Short Communication

Cost–effectiveness analysis of nivolumab plus cabozantinib versus sunitinib as first-line therapy in advanced renal cell carcinoma

Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of New Drug Screening, School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Southern Medical University, Guangdong Guangzhou, 510515, China

Search for more papers by this author

Kaifeng Qiu

Department of Pharmacy, Sun Yat-Sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, 510030, China

Search for more papers by this author

Junyan Wu

Department of Pharmacy, Sun Yat-Sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, 510030, China

Search for more papers by this author

Yanqing Jiang

Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of New Drug Screening, School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Southern Medical University, Guangdong Guangzhou, 510515, China

Search for more papers by this author

Peihao Wu

Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of New Drug Screening, School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Southern Medical University, Guangdong Guangzhou, 510515, China

Search for more papers by this author

Jianxin Pang

*Author for correspondence:

E-mail Address: pjx@smu.edu.cn

Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of New Drug Screening, School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Southern Medical University, Guangdong Guangzhou, 510515, China

Search for more papers by this author

Published Online:27 Jun 2022https://doi.org/10.2217/imt-2021-0156

View article

Abstract

Aim: To evaluate the cost–effectiveness of first-line treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma with nivolumab plus cabozantinib versus sunitinib from a US payer perspective. Methods: Economic outcomes were estimated with Markov and partitioned survival models. Efficacy, safety and other data were taken from the CheckMate 9ER trial. Costs and utilities were gathered from published sources. Sensitivity analyses addressed model uncertainties. Results: The incremental cost–effectiveness ratio of nivolumab plus cabozantinib versus sunitinib was US$555,663 and $531,748 per quality-adjusted life year in the Markov and partitioned survival models, respectively, exceeding the willingness-to-pay threshold (US$150,000 per quality-adjusted life-year). Sensitivity analyses showed robust outcomes. Conclusion: From a US payer perspective, first-line nivolumab plus cabozantinib for advanced renal cell carcinoma is not cost effective.

Plain language summary

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is a common cancer in the USA. Up to 30% of patients with RCC are in an advanced stage of disease at diagnosis. RCC is difficult to cure, with an 11% chance of survival after 5 years for patients with advanced RCC. A recent clinical study showed that nivolumab plus cabozantinib (NC) had a greater benefit in patients with advanced RCC than sunitinib. The US FDA approved NC for advanced RCC, but NC is relatively expensive. This study explored the cost–effectiveness of NC for advanced RCC versus sunitinib for a US payer using two cost–effectiveness models developed based on the results of the aforementioned clinical study. The results showed that to gain an additional year in perfect health, NC costs an average of US$555,663 or $531,748 more versus sunitinib, which is more than a US payer is willing to pay for an additional year in perfect health ($150,000). Therefore, NC for advanced RCC is not cost-effective versus sunitinib for a US payer at current prices.

Keywords:

Papers of special note have been highlighted as: • of interest; •• of considerable interest

