The effect of PD-L1 testing on the cost-effectiveness and economic impact of immune checkpoint inhibitors for the second-line treatment of NSCLC.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors improve outcomes compared with chemotherapy in lung cancer. Tumor PD-L1 receptor expression is being studied as a predictive biomarker. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness and economic impact of second-line treatment with nivolumab, pembrolizumab, and atezolizumab with and without the use of PD-L1 testing for patient selection. DESIGN: We developed a decision-analytic model to determine the cost-effectiveness of PD-L1 assessment and second-line immunotherapy versus docetaxel. The model used outcomes data from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and drug acquisition costs from the United States. Thereafter, we used epidemiologic data to estimate the economic impact of the treatment. RESULTS: We included four RCTs (2 with nivolumab, 1 with pembrolizumab, and 1 with atezolizumab). The incremental quality-adjusted life year (QALY) for nivolumab was 0.417 among squamous tumors and 0.287 among non-squamous tumors and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were $155 605 and $187 685, respectively. The QALY gain in the base case for atezolizumab was 0.354 and the ICER was $215 802. Compared with treating all patients, the selection of patients by PD-L1 expression improved incremental QALY by up to 183% and decreased the ICER by up to 65%. Pembrolizumab was studied only in patients whose tumors expressed PD-L1. The QALY gain was 0.346 and the ICER was $98 421. Patient selection also reduced the budget impact of immunotherapy. CONCLUSION: The use of PD-L1 expression as a biomarker increases cost-effectiveness of immunotherapy but also diminishes the number of potential life-years saved.

Clinical and economic implications of the use of nanoparticle paclitaxel (Nanoxel) in India.

Paclitaxel (Taxol), one of the most commonly used chemotherapeutic agents, is poorly soluble in water and requires cremophor, which often causes infusion reactions, as a solvent. Nanoxel, a nanoparticle formulation of the taxane, has been approved by the Indian regulatory authority. In the present article, we aim to describe the experience with the use of Nanoxel in India and its clinical and economic implications. We present three retrospective series in a common practice environment and an economic model. The first series shows no reactions in 596 Nanoxel infusions; the second series shows comparable adverse events other than infusion reactions between 83 patients who received Nanoxel and 32 treated with conventional paclitaxel. The third reveals comparable clinical outcomes for 51 patients treated with Nanoxel or conventional paclitaxel for gastroesophageal tumors. Finally, we describe an economic model which estimates savings of 21 580 Indian rupees per cycle with Nanoxel vis-à-vis conventional paclitaxel in the treatment of solid tumors in India. In conclusion, in an era in which the greatest challenge we face as medical oncologists is how to conciliate hard-won and incremental--but small--improvements in survival with exponentially rising drugs costs, it is refreshing to see a potential new formulation of a commonly used drug that may actually generate cost-savings while improving clinical outcomes and patient well-being. Further studies are clearly warranted to determine the optimal dose and schedule for Nanoxel as well as its comparative effectiveness to cremophor-based paclitaxel.