
==== Front
Cost Eff Resour Alloc
Cost Eff Resour Alloc
Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation : C/E
1478-7547
BioMed Central London

39294689
578
10.1186/s12962-024-00578-5
Research
Economic evaluation of NALIRIFOX vs. nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine regimens for first-line treatment of metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma from U.S. perspective
Shao Hanqiao 12
Fang Hongshu 12
Li Yuan 12
Jiang Yunlin 34
Zhao Mingye 12
Tang Wenxi tokammy@cpu.edu.cn

12
1 https://ror.org/01sfm2718 grid.254147.1 0000 0000 9776 7793 School of International Pharmaceutical Business, China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu China
2 https://ror.org/01sfm2718 grid.254147.1 0000 0000 9776 7793 Center for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, Department of Public Affairs Management, School of International Pharmaceutical Business, China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu China
3 https://ror.org/04523zj19 grid.410745.3 0000 0004 1765 1045 Nanjing Hospital of Chinese Medicine, Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine, Nanjing, China
4 grid.410745.3 0000 0004 1765 1045 Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine, Nanjing, China
18 9 2024
18 9 2024
2024
22 7016 4 2024
6 9 2024
© The Author(s) 2024
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.
Background

The cost-effectiveness of NALIRIFOX as a potential new standard of care for patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDAC) has yet to be established. Our objective was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of NALIRIFOX vs. nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine in this indication from the perspective of U.S. public payers.

Methods

A partitioned survival model was constructed from the perspective of U.S. public payers, drawing on baseline patient characteristics and vital clinical data from the NAPOLI-3 trial. Costs and utilities were sourced from publicly accessible databases and literature. A lifetime horizon was applied, with an annual discount rate of 3%. We calculated and compared cumulative costs, life years, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER). To evaluate the model’s robustness, sensitivity analyses, scenario analyses, and subgroup analyses were carried out. Additionally, a price simulation for the costly liposomal irinotecan was conducted to inform the pricing strategy at the given willingness to pay (WTP) threshold.

Results

In the base-case analysis, NALIRIFOX provided an additional 0.29 QALYs with an ICER of $206,340.69 /QALY compared to nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine, indicating it is not cost-effective at a $150,000/QALY threshold. Sensitivity analysis showed the model was most sensitive to the costs of liposomal irinotecan, capecitabine, and post-progression care. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated a 17.66% probability of NALIRIFOX being cost-effective at $150,000/QALY, rising to 47.48% at $200,000/QALY. Pricing simulations suggested NALIRIFOX could become cost-effective at $150,000/QALY if the price of irinotecan liposome drops to $53.24/mg (a 14.8% reduction).

Conclusions

NALIRIFOX may not be cost-effective at its current price as a first-line treatment for patients with mPDAC in the long term. The cost of liposomal irinotecan has the greatest impact. It may become cost-effective only if its cost is reduced by 14.8%, with a WTP threshold of $150,000 /QALY.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12962-024-00578-5.

Keywords

Metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma
Cost-effectiveness analysis
NALIRIFOX
Nab-paclitaxel
Gemcitabine
General Program of National Natural Science Foundation of China72174207 issue-copyright-statement© BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2024
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

Metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDAC) remains one of the most lethal forms of cancer, with a 5-year survival rate below 10% [1] It is the fourth leading cause of cancer-related mortality in the United States, with projections placing it as the second leading cause by 2030 [2, 3]. This alarming trend underscores the imperative need for novel and more efficacious treatment strategies. Despite significant advancements in the understanding of the pathophysiology of mPDAC over recent decades, breakthroughs in clinical treatment strategies are still lacking, with the therapeutic effects of existing regimens being relatively limited. Currently, two combination chemotherapy regimens are the standard first-line treatments for mPDAC: the FOLFIRINOX, which is a combination of fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin, and the doublet regimen of nab-paclitaxel with gemcitabine [4].

Liposomal irinotecan represents an innovative approach in cancer treatment, encapsulating the topoisomerase I inhibitor irinotecan within a lipid bilayer vesicle to prolong its circulation time before it is converted to its active metabolite [5]. A phase 1/2 trial (NCT02551991, which was initially registered on ClinicalTrials.gov on September 16, 2015) that explored the combination of liposomal irinotecan with fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin, known as NALIRIFOX, demonstrated promising antitumor activity in treatment-naive patients with mPDAC [6]. The subsequent international randomized phase III trial, NAPOLI-3 [7], assessed the efficacy and safety of NALIRIFOX in comparison to the standard doublet regimen of nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine for patients who had not previously received treatment for metastatic PDAC. The survival analysis revealed a median overall survival of 11.1 months with NALIRIFOX, which was significantly longer than the 9.2 months recorded for the doublet chemotherapy group. The risk of death was reduced by 17% for patients receiving NALIRIFOX, with progression-free survival times of 7.4 months compared to 5.6 months for the doublet regimen. Building upon the observed superior efficacy, the NALIRIFOX regimen was formally incorporated into the first-line treatment recommendations for pancreatic cancer in the 2023 V2 edition of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Clinical Practice Guidelines [8]. In February 2024, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved NALIRIFOX regimen as a potential first-line treatment for mPDAC [9].

Despite these promising clinical outcomes, the cost of liposomal irinotecan, at $62.485 for 1 mg, is substantially higher than that of regular irinotecan, which is $2.064 for 20 mg, raising concerns about its cost-effectiveness [10, 11]. To date, there has been an absence of pharmacoeconomic evaluations concerning this issue. Therefore, our study aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of NALIRIFOX versus the combination of nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine as first-line therapy for previously untreated mPDAC patients, from the perspective of U.S. public insurance payers.

