The correlation between the costs and clinical benefits of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in malignant tumors: An evaluation based on ASCO and ESMO frameworks.

Background: Life expectancy for patients with malignant tumors has been significantly improved since the presence of the programmed cell death protein-1/programmed cell death protein ligand-1 (PD-1/PD-L1) inhibitors in 2014, but they impose heavy financial burdens for patients, the healthcare system and the nations. The objective of this study was to determine the survival benefits, toxicities, and monetary of programmed cell death protein-1/programmed cell death protein ligand-1 inhibitors and quantify their values. Methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors for malignant tumors were identified and clinical benefits were quantified by American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework (ASCO-VF) and European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS). The drug price in Micromedex REDBOOK was used to estimate monthly incremental drug costs (IDCs) and the correlation between clinical benefits and incremental drug costs of experimental and control groups in each randomized controlled trial, and the agreement between two frameworks were calculated. Results: Up to December 2022, 52 randomized controlled trials were included in the quantitative synthesis. All the randomized controlled trials were evaluated by American society of clinical oncology value framework, and 26 (50%) met the American society of clinical oncology value framework "clinical meaningful value." 49 of 52 randomized controlled trials were graded by European society for medical oncology magnitude of clinical benefit scale, and 30 (61.2%) randomized controlled trials achieved European Society for Medical Oncology criteria of meaningful value. p-values of Spearman correlation analyses between monthly incremental drug costs and American society of clinical oncology value framework/European society for medical oncology magnitude of clinical benefit scale scores were 0.9695 and 0.3013, respectively. In addition, agreement between two framework thresholds was fair (κ = 0.417, p = 0.00354). Conclusion: This study suggests that there might be no correlation between the cost and clinical benefit of programmed cell death protein-1/programmed cell death protein ligand-1 inhibitors in malignancy, and the same results were observed in subgroups stratified by drug or indication. The results should be a wake-up call for oncologists, pharmaceutical enterprises and policymakers, and meanwhile advocate the refining of American Society of Clinical Oncology and European Society for Medical Oncology frameworks.

First-Line Durvalumab in Addition to Etoposide and Platinum for Extensive-Stage Small Cell Lung Cancer: A U.S.-Based Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The latest published CASPIAN trial demonstrated that adding durvalumab to etoposide and platinum (EP) improved survival dramatically for patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). Considering the high cost of durvalumab, this study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of durvalumab plus EP (DEP) in the first-line setting for treatment-naïve patients with ES-SCLC from the U.S. payer perspective. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We developed a three-state Markov model to simulate the disease course and source consumption of ES-SCLC over a lifetime horizon. Pseudo-individual patient-level data were generated from digitized Kaplan-Meier curves. Direct medical costs, including drug and administration costs, disease management and adverse events treatment fees, best supportive care and terminal care costs were obtained from sources including the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project, and relevant literature. Health state utility values were derived from published literature. Main outcomes considered were total costs, life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). All costs were adjusted for inflation to reflect 2019 U.S. dollars. The willingness-to-pay threshold was set as $150,000/QALY. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to explore the uncertainty of model assumptions. RESULTS: Compared with EP, DEP was projected to increase life expectancy by 0.86 LYs (1.73 vs. 0.87) and 0.44 QALYs (0.93 vs. 0.49). The incremental treatment cost was $95,907, and the corresponding ICER was $216,953/QALY. The result was most sensitive to the variation of durvalumab acquisition cost. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed that the probability of DEP over EP regimen to be cost-effective was 9.4% at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000/QALY. In the case of reducing the price of durvalumab by 30.7%, DEP was more cost-effective than EP. CONCLUSION: From the perspective of the U.S. payer, adding durvalumab to EP is estimated to be not cost-effective compared with EP alone for patients with untreated ES-SCLC. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The information provided by this analysis serves as a reference for decision makers. Lowering the price of durvalumab would be a potential measure to improve the economics of durvalumab plus etoposide and platinum (DEP), and the inclusion of durvalumab in the Medicare pharmacopeia could make DEP more economically available. These results may also guide physicians and patients to choose the most economically feasible treatment.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Hepatic Arterial Infusion of FOLFOX Combined Sorafenib for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma With Portal Vein Invasion.

