Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Five Systemic Treatments for Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma in China: An Economic Evaluation Based on Network Meta-Analysis.

Background and Objective: Unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC) is the main histological subtype of liver cancer and causes a great disease burden in China. We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of five first-line systemic treatments newly approved in the Chinese market for the treatment of uHCC, namely, sorafenib, lenvatinib, donafenib, sintilimab plus bevacizumab (D + A), and atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (T + A) from the perspective of China's healthcare system, to provide a basis for decision-making. Methods: We constructed a network meta-analysis of 4 clinical trials and used fractional polynomial models to indirectly compare the effectiveness of treatments. The partitioned survival model was used for cost-effectiveness analysis. Primary model outcomes included the costs in US dollars and health outcomes in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) under a willingness-to-pay threshold of $33,521 (3 times the per capita gross domestic product in China) per QALY. We performed deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses to investigate the robustness. To test the effect of active treatment duration on the conclusions, we performed a scenario analysis. Results: Compared with sorafenib, lenvatinib, donafenib, D + A, and T + A regimens, it yielded an increase of 0.25, 0.30, 0.95, and 1.46 life-years, respectively. Correspondingly, these four therapies yielded an additional 0.16, 0.19, 0.51, and 0.86 QALYs and all four ICERs, $40,667.92/QALY gained, $27,630.63/QALY gained, $51,877.36/QALY gained, and $130,508.44/QALY gained, were higher than $33,521 except for donafenib. T + A was the most effective treatment and donafenib was the most economical option. Sensitivity and scenario analysis results showed that the base-case analysis was highly reliable. Conclusion: Although combination therapy could greatly improve patients with uHCC survival benefits, under the current WTP, donafenib is still the most economical option.

Economic Evaluation of Nemonoxacin, Moxifloxacin and Levofloxacin in the Treatment of Early Community-Acquired Pneumonia with Possible Pulmonary Tuberculosis.

The Chinese community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) Diagnosis and Treatment Guideline 2020 recommends quinolone antibiotics as the initial empirical treatment options for CAP. However, patients with pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB) are often misdiagnosed with CAP because of the similarity of symptoms. Moxifloxacin and levofloxacin have inhibitory effects on mycobacterium tuberculosis as compared with nemonoxacin, resulting in delayed diagnosis of PTB. Hence, the aim of this study is to compare the cost-effectiveness of nemonoxacin, moxifloxacin and levofloxacin in the treatment of CAP and to determine the value of these treatments in the differential diagnosis of PTB. Primary efficacy data were collected from phase II-III randomized, double-blind, multi-center clinical trials comparing nemonoxacin to moxifloxacin (CTR20130195) and nemonoxacin to levofloxacin (CTR20140439) for the treatment of Chinese CAP patients. A decision tree was constructed to compare the cost-utility among three groups under the perspective of healthcare system. The threshold for willingness to pay (WTP) is 1-3 times GDP per capita ($11,174-33,521). Scenarios including efficacy and cost for CAP patients with a total of 6% undifferentiated PTB. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were performed to test the robustness of basic analysis. The costs of nemonoxacin, moxifloxacin, and levofloxacin were $903.72, $1053.59, and $1212.06 and the outcomes were 188.7, 188.8, and 188.5 quality-adjusted life days (QALD), respectively. Nemonoxacin and moxifloxacin were dominant compared with levofloxacin, and the ICER of moxifloxacin compared with nemonoxacin was $551,643, which was much greater than WTP; therefore, nemonoxacin was the most cost-effective option. Regarding patients with PTB who were misdiagnosed with CAP, taking nemonoxacin could save $290.76 and $205.51 when compared with moxifloxacin and levofloxacin and resulted in a gain of 2.83 QALDs. Our findings demonstrate that nemonoxacin is the more economical compared with moxifloxacin and levofloxacin, and non-fluoroquinolone antibiotics are cost-saving and utility-increasing compared to fluoroquinolones in the differential diagnosis of PTB, which can help healthcare system in making optimal policies and help clinicians in the medication of patients.