Methods

Study design

This study adhered to the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards reporting guideline (Supplement 1) [12]. The target population comprised adult patients in the United States with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma who were previously untreated in the metastatic setting. It was assumed that these patients shared similar baseline characteristics with those enrolled in the NAPOLI-3 trial (baseline information is detailed in Supplement 2 Table S1). Additionally, our model presumed a body surface area of 1.79m2 for the hypothetical patient cohort [13].

Patients were allocated to either the NALIRIFOX regimen or the standard chemotherapy regimen. The NALIRIFOX arm consisted of liposomal irinotecan at a dose of 50mg/m2, oxaliplatin at 60mg/m2, leucovorin at 400mg/m2, and fluorouracil at 2400mg/m2, administered sequentially as a continuous intravenous infusion over 46 h on days 1 and 15 of a 28-day cycle. The comparator arm was treated with nab-paclitaxel at a dose of 125mg/m2 and gemcitabine at 1000 mg/m2. The proportions of the subsequent treatments as reported in the NAPOLI-3 trial, and the first-line progressive treatment protocol was reference to NCT00112658 [14]. It was assumed that patients in the NALIRIFOX arm, upon disease progression, would be treated with monotherapy gemcitabine at a dose of 1000 mg/m2 administered via injection on days 1, 8, and 15 throughout four consecutive cycles. In contrast, patients in the nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine arm, upon progression, would receive the FOLFIRINOX regimen, which includes oxaliplatin at 85 mg/m2 administered intravenously over 2 hours, leucovorin at 400 mg/m2 also administered intravenously over 2 hours, irinotecan at 180 mg/m2, followed by a 400 mg/m2 bolus of fluorouracil.

Model structure

We developed a partitioned survival model to compare the cost and effectiveness of the NALIRIFOX regimen versus the Nab-paclitaxel and Gemcitabine regimens as first-line treatments for mPDAC. The model delineated three mutually exclusive health states: progression-free survival (PFS), progressed disease (PD), and death (Fig. 1). The time horizon of the model was established from a lifetime perspective, meaning that 99% of the patients would have transitioned to the death state. The cycle length was defined as one treatment cycle, which was 28 days. This analysis was conducted from the perspective of U.S. public payers (Medicare).

Fig. 1 Partitioned survival model structure

The primary outcomes of the model were costs, life years (LYs), equal value of life years gained (evLYG), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER). Both costs and utilities were discounted at an annual rate of 3%. The willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold considered the common U.S. benchmark of $150,000 /QALY gained, as well as a higher threshold of $200,000 /QALY for metastatic cancer [15]. The modeling and analysis were carried out using R version 4.3.0, available at R Project for Statistical Computing, and Microsoft Excel. Within the R environment, we used the“flexsurv” and “survHE” packages to reconstruct individual patient data (IPD) and extrapolate survival outcomes.

Effectiveness

Probabilities of PFS and OS were extracted from Kaplan-Meier curves from NAPOLI-3 through Engauge Digitizer (version 4.1) by Guyot’s method to reconstruct estimates of IPD [16]. Reconstructed IPD comprised event and censor times and were almost equal in number to the initial number at risk, which closely reproduced the digitized Kaplan-Meier curves. The reconstructed IPD was then used to fit the following survival functions: exponential, Weibull, Gompertz, gamma, log-logistic, log-normal, generalized gamma, fractional polynomial, restricted cubic spline models, and Royston-Parmar spline models. The goodness of fit was evaluated through the Akaike information criterion (AIC) and visual inspection. Lower AIC value combined with practical visual effect indicated a better fit of the selected model. Further information on the methodology of the goodness of fit and external validation can be found in Supplement 2 Table S2 and Figure S1.

Cost and utility

The economic model considered direct medical costs such as the cost of acquiring drugs, cost of follow-up, cost of treatment of adverse events (AEs), best supportive care, and end-of-life care. The drug costs were based on prices from Medicare Part B [17]. Given the potential overlap in the statistical categorization of AEs at different levels, to avoid double, and the model specifically considered AEs (Grade 3 or higher) with incidence rates exceeding 2%. The associated costs and durations of these AEs were extracted from data reported in published literature. To ensure the cost estimations were current and reflective of the study’s time frame, all prices were adjusted for inflation to October 2023 values using the Consumer Price Index Inflation Calculator [17, 18].

The utility values for PFS and PD were obtained from a U.S. economic evaluation of systemic chemotherapy as a first-line treatment for metastatic pancreatic cancer [15]. The disutilities due to AEs considered in this analysis were extracted from other studies. All AEs were assumed to be incurred during the first cycle; the duration-adjusted disutilities were subtracted from the baseline values. The parameters of model input are shown in Table 1.

