Perspective Of Chinese Healthcare System Research Articles

Cost-effectiveness of tislelizumab plus chemotherapy vs chemotherapy as first-line treatment of PD-L1 positive advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma from a Chinese perspective

ABSTRACT Background This work was designed to assess the cost-effectiveness of front-line tislelizumab plus chemotherapy (TIS+Chemo) in advanced gastric cancer (GC) or gastroesophageal junction cancer (GEJC) with positive expression of programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) from the perspective of Chinese healthcare system. Research design and methods A 10-year partitioned survival model was undertaken utilizing clinical data from RATIONALE 305. Costs and utilities were both discounted at an annual rate of 5%. The primary outcome was incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and calculated as the cost per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was set as $18,625/QALY. Only direct medical costs were considered. Sensitivity analyses and subgroup analyses were performed to evaluate the robustness of the model. Results In the base-case analysis, the incremental cost and effectiveness associated with TIS+Chemo vs Chemo was 7,361 and 0.38 QALYs, respectively, leading to an ICER of 19,371/QALY. At the WTP threshold of $18,625/QALY, the TIS+Chemo was not a cost-effective first-line treatment option. The model outcomes were robust. Conclusions TIS+Chemo did not provide a cost-effective approach for PD-L1 positive advanced GC/GEJC in China setting. However, TIS+Chemo might be cost-effective in provinces with higher WTP threshold. Clinical trial registration RATIONALE 305, www.clinicaltrials.gov, identifier is NCT03777657.

Cost-effectiveness of Kang Ai injection plus chemotherapy vs. Shenqi Fuzheng injection plus chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of two Chinese patent medicines, including Kang Ai injection and Shenqi Fuzheng injection with each combined with platinum-based chemotherapy as the first-line treatment for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in China. From Chinese healthcare system perspective, a three state Markov model with a cycle of 3 weeks and a 10-year horizon was constructed to derive the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Since only individual patient data of progression-free survival (PFS) of Kang Ai injection group can be obtained, we extrapolated median overall survival (mOS) of Kang Ai injection group and median progression-free survival (mPFS) and mOS of Shenqi Fuzheng injection group based on published literature and methods. Then survival curves were estimated by the method of declining exponential approximation of life expectancy (DEALE), which is based on the assumption that survival follows a declining exponential function. We performed one-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis to test the robustness. Additionally, a scenario analysis was adopted to investigate the impact of using best-fitting distribution for PFS curve of Kang Ai injection group on the economic conclusion. The base-case result indicated that Kang Ai injection group provided 0.217 incremental quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) at an incremental cost of $103.38 compared with Shenqi Fuzheng injection group. The ICER was $476.41/QALY, which was much lower than the willingness to pay threshold of one time the GDP per capita of China in 2022 ($12,070/QALY). Deterministic sensitivity analysis result showed that ICER was most sensitive to the changes in odds ratio (OR) value. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of base-case analysis results. The scenario analysis result showed that by using Log-Normal distribution to fit the PFS curve of Kang Ai injection group and shortening the time horizon to 5 years, the ICER was $4,081.83/QALY, which was still much lower than the willingness to pay threshold. Kang Ai injection combined with platinum-based chemotherapy appeared to be more cost-effective for the treatment of advanced NSCLC than Shenqi Fuzheng injection combined with platinum-based chemotherapy.

Cost-effectiveness of Sacituzumab Govitecan versus Single-agent Chemotherapy for Patients with Metastatic Triple-Negative Breast Cancer in China

