Health state utilities in non-small cell lung cancer: An international study

Cost-effectiveness analysis of bevacizumab for cerebral radiation necrosis treatment based on real-world utility value in China

BACKGROUND

Bevacizumab shows superior efficacy in cerebral radiation necrosis (CRN) therapy, but its economic burden remains heavy due to the high drug price. This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab for CRN treatment from the Chinese payers' perspective.

METHODS

A decision tree model was developed to compare the costs and health outcomes of bevacizumab and corticosteroids for CRN therapy. Efficacy and safety data were derived from the NCT01621880 trial, which compared the effectiveness and safety of bevacizumab monotherapy with corticosteroids for CRN in nasopharyngeal cancer patients, and demonstrated that bevacizumab invoked a significantly higher response than corticosteroids (65.5% vs. 31.5%, P < 0.001) with no significant differences in adverse events between two groups. The utility value of the "non-recurrence" status was derived from real-world data. Costs and other utility values were collected from an authoritative Chinese network database and published literature. The primary outcomes were total costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The uncertainty of the model was evaluated via one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

Bevacizumab treatment added 0.12 (0.48 vs. 0.36) QALYs compared to corticosteroid therapy, along with incremental costs of $ 2010 ($ 4260 vs. $ 2160). The resultant ICER was $ 16,866/QALY, which was lower than the willingness-to-pay threshold of $ 38,223/QALY in China. The price of bevacizumab, body weight, and the utility value of recurrence status were the key influential parameters for ICER. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed that the probability of bevacizumab being cost-effectiveness was 84.9%.

CONCLUSION

Compared with corticosteroids, bevacizumab is an economical option for CRN treatment in China.

Cost-effectiveness of adjuvant icotinib versus chemotherapy for patients with stage II-IIIA EGFR-mutated non-small cell lung cancer in China

OBJECTIVE

Icotinib has been approved for adjuvant treatment of stage II-IIIA non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with activating epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations in China, yet the long-term costs and outcomes of this strategy are unknown. Thus, we examined the cost effectiveness of adjuvant icotinib, compared with adjuvant chemotherapy, for the treatment of resected stage II-IIIA EGFR-mutated NSCLC.

DESIGN

We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system, comparing 2-year adjuvant icotinib with four cycles of adjuvant chemotherapy. Costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated using a Markov model. Model inputs were obtained from local data and literature. The influence of model parameters and assumptions was explored in sensitivity analyses. All costs are expressed in 2022 US dollars, and costs and QALYs were discounted at a rate of 5% per year. The willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was set at three times the per capita gross domestic product.

SETTING

The Chinese healthcare system perspective.

PARTICIPANTS

A hypothetical Chinese cohort of patients with resected stage II-IIIA EGFR-mutated NSCLC.

INTERVENTIONS

Icotinib versus chemotherapy.

PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE

Costs, QALYs, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.

RESULTS

The incremental cost per QALY gained with the use of 2-year icotinib, from the Chinese healthcare system perspective, was $3440.66 compared with adjuvant chemotherapy. At a WTP threshold of $40 500, adjuvant icotinib was the optimal treatment in over 99% of replications. The interpretation of the results was insensitive to model and input assumptions.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with adjuvant chemotherapy, adjuvant icotinib may be a cost-effective treatment for resected stage II-IIIA EGFR-mutated NSCLC as the WTP threshold is set at $40 500 per QALY.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of fruquintinib in Chinese patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer is a significant health concern worldwide, with metastatic CRC (mCRC) presenting a particularly challenging prognosis. The FRESCO-2 trial highlighted the potential of fruquintinib in heavily pretreated mCRC patients.

AIM

Given the recent changes in drug pricing in China and the evolving mCRC treatments, this study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of fruquintinib in the context of current Chinese healthcare standards.

METHOD

This study utilized data from the FRESCO-2 trial, incorporating a partitioned-survival model to simulate three health states: Progression-Free Survival, Progressive Disease, and death. Costs and utility values were derived from published literature and the FRESCO-2 trial. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the base-case result and to understand the impact of various parameters on the ICER.

RESULTS

The base-case analysis revealed a total cost of $11,089.05 for the fruquintinib group and $5,374.48 for the placebo group. The overall QALYs were higher in the fruquintinib group (0.61 QALYs) compared to the placebo group (0.43 QALYs). The ICER was calculated to be $31,747.67 per QALY. Sensitivity analyses identified the utility of progression-free survival, the cost of fruquintinib, and the costs of best supportive care as significant determinants of ICER.

CONCLUSION

Fruquintinib emerges as a promising therapeutic option for refractory mCRC. However, its cost-effectiveness depends on selected willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold. While the drug's ICER surpasses the WTP based on China's 2022 GDP per capita, it remains below the threshold set at three times the national GDP.

Cost‑effectiveness analysis of tislelizumab plus chemotherapy in Chinese patients with advanced or metastatic oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma

The RATIONALE-306 study revealed that patients with advanced or metastatic oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) could benefit from treatment with tislelizumab plus chemotherapy. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of tislelizumab plus chemotherapy for treating OSCC from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Partitioned survival model estimated the cost-effectiveness of tislelizumab plus chemotherapy compared with chemotherapy alone for treating OSCC using RATIONALE-306 data. Costs and utilities were obtained from local databases and published studies. Costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), life-years, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER), incremental net health benefits (INHB), and incremental net monetary benefits (INMB) were outcomes. Price simulation were conducted at the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were performed to assess model robustness. Compared with chemotherapy alone, tislelizumab plus chemotherapy yielded an ICER of USD 27,896/QALY, gained an additional 0.414 QALYs and 0.751 life-years, and increased the cost by USD 11,560. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed that tislelizumab plus chemotherapy was cost-effective at the WTP of USD 38,258/QALY with probability of 94.43%. When the price in China was less than USD 3.714 per mg, the price simulation results indicated that tislelizumab plus chemotherapy was cost-effective at a WTP threshold of USD 38,258. Tislelizumab plus chemotherapy yielded an INHB of 0.112 QALYs and an INMB of USD 4,279 compared with chemotherapy alone at a WTP threshold of USD 38,258. Based on the sensitivity analyses, the above results were stable. A general trend was observed for subgroups with better survival benefits related to a higher probability of cost-effectiveness. From the Chinese healthcare perspective, tislelizumab plus chemotherapy is more cost-effective than chemotherapy alone as a first-line therapy for OSCC. These findings can help clinicians make optimal clinical decisions and assist decision-makers in evaluating the cost-effectiveness of tislelizumab in clinical practice.

Reply to "Matters arising: cost-effectiveness of first-line immunotherapy combinations with or without chemotherapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a modelling approach"

In this article, we read with great attention the correspondence by Bullement et al., regarding our published study on cost-effectiveness of first-line immunotherapy combinations with or without chemotherapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer. We referred to a few the most important comments from Bullement et al. in our opinion, including proportional hazard (PH) assumption, accelerated failure time (AFT) model, and health utility, and made some explanations.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of the tislelizumab versus docetaxel for advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer in China

Background

Tislelizumab is the first PD-1 inhibitor in China to demonstrate superior efficacy in second-line or third-line treatment of patients with advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of tislelizumab compared to docetaxel from a Chinese healthcare system perspective.

Methods

A dynamic Markov model was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of tislelizumab in comparison to docetaxel in second or third-line treatment. The efficacy data utilized in the model were derived from the RATIONALE-303 clinical trial, while cost and utility values were obtained from the drug data service platform and published studies. The primary outcomes of the model encompassed quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were conducted to validate the robustness of the base case analysis results.

Results

The tislelizumab group demonstrated a cost increase of CNY 117,473 and a gain of 0.58 QALYs compared to the docetaxel group, resulting in an ICER value of CNY 202,927 per QALY gained.

Conclusion

The administration of tislelizumab in patients with advanced or metastatic NSCLC not only extends the progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Moreover, this treatment demonstrates a favorable cost-effectiveness profile across the Chinese population.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of camrelizumab plus paclitaxel and carboplatin versus sintilimab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin or carboplatin for the first-line treatment of local advanced or metastatic squamous NSCLC in Chinese mainland

Objective

Both camrelizumab plus paclitaxel and carboplatin (CTC) and sintilimab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin or carboplatin (SGP) have been approved by the National Medical Products Administration of China (NMPA) for the first-line treatment of local advanced or metastatic sqNSCLC. However, the comparison of the two treatments as first-line treatments in efficacy or pharmacoeconomics has barely been studied. To deeply understand the costs and outcomes of the two treatments, this work directly compared the cost-effectiveness for the first-line treatment of local advanced or metastatic squamous NSCLC in the Chinese mainland.

Methods

A network meta-analysis was first performed based on the three clinical trials, namely, CameL-Sq, ORIENT-12, and C-TONG1002, to compare the clinical benefits of the two treatments. The Weibull approximation was applied to further calculate the life expectancy of the two treatments. The partitioned survival model (PSM) was next established, and one-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were also performed to evaluate the stability of the underlying parameter values and assumptions within the model.

