Background: Despite initial promising results, the IMvigor211 clinical trial failed to demonstrate an overall survival (
OS) benefit for atezolizumab compared with chemotherapy as second-line treatment for metastatic bladder cancer (
mBC). However, given lessened adverse events (
AES) and
[...] Read more.
Background: Despite initial promising results, the IMvigor211 clinical trial failed to demonstrate an overall survival (
OS) benefit for atezolizumab compared with chemotherapy as second-line treatment for metastatic bladder cancer (
mBC). However, given lessened adverse events (
AES) and preserved quality of life (
QOL) with atezolizumab, there might still be investment value. To evaluate that potential value, we conducted a cost–utility analysis (
CUA) of atezolizumab compared with chemotherapy from the perspective of the Canadian health care payer.
Methods: A partitioned survival model was used to evaluate atezolizumab compared with chemotherapy over a lifetime horizon (5 years). The base-case analysis was conducted for the intention-to-treat (
ITT) population, with additional scenario analyses for subgroups by IMvigor-defined PD-L1 status. Health outcomes were evaluated through life–year gains and quality-adjusted life–years (
QALYS). Cost estimates in 2018 Canadian dollars for systemic treatment,
AES, and end-of-life care were incorporated. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (
ICER) was used to compare treatment strategies. Parameter and model uncertainty were assessed through sensitivity and scenario analyses. Per Canadian guidelines, cost and effectiveness were discounted at 1.5%.
Results: For the
ITT population, the expected qalys for atezolizumab and chemotherapy were 0.75 and 0.56, with expected costs of $90,290 and $8,466 respectively. The resultant
ICER for atezolizumab compared with chemotherapy was $430,652 per
QALY. Scenario analysis of patients with PD-L1 expression levels of 5% or greater led to a lower
ICER ($334,387 per
QALY). Scenario analysis of observed compared with expected benefits demonstrated a higher icer, with a shorter time horizon ($928,950 per
QALY).
Conclusions: Despite lessened aes and preserved
QOL, atezolizumab is not considered cost-effective for the second-line treatment of mbc.
Full article