Cost-Effectiveness of Lenvatinib Compared with Sorafenib for the First-Line Treatment of Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Australia

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.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab compared with sorafenib as first-line treatment in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma in Singapore

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to explore the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab against sorafenib for first-line treatment of locally advanced or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in Singapore.

METHODS

A partitioned survival model was developed from a healthcare system perspective, with a 10-year lifetime horizon. Clinical inputs and utilities were obtained from the IMbrave150 trial. Healthcare resource use costs were obtained from published local sources; drug costs reflected the most recent public hospital selling prices. Outcomes included life years, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the model's robustness.

RESULTS

Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab offered an additional 1.42 life years and 1.09 QALYs, with an additional cost of S$111,847; the ICER was S$102,988/QALY. The World Health Organization considers interventions with ICERs <1 gross domestic product (GDP)/capita to be highly cost-effective. At a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of S$114,165/QALY (Singapore's 2022 GDP/capita), atezolizumab plus bevacizumab is cost-effective compared with sorafenib. The ICER was most sensitive to variations in utilities, but all parameter variations had no significant impact on the model outcomes.

CONCLUSION

At a WTP threshold of Singapore's GDP/capita, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab is cost-effective compared with sorafenib.

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.

Multidisciplinary treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma in 2023: Italian practice Treatment Guidelines of the Italian Association for the Study of the Liver (AISF), Italian Association of Medical Oncology (AIOM), Italian Association of Hepato-Bilio-Pancreatic Surgery (AICEP), Italian Association of Hospital Gastroenterologists (AIGO), Italian Association of Radiology and Clinical Oncology (AIRO), Italian Society of Pathological Anatomy and Diagnostic Cytology (SIAPeC-IAP), Italian Society of Surgery (SIC), Italian Society of Gastroenterology (SIGE), Italian Society of Medical and Interventional Radiology (SIRM), Italian Organ Transplant Society (SITO), and Association of Patients with Hepatitis and Liver Disease (EpaC) - Part II - Non-surgical treatments

Worldwide, hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the third most common cause of cancer-related death. The remarkable improvements in treating HCC achieved in the last years have increased the complexity of its management. Following the need to have updated guidelines on the multidisciplinary treatment management of HCC, the Italian Scientific Societies involved in the management of this cancer have promoted the drafting of a new dedicated document. This document was drawn up according to the GRADE methodology needed to produce guidelines based on evidence. Here is presented the second part of guidelines, focused on the multidisciplinary tumor board of experts and non-surgical treatments of HCC.

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.

Sensitivity Analysis in Economic Evaluations of Immuno-Oncology Drugs: A Systematic Literature Review

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to review, assess, and report the characteristics and strategies of sensitivity analyses (SAs) that were performed in the context of published economic evaluations of immuno-oncology drugs.

METHODS

The systematic literature search was conducted in Scopus and MEDLINE for articles published from 2005 to 2021. Study selection, based on a predefined set of criteria, was performed by 2 reviewers independently. We included economic evaluations of Food and Drug Administration-approved immuno-oncology drugs that were published in English and assessed the accompanying SAs on a set of items, including the range justification of the baseline parameters within the deterministic SA, the provisions for the correlation/overlay between parameters, and the justification of the chosen parameter distribution for the probabilistic SA, among others.

RESULTS

A total of 98 of 295 publications met the inclusion criteria. A total of 90 studies included a one-way and probabilistic SA and 16 of 98 studies had one-way and scenario analysis, alone or together with probabilistic analysis. Most studies provide explicit references as to the choice of parameters and values; nevertheless, there is a lack of a reference of correlation/overlay between parameters in most of the evaluations. In 26 of 98 studies, the most influential parameter for the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was the under-evaluation drug cost.

CONCLUSIONS

Most of included articles contained an SA that was implemented according to commonly accepted published guidance. The under-evaluation drug cost, the estimates of progression-free survival, the hazard ratio for overall survival, and the time horizon of the analysis seem to play an important part in the robustness of the outcomes.

Lenvatinib in the treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review of economic evaluations

PURPOSE

This aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review of economic evaluations comparing lenvatinib to other vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitors and other treatment options in the management of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC).

