Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Atezolizumab Versus Chemotherapy as First-Line Treatment for Metastatic Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer With Different PD-L1 Expression Status

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.

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 of Treatment Optimisation with Biomarkers for Immunotherapy in Solid Tumours: A Systematic Review

This study investigated the health economic evaluations of predictive biomarker testing in solid tumours treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Searching PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science from June 2010 to February 2022, 58 relevant articles were reviewed out of the 730 screened. The focus was predominantly on non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) (65%) and other solid tumours (40%). Among the NSCLC studies, 21 out of 35 demonstrated cost-effectiveness, notably for pembrolizumab as first-line treatment when preceded by PD-L1 assessment, cost-effective at a threshold of $100,000/QALY compared to the standard of care. However, for bladder, cervical, and triple-negative breast cancers (TNBCs), no economic evaluations met the affordability threshold of $100,000/QALY. Overall, the review highlights a certain degree of uncertainty about the cost-effectiveness of ICI. In particular, we found PD-L1 expression associated with ICI treatment to be a cost-effective strategy, particularly in NSCLC, urothelial, and renal cell carcinoma. The findings suggest the potential value of predictive biomarker testing, specifically with pembrolizumab in NSCLC, while indicating challenges in achieving cost-effectiveness for certain other solid tumours.

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 cemiplimab plus chemotherapy as the first-line treatment for advanced non-small cell lung cancer

Background: The EMPOWER-LUNG 3 clinical trial has shown that cemiplimab plus chemotherapy (CCT) significantly extended overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) for patients with advanced non-small cell cancer (NSCLC) compared to placebo plus chemotherapy (PCT). However, the cost-effectiveness of this new treatment option remains unknown. Thus, we evaluated the cost-effectiveness of CCT versus (vs.) PCT as the first-line treatment for patients with advanced NSCLC from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Methods: We constructed a Markov model to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of CCT as the first-line treatment for patients with advanced NSCLC. The transition probabilities were extracted from the survival data of the EMPOWER-LUNG 3 trial. The drugs' costs were referred from national tender prices, while other model input parameters were derived from the EMPOWER-LUNG 3 trial and published literature. The outcome parameters mainly included quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed to evaluate the robustness of the model outcomes. Results: Compared to PCT, in the CCT regimen, an additional $79,667 was spent in terms of the total cost and with an additional 0.31 QALYs, resulting in an ICER value of $253,148/QALY. Sensitivity analysis indicated that the hazard ratio (HR) of OS, the cost of cemiplimab (100 mg), and the HR of PFS, all significantly impacted the model's results. The probability of CCT (vs. PCT) being cost-effective was 0% at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $38,201/QALYs in China. The scenario analysis showed that when the price of cemiplimab was reduced to less than $184.09/100 mg, the CCT regimen could be considered cost-effective as the first-line treatment for patients with advanced NSCLC compared to the PCT. Conclusion: In China, the CCT was not cost-effective as the first-line treatment for patients with advanced NSCLC.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of sintilimab plus IBI305 versus sorafenib for unresectable hepatic cell carcinoma in China

BACKGROUND

Sintilimab combined with IBI305 treatment regimen had potential clinical benefits than sorafenib in the first-line treatment of patients with unresectable hepatic cell carcinoma (HCC). However, whether sintilimab plus IBI305 has economic benefits in China remains unclear.

METHODS

From the perspective of Chinese payers, we used the Markov model to simulate patients with HCC receiving treatment with sintilimab plus IBI305 and sorafenib. The transition probability between health states was estimated using the parametric survival model, and the cumulative medical costs and utility of the two treatment methods were estimated. Considering the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) as the evaluation index, sensitivity analyses were performed to explore the impact of uncertainty on the results.

RESULTS

Compared to sorafenib, sintilimab plus IBI305 generated an additional $17552.17 and 0.33 quality-adjusted life years, resulting in an ICER of $52817.89. The analysis outcomes were most sensitive to the total cost of sintilimab plus IBI305. With a willingness-to-pay threshold of $38,334, sintilimab plus IBI305 showed a 1.28% probability of being cost-effective. The total cost of sintilimab plus IBI305 should be reduced by at least 31.9% to be accepted by Chinese payers.