IntroductionPatients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC) have poor prognosis and survival outcomes. Sacituzumab govitecan was newly approved into Chinese market for mTNBC. However, whether its price matches the survival benefit still needs exploring. Here, this study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of sacituzumab govitecan versus chemotherapy in patients with mTNBC from the perspective of Chinese healthcare system. MethodsA partitioned survival model consisting of three discrete health states was constructed to assess the cost-effectiveness of sacituzumab govitecan versus single-agent chemotherapy. The key clinical data in the model were from the ASCENT trial. Costs and utility inputs were collected from published literatures. Life-years gained, quality adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), incremental net health benefits, and incremental net monetary benefits were calculated between 2 treatment strategies. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to account for uncertainty and verify model robustness. Subgroup and cost-threshold analysis were also performed. ResultsSacituzumab govitecan provided an additional 0.25 QALYs and an incremental cost of $ 81,778.61 compared with chemotherapy, which was associated with an ICER of $ 323,603.84/QALY. One-way sensitivity analysis revealed that the model was most sensitive to the cost of sacituzumab govitecan, weight, and utility of progression-free survival. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that the probability of sacituzumab govitecan being cost-effective was 0%. Considering a willingness-to-pay (WTP) of 3 times GDP, the maximum cost of sacituzumab govitecan that would make it cost-effective was $155.65 per unit (180 mg). ConclusionsSacituzumab govitecan was not cost-effective for patients with mTNBC compared with chemotherapy at the commonly adopted WTP threshold of 3 times GDP per capita per QALY in China.

Economic value of toripalimab plus axitinib as first-line treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma in China: a model-based cost-effectiveness analysis

ABSTRACT Objective The current analysis aimed to evaluate the economic benefit of toripalimab plus axitinib for previously untreated RCC patients from the Chinese healthcare system perspective. Methods The partitioned survival model was developed to simulate 3-week patients’ transition in 20-year time horizon to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of toripalimab plus axitinib compared with sunitinib for advanced RCC. Survival data were gathered from the RENOTORCH trial, and cost and utility inputs were obtained from the database and published literature. Total cost, life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were the model outputs. Subgroup analyses and sensitivity analyses were conducted to increase the comprehensiveness and estimate the robustness of the model results. Results In the base-case analysis, compared with sunitinib, toripalimab plus axitinib could bring additional 1.19 LYs and 0.65 QALYs, with the marginal cost of $41,499.23, resulting in the ICER of $64,337.49/QALY, which is higher than the WTP threshold. And ICERs were always beyond the WTP threshold of all subgroups. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated the model results were robust. Conclusions Toripalimab plus axitinib was unlikely to be the cost-effective first-line therapy for patients with previously untreated advanced RCC compared with sunitinib from the Chinese healthcare system perspective.

Radiofrequency ablation using the ThermoCool SmartTouch Catheter guided by ablation index versus antiarrhythmic drugs in atrial fibrillation treatment in China: a cost-consequence analysis.

Aim: To evaluate the costs and consequences of two front-line atrial fibrillation (AF) treatments from Chinese healthcare system perspective: radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFCA) using ThermoCool SmartTouch Catheter guided by Ablation Index (STAI), in comparison to antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs). Patients & methods: We simulated clinical and economic consequences for AF patients initially receiving STAI or AADs using a short-term decision tree model leading to a 10-year long-term Markov model. The model projected both clinical consequences and costs associated with, among others, AF, heart failure (HF), strokes, and deaths due to AF or AF related complications. Data informing the models included combination of a local real-world study and published clinical studies. Results: STAI was advantageous versus AADs on all 4 main clinical outcomes evaluated; AF: 25.83% lower (12.84% vs 38.67%), HF: 2.22% lower (1.33% vs 3.55%), stroke or post stroke: 1.82% lower (10.00% vs 11.82%)and deaths due to AF or AF related complications: 0.64% lower (4.11% vs 4.75%). The average total cost per patient in STAI group was ¥16,682 lower (¥123,124 vs ¥139,806). The one-way sensitivity analysis indicated that the difference in total cost was most sensitive to annual AF recurrence probability in AADs-treated patients. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated a 98.5% probability that RFCA treatment would result in cost savings by the end of the 10th year. Conclusion: Radiofrequency catheter ablation using SmartTouch catheter guided by Ablation Index was superior to AADs as the first-line AF treatment in Chinese setting with better clinical outcomes and at lower costs over a 10-year time horizon.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of continuing bevacizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone after first progression of metastatic colorectal cancer.