Results

CTC treatment gained 0.68 QALYs and cost $14,764. SGP treatment gained 0.54 QALYs and cost $14,584. The CTC arm gained 0.14 additional QALYs and cost $179 more than the SGP arm, and the ICERs was $1,269/QALY, which was lower than one-fold GDP per capita in the Chinese mainland ($12,734 GDP per capita in 2022). In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, when the WTP ranged from $12,734-38,202 (1-3 folds, 2022 GDP per capita in China), the CTC group had higher probabilities than the SGP group for being cost effective, which ranged from 85.65% to 88.38%.

Conclusion

From the perspective of the payers, camrelizumab plus chemotherapy was cost-effective compared with sintilimab plus chemotherapy for the first-line treatment of local advanced or metastatic squamous NSCLC in the Chinese mainland.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of amivantamab plus chemotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer patients with epidermal growth factor receptor exon 20 insertions in the United States

BACKGROUND

Although amivantamab has shown clinical benefits for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) exon 20 insertions, its cost-effectiveness requires further investigation.

AIM

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of amivantamab plus chemotherapy for the treatment of NSCLC patients with EGFR exon 20 insertions from the United States payer perspective.

METHOD

A partitioned survival model was developed based on the data from the PAPILLON trial. Costs were derived from the pricing files of Medicare and Medicaid Services and published literature, and utility values were derived from previous studies. A 3% annual discount rate was applied to both costs and outcomes. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). One-way sensitivity analysis, probabilistic sensitivity analysis and scenario analysis, were conducted to test the model stability.

RESULTS

Amivantamab plus chemotherapy yielded an additional 1.12 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) while increasing costs by $483,769.50 relative to the chemotherapy regimen, leading to an ICER of $432,401.16/QALY. The combination of amivantamab with chemotherapy was not cost effective at a threshold of $150,000/QALY. In the scenario analysis, the results showed that the ICERs were $263,680.69/QALY and $418,416.35/QALY when different utility values and 10-year time horizons were adopted, respectively. For PSA, the probability that amivantamab plus chemotherapy would be cost-effective was 0% if the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was $150,000/QALY.

CONCLUSION

Amivantamab plus chemotherapy is unlikely to be a cost-effective option for NSCLC patients with EGFR exon 20 insertions. Reducing the cost of amivantamab may produce favorable economic outcomes.

First-line serplulimab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy in PD-L1-positive esophageal squamous-cell carcinoma: a cost-effectiveness analysis

Patients with PD-L1-positive esophageal squamous-cell carcinoma (ESCC) were significantly more likely to survive when treated with serplulimab plus cisplatin plus 5-fluorouracil (serplulimab-CF). At this point, it is unknown whether this expensive therapy is cost-effective. From the Chinese healthcare system's perspective, we aimed to evaluate serplulimab-CF versus CF alone for cost-effectiveness. A partitioned survival model was constructed based on the ASTRUM-007 trial. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were calculated. A further analysis of subgroups and scenarios was conducted. The willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of $38,258/QALY or $84,866/QALY is defined as three times the per capita gross domestic product value of the general region or affluent region. Compared with CF alone, in the overall (scenario 1), patients with PD-L1 expression level of 1 ≤ CPS < 10 (scenario 2), and patients with PD-L1 CPS ≥ 10 (scenario 3) populations, the ICERs were $69,025/QALY, $82,533/QALY, and $75,436/QALY for serplulimab-CF. Nevertheless, the probability of serplulimab-CF becoming cost-effective based on scenarios 1, 2, and 3 is only 2.71%, 0.94%, and 2.84%, respectively, at a WTP threshold of $38,258/QALY. When serplulimab costs < $4.84/mg, serplulimab-CF may be cost-effective at the WTP threshold of $38,258/QALY; otherwise, CF was preferred. Similar results were obtained from sensitivity analyses, suggesting the robustness of these findings. There was no cost-effectiveness in general regions of China for serplulimab-CF in PD-L1-positive ESCC compared to CF, although it is probably considered cost-effective in affluent regions. Serplulimab-CF may achieve favorable cost-effectiveness by lowering the price of serplulimab.

Cost-effectiveness of dostarlimab plus chemotherapy for primary advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer

Objective

In the double-blind, phase III, placebo-controlled RUBY randomized clinical trial, dostarlimab plus carboplatin-paclitaxel significantly increased survival among patients with primary advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer (EC). We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis of dostarlimab in combination with chemotherapy in these patients stratified by mismatch repair-deficient (dMMR) and mismatch repair-proficient (pMMR) subgroups from the perspective of a United States payer.

Materials and methods

A Markov model with three states was employed to simulate patients who were administered either dostarlimab in combination with chemotherapy or chemotherapy based on the RUBY trial. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), lifetime costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were calculated with a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000 per QALY. Both univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were carried out to explore the robustness of the model.

Results

In dMMR EC, the combination of dostarlimab and chemotherapy achieved an additional 5.48 QALYs at an incremental cost of $330,747 compared to chemotherapy alone, resulting in an ICER of $60,349.30 per QALY. In pMMR EC, there were 1.51 additional QALYs gained at an extra cost of $265,148, yielding an ICER of $175,788.47 per QALY. With a 15.2% discount on dostarlimab, the ICER decreased to $150,000 per QALY in the pMMR EC. The univariate sensitivity analysis revealed that the cost of dostarlimab, utility of progression-free survival (PFS), and progressive disease (PD) had the most significant impacts on the outcomes. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed that dostarlimab had a 100% likelihood of being considered cost-effective for patients at a WTP threshold of $150,000 per QALY for dMMR EC, whereas this likelihood was only 0.5% for pMMR EC.

Conclusion

Dostarlimab in combination with chemotherapy was cost-effective for primary advanced or recurrent dMMR EC from the perspective of a United States payer at a WTP threshold of $150,000 per QALY, but not for pMMR EC. Lowering the prices of dostarlimab could potentially enhance the cost-effectiveness of treatment for pMMR EC.

Cost-effectiveness of sotorasib as a second-line treatment for non-small cell lung cancer with KRASG12C mutation in China and the United States

Purpose

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of sotorasib versus docetaxel in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with KRASG12C mutation from the China and United States'social perspective.

Materials and Methods

A Markov model that included three states (progression-free survival, post-progression survival, and death) was developed. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), and incremental QALY were calculated for the two treatment strategies. One-way sensitivity analysis was used to investigate the factors that had a greater impact on the model results, and tornado diagrams were used to present the results. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed with 1,000 Monte Carlo simulations. Assume distributions based on parameter types and randomly sample all parameter distributions each time., The results were presented as cost-effectiveness acceptable curves.

Results

This economic evaluation of data from the CodeBreak 200 randomized clinical trial. In China, sotorasib generated 0.44 QAYL with a total cost of $84372.59. Compared with docetaxel, the ICER value of sotorasib was $102701.84/QALY, which was higher than willingness to pay (WTP), so sotorasib had no economic advantage. In the US, sotorasib obtained 0.35 QALY more than docetaxel, ICER was $15,976.50/QALY, which was more than 1 WTP but less than 3 WTP, indicating that the increased cost of sotorasib was acceptable. One-way sensitivity analysis showed that the probability of sotorasib having economic benefits gradually increased when the cost of follow-up examination was reduced in China. And there was no influence on the conclusions within the range of changes in China. When the willingness to pay (WTP) exceeds $102,500, the probability of sotorasib having cost effect increases from 0% to 49%.

Conclusion

Sotorasib had a cost effect from the perspective in the United States. However, sotorasib had no cost effect from the perspective in China, and only when the WTP exceeds $102,500, the probability of sotorasib having cost effect increases from 0% to 49%.

Cost-effectiveness of durvalumab plus tremelimumab in combination with chemotherapy for the treatment of metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer from the US healthcare sector's and societal perspectives

Purpose

Metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) has a high incidence rate, and economic burdens to patients, healthcare systems, and societies. Durvalumab plus tremelimumab and chemotherapy (T+D+CT) is a novel therapeutic strategy for mNSCLC, which demonstrated promising efficacy in a phase-3 randomized clinical trial, but its economic value remains unclear.

Methods

This economic evaluation used a hypothetical cohort of patients with mNSCLC, with characteristics mirroring those of the participants in the POSEIDON trial. Several partitioned survival models were constructed to estimate 15-year costs and health outcomes associated with the T+D+CT, durvalumab plus chemotherapy (D+CT) and chemotherapy alone (CT) strategies, discounting costs and effectiveness at 3% annually. Costs were in 2023 US dollars. Data were derived from the POSEIDON trial and published literature. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the uncertainty of input parameters and study generalizability. The analysis was designed and conducted from September 2022 to March 2023. To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of T+D+CT, compared with CT and D+CT, for mNSCLC from the perspectives of the US healthcare sector and society.

