IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/eujhec/v19y2018i8d10.1007_s10198-018-0964-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The cost-effectiveness of nivolumab monotherapy for the treatment of advanced melanoma patients in England

Author

Listed:
  • Yang Meng

    (BresMed Health Solutions, North Church House)

  • Nadine Hertel

    (Bristol-Myers Squibb Pharmaceuticals)

  • John Ellis

    (Bristol-Myers Squibb Pharmaceuticals)

  • Edith Morais

    (Bristol-Myers Squibb Pharmaceuticals)

  • Helen Johnson

    (Helen Johnson Consulting Ltd)

  • Zoe Philips

    (BresMed Health Solutions, North Church House)

  • Neil Roskell

    (BresMed Health Solutions, North Church House)

  • Andrew Walker

    (University of Glasgow)

  • Dawn Lee

    (BresMed Health Solutions, North Church House)

Abstract

Background Nivolumab was the first programmed death receptor 1 (PD-1) immune checkpoint inhibitor to demonstrate long-term survival benefit in a clinical trial setting for advanced melanoma patients. Objective To evaluate the cost effectiveness of nivolumab monotherapy for the treatment of advanced melanoma patients in England. Methods A Markov state-transition model was developed to estimate the lifetime costs and benefits of nivolumab versus ipilimumab and dacarbazine for BRAF mutation-negative patients and versus ipilimumab, dabrafenib, and vemurafenib for BRAF mutation-positive patients. Covariate-adjusted parametric curves for time to progression, pre-progression survival, and post-progression survival were fitted based on patient-level data from two trials and long-term ipilimumab survival data. Indirect treatment comparisons between nivolumab, ipilimumab, and dacarbazine were informed by these covariate-adjusted parametric curves, controlling for differences in patient characteristics. Kaplan–Meier data from the literature were digitised and used to fit progression-free and overall survival curves for dabrafenib and vemurafenib. Patient utilities and resource use data were based on trial data or the literature. Patients are assumed to receive nivolumab until there is no further clinical benefit, assumed to be the first of progressive disease, unacceptable toxicity, or 2 years of treatment. Results Nivolumab is the most cost-effective treatment option in BRAF mutation-negative and mutation-positive patients, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of £24,483 and £17,362 per quality-adjusted life year, respectively. The model results are most sensitive to assumptions regarding treatment duration for nivolumab and the parameters of the fitted parametric survival curves. Conclusions Nivolumab is a cost-effective treatment for advanced melanoma patients in England.

Suggested Citation

  • Yang Meng & Nadine Hertel & John Ellis & Edith Morais & Helen Johnson & Zoe Philips & Neil Roskell & Andrew Walker & Dawn Lee, 2018. "The cost-effectiveness of nivolumab monotherapy for the treatment of advanced melanoma patients in England," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(8), pages 1163-1172, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:eujhec:v:19:y:2018:i:8:d:10.1007_s10198-018-0964-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s10198-018-0964-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10198-018-0964-4
    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/s10198-018-0964-4?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.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. James Larkin & Anthony J Hatswell & Paul Nathan & Maximilian Lebmeier & Dawn Lee, 2015. "The Predicted Impact of Ipilimumab Usage on Survival in Previously Treated Advanced or Metastatic Melanoma in the UK," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(12), pages 1-11, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Jeon, Sung-Hee & Pohl, R. Vincent, 2019. "Medical innovation, education, and labor market outcomes of cancer patients," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).

    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. Ash Bullement & Matthew D. Stevenson & Gianluca Baio & Gemma E. Shields & Nicholas R. Latimer, 2023. "A Systematic Review of Methods to Incorporate External Evidence into Trial-Based Survival Extrapolations for Health Technology Assessment," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 43(5), pages 610-620, July.
    2. Jonathan Dando & Maximilian Lebmeier, 2020. "A novel valuation model for medical intervention development based on progressive dynamic changes that integrates Health Technology Assessment outcomes with early-stage innovation and indication-speci," Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Springer, vol. 9(1), pages 1-28, December.
    3. Zhaojing Che & Nathan Green & Gianluca Baio, 2023. "Blended Survival Curves: A New Approach to Extrapolation for Time-to-Event Outcomes from Clinical Trials in Health Technology Assessment," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 43(3), pages 299-310, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Nivolumab; Cost-effectiveness; Economic evaluation; Advanced melanoma;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • I19 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Other

    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:eujhec:v:19:y:2018:i:8:d:10.1007_s10198-018-0964-4. 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: 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.