Continuation of bevacizumab plus second-line chemotherapy has significantly improved overall and progression-free survival in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). However, the cost-effectiveness of such high cost therapy is still uncertain in China; so this analysis was performed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of these treatment options from the Chinese health care system perspective. A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted using data from the ML18147 trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00700102) by modeling a partitioned survival model. Main evaluation indicators were quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) with a willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of $38,201 per QALY. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness and stability of the model. Subgroup and scenario analyses were also performed to make our study more relevant. Bevacizumab plus chemotherapy increased 0.12 QALYs and an incremental cost of $22,761.62 compared with chemotherapy, resulting in an ICER of $188,904.09 per QALY. The model was most sensitive to the utility of progression-free survival and the cost of bevacizumab. Compared with chemotherapy, bevacizumab plus chemotherapy had a 0% cost-effectiveness probability, and no cost-effectiveness in subgroups at the WTP threshold of $38,201 per QALY. The scenario analysis found that bevacizumab biosimilar gained an ICER of $126,397.38 per QALY when assuming the cost of drugs was calculated at the most affordable price. At the WTP threshold of $38,201 per QALY, continuation of bevacizumab plus chemotherapy is unlikely considered cost-effective for patients after first progression of mCRC.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors versus chemotherapy as second-line therapy for advanced oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

Recently, several novel programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) inhibitors have been approved for second-line treating advanced or metastatic oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC), including camrelizumab, nivolumab, pembrolizumab, sintilimab and tislelizumab. However, the optimal treatment regimen remained ambiguous. The purpose of this study was to investigate the efficacy, safety and economy of available PD-1 inhibitors to determine the optimal treatment from the Chinese healthcare system perspective. A systematic review and economic evaluation. A systematic review was undertaken utilizing PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase and Scopus databases to identify eligible studies until 31 August 2023. Primary outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and adverse events (AEs). We also developed a partitioned survival model at 3-week intervals based on five clinical trials to predict long-term costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for various treatment options. Direct medical costs and utility values were obtained from public drug bidding databases, clinical trials or published literature. The parameter uncertainties within the model were determined via one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Five randomized controlled trials involving 2837 patients were included in the analysis. Compared with other treatments examined, camrelizumab provided the best PFS benefits [hazard ratio (HR): 0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.56-0.86], and pembrolizumab provided the best OS benefits (HR: 0.55, 95% CI: 0.37-0.82). Nivolumab caused a relatively lower incidence of treatment-related AEs (HR: 0.10, 95% CI: 0.05-0.20) and grade 3-5 AEs (HR: 0.13, 95% CI: 0.08-0.21) than other immunotherapy regimens. In the economic evaluation, average 10-year costs ranged from $5,433.86 (chemotherapy) to $50,617.95 (nivolumab) and mean QALYs ranged from 0.55 (chemotherapy) to 0.82 (camrelizumab). Pembrolizumab was eliminated because of dominance. Of the remaining strategies, when the willingness-to-pay thresholds were 1, 2 and 3 times GDP per capita in 2022, sintilimab, tislelizumab and camrelizumab were the most cost-effective treatment options, respectively. Sintilimab might be the optimal treatment alternative for second-line therapy of advanced OSCC in China, followed by tislelizumab and camrelizumab. This study has been registered on the PROSPERO database with the registration number CRD42023495204.

Economic evaluation of stent retrievers in basilar artery occlusion: An analysis from Chinese healthcare system perspective.

