Nivolumab vs Pembrolizumab for Treatment of US Patients With Platinum-Refractory Recurrent or Metastatic Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma

Abstract

Key Points Question Is nivolumab or pembrolizumab more cost-effective for treatment of US patients with platinum-refractory recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma? Findings In this cost-effectiveness analysis that included 487 patients, when the willingness-to-pay threshold was $100\u2009000 per quality-adjusted life-year, for patients weighing less than 72 kg, nivolumab (3 mg/kg administered biweekly) was considered cost-effective; otherwise, pembrolizumab was preferable. When the willingness-to-pay threshold was $150\u2009000 per quality-adjusted life-year, nivolumab (3 mg/kg biweekly) was considered cost-effective for patients weighing less than 75 kg; otherwise, fixed-dose nivolumab administration (240 mg biweekly, or 480 mg monthly) provided more cost savings. Meaning Findings suggest considering both the willingness-to-pay threshold and patient body weight when choosing between nivolumab and pembrolizumab for treating platinum-refractory recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma.