ReviewBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2020
Cost-effectiveness and financial risks associated with immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy.
Review in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Efficacy and safety of two-year fixed versus continuous immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy in advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review.Cancer immunology, immunotherapy : CII · 2025Pooled it
- The evolution of cancer therapies and their Implications for health technology assessment in Australia.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2026Review
- Improving assessment of financial toxicity of cancer immunotherapy.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025Article
- Implementing performance-based risk-sharing agreements in non-small cell lung cancer immunotherapy: a real-world data case study.Health economics review · 2025Article
- Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor-Based Therapy as the First-Line Treatment for Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Efficacy, Challenges, and Future Perspectives.Thoracic cancer · 2025Review
- Real world experience with omission of therapeutic lymph node dissection in clinical stage III malignant melanoma treated with checkpoint or kinase inhibition systemic therapy.Surgical oncology insight · 2025Article
- Unlocking cancer vaccine potential: What are the key factors?Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2024Review
- Article
- Interventional pharmacoeconomics for immune checkpoint inhibitors through alternative dosing strategies.British journal of cancer · 2023Review
- Using health technology assessment to inform insurance reimbursement of high technology medicines in China: an example of cancer immunotherapy.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2023Article
- Real-world assessment of attenuated dosing anti-PD1 therapy as an alternative dosing strategy in a high-income country (as defined by World Bank).Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Comparison of EQ-5D-3L with QLU-C10D in Metastatic Melanoma Using Cost-Utility Analysis.PharmacoEconomics - open · 2021Article
- The dark side of immunotherapy.Annals of translational medicine · 2021Review
- Emerging avenues in immunotherapy for the management of malignant pleural mesothelioma.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2021Review
- Unraveling the complexity of therapeutic drug monitoring for monoclonal antibody therapies to individualize dose in oncology.Pharmacology research & perspectives · 2021Review
- Taking the brake off the immune system: Hypotheses, trials, tribulations, and the evolving discipline of clinical immunopharmacology.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2020Article
- Cost-effectiveness and financial risks associated with immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The reimbursement of immune checkpoint inhibitors is challenging. Funding these technologies involves the careful balance between awarding innovation and ensuring affordability as increases in drug spending compete directly with other health care and social expenditure. This narrative review examines the recommendations of 2 health technology assessment agencies-the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee and the British National Institute of Clinical Excellence-to determine the factors that contribute to the approval and rejection of immune checkpoint inhibitors as well as the use of manage entry schemes and risk management strategies to control expenditure. Reimbursement decisions from 6 immune checkpoint inhibitor drugs (ipilimumab, pembrolizumab, nivolumab, durvalumab, atezolizumab, avelumab) covering 10 different cancers were examined. The extrapolation of survival beyond the clinical trial and lack of head-to-head evidence are some of the main issues relating to cost effectiveness. Payers managed financial risks using different mechanisms such as risk share agreements and financial caps. This review of the reimbursement decisions and subsequent financial impact in Australia and the UK suggests budgets for immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy have been well managed so far. Through risk agreements and managed entry programmes, the example of immune checkpoint inhibitor therapies illustrates that industry and payers can effectively collaborate to ensure that innovative, but expensive, drugs can be made readily available to patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.