Table 1 Model input parameters

Name	Baseline value	Low	Upper	Distribution	Source	
Cost ($)	
Leucovorin calcium injection (50 mg)	4.46	3.57	5.35	gamma	[17]	
Fluorouracil injection (500 mg)	2.84	2.27	3.41	gamma	[17]	
Oxaliplatin (0.5 mg)	0.07	0.06	0.08	gamma	[17]	
Inj irinotecan liposome (1 mg)	62.49	49.99	74.98	gamma	[17]	
Paclitaxel protein bound (1 mg)	14.79	11.83	17.74	gamma	[17]	
In gemcitabine hcl nos (200 mg)	3.93	3.15	4.72	gamma	[17]	
Capecitabine oral (500 mg)	1.17	0.94	1.40	gamma	[17]	
Carboplatin injection (50 mg)	2.76	2.21	3.31	gamma	[17]	
Irinotecan injection (20 mg)	2.06	1.65	2.48	gamma	[17]	
Magnetic Resonance Imaging	308.35	95.47	539.54	gamma	[17]	
Chemo iv infusion for 1 h	134.90	113.09	181.29	gamma	[17]	
Sequential infusion each additional hour	28.25	25.43	31.08	gamma	[17]	
Premedication cost for nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine	152.92	122.34	183.50	gamma	[15]	
Premedication cost for NALIRIFOX	1236.13	988.90	1483.36	gamma	[15]	
follow up cost before progression	519.04	415.23	622.85	gamma	[15]	
follow up cost after progression	1064.65	851.72	1277.58	gamma	[15]	
Best supportive care/cycle	2137.11	1709.69	2564.53	gamma	[23]	
End-of-life/patient	21747.14	17397.71	26096.57	gamma	[24]	
Clinical input	
Weibull model for NALIRIFOX PFS (shape)	1.22	1.10	1.34	gamma	Model fitting results	
Weibull model for NALIRIFOX PFS (scale)	10.47	9.45	11.61	gamma	Model fitting results	
Utility	
PFS	0.74	0.73	0.76	beta	[13]	
PD	0.67	0.65	0.69	beta	[5]	
Disutility of adverse events	
Diarrhoea	0.21	0.17	0.25	beta	[15]	
Nausea	0.05	0.04	0.06	beta	[25]	
Vomiting	0.05	0.04	0.06	beta	[5]	
Decreased appetite	0.0020	0.0018	0.0024	beta	[26]	
Fatigue	0.2040	0.1836	0.2244	beta	[27]	
Asthenia	0.2040	0.1836	0.2244	beta	[13]	
Neutropenia	0.0900	0.0620	0.1220	beta	[25]	
Anaemia	0.2040	0.1836	0.2244	beta	[13]	
Peripheral neuropathy	0.2260	0.2034	0.2486	beta	[28]	
Abdominal pain	0.0510	0.0200	0.1000	beta	[29]	
Mucosal inflammation	0.2690	0.2421	0.2959	beta	[30]	
Constipation	0.1700	0.1530	0.1870	beta	[31]	
Ascites	0.1700	0.1530	0.1870	beta	[31]	
Increased γ-glutamyltransferase	0.1700	0.1530	0.1870	beta	[31]	
Time duration of adverse events (days)	
Diarrhoea	5.57	5.013	6.127	normal	[5]	
Nausea	11.18	10.0611	12.2969	normal	
Vomiting	5.85	5.2668	6.4372	normal	
Decreased appetite	22.04	19.8378	24.2462	normal	
Fatigue	19.89	17.8965	21.8735	normal	
Asthenia	17.63	15.8661	19.3919	normal	
Neutropenia	9.547	8.5923	10.5017	normal	
Anaemia	12.40	11.16	13.64	normal	
Peripheral neuropathy	26.917	24.2253	29.6087	normal	
Abdominal pain	10.452	9.4068	11.4972	normal	
Cost for adverse events treatment per cycle	
Diarrhea	7332.19	5865.75	8798.63	gamma	[15]	
Nausea	7660.29	6128.23	9192.35	gamma	[32]	
Vomiting	830.60	664.48	996.72	gamma	[32]	
Neutropenia	13656.00	10924.80	16387.20	gamma	[33]	
Anemia	7941.00	6352.80	9529.20	gamma	[33]	
Asthenia	8099.62	6479.70	9719.54	gamma	[34]	
Peripheral Neuropathy	30734.00	24587.20	36880.80	gamma	[35]	
Decreased appetite	160.00	128.00	192.00	gamma	[36]	
Increased γ-glutamyltransferase	5584.70	4467.76	6701.64	gamma	[31]	
Abdominal pain	6538.09	5230.47	7845.71	gamma	[30]	
Ascites	10191.85	8153.48	12230.22	gamma	[31]	
Constipation	6749.29	5399.43	8099.15	gamma	[31]	
Mucosal inflammation	10797.87	8638.30	12957.44	gamma	[30]	
Fatigue	2668.76	2135.01	3202.51	gamma	[31]	
Risk of adverse events in NALIRIFOX	
Diarrhoea	0.20	0.18	0.22	beta	[7]	
Nausea	0.12	0.108	0.132	beta	
Vomiting	0.07	0.063	0.077	beta	
Decreasaed appetite	0.09	0.081	0.099	beta	
Fatigue	0.06	0.054	0.066	beta	
Asthenia	0.09	0.081	0.099	beta	
Neutropenia	0.14	0.126	0.154	beta	
Anaemia	0.11	0.099	0.121	beta	
Abdominal pain	0.04	0.036	0.044	beta	
Peripheral neuropathy	0.03	0.027	0.033	beta	
Ascites	0.03	0.027	0.033	beta	
Constipation	0.02	0.018	0.022	beta	
Mucosal inflammation	0.02	0.018	0.022	beta	
Increased γ-glutamyltransferase	0.06	0.054	0.066	beta	
Risk of adverse events in nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine	
Diarrhoea	0.05	0.045	0.055	beta	[7]	
Nausea	0.03	0.027	0.033	beta	
Vomiting	0.02	0.018	0.022	beta	
Decreasaed appetite	0.03	0.027	0.033	beta	
Fatigue	0.05	0.045	0.055	beta	
Asthenia	0.05	0.045	0.055	beta	
Neutropenia	0.25	0.225	0.275	beta	
Anaemia	0.17	0.153	0.187	beta	
Peripheral neuropathy	0.06	0.054	0.066	beta	
Increased γ-glutamyltransferase	0.06	0.054	0.066	beta	
Other	
Body Surface Area (m2)	1.79	1.78	1.80	normal	[13]	
discount	0.03	0	0.08	beta	
Proportions of subsequent treatment	
NALIRIFOX	0.505	-	-	-	[7]	
nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine	0.544	-	-	-	

Sensitivity analysis

To evaluate the stability of the outcomes from the base-case analysis, sensitivity analyses were executed. The deterministic sensitivity analysis (DSA) involved modulating all parameters within their 95% confidence intervals or by ranging plausible variations (± 20%) from the base-case estimates. For the cost parameters, a gamma distribution was chosen, while a beta distribution was applied to the probability, proportion, and utility estimates. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was then carried out for the stipulated price point by undertaking 10,000 Monte Carlo simulation iterations. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC) was utilized to determine the cost-effectiveness of each treatment regimen across a range of WTP thresholds.

