RESUMO
OBJECTIVE To ev aluate the economical efficiency of nivolumab versus everolimus in the second-line treatment of metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma. METHODS From the perspective of China ’s health system ，cost-effectiveness analysis of the two therapies was carried out by developing a three-state partitioned survival model. The clinical parameters were from the updated CheckMate 025 study，and the cost and health utility were from relevant websites and published literatures. The model adopted a 2-week cycle and a lifetime research time. The robustness of the results was verified by sensitivity analysis. The economical efficiency of two therapy schemes were evaluated in the scenario of model simulation time of 80 months and charitable drug donation scheme. RESULTS The results of basic analysis showed that compared with everolimus ，the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio （ICER）of nivolumab was 586 982.60 yuan/quality-adjusted life year （QALY），which was far higher than 3 times of China ’s per capita gross domestic product （GDP）in 2020. The results of single-factor sensitivity analysis showed that the 3 parameters that had the greatest impact on the economic evaluation results were the cost of nivolumab ，the utility value of nivolumab group and everolimus group in progressive disease state. The results of probability sensitivity analysis verified the robustness of the basic analysis results. Results of scenario analysis showed that in the first scenario analysis ，in which model simulation time lasted for 80 months，ICER of nivolumab was 417 204.52 yuan/QALY；in the second scenario analysis ，in which nivolumab charitable drug donation program for low-income people was considered ，ICER of nivolumab was 124 988.58 yuan/QALY. CONCLUSIONS Under the threshold of 1-3 times of China ’s per capita GDP in 2020，compared with everolimus ，it is not economical to use nivolumab as the second-line treatment for metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma ； nivolumab is economical when considering its charitable drug donation program for low-income people.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE：To evaluate the econo mics of pembrolizumab in the second-line treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma in China. METHODS ：From the perspective of Chinese healthcare system ，a three-state PartSA model and Markov model were established ；the cost and utility for the second-line treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma in China were compared between pembrolizumab and placebo. The circulation cycle of the model was 3 weeks and the study time limit was lifetime；one-way sensitivity analysis ，probability sensitivity analysis and scenario analysis were used to verify the robustness of the base-case analysis results. RESULTS ：PartSA results showed that the ICER for the second-line treatment of advanced hepato- cellular carcinoma with pembrolizumab was 1 266 846.18 yuan/QALY，which is far more than 1-3 times of China ’s per capita GDP in 2020. The results of one-way sensitivity analysis showed that the three parameters that had the greatest impact on ICER were the PFS status utility of the placebo group ，the PFS status utility of the pembrolizumab group ，and the cost of pembrolizumab. The results of probability sensitivity analysis verified the robustness of the base-case analysis. The scenario analysis showed that the treatment cost of pembrolizumab had dropped significantly when the charity donation of pembrolizumab was considered. Although it was still not economical ，ICER was close to 3 times of per capita GDP of China in 2020. When WTP threshold was 1 and 3 times of China ’s per capita GDP ，the economic prices of pabolizumab （100 mg）were 4 157.67 and 5 829.24 yuan，respectively. The results of Markov model were similar to those of PartSA model. CONCLUSIONS ：Under the WTP threshold of 1-3 times China ’s per capita GDP in 2020，pembrolizumab is not economical for second-line treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.