Search

Aim: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab compared with docetaxel and nivolumab for the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), as a second-line treatment, in a French setting. Materials and methods: A three-state partitioned-survival model was developed (progression-free survival, post-progression survival, death) based on the phase IIIOAK trial on a 10-year time horizon. The comparison between nivolumab and atezolizumab came from a network meta-analysis. Utilities were estimated from the OAK trial EQ-5D applying the French utility tariffs. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and treatment duration were estimated using parametric models selected using Akaike and Bayesian information criterion. Extrapolation beyond the trial duration followed NICE DSU TSD 14. Economic perspective was the one of all payers, discount rate fixed at 4% on benefits and costs. This analysis was aligned with French Haute Autorité de Santé recommendations. Results were expressed in total cost (2019) and €/QALY (Quality Adjusted Life Year). Model robustness was checked through sensitivity analyses, and a probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted. Results: In comparison to docetaxel, atezolizumab costs 49,429€ more and increased life expectancy by 8 months, generating 0.47 QALY. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was estimated at 104,835€/QALY. When comparing nivolumab to atezolizumab, a cost minimization analysis was conducted since no clear evidence supporting a difference in terms of survival benefit was reported. Using list price, and the Market Access Authorization regimens, atezolizumab saved approximately 6,000€, 9.5% of its total costs. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of our findings. Conclusion: Atezolizumab is more efficient and more costly than docetaxel in the second-line treatment of NSCLC of stage IIIB or IV, in France, with results consistent to previous French authorities' evaluation of immunotherapies in similar indication. Lastly, atezolizumab is a cost saving alternative to nivolumab, based on list price.

This prospective non-interventional study assessed the management of relapsed/refractory CLL after one or two treatments with rituximab, and retreatment with a rituximab-based regimen. An interim analysis was performed at the end of the induction period in 192 evaluable patients. Median age was 72 years [35-89], first relapse (55%), and second relapse (45%). Rituximab administered during first (68%), second (92%), or both treatment lines (20%). R-bendamustine administered in 56% of patients, R-purine analogs (21%), and R-alkylating agents (19%). The overall response rate (ORR) was 74.6%, in favor of R-purine analogs (90%), R-bendamustine (75%), and R-alkylating agents (69%). Lower ORR in Del 17p patients (43%) and third time rituximab (31%). Most frequent adverse events were hematological (23% patients) including neutropenia (11%) and infections (12%); grade 3/4 AEs (23% patients), mainly hematological (18%); death during induction treatment (7%). This first large study focusing on relapsed/refractory CLL patients retreated with rituximab-based regimens is still ongoing.