Cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy for metastatic non-small cell lung cancer: a head-to-head trial vs. real-world comparison.

OBJECTIVES

Real-world evidence (RWE) is increasingly used in health technology assessment (HTA) to address uncertainties surrounding the generalizability of randomized clinical trial (RCT) data. Pembrolizumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy improves survival in metastatic, non-small cell cancer (mNSCLC); however, existing economic evaluations primarily rely on RCT inputs. This study aimed to provide a within-model comparison of cost-effectiveness estimates derived from RCT and population-based RWE for pembrolizumab plus platinum therapy versus platinum therapy alone.

METHODS

A cost-utility analysis was conducted using a semi-Markov approach over a 3-year time horizon. Survival parameters were sourced separately from RCT and RWE datasets. Costs were estimated from the Australian payer perspective. Decision uncertainty was examined through one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

Using RCT-based data, pembrolizumab plus platinum therapy increased total costs by AU$97,661 and provided a gain of 0.29 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) compared with platinum therapy alone, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of AU$336,196/QALY. RWE-based inputs, led to incremental costs of AU$79,471, a gain of 0.16 QALYs, and an ICER of AU$496,007/QALY. Probabilistic analyses indicated a < 5% probability of cost-effectiveness at willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds of AU$75,000/QALY for both evidence sources.

CONCLUSION

Pembrolizumab plus platinum therapy is unlikely to be cost-effective for mNSCLC. The higher ICER with RWE compared to RCT data suggests that trial-based outcomes may overestimate effectiveness in routine practice. These findings highlight the importance of incorporating RWE into post-approval reassessment for high-cost oncology therapies.