Cost-effectiveness of additional serplulimab to chemotherapy in metastatic squamous non-small cell lung cancer patients.

Objective: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of adding serplulimab to chemotherapy for metastatic squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients in a first-line setting from a Chinese perspective. Methods: A three-health state partitioned survival model was constructed to simulate disease development. The clinical data used in the model were derived from the ASTRUM-004 clinical trial. Only direct medical costs were included, and the utilities were derived from published literature. The quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were employed to evaluate health outcomes. Additionally, a sensitivity analysis was performed to verify the robustness of the results. Results: Compared with chemotherapy alone, the addition of serplulimab resulted in an increase of 0.63 QALYs with an incremental cost of $5,372.73, leading to an ICER of $8,528.14 per QALY. This ICER was significantly lower than 3 times China's per capita GDP. The one-way sensitivity analysis suggested that the utility of PFS was the most sensitive factor on ICERs, followed by the price of serplulimab. Conclusion: The combination of serplulimab and chemotherapy has been shown to be a cost-effective initial treatment option for patients with metastatic squamous NSCLC with the commonly accepted willingness-to-pay threshold of 3 times the GDP per capita per QALY in China.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of fruquintinib in Chinese patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer is a significant health concern worldwide, with metastatic CRC (mCRC) presenting a particularly challenging prognosis. The FRESCO-2 trial highlighted the potential of fruquintinib in heavily pretreated mCRC patients. AIM: Given the recent changes in drug pricing in China and the evolving mCRC treatments, this study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of fruquintinib in the context of current Chinese healthcare standards. METHOD: This study utilized data from the FRESCO-2 trial, incorporating a partitioned-survival model to simulate three health states: Progression-Free Survival, Progressive Disease, and death. Costs and utility values were derived from published literature and the FRESCO-2 trial. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the base-case result and to understand the impact of various parameters on the ICER. RESULTS: The base-case analysis revealed a total cost of $11,089.05 for the fruquintinib group and $5,374.48 for the placebo group. The overall QALYs were higher in the fruquintinib group (0.61 QALYs) compared to the placebo group (0.43 QALYs). The ICER was calculated to be $31,747.67 per QALY. Sensitivity analyses identified the utility of progression-free survival, the cost of fruquintinib, and the costs of best supportive care as significant determinants of ICER. CONCLUSION: Fruquintinib emerges as a promising therapeutic option for refractory mCRC. However, its cost-effectiveness depends on selected willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold. While the drug's ICER surpasses the WTP based on China's 2022 GDP per capita, it remains below the threshold set at three times the national GDP.

Cost-effectiveness of analysis serplulimab plus chemotherapy as first-line therapy for PD-L1-positive advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.

Objective: Our study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the addition of serplulimab to chemotherapy (cisplatin and fluorouracil) for programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) positive advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) as the first-line treatment in China. Methods: A three-state Markov model was established to assess the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for serplulimab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone. Survival data were extrapolated from the ASTRUM-007 trial, cost data were derived from local sources, and utilities were derived from published literature. Health outcomes were measured as quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Sensitivity and probability sensitivity analyses were used to investigate the robustness of the model. Results: In the base-case analysis, compared with chemotherapy alone, serplulimab gained an additional 0.16 QALYs with an incremental cost of $29,547.88, leading to an ICER of $184,674.25/QALY. Additionally, the subgroup analyses presented that the ICERs of serplulimab plus chemotherapy were $157,892.50/QALY and $127,996.45/QALY in advanced ESCC patients with 1≤ CPS< 10 and CPS≥ 10, respectively. These ICERs significantly exceeded the Chinese willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold. The deterministic sensitivity analysis illustrated that the cost of progression-free survival in serplulimab plus chemotherapy group was the parameter with the strongest influence on the ICERs. Conclusion: In the Chinese health care system, with 3 times China's per capita gross domestic product as the WTP threshold, compared with chemotherapy alone, serplulimab combined chemotherapy is not economical for PD-L1-positive advanced ESCC in the first-line setting.

