Evaluating the broad societal value of pembrolizumab in women’s cancer in Brazil
Our study analyzes the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab in early-stage triple-negative breast cancer (eTNBC) and persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer (CC) referred to here as "women's cancer" in a Brazilian setting. We incorporate the value elements described in the third Special Task Force Report by the Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research and additional novel elements considered relevant to women's cancer. We analyzed the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of pembrolizumab-based therapy in treating eTNBC and CC over a lifetime across the three perspectives: traditional payer perspective (TPP), traditional societal perspective (TSP), and broad societal perspective (BSP). Existing analyses previously used for health technology assessment included a four health state Markov model for eTNBC and a three health state Markov model for CC. These models were expanded to include productivity for the TSP along with caregiver burden, insurance value, value of hope, real option value, severity of disease, out-of-pocket expenses, and fertility treatment costs for the BSP. Data sources included the corresponding clinical trials and a targeted literature review. A single standard of care (SoC) comparator, using indication prevalence weighting and market share, was used to formulate the overall ICER. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis and scenario analyses were conducted. Pembrolizumab-based therapy generated an ICER over three times less with the BSP (R$45,180), compared with TPP (R$139,083) and TSP (R$141,152). The largest driver of results was the inclusion of insurance value, which substantially impacted quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). However, results excluding insurance value still generated an ICER of R$74,291, R$64,792 less than the TPP. Probabilistic results were consistent with the deterministic analysis. A broader analysis perspective significantly increased the estimated value of treating women's cancers compared with the TPP, indicating the perspective used by health technology bodies likely does not capture the full societal value of therapeutics.
