Cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab versus docetaxel as second-line treatment of non-small cell lung cancer in China

Finding value in novel antibiotics: How can infectious diseases adopt incremental cost-effectiveness to improve new antibiotic utilization?

Research and development of innovative antimicrobials is paramount to addressing the antimicrobial resistance threat. Although antimicrobial discovery and development has increased, difficulties have emerged in the pharmaceutical industry after market approval. In this minireview, we summarize clinical trial data on recently approved antibiotics, calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) values, and explore ways to adapt ICER calculations to the limitations of antimicrobial clinical trial design. We provide a systematic review and analysis of randomized, controlled studies of antibiotics approved from 2014 - 2022 and extracted the relevant clinical data. Adapted-ICER (aICER) calculations were conducted using the primary condition-specific outcome that was reported in each study (percent mortality or percent cure rate). The literature search identified 18 studies for the 8 total antibiotics which met inclusion criteria and contained data required for aICER calculation. aICER values ranged from -$17,374 to $4,966 per percent mortality and -$43,931 to $2,529 per percent cure rate. With regards to mortality, ceftolozane/tazobactam and imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam proved cost efficacious, with aICER values of $4,965 per percent mortality and $1,955 per percent mortality respectively. Finding value in novel antibiotic agents is imperative to further justifying their development, and aICER values are the most common method of determining value in healthcare. The current outcomes of clinical trials are difficult to translate to aICER, which most effectively use Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALY) as the quality standard in other fields such as oncology. Future antimicrobial trials should consider introducing methods of assessing measures of health gain such as QALY to better translate the value of novel antimicrobials in healthcare.

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.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of toripalimab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for advanced non-small cell lung cancer in China

Background

Toripalimab is the first domestic anti-tumor programmed death 1 antibody marketed in China. The CHOICE-01 trial (identifier: NCT03856411) demonstrated that toripalimab plus chemotherapy can significantly improve the clinical outcomes of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. However, whether it is cost-effective remains unknown. Given the high cost of combination therapy, a cost-effectiveness analysis of toripalimab plus chemotherapy (TC) versus chemotherapy alone (PC) for the first-line treatment of patients with advanced NSCLC is required.

Methods

A partitioned survival model was adopted to predict the course of disease in advanced NSCLC patients on TC or PC from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system over a 10-year horizon. The survival data were obtained from the CHOICE-01 clinical trial. Cost and utility values were obtained from local hospitals and kinds of literature. Based on these parameters, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of TC vs. PC was measured, and one-way sensitivity analyses, probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA), and scenario analyses were performed to assess the robustness of the model.

Results

In the base case, TC was associated with an incremental cost of $18510 and an incremental quality-adjusted life year (QALY) of 0.57 compared with PC, resulting in an ICER of $32237/QALY which was lower than the willingness to pay (WTP) threshold ($37654/QALY), TC was cost-effective. The health utility value of progression-free survival, the price of toripalimab, and the cost of best supportive care were factors that significantly influenced the ICER, but no change in any of them could change the model result. TC showed a 90% probability of being a cost-effective option at a WTP threshold of $37,654/QALY. In the 20 and 30-year time horizons, the results remained unchanged and TC remained cost-effective when the second-line treatment was switched to docetaxel.

Conclusion

At a WTP threshold of $37,654 per QALY, TC was cost-effective compared to PC for patients with advanced NSCLC in China.

Prophylaxis for Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia in non-Hodgkin's lymphoma undergoing R-CHOP21 in China: a meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis

OBJECTIVE

Rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisone, once every 3 weeks (R-CHOP21) is commonly used in non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL), but accompanied by Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (PCP) as a fatal treatment complication. This study aims to estimate the specific effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of PCP prophylaxis in NHL undergoing R-CHOP21.

DESIGN

A two-part decision analytical model was developed. Prevention effects were determined by systemic review of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science from inception to December 2022. Studies reporting results of PCP prophylaxis were included. Enrolled studies were quality assessed with Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Costs were derived from the Chinese official websites, and clinical outcomes and utilities were obtained from published literature. Uncertainty was evaluated through deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (DSA and PSA). Willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was set as US$31 315.23/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) (threefold the 2021 per capita Chinese gross domestic product).

SETTING

Chinese healthcare system perspective.

PARTICIPANTS

NHL receiving R-CHOP21.

INTERVENTIONS

PCP prophylaxis versus no prophylaxis.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Prevention effects were pooled as relative risk (RR) with 95% CI. QALYs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were calculated.

RESULTS

A total of four retrospective cohort studies with 1796 participants were included. PCP risk was inversely associated with prophylaxis in NHL receiving R-CHOP21 (RR 0.17; 95% CI 0.04 to 0.67; p=0.01). Compared with no prophylaxis, PCP prophylaxis would incur an additional cost of US$527.61, and 0.57 QALYs gained, which yielded an ICER of US$929.25/QALY. DSA indicated that model results were most sensitive to the risk of PCP and preventive effectiveness. In PSA, the probability that prophylaxis was cost-effective at the WTP threshold was 100%.

CONCLUSION

Prophylaxis for PCP in NHL receiving R-CHOP21 is highly effective from retrospective studies, and routine chemoprophylaxis against PCP is overwhelmingly cost-effective from Chinese healthcare system perspective. Large sample size and prospective controlled studies are warranted.

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.

Cost-Effectiveness of Tislelizumab Versus Docetaxel for Previously Treated Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer in China

Background: Tislelizumab, a new high-affinity programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) inhibitor, significantly prolonged the overall survival in pretreated non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of tislelizumab versus docetaxel for this population in China.

Methods: A three-state partitioned survival model was developed to simulate advanced NSCLC. Efficacy and safety data were based on a global phase 3 clinical trial (RATIONALE 303). Utilities were mainly extracted from previously published resources. Costs were calculated from the Chinese healthcare system’s perspective, and only direct medical costs were covered. The main outcomes included total costs, life years (LYs), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were carried to test the uncertainty of the modeling results. In addition, several scenarios including tislelizumab price before negotiation, different docetaxel price calculation, 50-year time horizon, and alternative utility values were assessed.

Results: The model predicted an average gain of 0.62 LYs and 0.51 QALY for tislelizumab vs. docetaxel, at the additional cost of $9,219. The resulting ICER was $15,033.92/LY and $18,122.04/QALY, both below the cost-effective threshold (CET) of three times gross domestic product (GDP) per capita in China. Sensitivity analyses showed that the results are robust over a plausible range for majority of inputs. Utility of progression-free survival (PFS), followed by the price of tislelizumab, had the greatest impact on the ICER. The probability of being cost-effective for tislelizumab was 96.79% at the CET we set.

Conclusion: Tislelizumab improves survival, increases QALYs, and can be considered a cost-effective option at current price compared with docetaxel for pretreated advanced NSCLC in China.