| Literature DB >> 35008237 |
Arman S Walia1, Randy F Sweis2, Piyush K Agarwal3, Andrew K Kader1, Parth K Modi3.
Abstract
Over the last decade, an increasing number of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have been assessed for therapeutic efficacy in urothelial carcinoma (UC). The high cost has prompted multiple cost-effectiveness analyses for the various disease stages, with no established consensus. We reviewed the literature to assess the available cost-effectiveness studies and summarize their findings. Studies were filtered for a calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) to standardize comparison. Over 2600 articles were narrowed to eight primary investigations: one for BCG-refractory non-muscle invasive (NMI), one for neoadjuvant therapy in muscle-invasive (MI), and six for advanced disease. Cost-effectiveness was not achieved for NMI disease. Atezolizumab met the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold as neoadjuvant therapy for MI disease compared to chemotherapy, but with multiple limitations on the interpretation. Of the six studies on advanced disease, the results were mixed. This was at least partially attributable to varied methodologies including extrapolated time horizons, inconsistent cost inputs, and different WTP thresholds. Overall, the aggregate results were not compelling enough to establish ICIs as cost-effective compared to conventional chemotherapy. Value may improve with continued investigation into long-term outcomes, refined patient selection, and pricing discounts.Entities:
Keywords: bladder; cancer; cost; immunotherapy; systemic; urothelial; value
Year: 2021 PMID: 35008237 PMCID: PMC8750958 DOI: 10.3390/cancers14010073
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancers (Basel) ISSN: 2072-6694 Impact factor: 6.639
Figure 1Selection and review of relevant CEAs for ICI in UC.
CEAs for non-metastatic UC.
| Stage | Reference | Cohort | Method | Total Cost | QALY | ICER (Per QALY) | WTP Threshold (Per QALY) | Conclusion |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NMIBC | Wymer et al., 2020 [ | Pembrolizumab (PB) vs. intravesical gemcitabine/docetaxel (GD) vs. upfront radical cystectomy (RC) for BCG-refractory NMIBC | Markov Model, 5-year horizon, Medicare payor perspective, base year 2019 | Index 1 | Index 1 | Index 1 | $100,000 | PB is not cost-effective compared to RC or intravesical GD for BCG-refractory NMIBC |
| MIBC | Khaki et al., 2021 [ | Neoadjuvant PB vs. ddMVAC. Secondary gemcitabine/cisplatin (GC), atezolizumab (AZ) and nivolumab/ipilimumab (NI) assessment | Decision analysis simulation, 2-year horizon based on RFS given no OS data, third-party payor perspective, base year 2020 | PB: $30,556 | PB: 0.591 | PB/ddMVAC: $522,143 | $100,000 | PB is not cost-effective compared to ddMVAC or GC as a neoadjuvant treatment based on 2-year RFS |
NMIBC: non-muscle invasive bladder cancer, MIBC: muscle-invasive bladder cancer. * Khaki et al.: 2-year RFS is substituted for calculated QALY, and ICER is incremental cost per 2-year survival rate.
CEAs in advanced UC.
| Treatment | Reference | Cohort | Method | Total Cost | QALY | ICER (Per QALY) | WTP Threshold (Per QALY) | Conclusion |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| First-line | Hale et al., 2020 [ | First-line PB vs. gemcitabine plus carboplatin (GCa) in cisplatin-ineligible patients with CPS ≥ 10 | Partitioned survival model, 20-year time horizon, third-party payor perspective, AEs included, base year 2018 | PB: $225,334 | PB: 2.91 | PB/GCa: $78,925 | $150,000 | PB may be cost-effective relative to GCa for 1L treatment for PD-L1 positive, cisplatin-ineligible patients with metastatic UC |
| Second-line | Parmar et al., 2020 [ | AZ vs. chemotherapy (taxanes) as second line treatment after progression on cisplatin | Partitioned survival model, 5-year horizon, | AZ: C$90,290 | AZ: 0.75 | AZ/Chemo: C $430,652 | C$100,000 | AZ is not considered cost-effective relative to taxanes as 2L treatment for advanced UC |
| Slater et al., 2020 [ | PB vs. chemotherapy (taxanes) after progression on first-line therapy | Partitioned survival model, 20-year horizon, third-party payor perspective, base year 2018 | PB: $140,556 | PB: 1.79 | PB/Chemo: $93,481 | $100,000 | PB may be cost-effective compared to taxanes for advanced UC | |
| Criss et al., 2018 [ | Cost-effectiveness of PD-L1 testing in second-line treatment. Compared chemotherapy (taxanes), PB, and PB for PD-L1 > 1% with chemotherapy for PD-L1 < 1% | Microsimulation model, 5-year horizon, US healthcare system perspective, base year 2017 | PD-L1 > 1%: $27,579 | PD-L1 > 1%: 0.51 | PD-L1 > 1%/chemo: $122,933 | $100,000 | The cost-effectiveness of PB improves when PD-L1 status is included, but still fails to meet the WTP threshold | |
| Sarfaty et al., 2018 [ | PB vs. chemotherapy (taxanes) for second-line treatment | Markov model, 5-year horizon, third-party payor perspective, included AEs, base year 2017 | * USA: $44,325 | * USA: 0.36 | USA: $122,557 | USA: $150,000 | PB may be cost-effective compared to chemotherapy at the WTP threshold set for the USA | |
| Srivastava et al., 2018 [ | PB vs. chemotherapy (taxanes, vinflunine) for second-line treatment | Partitioned survival model, 15-year horizon, included AEs, base year 2018 | PB: €98,354 | PB: 1.99 | PB/Vinflunine: €50,529 | €100,000 | PB may be cost-effective relative to vinflunine and taxanes |
* Sarfaty et al. only reported incremental costs and QALY for each country, not the total. Additionally, the primary authors converted each currency to US dollars.