Cost-effectiveness analysis of tislelizumab vs. camrelizumab for the treatment of second-line locally advanced or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Esophageal carcinoma is a type of cancer that occurs in the esophagus. For patients with locally advanced or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma who have either experienced disease progression following first-line standard chemotherapy or are intolerant to it, the prognosis is typically poor. Additionally, these patients often bear a substantial economic burden during the course of their treatment. Tislelizumab is a selective PD-1 inhibitor with efficacy proven in locally advanced or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. The study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of tislelizumab versus camrelizumab as the second-line treatment in locally advanced or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) patients in China. METHODS: From the perspective of China's healthcare system, the partitioned survival model with three health states was established in a 3-week cycle and a lifetime horizon. Anchored matching adjusted indirect comparison was used for survival analyses based on individual patient data from RATIONALE 302 trial and the published ESCORT study due to the lack of head-to-head clinical trials. Only direct medical costs were included. Costs and utility values were derived from local charges, the published literature, and related databases. Sensitivity analyses and a scenario analysis were also performed to verify the robustness of the model results. RESULTS: Compared with camrelizumab monotherapy, tislelizumab monotherapy incurred a lower lifetime cost ($8,346 vs. $8,851) and yielded higher quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (0.87 vs. 0.63), which resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of -$2,051/QALY. Tislelizumab monotherapy is a dominant option over camrelizumab monotherapy in China. The three primary parameters upon which this result was most sensitive were the unit cost of camrelizumab, the unit cost of tislelizumab, and the duration of reactive cutaneous capillary endothelial proliferation (RCCEP). According to the probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA), tislelizumab monotherapy was 100% cost-effective when the WTP was 1-3 times GDP per capita in China($11,207/QALY∼$33,621/QALY). Scenario analysis showed that the result was consistent. CONCLUSION: Tislelizumab monotherapy is a dominant option compared with camrelizumab monotherapy as the second-line treatment for locally advanced or metastatic ESCC in China.

Cost-effectiveness of edaravone dexborneol versus human urinary kallidinogenase for acute ischemic stroke in China.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials have demonstrated the efficacy of edaravone dexborneol in the treatment of acute ischemic stroke. This study aims to determine the cost-effectiveness of edaravone dexborneol compared with human urinary kallidinogenase from China's healthcare system perspective. METHODS: A combination of the decision tree and Markov model was constructed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of edaravone dexborneol versus human urinary kallidinogenase in the treatment of acute ischemic stroke over a lifetime horizon. Efficacy data were derived from pivotal clinical trials of edaravone dexborneol and human urinary kallidinogenase (TASTE trial and RESK trial, respectively) and adjusted using matching-adjusted indirect comparison. Cost and health utility inputs were extracted from published literature and open databases. One-way deterministic sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to examine the robustness of the results. RESULTS: Compared with human urinary kallidinogenase, edaravone dexborneol generated 0.153 incremental quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) with an incremental cost of ¥856, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of ¥5,608 per QALY gained under the willingness-to-pay threshold (one-time gross domestic product per capita). Both one-way deterministic sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated the robustness of the base case results. CONCLUSIONS: Edaravone dexborneol is a cost-effective treatment choice for acute ischemic stroke patients compared with human urinary kallidinogenase in China.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of donafenib versus lenvatinib for first-line treatment of unresectable or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Donafenib and lenvatinib are approved by China National Medical Products Administration and recommended as first-line treatment of Metastatic Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC). The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of donafenib compared with lenvatinib for first-line treatment of advanced HCC in China. METHODS: A partitioned survival model consisting with three health states was developed to simulate lifetime development of advanced HCC from China healthcare payer's perspective. The lifetime costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), life-years (LYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were calculated. The efficacy data were obtained from ZGDH3 and REFLECT trials. The cost and health outcomes were discounted at a rate of 5%. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were carried out to explore the variation of model results. RESULTS: Compared with lenvatinib, donafenib incurred more costs of $1500.86 and had 0.139 QALYs gained, resulting in an ICER of $10,790.18/QALY. The probability of being cost-effective was 84.9% at a willingness-to-pay threshold of gross domestic product per capita in 2020 in China ($31,499.2/QALY). Sensitive and scenario analysis results were in line with base-case analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Donafenib appears to be a cost-effective strategy compared with lenvatinib for the first-line treatment of patients with unresectable or metastatic HCC in China.