Cost-Effectiveness of ramucirumab plus paclitaxel as a second-line therapy for advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal cancer in China

Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations of Systemic Treatments for Advanced and Metastatic Gastric Cancer

BACKGROUND

Recent advances in the development of biomarker-directed therapy and immunotherapy, for advanced and metastatic gastric cancers, have the potential to improve survival and quality of life. Much attention has been directed towards second- and later-line treatments, and the landscape here is evolving rapidly. However, uncertainty in relative effectiveness, high costs and uncertainty in cost effectiveness represent challenges for decision makers.

OBJECTIVE

To identify economic evaluations for the second-line or later-line treatment of advanced and metastatic gastric cancer. Also, to assess key criteria (including model assumptions, inputs and outcomes), reporting completeness and methodological quality to inform future cost-effectiveness evaluations.

METHODS

A systematic literature search (from database inception to 5 March 2023) of EconLit via EBSCOhost, Cochrane Library (restricted to National Health Service [NHS] Economic Evaluation Database and Health Technology Assessment [HTA] Database), Embase, MEDLINE and of grey literature was conducted. This aimed to identify systemic treatments that align with National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) and European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Clinical Practice Guidelines. Data were collected on key criteria and on reporting completeness and methodological quality. A narrative synthesis focussed on cost-effectiveness and cost-of-illness studies. Outcomes of interest included total and incremental costs and outcomes (life-years and quality-adjusted life-years), ratios of incremental costs per unit outcome and other summary cost and outcome measures. Also, for cost-effectiveness studies, reporting completeness and the methodological quality were assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) and the Philips Checklist, respectively.

RESULTS

A total of 19 eligible economic evaluations were identified (cost-effectiveness studies [n = 15] and cost-of-illness studies [n = 4]). There was a general lack of consistency in the methodological approaches taken across studies. In the main, the cost-effectiveness studies indicated that the intervention under consideration was more effective and more costly than the comparator(s). However, most interventions were not cost effective. No studies were fully compliant with reporting-completeness and methodological-quality requirements. Given the lack of consistency in the approaches taken across cost-of-illness studies, outcomes could not be directly compared.

CONCLUSIONS

To our knowledge, this is the first published systematic literature review that has qualitatively synthesised economic evaluations for advanced and metastatic gastric cancer. There were differences in the approaches taken across the cost-effectiveness studies and the cost-of-illness studies. The conclusions of most of the cost-effectiveness studies were consistent despite identified differences in approaches. In the main, the interventions under consideration were not cost effective, presenting challenges to sustainability and affordability. We highlight a requirement for cost-effectiveness evaluations and for second-line or later-line treatments of advanced and metastatic gastric cancer that consider all relevant comparators and that are compliant with reporting-completeness and methodological-quality requirements. By addressing the methodological gaps identified here, future healthcare decision-making, within the context of this rapidly changing treatment landscape, would be better informed.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42023405951.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus placebo plus chemotherapy for HER2-negative advanced gastric/gastroesophageal junction cancer in the Chinese healthcare system

BACKGROUND

This study compares first-line pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy with chemotherapy alone for patients with HER2-negative advanced gastric cancer (GC) and gastroesophageal junction cancer (GEJC) in China.

METHODS

A Markov state-transition model was developed based on the phase 3 randomized KEYNOTE-859 clinical trial data. The health state utility values and direct medical costs were derived from the KEYNOTE-859 clinical trial, the relevant literature, and local charges. The measured outcomes included quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Probabilistic and one-way sensitivity analyses (OWSA) were performed to assess the uncertainty of the model.

RESULTS

In the base analysis, the incremental effectiveness and cost of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone were 0.22 QALYs and $16,627.31, respectively, resulting in an ICER of $76,936.60/QALY, which is higher than the willingness-to-pay threshold in China ($35,864.61/QALY). Subgroup analyses revealed that the ICERs of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone were $72,762.68 and $34,813.70 in the populations with PD-L1 CPS of 1 or higher (CPS ≥ 1) and PD-L1 CPS ≥ 10 (CPS ≥ 10), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

As first-line therapy for patients with locally advanced or metastatic HER2-negative GC/GEJC in China, pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy is less cost-effective than chemotherapy alone, however, in the CPS ≥ 10 subgroup is more.

Nivolumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone as first-line treatment for advanced gastric, gastroesophageal junction, and esophageal adenocarcinoma: a cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

The aim of the study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab plus chemotherapy as first-line treatment for patients with advanced gastric, gastroesophageal junction (GEJ), or esophageal adenocarcinoma from the perspective of Chinese and US society.

