4
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

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

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          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.

          Related collections

          Most cited references51

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials

          Flaws in the design, conduct, analysis, and reporting of randomised trials can cause the effect of an intervention to be underestimated or overestimated. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias aims to make the process clearer and more accurate
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement.

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Recommendations for Conduct, Methodological Practices, and Reporting of Cost-effectiveness Analyses: Second Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine.

              Since publication of the report by the Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine in 1996, researchers have advanced the methods of cost-effectiveness analysis, and policy makers have experimented with its application. The need to deliver health care efficiently and the importance of using analytic techniques to understand the clinical and economic consequences of strategies to improve health have increased in recent years.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                J Manag Care Spec Pharm
                J Manag Care Spec Pharm
                jmcsp
                Journal of Managed Care & Specialty Pharmacy
                Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy
                2376-0540
                2376-1032
                November 2021
                : 27
                : 11
                : 10.18553/jmcp.2021.21164
                Affiliations
                [1 ]PRECISIONheor, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
                [2 ]Sanofi, Reading, United Kingdom.
                [3 ]Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Tarrytown, NY.
                [4 ]Sanofi, Chilly-Mazarin, France.
                [5 ]Sanofi, Bridgewater, NJ.
                Author notes
                [* ]AUTHOR CORRESPONDENCE: Sam Keeping, 604.336.3050 ext 67122; Sam.Keeping@ 123456precisionvh.com

                This study was supported by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Sanofi. Paul, Cope, Keeping, Mojebi, and Ayers are employees of PRECISIONheor, which received funding to produce this work. Chen, Kuznik, and Xu are employees and stockholders of Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Sasane is an employee and stockholder of Sanofi, Inc. Konidaris, Atsou, and Guyot are employees of Sanofi, Inc. The authors were responsible for all content and editorial decisions and received no honoraria related to the development of this publication.

                Article
                10.18553/jmcp.2021.21164
                10394223
                34351214
                9903f800-ee69-45b7-8658-a3c6121992b1
                Copyright © 2021, Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy. All rights reserved.

                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.

                History
                Categories
                Research

                Comments

                Comment on this article