Risk of diabetic ketoacidosis of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Background: Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors have proven to be effective in improving glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). However, the risk of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) in patients remains unclear. The purpose of this study is to conduct this systematic review and network meta-analysis for the risk of DKA of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with T2DM. Methods: We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) concerning SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with T2DM in PubMed, EMBASE (Ovid SP), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Ovid SP), and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to January 2022. The primary outcomes were the risk of DKA. We assessed the sparse network with a fixed-effect model and consistency model in a frequentist framework with a graph-theoretical method by the netmeta package in R. We assessed the evidence quality of evidence of outcomes according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE). Results: In total, 36 studies involving 52,264 patients were included. The network showed that there was no significant difference observed among SGLT2 inhibitors, other active antidiabetic drugs, and placebo in the risk of DKA. There was no significant difference in the DKA risk between different doses of SGLT2 inhibitors. The certainty of the evidence ranged from very low to moderate. The probabilities of rankings and P-score showed that compared to placebo, SGLT2 inhibitors might increase the risk of DKA (P-score = 0.5298). Canagliflozin might have a higher DKA risk than other SGLT2 inhibitors (P-score = 0.7388). Conclusion: Neither SGLT2 inhibitors nor other active antidiabetic drugs were associated with an increased risk of DKA compared to placebo, and the risk of DKA with SGLT2 inhibitors was not found to be dose-dependent. In addition, the use of canagliflozin was less advisable than other SGLT2 inhibitors according to the rankings and P-score. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier PROSPERO, CRD42021297081.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of trastuzumab deruxtecan in patients with HER2-low advanced breast cancer based on DESTINY-Breast04.

Background and purpose: Breast cancer is a rapidly raising healthcare problem worldwide. DESTINY-Breast04 demonstrated that trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-Dxd) had a survival advantage comparing to the physician's choice of chemotherapy for patients with HER2-low metastatic breast cancer. But at the same time, this expensive novel treatment also brought an economic burden. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of T-Dxd based on results of DESTINY-Breast04 from the perspective of Chinese healthcare system. Materials and methods: A three-state partitioned-survival model [progression-free survival (PFS), progressive disease (PD) and death] based on data from DESTINY-Breast04 and Chinese healthcare system was used to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of T-Dxd vs. the physician's choice of chemotherapy for HER2-low metastatic breast cancer. Costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and the ICER in terms of 2022 US$ per QALY gained were calculated for both hormone receptor-positive cohort and all patients. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the model robustness. Results: Compared with the physician's choice of chemotherapy, T-Dxd increased costs by $104,168.30, while gaining 0.31 QALYs, resulting in an ICER of $336,026.77 per QALY in all patients. The costs of T-Dxd and the utility of PFS were the crucial factors in determining the ICER. In the hormone receptor-positive cohort, the ICER was lower than that in all patients, with the ICER of $274,905.72 per QALY. The ICER was much higher than the commonly accepted willingness-to-pay threshold ($357,96.83 per QALY). Conclusion: T-Dxd as second- or subsequent-line treatment is not a cost-effective treatment option for HER2-low metastatic breast cancer from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of toripalimab plus chemotherapy as the first-line treatment in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) without EGFR or ALK driver mutations from the Chinese perspective.

Objectives: The results of a CHOICE-1 study demonstrated the superior efficacy of toripalimab (anti-PD-1 antibody) plus chemotherapy for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), with a manageable safety profile. This study was performed to evaluate the economic value of this treatment for this patient population from the Chinese payer's perspective. Materials and methods: Basic data were derived from the CHOICE-1 study. Markov models were developed to simulate the process of advanced NSCLC, including the progression-free survival (PFS), progressive disease (PD), and death in intention-to-treat (ITT) populations, as well as patients with squamous or non-squamous NSCLC. The cost was obtained from the local institution, and the value of utilities referred to previous studies. Monte Carlo simulations were performed to depict the probabilistic scatter plots of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and acceptability curves, aiming to address the uncertainty of model inputs. Results: Compared with standard chemotherapy, toripalimab plus chemotherapy yields an ICER of $21,563 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) in the ITT population. For patients with squamous NSCLC, comparing the combined therapy with chemotherapy led to an ICER of $18,369 per QALY, while the ICER was $24,754 per QALY in patients with non-squamous NSCLC. With the threshold of willingness to pay we set ($37,653 per QALY), toripalimab plus chemotherapy was cost-effective in these patient populations. Conclusion: For patients with advanced NSCLC, toripalimab plus chemotherapy was an optimal choice as first-line treatment, regardless of histology.