METHODS

To conduct the analysis, a state-transitioned Markov model, which included three mutually exclusive health states (progression-free survival (PFS), progressive disease (PD), and death), was developed. Cycle length was set at 3 weeks and lifetime horizon was set at 10 years. Costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were calculated in the analysis. Willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds in the model were set at $37,653.00/QALY in China and $100,000.00/QALY in the US, respectively. Meanwhile, one-way sensitivity analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to investigate the robustness of the model.

RESULTS

Over a lifetime horizon, the ICERs of nivolumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone were $430,185.04/QALY and $944,089.78/QALY in China and the US, respectively. Cost of nivolumab and utility for the PFS state had the most significant impact on ICERs both in the US and China based on the results of the one-way sensitivity analyses. In the probabilistic sensitivity analyses, the proportions of nivolumab plus chemotherapy being cost-effective compared with chemotherapy alone were 0%.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, nivolumab plus chemotherapy is unlikely to be a cost-effective treatment option compared with chemotherapy alone in the first-line setting of advanced gastric, GEJ, or esophageal adenocarcinoma.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of serplulimab as first-line treatment for advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma

Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of serplulimab as first-line treatment for patients with advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Materials & methods: A partitioned survival model was created to evaluate costs and health outcomes. The model's robustness was evaluated using one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Results: Serplulimab demonstrated an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $104,537.375/quality-adjusted life-year in the overall population group. Subgroup analysis showed that serplulimab had incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $261,750.496/quality-adjusted life-year and $68,107.997/quality-adjusted life-year in the populations with PD-L1 1 ≤ combined positive score <10 and PD-L1 combined positive score ≥10, respectively. Conclusion: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of serplulimab therapy were found to exceed the willingness-to-pay threshold of $37,304.34. Thus, serplulimab is not cost-effective compared with chemotherapy as a first-line treatment for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma patients.

Pembrolizumab alone or in combination with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy for advanced gastric cancer: A cost-effectiveness analysis

PURPOSE

The KEYNOTE-062 trial demonstrated the efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab for advanced gastric cancer (GC). The current study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab alone or in combination with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy for advanced GC from the perspective of the United States and China. And the results will provide evidence and data support for more drug selection-related decisions and research in the future.

METHODS

A partitioned survival approach with three states was created for treatment of advanced GC. The survival data were derived from KEYNOTE-062 trial and the individual patient data were generated by a specific algorithm. We fitted 21 survival functions to each treatment arm and selected the most suitable distribution type for each one. Direct costs and utility values were collected from the published, available database. Cost, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-utility ratios (ICURs) were considered as the primary measure outcomes. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the reliability of the analyses.

RESULTS

In the base-case analysis of combined positive score (CPS) ≥1 patients, the ICUR of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy in American and Chinese setting is $345,209/QALY and $186,802.6/QALY, respectively. And the ICUR of pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy is $473,650/QALY and $377,753/QALY in the context of the US and China, respectively. For CPS≥10 patients, the ICUR of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy in American and Chinese setting is $483,742/QALY and $262,965/QALY, respectively. And that of pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy is $96,550/QALY and $67,896/QALY in the context of the US and China.

CONCLUSION

Compared with chemotherapy, either pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy or pembrolizumab monotherapy is not regarded as a cost-effective strategy for patients with CPS≥1, advanced gastric cancer in the current American and Chinese setting. But pembrolizumab monotherapy for CPS≥10 patients would become a cost-effective option in the American setting.

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 toripalimab plus chemotherapy for advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Toripalimab is an immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) against programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1). It has been approved for advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) as the first-line treatment due to significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in the JUPITER-06 trial.

AIM

This study aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness between toripalimab plus chemotherapy and placebo plus chemotherapy from the perspective of the Chinese health system.

METHOD

The study developed a 3-year partitioned survival model to assess costs and outcomes in two treatment groups with or without toripalimab. The critical indicator was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Scenario and sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the robustness of the findings and identify the parameters with the greatest impact on cost-effectiveness.

RESULTS

In the base case analysis, the incremental effectiveness and cost of toripalimab plus chemotherapy versus placebo plus chemotherapy were 0.26 quality-adjusted life year (QALYs) and $11,254.84, respectively, resulting in an ICER of $43,405.09/QALY, higher than the 2021 willingness-to-pay threshold in China ($37,658.70/QALY). The results were sensitive to the utility of PFS, the incidence of neutropenia in the toripalimab group, and the cost of toripalimab. The toripalimab plus chemotherapy group was cost-effective only if the price of toripalimab decreased by more than 40%.

