Cost-effectiveness analysis of tislelizumab plus chemotherapy as the first-line treatment for advanced or metastatic oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma in China.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of tislelizumab plus chemotherapy compared to chemotherapy alone as a first-line treatment for advanced or metastatic oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC). METHODS: A partitioned survival model was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of tislelizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in patients with advanced or metastatic OSCC over a 10-year lifetime horizon from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Costs and utilities were derived from the drug procurement platform and published literature. The model outcomes comprised of costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to address uncertainty and ensure the robustness of the model. RESULTS: Tislelizumab plus chemotherapy yielded an additional 0.337 QALYs and incremental costs of $7,117.007 compared with placebo plus chemotherapy, generating an ICER of $21,116.75 per QALY, which was between 1 time ($12,674.89/QALY) and 3 times GDP ($38,024.67/QALY) per capita. In one-way sensitivity analysis, the ICER is most affected by the cost of oxaliplatin, paclitaxel and tislelizumab. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, when the willingness-to-pay threshold was set as 1 or 3 times GDP per capita, the probability of tislelizumab plus chemotherapy being cost-effective was 1% and 100%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Tislelizumab plus chemotherapy was probably cost-effective compared with chemotherapy alone as the first-line treatment for advanced or metastatic OSCC in China.

Cost-effectiveness of PARP inhibitors in malignancies: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor (PARPi) have become a mainstay for the treatment of BRCA-mutant malignancies. PARPis are likely to be more effective but also bring an increase in costs. Thus, we aimed at evaluating the cost effectiveness of PARPis in the treatment of malignancies. METHODS: Studies of cost effectiveness of PARPis were searched from PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library. Key information was extracted from the identified studies and reviewed. Quality of the included studies was evaluated using Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument. Modeling techniques, measurement of parameters and uncertainty analysis were analyzed across studies. Interventions and cost-effectiveness results were reported stratified by patient population. RESULTS: Among the 25 studies identified, we included 17 on ovarian cancer, 2 on breast cancer, 3 on pancreatic cancer, and 3 on prostate cancer that involved olaparib, niraparib, rucaparib, and talazoparib. All studies had a QHES score of above 75. In the maintenance therapy of ovarian cancer, additional administration of olaparib was cost-effective for newly diagnosed patients after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy but was not cost-effective for platinum-sensitive recurrent patients in majority studies. However, the economic value of other PARPis in ovarian cancer as well as all PARPis in other tumors remained controversial. Cost-effectiveness of PARPi was primarily impacted by the costs of PARPi, survival time, health utility and discount rate. Moreover, genetic testing improved the cost-effectiveness of PARPi treatment. CONCLUSIONS: PARPi is potentially cost-effective for patients with ovarian, pancreatic, or prostate cancer. Genetic testing can improve the cost-effectiveness of PARPi.