A systematic review of the cost and cost-effectiveness studies of immune checkpoint inhibitors 11 Medical and Health Sciences 1112 Oncology and Carcinogenesis
JournalJournal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer
PublisherBioMed Central Ltd.
MetadataShow full item record
AbstractBackground: Escalating healthcare costs are necessitating the practice of value-based oncology. It is crucial to critically evaluate the economic impact of influential but expensive therapies such as immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). To date, no systematic assessment of the cost-effectiveness (CE) of ICIs has been performed. Methods: PRISMA-guided systematic searches of the PubMed database were conducted. Studies of head/neck (n = 3), lung (n = 5), genitourinary (n = 4), and melanoma (n = 8) malignancies treated with ICIs were evaluated. The reference willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was $100,000/QALY. Results: Nivolumab was not cost-effective over chemotherapy for recurrent/metastatic head/neck cancers (HNCs). For non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), nivolumab was not cost-effective for a general cohort, but increased PD-L1 cutoffs resulted in CE. Pembrolizumab was cost-effective for both previously treated and newly-diagnosed metastatic NSCLC. For genitourinary cancers (GUCs, renal cell and bladder cancers), nivolumab and pembrolizumab were not cost-effective options. Regarding metastatic/unresected melanoma, ipilimumab monotherapy is less cost-effective than nivolumab, nivolumab/ipilimumab, and pembrolizumab. The addition of ipilimumab to nivolumab monotherapy was not adequately cost-effective. Pembrolizumab or nivolumab monotherapy offered comparable CE profiles. Conclusions: With limited data and from the reference WTP, nivolumab was not cost-effective for HNCs. Pembrolizumab was cost-effective for NSCLC; although not the case for nivolumab, applying PD-L1 cutoffs resulted in adequate CE. Most data for nivolumab and pembrolizumab in GUCs did not point towards adequate CE. Contrary to ipilimumab, either nivolumab or pembrolizumab is cost-effective for melanoma. Despite these conclusions, it cannot be overstated that careful patient selection is critical for CE. Future publication of CE investigations and clinical trials (along with longer follow-up of existing data) could substantially alter conclusions from this analysis. Copyright 2018 The Author(s).
Immune checkpoint inhibitor
Identifier to cite or link to this itemhttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85057075708&doi=10.1186%2fs40425-018-0442-7&partnerID=40&md5=e9d58876176b126f731b0bcc696af065; http://hdl.handle.net/10713/9205
- Current status and future directions of the immune checkpoint inhibitors ipilimumab, pembrolizumab, and nivolumab in oncology.
- Authors: Barbee MS, Ogunniyi A, Horvat TZ, Dang TO
- Issue date: 2015 Aug
- Multiple treatment comparison of seven new drugs for patients with advanced malignant melanoma: a systematic review and health economic decision model in a Norwegian setting.
- Authors: Pike E, Hamidi V, Saeterdal I, Odgaard-Jensen J, Klemp M
- Issue date: 2017 Aug 21
- Cost-Effectiveness of Nivolumab-Ipilimumab Combination Therapy Compared with Monotherapy for First-Line Treatment of Metastatic Melanoma in the United States.
- Authors: Oh A, Tran DM, McDowell LC, Keyvani D, Barcelon JA, Merino O, Wilson L
- Issue date: 2017 Jun
- The Next Immune-Checkpoint Inhibitors: PD-1/PD-L1 Blockade in Melanoma.
- Authors: Mahoney KM, Freeman GJ, McDermott DF
- Issue date: 2015 Apr 1
- Concern over cost of and access to cancer treatments: A meta-narrative review of nivolumab and pembrolizumab studies.
- Authors: da Veiga CRP, da Veiga CP, Drummond-Lage AP
- Issue date: 2018 Sep