Assessing the Impact of Additional Follow-up From the CheckMate-274 Trial on the Cost-Effectiveness (CE) Profile of Nivolumab Versus Surveillance in High-Risk, Muscle-Invasive Urothelial Carcinoma (MIUC)
Speaker(s)
Chandler T1, Orsini I2, Van Beurden-Tan C2, Kurt M3, Patel M3, Teitsson S4
1PRECISIONheor, Berlin, BE, Germany, 2PRECISIONheor, London, LON, UK, 3Bristol Myers Squibb, Princeton, NJ, USA, 4Bristol Myers Squibb, Uxbridge, UK
Presentation Documents
OBJECTIVES: This study assessed the CE profile of nivolumab versus surveillance with respect to duration of follow-up in CheckMate-274 trial’s efficacy and EQ-5D-3L data for the treatment of high-risk MIUC patients from a UK payer perspective.
METHODS: Patient level data corresponding to two successive database-locks (DBLs) from the trial with 11.0- and 31.6-months of minimum follow-up were used to populate a semi-Markov model consisting of disease-free (DF), local recurrence (LR), distant recurrence (DR), and death states. Expected costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) were calculated for the intention-to-treat population over a 30-year time horizon. Costs were sourced from UK public sources and the utility scores were calculated from trial EQ-5D data. For the estimation of transitions from the DF state until year 5, upon which DF patients were assumed to be cured, reported DFS data from the CheckMate-274 trial (years 0-3) and the control arm from the EORTC-30994 trial (years 3-5) are used. Transitions from LR and DR states were informed by the CheckMate-274 data and literature in metastatic treatment of UC, respectively. Between the two DBLs, all trial-specific model inputs were updated without changing modeling assumptions.
RESULTS: The incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) of nivolumab versus surveillance marginally improved from £48,407/QALY to £45,200/QALY (Δ=7%) when using CheckMate-274 data from the latest DBL. The difference between incremental QALYs and costs across the arms was modest-to-negligible (Δ<1% in costs, Δ<10% in QALYs) between the two DBLs. Total (and DF) QALYs increased by 0.07 (and 0.08) for nivolumab and by 0.01 (and 0.01) for surveillance. The total costs decreased from £74,310 to £73,764 for nivolumab, and from £35,049 to £34,281 for surveillance.
CONCLUSIONS: The longer follow-up data from CheckMate-274 study had a marginal impact on the original nivolumab’s CE versus surveillance, confirming the robustness of its economic value for the adjuvant treatment of MIUC.
Code
EE693
Topic
Economic Evaluation, Study Approaches
Topic Subcategory
Clinical Trials, Cost-comparison, Effectiveness, Utility, Benefit Analysis
Disease
Oncology