Camrelizumab in patients with advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer: a cost-effective analysis in China.

OBJECTIVE: Camrelizumab is a selective, humanised, high-affinity IgG4 kappa monoclonal antibody against programmed cell death 1 that shows effective antitumour activity with acceptable toxicity in multiple tumour types. The CameL trial demonstrated that camrelizumab plus chemotherapy (CC) significantly prolonged the median progression-free survival and median overall survival versus chemotherapy alone (CA) in patients with advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Our study was conducted to investigate the cost-effectiveness of the two strategies in chemotherapy-naive patients with advanced non-squamous NSCLC. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A Markov simulation model was generated based on the CameL trial. The two simulated treatments included CC and CA. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Utility was derived from published literature, and costs were calculated based on those at our hospital in Chengdu, China. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated to compare the cost-effectiveness of the two treatment arms. RESULTS: In the overall population, the total costs were $27 223.40 and $13 740.10 for CC and CA treatment, respectively. The CC treatment produced 1.37 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and the CA treatment produced 1.17 QALYs. Hence, patients who were in the CC group spent an additional $13 483.30 and generated an increase of 0.20 QALYs, resulting in an ICER of $67 416.50 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: For chemotherapy-naive patients with advanced non-squamous NSCLC, CC is not considered a cost-effective treatment versus CA in China when considering a willingness-to-pay threshold of $31 500 per QALY. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03134872.

Corrigendum: Cost-effectiveness of avelumab maintenance therapy plus best supportive care vs. best supportive care alone for advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.837854.].

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Abemaciclib plus Fulvestrant versus Placebo plus Fulvestrant in Patients with Hormone Receptor-Positive, ERBB2-Negative Breast Cancer.

Purpose: Abemaciclib is a selective and potent small-molecule inhibitor of cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 (CDK4 and CDK6) which is administered orally. Compared to placebo plus fulvestrant (PF), abemaciclib plus fulvestrant (AF) significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). However, an economic evaluation of these two treatments is currently lacking. The purpose of this article was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the two treatments for HR*, HER2- advanced breast cancer (ABC) in the USA. Methods: A Markov simulation model was constructed using data from a published clinical trial (MONARCH 2). The two simulated treatment strategies included AF or PF. Costs were obtained from the clinical trials and the website, and utility was derived from the published literature. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated to compare the two treatment strategies. Results: The total costs were USD 400,377.43 and USD 89,937.77 for AF and PF treatment, respectively. The AF treatment produced 2.09 long-term quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and the PF treatment produced 1.08 QALYs. Hence, patients who received AF treatment spent an additional USD 310,439.66 and generated an increase of 1.01 QALYs, resulting in an ICER of USD 307,366 per QALY. At current prices, AF was not cost-effective assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of USD 150,000 per QALY gained. Conclusion: Despite significant gains in PFS over AF, it is not a cost-effective treatment for HR*, HER2- ABC in the USA at current drug prices.

Cost-Effectiveness of Avelumab Maintenance Therapy Plus Best Supportive Care vs. Best Supportive Care Alone for Advanced or Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma.

