Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30477000›Full record

Trial reportJAMA dermatology2019

Economic Evaluation of Talimogene Laherparepvec Plus Ipilimumab Combination Therapy vs Ipilimumab Monotherapy in Patients With Advanced Unresectable Melanoma.

Abdulaali R Almutairi, Nimer S Alkhatib, Mok Oh, Clara Curiel-Lewandrowski, Hani M Babiker, Lee D Cranmer, Ali McBride, Ivo Abraham

Abstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in JAMA dermatology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. A systematic review of microsimulation models for skin cancer.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Advances in engineering local drug delivery systems for cancer immunotherapy.Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Nanomedicine and nanobiotechnology · 2020
    Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Abdulaali R AlmutairiCenter for Health Outcomes and PharmacoEconomic Research, College of Pharmacy, The University of Arizona, Tucson.
Nimer S AlkhatibCenter for Health Outcomes and PharmacoEconomic Research, College of Pharmacy, The University of Arizona, Tucson.
Mok OhCenter for Health Outcomes and PharmacoEconomic Research, College of Pharmacy, The University of Arizona, Tucson.
Clara Curiel-LewandrowskiDivision of Dermatology, Department of Medicine, College of Medicine, The University of Arizona, Tucson.
Hani M BabikerThe University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson.
Lee D CranmerDivision of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle.
Ali McBrideDepartment of Pharmacy Practice and Science, College of Pharmacy, The University of Arizona, Tucson.
Ivo AbrahamCenter for Health Outcomes and PharmacoEconomic Research, College of Pharmacy, The University of Arizona, Tucson.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: A phase 2 trial comparing talimogene laherparepvec plus ipilimumab vs ipilimumab monotherapy in patients with advanced unresectable melanoma found no differential benefit in progression-free survival (PFS) but noted objective response rates (ORRs) of 38.8% (38 of 98 patients) vs 18.0% (18 of 100 patients), respectively. Objective: To perform an economic evaluation of talimogene laherparepvec plus ipilimumab combination therapy vs ipilimumab monotherapy. Design, Setting, and Participants: For PFS, cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses using a 2-state Markov model (PFS vs progression or death) was performed. For ORRs, cost-effectiveness analysis of the incremental cost of 1 additional patient achieving objective response was performed. In this setting based on a US payer perspective (2017 US dollars), participants were patients with advanced unresectable melanoma. Main Outcomes and Measures: The PFS life-years and PFS quality-adjusted life-years were determined, and the associated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and incremental cost-utility ratios (ICURs) were estimated. Also estimated was the ICER per 1 additional patient (out of 100 treated patients) achieving objective response. Base-case analyses were validated by sensitivity analyses. Results: In PFS analyses, the cost of talimogene laherparepvec plus ipilimumab ($494 983) exceeded the cost of ipilimumab monotherapy ($132 950) by $362 033. The ICER was $2 129 606 per PFS life-years, and the ICUR was $2 262 706 per PFS quality-adjusted life-year gained. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses yielded an ICER of $1 481 208 per PFS life-year gained and an ICUR of $1 683 191 per PFS quality-adjusted life-year gained. In 1-way sensitivity analyses, the PFS hazard ratio and the utility of response were the most influential parameters. Talimogene laherparepvec plus ipilimumab has a 50% likelihood of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $1 683 191 per PFS quality-adjusted life-year gained. In ORR analyses, talimogene laherparepvec plus ipilimumab ($474 904) vs ipilimumab alone ($132 810), a $342 094 difference, yielded an ICER of $1 629 019 per additional patient achieving objective response. In subgroup analyses by disease stage and BRAFV600E mutation status, ICERs ranged from $1 069 044 to $17 104 700 per 1 additional patient achieving objective response. Conclusions and Relevance: The cost to gain 1 additional progression-free quality-adjusted life-year, 1 additional progression-free life-year, or to have 1 additional patient attain objective response is about $1.6 million. This amount may be beyond what payers typically are willing to pay. Combination therapy of talimogene laherparepvec plus ipilimumab does not offer an economically beneficial treatment option relative to ipilimumab monotherapy at the population level. This should not preclude treatment for individual patients for whom this regimen may be indicated.

Indexed as

Drug CostsNeoplasm StagingAntineoplastic Agents, ImmunologicalBiological ProductsCost-Benefit AnalysisCutaneous Malignant MelanomaDisease-Free SurvivalDose-Response Relationship, DrugDrug Therapy, CombinationHerpesvirus 1, HumanHumansInjections, IntravenousIpilimumabMelanomaSkinSkin NeoplasmsAntineoplastic Agents, ImmunologicalBiological ProductsIpilimumabtalimogene laherparepvec

Identifiers

PMID30477000
PMCPMC6439581

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.