Cost-Utility of Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab in First-Line Treatment of Advanced Melanoma in the United States: An Analysis Using Long-Term Overall Survival Data from Checkmate 067

Abstract

Objective The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-utility of nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO + IPI) versus other first-line therapies for advanced melanoma in the United States (US) from the third-party payer perspective. Methods This analysis estimated total expected life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), and costs for first-line treatments of advanced melanoma during a 30-year time horizon using indirect treatment comparisons based on time-varying hazard ratios (HRs) and a three-state partitioned survival model. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival reference curves were extrapolated based on 5-year follow-up from the phase III Checkmate 067 trial (NCT01844505). Comparators of NIVO + IPI were NIVO, IPI, pembrolizumab, dabrafenib plus trametinib, encorafenib plus binimetinib (ENCO + BINI), and vemurafenib plus cobimetinib. Drug acquisition costs, treatment administration costs, follow-up time, subsequent therapy data, and adverse event frequencies were obtained from published sources. Utility weights were estimated from Checkmate 067, which compared NIVO + IPI or NIVO monotherapy with IPI monotherapy as first-line therapy in advanced melanoma. A 3% annual discount rate was applied to costs and outcomes. Sensitivity scenarios for BRAF -mutant subgroups were conducted. Results NIVO + IPI was estimated to generate the longest OS and the highest total costs versus all comparators, accruing 6.99 LYs, 5.70 QALYs, and $469,469 over the 30-year time horizon. The incremental cost utility of NIVO + IPI versus comparators ranged from $2130 per QALY (versus ENCO + BINI) to $76,169 per QALY (versus NIVO). In all base-case and most sensitivity analyses, the incremental cost-utility ratios for NIVO + IPI were below $100,000 per QALY. Conclusions NIVO + IPI is estimated to be a life-extending and cost-effective treatment versus other therapies in the US, with base-case incremental cost-utility ratios below $100,000 per QALY. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s41669-022-00348-0.

Cost‐effectiveness of second‐line ipilimumab for metastatic melanoma: A real‐world population‐based cohort study of resource utilization

“…Although associated with significant toxicity, this regimen was considered cost‐effective compared to ipilimumab monotherapy ($66,750/QALY) based on the manufacturer's submission to CADTH and received recommendation for reimbursement in Canada 30,31 . While other published cost‐effectiveness analyses have provided lower ICER estimates of £4225/QALY, 32 $6119 USD/QALY, 33 and $21,143 USD/QALY, 34 findings have been consistent in that combination immunotherapy with ipilimumab and nivolumab is a more optimal and cost‐effective option.…”

Extended long-term follow-up of metastatic melanoma patients treated with immunotherapy: late relapses and second primary melanomas

“…Loo et al ( 8 ) also reviewed eight clinical trials of anti-PD-1 therapy for melanoma, but only one had median a follow-up of over 5 years, and late relapses were not addressed in that review. Robert reported the results of 834 patients treated with pembrolizumab or ipilimumab, but with reported survival of only up to 5 years ( 9 ).…”