Toripalimab plus chemotherapy in American patients with recurrent or metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma: A cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Toripalimab, combined with gemcitabine and cisplatin, has been approved as the first-line treatment for recurrent or metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma (RM-NPC), representing a significant milestone as the first FDA-approved innovative therapy for this condition. Despite this achievement, there's a lack of data on the cost-effectiveness of toripalimab for RM-NPC patients in the American context. METHODS: To assess the cost-effectiveness of toripalimab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone, a 3-state partitioned survival model was constructed. The study involved participants with characteristics matching those in the JUPITER-02 trial. Cost and utility inputs were collected from literature. Main outcomes measured were quality-adjusted life year (QALY), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses, subgroup analyses, and scenario analyses were conducted to verify the robustness of results. RESULTS: The study found that the toripalimab regimen resulted in 4.390 QALYs at a cost of $361,813, while the chemotherapy-only regimen yielded 1.685 QALYs at a cost of $161,632. This translates to an ICER of $74,004/QALY, below the willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000/QALY. Sensitivity analyses indicated that utility values, discount rate, and the price of toripalimab significantly impact INMB. With an 87.10% probability of being cost-effective at a $150,000/QALY threshold, the probabilistic sensitivity analysis supports toripalimab plus chemotherapy as a viable option. Scenario analysis showed that toripalimab remains cost-effective unless its price increases by 125%. Additionally, a simulated 15-year study period increases the ICER to $88,026/QALY. Subgroup analysis revealed ICERs of $76,538/QALY for PD-L1 positive and $70,158/QALY for PD-L1 negative groups. CONCLUSIONS: Toripalimab in combination with chemotherapy is likely to be a cost-effective alternative to standard chemotherapy for American patients with RM-NPC. This evidence can guide clinical and reimbursement decision-making in treating RM-NPC patients.

Real-world cost- effectiveness analysis: Tumor Treating Fields for newly diagnosed glioblastoma in China.

BACKGROUND: Glioblastoma (GBM) stands as the most aggressive and prevalent primary brain malignancy. Tumor Treating Fields (TTFields), an innovative therapy complementing chemotherapy for GBM treatment, which can significantly enhance overall survival, disease progression-free survival, and patient's quality of life. However, there is a dearth of health economics evaluation on TTFields therapy both domestically and internationally. OBJECTIVE: The study aims to assess the cost-effectiveness of TTFields + temozolomide (TMZ) in comparison to TMZ alone for newly diagnosed GBM patients. The intent is to provide robust economic evidence to serve as a foundation for policymaking and decision-making processes in GBM treatment. METHODS: We estimated outcomes for newly diagnosed GBM patients over a lifetime horizon using a partitioned survival model with three states: Progression-Free Survival, Progression Disease, and Death. The survival model was derived from a real-world study in China, with long-term survival data drawn from GBM epidemiology literature. Adverse event rates were sourced from the EF-14 trial data. Cost data, validated by expert consultation, was obtained from public literature and databases. Utility values were extracted from published literature. Using Microsoft Excel, we calculated expected costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) over 15 years from a health system perspective. The willingness-to-pay threshold was set at three times the Chinese per capita Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 2022, amounting to CN¥242,928 (US$37,655) /QALY. A 5% discount rate was applied to costs and utilities. Results underwent analysis through single factor and probability sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: TTFields + TMZ demonstrated a mean increase in cost by CN¥389,326 (US$57,859) and an increase of 2.46 QALYs compared to TMZ alone. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was CN¥157,979 (US$23,474) per QALY gained. The model exhibited heightened sensitivity to changes in the discount rate. Probability sensitivity analysis indicates that, under the existing threshold, the probability of TTFields + TMZ being economical is 95.60%. CONCLUSIONS: This cost-effectiveness analysis affirms that incorporating TTFields into TMZ treatment proves to be cost-effective, given a threshold three times the Chinese per capita GDP.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Sintilimab Plus Chemotherapy in Advanced Non-Squamous Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Societal Perspective.