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted using highly sensitive search syntax. The titles and abstracts of all records were studied and screened to identify eligible economic evaluations. To enable comparison across different countries, the results of economic evaluations make it possible to compare, the costs and ICER of all studies were converted into 2022 US dollars, and a 3% annual increase for inflation was applied. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist. This study is conducted and reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement.

RESULTS

Lenvatinib was found to be cost-effective (ICER = dominant) compared to most drugs in the included studies, except in studies where it was compared with donafenib or when the price of sorafenib was significantly discounted (e.g., with a 90% discount, the value of ICER was + 104,669 USD).

CONCLUSION

Lenvatinib was generally cost-effective in most studies, but not compared to donafenib or sorafenib (if the price sorafenib was significantly discounted).

Efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors plus molecular targeted agents after the progression of lenvatinib for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma

Background

Lenvatinib is a standard first-line systemic therapy in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC) and is widely used in all lines. However, the efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) plus molecular targeted agents (MTAs) after the progression of lenvatinib treatment are unclear.

Objective

The aim of this study was to evaluate the anticancer effects of ICI plus MTA in patients with aHCC who progressed after lenvatinib.

Methods

We retrospectively included aHCC patients treated with ICI plus MTA after the progression of lenvatinib from two medical centers. Participants who continued lenvatinib treatment were classified into the "ICI+Lenva" group, while the "ICI+Others" group included patients receiving other MTAs. The efficacy endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), post-progression survival (PPS), overall survival (OS), and tumor response following RECIST v1.1. Safety was evaluated according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v5.0.

Results

In this study, 85 eligible aHCC patients were enrolled, including 58 in the ICI+Lenva group and 27 in the ICI+Others group. At a median follow-up time of 22.8 months, the median PPS and PFS were 14.0 (95% CI: 9.0-18.2) and 4.5 months (95% CI: 3.5-8.3), respectively. The objective response and disease control rates were 10.6% and 52.9%, respectively. No significant differences were observed in any of the efficacy endpoints between the two groups. Prolonged PPS was associated with Child-Pugh grade A, AFP < 400 IU/ml, and concomitant locoregional treatment. All patients experienced adverse events (AEs), but no fatal AEs were observed.

Conclusion

ICI plus MTA in aHCC patients after the progression of lenvatinib presented high antitumor activity and safety. Patients could continue lenvatinib treatment and receive ICIs as well as locoregional treatment to achieve better OS.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of sintilimab plus bevacizumab biosimilar compared with lenvatinib as the first-line treatment of unresectable or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND

In recent years, programmed cell death protein-1 inhibitors, including sintilimab, have significantly prolonged the overall survival time of patients with unresectable or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC); however, the cost-effectiveness of sintilimab is unclear. The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of sintilimab plus bevacizumab biosimilar compared with lenvatinib as first-line treatment in patients with unresectable or metastatic HCC.

METHODS

A lifetime partitioned survival model was developed to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis of sintilimab plus bevacizumab biosimilar vs. lenvatinib for advanced HCC from a Chinese healthcare system perspective. The clinical and safety data were derived from two recent randomized clinical trials, the ORIENT-32 and REFLECT studies. Utility data were obtained from previous studies. Long-term direct medical costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were predicted. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to verify the robustness of the model.

RESULTS

Compared with lenvatinib, combination therapy with sintilimab and bevacizumab biosimilar yielded an additional 0.493 QALYs at a higher cost ($33,102 vs. $21,037) (2021 US dollars). This resulted in a deterministic incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $24,462 per QALY in the base-case analysis. The ICERs were sensitive to the utility of post-progression and the cost of bevacizumab biosimilar. A lower ICER was estimated when the dose of bevacizumab biosimilar decreased from 15 mg to 7.5 mg per kilogram in the scenario analysis. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the probability of being cost-effective for sintilimab treatment at willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds of one ($12,516) and three times the gross domestic product per capita in China ($37,547) were 11.6% and 88.6%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Sintilimab plus bevacizumab biosimilar is likely to be a cost-effective treatment option as a first-line treatment for unresectable or metastatic HCC in China when WTP threshold is over $23,650.

Cost-Effectiveness of Donafenib as First-Line Treatment of Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma in China

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of donafenib compared to sorafenib and lenvatinib as first-line treatments for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in China.