Objective: Avelumab (MSB0010718C) is a fully human anti-programmed cell death ligand 1(PD-L1) antibody against PD-L1 interactions and enhances immune activation against tumor cells in the meantime. Avelumab has been approved for locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer (mUC) after disease progression in several countries. We therefore conducted this study to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of avelumab maintenance therapy for advanced or mUC from the perspective of the United States (US) and China payer. Methods: A Markov simulation model was performed based on clinical trial JAVELIN Bladder 100. Utilities and costs adopted in this analysis were derived from published literature and clinical trials. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated to compare the avelumab maintenance therapy group (AVE group) and the best supportive care group (CON group). Results: The ICER of the AVE group compared with the CON group were $38,369.50 and $16,150.29 per QALYs in the overall population and in the PD-L1-positive population, respectively. While the ICER of AVE group compared with CON group were $241,610.25 and $100,528.29 per QALYs in the overall population and in the PD-L1-positive population, respectively. Conclusion: Avelumab maintenance therapy was a cost-effective first-line treatment compared with BSC in patients with mUC which were not progressed with platinum-based chemotherapy not only in the PD-L1-positive population but also in the overall population based on the current willingness to pay (WTP) of $150,000 in the US. It was not cost-effective both in the overall population and in the PD-L1 positive population at the WTP threshold of $30,447.09 in China.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Pembrolizumab in Patients With Advanced Esophageal Cancer Based on the KEYNOTE-181 Study.

Background and Purpose: The KEYNOTE-181 study demonstrated that pembrolizumab for advanced or metastatic esophageal cancer in patients with programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) combined positive score (CPS) ≥ 10 had a survival advantage and better tolerability than chemotherapy. However, at the same time, pembrolizumab places an economic burden on patients. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab based on the KEYNOTE181 study. Materials and Methods: A three-state Markov model [progression-free survival (PFS), progressive disease (PD), and death] based on data from the KEYNOTE-181 study was used to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy for advanced or metastatic esophageal cancer. The model evaluates the outcomes from the Chinese society's perspective. Costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and the ICER in terms of 2021 US$ per QALY gained, were calculated. one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the model robustness. Results: Compared with chemotherapy, pembrolizumab increased costs by $37,201.68, while gaining 0.23 QALYs, resulting in an ICER of $163,165.26 per QALY in patients with PD-L1 CPS ≥ 10. The ICER is $202,708.62 per QALY and $163,643.19 per QALY in the total population and patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, respectively. The ICER was much higher than the commonly accepted willingness-to-pay threshold ($11,105.8 per QALY). One-way and sensitivity analyses showed that the costs of pembrolizumab and the utility of PD were the crucial factors in determining the ICER, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses demonstrated pembrolizumab is unlikely to be cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $11,105.8 per QALY. The result was robust across sensitivity analyses. Conclusion: Pembrolizumab is not a cost-effective treatment option for the second-line treatment of esophageal cancer from the perspective of Chinese society.

Heparin and Related Substances for Treating Diabetic Foot Ulcers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background: Diabetic foot ulcers are a major complication of diabetes mellitus (DM), when heparin and heparin related substances may be potentially used as an adjuvant treatment. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of heparin and heparin related substances for the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers. Methods: We searched up to March 2021 in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; EBSCO CINAHL; VIP Chinese Science and Technique Journals Database; China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) Database and Wan Fang Database investigating heparin or heparin-related substances in patients with diabetic foot ulcers. The primary outcomes included proportion of ulcers completely healed and time to complete ulcer healing. We assessed each included study with the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool and used the GRADE approach to assess the overall quality of the evidence. Results: We included nine randomized studies involving 620 participants in the meta-analysis, involving two different heparin and heparin-related substances, low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) and hyaluronic acid. Our study did not show the benefits from LMWH on increasing chance of the ulcer healing (RR: 1.26; 95% CI: 0.78 to 2.04; P=0.35; very low) or shortening the time to complete ulcer healing (SMD: 0.13 d; 95% CI: -0.29 to 0.56; P=0.54; very low). Hyaluronic acid may improve the complete ulcer healing (RR: 1.57; 95% CI: 1.29 to 1.91; P˂0.00001; very low) and shorten the time to complete ulcer healing (SMD -0.84, 95% CI -1.15 to -0.53; P<0.00001; low). Hyaluronic acid and LMWH were generally well tolerated for treating diabetic foot ulcers in this review. Conclusion: Hyaluronic acid may improve diabetic foot ulcer with very low quality evidence but not LMWH. However, the benefits and harms need further validation in larger trials with different population. Systematic Review Registration: [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/], identifier [PROSPERO, CRD42021269212].

