Cost-effectiveness of immune checkpoint inhibitors as a first-line therapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review

Since 2017, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have been available for the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) or unresectable HCC, but their adoption into national medical insurance programs is still limited. Cost-effectiveness evidence can help to inform treatment decisions. This systematic review aimed to provide a critical summary of economic evaluations of ICIs as a treatment for advanced HCC and identify key drivers (PROSPERO 2023: CRD42023417391). The databases used included Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central. Economic evaluations of ICIs for the treatment of advanced HCC were included. Studies were screened by two people. Of the 898 records identified, 17 articles were included. The current evidence showed that ICIs, including atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, sintilimab plus bevacizumab/bevacizumab biosimilar, nivolumab, camrelizumab plus rivoceranib, pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib, tislelizumab, durvalumab, and cabozantinib plus atezolizumab, are probably not cost-effective in comparison with tyrosine kinase inhibitors or other ICIs. The most influential parameters were price of anticancer drugs, hazard ratios for progression-free survival and overall survival, and utility for health statest. Our review demonstrated that ICIs were not a cost-effective intervention in advanced HCC. Although ICIs can significantly enhance the survival of patients with advanced HCC, decision-makers should consider the findings of economic evaluations and affordability before adoption of new therapies.

Atezolizumab and Bevacizumab Targeted-Therapy in Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Systematic Review of Cost-effectiveness Analyses

BACKGROUND

Atezolizumab (ATZ) plus bevacizumab (BVC) co-administration is one of the newest systemic interventions in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (AHCC). This treatment approach is more costly and effective than other therapeutic interventions, significantly improving AHCC survival and health-related quality of life.

AIM

This economic study aimed to systematically review all cost-effectiveness analyses of ATZ/BVC combination in AHCC.

METHOD

A comprehensive search in scientific databases was performed using a highly sensitive syntax to find all related economic evaluations. The target population was AHCC patients. The intervention was ATZ/BVC, which was compared with sorafenib, nivolumab, and other anticancer strategies. We included studies that reported quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and/or life-years, costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), and finally, the characteristics of included studies were categorized.

RESULTS

Out of 315 identified records, 12 cost-effectiveness analyses were eligible for inclusion in the systematic review. Treatment costs were significantly higher with ATZ/BVC in all studies (from 61,397 to 253,687 USD/patient compared to sorafenib and nivolumab, respectively). Incremental QALYs/patient varied from 0.35 to 0.86 compared to sintilimab/BVC and sorafenib. Although ICERs for drugs varied widely, all were united in the lack of cost-effectiveness of the ATZ/BVC. The willingness-to-pay threshold in all studies was lower than the ICER, which indicated a reluctance to pay for this treatment strategy by the health systems.

CONCLUSION

The ATZ/BVC combination is an expensive targeted immunotherapy in AHCC. Significant discounts in ATZ and BVC prices are essential for this novel approach to be cost-effective and extensively used.

Economic evaluation of camrelizumab plus rivoceranib versus sorafenib as first-line therapy for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma in the United States and China

BACKGROUND

Camrelizumab combined with rivoceranib has been proven effective for treating unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC). However, their higher prices than sorafenib could impose a substantial economic burden on patients.

AIM

This study aimed to evaluate the relative cost-effectiveness of the combination of camrelizumab and rivoceranib versus sorafenib as first-line therapy for patients with uHCC from the perspective of the US and Chinese payers.

METHOD

Using data from the CARES-310 trial, a partitioned survival model (PSM) was developed, considering the perspectives of the US and Chinese payers. The model employed a 15-year time horizon and a biweekly cycle. Direct medical costs and utility data were collected from previous studies and open-access databases. Primary outcomes included quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Price simulations, sensitivity analyses, and subgroup analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

The ICER for the US and China was $122,388.62/QALY and $30,410.56/QALY, respectively, falling below the willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds of $150,000/QALY for the US and $35,898.87/QALY for China. Price simulations indicated the cost-effectiveness of camrelizumab plus rivoceranib when the price of camrelizumab (200 mg) remained below $6275.19 in the US and $558.09 in China. The primary determinant of cost-effectiveness in both regions was the cost of camrelizumab.

CONCLUSION

The combination of camrelizumab and rivoceranib is a cost-effective first-line therapy for uHCC in both the US and China. Lowering their prices could significantly influence their cost-effectiveness and accessibility to patients. These findings will guide clinicians in treating uHCC and help decision-makers formulate value-based drug pricing strategies.