CONCLUSIONS

Regardless of whether the price of sintilimab plus IBI305 and sorafenib is covered by Medicare, sintilimab plus IBI305 is unlikely to be cost-effective for first-line treatment of patients with unresectable HCC.

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.

Cost-effectiveness evaluation based on two models of first-line atezolizumab monotherapy and chemotherapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer with high-PDL1 expression

Background

Atezolizumab may provide clinical benefits to patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, the price of atezolizumab is relatively high, and its economic outcomes have remained unclear. In this study, we used two models to examine the cost-effectiveness of initial atezolizumab monotherapy versus chemotherapy for patients with PD-L1 high-expressing EGFR and ALK wild-type advanced NSCLC in the context of the Chinese healthcare system.

Methods

Partitioned Survival model and Markov model were performed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of first-line single-agent atezolizumab versus platinum-based chemotherapy for patients with advanced NSCLC with PD-L1 high-expressing EGFR and ALK wild-type disease. Clinical outcomes and safety information were obtained from the most recent data from the IMpower110 trial, while cost and utility values were obtained from Chinese hospitals and relevant literature. Total costs, life years (LYs), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to explore model uncertainty. Scenario analyses were also conducted for the Patient Assistance Program (PAP) and various provinces in China.

Results

In the Partitioned Survival model, the total cost of atezolizumab was $145,038, providing 2.92 LYs and 2.39 QALYs, while the total cost of chemotherapy was $69,803, providing 2.12 LYs and 1.65 QALYs. The ICER for atezolizumab versus chemotherapy was $102,424.83/QALY; in the Markov model, the ICER was $104,806.71/QALY. Atezolizumab was not cost-effective at the WTP threshold of three times China’s per capita gross domestic product (GDP). Sensitivity analysis showed that the cost of atezolizumab, the utility of PFS, and the discount rate had a significant impact on ICER; PAP significantly reduced ICER, but atezolizumab was still not cost-effective in China.

Conclusion

First-line monotherapy with atezolizumab for patients with PD-L1 high-expressing EGFR and ALK wild-type advanced NSCLC was estimated to be less cost-effective than chemotherapy in terms of the Chinese healthcare system; offering PAP increased the likelihood that atezolizumab would be cost-effective. In some areas of China with higher levels of economic development, atezolizumab was likely to be cost-effective. To improve the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab, drug prices would need to be reduced.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of atezolizumab plus chemotherapy as first-line treatment for patients with advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer in China

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of adding atezolizumab to first-line chemotherapy for advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) from Chinese healthcare system.

METHODS

A partitioned survival model (PSM) was established to simulate 3-week patients transition in a 20-year time horizon to estimate the health and economic outcomes of adding atezolizumab to first-line chemotherapy for advanced nonsquamous NSCLC. Costs and utility values were obtained from the local charges and published studies. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to confirm the robustness of the model results.

RESULTS

Atezolizumab plus chemotherapy yielded additional 0.36 life years (LYs) and 0.23 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and the marginal cost was $60,154.48, resulting in an ICER of atezolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy was $267,264.85/QALY. One-way sensitivity analyses revealed that the cost of atezolizumab was the main driver of the model outcomes, and the probabilistic sensitivity analyses suggested that atezolizumab plus chemotherapy had 0% probability of being cost-effective first-line option at the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $37,652/QALY in China.

CONCLUSIONS

Atezolizumab plus chemotherapy could not be considered cost-effective compared with chemotherapy alone as the first-line strategy for patients with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC in China. And appropriately reduce the price of atezolizumab is necessary.

Whether and How Disutilities of Adverse Events were Used in the Economic Evaluation of Drug Therapy for Cancer Treatment

BACKGROUND

The disutilities of adverse events (AEs) are important inputs for cost-utility analysis (CUA), reflecting the impacts of AEs on health outcomes. Health technology assessment institutions and scholars have proposed recommendations for applying disutility values in economic evaluations.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to identify the current use of disutilities of AEs as model parameters in the CUA of cancer drug therapy and to compare the discrepancies between the use of disutilities and published recommendations.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted on the PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases, as well as the official websites of the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG), the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH), and the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) for CUAs of drug therapy for cancer published in English from January 2019 to April 2022. Information about the use of disutilities of AEs (whether and how disutilities were used, or why they were not used) in selected studies was extracted and compared with published recommendations. Descriptive analyses were used to summarize the results.

