Suppr超能文献

帕博利珠单抗-阿昔替尼、纳武利尤单抗-伊匹单抗与舒尼替尼治疗晚期肾细胞癌的成本效果分析。

A Cost-effectiveness Analysis Comparing Pembrolizumab-Axitinib, Nivolumab-Ipilimumab, and Sunitinib for Treatment of Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma.

机构信息

UCSF School of Pharmacy.

UCSF School of Nursing, San Francisco, CA.

出版信息

Am J Clin Oncol. 2022 Feb 1;45(2):66-73. doi: 10.1097/COC.0000000000000884.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved nivolumab-ipilimumab and pembrolizumab-axitinib as first-line treatments for metastatic, clear-cell, renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) based on results from CheckMate 214 and KEYNOTE-426. Our objective was to compare the adjusted, lifetime cost-effectiveness between nivolumab-ipilimumab, pembrolizumab-axitinib, and sunitinib for patients with mRCC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A 3-state Markov model was developed comparing nivolumab-ipilimumab and pembrolizumab-axitinib to each other and sunitinib, over a 20-year lifetime horizon from a US medical center perspective. The clinical outcomes of nivolumab-ipilimumab and pembrolizumab-axitinib were compared using matching-adjusted indirect comparison. Costs of drug treatment, adverse events, and utilities associated with different health states and adverse events were determined using national sources and published literature. Our outcome was incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) using quality-adjusted life years (QALY). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

Nivolumab-ipilimumab was the most cost-effective option in the base case analysis with an ICER of $34,190/QALY compared with sunitinib, while the pembrolizumab-axitinib ICER was dominated by nivolumab-ipilimumab and was not cost-effective (ICER=$12,630,828/QALY) compared with sunitinib. The mean total costs per patient for the nivolumab-ipilimumab and pembrolizumab-axitinib arms were $284,683 and $457,769, respectively, compared with sunitinib at $241,656. QALY was longer for nivolumab-ipilimumab (3.23 QALY) than for adjusted pembrolizumab-axitinib (1.99 QALY), which was longer than sunitinib's (1.98 QALY). These results were most sensitive to treatment cost in both groups, but plausible changes did not alter the conclusions.

CONCLUSIONS

The base case scenario indicated that nivolumab-ipilimumab was the most cost-effective treatment option for mRCC compared with pembrolizumab-axitinib and sunitinib.

摘要

目的

美国食品和药物管理局(FDA)基于 CheckMate 214 和 KEYNOTE-426 的结果,批准纳武利尤单抗-伊匹单抗和帕博利珠单抗-阿昔替尼作为转移性透明细胞肾细胞癌(mRCC)的一线治疗药物。我们的目的是比较纳武利尤单抗-伊匹单抗、帕博利珠单抗-阿昔替尼和舒尼替尼在 mRCC 患者中的调整后终生成本效益。

材料和方法

从美国医疗中心的角度出发,建立了一个三状态 Markov 模型,比较纳武利尤单抗-伊匹单抗和帕博利珠单抗-阿昔替尼与舒尼替尼之间的差异,时间范围为 20 年。纳武利尤单抗-伊匹单抗和帕博利珠单抗-阿昔替尼的临床结果通过匹配调整间接比较进行比较。药物治疗、不良反应的成本以及与不同健康状态和不良反应相关的效用,使用国家来源和已发表的文献确定。我们的结果是使用质量调整生命年(QALY)的增量成本效益比(ICER)。进行了单因素和概率敏感性分析。

结果

在基础病例分析中,纳武利尤单抗-伊匹单抗是最具成本效益的选择,其 ICER 为 34,190 美元/QALY,而帕博利珠单抗-阿昔替尼的 ICER 被纳武利尤单抗-伊匹单抗主导,与舒尼替尼相比不具有成本效益(ICER=12,630,828 美元/QALY)。纳武利尤单抗-伊匹单抗和帕博利珠单抗-阿昔替尼组的每位患者平均总成本分别为 284,683 美元和 457,769 美元,而舒尼替尼组为 241,656 美元。纳武利尤单抗-伊匹单抗的 QALY 为 3.23,比调整后的帕博利珠单抗-阿昔替尼(1.99 QALY)长,而帕博利珠单抗-阿昔替尼的 QALY 又比舒尼替尼(1.98 QALY)长。这些结果对两组的治疗成本最为敏感,但合理的变化并没有改变结论。

结论

基础病例表明,与帕博利珠单抗-阿昔替尼和舒尼替尼相比,纳武利尤单抗-伊匹单抗是 mRCC 最具成本效益的治疗选择。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验