Quality-adjusted Life-year In China Research Articles

Cost-effectiveness of additional serplulimab to chemotherapy in metastatic squamous non-small cell lung cancer patients.

To estimate the cost-effectiveness of adding serplulimab to chemotherapy for metastatic squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients in a first-line setting from a Chinese perspective. A three-health state partitioned survival model was constructed to simulate disease development. The clinical data used in the model were derived from the ASTRUM-004 clinical trial. Only direct medical costs were included, and the utilities were derived from published literature. The quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were employed to evaluate health outcomes. Additionally, a sensitivity analysis was performed to verify the robustness of the results. Compared with chemotherapy alone, the addition of serplulimab resulted in an increase of 0.63 QALYs with an incremental cost of $5,372.73, leading to an ICER of $8,528.14 per QALY. This ICER was significantly lower than 3 times China's per capita GDP. The one-way sensitivity analysis suggested that the utility of PFS was the most sensitive factor on ICERs, followed by the price of serplulimab. The combination of serplulimab and chemotherapy has been shown to be a cost-effective initial treatment option for patients with metastatic squamous NSCLC with the commonly accepted willingness-to-pay threshold of 3 times the GDP per capita per QALY in China.

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.

Sotorasib versus Docetaxel for treatment of US and Chinese patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer with KRAS p.G12C-mutated: A cost-effectiveness analysis to inform drug pricing.

The cost-effectiveness of sotorasib and its reasonable price in the United States (US) and China remain unknown. Our objective was to estimate the price at which sotorasib could be economical as second-line treatment for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer patients with Kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene homolog p.G12C-mutation in 2 countries. We conducted an economic evaluation from the perspective of US and Chinese payers. To analyze US patients, we built a partitioned survival model. However, since we lacked Asian-specific overall survival data, we created a state transition model for the Chinese patients. We obtained patients' baseline characteristics and clinical data from CodeBreaK200, while utilities and costs were gathered from public databases and published literature. We calculated costs (US dollar), life years, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. We conducted price simulation to guide pricing strategies. Additionally, we assessed the reliability of our results through sensitivity analyses, scenario analyses, and subgroup analyses. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of sotorasib compared to docetaxel were $1501,852 per quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) in the US and $469,106/QALY in China, respectively, which meant sotorasib was unlikely to be economical at the currently available price of $20,878 (240 × 120 mg) in both countries. Price simulation results revealed that sotorasib would be preferred at a price lower than $1400 at the willingness-to-pay threshold of $37,376 in China and a price lower than $2220 at the willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 in the US. Sensitivity, scenario, and subgroup analyses showed that these conclusions were generally robust, the model was most sensitive to the utilities of progression-free survival and post-progression survival. Sotorasib could potentially be a cost-effective therapy in the US and China following price reductions. Our evidence-based pricing strategy can assist decision-makers and clinicians in making optimal decisions. However, further analysis of budget impact and affordability is needed.

First-Line Tislelizumab for Advanced or Metastatic Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma:A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

ABSTRACT Objective The primary objective of this current study is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of incorporating tislelizumab into the first-line treatment of metastatic or advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) in comparison to placebo with chemotherapy. Method We conducted a partitioned survival model with a time horizon of 10 years from a Chinese perspective. The direct medical costs were collected from the local setting in China. To enhance the credibility and robustness of the findings, sensitivity analyses were also conducted. Results The inclusion of tislelizumab in conjunction with chemotherapy was shown to significantly enhance quality-adjusted life years (QALY) by 0.328 when compared to chemotherapy alone. This improvement comes at an additional cost of $9833.694. The incorporation of tislelizumab into the treatment regimen for advanced ESCC results in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $29980.774/QALY gained, which falls below the WTP threshold of $37304.346/QALY in China. One-way sensitivity analyses showed that no parameters were found to be adjustable within a specific range without altering the overall outcomes of our study. Conclusion Tislelizumab plus chemotherapy as first-line treatment for advanced or metastatic ESCC is may be a cost-effective option compared to chemotherapy alone.

