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

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 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.

Cost-effectiveness of tumor-treating fields plus standard therapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer progressed after platinum-based therapy in the United States

Background: Tumor treating fields (TTF) was first approved for treatment of glioblastoma. Recently, the LUNAR study demonstrated that TTF + standard therapy (ST) extended survival in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This primary objective of this study is to analyze the cost-effectiveness of this treatment from the United States healthcare payers' perspective. Methods: A 3-health-state Markov model was established to compare the cost-effectiveness of TTF + ST and that of ST alone. Clinical data were extracted from the LUNAR study, supplemented by additional cost and utility data obtained from publications or online sources. One-way sensitivity analysis, probabilistic sensitivity analysis, and scenario analysis were conducted. The willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained was set to $150,000. The main results include total costs, QALYs, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and incremental net monetary benefit (INMB). Subgroup analyses were conducted for two types of ST, including immune checkpoint inhibitor, and docetaxel. Results: During a 10-year time horizon, the costs of TTF + ST and ST alone were $431,207.0 and $128,125.9, and the QALYs were 1.809 and 1.124, respectively. The ICER of TTF + ST compared to ST was $442,732.7 per QALY, and the INMB was -$200,395.7 at the WTP threshold. The cost of TTF per month was the most influential factor in cost-effectiveness, and TTF + ST had a 0% probability of being cost-effective at the WTP threshold compared with ST alone. Conclusion: TTF + ST is not a cost-effective treatment for advanced NSCLC patients who progressed after platinum-based therapy from the perspective of the United States healthcare payers.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of tislelizumab in combination with chemotherapy for the first-line treatment of patients with metastatic or recurrent nasopharyngeal carcinoma in China

BACKGROUND

The combination of tislelizumab and gemcitabine plus cisplatin (GP) in the first-line treatment of patients with recurrent or metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma (R/M NPC) has yielded significant results. However, it is not clear whether this treatment option is cost-effective in China. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of tislelizumab plus GP for the first-line treatment of R/M NPC from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system.

METHODS

A partitioned survival model with three discrete health states was constructed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of tislelizumab plus GP versus GP in patients with R/M NPC. The target population enrolled in the RATIONALE-309 trial had previously not treated for R/M NPC. Drug costs were obtained from relevant databases, and the remaining cost and health utility data were collected from the literature. The main outcomes include the expected life years, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), total cost, and incremental cost-benefit ratio (ICER).

RESULTS

The tislelizumab plus GP regimen produced an additional cost ($18392.76) and additional 1.57 QALYs compared with GP used alone. The ICER was $18392.75/QALYs. Sensitivity analysis showed that the analysis was robust and the utility of PD status was most sensitive to the model results. The possibility of tislelizumab plus GP being cost-effective at the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $37 653/QALY was 99.8%. Subgroup analysis showed that high PD-L1 expression had little impact on the ICER of this regimen.

CONCLUSION

In patients with R/M NPC, the regimen of tislelizumab plus GP, as the first-line treatment, is more cost-effective than the GP regimen in China.

The safety and efficacy of tislelizumab, alone or in combination with chemotherapy, for the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review of clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Tislelizumab is an anti-programmed death-1 (PD-1) monoclonal antibody with a construction that enables it to have a higher affinity to its target. We aimed to evaluate tislelizumab's safety and efficacy for treating non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

METHODS

Embase, Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were searched up to December 20, 2022. The review only included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the safety or efficacy of tislelizumab for treating patients with lung cancer. The revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (RoB2) was utilized to evaluate study quality.

RESULTS

There were four RCTs identified, which included 1565 patients with confirmed locally advanced or metastatic squamous and/or non-squamous types of NSCLC. Treatment with tislelizumab was associated with better progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR), particularly when used in combination with chemotherapy. Almost all patients in both arms reported at least one treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE). Decreased hematologic indexes accounted for more than 20% of the grade ≥ 3 TEAEs in the tislelizumab plus chemotherapy group. The proportion of TEAE that led to death in the tislelizumab plus chemotherapy arms ranged from 3.2 to 4.2%. Hypothyroidism, pneumonitis, and hyperglycemia were the most frequently noted immune-mediated adverse events in the tislelizumab group.

