Abstract

Immune checkpoint inhibitors have been approved for use as a second-line therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients who previously received sorafenib. Pembrolizumab has shown substantial antitumor activity and a favorable toxicity profile as a second-line treatment of HCC. However, considering the high cost of pembrolizumab, there is a need to assess its value by considering both the clinical efficacy and cost. To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab vs placebo as second-line therapy in patients with HCC from the US payer perspective. A Markov model was developed to compare the lifetime cost and efficacy of pembrolizumab as a second-line treatment of HCC with those of placebo using outcome data from the KEYNOTE-240 randomized placebo-controlled trial, which included 413 patients with advanced HCC previously treated with sorafenib and randomized patients to receive pembrolizumab plus best supportive care or placebo plus best supportive care in a 2:1 ratio. Life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), lifetime costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were estimated at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000 per QALY. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to account for the parameter of uncertainty. A cost-threshold analysis was also performed. The study was conducted from January 31 to July 29, 2020. The base-case model found that treatment with pembrolizumab was associated with increased overall cost by $47 057 and improved effectiveness by 0.138 QALYs compared with placebo, leading to an ICER of $340 409 per QALY. The model was most sensitive to the hazard ratio of overall survival (range, 0.61-1.00), health utility of placebo (range, 0.59-0.93), price of pembrolizumab (range, $5531-$8297), and price of postprogression therapies (range, $5596-$7944 for pembrolizumab and $4770-$7156 for placebo). The ICER of pembrolizumab was larger than $150 000 per QALY in most of the sensitivity and subgroup analyses. The price of pembrolizumab needed to be reduced by 57.7% to $2925 per cycle to achieve cost-effectiveness. The findings of this cost-effectiveness analysis suggest that, at its current price, pembrolizumab is not a cost-effective second-line therapy for HCC in the US, with a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000 per QALY.

Highlights

  • Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the most common primary liver cancer and a leading cause of cancer-related death globally.[1]

  • The base-case model found that treatment with pembrolizumab was associated with increased overall cost by $47 057 and improved effectiveness by 0.138 quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) compared with placebo, leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $340 409 per QALY

  • The price of pembrolizumab needed to be reduced by 57.7% to $2925 per cycle to achieve cost-effectiveness

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the most common primary liver cancer and a leading cause of cancer-related death globally.[1]. An antiangiogenic multikinase inhibitor, has been the only approved systemic treatment for HCC for more than a decade.[2,3] Several new antiangiogenic agents have been approved for the treatment of advanced HCC These agents include lenvatinib as a firstline therapy and regorafenib, cabozantinib, and ramucirumab as second-line treatments after sorafenib therapy.[4,5,6,7] the survival benefit and tumor response of these second-line treatments were usually limited.[4,5,6,7] Previous studies suggested that tyrosine kinase inhibitors were not cost-effective second-line treatments in patients with advanced HCC.[8,9].

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

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

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.