First-line treatments for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer with immune checkpoint inhibitors plus chemotherapy: a China-based cost-effectiveness analysis.

Objective: To determine the cost-effectiveness of imported immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) such as atezolizumab and durvalumab, and domestic ICIs like serplulimab and adebrelimab, in combination with chemotherapy for extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) in China. Methods: Using a 21-day cycle length and a 20-year time horizon, a Markov model was established to compare the clinical and economic outcomes of five first-line ICIs plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone, as well as against each other, from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Transition probabilities were estimated by combining the results of the CAPSTONE-1 trial and a published network meta-analysis. Cost and health state utilities were collected from multiple sources. Both cost and effectiveness outcomes were discounted at a rate of 5% annually. The primary model output was incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). A series of sensitivity analyses were preformed to assess the robustness of the model. Results: In the base-case analysis, the addition of first-line ICIs to chemotherapy resulted in the ICERs ranged from $80,425.31/QALY to $812,415.46/QALY, which exceeded the willing-to-pay threshold set for the model. When comparing these first-line immunochemotherapy strategies, serplulimab plus chemotherapy had the highest QALYs of 1.51286 and the second lowest costs of $60,519.52, making it is the most cost-effective strategy. Our subgroup-level analysis yielded results that are consistent with the base-case analysis. The sensitivity analysis results confirmed the validity and reliability of the model. Conclusion: In China, the combination of fist-line ICIs plus chemotherapy were not considered cost-effective when compared to chemotherapy alone. However, when these fist-line immunochemotherapy strategies were compared with each other, first-line serplulimab plus chemotherapy consistently demonstrated superiority in terms of cost-effectiveness. Reducing the cost of serplulimab per 4.5 mg/kg would be a realistic step towards making first-line serplulimab plus chemotherapy more accessible and cost-effective.

Comparison Between Sotorasib with Docetaxel for the Treatment of Chinese Patients with Previously Treated NSCLC with KRASG12C Mutation: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis to Inform Drug Pricing.

INTRODUCTION: This study sought to investigate the affordable price of sotorasib among patients with previously treated advanced KRASG12C-mutant non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) through a cost-effectiveness analysis from the perspectives of both the Chinese healthcare system and the patients. METHODS: We developed a Markov model spanning a 20-year time horizon with a cycle length of 21 days. Our data were derived from the CodeBreaK 200 clinical trial, supplemented with published literature, publicly available national databases, and local hospitals. The primary outcomes were the affordable prices of sotorasib which would result in the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of sotorasib relative to docetaxel below the preset willing-to-pay (WTP) threshold. Sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the model's robustness. RESULTS: At the national level, from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system and patients, the price of sotorasib should be lower than US$0.04673 and $0.03231, respectively, to make it affordable, which is equivalent to $1346 and $931 per box (120 mg × 240 pieces). At the provincial level, the price ceiling of sotorasib/mg fluctuated between $0.04084 to $0.08061 from the Chinese healthcare system's perspective and between $0.02642 to $0.06620 from the patients' perspective. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses revealed that, as the price of sotorasib decreased, its likelihood of being cost-effective increased. CONCLUSION: Sotorasib might be a cost-effective therapy in China. The pharmaco-economic evidence generated from this study has significant implications not only for guiding the drug pricing of the upcoming sotorasib but also for determining the reimbursement ratio for its potential inclusion in the National Reimbursement Drugs List in the future.

