Sotorasib versus Docetaxel for treatment of US and Chinese patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer with KRAS p.G12C-mutated: A cost-effectiveness analysis to inform drug pricing.

BACKGROUND: The cost-effectiveness of sotorasib and its reasonable price in the United States (US) and China remain unknown. Our objective was to estimate the price at which sotorasib could be economical as second-line treatment for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer patients with Kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene homolog p.G12C-mutation in 2 countries. METHODS: We conducted an economic evaluation from the perspective of US and Chinese payers. To analyze US patients, we built a partitioned survival model. However, since we lacked Asian-specific overall survival data, we created a state transition model for the Chinese patients. We obtained patients' baseline characteristics and clinical data from CodeBreaK200, while utilities and costs were gathered from public databases and published literature. We calculated costs (US dollar), life years, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. We conducted price simulation to guide pricing strategies. Additionally, we assessed the reliability of our results through sensitivity analyses, scenario analyses, and subgroup analyses. RESULTS: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of sotorasib compared to docetaxel were $1501,852 per quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) in the US and $469,106/QALY in China, respectively, which meant sotorasib was unlikely to be economical at the currently available price of $20,878 (240 × 120 mg) in both countries. Price simulation results revealed that sotorasib would be preferred at a price lower than $1400 at the willingness-to-pay threshold of $37,376 in China and a price lower than $2220 at the willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 in the US. Sensitivity, scenario, and subgroup analyses showed that these conclusions were generally robust, the model was most sensitive to the utilities of progression-free survival and post-progression survival. CONCLUSIONS: Sotorasib could potentially be a cost-effective therapy in the US and China following price reductions. Our evidence-based pricing strategy can assist decision-makers and clinicians in making optimal decisions. However, further analysis of budget impact and affordability is needed.

Estimating the cost-effectiveness threshold of advanced non-small cell lung cancer in China using mean opportunity cost and contingent valuation method.

OBJECTIVES: Monetizing health has sparked controversy and has implications for pricing strategies of emerging health technologies. Medical insurance payers typically set up thresholds for quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gains based on health productivity and budget affordability, but they rarely consider patient willingness-to-pay (WTP). Our study aims to compare Chinese payer threshold and patient WTP toward QALY gain of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and to inform a potential inclusion of patient WTP under more complex decision-making scenarios. METHODS: A regression model was constructed with cost as the independent variable and QALY as the dependent variable, where the regression coefficients reflect mean opportunity cost, and by transforming these coefficients, the payer threshold can be obtained. Patient WTP was elicited through a contingent valuation method survey. The robustness of the findings was examined through sensitivity analyses of model parameters and patient heterogeneity. RESULTS: The payer mean threshold in the base-case was estimated at 150,962 yuan (1.86 times per capita GDP, 95% CI 144,041-159,204). The two scenarios analysis generated by different utility inputs yielded thresholds of 112,324 yuan (1.39 times per capita GDP) and 111,824 yuan (1.38 times per capita GDP), respectively. The survey included 85 patients, with a mean WTP of 148,443 yuan (1.83 times per capita GDP, 95% CI 120,994-175,893) and median value was 106,667 yuan (1.32 times the GDP per capita). Due to the substantial degree of dispersion, the median was more representative. The payer threshold was found to have a high probability (98.5%) of falling within the range of 1-2 times per capita GDP, while the robustness of patient WTP was relatively weak. CONCLUSIONS: In China, a country with a copayment system, payer threshold was higher than patient WTP, indicating that medical insurance holds significant decision-making authority, thus temporarily negating the need to consider patient WTP.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of atezolizumab in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer ineligible for treatment with a platinum-containing regimen: a United Kingdom health care perspective.

