Clinical-Bladder cancer
Effect of PD-L1 testing on the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of pembrolizumab for advanced urothelial carcinoma of the bladder in the United States

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2018.11.016Get rights and content

Abstract

Purpose

Our purpose was to evaluate the effect of PD-L1 testing on the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab for second-line treatment of advanced urothelial carcinoma in the bladder from the U.S. societal perspective.

Materials and methods

We developed a microsimulation model to compare 3 treatment strategies: (1) treat all patients with standard-of-care chemotherapy, (2) treat all patients with pembrolizumab, and (3) treat patients with PD-L1-positive tumors at a ≥1% expression threshold with pembrolizumab, and all others with standard-of-care chemotherapy. Additionally, we performed a budget impact analysis based on the projected number of urothelial carcinoma patients eligible for second-line pembrolizumab treatment.

Results

Treating all patients with chemotherapy resulted in a mean cost of $17,232 and mean effect of 0.43 quality-adjusted life-years. The PD-L1 test strategy was the most efficient strategy, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $122,933/quality-adjusted life-year. Treating all patients with pembrolizumab resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $197,383/quality-adjusted life-year compared to the PD-L1 test strategy. The PD-L1 test strategy would produce an incremental budget impact of $14.9 million in the first year of use compared to chemotherapy, increasing to $16.5 million in the fifth year of use. Treating all patients with pembrolizumab would produce an incremental budget impact of $19.6 million compared to the PD-L1 test strategy in its first year of use, increasing to $20.9 million by year 5.

Conclusions

Pembrolizumab was not cost-effective in either strategy based on a $100,000/quality-adjusted life-year willingness-to-pay threshold. Using PD-L1 testing to select for patients who may have better associated outcomes may improve the affordability of pembrolizumab.

Introduction

Bladder cancer is the sixth most common type of cancer in the United States and is associated with poor late-stage survival [1]. Urothelial carcinoma is the predominant histologic type of bladder cancer [2], [3], making it a primary target for new immunotherapy treatments. Five immunotherapy treatments have been approved for the treatment of urothelial carcinoma by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), each of them acting as checkpoint inhibitors to activate the immune system against cancer cells. Estimates from the biopharmaceutical industry project that total annual revenues from immunotherapy could reach up to $20 to $30 billion in the coming decade [4]. In an environment with strong financial incentives for pharmaceutical companies to increase drug prices, formal cost-effectiveness analysis can provide important context for public policymakers and prescribing physicians on the underlying value of such therapies.

The FDA approved pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.) in 2017 to treat locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma in patients whose cancer progressed during or after first-line chemotherapy [5]. Pembrolizumab is a programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) immune-checkpoint–inhibitor antibody that obstructs PD-1–mediated signaling and, thus, restores antitumor T-cell activation [6]. In a randomized, open-label, phase 3 international study (KEYNOTE-045, NCT02256436), overall survival with pembrolizumab was greater than that with the comparator regimen: docetaxel, paclitaxel, or vinflunine (10.3 months vs. 7.4 months, respectively) [6]. Patients receiving pembrolizumab also experienced a lower adverse event rate [6]. Patients whose tumors expressed higher PD-1 ligand (PD-L1) expression had improved survival when on pembrolizumab compared to chemotherapy [6].

Prior analysis by the U.K.’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) concluded that pembrolizumab should not be recommended for treating advanced urothelial carcinoma in the second line because it was not cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of £50,000/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) [7]. A recently published study by Sarfaty et al. examined the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab vs. chemotherapy for second-line treatment of advanced bladder cancer in the U.S.A., U.K., Canada, and Australia, concluding that it was only cost-effective in the United States at a WTP threshold of $150,000/QALY [8]. Neither of these studies considered a strategy in which pembrolizumab treatment was dependent on PD-L1 expression, nor did they assess the potential budget impact of adopting pembrolizumab-based treatment strategies. Based on these conclusions and in light of the growing market for immuno-oncology therapies, an analysis of the cost per QALY tradeoff of using pembrolizumab, with or without prior PD-L1 testing, in treating advanced urothelial carcinoma in the United States is warranted.