Efficacy and safety of Chinese patent medicines combined with antidepressants for treatment of depression in adults: A multiple-treatment meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Combinations of Chinese patent medicines (CPM) with antidepressants (including selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI), selective serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRI), tricyclic antidepressants (TCA), and noradrenergic and specific serotonergic antidepressants (NaSSA)) are frequently utilized for treating depression in adults. However, the efficacy and safety of these combination treatments remain to be established. METHODS: Systematic search was conducted in seven electronic databases, regulatory websites and international registers of trials from 1994 to 2023 that included adult patients with depressive disorders who received CPM combined with antidepressants. The Multiple-Treatment Meta-Analysis (MTMA) was conducted using a random effects model with Stata/MP17 and R4.3.5 software. Primary outcomes were total efficacy rate, Hamilton Depression Scale (HAMD) score, and Treatment Emergency Symptom Scale (TESS) score. Secondary outcomes included brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) levels. RESULTS: A total of 146 randomized controlled trials (13,754 participants: 6929 in intervention and 6825 in control groups) were included. For total effective rate, Multiple-Treatment Meta-Analysis results showed that the overall effect of combined intervention was better compared with antidepressants alone, where Jieyuanshenkeli (JYASKL) presented the optimal option for improving total efficacy (OR = 5.39, 95% CI [2.60, 11.18], SUCRA = 84.50%). In reduding the HAMD, Shuganjieyujiaonang (SGJYJN) was most likely to reduce the HAMD score (SMD = -2.20, 95% CI [-3.06, -1.33], SUCRA = 86.10%), Jieyuanshenkeli (JYASKL),Tianewangbuxindan (TWBXD), Shuyukeli (SYKL), Anshenbuxinwan (ASBXW) combination intervention did not appear to be statistically superior to antidepressants alone. In theTreatment Emergency Symptom Scale (TESS), Wulinjiaonang induced the most significant reduction in TESS score (SMD = -1.98, 95% CI [-3.59, -0.36], SUCRA = 90.40%). Tianmengjiaonang (TMJN) + Antidepressants(AD) (SUCRA = 88.30%) displayed the highest scores in increasing the levels of BDNF, although not statistically significant compared to Antidepressants(AD) alone (SMD = 1.23, 95% CI [0.90, 1.55]). CONCLUSION: Combinations of CPM and antidepressants showed superior efficacy over antidepressants alone. The optimal combinations were determined as Shuganjieyu Jiaonang (SGJYJN)/SSRIs and Jieyuanshenkeli (JYASKL)/SSRIs. In terms of safety, results showed that combination therapy did not show better TESS efficacy than antidepressants alone.Although some of the combination interventions were not superior than antidepressants alone in reducing HAMD scores,our findings provide a potentially significant alternative option for clinical complementary therapy. However, these results require further validation through larger sample sizes, multicenter randomized controlled trials, and real-world data.

Cost-effectiveness of Trastuzumab Deruxtecan for HER2-low Advanced Breast Cancer in the United States.

PURPOSE: Trastuzumab deruxtecan has been shown to be effective for advanced breast cancer with low levels of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2. To optimize the allocation of limited health care resources, this study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of trastuzumab deruxtecan from the US payer perspective. METHODS: A partitioned survival model was developed to project the disease course of advanced breast cancer. Clinical efficacy, treatment utilization, safety, and cost data were gathered from the DESTINY-Breast04 (Trastuzumab Deruxtecan in Previously Treated HER2-Low Advanced Breast Cancer) trial and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Transition probabilities were obtained from the reported survival probabilities per DESTINY-Breast04 group. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), the incremental monetary benefit, and the incremental net health benefit were measured. One-way sensitivity analysis, probabilistic sensitivity analysis, and subgroup analysis were performed to explore the uncertainty of the model. FINDINGS: Trastuzumab deruxtecan had an ICER of $307,751 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, with an incremental net health benefit of -0.317 QALY and an incremental monetary benefit of -$63,313 compared with the physician's choice of alternative chemotherapy agents. Subgroup analysis indicated that trastuzumab deruxtecan had an ICER of $383,776 per QALY gained for the hormone receptor-positive subgroup and an ICER of $194,424 per QALY for the hormone receptor-negative subgroup. One-way sensitivity analysis showed that the cost of trastuzumab deruxtecan had the most impact on model outcomes. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve projected that the probability of trastuzumab deruxtecan being cost-effective was 5% in the overall population, 2% in the hormone receptor-positive subgroup, and 56% in the hormone receptor-negative subgroup at the willingness-to-pay threshold of $200,000 per QALY. IMPLICATIONS: Trastuzumab deruxtecan may be a cost-effective option for hormone receptor-negative patients with advanced breast cancer with low levels of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2.

