Cost-effectiveness analysis of capecitabine plus bevacizumab versus capecitabine alone in elderly patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer from Chinese societal perspective

Signaling pathways in colorectal cancer implications for the target therapies

Colorectal carcinoma (CRC) stands as a pressing global health issue, marked by the unbridled proliferation of immature cells influenced by multifaceted internal and external factors. Numerous studies have explored the intricate mechanisms of tumorigenesis in CRC, with a primary emphasis on signaling pathways, particularly those associated with growth factors and chemokines. However, the sheer diversity of molecular targets introduces complexity into the selection of targeted therapies, posing a significant challenge in achieving treatment precision. The quest for an effective CRC treatment is further complicated by the absence of pathological insights into the mutations or alterations occurring in tumor cells. This study reveals the transfer of signaling from the cell membrane to the nucleus, unveiling recent advancements in this crucial cellular process. By shedding light on this novel dimension, the research enhances our understanding of the molecular intricacies underlying CRC, providing a potential avenue for breakthroughs in targeted therapeutic strategies. In addition, the study comprehensively outlines the potential immune responses incited by the aberrant activation of signaling pathways, with a specific focus on immune cells, cytokines, and their collective impact on the dynamic landscape of drug development. This research not only contributes significantly to advancing CRC treatment and molecular medicine but also lays the groundwork for future breakthroughs and clinical trials, fostering optimism for improved outcomes and refined approaches in combating colorectal carcinoma.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of continuing bevacizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone after first progression of metastatic colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Continuation of bevacizumab plus second-line chemotherapy has significantly improved overall and progression-free survival in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). However, the cost-effectiveness of such high cost therapy is still uncertain in China; so this analysis was performed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of these treatment options from the Chinese health care system perspective.

METHODS

A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted using data from the ML18147 trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00700102) by modeling a partitioned survival model. Main evaluation indicators were quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) with a willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of $38,201 per QALY. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness and stability of the model. Subgroup and scenario analyses were also performed to make our study more relevant.

RESULTS

Bevacizumab plus chemotherapy increased 0.12 QALYs and an incremental cost of $22,761.62 compared with chemotherapy, resulting in an ICER of $188,904.09 per QALY. The model was most sensitive to the utility of progression-free survival and the cost of bevacizumab. Compared with chemotherapy, bevacizumab plus chemotherapy had a 0% cost-effectiveness probability, and no cost-effectiveness in subgroups at the WTP threshold of $38,201 per QALY. The scenario analysis found that bevacizumab biosimilar gained an ICER of $126,397.38 per QALY when assuming the cost of drugs was calculated at the most affordable price.

CONCLUSIONS

At the WTP threshold of $38,201 per QALY, continuation of bevacizumab plus chemotherapy is unlikely considered cost-effective for patients after first progression of mCRC.

Sponsorship bias in published pharmacoeconomic evaluations of national reimbursement negotiation drugs in China: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

China's National Reimbursement Drug List (NRDL) has become the primary route for drug reimbursement in China. More recently, the authority has made pharmacoeconomic evaluation an integral part of the application for NRDL inclusion. The underlying financial conflict of interests (FCOI) of pharmacoeconomic evaluations, however, has the potential to influence evidence generated and thus subsequent decision-making yet remains poorly understood.

METHODS

We searched for studies published between January 2012 and January 2022 on the 174 drugs added to the 2017-2020 NRDLs after successful negotiation. We categorised the study's FCOI status into no funding, industry funding, non-profit funding and multiple fundings based on authors' disclosure and assessed the reporting quality of included studies using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 checklist. We compiled descriptive statistics of funding types and study outcomes using t-tests and χ2 tests and conducted multivariate regression analysis.

RESULTS

We identified 378 records and our final sample included 92 pharmacoeconomic evaluations, among which 69.6% were conducted with at least one funding source. More than half (57.6%) of the evaluations reached favourable conclusions towards the intervention drug and 12.6% reached a dominant result of the intervention drug over the comparison from model simulation. The reporting quality of included studies ranged from 19 to 25 (on a scale of 28), with an average of 22.3. The statistical tests indicated that industry-funded studies were significantly more likely to conclude that the intervention therapy was economical (p<0.01) and had a significantly higher proportion of resulting target drug economically dominated the comparison drug (p<0.05).

CONCLUSION

The study revealed that FCOI bias is common in published pharmacoeconomic evaluations conducted in Chinese settings and could significantly influence the study's economical results and conclusions through various mechanisms. Multifaceted efforts are needed to improve transparency, comparability and reporting standardisation.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy as first-line treatment for mismatch-repair-deficient (dMMR) or microsatellite-instability-high (MSI-H) advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer from the perspective of the Chinese health-care system

BACKGROUND

Pembrolizumab is superior to chemotherapy as a first-line treatment for patients with mismatch-repair-deficient (dMMR) or microsatellite-instability-high (MSI-H) advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC), with a significant long-term survival benefit according to the KEYNOTE-177 trial. The current study aimed to determine whether pembrolizumab is a cost-effective treatment for patients with dMMR/MSI-H advanced or metastatic CRC in China.