This study aimed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of stent retriever (SR) versus best medical management (BMM) in patients with basilar artery occlusion (BAO) in China. We used a two-step approach to compare the cost-effectiveness of SR plus BMM with that of BMM alone over 20 years. A decision tree was initially constructed for the first 3 months, followed by a Markov model for the subsequent period. Collected data on clinical aspects were extracted from the BAOCHE investigation, while costs-related information was sourced from previously published research. The key metric for evaluating the primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), achieved $/QALY. The threshold for identifying SR as highly cost-effective was set at an ICER below $12,551/QALY, SR was deemed cost-effective if the ICER ranged from $12,551 to $37,654 per QALY. Uncertainty was addressed using scenario, one-way sensitivity, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA). For Chinese patients with BAO, the 20-year cost per patient was $8678 with BMM alone and $21,988 for SR plus BMM. Effectiveness was 1.45 QALY for BMM alone, and 2.77 QALY for SR plus BMM. The ICER of SR + BMM versus BMM alone was $10,050 per QALY. The scenario and one-way sensitivity analyses revealed that in certain situations the ICER could exceed $12,551 per QALY, but remain below $37,654 per QALY. Results from the PSA suggested that SR was likely to be cost-effective for Chinese patients with BAO, with a probability exceeding 98% when considering a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $12,551 per QALY. Our study indicates that SR is an intervention option that is highly likely to be cost-effective for Chinese patients with BAO, with a probability of over 98% under the current WTP threshold of $12,551 per QALY.

Cost-effectiveness of adding serplulimab to first-line chemotherapy for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer in China

ABSTRACT Objective The aim of the current study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of serplulimab plus chemotherapy compared chemotherapy alone as first-line strategy for patients with ES-SCLC in China. Methods A decision-analytic model that based on the Chinese health-care system perspective was conducted to evaluate the economic benefits for the two competing first-line treatment. The clinical survival and safety data were obtained from the ASTRUM-005 trial, cost and utility values were gathered from the local charges and previously published study. Both cost and utility values were discounted at an annual rate of 5%. Sensitivity analyses and subgroup analyses were performed to examine the robustness of the model results. Results Serplulimab plus chemotherapy could bring additional 0.25 QALYs with the marginal cost of $37,569.32, resulting in an ICER of $147,908.74 per additional QALY gained. Sensitivity analyses confirmed that model results were robust. Subgroup analyses revealed that adding serplulimab to first-line chemotherapy were unlikely to be the cost-effective option for all subgroup patients. Conclusions Serplulimab plus chemotherapy was unlikely to be the cost-effective first-line strategy compared with chemotherapy alone for patients with ES-SCLC in China. Reduced the price of serplulimab could increase its cost-effective.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of toripalimab plus chemotherapy for patients with advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma in China

ABSTRACT Background The aim of the current analysis was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of toripalimab plus chemotherapy compared with chemotherapy alone as the first-line option for patients with advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) from the perspective of Chinese health-care system. Methods A partitioned survival model was conducted to track 3-week patients’ transition and evaluate the health and economic outcomes in 10-year horizon of the two competing first-line treatment among toripalimab plus chemotherapy and chemotherapy alone. The survival data were gathered from the JUPITER-06 trial, and cost and utility values were obtained from the local charges and published studies. Total costs, life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were the model outcomes. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were conducted. Results Treatment with toripalimab plus chemotherapy yields marginal cost of $8,639.74 and additional 0.65 QALYs, resulting in an ICER of $13,280.97 per additional QALY gained, which was lower than the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $38,224 in China. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses confirmed the robustness of the model outcomes. Conclusions Toripalimab plus chemotherapy was likely to be the cost-effective first-line option for patients with advanced ESCC compared with chemotherapy alone with the WTP threshold of $38,224 per additional QALY gained from the perspective of the Chinese health-care system.

Cost-Effectiveness of Secukinumab Versus Other Biologics in the Treatment of Moderate-to-Severe Plaque Psoriasis: The Chinese Healthcare System Perspective.

