IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharmo/v3y2019i3d10.1007_s41669-018-0115-y.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cost Effectiveness of Avelumab for Metastatic Merkel Cell Carcinoma

Author

Listed:
  • Ash Bullement

    (BresMed
    Delta Hat)

  • Paul Nathan

    (Mount Vernon Cancer Centre)

  • Anna Willis

    (BresMed)

  • Amerah Amin

    (Merck Serono)

  • Cameron Lilley

    (BresMed)

  • Ceilidh Stapelkamp

    (Merck Serono)

  • Anthony Hatswell

    (Delta Hat
    University College London)

  • Chris Pescott

    (Merck KGaA)

  • Murtuza Bharmal

    (Merck KGaA)

Abstract

Background Metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma (mMCC) is a rare and aggressive skin cancer. Until recently, there were no licensed treatment options for patients with mMCC, and prognosis was poor. A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted for avelumab, a newly available treatment option for mMCC, versus standard care (SC), from a UK National Health Service perspective. Methods A partitioned survival model was developed to assess the lifetime costs and effects of avelumab versus SC. Data from the JAVELIN Merkel 200 trial (NCT02155647) were used to inform estimates of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Unit costs and associated frequencies of use were informed by published literature and clinical expert opinion. Results were presented as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs, i.e. the cost per QALY gained) for treatment-experienced (TE) and treatment-naïve (TN) patients. Uncertainty was explored through a range of sensitivity analyses. Results Discounting costs and QALYs at 3.5% per annum, avelumab was associated with ICERs of £35,274 (TE)/£39,178 (TN) per QALY gained. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis results demonstrated that avelumab was associated with an 88.3% (TE)/69.3% (TN) probability of being cost effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold for end-of-life treatments of £50,000 per QALY gained. Results were most sensitive to alternative survival extrapolations and dosing assumptions. Conclusions The analysis results suggest that avelumab is likely to be a cost-effective treatment option for UK mMCC patients. The results for TN patients are subject to some uncertainty, and a confirmatory analysis will be conducted with more mature data.

Suggested Citation

  • Ash Bullement & Paul Nathan & Anna Willis & Amerah Amin & Cameron Lilley & Ceilidh Stapelkamp & Anthony Hatswell & Chris Pescott & Murtuza Bharmal, 2019. "Cost Effectiveness of Avelumab for Metastatic Merkel Cell Carcinoma," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 3(3), pages 377-390, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharmo:v:3:y:2019:i:3:d:10.1007_s41669-018-0115-y
    DOI: 10.1007/s41669-018-0115-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s41669-018-0115-y
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s41669-018-0115-y?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. Graeme Ball & Feng Xie & Jean-Eric Tarride, 2018. "Economic Evaluation of Bevacizumab for Treatment of Platinum-Resistant Recurrent Ovarian Cancer in Canada," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 2(1), pages 19-29, March.
    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. Zhaklin Stoykova-Valcheva, 2020. "Orphan Drugs of Personalized Medicine in Bulgaria and Their Cost-Effectiveness," Izvestia Journal of the Union of Scientists - Varna. Economic Sciences Series, Union of Scientists - Varna, Economic Sciences Section, vol. 9(3), pages 52-62, December.

    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.

      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:3:y:2019:i:3:d:10.1007_s41669-018-0115-y. 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.