Background: Cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab, as a treatment for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients who cannot receive a platinum-containing regimen,was still unknown. Our objective was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab vs. chemotherapy in this indication from the perspective of UK healthcare system. Methods: From the global, randomised, open-label, phase III IPSOS trial, clinical inputs and patient characteristics were obtained. A partitioned survival model with three health states was built: Progression-free survival, progressed disease and death. A lifetime time horizon was applied, with an annual discount rate of 3.5%. Additionally, the willingness-to-pay threshold of £50,000/QALY was utilized. Primary outcomes were quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Sensitivity, scenario, and subgroup analyses were used to assess the reliability of base-case results. Price simulations were carried out in order to provide information for the pricing strategy at specific willingness-to-pay threshold. Results: In the base-case analysis, atezolizumab resulted in a gain of 0.28 QALYs and an ICER of £94,873/QALY compared to chemotherapy, demonstrating no cost-effectiveness. Price simulation results revealed that atezolizumab would be preferred at a price lower than £2,215 (a reduction of 41.8%) at the willingness-to-pay threshold of £50,000. Sensitivity, scenario and subgroup analyses revealed these conclusions were generally robust, the model was most sensitive to the price of atezolizumab and subsequent medication. Furthermore, atezolizumab was found to be more cost-effective for patients displaying a positive PD-L1 expression, with an ICER of £72,098/QALY as compared to chemotherapy. Conclusion: Atezolizumab is not cost-effective for patients with advanced NSCLC ineligible for platinum-containing regimen, potential price reduction is necessary.

Cost-effectiveness and potential budget impact of non-pharmacological interventions for early management in prehypertensive people: an economic evaluation for China.

BACKGROUND: Non-pharmacological interventions (NPIs) could be considered in the early management of prehypertensive population. This study aimed to evaluate the potential cost-effectiveness of NPIs and the budget impact of implementing NPIs on prehypertensive population in China and provide evidence of chronic disease management innovation for decision-makers. METHODS: Five NPIs including usual care, lifestyle, strengthen exercise, relaxation, and diet therapy were selected based on the practice of hypertension management in China. A nine-state Markov model was constructed to evaluate the lifetime costs and health outcomes of five NPIs and a non-intervention group from the perspective of Chinese healthcare system. The effectiveness of NPIs was obtained from a published study. Parameters including transition probabilities, costs and utilities were extracted or calculated from published literature and open-access databases. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the uncertainty of all parameters. The impact of duration of intervention was considered in scenario analyses. A budget impact analysis (BIA) was conducted to evaluate the total cost and the medical cost saving of a hypothetical nationwide implementation of potential cost-effective NPI in prehypertensive people. Management strategies including focusing on patients with specific ages or different CVE risk levels, and different duration of implementation were taken into consideration. RESULTS: Strengthen exercise was the most cost-effective intervention with a probability of 78.1% under the given WTP threshold. Our results were sensitive to the cost of interventions, and the utility of prehypertension and hypertension. The duration of implementation had limited impact on the results. BIA results showed that the program cost was hefty and far more than the medical cost saving with the course of simulation time. Applying management strategies which focused on individual characteristics could largely reduce the program cost despite it remained higher than medical cost saving. CONCLUSIONS: Strengthen exercise was a potential NPI that can be considered in priority for early management in prehypertensive population. Although early management can acquire medical cost saving, the related program cost can be quite hefty. Precise strategies which may help reduce the cost of early management should be taken into consideration in program design.

Economic evaluation of five first-line PD-(L)1 inhibitors for treating non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer in China: A cost-effectiveness analysis based on network meta-analysis.

Background and objective: Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is one of the most malignant cancer types that causes substantial economic burden in China. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of five first-line anti-PD-(L)1 treatments, including sintilimab, camrelizumab, atezolizumab, pembrolizumab and sugemalimab with each combined with chemotherapy, for treating advanced non-squamous NSCLC (nsq-NSCLC) from Chinese healthcare system perspective. Methods: Clinical data were obtained from the following clinical trials, namely, ORIENT-11, CameL, IMpower132, KEYNOTE-189 and GEMSTONE-302. A network meta-analysis was performed based on fractional polynomial models. We constructed a partitioned survival model with a three-week cycle length and a lifetime horizon to derive the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). We performed one-way sensitivity analysis and probablistic sensitivity analysis to test the robustness. Additionally, two scenario analyses were undertaken to investigate the impact of Patient Assistant Program on the economic conclusion and to explore potential uncertainty associated with population representativeness of the global trial. Results: Compared with camrelizumab + chemotherapy, sugemalimab + chemotherapy and atezolizumab + chemotherapy were dominated, and the ICERs generated from sintilimab + chemotherapy and pembrolizumab + chemotherapy were $15,280.83/QALY and $159,784.76/QALY, respectively. Deterministic sensitivity analysis showed that uncertainty around ICERs was mainly driven by HR related parameters derived from NMA and drug price. The probablistic sensitivity analysis suggested that camrelizumab treatment was cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of 1-time GDP per capita. When the threshold was set as 3-time GDP per capita, sintilimab strategy demonstrated the excellent cost-effective advantage. Sensitivity analysis proved the reliability of base-case results. Results from two scenario analyses indicated that the primary finding was robust. Conclusion: In current context of Chinese healthcare system, sintilimab + chemotherapy appeared to be cost-effective for the treatment of nsq-NSCLC compared with sugemalimab, camrelizumab, pembrolizumab as well as atezolizumab combined with chemotherapy.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness analysis of 11 treatment paths, seven first-line and three second-line treatments for Chinese patients with advanced wild-type squamous non-small cell lung cancer: A sequential model.