Findings

From the healthcare sector's perspective, the T+D+CT yielded an additional 0.09 QALYs at an increased cost of $7,108 compared with CT, which resulted in an ICER of $82,501/QALY. The T+D+CT strategy yielded an additional 0.02 QALYs at an increased cost of $27,779 compared with the D+CT, which resulted in an ICER of $1,243,868/QALY. The economic results of T+D+CT vs. CT were most sensitive to the annual discount rate, subsequent immunotherapy cost, tremelimumab cost, palliative care and death cost, pemetrexed cost, and durvalumab cost. The T+D+CT strategy was considered cost-effective relative to CT in 59%-82% of model iterations against willingness-to-pay. thresholds of $100,000/QALY gained to $150,000/QALY gained. From the societal perspective, the T+D+CT can be considered as cost-effective as compared with CT or D+CT, independent of histology.

Implications

In this cost-effectiveness analysis, the T+D+CT strategy represented good value compared with CT for patients with mNSCLC from the perspectives of the healthcare sector and the society. This treatment strategy may be prioritized for mNSCLC patients at high risks of disease progression.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors for the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in patients with breast cancer in Taiwan

OBJECTIVES

To examine the cost-effectiveness of using granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) for primary or secondary prophylaxis in patients with breast cancer from the perspective of Taiwan's National Health Insurance Administration.

METHODS

A Markov model was constructed to simulate the events that may occur during and after a high-risk chemotherapy treatment. Various G-CSF prophylaxis strategies and medications were compared in the model. Effectiveness data were derived from the literature and an analysis of the National Health Insurance Research Database (NHIRD). Cost data were obtained from a published NHIRD study, and health utility values were also obtained from the literature. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the uncertainty of the cost-effectiveness results.

RESULTS

In the base-case analysis, primary prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of NT$269,683 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained compared to primary prophylaxis with lenograstim. The ICER for primary prophylaxis with lenograstim versus no G-CSF prophylaxis was NT$61,995 per QALY gained. The results were most sensitive to variations in relative risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) for pegfilgrastim versus no G-CSF prophylaxis. Furthermore, in the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of one times Taiwan's gross domestic product per capita, the probability of being cost-effective was 88.1% for primary prophylaxis with pegfilgrastim.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests that primary prophylaxis with either short- or long-acting G-CSF could be considered cost-effective for FN prevention in breast cancer patients receiving high-risk regimens.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of PD-1 inhibitors as second-line therapy for advanced or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma in China: an economic evaluation based on network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Several economic studies have assessed the cost-effectiveness of programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) inhibitors compared to second-line chemotherapy in treating esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). However, there is a lack of economic comparisons among the different PD-1 inhibitors.

AIM

This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of PD-1 inhibitors (nivolumab, pembrolizumab, camrelizumab, and tislelizumab) in second-line treatment for advanced or metastatic ESCC within the Chinese healthcare system.

METHOD

The clinical trials were systematically retrieved from PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. We established a fractional polynomials model to conduct a network meta-analysis, enabling the calculation of hazard ratios and expected survival rates. Economic outcomes were estimated using a partitioned survival model. The costs and utilities were gathered from published sources. The threshold for willingness-to-pay (WTP) for a quality-adjusted life year (QALY) was set at three times China's per capita gross domestic product in 2022. Sensitivity analyses (SA) were performed to address uncertainties in the model.

RESULTS

Four phase III randomized controlled trials were included, evaluating the cost-effectiveness of four PD-1 inhibitors, camrelizumab, nivolumab, tislelizumab, and pembrolizumab, compared to chemotherapy for the second-line treatment of advanced or metastatic ESCC. For camrelizumab, nivolumab, tislelizumab, and pembrolizumab, the corresponding incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were $27,375.43/QALY, $205,312.19/QALY, $9,266.73/QALY, and $220,368.10/QALY, respectively. The SA results indicated the robustness of the base analysis findings.

CONCLUSION

From the Chinese healthcare system, under the WTP of $38,253.48/QALY, tislelizumab is a cost-effective treatment option for the second-line treatment of advanced or metastatic ESCC.

First-line treatments for advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer with immune checkpoint inhibitors plus chemotherapy: a systematic review, network meta-analysis, and cost-effectiveness analysis

Introduction

The combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and chemotherapy is a promising first-line therapy for patients with advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The cost-effectiveness of combinations with different ICIs is yet to be compared.

Methods

We utilized Bayesian network meta-analyses for the comparisons of overall survival, progression-free survival, and incidence of adverse events of the included treatments in the total population and subgroups with different programmed death-ligand 1 tumor proportional scores (TPS). The cost-effectiveness of the treatments from the perspectives of the US and Chinese healthcare systems was assessed using Markov models.

Results

Three combinations, including pembrolizumab + chemotherapy (PembroC), nivolumab + ipilimumab + chemotherapy (NivoIpiC), and atezolizumab + chemotherapy (AteC), were included in our study. In terms of efficacy, PembroC was most likely to be ranked first for extending progression-free survival (PFS) (93.16%) and overall survival (OS) (90.73%). Nevertheless, from the US perspective, NivoIpiC and PembroC showed incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of $68,963.1/quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) and $179,355.6/QALY, respectively, compared with AteC. The one-way sensitivity analysis revealed that the results were primarily sensitive to the hazard ratios for OS or the cost of immunotherapy agents. At a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000/QALY, NivoIpiC had the highest probability of being cost-effective (63%). As for the Chinese perspective, NivoIpiC and PembroC had ICERs of $145,983.4/QALY and $195,863.3/QALY versus AteC, respectively. The results were primarily sensitive to the HRs for OS. At a WTP threshold of $38,017/QALY, AteC had the highest probability of cost-effectiveness (94%).

Conclusion

Although PembroC has the optimal efficacy, NivoIpiC and AteC were the most favorable treatments in terms of cost-effectiveness for patients with advanced non-squamous NSCLC from the US and Chinese perspectives, respectively.

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 oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma in China

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of tislelizumab plus chemotherapy compared to chemotherapy alone as a first-line treatment for advanced or metastatic oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC).

METHODS

A partitioned survival model was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of tislelizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in patients with advanced or metastatic OSCC over a 10-year lifetime horizon from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Costs and utilities were derived from the drug procurement platform and published literature. The model outcomes comprised of costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to address uncertainty and ensure the robustness of the model.

RESULTS

Tislelizumab plus chemotherapy yielded an additional 0.337 QALYs and incremental costs of $7,117.007 compared with placebo plus chemotherapy, generating an ICER of $21,116.75 per QALY, which was between 1 time ($12,674.89/QALY) and 3 times GDP ($38,024.67/QALY) per capita. In one-way sensitivity analysis, the ICER is most affected by the cost of oxaliplatin, paclitaxel and tislelizumab. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, when the willingness-to-pay threshold was set as 1 or 3 times GDP per capita, the probability of tislelizumab plus chemotherapy being cost-effective was 1% and 100%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Tislelizumab plus chemotherapy was probably cost-effective compared with chemotherapy alone as the first-line treatment for advanced or metastatic OSCC in China.

Cost-effectiveness of Kang Ai injection plus chemotherapy vs. Shenqi Fuzheng injection plus chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer

Objective

This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of two Chinese patent medicines, including Kang Ai injection and Shenqi Fuzheng injection with each combined with platinum-based chemotherapy as the first-line treatment for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in China.

Methods

From Chinese healthcare system perspective, a three state Markov model with a cycle of 3 weeks and a 10-year horizon was constructed to derive the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Since only individual patient data of progression-free survival (PFS) of Kang Ai injection group can be obtained, we extrapolated median overall survival (mOS) of Kang Ai injection group and median progression-free survival (mPFS) and mOS of Shenqi Fuzheng injection group based on published literature and methods. Then survival curves were estimated by the method of declining exponential approximation of life expectancy (DEALE), which is based on the assumption that survival follows a declining exponential function. We performed one-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis to test the robustness. Additionally, a scenario analysis was adopted to investigate the impact of using best-fitting distribution for PFS curve of Kang Ai injection group on the economic conclusion.

Results

The base-case result indicated that Kang Ai injection group provided 0.217 incremental quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) at an incremental cost of $103.38 compared with Shenqi Fuzheng injection group. The ICER was $476.41/QALY, which was much lower than the willingness to pay threshold of one time the GDP per capita of China in 2022 ($12,070/QALY). Deterministic sensitivity analysis result showed that ICER was most sensitive to the changes in odds ratio (OR) value. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of base-case analysis results. The scenario analysis result showed that by using Log-Normal distribution to fit the PFS curve of Kang Ai injection group and shortening the time horizon to 5 years, the ICER was $4,081.83/QALY, which was still much lower than the willingness to pay threshold.

Conclusion

Kang Ai injection combined with platinum-based chemotherapy appeared to be more cost-effective for the treatment of advanced NSCLC than Shenqi Fuzheng injection combined with platinum-based chemotherapy.