RESULTS

A total of 467 CUAs were included, 54% (254/467) of which included disutilities of AEs in their model. The proportion that included these disutilities increased from 2019 to 2021, ranging from 47% (51/107) to 61% (116/190). Only 6% (15/254) of the CUAs using disutilities of AEs considered all five recommendations about the justification for inclusion and exclusion, description of values and sources, grades of AEs, calculation, and uncertainty analyses. Only 15% (72/467) provided a clear justification for inclusion and exclusion of disutilities of AEs, and 7% (17/254) did not provide values or sources. In total, 69% (175/254) of the analyses focused on AEs of grade 3 or greater, and 11% (28/254) applied utility decrements for grades 1 and 2. Disutilities of AEs were generally calculated using the incidence rates, which were clearly stated in 49% (65/132) of the analyses. Uncertainty analyses were conducted in 84% (214/254) of the CUAs.

CONCLUSIONS

The current use of disutilities of AEs in CUAs shows some discrepancies with recommendations proposed in the literature. One is that detailed information about the use of disutilities of AEs was not reported and the other is that essential methods to analyze the impact of AEs on quality-adjusted life-years were not thoroughly conducted. Therefore, it is suggested that researchers should attach importance to the impact of AEs on health-related quality of life. Furthermore, an application process was developed for the disutilities of AEs to remind and guide researchers to correctly use the disutilities of AEs as parameters in the decision-analytic model.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy as the first-line treatment for advanced esophageal cancer

OBJECTIVE

The KEYNOTE-590 trial showed that individuals with advanced esophageal cancer who received Pembrolizumab in combination with chemotherapy as a first-line regimen achieved a significant extension of survival. However, this treatment option increases the financial burden on patients and the economic benefits remain to be further evaluated.

METHODS

A Markov model was used to simulate 10-year survival of patients with esophageal cancer from the perspective of United States (US) Medicare payers. We evaluated the economics of Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy in the PD-L1 positive score (CPS ≥10) and any PD-L1 expression groups, respectively. We estimated total costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and calculated incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore the impact of uncertainties on the results. Subgroup analysis was also performed.

RESULTS

The analysis results showed that the ICER for pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone was $293,513.17/QALYs in the any PD-L1 expression group. This exceeded the threshold of willingness to pay ($150,000/QALYs). ICERs were most sensitive to the cost of pembrolizumab and the ICERs exceeded $150,000/QALYs in all subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence suggests that first-line pembrolizumab in combination with chemotherapy is not a cost-effective option for advanced esophageal cancer in the US, regardless of PD-L1 expression status.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of adding durvalumab to chemotherapy as first-line treatment for advanced biliary tract cancer based on the TOPAZ-1 trial

BACKGROUND

Durvalumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin has a significant clinical benefit for advanced biliary tract cancer (BTC). However, the high price of durvalumab warrants an exploration of the economics.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the cost-effectiveness of adding durvalumab to gemcitabine and cisplatin compared with gemcitabine and cisplatin in first-line therapy of advanced BTC from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system.

METHODS

According to the TOPAZ-1 trial, a three-state Markov model was built by the TreeAge Pro 2022 software. The total costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was used as the evaluation index. The triple 2021 Chinese per capita gross domestic product (GDP) of $37,663.26/QALY was used as the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold. Outputs were analyzed for two scenarios with and without a durvalumab drug charity assistance policy. In the scenario analysis, the base-case model was run multiple times with different prices of durvalumab to determine the effect on the ICER. Moreover, the robustness of the model was tested through sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

Compared with chemotherapy alone, durvalumab plus chemotherapy resulted in an additional 0.12 QALY and an incremental cost of $18,555.19, the ICER was $159,644.70/QALY under the situation of charity assistance, and the ICER was $696,571.11/QALY without charity assistance, both exceeding the WTP threshold in China. The scenario analysis demonstrated that when the price of durvalumab fell by more than 94.2% to less than $0.33/mg, durvalumab plus chemotherapy will be more economical compared with chemotherapy alone under the situation of no charity assistance. One-way sensitivity analyses suggested that the cost of durvalumab had the greatest influence on the ICERs, and the probabilistic sensitivity analyses demonstrated that durvalumab plus chemotherapy was impossible to be cost-effective at the WTP threshold whether the charity assistance was available or not.

