Cargando…

Cost-effectiveness analysis of cemiplimab vs pembrolizumab for treatment of advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma

BACKGROUND: Most cutaneous squamous cell carcinomas (CSCCs) can be treated with surgical excision or radiation; however, approximately 1% of patients develop advanced disease. In 2018, the FDA approved cemiplimab-rwlc as the first programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) monoclonal antibody for the treatment...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Paul, Eleanor, Konidaris, Gerasimos, Cope, Shannon, Chen, Chieh-I, Keeping, Sam, Xu, Yingxin, Atsou, Kokuvi, Ayers, Dieter, Guyot, Patricia, Sasane, Medha, Mojebi, Ali, Kuznik, Andreas
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10394223/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34351214
http://dx.doi.org/10.18553/jmcp.2021.21164
_version_ 1785083322048708608
author Paul, Eleanor
Konidaris, Gerasimos
Cope, Shannon
Chen, Chieh-I
Keeping, Sam
Xu, Yingxin
Atsou, Kokuvi
Ayers, Dieter
Guyot, Patricia
Sasane, Medha
Mojebi, Ali
Kuznik, Andreas
author_facet Paul, Eleanor
Konidaris, Gerasimos
Cope, Shannon
Chen, Chieh-I
Keeping, Sam
Xu, Yingxin
Atsou, Kokuvi
Ayers, Dieter
Guyot, Patricia
Sasane, Medha
Mojebi, Ali
Kuznik, Andreas
author_sort Paul, Eleanor
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Most cutaneous squamous cell carcinomas (CSCCs) can be treated with surgical excision or radiation; however, approximately 1% of patients develop advanced disease. In 2018, the FDA approved cemiplimab-rwlc as the first programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) monoclonal antibody for the treatment of patients with metastatic CSCC or locally advanced CSCC who are not candidates for curative surgery or curative radiation. In June 2020, pembrolizumab, another PD-1 monoclonal antibody, was approved for the treatment of patients with recurrent or metastatic CSCC who are not candidates for curative surgery or radiation. We previously reported on the cost-effectiveness of cemiplimab vs historical standard of care for the treatment of advanced CSCC from a US perspective. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of cemiplimab vs pembrolizumab for patients with advanced CSCC in the United States. METHODS: A “partitioned survival” framework was used to assess the cost-effectiveness of cemiplimab vs pembrolizumab. Clinical inputs were based on the most recent data cut of the phase 2 trials for cemiplimab (EMPOWER-CSCC-1; NCT02760498) and pembrolizumab (KEYNOTE-629). Progression-free survival and overall survival were extrapolated using parametric models until all patients had progressed or died. Health state utilities were derived from data collected in the EMPOWER-CSCC-1 trial. Costs included drug acquisition, drug administration, disease management, terminal care, and adverse events and were based on published 2020 US list prices. To assess model uncertainty, 1-way sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were conducted, alongside scenario analyses evaluating key modeling assumptions. RESULTS: In the base case, cemiplimab resulted in an incremental gain of 3.44 life-years (discounted) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $130,329 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) vs pembrolizumab. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000/QALY, PSA indicated a 71% probability that cemiplimab is cost-effective when compared with pembrolizumab. Scenario analysis resulted in ICERs ranging from $115,909 to $187,374. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that cemiplimab is a cost-effective treatment for patients with advanced CSCC, compared with pembrolizumab. These results should be interpreted cautiously in the absence of head-to-head trials; however, in the absence of such data, these results can be used to inform health care decisions over resource allocation.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10394223
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-103942232023-08-03 Cost-effectiveness analysis of cemiplimab vs pembrolizumab for treatment of advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma Paul, Eleanor Konidaris, Gerasimos Cope, Shannon Chen, Chieh-I Keeping, Sam Xu, Yingxin Atsou, Kokuvi Ayers, Dieter Guyot, Patricia Sasane, Medha Mojebi, Ali Kuznik, Andreas J Manag Care Spec Pharm Research BACKGROUND: Most cutaneous squamous cell carcinomas (CSCCs) can be treated with surgical excision or radiation; however, approximately 1% of patients develop advanced disease. In 2018, the FDA approved cemiplimab-rwlc as the first programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) monoclonal antibody for the treatment of patients with metastatic CSCC or locally advanced CSCC who are not candidates for curative surgery or curative radiation. In June 2020, pembrolizumab, another PD-1 monoclonal antibody, was approved for the treatment of patients with recurrent or metastatic CSCC who are not candidates for curative surgery or radiation. We previously reported on the cost-effectiveness of cemiplimab vs historical standard of care for the treatment of advanced CSCC from a US perspective. