University of California San Diego School of Medicine, La Jolla, California, USA.
Department of Radiation Medicine and Applied Sciences, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, California, USA.
Cancer Med. 2021 Oct;10(19):6618-6626. doi: 10.1002/cam4.4194. Epub 2021 Aug 17.
Adjuvant ipilimumab was found to improve the overall survival and reduce toxicity compared to high-dose interferon (HDI) in patients with resected, high-risk melanoma. However, the cost of ipilimumab is substantially higher than HDI. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of ipilimumab as an adjuvant treatment in melanoma from a healthcare perspective.
We designed a Markov model simulating resected, high-risk melanoma patients receiving either ipilimumab or HDI. Transition probabilities, including risks of survival, disease progression, and toxicity, were ascertained from clinical trial data. Costs and quality of life measurements (health utilities) were extracted from the literature. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), defined as incremental costs divided by incremental quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), assessed cost-effectiveness. ICERs <$100,000/QALY were deemed cost-effective. We measured model uncertainty with one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.
In our base case model, ipilimumab increased costs by $107,100 and increased effectiveness by 0.43 QALY, yielding an ICER of $392,600/QALY. Our model was moderately sensitive to the costs of ipilimumab, though the cost of ipilimumab would need to decrease by 44% for ipilimumab to become cost-effective compared to HDI. The model was not sensitive to survival, toxicity, or other costs. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that HDI would remain the cost-effective treatment option 96.2% of the time at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY.
Adjuvant ipilimumab increases the survival and decreases the toxicity compared to HDI in resected, high-risk melanoma patients, though this would not be considered cost-effective due to the high price of ipilimumab.
与高剂量干扰素(HDI)相比,辅助用伊匹单抗可提高整体存活率并降低毒性,适用于接受过手术治疗且存在高危因素的黑色素瘤患者。然而,伊匹单抗的价格远高于 HDI。本研究从医疗保健角度评估了伊匹单抗作为黑色素瘤辅助治疗的成本效益。
我们设计了一个马尔可夫模型,模拟接受伊匹单抗或 HDI 治疗的黑色素瘤患者。使用临床试验数据确定转移概率,包括生存风险、疾病进展风险和毒性风险。从文献中提取成本和生活质量测量(健康效用值)。增量成本效益比(ICER)定义为增量成本除以增量质量调整生命年(QALY),用于评估成本效益。ICER<10 万美元/QALY 被认为是具有成本效益的。我们使用单因素和概率敏感性分析来衡量模型的不确定性。
在我们的基本模型中,伊匹单抗增加了 107100 美元的成本,增加了 0.43 个 QALY,产生了 392600 美元/QALY 的 ICER。我们的模型对伊匹单抗的成本较为敏感,但与 HDI 相比,伊匹单抗的成本需要降低 44%,伊匹单抗才具有成本效益。该模型对生存、毒性或其他成本不敏感。概率敏感性分析表明,在支付意愿阈值为 10 万美元/QALY 的情况下,HDI 将有 96.2%的概率成为更具成本效益的治疗选择。
与 HDI 相比,伊匹单抗可提高切除后高危黑色素瘤患者的生存率并降低毒性,尽管由于伊匹单抗的高价格,这并不被认为具有成本效益。