CONCLUSIONS

Adding durvalumab to gemcitabine and cisplatin was not cost-effective for advanced BTC regardless of receiving and not receiving charitable assistance.

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

Objective

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Role of antiangiogenic agents in first-line treatment for advanced NSCLC in the era of immunotherapy

BACKGROUND & OBJECTIVE

"Anti-angiogenetic drugs plus chemotherapy" (anti-angio-chemo) and "immune checkpoint inhibitors plus chemotherapy" (ICI-chemo) are superior to traditional chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, in the absence of a direct comparison of ICI-chemo with anti-angio-chemo, the superior one between them has not been decided, and the benefit of adding anti-angiogenetic agents to ICI-chemo remains controversial. This study aimed to investigate the role of antiangiogenic agents for advanced NSCLC in the era of immunotherapy.

METHODS

Eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing chemotherapy versus therapeutic regimens involving ICIs or anti-angiogenetic drugs were included. Outcomes included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), and rate of grade 3-4 toxicity assessment. R-4.3.1 was utilized to perform the analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 54 studies with a sample size of 25,046 were finally enrolled. "Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab + Chemotherapy" significantly improved the ORR compared with "Atezolizumab + Chemotherapy" (Odds ratio (OR) = 2.73, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.27-5.87). The trend also favored "Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab + Chemotherapy" in PFS and OS (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.39-1.31; HR = 0.94, 95% CI: 0.77-1.16, respectively). In addition, "Pembrolizumab + Chemotherapy" and "Camrelizumab + Chemotherapy" significantly prolonged the PFS compared to "Bevacizumab + Chemotherapy" (HR = 0.65, 95% CI: 0.46-0.92; HR = 0.63, 95% CI: 0.41-0.97; respectively). Meanwhile, "Pembrolizumab + Chemotherapy" and "Sintilimab + Chemotherapy" yielded more OS benefits than "Bevacizumab + Chemotherapy" (HR = 0.69, 95% CI: 0.56-0.83; HR = 0.64, 95%CI: 0.46-0.91; respectively). Scheme between "Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab + Chemotherapy" and "Atezolizumab + Chemotherapy" made no significant difference (OR = 1.18, 95%CI: 0.56-2.42) concerning the rate of grade 3-4 toxicity. It seemed that ICI-chemo yielded more improvement in quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) than "Bevacizumab + Chemotherapy" in cost-effectiveness analysis.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that ICI-chemo is associated with potentially longer survival, better cost-effectiveness outcomes, and comparable safety profiles than anti-angio-chemo. Also, adding bevacizumab to ICI-chemo seemed to provide additional therapeutic benefits without adding treatment burden. Our findings would supplement the current standard of care and help the design of future clinical trials for the first-line treatment of patients with advanced NSCLC.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Sintilimab Combined with Chemotherapy Versus Chemotherapy Alone as the First-Line Treatment for Advanced Esophageal Cancer

Background: Esophageal cancer has a poor prognosis and currently ranks sixth in global cancer mortality rates. The ORIENT-15 trial showed sintilimab plus chemotherapy significantly improved survival when compared to chemotherapy alone. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of sintilimab, a programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitor, plus chemotherapy in treating patients with esophageal cancer compared with chemotherapy alone. Methods: A Markov model with a 10-year horizon was developed based on the perspective of the Chinese healthcare payers. We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis for sintilimab combined with chemotherapy based on a questionnaire. Patients were grouped into the sintilimab group based on a positive score of 10 or more (combined positive score (CPS) ≥ 10 groups), and those with any other PD-L1 expression were randomized into patient groups. We estimated the cost and the effectiveness of sintilimab on the quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was computed. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore the impact of uncertainties on the cost-effectiveness results. Results: In the base-case analysis, compared with chemotherapy alone, the ICER of sintilimab plus chemotherapy for all patients was $21024.05 per QALY, and in the CPS≥10 group, it was $20974.23 per QALY. This was lower than $37653 per QALY. One-way sensitivity analysis demonstrated that ICERs were most sensitive to the price of sintilimab. Conclusion: The study demonstrated that sintilimab plus chemotherapy for advanced esophageal cancer as its first-line treatment would be more cost-effective than chemotherapy alone in Chinese patients.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of adjuvant therapy with atezolizumab in Chinese patients with stage IB-IIIA resectable NSCLC after adjuvant chemotherapy

Background

Atezolizumab was first shown to significantly improve progression-free survival (PFS) after platinum-based chemotherapy in early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in the IMpower010 Phase 3 trial. However, the cost-effectiveness and potential economic impact of atezolizumab treatment in Chinese patients are unknown.