CONCLUSION

Adding toripalimab to chemotherapy was not cost-effective in patients with advanced ESCC in China.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of pembrolizumab vs. chemotherapy as second-line treatment for advanced esophageal carcinoma in the United States

Background

The national Comprehensive Cancer Network has suggested pembrolizumab as a second-line therapy for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) patients with a programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) combined positive score (CPS) ≥ 10. However, despite the increased survival rate associated with pembrolizumab in these patient population, the high cost of pembrolizumab may influence its antitumor effect. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab compared to chemotherapy as second-line treatments for esophageal carcinoma (EC) based on KEYNOTE-181 trial.

Methods

A Markov model was constructed using TreeAge 2021 based on three different groups: all intent-to-treat patients (ITT population), patients with ESCC (ESCC population), and patients with a PD-L1 CPS ≥10 (CPS ≥10 population). Incremental cost, Incremental effect, Life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were calculated. Analyses were conducted on the setting of a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 from the US perspective.

Results

The ICERs for pembrolizumab were $157,589.545 per QALY, $60,238.823 per QALY, and $100,114.929 per QALY compared with chemotherapy in the ITT, ESCC, and CPS≥10 populations, respectively. The ICER of the ITT population was higher than $150,000, suggesting that pembrolizumab was not a cost-effective treatment scheme in patients with a PD-L1 CPS ≤ 10 or esophageal adenocarcinoma. The ICER was < $150,000 in the ESCC and CPS≥10 populations, indicating that pembrolizumab was cost-effective in these two subgroups.

Conclusion

The determining of pembrolizumab as a cost-effective second-line therapy for EC in the United States depends on the histologic type and PD-L1 expression.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of sintilimab plus chemotherapy for advanced or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma

Background

Sintilimab plus chemotherapy (SIDCHM) is more effective than placebo plus chemotherapy (PLCHM) for advanced or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). However, considering the high cost of sintilimab, this study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of SIDCHM in comparison with PLCHM for advanced or metastatic ESCC from the Chinese healthcare system perspective.

Methods

Polymorphic Markov models were constructed to simulate the course and cost of SIDCHM. Treatment drug costs were calculated at national list prices and clinical data, other costs, and utility values were extracted from the reference literature. Primary outcomes included quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). The robustness of the model was verified by one-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA).

Results

SIDCHM obtained 1.03 QALYs at $24,044.49, whereas the effectiveness and cost of PLCHM were 0.67 QALYs and $14,166.24, respectively. The ICER for SIDCHM versus PLCHM was $23,458.08/QALY. The utility of the PFS state was the parameter that had the greatest effect on the ICER. The PSA showed that SIDCHM had an 86% probability of being cost-effective at the willingness-to-pay threshold of 3* Chinese gross domestic product per capita ($37,653/QALY).

Conclusion

From the Chinese healthcare system perspective, SIDCHM is considered a cost-effective treatment option compared with PLCHM as first-line therapy for advanced or metastatic ESCC.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of olaparib as maintenance therapy in patients with platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer and a BRCA1/2 mutation in china

Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate the cost-effectiveness of olaparib as the maintenance therapy in patients with platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer and a BRCA1/2 mutation in China.

Methods: A Markov model was developed to simulate the clinical course of typical patients with ovarian cancer in the SOLO2 trial. The Weibull survival model was employed to fit the Kaplan–Meier progression-free survival and overall survival probabilities of the olaparib and placebo strategies, respectively. The clinical and direct costs data were derived from randomized clinical trials and published reports. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated over a 10-year lifetime horizon. Meanwhile, one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to explore the impact of uncertainty on the model’s outcomes.

Results: Overall, the incremental effectiveness and cost of olaparib versus placebo were 0.56 QALYs and $43,292.92, respectively, resulting in an ICER of $77,620.56/QALY, higher than the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of China ($31,498.70/QALY). The results were sensitive to the cost of olaparib and utility of PFS. Scenario analyses suggested that when the cost of olaparib was reduced by 60%, ICER decreased to $30,611.52/QALY, lower than the WTP threshold of China.