This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of secukinumab compared with other biologics (adalimumab, infliximab, ustekinumab, ixekizumab, guselkumab, and Yisaipu [etanercept biosimilar]) for moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis from the Chinese healthcare system perspective. A decision-tree (first year)/Markov model (subsequent years), with an annual cycle, was implemented over a lifetime horizon. The Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) response rate at week16 was used for treatment response. Efficacy inputs were obtained from a mixed-treatment comparison conducted using data from randomized controlled trials. Other clinical inputs (adverse events, dropout, and mortality rates), utility weights, and costs were derived from published literature and local Chinese sources. Both costs and outcomes were discounted at 5% per annum. Model outcomes included quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the robustness of results. For patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis, secukinumab generated the highest QALYs (12.334) against all comparators at a lifetime cost of ¥231,477. Secukinumab dominated (higher QALYs at lower costs) all other biologics except ixekizumab in this population. Compared with secukinumab, ixekizumab incurred slightly lower costs (¥228,320) but gained lesser QALYs (12.284). Thus, secukinumab was a cost-effective treatment than ixekizumab at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of ¥257,094 per QALY gained. In the one-way sensitivity analysis, base-case results were most sensitive to changes in the PASI response at 16weeks and year2+ dropout rates. Secukinumab is the most cost-effective treatment option for patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis compared with other commonly used biologics from the Chinese healthcare system perspective.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of transarterial chemoembolization combined with lenvatinib as the first-line treatment for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.

Purpose: Results from the LAUNCH trial suggest transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) in combination with lenvatinib is significantly more effective than lenvatinib as a first-line treatment option for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, the cost of TACE is substantial. This study compares the cost-effectiveness of TACE in combination with lenvatinib (TACE-LEN) with that of lenvatinib alone as the first-line treatment for advanced HCC from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Methods: Markov models of different health states were constructed to simulate first-line treatment, disease progression, and survival in patients with advanced HCC. Clinical efficacy was obtained from the LAUNCH trial. The cost of drugs was sourced from national tender prices, and the treatment cost of weight-decreased was obtained from the Fujian Provincial Bureau of Prices. Other costs and utility values were based on the published literature. Total costs, life years (LYs), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) comprised the model output. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to validate model robustness and subgroup analyses were also conducted. Results: Analysis of the model showed that compared to lenvatinib, TACE-LEN improved effectiveness by 1.60 QALYs at a total cost increase of $48,874.69, with an ICER value of $30,482.13/QALY. A one-way sensitivity analysis found that the progression-free survival utility value per year had the greatest impact on the model. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that TACE-LEN had a 97.9% probability of being cost-effective as the first-line treatment option for advanced HCC compared to lenvatinib when the willingness-to-pay (WTP) value was $38,201/QALY (three times the Chinese GDP per capita in 2022). Subgroup analysis showed that all subgroups of patients preferred TACE-LEN. However, when the WTP threshold was below $30,300/QALY, TACE-LEN is no longer cost-effective. Conclusion: Our study found TACE-LEN to be a cost-effective treatment option for patients with advanced HCC compared to lenvatinib from a Chinese healthcare system perspective, but not so in low-income provinces in China.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of six GLP-1RAs for treatment of Chinese type 2 diabetes mellitus patients that inadequately controlled on metformin: a micro-simulation model.

To systematically estimate and compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) approved in China and to quantify the relationship between the burden of diabetic comorbidities and glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) or body mass index (BMI). To estimate the costs (US dollars, USD) and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) for six GLP-1RAs (exenatide, loxenatide, lixisenatide, dulaglutide, semaglutide, and liraglutide) combined with metformin in the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) which is inadequately controlled on metformin from the Chinese healthcare system perspective, a discrete event microsimulation cost-effectiveness model based on the Chinese Hong Kong Integrated Modeling and Evaluation (CHIME) simulation model was developed. A cohort of 30,000 Chinese patients was established, and one-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) with 50,000 iterations were conducted considering parameter uncertainty. Scenario analysis was conducted considering the impacts of research time limits. A network meta-analysis was conducted to compare the effects of six GLP-1RAs on HbA1c, BMI, systolic blood pressure, and diastolic blood pressure. The incremental net monetary benefit (INMB) between therapies was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness. China's per capita GDP in 2021 was used as the willingness-to-pay threshold. A generalized linear model was used to quantify the relationship between the burden of diabetic comorbidities and HbA1c or BMI. During a lifetime, the cost for a patient ranged from USD 42,092 with loxenatide to USD 47,026 with liraglutide, while the QALY gained ranged from 12.50 with dulaglutide to 12.65 with loxenatide. Compared to exenatide, the INMB of each drug from highest to lowest were: loxenatide (USD 1,124), dulaglutide (USD -1,418), lixisenatide (USD -1,713), semaglutide (USD -4,298), and liraglutide (USD -4,672). Loxenatide was better than the other GLP-1RAs in the base-case analysis. Sensitivity and scenario analysis results were consistent with the base-case analysis. Overall, the price of GLP-1RAs most affected the results. Medications with effective control of HbA1c or BMI were associated with a significantly smaller disease burden (p < 0.05). Loxenatide combined with metformin was identified as the most economical choice, while the long-term health benefits of patients taking the six GLP-1RAs are approximate.

