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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

Toripalimab plus chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: A cost-effectiveness analysis.

Background: The potency and safety of toripalimab combination with chemotherapy (TC) as the first-line therapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have been demonstrated in the CHOICE-01 study. Our research explored whether TC was cost-effective compared to chemotherapy alone from the Chinese payer perspective. Materials and methods: Clinical parameters were obtained from a randomized, multicenter, registrational, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase III trial. Standard fee databases and previously published literature were used to determine costs and utilities. A Markov model with three mutually exclusive health statuses (progression-free survival (PFS), disease progression, and death) was used to predict the disease course. The costs and utilities were discounted at 5% per annum. The main endpoints of the model included cost, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to investigate the uncertainty. Subgroup analyses were performed to verify the cost-effectiveness of TC in patients with squamous and non-squamous cancer. Results: TC combination therapy yielded an incremental 0.54 QALYs with an incremental cost of $11,777, compared to chemotherapy, giving rise to ICERs of $21,811.76/QALY. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed that TC was not favorable at 1 time GDP per capita. With a prespecified willingness-to-pay threshold (WTP) of three times the GDP per capita, combined treatment had a 100% probability of being cost-effective and had substantial cost-effectiveness in advanced NSCLC. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed that TC was more likely to be accepted with a WTP threshold higher than $22,195 in NSCLC. Univariate sensitivity analysis showed that the utility of PFS state, crossover proportions of the chemotherapy arm, cost per cycle of pemetrexed treatment, and discount rate were the dominant influencing factors. Subgroup analyses found that in patients with squamous NSCLC, the ICER was $14,966.09/QALY. In the non-squamous NSCLC, ICER raised to $23,836.27/QALY. ICERs were sensitive to the variance of the PFS state utility. TC was more likely to be accepted when WTP increases exceeded $14,908 in the squamous NSCLC subgroup and $23,409 in the non-squamous NSCLC subgroup. Conclusion: From the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system, TC may be cost-effective in individuals with previously untreated advanced NSCLC at the prespecified WTP threshold compared to chemotherapy, and more significant in individuals with squamous NSCLC, which will provide evidence for clinicians to make the best decisions in general clinical practice.

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

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 adding durvalumab to first-line chemotherapy for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer in China.

OBJECTIVES: Durvalumab plus chemotherapy could significantly improve overall survival compared with chemotherapy alone in the first-line treatment of extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). However, its long-term economic outcomes remain unclear yet. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of adding durvalumab to first-line chemotherapy for extensive-stage SCLC from the perspective of the Chinese health-care system. METHODS: A decision-analytic model with 10-year horizon was developed to estimate the health and economic outcomes of adding durvalumab to first-line treatment for extensive-stage SCLC. The primary outcomes included total costs, life years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Costs and utility values were obtained from the published literature. A scenario analysis for a patient assistance program (PAP) was conducted. Sensitivity analyses were performed to explore the robustness of the model outcomes. RESULTS: Durvalumab plus chemotherapy yielded additional 0.25 QALYs, with incremental costs of 76,354 USD, resulting in an ICER of 302,051 USD/QALY compared with chemotherapy alone, when PAP was available, the ICER was 192,591 USD/QALY. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of model outcomes. CONCLUSION: Adding durvalumab to first-line chemotherapy for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer is unlikely to be cost-effectiveness in China.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Atezolizumab Versus Chemotherapy as First-Line Treatment for Metastatic Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer With Different PD-L1 Expression Status.

BACKGROUND: Atezolizumab could significantly improve clinical outcomes and was associated with less toxicity compared with chemotherapy as the first-line treatment of PD-L1-selected patients with EGFR and ALK wild-type metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, the economic outcomes remain unclear yet in China. This study aimed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab versus chemotherapy as first-line therapy for metastatic NSCLC with different PD-L1 expression status from the Chinese health sector perspective. METHODS: A decision-analytic model was conducted to evaluate the economic outcomes for the first-line treatment of EGFR and ALK wild-type metastatic NSCLC with atezolizumab and chemotherapy in high PD-L1 expression, high or intermediate PD-L1 expression and any PD-L1 expression populations, respectively. The efficacy and safety data were obtained from the IMpower110 trial. Cost and utility values were gathered from the local charges and published literatures. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was estimated. A scenario analysis for a patient assistance program (PAP) was conducted. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to explore the robustness of the model results. RESULTS: Atezolizumab yielded additional 0.91 QALYs, 0.57 QALYs, 0.42 QALYs in comparison with chemotherapy, and the ICERs were $123,778.60/QALY, $142,827.19/QALY, $168,902.66/QALY in the high PD-L1 expression, high or intermediate PD-L1 expression, and any PD-L1 expression populations, respectively. When PAP was available, the ICERs were $52,414.63/QALY, $52,329.73/QALY, $61,189.66/QALY in the three categories of PD-L1 expression status populations, respectively. The ICERs were exceed the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $30,828/QALY (three times of per capita gross domestic product of China in 2019) in China. One-way sensitivity analyses suggested that the cost of atezolizumab played a vital role in the model outcomes, and the probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed atezolizumab was unlikely to be cost-effective at the WTP threshold regardless of PD-L1 expression status and whether the PAP was available or not. CONCLUSIONS: Atezolizumab as first-line treatment for PD-L1-selected metastatic NSCLC patients without EGFR mutations or ALK translocations is unlikely to be cost-effective compared with chemotherapy regardless of PD-L1 expression status in the Chinese context.

First-Line Treatments for Extensive-Stage Small-Cell Lung Cancer With Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors Plus Chemotherapy: A Network Meta-Analysis and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) plus chemotherapy were unlikely to be considered cost-effective compared with chemotherapy as the first-line treatment of patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) in China due to its high costs. However, the cost-effectiveness of the comparison between the regimens of ICIs plus chemotherapy were remained unclear yet. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of ICIs plus chemotherapy as the first-line treatment for ES-SCLC from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. METHODS: A network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted to indirect compare the clinical benefits between the ICIs plus chemotherapy regimens. A decision-analytic model was established to evaluate the cost-effectiveness from the Chinese healthcare system, the clinical efficacy and safety data were obtained from the clinical trials and the results of NMA. Cost and utility values were gathered from the local charges and previously studies. Key outputs of the NMA were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to explore the robustness of the model outcomes. RESULTS: Five clinical trials (IMpower133, CASPIAN, KEYNOTE-604, CA184-156, and EA5161) of 1,255 patients received first-line ICIs plus chemotherapy strategies were analyzed in the NMA. NMA showed that nivolumab plus chemotherapy was ranked higher than other strategies. The cost-effectiveness analysis showed that atezolizumab plus chemotherapy achieved relatively higher health benefits and lower costs. One-way sensitivity analyses revealed that the cost of ICIs had the substantial impact on model outcomes. The probabilistic sensitivity analyses suggested that the probability of atezolizumab plus chemotherapy could be considered cost-effective was more than 50% at the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $31,313/QALY in China. In scenario analyses, when the price of nivolumab reduced 80%, the probability of nivolumab plus chemotherapy being cost-effective was more than 50%. CONCLUSIONS: The NMA and cost-effectiveness revealed that atezolizumab plus chemotherapy is the most favorable first-line treatment for previously untreated ES-SCLC patients compared other ICIs plus chemotherapy regimens in China. The price reduction of nivolumab would make nivolumab plus chemotherapy be the most cost-effective option in future possible context.