Trastuzumab deruxtecan versus chemotherapy treated in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis based on the DESTINY-Breast02 trial

ABSTRACT Objectives This study aims to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis of trastuzumab deruxtecan versus chemotherapy for HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Methods A three-state partitioned survival model was constructed to simulate the treatment. The analysis yielded information on the costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Sensitivity analyses have been carried out to scrutinize the model’s uncertainties Results The total cost for the trastuzumab deruxtecan group was found to be $228601.57, while the chemotherapy group incurred a total cost of $84901.38. It was found that the trastuzumab deruxtecan group exhibited an incremental gain of 2.95 QALYs in comparison to the chemotherapy group. However, this additional benefit came at an additional cost of $143700.19 for the trastuzumab deruxtecan treatment, calculated in the ICER at $48711.93/QALY, which surpasses the willingness-to-pay threshold of $37304.34/QALY in China. Sensitivity analyses indicated that the results were robust to variations in key parameters and assumptions. Conclusion Trastuzumab deruxtecan was not a cost-effective treatment option for patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer in China. However, the use of trastuzumab deruxtecan may offer a cost-effective treatment alternative provided that its price is diminished.

OP13 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Of Sintilimab Plus Chemotherapy For The First-Line Treatment Of Non-Squamous Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Societal Perspective

IntroductionSintilimab is an IgG4 anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) antibody that has a high-affinity blocking interaction with PD-1 and its ligands. The updated ORIENT-11 study showed that sintilimab plus chemotherapy significantly prolonged progression-free and overall survival, compared with chemotherapy alone, in the first-line treatment of non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In China, it is uncertain whether sintilimab is a cost-effective alternative to standard immunotherapy.MethodsA partitioned survival model with three health states (including progression-free survival, disease progression, and death) was constructed from the Chinese societal perspective using a three-week cycle with a lifetime horizon (16 years). Individual patient data were captured from the updated ORIENT-11 study, and high-risk and clinically severe adverse events were specifically added to the states. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were the primary outcomes. Costs, health productivity losses, and utilities were derived from questionnaires and supplemented by expert opinion and literature review. All costs were expressed in 2021 USD, and costs and QALYs were discounted at an annual rate of five percent. Sensitivity analyses and scenario analyses considering the healthcare system perspective were performed to explore model uncertainty.ResultsPatients receiving sintilimab plus chemotherapy incurred a mean total cost of USD67,727 and gained 2.5 QALYs during the lifetime period, compared with USD40,530 and 1.5 QALYs for patients receiving standard chemotherapy. The corresponding ICER was USD27,665 per QALY in China. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of three times the gross domestic product per capita in China (USD37,663), sintilimab plus chemotherapy was the optimal treatment in 84 percent of replications. Deterministic sensitivity analysis showed that the most significant driving determinant was the discount rate of costs and QALYs. An ICER of USD21,020 per QALY was obtained from the Chinese healthcare system, validating the robustness of the cost-effectiveness analysis.ConclusionsCompared with standard chemotherapy, sintilimab plus chemotherapy is a cost-effective treatment regimen for non-squamous NSCLC in China. Thus, sintilimab may benefit Chinese patients and should be promoted by decision makers.

Economic evaluation of sintilimab versus docetaxel as second-line treatment for patients with advanced or metastatic squamous non-small-cell lung cancer in China: a model-based cost-effectiveness analysis

ABSTRACT Objectives The current study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of sintilimab versus docetaxel as second-line treatment for patients with advanced or metastatic squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in China. Methods A partitioned survival model was established to track 3-week patients’ transition and project the health and economic outputs in 15-year horizon of the two competing options among sintilimab and docetaxel. Clinical data were obtained from the ORIENT-3 trial, and cost and utility values were gathered from the local charges and published studies. Total costs, life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were evaluated. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the model outcomes. Results Base-case results revealed that sintilimab yield marginal cost of $4,700.53 and additional 0.32 QALYs, resulting in an ICER of $14,615.31 per QALY gained, which is lower than the willingness-to-pay threshold of $38,224/QALY in China. One-way sensitivity analyses showed that the cost of best supportive care was the main driver of the ICER, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the model outputs were robust. Conclusions Sintilimab could be considered the cost-effective second-line strategy for patients with advanced or metastatic squamous NSCLC compared with docetaxel in China.

Nivolumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone as first-line treatment for advanced gastric, gastroesophageal junction, and esophageal adenocarcinoma: a cost-effectiveness analysis

BackgroundThe aim of the study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab plus chemotherapy as first-line treatment for patients with advanced gastric, gastroesophageal junction (GEJ), or esophageal adenocarcinoma from the perspective of Chinese and US society.MethodsTo conduct the analysis, a state-transitioned Markov model, which included three mutually exclusive health states (progression-free survival (PFS), progressive disease (PD), and death), was developed. Cycle length was set at 3 weeks and lifetime horizon was set at 10 years. Costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were calculated in the analysis. Willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds in the model were set at $37,653.00/QALY in China and $100,000.00/QALY in the US, respectively. Meanwhile, one-way sensitivity analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to investigate the robustness of the model.ResultsOver a lifetime horizon, the ICERs of nivolumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone were $430,185.04/QALY and $944,089.78/QALY in China and the US, respectively. Cost of nivolumab and utility for the PFS state had the most significant impact on ICERs both in the US and China based on the results of the one-way sensitivity analyses. In the probabilistic sensitivity analyses, the proportions of nivolumab plus chemotherapy being cost-effective compared with chemotherapy alone were 0%.ConclusionsIn conclusion, nivolumab plus chemotherapy is unlikely to be a cost-effective treatment option compared with chemotherapy alone in the first-line setting of advanced gastric, GEJ, or esophageal adenocarcinoma.

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.

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 (100mg), 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 $184.09/100mg, 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 and Value-based Pricing of Trastuzumab Deruxtecan in Metastatic Breast Cancer With Low HER2 Expression

BackgroundRecently, the DESTINY-Breast04 trial revealed that trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) significantly prolonged overall survival in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-low metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Considering the extraexpensive price of the new drug, a cost-effectiveness analysis of T-DXd is necessary to perform in the United States. In addition, because T-DXd has not been marketed in China, the pricing is a very important driver for the cost-effectiveness of T-DXd. The range of drug costs for which T-DXd could be considered cost-effective from a Chinese healthcare system perspective was explored. MethodsWe developed a Markov model to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of T-DXd versus physician's choice of chemotherapy (PCC). The simulation time horizon for this model was the life-time of patients. Transition probabilities were based on data from the DESTINY-Breast04 trial. Health utility data were derived from published studies. Outcome measures were costs (in 2022 US$), life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses assessed the uncertainty of key model parameters and their joint impact on the base-case results. ResultsThe model predicted that T-DXd provided an improvement of 0.84 LYs and 0.58 QALYs compared to PCC, with an ICER of $259,452.05 per QALY in the United States and $87,646.40 per QALY in China. The one-way sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the price of T-DXd had the greatest impact on ICERs. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis predicted that the probabilities of T-DXd being cost-effective compared to PCC were 7.2% and 0% at a willingness-to-pay of $150,000 per QALY in the United States and $36,475 per QALY (3 times the per capita gross domestic product) in China, respectively. Subgroup analyses showed that T-DXd was more effective for patients without visceral disease at baseline, followed by patients with Asian ethnic, patients without prior CDK 4/6 inhibitors therapy, and patients with HER2-1+ (IHC detection) status. ConclusionT-DXd was unlikely to offer a reasonable value for the money spent compared to PCC for patients with HER2-low MBC in the United States. A value-based price for T-DXd was reduced by 51% in the United States and less than $1950 per cycle in China.

Adjuvant zoledronic acid therapy for postmenopausal women with early breast cancer in China: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

Combination therapy of zoledronic acid (ZOL) plus aromatase inhibitor (AI) was found to reduce bone metastasis risk and improve overall survival for treatment-naïve postmenopausal women (PMW) with hormone receptor-positive (HR+) early breast cancer (EBC), when compared with AI alone. The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of adding ZOL to AI in treating PMW with HR+ EBC in China. A 5-state Markov model was constructed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of adding ZOL to AI for PMW-EBC (HR+) over a lifetime horizon from the perspective of Chinese healthcare provider. Data used were obtained from previous reports and public data. The primary outcomes of this study were direct medical cost, life years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to examine the robustness of the presented model. Over a lifetime horizon, adding ZOL to AI was projected to yield a gain of 1.286 LYs and 1.099 QALYs compared with AI monotherapy, which yielded ICER $11 140.75 per QALY with an incremental cost of $12 247.36. The one-way sensitivity analysis indicated that the cost of ZOL was the most influential factor in our study. The probability that adding ZOL to AI was cost-effective at a threshold of $30 425 per QALY in China was 91.1%. ZOL is likely to be cost-effective in reducing bone metastasis risk and improving overall survival for PMW-EBC (HR+) in China.

Cost-effectiveness of palbociclib plus fulvestrant as second-line therapy of women with HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer - A Chinese healthcare system perspective.

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of palbociclib plus fulvestrant in the second-line treatment of women with hormone receptor-positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative advanced breast cancer based on the latest published follow-up data from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. In view of the PALOMA-3 trial, a Markov model was built for this purpose, which included three health states: progression-free survival (PFS), progressed disease (PD), and death. The cost and health utilities were mainly derived from the published literature. One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were carried out to verify the robustness of the model. In the base case analysis, compared with the placebo plus fulvestrant arm, the palbociclib plus fulvestrant arm yielded an additional 0.65 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) (2.56 QALYs vs. 1.90 QALYs) with an incremental cost of $36,139.94 ($55,482.06 vs. $19,342.12), resulting an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $55,224.90/QALY, which was deeply higher than a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $34,138.28 per QALY in China. The results of one-way sensitivity analysis indicated that the utility of PFS, cost of palbociclib, and cost of neutropenia had a great influence on the ICER. Palbociclib plus fulvestrant is unlikely to be cost-effective in comparison with placebo plus fulvestrant as second-line therapy of women with HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer.

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

ABSTRACT 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.

Cost-effectiveness of sintilimab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone as first-line treatment of locally advanced or metastatic oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma.

Sintilimab plus chemotherapy significantly prolongs overall survival (OS) for patients with advanced or metastatic oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC). However, the cost-effectiveness of this high-priced therapy is currently unknown. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of sintilimab plus chemotherapy vs chemotherapy alone as fist-line therapy in patients with advanced or metastatic OSCC from the perspective of Chinese healthcare system. A partitioned survival model consisting of 3 discrete health states was constructed to assess the cost and effectiveness of sintilimab plus chemotherapy vs chemotherapy as first-line treatment of OSCC. Key clinical data in the model came from the ORIENT-15 trial. Costs and utilities were collected from published sources. Life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), incremental net health benefits (INHB), and incremental net monetary benefits (INMB) were calculated for the two treatment strategies. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to account for uncertainty and model stability. Additional subgroup and scenario analyses were performed. Treatment with sintilimab plus chemotherapy provided an additional 0.37 QALYs and an incremental cost of $8,046.58 compared with chemotherapy, which resulted in an ICER of $21,782.24 per QALY gained. One-way sensitivity analysis revealed that the model was most sensitive to utility of progression-free survival (PFS) and the cost of sintilimab. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that the probability of sintilimab plus chemotherapy being cost-effective was 0.01%, 76.80% and 98.60% at the threshold of 1, 2 or 3 times GDP per capita per QALY, respectively. Subgroup analysis found that all subgroups other than PD-L1 expression combined positive scores < 1 subgroup favored sintilimab plus chemotherapy treatment due to its association with positive INHBs by varying the hazard ratios for OS and PFS. The scenario analyses showed altering the time horizon of the model or fitting survival curves separately did not reverse results of the model. Sintilimab plus chemotherapy was associated with improved QALYs and an additional cost but was estimated to be cost-effective compared with chemotherapy alone as a first-line treatment for patients with advanced or metastatic OSCC at the commonly adopted willingness-to-pay threshold of 3 times GDP per capita per QALY in China.

Cost-effectiveness of ceftazidime/avibactam plus metronidazole versus meropenem as first-line empiric therapy for the treatment of complicated intra-abdominal infections: A study based on the in-vitro surveillance data in China

BackgroundWith the increase in drug resistance rates of pathogens isolated from complicated intra-abdominal infections (cIAIs), ceftazidime/avibactam (CAZ-AVI) is increasingly used clinically. However, given the high drug cost and the fact that not yet covered by the health insurance payment, this study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of CAZ-AVI plus metronidazole versus meropenem as a first-line empiric treatment for cIAIs from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. MethodsA decision analytic model with a one-year time horizon was constructed to assess the cost-effectiveness based on the entire disease course. Model inputs were mainly obtained from clinical studies, published literature, and publicly available databases. Primary outcomes were cost, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), life years (Lys), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were also performed. ResultsIn the base cases, compared to meropenem, CAZ-AVI plus metronidazole had a shorter mean hospital length of stay (–0.77 days per patient) and longer life expectancy (+0.05 LYs and +0.06 QALYs). CAZ-AVI plus metronidazole had an ICER of $25517/QALY, which is well below the threshold of $31509 per QALY in China. The one-way sensitivity analysis showed that the change of the treatment duration of CAZ-AVI plus metronidazole was the parameter that most influenced the results of the ICER. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, CAZ-AVI plus metronidazole was the optimal strategy in 75% of simulations at $31510/QALY threshold. ConclusionsCAZ-AVI plus metronidazole could be considered as a cost-effective option for the empiric treatment of patients with cIAIs in China, and this benefit will be more evident when the price of CAZ-AVI decreases by 23.8%.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of ultra-hypofractionated radiotherapy and conventionally fractionated radiotherapy for intermediate- to high-risk localized prostate cancer.

