IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/aphecp/v17y2019i3d10.1007_s40258-018-0452-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Lan Gao

    (Deakin University
    Deakin University
    The University of Newcastle)

  • Shu-Chuen Li

    (The University of Newcastle)

Abstract

Objectives To assess the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab for patients with advanced or metastatic squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) progressed on or after platinum-based chemotherapy using a modelled economic evaluation. Methods Both partition survival (PS) and Markov models, comprised of three health states, were adopted to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab compared to docetaxel from an Australian healthcare system perspective with a 6-year time horizon. Reconstructed individual patient data (IPD) were derived from published Kaplan–Meier curves from the pivotal trial for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) using a validated algorithm. Best-fitting survival curves were selected to extrapolate the OS, PFS and post-progression survival (PPS) beyond trial duration. Expected costs and health outcomes [i.e. quality-adjusted life year (QALY), and life year (LY)] associated with each of the health states (i.e. PF, PD and dead) were accrued over the time horizon. Both deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were undertaken. Results Nivolumab was associated with both higher costs and benefits in both PS and Markov models. In particular, from the PS model, nivolumab cost an additional A$198,862/QALY and A$181,623/LY gained. The Markov model showed that nivolumab had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of A$220,029/QALY and A$193,459/LY, respectively. The sensitivity analyses showed base-case results were sensitive to the extrapolation approach, duration of treatment, cost of nivolumab and time horizon modelled. Conclusions Using an often-quoted willingness-to-pay per QALY threshold in Australia (i.e. A$50,000), the treatment with nivolumab cannot be considered cost-effective. It might be funded publicly by special arrangements given unmet clinical needs for patients.

Suggested Citation

  • Lan Gao & Shu-Chuen Li, 2019. "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," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 371-380, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:17:y:2019:i:3:d:10.1007_s40258-018-0452-0
    DOI: 10.1007/s40258-018-0452-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40258-018-0452-0
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40258-018-0452-0?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. 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:spr:aphecp:v:17:y:2019:i:3:d:10.1007_s40258-018-0452-0. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.