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of cemiplimab vs pembrolizumab for patients with advanced CSCC in the United States. METHODS: A “partitioned survival” framework was used to assess the cost-effectiveness of cemiplimab vs pembrolizumab. Clinical inputs were based on the most recent data cut of the phase 2 trials for cemiplimab (EMPOWER-CSCC-1; NCT02760498) and pembrolizumab (KEYNOTE-629). Progression-free survival and overall survival were extrapolated using parametric models until all patients had progressed or died. Health state utilities were derived from data collected in the EMPOWER-CSCC-1 trial. Costs included drug acquisition, drug administration, disease management, terminal care, and adverse events and were based on published 2020 US list prices. To assess model uncertainty, 1-way sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were conducted, alongside scenario analyses evaluating key modeling assumptions. RESULTS: In the base case, cemiplimab resulted in an incremental gain of 3.44 life-years (discounted) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $130,329 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) vs pembrolizumab. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000/QALY, PSA indicated a 71% probability that cemiplimab is cost-effective when compared with pembrolizumab. Scenario analysis resulted in ICERs ranging from $115,909 to $187,374. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that cemiplimab is a cost-effective treatment for patients with advanced CSCC, compared with pembrolizumab. These results should be interpreted cautiously in the absence of head-to-head trials; however, in the absence of such data, these results can be used to inform health care decisions over resource allocation. Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy 2021-11 /pmc/articles/PMC10394223/ /pubmed/34351214 http://dx.doi.org/10.18553/jmcp.2021.21164 Text en Copyright © 2021, Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy. All rights reserved. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research
Paul, Eleanor
Konidaris, Gerasimos
Cope, Shannon
Chen, Chieh-I
Keeping, Sam
Xu, Yingxin
Atsou, Kokuvi
Ayers, Dieter
Guyot, Patricia
Sasane, Medha
Mojebi, Ali
Kuznik, Andreas
Cost-effectiveness analysis of cemiplimab vs pembrolizumab for treatment of advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma
title Cost-effectiveness analysis of cemiplimab vs pembrolizumab for treatment of advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma
title_full Cost-effectiveness analysis of cemiplimab vs pembrolizumab for treatment of advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma
title_fullStr Cost-effectiveness analysis of cemiplimab vs pembrolizumab for treatment of advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma
title_full_unstemmed Cost-effectiveness analysis of cemiplimab vs pembrolizumab for treatment of advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma
title_short Cost-effectiveness analysis of cemiplimab vs pembrolizumab for treatment of advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma
title_sort cost-effectiveness analysis of cemiplimab vs pembrolizumab for treatment of advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10394223/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34351214
http://dx.doi.org/10.18553/jmcp.2021.21164
work_keys_str_mv AT pauleleanor costeffectivenessanalysisofcemiplimabvspembrolizumabfortreatmentofadvancedcutaneoussquamouscellcarcinoma
AT konidarisgerasimos costeffectivenessanalysisofcemiplimabvspembrolizumabfortreatmentofadvancedcutaneoussquamouscellcarcinoma
AT copeshannon costeffectivenessanalysisofcemiplimabvspembrolizumabfortreatmentofadvancedcutaneoussquamouscellcarcinoma
AT chenchiehi costeffectivenessanalysisofcemiplimabvspembrolizumabfortreatmentofadvancedcutaneoussquamouscellcarcinoma
AT keepingsam costeffectivenessanalysisofcemiplimabvspembrolizumabfortreatmentofadvancedcutaneoussquamouscellcarcinoma
AT xuyingxin costeffectivenessanalysisofcemiplimabvspembrolizumabfortreatmentofadvancedcutaneoussquamouscellcarcinoma
AT atsoukokuvi costeffectivenessanalysisofcemiplimabvspembrolizumabfortreatmentofadvancedcutaneoussquamouscellcarcinoma
AT ayersdieter costeffectivenessanalysisofcemiplimabvspembrolizumabfortreatmentofadvancedcutaneoussquamouscellcarcinoma
AT guyotpatricia costeffectivenessanalysisofcemiplimabvspembrolizumabfortreatmentofadvancedcutaneoussquamouscellcarcinoma
AT sasanemedha costeffectivenessanalysisofcemiplimabvspembrolizumabfortreatmentofadvancedcutaneoussquamouscellcarcinoma
AT mojebiali costeffectivenessanalysisofcemiplimabvspembrolizumabfortreatmentofadvancedcutaneoussquamouscellcarcinoma
AT kuznikandreas costeffectivenessanalysisofcemiplimabvspembrolizumabfortreatmentofadvancedcutaneoussquamouscellcarcinoma