Cost-Effectiveness of Cemiplimab Versus Standard of Care in the United States for First-Line Treatment of Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer With Programmed Death-Ligand 1 Expression ≥50.
Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized
/ economics
Antineoplastic Agents, Immunological
/ economics
Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols
/ economics
B7-H1 Antigen
/ metabolism
Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung
/ drug therapy
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Humans
Lung Neoplasms
/ drug therapy
Middle Aged
Progression-Free Survival
Quality-Adjusted Life Years
Standard of Care
/ economics
Survival Rate
United States
advanced non-small cell lung cancer
cemiplimab
comparative efficacy
cost-effectiveness
programmed death-ligand 1
Journal
Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research
ISSN: 1524-4733
Titre abrégé: Value Health
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 100883818
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 2022
02 2022
Historique:
received:
11
02
2021
revised:
23
06
2021
accepted:
23
08
2021
entrez:
31
1
2022
pubmed:
1
2
2022
medline:
19
2
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness, from a US commercial payer perspective, of cemiplimab versus other first-line treatments for advanced non-small cell lung cancer with programmed death-ligand 1 expression ≥50%. A 30-year "partitioned survival" model was constructed. Overall survival and progression-free survival were estimated by applying time-varying hazard ratios from a network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Overall survival and progression-free survival were estimated from EMPOWER-Lung 1 (cemiplimab monotherapy vs chemotherapy) and KEYNOTE-024 and KEYNOTE-042 (pembrolizumab monotherapy vs chemotherapy). Drug acquisition costs were based on published 2020 US list prices. A 3% discount rate was applied to life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and costs. A deterministic analysis was performed on the base case; 1-way sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analyses assessed model and parameter uncertainties. Cemiplimab was associated with increased time in the "preprogression" (13.08 vs 7.90 and 6.08 months) and "postprogression" (47.30 vs 29.49 and 14.78 months) health states versus pembrolizumab and chemotherapy, respectively. Compared with pembrolizumab and chemotherapy, cemiplimab generated 1.00 (95% CI -0.266 to 2.440) and 1.78 (95% CI 0.607-3.20) incremental QALYs, respectively, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $68 254 and $89 219 per QALY for cemiplimab versus pembrolizumab and cemiplimab versus chemotherapy, respectively. The probability of cemiplimab being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 to $150 000 per QALY was 62% to 76% versus pembrolizumab and 56% to 84% versus chemotherapy. Findings suggest that cemiplimab, versus pembrolizumab or versus chemotherapy, is a cost-effective first-line treatment option for advanced non-small cell lung cancer with programmed death-ligand 1 expression ≥50%.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35094793
pii: S1098-3015(21)01726-5
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2021.08.009
pii:
doi:
Substances chimiques
Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized
0
Antineoplastic Agents, Immunological
0
B7-H1 Antigen
0
cemiplimab
6QVL057INT
pembrolizumab
DPT0O3T46P
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
203-214Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 ISPOR–The International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.