BACKGROUND: Hepatic arterial infusion (HAI) of oxaliplatin, leucovorin, and fluorouracil (FOLFOX) plus sorafenib has a more desirable effect versus sorafenib for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients with portal vein invasion. However, considering the high cost of hepatic arterial infusion of chemotherapy (HAIC), this study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of HAIC plus sorafenib (SoraHAIC) versus standard care for HCC patients from the Chinese health system perspective. METHODS: A Markov multi-state model was constructed to simulate the disease course and source consumption of SoraHAIC. Costs of primary therapeutic drugs were calculated based on the national bid price, and hepatic artery catheterization fee was collected from the Fujian Provincial Price Bureau. Clinical data, other costs, and utility values were extracted from references. Primary outcomes included life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The robustness of model was verified by uncertainty sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: SoraHAIC gained 1.18 QALYs (1.68 LYs) at a cost of $65,254, while the effectiveness and cost of sorafenib were 0.52 QALYs (0.79 LYs) and $14,280, respectively. The ICER of SoraHAIC vs sorafenib was $77,132/QALY ($57,153/LY). Parameter that most influenced the ICER was utility of PFS state. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) showed that SoraHAIC was not cost-effective in the WTP threshold of 3*Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita of China ($30,492/QALY). But about 38.8% of the simulations were favorable to SoraHAIC at the WTP threshold of 3*GDP per capita of Beijing ($72,000/QALY). When 3*GDP per capita of Fujian ($47,285/QALY) and Gansu Province ($14,595/QALY) were used as WTP threshold, the acceptability of SoraHAIC was 0.3% and 0%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The study results indicated that SoraHAIC was not cost-effective in medium-, and low-income regions of China. In developed areas of China (Beijing), there was a 38.8% probability that the SoraHAIC regimen would be cost-effective.

Economic and health impacts of infectious diseases in China: A protocol for systematic review and meta analysis.

BACKGROUND: A worldwide concern has been raised that novel infectious diseases may outbreak rapidly with a limited response time due to globalization. Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome, influenza A, Avian Influenza Virus, and Corona Virus Disease 2019 are acute respiratory diseases that have been affected by the movements of people, and globalization accelerates these movements. These infectious diseases not only have an overwhelming health impact but also impact the worldwide economy. METHODS: We will conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis in Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, WANFANG Database, and the VIP Database for Chinese Technical Periodicals, Web of Science, PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, EBSCO host, ProQuest, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses A&I, SAGE Journals, ScienceDirect, JSTOR, and Scopus. We will evaluate the risk of bias of included RCTs according to the criteria and technique proposed in the Cochrane Handbook V.5.1.0 and use ROBINS-I to assess risk of bias in nonrandomized studies. We will use GRADE to evaluate the quality of evidence. RESULTS: Results of this review will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal. CONCLUSION: To the best of our knowledge, this study will firstly evaluate both health and economic impact of infectious diseases in china and may provide strategy development ideas for future resistance.

Cost-Utility Analysis of Pembrolizumab Versus Chemotherapy as First-Line Treatment for Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer With Different PD-L1 Expression Levels.

To evaluate the cost-utility of pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy as the first-line setting for metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) from the US health care system perspective, a Markov model was developed to compare the lifetime cost and effectiveness of pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy for untreated metastatic NSCLC, based on the clinical data derived from phase III randomized controlled trial (KEYNOTE-042; ClinicalTrials.gov; NCT02220894). Weibull distribution was fitted to simulate the parametric survival functions. Drug costs were collected from official websites, and utility values were obtained from published literature. Total costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were computed as primary output indicators. The impact of different PD-L1 expression levels on ICER was also evaluated. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the model uncertainty. Compared with chemotherapy, patients treated with pembrolizumab provided an additional 1.13, 1.01, and 0.59 QALYs in patients with PD-L1 expression levels of ≥50%, ≥20%, and ≥1%, with corresponding incremental cost of 53,784, 47,479, and 39,827, respectively. The resultant ICERs of pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy were 47,596, 47,184, and 68,061/QALY, in three expression levels of PD-L1, respectively, all of which did not exceed the WTP threshold of 180,000/QALY. Probability sensitivity analysis outcome supported that pembrolizumab exhibited evident advantage over chemotherapy to be cost-effective. One-way sensitivity analysis found that ICERs were most sensitive to utility value of pembrolizumab in progression survival state. All the adjustment of parameters did not qualitatively change the result. For treatment-naive, metastatic NSCLC patients with PD-L1+, pembrolizumab was estimated to be cost-effective compared with chemotherapy for all PD-L1 expression levels at a WTP threshold of 180,000/QALY in the context of the US health care system.