Cost-effectiveness Analyses of Durvalumab Consolidation Therapy Versus no Consolidation Therapy After Chemoradiotherapy in Stage-III NSCLC

Markov models for clinical decision-making in radiation oncology: A systematic review

The intrinsic stochasticity of patients' response to treatment is a major consideration for clinical decision-making in radiation therapy. Markov models are powerful tools to capture this stochasticity and render effective treatment decisions. This paper provides an overview of the Markov models for clinical decision analysis in radiation oncology. A comprehensive literature search was conducted within MEDLINE using PubMed, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Only studies published from 2000 to 2023 were considered. Selected publications were summarized in two categories: (i) studies that compare two (or more) fixed treatment policies using Monte Carlo simulation and (ii) studies that seek an optimal treatment policy through Markov Decision Processes (MDPs). Relevant to the scope of this study, 61 publications were selected for detailed review. The majority of these publications (n = 56) focused on comparative analysis of two or more fixed treatment policies using Monte Carlo simulation. Classifications based on cancer site, utility measures and the type of sensitivity analysis are presented. Five publications considered MDPs with the aim of computing an optimal treatment policy; a detailed statement of the analysis and results is provided for each work. As an extension of Markov model-based simulation analysis, MDP offers a flexible framework to identify an optimal treatment policy among a possibly large set of treatment policies. However, the applications of MDPs to oncological decision-making have been understudied, and the full capacity of this framework to render complex optimal treatment decisions warrants further consideration.

First-line treatment with durvalumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer in the USA: a cost-effectiveness analysis

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of durvalumab in combination with chemotherapy compared with chemotherapy alone as first-line therapy for metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) from the perspective of the US payer.

METHODS

Based on the POSEIDON clinical trial, a partition survival model was developed to compare the cost-effectiveness of durvalumab in combination with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for the first-line treatment of metastatic NSCLC. The model's primary outcomes were costs, life years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The analysis only considered direct medical costs, and health utility value was determined using published literature. The robustness of the model was tested by probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

The combination therapy of durvalumab and chemotherapy improved survival by 0.713 QALYs at an incremental cost of $64 104.638 compared with chemotherapy alone, resulting in an ICER of $89 908.328 per QALY gained from the US payer perspective. The combination therapy had a 92.3% probability of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000 per QALY based on incremental net health benefits. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the model's consistency, and none of the parameters significantly influenced the findings.

CONCLUSION

Durvalumab in combination with chemotherapy represents a more cost-effective strategy for first-line therapy in patients with metastatic NSCLC in the USA compared with chemotherapy alone.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of serplulimab combined with chemotherapy in the treatment of extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer from the perspective of the healthcare system in China

OBJECTIVE

The ASTRUM-005 trial showed that serplulimab plus chemotherapy (SEP) significantly extended survival time compared with chemotherapy in the treatment of small cell lung cancer. But the survival benefits of SEP came at high costs, and its economy is not clear. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of SEP from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system.

DESIGN

A partition survival model was built to simulate the outcomes. The clinical data came from the ASTRUM-005 trial, and only direct medical costs were included in the model. The utility values referred to the published literature. Scenario analyses 1 and 2 explored outcomes in the presence of a patient assistance plan (PAP) and different simulation periods, respectively. Scenario analysis 3 compared the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab plus chemotherapy (AEP) with SEP by network meta-analysis. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the results.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Total costs, incremental costs, life years, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), incremental QALYs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).

RESULTS

Compared with chemotherapy, SEP achieved an additional 0.34 QALYs at incremental costs of US$41 682.63, with an ICER of US$122 378.86/QALY. When PAP was available, ICER was US$58 316.46/QALY. In the simulation time of 5 years and 20 years, the ICER was US$132 637.97/QALY and US$118 054.59/QALY, respectively. When compared with AEP, SEP not only reduced the costs by US$47 244.87 but also gained 0.07 QALYs more. Sensitivity analyses showed that the price of serplulimab and the utility value of the progression-free survival stage were the main influencing parameters, and the results were stable.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with chemotherapy, SEP was not cost-effective from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. However, SEP was absolutely dominant in comparison with AEP.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of durvalumab plus chemotherapy as first-line treatment for biliary tract cancer

Objective

The TOPAZ-1 trial reported a significant survival benefit of durvalumab in combination with chemotherapy for the first-line treatment of biliary tract cancer (BTC). However, no studies have evaluated the economics of this treatment option. The aim of this study was to assess the cost effectiveness of durvalumab plus chemotherapy compared to placebo plus chemotherapy from the perspective of US and Chinese payers.

Methods

Based on clinical data from the TOPAZ-1 trial, a Markov model was developed to simulate 10-year life expectancy and total healthcare costs for patients with BTC. The treatment group received durvalumab in combination with chemotherapy and the control group received placebo plus chemotherapy. The primary outcomes analyzed included quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Uncertainty in the analysis results was assessed by sensitivity analysis.

Results

For US payers, the placebo plus chemotherapy group had a total cost of $56,157.05 and a utility of 1.10 QALYs, while the durvalumab plus chemotherapy group had a total cost of $217,069.25, a utility of 1.52 QALYs, resulting in an ICER of $381,864.39/QALY. For Chinese payers, the ICER of durvalumab plus chemotherapy group was $367,608.51/QALY. Sensitivity analysis showed that the analysis was most sensitive to the price of durvalumab. For US and Chinese payers, under the respective willing to pay thresholds, the likelihood of the durvalumab plus chemotherapy arm being cost-effective was 0%.

Conclusions

Both in China and in the US, durvalumab in combination with chemotherapy is not a cost-effective option for the first-line treatment of BTC compared with chemotherapy.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of sugemalimab in combination with chemotherapy as first-line treatment in Chinese patients with metastatic NSCLC

INTRODUCTION

Because of its low immunogenicity and associated risk of toxicity, sugemalimab is expected to reshape the first-line treatment landscape for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in China. However, it remains unclear whether the use of expensive sugemalimab is cost-effective in this population.

METHODS

A Markov model was constructed based on the GEMSTONE-302 study to assess the efficacy of sugemalimab in combination with chemotherapy for first-line treatment of metastatic NSCLC. Efficacy and safety data were entered, with costs and utility values derived from the literature, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated, and univariate sensitivity analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. We also considered cost-effectiveness in two different treatment regimen scenarios after disease progression.

RESULTS

Compared with the placebo plus platinum-based chemotherapy, patients with metastatic NSCLC treated with sugemalimab plus platinum-based chemotherapy saw an increase of 0.56 life-years (LYs) and 0.41 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and patients with squamous NSCLC resulted in an ICER per QALY of $45,280.02. Patients with nonsquamous metastatic NSCLC resulted in an ICER of $45,294.15 per QALY. Univariate sensitivity analysis showed that disease-free survival utility had the greatest impact on the results. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) showed that when the willingness-to-pay (WTP) for QALYs was $27,354/QALY, sugemalimab, in combination with platinum-based chemotherapy, was more cost-effective than the placebo.

CONCLUSION

From a Chinese health care system perspective, first-line treatment of squamous or nonsquamous metastatic NSCLC with sugemalimab plus platinum-based chemotherapy may have cost-effectiveness compared with placebo plus platinum-based chemotherapy at a WTP threshold of $27,354/QALY.