant setting, total costs (per patient) were €168 826 for nivolumab, €194 529 for pembrolizumab, and €211 110 for dabrafenib-trametinib. These costs were mainly determined by drug acquisition costs, whereas routine surveillance costs varied from €126 096 to €134 945. Compared with routine surveillance, LYs improved by approximately 1.41 for all therapies and QALYs improved by 2.02 for immune checkpoint inhibitors and 2.03 for targeted therapy. This resulted in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of €21 153 (nivolumab), €33 878 (pembrolizumab), and €37 520 (dabrafenib-trametinib) per QALY gained.
CONCLUSIONS
This CEA compared the three EMA-approved adjuvant systemic therapies for resected stage III melanoma. Adjuvant treatment with nivolumab was the most cost-effective, followed by pembrolizumab. Combination therapy with dabrafenib-trametinib was the least cost-effective. With the increasing number of patients with high-risk melanoma who will be treated with adjuvant treatment, there is an urgent need to reduce drug costs while developing better prognostic and predictive tools to identify patients who will benefit from adjuvant treatment.

Identifiants

pubmed: 34781194
pii: S2059-7029(21)00265-9
doi: 10.1016/j.esmoop.2021.100303
pmc: PMC8599106
pii:
doi:

Substances chimiques

Nivolumab 31YO63LBSN

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

100303

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Disclosure SS is chair of the Centre for Personalized Cancer Treatment (CPCT), member of the SkylineDx Supervisory board (paid to institute), and declares patents on assays detecting CECs, EpCAM-neg CTCs, and CTC-ARv7 detection and outcome to cabazitaxel. AV is advisory board member for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Roche, Eisai, and Sanofi. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

Auteurs

E E A P Mulder (EEAP)

Department of Surgical Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Medical Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Electronic address: e.e.a.p.mulder@erasmusmc.nl.

L Smit (L)

Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

D J Grünhagen (DJ)

Department of Surgical Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

C Verhoef (C)

Department of Surgical Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

S Sleijfer (S)

Department of Medical Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

A A M van der Veldt (AAM)

Department of Medical Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

C A Uyl-de Groot (CA)

Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Institute for Medical Technology Assessment, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH