Dataset Information

Chemo-Immunotherapy Regimes for Recurrent or Metastatic Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: A Network Meta-Analysis and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

ABSTRACT: Introduction: In 2021, two phase III clinical trials confirmed that toripalimab or camrelizumab combined with gemcitabine and cisplatin (TGP or CGP) provide more benefits in the first-line treatment of R/M NPC than GP. Fortunately, TGP and CGP were recently approved as first-line treatments for cases experiencing R/M NPC by the China National Medical Products Administration in 2021. However, due to the high cost and variety of treatment options, the promotion of chemo-immunotherapeutics in the treatment of R/M NPC remains controversial. Therefore, we performed a cost-effectiveness assessment of the two newly approved treatment strategies to assess which treatments provide the greatest clinical benefits at a reasonable cost. Methods: A cost-effectiveness analysis and network meta-analysis network meta-analysis was conducted based on the JUPITER-02 and CAPTAIN-first Phase 3 randomized clinical trials. A Markov model was expanded for the evaluation of the effectiveness and cost of TGP, CGP, and GP chemotherapy with a 10-years horizon and measured the health achievements in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), and life-years (LYs). We constructed a treatment strategy and other parameters based on two clinical trials and performed one-way and probabilistic sensitivity experiments for the evaluation of the uncertainty in the model. Results: For the model of patients with treatment-R/M NPC, TGP was associated with a total cost of $48,525 and 2.778 QALYs (4.991 LYs), leading to an ICER of $15,103 per QALY ($10,321 per LY) compared to CGP. On comparing the GP chemotherapy, we found TGP and CGP incurred substantial health costs, resulting in ICERs of $19,726 per QALY and $20,438 per QALY, respectively. The risk of adverse events (AEs) and the price of the drugs had significant impacts on the ICER. At the assumed willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $35,673 per QALY, there were approximately 75.8 and 68.5% simulations in which cost-effectiveness was achieved for TGP and CGP, respectively. Conclusion: From the Chinese payer's perspective, TGP is more possible to be a cost-effective regimen compared with CGP and GP for first-line treatment of patients with R/M NPC at a WTP threshold of $35,673 per QALY.

SUBMITTER: Zhu Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9163401 | biostudies-literature | 2022

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Chemo-Immunotherapy Regimes for Recurrent or Metastatic Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: A Network Meta-Analysis and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

Zhu Youwen Y Liu Kun K Ding Dong D Wang Kailing K Liu Xiaoting X Tan Xiao X

Frontiers in pharmacology 20220520

<b>Introduction:</b> In 2021, two phase III clinical trials confirmed that toripalimab or camrelizumab combined with gemcitabine and cisplatin (TGP or CGP) provide more benefits in the first-line treatment of R/M NPC than GP. Fortunately, TGP and CGP were recently approved as first-line treatments for cases experiencing R/M NPC by the China National Medical Products Administration in 2021. However, due to the high cost and variety of treatment options, the promotion of chemo-immunotherapeutics i ...[more]

PMID: 35668931

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundToliparibizumab in combination with nab-paclitaxel (T+N) has excellent efficacy inmetastatic or recurrent triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), but the optimal choice of sequence of therapy is unclear given the trade-offs between quality of life and cost. Cost-effectiveness analyses can quantify these tradeoffs, leading to more informed decisions. Our objective was to assess the societal cost-effectiveness of the T+N regimen for metastatic or recurrent TNBC.MethodsClinical data were extracted from a multicenter, randomized, double-blind trial, TORCHLIGHT (NCT04085276). Patients were randomized into the T+N group or placebo plus nab-paclitaxel (P+N) group. 531 patients from 53 study locations were randomly assigned (T+N, n=353; P+N, n=178) into intend to treat (ITT) population; 200 and 100 patients, respectively had programmed death protein 1 (PD-L1) positive TNBC. A Markov model was established with a 21-day cycle length. Costs were acquired from local hospitals, effect parameters included quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).ResultsThe cost differences were 47,538.3 CNY in ITT population (T+N, 143,725.67 CNY; P+N group, 96,187.37 CNY) and 29,258.84 CNY in PD-L1+ subgroup (T+N, 100,128.28 CNY; P+N group, 70,869.45 CNY). Meanwhile, the IEs were 0.03409 in the ITT population (T+N, 0.55323 QALY; P+N, 0.51914 QALY) and 0.03409 in the PD-L1+ subgroup (T+N, 0.42327 QALY; P+N, 0.37628 QALY). The ICERs between T+N and P+N groups were 1,394,548.41 CNY/QALY in the ITT population and 622,663.98 CNY/QALY in the PD-L1+ subgroup. We also analyzed the cost-effectiveness of toripalimab could be received in the Chinese medical insurance catalog. If toripalimab could be reimbursed at an 80% rate, the cost differences were changed to 16,598.99 CNY in ITT population (T+N, 112,786.36 CNY; P+N group, 96,187.37 CNY) and 7,704.58 CNY in PD-L1+ subgroup (T+N, 78,574.03 CNY; P+N group, 70,869.45 CNY). Meanwhile, the IEs remained unchanged. The ICERs between T+N and P+N groups were changed to 486,935.82 CNY/QALY in the ITT population and 163,962.96 CNY/QALY in the PD-L1+ subgroup. Sensitivity analyses indicated the stability of the model and the impact of utility.ConclusionAt current drug prices, the T+N group is not more cost-effective than the P+N group, but after incorporating toripalimab into medical insurance, the T+N group will be more cost-effective for patients with PD-L1+ metastatic or recurrent triple-negative breast cancer.

Project description:ObjectiveThis study aimed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of adding Chinese-developed anti-PD-1 antibody camrelizumab to first-line platinum-doublet chemotherapy in patients with recurrent or metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma (L/M NPC) from the perspective of Chinese healthcare system.DesignA Markov model consisting of four health states, progression-free survival, first progression survival, second progression survival and death, was built to simulate 3-week patient transitions over a 20-year horizon. A direct comparison between first-line camrelizumab in combination with gemcitabine plus cisplatin and gemcitabine plus cisplatin was performed by calculating transition probabilities from the CAPTAIN-1st trial. Costs and utilities were collected from the local public database and literature. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were employed to evaluate the robustness of the model.SettingThe Chinese healthcare system perspective.ParticipantsA hypothetical cohort of Chinese patients with pathologically diagnosed L/M NPC who had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1.InterventionsFirst-line camrelizumab in combination with camrelizumab and gemcitabine plus cisplatin (CGP) versus gemcitabine plus cisplatin (GP).Primary outcome measureCost, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).ResultsThe baseline analysis demonstrated that, compared with first-line GP, first-line CGP yields an effectiveness increase of 0.26 QALY, accompanied by an increment of US$6137.59 in healthcare cost. This results in an ICER of US$23 482.32/QALY. With the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold for a QALY set at US$37 654.50, first-line CGP proves to be cost-effective in 97.20% of the iterations. Deterministic sensitivity analyses indicated that the uncertainty in model parameters had no substantial effect on our results. Probability sensitivity analysis indicated that CGP was cost-effective at the assumed WTP threshold.ConclusionFor Chinese patients with L/M NPC, adding Chinese-developed anti-PD-1 antibody camrelizumab to the first-line GP chemotherapy may be cost-effective.

Project description:To assess the efficacy and safety of the combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and target therapy (anti-angiogenesis or EGFR inhibitors) as a second-line or subsequent treatment for recurrent or metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma (R/M NPC), we conducted a retrospective study. In this study, previously treated R/M NPC patients were administered one of the following treatment: ICIs combined with target therapy and chemotherapy (ITC), ICIs combined with target therapy alone (IT), ICIs combined with chemotherapy (IC), or chemotherapy alone (C). The primary endpoint under consideration was progression-free survival (PFS), while secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and safety measures. A total of 226 patients participated in this study, with 70 receiving the ITC regimen, 48 receiving IT, 48 treated with IC, and 60 undergoing C alone. The median PFS for the four cohorts was 20.67, 13.63, 12.47, and 7.93 months respectively. Notably, ITC regimen yielded the most favorable PFS among these cohorts. The ITC cohort exhibited a comparable tumor response and safety profile to the IT and IC cohorts (p > 0.05), but superior tumor response compared to the C cohort (p < 0.05). The ITC regimen also conferred a significant improvement in OS when comparing to C alone (HR 0.336, 95%CI 0.123-0.915, p = 0.033). The IT and IC regimens achieved a nearly identical PFS (HR 0.955, 95%CI 0.515-1.77, p = 0.884), although the IT regimen was associated with a lower occurrence of SAEs in contrast to the IC regimen (p < 0.05). In addition, the IT regimen demonstrated superior PFS (HR 0.583, 95%CI 0.345-0.985, p = 0.044) and fewer SAEs when compared to C alone (p < 0.05). These findings collectively support the notion that the combination of ICIs, target and chemotherapy exhibits robust antitumor activity in previously treated R/M NPC patients, without a significant increase in adverse events.

Project description:BackgroundTreatment options for patients with platinum-refractory, recurrent, metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (r/m HNSCC) are limited and prognosis is poor. The recent CheckMate 141 clinical trial demonstrated that nivolumab, an anti-programmed cell death protein 1 monoclonal antibody, was efficacious in extending the median overall survival (OS) in this patient population compared with standard therapies. We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis to determine whether nivolumab is a cost-effective treatment in this patient population and examined various subgroups to determine for which, if any, the treatment is more cost-effective.Materials and methodsWe implemented a state transition model for HNSCC with a patient cohort who had tumor progression 6 months after the last dose of platinum-containing chemotherapy and compared the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab with docetaxel. Treatment effect estimates and adverse event rates were obtained from CheckMate 141. Costs, utilities, and other model inputs were gathered from published sources. We used a Canadian perspective, a 5-year time horizon, and a 1.5% discount rate for the analysis.ResultsNivolumab extended mean OS by 4 months compared with docetaxel and resulted in fewer treatment-related adverse events, producing an incremental effectiveness of 0.13 quality-adjusted life years (QALY). The incremental cost of treatment with nivolumab was $18,823. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY, nivolumab was not a cost-effective treatment option for r/m HNSCC, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $144,744/QALY. Nivolumab would be cost-effective if its price was reduced by 20%. Our subgroup analysis seemed to indicate that nivolumab might be cost-effective for tumors with expression of programmed death-ligand 1 >5%.ConclusionWe conclude that although nivolumab offers clinical benefit for the treatment of r/m HNSCC over current regimens, it is not cost-effective based on its list price. We have also established a value-based price estimate for nivolumab to be cost-effective in this patient population. Further study is required to draw a definitive conclusion on biomarkers for cost-effectiveness.Implications for practiceIn health care settings in which cost considerations are a constraint on choice of therapy, patient selection should be carefully considered to maintain efficiency in the system. Until a biomarker for response to therapy is identified for nivolumab, this medication is unlikely to be cost-effective for most patients with recurrent, metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma.

Project description:ImportanceNivolumab and pembrolizumab are approved for treating platinum-refractory recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (R/M HNSCC). Physicians and patients are uncertain which drug is preferable, rendering a cost-effectiveness comparison between them necessary.ObjectiveTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab vs pembrolizumab in treating platinum-refractory R/M HNSCC.Design, setting, and participantsBoth the network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis included patients from the CheckMate 141 and the KEYNOTE 040 phase 3 randomized clinical trials. The Checkmate 141 trial started on May 1, 2014, with the present analysis based on a September 2017 data cutoff. The KEYNOTE 040 trial started on November 17, 2014, with the present analysis based on a May 15, 2017, data cutoff. A bayesian network meta-analysis that included 856 patients was carried out, and a cost-effectiveness analysis that included 487 patients was conducted by developing a partitioned survival model, both between February and November 2020. The robustness of the model was assessed via 1-way, 2-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses; subgroup analyses were included; and scenario analyses were conducted to investigate the associations of dosage adjustment of nivolumab with cost-effectiveness.Main outcomes and measuresLife-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), overall costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were measured.ResultsIn the cost-effectiveness analysis that included 487 patients, for US health care payers, when nivolumab was administered based on patient weight (3 mg/kg biweekly), at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $100 000 per QALY, the probability of nivolumab being cost-effective compared with pembrolizumab was 56%; at a WTP threshold of $150 000 per QALY, the probability was 62%. When nivolumab was administered at a fixed dose of 240 mg biweekly or 480 mg monthly, at a WTP threshold of $100 000 per QALY, the probability of nivolumab being cost-effective was 42% to 45%; at a WTP threshold of $150 000 per QALY, the probability was 52% to 55%.Conclusions and relevanceFindings from this network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis suggest considering both WTP threshold and patient body weight when choosing between nivolumab and pembrolizumab for the treatment of patients with platinum-refractory R/M HNSCC. When the WTP threshold was $100 000 per QALY, for patients weighing less than 72 kg, nivolumab (3 mg/kg, biweekly) was considered cost-effective; otherwise, pembrolizumab was preferable. When the WTP threshold was $150 000 per QALY, nivolumab (3 mg/kg biweekly) was considered cost-effective for patients weighing less than 75 kg; otherwise, fixed-dose nivolumab (240 mg biweekly or 480 mg monthly) provided more cost savings.

Dataset Information

Chemo-Immunotherapy Regimes for Recurrent or Metastatic Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: A Network Meta-Analysis and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

Publications

Chemo-Immunotherapy Regimes for Recurrent or Metastatic Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: A Network Meta-Analysis and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets