Cost-effectiveness analysis of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab compared with sorafenib as first-line treatment in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma in Singapore.

OBJECTIVES: This study aims to explore the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab against sorafenib for first-line treatment of locally advanced or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in Singapore. METHODS: A partitioned survival model was developed from a healthcare system perspective, with a 10-year lifetime horizon. Clinical inputs and utilities were obtained from the IMbrave150 trial. Healthcare resource use costs were obtained from published local sources; drug costs reflected the most recent public hospital selling prices. Outcomes included life years, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the model's robustness. RESULTS: Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab offered an additional 1.42 life years and 1.09 QALYs, with an additional cost of S$111,847; the ICER was S$102,988/QALY. The World Health Organization considers interventions with ICERs <1 gross domestic product (GDP)/capita to be highly cost-effective. At a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of S$114,165/QALY (Singapore's 2022 GDP/capita), atezolizumab plus bevacizumab is cost-effective compared with sorafenib. The ICER was most sensitive to variations in utilities, but all parameter variations had no significant impact on the model outcomes. CONCLUSION: At a WTP threshold of Singapore's GDP/capita, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab is cost-effective compared with sorafenib.

Cost-effectiveness of olaparib versus routine surveillance in the maintenance setting for patients with BRCA-mutated advanced ovarian cancer after response to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy in Singapore.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of olaparib as a maintenance treatment versus routine surveillance (RS) in patients with BRCA mutated (BRCAm) advanced ovarian cancer (OC) following response to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy in Singapore. METHODS: A 4-health state partitioned survival model was developed to simulate the lifetime (50 years) incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of olaparib versus RS from a healthcare payer perspective. Progression-free survival, time to second disease progression, and overall survival were estimated using SOLO-1 data and extrapolated beyond the trial period using parametric survival models. Any patient who remained progression-free at year 7 was assumed to be no longer at risk of progression. Mortality rates were based on all-cause mortality, adjusted based on BRCA1/2 mutation. Health state utilities and adverse event frequencies were from SOLO-1. Drug costs were from local public healthcare institutions. Healthcare resource usage and costs were from local clinician input and publications. A 3% discount rate was applied to costs and outcomes. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were performed to assess the robustness of results. RESULTS: The base-case analysis of olaparib maintenance therapy versus RS resulted in an ICER of Singapore dollar (SGD) 19,822 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. The ICER was most sensitive to variations in the discount rate. PSA demonstrated that olaparib had an 87% probability of being cost-effective versus RS at a willingness-to-pay of SGD 60,000 per QALY gained. CONCLUSION: Olaparib has a high potential of being a cost-effective maintenance treatment versus RS for patients with BRCA1/2m advanced OC after response to first-line chemotherapy in Singapore.