IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-04875641.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Pcn214 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Of Nivolumab In Combination With Ipilimumab Versus Sunitinib For The First-Line Treatment Of Intermediate- To Poor-Risk Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma In France

Author

Listed:
  • S. Branchoux

    (Bristol-Myers Squibb [Rueil-Malmaison])

  • S. Négrier

    (Department of Medical Oncology [Lyon] - Centre Léon Bérard [Lyon], UCBL - Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1 - Université de Lyon)

  • Christian de Peretti

    (ECL - École Centrale de Lyon - Université de Lyon, LSAF - Laboratoire de Sciences Actuarielle et Financière - UCBL - Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1 - Université de Lyon)

  • B. Malcolm
  • J. May

    (BNITM - Bernhard Nocht Institute for Tropical Medicine - Bernhard-Nocht-Institut für Tropenmedizin [Hamburg, Germany])

  • L. Marié
  • A.F. Gaudin
  • S. Klijn
  • T.J. Ignacio

Abstract

Objectives Nivolumab in combination with ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) is the first immuno-oncology combination to demonstrate significant, long-term overall survival (OS) benefit in previously untreated patients with intermediate- to poor-risk advanced renal cell carcinoma (1L RCC) compared with standard of care (sunitinib). The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of NIVO+IPI compared with sunitinib in 1L RCC from the French all payers perspective. Methods A three-state partitioned survival model (progression-free disease, progressed disease and death) was developed with a one-week cycle length and lifetime time horizon. The model used patient characteristics, progression-free survival, OS, safety data and utilities (EQ-5D-3L) from the CheckMate-214 trial (NCT02231749). French costs for drug acquisition, drug administration, monitoring, terminal care, travel and adverse events were sourced from published prices. Treatment-specific utilities were calculated using the French value set. Costs and outcomes were discounted by 4.0% annually. Univariate deterministic and multivariate probabilistic sensitivity analyses (DSA, PSA) assessed robustness of the results. Outcomes of interest were total costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), life years (LYs), the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Results NIVO+IPI was associated with higher total QALYs and LYs (3.53 and 4.95) versus sunitinib (2.71 and 3.87) and increased total cost (€160,751 versus €86,596), all respectively. This resulted in an ICUR of €89,793/QALY gained and an ICER of €68,626/LY gained versus sunitinib. Based on the DSA, key model drivers were drug acquisition costs, QALY discount rate, and variation of OS function parameters (95% confidence interval). The PSA confirmed robustness of the model results, with NIVO+IPI having a 62% probability of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of €100,000/QALY. Conclusions Driven by an increased and sustained OS benefit, NIVO+IPI would be a cost-effective treatment when compared with sunitinib for 1L RCC patients in France at a WTP threshold of €100,000/QALY.

Suggested Citation

  • S. Branchoux & S. Négrier & Christian de Peretti & B. Malcolm & J. May & L. Marié & A.F. Gaudin & S. Klijn & T.J. Ignacio, 2019. "Pcn214 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Of Nivolumab In Combination With Ipilimumab Versus Sunitinib For The First-Line Treatment Of Intermediate- To Poor-Risk Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma In France," Post-Print hal-04875641, HAL.
  • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-04875641
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2019.09.410
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    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:hal:journl:hal-04875641. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.