Dynamic zero-COVID strategy in controlling COVID-19 in Shanghai, China: A cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: The sustainability and generalizability of China's dynamic zero-COVID strategy on eliminating SARS-CoV-2 transmission has casted doubt globally, mainly because it has exacted high social and economic cost. This study aimed to estimate the disease burden during the first wave of Omicron in China and compared the cost-effectiveness of implementing a Real-world strategy (adjusted dynamic zero-COVID strategy) with two simulated strategies (routine and stricter dynamic zero-COVID strategy) to inform appropriate strategies for COVID-19 pandemic control. METHODS: A dynamic state-transition simulation model was developed to compare the health and cost outcomes between different dynamic zero-COVID strategies. Omicron-related healthcare costs were estimated from the societal perspective. Epidemiological parameter values were derived from data of real-world or generated by model calibration; costs and effectiveness parameter values were informed either by local data or published literature. The primary outcomes were total social cost, disability adjusted life-years (DALYs) and net monetary benefit (NMB). Deterministic sensitivity analyses (DSA) and scenario analyses were performed to assess the model robustness. RESULTS: The first wave of Omicron in Shanghai resulted in 47,646 DALYs lost and 415 billion RMB losses. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of 173,630 RMB (the GDP per capita of Shanghai in 2021) per DALY saved, the Real-world strategy was considered as the most cost-effective strategy due to its highest NMB (-407 billion). Results from DSA confirmed the robustness of our findings. CONCLUSION: Our finding supported the Real-world strategy taken by the Shanghai Municipal Government between March 1 and May 21, 2022 to control the first wave of Omicron outbreak. Moreover, our results indicated that whether the Stricter dynamic zero-COVID strategy is worth implementing at the beginning of the COVID-19 outbreak mainly depended on the infection rate of COVID-19 among primary contacts. Our analysis provides important evidence to inform policy makers to make appropriate decisions regarding COVID-19 pandemic management.

Cost-Effectiveness of Pembrolizumab Plus Chemotherapy as First-Line Therapy for Advanced Oesophageal Cancer.

Objective: Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy is recommended as the first-line treatment for advanced oesophageal cancer. The objective of this study is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy as first-line therapy for advanced oesophageal cancer from the healthcare system perspective in China. Methods: Based on the KEYNOTE-590 trial, a Markov model was constructed to estimate the cost and effectiveness of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy and placebo plus chemotherapy, respectively. Total costs, life years (LYs), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated. One-way, probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA), and subgroup analyses were adapted to test the model robustness. Result: Compared with the placebo group, pembrolizumab group obtained an additional 1.05 QALY, but the cost was also increased by $121,478.76. The ICER was $115,391.84 per QALY gained, which was higher than the willingness-to-pay (WTP) of $31,304.31. The results of One-way sensitivity analyses showed that the ICER was sensitive to the hazard ratio of PFS and per cycle cost of pembrolizumab. At a WTP threshold of $31,304.31, the probability of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy being cost-effective was 0%. Conclusion: From the perspective of China healthcare system, pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy as first-line treatment is not cost-effective for patients with advanced oesophageal cancer compared with placebo plus chemotherapy.