Section snippets

Simulation model

We developed a microsimulation model to estimate health and economic outcomes of patients presenting with advanced urothelial carcinoma in the bladder who experienced disease progression after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. We compared 3 strategies in our base case analysis: (1) treat all patients with standard-of-care second-line chemotherapy (50% receiving docetaxel and 50% receiving paclitaxel), (2) treat all patients with pembrolizumab, and (3) treat patients with PD-L1-positive

Results

We found that patients in the standard-of-care chemotherapy strategy accumulated a mean cost of $17,232 and mean quality-adjusted survival of 0.43 QALYs, with an estimated life expectancy of 0.83 years. The PD-L1 test strategy was the most efficient in comparison to standard-of-care chemotherapy, with an estimated mean cost of $27,579 and mean quality-adjusted survival of 0.51 QALYs (estimated life expectancy = 1.01 years), resulting in an ICER of $122,933/QALY (Table 2). Treating all patients

Discussion

Pembrolizumab has been approved for treatment of a number of different cancers (i.e., urothelial carcinoma, nonsmall cell lung cancer, Hodgkin's lymphoma, head and neck cancer, melanoma, and gastric cancer) and its effectiveness in advanced stage cancers has been substantiated by numerous clinical trials [6], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31]. Using the results of the KEYNOTE-045 clinical trial and other literature sources, we found that pembrolizumab was not cost-effective in either of the

Conclusions

We found that pembrolizumab was not a cost-effective option for the treatment of advanced urothelial carcinoma of the bladder for either of the strategies tested at a WTP threshold of $100,000/QALY. In sensitivity analyses, we determined that significant price reductions would be required to make treating advanced urothelial carcinoma with pembrolizumab an acceptable strategy from a health system perspective. As other immunotherapies approved for treatment of advanced urothelial carcinoma

Funding

None declared.

Disclosure

The authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

References (45)

  • J.E. Rosenberg et al.

    Atezolizumab in patients with locally advanced and metastatic urothelial carcinoma who have progressed following treatment with platinum-based chemotherapy: a single-arm, multicentre, phase 2 trial

    Lancet

    (2016)
  • T. Powles et al.

    Atezolizumab versus chemotherapy in patients with platinum-treated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (IMvigor211): a multicentre, open-label, phase 3 randomised controlled trial

    Lancet

    (2018)
  • V.C.A. Shih et al.

    Health state utility assessment for breast cancer

    Value in Health

    (2012)
  • C. Chouaid et al.

    Health-related quality of life and utility in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a prospective cross-sectional patient survey in a real-world setting

    J Thorac Oncol

    (2013)
  • S. Doyle et al.

    Health state utility scores in advanced non-small cell lung cancer

    Lung Cancer

    (2008)
  • R.L. Siegel et al.

    Cancer statistics, 2018

    CA Cancer J Clin

    (2018)
  • V. Chalasani et al.

    Histologic variants of urothelial bladder cancer and nonurothelial histology in bladder cancer

    Can Urol Assoc J

    (2009)
  • A. Extance

    Pharma queues up for checkpoint inhibitor collaborations [Electronic Article]

    Chem World

    (2015)
  • FDA Approves Merck's KEYTRUDA® (pembrolizumab) for Certain patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, a type of bladder cancer [press release]

    (2017)
  • J. Bellmunt et al.

    Pembrolizumab as second-line therapy for advanced urothelial carcinoma

    N Engl J Med

    (2017)
  • Pembrolizumab for treating locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma. In. United Kingdom...
  • P.J. Neumann et al.

    Updating cost-effectiveness—the curious resilience of the $50,000-per-QALY threshold

    N Engl J Med

    (2014)
  • Cited by (11)

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text