Conclusion: The findings from the present analysis suggest that olaparib with a 60% discount as maintenance therapy might be cost effective in patients with platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer and a BRCA1/2 mutation in China.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Pembrolizumab Plus Chemotherapy vs. Chemotherapy Alone as First-Line Treatment in Patients With Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma and PD-L1 CPS of 10 or More

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to analyze the economics of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy as first-line treatment in patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) and programmed cell death-Ligand 1 (PD-L1) combined positive score (CPS) of 10 or more in China.

METHODS

Based on the advanced ESCC of the KEYNOTE-590 clinical trial data, a Markov model was performed to simulate the clinical course and evaluate the patient's total lifetime, total costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy (cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil) vs. chemotherapy alone in first-line treatment of ESCC and PD-L1 CPS of 10 or more. Utility values and direct costs related to the treatments were gathered from the published literature data. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to check the stability of the model.

RESULTS

The baseline analysis indicated that the incremental effectiveness and cost of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy alone added 1.23 QALYs and resulted in an incremental cost of $51,320.22, which had an ICER of $41,805.12/QALY, higher than the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of China ($37,663.26/QALY). The sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the ICERs were most sensitive to the cycle of pembrolizumab used and the cost of pembrolizumab.

CONCLUSION

The result of our present analysis suggests that the addition of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy as first-line treatment might not be cost-effective for patients with ESCC and PD-L1 CPS of 10 or more in China.

Pembrolizumab Plus Chemotherapy as First-Line Treatment for Advanced Esophageal Cancer: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

INTRODUCTION

In 2021, KEYNOTE-590 (NCT03189719) showed that pembrolizumab plus 5-fluorouracil and cisplatin (PPF) has more benefits than 5-fluorouracil and cisplatin (PF) as a first-line regimen to treat individuals with advanced esophageal cancer. However, given that it is expensive, controversies over the value of using this compared to competitive strategies remain. Hence, we conducted a cost-effectiveness evaluation of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy.

METHODS

A Markov model was applied in evaluating the efficacy and cost of PPF and PF over a 7-year horizon and measured the health outcomes in life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The economic data included were relevant to patients in the USA and China. We also performed one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses to determine the uncertainties relevant to the model. Willingness to pay thresholds (WTP) of $150,000/QALY (USA) and $35,673/QALY (China) were used to calculate a probability for the cost-effectiveness of PPF.

RESULTS

PPF yielded 0.386-0.607 QALYs (0.781-1.195 LYs) compared with PF. In our analysis, compared with receiving PF, patients with advanced esophageal cancer receiving PPF had an ICER of $577,461/QALY in the USA and $258,261/QALY in China, those for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma were $550,211/QALY in the USA and $244,580/QALY in China, and a programmed cell death ligand 1 combined positive score (PD-L1 CPS) ≥ 10 was associated with a cost of $479,119/QALY in the USA and $201,355/QALY in China. Sensitivity analysis found the price of pembrolizumab to be the biggest influence.

CONCLUSION

From the economic perspectives of the USA and China, a first-line regimen of PPF for esophageal cancer therapy may not be as cost-effective as PF. However, patients with esophageal cancer and PD-L1 CPS ≥ 10 may gain the most LYs from initial PPF treatment.

Chemo-Immunotherapy Regimes for Recurrent or Metastatic Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: A Network Meta-Analysis and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Introduction: In 2021, two phase III clinical trials confirmed that toripalimab or camrelizumab combined with gemcitabine and cisplatin (TGP or CGP) provide more benefits in the first-line treatment of R/M NPC than GP. Fortunately, TGP and CGP were recently approved as first-line treatments for cases experiencing R/M NPC by the China National Medical Products Administration in 2021. However, due to the high cost and variety of treatment options, the promotion of chemo-immunotherapeutics in the treatment of R/M NPC remains controversial. Therefore, we performed a cost-effectiveness assessment of the two newly approved treatment strategies to assess which treatments provide the greatest clinical benefits at a reasonable cost.

Methods: A cost-effectiveness analysis and network meta-analysis network meta-analysis was conducted based on the JUPITER-02 and CAPTAIN-first Phase 3 randomized clinical trials. A Markov model was expanded for the evaluation of the effectiveness and cost of TGP, CGP, and GP chemotherapy with a 10-years horizon and measured the health achievements in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), and life-years (LYs). We constructed a treatment strategy and other parameters based on two clinical trials and performed one-way and probabilistic sensitivity experiments for the evaluation of the uncertainty in the model.

