Abstract

BackgroundPembrolizumab has been shown to improve overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS) compared to ipilimumab in patients with ipilimumab-naïve advanced melanoma; however, there are no published data on the cost-effectiveness for pembrolizumab compared to standard-of-care treatments currently used in Hong Kong for advanced melanoma.MethodsA partitioned-survival model based on data from a recent randomized phase 3 study (KEYNOTE-006) and meta-analysis was used to derive time in PFS, OS, and post-progression survival for pembrolizumab and chemotherapy, such as dacarbazine (DTIC), temozolomide (TMZ), and the paclitaxel-carboplatin combination (PC). A combination of clinical trial data, published data, results of meta-analysis, and melanoma registry data was used to extrapolate PFS and OS curves. The base-case time horizon for the model was 30 years with costs and health outcomes discounted at a rate of 5% per year. Individual patient level data on utilities and frequencies of adverse events were obtained from the final analysis of KEYNOTE-006 (cut-off date: 3-Dec-15) for pembrolizumab. Cost data included drug acquisition, treatment administration, adverse event management, and clinical management of advanced melanoma. The distribution of patient weight from the Hong Kong population was applied to calculate the drug costs. Analyses were performed from a payer’s perspective. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) expressed as cost in US Dollars (USD) per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) was the main outcome.ResultsIn base-case scenario, the ICER for pembrolizumab as a first-line treatment for advanced melanoma was USD49,232 compared to DTIC, with the ICER values lower than cost-effectiveness threshold in Hong Kong. Results comparing pembrolizumab to TMZ and to PC were similar to that when compared to DTIC. Probability sensitivity analyses showed that 99% of the simulated ICERs were below three times the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita for Hong Kong (currently at $119,274//QALY threshold). In a scenario analysis comparing pembrolizumab with ipilimumab, the estimated ICER was USD8,904.ConclusionsPembrolizumab is cost-effective relative to chemotherapy (DTIC, TMZ and PC), and highly-cost-effective compared to ipilimumab, for the first-line treatment of advanced melanoma in Hong Kong.

Highlights

  • Pembrolizumab has been shown to improve overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS) compared to ipilimumab in patients with ipilimumab-naïve advanced melanoma; there are no published data on the cost-effectiveness for pembrolizumab compared to standard-of-care treatments currently used in Hong Kong for advanced melanoma

  • In the DTIC arm, patients spent an average of 0.61 years in the progression-free health state and 2.13 years in the progressive disease (PD) state for a mean survival time of 2.74 years

  • Probabilistic sensitivity analyses Results of the Monte Carlo simulations to estimate the incremental cost per quality adjusted life years (QALYs) gained are summarized as a cost-effectiveness plane and a cost effectiveness acceptability curve in Fig. 5, respectively

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Pembrolizumab has been shown to improve overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS) compared to ipilimumab in patients with ipilimumab-naïve advanced melanoma; there are no published data on the cost-effectiveness for pembrolizumab compared to standard-of-care treatments currently used in Hong Kong for advanced melanoma. Wang and colleagues have published a cost effectiveness analysis of pembrolizumab versus ipilimumab in ipilimumab-naïve patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma from a United States integrated health system perspective [2]. In this scenario, pembrolizumab had higher expected quality adjusted life years (QALYs) and was found to be cost-effective (corresponding incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was $81,091 per QALY over a 20-year time horizon) when compared with ipilimumab. In the prior study, no comparison was made with conventional cyototoxics, which remain the backbone anticancer treatments in a large number of jurisdictions, including Hong Kong

Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call