Clinical Benefit and Cost Effectiveness of Risk-Stratified Gastric Cancer Screening Strategies in China: A Modeling Study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: A new gastric cancer screening scoring system (NGCS) strategy was recommended for the early gastric cancer (GC) screening process in China. The current study aimed to assess the clinical benefits and the cost effectiveness of the NGCS strategy in GC high-risk areas of China from a societal perspective. METHODS: A Markov microsimulation model was developed to evaluate 30 alternative screening strategies with varying initiation age, including the NGCS strategy, the modified NGCS strategy, and the endoscopic screening strategy with various screening intervals. The primary outcomes included GC mortality, number of endoscopies, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Cost estimates were reported in 2021 USD (US$) and both costs and benefits were discounted at 5% annually. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate model uncertainty. RESULTS: Screening with the NGCS strategy from age 40 years (40-NGCS) reduced the GC incidence by 86.4%, which provided the greatest benefit across strategies. Compared with all strategies, at a willingness-to pay threshold of US$17,922 per QALY, the 40-NGCS strategy was a leading cost-effective strategy, with an ICER of US$15,668 per QALY. Results were robust in univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. The probability of the 40-NGCS strategy being cost effective was 0.863. CONCLUSIONS: The 40-NGCS strategy was an effective and cost-effective strategy to reduce GC incidence and mortality in China. The findings provide important evidence for decision makers to formulate and optimize targeted approaches for GC prevention and control policies in China.

Cost-Effectiveness of Bevacizumab Biosimilar LY01008 Combined With Chemotherapy as First-Line Treatment for Chinese Patients With Advanced or Recurrent Nonsquamous Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

Objective: To investigate whether LY01008, a locally developed bevacizumab biosimilar agent, is appropriate for widespread use among Chinese advanced or recurrent nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients, our current study was designed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of first-line LY01008 combined with platinum-doublet chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Material and Methods: This economic evaluation designed a Markov model to compare the healthcare cost and quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) of first-line LY01008 combined with chemotherapy versus first-line chemotherapy. Transition probabilities, including disease progression, survival, and adverse event (AE)-related discontinuation of first-line treatment, were estimated using data from the clinical trials. Costs and health utilities were derived from local databases, hospitals, and published literature. Our base case analysis and scenario analysis focused on the cost-effectiveness of chemotherapy combined with a clinical trial dosage (15 mg/kg every 3-week cycle) and a real-world dosage (7.5 mg/kg every 3-week cycle) of LY01008, respectively. Results: In the base case analysis, first-line LY01008 combined with chemotherapy was associated with an increase of 0.48 QALYs in effectiveness and an increase of CNY 189,988 (US$ 26,240) in healthcare costs compared with first-line chemotherapy, resulting an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of CNY 375,425 (US$ 54,430)/QALY. In the scenario analysis, first-line LY01008 combined with chemotherapy was associated with a mean healthcare cost of CNY 265,060 (US$ 38,429), resulting an ICER of CNY 221,579 (US$ 32,125/QALY) between first-line LY01008 combined with chemotherapy versus first-line chemotherapy. The parameters that determine the cost of LY01008 have the greatest impact on the cost-effectiveness results. Conclusion: From the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system, first-line LY01008 at a real-world dosage combined with chemotherapy is likely to represent a cost-effective strategy compared with first-line chemotherapy alone for Chinese advanced or recurrent nonsquamous NSCLC patients.

Economic Evaluation of Dapagliflozin in the Treatment of Patients With Heart Failure: A Systematic Review.

Objective: The objective of this study is to systematically review the economic evaluations of dapagliflozin in the treatment of patients with heart failure (HF) and describe their general and methodological features. Methods: This systematic review followed the PRISMA guidelines. MEDLINE/PubMed, Website Of Science, Embase, The Cochrane Library, ScienceDirect, CNKI, and Wanfang databases were searched to collect relevant studies, and the retrieval time ended on 31 October 2021. Articles on the economic evaluation of dapagliflozin in the treatment of heart failure were included. Secondary studies, incomplete economic indicators, and non-English-language and non-Chinese-language studies were excluded. Standard drug treatment was selected as the comparison. Basic characteristics, methods, and main results were extracted and analyzed systematically. Result: A total of eight studies were identified, and the overall quality was accepted, which were performed in nine developed countries (Austria, United States, Korea, Japan, Singapore, Spanish, Germany, and United Kingdom) and three developing countries (the Philippines, Thailand, and China). With the exception of the Philippines, the remaining countries considered that dapagliflozin was cost effective. In the analyses of all included studies, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were most sensitive to the cost of dapagliflozin, cardiovascular mortality, the duration of dapagliflozin effectiveness, and the probability of HF hospitalization. Conclusion: Dapagliflozin in the treatment of patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction was considered cost effective. Further studies are needed to evaluate the comprehensive value of dapagliflozin on HF.