The cost-effectiveness of including liquid biopsy into molecular profiling strategies for newly diagnosed advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer in an Asian population

OBJECTIVES

Liquid biopsy is complementary to tissue biopsy for lung cancer profiling, yet evidence of the cost-effectiveness is limited. This could retard implementation and reimbursement in clinical practice. The aim of this study is to estimate the cost-effectiveness of profiling strategies that include liquid biopsy and to identify the optimal profiling approach for newly diagnosed advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in an Asian population using Singapore as an example.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A decision tree and partitioned-survival model was developed from the Singapore healthcare system's perspective to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of five molecular profiling strategies: either tissue or plasma next-generation sequencing (NGS) alone, a concurrent, and two sequential approaches. Model inputs were informed by local data or published literature. Sensitivity analyses and scenario analyses were undertaken to understand the robustness of the conclusions for decision making. The optimal strategy at different willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds was presented by cost-effectiveness acceptability frontier and the expected loss curve.

RESULTS

The sequential tissue-plasma NGS approach revealed an additional 0.0981 quality adjusted life years (QALYs) for an extra cost of S$3,074 over a 20-year time horizon compared to tissue NGS alone, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of S$31,318/QALY and an incremental net monetary benefit of S$1,343 per patient. The findings were sensitive to the costs of pembrolizumab and osimertinib and the probabilities of re-biopsy after tissue NGS. Sequential plasma-tissue NGS and plasma NGS alone were more costly and less effective than alternatives.

CONCLUSION

The sequential tissue-plasma NGS approach generated the highest net monetary benefit and was the optimal testing strategy when WTP was S$45,000/QALY. It retained superiority but understandably with a higher ICER when expensive, non-first line treatments were included. Overall, its routine clinical practice should be proactively considered for newly diagnosed advanced non-squamous NSCLC in an Asian population.

Cost-effectiveness of additional serplulimab to chemotherapy in metastatic squamous non-small cell lung cancer patients

Objective

To estimate the cost-effectiveness of adding serplulimab to chemotherapy for metastatic squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients in a first-line setting from a Chinese perspective.

Methods

A three-health state partitioned survival model was constructed to simulate disease development. The clinical data used in the model were derived from the ASTRUM-004 clinical trial. Only direct medical costs were included, and the utilities were derived from published literature. The quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were employed to evaluate health outcomes. Additionally, a sensitivity analysis was performed to verify the robustness of the results.

Results

Compared with chemotherapy alone, the addition of serplulimab resulted in an increase of 0.63 QALYs with an incremental cost of $5,372.73, leading to an ICER of $8,528.14 per QALY. This ICER was significantly lower than 3 times China's per capita GDP. The one-way sensitivity analysis suggested that the utility of PFS was the most sensitive factor on ICERs, followed by the price of serplulimab.

Conclusion

The combination of serplulimab and chemotherapy has been shown to be a cost-effective initial treatment option for patients with metastatic squamous NSCLC with the commonly accepted willingness-to-pay threshold of 3 times the GDP per capita per QALY in China.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of durvalumab, tremelimumab, and etoposide-platinum in first-line treatment of extensive-stage small cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND

Durvalumab plus etoposide-platinum (DEP) showed sustained overall survival improvements in patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) compared to etoposide-platinum (EP), but adding tremelimumab to DEP (DTEP) did not significantly improve outcomes. A third-party payer perspective is taken here to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of DTEP, DEP, and EP for ES-SCLC.

METHODS

The cost-effectiveness was evaluated by partitioning survival models into 3 mutually exclusive health states. In this model, clinical characteristics and outcomes were obtained from the CASPIAN. Model robustness was evaluated through 1-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Outcome measurements included costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, life-years, incremental net health benefit, and incremental net monetary benefit. The analysis was conducted with a 10-year lifetime horizon in a United States setting.

RESULTS

Compared with EP, DEP, and DTEP were associated with an increment of 0.480 and 0.313 life-years, and an increment of 0.247 and 0.165 QALYs, as well as a $139,788 and $170,331 increase in cost per patient. The corresponding ICERs were $565,807/QALY and $1033,456/QALY, respectively. The incremental net health benefit and incremental net monetary benefit of DEP or DTEP were -0.685 QALYs and -$102,729, or -0.971 QALYs and -$145,608 at a willingness to pay threshold of $150,000/QALY, respectively. Compared with DTEP, DEP was dominated. DTEP and DEP were 100% unlikely to be cost-effective if the willingness to pay threshold was $150,000/QALY. DEP was cost-effective compared to EP when durvalumab was priced below $0.994/mg. Compared with EP, DEP, and DTEP were unlikely to be considered cost-effective across all subgroups.

CONCLUSION

DEP and DTEP were not cost-effective options in the first-line treatment for ES-SCLC compared with EP, from the third-party payer perspective in the United States. Compared with DTEP, DEP was dominated.

The cost-effectiveness of iruplinalkib versus alectinib in anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive crizotinib-resistant advanced non-small-cell lung cancer patients in China

Background

Iruplinalkib is a second-generation anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) with efficacy in patients with ALK-positive crizotinib-resistant advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), which is independently developed by a Chinese pharmaceutical company. This study examined the cost-effectiveness of iruplinalkib versus alectinib in the Chinese healthcare setting.

Methods

A partitioned survival model was developed to project the economic and health outcomes. Efficacy was derived using unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC). Cost and utility values were obtained from the literature and experts' opinions. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were carried out to evaluate the model's robustness.

Results

Treatment with iruplinalkib versus alectinib resulted in a gain of 0.843 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) with incremental costs of $20,493.27, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $24,313.95/QALY. Parameters related to relative efficacy and drug costs were the main drivers of the model outcomes. From the PSA, iruplinalkib had a 90% probability of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $37,863.56/QALY.

Conclusion

Compared to alectinib, iruplinalkib is a cost-effective therapy for patients with ALK-positive crizotinib-resistant advanced NSCLC.

Cost-Effectiveness of First-Line Atezolizumab versus Chemotherapy in Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Patients Ineligible for Platinum-Containing Regimens

Purpose

The IPSOS study provided evidence supporting the efficacy and tolerability of first-line atezolizumab compared to single-agent chemotherapy for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients ineligible for treatment with a platinum-containing regimen. This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab specifically in this population, considering the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system.

Patients and Methods

In this analysis, a three-state Markov model was utilized. The survival data were derived from the IPSOS clinical trial. Direct medical costs and utility values were collected from national authoritative database and published literature. The primary outcomes were costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). To ensure the robustness of our model, both one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted.

Results

Atezolizumab monotherapy led to an increase in costs of $4139.23 compared to single-agent chemotherapy. Additionally, it resulted in a gain of 0.14 QALYs, leading to an ICER of $29,365.79 per QALY, which was below the willingness-to-pay threshold of $36,066 per QALY used in the model. One-way sensitivity analyses revealed cost of atezolizumab and utility of progressive disease (PD) as major influencing factors for ICER. Furthermore, probabilistic sensitivity analyses confirmed our base-case results.

Conclusion

From the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system, atezolizumab emerges as a cost-effective choice for the first-line treatment of NSCLC patients ineligible for platinum-based chemotherapy.

Updated cost-effectiveness analysis of adebrelimab plus chemotherapy for extensive-stage small cell lung cancer in China

OBJECTIVE

The CAPSTONE-1 trial demonstrated that adebrelimab-based immunotherapy yielded a favourable survival benefit compared with chemotherapy for patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of this immunotherapy in the treatment of ES-SCLC from a healthcare system perspective in China.

DESIGN

The TreeAge Pro software was used to establish a three-state partitioned survival model. Survival data came from the CAPSTONE-1 trial (NCT03711305), and only direct medical costs were included. Utility values were obtained from the published literature. Sensitivity analysis was performed to explore the robustness of the model. The cost-effectiveness of immunotherapy was investigated through scenario and exploratory analyses in various settings.

OUTCOME MEASURES

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

RESULTS

The basic analysis revealed that the adebrelimab group achieved a total of 1.1 QALYs at a cost of US$65 385, while the placebo group attained 0.78 QALYs at a cost of US$12 741. ICER was US$163 893/QALY. Sensitivity analysis confirmed that the model was robust. Results from scenario and exploratory analyses indicated that the combination of adebrelimab and chemotherapy did not demonstrate cost-effectiveness in any scenario.

CONCLUSIONS

From the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system, adebrelimab in combination with chemotherapy for the treatment of ES-SCLC was not economical compared with chemotherapy.

Comparative cost-effectiveness of nivolumab first-line and second-line therapy for advanced esophageal cancer in Japan

OBJECTIVE

A model-based cost-effectiveness analysis comparing first-line and second-line nivolumab therapy for advanced esophageal cancer was performed to support public healthcare in Japan.

METHODS

A partitioned survival model was developed to predict costs and outcomes. Survival data were obtained from two phase 3 clinical trials (Attraction-3 and Checkmate-648), and direct medical costs were estimated from the perspective of the Japanese National Health Insurance payer. The time horizon for the model was set to 20 years. Health outcomes were calculated and defined as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were compared to those of control therapy. A sensitivity analysis was performed based on parameter settings and model uncertainties. A willingness-to-pay threshold of 15 million Japanese yen (JPY) was established.

