Jingwen Lin, Xiaobing Song, Wu Fu, Caicong You, Na Li, Maobai Liu, Hongfu Cai
{"title":"Cost-effectiveness of nivolumab combined with chemotherapy as a first-line therapy for patients with unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma.","authors":"Jingwen Lin, Xiaobing Song, Wu Fu, Caicong You, Na Li, Maobai Liu, Hongfu Cai","doi":"10.1177/17588359241301339","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Urothelial carcinoma is a significant health concern in the United States (US), with high mortality and economic burdens. The CheckMate-901 trial showed promising survival benefits for nivolumab combined with gemcitabine and cisplatin followed by nivolumab maintenance therapy (nivolumab-combination) as first-line treatment of unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (UC), but its cost-effectiveness is unclear.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the nivolumab-combination versus standard chemotherapy (gemcitabine-cisplatin) for advanced UC from the perspective of healthcare payers in the US.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A model-based pharmacoeconomic evaluation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Based on the CheckMate-901 study, a three-state Markov model (progression-free, progression, and death) was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab-combination versus gemcitabine-cisplatin as a first-line treatment for unresectable or metastatic UC. The model's outputs included quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs and were used to calculate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Costs included drug prices, adverse event management, and healthcare resource utilization from a US healthcare payer's perspective. State utilities were derived from published literature. One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were used to test model robustness. Scenario analyses for drug costs in the UK and Australian health systems were performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Compared with gemcitabine-cisplatin, the nivolumab-combination resulted in an additional 0.416 QALYs at an incremental cost of $90,523, yielding an ICER of $217,527 per QALY. Sensitivity analyses indicated significant impacts from the cost of nivolumab maintenance therapy.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Compared with gemcitabine-cisplatin, nivolumab-combination therapy is not cost-effective for unresectable or metastatic UC at a $100,000 per QALY threshold. High drug prices in the US significantly impact cost-effectiveness, highlighting the need for price negotiations and healthcare policy adjustments to balance innovation incentives and patient affordability.</p>","PeriodicalId":23053,"journal":{"name":"Therapeutic Advances in Medical Oncology","volume":"16 ","pages":"17588359241301339"},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11650468/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Therapeutic Advances in Medical Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17588359241301339","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Urothelial carcinoma is a significant health concern in the United States (US), with high mortality and economic burdens. The CheckMate-901 trial showed promising survival benefits for nivolumab combined with gemcitabine and cisplatin followed by nivolumab maintenance therapy (nivolumab-combination) as first-line treatment of unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (UC), but its cost-effectiveness is unclear.
Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the nivolumab-combination versus standard chemotherapy (gemcitabine-cisplatin) for advanced UC from the perspective of healthcare payers in the US.
Design: A model-based pharmacoeconomic evaluation.
Methods: Based on the CheckMate-901 study, a three-state Markov model (progression-free, progression, and death) was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab-combination versus gemcitabine-cisplatin as a first-line treatment for unresectable or metastatic UC. The model's outputs included quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs and were used to calculate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Costs included drug prices, adverse event management, and healthcare resource utilization from a US healthcare payer's perspective. State utilities were derived from published literature. One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were used to test model robustness. Scenario analyses for drug costs in the UK and Australian health systems were performed.
Results: Compared with gemcitabine-cisplatin, the nivolumab-combination resulted in an additional 0.416 QALYs at an incremental cost of $90,523, yielding an ICER of $217,527 per QALY. Sensitivity analyses indicated significant impacts from the cost of nivolumab maintenance therapy.
Conclusion: Compared with gemcitabine-cisplatin, nivolumab-combination therapy is not cost-effective for unresectable or metastatic UC at a $100,000 per QALY threshold. High drug prices in the US significantly impact cost-effectiveness, highlighting the need for price negotiations and healthcare policy adjustments to balance innovation incentives and patient affordability.
期刊介绍:
Therapeutic Advances in Medical Oncology is an open access, peer-reviewed journal delivering the highest quality articles, reviews, and scholarly comment on pioneering efforts and innovative studies in the medical treatment of cancer. The journal has a strong clinical and pharmacological focus and is aimed at clinicians and researchers in medical oncology, providing a forum in print and online for publishing the highest quality articles in this area. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).