Methods

Markov models were constructed based on follow-up data from the IMpower010 trial and assessed separately in the programmed cell death receptor ligand-1 (PD-L1) tumor cells (TC) ≥ 1% stage II – IIIA group, all stage II – IIIA groups, and the intention-to-treat (ITT) group (stage IB–IIIA). Efficacy and safety data were obtained from the IMpower010 trial, and costs and utility values were derived from the literature and local surveys to estimate their incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) compared with willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds in scenarios implementing patient assistance programs (PAP) or drug price negotiations. Univariate sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) were performed to investigate the stability of the model results.

Results

Compared with best supportive care (BSC), atezolizumab produced an additional 0.45 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), 0.04 QALYs, and -0.0028 QALYs in the PD-L1 TC ≥ 1% stage II – IIIA group, all stage II – IIIA groups, and the ITT group, and the ICERs were 108,825.37/QALY, 1,028,538.22/QALY, and -14,381,171.55/QALY, respectively. The ICERs all exceeded the WTP threshold of $27,354 per QALY (three times the per capita gross domestic product of China in 2022), and univariate sensitivity analysis showed that the price of atezolizumab played a crucial role in the model results. PSA showed that the probability of cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab in the PD-L1 TC ≥ 1% stage II – IIIA group, all stage II – IIIA groups, and the ITT group increased with the increasing WTP threshold.

Conclusion

From the perspective of China’s health care system, in the PD-L1 TC ≥ 1% stage II – IIIA group, all stage II – IIIA groups, and the ITT group, the use of atezolizumab in the adjuvant treatment of patients with early-stage NSCLC after platinum-based chemotherapy is unlikely to be cost-effective. The implementation of PAP or price reduction negotiations for atezolizumab might be among the most effective measures to improve its cost-effectiveness.

Economic Evaluation of First-Line Camrelizumab for Advanced Non-small-cell Lung Cancer in China

Background: As the first domestic PD-1 antibody approved for lung cancer in China, camrelizumab has exhibited proven effectiveness for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. However, the cost-effectiveness of this new regimen remains to be investigated. Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of camrelizumab combination therapy vs. chemotherapy for previously untreated patients with advanced, non-squamous NSCLC without Alk or Egfr genomic aberrations from the perspective of China's healthcare system. Methods: Based on the CameL trial, the study developed a three-health state Markov model to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of adding camrelizumab to chemotherapy compared to chemotherapy alone in NSCLC patients. The analysis models were conducted for patients unselected by PD-L1 tumor expression (the base case) and the patient subgroup with PD-L1-expressing tumors (≥1%). Primary model outcomes included the costs in US dollars and health outcomes in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) as well as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) under a willingness-to-pay threshold of $31,500 per QALY. Additionally, a scenario analysis that adjusted within-trial crossover was employed to evaluate camrelizumab combination therapy compared to chemotherapy without subsequent use of PD1/PD-L1 antibodies. Results: Camrelizumab combination therapy was more costly and provided additional 0.11 QALYs over chemotherapy in the base case analysis (0.86 vs. 0.75 QALYs), 0.12 QALYs over chemotherapy in the subgroup analysis (0.99 vs. 0.88 QALYs), and 0.34 QALYs over chemotherapy in the scenario analysis (0.86 vs. 0.52 QALYs). Correspondingly, the ICER was $63,080 per QALY, $46,311 per QALY, and $30,591 per QALY, in the base case, the subgroup, and the scenario analysis, respectively. One-way sensitivity analyses revealed that ICERs of the base case and the subgroup analysis were most sensitive to the cost of camrelizumab, the cost of pemetrexed. Besides, the base case and subgroup analysis were more sensitive to the risk of neutrophil count decreased in the camrelizumab and the utility of stable disease, respectively. Conclusion: Although camrelizumab combination therapy is not cost-effective as first-line therapy for NSCLC patients in China in the base case, adjusting within-trial crossover would move the treatment regimen toward cost-effectiveness in the scenario analysis.