Sodium-Glucose Co-Transporter-2 Inhibitors in Non-Diabetic Adults With Overweight or Obesity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background: Sodium-glucose-cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors have proven to be effective in improving glycemic control and lowering body weight in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. However, the efficacy and safety on weight loss in adults with overweight or obesity but not diabetes remain unclear. In this article, we aimed to identify the efficacy and safety of SGLT2 inhibitors in adults with overweight or obesity but not diabetes in randomized controlled studies (RCTs). Methods: We searched for RCTs concerning SGLT2 inhibitors in adults with overweight or obesity but not diabetes in Medline (Ovid SP), Embase (Ovid SP), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Ovid SP), and ClinicalTrials.gov up to February 2021. The primary outcomes were changes in body weight and body mass index (BMI). Trial sequential analysis (TSA) was used to test the reliability of the primary outcomes. We analyzed the data using Review Manager 5.3 and pooled data to calculate the mean differences (MDs) or the relative risk (RR). We assessed the evidence quality of evidence of outcomes according to GRADE. Results: Six randomized controlled trials involving 872 individuals were included in the meta-analysis. Compared to the placebo group, the SGLT2 inhibitors group had statistically significant reductions in absolute changes in body weight (MD: -1.42 kg, 95% CI: -1.70 to -1.14; P<0.00001) and BMI (MD: -0.47 kg/m2, 95% CI: -0.63 to -0.31; P<0.00001) in SGLT2 inhibitors group, as indicated by TSA. However, no significant benefits were observed in the SGLT2 inhibitors group in terms of waist circumference (MD: -1.34 cm, 95%CI: -2.75 to 0.07; Z=1.86, P=0.06) compared with the placebo group. The GRADE profiles indicated very low-quality evidence for body weight change and low-quality evidence for BMI change. SGLT2 inhibitors were generally safe and well tolerated. Conclusion: SGLT2 inhibitors could be used in selected adults with overweight and obesity but not diabetes if they are at low risk of genital infection and urinary infection. Further studies are warranted to confirm the efficacy and safety of SGLT2 inhibitors in adults with overweight or obesity but not diabetes for long-term weight management. Systematic Review Registration: [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/#loginpage], identifier [PROSPERO, CRD42021252931].

Atezolizumab and bevacizumab combination compared with sorafenib as the first-line systemic treatment for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: A cost-effectiveness analysis in China and the United states.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: In patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), the combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival compared with sorafenib in the IMbrave150 trial. However, whether the price of the combination could be affordable is unknown. The current study assessed the cost-effectiveness of the combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab as first-line systemic therapy for patients with unresectable HCC from the Chinese and American payers' perspective. METHODS: A Markov model was built based on a global, multicentre, open-label, phase III randomized trial (IMbrave150, NCT03434379) that included three states of the patient's health: stable disease (SD), progressive disease (PD) and death. Data for all medical costs were acquired from the Red Book, published literature and West China Hospital. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were the primary outcomes. Sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the model uncertainty. RESULTS: The treatment consisting of a combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab yielded an additional 0.53 QALYs compared with sorafenib alone, leading to an ICER of $145,546.21 per QALY in China and $168,030.21 per QALY in the USA, both beyond the willing-to-pay threshold ($28,527.00/QALY in China and $150,000.00 /QALY in the USA). The utility of the PD state was the most influential factor in the Chinese model, and the American model was the most sensitive to the price of sorafenib. The results of the models were robust across sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: The combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab was not a cost-effective strategy for the first-line systemic treatment of unresectable HCC from the Chinese and American payers' perspective.

