Over the last decade, an increasing number of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have been assessed for therapeutic efficacy in urothelial carcinoma (UC). The high cost has prompted multiple cost-effectiveness analyses for the various disease stages, with no established consensus. We reviewed the literature to assess the available cost-effectiveness studies and summarize their findings. Studies were filtered for a calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) to standardize comparison. Over 2600 articles were narrowed to eight primary investigations: one for BCG-refractory non-muscle invasive (NMI), one for neoadjuvant therapy in muscle-invasive (MI), and six for advanced disease. Cost-effectiveness was not achieved for NMI disease. Atezolizumab met the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold as neoadjuvant therapy for MI disease compared to chemotherapy, but with multiple limitations on the interpretation. Of the six studies on advanced disease, the results were mixed. This was at least partially attributable to varied methodologies including extrapolated time horizons, inconsistent cost inputs, and different WTP thresholds. Overall, the aggregate results were not compelling enough to establish ICIs as cost-effective compared to conventional chemotherapy. Value may improve with continued investigation into long-term outcomes, refined patient selection, and pricing discounts.
A systematic review of the cost and cost-effectiveness studies of immune checkpoint inhibitors