Cucurbitacin B suppresses hepatocellular carcinoma progression through inducing DNA damage-dependent cell cycle arrest

BACKGROUND

The mortality rate of liver cancer ranks third in the world, and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a malignant tumor of the digestive tract. Cucurbitacin B (CuB), a natural compound extracted from Cucurbitaceae spp., is the main active component of Chinese patent medicine the Cucurbitacin Tablet, which has been widely used in the treatment of various malignant tumors in clinics, especially HCC.

PURPOSE

This study explored the role and mechanism of CuB in the suppression of liver cancer progression.

METHODS

Cell Counting Kit-8 (CCK-8) and colony formation assays were used to detect the inhibitory function of CuB in Huh7, Hep3B, and Hepa1/6 hepatoma cells. Calcein-AM/propidium iodide (PI) staining and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) measurement assays were performed to determine cell death. Mitochondrial membrane potential (Δψm) was measured, and flow cytometry was performed to evaluate cell apoptosis and cell cycle. Several techniques, such as proteomics, Western blotting (WB), and ribonucleic acid (RNA) interference, were utilized to explore the potential mechanism. The animal experiment was performed to verify the results of in vitro experiments.

RESULTS

CuB significantly inhibited the growth of Huh7, Hep3B, and Hepa1/6 cells and triggered the cell cycle arrest in G2/M phage without leading to cell death, especially apoptosis. Knockdown of insulin-like growth factor 2 mRNA-binding protein 1 (IGF2BP1), a target of CuB, did not reverse CuB elicited cell cycle arrest. CuB enhanced phosphorylated ataxia telangiectasia mutated (p-ATM) and phosphorylated H2A histone family member X (γ-H2AX) levels. Moreover, CuB increased p53 and p21 levels and decreased cyclin-dependent kinase 1 (CDK1) expression, accompanied by improving phosphorylated checkpoint kinase 1 (p-CHK1) level and suppressing cell division cycle 25C (CDC25C) protein level. Interestingly, these phenomena were partly abolished by a deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) protector methylproamine (MPA). Animal studies showed that CuB also significantly suppressed tumor growth in BALB/c mice bearing Hepa1/6 cells. In tumor tissues, CuB reduced the expression levels of proliferating cell nuclear antigen (PCNA) and γ-H2AX but did not change the terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase deoxyuridine triphosphate (dUTP) nick-end labeling (TUNEL) level.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated for the first time that CuB could effectively impede HCC progression by inducing DNA damage-dependent cell cycle arrest without directly triggering cell death, such as necrosis and apoptosis. The effect was achieved through ataxia telangiectasia mutated (ATM)-dependent p53-p21-CDK1 and checkpoint kinase 1 (CHK1)-CDC25C signaling pathways. These findings indicate that CuB may be used as an anti-HCC drug, when the current findings are confirmed by independent studies and after many more clinical phase 1, 2, 3, and 4 testings have been done.

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus the EXTREME regimen in recurrent/metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: a cost-effectiveness analysis

In the CheckMate 651 study, nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus EXTREME (cisplatin/carboplatin + cetuximab + fluorouracil) regimen was compared for effectiveness. It is not known whether these immunotherapy agents are cost-effective for recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinomas of the head and neck (R/M SCCHN). The purpose of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab plus ipilimumab with EXTREME in the first-line setting from the standpoint of third-party payers in the United States. The projecting of costs and outcomes over 15 years was done using a three-state partitioned survival model discounted by 3% per year. Long-term extrapolation of CheckMate 651 was used to model progression-free survival and overall survival (OS). The incremental net health benefit (INHB), incremental net monetary benefit (INMB), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were calculated. The uncertainty and stability of the model were accounted for via one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. As compared with nivolumab plus ipilimumab, EXTREME was associated with an increase of 0.154 life-years and 0.076 QALYs, as well as a cost increase of $572 per patient. The corresponding ICERs were $7545/QALY along with the values of INMB and INHB were $113,267 and 0.076 QALYs, respectively, at a willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000/QALY. The probability of nivolumab plus ipilimumab being cost-effective was > 99% in patients with combined positive score (CPS) ≥ 1, CPS 1-19, or CPS ≥ 20. Moreover, hazard ratio for OS and body weight were the most sensitive parameters for the model. According to sensitivity analyses, these results were generally robust. In overall populations with R/M SCCHN, the EXTREME regimen is cost-effective compared with nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Given a WTP threshold of $150,000 per QALY, the probability of the EXTREME regiment being cost-effective compared with nivolumab and ipilimumab, was 64%. Importantly, there was heterogeneity in the cost-effectiveness probabilities, based on primary sites and expression levels of PD-L1. Therefore, tailored treatment based on individual patient and clinical characteristics, remains important, and may impact the cost-effectiveness of the regimens under study.