METHODS

A partitioned survival model (PSM) was developed to simulate patients with dMMR/MSI-H advanced or metastatic CRC based on progression-free survival (PFS), progressive disease (PD) and death. The model was designed using a lifetime horizon, a 6-week cycle, and a 5% discount rate. The patients in the model had metastatic dMMR/MSI-H CRC and had not previously received treatment; these characteristics were similar to those of patients in KEYNOTE-177, a phase 3, open-label randomized clinical trial. The health outcomes and utilities were based on the KEYNOTE-177 trial and published data, respectively. Costs were calculated based on local charges (2022) and published literature. A treatment was deemed cost-effective in China if the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) value was less than U.S.$38,142.56 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). The robustness of the results was assessed via one-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

Baseline analysis revealed that pembrolizumab provided an additional 2.58 QALYs (3.00 life-year) at an incremental cost of U.S.$78,286.04, resulting in an ICER of U.S.$30,330.15 per QALY, which was below the willingness-to-pay threshold of U.S.$38,142.56 per QALY. When the patient assistance program (PAP) was considered, the ICER became U.S.$1,730.67 per QALY, manifesting absolute cost-effectiveness. The results of sensitivity analyses demonstrated that pembrolizumab was cost-effective in most cases.

CONCLUSIONS

Pembrolizumab is a cost-effective first-line treatment for dMMR/MSI-H advanced or metastatic CRC patients in China, especially considering the PAP.

Real-World Utilization, Barriers, and Factors Associated With the Targeted Treatment of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Patients in China: A Multi-Center, Hospital-Based Survey Study

Objectives: To explore the utilization, barriers, and factors associated with the targeted treatment of Chinese metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients. Methods: A total of 1,688 mCRC patients from 19 hospitals in 14 cities were enrolled from March 2020 to March 2021 using stratified, multistage cluster sampling. The use of targeted therapy and any barriers patients experienced were collected. Logistic regression analyses were conducted to identify the factors associated with initiating targeted treatment. Results: About 51.6% of the patients initiated targeted therapy, of whom 44.5%, 20.2%, and 35.2% started first-, second-, and third-line treatment, respectively. The most reported barriers were high medical costs and a lack of belief in the efficacy of targeted therapy. Patients treated in the general hospital, diagnosed at an older age, less educated, and who had a lower family income, no medical insurance, poor health-related quality of life, metastasis outside the liver/lung or systemic metastasis, a shorter duration of mCRC were less likely to initiate targeted therapy. Conclusion: Reduced medical costs and interventional education to improve public awareness could facilitate the use of targeted treatment for mCRC.

Retrospective efficacy analysis of olaparib combined with bevacizumab in the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a highly prevalent malignancy of the digestive tract worldwide, characterized by a significant morbidity and mortality rate and subtle initial symptoms. Diarrhea, local abdominal pain, and hematochezia occur with the development of cancer, while systemic symptoms such as anemia and weight loss occur in patients with advanced CRC. Without timely interventions, the disease can have fatal consequences within a short span. The current therapeutic options for colon cancer include olaparib and bevacizumab, which are widely utilized. This study intends to evaluate the clinical efficacy of olaparib combined with bevacizumab in the treatment of advanced CRC, hoping to provide insights into advanced CRC treatment.

AIM

To investigate the retrospective efficacy of olaparib combined with bevacizumab in the treatment of advanced CRC.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted on a cohort of 82 patients with advanced colon cancer who were admitted to the First Affiliated Hospital of the University of South China between January 2018 and October 2019. Among them, 43 patients subjected to the classical FOLFOX chemotherapy regimen were selected as the control group, and 39 patients undergoing treatment with olaparib combined with bevacizumab were selected as the observation group. Subsequent to different treatment regimens, the short-term efficacy, time to progression (TTP), and incidence rate of adverse reactions between the two groups were compared. Changes in serum-related indicators [vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), matrix metalloprotein-9 (MMP-9), cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2)] and tumor markers [human epididymis protein 4 (HE4), carbohydrate antigen 125 (CA125), carbohydrate antigen 199 (CA199)] levels before and after treatment were compared between the two groups at the same time.

RESULTS

The objective response rate was discovered to be 82.05%, and the disease control rate was 97.44% in the observation group, which were significantly higher than the respective rates of 58.14% and 83.72% in the control group (P < 0.05). The median TTP was 24 mo (95%CI: 19.987-28.005) in the control group and 37 mo (95%CI: 30.854-43.870) in the observation group. The TTP in the observation group was significantly better than that in the control group, and the difference held statistical significance (log-rank test value = 5.009, P = 0.025). Before treatment, no substantial difference was detected in serum VEGF, MMP-9, and COX-2 levels and tumor markers HE4, CA125, and CA199 levels between the two groups (P > 0.05). Following treatment with different regimens, the above indicators in the two groups were remarkably promoted (P < 0.05), VEGF, MMP-9, and COX-2 in the observation group were lower than those in the control group (P < 0.05), and HE4, CA125, and CA199 levels were also lower than those in the control group (P < 0.05). Vis-à-vis the control group, the total incidence of gastrointestinal reactions, thrombosis, bone marrow suppression, liver and kidney function injury, and other adverse reactions in the observation group was notably lowered, with the difference considered statistically significant (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Olaparib combined with bevacizumab in the treatment of advanced CRC demonstrates a strong clinical effect of delaying disease progression and reducing the serum levels of VEGF, MMP-9, COX-2 and tumor markers HE4, CA125 and CA199. Moreover, given its fewer adverse reactions, it can be regarded as a safe and reliable treatment option.

Were economic evaluations well reported for the newly listed oncology drugs in China's national reimbursement drug list

PURPOSE

To assess the reporting quality of published economic evaluations of the negotiated oncology drugs listed for China's 2020 National Reimbursement Drug List (NRDL).

METHODS

A comprehensive search was conducted to identify economic evaluation studies of negotiated oncology drugs listed in China's 2020 NRDL using the PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, CNKI, SinoMed, and WanFang Database up to March 31, 2021. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist scored the reporting quality between 0 and 100. A linear regression analysis was employed to examine the influence of various characteristics on the reporting quality scores.

RESULTS

Eighty papers were included in the study, with the majority published during the past decade. Furthermore, more than half of the articles (57.5%, or 46 out of 80) were written in English. The average CHEERS score was 74.63 ± 12.75 and ranged from 43.48 to 93.75. The most inadequately reported items included choice of model, characterization of heterogeneity, and discussion, as well as currency, price date and conversion. Higher scores were associated with articles published from 2019 to 2021 and English publications.

CONCLUSION

The economic evaluation studies of negotiated oncology drugs listed in 2020 NRDL had moderate reporting quality. The Chinese economic evaluation publications could improve the reporting quality if the CHEERS checklist is consistently implemented. Also, the Chinese journals maybe explore introducing a reporting standard for economic evaluations.

Cost-effectiveness of TAS-102 plus bevacizumab versus TAS-102 monotherapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer

Background

TAS-102 plus bevacizumab is an anticipated combination regimen for patients who have metastatic colorectal cancer. However, evidence supporting its use for this indication is limited. We compared the cost-effectiveness of TAS-102 plus bevacizumab combination therapy with TAS-102 monotherapy for patients with chemorefractory metastatic colorectal cancer.

Method

Markov decision modeling using treatment costs, disease-free survival, and overall survival was performed to examine the cost-effectiveness of TAS-102 plus bevacizumab combination therapy and TAS-102 monotherapy. The Japanese health care payer’s perspective was adopted. The outcomes were modeled on the basis of published literature. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) between the two treatment regimens was the primary outcome. Sensitivity analysis was performed and the effect of uncertainty on the model parameters were investigated.

Results

TAS-102 plus bevacizumab had an ICER of $21,534 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained compared with TAS-102 monotherapy. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that TAS-102 monotherapy was more cost-effective than TAS-102 and bevacizumab combination therapy at a willingness-to-pay of under $50,000 per QALY gained.

Conclusions

TAS-102 and bevacizumab combination therapy is a cost-effective option for patients who have metastatic colorectal cancer in the Japanese health care system.

Health Economic Models for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Methodological Review

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this systematic review was to provide a comprehensive and detailed review of structural and methodological assumptions in model-based cost-effectiveness analyses of systemic metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) treatments, and discuss their potential impact on health economic outcome estimates.

METHODS

Five databases (EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Health Technology Assessment and National Health Service Health Economic Evaluation Database) were searched on 26 August 2019 for model-based full health economic evaluations of systemic mCRC treatment using a combination of free-text terms and subject headings. Full-text publications in English were eligible for inclusion if they were published in or after the year 2000. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist was used to assess the reporting quality of included publications. Study selection, appraisal and data extraction were performed by two reviewers independently.

RESULTS

The search yielded 1418 publications, of which 54 were included, representing 51 unique studies. Most studies focused on first-line treatment (n = 29, 57%), followed by third-line treatment (n = 13, 25%). Model structures were health-state driven (n = 27, 53%), treatment driven (n = 19, 37%), or a combination (n = 5, 10%). Cohort-level state-transition modelling (STM) was the most common technique (n = 33, 65%), followed by patient-level STM and partitioned survival analysis (both n = 6, 12%). Only 15 studies (29%) reported some sort of model validation. Health economic outcomes for specific strategies differed substantially between studies. For example, survival following first-line treatment with fluorouracil, leucovorin and oxaliplatin ranged from 1.21 to 7.33 years, with treatment costs ranging from US$8125 to US$126,606.

CONCLUSIONS

Model-based cost-effectiveness analyses of systemic mCRC treatments have adopted varied modelling methods and structures, resulting in substantially different outcomes. As models generally focus on first-line treatment without consideration of downstream treatments, there is a profound source of structural uncertainty implying that the cost-effectiveness of treatments across the mCRC pathway remains uncertain.