Scenario analysis

Due to the significant cost variability and associated uncertainty that subsequent treatment may influence the outcomes, we conducted a scenario analysis for second-line therapy approaches. We incorporated second-line treatment regimens for pancreatic cancer as recommended by the NCCN and European Society for Medical Oncology guidelines [19], as well as those reported in NAPOLI-3 (Supplement 2 Table S3). To account for different patient scenarios in subsequent lines of therapy and to minimize the uncertainty of the results, we selected the highest and lowest cycle cost scenarios from the second-line treatment options for the NALIRIFOX group and the Nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine group. This approach allowed us to construct an analysis consisting of four distinct scenarios. The scenarios are as follows, Scenario 1: NALIRIFOX followed by gemcitabine with nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine followed by FOLFIRINOX. Scenario 2: NALIRIFOX followed by gemcitabine with nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine followed by 5-FU, leucovorin, and liposomal irinotecan. Scenario 3: NALIRIFOX followed by mFOLFOX with nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine followed by FOLFIRINOX. Scenario 4: NALIRIFOX followed by mFOLFOX with nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine followed by 5-FU, leucovorin, and liposomal irinotecan.

Subgroup analysis

In the subgroup analysis, the ICER was calculated using the subgroup-specific HRs for PFS and OS obtained from NAPOLI-3. Subgroup analyses were conducted under WTP thresholds of $200,000 and $150,000 for the US scenarios. We considered the subgroups of patients of different age (< 65 or ≥ 65), sex (male or female), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score (0 or 1), white race, region (North America or rest of the world), number of metastatic sites (1, 2 or ≥ 3), presence of liver metastases at baseline (yes or no), main pancreatic tumor location (head or other), and baseline CA 19 − 9 (< 37 U/ml or ≥ 37 U/ml).

Price simulation

Considering the high cost of liposomal irinotecan, we conducted a price simulation by varying the price of irinotecan liposome (1 mg) between $10 and $63 to analyze the possibility of cost-effectiveness of the NALIRIFOX regimen at U.S. willingness-to-pay thresholds of $150,000/QALY and $200,000/QALY.

Results

Base case analysis

The base-case analysis results, presented in Table 2, revealed that the lifetime treatment cost for NALIRIFOX is $216,397.03, which was substantially higher than the lifetime costs for the regimen of nab-paclitaxel and Gemcitabine, calculated at $156,558.23. The NALIRIFOX regimen resulted in an increase of 0.44 evLYG and 0.29 QALYs compared to the nab-paclitaxel and Gemcitabine regimen. However, the ICER for NALIRIFOX in comparison to nab-paclitaxel and Gemcitabine was determined to be $206,340.69 /QALY, which was higher than the chosen WTP threshold of $150,000 /QALY.

Table 2 Results of base-case analysis

Treatment	Cumulative cost
($)	Cumulative
life years
(Years)	Cumulative effectiveness
(QALY)	Incremental
cost
($)	Incremental effectiveness
(QALY)	ICER
($/QALY)	
NALIRIFOX	216,397.03	1.51	0.94	59,838.80	0.29	206,340.69	
Nab-paclitaxel and Gemcitabine	156,558.23	1.07	0.65	
Abbreviation: ICER incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, QALY quality-adjusted life year

Sensitivity analysis

The results of the DSA are shown in Fig. 2. The primary factors influencing the ICER were determined to be the cost of liposomal irinotecan, the cost of capecitabine, and the follow-up cost post-progression per cycle. This is attributed to the fact that liposomal irinotecan is a key component of the NALIRIFOX regimen and carries a relatively high baseline price. Consequently, fluctuations in the price of liposomal irinotecan have the most significant impact on the ICER results. In addition to the cost of liposomal irinotecan, the cost of capecitabine and the follow-up costs after progression emerged as critical determinants of the ICER. These factors are significant components of the second-line treatment and have a substantial impact on the overall cost of the treatment regimen. Given that capecitabine and carboplatin are significant components of the primary treatment options for patients after first-line therapy progression, variations in their costs also had a considerable effect on the ICER. Overall, after accounting for parameter variations within their specified ranges, it was concluded that NALIRIFOX was rarely cost-effective at the WTP threshold of $200,000 /QALY or $150,000 /QALY.

Fig. 2 Tornado diagram shows the association of variables with the ICER of NALIRIFOX vs. nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine. Abbreviation: ICER incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, QALY quality-adjusted life year

The cost-effectiveness density scatter plot is shown in Fig. 3A. The PSA results indicated that the average cost for NALIRIFOX was $211,568, while that for nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine was $153,426. The average health outcomes were quantified as 0.94 and 0.65 QALYs for these respective treatments. At a WTP threshold of $150,000 /QALY, the probability of NALIRIFOX being cost-effective was 17.66%. When the threshold increased to $200,000 /QALY, this probability rose to 47.48% (Fig. 3B).

