Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab for unresectable or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma: A cost-effectiveness analysis.

Abstract

295 Background: In May 2020, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab was approved by US Food and Drug Administration for patients with unresectable or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who have not received prior systemic therapy due to improvement in overall and progression-free survival compared with standard sorafenib treatment. However, because of the high cost of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, there is a need to assess its value by considering both efficacy and cost. The aim of this study is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab vs sorafenib for patients with unresectable or metastatic HCC from the US payer perspective. Methods: A partitioned-survival model was developed to compare health care costs and clinical outcomes of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab vs sorafenib in first-line treatment of unresectable or metastatic HCC over 6-year horizon. Treatment effects were extracted from the IMbrave150 trial. Health care cost and health utility data were obtained from published studies and databases. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated as the ratio of the incremental cost to the incremental quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). One-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to examine model uncertainty. Additional subgroup analyses were performed. Results: Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab resulted in increase of 0.623 life-years, 0.484 QALYs and $158,781 per patient at the base case analysis. The ICER was $322,500 per QALY (95% confidence interval, $136,275 to $801,509 per QALY), with 0.5% and 4.1% chance of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 and $150,000 per QALY, respectively. The ICER never went below $150,000 per QALY in the one-way sensitivity analyses and among patients of clinically relevant subgroups in the subgroup analyses. Conclusions: Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab is unlikely to be cost-effective compared with sorafenib in first-line treatment of patients with unresectable or metastatic HCC from the US payer perspective.