Cost­effectiveness Analysis of Helicobacter pylori Eradication Therapy in First-Degree Relatives of Patients with Gastric Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) eradication therapy has been shown to reduce the risk of gastric cancer in patients who have a family history of gastric cancer in first-degree relatives. The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of H. pylori eradication therapy in a select population in the People's Republic of China. METHODS: A Markov model was applied to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of H. pylori eradication therapy. The long-term costs of H. pylori eradication therapy were calculated from the Chinese perspective. Health outcomes were measured by quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Epidemiological information and health utilities used in the model were collected from published literatures or statistical bureaus. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to explore the influence of parameters on the uncertainty of the model. RESULTS: Compared with the no eradication therapy group, H. pylori eradication therapy prolonged an average of 4.52 QALYs (32.64 QALYs vs 28.12 QALYs) and saved $3227.07 ($2472.83 vs $5699.90). The cost-effectiveness analysis demonstrated that no H. pylori eradication therapy cost more and produced less QALYs. It was dominated by H. pylori eradication therapy. The one-way sensitive analyses proved that the results were robust to the fluctuations of the input parameters. CONCLUSION: H. pylori eradication therapy not only reduced the risk of gastric cancer in first-degree relatives of patients with gastric cancer but also was an economical strategy with lower costs and greater efficacy.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Maintenance Olaparib in Patients with Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer and a Germline BRCA1/2 Mutation Based on the POLO Trial.

OBJECTIVE: The phase III POLO trial demonstrated that olaparib as maintenance therapy for metastatic pancreatic cancer patients with a germline BRCA mutation had greater efficacy than placebo, but maintenance olaparib places an economic burden on patients. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of olaparib as maintenance therapy based on the POLO trial (NCT02184195). METHODS: A three-state Markov model (progression-free survival [PFS], progressive disease [PD] and death) based on data from the POLO trial was used to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of maintenance olaparib versus placebo for metastatic pancreatic cancer patients with a germline BRCA mutation. The cost was evaluated from the Chinese society's perspective, and health outcomes were assessed in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The primary outcome was the ICER gained in terms of 2019 US$ per QALY. Model robustness was explored with one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Compared with placebo, maintenance olaparib increased costs by $23,544.35 while gaining 0.69 QALYs, resulting in an ICER of $34,122.25 per QALY. The ICER was far higher than the commonly accepted willingness-to-pay threshold ($28,255.55 per QALY). CONCLUSION: Compared with placebo, maintenance olaparib for metastatic pancreatic cancer patients with a germline BRCA mutation is not cost-effective in China.

Selective aggregation by ultrasonic standing waves through gas nuclei on the particle surface.

Gas nuclei in water are usually too small to be directly observed. They will grow into bubbles under the negative pressure, which is called cavitation (heterogeneous cavitation). In this study, the gas nuclei in the hydrophilic and hydrophobic silica particle suspension were investigated using the transient cavitation threshold measured by a high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU). The transient cavitation bubbles were also observed by a high-speed camera. The results showed that the nuclei only exist on the surface of hydrophobic particles. Furthermore, the aggregation experiments revealed that the aggregates were only formed in the hydrophobic silica suspension by ultrasonic standing waves (USW) at 200 kHz. This distinct difference was mainly due to the formation of gas nuclei on hydrophobic silica particles, which grew and coalesced into stable bubbles under the 200 kHz USW. The aggregation process in suspension was observed by a CCD camera. Moreover, the cavitation thresholds and acoustic radiation forces were analyzed to explain the mechanism of the acoustic aggregation. This study showed a very promising acoustic method for the selective aggregation of hydrophobic particles, which might be efficiently used in the mineral separation industry.

Patient-based cost-effectiveness analysis of FOLFIRI versus FOLFOX7 for advanced gastric adenocarcinoma in China: A 4-year prospective randomised phase II study.