Sintilimab Plus Bevacizumab Biosimilar Versus Sorafenib as First-Line Treatment for Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

Objective: The ORIENT-32 clinical trial revealed that sintilimab plus bevacizumab biosimilar significantly improved the median progression-free survival and median overall survival (OS) compared with sorafenib. This analysis evaluated the cost-effectiveness of sintilimab plus bevacizumab biosimilar as a first-line treatment for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma from the Chinese perspective of healthcare system. Materials and methods: A Markov model with three mutual health states was constructed to evaluate the economic outcome of sintilimab plus bevacizumab biosimilar. The model cycle was 21 days, and the simulation time horizon was a lifetime. The output parameters of the model were the total cost, life-year (LY), quality-adjusted LY (QALY), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the results. Results: The base-case results found that sintilimab plus bevacizumab biosimilar provided an improvement of 1.27 QALYs and 1.84 LYs compared with sorafenib, and the ICER was $23,352/QALY. The hazard ratio for OS had the greatest influence on the ICER. The probability of sintilimab plus bevacizumab biosimilar was 85% at willingness-to-pay thresholds of $30,552/QALY. Conclusion: The findings of this analysis suggested that sintilimab plus bevacizumab biosimilar was a cost-effective first-line therapy for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma.

Sequences of biological treatments for patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis in the era of treat-to-target in China: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) are recommended to be added in sequentially in the treatment of moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA). All these drugs, however, are substantially more expensive than conventional synthetic DMARDs throughout the world, including in China. The objective of this study is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of treatment sequences of bDMARDs for patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis from the Chinese healthcare system perspective. METHODS: An individual patient simulation model was used to track the course of patients from first treatment through switches to further lines in a sequence. The comparator treatment sequence commenced with methotrexate, followed by non-biologic therapy. The intervention sequences were assumed to be the combinations of bDMARDs available, followed by non-biologic therapy. Life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and lifetime costs were estimated. Univariable and probabilistic sensitivity analyses and scenario analyses were performed to evaluate the model uncertainty. RESULTS: Compared with the comparator treatment sequence, bDMARDs sequences were associated with more life years, QALYs, and cost. These produced ICERs ranged from $27,441.36/QALY to $40,149.2/QALY, above the willingness-to-pay threshold of $10,378 per QALY. The uncertainty analyses and the scenario analyses confirmed the result of the base case analysis. CONCLUSIONS: From the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system, bDMARDs sequences are estimated not to be cost-effective compared with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug strategy for patients with moderate-to-severe RA at a WTP threshold of $10,378 per QALY. Price reductions are warranted to make bDMARDs cost-effective and affordable.

Cost-Effectiveness of Ipilimumab Plus Anti-PD-1 Therapy Versus Ipilimumab Alone in Patients With Metastatic Melanoma Resistant to Anti-PD-(L)1 Monotherapy.

OBJECTIVE: The use of ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 has recently been shown to significantly improve the survival of patients with metastatic melanoma resistant to anti-PD-(L)1 monotherapy. The study assessed the cost-effectiveness of ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 therapy in this population from the US payer perspective. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A Markov model was created based on a retrospective analysis of patients with metastatic melanoma who were resistant to anti-PD-(L)1. Cost information was obtained from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and literature-based costs. The utility value was derived from the published literature. The results of the model was the total cost, quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The uncertainty of the model was addressed through sensitivity analysis. In addition, we also conducted subgroup analysis. RESULTS: Ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 provided an improvement of 1.39 QALYs and 2.48 LYs, at a ICER of $73,163 per QALY. The HR of OS was the variable that had the greatest impact on ICER. Compared to ipilimumab, the probability of ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 being cost-effective was 94% at the WTP of $150,000/QALY. The results of the subgroup analysis showed that the ICER in the majority of the subgroups was less than $150,000/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Ipilimumab plus anti-PD-1 was likely to be cost-effective compared to ipilimumab for patients with metastatic melanoma who are resistant to anti-PD-(L)1 at a WTP threshold of 150,000/QALY.