Cost-effectiveness of nivolumab versus sorafenib as first-line treatment for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.

Nivolumab improves overall survival (OS) and is associated with less adverse events (AE) compared with sorafenib in the first-line treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). But which approach is the most cost-effective remains uncertain. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab vs sorafenib as first-line therapy for patients with advanced HCC from the perspective of Chinese healthcare system. A partitioned survival mode was constructed to evaluate the health and economic outcomes of nivolumab vs sorafenib as first-line treatment for advanced HCC. The clinical data and outcomes were obtained from CheckMate 459 trial. Medical costs and utilities were collected from published sources. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were calculated. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to examine model uncertainty. Additional subgroup and scenario analyses were performed. Treatment with nivolumab yielded an additional 0.27 QALYs with an incremental cost of $65,579.19 compared with sorafenib, leading to an ICER of $236,765.93/QALY in China. One-way sensitivity analysis found the model outputs to be most affected for hazard ratio (HR) of OS and the cost of nivolumab. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that the probability of nivolumab being cost-effective was 0% at the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $38,201.19/QALY. The scenario analyses indicated altering the time horizon of the model did not reverse the economic results. Nivolumab as first-line treatment could gain more health benefits for advanced HCC compared with sorafenib, but was estimated not to be cost-effective at the commonly adopted WTP threshold of China.

Cost-effectiveness and potential budget impact of non-pharmacological interventions for early management in prehypertensive people: an economic evaluation for China

BackgroundNon-pharmacological interventions (NPIs) could be considered in the early management of prehypertensive population. This study aimed to evaluate the potential cost-effectiveness of NPIs and the budget impact of implementing NPIs on prehypertensive population in China and provide evidence of chronic disease management innovation for decision-makers.MethodsFive NPIs including usual care, lifestyle, strengthen exercise, relaxation, and diet therapy were selected based on the practice of hypertension management in China. A nine-state Markov model was constructed to evaluate the lifetime costs and health outcomes of five NPIs and a non-intervention group from the perspective of Chinese healthcare system. The effectiveness of NPIs was obtained from a published study. Parameters including transition probabilities, costs and utilities were extracted or calculated from published literature and open-access databases. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the uncertainty of all parameters. The impact of duration of intervention was considered in scenario analyses. A budget impact analysis (BIA) was conducted to evaluate the total cost and the medical cost saving of a hypothetical nationwide implementation of potential cost-effective NPI in prehypertensive people. Management strategies including focusing on patients with specific ages or different CVE risk levels, and different duration of implementation were taken into consideration.ResultsStrengthen exercise was the most cost-effective intervention with a probability of 78.1% under the given WTP threshold. Our results were sensitive to the cost of interventions, and the utility of prehypertension and hypertension. The duration of implementation had limited impact on the results. BIA results showed that the program cost was hefty and far more than the medical cost saving with the course of simulation time. Applying management strategies which focused on individual characteristics could largely reduce the program cost despite it remained higher than medical cost saving.ConclusionsStrengthen exercise was a potential NPI that can be considered in priority for early management in prehypertensive population. Although early management can acquire medical cost saving, the related program cost can be quite hefty. Precise strategies which may help reduce the cost of early management should be taken into consideration in program design.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of selexipag for the combined treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension.