Fig. 3 Results of the probabilistic sensitivity analysis (A. Cost-effectiveness scatter plot; B. Cost-Effectiveness Acceptability Curve). Note: Different colors in the cost-effectiveness scatter plot represent point density in that area

Scenario analysis

The scenario analysis compared the ICER of NALIRIFOX and nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine under different combinations of subsequent treatment regimens (Supplement 2 Table S4). The scenario analysis showed that scenario 1 and scenario 3 resulted in an ICER of $206,340 /QALY and $248,519 /QALY, respectively. This means that even the higher WTP threshold of $200,000 /QALY would not be cost-effective. This outcome may be because the most expensive subsequent treatment regimen was chosen for use after the NALIRIFOX protocol, while the least expensive subsequent treatment regimen was utilized following the nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine protocol, resulting in the lack of cost-effectiveness for NALIRIFOX. In the other scenarios, NALIRIFOX was found to be cost-effective. Therefore, the choice of subsequent treatment regimens had a significant impact on the cost-effectiveness of the frontline treatment strategies.

Subgroup analysis

Summary results of the subgroup analysis are presented in Supplement 2 Table S5. At a WTP threshold of $150,000 /QALY, the subgroup with the highest probability of being cost-effective was the North America subgroup (17.4%), followed by the subgroup with a baseline ECOG performance status of 1 (17.0%). A similar trend was observed at a WTP threshold of $200,000 /QALY.

Price simulation

The results of the price simulation are presented in Supplement 2 Figure S2. As the price of irinotecan liposome (1 mg) fluctuated between $10 and $63, the ICER increased in tandem with the rising cost of irinotecan liposome. NALIRIFOX becomes cost-effective at an irinotecan liposome price of $53.24/mg (a 14.8% reduction) when considering a WTP threshold of $150,000 /QALY. For a WTP threshold of $200,000 /QALY, the irinotecan liposome price of $60.83/mg (a 2.7% reduction) is required for cost-effectiveness.

Discussion

With the rising costs of healthcare, the emphasis on value in oncology care is becoming increasingly pertinent. The NAPOLI-3 trial’s promising results suggest that NALIRIFOX may represent a significant advancement in the treatment of metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDAC), offering potential therapeutic gains and an improved safety profile compared to the existing nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine regimen. Recognizing its therapeutic promise, the FDA granted approval to NALIRIFOX in February 2024 as a primary treatment option for mPDAC. However, the lack of comprehensive pharmacoeconomic evaluations has left clinicians and patients uncertain about the cost-effectiveness of NALIRIFOX.

Previous research in the U.S. context has been limited. For instance, Bin Wu et al. [20] analyzed the cost-effectiveness of olaparib maintenance therapy for metastatic pancreatic cancer with BRCA mutations, using a partitioned survival model. The study concluded that olaparib was cost-effective at a $200,000 /QALY WTP threshold, based on PFS benefits alone, given no OS advantage over placebo. Similarly, Mahdi Gharaibeh’s evaluation [15], using a Markov model, found that combination therapies for mPDAC, including oxaliplatin + gemcitabine, capecitabine + gemcitabine, FOLFIRINOX, and nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine, surpassed gemcitabine monotherapy ineffectiveness at the same WTP threshold, with nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine being the most cost-effective. However, there has been a lack of recent evidence on the cost-effectiveness of NALIRIFOX.

To the best of our knowledge, this is the inaugural evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of NALIRIFOX as a first-line therapy for mPDAC from the standpoint of U.S. public payer. The strength of this research lies in its comprehensive approach, which includes evaluating various second-line treatment scenarios and conducting extensive sensitivity analyses. Moreover, we performed pricing simulations for irinotecan liposome, furnishing policymakers with more comprehensive evidence. Finally, we included economic information from 18 subgroups according to the NAPOLI-3, offering insights into tailoring treatment choices in the era of precision medicine.

Despite these strengths, there are several limitations to our study. First, due to constraints in the original clinical trial, our analysis may be subject to inherent biases. For example, the proportions of subsequent treatments were only reported as single agents, which could introduce errors in calculating subsequent treatment costs. Additional clinical data would be necessary to enhance the accuracy of this study. Second, the utilities used in our model were not derived from the NAPOLI-3 trial but were instead sourced from a published health technology assessment. We assumed identical utilities for patients in both groups, which may have introduced bias into the results. Utilizing utility values from other related RCTs rather than directly from NAPOLI-3 presents several potential issues. Patient populations in different trials often have varying baseline characteristics, disease severities, and responses to treatment, all of which can significantly influence health-related quality of life. As a result, utility values from these external RCTs may not fully reflect the specific experiences of patients in the NAPOLI-3 trial. Additionally, differences in study design—such as variations in follow-up duration, assessment tools, and health state definitions—can lead to inconsistencies in utility values, potentially resulting in estimates that are not entirely comparable or representative of the outcomes within the context of NAPOLI-3. While the use of external utility values is sometimes necessary, it is important to acknowledge these limitations and carefully consider the potential biases they may introduce when interpreting the model’s results. Furthermore, one concern that arose during the modeling process was the potential for overfitting, particularly given the high mortality rate associated with mPDAC. While our analysis ensured that the fitted survival curves did not fall below the prevailing age-specific all-cause mortality rate, this criterion alone may not be sufficient to completely rule out overfitting. Finally, in the context of our scenario analysis, it is important to note that the NAPOLI-3 clinical trial has limitations, particularly in that post-progression survival outcomes are already established. While we acknowledge that simplifying the post-treatment scenario may appear reductive, adjusting the survival curves to reflect these changes is unfortunately not feasible within the scope of our current analysis.

It is also essential to address the limitations of using QALY as a measure. One of the primary concerns is its potential to be discriminatory, particularly in the context of diseases with limited survival benefits, such as metastatic cancer. QALY has been criticized for potentially undervaluing the lives of individuals with chronic conditions or disabilities, as it combines both the quantity and quality of life into a single metric. This can lead to biases in health economic evaluations, especially when comparing treatments for populations with different baseline health states [21]. Moreover, recent developments, such as the rules outlined in the Inflation Reduction Act, have highlighted the potential discriminatory nature of QALY, and the Act has ruled out QALY as a relevant metric in certain contexts, reflecting growing concerns about its use in healthcare decision-making.

However, despite these limitations, QALY remains a widely recognized and utilized tool in health economics, particularly when applied with careful consideration of its constraints. We understand that in the oncology setting in the United States, the cost-effectiveness threshold for each QALY typically ranges between $150,000 and $300,000, reflecting the country’s distributed healthcare financing systems [22]. Specifically, in cases of metastatic cancer and other diseases where the survival benefit is limited—resulting in a relatively small ICER denominator—thresholds closer to $300,000/QALY have been observed. Therefore, while it is crucial to acknowledge the limitations of QALY, particularly its potential for discrimination, it still serves as a valuable measure in evaluating the cost-effectiveness of medical interventions when used judiciously within the appropriate context. Recognizing its limitations allows for a more nuanced application, ensuring that it remains a relevant tool in health economic assessments.

Conclusion

In conclusion, our model’s estimation reveals that, NALIRIFOX is not cost-effective at a WTP threshold of $150,000 /QALY. However, pricing simulations suggest that NALIRIFOX could achieve cost-effectiveness at a WTP threshold of $150,000 per QALY if the price of irinotecan liposome were reduced to $53.24 / mg, which represents a 14.8% decrease.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Supplementary Material 2

Acknowledgements

HS and HF contributed equally to this work. Concept and design: HS and MZ; Acquisition of data: YL and HF; Analysis and interpretation of data: HS, MZ, and YJ; Drafting of manuscripts, HS, YJ; Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: WT; Obtaining funding: WT.

Author contributions

Concept and design: HS and MZ; Acquisition of data: YL and HF; Analysis and interpretation of data: HS, MZ, and YJ; Drafting of manuscripts, HS, YJ; Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: WT; Obtaining funding: WT. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the General Program of National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant no. 72174207).

Data availability

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable, this study does not involve human participants or animal subjects.

Consent for publication

All authors agreed to the publication of this manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Abbreviations

AEs Adverse events

CEAC Cost-effectiveness acceptability curve

DSA Deterministic sensitivity analysis

ECOG Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group

ICER Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios

IPD Individual patient data

mPDAC Metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma

NCCN National Comprehensive Cancer Network

PD Progressed disease

PFS Progression-free survival

PSA Probabilistic sensitivity analysis

QALYs Quality-adjusted life years

WTP Willingness to pay

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Hanqiao Shao and Hongshu Fang contributed equally to this work.
==== Refs
References

