Quon Peter L, Xiao Ying, Sorensen Sonja, Monfared Amir Abbas Tahami
Modeling and Simulation, Evidera, 7101 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 1400, Bethesda, MD, 20814, USA.
Bristol-Myers Squibb, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Pharmacoecon Open. 2019 Sep;3(3):321-331. doi: 10.1007/s41669-018-0112-1.
Our objective was to evaluate the cost effectiveness of the combination of nivolumab and ipilimumab, referred to as "Regimen", as a first-line treatment for patients with advanced melanoma from the perspective of Canada's public healthcare system.
We developed a partitioned-survival model (progression-free survival, post-progression survival, and death) to determine the clinical and economic outcomes of immunotherapy for advanced melanoma over a 20-year time horizon. Regimen was compared with nivolumab, ipilimumab, and pembrolizumab. Two treatment durations for pembrolizumab were considered: (1) maximum of 24 months or until progression or (2) no maximum duration, until progression. The model used data from CheckMate-067 (28 months' follow-up) for treatments involving nivolumab and ipilimumab. The efficacy of pembrolizumab was estimated using indirect comparisons. A scenario looking at the cost of subsequent treatments following disease progression was examined.
Regimen had better outcomes and was cost effective compared with all other immunotherapies at a threshold of $CAN100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Compared with nivolumab and ipilimumab, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were $CAN47,119 and 66,750 per QALY, respectively. Compared with pembrolizumab with a treatment duration cap, the ICER was $CAN85,436. When assuming no duration cap, Regimen dominated pembrolizumab. With the inclusion of subsequent treatment costs following progression, Regimen's ICER improved compared with all other comparators.
Despite the advent of effective new therapies for advanced melanoma, prognosis remains poor for some patients. Compared with other immunotherapies, Regimen offers marked benefit and may be a cost-effective treatment option.
我们的目标是从加拿大公共医疗系统的角度评估纳武单抗和伊匹单抗联合用药方案(以下简称“方案”)作为晚期黑色素瘤患者一线治疗的成本效益。
我们开发了一个分区生存模型(无进展生存期、进展后生存期和死亡),以确定20年时间范围内晚期黑色素瘤免疫治疗的临床和经济结果。将方案与纳武单抗、伊匹单抗和派姆单抗进行比较。考虑了派姆单抗的两种治疗持续时间:(1)最长24个月或直至疾病进展;(2)无最长持续时间,直至疾病进展。该模型使用了CheckMate-067研究(随访28个月)中纳武单抗和伊匹单抗治疗的数据。派姆单抗的疗效通过间接比较进行估计。研究了一个关于疾病进展后后续治疗成本的情景。
在每获得一个质量调整生命年(QALY)的成本阈值为100,000加元的情况下,与所有其他免疫疗法相比,方案具有更好的结果且具有成本效益。与纳武单抗和伊匹单抗相比,每QALY的增量成本效益比(ICER)分别为47,119加元和66,750加元。与有治疗持续时间上限的派姆单抗相比,ICER为85,436加元。假设无持续时间上限,方案优于派姆单抗。纳入疾病进展后的后续治疗成本后,与所有其他对照相比,方案的ICER有所改善。
尽管晚期黑色素瘤出现了有效的新疗法,但部分患者的预后仍然很差。与其他免疫疗法相比,方案具有显著益处,可能是一种具有成本效益的治疗选择。