Skip to main content

Table 3 Results of the scenario sensitivity analyses

From: Cost-effectiveness analysis of pembrolizumab compared to standard of care as first line treatment for patients with advanced melanoma in Hong Kong

 ComparatoraPembrolizumabPembrolizumab vs. comparator
LYsQALYsCostsLYsQALYsCosts∆ LYs∆ QALYs∆ costICER (∆cost/LY)ICER (∆cost/QALY)
Base case2.741.6446,0797.834.28141,1315.092.6495,05218,66835,993
Alternative comparators not reflecting clinical practice
 Pembrolizumab vs. ipilimumab5.843.22130,7937.834.28141,1311.991.0610,33851969761
 Pembrolizumab vs. temozolomide2.741.6345,4097.834.28141,1315.092.6595,72218,80036,169
 Pembrolizumab vs. paclitaxel/carboplatin2.741.6436,5517.834.28141,1315.092.64104,58020,54039,574
Impact of changing the method of survival (PFS, OS) extrapolation
 PFS modelled based on log-logistic distribution2.741.6447,5937.834.28140,4235.092.6492,83018,23235,152
 PFS modelled based on log-normal distribution2.741.6448,4967.834.28139,8455.092.6491,34917,94134,591
 OS modelled based on generalised-gamma HR function2.661.6045,8447.584.15140,4584.922.5694,61419,23636,967
Varying utility estimates           
 Progression-based utilities2.741.5846,0797.834.04141,1315.092.4695,05218,66838,642
Varying time horizons           
 5 years1.621.1340,4722.852.04120,3331.230.9179,86164,91287,333
 10 years2.121.4143,6524.793.14129,0902.671.7485,43832,04149,218
 20 years2.601.6045,6727.144.10139,1114.542.5093,43820,59537,367
Varying discount rates           
 0% for both health benefits and costs2.742.1252,6247.836.29166,0755.094.18113,45222,28227,153
 0% for health benefits, 7% for costs2.742.1244,2307.836.29134,4835.094.1890,25317,72621,601
 7% for health benefits, 0% for costs1.991.5152,6244.723.78166,0752.732.27113,45241,48250,074
 7% for both health benefits and costs1.991.5144,2304.723.78134,4832.732.2790,25332,99939,835
Varying practice patterns           
 Treatment until progression2.741.6446,0797.834.28216,0135.092.64169,93433,37664,349
 0% of patients who completed the treatment course received second treatment course2.741.6446,0797.834.28132,3545.092.6486,27516,94532,670
 100% of patients who completed the treatment course received second treatment course2.741.6446,0797.834.28153,6535.092.64107,57421,12840,735
  1. aDTIC represents the base case comparator reflecting clinical practice unless otherwise specified