Tislelizumab versus sorafenib as first-line treatment for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma in China: a cost-effectiveness analysis

Objective

The goal of this study is to compare the cost-effectiveness of tislelizumab and sorafenib as first-line treatment for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma in China.

Methods

A comprehensive cost-effectiveness analysis was undertaken within the framework of a partitioned survival model to accurately gage the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of tislelizumab compared to sorafenib. The model incorporated relevant clinical data and all survival rates were from RATIONALE-301 trials. The stability of the partitioned survival model was assessed by performing one-way and two-way sensitivity analyses.

Results

The total cost incurred for the tislelizumab treatment was $16181.24, whereas the sorafenib was $14306.87. The tislelizumab regimen resulted in a significant increase of 0.18 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and an extra cost of $1874.37 as compared to chemotherapy. The ICER was $10413.17 per QALY, which was found to be below the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $37304.34/QALY. The results of the sensitivity analysis found that no fluctuations in any of the factors affected our results, even when these parameters fluctuated.

Conclusion

Tislelizumab appears to be a cost-effective first-line treatment for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma when compared to sorafenib in China. These findings can inform decision-making processes regarding the selection of the most cost-effective treatment option for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.

Comparative analysis of disease modelling for health economic evaluations of systemic therapies in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study was to systematically analyse methodological and structural assumptions utilised in model-based health economic evaluations of systemic advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) therapies, discuss the existing challenges, and develop methodological recommendations for future models in advanced HCC.

METHODS

We performed literature searches using five databases (Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, Econlit, and CNKI) up to December 4, 2022. Technology appraisals from Canada, England, Australia, and the United States were also considered. Model-based full economic evaluations of systemic advanced HCC therapies in English or Chinese met the eligibility criteria. The reporting quality was assessed by using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 checklist.

RESULTS

Of 12,863 records retrieved, 55 were eligible for inclusion. Markov model (n = 29, 53%) and partitioned survival model (n = 27, 49%) were the most commonly used modelling techniques. Most studies were based on health-state-driven structure (n = 51, 93%), followed by treatment-line-driven structure (n = 2, 4%) and combination structure (n = 1, 2%). Only three studies (5%) adopted external real-world data to extrapolate the overall survival or calibrate the extrapolation. Few studies reported the assumptions of transition probabilities. Utility modelling approaches were state-based (n = 51, 93%) and time-to-death (n = 1, 2%). Only 13 studies (24%) reported five types of model validation. Economic evaluation results of specific treatment strategies varied among studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Disease modelling for health economic evaluations of systemic therapies in advanced HCC has adopted various modelling approaches and assumptions, leading to marked uncertainties in results. By proposing methodological recommendations, we suggest that future model-based studies for health economic evaluation of HCC therapies should follow good modelling practice guidelines and improve modelling methods to generate reliable health and economic evidence.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of first-line serplulimab combined with chemotherapy for extensive-stage small cell lung cancer

Background

For patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC), serplulimab plus chemotherapy is beneficial as the first-line treatment. It is uncertain whether serplulimab plus chemotherapy will be more cost-effective. The aim of this study was to evaluate from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system to assess the cost-effectiveness of serplulimab plus chemotherapy for patients with ES-SCLC.

Materials and methods

This study employed a partitioned survival model. Patients in the model were selected from ASTRUM-005 for their clinical characteristics and outcomes. In order to assess the robustness of the model, we conducted deterministic one-way sensitivity analyzes as well as probabilistic sensitivity analyzes. Subgroup analyzes were also conducted. Costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), life-years, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), incremental net health benefits (INHB), and incremental net monetary benefits (INMB) were analyzed.

