Cost-effectiveness analysis of an orphan drug-tebentafusp in patients with metastatic uveal melanoma and a call for value-based pricing

The normative regimens recommendations for treating metastatic uveal melanoma (mUM) are absent in the US. Recently, a phase III randomized clinical trial revealed that tebentafusp yielded a conspicuously longer overall survival than the control group. Based on the prominent efficacy, this study aimed to assess whether tebentafusp is cost-effective compared to the control group in patients with untreated mUM. A three-state partitioned survival model was developed to assess the costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) from the perspective of US payers. Scenario analyses and sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore the conclusion uncertainty. Compared with control group, tebentafusp therapy yielded an additional 0.47 QALYs (1.19 vs. 0.72 QALYs) and an incremental cost of $444 280 ($633 822 vs. $189 542). The resultant ICER of $953 230/QALY far outweighed the willingness-to-pay threshold of $200 000/QALY. The ICER was always more than $750 000/QALY in all the univariable and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Scenario analyses indicated that reducing the unit price of tebentafusp to $33.768/µg was associated with a favorable result of tebentafusp being cost-effective. For treatment-naive patients with mUM, the cost of tebentafusp therapy was not worth the improvement in survival benefits at the current price compared to the investigator’s choice of therapy. The cost-effectiveness of tebentafusp could be promoted using value-based pricing.