CONCLUSIONS

Tislelizumab, whether used alone or in combination with chemotherapy, seems to demonstrate both a safety and efficacy as a treatment for NSCLC.

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.

The correlation between the costs and clinical benefits of national price-negotiated anticancer drugs for specific cancers in China

Background

The high costs of novel anticancer drugs have caused concern among healthcare stakeholders. To address the knowledge gap on the proportion of survival benefit with the related economic expenditure, we aimed to assess the correlation between the costs and value of innovative drugs targeted to specific tumours, before and after price negotiation policy implementation.

Methods

We identified new drugs for lung and breast cancer that entered the National Reimbursement Drug List (NRDL) through price negotiation from 2016 to 2023. Therapeutic value consisted of traditional clinical endpoints, like the percentage improvement of overall survival (ΔOS%) and progression-free survival (ΔPFS%), and the quantified gains of the American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework (ASCO-VF) and the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS). We calculated monthly drug costs and used Spearman's correlation coefficient and Cohen's kappa statistics for statistical analysis.

Results

Twenty-nine innovative price-negotiated drugs were collected between 2016 and 2023. The median monthly costs were US$3381.31 out of NRDL and US$1095.88 within NRDL, with an ΔOS% of 22.24% (IQR = 6.45-29.48) and a ΔPFS% of 83.82% (IQR = 50.41-104.05). The median ASCO-VF score was 40.98, and 17 drugs scored the meaningful benefit of ESMO-MCBS. We found no association between clinical benefits and their costs before and after NRDL, either overall or for specific cancers. The agreement between the two frameworks was stable.

Conclusions

The negotiation policy decreased medication costs, but did not generate the expected correlation between the value and costs of anticancer drugs. Comprehensive value assessments need to be performed in the future to explore more in-depth findings and promote the affordability and availability of effective anticancer drugs.

Cost-effectiveness of camrelizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone as first-line therapy in advanced or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma

OBJECTIVE

Camrelizumab combination therapy for advanced or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) has considerable survival benefits. This study investigated the cost-effectiveness of camrelizumab combination therapy versus chemotherapy alone as a first-line treatment for patients with ESCC from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system.

METHODS

A three-state partitioned survival model was developed to estimate total costs, life years (LYs), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and incremental net health benefits (INHBs) over a 20-year time horizon. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were also performed.

RESULTS

Camrelizumab plus chemotherapy increased QALYs by 0.30 (0.43 LYs), with an incremental cost of $9,272. The ICERs for camrelizumab plus chemotherapy vs chemotherapy alone was $31,062/QALY ($21,599/LY), and the INHB was 0.05 QALY at the cost-effective threshold of $37,653/QALY (3 times China's GDP per capita). One-way sensitivity analyses showed that the ICER was the most sensitive to utility values in the PFS state. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses suggested that camrelizumab combination therapy had a probability of 74.04% cost-effectiveness at a threshold of $37,653/QALY. Scenario analyses confirmed that the findings were robust.

CONCLUSIONS

Camrelizumab combination therapy is likely to have a cost-effectiveness advantage over chemotherapy alone for previously untreated advanced or metastatic ESCC in China.

Tislelizumab plus chemotherapy is more cost-effective than chemotherapy alone as first-line therapy for advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer

Background and objective

Tislelizumab is a programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) inhibitor. Tislelizumab plus chemotherapy as first-line option for advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), compared with chemotherapy alone, resulted in significantly prolonged survival outcomes; however, evidence regarding its relative efficacy and cost is lacking. We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of tislelizumab plus chemotherapy compared with that of chemotherapy alone, from the health care perspective in China.

Methods

A partitioned survival model (PSM) was used for this study. The survival data were obtained from the RATIONALE 304 trial. Cost-effectiveness was defined as incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) less than the willingness to pay (WTP) threshold. Incremental net health benefits (INHB), incremental net monetary benefits (INMB), and subgroup analyses were also assessed. Sensitivity analyses were further established to assess the model stability.