RESULTS

Compared to that of each control therapy, the ICER for nivolumab per QALY gained was 15,712,265 JPY (143,099 USD) for first-line combination therapy with chemotherapy in the overall population, 10,657,085 JPY (97,059 USD) in the population with ≥ 1% Programmed Death-Ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression, and 41,184,322 JPY (375,085 USD) for second-line nivolumab monotherapy. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis estimated that nivolumab was cost-effective as a first-line therapy for the overall population (61.5%) and for the population with ≥ 1% PD-L1 expression (76.5%), but not as second-line monotherapy (32.3%).

CONCLUSION

Nivolumab is recommended as a first-line therapy in combination with chemotherapy owing to its cost-effectiveness, but not as a second-line monotherapy. Patient selection based on PD-L1 expression may help to improve the cost-effectiveness of using nivolumab as a first-line treatment.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Sintilimab Plus Chemotherapy in Advanced Non-Squamous Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Societal Perspective

INTRODUCTION

The updated ORIENT-11 study demonstrated that sintilimab, when combined with chemotherapy, had promising survival advantage compared to standard chemotherapy alone in the first-line treatment for previously untreated, locally advanced or metastatic non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (nsNSCLC). This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of sintilimab plus chemotherapy for advanced nsNSCLC from a Chinese societal perspective.

METHODS

A partitioned survival model with a embedded decision tree was developed to assess the economic value of sintilimab plus chemotherapy over a lifetime horizon. Clinical data was captured from the updated ORIENT-11 study, while costs, health productivity losses, and utility values were collected from a nationwide cross-sectional survey in tertiary hospitals across multiple provinces in China. The primary outcomes were measured using the metrics of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER). Costs and health outcomes were discounted at an annual rate of 5% per annum. Sensitivity analyses, including one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses, subgroup analyses, and scenario analyses, were performed.

RESULTS

Compared to standard chemotherapy, treatment with sintilimab plus chemotherapy incurred a mean total cost of $23,979 and gained 0.98 QALYs over the lifetime horizon, resulting in an ICER of $24,568 per QALY gained. The use of sintilimab accumulated direct non-medical costs of $9262 and indirect costs of $6780 over 16 years. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed an 84.2% probability of sintilimab plus chemotherapy being cost-effective at a threshold of three times China's per capita gross domestic product in 2022 ($38,201). The model was most sensitive to the discount rate of QALYs and costs, as well as the costs of pemetrexed, sintilimab, and subsequent therapy in progressive disease state. Subgroup analyses indicated favorable incremental net monetary benefits in all subgroups.

CONCLUSION

Sintilimab plus chemotherapy is a cost-effective first-line treatment therapy for advanced nsNSCLC in China when compared to standard chemotherapy. These findings, along with the improved progression-free survival and overall survival (OS) observed in ORIENT-11, support the use of this regimen in eligible candidates for advanced nsNSCLC.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of amivantamab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in NSCLC with EGFR Exon 20 insertions

Objective

Amivantamab plus chemotherapy has been proved to be an efficient treatment strategy for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) exon 20 insertions. The aim of this study was to conduct the cost-effectiveness analysis of amivantamab-chemotherapy compared with chemotherapy alone in NSCLC harboring EGFR exon 20 insertion mutations.

Methods

We constructed a Markov model based on the data derived from the PAPILLON trial. We evaluated the cost, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to evaluate the influence of different parameters on this model.

Results

Compared with chemotherapy alone, amivantamab combined with chemotherapy treatment gained an incremental effectiveness of 0.473 QALYs and an incremental cost of $361,950.952, which resulted in an ICER of $765,224/QALY. The ICER was much higher than the willingness-to-pay threshold of 15,0000/QALY. One-way sensitivity analysis revealed that amivantamab cost was the leading influential factor in the model.

Conclusions

Compared with chemotherapy alone, amivantamab plus chemotherapy is not a cost-effective first-line treatment choice for NSCLC patients with EGFR exon 20 insertions. The costly price of amivantamab is one of the major reasons for the high cost of this combined treatment strategy. Therefore, it is imperative to take into account the high cost of amivantamab in the subsequent clinical application and strive to attain a relative equilibrium between its significant clinical benefit and economic encumbrance.

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.

QALY-type preference and willingness-to-pay among end-of-life patients with cancer treatments: a pilot study using discrete choice experiment

PURPOSE

Quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) is a dominant measurement of health gain in economic evaluations for pricing drugs. However, end-of-life (EoL) patients' preference for QALY gains in life expectancy (LE) and quality of life (QoL) during different disease stages remains unknown and is seldom involved in decision-making. This study aims to measure preferences and willingness-to-pay (WTP) towards different types of QALY gain among EoL cancer patients.

METHODS

We attributed QALY gain to four types, gain in LE and QoL, respectively, and during both progression-free survival (PFS) and post-progression survival (PPS). A discrete choice experiment including five attributes (the four QALY attributes and one cost attribute) with three levels each was developed and conducted with 85 Chinese advanced non-small cell lung cancer patients in 2022. All levels were set with QALY gain/cost synthesised from research on anti-lung cancer drugs recently listed by Chinese National Healthcare Security Administration. Each respondent answered six choice tasks in a face-to-face interview. The data were analysed using mixed logit models.

RESULTS

Patients valued LE-related QALY gain in PFS most, with a relative importance of 81.8% and a WTP of $43,160 [95% CI 26,751 ~ 59,569] per QALY gain. Respondents consistently preferred LE-related to QoL-related QALY gain regardless of disease stage. Patients with higher income or lower education levels tended to pay more for QoL-related QALY gain.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest a prioritised resource allocation to EoL-prolonging health technologies. Given the small sample size and large individual heterogeneity, a full-scale study is needed to provide more robust results.

Clinical outcomes and medical resource utilization of toripalimab combination therapy versus bevacizumab plus chemotherapy in advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the real-world clinical efficacy and safety, economic burdens and medical resource utilization (MRU) of toripalimab treatment patterns compared with bevacizumab plus chemotherapy (BCP) for patients with advanced non-squamous NSCLC in China.

METHODS

Progression-free survival (PFS), adverse drug reactions (ADR) and the costs of drugs, laboratory testing, imageology examinations (including CT, B ultrasound, MRI), medical service, nursing, treatment, genetic test and medical disposable material were compared between two groups. A retrospective observational study was conducted with electronic medical records from Fudan University Huashan hospital. Data was obtained from established electronic medical records (EMRs) and patient surveys. Survival time from the study enrollment to disease progression or death plus from 1st progression disease (PD) in the maintenance phase to 2nd PD (PFS II), adverse events (AE), direct medical costs, MRU and AE-related costs were collected and compared between toripalimab group and BCP group. A total of 246 patients were enrolled.

RESULTS

Toripalimab combination therapy has significantly prolonged PFS comparing with BCP (13.8 months vs. 6.2 months, p < .001). A statistically significant improvement in PFS was observed favoring all toripalimab regimen subgroups compared with the bevacizumab group. Patients in toripalimab group occupied more overall resource consumption, more direct medical costs ($47,056.9 vs. $29,951.0, p < .0001) and AE-related costs ($4,500.2 vs. $784.4, p < .0001) than BCP group. Although patients in the toripalimab group used more drugs to prevent AEs ($4,500.2 vs. $784.4, p < .0001), they still experienced more AEs than patients in BCP group (51.4% vs. 41.4%).

CONCLUSION

Toripalimab combination therapy could significantly prolonged PFS for patients with advanced non-squamous NSCLC compared with BCP, but at the expense of more MRU, costs and AEs.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors versus chemotherapy as second-line therapy for advanced oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a systematic review and economic evaluation

Background

Recently, several novel programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) inhibitors have been approved for second-line treating advanced or metastatic oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC), including camrelizumab, nivolumab, pembrolizumab, sintilimab and tislelizumab. However, the optimal treatment regimen remained ambiguous.

Objectives

The purpose of this study was to investigate the efficacy, safety and economy of available PD-1 inhibitors to determine the optimal treatment from the Chinese healthcare system perspective.

Design

A systematic review and economic evaluation.