METHODS

A partitioned survival model was developed to estimate the clinical and economic outcomes of donafenib, sorafenib, and lenvatinib for advanced HCC. The key clinical data of these targeted therapies were assessed through a network meta-analysis. The cost and health utilities were mainly collected from the literature. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were the primary outcomes. Model uncertainty was tested with one-way sensitivity analyses, scenario analyses, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA).

RESULTS

For health outcomes, donafenib gained the highest QALYs among the three treatments, followed by lenvatinib and sorafenib (1.106, 0.999, and 0.915 QALYs, respectively). For cost, donafenib was the cheapest option, followed by sorafenib and lenvatinib ($42,116, $43,193, and $44,261). The PSA indicated that the probability of being cost-effective for donafenib was 86.98% and 93.56% when the willingness-to-pay thresholds were one and three times the gross domestic product per capita in China, respectively. The one-way sensitivity analyses and scenario analyses also found the results to be robust.

CONCLUSION

Compared to sorafenib and lenvatinib, donafenib was likely to be a cost-effective treatment with the highest QALYs and the lowest cost for patients with advanced HCC in China.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of donafenib versus lenvatinib for first-line treatment of unresectable or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Donafenib and lenvatinib are approved by China National Medical Products Administration and recommended as first-line treatment of Metastatic Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC). The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of donafenib compared with lenvatinib for first-line treatment of advanced HCC in China.

METHODS

A partitioned survival model consisting with three health states was developed to simulate lifetime development of advanced HCC from China healthcare payer's perspective. The lifetime costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), life-years (LYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were calculated. The efficacy data were obtained from ZGDH3 and REFLECT trials. The cost and health outcomes were discounted at a rate of 5%. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were carried out to explore the variation of model results.

RESULTS

Compared with lenvatinib, donafenib incurred more costs of $1500.86 and had 0.139 QALYs gained, resulting in an ICER of $10,790.18/QALY. The probability of being cost-effective was 84.9% at a willingness-to-pay threshold of gross domestic product per capita in 2020 in China ($31,499.2/QALY). Sensitive and scenario analysis results were in line with base-case analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Donafenib appears to be a cost-effective strategy compared with lenvatinib for the first-line treatment of patients with unresectable or metastatic HCC in China.

Economic Evaluation of Sintilimab Plus Bevacizumab Versus Sorafenib as a First-line Treatment for Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of sintilimab plus bevacizumab versus sorafenib as a first-line treatment for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in China to provide economic evidence to inform health decision making.

METHODS

We performed an economic evaluation from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system using a partitioned survival model with three mutually exclusive health states: progression free, post-progression, and death. Efficacy data were obtained from the ORIENT-32 clinical trial and extrapolated to the lifetime horizon. Cost and utility values were derived from published studies and online price databases. The primary outcomes of the model were quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Sensitivity analyses were carried out to verify the robustness of the model results.

RESULTS

Compared with sorafenib, sintilimab plus bevacizumab incurred a higher lifetime cost ($33,766 vs. $23,294) and yielded more QALYs (1.428 vs. 0.928 QALYs). The ICER for sintilimab plus bevacizumab was $20,968/QALY and lower than the willingness-to-pay threshold of $33,592. The results of sensitivity analysis showed that ICER values were most sensitive to the subsequent treatment cost of the sorafenib group after progression and the price of bevacizumab. In the scenario analysis, the ICER was $4191/QALY when a 7.5 mg/kg dose of bevacizumab was applied in the model.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with sorafenib, the sintilimab plus bevacizumab combination is likely to be a cost-effective option for patients with unresectable HCC in China.

The Cost Effectiveness of Donafenib Compared With Sorafenib for the First-Line Treatment of Unresectable or Metastatic Hepatocellular Carcinoma in China

Background

Recent clinical trials have demonstrated that donafenib has superior efficacy and safety compared with sorafenib in Chinese patients with unresectable or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The objective of this study was to assess the cost effectiveness of donafenib compared with sorafenib for the treatment of patients with unresectable or metastatic HCC in China.

