Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
First-Line Treatment With Atezolizumab Plus Bevacizumab and Chemotherapy for US Patients With Metastatic, Persistent, or Recurrent Cervical Cancer: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.
Lei, Jianying; Zhang, Jiahao; You, Caicong; Liu, Maobai; Li, Na.
Affiliation
  • Lei J; Department of Pharmacy, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, China; The School of Pharmacy, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China.
  • Zhang J; Department of Pharmacy, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, China; The School of Pharmacy, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China.
  • You C; Department of Pharmacy, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, China; The School of Pharmacy, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China.
  • Liu M; Department of Pharmacy, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, China; The School of Pharmacy, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China.
  • Li N; Department of Pharmacy, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, China; The School of Pharmacy, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China. Electronic address: fjxhlina1983@fjmu.edu.cn.
Value Health ; 2024 Aug 02.
Article in En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-39096963
ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES:

The BETAcc clinical trial demonstrated that chemotherapy combined with bevacizumab plus atezolizumab (CBA) significantly prolonged progression-free survival and overall survival in patients with metastatic, persistent, or recurrent cervical cancer. However, to the best of our knowledge, the economic value of using this new therapy for this indication is currently unknown. Therefore, our study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of CBA for the first-line treatment of metastatic, persistent, or recurrent cervical cancer from the United States healthcare payers perspective.

METHODS:

A state-transition Markov model over a 10-year lifetime horizon was developed to compare the cost and effectiveness of CBA with that of chemotherapy plus bevacizumab (CB). The primary outcomes of our study included costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed to assess the robustness of the results.

RESULTS:

CBA was associated with an additional 0.58 QALY at an extra cost of $172 495.90 compared with CB. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $295 972.43/QALY, significantly higher than the willingness-to-pay threshold value of $150 000/QALY. One-way sensitivity analyses revealed that results were most sensitive to the progression-free disease utility, the unit cost of atezolizumab, and progressed disease utility. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that CBA achieved a 4.3% probability of cost-effectiveness at a $150 000/QALY threshold. To achieve cost-effectiveness, the unit price of atezolizumab must be reduced by approximately 56.6%.

CONCLUSIONS:

CBA treatment is unlikely to be a cost-effective option compared with CB for patients with persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer in the United States.
Key words

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Language: En Journal: Value Health Journal subject: FARMACOLOGIA Year: 2024 Document type: Article Affiliation country: Country of publication:

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Language: En Journal: Value Health Journal subject: FARMACOLOGIA Year: 2024 Document type: Article Affiliation country: Country of publication: