Cost-effectiveness analysis of bevacizumab for cerebral radiation necrosis treatment based on real-world utility value in China.

BACKGROUND: Bevacizumab shows superior efficacy in cerebral radiation necrosis (CRN) therapy, but its economic burden remains heavy due to the high drug price. This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab for CRN treatment from the Chinese payers' perspective. METHODS: A decision tree model was developed to compare the costs and health outcomes of bevacizumab and corticosteroids for CRN therapy. Efficacy and safety data were derived from the NCT01621880 trial, which compared the effectiveness and safety of bevacizumab monotherapy with corticosteroids for CRN in nasopharyngeal cancer patients, and demonstrated that bevacizumab invoked a significantly higher response than corticosteroids (65.5% vs. 31.5%, P < 0.001) with no significant differences in adverse events between two groups. The utility value of the "non-recurrence" status was derived from real-world data. Costs and other utility values were collected from an authoritative Chinese network database and published literature. The primary outcomes were total costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The uncertainty of the model was evaluated via one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Bevacizumab treatment added 0.12 (0.48 vs. 0.36) QALYs compared to corticosteroid therapy, along with incremental costs of $ 2010 ($ 4260 vs. $ 2160). The resultant ICER was $ 16,866/QALY, which was lower than the willingness-to-pay threshold of $ 38,223/QALY in China. The price of bevacizumab, body weight, and the utility value of recurrence status were the key influential parameters for ICER. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed that the probability of bevacizumab being cost-effectiveness was 84.9%. CONCLUSION: Compared with corticosteroids, bevacizumab is an economical option for CRN treatment in China.

Is Bevacizumab a Cost-Effective Regimen for Treating Cerebral Radiation Necrosis in the United States?

BACKGROUND: Bevacizumab has been demonstrated to have superior efficacy in the treatment of cerebral radiation necrosis (CRN), but its high cost may exacerbate the disease burden. This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab in comparison to corticosteroids for treating CRN from the US payers' perspective. METHODS: Decision tree models were constructed to simulate the process of bevacizumab and corticosteroids in CRN short-term and long-term therapy. Critical clinical data were derived from the NCT01621880 trial. Costs and utility values were obtained from the US official websites and published literature. The main outcomes were total costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robustness of the models. RESULTS: In the short-term and long-term models, bevacizumab added 0.11 (0.46 vs 0.35) and 0.16 (0.54 vs 0.38) QALYs compared with corticosteroids therapy, with corresponding incremental costs of $12,351 and $23,253, respectively. The resultant ICERs were $112,987/QALY and $150,245/QALY for short-term and long-term treatment, respectively. The one-way sensitivity analysis indicated that utility value of nonrecurrence status, body weight, and bevacizumab price per cycle were the most influential factors for ICER of both models. At the willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000/QALY in the United States, the probabilities of bevacizumab being cost-effective for CRN short and long-term treatment were 63.9% and 49%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with corticosteroids, bevacizumab is an economical alternative for CRN short-term treatment from the US payers' perspective, whereas long-term therapy draws an opposite conclusion.

Dietary consumption trend and its correlation with global cancer burden: A quantitative and comprehensive analysis from 1990 to 2019.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to estimate the effect of dietary consumption on cancer burden and formulate an effective solution. METHODS: Dietary consumption, number of cancer deaths, disability-adjusted life years, and corresponding age-standardized rates were extracted from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. The annual percentage change was used to quantify the temporal trends in cancer burden and dietary consumption. Age, sex, location, and sociodemographic index were stratified to further analyze the discrepancy in cancer burden attributable to dietary intake. RESULTS: Five cancers (breast, colon and rectal, tracheal, bronchus and lung, esophageal, and stomach) were documented to be associated with dietary consumption in the Global Burden of Disease database. The age-standardized death rate and age-standardized disability-adjusted life years rate in 2019 were 7.56 and 1168.77 per 100 000 population, respectively. For most cancers, the age-standardized death rate and age-standardized disability-adjusted life years rate displayed a decreasing tendency, with annual percentage change varying from -3.60 to -0.29 and from -3.64 to -0.03 from 1990 to 2019, respectively. The age-standardized death rate and age-standardized standardized disability-adjusted life years rate were higher in men than in women (9.68 vs 5.79 and 213.16 vs 129.18, respectively). In addition, the diet-related cancer burden in higher sociodemographic index regions exceeded that in lower sociodemographic index regions. CONCLUSION: Dietary consumption has a considerable influence on cancer burden, among which colon and rectal cancer burden account for the largest proportion. Increasing the intake of whole grains, milk, fiber, calcium, vegetables, and fruits and reducing the consumption of processed meat and sodium are instrumental in lowering the disease burden of cancer. The quantitative analysis of dietary consumption would provide a more detailed reference for diet-related decision makers and raise awareness of healthy dietary habits in diet management departments, food production enterprises, and the general public.

The cost-effectiveness of zolbetuximab in CLDN18.2-positive gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma.

Aim: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of zolbetuximab plus capecitabine/oxaliplatin (CAPOX) in CLDN18.2-positive, HER2-negative, mG/GEJ adenocarcinoma from the perspective of Chinese payers.Materials & methods: A partitioned survival model was developed to assess the costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) of zolbetuximab plus CAPOX versus placebo plus CAPOX. Sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of model.Results: Zolbetuximab plus CAPOX gained an additional cost of $91,551 and an extra health benefit of 0.24 QALY over placebo plus CAPOX, producing an ICER of $388,186/QALY, which exceeded the willingness-to-pay threshold of $38,223/QALY. Sensitivity analysis shows that the model was generally robust.Conclusion: Zolbetuximab plus CAPOX would not be a cost-effective first-line treatment regimen in CLDN18.2-positive, HER2-negative, mG/GEJ adenocarcinoma in China.

[Box: see text].