Results

Compared with chemotherapy alone, tislelizumab plus chemotherapy increased by 0.64 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and 1.48 life-years, and yielded an increase of $16,631 in cost per patient. The INMB and INHB were $7,510 and 0.20 QALYs at a WTP threshold of $38,017/QALY, respectively. The ICER was $26,162/QALY. The outcomes were most sensitive to the HR of OS for tislelizumab plus chemotherapy arm. The probability of tislelizumab plus chemotherapy being considered cost-effective was 87.66% and >50% in most of the subgroups at the WTP threshold of $38,017/QALY. At the WTP threshold of $86,376/QALY, the probability achieved 99.81%. Furthermore, the probability of tislelizumab plus chemotherapy being considered cost-effective in subgroups of patients with liver metastases and PD-L1 expression ≥50% were 90.61 and 94.35%, respectively.

Conclusion

Tislelizumab plus chemotherapy is likely to be cost-effective as a first-line treatment for advanced non-squamous NSCLC in China.

Cost-effectiveness of nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy as first-line therapy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer

OBJECTIVES

First-line treatment with nivolumab plus ipilimumab has been shown to improve overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The current study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy in advanced NSCLC from the perspective of Chinese healthcare system.

METHODS

A three state-transition Markov model was employed to evaluate the cost and effectiveness of nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of advanced NSCLC. Key clinical data in the model were derived from Part 1 of the phase 3 CheckMate 227 trial (NCT02477826). Costs and utilities were obtained from published literatures. The main endpoints of the model were costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the model uncertainty.

RESULTS

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab was associated with an increase in overall cost of $95,867.82 and improved effectiveness of 0.98 QALYs compared with chemotherapy, yielding an ICER of $97,676.24 per QALY. In one-way sensitivity analysis, the variables that had the greatest influence on the ICER were hazard ratio for OS and body weight. In probabilistic analysis, nivolumab plus ipilimumab had a 0% probability of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $37,663.26/QALY in China. However, the combination therapy would become cost-effective when the cost of nivolumab and ipilimumab were discounted by 65%.

CONCLUSION

First-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab treatment for advanced NSCLC was found to be not cost-effective compared with chemotherapy at a WTP threshold of $37,663.26/QALY in China.

Cell adhesion molecules and immunotherapy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: Current process and potential application

Advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is a severe disease and still has high mortality rate after conventional treatment (e.g., surgical resection, chemotherapy, radiotherapy and targeted therapy). In NSCLC patients, cancer cells can induce immunosuppression, growth and metastasis by modulating cell adhesion molecules of both cancer cells and immune cells. Therefore, immunotherapy is increasingly concerned due to its promising anti-tumor effect and broader indication, which targets cell adhesion molecules to reverse the process. Among these therapies, immune checkpoint inhibitors (mainly anti-PD-(L)1 and anti-CTLA-4) are most successful and have been adapted as first or second line therapy in advanced NSCLC. However, drug resistance and immune-related adverse reactions restrict its further application. Further understanding of mechanism, adequate biomarkers and novel therapies are necessary to improve therapeutic effect and alleviate adverse effect.

Emerging PD-1/PD-L1 targeting immunotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer: Current status and future perspective in Japan, US, EU, and China

Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), one of the deadliest types of cancers worldwide, has been the target of immunotherapy due to its high immune antigenicity. With the addition of immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), including anti-PD-1/PD-L1 antibodies, as an indispensable and powerful regimen for the treatment of this lethal disease, the median survival time for patients with stage IV NSCLC is approximately 2 years. In contrast, the response rate to ICIs remains less than 50%, even if the patients are selected using biomarkers such as PD-L1. Pharmaceutical companies have begun to develop additional anti-PD-1/PD-L1 antibodies to overcome resistance and are devising further immunotherapy combinations. More than 20 anti-PD-1/PD-L1antibodies have been approved or are currently in development. Numerous combination therapies are under development, and several combination therapies have provided positive results in randomized controlled trials. This review aimed to examine the current status of approved and investigational anti-PD-1/PD-L1antibodies for NSCLC in Japan, the United States, the European Union, and China. Further, this review discusses the challenges and future perspectives for developing new ICIs in alignment with the global developments in Japan.