Results: For the model of patients with treatment-R/M NPC, TGP was associated with a total cost of $48,525 and 2.778 QALYs (4.991 LYs), leading to an ICER of $15,103 per QALY ($10,321 per LY) compared to CGP. On comparing the GP chemotherapy, we found TGP and CGP incurred substantial health costs, resulting in ICERs of $19,726 per QALY and $20,438 per QALY, respectively. The risk of adverse events (AEs) and the price of the drugs had significant impacts on the ICER. At the assumed willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $35,673 per QALY, there were approximately 75.8 and 68.5% simulations in which cost-effectiveness was achieved for TGP and CGP, respectively.

Conclusion: From the Chinese payer’s perspective, TGP is more possible to be a cost-effective regimen compared with CGP and GP for first-line treatment of patients with R/M NPC at a WTP threshold of $35,673 per QALY.

Cost-Effectiveness of Nivolumab Plus Chemotherapy vs. Chemotherapy as First-Line Treatment for Advanced Gastric Cancer/Gastroesophageal Junction Cancer/Esophagel Adenocarcinoma in China

Objective

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab plus chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy as first-line therapy in patients with advanced gastric cancer/gastroesophageal junction cancer/esophageal adenocarcinoma from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system.

Methods

This economic evaluation used a state-transition Markov model to assess the cost and effectiveness of nivolumab plus chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy as first-line treatment for advanced gastric cancer/gastroesophageal junction cancer/esophageal adenocarcinoma. The characteristics of patients in the model came from a phase 3 open-label randomized clinical trial (CheckMate 649). Key clinical data were based on the CheckMate 649 trial conducted from March 2017 to April 2019, and costs and utilities were collected from the published literature. The total cost of treatment per patient, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were calculated for the two treatment strategies. Deterministic sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed.

Results

In the baseline analysis, the incremental effectiveness and cost of nivolumab plus chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy were 0.28 QALYs and $78,626.53, resulting in an ICER of $278,658.71/QALY, higher than the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of China ($31,498.70/QALY). The model was sensitive to the duration of progression-free survival (PFS) for the nivolumab plus chemotherapy group, the cost of nivolumab per 100 mg, and the utility of PFS.

Conclusion

Nivolumab plus chemotherapy was clearly not a cost-effective treatment strategy compared with chemotherapy as first-line therapy for patients with advanced gastric cancer/gastroesophageal junction cancer/esophageal adenocarcinoma in China. Reducing the price of nivolumab may improve its cost-effectiveness.

Cost-effectiveness of camrelizumab versus chemotherapy for the treatment of advanced or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of camrelizumab versus chemotherapy for patients with advanced or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) from the perspective of health system and to provide a basis for health decisions in China.

METHODS

A Markov model of 3 health states throughout the lifetime was established based on data from the ESCORT trial. Life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and lifetime costs were estimated. The time horizon of lifetime was 5 years and each model cycle represented 2 months. The cost and utility value adopted a 5% discount rate per year. One-way sensitivity analysis and probability sensitivity analysis were used to test the robustness of the results.

RESULTS

The results of the cost-effectiveness analysis revealed that the camrelizumab group produced a gain of 2.93 QALY, at a cost of $37,809.12 USD, and the chemotherapy group gained 2.85 QALY, at a cost of $3,7071.52 USD. Camrelizumab was more cost-effective than chemotherapy for patients with advanced or metastatic ESCC. The results of one-way sensitivity analyses showed that the cost of camrelizumab, cost of chemotherapy and utility of progression-free survival (PFS) state were the top three parameters influencing the model. The probability sensitivity analysis results showed that the results of the basic case analysis were stable.

CONCLUSIONS

Under the willingness to pay threshold of three times per capita GDP of China, camrelizumab as second-line treatment could provide more health benefits for advanced or metastatic ESCC in China.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of nivolumab plus standard chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for the first-line treatment of unresectable advanced or metastatic gastric cancer, gastroesophageal junction cancer, and esophageal adenocarcinoma

