ArticleJAMA network open2020
Cost-effectiveness of Pembrolizumab Plus Axitinib Vs Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab as First-Line Treatment of Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma in the US.
Article in JAMA network open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.
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
21 citing papers in PubMed, 35 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Atezolizumab Versus Durvalumab as First-Line Treatment of Extensive-Stage Small-Cell Lung Cancer in the USA.Clinical drug investigation · 2022Trial
- Asthenia in cancer patients receiving immune checkpoint Inhibitors (ICIs): the MOUSEION-11 systematic review and meta-analysis.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026Review
- A comparative review of economic evaluations for immune checkpoint inhibitors in early stage and advanced stage cancer: focusing on pembrolizumab.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Review
- First-line enfortumab vedotin-pembrolizumab versus nivolumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin in metastatic urothelial cancer: a cost-effectiveness study.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Toripalimab Plus Axitinib for Patients with Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma in the United States.Clinical drug investigation · 2025Article
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of belzutifan versus everolimus for previously treated advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma in the United States and China.Therapeutic advances in medical oncology · 2025Article
- Long-Term Temporal Trends of Real-World Healthcare Costs Associated with Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab and Pembrolizumab Plus Axitinib as First-Line Treatment for Advanced or Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma.Oncology and therapy · 2024Article
- Scoping Review of Economic Analyses of Rare Kidney Diseases.Kidney international reports · 2024Article
- Recent updates in the therapeutic uses of Pembrolizumab: a brief narrative review.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2024Review
- Biomarkers-Based Cost-Effectiveness of Toripalimab Plus Chemotherapy for Patients with Treatment-Naive Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.Advances in therapy · 2023Article
- Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Six Immunotherapy-Based Regimens and Sunitinib in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Public Payer Perspective.JCO oncology practice · 2023Article
- Immune Checkpoint Receptors Signaling in T Cells.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Review
- CheckMate-067: Raising the Bar for the Next Decade in Oncology.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2022Article
- Economic evaluation of first-line nivolumab plus cabozantinib for advanced renal cell carcinoma in China.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- The Cost-Effectiveness of Tislelizumab Plus Chemotherapy for Locally Advanced or Metastatic Nonsquamous Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2022Article
- A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab Versus Pembrolizumab Plus Axitinib and Versus Avelumab Plus Axitinib in First-Line Treatment of Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma.Clinical genitourinary cancer · 2021Article
- Pembrolizumab and lenvatinib versus carboplatin and paclitaxel as first-line therapy for advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer: A Markov analysis.Gynecologic oncology · 2021Article
- Cost-Effectiveness of Frontline Treatment for Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma in the Era of Immunotherapies.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2021Article
- First-Line ICI Monotherapies for Advanced Non-small-cell Lung Cancer Patients With PD-L1 of at Least 50%: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2021Article
- Cost-Effectiveness of Pembrolizumab Plus Chemotherapy Versus Pembrolizumab Monotherapy in Metastatic Non-Squamous and Squamous NSCLC Patients With PD-L1 Expression ≥ 50.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Checkpoint inhibitor combination therapy represents a major advance in the first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma. Pembrolizumab-axitinib and nivolumab-ipilimumab have become standard of care options after demonstrating clinical efficacy against sunitinib in separate phase 3 trials. The cost-effectiveness of these regimens is unknown. Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab-axitinib and nivolumab- ipilimumab in the first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma. Design, Setting, and Participants: For this economic evaluation, a primary microsimulation model was developed and run between August and December 2019. Separate analyses were conducted for an intermediate- and poor-risk patient population (base case) and a favorable-risk population (exploratory analysis) because prognosis is known to differ between risk groups; 100 000 patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma were simulated in each treatment arm. Survival, treatment regimens, and other relevant conditions were based on data from the phase 3 KEYNOTE-426 and CheckMate214 clinical trials. The study perspective was the US health care sector. Main Outcomes and Measures: An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated for each of the 2 analyses and compared with a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Results: Pembrolizumab-axitinib was estimated to add 0.60 QALYs compared with nivolumab-ipilimumab in the base case analysis (3.66 vs 3.05 QALYs) and 0.25 QALYs compared with nivolumab-ipilimumab in the exploratory analysis (4.55 vs 4.30 QALYs), and was more costly (base case analysis: $562 927 vs $458 961; exploratory analysis: $589 035 vs $470 403). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $172 532 per QALY in the base case analysis and $468 682 per QALY in the exploratory analysis. One-way sensitivity analyses revealed that the base case model was most sensitive to first-line drug prices (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio at upper limit of nivolumab price and lower limits of axitinib and pembrolizumab prices: $89 983, $102 287, and $114 943 per QALY, respectively). The exploratory analysis model was most sensitive to overall survival rates (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio at lower limit of pembrolizumab-axitinib rate and upper limit of nivolumab-ipilimumab rate: $278 644 and $285 684 per QALY, respectively). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings suggest that pembrolizumab-axitinib treatment is associated with greater QALYs compared with nivolumab/ipilimumab treatment in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma but may not be cost-effective. Price reductions may make the cost of pembrolizumab-axitinib proportional to its clinical value and less financially burdensome to the US health care system.
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.