4.6 Article

Cost-Effectiveness of Cemiplimab Versus Standard of Care in the United States for First-Line Treatment of Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer With Programmed Death-Ligand 1 Expression >= 50%

Journal

VALUE IN HEALTH
Volume 25, Issue 2, Pages 203-214

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2021.08.009

Keywords

advanced non-small cell lung cancer; cemiplimab; comparative efficacy; cost-effectiveness; programmed death-ligand 1

Funding

  1. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
  2. Sanofi

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of Cemiplimab compared to other first-line treatments for advanced non-small cell lung cancer. The findings suggest that Cemiplimab provides longer progression-free and postprogression survival compared to Pembrolizumab and chemotherapy, and is cost-effective.
Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness, from a US commercial payer perspective, of cemiplimab versus other first-line treatments for advanced non-small cell lung cancer with programmed death-ligand 1 expression >-50%. Methods: A 30-year partitioned survival model was constructed. Overall survival and progression-free survival were estimated by applying time-varying hazard ratios from a network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Overall survival and progression-free survival were estimated from EMPOWER-Lung 1 (cemiplimab monotherapy vs chemotherapy) and KEYNOTE-024 and KEYNOTE-042 (pembrolizumab monotherapy vs chemotherapy). Drug acquisition costs were based on published 2020 US list prices. A 3% discount rate was applied to life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and costs. A deterministic analysis was performed on the base case; 1-way sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analyses assessed model and parameter uncertainties. Results: Cemiplimab was associated with increased time in the preprogression (13.08 vs 7.90 and 6.08 months) and postprogression (47.30 vs 29.49 and 14.78 months) health states versus pembrolizumab and chemotherapy, respectively. Compared with pembrolizumab and chemotherapy, cemiplimab generated 1.00 (95% CI-0.266 to 2.440) and 1.78 (95% CI 0.607-3.20) incremental QALYs, respectively, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $68 254 and $89 219 per QALY for cemiplimab versus pembrolizumab and cemiplimab versus chemotherapy, respectively. The probability of cemiplimab being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 to $150 000 per QALY was 62% to 76% versus pembrolizumab and 56% to 84% versus chemotherapy. Conclusions: Findings suggest that cemiplimab, versus pembrolizumab or versus chemotherapy, is a cost-effective first-line treatment option for advanced non-small cell lung cancer with programmed death-ligand 1 expression >-50%.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available