Background: A total of 11 treatment sequences for advanced wild-type squamous non-small cell lung cancer are recommended by Chinese Society of Clinical Oncology Guidelines, consisting of seven first-line and three second-line treatments. Five of these treatments were newly approved in China between 2021 and 2022. We evaluated the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of these strategies from the Chinese healthcare system perspective. Methods: Network meta-analysis with non-proportional hazards was used to calculate the relative efficacy between interventions. A sequential model was developed to estimate costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) for treatment sequences with first-line platinum- and paclitaxel-based chemotherapy (SC) with or without nedaplatin, tislelizumab, camrelizumab, sintilimab, sugemalimab or pembrolizumab, followed by second-line docetaxel, tislelizumab or nivolumab. SC and docetaxel were used as comparators for first-line and second-line treatments, respectively. QALY and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were used to evaluate effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, respectively. Cost-effective threshold was set as USD 19,091. Subgroup analysis was conducted to determine the best first-line and second-line therapy. Results: Pembrolizumab + SC, followed by docetaxel (PED) was the most effective treatment sequence. QALYs for patients received SC, nedaplatin + SC, tislelizumab + SC, sintilimab + SC, camrelizumab + SC, sugemalimab + SC, pembrolizumab + SC followed by docetaxel were 0.866, 0.906, 1.179, 1.266, 1.179, 1.266, 1.603, 1.721, 1.807; QALYs for SC, nedaplatin + SC followed by tislelizumab were 1.283, 1.301; QALYs for SC, nedaplatin + SC followed by nivolumab were 1.353, 1.389. Camrelizumab + SC, followed by docetaxel (CAD) was the most cost-effective. Compared to SC with or without nedaplatin, tislelizumab, or sintilimab followed by docetaxel, ICERs of CAD were USD 12,276, 13,210, 6,974, 9,421/QALY, respectively. Compared with nedaplatin or SC followed by tislelizumab, the ICERs of CAD were USD 4,183, 2,804/QALY; CAD was dominant compared with nedaplatin or SC followed by nivolumab; The ICER of sugemalimab + SC followed by docetaxel and PED were USD 522,023, 481,639/QALY compared with CAD. Pembrolizumab + SC and camrelizumab + SC were the most effective and cost-effective first-line options, respectively; tislelizumab was the most effective and cost-effective second-line therapy. Tislelizumab used in second-line was more effective than first-line, no significant differences between their cost-effectiveness. Sensitivity and scenario analysis confirmed robustness of the results. Conclusions: PED and CAD are the most effective and cost-effective treatment sequence, respectively; pembrolizumab + SC and camrelizumab + SC are the most effective and cost-effective first-line choice, respectively; tislelizumab is the most effective and cost-effective second-line choice.

Serplulimab Plus Chemotherapy vs Chemotherapy for Treatment of US and Chinese Patients with Extensive-Stage Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis to Inform Drug Pricing.

BACKGROUND: Serplulimab is a potential valuable therapy, while patients, physicians, and decision-makers are uncertain about the cost-effectiveness of this novel drug and its corresponding reasonable price. This study aimed to simulate the price at which serplulimab was cost-effective as first-line therapy for United States (US) and Chinese extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) patients. METHODS: In this economic evaluation, a partitioned survival model was constructed from the perspective of US and Chinese payers. Baseline characteristics of patients and critical clinical data were obtained from ASTRUM-005. Costs and utilities were collected from open-access databases and published literature. Cumulative costs (in US dollars), life years, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were measured and compared. Price simulation was conducted to inform the pricing strategy at the given willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold. The robustness of the model was assessed via sensitivity analyses and scenario analyses; subgroup analyses were also included. RESULTS: Base-case analysis indicated that serplulimab ($818.16/100 mg) would be cost-effective in the US at the WTP threshold of $150,000, with improved effectiveness of 0.61 QALYs and an additional cost of $64,918 (ICER $106,757). Serplulimab ($818.16/100 mg, patient assistance program considered) was cost-effective in China, with improved effectiveness of 0.58 QALYs and an increased overall cost of $19,369 (ICER $33,392). The price simulation results indicated that serplulimab was favored in the US when the price was less than $762.11/100 mg and $1261.57/100 mg at the WTP threshold of $100,000 and $150,000, respectively; it was cost-effective at the WTP threshold of $38,184 when the price was less than $373.37/100 mg in China. Sensitivity analyses revealed that the above results were stable. Subgroup analysis results indicated an overall trend for subgroups with better survival advantages to have a higher probability of cost-effectiveness, despite serplulimab not being cost-effective in some subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Serplulimab might be a valuable and cost-effective therapy in both the US and China. The evidence-based pricing strategy provided by this study could benefit decision-makers in making optimal decisions and clinicians in general clinical practice. More evidence about the budget impact and affordability for patients is needed.