BACKGROUND: Using data from the 4-year follow-up results of an open, randomised, phase II study, this patient-based cost-effectiveness analysis compares mFOLFIRI (irinotecan, 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin, the IRI arm) with mFOLFOX7 (oxaliplatin, 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin, the OXA arm) as first-line treatments in patients with locally advanced gastric adenocarcinoma (GC). METHODS: A Markov model was created based on previous results reported at the 2016 Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium to evaluate mFOLFIRI and mFOLFOX7 for advanced GC quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were examined as the primary outcomes. RESULTS: For the evaluable 128 patients, treatment efficacy was 0.59 QALYs for the IRI arm and 0.70 QALYs for the OXA arm, with a total cost of $13,861.34 for the IRI arm and $14,127.30 for the OXA arm. Hence, the ICER was $2,417.82 per QALY the OXA arm, which was below the threshold of 3 × per capita GDP of China. For subgroup analysis of those receiving mFOLFIRI followed by mFOLFOX7 (the IRI arm) and the reverse (the OXA arm), the OXA arm gained 0.44 more QALYs than the IRI arm with a total cost of $28,890.09 for the IRI arm and $31,147.30 for the OXA arm. However, the cost per QALY was also lower for the OXA arm than for the IRI arm, and the cost per QALY gained was $5,129.55 (below the Chinese WTP). CONCLUSION: mFOLFOX7 is a very high cost-effective alternative as the first-line treatment for those patients with advanced GC compared with mFOLFIRI.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of gemcitabine plus cisplatin versus fluorouracil plus cisplatin in the first-line setting for Chinese patients with metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma.

PURPOSE: A randomized phase III trial demonstrated that gemcitabine plus cisplatin (GP) prolonged progression-free survival and overall survival compared with fluorouracil plus cisplatin (FP) as first-line chemotherapy in patients with metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). The cost-effectiveness analysis was designed to identify the economic option for metastatic NPC from a Chinese societal perspective. METHODS: We established a Markov model that involved three health states representing the stages of disease to simulate therapy. Survival data of clinical outcomes were derived from the trial and adjusted to quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Transition probabilities and health utilities were obtained from the clinical trial and published literatures. The cost-effective strategy was estimated for these treatments using a willing-to-pay (WTP) threshold. A one-way sensitivity analysis was conducted to study the influences of parameters. RESULTS: GP treatment group produced a gain of 0.37 QALYs with an incremental cost of $2520.80, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $6812.97 per QALY, compared with FP treatment ($15,530.96 versus $13,010.16). The ICER was lower than the accepted WTP threshold, which was 3 times gross domestic product per capita of China ($25,749 per QALY). CONCLUSION: GP regimen is more cost-effective compared with FP regimen as the first-line treatment for Chinese patients with metastatic NPC.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of ramucirumab treatment for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who progressed on sorafenib with α-fetoprotein concentrations of at least 400 ng/ml.

Objective: This study aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of ramucirumab versus placebo for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who progressed on sorafenib with α-fetoprotein concentrations (AFP) of at least 400 ng/ml in the United States.Methods: A Markov model was constructed to assess the cost-effectiveness of ramucirumab. Health outcomes were measured as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). With TreeAge software, the disease process was modeled as three health states: progression-free survival (PFS), progressive disease (PD), and death. Costs were extracted from the REACH-2 trial, and utility was derived from published literature. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated to compare ramucirumab with placebo. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were developed to examine the robustness of the results.Results: In the base case analysis, ramucirumab therapy had a cost of $55,508.41 and generated 0.54 QALYs, while placebo therapy had a cost of $761.09 and generated 0.47 QALYs, leading to an additional $54,747.32 in costs and 0.07 QALYs. The ICER was $782,104.57 per QALY, which was much higher than the willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per QALY. According to sensitivity analyses, the utility of PD in the two groups was the dominant parameter influencing the ICER.Conclusion: Although ramucirumab was associated with prolonged survival for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma who progressed on sorafenib treatment with an AFP of at least 400 ng/ml, it is not a cost-effective treatment from a United States payer perspective.