Objective: Adding selexipag to the combined treatment of endothelin receptor antagonists (ERA) and phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitor (PDE5i) reduces the risk of clinical worsening events in patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) but at a considerably higher cost. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of adding selexipag to the combined treatment of ERA and PDE5i in patients with PAH from a Chinese healthcare system perspective. Methods: A Markov model was developed to assess costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of macitentan + tadalafil + selexipag vs. macitentan + tadalafil for the treatment of PAH. Markov states included WHO Functional Class (FC) (I-IV) and death. Transition probabilities were based on data from the TRITON trial. Mortality rates, costs, and utilities were obtained from published literature and public databases. Results: In the base case analysis, compared with macitentan + tadalafil, selexipag + macitentan + tadalafil increased costs ($357,807.588 vs. $116,534.543, respectively) and QALYs (7.234 QALYs vs. 6.666 QALYs, respectively). The resulting incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $424,746.070 per QALY, which was higher than the willingness-to-pay (WTP) of $38,223.339 per QALY. The results were most sensitive to HR for mortality of patients with FC IV relative to the general population, discount rate, and the cost of selexipag. The probability was greater than 50% for the selexipag + macitentan + tadalafil only if the WTP was more significant than $426,019.200 per QALY. Conclusion: In China, adding selexipag may not be cost-effective for patients with PAH who failed to control their condition after combined treatment of ERA and PDE5i. Results of the analysis can aid discussions on the value and position of selexipag for the combined treatment of PAH.

Cost-utility analysis of using paliperidone palmitate in schizophrenia in China.

Objective: Long-acting injections (LAIs) of paliperidone palmitate have been shown to improve medication adherence and relieve psychotic symptoms. However, the specific cost-utility analysis of these LAIs in schizophrenia in China remains unclear. Methods: A multi-state Markov model was constructed to simulate the economic outcomes of patients with schizophrenia in China who received paliperidone palmitate 1-month formulation (PP1M), paliperidone palmitate 3-month formulation (PP3M), and paliperidone extended-release (ER). A cost-utility analysis was conducted, mostly derived from published literature and clinical databases. All costs and utilities were discounted at a rate of 5% per annum. The primary outcome measure was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). A series of sensitivity analyses were also applied. Results: After 20years, compared to ER, using PP1M resulted in an increased discounted cost from $36,252.59 to $43,207.28. This increased cost was associated with a gain in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) from 8.60 to 9.45. As a result, the ICER for PP1M was estimated to be $8,247.46/QALY, which was lower than the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $12,756.55/QALY. When using PP3M instead of ER, the incremental cost was $768.81 and the incremental utility was 0.88 QALYs, projecting an ICER of $873.13/QALY, which was also lower than the WTP threshold of $12,756.55/QALY. The univariate sensitivity analysis showed that the costs of PP1M, PP3M, and ER had the greatest impact on ICERs. The probability sensitivity analysis (PSA) revealed that when the WTP thresholds were $12,756.55/QALY, the probability of PP1M and PP3M being cost-effective was 59.2% and 66.0%, respectively. Conclusion: From the Chinese healthcare system perspective, PP3M and PP1M are both more cost-effective compared to ER, and PP3M has notable cost-utility advantages over PP1M.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of anlotinib as a third-line or further treatment for advanced non-small cell lung cancer in China.