Methods

A three-state partitioned survival model was developed to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing donafenib and sorafenib from a Chinese healthcare payer's perspective. The model adopted a lifetime horizon and a 4-week cycle length. Survival data were derived from the ZGDH3 study and fitted with standard parametric functions for extrapolation beyond the trial period. Cost data were obtained from the mean price of publicly listed online bids in 2021 and medical service prices across provinces in China. Utility data were obtained from previous literature. The cost and health outcomes were discounted at an annual rate of 5%. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSAs) were carried out to verify the robustness of the model.

Results

Compared with sorafenib, donafenib incurred a higher cost (US$22,330.23 vs. US$14,775.92) but yielded more quality-adjusted life years (1.045 vs. 0.861 QALYs). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for donafenib was US$41,081.52 per QALY gained (ICER = US$13,439.10/QALY). The PSA results indicated that at a willingness-to-pay threshold of 3 times the GDP in China, the probability of donafenib being cost effective was 16.9%. The ICER (US$13,439.10/QALY) decreased when the branded price of sorafenib was used in the model.

Conclusions

Donafenib is unlikely to be cost effective compared with sorafenib for the first-line treatment of unresectable or metastatic HCC in China. Reducing the price of donafenib can increase the possibility of it being cost effective in the future.

A Comparison of Lenvatinib versus Sorafenib in the First-Line Treatment of Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Selection Criteria to Guide Physician's Choice in a New Therapeutic Scenario

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the fifth most common malignancy across the world. Alongside improvement in local approaches for early stages, the prognosis of patients with advanced disease remains poor. The tyrosine kinase inhibitor sorafenib was the first drug approved for advanced HCC. During the past decade, this has been extensively explored in real-life settings, such as Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 2, Child-Pugh B liver function, chronic kidney disease, HIV infection, transplant recipients and the elderly. After 10 years, the multikinase inhibitor lenvatinib was approved in first-line setting. The Phase III REFLECT trial established the non-inferiority of lenvatinib compared with sorafenib in terms of overall survival, meanwhile exploratory analysis suggests a potential benefit over sorafenib for patients with HBV chronic infection and positive alpha-fetoprotein value. Experience with lenvatinib for patients not matching the REFLECT trial criteria remains promising but still retrospective. Indeed, the treatment sequence after lenvatinib still remains a crucial issue, considering that standard second-line options were tested only in patients who progressed to sorafenib. Overall, the choice between lenvatinib and sorafenib should take into account key selection criteria from randomized trials, evidence to date in special clinical situations, the physician's experience and patient's preference. Fast approval of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab as first-line treatment for advanced HCC brought an additional element in this scenario. Undoubtedly, lenvatinib and sorafenib remain available options for patients who are not suitable or those progressed to combination immunotherapy. It is conceivable that new systemic options will contribute to design a new treatment algorithm for HCC in the near future. Meanwhile, prospective studies and biomarker analysis are needed to help physicians in the choice between lenvatinib and sorafenib.

Progress in Application of Nanotechnology in Sorafenib

Dysregulation of the tyrosine kinase signaling pathway is closely related to tumor development, and tyrosine kinase inhibitors are important targets for potential anticancer strategies. In particular, sorafenib, as a representative drug of multitarget tyrosine kinase inhibitors, has an important clinical status and is widely used for treating various solid tumors and diabetic complications. However, poor aqueous solubility of sorafenib, poor bioavailability of commonly used oral dose forms, poor accumulation at tumor sites, and severe off-target effects that tend to induce intolerable systemic side effects in patients have greatly reduced its therapeutic efficiency and limited its extensive clinical application. To improve the properties of sorafenib, increase the efficiency of clinical treatment, and overcome the increasingly prominent phenomenon of sorafenib resistance, multiple investigations have been conducted. Numerous studies have reported that the properties of nanomaterials, such as small particle size, large specific surface area, high surface activity and high adsorption capacity, make nanotechnology promising for the construction of ideal sorafenib nanodelivery systems to achieve timed and targeted delivery of sorafenib to tumors, prolong the blood circulation time of the drug, improve the utilization efficiency of the drug and reduce systemic toxic side effects. This review summarizes the progress of research applications in nanotechnology related to sorafenib, discusses the current problems, and expresses expectations for the prospect of clinical applications of sorafenib with improved performance.