PD-L1 Test-Based Strategy With Nivolumab as the Second-Line Treatment in Advanced NSCLC： A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in China.

OBJECTIVE: Our previous economic assessment found that nivolumab was not cost-effective for Chinese patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and without EGFR mutations or ALK translocations, when compared with the standard second-line drug docetaxel. However, a greater survival benefit with nivolumab was observed for patients with 1% or greater tumor programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression. In view of this, we designed the present analysis to explore whether it is cost-effective to use the PD-L1 test to guide second-line nivolumab treatment in China. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A Markov model was established to project the lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of three second-line treatment strategies: nivolumab and docetaxel (strategies without a PD-L1 test) and PD-L1 test-based strategy. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to examine the robustness of our results. Additional price reduction and willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold scenario analyses were performed to explore the impact of economic and health policies with Chinese characteristics on our results. RESULTS: The PD-L1 test-based strategy costs approximately CNY 194,607 (USD 28,210) or more and yielded an additional 0.27 QALYs compared to the docetaxel strategy without a PD-L1 test, equating an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of CNY 731,089 (USD 105,978)/QALY. Deterministic sensitivity analyses showed that the price of nivolumab was the strongest source of variation in the ICERs. Probability sensitivity analysis showed that the probability for the PD-L1 test-based strategy being cost-effective increases with the increase of WTP thresholds. CONCLUSION: From the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system, using a PD-L1 test to guide second-line nivolumab treatment was not cost-effective. The National Healthcare Security Administration negotiation on the price reduction of nivolumab was found to be the most effective action to improve its cost-effectiveness in China.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy as first-line therapy for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: The phase III KEYNOTE-604 study confirmed the benefit of pembrolizumab combined with chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). Taken into account the clinical benefits of pembrolizumab and its high cost, this study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of adding pembrolizumab to standard first-line etoposide-platinum (EP) for patients with ES-SCLC from the US payer perspective. METHODS: A Markov model was developed to compare the cost and quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) of pembrolizumab plus EP and placebo plus EP over a 10-year time horizon. Clinical efficacy and safety data were pooled from the KEYNOTE-604 trial. Utilities were obtained from published resources. Costs were mainly collected from Medicare in 2020. Sensitivity analyses were performed to examine the robustness of our model. RESULTS: Adding pembrolizumab to standard first-line EP resulted in the better effectiveness than EP chemotherapy alone for ES-SCLC by 0.22 QALYs. Pembrolizumab plus EP was dominated economically by placebo plus EP, leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $334,373/ QALY. Deterministic sensitivity analyses indicated that the uncertainty in model parameters exerted no substantial effect on our results. Probability sensitivity analysis indicated that probabilities for pembrolizumab plus EP being cost-effective within a wide range of willingness to pay were modest. CONCLUSION: From the US payer perspective, the first-line treatment for ES-SCLC with pembrolizumab plus EP was not cost-effective compared with placebo plus EP. Although pembrolizumab combination chemotherapy was beneficial to the survival of ES-SCLC, price reduction may be the necessary to improve its cost-effectiveness.

