Cargando…

A Review of Cost-Effectiveness Studies of Pembrolizumab Regimens for the Treatment of Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer

Pembrolizumab monotherapy or combination therapy is an approved treatment for various advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) indications. We review published cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) of pembrolizumab as treatment for NSCLC and provide in-depth assessment of their methodologies. Fourte...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Qiao, Nan, Insinga, Ralph, de Lima Lopes Junior, Gilberto, Cook, John, Sénécal, Martin
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer International Publishing 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8333166/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33469803
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s41669-020-00255-2
_version_ 1783732977693360128
author Qiao, Nan
Insinga, Ralph
de Lima Lopes Junior, Gilberto
Cook, John
Sénécal, Martin
author_facet Qiao, Nan
Insinga, Ralph
de Lima Lopes Junior, Gilberto
Cook, John
Sénécal, Martin
author_sort Qiao, Nan
collection PubMed
description Pembrolizumab monotherapy or combination therapy is an approved treatment for various advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) indications. We review published cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) of pembrolizumab as treatment for NSCLC and provide in-depth assessment of their methodologies. Fourteen studies were selected through searches of the PubMed database. Modeling approaches, survival and cost estimation, and utility analyses were compared and evaluated. These publications covered regulatory-approved pembrolizumab NSCLC indications based on the following randomized clinical trials: KEYNOTE-010 (one publication), KEYNOTE-024 (six), KEYNOTE-042 (four), KEYNOTE-189 (two), and KEYNOTE-407 (one). Differences were observed in health states (progression free, progressed disease, and death vs stable disease, progressed disease, death, and treatment discontinuation), modeling approaches (partitioned survival vs Markov), survival extrapolation/transition probability estimation, inclusion of additional costs to drug, disease management and adverse event costs (e.g., programmed death-ligand 1 [PD-L1] testing, subsequent treatment, terminal care), treatment duration approaches (trial-based time on treatment vs treat to progression), utility sources (trial data vs literature), and utility analyses (time to death vs progression status). Certain aspects of variability across models were problematic, including deviation from observed treatment utilization within trials and predicted long-term mortality risks for pembrolizumab higher than historical real-world NSCLC mortality data prior to the availability of pembrolizumab. Consequently, results differed even among studies examining the same population and comparator within similar time intervals. Differences in methodology across CEAs may lead to distinct results and conclusions. Payers and policy makers should carefully examine study designs and assumptions and choose CEAs with greater validity and accuracy for evidence-based decision-making.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8333166
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Springer International Publishing
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-83331662021-08-20 A Review of Cost-Effectiveness Studies of Pembrolizumab Regimens for the Treatment of Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer Qiao, Nan Insinga, Ralph de Lima Lopes Junior, Gilberto Cook, John Sénécal, Martin Pharmacoecon Open Review Article Pembrolizumab monotherapy or combination therapy is an approved treatment for various advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) indications. We review published cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) of pembrolizumab as treatment for NSCLC and provide in-depth assessment of their methodologies. Fourteen studies were selected through searches of the PubMed database. Modeling approaches, survival and cost estimation, and utility analyses were compared and evaluated. These publications covered regulatory-approved pembrolizumab NSCLC indications based on the following randomized clinical trials: KEYNOTE-010 (one publication), KEYNOTE-024 (six), KEYNOTE-042 (four), KEYNOTE-189 (two), and KEYNOTE-407 (one). Differences were observed in health states (progression free, progressed disease, and death vs stable disease, progressed disease, death, and treatment discontinuation), modeling approaches (partitioned survival vs Markov), survival extrapolation/transition probability estimation, inclusion of additional costs to drug, disease management and adverse event costs (e.g., programmed death-ligand 1 [PD-L1] testing, subsequent treatment, terminal care), treatment duration approaches (trial-based time on treatment vs treat to progression), utility sources (trial data vs literature), and utility analyses (time to death vs progression status). Certain aspects of variability across models were problematic, including deviation from observed treatment utilization within trials and predicted long-term mortality risks for pembrolizumab higher than historical real-world NSCLC mortality data prior to the availability of pembrolizumab. Consequently, results differed even among studies examining the same population and comparator within similar time intervals. Differences in methodology across CEAs may lead to distinct results and conclusions. Payers and policy makers should carefully examine study designs and assumptions and choose CEAs with greater validity and accuracy for evidence-based decision-making. Springer International Publishing 2021-01-19 /pmc/articles/PMC8333166/ /pubmed/33469803 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s41669-020-00255-2 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Review Article
Qiao, Nan
Insinga, Ralph
de Lima Lopes Junior, Gilberto
Cook, John
Sénécal, Martin
A Review of Cost-Effectiveness Studies of Pembrolizumab Regimens for the Treatment of Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer
title A Review of Cost-Effectiveness Studies of Pembrolizumab Regimens for the Treatment of Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer
title_full A Review of Cost-Effectiveness Studies of Pembrolizumab Regimens for the Treatment of Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer
title_fullStr A Review of Cost-Effectiveness Studies of Pembrolizumab Regimens for the Treatment of Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer
title_full_unstemmed A Review of Cost-Effectiveness Studies of Pembrolizumab Regimens for the Treatment of Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer
title_short A Review of Cost-Effectiveness Studies of Pembrolizumab Regimens for the Treatment of Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer
title_sort review of cost-effectiveness studies of pembrolizumab regimens for the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer
topic Review Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8333166/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33469803
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s41669-020-00255-2
work_keys_str_mv AT qiaonan areviewofcosteffectivenessstudiesofpembrolizumabregimensforthetreatmentofadvancednonsmallcelllungcancer
AT insingaralph areviewofcosteffectivenessstudiesofpembrolizumabregimensforthetreatmentofadvancednonsmallcelllungcancer
AT delimalopesjuniorgilberto areviewofcosteffectivenessstudiesofpembrolizumabregimensforthetreatmentofadvancednonsmallcelllungcancer
AT cookjohn areviewofcosteffectivenessstudiesofpembrolizumabregimensforthetreatmentofadvancednonsmallcelllungcancer
AT senecalmartin areviewofcosteffectivenessstudiesofpembrolizumabregimensforthetreatmentofadvancednonsmallcelllungcancer
AT qiaonan reviewofcosteffectivenessstudiesofpembrolizumabregimensforthetreatmentofadvancednonsmallcelllungcancer
AT insingaralph reviewofcosteffectivenessstudiesofpembrolizumabregimensforthetreatmentofadvancednonsmallcelllungcancer
AT delimalopesjuniorgilberto reviewofcosteffectivenessstudiesofpembrolizumabregimensforthetreatmentofadvancednonsmallcelllungcancer
AT cookjohn reviewofcosteffectivenessstudiesofpembrolizumabregimensforthetreatmentofadvancednonsmallcelllungcancer
AT senecalmartin reviewofcosteffectivenessstudiesofpembrolizumabregimensforthetreatmentofadvancednonsmallcelllungcancer