Impact of Extrapolation Model Choices on the Structural Uncertainty in Economic Evaluations for Cancer Immunotherapy: A Case Study of Checkmate 067.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the performance of different extrapolation modeling techniques and analyze their impact on structural uncertainties in the economic evaluations of cancer immunotherapy. METHODS: The individual patient data was reconstructed through published Checkmate 067 Kaplan Meier curves. Standard parametric models and six flexible techniques were tested, including fractional polynomial, restricted cubic splines, Royston-Parmar models, generalized additive models, parametric mixture models, and mixture cure models. Mean square errors (MSE) and bias from raw survival plots were used to test the model fitness and extrapolation performance. Variability of estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) from different models was used to inform the structural uncertainty in economic evaluations. All indicators were analyzed and compared under cut-offs of 3 years and 6.5 years, respectively, to further discuss model impact under different data maturity. R Codes for reproducing this study can be found on GitHub. RESULTS: The flexible techniques in general performed better than standard parametric models with smaller MSE irrespective of the data maturity. Survival outcomes projected by long-term extrapolation using immature data differed from those with mature data. Although a best-performing model was not found because several models had very similar MSE in this case, the variability of modeled ICERs significantly increased when prolonging simulation cycles. CONCLUSIONS: Flexible techniques show better performance in the case of Checkmate 067, regardless of data maturity. Model choices affect ICERs of cancer immunotherapy, especially when dealing with immature survival data. When researchers lack evidence to identify the 'right' model, we recommend identifying and revealing the model impacts on structural uncertainty.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of sintilimab vs. placebo in combination with chemotherapy as first-line therapy for local advanced or metastatic oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma.

Objective: Results of Orient 15 indicated the health benefits to patients with local advanced or metastatic oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC). This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of sintilimab plus chemotherapy in treating OSCC from the perspective of Chinese healthcare system. Methods: A partitioned survival model was constructed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of sintilimab plus chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy in treating OSCC. Baseline characteristics of patients and key clinical data were extracted from Orient 15. Costs and utilities were collected from published studies and open-access databases. Costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), life-years gained, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were chosen as economic outcome indicators. We also performed sensitivity analyses and subgroup analyses to verify the stability of results. Results: Combination therapy provided additional 0.84 QALYs and 1.46 life-years with an incremental cost of $25,565.48 than chemotherapy, which had an ICER of $30,409.44 per QALY. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that combination therapy had a 98.8% probability of cost-effectiveness at the willingness-to-pay threshold (WTP) of $38,184 per QALY. Deterministic sensitivity analysis showed that model outcomes were sensitive to the utilities of progression-free survival and progression disease. The subgroup analysis revealed that combination therapy was cost-effective in patients with high expression of PD-L1 and several specific subgroups. Conclusion: In this economic evaluation, sintilimab plus chemotherapy was likely to be cost-effective compared with chemotherapy in the first-line therapy of advanced OSCC from the perspective of Chinese healthcare system. Our findings may provide evidence for clinicians to make optimal decisions in clinical practice and for decision-makers to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of sintilimab.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of camrelizumab plus chemotherapy as first-line treatment for advanced squamous NSCLC in China.