Data sources and methods

A systematic review was undertaken utilizing PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase and Scopus databases to identify eligible studies until 31 August 2023. Primary outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and adverse events (AEs). We also developed a partitioned survival model at 3-week intervals based on five clinical trials to predict long-term costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for various treatment options. Direct medical costs and utility values were obtained from public drug bidding databases, clinical trials or published literature. The parameter uncertainties within the model were determined via one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

Results

Five randomized controlled trials involving 2837 patients were included in the analysis. Compared with other treatments examined, camrelizumab provided the best PFS benefits [hazard ratio (HR): 0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.56-0.86], and pembrolizumab provided the best OS benefits (HR: 0.55, 95% CI: 0.37-0.82). Nivolumab caused a relatively lower incidence of treatment-related AEs (HR: 0.10, 95% CI: 0.05-0.20) and grade 3-5 AEs (HR: 0.13, 95% CI: 0.08-0.21) than other immunotherapy regimens. In the economic evaluation, average 10-year costs ranged from $5,433.86 (chemotherapy) to $50,617.95 (nivolumab) and mean QALYs ranged from 0.55 (chemotherapy) to 0.82 (camrelizumab). Pembrolizumab was eliminated because of dominance. Of the remaining strategies, when the willingness-to-pay thresholds were 1, 2 and 3 times GDP per capita in 2022, sintilimab, tislelizumab and camrelizumab were the most cost-effective treatment options, respectively.

Conclusion

Sintilimab might be the optimal treatment alternative for second-line therapy of advanced OSCC in China, followed by tislelizumab and camrelizumab.

Trial registration

This study has been registered on the PROSPERO database with the registration number CRD42023495204.

Cost-effectiveness of first-line versus second-line use of brigatinib followed by lorlatinib in patients with ALK-positive non-small cell lung cancer

Background

The ALTA-1 L trial and EXP-3B arm of NCT01970865 trial found that both brigatinib and lorlatinib showed durable and robust responses in treating ALK-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. However, brigatinib and lorlatinib treatments are costly and need indefinite administration until the disease progression. Thus, it remains uncertain whether using brigatinib followed by lorlatinib before chemotherapy is cost-effective compared to reserving these two drugs until progression after chemotherapy.

Methods

We used a Markov model to assess clinical outcomes and healthcare costs of treating ALK-positive NSCLC individuals with brigatinib followed by lorlatinib before chemotherapy versus a strategy of reserving these drugs until progression after chemotherapy. Transition probabilities were estimated using parametric survival modeling based on multiple clinical trials. The drug acquisition costs, adverse events costs, administration costs were extracted from published studies before and publicly available data. We calculated lifetime direct healthcare costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios from the perspective of a United States payer.

Results

Our base-case analysis indicated that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of using first-line brigatinib followed by lorlatinib compared with second-line brigatinib followed by lorlatinib is $-400,722.09/QALY which meant that second-line brigatinib followed by lorlatinib had less costs and better outcomes. Univariate sensitivity analysis indicated the results were most sensitive to the cost of brigatinib. Probability sensitivity analysis revealed that using brigatinib followed by lorlatinib before chemotherapy had a 0% probability of cost-effectiveness versus delaying these two drugs until progression after chemotherapy at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per QALY. Sensitivity analyses conducted revealed the robustness of this result, as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios never exceeded the willingness-to-pay threshold.

Conclusion

Using brigatinib as first-line treatment followed by lorlatinib for ALK-positive NSCLC may not be cost-effective given current pricing from the perspective of a United States payer. Delaying brigatinib followed by lorlatinib until subsequent lines of treatment may be a reasonable strategy that could limit healthcare costs without affecting clinical outcomes. More mature data are needed to better estimate cost-effectiveness in this setting.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of toripalimab plus chemotherapy for patients with advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma in China

BACKGROUND

The aim of the current analysis was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of toripalimab plus chemotherapy compared with chemotherapy alone as the first-line option for patients with advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) from the perspective of Chinese health-care system.

METHODS

A partitioned survival model was conducted to track 3-week patients' transition and evaluate the health and economic outcomes in 10-year horizon of the two competing first-line treatment among toripalimab plus chemotherapy and chemotherapy alone. The survival data were gathered from the JUPITER-06 trial, and cost and utility values were obtained from the local charges and published studies. Total costs, life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were the model outcomes. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

Treatment with toripalimab plus chemotherapy yields marginal cost of $8,639.74 and additional 0.65 QALYs, resulting in an ICER of $13,280.97 per additional QALY gained, which was lower than the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $38,224 in China. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses confirmed the robustness of the model outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Toripalimab plus chemotherapy was likely to be the cost-effective first-line option for patients with advanced ESCC compared with chemotherapy alone with the WTP threshold of $38,224 per additional QALY gained from the perspective of the Chinese health-care system.

Does caring for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer affect health-related quality of life of caregivers? A multicenter, cross-sectional study

PURPOSE

Patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) mostly receive essential routine care and support from informal caregivers, who usually experience poorer health-related quality of life (HRQoL). The study aimed to evaluate the HRQoL and its predictors among informal caregivers of patients with advanced NSCLC in China.

METHODS

We interviewed the adult caregiver population of patients with advanced NSCLC (stage IIIB~IV) in nine tertiary hospitals from multiple provinces in China between November 2020 and June 2021. The EQ-5D-5L instrument measured the HRQoL of caregivers, as analyzed by employing descriptive analysis, univariate analysis, Tobit regression, and multivariate logistic regression, and investigated the important influencing factors further.

RESULTS

A valid sample of 553 caregivers was analyzed. The mean EQ-5D-5L utility score of caregivers was 0.92 (SD = 0.14). Caregivers reported the greatest problems in mental health, with 45.39% reporting slight, moderate, severe, or extreme anxiety/depression. The potential influencing factors of HRQoL in caregivers included patients' age and cancer histology, relationship with the patients, and daily caregiving hours. Compared to other caregivers, patients' spouses had the lowest HRQoL. In addition, over six hours of caregiving per day was associated with lower HRQoL in caregivers of patients with advanced NSCLC.

CONCLUSIONS

The HRQoL of caregivers for patients with advanced NSCLC was investigated for the first time in China. The informal caregivers experience decreased HRQoL, with anxiety /depression problems being reported the most. The findings of this study would provide extensive information on the HRQoL of advanced NSCLC patients' caregivers for future health-promoting self-care.

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.

Economic evaluation of serplulimab plus chemotherapy as the first-line treatment of oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma in China

OBJECTIVE

The ASTRUM-007 study confirmed the significant efficacy and safety of serplulimab plus chemotherapy for patients with locally advanced/metastatic, programmed cell death-ligand 1 positive oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC). The economics of this regimen, however, is unclear. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of adding serplulimab to chemotherapy for the treatment of advanced OSCC from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system.

DESIGN

A partitioned survival model was established to simulate the costs and outcomes of chemotherapy versus serplulimab plus chemotherapy. The survival data came from the ASTRUM-007 study. Only direct medical costs were considered, and utility values were referred to the literature. Sensitivity analysis was performed to assess the effect of parameter uncertainty on the model.

OUTCOME MEASURES

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

RESULTS

The base case analysis showed that the cost of serplulimab plus chemotherapy (US$69 356) was US$41 607 higher than that of chemotherapy (US$27 749), but it also gained 0.38 QALYs more (1.38 vs 1 QALYs), with an ICER of US$110 744.36/QALY, which was higher than the willingness to pay. The factors that most influenced the ICER were the price of serplulimab, weight and utility value of the progression-free survival stage. The subgroup analysis and scenario analysis also demonstrated that serplulimab plus chemotherapy was not economical.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with chemotherapy, serplulimab coupled with chemotherapy was not cost-effective for the treatment of advanced OSCC in China.

Cemiplimab combined with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: an updated EMPOWER-Lung 3 trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis

Objective

Cemiplimab combined with chemotherapy has emerged as a promising treatment option for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Accordingly, this study has been conducted to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of this combination therapy in comparison to chemotherapy alone from the perspective of the United States healthcare system.

Methods

The present study is based on a partitioned survival model developed from clinical data obtained during the 2-year follow-up of the phase III EMPOWER-Lung 3 part 2 trial. The purpose of this investigation is to estimate the 10-year life expectancy and total healthcare costs of patients with advanced NSCLC by leveraging primary outcomes that evaluated costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).To establish the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold for the analysis, a value of $150,000/QALY was adopted. Sensitivity analysis was performed to determine the impact of varying levels of uncertainty on the results of this study.

Results

When compared to chemotherapy alone, the addition of cemiplimab to chemotherapy has been demonstrated to result in an incremental gain of 1.593 QALY at an additional cost of $109351.298. This equates to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $68644.883/QALY. One-way sensitivity analyses were conducted on the model, which acknowledged the influence of several parameters, such as subsequent costs, the utility of progressive disease, the cost of best supportive care, the cost of cemiplimab per mg, and the utility of progression-free survival on the outcomes. Nonetheless, none of these parameters yielded an ICER lower than the WTP threshold.

Conclusions

From the perspective of the United States healthcare system, the utilization of cemiplimab in combination with chemotherapy as a first-line treatment option for NSCLC appears to be a cost-effective approach as compared to using chemotherapy as a standalone therapy.

Drug Pricing of Domestic Anti-PD-L1 Antibody Adebrelimab: Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of the First-Line ES-SCLC Treatment in China

Purpose

The market price of adebrelimab, the first Chinese-developed anti-PD-L1 antibody used as a first-line treatment for extensive stage-small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC), has garnered significant public attention. This study sought to investigate the affordable price of adebrelimab for Chinese patients with untreated ES-SCLC through a cost-effectiveness analysis.

