A Parmar1,2, M Richardson2, P C Coyte2,3, S Cheng1, B Sander2,3,4,5, K K W Chan1,2,6. 1. Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre. 2. Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluative Sciences, University of Toronto. 3. Toronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment Collaboration, University Health Network. 4. ices, University of Toronto. 5. Public Health Ontario. 6. Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control, Toronto, ON.
Abstract
Background: Despite initial promising results, the IMvigor211 clinical trial failed to demonstrate an overall survival (os) benefit for atezolizumab compared with chemotherapy as second-line treatment for metastatic bladder cancer (mbc). However, given lessened adverse events (aes) and preserved quality of life (qol) with atezolizumab, there might still be investment value. To evaluate that potential value, we conducted a cost-utility analysis (cua) of atezolizumab compared with chemotherapy from the perspective of the Canadian health care payer. Methods: A partitioned survival model was used to evaluate atezolizumab compared with chemotherapy over a lifetime horizon (5 years). The base-case analysis was conducted for the intention-to-treat (itt) population, with additional scenario analyses for subgroups by IMvigor-defined PD-L1 status. Health outcomes were evaluated through life-year gains and quality-adjusted life-years (qalys). Cost estimates in 2018 Canadian dollars for systemic treatment, aes, and end-of-life care were incorporated. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (icer) was used to compare treatment strategies. Parameter and model uncertainty were assessed through sensitivity and scenario analyses. Per Canadian guidelines, cost and effectiveness were discounted at 1.5%. Results: For the itt population, the expected qalys for atezolizumab and chemotherapy were 0.75 and 0.56, with expected costs of $90,290 and $8,466 respectively. The resultant icer for atezolizumab compared with chemotherapy was $430,652 per qaly. Scenario analysis of patients with PD-L1 expression levels of 5% or greater led to a lower icer ($334,387 per qaly). Scenario analysis of observed compared with expected benefits demonstrated a higher icer, with a shorter time horizon ($928,950 per qaly). Conclusions: Despite lessened aes and preserved qol, atezolizumab is not considered cost-effective for the second-line treatment of mbc. 2020 Multimed Inc.
Background: Despite initial promising results, the IMvigor211 clinical trial failed to demonstrate an overall survival (os) benefit for atezolizumab compared with chemotherapy as second-line treatment for metastatic bladder cancer (mbc). However, given lessened adverse events (aes) and preserved quality of life (qol) with atezolizumab, there might still be investment value. To evaluate that potential value, we conducted a cost-utility analysis (cua) of atezolizumab compared with chemotherapy from the perspective of the Canadian health care payer. Methods: A partitioned survival model was used to evaluate atezolizumab compared with chemotherapy over a lifetime horizon (5 years). The base-case analysis was conducted for the intention-to-treat (itt) population, with additional scenario analyses for subgroups by IMvigor-defined PD-L1 status. Health outcomes were evaluated through life-year gains and quality-adjusted life-years (qalys). Cost estimates in 2018 Canadian dollars for systemic treatment, aes, and end-of-life care were incorporated. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (icer) was used to compare treatment strategies. Parameter and model uncertainty were assessed through sensitivity and scenario analyses. Per Canadian guidelines, cost and effectiveness were discounted at 1.5%. Results: For the itt population, the expected qalys for atezolizumab and chemotherapy were 0.75 and 0.56, with expected costs of $90,290 and $8,466 respectively. The resultant icer for atezolizumab compared with chemotherapy was $430,652 per qaly. Scenario analysis of patients with PD-L1 expression levels of 5% or greater led to a lower icer ($334,387 per qaly). Scenario analysis of observed compared with expected benefits demonstrated a higher icer, with a shorter time horizon ($928,950 per qaly). Conclusions: Despite lessened aes and preserved qol, atezolizumab is not considered cost-effective for the second-line treatment of mbc. 2020 Multimed Inc.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cost-utility analyses; atezolizumab; health technology assessments; immunotherapy; metastatic bladder cancer
Authors: David D Kim; Colby L Wilkinson; Elle F Pope; James D Chambers; Joshua T Cohen; Peter J Neumann Journal: Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res Date: 2017-05-23 Impact factor: 2.217
Authors: Joaquim Bellmunt; Ronald de Wit; David J Vaughn; Yves Fradet; Jae-Lyun Lee; Lawrence Fong; Nicholas J Vogelzang; Miguel A Climent; Daniel P Petrylak; Toni K Choueiri; Andrea Necchi; Winald Gerritsen; Howard Gurney; David I Quinn; Stéphane Culine; Cora N Sternberg; Yabing Mai; Christian H Poehlein; Rodolfo F Perini; Dean F Bajorin Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2017-02-17 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Michal Sarfaty; Peter S Hall; Kelvin K W Chan; Kiran Virik; Moshe Leshno; Noa Gordon; Assaf Moore; Victoria Neiman; Eli Rosenbaum; Daniel A Goldstein Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2018-03-22 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Ron Goeree; Julie Villeneuve; Jeff Goeree; John R Penrod; Lucinda Orsini; Amir Abbas Tahami Monfared Journal: J Med Econ Date: 2016-03-01 Impact factor: 2.448
Authors: Gillian D Sanders; Peter J Neumann; Anirban Basu; Dan W Brock; David Feeny; Murray Krahn; Karen M Kuntz; David O Meltzer; Douglas K Owens; Lisa A Prosser; Joshua A Salomon; Mark J Sculpher; Thomas A Trikalinos; Louise B Russell; Joanna E Siegel; Theodore G Ganiats Journal: JAMA Date: 2016-09-13 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Manish R Patel; John Ellerton; Jeffrey R Infante; Manish Agrawal; Michael Gordon; Raid Aljumaily; Carolyn D Britten; Luc Dirix; Keun-Wook Lee; Mathew Taylor; Patrick Schöffski; Ding Wang; Alain Ravaud; Arnold B Gelb; Junyuan Xiong; Galit Rosen; James L Gulley; Andrea B Apolo Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2017-12-05 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Eddie Gibson; Ian Koblbauer; Najida Begum; George Dranitsaris; Danny Liew; Phil McEwan; Amir Abbas Tahami Monfared; Yong Yuan; Ariadna Juarez-Garcia; David Tyas; Michael Lees Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2017-12 Impact factor: 4.981
Authors: Patricia Guyot; Anthony E Ades; Matthew Beasley; Béranger Lueza; Jean-Pierre Pignon; Nicky J Welton Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2016-09-29 Impact factor: 2.583