Objective: Results of CameL-sq has revealed the clinical benefits to patients with advanced squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (sq-NSCLC). This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of camrelizumab plus chemotherapy to treat sq-NSCLC from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Methods: We used a partitioned survival model with a lifetime horizon to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of camrelizumab plus chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy in treating sq-NSCLC. Baseline characteristics of patients and key clinical data were extracted from CameL-sq. Costs and utilities were collected from the open-access database and published literature. Costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), life-years gained, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were chosen as economic outcome indicators. We also performed a sensitivity analysis, subgroup analysis, and scenario analysis to verify the stability of the basic analysis results and explore the results under different scenarios. Results: Combination therapy added 0.47 QALYS and 0.91 life-years with an incremental cost of $6,347.81 compared with chemotherapy, which had an ICER of $13,572 per QALY. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that camrelizumab plus chemotherapy had a 37.8% probability of cost-effectiveness at a willingness-to-pay threshold (WTP) of 1 time GDP per capital. When WTP was set as 3 times GDP per capital, combination therapy had significant cost-effectiveness. Deterministic sensitivity analysis showed that cost of the best supportive care was the factor with the greatest influence. The subgroup analysis found that combination therapy was associated with cost-effectiveness in several subgroups, namely, patients with disease stage IIIB/IIIC and with PD-L1 tumor proportion score ≤ 1%. Scenario analysis showed that ICER was positively correlated with the price of camrelizumab. Conclusion: In this economic evaluation, camrelizumab plus chemotherapy was unlikely to be cost-effective compared with chemotherapy in the first line therapy of sq-NSCLC from a perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Reducing the price of camrelizumab and tailoring treatments based on individual patient factors might improve the cost-effectiveness. Our findings may provide evidence for clinicians in making optimal decisions in general clinical practice.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of colonoscopy and fecal immunochemical testing for colorectal cancer screening in China.

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the colorectal cancer screening in China, and that when the screening was implemented in a specific region. Methods: A 13-state Markov model was established to compare four screening protocols, including annual fecal immunochemical testing (FIT1), biennial fecal immunochemical testing (FIT2), electronic colonoscopy every 10 years (e-CSPY10), and electronic colonoscopy every 5 years (e-CSPY5), with no screening from the perspective of Chinese healthcare system. The model simulated the health states of a cohort of 100,000 average-risk individuals aging from 50 to 75. Additionally, scenarios including the implementation in a specific region, starting from 40, and incompletely successful treatment of cancer were also analyzed. Results: Annual and biennial FIT could save 8.13USD (US Dollar) and 44.96USD per person, and increase 0.0705QALYs (Quality-Adjusted Life Years) and 0.2341 QALYs compared with no screening, respectively. Annual FIT could decrease costs by 36.81USD per person and increase 0.1637 QALYs in comparison to biennial FIT. The results showed that both annual and biennial FIT for screening were dominant over no screening, and annual FIT was dominant over biennial FIT. The ICER (Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio) for e-CSPY10 were 1183.51USD/QALY and 536.66USD/QALY compared with FIT1 and FIT2. The ICER for e-CSPY5 were 1158.16USD/QALY and 770.85USD/QALY compared with FIT1 and FIT2. And the ICER for e-CSPY5 relative to e-CSPY10 was 358.71USD/QALY. All the ICER values were lower than the economic threshold of 2021 Chinese GDP (Gross Domestic Product) per capita in 2021(12554.42USD). Conclusions: It is worthwhile to popularize CRC screening in mainland China, as FIT always saving costs and colonoscopy is cost-effective. Regions with high income can take electronic colonoscopy every 10 years, or even every 5 years into consideration when determining the specific strategies.

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.

Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Non-Pharmacological Interventions among Chinese Adults with Prediabetes: A Protocol for Network Meta-Analysis and CHIME-Modeled Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

Patients with prediabetes who are at a high risk of progressing to diabetes are recommended early-stage intervention, according to guidelines. Non-pharmacological interventions are effective and cost-effective for glycemic control compared with medicines. We aim to explore which non-pharmacological interventions have the greatest potential effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and feasibility in community-based diabetes management in China. We will perform a systematic review and network meta-analysis to compare the effectiveness of included non-pharmacological interventions, then use Chinese Hong Kong Integrated Modeling and Evaluation (CHIME) to model the yearly incidence of complications, costs, and health utility for the lifetime. Published studies (only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster RCTs with at least one study arm of any non-pharmacological intervention) will be retrieved and screened using several databases. Primary outcomes included blood glucose, glycated hemoglobin, incidence of type 2 diabetes mellitus, and achievement of normoglycemia. Health utilities and cost parameters are to be calculated using a societal perspective and integrated into the modified CHIME model to achieve quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) estimates and lifetime costs. QALYs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio will then be used to determine effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, respectively. Our study findings can inform improved diabetes management in countries with no intervention programs for these patients.