1. Siegel RL Miller KD Wagle NS Jemal A Cancer statistics, 2023 CA Cancer J Clin 2023 73 17 48 10.3322/caac.21763 36633525
Siegel RL, Miller KD, Wagle NS, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2023. CA Cancer J Clin. 2023;73:17–48.36633525
2. Rahib L Smith BD Aizenberg R Rosenzweig AB Fleshman JM Matrisian LM Projecting cancer incidence and deaths to 2030: the unexpected burden of thyroid, liver, and pancreas cancers in the United States Cancer Res 2014 74 2913 21 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-14-0155 24840647
Rahib L, Smith BD, Aizenberg R, Rosenzweig AB, Fleshman JM, Matrisian LM. Projecting cancer incidence and deaths to 2030: the unexpected burden of thyroid, liver, and pancreas cancers in the United States. Cancer Res. 2014;74:2913–21.24840647
3. Hu ZI, O’Reilly EM. Therapeutic developments in pancreatic cancer. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2023.
4. Chiaro MD, Sugawara T, Karam SD, Messersmith WA. Advances in the management of pancreatic cancer. BMJ. 2023 [cited 2023 Dec 21];383:e073995. https://www.bmj.com/content/383/bmj-2022-073995
5. Frampton JE, Liposomal Irinotecan. A Review in Metastatic Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma. Drugs. 2020 [cited 2023 Dec 26];80:1007–18. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7347682/
6. Wainberg ZA Bekaii-Saab T Boland PM Dayyani F Macarulla T Mody K First-line liposomal irinotecan with oxaliplatin, 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin (NALIRIFOX) in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a phase I/II study Eur J Cancer 2021 151 14 24 10.1016/j.ejca.2021.03.028 33957442
Wainberg ZA, Bekaii-Saab T, Boland PM, Dayyani F, Macarulla T, Mody K, et al. First-line liposomal irinotecan with oxaliplatin, 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin (NALIRIFOX) in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a phase I/II study. Eur J Cancer. 2021;151:14–24.33957442
7. Wainberg ZA, Melisi D, Macarulla T, Pazo Cid R, Chandana SR, De La Fouchardière C et al. NALIRIFOX versus nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine in treatment-naive patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (NAPOLI 3): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. The Lancet. 2023 [cited 2023 Dec 21];402:1272–81. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673623013661
8. National Comprehensive Cancer Network -. Home. NCCN. [cited 2024 Mar 27]. https://www.nccn.org
9. Research C, for DE. and. FDA approves irinotecan liposome for first-line treatment of metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma. FDA. 2024 [cited 2024 Mar 27]; https://www.fda.gov/drugs/resources-information-approved-drugs/fda-approves-irinotecan-liposome-first-line-treatment-metastatic-pancreatic-adenocarcinoma
10. NALIRIFOX Improves Survival Compared with Nab-. paclitaxel Plus Gemcitabine in First-Line Treatment for Patients with Metastatic Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma. [cited 2024 Mar 27]. https://www.esmo.org/oncology-news/nalirifox-improves-survival-compared-with-nab-paclitaxel-plus-gemcitabine-in-first-line-treatment-for-patients-with-metastatic-pancreatic-ductal-adenocarcinoma
11. Besselink MG Wilmink JW Treating metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: NALIRIFOX as new standard? Lancet 2023 402 1217 8 10.1016/S0140-6736(23)01521-0 37708905
Besselink MG, Wilmink JW. Treating metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: NALIRIFOX as new standard? Lancet. 2023;402:1217–8.37708905
12. Husereau D, Drummond M, Augustovski F, de Bekker-Grob E, Briggs AH, Carswell C et al. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations. BMJ. 2022 [cited 2023 Dec 21];376:e067975. https://www.bmj.com/content/376/bmj-2021-067975
13. Stainthorpe A, Greenhalgh J, Bagust A, Richardson M, Boland A, Beale S et al. Paclitaxel as Albumin-Bound Nanoparticles with Gemcitabine for Untreated Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal. PharmacoEconomics. 2018 [cited 2023 Dec 17];36:1153–63. 10.1007/s40273-018-0646-1
14. Conroy T Desseigne F Ychou M Bouché O Guimbaud R Bécouarn Y FOLFIRINOX versus gemcitabine for metastatic pancreatic cancer N Engl J Med 2011 364 1817 25 10.1056/NEJMoa1011923 21561347
Conroy T, Desseigne F, Ychou M, Bouché O, Guimbaud R, Bécouarn Y, et al. FOLFIRINOX versus gemcitabine for metastatic pancreatic cancer. N Engl J Med. 2011;364:1817–25.21561347
15. Gharaibeh M McBride A Alberts DS Slack M Erstad B Alsaid N Economic Evaluation for USA of systemic chemotherapies as First-Line treatment of metastatic pancreatic Cancer PharmacoEconomics 2018 36 1273 84 10.1007/s40273-018-0678-6 29948964
Gharaibeh M, McBride A, Alberts DS, Slack M, Erstad B, Alsaid N, et al. Economic Evaluation for USA of systemic chemotherapies as First-Line treatment of metastatic pancreatic Cancer. PharmacoEconomics. 2018;36:1273–84.29948964
16. Guyot P Ades AE Ouwens MJ Welton NJ Enhanced secondary analysis of survival data: reconstructing the data from published Kaplan-Meier survival curves BMC Med Res Methodol 2012 12 9 10.1186/1471-2288-12-9 22297116
Guyot P, Ades AE, Ouwens MJ, Welton NJ. Enhanced secondary analysis of survival data: reconstructing the data from published Kaplan-Meier survival curves. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012;12:9.22297116
17. Centers for Medicare &. Medicaid Services | CMS. [cited 2024 Mar 27]. https://www.cms.gov/
18. CPI Inflation Calculator. [cited 2024 Mar 27]. https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm
19. Conroy T Pfeiffer P Vilgrain V Lamarca A Seufferlein T O’Reilly EM Pancreatic cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up Ann Oncol 2023 34 987 1002 10.1016/j.annonc.2023.08.009 37678671
Conroy T, Pfeiffer P, Vilgrain V, Lamarca A, Seufferlein T, O’Reilly EM, et al. Pancreatic cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2023;34:987–1002.37678671
20. Wu B Shi L Cost-effectiveness of maintenance olaparib for germline BRCA-Mutated metastatic pancreatic Cancer J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2020 18 1528 36 10.6004/jnccn.2020.7587 33152708
Wu B, Shi L. Cost-effectiveness of maintenance olaparib for germline BRCA-Mutated metastatic pancreatic Cancer. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2020;18:1528–36.33152708
21. Schneider P. The QALY is ableist: on the unethical implications of health states worse than dead. Qual Life Res. 2022 [cited 2024 Aug 21];31:1545–52. 10.1007/s11136-021-03052-4
22. Seabury SA Goldman DP Maclean JR Penrod JR Lakdawalla DN Patients value metastatic cancer therapy more highly than is typically shown through traditional estimates Health Aff (Millwood) 2012 31 691 9 10.1377/hlthaff.2012.0174 22492885
