Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Six Immunotherapy-Based Regimens and Sunitinib in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Public Payer Perspective
Open Access
- 1 March 2023
- journal article
- research article
- Published by American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) in JCO Oncology Practice
- Vol. 19 (3) , e449-e456
Abstract
PURPOSE: Several new treatment combinations have been approved in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). To determine the optimal therapy on the basis of cost and health outcomes, we performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of approved immunotherapy-tyrosine kinase inhibitor/immunotherapy drug combinations and sunitinib using public payer acquisition costs in the United States. METHODS: We constructed a decision model with a 10-year time horizon. The seven treatment drug strategies included atezolizumab + bevacizumab, avelumab + axitinib, pembrolizumab + axitinib, nivolumab + ipilimumab (NI), nivolumab + cabozantinib, lenvatinib + pembrolizumab, and sunitinib. The effectiveness outcome in our model was quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) with utility values on the basis of the published literature. Costs included drug acquisition costs and costs for management of grade 3-4 drug-related adverse events. We used a partitioned survival model in which patients with mRCC transitioned between three health states (progression-free, progressive disease, and death) at monthly intervals on the basis of parametric survival function estimated from published survival curves. To determine cost-effectiveness, we constructed incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) by dividing the difference in cost by the difference in effectiveness between nondominated treatments. RESULTS: The least expensive treatment was sunitinib ($357,948 US dollars [USD]-$656,100 USD), whereas the most expensive was either lenvatinib + pembrolizumab or pembrolizumab + axitinib ($959,302 USD-$1,403,671 USD). NI yielded the most QALYs (3.6), whereas avelumab + axitinib yielded the least (2.5). NI had an incremental ICER of $297,465 USD-$348,516 USD compared with sunitinib. In sensitivity analyses, this ICER fell below $150,000 USD/QALY if the initial 4-month cost of NI decreased by 22%-38%. CONCLUSION: NI was the most effective combination for mRCC, but at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 USD/QALY, sunitinib was the most cost-effective approach.Keywords
This publication has 31 references indexed in Scilit:
- Cohort versus patient level simulation for the economic evaluation of single versus combination immuno-oncology therapies in metastatic melanomaJournal of Medical Economics, 2019
- A Transparent and Consistent Approach to Assess US Outpatient Drug Costs for Use in Cost-Effectiveness AnalysesValue in Health, 2018
- Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab versus Sunitinib in Advanced Renal-Cell CarcinomaNew England Journal of Medicine, 2018
- Modeling the economic outcomes of immuno-oncology drugs: alternative model frameworks to capture clinical outcomesClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research, 2018
- Cost-effectiveness of nivolumab in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma treated in the United StatesExperimental Hematology & Oncology, 2018
- Health-related quality of life and its determinants in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinomaQuality of Life Research, 2017
- Lifetime cost of everolimus vs axitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma who failed prior sunitinib therapy in the USJournal of Medical Economics, 2014
- Economic Evaluation of Everolimus versus Sorafenib for the Treatment of Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma after Failure of First-Line SunitinibValue in Health, 2011
- Improved curve fits to summary survival data: application to economic evaluation of health technologiesBMC Medical Research Methodology, 2011
- Economic Evaluation of Sunitinib Malate for the First-Line Treatment of Metastatic Renal Cell CarcinomaJournal of Clinical Oncology, 2008