IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0228288.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab for advanced non-small cell lung cancer patients with varying comorbidity burden

Author

Listed:
  • Steven D Criss
  • Lauren Palazzo
  • Tina R Watson
  • Adelle M Paquette
  • Keith Sigel
  • Juan Wisnivesky
  • Chung Yin Kong

Abstract

Objectives: While previous cost-effectiveness studies on pembrolizumab in stage IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have found these regimens to be cost-effective, their reliance on randomized controlled trial (RCT) data with strict inclusion criteria limits generalizability to patients with comorbidities. We estimated the cost-effectiveness of first-line pembrolizumab for patients with various comorbidities. Materials and methods: In our base case analysis, we studied pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy (pembrolizumab combination therapy) versus chemotherapy alone. In a secondary analysis, we considered only patients with PD-L1 expression of at least 50% (PD-L1-high) and evaluated pembrolizumab monotherapy, pembrolizumab combination therapy, and chemotherapy alone. Microsimulation models were developed for the base case and the PD-L1-high analyses. To estimate outcomes of patients with differing comorbidities, we combined survival data from patients with few or no comorbidities from the RCTs with estimates from the general population obtained from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database. Comorbidity burden level was divided into three groups based on the Charlson score (equal to 0, 1, or 2+); patients with various other specific comorbidities were also analyzed. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were compared to a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $100,000/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Results: In the Charlson 0, Charlson 1, and Charlson 2+ patient populations, estimated ICERs for pembrolizumab combination therapy in the base case model were $173,919/QALY, $175,165/QALY, and $181,777/QALY, respectively, compared to chemotherapy. Conclusion: For patients with stage IV NSCLC and varying comorbidity burden, first-line treatment with pembrolizumab does not represent a cost-effective strategy compared to chemotherapy. Resources should be focused on collecting immunotherapy survival data for more representative NSCLC patient populations.

