BACKGROUND: Renal cell carcinoma is the most common type of kidney cancer, comprising approximately 85% of all renal malignancies. Patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma are the focus of this National Institute for Health and Care Excellence multiple technology appraisal. A patient's risk of disease progression depends on a number of prognostic risk factors; patients are categorised as having intermediate/poor risk or favourable risk of disease progression.
OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this multiple technology appraisal were to appraise the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus relevant comparators listed in the final scope issued by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence: sunitinib, pazopanib, tivozanib, cabozantinib and nivolumab plus ipilimumab.
METHODS: The assessment group carried out clinical and economic systematic reviews and assessed the clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence submitted by Eisai, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, UK (the manufacturer of lenvatinib) and Merck Sharp & Dohme, Whitehouse Station, NJ, USA (the manufacturer of pembrolizumab). The assessment group carried out fixed-effects network meta-analyses using a Bayesian framework to generate evidence for clinical effectiveness. As convergence issues occurred due to sparse data, random-effects network meta-analysis results were unusable. The assessment group did not develop a de novo economic model, but instead modified the partitioned survival model provided by Merck Sharp & Dohme.
RESULTS: The assessment group clinical systematic review identified one relevant randomised controlled trial (CLEAR trial). The CLEAR trial is a good-quality, phase III, multicentre, open-label trial that provided evidence for the efficacy and safety of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab compared with sunitinib. The assessment group progression-free survival network meta-analysis results for all three risk groups should not be used to infer any statistically significant difference (or lack of statistically significant difference) for any of the treatment comparisons owing to within-trial proportional hazards violations or uncertainty regarding the validity of the proportional hazards assumption. The assessment group overall survival network meta-analysis results for the intermediate-/poor-risk subgroup suggested that there was a numerical, but not statistically significant, improvement in the overall survival for patients treated with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab compared with patients treated with cabozantinib or nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Because of within-trial proportional hazards violations or uncertainty regarding the validity of the proportional hazards assumption, the assessment group overall survival network meta-analysis results for the favourable-risk subgroup and the all-risk population should not be used to infer any statistically significant difference (or lack of statistically significant difference) for any of the treatment comparisons. Only one cost-effectiveness study was included in the assessment group review of cost-effectiveness evidence. The study was limited to the all-risk population, undertaken from the perspective of the US healthcare system and included comparators that are not recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence for patients with untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma. Therefore, the extent to which resource use and results are generalisable to the NHS is unclear. The assessment group cost-effectiveness results from the modified partitioned survival model focused on the intermediate-/poor-risk and favourable-risk subgroups. The assessment group cost-effectiveness results, generated using list prices for all drugs, showed that, for all comparisons in the favourable-risk subgroup, treatment with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab costs more and generated fewer benefits than all other treatments available to NHS patients. For the intermediate-/poor-risk subgroup, treatment with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab costs more and generated more benefits than treatment with cabozantinib and nivolumab plus ipilimumab.
CONCLUSIONS: Good-quality clinical effectiveness evidence for the comparison of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab with sunitinib is available from the CLEAR trial. For most of the assessment group Bayesian hazard ratio network meta-analysis comparisons, it is difficult to reach conclusions due to within-trial proportional hazards violations or uncertainty regarding the validity of the proportional hazards assumption. However, the data (clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness) used to populate the economic model are relevant to NHS clinical practice and can be used to inform National Institute for Health and Care Excellence decision-making. The assessment group cost-effectiveness results, generated using list prices for all drugs, show that lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab is less cost-effective than all other treatment options.
STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD4202128587.
FUNDING: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Evidence Synthesis Programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR134985) and is published in full in; Vol. 28, No. 49. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information. Health Technology Assessment
