IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharmo/v5y2021i3d10.1007_s41669-020-00255-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Review of Cost-Effectiveness Studies of Pembrolizumab Regimens for the Treatment of Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer

Author

Listed:
  • Nan Qiao

    (Merck & Co., Inc.)

  • Ralph Insinga

    (Merck & Co., Inc.)

  • Gilberto de Lima Lopes Junior

    (University of Miami)

  • John Cook

    (Complete HEOR Solutions)

  • Martin Sénécal

    (Complete HEOR Solutions)

Abstract

Pembrolizumab monotherapy or combination therapy is an approved treatment for various advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) indications. We review published cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) of pembrolizumab as treatment for NSCLC and provide in-depth assessment of their methodologies. Fourteen studies were selected through searches of the PubMed database. Modeling approaches, survival and cost estimation, and utility analyses were compared and evaluated. These publications covered regulatory-approved pembrolizumab NSCLC indications based on the following randomized clinical trials: KEYNOTE-010 (one publication), KEYNOTE-024 (six), KEYNOTE-042 (four), KEYNOTE-189 (two), and KEYNOTE-407 (one). Differences were observed in health states (progression free, progressed disease, and death vs stable disease, progressed disease, death, and treatment discontinuation), modeling approaches (partitioned survival vs Markov), survival extrapolation/transition probability estimation, inclusion of additional costs to drug, disease management and adverse event costs (e.g., programmed death-ligand 1 [PD-L1] testing, subsequent treatment, terminal care), treatment duration approaches (trial-based time on treatment vs treat to progression), utility sources (trial data vs literature), and utility analyses (time to death vs progression status). Certain aspects of variability across models were problematic, including deviation from observed treatment utilization within trials and predicted long-term mortality risks for pembrolizumab higher than historical real-world NSCLC mortality data prior to the availability of pembrolizumab. Consequently, results differed even among studies examining the same population and comparator within similar time intervals. Differences in methodology across CEAs may lead to distinct results and conclusions. Payers and policy makers should carefully examine study designs and assumptions and choose CEAs with greater validity and accuracy for evidence-based decision-making.

Suggested Citation

  • Nan Qiao & Ralph Insinga & Gilberto de Lima Lopes Junior & John Cook & Martin Sénécal, 2021. "A Review of Cost-Effectiveness Studies of Pembrolizumab Regimens for the Treatment of Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 5(3), pages 365-383, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharmo:v:5:y:2021:i:3:d:10.1007_s41669-020-00255-2
    DOI: 10.1007/s41669-020-00255-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s41669-020-00255-2
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s41669-020-00255-2?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
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Nan Qiao & Ralph Insinga & Thomas Burke & Gilberto Lopes, 2021. "Cost-Minimization Analysis of Pembrolizumab Monotherapy Versus Nivolumab in Combination with Ipilimumab as First-Line Treatment for Metastatic PD-L1-Positive Non-small Cell Lung Cancer: A US Payer Per," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 765-778, December.

    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:pharmo:v:5:y:2021:i:3:d:10.1007_s41669-020-00255-2. 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.