Suggested Citation

  • Steven D Criss & Lauren Palazzo & Tina R Watson & Adelle M Paquette & Keith Sigel & Juan Wisnivesky & Chung Yin Kong, 2020. "Cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab for advanced non-small cell lung cancer patients with varying comorbidity burden," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(1), pages 1-15, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0228288
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0228288
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0228288
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0228288&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0228288?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Angela C. Tramontano & Deborah L. Schrag & Jennifer K. Malin & Melecia C. Miller & Jane C. Weeks & J. Shannon Swan & Pamela M. McMahon, 2015. "Catalog and Comparison of Societal Preferences (Utilities) for Lung Cancer Health States," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 35(3), pages 371-387, April.
    2. Min Huang & Yanyan Lou & James Pellissier & Thomas Burke & Frank Xiaoqing Liu & Ruifeng Xu & Vamsidhar Velcheti, 2017. "Cost Effectiveness of Pembrolizumab vs. Standard-of-Care Chemotherapy as First-Line Treatment for Metastatic NSCLC that Expresses High Levels of PD-L1 in the United States," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(8), pages 831-844, August.
    3. Janel Hanmer & William F. Lawrence & John P. Anderson & Robert M. Kaplan & Dennis G. Fryback, 2006. "Report of Nationally Representative Values for the Noninstitutionalized US Adult Population for 7 Health-Related Quality-of-Life Scores," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 26(4), pages 391-400, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Rakesh Aggarwal & Qiushi Chen & Amit Goel & Nicole Seguy & Razia Pendse & Turgay Ayer & Jagpreet Chhatwal, 2017. "Cost-effectiveness of hepatitis C treatment using generic direct-acting antivirals available in India," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(5), pages 1-15, May.
    2. Mickaël Hiligsmann & Stuart S. Silverman & Andrea J. Singer & Leny Pearman & Jake Mathew & Yamei Wang & John Caminis & Jean-Yves Reginster, 2023. "Cost-Effectiveness of Sequential Abaloparatide/Alendronate in Men at High Risk of Fractures in the United States," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 41(7), pages 819-830, July.
    3. Ara, R & Brazier, JE, 2010. "Using health state utility values from the general population to approximate baselines in decision analytic models when condition specific data are not available," MPRA Paper 29946, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Malek Ebadi & Raha Akhavan-Tabatabaei, 2021. "Personalized Cotesting Policies for Cervical Cancer Screening: A POMDP Approach," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-20, March.
    5. Mir-Masoud Pourrahmat & Ashley Kim & Anuraag R. Kansal & Marg Hux & Divya Pushkarna & Mir Sohail Fazeli & Karen C. Chung, 2021. "Health state utility values by cancer stage: a systematic literature review," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(8), pages 1275-1288, November.
    6. Lin Li & J L (Hans) Severens & Olena Mandrik, 2019. "Disutility associated with cancer screening programs: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(7), pages 1-17, July.
    7. Prajakta P. Masurkar & Haluk Damgacioglu & Ashish A. Deshmukh & Meghana V. Trivedi, 2023. "Cost Effectiveness of CDK4/6 Inhibitors in the First-Line Treatment of HR+/HER2− Metastatic Breast Cancer in Postmenopausal Women in the USA," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 41(6), pages 709-718, June.
    8. Michaela Carla Barbier & Esther Pardo & Cédric Michael Panje & Oliver Gautschi & Judith Eva Lupatsch, 2021. "A cost-effectiveness analysis of pembrolizumab with or without chemotherapy for the treatment of patients with metastatic, non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer and high PD-L1 expression in Switzerl," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(5), pages 669-677, July.
    9. Lisa J McGarry & Girishanthy Krishnarajah & Gregory Hill & Michelle Skornicki & Narin Pruttivarasin & Cristina Masseria & Bhakti Arondekar & Stephen I Pelton & Milton C Weinstein, 2013. "Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Tdap in the Prevention of Pertussis in the Elderly," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(9), pages 1-9, September.
    10. Amber Pearson & Gregory Breetzke, 2014. "The Association Between the Fear of Crime, and Mental and Physical Wellbeing in New Zealand," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 119(1), pages 281-294, October.
    11. James K. Hammitt, 2017. "Valuing Non-Fatal Health Risks: Monetary and Health-Utility Measures," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 68(3), pages 335-356.
    12. Andrea C Villanti & Yiding Jiang & David B Abrams & Bruce S Pyenson, 2013. "A Cost-Utility Analysis of Lung Cancer Screening and the Additional Benefits of Incorporating Smoking Cessation Interventions," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(8), pages 1-11, August.
    13. Mehmet A. Ergun & Ali Hajjar & Oguzhan Alagoz & Murtuza Rampurwala, 2022. "Optimal breast cancer risk reduction policies tailored to personal risk level," Health Care Management Science, Springer, vol. 25(3), pages 363-388, September.
    14. Iris Buder & Cathleen Zick & Norman Waitzman, 2020. "The Contribution of Physical Activity to Health-Related Quality of Life: New Population Estimates from National Survey Data," Applied Research in Quality of Life, Springer;International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies, vol. 15(1), pages 55-71, March.
    15. William Raich & Jennifer Baxter & Megan Sheahan & Jeremy Goldhaber-Fiebert & Patrick Sullivan & Janel Hanmer, 2023. "Estimates of Quality-Adjusted Life-Year Loss for Injuries in the United States," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 43(3), pages 288-298, April.
    16. Janel Hanmer & Barry Dewitt & Lan Yu & Joel Tsevat & Mark Roberts & Dennis Revicki & Paul A Pilkonis & Rachel Hess & Ron D Hays & Baruch Fischhoff & David Feeny & David Condon & David Cella, 2018. "Cross-sectional validation of the PROMIS-Preference scoring system," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(7), pages 1-13, July.
    17. Yinong Young-Xu & Robertus van Aalst & Ellyn Russo & Jason K H Lee & Ayman Chit, 2017. "The Annual Burden of Seasonal Influenza in the US Veterans Affairs Population," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(1), pages 1-15, January.
    18. James Hammitt & Tuba Tunçel, 2015. "Preferences for life-expectancy gains: Sooner or later?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 51(1), pages 79-101, August.
    19. Robert M. Brackbill & Howard E. Alper & Patricia Frazier & Lisa M. Gargano & Melanie H. Jacobson & Adrienne Solomon, 2019. "An Assessment of Long-Term Physical and Emotional Quality of Life of Persons Injured on 9/11/2001," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(6), pages 1-15, March.
    20. Haiying Ding & Wenxiu Xin & Yinghui Tong & Jiao Sun & Gaoqi Xu & Ziqi Ye & Yuefeng Rao, 2020. "Cost effectiveness of immune checkpoint inhibitors for treatment of non-small cell lung cancer: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(9), pages 1-16, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0228288. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.