Radiotherapy is an effective curative treatment option for intermediate- to high-risk localized prostate cancer. According to the HYPO-RT-PC trial (ISRCTN45905321), there was no significant difference in 5 years of follow-up in terms of failure-free survival, overall survival, urinary toxicity, and bowel toxicity, while erectile function decreased between ultra-hypofractionated radiotherapy with conventionally fractionated radiotherapy, except that the incidence of urinary toxicity in ultra-hypofractionated radiotherapy was higher at 1 year of follow-up. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of ultra-hypofractionated radiotherapy and conventionally fractionated radiotherapy for intermediate- to high-risk localized prostate cancer from the Chinese payer's perspective. We developed a Markov model with a 15-year time horizon to compare the cost and effectiveness of ultra-hypofractionated radiotherapy with those of conventionally fractionated radiotherapy for localized intermediate- to high-risk prostate cancer. The outcomes were measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), and willingness-to-pay (WTP). Univariable and probability sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the robustness of the Markov model. Based on the Markov model, conventionally fractionated radiotherapy yielded 2.32 QALYs compared with 2.14 QALYs in ultra-hypofractionated radiotherapy in China. The cost of ultra-hypofractionated radiotherapy was found to be decreased by about 14% folds ($4,251.04) in comparison with that of conventionally fractionated radiotherapy. The ICER of conventionally fractionated radiotherapy versus that of ultra-hypofractionated radiotherapy was $23,616.89 per QALY in China. The failure-free survival with grade 2 or worse urinary toxicity and the discount rate per annum were the most sensitive parameters utilized in ultra-hypofractionated radiotherapy. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve showed that conventionally fractionated radiotherapy had 57.7% probability of being cost-effective under the Chinese WTP threshold. From the perspective of Chinese payers, ultra-hypofractionated radiotherapy was not a cost-effective strategy compared with conventionally fractionated radiotherapy for patients with localized intermediate- to high-risk prostate cancer. Nevertheless, reduction of the grade 2 or worse urinary toxicity of ultra-hypofractionated radiotherapy could alter the results.

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

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. 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. 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%. 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.

Neratinib plus capecitabine versus lapatinib plus capecitabine as the third-line therapy for HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer in China: a cost-effectiveness analysis

ObjectiveNeratinib plus capecitabine (Ner+Cap) were proved to be clinically beneficial as a third-line treatment for women with human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2) positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC). The objective...

Cost-effectiveness of osimertinib versus standard EGFR-TKI as first-line treatment for EGFR-mutated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer in China

Objective: The purpose of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of osimertinib for the first-line treatment of patients with EGFR-mutated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Methods: A Markov model was developed to simulate the outcomes and direct medical costs of osimertinib or standard EGFR-TKI in the first-line treatment of patients with previously untreated EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC. Individual patient survival data were extracted from the FLAURA randomized clinical trial. Clinical costs and utilities’ input estimates were collected from the local hospital and available literature reports. The quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), incremental net monetary benefit (INMB), and incremental net health benefit (INHB) were calculated for the two treatment strategies over a 10-year lifetime horizon. In addition, one-way sensitivity analysis, probabilistic sensitivity analysis, and subgroup analysis were performed to test the robustness of the model. Results: On baseline analysis, osimertinib achieved additional 0.39 QALYs and $15,443.78 incremental costs compared with standard EGFR-TKI (gefitinib or erlotinib), which resulted in the ICER of $39,369.53/QALY. The INMB was -$755.11, and the INHB was -0.02 QALYs at a WTP threshold of $37,663.26/QALY in China. The one-way sensitivity analysis showed that the utility of PFS had the strongest association with the ICER. Osimertinib had approximately 46.4% probability of being cost-effective at the WTP threshold of $37,663.26/QALY. Conclusion: First-line osimertinib therapy might not be cost-effective in China for patients with EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC compared with standard EGFR-TKI based on its current marketed price. A significantly more favorable cost-effectiveness could be achieved when the price of osimertinib was reduced by 5%.