| Online-Ressource |
Verfasst von: | Verma, Vivek [VerfasserIn]  |
| Sprave, Tetyana [VerfasserIn]  |
| Haque, Waqar [VerfasserIn]  |
| Simone, Charles B. [VerfasserIn]  |
| Chang, Joe Y. [VerfasserIn]  |
| Welsh, James W. [VerfasserIn]  |
| Thomas, Charles R. [VerfasserIn]  |
Titel: | A systematic review of the cost and cost-effectiveness studies of immune checkpoint inhibitors |
Verf.angabe: | Vivek Verma, Tanja Sprave, Waqar Haque, Charles B. Simone II, Joe Y. Chang, James W. Welsh and Charles R. Thomas Jr |
E-Jahr: | 2018 |
Jahr: | 2018 Nov 23 |
Umfang: | 15 S. |
Fussnoten: | Gesehen am 14.04.2020 |
Titel Quelle: | Enthalten in: Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer |
Ort Quelle: | London : BioMed Central, 2013 |
Jahr Quelle: | 2018 |
Band/Heft Quelle: | 6(2018,1) Artikel-Nummer 128, 15 Seiten |
ISSN Quelle: | 2051-1426 |
Abstract: | Background - Escalating healthcare costs are necessitating the practice of value-based oncology. It is crucial to critically evaluate the economic impact of influential but expensive therapies such as immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). To date, no systematic assessment of the cost-effectiveness (CE) of ICIs has been performed. - - Methods - PRISMA-guided systematic searches of the PubMed database were conducted. Studies of head/neck (n = 3), lung (n = 5), genitourinary (n = 4), and melanoma (n = 8) malignancies treated with ICIs were evaluated. The reference willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was $100,000/QALY. - - Results - Nivolumab was not cost-effective over chemotherapy for recurrent/metastatic head/neck cancers (HNCs). For non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), nivolumab was not cost-effective for a general cohort, but increased PD-L1 cutoffs resulted in CE. Pembrolizumab was cost-effective for both previously treated and newly-diagnosed metastatic NSCLC. For genitourinary cancers (GUCs, renal cell and bladder cancers), nivolumab and pembrolizumab were not cost-effective options. Regarding metastatic/unresected melanoma, ipilimumab monotherapy is less cost-effective than nivolumab, nivolumab/ipilimumab, and pembrolizumab. The addition of ipilimumab to nivolumab monotherapy was not adequately cost-effective. Pembrolizumab or nivolumab monotherapy offered comparable CE profiles. - - Conclusions - With limited data and from the reference WTP, nivolumab was not cost-effective for HNCs. Pembrolizumab was cost-effective for NSCLC; although not the case for nivolumab, applying PD-L1 cutoffs resulted in adequate CE. Most data for nivolumab and pembrolizumab in GUCs did not point towards adequate CE. Contrary to ipilimumab, either nivolumab or pembrolizumab is cost-effective for melanoma. Despite these conclusions, it cannot be overstated that careful patient selection is critical for CE. Future publication of CE investigations and clinical trials (along with longer follow-up of existing data) could substantially alter conclusions from this analysis. |
DOI: | doi:10.1186/s40425-018-0442-7 |
URL: | Bitte beachten Sie: Dies ist ein Bibliographieeintrag. Ein Volltextzugriff für Mitglieder der Universität besteht hier nur, falls für die entsprechende Zeitschrift/den entsprechenden Sammelband ein Abonnement besteht oder es sich um einen OpenAccess-Titel handelt.
Volltext ; Verlag: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40425-018-0442-7 |
| Volltext: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6251215/ |
| DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40425-018-0442-7 |
Datenträger: | Online-Ressource |
Sprache: | eng |
K10plus-PPN: | 1694496740 |
Verknüpfungen: | → Zeitschrift |
¬A¬ systematic review of the cost and cost-effectiveness studies of immune checkpoint inhibitors / Verma, Vivek [VerfasserIn]; 2018 Nov 23 (Online-Ressource)