Cost-Utility Analysis of Continuation Versus Discontinuation of First-Line Chemotherapy in Patients With Metastatic Squamous-Cell Esophageal Cancer: Economic Evaluation Alongside the E-DIS Trial

Cost-effectiveness analysis of tislelizumab vs. camrelizumab for the treatment of second-line locally advanced or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Esophageal carcinoma is a type of cancer that occurs in the esophagus. For patients with locally advanced or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma who have either experienced disease progression following first-line standard chemotherapy or are intolerant to it, the prognosis is typically poor. Additionally, these patients often bear a substantial economic burden during the course of their treatment. Tislelizumab is a selective PD-1 inhibitor with efficacy proven in locally advanced or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. The study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of tislelizumab versus camrelizumab as the second-line treatment in locally advanced or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) patients in China.

METHODS

From the perspective of China's healthcare system, the partitioned survival model with three health states was established in a 3-week cycle and a lifetime horizon. Anchored matching adjusted indirect comparison was used for survival analyses based on individual patient data from RATIONALE 302 trial and the published ESCORT study due to the lack of head-to-head clinical trials. Only direct medical costs were included. Costs and utility values were derived from local charges, the published literature, and related databases. Sensitivity analyses and a scenario analysis were also performed to verify the robustness of the model results.

RESULTS

Compared with camrelizumab monotherapy, tislelizumab monotherapy incurred a lower lifetime cost ($8,346 vs. $8,851) and yielded higher quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (0.87 vs. 0.63), which resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of -$2,051/QALY. Tislelizumab monotherapy is a dominant option over camrelizumab monotherapy in China. The three primary parameters upon which this result was most sensitive were the unit cost of camrelizumab, the unit cost of tislelizumab, and the duration of reactive cutaneous capillary endothelial proliferation (RCCEP). According to the probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA), tislelizumab monotherapy was 100% cost-effective when the WTP was 1-3 times GDP per capita in China($11,207/QALY∼$33,621/QALY). Scenario analysis showed that the result was consistent.

CONCLUSION

Tislelizumab monotherapy is a dominant option compared with camrelizumab monotherapy as the second-line treatment for locally advanced or metastatic ESCC in China.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of tislelizumab plus chemotherapy as the first-line treatment for advanced or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma in China

Introduction

First-line treatment with tislelizumab plus chemotherapy has shown clinical benefits for patients with advanced or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) in China, while its economic burden is unknown. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of tislelizumab plus chemotherapy from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system.

Methods

We constructed a partitioned survival model to compare the cost-effectiveness of tislelizumab plus chemotherapy with chemotherapy in patients with advanced OSCC. Patient characteristics and clinical outcomes were extracted from RATIONALE-306. Costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were selected as the study outcomes. Sensitivity analysis and subgroup analysis were conducted to test the stability of the results.

Results

Tislelizumab plus chemotherapy provided additional 0.48 QALYs with the incremental cost of $16,587.2 than chemotherapy, of which ICER was $34,699.72 per QALY. When the willingness-to-pay threshold was set as $37,260, the novel therapy had a probability of 77% to be cost-effective. Our base-case analysis results were sensitive to utilities of progression-free survival and progression of disease. Our subgroup analysis showed that the novel therapy was associated with cost-effectiveness in patients with a high expression of PD-L1.

Conclusion

Tislelizumab plus chemotherapy was likely to be more cost-effective compared with chemotherapy in the first-line therapy of advanced OSCC from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Our findings can provide clinicians and decision-makers with evidence of the cost-effectiveness of tislelizumab.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of serplulimab in combination with cisplatin plus 5-fluorouracil chemotherapy compared to cisplatin plus 5-fluorouracil chemotherapy as first-line treatment for advanced or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma in China

Background

This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of serplulimab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in treating advanced/metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) within the Chinese health care system.

Methods

A partitioned survival model based on ASTRUM-007 trial patient characteristics was developed. Efficacy, safety, and medical/economic data were obtained from the trial and real-world clinical practice. Costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALY), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated for both treatment strategies. Sensitivity, subgroup, and scenario analyses were performed to assess the uncertainty impact.

Results

Serplulimab combined with chemotherapy yielded an ICER of US$ 53,538.27/QALY. Deterministic sensitivity analysis identified patient survival and serplulimab price as influential parameters. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed a 47.33% probability of cost-effectiveness at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of US$ 53,541/QALY and 0.05% at three times China's GDP per capita. Subgroup analysis revealed that patients with a programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression combined positive score (CPS) ⩾10 had a lower hazard ratio (0.59) and ICER (US$ 29,935.23/QALY), with a 95.36% probability of cost-effectiveness. Scenario analysis demonstrated that the drug donation discount policy significantly increased the likelihood of cost-effective serplulimab-chemotherapy combinations in Jiangsu, Fujian, and Guangdong at 99.99%, 99.90%, and 94.16%, respectively.