Patients and Methods

We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis using a Markov model, incorporating a what-if scenario of adding adebrelimab to first-line etoposide/platinum (EP) chemotherapy is cost-effective for ES-SCLC patients from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. The model included three mutually exclusive health states, with transition probabilities derived from the CAPSTONE-1 trial. Health state utilities and costs were acquired from a myriad of authoritative sources. We compared the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for adebrelimab plus EP chemotherapy (AEP) versus EP with a willingness-to-pay threshold of $37,654 per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) to estimate the affordable price ceiling of the upcoming adebrelimab.

Results

For the entire ES-SCLC population, the estimated price ceiling of adebrelimab/mg was $0.542 (95% CI, $0.542-$0.552). Subgroup analyses found that the highest price ceiling of adebrelimab/mg was observed in ES-SCLC patients with lactate dehydrogenase concentration ≤ upper normal limit [$0.824 (95% CI, $0.815-$0.830)]; and the lowest was found in ES-SCLC patients with liver metastasis [$0.252 (95% CI, $0.250- $0.256)]. Sensitivity analysis revealed a heightened probability of cost-effectiveness for the first-line AEP as the price of adebrelimab decreased, encompassing both the entire ES-SCLC population and its subgroups.

Conclusion

The affordable price range for adebrelimab/mg Chinese patients with untreated ES-SCLC was estimated to be between $0.252 and $0.824, with variations observed across different subgroups. In the context of universal healthcare coverage, our study provides valuable evidence to inform the implementation of a value-based pricing strategy for cancer treatment.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Tislelizumab Plus Chemotherapy as First-Line Treatment for Advanced or Metastatic Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma in China

Background

Tislelizumab plus chemotherapy improved overall survival compared to chemotherapy alone, while maintaining an acceptable level of safety. But it's still unclear which strategy is the most cost-effective. The objective of the study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of tislelizumab plus chemotherapy as first-line therapy for patients with advanced or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) versus chemotherapy alone.

Methods

A partitioned survival model with three states was constructed based on the RATIONALE-306 trial. The model's time horizon was ten years, and its cycle was three weeks. Only direct medical costs were considered from the healthcare perspective in China. Calculations were performed on total costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). One-way sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) were performed to determine the uncertainty regarding model parameters.

Results

Tislelizumab plus chemotherapy provided 1.35 QALYs for $26,450.77, while chemotherapy alone provided 0.89 QALY for $16,687.15. Compared to chemotherapy alone, tislelizumab had an ICER of $21,062.09/QALY. At the threshold of three times the Chinese GDP per capita ($38,253/QALY), the PSA indicated that tislelizumab had a 96.4% likelihood of being designated cost-effective. At the threshold of 1.5 times the Chinese GDP per capita ($19,126.5/QALY), the PSA indicated that tislelizumab had a probability of 48.7% of being designated cost-effective.

Conclusion

Tislelizumab plus chemotherapy as the first treatment for patients with advanced or metastatic ESCC may be a cost-effective option compared to chemotherapy alone at 3 times Chinese GDP per capita.

Cost-effectiveness of adding serplulimab to first-line chemotherapy for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer in China

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the current study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of serplulimab plus chemotherapy compared chemotherapy alone as first-line strategy for patients with ES-SCLC in China.

METHODS

A decision-analytic model that based on the Chinese health-care system perspective was conducted to evaluate the economic benefits for the two competing first-line treatment. The clinical survival and safety data were obtained from the ASTRUM-005 trial, cost and utility values were gathered from the local charges and previously published study. Both cost and utility values were discounted at an annual rate of 5%. Sensitivity analyses and subgroup analyses were performed to examine the robustness of the model results.

RESULTS

Serplulimab plus chemotherapy could bring additional 0.25 QALYs with the marginal cost of $37,569.32, resulting in an ICER of $147,908.74 per additional QALY gained. Sensitivity analyses confirmed that model results were robust. Subgroup analyses revealed that adding serplulimab to first-line chemotherapy were unlikely to be the cost-effective option for all subgroup patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Serplulimab plus chemotherapy was unlikely to be the cost-effective first-line strategy compared with chemotherapy alone for patients with ES-SCLC in China. Reduced the price of serplulimab could increase its cost-effective.

Estimating the cost-effectiveness threshold of advanced non-small cell lung cancer in China using mean opportunity cost and contingent valuation method

OBJECTIVES

Monetizing health has sparked controversy and has implications for pricing strategies of emerging health technologies. Medical insurance payers typically set up thresholds for quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gains based on health productivity and budget affordability, but they rarely consider patient willingness-to-pay (WTP). Our study aims to compare Chinese payer threshold and patient WTP toward QALY gain of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and to inform a potential inclusion of patient WTP under more complex decision-making scenarios.

METHODS

A regression model was constructed with cost as the independent variable and QALY as the dependent variable, where the regression coefficients reflect mean opportunity cost, and by transforming these coefficients, the payer threshold can be obtained. Patient WTP was elicited through a contingent valuation method survey. The robustness of the findings was examined through sensitivity analyses of model parameters and patient heterogeneity.

RESULTS

The payer mean threshold in the base-case was estimated at 150,962 yuan (1.86 times per capita GDP, 95% CI 144,041-159,204). The two scenarios analysis generated by different utility inputs yielded thresholds of 112,324 yuan (1.39 times per capita GDP) and 111,824 yuan (1.38 times per capita GDP), respectively. The survey included 85 patients, with a mean WTP of 148,443 yuan (1.83 times per capita GDP, 95% CI 120,994-175,893) and median value was 106,667 yuan (1.32 times the GDP per capita). Due to the substantial degree of dispersion, the median was more representative. The payer threshold was found to have a high probability (98.5%) of falling within the range of 1-2 times per capita GDP, while the robustness of patient WTP was relatively weak.

CONCLUSIONS

In China, a country with a copayment system, payer threshold was higher than patient WTP, indicating that medical insurance holds significant decision-making authority, thus temporarily negating the need to consider patient WTP.

Biomarkers-Based Cost-Effectiveness of Toripalimab Plus Chemotherapy for Patients with Treatment-Naive Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

INTRODUCTION

This study examined the cost-effectiveness of first-line toripalimab plus chemotherapy (TC) for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), excluding patients with nonsquamous NSCLC and EGFR/ALK mutations. It further analyzed the cost-effectiveness of this strategy in biomarker-based subgroups, all within the context of the Chinese healthcare system.

METHODS

Eighteen Markov models with 21-day Markov cycle lengths and 30-year time horizons were constructed in this study. Clinical effectiveness data were derived from the CHOICE-01 trial. Health state utilities and costs data were obtained from various sources. The primary outputs were the calculation of incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), which were then compared to a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $17,961 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). This comparison was used to determine the treatment that offered greater cost-effectiveness. To account for uncertainty in the model, sensitivity analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

For the overall patient population, the estimated ICER between first-line TC and placebo plus chemotherapy (PC) was $9445/QALY, significantly lower than the WTP threshold used in the model. In subgroups based on pathologic types, first-line TC had an ICER of $16,757/QALY for patients with nonsquamous NSCLC, slightly below the WTP threshold; first-line TC demonstrated dominance in patients with squamous NSCLC, indicating both better effectiveness and lower costs compared to first-line PC. In biomarkers-based subgroups, first-line TC was dominant over first-line PC in the subgroups with programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression ≥ 50% and SMARCA4 mutations. Moreover, first-line TC had ICERs lower than the WTP threshold in other subgroups, except for the subgroup with RB1 mutations. Sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of these findings.

CONCLUSION

From the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system, this study's findings suggested that first-line TC represents a cost-effective strategy for patients with advanced NSCLC. However, the cost-effectiveness of first-line TC varied across different subgroups when considering predictive biomarkers.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Atezolizumab versus Platinum-Based Chemotherapy as First-Line Treatment for Patients with Unresectable Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer with PD-L1 Expression Status in Japan

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Atezolizumab has demonstrated safety and efficacy in patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in the IMpower110 trial. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab as the first-line treatment for patients with unresectable advanced NSCLC, including programmed cell death ligand-1 (PD-L1)-positive probability testing, from the perspective of healthcare costs in Japan.

METHODS

A cost-effectiveness analysis model for atezolizumab, including PD-L1-positive probability testing, was used to construct a partitioned survival model with three health states. To assess the robustness, a probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was conducted. The acceptable probability was defined as the probability of willingness-to-pay (WTP) over the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Multiple repetitions at WTP thresholds were calculated by continuously reducing the atezolizumab price.

RESULTS

The ICER per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) for atezolizumab therapy only for patients with high PD-L1 expression compared to platinum-based chemotherapy for all patients was 31,975,792 yen per QALY. This is higher than the WTP threshold of 15,000,000 yen. If the cost of atezolizumab were reduced to 54% of the original cost (563,917 yen), the strategy of using atezolizumab for patients with high PD-L1 could become more cost-effective.