INTRODUCTION: The updated ORIENT-11 study demonstrated that sintilimab, when combined with chemotherapy, had promising survival advantage compared to standard chemotherapy alone in the first-line treatment for previously untreated, locally advanced or metastatic non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (nsNSCLC). This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of sintilimab plus chemotherapy for advanced nsNSCLC from a Chinese societal perspective. METHODS: A partitioned survival model with a embedded decision tree was developed to assess the economic value of sintilimab plus chemotherapy over a lifetime horizon. Clinical data was captured from the updated ORIENT-11 study, while costs, health productivity losses, and utility values were collected from a nationwide cross-sectional survey in tertiary hospitals across multiple provinces in China. The primary outcomes were measured using the metrics of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER). Costs and health outcomes were discounted at an annual rate of 5% per annum. Sensitivity analyses, including one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses, subgroup analyses, and scenario analyses, were performed. RESULTS: Compared to standard chemotherapy, treatment with sintilimab plus chemotherapy incurred a mean total cost of $23,979 and gained 0.98 QALYs over the lifetime horizon, resulting in an ICER of $24,568 per QALY gained. The use of sintilimab accumulated direct non-medical costs of $9262 and indirect costs of $6780 over 16 years. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed an 84.2% probability of sintilimab plus chemotherapy being cost-effective at a threshold of three times China's per capita gross domestic product in 2022 ($38,201). The model was most sensitive to the discount rate of QALYs and costs, as well as the costs of pemetrexed, sintilimab, and subsequent therapy in progressive disease state. Subgroup analyses indicated favorable incremental net monetary benefits in all subgroups. CONCLUSION: Sintilimab plus chemotherapy is a cost-effective first-line treatment therapy for advanced nsNSCLC in China when compared to standard chemotherapy. These findings, along with the improved progression-free survival and overall survival (OS) observed in ORIENT-11, support the use of this regimen in eligible candidates for advanced nsNSCLC.

Cost-Effectiveness of Linaclotide Compared to Osmotic Laxatives in the Treatment of Irritable Bowel Syndrome with Constipation in China.

INTRODUCTION: Linaclotide, a selective agonist of guanylate cyclase C, was highly recommended for the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome with constipation (IBS-C). However, the cost-effectiveness of linaclotide in Chinese is not known, and this study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of linaclotide for patients with IBS-C. METHODS: An economic evaluation was conducted with a Markov model from a societal perspective. The Markov model was structured to simulate the discontinuation and continuation of medication in IBS-C patients in clinical practice, as well as the revisit and non-visit of non-responding patients. The cycle of the model was 4 weeks, and the time horizon was 1 year. The efficacy data in the model was from the risk ratios obtained by the meta-analysis and the calculation of the response rate of the three medications. The utility, discontinuation rate of the medication, and revisit rate data were from published literature, while the cost data were obtained from experts' opinions and published literature. A series of sensitivity analyses was performed on parameters potentially having impact on the model outputs. RESULTS: The QALYs (quality-adjusted life years) gained for 1-year treatment with linaclotide, polyethylene glycol, and lactulose were 0.821, 0.795, and 0.781, respectively. The corresponding total costs were CNY 7,721 (USD 1,120), CNY 8,797 (USD 1,276) and CNY 9,481 (USD 1,375). In both comparisons, linaclotide was dominant. Compared with polyethylene glycol and lactulose, the likelihood of linaclotide being cost-effective was 100% for both, using 1 times per capita GDP per QALY as willingness-to-pay threshold. CONCLUSIONS: IBS-C seriously affects the quality of life of patients with IBS-C, and linaclotide can improve symptoms and quality of life at less cost.

Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Dienogest Compared With Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone Agonist After Conservative Surgery for Endometriosis in China.

PURPOSE: Although the clinical effect of dienogest for endometriosis after conservative surgery has been proven, the cost-effectiveness of this new pharmacotherapy remains to be determined. We aimed to assess the health economic implications of dienogest versus a gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRH-a; goserelin in the Chinese setting. METHODS: A decision tree model was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of dienogest compared with a GnRH-a (goserelin) after conservative surgery for endometriosis during a 2-year time horizon from the perspective of a health care system in China. The cost of drugs, use of outpatient care facilities, administration of medications, routine laboratory work and imaging studies, and treatment of drug-related adverse events were considered. We obtained clinical efficacy data from the peer-reviewed literature. Base case findings were further tested with 1-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. FINDINGS: The model projects that treatment with dienogest would result in a modest incremental 0.02 quality-adjusted life-year gains compared with a GnRH-a (goserelin) (1.48 vs 1.46) at a cost saving of ¥7274 (¥22,809 vs ¥30,164). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis found that dienogest has a 100% probability of % being considered cost-effective compared with a GnRH-a (goserelin) at the willingness-to-pay threshold of 3 times the gross domestic product per capita (¥64,644 × 3) of China in 2018 (¥1 = US$0.1454 and €0.1248). IMPLICATIONS: Dienogest is more effective and cost-saving compared with a GnRH-a (goserelin) in the treatment of patients with endometriosis after conservative surgery in China.