Conclusion

Compared to chemotherapy alone, serplulimab combined with chemotherapy is currently not a cost-effective first-line treatment for advanced/metastatic ESCC in China. However, as serplulimab plus chemotherapy regimens evolve and price competition among programmed death 1 (PD-1) inhibitors intensifies, this combination may become a cost-effective treatment option.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of PD-1 inhibitors combined with chemotherapy as first-line therapy for advanced esophageal squamous-cell carcinoma in China

Objective: This study was aimed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of all available programmed death 1 (PD-1) inhibitors combined with chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of advanced esophageal squamous-cell carcinoma (ESCC) from the Chinese healthcare system perspective. Methods: A partitioned survival model with a 3-week cycle and a 10-year time horizon was constructed based on a network meta-analysis. The survival data and utility values were derived from clinical trials, and the direct medical costs were collected from public drug bidding database and published literature. Total costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated. Scenario, one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the uncertainty around model parameters. Results: Compared with mono-chemotherapy, toripalimab, sintilimab and camrelizumab plus chemotherapy were cost-effective treatment regimens, while serplulimab, pembrolizumab and nivolumab plus chemotherapy were not cost-effective options. Toripalimab plus chemotherapy provided the highest QALYs of 0.95 with the lower cost of $8,110.53 compared to other competing alternatives. The robustness of the base-case results was confirmed by scenario and one-way sensitivity analysis. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of three times per capita gross domestic product ($38,351.20) in 2021, the probability of toripalimab plus chemotherapy being the optimal option was 74.25% compared with other six competing alternatives. Conclusion: Toripalimab plus chemotherapy represented the most cost-effective option as the first-line therapy for advanced ESCC patients in China.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of sintilimab vs. placebo in combination with chemotherapy as first-line therapy for local advanced or metastatic oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma

Objective

Results of Orient 15 indicated the health benefits to patients with local advanced or metastatic oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC). This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of sintilimab plus chemotherapy in treating OSCC from the perspective of Chinese healthcare system.

Methods

A partitioned survival model was constructed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of sintilimab plus chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy in treating OSCC. Baseline characteristics of patients and key clinical data were extracted from Orient 15. Costs and utilities were collected from published studies and open-access databases. Costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), life-years gained, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were chosen as economic outcome indicators. We also performed sensitivity analyses and subgroup analyses to verify the stability of results.

Results

Combination therapy provided additional 0.84 QALYs and 1.46 life-years with an incremental cost of $25,565.48 than chemotherapy, which had an ICER of $30,409.44 per QALY. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that combination therapy had a 98.8% probability of cost-effectiveness at the willingness-to-pay threshold (WTP) of $38,184 per QALY. Deterministic sensitivity analysis showed that model outcomes were sensitive to the utilities of progression-free survival and progression disease. The subgroup analysis revealed that combination therapy was cost-effective in patients with high expression of PD-L1 and several specific subgroups.

Conclusion

In this economic evaluation, sintilimab plus chemotherapy was likely to be cost-effective compared with chemotherapy in the first-line therapy of advanced OSCC from the perspective of Chinese healthcare system. Our findings may provide evidence for clinicians to make optimal decisions in clinical practice and for decision-makers to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of sintilimab.

Cost-Effectiveness of Nivolumab Immunotherapy vs. Paclitaxel or Docetaxel Chemotherapy as Second-Line Therapy in Advanced Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma in China

This study aimed to evaluate and compare nivolumab's cost-effectiveness with chemotherapy in patients with advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma from the Chinese healthcare system perspective. To this end, the researchers utilized a partitioned survival model with three mutually exclusive health stages. The characteristics of the patients used as inclusion and exclusion criteria in this model were the same as those used for patients with advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma in the ATTRACTION-3 study. The ATTRACTION-3 trial, which took place between January 7, 2016 and November 12, 2018, also yielded important clinical data. Data on medical and economic preferences were collected from real-world clinical practices. Costs, quality-adjusted life years, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio were calculated for the two therapy options. The model uncertainty was investigated using a deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis. When compared to chemotherapy, nivolumab was linked with an increase of 0.28 quality-adjusted life years with an increased cost of US$ 36,956.81 per patient in the base case analysis of a hypothetical sample of 419 patients. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio in the deterministic sensitivity analysis was US$ 132,029.46/quality-adjusted life year, with a 48.02% probability of being cost-effective at willingness-to-pay thresholds of US$ 132,029.22/quality-adjusted life year. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio remained greater than US$ 80,000/quality-adjusted life year in the deterministic sensitivity analyses. To be more cost-effective and remain below the threshold of 37,653 US$/quality-adjusted life year, which the Chinese population can afford, nivolumab's price would have to be lowered sharply by 53.50%. Nivolumab is clinically beneficial but not cost-effective when compared to chemotherapy. A substantial reduction in nivolumab's drug acquisition cost would be necessary to make it cost-effective for immunotherapy.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Pembrolizumab in Patients With Advanced Esophageal Cancer Based on the KEYNOTE-181 Study

Background and Purpose

The KEYNOTE-181 study demonstrated that pembrolizumab for advanced or metastatic esophageal cancer in patients with programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) combined positive score (CPS) ≥ 10 had a survival advantage and better tolerability than chemotherapy. However, at the same time, pembrolizumab places an economic burden on patients. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab based on the KEYNOTE181 study.

Materials and Methods

A three-state Markov model [progression-free survival (PFS), progressive disease (PD), and death] based on data from the KEYNOTE-181 study was used to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy for advanced or metastatic esophageal cancer. The model evaluates the outcomes from the Chinese society's perspective. Costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and the ICER in terms of 2021 US$ per QALY gained, were calculated. one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the model robustness.

Results

Compared with chemotherapy, pembrolizumab increased costs by $37,201.68, while gaining 0.23 QALYs, resulting in an ICER of $163,165.26 per QALY in patients with PD-L1 CPS ≥ 10. The ICER is $202,708.62 per QALY and $163,643.19 per QALY in the total population and patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, respectively. The ICER was much higher than the commonly accepted willingness-to-pay threshold ($11,105.8 per QALY). One-way and sensitivity analyses showed that the costs of pembrolizumab and the utility of PD were the crucial factors in determining the ICER, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses demonstrated pembrolizumab is unlikely to be cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $11,105.8 per QALY. The result was robust across sensitivity analyses.

Conclusion

Pembrolizumab is not a cost-effective treatment option for the second-line treatment of esophageal cancer from the perspective of Chinese society.