Background Nivolumab plus standard chemotherapy has significant clinical benefits for unresectable advanced or metastatic gastric cancer, gastroesophageal junction cancer, and esophageal adenocarcinoma (GC/GEJC/EAC). However, nivolumab is expensive, necessitating a cost-effectiveness evaluation. Aim This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab plus standard chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy alone for unresectable advanced or metastatic GC/GEJC/EAC from the Chinese healthcare system perspective. This study was based on randomized clinical trial data from the CheckMate-649 clinical trial (NCT02872116) published in Lancet (June 2021). Method A Markov model was used to assess the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab plus standard chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for unresectable advanced or metastatic GC/GEJC/EAC. Drug costs were collected from Tianjin Medical Purchasing Center in 2021, and utility values of health states were obtained from the literature. The reliability of model was assessed with one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Main outcome measure The main outcomes were costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Results Over a 10-year horizon, the outputs were 1.19 QALYs at a cost of $78,814.9 and 0.88 QALYs at a cost of $19,522.3 with nivolumab plus chemotherapy and chemotherapy alone, respectively. The ICER for nivolumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone was $191,266/QALY, exceeding the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold ($33,436/QALY). One-way sensitivity analysis revealed nivolumab cost was the most influential parameter. Conclusion Adding nivolumab is not cost-effective for unresectable advanced or metastatic GC/GEJC/EAC in the current Chinese healthcare environment.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Camrelizumab vs. Placebo Added to Chemotherapy as First-Line Therapy for Advanced or Metastatic Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma in China

Objective

The purpose of this cost-effectiveness analysis was to estimate the effects of adding camrelizumab to standard chemotherapy as the first-line treatment in patients with advanced or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) on health and economic outcomes in China.

Methods

A Markov model was developed to simulate the clinical course of typical patients with advanced or metastatic ESCC in the ESCORT-1st trial. Weibull survival model was employed to fit the Kaplan-Meier progression-free survival and overall survival probabilities of the camrelizumab-chemotherapy and placebo-chemotherapy strategy, respectively. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were estimated over a 5-year lifetime horizon. Meanwhile, one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the uncertainty in the model.

Results

On baseline analysis, the incremental effectiveness and cost of camrelizumab-chemotherapy versus placebo-chemotherapy were 0.15 QALYs and $7,110.56, resulting in an ICER of $46,671.10/QALY, higher than the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of China ($31,498.70/QALY). The results were sensitive to the utility of PFS and cost of camrelizumab.

Conclusion

The findings from the present analysis suggest that the addition of camrelizumab to chemotherapy might not be cost-effective in patients with advanced or metastatic ESCC in China.

Molecularly Targeted Therapies for Gastric Cancer. State of the Art

Many phase III trials failed to demonstrate a survival benefit from the addition of molecular therapy to conventional chemotherapy for advanced and metastatic gastric cancer, and only three agents were approved by the FDA. We examined the efficacy and safety of novel drugs recently investigated. PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library were searched for phase III randomized controlled trials published from January 2016 to December 2020. Patients in the experimental arm received molecular therapy with or without conventional chemotherapy, while those in the control arm had conventional chemotherapy alone. The primary outcomes were overall and progression-free survival. The secondary outcomes were the rate of tumor response, severe adverse effects, and quality of life. Eight studies with a total of 4223 enrolled patients were included. The overall and progression-free survival of molecular and conventional therapy were comparable. Most of these trials did not find a significant difference in tumor response rate and in the number of severe adverse effects and related deaths between the experimental and control arms. The survival benefits of molecular therapies available to date for advanced and metastatic gastric cancer are rather unclear, mostly due to inaccurate patient selection, particularly concerning oncogene amplification and copy number.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Adding Daratumumab to a Regimen of Bortezomib, Melphalan, and Prednisone in Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma

INTRODUCTION

The ALCYONE trial found that daratumumab in combination with bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone (D-VMP) can significantly improve progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for patients with transplant-ineligible, newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) in China. In the present study, we evaluated the cost-effectiveness of D-VMP versus VMP for patients with newly diagnosed MM in China.

METHODS

A Markov model was used to estimate the cost-effectiveness of frontline D-VMP versus VMP for MM. The life years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were calculated. A series of sensitivity analyses was performed to assess the robustness of the model and address uncertainties in variable estimates. Subgroup analysis was also performed.

RESULTS

D-VMP provided an additional 2.99 LYs and 1.67 QALYs compared with VMP, with incremental $64,920 per LY and $116,015 per QALY gained. The results of the univariable sensitivity analysis showed that the parameter that had the greatest impact on the ICER was the cost of subsequent treatment and daratumumab. When the cost of daratumumab was 100%, 70%, 50%, and 30% of the current price, the probability of D-VMP being cost-effective was 2.49%, 16.11%, 39.09%, and 70.73% at the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $30,950/QALY, respectively. The results demonstrated that the ICER in all subgroups remained > $30,950/QALY.

CONCLUSION

D-VMP versus VMP is likely to exceed the commonly accepted values of cost-effectiveness in patients with transplant-ineligible, newly diagnosed MM in China.