The health expenditure on treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is enormous, especially in third-line or further therapy. Cost-effectiveness analysis for the treatment of advanced NSCLC is particularly important. Anlotinib has been approved by the China Food and Drug Administration (CFDA) for the third-line or further treatment of advanced NSCLC. The price of anlotinib in China fell in 2022. Thus, this study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of anlotinib in the third-line or further treatment of patients with advanced NSCLC based on the newest price from the Chinese health-care system perspective. A Markov model was developed to compare the lifetime costs and effectiveness of anlotinib and a placebo in the third-line or further treatment of patients with advanced NSCLC based on outcome data from the ALTER 0303 phase-3 randomized clinical trial, which included 437 patients with advanced NSCLC and investigated the efficacy of anlotinib. The lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the model uncertainty. Anlotinib provided an additional 0.1161 QALYs compared to the placebo. The corresponding incremental cost was ¥22,729. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of anlotinib compared to the placebo was ¥195,768 per QALY. From the perspective of the Chinese health-care system, anlotinib was found to be cost-effective compared to the placebo in the third-line or further treatment of patients with advanced NSCLC at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of ¥242,928 per QALY. Moreover, 1-way sensitivity analysis found that the results were sensitive to the utility of progressive disease (PD). The lower this parameter was, the higher the probability of ICER for anlotinib not being cost-effective. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curves showed that the base-case analysis results were relatively stable. Considering the clinical efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of anlotinib, it may be a valuable third-line or further treatment for advanced NSCLC in China.

Economic evaluation of bailing capsules for patients with diabetic nephropathy in China.

Background: Diabetic nephropathy is a major microvascular complication and the main cause of end-stage renal disease in diabetic patients. The therapeutic effects of Bailing capsules for diabetic nephropathy have already been demonstrated; however, the cost-effectiveness of Bailing capsules remains controversial. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of Bailing capsules combined with Western medicine compared with Western medicine alone in diabetic nephropathy from a Chinese healthcare system perspective. Methods: A Markov model was established to simulate the disease process of patients over a 20-year period. Clinical efficacy data were obtained from a meta-analysis, and transition probability was estimated based on microsimulation. Direct costs and utility values were collected from the Chinese Drug Bidding Database (https://www.shuju.menet.com.cn) and published literature. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was measured, and one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to observe model stability. Results: A total of 34 randomized controlled trials involving 3,444 patients with diabetic nephropathy were selected for the meta-analysis. Compared to Western medicine alone, the addition of Bailing capsules resulted in an increase of 0.39 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and additional costs of Chinese Yuan (CNY) 24,721, yielding an ICER of CNY 63,001 per QALY gained. The ICER was lower than the threshold of willingness-to-pay of CNY 80,976 (The GDP per Capita in China). The reliability and stability of the results were confirmed by the sensitivity analysis. Conclusion: We found that Bailing capsules may be a cost-effective treatment choice for patients with diabetic nephropathy in the Chinese population.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of trastuzumab deruxtecan in patients with HER2-low advanced breast cancer based on DESTINY-Breast04.

Breast cancer is a rapidly raising healthcare problem worldwide. DESTINY-Breast04 demonstrated that trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-Dxd) had a survival advantage comparing to the physician's choice of chemotherapy for patients with HER2-low metastatic breast cancer. But at the same time, this expensive novel treatment also brought an economic burden. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of T-Dxd based on results of DESTINY-Breast04 from the perspective of Chinese healthcare system. A three-state partitioned-survival model [progression-free survival (PFS), progressive disease (PD) and death] based on data from DESTINY-Breast04 and Chinese healthcare system was used to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of T-Dxd vs. the physician's choice of chemotherapy for HER2-low metastatic breast cancer. Costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and the ICER in terms of 2022 US$ per QALY gained were calculated for both hormone receptor-positive cohort and all patients. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the model robustness. Compared with the physician's choice of chemotherapy, T-Dxd increased costs by $104,168.30, while gaining 0.31 QALYs, resulting in an ICER of $336,026.77 per QALY in all patients. The costs of T-Dxd and the utility of PFS were the crucial factors in determining the ICER. In the hormone receptor-positive cohort, the ICER was lower than that in all patients, with the ICER of $274,905.72 per QALY. The ICER was much higher than the commonly accepted willingness-to-pay threshold ($357,96.83 per QALY). T-Dxd as second- or subsequent-line treatment is not a cost-effective treatment option for HER2-low metastatic breast cancer from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system.