Cost-Effectiveness of Avelumab Maintenance Therapy for Advanced or Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: The JAVELIN Bladder 100 trial showed that maintenance avelumab therapy after chemotherapy improved the survival of patients with advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma. We analyzed the cost-effectiveness of maintenance therapy with avelumab plus best supportive care (BSC) in patients with advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma after receiving first-line platinum-based chemotherapy from the US payer perspective. METHODS: A Markov model was used to analyze the economic outcomes of maintenance avelumab plus BSC (avelumab strategy) in the treatment of urothelial carcinoma. The clinical data were derived from the JAVELIN Bladder 100 trial. All cost information was obtained from Medicare and published literature. The total cost, total life years (LYs), total quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), and incremental net health benefit (INHB) were calculated. One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were also performed. RESULTS: Our results showed that avelumab strategy versus BSC strategy cost US $176,352 and $238,661 and yielded an additional 0.465 and 1.007 QALY in all patients with unknown programmed-death ligand 1 (PD-L1) status and the PD-L1-positive subpopulation, respectively, which led to an ICER of $102,365/QALY and $106,253/QALY gained. In all patients with unknown PD-L1 status, maintenance avelumab plus BSC therapy guiding by PD-L1 expression testing (PD-L1-guided strategy) compared with the avelumab strategy and BSC strategy resulted in ICER of $105,360/QALY and $122,653/QALY, respectively. The probabilities of the avelumab strategy and the PD-L1-guided strategy being cost-effective in the simultaneous competition of the three strategies were 38.49% and 48.82%. In patients with PD-L1-positive status, the avelumab strategy had an 87.51% probability of cost-effectiveness. The most influential parameter for the model was the cost of avelumab and pembrolizumab. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis demonstrated that maintenance therapy with avelumab plus BSC may be a cost-effective option for patients with advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000/QALY, especially for patients with PD-L1-positive status.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab for Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

Objective: This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs. chemotherapy in the first-line setting for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) from the US payer perspective. Materials and methods: A Markov model wasdeveloped to evaluate the cost and effectiveness of nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs. chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of advanced NSCLC. The survival benefits of nivolumab plus ipilimumab were based on the results of the CheckMate 227 trial. The main endpoints of the model were cost, life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Univariable and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess model uncertainty. Additonal subgroup analyses were also performed. Results: nivolumab plus ipilimumab produced a gain of 0.62 QALYs, at a cost of $104238 per QALY. The variables that had the greatest influence on the ICER were body weight and overall survival (OS) hazard ratio (HR). The probability of nivolumab plus ipilimumab being cost-effectiveness compared to chemotherapy is 50.7 and 66.2% when the willingness-to-pay (WTP) value is $ 100,000 and $ 150,000 per QALY. The results of subgroup analyses showed the ICER remained below $150,000/QALY regardless of the PD-L1 expression level. Conclusions: nivolumab plus ipilimumab was estimated to be cost-effective compared with chemotherapy for patients with advanced NSCLC at a WTP threshold from 100,000/QALY to 150,000/QALY.

First-Line Chemo-Immunotherapy for Extensive-Stage Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A United States-Based Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of two recently approved first-line chemo-immunotherapies [atezolizumab combined with etoposide and platinum (AEP) and durvalumab combined with etoposide and platinum (DEP)] for patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) in the United States. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A Markov model was built to compare the cost and effectiveness of AEP, DEP, and etoposide plus platinum (EP) over a 10-year time horizon. Clinical efficacy and safety data were extracted from the IMpower 133 and CASPIAN trials. Health state utilities were obtained from published literature. Costs were collected from an US payer perspective. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to explore the uncertainty bound to model parameters. RESULTS: For the model cohort of adult patients with treatment-naive ES-SCLC, AEP was associated with marginal improved quality adjusted life years (QALYs) by 0.016 and reduced costs by $5,737 compared with DEP. When comparing the two chemo-immunotherapies with EP chemotherapy, AEP and DEP increased the QALYs by 0.162 QALYs and 0.146, respectively. However, both chemo-immunotherapies were associated with substantially health costs than EP, resulting in ICERs of $382,469 per QALY and $464,593 per QALY, respectively. CONCLUSION: In this cost-effectiveness study, first-line AEP represented a dominant treatment strategy compared with DEP. Despite neither first-line AEP nor first-line DEP was cost-effective compared with EP chemotherapy, AEP was able to provide a more efficient balance between incremental cost and QALY than DEP. When new combination therapies with remarkable effect become pivotal in the first-line treatment, the price reduction of these drugs may be essential to achieving cost-effectiveness.

Cost-Effectiveness of Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab Combined with Two Cycles of Chemotherapy as First-Line Treatment in Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: The effectiveness of nivolumab plus ipilimumab with two cycles of chemotherapy (NIC) for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has been demonstrated. We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of NIC for advanced NSCLC from the US payer perspective. METHODS: A Markov model has been established to predict the disease course of previously untreated advanced NSCLC. The clinical data were derived from the CheckMate 9LA trial. Cost and utility were obtained from the literature. Model outputs included the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), incremental monetary benefit (INMB), and incremental net-health benefit (INHB). A series of sensitivity analyses were performed to analyze the uncertainty of the model. RESULTS: Our results showed that NIC versus chemotherapy alone cost $264,278 and yielded an additional 0.80 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), which led to an ICER of $202,275/QALY gained. The INHB was - 0.28 QALY, and the INMB was - $41,865 at the threshold of $150,000/QALY. The results of one-way sensitivity analysis showed that the hazard ratio of overall survival was the most sensitive parameter. CONCLUSION: NIC was unlikely to be cost-effective as a first-line treatment for patients with advanced NSCLC.

Cost-Effectiveness of Atezolizumab Plus Chemotherapy as First-Line Therapy for Metastatic Urothelial Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: The IMvigor130 trial found that atezolizumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy (atezolizumab group) as first-line therapy prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with metastatic urothelial cancer (mUC), compared with placebo plus platinum-based chemotherapy (placebo group). The current study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy as first-line therapy for mUC from the US payer perspective. METHODS: A Markov model was adopted to compare the cost and effectiveness of atezolizumab and placebo group in the first-line setting of patients with mUC. Life years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), lifetime costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated. Subgroup, one-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to explore the model robustness. RESULTS: Atezolizumab group provided an additional 0.39 QALYs (0.52 LYs) and an incremental cost of $170,759 per QALY compared with the placebo group. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $434,317 per QALY. Subgroup analysis indicated that PD-L1 expression of at least 5% on immune cells had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $325,236 per QALY. The results of one-way sensitivity analyses suggested that our model was sensitive to the cycle cost of atezolizumab and the hazard ratio of PFS. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses revealed that there was 0% probability of the atezolizumab group being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000 per QALY. The extrapolations need to be validated by real-world data. CONCLUSIONS: From the US payer perspective, atezolizumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy is not cost-effective in the first-line therapy for patients with mUC on the basis of a WTP threshold of $150,000 per QALY. On the basis of the value standpoint, price reduction of atezolizumab is expected to improve the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab in patients with mUC.

First-Line Atezolizumab for Metastatic NSCLC with High PD-L1 Expression: A United States-Based Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The IMpower110 trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of atezolizumab in previously untreated patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Due to the high cost of immunity inhibitors, it is necessary to evaluate their value based on their efficacy and cost. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab as the first-line treatment for NSCLC with high programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression from the US payer perspective. METHODS: A Markov model with three health states was developed to estimate the cost and outcome of atezolizumab versus platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with previously untreated metastatic NSCLC with high PD-L1 expression. Model outputs included the life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), total cost, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed for all parameters. RESULTS: Atezolizumab produced an additional 1.32 QALYs (2.08 LYs) compared with platinum-based chemotherapy. The accompanying incremental cost was US$224,590. The results of one-way sensitivity analysis found that the ICER was most sensitive to the HR of OS. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that the probability of atezolizumab being cost-effective compared with platinum-based chemotherapy was 10.28% and 37.71% at the willing-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $100,000/QALY and $150,000/QALY, respectively. CONCLUSION: Atezolizumab was estimated not to be cost-effective compared with platinum-based chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of patients with NSCLC with high PD-L1 expression.