CONCLUSIONS

The results indicated that atezolizumab was not cost-effective compared to platinum-based chemotherapy as a first-line treatment for patients with unresectable advanced NSCLC. However, we suggest that the price of atezolizumab should be reduced to 54% of the original cost to meet the WTP threshold of 15,000,000 yen per QALY.

The Cost-Effectiveness of Sugemalimab Plus Chemotherapy as First-Line Treatment for Metastatic Squamous and Non-squamous NSCLC in China

INTRODUCTION

Sugemalimab is the first China-developed programmed death-ligand 1 inhibitor that has proved to be effective as a first-line treatment for both metastatic squamous and non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) when used in combination with chemotherapy. This study compared the cost-effectiveness of sugemalimab plus chemotherapy (sugema + chemo) with placebo plus chemotherapy (placebo + chemo) among metastatic squamous and nonsquamous NSCLC, respectively.

METHODS

Separate Markov models were constructed to generate the cumulative healthcare costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) associated with two treatment strategies over a 20-year time horizon. Transition probabilities were estimated using survival data reported in the GEMSTONE-302 trial. Health state utilities and costs were derived from published literature, national databases, and local general hospitals. Sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of our conclusions.

RESULTS

Compared with first-line placebo + chem, sugema + chemo achieved an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $57,842/QALY for patients with metastatic squamous NSCLC and achieved an ICER of $78,249/QALY for patients with metastatic non-squamous NSCLC. In our sensitivity analyses of a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $35,663 per QALY, the first-line sugema + chemo was only cost-effective for patient groups when the price of sugemalimab decreased.

CONCLUSION

Sugema + chemo was not cost-effective as a first-line treatment for either metastatic squamous or metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC in Chinese patients compared with placebo + chemo. However, we found that sugema + chemo would be cost-effective in patients with metastatic squamous and non-squamous NSCLC when sugemalimab's price was decreased by > 39.0% and 64.8%, respectively.

Cost-effectiveness of camrelizumab plus chemotherapy in advanced squamous non-small-cell lung cancer

Objectives: A cost-effectiveness study of camrelizumab plus chemotherapy for advanced squamous non-small-cell lung cancer in China was conducted versus chemotherapy alone. Methods: Survival data were derived from CameL-Sq. Cost-effectiveness is indicated by an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) less than the willingness-to-pay threshold. The partitioned survival model stability was assessed by sensitivity analyses. Results: With camrelizumab plus chemotherapy, quality-adjusted life years increased by 0.83, and cost increased by $21,259/patient versus chemotherapy. The ICER was $25,674/quality-adjusted life year. The probability of cost-effectiveness was >90% regardless of PD-L1 expression level. Regardless of the variation in each parameter across a wide range, the ICER never transcended the willingness to pay. Conclusion: Camrelizumab plus chemotherapy is a cost-effective first-line treatment for advanced squamous non-small cell lung cancer in China.

Cost-effectiveness of neoadjuvant pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy with adjuvant pembrolizumab for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer in the United States

Introduction

Perioperative (neoadjuvant and adjuvant) pembrolizumab has shown favorable efficacy in patients with early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of this treatment from the perspective of the United States healthcare payers.

Methods

We established a Markov model to compare the cost-effectiveness of perioperative pembrolizumab with that of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in 21-day cycles, utilizing data from the phase 3 KEYNOTE-671 trial. Additional data were extracted from other publications or online sources. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate the robustness of the findings. A willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained was established. The main outcomes of this study were the measurement of QALYs, overall costs, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), and net monetary benefit (NMB).

Results

During a 10-year time horizon, the total costs of perioperative pembrolizumab and the control treatment were $224,779.1 and $110,026.3, respectively. The QALYs were 4.19 and 2.97 for the two treatments, respectively, which led to an ICER of $94,222.29 per QALY gained. The NMB at the WTP threshold at $150,000 per QALY gained was $67,931.3. One-way sensitivity analysis identified the cost of pembrolizumab as the primary factor influencing cost-effectiveness. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated a 97.7% probability of perioperative pembrolizumab being cost-effective at the WTP threshold.

Conclusions

From the perspective of the United States healthcare payers, perioperative pembrolizumab is a cost-effective treatment for patients with early-stage NSCLC.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of dostarlimab plus carboplatin-paclitaxel as first-line treatment for advanced endometrial cancer

Background

A recent phase III clinical trial (NCT03981796) evaluated the efficacy and safety of dostarlimab combined with carboplatin-paclitaxel (DOS-CP) compared to placebo combined with carboplatin-paclitaxel (PLB-CP) as a first-line treatment for advanced endometrial cancer (EC). The NCT03981796 trial demonstrated that DOS-CP significantly improved progression-free survival and overall survival of patients with advanced EC while maintaining an acceptable safety profile. However, DOS-CP is expensive and its cost-effectiveness has not been evaluated. This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of DOS-CP compared to PLB-CP as a first-line treatment for advanced EC from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system.

Methods

A Markov model with three health states was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of DOS-CP as a first-line treatment for advanced EC. Clinical efficacy data were derived from the NCT03981796 trial, and drug costs were determined based on national tender prices. Other costs and utility values were obtained from published literature. The outcomes assessed included total costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). The robustness of the model was assessed through one-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis.

Results

In comparison to PLB-CP, the ICER of DOS-CP was $98,276.61/QALY for the overall population, $53,063.61/QALY for the dMMR subgroup, and $124,088.56/QALY for the pMMR subgroup. All of these ICER values were higher than the willingness-to-pay threshold of $38,201 per QALY. The most important variable that affected the results of the model was the discount rate, the cost of dostarlimab, and the utility value for progressive disease.

Conclusion

From the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system, DOS-CP is unlikely to be a cost-effective first-line treatment option for advanced EC.

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 analysis of zolbetuximab plus mFOLFOX6 as the first-line treatment for CLDN18.2-positive, HER2-negative advanced gastric or Gastroesophageal Adenocarcinoma

Background: The SPOTLIGHT trial demonstrated that zolbetuximab plus mFOLFOX6 (ZOL-FO) as a first-line regimen compared with placebo plus mFOLFOX6 (PLB-FO) conferred clinical benefits to patients with CLDN18.2-positive, HER2-negative advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction (G/GEJ) adenocarcinoma. However, due to the high cost of zolbetuximab, whether ZOL-FO is cost-effective compared with PLB-FO is unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ZOL-FO as a first-line treatment option for CLDN18.2-positive, HER2-negative advanced G/GEJ adenocarcinoma from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Methods: Markov models with three different health states were developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of ZOL-FO as a first-line treatment option for CLDN18.2-positive, HER2-negative advanced G/GEJ adenocarcinoma. Clinical efficacy data were obtained from the SPOTLIGHT trial; the drug's cost was calculated at national bid prices, and other costs and utility values were obtained from the published literature. Outcomes included total costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). The model's robustness was verified using one-way sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Results: The ZOL-FO group gained 1.64 QALYs at $87,746.35, while the PLB-FO group gained 1.23 QALYs at $11,947.81. The ICER for ZOL-FO versus PLB-FO was $185,353.28 per QALY gained. The parameters exerting an important impact on the model results were the price of zolbetuximab, body surface area, and progression-free survival utility. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $38,201/QALY, ZOL-FO had a 0% probability of cost-effectiveness compared with PLB-FO. Conclusion: From the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system, ZOL-FO is unlikely to be cost-effective as the first-line treatment option for CLDN18.2-positive, HER2-negative advanced G/GEJ adenocarcinoma.

Cost-effectiveness of serplulimab as first-line therapy for extensive-stage small cell lung cancer in China

Objective

The ASTRUM-005 trial demonstrated that adding serplulimab to chemotherapy significantly prolonged the survival of patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (SCLC), but also increased the risk of adverse events. Given the high cost of serplulimab compared to chemotherapy, this study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of serplulimab plus chemotherapy as a first-line treatment for extensive-stage SCLC from the perspective of China's healthcare system.

Methods

A Markov model was developed to simulate the disease process of extensive-stage SCLC and estimate the health outcomes and direct medical costs of patients. Scenario analyses, univariate sensitivity analyses, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore the impact of different parameters on model uncertainty. The primary model outcomes included costs, life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).

Results

Compared to placebo plus chemotherapy, serplulimab plus chemotherapy resulted in an additional 0.25 life-years and 0.15 QALYs, but also increased costs by $26,402, resulting in an ICER of 179,161 USD/QALY. Sensitivity analysis showed that the ICER was most sensitive to the cost of serplulimab, and the probability that serplulimab was cost-effective when added to chemotherapy was only 0 at the willingness-to-pay threshold of 37,423 USD/QALY. Scenario analysis revealed that price discounts on serplulimab could increase its probability of being cost-effective.

Conclusion

Serplulimab plus chemotherapy is not a cost-effective strategy for first-line treatment of extensive-stage SCLC in China. Price discounts on serplulimab can enhance its cost-effectiveness.