Seabury SA, Goldman DP, Maclean JR, Penrod JR, Lakdawalla DN. Patients value metastatic cancer therapy more highly than is typically shown through traditional estimates. Health Aff (Millwood). 2012;31:691–9.22492885
23. O’Neill CB, Atoria CL, O’Reilly EM, LaFemina J, Henman MC, Elkin EB. Costs and trends in pancreatic cancer treatment. Cancer. 2012 [cited 2023 Dec 17];118:5132–9. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/cncr.27490
24. Bao Y Maciejewski RC Garrido MM Shah MA Maciejewski PK Prigerson HG Chemotherapy use, end-of-Life Care, and costs of Care among patients diagnosed with Stage IV Pancreatic Cancer J Pain Symptom Manage 2018 55 1113 e11213 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2017.12.335 29241809
Bao Y, Maciejewski RC, Garrido MM, Shah MA, Maciejewski PK, Prigerson HG. Chemotherapy use, end-of-Life Care, and costs of Care among patients diagnosed with Stage IV Pancreatic Cancer. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2018;55:1113–e11213.29241809
25. Nafees B Stafford M Gavriel S Bhalla S Watkins J Health state utilities for non small cell lung cancer Health Qual Life Outcomes 2008 6 84 10.1186/1477-7525-6-84 18939982
Nafees B, Stafford M, Gavriel S, Bhalla S, Watkins J. Health state utilities for non small cell lung cancer. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2008;6:84.18939982
26. de Groot S Redekop WK Versteegh MM Sleijfer S Oosterwijk E Kiemeney La Health-related quality of life and its determinants in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma Qual Life Res 2018 27 115 24 10.1007/s11136-017-1704-4 28917029
de Groot S, Redekop WK, Versteegh MM, Sleijfer S, Oosterwijk E, Kiemeney La. Health-related quality of life and its determinants in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Qual Life Res. 2018;27:115–24.28917029
27. Swinburn P Lloyd A Nathan P Choueiri TK Cella D Neary MP Elicitation of health state utilities in metastatic renal cell carcinoma Curr Med Res Opin 2010 26 1091 6 10.1185/03007991003712258 20225993
Swinburn P, Lloyd A, Nathan P, Choueiri TK, Cella D, Neary MP. Elicitation of health state utilities in metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Curr Med Res Opin. 2010;26:1091–6.20225993
28. Tam VC Ko YJ Mittmann N Cheung MC Kumar K Hassan S Cost-effectiveness of systemic therapies for metastatic pancreatic cancer Curr Oncol 2013 20 e90 106 10.3747/co.20.1223 23559890
Tam VC, Ko YJ, Mittmann N, Cheung MC, Kumar K, Hassan S, et al. Cost-effectiveness of systemic therapies for metastatic pancreatic cancer. Curr Oncol. 2013;20:e90–106.23559890
29. Sullivan PW Slejko JF Sculpher MJ Ghushchyan V Catalogue of EQ-5D scores for the United Kingdom Med Decis Mak 2011 31 800 4 10.1177/0272989X11401031
Sullivan PW, Slejko JF, Sculpher MJ, Ghushchyan V. Catalogue of EQ-5D scores for the United Kingdom. Med Decis Mak. 2011;31:800–4.
30. Ambavane A Yang S Atkins MB Rao S Shah A Regan MM Clinical and economic outcomes of treatment sequences for intermediate- to poor-risk advanced renal cell carcinoma Immunotherapy 2020 12 37 51 10.2217/imt-2019-0199 31992108
Ambavane A, Yang S, Atkins MB, Rao S, Shah A, Regan MM, et al. Clinical and economic outcomes of treatment sequences for intermediate- to poor-risk advanced renal cell carcinoma. Immunotherapy. 2020;12:37–51.31992108
31. Baker T Johnson H Kotapati S Moshyk A Hamilton M Kurt M Cost-utility of Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab in First-Line Treatment of Advanced Melanoma in the United States: an analysis using long-term overall Survival Data from Checkmate 067 Pharmacoecon Open 2022 6 697 710 10.1007/s41669-022-00348-0 36006606
Baker T, Johnson H, Kotapati S, Moshyk A, Hamilton M, Kurt M, et al. Cost-utility of Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab in First-Line Treatment of Advanced Melanoma in the United States: an analysis using long-term overall Survival Data from Checkmate 067. Pharmacoecon Open. 2022;6:697–710.36006606
32. Li N Zheng H Huang Y Zheng B Cai H Liu M Cost-effectiveness analysis of Olaparib Maintenance Treatment for germline BRCA-Mutated metastatic pancreatic Cancer Front Pharmacol 2021 12 632818 10.3389/fphar.2021.632818 33959007
Li N, Zheng H, Huang Y, Zheng B, Cai H, Liu M. Cost-effectiveness analysis of Olaparib Maintenance Treatment for germline BRCA-Mutated metastatic pancreatic Cancer. Front Pharmacol. 2021;12:632818.33959007
33. Shao T Zhao M Liang L Tang W Serplulimab Plus Chemotherapy vs Chemotherapy for treatment of US and Chinese patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung Cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis to inform drug pricing BioDrugs 2023 37 421 32 10.1007/s40259-023-00586-6 36840914
Shao T, Zhao M, Liang L, Tang W. Serplulimab Plus Chemotherapy vs Chemotherapy for treatment of US and Chinese patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung Cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis to inform drug pricing. BioDrugs. 2023;37:421–32.36840914
34. Kuznik A Smare C Chen C-I Venkatachalam M Keeping S Atsou K Cost-effectiveness of Cemiplimab Versus Standard of Care in the United States for First-Line treatment of Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer with programmed death-ligand 1 expression ≥ 50 Value Health 2022 25 203 14 10.1016/j.jval.2021.08.009 35094793
Kuznik A, Smare C, Chen C-I, Venkatachalam M, Keeping S, Atsou K, et al. Cost-effectiveness of Cemiplimab Versus Standard of Care in the United States for First-Line treatment of Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer with programmed death-ligand 1 expression ≥ 50. Value Health. 2022;25:203–14.35094793
35. Halloush S Alkhatib NS Almutairi AR Calamia M Halawah H Obeng-Kusi M Economic evaluation of three BRAF + MEK inhibitors for the treatment of Advanced Unresectable Melanoma with BRAF Mutation from a US Payer Perspective Ann Pharmacother 2023 57 1016 24 10.1177/10600280221146878 36639851
Halloush S, Alkhatib NS, Almutairi AR, Calamia M, Halawah H, Obeng-Kusi M, et al. Economic evaluation of three BRAF + MEK inhibitors for the treatment of Advanced Unresectable Melanoma with BRAF Mutation from a US Payer Perspective. Ann Pharmacother. 2023;57:1016–24.36639851
36. Courtney PT Yip AT Cherry DR Salans MA Kumar A Murphy JD Cost-effectiveness of Nivolumab-Ipilimumab Combination Therapy for the treatment of Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer JAMA Netw Open 2021 4 e218787 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.8787 33938936
Courtney PT, Yip AT, Cherry DR, Salans MA, Kumar A, Murphy JD. Cost-effectiveness of Nivolumab-Ipilimumab Combination Therapy for the treatment of Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4:e218787.33938936
