Ipilimumab in 2nd line treatment of patients with advanced melanoma: a cost-effectiveness analysis

Barzey, Victor; Atkins, Michael B.; Garrison, Louis P.; Asukai, Yumi; Kotapati, Srividya; Penrod, John R.

doi:10.3111/13696998.2012.739226

Cited by 45 publications

(64 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…72 A substantial increase in life expectancy, reduction of tumor-induced symptoms, and durable disease control are valuable outcomes for patients with advanced melanoma, particularly if the patients have a wellpreserved quality of life with the capacity to remain productive members of society and/or spend quality time with their families. 80 In a metastatic disease setting, payers should consider both long-and short-term outcomes and the potential impact of improved life expectancy and continued productivity on the true value of treatment. …”

Section: ■■ Conclusionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Current and Future Roles of Targeted Therapy and Immunotherapy in Advanced Melanoma

Olszanski¹

2014

JMCP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Skin cancer is the most common form of cancer in the United States.1 Most patients develop nonmelanoma skin cancer, where surgical excision of the primary lesion remains effective for early disease, and survival rate is high. Although melanoma accounts for less than 5% of cases of skin cancer, it accounts for most (75%) skin cancer-related deaths. It is estimated that, in 2014, almost 76,100 men and women in the United States will be diagnosed with invasive melanoma of the skin, and close to 9,710 people will die from the disease. Furthermore, melanoma is the most common form of cancer for young adults aged 25 to 29 years and the second most common form of cancer for young people aged 15 to 29 years.2 Given the prevalence of melanoma in young individuals, it accounts for 1 of the 10 leading causes of years of life lost. 3 The overall 5-year survival rate from diagnosis for patients whose melanoma is detected early, before the tumor has spread to regional lymph nodes or other organs, is about 98% in the United States, falling to 62% when the disease reaches

show abstract

Section: ■■ Conclusionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Current and Future Roles of Targeted Therapy and Immunotherapy in Advanced Melanoma

Olszanski¹

2014

JMCP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…25,26 Four cost-effectiveness studies were identified from the Phase II search, covering alemtuzumab (for T-cell prolymphocytic leukemia, T-PLL), ipilimumab (for previously treated advanced melanoma), sipuleucel-T (CRPC), and ofatumumab (for CLL) (table 4). [29][30][31][32] Lu et al reported that while alemtuzumab (vs. chemotherapy) was likely to be cost-effective for T-PLL, especially if used earlier in the course of treatment, the cost-effectiveness of alemtuzumab is highly uncertain (ICER $42,710 » $119,701/ QALY among four scenarios). 29 Barzey et al reported that the probability that ipilimumab was cost-effective relative to BSC at willingness-to-pay (WTP) of $146,000 USD/QALY was 95% for patients with previously treated advanced melanoma.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It should be noted that while the authors concluded that ipilimumab was cost-effective, the ICER estimated from their study was $140,811/QALY, which was higher than commonly accepted cost-effectiveness thresholds (i.e., $50,000 » $100,000/QALY). 30 Holko et al reported that sipuleucel-T plus standard treatment was not cost-effective (ICER $289,964/QALY) for CRPC when compared to standard treatment alone. 31 In an appraisal of a manufacturer's submission, Hoyle et al reported that ofatumumab for CLL was associated with a high ICER ($126,756/QALY) when compared to BSC.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Eight studies examining the costs or cost-effectiveness of alemtuzumab, ipilimumab, sipuleucel-T, or ofatumumab, were included in the final analyses. [25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32] Table 2 summarizes findings of review articles identified from the phase I search regarding the cost-effectiveness of therapeutic cancer vaccines and immunotherapy in the current literature. As shown, rituximab combined with chemotherapy was considered to be costeffective for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) when compared to chemotherapy alone.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Economic evaluation of therapeutic cancer vaccines and immunotherapy: A systematic review

Geynisman

Chien

Smieliauskas³

et al. 2014

Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cancer immunotherapy is a rapidly growing field in oncology. One attractive feature of cancer immunotherapy is the purported combination of minimal toxicity and durable responses. However such treatments are often very expensive. Given the wide-spread concern over rising health care costs, it is important for all stakeholders to be wellinformed on the cost and cost-effectiveness of cancer immunotherapies. We performed a comprehensive literature review of cost and cost-effectiveness research on therapeutic cancer vaccines and monoclonal antibodies, to better understand the economic impacts of these treatments. We summarized our literature searches into three tables by types of papers: systematic review of economic studies of a specific agent, cost and cost-effectiveness analysis. Our review showed that out of the sixteen immunotherapy agents approved, nine had relevant published economic studies. Five out of the nine studied immunotherapy agents had been covered in systematic reviews. Among those, only one (rituximab for non-Hodgkin lymphoma) was found to be costeffective. Of the four immunotherapy drugs not covered in systematic reviews (alemtuzumab, ipilimumab, sipuleucel-T, ofatumumab), high incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was reported for each. Many immunotherapies have not had economic evaluations, and those that have been studied show high ICERs or frank lack of cost-effectiveness. One major hurdle in improving the cost-effectiveness of cancer immunotherapies is to identify predictive biomarkers for selecting appropriate patients as recipients of these expensive therapies. We discuss the implications surrounding the economic factors involved in cancer immunotherapies and suggest that further research on cost and costeffectiveness of newer cancer vaccines and immunotherapies are warranted as this is a rapidly growing field with many new drugs on the horizon.

show abstract

“…Therefore, our review included 16 articles that evaluated nine mAb drugs for ten different orphan indications. Because several studies included more than one comparator or perspective in their economic evaluations, 24 economic evaluations were abstracted from 16 articles [16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31]. Table 2 presents an overview of the characteristics of the included economic studies.…”

Section: Quality Assessment Of the Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cost Effectiveness of Monoclonal Antibody Therapy for Rare Diseases: A Systematic Review

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Ipilimumab in 2nd line treatment of patients with advanced melanoma: a cost-effectiveness analysis

Abstract: The analysis shows that the estimated cost-effectiveness of ipilimumab is within what has been shown to be acceptable to payers for oncology products in the US.

Cited by 45 publications

References 26 publications

Current and Future Roles of Targeted Therapy and Immunotherapy in Advanced Melanoma

Current and Future Roles of Targeted Therapy and Immunotherapy in Advanced Melanoma

Economic evaluation of therapeutic cancer vaccines and immunotherapy: A systematic review

Cost Effectiveness of Monoclonal Antibody Therapy for Rare Diseases: A Systematic Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About