References

1. Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results Program. Cancer stat facts: kidney and renal pelvis cancer. https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/kidrp.html
Google Scholar
2. Wan X, Zhang Y, Tan C, Zeng X, Peng L. First-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs sunitinib for metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a cost–effectiveness analysis. JAMA Oncol. 5(4), 491–496 (2019). • Discusses a method for estimating the utility of nivolumab plus cabozantinib (NC) in the progression-free survival (PFS) state.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
3. Capitanio U, Montorsi F. Renal cancer. Lancet 387(10021), 894–906 (2016).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
4. Motzer RJ, Escudier B, Mcdermott DF et al. Nivolumab versus everolimus in advanced renal-cell carcinoma. N. Engl. J. Med. 373(19), 1803–1813 (2015).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
5. Choueiri TK, Escudier B, Powles T et al. Cabozantinib versus everolimus in advanced renal cell carcinoma (METEOR): final results from a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 17(7), 917–927 (2016).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
6. Choueiri TK, Powles T, Burotto M et al. Nivolumab plus cabozantinib versus sunitinib for advanced renal-cell carcinoma. N. Engl. J. Med. 384(9), 829–841 (2021). •• Discusses the CheckMate 9ER trial, which is the key data source of this evaluation.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
7. Lheureux S, Matei D, Konstantinopoulos PA et al. A randomized phase II study of cabozantinib and nivolumab versus nivolumab in recurrent endometrial cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 38(15), 6010 (2020).
Google Scholar
8. US FDA. FDA approves pembrolizumab plus axitinib for advanced renal cell carcinoma (2021). www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-approvals-and-databases/fda-approves-nivolumab-plus-cabozantinib-advanced-renal-cell-carcinoma
Google Scholar
9. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: kidney cancer version 4 (2021). www.nccn.org/professionals/physiciangls/pdf/kidney.pdf • Latest information on recommended regimens in the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines.
Google Scholar
10. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. ASP drug pricing files (2021). www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Part-B-Drugs/McrPartBDrugAvgSalesPrice/2021ASPFiles.html
Google Scholar
11. Swallow E, Messali A, Ghate S, McDonald E, Duchesneau E, Perez JR. The additional costs per month of progression-free survival and overall survival: an economic model comparing everolimus with cabozantinib, nivolumab, and axitinib for second-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma. J. Manag. Care Spec. Pharm. 24(4), 335–343 (2018).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
12. Hu S, Deng X, Ma Y, Li Z, Wang Y, Wang Y. Cost-utility analysis of dapagliflozin versus saxagliptin treatment as monotherapy or combination therapy as add-on to metformin for treating type 2 diabetes mellitus. Appl. Health Econ. Health Policy 19(1), 69–79 (2021).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
13. Rui M, Wang Y, Fei Z, Zhang X, Shang Y, Li H. Will the Markov model and partitioned survival model lead to different results? A review of recent economic evidence of cancer treatments. Expert Rev. Pharmacoecon. Outcomes Res. 21(3), 373–380 (2021).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
14. US FDA. FDA approved drug products: labels for INLYTA (axitinib) tablets. www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2012/202324lbl.pdf
Google Scholar
15. US FDA. FDA approved drug products: labels for OPDIVO (nivolumab). www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfdadocs/label/2019/125554s070lbl.pdf
Google Scholar
16. US FDA. FDA approved drug products: labels for CABOMETYX (cabozantinib) tablets. www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfdadocs/label/2019/208692s003lbl.pdf
Google Scholar
17. Diaby V, Adunlin G, Montero AJ. Survival modeling for the estimation of transition probabilities in model-based economic evaluations in the absence of individual patient data: a tutorial. Pharmacoeconomics 32(2), 101–108 (2014).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
18. Guyot P, Ades AE, Ouwens MJNM, Welton NJ. Enhanced secondary analysis of survival data: reconstructing the data from published Kaplan–Meier survival curves. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 12(1), 9 (2012). •• Discusses a method for reconstructing pseudoindividual patient data.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
19. Latimer NR. Survival analysis for economic evaluations alongside clinical trials – extrapolation with patient-level data: inconsistencies, limitations, and a practical guide. Med. Decis. Making 33(6), 743–754 (2013). •• Discusses a method for survival model selection.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
20. Arias E, Heron M, Xu J. United States life tables, 2018. Natl Vital Stat. Rep. 69(12), 1–45 (2020).
Google Scholar
21. Su Y, Fu J, Du J, Wu B. First-line treatments for advanced renal-cell carcinoma with immune checkpoint inhibitors: systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost–effectiveness analysis. Ther. Adv. Med. Oncol. 12, 1758835920950199 (2020).
Google Scholar
22. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. License for use of current procedural terminology, fourth edition (“CPT^®”). www.cms.gov/medicare/physician-fee-schedule/search?Y=0&T=0&HT=0&CT=3&H1=96413&M=5
Google Scholar
23. US Bureau of Labor Statistics. The Consumer Price Index. data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl
Google Scholar
24. De Groot S, Redekop WK, Versteegh MM et al. Health-related quality of life and its determinants in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Qual. Life Res. 27(1), 115–124 (2018).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
25. Zhu J, Zhang T, Wan N et al. Cost–effectiveness of pembrolizumab plus axitinib as first-line therapy for advanced renal cell carcinoma. Immunotherapy 12(17), 1237–1246 (2020).
CASGoogle Scholar
26. Neumann PJ, Cohen JT, Weinstein MC. Updating cost–effectiveness – the curious resilience of the $50,000-per-QALY threshold. N. Engl. J. Med. 371(9), 796–797 (2014).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
27. Briggs AH, Weinstein MC, Fenwick EA, Karnon J, Sculpher MJ, Paltiel AD. Model parameter estimation and uncertainty analysis: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force Working Group-6. Med. Decis. Making 32(5), 722–732 (2012).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
28. Hoyle M, Green C, Thompson-Coon J et al. Cost–effectiveness of temsirolimus for first line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma. Value Health 13(1), 61–68 (2010).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
29. Chiang CL, Chan SK, Lee SF, Wong IO, Choi HC. Cost–effectiveness of pembrolizumab as a second-line therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma. JAMA Netw. Open 4(1), e2033761 (2021).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
30. Gao L, Li SC. Modelled economic evaluation of nivolumab for the treatment of second-line advanced or metastatic squamous non-small-cell lung cancer in Australia using both partition survival and markov models. Appl. Health Econ. Health Policy 17(3), 371–380 (2019).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
31. Attema AE, Brouwer WBF, Claxton K. Discounting in economic evaluations. Pharmacoeconomics 36(7), 745–758 (2018).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
32. Rini BI, Plimack ER, Stus V et al. Pembrolizumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib for advanced renal-cell carcinoma. N. Engl. J. Med. 380(12), 1116–1127 (2019). • Study similar to CheckMate 9ER trial but conducted for pembrolizumab plus axitinib.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
33. Ding D, Hu H, Shi Y et al. Cost–effectiveness of pembrolizumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib as first-line therapy in advanced renal cell carcinoma in the U.S. Oncologist 26(2), e290–e297 (2021).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar

Vol. 14, No. 11

Supplemental Materials

Metrics

Downloaded 193 times

History

Received 21 June 2021

Accepted 17 May 2022

Published online 27 June 2022

Published in print August 2022

Information

Keywords

Supplementary data

To view the supplementary data that accompany this paper please visit the journal website at: www.futuremedicine.com/doi/suppl/10.2217/imt-2021-0156

Author contributions

R Liu developed the economic model and performed the analyses. R Liu and K Qiu interpreted the results and wrote the draft of the manuscript. R Liu, K Qiu, J Wu, Y Jiang and P Wu reviewed, analyzed and interpreted the data. J Pang contributed to the design of the primary model and the interpretation of the results. All authors reviewed and approved the final manuscript.

Financial & competing interests disclosure

The authors have no relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants, or patents received or pending or royalties.

No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.

Ethical conduct of research

This article is based on previously conducted studies and does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

PDF download