1032P - Cost-effectiveness of nivolumab in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma in Sweden

Date 09 October 2016
Event ESMO 2016 Congress
Session Poster display
Topics Bioethics, Legal, and Economic Issues
Presenter Sukhvinder Johal
Citation Annals of Oncology (2016) 27 (6): 351-358. 10.1093/annonc/mdw377
Authors S. Johal1, K.M. Johannesen2, B. Malcolm2, J. Doan3
  • 1Health Economics, PAREXEL Access Consulting, NW1 2DX - London/GB
  • 2Worldwide Health Economics & Outcomes Research, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Princeton/US
  • 3Worldwide Health Economics And Outcomes Research, Bristol-Myers Squibb, 06492 - Princeton/US

Abstract

Background

In the CheckMate 025 study (NCT01668784), nivolumab improved overall survival (OS) versus everolimus in previously treated patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (N Engl J Med 2015;373:1803–13). We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab versus everolimus for the treatment of these patients from a Swedish healthcare system perspective.

Methods

Cost-effectiveness was assessed using a partitioned survival model consisting of three health states: progression-free survival (PFS), disease progression, and death. The proportion of patients in each state was calculated based on PFS and OS distributions from CheckMate 025. Average cost per state was estimated, and in combination with adverse events, subsequent treatment utilization, and drug costs, total model costs were calculated. Because CheckMate 025 allowed for treatment beyond progression, treatment costs were based on time to discontinuation (TTD) rather than PFS, reflecting a more conservative approach. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were calculated using quality of life assessments on EQ-5D and represented the effectiveness portion of the model. A lifetime perspective was applied (ie, 25 years) with costs and outcomes discounted by 3% annually. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess uncertainty.

Results

Nivolumab resulted in greater total costs versus everolimus (SEK 1,551,386 vs 904,120), driven by differences in drug costs (SEK 939,416 vs 294,050). Effectiveness (QALYs) was also greater for nivolumab (2.9 vs 2.2). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was SEK 943,346 per QALY. Applying nivolumab costs based on PFS (vs TTD) to the model decreased costs to SEK 483,875 and reduced the ICER to SEK 705,215.

Conclusions

These analyses demonstrate that although treatment with nivolumab is associated with higher costs, nivolumab was cost-effective at established thresholds when accounting for treatment costs that continued through progression. We believe that this model structure could serve as a template for assessing cost-effectiveness in other European Union countries.

Clinical trial identification

NCT01668784

Legal entity responsible for the study

Sukhvinder Johal

Funding

Bristol-Myers Squibb

Disclosure

S. Johal: Employment: Parexel Access Consulting Consulting: PAREXEL Access Consulting - Received a consultancy fee to support analysis. K.M. Johannesen: Employee of BMS. B. Malcolm: Employment: Bristol-Myers Squibb and Novartis Stock Ownership: Bristol-Myers Squibb Research Funding received from working on numerous publications with Novartis Travel: Bristol-Myers Squibb and Novartis. J. Doan: Employment: Bristol-Myers Squibb Stock Ownership: Bristol-Myers Squibb.