Results

Based on the base-case analysis, serplulimab plus chemotherapy contributed to an increase in 0.826 life-years and 0.436 QALYs; an incremental cost of $52,331, yielded ICER of $120,149/QALY. Based on the willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of $37,669/QALY and $86,569/QALY, the INHB was -0.954 QALYs and - 0.169 QALYs and the INMB was -$35,924 and -$14,626, respectively. Based on the probabilistic sensitivity analysis results, serplulimab plus chemotherapy was unlikely to be cost-effective at a WTP threshold of $37,669/QALY and $86,569/QALY. One-way sensitivity analysis indicated that cost of serplulimab and body weight had the greatest impact on the model. Serplulimab plus chemotherapy could be cost-effective at a WTP threshold of $86,569/QALY when the cost of serplulimab was less than $5.24/mg or when the weight of the patient was less than 40.96 kg. Regardless of the WTP threshold at $37,669/QALY or $86,569. Serplulimab plus chemotherapy was not cost-effective in all subgroups.

Conclusion

Serplulimab plus chemotherapy was not cost-effective, despite having a prior clinical benefical and a relative safety profile compared with chemotherapy. With the reduction in the price of serplulimab, ES-SCLC patients treated with serplulimab plus chemotherapy may be able to achieve a favorable cost-effectiveness rate.

Cost-effectiveness of sacituzumab govitecan in hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative metastatic breast cancer

Background

The efficiency and safety of sacituzumab govitecan (SG) for the therapy of hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/human epidermal receptor 2-negative (HER2-) metastatic breast cancer (BC) has been demonstrated. The aim of this study is to evaluate its cost-effectiveness on HR+/HER2- metastatic BC from the third-party payer perspective in the United States.

Methods

We performed the cost-effectiveness of SG and chemotherapy using a partitioned survival model. TROPiCS-02 provided clinical patients for this study. We evaluated the robustness of this study by one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Subgroup analyses were also conducted. The outcomes were costs, life-years, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), incremental net health benefit (INHB), and incremental net monetary benefit (INMB).

Results

SG treatment was related to an increase of 0.284 life years and 0.217 QALYs over chemotherapy, as well as a cost increase of $132,689, reaching an ICER of $612,772/QALY. The INHB was -0.668 QALYs, and the INMB was -$100,208. SG was not cost-effective at the willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000/QALY. The outcomes were sensitive to patient body weight and cost of SG. SG may be cost-effective at the WTP threshold of $150,000/QALY if the price is less than $3.997/mg or the weight of patients is under 19.88 kg. Based on the subgroup analysis, SG did not prove cost-effective in all subgroups at the WTP threshold of $150,000/QALY.

Conclusion

From a third-party payer standpoint in the United States, SG was not cost-effective, even though it had a clinically significant advantage over chemotherapy for the treatment of HR+/HER2- metastatic BC. The cost-effectiveness of SG can be improved if the price is substantially reduced.

Cost-effectiveness of cemiplimab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy for the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer

Background

In patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC), cemiplimab plus chemotherapy prolonged overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) significantly compared to chemotherapy alone. The cost-effectiveness of these drugs is still uncertain. The aim of this study is to assess the cost-effectiveness of cemiplimab plus chemotherapy compared with chemotherapy for the treatment of aNSCLC from the third-party payer perspective in the United States.

Materials and methods

The cost-effectiveness of cemiplimab with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy for the treatment of aNSCLC was evaluated using a partitioned survival model containing three mutually incompatible health states. The clinical characteristics and outcomes used in the model were gathered from EMPOWER-Lung 3 trial. We have conducted deterministic one-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis in order to evaluate the robustness of the model. The primary outcomes considered were the costs, life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), incremental net health benefits (INHB), and incremental net monetary benefits (INMB).

Results

Treatment of aNSCLC with cemiplimab plus chemotherapy increased efficacy by 0.237 QALYs and was associated with an increased total cost of $50,796 compared to chemotherapy alone, resulting in an ICER of $214,256/QALY gained. At a WTP threshold of $150,000/QALY, the INHB of cemiplimab plus chemotherapy was 0.203 QALYs and the INMB was $304,704 compared to chemotherapy alone. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed that there was only a 0.04% chance that cemiplimab with chemotherapy would be cost-effective at a WTP threshold of $150,000/QALY. The performance of model was mainly determined by the price of cemiplimab, according to a one-way sensitivity analysis.

Conclusions

From the third-party payer perspective, cemiplimab combined chemotherapy is unlikely to be a cost-effective option for the treatment of aNSCLC at the WTP threshold of $150,000/QALY in the United States.